Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The validity of citizen attitudes as conveyed to politicians and planners through participation and representation McKeen, Kenneth James 1978

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1978_A8 M32_4.pdf [ 5.23MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0094410.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0094410-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0094410-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0094410-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0094410-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0094410-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0094410-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0094410-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0094410.ris

Full Text

THE VALIDITY OF CITIZEN ATTITUDES AS CONVEYED TO POLITICIANS AND PLANNERS THROUGH PARTICIPATION AND REPRESENTATION by KENNETH JAMES McKEEN B.A., University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1972 THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (School of Community & Regional Planning) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA June, 1978 © Kenneth James McKeen, 1978 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and study. I f u r t h e r agree that p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be allowed without my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . SCHOOL OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e , Vancouver, Canada, V6T 1W5 ABSTRACT Information conveyed to c i t y planners and p o l i t i c i a n s f o r use i n d e c i s i o n making may not r e f l e c t the f u l l range of o p i n i o n s found i n an urban p o p u l a t i o n . People who convey the f e e l i n g s o p a r t i c i p a t o r s - hol d s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i v e .importance of v a r i o u s u p a r t i c i p a t o r s . People from d i f f a l s o h o l d d i f f e r i n g ideas about i s s u e s . f the Vancouver p o p u l a t i o n - the l y d i f f e r e n t ideas about the rban i s s u e s than non-erent l o c a l areas of Vancouver the importance of some urban A r e l i a b l e t e n - v a r i a b l e s c a l e of p a r t i c i p a t i o n developed as p a r t of the study was used to measure the l e v e l of p a r t i c i p a t i o n f o r each of 779 Vancouver respondents and to determine the means of p a r t i c i p a t i o n f o r each of twenty-two Vancouver L o c a l Areas and P o i n t Grey-U.B.C. i n which the respondents l i v e d . The comparative u s e f u l n e s s of p a r t i c i p a t i o n and l o c a l neighbourhood areas as p r e d i c t o r s o f the p e r c e i v e d importance of t h i r t y - f i v e urban i s s u e s was t e s t e d . Both p r e d i c t o r s are s a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , but with low p r e d i c t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s . The d i f f e r e n c e s among l o c a l areas i n l e v e l of p a r t i c i p a t i o n and i n " w i t h i n area" range of p a r t i c i p a t i o n have i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r c i v i c a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and planning i n Vancouver. ( i i ) A ward system of c i t y government may f a c i l i t a t e an e l e c t i o n o f members to c o u n c i l which i s more s p a t i a l l y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e yet e q u a l l y e f f i c i e n t than the prese n t a t - l a r g e system. The e x i s t i n g l o c a l area pla n n i n g system appears to be g e n e r a l l y w e l l s u i t e d f o r responding t o d i f f e r e n c e s among the l o c a l areas i n both l e v e l and range of p a r t i c i p a t i o n . ( i i i ) TABLE OF CONTENTS A b s t r a c t T a b l e of C o n t e n t s L i s t of T a b l e s L i s t of F i g u r e s Acknowledgements C h a p t e r I ATTITUDES REPRESENTATION AND PARTICIPATION A . The C e n t r a l T h e s i s P l a n n e r s and P o l i t i c i a n s Do Not C o n s i d e r the F u l l Range o f C i t i z e n A t t i t u d e s . B . A C l a r i f i c a t i o n o f Terms" C . Q u e s t i o n s A d d r e s s e d By The Study Do R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s A c c u r a t e l y R e f l e c t A t t i t u d e s ? Can R e p r e s e n t a t i o n of A t t i t u d e s Be Improved? Do A t t i t u d e s A t t a c h More S t r o n g l y to L i f e s t y l e o r Geography? D . Purposes of the Study II THE PROBLEM IN THE CONTEXT OF THE GENERAL LITERATURE A . The I n d u s t r i a l R e v o l u t i o n B. Urban Reform In N o r t h America C . E a r l y P l a n n i n g Theory 1. The C i t y B e a u t i f u l P l a n n i n g Movement 2 . The C i t y E f f i c i e n t P l a n n i n g Movement D. From C i t y E f f i c i e n t to E a r l y C i t i z e n Involvement E . A d v o c a t e s , V a l u e s and P o l i t i c s F . Acceptance o f C i t i z e n P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n P l a n n i n g and Government G. The Demographic C h a r a c t e r o f P a r t i c i p a t o r s H . Summary o f the G e n e r a l L i t e r a t u r e I . Development o f P l a n n i n g and C i v i c A d m i n i s t r a t i o n i n Vancouver ( i v ) Pag I I I PROCEDURES OF THE STUDY A. Previous Vancouver Research on P a r t i c i p a t i o n 27 and A t t i t u d e s B. The Data of the Urban Futures f o r Vancouver 28 P r o j e c t C. Sample and Sampling Procedure 29 D. A C l a r i f i c a t i o n of the L i f e s t y l e , 30 P a r t i c i p a t i o n , L o c a l Area and Urban Issue V a r i a b l e s E. Previous Analyses of the Data 32 F. The Study Hypotheses 33 1. P a r t i c i p a t i o n , L i f e s t y l e and L o c a l 33 Area 2. Importance of Urban Issues, 34 P a r t i c i p a t i o n and L o c a l Area G. The Analyses 35 IV THE RESULTS 36 A. P a r t i c i p a t i o n as a S o c i a l Phenomenon: 36 Proving that i t E x i s t s B. C o r r e l a t i o n of L i f e s t y l e V a r i a b l e s with 39 P a r t i c i p a t i o n C. Vancouver L o c a l Areas: Which Urban Issues 45 are Most Important? D. P a r t i c i p a t i o n and Importance of Urban 54 Issues: Are They Related? E. P a r t i c i p a t i o n : Showing that i t V a r i e s Among 58 L o c a l Areas F. P a r t i c i p a t i o n and The Importance of Urban 59 Issues: Does Neighbourhood Area Moderate? (v) Pag V CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY 61 A. Concl u s i o n s 61 B. I m p l i c a t i o n s and Recommendations 61 1. I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r C i v i c Government 63 2. I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r C i t y Planning 66 C. Summary 70 D. Future Research 71 REFERENCES 73 APPENDIX A 82 Urban Futures f o r Vancouver P r o j e c t -Personal Data Booklet APPENDIX B 98 Map Showing A l t e r a t i o n s to Vancouver L o c a l Areas Used i n the Study to S i m p l i f y Data Procedures. * * * * * ( v i ) LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1 R e l i a b i l i t y of P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scale 38 2 Pearsonian C o r r e l a t i o n s o f P a r t i c i p a t i o n 41 with F i v e L i f e s t y l e V a r i a b l e s f o r 779 Respondents from 23 Vancouver L o c a l Areas 3 The P e r c e i v e d Importance of T h i r t y - F i v e 46 Urban Issues as Ranked by 779 Respondents From 23 Vancouver L o c a l Areas 4 Twenty-four Urban Issues and P a r t i c i p a t i o n 47 Showing Power of D i s c r i m i n a t i o n Between 23 Vancouver L o c a l Areas 5 The Importance of Twenty-four S i g n i f i c a n t 50 Urban Issues as Ranked by 779 Respondents from 23 Vancouver L o c a l Areas 6 C o r r e l a t i o n s of T h i r t y - F i v e Urban P r i o r i t y 57 Items With P a r t i c i p a t i o n I n c l u d i n g and Ex c l u d i n g E f f e c t s o f L o c a l Area ( v i i ) LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 Conceptual framework f o r the v a r i a b l e i n t e r a c t i o n s 2 Comparative Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n s of "Tendency to take P o l i t i c a l A c t s " and P a r t i c i p a t i o n S c a l e E x c l u d i n g "Tendency to take P o l i t i c a l A c t s " For 779 Respondents From 23 Vancouver L o c a l Areas 3 Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n o f P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scores f o r 779 Respondents from 23 Vancouver L o c a l Areas 4 D i s c r i m i n a t i o n Among 23 L o c a l Vancouver Neighbourhoods by Twenty-four of T h i r t y - s i x Urban Issues 5 Comparisons Among Twenty-Three L o c a l Neighbourhood Areas on P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scores 6 L e v e l and Homogeneity of P a r t i c i p a t i o n f o r Twenty-three Vancouver L o c a l Neighbourhood Areas 7 D i v i s i o n of Vancouver C i t y i n t o Nine Proposed Ward Areas which are C o n s i s t e n t with L o c a l Area Boundaries ( v i i i ) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many warm people helped d i r e c t l y and i n d i r e c t l y i n the p r e p a r a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s . I thank them a l l , e s p e c i a l l y my two a d v i s o r s . John C o l l i n s , who shared f r e e l y h i s time and energy, was a constant source of encouragement. His prodding and h i s good natured p a t i e n c e were as important as was h i s i n s i g h t i n t o the substance of the study i n seeing t h i s work completed. Henry Hightower I thank f o r h i s i n t e r e s t , support and guidance i n h e l p i n g to shape and to focus many of the ideas i n the t h e s i s . ( i x ) I. ATTITUDES, REPRESENTATION AND PARTICIPATION A. C e n t r a l T h e s i s The c e n t r a l t h e s i s of t h i s study i s that present day planners and p o l i t i c i a n s i n North America make frequent d e c i -s i o n s a f f e c t i n g the form, f u n c t i o n and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of c i t i e s on the b a s i s of inadequate knowledge of a t t i t u d e s and d e s i r e s of people l i v i n g i n those c i t i e s . The i n v e s t i g a t i o n of t h i s p r o p o s i t i o n n e c e s s a r i l y i n v o l v e s the study of c i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a -t i o n and r e p r e s e n t a t i o n as they a f f e c t the governing p r o c e s s . Previous i n t e r e s t has focused on the "mechanisms" of r e p r e s e n t a -t i o n , and p a r t i c i p a t i o n ( C i t y of Vancouver Planning Dept., 1977; Haber, 1964; Connor, 1974), but there has been l i t t l e r e s e a r c h on the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s of c i t i z e n a t t i t u d e s and p r i o r i t i e s conveyed by these mechanisms. E x p l o r a t i o n of the c e n t r a l con-cern of t h i s t h e s i s , n e c e s s i t a t e s comparative examination of s e t s of a t t i t u d e s and p r i o r i t i e s of c i t i z e n r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , p l a n n e r s , and p o l i t i c i a n s who p a r t i c i p a t e i n determining the f u t u r e of s o c i e t y , and those of t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e c o n s t i t u e n t s . Whether t h i s approach can y i e l d i n t e r e s t i n g and u s e f u l i n s i g h t s i s i n v e s t i g a t e d w i t h i n the context of the C i t y o f Vancouver. 1 B. A C l a r i f i c a t i o n of Terms A t t i t u d e s imply value judgements and a p r e d i s p o s i t i o n to act in a c e r t a i n manner (Hoult, 1972). I n d i v i d u a l s hold a t t i t u d e s about an enormous number of concrete and a b s t r a c t phenomena. Many are of an i d i o s y n c r a t i c nature and hold no widespread s o c i a l s i g n i f i c a n c e . Others are held on matters of s o c i a l concern and are important i n determining s o c i a l behavior. An i n d i v i d u a l ' s s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l b e l i e f s and h i s values d e t e r -mine h i s a t t i t u d e s and a c t i o n s toward a wide range of i s s u e s . Although each i n d i v i d u a l possesses a unique framework of a t t i -tudes, c e r t a i n systems of ideas provide a common source of i n d i -v i d u a l a t t i t u d e s and of a t t i t u d e s held by d i f f e r e n t groups w i t h i n a s o c i e t y . Some a t t i t u d e s are more important than others to the groups or i n d i v i d u a l s by whom they are h e l d . Cohorts are groups of people s t a r t i n g l i f e together or s h a r i n g the same absolute time p e r i o d i n l i f e ( F a i r c h i l d , 1966). A more l i b e r a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , that used i n t h i s study, i s a group of people s h a r i n g some l i f e s t y l e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i n common. One might have f o r example, the common age cohort, a sex cohort or even a geographic cohort of people. A l i f e s t y l e cohort i s a grouping of urban r e s i d e n t s who d i s p l a y r e l a t i v e homogeneity of stage i n l i f e c y c l e , s o c i o -economics s t a t u s or other s e l e c t e d l i f e s t y l e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ( T a y l o r et a l , 1973) . One such grouping might be s i n g l e people whose l e i s u r e a c t i v i t i e s c e n t r e on outdoor s p o r t s and r e c r e -2 a t i o n . I t has been argued that groups d e f i n e d on the b a s i s of composite l i f e s t y l e v a r i a b l e s e x h i b i t g r e a t e r s i m i l a r i t y i n a t t i t u d e s towards t h e i r urban environment than groups d e f i n e d i n terms of any one of the v a r i a b l e s s e p a r a t e l y (Hardwick, 1971). Status commonly re p r e s e n t s the s o c i a l standing or p r e s t i g e of a person i n the community or i n p u b l i c esteem. I t s connota-t i o n i s o f t e n vague and can be a t t r i b u t e d to one or more f a c t o r s such as wealth, r a c e , n a t i o n a l i t y , r e l i g i o n , f a m i l i a l l i n k a g e , e t c . ( F a i r c h i l d , 1966). B l i s h e n ' s (1964) i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s used i n t h i s study; namely, one's s t a t u s i s a composite of income, l e v e l of e d u c a t i o n , and o c c u p a t i o n . B l i s h e n has developed an i n t e r v a l s c a l i n g of 320 Canadian occupation types on t h i s b a s i s . The d i s t i n c t i o n between s p a t i a l and a s p a t i a l i s important. S p a t i a l r e f e r s to a d i r e c t concern f o r the p a t t e r n i n which c u l t u r e people and p h y s i c a l o b j e c t s are d i s t r i b u t e d across the landscape. I t suggests a concern f o r s p a t i a l p a t t e r n at a designated s c a l e ( F o l e y , 1975). One might d i f f e r e n t i a t e between an a r c h i t e c t u r a l s c a l e or i n the case of the p r e s e n t study an urban s c a l e . T h i s idea i n c o r o p o r a t e s connotations of geographic d i s t r i b u t i o n w i t h i n a c i t y s c a p e . Conversely " a s p a t i a l " r e f e r s to the conceptual elements of a p o p u l a t i o n such as a t t i t u d e s , v a l u e s , f e e l i n g s which are not so much a d e l i b e r a t e c h oice to overlook s p a t i a l p a t t e r n s as a focus on 3 other frames of r e f e r e n c e . The study w i l l f o r example examine the a s p a t i a l a t t i t u d i n a l frameworks of p a r t i c i p a t o r s as compared to n o n - p a r t i c i p a t o r s . C. Questions Addressed by the Study North American concern f o r ensuring r e p r e s e n t a t i o n to a l l l e v e l s of s o c i e t y , has t r a d i t i o n a l l y focused on the s p a t i a l s t r u c t u r e o f the c i t y ( F o l e y , 1975; Chapin, 1967; Alonso, 1971) as a means of a c h i e v i n g p o l i t i c a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . The primary o r i e n t a t i o n of planners and municipal p o l i t i c i a n s has been toward man i p u l a t i o n of the p h y s i c a l environment, yet i t i s c l e a r they must a l s o be responsive to the a s p a t i a l s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l o r g a n i z a t i o n of the community and the sense of a t t i t u d e s and values which are embedded i n that environment. E f f o r t s to b r i d g e the gap between the s p a t i a l concepts c e n t r a l to urban planning and the a s p a t i a l f u n c t i o n s of community have t y p i c a l l y centred around p h y s i c a l , s p a t i a l or geographic s o l u t i o n s . The p o l i t i c a l use of a ward system based on geographic p a t t e r n s of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n and p a r t i c i p a t i o n -s p a t i a l mechanisms - to determine and convey the a s p a t i a l concepts of p o p u l a t i o n a t t i t u d e s and o p i n i o n s , i s an example o f t h i s t h i n k i n g . The t h e s i s examines.three q u e s t i o n s : f i r s t , does the t h e o r e t i c a l d i s t r i b u t i o n of power by a geographic or s p a t i a l s e l e c t i o n of i n d i v i d u a l s to r e p r e s e n t the a s p a t i a l a t t i t u d e s of 4 s o c i e t y , r e s u l t i n the a t t i t u d i n a l p r i o r i t i e s o f a p o p u l a t i o n being a c c u r a t e l y r e f l e c t e d by t h e i r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s to governing or p l a n n i n g bodies? Secondly, i s there a more accurate means of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n ? ; and f i n a l l y , do s o c i a l a t t i t u d e s , f e e l i n g s and d i s p o s i t i o n s a t t a c h more s t r o n g l y to l i f e s t y l e cohorts or to d i f f e r e n t r e g i o ns of the urban geography? These q u e s t i o n s are set a g a i n s t the background of g e n e r a l p l a n n i n g h i s t o r y and an overview of p e r t i n e n t developments i n Vancouver's r e c e n t p l a n n i n g and p o l i t i c a l p a s t . They are then examined through the a n a l y s i s of data generated by the Vancouver Urban Futures P r o j e c t - a survey of the Vancouver urban r e g i o n designed to sample and eva l u a t e urban i s s u e s and e x p e c t a t i o n s ( C o l l i n s & Hardwick, 1973). D. Purposes of the Study The general g o a l s which t h i s study addresses are th r e e : To t e s t the t h e s i s t h a t present systems of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n  and p a r t i c i p a t i o n do not p r o v i d e planners and p o l i t i c i a n s with  a s u f f i c i e n t l y a c c urate understanding o f the fundamental  a t t i t u d e s and f e e l i n g s r e g a r d i n g our urban environment. T h i s w i l l be demonstrated by comparing the f e e l i n g s of importance about urban i s s u e s as p e r c e i v e d by " p a r t i c i p a t o r s " to the importance a t t r i b u t e d to the same i s s u e s by n o n - p a r t i c i p a t o r s . 5 To d i s c o v e r and to e x p l o r e the " a t t i t u d e and p r i o r i t y s e t s "  of p a r t i c i p a t o r s c o n t r a s t e d with n o n - p a r t i c i p a t o r s r e s i d i n g i n  the Vancouver urban r e g i o n . T h i s w i l l be achieved through s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s of the data. To make recommendations f o r improving present systems of  r e p r e s e n t a t i o n and p a r t i c i p a t i o n . These w i l l flow from the f i n d i n g s of the study. 6 I I . THE PROBLEM IN THE CONTEXT OF THE GENERAL LITERATURE A. The I n d u s t r i a l R e v o l u t i o n The nineteenth century and the i n d u s t r i a l r e v o l u t i o n brought an unprecendented u r b a n i z a t i o n of r u r a l p o p u l a t i o n s , with e f f e c t s f e l t throughout Europe and North America. Europe's urban p o p u l a t i o n more than t r i p l e d i n the i n t e r v a l 1800 to 1900 ( G a l l i o n & E i s n e r , 1975) . The t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n i n the United States doubled between 1810 and 1910 while the urban p o p u l a t i o n i n c r e a s e d seven times (Ward, 1971). The emergence of the i n d u s t r i a l m e t r o p o l i s marked a t r a n s i t i o n p o i n t i n urban id e o l o g y (Choay, 1969). The p r e - i n d u s t r i a l c i t y had been p a r t of a wider and more simple s o c i a l r e a l i t y . The "new c i t i e s " were a l i e n and came to be viewed as d i s t i n c t , detached or separate from the r e s t of s o c i e t y . I t was t h i s a l i e n a t i o n which r e s u l t e d i n an adoption by p o l i t i c i a n s and by the business e l i t e of a detached, a p o l i t i c a l , e t h i c a l l y n e u t r a l a t t i t u d e as the b e l i e f system u n d e r l y i n g t h e i r goals (Bottomley & Holdsworth, 1974). The r e s u l t was a t r a d i t i o n of profound b e l i e f i n the e f f i c i e n c y of technology and p r o f e s s i o n a l e x p e r t i s e known as the reform movement. 7 B. Urban Reform i n North America A d e f i n i t e change i n the i d e o l o g i c a l standpoint of many members of s o c i e t y came as a r e s u l t of e a r l y urban reform. As a p a r t i c u l a r view of s o c i e t y reform thought p r e s c r i b e d goals and the means to achieve them...The p r o v i s i o n of s o c i a l and economic s e r v i c e s became a bureau-c r a t i c f u n c t i o n i n the name of e f f i c i e n c y . . . a c o n s e r v a t i v e movement whose b a s i c aim was the p r e s e r v a t i o n of the l i b e r a l c a p i t a l i s t order (Bottomley, 1977, p.10). As t h i s change permeated the s o c i a l , p o l i t i c a l and p l a n n i n g thought, i t was c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a s u b l i m a t i o n of the moral a n a l y s i s of urban i l l s and a s t r u c t u r a l emphasis on the idea of e f f i c i e n c y . I t was businessmen wanting to promote economic growth who f i r s t moved to c o n t r o l the p o l i t i c a l i n s t i t u t i o n s . Seeing themselves as being i n p o s s e s s i o n of u n i v e r s a l l y v a l i d knowledge of the p u b l i c good, they q u i c k l y became l e a d e r s i n the reform movement l e a d i n g the way to a " c o r p o r a t e " s t y l e of c i v i c government (A d r i a n , 1968; Hays, 1964). The ward system and p a r t y p o l i t i c s were done away with s i n c e p o l i t i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s at the c i v i c l e v e l could only lead to i r r a t i o n a l i t y and i n e f f i c i e n c y (Gaetz, 1909). The business e l i t e argued that p o l i t i c s should be c l a s s l e s s s i n c e people's i n t e r e s t s were b a s i c a l l y a l l a l i k e , and that the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t s could best be served by they and t h e i r peers whose m o t i v a t i o n was a d e s i r e to serve the whole community (Haber, 1964) . The " a t t r i b u t e s of c o r p o r a t i o n " - e f f i c i e n c y , s i n g l e -ness of purpose, system, o r d e r l i n e s s and economy - were adopted 8 by the reformers as elements of good government (Shannon, 1940) . The corporate s t y l e of government was given form i n the bodies of commission and managerial models ( U n d e r h i l l , 1910; Rutherford, 1971) which engaged i n a process of s y s t e m i z a t i o n and r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n inherent i n the newly e v o l v i n g s o c i a l and s t a t i s t i c a l s c i e n c e s . The new a d m i n i s t r a t o r s turned f o r e x p e r t i s e to the s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s , who were t r y i n g to reduce human s o c i a l behavior to the p r e d i c t a b l e elements of a p h y s i c a l s c i e n c e (Moore, 1974). Human f u n c t i o n s r a t h e r than s u b j e c t i v e motives were the focus of a t t e n t i o n . The r e s u l t was a gradual c o n c e n t r a t i o n of power i n t o the hands of "experts" who made d e c i s i o n s independently of the p o l i t i c a l process and the v a g a r i e s of c i v i c government ( B a r i t z , 1960; Hays, 1959; Waldo, 1948). T h i s , of course, was i d e a l f o r the reformers s i n c e i t l e f t p o l i t i c a l power i n the e f f i c i e n t hands of the " r e s p o n s i b l e " c l a s s e s (Haber, 1964; Hays, 1964; Rutherford, 1971). C. E a r l y P lanning Theory Pl a n n i n g too, was u t i l i z e d by the reformers as a means by which to make urban growth a r a t i o n a l and e f f i c i e n t process s i n c e planners saw themselves as experts capable of making r a t i o n a l and r e s p o n s i b l e d e c i s i o n s . 9 1. The C i t y B e a u t i f u l P lanning Movement Planning i n the United States began i n the 1850's with the " C i t y B e a u t i f u l Movement", an idea with a h i s t o r y i n the e a r l i e r "Parks Movement". Every l a r g e c i t y planned to become f a i r , broad and b e a u t i f u l and a t i d a l wave of c i t y p l a n n i n g on a grand or even c o l o s s a l s c a l e swept the country ( G a l l i o n & E i s n e r , 1975). Parks and p l a z a s abounded, c i v i c centres were f a s h i o n a b l e , and gardens and p u b l i c b u i l d i n g s were l i m i t e d o n l y by s i z e and ambition of the c i t y . I t was the Grand Plan r e i n c a r n a t e and i t was b e a u t i f u l , but i t was not to l a s t . An a r c h i t e c t , J . Nolan, who completed t h i r t y - o n e of the fourty-two comprehensive plans made i n the United States before 1912 (Nolan, 1923) h i n t e d at the need f o r a more comprehensive approach (Johnston, 1964). By 1912 a former l e a d i n g b e a u t i f i e r , A.W. Bruner, was announcing the demise of the C i t y B e a u t i f u l Movement (Proceedings of the Fourth N a t i o n a l C i t y P lanning Conference, 1912), s i n c e i t s emphasis, however b e a u t i f u l , had not been u t i l i t y and e f f i c i e n c y , c h i e f concepts of the times. The movement, l o f t y as i t was, f a i l e d because i t had developed without c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f the c i t y as a whole. 2. The C i t y E f f i c i e n t P l anning Movement As e a r l y as the 1800*s, however, the seeds of c i t y p l a n n i n g had been sown on ground which would f i n d a more favo u r a b l e r e c e p t i o n i n the eyes of reform t h i n k e r s . J . Von Thunen (1826) had developed a theory of urban s p a t i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n based on 10 p r i n c i p l e s of a g r i c u l t u r a l land a l l o c a t i o n . Von Thunen's approach was r e f i n e d by Hurd (1903), the f i r s t of a l i n e of " c i t y e f f i c i e n t " p lanners concerned with g e o g r a p h i c a l l y o r i e n t e d " s c i e n t i f i c c i t y p l a n s " . The American most determined to make c i t y p l a n n i n g a s c i e n c e was perhaps G.B. Ford (Bottomley, 1977). Ford saw the p l a n n e r s ' s task as a r r a n g i n g f u n c t i o n a l l y s i m i l a r groups of b u i l d i n g s i n t o a s p a t i a l scheme designed f o r maximum c i v i c e f f i c i e n c y . In p r e s e n t i n g a s c i e n t i f i c method of p l a n n i n g i n a paper at the United States F i f t h N a t i o n a l Conference on C i t y P l a n n i n g , he r e a f f i r m e d the need f o r planners to proceed l o g i c a l y and s c i e n t i f i c a l l y : . . . c i t y p l a n n i n g i s becoming as d e f i n i t e a s c i e n c e as e n g i n e e r i n g . The best plans f o r the development of a c i t y can be determined as c l e a r l y as can be plans f o r a b r i d g e or a r e s e r v o i r . I t i s s o l e l y a matter of proceeding l o g i c a l l y from the known to the unknown. In c i t y p l a n n i n g there i s , above a l l , the n e c e s s i t y f o r a c a r e f u l a n a l y s i s of the c o n d i t i o n s . The requirements must be f i r s t d e f i n i t e l y determined upon. Then these should be separated i n t o s e v e r a l c l a s e s a c c o r d i n g to t h e i r urgency...Working i n t h i s way, one soon d i s c o v e r s that i n almost every case there i s one, and only one, l o g i c a l and c o n v i n c i n g s o l u t i o n to the problems i n v o l v e d (Ford, 1913, p.31). Ford was convinced that c i t y p lanning could become an exact s c i e n c e and t h a t the use of s t a n d a r d i z e d procedures by engineers, a r c h i t e c t s and s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s would make i t p o s s i b l e : To determine w i t h i n a comparatively s h o r t space of time a p l a n which i s not only the best f o r today, but which i s so e l a s t i c t h a t changes duri n g the next f i f t y or one hundred years can be f i t t e d i n t o i t with v i r t u a l l y no l o s s or a l t e r a t i o n (Ford, 1913, p. 32). 11 Although he was to be mistaken about the e l a s t i c i t y of one hundred year p l a n s , Ford d i d much to set planners on the t r a c k to an era of technology and s c i e n t i f i c p l a n n i n g . He was followed by a s e r i e s of t e c h n o c r a t s who concentrated on a p r e s c r i p t i v e , t e c h n i c a l , and s p a t i a l or "plan view" of town p l a n n i n g . As i n any age there were those who are regarded p r i n c i p a l l y as academ-i c s or t h e o r i s t s and those who are remembered as p l a n n e r s . Of the planners Ford and Harland Bartholomew are perhaps the key examples who began to apply s c i e n t i f i c p r i n i c p l e s i n the develop-ment of comprehensive c i t y plans (Johnston, 1964). By 1926 Bartholomew had prepared as many as 26 major comprehensive plans which were e n t i r e l y s p a t i a l a p p l i c a t i o n s of r e l e v a n t t e c h n i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n . In 1922 he p u b l i s h e d a statement on the p r i n c i p l e s of c i t y p l a n n i n g . Those t h i n g s which p r o p e r l y c o n s t i t u t e the c i t y p lan are s i x i n number: 1. S t r e e t system 2. T r a n s i t system 3. T r a n s p o r t a t i o n ( r a i l and water) 4. P u b l i c r e c r e a t i o n 5. Zoning 6. C i v i c a r t These are the elements which when c o r r e l a t e d make...an a t t r a c t i v e and o r d e r l y working organism out of the heterogeneous mass we now c a l l the c i t y (Bartholomew, 1922, p. 458). The comprehensive approach has remained i n t a c t to the p r e s e n t . The " t h e o r i s t s " meanwhile were a l s o c o n t i n u i n g to r e f i n e the theory used i n developing these massive p l a n s (Haig, 1926) and the "Chicago Sc h o o l " of Burgess and Park extended the s p a t i a l o r i e n t a t i o n of urban land theory^ Burgess (1929) emphasized the importance of outward growth from the c i t y centre which caused c o n c e n t r i c zonations of neighbourhoods. He was p o s s i b l y the most w e l l known of the Chicago s c h o o l . Hoyt (1939), on the other hand, emphasized the s i g n i f i c a n c e of a x i a l growth when he developed h i s . s e c t o r concept. H a r r i s and Ullman (1945) formulated a model of m u l t i p l e n u c l e i which was a combination of the Burgess and Hoyt models. D. From C i t y E f f i c i e n t to E a r l y C i t i z e n Involvement i n  Planning I n t e r e s t i n urban land theory was r e t a i n e d throughout the 1950's and models were r e f i n e d u n t i l the e a r l y 1960's (Alonso, 1960; Berry , 1971) to culminate i n the s o c i a l area analyses and f a c t o r i a l e c o l o g i e s o f the l a t e 1960's (Murdie, 1969; Robson, 1969; Rees, 1971, 1972) . The t h e o r e t i c a l underpinning of these models was economic marginal a n a l y s i s with the use of a p a r c e l of land seen as a f u n c t i o n of i t s p o t e n t i a l value (Chapin, 1968). The t h r u s t of the urban land t h e o r i s t s was a t e c h n i c a l and g e o g r a p h i c a l economy of the c i t y , a view which i n many pla n n i n g minds remains the order of the day. A p a r a l l e l f i e l d of development i n planning theory was t r a n s p o r t a t i o n p l a n n i n g which evolved as a s e r i e s of complex models s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t i n o r i e n t a t i o n but corresponding i n t h e i r e f f i c i e n t and h i g h l y t e c h n i c a l s p a t i a l o r i e n t a t i o n to the world. 13 The emphasis on e f f i c i e n c y i n t e c h n i c a l p l a n n i n g methodolo-g i e s was an outgrowth of the time which i m p l i c i t l y r u l e d out c o n s i d e r a t i o n of s o c i a l i s s u e s or p a r t i c i p a t i o n by those other than " r e s p o n s i b l e c i t i z e n s " . In l i g h t of the massive i n f r a -s t r u c t u r e r e q u i r e d d u r i n g a p e r i o d of r a p i d u r b a n i z a t i o n f o l l o w -ing the i n d u s t r i a l r e v o l u t i o n , t h i s view was h i g h l y a p p r o p r i a t e i n many ways. The problem was p r o v i d i n g f o r growth, a matter with a s p a t i a l emphasis and r e l a t i v e l y w e l l s u i t e d to t e c h n i c a l s o l u t i o n s . In order to accommodate r a p i d growth, speed and e f f i c i e n c y were of the essence. A s i m i l a r r a t i o n a l approach was re-emphasized i n the years f o l l o w i n g World War I I when the demands of r a p i d p o p u l a t i o n growth and the r i s e of a consumer s o c i e t y brought c a l l s f o r performance p a r t i c u l a r l y i n s e r v i c e s to r e s i d e n t i a l areas (Hardwick and Hardwick, 1974). The long term r a m i f i c a t i o n s of the reform p e r i o d , with i t s machine p o l i -t i c s and c i t y e f f i c i e n t movements were enormous and indeed many of the b u r e a u c r a t i c assumptions adopted from t h i s era remain un-cha l l e n g e d today. The f a i t h i n what E l l u l (1964) c a l l s " t e c h n i -que" and what Mumford (1934) c a l l s " t e c h n i c s " i s an i n t e g r a l component of the North American ideology of modern times. C i t y p lanners c o n s i d e r e d c i t i e s to be an ex p r e s s i o n of i n t e r r e l a t e d p a r t s i n t e r a c t i n g as a model p r e d i c t s . Unique aspects f a i l i n g to f i t theory were d i s c a r d e d by many as i r r e l e v a n t - most o f t e n these were elements of human c o n s i d e r a t i o n , a t t i t u d e s or con-c e r n s . Furthermore, the s c i e n t i f i c knowledge used i n a p p l y i n g p l a n n i n g theory was considered to be value f r e e ; analyses 14 undertaken were n e u t r a l i n moral judgement and i n i d e o l o g i c a l stance (Blumenfeld, 1972). The planning process c o n s i s t e d of d i s c o v e r i n g the most a p p r o p r i a t e g e o g r a p h i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n of s t r e e t s , pierhead l i n e s and b u i l d i n g s i t e s and d e l i n e a t i n g these f e a t u r e s c a r e f u l l y on a map. Nothing beyond that was deemed pl a n n i n g . People were thought to l i v e somewhere i n the i n t e r -s t i c e s among the p h y s i c a l elements of a plan (Pomeroy, 1953). S o c i a l concerns other than those e x h i b i t i n g a t a n g i b l e p h y s i c a l m a n i f e s t a t i o n were given l i t t l e thought. Planners had not yet accepted that The C i t y i s the People ( C h u r c h i l l , . 1946). Slowly, however, a p l a n n i n g " s c i e n c e " which had begun with a c i v i c m o t i v a t i o n but i n c r e a s i n g l y found i t s way i n t o the hands of t e c h n o c r a t s and bureaucrats, s h i f t e d i n the 1950's to i n c l u d e c i t i z e n i n p u t . Although c i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n was i n i t i a l l y c onsidered worse than a nuisance ( L o r i n g et a l , 1957) many of the major urban renewal p r o j e c t s of the mid "50's d i d i n v o l v e token con-s u l t a t i o n with those a f f e c t e d . T h i s c o n s u l t a t i o n , while not causing a s h i f t away from a t e c h n i c a l b i a s , foreshadowed a time when p l a n n e r s , a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and p o l i t i c i a n s would c o n s i d e r the s o c i a l aspects of urban s o c i e t y i n a l e s s inhuman f a s h i o n . E a r l y e f f o r t s at a f f e c t i n g p o l i c y d e c i s i o n s f o r c i t i z e n involvement were i n e f f e c t i v e , however, and had l i t t l e r e a l impact on p o l i t i c a l p r o c e s s . C i t i z e n s lacked the s k i l l s , know-ledge and the p o l i c i t a l acceptance to p l a y an e f f e c t i v e r o l e ; 15 planners and p o l i t i c i a n s continued to make d e c i s i o n s on the b a s i s of t e c h n i c a l or s c i e n t i f i c theory a p p l i e d to t h e i r own value frameworks. E. Advocates, Values and P o l i t i c s With the 1960's came the r i s e of advocacy p l a n n i n g ( B r i e t b a r t and Peet, 1974) and the r e c o g n i t i o n that values are an inescapable component of any decision-making p r o c e s s : Goals are value statements...value statements are not o b j e c t i v e l y v e r i f i a b l e , and t h e r e f o r e the planner cannot reasonably accept or r e j e c t g o a l s f o r the p u b l i c . T h i s i s c r u c i a l . . . n e i t h e r the planner's t e c h n i c a l competence nor h i s wisdom e n t i t l e s him to a s c r i b e or d i c t a t e values to h i s immediate or u l t i m a t e c l i e n t s - p u b l i c d e c i s i o n making should r e f l e c t the w i l l of the c l i e n t ( D a v i d o f f and Reiner, 1962, p.108). Planners were encouraged to r e f l e c t on t h e i r own v a l u e s , the values and i n t e r e s t s of those they served under the guise o f " p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " and to c o n s i d e r which groups i n s o c i e t y bene-f i t t e d from, and which groups were ingnored by, p o l i c y and pla n n i n g a c t i v i t i e s ( D a v i d o f f , 1965). The advocate began to pursue openly the i n t e r e s t s of p a r t i c u l a r groups i n s o c i e t y and to argue f o r t h e i r acceptance i n the decision-making p r o c e s s . Planners were f o r c e d to abandon the view that p l a n n i n g was an e x c l u s i v e endeavor i n v o l v i n g the a p p l i c a t i o n of t e c h n i c a l e x p e r t i s e to a geographic d i s t r i b u t i o n of s o c i e t a l problems. The concept of advocacy p l a n n i n g was a r e j e c t i o n of i n e f f e c t i v e and formal token p a r t i c i p a t o r y programmes and a f o r m a l i z e d r e c o g n i t i o n of the need to i n c o r p o r a t e a t t i t u d e s and values of a l l l e v e l s of s o c i e t y i n t o planning and governing processes 16 (Kaplan, 1968). P o l i t i c s were seen i n a d i f f e r e n t l i g h t by the advocate. The p l a c e of consensus disappeared and the p o l i t i c a l process was c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a melange of competing i n t e r e s t s vying f o r i n f l u e n c e and power. Advocates f e l t a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to compensate f o r an unequal d i s t r i b u t i o n of p o l i t i c a l o p p o r t u n i t y by attempting to ensure a l l l e v e l s of s o c i e t y a chance to express t h e i r p o s i t i o n s i n a meaningful way ( B r i e t b a r t and Peet, 1974). Planning problems could no longer be approached as i s s u e s r e q u i r i n g a choice between t e c h n i c a l s o l u t i o n s and planners and p o l i t i c i a n s found i t i n c r e a s i n g l y d i f f i c u l t to ignore the p o l i t i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s of p e r s o n a l values inherent i n t h e i r work. The main stream of advocacy pressed f o r a more human view of p l a n n i n g and while c r i t i c s of the movement accepted the idea of i n c r e a s i n g the v o i c e of the poor i n e s t a b l i s h e d p l a n n i n g forums, they questioned the mechanism by which t h i s was achieved. The advocate o f t e n faced a dilemma, f o c u s i n g on v a l u e s , of t r y i n g to deal with heterogeneous groups of people from d i f f e r e n t c u l t u r a l backgrounds and economic c i r -cumstances but d e s i r o u s of a c h i e v i n g a common goal (Maris and Rein, 1967). A few s t r u g g l e d v a l i a n t l y to d e v i s e s t r a t e g i e s which would meet these d i v e r s e demands i n an a p p r o p r i a t e f a s h i o n (Berube and G i t t e l l , 1970) . The m a j o r i t y , however, chose to 17 represent, only those i s s u e s and groups which r e f l e c t e d t h e i r own p e r s o n a l b i a s e s . I f no i n t e r e s t c o i n c i d e d with h i s own, an advocate o f t e n moulded group opinon to f i t h i s con-c e p t i o n of what t h e i r d e s i r e s should be ( P e a t t i e , 1968). He became i n essence a community manipulator - a r o l e which con-t r a d i c t e d the idea of i n c r e a s i n g community c o n t r o l over l o c a l i s s u e s . I t was i n c r e a s i n g l y e v i d e n t that planners could not avoid i n f l u e n c i n g the outcome of pl a n n i n g or p o l i t i c a l d e c i s i o n s . Planners do operate from an i d e o l o g i c a l p o s i t i o n and u t i l i z e theory d e r i v e d from l o o k i n g at and from a p a r t i -c u l a r image of the c i t y . . . I n e v i t a b l y the genre of plans produced as s o l u t i o n s r e f l e c t s t h i s background (Goodman, 1972, p. 48). T h i s r e a l i z a t i o n coupled with i n c r e a s i n g government r e c o g n i t i o n and support of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n programmes l e d to the r e l a t i v e demise of advocacy plan n i n g i n the l a t e 1960's. I t s decade of p o p u l a r i t y had, however, confirmed s e v e r a l unacknowledged aspects of the planning p r o c e s s . F a c t o r s other than the t e c h n i c a l - s p a t i a l aspects of a problem had been d i s c o v e r e d . The need f o r c i t i z e n input i n t o p l a n f o r m u l a t i o n was confirmed and the importance of e x p l i c i t r e c o g n i t i o n of values and b i a s on the p a r t of planners and p o l i t i c i a n s was r e v e a l e d . During t h i s p e r i o d town pl a n n i n g was f i r s t seen as having p o l i t i c a l content (Dane County, 1971). As the d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with urban c o n d i t i o n s and the demands f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n c r e a s e d , the p o l i c i c a l aspects of p l a n n i n g began to snowball ( M a r t i n , 1973). Thus i n 1973 a 18 new m u n i c i p a l c o u n c i l i n Vancouver, which was s a i d to rep-r e s e n t a b a s i c change i n a t t i t u d e s at C i t y H a l l , saw as one of i t s immediate p r i o r i t i e s to r e p l a c e two important ad-m i n i s t r a t o r s , both of them town p l a n n e r s . The idea that p l a n n i n g should be d i v o r c e d from p o l i t i c s whenever p o s s i b l e began to change. F. Acceptance of C i t i z e n P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n Planning and  Government A growing d e s i r e on the p a r t of c i t i z e n s to be i n v o l v e d was summed up i n a B r i t i s h r e p o r t People and Planning ...the e v o l u t i o n of the s t r u c t u r e s of r e p r e s e n t a t i v e government which has concerned Western nati o n s f o r the l a s t century and a h a l f , i s now e n t e r i n g a new phase. There i s a growing demand by many groups f o r more oppor-t u n i t y to c o n t r i b u t e and f o r more say i n the working out of p o l i c i e s which a f f e c t people not merely at e l e c t i o n time, but c o n t i n u o u s l y as p r o p o s a l s are being hammered out and, c e r t a i n l y , as they are being implemented (Intermet, 1972, p. 3) T h i s f e e l i n g was r e f l e c t e d i n the p l a n n i n g world by Chapin: The most fundamental c r i t i c i s m i n the recent time i s the inadequate a t t e n t i o n g i v e n to the human and s o c i a l i s s u e s as they r e l a t e to the g e n e r a l plan....More and more plann i n g must take i n t o account the s e c u r i t y of the i n d i v i d u a l . The t r a d i t i o n a l concept c o n s i s t i n g of a mapped p r e s e n t a t i o n of s p a t i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s has been found wanting (Chapin, 1967, pp. 729-730). The idea that one must look not at areas but at people was echoed by Alonso (1967) and a statement i n d i c a t i v e of Canadian f e e l i n g was made by the M i n i s t e r of the Department 19 of N a t i o n a l Health and Welfare i n 1970: A democratic system to succeed must be much more than a general vote on one day out of every three or f o u r y e a r s . I t must be a v i t a l and on-going c o n t a c t and exchange between governments and t h e i r c o n s t i t u e n t s . . . a l l of them, not j u s t the r i c h and the powerful (Head, 1971) . The need f o r c i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n had been f o r m a l l y recognized and Planning i n a Human Way (Lash, 1976) began to come i n t o f a s h i o n . Planners could see that s o c i e t a l g o a l s and values were changing - that they were d i f f e r e n t from the purposes of p l a n n i n g (Lash, 1976; Connor, 1974). G. The Demographic Ch a r a c t e r of P a r t i c i p a t o r s With the i n t e r e s t i n p a r t i c i p a t i o n of the e a r l y 1950's came a s u b s i d i a r y i n t e r e s t i n "who p a r t i c i p a t e s " . I f the i n t e n t of the p a r t i c i a t i o n movement was to represent a l l l e v e l s of. s o c i e t y i n p l a n n i n g and decision-making processes, then i t was important to r e c o g n i z e whose views were i n f a c t being c o n s i d e r e d . The l i t e r a t u r e on the demographic c h a r a c t e r of those who tend to p a r t i c i p a t e l eaves l i t t l e doubt as to t h e i r i n d e n t i t y . In g e n e r a l , p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s d i r e c t l y l i n k e d to s t a t u s as con-c e p t u a l i z e d by B l i s h e n (1964). There i s a d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p between age and p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Those i n d i v i d u a l s of higher i n -come tend to p a r t i c i p a t e more than those with lower income. Education i s d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to p a r t i c i p a t i o n and males p a r t i -c i p a t e more than females (Woodward and Roper, 1950). These f i n d i n g s are s i m i l a r both i n Canada (Van Loon, 1970; .20 Curtis, 1971; Meisel, 1966; Lioy, 1965) and in the United States (Zimmer and Hawley, 1971; Milbrath, 1965; Almond and Verba, 1963; Lane, 1959; Scott, 1957; Axelrod, 1973; Berry, 1970; B e l l and Boat, 1956). The broad implications of the findings with regard to "who p a r t i c i p a t e s " are f i r s t , that those who p a r t i c i p a t e are those whose values, attitudes and opinions w i l l be represented, and second, that the views which determine the future of our society come p r i n c i p a l l y from higher status i n d i v i d u a l s . The proposition that idealogical underpinnings do have s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c ts on c i t y form, function and organization is the central thesis of a recent work by Bottomley (1977). Re-search p r i o r to Bottomley's regarding the a t t i t u d i n a l or idealo-g i c a l context of s o c i a l action was v i r t u a l l y non-existent (Anderson, 1973; Bottomley, 1977). L i t t l e work has been done by government agencies to i d e n t i f y or explore fundamental issues and attitudes of our society as a whole (Nelson, 1976). This should not be surprising since town planning and the mechanics of c i v i c government borne of the reform movement were o r i g i n a l l y established e x p l i c i t l y for the purpose of serving the interests of the business and p o l i t i c a l e l i t e - an endeavor in which they have been a creditable success. - J 21 H. Summary of the General L i t e r a t u r e The argument of the t h e s i s begins from the idea that a l -though c i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n and r e p r e s e n t a t i o n are recognized as e s s e n t i a l components of p l a n n i n g and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e pro-cesses, those who normally tend to p a r t i c i p a t e may not share e x a c t l y the same a t t i t u d e s , values or f e e l i n g s as a broad s p e c t -rum o f s o c i e t y . The p r o g r e s s i o n of the d i s c u s s i o n so f a r , from a s p a t i a l , e f f i c i e n t view of p l a n n i n g to an a s p a t i a l concern f o r c i t i z e n a t t i t u d e s , r e p r e s e n t s a narrow view of the f i e l d of p l a n n i n g l i t e r a t u r e . As mentioned e a r l i e r a geographic emphasis was i n many r e s p e c t s e n t i r e l y a p p r o p r i a t e at the time of r a p i d urban expansion. Our urban environment today, of course, r e t a i n s a s p a t i a l component and must i n e v i t a b l y continue to do so. What i s i n a p p r o p r i a t e i s the c o n t i n u i n g emphasis on t h i s component of p l a n n i n g f o r , and a d m i n s t r a t i o n o f , the urban m i l i e u . A b i l i t y to s e r v i c e r a p i d growth and e f f i c i e n c y are no longer of para-mount concern; the a s p a t i a l aspects of " l i v a b i i t y " which cannot be represented on a map have become the r e l e v a n t i s s u e s . Although the c o n s i d e r a t i o n of a s p a t i a l ideas as they are expressed i n c i t i z e n a t t i t u d i n a l p r i o r i t i e s , which are the focus of the present study, cannot be considered i n i s o l a t i o n , the c h a l l e n g e f o r planners and p o l i t i c i a n s i n having explored t h i s realm of the a s p a t i a l l i e s i n b r i d g i n g the gap between the new 22 emphasis and the c e n t r a l remaining g e o g r a p h i c a l elements of our urban environment. I. Development of Planning and C i v i c A d m i n i s t r a t i o n i n  Vancouver Although e a r l y p l a n n i n g and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e developments i n Vancouver followed a p a t t e r n s i m i l a r to those of the reform movement i n g e n e r a l , p l a n n i n g i n the sense of a reform bureau-cracy was r e l a t i v e l y l a t e i n a f f e c t i n g Vancouver (Oberlander 1959). Vancouver experienced i t s most s i g n i f i c a n t p e r i o d of growth between 1900 and 1912 d u r i n g which time the p o p u l a t i o n rose from 27,010 to 122,100; a growth which put the c i v i c admin-i s t r a t i o n under s i m i l a r s t r a i n s as c i t i e s i n the U.S. had e a r l i e r f e l t (MacDonald, 1970). The c i t y c o u n c i l , of which two t h i r d s were businessmen, saw t h i s growth as d e s i r a b l e (Bottom-l e y , 1977). The r o l e of c i t y government, which was seen as r e s p o n s i b l e f o r p r o v i d i n g b a s i c municipal s e r v i c e s i n an e f f i c i -ent and b u s i n e s s l i k e manner, remained v i r t u a l l y unchanged from 1910 to 1935. In 1935 the ward system of government was a b o l -ished (Hobkirk 1974) . A c i t y manager form of government was not implemented during the 1930's p e r i o d of reform (Bottomley, 1977). The s t r a i n of an i n e f f i c i e n t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e system, and r e s u l t i n g u n d e s i r a b l e c i t y development across Canada l e d i n 1914 to the appointment of Thomas Adams as Town Pla n n i n g A d v i s o r to the Canadian Commission of Conservation (Oberlander, 1959). His 2/3 appointment had the e f f e c t of s t i m u l a t i n g i n t e r e s t i n both reform and p l a n n i n g . The year 1914 a l s o saw the endorsement of a Town Planning Act f o r the P r o v i n c e of B r i t i s h Columbia by the Union of B.C. M u n i c i p a l i t i e s , a B i l l which was not to pass i n t o law u n t i l December 18, 1925 (Walker, 1927). In February of 1926 the Vancouver Town Planning Commission was e s t a b l i s h e d (C.V.B.L. No. 1771). By J u l y 30, 1926 the Commission had set up o f f i c e , requested tenders f o r town pl a n n i n g and c o n s u l t i n g work, and a f t e r a survey of a p p l i c a n t s which s p e c i f i c a l l y excluded a l l but those known as " c i t y e f f i c i e n t p l anners" had h i r e d Harland Bartholomew to p r o v i d e a comprehensive p l a n f o r Vancouver (Bottomley, 1977). The p l a n was prepared i n accordance with Bartholomew's ' p r i n c i p l e s of p l a n n i n g 1 (Bartholomew, 1922) and e s t a b l i s h e d the t r a d i t i o n of c i t y e f f i c i e n t , p r e s c r i p t i v e and t e c h n i c a l p l a n n i n g which mould-ed Vancouver planning thought f o r the ensuing 30 years (Hardwick 1971(b), 1974). In the years f o l l o w i n g World War II a corporate model of govern-ment was adopted and s e n i o r a d m i n i s t r a t o r s became both p o l i c y i n i t i a t o r s and a d v i s o r s . In accordance with reform thought they drew t h e i r i n f o r m a t i o n and values regarding the c i t y from e i t h e r the bureaucracy or from experts o u t s i d e the system u s u a l l y engineers, planners or economists who were preoccupied with the m a t e r i a l and s p a t i a l upgrading of Vancouver (Hardwick and Hardwick, 1974). Three p a r t i e s i n c i v i c p o l i t i c s emerged i n the s i x t i e s : TEAM, the E l e c t o r s A c t i o n Movement, COPE, the Committee of P r o g r e s s i v e E l e c t o r s , and a c i v i c arm of the N.D.P. Both the N.D.P. and TEAM advocated a r e t u r n to the ward system of government and a s h i f t i n emphasis to c i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n , i s s u e s which were defused a f t e r TEAM'S e l e c t i o n i n 1972 (Hob-k i r k , 1974). Changing p u b l i c a t t i t u d e s and the d i s c r e p a n c y between these a t t i t u d e s and C i t y Government f e e l i n g were i l -l u s t r a t e d by s e v e r a l i n c i d e n t s of the l a t e 1960's. The f i r s t of these c o n f l i c t s were the Chinatown Freeway Debate of 1967 and the i s s u e of the T h i r d C r o s s i n g of Bur r a r d I n l e t (Pendakur, 1972) . Issues f u r t h e r emphasizing the gap between c i v i c govern-ment and p u b l i c f e e l i n g emerged, i n c l u d i n g p r o p o s a l s to r e -develop the downtown s i t e s of the B i r k s B u i l d i n g and C h r i s t Church C a t h e d r a l . The "Four Seasons", a pro p o s a l to develop the "gateway" to -Stanley Park, remained a co n t r o v e r s y over a p e r i o d of ten yea r s . The debate over these and s i m i l a r i s s u e s arose c h i e f l y as a consequence of the d i f f e r i n g b e l i e f systems held by the p u b l i c and major c i v i c a c t o r s (Bottomley and Holdsworth, 1974). E i t h e r c o u n c i l had not considered p u b l i c f e e l i n g or they had misperceived any r e p r e s e n t a t i o n they had co n s i d e r e d . There was no o f f i c i a l or c o n t i n u i o u s programme t o . i n v o l v e the p u b l i c i n the Vancouver C i t y p l a n n i n g process p r i o r to 1968 and these i s s u e s r e f l e c t e d that l a c k of input (Intermet, 1972). The n e c e s s i t y f o r dia l o g u e between the p u b l i c and C i t y H a l l had, however, been r e c o g n i z e d . In 1973 a s h i f t i n emphasis to l o c a l area p l a n n i n g was begun i n hopes of f a c i l i t a t i n g t h i s d i a l o g u e ( C i t y Planning Dept. Vancouver, 1977). The o p e r a t i o n a l terms o r e f e r e n c e f o r l o c a l area p l a n n i n g focus on the establishment o f c i t i z e n committees and the l i a i s o n with c i t i z e n groups - the " p a r t i c i p a t o r s " of each l o c a l area - to develop a planning pro-cess r e c e p t i v e to pubic o p i n i o n . I t i s t h i s mechanism f o r de-termining c i t i z e n a t t i t u d e s f o r use i n p o l i c y f o r m u l a t i o n and decision-making with which the present study takes i s s u e . Thus, a s i d e from the f a c t t h a t major plan n i n g and ad-m i n i s t r a t i v e developments occurred more slo w l y i n Vancouver than i n many other North American c i t i e s (Oberlander, 1959; Goldberg and S e e l i g , 1975), trends i n development of c i t y -scape, pla n n i n g and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n have p a r a l l e l e d those of most other major c i t i e s i n the United States and Canada (Ober-la n d e r , 1959). Bottomley (1977) advances the p r o p o s i t i o n that developments i n p h y s i c a l and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t r u c t u r e r e f l e c t the a t t i t u d i n a l d i s p o s i t i o n s of major a c t o r s r e p r e s e n t i n g the p o p u l a t i o n . T h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s i n form, f u n c t i o n and p o p u l a t i o n , (coupled with e a s i l y a v a i l a b l e data) makes the C i t y o f Vancouver an a p p r o p r i a t e t e s t case f o r the s p e c i f i c hypotheses of t h i s present study. I I I . PROCEDURES OF THE STUDY A. Prev i o u s Vancouver Research on P a r t i c i p a t i o n and  A t t i t u d e s . Although some authors have examined s o c i o l o g i c a l aspects o f Vancouver ( f o r example P a t i l l i o , 1969) and s e v e r a l have de-s c r i b e d the g l o b a l demographic c h a r a c t e r of the c i t y ( B e l l , 1965; Peuker and Rose, 1971; P a t t e r s o n , 1974), none have ad-dressed the g l o b a l aspects of e i t h e r c i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n or c i t i z e n a t t i t u d e s o f Vancouver's p o p u l a t i o n . Martin (1973) who i n v e s t i g a t e d the d i f f e r e n c e s i n p a r t i c i p a t i o n between P o i n t Grey and East Vancouver r e s i d e n t s , claimed that f o r h i s sample p o p u l a t i o n ( s i z e 248), higher s t a t u s persons p a r t i c i -pated more i n community and p o l i t i c a l a f f a i r s than d i d lower s t a t u s persons. M a r t i n a l s o suggested that the area i n which a person l i v e s has c o n s i d e r a b l e i n f l u e n c e on h i s tendency to p a r t i c i p a t e . L i o y (1975) r e p o r t e d that higher s t a t u s r e s i -dents of the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t voted more f r e q u e n t l y i n f e d e r a l and p r o v i n c i a l e l e c t i o n s than d i d lower s t a t u s persons. 27 B. The Data of The Urban Futures For Vancouver P r o j e c t The data used i n the t h e s i s was generated by the Van-couver Urban Futures study, a j o i n t p r o j e c t of the M i n i s t r y of State f o r Urban A f f a i r s arid two p r i n c i p a l U.B.C. r e s e a r c h e r s -John B. C o l l i n s and Walter G. Hardwick - which was s p e c i f i c a l -l y designed to f u l f i l two purposes. F i r s t the M i n i s t r y of State f o r Urban A f f a i r s d e s i r e d to a i d the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t i n p r o v i d i n g a comprehensive assessment of what r e s i d e n t s of Vancouver see as present and f u t u r e i s s u e s i n t h e i r c i t y r e g i o n . Secondly, the study was designed to ex-tend the r e s e a r c h of Environmental Response and L e i s u r e Time A t t i t u d e s and the development of a l i f e s t y l e cohort typology as i t r e l a t e s to housing, r e c r e a t i o n and t r a n s p o r t a t i o n . The M i n i s t r y of State saw the Vancouver Urban Futures p r o j e c t as a "prototype f o r g a t h e r i n g v a l u a t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n about a metro-p o l i t a n area f o r uses by a l l l e v e l s of government". The f i r s t j o i n t p r o p o s a l was put forward on December 15, 1971 and major p o p u l a t i o n sampling procedures were c a r r i e d out between Octo-ber 1972 and January 1973. Preceeding the major sampling phase of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n were s i x s u b - p r o j e c t s used i n de-v e l o p i n g the content and methodology of the p r i n c i p a l sampling e f f o r t s . These l e a d - i n s t u d i e s are documented by Hardwick (1973) and C o l l i n s and Hardwick (1973) from whom most of the f o l l o w i n g i n f o r m a t i o n has been a b s t r a c t e d . 28, C. Sample and Sampling Procedure A sample of 1,662 r e s i d e n t s of the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t , r e p r e s e n t i n g approximately 1/2% of the t o t a l households i n the r e g i o n were interviewed between Octo-ber 1972 and January 1973. A l l census enumeration areas were represented i n the sample. An economic mapping procedure en-sured that economic v a r i a t i o n s w i t h i n an enumeration area were i n c l u d e d . Generation of names f o r the i n t e r v i e w s was c a r r i e d out using a random entry system i n the Vancouver and Lower Fr a s e r V a l l e y C i t y D i r e c t o r i e s and r e f e r e n c i n g the addresses of s e l e c t e d names on census maps f o r enumeration area a s s i g n -ment. Business addresses were not c o n s i d e r e d . L e t t e r s of i n t r o d u c t i o n were mailed to 8,963 p o t e n t i a l p a r t i c i p a n t s to arrange appointments on the b a s i s of the census enumeration area sampling. The procedure f o r these c o n t a c t s ensured ade-quate r e p r e s e n t a t i o n from each area. When enough w i l l i n g par-t i c i p a n t s had been accumulated i n an area t h e i r names, ad-dresses and phone numbers were passed on one of 120 t r a i n e d i n t e r v i e w e r s . These i n t e r v i e w e r s made cont a c t by telephone to confirm a s p e c i f i c date and time to v i s i t the i n t e r v i e w e e s ' homes f o r the i n t e r v i e w s which l a s t e d between 2 1/2 and 3 1/2 hours. Upon a r r i v i n g at the respondent's home at the pre-arranged hour the i n t e r v i e w e r introduced h i m s e l f and h i s purpose and then began to administer an Urban Opinion P o l l of 148 items. 2 9 Immediately f o l l o w i n g he obtained and coded i n f o r m a t i o n i the 29 page p e r s o n a l data b o o k l e t (Appendix A). Information sought f o r t h i s purpose i n c l u d e d socio-economic and demo-gr a p h i c i n f o r m a t i o n concerning the respondent, background i n -formation on employment, housing, t r a n s p o r a t i o n , r e c r e a t i o n and l e i s u r e time, and a t t i t u d e s r e g a r d i n g the respondent's p e r c e p t i o n of problems i n the r e g i o n a l environment. T h i s p o r t i o n of the i n t e r v i e w took most of the i n t e r v i e w i n g time. P r i o r to d e p a r t i n g the i n t e r v i e w e r handed to the respondent a s e l f a d d r e s s e d , stamped envelope c o n t a i n i n g an Environment Response Inventory r e q u e s t i n g him to f i l l i t out i n the next day or two at the l a t e s t and drop i t i n the m a i l . Of the 1,662 i n t e r v i e w e e s , 1,376 (83%) returned the Environmental Response Inventory. Twenty of the returned documents were excluded from the data pool because of spurious data or missing i n f o r m a t i o n . For f u r t h e r e l a b o r a t i o n s on sampling procedures and data see Bottomley (1973) . D. L i f e s t y l e , P a r t i c i p a t i o n , L o c a l Areas and Urban Issues Not a l l i n f o r m a t i o n c o l l e c t e d by the Urban Futures f o r Vancouver P r o j e c t i s used i n the present study. The informa-t i o n which i s u t i l i z e d c o n s i s t s of four conceptual c a t e g o r i e s l i f e s t y l e v a r i a b l e s , i n f o r m a t i o n r e l a t i n g to p a r t i c i p a t i o n , urban i s s u e s and the g e o g r a p h i c a l d i s t r i b u t i o n of respondents The s p e c i f i c items comprising each of the four conceptual areas are contained i n the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s i n Appendix A, a more g e n e r a l c l a r i f i c a t i o n of the data c a t e g o r i e s f o l l o w s . 30 L i f e s t y l e v a r i a b l e s used are e d u c a t i o n , income, age, sex and o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s . The p a r t i c i p a t i o n v a r i a b l e i s developed as an o r d i n a l s c a l e of p a r t i c i p a t i o n from responses to q u e s t i o n n a i r e items concerning a person's tendency to vote, to belong to c l u b s , or o r g a n i z a t i o n s and to take independent p o l i t i c a l a c t i o n s (such as w r i t i n g a l e t t e r to a f e d e r a l or p r o v i n c i a l o f f i c i a l , c i r -c u l a t i n g a p e t i t i o n , p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n a demonstration, e t c . ) . P a r t i c i p a t o r s r e c e i v e a p o i n t f o r each c l u b they belong to, f o r each time they voted and f o r t h e i r w i l l i n g n e s s to be r e -i n t e r v i e w e d . As p a r t of completing the p e r s o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n booklet respondents were asked to rank order three separate s e t s of urban i s s u e s a c c o r d i n g to p r i o r i t y - most important item f i r s t , l e a s t important l a s t , with no omissions. The f i r s t p r i o r i t y s e t c o n t a i n s twelve g e n e r a l i s s u e s . The second set i s comprised of seventeen i s s u e s concerning the Vancouver Urban Region, and the t h i r d set c o n t a i n s s i x items r e l a t e d to f u t u r e land use i n Vancouver. Only those respondents (N=779) r e s i d i n g w i t h i n the C i t y o f Vancouver are c o n s i d e r e d . To f a c i l i t a t e a s p a t i a l examina-t i o n of a t t i t u d i n a l p r i o r i t i e s , l o c a l areas o f f i c i a l l y recog-n i z e d by the C i t y Planning Department o f Vancouver (1977) and the P o i n t Grey U.B.C. area, are used as area u n i t s of a n a l -y s i s . L o c a l area boundaries u t i l i z e d to the nearest census enumeration area boundaries are shown on the map i n Appendix B. Since many of the areas a l t e r e d are w i t h i n business d i s t r i c t s , the a l t e r a t i o n s have l i t t l e or no e f f e c t . E. Previous Analyses o f the Data Figure 1 prov i d e s a conceptual framework f o r the v a r i a b l i n t e r a c t i o n s which are analysed i n the study. Figure 1 LIFESTYLE VARIABLES PARTICIPATION LOCAL AREA IMPORTANCE OF URBAN ISSUES C o l l i n s (1973) has p r e v i o u s l y explored i n t e r a c t i o n s that occur between v a r i a b l e s i n s e c t i o n s of the matrix l a b e l l e d "C". T h i s t h e s i s w i l l examine and r e p o r t on those i n t e r -a c t i o n s o c c u r r i n g i n s e c t i o n s 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the semi-l a t t i c e as w e l l as f u r t h e r comparing the r e s u l t s of i n t e r -a c t i o n s i n s e c t o r s 4 and 5. F. The Study Hypotheses The idea that o p i n i o n s r e g a r d i n g c u r r e n t urban i s s u e s can be r e l a t e d to l o c a l area and to p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s t e s t e d f o r the sample p o p u l a t i o n . The i n v e s t i g a t i o n generates new s t a t i s t i c a l analyses of data from the Urban Futures For Van-couver P r o j e c t . Expected r e s u l t s are f o r m a l i z e d as hypotheses p r i o r to undertaking the ana l y s e s . Because the sample popula-t i o n i s both s u f f i c i e n t l y l a r g e and adequately r e p r e s e n t a t i v e i t i s l i k e l y t h a t r e s u l t s from a n a l y s i s of the data can be g e n e r a l i z e d to the p o p u l a t i o n of the C i t y of Vancouver as a whole. I t w i l l be l e f t to f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h to determine whether the p o p u l a t i o n of Vancouver i n turn r e f l e c t s the gene r a l c h a r a t e r i s t i c s of other North American p o p u l a t i o n s . The hypotheses to be t e s t e d f a l l i n t o two c a t e g o r i e s : those r e l a t e d to p a r t i c i p a t i o n , f o r which there i s some prec e -dent i n the l i t e r a t u r e and those r e l a t e d to a t t i t u d i n a l p r i o r i t i e s , f o r which l i t t l e or no precedent yet e x i s t s . 1. P a r t i c i p a t i o n The l i t e r a t u r e r e g a r d i n g p a r t i c i a t i o n shows that some i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h i n North American s o c i e t y p a r t i c i p a t e more than o t h e r s . These " p a r t i c i p a t o r s " who come from p r i n c i p a l l y h igher s t a t u s backgrounds app a r e n t l y share c e r t a i n l i f e s t y l e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Whether these p r o p o s i t i o n s from the l i t e r a -ture are true f o r the Vancouver sample p o p u l a t i o n i s t e s t e d i n the s p e c i f i c hypotheses below. 33 a) I n d i v i d u a l s of higher s t a t u s w i l l p a r t i c i p a t e more than i n d i v i d u a l s of lower s t a t u s . b) Persons of middle age w i l l p a r t i c i p a t e more than those of e a r l i e r or l a t e r stages i n l i f e c y c l e . c) Males w i l l p a r t i c i p a t e more than females. d) Persons of higher income w i l l p a r t i c i p a t e more than persons of lower income. e) Persons with higher l e v e l s of education w i l l p a r t i c i p a t e more than i n d i v i d u a l s with lower l e v e l s of e d u c a t i o n . 2. Importance of Urban Issues L i t t l e l o c a l work has been done i n e x p l o r i n g the a t t i t u d e s and p r i o r i t i e s of d i f f e r e n t s o c i e t a l l i f e s t y l e cohorts (Ander-son, 1973; Nelson, 1976; Bottomley, 1977). The p r o p o s i t i o n that d i f f e r e n c e s i n a t t i t u d e s and f e e l i n g s about the urban en-vironment can be r e l a t e d to p a r t i c i p a t i o n w i l l be t e s t e d i n the framework of the hypotheses o u t l i n e d below. a) P a r t i c i p a t o r s w i l l hold s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t f e e l i n g s of importance about urban i s s u e s than n o n - p a r t i c i p a t o r s . b) Residents of l o c a l neighbourhood areas w i l l show s i m i l a r i t i e s w i t h i n areas which are d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from d i f f e r e n c e s between areas i n a s s e s s i n g the r e l a t i v e importance of t h i r t y - f i v e urban i s s u e s . c) Accounting f o r the l o c a l neighbourhood area i n which a respondent r e s i d e s w i l l s i g n i f i c a n t l y improve the 34 p r e d i c t i o n s between p a r t i c i p a t i o n and the respondent's f e e l i n g s of importance about urban i s s u e s . G. The Analyses To determine whether a measure of p a r t i c i p a t i o n could be d e r i v e d from the data, q u e s t i o n n a i r e items r e l a t i n g to p a r t i -c i p a t i o n were t e s t e d f o r r e l i a b i l i t y using Cronbach's alpha and the c o n t r i b u t i o n s of each item to the s c a l e of p a r t i c i p a -t i o n and the frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n of p a r t i c i p a t i o n scores were examined. Pearsonian c o r r e l a t i o n s and scattergram p l o t s were used to i n v e s t i g a t e the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between l i f e s t y l e v a r i a b l e s and p a r t i c i p a t i o n . A d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s t e s t e d whether r e s i -dents of d i f f e r e n t Vancouver l o c a l areas hold d i f f e r e n t p r i o r i t i e s concerning t h e i r urban environment. Whether c o r r e l a t i o n s between the t h i r t y - f i v e p r i o r i t y items and p a r t i c i p a t i o n were improved or degraded was t e s t e d by e x c l u d i n g the v a r i a n c e due to r e s i d e n t i a l l o c a t i o n and compar-ing simple c o r r e l a t i o n s among to " w i t h i n groups" c o r r e l a t i o n s f o r the same items. This t e s t was to see i f accounting f o r l o c a l area improved the p r e d i c t i o n s between p a r t i c i p a t i o n and a respondent's f e e l i n g s of importance about urban i s s u e s . The mean of the " w i t h i n groups" c o r r e l a t i o n s was then compared to the mean of the simple c o r r e l a t i o n s (between p a r t i c i p a t i o n and p r i o r i t y items) and H o t e l l i n g ' s T determined whether a s i g -n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e e x i s t e d between the two means. IV. THE RESULTS A. P a r t i c i p a t i o n as a S o c i a l Phenomenon: Proving That i t E x i s t s The q u e s t i o n s "what i s p a r t i c i p a t i o n " and "what does p a r t i c i p a t i o n measure" have not been e x p l i c i t l y addressed i n the l i t e r a t u r e . P a r t i c i p a t i o n i s d e f i n e d as " s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n i n a group, e s p e c i a l l y as c a r r i e d on through attendance at and con-t r i b u t i o n s to a group." (The Webster's T h i r d I n t e r n a t i o n a l  D i c t i o n a r y ) . I t has been argued that the most common form of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n North America i s v o t i n g (Duskin P u b l i s h i n g Group Inc., 1974). There i s g e n e r a l agreement i n the l i t e r a -ture that p a r t i c i p a t i o n can be d e f i n e d i n terms o f f d i f f e r e n t kinds of a c t s which p a r t i c i p a t o r s take. V o t i n g , belonging to s o c i a l , p o l i t i c a l , community and business o r g a n i z a t i o n s , cam-p a i g n i n g , undertaking s p e c i f i c l e i s u r e a c t i v i t i e s , a t t e n d i n g meetings, e t c . , are a l l thought to be i n d i c a t o r s of p a r t i c i -p a t i o n . Researchers have t y p i c a l l y e i t h e r framed t h e i r docu-mentation i n terms of s p e c i f i c a c t s a p a r t i c i p a t o r might 36 undertake, such as " p o l i t i c a l campaigning" or "belonging to s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s " , or have assumed that v a r i o u s acts which are s a i d to measure p a r t i c i p a t i o n do i n f a c t a l l measure the same t h i n g . The study examined eleven p o t e n t i a l d e f i n e r s of p a r t i c i p a -t i o n using a measure of r e l i a b i l i t y c a l l e d Cronbach's alpha to see whether the i n d i v i d u a l items a l l converged on a s i n g l e concept. Item values f o r Cronbach's alpha, (which ranges from zero to one), are shown i n Table 1. They represent the c o n t r i b u -t i o n of each component v a r i a b l e to the s c a l e as a whole. If the items of a s c a l e a l l d e f i n e d the concept i d e n t i c a l l y the s c a l e alpha would be 1.0.00. The e n t r i e s i n Table 1 g i v e the f u l l s c a l e alpha which would occur should a p a r t i c u l a r item be d e l e t e d . If the s c a l e value of alpha r i s e s when an item i s d e l e t e d , o v e r a l l s c a l e r e l i a b i l i t y i n c r e a s e s ; i f the f u l l s c a l e value of alpha i s reduced when an item i s d e l e t e d , o v e r a l l s c a l e r e l i a b i l i t y d ecreases. For example i n the column " I n c l u d i n g P o l i t i c a l A c t s " , i f the item " w i l l i n g n e s s to be r e i n t e r v i e w e d " i s r e -moved, the f u l l s c a l e alpha drops from 0.254 to 0.231. To exclude " w i l l i n g n e s s to be r e i n t e r v i e w e d " would reduce the r e l i a b i l i t y of the s c a l e as a whole. 37 TABLE 1 R e l i a b i l i t y of Participation Scale Cronbach's Alpha . for F u l l Scale . Participation Ten Items Excluding P o l i t i c a l hcta Eleven Items Including P o l i t i c a l Acts NUMBER OF ACTIVE MEMBERSHIPS IN; Church, charity, welfare, PTA groups Community, c i v i c , homeowner, country club groups Neighbourhood, social, ethnic, fraternal organiz-ations Agr i c u l t u r a l , ecological, conservation, issue or action oriented groups Business professional, labour, p o l i t i c a l organiz-ations 0.540 0.513 0.512 0.532 0*545 0*222 0.196 0.238 0.235 0*231 VOTING IN: 196& Federal election 1969 Provincial election 1972 Federal election 1972 Provincial election 0.497 0.506 0.513 0.506 0.238 0.239 0.242 0.242 ACTIONS: Willingness to be re-interviewed Number of independent p o l i t i c a l actions taken i n past. 0.540 0.231 0*546 R e l i a b i l i t y coefficient for entire participation scale (Cronbach's Alpha) 0.546 0.254 Column values for the eleven item scale (including number of p o l i t i c a l acts) indicate the r e l i a b i l i t y of the entire scale i f the scale items were to be deleted one by one. Column values for the ten item scale (excluding p o l i t i c a l acts) similarly show the r e l i a b i l i t y of the entire scale were the scale items to be deleted one by one. 3.8 S u r p r i s i n g l y , "number of independent p o l i t i c a l a c t i o n s " i s a poor i n d i c a t o r of p a r t i c i p a t i o n as measured by the other v a r i a b l e s but i t pr o v i d e s a good example of a v a r i a b l e which could e a s i l y have been i n c l u d e d as a "common sense" but f a u l t y i n d i c a t o r of p a r t i c i p a t i o n had the r e l i a b i l i t y a n a l y s i s not been done. I f "number of independent p o l i t i c a l a c t i o n s " i s removed, the f u l l s c a l e alpha r i s e s from 0.254 to 0.546 and " s c a l e values i f d e l e t e d " f o r i n d i v i d u a l items r i s e to those shown i n the column "Excluding P o l i t i c a l A c t s " . A comparison between the frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n s of p o l i t i c a l a c t i o n s and the composite p a r t i c i p a t i o n score i s shown i n Figure 2. I t g r a p h i c a l l y i l l u s t r a t e s the skewedness of a c t i o n t a k i n g compared to the composite p a r t i c i p a t i o n meas-ure. "Number of independent p o l i t i c a l a c t i o n s " was t h e r e f o r e excluded from subsequent analyses and the remaining r e l i a b l e s c a l e items c o n s t i t u t e the o p e r a t i o n a l measure o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n . • B. C o r r e l a t i o n of L i f e s t y l e V a r i a b l e s With P a r t i c i p a t i o n Previous r e s e a r c h e r s of p a r t i c i p a t i o n have argued that l e v e l of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s r e l a t e d to the l i f e s t y l e v a r i a b l e s of age, sex, income, education and s t a t u s . T h i s study t e s t e d whether these v a r i a b l e s are good pre-d i c t o r s of p a r t i c i p a t i o n f o r the Vancouver sample p o p u l a t i o n . 39 gure 2 300 j Comparative Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n s of "Tendency to take P o l i t i c a l A c t s "  and P a r t i c i p a t i o n S c a l e E x c l u d i n g "Tendency to take P o l i t i c a l A c t s " For 779 Respondents From 23 Vancouver L o c a l Areas 250 200 S c a l e E x c l u d i n g P o l i t i c a l A c t s P o l i t i c a l A c t s MEAN 6.566 4.289 MEDIAN 6.537 1.621 MODE 6.000 0.000 STD DEV 3.097 6.835 RANGE 27.00 64.00 150 S c a l e E x c l u d i n g P o l i t i c a l A c t s P o l i t i c a l A c t s 100 50 5 10 25 I t was a n t i c i p a t e d t h at sex, income, education and s t a t u s would be d i r e c t l y l i n k e d to tendency to p a r t i c i p a t e while age would vary i n a c u r v i l i n e a r f a s h i o n with l e v e l of p a r t i c i p a t i o n . The c o r r e l a t i o n values i n Table 2 i n d i c a t e the degree to which a l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s between p a r t i c i p a t i o n and other v a r i a b l e s . TABLE 2 Pearsonian C o r r e l a t i o n s of P a r t i c i p a t i o n with F i v e L i f e s t y l e  V a r i a b l e s f o r 779 Respondents from 23 Vancouver L o c a l Areas V a r i a b l e C o r r e l a t i o n (r) R-1 Age 0.154 Education 0.202 Household Income 0.184 O c c u p a t i o n a l Status 0.193 Sex -0.039 0 .024 0.041 0.034 0.037 0.001 C o n t r o l of  S i g n i f i c a n c e 0.00001 0.00001 0.00001 0.00001 0 .13900 " P a r t i c i p a t o r s " were found to be o l d e r , of higher s t a t u s and income and to have more education than " n o n - p a r t i c i p a t o r s . " Contrary to e x p e c t a t i o n p a r t i c i p a t i o n was not r e l a t e d to sex and p a r t i c i p a t i o n d i d not decrease with age. With the e x c e p t i o n of those scores skewed towards high p a r t i c i p a t i o n , the frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n of p a r t i c i p a t i o n 41 scores shown in Figure 3 i s r e l a t i v e l y normal and represents a substantial range of scores. Respondents who score high on p a r t i c i p a t i o n — t h e kind of persons who most often represent the views of s o c i e t y — r e p r e s e n t a larger than expected portion of the sample population, however small in absolute number. Although a l l l i f e s t y l e variables except sex exhibited a l i n e a r correlation with p a r t i c i p a t i o n s i g n i f i c a n t at the 0.00001 l e v e l , as shown in Table 2, they did not account for much of the variance in p a r t i c i a t i o n and are not good predict-ors of that variable. 2 The value of R indicates what percentage of the variance in p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s accounted for by a l i f e s t y l e v ariable. Age, for example, accounts for two and a half per-cent of the variance in p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Were the five independ-ent variables tested to not overlap and to together account for 2 100% of the variance, their R values would sum to 1.00. A low Pearsonian correlation value in Table 2 indicates that there i s l i t t l e or no 1inear relationship between two variables. To test whether the relationships with p a r t i c i p a t i o n might also contain non-linear components, each variable was analyzed in smaller intervals which would approximate a number of chords comprising any existing c u r v i l i n e a r relationships. Except for 42 Figure 3. Frequency Distribution of Participation Scores for 779  Respondents from 23 Vancouver Local Areas 0. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6 . 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 23. 27. *(1) ********* (30) ********** (36) * * * * * * * * * * * * ( 4 4 ) **************** (60) *************************** (102) ********************.*************** (136) ********************************* (129) ********************** (82) *********** (41) ************** (50) ******* (23) ****** (20) *** (8) *** (7) ** (2) MEAN: 6.566 ** (2) MEDIAN: 6.357 * (1) MODE: 6.000 ** (2) STD. DEV.: 3.097 * (1) RANGE: 27.000 * (1) * (1) 40 80 120 Frequency 160 200 43, age no change i n the l i n e a r i t y of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s was found. A higher c o r r e l a t i o n of p a r t i c i p a t i o n with age (0.304) was di s c o v e r e d which between approximately 17 and 34 years was s i g n i f i c a n t at the 0.00001 l e v e l and accounted f o r roughly 9% of the v a r i a n c e — t h a t i s . t h e age i n t e r v a l 17 to 34 i s a b e t t e r p r e d i c t o r of p a r t i c i p a t i o n than i n t e r v a l s of o l d e r y e a r s . There are two probable reasons f o r the d i s c r e p a n c i e s be-tween the f i n d i n g s of the analyses and those i n the l i t e r a t u r e . Changes i n North American p o p u l a t i o n c h a r a c t e r over the past decade may account f o r some d i f f e r e n c e s . I t i s l i k e l y , f o r example, that i n c r e a s e s i n re t i r e m e n t l e i s u r e and l i f e expectancy i n the l a s t ten years have r e s u l t e d i n i n c r e a s e d p a r t i c i p a t i o n beyond 60 years of age c r e a t i n g disagreement between the study f i n d i n g s and the l i t e r a t u r e . A s i m i l a r argu-ment can be made to e x p l a i n the d i f f e r e n c e s between the study f i n d i n g s and the l i t e r a t u r e with regard to p a r t i c i p a t i o n and sex. Increases i n women's r i g h t s i n the past 13 years may have reduced the d i f f e r e n c e s between men and women i n t h e i r tenden-c i e s to p a r t i c i p a t e ; l i t e r a t u r e which i n 1965 suggested that men p a r t i c i p a t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y more than women i s now without b a s i s . A second kind of d i s c r e p a n c y between the l i t e r a t u r e and the f i n d i n g s of the analyses i s due to the p a r t i c i p a t i o n v a r i a b l e s of t h i s study being b e t t e r o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d than those of e a r l i e r r e s e a r c h so that l e s s chance e x i s t s of the v a r i a n c e i n independ-ent v a r i a b l e s being f a l s e l y accounted f o r . 44. C. Vancouver L o c a l Areas: Which Urban Issues are most  Important? I t was not u n t i l 1973 t h a t the f i r s t s i x of the Vancouver l o c a l areas were i d e n t i f i e d by the C i t y Planning Dept. as a p p r o p r i a t e f o r l o c a l area p l a n n i n g programmes. ( C i t y Planning Department, Vancouver, 1977). The planning department d e f i n e d l o c a l area p l a n n i n g as "...an attempt...to examine l o c a l i z e d concerns w i t h i n the context of the problems, i s s u e s and goals of the c i t y as a whole." Although the C i t y Planning Department examination was not c a r r i e d out f o r the c i t y as a whole, t h i s t h e s i s has attempted to determine on a c i t y w i d e b a s i s whether the twenty-two l o c a l areas and P o i n t Grey-U.B.C. do hold measur-ably d i f f e r e n t f e e l i n g s about the urban environment. Table 3 shows the c i t y w i d e mean importance ranking of a l l t h i r t y - f i v e i s s u e s by the 779 respondents. Twenty-four of the t h i r t y - f i v e urban i s s u e s were found to s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i s c r i m i n a t e among l o c a l areas and are l i s t e d i n Table 4 i n order of power of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . Issues which were not s i g n i f i c a n t were thought to be of r e l a t i v e l y the same importance i n a l l l o c a l areas. F i g u r e 4 i n d i c a t e s those l o c a l areas which d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i -c a n t l y from each other with regard to mean rankings of the is s u e s ( d i f f e r e n c e s s i g n i f i c a n t beyond 0.00001). TABLE 3 The Perceived Importance o f T h i r t y - F i v e Drban Issues as Ranked  By 7 7 9 Respondent From 2 3 Vancouver Local Areas Sample Grand Mean u o CO CO w w CHANGING THE STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT CHANNELLING GROWTH OUTSIDE OF EXISTING CENTRES DEVELOPING MORE PUBLIC PARKS ENCOURAGING COMPREHENSIVE PHYSICAL PLANNING IMPROVING HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION MAKING MORE EFFICIENT USE OF PRESENT TRANSPORTATION PLANNING A THIRD CROSSING FOR BURRARD INLET PRESERVING THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT PROMOTING COMPREHENSIVE SOCIAL PLANNING PROMOTING A RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM STIMULATING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT UPGRADING THE HOUSING SUPPLY 7 o 5 2 62 3, 7 0 8 o l S 4*74 8.61 4.17 5.62 4 c 52 6.43 5.21 to w CO CO « > O o > AIR POLLUTION FROM AUTOS AIR POLLUTION FROM INDUSTRY WATER POLLUTION VISUAL POLLUTION TRAFFIC PROBLEMS INADEQUATE RECREATION FACILITIES TRANSIENT YOUTH UNFRIENDLINESS OF CITY LIFE QUALITY OF CITY GOVERNMENT CRIME AND PERSONAL HONESTY DISHONESTY IN GOVERNMENT AND BUSINESS PROBLEMS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS MISMANAGEMENT OF WELFARE HEALTH CARE PROBLEMS OF MINORITY GROUPS INADEQUATE HOUSING COUNTER-CULTURE MOVEMENT 6.18 5.16 6.11 8.61 7.03 10.90 11. 53 13.42 6.54 7.07 8.27 8.84 7.0? 7.84 12.62 7.12 13.16 w CO D D SS < i-3 UNDEVELOPED. OPEN SPACE IMPROVED RECREATION FACILITIES PLANNED "NEW TOWNS" SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT AS NOW PERMITTED PROTECT EXISTING AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE 3.04 2.83 3.42 4.31 1.73 4.6C TABLE 4 Twenty-four Urban Issues and P a r t i c i p a t i o n Showing Power of  D i s c r i m i n a t i o n Between 23 Vancouver L o c a l Areas F R a t i o * P a r t i c i p a t i o n 2. 53 Mismanagement of Welfare 2. 25 Encouraging Comprehensive P h y s i c a l Planning 2. 23 Upgrading The Housing Supply 1. 71 Improving Highway T r a n s p o r t a t i o n 1. 62 Improved R e c r e a t i o n F a c i l i t i e s 1. 61 Inadequate R e c r e a t i o n F a c i l i t i e s 1. 50 Problems of M i n o r i t y Groups 1. 45 A i r P o l l u t i o n From Industry 1. 40 Water P o l l u t i o n 1. 37 Changing The S t r u c t u r e of Government 1. 36 P r o t e c t E x i s t i n g A g r i c u l t u r e 1. 34 Promoting a Rapid T r a n s i t System 1. 33 Making More E f f i c i e n t Use o f Present T r a n s p o r t a t i o n 1. 30 T r a f f i c Problems 1. 25 Problems i n P u b l i c Schools 1. 24 C o u n t e r - c u l t u r e Movement 1. 23 Planned "New Towns" 1. 22 Q u a l i t y of C i t y Government 1. 21 C h a n n e l l i n g Growth Outside of E x i s t i n g Centres 1. 21 Dishonesty i n Government and Business 1. 19 Crime and Personal Honesty 1. 16 Industry and Commerce 1. 14 T r a n s i e n t Youth 1. 08 Undeveloped Open Space 1. 05 * a l l F values s i g n i f i c a n t to beyond 0.001 47 F i g u r e 4 D i s c r i m i n a t i o n Among 23 L o c a l Vancouver Neighbourhoods By  Twenty-four o f T h i r t y - s i x Urban I s s u e s CBD (14) WEST END (13) FAIRVIEW (12) MOUNT PLEASANT ((3) STRATHCONA (15) GRANDVIEW-WOODLANDS (10) HASTINGS-SUNRISE(6) RENFREW-COLLINGWOOD(9) CEDAR COTTAGE ( 7 ) RILEY PARK (9) SOUTH CAMBIE (1) SHAUGHNESSY (12) ARBUTUS RIDGE (4) KITSILANO (12) WEST POINT GREY (3) DUNBAR SOUTHLANDS(9) POINT GREY-UBC (1) KERRISDALE (15) OAKRIDGE (12) MARPOLE (9) SUNSET (12) VICTORIA~FRASERVIEW(9) KILLARNEY (20) A dot i n d i c a t e s those l o c a l areas s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from one another on assessment o f importance o f the 24 items which d i s c r i m i n a t e between a r e a s . The number i n b r a c k e t s a f t e r each l o c a l a rea name i s the number o f o t h e r l o c a l areas from which an are a i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . 48 Table 5 shows the mean rankings of s i g n i f i c a n t i s s u e s f o r each l o c a l area. Distances between i s s u e s are as i n f o r m a t i v e as the s c a l e p r i o r i t i e s of i s s u e s themselves s i n c e they provide a r a t i o n a l s c a l e measure of the absolute importance of each item. Although d i f f e r e n c e s between areas on importance of i n d i v i d -u a l i s s u e s were not t e s t e d f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e , i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note how l o c a l areas p e r c e i v e d the importance of some i s s u e s . Of the seven s i g n i f i c a n t General Issues r e g a r d i n g the urban environment a l l areas east of Cambie except K i l l a r n e y and Sunset ranked "Upgrading the Housing Supply" as f i r s t or second i n im-portance while areas west of Cambie ranked the is s u e as t h i r d , f o u r t h or f i f t h p r i o r i t y . Residents of P o i n t Grey-U.B.C. and the C e n t r a l Business D i s t r i c t f e l t " C h a n n e l l i n g Growth Outside of E x i s t i n g Centers" to be more important than d i d most other areas who gave the item low p r i o r i t y . While "Planning a T h i r d C r o s s i n g " was the f i r s t or second most important g e n e r a l i s s u e f o r r e s i d e n t s of K i l l a r n e y , Sunset and the m a j o r i t y of l o c a l areas west of Cambie, i t was the lowest or second lowest p r i o r -i t y f o r most other areas east of Cambie S t r e e t . Residents of most areas other than P o i n t Grey, U.B.C. and V i c t o r i a Fraserview f e l t that "Improving Highway T r a n s p o r t a t i o n " was the is s u e of lowest or second lowest importance. P o i n t Grey-U.B.C. and V i c t o r i a Fraserview f e l t the is s u e was the f o u r t h most important of the seven g e n e r a l i s s u e s . »IodUtn 3an spireme nos AssautjCnsiig pcu«&nn°3 »sfsun<; p a w i ft *o a o* r* _* Ul o « "» «rt r . c r> ^ G I m v n -r —« j> %j m r • •o i£ «n 10 «r <r i>i » •» —• ~ <•* rt irt M -4 p - »• <-i S R S S S S ; * 5 H S 8 S S • >o >S o i n w i r i «» •* 'O e t « rt rt rt v o v> o co rt B h « « t i n i s IS 2 50 3 2 5 »n f - r - «» co o r*» w> O c o o o o o 0 co so o t o tS •* co tft r* t o *n m r> rt er> O rt W co cs 01 n o) « IN f* S m o o •/* t n Q v r> A •« in r» o •«•• r - i im CM f" t o co rt t o o e* f * *w p» «n i - . co p» t o i n a i n t n co o <n so rt m M — i ^ rt co •» r» •M <•> O 0 •» rt V Ml «A «r co <n o* trt CO CO • Ot —4 rt rt n i rt so o o* f-a N « a « d w «o o> m * r* ew r * cu r » wt co co m tt* V\ — i —« rt eo r» rt i n i s & ^ H « i f l to t o m f * co * r •» co o r»- rt c * to r* IN co o co a* « t o vD « (B n v eh v» rt rt f^ - t n u5 •# r - » i a n o> "~" t> u> t o eo o t t*> * r I rt f«. c * o o» c <D U D> V O l •« t n i-» t n co O t n r t ••i o> r--« a « tn t o t o i n s o r - O r t t o r ^ c o « o r N « r t —« rt rt .-« •w vr> * w o» i> « * i - i M m c n «••» O eft — 4 ( - 4 ^ i r t r t v t A M O r ^ « n r - " # « w o « n * r r - r " * n o * r t M t O r t o o r - t o ^ r - t o o s o r * « o - « o t o t e c o r » i n r t m so -o cf» .-i w> «a r - t o i£ <~* ^ rt rt p i o \ « O « r « ^ v 0 O O ^- to t-t yO * n f - f » ^ o r " r * o > r - - # r t c > < C- rt a j o w> o * o « r r t u » r t rtvcooointn w r t i n v t • o « * n o f ' 4 * * 4 o > o \ a C a > t n < n | rt rt rt rt rtrtr*rt*ocor^ c" o o o o o o o o o o rtiflu>rtP4CX(or>ot^-rt rt I u 3 d O r t O O r t r < > r t r t C M p « c o r~ n ^ o w c n c o c s r ^ r t t n i r t t r t •nvx>r-oo<n\0cnr»r>-r«r4 • - t r t - r< r-% a o p - O r t r t i n - n n o i ^ O r t rt rt rt rt m c O ^ v c O N r t r t t o O • « i n r ^ r t N t ) $ r « r ^ o c > O r t ^ c o c M < S o W r n r n v > ( U O r t t * c o o t c n c o r t rt rt rt r > f 4 « « v r t t 9 P « r » n w r > c 9 0 t r t « n t n t o i ^ w ^ n i r t rt rt rt 5 § S S S ? P ! ! O O r * - * r o v t f - > o t o r » f ^ « O r t r ^ t O O ( M i n r t s : s R ? f : r« « « » M n S en O r* rt «f rt r* o rt CA rt » a h t o a o N v <c to «o co ox v us _ i l i i _ 8 8 fc P t: s S IS 3 £ < -s u- a I'M 12 i S n N n « i | « -I rt <f | ^ Q t p A fNI O O *>* rt ci rt r4 w\ \ a* ri so o 0> I rt co r* o rt I rt ri rt r« •» r * rt r« « »A rt in r« v o rt f4 m P i N O rt S f« rt rt CO OO Q to ^ rt Q »-» to i n cS o rt A rt rt o O o VO CO V i n c« rt rt o o o «n M r * v i i f i rl « rt rt w *|w v i e et CO I CO CO C4 O ei ritri «vi rt rt rt I JR S 3 rt rt f * H o rt rt rt O rt rt rt »»0 a s s s s a s vs N «' n n n J —« rt cn co rt rt rt - i ID e o o » * M m m e > » • n r » o t o t O f « t * > a > t o r t rt ICD rt t 0 f* •» I S o o to in I M rt v rt ^ I S In S S rt r« rt rt ?^ T ' r t r t t N v o v c i O c S r ^ t n w <M *M w ' * « r t r t t o t o i ^ o x e B « c J r t r ! » n r t ^ r M i n o t O r t c o r ^ c n ^ t n o t n r t c o r - t o M > ^ « o o N « c 9 o e n ^ r t m m « < « r t r t rt rt rt rt v«nr>>rt^-tv»c9r^osr-^rt -* —• rt jt a a s s s s s P N it «' 9 H o r>* es rt S! S rt tO rt A » rt M S t o r » rt c a rt rt rttoclto^OrtO^retcocn S t o r»* t o t o rt CO rt I— «n \ o %o *•« ft CS o o rt rt Ot Ot O CO tt f t rt t n t r tt* * H H r- or (* ? *n to r* irl rt e o* rt o o t n t o i n p« o cn to o 2 ot u i s <o o o CO CO so ti rt rt S a rt rt rt H * 19 N A r« o * in * rt » A « f~ rt rt «Sf rt rt rt t o rtt tSt CO « N N O Ol A « 50 Of the twelve s i g n i f i c a n t Vancouver Urban Issues most areas ranked " A i r P o l l u t i o n From Industry" as the most important con-cern. Residents of Shaughnessy however, f e l t i t to be the f i f t h most important. "Water P o l l u t i o n " was thought g e n e r a l l y to be the second most important i s s u e except by r e s i d e n t s of southern p o r t i o n s of the c i t y i n K i l l a r n e y , Sunset, V i c t o r i a Fraserview and Marpole who ranked the item e i t h e r f i f t h or s i x t h i n import-ance. Residents of Shaughnessy ranked t h i s i s s u e as s i x t h most important. "Problems of M i n o r i t y Groups" and the "Counter C u l -ture Movement" were ranked as being of lowest or second lowest importance by r e s i d e n t s of almost a l l l o c a l areas except those of the C e n t r a l Business D i s t r i c t who f e l t the items to be e i g h t h and n i n t h i n importance r e s p e c t i v e l y . " Q u a l i t y of C i t y Govern-ment" was seen o v e r a l l as being the t h i r d most important i s s u e but was ranked as tenth most important by r e s i d e n t s of the Cent-r a l Business D i s t r i c t . While "Crime and P e r s o n a l Honesty" was the f i f t h most urgent concern f o r r e s i d e n t s of the m a j o r i t y of l o c a l areas, the r e s i d e n t s of Shaughnessy and K i l l a r n e y noted i t to be the most important i s s u e . Persons l i v i n g i n Marpole and V i c t o r i a F raser f e l t "Dishonesty i n Government and i n Business" to be of g r e a t e s t importance while r e s i d e n t s of other areas i n general saw the i s s u e as being s i x t h most important. An a d d i t i o n a l set of s i x i s s u e s concerned Future Land Use i n Vancouver. Of those s i x , f i v e were found to d i s c r i m i n a t e among l o c a l areas. The most important s i g n i f i c a n t land use 51 i s s u e was " P r o t e c t E x i s t i n g A g r i c u l t u r e . " Residents of the C e n t r a l Business D i s t r i c t and K i l l a r n e y , however, ranked t h i s i s s u e of second importance and ranked the need f o r "Improved R e c r e a t i o n F a c i l i t i e s " as most important. The o v e r a l l mean rank f o r "Planned New Towns" was f o u r t h but r e s i d e n t s of Shaughnessy and P o i n t Grey-U.B.C. ranked t h i s item as second most important. There was unanimous agreement f o r a l l r e -spondents that "Industry and Commerce" was the l e a s t urgent s i g n i f i c a n t land use i s s u e . F i g u r e 5 shows mean s c o r e s , standard d e v i a t i o n s and s i g n i f i c a n t "between area" d i f f e r e n c e s of p a r t i c i p a t i o n f o r each l o c a l area. The c i t y - w i d e mean p a r t i c i p a t i o n score f o r a l l 779 respondents was 6.5. West P o i n t Grey, Shaughnessy, K e r r i s d a l e and Oakridge l o c a l area r e s i d e n t s were found to p a r t i c i p a t e more than r e s i d e n t s of most l o c a l areas while r s i d e n t s of Grandview Woodland, P o i n t Grey-U.B.C. and Mt. Pleasant p a r t i c i p a t e d l e s s . The mean p a r t i c i p a t i o n score f o r l o c a l areas west of Cambie S t r e e t was 7.5 while the mean score f o r neighborhoods east of Cambie was 6.1 (the d i f f e r e n c e i s s i g n i f i c a n t t o 0.05). Whether the r e s i d e n t s of a l o c a l area are r e l a t i v e l y s i m i l a r i n t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n scores i s i n d i c a t e d by area standard d e v i a t i o n s . Mt. P l e a s a n t , S t r a t h c o n a , Hastings S u n r i s e , Arbutus Ridge and Renfrew Collingwood are a l l F i g u r e 5 Comparisons Among Twenty-Three L o c a l Neighbourhood Areas on P a r t i c i p a t i o n S c o r e s c o •rt - P «S C ft-O o I - H U -rt O ID JJ —< 13 W *) C - H M (0 > «J -U <D P< CO O 3.5 2.7 3.5 2.2 2 T 3 2.7 2.3 3.9 4.2 3.1 3.4 2.5 2.S 4.0 3.1 2.8 3.3 4.0 3.3 4.8 4.0 4.1 3.3 4.1 o •rt 4J 19 a, •rt V •rt <J) C JJ M ro u o 01 (0 o S O H W 6.5 6.3 6.5 5.6 6.1 4.3 6.3 6.2 7..T 6.5 6.9 8.7 7.2 6.7 9.1 6.6 5.4 7.8 7.4 6.6 6.2 7.1 6.1 6.7 6.5 Local Area (Number i n brackets i n d i c a t e s sample s i z e f o r each area) CBD (8) S i g n i f i c a n c e Between Area D i f f e r e n c e s i n P a r t i c i -pation (a dot i n d i c a t e s s i g n i f i c a n c e ) WESTEMD (93) FAIRVIEH (50) MOUNT PLEASANT (35) STRATHCONA (14) GRANDVIEW WOODLAND (48) HASTINGS SUNRISE (49) RENFREV7 COLLINGWOOD ( 46 ) CEDAR COTTAGE (47) RILEY PARK (34) SOUTH CAMBIE (11) SHAUGHNESSY (18) ARBUTUS RIDGE (28) KITSILANO (83) WEST POINT GREY (20) DUNBAR SOUTHLANDS (29) POINT GREY-UBC (5) KERRISDALE (24) OAKRIDGE (16) MARPOLE (37) SUNSET (33) VICTORIA FRASERVIEW(34) KILLARNEY (17) MEANS FOR 23 NEIGHBOURHOOD AREAS MEANS FOR 779 VANCOUVER RESIDENTS 53 r e l a t i v e l y homogeneous and have low standard d e v i a t i o n s f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Sunset and R i l e y Park are comparatively heterogeneous as shown by t h e i r l a r g e standard d e v i a t i o n s . F i g u r e 6 i s d i v i d e d i n t o quadrants using the mean homo-g e n e i t y (standard d e v i a t i o n ) and mean p a r t i c i p a t i o n s c o r e s . Each l o c a l area can be examined f o r l e v e l of p a r t i c i p a t i o n and f o r homogeneity, f a c t o r s which have i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r a p p r o p r i -ate mechanisms of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n and p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Although r e s i d e n t s of areas i n Quadrant I such as Sunset, K i l l a r n e y and R i l e y Park g e n e r a l l y scored low on p a r t i c i p a -t i o n , some persons i n the area p a r t i c i p a t e much more than o t h e r s . D. P a r t i c i p a t i o n and Importance of Urban Issues; Are They  Related? Although the Vancouver C i t y Planning Department i s now i n the process of e s t a b l i s h i n g comprehensive l o c a l area p l a n n i n g programmes which pr o v i d e f o r e x t e n s i v e c i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n , these avenues f o r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i n Vancouver's plan n i n g and p o l i t i c a l processes c a t e r p r i n c i p a l l y to those persons with the d e s i r e and i n i t i a t i v e to become i n v o l v e d — t h e " p a r t i c i -p a t o r s " of s o c i e t y A c e n t r a l concern of t h i s t h e s i s p a r t i c i p a t e i n p l a n n i n g and d e c i s i o n i s that persons who making hold s i g n i f i c a n t l y Figure 6 f.evel and Homogeneity of P a r t i c i p a t i o n f o r Twenty-Three Vancouver Local Neighborhood Areas Ul c o •H 4 J - ~ Ct ,4J •H - H o <u •H C 4-1 01 o ft. 6 o i4-i x; o U —- <U c .c O •H . H 4 J J3 10 •H > 4J 0) 10 Q O •H T3 *a >J c as -rt "O c w m u •P 41 W JO — s >i c 4 J •H U C S 0) o C J o — E o 5.0 4.0 3.3 3.0 • Sunset •Riley Park 'Killarney Victoria Fraserview * •Ookridge West Point Cedar Cottage Grey Fairview C.B.fc. • Shcuehnessv Marpole Dunbar Grandviev Woodland Pt,*Grey UBC 2.0 West End Renfrew Collingwood Strathcona • * Hastings Sunrise Mt. Pleasant • South Cambie • Kitsilano " Xerrisdnle * Arbutus Ridge 4.5 5.0 8.0 6.? 7.0 Mean Participation Level for 23 Local Areas 3.0 9.0 d i f f e r e n t p r i o r i t i e s with r e s p e c t to t h e i r urban environment than persons who do not p a r t i c i p a t e . Furthermore, i t i s p o s s i b l e that these p a r t i c i p a t o r s , r e s p o n s i b l e f o r shaping the f u t u r e of c i t i e s , may rep r e s e n t a r e l a t i v e l y small p o r t i o n of c i t y p o p u l a t i o n s . Table 6 shows the c o r r e l a t i o n s of the importance of each of t h i r t y - f i v e urban i s s u e s with p a r t i c p a t i o n scores f o r the 779 respondents. Of the t h i r t y - f i v e items f o u r t e e n are s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d with p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Importance of the remaining items i s not r e l a t e d to p a r t i c i p a t i o n . I f chance alone were o p e r a t i n g , only two of the t h i r t y -f i v e items would be s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d with p a r t i c i -p a t i o n . Thus the importance rankings of respondents f o r fo u r t e e n out of t h i r t y - f i v e urban i s s u e s are s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n s c o r e s . The higher a respondent scores on the p a r t i c i p a t i o n s c a l e the more l i k e l y i t i s he w i l l a s s i g n low (but s i g n i f i c a n t ) importance to the f o l l o w i n g items: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 u n f r i e n d l i n e s s of c i t y l i f e c h a n n e l l i n g growth o u t s i d e of c i t y c e n t e r s improving highway t r a n s p o r t a t i o n p l a n n i n g a t h i r d c r o s s i n g v i s u a l p o l l u t i o n t r a f f i c problems problems of m i n o r i t y groups s u b d i v i s i o n development as now per m i t t e d crime and p e r s o n a l honesty the counter c u l t u r e movement 56 TABLE 6 Correlations of Thirty-Five Urban Priority Items With Participatlon Including and Excluding Effects of Local Area Correlation Excluding the Effects of Local Area Level of Significance-Correlation Including the Effects of Local Area Level of Significance Difference Between item means * CHANGINC THE STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT -0.0428 — -0.0282 +0.0146 CHANNELLING GROWTH OUTSIDE OF EXISTING CENTRES 0.1057 .01 + 0.0998 .003 +0.0159 DEVELOPING MORE PUBLIC PARKS -0.0056 -'- -0.0076 -0.0020 ENCOURAGING COMPREHENSIVE PHYSICAL PLANNING -0.0646 .05 -0.0898 .006 -0.0242 to IMPROVING HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION 0.0965 .01 0.0973 .003 -.00008 IS SI MAKING MORE EFFICIENT USE OF PRESENT TRANSFORATION 0.0351 — 0.0370 -0.0019 J u PLANNING A THIRD CROSSING FOR BURRARD INLET 0.1052 .01 0.0959 .004 +0.0093 GEN PRESERVING THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT -0.0312 — . -0.0356 -0.0044 PROMOTING COMPREHENSIVE SOCIAL PLANNING -0.0723 .05 -0,0746 .019 -0.0023 PROMOTING A RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM 0.0229 — 0.0101 +0.0128 STIMULATING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 0.0298 — 0.0274 +0.0024 UPGRADING THE HOUSING SUPPLY -0.0185 — 0.0094 +0.0091 AIR POLLUTION FROM AUTOS -0.0427 — -0.0407 +0.0020 AIR POLLUTION FROM INDUSTRY 0.0302 — 0.0398 -0.0096 WATER POLLUTION 0.0345 ~ -0.0363 -0.00 VISUAL POLLUTION 0.0912 .01 0.0963 .004 -0.0051 TRAFFIC PROBLEMS 0.0989 .01 0.0949 .004 +0.0040 INADEQUATE RECREATION FACILITIES -0.0423 — 0.0499 -0.0076 Ul u TRANSIENT YOUTH 0.0304 - - 0.0338 -0.0034 UNFRIENDLINESS OF CITY LIPE 0.1736 .001 0.1712 .001 +0.0012 Ul QUALITY OF CITY GOVERNMENT -0.1202 .01 -0.1373 .001 -0.0171 M K CRIME AND PERSONAL HONESTY 0.0723 .05 0.0628 .040 +0.0095 rANCOOVE DISHONESTY IN GOVERNMENT AND BUSINESS 0.0249 — 0.0288 -0.0039 rANCOOVE PROBLEMS IN PUBLIC- SCHOOLS -0.0450 — -0.0649 .035 -0.0199 >>» MISMANAGEMENT OF WELFARE -0.0148 -- -0.0066 +0.0002 HEALTH CAPE -0.0870 .01 -0.0923 .005 -0.0053 PROBLEMS OF MINORITY GROUPS 0.0838 .01 0.0732 .020 +0.0106 INADEQUATE HOUSING -0.0413 — -0.0310 +0.0103 COUNTER-CULTURE MOVEMENT 0.0692 .05 0.0664 .032 +0.0028 UNDEVELOPED OPEN SPACE IMPROVED RECREATION FACILITIES 0.0193 — 0.0153 +0.0040 -0.0399 — -0.0297 +0.0102 u tn tn o u 9 o tn Z V) <c ^  PLANNED "NEW TOWNS" 0.0146 -- 0.0109 +0.0035 SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT AS NOW PERMITTED 0.1139 .01 0.1234 .001 -0.0095 •J PROTECT EXISTING AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE -0.0368 0.0353 ~- -0.0344 0.0418 +0.0024 -0.0065 NUMBER OF SIGNIFICANT ITEMS H. 15. MEAN OF SIGNIFICANT ITEMS 0.0967 0.0960 CRAND MEANS 0.0654 0.0569 +0.0085 *Plun sign indicates predictive power improved by excluding local area effects) minus sign indicates predictive power reduced. 57 The higher a respondent's p a r t i c i p a t i o n score the more l i k e l y i t i s he w i l l a t t a c h high (and s i g n i f i c a n t ) importance to the f o l l o w i n g items: 1) encouraging comprehensive p h y s i c a l p l a n n i n g 2) h e a l t h care 3) promoting comprehensive s o c i a l p lanning 4) q u a l i t y of c i t y government. Respondents s c o r i n g high on p a r t i c i p a t i o n d i f f e r s i g n i f -i c a n t l y from respondents s c o r i n g low on p a r t i c i p a t i o n with r e s p e c t to t h e i r rankings of the f o u r t e e n s i g n i f i c a n t p r i o r i t y items. While p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s not a good p r e d i c t o r of importance of urban i s s u e s except i n the most general sense, i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note the " f l a v o u r " of the d i f f e r e n c e s between i s s u e s which are important to n o n - p a r t i c i p a t o r s and those which are important to p a r t i c i p a t o r s . The e i g h t i s s u e s which n o n - p a r t i c i p a t o r s found to be important r e l a t e mainly to p h y s i c a l or "hardware" concerns and are centered on coping or r e a c t i v e a c t i o n s i n d e a l i n g with the p r e s e n t . The four items which p a r t i c i p a t o r s f i n d most important seem to be more concerned with conceptual ideas and with a n t i c i p a t i n g , p l a n n i n g and c r e a t i n g the f u t u r e . E. P a r t i c i p a t i o n : Showing t h a t i t V a r i e s Among L o c a l Areas E a r l i e r f i n d i n g s of the study showed p a r t i c i p a t i o n to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to age, income, education and s t a t u s . 58 S i n c e r e s i d e n t s o f a l o c a l a rea o f t e n s e l e c t themselves to an area a c c o r d i n g to l i f e s t y l e c h a r a c t e r t i s t i c s , l e v e l s o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n s h o u l d v a r y s i g n i f i c a n t l y between a r e a s . T h i s e x p e c t a t i o n was t e s t e d by i n c l u d i n g the p a r t i c i p a t i o n s c o r e as a v a r i a b l e i n a d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s to see whether the t w e n t y - t h r e e l o c a l areas d i f f e r e d among themselves i n p a r t i -c i p a t i o n and i n a s s e s s i n g importance on each o f the t h i r t y -f i v e i s s u e s . P a r t i c i p a t i o n emerged as the i tem which bes t d i s c r i m i n a t e d among l o c a l a reas ( s i g n i f i c a n t beyond 0.00001). R e s i d e n t s o f areas i n Quadrant II such as M a r p o l e , Dunbar and .Grandview Woodland are low on p a r t i c i p a t i o n but r e l a t i v e l y homogeneous w i t h r e s p e c t to l e v e l of p a r t i c i p a t i o n . West P o i n t G r e y , O a k r i d g e , Cedar Cot tage and V i c t o r i a F r a s e r v i e w and Shaughnessy i n Quadrant I I I , are g e n e r a l l y h i g h i n p a r t i c i p a t i o n and heterogeneous on l e v e l of p a r t i c i p a t i o n . R e s i d e n t s o f K e r r i s d a l e , South Cambie, K i t s i l a n o , K e r r i s d a l e and A r b u t u s Ridge i n Quadrant IV are h i g h p a r t i c i p a t o r s who are homogeneous on l e v e l of p a r t i c i p a t i o n . F . P a r t i c i p a t i o n and Importance o f Urban I s s u e s ; Does  Neighbourhood A r e a Moderate? S i n c e the Reform E r a , p l a n n e r s and p o l i t i c i a n s have been p r e p o s s e s s e d w i t h the s p a t i a l a s p e c t s of urban p o p u l a t i o n s and 59 environments. An e a r l i e r d i s c u s s i o n i n t h i s study argued that the use of s p a t i a l or geographic c o n s t r u c t s to re p r e s e n t a s p a t i a l f u n c t i o n s of community i s i n a p p r o p r i a t e . The study c o n t r a s t e d two c o r r e l a t i o n analyses to t e s t whether the r e l a t i o n s h i p between p a r t i c i p a t i o n (an a s p a t i a l concept) and respondents' f e e l i n g s of importance about t h i r t y - f i v e urban i s s u e s ( a s p a t i a l c o n s t r u c t s ) was c l a r i f i e d or degraded by exc l u d i n g the v a r i a n c e due to l o c a l area (a s p a t i a l c o n s t r u c t ) I t was expected that the c o r r e l a t i o n s of p r i o r i t y items with p a r t i c i p a t i o n would be s i g n i f i c a n t l y l a r g e r when the v a r i a n c e due to neighbourhood was excluded than when t h i s v a r i a n c e was i n c l u d e d . D i f f e r e n c e s between i n d i v i d u a l item c o r r e l a t i o n s , t o t a l mean c o r r e l a t i o n s and mean c o r r e l a t i o n s of s i g n i f i c a n t items were t e s t e d f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e . C o r r e l a t i o n f i g u r e s to t e s t t h i p r o p o s i t i o n are shown i n Table 6. There were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the simple c o r r e l a t i o n s and the c o r r e l a t i o n s e x c l u d i n g the e f f e c t s of l o c a l a r ea. F i n d i n g no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the two i n d i c a t e s that f o r the sample accounting f o r l o c a l r e s i d e n t i a l area does not improve the c l a r i t y with which l e v e l of p a r t i c i p a t i o n p r e d i c t s the importance r e s i d e n t s w i l l a s s i g n to each of the t h i r t y - f i v e urban i s s u e s . 60 V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY A. Conclusions The preceding analyses p r o v i d e support f o r s e v e r a l c o n c l u s i o n s , some of which flow from o r i g i n a l p r o p o s i t i o n s ; o t h e r s are d e r i v e d d u r i n g the data a n a l y s e s . 1. P a r t i c i p a t i o n i s a concept which can be i d e n t i f i e d , measured and used as a r e l i a b l e index of how much people take p a r t i n some s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t i e s . 2. P a r t i c i p a t i o n c o v a r i e s with other f e a t u r e s of l i f e s t y l e s p e c i f i c a l l y age, income, education and o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s . 3. P a r t i c i p a t i o n p r e d i c t s f e e l i n g s of importance about such urban i s s u e s as u n f r i e n d l i n e s s of c i t y l i f e , q u a l i t y o f c i t y government, development of f u t u r e s u b d i v i s i o n s , de-c e n t r a l i z a t i o n of c i t y growth and improving highway t r a n s -p o r t a t i o n . 4. L e v e l of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n Vancouver l o c a l areas ranges on the study s c a l e from a high o f 9.1 i n West P o i n t Grey to a low of 4.8 i n Grandview Woodland with a c i t y - w i d e average of 6.5. 5. Within area h e t e r o g e n e i t y f o r l e v e l of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n Vancouver l o c a l areas ranges from a high o f 4.8 i n Sunset to a low of 2.2 i n Mt. Pl e a s a n t with a sample mean of 4.1. 6. Among d i f f e r e n t l o c a l areas of the c i t y there are measurable d i f f e r e n c e s i n the p e r c e i v e d importance of twenty-four of the t h i r t y - f i v e urban i s s u e s . 7. Accounting f o r l o c a l r e s i d e n t i a l area does not s i g n i f -i c a n t l y improve the p r e d i c t i o n s between p a r t i c i p a t i o n . B. I m p l i c a t i o n s and Recommendations Since the sample of 779 respondents i s l a r g e and c a r e f u l l y s e l e c t e d , and i n s p i t e of the f a c t that such e x t e n s i v e i n f o r m a t i o n can o n l y be o b t a i n e d from w i l l i n g r e s p o n d e n t s , i t i s l i k e l y t h a t the f i n d i n g s of the s tudy h o l d t rue to some degree f o r the p o p u l a t i o n o f Vancouver c i t y . Knowing t h a t d i f f e r e n c e s i n p a r t i c i p a t i o n and f e e l i n g s of importance about some urban i s s u e s can be r e l i a b l y measured w i t h i n d i f f e r e n t areas o f Vancouver sugges ts t h a t these v a r i a t i o n s do e x i s t and can a l s o be measured i n o t h e r c i t i e s a c r o s s Canada. A l t h o u g h the l i n k between p a r t i c i p a t i o n and s e v e r a l . 1 i f e -s t y l e v a r i a b l e s i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , l i t t l e o f the v a r i a n c e i n p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s accounted f o r by age, income, e d u c a t i o n and s t a t u s ; l i f e s t y l e v a r i a b l e s are weak c o r r e l a t e s of p a r t i c i p a t i o n and v i c e - v e r s a . S i m i l a r l y , the l i n k s between p a r t i c i p a t i o n and importance on f i f t e e n of the t h i r t y - f i v e urban i s s u e s do not a l l o w more than v e r y g e n e r a l p r e d i c t i o n s o f one to be made from the o t h e r . L o c a l area i s a s i g n i f i c a n t but poor p r e d i c t o r o f the importance o f d i f f e r e n t i s s u e s to the Vancouver r e s p o n d e n t s , s i n c e i t too accounts f o r v e r y l i t t l e of the v a r i a n c e i n a t t i t u d e s . The p a r t i c i p a t i o n s c a l e d e v e l o p e d i n the s tudy i s a r e l i a b l e measure. Knowing a r e s p o n d e n t ' s s c o r e or response to any one o f the s c a l e v a r i a b l e s c o r r o b o r a t e s h i s s c o r e on the o t h e r v a r i a b l e s . 62 D i s c o v e r i n g that l o c a l areas of a c i t y may d i f f e r s i g n i f -i c a n t l y i n l e v e l of p a r t i c i p a t i o n and on the r e l a t i v e import-ance of c e r t a i n i s s u e s has i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the nature of c i t y government and planning systems. 1. I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r C i v i c Government Under an at l a r g e system of c i v i c government i t i s apparent that i f the d i f f e r e n c e s between l o c a l areas i n p a r t i c i p a t i o n are l a r g e , not a l l areas w i l l be e q u a l l y represented on c o u n c i l . In Vancouver, where f o r example, only 16 out of 135 a v a i l a b l e p o s i t i o n s on c i t y c o u n c i l park and school boards i n the past ten years have been f i l l e d by r e s i d e n t s l i v i n g east of Cambie S t r e e t (Horwood, 1978), the mean p a r t i c i p a t i o n score of l o c a l areas west of Cambie (7.5) i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than the mean p a r t i c i p a t i o n score f o r l o c a l areas east of Cambie (6.1). C i t i e s with at l a r g e c o u n c i l s wishing to secure as broad a  range of i n f o r m a t i o n as p o s s i b l e f o r use i n d e c i s i o n making  should c o n s i d e r s e t t i n g up a permanent urban o p i n i o n p o l l  system to o b t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n e q u a l l y from a l l areas according to p o p u l a t i o n . T h i s would e l i m i n a t e problems of equal s p a t i a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n and d i f f e r e n c e s i n response r a t e s . D e c i s i o n s made on the b a s i s of t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n by c o u n c i l s e l e c t e d at l a r g e would however, probably not r e f l e c t 63 the i n f o r m a t i o n gathered i n the p o l l s s i n c e as shown by the study r e s u l t s , c o u n c i l members would s t i l l come from high p a r t i c i p a t i o n areas. Of the common e x i s t i n g models of c i v i c government the one most l i k e l y to provide both r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of a broad range of o p i n i o n and an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r an i n t e g r a t i o n of values when p a r t i c i p a t i o n d i f f e r s s i g n i f i c a n t l y between areas, i s the ward system. If l e v e l of p a r t i c i p a t i o n w i t h i n a ward area i s both, low and h i g h l y homogeneous, however, as suggested by the "undermanning p r i n c i p l e " ( B e c h t e l , 1974) persons who are normally n o n - p a r t i c i p a t o r s may be e l e c t e d to c o u n c i l from t h a t area. Being n o n - p a r t i c i p a t o r s they would be l e s s l i k e l y to possess a p p r o p r i a t e s k i l l s and would i n any case be dominated by the p a r t i c i p a t o r s on c o u n c i l . C i t i e s having a  heterogeneous d i s t r i b u t i o n of r e s i d e n t l e v e l s of p a r t i c i p a t i o n  and wishing to p r o v i d e a c i v i c p o l i t i c a l system which r e l e c t s  as broad a spectrum o f f o p i n i o n as p o s s i b l e while p r o v i d i n g  o p p o r t u n i t y f o r i n t e g r a t i o n of values r a t h e r than a choice  between v a l u e s , should c o n s i d e r a ward form of c i v i c  government. Study r e s u l t s show r e s i d e n t s l i v i n g west of Vancouver's Cambie S t r e e t to have higher p a r t i c i p a t i o n r a t e s than r e s i d e n t s of other areas and to be remarkably s i m i l a r i n t h e i r f e e l i n g s about i s s u e s i n the urban environment (the m a j o r i t y o f d i f f e r e n c e s i n o p i n i o n on urban i s s u e s f a l l o u t s i d e the western p o r t i o n o f the c i t y ) . Whi le an urban o p i n i o n p o l l system would r e s u l t i n V a n c o u v e r ' s c o u n c i l r e c e i v i n g i n f o r m -a t i o n which r e f l e c t e d a broader spectrum of c i t y r e s i d e n t s , d e c i s i o n s would s t i l l be made by a c o u n c i l comprised p r i n -c i p a l l y of r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s l i v i n g west of Cambie and thus h o l d i n g s i m i l a r but n o n - r e p r e s e n t a t i v e f e e l i n g s about the urban e n v i r o n m e n t . If i t wishes to r e p r e s e n t as many i n t e r e s t s as p o s s i b l e i n d e c i s i o n making p r o c e s s e s , Vancouver  C i t y C o u n c i l s h o u l d c o n s i d e r implementing a ward system o f  c i v i c government . Because the l o c a l areas p r e s e n t l y e x i s t i n g form r e l a t i v e l y homogeneous u n i t s w i t h r e g a r d to f e e l i n g s about the urban e n v i r o n m e n t , i n implementing a ward sys tem, Vancouver l o c a l a reas s h o u l d be grouped i n t o ward areas  a c c o r d i n g to r e s i d e n t f e e l i n g s about importance o f r e l e v a n t  urban i s s u e s , p o p u l a t i o n s i z e , h e t e r o g e n e i t y o f p o p u l a t i o n ,  l e v e l o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n and g e o g r a p h i c p r o x i m i t y . G r o u p i n g l o c a l areas would p r e s e r v e the i n t e g r i t y of a r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l c o u n c i l , i t would ensure g e o g r a p h i c a l l y c o n t i n u o u s ward a r e a s , and would p r o v i d e f o r h e t e r o g e n e i t y i n l e v e l of p a r t i c i p a t i o n w i t h i n each area so t h a t a l l areas would c o n t a i n some p a r t i c i p a t o r s . If r e s i d e n t s o f a ward areas shared s i m i l a r f e e l i n g s about the importance o f v a r i o u s urban i s s u e s a l l r e s i d e n t s would be more a d e q u a t e l y r e p r e s e n t e d than i f areas were to c o n t a i n competing i n t e r e s t s . 65-Although f i n d i n g s concerning the urban i s s u e s d i s c u s s e d i n t h i s study are not an adequate b a s i s on which to make d e c i s i o n s as to how c o n s t i t u e n t areas might be decided upon, as an i l l u s t r a t i o n t h a t t h i s i s f e a s i b l e , F i g u r e 7 shows a grouping of adjacent Vancouver l o c a l areas i n t o nine c o n s t i t -uent or ward areas. A l l are c o n s i s t e n t with present l o c a l area boundaries, so that a d m i n i s t r a t i v e boundaries are i n l i n e with p o l i t i c a l boundaries, and are almost e n t i r e l y without " w i t h i n area" disagreement r e g a r d i n g urban p r i o r i t y f e e l i n g s . Each area c o n t a i n s a p o p u l a t i o n of between f o r t y - f o u r and f i f t y - f o u r thousand people and con t a i n s e i t h e r a broad range of or r e l a t i v e l y high scores on p a r t i c i p a t i o n . To compensate  f o r c o n s t i t u e n c y p o p u l a t i o n d i f f e r e n c e s caused by grouping  l o c a l areas i n t o ward areas, c o u n c i l should a d j u s t the l o c a l  area boundaries. 2 . I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r C i t y P lanning The i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r plann i n g i n a l a r g e c i t y with s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between l o c a l areas i n p a r t i c i p a t i o n and a t t i t u d e s are s i m i l a r to those f o r c i v i c government. Unless some d e c e n t r a l i z e d system such as Vancouver's l o c a l area planning programme i s pr o v i d e d , planning p r i o r i t i e s f o r the c i t y as a whole and f o r each area may be determined by " p a r t i c i p a t o r s " who as i n Vancouver represent a small percentage of the c i t y p o p u l a t i o n and r e s i d e i n one p o r t i o n of 66 F i g u r e 7 D i v i s i o n o f Vancouver C i t y i n t o Nine Proposed Ward Areas Which Are C o n s i s t e n t with L o c a l Area Boundaries or - J i ' KEHSIHCTOa C2DAX COTTASS (34.10S) 92H7BEW-COLLINCVOOB 129,8J0) vieroaiA-rSASBBVIEU K1UABHE3 the c i t y . To e f f e c t i v e l y determine and p l a n f o r the needs and p r i o r i t i e s of each area p l a n n i n g departments i n c i t i e s w i t h  l o c a l a reas which are d i s t i n g u i s h e d by degree o f r e s i d e n t  p a r t i c i p a t i o n and d i f f e r e n c e s i n r e s i d e n t a t t i t u d e s s h o u l d s e t  up l o c a l a rea p l a n n i n g programmes to p l a n f o r the needs o f  each a r e a . The Vancouver C i t y P l a n n i n g Department s h o u l d  c o n t i n u e e x p a n s i o n o f i t s l o c a l a rea p l a n n i n g programme. The s tudy f i n d i n g s showed v a r y i n g degrees o f homogeneity i n p a r t i c i p a t i o n " w i t h i n l o c a l a r e a s . " In d e c i d i n g upon l o c a l , a rea b o u n d a r i e s f o r p l a n n i n g and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n p u r p o s e s c i t y  p l a n n i n g departments s h o u l d at tempt to m a i n t a i n " w i t h i n a r e a "  homogeneity w i t h r e s p e c t t o r e s i d e n t l e v e l s o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n o r d e r to s i m p l i f y the p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s by e l i m i n a t i n g b i a s e d r e p r e s e n t a t i o n due to d i f f e r e n c e s i n response r a t e s . I f area r e s i d e n t s p a r t i c i p a t e at r e l a t i v e l y the same l e v e l i t i s l i k e l y t h a t they w i l l respond s i m i l a r l y to the same p a r t i c i p a t i o n o r i e n t e d mechanisms f o r g a t h e r i n g i n f o r m a t i o n . The task o f the p l a n n e r w i l l be s i m p l i f i e d by not h a v i n g to d e v i s e and c a r r y out a number o f d i f f e r e n t schemes f o r g a t h e r i n g and d i s t r i b u t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n . Where i t i s not p o s s i b l e to d e f i n e or r e d e f i n e l o c a l areas which are i n t e r -n a l l y c o n s i s t e n t , l o c a l a rea p l a n n e r s s h o u l d d e v e l o p i n f o r m - a t i o n g a t h e r i n g and d e c i s i o n making mechanisms which are  c o m p a t i b l e w i t h p a r t i c i p a t i o n p a t t e r n s o f r e s i d e n t s i n each 6.8. l o c a l a r e a. A v a r i e t y of p a r t i c i p a t i o n and i n f o r m a t i o n g a t h e r i n g programmes may be r e q u i r e d to determine the needs and d e s i r e s of a l l r e s i d e n t s . Some l o c a l areas contained a g r e a t e r range of p a r t i -c i p a t i o n w i t h i n t h e i r boundaries than d i d other areas. Of the seven areas which were r e l a t i v e l y heterogeneous on p a r t i c i p -a t i o n s c o r e s , V i c t o r i a Fraserview, Cedar Cottage, and West P o i n t Grey a l s o showed r e l a t i v e l y high w i t h i n - a r e a l e v e l s of p a r t i c i p a t i o n . In these heterogeneous areas, even though there are l i k e l y to be d i v e r g e n t f e e l i n g s about urban i s s u e s , most o p i n i o n s w i l l be adequately represented through p r e s e n t c i t y p l a n n i n g " p a r t i c i p a t i o n o r i e n t e d " mechanisms s i n c e the m a j o r i t y of r e s i d e n t s are p a r t i c i p a t o r s . Planning and  i n f o r m a t i o n g a t h e r i n g processes i n West P o i n t Grey, V i c t o r i a ,  Cedar Cottage and West P o i n t Grey should continue to be  " p a r t i c i p a t i o n o r i e n t e d " . Sunset, K i l l a r n e y and R i l e y Park, the three remaining areas, whose r e s i d e n t s are heterogeneous with r e s p e c t to p a r t i c i p a t i o n , were a l s o r e l a t i v e l y low on o v e r a l l l e v e l of p a r t i c i p a t i o n . I f r e s i d e n t s of an area hold d i v e r g e n t o p i n i o n s r e g a r d i n g the r e l a t i v e importance of i s s u e s , i t i s , as shown by the study r e s u l t s , u s u a l l y the high p a r t i c i p a t o r s who are heard the most. The C i t y P l anning Department should c o n s i d e r r e d e f i n i n g  the boundaries of Sunset, K i l l a r n e y and R i l e y Park l o c a l areas  to determine whether areas more i n t e r n a l l y c o n s i s t e n t with  regard to p a r t i c i p a t i o n can be d i s c o v e r e d . If more homo-geneous areas cannot be found or i t i s not p r a c t i c a l to a l t e r e x i s t i n g boundaries then p l a n n i n g and i n f o r m a t i o n g a t h e r i n g  programmes i n Sunset, K i l l a r n e y and R i l e y Park should i n c l u d e  door-to-door urban o p i n i o n p o l l surveys to ensure accurate  r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the f e e l i n g s of a l l r e s i d e n t s . I t may be a p p r o p r i a t e to u t i l i z e the p a r t i c i p a t o r s of an area to sample the n o n - p a r t i c i p a t o r s . In l o c a l areas which are r e l a t i v e l y homogeneous with  regard to p a r t i c i p a t i o n (those which f a l l i n Quadrants II and  IV of F i g u r e 6) i t i s a p p r o p r i a t e to continue the use of  pla n n i n g and i n f o r m a t i o n and g a t h e r i n g mechanisms which are  p r i n c i p a l l y p a r t i c i p a t i o n o r i e n t e d . Since w i t h i n these areas most people p a r t i c i p a t e at the same r a t e , f e e l i n g s represented through p a r t i c i p a t o r y type mechanisms w i l l b e t t e r r e f l e c t those of the t o t a l area p o p u l a t i o n . C. Summary The concern which generated the ideas f o r the t h e s i s was that s i n c e the " p a r t i c i p a t o r s " of s o c i e t y , who are c h i e f l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r shaping the f u t u r e of our c i t i e s , are of a r e l a t i v e l y d i s t i n c t l i f e s t y l e c h a r a c t e r they may not accur-a t e l y r e f l e c t the views of those persons whom they r e p r e s e n t 70 i n p lanning and p o l i t i c a l p r o c e s s e s . It was s p e c i f i c a l l y proposed that p a r t i c i p a t o r s hold s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t p r i o r i t y f e e l i n g s about t h e i r urban environment than non-p a r t i c i p a t o r s and f u r t h e r that because these f e e l i n g s are an a s p a t i a l c o n s t r u c t they could more a c c u r a t e l y be p r e d i c t e d from a person's tendency to p a r t i c i p a t e , a l s o an a s p a t i a l c o n s t r u c t , than from knowing the geographic area i n which he l i v e d . i n order to t e s t these p r o p o s i t i o n s , i t was necessary to develop a s c a l e of p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Ten v a r i a b l e s were found which s i n c e they were w e l l i n t e r c o r r e l a t e d were used to measure p a r t i c i p a t i o n . I t was confirmed that p a r t i c i p a t o r s are indeed of a d i f f e r e n t l i f e s t y l e c h a r a c t e r than non-p a r t i c i p a t o r s and s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n p r i o r i t y f e e l i n g s were found between p a r t i c i p a t o r s and n o n - p a r t i c i p a t o r s as w e l l as between r e s i d e n t s of d i f f e r e n t l o c a l areas. The t h i n g which best d i s t i n g u i s h e d between l o c a l areas was p a r t i c i p a -t i o n . P a r t i c i p a t i o n was not a b e t t e r p r e d i c t o r of urban p r i o r i t i e s than l o c a l area. D. Future Research The main t h r u s t of t h i s t h e s i s has been that p a r t i c i p a t o r s hold s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t f e e l i n g s about the urban environment than n o n - p a r t i c i p a t o r s . It* w i l l be l e f t to other 71 r e s e a r c h e r s to determine whether the f i n d i n g s of the study can i n g e neral be a p p l i e d to other c i t i e s . I t would be u s e f u l to r e c o n s i d e r the concept of p a r t i -c i p a t i o n to determine f o r i n s t a n c e whether l e i s u r e and r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s can be added as r e l i a b l e components of the s c a l e . Having d i s c o v e r e d that p a r t d e f i n e a b l e concept, i t would be " a t t i t u d e s " could be d i s c o v e r e d t h i r t y - f i v e urban i s s u e s by a s procedure as was used to develo the present study. i c i p a t i o n e x i s t s as a r e a d i l y i n t e r e s t i n g to know i f g e n e r a l and r e l i a b l y d e f i n e d from the i m i l a r r e l i a b i l i t y t e s t i n g p the s c a l e of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n In f u r t h e r e x p l a i n i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between a t t i t u d e s , p a r t i c i p a t i o n and Vancouver l o c a l areas, i t may be i n s t r u c t i v e to r e l a t e the p a r t i c i p a t i o n and l o c a l area v a r i a b l e s to the 148 a t t i t u d i n a l items generated by the Urban Futures f o r Vancouver P r o j e c t to see i f more of the v a r i a n c e i n these independant v a r i a b l e s can be accounted f o r using a d i f f e r e n t s e t of dependant a t t i t u d e s . REFERENCES Adr i a n , C.R. and C. Press. Governing Urban America. New York, McGraw H i l l , 1968. Almond, G.A. and S. Verba. The C i v i c C u l t u r e . P r i n c e t o n , New J e r s e y , P r i n c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1963. Alonso, W i l l i a m . A Model of the Urban Land Market: L o c a t i o n s and D e n s i t i e s of Dwellings & Businesses. Unpublished Ph.D T h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of P e n n s y l v a n i a , 1960. Alonso, W i l l i a m . C i t i e s and C i t y P l a n n e r s . In H. Wentworth E l d r i d g e (Ed.) Taming M e g a l o p o l i s I I . New York, Anchor Books Doubleday and Co. Inc., 1967. Alonso, W i l l i a m . Problems, Purposes and I m p l i c i t P o l i c i e s f o r a  N a t i o n a l S t r a t e g y of U r b a n i z a t i o n . U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , I n s t i t u t e of Urban and Regional Development, 1971. Anderson, J . Idealogy i n Geography; An I n t r o d u c t i o n . Antipode, 1973, V o l . 5, No.3. Ax e l r o d , M o r r i s . Urban S t r u c t u r e and S o c i a l P a r t i c i p a t i o n . In John Edwards and Alan Booth (Eds.) S o c i a l P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n  Urban S o c i e t y . Cambridge, Scheutman Pub. Co., 1973. B a r i t z , L. Servants of S o c i a l Power: A H i s t o r y of the Use of  S o c i a l Science i n American I n d u s t r y . Middletown, Conne t i c u t , Wesleyan U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1960. Bartholomew, H. The P r i n c i p l e s of C i t y P l a n n i n g . The American  C i t y , 1922,(May) V o l . XXVI No.5, pp. 457-461. B e c h t e l , Robert B. Undermanning Theory. In D a n i e l H. Carson (Ed.) Man-Environment I n t e r a c t i o n s : E v o l u a t i o n s and  A p p l i c a t i o n s The S t a t e of the A r t i n Environmental Design  Research. Milwaukee, Environmental Design Research Assoc. i n c . , 1974. B e l l , L . I . M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver: An Overview For S o c i a l P l a n n e r s . Vancouver, B.C., Research Dept., Community Chest and C o u n c i l s of the Greater Vancouver Area, 1965. B e l l , Wendell and Marion D. Boat. Urban Neighbourhoods and Informal S o c i a l R e l a t i o n s . The American J o u r n a l of  S o c i o l o g y , 1956, 52:391-398. 73 Berkeley, E l l e n P e r r y . P r o t e s t i n Progress: Advocacy Planning i n C h a r l e s t o n , West Va. The A r c h i t e c t u r a l Forum, 1969 (Nov.). Berry, B r i a n J.L. and Frank E. Harton. Geographic P e r s p e c t i v e s  on Urban Systems. Englewood C l i f f s , New J e r s e y , P r e n t i c e H a l l Inc., 1970. Ber r y , B r i a n J . I n t e r n a l S t r u c t u r e of the C i t y . In L a r r y S. Bourne (Ed.) I n t e r n a l S t r u c t u r e o f the C i t y . New York, Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1971. Berube, M. and M. G i t t e l l . In Whose I n t e r e s t i s the P u b l i c I n t e r e s t . S o c i a l P o l i c y , 1970 (May/June). Ble c h e r , E a r l . Advocacy Planning f o r Urban Development. New York, Praeger S t u d i e s , 1971. B l i s h e n , Bernard R. The C o n s t r u c t i o n and Use of an O c c u p a t i o n a l C l a s s S c a l e . In B l i s h e n et a l (Eds.) Canadian S o c i e t y . Toronto, The MacMillan Co. of Canada L t d . , 1964. Blumenfeld, Hans. R e s p o n s i b i l i t y , Bureaucracy and The Long View. In Alan Powell (Ed.) The C i t y . Toronto, M c C l e l l a n d and Stewart L t d . , 1972. Bottomley, J . Vancouver Urban Futures P r o j e c t , Sampling Procedures and Responses - Report No.4 Vancouver, U.B.C. Dept o f Geography, 1973. Bottomley, John Experience Idealogy and The Landscape, The Business Community, Urban Reform and The Establishment of  Town Pla n n i n g i n Vancouver B r i t i s h Columbia, 1900-1940. Vancouver, Unpublished Ph.D T h e s i s , 1977. Bottomley, John and Deryck Holdsworth. A C o n s i d e r a t i o n o f A t t i t u d e s U n d e r l y i n g Community Involvement with C i v i c i s s u e s . In David Ley (Ed.) Community P a r t i c i p a t i o n . Vancouver, Tantalus Research L t d . , 1974. B r i e t b a r t , Myrna and Ri c h a r d P e t t e . A C r i t i q u e o f Advocacy P l a n n i n g . In David Ley (Ed.) P a r t i c i p a t i o n and The_  S p a t i a l Order of the C i t y Vancouver, Tantalus Research Inc., 1974. Burgess, Ernest W. Urban Areas. In T.V. Smith and L.D. White (Eds.) Chicago: An Experiment i n S o c i a l Science  Research. Chicago, U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago P r e s s , 1929, pp. 114-123. 74 C a r e l e s s , J.M.S. Aspects of Urban L i f e i n The West 1870-1914. In A. Raspovich and H.C. Klassen (Eds.) P r a i r i e  P e r s p e c t i v e s . Toronto, Ho l t Rinehart and Winston, 1973. Chapin, F. S t u a r t Jr.. E x i s t i n g Techniques of Shaping Urban Growth. In H. Wentworth E l d r i d g e (Ed.) Taming  Megalopolis I I . New York, Anchor Books Doubleday and Co. Inc., 1967. Chapin, F. S t u a r t J r . A c t i v i t y Systems and Urban S t r u c t u r e : A Working Scheme. J o u r n a l of American I n s t i t u t e o f  Planners, 1968, Volume 34, pp. 11-18. Choay, F. The Modern C i t y : Planning i n the Nineteenth  Century. New York, B r a z i l l i e r , 1969. C h u r c h i l l , H.S. The C i t y i s The People. New York, Cornwall P r e s s , 1945. C i t y Planning Department, Vancouver, B.C. A Review of L o c a l  Area P l a n n i n g . Vancouver, Sept. 1977. C i t y of Vancouver By-Law No.1771, 1st Feb. 1926. A By-Law to Create a Commission to be Known as The Vancouver Town Planning Commission. C o l l i n s , J.B. and Walter G. Hardwick. Vancouver Urban Futures  P r o j e c t Report N o . l . Vancouver, U.B.C. Dept. of Geography, 1973. Connor, Desmond M. C i t i z e n s P a r t i c i p a t e . O a k v i l l e , O n t a r i o Development P r e s s , 1974. C u r t i s , J . Canada as a Nation of J o i n e r s : Evidence From N a t i o n a l Surveys. In James E. G a l l a g h e r and D. Lambert (Eds.) S o c i a l Process and I n s t i t u t i o n s : The Canadian  Case. Toronto, Holt Rinehart and Winston, 1971. Dane County Regional Planning Commission. C i t i z e n  P a r t i c i p a t i o n . Madison, Wisconsin, 1971. D a v i d o f f , P a u l . Advocacy and P l u r a l i s m i n P l a n n i n g . J o u r n a l  of The American I n s t i t u t e o f Pla n n e r s , 1965, (Nov.), 31,4. D a v i d o f f , Paul and T. Reiner. A Choice Theory of P l a n n i n g . J o u r n a l of The American I n s t i t u t e of P l a n n e r s , 1962, (Nov.), 31,4. The Duskin P u b l i s h i n g Group Inc. E n c y c l o p e d i a of S o c i o l o g y . G u l i f o r d , C o n n e t i c u t , 1974. 75 E l l u l , J . The T e c h n o l o g i c a l S o c i e t y . New York, Knopf, 1964. F a i r c h i l d , Henry P r a t t (Ed.) D i c t i o n a r y of S o c i o l o g y and Related S c i e n c e s . Tatawa, N.J., L i t t l e f i e l d Adams and Co. Inc., 1966. F o l e y , Donald L. A Planning P e r s p e c t i v e . In S. Gale and E. Moore (Eds.) The Manipulated C i t y . Chicago, Maaroufa Press Inc., 1975. Ford, G.B.' The C i t y S c i e n t i f i c . In Proceedings of the F i f t h  N a t i o n a l Conference on C i t y P l a n n i n g . Chicago, N a t i o n a l Conference on C i t y P l a n n i n g , 1913, pp. 31-45. Fo s k e t t , John M. S o c i a l S t r u c t u r e and S o c i a l P a r t i c i p a t i o n . American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, 1955, 20:431-438. Gaetz, H.H. M u n i c i p a l L e g i s l a t i o n . The Western M u n i c i p a l News Vo l IV March 1909, pp. 1078-1081 c i t e d i n Bottomley 1977, op. c i t . p. 38. G a l l i o n , A rthur B. and Simon E i s n e r . The Urban P a t t e r n . Toronto, D. Van Nostrand Co., 1975. Goldberg, M.A. and M.Y. S e e l i g . Canadian C i t i e s : The Right Deed f o r the Wrong Reasons. Planning - the ASPO  Magazine, 1975, ( M a r c h / A p r i l ) , pp. 8-13. Goodman, R. A f t e r the P l a n n e r s . Harmonds-Worth, Penquin Books, 1972. Haber, S. E f f i c i e n c y and U p l i f t . S c i e n t i f i c Management i n the P r o g r e s s i v e Era. Chicago, The U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Pr e s s , 1964. Haig, Robert M. Toward an Understanding of the M e t r o p o l i s . Q u a r t e r l y J o u r n a l of Economics, 1926 (May), XL:3. Hardwick, W.G., L i f e S t y l e Cohort i n Urban A n a l y s i s . Paper presented at the Meetings of the A s s o c i a t i o n o f P a c i f i c Coast Geographers, 1971. Hardwick, W.G. Regional P o l i t i c a l and A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Develop-ments i n the Vancouver Region. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian A s s o c i a t i o n of Geo-graphers. Waterloo, O n t a r i o , 1971, ( b ) . Hardwick, Walter G. Vancouver Urban Futures P r o j e c t - Report  No.1. Vancouver, U.B.C. Dept o f Geography, 1973. Hardwick, W.G. Vancouver. Toronto, C o l l i e r McMillan, 1974. 76 Hardwick, Walter G. and David F Hardwick. C i v i c Government: Corporate, C o n s u l t a t i v e or P a r t i c i p a t o r y . In David Ley (Ed.) Community P a r t i c i p a t i o n and The S p a t i a l Order of  the C i t y . Vancouver, Tantalus Research L t d . , 1974. H a r r i s , Chauncy D. and Edward L. Ullman. The Nature of C i t i e s . Annals, 1945 (Nov.), CCXII, 7-17. Hartman, Chester. The Advocate Planner: From H i r e d Gun to P o l i t i c a l P a r t i s a n . S o c i a l P o l i c y , 1970 (July-Aug.) Hays, S.P. C o n s e r v a t i o n and the Gospel of E f f i c i e n c y . The P r o g r e s s i v e Conservation Movement 1890-1920. Cambridge, Mass., Howard U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1959. Hays, S.P. The P o l i t i c s of Reform i n M u n i c i p a l Government i n the P r o g r e s s i v e E r a . P a c i f i c Northwest Q u a r t e r l y , 1964, V o l . 55, No.4. Head, Wilson A. The Ideology and P r a c t i s e of C i t i z e n P a r t i c i p a t i o n . In James A. Draper (Ed.) C i t i z e n  P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n Canada. Toronto, The New P r e s s , 1971. Hobkirk, Alan. E a s t s i d e , Westside: S o c i a l C l a s s Images of Vancouver. In David Ley (Ed.) Community P a r t i c i p a t i o n . Vancouver, Tantalus Research L t d . , 1974. Horwood, H o l l y . C i t y Not Ready For New P l e b i s c i t e On Ward System. Vancouver Sun Feb. 27, 1978. Hoult, T.F. D i c t i o n a r y of Modern S o c i o l o g y . New J e r s e y , L i t t l e f i e l d Adams and Co., 1972. Hoyt, Homer. The S t r u c t u r e and Growth of R e s i d e n t i a l Neighbourhoods i n American C i t i e s . Washington, D C , F e d e r a l Housing A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , 1939. Hurd, Richard M. P r i n c i p l e s of C i t y Land V a l u e s . New York, The Record and Guide, 1903. Intermet. P r o j e c t C, Vancouver Paper, 1972. Johnston, J . J . Harland Bartholomew: His Comprehensive Plans  and Science of P l a n n i n g . P h i l a d e l p h i a , Unpublished Ph.D T h e s i s , c i t e d i n Bottomley, 1977, op. c i t . , p. 45. Kaplan, M a r s h a l l . The Role of the Planner i n Urban Areas. In S p i e g e l and M. Henthal (Eds.) Neighbourhood Power and  C o n t r o l , I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r Urban Planning V o l . I I . New York, Columbia Univ., 1968. 77 . Lane, R.E. P o l i t i c a l , L i f e . The Free Press o f Glencoe, 1959. Lash, H.N. Planning In a Human Way. Ottawa, M i n i s t r y of State f o r Urban A f f a i r s , Urban Prospects S e r i e s , 1976. L i o y , Michele. S o c i a l Trends i n Greater Vancouver. Vancouver, B.C., Gordon Soules Economic and Marketing Research, 1975. L o r i n g , W i l l i a m C. J r . , Frank L. Sweetser and Charles F. E r n s t . Community O r g a n i z a t i o n f o r C i t i z e n P a r t i c i p a t i o n  i n Urban Renewal. Cambridge, Mass., Cambridge Press Inc., 1957. MacDonald N. P o p u l a t i o n Growth and Change i n S e a t t l e and Vancouver 1880-1960. P a c i f i c H i s t o r i c a l Review, 1970 (Aug.), V o l . XXXIX, No.3, p. 301. McEwen, E.R. C i t i z e n s h i p Development and the Disadvantaged. In James A. Draper (Ed.) C i t i z e n P a r t i c i p a t i o n : Canada. Toronto, New P r e s s , 1971. Maris, Peter and M a r t i n Rein. Dilemmas of S o c i a l Reform. New York, Atherton, 1969. Marsh, B.C. An I n t r o d u c t i o n to C i t y P l a n n i n g . New York, Arno Pr e s s , 1974. M a r t i n , Roland. C i t i z e n P a r t i c i p a t i o n , I t s S t r u c t u r e and  D i s t r i b u t i o n Among Va r i o u s Groups. Unpublished M.A. t h e s i s U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1973. M e i s e l , J . et a l . The 1965 Canadian N a t i o n a l E l e c t i o n Study. Ann Arbor, Michigan, I n t e r - U n i v e r s i t y Consortium f o r P o l i t i c a l Research, 1966. M i l b r a t h , L.W. P o l i t i c a l P a r t i c i p a t i o n . Chicago, Rand McNally and Company 1965. Moore, R.L. Dimensions of Thought i n P r o g r e s s i v e America. In L.L. Gould (Ed.) The P r o g r e s s i v e E r a . Syracuse, Syracuse U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1974. Mumford, L. Technics and C i v i l i z a t i o n . New York, Harcourt Brace and Co., 1934. Murdie, R.A. F a c t o r i a l Ecology of M e t r o p o l i t a n Toronto, 1951-1961: An essay on the s o c i a l geography of the c i t y . Chicago, The Department of Geography, The U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago, Research Paper No. 116, 1969. 78 Nader, G.A. C i t i e s of Canada. Toronto, M c M i l l i a n Co. of Canada, 1975. Nelson, Ruben F.W. The I l l u s i o n s of Urban Man. Canada, The M i n i s t r y of State f o r Urban A f f a i r s , 1976. Newton, N.T. Design on Land. The Development of Landscape  A r c h i t e c t u r e . Cambridge, The Belknap Press of Harvard U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1971. Nolan, J . Twenty Years of Planning Progress i n the United S t a t e s . In Planning Problems of Town C i t y and Region,  Papers and D i s c u s s i o n s at the Nineteenth N a t i o n a l  Conference on C i t y P l a n n i n g . P h i l a d e l p h i a N a t i o n a l Conference on C i t y P l a n n i n g , 1923, pp. 1-45. Oberlander, H.P. The Patron S a i n t of Town Planning i n B r i t i s h Columbia. P l a n , 1959, Volume 1, No. 1, pp. 47-52. P a t i l l o , R.W. The West End of Vancouver: A S o c i a l P r o f i l e , Vancouver, a j o i n t p u b l i c a t i o n of the C i t y of Vancouver Department of S o c i a l Planning and Community Development and the United S e r v i c e s of the Greater Vancouver Area, 1969. P a t t e r s o n , John M i c h a e l . The F a c t i o n a l Ecology of Greater Vancouver: C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Data Base. Unpublished M.A. t h e s i s , U.B.C. Dept. of Geography, 1974. P e a t t i e , L i s a . R e f l e c t i o n s on Advocacy P l a n n i n g . J o u r n a l of  the Amerian I n s t i t u t e of P l a n n e r s , 1968 (March), p. 34. Pendakur, V. S e t t y . C i t i e s , C i t i z e n s and Freeways: Vancouver,  B.C. Vancouver, 1972. Peucker, T.K. and W.D. Rose. A F a c t o r i a l Ecology of Greater Vancouver. Contemporary Geography: Western Viewpoints. B.C. Geographical S e r i e s , 1971, 12, pp. 80-96. Pomeroy, Hugh R. The P l a n n i n g Process and P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n . In G e r a l d Breese and Dorothy E. Whiteman (Eds.) An Approach to Urban P l a n n i n g . New J e r s e y , P r i n c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1953. Proceedings of the Fourth N a t i o n a l C i t y Planning Conference,  Boston. 1912, May 27-29, p. 22 c i t e d i n Bottomley, o p . c i t . , p.45. Rees, P.H. F a c t o r i a l Ecology: An Extended D e f i n i t i o n , Survey and C r i t i q u e of The F i e l d . Economic Geography, 1971, 47, 220-233. 79 Rees, P.H. Problems of C l a s s i f y i n g Subareas Within C i t i e s . In B r i a n Berry (Ed.) C i t y C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Handbook:  Methods and A p p l i c a t i o n s . New York, W i l e y - I n t e r s c i e n c e , 1972. Robson, B.T. Urban A n a l y s i s : A Study of C i t y S t r u c t u r e . Cambridge, Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1969. Ruthe r f o r d , P.F.W. Tomorrows M e t r o p o l i s : The Urban Reform Movement i n Canada 1880-1920. Paper Presented to the Canadian H i s t o r i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n , 1971. S c o t t , J.C. J r . Membership and P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n V o l u n t a r y A s s o c i a t i o n s . American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, 1957, V o l . 22, No.3, pp. 315-326. Shannon, J.B. County C o n s o l i d a t i o n . Annals of the American  Academy of P o l i t i c a l and S o c i a l S c i e n c e , 1940 ( J a n . ) , V o l . 207, p. 168. Spaak, B e v e r l y . A P r o p o s a l : Change i n S t r u c t u r e of C i t y  P l a n n i n g . New York, Praeger S t u d i e s , 1971. T a y l o r , S. M a r t i n , Warren G. G i l l , John B. C o l l i n s , and Walter G. Hardwick. Vancouver Urban Futures P r o j e c t  Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Design I n t e r i m Report. Vancouver, U.B.C. Dept. o f Geography, 1973. U n d e r h i l l , F.H. Commission Government i n C i t i e s . The Arbor, 1910-1911, V o l . 1-2, pp. 284-294, c i t e d i n Rutherford op. c i t . , p. 212. Van Loon, R.. P o l i t i c a l P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n Canada: The E l e c t i o n . Canadian J o u r n a l o f P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e , 1970, V o l . 3, No. 3, pp. 376-399. Von Thunen, Johan. Der I s o l i e r t e Staat i n Beziehung auf Land w i r t h s c h a f t und Nationalekonomie, 1826, c i t e d by W i l l i a m Alonso. A Theory of The Urban Land Market. In L a r r y S. Bourne (Ed.) I n t e r n a l S t r u c t u r e of The C i t y . New York, Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1971. Waldo, D. The A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t a t e . A Study of the P o l i t i c a l  Theory of P u b l i c A d m i n i s t r a t i o n . New York, Roland Press Co., 1948. Walker, J.A. Paper on H i s t o r y of Town Planning i n Vancouver. Presented to the Annual Meeting of the C o r p o r a t i o n o f B.C. Land Surveyors, V i c t o r i a , 1927. 80 Ward, D. C i t i e s and Immigrants. Toronto, Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1971. Woodward, J.L. and E. Roper. P o l i t i c a l A c t i v i t y of American C i t i z e n s . American P o l i t i c a l Science Review, 1950, V o l . 44, No.4, pp. 872-885. Zimmer, B.G. and A.H. Hawley. The S i g n i f i c a n c e of Membership i n A s s o c i a t i o n s . Urban S o c i o l o g y . Fuad B o a l i and J.S. Vandiver (Eds.) New York, Appleton Century C r o f t s , 1971, pp. 213-222. 81 APPENDIX A Urban F u t u r e s f o r Vancouver P r o j e c t P e r s o n a l Data B o o k l e t 82' 1 H o o a X 3 O O CO CO « S 9 p. 17 e > » c t> Al > IB fl ~" «J B l4 C a *>i e « K S£ 5 ll 83 3. (1-7) PLEASE INDICATE THE EDUCATIONAL LEVEL Or YOURSELF (AND YOUR SPOUSE. IF APPLICABLE). ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ONLY (4) SOME HIGH SCHOOL (5) HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE (6) SOME COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY (71 UNIVERSITY GRACUATE (8) SOMZ POST GRADUATE (91 POST GRADUATE DECREE ' (10) DOCTORAL DCGkEE (11) NOW PLEASE INDICATE ANY ADDITIONAL TPAINIHC YOU NAY HAVE HAD IN THE PAST (AND YOUR SPCLSE I* APPLICABLE). TECHNICAL COUPSE INCOMPLETE TECHNICAL COUPSE COMPLETE VOCATIONAL CCUPSK INCOMPLETE VOCATIONAL CGUrSE COMPLETE APPP . E N T I C E S I I i r INCOMPLETE 0Q- APPRENTICESHIP COMPLETE M> I i PHOTESSIONAL K I P I O ^ . J ^ K & g PROFESSIONAL DIPLOMA PHGGRAh COMPLETE 11-9) KOU ' MANY YEARS DID YOU ATTEND SCHOOL III THE VANCOUVER REGION? (YEARS) (1-10) WHAT ABOUT JOB RELATED COURSES? ARE YOUi [YES/NO] CURRENTLY ATTENDING PLANNING TO ATTEND \ NO PLANS TO ATTEND 4. U - l l ) INCOME j RESPONDENT HOUSEHOLD o - IOOO <<> 1001 - J000 (*) 2001 - 1000 (*' 1001 - 4000 "> — ; 4001 - ssoo (a> S501 - 1000 — 7001 - 8500 HO) a s o i -loooo < i i r ' _ l o . o o l - l j a o o ( " l 12,001 -14300 tlJ) 14,501 -17J00 {14) ; 17,501 -2W00 ll*> 20,001 -J5O00 •»') JS.0C1 -15300 ' L " ; o v o t 15,000 <18) (1-12) WHAT DO YOU EXPECT YOUtt INCOME TO BE 5 YEARS FROM NOW (1... 1977)7 RESPONDENT HOUSEHOLD LESS (4) SANE (5) MORE It) (1-12/1) .MAJOR KEASilN KOH EXPECTATION/ t f l i r C K ONE) RESPONDENT -HOUSEHOLD PROMOTION (4) WAGE INCREASE (5) INHERITANCE (6) WINDFALL (7) RETIREMENT (BI LEAVING LABOUB FORCE (9) RETURN ON XNVESTHENTS (10) . COMPLETION OF EDUCATION OH ( H ) TRAINING DO YOU HAVP ANY SAVINGS PROGRAMS, SUCH AS INVESTMENT/ BANK SAVINGS/ACCUMULATING LIFE INSURANCE? (1-14) WHAT DO YG'J FEEL IE THE IDtAL NUMBER OP CHILDREN FOR A rAH 1 LIT TO HAVE? A in Central 8 for you. MALE FEMA LE MALE FEMALE CO' Up to Faaily 2. EMPLOYMENT DATA. WHAT IS YOUR PRESENT EMPLOYMENT STATUS? (CHECK ONE) IN FULL-TIME EMPLOYMENT (4) IN PART-TIKE EMPLOYMENT (S) UNEMPLOYED (6) RETIRED (7> t STUDENT 18) HOUSEWIFE (9) (2-2) HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN IN FULL-TIME EMPLOYMENT? (YEARS) (2-3) WHAT WAS THE FIRST FULL-TIME PERMANENT JOB YOU 11 AD7 (2-4) WHAT WAS YOUR JOB IK 19 ? ' (2-5) WHAT WAS YOUR JOB IN 19 ? (2-0) WHAT IS (WAS) YOUR PRESENT (LAST) FULL-TIME JOB? HOW LONG HAVE (DID) YOU HAD (HAV£) YOUR PRESENT (LAST) FULL-TIME JOB? (YEARS) WHAT IS THE LONGEST PERIOD OF FORCED UNEMPLOYMENT YOU HAVE EXPERIENCED (EXCLUDING ILLNESS)? WHAT IS (WAS) YOUR FATHER'S OCCUPATION? WHAT IS THE OCCUPATION OF YOUR SPOUSE? HOW FAR WOULO YOU BE PREPARED TO MOVE TO MAINTAIN YOUR PRESENT LEVEL OF EMPLOYMENT? WOULD NOT MOVE (4) m ELSEWHERE IN LOWER MAINLAND (5) ELSEWHERE IN B.C. («) _ _ _ _ _ ELSEWHERE IN CANADA ( 7 ) OUTSIOE OF CANADA 3. -iQrfs:;:" DATA. (3-11 r-LEAir INDICATE THE FALLOWING DETAILS ABOUT TOUR F r T S T ' . ' T AND LA F T HCf'E. OKTIS OWELLIi:G LOCATION TENURE to P<k£S£NT L*S7 CO !-A VI.ARS HAVE YOU LIVED or DWELLING? SINGLT LITACIlTD (4) (YEARS! DUPLEX/7? I P L t X (DESIC?:E;*) ( 5 ) (YEARS ) D L P L E X / T R I P L E X (CCNVCPEION) «pA?Trr. LO-t- I S E ; ;.pAr.T-r:;? (DE* H I - r- I S T. ) T iir.zic.r.r.z IN THE rOLLOWING TYPES TOrfNIIOUSE-ROW HOUSE (9) (YEARS ) TRAILER HOME (10) (YEARS) HOUSEKEEPING fUITE ROOM AND BOARS (11) U2)_ S L E E P I N G ROO.*1(13)_ OTHER ( S P E C I F Y ) _(YEARS) (YEARS) _(YEARS) (YEARS) I'.hV.V TTAgS HAVE YC'J LIVED : IN CPEATER VANCOUVER (4) ELSEWIIE PE IM' E.C. (5) ELSEWlihPK III CANADA (6) OUTSIDE CANADA (?) (YEARS) (YEARS) (YEARS) (YEARS) HOW MANY Y_B_S HAVE YOU LIVED ON THE FOLLOWING TENURE BASES? RENT OWN (4) I S ) HOW MANY VEAPS HAVE YOU LIVED IN CENTRESi CVCP 1 « I LLI ON (4) 100.000-999,999 (5) 50,000- 99,999 15) 10.000- 49.999 (5) 5,000- 9,999 m BFLOV 5,000 <9) (YEARS) (YEARS) (YEARS) (YEARS) (YEARS) (YEARS) (YEARS) (YEARS) (3-6) WHY DID YOU LEAVE YOUR LAST RESIDENCE? IN COL. A. IN3ICA RELEVANT FACTORS, IN COL. B. INDICATE THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR. A P CHANGE OF JOB (4) CHANGE OF INCOME (S) INCREASE IM FAMILY-SIZE (6) DECREASE IN FAMILY-SIZE (7) CHANGE IS MARTIAL STATUS (8) RETIRKMENT 19) DISLIKED NEIGHBORS (10) DISLIKED NEIGHBORHOOD (11] DISLIKED THE DWELLING UNIT (I 2 ) TOO MUCH RENT (13) TOO MUCH UPKEEP (14) OTHER (IS) ( 3 - 1 ) UHY DID YOU CHOOSE YOUR PRESENT RESIOENCE? IN COL. A. INDICATE ALL RELEVANT FACTORS, ZN COL. 8. INDICATE THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR, QUALITY OF HOUSE (4) QUALITY OF NEIGHBORHOOD IS) CLOSE TO JOB (6) CLOSE TO FAMILY/RELAT1VES/FR1EKDS ( 7 ) PRICE/COSTS (8) PLEASANT PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT (9) CLOSE TO RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES (IS) CLOSE TO SCHOOLS (11) CLOSE TO SHOPPING (12) CLOSE TO TRANSIT (13) CHEW UP HERE AND WISHED. TO STAY (14) OTHER _______________ (IS) (SPECIFY) (1-0) A R K Y O U S A T I S F I E D V I T H Y O U R P R E S E N T R E S I D E N C E ? KO (4) _______ IF NO INDICATE IB COL. A. ALL THE UNSATISFACTORY FEATURES, AND 18 COL. B. THE SIHOLE HOST UNSATISFACTORY FEATURE. fOO SMALL TOO LARGE. TOO FAR FROM JOO UNPLEASANT NEIGHBOURHOOD TOO FAR FROM TRANSIT TOO FAR FROM RECREATION/ENTERTAINMENT TOO FAR FROM SCHOOL TOO FAR FROM SHOPPINC TOO FAR PAOK FAMILY/RELATIVCS/ FRIENDS TOO MUCH REKT TOO E 1 P E N S I V E (REHT/UPKEEP/TRANSPORT)! OTHER U-»> DO TOU HAVE ART PLANS TO MOVE FROM YOUR PRESENT RESIDENCE? YES O-9/I) IF YES HON SOON 00 TOO PLAN ¥0 ROVE? MONTH _____ (!-<•/] I "III AC DO YOU FLAB TO HOVE TOP SPECIFY t l - V J t MHAT TYPE OF DUELLING ARE YOU MOVING TOP 13. (1-9/41 WHAT ARE THE REASONS FOR THIS PLANNED MOVE? IN COL A. INDICATE ALL RELEVANT FACTORS, IN COL B. INDICATE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR. CHANGE OF JOB (41 CHANGE OF INCOME (5) INCREASE IN FAMILY SI2E («) DECREASE IH FAMILY SIZE (7) CHANGE IN MARITAL STATUS (8) RETIREMENT (9) DISLIKED NEIGHBORS (10) DISLIKED NEIGHBORHOOD (11) DISLIKED THE DWELLING UNIT 112) TOO MUCH RENT (13) TOO MUCH UPKEEP (14) OTHER (IS) (1-9/5) I F HO TO (1-1) A B O V L , UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD YOU SERIOUSLY CONSIDER MOVING? IN C O L A. INDICATE ALL RELEVANT FACTORS, IN COL B . INDICATE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR. WOULD NOT CONSIDER MOVING CHANGE OF JOS (4) CHAHGE Or INCOME (S) INCREASE IN FAMILY SIZE (6) DECREASE IN FAMILY SIZE (7) CHANGE IN MARITAL STATUS (8) RETIREMENT (9) DISLIKED NEIGHBORS (10) DISLIKED NEIGHBORHOOD (11) DISLIKED THE DWELLING UNIT (13) TOO KUCH RENT (13) TOO MUCH UPKEEP (14) OTHER (IS) 21. IF YOU HERE TO HOVE, WHICH AREA OTHER THAU YOUR PRESENT CHE WOULD YOU FIRST CGHSIDER MOVING TO? ( 3 - V ) IF YOU wrun TO MOVE, WHICH TYPE OF DWELLING UHIT WOULD RE YVJR FIPST CHOICE? SINGLE DETACHED *«) DUPLEX/TP. IP LEX ( DESIGNED) (5) OUPLEX/TP:PLEX (CONVEPS:OH) (6) APARTwrKT (DESIGNED LOW-RISE) (7) APARTMEK? (DESIGNED HIGH-RISE) (8) TOWNHOUSE - ROW HOUSE (9) OTHER (SPECIFY) TP*ILER HOME (10) " ^ ^ I O I S E " . ( i n ROOM AND BOARD (12) ~" SLEEPING ROOM (13) (3-10) DO YOU RECEIVE ANY REVENUE tkZf hOOMS OR SUITES IN YCLR OWN DWELLING? NO YES (3-10/1) IP YES HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE RENTING/BOARDING IB YOUS RESIDENCE? 12. IT YOU OWN OR ARE BUYING YOUR PRESENT HOME, WHAT WAS THE 1972 TAX (GROSS, BEFORE HOME OWNER'S GRANT)7 LESS THAU $180 (4) 1S1 - 350 (5) 251 - 100 (6) 101 - 400 17) 401 - 500 <fl> 501 - 700 (91 701 - 1000 110) 1001 - 3500 111) OVER 3500 (13) (J-13) I f YOU ABE RENTING YOUR PRESENT RESIDENCE, WHAT IS Ti l l MONTHLY RENT? LESS THAN S70 (41 71 - 100 (5) 101 - 135 (6) 136 - 150 (7) 151 • 175 (S) 176 - 300 (9) 301 - 3S0 (10) 351 - 100 (11) 101 - 450 (13) 451 • 600 (11) OVER $600 114) (1 -13/11I , YOU ARE RENTING YOUR PRESENT HOME, DOES THE RENT INCLUDE: [TES/NO] FURNITURE (4) ' HEAT (SI UTILITIES (61 PARKING (7) 1 3 . (3-13) IF YOU OCCUPY YOUR PRESENT HOHE ON TERNS OTHER THAN RENT/OWN, PLEASE SPECIFY AND INDICATE DOLLAR OUTLAY TOR OCCUPANCY t TERMS Of OCCUPANCY COST/MONTH CO 4. RECREATION/LEI SURE (4-;) HOW FREQUENTLY DO YOU TRAVEL OUTSIDE METRO VANCOUVER FOR ENTERTAINMENT/RECREATIONAL PURPOSES? <4) 15) (6) |7) 16) (9) NEVER ANNUALLY 3-4 TIMES MONTHLY WEEKLY WEEKLY A YEAR SEASONALLY YEAR ROUND DO YOU OWN-LEASE-OR RENT ON A PERMANENT BASIS ANY FOR.'I CF RECREATIONAL ACCOMMODATION (EXCLUDING THE HOME YCU USUALLY OCCUPY)7 NO (4) YES (*) (4-2/1) IF YES, WHAT IS THE FORM OF TENUF.E? RENT (4) LEASE (5) -OTHER (7) (SPECIFY) (4-2/2) IF YES, WHAT XS THE PROPERTY? COTTAGE (4) SKI CABIN (5) CAMPSITE (6) FIXED T KAILE H(7) OTHER (6) ____ (4-2/3) IF YES, WHERE IS THE PROPERTY? (SPECIFY) 15. (4-2/4) IT YES . KCW OFTEN DO YOL VISIT THE PROPERTY? (SP-CIFY SEASON WHERE APPROPRIATE). (4) <5) (6) * HI 18) (9) HEVCR AMNUALLY 3-4 TIHES MONTHLY WEEKLY MEEKLY A YEAR SEASONALLY YEAR ROUND (4-3) . I ilDICATH WHICH C-T THE FOLLOWING YOU OWN: o CAMPFf. (4) IIO-St-TRAILF- (S) P/.Y ftOAT (C) BOAT WITH OV.fUll _HT ACCOHHOBAT ION I 7 } KCW MANY HOURS OF LEISURE TIKE (FREE FROM EMPLOYMENT OR NECESSARY CHCRE5) 00 YOU USUALLY HAVE DURING THE FOLLOWING PEPIGDS? AN AVEPACE WEEKDAY: HOURS C?i WEEKENDS: HOURS HQW MUCH ANNUAL VACATION (EXCLUSIVE OF WEEKENDS AND STATUTORY HOLIDAYS) 00 YO'J GENERALLY GET PER YEAR. HOW .MUCH OF YG«JR VACATICS TIME DID YOU SPEND LAST YEAR • IN AN_< AROUND THE HOUSE ________ D**S E~S FWKFf.E IN METPC VANCOUVER DAYS ELSSWH-RE IS B.C. DAYS EL5EWHEPC IH CANADA DAYS ELSEWHERE IN NORTH AMERICA DAYS ELSEWHERE OUTSIDE NORTH AMERICA • DAYS 16. { 4 - 1 ) HO- MANY OP EACH OT THE CLUBS AND ORGANIZATIONS LISTED BELOW DO YOU BELONG TO? NOW- , NUMBER ACTIVE ACTIVE PREFER AGRICULTURAL ORGANIZATIONS BUSINESS GROUPS CHARITY OR WELFARE ORGANIZATIONS CHURCH OR SYNAGOGUE CHURCH CONNECTED GROUPS COMMUNITY i.KD CIVIC GROL'l'S CONSERVATION OR ECOLOGY GROUPS COUNTRY CLUBS -TUNIC ORGANIZATIONS FRATERNAL ORGANIZATIONS/VETERANS ORGANIZATIONS HOMEOWNER ORGANIZATIONS ISSUE OR ACTION ORIENTED CROUPS LABOUR UNIONS NEIGHBOURHOOD OR URBAN IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATIONS PARENT-TEACHERS ASSOCIATIONS POLITICAL CLUBS OR ORGANIZATIONS PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES-CROUPS SOCIAL OR CARD-PLAYING CROUPS SPORTS TEAMS YOUTH CROUPS 00 yOU BELONG TO ANT GROUPS NOT LISTED HERE? IP YES. SPBCIfY. ; ; • i r YOU COULD BELONG TO ONLY ONE CROUP. WHICH WOULD YOU PREFER* (COL. 4). (A < J > TTTM I T t - < U I* '-1 l H D - -> * i j< — W. C ' j » — j — V -< I ) O tt — I i > £ a i ' •» o : «- £ o c - • C O * O > w r c * *a • ; r « ^ o 3 « t > c j i j a a t,. t j M i M i j i j c * a t a. u: > O a o •S r> t J 1 O H f»* »•» • tn .o O * 0) 0 J] (S CT" ^ C 1 »T* c7> ^ ,^(T* O O O O O O O O O O — — ' 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 i ! 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 M u > H < > *-— < H >• c t* c M r c a 4, c tr o> „ 4j — O n 1 a c c — -z c r -a w c c u - . - . t o j f » . c c r ^ 0 u . * u > . e » > Q - 4 t * t t O c o- tr L. >. u 0 r fc< 1 1 f « 1. H — ( T » C C O W C ' ) f U » , J ' * * C » " C ' ? - ' tfl VI » 1 >. b C -0 0 ^ > u C in 0 c * E C tj Cf k. -U C C 3 C tt 3 V T> U rt « M 6 a tt 3 C - ~ « E -3 >. . O D U J £ 3 v n. a u r- r fi 0 c ^ *j c r. •* »• O.I.-* C O " J f l U O tr -* c c 1 c* 0. cr 0- (1 p c ' c c «• c -* - c 0 «o - -4 c -4 — tr c — U O M IC C O 0 >. r > t r i » o - " D C » c r jj u c a- — c # -4 c - c U X < ** Ul 0 * ^ M < C - « - * i » - < 5 - - ' 9 * n tn « v> h t» t- H C • > > * > « , * : e n - * U C • i . — 1 -o ii c c i< « (I H N 1. * ^ J d 5- U 11 C tr ' M C ^ -JI 3 U O < « 'J <- C " * * w C W I- — t« •* - c » c ; 7 " *> t> u v t ^: y «j h « - r 3 .» e J u c -4 < U •« C C •*) - 0 > O - U k * ' " 0 - T J . 3 0 - " H C * - e>jf > . t_0 w ^ - - ~ < l " TW. (f> ** *j C - J r^.-".-!^-" -4-. 1. «-< u U 1"; c c « « « 1 ^ U C » i j C - 3 - < - i O 0 fl-X-i! 3 T « 4 « « X e £ 1* w> h i M M M M M 1 1 1 I 1 11 1 III 1111II 1 II 1 1 M i l l 4- =; 2 •• U t- u u; Ui £ 5 M :» J — tit 1 • » V u • j O • f 6. -C tf U H « ^ « • « M M 0 C * > M * ** TJ »• — CL « ^ V t ** — U J C V W JS • * — » 3 r*. O O O •* » » > U •< M I _ * ** *1 U 0 M « • fc> 0 n - c J v •> f c — 1* e e A f c a 0 1 *• — 0 — H c e e - « «• .4 O t: . C C V . V C D >• ** U O J tr * ©• C *i C O C t»" » v u > i : < « c c o c c - c - * « J r •0 u *» •* •> r 1 . » u >. -o TJ * . a .v <•• «1 " * * — *, a v » * * •* * * n- G — — •• •• 3 3 * * " " »-< II « J < * « ' »* h It 1 l . |< ti ^ » >• 0 * 1 c* — * C •» M JQ - r- ^ u t c 0* « 1 r 1 ft tr c c T) c ? c ^ U « M >> w IT *J C 1> -* ^ 1: *J « 0 0 c •< a a u 0. - wi IT o» c ©• 0 C J< — -H 0- c - t> >. u c -• n 0 ^ v> ' ^ TJ tr w 1 1 « 0 it ti ^ • r » u t H C U 0 0 3 . V c u .* 0 u « v n -s 1. M J: f a u -J -J 0 B 3 « j * a — o t t « . o o • 0 V JZ C 1 u - « t> 0 c "* C 4 TJ TJ 14 T) O C j f C M e 0 e w 1 « o" h * • -J C f t a f i C O W * •» C « » P - .» J !* >. u > > t r -• > . c > « k * ) j c o - 3 -4 c t« C W ~ — «• «< «<-« C »' ». n - ' C t ' j - ' i i i . - j i - ' j - i a •«iJ.V-4 4 ) i i *> U •» - J C Ji —• * 4 * J O - i ( W O J I - 0 * * i — * 3 ttOO"J«"4IIC^«««>4U U I I J »1 a W 1 K « « r « n « «i <t r> >« (> 0-4 o« ^ -0 ^ 2 SS S 4 ' * ' ^ * l f l O h It ^  O H i-» J> J f". CO <- O -4 rt n r t r t r t rtrt^ •« 91 <S X t- H H : OS H -c c u . Ul -• O - o >• r» O at fr* X -1 u > u» -* :> I S O « I* u —i u z • J n 4 x o "2 < * _ r. z: < 3. = -: • => K l i . o -I S U M O . W -3 < u s o 3 U, u u <x z U X DC X >. * C h- a a j a a 3 Z Z O 3 <C X o ac fc) x U U M Z 3 H u x u> a Z •* * < « —. tz ; H at Z =1 > I— V) fttr> a < x x J < X > 3 X X < O I- O at » O H X M X -1 Ul « O a w> O < p. ( - 1 3 X < !•) J t- _I t- o * < iJ o o u U Q O _t a — i - u o u X < 9J2 21. WOULD TOU FAVOUR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FREEWAY THROUGH DOWNTOWN WHICH LINKS WITH THE 401 AND 4<r9 FREEWAYS AND CROSStS TO THE NORTH SHORE. STRONGLY OPPOSE ( 4 ) _____ OPFOSE (S) • NOT CERTAIN (6) FAVOUR { 7 ) STRONGLY FAVOUR fb) FROH WHICH OF THESE SOUPCES WOULD YOU CHOOSE TO r I NANCE SUCH A FREEWAY SYSTEM? (CI1ECX ONE) PROPERTY TAX GASOLINE TAX ____ INCOME TAX TOLLS 00 HOW FAR IS YOUR PRESENT RESIDENCE FROM DOWNTOWN VANCOUVER? WCULD Ti'i: CONSTRUCTION OF /, rkEf.WAV SYJ.7rr TO DOWNTOWN VANCOUVER FN?CUH;.GE YO-J TO VOVE FU! THE ( 4 ) (5) ASSUMING THAT A FIXED AMOUNT OF FUNDS WERE AVAILABLE FOR- TRANSPORTATION I it THE LOWER MAINLAND. WHAT PRIORITIES WOULD YCU »*,IVE FCR EACH OT THF FOLLOWING TYPES OF EXPENDI-TURE ? FAIIK IN OR DES' OF PRIORITY (1- FIRST PRIORITY! 2 ». SECOND PRIORITY AND SO FOXTH) f>EEWAV CONSTRUCTION SCENIC DRIVE IMPROVEMENT RAPID TRANSIT CONSTRUCT ION IMPROVED FERRY SYSTEMS EXPRESS BUSES IN THEIR OHM SPECIAL LANES REGIONAL ENVIRONMENT (7-1) HOW DO YOU Til INK THE LOWER MAINLAND WILL CHANGE IN THE NEXT 10 YEARS AS A PLACE TO LIVE? <CHECK ONE) GET WORSE NO CHANGES GET BETTER NO OPINION ( 4 > (S) (6) ( 7 ) IMAGINE AN IDEAL AREA FOR YOU AND YOUR FAMILY. HOW WOULD THIS IDEAL DIFFER FROM THE LCWER MAINLAND AS IT NOW EXISTS7 CHECit ALL THAT APPLY IB COLUMN A. BETTER SHOPPING AMD COMMERCIAL FACILITIES FEWER HOMES AND LESS PEOPLE BETTER ROADS AND TRANSPORTATION ACCESS GREATER SEPARATION BETWEEN COMMUNITIES AN0 MOKE OP Ell SPACE MORE FACILITIES FOR URBAN CULTURE AND RECREATION . BETTER QUALITY HOUSING MORE REGIONAL RECREATION FACILITIES OTHER ______________-______________«___, (SPECIFY) NOW LOOK OVER THE LIST AGAIN. CHECK THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT IN COLUMN B. (7-3) THERE IS PRESSURE TO USE LAND IN THE LOWER MAINLAND FOR USES CIHER THAN AGRICULTURE. WHAT PRIOklTIES WOULD YOU SET FOR THE FOLLOWIKC USES ? ££__ IN ORDER OF PRIORITY (1-FIRST PRIORITY; --SECOND UNTIL ALL 6 ITEMS HAVE A NUMBER 1 THROUGH a ) . UNDEVELOPED OPEN SPACE m IMPROVED RECREATION FACILITIES [ PLANNED "NEW TOWNS" SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT AS NOW PSRMITT£0 ' PROTECT SXISTINC ACRICULTURE . INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE u * X U tal H u g H X »i 3 a X. X -» »*. 3 -1 H O ( A U X 3 Z U o < a w > w U ( - u IT < U. o u W « 3 u o M O W X HI fr. t> t* u u >4 a U 3 M U) H U 7. X r u o. a X X I- 3 n 3 -r- O X «•» > ui k o O -4 ~) a < x < u o O CO •ft cc w 3 U < O I- U H - tn < > O X - Ck * X *  * * O M -a o 3 < •-• O 31 >• X O U >4 fc. 3 a o o o « k. a = < t* u W — X a >i H M » at hi X X •c w X CO cc J I-3> U X U < Q U 31 • MO r v> x - o o U H O V u c c -« >. 9 « o » u • c C D -4 O — J-» X o U X •* < X .4 *• w X X o o U >4 *. » o -» •J X U O o u o ui X X O X X X < < X > a o 14 ft > t-w in o u — o o o «-> u o w •< t4 .1 »-« « M •< 3 31 > O O O M U X -I M X 4 <4 A, O * > O a o -> » H — -« O .J •4 3 u a. O O X *• --94 t»-ll) WOULD TOU MINO TELLtsr. HE S1IO (OU VOTED FOR AS MAYOR IN THE LAST LOCAL ELECTION? ( 7 - 1 5 1 HOU OIO YOU VOTE IN THE LAST PROVINCIAL ELECTION? ( 1 9 7 1 ) ( 7 - 1 1 1 HOW OID TOU VOTE IN TNE PREVIOUS PROVINCIAL ELECTION? (19(9) PARTY (7-14) HOW DID YOU VOTE IH THE LAST FEDERAL ELECTION? (1966) PARTY ( 7 - 1 S ) HOW DO YOU EXPECT YOU WILL VOTE IN THE NEXT FEDERAL ELECTION? <-V-INDICATE YOUR HAJOU SOURCE OF INFORMATION ABOUT AFFAIRS IN CREATER VANCOUVER. T.V. (4) RADIO (SI NEWSPAPERS/MAGAZINES (6) H9R0 OF MOUTH ( 7 ) a. ISSUES AND PROBLEMS 1 9 - 1 ) HERE IS A LIST OF 1 7 ISSUES, WHICH ARE REPRODUCED CN THE WHITE CARDS GIVE" TO YOU. LOOK THEM OVER, THEN <* RrANGE THE CARDS IN THE ORDER OF IMPORTANCE YOU rIEL THE ISJUES UARRENT. THE MOST IMPORTANT FIRST. THE LEAST IMPORTANT LAST * THE INTERVIEWER WILL RECORD YOUR CHOICES. A. AIR POLLUTION FROM AUTOS B. AIR POLLUTION FROH INDUSTRY C. WATER POLLUTION D. VISUAL POLLUTION E. TRAFPIC PROBLEMS F. INADEQUATE RECREATION FACILITIES G. TRANSIENT YOUTH h . UNFRIENDLINESS OF CITY LIFE X . QUALITY OF CITY GOVERNMENT J. CRIflE AND PERSONAL HONESTY K. DISHONESTY IN GOVERNMENT AND BUSINES: L. PROBLEMS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS M . MISMANAGEMENT OF WELFARE K. HEALTH CARE 0. PROBLEMS OF MINORITY GROUPS P. INADEQUATE HOUSING 9- COUNTER-CULTURE KOVEMENT WOn THE ISSUES OH THE WHITE CARDS INDICATE I ) WHAT ACTION YOU HAVE PERSONALLY TAKEN. 3) S) NHAT YOU SEE A3 THE CURRENT TRENO IN THE PROBLEM-. 2 *• NHAT YOU FEEL THlt EVENTUAL OUTCOME WILL Z CC. NHAT AGENCY YOU THINK IS MAINLY =• ' RESPONSIBLE POR CAUSING THE PROBLEM. " ' 5» NHAT ACEHCT YOU THINK IS MAINLY RESPONSIBLE TOR ITS SOLUTION. (6-2) DO NOT CONSIDER THAT ISSUE A PROBLEM, (0-1) ACTION YOU HAVE PERSONALLY TAKEN X. Contacted a local official by phone. letter, vicit, «tc. 3. contacted * provincial official 3. Contacted a federal Official O C c -» >. > N - *. „ « _t _ 41 _, < < a > H ( * » I B ) fCl ir» fr. fl O H £ V u 0 <o *• a o. c (rj (C) (HI (I) (J) (K) *L) f H) <"> IQ <») (0) 9. 10. Al. 12. 19. 14. Altorod personal action• which con-tributed to the problea ........... Nrote a lettor to the Editor Attended Civlc/Citlsen*e nee tine. ... Circulated petition* Participated in a denonstratlon Paid for advertisement ia wedia .... Spent Money directly on problen .... leeorted to Civil Oieobedlence other i  other t  other (8-4) I. Problem vi i i probably get worse .. a. Probl«»» will reaain about the lam ... (A) (B) (C) (E ir.) (II) ID Ul (K) ( LI (Ml (II (a IP — (8-5) WHAT IS YOUR EXPECTATION ABOUT ITS OUTCOME 1. X an pessimistic about the problem ... <2* I am lealty wndecided about it — 3. I an optimistic that it will bo eolvcii 4. I really have no opinion about it .... (B-6) (8-7) WHO IS MAINLY RESPONSIBLE FOR CAUSING THE PPOBLEM (MART *C*) AMD WHO in LApGELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS SOLUTION (MARK 'S'). INDIVIDUAL BUSINESS/INDI^ TRY LABOUP FtDI.'PAL COVEhNMEWT PROVINCIAL COVKRNMKNT MUNICIPAL r.nvr.f-NM.INT Gf.NKPAL PUBLIC "SPECIAL IHII;ARRT Ct-OUIT." CITIZENS RKOUP — — . . . . . — — — — — -— — - — -'- _ . . -— — . . . •- . ._ — - — ... 1 96 19. (8-81 WHICH Or THE TWELVE ISSUES LISTED BELOW DO TOU FEEL WARRANTS THE HOST IMMEDIATE ATTENTION IN THE GREATER VAdCOUVER REGION? LOOK OVER THIS LIST TO GET THEM ALL IB MIND. THEN LCCK THROUGH THE BLUE CARDS. EACH CARD HAS ONE OF THE ISSUES PRINTED CN IT. ARRANGE THE ISSUE-CARDS IN OROER OF THE PRIORITY YOU THINK THE ISSUES SHOULD RECEIVED, WIJH TKf. DOST IMPGRTAMT PLACED FIRST AND THE LEAST IMPORTANT PLACED LAST. THE INTERVIEWEE WILL RECORD YOUR CHOICES. A. CHANCING THE STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT 0. CHANNELLING GROWTH OUTSIDE OF EXISTING CESTPES ^ C. DEVELOPING MOPE PUBLIC PARKS 0. ENCOURAGING COMPREHENSIVE PIIT.IICAL PLANNING E. IMPROVING HIGHWAY TPAWSTCRTAT KM r. HAF.INC MORE EFFICIENT USE OF PRESENT TRANSPORTATION C. PLANNING A THIRD CROSSING FOR BURRARO INLET H. PRESERVING THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT I. PROMOTING COMPPEHENSIVE SOCIAL PLANNING J. PROMOTING A RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM K. STIMULATING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT L. UPGRA0I1IC THE HOUSING SUPPLY (8-9) WIYHOUT ffECESS API LY RE TERR. ING TO ANY OF THE PROBLEMS MENTIONED IN THIS QUESTIONNAIRE, WHAT III YOUR OPINION APE THE TWO HOST PRESSING PPHBLEHS FACING THE VANCOUVER REGION T'JUAY? ~ * ~~ U 1 ; ^ (21 WOULD YOU BE PREPAPEO TO HE INTERVIEWED BY A MEMBER OF OUR S T A r r Oil THE SUBJECT OF CITY PPOBLEMS IN VANCOUVER; THE INTERVIEW WOULD BE TAPED AND WOULD LAST NO MORE THAN JO MINUTES. WOULD BE UILLIHO HOT WILLING APPENDIX B Map A l t e r a t i o n s to Vancouver To S i m p l i f y Showing L o c a l Areas Used i n the Study Data Procedures 98 Appemdis 1 MEerafcioae feo Vaaeouveir Local Ares3 Used in To Simplify Data Procedures the Sfcedy "vb 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0094410/manifest

Comment

Related Items