Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Civil Society, public spheres and the ecology of environmentalism in four Fraser Valley communities :… McKinnon, Andres Michael 1997

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

Item Metadata


831-ubc_1997-0571.pdf [ 8.49MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0087982.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0087982-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0087982-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0087982-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0087982-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0087982-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0087982-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

CIVIL SOCIETY, PUBLIC SPHERES A N D T H E E C O L O G Y O F E N V I R O N M E N T A L I S M IN FOUR F R A S E R V A L L E Y COMMUNITIES B U R N A B Y , RICHMOND, L A N G L E Y A N D ABBOTSFORD by ANDREW MICHAEL MCKINNON B.A., University of British Columbia  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN P A R T I A L F U L F I L L M E N T OF T H E REQUIREMENTS FOR T H E D E G R E E OF M A S T E R O F ARTS in T H E F A C U L T Y OF G R A D U A T E STUDIES (Department of Anthropology and Sociology) We accept this thesi^ asconforming to the required standard  T H E UNIVERSITY OF^BRITISH C O L U M B I A October, 1997 © Andrew McKinnon  In  presenting  degree freely  at  this  the  thesis  in  partial  fulfilment  of  University  of  British  Columbia,  I agree  available for  copying  of  department publication  this or of  reference  thesis by  this  for  his thesis  and study. scholarly  or for  her  Department The University of British Vancouver, Canada  DE-6 (2/88)  Columbia  purposes  gain shall  requirements that  agree  may  representatives.  financial  permission.  I further  the  be  It not  that  the  by  understood be  allowed  an  advanced  Library shall  permission  granted  is  for  for  the that  without  make  it  extensive  head  of  my  copying  or  my  written  ABSTRACT This thesis examines four communities in the Lower Fraser Basin (Burnaby, Richmond, Langley and Abbotsford), as a case study for examining the "ecology of environmentalism". I have compared two "low environmentalism" communities (Richmond and Abbotsford), and two which have a significantly larger field of environmental groups (Burnaby and Langley). The research included 43 interviews (37 with leaders of grassroots environmental groups and a mailout questionnaire which was sent to one leader of each of the 71 groups in the four municipalities (64% response rate). Together this research amounts to 82% coverage of all the environmental groups in the four municipalities. Using this data, I argue that the differences between the municipal areas are not very well explained either in terms of the themes in Resource Mobilisation Theory, in either of the major theories of social movements and the State, or in terms of standard demographic variables associated with environmentalism (community size, gender, income, education, ethnicity, or occupation). I have therefore used the themes of "civil society" and "public spheres" (Allario 1995; Calhoun 1996; Cohen and Arato; Fraser 1992; Habermas 1989; Walzer 1991) to compare the four municipalities. I suggest that the more holistic approach especially as proposed by Jean Cohen and Andrew Arato (1992), provides a better way of analyzing both the actions and the ecology of environmental groups in the Lower Fraser Basin. ii  Table of contents: List of Tables  iv  List of Figures  v  Acknowledgments  vi  Chapter 1: Introduction, Theory and Methods  1  Chapter 2: A tale of Four Municipalities: Historical and Contemporary Social Background  23  Chapter 3: A Portrait of Grassroots Environmentalism: The Leaders, The Groups and Their Actions  51  Chapter 4: A Narrative of Four Municipalities' Environmental Movement  83  Chapter 5: Using the Civil Society as an explanatory Framework for the Differences  114  Concluding Remarks  145  Works Cited  153  Appendix A (interview schedule)  159  Appendix B (questionnaire sample)  170  iil  List of Tables: 1.1 Response Rates and Coverage  22  3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7  Age of leaders (with provincial N.E.P. scales) Age of leaders (with proportion of Cdn. population) New Ecological Paradigm scores (with provincial scores) Actions (leaders and provincial comparisons) Types of groups represented in the study Worked to make non-gov. organisations more environmental Worked to make government agencies more environmental  52 53 59 62 64 79 80  4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4  Types Types Types Types  84 92 100 107  5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4  Relations with various levels of government (by municipality) Experience of community support Number of Civil Society organisations (by municipality) Leaders' involvement in Civil Society  of of of of  groups: Burnaby groups: Richmond groups: Langley groups: Abbotsford  iv  115 119 123 130  List of Figures: Figure 4.1 Figure 4.2 Figure 4.3 Figure 4.4  Burnaby's Environmental Public Sphere Richmond's Environmental Public Sphere Langley's Environmental Public Sphere Abbotsford's Environmental Public Sphere  Figure 5.1 Environmental Public Spheres (Burnaby and Richmond) Figure 5.2 Environmental Public Spheres (Langley and Abbotsford)  v  90 97 106 112 137 140  Acknowledgments The research and writing of this thesis has been a long process which has accumulated a great number of debts for its author. First, the funding of the initial stages of the research was provided by part of the Tri-Council (SSHRC, MRC, ENSRC) grant to the "Lower Fraser Basin Eco-Research Project". The Sociology Department at the University of British Columbia, which has been "home" for the past five years, has provided me with a wonderful learning and research environment. I am particularly grateful to Neil Guppy and Thomas Kemple, who not only were part of my thesis committee and provided helpful insight into the project, but who have both contributed in very significant, though different, ways to the way I think about sociology in general. Bob Ratner gave me my first introduction to Social Movements research and has instilled in me a dedication to the sociological imagination. All three of these will, certainly, have an influence on my life and work which reaches far beyond this thesis. Finally, my greatest debt is to Brian Elliott, who has been my supervisor over the last two years. I really can't thank (or praise) him highly enough. Brian invited me to participate in the Eco-Research project, and I have benefitted immensely from the experience and from many conversations about the broader project in general and he has provided very helpful feedback and critiques about my little piece of it in particular. Brian has also facilitated me getting through this thesis and on to the Ph.D. in innumerable ways. He has also provided me with more moral support than he is probably even aware of. My family has provided a great deal of support (not just for this thesis), and I am very grateful for that. Over the course of the research, my parents facilitated my work by loaning me their car (often enough for me to do 43 interviews), even when it meant that they ended up taking the bus home from work. Like their car, their encouragement and care were absolutely necessary components for my actually finishing this thesis. Christy's enthusiasm, care packages, and ever-encouraging spirit have all made writing under difficult circumstances much more pleasant and endurable. Heidi Peterson's endless proofreading (which has also extended for many years), and her constant reminders "you can get it done" have likewise been invaluable. Peter Urmetzer and Dawna Tong have provided hours of amusement and terrible jokes over the last few years, and these have never been more important to me as in the last few months. Peter has also provided hours of patience as he tried to help me work out some very basic statistics, or to pull things off of a database. I have wholeheartedly appreciated Celine Mauboules, who was far too patient with my mess and bad moods around the office while I was entering the home-stretch, and her many insightful thoughts were always helpful while she was stuck playing the role of my "sounding-board". Finally, I am permanently grateful to Yael Katz, who I hope will never try to be bored by this thesis. She has been an amazing support over this last millennium while I have often been a rather burdensome friend. Many times in the last six months been she has kept me from losing perspective and throwing in the thesis towel. Thank you. In the end, however, I alone am responsible for the many shortcomings of this thesis. vi  C H A P T E R 1: Introduction, Theory and Methods  This thesis is a study the "ecology of grassroots environmentalism" in four Lower Fraser Basin municipal communities. The purpose of the study is first to provide a picture of grassroots environmentalism in the Lower Fraser Basin of British Columbia. Second, the thesis w i l l to try to. explain some of the differences between the municipalities in terms of the character and strength of the environmental movement as we find it in two sets of paired "suburban" municipalities, comparing Burnaby with Richmond, and Langley with Abbotsford. These paired municipalities, among a number of others, were selected at an earlier stage as part of the sociology component of the Lower Fraser Basin Eco-Research Project, of which this thesis forms one small part, for the purpose of comparing the ways in which the environment is accounted for in the municipal "Official Community Plans" or " O . C . P s " (Mauboules 1995; Mauboules and Elliott 1996). For my purposes, these communities seem particularly apposite, because although each pair is relatively comparable, in terms population, income levels and environmental problems they appear to have very significantly different levels of environmental activism. Burnaby has 25 groups, whereas Richmond has only 13. Langley is home to 21 groups, but Abbotsford is also a "low environmentalism" municipality with 13. In this study, I have been able to make use of the extensive work that has already been done in conjunction with the Sociology component of the L o w e r Fraser Basin Eco-Research Project, including: a study of O C P s in the four municipalities (Mauboules and Elliott 1996); a study of environmental issues and political culture in Abbotsford (Elliott and Simpson 1997); a study of an "environmental health" movement's popular epidemiology in Abbotsford (Elliott 1997); and a large survey of British Columbians' attitudes and actions towards the environment (Blake, Guppy and Urmetzer 1997, Guppy, Blake and Urmetzer 1997). A s Gould, Schnaiberg and Weinberg (1996) have recently argued, grassroots environmental groups are crucial for putting environmental issues on the public agenda and for beginning to address environmental l  concerns. A s such, a study of the field of grassroots environmental groups and their contribution to environmental "sustainability" in four communities is a significant subject for study within this broader project. In this chapter, I w i l l explore the various theoretical approaches to social movement emergence and outline the methodology which I have employed here. In chapter two, I w i l l provide an overview of the four communities, giving a brief social history, demographics and contemporary context for each of the municipalities. In the third chapter, I w i l l present demographic material on the leaders of the groups, and discuss the different kinds of environmental groups and initiatives we find in the four communities. This material will be suggestive of some of the kinds of environmental activism we find elsewhere in the Lower Fraser Valley. In chapter four, I w i l l describe environmental activism in each of the four communities, and analyse how they differ. Finally in chapter five, I w i l l try to explain some of the differences in levels of activism in the four communities, using some of the theoretical themes developed in this chapter.  THEORY Part of this study is related to one of the "big questions" in social movements research, that is, the question of why grassroots social-movements emerge at all. In this section I w i l l explore some of the theoretical perspectives which have been used, or which could be used to address the question of social movement emergence, especially with reference to environmental social-movement organisations. I w i l l do so with reference to the question of what each theory contributes to this particular research problem. The first theory is one that we might call a "realist" theory of social movement emergence. The simplest version of perspective suggests that the more serious a problem is, the more likely it is to become the focus of popular collective action (Martell 1995, Dunlap and Scarce 1990, see also Hannigan 1993:23-24 ). This perspective is theoretically highly problematic. A s the social2  cosntructionists have long claimed, since all social problems, in order to be socially "visible", must be constructed as social problems (Beck 1987; Blumer 1957; Hannigan 1995). That is, nothing is naturally "serious" or "visible", but rather they become perceived as such through a variety of social processes. A related approach suggests that it is particularly the "seriousness" of an environmental problem, but its "visibility" which matters (Gould 1995). The more socially visible a particular problem is, the more likely people are to mobilise around that particular issue. While this approach is certainly helpful, it does not really address the differences we find in this case-study. For example, environmental problems in Abbotsford- the area of lowest environmental activism in this study— are perhaps both more "serious" and "visible" than elsewhere in the valley. Anyone who visits Abbotsford on a summer day cannot help but notice the " L o s Angeles type" of air pollution which often obscures the view of the valley sides on either side of the city. On several recent occasions, residents were instructed to boil their water because of pollution in the aquifer from which many in the municipality draw their drinking water (Elliott 1996). Both of these problems have received a great deal of attention from the local media. Further, survey data collected by Blake, Guppy and Urmetzer suggests that 1  environmental problems are very visible as social problems in Abbotsford. People in that community are very concerned about the environment in their area, perhaps even more concerned than those living in the other areas in this proposed study. The survey asked respondents how concerned they were about the state of the environment in their local environment (on a scale of 1-7). According to unpublished survey data, in Abbotsford 37.7% responded that they were "very concerned" (7). This is considerably higher than other areas with apparently higher levels of environmental activism: Vancouver 20.5%, Burnaby 28.9%, Richmond 23.7%, and Langley  Peter Urmetzer has created a subset of the survey data presented in Blake, Guppy, and Urmetzer (1997a,b) so that comparisons could be made between the four municipalities in this study. 1  3  22.2% . Possible problems with reliability (due to the small sample size) for the Burnaby, Richmond and Langley data aside (Abbotsford was over-sampled),these percentages suggest that environmental problems are more "visible" and perceived as "serious" in Abbotsford. Elliott and Simpson's (1997) interviews with community leaders in Abbotsford have also confirmed that people are quite aware of environmental problems in their community, and are concerned about them-- particularly about air and water pollution. For a number of years, Resource Mobilization Theory ( " R M T " ; McCarthy and Zald 1977; McCarthy 1987; Olson 1965; Oberschall 1973) has arguably been the dominant paradigm in social movements research. This theory assumes that social grievances are basically constant, and that the only thing that changes is the "surplus resources" that can be devoted to social movement politics. From the basic contours of this argument, we might suggest that wealthier communities are more likely to engage in environmental activism. In our case-study, however, while Langley is a somewhat wealthier community than Abbotsford, Richmond has a wealthier population than B u r n a b y . Even i f we were to assume that this kind of R M T explanation as fully adequate to 2  explain the differences between activism in the communities, we would still have to account for why "conscience constituents" (both individual and institutional) decide to spend their "surplus" resources on environmental causes rather than on something else. In the case of Langley, it is quite clear that a certain number of the environmental activities that go on are heavily subsidised by various provincial and federal agencies. These same funding sources are available to people in the other municipalities as well, so we still need to ask exactly why groups in Langley and Burnaby have been able to mobilise resources more effectively than have actors in the other municipalities. Although I w i l l explore issues of resource mobilisation in this study - particularly in Langley - ultimately we w i l l have to go beyond Resource Mobilisation Theory. A s Alan Scott  2  In terms of personal and family income (Census 1991); see Chapter T w o .  4  (1999: C h . 6) points out, R M T is theoretically deficient, in that it lacks a theory of the social environment in which social movements operate. Some attempts have been made to overcome these weaknesses (cf. McCarthy 1987), by focusing on social, cultural and institutional resources. A s Larry Ray points out, however, this proposal of to study social movements i n the context of a "post-mass society" R M T moves its problematic into a broadly Habermasian " c i v i l society" theory (1993:64), like the one which I w i l l discuss below, and which informs my project here. Third, two opposing models of the State and social movements put themselves forward to explain "the ecology of environmentalism". Simplifying greatly, A l a n Scott's Ideology and the New Social Movements (1990) proposes that grassroots social movement activism w i l l be most prevalent where the State "enclosure" excludes the "values" being promoted by social movement. On the other hand, "Political Process" theorists (cf. M c A d a m 1982; Marx and M c A d a m 1994:83ff) suggest exactly the opposite, that a certain degree of State sympathy (even if just one branch, agency or level of the state) is essential for encouraging the proliferation of social movement activism. While both of these theories muster historical and contemporary evidence to support their claims, this question of the State remains for the most part an empirically open one. In my research, I have found that the Provincial and Federal governments do provide a good deal of support (resources and technical expertise) for some kinds of environmental initiatives — particularly to "streamkeeping" groups. These resources, however, are available to certain kinds of groups in all four of the communities in this study, and there seems to be little evidence that the "openness" of municipal governments and the field of grassroots environmentalism are particularly related. For example, in Both Burnmaby and Richmond, the municipal governments are recognised as "leaders" in environmental sensitivity, and this relative "openness" has been confirmed by both Mauboules study (1996) and by my own interviews. In my other paired comparison, neither Abbotsford nor the Langleys have particularly "environmentally friendly" municipal governments (Mauboules 1996; project interviews). In the questionnaire responses I w i l l present in the beginning of chapter 5, suggest that there is no correlation between local 5  government "supportiveness" and the strong environmentalism municipalities - in support of either thesis among the four municipalities. Finally, the N e w Social Movements ( N S M ) theorists have often proposed that the key to understanding the New Social Movements lies in their role in identity formation. According to these sociologists, the oft-theorised shift to a "Post-Industrial" economy, is usually cited as the reason for the rise of the values associated with the "new" social movements, including environmentalism (Tourraine 1985, 1992; Inglehart 1977). M o r e concretely, Claus Offe (1985) has argued that the new social movements w i l l continue to thrive proportionate to its "new middle class" base the "information workers" usually associated with "post-industrialism". While a significant proportion of the leaders of environmental groups do work in so-called "new-middle class" occupations (see chapter 3), the proportion of "new middle-class" workers living in the paired communities are quite comparable. According to the 1991 Census, roughly 23% of the workforce in both Langley and Abbotsford are employed i n these kind of occupations, about 27% in Burnaby and approximately 28% in Richmond; significantly, education levels (in terms of percentage of the population with university degrees) are even slightly higher in both of the two "low environmentalism" areas than in the high environmentalism areas (see C h . 2).  CIVIL S O C I E T Y A N D S O C I A L M O V E M E N T S In this project, then, I propose to draw on a theory of "civil society" and social movements (Cohen and Arato 1992: 492- 563, Alario 1995, Fraser 1993, Putnam 1992 Walzer 1991), a theoretical orientation which seems to me to provide a more comprehensive way at looking at this research problem. Cohen and Arato conceptualise "civil society" as a sphere of interaction between economy and state composed above all of the intimate sphere (especially the family) the sphere of associations (especially voluntary associations), social movements and forms of public communication [public spheres] (1992:ix). In their understanding of civil society, they distinguish their conception from both the classical  6  Marxian tradition which conflates civil society with the economy, and from the Hobbsian conception which includes the State in civil society, and distinguishes it from the economy (cf. Alexander 1997). More precisely, their notion of civil society includes the following "components": (1) Plurality: families, informal groups, and voluntary associations whose plurality and autonomy allow for a variety of forms of life; (2) Publicity: institutions of culture and communication (3) Privacy: a domain of individual development and moral choice (4) Legality: structures of general laws and basic rights needed to demarcate plurality, privacy and publicity from at least the state and tendentially, the economy (1992:346).  In western democratic societies, then, the basic contours of this sphere of association are institutionalised and guaranteed by legal rights such as rights of association, freedom of speech, and tax exemptions. Cohen and Arato's analysis is broadly Habermasian, and they see their concept of "civil society" as roughly parallel to Habermas's "Life-world". For Cohen and Arato, as for Habermas, "The System" (the State and Economy) are always threatening to colonise the Lifeworld, and to dominate it with the rationality of its "steering mechanisms" of power (or bureaucracy) and money respectively (1992:471-74). While Habermas (1981; 1987:391-96) understands the "New Social Movements" as primarily defensive against further incursions of the System into the Lifeworld, Cohen and Arato understand them as potentially "progressive" forces: social movements expand and can further democratise civil society/More importantly, they can exert "influence" on the economic sphere and reform the government which together constitute the System. Cohen and Arato incorporate the central themes of both N e w Social Movements ( N S M ) theory, Resource Mobilisation Theory ( R M T ) , and the Political Process models. They argue that N S M theory's emphasis on the struggles over culture and identity as well as the concrete policy goals highlighted by R M T and Political Process writers are both essential for any social movement, although they w i l l often be addressed by different organisations. They critique R M T and N S M theory schools for their exclusive focus. Clearly New Social Movements are not restricted to cultural contests, but frequently try to have their objectives institutionalised through 7  the State and in the Economy. O n the other hand, R M T and Political Process models, with their focus on State inclusion and reform, neglect the often dramatic and sometimes even violent contestation over the stakes of c i v i l society itself. Further, these writers do not provide the necessary tools for analysing the "communicative rationality" by which problems are recognised, and by which the subjects of social movement activism are constructed. Nor does their vision of necessarily "rational" actors provide adequate explanatory power as to why surplus resources get expended on some causes rather than on others. In Cohen and Arato's (1992) conception of "dual politics", C i v i l Society is not only the "terrain" of social movements, but it is also a primary "target" of social movements. C i v i l Society, as the primary site of socialisation, is where culture and identities are formed, morals imparted, and where critical and communicative rationality— rationality that is democratic' and discursive, rather than dominated by the system's steering mechanisms of money and power— can be engaged. In this way social movements influence the system through the "private" roles of citizen, consumer and investor. Social Movements contest with the System over the control of the C i v i l Society institutions in which these roles develop. A t the same time, Social Movements can more directly influence the System through "Political Society" (political parties, lobbies, hearings, citizens advisory committees, etc.) which, although part of C i v i l Society, the institutions of Political Society are more directly interested in influencing the exercise of State power. Related to this notion of "civil society" is the "public sphere" (Habermas 1989,1992), which is created in and emerges from civil society as the "public sphere of civil society" (1989:23). In Habermas' historical study of the coffee houses, journals and political clubs of the late 18th and 19th century provided public space where men could discuss "matters of general interest without being subject to coercion" (1989:232). This "democratic publicness" exerted a major influence on guaranteeing these liberties of free-speech and association, from an absolutist state, and eventually exerted influence— "rationally" and "discursively"- on the exercise of State power through'formally constituted legislative bodies. 8  While Habermas has been critiqued for his emphasis on an exclusively male,  bourgeois,  and European public sphere, the concept of the public sphere has nonetheless generated a good deal of enthusiasm among critical social theorists (Alario 1995; Calhoun (ed.) 1993, 1996; Fraser 1996; Ray 1993; Robbins (ed.) 1993). For this reason, most theorists are now inclined to write not in terms of "the" public sphere, but in terms "a sphere of publics'" concerned with different issues, constituencies, and occupying different social spaces. Different writers have discussed the importance of gay rights, anti-racist, feminist, peace, workers and environmental public spheres. On the shift to conceptualising multiple public spheres, Craig Calhoun writes (1996:457): Political efficacy in relation to highly centralised states requires some organisation of discourse and action on a very large scale. But, even the most centralised states are not unitary; different branches of their bureaucracies can be addressed independently and often are most effectively by publics organised on a narrower scale than the polity as a whole. Thus, an environmentally focused discourse better monitors what governmental regulatory agencies do with regard to the environment than could an altogether general public discourse... But this discourse can be conceptualised - and nurtured - as a matter of multiple intersections among heterogeneous publics, not as the privileging of an single overarching public (italics added).  The recent critiquesof Habermas' male bourgeois public sphere by feminists such as Nancy Fraser (1993), are also important for this project. In the traditional conceptions of public and private, publicity has been seen as the male sphere, and privacy (or domesticity) as the female sphere. This problem are resolved by viewing "publicity" as a multitude of spheres, some of which may be more likely to be predominantly female (ibid.). This is particularly important here, because as has often been noted, women tend to have "greener" values than men (Guppy, Blake and Urmetzer 1996; Davidson and Freudenburg 1996), as well as playing key leadership roles in environmental politics. This is also true in this research, where a substantial number of the local environmental leaders (44%) in the four municipalities have been women. In a sense, then, the - environmental public spheres I have studied show less tendency towards the "male/public female/private" dichotomies which pervade other public spheres.. Jean Cohen and Andrew Arato (1992) provide what seems to me a very useful orienting 9  theory of social movements and civil society. In their massive book, however they neglect a careful analysis of why social movements arise, or why they might be stronger, more influential or more numerous in some contexts than in others. In Cohen and Arato's analysis, there is an implicit suggestion that since social movements arise on and inhabit the terrain of civil society, expend a great deal of their energy attempting to transform civil society, and exert their influence primarily through the same, we ought to examine the relations between social movements and the institutions, networks and cultures of particular public spheres, viewed as a part of the broader local civil society. A recent article by Margarita Alario (1995) picks up on these themes of the civil society and the public sphere and locates the environmental movement within them. She argues that  [t]he environmental movement has succeeded in launching public discussions about the social and ecological problems induced by environmental depletion and risk, transforming that public space located between private life and public authority into an unmatched platform from which to protest against further environmental degradation (1995:327 emphasis added).  In this way, the environmental movement has transformed the issue of "environmental deterioration and risk into a contestable one, where there had been no previous public consultation" (1995:333). It has not only contributed to the expansion of the public sphere, but it has dramatically transformed the public, and provided a base for its own support: in the form of widespread public support, its own publications, organisations, institutions, and grassroots organisations. Furthermore it has institutionalised a number of its demands in State policy and it has established and maintains channels of negotiation for further State inclusion and reform. The model of public spheres as put forward by Cohen and Arato (1992), Alario (1995) and Calhoun (1996) is considerably broader than Habermas' picture of the bourgeois coffee houses and literary journals. It nonetheless remains faithful to his general conception of a sphere where private persons (as opposed to state and economic corporations) engage in open discourse about socially relevant issues. In this sense, public spheres encompass a range of associations 10  where such open dialogue takes place, including in social movement organisations, informal neighbourhood gatherings and more formal community associations, churches and religious groups, clubs, educational institutions and so on. " C i v i l society", then is the form of association, and the "public spheres" are the sites of discussion which takes place within groups and institutions which comprise that field. Lest the theoretical model of social movements and civil society, which I am putting forward here be dismissed as mere tautology, let me offer a further clarification. I am arguing that social movements arise on the terrain of civil society and constitute part of that terrain. Likewise, the construction of environmental public spheres provides a platform for further discourse about environmental issues. While there is a certain "duality" in this conception, this "problem" of agency versus structure is pervasive i n sociological studies. A s Anthony Giddens argues, Analysing the structuration of social systems means studying the modes in which such systems, grounded in the knowledgeable activities of situated actors who draw upon rules and resources in the diversity of action contexts are produced and reproduced in interaction...The constitution of agents and structures are not two independently given sets of phenomenona, a dualism, but represent a duality. According to the notion of the duality of structure, the structural properties of social systems are both medium and outcome of the practices they recursively organise (1984:25; italics added).  This "agency/structure" dilemma is not only a dilemma for people doing social research, but is also inherent in the "natural" world, as the "new sciences" have recently begun to realise. A s Richard Lewontin argued in the 1990 Massey Lectures, ...there is no 'environment' in some independent and abstract sense. Just as there is no organism without an environment, there is no environment without an organism. Organisms do not experience environments. They create them. They construct their own environments out of bits and pieces of the physical and biological world and they do so by their own activities (1991:83).  This project, then, w i l l focus on environmental groups as actors in particular c i v i l societies and public spheres, viewing them as "organisms" which both depend on and modify their environments. I w i l l look at the "structuration" of four local civil societies and their 11  environmental public spheres primarily from the point of view of these actors - as a part of their social contexts In this project, I am suggesting that Abbotsford and Richmond fall into the same sort of category as those "backwards" regions in Italy which Robert Putnam (1991) suggested were regions with weak "civic traditions', a claim which I will put forward in greater detail i n chapter 2. Putnam's book which has been widely praised (Levi 1996, Laitan 1995) and criticised (Tarrow 1996; Sabetti 1996) puts forward an analysis by which the success of democratic governance i n Italy is highly dependent on the social (and even more the associational) capital of a particular region. H e concludes that Alexis de Toqueville was correct that democratic government is strengthened by a lively and active civil society" (1991:183). In this project, I am not particularly interested in the case that Putnam makes about the dependence of democratic institutions on a vibrant civic culture, but rather with the possibility that part of the difference between the low and high environmentalism areas in this study might reflect a difference in the general strength of each local civil society. Neither Richmond nor Abbotsford, at first glance, seem to be communities with anything approaching an active local associational life. Since this lack of civic traditions is in many ways difficult to depict without presenting an overly crude depiction, I w i l l defer further discussion about these two communities until next chapter. Burnaby, and the Langleys, as the two high environmentalism communities in this casestudy are also communities with active civil societies. Recently celebrating its Centennial year, Burnaby has traditionally been a working class suburb with strong support for labour and socialdemocratic politics (Chapter 2). Environmental politics has likewise been a significant force in Burnaby for quite some time ~ there are several groups that have maintained the presence of environmental issues consistently for over twenty years. The Langleys (since 1951 divided into two municipalities, the City-of Langley and the Township of Langley), although they do not share with Burnaby the history left-wing politics, they seem otherwise to have much the same kind of "community-spirit" or "civic traditions" (Putnam 1991). In particular, people seem to identify 12  strongly with their communities within the municipality, such as Aldergrove, Ft. Langley or Brookswood, as suggested by a 1995 survey by the Township of Langley, in which respondents were asked to agree or disagree with the statement "one nice thing about living in Langley is that there are definite communities with which you can identify". On a four point scale 39.5% strongly agreed and 43.1% agreed somewhat (Township of Langley 1995). Although environmental politics is a more recent presence in Langley than Burnaby (several groups began in the mid 80s), it has very quickly developed a strong network of community based environmental groups which have responded to recent developments of the Township. Combined with resources from the Federal and Provincial Government, the community of "streamkeeping" groups has become a very influential public. Likewise, a number of more "protest" oriented groups have arisen associated with particular neighbourhoods, reflecting local concerns with water and air quality, or the negative consequences of rapid development. I w i l l draw on a variety of primary and secondary sources to flesh out these very crude caricatures which I have just put forward in Chapter 2.1 w i l l do this both in terms of the social history of the municipalities, and in terms of a contemporary portrait of these communities. I w i l l thus provide a kind of a "base-line" on which the environmental public spheres are situated. Furthermore, in Chapter 5 I w i l l present evidence to further support my position that there is more "community involvement" in Burnaby and Langley than in the low-environrhentalism municipalities. The themes I have been developing for use in this study should not be seen as exclusive, in terms of my attempt to explain the ecology of environmentalism in the four communities. A s I have suggested in this proposal, it does not seem to me that, on the basis of research conducted thus far, that the usual explanatory frameworks —Resource Mobilisation, Political Process, or other structural variables such as race, class, and gender -are sufficient explanatory paradigms in and of themselves. Likewise, I am not suggesting that my kind of civil-society/public sphere theories are adequate alone, but I w i l l need to maintain a sensitivity to the issues raised by the 13  other theoretical contributions of these other approaches.  .  The themes of civil society and public spheres have been explored primarily by social theorists, and there is a distinct dearth of contemporary empirical work in this area, although there have been a fair number of historical studies. I have been unable to locate any studies which explore the relationship between social movements and civil society using the general conception put forward by Cohen and Arato (1992), Allario (1995), or any of the related theoretical literature. Part of the contribution of this thesis, then, is to put this tradition of theoretical work to use in an empirical case-study of social movements, suggesting ways in which the theories of civil society and public spheres are useful tools in this endeavour.  METHODOLOGY When sociologists turn their attention to environmental groups, they almost invariably focus on the "large and the loud": either big, prominent environmental groups, or colourful, dramatic groups. Previous "surveys" of environmental groups in B . C . (Stefanick 1995; Gardner 1992) suffer from this tendency. In both cases, the researchers have been dependent on preestablished lists of environmental organisations, which inevitably miss many smaller groups, groups that nonetheless may make significant contributions to pro-environmental social change (Gould, Schnaiberg and Weinberg 1996).  Because of my small, suburban research areas, and  equally importantly, because of the "civil society" theories on which I am drawing, I w i l l be including community groups which, although not specifically "environmental groups", do engage in important environmental "initiatives". I am defining environmental initiatives as "collectivities who, as members of a non-environmental, non-governmental, non-profit group or organisation work together to benefit the natural environment". This category includes a range of church groups, community associations, and naturalist groups which are not usually included in these samples. Some examples from this study include:  14  -several community associations that are concerned with the environmental quality of their neighbourhoods, among a range of other issues; -several "fish and game clubs" that work on protecting and restoring streams; -a vegetarian group which tries to solve environmental problems by getting people to 'go vegetarian'; -a heritage group which has linked its interests in the protection of a neighbourhood to estuary protection; -a religious organisation which, although primarily concerned with employment training, does most of its work on environmental restoration and mapping-out streams to be protected. In the four research areas, these kind of groups make a not insignificant contribution to the environment and to the development of an environmental public sphere. I w i l l discuss this range of different kinds of groups which make significant contributions to environmental politics in greater depth i n the second part of chapter 3.  R E S E A R C H DESIGN M y over-all project design is similar to what Henry (1990:20) calls a "most similar case sampling" methodology. I w i l l compare two similar 'inner suburbs' and two comparable 'outer suburbs' (Mauboules and Elliott 1996). The communities are roughly paired in terms of size, ethnicity, income levels and proportions of "new middle class" residents (Mauboules and Elliott 1995; chapter 2), all factors which have been attributed as "causes" for varying levels of environmental activism (Marx and M c A d a m 1994; Massey 1994; Offe 1987; Inglehart 1977). Furthermore, the environmental problems in each community are roughly comparable in terms of their gravity or "visibility" (Gould 1993). This study w i l l combine both qualitative and quantitative research strategies. The first stage, comprised of qualitative interviews w i l l allow me to explore "discursively" the nature of the environmental public sphere, local civil society and political culture as those activists interact with their context. B y interviewing approximately 10 key leaders of environmental groups in each of the four communities (37 in total), I have gathered a large volume of "thick description" (Geertz 1973). Furthermore, because most of the interviews were completed before the mail-out survey component, the interviews have informed the questionnaire construction, which constituted phase 15  2 of the research. Since there are 72 different environmental groups or initiatives in the four communities, it would not have been feasible to interview a leader from each. The first purpose of the questionnaire was to try to gain as comprehensive coverage of all 72 groups as possible. The questionnaire was sent to a key leader of each of the 72 groups, including to the leaders who I interviewed in the first stage of the project. The second purpose of the survey was to produce more directly comparable data, to facilitate making comparisons between the experiences of environmental activists in the four different communities (more on this below).  CONSTRUCTION OF A SAMPLING FRAME. One of the weaknesses of previous studies of environmental groups in B . C . (Stephanick 1995; Gardner 1993), as well as such surveys elsewhere (Lowe and Goyder 1983), has been their reliance on pre-existing lists of environmental groups (In B . C . : B . C . Environmental Network 1996, Canadian Environmental Network 1995). This reliance is as easy to explain as it is dubious methodologically. There are many environmental groups in this Province ( B . C . E . N . 1995 lists 512), and they vary widely in terms of their level of organisation, size, and types of activism. The vast majority are not listed in telephone books, nor on other kinds of lists. The groups listed in the standard directories are, however, a self-selected sample: each group pays $30/yr to belong to the B . C . Environmental Network, and to have their names listed in the directory. The B . C . E . N Directory (1996) lists 35 groups in my four study areas. I have taken significant and timeconsuming measures to ensure that my sampling frame.corresponds to the total population of environmental groups and other community based environmental initiatives, a total which is more than double the number of groups in the largest list (72). Since no comprehensive list existed, between M a y and August, 1996,1 compiled one from a variety of sources. These sources included: i) the B . C . Environmental Network Directory (1995): This is the most comprehensive listing of environmental groups in the province, although it is far from a complete listing. 16  ii) Interviews with environmental planners in each municipality: the planners in each community were quite willing to share their list of contacts with us iii) The Community Services Directory for each municipality. iv) The Vancouver Public Library's online "Directory of Community Groups" v) Newspaper searches in local newspapers in each of the four communities over a six month period (Richmond: The Review, Richmond Times; Burnaby: The News Leader, Burnaby N o w ; Abbotsford: The Abbotsford Times, The Abbotsford News; Langley: Langley Advance News, Langley Times. Computerized indexes to The Vancouver Sun and The Province were also searched (Lexus-Nexus) for a one year period. vi) Extensive exploring on site in each of the four municipalities, especially at libraries, community centres, nature-shops, malls and at the chambers of commerce. vii) In the two "low environmentalism" municipalities I have additional sources for my lists of environmental groups/initiatives. In Richmond, the "City Centre Community Association" has compiled the Richmond Environmental Network Directory. In Abbotsford, Brian Elliott and Beth Simpson's (forthcoming) study of 100 community leaders asked respondents to identify groups and individuals who they felt had contributed to the betterment of the environment in Abbotsford. viii) Three groups were missed in this rather extensive search, and were later included thanks to local environmental leaders who provided me with relevant contact information. SELECTION O F INTERVIEWS  A s the qualitative component of my project, I have interviewed approximately 10 "key" environmental group leaders in each municipality (37 in total). I decided against selecting the interviewees randomly; although this may provide a representative sample, it might not provide us with subjects who are in the best position to tell us about environmental politics in a given community. Instead, I have selected the interviewees as systematically as possible, relying on: 1) the advice and suggestions of environmental planners in each community. 2) names which were recurrent in local newspapers as important spokespersons 3) conversations with knowledgeable informants in each community 4) names and groups that were often recommended in the first wave of interviews were contacted for. the second wave.  In my very extensive searches for environmental groups in each of the municipalities, the same  17  groups and leaders of those groups, kept being suggested to me as particularly important. These interview subjects, then are people who are best situated to inform me about environmental politics in a given area. In two of the municipalities, interviewing 10 environmental activists provides information on a very high proportion of all environmental groups in these areas. Networking data have largely confirmed that the interview subjects are leaders of groups which constitute the "core" groups in each municipality.  MAIL-OUT SURVEY The mail-out survey was sent to leaders from each of the environmental groups in the sampling frame, including those who were interviewed in the first phase of the project. The original group which were interviewed in the first phase of the project (using open-ended questions) were included in this questionnaire so that as much directly comparable material— fixed response answers— could be gathered for each of the municipalities in addition to the narrative responses which were gathered in the semi-structured interviews. One questionnaire was sent to a leader of each of the 72 groups in the sample. The respondent was the president, a spokesperson, board member, or in more "decentralised" groups, it was generally the most active member of the group. Most of the sources which provided the name of the group also specified the appropriate contact person for the group. In a few cases, a few phone calls to already established contacts in the municipality were necessary in order to determine to whom the questionnaire should be sent. The questionnaire was constructed in a number of different sections, each with its own purpose(s). The surveys were "customised" for each municipality i n two ways: (1) Each questionnaire specified "Richmond", "Burnaby", "Langley", and "Abbotsford" depending on the municipality to which the questionnaire was sent; (2) The List of Groups which made up the networking component were specific to the municipality in question. When a leader was interviewed in the first phase of this project, and standard demographic data, etc. was collected, a 18  shorter questionnaire was mailed to that individual. The questionnaire has been included in Appendix B . The mail-out questionnaire explored the same basic issues and themes as the interviews, although the questions were presented with fixed-response choices on the basis of the kinds of responses which were given by the leaders in the first phase. Each questionnaire produced a basic profile of the group and its activities, and explored with fixed-response questions the group's experiences of their local community, various levels and branches of the State as well as sources of financial, knowledge and social resources. Respondents were also asked about various potential enabling and constraining factors for environmental activism in their communities. These factors were derived from responses to the interview responses from phase 1. The quantitative data has certain advantages over the qualitative material in terms of its value in making comparisons between different municipalities. To take one example, in the interviews, interviewees were asked a set of questions about their experiences of different levels of government (Federal, Provincial, Regional, Municipal). Usually these questions resulted in a story or anecdote about a particular incident or dispute involving, for example City Council. These kind of responses often make it difficult to compare the experiences of groups in different municipalities, or to even to compare a group's experiences of the G . V . R . D . with their experiences of their municipal government. In the questionnaire, then, respondents were asked to rate on a 5 point Likert scale different branches and levels of government (from "very supportive" to "very antagonistic"). This enabled me to gather shallow but comparable information on very specific government bodies, including a number of branches of the municipal government (City Planners, City Council, Public Works, Parks, School Board, Environmental Health Office), as well as a range of other appropriate state agencies. The various government agencies about which the questionnaire asked came from the responses of the interviewees in the first phase of the project. Given the importance that I have suggested earlier of an "environmental public sphere", a number of networking questions were used to "map" relations between the leaders who were 19  surveyed and the list of other groups that are active in the municipality. Combined with interview data, this forms the basis of my discussion of the environmental public sphere in each of the four municipalities. The networking material was done in the second (survey) phase of the research, by which time I could be certain that I had a complete list of environmental groups for each municipality gathered from the interviews. Borrowing a question-format from Tindall (1995), respondents were asked to rank their relations with each of a list of local environmental groups and other grassroots groups with environmental initiatives on the following scale: 1) 1 have never heard of this organisation 2) I have heard of this organisation, but have had no contact with it 3) I have had some contact with this organisation, but am not a member. 4) I know a member of this organisation 5) I have a close friend or relative who belongs to this organisation. 6) I am a former member of this organisation, 7) I am currently a member of this organisation. 8) I am an active member of this organisation.  The responses from these questions were coded into four separate matrices for each of the municipalities in UCINET. Each of the four matrices codes all responses which are equal to or higher than the number which the table represents as "1" (as a relationship), and codes the rest as "0" or, as not a relationship.  1. heard of the group (2-8): Burnabyl, Richmondl, Langleyl, Abbotsfordl 2. have had some contact with the group (3-8): Burnaby2, Richmond2, etc... 3. know a member (4-8): Burnaby3, Richmond3, etc.... 4. former or current member of that group (6-8): Burnaby4, etc...  I will use these data, in conceit with the qualitative interview responses from the interviews about the "community or network of environmentalists" in each municipality as essential building-blocks for a map of the environmental public spheres in the four municipalities (Chapters 3 and 5).  RESPONSE R A T E  The interviews with leaders of key groups in each of the four municipalities were 20  conducted in two waves in December 1996 to January 1997 and between February and March, 1997. O f the 42 contact letters which were mailed, 37 people consented to an interview (88%), which amounts to 51% of the total sample-frame (Figure 1.1). O f the individuals who were contacted, 2 refused because they were too busy, one was a biologist who did not "believe in sociology", 1 of the groups had stopped meeting and one individual simply never returned any messages. The interviews consisted primarily of semi-structured questions, however I also included a standardised section at the end of the interview which asked basic demographic questions, as well as a number of questions about their personal activism, and the questions which comprise the N e w Ecological Paradigm (NEP) scale (Dunlap and V a n Liere 1979). These questions were included in the interview so that I would have such information for subjects did not to respond to the questionnaire. The majority (69%) of the people whom I interviewed also responded to the questionnaire. O f the interviews that were conducted, 3 subjects cut the interview short because of time pressures and did not respond to the questionnaire, so I do not have the standard demographic information from these leaders (4.2% of the total). The Questionnaires were sent-out in the middle of M a y 1997. Using Mangione's (1995) suggestions as a guide, one week after the questionnaires were mailed, a follow-up reminder card was mailed to the list. Three weeks after the initial mail-out, a phone follow-up was done to contact all of the potential respondents whose questionnaires we had not yet received. The result was a total response rate from the questionnaires of 64%. The response rates differed somewhat by municipality, from a high of 69 % in Richmond to a low of 60% in Burnaby. Langley and Abbotsford response rates were 67% and 62% respectively. In sum, I have significant data (either an interview, a questionnaire or both) from -82% of all of the groups in my four study areas. This data seems an adequate basis on which to make comparisons of environmental group mobilisation among the four municipalities.  21  Figure 1.1: Response rate and coverage  response rate  Data type: Interviews with groups leaders:  88% (37 of 42) [51% of the total sample frame]  Interviews with Municipal staff  6  Total Interviews  43  Questionnaire responses (total)—  64% (46/72)  Burnaby Richmond Langley Abbotsford  60% 69% 67% 62%  --  (15/25) (9/13) (14/21) (8/13)  interviews w/out questionnaires—  13  -some data (either interview or questionnaire)  46+13= 59 (59/72 = 82%)  -standardised personal demographic data—  77% of group leaders (55/72)  -interviews w/out standardised data, no questionnaire response  4% of total (3/72)  22  Chapter 2: A Tale of Four Municipalities: Historical and Contemporary Social Background  In this chapter, I w i l l give an overview of the four study areas in my research project. I w i l l focus on: 1) the social history of the area; 2) the contemporary context, with particular reference to standard demographic variables such as income, ethnicity, religion and education; and 3) the strength and structure of the local "community".  BURNABY While Burnaby is generally thought of as a "suburb" of Vancouver, as are all of the municipalities i n the Lower Mainland, the municipality began its life as a suburb of New Westminster, which was, at that time, the most important city i n the Lower Mainland. In 1891 only 26 of the 132 district lots were subdivided into 4 or more lots. A l l of these were situated in South Burnaby, and most were immediately adjacent to N e w Westminster, clustered around the tramline. In addition, there were two small groupings of farms, one on the Fraser, and the other between Burnaby and Deer Lakes (Wolf 1995:4). i n many ways, the "critical event" for the incorporation of Burnaby was the construction of the Central Park Tramline, which opened in 1891. The Central Park Tramline took roughly the same route as the Sky Train which was constructed in the mid-1980s, and provided transportation which opened up the space between Vancouver.and N e w Westminster for houses, farms and industry (Seager and Fowler 1995). The original incorporation proposal was for a municipality that would stretch from Point Grey to New Westminster, until the landowners west of what is now Boundary Road broke away to form Point Grey and South Vancouver (Wolf 1995:12). Since Burnaby was too large to form a city (the limit was 2,000 acres under the municipal act), Burnaby 23  was formed as a district municipality of 21,500 acres. Burnaby began as a working class suburb, associated with the general working class exurban movement at the turn of the century in Canada: much of the impetus for the exurban movement was associated with what is known as a 'working class suburb'. The typical working class suburb was geographically contiguous with the city, offered relatively cheap housing, but few job opportunities, and waged an uphill battle for basic services." (Seager and Fowler 1995:17-18)  Burnaby's workforce was comprised predominantly of workers in local industry and resource extraction, although most worked outside of Burnaby, and some of them would travel considerable distances and for extended periods of time. Statistics for 1927 show that 23% of Burnaby's labour force were labourers, 39% other manual workers (mostly skilled labour), 10% sales and service workers and 6% farmers (Seager and Fowler 1995:22). In 1927, Burnaby landowners paid tax rates that were roughly one third of those for comparable Vancouver property, making it an ideal location for lower-income families to own a home in the first half of the century (Seager and Fowler 1995:19). A t incorporation and throughout the 1890s, there were probably no more than 300 people living in Burnaby. A t the time of the 1921 Census, there were already 12,883 residents. Most of this growth happened between 1909 and 1912 in a real estate development boom. Growth continued at a significant rate, and the population at census years 1931 and 1941 was 25,564 and 30,328 respectively (Seager and Fowler 1995:22) making Burnaby a significant population centre before the end of the first half of the century. The population i n the early days of Burnaby was relatively ethnically homogenous. In 1931, 54% of the population of Burnaby was born in Canada, and 86% trace their ancestry from 24  "the British Races". The only "ethnic minority" population of any size was the Scandanavians numbering 1,209. Chinese and Japanese residents (the census counted them together) numbered 266, and all of the other "Asiatic races" (probably mostly Punjabi Sikhs) amounted to 27 persons (Seager and Fowler 1995:22). A s much as these statistics would suggest that Burnaby was relatively homogenous, it was early-on very divided by geographic neighbourhoods. Before 1945, Burnaby comprised a variety of distinct districts that often saw little in common with each other and were divided between North and South by the undeveloped and almost impassable central valley. These Neighbourhoods functioned according to their own schedules of community events and with their own halls, churches, sports teams, postoffices and newspapers. Possessing no Downtown core or single central place of Business, Burnaby's commercial class, a potential focal point of civic boosterism was divided between North and South (Seager and Fowler 1995:25).  Prior to the construction of Willingdon in 1920, no single public road connected North and South Burnaby. Automobile-less North Burnaby residents would have to travel to South Burnaby via Downtown Vancouver i n order to pay their taxes at City H a l l . The return journey could take the better part of a day to travel (Seager and Fowler 1995). Before 1932, civic politics were organised around a ward system which corresponded with established neighbourhoods, although in some instances a ward would represent more than one neighbourhood. For this reason, while there were 7 wards and 11 active ratepayers associations in 1922 (Seager and Fowler 1995:31) - the same number still exist today. Residents identified strongly with their particular neighbourhood, and this fact, along with the ward system often resulted in tensions between neighbourhoods even within North and South Burnaby (ibid). Burnaby, more than most municipalities in B . C . has a strong tradition of both labour politics and collective action, a tradition which has left its mark on the community to this day.  25  According to Seager and Fowler (1995), "ordinary citizens played an important role in shaping the politics of the district, and their socialist sympathies were apparent by the end of the First W o r l d War." These socialist sympathies came in two varieties: communist (Communist Party of Canada) and social democratic (C.C.F.)— although at the level of practical civic politics, the policies of the two socialist groups were virtually indistinguishable (ibid). The communist party was the smaller and in many ways the less influential in local politics, but it was nonetheless an important force. The first president of the International Woodworkers of America, H . A . Pritchett had been a city councillor in Burnaby before he took up his post with the I.W.A.  A card-carrying Communist, he was for a short time a "standard bearer" in municipal  politics (Seager and Fowler 1995:30). The C . C . F . and more social democratic labour politics had a much broader support base in Burnaby. A s early as 1924, Burnaby elected a "veteran socialist organiser" to the Legislative Assembly in Victoria, and when the C . C . F . was formed, it enjoyed phenomenal success in Burnaby. Its success was largely due to the predominance of the sizeable working-class population, but also to the C . C . F . supporters' very active community-level organising . A s Seager and Fowler (1995:30) write: Probably the key to the early consolidation of C . C . F . power was grassroots organisation...The C . C . F . organised its clubs on a neighbourhood rather than constituency basis, thus offering, in addition to electioneering activity, the possibility of an active associational life for party members in [nine different neighbourhoods in North and South Burnaby].  Many of these C . C . F . clubs were very active. The Jubilee Club (Central Park) operated a community hall with a kitchen, a stage and a lending library. During the depression, the club was dedicated to helping and organising the unemployed. This active associational life of the working  26  class Unions and Social-Democratic parties provides a kind of parallel public sphere existing alongside the kind of bourgeois associations depicted by Habermas (1992). In 1929, Council was roughly divided between "men of 'labour' and those of 'professional background'" (Seager and Fowler 1995:32). W . A . Pritchard was elected as Reeve (mayor), and he carried the deciding vote. The first mayor to be elected from North Burnaby, Pritchard was a "fiery and eloquent Socialist" (Bradbry 1995:47), having gained most of his notoriety as a defendent in the Winnipeg General Strike trials of 1919. In his home ward, Capitol H i l l , he won by majorities of 80-90% without the support of any party, since municipal politics were officially 'non-partisan' until 1943 (Seager and Fowler 1995:32). Pritchard and his supporters were pivotal in Burnaby's history, and must go on record as the district's first "civic reformers, dedicated to a o  progressive 'city beautiful' vision of the future" (ibid). They began Burnaby's first planning programs, integrating the two Burnabies, improving local health-care and creating jobs. During the Depression, Burnaby suffered more than most municipalities, due to the high proportion of working class people who were most likely to loose their jobs after the stockmarket crash in 1929. B y 1932, almost 1/2 of Burnaby homeowners were unable to pay their municipal taxes, and the unemployment toll ran as high as 8,000 individuals, approximately 1/3 of the total population of Burnaby. After a "heroic effort to cope with the relief of the unemployed" (Seager and Fowler 1995:18), the district of Burnaby went into provincial recievership in December, 1932. Although the district was still legally still allowed to borrow $1,000,000 more, their creditors refused to loan them any more money for 'relief, while the Provincial and Federal Governments were stubbornly late in their transfer payments. Forcing the municipality into bankrupcy may have been the Provincial Government's way of taking control of Burnaby, which it had viewed with a great deal of animosity. Burnaby's benefits to unemployed workers were 27  viewed as overly generous (even though they barely prevented starvation), and it was consistently the position of both Pritchard and Council that a universal welfare system was a national responsibility. Pritchard had argued this not only as Reeve of Burnaby, but as chair of the Union of B . C . Municipalities, and as chair of their Unemployment Committee (Bradbury 1995). Burnaby also has a long history of popular collective action. To give one example, in an effort to stave off bankrupcy in 1930, Pritchard brokered a deal with Chevron to sell a large tract of municipal land to a refinery. The sale was passed by district-wide referendum, and the municipality was paid $15,000 for the land. In 1931, considerable local opposition arose "with Lochdale residents marching on the unfinished plant and threatening a 'destruction bee'. Early grievances centered on a lack of local hiring as originally promised" (Seager and Fowler 1995:33). The presence of the Chevron facility in North Burnaby has continued to be an intermittent focal point of collective action for local residents, to the present day (interview35). In the period between 1941 and 1961, Burnaby once again grew rapidly. Between 1941 and 1951, the population almost doubled, growing from 30,328 residents to 58, 376 (92%), and had grown again by 71% in 1961 to 100,157. Burnaby's growth slowed considerably, increasing to 134, 494 in 1981 (34% over 20 years), and increasing 17% to 158,035 in 1991. The most recent census data show that Burnaby has grown to 179,209 in 1996 (13%, 1996 Census). Although these are significant growth rates, Burnaby has not experienced the same growing pains that other municipalities have in recent years. According to one city planner, the fact that Burnaby was relatively well-established even before the Second World War, and because much of Burnaby's growth has "added on to already established communities", many of the social effects of this growth have been minimised. Indeed, much of the "structure and culture of the community has remained fairly constant" (interview 43). 28  One of the dramatic changes in Burnaby, and a major source of its population growth since the Second W o r l d War has been from immigration: immigrants comprise 31% of the population of Burnaby (1991 Census), which is comparable to Richmond (35%). M a n y of these immigrants arrived somewhat earlier in Burnaby, however, and have had more time to become established: 40% arrived before 1970 (Richmond 31%), 28% between 1971-81 (Richmond 27%), and 3 1 % between 1981 and 1991 (Richmond 41%). In terms of ethnic composition, Burnaby is very diverse. The largest ethnic groups in Burnaby are: British, 20% (Richmond 21%), Chinese 12% (Richmond 16%), Italian 5% (Richmond <1%), German, 4% (Richmond 4%), Indo-Canadian, 4% (Richmond 5%). Languageuse at home, by contrast, is much less diverse: 80% use English at home (Richmond 77%); 7% speak Chinese (Richmond 12%); 1% speak Punjabi (Richmond 2%); and 1% speak Italian. While there are fewer people in Burnaby using Chinese as a home language, 12% have knowledge of the language. In many ways, Burnaby is no longer a typical "working class suburb", although it is more so than Richmond. In terms of occupation, the largest categories, according to the 1991 Census are: clerical, 23% (Richmond 23%); sales and service , both 12% (Richmond 13% and 12%); managerial, 10% (Richmond 13%); and construction 5% (Richmond 4%). The average individual income for Burnaby is $24,588 and the median income is $21,500. The average family income is $53,494 and the median income is $45,221. Overall these incomes are considerably lower than those of Richmond residents who have average and median personal incomes of $27,107 and $23,548 and family incomes of $58,614 (mean) and $50,978 (median). Furthermore, more people in Burnaby live in rented dwellings (48%) than in Richmond (34%). Finally, fewer Burnaby residents posess university degrees than in Richmond (12% compared with 14%), despite the 29  presence of a major university within the municipality. Citizens of Burnaby tend to be more involved in their local community than are residents elsewhere. A s I discuss at greater length in Chapter 5, Burnaby has more local community organisations (listed in its community services directory) than any of the other municipalities in this study, at 193 it is 83% higher than in Richmond. A s one recent example of Burnaby residents' willingness to participate in public life, when the Burnaby "Healthy Communities Project" was looking for seven citizens to sit on the 12 member Healthy Committee, they were overwhelmed by over 400 applicants seeking nomination (Mauboules 1995a: 19) In response to my question "In Burnaby, how involved are people in their local community, a municipal planner told me: In general, I'd say that they're very involved... at least more-so than elsewhere... in my experience [as a planner and resident of Burnaby]...People seem to really 'identify' with the community, and much more-so with their particular neighbourhoods. In fact, the level of involvement, on a day to day basis, which planners used to see as a pain in the neck. W e started...We really had to switch to a much more neighbourhood-based, neighbourhood initiated planning long before it became the trendy thing in planning (interview 43: emphasis original).  Although the planner did not have any social studies to document this involvement, the same opinion has been expressed by Jim Wolff, in a book published by Simon Fraser University commemorating the municipality's centennial. He writes:  If a sense of community and place were evident in the establishment and incorporation of Burnaby, its first century has seen a strengthening of this identity. Surrounding municipalities have disappeared or been modified. South Vancouver and Point grey amalgamated with the City of Vancouver, while North Vancouver and Coquitlam were subdivided. Several proposals in the 1950s and 1960s that Burnaby amalgamate with Vancouver failed (Wolf 1995:12).  30  RICHMOND The two islands (Sea Island and L u l u Island) on which the City of Richmond sits are very young islands, approximately 2500 years old.. While the Fraser's Delta was formed over millions of years, as the sea-levels rose after the last ice-age, much of the lower-coastline was inundated with ocean. A s the land slowly rebounded from the glacial compression, islands began to appear in the delta of the Fraser, and were augmented by silt floating down the River. Richmond now sits between 4 and 17 feet above the Sea-Level (Ross 1979:xi). In the late 1800s, L u l u and Sea Islands were covered i n scrub forests, grasslands and two giant bogs which comprised roughly a third of L u l u Island (the larger of the two islands). Between 1862 and 1879, a number of families bought land in Richmond and began to farm, shipping their products upstream to New Westminster. A l l of these farms were around the perimeter of the Islands, since there were no roads through the middle of the island, and a good proportion of it was peat bog. One of the most important families to come to Richmond in those days were the Steves, settling on the southern shore of L u l u Island, and after whom Steveston is named (Ross 1979:18-45). The major factors that led to incorporation in 1879 had to do with Richmond's geographic location: floods, bridges, and drinking water supplies all presented problems for the residents (City of Richmond 1996d). Flooding was the first major concern, as most of the farmers suffered regular destruction with the Fraser's seasonal flooding (Oke, North and Slaymaker 1992:148,153). It was quite clear from the beginning that the patchwork dykes constructed by individual farmers were insufficient to thwart the river, especially i f the neighbouring properties had no such dykes. A comprehensive dyking system was co-ordinated, and construction began in 1891, when the fledgling district had accumulated enough capital. The flood of 1894, which 31  caused havoc upstream in the Lower Fraser Valley caused some damage in Richmond, but not nearly as much as it might have without the municipal dykes. After the 1905 flood, the dykes were again improved (Ross 1979:41-46). A s the highly productive farms and a number of canneries in Steveston began packaging large volumes of salmon caught on the coast, the need for road and rail access to Richmond became clear. The first bridge to the mainland, from L u l u Island to the Vancouver via Sea Island was completed in 1890. A second bridge was completed in 1895, and finally in 1902 the "Salmon Express" rail service was completed from Vancouver to Richmond. Transit access has continued to be crucial for Richmond's growth, including the post-war boom and beyond (North and Harwick 1992). There were really only two centres in Richmond i n the early days, the towns of Eburne (the agricultural center) and Steveston (the fishing center), although there were small groupings of houses in the area now known as Bridgeport, and Brighouse, in the current "City Center". Eburne, the less significant community developped with the first bridge to Vancouver, and was for quite a number of years on either side of the Bridge. The community was divided into Marpole (South Vancouver) and Richmond's Eburne become limited to Sea Island in 1919 due to jurisdictional changes. It then slowly vanished, beginning in the early 1930s, as the airport expanded to take-up most of Sea Island. Steveston, once popularly referred to as "Salmonopolis" has been the only continuous centre in Richmond since its inception. Even by 1910, it was a " boom town". It boasted "six hotels, an opera house, a theatre and a main street lined with false-fronted buildings" (Wynne 1992:79). Steveston was home to the vast majority of Richmond's 20 canneries and its workers, as well as many of the fishers who supplied them with fish. It was sometimes described as a 32  "dismal" and "confused" place (ibid), but it was nonetheless an important centre in Richmond. The boom in Steveston had slowed dramatically by 1920, although it had now become something of a centre for rum-running to the States. Despite the tensions and hardships, "Steveston had become a community like no other in Richmond; the years between 1910 and 1930 served only to confirm its indomitable spirit" (Ross 1979:110) Steveston remains to this day arguably "...the most dynamic and rich communit[y] in Richmond..." (Ross 1989:11). B y 1930, Richmond's population had reached nearly 8,000 residents, over half of whom still lived on farms; most of the rest lived in Steveston, Eburne, or the much smaller neighbourhood clusters around Bridgeport or Brighouse. Farming "played a vital role in the development of Richmond" (Ross 1979: 44), and this history of farming, together with its impact on the current land-use patterns on the city continues to shape the city today. In 1942, the Federal Government removed the Japanese residents of Steveston to the interior with support from the district council, leaving a considerable gap in that community. Many of the residents had lived in Steveston since the turn of the century. Some of these residents returned to Steveston at the end of the war, but many did not. Although at the time of the war only half of Richmond's 9,000 residents lived on farms, it remained, nonetheless a very "rural" farming community immediately adjacent to a major urban centre. Several significant indicators of this are: the city did not have a reliable water system until after 1930; stop-signs were not installed on Richmond roads until 1939; and the district did not own a firetruck until 1943 (Ross 1979:164). Most of the municipality's dramatic growth has occurred since the end of the Second W o r l d War, when the "new commuter population" (Ross 1979:110) began to move to Richmond to take advantage of cheap housing. This first development boom in Richmond was facilitated by the Veterans Land A c t (1946), which not only 33  made grants and loans available to returning veterans, but also specified where they should buy in order to qualify for these loans. Several areas in Richmond were designated as new housing under the A c t . The Fraser River continued to be a major obstacle which had to be bridged i n order to facilitate the "development" of Richmond farmland for residential, and increasingly industrial uses. Major steps in the growth of Richmond, then, was the development of both the Oak Street Bridge (1957) and the Knight Street Bridge (1974) which replaced the old Fraser Street Bridge, and were able to carry significantly larger volumes of traffic. It was "these major transportation links [which] helped to spur Richmond's internal growth. Housing contracts skyrocketed, businesses grew... and subdivisions spread across [Richmond]" (1979:110). Beginning in the late 1950s, Richmond began to become a centre for manufacturing, and even more importantly, warehousing. The combination of inexpensive land, and improved access routes made Richmond an ideal candidate for industry, especially in Brighouse, close to Vancouver. Most significantly, since the 1970s has been the growth of retail malls in Richmond, notably Lansdowne M a l l , Richmond Square, Richmond Centre and most recently, Aberdeen M a l l which caters to an Asian consumer market (North and Hardwick 1992:206-7). A t the time of the war, Richmond's population was little more than 8,000 people. B y 1956, the population of Richmond reached 26,000 - an increase of 325% ! N o w , only half of the land base was still designated as agricultural, and less than 10% of the population of Richmond lived on farms any longer (Wynn 1992:84). B y 1976, the population of Richmond had grown to 80,034 and has reached 145,867 as of the 1996 Census (1996 Census), making it the fourth largest city in the G . V . R . D . In other terms, the City of Richmond has grown more than 5.6 times in the past 41 years! 34  In 1991, immigrants comprised 35% of the total population of the municipality, which is approximately the same percentage as we find in Burnaby. M a n y of the immigrants in Richmond have arrived more recently, however, 4 1 % having arrived between 1981 and 1991. According to most estimates, several thousand newcomers to Canada (immigrants) have arrived yearly in Richmond, from approximately 1,000 a year in 1991 to 2,355 a year in 1995. Almost 46% of these came from Hong K o n g , which represents a very significant immigrant stream. This said, approximately two thirds of all those who move to Richmond still come from elsewhere in the B . C . or from elsewhere in Canada (City of Richmond 1996c). A significant (although often overblown) percentage of new Richmond residents are of Chinese origin. In 1991, the largest ethnic groups in Richmond were: British (21.6%), Chinese (16.5%), Indo-Canadian (5.6%), German (3.9%) and Japanese (2.2%). There has also been a marked increase in people claiming more than one ethnic origin (City of Richmond 1996e). English remains b y far the dominant language spoken at home (79.8%), down only slightly from 1971 (83.9%: City of Richmond 1996b). In 1991, 12% of Richmond's population spoke Chinese at home (ibid). The City has responded to this influx by declaring itself to be "Canada's first multicultural community" (Community Facts 1996). On average, residents of Richmond are better educated, and wealthier than residents of Burnaby, our main point of comparison in this study. In terms of education, 14% of Richmond residents have university degrees, which is the same as the Greater Vancouver Census Metropolitan Area and significantly higher than Burnaby's proportion of university graduates (12%). The average personal income in Richmond is $27,107 and the median income is 23,548, which is significantly higher than that in Burnaby ($24,588 and $21,500) and the average in the Greater Vancouver C M A ($26,399). 35  Politically, Richmond has historically elected 'Right-of-Center' representatives. For most of Richmond's history, it has shared representatives with its neighbours to the north, in South Vancouver, or in Delta. Since 1966, when Richmond first had a riding of its own, the citizens have elected 6 Liberals (all in the past two elections), 8 Social Credit (with one interruption from 1966-1986) and 1 N . D . P . It is particularly significant that the lone N e w Democrat was elected in 1972, when the party won a majority government provincially. It is also important that the candidate was Harold Steves, after whose grandfather "Steveston" was named. A l l three generations of Steves have been active in Richmond politics since its beginnings. W i t h the exception of the Steveston Community Society, which was formed in 1946, most of the other community associations have been much more recent. M a n y of them took their inspiration from the Steveston Society, and in the late 1970s, the South A r m , West Richmond, East Richmond, Hamilton, and Thompson Community Associations all formed (Ross 1979:179). Steveston Community Society remains one of the most vital. In 1984, the Society undertook a $ 2 M plan to improve the area. Steveston has also been a hotspot for local collective action, both in numerous disputes with Council over "development" in Steveston, and as they rallied to protect Gary Point from development and turn it into a park in 1984 (Ross 1989:12). Although it is often hard to demonstrate, a lack of community in a sociological sense, this was a major problem which was addressed by number of the Richmond residents I interviewed (interview 5, 20, 33, 37). One well connected activist went so far as to say very explicitly that "...Richmond has no civil society" (interview 19), without my ever having used the words in the interview! Another long-time resident of Richmond described the way that Richmond had changed over the past 40 years, from a community where people "all worked together" to a suburb where people "just close their doors and...[t]hey just put up a wall around themselves and 36  they just don't want to discuss it, they don't want to hear about it, they just don't want to participate" (interview 5). A recent study of Richmond's neighbourhoods of Hamilton, documents that community's transition from 'gemmeinshaft' to 'gesellschaft', and its more recent efforts to re-establish a "communitarian nexus" (Aujla 1997). Hamilton was largely created out of the post-war veterans land grant program , and existed, albeit only for a short time as a small, tightly knit community until the 1980s, when a developer began building a mall and housing developments. The community underwent a kind of "modernisation" crisis, by which the interdependence of a small community was severely disrupted. Not only did many new people move in to the area, but there was drastic out migration, as people came and left again soon after. More recently, a range of communitarian efforts have attempted to restore a sense of community and place to the neighbourhood. In some ways, Hamilton is probably quite typical of many neighbourhoods in Richmond, at least of those neighbourhoods which existed prior to the development booms of the 1970s and 80s. B y contrast, many neighbourhoods in Richmond, have been built on large tracts of former farmland; they did not, therefore, have any "community" to begin with, and have had no old-time residents who could be disgruntled with the dismantling of their community. Furthermore, Hamilton's community association has the reputation of being one of the more active such community associations in Richmond (interview 29). They have probably been better able to build the kind of "communitarian nexus" which Aujla describes.  LANGLEY L i k e most of the Lower Fraser Valley, the history of Langley's "development" is more or 37  less coincident with the development of a regional transportation infrastructure (Siemens 1968; R o y 1968; Meyer 1968). A s Richmond was, and continues to be, dependent on bridges to allow access from either side of the Fraser, it was the Fraser itself which provided a "bridge" into the central parts of the Lower Valley before the turn of the century. Fort Langley was established in 1824 as an outpost of the Hudsons B a y Company on the Fraser. It served both as a trading post for lucrative beaver pelts, and as an outpost of the British Empire, in order to claim the land for the crown, before the Americans could lay claim to it (Waite 1977:5). Because the Fort was so distant from food-supplies, the Company wanted to make the fort self sufficient as soon as possible. B y the late the 1820s, the Fort's farm supplied most of the food stocks that it needed, supplemented by fish from the Fraser and wild game caught nearby. Soon the Fort had surplus food for export. This gives Langley the distinction of being the oldest agricultural community in the province— at least in the European sense (Harris 1992:45). B y the late 1830s there were already an estimated 200 people living at the Fort (ibid.) Just as changes in European taste for headwear drove down the price of beaver pelts, the interior gold rush of 1858 gave the Fort a new role and a new lease on life. It became a major stop-over point and supply source for the 20,000 fortune hunters who began the trip into the interior at the mouth of the Fraser. In 1858, "British Columbia" was declared a province at Fort Langley, which seemed the most appropriate place for such an auspicious event. In 1859, the government of the new province enacted a "land pre-emption act" which opened up the province for sale to European immigrants. M u c h of first pre-empted land was farmland immediately surrounding the Fort, adjacent to the company farm. The town of Derby, as it was then called (now Fort Langley) quickly sprung-up around the Fort (Waite 1977:33-45). Langley's petition for incorporation 1872, was the major reason for the creation of a 38  Provincial Municipal A c t in that same year. Thus, Langley and Chilliwack became the first incorporated districts in the province. The small holding farmers who comprised the bulk of the population in Langley at the time of incorporation gave it the motto " N i h i l sine cerere" - "nothing is without work". This sentiment is not surprising given the intense labour required in "provingup" land hitherto blanketed in giant conifers, and making it suitable for farming. In the days before the turn of the century, most of the transportation to and from the district of Langley was provided by steam powered paddle-wheelers operating up and down the Fraser. This made transportation slow, and the shipping of farm produce costly, giving the producers closer to the centres of consumption in Vancouver and New-Westminster a distinct advantage. In 1885-87 as the Canadian Pacific Rail line was built across the Fraser, the population of the district of Langley doubled. The enormous influx of workers to labour on the construction of the line, as well as the improved transportation led to the beginning of more growth for Langley. Boats began to run regularly, bringing people, supplies and mail to Langley from the other side of the river, and carrying farm produce back for sale. It was in this period that Murrayville (then known as Murray's Corners), Alder Grove and Lochiel became "centres" alongside Fort Langley/Derby for residents of Langley. The need for a post office is a good indicator of the development of a population center substantial enough to support it Barman (1996:115,194). Post-offices were established in Fort Langley in 1870, in Murrayville in 1883, in Aldergrove in 1883 ( A . G . H . S . 1993:446) and in Lochiel in 1887 (Waite 1977:137). When the Great Northern Railway was built from Spokane to Vancouver between 19051907, it brought about the "opening up" of South Langley. Its two stops, "Aldergrove" and "Lincoln", at Langley Prairie which is now the City of Langley, made farming more viable in the 39  southern part of the District. It also strengthened these two communities as social, and economic "centers" (Waite 1977; R o y 1968). In return for allowing the train to be built through their properties, many farmers were allowed to install stop-flags, so that they could stop the trains and load milk right at their farms for delivery to N e w Westminster and Vancouver. In 1907 the B . C . Electric Railroad (B.C.E.R.) began to build a route from New Westminster to Abbotsford, which when completed in 1910 provided passenger and cargo service to. North Langley residents. Together the B . C . E . R and the Canadian Northern Railway (1910) which also ran on the south side of the Fraser (through Fort Langley) provided Langley with faster and less costly integration with the population centres at the mouth of the Fraser. These rail-services strengthened the already significant "communities" within Langley, which survive to this day as "neighbourhoods" within the City and Township of Langley: Fort Langley, The City of Langley (Langley Prairie), Murrayville, Lochiel and Aldergrove. A s development has overtaken farmland in Langley, particularly since the last war, the township has added a number of other "neighbourhoods" in its zoning laws, and more recently in its Official Community Plan (Mauboules and Elliott 1996). After the Second W o r l d War, the population of Langley exploded. In 1941, the entire district had 7,769 residents and by 1951 it had grown by 58% to 12,267 residents. B y 1955, the populated area around Langley Prairie (where the B . C . E . R . stop had inaugurated growth in 1910) was substantial enough to qualify as a City under the municipal act, and it seceded from the District of Langley (City of Langley 1996). B y 1961, the growth had slowed somewhat (38%) to 16,950 residents combined. M u c h of this growth was spurred on by the enormous growth in Canada after the war, and in Langley it was facilitated by the Construction of the Fraser Highway, which had been built in the 1920s, and even more importantly the Patullo Bridge (1937) which 40  could move large volumes of private vehicles (as opposed to trains) between Surrey and NewWestminster (Meyer 1968). Both Langley Township and Langley City grew significantly between 1961 and 197.1, even though this growth was to be dwarfed by the growth i n the following twenty years. In those ten years Langley City grew by 100% (from 2,385 in 1961 to 4,684 in 1971), and the much larger area that comprised the township grew by 68% from 14,585 to just under 22,000 residents. From 1971 to 1991, however, both the City and Township have experienced their most significant growth: in 1991 the Township reached 65,960 people (286%) and the City grew to 19,765 (421%). Both have continued to grow quite significantly between 1991 and 1996: i n 1996, the Township reached 80,179 residents and the City reached a'population of 22,253. The increases for these two census subdivisions over the last four years are 21% for the Township and 13% for the City; the total population of the Langleys, then, according to the most recent data is 102,423 people (1996 Census). The immigrant population (the total number of people born outside of Canada) of the Langleys is much lower than in either of the two communities we have discussed thus far. Combined, the total number of immigrants amount to only 16%. The ethnic origins of people i n the Langleys are primarily of "European origin". People of British origins are over-represented compared with the Vancouver C M A : 29% of Langley residents claim British origins, compared with the 23% in Greater Vancouver. People with multiple origins are also over represented. Other major ethnic groups in the Langleys include: German (6%), Dutch (3%), Canadian (3%), and French (2%). A l l other "single ethnic origins" make up less than 1% each. The vast majority (96%) speak English at home. On average, incomes in the Township are higher than in the City at $26,161, compared 41  with the average for the City, which is $ 24,037, for both, the average is $25,431 (1991 Census). The "Horsy Set" (a reasonably large number of people who have bought hobby farms in the area probably bouys up the average a little for the Township, however, the difference between the average and median incomes for the Township and City are reasonably-similar. Considering that the average income for the Vancouver C M A is $26,399, the data suggests that even the Township of Langley is by no means a really "wealthy" municipality. It is, however, wealthier, in terms of individual incomes than is Abbotsford, where the average income is $23,640 (Census 1991) Education levels are lower than in any of the other municipalities in this study, and much lower than the average for the C M A . Just 6% of Langley residents (in both the Township and City) have university degrees. This is less than half the number than i n the Lower Fraser Valley, (14%) and is even lower than Abbotsford (7%). Despite the phenomenal growth rates, the Township of Langley (at least) does seem to have maintained a certain degree of "community", as evidenced by a recent set of surveys commissioned by the Township (Township of Langley 1990, 1993, 1995,1996; Wilson and Enns 1997). In 1995, 95% of Township residents surveyed said that they were "proud" to live in Langley. Many of the people surveyed had chosen Langley as a place to call home because of its "rural character" (54%), and another 34% gave the "people in the community" as their primary reason for living where they did. Perhaps even more significantly, in 1993, 70% of respondants agreed that "Langley has the feel of a small community" (27% strongly and 43% somewhat). This certainly seems remarkable given that the Township has more than tripled in population over the past 25 years. A recent study has found similar results in terms of "community" among the neighbourhoods of the Township of Langley (Wilson and Enns 1997). The study was designed to 42  explore "the social and physical determinants of creating a sense of community at the neighbourhood level"(28). The project was associated with the Township's "Active L i v i n g Project" (begun in 1991) which has the goal of fostering community, and "empower[ing] the community to pursue its aspirations" (28). Neighbourhoods which had not been involved i n the "Active L i v i n g " project were specifically selected for the study. When they were asked whether they were involved in their community, a substantial number of residents (48%) replied that they were either somewhat or very involved. Furthermore, 97% of those surveyed knew the names of their neighbours. While people with children were more likely to have spoken with their neighbours recently (87%), have borrowed from neighbours (63%) or been in a neighbours' home (54%), people without children were also generally well connected to their neighbourhoods - 79% had spoken to their neighbours recently, 42% had borrowed from neighbours, and 40% had been in their neighbours home. While this indicates a fair degree of community interaction, Wilson and Enns note that community interaction tends to be lowest in the recently built "neo-traditional" neighbourhoods. While the statistics I have presented here make a distinction between the City of Langley and the Township of Langley, such distinctions are probably not really made in the lived experiences of most residents. Although the municipalities have been separate since 1955, most residents do not make a distinction between the Township and the City, referring to them together as Langley. Several of the environmental leaders I have interviewed for this project would simply make comparisons between "Langley" and other municipalities in the area, such as Surrey, Abbotsford, Chilliwack, Richmond, or Maple Ridge, without making a distinction between the two Langleys (interviews 11,34, 36, 37). For this very reason, amalgamation is currently being considered, and is a very sensitive issue for municipal officials i n the City. 43  ABBOTSFORD Although the first settlers came to Abbotsford in 1868, the "development" of Abbotsford did not begin until adequate transportation facilitated the both industry and population growth. The development of Abbotsford was essentially the direct result of the Canadian Pacific Railroad which was completed through the Fraser Valley in 1885. O n a tip from his well-connected father, a M r . Charlie M c L u r e bought 160 acres along the proposed train route. H e sold the land 67 days later to Robert Ward, who planned a town around the railway line, and gave the C P R the right of way through his land on the condition that they build a station in the middle of it (Doyle 1994). Thus Abbotsford was born out of a real-estate deal. B y the 1890s, a small but significant agricultural industry was established around Abbotsford, although it remained for a long time secondary to the powerful forestry industry. With the railway, saw mills could efficiently ship lumber to the booming construction industry in Vancouver and N e w Westminster. Abbotsford grew around the one sawmill until a second was built at M i l l Lake in 1908. The Tretheweys, who owned the mills, profited most from the lumber industry, and between 1907 and 1920, they bought 65% of the 160 acres which comprised the township of Abbotsford. B y the time the m i l l closed in 1931, most of the central part of the Valley was a "wasteland of giant stumps and ugly charred snags" (Toews in Doyle 1994). The B . C . Electric Railroad facilitated the growth of agriculture in Abbotsford as it did in Richmond and Langley, and cash crops like hops, tobacco, and flower bulbs began to be cultivated around Abbotsford, along with a thriving dairy industry - a Chamber of Commerce pamphlet from 1931 named Abbotsford "The Land of the C o w " (Doyle 1994). While the majority of early settlers to the area were primarily from Great Britain, like the 44  Mclures, Tretheweys and Wards, there was also a significant Sikh population which worked in the forest industry as early as the turn of the century. The Sikhs built a temple on Trethewey land and with lumber donated by the Trethewey m i l l in 1912. In Abbotsford, one can trace the various immigrant streams to the area by the dates that their churches and temples were founded. O f the first churches which were founded in Abbotsford. between 1880 and 1907, there were four Presbyterian (Scottish), one Anglican (English), and a Lutheran (Scandanavian; Klassen 1992). The first Mennonite church was founded in 1932, signalling what would arguably become Abbotsford's most influential immigrant community. The Mennonites had begun to flow into Abbotsford in response to an advertisement in the Winnipeg Free Press in 1928 advertising new opportunities in the valley. The Mennonites are descended from a very conservative sect of the 16th century's "radical reformation" whose adherents had suffered great hardship and persecution for their beliefs. Migrating to the steps of the Ukraine from Prussia because of persecution, they eventually suffered the same fate there, first under the Czars, and later under Stalin (Dyck 1993) Many of the immigrants to Canada came in two waves corresponding to these two waves of oppression; the first wave was between 1874 to 1889 and the second between 1923 and 1930. A number from this second wave moved directly to the Abbotsford area (Doyle 1994). In 1953, there were 11,055 Mennonites in the Lower Fraser Valley, 3,733 of whom lived in Matsqui and made up 36.2% of the population of that municipality (Doyle 1994). Along with the Mennonites, another significant immigrant stream has contributed to the particular character of the Abbotsford area-- the Dutch immigrants who arrived in the Fraser Valley after the Second W o r l d War. Leaving behind the war-torn Netherlands, they arrived looking for new opportunities, particularly in dairy farming, bringing with them their distinctly "anti-liberal" form of Dutch Calvinism to Abbotsford and to Whatcom County across the 45  American border (Siemens 1968; Doyle 1994). In 1941, the population of the village of Abbotsford was just 562 residents, and it grew by only 326 people over the next twenty years to 888 residents. The District of Matsqui, although more "rural", was long the larger of the jurisdictions. In 1941, there were 5,601 residents in Matsqui, and this number was to almost double, to 10,308 (84%) over the following ten years — partly as a result of the incoming Dutch immigrants, as well as many more Mennonite migrants. Between 1951 and 1961, the number of new residents was still almost 4,000 people, bringing the number of residents to a total of 14,298 (a 39% increase). B y 1981, The village of Abbotsford, now a city, had grown extraordinarily to a population of 12,745 — 14 times over the course 20 years! In Matsqui, while the growth was somewhat less dramatic, it still muliplied by almost three times, to a total population of 42,001. Both jurisdictions have continued to grow at a significant rate. In 1991, Matsqui reached 67,890 ( a 60% increase since 1981) and Abbotsford reached a population of 18,840 (47 % change); combined, they amounted to 86,730 people. In 1995, the districts amalgamated to form the City of Abbotsford, which had, according to 1996 Census data, a total population of 105,403 (showing a growth rate of 21% over 5 years). This represents a growth rate of almost 700% over the course of 35 years (1961-1996: 694%). The population of Abbotsford remains ethnically diverse, and we can still see the predominance of the groups which migrated to the area over the course of the century. According to 1991 census data, people of British origin make up 21% of the population, Germans, 13%, Dutch, 7%, and Indo-Canadians comprise 6% of the total. While English is overwhelmingly the language spoken in Abbotsford homes (89%), there is a substantial number who speak Punjabi 5%, and a few German speakers (2%). English is also the most common mother tongue (77%) followed by German (8%), Punjabi (6%) and Dutch (2%). 46  Historically, Abbotsford has not been a particularly wealthy community, nor is it today. The average income for the two census jurisdictions combined, in 1991 was $23,640 (Census 1991), and it is somewhat higher in the former jurisdiction of Abbotsford, where the median is $22, 383 compared with Matsqui $19, 398. A t one time, many of the region's jobs were dependent on agriculture (Doyle 1994). N o w farming accounts for only 7% of all of the jobs in the area, and has been far surpassed by clerical and related (15%), service (13%), construction trades (10%), managerial (9%), sales( 9%), and is barely more significant than product fabrication, assembly and repair (6%). Socially and politically, Abbotsford has been strongly influenced by the conservative Protestant in-migration to the area. This migration is not simply part of the community's h i s t o r y it did not end with the influx of Dutch and Mennonite settlers who came to the Valley in the middle part of the century. Rather the area continues to attract the people who form part of the "reverse urbanisation" trend, whereby people of conservative religious beliefs look to find a community with strong "family values" in which to raise their children (Elliott 1996:12). Conservative Protestants comprise 35% of the population of Abbotsford (Census 1991), a highly significant concentration given the national proportion of Evangelicals and Fundamentalists is about 6%, and is probably even lower in British Columbia (Bibby 1987:27). The denominations which make up this religious groupings include Mennonites, Baptists, Alliance, Pentecostals, Christian Reform and a wide range of other "independent" protestant congregations. The 83 churches in Abbotsford have an average of 500 members- whereas the typical congregational size across North America is closer to 100 (Elliott 1996). Together Abbotsford churches employ 275 "religion workers" (Census 1991). T o put this into comparative perspective, 0.069% of Abbotsford employees are religious workers of various sorts, compared with 0.019% in the 47  greater Vancouver C M A - more than three times the number of religious workers. W h i l e the number of conservative religious people in Abbotsford is significant, it is the interpenetration of conservative religion with politics and society that have given Abbotsford the reputation of being the B.C.'s "Bible Belt". The conservative character of the area pre-dates the arrival of the Mennonites and Dutch Reformers, however; in the 1930s, the K u K u x Klan enjoyed some popularity in the municipality, holding meetings in a local hall and parades along Essenden Avenue through the downtown core (Doyle 1994). Abbotsford has had a significant impact on provincial politics, the Fraser Valley being one of the most significant bases of support for the Social Credit Party, until 1991 when the Party collapsed (Doyle 1994). Local issues have been even more shaped by conservative religion: the Abbotsford school board tried to mandate "Creationism" being taught in public school classrooms; a Lower Mainland gay weekly, X-tra West was banned from Abbotsford Public Libraries in 1994; activism on "conservative" moral issues such as abortion, euthanasia and violence on television is significant (Elliott 1996); prayer in public schools continued in most District 34 public elementary school classrooms until very recently, despite a Supreme Court Injunction; and a play by a local high-school student which openly discussed sexuality was banned by the school board (Doyle 1994:19). If Abbotsford is a very religious community, it is also, as Elliott and Simpson suggest, "a town divided into a series of relatively insulated communities organised around religion and ethnicity" (1997:26). This resonates well with the suggestions made by a number of the community environmental leaders interviewed- these divisions are one of the reasons why environmental issues are so hard to place on the public agenda. Abbotsford is composed of a number of very distinct groups - the Sikh community, a number of distinct conservative Christian 48  communities, the new bedroom commuters, as well as older people who have lived i n the community for a long time (interview 3, 22, 30, 32). The "separatist" notions of many of the local religious communities, such as the Mennonites and Christian Reformers, as well as the tensions between these communities (Elliott and Simpson 1997: 25) probably contributes in very significant ways, along with phenomenal population growth rates, to this fragmentation of "community" in Abbotsford. "Environmental problems" have received considerable attention in Abbotsford over the past few years. A i r pollution is particularly bad in Abbotsford, especially during the summertime, when temperature inversions trap the smog which blows up the Valley from population centers lower in the Valley, creating "Los Angeles type" pollution (Mauboules 1996). Water pollution is also quite serious, as pollutants and manure leachates leak into the uncontained aquifer', leading to more and more frequent health advisories (York 1994). Finally, the Abbotsford area still supports a large number of farms in the immediate vicinity, which use a variety of pesticides, herbicides and insecticides. Some people have expressed concerns about the possibility that this is a cause of "environmental disease", from which several hundred people have claimed to suffer (Elliott 1996). There are high levels of "concern" about local environmental problems i n Abbotsford. Over 37% of a random sample of Abbotsford residents are "very concerned" (on a seven point scale) about the quality of the environment in their area, compared with, for example, 21% in Vancouver . Likewise Elliott and Simpson (1997) found that there was considerable concern 2  1 A n uncontained aquifer is one in which there is no impervious layer between the surface and the aquifer itself, which means that various leachates can easily enter the aquifer and pollute it.  I am drawing here on unpublished survey data. Published results from this same survey may be found in Blake, Guppy and Urmetetzer (1997a, b). 2  49  about local environmental quality in their study of local community'leaders, although few were actively engaged in trying to deal with these problems. Their evidence suggests that membership in conservative Protestant churches and a general support for business ideology are two of the best explanatory variables for a lack of environmental action (and concern).  50  C H A P T E R . 3: A Portrait of Grassroots Environmentalism: The Leaders, The Groups and Their Actions  This chapter provides an overview of 1) the demographic backgrounds of the environmental leaders interviewed or surveyed in this project and 2) the specific types of groups in the four municipalities and 3) how the various activities of the various groups can be understood from the " c i v i l society" conception of social movements outlined in chapter 1. Although this sample is limited to leaders and groups in four municipalities, it is suggestive of what grassroots "environmental activism" might look like in the rest of the valley. While the "large and loud" environmental groups such as Green Peace, Western Canada Wilderness Committee, Friends of the Earth, and the Sierra Club are the focus of most sociological attention on environmental politics, the focus here, instead, is on a broad field of very small and very local organisations. These kinds of groups nonetheless make significant contributions towards concrete pro-environmental changes, and important contributions to the popular awareness of environmental issues in their communities (cf. Gould, Schnaiberg and Weinberg 1996). DEMOGRAPHICS The Average age of environmental group leaders in the four municipalities is 47 years old. Although the range of ages is considerable-the oldest leader is 79 and the youngest is 20 years of age (a span of 59 years)~it is 'middle-aged' individuals who make up the bulk of the leaders in this sample, as we can see on the following chart (table 3.1):  51  Table 3.1 Age of Leaders (with Provincial N.E.P. scores for age-brackets)  Age  N . (and % of leaders)  Provincial N . E . P . scores  18-25  2  5.3  26-35  10 (19%)  5.3  36-45  lOd^.v»  5.4  46-55  13 f24'*)  5.4  56-65  10 ( I 9 v )  5.4  65 +  6  5.0  TOTAL:  54 (100%)  (4%)  r  (11%)  1  M E A N : 5.3  I w i l l discuss the significance of the N e w Ecological Paradigm scales (hereafter N.E.P.—far right column) at greater length later this chapter. Briefly, however, the New Ecological Paradigm (Dunlap and V a n Liere 1978) consists of a list of 10 questions to which people register their agreement or disagreement on a seven point scale. The outcome is a score out of seven for each individual which measures their "environmental values". Higher (7) N . E . P . scales indicate more "progressive" environmental values. A s Blake, Guppy, and Urmetzer (1997a,b) observe, middleaged people in British Columbia tend to have "greener" values than younger or older people. A s the chart indicates, the middle, grey, sections have N . E . P . scores of 5.4, which is just above the  'Blake, Guppy and Urmetzer (1997a)  52  mean. If we compare the above data with the preliminary census data for 1996 ( C A N S I M , matrix 6367), we find that two of the three age cohorts (45-64) scoring higher on the N . E . P . scale are also over-represented among the environmental leaders in this study, as we can see in table 3.2:  Age  Environmental Leaders  Proportion of C d n . pop. (of persons 20 years +)  20-24  4%  9%  25-34  19%  22%  35-44  16%  23%  45-54  31%  55-64  19%  129;  65+  11%  15%  The two grey-shaded age-groups (45-65 years) are the only two which are over-represented with regard to their cohort's size. The other age cohort which scored highly in Blake, Guppy, and Urmetzer's (1997a,b) N . E . P . test were the 35-44 year olds, who are under-represented among the environmental leaders. These may be less involved because of a lack of "biographical availability" (Marx and M c A d a m 1994: 91-2), that is, they are relatively constrained by career or famililial commitments. Alternatively, older group members may simply be more likely to appropriate leadership roles. The 65+ group is probably also over-represented in realistic terms, since health problems interfere with many members of this age groups' abilities to participate or to take leadership roles. Surprisingly, given the considerable evidence that women are generally more likely to be  53  concerned about, and involved in, environmental issues (Guppy, Blake and Urmetzer 1997; Davidson and Freudenberg 1995), men were slightly over-represented in my sample of environmental leaders in the four communities. In total, women comprise only 44 % of the group leaders surveyed. This is partly explained by the presence i n this sample of various "recreation" groups, including "outdoor clubs" and "fish and game clubs"; 84% of these agencies are headed by males. It should be noted, however, that the leaders of groups which self- identified as "grassroots environmental" are also predominantly male (59%). The groups themselves also seem to be slightly more "male" in composition. The average percentage of women participating in all of the groups is 48%. If we exclude the male-dominated "recreation" groups, the percentage of women participants rises to just over 53%, which is closer to what we would expect. A s a caution, we should probably not put too much faith in these figures regarding the gender of group members, as 29% of respondents failed to report this information. A further 17% of the total reported a 50% split, often writing "50%", when the questionnaire asked for the "number of women" participating in the organisation. Ethnically, the majority of leaders in this sample are of European origin, although the number of people who preferred to label themselves as simply "Canadian" makes up a substantial proportion of these leaders (17%). People whose ethnic heritage is English, Irish, Scottish or Welsh make up over half of the leaders (52%), the bulk of these being of English origin. Likewise, Northern Europeans (German, Russian, Scandinavian, Dutch) comprised 13.5% of the sample. Finally, only 2% identified themselves as Indo-Canadian, 4% as Chinese Canadian, and 4% as First Nations or Metis. The "other" category (6%) comprised one East African and one Southeast Asian. Finally, one bioregionalist insisted that his ethnic heritage is as a person from the Georgia Basin~"Does that make me a Georgian Basinian?" (interview # 21). 54  The questionnaire included a question on the number of "ethnic minorities" who participate in the groups. The participation rates, at least according to these data, are low. In fact, 45% of the leaders who answered this question reported that there are no "ethnic minorities" participating in their groups. The percentages that the respondents reported are as follows: 1-20 percent "ethnic minorities" 29%; 21-30 percent, 13%; more than 30 percent, 16%. T w o groups report having greater than 50% "ethnic minorities". There is a considerable difference between the ethnic composition of the "grassroots" environmental groups and "other" groups which promote environmental issues as one of several activities: the average percentage among grassroots environmental groups is 6% (SD .07), and 17% (SD.22) among the other kinds of groups. A s with the information on group gender proportions, the data presented here need to be considered with caution, given that 33% of the respondents failed to complete these questions. In an attempt to make the question easier to answer, the question simply asks about the number of "ethnic minorities", because it was presumed that asking for more precise information would: a) produce a cumbersome set of questions and, b) likely be a request for information more precise than the leaders of the groups would be able to provide. Nonetheless, the questions apparently caused anxiety among some respondents. One person, i n the space for general comments at the end of the questionnaire wrote " . . . W H Y S O M A N Y R E F E R E N C E S T O ' E T H N I C ?" (emphasis original). Most environmental group leaders in the four study areas belong to two broad occupational areas. Professional and technical employees comprise 52.8% of the total number of leaders, while 23% are retirees. The next three largest categories are "housewife" (6%) and student (4%), business executives and the self-employed comprising just 4% of the total. Finally, 55  sales, clerical, unskilled, and skilled workers together account for only 10% of the leaders. Among the 'professionals' there is a range of different occupations, including a number that are typical 'new middle class' (Offe 1985) occupations. These include teachers (18% of the professionals), academics (11%), social science or communications consultants (11%), biologists or environmental technicians (11%), managers(l 1%), engineers and physicians (each 7%), government employees (7%). A l s o included in this list are a pastor, a social worker, a pilot, a youth worker, and an accountant (each 4%). This profile of occupational demographics reflects only the leaders of the environmental groups and initiatives in the four municipalities. Despite the general principal of "like attracts like" in social movements more generally (cf. Knoke and Wisely 1990), it is likely that the participants in the groups are more diversified in their occupations than the profile presented here. These people have taken on specific leadership roles, and we would imagine that people with more "qualifications" than the typical member would be more likely to fill these roles. A s we would expect from the occupational profile of leaders, they are generally a highly educated group. Just 2% have only high school diplomas. A further 46% have some university, college, or postsecondary diploma of some sort. Over half (52%) have at least a university degree, and 20% hold a masters or earned doctorate. This is evidently a highly educated group, compared with the overall 14% of Lower Fraser Basin residents holding university degrees (Statistics Canada, 1991 Census). In terms of personal income, most of these environmental leaders are not high earners, although they are moderately better off than most of the Lower Fraser V a l l e y ' s population. Nearly half (45%) earn less than $34,999 a year. A further 37% earn between $35,000 and $54,999, and 8% earn more than $55,000. W e can make a rough comparison here with the 1991 56  Census data for the Lower Fraser Basin: in 1991, 67% of people in the Lower Mainland had 2  incomes under $29,999 (Census 1991) and only 33% earned more than $30,000. O n the other hand, in terms of family income, almost one third of households (32%) earn less than $45,000 and 34% earn $45,00- $65,000. A t the upper end of the scale, 11% of the leaders have family incomes of $65,000- $94,999, and 17% of the sample have family incomes over $95,000. Again, as a very rough standard of comparison, at the 1991 census 30% of families had incomes of less than $34,999, 20% had incomes between $35,000 and $49,999 and 49% had incomes houshold incomes over $50,000. Family income suggests that the leaders of environmental groups are considerably wealthier than the average resident of the Lower Mainland. Ever since L y n n White Jr. 's article on "The Historical Roots of our Ecological Crisis", religion has been considered an important factor as a cause of environmental destruction, and as a reason why many people do not become involved in the environmental movement. A s Blake, Guppy, and Urmetzer (1997) found i n their province-wide survey, people with no religious affiliation are more likely to be concerned about environmental problems than those with a religious affiliation. In my sample of leaders, 46.2% had no religious affiliation, 40% were Christian, 2% Jewish, and 2% Moslem. The "other" category (9.6%) consists primarily of people with various neo-pagan affiliations. In terms of more specific denominational affiliation, United Church affiliates make up the largest group (14%), and the mainline Protestant denominations (United, Lutheran, Anglican) comprise 22% of the total. Conservative Protestants account for 12%, including Mennonites (4%) and Christian Reform members (4%).  The Census Data for income in 1996 has not yet been compiled. The 1991 Census data is simply being used as a rough guide. 2  57  While religious "nones" are over-represented here, 46.2% compared with the 30% in the general population in the Greater Vancouver Area (Statistics Canada, 1991 Census), so are United Church affiliates (16% compared with 11%) and neo-pagans and other (9.6% compared with 0.44%). Catholics and conservative Protestants (18% vs. 4% and 14% vs. 12%) are both under-represented. For the most part, the leaders that are represented here are reasonably active members. Attendance at religious services among the total sample is quite significant: 33% attend at least once a month, a further 19% attend religious services occasionally, and 48% report that they never attend. In contrast with the environmental activists i n the Lower Fraser Basin studied by Salazar, Alper, and Robbins (1997), 87% of the leaders in the four municipalities do self-identify as environmentalists. While 39% label themselves "somewhat" as environmentalists, 48% identify themselves "strongly" as environmentalists. Only 13% do not identify themselves as such at all. Some of those I interviewed, however, although accepting the label, were inclined to challenge the terms of the label itself. T w o of them (6% of the total: interviews 1,21) stated that they preferred the term "deep ecologist". O n the other end of the spectrum, while several leaders accepted the label, they cautioned that i f "environmentalist" denoted something "like GreenPeace" (interviews 11, 23,18) then they were not "environmentalists". A s part of the interview schedule and questionnaire, the questions which comprise Dunlap and V a n Liere's N e w Ecological Paradigm ( " N . E . P . 1997) were asked of environmental leaders in the four study areas. The questions ask respondents to register their agreement or disagreement with a set of statements on a scale of 1-7. The provincial scores come from Blake, Guppy, and Urmetzer (1997a,b). The statements which make up the N . E . P scale are as follows (table 3.3):  58  Table 3.3: New Ecological Paradigm Questions (with responses from this study and Provincial Sample Question:  Municip. Env. Leaders  Province wide sample.  1 .When people interfere with nature it often produces disastrous consequences  52% S A g  47.5% S A g  2. The 'ecological crisis' has been greatly exaggerated  52% SDis  30.3% SDis  3. People must live in harmony with nature in order to survive  76% S A g  57.8%SAg  4. People are severely abusing the environment  44% S A g  41.3% S A g  5. We are approaching the number of people the earth can support  39% S A g  34.4% S A g  6. Plants and animals exist primarily to be used by people  43%SDis  38.3% SDis  7. To maintain a healthy economy, we will have to control industrial growth  25.9% S A g  25.2% S A g  8. People have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs  22% SDis  29.0% SDis  9. People need not adapt to the environment because they can remake it to suite their needs  57% SDis  47.6% SDis  10. There are limits to growth beyond which industrial society cannot expand  67% S A g  31.9% S A g  3  To produce the scale ranging from 1-7,1 averaged the responses to the questions (reversing the score where necessary) so that a higher score indicates a more environmental value system. The mean score for all of the environmental leaders i n the four communities is 5.9, significantly higher than the provincial average of 5.3 (Blake, Guppy, and Urmetzer 1997a). It is noteworthy that 18% of the leaders in this sample actually fall below the provincial average, and 5% even have scores below the "neutral" score of 4. According to Dunlap and V a n Liere's scale (1997), this 5% lean slightly toward the anti-environmental "dominant Western worldview".  3  " S A g " indicates "Strongly Agree" and "SDis" signifies "Strongly disagree" on a 7 point  scale.  59  In terms of the percentages for the "most environmental" positions presented on the chart above, there are several points worth noting. First, although the scores among the environmentalists in table 3.3 are higher on 9 out of 10 statements, there is one exception: while 29% of the general population strongly disagrees with the statement that "people have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs," only 22% of the environmental leaders strongly disagreed with the statement. The reason for this may be that the environmental leaders have given some of these questions considerable thought; indeed, they often reflected, upon being asked the question, on the extent to which humans have the right to modify their natural environment. A s one interview subject put it, " A l l creatures modify their environments—I guess we have a right to, as well. It's just a matter of how much we modify" (interview 18). Other comparisons from the chart above are also interesting. The responses to questions four (4), five (5) and seven (7), while higher among the environmental leaders, are close; the difference between my sample and the provincial average on question eight (8), for example, is just 0.7%. The questions producing the greatest difference between the two groups, starting with the starkest contrasts, are: number ten (10), "there are limits to growth..." (35%); number two (2), "the ecological crisis has been greatly exaggerated" (22%); number three (3), "people must live in harmony with nature..." (18%); number nine (9), "people need not adapt..." (9%); and number six (6), "plants and animals exist primarily..." (5%). A s we would expect, the leaders of these environmental groups and initiatives have much higher "green activism" scores (Blake, Guppy, and Urmetzer 1997b) than the average British Columbian. Leaders were asked whether they had engaged in any of the following list of environmental activities in the past year. The list of questions, and the response percentages are  60  shown in table 3.4 (below) . The provincial average number of green actions, from Blake, Guppy, 4  and Urmetzer's province-wide survey (1997), is 2.3 / 1 0 , whereas that of my sample's environmental leaders is 5.68 / 9. This is not at all surprising, given that the sample was specifically selected for involvement in collective environmental action. More surprising, perhaps is the fact that only 80% of environmental group leaders said that they had joined an environmental group in the past year. This may be for two reasons. First, many of the leaders are members of groups that are not specifically " environmental groups", but with which they work on various environmental issues nonetheless. Secondly, since the question asks'about activities in "the past year", some of these may have joined an environmental group before "the past year".  F o r purposes of comparison, it should be noted that Blake, Guppy, and Urmetzer (1997) have 10 items in their environmental activism scale, and this sample has only 9, since one item from Blake, et al. (1997) was accidentally left off the questionnaire. The omitted question asks about whether the subject had donated money to an environmental cause in the past year. This question was the most positively responded-to question in the Province-wide survey (46.6%) which would make contrasts between these environmental leaders and the general population relatively uninteresting for my purposes. 4  61  Table 3.4: Environmental Actions (environmental leaders and Provincial Sample) Ouestion:  Sample  Prov.  signed a petition supporting a pro-environmental issue  85% (1)  44.4% (2)  Joined an environmental group  80% (2)  12.7% (7)  written to a public official about environmental matters  74% (3)  16.6% (6)  boycott a product because of environmental concerns  70% (4)  43.4% (3)  worked to elect someone because of their views on the environment  65% (5)  24.3% (4)  displayed a bumper sticker or wore a pin in support of a pro-environmental issue  63% (6)  19.1% (5)  written a letter to a newspaper about an environmental issue  63% (7)  7.2% (10)  join a protest or demonstration concerned with the environment  43% (8)  9.8% (8)  phone a T.V. or Radio talk show about environmental issues  24% (9)  7.7% (9)  5  This difference between these environmental leaders and the general population, in terms of joining an "environmental group" (67%), is still the largest discrepancy between the two populations. This indicator is followed by writing to a public official (57%), writing to a newspaper (56%), displaying a bumper sticker or wearing a pin (44%), working to elect a candidate, and signing a petition (both 41%). Although most of these groups are not involved in very much "direct action", 43% of the leaders had participated in a protest or demonstration i n the last year (a 33% difference). Finally, the difference between the leaders and the general  The numbers in brackets indicate the ranking of activities from most likely to least likely for each population to have done i n the past year. 5  62  population is 27% with regard to boycotting products, and 16% with regard to calling a T V or radio talk show. The second and third largest differences-- writing to a public official and writing to a newspaper- are both activities which these individuals are likely to do in their capacity as leaders of the various environmental groups and initiatives. In many ways these two activities exemplify the "two-pronged" approach of social movements emphasised by Cohen and Arato (1992). While often trying to directly influence the State, groups also engage in various kinds of cultural contestations, attempting to convince others about the gravity of certain problems, of the importance of a particular habitat, or about the significance of the environment in general.  A N O V E R V I E W O F TYPES O F ' E N V I R O N M E N T A L GROUPS A s I discussed in the theory section, this study encompasses a wide range of groups, many of which are not specifically grassroots environmental groups. This catholic approach to environmental groups reflects my theoretical concerns about civil society, but it also reflects the 'reality' of environmental politics in the Lower Fraser Basin. There are many kinds of groups in the four study areas making significant contributions to environmental politics and projects, even though the environment may not be their sole concern. Table 3.5 on the following page demonstrates the variety of kinds of groups in the area.  63  Table 3,5: Types of Groups represented in this sample (number and percentage)  GROUP TYPE  Number  Grassroots environmental  17  30%  6  11%  Fish and Game or Recreation Clubs  7  13%  Community or Service, Religious Assns.  11  20%  Political Parties  4  7%  .2  4%  Advisory Committees  2  4%  Naturalist groups  2  4%  Educational Associations  3  5%  Organic Community Gardens  2  4%  TOTAL:  56  102%  -Streamkeepers  Youth Groups  6  Percentage  Grassroots Environmental Just 30% of the sample of groups involved in environmental activities in the four study areas can be considered specifically grassroots environmental groups. Within these groups, there is considerable diversity i n terms of what their concerns are, and how they go about addressing them. They are all local groups, most of which are quite small. None of the big trans-national,  This list includes groups interviewed or for whom I have questionnaire data. It amounts to representation from 82% of the total list of groups compiled for the purposes of this study. 6  64  national, or even provincial groups (GreenPeace, W C W C , S P E C , W W F , etc.) are active in these municipalities' local issues. W i t h one exception, a student group at a local university which devotes a substantial proportion of its energy to forestry issues, all of the groups are concerned primarily with issues i n their own communities; only very occasionally do their initiatives transcend municipal boundaries. Most of the grassroots environmental groups (58%) would be characterised, in Habbermasian terminology, as "defensive movements" (Habermas 1981; Cohen and Arato 1992); in fact, one activist used this exact term to describe his own group (interview 7). Defensive, in this sense, is a concern with preventing change, rather than promoting change. With the incredible rate of development and population increase i n the Lower Fraser Basin (Elliott et al 1997), it is not surprising that many environmental groups would be trying to prevent some of the most serious changes to the local environment. In fact, since environmental destruction is an ongoing and augmenting process, in some sense all environmental groups could be seen as part of a "defensive" movement. The most common kinds of "defensive" groups are those protecting a local area from being 'developed' for residential (interview 4, 14, 28, 29, 33), industrial (interview 9), or other kinds of large scale uses (interview 4). The story is typically the same. A local area has for some reason not been developed, unlike the surrounding region. It is typically wooded land, but there is at least one example in this sample of a movement to save farmland from the development of mass housing. A developer buys the land, with the intention of clearing and building on the land. A struggle typically ensues through the civic government, in which the group tries to use cultural, political, and sometimes legal means to protect the area as it is. These are generally relatively short-lived groups, which typically disband after they have either won or lost their particular 65  battle. That said, one group, working to protect a large parcel of farmland which was also an important migratory bird stopover and nesting ground, had been fighting their battie for over ten years, and had elected city councillors from their group as well as taking their case to the Supreme Court of Canada (interview 29). Although many people made references to groups which had come and gone, all of the collectives in this study were somewhere in the process of negotiating a compromise of one sort or another between the local government, the developers, and various interested parties. One group had just fought a successful campaign for a municipal referendum which would protect a large parcel of local old growth forest. A t the time of the interview is was negotiating some of the finer points (interview 4). Several of the other groups were not nearly so successful. It had recently become clear to two of the groups that they were left bargaining for somewhere closer to. 10% of the original land they had hoped to preserve (interview 29,9). A s one leader put it "They get groups to the bargaining table, and the environment gets left with the table scraps" (interview 21). Another common type of "defensive" battle in my study areas, as elsewhere, is a dispute over the placement or expansion of environmentally damaging kinds of industry. This includes proposed sites for underground gas storage (interview 6), toxic waste incinerators, gravel pits (interview 7), heavy industry ports on environmentally sensitive lands (interview 18), and mushroom farming (interview 34). W h i l e I say that these are typically battles over the placement of certain environmentally damaging industries, implying that these are kind of N I M B Y struggles, this is not an entirely fair assessment. Usually, the people involved are concerned about the environmental effects of a particular industry in and of itself, however, it is probably no coincidence that they are concerned with the industry that is situated in their hack yards. A s 66  Gould, Schnaiberg, and Weinberg (1996) argue, however, these local groups can contribute a great deal to environmental awareness and to protecting specific sites, even i f in the interests of the broader environment they need to be linked-up with extra-local organisations. Several of the "grassroots environmental groups" are not at all "defensive" in the sense discussed above; rather, they work primarily at local education, and at specific kinds of "ecological modernisation" (Spargaren and M o l 1992; Hajer 1996) in their communities. One local group that has been active for almost 20 years began as a successful attempt to have a large piece of land set aside as a park. N o w , besides stewarding the parkland, they run a number of educational programmes for children, and try to promote and encourage environmental sensitivity in their communities. Another local group began developing and promoting a variety of recycling and waste-reduction educational programmes in their communities almost ten years ago, long before municipally run "blue boxes" were common. Once a few municipalities began developing municipally based waste-reduction and recycling programmes, this group then used their research and previous community experience to convince their local government to pursue the same system (interview 37). One local grassroots group began when a local woman became inspired by a program developed in Washington State, whereby people turn their gardens into habitat for indigenous "critters" (interview 3). With some encouragement and some "in kind support" from the local environmental planner, whom she had met at the local naturalist group meeting, and sponsorship from a number of local businesses, she began to encourage others to create "backyard habitats". The project was so successful that the Ministry of the Environment created a similar project to promote micro-habitats throughout the province, on the board of which the activist now sits.  67  A final example of an 'offensive' programme is one local group which sees meat consumption as the major environmental problem facing the contemporary world. Armed with an impressive array of statistics on the enormous land, water, energy, environmental, and health costs of meat-eating, this group tries to "convert carnivores" to a more environmentally sustainable lifestyle. Their main projects to date include bi-weekly potluck at a local vegetarian restaurant, and a monthly newsletter which provides recipes, information on vegetarian diet, and a dating service for non-carnivores. According to the primary leader, many of the 50 people who attend these vegan potlucks are not vegetarians, but rather people who are interested in learning more about vegetarianism and exploring the vegetarian option (interview 24). Related to the "grassroots environmental groups" but in many ways distinct from them are the various of "streamkeeper" groups active in three of the four communities. These groups are primarily concerned with the environmental health of local streams in their neighbourhoods. In the past three years, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Provincial Urban Salmon Habitat Project (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food) have encouraged these groups, giving substantial amounts of money toward restoring local streams from the damage caused by urban sprawl, forestry, industry, and livestock farming (Thompson 1996). Because of neoconservative political regimes, and the "need" to cut back on state services, this funding pattern may amount to a kind of "downloading" of federal and provincial government tasks onto the private and voluntary sectors, as a way of saving labour costs (interview 40). While all of the various streamkeeper groups have benefitted in some way from provincial and federal funding for their projects, each of the groups existed before the State-supported push to download these tasks. There used to be as almost one hundred times as many local streams and creeks in the Lower Fraser Basin as there are today, most of which have been covered, re-routed, 68  or channelled into sewer or agricultural drainage systems. The creeks that remain are the focus of concern for these streamkeeper groups. Although these groups identify themselves as "grassroots environmental groups" (100%), they do need to be distinguished from the other groups, because of their nearly exclusive focus on restoring the health of what are often very damaged streams. Often the concern over these streams arises from a sort of nostalgia, in which long-time community residents remember a time when the stream, river, or creek was in a much healthier state, and when local kids (often the leaders themselves) would fish in the abundant streams (interviews 11, 26, 31). The concerns of these streamkeepers are largely twofold— restoration and stewarding. For the most part, the streams are in a bad state by the time the group arises: often the sides are badly eroded; sometimes the watercourse has been straightened by the municipalities to prevent flooding; much of the riparian habitat which keeps the stream cool has been cut down; livestock cross, drink from, and defecate in, the water; in some cases the streams have been heavily polluted by industry right next to the water. Consequently, the fish stocks are depleted and in some cases have altogether vanished. The streamkeeper groups accordingly set about repairing the damage described above and making it habitable for fish by planting trees, removing garbage, "renaturalising" the flow of the water, and putting up livestock fences. The next stage is usually to try to restock the fish, sometimes even running small fish hatcheries (interviews 11,12, 23, 26, 31,36). Because of the enormous effort these groups expend rehabilitating the local waterways, they become very protective of the streams. In many cases, this is local stewardship at its best. They regularly monitor the water for temperature, turbidity, and pollution, and count returning fish. They carefully watch for any new developments or old offenders in the catchment basin 69  which might cause harm to "their" fish, in this way providing much better monitoring of polluters than the D . F . O , Environment Canada, or the Provincial Ministries are currently able to do, given their limited budgets for enforcement staff. While this does provide another kind of subsidy for the various government agencies, some of the groups can be quite zealous, and are often as much a thorn i n the side of these agencies as a helpful set of eyes (interviews 26, 31, 36). When the G . V . R . D . decided to use chloramine to treat the region's drinking water, it was largely these streamkeeping groups that saw it as "an environmental time-bomb" (interview 26) and were able to mount an effective resistance. In fact, they managed to coerce the Waterboard to begin moving toward ozone treatment processes which, although more expensive than either chlorine or chloramine, is widely viewed as more environmentally friendly. Related to the streamkeeper groups, are a number of the kind of "recreation" clubs which engage in a various environmental initiatives. I am referring specifically to the four (4) "Fish and Game" or "Rod and Gun" type clubs in this sample. One of the groups in this sample may be the oldest group addressing stream issues in the Province. When the group began in 1962, it formed entirely as a "sportsman's club". B y 1969, however, many fishermen who at one time had fished in a particular urban river and its surrounding streams started taking the decline of the fish stocks seriously, and began to ask various levels of government to restore the watershed—"As far as the government was concerned, [the river] was non-existent, or it was a kind of industrial toilet" (interview 26). This fish and game club pushed the issue, even though people frequently asked "why [we] were wasting our time on that open sewer" (ibid.). Almost 30 years and a cultural paradigm shift later, the group is still w o r k i n g - with much less resistance-on improving the many tributaries and encouraging the growth of indigenous stocks of various salmonids (ibid).  70  Other "recreation" clubs also contribute in various ways to environmental issues and projects. One cycling club, for example, consistently tries both to convince people to leave their cars at home, and lobbies a wide range of government agencies to improve cycling infrastructure. This has involved much convincing: of B C transit to equip more local buses with bicycle racks; of a local college to install safe bikestalls; of the municipality to create official bike routes with slower automobile speed-limits; and of the Ministry of Highways to include bike-lanes on all new highways (interview 30). Other "recreation groups" lobby for more "green-space" for recreational purposes, and take people into "the outdoors" so that they can gain an appreciation for nature, with a view to preserving it (research notes: telephone conversation with a survey respondent). In the four municipalities, a number of community, ratepayers, and neighbourhood associations have made significant contributions to environmental issues. Although these groups are not specifically "environmental groups", a number of them have developed "environmental committees". A t a meeting of one of these community association's environment committees which I attended, the concerns that one might certainly expect of a community association were aired, including: good park space for children to play in, the need for more park benches, heritage trees, pedestrian paths and cycle routes through a neighbourhood dominated by automobile traffic, and Utter from M c D o n a l d ' s strewn up and down the main arterial street in the neighbourhood. One of the members provided a report on their work to advocate for better transit to and from their area of the municipality, as well. While some of these areas of concern are clearly important local environmental problems, the committee also addressed a number of less purely local concerns. One edge of the neighbourhood borders along the Fraser River, and the residents' association clearly has a sense of stewardship over "their" section of the river and the salmon who rest there on their way 71  upstream-. Beginning with plans for a shoreline cleanup and purple loosestrife removal day, the conversation soon became a strategising session about how to prevent so much debris from accumulating there, debris which is often dumped miles upstream (research notes: July 24, 1996). Another environmental committee of a community association has in the last few years focused its attention on "ecologically modernising" the community association and its community centre. One large project has been to buy several thousand reusable dishes and an industrial dishwasher, so that fewer paper plates are wasted at a neighbourhood festival attracting thousands of people annually. Eventually, they plan to rent the plates to other non-profit events and festivals at a low cost, so that still less paper is wasted. This community association is not limited to trying to make their yearly festival more environmentally sensitive, but also to do the same with their daily operations. The association coruns a community centre with the municipal government. Not only have they banned a whole range of environmentally damaging products from the community centre, but they have also begun a full-scale environmental inventory of the centre, so that they can begin to "really set a good example" for the community (interview 28). In the four communities, there are a number of "environmentalist" political parties which promote environmental issues, particularly during local, provincial, and federal election times. Three of the four communities have local Green Party chapters, one being a municipally-based party. Although these are "environmentalist" political parties, the representatives emphasize that they are not simply concerned with "green" issues, but that they also address issues like gay rights, anti-racism, social inequality, and feminist issues (interview 21). Through campaigns, newspaper coverage, and all-candidates forums, the 'green' candidates try to reach out to other contenders to influence their positions (interviews 1,19), as well as using the public forum as a chance to 72  speak to the general public (interviews 1,19, 21). Although the candidates are in the race primarily to promote their issues-none of them expect to w i n any time soon—one of the parties won over 8% of the popular vote in a municipal election in Burnaby. Two of the four municipalities have at one time had citizens advisory committees. One of the committees caused too much friction with the municipal council and they were promptly disbanded. Both of the citizens' advisory committees left are i n Richmond, dealing with different kinds of issues: one deals specifically with cycling issues, and the other is a general committee dealing with environmental issues. Although advisory committees are sometimes instituted by the local government, as was the one disbanded in Langley (interview 37, 42) and the cycling committee in Richmond, the Richmond Advisory Committee on the Environment ( A . C . E . ) was formed "from the grassroots", and was one of the outcomes of a long and bitter environmental struggle (Research notes; personal correspondence). The committee's purpose is to "...provide advice to City Council...on environmental issues of concern to the community and to promote public participation in this process" (Terms of Reference: 1). A s such, this c/rizen-based advisory committee provides a coduit between the local government and the people of Richmond. There are two major naturalist clubs in this sample of groups, both of which are members of the B . C . Federation of Naturalists ( B . C . F . N ) . B . C . F . N . ' s motto is "To know nature and to keep it worth knowing" (interview 2 ) . These groups, although technically more "clubs" than "environmental groups", contribute to environmental issues in a variety of ways. Naturalist clubs tend to accumulate a range of "experts" in different areas, and so become a major source of knowledge for other groups. O f the total number of groups in this study, 50% reported receiving "scientific (or technical) advice or information" from a naturalist group "sometimes", 27% reported receiving such information "frequently" and only 23% "never". 73  A s relatively 'apolitical' groups, they can play an important role in commenting on policy for local governments. A s one leader described, Our credibility has really grown, the fact that we have people on [various advisory committees] who try to be as rational as possible. We're not staked to the front of City H a l l or anything like that. A n y technical expertise or anything that we can find for them we do....  Besides being asked to comment on various points "from a naturalist point of view", these groups fulfil a sometimes crucial watchdog role: "we can raise the issue and let people know that we're thinking and watching" (interview 3). The final role that naturalist groups play is educational, both among their membership and with adults and children in the larger community. A s mentioned earlier, naturalist groups collect experts on a range of 'naturalist' topics. Many naturalist group activities involve the sharing of that knowledge ("to know nature..."), be it about a certain kind of fish, plant, bird, or type of ecosystem, with other members of the club. The naturalists also hold a variety of educational events and trips such as hikes and canoe trips to educate others and to convey the importance of nature ("...and to keep it worth knowing"). One naturalist group has been working in conjunction with the local school board to develop an educational package associated with a particular natural site, and has been "really encouraged by seeing kids that age taking an interest i n ecology" (interview 3). There are several specifically educational groups i n the four communities, two of which are institutions of higher education. One of these higher education institutions trains students specifically in wildlife management, but it has used its position to work in the community, with both the general public and with other groups, to restore a major watershed system. M o e Sihota, then Minister of the Environment, once referred to it as the "best example of a community-based  74  environmental initiative" (interview 10). B y combining career training with a particular longterm project and significant community "outreach", it has become an important locus for environmental politics as a knowledge base, a source of resources, and as a group that is able to coordinate a number of other interested organisations in its municipality. The second higher education institution works on environmental issues primarily through its 'stewardship committee', which takes some ownership for the health of a nearby watercourse. Higher level students often work on projects studying its habitat, and several proposals are on the table for a restoration project on the part of the waterway running through the institution's property. Further, one of the faculty members regularly monitors the river's health for the local streamkeeper group.  C I V I L S O C I E T Y , P U B L I C S P H E R E S and L O C A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L I S T S Although I w i l l discuss the themes related to civil society further in subsequent chapters, a number of them should be highlighted here. In chapter five, I w i l l try to show why the themes provided by this theoretical perspective are important in terms of understanding the differences between the levels of environmental activism in the four communities. Here I w i l l concern myself with discussing these themes i n terms of the actions of environmental groups, in terms of "civil society" and the "public sphere", especially as discussed by Cohen and Arato (1992: chapter 10; Habermas 1989). A s Cohen and A r a b (1992:492-563) emphasise, social movements typically take a "two pronged" approach to activism. The first is a concern with concrete goals, and their implementation as policy or legislation by the state (a "politics of reform"). The second approach is a concern with culture and socialisation (a "politics of influence"). The theoretical work concerned with "public spheres" (Habermas 1989; Fraser 1997; Alario 1995) emphasises the 75  importance of "publicity" as an important factor in democratic social change. Here I w i l l address three themes from interviews and questionnaires directed at these groups: 1) the socialisation of individuals and non-state institutions ("politics of influence"); 2) the quest for change at the various levels of state ("politics of reform"); and finally 3) "publicity" as the expansion of democratic control from corporate and state-bureaucratic interests. A s has been emphasised in the New Social Movements literature (Touraine 1986,1992; Cohen and Arato 1992:510-523), social movements often involve contests over culture and the very loci of socialisation. Movements attempt to reconstruct people's identities and promote cultural forms that are consistent with their overall project. Social change, in this sense, occurs via individuals' "private" roles as consumers, citizens (voters), investors, and as members of various forms of associational life (534). M a n y of the group leaders emphasised the importance of changing "people's mindsets" (interview 37), and the ways in which this is important for promoting a "sustainable" or "green" society (interviews 1, 3, 5, 8, 11,12, 16, 19, 20,21, 24, 26, 28, 32, 33, 37). M a n y of the activists were concerned, in very general terms, with promoting a green "world-view" (interview 1, 5,19, 21), or with helping people to "appreciate" and "respect" nature in all of its complexity and interconnectedness (interview 2, 3,37). A number of other leaders discussed the ways in which they try to encourage people to consider nature i n their consumption and disposal, by promoting recycling (interview 37), the non-polluting of streams and creeks which flow from local drainage basins with household chemicals and cleaners (interviews 11,12, 26, 31), or the adoption of a vegetarian lifestyle (interview 24). Finally, even the relatively "apolitical" groups encourage people to vote with environmental concerns in mind, producing pamphlets on local politicians' environmental policies and track records (interview 2), holding "all-candidates forums" dedicated 76  to environmental issues (interview 36), and running candidates on slates which promote environmental issues (interviews 1,19, 21). The groups which nominate these candidates are primarily interested in the public forum from which they may propagate their concerns, as I noted earlier (interviews 1,19, 21). One of the most popular means of trying to "green" the population is v i a local newspapers. Many leaders expressed the importance of local news coverage for their group. A full 78% of the groups which responded to the survey send out press releases (53% "sometimes" and 24% "often"), 77% write stories for the local paper at least sometimes, and 7 1 % write leters to the editor. A number of the environmental leaders interviewed spoke of the importance of educating children in their work (interview 2, 5,11,13,16, 25, 26). A s Cohen and Arato (1992:545-58) point out, this is an important role of "new social movements", that is, contesting cultural patterns, including the socialisation of children. For many of these leaders, "children are our best bet" (interviews 2, 5 , 1 1 , 26, 28), not simply because they w i l l be the citizens who can carry environmental concerns into the future, but also because they can be socialised to live more environmentally sensitively. Older people, whose habits and mindsets are well established can not be so easily changed, according to some of these leaders. Perhaps this is part of the reason that 61% of the groups reported doing educational programmes in schools (38.6% "sometimes" and 22.7% "often"), and 65% did educational programmes with children independent of the schools. Children are also an important "target" because they can get their parents involved i n environmental activities. According to the leader of a streamkeeping group,  Children are really important, I think. If they learn when they're young, then hopefully they'll be more environmentally responsible adults. Children are also more receptive, and 77  they often drag their parents i n , too (interview 26).  A number of the leaders recounted that they themselves originally become involved in environmental issues because of their children or grandchildren (interviews 5, 21, 23 28). One woman told me how she first decided to do something about her environmental concerns: M y grandson, when he was in kindergarten, we were standing by the river at Steveston one day and there was pollution floating by and papers and cups washing up and I was picking a few of these things up and just telling him that just one piece of garbage w i l l help and he looked at me, and he had tears in his eyes and he says 'Doesn't anybody care about our planet except you and me Grandma'. It still brings tears to my eyes when I think about it because I was so touched. A n d I thought, 'well, I have to do something, so that's what brought me here to be a part of this society. M y grandchildren really do want to make a difference, and I thought..! have to make a difference somehow... to find a way of connecting them with it (interview 5).  Although attempts to change individuals' relationships with the environment for the "greener" occupy much of environmental groups' efforts, they are not simply preoccupied with individual actions, but also with institutional actions. O n the questionnaire, respondents were asked the following question: Many environmental groups try to help a variety of different institutions to be more environmentally friendly. Has your group ever worked to make the policies or actions of the following kinds of institutions more environmentally friendly ?  The responses to these questions are shown in table 3.6 on the following page. The list of different types of groups and institutions emerged out of the interviews, and then were included as part of a fixed-response questionaire. The leaders responses, show that these environmental groups do try, to a considerable degree, to enact a "politics of influence" to change institutional as well as individual behaviour, and to encourage a kind of "ecological modernisation" within civil society institutions ( M o l 1995; Spaargaren and M o l 1992). The group leaders report that their 78  groups are most likely to report trying to make "community associations" and schools (55% and 50% at least "sometimes", respectively) more environmentally friendly. These targets reflect the concerns we have outlined above with reorienting the institutions of civil society: community associations are the best example of civil societies, and schools are primary sites of socialisation.  Table 3.6: worked to make policies or actions of non-governmental organisations more environmental sometimes  often  regularly  total  a small business  27% •  0%  2%  29%  a large corporation  25%  11%  0%  36%  a school  39%  9%  2%  50%  a college/university  23%  5%  2%  30%  a church  18%  4%  0%  22%  a labour union  0%  0%  5%  5%  a farm  21%  5%  5%  31%  a service club  21%  0%  0%  21%  a political party  7%  5%  7%  19%  a community association  39%  9%  7%  55%  The side of the "dual politics" of social movements by which groups endeavour to change  79  state institutions is a politics of "reform" for social movements, according to Cohen and Arato's conception. Accordingly, the groups in the four municipalities make reform politics a major focus. A s we can see table 3.7 (below), the groups try to engage with state institutions and make them more environmentally sensititve:  sometimes  often  regularly  total  The Federal Government  16%  0%  7%  23%  The Provincial Government  34%  2%  5%  41%  City Council  33%  18%  7%  58 %  City Staff  33%  20%  7%  60%  Township Council (Langley only)  36%  29%  7%  72%  Township Staff (Langley only)  36%  29%  7%  72%  Generally, the groups are more involved in trying to reform levels of the state which are "closer" to their municipality. Only 23% have made any attempt to "reform" an aspect of the Federal Government policy or actions, and only 43% have done the same with the Provincial Government. A t 72%, nearly three quarters of the groups who work i n the Township of Langley make some effort to "environmentalise" the local government. Although the groups i n the other cities are not quite as likely to try to change the local government (58 % council and 60% staff), the focus for most of these groups is clearly municipal politics.  80  r  If we make a comparison between the charts representing attempts to "influence" nongovernmental institutions, and attempts to "reform" state actors, the concept of dual politics is useful. M u c h of the Resource Mobilisation and Political Process literature emphasises the importance of reforming the state for social movements (cf. McCarthy and Zald 1977; M c A d a m 1982; Cohen and Arato 1992:497-508) while the N e w Social Movements literature stresses contests over culture (cf. Tourraine 1986, 1992). Both are clearly present here. W h i l e we see that the groups are somewhat more likely to attempt to reform local state institutions they are almost as likely to attempt to influence community associations and schools. They are also more likely to try to "influence" a large corporation (36%), a farm (31%), a college or university (30%) or a small business (29%) than the federal government (23%). A large number of groups, and not just the more "political" of the organisations, saw their role much the same way that the eco-system planner from Burnaby saw it: turning decisions affecting both people's lives and the natural environment into a "public" and "democratic" discussion. In numerous cases, the groups fought campaigns to wrest control of local community issues from both state-bureaucratic and corporate interests. These campaigns have often involved trying to "publicise"~in Habermas' (1989) sense of the w o r d - a decision-making process which typically is not open to public scrutiny because it is either a "private" (ie. economic) decision, or because it is the realm of decisions made by unelected civil servants (interviews 2, 6 , 1 8 , 2 6 , 3 5 ) . One example, from earlier in the chapter, is the Greater Vancouver Regional District's recent proposal to begin treating water with choramine. A number of environmental groups sounded the alarm over concern that the chloramine would inevitably find its way into local streams and harm fish. The Water Board of the G . V . R . D . , which is not elected, made the decision "behind closed doors" and without any public consultation. The groups rallied and forced a 81  public hearing; in the end the Water Board opted to begin implementing the more expensive ozone-based treatment. The victory was certainly important, but equally, so was the process. In the words of a streamkeeping group leader,  [This experience] has proved to us that you can fight City H a l l . The whole thing was incredibly undemocratic, they were going to implement this whole thing without any public consultation, so we were partly responsible for making it a public and a democratic issue (interview 26).  A number of the group leaders went so far as to suggest that they are working to establish relationships between particular levels of government that are more "community oriented" (interview 35) and less "top-down" (interview 25). Several leaders spoke about their desire to have elected representation on the Greater Vancouver Regional District so that it could be held more easily accountable (interview 11,18, 19, 21, 25, 35, 37) to the taxpayers, and about giving more power to local governments for the same reason (interview 1,4, 18,19, 21).  82  C H A P T E R 4: A Narrative of Four Municipalities' Environmental Movement  In this chapter, I w i l l attempt to tell the "story" of local environmental activism i n each of the four municipalities. The purpose of the chapter is to provide an overview of community environmental activism; thus I w i l l not describe every group i n detail, but w i l l focus on the groups which seem the most important, and which have made a significant impact on the community. In order to provide this overview, I w i l l draw primarily on data from 37 interviews with leaders of environmental groups and 6 interviews with municipal officials, and on my questionnaire data. I w i l l also make use of other material that I have gathered over the past year, such as newspaper articles, pamphlets, and my participant observation research notes. I w i l l not cite interview numbers when referring to information gathered about specific groups . While most of the 1  purpose of this chapter is to give, in narrative form, a picture of environmental activism in each of the four municipalities, I w i l l also produce a map of each environmental public sphere on the basis of networking data gathered in the questionnaire.  BURNABY Burnaby has 25 environmental groups, the largest number of any of the four municipalities. O f the 17 for which I have interview or questionnaire data (68%), the breakdown of types of groups is as follows (Table 4.1):  Most of the leaders whom I interviewed have reasonably high public profiles, and their names are commonly associated with the groups in question. If I were to refer to the interview numbers, it could link the individual to quotes or references elsewhere in this thesis. 1  83  Table 4.1: Types of Groups (Burnaby)  GROUP TYPE  Number  Percentage  Grassroots environmental  6  35%  Fish and Game or Recreation Clubs  4  ,24%  Community Associations  2  12%  Political Parties  2  12%  Educational Associations  1  6%  Organic Community Gardens  2  12%  TOTAL:  17  101 %  '  W i t h 6 "grassroots" environmental groups, Burnaby is host to over 1/3 of all such groups in the four municipalities. The number of "Fish and Game" or other recreation groups are also overrepresented, and comprise over half of all such groups in the sample. Citizen activism on environmental issues has been present for a long time in Burnaby, and two of the oldest groups are still active i n the municipality. In 1969, the Sapperton Fish and Game Club began to work on restoring the Burnette River which had been badly polluted by industry situated on the its banks and on a number of its tributaries (the Burnette Watershed makes up about 1/3 of Burnaby). Before " 'environmental restoration' was part of the lexicon", this group, many members of which had once fished in the river, decided that it should be restored. They began a number of hands-on projects as well as actively lobbying government to intervene in the  84  pollution of what the municipality and many of its residents saw as simply an "open sewer"; in fact the river was classified on municipal maps as a sewer. W i t h the exception of some Department of Fisheries and Oceans officials who arranged for a study to be conducted through the Westwater Institute at U . B . C . , other levels of governments' position was that the "... Burnette river was non-existent, or it was a kind of industrial toilet", and i n some cases they actually tried to prevent the group's efforts to interfere with part of the sewer system. The Sapperton Club enjoyed phenomenal success. In the early years, its members expended most of their efforts hauling garbage, including automobile tires and household appliances, out of the river. They managed to get the municipality to reclassify the river, and to enact legislation prohibiting effluent discharges, and controlling runoff, and limiting the proximity of industrial processes to the river. W i t h the help of a number of other groups as well as the D . F . O . , the group began the process of restoring fish stocks in the river. The river had been straightened in a number of places to promote more efficient (sewage) flow, so parts of the river had to be rebuilt to suit the needs of the fish. Almost 30 years later, the same group is still working to rebuild stocks of trout and salmon, and has slowly expanded its restoration efforts into many of the Brunette river's tributaries, building fish-ladders. The Sapperton Fish and Game Club has been a major force in educating the local population about the needs and the importance of their River. Another group, the Burnaby Lakes Advisory Association ( B . L . A . ) , began under a different name in 1974 to preserve and build trails around Burnaby Lake, a large urban lake surrounded by forests in the Burnette Basin. A s many of the original members were teachers, they were very concerned with the possible uses of the site for educating city children and teenagers about nature in general, and about environmental problems specifically. The group succeeded in 85  having the area designated as a park, but they have since continued to work on trail building, educational issues, promoting the interests of the watershed, and generally promoting environmental concerns in South Burnaby. B . L . A and the Sapperton Fish and Game club have together maintained a constant presence in South Burnaby for 23 and 27 years, respectively. They keep the environment on the public agenda: as "gadflies" to the municipal government, industry and developers alike, and by making sure that the public does not forget about their responsibility to the local ecosystem. W i t h the help and encouragement of the established groups, and some support from the municipal government, a "Burnaby Streamkeepers" network is i n the preliminary stages, along with as many as 7 new streamkeeping groups. More recently in Burnaby there have been a number of neighbourhood groups concerned about the development of specific parcels of forested land. Three of these groups are still active here. One of these groups emerged specifically to address for-profit development which was planned by Simon Fraser University on large tracts of Burnaby Mountain. With a great deal of community support, this (partly student) group managed to have a re-zoning motion put to municipal referendum, and most of the land was designated a park, much to the consternation of the Simon Fraser University Administration. Both of the other two groups were local neighbourhood groups which were concerned with protecting natural areas more or less in their immediate neighbourhoods. One of these parcels of land was also an educational land-grant package, which was given to Discovery Parks Inc. (a company owned jointly by U . B . C . , S.F.U. and B.C.I.T.) in 1979 for the development of high-tech industry. This package of land in West Burnaby was not slated for development until recentiy, and a group of neighbours managed to give both the corporation and the City of Burnaby, which was in favour of the development, more of a fight than they had expected. Ultimately, however, the group was defeated by council which 86  held an interest in the land. The City was already counting on the increased the tax-base to support the infrastructure costs which the City had already incurred in anticipation of the development.. North Burnaby has seen a number of protest movements defending the community against environmental dangers from petro-chemical and other heavy industry operations situated there. Those sites have been used for industry since the Depression when the land in the middle of this residential area was sold to corporations to keep the municipality from bankrupcy. Although the history of these movements has been primarily sporadic and defensive, these neighbourhoods have established a long and ingrained tradition of protest. Resistance against the Petro-Chemical industry in Burnaby goes back as far as the construction of the first of these plants in the 1930s, when the companies failed to hire local labour for the plant as they had promised (Seager and Fowler 1995:33). More recently, environmental concerns have been the primary source of tension between the community and the large petro-chemical companies (including Chevron and Trans-Mountain Pipelines) which have various processing sites in North Burnaby. In the late 1980s, there was a large movement to protest a proposed expansion of the Trans-Mountain Pipelines facilities at the base of Burnaby Mountain. Chevron, which operates the only "urban" oil refinery in the province has been the subject of the most recent protest. A number of neighbours who lived in the immediate vicinity of the plant began asking "difficult" questions when the company began clearing some of the forest that separated the refinery from neighbouring houses. The residents were initially most concerned with the expansion of the facility, but have since elaborated their concerns to encompass the environmental dangers posed by the daily operation of the plant.  87  Burnaby is also home to two of the three "green" political parties in the sample. One is a local party-association for the provincial and federal green parties, while the other is a more "indigenous" municipal party which works to make the environment a central topic of discussion in civic elections (Community Environmental Responsibility). Both of these groups are "radical" by most standards (especially compared with the other groups in this study), advocating a "deep green" shade of environmentalism. A s the leader of one of the groups told me, the role of that the two green parties plays " [to] move the goal-posts", and giving the more moderate groups room to manoeuvre", because"... i f the crazies like us weren't around, people like...the Burnaby Mountain Preservation Society would be the crazies" (interview). This dynamic where more radical groups open up "legitimate" political space for more moderate groups is quite common in social movements (Haines 1984, Marx and M c A d a m C h . 5) in a particular social movement field. Although they view themselves as somewhat marginal in Burnaby politics, there is evidently considerable support for this kind of "radical" environmental politics in Burnaby: 1 in 12 votes in the last municipal election were for C . E . R . candidates. Burnaby's civic government itself has established a reputation for fostering particularly green policies and projects. A s early as the 1970s, the city established a policy of "open watercourses". Because of this about 60% of Burnaby's streams are still open today, unlike those of surrounding municipalities (interview 26). The City of Vancouver has only one such remaining stream. Likewise, Burnaby was the first municipality to hire an environmental planner, and has supported a number of local environmental initiatives (interview 10). Despite the relative "greeness" of the municipality, some of the environmental leaders we have talked to suggested that the city's environmental initiatives are very much dependent on popular involvement in these issues (interview 4, 9, 18), a view shared incidentally, by the city's ecosystem planner: 88  Because of [their] in-depth knowledge and concern, they do make the City more accountable and democratic. If something is being done that shouldn't, or vice versa, these are the people that are going to notice" (interview). >  Another environmental leader suggested that while the City tries to maintain an appearance of green-ness, the municipal government is the single largest land developer in the municipality, and is responsible for turning acres of wooded areas into condominium complexes (interview 21). Burnaby has developed quite a substantial, although loosely structured "environmental public sphere" (Figure 4.1). A s I discussed in chapter 1, a public sphere is a sphere of discourse related to a particular issue. For each of the municipalities, four matrices were constructed to represent different depths of relationships. The first matrix indicates that the respondent has "heard of" the other group. The following three maps correspond to the increasing depth of a respondent's relationship to another group. If for a given map, all of the possible connections were made, the density would be " 1 " , likewise, i f none of the connections was made, the density would be zero. The stronger the ties that a matrix represents, the lower over-all density that matrix w i l l have, because fewer leaders have these more significant relationships with other groups. Densities were calculated to account for differing response rates. In Burnaby, the density for having "heard of" other groups is .59, indicating that each of the respondents had at least heard-of almost 60% of all the other groups active in environmental issues in Burnaby. In terms of leaders having had "some contact" (figure 4.1a) with another group, the density is .32. Likewise, the network of leaders "know[ing] a member" of another  89  BURNABY'S "Environmental Public Sphere" "I have had some contact"  "I kaiow a mumbw"  "former or current member"  90  group, represented in figure 4. l b is . 18 (4.3 ties per respondent).  Finally, in terms of inter-group  membership, the network density is .4 (.93 ties per leader), or leaders of each group had made 4% of the possible range of cross-group memberships (figure 4.1c). We can see from the three maps of the environmental sphere, that not only are there quite a number of groups involved in environmental issues in Burnaby, but that they are also quite well connected with each other. Although I w i l l discuss the significance of the environmental public spheres, and make comparisons between them in chapter 5, suffice it here to say that these relationships are important for sharing knowledge, resources, co-ordinating actions, and helping to publicise each others causes. In Burnaby, the "I know a member" matrix is probably the most important level of networking for an environmental public sphere, as it implies an ongoing relationship between groups (compared with "I have had some contact"), and is a lower cost, and therefore the kind of relationship which is more durable in the long-term (Granovetter 1973; K n o k e a n d Wisely 1990). The network of environmental groups in Burnaby has no real "centre", although the groups are clearly well networked, and they participate together in forums and summertime environmental festivals, in frequent meetings at a local cultural centre, and at the Stony Creek Environmental Classroom. This is a rather "loose network" but its participants feel that it is getting stronger all of the time (interview 10, 25, 26). Most of the groups do seem to have contact with each other, and each has a good sense of what the other is doing. T w o recent initiatives, the "Burnaby Streamkeepers" and the G . V . R . D . ' s "Burnaby Lakes Parks Council" may provide a more structured network, but at least one of the participants is wary of the latter, because the G . V . R . D . w i l l likely want to set the agenda. 91  Richmond Environmental activism does have some history in Richmond, although it has neither been as continuous nor as vigorous as it has been in Burnaby. In the 70s, an S F U study suggested that Richmond was one of the most environmentally aware communities in the Province (interview 13). There are currently almost half as many groups active in environmental issues in Richmond (13) as in Burnaby (25), a slightly larger municipality. O f the 12 groups for which I have some information (92%), the following breakdown according to type of group is as follows: Table 4.2: Types of Groups (Richmond)  GROUP TYPE  Number  Percentage  Grassroots environmental  3  25%  Fish and Game  1  8%  Community Associations  3  25%  Political Parties  1  8%  Youth Groups  2  17%  Advisory Committees  2  17%  TOTAL:  12  100%  A s we can see, there are only 3 "grassroots environmental" groups i n Richmond (25%), and as many community or neighbourhood associations doing environmental kinds of work. Recently and historically, the major focus of environmental activism has been related to  92  local concerns over development— the population of Richmond grew 18% between 1991 and 1996. Unlike in Burnaby, where groups have been concerned with preserving forested land, the largest group in Richmond, the Save Richmond Farmland Society has been concerned with preserving agricultural land - as most of the forested areas in Richmond have been cleared long ago for blueberry and strawberry fields, or for other kinds of domestic horticulture. Because of the high population growth rate, there has been considerable incentive (both for the municipal government and for developers) to remove land from the Agricultural Land Reserve ( A L R ) for housing developments. Such was the case in 1985 when City Council included the Terra Nova lands as a "growth area" in the Official Community Plan. A developer bought the land and applied, with the support of City Council to have the land removed from the A . L . R . . A public meeting was scheduled, and one woman who lived nearby attended, discovering a meeting that was simply between developers, City Council and Planners. A s one participant told me: ...There was no public' at this 'public hearing'. She went home that night and started making flyers to put through people's doors to urge them to come out to the meeting, and show their concern. I got one of those flyers, and so I went with my neighbour - out of curiosity, more than anything. Quite a few people got up and said their bit at that meeting, but what got me was how public sentiment wasn't taken at all seriously by the developers and planners. They were rude, they didn't listen to the people speaking... they were very dismissive. That was what got me involved. I hadn't been involved i n anything 'political' before that, but what got me really upset was these rich developers paying no attention to what the people wanted (interview). Although the group began with only one determined homemaker, it expanded quickly. A t its peak the group had approximately a thousand members, and managed to raise enough money to take the battle all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, at a cost of over $100,000. The group is still together, ten years later. Although they have won-back some of the land, including part of the river section which is important nesting and stop-over sites for migratory birds, they are now negotiating for "scraps", rather than being in any position to stop the development from going 93  ahead. The Richmond Nature Park Society is the longest standing environmental group in Richmond. The society began in 1975 to preserve 215 acres of forest and bog in central Richmond. The group was successful at preserving the land, which is now a City of Richmond Park. The group maintains the park, with 10 board members, over 100 volunteers, and several staff whose salaries are paid by the City. Although they consider themselves a "grassroots environmental group" , they are much more of a "naturalist" group: most of their daily work 2  involves educating people about the bog and forest ecosystems i n the park, as well as helping school children learn to appreciate nature. Furthermore, the group is responsible for maintaining and protecting the p a r k - especially since it is now very valuable property. The final "grassroots environmental" group is the "Coastal Communities Conservation Society" which came out of Simon Fraser University-sponsored forums in nine communities on the B . C . coast in 1995. The philosophy of the forums was to bring together representative stakeholders to talk about "sustainability" in their communities and in the fishing industry. In those communities in which there were no already established forums, ad hoc committees were formed. Such was the case in Steveston; the ad hoc committee later registered as an independent society. This group is not a typical "grassroots environmental" group - i f it can really be classified as such at all: its board includes a representative from the D . F . O . , a vice-president of B . C . Packers, a number of fishers, environmentalists and long time residents of Steveston. The group does habitat restoration and conservation work, policy studies of issues affecting Steveston as a community, and a great deal of education about the importance of estuary ecosystems.  2  According to their survey response.  94  The three community association groups in Richmond play a vital role in environmental issues in Richmond. The two Community Associations playing the most vital roles in Richmond are the City Centre Community Association and Steveston Community Society, both of which have standing committees on the environment as part of their association. A t a meeting of the City Centre Association's environment committee, I discovered that they are concerned with a whole range of issues, including: good park space for children to play in, the need for more park benches, heritage trees, pedestrian paths and cycle routes, and litter from McDonald's strewn up and down Number 3 Road. The committee also deals with less purely local concerns. One edge of the neighbourhood borders along the Fraser River, and the residents' association clearly has a sense of stewardship over "their" section of the river and the salmon who rest there on their way upstream. Beginning with plans for a shoreline clean-up and purple loose-strife removal day, the conversation soon became a strategising session about how to prevent so much debris from accumulating there, debris which is often dumped miles upstream (interview; research notes: July 24,1996). The City Centre Community Association is in many ways the "central" organisation in terms of environmental activism in Richmond. They have made a considerable effort to get other groups together at yearly "Richmond Environmental Network" meetings, and they produce a Richmond Environmental Network Directory so that all of the groups know how to get in contact with one another. A t some level, this has been quite successful. In Richmond, with half as many groups as in Burnaby, leaders' knowledge about other groups is much higher, almost all of the leaders had heard of almost all of the other groups (density .94). This is not surprising for a number of reasons. First, there are few other groups to know. Secondly, one of the local community associations produces a directory of groups concerned with environmental groups. A l l of the people whom I interviewed owned a copy of this 95  directory. The community association has also an organised Richmond Environmental Network" meetings three times in the past four years. I attended the most recent of these meetings, which took place several weeks before the questionnaire  was mailed. Six of my interview and  questionnaire subjects were present at that meeting. The kind of greetings between people at that meeting were quite indicative of the weak links between different groups: - "Its good to be finally able to associate a name with a face.." - "I haven't seen you since the last [R.E.N.] meeting..." -"Are you still working at [a particular job]?" - "No, not since... [1995]..." (Fieldnotes, M a y 14,1997) Partly as a result of this meeting, the network density represented in figure 4.2a, "I have had some contact with this group" is also very high at .69. The cohesiveness of the environmental public sphere in figure 4.1b, "I know a member", however, is much lower at .21 (or 2.6 ties per respondent). A s I pointed out earlier, this is probably the most significant measure for assessing the strength and durability of an environmental public sphere. In terms of cross-membership, the network density is .04 (.44 ties per respondent), which is consistent with three of the other public spheres (figure 4.1c). A t all of these levels, the most central, and hence most influential group is the City Centre Community Association which organises the Richmond Environmental Network meetings and Directory. This is significant because not only are the C . C . C . A . ' s activities primarily restricted to one corner of Richmond, but it is also a small, and very recently formed (1994) group.  96  RICHMOND'S "Environmental Public Sphere"  "[ know a member"  cm  "former or currcni memher"  a (3 B  ®  E US cKD  ra  97  A significant amount of the environmental 'activism' in the city has been organised by the City bureaucracy. In 1992, the controversy over Terra Nova led to the creation of an official citizens' Advisory Committee on the Environment (A.C.E.). For some time A C E was quite proactive and had a number of public battles with City Council. They have progressively established a much more 'co-operative' relationship with Council, and have taken on the role of preparing the City's State of the Environment Report (S.O.E.) which in most municipalities is a staff responsibility. This role has included raising half of the money for the report from corporations and other sponsors. According to some observers, A C E has been co-opted from its initially more radical role: "They always end up trying to appease City H a l l , so they can't be as aggressive as they should be...once they [become] political, they lose their effectiveness" (interview 28). Richmond has often been cited as a particularly environmentally friendly municipality (cf. Mauboules 1996). This seems to reflect neither the current concerns of either City Council, nor apparently of the current voting population. M a n y of these projects and policies were begun under a municipal N D P council (from whose ranks only 2 are left) and are carried on by staff. This is reflected in the survey data which I w i l l present in chapter five, where environmental leaders were much more likely to feel that their relations with Staff were "supportive" (67%) compared with Council (46%). The role of the City i n environmental organising is not altogether reflected in the numbers on the chart. In fact, although we only have 2 groups listed under the "advisory committee" heading ( A . C . E . and the Cycling Advisory Committee), 7 of the 12 groups are either sponsored by the municipality, are semi-official municipal committees, or are closely tied with them in some 98  way. A large portion of the Nature Park's funding comes from the municipal government, while each of the community associations is a kind of joint project between the city and the community association, which together operate the local community centres and sponsor events. One interview subject, who is particularly well situated to understand city politics, told me that, even i f the Community Associations are not always fully conscious of it, their ties to the municipality constrain their actions greatly: Every year, they have to go back to the city for their budgets. If they were to get too 'out of hand'...well, oops, we over-ran our budget this year - cut-backs, ya'know... I'm sorry but we just can't give you the same amount we did last year. They'd just yank their funding. I've seen it happen before with other groups in Richmond (interview).  Both of the youth environment groups are municipally sponsored: one is a kind of "youth group"; the other does various projects which are assigned to it by city staff. A s a number of our subjects pointed-out, this imposes very real constraints on the kind of environmental projects which can be done, even i f it is also the source of many of their accomplishments:  "...When it comes a mmm...major...because we're supported by the city, there's some things that we just can't be too demanding... it's also the city [that is] why we've been able to accomplish so much, because we're supported by the city... we just go to the people in Urban Development and say 'well, what projects do you have for us' and they have a stack waiting just for us. A n d we get around a lot of red-tape that way" (interview). LANGLEY With 21 groups, Langley (including both the City and Township) has the second largest concentration of environmental groups and initiatives of the four communities. O f the 16 groups for which I have interview or questionnaire data (76%), the breakdown of types of groups is shown in table 4.3:  99  Table 4.3: Types of Groups (Langley)  GROUP TYPE  Number  Percentage  Grassroots environmental  5  31%  - Streamkeepers  5  31%  Fish and Game or Recreation Clubs  1  6%  Community or Service Associations  2  13%  Naturalist groups  1  6%  Educational Associations  2  TOTAL:  16  '  13%  100%  In Langley, the majority of the groups are either "grassroots environmental" or stream keeping groups. For the most part, the groups are much younger in Langley than in either Richmond or in Burnaby. In the late 1980s, there were two groups which began to put environmental issues on the agenda. The first, The Friends of the Fraser Valley, formed when a number of people in Langley began to uncover conspiracy involving major corporate interests and the provincial Social Credit government's plans for using Langley to store natural gas underground - all without notifying or consulting the residents. Underground storage involves pumping gas to an area, pressurising it, and pumping it underground where it dissolves into the water in the deep soil. Given the likelihood of leaks, and given that many people in South Langley rely on the aquifer for their drinking water, the community was outraged. The Friends of the Fraser Valley held a  100  number of public meetings with up to 600 people in attendance, obtaining a Royal Commission into the affair. Finally, they discovered the government document which indicated that the provincial Cabinet had broken the law by giving $10 million of public funds to the project, after which the project was discontinued. A t roughly the same time the Municipality set up a "Roundtable on the Environment", in response to local concerns about the quality of the natural environment in Langley. This group of citizens quickly proved to be an "unmanageable" group, and they were soon disbanded by council for their public rebukes of some of the municipal council's land-use decisions. One of the lasting effects of the Round Table was that the township hired an Environmental Projects Manager, one who "wouldn't roll over and play dead" (interview), and would work actively for environmental issues. The current climate of council has meant, however, that many of the pro-environmental civic staff have had to play very low-key advocacy roles, and there has been a recent turnover of many of "the best staff" because of the pro-development, pro-cutback policies of council and senior management (3 interviews). The disbanded group went on to start two different organisations, the Langley Environmental Organisation (L.E.O.) and the Recycling Organisation Against Rubbish (R.O.A.R.). Although L . E . O disbanded in 1994, the group played a major role in aggressively promoting environmental issues in Langley, and in establishing a network of environmental groups and streamkeeping groups that has continued in its absence (interview 36, 37). R . O . A . R . has played a more low key role focusing on encouraging various waste-reduction and recycling measures, both with local governments, and with the general population. More recently, the major environmental controversy in Langley has been concerned with the explosive growth of the mushroom "farming" industry in Langley. Between 1995 and 1997, 101  the number of mushroom "farms" in the Township doubled to a total of 35 operations. Langley now produces 50% of the mushrooms grown in B . C . and 20% of the total Canadian production. (Etkin 1997: 17-19). While the stink from the mushroom facilities was probably the inititial cause of the outrage, the groups have uncovered a number of more serious air and water pollution problems. The mushrooms are grown in covered barns on a noxious mix of manure and straw along with several chemicals which have been banned by the U . S . Food and Drug Administration. The run-off from the plants has faecal-coliform counts several hundred times the allowable limit and the nitrogen content is often more than sufficient to suffocate fish in nearby streams (Aldergrove Star, Sept 18, 1996 p. 5). Furthermore, the groups suggest that the far-reaching smell is not the only air-born pollutant, but that the "mushroom clouds" which extend for several miles from a mushroom "farm" carry toxins and air-born diseases. The activists, who have on occasion been referred to as the "Citizen Scientists of the Fraser Valley", have begun to compile data on the poor health corresponding to the vicinity of the mushroom operations, and some have even wondered whether the high concentration of cases of "Streptococcus B " - the so-called "flesh-eating disease" - might be related to air-born bacteria or immune-system deficiency related to mushroom-'Tarming" pollution. The two groups which have been involved in the "mushroom issue", the Coalition of Concerned Citizens of Langley ( C . C . C . L . ) and the Coalition of Concerned Citizens of South Surrey, Brookswood, and the City of Langley ( C . C . C . S . B . L ) , are two significant actors. C . C . C . L . , with about 650 members, has divided itself into a number of different committees, which pursue education, scientific information gathering, fund raising or legal actions. The group has recently won a case in the Supreme Court of B . C . banning mushroom composting facilities (where they prepare the noxious mix on which the mushrooms grow) from the Township. The 102  C . C . C . S . B . L , by contrast, has primarily used a variety of public protest strategies, including a number of civil disobedience actions to stop trucks from coming and going from a compost facility on the Surrey-Langley border. O n one occasion, they blocked a public road with a telephone pole (Langley Times September 7, 1997), and on a number of occasions, the protests have nearly provoked violence from disgruntled truck-drivers (Langley Times March 27, 1997). With 5 streamkeeping groups, Langley has over 80% of such groups in the four municipalities. Unlike in Burnaby, these are groups dedicated entirely to protecting, restoring and stewarding particular streams, as opposed to the sports clubs which have developed such concerns over time. Many of the streams in Langley were severely damaged by the time the group formed; having suffered from erosion or modification for drainage purposes. M u c h of the riparian habitat which keeps the stream cool has been cut down, and farmers often use the streams to water their cattle. Accordingly, the streamkeeper groups, usually set about repairing the damage described above, and making the stream habitable for fish by planting trees, removing garbage, "re-naturalising" the flow of the water, and putting up livestock fences. The next stage is usually to try to restock the stream with fish, and sometimes to run small fish hatcheries The first of the streamkeeper groups began eight years ago, and two of the others formed shortly thereafter. In 1993, a "partnership" organisation, The Langley Environmental Partnership Society (L.E.P.S.) was started to provide support for pre-existing streamkeeper groups. The board consisted of representatives from the D F O , The Township of Langley, Kwantlen College, School District 35, a local naturalist group, and two grassroots streamkeeping groups. Although the municipal government provided some seed funding for this new organisation under the direction of the Environmental Projects Manager, and because they saw its possibility for bringing revenue into Langley, it was the grassroots groups which played the crucial role in the 103  development and continuing success of the partnership. The partnership, in turn, has played a role in helping to coordinate, train, and find funding for the grassroots streamkeeper groups. In large measure thanks to the help of the partnership organisation, the Salmon River Enhancement Society has formed to care for the needs of that particular river. Although the groups (and especially L.E.P.S.) are basically non political groups, they have a great deal of ownership over "their" rivers and streams. This has meant that they frequently draw to public attention anything which might harm their waterways: this can include a very wide range of problems from the mushroom composting to new housing developments, or weak municipal guidelines. Together, the groups have held "all candidates meetings" and they sometimes try to use the D . F . O . and the Ministry of the Environment's regulations and guidelines, as leverage against whatever they perceive to be a threat. These groups have done a phenomenal job of restoring and protecting salmonoid bearing streams in Langley (and elsewhere), as well as convincing people of the significance.of environmental problems, and putting them on the public agenda. The final area which has evoked considerable concern among Langley residents is the effect of significant municipal growth rates on the local environment. The Official Community Plan and accompanying legislation are constantly contested as to exactly where the next twenty year's growth w i l l be situated in Langley, and the developments are often contested on environmental grounds. Although it is the question of "growth" which is contested by the various community, neighbourhood and ratepayers associations, the war seems to be fought piece by piece. "Politics in Langley can be a bit of a blood sport - people take the issues in their community very seriously" — two recent skirmishes exemplify this statement by a local environmental leader (interview 37). A t a recent meeting about a proposed golf-course and luxury condominium 104  complex i n Brookswood, 450 people showed up at a public meeting at a local school, and the meeting lasted until 6:30 A M , when all of the people who wanted to speak were finished, or had been beaten by exhaustion (Vancouver Sun July 16, 1997, B l ) . Another council meeting where council was to approve a highway overpass at 208 Street (which would have, coincidentally benefited one of the mayor's supporters who wants to build a development there), 600 angry people showed-up to protest the development. In Langley, the environmental public sphere is quite cohesive, and has much more ties than any of the other municipalities at the level of inter-connected memberships (Figure 4.3c, following page). Most of the groups i n Langley have heard of each other (density .66). The density of leaders having "some contact" (Figure 4.3a) is .47, or an average of 9.3 ties per group. When it comes to "know[ing] a member" of another group, the network density is .24 or 4.75 ties to other groups per respondent, as shown in figure 4.3b. This indicates that, on average, each of the group leaders know a member of almost 5 other groups. Clearly this is a significant number of other groups from which a group may gain knowledge, support, or assistance on a particular project. The Langley environmental public sphere has by far the most dense network of any of the four municipalities at the level of inter-group membership (.11 or 2.2 ties per leader; figure 4.3c). A s we can see, this concentration is largely due to the Langley Environmental Partners Society (L.E.P.S.; number 15 in figure 4.3a,b,c) which acts as a kind of umbrella organisation for streamkeeping groups.  105  LANGLEY'S "Environmental Public Sphere"  106  The groups in Langley, then are also well "webbed" (interview 11). The groups know each-other and many of the groups get together for a yearly barbecue - w h i c h has been an annual event since the time of L E O (interview 36). They have also co-ordinated a number of events together, including an all-candidates meeting during the last municipal election, and they are able to work together to promote their specific concerns, and general environmental awareness, as well as using their collective leverage with the municipal council (interview 11, 36, 37).  Abbotsford With 13 groups, Abbotsford is a case of "low" environmental activism. O f the 11 groups for which I have interview or survey data (85%), the types of groups are shown in table 4.4:  Table 4.4 Types of Groups (Abbotsford)  GROUP TYPE  Number  Percentage  Grassroots environmental  1  9%  - Streamkeepers  2  18%  Recreation Clubs  1  9%  Community or Service, Religious Assns.  5  45%  Political Parties  1  9%  Naturalist groups  1  9%  TOTAL:  11  99%  A t 8%, the grassroots-environmental groups are by far the smallest proportion of the groups among the four municipalities in this study. For this reason, I w i l l not discuss this category first, but will deal initially with the largest, in this case, a kind of "catch-all" category- the community,  107  service and religious organisations. The Sumas Mountain Preservation Society is the oldest environmental group in this municipality, and has been active as a kind of community association concerned with environmental threats to the Mountain since about 1981. It has dealt with a broad range of environmental issues that directly concern residents of the Mountain, including the safety of a nearby "tank-farm" (an oil storage facility), gravel-pit mining, forestry, areal spraying of glyphosate, and a proposed toxic waste incinerator on nearby Indian Reserve lands. Although it has also been in many ways one of the most active groups in Abbotsford, in the words of one leader "we're a reactive, rather than a proactive group" (interview 7). The group has high and low points of activism, dealing with local issues as they arise in the community. There are two important religious groups that deal with environmental issues, both of which are related to the Mennonite Central Committee ( M . C . C . ) , a somewhat "left-wing" Mennonite relief and development agency to which some of the more socially concerned Mennonite churches belong. The first group, which calls itself Eco Works, is basically a youth job training programme sponsored by the Mennonite Central Committee. The group gets money from the M . C . C . as well as Federal and Provincial agencies, and puts young people to work cleaning up, mapping, monitoring, restoring arid protecting local streams, among other projects. A s far as Abbotsford goes, this group makes a very significant contribution to the health of the local streams. Although primarily concerned with "hands on" kinds of projects, the group works to educate and "bring on board" local farmers and other residents. Because of some of the local values and beliefs, this is sometimes a very delicate task, but the group, many of whose leaders are of the same religious stripe as the "old-time" farmers, are well suited for the task.  108  The other "religious" group that is involved to a lesser degree with both environmental issues and with the M . C . C . is the "Abbotsford Arts and Peace Festival" - arguably the only site of (left-wing) "radicalism" in Abbotsford. Every year, Abbotsford is home to one of North America's largest air shows, at which the Canadian and American military show off their latest equipment to a crowd of several hundred thousand spectators. Every second year, the "Tradex" convention, one of the largest arms shows in North America, is held concurrently with the airshow. This group tries to both provide an alternate event to the militaristic airshow, with coffee-house evenings, poetry and fiction readings, art shows, and a film festival, and to provide a dissenting voice during the airshow. Every year the group provides critical lectures, conducts "peace makers" tours of the airshow, organises public protests and distributes information pamphlets to people attending the show. Obviously, while the Arts and Peace Festival Society addresses a whole range of different issues dealing with militarism, it does address the issue of ecological destruction due to war as well as the air-pollution caused by the show itself. The final group in this catch-all category is the A d o p t - A - B l o c k program, a group which formed i n 1991 to try to clean-up trash on the streets of Abbotsford. W i t h the sponsorship of local businesses and newspapers, the group does four clean-ups a year, with 30 to 40 people participating each time. While in many areas, this would likely not be considered an "environmental group" at all, they were suggested to us by a number of key individuals, and referred to in the local paper as an "environmental group". If there is a "central" environmental organisation in Abbotsford, it is the Central Valley Naturalists ( C V N ) . Although it began in 1992, it has already developed a membership of 50-60 members. About 45 people show up for their monthly meetings, making it the largest such group in Abbotsford, even i f one of its leaders bemoans the fact that participation is, in many other 109  respects, "low". Many of the environmental leaders interviewed have acknowledged the importance of this group for putting environmental issues on the public agenda in Abbotsford. The Central Valley Naturalists' motto, adopted from the B C Federation of Naturalists, is "To know Nature and keep it worth knowing", and they try to promote environmental concerns by "making friends" rather than by "politicising" issues. They were elated when one of the vicepresidents of a large new development came and joined their group, hoping that they would be able to provide environmental input into the development process. The C . V . N . , like many other naturalist groups, has managed to accumulate a number of experts in different areas, and allows them to comment on government policy and participate in advisory panels. A s one leader described, our credibility has really grown, the fact that we have people on [various advisory committees] who try to be as rational as possible. We're not staked to the front of City H a l l or anything like that. A n y technical expertise or anything that we can find for them we do... Besides being asked to comment on various things "from a naturalist point of view" they fulfil a crucial "watchdog" role— "we can raise the issue and let people know that we're thinking and watching" (interview). Finally, the Central Valley Naturalists are very concerned with education- educating themselves, other adults, and children in the community. The naturalists also hold a variety of educational events and trips such as hikes and canoe trips which help to both educate others and to convey the importance of nature. They also do educational "hands-on" kinds of projects, like a stream clean up or a bird count. The groups has been working in conjunction with the local school board to develop an educational package associated with a particular natural site, and has been "really encouraged by seeing kids that age taking an interest in ecology".  110  One member of the Central Valley Naturalists became inspired by a "backyard estuary" programme developed in Washington State, whereby people turn their gardens into habitat for indigenous "critters". With some encouragement and some "in kind support" from the local environmental planner, who she had met at the local naturalist group meeting, and sponsorship from a number of local businesses, she began the only "grassroots environmental" group listed on the chart above, to encourage others to create "backyard habitats". Working largely with her husband, the two have enjoyed enormous success, and approximately 250 yards in the Central Fraser Valley have been turned into "backyard habitat". The project was so successful, in fact, that the Ministry of the Environment created a similar project and contracted the production of booklets that are sold throughout the province on how to grow a backyard habitat. The local environmentalist sits on the ministry board as a technical advisor. In general, the Abbotsford groups are smaller and are quite likely less influential than elsewhere. In fact, the New Ecological Paradigm scores (which I discussed in last chapter), are much lower among Abbotsford environmental leaders than in the other municipalities. The mean score for leaders in Abbotsford is 5.46, which is much lower than the mean score for all of the activists in this study at 5.9. In fact, score for environmental leaders in Abbotsford is barely above the average score for British Columbians, which is 5.3 (Blake Guppy and Urmetzer 1997a:48)! Not only are the groups somewhat less significant in and of themselves, but they have not really managed to develop an autonomous "environmental public sphere". In Abbotsford 63% of the groups have heard of each other (.63). W e can see how weak these relations are, when compared with Richmond, which has the same number of groups, and a network Density of .94. Figure 4.4a (shown on the following page), "I have had some contact" represents a density of .4 (4.75 ties per group), while Figure 4.4b, "I know a member" is much weaker with a density of .15 111  ABBOTSFORD'S "Environmental Public Sphere" Figure 4.4  "I have had some contact"  former or current member"  E3 [In)  Q3}o  H  oQo  112  (3  a a a a a a  (representing an averageof 1.75 ties to other groups per leader) — the lowest of the four municipalities. Inter-group membership, however, is quite consistent with the Burnaby and Richmond at equivalents with a density of .05 (an average of .62 ties per respondent).  113  C H A P T E R 5: Using the C i v i l Society as an explanatory Framework for the Differences The question remains: how can we account for the differing levels of mobilization around environmental issues in terms of the themes of "civil society" and the environmental public sphere in the four municipalities? I w i l l be arguing that there is something about the character and "strength" or "size" of civil society in both Burnaby and Langley which enable grassroots organising around environmental issues, while this is not the case in either Richmond or Abbotsford. Alternately, the strength of civil society in Richmond and Abbotsford is not great enough to enable the formation of as substantial a community of environmental groups. While I am not suggesting that this is an entirely sufficient explanation for the ecology of environmentalism, it is a perspective which does explain-to a significant degree- many of the differences here, and needs to be considered i n studies elsewhere. Before considering the role of civil society, I w i l l briefly discuss the role of municipal politics in the emergence of a field of environmental groups. Next, I w i l l discuss environmental leaders' experiences of their communities and the levels of community support which they have encountered. Third, I w i l l give evidence to suggest that Burnaby and Langley have stronger civil societies, and fourth, that their environmental leaders are better connected to the other groups and institutions which make up that sphere. Finally, I w i l l discuss the importance of the environmental public sphere itself as a structure which promotes further agency around environmental issues. Municipal politics plays an important role in the work that environmental groups do, as I suggested i n chapters three and four. A great deal of theoretical and empirical work has explored the role of the State in relation to social movement activism (Scott 1990; M c A d a m 1982; Offe 1985). There is a fundamental disagreement in the literature, however, on the question of whether movements proliferate under conditions of exclusion from the State (Scott 1990; Offe 1985), or 114  when they are sponsored by the State ( M c A d a m 1982). Since there is little agreement on this basic question, we cannot presume that an answer one way or the other w i l l necessarily lead to the success of these groups. The questionnaire asked leaders of environmental groups to rate their relationship with various branches of municipal government. The possible responses ranged from "very supportive" to "very antagonistic" on a five point scale. The results, then, for local governments are as follows: Table 5.1: Relations with various levels of government (by municipality)  % antagon  Richm. % support % antagon  Lang Twn % support % antagon  Lang Cty % support % antagon  Abbots % support % antagon  City Council  64% 14%  46% 23%  43% 7%  28% 0%  62% 13%  Municipal Planners  57% 11%  67% 11%  50% 0%  21% 0%  38% 13%  Public Works  57% 0%  44% 0%  50% 0%  28% 0%  63% 0%  Parks Branch  40% 21%  56% 0%  54% 0% 1  63% 0%  School Board  36% 0%  23% 0%  50% 0%  38% 0%  Environ. Health Office  50% 0%  44% 0%  23% 8%  25% 0%  Average  51% 8%  47% 6%  Burnaby % SUDDOrt  45% 3%  34% 1%  48% 4%  I have taken the average of the responses to by each of the groups in order to compile the data. In a sense, we have evidence here which correlates both state openness and sponsorship  1  The two municipalites overlap here. 115  ( M c A d a m 1982) and state "closedness" (Scott 1990) with the proliferation of grassroots mobilisation around environmental issues. While Burnaby has the highest levels of "supportiveness" according to leaders of the groups, Abbotsford, which has many fewer groups, comes second in terms of political openness. Groups in Langley report the lowest levels of municipal support, both in the City of Langley (34%) and the Township of Langley (45%). I have simplified this notion of openness and closedness somewhat, by asking the group leaders to describe their relationships with various state actors as either "very supportive" "supportive" "no relationship" "antagonistic" or "very antagonistic". I am suggesting that "supportive" relationships indicates greater state "openness" and sponsorship, and "antagonistic" indicates a sort of "closedness" on the part of that particular government agency or level of government towards the "values" and goals of the movement organisation. Support from the municipal council is probably of paramount importance, likely followed by the municipal planners, who are most often directly involved in local environmental issues (interviews). A s shown in table 5.1,64% of the groups i n Burnaby responded that the relations with the local council are supportive. Abbotsford is second in this regard, with 62% of the groups responding that council is supportive. Richmond and Langley, low-environmentalism and highenvironmentalism communities, respectively, rank third and fourth. Although Burnaby ranks highly in this respect, the support of council does not come automatically. Several of the leaders, and a local planner suggested that council is only supportive of environmental issues when "pushed" by groups in the community (interviews 4 , 9 , 1 8 , 4 1 ) . In the words of one individual, it is the groups which "make the City more accountable and democratic". Each of the four areas in this study have staff who deal with environmental planning in a variety of different ways, with the exception of the City of Langley. The sample groups' responses 116  to the planners varies significantly, from 67% to 21% of respondents who find those departments supportive. Richmond leaders were more likely to respond that city planners are "supportive" than any other community (67%), and that by a significant margin. In many ways, this is not surprising given the high level of state-sponsored environmental groups and initiatives in Richmond. In interviews, leaders often emphasised the ways in which municipal staff coordinated environmental initiatives, helped them to deal with council, provided information, or otherwise facilitated their work (interviews 5 , 1 3 , 20, 33). Burnaby comes second in this respect; 57% of its leaders have found the municipal planners helpful. The data here suggests that there is by no means a direct correlation between either state sponsorship or 'closure' which excludes the values promulgated by a given movement, and the size of that movement. When we are dealing with municipal politics, the boundaries between "state" and "society" are in some ways less distinct than other levels of the state, as leaders of various community groups often run for public office and become part of the polity, thus establishing themselves as spokespersons for their issues from the "inside". Groups concerned about environmental issues often springboard their leaders into municipal pohtics~I have encountered a number of such examples i n three of the four communities, i n Burnaby, in Richmond, and in Abbotsford.  C O M M U N I T Y SUPPORT A s discussed at some length i n chapter two, it is implicit in the work on social movements and civil society theories (Cohen and Arato 1992) that social movements are 'rooted' in civil society, and constitute part of c i v i l society. Because of this, we need to look at the character of 117  particular local communities as the ground from which the movements may grow. In terms of a kind of "ecosystem" model, some kinds of plants grow better in different types of soil. This is certainly not to say that the plants have no "agency"; in fact, plants regularly alter their ecosystems, making them more suitable for growth and survival (Lewontin 1991:83). This ecosystemic metaphor is much like the dynamic view propounded by Cohen and Arato, who envision social movements as rooted in, and yet contributing to, the expansion of civil society itself (1992). In presenting this argument, I w i l l begin by discussing openness to, and concern about, green issues in each of the four communities. Four questions on the questionnaire explored the experiences of these environmental leaders with regard to their community. This is clearly not a random sample; however, the questions have been put to those best able to answer these questions.  The leaders of these groups, who deal with others in their municipalities regarding  these issues, often on a daily basis, develop a very good sense of their community's level of concern about and openness to environmental issues. A s such they may be considered "expert witnesses" in the case which I am building here. Respondents were asked to respond to the questions on a scale of one to seven, where "7" indicates that they strongly agreed with a statement, and " 1" means they strongly disagreed with a statement. Four is the algebraic midpoint, indicating "neutral". The statements were as follows: 1) "In Burnaby , people are very supportive of environmental politics and projects i n general." 2  2) "The community is very supportive of your group's environmental projects." 3) "The local environment is 'on the public agenda' as an important problem in Burnaby." 4) "Most people i n Burnaby do not think that 'the environment' is an important issue."  The questionnaires were customised with the name of each community to which the questionnaire was sent. I am using Burnaby here as an example of the question. 2  118  Their responses to the questions are tabulated for each municipality, and a mean score given for each of the municipalities, as oh the chart below: Table 5,2: Experience of Community Support (by Municipality)  Burnaby  Richmond  Langley  Abbotsford  Question:  mean ( % 6-7  -mean ( %6-7  -mean ( % 6-7  -mean ( % 6-7  1) community supports environmental in general  5.13 (sd: 1.19) 47%  5.22 (sd: 0.67) 33%  4.79 (sd: 1.58) 43%  4.87 (sd: 0.64) 13%  2) community supports your group  5.53 (sd: 1.73) 60%  5.44 (sd:0.73) 56%  5.29 (sd: 1.44) 50%  4.38 (sd: 1.51) 25%  3) "the environment" is on the public agenda  5.20 (sd: 1.74) 60%  4.22 (sd: 1.79) 22%  4.79 (sd: 1.58) 36%  4.38 (sd: 1.41) 25%  4) people do not think "the environment" is important  5.13 (sd:1.51) 47%  4.11 (sd: 1.62) 22%  4.57 (sd: 1.34) 21%  5.00 (sd: 1.07) 38%  MEAN  5.24 54% (6-7)  4.74 33 % (6-7)  4.86 38% (6-7)  4.65 25% (6-7)  3  The mean score of these four questions indicates a drastic difference between Burnaby and Richmond (.5) and a fair difference between Langley and Abbotsford (.21). In terms of percentages of respondents choosing the highest two categories on a seven point scale, the difference is also significant in terms of choosing one of these categories for each question: 21% between Burnaby and Richmond and 13% between Langley and Abbotsford. This suggests-from the perspective of the activists-that Burnaby and Langley are generally more fertile ground for  3  The scoring on this question is reversed, so that a higher score indicates a "greener"  value. 119  environmental activism, i n terms of: general support for environmental politics, specific support for their group, ease i n trying to promote an issue which is already "on the public agenda", and a recognition that the environment is an important local problem. This said, some of the mean scores are not quite what we might have expected. In particular, the response to question 1, where Richmond scores slightly higher than Burnaby and Abbotsford slightly higher than Langley, does not correspond particularly well with my interview data. In this question, the standard deviation is evidently substantially larger i n Burnaby and Langley (1.1.9 and 1.58) compared with Richmond and Abbotsford (0.67 and 0.64), and this provides part of the answer to the problem. In both of these communities, there are activists with a somewhat more "radical" outlook, who tended to be more critical of the support for "light green" environmental values, and tended not to view this kind of support as truly "environmental" (interviews4, 21, 24, 34, 37). Indeed, in both of these areas, some of these respondents scored their communities below the neutral category (13% in Burnaby and 21% in Langley). Interview subjects in Burnaby would regularly talk about how people in Burnaby often rally around a particular local environmental cause more or less "spontaneously" (interviews 9,10, 18), and how people in Burnaby seem to be much "greener" than elsewhere (interview 25,26,41, 43). One respondent suggested that a good measure of Burnaby's "green-ness" was that" If you ever can get a preservation on the ballot, it passes with 90%. There were some preservation measures on the last ballot, and they all passed crashingly". Another interview subject, while admitting that her neighbourhood in North Burnaby is perhaps somewhat unusual, tells a story about the last time she topped a tree on her property next to undeveloped land, as she does every five years. When neighbours heard the chain-saw, they thought that she was having the tree cut down and promptly called City H a l l , eight people then assembling in the yard to wait for the City 120  to arrive. "They were a bit misdirected", she laughs, "but I was quite proud of them. Apathy is the biggest problem these days" (interview 18). While residents of Langley are perhaps not quite as supportive of "environmental" issues as Burnaby residents, many of the interview subjects also argued that residents tend to be environmentally concerned (interview 6,12, 31, 34, 36). One interviewee, who is intimately familiar with environmental issues in both Richmond and Langley, stated that there was a very different "feeling" around environmental issues in both places; where Richmond does have a very small active "core", in general most people "can't really be bothered [with the environment] — always an optimist, I hope that's changing" (interview 37). A further deviation from what we might expect i n the chart above is that the mean response for Abbotsford in question four (4) is 5.0, the second highest in the set. It is significant that while 38% chose number "6", none of the respondents chose the category of strongest disagreement (number "7"). This said, it is clear that people in Abbotsford do have substantial concerns about the quality of the environment in their community. In Blake, Guppy, and Urmetzer's survey (1997a,b), 50.9% of the Abbotsford respondents chose one of the two highest 4  categories on local environmental concern ("how concerned are you about the state of the environment in your local area"), compared with 38.6% of province-wide respondents. Further, Elliott and Simpson's study of Abbotsford showed significant levels of concern among leaders in that community (1996:13). Elliott's (1996) study of the movement to contest an "environmental disease" demonstrates that while this is a community where a significant level of concern around environmental issues exists, it is not easily translated into sustained collective action.  The survey over-sampled Abbotsford (114 people). I am drawing here on the authors' unpublished survey data. 4  121  S T R E N G T H O F CIVIL SOCIETY Measuring the "strength" or "size" of any given civil society is a highly problematic task. Recognising a number of thorny definitional issues (Alexander 1997), I am adopting Jean Cohen and Andrew Arato's conception which includes everything but the spheres of the State and the Economy (1992:x, 69-82). The boundaries on either side, as it were, are somewhat "fuzzy" boundaries, and it is often difficult to know exactly where the State ends and C i v i l Society begins. In fact, the boundaries are substantially more difficult here, because the boundaries of my four civil societies are constituted by municipal boundaries. Furthermore, many c i v i l society institutions receive a substantial proportion of their budgets from the State, and—especially since the beginning of the neo-conservative regimes— they have often taken the burden of many tasks previously performed by the welfare state. Secondly, it is difficult to know how to measure the strength, scope or size of any given c i v i l society. Even the Provincial Registrar of Societies, which is responsible for granting "Society" status, does not have the technological capabilities to provide a count of the number and kind of societies registered in a given municipality . In order to provide a very rough outline 5  of the number of civil society institutions in the regions, I have tabulated the groups, organisations, and institutions listed in community services directories for each of the four municipalities (Burnaby Information and Community Services Society 1996; Township of Langley 1996; Richmond Connections 1996; M S A 1995). Because not all of the directories listed religious institutions (churches, temples, mosques and synagogues) or sport and recreation clubs, I have  5  Personal correspondence from M r . John Stubbs, Registrar of Societies, M a y 23,1997  122  excluded both of these categories from the tabulation. Various kinds of religiously sponsored "social service" organisations were listed in the four communities and have been tabulated separately. Clearly, this is a very rough way of trying to produce a picture of the relative strength of civic responsibility in these communities, and cannot take into account the different sizes of these institutions. Nonetheless, the tabulation shown in table 5.3 (below)does seem to confirm my sense of the four communities. Burnaby has by far the most groups (193), almost double (182%) the number registered i n Richmond. Likewise, Langley has 118 groups listed, 171% more than Abbotsford at a mere 69 groups. The significantly different numbers between the two pairs of communities suggests that, even i f this is a very rough and imperfect measure, there are significant differences between the them regarding the strength of their civil societies.  Table 5.3 Number of Civil Society organisations (from Community Services Directories)  Type:  Bby  Rmd  Lang  Abb.  Support: Service/Community/Education/Health  130 (67%)  67 (63%)  87 (74%)  38 (55%)  Community Service (Religious based)  22 (11%)  10 (9%)  3 (3%)  9 (13%)  Community Halls/Lodges/Social Spaces  12 (6%)  8 (7%)  8 (7%)  6 (9%)  Community/Neighbourhood/ Ratepayers Assn  11 (6%)  6 (6%)  10 (8%)  4 (6%)  Ethnic/Cultural/Immigrant Services  14 (7%)  12 (11%)  4  11 (16%)  4 (2%)  2 (2%)  6 (5%)  1 (1%)  193  106  118  69  Other  Total  123  (3%)  Burnaby represents by far the largest number of civic groups found in any of the four municipalities. A s in all of the other communities, the kinds of organisations I have included in the first category ("support") make up the largest percentage of organisations in the community services directory. Also worth noting are the eleven (11) Community, Neighbourhood and Ratepayers Associations (almost twice as many as in Richmond) and the fourteen (14) "Ethnic, Cultural and Immigrant" organisations, which is also slightly larger than the number of similar organisations in Richmond. According to one municipal official, citizens in Burnaby are probably more involved in their community than citizens elsewhere (interview 43). According to one municipal administrator, the high level of citizen participation, especially in some areas of Burnaby, has required a reorientation of planning practice i n Burnaby since the mid-1980s. Because of this "grassroots" involvement, the city has had to make planning "neighbourhood driven", rather than the traditional "top-down" methods- although this still needs to be balanced with long-term objectives, such as the G . V . R . D . ' s growth strategies (interview 43). Richmond, with almost half the number of groups as Burnaby, presents a very different picture. In recent years, the municipal government has made a significant effort to create a "sustainable community" (Mauboules and Elliott 1996), which has included encouraging various community groups. A number of local activists, speaking of their community' characters as one of the reasons for limited involvement in environmental initiatives, addressed these issues. One long-term resident described the general social alienation saying, When I came to Richmond, 40 years ago, everybody seemed to work together, and I find now that there are a lot of people that just close their doors and... just... close their eyes and ears and just don't want to hear about it. They just put up a wall around themselves 124  and they just don't want to discuss it, they don't want to hear about it, they just don't want to participate. I find that a little disturbing.  Although this assessment has a certain ring of nostalgia for the "gemmeinshaft" of old, a much younger activist argued along similar lines. Using the very language of this theoretical perspective, he mused about why it is so difficult to get people involved in Richmond: "Richmond has a very weak c i v i l society", he said, clearly drawing on the political thought of the political party with which he is involved. While Richmond is a very conservative community, so is West Vancouver, but they seem to be able to mobilise more people on a number of issues. It's quite a transient community, people move here and then away again frequently, making it difficult to sustain much community (interview 19). A s far as this activist could remember, Richmond has always been like this—its general apathy having nothing to do with the influx of new Asian immigrants. There is a very small core of people who are very involved in Richmond's civil society: Y o u see the same people over and over again at everything. M y mother, who is also very involved in Richmond has said the same thing. Whether it's about political issues or cultural development-the museum or the arts. It's always the same group. There are sometimes new faces, and sometime the familiar faces disappear, but basically it's always the same group (interview 19).  Although the number of groups in Langley (118) is not as large as in Burnaby, it dwarfs the number of groups in Abbotsford, which is my main point of comparison here. In the Langley directory, there are fewer religious community service kinds of organisations, as well as of the ethnic/cultural/immigrant services type, compared with all of the other three areas. The Neighbourhood Associations, at a total of ten (10) are very prominent, especially when compared with Abbotsford's four (4) such groups.  125  Other evidence likewise suggests that Langley has a relatively well developed civil society. The Township of Langley has commissioned a number of social surveys among Township residents and some information from these surveys is important for this question of "civil society". Langley is organised around a number of different communities within the municipality, namely: Aldergrove, Brookswood, Fernridge, Fort Langley, Salmon River Uplands, Murrayville, Walnut Grove, Willoughby and Willowbrook. Apparentiy, many residents of these neighbourhoods identify strongly with their neighbourhood. W h e n asked to agree or disagree with the statement "One nice thing about living in Langley is that there are definite communities with which you can identify", 40% agreed strongly, and 43% agreed somewhat (Canadian Facts 1996: 19). M o r e generally, 61% strongly agreed with the statement " Y o u are proud to say that you live in Langley" (19). Both of these measures provide an indication of the degree to which people identify with their local neighbourhoods and with the Township in general. This "sense of community" (combined with "like the country/rural atmosphere") is by far the most common 6  answer given (more than double the next most common response) when Township residents are asked what they like best about living in Langley (35%). One respondent, who is intimately familiar with both Langley and Richmond, made the following remark by way of comparison. She said, [Langley] is by no means perfect, we've got lots of problems, but at least it's not so hard to get people involved [as i n Richmond]. I'm not just talking about environmental stuff, but i n everything. People seem lots more willing to get involved in the community in all sorts of different ways (interyiew 37). It is not clear to me why Canadian Profiles (1996:159) grouped these three distinct responses together. In their minds, evidently "sense of community" and liking the "country" or "rural" atmosphere are in some way synonymous. Since "sense of community" is the first response listed, and because this combined response is so much larger than any of the other categories, I assume that we can take this as a significant reason for many Langley Township residents. 6  126  Abbotsford is by far the municipality with the lowest number of civil society institutions. W i t h a total of 69 groups listed in the community services directory in Abbotsford, it has 69% fewer than listed in Langley. Although Abbotsford is a very conservative religious community, the directory lists only 9 religious-based community service organisations. One of these groups, the' Mennonite Central Committee is quite large, running a number of services, ranging from jobtraining programmes, transition houses, seniors care centres, prison chaplaincies, to programmes for special needs individuals, and a range of other community services. Although not prominent on this list of groups offering resources and services to the broader community, churches do play an important role i n Abbotsford's civic structure. There are 83 churches in Abbotsford, almost 1/3 of which are Mennonite congregations, and many more are distincdy conservative strains of Christian traditions, including fundamentalists, evangelicals, Pentecostals and Dutch "free churches". The churches are not only more numerous than elsewhere, they also have more members; as noted earlier, the average size of a congregation in Abbotsford is 500 members, compared to the North American average which is closer to 100 (Elliott and Simpson 1997). There is a significant interpenetration of church and politics in Abbotsford: the Kiwanis club sponsors an annual "Mayor's prayer breakfast"; a candidate's religious beliefs feature prominently in political campaigns; and issues like "creationism" and "abortion" are political hot-buttons (Elliott 1996). The churches are also important constitutive agents i n local civil society's structure. M a n y of Abbotsford's churches tend to be strongly "isolationist", creating their own communities whose membership is created by shared religious identities, rather than a "civil society" which constituted on the basis of a shared citizenship. Rather than making contributions to the broader community, 127  the churches "...tend to be very comfortable looking after [their] own" (a local pastor, quoted in Elliott and Simpson 1997). Some of the churches are so large and comprehensive that they come close to "institutional completeness", where members can live virtually their whole lives within their religious community, doing business with other members, belonging to clubs and sports teams organised by the church, socialising with other members, and so on (Elliott and Simpson 1997). There are a whole range of social and cultural institutions in Abbotsford which make up something of a segregated community for believers which transcends individual congregations. Some of these institutions include: homes for the elderly (Klassen 1992:173-81), Christian schools (156ff), restaurants, sports leagues, two Bible colleges (ibid.), four radio stations ( C F V R , C A R I , A M - 6 0 0 , K L Y N ) a newspaper (Christian Info-News) , 1  religious book stores, and a Christian  business directory so that believers can do business with only others of the same religious persuasion i f they so choose. In Abbotsford, civil society is colonised by, and interpenetrated with a variety of religious associations, which by their separatist nature fragment, rather than contribute to the broader sense of community in the municipality. A s one environmental leader remarked: Abbotsford is lucky in that it has a number of community associations; unfortunately, most of them are church-based...yes, I ' d say that the overwhelming number of them are church based. A n d it's difficult for people like myself who are not Christian to find an easy way into being involved (interview 1). Furthermore, these conservative Christian institutions are more likely to promote a number of conservative political issues, such as anti-abortion, anti-pornography, as well as a broader neo-  Neither the radio-stations, nor the newspaper are located in Abbotsford per se, but a cursory glance through the paper, or a few minutes listening to either of the radio-stations w i l l show how much of the constituency is composed of Abbotsford readers. This is reflected in the advertising content, letters to the editor, telephone call-ins and subjects which are discussed. K L Y N is based in Lynden, Washington just across the American border from Abbotsford. 7  128  conservative political agenda than they are to attempt to address environmental issues and problems. One of the reasons that people i n Abbotsford cannot seem to "get together" to try to address environmental problems, argued one environmental leader, has to do with this very lack of "community" i n the general sense. H i s group prefers not to make a distinction between creating healthy communities and addressing environmental problems: "A community based approach which strengthens communities necessarily strengthens environmental consciousness" (interview 1).  I N V O L V E M E N T IN CIVIL S O C I E T Y : T H E L E A D E R S In order to make the argument that different c i v i l societies have an impact on the emergence and sustenance of environmental groups i n the four municipalities, and to avoid the accusation of an ecological fallacy, we should look at the link between the groups and other civil society groups and institutions. The leaders of the environmental groups and initiatives were asked about their involvement in a variety of different kinds of civil society institutions. The question and list of organisations was borrowed from David Tindall's (1995) study of environmental activists on the west coast of Vancouver Island. The question asked: "I would like to ask you about some kinds of local organisations that people may join. Please indicate whether or not your are N O W a member of each. Indicate whether you are very active, fairly active or inactive. Please limit your responses to groups I N RICHMOND." Subjects were asked to check a box corresponding to labels at the top of the chart which read: 1. N O , I am N O T a member of this type of group. 2.1 am an I N A C T I V E member of this type of group. 3.1 am a F A I R L Y active member of this type of group. 4.1 am a V E R Y active member of this type of group.  129  The mean responses to each kind of group for each municipality are listed in Table 5.4 (below). Table 5.4: Leaders' Involvement in Various Types of Civil Society Organisations (by municipality) Bumaby n=14  Richmo.  Langley  Abbotsf.  n=8  n=9  n=6  Labour Unions  1.36  1.50  1.30  1.00  Business, professional, occupational Ass'ns.  1.79  1.13  1.89  1.33  Religious or church related organisations  1.64  1.25  1.89  1.83  Charitable organisations  2.43  1.50  2.30  2.00  Credit Unions or Coops  2.14  1.88  1.60  1.33  Ethnic Clubs or Organisations  1.07  1.00  1.10  1.17  Service Clubs (Rotary, Kiwanis, etc.)  1.07  1.00  1.78  1.17  Neighbourhood, Ratepayer, Community Ass'n  2.21  1.63  2.44  1.33  Education or School Related organisations  1.36  1.25  1.33  1.50  Political Organisations  1.79  1.38  1.50  1.83  Entertainment and social groups  1.29  1.00  1.11  1.17  Sports or Fitness Groups  1.64  2.00  1.22  1.67  Youth Groups  1.14  1.00  1.33  1.33  Volunteer organisations  1.64  1.63  1.78  1.83  Hobby Groups  1.64  1.13  1.44  1.33  Regimental or Veterans organisations  1.07  1.00  1.10  1.33  Women's organisations  1.21  1.38  1.56  1.33  self-help groups  1.21  1.00  1.56  1.51  1.31  (SD .43)  (SD .35)  1.60 (SD .40)  TOTAL MEAN  130  .  1.33 1.43 (SD .43)  Because I wanted to limit my responses to groups that individuals may belong to, in each of the municipalities, I have excluded group leaders who do not live in that particular municipality . Theoretically, the possible range of the individual mean scores is 1 to 4. A score of 1 indicates that none of the leaders in a given municipality belong to that kind of group, which is the case at a number of points on the chart, and a score of 4 would indicate that every leader is an active member in that kind of group. For the total mean, a score of 4 would mean that every leader was "very active" in every kind of group listed, which is, in practice virtually impossible. Because of the small sample size, most of the individual differences are probably not worth discussing at length, with one exception-- the scores for the "Neighbourhood, Ratepayer or Community Association" category. The mean scores for these kinds of associations in Burnaby is 2.21 (0.58 higher than in Richmond) and the mean score for Langley is 2.44 (1.11 higher than in Abbotsford). These two scores are among the highest on the entire chart, the Langley score being the highest. Over all, the mean scores for the municipality are consistent with my general argument. Leaders in Burnaby and Langley are in general much better connected to a whole range of civil society groups and institutions, with mean scores of 1.51 and 1.60 compared with Richmond and Abbotsford at 1.31 and 1.43 respectively. A s I showed earlier, there are quite likely more groups with which one may become involved in Burnaby and Langley, but this chart suggests that the leaders of the groups are actually involved with more of them. This data represents the involvement of leaders of these groups, rather than members in general. Obviously, any group's network with various other c i v i l society groups and institutions is much more extensive, because each individual member has their own set of memberships and social capital upon which they can draw in the interests of each group. Obviously my argument 131  here could be stronger i f it could draw on data from a larger set of members from each of the groups; however gathering this kind of data on members is beyond the scope of this current project. Having suggested that the four communities have civil societies of differing strengths and characters, and that the leaders of the various groups are better linked with such institutions, this poses the obvious question: W h y does this matter? First, all social movements are part of civil society, using Cohen and Arato's (1992) conception of that sphere. Furthermore, only 41% of the groups which make up this sample, groups which were identified as making significant contributions to the environment and to environmental politics, are "grassroots environmental groups" per s'e. The rest of these collectivities (59%) are the kinds of groups which are included on this list. In this sample, we have examples of Community Associations, Fish and Game Clubs, Recreation Groups, Political Parties, Youth Groups, Educational Institutions and Community Gardens. A stronger, more substantial civil society can contribute to the environment in communities where the population of an area is more or less predisposed to deal with environmental problems. Furthermore, as Cohen and Arato (1992) suggest, and as I discussed i n chapter one, social movements are not simply part of civil society; social movements emerge from the relations of civil society. From my interviews, I have collected a number of narratives detailing instances of this emergence from the networks and institutions of civil society. A number of the grassroots groups emerged out of particular neighbourhoods, to deal with very local environmental concerns (interviews 6,9, 17,18). Relatively "unstructured" relationships among neighbours who knew each other would develop into a group with a purpose, as commonly concerned neighbours began to discuss their shared concerns about a particular proposed development and began in turn 132  to try to organise other neighbours. Sometimes the group emerges because a particular parcel of land that is commonly enjoyed by neighbours is slated for an urban use (interview 9,17). These groups have also formed around opposition to a proposed industrial development which they see as environmentally harmful (interviews 6,18, 34, 35). Although they are of initially "unstructured" or unorganised types of relationships, the emergence of these groups depends to a very large degree on established relationships, as perhaps so do most social movement organisations (Knoke and Wisely 1990). In neighbourhoods that are relatively alienated and where people have few opportunities to interact, develop mutual trust or to talk about their concerns, the emergence of these kinds of groups seems unlikely. A s such, these are movements whose emergence depends on the terrain of local civil relations, on neighbours actually knowing each other. A number of other grassroots environmental groups have come out of community associations (interview 7,11). In these instances, the reasonably well-organised relationships which bring together neighbours for the purpose of discussing and addressing local community problems provides a social framework for the initial "discovery" of an environmental problem. Community associations provide the resources to begin to deal with it, and a set of relations which can provide a foundation for the new group, which in both cases in this study went on to develop some autonomy from the Community Association, but have remained affiliated with it. Likewise, several groups i n this study have emerged directiy from various kinds of educational settings and organisations (interview 4 , 1 7 , 25). T w o of the groups emerged as students at a major university began to find ways to express collectively their concern over a number of different issues. While both of these groups formed through their affiliation with the student government, they addressed very different issues. One of the groups is primarily concerned with the preservation of a very large tract of old growth forest surrounding the 133  university, and the other is concerned with a somewhat broader set of issues. Another group emerged out of a local science teachers' association. The teacher who was later to become the key leader in the group met another teacher who had begun a local environmental group in a neighbouring municipality during the mid 1970s. Inspired by her example, this teacher then organised a number of other science teachers i n his school district to form a similar group. Although they used their positions in the schools to promote a number of group projects they formed an independent coalition to pursue their first project, which was to preserve a nearby wooded area for environmental education and to make it accessible (interview 25). Besides providing sites for the emergence of grassroots environmental groups, these groups' members links with other civil society institutions provided a range social capital with which to pursue their various agendas. Interviewees frequently mentioned some of the social resources that they draw from their community, including funding, space for meetings, new members, and even, "credibility" or "legitimacy" by virtue of association with other more established groups (interview 6,13, 35, 37). According to the survey responses, many of the groups make use of these c i v i l society resources. These groups " [use] volunteers or recruited members" from all areas of civil society, including: community associations (61%), high-schools 8  (52%), Scout/Guide Groups (45%), community centres (44%), service clubs (41%), recreational clubs (41%), churches (22%), and cultural or ethnic associations (19%). Although volunteers and new members are one of the most significant civil society resources upon which the groups draw, many also use space provided by civil society institutions, and draw funding provided by these groups. For example, 64% of the groups had used space in a  8  I am combining the responses of "sometimes" and "regularly" here.  134  community center for a meeting, 44% had used School facilities (44%), 27% had made us of space at a Cultural centre, 23% had used a church and 16% a service club facility. A significant number of the groups had also received some funding from various kinds of community organisations, including Community/neighbourhood Association (36%), Private Foundations (26%) service clubs (9%) and from churches (7%).  E N V I R O N M E N T A L PUBLIC SPHERES: A M O V E M E N T BUILDING ON ITSELF In chapter three I discussed the networks of groups i n each municipality, which I have called the "environmental public sphere". Here I w i l l round out this discussion and suggest how and why I think that this is an important component in the further development of environmental activism in each of the four communities. In a passage quoted earlier, Margarita Alario argues that: the environmental movement has succeeded in launching public discussion about the social and ecological problems induced by environmental depletion and risk, transforming that public space located between private life and public authority into an unmatched platform from which to protest against further environmental degradation (1995:327 emphasis added).  This section focuses on the ways i n which an environmental public sphere, consisting of a number of inter-related groups, builds on its own platform. Obviously this is not a complete explanation, and by itself it would be a completely tautological argument. A s I have suggested, the environmental public sphere is itself built on a particular civil society context, which may be more or less suitable for its growth and proliferation. The emphasis on environmental public spheres as "platforms" suggests the agency which environmental groups may take in changing the very context from which they work.  135  Each of the municipalities has four maps of the environmental public sphere, corresponding to the increasing depth of a leader of one group's relationship to another group. If for a given map, all of the possible connections were made, the density would be " 1 " , likewise, i f none of the connections were made, the density would be zero. Higher numbered matrices (expressing a more significant relationship) will clearly have lower over-all denisities. Densities were calculated to account for differing response rates. A s I discussed briefly i n chapter 3, the middle map, "I know a member" (figure 5.1b, 5.2b) is probably the most significant kind of relationship. "I have had some contact" does not necessarily involve an ongoing relationship, nor ongoing communication. While obviously intergroup membership implies a "strong" relationship, it is also likely more time and energy costly, and more likely to "burn-out". A s a number of writers have suggested (Tindall 1996; Knoke and Wisely 1990; Granovetter 1973), weak ties are in many ways more important i n low-risk collective action. According to David Tindall, "At the community level, the existence of weak bridging ties is necessary to ensure an adequate flow of information and other resources that allow such groups to engage in collective action." (1996:10) In Burnaby, the density for having heard of other groups is .59, indicating that each of the respondents knew almost 60% of all the other groups active in environmental issues in Burnaby (figure 5.1). In terms of leaders having had "some contact" with another group, the density is .32. Likewise, the network of leaders "know[ing] a member" of another group is .18 (4.3 ties per respondent). With the leaders of each of the groups in Burnaby having an average of four ties to other local groups, this is clearly enough to facilitate strong communication among the members of the public sphere. In terms of inter-group membership, the network density is .4 (.93 ties per leader), or leaders of each group had made 4% of the possible range of cross-group memberships. 136  Figure 5.1 Environmental Public Spheres (Burnaby and Richmond Compared) RICHMOND'S BURNABY'S "Environmental Public Sphere" 'Environmental Public Sphere" "I have had some contact"  "I have had some contact"  137  In Richmond, with half as many groups, leaders' knowledge about other groups is much higher, almost all of the leaders having heard of almost all of the other groups, the density is .94. This is not surprising for a number of reasons. First, there are few other groups to know. Secondly, one of the local community associations produces a directory of groups concerned with environmental groups. A l l of the people whom I interviewed owned a copy of this directory. The community association has also on organised "Richmond Environmental Network" meetings three times in the past four years. I attended the most recent of these meetings, which took place several weeks before the questionnaire was mailed. Six of my interview and questionnaire subjects were present at that meeting. A s I noted in chapter 3, my observations at that time confirmed that the ties between the leaders were very weak ties, probably too weak to organise very much collectively (Field-notes, M a y 14, 1997). Partly as a result of this meeting, the network density for Richmond, "I have had some contact with this group" is reasonably high at .69. The cohesive of the environmental public sphere at Richmond3 is considerably lower at .21, and only 2.6 ties per respondent. If leaders in Richmond each had 4.3 ties to other groups, as in Burnaby, this would facilitate very good communication and resource flow between such a limited number of groups. Finally, In terms of cross-membership, the network density is .04 (.44 ties per respondent). Looking at the two maps in figure 5.1 (above), we can certainly see that not only are there more groups i n Burnaby, but in general they are much more integrated into a community of such groups. If the City Centre Community Association continues to try to help "build a coalition of environmental groups in Richmond", as one key spokesperson put it, then this picture could certainly change.  138  In Langley, the environmental public sphere is quite cohesive, especially at the level of interconnected memberships (5.2c). Most of the groups in Langley have heard of each other (density .66). The density of leaders having "some contact" is .47, or an average of 9.3 ties per group. When it comes to"know[ing] a member" of another group, the network density .24 or 4.75 ties per respondent, which is slightly higher than Burnaby, and much higher than Abbotsford. The Langley environmental public sphere has by far the most dense network of any of the four municipalities (.11 or 2.2 ties per leader). This is indubitably a result of the Langley Environmental Partners Society an umbrella organisation for the several streamkeeping groups. In Abbotsford 63% of the groups' leaders have heard of the other groups (.63). When compared with Richmond, which has the same number of groups, and a network density of .94 (Richmond 1), the weak and fragmented constitution of the environmental public sphere i n Abbotsford is quite apparently weak and non-cohesive. The density of Abbotsford2, "I have had some contact", is .4 (4.75 ties per group, while Abbotsford3, "I know a member", is much worse at .15 which amounts to an average of only 1.75 ties to other groups per leader! The most substantial contact, inter-group membership is quite consistent with the Burnaby and Richmond at .05 (.62 ties per respondent). Visually, the comparison is striking between the two environmental public sphere maps (figure 5.2).  139  Figure 5.2 Environmental Public Spheres (Langley and Abbotsford Compared) T A N f T F Y S ABBOTSFORD'S  1 k n o w  , „ a m e m b e r  ^  140  "I k n o w  a m e m b e r ' 1  A n environmental public sphere builds on itself in a number of different ways which I w i l l discuss here: directly, indirectly, and i n a symbiosis between different groups, as groups work together. To begin with, we have a number of examples from this study of ways in which environmental groups i n a community emerge directly from other grassroots environmental groups. One environmental group leader put it so: [Our group] probably would not have happened were it not for the Naturalist group. A t that time, [the municipal environmental planner] was coming to [the naturalist group] meetings, so at least I knew who he was. A n d one of our other members, who was president at that time, when I told her about the idea for backyard habitat, she said, 'well, why don't you go and talk to [the planner]...He'd be really interested...If I hadn't had that connection through the [naturalist group]...I would never have had the courage to go to City H a l l , that's for sure (interview 3).  The retiree who started this group, which has enjoyed considerable success encouraging people to turn their backyards into natural habitat for birds and other "critters", was initially inspired by a government sponsored "backyard sanctuary" programme she heard about across the border in Washington State. Although she had written about the programme to the Minister of the Environment, she had not taken the matter any further. Through the encouragement of one of the leaders of the naturalist group and the local environmental planner (along with some free photocopying), the group took off. While the environmental planner played a kind of "patron" role, she is very explicit that this was possible only due to the networking possibilities provided by the naturalist group. The naturalist group has continued to provide support in a variety of ways for this new initiative. In the late 1980s, the township of Langley established a citizens "round table on the environment" to advise the municipality on environmental issues. The advisory committee was not long lived; soon engaging in a very public and bitter battle with council about their approach to  141  environmental issues (interview 37,42). Before they were dispersed, they were able to convince council to hire an "environmental manager" (interview 42,37). When the group was disbanded, they went on to form two different local grassroots environmental groups. Although one of the groups has recently disbanded, both groups have had a significant influence on the public visibility of environmental issues, as well as a number of concrete victories i n Langley for a number of years (interview 37). A n even more significant Langley example, is the development of stream-keeping network. In Langley, there is a number of streamkeeper groups, the first of which began eight years ago. These groups have a kind of symbiosis and mutual aid that has facilitated raising money for streamkeeping projects (from provincial and federal sources) in their municipality, and to the creation of new groups. In 1993, a "partnership" organisation was begun, to provide support to streamkeeping initiatives in Langley. The board consisted of representatives from D F O , Township of Langley, Kwantlen College, School District 35, a local naturalist group, and two grassroots streamkeeping groups. Although the municipal government provided some seed funding for this new organisation under the direction of the environmental manager, in part because they saw its possibility for bringing revenue into Langley (interview 42), the grassroots groups played a crucial role in the development and continuing success of the partnership (interview 11). The partnership, in turn has played a role in helping to co-ordinate, train, and find funding for the grassroots streamkeeper groups. In large measure thanks to the help of the partnership organisation, another very significant group has formed to care for the needs of another waterway in the community (interview 36). A final example which I w i l l discuss here is a citizens' advisory committee on the environment i n Richmond. Although they are accused by other environmentalists in Richmond of 142  being "bedfellows" with council (interview 2 8 ) , the group plays an important role in both advising the municipal government on environmental policy and in promoting environmental awareness in Richmond. The citizens' advisory committee was a direct outcome of a major battle against turning environmentally sensitive land and adjacent farmland into a major housing development. Although i n the end, that movement was, only moderately successful, they managed to have one of their leaders elected to council and gained enough widespread public support to convince council that they needed to create such a committee (interview 20). The group which had fought council had representation on the committee which set the operating parameters for the advisory committee (interview 29). I have discussed a few examples of environmental groups emerging from other environmental groups, but there are a number of other ways i n which a strong environmental sphere can "build" on itself. Many of the leaders interviewed talked about the benefits that they gain from their relationships with other groups, including working together on projects or sharing labour (interviews 5, 11, 12,16, 25, 26, 33, 36, 37) and sharing knowledge (interviews 1, 2, 6, 11, 21, 37). According to my survey data 82%, of the groups receive " 'scientific' advice or information from other environmental groups (55% "sometimes" and 27% "frequently"). Furthermore, groups sometimes work together on various kinds of public environmental campaigns, such as the recent " A l l Candidates Meeting" for the Langley municipal election which was co-sponsored by a number of the grassroots and streamkeeping groups (interview 36). Other collaborative efforts include environmental festivals at local schools, parks, universities and even in shopping malls (interviews 4, 2 , 1 0 , 1 1 , 16, 25, 26,33, 36, 37), or collaborative clean-up or restoration projects (interviews 1 0 , 1 1 , 1 2 , 1 7 , 26, 31).  143  The more developed the environmental public sphere in each area, the more groups are able to draw on each other's resources — human resources and knowledge resources but also financial resources. The development of strong environmental public spheres, in its most basic sense of inter-relations between groups is, I would suggest, very important for maintaining the momentum, and hopefully the growth of a field of environmental groups in a community. O f the two "low-environmentalism" communities, Richmond seems to be much better positioned to do so, given their recent and concerted efforts at developing such a network in their community.  144  CONCLUDING REMARKS This thesis has examined four communities in the Lower Fraser Basin, Burnaby, Richmond, Langley and Abbotsford, as a case study for examining the "ecology of environmentalism". I have compared two "low environmentalism" communities (Richmond and Abbotsford), and two which have a significantly larger field of environmental groups (Burnaby and Langley). The differences between the municipal areas are not very well explained either i n terms of the themes in Resource Mobilisation Theory, in either of the major theories of social movements and the State, or in terms of standard demographic variables associated with environmentalism (community size, gender, income, education, ethnicity, or occupation). I have therefore tried to use some of the themes of "civil society" and "public spheres" (Allario 1995; Calhoun 1996; Fraser 1992; Habermas 1989; Walzer 1991) to study these areas. In particular, I have made use of the conception of the relationship between civil society and social movements as developed by Jean Cohen and Andrew Arato (1992). This approach suggests the importance of exploring different civil societies, looking both at differences in the level of its development and at different aspects of its character i n distinct settings. In chapter two, I presented a brief social history of each community, along with relevant contemporary social and demographic data. In chapter three, I explored the demographics of environmental leaders in each of these communities, comparing them, where possible, with survey data from the general B . C . population (Blake, Guppy, and Urmetzer 1997a,b). In the second half of that chapter, I gave an overview of the types of environmentally active groups in the four communities. Many of these organisations are not specifically "environmental groups"; I suggested that we need to take seriously the contributions towards a more "environmentally friendly society" made by a wide range of local groups, such as: community or neighbourhood 145  associations, recreation groups, church groups, naturalist clubs, advisory committees, and green political parties. In this chapter, I also explored the extent to which Cohen and Arato's (1992) conception of social movements helps us to understand the kind of actions of the groups we find in the four communities. In chapter four, I presented, in a narrative form, the recent history and contemporary configuration of environmental politics in each municipality. I provided an overview of what environmental politics is about in each of these communities. Finally, in chapter five, I began by briefly assessing the two theories of social movements and the state, exploring the role of municipal politics in the emergence of a field of environmental groups. Drawing on questionnaire data, I suggested that neither Scott's theories of State "closure" (1990) nor McAdam's suggestions about Political Process (1982) help to consistently explain the state of 'environmentalism' all four communities. Next, I highlighted environmental leaders' experiences of being environmentalists in their communities, and argued that in Burnaby and Langley, leaders find their communities generally more supportive. Next, drawing on community service directories, I proposed that Burnaby and Langley have stronger c i v i l societies, and showed that their environmental leaders are better connected to the other groups and institutions which make up that sphere. Finally, I discussed the importance of the environmental public sphere itself as a structure which promotes further agency around environmental issues. Let me briefly return to the "ecology" metaphor which I proposed in chapter one, and which seems to me consistent with the findings of the research which I have presented here. The exclusive foci of N e w Social Movements Theory, Resource Mobilisation Theory and The Political Process Models do not really seem to capture the complexity or inter-relation of various aspects 146  of social movement life. If we think for a moment of a particular species of trees growing in a certain setting, we can imagine all of the various conditions which they need in order to survive, thrive, to be fruitful and multiply. They need a certain amount of water, sunlight, a particular climate, and they exist in both co-operative and competitive relations with other species of plants. The world inhabited by a social movement field are, in this sense, no less complex. They need resources (water), resources (sunlight), a particular social and political culture (climate) and a particular type of soil with all of the right nutrients, and they live also in symbiotic and competitive relations with other movement organisations. It is important to stress that this eco-systemic metaphor is not synonymous with an 'organic' functionalist conception, which assumes a kind of homeostasis, and in which all of the various components "function" together. Ecosystems are in constant flux and transformation, sometimes slowly, and sometimes i n dramatic movements, though the various elements in the ecosystem are still intimately interrelated. Finally, the eco-systemic model does not usurp agency from particular actors, or attribute their actions to some kind of "system requisite". Various actors do act, however they do so, in structures which enable and constrain them in particular ways. In a quote I cited i n chapter one, Richard Lewontin argued speaking of the natural world: ...there is no 'environment' in some independent and abstract sense. Just as there is no organism without an environment, there is no environment without an organism. Organisms do not experience environments. They create them. They construct their own environments out of bits and pieces of the physical and biological world and they do so by their own activities (1991:83 italics added). Building on Cohen and Arato's notion of civil society, I have suggested that social movements are certainly the product of their environments, but they also produce those environments and can bring about dramatic changes in local ecosystems, and even global ones. The kind of global cultural and political climatic change which has occurred with the rise of the modern  147  environmental movement over the last twenty-five or thirty years is precisely a case in point of a large-scale movement changing the very environment in which it operates. Political culture, and the political history from which this arises, created by past experiences of collective action, among other things are very important for contemporary movements. W e have seen, in the two most different examples of local political culture in this study, in— Burnaby and Abbotsford—that these historical forces can have a very significant impact on the contemporary strength of environmental groups. Burnaby has a long history of grassroots activism, neighbourhood politics and left-wing organising. This history and political culture has left a set of reasonably cohesive local communities of a particular character which tends to foster mobilisation around environmental issues. Abbotsford, on the other hand has been shaped by a much more conservative political history, of which the K u K l u x Klan rallies i n the 1930s (Doyle 1995) are one significant example. It has also been shaped by very significant inmigration of conservative Protestant groups, which tend to be relatively isolationist. This suggests a community which has neither the appropriate political culture, nor the well integrated c i v i l society networks, which might lend themselves to a thriving environmental movement. I have not been exclusively focused in this research on specifically environmental groups which contribute to pro-environmental change, but also with a significant number of other groups which contribute in rather significant ways to environmental "awareness" and action. Furthermore, I have suggested that a whole range of other kinds of symbiotic relationships exist between environmental groups and civil society more generally. More significant, and more established sets of relations, institutions and networks which make up local civil society contexts provide sources of local "social capital" which social movements can draw o n - and they do (chapter 5). In some cases, this comes in the form of relationships developed within other kinds 148  of fairly institutionalised groups, such as community and neighbourhood associations, clubs, churches. A stronger set of these kinds of institutions, and environmental leaders involvement in a range of local associations, are more prevalent in the two high environmentalism communities, and I have suggested that these contribute in significant ways to the development and sustenance of grass-roots environmental groups. Informal interactions between neighbours and friends can also be important foundations for collective mobilisation. The built environment may itself either contribute to, or hinder the development of informal kinds of c i v i l society networks as suggested by Wilson and Enns (1996) study of informal community interaction in Langley. They showed, for example that informal interaction was more prevalent i n multi-family housing units than in traditional suburban housing layouts. More recent housing developments had the lowest levels of informal interaction between neighbours. Furthermore, in contrast to most of the sparse and somewhat "random" patterns of housing development which have happened in recent years throughout the lower mainland, Langley has grown up largely as a set of reasonably distinct local communities. This 'spontaneous' development has been further fostered as a central component in the recent Official Community Plan. In Burnaby, where the population is for the most part rather densely populated, people identify with their - often long established - neighbourhoods (chapter 2). According to the conception of the role of Social Movements provided by Cohen and Arato (1992), social movements play an important role both in transforming political culture, as well as creating new forms of association, and new forums for discussion about relevant local issues and problems, and thus expand c i v i l society. A s I have suggested (in chapter 3), the environmental groups in this study make rather concerted efforts to change and "environmentalise" other local civil society institutions, to bring them "on board" the movement, 149  and to use the social resources that they possess to further the local goals of the movement. In their very existance, social movements can and do expand and strengthen c i v i l society. They provide new social spaces for interaction which is not preoccupied with either the cash-nexus nor with the responsibilities of governance. In this way, I have tried to show that while grassroots groups are shaped and constricted, enabled, or both, by the local political culture and c i v i l society, the environments i n which they operate are not static. They do not simply "experience" their environments, but the also are engaged in the process of creating them. Various forms of government also play a significant role in the social movement field, although this role may sometimes be over-emphasised in the literature (Scott 1990, M c A d a m 1982). Most of the environmental leaders reported that their groups had positive relationships with various levels of the State (chapter 5). Several federal government agencies (perhaps most significandy, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans) have played important roles in providing resources and technical support to local stewardship groups. Local governments have also provided various forums for the discussion of local environmental problems, and the municipal staff who are responsible for environmental issues often play key roles i n connecting groups with one another, providing some (usually very limited) resources and technical support, as well as encouraging the groups. In three of the municipalities, the current city councils are somewhat "anti-environment" and pro-"development", but the structures of the local government, and the city staff facilitate environmental groups in a variety of ways nonetheless. While government agencies do at times steer groups in more moderate directions, they do nonetheless facilitate environmental groups' cause to a significant degree (chapter 4). The role of the state is important not only i n facilitating groups with specific environmental goals, but they can also aid local collective action i n a rather unintentional way. 150  C i v i l Society is not totally independent from the state, as I discussed in chapter one, but mutually interconnected with it. The very boundaries of my four civil societies correspond with, and have developed over time within municipal governments' jurisdictions. Whenever local governments provide open spaces (libraries, cultural centres, community centres) they provide social spaces for local civil society interaction. Environmental groups often benefit direcdy from this (chapter 5). Governments also facilitate the development of a variety of forms of association - sometimes intentionally, and sometimes unintentionally. The Township of Langley, for example, with its "Active L i v i n g " programme (which is itself sponsored by the Provincial Government) has intentionally encouraged the formation of a number of civil society associations, including everything from recreational to self-help to common-interest groups. Such initiatives strengthen and expand the possibilities for Langley residents to interact with each other. Governments may also expand civil society when they do something which outrages the public, who begin to organise i n protest. M y first interview subject suggested to me that " A community-based approach which strengthens communities necessarily strengthens environmental consciousness."(interview 1). While I would be more hesitant about the word "necessarily", realising that a "community" w i l l not necessarily support pro-environmental change, I have found a good deal of evidence over the course of this research project which commends his general approach. Community, or civil society relations form something of a base, from which collective environmental action may emerge. It may well be a necessity without necessarily resulting i n increased environmental consciousness or action.  151  FOR FURTHER STUDY Due to the dearth of studies relating civil-society with social movements, this study has been somewhat exploratory. In the future, the study could be replicated and made more adequate by broader data gathering. To begin with, because I wanted comprehensive coverage of all of the groups in the municipalities, I interviewed and surveyed only leaders of the groups. This means that we have had to make assessments in our comparisons only between leaders of the groups in each of the municipalities in question. Were the study to be done more comprehensively, efforts could be made to sample other members of the various groups to improve reliability. To take one example, we could see whether the members of groups in Burnaby and Langley are as active in their communities as the leaders, or at least i f they are more active than members in Richmond and Abbotsford. Secondly, because there were no other available measures of the strength of civil society, I was forced to rely on the community services directories in each of the municipalities. Although this is a very rough measure of "civil society", the differences between the municipalities were large enough to suggest a significant difference between the "high" and "low" cases i n each of the pairs. Nonetheless, a more comprehensive study would need to find a more comprehensive way of exploring this. Perhaps the best solution would be to survey a random sample of residents from each of the municipalities, to inquire as to how involved they are in their local civic life. Furthermore, more comprehensive coverage could be achieved in terms of directly comparable measures of their support for local environmental groups and values.  152  Works Cited:  Alexander, Jeffery. 1997, "The Paradoxes of C i v i l Society" International Journal of Sociology vol 12, no.2 A . G . H . C . (Alder Grove Heritage Society). 1993. The Place Between: Alder Grove and Communities Aldergrove: Alder Grove Heritage Society Alario, Margarita. 1995. "Environmental Destruction and the Public Sphere: On Habermas's Discursive Model and Political Ecology" Social Theory and Practice v o l . 20 no. 3 Aujla, Janice. 1997. "The Urban Village: The dynamics of Tradition and Modernisation in the Local Community of Hamilton" B . A . Honours Thesis, Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of British Columbia Barman, Jean. 1996. The West Beyond the West: A History of British Columbia (rev. ed.) Toronto: University of Toronto Press B . C . E . N . 1996. British Columbia Network Directory Vancouver Beck, Ulrich. 1987."Anthropological Shock: Chernobyl and the Contours of R i s k " Berkley Journal of Sociology Bibby, Reginald. 1987. Fragmented Gods: the Poverty and Potential of Religion in Canada Toronto: Irwin Blake, D . , Guppy, N . and P. Urmetzer. 1997a. "Being Green i n B . C . : Public Attitudes to Environmental Issues" B . C . Studies: The British Columbian Quarterly Winter, no. 112 Blake, D . , Guppy, N . and P. Urmetzer. 1997b. "Public Opinion and Environmental Action: Evidence from British Columbia" (forthcoming) Blumer, Herbert. 1957. "Collective Behaviour" in New Outline of the Principles of Sociology A . M . Lee (ed.) New Y o r k : Barnes and Noble Calhoun, Craig. 1996. "Social Theory and the Public Sphere" i n Bryan Turner (ed.) The Blackwell Companion to Social Theory Oxford: Basil Blackwell Catton W . and Riley Dunlap. 1980. " N e w Ecological Paradigm for a Post-Exuberant Society" American Behavioural Scientist 24, 15-47 C . E . N . 1995. The Canadian Environmental Network Directory Toronto City of Richmond 1996a 153  1996b http://wwwxity.richmond.bcxa/business/agri.html 1996c 1996d 1996e City of Langley .1996. Cohen, Jean and Andrew Arato. 1992. C i v i l Society and Political Theory Cambridge M A : M I T Press Cresswell, J.W. Research Design:Qualititative and Quantitative Approaches Thousand Oaks, C A : Sage Davidson, D . and W . Freudenbrug. 1996."Gender and Environmental Risk Concerns: A Review and Analysis of Available Research" Environment and Behaviour vol. 26 no. 3 Dunlap, Riley and R. Scarce. 1990. "The Polls: P o l l Trends, Environmental Problems and Protection" Public Opinion Quarterly no. 55 Dyke, Cornelius J. 1993. A n Introduction to Mennonite History Scottsdale, P A : Herald Press Elliott, B . , N . Guppy, C . Mosher, and B . A r a i . 1997. " O n The Edge: Socio-Demographic Transformation i n the Lower Fraser Basin" in M . Healey (ed.) Sustainabhty and Human Choices in the Lower Fraser Basin: Resolving the Dissonance Vancouver : U B C Press Elliott, B . and B . Simpson. 1997. "Resisting the Green: Political Culture and Environmental Activism" Paper presented to the British Sociological Association, University of Y o r k , A p r i l 7-10, 1997 Elliott, B . 1996. "Experts, Expert Knowledge and Contested Identities", paper presented at 'Boundaries and Identities' the conference to celebrate fifty years of Social Anthropology at the University of Edinburgh, October 24-26 Etkin, A l a n . 1997. Langley Environmental Almanac (final draft version) Langley: Corporation of the Township of Langley Evenden, L . J. 1995. Suburb of Happy Homes: Burnaby Centennial Themes Burnaby: Simon Fraser University Press Fraser, Nancy. 1993. "Rethinking the Public Sphere: A contribution to the Criticque of Actually Existing Democracy" in C.Calhoun Habermas and the Public Sphere Cambridge M A : M I T Press  154  Gardner, J. 1993. "The Roles of Environmental Non-Governmental Organisations in the Fraser River Basin" in Sally Lerner (ed.) Environmental Stewardship: Studies in Active Earthkeeping Waterloo, Ont: Waterloo University Press Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures New Y o r k , Basic Books Gould, K . 1993 "Pollution and Perception: Social Visibility and Local Environmental Mobilization" Qualitative Sociology v o l . 16. no. 2 Gould, K . A . Schnaiberg and A . Weinberg. 1996. Local Environmental Struggles: Citizen Activism in the Treadmill of Production New Y o r k : Cambridge University Press Granovetter, M . 1973. "The Strength of Weak Ties" American Journal of Sociology (78) Habermas, J. 1981. "The New Social Movements" Telos Habermas, J. 1987. Theory of Communicative Action (vol.2): Lifeworld and System, A Critique of Functionalist Reason T. McCarthy (trans.) Boston: Beacon Habermas, J. 1992. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: A n Inquiry into a Category of Bourgious Society T. Burger (trans.) Cambridge, M A : M I T Press Hannigan, J. 1995. Environmental Sociology: A Social Constructionist Perspective London and N e w Y o r k : Routledge Harris, R. Cole .1992. "The Lower Mainland 1820-81" i n Wynne and Oke (eds.) Hajer, Maarten. 1996. "Ecological Modernisation as Cultural Politics" in Risk, Environment and Modernity Scott Lash, Bronislaw Szerszynski and Brian Wynne (eds.) London: Sage Inglehart R. 1977. The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles A m o n g Western Publics Princeton: Princeton University Press Klassen, A . J . 1992. Church in the Heart of the Valley Abbotsford: Matsqui-Abbotsford Ministerial Association Knoke, D . and N . Wisely. 1990. "Social Movements" in Political Networks: The Structural Perspective Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Krackhardt, D . , Blythe, J. and McGrath, C . 1994. "Krackplot 3.0: A n Improved Network, Drawing Program." Connections V o l 17 (2), December Ley, David, D . Hiebert, G . Pratt "Time to G r o w U p ? From Urban Village to W o r l d City, 196691" in W y n n and Oke, 1992  155  Lewontin, Richard. 1991. Biology as Ideology (Massey Lectures 1990) Toronto: Canadian Broadcasting Association and Anasi Lowe, P. and J. Goyder.1983. Environmental Groups in Politics London: A l l e n and Unwin Martell, L . 1995 Ecology and Society: A n Introduction Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press M c A d a m , Doug. 1982. Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930-1970 Chicago, University of Chicago Press McCarthy, J.D. and Mayer Zald. 1977. "Resource Mobilization and Social Movements: A Partial Theory" American Journal of Sociology vol. 82 no. 2 McCartney, J. D . 1987. "Pro-Life and Pro-Choice Mobilization: Infrastructure Deficits and New Technologies" in Zald and McCarthy Social Movements Mauboules, Celine. 1995. "The Healthy Communities Initiative" (unpublished working paper), Eco-Research Project, University of British Columbia Mauboules, C . and B . Elliott. 1995."Justifying our Selection of Lower Mainland Communities for the Official Community Plan Study" (unpublished working paper) Lower Fraser Basin EcoResearch Project, U B C Mauboules, C . and B . Elliott. 1996. " A Study of Official Community Plans i n the Lower Fraser Basin" (unpublished working paper) Lower Fraser Basin Eco-Research Project, U B C Meyer, Ronald; N . "The Evolution of Roads i n the Fraser V a l l e y " in Siemens (ed.) 1968 North, Robert and Walter Hardwick "Vancouver since the Second W o r l d War: A n Economic Geography" in W y n n and Oke 1992 Oberschall, A . 1973. Social Conflict and Social Movement Englewood Cliffs: Prentice H a l l Olson, M . 1965. The Logic of Collective Action Cambridge, M A : Harvard University Press Phillips, Susan D . "Meaning and Structure in Social Movement: Mapping the Network of National Canadian Women's Organisations" Canadian Journal of Political Science no. 24 Putnam, R . 1991. Making Democracy Work: C i v i c Traditions and Regional Politics i n Italy Princeton: Princeton University Press Ray, L . 1993. Rethinking Critical Theory: Emancipation in the A g e of Global Social Movements London: Sage Robbins, B . (ed.) The Phantom Public Sphere Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press 156  Ross, Leslie J. 1979. Richmond: C h i l d of the Fraser Richmond: R i c h m o n d ' 7 9 Centenial Committee Ross, Leslie J. 1989. C h i l d of the Fraser 1979-1989 Richmond: Friends of the Richmond Archives Roy, Patricia E . "The Changing Role of Railways in the L o w e r Fraser Valley" in Siemens (ed.) 1968 Salazar, Deborah, Donald Alper and B . Robbins "Environmentalism and Environmentalists i n B . C . ' s Lower Mainland" Paper Presented at the B . C . Political Studies Association, Vancouver, June 1997 Scott, A . 1990. Ideology and the New Social Movements London, U n w i n Hyman Seager, A . and R. Fowler. 1995. "Burnaby: The First Fifty Years" in Evenden (ed.) 1995 Siemens, Alfred.1968. Lower Fraser Valley: Evolution of a Cultural Landscape ( B . C . Geographical Series no. 9) Vancouver: Tantalus Siemens, Alfred.1968. "The Process of Settlement in the Lower Fraser Valley - in its Provincial Context" i n Siemens (ed.) 1968 Spargaren G . and A . P . J . M o l "Sociology, Environment and Modernity: Ecological Modernisation as a Theory of Social Change" Society and Natural Resources no. 5 Stephanick, L . 1995."From Protest to Participation: A Comparison of Environmentalism in B . C . and Ontario" Paper Presented to the Political Studies Association, Montreal, June Steyn, D . G . M . Bovis, M . North and O. Slaymaker ' T h e biophysical environment today" i n Wynn and Oke 1992 Thompson, A l l i s o n K . (1997) "Restoring Ourselves to Nature: Ethics and Ecology in an Urban Case Study" (Interview with a D . F . O . Community Group Coordinator) unpublished M . A . thesis research (Philosophy) University of British Columbia Tindall, David B . 1994. "Collective Action in the Rainforest: A Sociological Analysis of Participation in the Vancouver Island Wilderness Preservation Movement" Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto Tindall, David B . 1996 "Patterns of Interconnection Amongst Tree Huggers: A n Examination of Network Degree Versus Network Range Effects on the Participation of Individuals in the B . C . Environmental Movement" unpublished paper, University of British Columbia Touraine, A . " A n Introduction to the Study of Social Movements" Social Research V o l . 52 no. 4 157  Touraine, A . 1992. "Beyond Social Movements" Theory, Culture and Society vol. 9 Township of Langley. 1990. "Langley Tomorrow Survey" Vancouver: Canadian Facts Township of Langley. 1993. "Langley Tomorrow Survey" Vancouver: Canadian Facts Township of Langley. 1995. "Community Development Survey" Langley: Growth Management Committee Township of Langley. 1996. "Langley Tomorrow Survey" Vancouver: Canadian Facts Waite, Donald. 1977. The Langley Story Illustrated: A n Early History of the Municipality of Langley Maple Ridge: Waite Publishing Walzer, M . 1991."The Idea of C i v i l Society: A Path to Social Reconstructioon" Dissent Spring Wolf, J. 1995. " A Tale Between T w o Cities: The Incorporation of Burnaby" in Evenden (ed.) 1995 Wynne, Graeme and Timothy Oke.1992. Vancouver and Its Region Vancouver: U . B . C . Press Wynn, Graeme. 1992. "The Rise of Vancouver" in G . W y n n and T. Oke (eds.) 1992 Wilson, Jenifer and Cherie Enns.1997. "The Picket Fence Project" Recreation and Parks B . C . no. 28 winter 1997 York, Peter. 1994. "Water Pollution - A Reason for Concern?" unpublished paper, University College of the Fraser Valley  158  APPENDIX A  Environmental Action in Four Fraser Valley Municipalities Interview Schedule  A) Environmental Problems 1) Could you tell me about the major environmental problems which [municipalityjfaces  B) Pro-Environmental Organising 2) Tell me about [name of group].  -when and how did it start?  -how many members does it have ?  -which environmental problems are the primary focus of your group's work? [-if this is not a specifically "environmental" group, how did this environmental project emerge out of the larger group? H o w is it related to the larger group?]  3) What does your group do about its environmental concerns?  a) Does your group engage in environmental education or "consciousness raising"? - i f so, how do you go about it?  159  - who are you most interested in reaching?  b) Does your group do "hands-on" kind of environmental projects (habitat restoration, fish hatchery, tree planting, litter clean-up). -specifically, what kinds of projects have you done?  c) Does your group work to change government policy or to have it enforced?  - what policies have you worked to change? how have you gone about this?  d) Does your group work on particular conservation projects? Ie. protecting an area from development or pushing for the creation of a park.  4) D o you ever work with other groups in [municipality] to promote environmental concerns to do "hands on" work, or to change government policy for the environment? -Which groups do you work with?  -What do you do together?  - W h y do you collaborate?  5) W o u l d you say that there is much of a community or network among those working on environmental problems i n Richmond?  160  6) H o w difficult do you find it to get people involved in [group]'s work in Richmond?  -How do you try to get people involved?  7) H o w do you fund [your group's] environmental projects?  C) Environmental Issues and Political Culture 8) A s a community, would you characterisethe citizens of [municipality] as more generally pro- or anti- environmentalist? -why do you think that this?  9) What are some of the obstacles you encounter as your work for the environment in Richmond?  -have you worked to get around this? how?  10) Is there any thing about Richmond, which you found particularly helpful as you work on environmental issues here ?  161  11) In [municipality] there are a whole range of non-governmental organisations, including: community associations, service clubs, churches, community centres, schools, recreational groups, Universities and Colleges.  a) D o you ever collaborate with any of these kind of local organisations in your work to improve the environment?  b) D o any of these kind of groups ever provide you with some of the resources you need in order to do your environmental work?  c) D o you ever work with others i n these non-governmental organisations to educate their members about environmental problems.  D) Government: 12) In your work with [group] have you dealt with any Federal Government Agencies? (eg. Minsitry of the Environment or Department of Fisheries and Oceans) (skip if "no".) a) In general, have you found the officials you have dealt with helpful and cooperative?  b) H o w do you feel about their environmental policies?  c) H o w effective do you find their environmental policies and projects?  162  13) In your work with [group] have you dealt with the Provincial Government? (skip if "no".) a) In general, have you found the officials you have dealt with helpful and cooperative?  b) H o w do you feel about their environmental policies?  c) H o w effective do you find their environmental policies and projects?  14) In your work with [group] have you dealt with the [ G V R D / F V R D ] ? (skip i f "no".)  a) H o w do you feel about their environmental policies?  b) H o w effective do you find their environmental policies and projects?  c) In general, have you found the people you have dealt with helpful and cooperative?  15) In your work with [group] have you dealt with [municipal government]? (skip if "no".) a) In general, have you found the officials you have dealt with helpful and cooperative?  163  b) H o w do you feel about their environmental policies?  c) H o w effective do you find their environmental policies and projects?  Section 2: Personal Information E2)  In the Past year, have you personally done any of the following environmental  activites?  16  Signed a petition supporting a pro-environment issue  ves  no  17  Displayed a bumper sticker or wore a pin in support of a pro-environment issue  ves  no  18  Boycotted a product because of environmental concerns  ves  no  19  Joined an environmental group  ves  no  20  Worked to elect someone because of their views on the environment  ves  21  . Written a letter to a newspaper about an environmental issue  U's  no  22  Phoned a TV/Radio talk-show about environmental issues  23  Written to a public official about environmental matters  ves  no  24  Joined a protest or demonstration concerned with the environment  yes  no  164  no  The next 9 questions ask for your opinion about relations between humans and nature in general. For each statement, please indicate how you feel about it on a scale of 1 to 7 where "1" means strongly agree, and "7" means strongly disagree, (give respondent card #1)  25) When people interfere with nature, it often produces disasterous consequences. strongly aaree l"  2  neutral 4  3  5  6  strongly disagree 7  26) The "ecological crisis" has been greatly exaggerated. strongly agree  1  2  neutral 4  3  strongly disagree  5  6  7  27) People must live in harmony with nature in order to survive. strongly agree 1 2  '  neutral 4  3  5  6  strongly disagree 7  5  6  strongly disagree 7  5  6  strongly disagree 7  5  ,6  strongly disagree 7  28) People are severely abusing the environment. strongly agree 1  2  3  neutral 4  29) We are approaching the number of people that the earth can support. strongly agree " 1 "  2  neutral 4  3  30) Plants and animals exist primarily to be used by people. strongly agree 1  2  '  3  neutral 4  165  31) To maintain a healthy economy we will have to control industrial growth strongly agree 1  2  neutral 4  3  5  6  strongly disagee 7  32) People have the right to modify the natural environment to suite their needs strongly agree 1  2  neutral 4  3  5  6  strongly disagree 7  33) People need not adapt to the environment because they can remake it to suit their needs. strongly agree 1  2  neutral 4  3  5  6  strongly disagree 7  34) Their are limits to growth beyond which our industrial society cannot expand. strongly agree 1  2  neutral 4  3  E) Demographic Background 100) In what year were you born? 19  [101) sex? Male [ ] Female [ ] ]  102) In what year did you first live in [municipality]? 19  166  5  6  strongly disagree . " 7 "  103) Where did you live before that?  104) What year did you first become involved in environmental issues? 19  105) Do you think of yourself as an "environmentalist" ? (give respondent card #2) a) I identify myself very strongly as an environmentalist. b) I identify myself somewhat as an environmentalist. c) I do not think of. myself as an environmentalist. d) I oppose the environmental movement.  106) How often do you discuss environmental problems with another individual? (give respondent card #3) a) everyday b) at least once a week c) at least once a month d) several times a year e) once a year or less often f) never  107) What is your occupation ?.  108) What is the highest level of education that you have attained? (give respondant card #4) 01 Elementary 02 Some high school 03 H i g h school graduation 04 Some Trade/Technical/Vocationa or Business College 05 Some Community College/Nursing School 06 Some University or University College 07 Diploma/Certificate from Trade/Technical/Vocational or Business College 08 Diploma/Certificate from Community College/Nursing School 09 Bachelor or Undergraduate Degree or Teachers College 10 Masters or Earned Doctorate 11 Other 97 N / A 99 Not Stated  167  109) What, if any, is your religious affiliation?  What denomination is that?  110) How often do you attend? (give respondent card #5) a) never b) less than once a year c) once or twice a year d) several times a year e) once a month f) a couple of times a month g) nearly every week h) once a week i) more than once a week  111) What is your estimate of your personal income, from all sources (before taxes) for 1995 ? give respondant card# 6  2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,  no personal income under $ 5,000 $5,000 to 9,999 $10,000 to 14,999 $15,000 to 19,999 $20,000 to 24,999 $25,000 to 34,999 $35,000 to 44,999  9. $45,000 to 54, 999 10. $55,000 to 64,999 11. $65,000 to 74,999 12. $75,000 to 84,999 13. $85,000 to 94,999 14. $95,000 to 114,999 15. $115, 000 to 134,999 16. $135,000 and above  168  112) What is your estimate of your total personal income, from all sources (before taxes) for 1995 ? give respondant card# x 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.  no personal income under $5,000 $ 5,000 to 9,999 $10,000 to 14,999 $15,000 to 19,999 $20,000 to 24,999 $25,000 to 34,999 $35,000 to 44,999  9.  $45,000 to 54, 999 10. $55,000 to 64,999 11. $65,000 to 74,999 12. $75,000 to 84,999 13. $85,000 to 94,999 14. $95,000 to 114,999 15. $115, 000 to 134,999 16. $135,000 and above  113) What would you identify as your ethnic heritage?  114) Are there any questions which I should have asked, but didn't, or any general comments that you would like to make?  T H A N K - Y O U so much for participating in our survey!  Inquire about their willingness to complete a brief (20 min) mail-out survey.  169  APPENDIX B Environmental Actions in Four Fraser Valley Communities Thank you for doing this survey! The questions in this survey are a combination o f questions which ask for information about the group with which you do environmental activities (named in the cover letter), and for your personal opinions related to environmental issues in Burnaby. First, let me begin with several questions about vour group's environmental issues and concerns. 1) What are the top 3 environmental issues with which your group is primarily concerned ? ( Please mark the boxes next to the issues in order of importance "1" next to the most important, "2" next to the second and "3" next to the third. Y o u need not select all three.) Alternate Transportation [ ] Agriculture [ ] Air Quality [ ] Animal Rights [ ] Fish Habitat [ ] Food [ ] Forestry [ ]  Human Health [ ] Land-Use [ ] Lifestyle Change [ ] Nature Conservation [ ] Mining [ ] Pesticide Use [ ] Recycling [ ]  Hazardous or Toxic Chemicals [ ] Heritage Preservation [ ]  Sustainable or Healthy Community [ ] Urban Issues [ ] Water Quality [ ]  Other:  .  []  2) What is the purpose of your group? (Please write no more than a couple of sentences)  3) Please note which of the following activities your group is involved with in addressing its environmental concerns. (please check the applicable boxes) [ [ [ [ [  Jhabitat restoration Jhabitat conservation ]environmental education ]circulating petitions Jlobbeying government  [ [ [ f  ]running a candidate in local elections ]commenting on government policy ] recycling roundups 1 other  [ ]protests and demonstrations [ ]trail building [ Jlitter cleanup [ ]fish hatcheries [ Jrecreational activities ] serving on advisory committees  I other  Many groups do a whole variety of things to educate the public about environmental problems. Does your group, ever do any of the following "educational" or "consciousness-raising" activities around environmental concerns? 4  send press-releases to local newsmedia about your concerns or projects?  never  sometimes  often  5  write letters to the editor ?  never  sometimes  often  6  write a story or column for a local paper ?  never  sometimes  often  7  publish pamphlets or reports about local environmental problems?  never  sometimes  often  170  8  do educational programmes with children in schools?  never  sometimes . often  9  do educational programmes with children outside of schools?  never  sometimes  often  10  do career training  never  sometimes  often  1!  set up displays at events or in malls?  never  sometimes  often  12  hold public forums on issues of concern?  never  sometimes  often  13  participate in public forums on issues of concern?  never  sometimes  often  14  participate in local events or festivals?  never  sometimes  often  15  give lectures to interested groups?  never  sometimes  often  Environmental Groups often make use of legal means to bring-about desired changes. Has yo ever : (never, sometimes or often) 16  Consulted a lawyer for advice about a specific issue ?  never  sometimes  often  17  Hired a lawyer to represent the concerns of your group ?  never  sometimes  often  18  Brought a lawsuit against someone to achieve your group's ends?  never  sometimes  often  Environmental groups in different communities often have very different experiences of trying promote environmental issues in their communities. The following questions ask for vour personal opinion related to environmentalism in Burnaby. (For each question, please circle the appropriate number, indicating whether you personally asree or disagree, where "1" means strongly agree and "7" means that you strongly disagree.)  19) The local environment is "on the public agenda" as an important problem in Burnaby. strongly agree  1  neutral 2  4  3  strongly disagree 5  6  7  20) The community is very supportive of vour eroup's environmental projects strongly agree 1  neutral 2  j  4  strongly disagree 3  6  7  21) "Business Values" and interests often seem to over-ride environmental concerns in Burnaby. strongly agree  neutral 2  j  4  strongly disagree 5  6  7  22) Most people in Burnaby do not think that "the environment" is an important issue strongly agree  neutral 4  171  strongly disagree  6  7  23) In Burnaby, strong religious values often over-ride concern for the environment. strongly agree 1  neutral 2  3  4  strongly disagree 5  6  7  24) In Burnaby there is a strong network among people concerned with environmental issues. strongly agree 1  neutral 2  3  4  strongly disagree 5  6  7  25) In Burnaby, strong "agricultural values" and interests often over-ride concern for the environment. strongly agree 1  neutral 2  3  4  strongly disagree 5  6  7  26) In Burnaby, people are very supportive of environmental politics and projects in general. strongly agree 1  neutral 2  3  4  strongly disagree 5  6  7  27) Burnaby Now has been very supportive of your group's environmental projects. strongly agree 'l  neutral 2  3  4  strongly disagree 5  6  1  28) The Burnaby News Leader has been very supportive of your environmental projects. strongly agree 1  neutral 2  3  4  strongly disagree 5  6  ' 7  29) The local business community is very supportive of your group's environmental initiatives. strongly agree 1  neutral 2  3  4  strongly disagree 5  6  7  30) Local Service Clubs have been very supportive of your group's environmental work. strongly agree 1  neutral 2  3  4  strongly disagree 5  6  7  31) In Burnaby, public protests are a good way of promoting environmental concerns. strongly agree 1  neutral 2  3  4  strongly disagree 5  6  7  32) In Burnaby, the newer immigrant groups seem to be more involved in environmental issues. strongly agree 1  neutral 2  3  4  172  strongly disagree 5  6  Political Agencies and Environmental Issues Often different government agencies play an important role in helping or hindering various environmental initiatives. How would you describe vour group's relationship with the following government agencies? Are they generally supportive or antagonistic towards your group? (If you have had no relationship with a particlar agency of office, please circle the middle box - "we have no relationship"). 33  Burnaby City Council  very supportive  supportive  we have no relationship  antagonistic  very antagonistic  34  Burnaby City Planners  very supportive  supportive  we have no relationship  antagonistic  very antagonistic  35  Burnaby City Public Works  very supportive  supportive  we have no relationship  antagonistic  very antagonistic  36  Burnaby City Parks  very supportive  supportive  we have ho relationship  antagonistic  very antagonistic  40  Burnaby City School Board  very supportive  supportive  we have no relationship  antagonistic  very antagonistic  41  Your Local Environmental Health Office  very supportive  supportive  we have no relationship  antagonistic  very antagonistic  42  G.V.R.D.  very supportive  supportive  we have no relationship  antagonistic  very antagonistic  43  Fraser Valley Regional District  very supportive  supportive  we have no relationship  antagonistic  very antagonistic  44  Your Local Provincial M L A  very supportive  supportive  we have no relationship  antagonistic  very antagonistic  45  Your Local Federal Member of Parliament  very supportive  supportive  we have no relationship  antagonistic  very antagonistic  46  Ministry of the Environment (Provincial)  very supportive  supportive  we have no relationship  antagonistic  very antagonistic  47  Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food  very supportive  supportive  we have no relationship  antagonistic  very antagonistic  48  F.R.E.M.P.  very supportive  supportive  we have no relationship  antagonistic  very antagonisti48  49  F.R.M.B.  very supportive  supportive  we have no relationship  antagonistic  very antagonistic  50  Ministry of Mines, Energy and Natural Resources  very supportive  supportive  we have no relationship  antagonistic  very antagonistic  51  Environment Canada  very supportive  supportive  we have no relationship  antagonistic  very antagonistic  52  Harbours Commission  very supportive  supportive  we have no relationship  antagonistic  very antagonistic  53  Department of Fisheries and Oceans  very supportive  supportive  we have no relationship  antagonistic  very antagonistic  54  Vancouver Port Comporation  very supportive  supportive  we have no relationship  antagonistic  very antagonistic  173  Sources of environmental knowledge: Scientific knowledge is often very important to groups concerned about the environment. Has your group ever recieved scientific (or technical) advice or information from any of the following sources? (Please circle "never", "sometimes", "frequently")  55  The Institute for Urban Ecology (Douglas College)  never  sometimes  frequently  56  Environmental Studies (Kwantlen College)  never  sometimes  frequently  57  Wesrwater Insititute (UBC)  never  sometimes  frequently  58  Sustainable Development Research Insititute (UBC)  never  sometimes  frequently  59  Fish and Wildlife Program (BCIT)  never  sometimes  frequently  60  Department of Environmental Studies at S.F.U.  never  sometimes  frequently  61  Faculty of Science at Trinity Western University  never  sometimes  frequently  62  Faculty of Science at U.C.F.V.  never  sometimes  frequently  63  Municipal Staff  never  sometimes  frequently  64  Your Local Environmental Health Office  never  sometimes  frequently  65  A municipal advisory committee on the environment  never  sometimes  frequently  66  F.R.E.M.P  never  sometimes  frequently  67  F.R.M.B..  never  sometimes  frequently  68  Environment Canada  never  sometimes  frequently  69  Department of Fisheries and Oceans  never  sometimes  frequently  70  Ministry of the Environment  never  sometimes  frequently  71  A naturalist group  never  sometimes  frequently  72  Another environmental group  never  sometimes  frequently  73  A private lab or research firm  never  sometimes  frequently  For most grassroots organisations, volounteers and members play a crucial role. Has your group ever used volounteers or recruited members from any of the following kinds of local organisations? (never, sometimes, regularly)  74  community centres  never  sometimes  regularly  75  ethnic or cultural associations  never  sometimes  regularly  76  recreational clubs  never  sometimes  regularly  never  sometimes  regularly  never  sometimes  regularly  77 78  Churches Other religious groups (temples, mosques, or synagogues, etc.)  174  79  Service Clubs  never  sometimes  regularly  80  Community Associations  never  sometimes  regularly  81  High Schools  never  sometimes  regularly  82  Elementary schools  never  sometimes  regularly  83  Scout or Guide Groups  never  sometimes  regularly  Space for meetings and events is an important resource for many local groups. Has your group ever held or participated in an environment-related meeting in space provided by any of the following kinds of institutions? (please circle "never", "sometimes" or "often" as appropriate)  84  at a school  never  sometimes  often  85  at a community centre or hall  never  sometimes •  often  86  at Citv Hall  never  sometimes  often  87  at a hotel or other rented facility  never  sometimes  often  88  in a member's home  never  sometimes  often  89  in a shopping mall  never  sometimes  often  90  at a private business  never  sometimes  often  91  at an environmental group's offices  never  sometimes  often  92  at a service club facility  never  sometimes  often  93  at a church  never  sometimes  often  94  at Federal Government offices  never  sometimes  often  95  at Provincial Government offices  never  sometimes  often  96  at G V R D facilities  never  sometimes  often  97  at the Chamber of Commerce  never  sometimes  often  98  at a Cultural Center  never  sometimes  often  Local groups often need money to do their work. In the past year, have you received funding or for your environmental projects from any of the following kinds of sources? (Please include an estimate of "in kind services") 99  the Provincial Government  no  SI-499  $500-51000  more than $1000  100  the Federal Government  no  $1-499  $500-51000  more than $1000  101  The G V R D  no  SI-499  $500-51000  more than $1000  102  The City of Bumaby  no  SI-499  $500-$1000  more than 51000  103  Churches or Religious Organisations  no  SI-499  $500-51000  more than 51000  175  104  service clubs  no  105  community or neighbourhood associations  ho  $1-499 1 $500-$ 1000  more than $1000  106  private foundations  no  $1-499  $500-$1000  more than $1000  107  small businesses  no  $1-499  $500-$1000  more than $1000  108  individual local donors  no  $1-499  $500-$1000  more than $1000  • $1-499  ',: $500-$ 1000$  more than $1000  Many environmental groups try to help a variety of different institutions to be more environmentally friendly. Has your group ever worked to make the policies or actions of the following kinds of institutions more environmentally friendly?  109  a small business  never  sometimes  often  regularly  110  a large corporation  never  sometimes  often  regularly  111  a school  never  sometimes  often  regularly  112  a college/ University  never  sometimes  often  regularly  113  a church  never  sometimes  often  regularly  114  City Council  never  sometimes  often  regularly  115  City Staff  never  sometimes  often  regularly  116  a labour union  never  sometimes  often  regularly  117  a farm  never  sometimes  often  regularly  118  a service club  never  sometimes  often  regularly  119  the Federal Government  never  sometimes  often  regularly  120  the Provincial Government  never  sometimes  often  regularly  121  a political parry  never  sometimes  often  regularly  122  a community association  never  sometimes  often  regularly  176  Group Information We would like to create a picture of what environmentally active groups in Burnaby look like, and to try to assess how strong the environmental movement is compared with the other four communities in our study. The information you provide will be combined with information we receive from other groups in Burnaby, and will not be presented on its own. The following questions ask about the group you are affilliated with. 123) In what year did your group begin? 19 124) What kind of group is your organisation? (please check one) 1) A grassroots environmental group [ ] 2) Service Club [ ] 3) Recreational organisation [ ] 4) Religious group [ ] 5) A Naturalist group 12)other [ ] specify:  6)Educational Institution [ ] 7)Government Advisory Committee [ ] 8)Neighbourhood Association [ ] 10) Native Organisation 11) Youth Group  *** if vou answered "1 grassroots environmental group", please skip to B O X B on the next page.  BOX A: Questions for groups that are not specifically "grassroots environmental groups"  125) How many members does your group ( or the Burnaby chapter of your group) have in total? 126) In what year did your group gei involved in environmental issues or projects? 19 127) How many people are involved in your group's environmental initiatives or projects? 127a) About how many of these are women? 127b) About how many of these would be considered "ethnic minorities"? 127c) About how many of these are retired ? 128) Most groups have a highly committed "core" who do much of the group's work, organise activities, etc. How many individuals make up the group of most active members in terms of your group's environmental projects? 128a) About how many of these are women? 12Sb) About how many of these would be considered "ethnic minorities"? 128c) About how many of these are retired ? 1 2 9 ) Approximately how much of your group's efforts are directly-related to environmental issues or 10% [] 20% 30% 40% 50%  [] [] [] []  60%  []  70% [] 80% [] 90% [ ] 100%[]  please go to question 133 on the next page.  177  projects ?  BOXB Questions for "grassroots environmental groups" 130) About how many members or participants does your group have in total? 131a) About how many of these are women? 131b) About how many of these would be considered "ethnic minorities"? 131c) About how many of these are retired ? 132) Most organisations have a highly committed "core" who do much of the group's work, organise activities, many individuals comprise this core of most active members? 132a) About how many of these are women? 132b) About how many of these would be considered "ethnic minorities"? 132c) About how many of these are retired ?  133) How many paid employees does your group have? Full time Part-time Contract 134) On a scale of 1 to 10, how active would you say your group has been in terms of environmental issues in the past year ? ("1" indicates "not very active" and "10" indicates "very active" please circle) 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  135) Approximately, what was your group's total budget for environmental projects and actions in 1996 ? S  Please turn the page....  178  Personal Background Information As part of the larger Eco-Research Project, a survey was conducted on British Columbians' attitudes and actions towards the environment. I would like to ask you a few more questions, so that we can compare those who are active in local groups concerned with the environment (you), with other British Columbians. This information will only be presented in agrregate, so that no individuals may be identified. I would like to ask you about some kinds of local organisations that people may join. Please indicate whether or not you are NOW a member of each. Indicate whether you are very active, fairly active or inactive. Please limit your responses to groups IN Burnaby. (place an X in the column for each) NO I am NOT a member of this type of group  type of organisation  138. Labour Unions 139. Business, professional, or occupational associations (other than labour unions) 140. Religious or church related organisations 141. Charitable organisations 142. Charitable organisations (such as the United Way or Cancer Society) 143. Credit Unions or Co-ops 144. Ethnic clubs or organisations 145. Service Clubs (Rotary, Kiwanis, etc.) 146. Neighbourhood. Community or Ratepayers Assoc. 147. Education or school related organisations (such as a ParentTeachers group) 148. Political Organisations, such as a parry- association 149. Entertainment and social groups (card clubs or dance groups) 150. Sport of fitness groups (such as a sortball or exercise group 151. Youth groups such as scouts or guides 152. Volounteer organisations, such as hospital auxilliary groups 153. Hobby groups, such as a photography or gardening club 154. Regimental or veterans organisations 155. Womens organisations 156. Self-Help groups  179  I am an LNACTIVE member of this type of group  I am a FAIRLY active member of this type of group  1 am a V E R Y active member of this type of group  In the Past year, have you personally done any of the following environmental activites? (please circle your response 157  Signed a petition supporting a pro-environment issue  yes  no  158  Displayed a bumper sticker or wore a pin in support of a pro-environment issue  yes  no  159  Boycotted a product because of environmental concerns  yes :  ho ,  160  Joined an environmental group  yes  no  161  Worked to elect someone because of their views on the environment  yes  no  162  Written a letter to a newspaper about an environmental issue  yes  no  163  Phoned a TV/Radio talk show about environmental issues  yes  no  164  Written to a public official about environmental matters  yes  no  165  Joined a protest or demonstration concerned with the environment  yes  no  The next 10 questions ask for your opinion about relations between humans and nature in general. For each statement, please indicate how you feel about it by circling one of the numbers on a scale of 1 to 7 where "1" means strongly agree, and " 7 " means strongly disagree.  166) When people interfere with nature, it often produces disasterous consequences. strongly agree  neutral 4  5  strongly disagree 7  167) The "ecological crisis" has been greatly exaggerated. strongly agree  1  neutral 4  strongly disagree  7  168) People must live in harmony with nature in order to survive. strongly agree  neutral 4  strongly disagree 7  169) People are severely abusing the environment. strongly agree  neutral 4  170) We are approaching the number of people that the earth can support. strongly agree  neutral 4  strongly disagree 7  171) Plants and animals exist primarily to be used by people. strongly agree 1 •  neutral 4  180  strongly disagree 7  172) To maintain a healthy economy we will have to control industrial growth strongly agree 1  2  neutral 4  3  5  6  strongly disagree 7  173) People have the right to modify the natural environment to suite their needs strongly agree 1  neutral 2  3  .  4  5  6  strongly disagree 7  174) People need not adapt to the environment because they can remake it to suit their needs. strongly agree 1  2  3  neutral 4  5  6  strongly disagree 7  175) There are limits to growth beyond which our industrial society cannot expand. strongly agree 1  2  3  neutral 4  5  6  strongly disagree 7  Basic Personal Background We are interested in comparing the backgrounds of individuals who are involved in environmental activism in Burnaby with what we know about environmentalists elsewhere. 176) In what year were you born? 19 177) What is your sex? Male [ ] Female [ ] 178) In what year did you first live in Burnaby? 19 179) Where did you live before that? (please list no more than two places)  180) What year did you first become involved in environmental issues? 19 181) Do you think of yourself as an "environmentalist" ?  (please circle the appropriate letter)  a) I identify myself very strongly as an environmentalist. b) I identify myself somewhat as an environmentalist. c) I do not think of myself as an environmentalist. d) I oppose the environmental movement. 182) How often do you discuss environmental problems with another individual? (please circle the appropriate letter) a) everyday b) at least once a week c) at least once a month d) several times a year e) once a year or less often 0 never  181  183) What is your occupation ?  184) What is the highest level of education that you have attained? (please circle the appropriate number) 01 Elementary 02 Some high school 03 High school graduation 04 Some Trade/Technical/Vocationa or Business College 05 Some Community College/Nursing School 06 Some University or University College 07 Diploma/Certificate from Trade/Technical/Vocational or Business College 08 Diploma/Certificate from Community College/Nursing School 09 Bachelor or Undergraduate Degree or Teachers College 10 Masters or Earned Doctorate 11 Other (please state ) 185) What, if any, is your religious affdiation? What denomination is that? 186) How often do you attend? (please circle the appropriate letter) a) never b) less than once a year c) once or twice a year d) several times a year e) once a month f) a couple of times a month g) nearly every week h) once a week i) more than once a week 187) What is your estimate of your personal income, from all sources (before taxes) for 1996 (please circle the appropriate number) 1. no personal income 2. under $ 5,000 3. $5,000 to 9,999 4. $10,000 to 14,999 5. $15,000 to 19,999 6. $20,000 to 24,999 7. $25,000 to 34,999 8. $35,000 to 44,999  9. $45,000 to 54, 999 10. $55,000 to 64,999 11. $65,000 to 74,999 12. $75,000 to 84,999 13. $85,000 to 94,999 14. $95,000 to 114,999 15. $115, 000 to 134,999 16. $135,000 and above  182  188) What is your estimate of your total family income, from all sources (before taxes) for 1996 ? (please circle the appropriate number) 1. no personal income 2. under $5,000 3. $ 5,000 to 9,999 4. $10,000 to 14,999 5. $15,000 to 19,999 6. $20,000 to 24,999 7. $25,000 to 34,999 8. $35,000 to 44,999  9. $45,000 to 54, 999 10. $55,000 to 64,999 11. $65,000 to 74,999 12. $75,000 to 84,999 13. $85,000 to 94,999 14. $95,000 to 114,999 15. $115, 000 to 134,999 16. $135,000 and above  189) What would you identify as your ethnic heritage?  190) Are there any any general comments that you would like to make?  I would like to take this opportunity to T H A N K - Y O U so much for participating in our survey!  Please detach the cover letter, put the survey in the enclosed, self-addressed, stamped envelope and mail it back to us as soon as possible. Thanks again!  183  


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