UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Towards sustainability on Bowen Island : a case study Savelson, Aviva 2004

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

Item Metadata


831-ubc_2004-0616.pdf [ 8.73MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0091689.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0091689-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0091689-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0091689-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0091689-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0091689-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0091689-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

Towards Sustainability on Bowen Island: A Case Study by AVIVA SAVELSON B.Sc, Concordia University, 1997  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Resource Management and Environmental Studies Program, Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability)  We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August 2004 © Aviva Savelson, 2004  JUBCL THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA  FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES  Library Authorization  In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.  Av.VA  SAVeUSotvJ  Name of Author (please print)  Title of Thesis:  jdVfAlfcSfr  Date (dd/mm/yyyy)  QA^^k&l  U  TS  Degree: Department of  M  13DW^M  I S L A M D  '•  Year:  Rg&QROZ  M A M kC, /WchJT £  The University of British Columbia Vancouver, B C Canada  g rad. u bc.ca/forms/?form I D=TH S  I gftiM M _K$TA L  STUDIO  bZWULftT^ $£Qr 1  page 1 of 1  tZj\i/\/\ I  last updated: 20-Jul-04  Abstract T h e future of h u m a n health a n d that of all other s p e c i e s d e p e n d s o n the viability a n d s u s t a i n a b i l i t y of a host of e n v i r o n m e n t s a n d e c o s y s t e m s . H u m a n b e h a v i o u r ( s ) h a v e p r o f o u n d effects (both p o s i t i v e a n d n e g a t i v e ) o n s u c h e c o s y s t e m s . D e s p i t e the o b v i o u s n e s s of t h e s e s t a t e m e n t s , there r e m a i n s a l a c k of clarity a r o u n d the m e c h a n i s m s for altering s p e c i f i c b e h a v i o u r s related to s u s t a i n a b i l i t y a n d their i m p a c t o n t h e p h y s i c a l e n v i r o n m e n t . T h i s r e s e a r c h g r a p p l e s with the i s s u e of w h y it is n e c e s s a r y to identify r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n h u m a n b e h a v i o u r a n d a c h i e v i n g sustainability. It s t u d i e d a d i a l o g u e p r o c e s s a s a m e a n s to e n a b l e p e o p l e to m o v e f r o m l e a r n i n g a b o u t w h a t s u s t a i n a b i l i t y might b e to t a k i n g a c t i o n t o w a r d m a k i n g the G e o r g i a B a s i n r e g i o n m o r e s u s t a i n a b l e .  T h e d i a l o g u e p r o c e s s that w a s s t u d i e d u s e d Q U E S T , a user-friendly, interactive, c o m p u t e r s o f t w a r e p r o g r a m d e s i g n e d to e n g a g e the p u b l i c in c r e a t i n g future s c e n a r i o s u p to the y e a r 2 0 4 0 a n d the P r e c e d e - P r o c e e d P l a n n i n g F r a m e w o r k , a p l a n n i n g m o d e l a d o p t e d f r o m the field of H e a l t h P r o m o t i o n . In c o m b i n i n g t h e s e two tools, the g o a l w a s to first initiate a d i a l o g u e o n w h a t s u s t a i n a b i l i t y might look like in a r e g i o n a l c o n t e x t , with t h e u s e of Q U E S T a n d t h e n c o n s i d e r the p r e l i m i n a r y p l a n n i n g s t e p s n e e d e d to a c t u a l i z e s o m e of t h o s e i d e a s u s i n g the P r e c e d e - P r o c e e d p l a n n i n g m o d e l . T h i s t w o - s t e p a p p r o a c h w a s a p p l i e d in a w o r k s h o p setting with s o m e m e m b e r s of the B o w e n Island c o m m u n i t y a n d the r e s e a r c h r e v o l v e d a r o u n d d e s c r i b i n g a n d reflecting o n the a p p l i c a t i o n of the p r o c e s s a n d its o u t c o m e s in the c o m m u n i t y . T h e p u r p o s e of this d i a l o g u e f r a m e w o r k w a s to p r o v i d e c i t i z e n s of B o w e n Island with a w e l l - s t r u c t u r e d , theoretically s o u n d m e a n s of g e n e r a t i n g p o s i t i v e d i s c o u r s e a n d d e c i s i o n m a k i n g a r o u n d i s s u e s of s u s t a i n a b i l i t y o n B o w e n Island.  T h e a p p l i c a t i o n of the d i a l o g u e p r o c e s s h a d s o m e p r o m i s i n g o u t c o m e s . Q U E S T facilitated l e a r n i n g a b o u t s o m e of the c o m p l e x interactions b e t w e e n s o c i o - e c o n o m i c a n d e n v i r o n m e n t a l a s p e c t s of h o w the G e o r g i a B a s i n r e g i o n f u n c t i o n s . L e a r n i n g a b o u t the c o n s e q u e n c e s a n d tradeoffs of potential f u t u r e s w a s a c e n t r a l t h e m e in the r e s e a r c h . T h i s kind of l e a r n i n g h e l p e d to r e i n f o r c e a n d e x p a n d p e o p l e ' s thinking a b o u t sustainability. H o w e v e r , for a l o c a l i s l a n d c o m m u n i t y , it w a s difficult to t r a n s l a t e t h e s e r e g i o n a l i d e a s a b o u t d e s i r e d futures into practical t e r m s . U s i n g t h e P r e c e d e - P r o c e e d f r a m e w o r k e n a b l e d participants to identify a n d prioritize potential s t r a t e g i e s a n d articulate c o n s t r u c t i v e o b j e c t i v e s . T h e f r a m e w o r k h e l p e d to c r e a t e c o h e r e n c e in u n d e r s t a n d i n g w h a t s t r a t e g i e s s h o u l d b e f o c u s e d o n . W i t h this clarity, s o m e of the w o r k s h o p participants w e r e i n s p i r e d to w o r k t o g e t h e r to i m p l e m e n t their i d e a s . A l t h o u g h the results of this s t u d y i n d i c a t e that u s i n g this kind of d i a l o g u e p r o c e s s h a d its benefits it m o s t l y r e i n f o r c e d t h e n e e d for m o r e practical e x a m p l e s of p o l i c y a n d p r o g r a m p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s in this v a i n . E n g a g i n g c i t i z e n s in t h e s e c o n v e r s a t i o n s m a k e s it p o s s i b l e to i n c o r p o r a t e their p e r s p e c t i v e s into w i d e r public p l a n n i n g .  Table of Contents Abstract  ii  Table of Contents  iii  List of Tables  v  List of Figures  vi  List of Abbreviations  vii  Acknowledgments  viii  Chapter I  Introduction  1  Chapter II  Determinants of a Dialogue Process  5  2.1 Introduction _ A Narrow View of Policy Options: The Limits of Financial Incentives and Educational Campaigns 2.3 Refining Policy and Program Design  5  2  2.3.1 2.3.2  2.4  2.5 Chapter III  A Glance at Barriers to Behavioural Change Taking a More Comprehensive Approach to Policy and Program Design The Dialogue Process  10 11  2.4.1 Introduction to PRECEDE-PROCEED  12  2.4.2 Using Precede-Proceed to Guide a Dialogue on Sustainability  15  Conclusion  8  21  Manifestations of Method and Methodology  23  3.1  Introduction  23  3.2  Why Use a Case Study Approach on Bowen Island?  23  3.3  Community-Based Research Approach  25  3.4  The Workshop  28  3.4.1  Design  28 Day 1 - Q U E S T  28  30  3.4.2  32  Sources of Data  33  3.5.1  Participant Observation  33  3.5.2  Interviews  35  3.5.3 3.6 Interview Process Workshop Outputs: Bowen QUEST Scenario, Precede Worksheets, Workshop Video and Evaluations  Data Analysis 3.6.1  3.7  Day 2 - Precede-Proceed  Recruitment of Participants  3.5  Chapter IV  5 8  Coding, Memoing and Developing Themes  Validity and Generalizability  Characterizing the Case - the Place, the Process and the Participants  36 38 .....38 ..39 41 42  4.1  Introduction  42  4.2  The Place - The Bowen Island Community and Their Interest in Sustainability ..42  4.3  The Process - Expectations of the GBFP Workshop  44  4.4  4.5 Chapter V  46  4.4.1  The Demographics  46  4.4.2  Their Actions and Motivations  49  The Case as a Whole  Dialogues, Descriptions and Discussions - An Analysis  51 52  5.1  Introduction  52  5.2  QUEST: Deepening the Dialogue on Sustainability  53  5.3  A Prequel to QUEST: Eliciting Regional and Local Values  53  5.4  QUEST Outcomes  55  5.4.1  Setting the Context  55  5.4.2  Choosing Options  57  5.4.3  The Results  5.4.4  Learning about Consequence, Interconnections and Tradeoffs  64  5.4.5  Learning about Paths to Sustainability  67  5.4.6  The Limits of QUEST  69  .....60  5.5  PRECEDE PROCEED: From Learning to Action  70  5.6  P/P Outcomes  70  5.6.1  Creating Objectives  70  5.6.2  Worksheet Descriptions  75  5.6.3  Benefits of Prioritizing Problems and Clarifying Objectives  76  5.6.4  Factors that Facilitated and Impeded Implementation  78  5.7 Chapter VI  The Participants - The People Who Attended the Workshop  Summary  Conclusions  81 82  6.1 Lessons Learned from the QUEST Workshop  82  6.2 Lessons Learned from the P/P Workshop  85  6.3 Lessons Learned from the Workshop as a Whole  88  Bibliography  92  Appendix I  Details of Precede-Proceed Model  99  Appendix II  Sample of the Precede Worksheets  102  Appendix III  Undercurrent Article about the Workshop  109  Appendix IV  Workshop Advertisement in the Undercurrent  110  Append ix V  I nterview Questions  111  Appendix VI  Detailed Bowen QUEST Choices  114  iv  List of Tables Table 5.1  Desired Characteristics of the GB region  54  Table 5.2  Choices Made in the Bowen Workshop QUEST Scenario  56  v  1  List of Figures  Figure 2.1 - The Adapted Precede-Proceed Model  14  Figure 2.2 - The GBFP Dialogue Process  16  Figure 5.1 - QUEST Results: Expert Dartboard  61  Figure 5.2 - QUEST Results: Labour Market and Unemployment  62  Figure 5.3 - QUEST Results: Cost of Living  62  Figure 5.4 - QUEST Results: Health Needs and Public Spending  63  Figure 5.5 - QUEST Results: Remaining Potentially Developable Land  64  Figure 5.6 - Outcomes from the Precede-Proceed Worksheets: Stewardship Group  72  Figure 5.7 - Outcomes from the Precede-Proceed Worksheets: Justice & Fairness Group  73  Figure 5.8 - Outcomes from the Precede-Proceed Worksheets: Equity Group  74  vi  List of Abbreviations  BILLS - Bowen Island Lifelong Learning Society CBR - Community Based Research GB - Georgia Basin GBFP - Georgia Basin Futures Project P/P - Precede-Proceed  Acknowledgements Being a part the Georgia Basin Futures Project made it possible for me to learn from a prestigious group of researchers from diverse backgrounds and disciplines. As a novice researcher, I appreciated working with this kind of group because I was able to rely on a strong network of people who were willing and interested to support and guide me through my research. Consequently, I have many people to acknowledge and thank for their contribution and insight.  To begin with, I thank John Robinson, the architect of the Georgia Basin Futures Project and my supervisor. He taught me through example (and constructive criticism) how to think critically and was always a good source of novel ideas, perspective and advice. My committee members: Rob Vanwynberghe, who I am grateful for, for not only working so closely with me in forging the partnership with the Bowen community members, but also for teaching me to think creatively and outside the box. I think it is because of his dedication that I learned what it means to work collaboratively. Jim Frankish, for introducing me to the world of Health Promotion and offering me his practical and allegorical insight to understanding human behaviours. Finally, Terre Satterfield, for always asking me the kinds of questions that helped me think harder and delve deeper into my research.  I am also grateful for the active participation of the community members of Bowen Island, in both the workshops and interviews, especially Anne Ironside, Murray Journeay and Penny Scott, whom without which, this research would not have been possible. There is also much appreciation for those who helped me plan, facilitate and evaluate the workshop: Randi Kruse-Ferdinands, Bob Woollard, Estelle Levin, Jady Peng, Sonia Talwar and our QUEST guru, Jeff Carmichael. To Yolanda Yim, my thesis peer support, I thank for helping me get through the days of darkness and celebrating the days of light. Finally, I thank my family, especially my parents and my surrogate family in Vancouver. They have always supported me, inspired me and taught me to live life with lightness.  This research, as part of the Georgia Basin Futures Project was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, and received additional funding from the Shell Foundation and Environment Canada.  viii  /  Chapter I Introduction  Though more than fifteen years old, sustainability is still generally defined by the Brundtland Report's famous (and ambiguous) statement of: "Development that meets the needs of current generations without compromising the ability of future generation to meet their own needs." (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987:23). The strength of this definition and perhaps the reason for its longevity is that it gives a broad understanding of what sustainability could accomplish, however at the same time, this definition lacks prescriptive power (Meppem and Gill 1998). The resulting effect on researchers, practitioners and others passionate about sustainability is that they have had to realize the specifics of a concept that lacks referents beyond the goal of balancing intra-generational, social, economic and environmental needs. Because of the vagueness and uncertain nature of what it means to be sustainable in practice (Berke 2000; Meppen and Gill 1998) it has been suggested that sustainability might be better conceived of as an emergent property (Robinson 2004). That is, a product of a collective conversation about what kind of world we want to live in now and in the future. Since we do not yet know what exactly a sustainable community would look like, conceptualizing sustainability as an emergent property places an emphasis on dialogue so that interested parties can discuss their desired futures as a means to articulate solutions for creating more sustainable communities. The outcome of this kind of dialogue is for people to understand each other well enough that common goals are possible. By developing a process that more clearly articulates a shared understanding of sustainability, it will be easier to identify leverage points for action and subsequently the realization of collective goals (Meppen and Gill 1998).  At present, evidence in the literature about successful comprehensive dialogue processes geared to the pursuit of sustainability is just beginning to emerge (Wilkins 20003; Becker 2003; Shipley 2002; Warburton 1998). This research examines a novel approach that is intended to contribute to this growing field, with the intent of enabling people to learn about what sustainability might be and then taking the first steps toward action. The dialogue process involves both learning and strategic planning components. Together, they are intended to help in the creation of projects that target motives for individual and societal change that are based on perceived knowledge, attitudes, beliefs and values, the provision of skills and resources, and the public rewarding or reinforcing of positive 'sustainability' behaviours and lifestyle. The process also helps identify some of the policy, regulatory, and.  1  organizational changes that would be necessary to create a more sustainable community. Ideally, this process is designed to help understand and conceive of concrete or measurable parameters of sustainability.  This research is part of a five-year project entitled the Georgia Basin Futures Project (GBFP). The GBFP is aimed at combining expert knowledge and public opinion to explore desired futures (Tansey et al. 2002). The Project works to explore how in the next 40 years, we as citizens can learn to live within the limits of natural ecosystems, while improving human well being in the Georgia Basin region on the west coast of British Columbia. Its aim is to increase the level of understanding of how complex ecological, social and economic systems interact as a means to discover new ways of achieving a sustainable future for the region (for more information, see www.basinfutures.net). The GBFP is largely focused on using QUEST, a powerful user-friendly, interactive, computer software program designed to engage the public in creating future scenarios up to the year 2040. QUEST is designed to fuel discussion about the kinds of futures we can live with and what might be needed to get there. The Project also recognizes the need to go beyond QUEST and build capacity amongst key stakeholders interested in providing a means to actualize their desired futures. In order to meet this goal, the Precede-Proceed (P/P) health promotion model was applied to the field of sustainability in an effort to enable people to move from learning about what sustainability might be to planning strategies aimed at creating a sustainable society.  Using a workshop setting, QUEST and the P/P health promotion model were applied together for the first time. The purpose of using these tools was to engage the public in a dialogue about the sustainability of the region while also identifying and prioritizing local measures to meet those goals. In the summer of 2002, the GBFP initiated a partnership with a local citizen's group on Bowen Island in British Columbia to study the application of the tools in practice. The local citizen's group, the Bowen Island Lifelong Learning Society (BILLS) and researchers from the GBFP worked together in planning the GBFP workshop for Bowen community members. The impetus behind the partnership was for both parties to learn more about what is involved in actualizing a desired future for the island. Bowen community members were interested in partnering with the GBFP because they, like most communities, are faced with development pressures. They welcomed GBFP researchers into their community because of the potential the GBFP tools offered for helping them in their formulation of a  2  sustainability planning framework for the island.  In the form of a case study, the research focused on examining the application of the QUEST-P/P dialogue process. In using QUEST on the first day of the workshop participants thought about how the world works (dealing with areas of uncertainty), what preferences they have for the future and the consequences of these decisions for the sustainability of the region. The goal behind using QUEST was to increase the level of understanding of how complex ecological, social and economic systems interact, in the hope that with this knowledge people could more clearly envision what sustainability means to them. With thoughts about what makes a region sustainable fresh on the participants' minds, on the second day, the P/P planning framework was used to identify issues related to the sustainability of Bowen Island. Those issues were addressed by developing a series of focused objectives for a potential program or policy initiatives. By using these tools together, it was hoped that it would be possible to address some of the behavioural and environmental barriers to creating a more sustainable community. By following the outcomes of the workshop over a seven-month period it was possible to explore what resulted from the two-day workshop and the lessons that were learned from the application of the GBFP dialogue process. The objectives of the case study were as follows: 1)  To determine the advantages and disadvantages of using QUEST and P/P to guide dialogue about sustainability with Bowen community members.  2)  To determine whether the combination of using QUEST and P/P together helped to identify and address the behavioural and lifestyle constraints of sustainability issues.  3)  To determine how the workshop fit into the community's agenda to enhance community participation in planning for its future.  The purpose of the research was to study what can result from creating a dialogue with community members of Bowen Island. The dialogue focused on envisioning the kind of world and community they desired and the resulting changes in people's behaviours, lifestyle and environment that would be necessary to create that future.  The following chapters explain how the research unfolded. Chapter 2 provides the theoretical context behind the research. In this chapter, a review of the literature on approaches to addressing issues of sustainability is discussed. An argument for taking a behaviourally comprehensive approach to policy  3  and programs about sustainability initiatives is made. Chapter 3 discusses the methods and methodology of the case study and the specifics of the behaviouristic approach that was used. Chapter 4 describes the circumstances out of which the case study was born, that is, the state of the Bowen Island community in regard to their interests in sustainability, the expectations of the GBFP workshop and the kinds of people who attended the workshop. Looking at these factors serves as a reference point for the unfolding of the research. Chapter 5 provides an analysis of the research data. This chapter discusses what resulted from the two-day workshop and the lessons that were learned from the application of the GBFP dialogue process. Finally, Chapter 6 offers some conclusions about the research and its overall significance.  4  Chapter II Determinants of a Dialogue P r o c e s s 2.1 Introduction  The theoretical rationale for this research is founded on a critique of the different approaches used to engender sustainability (Pepper 1996,0'Riordan 1981; Meppem and Gill 1998; Smil 1993; Cone and Hayes 1980; Stern and Oskamp 1987; Dobson 1995; Robinson 1991; Stern 1993; Stern 1986a). The major criticism of these dominant modes of thinking presented in this chapter is that they address key behavioural considerations quite naively in their approaches to sustainability. An argument for a behaviourally comprehensive approach to sustainability is made and stresses that what we know about human behaviour needs to be emphasized in the formulation of sustainability-oriented. The intent is to explain why it is necessary to address key behavioural factors related to sustainability and identify current challenges in dealing with these factors. Finally, a dialogue process is introduced as means to address these challenges by acting as a guide to identifying a range of potential strategies for taking action toward sustainability. It combines the learning tool, QUEST, and the planning tool, PrecedeProceed (P/P), adopted from the field of Health Promotion. The goal in using this dialogue process is for people to learn about what sustainability might be and then take the first steps toward action. It is argued that the application of this framework for this research will provide citizens of Bowen Island with a well-structured, theoretically sound means of generating positive discourse and decision making around issues of sustainability on Bowen Island.  2.2 A Narrow View of P o l i c y O p t i o n s : T h e Limits of Financial Incentives and E d u c a t i o n a l Campaigns  The recognition that there are significant problems and challenges to the way in which the world is developing has inspired the attention of policy decision makers and communities towards concerted action in many parts of the world. Over the past 25 years, several strategies have been suggested to address some of the detrimental impacts of human development, each of which targets different aspects of our behaviours. Policies may seek to alter behaviour by developing appropriate technologies, changing financial and other material incentives or changing attitudes and beliefs with education and information. Other policy alternatives include appealing to basic values or modifying institutional structures, like international agreements or neighbourhood organizations (Stern 1999).  'i  5  Despite the availability of different kinds of policy and program options, there has been a tendency for most sustainability-oriented policies to rely only on technological innovations, educational and informational campaigns and financial incentives (Barr 2003, Meppem and Gill 1998, Stern 1999). The underlying behavioural assumption of most of these kinds of policies is that technologies that will, over their life, save their owners and operators money will be adopted once the owners become aware of the benefits. The history of the outcomes of these kinds of policies tells a different story. The 1980's energy policy evaluation literature provides a strong example of the difficulties that resulted from relying on a narrow view of how people behave (Stern 1986, Costanzo et al. 1986, Kempton et al. 1992; Robinson 1991). Examples include the widespread opposition to the carefully designed nuclear power strategies; the failure of citizens to claim energy conservation tax credits and the lack of opportunity taken to do home energy audits (Stern 1992). What policy makers have overlooked in their formulation of policies and programs was that people's behaviours are determined by multiple variables, sometimes in interaction (Stern 2000b, Corraliza and Berenguer 2000). As the following will explain, basing policies purely on educating the public or offering them financial incentives will limit their success.  Financial Incentives: Studies have shown (Stern 1999, Costanzo et al. 1986) that increased financial incentives for major investments in home energy conservation were necessary but far from sufficient for programs to be successful. For example, even when utility companies offered to subsidize 93% of the cost of home insulation, consumer response varied from 1% to almost 20% adoption per year, depending on how the subsidy was made known to householders (Stern 2000b). Non-financial factors such as promotion, simplification, reliability and trust (Stern 1993:1898) played a key role in the variation of adoption. What this indicates is that policy makers cannot rely on the financial incentive alone to encourage people to adopt or participate in sustainability-oriented programs. As Stern (1993: 1898) writes, "Technology, attitudes, knowledge, money, convenience, attention and trust are all needed for behaviour change, and attempts to provide any of these will fall short to the extent that others are missing." As will be discussed in more detail, this implies that interventions should have multiple features to address the multiple variables that determine people's adoption of pro-sustainability behaviours.  6  Educational Campaigns: Information is one of the most widely used means to promote prosustainability behaviour change (Staats et al. 2004). Ironically, the most typical result of presenting people with information on the benefits of pro-sustainability behaviours is that the behaviour does not change. These efforts failed, in part, because they simply made information available, without any serious effort to get the intended audience to pay attention (Staats et al 2004; Blake 1999, Ester and Winett 1982). With information, what matters is not only how much is made available, but how it is conveyed. Modest, positive effects are observed when informational programs apply the research on communication, social influence and decision making (Stern 2000b; Costanzo et.al. 1986). Social psychologists and marketing professionals have shown that information is more likely to change behaviour when it is specific, vivid and personalized (Bordiga and Nisbett 1977, Taylor and Thompson 1982 in Stern 1992). Moreover, the source of information, particularly its trustworthiness, can make a great difference in the effectiveness of a message (Barr 2003, Stern 1992; Costanzo et.al. 1986). However, as Stern (1999:468) explains, even if information programs that are carefully designed to achieve these objectives, they produce only modest short-term behavioural changes. The effects of information campaigns are often modest because there are other important barriers to change such as inconvenience or financial cost that information campaigns alone, do not address.  Knowledge about sustainability issues and the use of incentives are necessary but insufficient factors in changing behaviour. This does not mean that educational approaches or incentives are unimportant but rather that they can only assist an overall effort by helping people to focus on the issue, reminding them of the problem, and prompting them to make change (Monroe 1993:28). As already mentioned, it has been suggested that the ingredients to a successful sustainability-oriented policy or program are ones that considers multiple factors. What this means is that both the traditional technological and economic factors be considered as well as the relevant behavioural elements, such as structural and demographic factors, attitudes, beliefs, values, knowledge, convenience, commitment and trust (Stern 2000b; McKenzie-Mohr 2000). For example, to promote investments in home insulation, it has been shown (Stern et.al. 1986b) that it is necessary to reduce the financial barriers, provide accurate information on which actions would be effective and reduce the difficulty of getting the information and finding a reliable contractor. Programs that promoted all these measures were vastly more successful than programs that did only one or two. Since different people face different impediments to behaviour  7  change and the impediments are often multiple, little happens until the right combination of interventions types are used (Stern 2000b).  2.3 Refining P o l i c y and P r o g r a m D e s i g n  Since the early 80's, social science researchers have been investigating ways to address the multiple variables related to sustainability behaviours in order to identify useful and practical principles for interventions. Based on the research in environmental psychology on environmental behaviours, Stern (2000) offers four general categories of variables that influence behaviours: attitudinal factors, contextual forces, personal capabilities and finally, habit and routine. These categories are useful because they encapsulate the areas in which policy makers and program planners should look into when designing policies arid programs so to implicitly plan for impediments to implementation.  2.3.1 A G l a n c e at Barriers to Behavioural C h a n g e  Attitudinal factors include norms, beliefs and values. These factors contribute to the degree a person will act with a pro-sustainability intent and as a result can influence all behaviours an individual considers to be important with regard to sustainability (Stern 2000b: 416). These factors can be seen as targets for change. For example, if someone believes that reducing their personal consumption of consumer goods will not make any kind of impact on the greater good of society then they won't be motivated to consider how they could reduce their ecological footprint. But, if it was explained how they could make a difference through some kind of informational campaign their beliefs might change which in turn could influence their personal norms and general predisposition to their consumer habits. Such attitudinal factors do influence behaviours but they only point to one piece of the behaviour puzzle. Corraliza and Berenguer (2000) demonstrated that contextual conditions impose limits on the attitude-behaviour relationship. Having pro-sustainability attitudes only leads to positive behaviours when facilitated by the context within which the behaviour is taking place. The key message from the literature on attitudinal factors is that these factors are important but they cannot be thought of in isolation since they are part of a larger behavioural picture.  ' Contextual forces are important driving factors of sustainability behaviours. They generally pertain to an individual's access to services and experience of relevant behaviours (Barr 2003: 229). They include interpersonal influences, like persuasion and modeling; community expectations; advertising; government regulations; other institutional factors, like contract restrictions on rental housing  8  occupants; financial incentives and costs; the physical difficulty of some behaviours; the capabilities and constraints provided by technology and the built environment, like building design, availability of bicycle paths or solar energy technology; the availability of public policies to support behaviour, like curbside recycling programs; and the effects of the broad social, economic and political context, like the price of oil, the responsiveness of government to public pressures and market interest rates (Stern 2000b: 417). These contextual forces have a strong impact on behaviours (Corraliza and Berenguer 2000). The effects of all of the factors differs according to the behaviour in question, but in general, those who have greater access to services, such as recycling services, public transportation or opportunity to purchase 'greener' products are more likely to advantage of the opportunities to act differently (Guagnano et al. 1995; Barr 2003). The influence of contextual forces on behaviours is critical to any policy or program and cannot be overlooked.  Personal Capabilities include the knowledge and skills required for particular actions, like the skills of organizing participatory processes or the knowledge about energy-conservation techniques; the availability of time to act and general capabilities and resources such as literacy, money, social status and power (Stern 2000b: 417). Sociodemographic variables such age, level of education, race and income may be indicators of personal capabilities. Stereotypically, research indicates pro-sustainability behaviour is more common amongst younger, female, well-educated, wealthy individuals in nuclear families (Barr 2003, Dietz et al. 1998). However, these findings are often interpreted as being ambiguous because almost all of the factors listed above have had different trends associated with them (Barr 2003, De Oliver 1999). Despite the limited explanatory power of sociodemographic information for many pro-sustainability behaviours, they may be important for behaviours that depend on particular capabilities. For example, Stern (1999) found that environmental citizenship was found to be positively associated with income and with white race, suggesting that the efficacy of environmental citizenship depends on an individual's social and economic resources. Taking the different kinds of personal capabilities into consideration when designing a program or policy will provide insight into the kind of baseline the policy or program would be operating under. It also indicates areas weakness that could be strengthened.  Habit and routine also known as, lifestyle, is an indication of an enduring pattern of behaviours (Green and Kreuter 1999). Habits or lifestyle are important variables to consider when thinking about behaviour  9  change since they often require breaking or the establishment of new ones (Stern 2000b). If new habits need to form, thinking about the best way to ensure the formation of these habits would make the changes more durable. For example, habit in the form of standard operating procedures was a key factor in environmentally significant organizational behaviour (Stern 2000b).  2.3.2 Taking a More Comprehensive Approach to Policy and Program Design Different types of causal variables are implicated depending on the particular behaviour (Gardner and Stern 1996; Stern 2000a). To create a stronger policy or program would entail considering the abovementioned variables in their design. Stern (2000b) outlines a series of principles for taking these variables into consideration when designing policies or programs. 1) Identify the target behaviours that are significant in terms of their impact. 2) Analyse the behaviours to identify the responsible actors and actions. And finally, 3) Consider the full range of causal variables and explore their relevance to the target behaviour from the actors standpoint. In using Stern's principles not only is there a focus on the desired behaviour but also the determinants of the behaviour. By identifying the causal variables of desired behaviours, planners can create programs or policies that address those variables rather than just relying on default assumptions. Instead of assuming, for example that people just need to understand what they need to do to act differently, planners can consider other variables that will also contribute to a desired behaviour.  Based loosely on these principles, McKenzie-Mohr and Smith (1999), created an approach called community-based social marketing (CBSM). The approach focuses on identifying and addressing the barriers to acting sustainably. Program planners and policy makers first identify the activity they want promoted (Stern's principle #1) and the barriers to this activity (principle #2). They then design a strategy to overcome these barriers, using psychological knowledge regarding behaviour change (principle #3) (McKenzie-Mohr 2000:531). CBSM has quite a few demonstrated successes. There is a long list of case studies that have used this approach in areas such as transportation, waste reductions and energy efficiency (see www.cbsm.com). CBSM demonstrates how targeting more than just the educational/informational gap or offering financial incentives can promote lasting and sustainable behaviour change.  10  Despite its successes, it can be argued that CBSM is weak on process. It offers generalized methods to designing projects through the identification of barriers to behaviours (McKenzie-Mohr 2000:533). The need to identify barriers is an important step toward encouraging sustainable behaviours however, what is missing in the CBSM approach is a more comprehensive means to identifying relevant variables in an integrated, systematic manner. There remains a need for a means to discuss problems and solutions in a more integrated manner in order to avoid jumping to simplistic solutions. This may enable planners and policy makers to identify the different aspects about our unsustainability and their potential solutions.  2.4 The Dialogue Process A lot of literature on sustainability behaviour teaches how to strengthen policies and programs by addressing the different variables associated with desired behaviours. This advice assumes that the goals or desired behaviours are known. But sustainability is a complex concept, not everyone knows which behaviours they want to target. There are many directions communities, businesses or governments could develop therefore operationalizing sustainability requires identifying and targeting different leverage points for action (Meppem and Gill 1998). Consequently, there first needs to be an emphasis placed on understanding and identifying desired outcomes before evolving policies and programs. In order to identify these desired outcomes, it has been suggested that dialogue between interested parties be used to discuss desired futures as a means to understanding what will be necessary to create those futures (Meppem and Gill 1998; Robinson 2004). The term dialogue is defined as a group activity in which participants' discussion is as much about the internal group dynamics - assumptions, values, and motivations - as the topic of discussion (Meppem and Gill 1998: 132). In other words, the idea of dialogue is to use forums for rational discussion based on expert knowledge but that also include values, insights and norms as a means to articulate goals and ways to achieving those goals.  The idea of using dialogue to identify desired futures comes from literature on participatory decision making (Meppem and Gill 1998). Taking a participatory approach helps to ensure proper scrutiny by interested parties of potential directions policies and programs may take. At present, evidence in the literature about successful comprehensive dialogue processes geared to the pursuit of sustainability is beginning to emerge (Wilkins 2003; Becker 2003; Shipley 2002; Warburton 1998). The Bowen Island  11  Case Study is an attempt to contribute to this developing field.' It will demonstrate what results from using a dialogue driven process that is intended to enable people to learn about desired futures while also identifying the multiple behavioural and contextual variables that contribute to creating that future. As will be clear upon explanation, this approach follows the above-described Stern principles to designing policies and programs: it identifies target behaviours, analyzes them and considers their causal variables and it does so by using a participatory process. In taking this approach, it is hoped that the process of designing policies and programs will be strengthened because it is more holistic and comprehensive. It not only disaggregates behaviours but also uses dialogue to promote a participatory approach to identifying what kind of behaviours should be targeted.  The structure of the dialogue process used in the research presented in this thesis combines the learning tool, QUEST and the planning tool, Precede-Proceed (P/P). The intent is that together, people will learn about what sustainability might be and then take the first steps toward action. More specifically, an adaptation of the P/P model was used, in conjunction with QUEST, to frame a dialogue on sustainability with Bowen community members. The rationale for adopting the P/P approach is that it not only adheres to using a comprehensive behaviouristic approach but it also provides an integrated approach to program and policy planning. The following section provides some background on the P/P model before going on to explain the dialogue process itself.  2.4.1 Introduction to PRECEDE-PROCEED The PRECEDE-PROCEED (P/P) model was originally formulated by Green (1974) and was elaborated over three editions in the text by Green & Kreuter (1999) which includes the documentation of its conceptual and evidence-based evolution. It has been widely and successfully used as a planning tool to guide communities in developing health education and health promotion programs. There are more than 850 published applications of the model (see www.ihpr.ubc.ca/ProcedeRefsLinks.htmi or www.igreen.net/precede.htm), of which many were rigorously evaluated (Green and Kreuter 1999:24). Recent examples include: asthma education (Chiang 2003); implementing and evaluating a community-wide health fair (Hecker 2000); implementing physical activity programs (Hopman-Rock 2000); and preventing school violence (Chaney 2000).  12  The heart and strength of the P/P model is its postulating of three kinds of factors that are fundamental to changing any human behaviour and the environmental forces that influence behaviour or directly influence the desired outcomes. According to the P/P theory, predisposition, enabling and reinforcement are the necessary ingredients for a successful intervention (Nutbeam and Harris 1998) and by following the model, planners assess how these factors can be operationalized. In other words, the model suggests that humans will not change their current behaviour(s) unless they are first motivated or predisposed to take act (i.e. to move toward engaging in sustainable behaviours). Second, motivated individuals must be enabled to action. Third, individuals who take action must be rewarded or reinforced. Behaviour that is not rewarded will not endure. The power in the model lies in the recognition that behaviours that fall into all three categories should be addressed. Using these categories help to thoroughly identify and address the multiple attributes of behaviours and lifestyle.  The P/P approach is in many ways similar to the principles that Stern (2000) espoused. It advocates a multi-causal approach to policy and program design whereby attitudinal, contextual, personal and habitual factors that underlie behaviour be identified and addressed. The theory behind the P/P model also follows Stern's (2000) aforementioned, principles for designing policies and programs (see Figure 1.1, note direction of the top arrow going from right to left). Green and Kreuter (1999) explain that the most effective way to create behaviourally focused strategies is to identify desired outcomes first and work backwards from there. This first step essentially asks the question, what is the vision or goal your project or program should be working towards? (Stern principle #1) After identifying a vision of a desired future, the model suggests that the next step is to identify the key problems that have arisen as a result of not yet having that desired future (Stern principle #2). By identifying these key problems, it is then possible to consider what behaviours, lifestyle and environmental factors are causing the problems (Stern principle #2). The next step is to disaggregate each of those key causal factors further into more specific categories, the aforementioned, predisposing, enabling and reinforcing factors (Stern principle #3). What P/P is suggesting is that by disaggregating each causal factor it will be possible to formulate a strategy that addresses those factors so that the desired outcome can eventually be reached.  13  In other words, the theory of P/P explains that it is imperative to think of planning for desired futures as a funnel: to go from a broad vision of desired outcomes and link that to the specific problems that arise from not having those desired outcomes, to identifying the key causes for those problems and then structuring appropriate objectives for strategies that will address those causal factors. As Figure 1.1 illustrates, with these clear and specific strategic objectives (the far left of the diagram), one can then go on to implementation phase. Using the objectives for the structure of the project or program, the desired outcomes can eventually be reached (note bottom arrow in Figure 1.1 going from left to right). Finally, P/P suggests the need to follow-up and evaluate the whole planning and implementation process so to identify and improve on any gaps or problems. (See Appendix I for more detail about the model.)  ,  Overall, through consensus and mutual commitment, the P/P model allows groups to develop a vision for their desired outcomes by prioritizing and exploring the predisposing, enabling and reinforcing factors that might promote that vision (Woollard et al. 1999). It therefore has the potential to provide the conceptual structure for a process that is aimed at operationalizing sustainability. It offers those interested in exploring concrete and measurable parameters of sustainability a planning framework that is thorough and explicit about what is necessary for an intervention to be successful. It can also be seen as a supplement to the Stern principles (2000) in that it offers a structured dialogue-oriented approach to identifying and addressing causal variables to behaviours.  2.4.2 Using Precede-Proceed to Guide a Dialogue on Sustainability The combination of the demonstrated success of the application of P/P process in Health Promotion and its behaviourally comprehensive approach to program planning led to adopting the P/P process into the GBFP. The model's guiding principles were used to conceptually understand what could result from the GBFP dialogue process about desired futures for the Georgia Basin region. The P/P planning process was also adopted to identify key behavioural, lifestyle and environmental factors that are linked to creating that future at a local level. An adaptation of the P/P model was generated that describes the intended sequence of events of the GBFP dialogue process (see Figure 1.2). The following explains how the P/P approach helps to structure a dialogue about desired futures and formulate sustainability-oriented programs and projects.  15  16  On a conceptual level, P/P fits very neatly with GBFP's aim to discover new ways of achieving a sustainable future for the Georgia Basin (GB) region. To begin with, the GBFP, QUEST and the P/P theory are all founded on a backcasting approach to thinking about desired outcomes. This kind of approach involves the exploration of the feasibility and consequences of trying to reach desirable futures, rather than the prediction of most-likely outcomes (Robinson 1988). This kind of symmetry made it conceptually logical to use P/P theory with QUEST. P/P theory provides the GBFP a guiding framework to engaging the public in a dialogue about desired futures for the region. Using a behaviourally focused approach to dialogue, the P/P framework can help form the structure for local projects aimed at creating an identified desired future. Most importantly, by applying the process, program planners are challenged to identify the different behavioural and environmental factors that ought to be addressed by their program in order to increase the likelihood of its success. This GBFP dialogue process, which mirrors the P/P model, is illustrated in Figure 1.2.  The QUEST Workshop: The GBFP dialogue process begins with a QUEST workshop, as depicted on the far right of Figure 1.2. QUEST is a powerful software program and learning tool designed to facilitate discussion about a wide variety of issues surrounding regional sustainability. It is intended to help focus participants' ideas about the kind of future they desire by providing a series of different choices of how the region could operate. It also illustrates the interacting effects of their decisions. The goal of QUEST is to highlight the interconnections between choices made in building a future scenario and the resulting scenario. For example, QUEST runs on the principle that government spending (economic system) directly affects student-teacher ratios (social system); if one wishes to have fewer students per teacher then according to QUEST, it is necessary to have to have increased government spending. The premise behind this part of the process is that people are not necessarily aware of the possible consequences of the decisions made about the development of the region. QUEST illustrates some of the interconnections between and within social, environmental and economic systems, especially since some consequences are less obvious than others. By creating a desired future scenario with QUEST and having parallel discussions about the choices and outcomes of development options, participants make more informed decisions about what kind of future they desire for the region while also learning what is involved in making such a future.  17  QUEST'S role in the P/P guided, GBFP dialogue process is to help identify the issues related to first three steps of the P/P process, (which is why these steps have been boxed together under the label QUEST in Figure 1.2). In accordance with the first step of P/P, QUEST helps envision desired end goals by creating scenarios for achieving a desired future. QUEST also helps identify key problems that may have arisen as a result of the existing situation (Step 2). It helps workshop participants to consider the kinds of changes in individual and collective behaviours as well as the changes in the physical and socio-economic environments that would be necessary to achieve their desired futures for the Georgia Basin region (Step 3). In other words, QUEST provides a formal model of the first 3 steps in Figures 1.1 and 1.2. No previous P/P activities have used such a model but have instead used expert knowledge and documentation for identifying the key issues and problems related to those three steps. As a result, using QUEST in a P/P framework represents a new approach to addressing the issues described in these three steps. However, it should also be noted that participants are not limited to the content of their QUEST scenario, especially since QUEST does not model all aspects of the region. The GBFP dialogue process is flexible and can incorporate all issues participants want to discuss, even if not modeled by QUEST.  The P/P Planning Workshop follows QUEST, and is depicted by the planning box in Figure 1.2. This workshop is linked to QUEST in that the specific choices made to create a desirable future for the region in QUEST provide the initial content for the PRECEDE stage of the workshop. QUEST can be seen as a catalyst for sustainability by introducing important ideas and guiding dialogue that identifies attitudes and beliefs about what is preferable. From a theoretically perspective, QUEST operates primarily at the predisposition level of the P/P framework. Through QUEST, participants are asked to think about the how the world works, what preferences they have for the future and the consequences of these decisions. In the P/P workshop, these ideas are explored further by guiding participants through the creation of a series of focused objectives for a potential program or policy initiative. As Figure 1.2 indicates, a causal chain of factors is elucidated leading from (left to right) potential strategies to some combination of predisposing, enabling or reinforcing factors. These factors are then linked to behavioural, lifestyle and environmental issues, to human and ecosystem 'health' issues, and to the identified, long-term desired future. The idea is that community-based interventions feature traces of this logical chain. P/P helps to access theories of possible change using evidence that is generated in situ with QUEST play and the P/P workshop.  18  The emphasis in the P/P workshop is on the need to assess predisposing, enabling and reinforcing factors related to creating desired outcomes identified through QUEST. The predisposing factors box - of Figure 1.2 refers to pre-existing and QUEST-based knowledge, attitudes, beliefs and values that inform action. These factors are important to consider because facts, beliefs, and notions about what matters supply the rationale or motivation for behaviour. They may also serve to explain the absence of a given behaviour (e.g., voting patterns for a pro-environment policy). Predisposing factors are akin to what Stern (2000) described as attitudinal and personal capabilities. Negative attitudes, beliefs or values may also emerge. The P/P process guides participant through a process that identifies the kind of knowledge, attitudes, beliefs and values that need to be changed or created so that the chosen behaviour or environmental aspect will change for the better.  The P/P process also guides participants to identify enabling factors that would be necessary to achieve a desired future. This is depicted by the enabling factors box of Figure 1.2 and refers to the skills, tools, and resources that may be needed for a motivated behaviour to be realized. These are what Stern (2000) referred to as contextual forces and personal capabilities. For example, a community may need specific organizational skills and eco-architectural resources to develop alternative housing options. Many motivated individuals may fail to take action toward sustainability because they lack skills or resources. Creating healthy public policy, building supportive environments, and supporting skills enhancement each offer a means to enable positive action on sustainability. The idea is to determine what would facilitate and enable people to behave differently or change their environment.  The reinforcement box in the P/P workshop recognizes that action is difficult to maintain without rewards or disincentives. They provide the necessary social and material support for the persistence or repetition of a given behaviour (Green and Kreuter 1999). These factors fall into Stern's (2000) contextual forces and habits/routines categories. Reinforcing appropriate behaviours helps to establish structures that consistently act as levers, e.g. tax cuts for using green technologies, tax levies for driving cars or subsidized public transportation. The scale of these strategies can vary according to the need and capacity for these changes to be implemented. Through the P/P workshop, information related to the incentives and disincentives is gathered and is aimed at inspiring people to behave differently or to make the necessary changes in their environment.  19  At the end of the dialogue process, as Figure 1.2 illustrates (see the far left column), the resulting outcomes are a series of objectives that address identified predisposing, enabling and reinforcing factors. These objectives should be used as the basis for strategies aimed to achieve the desired outcomes identified with QUEST.  Predisposing strategies are ultimately aimed at motivating people to take appropriate action through increased knowledge, awareness and potential changes in beliefs, attitudes and values. Examples include: school curricula, persuasive communications, media campaigns, computer models, publications and pamphlets. The goals of these strategies are to help people understand the nature of the problem and why they should act, the behaviour needed to resolve the problem, and the steps required to carrying out this behaviour (De Young 1993; Green and Kreuter 1999).  Enabling strategies facilitate the performance of an action by providing the conditions needed for people to act on their motives. Enabling strategies focus on the availability and accessibility of resources and new skills necessary for behaviour change. They include structural changes (i.e., changes in the environment) and the creation of policies, regulations or legislation to enable positive action toward sustainability. For example, an enabling strategy could focus on increasing the availability and accessibility of green products since green products are usually comparatively more expensive (less accessible) than other products and they are also not as prevalent in stores (less available). Similarly, skills and structural changes can be improved in an effort to switch from polluting and resource-degrading technologies to efficient, environmentally benign methods in energy production, transportation, agriculture and industry. The scale of these strategies can vary according to the need and capacity for these changes to be implemented. Since these strategies are focused particularly on action itself, their goal can be seen as directly enabling improved efficiency of resource use.  Reinforcing strategies are applied subsequent to predisposing and enabling strategies to reward or reinforce a given individual, group or organization for effectively changing their behaviours and/or environment. These strategies provide supportive feedback for the targeted behaviours. People should be positively reinforced for their participation in sustainability programs and for changes in their behaviours and lifestyles. Without such feedback, programs have a reduced chance of sustained  20  momentum and success (Green and Kreuter 1999). An example of a reinforcing strategy is the creation of sustainability indicators. These allow people to monitor ecological and socio-economic conditions and can provide the necessary feedback needed for targeted behaviours to continue (Corson 1995).  The dialogue process described in Figure 1.2 establishes broad categories of strategies that can allow program planners and policy makers to organize integrated sustainability initiatives. It illustrates the central argument of this chapter that the GBFP dialogue process can help to create behaviourally comprehensive programs and policies.  2.5 Conclusion Much of the research that has evaluated sustainability-oriented policies and programs suggest the need to go beyond purely information and financial incentive-based approaches to changing behaviour. Due to their narrow scope, these kinds of approaches have had limited success. In lieu of these limitations, some researchers have focused on understanding the array factors that influence behaviours. To address these different factors that influence behaviours, it has been recommended that a more behaviourally comprehensive approach to policy and program planning be used.  Despite this prevalent theme in the environmental/sustainability literature, Stern (2000b) and McKenzie-Mohr (2000) were the only examples found that demonstrated clear principles for using a behaviourally comprehensive approach to planning. Stern's principles and Mckenzie-Mohr's application of them are well founded, although are not associated with any kind of prescriptive process of how to apply the principles. Without a clear process, policy and program planners are at a loss for how they should go about identifying determinants of behaviours. The use of QUEST and the P/P framework together add to the Stern approach by providing a process that helps in the understanding and identification of desired behaviours and strategies. It guides people through a structured dialogueoriented approach to identifying, prioritizing and addressing causal variables to desired behaviours, lifestyle and environmental conditions.  Beyond simply offering a process for identifying determinants of behaviours, the GBFP dialogue process also offers other beneficial qualities. For one, through its models, QUEST can help articulate  21  participants' preferences about the kind of future they desire. It illustrates what can result from the choices they make about how the region should operate. QUEST essentially helps to identify the kind of desired behaviours people might be interested in promoting. This is important because of the complex nature of understanding what should be done to promote sustainability. Using QUEST to understand the kind of future people are willing to work towards can help in the generation of appropriate policies and programs.  Secondly, in a more general context, the GBFP dialogue process offers a means to engaging the public in conversations about potential future policy considerations. Having this public input promotes democratic principles by encouraging public scrutiny of potential policy and program directions. By having these kinds of conversations, we improve the likelihood of people understanding what is involved in making more sustainable choices. It also creates the opportunity for the public to contribute to sustainability policy conversations and the creation of policies and programs that reflect the interests of the people. This is beneficial because having public buy-in helps to facilitate the implementation of programs and policies.  Creating a sustainable future is complex since there are so many interrelated factors involved. The GBFP dialogue process presented in this chapter offers a means to disaggregating some of these factors in an effort to clarify and help make decisions about should be done to create a desirable future. The following chapter explains how this process was applied.  22  C h a p t e r III Manifestations of Method and M e t h o d o l o g y  3.1 Introduction  The research can be summarized in one sentence: A case study that describes and reflects on the  process and outcomes of a community-based, dialogue process about the future of Bowen Island. From a methodological perspective, this thesis statement broadly captures all the elements of the method of research used: a case study, an application of a community-based research approach, an dialogue process about the future of Bowen and an analysis of the outcomes of this process. The following chapter describes how these methods manifested themselves in the research, discusses why they were chosen and describes some the theoretical background for using them.  3.2 W h y U s e a C a s e S t u d y A p p r o a c h o n B o w e n Island?  The quintessential characteristics of social science case study research are that they provide a holistic understanding of cultural systems of action (Feagin et. al. 1991; Stake 2000: 242), bounded by time and place (Creswell 1998:61). Cultural systems of action refer to sets of interrelated activities taken on by the actors in a social situation. The partnership between Bowen community members and the GBFP formed the cultural system of action that was studied. Studying this cultural system of action allowed for an in-depth account of the partnership and its outcomes. Conducting a case study offered a holistic approach to providing an understanding and awareness of their specific community dynamic in , response to having a dialogue around future development directions of their community and the region. The spatial and temporal boundaries of the Bowen case study were delineated by those who participated in the workshop and the partnership over a one year period. Using this bounded, in-depth approach to the research kept the research focused on the value and utility of the dialogue process about the future of Bowen.  The in-depth description of the particular that a case study offers is often criticized because the focus on particulars renders the study incapable of providing generalizable conclusions (Stake 2000:439). However, the case study literature (Stake 1994:238; Feagin et. al. 1991; Berg 1998: 218; Yin 1994; Hamel et. al. 1993) suggests that case studies can offer some generalizability. Case studies can provide understanding about similar individuals, groups and events. For example, the need for commitment to working on a sustainability project was necessary for people on Bowen to follow though  23  on their sustainability project. Similar issues of commitment could surface in other communities. The Bowen case study can therefore suggest what some other communities might likely face. The literature does however caution to not over-generalize because the case study work should emphasize the case itself rather than drawing generalizations (Stake 1994:238; Stake 2000:439; Berg 1998: 218).  Choosing the Community of Bowen Island as the case study community for this research emerged through a series of coinciding events, which, in turn, led to a research partnership with members of the Bowen Island Community and the decision to do a case study. The following circumstances reinforced the decision to take on a case study with the Bowen community:  1) Two Bowen community members, who later became key figures in the research, saw an opportunity for both their community and the GBFP to be able to share in the knowledge generation and research coming out of the GBFP. From a community perspective, they felt that they could benefit from using the tools, such as QUEST and the Precede-Proceed planning framework that the GBFP had to offer. It was hoped that the GBFP tools would contribute to their efforts of cultivating citizenship on the island. They were interested in these tools as a means to engage the public in the creation of a sustainability planning framework for the island. They also recognized that the project would benefit from working with an engaged, predisposed community who were interested in the research the project was conducting. Essentially, both of the Bowen community members suggested that Bowen Island could be the place to try out the tools the GBFP had to offer for the first time.  2) When interest on Bowen to collaborate with the GBFP began to percolate, there was not yet any intent on the part of the GBFP to work directly with a specific community. At the time, the GBFP was focused around using QUEST to compile a public perspective on desired futures for the region as well as the rationales behind their preferences. The goal was to use those results to inform regional policy. However, what the research agenda of the GBFP did not fully address was what people were learning from QUEST and whether their experience with QUEST would help them actualize their desired future scenario. When these questions began to surface, it became clear that it would be beneficial to work directly with a group who had common, vested interests in creating their desired future. By working collaboratively with a community, both the GBFP researchers and the community could learn what was  24  involved in actualizing a desired future scenario . Since there was already expressed interest on 1  Bowen, they seemed like a likely candidate to work with.  After Bowen was selected as the case study, a few other appealing qualities for working with the Bowen community surfaced. For one, there was a variety of community organizations on the island tackling issues related to sustainability. From the GBFP's perspective, the presence of active community organizations gave the impression that the Bowen community was highly predisposed toward addressing sustainability issues. Since QUEST and the application of P/P framework were new, it was beneficial to be working with this kind of keenness within the community. It was believed that it might make it easier to present and apply the tools as well as work together as a team with a community who was actively tackling issues of sustainability.  Another appealing quality of working with Bowen community members was that of scale. Bowen Island is a relatively small rural, island community, on the edge of an urban centre. Its governance structure, economy, community identity and other community assets are different from communities at larger scales, like Vancouver, for example. It became of interest to understand what effect scale has when having a dialogue on sustainability. The Bowen case study would contribute to a cross comparison between case studies of different scales: Bowen - the rural-urban fringe scale; Richmond - the city scale and the Greater Vancouver Regional District - a regional scale. Although not discussed in this thesis, the cross-comparison of these three case studies is currently taking place and will highlight the similarities and differences in the outcomes of the collaborative work, across the different communities.  3.3 Community-Based Research Approach Choosing to do a case study identified the limits of what was studied but a case study approach does not impose the method of how to conduct the study (Stake 2000:435). The overarching method used in this research broadly sits in the field of community-based research (CBR). As will be described, using a CBR framework affected the way the research was carried out (Stoecker 2002:222). The following describes what CBR is and the rationale for adopting such an approach. An outline of the methods used to carry out this framework comprises the subsequent sections.  1  A more in-depth discussion about the benefits of doing community-based research follows in the next section.  25  According to the US-based Loka Institute, CBR is a form of research that is ...conducted by, for or with the participation of community members... More often than not, community-based research involves the collaboration of community members (represented by grassroots activists, community-based organizations, workers, etc.) and experts (represented by university researchers, professionals scientists, etc.) (Loka Institute, 2002) There are two basic characteristic of CBR (Israel et al., 1998; Stoecker 2002:222): 1) its emphasis on the participation and influence of non-academic researchers in the process of creating knowledge; 2) its goal of social action and social change. Since the 1970's, various models of CBR were used across several academic disciplines as well as in non-academic contexts. Its roots however, can be traced to the 1950s industrial psychology research of Kurt Lewin who was the first to mix theory and practice in trying to increase worker productivity and satisfaction. The third-world development movement of the 1960s also influenced CBR (Stoecker 2002:220-221). CBR has been particularly prominent in the health and international development fields (Israel et al. 1998). The practice of participatory research that came out of India, Africa and South America and the work of Rajesh Tandon (Brown and Tandon 1983) and Paulo Freire (1970) have had the most influence on CBR (Stoecker 2002: 221). Essentially, CBR offers an alternative to the traditional extractive nature of academic research by creating an inclusive research agenda that is created with a community rather than about a community. Typically, this translates into a partnership based on combining academic theoretical and technical knowledge, student and other resources and research expertise with the local knowledge and the assets of the community (Savan and Sider 2003:307).  The reason for taking a CBR approach in this research was precisely because it allows researchers to work with the community, with the goals of collective empowerment and the deepening of social knowledge (Hall 1992:16). This research was about learning what was involved in creating a dialogue between university researchers and members of a community on what kind of world they want to live in now and in the future. Situating the research within the community can give community members a voice and a means to bring their own knowledge into the research. Moreover, the community's knowledge on the topic of sustainability was substantial, as evidenced by their prior and ongoing commitments to developing approaches to tackling issues of sustainability on the island. They were at a level of organization that they realized they would only benefit from a CBR approach; they saw no benefit to simply be subjects of research. They were interested in the sharing of resources and the  26  cogeneration of knowledge. If the research was to go forward within their community, it was essential that our research interests somehow fit into their efforts. It was therefore decided collaboratively how QUEST and Precede-Proceed would be introduced into the community.  There are many different models of and approaches to CBR such as, action research, participatory action research, service learning, science shops and collaborative inquiry. These methods differ in the kind of relationship the research takes on between the community and the external researchers. Some of these methods involve a collaborative partnership between communities and external researchers in which both parties are considered co-researchers, as is most often the case for action research and participatory action research (Savan and Sider 2003: 305). A collaborative relationship is not always the focus of CBR, science shops are based on a client-expert relationship and service learning can vary from a rather remote relationship with a community to a much more collaborative one (Savan and Sider 2003:305).  The CBR approach used in this research does not neatly fall into any of the above-described methods. If the research were to be situated along a community-external researcher relationship continuum that placed a complete collaborative partnership on one end of the spectrum and a client-expert relationship on the other end, this research would fall somewhere in the middle. While the research design did reflect the community's interests and needs and was formed with community member input, all characteristics of collaborative research, the definition of the research questions and methodology were derived within the academy. There was a strong interest from both parties to create a relationship that would be mutually beneficial, whereby we could both learn from the process and hopefully, gain from its outcomes. However, upon reflecting on the partnership, what emerged were two separate agendas. On the one hand, there was a community struggling with how to develop more sustainably, and who in the process tapped into academic knowledge resources. On the other hand, the researchers wanted to evaluate what resulted from having a dialogue on sustainability. Because of these separate interests, the research was partially collaborative, whereby community members contributed to the knowledge generation process of the research but to a limited extent.  27  3.4 The Workshop 3.4.1 Design The research revolved around the planning and the resulting outcomes of a two-day workshop with Bowen community members. The workshop was designed with two primary purposes in mind: 1) to hone people's ideas about the kind of future they desire for the Georgia Basin region and 2) to guide discussions on how they could achieve their vision of the future for the island. In broad terms, participants were given the opportunity to share some of their opinions about how they would like to see the Georgia Basin in the year 2040, and discuss what this might mean for Bowen Island as well as what needs to be done as a result. QUEST and Precede-Proceed were used as learning and planning tools for the first time in this type of applied context and served as guides to the dialogue process. The idea was to apply these tools in a community setting to see what kind of effect this dialogue process would have on people when thinking about sustainability and creating strategies aimed at achieving sustainability. The ultimate goal was to enable and contribute to the community's pursuit of sustainability. A large part of the research therefore focused on the effects of the workshop in bringing the workshop participants closer to their vision of sustainability.  The first day of the workshop centred on the use of QUEST and the second day centred on the P/P planning process.  x Day 1-QUEST The goal of playing QUEST in a group was to have a rich discussion around creating a future scenario that was desired by all playing or at least was desired by the majority. QUEST was used as a catalyst for discussion about what kind of future people want for the region. When creating a scenario, users were faced with making choices about how the future of the region should unfold. For example, QUEST asked participants, what kind of urban development should there be? Ideally, the discussion guides the decision making in QUEST while also creating a platform to discuss other relevant issues not addressed in QUEST. The process of creating a scenario and the scenario itself were intended to help organize and make sense of the complexities behind how a region functions.  Creating a future scenario in QUEST involves three steps: 1) setting the context for the scenario, 2) making a some choices about a range of options facing the Georgia Basin region and 3) seeing the consequences of the choices made over a 40 year future scenario. After the creation and unpacking of  28  the initial scenario, choices can be changed. The time it takes to create, a scenario varies with the amount of discussion around each step and the number iterations of play. It does however take a minimum of 3-4 hours to complete a scenario, discuss the outcomes of the scenario and make a few changes. With this amount of time, reaching a desired future is unlikely . This does not necessarily 2  limit the richness of the discussion around desired futures and their consequences. Although participants may not have the time to iterate enough times to create their most preferred scenario, they would hopefully, learn about the consequences of the choices they made.  There are many ways to present QUEST to an audience because there are various levels of play and depths of discussion about the choices. The levels of play depend on the number of choices made to create a scenario. The more in depth the scenario building, i.e. the more choices made or the more iterations of play, the longer it takes. At the Bowen workshop, there was about 6 hours to work with QUEST, including breaks and an introduction, which shaved off an hour. The limited amount time led to the following constraints on the process: 1) the discussions around choices were limited to about 1015 minutes per choice; 2) the choices were finalized through a non-confidential voting process i.e. a raise of hands method; and 3) the participants were asked to choose five sectors out of a possible nine to focus on, with the remaining choices kept on the default setting.  As an introduction to QUEST, the workshop started with a presentation of a hypothetical scenario based on a subjective understanding of the current provincial Liberal government's values; this lasted about forty-five minutes. Choices were made in QUEST that we thought reflected the kinds of choices the present Liberal government was making. The reason for showing a prefabricated scenario was to explain by example how QUEST works. We chose the Liberal government scenario because it would demonstrate a future scenario if current policies continued. Subsequently, there was an open discussion about individuals' regional and local values. This process of eliciting values encouraged people to identify what about the region and the island was important to them. A list of these ideas was made during the discussion and was placed in plain view, in front of the room. The values discussion lasted about fifteen minutes. The discussion was initiated by quoting values about Bowen raised by the community in another workshop held on Bowen two months prior that discussed why and what people  This was based on the outcomes of all QUEST workshops that have taken place from December 2002 through November 2003 (n=20). In none of these workshops did the final scenario reflect a fully worked out desired future for the group. There was never enough time to iterate to reach a future scenario that all participants agreed was most desirable. 2  29  value on Bowen. The participants were asked whether those values reflected what they wanted on a regional scale. The intention behind identifying their values up front, before playing QUEST, was to improve communication among parties and facilitate their involvement in QUEST. It could also enhance the coordination of the decisions they were going to make in playing QUEST. By taking this explicit value-focused thinking approach (Keeney ,1994; Gregory and Keeney 1994; Keeney 1992), the discussion would prime the participants to think about their priorities more consciously when making choices in QUEST.  Following the values discussion, they created a scenario with QUEST. After completing the first step in QUEST - Setting the Context, the group focused their scenario on five different sectors (out of a possible nine sectors, due to the above-mentioned time constraints). They chose to focus on water, transportation, lifestyle, urban growth and industry. The choices the Bowen group made during QUEST were mostly at an intermediary level, which means that they made choices based on preset packages of choices for their chosen sectors rather than making the more specific choices at the more in-depth level of play. For example, when making a choice about lifestyle, the group had the option of choosing one of four preset packages: current trends, change our ways, material bliss or having our cake and eating it too. The group did however have the option to make more specific choices at a more detailed level.  After creating their future scenario for the region, the outcomes of the scenario were explained and discussed. They then had an opportunity to make changes to their input choices in an effort to change the outcomes. At the end of the day we debriefed the days outcomes, explained what would happen during the second day of the workshop and handed out evaluations. Day 2 - Precede-Proceed In using QUEST, participants thought about how the world works, what preferences they have for the future and the consequences of these decisions for the sustainability of the region. On the second day, they addressed some of the issues identified in QUEST that they thought were of key interest for Bowen Island. The goal of the second day was to take Bowen-specific issues of interest and address those issues by developing a series of focused objectives for a potential program or policy initiatives. The P/P approach to planning was used as the framework for this planning process. The workshop  30  participants worked in groups filling out worksheets that applied the theory of the model (see Appendix II for a sample of the worksheets). The worksheets acted as a guide for participants to create a lay theory of possible change. In filling out the worksheets, participants identified a causal chain of factors related to encouraging sustainable behaviours. The idea was for the worksheet work to create an accessible lay theory of possible change using evidence that was generated through both using QUEST and the ensuing discussions around filling out the worksheets.  As in the first day, during the second day of the workshop there was another five hours to work with. In order to connect ideas from the first day of the workshop to the second day, the day began with a review of the outcomes from the previous day and a brainstorming session about how the regional issues raised related to Bowen. What emerged from the discussion were a series of quality of life issues, specific to Bowen. These issues were rated and the top three issues became the focus of the rest of the day. Three groups were formed with about five people per group, each tackling one of the broad-based local issues. The broad issues focussed on were: equity, justice and stewardship of land, water, air and community. Using the worksheets, the groups strategically outlined ways in which their issue could be addressed.  The worksheets were composed of four major steps. In the first worksheet, each group created a vision statement that addressed how their issue affected Bowen citizen's quality of life. The second worksheet brainstormed what problems were inhibiting reaching their vision for their quality of life issue. The list of problems was prioritized in order to create an objective that addressed the top rated problem. The objective stated: who will experience what change, by how much and by when. The third worksheet brainstormed and prioritized identified behavioural/lifestyle and environmental factors that influence the highest rated problem. These are the risk factors and conditions the strategy they were working on was tailored to affect. The different sets of factors identified in this step suggested possible avenues of intervention or action that could be taken, or what is also known as the channels for change (Frankish 1995). Factors related to behaviours may lead to an educational program, for example, while lifestyle factors may suggest the need for a legislative, policy or enforcement approach. Environmental factors may produce interventions aimed at technological improvements. The point of this step was to identify the channels for addressing the priority problems. Like the previous step, they created objectives to address those top rated behavioural/lifestyle and environmental factors.  31  The fourth worksheet brainstormed and prioritized educational and organizational priorities that would address the top rated behavioural/lifestyle and environmental factors already identified. This step provided an analysis of the factors predisposing, enabling and reinforcing the specific behaviours or lifestyles and the factors enabling environmental changes that were related to the identified issues of concern. Again, like the previous worksheets, objectives were created for each factor. At the end of this step, each group had a series of interrelated objectives from each phase of PRECEDE that together formed the strategic structure of projects or programs aimed at addressing the abovementioned local issues.  In the workshop, the PROCEED (evaluation) stage of the model was also explained. This stage of the model is about implementing and evaluating the identified objectives. The model emphasizes the need for a systematic approach to process, impact and outcome evaluation in order to learn and troubleshoot each phase of a program or policy implementation (Green and Kreuter 1999). At the end of the day, we debriefed by sharing the outcomes of each group and discussed what people were going to do next. The intention was for participants to leave the workshop with a set of objectives that indicate what kinds of activities they could begin in the community.  The workshop formed the basis of the research. It provided the opportunity to reflect on whether a dialogue process that combined the use of QUEST and the application of the P/P framework lead to any kind change or action related to sustainability within the community. By following the outcomes of the workshop over a seven-month period, the impact of the workshop on people's actions was explored.  3.4.2 Recruitment of Participants Workshop participants were recruited through advertisements in the local newspaper and by word of mouth. Two weeks before the workshop, an article about the workshop was written for the local paper, The Undercurrent (see Appendix III).  It explained that the workshop was about contemplating the  future and that it was a follow-up to another community workshop. This prior workshop was entitled, "Bowen in 2042" was held the previous month and invited participants to discuss, in an open format, the kind of Bowen they wanted to see in 40 years. The invitation to the GBFP workshop portrayed the  32  workshop as being an opportunity to explore, learn and discuss Bowen-initiated solutions to issues affecting their quality of life. The week following the publication of the article, an ad was placed in the paper about the workshop entitled, "What does your Bowen look like?" (see Appendix IV) The ad described the purpose of the workshop. One of the Bowen community members that we worked closely with took the lead on advertising the workshop. This allowed the invitation to come from the community rather than from the university. It served as an example that workshop was part of a collaboration between the university and Bowen community members. BILLS members also took the responsibility of advertising the workshop by word of mouth. The intention behind having an open invitation to the community to participate in the workshop was an effort to bring together not like-minded people and offer them a means to dialogue with one another. A goal of the workshop was to have participants of divergent opinions and backgrounds. Through the collaboration it was agreed the workshop would be more constructive to invite all interested-opinions rather than having a workshop that brought together specific stakeholders. In this way, the workshop could potentially serve as part of the public participation component of the formal community planning process. As already mentioned, BILLS was interested in cultivating citizenship on the island. The workshop became a part of their citizen-initiated public participation process aimed at getting community members input in planning the future of the island. Registration for the workshop was capped at twenty-five for each day and although numbers did not end up being an issue, preference would have been given to people who could participate on both days. The workshop was open to all and participants were not paid to attend, however lunch and refreshments were provided. 3.5 Sources of Data 3.5.1 Participant Observation  Since the research was community-based, being both set in the Bowen Island community and in part, coming from the community, I decided to, to a certain degree, embed myself within the community. This translated into multiple visits to the island for both social and research related meetings that varied in length, from a couple of hours to a couple of weeks, at a time. During these visits I did my best to be a part of the creation and implementation of the process of dialogue on sustainability on Bowen. Because of the welcoming and friendly nature of the people I was working with, making the transition of 33  being just another researcher to participating in creating the process was fairly seamless. The rapport I had with some of the community members enabled me to gain access to and learn more about the different perspectives on what we were all trying to achieve. I was able to gather observations of what they wanted to do and were trying to achieve, as well as some of their perceptions of working with university researchers. This closeness I had with some of the community members shed light on information and opinions I would otherwise not be privy to.  The above-described approach of embedding the researcher in the community of interest comes from the tradition of ethnography. Although the research itself was not ethnographic in nature, it did use a common method of ethnographic work, participant observation. Participant observation is both an overall approach to inquiry and a data gathering method (Marshall and Rossman 1995:78). It refers to the process in which the researcher establishes a rapport in a new community that allows the people in the community to go about their business as usual when the researcher is present (Bernard 1994:137; Lofland and Lofland 1995:18). As a result of establishing a rapport with some of the Bowen community members, it became possible to learn from and intellectualise my observations of being in the community. This involved an interweaving of looking and listening, of watching and asking or in other words, it demanded first hand involvement in the social world chosen for study (Spradely 1980: 54-58; Lofland and Lofland 1995:19; Marshall and Rossman 1995:78-79). Immersion in the setting allowed me to begin to experience reality of those who live on Bowen (Marshall and Rossman 1995: 78) with the goal of understanding and explaining the observations of the collaborative work.  The literature on participant observation (Denzin and Lincoln 1994: 248-261,379-380; Bernard 1994 138-139; Spradley 1980: 58-61) explains that there are varying degrees of participation in the community's activities: non-participation, passive, moderate, active and complete participation. The role that was taken in this research would be described as somewhere between moderate and active participation since I maintained a balance between being an insider and an outsider. I assumed responsibility to contribute to the participants' initiatives. For example, I created the workshop, provided information and resources and was a source of encouragement to maintain commitment from some participants to the dialogue on sustainability. However, this all occurred without fully committing myself to the participant's values and goals. This type of participation was consistent with the nature of  34  community-based research that was done, where the collaboration between the researchers and the community was only partial.  From a technical perspective, the observations from all meetings, workshops and interviews were recorded in note form and were used to corroborate the rich data collected from the interviews, of which are discussed in the following section. By using the participant observations in this manner, conclusions drawn from the interviews would be validated. Using quotes from the interviews in tandem with observations lent greater credence to the analysis (Denzin and Lincoln 1994:381).  3.5.2 Interviews Probably the most substantive component of the data collection was the interviews that were conducted with some workshop participants and BILLS members. Seven months after the workshop, six of the workshop participants and 3 BILLS members (who were also workshop participants) were interviewed. The number of interviews accounted for half of the workshop participants. The purpose of the interviews were to gain personal insight into the kinds of outcomes that resulted from the workshop as well as any other outcomes related to the GBFP's involvement with the community. The interviews also tried to elucidate causal relationships for the identified outcomes from the GBFP involvement in the community.  Interviews were chosen as the primary method of data collection, rather than for example, a survey questionnaire, because they provide the maximum opportunity for complete and accurate communication of ideas between the researcher and the respondents (Cannell and Kahn 1968: 554 cited in Berg 1998:63). Interviews are also particularly effective in understanding the perceptions of participants, i.e. their experiences, opinions, aspirations, attitudes and feelings (Berg 1998:64-65; May 1997:109,129), which was precisely the intent of this research. Interviews were therefore the most suitable method to collect participants' impressions about the workshop, its outcomes and the overall involvement of GBFP researchers with the community, r  Despite the ability to collect participants' opinions about the GBFP's involvement with the community through interviews, it was not possible to derive a strong link between a person's account of the workshop and its outcomes and the outcomes themselves. In other words, interviews are social  35  encounters therefore, they cannot be assumed to produce data that reflect a real world beyond interpretation (May 1998:129). This was why other methods, such as participant observation and workshop outputs were also used. These other sources of data, as discussed in the other sections, were intended to help validate the interview content analysis.  The interviews were conducted seven months after the workshop. The reason for waiting seven months to interview workshop participants was to provide an adequate amount of time for people mobilize themselves as well as letting some time elapse in order to capture people's lasting impressions of what went on in the workshop. People needed time to mobilize and since the primary interest of the research was the outcomes of the workshop, time was given for these outcomes to unfold. General longer term outcomes, like what people remember learning from QUEST were also of research interest therefore waiting seven months was deemed appropriate for reaching the research objectives. Interview process All of the interviews took place on Bowen Island in the BILLS cottage. Interviews ranged in length from one to two and half hours. The interview process followed the requirements of UBC's Ethics Review Board. Each interview was tape-recorded and either partially or fully transcribed with written consent by all participants. The nine participants interviewed fell into one of three categories: those who were actively working on a project that had some roots in the workshop (n=3); those who were not active in a project discussed in the workshop (n=3); and those from BILLS who were directly partnered with GBFP (n=3). BILLS members were treated as both participants and expert participant observers of the partnership. They were embedded in the development of the partnership therefore their opinions of how the partnership and the workshop unfolded contributed a different, more involved, perspective than the other participants.  Interview questions were tailored to these three, above-mentioned, points of view (see Appendix V for the list of questions). There were three different sets of guiding questions, which significantly overlapped. All of the interview questions followed a similar sequence of topics with the specific questions being altered according to the interviewee category. The interviews began with an introduction to the research and the overall purpose for the interviews. Some.background questions  36  about their interests in sustainability, as well as some questions about life on Bowen were then asked. Questions related to their impressions of the outcomes of the workshop and the partnership followed, Then I asked questions about why certain kinds of outcomes happened and other potential outcomes did not happen. By asking these kinds of questions, data could be collected to help answer the research questions. It was also possible to gather some background information about what Bowen Island, as a municipality, was doing with respect to sustainability.  Most, but not all the interviews were conducted one-to-one. Three interview participants were actively working together on a project that had some roots in the workshop. Since they were working as a group, it seemed logical to interview them as a group. As a small group interview, they were each given the opportunity to answer all of the questions but there was also opportunity for discussion. The discussions enhanced many of the responses by allowing the respondents to interact with one another. This added detail to the conversation that otherwise would not have been there. The major drawback to interviewing them as a group was that sometimes the stronger voices controlled the discussion, however efforts were made to encourage all opinions.  The interviews were semi-structured in design. The advantage of using the semi-structured approach is that it allows the interviewer to probe beyond the answers to the prepared and standardized questions (Berg 1998:61). What most often results from this method is greater insight into the respondents' perspective through invitations to expand on issues raised (Berg 1998:62; May 1997: 111). As was the case with this research, semi-structured interviews are best used when issues of standardization and comparability are not as rigid (May 1997:111). This approach was reflected in how the interview responses often lead to additional, unscripted questions and reflections during the interview. This most often occurred in the interviews with BILLS members, where the interviews were more of a discussion, at certain points, than an interview. This allowed for some preliminary analysis of the outcomes of the workshop and the partnership that was embedded in the interviews. The semistructured approach was also reflected in the adjustments that were made to some of the questions during and between the interviews. Most often, this was done to clarify the questions or enhance the content of the interviews. Questions were sometimes omitted when the respondents answered questions in prior questions.  37  3.5.3  W o r k s h o p O u t p u t s : B o w e n Q U E S T Scenario, P r e c e d e W o r k s h e e t s , W o r k s h o p V i d e o a n d  Evaluations  The primary data that came from the workshop were the QUEST scenario and the completed Precede worksheets. Both of these sources of data will be used as reference material for the analysis of the outcomes of the workshop. In particular, the Bowen QUEST scenario provided specific information about the kinds of choices the participants made for the region and their resulting outcomes. The importance of the QUEST scenario lay in how it helped in understanding where the participants were situated with respect to their vision for the future of the region. In a similar fashion, the Precede worksheets offered the same degree of utility as the Bowen QUEST scenario. The worksheets, as already described, are essentially a series of causally related objectives aimed at achieving a desired quality of life on Bowen. The worksheets themselves are useful to the research in that they enrich the description of the initial outcomes of the workshop. From an evaluative perspective, they also served as a starting point for monitoring the longer term outcomes of the workshop. In other words, the worksheets stated the kinds of objectives the participants identified as being necessary to achieve a certain quality of life on Bowen. With that information, it was possible to monitor the degree to which those objectives were followed through on. This monitoring of the follow-up of the worksheet objectives served as a kind of measure of utility of the Precede workshop exercise.  Other outputs of the workshop were videotapes and evaluations. The video was used to reference the discussions that took place during the workshop. The videos were not transcribed but rather were used to inform and enrich my initial observations of the workshop. The evaluations of the workshop were another source of information about the initial outcomes of the workshop however there was a limited response rate (n=6 out of 17). The numbers were low because the days were long and it was hard to press the participants to fill out the forms at the workshop. People did take them with them but few returned them. With only a few returned evaluations, it was;difficult to use them in the analysis however, they were used to a limited degree. The evaluations added to what some of the participants learned in the workshop and their overall expressed opinions about the utility of the workshop.  3.6 Data A n a l y s i s  In qualitative studies, data analysis is ongoing and is the emergent product of the process of putting order to the data (Lofland and Lofland 1995:184). This process of bringing order to the data comes in many forms depending on the methodological approach used in the research. Analysis can range from  38  'loose', inductively oriented designs to the more 'tight', deductively directed ones (Miles and Huberman 1994:431). The former, also known as grounded theory, uses an approach that allows the conceptual ideas to emerge out of the.data while the latter end of the spectrum applies preconceived analytic categories to the data as lenses of explanation (Miles and Huberman, in Denzin 1994:431). The approach to analysis taken in this research was more inductive than deductive. Most of the conceptual ideas emerged through the analysis process however, the analysis was not entirely an open process. There were specific aspects of the'collaboration between the university and community that were focused on in the analysis, not necessarily, because they were strong themes that emerged out of the data. They were focused on because they were considered, 'areas of research interest', by the case study research group. For example, the learning outcomes from the workshop were focused on. Interpreting the learning outcomes from the workshop was not a function of there being a strong theme in the data but rather, a result of wanting to reflect on what people learned from the workshop.  The goal of the analysis can be reduced to a process of describing and explaining the pattern of relationships found in the data. More specifically, the approach used in this research began with describing or 'telling the story' of the research, to locating key variables within the story, to explaining how the variables are connected and how they influence each other. In practice, analysis began with coding the data to identify the key variables, then moving to identify themes and trends in the codes. The themes and trends were then explained using a logical chain of evidence from the data thereby integrating the data into an explanatory framework (Miles and Huberman 1994:91). Beginning with description helped to make sense of the research and clarifying the assumptions being made of the data, following with 'why' the story unfolded as it did, essentially was a process of addressing the research questions (Miles and Huberman 1994:91).  3.6.1 Coding, Memoing and Developing Themes  The initial data analysis began with coding, or categorizing the content of the interview transcripts. Coding is a process of asking questions of the data, such as, What is going on here? What kinds of events are at issue here? The word or idea that is applied to the item of data in answering such questions is a code (Lofland and Lofland 1995:186; Miles and Huberman 1994:56-57). Coding begins the process of ordering the data by attaching labels of meaning to the data. The codes are then used to retrieve and organize chunks of data into themes, which are then used to set the stage for  39  conclusions (Miles and Huberman 1994:56-57). The process of coding used in this research began with a start list of codes that were applied to the interview transcripts. The list of codes came from a brainstorming session with fellow researchers about themes to consider when answering the research questions. These themes were quite broad, like learning outcomes of the workshop and generating agency in the community. They were chosen based on how well suited they were to addressing the research questions. The start list was however quite flexible; the use of the start list initiated the analysis process, and different codes were assigned through subsequent readings of the transcripts based on the ideas that were being represented. In an effort to maintain consistency in the coding process, clear operational definitions were assigned to each code so the codes could be applied consistently.  After the coding process was finished, the next step was memoing. Memos are written-out explanations and elaborations of the coding categories and are one of the principle techniques for recording relationships among themes (Miles and Huberman 2000:783; Lofland and Lofland 1995: 193). Memoing formed the basis of the conclusions drawn from the data. The types of conclusions drawn from the data were reflective in nature, aimed at answering the questions, what happened and what evidence was there to suggest why this was so. The coding and memoing process served as a means to sort through the data rather than forming or informing theory.  Once the themes became clearer, a process of triangulation began. Participant observations and workshop outputs were drawn on when appropriate, in order to support or help explain the conclusions that emerged out of coding and memoing the interviews (Janesick 1994:214). With triangulation, there is less likelihood of misinterpreting the data (Stake 2000:443) because the additional evidence helps validate the conclusions.  It should also be mentioned that throughout this entire process of coding, memoing and drawing relationships between codes and themes, ATLAS.ti, a qualitative data analysis software was used. ATLAS.ti is designed specifically to code and memo documents. An advantage to using this softwareis that it creates a list of codes that are applied to all the data. This allows the researcher to easily sort through all the data at once to trace the codes. ATALS.ti also allows the researcher to link codes together in a visual way, helping to manage relationships between codes that emerge and identify  40  themes within the data. Overall, using ATLAS.ti offered assistance in the management of the data. The ease of sorting through the data that ATALS.ti afforded helped support recognition and development of categories, while also storing them and their links with the data (Richards and Richards 1994:445-446 in Denzin). Granted, the same type of analysis could have been done with paper and scissors but the process of filing and sorting through the data would have been more cumbersome.  3.7 Validity a n d Generalizability  When doing social research it is important to address issues of validity in both the research design and the analysis process. Clarifying the extent of generalizability to the conclusions being drawn is also necessary. As was discussed in the previous sections, the methods chosen for the research were in and of themselves well-tested, valid tools of research. Using these methods, contributed to the accuracy and inclusiveness of data that the research was based on, as well as the truthfulness of the analytic claims being made (Perakyla 1997:201). Disclosing and arguing for the methods chosen lends credibility to the research by showing its strengths, weaknesses and value (Maxwell 1996:87; Brinberg and McGrath: 13).  With respect to the generalizability of the case study, it was recognized at the outset of the research what the limitations of the research would be. This case study revolved around people coming together to discuss and explore ways to take the first steps toward initiating sustainability projects on Bowen Island. Essentially, the research tells a story about a collaboration between the university and some community members on Bowen Island and what can be learned from this collaboration. The research was not aimed at generalizing the outcomes to the entire island population. Rather, the hope was for the conclusions to be seen as a source of reference and guidance for others, on or off the island, who were considering future initiatives in the same vein. The value in the research lies in creating the opportunity for Bowen community members, other communities with similar interests in sustainability and the academy to learn from the experience of bringing two different parties together to create and have a dialogue on sustainability. By learning about the experiences on Bowen will hopefully contribute to the transition of creating more sustainable communities in the Georgia Basin region.  41  C h a p t e r IV Characterizing the C a s e - the Place, the P r o c e s s a n d the Participants  4.1 Introduction  The following chapter outlines the context and the core aspects of the case study. It begins with the recent history of the community's interests in cultivating principles of sustainability on the island from both the formal government level and a community level. It then goes on to describe the purpose and nature of the partnership between the GBFP and the community and its expected outcomes. Finally, since the case study revolved around the workshop and its outcomes, a detailed look into the workshop participants is provided to serve as a reference point for how they might have affected the unfolding of the workshop and its outcomes.  4.2 T h e P l a c e - T h e B o w e n Island C o m m u n i t y and Their Interest in Sustainability  Bowen Island is located at the entrance to Howe Sound within commuting distance of Vancouver and many other Lower Mainland locations in British Columbia. Their local economy is predominantly based on tourism, recreational cottage development, and rural island living. Today the island is a popular recreational destination for people living in the Lower Mainland and accommodates a mix of year-round and seasonal residents with a broad range of incomes and lifestyles (Julian and Bailey 2001:30). In 1999, Bowen Island became the first community of the Islands Trust to become a municipality. This 1  change in governance has created a sense of awareness, responsibility and public engagement on a wide range of socio-economic and land-use planning issues (Dunster 2000:3-4).  As a small rural community in transition, Bowen Island is on the edge of a major urban center that is experiencing one of the fastest rates of growth in the nation (BC Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, 1992). Being responsible for both rural and urban mandates of the Islands Trust and the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD), the residents are acutely aware of the socio-economic and natural boundaries that define their region, and the need to find balance between human wellbeing in the community and the environmental health of the island ecosystem region (Dunster 2000:4). This sense of place and purpose has shaped the character of the community over the last twenty-five years as part of the Islands Trust. It is also the cornerstone of their existing Official Community Plan; a  The Islands Trust Region of Southwestern British Columbia encompasses thirteen rural Gulf Island communities and more than 450 smaller islands in the heart of the Georgia Basin/Puget Lowland. 1  42  document that calls for "maintenance of the intrinsic attraction, insular rural identity and sense of serenity of the island, and recognition of the desire of existing residents to be independent, self-reliant and able to exhibit local initiative and cooperation." (Bowen Island Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 139,1996) As a newly formed municipality, the newly elected council was interested in developing a framework for community planning that embraced the underlying principles of sustainable development. The framework they have been creating has tried to promote self-reliance, as well as a culture of informed decision making on issues of social, economic and ecological health within the community and surrounding regions of the Georgia Basin (Dunster 2000:4).  When Bowen became incorporated as a municipality in 1999, council became interested in answering the question of what might a sustainability governance framework look like on Bowen. In an effort to answer this question, they put together terms of reference for an advisory committee, the Sustainability Task Force, which brought together about 10-11 members from the community. The Task Force was charged to develop a conceptual framework for sustainability on the island and draft recommendations to council that were consistent with that framework. They spent a little over a year developing the framework and presented back to council a number of recommendations, many of which were approved.  At the same time that the Task Force was working together, a less formal initiative formed in the community, the Bowen Island Lifelong Learning Society (BILLS) that was aimed at initiating informal conversations within the community around issues of sustainability. BILLS was interested in helping, in a supportive capacity, to build awareness and understanding of the complexity around planning for the future. They hosted sessions on different themes so that community members could both learn more about the topic and share their interests and concerns amongst each other. The discussions revolved around sustainable living practices for both the individual and the community. The intent behind hosting these discussions was to bring together people who, if interested, would carry the ideas forward. For example, they invited a water expert to talk about water issues, and then the issue was scaled down to the community level through discussions about what could be done on Bowen. In some cases the discussions led to community-directed initiatives, like the Cape Roger Curtis Trust Society, a Society aimed at preserving the natural heritage of a large piece of undeveloped land on Bowen, in other cases people remained focused on the learning experience of the discussions.  43  In the summer of 2002, the GBFP initiated a partnership with BILLS in the hopes of contributing to. these community lead conversations around the future of the island. The focus of the partnership was around studying a community application of the GBFP tools and workshop methodology that was intended to help them better understand the complexity involved in planning for the future of the island. The community perspective of the purpose of the partnership was understood as follows, as described by one of the BILLS members: It seemed to me that the community would benefit tremendously from being exposed to both the methodologies and really more importantly the broader conceptual framework. The bigger thinking about sustainability, I thought would be one of the things the community would benefit from. On the other hand, it seemed to me that this kind of partnership would provide an opportunity for [the GBFP] to work with some kind of an engaged, predisposed community.  As the above quote explains, by working collaboratively, both the GBFP researchers and the community could learn what is involved in actualizing a desired future for the island. The essence of the partnership revolved around the GBFP making a catalytic contribution to the ongoing dialogue about the sustainability of Bowen Island by holding a two-day workshop with Bowen community members. The partnership enabled the GBFP to study the application of the tools in practice. At the same time, the community members could develop their thinking about sustainability as a result of being exposed to QUEST. It also had the potential to mobilize some community members to initiate some projects or recommendations to council aimed at cultivating sustainability on the island, as a result of going through the P/P planning process. Not only would the case study work benefit the GBFP but the partnership also had the potential to initiate and promote greater involvement of the public in Bowen's broader sustainability planning framework.  4.3 The Process - Expectations of the GBFP Workshop  The goals of the workshop were twofold: 1) to deepen the dialogue on sustainability by using QUEST to increase the level of understanding of how complex ecological, social and economic systems interact as a means to discover ways of achieving a sustainable future for the GB region and 2) to use the P/P framework to think of ways to put some of the ideas that came out of the QUEST dialogue into practice on a local level. Overall, it was desired that the participants would be able to apply the knowledge gained during the workshop toward the creation and implementation of local projects. The projects would ideally use the strategic objectives created in the workshop. Following through on the  44  implementation of their objectives could help them realize their desired future for the island and ultimately the region. The process was geared to organize and mobilize participants to a point where they could begin to implement a project. However, at the same time, it was not known who would be attending the workshop and more importantly if any of the participants were interested in starting a project or how motivated they were to initiate a project. Given these working conditions, the expectation of significant community mobilization was low since there was no prior commitment on the part of the participants to initiate a project. It was assumed that without commitment to initiate a project, the likelihood of following through on a local project would be lower. Moreover, it was recognized that this process did not occur in a vacuum therefore it was also assumed that the reasons for mobilization would be the result of a myriad of interconnected causes, not just the workshop. QUEST was used with the intention of honing participants' ideas about the kind of future they desired by providing a series of different choices of how the region could operate and then illustrating the interacting effects of their decisions. QUEST was supposed to emphasize the interconnections between the choices made in building a future scenario and the outcomes of the scenario created. As described in Chapter 2, it was hoped that in creating a desired future scenario with QUEST and having parallel discussions about the choices and outcomes of development options, the participants could make more informed decisions about what kind of future they desire for the region. They would gain a better understanding of the consequences of their preferences while also learning what is involved in . making such a future. The intended outcome of the second part of the process was to form objectives for local projects aimed at contributing to the creation of their desired future for the region. The hope was to make logical connections between regional and local scales by translating applicable regional preferences identified with QUEST to the Bowen scale. Regardless of whether this transfer and scaling down of ideas happened, at the end of a completed P/P process, each group would have a vision statement for a local project that targets a specific issue related their desired future for the island and by extension, the region. By going through the P/P process, six interconnected objectives would be outlined. They would address current behavioural and environment related factors that would impede the realization of  45  their desired future for Bowen. Ideally, with P/P generated objectives for local projects, each group would take on ownership of their initiative and implement their project using the objectives to guide them.  4.4 The Participants - The People Who Attended the Workshop  Taking into consideration who the participants were in terms of basic demographic information as well as the kinds of knowledge, attitudes, beliefs and values that they brought to the workshop is important for understanding how the GBFP dialogue unfolded. These factors are important because they influenced and shaped the kinds of discussions that occurred during the workshop as well as its outcomes. As will be discussed, the picture that emerged from the data was that of a group who could be characterized as early adopters of concern for sustainability. According to Rogers' (1995), diffusion of innovation theory, early adopters are those in a social circle who are well respected, opinion leaders who try out new ideas but in a careful way. In other words, they were for the most part, the already converted. They were not only interested in the topic of sustainability. and the future of their island prior to attending the workshop but many were active on and off the island in the realm of sustainability, both as citizens and professionally. By looking at the demographic make-up of the group that attended the workshop in relation to a) the literature on environmental concern, b) the kinds of activities the people were involved in and c) their expressed motivations behind their actions it becomes clear that the workshop attracted those driving the sustainability bandwagon on Bowen.  4.4.1 The Demographics  Twenty-one community members from Bowen Island participated in the 2-day workshop. Out of those twenty-one participants, a total of thirteen Bowen citizens attended both days and on each day four additional people attended only one day of the workshop. The following breaks down the characteristics of the participants in terms some standard social structure categories: gender, age, education and occupation as bases for understanding their concern for Bowen and the community. In looking at the demographic information with this lens, it was possible to determine whether the.group was made of people who were already predisposed to have environmental concern and by extension concern about sustainability before the workshop.  Gender is seen in the literature as having a weak and less consistent relationship to environmentalism, however, women are generally more concerned about the environment than men (Dietz et al. 1998;  46  Fransson and Garling 1999; Van Liere and Dunlap 1980). The gender split of the group was just about even, with 11 women and 10 men. It was convenient that there was symmetry in gender distribution because it most likely minimized any kind of gender bias that could have influenced the degree of expressed concern about sustainability in the workshop.  Age is the strongest and most consistent predictor of environmental concern. Generally, younger people are more concerned about environmental deterioration than older people (Fransson and Garling 1999; Van Liere and Dunlap 1980). The age range of the participants was between 16 and 68, with an average age attending at approximately 48.4 years and the median age at approximately 48 years . 2  According the 2001 Canadian Census Data, the median age on Bowen is 41.4. The workshop participants therefore represented a slightly older percentage of the community. In trying to understand the effect of having mostly middle-aged participants one would think that their age most likely indicates they would less likely have environmental concern. However, if the group was indeed made up of early adopters, as will be suggested by other variables such as education, occupation, actions and expressed motivations, it would make more sense that age not be a driving factor for concern, in a group of this kind. The nature of being an early adopter may supersede any kind of age effect.  Education has a moderately strong association with environmental concern with the well educated more concerned than others (Fransson and Garling 1999; Van Liere and Dunlap 1980). Most participants (over 80%) were university educated and almost half of which had post graduate diplomas. Interestingly, an observed effect of having such an educated group of people was the level of technical insight into the discussions throughout the two days. Many of the participants were very knowledgeable of the different development options. This most likely would not have been as apparent if the group had less formal education in fields related to societal and environmental issues. Given this high degree of education within the group, it would be expected that they would have a stronger concern for sustainability issues. According the 2001 Canadian Census Data, 39% of Bowen residents over the age of 20 years hold university degrees. The workshop participants as a whole represented a much more educated percentage of the community. Bowen Island's population as a whole is significantly more educated than the rest of the province, where 22.9% of the population over the age 20 hold university degrees. Bowen's level of education is also significantly higher than the city of  2  Ages were only given by 12 participants.  47  Vancouver, where 28.6% of the population over 20 years hold university degrees. This is interesting to note because, while the participants of the workshop represented a more educated group as compared to the rest of the island, Bowen itself represents a population that is more educated than the largest city in the province and the province as a whole. Noting this potential for increased environmental concern on Bowen is important because it, in part, validates stereotypes about people from Bowen who are seen as a pro-environmental, pro-sustainability community. Occupation serves as another indicator that the workshop attracted early adopters. There were several environmental scientists and educators (n=6), as well as a several (n=5) in the field of health and well being (i.e. doctors, social workers etc.). There were also a few whose work was directly linked to the land: a farmer, a developer and a municipal park manager. All of these professions are focused either societal or environmental issues. If their professions address various aspects related to issues of sustainability, then it is not hard to imagine that their professions reflect, in part, their values or personal concerns about sustainability. The demographic information supports the claim that the workshop participants came to the workshop with a keen interest in sustainability issues. Although their age and gender distribution do not necessarily support this argument, their level of education and occupations do. Using social structural variables as predictors of concern are however limited. They only suggest who are more likely to have greater concern. A stronger indicator that the group had genuine concern about sustainability issues is seen by the kinds of activities they were involved in and their motivations for doing so. Their actions and their expressed motivations make a more solid case that they were indeed, early adopters.  4.4.2 Their Actions and Motivations  Many of the participants were actively addressing concerns about the development of the island in various ways. Four people were members of the aforementioned Bowen Island Sustainability Task Force. As members of the Task Force, they recommend actions to the municipal council to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, waste production, water consumption, and generally further social, environmental, and economic sustainability of the Bowen Island community. There was one former  48  council member who was involved in the formal decision making of the municipality. Two people were involved in the Bowen Island Forest and Water Management Society. This Society took on the task of identifying and characterizing Bowen's forests and watershed. They collected this information to inform best practices for future development of the island. Several other participants were members of the Bowen Island Conservancy. They work as volunteers to protect and restore the natural setting of Bowen Island, neighbouring islets and surrounding waters through working with landholders and others. Moreover, almost half of the participants had attended a workshop held two months prior to the GBFP workshop that used Open Space Technology to elicit various opinions about the kind of Bowen they would want to live in, in the future. Out of this meeting, the Cape Roger Curtis Trust Society was formed, a citizen group trying to protect the natural heritage of a large piece of land on Bowen. Two of the Trust members attended the workshop. Finally, two of the participants were promoting non-toxic alternative cleaning products on the island through workshops. Overall, about half of the participants were involved in the above-described groups aimed predominantly at being stewards of their land. This degree of involvement suggests that the workshop attracted those driving the sustainability bandwagon on Bowen. These people are highly active citizens, committed to their island community and its future, qualities that can be argued as being those of early adopters. The idea that the participants' actions stemmed from a commitment to their island community and its future becomes clearer from the explanations given by participants about their interests in sustainability. Responses from the interviews suggest that their strong interest in sustainability is related to their respect and care for the community and its future. One of the participant's responses nicely captures this kind of sentiment participants have towards Bowen: When you have this gem of a community that is in a lovely natural setting and has a community structure that is so positive, finding ways of sustaining that is pretty important or vital... [It's] the most complete community that I've lived in and so the sustainability of this community is important to me.  This quote emphasizes an appreciation and awareness of Bowen's natural environment and community. It indicates what is important to him, in other words, it spells out that he is concerned about the future of his community. Other responses in the interviews were similar to the above; many recognized the connection between how much they appreciate where they live but that it is changing therefore more careful consideration needs to placed in determining the island's future. In interviewing one of the few farmers on the island, he expressed how his motivations for his sustainability-related activities were rooted in the land and beyond that were his community concerns. He made a choice to  49  live on Bowen for certain reasons: to get back to the land and live a simple lifestyle where he tried to inculcate values of a conserver society. He was active in the community in order to challenge what he saw as the unsustainable trajectory the island is taking, with the intention of upholding his values behind moving there, thirty years ago.  What is interesting about these kinds of concerns is how they manifested into action. Research has consistently shown that values are indirect determinants of sustainability related behaviour (Guagnano 1995; Stern et al. 1999; Stern 2000). Having pro-sustainability values do not mean that sustainabilityrelated behaviours will follow (Corraliza and Berenguer 2000) but it does suggest that there is greater potential for that kind of behaviour, if there is a strongly favoured context. Due to the nature of their behaviours, it is feasible to assume that this favourable combination of positive attitudes and context exists and is driving their behaviours. This combination is most likely unique to people strongly predisposed to carrying out these kinds of actions.  Another recurring theme about their motivations behind their sustainability-related activities was the idea of "upholding the common good within the community," as one participant coined it. Many were drawn to Bowen because of the kind of community it represented to them. To them, the community's common good was that it valued family, people cared for each other and the land and that there was an opportunity to contribute and be involved, "to have a voice", as one participant commented. Many felt that this common good was more tangible on Bowen then in cities or other communities. As one  participant expressed, "We moved over in 1991, and the main reason was the essence of community." As she explained, Bowen was a place where it was possible to uphold her community values of family, being authentic and honouring and taking care of the land. This notion of valuing Bowen's common good can therefore be understood as being linked to their involvement in sustainability related activities because for many of them, they did not want to see this essence of community threatened. Being involved in sustainability activities allows them to defend their community values.  4.5 The Case as a Whole The people who attended the workshop valued the idea of making Bowen more sustainable. As indicated by both the environmental values literature (Guagnano 1995; Stern et al. 1999; Stern 2000) and the participants themselves, their values are a source of motivation for their involvementJn  50  sustainability-related activities. Furthermore, the socio-demographic structure of the group acted as a predictor of these values, with their high degree of education and the nature of many of their occupations being stronger predictors of these values. These kinds of qualities suggest the group was made up of early adopters, with regard to their pursuit of sustainability on the island. They believed in the idea of sustainability, and were pursuing different means to make Bowen more sustainable that are not necessarily common for most people to be involved in. As will be discussed in the following chapter, knowing the participants were early adopters and the resulting values they brought with them to the workshop will help in understanding the direction discussions went during the workshop as well as the outcomes. Given that there was genuine interest within the community to thoughtfully consider ways of making Bowen more sustainable, this case study offers a unique look into what can happen when an engaged community tries to tackle these issues. Some might think that because the community and its government were so keen about addressing issues of sustainability in their community that our experience in working with them could not be extended to other communities of different scale or value base, such as a large urban city or a sprawling suburb. However, working with such a predisposed community could indirectly benefit future community collaborations. It gave us the opportunity to really focus on the application of the tools rather than expending energy convincing people that planning for the future is important. Consequently, as will be discussed in the following chapter, the outcomes of the case study reflect more of an evaluation of our application of the tools rather than the community's capacity to use the tools. Since the case focused on the application of the tools, the lessons learned can be considered in a more general context.  51  Chapter V Dialogues. D e s c r i p t i o n s and D i s c u s s i o n s - A n A n a l y s i s  5.1 Introduction  This research set out to apply a novel approach to engaging the public in a dialogue about the sustainability of the region, using QUEST and then transferring those ideas to a local level using the I  P/P framework. The Bowen Island Case Study tested out this dialogue process by applying it in a community setting. In team meetings about the case study work, we often used the metaphor that we were throwing a stone into a pond. What was meant by this was that the research was about describing and reflecting on the stone and the rippling effect of the stone after it was thrown in the pond; where the stone is the dialogue process, the pond represents the community, and the ripples are outcomes of the dialogue process in the community. By describing and reflecting on the application of the process and its resulting outcomes, it was possible to learn about the value of using this kind of collaborative approach.  It was assumed that since QUEST and P/P were being used for the first time, the most significant outcome of the process would be a learning experience for both the researchers and the participants. The evaluation of the process and its outcomes therefore focused on what the participants and the partners learned on both a conceptual and applied level. Specifically, the two questions that were focused on were: 1) What specifically was learned conceptually from the process about creating a desired future and trying to actualize it; 2) What was learned about trying to apply the process as part of a partnership with the Bowen community. Based on the opinions of some of the participants and partners, along with my own observations, it became possible to suggest why the process unfolded as it did, both during and after the workshop, as well as what was learned from the overall collaborative research experience between researchers and the Bowen community.  This chapter discusses what resulted from the two-day workshop and the lessons that were learned from the application of the GBFP dialogue process. It begins with exploring what the participants learned from using QUEST. A discussion of what resulted from using the P/P planning framework follows.  52  5.2 Q U E S T : D e e p e n i n g the Dialogue o n Sustainability  The first day of the workshop was designed to deepen the dialogue on sustainability by using QUEST to increase the level of understanding of how complex ecological, social and economic systems interact as a means to discover ways of achieving a sustainable future for the GB region. In an effort to understand whether this kind of learning occurred, the following was asked of the data: 1) what did the participants learn during the workshop and 2) what were the lasting impressions of what was learned from QUEST seven months later. By understanding what the participants learned and took away from the QUEST workshop, it was possible to draw some conclusions about whether QUEST can help participants learn about paths to sustainability.  A way of qualitatively measuring what was learned from the QUEST workshop was to first look at the kinds of values the group were trying to uphold in creating their desired future in comparison to their reaction to the outcomes of their scenario. As will be discussed, the choices they thought would create a more sustainable region in QUEST did not entirely result in the future scenario they imagined it would. They learned about the unexpected consequences of some choices and gained some insight into the complex interconnections and trade-offs involved in creating a more sustainable region. What the group learned from QUEST will be illustrated by providing a detailed explanation of the kinds of qualities the group valued as being necessary for creating a sustainable region before QUEST, how those values were reflected in their QUEST choices and the kinds of comments and reactions to their resulting scenario.  5.3 A Prequel to Q U E S T : Eliciting Regional and L o c a l V a l u e s  In the values discussion they had before QUEST, participants were asked to identify characteristics of the GB region they would want to see in the future. Table 5.1 lists the group's responses. The characteristics the group came up with did not consist of values per se, but rather examples of development options or outcomes they would like to see. Despite the difficulty of eliciting the values behind their preferences, it was possible to deduce some meaning behind what they identified. The kind of qualities the group discussed as being most desirable for the region can be categorized as being about low impact growth. For them, low impact growth was about denser communities with more accessible forms of public transportation in order to reduce traffic. They wanted lower traffic because it contributes to better air quality and a more pedestrian oriented lifestyle. Low impact growth was also about promoting strong local economies that produce more local food, offer affordable housing and  53  also celebrate culture for the purpose of encouraging diverse, close-knit communities. With this kind of regional growth, they believed it would be possible to protect and restore the watershed, reduce the region's ecological footprint while also making communities more inviting for all socio-economic backgrounds. They wanted low impact growth because they valued sustaining both the integrity of the environment and the social well being of the people in the region.  T a b l e 5.1 - D e s i r e d Characteristics of the G B region  What Matters to You?  Having drinkable water Promoting dense nodal growth in the GB Having more light rapid transit Having no traffic congestion Having more local food production Protecting and restoring the watershed  Maintaining a local economy Enabling and promoting cultural activities Fostering diversity Having affordable housing Educating for sustainability  The group's desired characteristics of the region and their ascribed values illustrate the way in which the group was thinking about regional sustainability before QUEST. As a group, they defined what they believed were necessary qualities of a more sustainable region; qualities that were aimed at sustaining both the integrity of the environment and the social well being of the people in the region. The characteristics put forward by the group demonstrate the kind of sophisticated thinking about regional sustainability they brought to the workshop. This was seen, for example, in their use of technical terminology for development options, like their interest in nodal growth. This level of thinking is important to note because it serves as a baseline for understanding, what the grouped learned during workshop. They brought with them to the workshop interesting and knowledgeable ideas of what might constitute a more sustainable region but they did not know whether having these qualities in the GB region would necessarily uphold their values of sustaining the integrity of the environment and the social well being of the people. As will be discussed, when they went on to work with QUEST they not only explored and discussed in more detail the characteristics of the region they desired but they also tested the potential of their ideas to create the kinds of effects that were desired.  54  5.4 QUEST Outcomes 5.4.1 Setting the Context The group focused on nine choices in creating their desired future with QUEST (see Table 5.2 and Appendix VI for a more detailed table of their choices). The first three choices they made were less about the kind the future they desired and more to do with higher level assumptions required by QUEST to set the context for their scenario. These assumptions are: 1) Ranking Priorities, which is about setting the priorities of their scenario, with regard to the environment, society and the economy; 2) Setting External Conditions, which is about choosing the kind of global conditions that will exist and 3) Choosing How the World Works, which is about setting the relative speed and flexibility of behavioural change, technological change, and ecological resilience that they think will exist, as well as the priorities regarding the social, economic, and environmental health of the region that will be emphasized.  Ranking Priorities: In the discussions surrounding Ranking Priorities, the group struggled between choosing between Planet First and People First. Planet First, like the title insinuates, is about making the state of the environment a priority in relation to the way the region develops. Similarly, People First, places social issues as the number one priority. The group struggle between the two options because they had just finished a discussion that focused on how both the environment and human welfare are critical components of a region and now they had to choose one over the other. They settled on Planet First after one of the participants convincingly made this statement: It becomes pragmatic to choose Planet First. In doing so, I don't expect that in all cases we'd put the put the planet first [because] society and people have a way of very pragmatically negotiating their needs. [But by putting the planet first], it will finally become a more important factor [in decision making] along side people and corporations.  When this comment was made the group became more comfortable voting between Planet First and People First. The rationale of choosing Planet First was an attempt to ensure the needs of the planet are factored into development since they often are not. The ensuing comments made by the group suggest there was a sense of agreement around adopting a Planet First value set because they felt it would ensure both a healthy planet and people. This way, both environmental and social needs would be negotiated as part of the concern for the planet as a whole. Having this discussion was difficult but in the end they realized they could choose a set of priorities that reflect their values.  55  Table 5.2 - Choices Made in the Bowen Workshop QUEST Scenario Decision Options (chosen decision in black) Decision Decision Question 1  Rank Priorities  'Planet'Rirstf' *  -'  .<•>  People First Urban Economy First Rural Economy First X  fl) c  2  o  External  Market Forces  Conditions  Policy Reform-  tting th  O  \ '  :  " • '  Great Transitions 3  How the World Works  Social Adaptation  |  Technological Innovation  t  i  4  Urban Growth  |  6  Lifestyle  •*-» 3 3 U_ 0> .C 4-* l_  a  ctn o  Current Trend ;  Have Our Cake and Eat it Too Current Trend ;Go Green".  Q.  o  |||  , >  Technological Solutions 8  Water  Current Trend Conservation Focus  ,.',  Supply Focus 9  Industry  high fe  low  Material Bliss  Transportation  high fe  KJ  o '•V: o  >-  Change Our Ways,  7  high  KJ  Uphold Personal Choice Development Density  Ks>  0 W  Community Values  5  w  w  Contain Urban Growth  high  o  f-\  Current Trends (  i  ow  ^  Ecological Resilience  •  0 W  ^ ^  O  '  Fortress World  to  2  '  o o o o o o  Current Trend Moderate Shift to Eco-Efficiency "Major Shift to Eco-Efficiency •  •  o o o o o oo o o  )  llllil§85185  •  •  •  „ 1  External Conditions: After Ranking Priorities, the group chose the kind of External Conditions that they believed would be imposed on the region. The kinds of global conditions that QUEST models are global migration patterns, labour force participation, global economic growth, global exports and energy use. The group chose the Policy Reform preset because they thought the trajectory of the current socio-economic structure would lead governments to impose more regulations, in the face of increasing  56  environmental and social cost. Choosing a Policy Reform approach reduces global resource use but maintains global economic growth, where the reform takes place within the current structure. How the World Works: Finally, they made choices about How the World Works, a choice about how socially adaptable people will be, the pace at which technology will change and the degree of resilience to human activity the environment can withstand. The group made conservative choices, leaving Social Adaptation and Ecological Resilience at medium but assumed Technological Innovation will continue to boom. It is difficult to draw any definitive conclusions about what participants learned from this first part of QUEST since this step was about outlining their assumptions about uncertainty. However, the kind of assumptions the group chose does connect well to the desired future the group had already articulated in their values discussion. Their desire for low impact growth is reflected in their choice to put the environment as a priority while also addressing social needs. Their assumption about External Condition trends reflect the view that the world is headed for 'trouble' and governments will have to be more heavy handed in order to alleviate pressures on the environment. They also believe that technology will continue to play a significant role in society, making a low impact growth in the region more feasible. For example, technology will most likely make green transportation options more affordable. If anything, what can be concluded about participants' experience of the first part of QUEST is that it was consistent with their thinking before QUEST. QUEST simply organized their values into packages. 5.4.2 Choosing Options  The impact of QUEST becomes clearer in examining the discussions around development options and the outcomes of those choices. The group selected six options for the future to work with (see Table 5.2 for details). As the characteristics identified in the values discussion, all of the decisions made in QUEST reflected their expressed desire to reduce human impact of development on the region through low impact growth. They chose to develop denser communities, with an emphasis on nodal growth. They wanted a significant increase in transportation alternatives that were more efficient. They also envisioned a future where residential and industrial development practices were more efficient while also protecting the land and water. In addition to these similarities in the values discussion and  57  QUEST choices, in QUEST they also made choices where people would have a lifestyle that treaded lighter on the earth by being less consumptive, eating more vegetarian food and working more from home.  The discussions that took place in creating their scenario essentially expanded on their initial discussion about desired characteristics for the region. They not only identified more options for the future but also explored alternatives in more detail. For example, rather than ending the conversation about transportation with having more green transportation alternatives, as they did in their values discussion, with QUEST they discussed whether they desired the transportation sector to focus on technological efficiencies alone {Technology Solutions preset) or to have technological innovation along with incentives that encourage the use of greener alternatives (Go Green preset). Exploring the different alternatives allowed the participants to learn more about the options for creating the future. Many came to the workshop with ideas about how the region should develop but for some, QUEST provided some alternatives that they had not been previously considered. They debated between the technology solutions and the go green presets, for example because they had not thought about the differences in the directions the transportation sector could take. They knew they wanted better public transportation but not everyone had considered other options the transportation sector could take. The discussions around this choice ended with them agreeing that the ideal would be to choose Go Green because they believed that technology alone wouldn't suffice.  The question that emerges about QUEST helping expand the conversation about desired futures is what is the impact of this elaborate dialogue? By providing more detail about what that future could look like, it can be argued that QUEST facilitated learning about different development options. The following reflection on what was learned from QUEST, given by one of the participants, offers some insight into what participants gained from this kind of discussion: It made me more aware, aware of where people's interest lay and the potential of what could happen, all the variables of what could happen in the future and all the variables of what you need to create something.  Her reflections serve as an example of how QUEST taught some participants about the different development options. She describes and emphasizes how QUEST cultivated an awareness of the different variables involved in planning for the future. Much of what was being presented during that day was very new to her and she explained how she learned a lot that day just by listening to the  58  discussions about desired futures. What this indicates is how QUEST can teach people about development choices by stimulating discussion about preferences. Knowing that QUEST can teach people about development choices is important for those interested in learning about how the region functions. However, in the context of this particular workshop, this kind of learning was more of an anomaly than the norm since the majority of the group was aware of the different kinds of alternatives before the workshop.  Most of the conversations revolved around weighing different options and trying to foresee the tradeoff in making one choice over the other rather than focusing on understanding the different variables at play. For example, in discussing urban development options, their most heated discussion, they were torn between the Contain Urban Growth and Community Values presets. The discussion became somewhat argumentative because they had difficulty reconciling the effects of promoting dense communities. Most were not proponents of urban sprawl however, at the same time, some had difficulty imagining Bowen's housing becoming densified. One person mentioned how the image of having a 'downtown' Bowen seemed ridiculous, and stirred an uncomfortable laughter amongst everyone. It seemed that the uncomfortableness stemmed from a belief that increased density would depreciate the rural character of the island. There was this recognition about densification being necessary but ultimately they did not want that for Bowen. In discussing these ideas, they realized a flaw in their beliefs; they were on the verge of promoting NIMBYism , as someone pointed out. Not 1  wanting to promote something that they believed to be a detriment, they made a compromise and chose to Contain Urban Growth but with having medium-high housing density rather than the default high density option. Their compromise was based on the view of Bowen as a microcosm of the region. If they did not want a lot of dense development on Bowen then it should not be considered desirable on a regional scale. This kind of weighing and discussing of options occurred for every choice they made, although not all their choices were burdened by as much compromise. Most often, they were easily satisfied in making the greenest choices available, under the assumption that is what needs to be done in order to sustain the integrity of the environment and the social well being of the people.  NIMBYism: Objecting to the siting of something one regards as detrimental or hazardous in their own neighbourhood, while by implication raising no such objections to similar developments elsewhere (Oxford English Dictionary, http://dictionarv.oed.com. website accessed: July 10, 2004.) 1  59  5.4.3  The Results  Before discussing more specifically what the participants learned from unpacking their scenario, their results will first be described to put their learning in context. As seen in Figure 5.1, the group created a scenario that received an overall score of 78%, in relation to the nine indicator targets seen on the Dartboard. The Dartboard illustrates the relative importance of nine indicators measuring economic, environmental and social health of the region, both now (indicated by the green markers) and in the future, in 2040 (indicated by the red markers). The nine indicators are listed around the perimeter of the Dartboard. The dark circle near the center delineates the target for each indicator. These targets were established based on internationally accepted indicators based on the scientific literature (Raskin 2  et al. 1998; IPCC 2003). Areas on the diagram that are coloured green identify the indicators for which conditions have improved from today to 2040, while those coloured red are expected to worsen. The results indicate that their choices created an increasingly more desirable scenario from today to 2040. According to QUEST, by 2040, targets for government deficit, unemployment and air pollution will be met. Moreover, there will be reductions in the region's eco-footprint, green house gas emissions and annual cost of living. Despite these positive outcomes, some of the choices caused some less desirable results. For one, traffic congestion gets significantly worse over time, as is there an increase in newly developed land. Secondly, there is no improvement in the ratio of students per teacher, indicating that the quality of education most likely has not changed.  Their scenario depicts a future where most of their ecological goals are met but the state of the economy and social well being are not necessarily ideal since not all the indicator targets were met. They made choices with the intent to de-emphasize opportunities for economic growth, due to environmental concerns. These choices however resulted in some possible detrimental side effects, at least in the short to medium term. For example, enhancing industrial resource efficiency to remain competitive in international markets is valuable in the long term, but may lead to job losses in the short to medium term, as seen by the high unemployment for the next twenty years, displayed in Figure 5.2. Moreover, their choice to increase levels of densification, in an effort keep development within the urban boundary could cause housing prices to rise significantly. This may impact the growth of housing markets and other economic activity as well, as some potential residents will choose to locate elsewhere, out of affordability concerns. Housing prices in the region, already the highest in Canada, The targets were largely determined by expert groups within the GBFP, based mostly on unpublished results and their expert understanding of specific variables (Carmichael 2004). 2  60  may require an increasing share of residents' budgets, raising the cost of living. However, other costs may be expected to fall, such as transportation costs. Many families will find owning an automobile to be unwise, due to a combination of appealing and affordable alternatives and negative incentives as private vehicle travel becomes increasingly ineffective. The combined effect of the choices the group made led to a 15 to 20 percent reduction in total cost of living, as seen in Figure 5.3, relative to the cost of living in the year 2000. However, at the same time, average wages are not expected to increase, which in some measure can be viewed as disadvantageous because people will not be earning more money. However, since their cost of living is declining they will not be as limited by fixed wages. Figure 5.1 •  QUEST Results: Expert Dartboard  Workshop g**S I  r  SEE R E S U L T S  SEE RESULTS  61  Figure 5.2 QUEST Results: Labour Market and Unemployment  • Georgia  Basin QUEST  ^  Buying, selling, shipping, and producing all add up to create  • O Set Context  the region's level of economic  a tt Choose Options  ^ L a b o u r Force PartJctMttan  activity and number of jobs.  i- tt See Results fl H Demography H H Economy and Induetn Economic Activity by Sector  :  ; Migration  | Labour Market and Unemployment; •  Economic Activity per Capita  •  Reliance an Imparts  • Sectoral Employment l+l E3 Energy i+'i i*w Government i*l ffi Urban Growth fl 2 ^asportation w L^Air Quality fl [ill Sold waste fl Q Eo>Footprlnt & if] Cost c f L iv rig  , IIKL Resource Efficiency Same « now ignrtartl,  . fcco«  •  EAgrtullre ^ No^rtojrhoocc • SFsherles  2000 2010 2020 2030 20*0  envision  Figure 5.3 QUEST Results: Cost of Living R E S U L T S  £J Cost of Living Ration All decisions have tradeoffs.  • Georgia  Basin  QUEST  Many are financial and affect  tt Set Context  the amount of money in your  0 Choose Options •  covered.  - Rj Demography i*t HEconomy and Industry 1 EjEnorgy 9 Government I I it! t.•I -  I Cost of LMng and Wages |  H lifeban Growth  S Transportation Q A r Quality 61 Solid Waste IQEco-PooiprinT IE Cost of Living •  Coat of L.vhg and Wages  • Family Cost of Livng • Singto CoitofLlvng fl !S Ay culture I y^grTbcumccxfc i 3F«hariM IS QvVattr  • • UobalLi  pocket once the basics are  See Results  1200  ;oo.o  | Cottof Uvino  eao  I Average W « O M  lame as now  Stgrtfcandy  6O0 40.0  13 Urban Density  20.0  ao  tconoirHt Structure 2000  2010  2020  20X 2040  SCENARIO MANAG  62  The effects of their choices on social well being are harder to determine because their choices did not focus on government spending, which is the most significant variable in QUEST related to social welfare. What the group was able to see was the effect of leaving spending at Current Trends. This resulted in a significant reduction in the debt, which is good for the economy but could also potentially lead to social costs. For one, health needs might not be met due to limitations in spending and pressures on the system from an increasing population (see Figure 5.4). There would also be no change in classroom size, which can be interpreted as there being no room in the budget to make any desired improvement to the education system. Figure 5.4  Q U E S T R e s u l t s : Health N e e d s and P u b l i c S p e n d i n g  fiiii  SCENARIO NAVIGATION |« G e o r g i a  Basin  QUEST  • O Set Context * O C h o o s e Options -  O S e e Results i+i Hr^mography  Government  Government allocates its revenue to spending categories in an attempt to balance revenue, expenditures, and the deficit  9 B E c o n o m y and Industry B Q Energy i-; KGcvernment • •  Revenue, Spending a Deficit Spending Breakdown  •  Classroom Size  •  Health Needs & Spending  •  Debt  •< ffluroan Growth •  3 Transportation - Z2»« Quality  I [wlscld waste * EI Era-Footprint * B3cc«tofLrvhg it  EAcrcukxe  * ^te-greoirtToocs it. 31 Fisheries  The group created a scenario with mostly positive results but there were also tradeoffs. On the one hand, air pollution has surpassed its target, the region's eco-footprint and greenhouse gas emissions are declining, indicating that the group's choices will help to improve environmental conditions in the region to a certain degree. However, at the same time newly developed land will increase and encroach on both natural and agricultural land (see Figure 5.5). Moreover, from an economic perspective, the long term outcomes met the objectives of the group but at the same time, short and mid term outcomes were less desirable, especially the spiking unemployment numbers. Finally, from a  63  social perspective, the group's results indicate that both the quality of health care and education may decline. Figure 5.5  QUEST Results: Remaining Potentially Developable Land  5.4.4 Learning about Consequence, Interconnections and Tradeoffs  Workshop Observations: Beyond learning about the details of what their scenario outcomes were, what resonated with the group the most about QUEST was learning about the consequences of their choices. As the results were unpacked and explained to the group, they saw how sectors are tightly coupled and that these interconnections lead to tradeoffs. An example of their learning about interconnections and tradeoffs between sectors was observed in their discussion about how their choices to have greater energy efficiency and improve air quality may have an impact on job growth in the region. In seeing the connections between industry and the labour market, one of the participants suggested, "We've chosen every possible option to reduce air pollution, so perhaps we should consider negotiating away some of our air quality to have more employment in the short term." He called this a  new form of emissions trading. The rest of the group appeared in agreement with his statement to try to renegotiate their choices to improve the social welfare of the region. In the end, they did not make new choices but there was recognition within the group that their pro-environmental choices resulted in some socio-economic costs. What these observation begin to indicate is that by illustrating the  64  connections between which of their choices caused what, QUEST enabled them to gain insight into the consequences of their choices. It also stimulated discussion about alternative choices that they had not necessarily considered before. In the discussions about the consequences of their choices, a few people commented how their lifestyles today do not reflect the kind of future they designed. It was a moment where there was some recognition that they were not living their.values, as one participant put it. For example, one participant mentioned how he does not want to give up the low density living that Bowen affords, even though he stands by the choices that were made with QUEST to increase development densities in the region. As this conflict of interest indicates, there was this sense in the room that it was easy to make these virtual choices but in reality the kinds of changes they wanted required tradeoffs that were difficult to imagine making. They grasped onto the concepts of choice and consequence with ease but because of the conflict between virtual and real values, there was some skepticism about practically translating their idealized preferences in practice. In light of these inconsistencies, participants discussed how they wanted to see a cultural shift that would align people's values and actions. Learning about the consequences of their choices got them thinking about what needs to be,done to make their desired future a reality. The day was however limited by time, which prevented these kinds of ideas from being fleshed out. All these ideas were carried forward to the second day where we spent the whole day discussing ways that would lead them to their desired future.  Workshop Evaluations: The participants' evaluations of the workshop helped to understand how QUEST allowed them to learn more about interconnections and tradeoffs. Although the sample of evaluations was relatively small (n=6 out of 17), the feedback that was received indicated that their reaction to the resulting scenario was met with some degree of surprise. They were surprised because they thought their choices would create a more sustainable region in QUEST than it did, i.e. a scenario with even less negative outcomes. Their surprise served as a measure for what they learned about the interactions between ecological, social and economic systems of the region. A common theme in their evaluations when asked what they learned that was most relevant about these kinds of interactions was that they learned that the levels of interactions between social, economic and environmental systems were not predictable and were more complex than imagined. More specifically, some commented that they learned how making choices geared to improving the environment had  65  unexpected socio-economic effects. Another person mentioned how he learned that economic drivers are most influential in policy making, overriding social and environmental considerations. These kinds of comments, with their reference to the consequences of interacting effects indicate the unexpected consequences to choices they learned. The evaluations also indicate that some participants gained insight into the complex interconnections and trade-offs involved in creating a more sustainable region. Interviews: The impressions given during the interviews of what they learned from QUEST further the argument that QUEST enabled learning about interconnections and tradeoffs between and within social, environmental and economic systems. Several of the participants' comments from the interviews indicated that QUEST highlighted consequences of development choices that were not obvious. One of the comments that exemplifies this point was as follows: It was the magnitude of effects between these things that was surprising. The other is, is the software can show all these things at once where very often we think linearly. But when you see the whole results at once and the changes to the results, in QUEST it came across better than I've ever seen.  This comment expresses how QUEST illustrated consequences of development choices in a way that he'd never seen before. He described how QUEST helped to clarify the interacting effects between sectors by illustrating the outcomes of the interactions between the different development choices all at once. Seeing these interacting effects left a lasting impression. Seven months after playing QUEST (i.e. during the interview), he still remembered that element of surprise in seeing the results of their choices. This suggests, much like what was observed during the workshop, that QUEST helped cultivate an awareness of the possible consequences from decisions made about the development of the region by bringing these decisions into a bigger collective view. Participants helped to explain the value of learning about the interconnections. Basically, by gaining a better understanding about how development choices interact, it was possible to identify key issues resulting from the decisions made in QUEST. Learning about these effects was viewed as being valuable. The same participant quoted above explained that the value of QUEST for him was that "[It] raises those flags of what to worry about or things we didn't know we should worry about." The flags  that he and others spoke of were the consequences that resulted from their choices. There was an appreciation for learning about consequences because they were not always obvious and there was recognition of the importance of learning what these consequences might be. The benefit of knowing  66  about the consequences of potential choices most likely is related to how it can help in decision making, so that it becomes possible to create a scenario with acceptable trade-offs.  5.4.5  L e a r n i n g about Paths to Sustainability  In learning about interconnections and trade-offs, participants' understanding of sustainability was both reinforced and expanded on, to various degrees, depending on their level of knowledge about how the region functions. The following quote exemplifies how QUEST can both support and influence participants' thinking about sustainability: There were many things that supported my views and understanding but there were also new ideas and also when you see some of those visualizations, it's the weighting and importance of certain parts, seeing what you might think as a small increase in population might do to a number of important things: water supply, air pollution, etc.  This comment expresses how much of what QUEST presented was not new to him and how as a result, QUEST supported his view and understandings about planning for the future. In fact, many other participants were familiar with the topic, as evidenced by the level of sophistication in their discussions. Participants who came to the workshop with this level of knowledge therefore left the workshop with a conceptual understanding of sustainability that was reinforced by QUEST. QUEST mirrored much of what they already thought was involved in creating a more desirable future. Yet, at the same time, as the above participant explained, QUEST did expand people's understanding about creating a sustainable region. They gained some new perspectives on what is involved in trying to create a more sustainable as a result of QUEST'S depiction of the interacting effect of their choices. The few surprises that resulted from their scenario shifted their conceptualization of sustainability. They came to the workshop with some definitive ideas of what needed to be done and in the end, some of these ideas did not turn out to be as promising as expected. For example, the discussions about some of the unforeseen socio-economic costs to their environmental choices encouraged them to think about alternative options that would reduce those costs. They discussed the idea of changing their choice from a major shift in industrial resource efficiencies to a moderate shift so as not to have sharp increases in unemployment. These kinds of discussions indicate how QUEST caused them to think a little differently about how they would prefer the region to develop.  QUEST also expanded people's thinking about sustainability in participants who were less knowledgeable or aware of what is involved in the workings of the region. The following quote typifies  67  the potential that QUEST has for teaching people about how the region works and the options for the future. I do remember one thing, becoming aware of, no I learned so much that day, of all the different facets of growth, [of] community, of moving forward, of all the possibilities and what was involved with all the different sectors and the concerns and initiatives of what was going on.  On the one hand, as she explained, QUEST did teach her about the different directions that can be taken when planning for the future. However, she also gave the impression that the experience of that day was in some waysoverwhelming, or "mind boggling", as she put it. This participant explained.that she did learn a lot that day but at the same time, learning about how the region works was a lot to absorb in one day because much of what was presented with QUEST was new to her. Perhaps the lesson learned here is that for people to maximize the learning experience from QUEST, careful consideration needs to be taken in gauging the level of knowledge of participants. Many of the participants were familiar with the options that QUEST was presenting, and for those participants their ideas about what is involved in creating a more sustainable region was both confirmed and reinforce but it seems that was not the case for all of the participants. In the end, this participant, and most likely other participant walked away from the day with some new insights about sustainability. However, at the same time, their learning may have been limited because of the amount of new information presented in one day.  Not all the participants who provided feedback expressed the view that they learned something after spending a day using QUEST. These people were more critical of the models used in QUEST and expressed an element of distrust in the results that were presented. In describing their impressions of the day they used words like, it lacked transparency and credibility. They explained that their distrust lay in knowing that there are many variables involved in creating a future scenario and QUEST might not have been comprehensive enough to demonstrate possible future scenarios. Throughout the day, these people were more fixated on trying to understand how QUEST functions as a model rather than the content within it. They essentially were not convinced that QUEST was dispensing truthful information and were constantly challenging each step of the process. For these people, the day reinforced their thinking that creating a more sustainable future is complex and difficult to model. Their scepticism can in part, be attributed to their expectations of QUEST. Perhaps they thought that QUEST was supposed to be all encompassing and they were disappointed that it was not. During the workshop, they wanted to see different choices than what QUEST had to offer. This scepticism may  68  have been alleviated if more time was spent explaining the purpose of QUEST in order to clarify expectations of QUEST. In doing so, people might spend more time thinking about the content of QUEST instead of the modelling.  5.4.6 The Limits of QUEST Although the learning that occurred with QUEST did contribute to new ways of thinking about sustainability, the effects of this learning were to a certain extent, limited to that day. There was no evidence to suggest that the ideas that emerged from using QUEST had any kind of legacy other than as being remembered as a learning exercise. One of the partners helped explain why there was difficulty in carrying forward the ideas that emerged from QUEST after the workshop, You know, there were some great thoughts and concepts that emerged from that day but there [was] no way to connect with them again...There was no way for the community to stay engaged in that conversation that we started.  As this quote explains, the community had no means to stay engaged in the conversation that QUEST initiated about preferences for the future of the region. This is because there was no follow-up with QUEST after the workshop. Despite conversations to make QUEST available on Bowen for people to use, it never happened. Without any access to QUEST, there was no capacity to carry these regional ideas forward; to talk more about them and try to articulate the most desirable preferences. This effect was foreseen which is why the second day of the workshop was planned. It was only with the second day that it was possible to provide a means to follow up on QUEST that went beyond learning to a more hands on, planning level.  Another limit of QUEST was that the community's local interests were not directly addressed in QUEST. QUEST models the region and does not identify Bowen-specific issues. As a result, individuals found it difficult understanding what they were supposed to do with the information they learned with QUEST. One of the participants explained that she did not know what she could do about the impacts of development on a regional scale. As a result, she just continued to focus on initiatives that she was already involved in. Like this participant, many of the other participants were also actively engaged in sustainability-oriented activities on the island but it seems that what they learned in QUEST did not apply to these more local activities. In the end, the day spent using QUEST gave them perspective on the kinds of pressures that might be placed on their community as a result of the  69  impacts of growth in the region but they were not given any tangible information to work with. Again, this was expected and only reinforces how the second day could pick up where the first day left off.  5.5 P R E C E D E - P R O C E E D : F r o m L e a r n i n g to A c t i o n  The purpose of the second day of the workshop was to use the P/P framework to think of ways to put some of the ideas that came out of the QUEST dialogue into practice on a local level. The idea was to use the P/P model to first identify relevant issues of their QUEST scenario that relate to the island and then develop a series of focused objectives for potential community initiatives aimed at addressing those issues. Ultimately, it was hoped that P/P would serve as a systematic, behaviourally comprehensive process that enabled participants to formulate and implement strategies geared toward creating a more sustainable community. In an effort to understand whether P/P served this purpose, the following was asked of the data: 1) what were some of the benefits and impediments of using this process - both reported by the participants and observed and 2) what conditions facilitated/impeded the formulation and implementation of their strategies for a more sustainable community. The purpose of looking at the data with these lenses was to help explain the value of using P/P as a tool to guide dialogue around planning projects aimed at cultivating sustainability in a community.  5.6 P/P O u t c o m e s 5.6.1 Creating Objectives  The day began with a discussion that was intended to bridge the previous days conversation about regional sustainability to issues that were impeding Bowen from being a more sustainable community. They were asked to consider choices made in their QUEST scenario that could be transferred to the local level to cultivate sustainability on the island. In the end, they did not make any clear connections between their QUEST scenario and what their community should focus on. Some of the characteristics they discussed in detail were: assurance of optimal land and water usage, having healthy homes, maintaining the island's rural character and having diversity and inclusiveness in the membership of the community. It came as a surprise that they did not explicitly draw any connections between the regional and local scales. One way of understanding why they did not make any reference to their QUEST scenario was, as was already mentioned, that the scale of the outcomes from QUEST was not transferable to a local scale. The issues affecting the island were not the same as those affecting the region. For example, the transportation and housing options presented for the region are not the same for a rural island. Moreover, issues of industry do not even exist on the island. As a result, the  70  connection between the lessons learned from QUEST and identifying issues impeding Bowen's sustainability never occurred.  Despite the lack of connection between regional and local scales, the group settled on three broad themes that they would focus on during the day, which were issues of: equity, justice, and stewardship of land, water, air and community. Those interested in each of these issues were organized into a group and were tasked with transforming these issues into projects using the P/P worksheets as their guide. Using the P/P framework and worksheets (see Figures 5.6,5.7 & 5.8 for worksheet summaries from each group), the groups outlined ways to address the above-mentioned issues and turn them into feasible projects. In groups of about 5-6 people, they began with creating a vision statement for their issues explaining what kind of desired outcome they would want to be working towards in their project. The worksheets then asked participants to identify and rate problems that were causally related to their issues. Ratings were based on criteria of prevalence, importance, and changeability (see Step 2 of Figures 5.6, 5.7 & 5.8, the underlined factor was their top priority). They then created an objective for their top-rated problem that their project should address in order to achieve the desired outcome. The group then determined the top-ranked behavioural and top-ranked environmental factors (see Step 3 of Figures 5.6,5.7 & 5.8) and again created objectives for each top rated factor. Finally, participants identified and ranked the predisposing, enabling and reinforcing factors, using the same rating criteria (see Step 4 of Figures 5.6,5.7 & 5.8) and created objectives for those factors. The outcomes of the workshop were a series of objectives. These objectives formed the strategic structure of three projects aimed at addressing the above-mentioned local issues. Overall, the three groups had varying success rates in completing the worksheets. Only the equity group completed all four worksheets; the other two groups completed three of the worksheets.  71  r  I. <D  O  ~% 7T  (fi 3  CO  1  o §  TJ  o  3 (D (A  TJ CD  a. ui TD o Ul  CO  to Tl 03  n  0)  o o  o  r0)  f  i"2  M  yr  ran  3  entF-ac  s o q  erty r ight n subc er zoilivid  1  e pr esta i bei  cr  <P </>  a  q Ul  aa fi> S < •< -o 3 | 2 a  3  D) '  = i  oi 3  ST  (n CD 0 3  <v  a o  m "0  (D  (5" DO <  |c a o « "Tl O' a — r* a £ K  CO H  w 8 H  a. m <D "° TJ w  S o (D <D  a o H tB" CD  TJ  ro  <D Co  C  5T to to to  3-  m ©  CO H  m TJ  -a  (Q  c CD  cn  o m cr 5'  3 CD  7T  2  to  3  CQ  3  3 (O  C/>  CD  03  sq -8 T]  CD CO •<  I—K  o' 3  ©  o  3  CD  to  1 0) cy  5' -n EU  CO  «  5 3  3" CD  "0 -s CD  Q. CD  T)  EU 0 0  <?  CD CO -n  O  n  o  O c r+ o o 3  CD  CD Q. 0)' -o O cn 3' co  m  '-si  O O  CO  CD CD  H m  a  TJ  o  4^  7T CO 3"  O TJ O 3  CD  «H sa. m  <  m  CD  "°  TJ  05  C  3 o  o'  CD CD  Q. £ O  m © TJ -a  cu  ro  CD  -l  c? CD CD  03 O CD 3  3T a> 3 a 1  r_ c CO  o CD  3 CD CO CO  a 3 c TJ  cl c ST CO CO CO  <r a cn  cn  0) T l 3 c CD  CO — I  m TJ  o TJ TJ O O m m o  3  JC  CD  3  GO O H "O  CD  TJ  .—»-  cn  CA 3"  o  O  ?r o 3  CD W  CO H  m TJ  G _O .  CD O  ° =1 Q.  m  m <  "°  C  to' 13  CD  TJ  o o CD CD Q.  £ O ^  i"  m © cu  TJ  CD  ro  TJ TJ  m o m o m  CD CD 3  o  c c?  qu  m  <  CD c/>_ —i"  CU  CO CO CO  T3  GO H  TI  m  c  TJ  c:  3  sustainability that will provide equal access and management of Bowen Island information relevant to planning and living the values outlined in the Earth Charter . 3  The Equity Group envisioned creating a unique demonstration of housing alternatives that would contribute to the equity of all people's backgrounds on Bowen Island that supports cultural and demographic change. They decided that in order to achieve their vision, their priority was to address the problem of there being a lack of affordable housing on Bowen. They wanted to create a standard for housing capacity that enables someone on economic assistance to live on the island, which would' be based on the provincial average so to, at a minimum, address the needs of individuals at the lowest income level. The highest rated behavioural factor was a lack of creativity/imagination in the thinking about housing options. In order to address this problem they wanted to work with the housing advisory committee and foster expansive thinking about housing options through focus groups with stratified samples so that they could make recommendations to council in the summer of 2003. The highest rated environmental factor was a lack housing options available on Bowen. They wanted to write a grant proposal for work that would survey all sources housing options in small communities, to be completed by August 2003. In order to address the behavioural and environmental concerns related to the lack of housing options, they planned to: a) create housing sub-group (under BILLS) to research and experiment with alternative housing options, with the focus on inclusivity, do-ability and communication; b) lobby for political and by-law changes in an effort to promote environmental and human health priorities; c) create a reward system with speakers and celebrations in order to promote caring connections and cohesion amid a diverse socio-economic and age groups; and d) create an experimental model of a community that includes changes in by laws and has tax advantages.  5.6.3  Benefits of Prioritizing Problems and Clarifying Objectives  All of the groups began with a very broad topic and with the use of the P/P worksheets they narrowed down their issue to specific problems and identified options for addressing them. The overall value of this process was that it enabled the groups to funnel their ideas downward so that they could decide on specific approaches that addressed both environmental and behavioural aspects of their issues. In  The Earth Charter is a set of interdependent principles for a sustainable way of life as a common standard by which the conduct of all individuals, organizations, businesses, governments, and transnational institutions is to be guided and assessed, (www.earthcharter.org). 3  76  narrowing down their issues, they prioritized problems based on which issues they considered were most important but also changeable. For example, the equity group debated between addressing problems related to optimal land and water use, affordable land and housing, transportation option and local economic development. At the end of their discussions, they decided that addressing the issue of affordable land and housing was both the most important and changeable issue they could address. Conversely, through their discussions they realized that although a lack of transportation options on Bowen contributed to issues of inequity, it was not considered as either highly important or changeable. Many of the participants appreciated this way of addressing problems. As the following quote describes, the value of addressing problems with this kind of process was in the prioritizing,"/ think the  value of the workshop is in facilitating people to entertain values, prioritize them and make a decision  In other words, by having these kinds of debates, the groups had the chance to identify and get to the specifics of problems their community is facing or as he put it, prioritize issues of value, and consider which one would be best suited for addressing the issue at hand. By using the P/P framework to prioritize problems, participants were provided with a structure to help them think through how they could achieve their goals. As explained by some of the participants, using a structured way to outline goals for citizen initiatives has not been the norm on Bowen. As a result of their experience in the workshop, some of the participants believed that citizen groups might benefit from using this kind of process to plan initiatives. One of the participants recounted how, in his community experience, he felt the citizen groups that come together often "fumble or struggle", as he put it, at understanding what it is they are trying to do, where it's trying to get to and where its role is in the bigger picture. In his view, clarity is often missing, and as a result, there are often conflicting interests within groups which ultimately impeded the overall success of the initiative. He went on to explain that as a result of using the P/P framework, he realized that groups might benefit from using a structured process because it helps identify what their goals should be and gives clarity to what they are doing and why. What is learned here is that as a result of using the P/P framework, some of the participants understood how the planning of their community activities could improve. By using the P/P framework to prioritize problems, participants got a sense of how the goals of their community initiatives could be made clearer.  77  It is positive to note that P/P acted as a tool to clarify objectives for participants in planning their initiatives. This serves as an indicator that the process enabled them to formulate well defined strategies however, in trying to understand the value of using the process, it is also important to know whether the application of the P/P framework enabled participants to implement their strategies. By examining what happened up to seven months after the workshop it became possible to understand some of the necessary conditions for P/P to enable participants to implement strategies. Looking into these preliminary outcomes gives some insight into what can result from using a more behaviouristic approach to planning sustainability-oriented initiatives.  5.6.4  F a c t o r s that Facilitated and Impeded Implementation  At the end of the workshop, there was a substantial amount of enthusiasm around what was discussed throughout the day. There were discussions about presenting the objectives that were created to council as formal recommendations, there was interest in having more workshop dialogues to keep the momentum of ideas flowing and finally, three of the five members of the equity group decided they were going implement their strategies. Despite all of the enthusiasm, in the seven months that passed after the workshop many of the ideas that were formed faded into the past. Formal recommendations were not made and although other workshop dialogues have since occurred the focus of these dialogues shifted beyond the details of this workshop. The only substantial outcome directly connected to the workshop was that the three equity group members did follow through in implementing their strategies. In trying to understand the value of using the P/P framework for planning, when only a few participants followed through on the outcomes of the workshop, the questions that emerged where: 1) what were some of the differences between the equity group and the other two groups that contributed to the equity group following through on implementing their strategies and the others not and 2) how did the use of the P/P framework contribute to the equity group's subsequent actions. The following addresses these questions.  The data indicates that the P/P workshop was more useful for enabling the equity group to get their ideas off the ground than the other groups. In contrast to the other groups, who struggled to find common interests, the process parlayed their common interests in equity into a shared and realizable vision for creating an example of affordable housing on Bowen. Two of the equity group members came to the workshop together with an interest in co-housing. As part of the equity group, they along  78  with the other group members were able to articulate ways to address affordable housing issues, which in turn led to some concrete ideas about how to create a co-housing community on Bowen. As one of the participants explained, "It (the workshop) helped us get the [ideas] together and kick off." As a result of the discussion, interest grew within the group to go ahead and implement these ideas. Because of this common interest, as one of the participants expressed, "there was alignment  happening, which kept us focused [on the worksheets]... and as result we formed a group of three." Having alignment within the group, even with those that did not continue to work on the project, helped the group articulate a shared vision, which in turn got the ideas that were formed in the workshop off the ground. Because the group worked well together, they were able to use the P/P framework to gain clarity in their ideas, which led some of the group members to coalesce. Together, these factors helped form an impetus to follow through on objectives created in the workshop.  In contrast to the equity group's experience, the other groups did not create a shared vision. There was quite a bit of evidence indicating that most likely this resulted from the other groups not sharing coming interests. One of the partners explained this point well, Knowing them they would have such different ways at coming at these problems that I'm not sure if these were groups. They may have gone farther if you split them up based on their interest. Sometimes a group that looks like a group is not a group; I think that's what happened there.  As the quote above explains, the other two groups did not function well together as groups. They had opposing views and different interests. As a result, they didn't listen to each very well and they weren't very interested in working together as a group. A few of the participants in the Stewardship group explained that in their group there was essentially, a battle of agendas going on throughout the day. As  one of them explained, "Someone came with their own agenda and hijacked the process, the group in  turn focused on land development instead of other topics because of his strong points of view." These words are quite strong, indicating a polarization within the group. She went on to explain that this polarization essentially derailed the process because their discussions were working against each other rather than collectively. As a result of these disharmonious group dynamics seen in both the stewardship and justice group, most of the individuals within these group were not interested in the outcomes, or had the desire to help get them moving forward.  What is learned from comparing these experiences is that in order for participants to go on to implement their projects, there needs to be sufficient common interest in order to create commitment  79  within the group to follow through after the planning process. This point is reflected in one of the quotes from a participant in the stewardship group. Overall, I felt my interests were not addressed in the outcomes. And I thought others in the group were going to follow-up since they seemed to be in a better position to do so. I left the workshop just wanting to continue working on my own interests.  As this participant explained, she and most likely other participants had little interest in following through on the outcomes. It is therefore not surprising that no one in either of those groups continued to work with the ideas. The P/P framework was therefore only useful when there were shared interests. If people aren't actively interested in the outcomes then the use of the process amounts to very little. Conversely, when used with a group who are collectively keen about the kind of objectives necessary to meet their goals, like the equity group, then the process can help groups move on to implement their ideas by guiding them to articulate and prioritize what it is they should focus on.  It is evident that the success of the P/P workshop relied on having a group who shared common interests. However, at the same time there was not enough evidence to support any strong conclusions that the successes of the equity group were contingent on having used the process. The weakness between having gone through the P/P process and their resulting commitment to work together was demonstrated in the way the equity group described how the P/P worksheets helped them implement their strategies. As one participant explained, It (the worksheets) broke down the objectives, so that was useful. I would say that it was helpful to have those objectives because it brings us to a point [where] you have to look at whether or not you are willing to do the commitment.  On the one hand, the series of exercises elicited their commitment and gave them the impetus to work together to build a co-housing community on Bowen but on the other hand, it was difficult to interpret why, in their opinion, they felt the workshop enabled them to commit to the ideas. There was some reluctance on their part to attribute their commitment to the workshop alone. The group suggested that the objectives were useful because they helped prioritize what it is they should focus on doing but due to a lack of probing during the interview, there was no clear explanation given about what brought on the commitment to follow through on the ideas. Consequently, it was difficult to know what role the P/P process had in getting them to go on to build a co-housing community. It is clear that the process did give them clarity but perhaps they would have initiated a project without that kind of clarity. Despite this ambiguity, what is clear is that the process enabled them to create strategies that addressed the predisposing, enabling and reinforcing factors linked to getting their project off the ground. By  80  identifying these factors, they gained clarity and coherence in their approach to promoting the idea of co-housing on Bowen and as a result, as the P/P theory suggests (Green and Kreuter 1999), they most likely improved the chances of the success of their project than if they had not used this process.  5.7 Summary Participants of the GBFP workshop learned new ways to thinking about paths to sustainability, as indicated by the data. On the first day, QUEST facilitated the group in exploring a series of alternatives in more detail than they initially considered at the beginning of the workshop. When the scenario was unpacked, they learned about interconnections and tradeoffs about development choices while also learning about how the region functions more generally. This learning reinforced some participants thinking because for the most part, these alternatives were familiar to the group but QUEST also expanded their thinking by illustrating how the combined effects of their choices resulted in some unexpected consequences. Although not everyone gained new insights into thinking about what makes a more sustainable region, the evidence suggests that QUEST did provide a means to deepen the dialogue on sustainability. As indicated by some of the participants' comments and evaluations, QUEST increased the level of understanding of how complex ecological, social and economic systems interact by stimulating some new ideas about what a more sustainable future could look like.  Results from the second day indicate that the Bowen Island example illustrated how using the P/P framework helped mobilize some participants who had shared interests. A key benefit was that participants were presented with exercises to identify and prioritize potential strategies and objectives for each strategy. This created coherence between their chosen strategies, key behavioural or environmental factors, priority issues in the physical/social environment and their overall visions. Having this coherence benefited a group who shared common interests, like the equity group because it gave them an impetus to work together and solidified commitment to implementing their ideas.  81  Chapter 6 Conclusions  By following the outcomes of the workshop over a seven-month period, it was possible to explore ways in which the use of both QUEST and the P/P framework contributed to people's thoughts and actions about creating a more sustainable community.  6.1 L e s s o n s L e a r n e d f r o m the Q U E S T W o r k s h o p  Based on the data collected both during and after the workshop, it can be concluded that QUEST facilitated learning about some of the complex interactions between socio-economic and environmental aspects of how the GB region functions. The core of the learning revolved around understanding the consequences of potential development options for the future, chosen in QUEST. The group made choices in QUEST that were very green, under the assumption that green is better. However, after unpacking their scenario they saw that some of their green choices had negative socio-economic effects, such as, choosing to have major shifts toward industrial eco-efficiency could lead to a sharp rise in short and mid term unemployment numbers. QUEST illustrated connections between choices and consequences and as a result, facilitated discussions about alternatives that had not necessarily been considered before. Understanding the consequences of potential choices for the future helped them to clarify the kinds of tradeoffs that were acceptable. For example, in learning about the consequences to increasing industrial efficiencies, the group changed their preference. They were willing to reduce the degree of environmental protection required by industries in order to prevent job losses.  The effect of learning about these complex interactions was that it both reinforced and expanded on participants' understanding of sustainability. Many of the participants came to the workshop with a strong understanding about the factors involved in cultivating sustainability and QUEST validated their understanding. Their preexisting knowledge about sustainability led them to make many choices that improved several of the expert indicators measuring economic, environmental and social health of the region. The choices they made resulted in a 2040 scenario where expert targets for air pollution, unemployment and the deficit were met. QUEST therefore demonstrated to them that many of their ideas about what is necessary to cultivate sustainability could lead to the kind future they preferred. Those participants who came to the workshop with knowledge about sustainability left the workshop with a conceptual understanding of sustainability that for the most part, was reinforced by QUEST.  82  There were however, as already mentioned, a few unexpected and less desirable outcomes that resulted from their choices. The surprises that resulted from their scenario modified their conceptualization of what is involved in cultivating sustainability. QUEST therefore not only validated their understanding about how to improve conditions in the region, it also prompted new insights. Not surprisingly, QUEST also expanded people's thinking about sustainability in participants who were less knowledgeable or aware of what was involved in cultivating sustainability. Unlike the other participants already mentioned, their learning was more focused on the different directions that could be taken when planning for the future as well as the consequences of some of those choices. Based on these different learning outcomes, the overall value for these participants of having gone through the process of creating a future scenario with QUEST was that it facilitated some contextual thinking about sustainability and desired futures. By creating a desired future scenario with QUEST and having parallel discussions about the choices and outcomes of development options, participants gained a more solid understanding about what kind of future they desired for the region. They also learned what is involved in making such a future. These kinds of outcomes from QUEST beg the question, what was the benefit of gaining and solidifying perspectives about sustainability? On a basic level, the value of the learning outcomes from QUEST was that people learned more about paths to sustainability. This is viewed as a good thing because with that knowledge, people can make more educated decisions. In other words, participants are in better position to show their support for different development choices because of the stronger understanding of the consequences of those choices. For example, some of the participants, as a result of the discussions during the QUEST workshop might strongly oppose high density development because they now know (if they didn't know before) that increasing urbanization can result in a higher housing costs due to the limited space. The QUEST experience was also valuable because it helped participants to identify desired behaviours, lifestyles as well as physical and socio-economic environments that would be necessary to achieve their desired future for the Georgia Basin region. QUEST explicitly identifies different options for how people in the region could live. By making different kinds choices with respect to lifestyle for example, which include consumption patterns, diet and amount of telecommuting, participants decided what kinds of behaviours should be promoted. From a theoretical perspective, making these kinds of  83  choices and understanding their consequences is key because it clarifies what kind programs or policies people are interested in supporting (Meppem and Gill 1998). Moreover, because QUEST illustrated the interrelatedness between different choices, participants had access to a more holistic picture of the interacting effects of targeting different behavioural, lifestyle as well as physical and socio-economic environmental factors at the same time. With this kind of perspective, participants gained an understanding of the different leverage points for action.  The benefits of using QUEST to guide discussions about desired futures are encouraging but it is also important to recognize its limitations. As already discussed, the experience of QUEST was beneficial because it facilitated some contextual thinking about sustainability and desired futures but in the end, translating these ideas into practice proved to be difficult. The consequence of this was that the learning that occurred with QUEST was to a certain extent, limited to that day. There was no evidence to suggest that the ideas that emerged from using QUEST had any kind of legacy other than as being remembered as a learning exercise. This result can mainly be attributed to two interrelated issues, that of scale and the limits to citizen agency. Because QUEST models the region and does not identify Bowen-specific issues, participants found it difficult understanding what they were supposed to do with the information they learned with QUEST. Although the participants appreciated discussing regional transportation options, for example, the impact of those options on Bowen were limited, being a small, island community that will mostly not be a part of any large scale transportation scheme. Applying the ideas learned with QUEST was therefore problematic because the regional scale of QUEST identified development options that went beyond the domain of a local community. If anything, the consequence of this limitation is that QUEST is better used with the intent to inform policy makers of public preferences rather than as a basis for initiating local sustainability-oriented initiatives.  Perhaps what was needed to have prevented this limitation was more careful consideration of how to make connections between local and regional scales. The intent was for a downscaling to occur, where some of the regional ideas would be translated to a Bowen scale, but this never really happened. Before the workshop, it was imagined that the connections would be more obvious than they ended up being. Without having carefully planned the transition from regional to local, the connection between the two was lost. This, most likely was largely a function of it being the first time the tools were used together. In hindsight, an intermediary session that went beyond the kind of  84  brainstorming that was done was necessary. With this kind of discussion, connections between scales could be made more clearly, which in turn could facilitate a better application of QUEST ideas to the local level.  6.2 Lessons Learned from the P/P Workshop The overall value of the application of the P/P process was that it enabled the groups to funnel their ideas from the broad to the specific. The benefit of this was that they could identify and prioritize specific approaches that addressed both environmental and behavioural aspects of their issues. In theory, this is beneficial because it facilitates the formation of a project or program that addresses the different variables that contribute to realizing the project or programs goals (Stern 2000b and Green and Kreuter 1999). For example, the equity group, who were focused on the issue of affordable housing, went through the process of identifying several behavioural, lifestyle and environmental factors impeding the creation of more affordable housing on Bowen. After identifying areas of focus for these factors, they identified specific behaviourally related factors that could be targeted by a program, such as increasing knowledge about possible housing alternatives and lobbying for by-law changes. By guiding them through a process of prioritization, the P/P framework helped to identify what measures they thought would best address their issues.  Although in theory, the process enabled the groups to formulate well defined strategies, in practice, a different picture emerged. Overall, none of the groups created objectives that properly followed the principles behind each step of the process for identifying and addressing behavioural and environmental barriers to change. In other words, they did not fully create objectives that addressed the causal variables to the issues they were focused on during the workshop. By not creating the kind of objectives intended by the process, the benefits of using a more behaviourally comprehensive approach to organizing ideas about sustainability projects were for the most part, lost.  A few unexpected factors help explain this conclusion. Out of the three groups, only the equity group completed the process and in the end, they focused on creating a co-housing community. This kind of project is not really focused on overcoming any of the specific behavioural or environmental barriers or concerns they had outlined in the workshop. What this indicates is that in filling out the worksheets, the group did not end up identifying specific behavioural or environmental barriers or concerns. This was  85  probably the result of inexperience on the part of the facilitator. Because it was the first time the worksheets were used it was difficult for the facilitators to recognize what specifically the worksheets were asking for. For example, the equity group did not identify the kind of behaviours and lifestyle factors to address the equity group's problem of there being a lack of affordable housing. Instead, they identified behaviours and lifestyle factors that resulted from there not being any affordable housing on Bowen. Although this difference is subtle, it led to the identification of factors that were somewhat misguided and resulted in them not really addressing their problem. With more experience and understanding of what the P/P worksheets were asking, it might have been possible for the facilitators to have avoided this problem.  The fact that the potential of the P/P process to identify and address behavioural and environmental barriers to change was not well demonstrated by the groups in the workshop suggests another point of consideration. Throughout the course of the research, there was some scepticism about whether the application of the P/P model was well suited for articulating ways to address issues of sustainability. Coming from the field of Health Promotion, the model's intended use is to address problems resulting individual behaviours, lifestyles and influencing environmental conditions, whereas issues of sustainability predominantly are a result of collective causal variables. Because of this discrepancy, issues of facilitation may not have been the only contributing factor to the problems in identifying behavioural and lifestyle factors. The problem may have resulted from the P/P approach not being well suited for addressing collective behaviours and lifestyles. I however, do not suspect that this was the issue at play since the stewardship group did not have the same difficulties as the equity group. They, unlike the equity group were successful at identifying some behavioural, lifestyle and environmental barriers to change.  If the stewardship group had continued together and followed through on their outlined priorities (see Figure 5.6), the process would have guided them to put together a strategy that would be aimed at increasing awareness and understanding about the advantages of sense of place and value of ecological integrity. This strategy would address an important behavioural barrier to maintaining ecological integrity of the land. This not only suggests that the P/P approach does facilitate addressing issues that are the result of collective behaviours, lifestyles and influencing environmental conditions. It  86  also brings further credibility to the conclusion that the facilitation of the P/P worksheets was critical for the benefits of using a more behaviourally comprehensive approach to be seen.  Putting aside the issue of the proper use of the worksheets, another important lesson learned from the P/P workshop was that the process was more useful for enabling the equity group to get their ideas off the ground than the other groups. In contrast to the other groups, who struggled to find common interests, the process parlayed their common interests in equity into a shared and realizable vision for creating an example of affordable housing on Bowen. Because the group worked well together, they were able to use the P/P framework to gain clarity in their ideas, which led some of the group members to coalesce. Together, these factors helped form an impetus to follow through on objectives created in the workshop. What these results demonstrated was that in order for participants to go on to implement their projects, their needed to be sufficient common interest within the group to create a commitment to follow through after the planning process.  This result points out the importance of using the P/P approach with people who are interested in implementing a project. Much of the follow through of the equity group was a consequence of the genuine interest of some of the people in the group to initiate a co-housing community on Bowen. This common interest was the critical factor for the group to proceed and for the most part, had nothing to do with the actual structure of the workshop. The other groups were missing this kind of interest to start something in the community and the resulting consequence was that no one followed through on any of the ideas that surfaced during the day. In hindsight, more of an emphasis should have been placed on inviting people to the workshop who, like some of the equity group members were prepared and interested in initiating a project in the community.  What can therefore be concluded from the second day of the workshop is that given the right circumstances, the P/P approach offers a means to generate coherence between chosen strategies, key behavioural or environmental factors, priority issues in the physical/social environment and their overall visions. These circumstances include the following: 1) a group who share common interests, 2) a group who is interested in initiating a project, and 3) a facilitator who can guide people through the worksheets to identify specific behavioural or environmental barriers or concerns. Under these  87  circumstances, the P/P approach might better facilitate the formation of a project or program that addresses the different variables that contribute to realizing the project or programs goals.  6.3 Lessons Learned from the Workshop as a Whole The theoretical rationale for this research, as articulated in Chapter 2, was based on there being a need to strengthen policies and programs so that they address the different variables associated with creating and promoting desired outcomes for the future. This suggestion was founded on the research that evaluated sustainability-oriented policies and programs that demonstrated the shortcomings of relying on a narrow view of the causal factors of human behaviours (Stern 1986, Costanzo et al. 1986, Kempton et al. 1992; Robinson 1991; Stern 2000b, Corraliza and Berenguer 2000). Despite this well established suggestion, there was little evidence in the literature of successful comprehensive processes aimed at identifying and addressing the different causal variables of desired behaviours, lifestyle and environmental conditions geared to the pursuit of sustainability. In light of this gap, the Bowen Island Case Study attempted to use a dialogue driven process to enable people to learn about desired futures while also identifying the multiple behavioural and contextual variables that contribute to creating that future. The GBFP dialogue process offered a potential means to clarify and help make decisions about what should be done to create a desirable future. In applying this approach, it was hoped that the process of designing policies and programs would be strengthened because it was more holistic and comprehensive. It not only disaggregates behaviours but also uses dialogue to promote a participatory approach to identifying what kind of behaviours should be targeted. The question that remains to be answered then, is whether this actually occurred with the Bowen Case Example.  The combination of QUEST and the P/P framework together provided a process that helped, to certain extent, in the understanding and identification of desired outcomes and strategies. It guided workshop participants through a structured dialogue-oriented approach of identifying, prioritizing and addressing causal variables to desired behaviours, lifestyle and environmental conditions. However, because of the way in which the application of the process unfolded on Bowen, it is difficult to conclude whether the GBFP dialogue process provided the kind of holistic and comprehensive approach that was intended. This inconclusive conclusion is the result of taking into consideration the different lessons that were drawn from the results: what the participants learned from QUEST, the difficulty of applying  88  the concepts from QUEST and the largely unsuccessful attempt to tap into potential P/P planning approach. It would be misleading to pass judgement on the values of a process without any policy or program emerging from the process that followed the intended approach to designing policies and programs.  Nevertheless, certain qualities of the workshop and its outcomes shed some insight into how might this dialogue process could be improved on. On the one hand, the process enabled participants to gain some clarity on the kind of future they prefer and what could be done to create that future. However, on the other hand, they did not really follow through on what they learned. What this indicates is that Bowen workshop was more or less a learning experience for the participants. It did not substantially help them to initiate any projects or programs aimed at creating their desired future. If the intent of the workshop was to simply have conversations about potential future policy and program consideration, without trying to implement these ideas, then it is fair to conclude that the workshop did in fact serve this purpose. The intent of the workshop was however for there to be both a learning and strategic planning components. Was the lack of action the fault of the tools used in dialogue process? Or was it more a product of how they were used? Or perhaps was using this approach with community citizens rather than decision makers and planners at fault?  In some respects, the lack of action could have resulted from using QUEST and P/P together. It was somewhat overly ambitious to imagine that over the course of two days, participants would digest the dynamics of a desired future for the region and then apply these ideas on a local scale. Making these decisions requires more than two days. This is not to.suggest that the workshops needed to be longer, but rather that there needed to be substantially more commitment on the part of the participants to carry forward these ideas after the workshop. If this workshop format were to be used again with the intent to create behaviourally comprehensive policies or programs, the participants need to be interested in developing these kinds of initiatives. This kind of interest might be more applicable for decision makers and planners because that is their job therefore using the process in this context might be more fruitful. This however, does not rule out using the process with community members again, it just suggests that it is better suited for engaging citizens who are interested in initiating a project since this kind of dialogue process requires a certain degree of commitment to follow through on its outcomes.  89  The impact of the workshop on the community did not wholly, turn out as intended. There were however, other unanticipated outcomes from the workshop that went beyond trying to understand and identify desired outcomes and strategies. The workshop helped in creating an impetus for greater involvement from the community in subsequent participatory processes held in the community. Some members of the community, including the Mayor of Bowen explained that people who did not attend the workshop became interested in attending future workshops. After each community dialogue, more and more people got involved in the discussions. The workshop helped start other conversations even though there were definite limits to the application of ideas and concepts generated by the GBFP workshop on Bowen. People in the community were looking for ways to cultivate citizenship on the island and the workshop helped facilitate that.  What this indicates is that the collaboration between Bowen community members and the GBFP met its expectations, for the most part. For one, by working collaboratively, both the GBFP researchers and the community learned what is involved in actualizing a desired future for the island. Secondly, the partnership enabled the GBFP to study the application of the tools in practice. Thirdly, the community members reinforced and expanded their thinking about sustainability, as a result of being exposed to QUEST. Fourthly, it helped, to certain extent, mobilize some community members to initiate some projects or recommendations to council aimed at cultivating sustainability on the island, as a result of going through the P/P planning process. Finally, the partnership helped to initiate and promote greater, involvement of the public in Bowen's broader sustainability planning framework.  This research serves as an example of what can result from community-based research. Coupling the P/P framework with the QUEST scenario tool enabled local citizens to imagine and learn about a potential future of the region and the consequences of creating that future. It also helped them identify and prioritize related action strategies. Dialogue about sustainability has been ongoing on Bowen however, in a less structured fashion. With this more structured approach, the GBFP was able to contribute to this conversation. By working collaboratively, both the GBFP researchers and the community gained some perspective on what is involved in trying to actualize a desired future for the island. What this implies is that working with interested community members at this level is mutually beneficial. It suggests that further research of this kind would help to better understand how to  9  0  successfully engage citizens in learning about sustainability and actively participating in creating future directions for their community.  The field of applied research about sustainability is very much in the developing stages. As a result, there are not many examples to learn from about how best to proceed when planning for the future. The environmental psychology literature offers many suggestions about how best to incorporate the human reaction to change in designing sustainability programs and the GBFP dialogue process was a good reflection of those suggestions. What is needed are more examples of this kind so it becomes clearer what works and what does not. There was a very positive welcome by the Bowen community to have these discussions and it would be nice to offer other communities the same opportunity: to learn more about desired future directions for their community and how they can be involved in creating it. By engaging citizens in these conversations, it becomes possible to incorporate their perspectives into wider public planning.  91  Bibliography Adler, P.A. and P. Adler. 1994. Observational Techniques. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (Eds). Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Chapter 23. Atkinson, P. and M. Hammersley. 1994. Ethnography and Participatory Observation. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (Eds). Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Chapter 15. Barr, S. 2003. Strategies for Sustainability: Citizens and Responsible Environmental Behaviour. Area 35(3): 227-240 Becker, D.R., et al. 2003. A Participatory Approach to Social Impact Assessment: The Interactive Community Forum. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 23(3): 367-382. Berg, B.L. 1998. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. Third Edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Chapters 4 and 10. Berke, P.R. 2000. Are We Planning for Sustainable Development? Journal of the American Planning Association 66(1): 21-33. Bernard, H.R. 1994. Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Second Edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Chapter 7. Blake, J . 1999. Overcoming the "Value-Action Gap in environmental policy: tensions between national policy and local experience. Local Environment 4(3): 257-278. Bowen Island Community. 1996. Bowen Island Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 139. Brinberg, D. and J.E. McGrath. 1995. Validity and the Research Process. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Chapter 1. The British Columbia Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. 1992. Sustainability in the Georgia Basin/Puqet Sound Region. Victoria: British Columbia Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. Brown, D.I. and R. Tandon. 1983. Ideology and Political Economy in Inquiry: Action Research and Participatory Research. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 19:277-294. Canada. Statistics Canada. 2001 Community Profiles: Bowen Island, British Columbia. May 5, 2004. http://www12.statcan.ca/english/profil01/Details/details1.cfm?SEARCH=BEGINS&ID=11963&P SGC=59&SGC=5915062&DataType=1&LANG=E&Province=59&PlaceName=Bowen%20lslan d&CMA=&CSDNAME=Bowen%20lsland&A=&TypeNameE=lsland%20Municipality&Prov= Canada. Statistics Canada. 2001 Community Profiles: Greater Vancouver Regional District, British Columbia. May 5,2004. http://www12.statcan.ca/english/profil01/Details/details1.cfm?SEARCH=BEGINS&ID=11965&P  92  SGC=59&SGC=5915&DataType=1 &LANG=E&Pro CMA=&CSDNAME=Greatei^o20Vancouver%20Regional%20District&A=&TypeNam s%20Division&Prov Cannell, C.F. and R.L. Kahn. 1968. Interviewing. In G. Lindzey and E. Aaronson (Eds). Handbook of Social Psychology. Reading: Addison-Wesley. Vol. 2, pp. 526-595. Carmichael, J . (personal communication, July 22, 2004) Chaney, J.D. An Examination Using the PRECEDE Model Framework to Establish a Comprehensive Program to Prevent School Violence. American Journal of Health Studies 16(4): 199-204. Chiang, L.C. 2003. Educational Diagnosis of Self-Management Behaviors of Parents with Asthmatic Children by Triangulation Based on PRECEDE-PROCEED Model in Taiwan. Patient Education and Counseling 49:19-25. Cones, J.D., and S.C. Hayes. 1980. Environmental Problems/Behavioral Solutions. Monterey: Brooks/Cole. Chapter 1. Cook, S.W., and J . L. Berrenberg 1981. Approaches to Encouraging Conservation Behaviour: A Review and Conceptual Framework. Journal of Social Issues 37(2): 73-107. Corraliza, J.A., and J . Berenguer. 2000. Environmental Values, Beliefs and Actions: A Situational Approach. Environment and Behavior 32(6): 832-848. Corson, W.C. 1995. Priorities for a Sustainable Future: The Role of Education, the Media and Tax Reform. Journal of Social Issues 51 (4): 37-61. Costanzo, M., et al. 1986. Energy Conservation Behavior: The Difficult Path from Information to Action. American Psychologist 41(5): 521 -528. Creswell, J.W. 1998. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Traditions. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Chapters 3,4,8-11. Denzin, N.K. and Y.S. Lincoln (Eds). 1994. Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Denzin, N.K. and Y.S. Lincoln (Eds). 2000. Handbook of Qualitative Research. Second Edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. De Oliver, M. 1999. Attitudes and Action: A Case Study of the Manifest Demographics of Water Conservation. Environment and Behavior 31:372-392. De Young, R. 1993. Changing Behaviour and Making It Stick: The Conceptualization and Management of Conservation Behaviour. Environment and Behavior 25(4): 485-505.  93  Dietz, T. et al. 1998. Social Structural and Social Psychological Bases of Environmental Concern. Environment and Behavior 30(4): 450-471. Dobson, A. 1995. Green Political Thought. Second Edition. London: Routledge. Chapter 3. Dunster, J. August 2000. Sustainable Communities Initiative Proposal. Bowen Island Forest and Water Management Society. Earth Charter Initiative. July 26,2004. www.earthcharter.org Ester, P. and R.A. Winett. 1982. Toward More Effective Antecedent Strategies for Environmental Programs. Journalof'Environmental Systems 11:201-221. Feagin, J., et al. (Eds). 1991. A Case for Case Study. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Frankish, C.J. 1995. Health and Quality of Life in Delta, British Columbia: A Plan for Conducting an Epidemiological Diagnosis. Institute for Health Promotion, University of British Columbia. Fransson, N., and T. Garling. 1999. Environmental Concern: Conceptual Definitions, Measurement Methods, and Research Findings. Journal of Environmental Psychology 19:369-382. i"  Freire, P. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum. Gardner, G.T. and P.C. Stem. 1996. Environmental Problems and Human Behavior. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Georgia Basin Futures Project. May 18,2004. www.basinfutures.net Green, L. W. and M.W. Krueter. 1999. Health Promotion Planning: An Educational and Ecological Approach, Third Edition. Mountain View: Mayfield Publishing Company. Green, L.W. March 7,2004. A resource for instructors, students, health practitioners, and researchers using: The PRECEDE-PROCEED model for health program planning and evaluation. www.lgreen.net/precede.htm Gregory, R. and R.L. Keeney. Creating Policy Alternatives Using Stakeholder Values. Management Science 40(8): 1035-1048. Guagnano, G.A. et al., 1995. Influences on Attitude-Behavior Relationships: A Natural Experiment with Curbside Recylcling. Environment and Behavior 27:699-718. Hall, B.L. 1992. From Margins to Center? The Development and Purpose of Participatory Research. The American Sociologist, Winter 1992:15-28. Hamel, J., et al. 1993. Case Study Methods. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Hecker, E.J. 2000. Feria de Salud: Implementation and Evaluation of a Community-wide Health Fair.  94  Public Health Nursing 17(4): 247-256. Hopman-Rock, M. 2000. Towards Implementing Physical Activity Programmes: The Health Promotion Approach. Science and Sports 15:180-186. Huberman, A.M. and M.B. Miles. 1994. Data Management and Analysis. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (Eds). Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Chapter 27. IPCC. 2003. Report of the Twentieth Session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Paris, 19-21 February 2003. http://www.ipcc.ch/meet/session20/finalreport20.pdf Institute for Health Promotion. February 20,2004. Published Applications of the Precede Model. July 26, 2004. www.ihpr.ubc.ca/ProcedeRefsLinks.html Israel, B.A., et al. 1998. Review of Community-Based Research: Assessing Partnership Approaches to Improve Public Health. Annual Review of Public Health 19:173-202. Janesick. 1994. The Dance of Qualitative Research Design: Metaphor, Methodolatry and Meaning. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (Eds). Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Chapter 12. Julian, M., and R. Bailey. 2001. The State of Bowen Island. Volume 1. Bowen Island: Bowen Island Sustainability Project. Bowen Island Municipality, Bowen Island. April 21,2004. http://www.bowenisland.info/collections/documents/documents.htm Keeney, R.L. 1994. Creativity in Decision Making with Value-Focused Thinking. Sloan Management Review. Summer 1994:33-41. Keeney, R.L. 1992. Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decision Making. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Chapter 3. Kempton, W., et al. 1992. Psychological Research for the New Energy Problems. American Psychologist 47(10): 1213-1223. • Kvale, S. 1996. Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Lofland, J. and L.H. Lofland. 1995. Analyzing Social Setting: A Guide to Qualitative Observations and Analysis. Third Edition. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Loka Institute. 2002. About the Community Research Network: What is Community Based Research? November 20,2003. www.loka.org Marshall, C. and Rossman, G.B. 1995. Designing Qualitative Research, Second Edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Chapters 4-5.  95  Maxwell, J.A. 1996. Qualitative Research Design: Interactive Approach. Applied Social Research. Methods Series, Vol. 41. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Chapters 5-6. May, T. 1997. Social Research: Issues, Methods and Process. Second Edition. Buckingham: Open University Press. Chapter 6. McKenzie-Mohr, D. 2000. Fostering Sustainable Behaviour Through Community-Based Social Marketing. American Psychologist 55(5): 531 -537. McKenzie-Mohr, D., and W. Smith. 1999. Fostering Sustainable Behavior: An Introduction to Community-Based Social Marketing. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers. Mckenzie-Mohr and Associates. Community Based Social Marketing. July 26, 2004. http://www.cbsm.com/ Meppem, T. and R. Gill. 1998. Planning for Sustainabilty as a Learning Concept. Ecological Economics 26:121-137. Michaud, S. November 22,2002. Workshop contemplates future. The Undercurrent, p.5. Milbrath, L.W. 1995. Psychological, Cultural and Informational Barriers to Sustainability. Journal of Social Issues 51(4): 101-120. Miles, M.B and A.M. Huberman. 1994. An Expanded Sourcebook: Qualitative Data Analysis. Second Edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Chapters 4-6. Monroe, M.C. 1993. Changing Environmental Behaviour. Clearing 77:28-30. Nutbeam D., and E. Harris. 1998. Theory in a Nutshell: A Practitioner's Guide to Commonly Used Theories and Models in Health Promotion. Sydney: Nation Centre for Health Promotion. O'Riordan, T. 1981. Environmentalism. London: Pion. Chapters 1,6 & 10. Oxford University Press. 2004. Oxford English Dictionary. July 5,2004. http://dictionary.oed.com/ Pepper, D. 1996. Modern Environmentalism: An Introduction. London: Routledge. Perakyla, A. 1997. Reliability and Validity in Research Based on Tapes and Transripts. In D. Silverman (Ed). Qualitative Analysis: Issues of Theory and Method. London: Sage Publications. Chapter 13. Raskin, P., et al. 1998. Bending the Curve: Toward Global Sustainability. Stockholm, Stockholm Environment Institute. Richards T.J. and L . Richards. 1994. Using Computers in Qualitative Research. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (Eds). Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Chapter 28.  96  Robinson, J . (2004), Squaring the Circle Squaring the Circle? Some Thoughts on the Idea of Sustainable Development. Ecological Economics 48(4): 369-384 Robinson, J., et al., 2001. The Georgia Basin Futures Project: Bringing Together Expert Knowledge, Public Values and the Simulation of Sustainable Futures in the Georgia Basin Futures Project. Georgia Basin Futures Project Working Paper. University of British Columbia. Robinson, J . 1988. Unlearning and Backcasting: Rethinking Some of the Questions We Ask about the Future. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 33(4): 325-338. Robinson, J.B. 1991. The Proof of the Pudding: Making Energy Efficiency Work. Energy Policy 19(7): 631-645. Rogers, E.M., 1995. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press. Ryan, G.W. and H.R. Russell. 2000. Data Management and Analysis Methods. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (Eds). Handbook of Qualitative Research. Second Edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Chapter 29. Savan, B. and D. Sider. 2003. Contrasting Approaches to Community-Based Research and a Case Study of Community Sustainability in Toronto, Canada. Local Environment 8(3): 303-316. Shipley, R. 2002. Visioning in Planning: Is the Practice Based on Sound Theory. Environment and Planning A 34:7-22. Smil, V. 1993. Global Ecology: Environmental Change and Social Flexibility. London: Routledge. Chapter 4. Spradley, J.P. 1980. Participant Observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pp. 53-62. Staats, H., et al. 2004. Effecting Durable Change: A Team Approach to Improve Environmental Behavior in the Household. Environment and Behavior 36(3): 341-367. Stake, R.E. 2000. Case Studies. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (Eds). Handbook of Qualitative Research. Second Edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Chapter 16. Stake, R.E. 1994. Case Studies. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (Eds). Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Chapter 14. Stern, P.C. 2000a. Psychology and the Science of Human-Environment Interactions. American Psychologist 55(5):523-530. Stern, P.C. 2000b. Towards a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior. Journal of Social Issues 56(3): 407-424. Stern, P.C. 1999. Information, Incentives, and Proenvironmental Consumer Behavior. Journal of Consumer Policy 22:461 -478.  97  Stern, P.C. 1993. A Second Environmental Science: Human-Environment Interactions. Science 260: 1897-1899. Stern, P.C. 1992. What Psychology Knows about Energy Conservation. American Psychologist 47(10): 1224-1232. Stern, P.C. 1986a. Blind Spots in Policy Analysis: What Economics Doesn't Say About Energy Use.  Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 5(2): 200-227. Stern, P . C , et al. 1986b. The Effectiveness of Incentives for Residential Energy Conservation. Evaluation Review 10(2): 147-176. Stern, P . C , and T. Dietz. 1994. The Value Basis of Environmental Concern. Journal of Social Issues 50(3): 65-84. Stern, P . C , and S. Oskamp. 1987. Managing Scarce Environmental Resources. In D. Stokol and I. Altman (eds.): Handbook of Environmental Psychology. Volume 2. New York: John Wiley and Sons. pp. 1043-1088. Stoecker, R. 2002. Practices and Challenges of Community-Based Research. Journal of Public Affairs, Supplement 1, Vol. 6: 219-239. Tansey, J., et al. 2002. The future is not what it used to be: participatory integrated assessment in the Georgia Basin. Global Environmental Change: Human and Policy Dimensions 12(2): 97-104. Van Liere, K.D. and R.E. Dunlap. 1980. The Social Bases of Environmental Concern: A Review of Hypotheses, Explanations and Empirical Evidence. Public Opinion 44:181-197. Warburton, D. 1998. Community and Sustainable Development: Participation in the Future. London: Earthscan Publications. Woollard, R. et al. 1999.The Community as Crucible: Blending Health and Sustainability. In M. Healey (ed.): Seeking Sustainability in the Lower Fraser Basin: issues and Choices. Institute for Resources and the Environment: Vancouver. Wilkins, H. 2003. The Need for Subjectivity in EIA: Discourse as a Tool for Sustainable Development. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 23(4): 401-414. World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 23. Yin, R. 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Second Edition. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Zelezny, L. C. 1999. Educational Interventions that Improve Environmental Behaviours: A MetaAnalysis. Journal of Environmental Education 31(1): 5-14.  98  Appendix I Details of P r e c e d e - P r o c e e d M o d e l  There are two stages of the model: the PRECEDE stage and the PROCEED stage. The PRECEDE stage has five basic phases and the PROCEED stage has four phases, all are interrelated. The process begins identifying issues of concern on a very macro level and through each subsequent phase the concerns identified from the previous phase are addressed at an increasingly focused level. Using the criteria of importance and changeability, issues identified in each phase are prioritized and those of top priority are carried to the next phase for a more in depth assessment. The end of the first five phases results in a series of very focused objectives for a project or program. If the objectives are met, the logic of the model indicates that the initial desired goal outlined in the first phase can then be achieved. The second stage then begins, which is about implementing the suggested projects and evaluating various aspects of the project process. The PRECEDE stage of the model is guided by a series of worksheets that take the planner through each phase. The PROCEED stage is not as formal but rather a suggested framework used for implementation and evaluation.  More specifically, the P/P process unfolds as follows : 1  In Phase 1 social indicators and subjectively defined problems that factor into an identified quality of life concern are identified. This phase essentially, identifies the desired outcome that an intervention would try to realize. For example, creating housing alternatives that contribute to the equity of all people in a particular community. The goal of Phase 2 is then to prioritize the various problems associated with the quality of life concern of equity, so to best address it. Problems related to equity in housing could be: optimal land and water use, affordable land and housing, transportation and local economic development. Phase 3 identifies behavioural, lifestyle and environmental characteristics that are linked to the problems of highest priority, identified in Phase 2. Lifestyle is defined as an enduring pattern of behaviour manifested in a variety of situations over time. Here, environmental factors are taken to include the physical, social, economic and cultural environment in a given locale (Green and Kreuter 1991). Behavioural/Lifestyle considerations for equity in housing alternatives might be cost of living, lack of housing options, rigid and inflexible laws. Environmental characteristics might be the lack of social services available, lack of imagination in housing alternatives as well as welfare policy. Phase 4  The model has been adapted to fit the context of sustainability by only changing some of the model's labels. The principles behind the model have not changed. For the original version of the model, see Green and Kreuter 1999. 1  99  consists of identifying predisposing, enabling and reinforcing factors that contribute to the behaviours, lifestyle and environmental characteristics of highest priority.  Phase 4 helps identify a range of potential strategies geared toward achieving the desired outcome as related to a combination of one or more of the above predisposing, reinforcing and enabling factors. For example, if a lack of knowledge is seen as contributing to a given sustainability issue then an educational intervention may be warranted. If a lack of resources is a contributing factor, then a more macro policy or legislative approach may be needed.  Phase 5 guides planners to examine existing administrative, legislative and regulatory structures that may help or hinder the implementation of the strategies selected in Phase 4. At this phase, planners should identify any gaps between available and needed resources for executing a given strategy. They may need to take significant steps to garner additional resources in order to mount an effective intervention. Phases 1 through 5 conclude the planning portion of the P/P model.  Phases 6 through 9 make up the PROCEED part of the P/P model. As already mentioned, this stage of the process focuses on different aspects of the implementation and evaluation of a given intervention. Each phase across the bottom of the model aligns with the phase above (see Figure 1). The model implies two pertinent points related to the evaluation of sustainability projects or programs. The first is that the implementation of a given project must be judged separate from its impact. Many interventions fail because they are never implemented with adequate resources, not because they are inherently ineffective (Green and Kreuter 1999). Second, the model highlights the need for a systematic approach to process, impact and outcome evaluation. Achieving the more proximal or short-term steps of process and impact evaluation does not guarantee a longer-term positive outcome (Green and Kreuter 1999). However, failing to systematically implement Phases 1 through 5 and to track process and short-term impacts seriously undermines the likelihood of achieving a sustained, longer-term outcome.  In general, the PRECEDE part of the model takes into account the multiple factors that shape human and ecosystem health and helps the planner arrive at a highly focused subset of those factors as targets for the project being designed. PRECEDE also generates specific objectives and criteria for the evaluation of an intervention. The PROCEED part of the model provides additional steps for  100  developing policy and initiating the implementation and evaluation process (Green and Kreuter 1991: 22). PRECEDE and PROCEED work in tandem, providing a continuous series of steps or phases in the planning, implementation and evaluation process. The identification of priorities and the setting of objectives in the PRECEDE phases provide the objects and criteria for policy, implementation and evaluation in the PROCEED phases (Green and Kreuter: 23-24). P/P is a theoretically robust model that addresses a major acknowledged need for comprehensive planning. It is robust in the sense that it not only applies to health promotion in a variety of situations but also, as it has been argued (see 2  chapter 2), it is adaptable to operationalize sustainability.  Recent examples include: Asthma Education (2003); Implementing and evaluating a community-wide health fair (2000); Implementing physical activity programs (2000); Preventing school violence (2000) and Predicting HIV risk behaviours in drug users (2002). 2  101  A p p e n d i x II S a m p l e of P r e c e d e W o r k s h e e t s Creation of a V i s i o n Statement Quality of Life Issue:  Write a vision statement based on the quality of life concerns and aspirations of your community.  T h i n g s to c o n s i d e r w h e n creating y o u r vision statement: 1. H o w d o e s the i s s u e affect B o w e n c o m m u n i t y m e m b e r ' s quality of life? 2. W h i c h s e g m e n t s of the B o w e n c o m m u n i t y d o e s y o u r i s s u e affect?  102  T h e goal of this worksheet is to prioritize the problems that are a s s o c i a t e d with the quality of life c o n c e r n y o u are f o c u s i n g o n s o that y o u c a n create an objective that a d d r e s s e s the i s s u e of c o n c e r n . Quality of Life Issue:  Worksheet 1: Rating P r o b l e m s and Defining Objectives  A)  List in column 1 of Table 1, the problems in 'human and ecosystem health' that are related to the quality of life issue you are focusing on.  B)  In columns 2-4, rate each problem or issue from the list in column 1 from 1 to 3, with 1 representing low, 2 medium or 3 high according to prevalence (how common is this problem relative to the other problems listed); link of problem to quality of life (how powerful the relationship is between the problem and quality of life); changeability (their potential for change). Add the ratings to determine the highest priority. T a b l e 1. Importance (1) Problems/Issues  (2) • Prevalence  (3) Link to Quality of ' ' Life . ,  (4) Changeability  Total  Objective:  Write an objective for the highest rated problem you want to focus on. An objective should state w h o will experience what change, by how m u c h and by w h e n .  103  T h e g o a l of this worksheet is to prioritize identified behavioural and environmental factors a s s o c i a t e d with highest rated problem s o that y o u c a n define objectives to a d d r e s s t h e s e factors. Highest Rated P r o b l e m : Worksheet 2: Defining Behavioural and Environmental Factors a n d Objectives  A)  In column 1 of Table 2, list all of the behavioural and environmental factors that are likely causal factors for the problem you have identified in the previous worksheet.  B)  In columns 2-4, rate each behaviour and environmental factor listed in column 1 from 1 to 3, with 1 representing low, 2 medium or 3 high according to prevalence (how common is the factor relative to the other factors listed); link of factors to the problem (how powerful the relationship is between the factors and the problem); changeability (their potential for change). Add the ratings to determine the highest priority. Table 2. .  (D Factor Behavioural  ,  Importance  (2)  (3)  Prevalence  Link to P r o b l e m  (4) -  Changeability  Total i  <  104  Table 2. c o n t . . . Importance "  (1) Factors  Environmental  4  '  - „  '  (2) ,• Prevalence", '  .  „ (3) > Link to P r o b l e m ' *  (4) Changeability  (5) Total |-  Objectives:  1)  Write a precise, measurable behavioural objective for each of the top one or two behavioural priorities.*  2)  Write a precise, measurable environmental objective for each of the top one or two environmental priorities.*  An objective should state who will experience what change, by how much and by when  105  T h e goal of this worksheet is to f o c u s o n particular factors that are related to y o u r priorities outlined in the p r e v i o u s worksheet and define working objectives for t h e s e factors. W o r k s h e e t 3: Educational and Organizational Priorities  A)  B) C)  List the highest priority behaviour selected in the previous worksheet into column 1 of Table 3. Make an inventory of all the predisposing, enabling and reinforcing factors you can identify for this priority. (Remember that these are not mutually exclusive. A factor can be placed in more than one category). Put these in column 2 below. For the highest priority environmental condition, list the enabling factors in column 1 that might influence that environmental condition. Rate each factor listed in column 1 from 1 to 3, with 1 representing low, 2 medium or 3 high according its importance and changeability. Add the ratings for a total score. Table 3. Importance (1) Priorities  •  (2) Factors'  (3) Prevalence  (4) Link to Priority  (5) Changeability  Total  Predisposing Behavioural Priority:  Enabling  .Reinforcing -  106  Table 3. C o n t . . . . Importance  d)  Priorities  (2) Factors  , (3) Prevalence . ;  ;(4) , Link to v Priority  (5) Changeability  Total  ;  [Enabling  ,  •> t  Environmental Priority:  Objectives:  D)  Write a precise, measurable objective for each predisposing, enabling and reinforcing factor you gave the highest overall rating.* Behavioural Priority  Predisposing Objective:  Enabling Objective:  Reinforcing Objective:  E n v i r o n m e n t a l Priority  Enabling Objective:  * An objective should state who will experience what change, by how much and by when  107  W o r k s h e e t Dictionary Quality of life:  The perception by individuals or groups that their needs are being satisfied and that they are not being denied opportunities to achieve happiness and fulfillment. Prevalence:  A relative measure of how common, widespread or frequent the problem or factor is based on either factual information, educated guesses or intuition. Changeability:  This is asking the question, if we could put resource constraints aside, what actually is the potential for change. • Even though something may be extremely important, it is not a suitable program target unless there is reasonable expectation that it can be changed. Objective:  A defined result of specific activity to be achieved in a finite period of time by a specific person or group. Objectives state w h o will experience what change, by how m u c h and by when. Behavioural Factors:  Specific actions that most likely cause, or could cause the problem related to ecosystem and human health. • i.e. What people do and don't do. • e.g. over-watering lawns Environmental Factors:  Specific elements of the social, cultural, physical, structural and biological 'environment' that interact with behaviour to produce effects on our ecosystem and human health goals and the desired quality of life. • e.g. the water reservoir Predisposing Factors:  Any characteristic of a person or population that motivates behaviour prior to the occurrence of the behaviour. • i.e. Knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, values and perceived needs and abilities • e.g. Learning about why water conservation is necessary in order to reduce water consumption. Enabling Factors:  Any skill or accessibility, availability and affordability to resources required to attain a specific behaviour. • i.e. factors that facilitate the performance of an action by individuals or groups. • e.g. making rain barrels available to each home so people can reduce their water use. Reinforcing Factors:  Any reward or punishment following or anticipated as a consequence of a behaviour, serving to strengthen the motivation for the behaviour after it occurs. • i.e. social support, peer influences, tangible rewards, taxes, fines and rebates • e.g. tax rebates for installing water meters and reducing water consumption.  108  Appendix V Q u e s t i o n Set 1: C o - H o u s i n g Interview Q u e s t i o n s Background  1. Why did you move to Bowen and was there a connection to enhancing your quality of life? 2. What got you interested in sustainability? 3. Before the workshop, what kinds of activities were you doing related to sustainability? (was this for work? volunteer?) a) Why do you want to do this kind of work? (k, a, b, v) b) What or who is your motivation? 4. How would you describe what you are working on with the co-housing project? (I asked them to summarize collectively) I m p r e s s i o n s f r o m the W o r k s h o p and its Impact o n Their A c t i o n s  QUEST Questions: 5.  Six-months later, what are your impressions of the 1 day of the workshop where we played the QUEST game? Guiding questions: a. How would you describe what was learned in the QUEST day? b. Do you think you walked away from QUEST with any new impressions about what sustainability means or the kind of desired future you are interested in? If so, what? c. Was it possible for you to apply, in practice, any of what you learned from QUEST? If so, what? If not, why? st  P/P Questions: 6. What would you say you learned from the 2 day? 7. Did the worksheets help you organize your ideas? How so? 8. How would you describe what came out of the day? Content wise, I guess. 9. Would you say that the worksheets reflect what you are doing now? How much of what you are doing now is related to the workshop? Scale of 1 -10? 10. The next question, connected to this is, do you think you would be doing what you are now if you did not attend the workshop? 11. Did using the worksheets contribute to creating your goals? nd  General Questions: 12. Do you remember connecting ideas from the 1 day to the 2 day? 13. Did playing QUEST contribute to the second day or creating your goals of the project? If so, how? If not why? 14. Are there any specific events, people and/or resources that made it easier to move forward on your project? 15. Are there any specific events, people and/or resources that made it harder to move forward on your project? 16. Why do you think you are where you are at now with respect to your project? -> What has kept you motivated? What has kept you involved? st  nd  I m p r e s s i o n s about the Partnership  17. How would you describe my role and the group of people I came here with from the university in the community? -> Has this role changed over time?  111  18. Other than the workshop, are there events or things you associate with the GBFP? For example, is there a connection with BILLS? 19. How useful has you connection with the GBFP been in moving your project forward? Q u e s t i o n Set Background  2:  Other W o r k s h o p Participants  (those who did not carry through on a project)  1. (a) Why did you move to Bowen and is there a connection to moving to Bowen and improving your quality of life? (b) I am interested in knowing more about your interest in sustainability, can you tell me about the kinds of activities you are doing or would like to be doing on Bowen that is related to sustainability? Is this for work, volunteer? 2. (a) Why do you want to do this type of work? (Beliefs, Attitudes, Values, Knowledge?) (b) What or who is your motivation? 3. Thinking back, why did you decide to attend the workshop? (If necessary prompt with examples i.e. general interest, wanted to do something...) I m p r e s s i o n s f r o m the W o r k s h o p and its Impact o n Their A c t i o n s  QUEST Questions:  /  4. What are your impressions of the 1 day of the workshop where we played the QUEST game? Guiding questions: a. How would you describe what was learned in the QUEST day? b. Do you think you walked away from QUEST with any new impressions about what sustainability means or the kind of desired future you are interested in? If so, what? c. Was it possible for you to apply, in practice, any of what you learned from QUEST? If so, what? If not, why?. st  PIP Questions: 5.  You worked in the group, what would you say you learned from the second day when you used the worksheets? 6. Did the worksheets help you organize your ideas? 7. (a) Are you involved in anything your group outlined in the worksheets? If so, what? If not, why? (b) Do you know of anyone else who picked up on these ideas?  General Question: 8.  (a) Do you remember connecting ideas from the 1 day to the 2 day? • QUEST is supposed to be about learning about regional trade-offs, do you remember considering trade-offs during the 2 day of the workshop? (b) Would you be interested in doing something like this again that focuses more on your interests? 9. In your opinion, are there any connections between the two days you spent in the workshop and the activities you are involved in today? If so, what are they? Examples: did you decide to learn more about a topic, try to participate in a project or group doing similar things • On a scale of 1-10, how strong is the link between what you are doing now and the ideas that emerged from the workshop? 10. What made it harder to take the next steps after the workshop? I.e. events, people, and/or resources 11. What ingredients were already there, that would have made it easier to take the next steps after the workshop? I.e. events, people, and/or resources st  nd  nd  112  Impressions about the Partnership  12. How would you describe my role in the community? What about the workshop? • Has this role changed over time? 13. Other than the workshop, are there events or things you associate with the GBFP? For example, is there a connection with BILLS? • Are any of these things directly related to sustainability-related activities you are doing or want to be doing? - On a scale of 1-10, how important are they to what you are doing or want to be doing? Q u e s t i o n Set 3: B I L L S Interview Q u e s t i o n s Background  1. Why did you move to Bowen and is there a connection to moving to Bowen and improving your quality of life? 2. What are your interests in sustainability? 3. What kinds of activities, would you describe, the community was been doing toward sustainability prior to the workshop? 4. How would you describe BILLS role in that? 5. Why did you partner up with SDRI? 6. How would you describe the partnership? 7. How does the partnership fit into the broader community context and the pursuit of sustainability? Has this changed over time? I m p r e s s i o n s f r o m the W o r k s h o p  8. In your opinion, what kinds of effects did the 2-day GBFP workshop have on the participants? What were the outcomes? With QUEST? With P-P? Overall? • Has there been any kind of legacy? • Has it helped think through the structure of planning? 9. Did you receive any feedback about the workshop? What kinds of comments did participants have about each day? 10. In what way, if at all, has BILLS been applying the tools used during the workshop? Why or why not? 11. What made it harder and what made it easier to take the next steps, after the workshop? • Are there any specific events, people, and/or resources 12. Did anything learned in the workshop prepare the participants for the implementation of their projects from the workshop? If so, what? If not, what was missing? • Did QUEST help? • Did the P-P process help? 13. Two out of three groups didn't gel, why do you think that happened? I m p r e s s i o n s about the Partnership  14. Other than the workshop itself, how else did our involvement with the community affect the community's progress toward sustainability?  113  Options for the Future  Setting the Context GO  o  rO  <D O  3T  5' 3  o o  9$  CD CD ZD  TJ TJ o ZD  <  cn cp_ ^ TJ 3 CD  5' 9L  s o o  ZD  o  O 33 CD  o_  8  CL  TJ CD .  o S  < DJ 92- £ O  -; CD 0) — =H  O m — Hi Q 7" CD Tj ~  D O 55 co 2. S 2. C  TJ C= TJ TJ 92. 9j  "8  D <D  o  g  (fl  5'  § « ° a  8  O-  O o  o  cn  O  cn  TJ  5' 3 (0  g  o' CD  o  (0 CD 3 Q.  CD O tfl' O 3  a & a).  5' o 0)  o  fc  (D 3  a  oc < m Ui H  O o o OI  CD Q.  o_ Q3_  s  0J  k i l l OJ CD  CD > CD 03  2.  >  O O  s  o  o ccn CD  TJ  O  CD - *  3 "5  ZD  CD CD  ca  ^  I  ICQ > -i > > o c 3  CL  —i  o c  —i  cn  3  C L  3 o cn  CL  3  C L  cn 9> 3 CD o DJ DJ —  9» ET  IL ST  5T  f  CD £  =  3  o  S o  g  o S  T3  3 "  3 Q,  5' 3  3 -  « cn CD O cn _  ZD  C  (1  CO co o CL  CD  cr o ^  <n  J  cn § 3 cn DJ C D C cn D = DJ ^O 3 3 cn Q. En Q,  0 2" CD 01 T  5 OJ  :  _i i  o 5  e l l  O  <C2D L" § CD  >  2,  3:  3 0J  °> -o O 0) =r o DJ CD CQ 9J. » S IT  OJ cr  S  o =r  O O CO "•<  O  >  0  1  2 «• a 3.3  5  co o  0  o  03  3  CD  §  §I £D  3 CO  3  CD  CD cn.S2 i " TJ O gO Q) 0! CP 5- CD  cn CO cr TJ "5. CD O  CD >  3 I ^ 3  &| Ia-  3  CL  • (E) (£)  =•  s $ S-  CD  g"  CD 01  CD a-. DTS-^  CD =J 3 = DJ ^ 3  2 CD CD G ZD CD 0)  CD  CD DJ = CO „, cn ZZT  o CQ  S «  o o c:  a  CT  o o 3 3 o  3  CO CD O  = 3  CQ 3Q_ CD  ZD  DJ TD 03 O CD Q) = CD 2 < cn o <= CD rg. =  Z  6 K. CD  TJ  I  O  TJ  2  ,CL  TJ O  o' CD 9L =r - j . o o  1 i CD CD TD DJ  —  S  <D  w  1  tn.  TJ CD  TJ 03  =  CD CD  (fl  o  0  0)  1  ^  3  3  S a)  a  O  O  <D  CD <; cp_ o TJ  8  Ii 5  8  CD  O  c  5  CD ZD C  L  C L  CD S 03  M  cr o  CD 3 - 9> CD 2T CO = CO 5  2  O  =  CL  O 3  5  a  _. u  zo y> CD  o  cn  DJ c CL —I CO' o CD cn —1  CD TJ  cn  cp_ S" o cB"  »a  o o  CD (fl  o o  5" (D  a  CD  cn  114  Options for the Future  CD WT3  O  CD  CD  S  O  CL  ^  -H O CD O  0 ) 0 0 _g o c=  O £=  CD CD  o  5 13 1  = . CD —I  —h  O  =  2  — i  CO CD  O  g3  co  CO o  co §  X  2  O  CO CO J  O  C  CD CD 31 5!  ? Q 5 » -H  O E »  3-  —i  CD CL CD  •< CO  3  CL  O O  l> a o  >oo  CD 3  a  x <  o . m  m  m  o o  C —D i CO •<  O  3  o" CO CD =T  51  Us  CD [  m _ 3i a.  o <= CD" 2o CD -e —  TJ  co CD CD  O  -K < =ICQ 8  co CD  CO O  3 £  s:  3  O o  T3  O m  o CD"  "a o  >  3  T3  3  CD c  £2. 5" o o — i  ^ CD  —t  CO CO  0  O CD  co CO m CD 3S 2  CD  3>  2 B» O ~Xi  ro "O  "O o  X  CD  r < *< 5' 5'  S |o o o CO <B cB — i 3 CD CD 03 CO  CO CO CD CD  t! Of  C° Bo  CD" CD  -  CD CD  r a x>  CD CD  §§§• 115  


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