Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Explorative study of the public participation program in the development of Kalamalka Lake Provincial… Maedel, Jerry Allen 1987

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1987_A6_7 M34.pdf [ 6.05MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0096992.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0096992-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0096992-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0096992-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0096992-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0096992-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0096992-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0096992-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0096992.ris

Full Text

EXPLORATIVE STUDY OF THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF KALAMALKA LAKE PROVINCIAL PARK By JERRY ALLEN MAEDEL B.F.A., The U n i v e r s i t y of V i c t o r i a , 1975 Diploma In Education, The U n i v e r s i t y of V i c t o r i a , 1976 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES ( F a c u l t y of F o r e s t r y , Department of F o r e s t Resources Management) We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l 1987 © J e r r y A l l e n Maedel In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 ABSTRACT The p u b l i c ' s demands f o r i n c r e a s e d involvement i n resource management p l a n n i n g and d e c i s i o n making emphasize the need to understand p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n and the p r a c t i c a l a s p e c t s of i t s a p p l i c a t i o n . T h i s t h e s i s s e t s out to analyse the process of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n one case study, f o c u s i n g i n on those who p a r t i c i p a t e d d i r e c t l y i n the p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n program. The e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n i s examined and compared to the gene r a l experience of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n Canada. S p e c i a l emphasis i s p l a c e d on d i s c o v e r i n g whether or not e f f e c t i v e p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n produces support f o r resource management s t r a t e -g i e s . The study takes place w i t h i n the context of the Kalamalka Lake P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n Program developed by the M i n i s t r y of Environment and Parks, Province of B r i t i s h Columbia. T h i s r e s e a r c h has p o i n t e d out the n e c e s s i t y f o r : knowing what the p u b l i c f e e l s about management p l a n s , communicating to the p u b l i c an agency's o b j e c t i v e s , p o i n t i n g out how an agency's management plans are developed to achieve those o b j e c t i v e s , opening the process f o r the p u b l i c to p a r t i c i p a t e i n f i n a l i z i n g management plan s , and communicating d e t a i l e d , f i n a l plans to the p u b l i c w i t h i n a reasonable timeframe. i i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this research is to see how selected components of public participation affect the development of public support for park management strategies. Public participation is a part of the theory of participatory democracy. It can be included in the present system of representative democracy, and result in a stronger, more stable system of government than exists today. The Bargaining Process Model of public participation is preferred to the Upward Forming Consensus Model because i t provides the public with access to the administrators on decisions which directly affect the public. Access is provided through pressure groups which are authorized to participate in the decision making process. Connor's New Ladder, modified to include the public at the joint planning team level, is the most complete and integrated set of public participation methodologies available. The public needs to be brought into the i n i t i a l stages of the planning process as a partner equal to 'experts'. Ongoing, independent evaluation of public participation programing is necessary for an effective process of public participation to develop. The challenge is to determine which issues require inputs from the public, what segments of the public should be consulted, and how the necessary inputs can be obtained most effectively It is this challenge which forms the research base for this paper and which i s d i r e c t l y r e f l e c t e d i n these three components of the broad o b j e c t i v e ( d i s c u s s e d i n Chapter I ) ; park i s s u e s , s o c i a l -economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the l o c a l p u b l i c , and communication methods. The f o u r t h component i s 'the a t t i t u d e s of the p u b l i c and park personnel towards each o t h e r ' . In t h i s component, support of park management s t r a t e g i e s i s c o n s i d e r e d a p a r t of the a t t i t u d e s and p e r c e p t i o n s of the p u b l i c and the agency towards each other. P e r c e p t i o n s and a t t i t u d e s are i n v e s t i g a t e d as i n d i c a t o r s of a s u c c e s s f u l p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n program and of p u b l i c support for management s t r a t e g i e s . P u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n Canada at the F e d e r a l and P r o v i n c i a l Parks l e v e l i s a p a r t of the Upward Forming Consensus Model of P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n . The p u b l i c was informed and c o n s u l t e d , but not allowed to a d v i s e or consent. In the case of Parks Canada's Four Mountain Parks Planning Process, the importance of d i s t r i b -u t i n g c l e a r i n f o r m a t i o n to the p u b l i c and i d e n t i f y i n g where the p u b l i c input i n f l u e n c e d the f i n a l d e c i s i o n s was emphasized. Kalamalka Lake P r o v i n c i a l Park i s l o c a t e d on the North East shore of Kalamalka Lake and four k i l o m e t e r s South of the C i t y of Vernon in the p r o v i n c e of B r i t i s h Columbia. Steep h i l l s covered by grass and rock outcroppings with some pine f o r e s t s i n t e r s p e r s e d with a l a r g e network of l a k e s c h a r a c t e r i z e the a r e a . The name Kalamalka i s a P o l y n e s i a n word thought to mean lake of many c o l o r s . Many of the o r i g i n a l s e t t l e r s were B r i t i s h and they have had a strong i v i n f l u e n c e on the s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l development of t h i s area. When i t was l e a r n t that a major r e s o r t and r e s i d e n t i a l develop-ment was planned f o r the land which i s now Kalamalka Park, an inte n s e p u b l i c o u t c r y l e d by the North Okanagan N a t u r a l i s t Club r e s u l t e d i n the land being purchased from Coldstream Ranch f o r a p r o v i n c i a l park i n August of 1975. The p r e p a r a t i o n of a master p l a n f o r Kalamalka Lake P r o v i n c i a l Park was to be guided by the i s s u e s , concerns and p r o p o s a l s r e c e i v e d through an open p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s . P u b l i c meetings were organized and p u b l i c comments r e c e i v e d . The Parks Branch formu-l a t e d four a l t e r n a t i v e p lans (concept 1 - 4) and the p u b l i c v o i c e d t h e i r c h o i c e through concerns sheets, l e t t e r s , b r i e f s and p e t i t i o n s . Concept one or two was p r e f e r r e d by the m a j o r i t y (78%) of the p u b l i c . A f t e r a f i v e year delay an a d v i s o r y committee was set up (1983) to approve a p l a n f o r park development. The next year the A d v i s o r y Committee presented t h e i r r e p o r t and park development began. The park was opened two years l a t e r (1986). Respondents were i d e n t i f i e d and i n t e r v i e w e d about the sequence of events surrounding the Kalamalka Lake P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n Program. The purpose of using focused i n t e r v i e w s i n t h i s r e s e a r c h i s to e v a l u a t e what d i d or d i d not work and why. T h i s technique i s used to e x p l a i n behavior and i s a v a l u a b l e i n d i c a t o r of what might occur i n s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n s . There were 9 p e r s o n a l i n t e r -views and 22 telephone i n t e r v i e w s f o r a t o t a l of 31. v T h i s r e s e a r c h has p o i n t e d out the n e c e s s i t y f o r : - knowing what the p u b l i c f e e l s about management plans - communicating to the p u b l i c an agency's o b j e c t i v e s - e x p l a i n i n g how an agency's management plans are developed to achieve those o b j e c t i v e s - opening the process f o r the p u b l i c to p a r t i c i p a t e i n f i n a l i z i n g management plans - communicating d e t a i l e d , f i n a l p lans to the p u b l i c w i t h i n a reasonable timeframe The b e n e f i t s of an e f f e c t i v e p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n program a r e : - l e s s c o n t r o v e r s y - b e t t e r o v e r a l l management plans - a c t i v e p u b l i c support v i TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT i i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . i i i LIST OF TABLES ix LIST OF FIGURES x LIST OF APPENDICES x i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS x i i i CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1 Statement of Purpose 1 P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n Issues 4 Overview of Chapters . . . 5 Summation 7 CHAPTER II PUBLIC PARTICIPATION THEORY AND CONTEXT. 8 P o l i t i c a l Theory of P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n 9 P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n Theory 13 P u b l i c Involvement Models 14 L e v e l s of P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n 19 P e r c e p t i o n s and A t t i t u d e s i n P u b l i c Involvement 25 E v a l u a t i o n of P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n Programs 27 Summation 30 CHAPTER III OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION . . 33 P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n In Canada 33 P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n Parks Canada 37 P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n B.C. P r o v i n c i a l Parks 44 Summation 48 v i i CHAPTER IV BACKGROUND MATERIAL AND RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 49 Study S e t t i n g 50 Geogr a p h i c a l S e t t i n g 50 H i s t o r i c a l Background 51 S o c i a l Context 54 P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n Program 56 Development of a p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n program 56 Chronology of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n events 59 Comments on the p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n process . . . . . . 62 Methodoloy 63 P r e t e s t 65 S e l e c t i o n of Focused Interview P a r t i c i p a n t s 64 F i e l d A c t i v i t i e s 67 Summation 68 CHAPTER V SURVEY ANALYSIS 70 Summary 71 P u b l i c Responses 71 Park Agency Responses 74 CHAPTER VI RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE PUBLIC AND THE PARK AGENCY DURING THE KALAMAKA LAKE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM 77 P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n Communication Methods 77 P u b l i c and Park Agency P e r c e p t i o n of the Issues 82 A t t i t u d e s of the P u b l i c and the Park Agency 84 P u b l i c Respondent Home L o c a t i o n and Survey Response 86 CHAPTER VII CONCLUSIONS 88 LITERATURE CITED 93 v i i i LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 L e v e l s of P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n 47 TABLE 2 Concepts Chosen by P u b l i c 55 i x LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE I Flow Diagram of the Upward Forming Consensus Model of P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n 17 FIGURE 2 Flow Diagram of the B a r g a i n i n g Process Model of P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n 18 FIGURE 3 L e v e l s of P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n 20 FIGURE 4 Connor's New Ladder 23 FIGURE 5 The Planning Process 41 FIGURE 6 P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n Methods 78 x LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX I PUBLIC QUESTIONNAIRE FORM 97 APPENDIX II PARK AGENCY QUESTIONNAIRE FORM 102 APPENDIX I I I * SURVEY ANALYSIS 107 PART I PUBLIC SURVEY 108 P u b l i c Respondent P r o f i l e 108 Demographic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 108 Use Of Kalamalka Lake P r o v i n c i a l Park 111 Respondent A f f i l i a t i o n And Group A c t i v i t i e s 114 I n d i v i d u a l P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n A c t i v i t i e s 116 R e l a t i o n s h i p Between Distanc e from Park and Survey Response 117 Major Issues i n the Development of Kalamalka Lake 1975 - 1986 120 Issues 1975 121 Issues 1986 1 23 P u b l i c A t t i t u d e Towards Park Agency 125 The P u b l i c I n t e r e s t 125 Communication of I n t e r e s t s to Park Personnel . ... 125 I n t e r e s t s Considered i n Adv i s o r y Committee's Report 127 I n t e r e s t s Considered i n the F i n a l D e c i s i o n 127 Tr a n s f e r of Information About Issues 130 P a r t i c i p a t i o n In Park Development 131 Support f o r the F i n a l D e c i s i o n 133 P u b l i c A t t i t u d e Towards Park Agency 135 Comments 136 PART II AGENCY SURVEY 138 P r o f i l e of Park Agency Respondents 138 Demographic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 138 Working With the P u b l i c 138 P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n T r a i n i n g 139 P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n A c t i v i t i e s 139 Major Issues i n the Development of Kalamalka Lake Park . . . 140 Comments 141 * NOTE: Appendix III i s a r e v i s e d v e r s i o n of the i n f o r m a t i o n mailed out to a l l respondents and i s i n c l u d e d with i t s own t a b l e of c o n t e n t s . x i Process of Working with the P u b l i c 1 4 2 Methods Used 1 4 2 Comments 1 4 2 P u b l i c I n t e r e s t 1 4 4 Product of the P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n Process 144 Park Personnel's A t t i t u d e Towards the P u b l i c 145 Comments 1 4 ^ x i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would l i k e to t h a n k f u l l y acknowledge the h e l p of Dr. Pat M i l l e r as my t h e s i s a d v i s o r and Dr. A l Chambers f o r h i s work as my a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a d v i s o r . I am p a r t i c u l a r l y g r e a t f u l f o r the guidence that Dr. Peter D o o l i n g has given me i n resource c o n s e r v a t i o n i n general and the r e v i s i o n s of t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i c u l a r . P h i l i p W h i t f i e l d and the s t a f f of the M i n i s t r y of the E n v i r o n -ment, Parks and Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n D i v i s i o n , Southern I n t e r i o r Region, P r o v i n c e of B r i t i s h Columbia c o n t r i b u t e d a great d e a l of t h e i r time and resourses, f o r which t h e i r h e l p i s g r e a t f u l l y acknowledged. I would l i k e to thank Dr. Henry Hightower f o r h i s a s s i s t e n c e i n the development and a n a l y s i s of the survey, p a r t i c i p a t i o n as t h e s i s committee member, as w e l l as h i s review of my t h e s i s . I a l s o would l i k e to thank Dr. J u l i a Gardner and Dr. Desmond Connor f o r t h e i r h e l p f u l and i n s i g h t f u l comments on my t h e s i s . - 1 -CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION T h i s chapter e x p l a i n s the s t r u c t u r e which was developed to re s e a r c h the t o p i c of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n . The broad o b j e c t i v e and i t s component p a r t s are o u t l i n e d and r e l a t e d to the elements of the case study. Some of the i s s u e s i n p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n are d i s c u s s e d and then an overview of each of the seven chapters i s presented. Statement of Purpose Canadian research i n t o p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n c l u d e s that by D. Connor, T. O'Riordan, B. S a d l e r , and D. Se w e l l . Although there i s a f a i r body of t h e o r e t i c a l knowledge on p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n , l i t t l e documented r e s e a r c h i s a v a i l a b l e on the p r a c t i c a l aspects of i t s a p p l i c a t i o n . S a dler i n 1979 at a N a t i o n a l Workshop i n A l b e r t a made t h i s c a l l f o r r e s e a r c h : A c o n s i d e r a b l e body of experience and o b s e r v a t i o n has now been b u i l t up about how [ p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n ] programs work and the p r a c t i c a l d i f f i c u l t i e s that are encountered i n t h i s a r e a . Much of t h i s i s undocumented, however, and there i s l i t t l e i n the way of comparative a n a l y s i s . ( S a d l e r , p. 7) - 2 -T h i s t h e s i s s e t s out to analyse the process of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a -t i o n i n one case study, f o c u s i n g i n on those who p a r t i c i p a t e d d i r e c t l y i n the p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n program. The e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n i s examined and compared to the general experience of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n Canada. S p e c i a l emphasis i s p l a c e d on d i s c o v e r i n g whether or not e f f e c t i v e p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a -t i o n produces support f o r resource management s t r a t e g i e s . The study takes p l a c e w i t h i n the context of a p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n program developed by the M i n i s t r y of Environment and Parks, Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, and t h e r e f o r e i s a f f e c t e d by some of the r e g u l a t i o n s and p o l i c i e s of t h i s M i n i s t r y . I t i s hoped however t h a t the f i n d i n g s of t h i s r e s e a r c h w i l l be of value to the development of a l l r e source management p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n programs. The purpose of t h i s r e s e a r c h i s to see how s e l e c t e d components of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n a f f e c t the development of p u b l i c support f o r park management s t r a t e g i e s . The components of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a -t i o n to be researched were s e l e c t e d from a survey of the l i t e r -a t u r e on the theory of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n c o n t a i n e d i n Chapter I I . Three components were s e l e c t e d as being what most a u t h o r i t i e s on p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n c o n s i d e r to be key p a r t s of an e f f e c t i v e p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n program. A f o u r t h component was added to t e s t i f respondent's o p i n i o n s changed with t h e i r d i s t a n c e from the study s i t e . The broad o b j e c t i v e i s to i d e n t i f y the i n t e r -- 3 -r e l a t i o n s h i p s between these four components of p u b l i c p a r t i c i -p a t i o n : communication methods, park i s s u e s , park agency and l o c a l p u b l i c a t t i t u d e s , and respondent's home d i s t a n c e from the study s i t e . A case study approach was s e l e c t e d as the best way of a c h i e v i n g the o b j e c t i v e of t h i s r e s e a r c h . T h i s s e l e c t i o n process i s d i s c u s s e d i n d e t a i l i n Chapter IV. The case study was designed to accomplish the broad o b j e c t i v e of t h i s r e s e a r c h by l o o k i n g at four elements of the Kalamalka Lake P r o v i n c i a l Park P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n Program: 1 - communication methods used i n t h i s program 2 - major park development i s s u e s 3 - a t t i t u d e s of the p u b l i c and park personnel towards each other 4 - r e l a t i o n s h i p between the p u b l i c respondent's home d i s t a n c e from the park and the respondent's survey response These four elements are made up of the three components of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n p l u s element f o u r , which was added to t e s t the v a r i a t i o n of p u b l i c responses over d i s t a n c e . Interviews were s e l e c t e d as the best method of o b t a i n i n g the in f o r m a t i o n necessary to achieve the re s e a r c h o b j e c t i v e . T h i s s e l e c t i o n process i s d i s c u s s e d i n Chapter IV. Q u e s t i o n n a i r e - 4 -sheets were designed around the r e s e a r c h o b j e c t i v e and are in c l u d e d i n Appendices I and I I . Research L i m i t a t i o n s The survey methodology of 'focused i n t e r v i e w s ' , the use of 'key a c t o r s ' r a t h e r than a random sample, and the sample s i z e of t h i r t y - o n e , p l a c e d l i m i t a t i o n s on how the r e s u l t s of t h i s r e s e a r c h c o u l d be i n t e r p r e t e d . Although the f i n d i n g s of t h i s study cannot be used to p r e d i c t what w i l l happen i n other p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n programs they can be used to improve the process of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n . P u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n programs may s t i l l r e s u l t i n u n r e s o l v a b l e d i f f e r e n c e s of o p i n i o n but the process of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n w i l l not be a pa r t of the problem. P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n Issues P u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n has been used i n many forms ac r o s s Canada. With l e s s money a v a i l a b l e f o r government programs, a l l programs are having to defend t h e i r e x i s t e n c e . P u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s no e x c e p t i o n . I t s c r i t i c s are g a t h e r i n g behind the need to make government programs seem more cost e f f e c t i v e by a t t a c k i n g the e x i s t e n c e of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Is p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n a - 5 -f r i n g e b e n e f i t adopted under more prosperous times or the r e f l e c t i o n of a changing form of government? With more government pre s s u r e groups o r g a n i z e d around the ' p u b l i c i n t e r e s t ' as opposed to economic b e n e f i t s i t seems t h a t a trend i s de v e l o p i n g f o r more p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n government a c t i v i t i e s . Overview of Chapters Chapter two looks at how p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n f i t s i n t o p o l i t i c a l theory by a n a l y s i n g the d i f f e r e n c e s between r e p r e s e n t a t i v e and p a r t i c i p a t o r y democracy. T h i s chapter then goes on to look at a s e l e c t i o n of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n t h e o r i e s and d e f i n e s c r i t e r i a f o r e v a l u a t i n g the success of a p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n program. Chapter three reviews the p r a c t i s e of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n Canada. A c u r s o r y view of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the f e d e r a l government i s presented f o l l o w e d by a c r i t i q u e of i t s a p p l i c a t i o n i n the Four Mountain Parks Planning Process with Parks Canada. The p o l i c i e s of the M i n i s t r y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r B.C. P r o v i n c i a l Parks are then d i s c u s s e d . Chapter four p r o v i d e s background i n f o r m a t i o n on Kalamalka Lake and i t s P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n Program as w e l l as t h i s study's r e s e a r c h methodology. The reasons f o r choosing Kalamalka Lake as - 6 -a study s i t e are d i s c u s s e d along with the area's h i s t o r i c a l background and p o l i t i c a l environment. The a c t i v i t i e s connected with the Kalamalka Lake P r o v i n c i a l Park P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n Program are then examined i n d e t a i l . The survey methodology i s presented, along with a d i s c u s s i o n of i t s p r e t e s t and the procedure f o r s e l e c t i n g those i n d i v i d u a l s to be i n t e r v i e w e d . Chapter f i v e p resents a summary of the r e s u l t s of the survey i n two p a r t s ; f i n d i n g s from the p u b l i c survey and f i n d i n g s from the park agency survey. Appendix II I c o n t a i n s a d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s of the survey o r g a n i z e d around the four components of the r e s e a r c h o b j e c t i v e . Chapter s i x o r g a n i z e s the r e s u l t s of the survey i n t o four of the elements of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t r o d u c e d e a r l i e r i n the 'Statement of Purpose' s e c t i o n of t h i s chapter. They a r e : communication methods used i n t h i s program, major park develop-ment i s s u e s , a t t i t u d e s of the p u b l i c and park personnel towards each other, and the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the p u b l i c respondent's home d i s t a n c e from the park and the respondent's survey response. The f i n a l chapter summarizes the f i n d i n g s of t h i s r e s e a r c h i n t o a set of c o n c l u s i o n s and recommendations about p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a -t i o n . - 7 -Summat ion T h i s chapter has i n t r o d u c e d the purpose of t h i s r e s e a r c h : to see how s e l e c t e d components of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n a f f e c t the d e v e l -opment of p u b l i c support f o r park management s t r a t e g i e s . I t has a l s o d i s c u s s e d p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s s u e s and given an overview of a l l the c h a p t e r s . Chapter II de l v e s deeper i n t o the theory of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n to develop a f i r m base f o r the d i r e c t i o n of t h i s r e s e a r c h and to foreshadow some of the expected r e s u l t s . - 8 -CHAPTER II PUBLIC PARTICIPATION THEORY AND CONTEXT As an i n t r o d u c t i o n to the theory of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n the f i r s t p a r t of t h i s chapter w i l l look at where p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a -t i o n f i t s w i t h i n p o l i t i c a l theory. The second p a r t of t h i s chapter w i l l be d e d i c a t e d t o a review of the l i t e r a t u r e connected with p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n theory. Part two forms the main body of t h i s chapter. I t begins with two p u b l i c involvement models r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the main a p p l i c a t i o n s of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n Canada today: the Upward Forming Consensus Model and the B a r g a i n i n g Process Model. The d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n are then presented and d i s c u s s e d using the models: ' A r n s t e i n ' s Ladder' and 'Connor's New Ladder'. The importance of p e r c e p t i o n s and a t t i t u d e s i n the process of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n w i l l be examined to see what e f f e c t they have on a program's f i n a l outcome. L a s t l y , the methods of evalua-t i n g p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n programs w i l l be reviewed. - 9 -P o l i t i c a l Theory of P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n R e p r e s e n t a t i v e democracies throughout the world are coming under i n c r e a s i n g p r e s s u r e to allow p u b l i c access to government informa-t i o n and to l e t the p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t e i n government d e c i s i o n making. P u b l i c i n t e r e s t groups are beginning to lobby government d i r e c t l y i n the same manner as business groups have been doing fo r many ye a r s . The l o c a l p u b l i c who are a f f e c t e d by government d e c i s i o n s are demanding input i n t o how government d e c i s i o n s are implemented in t h e i r area. P u b l i c o f f i c i a l s with the mandate to manage are having to be i n c r e a s i n g l y r e s p o n s i v e to p u b l i c pressure about the d e c i s i o n s they make. The p u b l i c i s a l s o demanding more access to i n f o r m a t i o n about government d e c i s i o n s and governments are responding with v a r i o u s l e v e l s of freedom of i n f o r m a t i o n . P u b l i c pressure f o r more involvement i n government d e c i s i o n making i s a movement towards p a r t i c i p a t o r y democracy. Democracy o r i g i n a t e d i n the ancient Greek c i t y s t a t e s where c i t i z e n s p a r t i c i p a t e d d i r e c t l y i n the making of laws. Contemporary democracy g i v e s i t s c i t i z e n s the r i g h t and c a p a c i t y , d i r e c t l y or through r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , to c o n t r o l t h e i r i n s t i t u t i o n s f o r t h e i r own purposes ( H a r r i s & Levey, 1975, p. 743). The extent t o which c i t i z e n c o n t r o l i s e x e r c i s e d d i r e c t l y as opposed to through r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s d e f i n e s the b a s i c argument between the proponents - 10 -of p a r t i c i p a t o r y democracy and r e p r e s e n t a t i v e democracy respec-t i v e l y . What has been overlooked i n t h i s argument i s that both the p r o d u c t i o n of an educated, a c t i v e c i t i z e n r y and the impor-tance of the s t r u c t u r e of a u t h o r i t y i n non-governmental spheres f o r p o l i t i c a l s o c i a l i z a t i o n are pa r t of the p a r t i c i p a t o r y theory of democracy (Pateman, 1970, p. 105). An example of a s t r u c t u r e of a u t h o r i t y i n a non-governmental sphere would be p u b l i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n on a j o i n t p l a n n i n g team. A j o i n t p l a n n i n g team type of approach can be absorbed i n t o r e p r e s e n t a t i v e democracy's ge n e r a l framework. The r e s u l t c o u l d be the foundation f o r a more soundly based theory of s t a b l e democracy than those o f f e r e d at present (Pateman, 1970, p. 105). P a r t i c i p a t o r y democracy i s c r i t i c i s e d f o r being dangerous because i t undermines the s t r u c t u r e of a u t h o r i t y and u n r e a l i s t i c because i t proposes that everyone p a r t i c i p a t e s d i r e c t l y . The reasoning behind the f i r s t c r i t i c i s m o r i g i n a t e s i n the t h e o r i e s of P l a t o and Jose Ortego y Gasset (Adie & Thomas, 1982, p. 342). Put b r i e f l y these t h e o r i e s c o n s i d e r the bulk of mankind to be unable to make d e c i s i o n s f o r s o c i e t y as t h e i r needs are too d i v e r s e to be a b l e to compromise on s p e c i f i c s o c i e t a l o b j e c t i v e s . The r e s u l t , as proposed by these t h e o r i s t s , i s an unstable s o c i e t y because government o b j e c t i v e s need to be c o n s i s t e n t . They c o n s i d e r the p o l i t i c a l e l i t e ( p hilosopher r u l e r ) to have greater understanding of the long term o b j e c t i v e s of s o c i e t y and to share - 1 1 -a more common set of o b j e c t i v e s - t h e r e f o r e producing a more s t a b l e s o c i e t y which the n o n - p a r t i c i p a t i n g bulk of s o c i e t y support (the s t a t u s quo) by d e f a u l t . As j u s t d i s c u s s e d however, the theory of p a r t i c i p a t o r y democracy can work w i t h i n r e p r e s e n t a t i v e democracy's s t r u c t u r e of a u t h o r i t y . The more members of the p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t e i n the workings of government, the more they understand the process of governing and i n many cases t h i s produces a c t i v e support f o r government a c t i v i t i e s from the general p u b l i c . In response to the c r i t i c i s m that p a r t i c i p a t o r y democracy i s u n r e a l i s t i c , there must be some understanding of what i s being proposed. Not everyone i s a b l e or i n t e r e s t e d i n p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n d e c i s i o n s on n a t i o n a l i s s u e s . I n d i v i d u a l s can however, p a r t i c i -pate d i r e c t l y i n l o c a l government and i n d u s t r y d e c i s i o n s . L o c a l p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s a t t a i n a b l e and has many b e n e f i t s . Motivation-to-work theory says that worker p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n management d e c i s i o n s i s one of the f a c t o r s that produces more f e e l i n g s of p s y c h o l o g i c a l success, thus de v e l o p i n g more energy that the worker can use f o r p u r s u i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n a l g o a l s (Adie & Thomas, 1982, p. 30). Producing a p a r t i c i p a t o r y s o c i e t y a l s o has the advantages of developing c i t i z e n s that a r e : - b e t t e r a b l e to assess the performance of r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s at the n a t i o n a l l e v e l - 12 -- b e t t e r equipped to p a r t i c i p a t e i n d e c i s i o n s of n a t i o n a l scope when the o p p o r t u n i t y a r i s e s to do so - b e t t e r able to weigh up the impact of d e c i s i o n s taken by n a t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s on t h e i r own l i f e and immediate surroundings (Adie & Thomas, 1982, p. 30) The evidence and arguments of the b e n e f i t s of p a r t i c i p a t o r y democracy are not c o n c l u s i v e and w i l l not be u n t i l more examples are analysed over time. There i s , however, an e x i s t i n g demand and some strong arguments that p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n w i l l prove b e n e f i c i a l . The c h a l l e n g e i s to develop s u c c e s s f u l techniques that meld the e x i s t i n g system of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n with the b e n e f i t s of p a r t i c i p a t i o n . One of the main o b s t a c l e s to implementing a system of p a r t i c i -patory democracy i s the entrenched l i n e s of a u t h o r i t y e x i s t i n g i n the present system of r e p r e s e n t a t i v e democracy. T h i s can be po r t r a y e d as a democratic loop ( F r a s e r , 1981, p. 18) of d e c i s i o n makers with the i n d i v i d u a l c i t i z e n at twelve o'clock and i n clo c k w i s e r o t a t i o n : e l e c t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , government p a r t y , l e g i s l a t u r e , m i n i s t e r s , p u b l i c s e r v i c e b u r e a u c r a c i e s , p r o j e c t s and back to the c i t i z e n through p r o j e c t impacts. T h i s i l l u s t r a t e s the d i s t a n c e between the i n d i v i d u a l c i t i z e n ' s i n i t i a l input i n the form of e l e c t i n g a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e and the cha i n of command - 13 -that produces a p r o j e c t t h a t impacts the c i t i z e n . P u b l i c p a r t i c i -p a t i o n attempts to short c i r c u i t t h i s c h a i n of command by working i n a counter c l o c k w i s e d i r e c t i o n and having the c i t i z e n ' s concerns communicated to the p u b l i c s e r v i c e b u r e a u c r a c i e s . The c h a l l e n g e i s to determine which i s s u e s r e q u i r e inputs from the p u b l i c , what segments of the p u b l i c should be c o n s u l t e d , and how the necessary inputs can be obtained most e f f e c t i v e l y (Sewell & P h i l l i p s , 1979, p. 358). P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n Theory There are two general models of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n : the Upward Forming Consensus Model and the B a r g a i n i n g Process Model. The former uses the e x i s t i n g p o l i t i c a l s t r u c t u r e to pass i n f o r m a t i o n , v a l u e s and p r e f e r e n c e s between the p u b l i c and e l e c t e d r e p r e s e n t a -t i v e s , the l a t t e r has p o l i t i c a l pressure groups b a r g a i n i n g with the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e e l i t e f o r mutually advantageous d e c i s i o n s (O'Riordan, 1971, p. 100). The major d i f f e r e n c e between the two models i s the l e v e l of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n that o c c u r s . These models and t h e i r l e v e l s of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n t h i s s e c t i o n along with how p e r c e p t i o n s and a t t i t u d e s a f f e c t the success of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n programs and how programs are e v a l u a t e d f o r success. - 14 -- P u b l i c Involvement Models The Upward Forming Consensus Model and the B a r g a i n i n g Process Model of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n are i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g u r e s 1 and 2. The Upward Forming Consensus Model i s b a s i c a l l y a v e r t i c a l , top-down power s t r u c t u r e with i n f o r m a t i o n flowing down from the top and guidance and g u i d e l i n e s f l o w i n g up from the bottom. The e l e c t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e p r o v i d e s a b u f f e r or f i l t e r between the p u b l i c and the ex e c u t i v e agencies and i t i s t h e i r job to pro v i d e the p u b l i c with the maximum of i n f o r m a t i o n while at the same time p r o t e c t i n g p o l i t i c a l and economic freedom (O'Riordan, 1971, p. 100). I t i s an i d e a l i s t i c model of how p o l i c y i s formulated i n a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e democracy. The two key elements i n t h i s model a r e : the p a r t i c i p a t i o n of an informed p u b l i c , and the maintenance of p u b l i c c o n f i d e n c e through the observable use of p u b l i c input by agency personnel i n the d e c i s i o n making process. The B a r g a i n i n g Process Model i s a c i r c u l a r model where a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s have equal access to in f o r m a t i o n and an equal r o l e i n the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of d e c i s i o n making. An org a n i z e d p u b l i c monitors the d e c i s i o n s of government and only i n areas where there i s unresolved c o n t r o v e r s y does the p u b l i c s t e p i n as a d i r e c t p a r t i c i p a n t i n the d e c i s i o n making pro c e s s . The p r e r e q u i s -i t e s f o r t h i s model to operate are an open and a c c e s s i b l e government with accountable o f f i c i a l s . T h i s model n e c e s s i t a t e s - 15 -the p a r t i c i p a t i o n of an informed, p o l i t i c a l l y a r t i c u l a t e r e p r e -s e n t a t i v e from the p u b l i c and an agency w i l l i n g and a u t h o r i z e d to n e g o t i a t e . The Bargaining Process Model i s p r e f e r r e d by T. O'Riordan because he f e e l s that " p u b l i c p r e f e r e n c e f o r the manner of resource use i s a disaggregated t o t a l of i n d i v i d u a l p r e f e r e n c e s " (O'Riordan, 1971, p. 101) and t h i s i n h i b i t s the e f f e c t i v e e x p r e s s i o n of environmental q u a l i t y g o a l s . O'Riordan i s saying that there i s no consensus of p u b l i c o p i n i o n about how resources should be used. I n d i v i d u a l s have d i f f e r e n t p r e f e r e n c e s which cannot be expressed through the e x i s t i n g system of government which n e c e s s i t a t e s a consensus of o p i n i o n before i t w i l l a c t . The B a r g a i n i n g Process Model of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s more f l e x i b l e , a l l o w i n g p u b l i c p r e f e r e n c e s to be represented by p o l i t i c a l pressure groups which do not need to have a consensus, only prove that they represent l e g i t i m a t e concerns of the p u b l i c . A l s o , because of the f o l l o w i n g four p o i n t s (O'Riordan, 1971, p. 102), p u b l i c consensus i s c o n s i d e r e d imperfect, and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , p r o t e c t e d from p u b l i c o p i n i o n , are the r e a l i n i t i a t o r s of resource management. People are d i f f e r e n t ; there i s an i n t e r p e r s o n a l v a r i a n c e i n human nature. There i s no forum whereby the p u b l i c may express i t s views. There are inadequate i n f o r m a t i o n channels between d e c i s i o n makers and those they a f f e c t . F i n a l l y , d e c i s i o n makers are - 16 -a l i e n a t e d from the p u b l i c owing to the o f t e n emotional, c r i s i s -o r i e n t e d nature of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n environmental i s s u e s . The b a r g a i n i n g process model all o w s the p u b l i c t o express t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e s f o r the manner of resource use through pressure groups which are a u t h o r i z e d to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the d e c i s i o n making pr o c e s s . T h i s opens up the d e c i s i o n making process such that through the b a r g a i n i n g process a d m i n i s t r a t o r s become more informed of p u b l i c p r e f e r e n c e s and are more accountable to the p u b l i c f o r t h e i r resource management d e c i s i o n s . In s i t u a t i o n s where there i s a c l e a r or dev e l o p i n g consensus of p u b l i c o p i n i o n about resource use, then the Upward Forming Consensus Model of P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n i s e f f e c t i v e i n s a t i s f y -ing p u b l i c demands f o r the manner of resource use. I t i s i n areas where there i s u n r e s o l v a b l e c o n f l i c t that the B a r g a i n i n g Process Model of P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n needs to be implemented. - 17 -F i g u r e 1 FLOW DIAGRAM OF THE UPWARD FORMING CONSENSUS MODEL OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION g u i d e l i n e s serve as the parameters w i t h i n which e x e c u t i v e agencies develop and evaluate a l t e r n a t i v e s . G u i d e l i n e s Flow of Informat ion \ E l e c t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s formulate p o l i c y g u i d e l i n e s which r e f l e c t the common o b j e c t i v e s of t h e i r p u b l i c . Flow of Information Flow o Guidance V / Values and p r e f e r e n c e s of the p u b l i c , ( p a r t i c i p a t i o n of an informed p u b l i c ) Adapted from: O'Riordan, 1971 - 18 -F i g u r e 2 FLOW DIAGRAM OF THE BARGAINING PROCESS MODEL OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION N e g o t i a t i o n Responsible E l i t e N e g o t i a t i o n Responsible E l i t e Flow of Informat ion N e g o t i a t i o n E f f e c t i v e p o l i t i c a l p r e s s u r e groups who are f e e l i n g t h reatened by the i m p l i c a t i o n s of management d e c i s i o n s . N e g o t i a t i o n s are t a k i n g p l a c e w i t h i n c o n d i t i o n s of u n c e r t a i n t y but toward mutually advantageous p o s i t i o n s . Adapted from: O'Riordan, 1971 N e c e s s i t a t e s the p a r t i c i p a t i o n of an informed, p o l i t i c a l l y a r t i c u l a t e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e w i l l i n g and a u t h o r i z e d to n e g o t i a t e . - 19 -- L e v e l s of P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n W i t hin both of the models d i s c u s s e d there are d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the d e c i s i o n making p r o c e s s . One of the f i r s t attempts to c a t e g o r i z e these l e v e l s was developed by Sherry A r n s t e i n i n 1969. She d i v i d e d c i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t o three b a s i c l e v e l s : c i t i z e n power, tokenism and n o n p a r t i c i p a t i o n . C i t i z e n power i n v o l v e d c i t i z e n c o n t r o l , d e l e g a t e d power or p a r t n e r s h i p i n the d e c i s i o n making process. Tokenism was c o n s i d -ered to take p l a c e when the p u b l i c were c o n s u l t e d , informed or p l a c a t e d with regards to the agency d e c i s i o n . N o n p a r t i c i p a t i o n was i n e f f e c t when the p u b l i c were i n v o l v e d only as therapy or i n order to manipulate them. Although her c a t e g o r i z a t i o n p l a c e s q u e s t i o n a b l y low value on the importance of p u b l i c c o n s u l t a t i o n and i n f o r m a t i o n t r a n s f e r , as w e l l as having other l i m i t a t i o n s (See: Connor, 1986, p. 3) the typology was one of the f i r s t frameworks provided f o r e v a l u a t i n g p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n programs. The B r i t i s h Columbia M i n i s t r y of F o r e s t ' s P u b l i c Involvement  Handbook ( F r a s e r , 1981) p r o v i d e s a d e s c r i p t i o n of the l e v e l s of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n use i n t h e i r p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n program. They range, u s i n g A r n s t e i n ' s c a t e g o r i z a t i o n , from c i t i z e n power ( j o i n t p l a n n i n g team) to tokenism ( p o s i t i o n p a p e r s ) . F i g u r e 3 l i s t s A r n s t e i n ' s and the B.C. MoF's typology of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n . The B.C. MoF's p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n program - 20 -F i g u r e 3 LEVELS OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION A r n s t e i n ' s Ladder C i t i z e n Power - c i t i z e n c o n t r o l - delegated power - p a r t n e r s h i p Tokenism - p l a c a t i o n - c o n s u l t a t i o n - informing N o n p a r t i c i p a t i o n - therapy - manipulation BCFS P u b l i c Involvement Program EXPANDED PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT J o i n t Planning Team - d e c i s i o n making team - produces a resource p l a n b i n d -ing on a l l p a r t i e s P u b l i c A d v i s o r y Committee - standing committee - reviews f o r e s t mgmt. problems Task Group - one time committee - reviews one s p e c i f i c i s s u e CONSULTATION Workshops - extended p u b l i c meetings - review of i n f o r m a t i o n , d e t a i l e d d e f i n i t i o n of i s s u e s , problem s o l v i n g or p l a n review P u b l i c Meetings - seeking ideas, a i r i n g concerns, communicating p l a n s , p r o p o s a l s and d e c i s i o n s W r i t t e n B r i e f s - seeks views of o r g a n i z e d p u b l i c i n t e r e s t groups, i n d u s t r y and l o c a l government P o s i t i o n Papers - d e f i n e management a l t e r n a t i v e s to t e s t p u b l i c response Adapted from: A r n s t e i n , 1969 and F r a s e r , 1981 - 21 -methods are d i v i d e d i n t o two p a r t s : c o n s u l t a t i o n methods ( p o s i -t i o n papers, w r i t t e n b r i e f s , p u b l i c meetings, or workshops), and extended p u b l i c involvement methods (a task group, a p u b l i c a d v i s o r y committee, or a j o i n t p l a n n i n g team). In 1984 the h i g h e s t l e v e l of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n - the j o i n t p l a n n i n g team-was dropped from the F o r e s t S e r v i c e ' s system of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n because of c o n t r o v e r s y i n i t s a p p l i c a t i o n i n areas such as Meares I s l a n d , l o c a t e d on the coast of Vancouver I s l a n d (B.C.MoF., 1984, chapter 2). The remaining l e v e l s of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n used by the B.C. M i n i s t r y of F o r e s t s p rovide a good g e n e r a l d e s c r i p t i o n of the l e v e l s and methods of p u b l i c p a r t i c i -p a t i o n used by many agencies today. Of s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t i s the weight which F r a s e r puts on an agency's necessary commitment to i t s chosen l e v e l of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n . As the method of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n becomes more complex ( g r e a t e r c i t i z e n power) the agency must show g r e a t e r commitment to support the process and to use the r e s u l t s ( F r a s e r , 1981, p. 109). R a i s i n g p u b l i c expecta-t i o n s and then r e f u s i n g to d e l i v e r on p e r c e i v e d agency commit-ments r e s u l t s i n a l o s s of p u b l i c support f o r agency programs and long term d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with the democratic p r o c e s s . Of the v a r i o u s l e v e l s of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n d e s c r i b e d above, only c i t i z e n power and the now defunct B.C. MoF's j o i n t p l a n n i n g team can be c o n s i d e r e d a part of the b a r g a i n i n g process model of - 22 -p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n . T h i s i s because only at those l e v e l s i s the p u b l i c an equal partner i n the d e c i s i o n making pro c e s s . D. Connor has developed a "New Ladder of C i t i z e n P a r t i c i p a t i o n " (Connor, 1986, p.4) which i s reproduced i n F i g u r e 4. He d i v i d e s t h i s ladder i n t o seven rungs: three l e v e l s of general p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n c o n s i s t i n g of e d u c a t i o n , i n f o r m a t i o n feedback and c o n s u l t a t i o n ; three l e v e l s of l eader p a r t i c i p a t i o n c o n s i s t i n g of j o i n t p l a n n i n g , mediation and l i t i g a t i o n ; and a top l e v e l of r e s o l u t i o n / p r e v e n t i o n . U n l i k e A r n s t e i n ' s Ladder which has unconnected l e v e l s of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n and the B.C. MoF's s e r i e s of methods which are connected but do not n e c e s s a r i l y b u i l d on each other, Connor's Ladder attempts to b r i n g together methods which can be used s e p a r a t e l y or b u i l d together to form a r e s o l u t i o n to c o n t r o v e r s y . Connor's New Ladder i s b a s i c a l l y an Upward Forming Consensus Model of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n . The p u b l i c i s encouraged to advise e l e c t e d o f f i c i a l s who develop g u i d e l i n e s f o r e x e c u t i v e agency a p p r o v a l . There i s an attempt to open the process and b r i n g i n other a f f e c t e d agencies at the j o i n t p l a n n i n g l e v e l but the general p u b l i c ' s r o l e i s s t r i c t l y a d v i s o r y . Connor has t r i e d to formulate a process which would address the c o n f l i c t between agencies and inform the p u b l i c but does not c o n s i d e r i t necessary - 23 -F i g u r e 4 CONNOR'S NEW LADDER RESOLUTION/PREVENTION ^ - sense of e q u i t y - b a s i c a l l y f a i r r e s o l u t i o n - prevents c o n t r o v e r s y LITIGATION \ - may leave p a r t i e s f e e l i n g a n t a g o n i s t i c towards each other - l e g a l s o l u t i o n based on e x i s t i n g l e g i s l a t i o n MEDIATION \ - uses a t e c h n i c a l expert or a b e h a v i o r a l leader - n e c e s s i t a t e s a mature c o n f l i c t , balanced power, w i l l i n g n e s s to n e g o t i a t e JOINT PLANNING \ - needs competent process l e a d e r s h i p by someone other than p r o j e c t manager - workshop environment - i n v o l v e s those with l e g a l j u r i s d i c t i o n CONSULTATION - an a d v i s o r y process - gathers new a l t e r n a t i v e s - develops new e v a l u a t i o n c r i t e r i a INFORMATION FEEDBACK - i n f o r m a t i o n d i s t r i b u t e d - p u b l i c views & a l t e r n a t i v e s o b tained LEADERS GENERAL PUBLIC EDUCATION f - s e n i o r e x e c u t i v e s must know t h e i r p u b l i c s - develop an informed c o n s t i t u e n c y before an i s s u e a r i s e s - P e r c e p t i o n s and A t t i t u d e s i n P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n Adapted from: Connor, 1986 - 24 -to i n c l u d e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of the p u b l i c a t the d e c i s i o n making l e v e l . The B a r g a i n i n g Process Model of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n does not form a part of Connor's Ladder. The b a r g a i n i n g process does occur at the l e v e l of j o i n t p l a n n i n g between ' l e a d e r s ' but without the p a r t i c i p a t i o n of the g e n e r a l p u b l i c . Connor's c r i t e r i o n f o r membership at the j o i n t p l a n n i n g l e v e l i s " l e g a l j u r i s d i c t i o n over some a s p e c t s of the area a f f e c t e d " (Connor, 1986, p. 4). He l i s t s m u n i c i p a l through f e d e r a l agencies along with p r o j e c t developers as those who would normally h o l d j u r i s d i c t i o n and t h e r e f o r e be p o t e n t i a l p a r t i c i p a n t s i n a j o i n t p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s . T h i s excludes those people who f e e l they w i l l be a f f e c t e d by a management p l a n but who are not d i r e c t owners of the r e s o u r c e . I t i s however, p o s s i b l e that h i s c r i t e r i a c o u l d be extended to i n d i v i d u a l s who had a l e g a l i n t e r e s t i n an area d i r e c t l y a f f e c t e d by an agency's management development p l a n s . T h i s would i n c l u d e land owners, l i c e n c e h o l d e r s and perhaps g e n e r a l resource u s e r s . In other words a r e a d i l y i d e n t i f i a b l e subset of the general p u b l i c . With t h i s amendment, one element of Connor's New Ladder c o u l d be used as an example of the B a r g a i n i n g Process Model of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n . - 25 -- P e r c e p t i o n s and A t t i t u d e s i n P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n F r a s e r ' s and Connor's systems of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n s t r e s s the o b j e c t i v e s of reaching an e f f e c t i v e r e s u l t and an e q u i t a b l e s o l u t i o n r e s p e c t i v e l y . These are g o a l o r i e n t e d systems developed to defuse c r i s i s s i t u a t i o n s . They recognize the b e n e f i t s of keeping the p u b l i c informed on an ongoing b a s i s and developing a c o n s t i t u e n c y of informed p u b l i c s but not enough emphasis i s put on t h i s p a r t of the system. P u b l i c p e r c e p t i o n s and a t t i t u d e s towards an agency are developed over time and can have str o n g e f f e c t s on the p u b l i c support f o r an agency's ongoing a c t i v i t i e s . By d e v e l o p i n g p r o p o s a l s i n s e c r e t and u n v e i l i n g f i n i s h e d a l t e r n a -t i v e plans f o r short term p u b l i c a p p r o v a l , p u b l i c c o n t r o v e r s y i s almost guaranteed. I t has been shown that one of the main b e n e f i t s to i n c o r p o r a t i n g p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t o e a r l y p l a n f o r m u l a t i o n i s the r e s u l t a n t p u b l i c commitment to the agency p l a n (Adie & Thomas, 1982, p. 110; Wolf, 1979, pps. 44-45). Why i s i t then, that most agencies wish to keep the p u b l i c at arms l e n g t h i n a s t r i c t l y a d v i s o r y p o s i t i o n ? Most o f t e n i n these times of economic r e s t r a i n t the e x t r a c o s t s i n time and funding f o r p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n are given as reasons for not d e v e l o p i n g thorough p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n programs. Past f a i l u r e s of incomplete p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n programs are a l s o used to defend the agency's u n w i l l i n g n e s s to i n v i t e the p u b l i c i n t o the process at the p l a n n i n g l e v e l . Behind these excuses i s a general u n w i l l i n g n e s s - 26 -to accept the p u b l i c as a partner i n the d e c i s i o n making process and the reasons f o r t h i s are more a t t i t u d i n a l than reasonable. There i s a tendency i n many managers to cut o f f l i n e s of commun-i c a t i o n with the p u b l i c so that they can 'get on with t h e i r work' or reduce p u b l i c c o n t r o v e r s y . In many cases t h i s i s a b l i n d f o r the b e l i e f that 'experts' have the r i g h t to e x e r c i s e p r o f e s s i o n a l judgement unchallenged because they have s t u d i e d a s u b j e c t and know more than the general p u b l i c . Although t h i s i s true i n t e c h n i c a l matters, there are always o p t i o n s and c h o i c e s to be made which are o u t s i d e of the s t r i c t l y t e c h n i c a l sphere. These c h o i c e s are o f t e n c u l t u r a l , based upon p e r s o n a l and p r o f e s s i o n a l b e l i e f s as to what i s best f o r s o c i e t y (Duerr, 1982, p. 9). I t i s necessary f o r ' p r o f e s s i o n a l s ' to c a s t a s i d e t h e i r 'expertism' and meet the p u b l i c on a one-to-one b a s i s so that maximum b e n e f i t s from communication can take p l a c e (Sewell & P h i l l i p s , 1979, p. 358) . Managers o f t e n c l a i m that they are f o l l o w i n g p o l i c y i n these matters and that i t i s necessary f o r the p u b l i c to pressure p o l i t i c i a n s to make a p o l i t i c a l d e c i s i o n i f they are unhappy about the process of d e c i s i o n making. P o l i c y developed f e d e r a l l y or p r o v i n c i a l l y i s unable to c o n s i d e r a l l the d i f f e r e n t c o n d i -t i o n s under which i t w i l l be a p p l i e d and t h e r e f o r e i t i s neces-sary that there be some leeway fo r l o c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and - 27 -a p p l i c a t i o n . Managers do have t h i s leeway and an amount of f l e x i b i l i t y i n t h e i r program implementation. What i s necessary i s a f a i r and e q u i t a b l e process of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n such that managers are not f o r c e d to change t h e i r plans f o r every s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t group yet are seen to respond to the v a l i d concerns of the p u b l i c that are impacted by management d e c i s i o n s . Without a c c e p t i n g the p u b l i c as a l i m i t e d p a r t n e r in management d e c i s i o n s t h e r e can be no development of an e f f e c t i v e p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n p r o c e s s and without an e f f e c t i v e p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n process there w i l l be c o n t i n u i n g negative impacts on management d e c i s i o n s from a d i s s a t i s f i e d p u b l i c . - E v a l u a t i o n of P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n Programs A review of Canadian case s t u d i e s i n p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n (Burton, 1979) sees l i t t l e i n the way of formal e v a l u a t i o n of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n programs, and i n the m a j o r i t y of cases programs were an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r the p u b l i c to inform and c o n s u l t , but not to a d v i s e and consent (Burton, 1979, p. 18). Without formal e v a l u a t i o n the o p p o r t u n i t y to l e a r n from the v a r i o u s p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n experiences i s l o s t . I f the p u b l i c i s not allowed to p a r t i c i p a t e d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y i n the d e c i s i o n making process, so that they can see t h e i r input as a p a r t of the f i n a l d e c i s i o n , a major b e n e f i t of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a -t i o n - a c t i v e p u b l i c support f o r management plans - can be l o s t . - 28 -The e v a l u a t i o n of any program begins with an a n a l y s i s of how the programs o b j e c t i v e s were met. What i s perhaps not so obvious i s that o v e r a l l s a t i s f a c t i o n with a program may not occur even i f the program's s t a t e d o b j e c t i v e s were f u l f i l l e d . T h i s i s because d i f f e r e n t p a r t i c i p a n t s i n a program have d i f f e r e n t e x p e c t a t i o n s fo r t h a t program and t h e r e f o r e d i f f e r e n t o b j e c t i v e s (Wolf, 1979, p. 45). Each set of p a r t i c i p a n t ' s o b j e c t i v e s and the l e v e l of s a t i s f a c t i o n that they f e e l with the program must be i d e n t i f i e d in order to assess how w e l l the program met i t s m u l t i p l e objec-t i v e s . In t h i s context i t might be argued that i t would be more e f f i c i e n t to be very c l e a r about the terms of r e f e r e n c e of the program so that p a r t i c i p a n t s would not have r a i s e d e x p e c t a t i o n s i n the f i r s t p l a c e . As i f i n r e p l y to t h i s argument Wolf s t a t e s : " i f i t i s not reco g n i z e d that c i t i z e n s p a r t i c i p a t e on the assumption that t h e i r input w i l l be a c o n t r i b u t i o n to d e c i s i o n making, c i t i z e n d i s i l l u s i o n m e n t w i l l q u i c k l y develop as i t becomes c l e a r that t h i s most c r u c i a l o b j e c t i v e i s not p r o p e r l y accommodated" (Wolf, 1979, p. 46). In s e a r c h i n g f o r a process of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n e v a l u a t i o n i t became c l e a r that those which e x i s t a l l have major flaws (Sewell & P h i l l i p s , 1979). If an e v a l u a t i o n procedure i s to be s u c c e s s f u l i t must f u l f i l l the f o l l o w i n g four needs: - 29 -1) The need f o r independent e v a l u a t i o n . - an e v a l u a t o r has to be independent i n order to maintain the c r e d i b i l i t y of a l l those with d i f f e r e n t o b j e c t i v e s f o r the program 2) The need f o r e v a l u a t i o n as an ongoing p r o c e s s . - t h i s would allow a process to be more s u c c e s s f u l by being adaptable to the changing needs of i t s p a r t i c i p a n t s d u r i n g the process 3) The need to broaden the b a s i s f o r e v a l u a t i o n . - t h i s c o u l d i n c l u d e a range of i s s u e s from the c o s t - e f f e c -t i v e n e s s of a program to what s o c i a l gains have been achieved 4) The need to r e s o l v e l e g i t i m a t e concerns. - the p u b l i c needs to know whether i t s views were c o n s i d e r e d and how such views i n f l u e n c e d the f i n a l outcome (Adapted from: Sewell & P h i l i p s , 1979, pps. 356-358) Connor agrees with the need f o r e v a l u a t i o n as an ongoing process, and p r o v i d e s a thorough methodology for e v a l u a t i n g a program by the agency concerned (Connor, 1985, p. III-9) but does not address key needs f o r ; an independent e v a l u a t i o n , broadening the b a s i s f o r e v a l u a t i o n , and r e s o l v i n g l e g i t i m a t e concerns. - 30 -Summation P u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s a p a r t of the theory of p a r t i c i p a t o r y democracy. I t can be i n c l u d e d i n the present system of r e p r e -s e n t a t i v e democracy, and r e s u l t i n a s t r o n g e r , more s t a b l e system of government than e x i s t s today. The B a r g a i n i n g Process Model of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s p r e f e r r e d to the Upward Forming Consensus Model because i t allows the p u b l i c to express t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e s f o r the manner of resource use through p r e s s u r e groups which are a u t h o r i z e d to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the d e c i s i o n making process. The Upward Forming Consensus Model i s e f f e c t i v e when there i s a d e v e l o p i n g consensus. When there i s no consensus of o p i n i o n , the B a r g a i n i n g Process Model can be used to b r i n g opposing concerns together to achieve a r e s o l u t i o n of c o n f l i c t . Connor's New Ladder, m o d i f i e d to i n c l u d e the p u b l i c at the j o i n t p l a n n i n g team l e v e l , i s the most complete and i n t e g r a t e d set of p u b l i c p a r t i c i -p a t i o n methodologies a v a i l a b l e . T h i s r e s e a r c h w i l l look at how e f f e c t i v e these models are i n p r a c t i s e . The p u b l i c needs to be brought i n t o the i n i t i a l stages of the p l a n n i n g process as a partner equal to 'experts'. Ongoing, independent e v a l u a t i o n of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n programing i s necessary f o r the r e a l i z a t i o n of an e f f e c t i v e process of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n to develop. - 31 -Connor i n h i s 'New Ladder' i s quoted i n t h i s chapter (p. 22) as s t r e s s i n g the n e c e s s i t y f o r e d u c a t i o n , i n f o r m a t i o n feedback and c o n s u l t a t i o n with the general p u b l i c . T h i s w i l l form the f i r s t component of my research o b j e c t i v e : communication methods used i n the p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n program. Sewell & P h i l i p s are quoted as (p. 28) emphasizing the need to r e s o l v e l e g i t i m a t e concerns of the p u b l i c . The second component of my r e s e a r c h o b j e c t i v e w i l l look at p u b l i c i s s u e s over time to see i f the park agency knew what they were and were ab l e to r e s o l v e them by the end of the p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n program. T h i s chapter a l s o showed the importance of p u b l i c a t t i t u d e s and p e r c e p t i o n s i n the development of p u b l i c support f o r an agency's ongoing a c t i v i t i e s (p. 24). Although support of park management s t r a t e g i e s i s not always the r e s u l t of a p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n program, the development of support i n d i c a t e s that the p u b l i c and the park agency have gone through a process of mutual change of a t t i t u d e s and p e r c e p t i o n s towards each o t h e r . The t h i r d component of my researach o b j e c t i v e w i l l look at the a t t i t u d e s and p e r c e p t i o n s of the p u b l i c and the park agency towards each o t h e r . The c h a l l e n g e i s to communicate an agency's o b j e c t i v e s and a c t i v i t i e s to the p u b l i c and gather p u b l i c o p i n i o n , determine which i s s u e s r e q u i r e inputs from the p u b l i c , and develop p o s i t i v e working R e l a t i o n s h i p s with the p u b l i c . I t i s t h i s c h a l l e n g e which forms the rese a r c h base f o r t h i s paper and which i s d i r e c t l y - 32 -r e f l e c t e d i n these three main components of the broad o b j e c t i v e ( d i s c u s s e d i n Chapter I ) ; park communication methods, park i s s u e s , and park agency r e l a t i o n s h i p s with the p u b l i c . The f o u r t h component of the r e s e a r c h o b j e c t i v e i n v e s t i g a t e s the r e l a t i o n s h i p between these components and the respondent's home d i s t a n c e from the study s i t e to see i f there i s any v a r i a t i o n i n survey response over d i s t a n c e . The next chapter reviews p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n p o l i c y i n the Canadian F e d e r a l Government, Parks Canada and B.C. P r o v i n c i a l Parks. The models of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n w i l l be compared to e x i s t i n g p o l i c y to see which model i s used the most i n p r a c t i c e . Parks Canada p o l i c y w i l l then be compared to t h e i r p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n program i n the Four Mountain Parks Planning Program. - 33 -CHAPTER III OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION T h i s chapter w i l l look at p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n from a f e d e r a l p e r s p e c t i v e i n Parks Canada, through a p r o v i n c i a l p e r s p e c t i v e i n B.C. Parks, down to the workings of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the pl a n n i n g process f o r Kalamalka Lake P r o v i n c i a l Park. The f i n d i n g s of a review of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n programs from a c r o s s Canada w i l l be summarized. Parks Canada's p o l i c i e s w i l l be reviewed and compared to t h e i r workings i n p r a c t i c e . B.C. Parks p o l i c i e s on p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n w i l l a l s o be reviewed and a survey of the methods used i n t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n w i l l be pr e s e n t e d . P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n In Canada The purpose of t h i s s e c t i o n i s to develop a g e n e r a l understanding of the Canadian experience i n p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n . T h i s i s not a comprehensive review of a l l l e v e l s of government and t h e i r e x p eriences i n p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n . There are too many d i f f e r e n t agencies with too many d i f f e r e n t experiences i n p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a -t i o n to be reviewed w i t h i n the l i m i t a t i o n s of t h i s r e s e a r c h . Nor would the outcome of such a review of agencies with d i f f e r e n t - 34 -mandates and r e g u l a t i o n s n e c e s s a r i l y add s u b s t a n t i v e l y to t h i s t o p i c . At the f e d e r a l l e v e l , the A i r p o r t s d i v i s i o n of Transport Canada, and Parks Canada ( d e t a i l e d i n Chapter I I I ) are some of the agencies which have e x t e n s i v e p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n programs, as we l l as the gene r a l F e d e r a l Environmental Assessment and Review Process (EARP), which i s only a p p l i c a b l e to f e d e r a l p r o j e c t s , programs and a c t i v i t i e s that might have an adverse e f f e c t on the environment. In the EARP process, the Exe c u t i v e Chairman of the Fed e r a l Environmental Assessment Review O f f i c e a ppoints a panel of 'experts' to whom the p u b l i c give t h e i r comments and from whom a recommendation i s sent to the a p p r o p r i a t e m i n i s t e r s f o r approval (Lang & Armour, 1981, p.19). Although the EARP process has g u i d e l i n e s , the p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n methods used to achieve the d e s i r e d r e s u l t s are not d e t a i l e d i n the gene r a l g u i d e l i n e s . The Berger I n q u i r y on the Mackenzie V a l l e y P i p e l i n e i s perhaps the most w e l l known commission of i n q u i r y that had d i r e c t p u b l i c input. P u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n may or may not form a l a r g e p a r t of these processes depending on the i n d i v i d u a l s i n charge of the pro c e s s . The F e d e r a l Government's use of the process of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a -t i o n w i l l vary depending on the people s e t t i n g i t up and the i n s t i t u t i o n a l s e t t i n g . T h i s i s a l s o true at the p r o v i n c i a l and - 35 -m u n i c i p a l l e v e l . C e n t r a l i s t government a u t h o r i t y , whether f e d e r a l or p r o v i n c i a l , can and does l i m i t the amount of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a -t i o n t h a t an agency i s allowed to r e c r u i t . Even i f an EARP s o c i a l impact a n a l y s i s c a l l s f o r p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n , because i t i s not d e f i n e d s p e c i f i c a l l y and may not have government support, l i t t l e a c t u a l p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n may r e s u l t . For the purposes of t h i s r e s e a r c h the most p r a c t i c a l approach to a general understanding of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n Canada i s a review of i n d i v i d u a l p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n programs. Thomas Burton reviewed 102 cases of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n from across Canada. T h i s review p r o v i d e s a b a s i s f o r g a i n i n g a g e n e r a l understanding of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n Canada and an excerpt w i l l be quoted here f o r that purpose. What c o n c l u s i o n s can be drawn from the f i n d i n g s of the study? The Canadian experience has c l e a r l y been c o n s i d e r a b l e and has touched almost a l l regions of the c o u n t r y . The focus of a t t e n t i o n appears to have been upon i s s u e s r e l a t i n g to general urban planning and development o c c u r r i n g mainly at the neighborhood and community l e v e l s . Adversary s i t u a t i o n s are c l e a r l y e v i d e n t , but the c o o p e r a t i v e venture i s more p r e v a l e n t . The p r i n c i p a l o b j e c t i v e appears to be to c o l l e c t and/or disseminate i n f o r m a t i o n , while the primary technique i s the p u b l i c meeting. There appears to be r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e concern f o r formal e v a l u a t i o n of the p a r t i c i p a -t o r y e x p e r i e n c e . A l l of t h i s leads the w r i t e r to conclude t h a t , i n the l a r g e m a j o r i t y of cases, p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n Canada has been seen as an o p p o r t u n i t y fo r the p u b l i c to inform and c o n s u l t , but not to advise and consent. (Burton, 1979, p.18) - 36 -T h i s review took p l a c e e i g h t y e a r s ago and no s i m i l a r review has been p u b l i s h e d s i n c e . The g e n e r a l atmosphere surrounding p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n s t i l l seems to be one of i n f o r m a t i o n and c o n s u l t a t i o n with l i m i t e d i nroads at the a d v i s o r y l e v e l . For example: the Meares I s l a n d J o i n t Planning Team e s t a b l i s h e d by the M i n i s t r y of F o r e s t s i n B r i t i s h Columbia allowed f o r d i r e c t p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the d e c i s i o n making process, but t h e i r recom-mendations were taken as a d v i s o r y and not acted upon (McWilliams, 1985, p. 32). Although the process was supposed to occur at the consent l e v e l i t was lowered to the a d v i s o r y l e v e l . The people who worked f o r many months p r e p a r i n g the f i n a l r e p o r t should have been informed why t h e i r a d v i s e was not p a r t of the f i n a l d e c i s -i o n . The p u b l i c were in f a c t o n l y c o n s u l t e d and that i s the l e v e l of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n which a c t u a l l y o c c u r r e d . The process was i n p l a c e but the p o l i t i c a l w i l l t o c a r r y i t through was absent. Based on the evidence examined up to t h i s p o i n t i t would appear that the p u b l i c has not been a b l e to e f f e c t i v e l y bridge the 'democratic loop' ( r e f e r r e d to i n the p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n on The P o l i t i c a l Theory of P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n ) , to d i r e c t l y i n f l u e n c e the p u b l i c s e r v i c e b u r e a u c r a c i e s . Even in the most d i r e c t p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n , such as the Berger I n q u i r y , a r e p o r t to government was the f i n a l outcome; no d e c i s i o n making took p l a c e w i t h i n the p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n p r o c e s s . T h i s p l a c e s the Canadian p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n process f i r m l y w i t h i n the Upward Forming Consensus - 37 -Model of P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n d i s c u s s e d i n Chapter I I . The lack of a w e l l d e f i n e d p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n process i n some cases and the p o l i t i c a l w i l l to support t h a t process i n other cases has meant that the p u b l i c has been kept 'at arms le n g t h ' from the government programs that are a f f e c t i n g t h e i r l i v e s . P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n Parks Canada Parks Canada c o n s i d e r s the purpose of t h e i r EARP impact a n a l y s i s to be t o : "ensure environmental and s o c i a l i m p l i c a t i o n s were con s i d e r e d d u r i n g the development of each pr o p o s a l r a t h e r than conducting a r e a c t i v e assessment of p r o p o s a l s " (Parks Canada, 1986(a), p. 77). EARP g u i d e l i n e s do not say how environmental and s o c i a l i m p l i c a t i o n s are to be taken i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n , whereas Parks Canada's p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n program g i v e s the p u b l i c a chance to v o i c e t h e i r o p i n i o n on how w e l l Parks Canada has taken these i m p l i c a t i o n s i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n . Parks Canada has very s p e c i f i c p o l i c y g u i d e l i n e s f o r p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n . T h e i r 1982 Parks P o l i c y s t a t e s : Parks Canada w i l l provide o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n at n a t i o n a l , r e g i o n a l and l o c a l l e v e l s , i n the development of p o l i c i e s and p l a n s . Parks Canada i s committed to the p r i n c i p l e of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n and w i l l encourage i t to the f u l l e s t extent p o s s i b l e . The u l t i m a t e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r p o l i c i e s and plans and t h e i r implementation r e s t s with the M i n i s t e r r e s p o n s i b l e f o r Parks Canada. - 38 -P u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n p r e s e n t s numerous advantages. I t allows people i n t e r e s t e d i n h e r i t a g e i s s u e s to meet and exchange i n f o r m a t i o n and p o i n t s of view. C i t i z e n s ' ideas and comments can provide v a l u a b l e input t o the p o l i c y making and pl a n n i n g p r o c e s s . P u b l i c input becomes an i n t e g r a l p a r t of t h i s process and r e s u l t s i n b e t t e r d e c i s i o n s . Through such p a r t i c i p a t i o n , there can be a b e t t e r understanding of the o b j e c t i v e s of Parks Canada and i n c r e a s e d p u b l i c support e s s e n t i a l f o r h e r i t a g e p r o t e c t i o n . There i s no s i n g l e p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n mechanism s u i t a b l e to every s i t u a t i o n . T h e r e f o r e o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n w i l l be p r o v i d e d i n a v a r i e t y of ways: p u b l i c i n f o r m a t i o n meetings, workshops, q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , i n t e r v i e w s , p u b l i c h e a r i n g s , seminars, p u b l i c a t i o n s , or a d v i s o r y committees. (Parks Canada, 1981, p.13) T h i s p o l i c y d e s c r i b e s an Upward Forming Consensus model of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Although approaching 'motherhood' statements, t h i s p o l i c y p l a c e s p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n f i r m l y w i t h i n the p l a n n i n g process as a pa r t of d e c i s i o n making and as such f o l l o w s c l o s e l y the i d e a l a p p l i c a t i o n of the Upward Forming Consensus Model. An ongoing example of t h i s p o l i c y i n a c t i o n i s the Four Mountain Parks Planning Program t a k i n g p l a c e w i t h i n the Western Region of Parks Canada. Steve Kun, Parks Canada's D i r e c t o r General of the Western Region s t a t e d i n a newsletter i n regard to t h i s Program t h a t : In circumstances where d e c i s i o n s are made i n the Four Mountain Parks program that are c o n t r a r y to obtained p u b l i c o p i n i o n , we w i l l e x p l a i n p u b l i c l y the reasons f o r the p o s i t i o n that has been taken. In conducting the p u b l i c c o n s u l t a t i o n program, every attempt w i l l be made; - 39 -- to maintain continued p u b l i c i n t e r e s t and involvement, - to s o l i c i t comments from a broad range of people i n c l u d i n g s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t groups, government and commercial i n t e r e s t s , - to c l a r i f y the r o l e of p u b l i c o p i n i o n i n the p l a n n i n g and d e c i s i o n making process, - to keep the p u b l i c informed of the p l a n n i n g program s t a t u s throughout i t s d u r a t i o n , - t o p r o v i d e summaries of a l l comments, suggestions and o p i n i o n s r e c e i v e d throughout the course of the program, and - to assume a c c o u n t a b i l i t y f o r responding to p u b l i c comments in the development of the park management p l a n s . (Parks Canada, 1986 ( b ) , p.7) T h i s commitment on the p a r t of the D i r e c t o r General seems to d i s p e l a l l of O'Riordan's (Chapter II) c r i t i c i s m s of the Upward Forming Consensus Model, but the r e a l t e s t i s i n how these commitments are f u l f i l l e d . O'Riordan c r i t i c i s e d the Upward Forming Consensus Model of P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n (Chapter I I ) , f o r a l i e n a t i n g d e c i s i o n makers from the g e n e r a l p u b l i c . The a l i e n a t i o n of decisionmakers, i n t h i s case park personnel, cam l i m i t the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of a p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n program. Park personnel can be ' a l i e n a t e d ' from the p u b l i c when they do not see the value of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n , c o n s i d e r i n g i t something that i s f o r c e d on them by upper l e v e l s of the bureaucracy, a waste of money taken from areas where i t i s - 40 -d i r e l y needed, and j u s t another blockage that keeps them from c a r r y i n g out the plans that they have the experience and p r o f e s -s i o n a l t r a i n i n g to do. The Four Mountain Parks Planning Program w i l l be reviewed i n terms of p u b l i c c r i t i c i s m s which were obtained through the program and a l s o i n terms of the a l i e n a t i o n of parks p e r s o n n e l . F i g u r e 5 i l l u s t r a t e s the timing of p u b l i c input i n t o the p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s . At the time of t h i s w r i t i n g Parks Canada had completed the f i n a l p u b l i c input (Nov. - D e c , 1986) on the Four Mountain Parks P l a n n i n g Program, j u s t before the issuance of the f i n a l park management p l a n s . Three major documents were reviewed as the b a s i s f o r the ensuing commentary. These documents are: P u b l i c  Response Report, on the 4 Mountain Parks Planning S c e n a r i o , 1985; Background Reports and Core Concept Reports, on each of the four parks, 1986. In g e n e r a l , these were c l e a r and thorough informa-t i o n packages. They represent a great d e a l of work on the p a r t of parks planners and were s u c c e s s f u l i n many ways o u t s i d e the focus of t h i s c r i t i q u e . T h e i r main f a i l i n g was that they were not w e l l designed f o r p u b l i c use and they d i d not d i r e c t l y r e f l e c t p u b l i c i n p u t . The P u b l i c Response Report should have had a general summary s e c t i o n to give an o v e r a l l f e e l i n g f o r p u b l i c i n p u t . The Background Reports and the Core Concept Reports should have had l e s s data i n v e n t o r y and more s y n t h e s i s of data d i s c u s s i n g where the park management of v a r i o u s areas was going and what i t was - 41 -hoping to a c h i e v e . T h i s p o i n t may be open to c r i t i c i s m given that p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n programs have a l s o been o b j e c t e d to because they l e a d the p u b l i c with completed plans i n s t e a d of l e a v i n g the o p t i o n s open f o r the p u b l i c t o suggest t h e i r own p l a n s . There i s however, a middle ground between raw data and completed p l a n s where the p u b l i c has something of substance to comment on yet i s not presented with completed p l a n s . T h i s would have allowed the p u b l i c to comment on the o b j e c t i v e s of park management s t r a t e -g i e s . P u b l i c comments should have appeared next t o the a p p r o p r i -ate park management pl a n s i n the Core Concept Reports. Any d i f f e r e n c e s between the two sh o u l d have been e x p l a i n e d a t the p o i n t where they were p r e s e n t e d - not l e f t to be i n c l u d e d i n some a u x i l i a r y document to the f i n a l management plan as i s the park agency's present i n t e n t i o n . F i g u r e 5 The Planning Process Pfogram Introduction Draft Purpose and Objectives Statement Issue klentiticabon Management Framework -Four Mountain Parks Park Management Plans »o» Banff. Jasper. Kootenay and Voho (approved by Minrswr) Minister's Approval (Parks Canada, 1986 ( b ) , p.4) - 42 -P u b l i c comments reg a r d i n g the p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n p l a n n i n g , c o n t a i n e d i n the P u b l i c Response Report (pps. 104 - 109), were mostly n e g a t i v e . Summarizing these comments i t appears that the p u b l i c p e r c e p t i o n of the process was that the parks personnel were going to do what they wanted and p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n was j u s t an e x e r c i s e i n p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s . P u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n must not only be implemented, i t must be seen to be implemented. In other words the p u b l i c must be shown where t h e i r input has been used and must be given reasons why t h e i r input has not been used. There seems to be an a t t i t u d i n a l problem, both with Parks Canada personnel and the p u b l i c who were p a r t of the p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a -t i o n program. Based on c o n v e r s a t i o n s with Parks Canada personnel, some park personnel are not committed to implementing an e f f e c -t i v e p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n program because they don't f e e l i t c o n t r i b u t e s to the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h e i r job and c o s t s money which they see b e t t e r a p p l i e d i n other a r e a s . The p u b l i c a l s o develops a negative a t t i t u d e towards p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n when they commit themselves to a program and then f i n d t h e i r input does not seem t o produce any r e s u l t s . The present process of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n needs to be r e - e v a l u a t e d and made more e f f e c t i v e both from the agency and the p u b l i c p o i n t of view. - 43 -In the Background Report f o r Banff N a t i o n a l Park, s e c t i o n f i v e on Planning C o n s i d e r a t i o n s , c o n t a i n e d i n a l l the other three park r e p o r t s , i s l e f t out. When ques t i o n e d at the p u b l i c meeting i n Vancouver, March 9, 1987, park p l a n n e r s responded t h a t there were space l i m i t a t i o n s and that the p u b l i c input had taken p l a c e too long ago. The P l a n n i n g C o n s i d e r a t i o n s s e c t i o n c o n t a i n e d past plans f o r the park, r e s u l t s of p u b l i c c o n s u l t a t i o n programs, requirements f o r i n t e r p a r k c o o r d i n a t i o n , and r e g i o n a l c o n s i d e r a -t i o n s . For p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n to be e f f e c t i v e , background i n f o r m a t i o n of t h i s type i s of paramount importance because the p u b l i c needs to know the o v e r a l l d i r e c t i o n of p l a n n i n g and past p u b l i c i s s u e s i n order to develop an o p i n i o n on f u t u r e p l a n n i n g d i r e c t i o n s . To omit the p l a n n i n g s e c t i o n from the Background  Report on Banff shows a lac k of understanding of the purpose of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n and, s i n c e d e c i s i o n s of t h i s s o r t occur at the management l e v e l of an o r g a n i z a t i o n , r e v e a l s a l a c k of understanding or agreement with the p r i n c i p l e s of p u b l i c p a r t i c i -p a t i o n at the management l e v e l . The parks agency has implemented a p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n process i n such a way that the p u b l i c are kept at arms l e n g t h , by m i n imizing t h e i r apparent c o n t r i b u t i o n to the d e c i s i o n making pro c e s s , by not i d e n t i f y i n g where p u b l i c input i n f l u e n c e d the development of core concepts, and by c o n f u s i n g the p u b l i c through - 44 -d i s t r i b u t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n about the parks i n an incomplete and unmanageable format. These c r i t i c i s m s of Parks Canada's Four Mountain Parks Planning Program have focused i n on one p o r t i o n of a massive program. They have been made i n i s o l a t i o n from the i n s t i t u t i o n a l framework of Parks Canada. The i n s t i t u t i o n a l framework may have c o n t r i b u t e d to the problem by l i m i t i n g park personnel's a b i l i t y to change i n e f f e c t i v e p o l i c i e s . I t i s , however, o u t s i d e the scope of t h i s paper to do a d e t a i l e d examination of Parks Canada's i n s t i t u -t i o n a l framework. No matter how a d d i t i o n a l f a c t o r s may have l e d to the development of these problems, the r e s u l t i s a p a r t i a l f a i l u r e to achieve the major goal o f . p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n : " b e t t e r understanding of the o b j e c t i v e s of Parks Canada and i n c r e a s e d p u b l i c support e s s e n t i a l f o r h e r i t a g e p r o t e c t i o n " (Parks Canada, 1981, p. 13). P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n B.C. P r o v i n c i a l Parks 2 B.C. Parks P o l i c y approves of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the park master pla n n i n g p r o c e s s . Approval i s based upon the terms of r e f e r e n c e that are developed f o r each park p r o j e c t . Terms of 2 B.C. Parks uses the term 'involvement' here but f o r the sake of c o n s i s t e n c y ' p a r t i c i p a t i o n ' w i l l c o ntinue to be used. - 45 -ref e r e n c e must be approved by the Manager of Planning and Research i n V i c t o r i a or h i g h e r . Approval f o r p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s obtained based upon an e v a l u a t i o n r e g a r d i n g the need f o r p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n . C r i t e r i a f o r t h i s e v a l u a t i o n are quoted from B.C. Parks P o l i c y : T h i s e v a l u a t i o n c o n s i s t s of three major c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , wherein a "high" ranking f o r one or more of these f a c t o r s i n d i c a t e s that some form of p u b l i c involvement may be a d v i s a b l e : (a) s t r e n g t h of p u b l i c i n t e r e s t i n the park among l o c a l r e s i d e n t s . (b) presence and d i v e r s i t y of vested i n t e r e s t s i n the park ( t r a d i t i o n a l uses, l o c a l b u s i n e s s e s , co-funding agencies, e t c . ) (c) p r o v i n c i a l s i g n i f i c a n c e ( c o n s e r v a t i o n and r e c r e a -t i o n ) of the park. (B.C. Parks, 1984) Since terms of re f e r e n c e are developed at the l o c a l l e v e l and approved at the p r o v i n c i a l l e v e l , t h i s process i s a pa r t of the Upward Forming Consensus Model of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n . The p o l i c y statement does go on to say that "the terms of r e f e r e n c e w i l l c o n s i d e r the degree of d e c i s i o n making f l e x i b i l i t y " (B.C. Parks, 1984, p. 2). T h i s c o u l d be i n t e r p r e t e d to allow a high degree of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the d e c i s i o n making process, and i f so r e s u l t i n a s h o r t - c i r c u i t i n g of the 'Democratic Loop', r e f e r r e d to i n Chapter I I . T h i s i s however sub j e c t to M i n i s t e r i a l a pproval and i t s a p p l i c a t i o n and/or acceptance when completed i s - 46 -very much i n q u e s t i o n depending upon the a l i e n a t i o n of d e c i s i o n -makers from the p u b l i c (O'Riordan, 1971, p. 102). A survey was sent out i n December of 1986 to the three Regional Managers of B.C. P r o v i n c i a l Parks: Mel Turner of the South Coast Region; P h i l i p W h i t f i e d of the Southern I n t e r i o r Region; and Mike Murtha of the Northern Region. Each manager was asked t o say which parks i n h i s region have had some p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e i r development. They were a l s o asked to i n d i c a t e the l e v e l of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n that took p l a c e . The l i s t of e i g h t l e v e l s of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n used i n the survey was taken from the parks p o l i c y on p u b l i c involvement in p l a n n i n g (B.C. Parks, 1984, p. 2) and i s reproduced i n Table 1. Managers s a i d that most parks had some l e v e l of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a -t i o n i n t h e i r development, most of i t c o n s u l t a t i o n with s e l e c t e d i n d i v i d u a l s and groups. Some managers were unable to f i n d out what s p e c i f i c p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n took p l a c e before t h e i r appointment so the r e s u l t s are to be c o n s i d e r e d g e n e r a l r a t h e r than comprehensive. Forty-seven parks were named as having been p a r t of a pl a n n i n g process with many parks using a combination of the d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n . The plan n i n g process c o n s i s t e d of one of e i t h e r a master p l a n , a system p l a n , park p r o p o s a l , park extension p r o p o s a l or proposed r e c r e a t i o n land d e s i g n a t i o n . Table 1 shows the r e s u l t s of t h i s survey. - 47 -TABLE 1 - L e v e l s of P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n L e v e l of P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n No. Times Used No. | % a) Survey of p u b l i c o p i n i o n 6 7 b) A d v i s o r y Committee 15 16 c) C o n s u l t a t i o n with s e l e c t e d i n d i v i d u a l s and groups 20 22 d) Media i n f o r m a t i o n 8 9 e) Open i n v i t a t i o n f o r p u b l i c input 16 1 7 f) P u b l i c p r e s e n t a t i o n s , open houses, d i s p l a y s 1 1 12 g) P u b l i c hearings/meetings 8 9 h) Planning workshops ( i ) open p a r t i c i p a t i o n 4 4 ( i i ) c l o s e d p a r t i c i p a t i o n 4 4 TOTALS 92 100 The most o f t e n used l e v e l s of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n are: c o n s u l t a -t i o n with s e l e c t e d i n d i v i d u a l s and groups; open i n v i t a t i o n f o r p u b l i c in p u t ; the a d v i s o r y committee; and p u b l i c p r e s e n t a t i o n s , open houses, and d i s p l a y s . T h i s agrees with Burton's f i n d i n g s on Canadian p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a -t i o n programs, presented e a r l i e r i n t h i s c hapter, that most o f t e n the p u b l i c were given an o p p o r t u n i t y to inform and c o n s u l t , but not to a dvise and consent. The one p o s s i b l e e x c e p t i o n i s i n the use of the Advisory Committee, the workings of which w i l l be looked at i n d e t a i l in the next chapter. - 48 -Summation T h i s chapter has shown that p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n Canada at the F e d e r a l and P r o v i n c i a l Parks l e v e l i s a p a r t of the Upward Forming Consensus Model of P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n . The p u b l i c were informed and c o n s u l t e d , but not allowed to a dvise or consent. In the case of Parks Canada's Four Mountain Parks Planning Process, the importance of d i s t r i b u t i n g c l e a r i n f o r m a t i o n to the p u b l i c and i d e n t i f y i n g where the p u b l i c input i n f l u e n c e d the f i n a l d e c i s i o n s was emphasized. The methods of t r a n s f e r r i n g i n f o r m a t i o n to the p u b l i c and demon-s t r a t i n g how p u b l i c o p i n i o n was c o n s i d e r e d i n the development of management plans are core components of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n . They w i l l be i n v e s t i g a t e d f u r t h e r under the 'communication methods' component of the case study. The next chapter w i l l look at the study s e t t i n g and the events connected with the p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n program case study, and e x p l a i n the r e s e a r c h methodology. - 49 -CHAPTER IV BACKGROUND MATERIAL AND RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The purpose of t h i s chapter i s to d e s c r i b e the s e t t i n g of the study s i t e , Kalamalka Lake P r o v i n c i a l Park, and to e x p l a i n the use of key a c t o r i n t e r v i e w s i n t h i s r e s e a r c h . The i n i t i a l reasons fo r choosing Kalamalka Lake P r o v i n c i a l Park to study a p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n program w i l l be e x p l a i n e d as a par t of the f i r s t s e c t i o n on the study s e t t i n g . The h i s t o r i c a l background and the p o l i t i c a l environment w i l l a l s o be d e s c r i b e d as they p l a y an important r o l e i n determining the dynamics of the p u b l i c p a r t i c i -p a t i o n program. The use of key a c t o r i n t e r v i e w s t o gather i n f o r m a t i o n w i l l be e x p l a i n e d as a p a r t of the second s e c t i o n on re s e a r c h d e s i g n . The r e s u l t s of the p r e t e s t of the key a c t o r i n t e r v i e w q u e s t i o n sheet w i l l be d e s c r i b e d . The s e l e c t i o n process f o r p o t e n t i a l i n t e r v i e w p a r t i c i p a n t s w i l l a l s o be presented as w e l l as a p r o f i l e of the f i n a l respondents. - 50 -Study S e t t i n g Kalamalka Lake P r o v i n c i a l Park i s l o c a t e d on the North East shore of Kalamalka Lake and four k i l o m e t e r s South of the C i t y of Vernon i n the pro v i n c e of B r i t i s h Columbia. I t was chosen as the s e t t i n g f o r t h i s e x p l o r a t i v e study f o r three reasons: (1) i t was the f i r s t example of an o r g a n i z e d process of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n w i t h i n the B r i t i s h Columbia M i n i s t r y of Environment and Parks; (2) i t was a process which attempted to overcome some c o n t r o -v e r s y ; and (3) i t was l o c a t e d c l o s e enough to Vancouver to allow f o r t r a v e l to and from the re s e a r c h s i t e w i t h i n a very l i m i t e d r e s e a r c h budget. The r e s t of t h i s s e c t i o n of the chapter w i l l look at the g e o g r a p h i c a l s e t t i n g , the h i s t o r i c a l background and the p o l i t i c a l environment surrounding the development of K a l a -malka Lake P r o v i n c i a l Park. - Geographical S e t t i n g Steep h i l l s covered by gra s s and rock outcroppings with some pine f o r e s t s i n t e r s p e r s e d with a l a r g e network of l a k e s c h a r a c t e r i z e the area. Low to moderate p r e c i p i t a t i o n , warm to hot summers and m i l d winters make f o r a p r i m a r i l y dry and t h e r e f o r e f r a g i l e environment. Black s o i l s predominate an area of open g r a s s l a n d with i s o l a t e d groups of t r e e growth such as pine t r e e s i n l a n d and cottonwoods along the s h o r e l i n e of Kalamalka Lake. The f o l l o w i n g - 51 -t o p o g r a p h i c a l f e a t u r e s are quoted from one of the p u b l i c meeting n e w s l e t t e r s . The lands c o n t a i n e d w i t h i n the proposed park, present a topography r i c h i n i t s d i v e r s i t y and s c e n i c i n t e r e s t . Most notable i s Rattlesnake Point ( T u r t l e s Head) which extends f o r approximately two m i l e s on a southwest-northwest a x i s and r i s e s i n l a n d some 1,100 f e e t above the l e v e l of Kalamalka Lake ( e l e v . 1,284'). Here weathered fragmented rock p i l e s and f i s s u r e d rock c l i f f s produce i d e a l h a b i t a t f o r P a c i f i c R a t t l e s n a k e . The s h o r e l i n e extends f o r some 2 mi l e s and c o n s i s t s of 3 d i s t i n c t bays. Two of these, Lonely (Jade) Bay and J u n i p e r Bay, are on the nort h west s i d e of R a t t l e s n a k e P o i n t . Small pockets of sand are a l s o l o c a t e d along the south shore of the p o i n t . Cosens Bay, with 1,000 fee t of sand and pebble beach, pro v i d e s the l o n g e s t s t r e t c h of undeveloped n a t u r a l beach on the l a k e . A small marsh area e x i s t s behind the northern h a l f of the beach. The upland r i s e s behind the bay i n a s e r i e s of r e l a t i v e l y gentle' s l o p i n g grassy steps extending i n l a n d f o r about one mile to the ea s t e r n boundary. At the southern e x t r e m i t y of the beach a small stream flows i n t o the lake a f t e r tumbling down a w a t e r f a l l which i s o f t e n f r o z e n u n t i l very l a t e i n the s p r i n g . T h i s w e s t e r l y slope i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a p r o f u s i o n of w i l d f l o w e r s i n springtime and s c a t t e r e d f i r and pine stands. (B.C. Parks, 1975, p. 3) - H i s t o r i c a l Background Vernon i s the c l o s e s t c i t y (4 km.) to Kalamalka Lake P r o v i n c i a l Park. Vernon was founded i n 1867, because i t was a n a t u r a l d i s t r i b u t i o n p o i n t , e s p e c i a l l y when a railway l i n k to the t r a n s -Canada .railway was completed i n 1891 (Oram, 1985, p. x i ) . The - 52 -name Kalamalka i s a P o l y n e s i a n word thought to mean lake of many c o l o r s , that came from a Sandwich (Hawaiian) i s l a n d e r who was r e c r u i t e d to work f o r American f u r t r a d e r s at A s t o r i a and l a t e r married an Indian woman and s e t t l e d i n t h i s area naming one of h i s sons Kalamalka (Oram, 1985, p. 5). The area around Vernon and Kalamalka Lake P r o v i n c i a l Park was o r i g i n a l l y s e t t l e d by ranchers. The a r r i v a l of the ra i l w a y i n 1892 and the r i s e i n the value of land f o r r e s a l e to s e t t l e r s meant the end f o r most of these ranches. Coldstream Ranch was d i f f e r e n t . O r i g i n a l l y c a l l e d Vernon Ranch i t was s o l d to Lord Aberdeen i n 1891, renamed Coldstream Ranch and i s a working ranch today though reduced i n s i z e (Oram, 1985, p. 12). In 1893 Arthur Cosens from Sussex England homesteaded i n what i s now known as Cosens Bay - a p a r t of todays Kalamalka Lake Park. Lord Aberdeen purchased t h i s l a n d from Arthur Cosens i n 1902 and i t became a p a r t of h i s Coldstream Ranch h o l d i n g s (Howie, 1983). The ranch r a i s e d c a t t l e and some f r u i t t r e e s . In 1895 Lord Aberdeen s o l d s m a l l p a r c e l s of lan d from h i s ranch to B r i t i s h emigrants f o r f r u i t farming. In 1893 Lord Aberdeen was appointed Governor General of Canada. S i r James Buchanan bought the ranch from Lord Aberdeen i n 1920 (Oram, 1985, p. 13) - 53 -Lady Aberdeen was very a c t i v e i n b r i n g i n g e d u c a t i o n , n u r s i n g and other forms of a s s i s t a n c e to new s e t t l e r s i n small communities a c r o s s Canada. At the Chicago World's F a i r i n 1893 she was e l e c t e d p r e s i d e n t of an I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o u n c i l of Women and l a t e r the f i r s t p r e s i d e n t of a Canadian N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l (Oram, 1985, p. 28). People e m i g r a t i n g from England and wishing to s t a r t ranching i n the Coldstream area sometimes r e c e i v e d t r a i n i n g at Coldstream Ranch. Coldstream Ranch p r o v i d e d an e d u c a t i o n a l and s o c i a l c e n t e r f o r people throughout the e a r l y development of t h i s a r e a . Small ranches and farms were e s t a b l i s h e d around Coldstream Ranch some of which s t i l l e x i s t around the present l o c a t i o n of Kalamalka Lake P r o v i n c i a l Park. Hunting and n a t u r a l i s t c l u b s a l s o arose out of the implanted B r i t i s h t r a d i t i o n s . Many of the o r i g i n a l s e t t l e r s were B r i t i s h and they have had a strong i n f l u e n c e on the s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l development of t h i s a r e a . In 1975 Marathon R e a l t y , the land development s u b s i d i a r y of Canadian P a c i f i c , proposed a major r e s o r t and r e s i d e n t i a l development on what i s now Kalamalka Lake P r o v i n c i a l Park (Howie, 1983). An intense p u b l i c o u t c r y l e d by the North Okanagan N a t u r a l i s t Club r e s u l t e d i n the land being purchased from Coldstream Ranch f o r a p r o v i n c i a l park i n August of 1975 (Worley, 1984, p. i i i ) . - 54 -- S o c i a l Context The p u b l i c c o n t r o v e r s y surrounding the development of Kalamalka Lake P r o v i n c i a l Park was p o l a r i z e d between those members of the p u b l i c who wanted the park developed and those who wanted the park p r e s e r v e d . These two p o s i t i o n s were p o p u l a r l y i d e n t i f i e d by the p u b l i c as being championed by the Vernon and D i s t r i c t Chamber of Commerce and the D i s t r i c t of Coldstream f o r the l i m i t e d development p o s i t i o n (Coldstream, 1983) and the North Okanagan N a t u r a l i s t Club f o r the p r e s e r v a t i o n p o s i t i o n (N.O.N.C., 1978). Many members of the p u b l i c formed support groups around the p o s i t i o n s promoted by these o r g a n i z a t i o n s and made t h e i r c h o i c e s known to the Parks Branch through i t s p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n program. The Parks Branch development plan p r o v i d e d four development concepts (concept one had the g r e a t e s t p r e s e r v a t i o n - concept 4 the most development) from which the p u b l i c were to choose. A summary of the concerns sheets, l e t t e r s , b r i e f s and p e t i t i o n s submitted to the Parks Branch before A p r i l , 1978 were analysed as to which development concept was p r e f e r r e d . Table 1 shows that the m a j o r i t y of respondents chose e i t h e r concept one or two (78%). The c h o i c e between concepts one and two i s harder to judge as the concept with the h i g h e s t count (concept 2) had only 6% - 55 -more of the vote. Because there was no c l e a r consensus f o r e i t h e r concept one or two, park development remained c o n t r o v e r s i a l . TABLE 2 - Concepts Chosen by P u b l i c Weighted by # of I n d i v i d u a l s and Number of Choices # Concept One 928 36 Concept Two 1073.75 42 Concept Three 77.25 3 Concept Four 467.5 18 ( P r e s c o t t , 1978, p.12) The next s e c t i o n of t h i s chapter w i l l look at the a c t i v i t i e s surrounding the Kalamalka Lake P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n Program. The p l a n n i n g of the program by the park agency w i l l be looked at f i r s t , f o l l o w e d by a d e s c r i p t i o n of the events that occured i n the implementation of the program, with a commentary on the p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n process at the end. - 56 -P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n - Development of a p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n program During August of 1975 the land which i s now Kalamalka Lake P r o v i n c i a l Park was purchased from Coldstream Ranch by the B r i t i s h Columbia Government. Mr. T.E. Lee, D i r e c t o r of Parks, made t h i s announcement at a p u b l i c meeting d u r i n g which the document A Plan For Kalamalka Lake Park was handed out to the p u b l i c . In the i n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h i s document Mr. Lee s a i d : Recent years have seen a remarkable growth i n p u b l i c i n t e r e s t i n is s u e s surrounding P r o v i n c i a l Parks. In t h i s c ontext, i t i s l o g i c a l that o p p o r t u n i t i e s to p a r t i c i p a t e i n e s t a b l i s h i n g p l a n n i n g , development and management p o l i c i e s should be extended to i n t e r e s t e d i n d i v i d u a l s and groups. The p r e p a r a t i o n of a master plan f o r Kalamalka Lake P r o v i n c i a l Park r e p r e s e n t s the f i r s t comprehensive e f f o r t of the Parks Branch to open t h i s type of pl a n n i n g to the p u b l i c . In doing so, the Branch has chosen not to make assumptions concerning the parks' f u t u r e uses. I t w i l l be guided by the i s s u e s , concerns and p r o p o s a l s r e c e i v e d through an open p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s . T h i s document has been prepared to p r o v i d e you with i n i t i a l i n f o r m a t i o n which w i l l a s s i s t you i n making p l a n n i n g and management recommendations. I welcome your p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s p l a n n i n g programme and t r u s t that j o i n t l y we w i l l be a b l e to a r r i v e at s a t i s f a c t o r y s o l u t i o n s to the development and management of t h i s o u t s t a n d i n g a d d i t i o n to the P r o v i n c i a l Park system. (B.C. Parks, 1975) - 57 -Another p u b l i c meeting took p l a c e d u r i n g November of 1975, and there were a number of smal l group meetings with community groups and e l e c t e d o f f i c i a l s d u r i n g December of 1975 to review comments r e c e i v e d from the p u b l i c . A n e w s l e t t e r was sent out i n February 1976 summarizing the p u b l i c review and announcing the completion of t e c h n i c a l work on p l a n a l t e r n a t i v e s and t h e i r e v a l u a t i o n s by e a r l y A p r i l . Another p u b l i c meeting was h e l d i n March of 1976 to review the parks proposal f o r dev e l o p i n g Kalamalka Lake P r o v i n -c i a l Park. In a l e t t e r to D.W. Shaw of the E n g i n e e r i n g D i v i s i o n of B.C. Parks, J.D. Anderson of the Pla n n i n g D i v i s i o n reviewed the p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n process d e s c r i b e d above: For the past year, Planning D i v i s i o n has been i n v o l v e d i n a process of p u b l i c involvement i n pl a n n i n g f o r Kalamalka Lake Park. To date, the focus has been the con c e p t u a l framework of a park plan and broad a l t e r n a -t i v e s f o r f u t u r e use and management. The task now i s to develop a s e r i e s of more concre t e o p t i o n s f o r p u b l i c c o n s i d e r a t i o n . T h i s w i l l r e q u i r e e s t a b l i s h i n g the f e a s i b i l i t y , p lanning i m p l i c a t i o n s , management c o n s i d -e r a t i o n s , environmental impact and c o s t s of v a r i o u s elements and combinations of elements that c o n s t i t u t e a park master p l a n . Once a l l the v a r i a b l e s have been e v a l u a t e d by Planning, Management I n t e r p r e t a t i o n s and E n g i n e e r i n g S t a f f , a l t e r n a t e development "packages" w i l l be formulated and d i s c u s s e d with the Parks Branch E x e c u t i v e . Each a l t e r n a t i v e w i l l r e f l e c t a d i s t i n c t use l e v e l , degree of s o p h i s t i c a t i o n and range of opportun-i t i e s f o r r e c r e a t i o n , p r e s e r v a t i o n and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . If a c c e p t a b l e , these a l t e r n a t i v e s w i l l be presented to the p u b l i c at a meeting l a t e r t h i s f a l l . F o l l o w i n g t h i s meeting, a recommended pl a n f o r the park w i l l be submitted f o r the M i n i s t e r ' s a p p r o v a l . ...Since a l l data, c r i t e r i a and assumptions we w i l l use w i l l be open to c l o s e p u b l i c s c r u t i n y , and s i n c e the - 58 -c r e d i b i l i t y of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n r e s t s on i m p a r t i a l -i t y on the p a r t of the Parks Branch, adequate time must be a l l o t t e d to t h i s p r o j e c t i n order to prepare v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s which can be defended as a p p r o p r i a t e , p a r t i c u l a r l y on the b a s i s of c o s t per user and e n v i r o n -mental impact. At the same time, i t i s expected t h a t at l e a s t p a r t of the i n f o r m a t i o n c o l l e c t e d w i l l be u s e f u l f o r l a t e r p l a n n i n g of park f a c i l i t i e s and s e r v i c e s . Through c l o s e l i a i s o n between Planning, Management, Eng i n e e r i n g and I n t e r p r e t a t i o n D i v i s i o n s , we are c o n f i -dent that a q u a l i t y product can be d e l i v e r e d to the p u b l i c of which we can a l l be proud. (Anderson, 1976) The Planning D i v i s i o n was to develop formal park pla n n i n g a l t e r n a t i v e s as d e s c r i b e d above. These a l t e r n a t i v e s would then be presented to the p u b l i c f o r review. The review process i s d e s c r i b e d by T.E. Lee, D i r e c t o r of the Parks Branch: Regarding P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n -(a) present a l t e r n a t i v e s i n d e s c r i p t i v e form and d i s t r i b u t e - four weeks minimum p r i o r to p u b l i c meeting; i n c l u d e d i n the m a t e r i a l w i l l be a t e a r - o u t b a l l o t which would permit i n d i v i d u a l s to r e p o r t f o r m a l l y to the p r o p o s a l s - a f t e r the p u b l i c meeting. (b) p u b l i c meeting to review the p l a n s ; anyone wishing to present a formal b r i e f should p r o v i d e advanced n o t i c e ; should s p e c i f i c a l l y request b r i e f s from a number of o r g a n i z a t i o n s ; i n d i v i d u a l s would be given four weeks to mail b a l l o t s . (c) Our recommendation would be made to the M i n i s t e r , based upon our t e c h n i c a l and p r o f e s s i o n a l s k i l l s and the p u b l i c review; M i n i s t e r w i l l announce. (Lee, 1976) - 59 -- Chronology of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n events An open house and a p u b l i c meeting were h e l d i n January, 1978, to d i s c u s s the four a l t e r n a t i v e park plans that were d e s c r i b e d i n a ne w s l e t t e r mailed out p r e v i o u s l y to the p u b l i c . At the p u b l i c meeting a Concerns Sheet was d i s t r i b u t e d f o r the p u b l i c to complete and r e t u r n to the Parks Branch. In the concerns sheet the p u b l i c was asked to s t a t e p r e f e r e n c e s from among the four a l t e r n a t i v e park concepts presented. T h i s concerns sheet was analysed by Barbara Horton P r e s c o t t i n a report submitted i n A p r i l , 1978. The c o n c l u s i o n s of t h i s r e p o r t i n regards to the p u b l i c ' s c h o i c e amongst the four a l t e r n a t i v e park concepts were: The p r e f e r e n c e of concept was asked on the Concerns Sheet and mentioned i n many of the l e t t e r s and b r i e f s . In each case more than 80% of the respondents chose Concept 1 or 2, with Concept 1 p r e f e r r e d by almost h a l f of the submissions...A weighting system was a l s o used whereby c h o i c e s were weighted a c c o r d i n g to the number of concepts chosen and number of i n d i v i d u a l s represen-t e d . Again Concepts 1 or 2 were supported by at l e a s t h a l f of the i n d i v i d u a l s r e p r e s e n t e d . ( P r e s c o t t , 1978) The weighting system worked such that i f a person chose two concepts each concept would r e c e i v e 1/2 a p o i n t whereas i f 2 people together chose one concept i t would r e c e i v e 2 p o i n t s . These r e s u l t s of the p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n program were passed on to the M i n i s t e r of Lands, Parks & Housing, W. Brummet, for a d e c i s i o n to be made. - 60 -During the beginning of the planning process there was a change in government in B.C. The Socred Government overthrew the N.D.P. government in 1975. Perhaps because of the need to further develop the budgetary requirements of the various ministries, no decision on the development of Kalamalka Park was forthcoming until five years after the results of the public participation program were passed to the Minister in 1978. The Honorable W. Brummet announced in August 1983, after a great deal of public pressure for moderate development of the park, that an Advisory Committee would be set up to review the findings of the previous planning process. There was an existing park plan developed as a result of the previous planning process but i t was considered to be highly controversial - i t would satisfy the pro-development groups but st i r up more public concern amoung the pro-preservationist groups (Thompson, 1983, (a)). Brummet's feelings were that there was no unanimity from the local commun-ity that major development should occur; one group wanted extensive campground and day-use f a c i l i t i e s while another wanted the park kept in a natural state (Noonan, 1983). Because of this controversy i t was felt necessary to: Provide for Vernon community's input to Master Planning process while retaining Parks and Outdoor Recreation Division staff control of actual plan formulation and completion. (Thompson, 1983, (b)) - 61 -The A d v i s o r y Committee was modeled on the s u c c e s s f u l S i l v e r Star Committee (another B.C. Parks p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n program) such that members were drawn from the community to represent the whole community and not any p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t (Thompson, 1983, ( b ) ) . In October of 1983 Brummet presented a park r o l e summary (pro-posed park plan) to a group of about f o r t y i n v i t e d Vernon r e s i d e n t s . The Vernon and D i s t r i c t Chamber of Commerce and t h e x Coldstream c o u n c i l r e a c t e d n e g a t i v e l y t o the proposed a c t i v i t i e s i n the park plan and the way i t was announced (Kruger, 1983). L e t t e r s to the E d i t o r of the Vernon D a i l y News d u r i n g t h i s same p e r i o d expressed support for Brummet's park p l a n saying that the low l e v e l development was what the p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n program had recommended. From these comments i t becomes c l e a r that the l e v e l of park development was s t i l l c o n t r o v e r s i a l . The A d v i s o r y Committee f i r s t met i n November 1983. Committee membership was drawn from a wide spectrum of the Vernon community yet was a b l e to reach almost unanimous agreement on t h e i r recommendations (Worley, 1984, ( b ) ) . The m i n o r i t y o p i n i o n d i s a g r e e d about the l o c a t i o n of the Twin Bays p a r k i n g l o t , f o r which a m i n o r i t y report was submitted. In A p r i l of 1984 the Ad v i s o r y Committee submitted t h e i r r e p o r t and i t was accepted by the M i n i s t e r , W. Brummet. T h i s r e p o r t has f u n c t i o n e d as the u n o f f i c i a l masterplan f o r Kalamalka Lake P r o v i n c i a l Park. - 62 -Development of the park began i n the f a l l of 1984 and then was o f f i c i a l l y opened i n June of 1986. - Comments on the p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n process The Kalamalka Lake P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n Process f a l l s w i t h i n the Upward Forming Consensus Model of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Although a l l the p u b l i c comment was a d v i s o r y and had to be submitted to the m i n i s t e r f o r app r o v a l , the p u b l i c worked d i r e c t l y with the park planners ( p u b l i c s e r v i c e bureaucracy) i n the region and thereby s h o r t - c i r c u i t e d the 'democratic loop' d i s c u s s e d i n chapter two. C i t i z e n s p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the e l e c t i o n of government o f f i c i a l s and a l s o p a r t i c i p a t e d i n s e t t i n g g u i d e l i n e s f o r p r o j e c t s that d i r e c t l y a f f e c t e d them. T h i s success w i l l not n e c e s s a r i l y be repeated because the a p p l i c a t i o n of a l l the p a r t s are based on the benevolence of the i n d i v i d u a l a d m i n i s t r a t o r and the concurrence of the m i n i s t e r . I f these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are not present, along with an a r t i c u l a t e , informed p u b l i c then the process can s t i l l r e v e r t back to the expected workings of the 'democratic loop', and r e s u l t i n a d i s s a t i s f i e d , unsupportive p u b l i c . The communication of i n f o r m a t i o n to the p u b l i c and the i n c l u s i o n of t h e i r concerns i n o p t i o n a l plans was done i n an exemplary f a s h i o n . P a r t i c u l a r y important was the p r e s e n t a t i o n of op t i o n s i n - 63 -such a way that the p u b l i c ' s concerns were h i g h l i g h t e d and the e f f e c t of these options on t h e i r concerns was e a s i l y understood. An example i s i n the p u b l i c concern f o r the q u a n t i t y of use connected with o p t i o n a l p l a n s . The o p t i o n a l plans (Concept 1 - 4) were shown i n a graph with the estimated amount of use connected to each o p t i o n . The p u b l i c was presented with i n f o r m a t i o n i n a c l e a r f a s h i o n from which they c o u l d make a d i r e c t d e c i s i o n . Methodogy Research was designed to i n v e s t i g a t e how s e l e c t e d components of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n a f f e c t the development of p u b l i c support f o r park management s t r a t e g i e s . I n t e r v i e w s were developed to accomp-l i s h the broad o b j e c t i v e of t h i s r e s e a r c h by o b t a i n i n g informa-t i o n from respondents on four components of the Kalamalka Lake P r o v i n c i a l Park P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n Program: 1 - communication methods used i n t h i s program 2 - major park development i s s u e s 3 - a t t i t u d e s of the p u b l i c and park personnel towards each other 4 - r e l a t i o n s h i p between the p u b l i c respondent's home d i s t a n c e from the park and the respondent's survey responce - 64 -The sample to be analysed was made up of those people who wrote l e t t e r s , b r i e f s or attended meetings that were a d i r e c t part of the p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n program organized by the Parks Branch f o r Kalamalka Lake P r o v i n c i a l Park. Information on a t t i t u d e s and p e r c e p t i o n s - which form a major p a r t of t h i s r e s e a r c h - i s s u b j e c t i v e and not easy to q u a n t i f y . In order to o b t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n of t h i s nature a mixture of c a t e g o r i c a l and open ended q u e s t i o n s was used. The i n t e r v i e w method of surveying was used to h e l p i n c l a r i f y i n g answers and to a s s i s t in e x p l o r i n g unexpected avenues of response. Respondents were i d e n t i f i e d and i n t e r v i e w e d about the sequence of events surrounding the Kalamalka Lake P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n Program. T h i s corresponds to the 'focused i n t e r v i e w ' r e s e a r c h approach which a n a l y s e s the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between 'events, communications, a t t i t u d e s and a c t i o n s i n order to e x p l a i n behavior' (Backstrom & Hursh-Cesar, 1981, p. 13). The r e l a t i o n -s h i p s that t h i s approach analyses are the same as the components of the broad o b j e c t i v e of t h i s paper. Although i t p r o v i d e s only a weak b a s i s f o r g e n e r a l i z i n g to other people and events, t h i s r e s e a r c h approach i s the c o r r e c t c h o i c e f o r a c h i e v i n g the objec-t i v e of t h i s r e s e a r c h because i t all o w s the re s e a r c h e r to c l a r i f y the respondent's a t t i t u d e s through probing q u e s t i o n s . - 65 -T h i s r e s e a r c h technique i s mainly d e s c r i p t i v e and the r e s u l t s are l i m i t e d when attempting to g e n e r a l i z e t o other p u b l i c p a r t i c i -p a t i o n programs. The r e s u l t s can, however, be used to improve the process of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n so that the process i t s e l f w i l l not be a pa r t of the problem. The purpose of using focused i n t e r v i e w s i n t h i s r e s e a r c h i s to evaluate what d i d or d i d not work and why so that the process of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n can be improved. - P r e t e s t Two s i m i l a r s e t s of q u e s t i o n s were used to o u t l i n e the i n t e r v i e w . One set of q u e s t i o n s was made f o r the p u b l i c and one set f o r park agency employees. The q u e s t i o n s e t s used f o r the p r e t e s t were n e c e s s a r i l y more general because they were f o r a d i f f e r e n t park and a l s o because some q u e s t i o n s needed s p e c i f i c d e t a i l s that were to be obtained at a l a t e r stage from the Regional Park o f f i c e . These two q u e s t i o n s e t s were p r e t e s t e d i n the Vancouver area u s i n g p u b l i c and park agency p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the co n t r o v e r s y surrounding the p r i v a t i z a t i o n of Cypress Park. The r e s u l t s were p o s i t i v e and changes were implemented to improve the o r g a n i z a t i o n of q u e s t i o n s f o r the b e n e f i t of the i n t e r v i e w e r . - 66 -- S e l e c t i o n of Focused Interview P a r t i c i p a n t s The Kalamalka Lake P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n Program had two main p a r t s : the p u b l i c meetings 1975 - 1978, and the Adv i s o r y Commit-tee 1983 - 1984. The Summary of Concerns Sheets, L e t t e r s , B r i e f s  and P e t i t i o n s ( P r e s c o t t , B.H., 1978, p.12) c o n s i s t e d of 317 submissions which represented 2635 i n d i v i d u a l s . The Adv i s o r y Committee was made up of 12 members. There were 5 Parks Agency employees d i r e c t l y i n v o l v e d i n the p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n program. Of the 2635 s i g n a t u r e s i n the Summary of Concerns Sheets,  L e t t e r s , B r i e f s and P e t i t i o n s , many were d u p l i c a t e names and even more had no address l i s t e d or had i l l e g i b l e names. There were 67 people whose telephone numbers were a v a i l a b l e from i d e n t i f i a b l e names and addresses. T h i s group was made up of 12 Adv i s o r y Committee members, 19 l e t t e r w r i t e r s r e p r e s e n t i n g only themsel-ves, 22 concern sheet respondents and 14 i n d i v i d u a l s who wrote l e t t e r s or b r i e f s each i d e n t i f y i n g themselves as a member of an i n t e r e s t group. I t was found that p e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w s were too time consuming to set up and be completed w i t h i n the time frame allowed by the re s e a r c h budget so the telephone was used to complete the m a j o r i t y of the i n t e r v i e w s . There were 9 p e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w s and 22 telephone i n t e r v i e w s f o r a t o t a l of 31. The 36 people who were - 67 -not i n t e r v i e w e d c o n s i s t e d o f : 11 'no answers', 8 'not a v a i l a b l e ' , 5 'moved', 5 ' r e f u s a l s ' , 3 ' r e p e t i t i o n s ' (same person l i s t e d under t h e i r own name and as a p a r t of Mr. & Mrs.), 1 'deceased', 1 'on v a c a t i o n ' , 1 'parks p e r s o n n e l ' , and 1 'telephone d i s c o n -n e c t i o n ' . Of the 11 'no answers', each was telephoned an average of f i v e times between August 11th and September 2nd, 1986. One f i n a l attempt was made to c o n t a c t these people d u r i n g the week of September 29th - October 3rd. Of the 5 parks personnel who were p o t e n t i a l respondents; 3 were in t e r v i e w e d p e r s o n a l l y , 1 by telephone, and 1 was not a v a i l a b l e to be i n t e r v i e w e d (Mr. D. Podmore). Interviews took p l a c e i n Summerland (Sept. 29-30), Kamloops (Nov. 17), and V i c t o r i a (Nov. 27). - F i e l d A c t i v i t i e s P u b l i c and park agency p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the Kalamalka Lake P r o v i n -c i a l Park P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n Program were i n t e r v i e w e d d u r i n g the l a t e months of 1986 and a summary a n a l y s i s (see Chapter 5), of these i n t e r v i e w s was mailed out to them i n January 1987 to inform them of the p r e l i m i n a r y f i n d i n g s of the r e s e a r c h . L i m i t a -t i o n s of time, money and resources f o r c e d a c e i l i n g on the number of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t e r v i e w e d and i n c r e a s e d the number of telephone as opposed to p e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w s . Key a c t o r s i n the - 68 -p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n process were i d e n t i f i e d and in t e r v i e w e d i n order to o b t a i n the views of those most i n f l u e n t i a l i n the d e c i s i o n making pro c e s s . Focused i n t e r v i e w s were used as a re s e a r c h technique so that i n f o r m a t i o n on the p e r c e p t i o n s and a t t i t u d e s of the p u b l i c towards the p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n program c o u l d be ob t a i n e d . Summation Kalamalka Lake P r o v i n c i a l Park i s l o c a t e d on the North East shore of Kalamalka Lake and four k i l o m e t e r s South of the C i t y of Vernon i n the pr o v i n c e of B r i t i s h Columbia. Steep h i l l s covered by grass and rock outcroppings with some pine f o r e s t s i n t e r s p e r s e d with a l a r g e network of lakes c h a r a c t e r i z e the area. The name Kalamalka i s a P o l y n e s i a n word thought to mean lake of many c o l o r s . Many of the o r i g i n a l s e t t l e r s were B r i t i s h and they have had a strong i n f l u e n c e on the s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l development of t h i s area. When i t was l e a r n t that a major r e s o r t and r e s i d e n t i a l develop-ment was planned f o r the land which i s now Kalamalka Park, an intens e p u b l i c o u t c r y l e d by the North Okanagan N a t u r a l i s t Club r e s u l t e d i n the land being purchased from Coldstream Ranch f o r a p r o v i n c i a l park i n August of 1975. - 69 -The p r e p a r a t i o n of a master plan f o r Kalamalka Lake P r o v i n c i a l Park was to be guided by the i s s u e s , concerns and p r o p o s a l s r e c e i v e d through an open p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s . P u b l i c meetings were organized and p u b l i c comments r e c e i v e d . The p u b l i c c o n t r o v e r s y surrounding the development of Kalamalka Lake P r o v i n c i a l Park was p o l a r i z e d between those members of the p u b l i c who wanted the park developed and those who wanted the park pr e s e r v e d . The Parks Branch formulated four a l t e r n a t i v e development concepts (concept one had the g r e a t e s t p r e s e r v a t i o n - concept four the most development) and the p u b l i c v o i c e d t h e i r c h o i c e through concerns sheets, l e t t e r s , b r i e f s and p e t i t i o n s . Concept one or two was p r e f e r r e d by the m a j o r i t y (78%) of the p u b l i c . A f t e r a f i v e year delay an a d v i s o r y committee was set up (1983) to approve a plan f o r park development. The next year the Advisory Committee presented t h e i r r e p o r t and park development began. The park was o f f i c i a l l y opened two years l a t e r (1986). Respondents were i d e n t i f i e d and i n t e r v i e w e d about the sequence of events surrounding the Kalamalka Lake P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n Program. The purpose of using focused i n t e r v i e w s i n t h i s r e s e a r c h i s to evaluate what d i d or d i d not work and why. T h i s technique i s used to e x p l a i n behavior and i s a v a l u a b l e i n d i c a t o r of what might occur i n s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n s . There were 9 p e r s o n a l i n t e r -views and 22 telephone i n t e r v i e w s f o r a t o t a l sample of 31. - 70 -CHAPTER V SURVEY ANALYSIS The i n t e r v i e w s from which t h i s summary was developed were d i v i d e d i n t o two p a r t s : the f i r s t p a r t with the p u b l i c took p l a c e d u r i n g the month of August, 1986 i n and around Vernon, B r i t i s h Columbia; the second p a r t with park personnel took p l a c e d u r i n g the months of September - November, 1986 i n Kamloops, Summerland and V i c t o r i a . The purpose of t h i s r e s e a r c h i s to analyse the process whereby park management s t r a t e g i e s can be developed with the support of l o c a l communities. T h i s i s a summary of the i n f o r m a t i o n which was c o l l e c t e d d u r i n g the focused i n t e r v i e w s i n t r o d u c e d above. A f u l l a n a l y s i s of the i n t e r v i e w s i s c o n t a i n e d i n Appendix I I I . The summary i s presented i n two p a r t s r e f l e c t i n g the i n t e r v i e w s of the p u b l i c and of the park p e r s o n n e l . The i n t e r v i e w s of the p u b l i c were c a r r i e d out on a sample of 31 people out of a p o s s i b l e 67 d i r e c t p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n program. These names were obtained from the records of the Regional O f f i c e of the M i n i s t r y of Environment and Parks in Kamloops B.C. The i n t e r v i e w s of park personnel were c a r r i e d - 71 -out on a sample of 4 people out of a p o s s i b l e 5 d i r e c t p a r t i c i -pants i n the p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n program. P u b l i c r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of d i f f e r e n t p o i n t s of view and members of the A d v i s o r y Committee were i d e n t i f i e d from the sample or added as key a c t o r s . P r i o r i t y was given to i n t e r v i e w i n g these people i n an attempt to weight the i n t e r v i e w s towards those most i n f l u e n -t i a l i n the p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n program. Focused i n t e r v i e w s were used as the best r e s e a r c h technique f o r a c h i e v i n g the purpose of t h i s paper ( f o r more d e t a i l s see the methodology s e c t i o n of Chapter I V ) . Summary - P u b l i c Responses J u s t under h a l f the respondents were between the ages 55 and 65. In g e n e r a l , respondents were o l d e r , r e t i r e d , w e l l educated with a v a r i a b l e income. Over h a l f used Kalamalka Park f o r h i k i n g . Most used the park once per month o u t s i d e the winter months i n 1975. Use of the park by these people decreased d u r i n g the p e r i o d 1980 to the p r e s e n t . D e c l i n i n g use of the park c o u l d be e x p l a i n e d by changes i n a c t i v i t y p a t t e r n s as the user grew o l d e r , or a change - 72 -i n the type of park user as development m o d i f i e d the a t t r a c t i o n s of the park. The two l a r g e s t groups of p u b l i c respondents s a i d they were a f f i l i a t e d to a c o n s e r v a t i o n group or had no a f f i l i a -t i o n t o any group. Of a l l the p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s the g r e a t e s t number of p u b l i c respondents p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the p u b l i c meetings. Most p u b l i c respondents s a i d t h a t "no or l i m i t e d development" was the primary i s s u e i n 1975. Even more p u b l i c respondents s a i d t h i s i n 1986. The m a j o r i t y of p u b l i c respondents f e l t that they communicated t h e i r i n t e r e s t s to park personnel although they s t r e s s e d the l i m i t a t i o n s of t h i s communication. Of those respondents who f e l t they had communicated t h e i r i n t e r e s t s there was a general f e e l i n g of unease and d i s t r u s t of the pr o c e s s . Having communicated t h e i r i n t e r e s t s they were unsure how or i f t h e i r i n t e r e s t s were used i n the f i n a l d e c i s i o n . Some f e l t t h a t the d e c i s i o n was taken out of l o c a l hands by the Hon. M i n i s t e r (Brummet), while others f e l t t h a t the d e c i s i o n had more to do with a lack of funds f o r development than e f f e c t i v e communication of p u b l i c i n t e r e s t s . Comments from those who d i d not f e e l t h e i r i n t e r e s t s were communicated to park personnel c r i t i c i s e d park personnel f o r al r e a d y having t h e i r minds made up, not being a v a i l a b l e o u t s i d e - 73 -of publ ic meetings and not knowing i f t h e i r i n t e r e s t s were going to be considered in the implementation of park plans. Suggestions for improvements stressed the need for wider communication of the park personnel 's park development ideas, a less r i g i d and more open process and the need for park personnel to be more ava i lab le outside publ ic meetings. Most f e l t they had obtained factual information from park person-nel about park issues but emphasized the need for ongoing communication. Over half the publ ic respondents f e l t they had p a r t i c i p a t e d d i r e c t l y in the development of the park and most of these d id so to protect personal vested i n t e r e s t s . Just over hal f the publ ic respondents supported the f i n a l decis ion and of these most d id so because they f e l t the decis ion would preserve the park in i t s natural state and l i m i t development. During the f i r s t publ ic meetings publ ic respondents f e l t that the park agency was w i l l i n g to change i t s plans to what the publ ic wanted but fewer people fee l t h i s way now and there i s an increasing f e e l i n g that the park agency was going to do what i t wanted no matter what the publ ic s a i d . - 74 -- Park Agency Responses Agency respondents were from age 36 to 54 and had spent from 5 to 30 years i n the area of Kalamalka Lake Park. Working with the p u b l i c was a p a r t of each respondent's job d e s c r i p t i o n and some f e l t that p u b l i c c o n t r o v e r s y c o u l d be defused by making the p u b l i c more aware of agency a c t i v i t i e s . Half the agency respon-dents had some form of t r a i n i n g i n p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Three s a i d that t r a i n i n g i n p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n should be mandatory f o r park managers. Major i s s u e s i d e n t i f i e d by agency respondents changed from 'type of camping' and 'seasonal road c l o s u r e ' i n 1975 to 'type of camping' and 'twin bay development 1 i n 1986. A l l agency respon-dents f e l t that the p u b l i c had been informed of the i s s u e s and one commented that i t was more important that the p u b l i c had enough time to absorb and be a b l e to deal with the i s s u e s . The methods used the most by the park agency were the p u b l i c meetings and the park a d v i s o r y committees. Three out of four respondents f e l t that the method they used was s u c c e s s f u l and none of the respondents would have used a d i f f e r e n t method such as an on-going n e w s l e t t e r . Three out of four respondents would not have changed the way they worked with the p u b l i c . - 75 -P u b l i c meetings were thought to be completely open and f l e x i b l e , a lthough there was too much attempted f o r the amount of time a l l o t e d . Everyone needed more time to absorb the i s s u e s . The A d v i s o r y Committee was what the p u b l i c wanted. I t was a good o p p o r t u n i t y f o r d i s c u s s i o n and r e s u l t e d i n the park agency modifying i t s p l a n s . The f i n a l p l a n was vague with s p e c i f i c implementation plans f o r general g u i d e l i n e s not covered. There a l s o needed to be i n c r e a s e d communication between the l o c a l park agency and committee members a f t e r the Advisory Report was completed. Formal park r e p r e s e n t a t i o n to l o c a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s and the use of an a d v i s o r y committee both made government more a c c e s s i b l e and resp o n s i v e to l o c a l i n t e r e s t s . They a l s o i n c r e a s e d p o s i t i v e p u b l i c involvement with the park and park i s s u e s . They c r e a t e d a sense of the community working with the government and a f e e l i n g of p u b l i c commitment to the f i n a l product. The agency respondents f e l t that the Hon. T. Brummet had announ-ced the f i n a l park development plan because of reasons surround-ing the s t r u c t u r e of the B.C. government and the lack of a c l e a r consensus of o p i n i o n from the p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n program. They f e l t that the A d v i s o r y Committee's Report was a park master working p l a n . - 76 -The agency respondents' a t t i t u d e towards the publ ic changed from a f e e l i n g that the publ ic was protect ing se l f i n t e r e s t s in the publ ic p a r t i c i p a t i o n program in 1975 to a set of mixed conclus-ions by three out of four agency respondents in 1986. These mixed conclusions ranged from f e e l i n g that the publ ic were concerned about t h e i r own interes ts and park i n t e r e s t s , or community i n t e r e s t s and park i n t e r e s t s , to a fee l ing that the publ ic went through a process of learning about other points of view and moved towards the middle. - 77 -CHAPTER VI RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE PUBLIC AND THE PARK AGENCY DURING THE KALAMALKA LAKE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM The statement of purpose s e c t i o n of Chapter I o u t l i n e d the purpose of t h i s r e s e a r c h : to see how s e l e c t e d components of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n a f f e c t the development of p u b l i c support for park management s t r a t e g i e s . The four s e c t i o n s of t h i s chapter d i s c u s s the f i n d i n g s of t h i s r e s e a r c h using four of the compon-ents i n t r o d u c e d i n Chapter I. These components ar e : p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n communication methods, p u b l i c and park agency p e r c e p t i o n of the i s s u e s , a t t i t u d e s of the p u b l i c and the park agency, and p u b l i c respondent home l o c a t i o n and survey response. P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n Communication Methods P u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n communication methods can be roughly d i v i d e d i n t o those that are ongoing and those that are c r i s i s - o r i e n t e d as i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g u r e 6. An ongoing program e x i s t s to maintain i n f o r m a t i o n flows between the p u b l i c and to develop a c o n s t i t u -ency of informed p u b l i c that can be r e l i e d on f o r advanced counsel about p o t e n t i a l areas of concern. T h i s can e x i s t at a - 78 -F i g u r e 6 P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n Methods PUBLIC PARTICIPATION COMMUNICATION METHODS ONGOING FORMAL Represen-t a t i v e s to o r g a n i z a t i o n s Media presen-t a t i o n s Cooperative a s s o c i a t i o n s INFORMAL P e r i o d i c d i s c u s s i o n s with i n d i v i d -u a l p u b l i c s M o n i t o r i n g o r g a n i z a -t i o n a l news-l e t t e r s M o n i t o r i n g newspapers CRISIS FORMAL J o i n t Planning Team P u b l i c A d v i s o r y Committee Task Group Workshop P u b l i c Meeting W r i t t e n B r i e f P o s i t i o n Paper Media P r e s e n t a t i o n s INFORMAL P e r i o d i c d i s c u s s i o n s with i n d i v i d -u a l p u b l i c s M o n i t o r i n g o r g a n i z a -t i o n a l n e w s l e t t e r s M o n i t o r i n g newspapers formal l e v e l with such t h i n g s as r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s to organ-i z a t i o n s , media p r e s e n t a t i o n s or c o o p e r a t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n s ; or at an i n f o r m a l l e v e l with p e r i o d i c d i s c u s s i o n s with i n d i v i d u a l p u b l i c s or monitoring o r g a n i z a t i o n a l n e w s l e t t e r s or newspapers. C r i s i s - o r i e n t e d p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n communication methods are those that are designed to s o l v e an e x i s t i n g problem. They can a l s o be d i v i d e d i n t o formal and in f o r m a l methods with the - 79 -i n f o r m a l methods being the same as those d e s c r i b e d f o r ongoing communication. Some of the formal methods of communication are the same as those l i s t e d under the BCFS P u b l i c Involvement Program i n F i g u r e 3, L e v e l s of P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n : j o i n t p l a n n i n g team, p u b l i c a d v i s o r y committee, task group, workshop, p u b l i c meeting, w r i t t e n b r i e f , p o s i t i o n paper - with the a d d i t i o n of media p r e s e n t a t i o n s . The parks agency d i d not have any formal communications with the p u b l i c on an ongoing b a s i s b e f o r e the Kalamalka Lake P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n Program. Although asked by the A d v i s o r y Committee to maintain communications with the p u b l i c , the parks agency d i d not implement any formal ongoing communications with the p u b l i c about Kalamalka Lake P r o v i n c i a l Park a f t e r the p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a -t i o n program. In a l e t t e r to the Chairman of the Advi s o r y Committee, Ray Worley, dated May 13, 1986, M. E. Goddard, Regional D i r e c t o r of Parks f o r the Southern I n t e r i o r Region s a i d that the formal r o l e of the Committee was f i n i s h e d and they would only be c a l l e d on i n f o r m a l l y from time to time. T h i s was d e s p i t e the Committee's terms of r e f e r e n c e which c l e a r l y s t a t e d t h a t : When the park Master Plan has been completed and ap-proved i t i s expected that the Committee w i l l meet from time to time to review any proposed amendments and to ensure that the i n t e n t of the pla n i s being f o l l o w e d . (Worley, 1984(a), p. 38) Because the Advi s o r y Committee was the only ongoing, formal communication forum that the parks agency had i n the Kalamalka - 80 -area, disbanding i t e l i m i n a t e d formal, ongoing communication between the parks agency and the l o c a l p u b l i c . During the p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n program, park agency personnel communicated through: the A d v i s o r y Committee, p u b l i c meetings, a s p e c i a l p r o j e c t with the North Okanagan N a t u r a l i s t Club, formal park r e p r e s e n t a t i o n to o r g a n i z a t i o n s , formal l e t t e r s , i n f o r m a l telephone c a l l s and o f f i c e meetings, and media appearances. Although p u b l i c meetings were used s u c c e s s f u l l y d u r i n g the p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n process, the comments by the p u b l i c on communica-t i o n methods contained i n Chapter V p o i n t out the need f o r ongoing communication to assure the p u b l i c t h a t plans w i l l be implemented i n the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t . About h a l f the p u b l i c respondents f e l t that t h e i r i n t e r e s t s were c o n s i d e r e d i n the A d v i s o r y Committee's Report but a t h i r d were not sure because they d i d n ' t know what the Report c o n t a i n e d . About h a l f the p u b l i c respondents supported the f i n a l d e c i s i o n but a t h i r d were not sure because they d i d not know i f there was a f i n a l d e c i s i o n . The p u b l i c want to know what the park agency i s doing: having ongoing communication helps to develop a context f o r management d e c i s i o n s so that the p u b l i c can see how changes to the park f i t i n t o e x i s t i n g management p l a n s . - 81 -Although the responses by park agency personnel on the process of working with the p u b l i c c o n t a i n e d i n Chapter V were i n the context of Kalamalka Lake's p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n program, i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that none of the agency respondents would have used a d i f f e r e n t method of working with the p u b l i c . In p a r t i c u l a r , parks personnel s a i d there was too much attempted f o r the time a l l o t e d , and everyone needed more time to absorb the i s s u e s . Some form of ongoing communication that would b u i l d up the p u b l i c ' s understanding of park i s s u e s seems an a p p r o p r i a t e s o l u t i o n to these problems. Another comment by the agency respondents was that the A d v i s o r y Committee needed to continue t h e i r r o l e as a communication medium between the p u b l i c and the park agency a f t e r the A d v i s o r y Committee's r e p o r t was completed. The l e t t e r to Ray Worley from A.E. Goddard, quoted e a r l i e r , shows that upper l e v e l s of parks management seem to be at odds with parks p l a n n e r s at the r e g i o n a l l e v e l about ongoing p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Both the p u b l i c and parks agency respondents have i n d i c a t e d the need f o r ongoing, formal communication between the p u b l i c and the parks agency. T h i s i s i n d i r e c t agreement with the theory of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n expressed by D. Connor: Proponents, a c t u a l or p o t e n t i a l , governmental or c o r p o r a t e , cannot a f f o r d to have s u b s t a n t i a l propor-t i o n s of t h e i r key p u b l i c s ignorant of t h e i r objec-t i v e s , a c t i v i t i e s , e f f e c t s and plans...The key p o i n t i s to p r o v i d e people with a sound knowledge base before an i s s u e a r i s e s . Once a n x i e t y and h o s t i l i t y reach high - 82 -l e v e l s , educating those a f f e c t e d becomes almost i m p o s s i b l e . (Connor, 1986, p.3) I f there i s agreement at a l l l e v e l s but the upper management f o r the i n c l u s i o n of more ongoing, formal communication between the p u b l i c and the park agency, why i s upper management opposed to t h i s change? Perhaps, as i s d i s c u s s e d i n Chapter I I , upper l e v e l management sees i n c r e a s e d communication with the p u b l i c as a p o t e n t i a l t h r e a t to t h e i r entrenched l i n e s of a u t h o r i t y . T h i s produces a reemergence of a l l the arguments between proponents of r e p r e s e n t a t i v e democracy and p a r t i c i p a t o r y democracy. The Kalamalka Lake P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n Program s u c c e s s f u l l y b r i d g e d the 'democratic loop' d i s c u s s e d i n Chapter II but i n order f o r formal, ongoing communication to take p l a c e upper l e v e l manage-ment must be convinced of the b e n e f i t s of t h i s change. P u b l i c and Park Agency P e r c e p t i o n of the Issues Concerns Sheets and p u b l i c meetings were used by the parks agency to o b t a i n the p u b l i c ' s p r e f e r e n c e f o r d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of park use. Concerns Sheets a l s o c o n t a i n e d a range of i s s u e s of concern to the p u b l i c . These i s s u e s were r a i s e d by the p u b l i c on t h e i r own or i n response to q u e s t i o n s c o n t a i n e d i n the Concerns Sheet. A l i s t of these i s s u e s was developed by Barbara P r e s c o t t i n her - 83 -a n a l y s i s of the Concerns Sheets and other p u b l i c input ( P r e s c o t t , 1978, p. 8). These i s s u e s a r e : the l e v e l of development at Twin Bays, type of camping f a c i l i t i e s that should be prov i d e d , l e v e l of beach development and pa r k i n g f a c i l i t i e s , h u nting, support f o r seasonal c l o s u r e of the road, boating a c c e s s , cabin access, expansion of the park. The survey of p u b l i c and parks personnel used these i s s u e s as a b a s i s f o r d i s c o v e r i n g these people's p e r c e p t i o n s of the i s s u e s . Three o b s e r v a t i o n s of importance r e s u l t e d from the a n a l y s i s of the survey. The f i r s t was that the p u b l i c c o n s i d e r e d one to four i s s u e s to be of importance i n 1975 and only one or two i s s u e s to be of importance i n 1986. Parks personnel remained the same, 50 % choosing four i s s u e s of importance i n 1975 and a l s o i n 1986. The second was that both the p u b l i c and the parks personnel changed i s s u e p r e f e r e n c e s over time. The t h i r d was that both the p u b l i c and the parks personnel chose i s s u e s other than those i d e n t i f i e d by P r e s c o t t i n her a n a l y s i s of p u b l i c concerns, to be of primary concern to them. There are two p o s s i b l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of these r e s u l t s : e i t h e r the p u b l i c l o s t i n t e r e s t i n some i s s u e s over time, or some i s s u e s were r e s o l v e d by the p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n process and were no longer of importance. The l a t t e r seems to be the c o r r e c t i n t e r -p r e t a t i o n because those i s s u e s i d e n t i f i e d by the p u b l i c which had - 84 -some d e c i s i o n made on them, such as 'Twin Bay Development', l o s t p u b l i c i n t e r e s t , whereas those i s s u e s such as 'No/Limited Development of the Park', which were not r e s o l v e d , have r e t a i n e d p u b l i c i n t e r e s t . T h i s i s s u e of the 'No/Limited Development of the Park', i d e n t i -f i e d under the 'Other' category of i s s u e s , remained the hi g h e s t p r i o r i t y of the p u b l i c . The parks personnel a l s o i d e n t i f i e d 'No/Limited Development of the Park', as a major i s s u e i n 1975 but moved on to other management problems i n 1986. T h i s would seem to i n d i c a t e that the p u b l i c were not assured that the park agency was going to l i m i t i t s development of the park whereas the park personnel no longer c o n s i d e r e d i t an i s s u e . I f an iss u e i s so l v e d i n the eyes of the park p e r s o n n e l , they need to communi-cate i t more e f f e c t i v e l y to the p u b l i c or continue to i n v o l v e the p u b l i c more i n the park's development so that the p u b l i c can see fo r themselves that an important i s s u e i s being looked a f t e r . T h i s a l s o i n c l u d e d i d e n t i f y i n g which i s s u e s are of importance to the p u b l i c . A t t i t u d e s of the P u b l i c and the Park Agency During the f i r s t p u b l i c meetings many (48%) respondents f e l t that the parks agency was w i l l i n g to change i t s plans to what the - 85 -p u b l i c wanted. T h i s decreased over time such that i n 1986 fewer (32%) f e l t t h i s way while more (29% up from 7%) respondents f e l t t h a t the park agency was going to do what i t wanted no matter what the p u b l i c s a i d and more (23% up from 12%) respondents f e l t that the park agency was p r i m a r i l y concerned about p r e s e r v i n g the parks n a t u r a l a t t r a c t i o n s . While the l a t t e r shows a change i n a t t i t u d e based on the management d e c i s i o n s of the park agency, the former shows some d i s i l l u s i o n m e n t with the process of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n . The p u b l i c respondents had developed e x p e c t a t i o n s fo r the p u b l i c p a r t i c p a t i o n process which they f e l t were not achieved. One comment by the p u b l i c was that economic c o n s t r a i n t s kept development minimal, r a t h e r than agency commitment to a s p e c i f i c plan kept development minimal. Lack of a f i r m d e c i s i o n on a s p e c i f i c park master p l a n communicated t o the p u b l i c at l a r g e - i n c l u d i n g low l e v e l , ongoing p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n - l e d to p u b l i c s u s p i c i o n of the park agency's a c t i o n s and a b i l i t y to c a r r y out commitments made to the p u b l i c . The park agency respondents' a t t i t u d e towards the p u b l i c a l s o changed between the f i r s t p u b l i c meetings and 1987. During the f i r s t p u b l i c meetings most agency respondents f e l t that the p u b l i c were p r o t e c t i n g t h e i r own i n t e r e s t s . T h i s changed over time such that the f i n a l impression by parks personnel was that the p u b l i c went through a l e a r n i n g process and came to see other p o i n t s of view r e s u l t i n g i n an i n c r e a s e d concern f o r the p r e s e r -v a t i o n of park i n t e r e s t s . Park personnel f e l t that they a l s o - 86 -l e a r n t from the p u b l i c t h i n g s that they would otherwise have not c o n s i d e r e d i n the park management p l a n - so that the l e a r n i n g process was mutual. Park personnel a l s o f e l t that the p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n process made government more a c c e s s i b l e and responsive to l o c a l i n t e r e s t s . T h i s c r e a t e d a sense of the community working with the government and a f e e l i n g of p u b l i c commitment to the f i n a l product. It seems c l e a r that the p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n process helped to inc r e a s e the p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e of both the p u b l i c and the park personnel towards each other and the management p l a n . Lack of a c l e a r , p u b l i c i s e d master plan undercut the o v e r a l l success of the p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n program but d i d move the p u b l i c a long way towards s u p p o r t i n g the park management p l a n . P u b l i c Respondent Home L o c a t i o n and Survey Response The r e l a t i o n s h i p between the d i s t a n c e of a p u b l i c respondent's home from Kalamalka Lake P r o v i n c i a l Park and t h e i r survey response was t e s t e d . The r e s u l t s showed that there was no s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between d i s t a n c e from the park and survey response. T h i s i n d i c a t e s that e i t h e r the number of i n d i v i d u a l s surveyed was not enough to d i s c l o s e an e x i s t i n g - 87 -r e l a t i o n s h i p , the respondents were not f a r enough apart to o b t a i n d i s t a n c e v a r i a t i o n s , or that the q u e s t i o n s asked by the survey were not r e l a t e d to a respondents l o c a t i o n to Kalamalka Lake P r o v i n c i a l Park. The l a t t e r reason seems probable, given that the main d i f f e r e n c e in respondent's answers was based upon t h e i r support f o r more or l e s s development of the park and t h i s was not a q u e s t i o n t h a t n e c e s s a r i l y changes due to the d i s t a n c e one l i v e s from an a r e a . The main reason f o r not f i n d i n g any r e l a t i o n s h i p between d i s t a n c e from the park and survey response was that almost a l l the respondents l i v e d w i t h i n seven k i l o m e t e r s of the park. T h i s was not enough d i s t a n c e v a r i a b i l i t y to r e v e a l d i f f e r -ences i n survey response due to d i s t a n c e . - 88 -CHAPTER VII CONCLUSIONS The ongoing demand by the p u b l i c f o r a r o l e i n the d e c i s i o n making process surrounding the development of Kalamalka Lake P r o v i n c i a l Park i n d i c a t e s that the p u b l i c i s p r e s s u r i n g the government to change the process of governing. T h i s pressure f o r change seems to be d i r e c t e d towards more p u b l i c input i n d e c i s -ions d i r e c t l y a f f e c t i n g the p u b l i c and making a d m i n i s t r a t i v e bureaucrats more accountable f o r t h e i r management d e c i s i o n s . The Kalamalka Lake P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n Program f o l l o w s the Upward Forming Consensus Model of P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n . Informa-t i o n was d i s t r i b u t e d to the p u b l i c by the park agency and the p u b l i c responded by d e v e l o p i n g g u i d e l i n e s together with park personnel which were then passed on to the M i n i s t e r f o r a p p r o v a l . The A d v i s o r y Committee p o r t i o n of the p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n process worked because i t was a c l o s e approximation of the B a r g a i n i n g Process Model of P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n that i t was made up of r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of the main a c t o r s i n the development c o n f l i c t and i t empowered them to n e g o t i a t e a f i n a l master working p l a n . I t was empowered to do t h i s by the benevolence of - 89 -the i n d i v i d u a l bureaucrats who were i n o f f i c e a t the time and i s not n e c e s s a r i l y r e p e a t a b l e . The four components that made up the o b j e c t i v e of t h i s r e s e a r c h are: 1) communication methods used i n t h i s program, 2) major park development i s s u e s , 3) a t t i t u d e s of the p u b l i c and park personnel towards each other, and 4) the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the p u b l i c respondent's home d i s t a n c e from the park and the respondent's survey response. The c o n c l u s i o n s t h a t t h i s r e s e a r c h reached i n regards to these four components w i l l now be d i s c u s s e d . The communication methods used i n p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n programs can be d i v i d e d i n t o those that were ongoing and those that were c r i s i s o r i e n t e d . There was not any ongoing communication with the p u b l i c that the Kalamalka Lake P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n Program c o u l d have used as a p a r t of i t s program. Although i t d i d develop some c r i s i s communication d u r i n g the p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n program, and d e s p i t e recommendations from the Advisory Committee to develop ongoing communication with the p u b l i c , no ongoing p u b l i c communi-c a t i o n was c r e a t e d . The Program was s u c c e s s f u l i n i t s : d i s t r i b u -t i o n of i n f o r m a t i o n , o p e r a t i o n of p u b l i c meetings, g a t h e r i n g and a n a l y s i s of p u b l i c o p i n i o n , use of an a d v i s o r y committee, and the development of p u b l i c support. Lack of a t i m e l y , recognized master p l a n , reviewed and monitored by the p u b l i c , undercut the o v e r a l l success of the p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n program. - 90 -The second component: major park i s s u e s , w i l l now be d i s c u s s e d . The i s s u e of the 'No/Limited Development of the Park' remained a high p r i o r i t y i s s u e with the p u b l i c a f t e r the p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a -t i o n program was completed. The park agency p e r s o n n e l , however, no longer thought t h i s i s s u e was of importance a f t e r the p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n program was completed. The p e r c e p t i o n of the p u b l i c was that t h i s l e g i t i m a t e concern of t h e i r s was not s a t i s f i e d . Park agency personnel needed to communicate to the p u b l i c what had been done to a l l e v i a t e t h i s p u b l i c concern. The Kalamalka Lake P r o v i n c i a l Park P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n Program had an e s t a b l i s h e d , a r t i c u l a t e p u b l i c who had a l r e a d y developed ideas on how they wanted the park developed. Even so, the i s s u e s surrounding the park management plans needed more time to be f u l l y understood by the p u b l i c and the park agency. T h i s under-l i n e s the n e c e s s i t y f o r an ongoing, low l e v e l p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a -t i o n program i n communities surrounding parks so that an informed c o n s t i t u e n c y can be developed. T h i s would r e s u l t i n a more e f f e c t i v e p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n program e s p e c i a l l y i n areas u n l i k e Kalamalka Lake where the p u b l i c i s not as w e l l informed or o r g a n i z e d . The t h i r d component: a t t i t u d e s of the p u b l i c and park personnel towards each other, w i l l now be d i s c u s s e d . The p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a -t i o n process helped to i n c r e a s e the p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e of both the - 91 -p u b l i c and the park personnel towards each other and the manage-ment p l a n . P u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n was seen by both p u b l i c and park agency respondents as a v a l u a b l e t o o l f o r overcoming c o n t r o v e r s y and developing p u b l i c support f o r park management p l a n s . Respon-dents a l s o saw the b e n e f i t of ongoing p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n to maintain support and head o f f c o n t r o v e r s y . Three out of four park agency respondents f e l t t h a t park managers should be t r a i n e d i n the techniques of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n . The f o u r t h component: r e l a t i o n s h i p between the p u b l i c respon-dent's home d i s t a n c e from the park and the respondent's survey response, d i d not produce any d i s c u s s i o n . The data gathered d i d not have enough v a r i a t i o n i n respondent's d i s t a n c e from the park to produce any d i f f e r e n c e s i n the respondent's survey response. - 92 -T h i s r e s e a r c h has p o i n t e d out the n e c e s s i t y f o r : - knowing what the p u b l i c f e e l s about management plans - communicating to the p u b l i c an agency's o b j e c t i v e s - p o i n t i n g out how an agency's management plans are developed to achieve those o b j e c t i v e s - opening the process f o r the p u b l i c to p a r t i c i p a t e i n f i n a l i z i n g management plans - and communicating d e t a i l e d , f i n a l p lans to the p u b l i c w i t h i n a reasonable timeframe The b e n e f i t s of an e f f e c t i v e p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n program a r e : - l e s s c o n t r o v e r s y - b e t t e r o v e r a l l management plans - a c t i v e p u b l i c support - 93 -LITERATURE CITED Adie, Robert F. & Paul G. Thomas. Canadian P u b l i c A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , P r e n t i c e - H a l l Canada L t d . , 1982. Anderson, J.D. C e n t r a l S e c t i o n , Planning D i v i s i o n , Quoted From a Memo To D.W. Shaw, E n g i n e e r i n g D i v i s i o n , B.C. Department of R e c r e a t i o n and C o n s e r v a t i o n , Parks Branch, V i c t o r i a , B.C., October, 4, 1976. A r n s t e i n , Sherry R. "A Ladder of C i t i z e n P a r t i c i p a t i o n . " J o u r n a l  of the I n s t i t u t e of Planners, 35:21-24, U.S.A., 1969. Backstrom, C.H., & G. Hursh-Cesar. Survey Research, Second E d i t i o n , John Wiley & Sons, Toronto, Canada, 1981. B.C. M i n i s t r y of F o r e s t s . , Resource Planning Manual, Chapter 2, V i c t o r i a , B.C., 1984. B.C. Parks. A Plan For Kalamalka Lake Park, P u b l i c Meeting Number 1, Department of R e c r e a t i o n and Co n s e r v a t i o n , Parks Branch, (now the M i n i s t r y of the Environment and Parks, Parks and Outdoor Rec. D i v i s i o n ) , V i c t o r i a , B.C., 1975. B.C. Parks. P u b l i c Involvement i n Park Master Planning, M i n i s t r y of Environment and Parks, Parks and Outdoor Rec. D i v i s i o n , P o l i c y # 2.1D1, V i c t o r i a , B.C., 1984. Burton, Thomas L. "A Review and A n a l y s i s of Canadian Case S t u d i e s i n P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n " , Plan Canada, V o l . 19, No. 1, pps. 13-22, 1979. Coldstream, D i s t r i c t o f . i n a l e t t e r to the Honourable Anthony J . Brummett, M i n i s t e r of Lands, Parks and Housing, Coldstream, B.C., February 15th, 1983. Connor, D. C o n s t r u c t i v e C i t i z e n P a r t i c i p a t i o n : A Resource Book, Development Press, V i c t o r i a , Canada, 1985. - 94 -Connor, D. Ed. "A New Ladder Of C i t i z e n P a r t i c i p a t i o n " , Construc-t i v e C i t i z e n P a r t i c i p a t i o n , V o l . 14, No. 2, Development Press, V i c t o r i a , Canada, 1986. Duerr, W i l l i a m A., Ed. et a l . F o r e s t Resource Management, O.S.U. Bookstores Inc., C o r v a l l i s Oregon, U.S.A., 1982. F r a s e r , Bruce. Ed., P u b l i c Involvement Handbook, B.C. M i n i s t r y of F o r e s t s , V i c t o r i a , B.C., 1981. H a r r i s , W i l l i a m H., J u d i t h Levy, eds. The New Columbia E n c y c l o -pedia , Columbia U n i v e r s i t y P ress, U.S.A., 1975. Howie, Rick R. V i s i t o r S e r v i c e s Manager., M i n i s t r y of Lands, Parks & Housing, D i v i s i o n of Parks and R e c r e a t i o n , Kamloops, B.C., (now the M i n i s t r y of the Environment and Parks, Parks and Outdoor Rec. D i v i s i o n ) , Q u o t e d From a Memorandum To F i l e , F i l e 2-2-1-176, Kamloops, B.C., 1983. Kruger, T e r r y , news w r i t e r , "Plan P r e s e n t a t i o n Bothers C o l d -stream", Vernon D a i l y News, Vernon, B.C., October, 25, 1983. Lang, Reg & Audrey Armour. The Assessment and Review of S o c i a l Impacts, F e d e r a l Environmental Assessment Review O f f i c e , Government of Canada, 1981. Lee, T.E. D i r e c t o r of the Parks Branch, Quoted from a Memorandum To J.D. Anderson, Planning D i v i s i o n , Parks Branch, Depart-ment of Re c r e a t i o n and Co n s e r v a t i o n , (now the M i n i s t r y of the Environment and Parks, Parks and Outdoor Rec. D i v i s i o n ) , V i c t o r i a , B.C., 1976. McWilliams, J e f f r e y A. Toward an Understanding and A n a l y s i s of  the Meares I s l a n d C o n f l i c t , Unpublished B.S.F. T h e s i s , F a c u l t y of F o r e s t r y , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1985. Noonan, Ted. "Park Development Ruled Out, But Chamber Won't Say Q u i t " , Vernon D a i l y News, Vernon, B.C., February 4, 1983. N.O.N.C. i n a l e t t e r to T.E. Lee, D i r e c t o r , Parks Branch, M i n i s t r y of Re c r e a t i o n and Cons e r v a t i o n , Vernon, B.C., March 14, 1978. - 95 -Oram, Edna. The H i s t o r y of Vernon 1867 - 1937, S a n d h i l l Book Marketing, Kelowna, B.C., 1985. O'Riordan, Timothy. "Towards a S t r a t e g y of P u b l i c Involvement.", P e r c e p t i o n s and A t t i t u d e s i n Resource Management, W.R. D e r r i c k Sewell and Ian Burton ( e d s . ) . Ottawa: Department of Energy Mines and Resources, 1971. Parks Canada, Jasper Core Concept, Environment Canada, Parks, Calgary, A l b e r t a , 1986. ( a l Parks Canada, 4 Mountain Parks Update, Environment Canada, Parks, Calgary, A l b e r t a , 1986. (b) Parks Canada, Parks Canada P o l i c y , M i n i s t r y of Supply and S e r v i c e s , Government of Canada, 1982. Pateman, C a r o l e . P a r t i c i p a t i o n and Democratic Theory, Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press, Great B r i t a i n , 1970. P r e s c o t t , B.H. Kalamalka Lake - Summary of Concerns Sheets,  L e t t e r s , B r i e f s and P e t i t i o n s , Program A n a l y s i s D i v i s i o n , M i n i s t r y of Lands, Parks & Housing, (now the M i n i s t r y of the Environment and Parks, Parks and Outdoor Rec. D i v i s i o n ) , V i c t o r i a , B.C., 1978. S a d l e r , Barry, ed. "Towards New S t r a t e g i e s of P u b l i c Involvement i n Environmental Management", P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n E n v i r -onmental D e c i s i o n Making, Workshop Proceedings, Enironmental C o u n c i l of A l b e r t a , Edmonton, A l b e r t a , 1979. Sewell, W.R. D e r r i c k & Susan D. P h i l l i p s . "Models f o r the E v a l u a t i o n of P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n Programmes", N a t u r a l  Resources J o u r n a l , V o l . 19, U n i v e r s i t y of New Mexico School of Law, U.S.A., 1979. Thompson, Derek, Thompson-Okanagan Regional Planner. M i n i s t r y  E x e c u t i v e Committee Submission, Request No. T.O. 83-05, Kamloops, B.C., March 31, 1983, ( a ) . Thompson, Derek, Thompson-Okanagan Regional Planner. M i n i s t r y  E x e c u t i v e Committee Submission, Request No. T.O. 83-05, Kamloops, B.C., May 30, 1983, ( b ) . - 96 -Wolf, J a c k i e . " E v a l u a t i o n of O b j e c t i v e s : A Case Study and Commentary on P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n " , Plan Canada, V o l . 19, No. 1, pps. 38-48, 1979. Worley, R. Chairman, P u b l i c A d v i s o r y Committee., Kalamalka Lake  P r o v i n c i a l Park - The Report of the P u b l i c A d v i s o r y Commit-tee , M i n i s t r y of Lands, Parks and Housing, V i c t o r i a , B.C., 1984, ( a ) . Worley, R. Chairman, P u b l i c A d v i s o r y Committee., Quoted i n a cover l e t t e r to the Committee's f i n a l r e p o r t , Kamloops, B.C., 1984, ( b ) . - 97 -APPENDIX I PUBLIC QUESTIONNAIRE FORM PUBLIC QUESTIONNAIRE #_ Purpose To I n v e s t i g a t e how t h e p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t e d 1n t h e development of Kalamalka Lake P r o v i n c i a l Park and how t h e p u b l i c ' s a t t l t u t e towards t h e park agency was a f f e c t e d by t h e p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n program. KALAMALKA PROVINCIAL PARK TIMELINE *********************************************************************^ 1975 -land purchased - P u b l i c Meetings 1 * 2 -Sraal1 Group Meetings 1976 - P u b l i c Meeting 1977 1978 - C o u n c i l s Endorse Concept 3 -Open House - P u b l i c Meeting & Concerns Sheet - C o u n c i l P e t i t i o n e d 1979 •Boat Launch I s s u e 1980 1981 1982 -Boat -Chamber o f Launch Commerce Issue p r e s s u r e s R e solved Government t o b e g i n Development 1983 - C o u n c i l p r e s s u r e s G ov't, f o r Concept 3 -Park P l a n and Advi s o r y Committee Announced 1984 •Advi s o r y Commi t t e e R e p o r t s u b m i t t e d 1985 •Park Develop-ment Be g i n s 1 * L e t t e r * P e t i t i o n * Meeting WHAT PARK DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN FROM. 1975 - 1986? L e t t e r P e t i t i o n Meeting L e t t e r P e t i t i o n Meeting L e t t e r P e t i t i o n M e t t i n g L e t t e r P e t i t i o n Meeting L e t t e r P e t i t i o n Meeting L e t t e r P e t i t i o n M eeting L e t t e r P e t i t i o n M e e t i n g Letter P e t i t i o n Meeting L e t t e r P e t i t i o n M e e t i n g L e t t e r P e t i t i o n M e e t i n g vo CO * Committee Committee Committee Committee Committee Committee Committee Committee Committee Committee Committee * 1975 KNOW ABOUT WHICH ISSUES DO YOU FEEL WERE THE HOST IMPORTANT TO YOU AT THIS TIME? AROUND 1980 RANK KNOW ABOUT 1986 RANK KNOW ABOUT RANK * i - Tw1n Bay Development 1- Twin Bay Development 1- Twin Bay Development * _ 2 * z- Type o f Camping 2- Type o f Camping 2- Type o f Camping * * 3- Beach and P a r k i n g Development 3- Beach and P a r k i n g Development 3- Beach and P a r k i n g Development * * 4- Hunting 4- Hunting 4- H u n t i n g * 3 * 5- Seasonal Road C l o s u r e 5- Seasonal Road C l o s u r e 5- Seasonal Road C l o s u r e * * 6- Bo a t i n g Access 6- B o a t i n g Access 6- B o a t i n g Access * * 7- Cabin Access 7- Cabin Access 7- Cabin Access * _ 4 * 8- Park Expansion' 8- Park Expansion 8- Park E x p a n s i o n # * 9- Other 9- Other 9- Other * Chge 5 * * * * ********** *************************************************************************************^ 6- During t h e f i r s t p u b l i c meetings d i d you f e e l 1n g e n e r a l t h a t the park agency was: 1- g o i n g t o do what i t wanted no matter what the p u b l i c s a i d ? 2- w i l l i n g t o change i t s p l a n s t o what t h e p u b l i c wanted? 3- p r i m a r i l y concerned about p r e s e r v i n g t h e park's n a t u r a l a t t r a c t i o n s ? 4- or something e l s e . 7- Where d id you l i v e over t h i s period? (distance from park) 8- Old you belong to any Buisness -9- Conservation -10- Recreation -groups over t h i s period? 11 - If YES - Which park management concept did they endorse? 12- - what act ion did they take to develop more support for the concept they endorsed? 1- l e t t e r 2- pe t i t ion 3- meeting 4- committee Bu ls . I Cons.I Rec 13-When d id you f i r s t become Interested in recreat ing in the area that i s now Kalamalka Lake Provinc ia l Park? 14 - Were you able to use the park at t h i s time? YES/NO/DK 15 - What type of a c t i v i t y ? 2- Boating 3- Hiking 4- Horse Riding 0- None 1- OK 5- Ski ing 6- Swimming 7-16 - How often? 1- 1/mo. SSF. 2- 1/wk. SSF. 3- more 1/wk. SSF. 4- 1/mo. w i n t . 5- 1/wk. wint. 6- more 1/wk. wint. 7- 1/mo. y r / r d 8- 1/wk. y r / r d 9- more 1/wk. y r / r d 17 - 1975 - What type of a c t i v i t y ? 2- Boating 3- Hiking 4- Horse Riding 0- None 1- DK 5- Sk i ing 6- Swimming 7-18 - How often? 1- 1/mo. SSF. 2- 1/wk. SSF. 3- more 1/wk. SSF. 4- 1/mo. wint. 5- 1/wk. wint. 6- more 1/wk. wint. 7- 1/mo. y r / r d 8- 1/wk. y r / r d 9- more 1/wk. y r / r d 19 1980 - What type of a c t i v i t y ? 2- Boating 3- Hiking 4- Horse Riding 0- None 1- DK 5- Sk i ing 6- Swimming 7-20 - How often? 1- 1/mo. SSF. 2- 1/wk. SSF. 3- more 1/wk. SSF. 4- 1/mo. wint. 5- 1/wk. wint. 6- more 1/wk. wint. 7- 1/mo. y r / r d 8- 1/wk. y r / r d 9- more 1/wk. y r / r d 21 - 1986 - What type of a c t i v i t y ? 2- Boating 3- 'Hik ing 4- Horse Riding 0- None 1- DK 5- Sk i ing 6- Swimming 7-22 - How often? 1- 1/mo. SSF. 2- 1/wk. SSF. 3- more 1/wk. SSF. 4- 1/mo. wint. 5- 1/wk. wint. 6- more 1/wk. wint. 7- 1/mo. y r / r d 8- 1/wk. y r / r d 9- more 1/wk. y r / r d 23- - Which I n t e r e s t s do you f e e l were c o n s i d e r e d 1n t h e f i n a l d e c i s i o n ? 0- DK 1- community I n t e r e s t s 2- p r o v i n c i a l ' 3- n a t i o n a l ' 4- park ' 5- o t h e r 24- - of t h e i n t e r e s t s t h a t were c o n s i d e r e d , which d i d you f e e l t h e park agency used t h e most i n t h e i r f i n a l d e c i s i o n ? 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 25- - 1n g e n e r a l , do you NOW f e e l t h e park agency was: 1- g o i n g t o do what 1t wanted no m a t t e r what t h e p u b l i c s a i d ? 2- w i l l i n g t o change i t s p l a n s t o what th e p u b l i c wanted? 3- p r i m a r i l y concerned about p r e s e r v i n g t h e park's n a t u r a l a t t r a c t i o n s ? 4- o r something e l s e 26- Do you f e e l you were a b l e t o communicate y o u r i n t e r e s t s 1n the park i s s u e s t o p a r k s t o parks p e r s o n n e l a t the t i m e ? YES/NO/DK 27- - I f NO - why do you t h i n k t h a t was? 28- - what would have made i t e a s i e r f o r you t o l e t y o u r I n t e r e s t s be known t o parks p e r s o n n e l ? 29- - I f YES - how? - do you f e e l they l i s t e n e d t o you? 30- Do you f e e l you were a b l e t o o b t a i n f a c t u a l i n f o r m a t i o n about t h e i s s u e s f r o m the park's p e r s o n n e l ? YES/NO/DK 31- - I f NO - why do you t h i n k t h a t was? 32- - would f a c t u a l i n f o r m a t i o n from t h e park agency l e s s e n e d the c o n t r o v e r s y ? 33- - I f YES - how? 34- - how c o u l d t h e communication be improved? 35- Do you f e e l t h a t you p a r t i c i p a t e d d i r e c t l y i n t h e development o f t h e park? YES/NO/DK 36- - I f NO - why do you t h i n k t h a t was? 37- - what would have a l l o w e d you t o p a r t i c i p a t e more d i r e c t l y ? 38- - I f YES - how? 39- - why d i d you choose t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h i s manner? 40- - how c o u l d you have p a r t i c i p a t e d more e f f e c t i v e l y ? 41- Did you feel your Interests were conslderred 1n the Advisory Committee's Report? YES/NO/DK 42- - If NO why do you think they were not considerred? 43- Did you support the final decision? YES/NO/DK 44- Would you participate again? YES/NO/DK 45- - If YES - what would your major reason for participating be? 46- - If NO - what would your major reason for not participating be? Please be assured that all Information is considered strictly confidential and 1n no way will any Information be traceable to you personally. 47- Age -48- Education - 1 - Up to Grade 12 2 - Completed Grade 12 3 - Completed Technical Training 4 - Completed University 5 - Completed Post Graduate 49- Income - 1 - less than $10,000 per year 2 - between $10,000 and $19,999 per year 3 - between $20,000 and $29,999 per year 4 - between $30,000 and $39,999 per year 5 - greater than $40,000 per year 50- Occupation - 1 - Logger 2 - Farmer 3 - Buisnessman 4 - Professional (Doctor, Teacher, Agriculturist, etc.) 5 - Labourer 6 - Retired 7 - Other - 102 -APPENDIX II PARK AGENCY QUESTIONNAIRE FORM AGENCY QUESTIONNAIRE #_ Purpose To I n v e s t i g a t e how t h e park agency I n v o l v e d t h e p u b l i c 1n t h e development o f Ka l a m a l k a Lake P r o v i n c i a l Park and how t h e agency's a t t l t u t e towards the p u b l i c was a f f e c t e d by t h e p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n program. KALAMALKA PROVINCIAL PARK TIMELINE * 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 * * * - l a n d - P u b l i c - C o u n c i l s -Boat -Boat -Chamber o f - C o u n c i l - A d v i s o r y -Park * * purchased M e e t i n g Endorse Launch Launch Commerce p r e s s u r e s Commlttee Develop- * * - P u b l i c Concept 3 Issue I s s u e p r e s s u r e s Gov't. Report ment * * Meetings -Open Re s o l v e d Government f o r s u b m i t t e d B e g i n s * * 1 & 2 House t o b e g i n Concept 3 * * -Smal1 - P u b l i c Development -Park * * Group Meeting & Pl a n and * * Meetings Concerns A d v i s o r y * * Sheet Commlttee * * - C o u n c i l Announced * * P e t i t i o n e d * WHAT PARK DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN WITH THE PUBLIC FROM 1976 - 1986? L e t t e r L e t t e r L e t t e r L e t t e r L e t t e r L e t t e r L e t t e r L e t t e r L e t t e r L e t t e r L e t t e r P e t i t i o n P e t i t i o n P e t i t i o n P e t i t i o n P e t i t i o n P e t i t i o n P e t i t i o n P e t i t i o n P e t i t i o n P e t i t i o n P e t i t i o n M e e t i n g Meeting Meeting M e t t i n g Meeting M e e t i n g Meeting M e e t i n g M e e t i n g Meeting M e e t i n g Committee Committee Committee Committee Committee Committee Committee Committee Committee Committee Committee Chge 5 1975 KNOW ABOUT WHICH ISSUES DO YOU FEEL WERE THE MOST IMPORTANT TO YOU AT THIS TIMET 1986 RANK KNOW ABOUT 1- Twin Bay Development 2- Type of Camping 3- Beach and P a r k i n g Development 4- Hunting 5- Seasonal Road C l o s u r e 6- B o a t i n g Access 7- Cabin Access 8- Park Expansion 9- Other RANK 1- Twin Bay Development 2- Type o f Camping 3- Beach and P a r k i n g Development 4- H u n t i n g 5- Seasonal Road C l o s u r e 6- B o a t i n g Access 7- C a b i n Access 8- Park E x p a n s i o n 9- Other ****************************************************************************** 6- D u r i n g t h e f i r s t p u b l i c meetings d i d you f e e l i n g e n e r a l t h a t the p u b l i c were: 1- p r o t e c t i n g t h e i r own i n t e r e s t s ? 2- concerned about community i n t e r e s t s ? 3- concerned about p r e s e r v i n g park i n t e r e s t s ? 4- or something e l s e 7- Do you feel now in general that the public were: 1- protecting their own interests? 2- concerned about community interests? 3- concerned about preserving park interests? 4- or something else 8- How long have you worked in and around this community and in what capacity? 9- Old you feel the public was Informed of the issues? YES/NO 10- Would the availability of more factual Information about park Issues have lessened public controversy? YES/NO - If NO - why do you think this would not occur? - If YES - what would be a good method of making Information available to the public? TT- Which method of working with the public did you use? 1- media appearances (news letters, interviews, etc.) 2- informally at your office 3- formal written replies 4- formal park representation to local organizations 5- public meetings 6- park advisory committees 7- other 12- - do you feel that this method(s) was successful? YES/NO - what were Its good points/bad points? GOOD BAD - how would you have improved this method's effectiveness? 13- - would you have used a different method? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14- - i f you could would you change the way you worked with the public? YES/NO - If YES - what would you do differently? 15- - do you think the things you would do differently could form general rules that you could apply to working with the public in general? YES/NO TcP Uid you learn things about the public's interest in this issue that you didn't know before? YES/MO 17- d1d you think the public Interest was accomodated into the park development plan? YES/NO - If NO - why do you think this did not occur? - If YES - how? Why was the advisory committee and the park development plan announced by the Minister - Tony Brummet instead of commlng from the local park planners? why wasn't the advisory committee's report used to develop park master plan for Kalamalka Lake Provincial Park? 18- - without a master plan park development occurs Incrementally, 1s this done to reduce public controversy or simply by default? 19- Did you have any formal training in public participation? YES/NO 20- If NO - would 1t have helped 1f you had? YES/NO - If NO - why not? - If YES - how? 21- - do you think all parks people who work with the public should have training in public participation? YES/NO If YES - did you feel this helped you to lessen the public controversy? 22- - do you think all parks people who work with the public should have training in public participation? YES/NO Z3- Is working with the public a formal part ot your job description? YES/NO 24- - If NO - do you feel you could be more effective 1n reducing public controversy 1f working with the public was a formal part of your job description? YES/NO - why? 25- - If YES - how much of your time is designated for working with the public? 1- 3/4 2- 1/2 3- 1/3 4- 1/4 5- less 26- - do you have any way of finding out how the public will feel about a park management decision before the decision is put into effect? YES/HO 27- If YES - does this improve your effectiveness in reducing public controversy? YES/NO PERSONAL INFORMATION Please be assured that all Information 1s considered strict ly confidential and 1n no way will any Information be traceable to you personally. 28- Age -29- Education - 1 - Grade 12 Incomplete 2 - Completed Grade 12 3 - Completed Technical Training 4 - Completed University 5 - Completed Post Graduate I O I - 107 -APPENDIX I I I SURVEY ANALYSIS - 108 -PART I - PUBLIC SURVEY P u b l i c Respondent P r o f i l e - Demographic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s The age of p u b l i c respondents ranged from 37 to 75 with a heavier weighting towards the o l d e r ages. J u s t under h a l f the respon-dents were between the ages 55 and 65 (42%). TABLE 1 Age MIDDLE OF INTERVAL 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 N 2 2 6 2 4 4 5 2 4 6 6 19 6 13 13 16 6 13 HISTOGRAM ** ** ****** ** **** **** ***** ** **** The 'Education' t a b l e shows that j u s t under h a l f of the p u b l i c respondents had completed u n i v e r s i t y or post graduate work (42%). The 'Income' t a b l e r e v e a l s that the respondents were spread f a i r l y evenly a c r o s s the income s c a l e with 37% e a r n i n g under $20,000, 30% earning between $20,000 and $29,999, and 33% earning g r e a t e r than $30,000 per year. The 'Occupation' t a b l e i n d i c a t e s t h at c l o s e to h a l f the respondents were r e t i r e d (39%) which perhaps expains the number of people e a r n i n g under $20,000. - 109 -TABLE 2 Education N % Below Grade 12 5 16 Completed Grade 12 8 26 Completed T e c h n i c a l T r a i n i n g 5 16 Completed U n i v e r s i t y 10 32 Completed Post Graduate 3 10 TOTALS 31 100 TABLE 3 Income N % Less Than $10,000 / Year 6 20 $10,000 - $19,999 / Year 5 17 $20,000 - $29,999 / Year 9 30 $30,000 - $39,999 / Year 4 13 Greater Than $40,00 / Year 6 20 TOTALS 31 100 — 110 — TABLE 4 Occupation N % Logger 1 3 Farmer 1 3 P r o f e s s i o n a l 3 10 Laborer 8 26 R e t i r e d 12 39 Other 6 19 TOTALS 31 100 A composite p i c t u r e drawn from the c o n c l u s i o n s reached by t h i s respondent p r o f i l e would d e s c r i b e someone who was o l d e r , r e t i r e d , w e l l educated and having an income anywhere along the s c a l e d e s c r i b e d . Although t h i s person does not n e c e s s a r i l y e x i s t i t i s h e l p f u l to c o n s i d e r the cumulative o p i n i o n s as r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of t h i s type of person. - 1 1 1 -- Use Of Kalamalka Lake P r o v i n c i a l Park Only one respondent had not used Kalamalka Park or the area which became the park i n 1975. The r e s t r e g i s t e r e d the year of t h e i r f i r s t use from 1913 to 1976 with the l a r g e s t number (19%), s t a r t i n g t h e i r use i n 1965. Over h a l f (52%), began u s i n g the park between 1965 and 1976. TABLE 5 Year of F i r s t Use No Use 19- 13 30 40 50 52 54 57 58 60 64 65 69 72 74 75 76 N 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 6 1 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 10 3 3 7 3 3 3 7 19 3 7 10 10 3 Respondents were questioned whether t h e i r main a c t i v i t y i n the park was one of the f i v e l i s t e d i n Table 6, or something e l s e , none at a l l or i f they d i d not know. H i k i n g was chosen by approximately h a l f the respondents as t h e i r main a c t i v i t y i n the park. Walking was l i s t e d c o n s i s t e n t l y under the 'other' a c t i v i t y c a t e g o r y . I t was a l s o n o t i c e d that the number of respondents using the park i s d e c r e a s i n g . D e c l i n i n g use of the park c o u l d be e x p l a i n e d by: changes i n a c t i v i t y p a t t e r n s as the user grew o l d e r , or a change i n the type of park user as development m o d i f i e d the a t t r a c t i o n s of the park. - 1 1 2 -TABLE 6 Type of Use A c t i v i t y F i r s t Use 1975 1980 1986 N % N % N % N % None 1 3 5 16 9 29 10 32 Don't Know - - - - - - - -Boating 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 H i k i n g 17 55 18 58 15 48 15 48 Horse R i d i n g - - - - - - - -Ski ing 1 3 - - 1 3 - -Swimming 6 20 2 7 2 7 2 7 Other 5 16 5 1 6 3 10 3 10 TOTAL 31 100 31 1 00 31 1 00 31 100 Table 7 records the frequency that respondents used Kalamalka Lake P r o v i n c i a l Park. The l a r g e s t number of respondents used the park once per month d u r i n g the Spring, Summer and F a l l . T h i s o c c u r r e d d u r i n g the respondents f i r s t use of the park and du r i n g 1975. Respondents use of the park dropped o f f d u r i n g 1980 and 1986 with the r e s u l t a n t i n c r e a s e in the number of respondents not using the park i n 1980 and 1986. 13 -TABLE 7 Frequency of Use Rate Not Used Once per Month Winter Once per Week Winter More Once per Week Winter Once per Month Spr i ng/Summer/Fa11 Once per Week Spring/Summer/Fall More Once per Month Spring/Summer/Fa11 Once per Month Year Round Once per Week Year Round More Once per Week Year Round TOTAL 1st Use N 1 3 2 6 1 1 36 23 10 10 1975 N % 1980 1986 19 12 39 3 10 3 10 4 13 N 10 1 32 3 8 26 6 19 N 10 32 8 26 3 10 5 16 31 100 31 100 31 100 31 100 - 1 1 4 -- Respondent A f f i l i a t i o n And Group A c t i v i t i e s The l a r g e s t number of respondents s a i d that they were a f f i l i a t e d with a c o n s e r v a t i o n group (35%), the next l a r g e s t number had no a f f i l i a t i o n (32%), f o l l o w e d by those a f f i l i a t e d with a r e c r e a t i o n group (23%), or a bus i n e s s group (10%). Those with no a f f i l i a t i o n TABLE 8 P u b l i c Respondent A f f i l i a t i o n Type of A f f i l i a t i o n Park Concept A c t i o n they Took Endorsed N % C# N % N % 0- No A f f i l i a t i o n 10 32 10 32 — 1- Business Group 3 10 3 3 10 L e t t e r 3 60 P e t i t i o n 0 Meeting 1 20 Committee 1 20 5 1 1 2- Con s e r v a t i o n Group 11 35 0 1 2 L e t t e r 9 26 P e t i t i o n 9 26 1 7 23 Meeting 10 29 Committee 7 20 2 3 10 35 78 3- R e c r e a t i o n Group 7 23 0 5 16 L e t t e r 2 40 P e t i t i o n 0 -1 2 7 Meeting 2 40 Committee 1 20 5 1 1 TOTAL 31 100 31 100 45* 100 * Some respondents chose more than one o p t i o n per q u e s t i o n pro-ducing a t o t a l g r e a t e r than the t o t a l number of respondents (31). - 1 1 5 -were not que s t i o n e d f u r t h e r , but the c o n s e r v a t i o n group mostly favored concept 1 and took a c t i o n with l e t t e r s , p e t i t i o n s , meetings and as committee members. Most of the r e c r e a t i o n group d i d n ' t know what concept t h e i r group supported but knew they took a c t i o n mostly at meetings and with l e t t e r s . The business group supported concept 3 and most of t h e i r a c t i o n was i n the form of l e t t e r s . - 1 1 6 -- I n d i v i d u a l P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n A c t i v i t i e s The l a r g e s t number of respondents went to a l l three p u b l i c meetings and ret u r n e d the concerns sheet. They d i d not w r i t e l e t t e r s , s i g n p e t i t i o n s , nor were they committee members. Of a l l the p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s the g r e a t e s t number of respondents p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the p u b l i c meetings. TABLE 9 I n d i v i d u a l P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n A c t i v i t i e s NOTE: The f a r l e f t hand column headed by 'A', i n d i c a t e s the number of times an a c t i v i t y was engaged i n by respondents. The c a p i t a l 'S' i s s u b t o t a l , 0 = zero, and the c a p i t a l 'T' i s t o t a l . L e t t e r s N 7 23 3 10 3 10 1 2 14 46 17 55 31 100 P e t i t i o n s N 8 26 8 23 31 26 74 100 P u b l i c Meetings N 7 6 13 2 23 19 42 6 28 91 3 10 31 101 Committee Memberships N 29 9 29 22 71 31 100 Concerns Sheets N 21 10 % 19 61 22 7 68 32 31 100 - 1 1 7 -- R e l a t i o n s h i p Between D i s t a n c e from Park and Survey Response The map i n f i g u r e 7 shows the d i s t a n c e between i n d i v i d u a l p u b l i c respondent's r e s i d e n c e s and Kalamalka Lake P r o v i n c i a l Park using expanding h a l f - c i r c l e s each 1 kilometer a p a r t . Two c l u s t e r s of respondent r e s i d e n c e s can be observed: one around the Northern edge of Kalamalka Lake P r o v i n c i a l Park and the other w i t h i n the c i t y l i m i t s of Vernon. There were more people i n t e r v i e w e d w i t h i n the 1 kilometer r a d i u s of Kalamalka Park (11), than anywhere e l s e . The next h i g h e s t grouping (8), was w i t h i n the 5-6 k i l o m e t e r r a d i u s which runs through the.center of Vernon. S t a t i s t i c a l t e s t s were undertaken to determine i f there was any r e l a t i o n s h i p between the answers given i n the survey and e i t h e r the d i s t a n c e from the park or the c l u s t e r i n g of groups around the park and i n Vernon. The small sample s i z e of 31 meant even sma l l e r s u b c a t e g o r i e s and produced r e s u l t s of very l i m i t e d v a l u e . When the s u b c a t e g o r i e s were compared a f t e r being normalized f o r s i z e by c o n v e r t i n g each to a percentage i t was found that there was l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e between the answers i n the subcategory and the answers r e c e i v e d from the o v e r a l l sample. The Chi-square t e s t f o r d i f f e r e n c e s (at the 5% p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l ) , was a l s o used to determine i f there were any r e l a t i o n s h i p s between d i s t a n c e / c l u s -- 1 1 8 -t e r s and the answers given i n the survey. The t e s t r e s u l t s showed that there was no s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between any of the v a r i a b l e s compared. T h i s l e d to the c o n c l u s i o n that there was not enough d i s t a n c e v a r i a b i l i t y to r e v e a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n survey response due to d i s t a n c e . - 119 -F i g u r e 1 P u b l i c Respondent's Home Distance From Park - 120 -Major Issues i n the Development of Kalamalka Lake 1975 - 1986 E i g h t i s s u e s were i d e n t i f i e d ( P r e s c o t t , 1978, p. 8) as represen-t i n g the most important i s s u e s surrounding the development of Kalamalka Lake P r o v i n c i a l Park. The next set of q u e s t i o n s looks at how the respondents ranked these i s s u e s i n t o primary, secon-dary and t e r t i a r y importance f i r s t i n 1975 and then i n 1986. T a b l e s 10 - 13 l a y these f i g u r e s out i n more d e t a i l . In 1975 over h a l f the respondents (61%) i d e n t i f i e d between 1 and 4 i s s u e s as being of some importance to them. Two i d e n t i f i e d no primary i s s u e s , seven more i d e n t i f i e d only primary i s s u e s , and another twelve primary or secondary but not t e r t i a r y i s s u e s . Under h a l f (42%) of the respondents s a i d t h at some other i s s u e b e s i d e s the e i g h t i d e n t i f i e d by the Parks Branch was of primary importance to them. Two i s s u e s t i e d f o r the most important secondary i s s u e ; 'beach and p a r k i n g development* (23%) and 'no i s s u e i d e n t i f i e d ' (23%). Most respondents (39%) s a i d there was no i s s u e of t e r t i a r y importance to them in 1975. Out of a t o t a l of 13 respondents (42%) who d i d not c o n s i d e r the i s s u e s i d e n t i f i e d by the Parks Branch to be of primary importance in 1975, 10 or 77% commented that they c o n s i d e r e d no development or l i m i t e d development to be the i s s u e of primary importance. The - 121 -- Issues 1975 TABLE 10 T o t a l Number of Issues I d e n t i f i e d per Respondent TOTALS T.N. N % 1 2 7 5 5 16 16 4 13 5 16 2 7 3 9 2 7 8 3 9 31 100 TABLE 11 Issues of Primary, Secondary and T e r t i a r y Importance The Major Issues i d e n t i f i e d by the Parks Branch Issues of Primary Importance Issues of Secondary Importance Issues of T e r t i a r y Importance N % N % N % 1- Twin Bay Development 5 16 3 10 2 7 2- Type of Camping 1 3 5 15 2 7 3- Beach & Parking Devel. 3 10 7 23 3 9 4- Hunting 3 10 2 7 2 7 5- Seasonal Road Closure 2 7 2 7 2 7 6- Boating Access 1 3 1 3 5 1 5 7- Cabin Access 1 3 3 10 1 3 8- Park Expansion - - - - 1 3 a- Other Issue 13 42 1 3 1 3 b- No Issue I d e n t i f i e d 2 6 7 23 1 2 39 TOTALS 31 1 00 31 100 31 100 - 122 -remaining 3 respondents c o n s i d e r e d road access, o v e r l o a d i n g Coldstream roads and opening up Kalamalka Park f o r major develop-ment to be the i s s u e s of primary importance. I t would seem that the i s s u e s i d e n t i f i e d by the parks branch from p u b l i c submissions (concept sheets, l e t t e r s , b r i e f s , e t c . ) were not of primary importance i n 1975 to the respondents i n t e r v i e w e d . The i s s u e that was of primary importance to respondents i n 1975 was no or l i m i t e d development. I t i s i n t e r p r e t e d from the d e c l i n e i n the number of secondary and t e r t i a r y i s s u e s i d e n t i f i e d by respondents that most respondents only had a couple of i s s u e s that were of importance to them a.nd they were mostly of a ge n e r a l nature. In 1986 most respondents i d e n t i f i e d one or two i s s u e s as being of some importance to them. Almost h a l f to near two t h i r d s of the respondents d i d not c o n s i d e r there to be an issue of secondary importance (42%) or t e r t i a r y importance (65%). Over h a l f (58%) of the respondents s a i d t h at some other i s s u e b e s i d e s the e i g h t i d e n t i f i e d by the Parks Branch was of primary importance to them. Out of a t o t a l of 18 respondents (58%) who d i d not c o n s i d e r the i s s u e s i d e n t i f i e d by the Parks Branch to be of primary importance i n 1986, 12 or two t h i r d s commented that they c o n s i d e r e d no development or l i m i t e d development to be the - 123 -Issues 1986 TABLE 12 T o t a l Number of Issues I d e n t i f i e d per Respondent TOTALS N 3 10 10 7 32 23 4 4 13 13 1 3 1 3 1 3 31 100 TABLE 13 Issues of Primary, Secondary and T e r t i a r y Importance The Major Issues i d e n t i f i e d by the Parks Branch 1- Twin Bay Development 2- Type of Camping 3- Beach & Parking Deve. 4- Hunting 5- Seasonal Road Cl o s u r e 6- Boating Access 7- Cabin Access 8- Park Expansion a- Other Issue b- No Issue I d e n t i f i e d TOTALS Issues of Primary Importance N 5 1 1 2 18 3 =5 16 3 3 7 58 10 31 100 Issues of Secondary Importance N 1 7 3 1 2 1 3 13 3 23 10 3 6 3 10 42 31 100 Issues of T e r t i a r y Importance N 1 3 3 2 20 3 10 10 3 3 6 65 31 100 - 124 -is s u e of primary importance. Of the remaining 6 respondents, 2 thought that opening a road to Cousens Bay was of primary importance while the r e s t had these i n d i v i d u a l concerns; road access, no dogs i n the Twin Bays, f i r e i n the park and opening up Kalamalka Park f o r major development. There was a l a r g e i n c r e a s e between 1975 and 1986 i n the number of respondents who s a i d there was no i s s u e of secondary (23% - 42%) or t e r t i a r y (39% - 65%) importance to them. T h i s c o u l d be i n d i c a t i v e of a l o s s of i n t e r e s t i n the park development i s s u e s over time, or a f e e l i n g that the i s s u e s that were of importance to the respondents i n 1975 were e i t h e r d e l t with or o u t s i d e t h e i r c o n t r o l i n 1986. While over h a l f of the respondents were p r i m a r i l y concerned with no development or l i m i t e d development, j u s t over three q u a r t e r s of the g e n e r a l p u b l i c who submitted t h e i r c h o i c e of park develop-ment concept to the Parks Branch, chose the low or l i m i t e d development o p t i o n one or two ( P r e s c o t t , 1978, p. 12). T h i s c o u l d mean that e i t h e r ; the members of the p u b l i c who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the survey were weighted more towards park development than the l a r g e r sample of the general p u b l i c analysed by P r e s c o t t , or the Parks Branch a n a l y s i s d i d not b r i n g out the r e a l o p i n i o n s of the p u b l i c . Being that the amount of people who i d e n t i f i e d t h i s i s s u e as being of primary importance i n c r e a s e d from 42% i n 1975 to 58% - 125 -in 1986 i t seems that t h i s i s s u e was and i s of growing concern to the respondents i n t e r v i e w e d . P u b l i c A t t i t u d e Towards Park Agency - The P u b l i c I n t e r e s t - - Communication of I n t e r e s t s to Park Personnel Table 14 shows that the m a j o r i t y of the respondents (81%) f e l t t hat they had communicated t h e i r i n t e r e s t s i n the development of Kalamalka Park to park p e r s o n n e l . Of these people the g r e a t e s t number (37%), communicated t h e i r i n t e r e s t s at p u b l i c meetings; next were those who communicated by l e t t e r (23%), and then those who were members of the A d v i s o r y Committee (17%). Comments under t h i s q u e s t i o n s t r e s s e d the l i m i t a t i o n s of t h i s communication. Of those respondents who f e l t they had communi-cated t h e i r i n t e r e s t s there was a g e n e r a l f e e l i n g of unease and d i s t r u s t of the p r o c e s s . Having communicated t h e i r i n t e r e s t s they were unsure how or i f t h e i r i n t e r e s t s were used i n the f i n a l d e c i s i o n . Some f e l t t h a t the d e c i s i o n was taken out of l o c a l hands by the Hon. M i n i s t e r (Brummet), while others f e l t that the - 126 -TABLE 14 Communicated I n t e r e s t s to Park Personnel Yes N % No Do Not Know "25 5 i 8 1 1 6 3 TOTALS 3l 100 TABLE 15 I f YES how were your i n t e r e s t s communicated? N 1- At p u b l i c meetings 2- By l e t t e r 3- As an Ad v i s o r y Committee member 4- By p e r s o n a l contact 5- V i a the concerns sheet 6- To a park o f f i c i a l i n V i c t o r i a 7- To a Coldstream m u n i c i p a l o f f i c i a l 8- To D e r i c k Thompson (Park Planner) 9- As one government worker to another TOTALS 13 8 6 2 2 1 1 1 1 35 37 23 16 6 6 3 3 3 3 1 00 d e c i s i o n had more to do with a lack of funds f o r development than e f f e c t i v e communication of p u b l i c i n t e r e s t s . Comments from those who d i d not f e e l t h e i r i n t e r e s t s were communicated to park personnel c r i t i c i s e d park personnel f o r al r e a d y having t h e i r minds made up, not being a v a i l a b l e o u t s i d e of p u b l i c meetings and not knowing i f the p u b l i c ' s i n t e r e s t s were going to be con s i d e r e d i n the implementation of park p l a n s . Suggestions f o r improvements s t r e s s e d the need f o r wider communi-c a t i o n of the park personnel's park development ideas, a l e s s - 127 -r i g i d and more open process and the need f o r park personnel to be more a v a i l a b l e o u t s i d e p u b l i c meetings. - - I n t e r e s t s Considered i n A d v i s o r y Committee's Report Table 16 shows that j u s t over h a l f the respondents (52%), f e l t t h e i r i n t e r e s t s were c o n s i d e r e d i n the A d v i s o r y Committee's Report but t h i s was l e s s than those who f e l t they had communi-cated t h e i r i n t e r e s t s to park personnel (81%). There were many respondents (32%), who d i d not know i f t h e i r i n t e r e s t s were c o n s i d e r e d i n the A d v i s o r y Committee's Report and t h e i r reasons f o r not knowing a l l surrounded a lack of knowledge of what the Report c o n t a i n e d . TABLE 16 I n t e r e s t s Considered i n A d v i s o r y Committee Report Yes No Do Not Know TOTALS 16 5 10 31 52 16 32 100 - - I n t e r e s t s Considered i n the F i n a l D e c i s i o n Table 17 i n d i c a t e s that a l a r g e number of respondents (33%), f e l t t hat community i n t e r e s t s were c o n s i d e r e d i n the f i n a l d e c i s i o n . The next l a r g e s t group f e l t that something other than the c h o i c e s presented was c o n s i d e r e d i n the f i n a l d e c i s i o n . Over h a l f of "1 - 128 -these people s a i d t h a t the park was developed to i n c r e a s e tourism. Table 18 shows that i n answer to the q u e s t i o n : which i n t e r e s t was used the most by park personnel i n the f i n a l d e c i s i o n - respon-dents gave s i m i l a r weight to four c a t e g o r i e s ; other (26%, of which 38% i d e n t i f i e d t o u r i s t i n t e r e s t s ) , do not know (23%), community i n t e r e s t s (23%), and park i n t e r e s t s (20%). C o n t r a s t i n g Table 17 and Table 18 i t appears that many respon-dents c o n s i d e r e d community i n t e r e s t s and tourism i n t e r e s t s to have been c o n s i d e r e d i n the f i n a l d e c i s i o n and a l s o ranked them h i g h l y as being c o n s i d e r e d the most i n the f i n a l d e c i s i o n . The d i f f e r e n c e between these two t a b l e s i s i n how sure the respon-dents were that these i n t e r e s t s were c o n s i d e r e d . Only 3 percent of respondents were unsure what i n t e r e s t s were c o n s i d e r e d however 23 percent were unsure what i n t e r e s t s were c o n s i d e r e d the most i n the f i n a l d e c i s i o n . Almost a t h i r d of the respondents were unsure as to how the i n t e r e s t s i d e n t i f i e d were ab l e to a f f e c t the f i n a l d e c i s i o n . - 129 -TABLE 17 Which I n t e r e s t s Were Considered In the F i n a l D e c i s i o n N % Community I n t e r e s t s 16 33 Other 15 31 Park I n t e r e s t s 10 21 P r o v i n c i a l I n t e r e s t s 5 10 Do Not Know 2 3 N a t i o n a l I n t e r e s t s 1 2 TOTALS 49* 100 TABLE 18 I n t e r e s t s Used the Most by the Park Agency i n T h e i r F i n a l D e c i s i o n Other Do Not Know Community I n t e r e s t s Park I n t e r e s t s P r o v i n c i a l I n t e r e s t s N a t i o n a l I n t e r e s t s TOTALS N 8 7 7 6 3 31 26 23 23 20 9 1 00 * Some respondents chose more than one option per q u e s t i o n pro-ducing a t o t a l g r e a t e r than the t o t a l number of respondents (31). - 130 -- T r a n s f e r of Information About Issues The l a r g e s t number (27%), of respondents f e l t that they had obtained f a c t u a l i n f o r m a t i o n about park i s s u e s from park person-n e l . Of these people the l a r g e s t number (22%), obtained t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n i n p r i n t e d form (brochures, b o o k l e t s and pamphlets), then from meetings (20%), and then from p e r s o n a l c o n t a c t with park personnel (17%). Comments r e c e i v e d from the p u b l i c about improving i n f o r m a t i o n t r a n s f e r emphasized the need f o r keeping the p u b l i c informed on an ongoing b a s i s about: the r e s u l t s of meetings and q u e s t i o n -n a i r e s , how d e c i s i o n s were reached, upcoming development a c t i v i -t y , and how pl a n s are going to be implemented. TABLE 19 Obtained F a c t u a l Information About Issues Yes N % 27 87 No 4 13 Do Not Know TOTALS 31 100 - 131 -TABLE 20 I f YES how was t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n obtained? 1- brochures/booklets/pamphlets 2- meetings 3- p e r s o n a l c o n t a c t 4- l e t t e r s 5- d i s p l a y s 6- t a l k i n g to parks personnel 7- newspaper a r t i c l e s 8- mailed i n f o r m a t i o n 9- park development models 10- phone c a l l s 11- n e w s l e t t e r s (N.O.N.C.) 12- n a t u r a l h i s t o r y r e p o r t (N.O.N.C.) 13- as M.O.E. employee 14- from A d v i s o r y Committee TOTALS N 10 9 8 4 3 3 2 46' 22 20 17 9 7 7 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 100 * Some respondents s e l e c t e d more than one o p t i o n per q u e s t i o n producing a t o t a l g r e a t e r than the t o t a l number of respondents (31 ). - P a r t i c i p a t i o n In Park Development Over h a l f the respondents (58%), f e l t that they had p a r t i c i p a t e d d i r e c t l y i n the development of Kalamalka Lake P r o v i n c i a l Park. The l a r g e s t number of respondents (33%), f e l t they p a r t i c i p a t e d at meetings, then as A d v i s o r y Committee members (25%), and then through l e t t e r s (13%). - 132 -Asked why they p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the manner they d i d , respondents who f e l t they p a r t i c i p a t e d d i r e c t l y i n the development t a l k e d about p e r s o n a l vested i n t e r e s t s that they f e l t they had i n the park which needed to be p r o t e c t e d . They f e l t that more e f f e c t i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n c o u l d have been a f f e c t e d i f : they had more time to go to meetings and be c l o s e r to the development; i f there had not been such a long time between the f i n a l d e c i s i o n and the s e r i e s of p u b l i c meetings; and i f the Advisory Committee's terms of r e f e r e n c e had been broader to allow f o r examination of a l t e r n a -t i v e s o u t s i d e the four o p t i o n s presented by the parks branch. Respondents who d i d not f e e l that they p a r t i c i p a t e d d i r e c t l y i n the development gave these reasons f o r f e e l i n g t h at way: they were not a b l e to communicate t h e i r i n t e r e s t s as e f f e c t i v e l y or with as much f o r c e as o t h e r s ; the park agency a l r e a d y had a p l a n ; and meetings and q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were not d i r e c t p a r t i c i p a t i o n . TABLE 21 P a r t i c i p a t e d D i r e c t l y i n Park Development N Yes No Do Not Know 18 13 58 42 TOTALS 31 100 - 133 -TABLE 22 I f YES how d i d you p a r t i c i p a t e ? N % 1- meetings 2- Advisory Committee member 3- l e t t e r s 4- p e t i t i o n o r g a n i z e r 5- through N.O.N.C. 6- as a p a r t of the p u b l i c 7- telephone 8- during the purchase of the park 9- gave p r o f e s s i o n a l a dvise to A d v i s o r y Committee 10- meetings - mailed i n my ideas 8 6 3 33 25 13 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 TOTALS 24* 100 * These are only those repondents who f e l t they p a r t i c i p a t e d d i r e c t l y i n park development, seven respondents answered no. - Support f o r the F i n a l D e c i s i o n J u s t over h a l f (52%), of the respondents s a i d they supported the f i n a l d e c i s i o n . Of these people the l a r g e s t number (43%), s a i d they supported the f i n a l d e c i s i o n because they f e l t i t would preserve the park i n i t s n a t u r a l s t a t e and l i m i t development, the next l a r g e s t was ' f o r p e r s o n a l reasons' (21%), then 'stop camping/commercial development' (11%), and then to 'develop the park' (11%). There were a s i g n i f i c a n t number of people (29%), who d i d not know i f they supported the f i n a l d e c i s i o n because they d i d not know what i t was. Of those who d i d not support the f i n a l d e c i s i o n (19%), one gave t h i s reason: because p o l i t i c s i n t e r f e r e d - 134 -c u t t i n g out the work of the p u b l i c . Asked i f they would p a r t i c i -pate again a l a r g e m a j o r i t y (90%), s a i d they would, but one commented: not i f i t means g i v i n g l e g i t i m a c y to a plan a l r e a d y decided on by the park agency. TABLE 23 Support F i n a l D e c i s i o n Yes No Do Not Know TOTALS 16 6 9 31 52 19 29 100 N % 1- preserve park i n i t s n a t u r a l s t a t e and 12 43 l i m i t development 2- pe r s o n a l reasons 6 21 3- stop camping / commercial development 3 1 1 4- develop the park 3 1 1 5- p u b l i c duty 2 6 6- buy land now when i t i s a f f o r d a b l e 1 4 7- do not know 1 4 TOTALS 28* 100 * Some respondents s e l e c t e d more than one o p t i o n per q u e s t i o n producing a t o t a l g r e a t e r than the t o t a l number of respondents who answered 'YES' (16). - 135 -- P u b l i c A t t i t u d e Towards Park Agency Table 25 shows that the respondent's a t t i t u d e towards the park agency changed from that at the f i r s t p u b l i c meetings to t h e i r f e e l i n g s i n 1987. During the f i r s t p u b l i c meetings j u s t under h a l f of the respondents (48%), f e l t that the park agency was w i l l i n g to change i t s plans to what the p u b l i c wanted. The next l a r g e s t number (26%), f e l t that the park agency was doing something e l s e . T h i s has changed to much l e s s than h a l f (32%), of the respondents f e e l i n g t h at the park agency was w i l l i n g to change i t s p l a n s to what the p u b l i c wanted. The next l a r g e s t number of respondents (29%), f e l t that the park agency was going to do what i t wanted no matter what the p u b l i c s a i d . The p u b l i c changed t h e i r a t t i t u d e towards the park agency between the f i r s t p u b l i c meetings and 1986. T h i s can be c o n s i d e r e d a r e s u l t of the p u b l i c ' s p e r c e p t i o n of a d e c l i n e i n the park agency's responsiveness to p u b l i c concerns. - 136 -TABLE 25 Public Attitude Towards Park Agency Responses - Do not know what Park Agency was doing. 1- Parks Agency was going to do what i t wanted no matter what the public said. 2- Parks Agency was willing to change it s plans to what the public wanted. 3- Parks Agency was primarily concerned about preserving the parks natural attractions. 4- Parks Agency was doing something else. TOTALS - - Comments Comments received under category # 4- Parks Agency was doing something else. During the First Public Meetings - the parks agency was going to develop Kalamalka Lake Park - Tony Brummet was going to do what he wanted - the parks agency was greatly influenced by the naturalist majority at the public meetings - the parks agency was swayed by the Vernon Chamber of Commerce 1975-1978 N % 2 7 2 7 15 48 4 12 8 26 31 100 1986 N % 1 3 9 29 10 32 7 23 4 13 31 100 - 137 -- the parks agency was c o - o p e r a t i n g with other government agencies - the parks agency put much too narrow a set of g u i d e l i n e s around concepts 1-3 1986 - somewhere between the park agency doing what i t wanted and l i s t e n i n g to the p u b l i c - somewhere between the park agency doing what i t wanted and p r e s e r v i n g the parks n a t u r a l a t t r a c t i o n s - parks agency was t r y i n g to please too many people - economic c o n s t r a i n t s kept development minimal not agency commitment to a s p e c i f i c development plan - 1 3 8 -PART II - AGENCY SURVEY P r o f i l e of Park Agency Respondents - Demographic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Park agency respondent's age ranged from 36 to 54. T h e i r educa-t i o n v a r i e d from high school to post graduate education, and they had spent from 5 to 30 years i n the Okanagan Region. - Working With the P u b l i c A l l respondents s a i d t h at working with the p u b l i c was a p a r t of t h e i r job d e s c r i p t i o n . Some commented that park personnel needed time to make the p u b l i c more aware of the agency's a c t i v i t i e s and by so doing p u b l i c c o n t r o v e r s y c o u l d be defused. One f e l t that l e s s than one quarter of h i s time was desi g n a t e d f o r working with the p u b l i c , two f e l t that one q u a r t e r of t h e i r time was d e s i g n a t -ed, and one f e l t that as much time as p o s s i b l e was designated. Comments were that i t needed t o be an i n f o r m a l d e s i g n a t i o n and th a t as much time as p o s s i b l e should be spent with the p u b l i c . Three out of four f e l t they c o u l d f i n d out how the p u b l i c f e l t about an i s s u e before a d e c i s i o n was implemented. They s a i d t h i s - 139 -was p o s s i b l e through p u b l i c involvement, surveys and p e r s o n a l c o n t a c t s . - P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n T r a i n i n g Two respondents s a i d they had t r a i n i n g i n some form of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n ; of the two who d i d n ' t have t r a i n i n g one thought he c o u l d have helped l e s s e n p u b l i c c o n t r o v e r s y with p u b l i c p a r t i c i -p a t i o n t r a i n i n g but commented that the government does not i n c l u d e p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n as a p a r t of s t a f f t r a i n i n g . The respondent who d i d not t h i n k t r a i n i n g would have helped commented that he c o n s i d e r e d h i s job was to give t e c h n i c a l a dvise and t h i s d i d not n e c e s s i t a t e working with the p u b l i c . Three out of the four respondents thought that t r a i n i n g i n p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n should be mandatory for park managers. - P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n A c t i v i t i e s Respondents v a r i e d i n t h e i r involvement with p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s . Most p a r t i c i p a t e d i n p u b l i c meetings and on commit-tees as w e l l as r e p l y i n g to l e t t e r s . One was i n v o l v e d i n a p e t i t i o n and one had a s p e c i a l p r o j e c t with the p u b l i c w r i t i n g a guidebook f o r Kalamalka Park. - 140 -Major Issues i n the Development of Kalamalka Lake Park Issues i d e n t i f i e d by agency personnel as being of primary importance changed from 1975 to 1986. Agency respondents i d e n t i -f i e d 'type of camping', 'seasonal road c l o s u r e ' and 'other' i s s u e s to be of primary importance i n 1975. Under the 'other' category 'keeping the park n a t u r a l ' , and ' d e f i n i n g the r o l e of the park' were l i s t e d . In 1986 'type of camping' was again i d e n t i f i e d then 'twin bay development' and two other i s s u e s under the 'other' category. Under the 'other' category 'marketing, promotion and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the park' and ' f i r e and g r a z i n g management' were l i s t e d as being of primary importance. A l l agency personnel f e l t that the p u b l i c had been informed of the i s s u e s . One f e l t that more i n f o r m a t i o n about park i s s u e s through the media e s p e c i a l l y , would have l e s s e n e d p u b l i c c o n t r o -versy, the other three d i d not. Those three commented that the agency gave out a l l the i n f o r m a t i o n i t had and one s a i d that the c r u c i a l element was not the amount of i n f o r m a t i o n but the amount of time the p u b l i c had to absorb and be able to d e a l with i s s u e s . - 141 -TABLE 26 Issues of Primary Importance 1975 - 1986 The Major Issues that were i d e n t i f i e d by the A d v i s o r y Committee 0- No Issue I d e n t i f i e d 1- Twin Bay Development 2- Type of Camping 3- Beach and Parking Development 4- Hunting 5- Seasonal Road C l o s u r e 6- Boating Access 7- Cabin Access 8- Park Expansion 9- Other TOTALS 1975 Issues of Primary Importance N 1986 Issues of Primary Importance - - Comments Comments Under The 'Other' Category 1975 - keep the park n a t u r a l - what i s the Role of the park 1986 - marketing, promotion and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of park - f i r e and g r a z i n g management - 142 -Process of Working with the P u b l i c - Methods Used Of the l i s t of methods presented below, a l l agency respondents were i n v o l v e d with each method at one time or another. The methods used the most were the p u b l i c meetings and the park a d v i s o r y committees, while one respondent had a s p e c i a l p r o j e c t w r i t i n g a guidebook f o r Kalamalka Park. Three out of four respondents f e l t t h a t the method they used was s u c c e s s f u l and none of the respondents would have used a d i f f e r e n t method such as an on-going n e w s l e t t e r . Three out of four respondents would not have changed the way they worked with the p u b l i c . TABLE 27 Which Method d i d You Use the Most - media appearances (news l e t t e r s , i n t e r v i e w s , etc.) - i n f o r m a l l y at your o f f i c e - formal w r i t t e n r e p l i e s - formal park r e p r e s e n t a t i o n to l o c a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s - p u b l i c meetings - park a d v i s o r y committees - s p e c i a l p r o j e c t - - Comments P u b l i c meetings were thought to be completely open and f l e x i b l e , a lthough there was too much attempted f o r the amount of time - 143 -a l l o t e d . Everyone needed more time to absorb the i s s u e s . The A d v i s o r y Committee was what the p u b l i c wanted. I t was a good o p p o r t u n i t y f o r d i s c u s s i o n and r e s u l t e d i n the park agency modifying i t s p l a n s . The members of the committee d i d lack t e c h n i c a l e x p e r t i s e which made developing a working plan d i f f i -c u l t . The f i n a l plan was vague with s p e c i f i c implementation plans f o r g e n e r a l g u i d e l i n e s not covered. There a l s o needed to be i n c r e a s e d communication between the l o c a l park agency and committee members a f t e r the A d v i s o r y Report was completed. Formal park r e p r e s e n t a t i o n to l o c a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s and the use of an a d v i s o r y committee both made government more a c c e s s i b l e and r e s p o n s i v e to l o c a l i n t e r e s t s . They a l s o i n c r e a s e d p o s i t i v e p u b l i c involvement with the park and park i s s u e s . They c r e a t e d a sense of the community working with the government and a f e e l i n g of p u b l i c commitment to the f i n a l product. There was a r i s k of i n c r e a s i n g negative p u b l i c pressure i n the short term but t h i s was weighed o f f a g a i n s t the p o s i t i v e aspects of c o n f r o n t i n g the o p p o s i t i o n and making a c l e a r d e c i s i o n . There i s a p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t these two p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n methods c o u l d have been improved by i n c r e a s e d funding and more s t r u c t u r e . - 144 -- P u b l i c I n t e r e s t Three out of four respondents l e a r n e d t h i n g s about the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t from the p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n program that they were not aware of p r e v i o u s l y . A l l four respondents f e l t that the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t was accommodated i n t o the park development p l a n . - Product of the P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n Process The p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n process that began with a s e r i e s of p u b l i c meetings, and a f t e r a pause of s i x years e s t a b l i s h e d an Adv i s o r y Committee, was capped by a m i n i s t e r i a l announcement of f u t u r e park p l a n s . Comments from agency personnel i n d i c a t e d that the M i n i s t e r r e s p o n s i b l e f o r parks, Hon. T. Brummet, made the announcement i n s t e a d of the l o c a l park planners f o r f i v e reasons: 1 - l o c a l park planners c o u l d n ' t say when the park would be developed so the M i n i s t e r was brought i n to shoulder that dec i s i o n 2 - p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n d i d n ' t produce a f i n a l d e c i s i o n so the M i n i s t e r was brought i n to expe d i t e matters 3 - to len d a very s t r o n g government commitment to the process at the h i g h e s t l e v e l 4 - l o c a l p lanners were i n v o l v e d i n making t e c h n i c a l announce-ments - 145 -5 - the M i n i s t e r normally announces the r e s u l t s of a l l master p l a n n i n g processes Asked what the r o l e of the Advisory Committee's Report was i n the development of a Master Plan f o r Kalamalka Lake P r o v i n c i a l Park respondents f e l t t h a t the A d v i s o r y Committee's Report was an approved, working master plan and a formal master plan was not completed because of l i m i t a t i o n s of time and people to do the work. Park Personnel's A t t i t u d e Towards the P u b l i c There was a change i n the park personnel's a t t i t u d e towards the p u b l i c from 1975 to 1986. I n i t i a l l y three out of four respondents f e l t that the p u b l i c were p r o t e c t i n g t h e i r own i n t e r e s t s in the p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n program. T h i s changed to a set of mixed c o n c l u s i o n s by three out of four park's p e r s o n n e l . T h i s ranged from f e e l i n g that the p u b l i c were concerned about t h e i r own i n t e r e s t s and park i n t e r e s t s , or community i n t e r e s t s and park i n t e r e s t s , to a f e e l i n g that the p u b l i c went through a process of l e a r n i n g about other p o i n t s of view and moved towards the middle. - 1 4 6 -TABLE 28 Park Personnel's A t t i t u d e Towards the P u b l i c Responses 1- P u b l i c was p r o t e c t i n g t h e i r own i n t e r e s t s . 2- P u b l i c was concerned about community i n t e r e s t s . 3- P u b l i c was concerned about p r e s e r v i n g park i n t e r e s t s . 4- P u b l i c was concerned about something e l s e . F i r s t Meetings - Comments Comments r e c e i v e d under category # 4- P u b l i c was concerned about something e l s e . During the F i r s t P u b l i c Meetings - f a c t i o n s f e l l i n t o two camps; concern about t h e i r own i n t e r e s t s and concern about p r e s e r v i n g park i n t e r e s t s 1 986 - a combination of (1 & 3), concern f o r t h e i r own i n t e r e s t s and concern f o r p r e s e r v i n g park i n t e r e s t s - a combination of (2 & 3), concern f o r community i n t e r e s t s and concern f o r p r e s e r v i n g park i n t e r e s t s - through the p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n process, people come to see other p o i n t s of view - move towards the middle 

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:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0096992/manifest

Comment

Related Items