Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Environmental concepts and the management of the Fraser River : an examination of the preferences of… White, Sharlene Wendy 1976

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

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1977_A8 W49_5.pdf [ 7.16MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0094138.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0094138-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0094138-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0094138-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0094138-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0094138-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0094138-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0094138-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0094138.ris

Full Text

ENVIRONMENTAL CONCEPTS AND THE MANAGEMENT OF THE FRASER RIV An Examination of the Preferences of Individuals Involved with the Appeals over Municipal Sewage Treatment Standards at the Annacis Island Plant by Snarlene Wendy White B.A. Hons., University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 1969 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS In the School of COMMUNITY & REGIONAL PLANNING We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard. THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA November, 1976 ,© Snarl ene Wendy White, 1976 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make i t 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 representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department The University of British Columbia 207" Wesbrook P;ace Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 ABSTRACT The Fraser river is an essential, multi-purpose resource involving the interests of every community in the lower mainland of British Columbia. Inevitably there is a continuing public dialogue about the use of the river and consequently about the water quality standards, management strategies and the technologies which will sustain the desired uses. This public discussion was recently focused upon the regional sewage treatment facilities under construction at Annacis Island in the lower main arm of the river. Planners need to refine their understanding of such public dialogue to help them in analysing environmental management policies, communicating with clients and educating communities about the best way to achieve their environmental goals. The study was exploratory and experimental. The primary aim was to identify and advance our understanding of the concepts and conceptual-ising processes which caused individuals, concerned about water quality standards in the lower Fraser river, to prefer different management strategies for the Annacis Island plant. The central hypothesis was that an individual's environmental management preferences could be more usefully explained and more accurately predicted in relation to his conceptualising preferences than in relation to aspects of his background experience such as occupation and education. The study was completed in four stages: 1. The repertory grid technique, developed by the psychologist George Kelly, as a means of investigating the ways in which an individual rationalises about his environment, was adapted to the Fraser river situation. Later i i i t was applied as a major investigative technique within the question-naire framework. 2. The literature about the Annacis Island case was reviewed and summar-ised to provide the empirical framework for the study. 3. A questionnaire was designed and administered, in person, to thirty individuals. Ten individuals were chosen to represent each of three public interest groups who had been vocal in the discussion about the Annacis Island plant. The groups involved were the fishing industry, environmental organisations and water quality managers. Information was solicited on three topics: a. The respondent's background experience, especially his use for the river, occupation and education. b. His management preferences for the regional sewage system, especially for the Annacis Island plant. c. His conceptualising preferences, especially the way in which he distinguished between attributes of the water environment. 4. The information created by the questionnaire was categorised and subjected to statistical analysis. The repertory grid technique was successful in eliciting information about the way in which people construe the river environment. Respondents demonstrated a universal preference for thinking about things found in the Fraser river in terms of four general distinctions: whether they were living or inert, man made or natural, did or did not harm the l i f e in the river and either affected or were affected by the other things they contacted in the river. The respondents were most clearly differentiated by more special-ised ways of thinking about the river environment. For example, they i i i were distinguished by their preference for thinking in terms of ecological systems, management systems and abstract technicalities. Although these factors were not satisfactorily linked with management preferences they should be reconsidered in future studies. Conceptual complexity was the only factor decisively linked with management preferences. Those respondents who preferred to use a variety of concepts and information simultaneously were shown to have a greater preference for using both conservationist and innovative strategies in the management of the regional sewage facilities. iv CONTENTS Pa^ e Abstract i i List of Tables v i i i List of Maps and Figures ix Acknowledgement x PART I: THE ANNACIS ISLAND CASE HISTORY Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Facts About the Annacis Island Sewage Treatment Facilities 2 1.2 Summary of Events 5 1.3 The Role of the Case in the Design of the Study Experiment 10 PART II: THE EXPERIMENT 2 THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE STUDY 17 2.1 Environmental Concepts and Planning 17 2.2 Philosophical Assumptions 19 2.3 Rationale for Using a Case Study 22 2.4 Rationale for Using the Repertory Grid Technique . 24 2.5 Rationale for Choice of Experimental Variables . . 29 v Chapter Page 3: HYPOTHESES 37 4 METHODOLOGY 41 4.1 The Case Study 41 4.2 Research Into Man-Environment Theories 41 4.3 Adaptation of the Repertory Grid 42 4.4 Design of the Questionnaire 49 4.5 Choice of Respondents 54 4.6 Data Analysis 56 PART III: DISCUSSION OF THE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS 5 RESULTS 69 5.1 The Concensus About the Fraser River and the Annacis Island Plant 69 5.2 Interpretations of the Fraser River Environment . . 79 5.3 Results Relating to the Experimental Hypotheses . . 89 6 CONCLUSIONS . 101 6.1 Summary of the Experimental Results 101 6.2 Conclusions About the Experimental Design 104 6.3 Suggestions for Complementary Research 108 6.4 Environmental Concepts and Environmental Management 110 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 113 vi Page. APPENDICES Appendix A Summary of Literature About the Annacis Island Case 117 Appendix B Copy of Initial Request for Information About "Things" Found in the Water of the Fraser River and the Way These Things Operate 122 Appendix C List of Respondents, Describing their Experiential Background and Role in the Annacis Case 124 Appendix D List of Public Organisations Most Directly Involved with the Annacis Island Case 127 Appendix E Questionnaire Concerning Water Quality in the Lower Fraser River 128 vii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Statistics for the Annacis Island Plant 6 2 Summary of Substances Monitored in the Fraser River 44 3 Results of the Preliminary Questionnaire 45 4 Characteristics of the Study Population 55 5 Concensus about the Most Hazardous Pollutants in the Fraser River 73 6 Perceived Advantages of Secondary Treatment over Primary Treatment 75 7 Summary of Constructs Elicited 80 8 Distribution of Constructs within Each Category of Thinking 83 9 Elements Distinguished from Sorts 86 10 Categories of Constructs Elicited by Sorts . 89 11 Correlations and Significances between Experiential Backgrounds, Conceptual Preferences and Management Strategy Preferences 97 12 Correlations and Significances between Experiential and Conceptual Factors 98 13 Correlations and Significances between Conceptual Factors 99 vi i i LIST OF MAPS AND FIGURES Map Page 1 The Annacis Island Sewage Plant and the Area It Serves 4 Figure 1 The Repertory Grid 27 2 Direction of Correlations Expected between Conceptual Factors and Experiential Factors 39 3 Direction of Correlations Expected between Conceptual Factors 40 4 Constructs Expected in Response to the Prearranged Sorts 48 5 Combined Valuation of Uses for the Fraser River 69 6 Difference Among Interest Group Valuations of Uses for the Fraser River 71 7 Types of Sewage Treatment Favoured at Annacis Island . . . . 74 8 Percentage of Respondents in Each Group Favouring Secondary Treatment v. Percentage Perceiving a Reduction in Toxicity, Bacteria Counts and Oxygen Demand as Advantages of Secondary Treatment 76 ix ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I wish to acknowledge the professional advice and encouragement given to me by Dr. John Collins of the Department of Adult Education, U.B.C., and by Professor Irving Fox of the School of Community and Regional Planning, U.B.C. I am also indebted to all who completed my questionnaires and made i t possible for me to conduct the study. x PART I THE ANNACIS ISLAND CASE HISTORY xi Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION Water resources management is an activity primarily undertaken by the public sector in North America and its efficiency is increasingly linked with new and .complex technologies. These technologies cause problems for public servants who, despite specialist training, are faced with imperfect information in all situations and often have a narrow experiential back-ground with regard to the human implications of environmental management issues. Water resource management is also an area where a large number of private sector groups vocalise their concerns over management aims and practices. The many groups which traditionally express an interest in the water resource are the flood plain dwellers - including farmers and indus-trialists; navigators, fishermen, recreationists and environmentalists with an interest in wildlife preservation. The Fraser river, an essential, multi-purpose resource, involves the interests of every community in the lower Mainland of British Columbia. Inevitably there is a continuing public dialogue about the use of the river and consequently about the water quality standards, management strategies and technologies which will sustain the desired uses. The new regional sewage treatment facilities, under construction at Annacis Island in the lower Fraser river, have recently been a focus of this public dis-cussion. The most vocal groups in the Annacis Island case were the fishing industry and environmental organisations. These groups perceived secondary 1 2 (biological) treatment of municipal waste to provide a better environmental safeguard than the primary (mechanical) treatment which is the method traditionally used in the lower Mainland. A controversy arose between these groups and the water quality managers responsible for building and operating the treatment facilities over the definition and value of second-ary treatment. The discussion extended to the characteristics of the local receiving waters and the foreseeable uses for these waters. The contro-versy was deepened and complicated as more information became available about the nature of the receiving waters and the types of pollutants likely to produce the most damage to the environment and man, i.e. toxic substances of chemical origin and pathogenic bacteria. The Annacis Island controversy therefore provides a suitable frame-work for an investigation into the way in which people choose to organise and use the information available to them. The purpose of this thesis is to identify, and understand the environmental concepts and conceptualising processes which caused indi-viduals - concerned about water quality standards in the lower Fraser river - to prefer different management strategies and standards for the Annacis Island plant. An attempt is also made to link these conceptual factors with more commonly investigated factors relating to the individual's experiential background. The aim is to show that certain rationalising processes provide the most useful explanatory link with management preferences. 1.1 FACTS ABOUT THE ANNACIS ISLAND SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES The design and construction of the Annacis Island sewage treatment plant and part of the associated sewerage system is the direct concern of 3 the Greater Vancouver Sewage and Drainage district. The system (now partly operational) will be developed in stages and is expected to be completed by the year 2021. The actual sewage treatment plant is already located on the south side of Annacis Island - as shown in map 1. It is central to the areas which it serves, at some distance from residential areas and the site itself is considered to have good settlement for construction purposes and potential space for extending the facilities. The total cost of the plant is estimated to be a l i t t l e over $34 million for a facility capable of providing primary treatment (c.f. $58 million for a conventional secondary treatment plant). The individual municipalities will however incur the extra costs associated with providing the sewage collection system and these costs have been roughly estimated to be $100 million by 2021 (Mallard, 1970). It is expected that all domestic sewers will be separated from storm drainage sewers except in the New West-minster area which s t i l l has a combined sewer system. There are currently about 300,000 people living in the area to be served by the Annacis Island plant. The domestic and most industrial sewage from this population has traditionally been released raw into the Fraser river from about 45 outfalls spread out over a 25 mile stretch of the river. The diversion of sewage to the Annacis plant means that this sewage will be released from one outfall into the main arm of the Fraser river. After 1987 a second outfall is to be constructed and the plant will be extended to serve at least twice the present population, and population projections for the year 2021 are as high as 1,200,000. The amount of sewage passing through the plant will rise from an initial 50 million gallons per day to estimates which range between 128 and 237 million gallons per day. 4 MAP 1. THE LOCATION OF THE ANNACIS ISLAND SEWAGE PLANT AND ITS SERVICE AREA N Key: Major Industrial Dischargers in the Vicinity of Annacis: (1) Dow Chemicals of Canada Ltd. (4) Noranda Copper Mills (2) LaFarge Cement of N.A.M. (5) Grosvenor-Laing (Potato Chips) (3) MacMillan Bloedel (6) Titan Steel & Wire Co. Ltd. ft Annacis Sewage Plant -^Outfalls Boundary of Area Served 5 The Greater Vancouver Sewage and Drainage District quoted 128 million gallons per day (G.V.S. & D.D., 1970). This was also the volume granted to them by the Pollution Control Board in March 1971 (Permit No. 387-P). The figure of 237 million gallons per day was stated in The Fraser River Report (Mallard, 1970) and was calculated to serve a popula-tion of Yk million in 2021. Table 1 compares other strategic statistics produced by the G.V.S. & D.D. and the Society for Pollution and Environ-mental Control, for the Annacis plant. These two sources represented the extreme estimates for the plant. The flow capacity figures quoted are of interest as the dimensions of the physical influence of the effluent discharged upon the Fraser river is estimated in relation to these figures. For example, as shown in table 1, with a flow capacity of 53 million gallons per day the raw sewage would include a B0D5 loading of at least 70,000 lbs. per day which would be reduced to between 45 and 50,000 lbs. after conventional primary treatment. 1.2 SUMMARY OF EVENTS In 1967 the Pollution Control Board revised their policy on effluent discharges to the lower Fraser river (Goldie, 1967). The new policy called for not less than primary treatment with chlorination for all sewage discharges to the Fraser river downstream of Hope by January 1, 1975. Secondary treatment and chlorination was required for the north and middle arms of the river. In order to conform with this policy, in October 1970, the G.V.S. & D.D. applied to the Pollution Control Branch for a permit to divert existing raw sewage from Burnaby, New Westminster, Surrey, Delta TABLE 1 . S T A T I S T I C S FOR THE ANNACIS ISLAND PLANT AREAS TO BE SERVED POPULATION : TO BE SERVED . ESTIMATED COSTS OF THE SEWAGE SYSTEM ESTIMATED PHYSICAL INFLUENCES OF THE ANNACIS PLANT : NEW WESTMINSTER SOUTH BURNABY PORT MOODY COQUITLAM " FRASER MILLS SURREY ' . LANGLEY EAST RICHMOND SOUTH EAST VANCOUVER Number D a t e o f P e o p l e Components o f Sewage S y s t e m C o m p l e t i o n C o s t o f D a t e C o m p o n e n t s F l o w C a p a c i t y A n n a c i s P l a n t MG/Day I n c o m i n g B0D5 L o a d i n g s l b s . / D a y O u t g o i n g BOD5 L o a d i n g s a f t e r P r i m a r y T r e a t m e n t (35% BOD r e m o v a l ) 1974 3 0 0 , 0 0 0 1982 6 0 0 , 0 0 0 2000 1 , 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 * SITE PLANT OUTFALL 1 EXTENSION OUTFALL 2 * * • 1961 3 0 , 0 2 5 1974 1 7 , 2 4 0 , 0 0 0 1974 1 , 1 4 5 , 0 0 0 1 9 8 7 - 2 0 2 1 1 7 , 0 6 3 , 0 0 0 1 9 8 7 - 2 0 2 1 7 2 6 , 0 0 0 * STAGE 1 1974 5 2 - 6 5 STAGE 2 1 9 8 0 - 1 9 8 2 115 STAGE 3 1 9 8 7 - 2 0 2 1 237 * -7 8 - 7 9 , 0 0 0 1 7 3 , 0 0 0 3 5 6 , 0 0 0 * 5 1 - 6 3 , 0 0 0 1 1 2 , 0 0 0 2 3 1 , 0 0 0 * 1986 53 2021 128 * * 7 0 , 0 0 0 1 6 8 , 0 0 0 4 5 , 5 0 0 1 0 9 , 2 0 0 ( i . e . same as t h a t i n N o r t h Arm o f F r a s e r R i v e r i n 1 9 6 6 . ) A l l p u m p i n g s t a t i o n s , i n t e r c e p t o r s , f o r c e m a i n s , t r u n k s e w e r s and o u t f a l l s by 2021 3 6 , 7 0 0 , 0 0 0 TOTAL COST OF TREATMENT PLANT by 2021 3 4 , 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 * i EXTRA COST FOR SECONDARY PLANT 2 4 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 * C o s t s t o M u n i c i p a l i t i e s f o r w o r k s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h f e e d -i n g t h e A n n a c i s P l a n t E x i s t i n g 5 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 P r o p o s e d 5 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 * K e y : BOD - B i o l o g i c a l Oxygen Demand S o u r c e s : * M a l l a r d D . , E d i t o r . The F r a s e r R i v e r R e p o r t , S . P . E . C . ( V a n c o u v e r ) , 1 9 7 0 . * * G r e a t e r V a n c o u v e r S e w e r a g e and D r a i n a g e D i s t r i c t , B r i e f t o P u b l i c E n q u i r y o n M u n i c i p a l W a s t e D i s p o s a l , P a r t I I I , " M u n i c i p a l Sewage and C o m b i n e d S e w e r O u t f l o w s " , F e b r u a r y 1973. 7 and environs to a proposed primary plant on Annacis Island. The effluent from the plant would be discharged into the main stem of the Fraser river. A permit for the Annacis discharge, No. PE-387, was issued by the Director of Pollution Control in March 1971 authorizing an initial 54 million gallons per day and final 129 million gallons per day of primary treated sewage to be discharged by the plant. The G.V.S. & D.D. was made respon-sible for monitoring the effects of this discharge, reserving enough land for extending the plant to secondary treatment in the future, and designing a suitable plant. At this time appeals were launched by the Society for Pollution and Environmental Control, the Richmond Anti-Pollution Association and the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union against the permit. These organisations represented about 200,000 local citizens who were concerned about possible concentrations of toxic materials in the vicinity of the plant's outfall. The appeals were denied by the Pollution Control Board as the Annacis plant proposal was in accord with board policy. The Annacis proposal came under review again in 1972 due to public outcry and the election of a new provincial government. A press release was issued by Hon. Bob Williams, the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources in December 1972 which stated that the government had instructed the Pollution Control Board to reconsider its 1968 policy for the lower Fraser river. The new policy would require secondary treatment prior to discharging effluent from the Annacis plant into the river. The Board's policy was subsequently amended in the same month. This meant that the G.V.S. & D.D. were ordered to ensure that the Annacis effluent would meet a quality of 60 ppm. suspended solids and BOD of 45 ppm. The plant was to be completed by April 1, 1977. 8 In February of 1973 the G.V.S. & D.D. filed an appeal against this amendment and requested a procedural directive from the Pollution Control Branch. The G.V.S. & D.D. permit to discharge was amended in February 1974 so that some primary treated waste could be discharged from the plant - as long as i t had undergone chlorination and dechlorination - until the plant was completed in April 1977. This meant that raw sewage from New Westminster could be diverted to the plant as the primary stage was completed. In March of 1974 however the G.V.S. & D.D. advised the Director of Pollution Control i f its intention to appeal the question of secondary treatment to the Provincial Cabinet and in April i t was decided that the appeal should be heard by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. The G.V.S. & D.D. submitted its appeal in June of 1974 - in essence stating that secondary treatment was unnecessary at the Annacis Plant for the following reasons:-1. Discharge of oxygen consuming materials and bacteria would be adequately controlled by primary treatment and a disinfection program (chlorination). They expressed some concern over the efficiency of the dechlorination program and the effects of the residual chlorine on the marine l i f e . 2. They felt there was a need to establish that secondary treatment would not be detrimental to the nutrient balance in the river. 3. The appearance of the river with regard to visible sewage solids would be equally safeguarded by primary or secondary treatment. 4. Toxic materials were considered to pose the greatest danger to the environment at Annacis Island, especially considering the increase of secondary industry in the area and because some sewer systems s t i l l com-bined storm and domestic sewage. 9 However they felt that toxic materials were best controlled at their source through legislation, and that the smooth running of a secondary treatment plant was vulnerable to disruptions caused by excessive concentrations of toxics from the combined sewer system. The appeal was heard in October 1974 when briefs in support of secondary treatment were filed by the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union and the B.C. Environmental Council. These groups made three major points: a. Secondary treatment (especially the standard rate activated sludge treatment) would help control the output of toxics into the Fraser river because more particulate matter would be removed from the effluent. b. The secondary plant would be a monitoring device and hence an incentive for implementing source control of toxics as the plant would be put out of action i f large concentrations of toxics entered the plant. c. The nutrient input from a primary or secondary plant would have almost the same effect on the estuarine environment. However they were concerned with any interference with the present nutrient balance in the estuary. In April of 1975 the committee responsible for reviewing the appeal announced its decision to set up a committee, under the chairmanship of the Environment and Land Use Secretariat, consisting of representatives from the fishermen's union and the fishing industry as well as from the G.V.R.D. The committee would be responsible for assessing alternative forms of secondary treatment and factors of both' primary and secondary treat-ment which might damage the environment. They would research into a foolproof method of dechlorinating the effluent, consider possible harmful effects of secondary treated effluent on the nutrient chain and suggest alternatives leading to better control of toxic materials entering the sewage system. The authority to construct the primary plant at Annacis 10 was given before the final decisions were made about the secondary plant. The research tasks outlined were delegated to a technical com-mittee of nine people. Members of the committee represented organisations which were knowledgeable about sewage treatment, the Fraser river envir-onment, and the salmon fishery. The technical committee included two representatives from the G.V.R.D., two from the Provincial Environment and Land Use Secretariat and one from the Pollution Control Branch, two from the Federal Department of the Environment, one from the International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission and a representative from Westwater Research Centre of U.B.C. 1.3 THE ROLE OF THE CASE IN THE DESIGN OF THE STUDY EXPERIMENT A cross-section of the literature available about the Annacis Island sewage treatment plant, municipal sewage standards for the G.V.S. & D.D. and features of the lower Fraser river as a receiving water is summar-ised in Appendix A. This literature influenced the choice of respondents, the definition of planning issues and preliminary definition of the concep-tualising preferences of the three public interest groups. a. THE THREE PUBLIC INTEREST GROUPS Environmentalists, Fishing Industry and Water quality managers are each represented by several of the organisations listed to the left of Appendix A. The water quality managers include representatives from inter-national, national, provincial, regional and local government bodies. The environmentalists include representatives from a variety of groups who have vocalised their concerns about the water quality of the lower Fraser river. That is RAPA, a local citizens group; SPEC, an environmental organisation; 11 and B.C. Wildlife Federation, special interest group. The fishing industry is represented by union members and management, fish packers and fisheries researchers. The thirty respondents chosen were active in the case in various ways and include five of the nine members of the technical committee; representatives from the groups which prepared briefs in favour of secon-dary treatment at the Annacis plant - i.e. RAPA, SPEC, BCEC and UFAWU. b. THE PLANNING ISSUES The planning issues under debate are listed along the top of Appendix A. They concern the definition of pollutants, valid water quality standards and parameters, the advantages of alternative types of sewage treatment - especially the disinfection of the effluent and the sewage collection and dispersal systems. It was observed that the importance which the respective organisations placed upon the use of the water resource affected their factual perception of planning issues. c. ISSUES AND PERCEPTIONS Details of planning issues and facts perceived by the organisations studied have been summarised in the body of Appendix A. Uses for the river All organisations stressed the importance of the salmon fishery and this was the main interest of the international and federal organisations. The provincial and regional government organisations were more concerned with the river as a multiple use resource including navigation, industrial water supply and waste disposal. The public interest groups also regarded the river as a multiple use resource but stressed the use as a wildlife habitat, recreational resource and aesthetic and symbolical values above industrial and waste disposal uses. Public health concerns were a feature of local interest. Pollutants There was general agreement about traditionally recognised pollutants such as pathogenic organisms, visible solids, oils and greases, dead wildlife. Of more recently identified pollutants - toxic wastes, especially chemicals were mentioned most frequently. The environmentalists and fishing industry tended to stress the importance of particular toxic wastes mentioning chemicals such as chlorine. They also pointed at more specific pollutants such as bark and sawdust. This tendency may reflect their concern with specific issues rather than overall management policy. Water quality parameters All groups recognised the traditional parameters such as coliform counts, suspended solids, dissolved oxygen levels and sensory indicators such as smell and colour. Later documents tended to stress measured parameters more than sensory parameters, and the environmentalists placed more emphasis on ecological parameters such as wildlife migrations and tended to criticise traditional measured parameters. Types of sewage treatment Sewage treatment was mainly the concern of regional and local government. Traditional forms of primary treatment were not reported to have changed significantly over the past fifty years and chlorine is s t i l l the chief means of disinfecting the effluent. In 1916 (Vancouver & Districts Joint Sewerage & Drainage Board, 1916) the government perceived that it was better to use natural methods of treating sewage than to rely upon chemicals which often disrupt the system, later government documents favour 13 more 'unnatural' methods and dechlorination is a recent issue indicative of the complex problems which can arise with the use of chemical disinfectants. It was observed that public interest groups favoured alternative methods of disinfection such as ozonation or ultra violet radiation. Most differences of opinion focused upon perceived advantages of secondary treatment over primary treatment. 1. There was general agreement that the two advantages which secondary treatment has over primary treatment is the reduction of biological oxygen demanding substances in the effluent and a reduction in the density of suspended solids held in the effluent. The public interest groups perceived a greater range of advantages from secondary treatment than the government organisations. 2. The G.V.S. & D.D. expressed some confusion about whether secondary treatment left more nutrients in the effluent (G.V.S. & D.D. Feb. 1974) and whether secondary treatment alone reduces the bacteria in the effluent. (G.V.R.D. Feb. 1973 and G.V.S. & D.D. Feb. 1974). The public interest groups did however perceive secondary treatment to reduce levels of bacteria in the effluent. 3. The most signicant advantage of secondary treatment perceived by the public interest groups was that it reduces the output of toxics in the effluent by 75%. (It was reasoned that toxics are settled out as particulate matter and that the biological nature of the secondary treatment process provides a natural monitoring device as the bacteria operating in the sewage plant are killed off when significant concentrations of toxics are present.) 4. Finally the government organisations expressed the opinion that the aesthetic qualities of the river were equally safeguarded by primary or 14 secondary treatment, implying a definition of aesthetic values based upon visual evidence of waste disposal activities. The sewage collection system There was general agreement about the need to separate storm runoff sewers from other sewers and this concern was expressed in the early government literature. A more recent concern of all is the need to control toxic discharges from industry at their source. The public interest groups expressed more specific concern about the problem of pinpointing sources of toxics entering the system. The disposal of effluent Dilution, by fast and wide dispersal of effluent, was almost universally perceived as the answer to the disposal problem. The public interest groups also expressed the need for storage of toxic wastes on land and were concerned with particulars relating to the system proposed for dispersing the effluent released from the Annacis Island plant, especially the fact that there would be initially only one and eventually only two outfalls. Important features of the receiving waters Perceptions of features of the receiving waters are affected by perceptions of effluent disposal problems. The public interest groups were concerned with specific problems such as the narrow channel opposite the outlet for the Annacis outfall, the influence of local tides perceived to cause lateral dispersal of the effluent into slower flow areas at the banks of the river and the effects of reverse flows with summer tides. They predicted that reverse flows would cause localised concentrations of effluent and hence oxygen depletions and the build up of toxics to lethal 15 levels for salmon fingerlings. The government bodies expressed more general perceptions of the receiving waters acknowledging the complexity of tidal fluctuations and salt intrusion and recognising that natural turbidity limits the uses to which the water can be put. They generally felt dissolved oxygen levels were satisfactory (always over 75%) and that the nutrient balance was low, hence organic wastes could be easily assimil-ated. Unlike the public interest groups, the government literature did not express a concern that extra nutrients would probably concentrate in the delta. It should be pointed out that the perceptions described above have been observed from a limited literature base and that the literature put out by the different organisations is for different purposes. The public interest groups aim to draw the attention of the government to specific issues and the government bodies attempt to give the public an overview of policies, standards and perceptions, hence their literature is often more generalised. It is assumed that the literature reviewed broadly reflects the concensus of those involved in the organisations cited, hence the following conclusions can be drawn from the literature review. The public interest groups prefer to think in terms of the eco-logical relationships between parts of the environment, to favour secondary treatment of sewage entering the Annacis Island plant more strongly than the government organisations, and to be more aware of the intricacies of the local environment which may be affected by the outfall from the Annacis plant. The government bodies appear to be more concerned with maintaining overall water quality standards as defined and measured by traditional and technical methods. The case history literature illustrates the problems that arise as a limited amount of complex technical information about new technologies and 16a possible environmental effects is dispersed throughout various sectors of the community. This point was illustrated by the controversy which arose concerning the advantages of primary treatment over secondary treatment. The literature and the history of events also are an example of the complex process involved in incorporating new management strategies into the existing environmental regulation system. As there is always a lack of complete information and many ways to organise this information, conceptual preferences are a manifestation of values. Certain concepts gain more political significance than others - and influence the choice of environmental management strategies; e.g. 1973, Hon. Bob Williams' decision that the Annacis plant should provide at least minimum conventional secondary treatment for municipal sewage. 16b PART II THE EXPERIMENT Chapter 2 THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE STUDY In this chapter the reasons for choosing the study topic and the methods used for conducting the study will be explained and justified. There were two related considerations involved in the design of the research. The study topic had to be relevant to planners and planning in general and both research topic and methods had to be based upon a coherent philosophical framework which was itself relevant to planning. The research topic and methods used in conducting the study were therefore derived from the same underlying philosophical framework. This will be demonstrated in relation to the case study and design of the questionnaire. 2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONCEPTS AND PLANNING Planning can be regarded as an ongoing educational process concerned with the evolution of the community's understanding and manage-ment of its social and physical environment. The role of the planner in this process is that of advisor, educator, public servant and advocate. The planner is therefore concerned to broaden his understanding of the man-environment relationship and of the way in which the values and goals of the community which he is serving f i t into this relationship. The aim of this study is to provide new information about the man-environment relationship which will help the planner to broaden his understanding of that relationship. Specifically, an attempt will be made to identify and explain the factors which caused individuals who were 17 18 concerned about water quality standards in the lower Fraser river to prefer different management strategies for the Annacis Island sewage treatment plant. The factors investigated concern the individual's experiential backgrounds and conceptualising preferences. These factors will be related with the individual's management strategy preferences for the Annacis Island plant. The efficiency of the planner as advisor and educator within the community would be increased significantly i f he could explain the links between people's experiential background, conceptualising preferences and environmental management preferences. Information about these relationships could provide the planner with increased foresight and powers of prediction as well as with new communication techniques. a. By linking conceptualising strategies with management preferences the planner will be able to predict the behaviour pattern of his community in relation to the management issues he has studied and may be able to generalise between situations. Such foresight will give the planner more time to prepare a communications program which will protect the long term values and goals of the community he serves. Such a program may involve fostering a preference for certain concepts and patterns of thinking within that community and/or the re-education of strategic sectors of the community whose perceptions may be hindering the community from realising its long term goals. b. If an individual's experiential background can be linked with his con-ceptualising preferences, i t will become increasingly possible to explain the way in which environmental factors influence conceptualising preferences. This type of information will guide the planner in developing the necessary educational techniques to foster the behaviour most desired by the community. 19 2 . 2 PHILOSOPHICAL ASSUMPTIONS The philosophical assumptions underlying the study design are those underlying any view of planning as a rational activity and an ongoing educational process. First of all i t is necessary to acknowledge the assumption upon which all scientific rationalising is based - that the relationship between man and his environment is evolving within the framework of a rational universal system. This assumption is made by planners whenever they attempt to predict the effects of specific management strategies or to account for the management preferences and choices made by individuals or a community. Secondly, planning activities are based upon the assumption that the universe itself is integral; i.e. i t functions as a unit with all its imaginable parts having an exact relationship to each other. For example, planners are currently finding a most useful assumption, derived from the science of ecology, is that neither the environment nor the environed unit can be defined without reference to the other. This assumption includes the concept that there is a circular relationship between man and his environment. Research into the relationships between an individual's experiential background, conceptualising preferences and management strategy preferences is based upon both concepts. A strong argument can be made in favour of planners focusing their attention upon the psychological aspects of the man - environment relation-ship. a. As i t is impossible to obtain a holistic picture of the man - environment relationship - i t is necessary to focus upon 'strategic' factors which may provide a key for explaining many aspects of the man - environment 20 relationship. b. Our experience of the human condition makes i t logical to assume that an individual's attitudes, values, preferences, choices and decisions are ONLY relatable to the environment through the perceptions and other psychological processes of the environed individual. Information about perceptions and psychological processes should therefore give perspective to all planning activities. The preceding assumptions have been integrated into a coherent theoretical framework by the Sprouts in their theory of 'cognitive behaviourism' (Sprout, 1965) and by G. Kelly in his theory of 'constructive alternativism' (Kelly,1963). These theories assume a rational, integral universal system, stress the importance of psychological processes in explaining the man - environment relationship and further incorporate the concepts of freedom and determinism as complementary aspects of the universal structure. The psychological processes are explained as "free" to the extent that they involve the selective perception of elements making up the individual's environment and determined to the extent that the interpreta-tion of the perceived environment must be related to the individual's past experience. Sprout argues that: "Speaking generally cognitive behaviourism bypasses the dualism which postulates man and milieu as separate entities linked together by a mysterious chain of cause and effect. The milieu to which the environed unit or decisional group reacts is the milieu which is experienced through selective perception and interpreted in the light of past experience." G. Kelly explains the relationship between freedom and determinism by a similar twofold argument. 21 THE DETERMINISTIC ASPECT The time bond Kelly states that, for living creatures, time provides the ul t i -mate bond in all relationships and therefore they experience a determinism operating between antecedent and subsequent events. Man's interpretation of the universe (in itself a scientific attempt to create a system of concepts about the way in which the universe operates) is therefore subject to continual revision and replacement. The superordinate position of concepts Kelly assumes that a person's concepts have a superordinate relationship to other elements of his environment. As new concepts are made by redefining old ones their nature is predetermined. The conceptual propositions which an individual advances in turn restrict his choice in perceiving the other elements of his environment in the future. THE COMPLEMENTARITY OF FREEDOM AND DETERMINISM The creative aspect Kelly assumes that the universe is phenomenologically existent and becomes so by happening, li f e itself involving the construction of reality. The conceptualising process is therefore considered to play an important creative role in the construction of the universe. Freedom of choice Kelly further explains that the individual is free to the extent that he exercises choice in designing his concepts and selecting the elements of his environment which he will focus his attention upon. 22 The planner may attain a balanced perspective of the potential importance and limitations of his role in the community by considering the assumptions upon which these two theories are based. Research designed upon such comprehensive assumptions is relevant to planners interested in policy analysis, public communications and education. 2.3 RATIONALE FOR THE USE OF A CASE STUDY SITUATION a. PHILOSOPHICAL A belief in the value of empirical knowledge and pragmatic logic is implied by the use of an actual planning situation to provide an empirical framework within which to conduct the research. Such a belief is derived from the philosophical assumptions described in the preceding pages; that is, the assumption of a rational, integral universe, in which time provides the ultimate bond for all living creatures who therefore experience evolutionary changes in themselves and their environment. b. PRACTICAL In a preliminary attempt to identify and link experiential and conceptual factors with each other and with management strategy prefer-ences i t is possible that important factors and relationships will be overlooked. This problem will be reduced by developing the study within the framework of a real planning situation which has not been oversimplified. The phenomenology of the case also reduced the problem of choosing relevant planning issues, management strategies, conceptualising preferences, environmental phenomena, technical information and respondents to take part in the research. The Annacis Island case provided reference to a group of individuals who think in a variety of ways about elements of the river environment and prefer a variety of management strategies for the Fraser river. c. TOPICAL IMPORTANCE OF THE ANNACIS ISLAND CASE The Annacis case is a significant planning issue in British Columbia as the outcome of the G.V.S. & D.D. appeals to the Lt. Governor in Council in June 1974 could influence the future versatility of approaches to pollution control in the province. The Annacis case also illustrates the problems generated for a community and its environmental managers over the use of imperfect infor-mation in an environmental management situation. Some complex technical information has been made available about the Fraser river and alternative municipal sewage treatment strategies, and this information is popularly interpreted from several philosophical viewpoints; e.g. utilitarian, conservationist, preservationist, resulting in a variety of management strategy preferences. The fact that all organisations and individuals are faced with imperfect information in any environmental management situation and that people are becoming aware that potentially massive alterations to the environment may be precipitated by certain management strategies has caused increased social dialogue about the allocation of responsibility for environmental quality policy making. The Annacis case has been an example of this dialogue between appointed and elected community represen-tatives. At one period in the case history the community's elected representatives supported the perceptions of the environmentalist and fishing industry groups as being more socially representative of the 24 community's required water quality standards for the lower Fraser river than those of the managers appointed to design and construct the new sewage treatment facilities. This political dilemma can be elucidated by obtaining information about the rationalising processes of the different a parties involved, including information about the way in which they prefer to use information and think about the elements which comprise their environment. 2.4 RATIONALE FOR USING G. KELLY'S REPERTORY GRID TECHNIQUE AS A MEANS  OF ESTABLISHING HOW AN INDIVIDUAL THINKS ABOUT ELEMENTS OF THE  FRASER RIVER ENVIRONMENT The repertory grid technique, derived from Kelly's Personal Construct Theory, is based on the philosophical assumptions of his theory of constructive alternativism. This fact will become apparent from the following more detailed description of the conceptual framework of personal construct theory. It is also desirable to provide an overview of Personal Construct theory so that the constructs obtained by the grid technique can be placed in perspective. a. THE PROCESS OF CONSTRUING In order for the individual to place an interpretation upon some part of the universe he must engage in the process of construing. This process is evolutionary in nature and over a period of time i t can be equated with the learning process which itself constitutes experience and involves the construction of reality. (Based on the assumption that the universe exists by happening.) 25 b. CONSTRUCTS These are the elements which make up the process of construing. A personal construct can be defined as a pattern - intellectually reasoned or sensed by the individual, which enables the individual to chart a course of behaviour. Constructs are bipolar in nature as explained by Kelly (Kelly, 1963) - "A construct which implied similarity without contrast would represent just as much of a chaotic undifferentiated homogeneity as a construct which implied contrast without similarity would represent a particularised heterogeneity." Hence constructs must by their definition contain similarity and contrast in the form of psychological opposites. (These need not be objective logical opposites.) The fact that constructs and construing experiences can be shared with others however makes them relevant to the planner in his role as advisor and educator. The fact provides the rationale for this study's attempt to identify and generalise about the construing processes and constructs used by individuals involved with the Annacis Island case. Two qualities of constructs, their predictive nature and perceived abstract similarity, explain why they can be commonly shared. Firstly, their predictive nature: a man anticipates events by construing their replications, whenever one construes anything - by the very process of identifying the event as something replicated - we imply a prediction that it may happen again, that its replicated properties may all reappear in another event. Predictions are based upon the imagined intersect of several concept dimensions and must be validated by events. An event is replicative of another however only if one is willing to accept the abstract similarity of the two events. This second point - the acceptance  of abstract similarity - is the basis of sharing construing experiences with others. It is also relevant to note that construing experiences can be shared with others only to the extent that a person's constructs are permeable. (Permeable means the extent to which new elements can be admitted to the range of events for which the particular construct is convenient or relevant.) A person's construct system itself varies as he successively construes the replication of events. New constructs are created by choosing to recombine old ones. Thus everyone's ability to create new constructs is limited by the channels which structure his think-ing. Such channels can be described as replicative themes which Kelly states provide not only the key to experience and education but to all natural law. It is therefore possible in this study .to attempt both to identify commonly shared constructs and to classify these constructs according to replicative themes which may be considered to structure thinking about the way in which certain elements operate in the environment of the Fraser river. Themes considered relevant for the study are for example, technical specialist thinking, utilitarian thinking and systems thinking. USE OF THE REPERTORY GRID TECHNIQUE The grid, as shown in figure 1 , consists of a set of elements arranged along the top axis and a set of constructs along the side axis. The grid is designed to produce a matrix of scores for the set of elements on the set of constructs. The elements consist of any object, event, or idea which one can anticipate or react to. Elements and constructs can be provided by the respondent or by the research designer. 1—> i—> i—» i—> o CO c n CO r o G R O U P S -( o Debris i -o o Turbidity r>o o o o Heavy Metals c o o Logs & Deadheads o o All Bacteria c n O Dissolved Oxygen c n o o Fish o Pesticides c o O o Nutrients <x> • THING O Pathogenic Bacteria £ • THING o Oils £ c n o o Chlorine £ o Wildlife £ o o Colour £ o Water Hardness £ o o Temperature £ o Plant Life ^ o Smel 1 £ i—» r o o CONSTRUCT CONTRAST 28 USE OF NON-HUMAN ELEMENTS This study involves the use of non-human elements in the repertory grid which had to be adapted to elic i t constructs about elements associated with the water of the Fraser river. Kelly himself gave the following opinion on the use of non-human elements in the grid (Kelly, 1963, p. 218): "The way the client sees the inanimate features of his world is not unimpor-tant. Not all the problems which drive men to distraction are social problems or problems involving human figures. It may be important to learn how a client deals with inanimate features of his environment as a means of gaining insight into the way he anticipates events." In this study, by gaining insight into the way in which an individual thinks about elements associated with the water of the lower Fraser river it should be possible to gain insight into why he anticipates that certain management strategies will have desirable effects upon the river environment. The best example of a study which sets a precedent for using non-human elements in the repertory grid is the one by Harrison and Sarre (Harrison & Sarre, 1971 and 1975). This study concluded that the grid form of the repertory test is especially useful for research into environ-mental images where the aim is to compare the responses of individuals and establish the common meaning of elements and constructs for all the indi-viduals studied. The grid may, therefore, be a tool enabling planners to generalise about the rationale behind management strategy preferences. 2.5 RATIONALE FOR CHOICE OF EXPERIMENTAL VARIABLES 29 The choice of conceptualising preferences, management preferences and experiential variables was limited by their relevance to planning in general and the Annacis Island case in particular. Consideration was also given to their topical importance. For example, objectivity, complexity and systems thinking have been discussed at length by a variety of authors: Objectivity - Barrett 1962, Cranston 1972, Rosak 1973. Complexity - Schumacher 1973 p. 89, Sewell 1971, Shepard and McKinley 1969. Systems Thinking - Deutsch 1963, Sprout 1965, Holling 1969, Caldwell 1970, Holling and Goldberg 1971, Allister 1972. Specialist Thinking - Sewell and Little 1973. OBJECTIVITY AND COMPLEXITY Two commonly mentioned conceptual problems observed to be a poten-tial cause of unpredicted or unplanned environmental changes are: 1. The problem of dealing with factual and informational complexity -which may involve an overload or a lack of information about a given situation. 2. A popular inconsistency in the process of rationalising which can be explained by reference to two ideas - a. the idea that information has become a real threat to knowledge, and b. the idea that much twentieth century thinking divorces fact from value (Cranston 1972, Rosak 1973, Schumacher 1973, Barrett 1962). The two conceptual problems demonstrate our inefficiency in selectively integrating information within systems frameworks which would enable us to achieve a more holistic appraisal of the environmental situation. 30 In response to the fact that both conceptual problems concern our preference for using objective information, provision was made in the experi-mental part of the thesis to measure the individual's preference for using objective v. subjective information. In response to the first problem -that of dealing with informational complexity - provision was made to measure the individual's preference for using many ideas at the same time. Both conceptual variables are concerned with preferences for organ-ising and focusing upon information. Definition of Complexity Complexity reflects the respondent's preference for retaining and using a variety of types of information and ideas simultaneously. It was measured in two ways: a. The number of different constructs which the individual provided in response to the repertory grid question were summed. (Bannister and Mair, 1968 describes precedents for measuring conceptual complexity.) b. The number of management strategies and types of information which the respondent voluntarily associated with each other throughout the question-naire were counted. Both of these methods were unobtrusive and together provide a comprehensive indication of the respondent's preference for organising information. Definition of Objectivity This variable indicates whether the respondent has a preference for relying upon scientific data and concensus of opinion data. One indicator of objectivity is that when asked about the possible advantages of secondary treatment over primary treatment the response focuses upon 31 facts reflecting the concensus of opinion; i.e. 'secondary treatment can reduce toxics entering the river and oxygen demand upon the river', rather than idiosyncratic and visually related responses such as 'no advantage' or 'reduces floating wastes'. The objective respondent will also express a low preference for the more esoteric uses of the river; e.g. symbolical value or viewing for pleasure and for the use of other subjective infor-mation. CONSTRUING PREFERENCES - TYPES OF THINKING Systems Thinking The rationale for measuring an individual's preference for systems thinking was: a. The assumption that the universe does not consist of discrete facts but of interlocking systems. Elements of the environment must therefore be viewed as interdependent. b. The observation that many planners are acknowledging the ideal of adopting a holistic approach to all planning situations, since i t has been demonstrated that a fragmented approach to rationalising and dealing with information does not enable society to deal effectively with environ-mental management problems. The best practical strategy for adopting a holistic perspective is to devise a systems framework for thinking about a problem. Numerous variables can then be organised in terms of their interrelationships and patterns can be identified. c. The systems approach offers infinite potential for creative integration of facts and information with reference to values and knowledge. d. Systems thinking helps the planner to organise and present a conceptual model of any planning situation, therefore it is also a valuable communi-cations technique. 32 Two types of thinking, distinguished for special consideration, were ecological systems thinking and management systems thinking. The rationale for measuring a preference for ecological systems thinking was based upon the observation that the ecological perspective has been widely adopted in physical planning, resource management and social planning, (e.g. Holling and Goldberg, 1971; Holling, 1969; McAllister, 1972; Commoner 1973; Caldwell, 1970.) The rationale for measuring management systems thinking was based upon the observation that in the Annacis Island case (as in many planning situations) i t is inefficient to think in terms of isolated management strategies. For example, in the Annacis case the Fraser river is to be used as a multiple purpose resource and the treatment standards for the Annacis plant must be defined in relation to the total municipal sewage collection and disposal system for the lower mainland. Natural Order, Utilitarian and Technical Specialist Thinking The individual's preferences for these three types of thinking were investigated for the following reasons: 1. The environmentalist, fishing industry and water quality management groups demonstrated varying preferences for these three types of thinking in the Annacis Island case history literature. 2. The public dialogue between advocates of natural order, utilitarian and technical specialist thinking can be broadly associated with preser-vationist, conservationist and utilitarian philosophies for environmental mangement. 3. Technical specialist thinking, often associated with a conceptually fragmented approach to environmental management problems, is both a cause and result of factual complexity (e.g. Rosak, 1973). 33 Summary Operational Definitions of the Six Types of Thinking to be Measured Natural order thinking Elements on the grid were distinguished in terms of whether they were living or inert, man made or natural, affected li f e or the natural order or not. Utilitarian thinking Elements on the gird were distinguished according to their relationship with human uses for the river and could range from a general beneficial-harmful distinction to a more specific use for the river; e.g. navigation. Ecological systems thinking Elements on the grid were distinguished in terms of their role in, or effect upon, the river ecology; e.g. whether or not they concentrate in the food chain. Management systems thinking Elements on the grid were distinguished according to their management implications; e.g. their need to be maintained in stable amounts, predictability, ease of removing or tracing their source. General systems thinking Elements on the grid were distinguished according to broad relationships; e.g. the fact that two elements affect or are affected by the third. Technical specialist thinking Distinguishes elements on the grid according to factual objective differences; e.g. chemical v. physical, or soluble v. insoluble. RATIONALE FOR CHOOSING THE MANAGEMENT PREFERENCES AND EXPERIENTIAL BACKGROUND VARIABLES FOR COMPARISON WITH THE CONCEPTUAL PREFERENCE VARIABLES The aim of the research is to further the planner's understanding of factors influencing environmental management strategy preferences and in the long run to improve his ability to predict interest group management preferences and to communicate with, educate or re-educate certain elements within his community. Two types of management strategies of topical interest were conservationist and innovative management strategies. General planning literature indicated that citizens are concerned to avoid unplanned large scale alterations in the environment (e.g. Sewell, 1970). A practical solution to this problem will require that decision makers adopt a con-servative attitude to strategies which have a more uncertain influence upon the balance between elements of the environment. Where current management practices are thought to cause unpredictable effects, decision makers must be prepared to adopt innovative strategies. Innovative strategies were being discussed in relation to the Annacis case for the disinfection of the effluent, management of toxic wastes and other alter-native ways of disposing of residuals. Operational Definition of Conservation!'sm and Innovation Conservationism The aim in measuring 'conservationism' was to ascertain the respondent's preference for minimising the risk of unpredicted environmental alterations and for preserving the environment from large scale changes initiated by human interference. This preference was measured in relation to issues relevant to the Annacis Island case such as: a. preference of method for disinfecting the effluent, and b. preference for overall degree of treatment of the effluent. In this case individuals will be considered to have a preference for con-servationist strategies i f they prefer at least secondary treatment for the effluent and require dechlorination of the effluent i f chlorination is to be the method of disinfection. c. Respondents favouring conservationist strategies will also prefer to restrict the discharge of substances which accumulate in the environment or have other uncertain long term effects and they will tend therefore to favour recycling of residuals. Innovation Respondents preferring innovative strategies will directly state a general preference for experimenting with new ways of treating and disposing of sewage, they will favour decentralisation of treatment facilities, the separation of wastes at their point of origin, other strategies which may facilitate recycling and innovative disinfection techniques. These respondents will also have made innovative suggestions where applicable throughout the questionnaire schedule. Experiential Variables a. Vested interest in the river environment The experiential factors considered most relevant as influencing the individual's management preferences for the Annacis Island plant were: active commitment to the river environment because of direct occupational involvement with the river and frequency of physical contact with the river. 36 Two time factors,considered to be less significant, were age and time spent in recreationaliu.seof the river. The rationale for including the above factors in the vested interest variable was that active involvement not only tends to reflect an individual's attitude to the environment but to reinforce that attitude, and that physical contact encourages active involvement,overcoming the perceptual problem briefly stated as 'out of sight, out of mind'. Time commitments are the best measure of active involvement. b. Formality of conceptual conditioning Finally, the amount of formal academic training which the respondent had undertaken was considered a relevant experiential factor which would influence conceptualising preferences and hence possibly management strategy preferences. It was also considered that skills and occupation reflect a good portion of an individual's active commitment to society and therefore general practical experience was also accounted for in the measure of 'Formality of conceptual conditioning'. Chapter 3 HYPOTHESES The study will explore two relatively new ideas. a. Conceptual factors will explain environmental management preferences. b. The repertory grid will be a valuable tool for ascertaining how an individual conceptualises about his physical environment. The first idea will be tested in relation to four, specific, experimental hypotheses. EXPERIMENTAL HYPOTHESES (1) Public interest group allegiance will reflect differences in the respondent's experiential background, conceptualising preferences and management strategy preferences. The three interest groups - environ-mentalists, fisheries and water quality management - will be distinguishable in the following ways: a. EXPERIENTIAL BACKGROUND The fisheries group will record the highest average score for informality of conceptual conditioning. The management group will record the lowest average score. The management group will record the lowest average score for vested interest in the river environment. 37 38 b. CONCEPTUALISING PREFERENCES The environmentalist and fisheries groups will produce the largest number of natural order and ecological systems constructs. The management group will produce the largest number of technical specialist constructs and the highest average score for objectivity. The fisheries and management groups will produce the largest number of utilitarian constructs. The environmentalist group will record the highest average score for conceptual complexity. c. GROUP CONCENSUS ABOUT MANAGEMENT PREFERENCES The environmentalist and fisheries groups will record the highest average scores for conservationism and innovation. (2) Conceptual factors will account for more of the variance in an individual's management preferences than either public interest group allegiance or experiential factors. Conceptual factors will therefore be more precise predictors of an individual's environmental management preferences than public interest group allegiance or experi-ential factors. 39 (3) Conceptual factors will be related to the individual's experiential background. Figure 2. Direction of Correlations Expected Between Conceptual Factors  and Experiential Background Natural order thinking Utilitarian thinking Ecological systems thinking Management systems thinking General systems thinking Technical specialist thinking Complexity Objectivity Vested Interest in the River Environment + + + Informality of Conceptual Conditioning Key: +• positive ) - negative ) correlations • indecisive) Conceptual factors will therefore help to explain the way in which experiential background influences the individual's environmental management preferences. (4) Conceptual factors can be related to each other. In this way the nature of the conceptualising process can be elucidated. Figure 3. Direction of Correlations Expected Between Conceptual Factors Complexity Objectivity Natural order thinking Utilitarian thinking Ecological systems thinking Management systems thinking General systems thinking Technical specialist thinking Complexity Objectivity Natural Order Thinking Util itarian Thinking Ecological Systems Thinking Management Systems Thinking General Systems Thinking Technical Specialist Thinking -• -• + • + • + • + • • • + • - + - • • - + • + - • -Key: + positive ) - negative ) correlations indecisive) Chapter 4 METHODOLOGY The major features of the methodology are: a case study, a questionnaire and data analysis. 4.1 THE CASE STUDY The case study provides the empirical framework within which the rest of the experiment was developed. The study involved the use of secondary source materials - whose contents were summarised in the literature review (Appendix A). Several direct (and one indirect) inter-views were carried out. 4.2 RESEARCH INTO MAN-ENVIRONMENT THEORIES This involved the use of secondary source materials and focused upon Kelly's theory of 'personal constructs'. Methodological Reasons for Using Personal Construct Theory a. It was decided that Kelly's model fulfilled a need for a tested theory where hypotheses about the nature of mental processes derived from the theory had been shown to possess a high degree of validity. (This has been mainly in the area of clinical psychology.) It is important to ensure that the mental processes, hypothesised as underlying behaviour, have been adequately conceptualised and hence the results obtained from the research experiment will have more general relevance. 41 b. The theory is associated with practical techniques - especially the repertory grid technique - which put the components of the mental processes (elements and constructs) into a coherent framework enabling quantifi-cation of these parts of the mental processes so that results can be expressed in such a way that they can be causally linked with behaviour. (The grid form of the repertory test allows the application of any multi-dimensional method of analysis making use of a matrix.) c. The grid form of the repertory test has been used clinically and found to be an effective way of communicating with individuals (Kelly, 1963). d. Personal construct theory gives common ground for studying individuals who have experienced different types of conceptual conditioning. (The theory describes every man as a scientist and as the active initiator of his environmental transactions - hypothesising, receiving feedback and modifying his system of constructs.) e. Information about constructs helps explain the rationale for differ-ences of opinion between individuals. This will be valuable if environ-mental constructs can be statistically linked with environmental management preferences. 4.3 ADAPTATION OF THE REPERTORY GRID The grid is designed to produce a matrix of scores for a set of elements on a set of constructs. Figure 1 shows the elements as they were arranged along the top axis of the grid and the space left down the right hand side of the grid for recording the constructs elicited from respondents. There are two columns - a construct and contrast column because of the bipolar nature of constructs. 43 CHOICE OF ELEMENTS An element is any object, event or idea which a person can antici-pate or react to. The elements for the repertory grid are either provided by the respondent as being appropriate to the general area with which the interviewer is concerned, OR provided by the research designer to reflect his interest in a particular group of places or objects. In this case the elements were provided to ensure that they related to the case study situation and that the results would be more easily compared, as the research is concerned with shared construing experiences. When one side of the grid is standardised in this way some sensitivity to personal idio-syncracies is sacrificed, but the grid becomes a more powerful hypothesis testing tool. Two sources of information were used to obtain the elements: a. Secondary Source Material The observations of the Westwater Research study into potential pollutants in the Fraser river were particularly noted. The substances they observed are summarised in Table 2 alongside the standards set by the Federal Department of the Environment. b. An Unstructured Request An unstructured request was distributed among 30 of the U.B.C. faculty and graduate researchers who were interested in some aspect of water quality management. A copy of the request is contained in Appendix B. Table 3 summarises the varied specialist training of the respondents and the elements which they agreed to be most important indicators of water quality for the Fraser river. 4 4 TABLE 2 . SUMMARY OF SUBSTANCES MONITORED IN THE FRASER RIVER SUBSTANCE ABSOLUTE RANGE ( A l l S t a t i o n s ) AVERAGE MEASUREMENT ANNACIS STATION RELEVANT STANDARDS D i s s o l v e d Oxygen 8 . 6 - 1 4 . 9 mg/L 1 1 . 5 mg/L (94% s a t u r a t i o n ) * * C a n a d a 1972 -10 mg/L - a v e r a g e m o s t w a t e r 4 mg/L - minimum f o r f i s h - g e n e r a l l y . ( Q u e s t i o n e f f e c t l o w Og on t o x i c i t y o f p o l l u t a n t s , c o m b i n e d e f f e c t o f t e m p e r -a t u r e , e t c . ) M i c r o o r g a n i s m s T o t a l c o l i f o r m s 50 - 9 2 , 0 0 0 p e r 100 mL T r e n d - i n c r e a s -i n g c o u n t s d o w n s t r e a m a n d e s p e c i a l l y i n V a n c o u v e r a r e a 7150 p e r 100 mL * * C a n a d a 1972 - d r i n k i n g w a t e r m u s t n o t e x c e e d 1 0 0 0 / 1 0 0 ml 90% o f t h e t i m e T r a c e M e t a l s ** C a n a d a 1972 D r i n k i n g W a t e r ( a c c e p t a b l e ) U . S . F i s h e r i e s S o c i e t y 1970 T o x i c L e v e l s Mean V a l u e s U . S . W a t e r s Cadmiuni <1 mg/L ? < 0 . 0 1 mg/L 3 mg/L 9 . 5 mg/L C o p p e r .<1 - 14 mg/L 4 mg/L 1 . 0 mg/L 10 mg/L 15 mg/L I r o n 150 - 4 . 0 0 0 mg/L . 6 3 mg/L 0 . 3 mg/L -- 52 mg/L L e a d <1 - 33 mg/L < . l mg/L < 0 . 0 5 mg/L 10 mg/L 23 mg/L M a n g a n e s e 10 - 270 mg/L 0 . 0 4 mg/L 0 . 0 5 mg/L — 58 mg/L M e r c u r y < . 0 5 - . 3 5 mg/L < . 0 5 mg/L 0 . 0 0 0 1 mg/L ( A l t a . & S a s k . ) ( 0 . 0 0 5 USA) 5 mg/L c i n e <1 - 8 0 mg/L 5 mg/L 5 . 0 mg/L 10 mg/L 64 mg/L N u t r i e n t s A l l N i t r o g e n < 0 . 1 - 1 . 5 mg/L ( N . B . b o t h A n n a c i s f i g u r e s ) . 2 3 mg/LN * * C a n a d a 1972 d r i n k i n g w a t e r N i t r a t e a n d N i t r i t e < 1 0 . 0 mg/L T o t a l P h o s p h o r u s 8 - 100 mg/L' 6 8 mg/L N . B . F o r t r a c e m e t a l s and o t h e r t o x i c s u b s t a n c e s - m u s t a t l e a s t c o n s i d e r a d d i t i v e l e v e l s - s e e C a n a d a G u i d e l i n e s 1972 ( * * ) ; i . e . C o n e , o f t o x i c s u b s t a n c e s ( a ) + ( b ) + ( n ) _ recommended l i m i t s ( a ) ( b ) n - t o t a l s h o u l d n o t e x c e e d 1 . 0 T h i s s t i l l d o e s n o t a c c o u n t f o r s y n e r g i s t i c e f f e c t s , a n d e f f e c t o f v a r i a b l e s s u c h as h a r d n e s s o f w a t e r , e t c . O t h e r o r g a n i s a t i o n s h a v e a l s o m o n i t o r e d v a r i o u s s u b s t a n c e s i n t h e F r a s e r r i v e r a t d i f f e r e n t t i m e s a n d p l a c e s . * H a l l , K . J . a n d F . A . K o c h , I . Y e s a k i . F u r t h e r I n v e s t i g a t i o n s i n t o W a t e r Q u a l i t y C o n d i t i o n s i n t h e  L o w e r F r a s e r R i v e r S y s t e m . T e c h n i c a l R e p o r t # 4 . W e s t w a t e r R e s e a r c h C e n t r e , V a n c o u v e r , 1 9 7 4 . T h i s r e p o r t a l s o c o n t a i n s t h e i n f o r m a t i o n s u g g e s t i v e o f t h e i d e a s t h a t (1) s p e c i f i c t o x i c p o l l u t a n t s a r e a m a j o r p r o b l e m f o r w a t e r q u a l i t y management i n t h e L o w e r F r a s e r r i v e r , ( 2 ) o x y g e n a n d n u t r i e n t s a r e n o t a p r o b l e m , ( 3 ) p a t h o g e n i c o r g a n i s m s a r e a p o t e n t i a l p r o b l e m - w i t h o u t c h l o r i n a t i o n o f d o m e s t i c e f f l u e n t , ( 4 ) no r e a l n e e d f o r s e c o n d a r y t r e a t m e n t a l o n g c o n v e n t i o n a l l i n e s . * * C a n a d a . D e p t . o f t h e E n v i r o n m e n t , I n l a n d W a t e r s B r a n c h . G u i d e l i n e s f o r W a t e r Q u a l i t y O b j e c t i v e s a n d S t a n d a r d s . T e c h n i c a l B u l l e t i n N o . 6 7 . D e p t . o f E n v i r o n m e n t , 1 9 7 2 . TABLE 3. RESULTS OF THE PRELIMINARY QUESTIONNAIRE NUMBERS OF RESPONDENTS TO PRELIMINARY QUESTIONNAIRE, BY FIELD OF SPECIALIST TRAINING PLANNERS - Total 15 6 Natural Resources 3 Statistics 2 Architecture 1 Engineering 1 Psychology 1 Transport 1 Sociology PUBLIC HEALTH RESEARCH - Total 7 4 Physician 1 Air Pollution Resource 2 General Research WATER QUALITY RESEARCH - Total 7 2 Economics 1 Political Science 1 Biology 1 Chemistry 1 Engineering 1 Soil Science LIST OF 'THINGS THAT DETERMINE WATER QUALITY', SUMMARISING THE PERCEPTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS Number of Responses Things 25 TURBIDITY 22 FLOATING SOLIDS (All) 21 DISSOLVED POISONS (All) 18 DISSOLVED CHEMICALS 16 OXYGEN 16 SMELL 15 GENERAL DEBRIS 15 LIVING ORGANISMS - macro scale 15 LIVING ORGANISMS - micro scale 14 BACTERIA 12 TEMPERATURE 12 TASTE 11 FISH 11 DISSOLVED METALS 11 COLOUR 9 PCB's, PESTICIDES, CHLORINATED HYDROCARBONS 8 ALGAE 8 NUTRIENTS 6 LOGS AND DEADHEADS 6 IMMEDIATE SURROUNDINGS OF WATER BODY 5 SOAPSUDS, SCUM, FROTH 5 PH VALUE 46 Check Upon Comprehensiveness of Elements Used in the Grid Figure 1 shows the 18 elements provided in the grid and the two spaces left for respondents to add two extra elements. • These two spaces allow the respondents to express any personal ideas not accounted for by the 18 elements provided. Elements cannot be chosen in isolation. It is necessary to make some hypotheses about the constructs likely to be elicited in relation to the elements chosen. Therefore, in the preliminary, unstructured request, respondents were asked to supply a corresponding l i s t of 'ways' in which the 'things' they had named operated. The l i s t is recorded down the left hand side of Figure 4. Triadic Sorting Procedure Constructs are elicited by a triadic sorting procedure. The elements are grouped into threes, either by the research designer or the respondent. In this case nine out of twelve groups were prearranged. (Figure 1 shows how the groups are laid out on the grid presented to the respondent.) At the interview the respondent is asked to explain the MOST IMPORTANT way in which two of the three elements are alike and different from the third element. A respondent may have several constructs in mind with regard to any one set of elements. The fact that he distinguishes between elements and records the most important of his constructs means that a sorting procedure has been undertaken and that his preferred con-struct is recorded. Figure 4 summarises the nine prearranged sorts along the top of the diagram. The number of elements chosen and the number of ways in which these were sorted was limited by: (1) the desired length of the interview schedule, (2) the research hypotheses, (3) the evidence obtained from the 47 unstructured request was also taken into account, the number of 'ways' and 'things' which occurred frequently was quite limited. METHODOLOGICAL REASONS FOR THE CHOICE OF SORTS The most important consideration was that each sort should allow for a large variety of potential responses. Figure 4 illustrates how many different constructs could be elicited by each sort. This was ascertained partly from the response to the unstructured request, and from preliminary testing of the grid on 10 planning students. A secondary consideration was to ensure that constructs obtained could be related to the planning issues and case study under consideration. For example, the sort debris, chlorine, colour - gives respondents an opportunity to comment upon the chlorine issue; the sort - heavy metals, fish, water hardness - on the problem of synergistic effects; the sort -heavy metals, logs and deadheads, pesticides - on the problem of elements which accumulate in the food chain. Figure 4 also illustrates the fact that an equal opportunity was provided for respondents to indicate their preference for natural order, utilitarian, systems or technical specialist thinking. Finally, only nine of the triads were prearranged, three oppor-tunities being left for respondents to make their own sorts before providing their three final constructs. This was intended to provide a check on whether the prearrangement of sorts had limited the variety of constructs elicited by restricting the expression of personal idiosyncracies. F i g u r e 4 . C o n s t r u c t s E x p e c t e d i n R e s p o n s e t o t h e P r e a r r a n g e d S o r t s 48 CONSTRUCT - v a r i a t i o n s on t h e s e g e n e r a l SORTS themes f o r c o n s t r u c t s a r e e x p e c t e d . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ( 1 ) NATURAL ORDER THINKING Harms l i f e - n o t $ 0 / (/) L7J- . (/) ( / ) T o x i c t o l i f e - n o t 0 0 V • 7 Food f o r w i l d l i f e - n o t (/) L i v i n g - i n e r t / / / • V . Man made - n a t u r a l / . ' • 0 ( • ) 0 • / •:. (/) B i o d e g r a d a b l e - n o t • (2) U T I L I T A R I A N THINKING Of e c o n o m i c v a l u e - n o t / • Harms f i s h e r y - n o t / / • • • • / / Harms n a v i g a t i o n - n o t • A e s t h e t i c p r o b l e m - n o t • V ( / ) • ' (/) / S e e n - u n s e e n 0 • / • • (/) / / -P o l l u t a n t - n o t / • / / / A • / H e a l t h h a z a r d - n o t / V / / • • / U s e f u l - n o t / / / / (3) SYSTEMS THINKING a . E c o l o q i c a l B a l a n c e D i s t u r b s e c o l o g y - n o t / , , / , / / / / A c c u m u l a t e s i n f o o d c h a i n - n o t / / • / / C a u s e s e n t r o p h i c a t i o n - n o t • • • / (/) / (/) S e l f b a l a n c i n g - u n b a l a n c i n g / / • • / / / b . Management - S t r a t e g i c S o u r c e e a s y t o t r a c e - n o t / • / / . • / / / • / E a s y t o c o n t r o l - h a r d t o c o n t r o l / / / / / / • / / D e f i n i t e e f f e c t - i n d e f i n i t e e f f e c t / / / / / • / V . / S h o r t t e r m e f f e c t - l o n g t e r m e f f e c t / / / / / . c . G e n e r a l I n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s . I n t e r d e p e n d e n t - i n d e p e n d e n t • •." • 0). / / / , . \ v D i r e c t l y r e l a t e d - I n d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d (/) / / , • ( / ) • (/) E f f e c t o r - A f f e c t e d (4) TECHNICAL S P E C I A L I S T THINKING T e c h n i c a l i n d i c a t o r w. q . - n o t P h y s i c a l w . q . p a r a m e t e r - n o t S y n e r g i s t i c e f f e c t - n o t Oxygen d e m a n d i n g - n o t D i s i n f e c t a n t - n o t / / / / . / / / (/) / / / / / / / / (/) / / / V / / / / / • / Key t o S o r t s : 1 . Heavy. M e t a l s , L o g s , P e s t i c i d e s ( ) P o s s i b l e 2. T u r b i d i d y , O i l s , C h l o r i n e 3. B a c t e r i a , N u t r i e n t s , P l a n t L i f e E s p e c i a l l y 4 . Heavy M e t a l s , W i l d l i f e , T e m p e r a t u r e 5. D e b r i s , C h l o r i n e , C o l o u r 6 . D i s s o l v e d O x y g e n , N u t r i e n t s , P a t h o g e n s 7 . Heavy M e t a l s , F i s h , W a t e r H a r d n e s s 8. C o l o u r , T e m p e r a t u r e , S m e l l 9 . T u r b i d i t y , B a c t e r i a , F i s h (A 49 4.4 DESIGN OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE The advantages and disadvantages of using the questionnaire technique were considered before proceeding with the design of the questionnaire. The advantages are well summarised by Ker"linger (Kerlinger, 1973) who states that: "The best instrument available for sounding people's behaviour, future intentions, feelings, attitudes and reason for behaviour would seem to be the structured interview coupled with an interview schedule that included open ended, closed and scale items." Criticisms of the questionnaire technique were also taken into account, especially Webb's (Webb, 1966) criticism of using the questionnaire as the sole evidence in a study. He criticises the questionnaire because it is an obtrusive method of eliciting information, limited to use with individuals who are willing to co-operate and hence biased responses may be obtained. Therefore, for this study, a preliminary indication of the management and construing preferences of the potential respondents was obtained unobtrusively by reviewing the literature about the Annacis Island case.* This evidence provides some check upon the responses obtained by the interview and questionnaire technique. It does not however constitute a formal attempt to establish validity as defined by Fisk and Campbell (Fishbein, 1967) as represented in the agreement between two attempts to measure the same trait through different methods. 1. The relative obtrusiveness of using different methods for eliciting information is discussed in Environmental Design Research Association, Proceedings of the Annual Conference, EDRA 5, Vol. 5., University of Wisconsin, 1974, p. 195. 50 There were five major design considerations incorporated into the interview schedule: a. open ended, b. closed, and c. scale items, as recommended by Kerlinger. d. Allowance was made for as much variance as possible to be obtained in the responses, e. Information was elicited on a number of dimensions which could be grouped together in the analysis to form more broadly defined variables. This was an attempt to obtain useful statistical correlations between the variables. It has been shown in studies, about pollution control, which attempted to relate attitudes and behaviour that no statistical measurements of practical significance could be made where i t was attempted to relate specific single acts or dimensions with narrowly defined attitudes. The average correlations obtained between attitude scores and individual acts or dimensions is about 0.3; i.e. accounting for less than 10% of the variance. If the number of behavioural criteria are increased to include even three or four items, chosen to represent different exemplars of some underlying attitude, statistically significant correlations of about 0.7 have been recorded, (i.e. accounting for nearly 50% of the variance and being of some practical significance.) (Sewel, 1970; Friedman and Juhasz, 1974; Moos and Insel, 1974.) Scale Construction Questions concerning how much does a pollutant reduce the value of the river to you? and how much do you think we need to experiment with new ways of treating and disposing of sewage? were to be answered by circling the appropriate number on a scale from 1 to 7, in each case seven being the greatest value. The questions about management preferences and preferred uses for the Fraser river are also scale items in that they involve ranking or rating of a series of alternative suggestions. They 51 do not involve a forced choice between items however (except for the river uses question) as respondents are asked only to rate the suggestions that they agree with and are always given an opportunity to make their own suggestions. In this way i t was hoped to achieve a balance between poten-tial response bias and independence. Forced Choice or Closed Items These are subject to two problems, firstly respondents may resist making very difficult choices, and secondly respondents may be troubled if they cannot ascertain the social desirability of their responses. The repertory grid question was the major question involving forced choices and was to some extent subject to both these problems. Respondents are asked to go through the triadic sorting procedure for the twelve groups of elements, a procedure which is very obtrusive especially when the res-pondent is also asked to decide which is the most important of several constructs he holds about a group of elements. Other direct, closed questions involved requests for factual information about how often the respondent used the river for the purpose he ranked first in importance, how often he noticed the river, how many hours he spent at water related recreational activities, at his job, working with environmental groups, his age and number of children. Open Ended Items Open ended items were included to obtain an overview of the res-pondent's feelings about the most hazardous pollutant in the Fraser river, the way i t acted to harm the environment and the source of the pollutant. These items were placed near the beginning of the questionnaire so that the material contained in later questions would not bias the response. 52 Other open ended items asked the respondent about the type of treatment he preferred at Annacis Island and to explain his opinion about the need to experiment with new ways of treating and disposing of sewage. THE QUESTION OF RESPONSE VARIANCE The basic aim was to achieve a balance between the variety of responses allowed for and the comparability of these responses during the analysis. In order to account for the perceptions of a group of respondents with differing experiential backgrounds several techniques were employed: a. The number of different constructs likely to be elicited by each sort were evaluated and only sorts allowing for more than 10 constructs were used (Figure 4). b. With all questions involving ranking or rating choices an 'other' category was provided to allow respondents an opportunity to express information not accounted for by the categories provided. This technique allows for variance in responses and provides a check upon the compre-hensiveness of the categories provided. The technique was also applied to the repertory grid question where the respondent was asked to contribute two of the elements along the top of the grid and three of the twelve sorts. The use of the 'other' category also provides an outlet during the inter-view process and enables a shorter, more simple interview schedule to be presented to the respondent. THE WORDING OF QUESTIONS This was guided by Kerlinger (Kerlinger, 1973). Care was taken to f i t the type of question to the information i t was desired to obtain and to ensure that the questions were not worded in an ambiguous way. In order 53 to facilitate these objectives the interview schedule was pretested on twelve individuals from the students and staff of the School of Planning. Their advice was then incorporated into the design of the final schedule. THE ORDERING OF QUESTIONS WITHIN THE SCHEDULE This was also guided by Kerlinger. More personal questions about the respondent'^ age, etc. were placed at the end of the schedule to ensure that there had been time for a certain rapport to be built up between the respondent and interviewer. The various questions designed to contribute information to a specific variable were scattered throughout the schedule. For example, questions which would be used to make up the 'vested interest 1 score were located at the beginning (use for the river question), middle (occupation and skills question) and end of the schedule (age and time spent at occupation, water related sports, etc.) This scattering of questions was intended to prevent bias in the responses as i t would be less easy for respondents to evaluate the detailed intentions of the research design. The grid question was placed near the beginning of the schedule so that the information contained in the rest of the schedule would not influence the response obtained. It was also the most difficult question for respondents to complete - i f a respondent refused to complete the grid there would be no need to ask him to complete the rest of the schedule. ADMINISTRATION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE It was necessary to administer the questionnaire by personal interview for four practical reasons: to ensure the questions were understood, tofacilitate the concentration and co-operation required of 54 the respondent, to ensure that the responses were fully understood by the interviewer and that respondents spent a similar amount of time in complet-ing the schedule. 4.5 CHOICE OF THE RESPONDENTS A purposive, non probability sample of individuals actively concerned about the outcome of the Annacis Island sewage treatment decisions was used. This was because only a small number of individuals could be interviewed for the limited purpose of this study. The principle of randomness was not therefore used in the sampling technique although the advantages of the principle in limiting response bias were acknowledged. Kerlinger (Kerlinger, 1973, P. 129) indicates that purposive, non probability samples are used in behavioural research for a variety of reasons. In this case i t was desirable to select a cross section of individuals from the interest groups involved with the Annacis case and it was desirable that these individuals should have a variety of experiential backgrounds - especially levels of technical, specialist training. SIZE OF SAMPLE The interest groups identified as being actively concerned with the outcome of the Annacis sewage treatment decisions include environ-mentalists, the fishing industry and water quality managers. Ten repre-sentatives from each group were required in order to obtain a sample large enough for statistical comparison. The total size of the sample was 30 respondents. 55 CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS The following three characteristics were considered: 1. Respondents must have an interest in the Annacis Island case and be members of either the Fisheries, Water Quality Management or Environmentalist Public Interest group. 2. Respondents must have a variety of academic and occupational experience. 3. Respondents must habitually come into some physical contact with the Fraser river. TABLE 4. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDY POPULATION ENVIRON-TOTAL MENTALISTS FISHERIES MANAGEMENT ACTIVE ROLE 17 6 5 6 GENERAL INTEREST 13 4 5 4 SPECIALIST 14 3 4 7 GENERALIST 12 4 5 3 LAYMAN 4 3 1 — PUBLIC BODIES REP. 9 — 4 5 PRIVATE BODIES REP. 10 5 4 1 RIVER CONTACT: DAILY 5 6 3 WEEKLY 4 2 7 INFREQUENT 1 2 — The first 10 respondents were identified via the case study research because they had been vocal members of one of the three public interest groups or chosen to serve on the technical committee set up in 1975 to research into the secondary treatment question at the Annacis Island plant. The remaining 20 respondents were recommended by individuals involved with the Annacis case. In summary, 57% of respondents were actively involved with the Annacis case and all had demonstrated an interest in its outcome. If the four laymen are added to the generalists approximately a 50/50 mix of specialists v. generalists was obtained. 50% of respondents had some daily physical contact with the river and only 10% had infrequent river contact. 4.6 DATA ANALYSIS PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS The preliminary analysis will provide an evaluation of the questionnaire design and describe the frequency of various responses to the questionnaire which i . elucidate points of interest relating to the case histiory, i i . indicate how respondents think about elements found in the water of the Fraser river. i . The concensus of opinion about the following issues will be described:-a. The most important use for the river, b. the most hazardous pollutant in the river, c. management issues - including: the concensus of opinion about the type of treatment preferred at the Annacis Island plant and how this opinion is related to perceived advantages of secondary treatment over primary treat-ment; the disinfection issue, the separation of storm run off from other sewage before treatment, the separation of toxic industrial wastes from the other sewage before treatment; d. the need to experiment with new ways, of treating and disposing of municipal sewage. i i . The way in which respondents think about elements found in the water of the Fraser river will be ascertained from their responses to the repertory grid question. a. Constructs will be initially categorised according to frequency of occurrence. b. The grid design will be evaluated in relation to the variety and frequency of constructs elicited. SECONDARY ANALYSIS The data provided by the questionnaire will be manipulated for the purpose of testing the experimental hypotheses. This will involve:-a. The creation of standardised scores for different categories of responses. b. Grouping parts of the questionnaire to create the six variables defined on the next page. c. Respondent's scores for the parts of the questionnaire will be added together to provide scores for each variable created. d. Statistical analysis of differences in respondent's scores for the variables will be undertaken. Operational Definition of Experimental Variables Weighting System All weights were allocated on a scale of 1 - 7, the highest numbers indicating the greatest preference for the quality in question. The rationale for using a scaling device was that i t forms a convenient way of summarising data from a variety of questions in terms in 58 which they are comparable (Fishbein, 1967). This enables the researcher to make use of a more subtle and complex definition of the major inter-vening variables under consideration. This has been illustrated (Page 34) in the discussion relating to the definition of 'conservationism' and 'innovation1. With the use of an ordinal scale - such as the ones des-cribed Page 59-67 - the summarised information about the intervening vari-ables can be related to other parts of the research data by the use of a variety of statistical techniques which will enable the first two major hypotheses to be roughly tested. 1. Management preferences - Conservationism and Innovation Conservationism: Conservationism will be measured in relation to the following information:-a. Preferred type of treatment at the Annacis Island plant, a high score indicating a preference for more sophisticated tertiary or secondary treatment. b. Preference for chlorination and dechlorination of the effluent - a high score being given for favouring dechlorination. c. Preferred general management strategy for the Fraser river - a high score being obtained by favouring prevention of certain discharges in the face of lack of information about their effects. d. Preference for disposing of residuals - the highest score being allocated for recycling and the next for storing non biodegradable sub-stances. e. The amount of spare time the respondent allocates to working with environmental groups will also be taken into consideration. 1. What type of treatment do you personally consider to be desirable at Annacis Island? Responses Weight Allocated Possible range 1-7 Tertiary treatment 6 Secondary + source control toxics 5 Secondary + chlorination 4 Secondary + ozonation 5 Secondary 4 Primary + chlorination 3 Primary 2 Non-specific 4 Indirect (research, education) 4 Recycling 6 Innovative suggestion 4 (variable) 2. Do you think i t is important to chlorinate the treated sewage before i t is discharged into the river? YES NO DON'T KNOW Weight 4 3 4 3. If the treated sewage is chlorinated, do you think that dechlorination is also necessary? YES NO DON'T KNOW Weight 5 2 4 4. We continue to study the long term and cumulative effects that certain substances will have upon the river. Which of the following strategies do you think we should employ for the Fraser river? Please rate only those that you agree with, starting with number 1 for the most important strategy. Weight a. Continue to discharge toxic wastes into the river until research has proven their adverse effects 2 b. For certain substances, control their discharge while researching into their effects upon the river. 3 c. Prevent any further discharge of certain substances until we are more certain of their effects upon the river 6 5. How should we dispose of the residuals? Please rate only those suggestions that you agree with for the Fraser river. Weight a. Recycle all possible substances 6 b. Carefully store non biodegradable substances 5 c. Disperse the effluent from a variety of outlets according to local conditions 3 60 6. Amount of spare time spent working with environmental groups - actual number of hours per week will be added to the scores for the other five questions described to create the final score for 'Conservationism'. Innovation: Weights were allocated on a scale of 1 - 7, the highest figure represents the greatest preference for innovation. The parts of the questionnaire which make up this variable include: Weight i f used (a) Use of - other category for uses of the river 7 other category for general strategy for river 7 other category for use of information 7 (b) Which is the best strategy for protecting the waters of the Fraser river from the adverse effects of municipal sewage (domestic and industrial and storm runoff)? Please rate only the strategies you consider desirable. Weight a. Carefully collect all the runoff and sewage into one or two large treatment plants to ensure i t can all receive a minimum standard of treatment 2 b. Separate storm runoff from domestic and industrial sewage before treatment 4 c. Try to stop certain toxic substances, from industry, from mixing with the rest of the sewage and arrange for these toxic wastes to be collected and treated separately 5 d. Try to separate and treat most waste substances at their source, so that expensive sewage systems and treatment plants are less necessary and more substances can be recycled 6 e. Other according to suggestion (c) How should we dispose of residuals? Please rate the following suggestions that you agree with for the river. Weight - release the effluent from one or two outlets, providing that the effluent meets certain minimum standards 1 - Other according to suggestion (d) Weight actual number of hours recorded as working at creative hobbies. 61 (e) How much do you think we need to experiment (research or practical) with new ways of treating and disposing of sewage? Circle the appropriate number on a scale of 1 - 7. (7 being greatly). The actual number scored was recorded. (f) Briefly explain the reasoning behind your last response. Type of Response Weight Allocated Need to apply existing alternative methods, tested elsewhere in the world 6 Need to make processes more economic, via improved technology, etc. 3 General need for improvement 5 Need research into practical recycling 6 Need to put environmental priorities first 5 Need to resolve social basis of the problem and decide upon standards 5 Existing technology well worked out, satisfied 1 No revolutionary new methods available, lack of options 2 (g) Add in actual number of children recorded. Scores from (a) to (g) will be summed to make a final score for innovation. 2. Experiential background Vested interest in the river environment and Informality of conceptual conditioning were measured:-Vested Interest: (Highest score will represent the most interest) 1. We have many uses for the Fraser river. Please rank those listed below in order of importance to you. Do this by numbering the uses from 1 (the most important) to 10. Of the ten uses listed six will be considered indicative of 62 vested interest:-1) Fishing for pleasure 2) Commercial fishing 3) Industrial water supply 4) Industrial waste disposal 5) Domestic waste disposal 6) Navigation The rank allocated to each of these uses by a respondent will be subtracted from 10 (so that the highest number represents the greatest interest). The weighting will also be adjusted to account for the public interest group to which the respondent belongs, as illustrated below: Use 1 2 3 4 5 6 WEIGHT ALLOCATED Group All F M M M F 10 - RANK GIVEN Group - E,M F,E, F,E F,E E,M 10 - RANK GIVEN -4- 2 (Key: E - Environmentalists, F - Fisheries , M - Management) 2. How often do you - personally - use the river for the purpose you ranked first in importance? How often do you notice the river? For each of these questions the respondent was asked to indicate the appropriate frequency listed below to the left, and the weights shown on the right will be allocated for the different frequencies. Weight Allocated Daily 35 Weekly 25 Monthly 20 Twice a year 10 Yearly 5 Never 0 3. What is your occupation? Weight Allocated Food technologist Fisheries mechanic i n Fisheries inspection officer Fisherman 63 Weight Allocated Engineer Scientist 5 Executive Medical Health Officer Teacher Communications 2 Housewife Construction 4. In what fields do you have most skills? Weight Allocated History Public communications 3 Political science Economics Crafts 2 Physical fitness Biology 5 Chemistry Civil engineering Administration Fishing 2 0 Fish packing 5. Is this an accurate statement? Two forms of sewage treatment have been officially recommended for the Annacis Island plant; initially primary treatment plus chlorination and dechlorination of the effluent, and currently - by April 1977 - secondary treatment plus chlorination and dechlorination of the effluent. Weights: YES - 3 NO - 2 DON'T KNOW - 2 6. For the question about hours per week spent in water contact and water related sports - the total number of hours given by the respondent will be added in to the final score. Hours per week spent working at your occupation; for respondents belonging to the Fisheries group the total number of hours recorded will be counted; for all other groups half the number of hours recorded will be counted. 64 7. What is your age? Age Group 21 31 41 51 61 30 40 50 60 70 Weight Allocated 5 4 3 2 1 The scores which each respondent receives for these seven parts of the questionnaire will be added together to create a final score for vested interests. Conditioning: The highest number will represent the least amount of conceptual conditioning by way of formal academic education relative to practical experience in non-academic situations. OCCUPATION Engineer Scientist Medical H.0. Food technologist Executive Teacher Fisheries inspection officer Fisheries mechanic Construction Communications Fisherman Housewife WEIGHT ALLOCATED SKILLS Civil engineering Biology Chemistry History Political science Economics Administration Public communications Fishing Fish packing Building Crafts Physical fitness WEIGHT ALLOCATED For each respondent a number will be allocated for occupation and skills, the two numbers will be added together to give a one digit score for 'Conditioning'. 3. Conceptual preferences - Complexity, Objectivity and Construing preferences Complexity: The numbers allocated on this variable will reflect two features of an individual's response to the questionnaire. a. The total number of different constructs elicited from the individual in response to the grid question. b. The number of items the respondent voluntarily rated in response to questions about choice of information and management strategy preferences. The totals for a. and b. will be added together and the highest scores will be obtained by the respondents who gave the greatest variety of constructs and simultaneously held the greatest number of preferences for the information and management questions. Objectivity: The highest numbers will reflect the greatest preference for thinking objectively. 1. Two of the ten items ranked as most important uses for the river will be weighted. These are viewing for pleasure and symbolical value. In each case the rank allocated by the respondent will be subtracted from 10 so that the highest number reflects the most valued of these uses. 2. What in your opinion would be the.advantage of secondary treatment over primary treatment for the Annacis Island situation? Please rate only those categories which you consider to be advantageous. Weight Allocated It leaves more oxygen in the river 7 It reduces the amount of harmful bacteria entering the river 6 It stops unsightly floating wastes 1 It reduces the quantity of toxic substances entering the river 6 No real advantage 3 66 a 3. There are many recommended ingredients for rational environmental decision making. In the case of substances with uncertain effects upon  the river, which of the following types of information should we rely upon when making decisions? Please rate only those we should rely upon. Weight Allocated Scientific data about the environment 7 Data from public opinion polls 5 Information about the majority concensus of opinion 5 Feeling for the opinions of various publics 4 Feeling for the river environment - 'spirit of place' 2 Feeling for the individual genius of appointed decision makers 2 Weights allocated for the above three questions will be added together to achieve the final score for objectivity. N.B. With questions requiring voluntary ratings of one or more alternatives, the relative rating given to each of the possible responses will be accounted for in the following manner:-Weight Allocated Respondent's Rating Final Score 7 - 0 5 1 3/3x5=5 4 2 2/3 x 4 = 2.66 3 3 1/3x3=1 This manipulation will therefore apply to scores allocated for Conservation-ism, Innovation and Objectivity. Construing preferences: The constructs elicited from each respondent will be categorised under the following headings which describe 'types of thinking 1. Number Allocated Natural order thinking 1 Utilitarian thinking 2 Ecological systems thinking 3 Management strategic thinking 4 General systems thinking 5 Technical specialist thinking 6 The number of constructs falling into each category will be added together to create a final score for each type of thinking. PART III DISCUSSION OF THE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Responses to the three general questions about the source and action of the most hazardous pollutant in the Fraser river will also be classified as 'types of thinking' as outlined below, and added to the total number of constructs elicited in each category of thinking. What do you consider to be the most hazardous pollutant in the river? Number Allocated Non-specific Industrial and/or domestic sewage Toxic substances Chemicals Organics and/or bacteria Heavy metals Forest debris/logs Land f i l l / s i l t How does this pollutant act to harm the river? Response Affect l i f e Destroy fish and habitat Toxic (to life) Harm recreation Harm navigation Destroy ecological balance Concentrate in food chain Reduce water quality (specific or non-specific) (c.f. 'type of thinking') 5 2 1 6 6 6 2 2 Number Allocated (c.f. 'type of thinking') 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 5 What is the source of this pollutant? Response Non-specific Domestic and/or industry Sewage treatment system Agriculture Logging Chemical plants Metal finishing industries Number Allocated (c.f. 'type of thinking') 5 2 4 2 2 6 6 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Statistical analysis of scores on the variables defined above: 1. The variables created in the secondary analysis are ordinal in character, therefore Goodman and Kruskal's coefficient of rank association will be used to help determine the degree to which an individual's position or rank in one of the variables is predictable from his rank on another (coefficient gamma). 2. Public interest group membership is a nominal variable which must be compared with the other variables to test hypothesis 2. In this case Freeman's coefficient of determination was used and the chi square statistic to test the significance of the coefficient theta (Bjerring J., J. Campbell, J. Helm, R. Morley, 1974). Chapter 5 RESULTS 5.1 THE CONCENSUS ABOUT THE FRASER RIVER AND THE ANNACIS ISLAND PLANT A. CONSENSUS ABOUT THE MOST IMPORTANT USES FOR THE FRASER RIVER A polluted body of water has been defined as one which contains materials that adversely affect its usefulness. (G.V.R.D., Feb. 1973, Part III). Much of the controversy over the collection, treatment and disposal of municipal wastes into the lower Fraser river has arisen because the river is designated as a multiple use resource. A consideration of the most important uses for the river must be a focal point from which to discuss both an individual's way of thinking about pollutants and his preferred management strategies. Figure 5 shows the concensus of opinion of the thirty respondents about the most important uses for the Fraser river. FIGURE 5. COMBINED VALUATION OF USES FOR THE FRASER RIVER ro •p-o s-<u EE E O ro +-> .5 <0 o CU •!-4- -M •r- ro i — cn -o ••-r— > • r - ro cu S-10 ro CU s-o 4— CT) e ro •— to i — ro O Q_ to a. CU CL O to S- Z1 CL •i— rj co tO Q to • r— ro s- CU Q CU CU cu Z3 +-> i — +-> i — CU 00 Q_ ro ro +-> ro > to 3 S- (0 o i — i — i — to 4- ro ra ra CU •r— o :o to cn S- • 1— •i— s-c 4-> 1 — -t-> +-> •1— to o to to S-JD cu <u cu -a E E X >*, o £ +-> > i—» co Q I— o t 1 < * i 1 ' 1 1 1 1 1 o 1 1 1 o r o LO IN CM Most Valued Use Least Valued Use 69 70 Their opinions have been arranged along an ordinal scale which reflects a more precise relationship between their valuation of uses than a simple listing in order of priority. (The scale scores were derived by adding up the rank scores each respondent allocated to each of the ten categories of uses in turn.) Figure 5 shows that commercial fishing is considered to be the most important use for the river. There was also a clear agreement about the second and third most important uses for the river for purposes of wildlife habitat and navigation. These uses were ranked quite closely in importance and are both activities which support commercial fishing. Fishing for pleasure - the fourth most important use - is also compatible with commercial fishing, wildlife habitat and navigation. The emphasis on commercial fishing is to be expected as respon-dents were chosen from three public interest groups with interests in environmental quality, commercial fishing and water quality management. Figure 6 illustrates the differences among the groups valuation of uses for the river. The Management Group The management group expressed the most distinctive differences of opinion. They placed greater importance upon the use of the river for domestic and industrial waste disposal than for industrial water supply or the more esoteric uses of viewing for pleasure and symbolical value. Many of the respondents from the management group are responsible for domestic and industrial waste disposal and these results suggest that their occupational role may be related to their personal valuation system. 71 F I G U R E 6 . D I F F E R E N C E AMONG I N T E R E S T GROUP V A L U A T I O N S OF U S E S FOR THE F R A S E R R I V E R C o m b i n e d V a l u a t i o n o f U s e s ( 1 ) C o m m e r c i a l F i s h i n g M o s t V a l u e d U s e G r o u p V a l u a t i o n o f U s e s ( 2 ) W i l d l i f e H a b i t a t (3) N a v i g a t i o n : ( 4 ) F i s h i n g f o r P l e a s u r e ( 5 ) V i e w i n g f o r P l e a s u r e ( 6 ) I n d u s t r i a l W a t e r S u p p l y ( 7 ) S y m b o l i c a l V a l u e (8) D o m e s t i c W a s t e D i s p o s a l ( 9 ) I n d u s t r i a l W a s t e D i s p o s a l ( 1 0 ) O t h e r K e y : 180-16 cr C o m m e r c i a l F i s h i n g 4 W i l d l i f e H a b i t a t N a v i g a t i o n F i s h i n g f o r P l e a s u r e . D o m e s t i c W a s t e D i s p o s a l V i e w i n g f o r P l e a s u r e I n d u s t r i a l W a t e r S u p p l y I n d u s t r i a l W a s t e D i s p o s a l V i e w i n g f o r P l e a s u r e S y m b o l i c a l V a l u e I n d u s t r i a l W a t e r S u p p l y V i e w i n g f o r P l e a s u r e I n d u s t r i a l w a t e r S u p p l y S y m b o l i c a l V a l u e D o m e s t i c W a s t e D i s p o s a l S y m b o l i c a l V a l u e O t h e r 270J-9Q I n d u s t r i a l W a s t e D i s p o s a l O t h e r D o m e s t i c W a s t e D i s p o s a l O t h e r I n d u s t r i a l W a s t e D i s p o s a l C o m b i n e d S c o r e E n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t s 3 F i s h i n g I n d u s t r y W a t e r M a n a g e m e n t . •- 3 / . ' L e a s t V a l u e d U s e N o t e : T h e s c a l e o n t h e r i g h t h a s b e e n a d j u s t e d t o c o r r e s p o n d w i t h t h e s c a l e o n t h e l e f t . 72 The Fisheries Group The fisheries group presented a logical ordering of uses accord-ing to the likelihood of these uses interfering with commercial fishing, hence domestic and industrial waste disposal are seen as least desirable uses. The Environmentalist Group The environmentalist group expressed the strongest objection to using the water resource as a means of waste disposal. This group was also less 'utilitarian' and placed a higher value on the two more esoteric pursuits (viewing and symbolical value). Finally, the environmental group expressed most of the alternative suggestions for uses of the river. Fifty percent of the group made alternative suggestions (as opposed to a thirty percent figure for the total population). Recreational uses for the river were mentioned in four of the five alternative suggestions as well as the case study literature. Use of 'Other' Category Sixty percent of respondents did not make 'use' suggestions in the 'other' category. This fact suggests that the l i s t of uses provided contained most of the significant uses these respondents perceive for the river. Two specific recreational uses were included in the l i s t provided, however six of the ten respondents who made alternative suggestions were concerned to emphasise other recreational uses, especially boating. 'Other' suggested uses were irrigation, electrical power, land creation and sand for industry. 73 B. CONCENSUS ABOUT THE MOST HAZARDOUS POLLUTANTS IN THE FRASER RIVER AND THEIR SOURCES AND ACTION Industrial and domestic sewage was considered the most hazardous source of pollution in the river. Table 5 contains a l i s t of substances specifically mentioned. Heavy metals and toxic substances were the most commonly perceived hazard. TABLE 5. CONCENSUS ABOUT THE MOST HAZARDOUS POLLUTANTS IN THE FRASER RIVER Number of Similar Responses 6 5 4 3 3 2 2 Pollutant Industrial Wastes Heavy Metals Toxic Substances Domestic Wastes Industrial and Domestic Wastes Forest and Log Debris Chemicals Land Fi l l and Dredging Bacteria Chlorinated Organisms Organic Wastes General Total 30 Respondents The concensus about the most hazardous pollutants reflects the concern to protect the l i f e in the river. 80% of respondents were primarily concerned that the pollutants would harm the li f e in the river. This figure includes all of the environmentalists and 70% of the fisheries and management groups. Over 50% of respondents mentioned a concern for fish and wild-li f e and 28% mentioned a concern for the ecological balance of the river, especially the problem of toxics accumulating in the food chain. 74 C. CONCENSUS ABOUT MANAGEMENT ISSUES a. Type of Treatment Desired at the Annacis Island Plant Since 1972 the focal issue of the Annacis Island case history has been the G.V.S. & D.D. appeals against the Pollution Control Board policy requiring secondary treatment prior to discharge of sewage from the Annacis Plant into the Fraser River. Figure 7 shows that over 70% of respondents questioned were in favour of secondary treatment at Annacis Island plant, although only 50% of the management group are included in this number. All respondents (except one) who did not favour secondary treatment said that i t had no real advantage over primary treatment. FIGURE 7. TYPES OF SEWAGE TREATMENT FAVOURED AT ANNACIS ISLAND Number of Respondents 12 10 8 6 • • • • .• , • OOOOOOJOOOO i+ ooooooooooo 2 COCO CO COCO CO woooo 606066 0 >> '. >> s- 03 >> 03 -o s-• I— 03 S-+-> o _E cu s- o OJ CD S- +J \— CO Q_ 0 Key.: cocooo cocooococo Public Interest Groups Fisheries Environmentalists Management 75 Table 6 shows the percentage of respondents perceiving various advantages of secondary treatment over primary treatment. TABLE 6. PERCEIVED ADVANTAGESOF SECONDARY TREATMENT OVER PRIMARY TREATMENT Advantage Percentage Reduce toxics entering river 70% Reduce oxygen demand on river 66% Reduce bacteria entering river 53% Reduce floating wastes in river 43% No advantage 20% Other 23% (N.B. Figures may total more than 100% since each respondent could suggest more than one advantage.) It was found that nearly all of those favouring secondary treat-ment perceived two advantages, i t was a means (direct or indirect) of controlling toxics entering the river and of reducing oxygen demand on the river. Fifty percent of those favouring secondary treatment also saw i t as a way of reducing the load of bacteria entering the river. 76 FIGURE 8. PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS IN EACH GROUP FAVOURING SECONDARY  TREATMENT v. PERCENTAGE PERCEIVING A REDUCTION IN TOXICITY, BACTERIA COUNTS AND OXYGEN DEMAND AS ADVANTAGES OF SECONDARY TREATMENT 1 0 0 % Favouring secondary treatment by group 5 0 L A M B 0 T LU LH LH Key.: A al T B 0 Environmental ists Fisheries Management Toxicity Bacteria Oxygen Demand 5 0 1 0 0 % perceiving advantages - by group (Note reduction in oxygen demand not regarded as an important pollution issue by the management group.) This summary helps to explain the disagreement about the value of secondary treatment and is one point to add to the discussion about the type of secondary treatment required at Annacis Island. b. The Disinfection Issue In response to a question about the type of treatment preferred at the Annacis Island plant 25% of respondents voluntarily mentioned a desire for disinfection of sewage before i t entered the river. In response to a question about the advantages of secondary treatment over primary treatment 50% of respondents said that a reduction in the number of bacteria entering the river would be advantageous. 77 Two questions were asked about the desirability of chlorinating and dechlorinating the effluent. 50% of respondents again said they favoured both measures. One respondent who favoured chlorination was undecided about the value of dechlorination and ten respondents who favoured dechlorination, i f chlorination was employed, were undecided about the value of chlorination. All public interest groups showed a range of opinions over the chlorination issue and the fisheries and environmentalist groups confessed to some ignorance over the technicalities of the issue. (N.B. Some respondents answered the question on chlorination as i f i t was an opportunity to express their opinion about the general need for disinfection of effluent and therefore the results may indicate a higher preference for the use of chlorination than intended by the respondents.) No direct information was elicited about alternative methods of disinfection although the management and fisheries groups both recorded some preference for ozonation and ultra violet radiation. (This was further validated in the literature reviewed for the case history.) c. The Issue of Separating Storm Runoff and Industrial Toxic Wastes  Before Treatment Ninety percent of respondents favoured the separation of industrial toxic wastes at source. The management group especially stressed this strategy, 70% of the group rated i t as a first choice among several strategies grouped together in the questionnaire. Just under sixty percent of respondents favoured the separation of storm runoff from other domestic and industrial sewage in the collection system and the group responses were fairly equal on this issue. 78 The case study literature reviewed suggested that a more equal response would be obtained on these two issues. It is possible that the interest in controlling toxic wastes was heightened by the recent publicity which this issue has received in research by organisations such as Westwater Research. d. The Issue of Experimenting with New Ways of Collecting, Treating  and Disposing of Municipal Sewage Over eighty percent of respondents felt there was a great need to experiment and they gave a variety of reasons. These were - in order of popularity: The need to use alternative technologies proven elsewhere (25%) (especially environment and fisheries groups). The need to improve economic and technical efficiency (15%) (especially management group). The need to make environmental quality a priority concern (12%). The need to recycle, resolve the social basis of the problem and non-specific (10% each). Only two respondents felt there was no need to experiment, one of these was satisfied with the existing technology and the other felt there were no revolutionary options available. The management group expressed the least desire to experiment. 60% of the management group indicated a strong desire for experimentation compared to 90% for the other two groups. Such a response may reflect the fact that those responsible for the current management situation have a stronger vested interest in the status quo. 79 5.2 INTERPRETATIONS OF THE FRASER RIVER ENVIRONMENT This chapter includes a factual report about the frequency with which constructs were used and a critique of the grid design in the light of the response received. A. SUMMARY OF CONSTRUCTS ELICITED Seventy-five different constructs were elicited from the thirty respondents. The environmental group produced forty-three Of these, the fisheries group thirty-nine and the management group thirty-four. The constructs most frequently used by all groups are listed in Table 7, which contains seventy-six percent of all constructs elicited. The remaining twenty-four percent of constructs tended to be used exclusively by one individual or interest group and fall into the categories of technical specialist and ecological systems thinking. The eight most frequently used constructs are as follows: 1. Living - Inert This construct was used 41 times. It was the most frequent distinction made by members of the management group (used 19 times) and the environmentalists group (used 13 times). It was the fourth most frequently used construct by the fisheries group. 2. Man Made - Natural 3. Effector - Affected 4. Harms Life - Not These three constructs were used on average 26 times by each group. They are distinctive because of their universal frequency of use. 8 0 TABLE 7 . SUMMARY OF CONSTRUCTS E L I C I T E D TOTAL TIMES USED SORTS T y p e o f T h i n k i n g ( u s e d m o r e C o n s t r u c t s - t h a n f i v e t i m e s ) O v e r -a l l G E. '"OU F. : s M. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ( 1 ) L i v i n g - I n e r t 41 13 9 19 1 6 5 8 7 14 ( 2 ) Man Made - N a t u r a l 27 7 6 14 2 9 3 4 1 2 2 1 2 1 ( 4 ) Harms L i f e - N o t 25 8 11 6 2 2 4 13 2 2 ( 6 ) CC LU T o x i c t o L i f e - N o t 15 1 8 6 5 4 1 1 1 3 ( 9 ) Q OL O Harms F i s h - N o t /"in 10 3 1 6 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 -1 1 -( 1 2 ) _ l <c Needed by L i f e - N o t 9 3 4 2 7 1 1 ( 1 4 ) ce r3 I— Harms U s e by L i f e - N o t ;"•-•nr..\ 7 2 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 (17) <. Food f o r W i l d l i f e - N o t 6 4 2 5 1 ( 7 ) • B e n e f i c i a l - H a r m f u l 12 4 5 3 1 1 2 3 1 2 2 ( 8 ) S e e n - U n s e e n 11 4 5 2 3 1 1 4 1 1 ( 1 3 ) U s e r - U s e d 8 4 1 3 5 I 2 ( 1 4 ) CC 1— P o l l u t a n t - N o t 7 6 1 2 1 1 2 1 (17) 1—1 1 Harms N a v i g a t i o n - N o t 6 1 3 2 1 3 2 ( 2 0 ) t— ZD A f f e c t s A e s t h e t i c V a l u e - N o t 5 3 2 3 1 1 (17) M u s t be S t a b i l i s e d - N o t 6 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ( 2 0 ) 03 c n OJ S U E E x c e s s i v e - L a c k i n g 5 3 2 3 2 ( 2 0 ) ^ — I C o n c e n t r a t e i n F o o d C h a i n - N o t 5. 5 4 1 (5) a I n t e r - R e l a t e d - N o t 18 3 11 4 2 3 2 2 1 5 1 2 ( 3 ) s E f f e c t o r - A f f e c t e d 26 10 11 5 8 1 6 4 4 2 1 ( 9 ) < S o l u b l e - I n s o l u b l e 10 2 2 6 2 3 2 1 1 1 ( 9 ) 2: z c I n t e r r e l a t e d ( T e c h n i c a l ) - N o t 10 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ( 1 4 ) UJ h- C h e m i c a l P o l l u t a n t - P h y s i c a l 7 2 1 4 4 1 2 T o t a l Number C o n s t r u c t s E l i c i t e d : 276 87 91 98 (N.f O v e r a l l T o t a l . N u m b e r was 360) The t a b l e a c c o u n t s f o r 76% o f a l l c o n s t r u c t s e l i c i t e d . ^Key t o S o r t s : 1 . 2 . 3. 4 . 5. 6. • 7. 8. : •• 9 . 1 0 - 1 2 . Heavy M e t a l s , L o g s , P e s t i c i d e s T u r b i d i t y , O i l s , C h l o r i n e B a c t e r i a , N u t r i e n t s , P l a n t L i f e H e a v y M e t a l s , W i l d l i f e , T e m p e r a t u r e D e b r i s , C h l o r i n e , C o l o u r D i s s o l v e d O x y g e n , N u t r i e n t s , P a t h o g e n s Heavy M e t a l s , F i s h , W a t e r H a r d n e s s C o l o u r , T e m p e r a t u r e , S m e l l T u r b i d i t y , B a c t e r i a , F i s h C h o s e n by R e s p o n d e n t s E. E n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t F. F i s h e r i e s M. Management 81 There were some group differences: a. The management group made the man-made natural distinction most frequently,(14 times in all ) . b. The fisheries group favoured the harms lif e construct (using i t 11 times). c. The fisheries and environmental groups used the general systems relationship of effector - affected 11 and 10 times respectively; c f . five times by the management group. 5. Interrelated - Not Occurred 18 times and was used most often by the fisheries group (11 times). A non-specific, general systems relationship being favoured by these respondents. 6. Toxic to Life - Not This construct was used 15 times, especially by the fisheries and management groups. 7. Beneficial - Harmful 8. Seen - Unseen These constructs were fairly equally favoured by all groups (used 12 and 11 times respectively) and are distinguished from the remaining less frequently used constructs by their universal popularity as a way of thinking about things found in the water of the Fraser river, and the fact that they are distinctive ways of construing about the elements found in the water. The next most popular constructs, soluble/insoluble, harms fish/ not, and technically related/not can be considered as more objective or 82 specialised versions of one of the above eight constructs. a. The 'soluble-insoluble' construct is related to the 'seen-unseen' construct from the water quality management perspective. To distinguish an element as insoluble rather than as seen is a more objective and specialised way of thinking about that element but i t is probable that within the context of the subject matter of this questionnaire, the respondents were concerned with the same management problems of identifying and removing less obvious pollutants and the danger of giving less priority to such pollutants. This idea is supported by the fact that both constructs appeared in response to the same five sorts (1, 2, 5, 10, 11 Table 7). b. The construct 'harms fish - not' can be regarded as a more specialised version of the construct 'harms li f e - not'. Both of these constructs were used in response to six of the same sorts (1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 11 Table 7). c. The constructs describing specific technical interrelationships between two elements can be regarded as more specialised and objective forms of the construct 'interrelated - not' and they were used for six of the same sorts (3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10 Table 7). As constructs distinguish the way in which two elements are related the non-specific construct 'interrelated - not' is not particularly informative and may indicate that respondents lack specific information about the elements being compared. The fisheries group used the construct 'interrelated - not' most frequently, eleven times in total. B. CATEGORISATION OF CONSTRUCTS The most frequently used constructs were categorised into six types of thinking thought likely to affect water quality management prefer-ences. The types of thinking, 1isted in Table 8, include generalised ways 83 of conceptualising about elements of the environment; i.e. natural order, utilitarian and general systems thinking and more specialised ways of thinking; i.e. ecological systems thinking, management systems thinking and technical specialist thinking. TABLE 8. DISTRIBUTION OF CONSTRUCTS WITHIN EACH CATEGORY OF THINKING Total Total Times No. Used Total Number Average Number Type of Thinking Con- by Groups of Times Used of Times Used structs E. F. M. All Groups 1 Natural Order 11 48 49 55 152 14 2 Utilitarian 18 23 23 20 66 4 3 Ecological ) ( 10 11) 3) 1) 15 1.5 ) 4 Management ) SYSTEMS 27 ( 9 11 £ 6]£. 5p> 22 2.5 ) 3+ ) ( ) ) ) ) 5 General ) ( 8 17) 26) 10) 53 6.5 ) 6 Technical Specialist 18 (12) (12) (28) 52 3-a. Natural Order Thinking Natural order constructs occurred twice as frequently as all other types of thinking. Natural order thinking was also represented by the greatest variety of constructs, eleven in a l l . The general construct 'harms l i f e - not' together with several constructs describing specific ways of harming or helping li f e occurred most frequently of all - 72 times. 'Living - inert' and 'man-made - natural' were the next most commonly used constructs. It is unlikely that natural order thinking will account for a significant amount of the variance in management preferences because all three groups similarly emphasised these constructs. b. Systems Thinking The three types of systems thinking, when added together, formed the second most popular way of thinking about elements found in the water. General systems thinking was most frequently engaged in, the most common distinction 'affected - effector', made a non-specific distinction between elements which either affect or are affected by the third element. Systems thinking was useful in distinguishing the groups. The fisheries group showed a marked preference for general systems thinking. The environmentalist group used ecological systems thinking four times as frequently as the other groups and management systems thinking twice as frequently. A variety of ecological and management constructs were elicited. Elements were distinguished according to whether they concentrated in the food chain or not, whether the quantities of these elements in the water must be stabilised or could be allowed to increase, whether elements could be distinguished on the basis of how difficult they were to control in relation to locating their source or monitoring their dispersion. c. Technical Specialist Thinking This category was also useful in distinguishing between the public interest groups. The management group used technical specialist constructs twice as frequently as the other groups. Technical specialist thinking included a large variety of constructs - 18 in all - which were used only three times each. The management group therefore preferred to distinguish elements as chemical or physical, soluble v. insoluble or in terms of other objective properties rather than in terms of systems relationships. d. Utilitarian Thinking Eighteen constructs fell into this category and were used fairly frequently - on average four times each - the potentially large number of uses for the water resource may account for the variety of 'utilitarian' constructs. The two most frequently used 'utilitarian' constructs were 'beneficial - harmful' and 'seen - unseen', both rather generalised distinctions between elements and often suggesting a subjective appraisal of the similarities and differences between elements. In Summary Three public interest groups were distinguished most clearly by technical specialist, ecological systems and management systems thinking. These three categories of thinking involving specialised, objective conceptualising processes and were more precisely defined and consisted of narrower concepts than utilitarian, natural order and general systems thinking. Technical specialist, ecological systems and management systems thinking may account for more variance in management preferences. However the popular, less differentiated ways of thinking about the environment must also be reflected in the achievement of a status quo. 86 C. ANALYSIS OF THE GRID DESIGN TABLE 9. ELEMENTS DISTINGUISHED FROM SORTS SORTS 1 2 3 4 5 = 6 m 7 8 9 10 11 12 y±f O l to >> to t o CO X to CU ro 1— . i — CU o i — c •r— rO CO r e S- 03 T 3 s-4-> CU 4-> 3 " D to +-> S- ai CU T 3 CU CU +-> CU +-> CU n3 + J s: - r - E s: ro > C s: nz u CJ ' r - S- CO S- i — CU s- ro >>••- s- >> CU • i - 3 O - i - >> s- 3 c— CO > +-> co O C CU > o. s- o CO S - > CU O r — rO CO t — i — - ra 4— r a B .a I — CO +-> rO 4-> r — CU I— t o <U CU • r - JZ I • CU CU CU o • r - - 3 CU ra O E r — C l - o o • C 1— Q O Q Z o cn ra t o t o CU •r— CU S- s- X> CU l O >> CU CO to 3 >> S - 4 -Element Most •o ra •r— 4-> +-> o c CU 4 - CU c - E CU + J rO -l-> CU 4 - ro T -:c _ i CU 4 -Often Distin- o 3 CU •a ro CU CO • ! - , • r— s- c n o S-cu " O •r— , • r -guished as CO " O c n ra i . S-1 — + J •a o I—• +-> to Q -B - Q S- 1 CU £= 4-> r a -a Di fferent O CU 1 Q I — =5 < o rO CL. U - CU 1— 3 I— 5 (0 • — 3 Q . 3 Number of Respondents Distinguish- 28 24 12 22 14 25 24 27 27 5 4 4 ing this Element Percentage of Constructs Used by Five or More 78 73 50 60 70 55 50 83 54 66 58 54 People in Response to this Sort Elements Table 9 shows which elements were most often distinguished as different for each sort in turn and the number of respondents distinguishing this element. The two sorts showing most variation in choice of elements were the sorts plant l i f e , all bacteria, nutrients and chlorine, colour, debris. It was observed during interview that these sorts involved difficult choices for many respondents. The number of different constructs elicited by these sorts was average for the group (16 and 17) and very near to the number predicted (17). The elements making up the sorts colour, temper-ature, smell and all bacteria, fish,turbidity offered considerable potential choice and less variety of constructs were elicited than predicted (6 and 13 elicited, 15 and 21 predicted). For the sort colour, temperature, smell, all (but one) of the constructs elicited was used by five or more people whereas for the sort bacteria, fish, turbidity and plant l i f e , bacteria, nutrients over half of the different constructs elicited were used by only one or two individuals. There does not seem to be a relationship between the difficulty of sorting out the distinctive element and the variety or idiosyncratic nature of the constructs elicited. Each respondent was forced to think of two extra elements to complete the grid. The elements so elicited were categorised into four groups as follows: Number of Times Elicited Environ- Manage-Total mentalists ment Fisheries 1. Those concerned with man's developments and activities on the river 2. Those concerned with the physical characteristics of the river 3. Pollutants; e.g. synthetics, toxics, organics 4. Natural l i f e ; e.g. weeds, birds, etc. 15 29 12 4 7 3 4 11 6 11 3 The environmentalist group produced the greatest variety of elements which is in keeping with their varied pattern of response to most of the questionnaire. Both the environmentalists and fisheries group tended to 88 include elements which were visible components of the river environment whereas the management group emphasised pollutants and water quality characteristics which have to be measured; i.e. are perceived more indirectly. This point could be related to the fact that the management group actually see the river on average only about half as often as the other two groups, environmentalists collectively notice the river 2358 times per year fisheries group collectively notice the river 2308 times per year management group collectively notice the river 1459 times per year and that their jobs are more concerned with such indirectly perceived elements of the river environment. Sorts Table 10 shows the categories of constructs elicited by sorts. For most sorts about one third less constructs were elicited than predicted, 2/3 less for the sort colour, temperature, smell. The three sorts designed by the respondents produced the greatest variety of constructs as predicted. The percentage of idiosyncratic constructs produced by these sorts was 40% compared to the overall average of 25%. The sort colour, temperature, smell produced the least variety of constructs all of which were classified as natural order thinking. All of the other prearranged sorts produced five or six types of construct -except for sort oils, chlorine, turbidity which produced four. The predesigned sorts produced some restrictions in the variety of responses elicited but the grid design overall can be regarded as satisfactory in that i t produced the predicted number and variety of constructs. TABLE 10. CATEGORIES OF CONSTRUCTS ELICITED BY SORTS SORTS Types of Thinking 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Natural Order 6 5 2 5 5 7 4 6 2 4 7 5 Utilitarian 1 2 4 1 4 4 2 0 3 5 7 9 Ecological ) Management j Systems General ) 1 2 2 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 1 2 1 2 0 1 2 2 2 0 0 4 3. 2 1 4 0 3 2 2 2 Technical Specialist 3 6 3 4 3 3 4 0 2 5 5 4 Total Types of Construct/Sort 5 4 6 6 6 6 5 1 6 5 6 5 Key to Sorts: 1. Heavy Metals, Pesticides, Logs and Deadheads 2. Oils, Chlorine, Turbidity 3. All Bacteria, Plant Life, Nutrients 4. Wildlife, Heavy Metals, Temperature 5. Debris, Colour, Chlorine 6. Pathogens, Nutrients, Dissolved Oxygen 7. Heavy Metals, Water Hardness, Fish 8. Colour, Smell, Temperature 9. All Bacteria, Fish, Turbidity 10-12. Varied The respondents concensus about the grid was that i t had enabled them to express the way they thought about the elements-to be found in the Fraser river. Twenty-three of the thirty respondents said they were satisfied, four were uncertain and three felt themselves to have been restricted or influenced by the grid design. (The fisheries group being 90% satisfied and the management and environment group 70% satisfied.) 5.3 RESULTS RELATING TO THE EXPERIMENTAL HYPOTHESES HYPOTHESIS 1. GROUP DIFFERENCES The three public interest groups were distinguished by their experiential background, management strategy preferences and conceptualising preferences. Group differences were found to be more subtle than initially predicted from reviewing the Annacis Island case history literature. a. Experiential Background Conceptual conditioning Members of the environmentalist group had on average the least formal education and therefore acquired the highest average score for conceptual conditioning. The environmentalist group was fairly evenly divided between specialists, generalists and laymen. In contrast, 7 out of 10 members of the management group were specialists engaged in technical pursuits and three generalists engaged in administrative roles. The management group acquired the lowest average score for conceptual con-ditioning indicating that they had the most formal specialist education. Five out of ten members of the fisheries group were generalists;.ire. individuals who had some specialist education but had supplemented this with general practical experience in their occupational role. As indicated in the table below the fisheries group acquired an average score slightly above the median. Group Total Numbers Conceptual Con-Specialists Generalists Laymen ditioning Mean Environmentalists 3 4 3 3.8 Fisheries 4 5 1 3.2 Management 7 3 0 2.3 These results did not support the predicted pattern of group differences. It was predicted that the fisheries group, rather than the environmental group, would have the least formal conceptual conditioning. It is possible that a more comprehensive sample would have produced the 91 expected group characteristics. This is especially true for the fisheries group as most of the respondents from the fishing industry worked in administrative roles and the sample did not therefore reflect a cross section of the industry. Vested interest in the river environment The operational definition of 'vested interest' must be borne in mind in interpreting the groups scores for this variable. In the definition of vested interest a heavy weighting was placed upon occupational relationship with the river while other uses for the river and factors such as frequency of physical contact with the river were weighted less heavily. Consequently the environmentalists, and not the management group as predicted, acquired the lowest average score for vested interest in the river environment. Frequency Contact River Group Average Score 'Vested Interest' (no. of times per year) Environmentalists 18.4 2358 Fisheries 38.1 2308 Management 26.2 1459 (Range of scores 7 to 54) The main factor accounting for the discrepancy between predicted and actual results was that the experiential background of the environmentalists was not apparent from the literature available. b. Management Preferences Conservationism The environmentalist group demonstrated the greatest preference for conservationist management strategies as predicted. The average scores obtained by the different groups on the conservationism variable do not 92 suggest dramatic differences of opinion and it should be remembered that the figures only represent an ordinal scale. Group Average Score for Conservationism Environmentalists 35 Fisheries 33.1 (range of scores 30 to 38) Management 33.3 The fisheries group did not exhibit the predicted preference for conservationist management strategies and the reason for this may be suggested by correlating these scores with the conceptual and experiential variables. Innovation The environmentalist group scored highest on the variable measur-ing innovation as predicted. The environmentalists were clearly distin-guished from the fisheries and management groups who exhibited a similar preference for using innovative strategies. Group Average Score for Innovation Environmentalists 37.8 Fisheries 29.7 (range of scores 17 to 54) Management 30.3 The fisheries group in particular did not demonstrate as great a preference for innovative management strategies as predicted.and did not reflect the preferences of the fishing industry indicated in the Annacis Island case history literature. 93 c. Conceptualising Preferences Natural order thinking Three quarters of the respondents used between three and seven natural order constructs. The management group displayed greatest prefer-ence for this type of thinking and not the environmentalist and fisheries groups as predicted. Average Number of Group Natural Order Constructs Percentage of Total Environmentalists 4.6 30% Fisheries 5.0 33% Management 5.7 37% Ecological systems thinking Ecological systems thinking was not a popular way of conceptualis-ing about the river. Ninety percent of respondents used one or no ecological constructs. The environmentalist group produced 68% of the ecological constructs and three members of this group respectively used 2, 3 and 6 ecological constructs. Average Number of Group Ecological Constructs Percentage of Total Environmentalists 1.5 68% Fisheries 0.4 18% Management 0.3 14% This category of thinking was useful in distinguishing the environmentalist group. The results also provide unexpected evidence that ecological systems thinking is not a preferred way of thinking among individuals responsible for water quality management. Technical specialist thinking The management group was, as predicted, most clearly distin-guished by a.preference for this type of thinking. Six out of ten members of the management group used two or more of these constructs. Average Number of Group Technical Constructs Percentage of Total Environmentalists 1.4 18% Fisheries 1.6 30% Management 2.8 52% Utilitarian thinking The three groups did not demonstrate very marked differences in preference for utilitarian thinking. Utilitarian thinking was second in popularity to natural order thinking, most respondents using at least three of these constructs. Average Number of Group Uti1itarian Constructs Percentage of Total Environmentalists 3.9 34% Fisheries 3.5 30% Management 4.1 36% General systems thinking The fisheries group demonstrated the greatest preference for general systems thinking. Average Number of Group General Systems Constructs Percentage of Total Environmentalists 2.1 30.8% Fisheries 3.5 51.4% Management 1.2 17.6% 95 Management strategy thinking The environmentalist group was distinguished by a preference for management strategy thinking. Eight out of ten members of the environ-mentalist group used at least one management strategy construct, whereas seven out of ten members of the fisheries and management groups did not use any management constructs. Average Number of Group Management Strategy Constructs Percentage of Total Environmentalists 1.1 50% Fisheries 0.7 31.8% Management 0.4 18.1% Summary Overall the respondents demonstrated a greater preference for thinking in generalised rather than specific terms. Natural order, utilitarian and general systems thinking were the most popular ways of construing relationships between elements of the environment. The more specific ways of thinking (ecological systems, management strategy and technical specialist thinking) were used less frequently, by fewer individuals and proved to be more useful in distinguishing the three public interest groups. Objectivity The environmentalist group recorded the lowest scores on this variable, the management group the highest scores, as predicted. Group Average Score for Objectivity Environmentalists 32.4 Fisheries 33.2 (range of scores 24 to 44) Management 35.5 96 Complexity The environmentalist group was distinguished by a preference for complexity as predicted. Group Average Score for Complexity Environmental ists 26.3 Fisheries 23.2 Management 21.4 HYPOTHESIS 2. FACTORS ACCOUNTING FOR VARIANCE IN MANAGEMENT PREFERENCES At the 0.05 level of significance the correlations (Goodman & Kruskal's coefficient of rank association) between complexity and conser-vationism and complexity and innovation can be accepted as not occurring by chance. In each case a significant amount of the variance in management preferences is accounted for by the individual's preference for conceptual complexity. Complexity and Conservationism 0.005 level of significance, roughly 19% of variance. Complexity and Innovation 0.0005 level of significance, roughly 24% of variance. conceptual factors account for more of the variance in an individual's management preferences than public interest group allegiance or experiential factors. This result provides some support for the hypothesis that 9 7 TABLE 1 1 . CORRELATIONS AND SIGNIFICANCES BETWEEN EXPERIENTIAL BACKGROUND, CONCEPTUAL PREFERENCES AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGY PREFERENCES MANAGEMENT STRATEGY PREFERENCES CONSERVATIONISM INNOVATION 00 oo LU CJ Natural Order Thinking - 0 . 0 2 . 9 0 0 . 0 2 . 8 9 ENCE EREN Utilitarian Thinking 0 . 2 9 . 0 7 - 0 . 1 7 . 2 5 EFER PREF Ecological Systems Thinking 0 . 1 0 . 8 2 0 . 1 6 . 6 5 ex. CD CD i—i Management Strategy Thinking - 0 . 0 2 . 9 8 - 0 . 3 3 . 2 7 NISI STRU General Systems Thinking - 0 . 1 9 . 3 0 - 0 . 1 0 . 5 6 TUAL o o Technical Specialist Thinking - 0 . 2 5 . 2 5 0 . 0 2 . 9 0 NCEP Complexity 0 . 4 4 . 0 0 5 0 . 4 9 . 0 0 0 5 o o Objectivity - 0 . 0 4 . 7 6 - 0 . 0 8 . 5 5 Vested Interest - 0 . 2 0 . 1 6 - 0 . 0 8 . 5 0 Conceptual Conditioning 0 . 2 7 . 1 5 0 . 0 5 . 7 4 Public Interest Group 0 . 3 8 . 0 7 0 . 3 0 . 1 0 Corre-lation Signi-ficance Corre-lation Signi-ficance HYPOTHESIS 3 . RELATIONSHIP OF EXPERIENTIAL BACKGROUND AND CONCEPTUAL FACTORS At the 0 . 0 5 level of significance the correlations between conceptual conditioning and management strategy thinking and conceptual conditioning and complexity can be accepted as not occurring by chance. In each case a reasonable amount of the variance in conceptualising preferences is accounted for. Conceptual conditioning and management strategy thinking: 0 . 0 3 significance, 4 9 % variance. Conceptual conditioning and complexity: 0 . 0 4 significance, 12% variance. 98 The most significant observation is that those respondents who had the least formal conceptual conditioning showed the greatest preference for thinking about the relationship between elements of their environment in terms of management strategies. TABLE 12. CORRELATIONS AND SIGNIFICANCES BETWEEN EXPERIENTIAL AND CONCEPTUAL FACTORS VESTED INTEREST CONCEPTUAL CONDITIONING Natural Order Thinking -0.05 .70 -0.29 .13 Utilitarian Thinking -0.05 .70 0.02 .90 Ecological Systems Thinking -0.54 .14 0.40 .39 Management Strategy Thinking 0.12 .67 0.70 .03 General Systems Thinking 0.18 .27 0.02 .92 Technical Specialist Thinking 0.28 .14 -0.19 .44 Complexity -0.25 .07 0.35 .04 Objectivity 0.21 .11 0.08 .63 Corre-lation Signi-ficance Corre-lation Signi-ficance 99 HYPOTHESIS 4. INTERRELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CONCEPTUAL FACTORS TABLE 13. CORRELATIONS AND SIGNIFICANCES BETWEEN CONCEPTUAL FACTORS Complexity Objectivity Natural Order Utilitarian Ecological Sys terns Management Strategy General Systems Technical Specialist Complexity Objectivity -0.30 Correlation Significance 0.03 Natural Order 0.03 -0.17 0.79 0.24 Utilitarian 0.04 -0.07 -0.22 0.54 0.65 0.19 Ecological Systems 0,25 -0.20 -0.43 -0.48 0.24 0.60 0.28 0.25 Management Strategy -0.35 0.67 -0.65 0.28 0.53 0.97 0.02 0.06 0.39 — General Systems -0.00 0.00 -0.38 -0.06 -0.41 0.00 0.06 0.96 0.04 0.75 0.52 0.89 Technical Specialist -0.37 0.10 -0.17 -0.19 -0.60 0.80 -0.05 0.07 0.61 0.44 0.38 — 0.14 At the 0.05 level of significance the following correlations can be accepted as not occurring by chance: Level of % of Significance Variance Correlation Complexity and Objectivity 0.03 9 Management Strategy Thinking n n 0 and Objectivity u ' ° ^ 4 4 + General Systems Thinking and n n. Natural Order Thinking v - m 1 4 The most significant of the above findings is that those individuals who exhibited a preference for management strategy thinking also had a preference for rationalising objectively about their environ-ment and environmental management problems. Chapter 6 CONCLUSIONS The study was of exploratory value both methodologically and factually despite the fact that the experimental hypotheses were only partially substantiated. 6.1 SUMMARY OF THE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS The Annacis Island case history was summarised from a compre-hensive cross-section of the existing literature. The most controversial planning issues were re-examined in terms of the preferences of thirty individuals who had been involved with the case. Many findings reinforced the impressions gained from the literature, some points were clarified and some new information was created. Two points of interest are: (1) Those who favoured secondary treatment for the Annacis plant were shown to perceive the greatest advantages of secondary treatment as a reduction in toxicity, bacteria and oxygen demanding substances in the effluent. (2) Nearly all respondents said there was a great need to experiment with new ways of collecting, treating and disposing of municipal sewage. 1. PUBLIC INTEREST GROUP DIFFERENCES The three public interest groups were distinguished by their experiential background, management strategy preferences and conceptualis-ing preferences, but group differences were found to be more subtle than initially predicted from reviewing the literature about the Annacis Island case. These subtleties are illustrated by several facts which emerged from the study:-101 102 a. Members of the environmentalist group acquired the lowest average scores for vested interest in the river environment and not the management group as predicted. This was because the operational definition of vested interest in the river weighted heavily direct occupational association with the river and proportionally lightly other uses for the river and frequency of physical contact with the river. Members of the environmentalist group did not generally work in occupations directly relating to the river but they did come into frequent contact with the river in their daily lives and expressed the greatest preference for esoteric uses of the river such as viewing for pleasure and symbolical value. b. Members of the environmentalist group also had less formal specialist education than predicted, recording the highest average scores for informality of conceptual conditioning. This was because their background experience was not evident from the literature review. They were, however, most clearly distinguished, as predicted, by their shared conceptualising preferences. These included a preference for ecological systems thinking, for making innovative management suggestions and using a variety of concepts and information simultaneously. These observations suggest that conceptual-ising preferences are not.necessarily related with educational background and that they can be a stronger influence upon management preferences than economic uses for the river. c. The management strategy preferences which the groups exhibited in the study were slightly different from those indicated by the literature. The fisheries group was more clearly distinguishable from the environmentalist group than predicted. The fisheries group demonstrated less preference for both conservationist and innovative management strategies than the 103 environmentalist group. They did not share the predicted preference for ecological systems thinking and did not acquire extreme scores on the other conceptual variables which distinguished the environmentalist group. 2. FACTORS ACCOUNTING FOR VARIANCE IN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PREFERENCES a. The group differences observed indicate that a variety of factors may be linked with environmental management preferences. Associations were logically suggested between a preference for conservationist and innovative management strategies and a combination of the following factors: a preference for cognitive complexity, technical specialist, management and ecological systems thinking, type of use for the environment, amount of physical contact with that environment and amount of formal education. b. The variables defined for this experiment were not suitable for group-ing into complex patterns. This was because of the experimental definition of the variables, the exploratory nature and small scale of the research project. Taken individually four of eleven conceptual and experiential variables created were decisively related to each other or to management strategy preferences, providing limited support for the experimental hypotheses. c. The most important statistically significant relationships identified were between a conceptual preference for complexity and a preference for conservationist and innovative management strategies respectively. (Complexity and Conservationism, 0.005 level of significance accounted for 19% of the variance. Complexity and Innovation, 0.0005 level of signifi-cance accounted for 24% of the variance. These results are considered interesting for this type of research where acceptable experimental results 104 account for between 20 and 30% of the variance at the 0.05 level of sig-nificance.) The interpretation is that respondents who preferred to use a variety of concepts and information simultaneously were shown to have a greater preference for using both conservationist and innovative strategies in the management of the regional sewage facilities. 6.2 CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN THE REPERTORY GRID Research into environmental perceptions is exploratory and there-fore often concerned with establishing an effective methodology. This study adapted the repertory grid technique for the purpose of ascertaining how a group of individuals rationalised about elements of the Fraser river environment. The grid was useful as an exploratory technique because i t gave information about both popular and more idiosyncratic ways of constru-ing the river environment. Those constructs which distinguished between individuals may yield the most fruitful results in future studies attempting to link construing and management preferences. The constructs indicated that there is a universal preference for thinking about things found in the water of the Fraser river in terms of four important generalisations. The most popular general distinction is between living and inert objects, followed closely in popularity by distinctions between man-made and natural objects, objects which do or do not harm l i f e and objects which either affect or are affected by a third object. Individuals were differentiated according to their preference for the less popular, specific ways of distinguishing between elements of 105 the river environment. In general those with a preference for making abstract and technical distinctions were distinguished from those with a preference for making concrete and visually related distinctions. The repertory grid technique is considered a suitable method for exploratory studies and i t could be adapted to most resource management and social planning situations. The technique was time consuming to administer and may not be considered the most practical method for eliciting information from large groups of individuals. The information obtained from the grid can be subjected to many forms of analysis. Only the most simple categorisation of constructs and critique of the grid adaptation was undertaken. THE SAMPLING TECHNIQUE Non-Probability Sampling Many exploratory studies into environmental perception focus upon special groups of individuals (Sewell, 1970). The use of a purposive non-probability sample can be logically supported for this type of research into the relationship between rationalising processes and environ-mental management preferences. (a) Most environmental management decisions are made by appointed or elected representatives who are influenced by vocal special interest groups. (b) Most individuals who immediately influence environmental management decisions have some specialist scientific knowledge. 106 Small Sample Size Hypotheses can be validated by comparing the findings from a series of studies employing a variety of techniques to eli c i t information. In practical terms the use of small samples makes this process less expen-sive and cumbersome and encourages more exploratory research. It can also be erroneous to assume that the greatest volume defines the greatest truth. Kelly discusses this issue (kelly, 1963) and argues that hypotheses which reflect more than the "massed bias in the status quo" will have been deduced from an explicit theory or induced from observations rather than relying primarily upon statistical dragnet evidence. The experimental hypotheses for this study were deduced from personal construct theory and induced from reviewing much planning liter-ature. Hypotheses derived from personal construct theory have been validated in other empirical circumstances, hence some ideas contributed by this study may be validated in further studies (see suggestions for further research, page 108). Where decisive statistical relationships were-not measured between factors in this case i t may be logical to examine the hypothesised relationships in other environmental management situations. OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE OPERATIONAL DEFINITION OF THE EXPERIMENTAL VARIABLES a. Complexity There are two reasons why the variable measuring a preference for conceptual complexity proved to be valuable. (i) The variable was well designed. Two measures were used to acquire a score for complexity. Kelly's measure of cognitive complexity was 107 calculated by summing the number of different constructs each respondent produced for the repertory grid. The number of alternatives which the respondent ranked as applicable in response to questions involving choices were summed and added to the score for cognitive complexity, (ii) The data contributing to this variable was collected unobtrusively and subjected to a simple and objective process of analysis. This ensured that the scores obtained were standardised. b. Preciseness (i) One finding of value for the design of future studies was that in the preliminary analysis of group differences variables comprising broader, generalised concepts were observed to be less effective in distinguishing between the public interest groups than those which had been defined in more specific terms. For example, the public interest groups were distin-guished most clearly by their respective conceptualising preferences for complexity, objectivity, ecological systems thinking, technical specialist thinking and management systems thinking. The broader concepts of natural order, general systems and utilitarian thinking were not effective distin-guishable factors, although they accounted for the way in which people most commonly distinguish between elements of the river environment, (ii) Another point, initially overlooked, was that the definition of management systems thinking included all types of management strategies. A general preference for this type of thinking was unlikely to be predictive of a preference for specific management strategies; i.e. conservationism or innovation. 108 c. Weighting System It was necessary to provide a means of categorising the individual responses to the questionnaire. Some relationships were consciously obscured by the chosen weighting of the different aspects of the variables. For example, the "vested interest" variable weighted heavily direct occupational reliance upon the river and lightly other factors such as frequency of contact with the river. (The observed distinction between the environmentalists and fisheries groups frequency of contact with the river and that of the management group was not studied in relation to the other variables. ) The weighting system was experimental and of necessity subjectively administered. For this reason i t has been explained in detail on pages 59-67. It would be necessary to conduct complementary studies to evaluate the influence of the system and create a more valid basis for comparison. 6.3 SUGGESTIONS FOR COMPLEMENTARY RESEARCH A. Two sets of variables are considered worthy of further investi-gations because they were decisively linked with each other. (i) Complexity was decisively linked with both conservationist and innovative management strategy preferences. The following complementary investigations would add to our understanding of this relationship. a. Experiment with a more complete definition of complexity by collecting evidence of conceptual complexity in a greater variety of ways and relate this information to more management preference situations. b. An experimental situation could be devised to ascertain how a preference for complexity is learned and to relate this preference to changes 109 in management preferences. c. Research attemping to isolate factors associated with a preference for complexity would complement the two suggestions outlined above. (Two factors which can be very tentatively suggested for investigation according to evidence produced by this study are conceptual preferences for object-ivity and technical specialist thinking. The experimental results were not decisive. A negative association was recorded between complexity and objectivity at the 0.03 level of significance but only accounting for 9% of the variance, and similarly a negative association was recorded between complexity and technical specialist thinking at the 0.06 level of significance accounting for 13% of the variance.) (ii) Management systems thinking was decisively linked with a lack of formal conceptual conditioning in an individual's experiential background, and with a conceptual preference for objectivity in the individual. In other words, those individuals who preferred to rationalise about elements of their environment according to their management strategy implications generally preferred to think scientifically about the environ-ment irrespective of the amount of formal specialist education they had received. Further research into the nature of management systems thinking may help to explain this observation. Planners, formally trained to think in terms of management systems, could contribute to the definition of management systems thinking and to the topical value of such a study by suggesting systems relevant to the current environmental management situation. B. Some factors which were not linked in the final statistical analysis but were useful in distinguishing among individuals and interest 110 groups, deserve further investigation because they can be linked together by a process of logical deduction. (a) The idea that formal conceptual conditioning is not necessarily linked with conceptualising preferences is further suggested by the obser-vation that members of the environmentalist group had, on average, under-gone the least formal training yet were more clearly distinguished by their shared conceptualising preferences than by any other factors. They were particularly distinguished by their preference for ecological systems thinking. In contrast technical specialist thinking is a con-struing preference which may be related to educational experience. Members of the water quality management group had on average undergone more formal education than members of the other groups and they were distinguished by a preference for technical specialist thinking. (b) Members of the environmentalist and fishing industry groups came into contact with the river almost twice as frequently as members of the water quality management group. This experience may logically be linked with their observed preference for conceptualising about the river in concrete, visual terms rather than in the technical and abstract terms favoured by the management group. 6.4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONCEPTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT "Research on perception in resource management could be considered a search to understand the widening gap between available scientific knowledge and the practical application of this knowledge." (Saarinen in Sewell Ed., 1970). This study uncovered some information about the nature of this gap. It was demonstrated that the way in which scientific knowledge is Ill organised affects the practical application of this knowledge in terms of choice of management strategies. The particular evidence was that the more concepts and information an individual retains and uses simultaneously, the less likely he is to favour management strategies with uncertain environmental effects, even though he will be more receptive to innovative management strategies which may serve his purposes. The logical explanation for this preference for conservationist strategies is that the individual who retains and uses many concepts simultaneously will be able to achieve a more holistic appreciation of the complex environmental management situation. Current planning thought associates the holistic ideal with the prevention o^f' unplanned, large scale changes in environmental balance. (The preference for innovative strategies may also be explained by the individual's demonstrated preference for integrating concepts and information.) The study therefore provided one insight into why individuals who are concerned about the quality of the environment disagree about which management strategies will have desirable effects. A logical extension of these findings would be that individuals with a preference for conceptual complexity and conservationist strategies have a preference for systems thinking. This statement is based upon the argument that systems thinking is the best practical strategy for adopting the holistic approach. Although the respondents in the study were clearly differentiated by their preferences for thinking in terms of specific systems, especially ecological systems and management systems, neither of these con-ceptualising preferences were decisively linked with conservationist or innovative management strategy preferences. (As previously argued more decisive results may be obtained i f these conceptual preferences are measured more comprehensively in relation to a larger number of management situations.) 112 PRACTICAL VALUE There is continuing discussion about the practical applicability of research on perception. The concensus is that the links between per-ception and environmental behavior suggested by exploratory research are useful to public policy decision makers as they provide broad new perspect-ives for understanding environmental problems (Mitchell, 1971 and Sewell, 1970). There are many potential applications for this type of information. The link between conceptual complexity and a preference for innovative and conservationist management strategies uncovered by this study can be used by the planner in his roles as educator, advocate and policy analyst. (1) This information indicates that the planner will be more likely to foster a preference for innovative and/or conservationist management strategies i f he presents his clients with the complexity of the environmental manage-ment problem and encourages them to integrate the environmental concepts and information available to them. One strategy may be to present the clients with a series of conceptual frameworks (such as ecological systems thinking) which can be applied in a variety of situations. (2) Where the planner is concerned with environmental policy analysis he should investigate whether the policy accounts for the complexity of the situation and has considered a cross-section of available strategies and technologies, i f he wishes to protect the long term goals of the community. These suggestions indicate the potential, practical value of linking strategic conceptual processes with management/preferences and of determining how they influence specific management preferences. 113 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY BOOKS Backstrom, Charles H. and G.D. Hursh. Survey Research. Chicago: North-western University Press, 1963. Bannister, Donald (ed.). Perspectives in Personal Construct Theory. London: New York Academic Press, 1970. Bannister, Donald and T.M. Mair. The Evaluation, of Personal Constructs. London: New York Academic Press, 1968. Barrett, William. Irrational Man. New York: Doubleday, 1962. Bjerring, James, J. Campbell, J. Halm, R. Morley. Multivariate Contingency  Tabulations. U.B.C., Best-Printer Co. Ltd., Vancouver, June 1974. Canada. Department of the Environment, Inland Waters Branch. Guide!ines  for Water Quality Objectives and Standards. Technical Bulletin No. 67. Department of the Environment, 1972. Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. Pollution Control  Objectives for Municipal Type Waste Discharges in B.C. Pub. Water Resource Service, September 1975. Deutsch, Karl W. The Nerves of Government; Models of Political Communication and Control. London: Free Press of Glencoe, 1963. Fishbein, Martin. Readings in Attitude, Theory and Measurement. (Article by Campbell and Frisk). New York: Wiley, 1967. Friedman, Stephen and J. Juhasz, Ed. Environments: Notes and Selections  on Objects, Spaces and Behavior. Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., California, 1974. Goldie, CA. Pollution and the Fraser. Report 1. British Columbia Water Resources Service, Pollution Control Branch, Victoria, 1967. G.V.R.D. Brief Submitted to the Public Enquiry on Municipal Waste  Disposal. Vol. II, Parts 3 and 4, February 1973. Greater Vancouver Regional District. Policy Committee Report. Environmental  Management and Pollution Control. Recommendations of the Citizens Advisory Committee, October 1973. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District. Consolidation of Amend- ments to the Rawn Report (pamphlet), Vancouver, 1970. Hall, Kenneth, F. Koch, I. Yesaki. Westwater Technical Report 4, August 1974. "Further Investigations into Water Quality Conditions in the Lower Fraser River System." 114 Holling, C.S. Stability in Ecological and Social Systems in "Diversity and Stability in Ecological Systems.!' Report of Symposium held May 26-28, 1969. Upton, N.Y., Brookhaven National Laboratory, Biology Dept., 1969. Kelly, George A. A Theory of Personality. The Psychology of Personal  Constructs. New York: W.W. Norton, 1963. Kerlinger, Frederick N. Foundations' of Behavioral Research. 2nd Ed. New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston Inc., 1973. Landfield, A.W. Personal Construct Systems and Psychotherapy. Cooper, W.E. and R.D. Vlasin. Planning from an Ecological Perspective -an Overview in Donald M. McAllister (ed.) "Environment: A New Focus for Land-use Planning." Washington: RANN, U.S. Government Printer, 1972. Mallard, D. The Fraser River Report. S.P.E.C. (Vancouver), 1970. Moos, Rudolf H. and P.M. Insel (ed.). Issues in Social Ecology. Human  Milieus. Pub. National Press Books, 1974. Rosak, Theodore. Where the Wasteland Ends. New York: Doubleday, 1973. Schumacher, E.F. Small is Beautiful. New York: Harper Row, 1973. Sewell, W.R.D. and I. Burton. Perceptions and Attitudes in Resources  Management. 1970. Shepard, P. and D. McKinley, eds. The Subversive Science: Essays Towards  an Ecology of Man. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Co., 1969. Sproutt, H.H. and M.T. The Ecological Perspective of Human Affairs. Princeton University Press, 1965. Statutes of B.C. Ch. 34: An Act Respecting Pollution Control. Assented to 23rd March 1967. Vancouver and Districts Joint Sewerage and Drainage Board. Board of Engineers. Sewerage and Drainage of the Greater Vancouver Area. (Rawn Report)^ British Columbia, Vancouver, 1953. Vancouver and Districts Joint Sewerage and Drainage Board. Appendix 1.  The Lea Report of 1913. "Sewerage and Drainage of the Greater Vancouver Area." pp. 251-264. British Columbia, Vancouver, 1953. Webb, Eugene J. Unobtrusive Pleasures; Nonreactive Research in the Social  Sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966. 115 PERIODICALS Caldwell, Lynton K. The Ecosystem as a Criterion for Public Land Policy. Natural Resources Journal Vol. 10, 1970. Albuquerque. Commoner, B. Alternative Approaches to the Environmental Crisis. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, V. 39:3, 1973, Boston. Craik, K.H. Environmental Psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, V. 24, 1973. Stanford, California. Cranston, M. Ethics and Politics. Encounter, Vol. 38:6, June 1972. London. Environmental Design Research Association. Proceedings of the Annual Conference, Vol. 5, 1974. University of Wisconsin, Raleigh, N.C. Gans, H.J. Planning for People Not Buildings. Environment and Planning, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. London, 1969. Harrison, John and P. Sarre. Personal Construct Theory in the Measurement  of Environmental Images. Part I. Environment and Behavior, Vol. 3, 1971. Beverley Hills. Harrison, John and P. Sarre. Personal Construct Theory in the Measurement  of Environmental Images. Part II. Environment and Behavior, Vol. 7, 1975. Beverley Hills. Holling, C.S. and M.A. Goldberg. Ecology and Planning. Journal of American Institute of Planners, Vol. 37:4, July 1971. Boston. Mitchell, B. Behavioral Responses to Water Pollution. Environment and Behavior, Vol. 3, June 1971. Beverley Hills. Sewell, W.R.D. Environmental Perceptions and Attitudes of Engineers and Public Health Officers. Environment and Behavior, Vol 3:1, March 1971. Beverley Hills. Sewell, W.R.D. and B.R. Little. Specialists, Laymen and the Process of Environmental Appraisal. Regional Studies, Vol. 7. March 1973. London. DOCUMENTS G.V.S. & D.D. to Lieutenant-Governor in Council. Submission of the G.V.S. & D.D. in the Appeal Concerning the Annacis Island Treatment  Plant. February 1974. Minister of Health to G.V.R.D. In the Matter of the Appeal - Pollution  Control Act. Victoria, April 21st, 1975. Pollution Control Branch. Administrative History of the Annacis Island  Case. Victoria, July 1975. S.P.E.C. File on the Annacis Island Case: RAPA to Pollution Control Board, 2nd April, 1969. RAPA to Pollution Control Board, 1st January, 1971. to Pollution Control Board, 2nd February, 1971. SPEC to Jack Davis (Federal Fisheries Minister). SPEC, Brief Against G.V.R.D. Appeal, July 1974. BCEC, Brief Against G.V.R.D. Appeal, September 1974. U.F.A.W.U., Brief Against G.V.R.D. Appeal, October 1974. A P P E N D I X A - SUMMARY OF L I T E R A T U R E ABOUT THE A N N A C I S I S L A N D C A S E O R G A N I S A T I O N R O L E D A T E DOCUMENT REFERENCE NUMBER o <_> U . I-I u o r O -J3 CC U I £ 13 tx £ o >~ o CO r - U I S S U E S & P E R C E P T I O N S O f H E R I D E A S & C O N C E R N S DOCUMENT REFERENCE NUMBER P O L L U T A N T S WATER Q U A L I T Y P A R A M E T E R S t S T A N D A R D S ' T Y P E S OF SEWAGE T R E A T M E N T • P R I M A R Y S E C O N D A R Y T E R T I A R Y D I S I N F E C T I O N SEWAGE C O L L E C T I O N SEWAGE D I S P O S A L F E A T U R E S ) 0 F R E C E I V I N G WATERS i U S E S FOR F R A S E R R I V E R - t C o l u m 1 n n u m b e r s 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 C o l u m n : n u m b e r s '9 1 0 11 1 2 1 3 1 4 C o l u m n n u m b e r s 1 5 1 1 6 17 INTERNATIONAL I n t e r n a t i o n a l P a c i f i c S a l m o n F i s h e r i e s C o m m i s s i o n R e s e a r c h 2 , ( 7 ) S a l m o n f i s h e r y . ( W i l d l i f e h a b i t a t ) FEDERAL D e p t . o f E n v i r o n m e n t F i s h e r i e s a n d M a r i n e S e r v i c e s - f i s h e r i e s m a n a g e m e n t d e p a r t m e n t , e s p e c i a l l y H a b i t a t p r o t e c t i o n u n i t a n d e n v i r o n m e n t a l p r o t e e t -i o n c e n t r e R e s e a r c h 1 , 2 . ( 1 . 2 2 . 2 3 , 2 4 ) S t a n d a r d o f 0 . 2 ppm r e s i d u a l c h l o r i n e s u g g e s t e d f o r A n n a c i s I s l a n d P l a n t ( r e f . 4 ) . G e n e r a l l y o p p o s e d t o t o o m u c h c h l o r i n a t i o n • V S a l m o n f i s h e r y . ( W i l d l i f e h a b i t a t ) FROVINCIAL | P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l B o a r d ( P r o v i n c i a l D e p a r t m e n t o f H e a l t h ) S e t s t a n d a r d s f o r q u a l i t y o f s e w a g e t n d o f f e r b r o a d p o l i c y . A c t s a s a n a p p e a l b o a r d r e d e c i s i o n s o f P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l B r a n c h . 1 9 6 7 A p r . 1 9 6 8 G o l d i e P . C . A c t 1 9 6 7 1 2 •• 3 B a c t e r i a l c o n t a m i n a t i o n a v e r a g e 9 0 0 0 / 1 0 0 m l . c o l i f o r m s f o r m i d d l e a r m ( 1 9 5 6 - 6 5 ) S i l t , s l u d g e , s l i m e -i n l o c a l a r e a s B a c t e r i a ( c o l i f o r m s ) D . O . 5 p p m ; t u r b i d i t y , . t o x i c s ( 9 6 h r t l m ) , c h e m i c a l B . O . D . 4 p p m . T e m p e r a t u r e , C o l o u r ( C a , M g , N a , K , F e , e t ) H a r d n e s s o f w a t e r C o l i f o r m c o u n t s R e q u i r e d b y 1 : 1 : 7 5 f o r i l l d i s c h a r g e s . • : -i' R e q u i r e d b y 1 : 1 : 7 5 f o r N o r t h a n d M i d d l e A r m F r a s e r . C h l o r i n a t i o n e s p e c i a l l y o f d o m e s t i c w a s t e s . I n t o m a i n c h a n n e l s f o r d i s p e r s a l a n d D I L U T I O N . N e e d t o a v o i d c o l l e c t -i o n i n s l o w f l o w a r s a s . V o l u m e s r a n g e 5 3 5 127000 c . f . s . T i c -f l u c t u a t i o n s c a u t i f l o w s . H i g h n a t u r t u r b i d i t y a n d i r e F r a s e r c l e a n i n t B O D ; i . e . o r g a n i c n o t a p r o b l e m . 0 0 0 t o . 1 1 b a c k - . 1 1 c o n t e n t , i n n s o f l o a d i n g I n d u s t r y w a t e r s u p p l y a n d a g r i c u l t u r a l u s e s . F i s h e r i e s . N a v i g a t i o n . R e c r e a t i o n a n d a e s t h e t i c s ( b o a t s a n d f i s h ) ; i . e . M u l t i p l e u s e r e s o u r c e . N e e d t o i m p r o v e s o m e a r e a s n o w p o l l u t e d . N a t u r a l t u r b i d i t y (+ s a l t i n t r u s i o n ) l i m i t s u s e o f w a t e r , f e e d t o r e m o v e s i l t . F o c u s u p o n t r e a t i n q d i s -c h a r g e s - r a t h e r t h a n m a i n -t a i n i n g o v e r a l l s t a n d a r d s f o r r e c e i v i n g w a t e r s . ( C o s t s t r e a t m e n t / c a p i t a l l o w e r m a i n l a n d l o w - a b o u t 2 5 4 a m o n t h . ) FROVINCIAL | P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l B r a n c h ( P r o v . D e p t . o f L a n d s , F o r e s t s 8 W. R e s . ) ( e s p . M u n i c i p a l s e c t i o n f o r t h i s c a s ; s t u d y ) I n t e r p r e t s P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l B o a r d s t a n d a r d s a n d i s s u e s p e r m i t s .. ( n e g a t i v e c o n t r o l s ) t o d i s c h a r g e e f f l u e n t u n d e r s p e c i f i e d c o n d i t i o n s . N o v . 1 9 7 3 R e p o r t o n P u b l i c H e a r i n g s 3 ' 3 4 O i l , s c u m , l a c k o x y g e n , p a t h o g e n s a n d o r g a n i s m s , s o l i d s , t o x i c s u b s t a n c e s , h e a v y m e t a l s L e v e l B B A A B 0 D 5 1 3 0 m g / 1 3 0 - 4 5 S u s p e n -d e d 1 3 0 m g / 1 4 0 - 6 0 s o l i d s C o l ' . r o r m s N u t r i e n t s D . O . i * i • • ' . i ' C h l o r i n a t i o n a n d s o m e -t i m e s d e c h l o r i n a t i o n . R e s i d u a l 0 . 5 - 1 . 0 (mg/1) w i t h d i l u t i o n o f > 1 0 0 : 1 . R e c o m m e n d s s t o r m a n d s e w a g e s e w e r s a l l s e p a r a t e d e v e n t u a l l y . R e n e w a b l e r e s o u r c e w h i c h m u s t b e c o n s e r v e d . 1 J 1 '• • - ' J - ' • \ • . R e p o r t r e c o m m e n d s l e v e l s f o r d i s c h a r g e s . I n t e n d i n g d i s -c h a r g e r s s h o u l d p r o v i d e a d e q u a t e p r o t e c t i o n f a c i l -i t i e s v . e n v i r o n m e n t d e g r a d a -t i o n . FROVINCIAL | L t . G o v e r n o r I n C o u n c i l a n d E n v i r o n m e n t & L a n d U s e C o m m i t t e e C o n s i d e r s a p p e a l s a g a i n s t P . C . B o a r d d e c i s i o n s A p r . 2 1 , 1 9 7 5 R e p o r t 4 C h e m i c a l t o x i c s S e v e r a l t y p e s - c o n v e n -t i o n a l , p h y s i c a l -c h e m i c a l , m e c h a n i c a l . I n c r e a s e d d i f f u s i o n . . E f f e c t o n n u t r i e n t b a l a n c e . C h l o r i n a t i o n +. f o o l -p r o o f m e a n s o f d e -c h l o r i n a t i o n . N e e d t o c o n t r o l e n t r y o f t o x i c s i n t o s y s t e m . F i s h a n d n a t u r a l e n v i r o n -m e n t o f e s t u a r y . D e c i s i o n t o s e t u p t e c h n i c a l c o m m i t t e e - v i a P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l B r a n c h . REGIONAL G . V . S . & D . D . R e s p o n s i b l e f o r s e w a g e d i s p o s a l , w a t e r s u p p l y a n d d i s t r i b u t i o n , ( i . e . n o t b r o a d l y r e s -p o n s i b l e f o r w a t e r q u a l i t y ) . M u n i c i p a l s e w a g e m a n -a g e m e n t m a d e a r e g i o n a l c o n c e r n . G . V . S . & D . D . r e s p o n s i b l e b y S t a t u t e f o r p r o v i s i o n o f t r u n k s e w e r s a n d t r e a t m e n t i n L o w e r M a i n l a n d . 1 9 1 4 - 1 6 L e e . R e p o r t 5 1 , 2 . 3 O r g a n i c s a n d f l o a t i n g s o l i d s , t u r b i d i t y , g r e a s e , p a t h o g e n s , o d o u r s . M o s t l y t u r b i d i t y , s m e l l , f i s h d e a t h s , a l g a e a n d w e e d s . B r o a d i r r i g a t i o n , s p r i n k l i n g f i l t e r s S e w a g e f a r m i n g , c o n t a c t b e d s , i n t e r m i t t e n t s a n d . ' i I t e r s S e d i m e n t a t i o n , o x i d a -t i o n a n d b a c t e r i a l a c t i o n . A l s o c h l o r i n -a t i o n . : D I L U T I O N - w h e r e p o s -s i b l e i s a n a t u r a l p u r i f y i n g p r o c e s s . S a l t w a t e r - s e » = e f l o a t s . e s s d e q u a t e -s i l t . • H e a l t h - r e c r e a t i o n a n d w o r k e r s . A e s t h e t i c s , . e c o n o m i c s - f i s h . Q u e s t i o n o f s a f e m a r q i n o f REGIONAL S l u d g e d e p o s i t s , u n d e r s t o o d . . N e e c ; o x y g e n a n d l a c k o" " R e s i d u a l 0.0. U s e o f a r t i f i c i a l s e w a g e t r e a t m e n t s . C a n i n t e r f e r e w i t h n a t u r a l p u r i f y i n g p r o c e s s . REGIONAL 1 9 4 9 - 5 3 . R a w n R e p o r t 6 ( 2 5 , 2 6 , 2 7 , 3 0 ) P a t h o g e n i c o r g a n i s m s . BOD s u s p e n d e d s o l i d s , o d o u r , v i s u a l e f f e c t R e m o v e g r i t , f l o a t i n g a n d s u s p e n d e d s o l i d s , f a t s irsi o r g a n i c s . B i o l o g i c a l o x i d a t i o n a n d s t a b i l i z a t i o n o f .-: o r g a n i c s . S e p a r a t e d o m e s t i c a n d s t o r m r u n o f f . N e e d t r u n k a n d i n t e r c e p t i n g s e w e r s . O u t f a l l s w i t h m u l t i p l e o u t . j t s i n t o d e e p c h a n n e l s o f F r a s e r r i v e r . D I L U T I O N . V o l u m e s : 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 c . f . s . T i d a l c y : " ; D . O . g o o d . M o s t ! f o r s e w a g e t r e a t -3 0 , 0 0 0 • s -'. n o n e e d > n t . N e e d t o p r o t e c t b a t h i n g b e a c h e s i n E n g l i s h B a y . . P u b l i c h e a l t h a n d a e s t h e t i c b e n e f i t s f r o m s e w a g e t r e a t m e n t , r a r e l y d i r e c t e c o n o m i c b e n e f i t s . C o u l d r e c l a i m / r e c y c l e s o m e w a s t e s . REGIONAL 1 9 6 7 - 7 0 U p d a t e d 7 II S o m e n e w p l a n s i n d e t a i l i n c l u d i n g L a n g l e y . P r o v i d e d m a s t e r p l a n o f s e w a g e c o l l e c t i o n a n d d i s p o s a l f a c i l i t i e s f o r G . V . S . 3 D . D . REGIONAL F e b . 1 9 7 3 B r i e f t o P C B P u b l i c E n q u i r y 8 P e s t i c i d e s , h e a v y m e t a l s , i n d u s t r i a l c h e m i c a l s , c o l i f o r m s T o x i c - c h e m i c a l s - w h i c h h a r m 1 ife o r s e w a g e w a s t e s ( 9 6 h r . t l m ) . C o l i f o r m s 1 0 0 0 / 1 0 0 M l ' . f o r w a t e r c o n t a c t s p o r t s F l o a t i n g s o l i d s s k i m m e d 6 5 X s u s p e n d e d s o l i d s s e t t l e i . 5 0 5 b a c t e r i a r e - o v e c . 3 5 i BOD r e m o v e ; . K5% r e d u c t i o n b a c t e r i a . F i n e r p a r t i c l e s s e t t l e d o u t . 8 0 S s u s p e n d e d s o l i d s . 75% BOD r e m o v e d . R e m o v e s n u t r i e n t s . C h l o r i n a t i o n - i n c r e a s -e s r e m o v a l BOD a n d b a c t e r i a . A l l o w a b l e r e s i d u a l 0 . 1 + 1 . 0 m g / 1 . P r e v e n t t o x i c s f r o m e n t e r i n g t h e s y s t e m . R e s e a r c h i n t o e f f e c t s o f c o m b i n e d s e w e r s . O u t f a l l s m u s t b e b e t w e e n 10 a n d 1 0 0 ' f r o m l o w . w a t e r m a r k a c c o r d i n g t o . v o l u m e o f d i s c h a r g e ( o r ) 1 0 , 0 0 0 g a l l o n s / d a y . N o O2 d e p l e t i o n p l o w e s t c o u n t s 7 5 ° . s a t u r a t i o n . o o l e m - F i s h e r y . P u b l i c h e a l t h -w o r k e r s o n r i v e r . A e s t h e t i c u s e n o t a f f e c t e d b y g o i n g . t o s e c o n d a r y t r e a t m e n t . P r o v i n c i a l a u t h o r i t i e s s h o u l d d e f i n e w a t e r u s e s a n d p o l l u t e d " c o n d i t i o n ? , f o r t h e s e u s e s . H e e d f o r p o s i t i v e c o n t r o l s r e d i s c h a r g e o f t o x i c s . REGIONAL F e b . 2 7 , 1 9 7 3 A p p e a l r e A n n a c i s 9 T o x i c m a t e r i a l s g r e a t -e s t t h r e a t a t A n n a c i s , h e a v y m e t a l s a n d c h e m i -c a l s . B a c t e r i a - : p a t h o g e n s . W i l l a c e q u a t e l y c o n -• t r o l 0 j : c o n s u m e r s a n d b a c t e r i a a n d v i s i b l e s e w a g e s o l i d s . M a y b e d e t r i m e n t a l t o n u t r i e n t b a l a n c e . D o e s n o t h e l p c o n t r o l b a c t e r i a o r v i s i b l e s o l i d s a n y b e t t e r t h a n p r i m a r y . C h l o r i n a t i o n a n d d e -c h l o r i n a t i o n r e q u i r e d . C o m b i n e d d o m e s t i c a n d s t o r m s e w e r s a p r o b l e m . S o m e c o n t r o l o f t o x i c s . P o s s i b l e n e e d f o r g r e a t e r d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n o f o u t f a l l . j N u t r i e n t p o o r - o r g a n i c ' m a t e r i a l s q u i c k l y ' j a s s i m i l a t e d . N e e d f o r l e g i s l a t i o n a n d c o n t r o l o f t o x i c s . M o r e v e r s a t i l e a n d f l e x i b l e a p p r o a c h e s t o p o l l u t i o n c o n t r o l p r o b l e m , i n c l u d i n g a m o n i t o r i n g p r o g r a m . REGIONAL L o c a l P u b l i c H e a l t h . U n i t s - M u n i c i p a l R e c r e a t i o n a n d d r i n k i n g w a t e r , w a t e r b o r n e d i s e a s e . 2 ( 2 1 , 2 8 ) P a t h o g e n i c b a c t e r i a F a v o u r d i s i n f e c t i o n a n d c h l o r i n a t i o n . 1 : 1 O R G A N I S A T I O N r — ROLE D A T E DOCUMENT • REFERENCE NUMBER SOURCE OR TYPE OF COMMUNIC. 1 -I S S U E S & P E R C E P T I O N S 1 . DOCUMENT • REFERENCE NUMBER SOURCE OR TYPE OF COMMUNIC. P O L L U T A N T S WATER Q U A L I T Y P A R A M E T E R S & STANDARDS T Y P E S O F SEWAGE T R E A T M E N T P R I M A R Y S E C O N D A R Y T E R T I A R Y D I S I N F E C T I O N SEWAGE C O L L E C T I O N SEWAGE D I S P O S A L F E A T U R E S O F R E C E I V I N G WATERS U S E S FOR F R A S E R R I V E R O T H E R I D E A S & C O N C E R N S LOU 1 imn n u m b e r s 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 C o l u m n u m b e r s 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 C o l u m n n u m b e r s 1 5 1 6 17 ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANISATIONS R A P A ( f o r R i c h m o n d R a t e p a y e r s a n d R o d & G u n C l u b . B . C . F e d e r a -t i o n o f L a b o u r , UFAWU a n d P a c i f i c S a l m o n S o c i e t y ) B r i e f t o P . C . B o a r d r e g e n e r a l p o l l u t i o n o f F r a s e r r i v e r , i n c l u d l n j c o n c e r n r e A n n a c i s p r o p o s a l . 2 : 4 : 6 9 1 0 1 . 3 ( 2 - 1 1 N e e d f o r d e c l a r a t i o n o f w . q . s t a n d a r d s S e p a r a t i o n o f s a n i t a r y a n d s t o r m s e w e r s n e e d e d . . C o n c e r n r e e f f e c t s o f | I o n a P l a n t . G u l f o f G e o r g i a c . f . i n l a n d s e a . F i s h i n g ' i d u s t r y . R e c r e a t i o n a n d t o u r i s m . W i l d l i f e h a b i t a t . H e a l t h h a z a r d f o r w o r k e r s 1 n c o n t a c t w i t h t h e r i v e r . ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANISATIONS R A P A ( f o r R i c h m o n d R a t e p a y e r s a n d R o d & G u n C l u b , L o w e r M a i n -l a n d W i l d l i f e A s s o c i -a t i o n ( B C E C ) ) B r i e f t o P . C . B o a r d o b j e c t i o n t o A n n a c i s P r o p o s a l - p r i m a r y p l a n t . 1 : 1 : 6 9 11 1 . 3 (2 - 1 1 ) T o x i c s , s u s p e n d e d p a r t i c l e s , l a c k , o f o x y g e n , f l o a t i n g s o l i d s M e c h a n i c a l • 1 j i 1 • B i o l o g i c a l C o m b i n e d s e w e r s y s t e m e n v i r o n m e n t a l l y o n e o f m o s t d i s a s t e r o u s d e c i -s i o n s m a d e i n N o r t h A m e r i c a , q u o t i n g m a n y e x a m p l e s . E s p e c i a l l y p r o b l e m w i t h l o c a l h e a v y r a i n f a l l . C a n n o t a s s i m i l a t e e f f l u e n t f r o m p r o p o s e d A n n e c i s P l a n t . S e e e f f e c t s o f I o n a P l a n t o n S t u r g e o n B a n k s a n d [ l o c a l l y . B a c k f l o w s c a u s e ^ a c c u m u l a t i o n . L o c a l i s e d 0? d e p l e t i o n , s m e l l , u n s i g h t l y w a s t e s . S . W . w i n d s b l o w f l o a t i n g w a s t e s o n s h o r e . M a i n c h a n n e l d i s c h a r g e a l s o g o e s b a c k i n t o E n g l i s h B a y . E f f e c t o f e f f l u e n t f r o m p r o -p o s e d A n n a c i s p ' m t o n m a r i n e l i f e n u r s e r y i n e s t u a r y a n d w i l d l i f e u s i n g P a c i f i c f l y w a y . L o c a l p o c k e t s m a y a f f e c t m i g r a t i o n s u p a n d d o w n s t r e a m . E f f e c t c n r e c r e a t i o n e s p e c i a l l y S t e v e s t c n I s l a n d ( 1 9 7 0 R i c h m o n d p r o p o s e d p u b l i c p a r k ) a n d p r o p o s e d G u l f o f G e o r g i a N a t i o n a l u n d e r w a t e r p a r k . ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANISATIONS R A P A L e t t e r t o P . C . B r a n c h , V e n a b l e s 2:2:69 1 2 1 , 3 (2 - 1 1 ) O r g a n i c w a s t e s f r o m l o g g i n g i n d u s t r y . - s a w -d u s t , b a r k , e t c . , g r e a s e , p r o l i f e r a t i o n o f f l o r a BOD a n d c o l i f o r m c o u n t u n r e l i a b l e p o l l u t i o n i n d e x . U s e d b y G . V . S . 1 D . D . 3 5 % t r a t m e n t W a s t e s n o w d i s p e r s e d o v e r l a r g e a r e a w i l l b e g a t h e r e d t o g e t h e r a n d r e l e a s e d f r o m 1 o r 2 o u t f a l l s a n d w i l l n o t d i s p e r s e . D e a s S l o u g h - w a t e r s k i i n g a n d a q u a t i c s p o r t s . B a r f i s h -i n g h p i c k n i c k i n g ; e . g . S t e v e -s t o n I s l a n d a r e a . W o o d w a r d , B a r b e r & D u c k I s l a n d - w a t e r -f r o n t h u n t i n g & n e s t i n g - i n -t e r n a t i o n a l a g r e e m e n t / r e s p o n . B o t t o m o r g a n i s m s - n e e d f o r r e s e a r c h . S y n e r g i s t i c e f f e c t s . ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANISATIONS S P E C R e s e a r c h , p u b l i c e d u -c a t i o n - s o c i a l a c t i -v i s m . P u b l i c a t i o n s . 1 9 7 0 F r a s e r R i v e r R e p o r t 1 3 3 (2, 1 2 , 1 3 , 1 4 , 1 5 , 20) F o o d p r o c e s s i n g i n d u s -t r y p r o d u c t m o s t v i s i -b l e p o l l u t a n t s - d y e s , o r g a n i c s , o i l s , f r o t h , s m e l l . L o c a l i s e d t h e r -m a l e f f e c t s . F o r e s t i n d u s t r y d e b r i s . P e s t i -c i d e s a n d h e r b i c i d e s f r o m r u n o f f . C r i t i c i s e s F e d e r a l D e p a r t m e n t F i s h e r i e s c r i t e r i a f o r d e t e r m i n -i n g w . q . - l e v e l s a t w h i c h f i s h d i e . P h y s i c a l r e m o v a l c c n -t i n i i r . a r . t s . 20% e f f i c i -e n t . B i o l o g i c a l r e m o v a l , c o n -t a m i n a n t s . 8 5 - 9 6 % e f f i c i e n t ( a e r a t e d l a g o o n s c a n b e a s e f f i c i e n t ) . A t A n n a c i s s e c o n d a r y t r e a t m e n t , i n c r e a s e c o s t b y 1 5 % a n d e f f i c i -e n c y b y 9 0 % . C h e m i c a l r e m o v a l - 9 5 % e f f i c i e n t . C h l o r i n a t i o n - k i l l s p a t h o g e n i c b a c t e r i a . P r o b l e m f o r f i s h i f c o l l e c t s i n l o c a l i s e d p o c k e t s . N e w W e s t m i n s t e r ' s c o n -t i n u e d s t o r m a n d s a n -i t a r y s e w e r s s h o u l d b e s e p a r a t e d b e f o r e c o n -n e c t i n g w i t h A n n a c i s . F i s h e r m e n p r e f e r r e l e a s e o f s e w a g e o v e r 2 5 m i l e s t r e t c h o f r i v e r . S o u t h A r m F r a s e r s u b j e c t t o r e v e r s e t i d a l c u r r e n t s - b u i l d u p o f s e w a g e w i l l a f f e c t s a l m o n . S a l m o n f i s h i n g - e s p e c i a l l y c o n c e r n h a z a r d s t o y o u n g s a l m o n f r o m l o c a l i s e d p o c k e t s . A n n a c i s p l a n t w i l l c o l l e c t s e w a g e f r o m 9 a r e a s n o w d i s -c h a r g i n g r a w s e w a g e f r o m 4 5 o u t l e t s o v e r 2 5 m i l e s a n d g i v e p r i m a r y t r e a t m e n t t o w a s t e o f 3 0 0 , 0 0 0 p e o p l e a n d r e l e a s e a t o n e p o i n t i n S o u t h A r m F r a s e r . ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANISATIONS S P E C L e t t e r t o J a c k D a v i s , M i n i s t e r o f F i s h e r i e s ( F e d e r a l ) r e p r o p o s e d A n n a c i s p l a n t . O c t . 1 9 7 3 1 4 3 . (2 , 1 2 , 1 3 , 1 4 is, 20: T o x i c c h e m i c a l s -m a i n l y s u s p e c t e d a s c a u s e s o f r e - r o u t i n g s a l m o n m i g r a t i o n . F a c t t h a t s a l m o n f u n s w i t c h e d f r o m N o r t h A r m . o f r i v e r t o M a i n A r m . a b o u t 1 9 5 0 . D e c l i n e i n p i n k s a l m o n , w h o s e f i n g e r l i n g s m i g r a t e , d o w n s t r e a m a t l o w f l o w . ! • ! A t A r . - i c i s w i l l i n v o ' . v e c o m b i n a t i o n a e r a t i o n a n d s e d i -m e n t a t i o n . W i l l n o t c ' c t o x i f y p o i s o n s . j '. B u n n e l l t h i n k s t h i s w i l l , c o s t $ 1 . 4 m i l l -i o n / y e a r m a r e . R e m o v e s m o r e B O D , s o l i d s a n d b a c t e r i a a n d m o n i t o r t o x i c w a s t e s a s t h e s e a f f e c t b a c t e r i a . A n n a c i s t o h a v e p r e a n d p o s t c h l o r i n a t i o n . P r o b l e m o f e f f e c t o n f i s h - l o c a l i s e d . a r e a s w i t h c o n c e n t r a t i o n 0.2 ppm f o r s o m e h o u r s m a y b e h a z a r d o u s t o ; o u n g f i s h . P l u s s y n e r g i s t i c e f f e c t s w i t h o t h e r r e s i d u a l s . S u g g e s t o z o n a t i o n o r u l t r a -v i o l e t r a d i a t i o n . C o l l e c t i o n s y s t e m -f i r s t s t a g e w i l l c o s t $ 2 7 . 7 m i l l i o n . O u t f a l l w i t h d i f f u s e r s . BOD l o a d i n g o n r i v e r a t o u t f a l l . 6 0 , 0 0 0 l b s . B O D / d a y -t w o t i m e s t h a t o f a n y c u r r e n t o u t f a l l . T o x i c s s h o u l d * b e d i r e c t e d t o a s p i l l l a g o o n . 1 E f f l u e n t w i l l b e c o n c e n - • t r a t e d a n d r e l e a s e d a t o n e o f n a r r o w e s t p o i n t s o f r i v e r . F i s h i n g - s a l m o n s p a w n i n g . W o r t h $ 5 0 m i 11 i o n / y e a r . A n n a c i s p l a n t t o r e l e a s e 1 2 9 m g / d a y p r i m a r i l y t r e a t e d s e w a g e i n t o S o u t h A r m F r a s e r r i v e r . BOD 1 3 0 ppm a n d s u s p e n d e d s o l i d s 1 0 0 p p m . R e f u s a l f o r n e w p u b l i c h e a r i n g d e s p i t e p e t i t i o n b y o r g a n i s a t i o n s r e p r e s e n t i n g 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 c i t i z e n s . R e q u i r e s e c o n d a r y t r e a t m e n t a t A n n a c i s a n d a l t e r n a t i v e d i s -i n f e c t i o n . ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANISATIONS C i t i z e n s C o m m i t t e e R e p o r t f o r G . V . R . D . l i v a b l e r e g i o n s p r o g r a m m e . O c t . 1 9 7 3 1 5 3 (2 . 1 7 , 1 1 , 5 , 2 3 , 2 9 , 1 6 ) P a t h o g e n i c b a c t e r i a , t o x i c s u b s t a n c e s , h e a v y m e t a l s , P . C . B i s , p e s t i c i d e s , O2 d e m a n d -i n g s u b s t a n c e s , d e b r i s . i 1 . •1 ' r -i C h l o r i n a t i o n - h a z a r d t o f i s h . . O z o n a t i o n a n d r a d i -a t i o n s t i l l e x p e r i m e n -t a l b u t n e e d e d . S e p a r a t e t o x i c w a s t e s a t s o u r c e , e s p e c i a l l y i n d u s t r y . N e e d t o i s o l a t e a n d l o c a t e s o u r c e o f s t o r m w a t e r e f f l u e n t s . D e p o s i t s l u d g e w a s t e s o n l a n d . M U L T I P L E U S E C O N C E P T F i s h e r i e s . T o u r i s m a n d r e c r e a t i o n . A e s t h e t i c a n d s y m b o l i c a l v a l u e w i l l i n c r e a s e w i t h p r e s s u r e o n t h e r e s o u r c e . I n d u s t r y - n a v i g a t i o n a n d p r o c e s s i n g . N e e d f o r p u b l i c e d u c a t i o n , m o n i t o r i n g u s e o f i n n o v a t i v e t e c h n o l o g i e s . S h o u l d i m p l e m e n t C a n a d a W a t e r A c t i n F r a s e r R i v e r p l u s e x t e n d 1 9 6 7 P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l A c t t o a l l w a s t e p r o d u c e r s d i s c h a r g i n g i n t o s e w e r s . S h o r e l i n e d e e d o p e r a t o r s m u s t c o n s i d e r w . q . ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANISATIONS S P E C B r i e f i n s u p p o r t o f s e c o n d a r y t r e a t m e n t a t G . V . R . D . a p p e a l . 2 4 : 7 : 7 4 16 3 (2 , 1 2 , 1 3 , 1 4 , 1 5 , 2 0 ] 1 . E f f i b M t t o x i c t o f i s h . ' 1 ' ! • ' i , 1 R e d u c s o u t p u t o f t o x i c s a n d h e a v y m e t a l s . E s p e c i a l l y o x i d i z a b l e t o x i c s . S o u r c e c o n t r o l t o x i c s . 2 - 3 t i d a l . c y c l e s r e q u i r e d d u r i n g l o w . f l o w p e r i o d s f o r e f f l u e n t t o r e a c h S t r a i t o f G e o r g i a - c o i n c i d e s w i t h s o m e m a j o r f i s h r u n s . F i s h i n g i n d u s t r y w o r t h $ 6 0 0 m i l l i o n p e r y e a r . 118 1 O R G A N I S A T I O N i R O L E D A T E -- tj ijujo: E : ex: U J ZD ut ca i_> u. O U J -JD O CC z SOURCE OR TYPE OF Cft'lMUNIC. I S S U E S & P E R C E P T I O N S OTHER I D E A S & C O N C E R N S SOURCE OR TYPE OF Cft'lMUNIC. P O L L U T A N T S WATER Q U A L I T Y P A R A M E T E R S & S T A N D A R D S 1 T Y P E S OF SEWAGE T R E A T M E N T • P R I M A R Y S E C O N D A R Y T E R T I A R Y D I S I N F E C T I O N SEWAGE C O L L E C T I O N SEWAGE D I S P O S A L ' F E A T U R E S OF R E C E I V I N G WATERS U S E S FOR F R A S C R R I V E R C o l u 1 mn n u m b e r s 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 C o l u m n n u m b e r s 9 . . ' 1 0 11 1 2 1 3 14 C o l u m n n u m b e r s 1 5 1 6 17 ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANISATIONS B C E C B r i e f t o H o n . E . H a l l , P r o v i n c i a l S e c r e t a r y , s u p p o r t i n g s e c o n d a r y t r e a t m e n t a n d d e c h l o r -i n a t i o n a t A n n a c i s P l a n t . 1 9 : 9 : 7 4 17 3 ( 2 . 1 6 ) P r i m a r y t r e a t e d s e w a g e t o x i c P C B ' s a n d c h l o r -i n a t e d h y d r o c a r b o n s , p e s t i c i d e s . R e - o v s s g r o s s s o l i d s . T r a d i t i o n a l s y s t e m . M o r e t o x i c t h a n u n -t r e a t e d p u l p m i l l e f f l u e n t . May b e a c u t e l y t o x i c t o f i s h a t 2 - 3 2 ! d i l u t i o n . N u t r i e n t I n p u t f r o m p r i w i l l h a v e a l m o s t s a m e e e n v i r o n m e n t . R e m o v e s m o r e s o l i d s t h a n p r i m a r y a n d m o s t of O2 d e m a n d i n g c o m -p o n e n t s . S t a n d a r d - r a t e a c t i -v a t e d s l u d g e t r e a t m e n t c a n r e m o v e 7 5 X o f t o x i c i t y . B i o l o g i c a l m e t h o d . m a r y o r s e c o n d a r y p l a n t f f e c t o n e s t u a r i n e C h l o r i n a t e d e f f l u e n t n e e d s 1 0 0 0 t i m e s d i l u -t i o n - t o p r e v e n t a c u t e t o x i c i t y t o f i s h . I f p o s t - c h l o r i n a t i o n p r a c t i c e d n e e d f o r d e -c h l o r i n a t i o n p r i o r t o d i s c h a r g e . E v e n t h i s l e a v e s \ % s t a b l e c h l o r i n e c o m p o u n d s - s o m e s i m i l a r t o p e s t i c i d e s - w i t h u n k n o w n c h r o n i c e f f e c t . M u s t o n l y b e i n t e r i m m e t h o d . O z o n a t i o n m o r e d e s i r a b l e . S o u r c e c o n t r o l o f h e a v y m e t a l s a n d o t h e r s p e c i f i c c o n t a m i n a n t s f r o m i n d u s t r y a n d o t h e r s o u r c e s n e e d e d t o p r o t e c t f u n c t i o n i n g o f s e c o n d a r y t r e a t m e n t p l a n t . P r o b l e m s o f l o c a l i s e d c o n c e n t r a t i o n o f e f f l u e n t . D i f f u s e r s e x t e n d o u t t o h w i d t h o f c h a n n e l . C a n t a k e u p t o 3 t i d a l c y c l e s to f l u s h e f f l u e n t f r o m r i v e r . ( S o m e v i a N o r t h a r m ) . T i d e s w i l l d i s p e r s e e f f l u e n t l a t e r a l l y a c r o s s t h e e n t i r e c h a n n e l . F a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g c o n -c e n t r a t i o n of n u t r i e n t s i n t h e e s t u a r y w i l l c a u s e c o n -c e n t r a t i o n o f p o l l u t a n t s -i . e . F r a s e r e s t u a r y n o t a c o n v e n i e n t m e d i u m f o r l o n g t e r m d i s c h a r g e o f e f f l u e n t . S a l m o n F i s h e r y - e s p e c i a l l y s a l m o n f r y h a r m e d . ; 1 9 7 0 - $ 7 0 m i l l i o n r e t a i l v a l u e p l u s r e c r e a t i o n a l v a l u e o f $ 3 0 m i l l i o n . O v e r w i n t e r i n g h a b i t a t f o r a q u a t i c b i r d s a n d s t o p o v e r f e e d i n g g r o u n d f o r t h e P a c i f i c f l i g h t w a y . I o n a a n d L u l u o u t f a l l s s h o w up e n v i r o n m e n t a l d e g r a d a t i o n . I n t e r n a t i o n a l c o m m i t m e n t . • ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANISATIONS UFAWU B r i e f t o P r e m i e r a n d E x e c u t i v e C o u n c i l o : B . C . s u p p o r t i n g s e c o n -d a r y t r e a t m e n t a t A n n a c i s I s l a n d P l a n t . 9 : 1 0 : 7 4 1 8 3 ( 2 -2 , 6 . 8 ) R e s i d u a l c h l o r i n e p r i m a r y t r e a t e d s e w a g e - t o x i c T s x i c a f f l u e n t . t • • i ' i C a n r e d u c e t o x i c i t y o f e f f l u e n t . W i l l p r e s e r v e w a t e r q u a l i t y . R e s i d u a l c h l o r i n e -a t o x i c w a s t e . D e c h l o r i n a t i o n a m u s t . P r o b l e m o f t r u n k s e w e r s m i x i n g d o m e s t i c , c o m -m e r c i a l a n d i n d u s t r i a l w a s t e f r o m l a r g e a r e a . P r o b l e m o f d i s p e r s a l f r o m o n e l a r g e o u t l e t -e s p e c i a l l y if p l a n t b r e a k s d o w n - p r o b l e m . c h o i c e o f l o c a t i o n o f p l a n t . T i d e s r e v e r s e r i v e r f l o w s . E n t i r e f l o w o f F r a s e r r i v e r n o t a v a i l a b l e f o r d i l u t i o n Jf e f f l u e n t . F r a s e r s a l m o n r u n s a n d c o m m e r c i a l f i s h e r y . C o m p l e t e t e r t i a r y t r e a t m e n t r e q u i r e d a t t h e A n n a c i s p l a n t . A l s o e n d o r s e c o n c l u s i o n s o f B C E C b r i e f a b o v e . N e e d f o r e f f e c t i v e t o x i c c o n t r o l p r o g r a m . RESEARCH ORGANISATIONS W e s t w a t e r I n f l u e n c e t h o s e c o n c e r n e d w i t h A n n a c i s c a s e , e s p e c i a l l y p u b l i c s e c t o r . A u g . 1 9 7 4 1 9 3 H i g h l e v e l s of m i c r o -o r g a n i s m s , p o t e n t i a l l y p a t h o g e n i c o r g a n i s m s . T o x i c s - s o m e h i g h l e v e l s h e a v y ' t r a c e ' m e t a l s : ( Z n , M e r c u r y , P b ) . P o t e n t i a l l y - a l s o : O2 c o n s u m i n g m a t t e r , n u t r i e n t s , d e b r i s , s u s p e n d e d m a t t e r . DO (O2 c o n s u m i n g m a t t e r ) BOD M i c r o o r g a n i s m s , t r a c e m e t a l s , t o x i c s , n u t r i e n t s , d e b r i s , s u s p e n d e d m a t t e r | P r o b l e m o f s o u r c e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f t o x i c s a n d n o n - p o i n t s o u r c e s o f s u c h p o l l u t a n t s . P r o b l e m o f d i s c h a r g e o f f - l o w - M a r c h / F e b . 3 0 , 3 0 0 u n t r e a t e d s a n i t a r y fcfs. s e w a g e f r o m v a r i e t y o f S l a t e M a y - S u m m e r , 3 2 0 , 0 0 0 s o u r c e s a l o n g t h e fcfs. r i v e r . b y l i n e I n t r u s i o n - N o / - A p r . { w i n t e r t i d e s h i g h -[ r e s u l t i n s l o w f l o w o r J b a c ' k f l o w - 4 5 h r s . or m o r e . . . . . . j . y e n / M a r c h D . O . l e v e l s f o r j M a i n A r m - 9 0 % . t :',ust a c c o u n t f o r l o c a l ^ c h a n n e l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s •\ni f l o w . ! F i s h e r y . N a v i g a t i o n - f l o a t i n g d e b r i s c a u s e s $ 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 d a m a g e a y e a r t o c r a f t . D i v e r s i o n o f s e w a g e t o A n n a c i s I s l a n d P l a n t s h o u l d h e l p c o n t r o l n u m b e r o f p a t h o g e n s d i s c h a r g e d i n t o F r a s e r . RESEARCH ORGANISATIONS B . C . R e s e a r c h I n f l u e n c e t h o s e c o n -c e r n e d w i t h A n n a c i s c a s e - q u o t e d b y S P E C a n d B C E C a n d W e s t w a t e r . M a r . 1 9 7 4 W a t e r n o r t h F r a s e r n e a r A n n a c i s B a s e l i n e R e p o r t o r A n n a c i s 3 3 ' 1 KEY TO APPENDIX A Column 5 - References, in order of citing. Provincial Government (1) Go!die, C.A. Pollution and the Fraser. Report 1. British Columbia Water Resources Service, Pollution Control Branch, Victoria, 1967. (2) Statutes of B.C. 1967, Ch. 34: An Act Respecting Pollution Control, assented to 23rd March 1967. (3) Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. Pollution Control Objectives for Municipal Type Waste Discharges in B.C. Water Resources Service. Sept. 1975. (4) Pollution Control Board to G.V.S. & D.D., April 21st, 1975. Regional Government (5) Vancouver and Districts Joint Sewerage and Drainage Board. Final Report on Burrard Peninsula Joint Sewerage Scheme. R.S. Lea, Vancouver, Clarke and Stuart, 1916. (6) Vancouver & Districts Joint Sewerage and Drainage Board. Board of Engineers. Sewerage and Drainage of the Greater Vancouver Area. (Rawn Report), British Columbia, Vancouver, 1953. (7) Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District. Consolidation of Amendments to the Rawn Report. Vancouver, 1970. (8) G.V.R.D. Brief Submitted to the Public Enquiry on Municipal Waste Disposal. Vol. II, Part 3, Feb. 1973. (9) G.V.S. & D.D. to L.G.I.C. (Lieutenant Governor in Council), February 1974. Environmental Organisations (10) Richmond Anti-Pollution Association to Pollution Control Board, 2nd April 1969. File on Annacis Island Case, S.P.E.C., Vancouver, B.C. (11) R.A.P.A. to Pollution Control Board, 1st January 1971. File on Annacis Island Case, S.P.E.C., Vancouver, B.C. (12) R.A.P.A. to Pollution Control Board, 2nd February 1971. File on Annacis Island Case, S.P.E.C., Vancouver, B.C. (13) Mallard, D. The Fraser River Report. S.P.E.C., Vancouver, 1970. (14) S.P.E.C. to Jack Davis (Federal Fisheries), 16th April 1971. File on Annacis Island Case, S.P.E.C, Vancouver, B.C. (15) G.V.R.D. Policy Committee Report. Environmental Management and Pollution Control. Citizen's Advisory Committee, Vancouver, October 1973. (16) S.P.E.C. to Pollution Control Board, 2nd April 1969. (17) B.C.E.C. to Hon. E. Hall, September 1974. (18) U.F.A.W.U. to Premier and Executive Council of B.C. October 1974. (19) Hall, K.J. and F.A. Koch, I. Yesaki. Further Investigations into Water Quality Conditions in the Lower Fraser River System. Technical Report 4. Westwater Research Centre, Vancouver, 1974. Abbreviations: BOD - Biological Oxygen Demand DO - Dissolved Oxygen Column 6 - Sources of information and type of communication 1. Interview. 2. Respondent to questionnaire (individual respondents are identified by the numbers in brackets. The numbers correspond with the l i s t in Appendix C). 3. Secondary source materials. These are- identified in Column 5. 4. Personal letter. APPENDIX B 122 COPY OF INITIAL REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ABOUT "THINGS" FOUND IN THE WATER OF THE FRASER RIVER AND THE WAY THESE THINGS OPERATE THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Vancouver 8, Canada Westwater Research Centre 26th May 1975. As part of the larger Westwater study on water quality manage-ment in the lower Fraser river valley, I am soliciting people's ideas about those things that determine water quality -- and about ways in which those things have their effect. I'd like you to suggest as many 'things' and 'ways' as you can in ten minutes. Please l i s t them - IN ORDER OF IMPORTANCE - under the headings provided below. This is a preliminary request for people's ideas. The infor-mation obtained will be used in the design of a more detailed questionnaire relating to the ways in which water quality issues are perceived by the general public as well as by 'experts' in a variety of fields. Please will you put your own field of expertise on the bottom of the sheet, together with your name in case I need to discuss your response with you. It is important to the further design of the study that I receive a good response. Please will you hand your response to your 123 departmental secretary this week. If you wish me to explain the request in more detail please leave your number with the secretary at 228-4927. Thank you for your attention, SHARLENE WHITE (Planning student) Things that may indicate water quality, (in order of importance) Ways in which those things operate. 124 APPENDIX C LIST OF RESPONDENTS, DESCRIBING THEIR EXPERIENTIAL BACKGROUND AND ROLE IN THE ANNACIS CASE Respon-dent Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 Group Group Number Description Occupation 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 D.O.E. UFAWU Civil Engineer Business Officer Env. Canada Fishery (Fisheries) Officer B.C.Packers Food Technology Contact Role re S/G/L with Annacis Skills Score River Case Engin- 2 - S Daily Profes-eering sional Politic- 3 - G Monthly Prof. & al Local Science Activist Policing 4 - G Daily Profes-sional Fish 4 Packing Fisheries Research Board of Canada UFAWU IPSFC UFAWU Fisheries Assn. B.C. Canadian Fishing Co. B.C.Wild-lif e Federation Fisheries Research G Daily Business Chemist 2 - S Daily Profes-sional & Environ-mental Activist Fisherman Mechanic 6 - L Daily Pollution Control Fisherman (retired) Executive-Secretary Food Technology Adminis-trator Executive Env. 2 - S Weekly Engineer Fishing 5 - G Daily 'Sev- 4 - G Weekly era!' Fish 2 - S Twice Packing a Year Organis- 4 - G Daily ina Local Interest Research-Infor. Technical Comm. Local Interest, Vocal Activist Steering Comm. for Annacis Plan Study Business Vocal Activist Local Interest 125 Respon-dent Number 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Group Group Number Description Occupation Skills S/G/L Score SPEC SPEC SPEC SPEC BCEC RAPA Teacher Housewife Crafts Chemis-try 3 6 Housewife Adminis-trator Communi-cations Physical 6 Fitness Social 4 Activist Public 2 Partici-pation Research Biology 2 Consultant B.C. Fed. Agric. Naturalists Research B.C. Fed. Adminis-Naturalists trator/ Teacher Plant Path-ology SPEC Munic. of Richmond D.O.E. Building Con- 5 Contractor struction M.H.O. Adminis- 3 tration/ Medicine 3 D.O.E. E.P.S. G L Contact with River Weekly Weekly Daily Never - S Daily S Daily 2 - S Monthly History 3 - G Weekly L Daily G Weekly Management Econom- 3 - G Weekly ics Biologist Biology 2 - S Daily Technical Waste 2 - S Daily Advisor Treat-ment Role re Annacis Case Local Interest Local Interest Local Interest Active-General Interest Very Vocal Early Activist Activist-Local Interest Active-General Interest Active-General Interest & Research Local Interest Profes-sional Pollution Control Board Profes-sional -General Interest Technical Committee Technical Committee 126 Respon-dent Number 25 26 27 28 29 30 Group Group S/G/L Number Description Occupation Ski l i s Score Contact Role re G.V.R.D. G.V.R.D. G.V.R.D. City of Vancouver W. Pollu-tion Control Fed. G.V.R.D. Civil Engineer Civil Engineer Chemist M.H.O. Technical Editor Civil Engineer Engin-eering Admin- 2 istrator & Engi-neer Chemis- 2 try Adminis- 3 tration/ Medicine Sanitary 2 Engineer Sewage Facil-ities with Annacis River Case Daily Profes-sional -Technical Committee Weekly Profes-sional Steering Committee Weekly Profes-sional -General Interest Weekly Profes-sional -General Interest Weekly Active Profes-sional Interest Consultant Weekly Profes-sional Technical Committee Key: Group Number 1 Environmentalists 2 Fishing Industry 3 Water Quality Managers S/G/L Score Specialist Generalist Laymen 1 2 7 APPENDIX D LIST OF PUBLIC ORGANISATIONS MOST DIRECTLY INVOLVED WITH ANNACIS ISLAND CASE INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission FEDERAL GOVERNMENT Department of the Environment; Fisheries & Marine Service esp. Fisheries Management & Environmental Protection Service (habitat protection unit) PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT Dept. of Health - esp. environmental engineering Pollution Control Board - sets standards - broad policy Dept. of Lands, Forest & Water Resources Pollution Control Branch - adjudicates applications to discharge effluent in relation to P.C. Board policy LOCAL GOVERNMENT G.V.S. & D.D. - responsible for provision of trunk sewers and treatment in the Lower Mainland Local Public Health Units - concern with human contact with water resource APPENDIX E 128 QUESTIONNAIRE CONCERNING WATER QUALITY IN THE LOWER FRASER RIVER July 1975. Snarlene White. 1. We have many uses for the Fraser river. Please rank those listed below in order of importance (to you). Do this by numbering the uses from 1 (the most important) to 10. Fishing for pleasure Commercial fishing Viewing for pleasure Industrial water supply Industrial water disposal Domestic waste disposal Navigation Symbolical value Wildlife habitat Other - please name | 2. How often do you - personally - use the river for the purpose which you have ranked first in importance? Please tick the appropriate box. Daily Weekly Monthly Twice a year Yearly Never 3. How often do you notice the river? (For example you may cross i t , look at i t ...) Please tick the appropriate box. Daily Weekly Monthly Twice a year Yearly Never 129 What do you consider to be the most hazardous pollutant in the Fraser river? How does this pollutant act to harm the river? What is the source of this pollutant? How much does this pollutant reduce the value of the river to you? Please circle the appropriate figure: (not at all) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (greatly) On the next page is a question laid out in the form of a grid. Along the horizontal axis (top) are a l i s t of things which are present in the water of the lower Fraser river. The l i s t also includes some more qualitative attributes of the river. At the end of this l i s t two spaces have been left for you to f i l l in two things (or attributes) which I have omitted but which seem most important to you. It is important that you f i l l in these two spaces. The numbers along the vertical axis (side) of the grid are labeling the different combinations into which the 'things' and 'attributes' have been sorted. Looking along line 1 you will see circles (0) underneath the things chosen for the first group. The fir s t group consists of:-Heavy Metals, Logs & Deadheads, Pesticides. For each group, please decide the MOST IMPORTANT way that TWO of the three chosen things are alike and different from the third. You should mark the two things that are alike by placing an in the appropriate circle. Next write a word or short phrase in the column at the end of the line which is labeled CONSTRUCT. The phrase should explain how the TWO are ALIKE. In the column labeled CONTRAST should be written a word or phrase explaining how the THIRD thing is DIFFERENT from the other two. While you s t i l l have this distinction in mind, consider briefly EACH of the remaining 17 things along that line and decide whether this same CONSTRUCT attribute can be applied to each of them in turn. If the same construct is applicable place a tick in the box underneath the appropriate thing. Repeat the process all the way along that line. Then turn to the next line and consider the new group of things, decid-ing again the most important way that two of the three chosen things are alike and different from the third... etc. When you get to line 10 it is up to you to choose the things which you want to make up that group. You may have some important construct in mind to help you make the choice. It is always necessary for you to decide how many really different qualities you have mentioned. When you have finished all 12 lines, look over your 'constructs' and 'contrasts' and decide how many really different qualities are mentioned there. Label that quality 1—' r o i—' i—« o 0 0 c n c n c o r o i—> G R O U P S -< o Debris h-> o o Turbidity r o o o o Heavy Metals c o o Logs & Deadheads - r ^ o o All Bacteria c n o Dissolved Oxygen CD o o Fish o Pesticides CO o o Nutrients o Pathogenic Bacteria 1—» o o Oils 1—> o o Chlorine 1—' r o o Wildlife i—» CO o o Colour i—> -P=> o Water Hardness t-~* c n o o Temperature i—" c n o Plant Life i—> - » j o Smell i—» o o i—» r o o o o : z 0 0 1 73 CZ o —1 o o 1 1 73 3=> o o i —1 C75 CO oet 131 (construct - contrast) which you have mentioned most often with a number 1, that which you have mentioned next most often with a number 2 and so on, until you have labeled all the Construct - Contrast pairs. How many have you identified? Do you think these qualities describe the most important ways in which you think about the quality of the water in the Fraser river? Yes No Don't know If No or Don't Know - please explain why. 9. Are you a member of an environmental group? YES NO 10. Please name the group(s) 11. Are you associated with the fishing industry? YES NO 12. Please name the group. 13. Are you associated with water quality management? YES NO 14. Please name the group. 15. Please RANK, in order of IMPORTANCE to you, your association with the groups you have named in questions 10, 12 and 14. Do this by relisting the groups below in Rank order. 16. Please total the number of groups named above 17. What is your occupation? 18. In what field do you have most skills? 19. Is this an accurate statement? Two forms of sewage treatment have been officially recommended (by the Pollution Control Branch) for the Annacis Island plant; initially primary treatment plus chlorination and dechlorination of the effluent, and currently - by April 1977, secondary treatment plus chlorination and dechlorination of the effluent. YES NO DON'T KNOW '132 20. What type of treatment do you personally consider to be desirable at Annacis Island? 21. Do you think i t is important to chlorinate the treated sewage before i t is discharged into the river? (N.B. This is not a general question about disinfection.) YES NO DON'T KNOW 22. If the treated sewage is chlorinated, do you think that dechlorination is also necessary? YES NO DON'T KNOW 23. What in your opinion would be the advantage of secondary treatment over the primary treatment for the Annacis Island situation? Please RATE those categories which you consider to be advantages of  secondary treatment, starting with number 1 for the most important advantage. It leaves more oxygen in the river. It reduces the amount of harmful bacteria entering the river. It stops unsightly floating wastes in the river. It reduces the quantity of toxic substances entering the river. No real advantage. Other - explain 24. We continue to study the long term and cumulative effects that certain substances will have upon our environment. Which of the following strategies do you think we should employ for the Fraser river? Please rate those you agree with, starting with number 1 for the most important strategy. Continue to discharge toxic wastes into the river I until research has proven their adverse effects in the river. For certain substances, control their discharge while researching into their effects upon the river. Prevent any further discharge of certain substances until we are more certain of their effects upon the river. Other - please explain briefly 133 25. There are many recommended ingredients for rational environmental decision making. In the case of substances with uncertain effects upon  the river, which of the following types of information should we rely upon when making decisions? Please rate those we should rely upon, starting with number 1 for the most important type of information. Scientific data about the physical environment. Data from public opinion polls. Information about the majority concensus of opinion. Feeling for the opinions of various 'publics'. Feeling for the river environment - 'spirit of place'. Feeling for the individual 'genius' of appointed decision makers. Other - please outline briefly. 26. Which is the best strategy for protecting the waters of the Fraser river from the adverse effects of municipal sewage (domestic and industrial and storm runoff)? Please rate the strategies you consider desirable in order of importance, starting with the number 1 for the most valuable strategy. Carefully collect all the runoff and sewage into one or two large treatment plants to ensure i t can all receive a minimum standard of treatment. Separate storm runoff from domestic and industrial sewage before they are treated. Try to stop certain toxic substances, from industry, from mixing with the rest of the sewage and arrange for these toxic wastes to be collected and treated separately. Try to separate and treat most waste substances at their source, so that expensive sewage systems and treatment plants are less necessary and more sub-stances can be recycled. Other - please explain. 134 27. How should we dispose of residuals? Please rate the suggestions you agree with - starting with number 1 for the suggestion you favour most, for the Fraser river. 1 Recycle all possible substances (separating them before treatment). Carefully store non-biodegradable substances. Disperse the effluent from a variety of outlets according to local conditions. Release the effluent from one or two outlets, providing that the effluent meets certain minimum standards. Other - please explain briefly. 28. How much do you think we need to experiment with new ways of treating and disposing of sewage? Please circle the appropriate number (i.e. physically implement as well as research). not at all 1 2 3 4 5 . 6 7 greatly 29. Briefly explain the reasoning behind your last response. 30. How many hours do you spend each week in each of the following ways? A. Water contact sports; e.g. swimming, water skiing, dinghy sailing... B. Water related sports; e.g. fishing, cruising, viewing... C. Working at your occupation. D. Working with 'environmental' groups. E. Working at practical creative arts, crafts, garden ... F. Cinema, T.V., Theatre, Concerts, Art Displays -viewing and listening. 31. How many children do you have? 32. What is your age? 33. Finally, I should like to thank you for completing this questionnaire and should appreciate any criticism you may wish to make about the questionnaire. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0094138/manifest

Comment

Related Items