PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND RURAL PLANNING: TEXADA ISLAND, A CASE STUDY
by
ROBERT MCWILLIAM
B.A. (Hons), University Of Calgary, 1972 M.A., McMaster University, 1973
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS
in
THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES
School Of Community And Regional Planning
We accept this thesis as conforming
to the required standard
THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
June 1985
© Robert McWilliam, 1985 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 of School Of Community And Regional Planning
The University of British Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5
Date: April 1985 i i
Abstract
This thesis examines various approaches to public participation within rural planning. It deals with the roles rural residents, in unincorporated areas of British Columbia, can play in local planning. The thesis argues that effective planning in such areas only occurs if a rural planning approach, which considers distinctive rural characteristics, is. applied to the planning process. Such planning generally requires the active involvement of rural people.
To accomplish this objective a model is constructed of how rural residents participate in planning. Its theoretical framework is developed from a review of the available literature on rural planning and public participation. The model is then used to examine a specific area—Texada Island--which was selected because of its recent experiences with planning. The model identifies four main approaches to rural planning: planning 'of a rural community; planning 'for' a rural community; planning 'with' a rural community; and planning 'by' a rural community. The thesis argues that all of these approaches can meet the criteria that define rural planning, but
they differ significantly on the objectives for the planning process, and the roles the local residents perform. The model also contains four categories of public participation: public
information; data collection; citizenship training; and
involvement in decision making. This thesis defines public participation as the means whereby the general public interact with decision makers, beyond elections, to ensure public decisions reflect their objectives. Within the context of this definition the four categories are seen as being the main avenues that rural people have for participation in planning.
When the types of participation were applied to the various rural planning approaches a number of observations about the involvement of rural people in planning became apparent. These characteristics were reinforced when the Texada Islanders' experiences with planning were examined. The model and the
Texada example both demonstrated that even within the constraints inherent in the various types of planning there were opportunities to enhance the level of public involvement. The author takes the position that these possible improvements are significant to the planning process since there is a positive linear correlation between increased public participation and the effectiveness of the planning process.
The relationship between public involvement and planning is demonstrated through the analysis of rural planning approaches.
Planning 'of' a rural, community may produce some short term results but it is incapable of providing any long term direction because the planning process is too divorced from the aspiration of the local residents who have considerable ability to frustrate external objectives even when they have little ability to take the initiative. Planning 'for' a rural community generally fails because the issues that the planning exercise is attempting to deal with are examined from the perceptions of
'outsiders'. Planning 'with' a rural community is limited because the planning process is dominated by the 'experts' who i v
also see issues through a different set of perceptions. Planning
'by' the rural community approach is the approach that the thesis claims can succeed when the others fail. Its success is related to its correlation to rural values; its emphasis on local resources, which expands the usually limited resources available for any rural planning; and the fact that it deals with planning as part of a larger process of rural development.
Rural development avoids the frequent segregation of planning and implementation and permits the planning to become an ongoing process which allows for adjustment and elaboration as required.
Advocating a need for planning 'by' rural communities is not done with any naive assumptions about its success being assured. This approach can produce the most enduring results, but it also exacts the highest costs in terms of effort and its existence is dependent on a continuing commitment by the rural residents who are in control of the planning process. But this commitment is a requirement for rural development where change is achieved by the active participation of affected people. V
Table of Contents
Abstract ii List of Tables x List of Figures xi
Chapter I INTRODUCTION 1
A. GENERAL STATEMENT OF TOPIC 1
B. SCOPE OF THESIS .3
C. METHOD 4
Chapter II STUDY FOCUS . 8 A. WHAT IS RURAL? 8 1 . POPULATION 9 2. DENSITY 10 3. DISTANCE 12 4. ENVIRONMENT 13
B. WHAT IS LOCAL CONTROL? 14 1 . CONTROL 15 2 . LOCAL 16 a. Legitimacy 18 b. Localized Consequences 19 3. DEFINITION OF LOCAL CONTROL 19
C. SUMMARY 21
Chapter III PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 2 3
A. ROOTS OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 23 1. PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION .23 a. Democratic Values 24 b. Public Interest 27 2. PRAGMATIC APPROACH TO DESCRIBING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 28 a. Value To Decision Makers 29 b. Value To Public ...30
B. WHAT IS PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 31 1. A DEFINITION OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 31 2. APPROACHES TO PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 33 a. Public Information 35 b. Data Collection 37 c. Citizenship Training 38 d. Involvement In Decision Making 39 vi
C. SUMMARY 42
Chapter IV
RURAL PLANNING 4 3
A. NEED FOR RURAL PLANNING ...43
B. CONCEPTS OF RURAL PLANNING 48 1. CONVENTIONAL RURAL PLANNING 48 2. AN ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT OF RURAL PLANNING 49 a. Different Problems .....50 b. Different Resources 53 c. Different People 54 C. RURAL PLANNING APPROACHES 57 1. PLANNING 'OF' RURAL COMMUNITIES 57 2. , PLANNING 'FOR' RURAL COMMUNITIES 59 3. PLANNING 'WITH' RURAL COMMUNITIES 60 4. PLANNING 'BY' RURAL COMMUNITIES 62
D. SUMMARY 63
Chapter V PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN RURAL PLANNING 65
A. INTEGRATION OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND RURAL PLANNING 65 1. PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING 'OF' RURAL COMMUNITIES 67 a. Public Information 67 b. Data Collections 67 c. Citizenship Training 68 d. Involvement In Decision Making 68 2. PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING 'FOR' RURAL COMMUNITIES 69 a. Public Information 69 b. Data Collection ....69 c. Citizenship Training 70 d. Involvement In Decision Making 70 3. PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING 'WITH' RURAL COMMUNITIES 71 a. Public Information 72 b. Data Collection 72 c. Citizenship Training 73 d. Involvement In Decision Making 74 4. PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING 'BY' RURAL COMMUNITIES 75 a. Public Information 75 b. Data Collection 76 c. Citizenship Training 76 d. Involvement In Decision Making 77
B. ENHANCEMENT OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 78 1. PLANNING 'OF' RURAL COMMUNITIES 82 vii
a. Public Information 82 b. Data Collection 84 c. Citizenship Training 86 d. Involvement In Decision Making 87 2. PLANNING 'FOR' RURAL COMMUNITIES 88 a. Public Information 88 b. Data Collection 89 c. Citizenship Training 91 d. Involvement In Decision Making 93 3. PLANNING 'WITH' RURAL COMMUNITIES 95 a. Public Information 95 b. Data Collection 97 c. Citizenship Training 98 d. Involvement In Decision Making 98 4. PLANNING 'BY' RURAL COMMUNITIES 100 a. Public Information 100 b. Data Collection 100 c. Citizenship Training 100 d. Involvement In Decision Making 101
C. SUMMARY 101
Chapter VI TEXADA ISLAND 103
A. BACKGROUND 103 1 . HISTORY 103 2. IMPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING 109
B. INVENTORY 110 1 . PHYSICAL FEATURES 111 a. Topography ..111 b. Geology 112 c . Climate 113 d. Biological Resources 113 2. ECONOMIC RESOURCES 115 a . Mining 115 b. Forestry 118 c. Agriculture 121 d. Tourism 122 e. Fish And Wildlife 123 f. Service Sector 125 g. Other Economic Activities 126 3. HUMAN RESOURCES 127 a. Population 127 b. Community Organization 129
C. TRENDS ...133 1. FUTURE PROJECTS 133 a. Industrial Activity 133 b. Resource Extraction 135 c . Tourism 1 38 d. Real Estate Development 140 e. Alternative Economic Opportunities ...142 vi i i
2. FUTURE SCENARIOS 143 a. Industrial Boom 143 b. Industrial Bust 144 c. Sustained Growth 144 d. Stagnation 145 e. Real Estate Boom 145
Chapter VII PLANNING ACTIVITY ON TEXADA ISLAND 147
A. SECTORAL PLANNING EFFORTS AFFECTING TEXADA ISLAND 147 1. OVERVIEW OF SECTORAL PLANNING 147 2. FORESTRY PLANNING ACTIVITIES 149 a. General Approach 149 b. Forestry Planning For Texada 151 3. OBSERVATIONS 154
B. PROVINCIAL AREA PLANNING EFFORTS ON TEXADA ISLAND 155 1. 1973 PROPOSED GENERAL LAND USE PLAN 155 2. OBSERVATIONS 159
C. REGIONAL DISTRICT PLANNING EFFORTS AFFECTING TEXADA ..161 1 . BACKGROUND 161 2. TEXADA SETTLEMENT PLAN 163 3. POWELL RIVER REGIONAL DISTRICT OFFICIAL REGIONAL PLAN 1 68 4 . OBSERVATIONS 170
D. COMMUNITY INITIATIVE ON PLANNING 172 1. HISTORY OF SELF-RELIANCE 172 2. ORGANIZING FOR OPPOSITION 174 3. LOOKING TO THE FUTURE 179 a. Ongoing Organization 180 b. Finding Allies 181 c. Planning Activity 184 4. OBSERVATIONS 187
E. APPLICATION OF RURAL PLANNING MODEL 189 1. PLANNING 'OF* TEXADA ISLAND 190 2. PLANNING 'FOR' TEXADA ISLAND 192 3. PLANNING 'WITH' TEXADA ISLANDERS 193 4. PLANNING 'BY' TEXADA ISLANDERS 194
Chapter VIII CONCLUSIONS 197
A. RURAL PLANNING 197 1. PERSISTENCE OF RURAL SOCIETY 197 2. A SPECIALIZED APPROACH TO RURAL PLANNING 199 3. WHY BOTHER ABOUT RURAL PLANNING? 201 a. Rural Opposition 201 b. Impact On The Larger System 203
B. MEANINGFUL RURAL PLANNING 205 ix
1. ROLE FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 205 2. EVALUATING APPROACHES TO RURAL PLANNING 207
Chapter IX
CHAPTER NOTES 214
LITERATURE CITED 237
APPENDIX A - INTERVIEWS RELATED TO CASE STUDY 248
APPENDIX B - PLANNING POLICY FOR POWELL RIVER REGIONAL DISTRICT 250 APPENDIX C - POWELL RIVER REGIONAL DISTRICT PLANNING PROCEDURES 257 X
List of Tables
I. Integration of Public Participation and Rural Planning 66
II. Possible Improvements in Public Participation 81 x i
List of Figures
1. Differentiation Between Local and Universal Consequences Based on Extent of Overlapping Interest 20
2. Study Focus 22
3. Approaches to Public Participation 34
4. Co-operative Approach to Planning 41
5. Shifting the Trade-Off Curve 80
6. Map of Texada Island 105 xi i
Acknowledgement
I am grateful to my advisors, Peter Boothroyd and Tony
Dorcey, for their encouragement and assistance. My family's patience with my singlemindedness must also be acknowledged.
They sacrificed a great deal of family time while I laboured on this project. I would also like to thank the residents of Texada
Island who shared their time with me—especially Harry Barclay who was always willing to assist whenever I had need of a source of local knowledge, or even a sympathetic ear. 1
I. INTRODUCTION
A. GENERAL STATEMENT OF TOPIC
The purpose of the thesis is to examine the functions which public participation can perform in rural planning activities in those rural areas of British Columbia which possess minimal control over local issues. It will describe: approaches to rural planning, and how public participation activities can relate to such approaches.
A basic premise underlying this analysis is that rural development is a goal that all rural planning efforts should strive toward. Rural development as it is considered within this thesis is a process whereby change within rural communities
is determined through democratic means. As Christodoulou states,
"... true integrated rural development signifies inter alia coherent and well aimed planning, effective transformation of rural structures, and participation of rural majorities in the development process" (cited in Wolfe and Fuller: 1978).
The fact that rural development requires the active involvement of rural residents leads to this examination of the ways the public can participate in rural planning.
The topic of public participation in rural planning is complicated by the lack of clarity with which the key terms are
frequently utilized. Due to their wide usage both 'public participation' and 'rural' have suffered from a lack of precision in meaning. While subsequent chapters will provide a detailed discussion of these concepts, a brief description is 2
necessary at this point in order to discuss the subject area and approach that this thesis will follow.
The term rural is defined by prescribing the characteristics that a community must have to be considered rural. Such communities will have: a limited population; low population density; be outside a radius that is considered tolerable for commuting; and residents who are strongly
influenced by the area's physical environment. Such an approach to defining what is rural is necessary because there is no
static division between rural and urban. In reality rural communities exist within a continuum from metropolitan to wilderness.
This thesis will also argue that rural planning should be considered something more specific than any planning activity
that is conducted in a rural environment. A more appropriate definition of rural planning is any planning activity which is
conducted in rural areas that recognizes the existence of unique
rural features and the need to take these features into
consideration.
Public participation is an even more elusive term dealing
with individuals' political beliefs. Alternative approaches to
public participation stem from the various perceptions that
individual writers have about the proper role for the public in
a democratic system. This thesis recognizes the inherent
diversity and defines public participation as the means by which
individuals and groups from the general public interact with
decision makers, beyond the routine process of elections, in an 3
effort to ensure that public decisions reflect their objectives.
B. SCOPE OF THESIS
This thesis focuses on those rural communities within the
Province of British Columbia that possess minimal local control.
A more ambitious approach would be to deal with rural planning on a universal level. But such an approach would have to acknowledge the great diversity among rural communities.1 With
fundamental differences between rural populations in various areas the nature of the problem and the potential solutions also vary, making it inappropriate to treat rural planning as a
universal concept.
Much of the literature on rural planning proceeds from the
premise that all rural parts of North America (and for some
writers Northern Europe as well) are similar enough to be dealt
with as a single entity. There are many common features in all
rural communities in North America, which makes information that
exists about rural areas in the United States, or other regions
of Canada, valuable for this thesis. However, there are also
significant differences that make it unwise to extrapolate
directly from observations about rural communities in British
Columbia to those in other regions. Certainly the settlement
patterns, past experiences, and institutional frameworks for
local government in the various provinces produce differences.
The study area is defined as those rural communities which
possess minimal local control. For planning purposes it is
important to recognize the differences that exist between
communities where residents have some local autonomy and ability 4
to act to promote their own interests; and those others which find their ability to do anything to help themselves constrained by their dependence on a higher level of government to act on their behalf. As will be discussed later this thesis does not assume that there is a simple dichotomy between rural communities with local control over their own affairs, and those which have no local autonomy. The Province of British Columbia shares with Newfoundland, among all provinces, the distinction of having the lowest proportion of its total area included within the boundaries of organized municipalities (Morley e_t al
.: 1983: p. 239). Thus there is a large percentage of the rural population that has no form of local government or local mechanism that will permit them to make political decisions on their own behalf.2 These areas are legally restricted in their ability to initiate, conduct or implement planning. This thesis will restrict its considerations to such communities.
C. METHOD
The question of how public participation relates to rural planning in communities with minimal local control will be approached primarily at a theoretical level. The available literature on the subjects of rural planning and public participation will be reviewed. Concepts from that material will be synthesized to construct a model of how public participation can be utilized, in rural planning; and to suggest how it can be improved to make the planning process more ef fect ive.
The model will then be compared against a specific case 5
study—planning on Texada Island. It is not suggested that one case study will 'prove' or disprove the validity of the model
that this thesis will develop. Nor does this thesis set out to
establish a hypothesis that could be tested by use of a case
study such as planning on Texada.Island. Instead this thesis
identifies ways in which public participation can be utilized in
rural planning, and analyzes the Texada Island experience,
identifying which have been attempted, which have been
effective, and why.
Texada Island is the largest island in the southern Georgia
Strait. It is also unique from neighbouring islands in other
respects: it is the only island in the region that is not part
of the Islands Trust;3 and the only one on which industrial
activity plays a significant role. It has experienced a series
of boom and bust periods since the Island was first settled by
Euro-Canadians. A series of booms occurred as gold and copper
mines and later an iron mine were developed. Between 1880 when
the first gold mine went into production and 1919 when the last
active gold mine shut down the Island had a prosperous economy.
It experienced another boom starting in the 1940's when one of
the gold mines reopened, and the Island was undergoing extensive
logging. This boom period continued even after the last gold
mine closed and the prime timber was eliminated. It was
sustained by the opening of a major iron mine in 1952. The iron
mine operated until 1976 when it abruptly closed. Throughout
this entire history of resource exploitation the one constant
was the ongoing operation of limestone quarries that continue to 6
provide a relatively stable source of employment for the
I slanders.
Presently the Island, with a population of approximately
1700, has no local government. The settlements of Vananda and
Gillies Bay have Improvement District status," which provides for elected Boards of Trustees to administer limited local services (such as a piped water system and fire protection) within defined geographic areas. The Island also comprises a single electoral district within the Powell River Regional
District, and elects one member of the Regional District Board.
Within the past ten years there have been a variety of planning initiatives on the Island. In 1973 the Provincial
Department of Municipal Affairs prepared a Proposed General Land
Use Plan. In 1976 the Powell River Regional District planner initiated work for a Texada Island Community Plan, which failed to materialize. In 1979 the Island was included in the Powell
River Regional Plan. Then in 1982 a proposal to haul baled garbage from the Greater Vancouver Regional District to landfill sites on Texada Island resulted in the creation a citizens group--Texada Action Now (T.A.N.). This new group has taken steps, to initiate an official community plan for the island. In addition there have been a number of actions that were externally planned and which have directly impacted Texada
Island without any apparent consideration in the planning for the projects of how they would affect the Island's residents.
Some of these events include: the B.C. Hydro Cheekye-Dunsmuir power transmission line, which now crosses Texada; the 7
establishment of the Georgia Strait Provincial Forest, which includes Texada Island; and the present consideration of alternative routes for the Vancouver Island natural gas pipeline.
Using Texada Island as a case study has a number of limitations. Much of the recorded information that exists on the earlier planning activities relates only to the technical data that was accumulated. Very little information on the planning process was ever systematically recorded. As a result the primary information source on the planning process is a series of interviews with individuals who were or are involved
(Appendix A contains a list of those interviewed). Relying on interviews has several methodological weaknesses. It relies on the memories of the individuals involved, and for some their involvement was ten years ago. Also since there were relatively few participants involved in some of the planning efforts it would be very difficult to attempt by cross-checking in interviews to verify that the interviewees were not being highly selective in their memory of past events. A further limitation is that many of the individuals interviewed are still active in community affairs, and some partisan bias should be anticipated in their interpretation of events. However, these limitations would undoubtedly occur in a study of planning in any unorganized rural community. Therefore Texada Island, with its history of several attempts of planning, should prove an interesting case study against which the model proposed in this thesis can be examined. 8
II . STUDY FOCUS
This thesis deals with the function of public participation
in rural planning within specific bounds--those rural communities of British Columbia that possess minimal local control.
A. WHAT IS RURAL?
There has been concern expressed about the lack of any
"real or positive concept of that which is rural" (Nicholls:
1967: p. 13). But if the term has not been satisfactorily
defined it has not been due to any lack of effort. The repeated
attempts at definition, and the lack of any general acceptance
of a definition have reached the point where some writers have
rejected the term completely. Tweeten and Brinkman, for
example, have created a new term 'micropolitan' because they
feel the "multiple definitions of the term (rural) now make its
use confusing and ambiguous" (1976: p. 5). Such a defeatist
attitude is unfortunate because it resulted in their observing,
and dismissing, one of the key components required to define
'rural': the wide amount of diversity among rural
communities.5 Gilford, Nelson, and Ingram overcome the
confusion and recognize that "no single, or even multiple
definition of 'rural' will be satisfactory for all purposes"
(1981: p. 23). In coming to this realization they are arriving
at a point that rural sociologists reached much earlier when the
rural-urban continuum model was developed. That model is based
on the premise that differences between rural and urban 9
societies can be measured along nine dimensions, and that individual communities could be assigned varying degrees of rural or urban characteristics without being forced into a rigid bipolar model.6
This thesis accepts the concept of a rural-urban continuum but believes that for purposes of rural planning there are more pertinent characteristics than those utilized by rural sociologists to differentiate between rural and urban communities.7 For purposes of this thesis rural communities shall be defined as those which possess the following features: a limited population; low average density of settlement; sufficient distance in time or physical space from urban facilities and services to restrict access to them; and a physical environment which has a strong influence on local activities. These four characteristics may be present in varying degrees, but for a community to be considered primarily rural all four factors must be present.
1. POPULATION
Many definitions of rural use population as the sole factor for determining if a community is rural. Such definitions are contested as being simplistic. Debate also flourishes over the specific numbers that should be used to determine a maximum population figure for rural communities.8 But there is little disagreement that population size is a critical variable. As
Qadeer notes, "It seems that size itself has become a dimension of differentiation. Smallness stands for the comprehensibility of a community" (1977: p. 109). Certainly many of the more 10
enduring rural social characteristics appear to be strongly related to the small population of such communities. The emphasis on personal relationships; the desire for consensus instead of conflict in decision making; and even the frequently described 'conservatism' of rural people have all been identified as being related to population size.9
While recognizing the danger inherent in trying to claim universal application for any specific number this thesis will accept the number most frequently cited in the literature pertaining to rural communities in Canada. The maximum population for a rural community will be deemed to be 10,000.
Any community where the total population exceeds this number will be considered to be primarily urban in its orientation.
2. DENSITY
Dyballa, Raymond, and Hahn state that "rural society is not just a low density area in the process of becoming urban" (1981: p. 1). But some definitions of what is rural do concentrate on population density. White claims that "rural simply means all less populous and less densely settled areas" (1984: p. 3).
This approach is based on the argument that not only an community's population size is significant, but also the physical distance between people. It is this distance factor which is seen as the root of many rural problems, and also the source of some uniquely rural solutions.
An example of the type of problem created by the low population density is the impact it has on public services. The costs of providing services to a dispersed population is one of 11
the critical factors in determining the different level of services between rural and urban areas. It would be very misleading to assume the lack of secondary school facilities in a rural community was an indication of the residents' disinterest in advanced education. Rather, this small scattered population is incapable of bearing the high costs related to this public service, and make do without a desired service.
An illustration of how density is used by rural people to their benefit is their attitude towards zoning. Controlling land use through regulation is seen as undue restriction on an individual's freedom to use his property as he sees fit.
Compatibility of land use is achieved, in the opinion of many rural residents, not by all encompassing regulations, 'but rather through the use of physical distance as a buffer.10
The ability to utilize density as a limiting factor is facilitated due to the collection of regular census data that includes a calculation of density. This study will utilize
Statistics Canada's density factor for rural areas. The maximum density will be 1000 people per square mile. This may appear excessive when the total population is not to exceed 10,000.
But it is necessary to provide for villages and towns where clusters of population occur. These settlements are an integral part of the surrounding area and this thesis contends it is the larger geographic area that should be considered a rural community.
Both size and density have thus far dealt with the upper limits for a rural community. While this will effectively 1 2
differentiate rural from urban it disguises a third category of wilderness. This thesis is examining rural communities so it will not delve into the essence of what constitutes wilderness.11 It will just acknowledge that such areas exist as a separate category from rural; and that, in the context of this thesis, wilderness exists where there are too few permanent inhabitants to maintain sufficient interaction to maintain a sense of community.12
3. DISTANCE
One distinctive feature of North American society is urban sprawl, as suburban residential areas extend out into the countryside. Such suburbs tend to blur the distinction between rural and urban, leading some writers to conclude that the apparent revival of rural areas is merely a reflection of urban expansion.13 However, suburban problems should not be lumped in with rural issues. The types of problems experienced, and the residents' approach to them are distinctly different.1"
There have been creative attempts to come up with a way of differentiating rural and suburban areas.15 But identifying this transitional zone is not directly related to the purpose of this thesis. What is important is to ensure that urban fringes, which are mainly urban in orientation, are not inadvertently included within rural communities. Since the primary function of these urban fringe areas is to provide domiciles for urban workers this thesis will exclude from the rural category any areas close enough to urban work places and facilities for a majority of the area's work force to consider commuting as a 1 3
reasonable alternative.
Obviously this distance will vary depending on the
transportation alternatives available, as well as the total mileage to be travelled. But it is possible to quantify this
factor. Studies have demonstrated that the average journey
rural commuters are prepared to make is thirty minutes or less
in duration (Dahms: 1983: p. 23; Youmans: 1983: p. 4). It is
for this reason that the majority of the local work force in
rural areas opt to remain in their area rather than commuting to
more distant urban work places. Hodge and Qadeer confirmed this
when they discovered that in small communities in Canada, in
1971, only 28.9% of the resident labour population were
out-commuters (1983: p. 93).
4. ENVIRONMENT
Ford argues that the key distinction between urban and
rural population is their environment situation (1978: p. 15).
It is apparent that the impact of the natural physical
environment is an important feature in distinguishing rural
communities.16 Certainly, technology has reduced many of the
obvious differences between urban and rural residents. Also
many of the new work opportunities in rural communities are in
the industrial or service sector rather than in primary resource
extractive activities which are more constrained by the physical
environment. But despite these changes the environment does
continue to effect the rural population differently than in
urban areas. As Bowles stated,
"The resident of a small remote community may be like his urban counterpart in terms of family size, house type, clothing worn, food eaten, and television programs watched. However his daily round of activities still occurs in a milieu that is significantly different. Compared to his urban counterpart, the resident of a small town has access to a less diverse set of formal services and a narrower range (or different set) of opportunities. The transportation system gives him access to a smaller number of other places and greater difficulty in travel. To the extent that residents of the two contexts relate to the natural environment of geography and climate, the resident of the remote community is likely to do so more directly. In short the small community is a different context in which to pass daily life than is the urban centre. To ignore this distinction is to miss an insight which is important in understanding the differences between Canadians" (1982: p. 6).
The use of the impact of the physical environment as a criteria for determining the 'ruralness' of an community is primarily a qualitative measure. However, in identifying rural communities it will be important to ascertain what impact the physical environment has on residents' activities. The more
immune from the effect of the environment the residents become
(with the exception of leisure pursuits) the more urbanized the area has become. Within rural communities the natural environment will, as Coughenour and Busch state, continue to regulate the pace of social activity (1978: p. 219).
B. WHAT IS LOCAL CONTROL?
The other variable that delineates this study is local control. This can be most effectively approached by examining
its components separately before defining the term. 15
1. CONTROL
This could be simply regarded as the amount of 'self government' possessed by a rural community. This could then mean that the absence of a formal local government institution
(municipality) would be the distinguishing feature.17 But using the presence or absence of local government structures as the only measure of the amount of control a community possesses can be deceiving. The formal powers of a local government are often more a matter of appearance than substance in small communities.
Vidich and Bensman demonstrated how, despite the apparently extensive powers the local government bodies legally possessed in a small community, the reality was that,
". . .at almost every point in this seemingly broad base of political domain the village and town boards adjust their actions to either the regulations and laws defined by state and federal agencies which claim parallel functions on a statewide or nationwide basis, or to the fact that outside agencies have the power to withhold subsidies to local political institutions" (1950: p. 100).
Halverson has also identified that same limitation in British
Columbia. He argues that in rural areas the "local community does not make major decisions, it responds" (1980: p. 374).
But if equating control with the existence of local government institutions is too restrictive, other approaches that equate local control with citizen power tend to go too far to be useful for this study. Keating, for example, tends to take this 'all or nothing' approach to local decision sharing.
He defines community control as a redistribution of power, with
"the bringing home to the community the power to decide what 16
happens to the people who live there" (1976: p. 37).
A more temperate approach to the question of what constitutes control is provided by Polsby. He argues that control can be seen as, "the capacity of one actor [individual or group] to do something affecting another actor, which changes
the probable pattern of a specified future event" (1980: p. 3).
This would appear to be the most appropriate way to view control when it is being used in a study of rural planning. It includes
those cases where the rural community's power over planning is
indirect, and the community must st-rive to influence the actions of a senior government.
2. LOCAL
This thesis deals with local control over local issues so
it is necessary to find some means to differentiate between
issues which are universal (or at least broader in scope than
the local area), and those which can be considered local. Rural
planning literature frequently calls for decisions to be based
on local interests but very few writers attempt to identify just
what would be a local issue.18
Distinguishing between local and universal issues is a
difficult task. Society has become increasingly complex and
local, regional, and national issues have grown very
intertwined. Many writers argue that mass society is becoming
all pervasive. Warren states that one of the great changes in
modern society is in the orientation of local communities. He
describes the "increasing and strengthening of the external ties
which bind the local society to the larger society" (1963: 1 7
p. 5). Even those who argue against the concept of mass society recognize that there is a high degree of interpenetration between local and more broad based social units. As Stinson points out,
"... locally-initiated social change can not be considered in isolation from the broader society of which it is a part. The outside institutions and environment exert both stimulating and limiting forces on a locality. The response of local citizens is also ambivalent, sometimes accepting and sometimes rejecting the inputs from outside the community" (1979: p. 123).
Accepting that the reality is a high level of interdependence how can any issue be identified as being a 'local' issue?
A precise division between universal and local issues is virtually impossible. For all but the most minor routine matters there are repercussions from local actions for other areas. Also, while it might be easier to identify some issues as being of universal concern it has to be recognized that they may have local impact. One example would be the current debate over Canada's role in nuclear weapons. Certainly international
relations and national defence fall into the category of universal issues. But what about the concerns of the people of a community, when the Federal Government decides to stockpile nuclear weapons at a nearby military base. If the residents
feel directly threatened by such an action, is that not a local
issue?
This thesis takes the position that an activity can be conceived of as being a local issue if it can meet two criteria:
that the concerns of the local residents are acknowledged as being legitimate; and that the consequences of the action will 18
be experienced primarily in a limited area,
a. Legit imacy
In order for local residents to have any input into decision making on an issue, there must first be a recognition by those that will make the eventual decision (and the general public as well) that the local residents have a right to be involved in the decision making. Unless there is an acceptance that the local residents constitute an 'affected public'19 there is little likelihood that they will even receive information on an issue before the decision has been made, and no provision will be made for any consultation with local residents prior to the
decision. The concern about identifying the 'affected public'( is particularly prevalent among those writers who view public involvement mainly as a support to representative government.
But regardless of whether one accepts their basic premise about how the public should be involved in decision making, it is obvious they are articulating the views of the majority of decision making institutions. Thus in order to deal with such institutions it is first necessary for the local residents to achieve legitimacy as an interested party. Wengert reflects this attitude when he states, "a not unimportant question is what individuals and groups have a stake in particular proposals; what individuals and groups are likely to be affected" (1971: p. 31). If the local community is not seen to be more affected than the general public of the broader society then there is little likelihood of their receiving sufficient information about issues to take any action. To pursue the 19
analogy used earlier, it is conceivable that nuclear weapons could be stored adjacent to a community without its having any knowledge of their presence. Such information could be withheld from the residents in the 'national interest'.
b. Localized Consequences
The other criteria for identifying an issue as 'local' is that the consequences of the proposed action should be experienced primarily in a limited (localized) area. It is necessary to stress that the effects will be primarily experienced in a local area since many of the most important issues for a local community will overlap, and possibly conflict, with the
interests of other broader jurisdictions (Figure 1). The impact of the event on the larger society must be such that the consequences of the decision being made in the interests of the
local residents can be implemented without the general public experiencing what they consider to be prohibitive costs. This means that there must be feasible options available for the
larger society.20
3. DEFINITION OF LOCAL CONTROL
This thesis is concerned about the role of public participation in rural areas that have minimal local control.
In that context local control will be defined as the amount of
influence that a community can collectively exert on decision making for local issues. This acknowledges the fact that many
of those decisions will be made by a level of government that is
external to the rural community. It is seen as the ability to
effect influence on decision making, and is not restricted to 20
Figure 1 - Differentiation Between Local and Universal Consequences Based on Extent of Overlapping Interest 21
those situations where the rural community is fully in control of the decision making process. It also differentiates between local issues and more general ones. Local issues are interpreted as being those where the main impact of the activity is experienced at the local level, and on which the rural residents have been acknowledged to have a specific interest.
C. SUMMARY
The two variables that establish bounds of this study are: the rural character of the area; and the limited degree of control that residents have over issues that directly affect their locality. Both of these variables should be viewed as existing on a continuum. The degree of ruralness and level of local control are only established in relation to other areas of
British Columbia (Figure 2). It is only for those areas that comply with the four features of a rural area (population size, low population density, distance from urban facilities, and strongly conditioned by the physical environment); and which have restricted local control, that the role of public participation in rural planning will be examined. 22
Figure 2 - Study Focus
rural area
Area to be examined
high degree strong of central local control control
urban area 23
III. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Bregha sums up the difficulty in dealing with any aspect of public participation when he states,
"public participation is one of the more imprecise expressions in our language and means a variety of things to different people. The questions of 'who' participates in 'what', for 'which purpose and for 'whose' benefit elicit a profusion of answers" (1977: pg. 120).
Therefore, before attempting to deal with how the public can participate in rural planning it is necessary to review the literature in public participation, to identify the different ways that the term has been defined; and to describe just how the term will be utilized for purposes of the thesis.
A. ROOTS OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
All definitions of public participation stem from values and beliefs to which their authors are personally committed.
However, some writers consciously develop concepts of public participation with reference to their ideological convictions, while others try to approach the question of a definition on more pragmatic grounds.
1. PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
As Bregha noted:
"participation takes on a variety of forms, depending upon the actors and the philosophy they are attempting to translate into action. For some, participation means a whole new lifestyle leading, they hope, into a better world; for others it is an expression of very specific interests that they intend to promote; for yet others, participation suggests the broadening of existing elites so that power and decision could be shared in a more equitable way" (1973: pg. 1). 24
a. Democratic Values
One of the philosophical divisions that appears in the
literature is between those who consider public participation to be a means to improve upon the system of representative democracy, and those who view it as an integral part of participatory democracy.
For supporters of representative democracy public
participation is viewed primarily as a means to advance
individual interests in a competitive situation. Its value,
within the theoretical framework of representative democracy, is
that it can provide 'fine tuning' that will permit the system to
function more effectively. It does this in a variety of ways.
Some writers see it as a way of reducing the distrust and
alienation that segments of society may have about the political
system.21 Others believe that it is a means of 'evening the
odds' so that new coalitions and interest groups can compete
with more established interests that have direct input into the
system.22 Yet others believe that participation will result in
better decisions through increased information being made
available to the decision makers. Typical of this approach to
public participation is Heberlein's observation that:
"The goal of public participation is to reach better decisions. By making the manager and planner aware of the range of alternatives, and by not leaving out or alienating groups who, if ignored, will resort to traditional political and legal mechanisms to make their wishes known, better decisions will be • made. ... In the long run this should save time and money for any agency" (1976: pg. 3).
Where the role of public participation is seen as being a 25
mechanism to support the representative system then participation must also be viewed as something to be contained and channelled. Williams demonstrates this when he states,
"Because the non-elected public are not accountable for public resource decisions the [public participation] programme will be limited to consultation and receipt of recommendations. The responsibility for the final shape of the recommended plans should remain with public servants with decisions made by elected representatives who are accountable to the public" (1982: pg. 3).
Even when public participation is channeled in this manner there is still a fear that it has the potential to weaken the representative form of government. It is felt that it is an extra-parliamentary process that will diminish the authority of elected representatives.23
How seriously such threats are perceived depends on
individual perceptions about how effectively the representative system is functioning at the present time. Obviously, to many politicians who see themselves as community-minded volunteers, acting in the best interests of their communities, public participation is not only a threat, but also an insult. It
implies that they are not doing their jobs as representatives effectively (O'Riordan: 1977: pg. 165). But representative democracy would appear to be faced with far more serious threats to its continuence than the possibility that the public might gain some direct input to decision making. The role of elected
representatives has been seriously impaired by the increasing dominance of cabinet, and the unrepresentative power possessed
by the bureaucracy and major lobby groups.2" So while as 26
proponents of representative democracy see public participation as a device to be used cautiously because of its potential to
threaten the representative system, others are arguing that the current form of representative democracy fails to provide acceptable opportunities for involvement. Elder expresses this
sentiment when he states,
"I reject as farcical the notion of so called 'contemporary democratic theory' that voting is in any way a meaningful form of participation in decision making, this theory is even more ludicrous in its view that participation should be limited to elections to choose leaders, and that the level of participation of the majority should not rise above the minimum necessary to keep the electoral machinery working" (1975: pg. 102).
These critics of the representative system tend to be
proponents of a completely different view of
democracy—participatory democracy. They argue that
participation should be viewed as an end in itself involving
people co-operating for the common good. As Bryden states they
believe that the real essence of democracy
"... is to be found in the ethical thrust of Rousseau, J. S. Mill and other classical theorists, who valued participation above all else because it alone enabled human beings, all of them and not just a privileged few, to develop their potential to the full" (1982: pg. 95).
This belief has lead some writers to adopt extreme positions—to
advocate, like Aleshire, that "the democratic traditions of the
Greek City states will be very applicable to American
communities as they seek to solve their problems and improve the
quality of life" (1970: pg. 392). Such extreme statements
result in the entire notion of participatory democracy being 27
dismissed as impractical and idealistic (Axworthy: 1979: pg. 284). Others, who recognize that representative and participatory democracy are poles on a continuum,25 work toward
increasing participatory aspects of the democratic system. For
them the transition to a more participatory system will be
achieved by a devolution of authority to the lowest possible
levels of government,26 to get decision making closer to the
public. It also does not imply that all of the public will ever
become involved in all decisions. Rather, that the decision
making system should become open enough to ensure "everyone has
some form of access to the decision making system when they so
desire to have it" (McNiven: 1974: pg. 154). For advocates of
participatory democracy then, public involvement is justified on
the basis that it is a political right that all citizens should
have in a democratic society.27 They see it as a right which
may be essential to the survival of democratic society. This
'belief' in the need for a more participatory form of democracy
is then translated into planning by practioners such as Lash,
who believes that effective citizen involvement should itself be
an objective of the planning process (1977: pg. 88).
b. Public Interest
The other basic philsophical division in the literature
revolves about the nature of the public interest. One view is
that public participation is for the general good, others see
public groups as being self-interested. Friedmann summarizes
these two points of view by stating that for some "public
interest is a utilitarian notion arrived at quite simply by a 28
summation of individual interests"; while for others "the terms express the notion of something " shared or held in common. . . the idea of a public good therefore implies the existence of a community and the commitment of its members to it" (1973: pg. 2, 3). Spokesmen for the concept of public participation being for the public good often argue that such participation leads to the strengthening of community identity.
Aleshire, for example states "citizen participation, by providing a sense of community and participatory relationship, is the key to improving the quality of life" (1970: pg. 392).
Those who view public participation as being a process where self-interested groups are working for their own ends generally equate public participation with the lobby activities of special interest groups. For them there is little to distinguish between a lobby group like the chemical industry and a neighbourhood organization, except the different degrees of organization and influence. Fagence.reflects this attitude when he states "there is virtually no possibility that the public, however this group is defined, can act other than in a self-oriented and preferential manner, with subjectivity repeatedly outscoring objectivity" (1977: pg. 247).
2. PRAGMATIC APPROACH TO DESCRIBING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
For some, public participation is a convenient tool and the theoretical basis of the concept gets ignored. Planners, decision makers, and the. public grasp for a convenient mechanism to achieve desired goals. There is little concern about how participation will change the balance between representative and 29
participatory democracy, or what is really meant by public
interest. Rather it is approached on a pragmatic basis without pausing to contemplate how it might fit into some grand design.
In such cases public participation is defined, and implemented,
in ways that seem to best fit the particular circumstances. The main question becomes 'is it an effective means to accomplish
the task at hand', and the emphasis is on the costs and benefits
of public involvement.
a. Value To Decision Makers
Decision makers (politicians and civil servants) anticipate
benefits from public participation that include: improved
information through use of residents' knowledge of their area;
more creative solutions by public involvement in identifying
alternatives; an effective means of reducing opposition to
decisions and improving implementation by 'educating' the
public; and perhaps most important, as a means to gain more
public credibility and political support.28 Bregha sums up many
of the benefits for decision makers when he states,
"people respect more those laws on which they have been consulted; people identify strongly with programmes they have helped to plan; people perform better in projects they have assisted in setting up; . . . it is now widely acknowledged that people in their communities can facilitate or frustrate national purposes at many strategic points" (1973: pg. 3).
Against these perceived benefits decision makers will weigh
anticipated costs. Some potential costs to the system include:
the additional time and money that is required; the possibility
that unrealistic expectations may be created; residents may 30
interfere in matters that require technical expertise to understand; that the opportunity to participate may be usurped by those who are only interested in confrontation; and finally, even if they are serious about wanting to obtain public input there is often confusion about how this can best be achieved.29
b. Value To Public
The costs of public participation to the public are significant as well. Public participation, if it is any more than tokenism, requires the expenditure of a substantial amount of time and energy by individuals. It also entails risk taking
since the results of such involvement are unpredictable and if they fail to achieve the expectations of the public then there may be a perception that the community is worse off than it was before. It is for these reasons that frequently public participation only occurs after people are jerked out of their complacency by a crisis. As Dyballa Raymond, and Hahn observed
from their experience in rural New York a local crisis was an
important stimulant to help generate involvement (1981: pg. 143). This also explains why 'top down .approaches' to public participation, as adopted by agencies anxious to capitalize on the benefits they believe will achieved through
the process, frequently fail. The object of their interest--the public—does not see where there are benefits to the public in participating in the agency's program. As Thompson states "the desirable amount of participation is that which is seriously and diligently sought" (1979: pg. 20).
The benefits to people from participation can occur at two 31
levels. There are direct benefits related to the specific issue that the public are concerned about, such as the ability to influence the method of delivery of a government program. In addition, there are general benefits for the public as well.
These include: reducing the level of alienation . that many individuals currently experience in a large, bureaucratic society 30; achieving a sense of self esteem from involvement in self help activities 31; and the opportunity to strengthen community ties as new links are formed between individuals.
It is important to recognize that public participation is a process that must offer some incentive to all the actors
involved if it is going to be an ongoing activity. While few would attempt to go as far as Aleshire and attempt to justify participation solely on the basis of a "costs and benefits comparison of citizen participation in planning" it is apparent
that continued demands for public participation are based on perceived benefits for those involved.
B. WHAT IS PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
1. A DEFINITION OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
In any planning activity where there are a number of
separate actors there will undoubtedly be almost as many
different definitions of public participation. The parties
involved have different levels of knowledge about how the
decision making system works (and can be manipulated); have
different time frames; and frequently are pursuing totally
separate objectives. When these factors are added to the fact 32
that the actors involved are often operating from conflicting ideological positions, which are not made explicit to the others it creates a turbulent environment. In the midst of such turbulence it is understandable how various actors can describe public participation in such contradictory terms. One faction can flatly state "citizen participation is a categorical term for citizen power" (Arnstein: 1969: pg. 216); while another group argues that,
"citizen representatives are only one voice among many, with viewpoints and demands that are neither more or less legitimate than others, and their presence does not relieve public officials from the burden of seeking their own public interest conclusions. Administrative policies ought to be guided more by reasoned analysis, systematic, long-range planning, a sensitive accomodation of present social and political needs to future ones, and the best available information, than by the passion or persistence of public interest spokesmen" (Cupps: 1977: pg. 484).
These very divergent views about the nature of public participation require some examination of the underlying principles on which these views are based. Both views, and many variations that fall between these extremes, are valid within their own context.
It is not appropriate to create a hierarchical ranking of types of public participation without first acknowledging what values are being utilized to identify what is to be as an optimum.32 A way to conceptualize public participation is to identify the basic principles as existing as extreme poles on a continuum. Participatory democracy and representative democracy are extremes on a continuum that describes how people can participate; while self-interest and common good are extremes 33
along an intersecting continuum that describes why people participate. When viewed in this manner (see Figure 3) public participation can be seen as the means by which individuals and groups from the general public interact with decision makers beyond the routine process of elections, in an effort to ensure that public decisions reflect their respective objectives.
This definition of public participation is loose enough that any situation where there is interaction between a government agency and some members of the general public could be termed 'participation'. Some, such as O'Riordan, appear to advocate leaving the concept this general. He states,
"participation, like common law, is moulded by case experience. There is no set pattern. What may be suitable for one area and one issue may not be appropriate for another. Even during the evaluation of a programme, the participation procedure may have to be changed" (1977: pg. 169).
However, the obvious limitation to such an open definition is how to determine the level of participation in any specific case, and how to distinguish between different types of participation. Refinement is required by subdividing public participation into categories.
2. APPROACHES TO PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
There have been a number of attempts to describe the various approaches that can be taken to public participation.
The most frequently cited is Arnstein's (1969) eight step Ladder of Citizen Participation.33 Burke (1968) describes five different 'strategies'. with increasing amounts of citizen control: education therapy; behavioural change; staff 34
Figure 3 - Approaches to Public Participation
self interest
CD a 6 0 C3 co 2 < •o E 0 a CO CO r-t- 0 o a co CD D t. CO 3. r-f- ca 0) a a. < o 0
common good 35
supplement; co-optation; and ultimately, community power.
Bregha (1973) has a framework with four general categories that are seen as "building upon the foundations of the previous ones;" information-feedback; consultation; joint planning; and delegated authority. Farrell, Melin and Stacey (1976) refer to seven levels of increasing public involvement: persuasion; education; information-feedback; consultation; joint planning; delegated authority; and self-determinism. Burton and Johnson
(1976) identify four "aspects of participation": informing the public; collecting information from the public; education of the public; and involving the public. Their work recognizes that the various categories tend to overlap, and do not necessarily display the hierarchical arrangement assumed in many of the frameworks cited.
This thesis utilizes a four category approach to public participation:3" public information; data collection; citizenship training; and involvement in decision making.
a. Public Information
One kind of public participation is that it is a mechanism that decision makers can utilize to disseminate information to gain more general support for their decisions, and to reduce public resistance during program implementation. This approach to public participation will be described as public information.
Some writers argue that such one way communication is not a true form of public participation. The Skeffington Committee which studied public participation in Great Britain, distinguished between "participation—the act of sharing in the 36
formulation of policies and proposals . . . and publicity—the making of information available to the public" (quoted in Burton and Johnson: 1976: pg. 13). However this appears to be a rather idealized view of what public participation entails and ignores its ability to be manipulated by government agencies. 'Public information' appears to be an appropriate description since the public participation program is designed to tell the public of decisions that have been made, or are in the process of being made. It does not look for feedback from the public and discourages dialogue. This approach is similar to the levels of participation that Arnstein described as 'manipulative'. The authority involved releases a portion of the information it possesses to the public. While this information may be released because -authorities believe the public have a right to know, it can also be orchestrated to produce public support for a government agency's objective; or for self-congratulatory reasons; or simply to improve the implementation of some project or program by making the affected public aware of the new
'rules' they will be expected to obey. In this approach the public is expected, by the decision makers, to play a passive role. To the extent that some portion of the public wants to obtain greater input into decision making their actions will be confrontative and reactive "(to the authority's initiatives) since the formal communication channels are restricted. As
Canham points out,
"to promote the appearance of following democratic processes or to convince the community that decisions have been arrived at openly—public input is sought. Meetings serving this ritualistic function are usually 37
poorly attended, poorly conducted, and effective input into the final decision is often negligible (1979: pg. 3).
b. Data Collection
A second approach to public participation is to utilize the public to assist the efforts of the planners and decision makers. Residents are viewed as a source of useful knowledge about local conditions (and their own values and preferences), and are permitted to feed that information into the planning process. Manzer demonstrates this type of approach when she argues that 'grass roots' advisory groups,
"must operate within well defined parameters. Such a group must be built carefully to ensure its representativeness, its credibility, and its acceptance by the decision makers . . . The advisory group must understand that the elected representatives make the decision, and that non-elected advisory participation provides strictly background information and advice, based on first hand knowledge of the local situation" (1979: pg. 32).
Bregha claims that this approach, when utilized in planning, is commonly described as 'participatory planning'. The emphasis in such planning is placed on obtaining public input on technical aspects of the plan, and excludes the public from the political process (1973: pg. 124).
Data collection, as an approach to participation, is also useful to decision makers because the opportunity can be used to recruit (or co-opt, depending on the perspective) individuals whose capability and influence in the community appears to justify such actions. Another asset, for decision makers, is that the activity generated may provide a useful 'safety valve' 38
since it gives participants a sense of involvement that may dampen demands for actual power sharing.
Whether the public will be content to play the subordinate roles assigned to them in this form of participation depends on a large number of factors: the skill of those administering the program; the level of public concern about the issue involved; the degree of success that occurs in co-opting public leadership; and the skills and resources that the public groups may have at their disposal. In some cases the public may be content to assume that better decisions will be made as a result of the increased information that was provided. In other cases data gathering may be dismissed as tokenism and there would be agitation for a larger role. At this point the relationship with decision makers would likely become confrontative since this form of public participation has clearly defined boundar ies.
c. Citizenship Training
Public participation is seen in this approach as being the means by which the public can be assisted to understand the planning process, or the basis on which planning decisions are made. It is heavily influenced by the belief of those that are conducting the process that 'planning' is a 'rational' approach to problem solving. Most attempts to create a framework for participation identify some form of education as one of the approaches. As Burke states,
"in this context the act of participation is held to be a form of citizenship training, in which citizens working together to solve community problems not only 39
learn how democracy works but also learn to value and appreciate co-operation as a problem solving method" (1968: pg. 288).
While this approach can lead to more meaningful communication
there is also a danger it can be patronizing. It is easy to come to the assumption that there is a 'right' way to plan.
Whether public groups will accept an external judgement
about the right way to plan for their community is open to
question. If the public reject efforts to teach them the
'proper' approach to planning this can be used as a
justification by decision makers for acting on behalf of the
public. If, however, the professionals' are sincere in their
approach, and the public gain an understanding of the planning
process, then the participation process must evolve beyond
citizenship training or else revert to a more circumscribed form
of public involvement. The 'teachers' must accept that
eventually their students will want more equal status.
d. Involvement In Decision Making
This approach to participation is based on mutual
recognition of the government agency involved and the area's
residents, that the residents can effectively contribute to
decision making on issues of local concern. It reflects what
the Bureau of Municipal Research consider to be the true essence
of public participation. An aspect of "the democratic system
which permits non-elected members of the community to exercise
some control over decision making which goes beyond elections"
(quoted in Burton: 1977: pg. 3). While this approach could be
pushed to argue for an extreme devolution of decision making (as 40
in Arnstein's vision of citizen control), it is far more likely that it will be typified by situations where the public have effective input into decision making without complete control over the process.
This effective input requires open access to the decision making process35, and demonstrations that the public's wishes receive equal consideration in the decisions that are made.
Such demonstrations would consist of: the decision making process being open enough so that the actual decision makers are identified; their decisions referenced to the positions expressed by the public; and when the public's recommendations were rejected, some explanation.
Government agencies and public groups in this approach are no longer in 'superior-subordinate' roles. Instead all parties are viewed as integral components of the process, and cooperation of all is required to ensure the proper operation of the process. This approach is similar to that which Lash advocated in the preparation of Greater Vancouver Regional
District's 'Livable Region' planning process. He emphasized the
interdependence of all parties concerned in the planning process
(Figure 4). This type of symbiotic relationship between the parties Lash felt would be a more stable form of organization and would produce better results than would any effort to assert a hierarchical arrangement regardless or which party controlled the hierarchy (1977: pg. 74).
Acceptance of public involvement in decision making can come about either from belief that participation is a right to 4 1
Figure 4 - Co-operative Approach to Planning
Politicians -> Planners
Reproduced from Lash,Harry 1977. 42
which all citizens are entitled, or it can result from a more pragmatic consideration that public involvement will result in better decisions. Once it is achieved it is not inevitable that it will flourish unchallenged. Assumptions that public participation will automatically result in better decisions tend to be overly optimistic.36 Disappointment over results, or frustration about the amount of energy required to maintain effective public involvement, may result in decreased participation. However, once members of the public have been
involved in decision making, and have thereby gained organizational skills, they may not be satisfied by any lesser amount of involvement in future issues that are of public concern.
C. SUMMARY
This thesis defines public participation as the process of
interaction between individuals or groups from among the general public and decision makers, outside of the normal election activity; and the means by which the various parties attempt to advance their objectives. Within this general definition there are four main categories: public information; data collection; citizenship training; and involvement in decision making. These categories could be further subdivided, but such complexity is unnecessary to apply the concept of public participation to
rural planning. None of the four categories is static, and,
there will be continued pressures by the various actors to
transform the public participation process to have it conform more closely to their particular objectives. 43
IV. RURAL PLANNING
A. NEED FOR RURAL PLANNING
Paris claims that "the nonurban is emptied of all potential creativity and the few innovations that seem to appear in rural land are city bred" (1979: pg. 136). Other writers view rural communities as being nothing more than dependent peripheries to an urban metropolis. They argue that such communities can only be effectively influenced by attention being devoted to the urban core.37 If these assessments are correct it would be difficult to justify assigning a high priority to planning activities exclusively designed for rural communities.
At the same time rural residents have repeatedly displayed strong opposition to planning. They place great emphasis on private property rights,38 and frequently distrust anything that is described as planning.39 Lassey describes the typical rural attitude toward planning when he states,
"The very idea of planning is often unacceptable to long time small town residents because it smacks of 'socialism' or threatens outside government control over local freedom of decision. The profound and dissonance producing changes that may be necessary for local community survival, and which may involve new forms of community collaboration, restructuring of local government, and radical changes by local decision makers as impossible dreaming" (1977: pg. 35).
When rural residents' suspicions are combined with the planning profession's apparent lack of interest in planning for rural communities any efforts to initiate planning face formidable obstacles. One of the first steps to overcoming 44
these obstacles should be to closely examine rural communities.
If this is done then the perception of rural areas as stagnant backwaters of society becomes questionable. In reality, rural areas, at least in the Canadian context, are being subjected to strong pressures related to change. As Lewis states, "any study of the contemporary rural community, no matter how it is refined, must inevitably be concerned with social change" (1979: pg. 17). Certainly the rate of change is not uniform or unidirectional in rural society, but there is clearly growth occurring in rural areas. The trends of the past toward rural depopulation have been reversed. At the present time rural communities are growing at a faster rate than urban centres.
Hodge may be overly optimistic when he refers to a "rural renaissance" (1982b), but they can certainly not be regarded any longer as declining or even stagnant.
The impact of change on a rural community tends to be very dramatic. Due to the basic characteristics of rural areas any change tends to become magnified to a much greater extent than would occur in an urban neighbourhood. The small population and limited resources of a rural community constrain its ability to
respond to change. An event, such as the loss of a single
family, which would create only minor readjustment problems in an urban neighbourhood, can drastically change the social balance of a rural community."0 As a result the current changes being experienced by rural society will have a profound impact on its future.
Managing change is a fundmental purpose of 45
planning."1 With the technical, economic, and social changes currently being experienced by rural communities they require some mechanism to assess and respond to these changes. Planning provides a method to do such an assessment, and develop a strategy in response.
But before planning can be utilized for rural communities
it is necessary to confront residents' attitudes about planning.
However, these attitudes are also based on faulty assumptions.
Much of the rural opposition to planning comes from planning being equated with land use controls, and serving no other purpose. Halverson points out that,
"People in rural B. C. do not like planning very much and they do not support it. . . . Planning is usually confused with zoning and zoning is regarded as a restriction on private initiative" (1980: pg. 368).
Indeed many residents go further and see planning as directly connected to building regulations, which are considered another example of urban standards being arbitrarily applied to rural areas. Planners, as well as planning, are also viewed
sceptically by rural people. Many encounters between planners, as agents of external authorities, and rural residents have been negative. As Cohen indicates "unimplemented and out-of-proportion planning recommendations increase the widely held suspicion in small towns that planner are very well paid paper producers" (1977: pg. 7).
These suspicions do not create an insurmountable obstacle.
Rural residents are aware of many of the changes their communities are experiencing and are anxious to find some means
to obtain a degree of control over their future. This 46
recognition of a changing environment and desire to have some method to influence change was recently documented by Haynes in his study, Western voices: Socioeconomic development viewed by community leaders. One of the results of his extensive study of small to medium sized western communities was that:
"people here had a feeling of being caught out in changes that are brought about by forces outside their control to a large extent; they have very mixed feelings about methods of defence they can use to preserve their feelings of independence and autonomy, to defend their way of life" (1979: pg. 78).
There are many examples of rural people demanding that
"something must be done"; and even a few cases where rural self help projects have been inititated so that something would get done."2 If planning can be demonstrated to them to serve a broader function than just land-use controls; and the planning approach to rural communities demonstrates a sensitivity to rural concerns then the rural resistance to planning may be transformed into support. As Gilford et al. noted,
"the idea of planning as a form of regulation is usually resisted in rural communities. Planning activities have not proved an adequate response to public worries concerning growth and change, at least as planning is traditionally and typically practiced" (1981: pg. 9).
To achieve that necessary sensitivity it will be necessary to utilize "substantive planning""3 so that the purpose of the planning exercise, and the beneficiaries can be clearly identified. If these questions are dealt with, and the concerns of rural people to have some control over changes affecting their community are recognized, then planning and rural 47
development will overlap.
Rural development theory emphasizes the need for the rural public to be involved in the decision making process. Youmans, for example, defines rural development as,
"a democratic process involving local people in analysis of their problems, identifying opportunities, deciding how to address them, and doing so" (1983: pg . 8 ) .
It takes an integrated approach to rural communities. Social, political, and economic factors are seen as being so intertwined that efforts to promote growth in only one sector are seen as unproductive (Bromling: 1970, and Nicholls: 1967). As a consequence this approach places emphasis on citizen participation, and the creation of self-help strategies.90
This thesis will adopt the premise that rural resistance to planning will only be effectively overcome if residents become confident that they will have a significant role in the planning process."5 As Runka observes,
"to rural people it makes a great deal of difference who is doing the planning. The concern relates to the fact that, historically, urban priorites have often exploited rural land and overshadowed the concerns of rural people" (1980: pg. 19).
To accomplish this the appropriate form of planning for rural communities is one which acknowledges the basic tenets of rural development. 48
B. CONCEPTS OF RURAL PLANNING
1. CONVENTIONAL RURAL PLANNING
The most common approach to planning46 of rural areas has been to simply extend planning activities, as they are being conducted in urban areas, into rural communities. This is based on the assumption that planning techniques and skills are universally applicable. Lassey demonstrates this attitude
towards rural planning when he defines it as any form of planning that occurs in a rural area (1977: pg. 5).
This approach has come under increasing criticism. Qadeer
refers to it as "essentially 'city planning' extended to rural areas. ... it applies perceptions and procedures forged in cities to rural land issues which are fundamentally different"
(1979: pg. 113-114). Other writers have been even more
outspoken in their criticism of the attempt to apply planning
techniques and principles, designed for urban situations, to
rural areas. They rebuke the planning profession for carrying
its "urban bias" into rural planning."7 As Runka states, "by
training, habit, and job orientation, planners tend to be
urban-oriented, preoccupied with looking from the urban core in
concentric rings outward in the countryside" (1980: pg. 14).
The critics of conventional rural planning argue there must
be a more distinctive approach to rural planning. An approach
that will ensure that differences between urban and rural areas
are taken into consideration. It is their contention that this
form of 'city planning' in rural areas will produce flawed 49
results. It will cause basic data to be overlooked; and will produce ineffectual results since it utilizes standards that were created for urban areas, and which are often unworkable in rural areas.
Even when the motives of the planners and decision makers are well intentioned this urban bias can lead to distortion and inappropriate programs. A typical example was the Department of
Regional Economic Expansion's (DREE) rural development program in the 1960s and early 1970s. It was based on the assumption that,
"what separates rural Canadians from their fellow citizens in fact is not a matter of taste, or attitudes or aspirations. It is, rather, a range of continuing and wide social and economic disparities" (Canadian Council on Rural Devlopment: 1976: pg. 32).
This belief that rural problems were simply due to a lack of funds led to an extensive development program, based on the growth centre philosophy. It advocated centralization and urbanization of the rural population48, and was actually detrimental to the continued survival of rural communities. It concentrated on improving physical services and ignored the findings of rural sociologists that many rural residents place a higher value on social relationships than they do on physical services provided in their community."9
2. AN ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT OF RURAL PLANNING
The concerns about the applicability of conventional planning led to a search for a new definition of rural planning.
In recognition of the differences that exist between rural and urban communities rural planning shall be defined as that 50
planning which is done in rural areas with a recognition of the existence of unique rural features, and the need to incorporate these features into the planning process.
This definition is based on the belief that rural planning must consider recognized differences between urban and rural communities. As Getzels and Thurow state,
"Rural planning is different from urban planning. The problems are different, the solutions are different, and the available resources to get the job done are different. Most important, the people are different. They have different attitudes toward the land, different institutions and different traditions" (1980: pg. 1).
a. Different Problems
(1) size
In many ways the criteria used to identify rural areas explain why they experience different problems. Hodge wrote that "the planning problems of small communities are different in scale, intensity and pace of change" (1976: pg. 10). Many of the problems are directly related to the low population size and density of rural communities. These place limits on the types of services and facilities that can be developed in rural communities. Any services that require a high minimum level of usage are automatically excluded from rural communities. As
Powers and Moe point out,
"Rural places are characterized by small size and scale, including small communities, small governemnts, and small institutions. . . . Smallness is rooted in the sparsity of population. Extensive travel is often necessary to aggregate the population and resources that are needed to support essential services" (1982: pg. 12).
This 'smallness' also produces other problems for rural 51
communities. Frequently the small population, which is unable to provide support for professional and managerial positions, results in a loss of important skills and leadership for the community. Qadeer refers to this process as the creation of
"truncated communities" and claims that many rural development problems are a result of this weakness (1979: pg. 110).
(2) physical environment
Even though there has been an increase in industrial and service occupations in rural areas most rural communities are still strongly influenced by their physical environment. Hodge claims the recent growth in rural areas is attributable to "the new three R's—resources, recreation and retirement" (1982: pg. 5). These communities dependent on natural resource extraction are subject to the 'boom or bust' cycle that accompanies such activities. Also, many of the primary resource
industries are influenced by climatic and biological factors (as
in the case of agriculture, forestry, and fishing). Recreation and retirement are directly related to the natural amenities of an area. Thus planning for rural areas must not only consider the implications of dependence on primary resource extraction,50 but also how the physical characteristics of the area will
influence those looking for rural areas for recreation and retirement opportunities.
(3) impact of senior governments
Dealing with the fragmentation of government institutions, and universally applied government programs that are
inappropriate for local conditions, is not unique to rural 52
communities. Certainly some urban neighbourhoods feel that the universal programs of senior governments ignore local priorities and can be detrimental to their survival. But, as Qadeer observes, the conflict between local and provincial (or national) issues is particularly detrimental to small communities (1979: pg. 113). Such communities lack the
resources and organizations necessary to effectively counteract
the activities of the senior government.
Rural communities are subjected to regulations and policies
that are designed primarily for highly urbanized situations.
These policies frequently fail to consider the problems that will be caused when rural areas are blanketed by the same
requirements. Examples abound of the adverse affect that
universal programs can have on small communities. Provincial
government efforts to provide a full range of educational
programs led to consolidation of schools which mean that a small
community's school is forced to close. This not only involves
the commuting of children to distant centres, but also the loss
of the school staff and their families to the community—a
bitter blow since it reinforces the 'truncation' of the
community. The federal government designs programs to assist
people to purchase their own homes. But CMHC secured mortgages
are only available if a house meets the requirements of the
National Building Code, which was designed for urban conditions.
Few rural dwellings can qualify under the Code, so the
govenment's program simply exacerbates the difference in the
quality of housing between rural and urban areas. 53
The rural community must then attempt to cope with government programs in an institutional environment that is even more chaotic than in urban situations. Studies have been done which demonstrate that the jurisdictional fragmentation of rural areas surpasses that of urban areas (Dyballa et al.: 1981: pg. 4) .
b. Different Resources
(1) financial and technical limitations
A common observation about the difficulty of planning in rural communities is that they do not have available, at a local level, the talents and expertise needed for planning.51 It is also observed that they lack the necessary financial resources to either plan or implement any desired programs. These deficiences are very much a factor that has to be taken into consideration in any rural planning efforts. Hodge (1976) describes how in Ontario the Provincial government overlooked these basic facts. They assumed that rural municipalities would have planning expertise on their staff, and that the amount of money required to conduct a community plan was insignificant.
What the provincial government forgot to take into consideration was that most small rural municipalities had only part-time administrative staff; and that what the Provincial government considered to be a trivial amount of money was a major expenditure to a small community.
(2) rural resources
While limited in access to finances and expertise there are other resources that can be drawn upon for rural planning. The 54
most obvious rural resource is the rural population itself.
There is a rural tradition of volunteer activity that can be utilized to obtain considerable assistance in planning.
Associated with this is the knowledge that rural residents have of their area. This knowledge is particularly valuable to professional planners since, as Runka pointed out, rural people utilize natural landscape features in a way that is often very different from the urban pattern (1980: pg. 20). Another resource that can be used to make planning more effective is the strong sense of community attachment that is common in rural communities. It has been documented in a number of studies that rural residents tend to take pride in their community and believe that it is somehow unique.52 This attitude can be dismissed as merely parochial, or it can be used in a positive sense to encourage people to work to make their community even better. It has also been claimed that rural communities can use their size as a resource. Robertson (1980), for example, argues that smallness can be used to advantage since it allows people to be treated as individuals, and means that fewer all encompassing rules and regulations are required,
c. Different People
Recent studies have discovered that rural values and attitudes are not disappearing as rapidly as had been earlier predicted.53 As a result any effort to plan rural communities should take into consideration the fact its residents may have very different values and desires then those of the professional planners or external decision makers. While some of the rural 55
attitudes that will affect planning have already been referred to: their anti-planning views (with a general mistrust of
'government'); and their high level of community attachment, there are others that have to be identified.
(1) personalized multiple interactions
The rural desire for personal interaction has been described frequently,54 and it has led Halverson to define rural society as particularistic. This is an approach that emphasizes face to face interaction and looks at the individual instead of the institution that he may be representing (1980: pg. 374).
Rural society is also constrained by the multiple role relationships that exist because of the limited population. As
Martin pointed out this means,
"each person will be linked to many other people in the community in a variety of different but overlapping ways. . . it follows that social networks in the rural areas are more closely knit ... as a direct consequence, rural community life will be dominated by caution. If a man has to share a range of social contacts with a relatively limited number of people he will hesitate before taking attitudes or actions that will offend" (1976: pg. 56).
(2) consensual decision making
These rural characteristics lead to another social feature that distinguishes them from urban communities. There is a strong desire in rural communities to operate on a consensual,
instead of a conflictual approach to decision making. There is a constant effort to play down any conflict that does exist, and to search for some basis upon which people can work together.
The implications for planning are that the pace at which the process proceeds will undoubtedly be slower. In fact the 56
planner's desire to "get on with it" is often a reason for the planning process to break down in rural communities. It also means that there will be some issues that are so sensitive that the rural residents will attempt to avoid them rather than risk the consequences of confrontation. One particular area is the issue of enforcement. There is a desire to informally "work things out" rather than to impose legal sanctions, but for planners and external authorities who are unfamiliar with the way rural residents use informal pressure tactics on offenders such attempts to avoid confrontation are contemptously dismissed as 'impractical'.
(3) problem oriented
A further significant rural characteristic is the tendency for rural people to be problem oriented. As Getzels and Thurow state, "the problems are not perceived in a grand scheme—the
'systems view' just isn't there. Problems are viewed
independently" (1980: pg. 10). This attitude is particularly
important to rural planners. It explains why rural residents often fail to become involved in planning programs that do not address specific local problems. They are likely to be unimpressed by claims that planning is in their long term best
interests, and would probably dismiss any planning that was future oriented as 'utopian' if the objectives for the planning exercise are not explicit. 57
C. RURAL PLANNING APPROACHES
Within rural planning, as defined in this thesis, it is possible to distinguish four main approaches. They can all meet the requirement to recognize unique rural characteristics, but they differ on: the objectives of the planning; and the manner in which the planning is conducted. They will be described as: planning 'of' rural communities; planning 'for' rural communities; planning 'with' rural communities; and planning
'by' rural communities.
1. PLANNING 'OF' RURAL COMMUNITIES
When rural planning is undertaken by an agency that is external to the rural community, and the main objective of such activities is to satisfy external interests then the approach can be described as planning 'of' rural areas. This has many similarities to the "development from above" approach described by Stohr and Taylor, where the "basic hypothesis is that development is driven by external demand and innovation impulses" (1981: pg. 1).
The planning is initiated by the external agency in response to some perceived need that it has for planning in the area. The motives range widely, and may include a desire to more effectively manage a specific resource, or to achieve some general government objective. An example of management of a specific resource is the case with the Ministry of Forests' provincial forest plans. The Ministry of Industry and Small
Business provides an example of a general program when it 58
assumes responsibility for promoting economic development of the province as a whole, and plans for specific projects as a component of its overall objective of provincial economic growth. In many cases the areas which are subject to this type of planning may receive some benefit. However, these benefits are secondary to the major objective of the agency, and in
"development from above", they are expected to 'trickle down'.
The actual planning under this approach is conducted by agency staff, or consultants who are directly accountable to the agency, and frequently there is little or no involvement of local residents in the planning process. This lack of involvement is due to the perception by staff and decision makers in the agency that the planning is for broader goals than those of the local population. Decision making on plan recommendations is also removed from any effective influence by rural residents since the agency claims they have to make the decision because they are acting in the public good (or at least the agency's interpretation of what is in the public good).
Since the concerns of the local community are secondary the planning 'of rural communities approach is most susceptible to the tendency to use 'city planning' techniques. Residents are expected to maintain a passive role in the planning and there is little opportunity for them to communicate to the planners what the residents see as being unique, or important features of their locality. Furthermore this approach will do nothing to reduce rural opposition to planning. Some degree of resistance by the residents is almost inevitable. Rural opposition to this 59
approach was eloquently stated by the Slocan Valley Committee,
"The people of the Slocan Valley are not included in the decision making process that manipulates their jobs, their environment, their quality of life. This situation is apparently due to the belief that only 'experts' can understand resource. Once ignored the public loses track of the resource vocabulary of the 'experts; and dialogue becomes also impossible" (1974: pg. x) .
As a consequence this approach to planning will generate problems for the agency when it attempts to implement recommendations from the plan.
2. PLANNING 'FOR' RURAL COMMUNITIES
There are occasions when an external agency55 undertakes planning on the basis of some assumed local need. This planning
'for' rural communities approach is typified by the provincial government's efforts to make settlement plans mandatory.56 In such cases the external authority decides that it knows what is in the best interests of the local community and proceeds to ensure that it is planned in an appropriate fashion. Such an approach is often suspected by the residents (and observers) of being less altruistic than the initiating agency claims, but in the absence of any evidence of an ulterior motive the planning would be categorized as being 'for* the rural community, rather than planning 'of' the community. The suspicion about agency motives stems from the fact that it makes all of the critical decisions about the planning process. It will decide when planning is needed (and this must fit into the agency's priorities). It will determine how the planning will be conducted, and what role the rural residents will be expected to 60
perform. Ultimately, the external authority will also make the decision about what planning recommendations will be implemented.
With such extensive control over the planning process the residents' roles will be clearly secondary. They may be encouraged to participate in a technical capacity by providing basic data on their area. Since the planners see themselves as working in the 'best interests' of the rural people, they frequently expect to receive the residents' gratitude, and to be able to implement the plan's recommendations with minimal enforcement costs. These expectations are often frustrated when the residents fail to perform as expected. As Cohen points out,
"the top-down conceptualization of the project, its technical and sophisticated jargon, and the lack of mutualistic and collaborative investigation by the planners makes the process difficult for small towners to absorb" (1977: pg. 8).
3. PLANNING 'WITH' RURAL COMMUNITIES
This approach to rural planning occurs when the need for some
type of planning is identified by the community. The planning
is undertaken to achieve a local objective, but the planning process itself is not subject to meaningful control by rural
residents. Residents may, and are often encouraged, to participate in the planning process, but control of that process
remains in the hands of the 'experts'. This approach is
particularly prevalent among the various types of sectoral
planning (such as forestry) where it is argued that the entire
process can only be understood by professionals, an attitude
typified by Heberlein, who argues that while the public should 61
be consulted to obtain their values and preferences, that this consultation is not a substitution for the resource managers making the actual decisions. He compares such planning with a medical experience. You would want the doctor to consult you on your symptoms, but you would not expect him to consult with the people in the waiting room about the need to operate (1976: pg. 4 ) .
In this approach to rural planning the community has had some input into the decision about the need for planning.
However, after that initial step, they may actively participate but decisions about the planning exercise are dominated by the external authority with little influence by the rural community.
The residents gather information and play supporting roles; and are expected to trust in the 'professionals' to direct the planning process in a manner that will produce results that will deal with the issues that initially concerned the residents.
How willing the residents will be to accept domination of planning activities by the experts depends on many factors. The importance that residents attach to the issue; the existence of local expertise, or access to alternative technical information; the level of local organization; and the communication skills of the agency's planners, are all factors that will have a bearing on the success of this type of planning. Rural acceptance of the planners' control of the process is by no means inevitable.
Rural people, with a tradition of self-reliance are unlikely to accept that planners be in control merely because the planners believe they are so entitled. 62
4. PLANNING 'BY' RURAL COMMUNITIES
This approach to rural planning is similar in some respects to the 'bottom up' approach to development. Stohr and Taylor describe 'development from below' as being "based primarily on maximum mobilization of each area's natural, human and institutional resources with the primary objective being the satisfaction of the basic needs of the inhabitants of that area"
(1981: pg. 1). Planning 'by' rural communities occurs when the
initiative for planning is local, and the residents are able to control the planning process and related planning decisions.
Obviously the minimal level of local control will mean that the
rural residents must work, to some extent, through an external authority. There is a need for the involvement of an external agency to provide some legal status for decisions at the very
least, and usually financial resources and technical expertise are also needed from the agency.
This approach to rural planning is the one least frequently practiced. It requires an agency that is prepared, or compelled, to share authority. Further the role of the professionals must be constrained and all parties must be aware
that the planner works for the residents. These are major hurdles but there is evidence that they are not
insurmountable.57 The Tug Hill program in rural New York State
demonstrated that. The program was created by the senior
government to provide for co-ordinated development of rural
region. The Commission established planning as a local
activity. For the Commission, 63
"reliance on local decision making is the essence of this approach, coupled with an extensive effort to bolster that decision making through broadly based local assistance. The key principles of this method are flexibility and diversity. A multiple approach employing elements of several disciplines can be more acceptable to different local groups, regardless of their goals, than a narrowly defined or single issue approach. Flexibility, in terms of attitudes, definition of issues, programs and approach is necessary" (1981: pg. 148).
It is planning 'by' rural communities that appears to offer the necessary sensitivity to rural concerns that can overcome rural opposition to planning. While it is undoubtedly the most time consuming,58 and makes the greatest demands on the political system, it offers the greatest promise for creating workable plans.
D. SUMMARY
Rural communities are confronted with change, and planning can assist them to cope with its impact. However, for this to happen both the planning profession and rural people have to adjust their perceptions of planning. Most planning exercises use concepts "to both study and assist small towns that are often urban in nature and do not fit well small town realities"
(Dyballa et al.: 1981: pg. 15). A new concept of rural planning is therefore required.
Accordingly, rural planning is defined as planning in rural areas that is conducted with rural characteristics being taken into consideration. If rural planning is approached in this way it will acknowledge rural social values. This recognition by the decision makers and planners is essential to ' overcoming rural opposition to planning. 64
Within the general definition of rural planning there are four main categories. This does not mean to imply that there will never be any overlap between the categories, or that they are aligned in an evolutionary manner. These four categories merely represent a way of conceptualizing the most common approaches to rural planning.
With the four approaches, the planning 'by' rural communities is the one that can most effectively overcome rural resistance to planning, and produce the most enduring results.
However, it makes the greatest demands on the political system.
The creation of such a planning approach, and its continued existence, will depend on the commitment of rural people to this approach. 65
V. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN RURAL PLANNING
A. INTEGRATION OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND RURAL PLANNING
This thesis contends that effective rural planning is accomplished when rural opposition is translated into support.
This results from involving rural people in the planning process. The previous chapter described how approaches to rural planning differed on the basis of who was in control of the planning process, and their objectives. Chapter III identified four types of public participation and indicated that each provided different benefits. Those who control the planning process will attempt to manage public participation to fit their objectives. However, public participation is a form of dynamic social interaction that can not be completely controlled by any group.59 As a result any effort to examine public participation in rural planning should consider how all types of public participation could relate to the various approaches to rural planning.
There are no doubt some instances where the planning objectives would be totally incompatible with a particular type of public participation; and others, where the connection is extremely tenuous. But to identify those incompatible combinations it is first necessary to analyze how each type of participation could be applied. This chapter will conduct such an examination, and for conceptual purposes display the information in a Table (Table I) to accompany the descriptions. Table I - Integration of Public Participation and Rural Planning
Approach to Rural Type of Participation P1anni ng
Public Information Data Col lection Citizenship training Involvement in Dec i s i on-Mak i ng
Planning 'of rural agency issues residents a source of agency appeals to a Not applicable communi t ies promot ional supplementary data higher public good materia 1--public relations exercise
Planning 'for' rural information on the residents provide community development use of advisory communi t ies value of planning to data and preferences concept groups and the community established interest groups
Planning 'with' rural enhancement of the lawyer-client community organizing community has choice communi t ies profess i ona1 relat ionsh ip concept from among preselected options
Planning 'by' rural dialogue early stage of self-help (indigenous se1f-determinism communities planni ng organization) 67
1. PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING 'OF' RURAL COMMUNITIES
In this type of planning the process is controlled by a external agency which is conducting a planning program to fulfill its own objectives.
a. Public Information
This is a common form of public participation in this approach to rural planning. It is aimed at distributing information to the public about the benefits of a particular government program or project. It makes extensive use of the mass media, and public meetings (to inform and reassure, not to obtain information). When the public are included directly in such programs it is usually by the appointment of local
'notables' to honorary bodies that are presented with government information and are then expected to disseminate it among their neighbours.
b. Data Collections
Residents are seen as a source of local information that can be utilized to improve the data base. Individuals are selectively recruited to participate in an advisory committee.
Their function is to review data gathered by the agency staff for accuracy, and to identify possible data gaps. In addition to advisory groups, other techniques utilized include: public meetings (where comments on technical details are encouraged, but no significant discussion of alternatives occurs); use of
'resource contacts' who are perceived to be representative of segments of the public; and public hearings where the terms of 68
reference are so narrowly defined that they consider only details on how a project will proceed.
c. Citizenship Training
This is a less common form of participation in planning
'of rural areas. When the agency is in full control of the process it does not often see any necessity to indulge in citizenship training. However, decision makers may use this
type of participation to make plan implementation easier. The
public participation program is designed to make residents aware
of their obligations to the larger society. An effort is made
to make people less orientated to their local concerns, and to
appeal to some 'higher interest'. It would make extensive use
of the mass media and distribution of prepared materials, but
would also utilize those techniques that others60 describe as
therapy, to prepare people to accept what is seen as their
responsibility. This approach is used by agencies, that argue
that a particular project must proceed, despite serious local
impact, because it is in the provincial (or national) interest.
People in other areas 'need' the benefits, and local opposition
portrayed as reflecting greedy self interest.
d. Involvement In Decision Making
This is one form of public participation that is clearly
not applicable to planning 'of' rural communities since it is
inconsistent with the objectives of that type of planning. This
does not imply that some public control could not emerge from a
planning program that was initially based on the planning 'of 69
rural communities approach. As Schatzow points out,
"there are examples, however, when government has presented opportunities for tokenism which have, been heavily utilized by the public so that de facto citizen power does come to exist" (1977: pg. 143).
But if such a transformation does occur then the planning approach has radically changed and no longer would be described as planning 'of' rural communities.
2. PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING 'FOR' RURAL COMMUNITIES
In this type of planning the process is controlled by an
external agency, that is conducting planning in what it assumes
is in the best interests of the rural community.
a. Public Information
The public participation that is initiated by the authority
relies on the use of media, distribution of resource material,
information displays, public meetings and other similar
techniques to attempt to convince residents that some proposed
government action is for their 'own good'. Within the context
of this approach to rural planning such information programs
could be directed at convincing rural people of the need for
official community plans, or to secure their compliance with new
regulations that the government has developed.
b. Data Collection
Frequently, planning 'for' rural communities uses this type
of public participation. The residents are acknowledged to be a
source of local data. Also, since the objective is to plan in
the best interests of the area's residents, the public views are 70
sought to identify alternatives that will reflect residents' preferences. But the public's role is still restricted to providing advice to the decision makers. As Burton describes it
"public participation is seen as an opportunity for the public to inform and consult, not to advise and consent" (1977: pg. 15).
c. Citizenship Training
In this case the public participation program is aimed at community building. It assumes rural problems are related to inadequate community cohesion and organization skills, and that these can be improved through public participation. These concepts form the basis for community development as a discipline.61 But most community development theory goes on to emphasize the role of the 'expert'. The community development professional is seen as being necessary to guide public participation as it develops.62 This dependence on the expert is what makes most community development programs fit into the category of planning 'for' rural communities.
d. Involvement In Decision Making
Since this form of rural planning is premised on the belief that it is up to the decision makers to do what is in the best interests of the area, the potential for public involvement in decisions about the planning process is restricted. When it does occur it is usually through the recruitment (co-option) of influential individuals in the rural community into an advisory group. Often the exclusion of the public is not deliberate, but 71
is based on a commonly held assumption by many of those who have achieved a position of influence—that the political system is open enough to permit 'anybody' to become involved. They believe that the majority of people simply do not take advantage of the opportunities because of their apathy. This is reflected in the statements of those who advocate a pluralist theory of politics. Polsby states that "decision makers became so by self-selection--pushing themselves into the leadership group by showing interest, willingness to work, and competence" (1980: pg. 131).
Some participation also occurs through consultation with established interest groups. However, this is not particularly useful for rural residents. Most of the influential interest groups have specific sectoral interests and a broadly distributed membership. The Sierra Club, for example, might be able to demand that its interests be considered in planning related to an environmental issue in a rural area. But despite its claims to be a guardian of the public interest it would represent a very small segment of the rural population.63
3. PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING 'WITH' RURAL COMMUNITIES
This approach to rural planning is based on the rural residents identifying an issue, and participating in planning, but the external agency remaining in control of the planning process. 72
a. Public Information
Within this approach public information often is used to enhance the position of the expert. The complexity of the
issue, the need for technical competence and the ability of the
experts involved will be emphasized. Certainly many public meetings and reports with their trade jargon are intended more
for the self-esteem of the professionals than they are for
public understanding and dialogue. As Christiansen-Ruffman and
Stuart noted, "interaction between professionals and clients
tends to reinforce the primacy of the experts' knowledge.
Citizens are usually not involved in the strategy planning of
the expert" (1977; pg. 83).
b. Data Collection
This approach is very similar to that used by the legal
profession. It creates a 'lawyer-client' relationship. The
residents are expected to supply as much detail as the
professional feels is required. The expert then sorts through
the information to determine what is useful, prepares
alternative strategies, and assembles the data into a
presentation based upon the preferred strategy. In this process
the role of the client is to provide basic information, respond
when requested, and then to follow instructions. The belief in
the paramouncy of the expert is summed up in an old legal adage,
'he who is his own lawyer, has a fool for a client.' 73
c . Citizenship Training
This approach is frequently referred to as 'community organizing', as that term has been developed by Saul Alinsky and his supporters.64 As in community development theory it focusses on public involvement as a means to overcome fundamental social problems of inequity. But as Stinson notes, there is a difference in that "a community developer sees a community as anomic, ... a community organizer sees it as alienated . . . [which] is the result of a lack of power" (1975: pg. 55). The result is that while the community development expert attempts to encourage 'community building'65, the community organizer focuses his attention more narrowly on developing strong organizations that can help those who are powerless to gain power. The problem with such an approach is
that there is a serious risk that the organizer will come to dominate the organization. As Christiansen-Ruffman and Stuart
indicate, "participation dominated by experts sharpens only the participatory skills of the experts" (1977: pg. 94).
Examples of community organizing in rural areas are rare
since such areas usually lack the resources to acquire such expertise independently; and given the 'anti-establishment'
image of community organizing few government agencies are anxious to sponsor activities which they anticipate will attack
them. However, there have been instances where the need for change was considered serious enough for government to sponsor community organizing. One such case was with the Rural
Development Council in Prince Edward Island. As part of the 74
Island's development program the Council was supported since:
"economic development primarily rests upon the base of increasing organization, it is only obvious that organizational skills must be enhanced among the Island population. It would be extremely naive to assume that any government could assist people to learn organizational skills for the purpose of economic improvement while restricting the use of these skills in any form of political change" (McNiven: 1976: pg. 165).
This example also proves the vulnerability of this type of public participation when the public do not have the resources
to support it themselves. When the Rural Development Council became perceived as too 'political' the government resources were drastically cut back, and the Council's effectiveness was destroyed (McNiven: 1976: pg. 20).
d. Involvement In Decision Making
This approach to rural planning implies that the residents
have already achieved some measure of influence. They have managed to obtain action on a local initiative. Since one of
the most difficult hurdles to overcome in dealing with a
government agency is to get any action the difficulty should not
be minimized. The public's role may also include participation
in the establishment of general priorities and policies. But
the belief in the need for expert knowledge is still going to
create limits within which residents must operate (since some
possibilities will be dismissed as technically impractical).
A case study that illustrates how the public can be
involved in decision making within bounds prescribed by
technical experts was provided by Milne (1974). It dealt with
highway relocation in a rural area of southern Ontario. The 75
residents were canvassed for their preference on a new route. A booklet was mailed to all rural residents identifying ten routes, indicated that six of them had been discarded for technical reasons, and showing the technical factors that should be considered in deciding upon which of the four remining ones to support. Informing the residents that they could help to choose the new route, as long as they choose one of the four which the politicians and staff had predetermined, certainly placed limits on the level of involvement the public had in the decision. That this process was not totally satisfactory was
recognized by Milne (who conducted the public participation program for the project). She stated, "the explanation of
reasons for discarding other rights-of-way as possible was not entirely convincing to the public" (pg. 5). Indeed, 14% of the
respondents identified an eleventh option that the engineers and planners apparently had never even considered.
4. PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING 'BY' RURAL COMMUNITIES
This approach is based on rural people having control over
the planning process when it is related to a local issue,
a. Public Information
When this type of participation is a one way dissemination of information, and not communication between involved parties
it is not applicable to this approach to planning. When it is viewed as a dialogue between participants it becomes an integral
part of the entire planning process. 76
b. Data Collection
This type of participation is unlikely if the public are truly in control of the planning process. The residents will certainly have to contribute their knowledge of the locality, but this information gathering is merely an early phase of the planning process. Resident involvement would extend beyond this stage, and so it would be inaccurate to describe only the data collection portion of their involvement.
c. Citizenship Training
When a community has achieved a level of participation that results in it having control over the planning process, efforts to 'train' residents will concentrate on providing knowledge about how the process functions and how technical skills can be employed. But it will be more of a mutual learning process with technical expertise seen in a supporting role, and will be designed to further strengthen the local community. This approach is described in community development literature as
'self-help'.66 It is sometimes the motive behind the creation of entities such as community economic development corporations67, which have as their objective the general development of the entire community using economic activities as the vehicle for change. 77
d. Involvement In Decision Making
This approach, which is the most typical form of participation for rural planning 'by' the community, is similar to what Farrell et al. call "self-determinism". They define it as "undertaking of the planning process by the public" (1976: pg. 24). This is different from Arnstein's level of "citizen power" (1969) in that the government authority is not expected to relinquish all control over resource allocation decisions that go beyond the planning process. Planning is directed by the residents, but even then the agency retains the right to protect the interests of the broader society. Hodge argued for this type of participation in community planning when he urged the Ontario government to:
"Reverse the present paternalistic system and make the province an 'interested party' in local planning which must be advised of proposed local planning measures and could object as other interested parties do. That is, urge small communities to plan, provide the technical assistance they need, and then let them get on with it intervening only to protect the provincial interest" (1976: pg. 17).
This approach can not be dismissed as an idealistic dream because there are practical benefits that could be achieved, and cases where it has occurred. Farrell et al. point out that one of the objectives of self-determinism is to "shift or diffuse the responsibility for the planning process from the authority to the public" (1976: pg. 24). Where the authority sees no adverse consequences to itself, and the residents are anxious to initiate planning on something which is considered to be a local matter (that the authority does not want to devote its own time 78
and staff to) such an approach may appear attractive. It is also claimed that this is going to become increasingly important as a result of recent changes in the economy. Christenson, for
example, argues,
"the 1980's are already seeing a decrease in citizen expectations of government to deal effectively with local problems. This is due partly to government complexity, citizens' reactions against rising taxes, and decreasing service manpower. . . . the increasing recognition of the limitations of government to 'do for people' appears to be stimulating the renaissance of self-help efforts among all segments of the population" (1982: pg. 268).
One example of this type of planning was in the Slocan
Valley, where area residents were funded (through a 'make-work'
program) to conduct a planning exercise for the Valley. While
the eventual plan proved to be too 'innovative' for the
provincial government to implement, many of its recommendations
have been cited repeatedly and it is credited with identifying
the need to protect the Valhalla watershed from logging. This
area in 1982 was reserved as a wilderness park.
B. ENHANCEMENT OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Public participation is essential to rural planning since
its success rests on the support of rural people. When
participation is viewed as essential it becomes important to
determine what steps can be taken to improve the quality of
participation, within the constraints imposed by the type of
rural planning that is occurring.
Improvement is most likely when it will result in changes
that offer mutual benefits to the government agency and the 79
public. If the advantages all seem to go to one group the inevitable result will be conflict between the involved parties as they all attempt to maximize their benefits in relation to the others. One useful way to visualize this situation is to see "public participation having the function of helping to shift the trade-off curves, i.e., to reduce trade-offs by changing the structure of relationships and situations society finds itself in" (Alberta Department of Environment: 1982: pg. 7). This is diagramatically displayed in Figure 5. It shows the potential for restructuring a situation so both parties benefit. It acknowledges that:
"there will still be conflict, but it will be raised to a higher level, i.e., contradictory goals will both be met simultaneously even though there will still be a need to set priorities between these" (Alberta Department of Environment: 1982: pg. 8).
It would be unrealistic to attempt to implement a type of public participation that was in direct conflict with the objectives of the planning that was occurring. For example, the objectives of planning 'of' rural communities preclude any efforts to provide for participation at the level of Involvement
in Decision-making. Since the approach to planning does
influence how public participation can be improved it will be examined in the same manner as the functions of public participation were in the previous section. Suggested
improvements will be identified in a table (see Table II) with accompanying descriptions. It is recognized that such an attempt will not be exhaustive. Suggested improvements, which are based on the literature reviewed and the author's own 80
Figure 5 - Shifting the Trade-Off Curve
A
social -new trade-off curve goal A' ie. developed through creativity, new technology, education, redefining question (eg. electricity production for whole province)
contradictory social goal E
(eg. protect farmland and farmers)
Reproduced from Alberta Department of Environment ,1982. Report on Public Participation Conference Table II - Possible Improvements in Public Participation
Planning Approach Type of Participation
Public Information Technical Assistance Citizenship Training Involvement in Decision Making
Planning 'of' rural - increased - expand data - broaden horizons to Not Applicable communities 1nformat i on collection to include recogn i ze 1i nks social variables between local and - improved access to regional interests i nformat i on - obtain local input at an earlier stage in - develop an planni ng understanding of activation of other actors
Planning 'for' rural information packages broaden the focus of - increase public's use of explici t communi t ies more relevant to rural planning studies to level of knowledge of policy to define interests include general issues political process criteria of 'who' of interest to public (and to form will be involved in - guide books oh how (deve1opmenta1 political alliances) 'what' the 'system' operates planning) - expand consultation - staff must develop of include more than ski11s in just interest groups, participation, and be use 'open door' more sensitive to approach means residents use to commun i cate
Planning 'with' rural - demystify planning - extend public - skills development - reducing disparity communi t ies process activity to include of participants of resources (funding monitoring and for public groups) - clarify functions of evaluation phases (act professionals involved as 'watch dog' during - provision for imp1ementat ion) expertise for public
Planning 'by' rural - dialogue as element - data collection as - mutual learning - publi c communit ies of planning early phase of process participation in planning process planni ng as an ongoing activity 82
observations, are only a partial list of improvements that will no doubt be greatly expanded by the creativity of the participants in such planning programs. Those suggested in this thesis can only provide a starting point. It is also important to note that the suggested improvements are not seen as being universally applicable. Each community will have distinctive features that must be taken into account. As Farrell et al. point out:
"there are no recipes for developing effective involvement strategies. Each planning situation possesses its own unique circumstances which must be considered in developing an involvement strategy that has any practical merit" (1976: pg. 13).
Since some of the types of public participation may, on occasion, overlap, many suggested improvements could be applicable to a number of different public participation programs. This thesis will assume that any improvement identified may be applicable to other planning situations where there is opportunity for greater public input into decision making.
1. PLANNING 'OF' RURAL COMMUNITIES
a. Public Information
Improvements that could be made in this type of participation would rely upon the government authority to implement them since it dominates the planning process.
Possible improvements would include increasing the amount of information available to the public, and providing better access to it. 83
(1) increased information
The amount of information that government currently releases tends to be very restricted. Most agencies seem to operate on a 'need to know' basis. If the politicians and administrators do not see how specific information would be utilized by the public it tends to be restricted. For effective planning a more appropriate approach would be for the agency to designate information which it considered sensitive as
'confidential', and then make the bulk of government information
accessible to the public. Such an approach would improve the
public participation process. No authority can ever fully
predict the information needs of the public. Sincere efforts to
inform the public may be totally ineffectual if the information
released is based on a civil servant's perceptions of what the
public' concerns are. As Matthews noted:
"the values of the urban centre are not always those of the rural fringe: it is unlikely that Ottawa's planners could see the world through the eyes of the people of Mountain Cove" (1976: pg. 82).
(2) improved access
Another important improvement to this type of public
participation is to improve the means of access to information.
It is insufficient to accept in principle the public's right to
information. Unless some mechanism is implemented to ensure
that information is readily available the principle becomes mere
tokenism.68 There are a variety of techniques that can be
utilized to make information more accessible to the
public.69 But regardless of whether it is as elaborate as a
community resource centre, or as basic as maintaining a public 84
bulletin board, the techniques utilized are far less important than the acknowledgement that public access to information has to be improved; and having those in charge of the planning process make a commitment to make improvements.
The feasibility of these suggestions obviously depends upon the anticipated benefits and costs. For the residents the benefits are obvious—access to information is critical for any public participation. However, providing such information can also have a cost to the authority since it may well result in demands for more participation. As Schatzow notes,
"a public which is poorly informed about issues cannot sustain a high level of concern about such issues, is unlikely to ask for more information, to demand to be included in decision making, or to scrutinize government action closely" (1977: pg. 153).
What benefit to government could justify such a risk? The answer appears related to the fundamental causes of much of the alienation (or opposition) that has developed towards government—the public's trust in authority has been substantially reduced. Unless governments are willing to use increasing amounts of regulation and coercion (which entail significant costs to them) then efforts must be taken to improve the level of trust. The disclosure of more information is one means to accomplish this.
b. Data Collection
The most obvious improvements would be: to expand the data collecting activity to include more information on the social values of residents; and to adjust the planning process so that resident input occurs at an earlier stage. 85
(1) wider data base
When residents are involved in collecting data in the planning 'of' rural communities their assignment is often restricted to the provision of 'hard' data relating to the physical environment and statistics on the economic resources of their locality. This ignores the existence of social factors that could have an impact on.how useful the eventual planning recommendations would be. Residents could supply information on rural lifestyles and values that could then be included in the considerations of the decision makers. Broadening the opportunities for residents to communicate a more comprehensive image of their community would be consistent with the basic rationale for this type of participation--to achieve better decisions by utilizing all available information.
(2) earlier input
A related improvement would be to obtain public input at an earlier stage in the planning process. Often public input is not sought until after many of the critical decisions have been made. As Burton and Johnson point out the timing is a critical factor since "participation at a late stage, when plans are well advanced, can make it appear as inevitably involved with costly delay" (1976: pg. 12).
It is sometimes argued by government agencies that
'premature' participation can lead to raising unrealistic expectations70 since the public does not understand the difference between a preliminary proposal and final design stage planning. It is felt that as soon as the public becomes aware 86
that a concept is being examined by government they immediately identify it as government 'policy' and react strongly. However this tendency to treat tentative proposals as definite policies would appear to be related to the fact that the public very rarely sees anything that has not become government policy. The possibility of raising expectations can be reduced by stressing that participation is occuring at a very preliminary stage of planning, and would be offset by the benefit of obtaining more information about the local community for use in the initial dec i sions.
c. Citizenship Training
This form of participation is usually employed by the authority involved to convince residents that they have an obligation to a higher interest than their community.
(1) demonstrate linkages
Instead of attempting to manipulate the public by appealing to their sense of duty, it is possible to demonstrate the linkages between local issues and the broader society. As T.
O'Riordan points out,
"many do not see the need to worry themselves with . . . regional problems despite the fact that most issues have both regional as well as local significance. . . . somehow then the link must be forged between local area interests and a concern for the wider and longer term community welfare" (1977: pg. 169).
Rather than making emotional appeals for the public to support a great good it can be approached more objectively by demonstrating the need to compromise. This compromise would not mean the capitulation of the interests of the local community, 87
but rather it would be an effort to identify ways that mutual benefits could be achieved.
(2) increased understanding of other actors
Public participation can function more effectively when those involved have some appreciation of the motivations of other participants.
For residents this means recognizing that their criticism of the system is often considered to be an attack on the personal integrity of the politicians and civil servants involved in the planning activity.71 When their criticism appears to be directed at individuals it creates a defensive response that seriously impedes the possibility of any real compromise or continued dialogue. At the same time it is important that those, who are in control of the planning process, recognize the need that many people have to feel involved in issues that directly affect them. The belief that individuals have the right to have a high degree of control over their own lives is strongly held by rural people.72
d. Involvement In Decision Making
As previously indicated the objectives of the planning 'of rural communities approach preclude any real involvement of residents in decision making. As a consequence suggestions on how to improve it would be futile. 88
2. PLANNING 'FOR' RURAL COMMUNITIES
a. Public Information
If a government agency is anxious to ensure that its planning activities succeed it will conduct an active information campaign. The effectiveness of such a program can be increased by: ensuring information is relevant to its rural audience; and expanding the information to include some indication of how the 'system' functions.
(1) more relevant information
Those in control of the planning process must recognize that the information disseminated has to be designed to be relevant to rural concerns. Often information campaigns rely on a 'blanket' approach. They attempt to convey information to a wide variety of interests. When this happens it usually means that the information becomes oriented toward urban concerns, since this is the largest audience. To be effective the information program must be specifically designed to deal with those aspects of the planning activity that are of importance to rural people. Without some effort to make the information meaningful to a rural audience there is very little chance that the message will be effectively conveyed.
(2) information about the system
A common misconception of government agencies is that public groups have an understanding of how the decision making system functions. In reality there is a serious need for information that can help the rural community to gain a better 89
understanding of the way that planning, and decision making, function. Rural communities are faced with a wide number of different government agencies; and a political and administrative process that is so fragmented that it is baffling to most of the general public (not just rural residents). A definite improvement would be to provide information on both the political system and the planning process. Such 'guide books' have been produced occasionally, and have proven very useful to
the average citizen.73
b. Data Collection
An increased level of participation could be achieved by:
expanding the focus of the study to deal with general issues;
and by improving the participation skills of the planning staff.
(1) deal with general issues
As Burton and Johnson point out "unless public
participation is capable of dealing with general issues (and not
just subjects like land use planning and set backs) it will
appear as a superficial irrelevancy to many" (1976: pg. 11).
Most of the public have a holistic view of their community, and
are frustrated with bureaucratic attempts to dissect and
compartmentalize activities. This is particularly true of rural
areas where the particularistic nature of society clashes with
this institutional approach. Frequently the number of residents
willing to volunteer to support a planning program drops off as
the focus of the planning becomes more narrow. Rather than
dismiss this as public apathy the planners should recognize that
residents dismiss the planning exercise as being of little value 90
because it does not tackle major issues.
Often the response from a government agency to requests to broaden the focus of the study is that 'it is out of our jurisdiction'. However if the agency wants public support for
its plan, and assistance in data gathering, then it is going to have to find a means to address the public's desire for more broadly based planning. A partial solution is to encourage co-ordinated activity among the various government agencies.
Certainly more intragovernment co-ordination should be an
important government objective7", even if intergovernment
co-operation is unrealistic because of the state of relations
between different levels of government. In the event that
co-operation can not be achieved on an issue not completely
within an agency's jurisdiction this should not preclude comment
and recommendation from the agency. These recommendations can
be forwarded to the responsible department for its consideration
after the planning program has identified the issues.
The preparation of settlement plans is an example of a
government agency adhering to jurisdictional divisions that are
not practical for a rural community. The Municipal Act
specifically excludes from any official settlement plan those
areas that are under the Ministry of Forests' jurisdiction. But
for most rural areas in British Columbia, attempting to do land
use planning without considering potential forestry activities
would be totally futile.
(2) improve staff participation skills
The amount and quality of information produced through 91
public participation could be increased if the staff involved on
the planning program had an understanding of the need for public participation, and appropriate skills for dealing with the public .
In many planning exercises public 'consultation' consists
of a few public meetings. To the staff they are just one more
task that must be accomplished before they can 'get on with it'.
There is little understanding of what assistance the public
could provide (or how effective they can be at restricting
implementation of a program that is viewed as being imposed from
above). The staff also need to become more skillful at
interpreting what residents are saying. It will be very rare to
obtain from residents neatly packaged information in a format
that is familiar to planners. Lash expressed this need for
interpretative skills when he stated,
"People don't talk to you in clearly defined terms of issues and politics, objectives and values. What you'll likely hear is a protest or a demand for action, often incomplete, illogical, or incoherent. . . you have to sift through the incoherence until you can make sense of the message. You also need to find responses to the issues, which may be inherent in what the public has said" (1977: pg. 61).
c. Citizenship Training
This type of participation usually approaches upgrading of
the residents of a community through the activities of an
expert. Improvements could include: more careful selection of
the 'experts'; and more emphasis on explaining the political
process to the public. 92
(1) selection of expert
Community development theory is predicated on the basis that an expert can assist a community to become more cohesive, and more capable of collective action. But the literature often fails to describe just what attributes such a community development expert would possess. In many community development projects the field workers are idealistic young people who are familiar with all the latest theories of community development.
But such experts are of far less utility to a rural community than someone who has working knowledge of how the political process functions. For rural people, with their emphasis on problems solving, an ability to help a community to successfully deal with a local problem will have more credibility than knowing all of the most recent community development jargon.75
(2) improve political skills
One frequent comment about public participation is that the members of the public who want to participate are politically naive.76 As Farrell et al. observe,
"citizen groups are often not knowledgeable about the political decision-making process and how to work with it, resulting in a failure to distinguish between different levels and kinds of decision-making systems within the authority. Lack of knowledge about the authority and its system frustrates public inputs" (1976: pg. 14).
Providing this knowledge about the political system, and knowledge about political tactics, should be a major part of the role of any 'expert' community developer.
Those in control of the decision making process may see such knowledge as a threat to their power. However, they may 93
also recognize that increased political sophistication among the public will channel opposition into familiar channels. The danger to the system of the public remaining unaware of the most effective ways to influence the political system is that this will lead to resentment that could turn into more radical forms of opposition.
d. Involvement In Decision Making
The authority may be willing to allow some public input into the decision making process. But it will continue to dominate by reserving the right to define 'who' will be offered an opportunity to participate, and in 'what' issues. This type of participation by invitation can be improved by: clarifying what criterion are being used to identify the 'affected public', and issues on which the public will be allowed to participate; and by making an effort to reach more than just organized
interest groups.
(1) criteria for identifying affected groups
One area where government agencies display considerable confusion is the identification of groups that should be consulted.77 A policy which would establish criteria to be used
to determine which groups should be involved would improve, from
the agency's perspective, the public participation process. It would reduce the confusion, and would protect the authority
against charges that the selection was biased to include only
groups that support the agency's position.
These benefits to the decision makers are why some
government agencies have already undertaken steps to create 94
explicit policies for public participation78, including specifying who will be consulted and on what issues. Recent examples in British Columbia include: the Ministry of Forests, which has produced a Public Involvement Manual; and the Ministry of the Environment, which currently has a draft policy on Public
Involvement in Strategic Planning.
(2) expand public consultation beyond interest groups
Often public involvement is restricted to consultation with established interest groups, that proclaim their role as spokesman for the general public. They also have the resources, and knowledge of the system to respond quickly when- some opportunity for participation occurs. To reach beyond the organized interest groups to try to involve the general public requires a much more ambitious public involvement program. It will be more expensive and time consuming, and there is no assurance that the public will ever respond to the agency's initiative. It is therefore understandable why an agency will often go no further than to deal with the interest groups that maintain active lobbying.
But if public consultation is extended there are potential benefits to the decision makers. Such participation can provide a counterweight to the strength of the interest groups. Verba and Nye note that interest group activities tend "to skew governmental policy in favour of the particular participant group and away from the more general 'public interest'" (1972: pg. 342). If politicians are not willing to abdicate their power in favour of the most powerful interest groups then they 95
are going to want to be able to rely on support among other
interest groups or the general public when it is deemed
necessary to oppose the wishes of a specific interest group.
The level of public support available can be more effectively
gauged if there are opportunities to participate. The key to
involving the general public is the use of an 'open door'
approach, so that when an issue is considered significant by
members of the public they have an opportunity to become
involved.
3. PLANNING 'WITH' RURAL COMMUNITIES
a. Public Information
The changes that could be introduced in this type of
participation are related to demystifying the planning process.
When planning is treated by its practitioners as a cult where
only the initiates are allowed to perform its rites it will
produce an anti-professionalism backlash. As Stinson points out
many self-help groups have already reached the stage where there
is "an antipathy toward professionals or experts even to the
point of outright rejection" (1979: pg. 130). Actions to
counteract this public perception of planning could include:
reducing the emphasis on technical aspects of planning; and
greater recognition for community resources.
(1) less emphasis on technical aspects
While not rejecting the need for sound technique it is
possible to make planning more human. This can be accomplished
by reducing the amount of technical jargon that is used. Hodge 96
points out the danger of using professional jargon in rural planning. In his study of community planning in rural Ontario
Hodge discovered that the plan "does not communicate well to the community through its legalistic and professional terms" (1976: pg. 13). Planners should appreciate the fact that if people see planning as something that they are incapable of understanding, they will also tend to see planning as not being relevant to their concerns. The apathy that this will create should be a concern to decision makers since it will result in public resistance to the implementation of the plan's recommendations.
It is also possible to reduce the emphasis on the technical aspects of planning if planners avoid giving too great a priority to the data collection phase. Often efforts are made. to be exhaustive in data collection. While this may be the phase of planning with which many planners are most comfortable it must be realized that much of the information collected is really superfluous to the objectives of the planning exercise.
Halver.son argues that planners,
"should never dwell on research and the generation of statistics past the point required for policy formulation. If you do this, you are mystifying planning and working against its acceptance" (1980: pg. 380).
(2) recognition for community resources
Lash claims, "we have a tremendous number of resources in the community, people ready and willing to work, to provide expert advice, or just plain horse sense" (1977: pg. 35).79 There are obvious financial benefits to utilizing local resources. But the main purpose for identifying the need 97
to look for local skills is to demonstrate to the public that professional accreditation is not essential to understand the planning process and to be able to play an effective role. This may be seen by some planners as diminishing their professional status, but it will give the planning process more credibility with the public.
b. Data Collection
The participation of local people in the collection and analysis of data could be improved by extending their
involvement to include assistance in efforts to monitor and
evaluate the outcome of planning activities.
The fact that there has been little effort to involve the
public in monitoring or evaluation activities80 is due in large
part to the fact that such activities have not until recently
been strongly emphasized in planning. Most of the emphasis has
been' on providing information and recommendations to decision
makers, with responsibility for implementation being considered
the responsibility of administrators. As the need for increased
follow-up activity has become more obvious more emphasis is
being placed on monitoring and evaluation. As this becomes more
prevalent then the role that public participation can play will
also become more obvious to those who see the public as
potential research assistants.
In rural planning, where the government infrastructure is
sparse and staff is limited, the role of residents in a
monitoring program should be attractive to government agencies.
At the same time it will provide the public with an opportunity 98
to ensure that commitments made during the planning process are fulfilled. This 'watch dog' role is one that is already effectively utilized by some interest groups, and would appear to be relevant to rural planning.
c. Citizenship Training
The importance of learning how the political process
functioned was stressed in planning 'for' rural communities. In planning 'with' rural communities the residents have a greater degree of involvement in the planning process and it becomes
important that they have the appropriate skills to cope with
their larger role. Citizenship training in- this form of
planning could be improved by concentrating on enhancing the
organizational skills of the participants. Efforts to promote
this type of learning are provided by organizations such as the
Social Planning and Review Council of B.C.81
d. Involvement In Decision Making
Permitting the public to have some control over the
planning process, even within constraints set by the authority,
can easily become just empty rhetoric unless the public have the
resources to participate. As Booher points out,
"a serious problem with public participation theories is their failure to deal with the disparities in the distribution of resources necessary to participate in the proposed enlarged planning process. All presume the availability of expertise to all participants" (1974: pg. 56).
For involvement in decision making to be meaninful there must be
a readjustment of resources so that all parties are operating on
a more even footing. 99
Residents must have access to a source of expertise that they view as being independent from the government agency. No authority will be able to convince the public that its staff are not aware of who controls their pay cheques (and futures), and are thus able to be neutral. Nellis argues in rural planning that it is essential to "demonstrate a strong, positive orientation to local clientele. Any appearance of being an
instrument of outside priorities will be fatal" (1980: pg. 24).'
But for rural residents to obtain such expertise they require
financial resources that are beyond local abilities to raise in most cases. This is where the agency that is serious about
involving the public must demonstrate its commitment by providing resources for independent examination. This is already occurring in some cases where participation takes place
through the public hearing approach. Residents have been given
some funding in order to prepare their positions (as in the
example of the hearings the Public Utilities Commission held on
B.C. Hydro's Site 'C proposal).
The benefits of access to their own source of expertise are
fairly self-evident for residents. But the authority can also
perceive benefits if the expertise is related to technical
issues. It provides a check on their own technical staff, and
may suggest innovative alternatives that have not already been
identified. 100
4. PLANNING 'BY' RURAL COMMUNITIES
a. Public Information
As indicated earlier this type of participation is inappropriate in rural planning 'by' the community. When information is exchanged through dialogue between all the participants it becomes an element in the planning process, and not a separate type of public participation.
b. Data Collection
It is unlikely that the public, if they have gained control over the planning process, are going to be content to be only involved in data collection. Since initial decisions about the focus for the planning activity will direct subsequent phases, like data gathering, public involvement at this early stage is vital if the residents control decision making for the planning process.
c. Citizenship Training
Community control of the planning process means it would be inappropriate for an agency to attempt to 'teach' citizenship values or skills. What would be more realistic would be a process of mutual learning. This is the basis of Friedmann's transactive style of planning (1973: pg. 185). Deliberate efforts to promote a mutual learning environment would improve the quality of the planning that is conducted. 101
d. Involvement In Decision Making
To improve upon such participation it must be recognized that participation, like planning, should be considered an ongoing process. Some means have to be found to ensure the continued public participation. One critical factor appears to be the creation of a formal organizational structure while the level of public activity is intense.
Once such an organization is created it can expand into other activities, such as social or recreational, to keep its membership together during inactive periods
(Christenson-Ruffman and Stuart: 1977: pg. 93). During such lulls its hard core supporters can provide the essential monitoring of external actions to identify those which will have an impact on the community. Then when the community's interests are affected the organization provides a ready vehicle for the public to use.
C. SUMMARY
This chapter has examined how public participation relates to rural planning, and what alternatives could be made to improve the quality of participation. It has demonstrated that some types of participation are clearly incompatible with various approaches to rural planning; and that other combinations, while possible, are improbable.
The most likely combinations are: the use of public information in planning 'of' rural communities, with some use of data collection as a secondary component of the planning 102
process; data collection and citizenship training are utilized, with different emphasis, for both planning 'for' and 'with'
rural communities; and involvement in decision making being the most likely form of public involvement in planning 'by' rural communities.
It also argues that improving public participation will
result in more effective rural planning since it will generate resident support for planning. Some methods to
improve participation are identified. The list of suggested
improvements is not intended to be all inclusive. The purpose
in identifying improvements is to show that, even within the constraints that are set by the type of planning that is
occuring, there are opportunities to enhance public participation. 1 03
VI. TEXADA ISLAND
The preceding discussion on public participation in rural planning has been at a general level. It has relied heavily on existing literature on public participation and rural planning.
To gain some sense of how applicable these concepts may be to actual planning, a specific case study will now be considered.
A description of Texada Island will first be provided, and then an analysis of the planning that has occurred on the Island.
A. BACKGROUND
1. HISTORY
Any vision of Texada as a tranquil island, remote and unaffected by events beyond its shores, is quickly shattered by a brief look at the Island's history.82 Throughout its history
Texada has been associated with all of the major economic trends in British Columbia, and has demonstrated the classical boom and bust pattern of economic activity that is so prevalent in a staples economy.
The Island had no permanent Indian population prior to
Euro-Canadian settlement. It was used periodically for food gathering, but was probably a less attractive site for permanent
Indian settlement than the river valleys on the mainland and
Vancouver Island. The first Euro-Canadian use of Texada was as a temporary whaling station. Blubber Bay, at the northern tip of the Island, was used for rendering blubber (large iron kettles were located there for that purpose). The first settlers (who combined fishing and subsistence farming) followed 104
the whalers and located at Blubber Bay. These settlers established Texada's first boom, and the Island's abrupt
settlement, when one of them discovered iron ore near Gillies
Bay in 1871 (see Figure 6).
Furor over the Texada mineral deposits affected the entire province when it developed in the 'Texada Scandal'. The scandal
was based on accusations that the Amor de Cosmos government had
conspired to monopolize the iron ore properties. A Royal
Commission ultimately concluded that,
"Although there were suspicious circumstances surrounding the pre-emptions on Texada Island in August, 1873, there is not sufficient evidence to believe that any members of the late or present Government had attempted to acquire whole or any part of Texada in a manner prejudicial to the public" ( Texada: pg. 1).
This boisterous start was just the prelude for a period of
frenzied mining activity on the Island.
The iron deposits were acquired by Puget Sound Iron Mine
which operated a mine, and shipped ore to Washington State,
until 1893. But the iron prospects' of Texada were quickly
overshadowed by the discovery of gold. In 1880 the Little
Billie gold mine went into operation on the east coast of the
Island, at the present site of Vananda. This was followed by a
series of additional gold and copper discoveries; In 1890. the
Copper Queen mine was opened, and in 1898 the Marble Bay and
Cornell mines both started production. At the peak of the boom
there were seven working mines plus a large number of mineral
properties being developed. The activity was centred in the new 105
Figure 6 - Map of Texada Island 106
mining town of Van Anda, but there was mining also occuring
further south at Raven Bay and Pocahontus Bay. At the same time, but with much less fanfare limestone quarrying started.
In 1887 the first lime kiln was established at Blubber Bay.
Another type of mining operation was also occurring at the
southern end of the Island. At Anderson Bay marble was being quarried for the Vancouver market. The Island's economy was
developed substantially during this first boom. Secondary
activities were developing, including such things as a barrel
factory (for the lime operation), and a smelter. It opened in
1898 in Van Anda. By 1900 a large community had developed at
Van Anda.
This period of prosperity finally came to an abrupt halt in
1919 when the last active mine--Marble Bay—shut down. The
abrupt closure of most of the mines was due in large part to the
mining practices that were employed. The mines that had been
producing were all 'high grading', and closed when the profit
levels of the operations started to diminish. The only economic
activity left on the Island was the limestone opeation and some
small scale logging.
The bust period that followed was marked by an increase in
the amount of agricultural activity. The climate and „ soil
conditions on Texada are not particularly conducive to farming
operations. But agricultural settlement occurred during the
depressed years of individuals who had come to Texada as miners
'pre-empted' land, and developed subsistence farming operations.
This activity shifted a portion of the population to the central 1 07
interior of the Island, upper Gillies Bay (or the High Road as
it is known locally). It provided a living for a number of families. But the declines in agricultural activity on the
Island tend to correspond with periods when alternative employment was available and suggest that it was not a particularly popular lifestyle.
The economy remained depressed until 1929 when it started to revive as the quantity of limestone quarrying began to
increase. In 1929 B.C. Cement started operating a limestone crusher in addition to its quarry operations at Blubber Bay. A
second quarry, at Van Anda was started in 1932 (this was
eventually acquired by Lafarge Cement). Both quarries operated
through the Depression Years. Then in 1944 a third company
started quarrying at Priest Lake.
The second major boom occurred in 1944. The Little Billie
mine, which had precipitated the first boom reopened and
operated until 1952 when it was again closed. At the same time
the lumber industry was suddenly escalated from being a minor
operation to supply the local market, to a full scale opeation.
World demand for lumber had reached the point that extensive
operations were now highly profitable and a number of local
logging operations were established.
The logging operations on the Island never attracted the
attention of the forest giants. Instead there were
approximately 21 small logging firms producing over 20 million
board feet of lumber per year (figures from Texada Planning
Committee forestry report, 1976). But the Island could not 1 08
sustain this level of activity for long, as the prime accessible timber was rapidly exhausted, and by the 1960's there were only
6 or 7 small operators producing 5 to 6 million board feet per year. One side effect of this sudden burst of forestry activity was that the small local sawmills that had existed until the
1940's were unable to compete for timber and closed down. The forestry boom expired when the prime timber was exhausted, but unlike the lode mineral mining activity, there has continued to be a sufficient demand and enough accessible timber to permit
the remaining small operators to continue as family operations.
By 1973, forestry only employed 20 people on a regular basis.
The Island would have gone into another slump in the 1950's when the Little Billie closed and forest activity declined, but
the economy was kept bouyant by the development of Texada Iron
Mines. The property that was originally mined by Puget Sound
was reopened as a major iron mine by Kaiser Resources in 1952.
It mined and shipped concentrate from Texada directly to Japan.
This operation utilized the small settlement of Gillies Bay as
the mine's townsite, and a considerable portion of the
population and economic activity on the Island moved from Van
Anda and Blubber Bay to Gillies Bay.
Gillies Bay was also growing because of its attractiveness
as an area for summer residents. It was situated beside a large
shallow sandy bay. Dr. Sanderson, a high school principal in
Vancouver, had acquired most of the property adjacent to the bay
in 1925 and gradually attracted Vancouver residents to the area
for holiday (and ultimately retirement) purposes (Texada: 1 09
pg. 29).
The Island's economy did slump in 1976 when Texada Iron
Mine was shut down. The mineralized areas of the Company's
property were acquired by Ideal Basic Industries to complement
their quarry operations. The remaining property was purchased
by Aim Forests, a German corporation that has been acquiring
land on the Island for timber, and possible future land
development potential.
During this latest bust the quarries again continued to
provide a measure of economic stability as they have continued
to operate and even gradually expand. The number of summer
residents has also gradually increased, and the retired
population of the Island took a dramatic increase when many of
the senior employees at Texada mine opted for early retirement,
and Texada's attractive climate.
2. IMPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING
This review of Texada Island's history provides several
points that must be kept in mind in any future planning for the
Island. The first is that the quarrying opeations have provided
some continued economic activity during every slump in the
Island's economy. This has created a very positive local
attitude towards this form of industrial activity. The quarries
represent an element of security and stability for the Island
residents, and even abandoned quarries are viewed in a positive
manner—as potential water reservoirs or industrial sites. A
majority of the residents would welcome greater economic
diversity and growth, but not at the expense of the quarries. 1 10
The other factor that is readily apparent is that the residents are accustomed to the boom-bust cycle that accompanies a staples economy. For many residents this type of activity appears natural and inevitable, and they see the real task to be finding ways to increase use of natural resources, and not to look for innovative ways of reducing dependence on primary resources. This attitude was reflected by the the Texada
Centennial Committee when it stated,
"This is an island which is unlike any of the other pleasant spots in the Gulf of Georgia--it is an island of heavy industry and production, and it holds a unique place in the history of British Columbia.
From the early discovery of iron by Harry Trim to highly mechanized operators in limestone, iron ore and logging, Texada has always had high hopes for the future, and this spirit has not diminshed over the years. The copper and gold mines may yet be reopened, and the hard rock mines return, as they did in the early days; meanwhile, there is timber to be felled and ore and limestone to be blasted and crushed and loaded for the consumers who depend on this raw material. On with the job and keep the wheels rolling, for big things be ahead" (Texada; pg. 47).
Any suggestions that appear to attack this basic premise will have to be accompanied by very practical recommendations for how this could be accomplished. Without making such recommendations, proposals to reduce staples dependency will be be contemptuously rejected by residents as impractical dreams.
B. INVENTORY
The benefit of an inventory is to identify the various factors that must be considered when planning. Much of this basic data has already been compiled for Texada Island.83 This thesis does not propose to prepare any type of Plan for Texada 111
Island. The information that follows is intended to familiarize readers with the Island by providing a summary of its physical, economic and human resources.
1. PHYSICAL FEATURES
a. Topography
Texada is a partially submerged ridge that parallels the mainland coast at a distance of three to six kilometers. It is the largest island in the Strait of Georgia with a length of 48
Km., a width that varies from five to eight Km., and a total area of 30,562 hectares. The coast is indented by very few deep bays, and except for Long Beach on the east and the Gillies Bay area on the west, it consists of low rocky cliffs. The southern half of the Island consists of high broken peaks (the most prominent heights are Mt. Sheperd at 881 meters, Mt. Davies at
757 meters and Mt. Grand at 747 meters). In the northern portion the general elevation drops abruptly and the topography becomes more gentle with low rounded hills.
An important feature of the Island's topography is its limited number of useful harbours. The principal bays are:
Blubber Bay on the north coast; Sturt (Marble) Bay and Anderson
Bay on the east; and Gillies Bay on the west coast. Blubber Bay is a protected harbour (approximately a kilometer in length).
Sturt Bay is a narrow rock walled inlet that is approximately two kilometers long, with a small opening an its southern side
(Marble Bay) that is the only completely sheltered harbour on the Island. Anderson Bay, near the southern tip on Texada is a 1 12
long fjord-like inlet that would provide a sheltered moorage but is inaccessible for most residents. Gillies Bay, on the west coast, is a large shallow bay about three kilometers in width, but is not well protected.
The Island, with its limited area and steep slopes has very small water sheds. There are a number of short streams that have intermittent flow, and a few permanent streams that drain the larger lakes and ponds. Lakes and ponds are fairly plentiful on the northern half of the Island, and infrequent in the higher southern portion. But the existing lakes are not
large, Priest Lake which is the largest is only two kilometers
long, with a surface area of 42 hectares, with an average depth
of 2.8 meters.
b. Geology
Texada is an area of folded and faulted sedimentary and
volcanic rocks that account for its varied mineral resources.
It consists mainly of basalt and breccia rock types, but also
includes areas of limestone, bistite horneblende grandiorite and
quartz diorite. The limestone deposits are confined primarily
to the northern portion of the Island, and to an area in the
vicinity of Davie Bay, with small deposits of limestone
occurring on the west coast from Davie Bay north to Crescent
Bay. The mineralization that occurred was associated with
volcanic intrusions in which numerous lenses of magnetite,
copper and iron sulphides were formed. Thus Texada has gold,
copper, iron, lead and zind deposits, but the formation of these
minerals in isolated lenses affects their commercial value. 1 1 3
c. Climate
The Island has a maritime climate that makes it particularly attractive as a residential site. As the School of
Community and Regional planning report states, "the climate makes the regional district one of the more attractive areas of
British Columbia for year-round living" (1974: pg. 13). Texada, within this larger area, is one of the more attractive sites.
It has less rain than the mainland (38 inches per year for
Texada as compared with sites on the mainland that vary from 47 inches to 58 inches). The Island's long narrow configuration also ensures that summer heat does not get too excessive since most of the Island is exposed to ocean breezes. The lack of inland valleys is also an important factor in that it reduces the formation of radiantly cooled air overnight,and thus the frost free period in the lowlying areas of the Island is in excess of 200 days.
d. Biological Resources
(1) Soils and forests
The Island is generally rocky. Where soil cover is present in significant quantities it tends to be sandy loam (except in lowlying areas where it is more peaty). The portions suitable for agriculture tend to be located in pockets, and of marginal quality.
The Island was originally well forested through its entire length. However, extensive logging and forest fires have reduced the extent and the quality of the forested areas. 1 14
Douglas fir is the principal forest tree, with some balsam, red cedar, spruce and hemlock being present (especially in second growth forests). The most common types of underbrush are salal, blueberry and willow.
(2) Wildlife
The Columbian black-tailed deer population is very high on
Texada. Its mild climate, ideal habitat, and lack of natural predators (black bear, mountain lion, wolves and coyote which
exist on the mainland are totally absent from Texada) make it
very productive. The deer are the only large mammals that are
present on the Island. Other mammals include racoon, beaver,
mink, and river otter.
Much of the bird life is that which is associated with
marine environments, such as ,bald eagles and blue herons. There
is a small population of blue and ruffled grouse on the Island.
The Island is also important for some migratory wildlife,
especially the lakes in the vicinity of Gillies Bay (Cranby and
Paxton).
(3) Fish and marine resources
The Island has limited spawning grounds for steelhead and
salmon since many of the streams, particularly in the southern
portion are either inaccessible or have insufficient flow.
There is some spawning in a few of the northern creeks that run
into Mouat Bay, Raven Bay and Pocohontas Bay. In addition there
is a permanent population of cutthroat trout and kokanee in a
number of larger lakes (Priest, Emily and Kirk). 1 15
The mixing of cold and warm currents in the vicinity of
Texada have created a particularly rich marine environment. It is on the annual route of chinook (spring), coho, sockeye and pink salmon. As well it has a resident population of rock fish
(such as lingcod). There are significant shrimp grounds on the north and south coasts, several sites where scallops are common, and a variety of marine life that makes the area one of the most attractive diving areas in the Province. The intertidal zones, especially at Gillies Bay, Davie Bay and Long Beach are important oyster and clam beaches. The area also has a large fur seal population that adds to its attractiveness.
2. ECONOMIC RESOURCES
a. Mining
This sector is the largest employer on the Island. A survey conducted by the Regional District in 1978 indicated that
23% of the residents were directly employed in mining8". Since the close of Texada Iron mine employment has been primarily in the quarries. A few residents are self employed as prospectors or mining promoters.
(1) Limestone
Texada Island's limestone production is the "largest and most important in British Columbia" (Dept. of Municipal
Affairs: 1973: pg. 19). As a result it is a resource that is of provincial as well as local concern. The security that this activity provides residents is understandable when the extent of the deposits and the variety of products requiring lime are 1 16
examined. As the assistant manager of Ideal's operation, H.
Diggon, stated, "the life of operation is infinity, as long as there is a need for lime" (interview: July 25).
The entire north end of the Island is underlaid with limestone, as well as additional commercial deposits at Davie.
Bay and Anderson Bay. There are eleven existing quarry sites at the north end of the Island alone, with five of them being operated. The companies involved are: Ideal Basic Industries
Ltd. that supplies a variety of different grades of limestone, plus crushed aggregate, to the general market as well as using it in its own cement manufacturing and chemical operations;
Oregon Portland Cement (OPC) Ltd. that utilizes limestone for its cement production; and Imperial Limestone Company Ltd. that specializes in the production of white and blue limestone for the construction industry (i.e., for use in stucco). In addition Genstar Corporation, who currently purchase limestone from the other quarries, has acquired the mineral rights to the lime deposits at Davis Bay and is in the process of clear cutting the site to start quarrying.
The variety of uses .for limestone are extensive. The limestone is utilized in cement and in the production of chemical lime for the agricultural, sugar, and pulp and paper industries, as well as for decorative purposes. In addition the
'waste' rock is sold as aggregate for construction porposes
(available in sizes from boulders for breakwater construction to fine gravels). Ideal Basic Industries even has plans to incorporate the Texada Iron mines property more fully into its 1 17
limestone operations. At the present time they are selling in
Vancouver tailings from the iron mine as aggregate. As their quarrying extends to encompass the adjacent iron mine site they will also extract the iron ore, which they utilize in the production of cement. Even abandoned quaries have a utility.
The main quarry that OPC are now mining has been designed so
that it can eventually be transformed into a water reservoir
(information from M. Pero, retired quarry manager), and the
abandoned quarry at Grilse Point has been identified as an
excellent industrial site.85
As local residents believe, the quarries do appear to be a
stabilizing force in the Island's economy. However, their
potential to promote further growth is quite limited. There is
some potential for secondary processing of limestone that will
be dealt with later, but the quarrying itself will not likely
require more manpower over time. In fact, as the quarrying
becomes more mechanized the number of employees will probably
decline. This has already been the case with the larger
quarries. Some staff were laid off during this latest
recession, and while the economy is improving it is not expected
that the number of employees will return to their previous
levels. The level of efficiency has been improved and increased
future demand will be met by increased mechanization.
(2) Lode minerals
Since Texada Mines closure in 1976 there has been no active
lode mining. During its 24 years of operation the mine
extracted iron ore with copper, gold, and silver as valuable 118
by-products of the operation.86 The iron reserves that remain will be gradually incorporated into Ideal's operation and not mined as a separate entity.
There occasionally is speculation that some of the other abandoned mines will be reopened since the original operations were highgrading. Higher prices and better equipment could make them profitable again (Ed Johansen, Texada Pioneers: June 26).
The likelihood of this occurring is very remote since they were underground workings that were abandoned to the ground water decades ago.
There has been speculation about new gold or copper mines since several firms claim they have commercial deposits on
Texada. Lofbar was reportedly considering developing a gold mine in 1976/77 (Powell River News: June 1976) and at least two other firms, Brielake and Acquarian, have claimed that they have marketable deposits on Texada (J. Brennen, Texada Pioneers, June
26). To this point all of these deposits are speculative.
Little firm evidence is available that would confirm their assertions.
b. Forestry
Logging on Texada has declined from being the dominant industry in the fifties to a secondary activity. The B.C.
Forest Service has estimated that there is currently 360,000 cu. meters of accessible mature timber on crown land on the Island, and has established a yearly quota of 44,000 cu. meters. This is considered sufficient to sustain the existing operators, but will not permit much expansion in the level of activity. 1 19
S. Whitehorn, District Forest Planner, indicated, "there may be a conflict in 20 years, not that there will be a shortage of wood, but due to the levels of access that different operators will have to the better stands" (interview: Aug.9).
In 1977 there were six or seven small companies involved in lumbering and provided direct employment for approximately thirty people. At that time there was a serious concern about the possibility of additional opeators moving in to the Island.
Forestry officials, in response to local operators concern, actively discouraged other operators from relocating to the
Island and considered imposing a moratorium to prevent any quotas being acquired by off-island operators (Whitehorn: Aug.
9). Since that time the level of operations (and employment) has remained stable, but there has been a gradual reduction in the number of operators. This in part has been due to the
retirement of older operators, but also by the expansion ,of the only operation that is not locally owned--Alm Forest Company.
Logging occurs primarily in the southern half of the
Island, which is mainly unoccupied crown land. This portion of
the Island is basically reserved for logging activity. It is
scheduled to become part of the Georgia Strait Provincial
Forest87 in 1983. The Forest Service indicate they have spent a
"considerable" amount on silvaculture (spacing, planting and
fertilizing and intend to recover that investment through harvesting (interview: Coulton: Aug. 9). Their objective is to promote more selective logging, since much of the current
harvesting is of second grade timber. 1 20
The north half of the Island (and a few specific locations in the southern portion, such as Davie Bay and Cook Bay) is almost totally held in private ownership. As a result the
Forestry Service are only involved in forest protection in this area. There is logging occuring on this private land, although the timber quality is considered inferior to that in the southern end.
It is in this area the Aim Forest Co. has been particularly visible. In addition to acquiring all of Texada
Mine's nonmineralized properties, the firm has also been purchasing all the privately held properties that were available for sale (including purchasing Texada Logging Co. and its quotas on crown land). At this time they have become the largest single property owner on the Island with over 13,000 acres of deeded land (plus access to crown lands for logging).
They have acquired most of the land in the interior that was originally cleared for agriculture, and have indicated their intention to utilize a portion of it in a tree farming operation
(interview: Turner: Aug. 2). Aim Forests is a German corporation that appears to have adopted a long term strategy for its Texada holdings. The land can be utilized for logging for the immediate future, with the more suitable areas being eventually subdivided for development when the demand increases.
This would appear to be the future for much of the privately held land which is currently being logged. Four hundred acres at Cook Bay have been clear cut by the owner and is in the process of being subdivided. J & G Logging is also proposing a 121
subdivision of some of its recently logged property in the vicinity of Upper Gillies Bay (High Road) (Turner: Aug. 2).
Logging generates some spinoffs in the local economy, but they are quite limited. The only sawmill (a portable one) that was operating on the Island in 1976 has since moved off the
Island. The independent loggers sell their timber through timber brokers, and are at the mercy of these middle men since the loggers are not really familiar with market conditions. As
Whitehorn notes, "being small market loggers dealing with brokers, they can easily get ripped off" (Aug. 9). The main spinoff activity from logging is the opportunity for individuals to obtain contracts with the Forest Service for silvaculture operations. This has provided an intermittent source of income for a few residents, but with proposed reductions in Forest
Service activities such employment is in jeopardy.
c. Agriculture
This is of minor importance on Texada. Those individuals who engage in farming on a full time basis do it on a subsistence level. This lifestyle is attractive to a segment of the population and productive for the community since it makes local produce available. However, for most people, agriculture is a part time activity using gardens, orchards, livestock and poultry for home consumption.
Due to the limited amounts of fertile soil, the high costs of clearing land, and the limited local markets and direct competition from more productive agricultural areas, it is unlikely that commercial agriculture will increase 1 22
significantly. However, part time farming is a lifestyle with considerable appeal for many, and as small holdings become available through subdivision this type of 'agricultural' activity can be expected to increase,
d. Tourism
The 1973 Proposed Land Use Plan dismissed the potential for tourism on Texada due to lack of facilities, a negative attitude toward tourists by residents and the unattractiveness of the industrial mining sites"88 at the north end of the Island
(pg. 24). This seems to be a somewhat cavalier dismissal considering the Island's proximity to a metropolitan area the size of Vancouver, and the increasing tourism activity along both the mainland coast and Vancouver Island. It is particularly interesting to note that they refer to the
Islanders attitude towards tourists when, by their own admission, there was no consultation with residents during the preparation of the report.
While Tourism's future is limited it is far from nonexistent. Texada offers primarily marine/outdoor recreation opportunities. A regional park at Shelter Point (Gillies Bay) has recently been upgraded and is attracting increasing numbers of tourists (Childress: July 12). In 1983 over 1400 campers utilized the park (Harwood Point Parks Board Report: Dec. 1,
1983). For activities such as diving, salmon fishing, clamming and oyster picking Texada is becoming increasingly popular with tourists as these resources have become more scarce on the mainland, where development is making the waterfront 1 23
inaccessible, and over utilization is depleting the stocks.
Texada residents are attempting to avoid a similar fate by trying to protect marine areas that have particular recreational value. The Provincial Government has been requested to designate Grilse Point a marine park. Other key recreational areas are being identified. The local community is trying to develop more parks as part of their efforts to retain the
Island's recreational amenities.
There is some resident concern about what would happen if there was a major increase in tourism that would overwhelm recreational sites utilized by the Islanders. But as one resident stated, "we need a balance of activity, otherwise we'll be a heavy industry area like Squamish with all its problems"
(Childrenn: July 1.2). When tourism is approached in this pragmatic fashion its merits will make residents more receptive to tourists.
e. Fish And Wildlife
The commercial salmon industry has been using the waters off Texada at an increasing rate. The west and south coasts of the Island are heavily fished by salmon gill net and seine boats. The level of commercial activity has little positive
influence on the Island's economy since none of the vessels use
Texada as a home port, and there is no regular employment of
Island residents in the fishing fleet. It does have possible
implications for Tourism since the amount of salmon sport
fishing will be constrained by the presence of the commercial boats. 124
Other commercial marine activity has included harvesting of geoduck clams (two individuals on the Island are employed in this manner); and harvesting of wild oysters and clams, primarily by nonresidents (for example, members of Sliammon
Indian Band harvested over 250,000 pounds of clams from Gillies
Bay during the summer of 1983). Shrimp and ling cod are also lightly commercially harvested by nonresidents.
The sport fishery is primarily for coho and spring slmon.
In the north portion of the Island it is focused around Blubber
Bay, Marble Bay (Van Anda), and Gillies Bay, where launching facilities and moorage are available. It is an important recreational activity for Islanders as well as visitors. There is also considerable sport fishing of the south coast of Texada, but this has no impact on the Island's economy. Shellfish are also utilized on a recreational basis. Oysters and clams are plentiful along much of the coast line, but the wild scallop populations have been heavily depleted. The freshwater fisheries on the Island are utilized almost exclusively by
Island residents and are not of large significance.
Hunting activities on the Island are almost exclusively related to deer. As the 1973 Proposed Land Use Plan stated,
"deer hunting on Texada Island is the most successful and productive per effort in the province" (pg. 25). With the ready access to Texada from Powell River the Island is used extensively by hunters from that urban area. However, these hunters provide little benefit to the Island's economy. As several residents who were interviewed stated, "Powell River 125
thinks of Texada as a place to come for a couple of deer, a load of firewood and a Christmas tree."89
f. Service Sector
The 1974 Student Report on Planning in the Powell River
Regional District indicated that the growth of secondary services in Powell River was retarded by the dominance of
Vancouver, and would continue to be so for the foreseeable future (pg. 30). It could therefore be assumed that this would be even more applicable to rural areas of the Regional District.
However, because of Texada's physical isolation and its active industrial sector the Island has a far higher level of services than would normally be the case for a rural area with a population of only 1700 people.
The retail sector is certainly subordinate to the larger centres. The 1978 survey conducted by the Regional District indicated that in excess of 75% of the Island residents obtained major goods (vehicles, large appliances and furniture) from the
Lower Mainland; and domestic needs (groceries, clothing, and personal services) from Powell River. This relegates Island retail outlets to neighbour convenience outlets.90
The Island has a fully equiped medical clinic with a full time physician, volunteer fire and ambulance facilities in both
Gillies Bay and Vananda, a public airstrip (with twice daily direct connections to Vancouver),91 small boat marinas at
Vananda and Blubber Bay, sufficient educational facilities to provide up to grade eleven on the Island (although recent educational budget cutbacks are going to result in a reduction 1 26
of class rooms on the Island and all high school students will be transported to Powell River), and a variety of recreational facilities such as baseball diamonds, campgrounds/picnic site, volunteer library, community hall, Elks hall, Legion hall, as well as community cable T.V. associations in Vananda and
Gillies Bay.
This is a level of service that most rural areas can only envy. Many of the public facilities were developed by Texada mines and turned over to the community (through the Regional
District) for a nominal sum when the mine shut down. Other services, such as the high level of air connections, exist because of the needs of the quarry operations. Without the level of industrial activity the Island currently has it would be unable to sustain these services with the Island's limited population base.
g. Other Economic Activities
One source of permanent employment on the Island is the
Provincial government. The Ministry of Highways operates a 50 car ferry between Powell River and Texada, and since it berths
in Blubber Bay the thirty-two crew members are Texada residents.
In addition-, the same Ministry has a highways crew located on
Texada and employs six permanent employees.
There is some contruction activity on the Island, but most
of the labour for major projects such as the B.C. Hydro
Cheekye-Dunsmuir power transmission line which crosses Texada en
route to Vancouver Island is from off the Island.
A few of the residents commute to the Powell River area for 127
employment. But the half hour ferry ride between Texada and
Powell River, the additional expense and the awkward hours for commuting mean that very few permanent residents are employed in
Powell River. In the 1978 survey only 1.7% of the Island work force reported being employed in the Powell River area.
Another component of the economy is local artists and crafts men. Texada does have a number of resident artisans, but it does not have the same reputation for artwork as some of the other Gulf Islands. Those who do live on Texada generally tend to be supplementing their income from art with other economic activities.
3. HUMAN RESOURCES
a. Population
The population of the Island is estimated at 1700.92 The population was growing as a rate of approximately two percent per year until the mine closed in 1976. As a result of the mine's closure the Island had a negative growth rate of three percent for the period 1971 to 1979. This contrasts strikingly with neighbouring Lasqueti Island that had a population increase of 15 percent for the same period (reported in the 1979 Powell
River Regional Plan). The Island appears to have regained the lost numbers.
The closing of the mine also had an impact on the age distribution of the population. In 1978 43 percent of the population was over 40 years of age (and 19.2 percent of that was over 60). At the same time 34.6 percent of the residents 128
indicated that they were retired (figures from 1978 survey conducted by the Powell River Regional District). This relatively high level of 'early' retirement is explained by the fact that most of the older miners opted to remain on Texada after the mine closed.
Another significant feature of the population is its relative stability. In the 1.978 survey 79 percent of the residents indicated they had lived on the Island in excess of 10 years, and an additional 11.5 percent had been on the Island at least six years. Even the summer resident population has a high degree of continuity. When Dr. Sanderson started to subdivide his property at Gillies Bay in the 1940's many of the lots were purchased by Vancouver residents who have retained ownership (
Texada: pg. 30). Many buyers had as their objective eventual retirement to the Island.
The population is clustered in several areas on the Island.
At Blubber Bay, there are approximately 70 residents (4.9% of the Island population). Vanada has approximately 500 residents
(34% of the population); Gillies Bay has approximately 600 residents (37%) plus the majority of the summer residents. The remaining 350 residents (23%) are distributed mainly between the north coast and Mowat Bay (west coast—centre of the of the
Island). They are mainly located adjacent to the road loop that connects the main communities (Gillies Bay Road—Shelter Point
Road—High Road). A few individuals inhabit sites along the coast in the southern half of the Island and are quite isolated from the rest of the Island's residents. 129
b. Community Organization
(1) Government
The Island constitutes an electoral division of the Powell
River Regional District, and as such has one elected director on the Regional District Board. However, on the Regional Board the district municipality of Powell River has a clear numerical majority over all the representatives of rural areas. The
Regional District provides some services on Texada: maintains
Shelter Point as a Regional Park; provides maintenance funds for
recreation facilities and the medical clinic; provides garbage pickup service with refuse being disposed of in the Powell River
Regional District incinerator; and funds for the upgrading and maintenance for the airstrip as a Regional airport. With the
exception of Shelter Point (which was developed as a Provincial
Park originally, and is managed by a local Parks Board
accountable to the Regional District); and the airstrip (where
the costs are shared with the quarry companies), all of the
services that the District provides to Texada are on the basis
of special tax levies against the Island residents. During
interviews with Island residents it was frequently stated as an
article of faith that the Regional District extracts far more
property tax revenue from the Island (especially the quarry
operations) than it puts into the services that it provides.
However, this claim has never been verified. As the President
of Texada Action Now (T.A.N.) indicated, when the organization
was disappointed at the level of support it was getting from the
District in its struggle against Genstar it started to try to 1 30
verify this assertion. The Regional District then suddenly promised some financial support to TAN and the organization dropped its investigation (J. Cawthrope: Aug. 3).
Texada Island comprises part of the Powell River School
District. There are three schools on Texada which are operated as one unit for efficiency. The Gillies Bay school had grades three and four; and grades five to ten were located at the school in Vananda. Grades eleven and tweleve students commute to Powell River. The system worked quite effectively since it only required one principal, and the buses, which transported children were essentially full in both directions. However, during the the 1983/84 school year the Gillies Bay school has been closed by the School Board as an economy measure. This is viewed by parents as merely the first step towards cutting
Powell River's education costs by eliminating the schools on
Texada. It is being actively opposed by Texada parents. Again the residents suspicion that Powell River is exploiting Texada
is very strong. A public release by the parents stated,
"the Texada Island Community is economically and geographically separate from Powell River. In fact we would still have a functioning community if the paper mill at Powell River was to shut down. . . . Consolidation of schools to a point where it crosses economic, social and geographical boundaries disrupting entire communities is unacceptable" (June 22/83).
On the Island itself there is no official local government.
Gillies Bay and Vananda each have the status of unincorporated
Improvement Districts. This gives them limited jurisdiction
over water supply, street lighting and fire protection. They 131
receive their funding from the Provincial government, and are
firmly under the control of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.
While some of those involved in the activities of the
Improvement Districts tend to view them as local government
(Turner: Aug. 2), their authority is far too constrained to
consider them anything more than local caretakers for provincial
assets. The elected Boards for these districts may be providing
individuals with training in local government skills, and may
over time provide an incentive toward incorporated status. But
it would be inappropriate to view them as local government.
The Provincial government's direct presence on Texada is
through the Forest Service (which administers the Island as part
of its district operations, centred in Powell River) and the
Ministry of Highways. In addition to the Department of Highways
Ferry there is a highway maintenance crew on the Island. The
Highways foreman, because of his contact with external
authorities, and his control over some jobs, and activities that
are very important to residents, has an automatic position of
influence on the Island.
Since 1981 the Island has also had a resident
R.C.M.P. officer. The Islanders had repeatedly requested one be
located on the Island since access .from the Powell River
Detachment is very restricted (and enforcement was totally
unavailable after the last ferry at midnight). Following the
sabotage to the Dunsmuir substation, a constable was stationed
on Texada, primarily to provide increased security for the
hydro-line where it crossed Texada. 1 32
(2) Community based organizations
The Island has the same lengthy list of social, religious, recreational, and fraternal organizations as other communities.
In fact it has 21 active service organizations at the present time, groups such as the Legion, Elks, Scouts, Old Age
Pensioners, Rod and Gun Club, and Chamber of Commerce. It has a
Community Club that comprises all of the residents of the north part of the Island, and has a constitution that provides for it to be involved in 'any issues of concern to Island residents'.
It is primarily a social and recreational organization. But it has the potential to be a vehicle for residents to use when they need a legal framework for their activities. TAN, for example, started as a subcommittee of the Texada Island Community Society
(TICS).
The community organization with the largest active membership and highest profile at the present is TAN. This was the group that residents formed to opposed Genstar's proposal to landfill garbage from the Greater Vancouver Regional District on
Texada Island. The group which started in protest against a specific issue has recognized the need for an ongoing organization to represent the interests of Texada residents.
TAN has evolved into a formal Residents and Ratepayers
Association. At the same time it is proposed that the newly constituted association will apply to join the Inter-Island
Alliance—a nonpartisan political organization that was created by the residents of the Gulf Islands which form the Islands
Trust. The Alliance views itself as a political watch dog on 1 33
issues affecting the Gulf Islands.
C. TRENDS
The Island's future is certainly not clearly established.
It is subject to the influence of external events that may mean
the present lifestyles can not be maintained. A frequent comment in interviews with residents was 'we know that change and growth are coming'. Whether this impending change was
viewed positively or negatively depended on the future that the
individual anticipated and his personal views about it. This
section will identify some of the possible future events that
might occur, and will then describe a number of different trends
that the Island could experience as a result of various
combinations of events.
1. FUTURE PROJECTS
a. Industrial Activity
The most likely event in the foreseeable future would be
the construction of a plant to provide additional processing of
the limestone. At the present time it is shipped in a crushed
form, and all processing is done at the destination. The first
step in processing limestone for the production of cement is the
reduction of the rock to 'clinker' which is then further ground
and combined with other ingredients. Both Ideal Basic
Industries and Oregon Portland Cement have indicated serious
interests in locating the primary processing activities adjacent
to their quarry operations. This would reduce their shipping
costs from transporting the bulkier crushed rock, and would 1 34
aleviate land use conflicts the companies are experiencing at their present plant sites in the United States. Both Ideal and
OPC have older plants that now need extensive renovation, and
relocation to another site would be a cheaper option. Also
since land costs near their present sites are rapidly
increasing, and there is more environmental criticism of their plants because of the dust associated with the first phase of
process, their holdings at Texada look very attractive as sites
for their new operations.93
There was some indication by OPC (Powell River News: March
28, 1982; and August 15, 1984) that there could be a full scale
cement plant on Texada that would cost in excess of 100 million,
and would employ at least 200 people. However, the likelihood
of processing activity beyond the preliminary 'clinker' stage is
quite remote. As H. Diggon pointed out the actual manufacture
of cement on Texada would necessitate the transportation to the
Island of all the other basic materials, and would probably not
be economically viable (interview: July 25).
Other new industrial activities are even more speculative.
One possibility is the utilization of Texada as a break-of-bulk
trans-shipment point for the transport of coal from the proposed
Quinsam mine. This is considered a possibility because the mine
site is located in a shallow water area. Texada is suggested
because it has industrial docking facilities for the quarries,
and is accessible for large vessels (at the old Texada Mine site
which is now Ideal's headquarters). If the coal development
ever becomes a reality Texada is only one of the possible 1 35
transfer sites that would be considered,
b. Resource Extraction
(1) Lode mining
There is some promotion of mining properties on Texada. If there are sufficient reserves of commercially desirable minerals, the immediate access to tide water, presence of infrastructure, and a supportive population would be factors that would encourage the development of mineral resources.
However, the current information is too speculative to be given much credibility at this point. There are deposits of gold, silver, copper, lead and zinc. But in what quantities and quality are simply unknown. Furthermore, the ability of the operators who possess the claims to successfully promote a major project is also open to question.
(2) Limestone quarrying
There is already work underway to clear out the timber on the limestone deposits at Davie Bay. Genstar, who has the mineral rights is currently buying limestone for its cement plant from the existing firms, and paying full market price for the limestone. However, the increased employment from this operation may simply compensate for declining employment at the other quaries as the production becomes more mechanized.
One side effect of the development of this quarry will be the dislocation of a number of families who have traditionally
'squatted' on the property at Davie Bay. Road access for these individuals has already been impeded by the company and further 1 36
action will no doubt follow. If their relocation is off Island then Genstar's new venture will have a mixed impact on the
Texada community.
The other aspect of Genstar's project that concerns
residents is that the 'garbage' fight with the Corporation has
left many deeply suspicious of Genstar's actions. There is a
long term concern that the garbage question will resurface in a
few years, with Davie Bay as the new site. Certainly as long as
the G.V.R.D. is looking for places to dispose of its wastes the
residents will continue to have some concern about Texada being
utilized. If Genstar does have long range plans in this
direction it could have more immediate impact on Texada because
it would directly affect the way that they would approach the
management of the quarry. The existing quarry operators have
been managing their quarries in the interest of long term
conservation. If a hole in the ground is worth more to the
Genstar Corporation than the limestone they could extract over
time, the Davie Bay quarry may be a modern example of
highgrading the deposit.
There has been some interest expressed by two Vananda
residents in re-activating the marble quarrying on the Island.
If this were to occur it would be a limited operation supplying
speciality stone, and not in direct competition with the main
suppliers of marble.
(3) Logging
Timber reserves are considered sufficient to maintain the
current level of cutting on crown land. However, to do so there 1 37
will have to be more use of selective logging practice. As
S. Whitehorn pointed out this could present a problem for the smaller operators (interview: Aug. 9). It requires more specialized equipment, and therefore a higher capital investment that is recovered at a more gradual rate.
One way that selective logging could occur on Texada would be to operate on a system of shelter wood logging for the drier areas. It would mean that there would be two cuttings of a particular area. An initial one leaving considerable mature timber to provide shelter for the early phase of natural
regeneration; and then a second cut to take the remaining mature
timber. Obviously the time period involved for the operator would be considerably lengthened.
Another feature of logging on Texada is that many of the
operators, who started during the 'boom' years, are reaching
retirement. Whitehorn indicated they anticipated a further
consolidation of quotas as the older loggers leave the business.
These two factors are combining to reduce the role of the small
'market' logger on Texada. Increased consolidation of ownership
under a corporation such as Aim Forests should be anticipated.
This does not mean that a decrease in employment in logging is
inevitable (although) the greater ability of such a corporation
to obtain capital may mean that increased mechanization may
occur). But it does not mean that the forest resources (and
associated land) are less subject to local influence than in the
case when the operators are all local residents. 1 38
c. Tourism
The future for tourism on the Island is directly linked to the health of the tourist trade in the general region; and to the ability of the Island's natural resources to sustain increased
use. Texada can not realistically expect to be a primary
attraction for tourists. But if tourists are drawn to the
general area, a portion of those tourists who are looking for an
outdoor recreation oriented experience will visit Texada.
For boaters the waters of the Georgia Strait and adjacent
areas such as Desolation Sound are very popular. For tourists
with vehicles the circular route of the Sunshine Coast and
Vancouver Island is attracting significant numbers of tourists.
Since the ferry link is between Powell River and Comox visitors
are attracted to the Powell River area. The limited beach
access and depleted marine resources on the mainland mean that a
number of the tourists are attracted to Texada for these
features.
The principal focus for tourists on Texada is, and will
undoubtedly continue to be, the Regional Park at Shelter Point.
Since most tourists coming to the Park are campers there is very
little revenue for the Island economy from tourists at this
time. What is required to improve this sector is an active
approach to Tourism. Instead of being content with the revenue
from the sale of liquor, bread and milk, and the odd T-shirt the
community needs to have an organized effort to extend the
tourists' stay, and to provide more products for the tourist
market. An active approach would entail: creating additional 1 39
parks (such as the dedication of a marine park at Grilse Point); making existing attractions (like Spraque Wilderness Refuge
Park) known to tourists; and the provision of tour facilities at the quarries. These relatively simple efforts would tend to increase the length of tourist visits to the Island. It would have to be accompanied by increased display and marketing of products to tourists for it to have a substantial impact on the
Island's economy—certainly there are artists and crafts people working on the Island that would benefit from a retail outlet for their products.
The main limitation on tourism is the carrying capacity of the Island's natural resources. Its attractiveness is due to the continued existence of resources (such as clams and oysters) that are no longer as accessible in more crowded parts of the region. Rapid increase in tourism could degrade the area, but the tourist numbers would have to increase astronomically for this to occur. A more serious problem is the competition of commercial operators for the same reasons. Geoducks, clams, oysters and salmon are all actively harvested for commercial purposes. Due to the fact that these species are managed as
'free goods' there is a real danger that the commercially valuable species will be 'mined' below the threshold of biological production. 1 40
d. Real Estate Development
Other Gulf Islands have been experiencing a rapid increase in subdivision of the Islands for purposes of recreational and retirement homes. The Gulf Islands Trust was implemented to control the rampant and indiscriminant subdivision process.
Texada, because of its industrial image, lagged behind the other
Island. But as the value of real estate on the other Islands has continued to escalate; and developers find themselves having to deal with stiffer regulations and controls on subdivision,
Texada becomes increasingly attractive. Land prices are considerably lower, there are no building regulations of any kind, the Powell River Regional District has a reputation for being 'sympathetic' to developers and tends to 'rubber stamp' applications for subdivision which are submitted to the Ministry of Highways and Transportation as approving agency. With these
'incentives' subdivision is occuring at an increasing rate.
Certainly the pace " of subdivision has not reached the frantic levels that were occurring in the other Gulf Islands before the imposition of the Trust. But its pace has been increased over that to which Texada residents are accustomed,9" and it has proved to be a source of concern for many residents.
This concern is dismissed by the Regional District Planner as being a typical case of self-interest. Her opinion is that the present residents have got their place in the sun and they would rather not share it (interview: July 12). No doubt there is an element of truth in this, but the residents are also concerned because there has been little effort to anticipate the overall 141
impact of such increased growth. What is the cumulative impact of these subdivisions going to be on the Island's public resources--such as its limited water supply.
Another concern is that the Islanders have seen the permanent residents of other Islands lose control of their communities to the 'summer people'.95 The desire to obtain answers to these general questions before the land development process is too far advanced is one of the major reasons why the
residents appear to be supporting the need for planning on the
Island (TAN: June meeting).
There are a variety of subdivisions currently proposed, or
under active development. They include water front residential
lots, and larger residential acreages in the interior of the
Island. Most of them occur outside the Improvement Districts so
there is no official notice to residents of the proposal. The
Regional District planner, who is consulted by Highways on
subdivision applications, takes the position that she will only
consult with the neighbouring property owners if the proposed
subdivision is not in her judgement similar to the surrounding
land use (interview: July 12). Thus if a parcel is subdivided
into small acreages, in an area that already has some acreage
lots there will be no communication with the neighbours. In
addition, the planner takes a very technical approach to what is
considered a subdivision. When a parcel that could not be
legally subdivided for physical reasons was developed on a
'partnership' basis the planner indicated it was not a
subdivision and appeared to ignore it.96 Islanders tend to 142
obtain most of their information about proposed developments through a well developed 'moccasin telegraph' instead of any formal communication with government personnel.
Without some regulation of subdivision this type of development can be anticipated to escalate. There is a steady demand for ocean front land for recreational and retirement purposes, and as this becomes increasingly scarce in the southern Gulf Islands a portion of the demand will be focused on
Texada.
e. Alternative Economic Opportunities
Certain activities, which have been referred to as part of the shadow economy, will certainly have an effect on Texada
Island. A number of the residents were attracted to Texada because it is possible to lead a lifestyle that is unconventional. The Island does not have the same image of counterculture that other Gulf Islands (such as Lasqueti) have developed. But the residents tend to be tolerant of other lifestyles, since the limited population and large area has meant there is room to accommodate the differences. There are those on Texada who are pursuing subsistence farming, or artistic activities. While not a major force in the Island's economy this group tend to help diversify the economic base to some extent, and to provide commodities (such as local agricultural produce) which benefit the entire community. 143
2. FUTURE SCENARIOS
Depending on the staging (and success) of the individual projects that were described above the Island has future options. To provide as complete a background as possible for subsequent discussions of planning activities on Texada a brief description of some of the possible alternatives is provided.
a. Industrial Bpom
If the timing of a number of events coincided the Island could experience an intense boom that would have few lasting benefits for Island residents, and be a major inconvenience for many of the older residents, who would be unlikely to benefit from the higher level of activity. The construction of the
Vancouver Island gas line (paralleling the Chekeye-Dunsmuir hydro line across the Island); combined with construction of a cement plant would result in construction on a massive scale for
Texada. The employees for such projects would undoubtedly be from off island (as in the case of the hydro line) and located in a construction camp. The main impacts would be on the
Island's recreational features by contruction workers, and heavy use of community infrastructure (such as the medical clinic, and water supply). Minimal revenue from construction would flow into the local economy. Such a boom would be short lived.
The only possibility for a sustained boom would be the opening, or reopening, of a mining project. This is a possibility but the limited data on mineral resources means that the possibilities of such an occurence can not be realistically 1 44
evaluated.
b. Industrial Bust
A loss of markets for Texada limestone could devastate the
Island's" economy. The diversity of uses for lime tend to make such a decline inconceivable for many residents. But a change in demand (as experiences in 1982 with reduced construction industrial demand for cement); or the production of synthetic substitutes for natural lime; or simply the development of new and cheaper sources of supply could reduce the Texada operations below the level of economic viability. While this is an unlikely scenario it should be considered since it would make the Island heavily dependent on recreation and retirement.
The current level of infrastructure and services could obviously not be maintained without the limestone operations.
This reduction in services could jeopardize the Island's attractiveness for recreation or retirement. For example, closure of the medical clinic would mean that the nearest medical facilities could be in Powell River--at least a half hour trip, and inaccessible at nights. Such restricted access would seriously affect older residents.
c. Sustained Growth
The location of some processing on the Island, with its additional employment, would help the Island to develop.
However, in order to develop a sustained economy there must also
be diversification. A clinker plant, for example would be more
subject to turndowns in the construction industry than the 1 45
quarrying operations which supply lime rock to a variety of economic sectors. The new jobs that would come with such a plant would also be more vulnerable to fluctuations in the construction sector. If sustained growth is to occur it will
require a strengthening of the tourist sector and increased numbers of summer residents and retirees. These increases would provide the necessary numbers to permit a more healthy service
sector to develop.
d. Stagnat ion
The Island's economy could stagnate if the quarrying and
logging continue, but are increasingly mechanized resulting in
less employment; and if at the same time the Island does not
experience any additional tourist or recreational and retirement
activity, because the expensive industrial operations discourage
such activities. The eventual outcome of this stagnation would
be a gradual decline. The movement of young people off the
Island to obtain employment would accelerate. The Island's
declining, and aging population would find it increasingly
impossible to maintain existing services and facilities.
e. Real Estate Boom
The lack of regulation and the large amounts of privately
held land, could result in a much increased level of subdivision
and development of recreational areas. The aesthetic impact of
the industrial activities are quite localized and large areas of
the Island could be developed for recreational purposes with
little reference to the industrial activities. The lower land 1 46
prices on Texada, because of its industrial reputation, may be more than enough to compensate for the visual effect of the quarries.
A real estate boom, with rapid and uncontrolled subdivision could result in development without any consideration of the long term impacts; and future problems such as sewage disposal in crowded areas. It would also have more immediate effects on the existing residents as they would be faced with the very real possibility of losing control of their community to the summer residents (whose priorities and desires for services would be much different than those permanent residents who need to make a living on the Island). 147
VII. PLANNING ACTIVITY ON TEXADA ISLAND
Texada Island provides an opportunity to examine several different approaches to rural planning. The Provincial government has conducted sectoral and area planning activities on the Island. Powell River Regional District's planning activities have also affected Texada. In 1976 it attempted to develop a settlement plan for Texada. Then, in 1979, the
Regional District prepared an Official Regional Plan which encompassed the Island. Recently, the Islanders themselves have taken a more active interest in planning. Each of these planning activities will be described and assessed.
A. SECTORAL PLANNING EFFORTS AFFECTING TEXADA ISLAND
1. OVERVIEW OF SECTORAL PLANNING
Qadeer divides rural planning into sectoral and area planning. Sectoral planning focuses on a single resource, or activity, in a rural region; while area planning is "addressed to a community as a whole and not to any one sector of a locality" (1979: pg. 113). This is a useful distinction because it provides a key to understanding the attitude most government staff have toward planning. It also highlights one of the major weaknesses in planning by government agencies. Sectoral planning is not conducive to efforts to plan in a manner that is comprehensive for any area. In a dynamic system efforts to isolate and deal with only one component of the system have the potential to cause disequilibrium in the system at unanticipated points, and thereby creating a higher degree of instability. 148
This is happening in a society where public alienation is already at a high level. Competing levels of government, agencies with unclear and often overlapping juristictions, a
lack of co-ordination in government activities, all of these have lead to a government system so complex it frustrates the
efforts of people to understand it. Correy claims,
"The people cannot rule what is so massive, complex and interlocked and not to be unlocked by commonsense alone. Members of parliaments and legislatures can—and do--get a grasp on sectors of government activity that are of special interest to themselves, their constituencies or regions, but rarely ever extend to the volatile and shifting scheme of things entire: one may question whether even prime ministers, premiers and cabinets are really in sure command of the whole. Insofar as they approach that command, it is only because they have at their beck and call cohorts of knowledgeable public servants whose whole time can be given to mastering the intricacies" (1979: pg. 7).
For people in rural communities, with their particularistic
perspective, the bureaucratic complexity of the government
system creates serious obstacles to their being able to
understand the system and the ways it impacts their community.
Some understanding of the way decision making occurs, and the
role of planning in the decision making process, is a
prerequisite to be able to achieve any control over the process.
Efforts to plot the interconnections between agencies and
various interest groups in sectoral planning would quickly
develop an image that would resemble a maze. Morley et al., for
example, identify 14 different British Columbia provincial
ministries with which local governments must contend, plus a
number of subunits of other ministries (1983: pg. 241). To 149
describe all of the sectoral planning activities that have an impact on Texada Island would be an epic task that is beyond the scope of this thesis. For purposes of examining how sectoral planning is conducted, in rural communities, by government agencies, the B.C. Forest Service's planning program will be used as an illustration.
2. FORESTRY PLANNING ACTIVITIES
a. General Approach
The Forest Service's planning activities affect rural communities, like Texada Island, on several different levels.
The Ministry of Forests' Public Involvement Handbook (1982) describes forest planning in the form of a hierarchical structure. At the apex general policies are established through provincial plans. These are then further elaborated through regional plans (which is the level at which Provincial Forest designations are considered). Then for smaller geographical areas planning conducted for Timber Supply Areas (TSA's). These plans attempt to establish specific management objectives for the area encompassed by the TSA. Within the TSAs sub-unit planning occurs, with plans being prepared for land use within a watershed. Then for specific sites operational planning occurs, and exact specifications for timber use are prepared.
The planning for forest resources within all of these levels of planning is primarily the responsibility of the professional planning staff within the Ministry of Forests.
Consultation does occur with other government agencies, the 1 50
forest companies, and public interest groups. The groups consulted vary depending on the level of planning that is being conducted.
The format for public participation in forestry's planning activities is clearly delineated. The Public Involvement
Handbook identifies three principal methods of public involvement. The first is the use of public information methods, which are designed to gain support for Ministry programs. The second method is to use consultation techniques to establish two-way communications. A final method is extended involvement which is "used to examine complex resource problems in detail" (1982: pg. 106).
The Ministry's approach categorizes the public in terms of their affiliation with interest groups. No reference is made to the general concerns that a local community might have about forest planning (1982: pg. 45). Nor is there any recognition that there could be a direct role for the general public. All involvement is anticipated to occur through representative interest groups.
Another significant feature of the Ministry's public involvement program is the timing for public input. It is expected to occur at a late stage in the planning process. As
Whitehorn states, "at early planning stages we don't like to involve interest groups, but as planning goes on they are brought in" (August 9, 1983). But what issues remain to be determined at the time that broader public participation is permitted? As a consequence of the timing, Forestry's public 151
involvement is more a matter of conflict resolution, as interest groups struggle over how big their individual pieces of the pie will be, than real involvement in planning.97
b. Forestry Planning For Texada
On Texada virtually the entire southern half of the Island
is under the control of the B.C. Forest Service. This control will be further strengthened when the Georgia Strait Provincial
Forest, including Texada, is proclaimed. This is scheduled to
occur during 1983 (interview: S. Whitehorn, Aug. 9, 1983).
While the Provincial Forests are purported to be a multiple-use
resource management system98 the effect will be to ensure that
any proposed land use is referred to the Forest Service. It
will then have the right to reject any use which it deems to
conflict with forestry interest.99
In the case of Texada Island, regional planning programs
such as the designation of the Georgia Strait Provincial Forest,
are conducted by staff at the Vancouver Forest Region level.
All are situated in the Regional office in Vancouver.
Consequently major decisions, such as the creation of a new
Provincial Forest, are made a considerable distance from the
locality that will be impacted. The Ministry has made some
attempts to address this problem by advertising proposals to
create new provincial forests in local newspapers. However,
such efforts fail to have much of an impact because of the scale
of the proposal. The Provincial Forests are on such a massive
scale that local impacts are not always visible to the affected
residents, particularly when the only notice is a newspaper 1 52
advertisement that shows the general boundaries of the proposed
forest.
Within Vancouver Region, Texada Island is part of the
Powell River Forest District. Planners at the District level are responsible for preparing subunit and operational plans.
The district staff's work load necessitates prioritization of areas within the district for its planning program. Texada,
with a limited timber supply,100 and no major operators, has a
low priority for subunit planning.
Forestry staff acknowledge that there are resource use
issues that will not even be considered until a subunit plan is
prepared. But the absence of a plan has not restricted Forestry
activities on the Island. In addition to supervising the
current logging operations the Forest Service has been
conducting an active silvaculture program to upgrade the wood
supply. They have also been trying to encourage the
consolidation of quotas, as older operators retire, to make
timber operators more efficient.101
Obviously the activities of the Forest Service have a major
effect on the ability of a rural community to plan. Any effort
to conduct a meaningful planning exercise on Texada Island would
have to establish: who sets timber quotas for crown land; who
decides on harvesting practices; who decides on allocations of
land to alternative uses within these areas where logging is
occurring. With the Forest Service's approach to Texada, being
only one component of a larger forest management system, all
these issues of concern to Island residents are dealt with at a 1 53
level that is out of reach for most of the residents. While the
Regional District and Forest Service consult on large scale issues,102 and existing loggers are consulted about operational plans; no effort is made to consider the interests of the community as a whole.
A demonstration of how this approach can lead to frustration of community objectives is the issue of selective logging on Texada Island. The 1976 Texada Planning Committee's recommendations on forestry emphasized the need to promote selective logging, and to ensure that forest operations left adequate buffer strips around all watersheds. The Forest
Service staff interviewed were unaware of any of the resident's recommendations, and dismissed the subject of selective logging by arguing that the general public does not understand what it entails (interview: Coulton, Whitehorn: Aug. 19, 1983). The fact that the Texada Planning Committee's subgroup on forestry contained one of the logging operators, and it discussed the issue with other operators would seem to discount the contention that they were uninformed about forestry practices. Also the
Forest Service has not investigated the potential for selective logging on Texada and will not do so until a subunit plan is prepared.
If issues, such as this, which are of concern to the community can be so easily dismissed by Forestry officials it is questionable what forestry practices would be subject to influence through the Ministry's public participation program. 1 54
3. OBSERVATIONS
It would be unfair to imply that the B.C. Forest Service are exceptionally autocratic in their approach to planning.
Their efforts to create specific guidelines for public involvement, and to open their planning process to formal input from public groups, exceeds those of most government agencies.
But the impact of their activities on Texada are very typical of the results of sectoral planning by a senior level of government in a rural area. Hodge and Qadeer state,
"one feature that most of these central government policies have in common is that they disregard the effects on the small community. The problem is twofold. First, the aim of the policy is usually sectoral rather than spatial; that is, in satisfying a particular activity or function, the needs and capabilities of the affected area are an afterthought, if considered at all. Second, little thought is given to the impact on small communities of either the form in which policy is delivered (grants, projects, services, and so on) or the means of dispensing the policy" (1983: pg. 206).
Clearly the Forest Service, which has a significant investment in. silvaculture on the southern half of Texada Island,103 believes that its program activities are of benefit to local residents. Undoubtedly they would argue that forestry is the optimal use for vacant crown land on Texada. It may very well be, but without the opportunity for more local input into forestry planning, residents would be justified if they continue to be skeptical that all of the alternative land uses have been adequately weighed by the Forest Service.
The limitations of this type of expert dominated planning are described by Matthews who claims that an obstacle to 1 55
effective planning is,
"that planners and development workers may regard working with the people as little more than an exercise in public relations. Many people with technical expertise tend to assume that they have only to explain their proposals and others will see the inherent wisdom of them. But the goal that seems rational to the planners from their value orientation may have no meaning and make no sense whatsoever from the value position of the people" (1976: pg. 136).
B. PROVINCIAL AREA PLANNING EFFORTS ON TEXADA ISLAND
1. 1973 PROPOSED GENERAL LAND USE PLAN
In 1973 the Department of Municipal Affairs produced a
document entitled Texada Island Proposed General Land Use Plan.
This would seem to be a fairly descriptive title. Its contents
were an extensive inventory of the Island's resources, a
statement of policy and a list of broad objectives for the
Island's future. This format corresponds very closely to what
the Ministry itself had established as a framework for official
settlement plans.104 Despite all this evidence the planner
responsible for the document circulated a covering letter
stating it was not a land use plan. He claimed in the letter
that,
"it must be understood that the report was to provide background information which may be of help to the Department of Lands in basing their decisions to alienate Crown Land. I strongly suggest the purpose of the report was not to impose a general land use [plan] on the people of Texada Island"
This was reiterated by the planner in an interview (A. Quin,
July 22, 1983). He stated during the interview that the plan
had been initiated by the Lands Branch, who were attempting to 1 56
decide upon some applications for crown lands on the Island.
The report was intended only for Lands Branch, and was seen as being an inventory. It was for that purpose that it was prepared for a very limited circulation. Only after it was completed was the decision made to make it available to the public.
The limited objective of the study was consistent with the way the planning was carried out. As the document states the planners considered primarily available data and relied heavily on information obtained from various provincial government agencies (1973: pg. 1). There was a field survey conducted, but this was limited to compilation of technical data. No effort was made to consult Texada residents for information they might have been able to contribute, or to determine what local preferences for the future might be. This was justified on the basis that the report would have no official status, and thus there was no need to involve the public (A. Quin, July 22,
1983).
One consequence of relying on this type of information was that it resulted in several errors in the data due to a lack of familiarity with local conditions. These inaccuracies were subsequently identified by residents to justify rejecting the
Report. But in general the . inventory was comprehensive, and could have been very useful to later planning efforts.
Once the document was completed it was turned over to the
Lands Branch. Any decision on which of the Report's recommendations were adopted, and how they were implemented, was 1 57
left to the staff of the Lands Branch. Quin stated that he had no idea of what happened to the Report after it left Municipal
Affairs, "Things in government have changed so much since then that it was impossible to keep track" (July 22, 1983).
There is little evidence to indicate how Lands Branch utilized the Proposed General Land Use Plan. Its staff are still familiar with the document (Sorken: Aug. 17, 1983); but there is no consistent pattern of how crown land dispositions have been made. The number of dispositions that conflict105 with the Report's recommendations would indicate that the recommendations were only loosely observed.
A serious problem with this planning exercise was the question of how it was utilized. There was no official
'acceptance' of any of the recommendations, but government staff who had control over the disposition of crown land may have been
influenced in their actions by the report. Also other provincial agencies had access to the report, and may have based
some of their activities on its information. Administrative decisions like these, based on the Report's recommendations, would be almost totally removed from public scrutiny.
The preparation of recommendations for the Island's future without any reference to local interests is a demonstration of
the 'top down' approach to planning. Residents were not even
informed of the project until after its completion when the
information was filed with the Powell River Regional District.
Nor did the Regional District, which might have presumed to be
an interested Party even if the general public were being 1 58
excluded, get an opportunity to participate in the planning.
Quin indicated the Regional District was not involved because the planning was just for the use of Lands Branch (July 22,
1983). Once a copy of the finished report was sent to the
Regional District the residents gradually learned of its existence.
One obvious example of how local interests come into conflict with these 'top down' recommendations is the suggestion that any future growth should be located at Gillies Bay. The report concludes that "future residential development should take place primarily at Gillies Bay [since it] does not have the industrial-residential conflicts that are apparent at Vananda and Blubber Bay" (1973: pg. 44). This recommendation may be based on sound technical arguments but it ignores the fact that
Vananda has a strongly established tradition, and neighbourhood pride that make such a recommendation totally unacceptable to the residents. Rather than being useful such a suggestion tends to be counter productive. It emphasized rivalry between the two centres. What is really necessary is for the various populated
sites on the Island to be viewed as rural neighbourhoods106 that are all essential to the creation of Texada as a viable community. Such rivalry detracts from this objective.
The process was also very misleading. Claims that the document was not a land use plan simply created confusion about what the province was attempting to do. The explanation that
the document was really an inventory for the use of Lands Branch was not even contained in the text, but in an accompanying 159
letter from the senior planner. The Report itself contradicted this when it stated "The Proposed General Land Use Plan which is to provide a framework for future development is designed to be a simple and a realistic plan" (1973: pg. 1). Then later in the text it stated that "The Proposed General Land Use Plan for
Texada Island is a statement of policy which sets out broad objectives for future development" (1973: pg. 42).
The fine distinctions that the professional planners in the
Department of Municipal Affairs may have been making about the differences between their document and a 'real' General Land Use
Plan escaped most of the residents concerned. The Islanders
viewed it as a draft plan. This tended to confirm existing
biases against planning, since planners were seen as being
distant faceless individuals working in the interests of
'others' to control Texada.
2. OBSERVATIONS
Halverson states that "central planning by single purpose
provincial agencies has been characterized by insensitivity to
the local community and insufficient attention to local detail"
(1980: pg. 375). The Provincial government's 1973 efforts on
Texada Island certainly underline the validity of his statement.
What was gained by the government through this approach?
Considerable resources were directed to create the report. But
it is clear that its value to Lands Branch, just as an inventory
was limited. The number of requests for crown land dispositions
on Texada Island have never been extensive (Sorken: August 17,
1984),107 and dispositions have not consistently followed the 1 60
Report's recommendations. Other than its value as an inventory the Report appears to have had no positive benefits for the
Provincial government.
Its existence, and the way it was prepared, has been a continued source of local resentment that has reduced its usefulness for subsequent planning. In 1976 when efforts were being made to prepare a settlement plan for Texada the 1973 document was deliberately ignored. It was viewed, by the planning committee as "an outsiders document" (H. Diggen, July
25, 1983). It also was described with disgust by Island residents, as an example of what planning is all about, when
Texada Action Now (T.A.N.) recommended a planning exercise in
1983. The suspicions created by the 1973 experience are deep rooted, and will only be overcome if, as T.A.N.'s president observed, "we will be the planners, not some outside contractors coming in here planning for us" (minutes, T.A.N, meeting,
January 18, 1983).
This planning episode exposes the fundamental weakness of planning from the 'top down'. The government can conduct its planning program and prepare elaborate plans, but the public who have been ignored in the process will resent this arbitrary approach and will attempt to frustrate the efforts of the government agency. Such resentment can not be casually overlooked by government agencies since those residents who may be powerless to prevent the government from conducting its planning do have many strategic points where they can frustrate its implementation (Bregha: 1973: pg. 2). 161
C. REGIONAL DISTRICT PLANNING EFFORTS AFFECTING TEXADA
1. BACKGROUND
Texada Island has been directly affected by two planning projects of the Powell River Regional District. In 1976 an effort was initiated to create an official settlement plan for the Island; and then in 1979 an Official Regional Plan was adopted which will provide constraints for future planning on
Texada.
The events that occurred can only be fully understood by.a brief history of planning within the Powell River Regional
District. The Regional District became actively involved in planning in 1974. In a burst of frantic activity the District hired its first planner, became involved with the Islands Trust in the preparation of settlement plan for Lasqueti island, and issued a planning policy.
The first planner was Mrs. Finola Fogarty, an architect cum planner. Her first planning activity in the region was to assist in the preparation of a plan for Lasqueti. While part of the Regional District, it had become part of the new Islands
Trust, and the Trust assumed the primary responsibility for planning for the Island. Due to heavy development pressures being experienced on Lasqueti the Trust commenced planning to establish an official settlement plan in its first year of operation. Fogarty indicated that she was strongly influenced by the approach the Trust planner, Judi Parr, used for the
Lasqueti plan. It emphasized a high degree of resident 162
participation, and concern for environmental quality (interview:
Fogarty: July 13).
By the end of 1974, Lennox, Regional Board chairman,
Fogarty, and a few other individuals she described as "kindred souls concerned about the environment" had developed a document entitled Planning Policy for Powell River Regional District.
This policy statement was described by Fogarty as being "so conservative that it seemed radical" (interview: July 13).
Rejecting zoning and land use regulations as a blanket approach
to controlling development, the policy proposed the use of the
'public hearing concept' (copy of policy in Appendix B). This
policy was intended to establish a system where each development
proposal was considered on its own merits, with the public
determining which proposals would proceed.
At the same time the Regional District Board was developing
a strategy for the preparation of a Regional Plan. Their
intention was to do individual settlement plans for all parts of
the District as a first step. The Regional plan would then
follow, and would be a composite of all the settlement plans
(Fogarty: July 13, 1984).
The schedule for preparing the settlement plans was left to
Fogarty who determined which areas should be given priority.
The planning process started with the Lund-Southview area, north
of the municipality of Powell River, in 1975. This quickly grew
into a more all encompassing plan for the Malaspina Peninsula.
By 1976 the Malaspina plan was in draft form and Fogarty decided
that the time was right to initiate planning for Texada Island. 163
At the same time that planning was going on in the Lund area the Regional District was experiencing strong opposition to its planning policy. The innovative approach it advocated had been drafted into a by-law which the Minister of Municipal
Affairs refused to approve. Failing to attract allies108 the
Board finally concluded that it could accomplish nothing by directly confronting the Provincial government. It changed its strategy on how to accomplish its objectives. There is superficial compliance with provincial requirements, but all undeveloped land in the Regional District was to be zoned
'residential'. It would then rezone on a case by case basis as requests are made (Ladret, July 13, 1983).
The early enthusiasm of the Regional District Board for planning as a vehicle for social change, including increased public participation, was greatly diminished by the Provincial veto of its innovations. The Regional District proceeded to 'go
through the motions' in accordance with the constraints established in the Municipal Act, but with strong reluctance to do any zoning.
2. TEXADA SETTLEMENT PLAN
The effort to develop a settlement plan for Texada started
with a public meeting in Vananda on May 19, 1976. The Regional
District Planner felt that the Malaspina planning program was
proceeding nicely, and "it was Texada's turn" (Fogarty: July
13). The timing for the Texada project was very unfortunate,
and demonstrated one of the main problems with having the
planner establish the order of priority and schedule, without 1 64
some input from the various rural areas affected. In Texada's case the effort to encourage residents to work on an official
settlement plan coincided with a major disruption of the
Island's economy. Texada Iron Mine shut down in 1976. The
'last blast' underground was in October, and the mill closed in
December of that year. This closure was particularly traumatic
because even in 1975 the Company was informing its employees
that it would be operating for six more years (Prime: Aug. 19).
Islanders were apprehensive about the future, and many were more
concerned about their personal wellbeing than in preparing a
settlement plan.109
The procedure used for the Texada settlement planning
exercise was an exact copy of that which had been utilized for
Lund-Southview (see Appendix C). The process was intended to
actively involve area residents. The initial meeting, which was
called by the Regional District, established the ground rules
for the activity that was to follow.
A series of subcommittees, whose focus was defined in
advance by Fogarty, were created using volunteers from the
audience. Little, or no explanation, beyond the name of the
subcommittee was provided at the meeting. These subcommittees
were then instructed to gather information on their topic, by a
specified date, and to present recommendations to the Texada
Planning Committee.
The Texada Planning Committee was to be the steering
committee for the project. It was also created from volunteers
at the meeting, with no reference to ensuring local 165
organizations existing on the Island were represented.110 The
Planning Committee's purpose was to edit subcommittee reports and then submit them to the planner. They were also to discuss with Fogarty the issues they would like to see included in a questionnaire that was supposed to be sent to all residents and land owners. The planning committee would then present the draft plan to the other residents at public meetings.
The planner also defined her function in the process. Her role was to "answer planning questions, supply technical information, show other community plans and briefs submitted and generally to persuade people to keep deadlines, also to help draft the results" (Minutes, Texada Planning Committee, Feb. 22,
1977). However, in this description Fogarty was much too modest. She had decided: when the planning program would occur; what issues the subcommittees should consider; the timetable for the entire process, including setting topics for specific committee meetings; and would be responsible for synthesizing all the accumulated data and recommendations into a draft settlement plan.
By November, 1976, the volunteer committees had completed most of their tasks (eight out of nine subcommittees had submitted reports and recommendations). Fogarty, in a memo to the Texada Planning Committee stated, "I have summarized the briefs and put them into a form which is the beginning of a rough draft plan" (November 25, 1976). Despite some reservations by individual members of the Planning Committee that the planner was pushing too hard,111 the process appeared 1 66
to be operating very closely to the timetable that Fogarty had produced at the original meeting. It called for the committee reports to be completed by November, and that deadline was met.
This apparent success made the subsequent actions even less understandable. The planning process came to an abrupt halt in
March of 1977. A regular meeting of the Texada Planning
Committee was held on February 22, and another one was scheduled
for March 15. No meeting was held and formal commmunications between the Regional District and the Texada Planning Committee
simply ceased. The residents felt that they had done their
'share' and were waiting for action from the Regional District.
In retrospect some Islanders have acknowledged that they were probably negligent in not being more concerned about
ensuring there was followup. As a T.A.N, director stated,
"We sat on this Island for years. We didn't want government. We were very apathetic. Hopefully this garbage thing, which will be around for awhile, has brought this Island together, and maybe we won't be as apathetic as we have been in the past" (C. Childress, from minutes of T.A.N. General Meeting, Jan. 18, 1983) .
but considering the circumstances the residents' passive
attitude appears quite natural. The impetus for the planning
had come from the Regional District. The process had reached
the stage where the residents assumed the 'professional' would
take over to conduct the questionnaire and to compile all the
material into a draft plan. This lack of public pressure for
action was also encouraged by the planner's approach. There was
no explanation to the Planning Committee that there would be a
delay, merely silence. In fact, when one of the committee 1 67
members had a chance meeting with Fogarty in late 1977, and asked what was happening, the response was "we're working on it"
(Wells: August 3, 1983).
When the planner was questioned about the abrupt termination of activity the explanation was that it was as a result of changes in the Municipal Act (Ladret, August 4, 1983; and Fogarty, August 9, 1983). The Provincial government amended the Act in 1977 to provide that a Regional Plan had to be established before official community plans-could be implemented
[Municipal Act, Section 809(1)]. Powell River Regional District responded by dropping all area planning and concentrating on the preparation of a Regional Plan. But there was no explanation of why work which had progressed so far was not pursued to at least a draft plan stage. Nor .was there any explanation for why the planning committee on Texada was not directly informed of this sudden change in direction.
The extent of the planner's control over the planning program is demonstrated by the termination of planning on
Texada. Even when the Regional Plan was complete there was no serious effort to reactivate the process. Fogarty's perception of Texada was that "there weren't very strong issues on Texada which is one of the reasons for the planning dragging" (July 13,
1983). The Island's economy had just collapsed, there was a bitter conflict occurring over protection of the Vananda watershed,112 and the Island was struggling with the Regional
District over the future of its recreation facilities and the park at Shelter Point. But the planner could not see any strong 1 68
issues for planning.
There was one brief revival in 1978 when the questionnaire, that was to be issued as part of the planning program, was actually circulated. It was circulated on the Island at the same time as one was circulated in the rural area south of
Powell River Municipality. Presumably it was done at this time because this would mean a financial saving. The questionnaire was the one prepared by the Texada Committee a year earlier.
But it was not reviewed to determine if it was still valid. In fact, there was no discussion with the committee members, and none of the results were made available to Texada residents.
3. POWELL RIVER REGIONAL DISTRICT OFFICIAL REGIONAL PLAN
While the preparation of settlement plans in the Regional
District had been accompanied by considerable public involvement the preparation of a Regional Plan was completely different. As
Ladret stated, in developing the Regional Plan "there was't much public participation. Wasn't kept secret but no push to inform people. Also no major effort to distribute the plan throughout the District" (July 12).
The draft plan was advertised twice in the local newspapers. It informed the public that "copies of the entire document and accompanying maps are available at the Regional
District office for anyone wishing to further study the plan"
(Powell River News, Oct. 3, 1977); as well as giving a summary of the proposed policies. It was accompanied by a small map of
the entire regional district, but with no legend to provide explanation of various shadings it would have been impossible 169
for anyone to use it as a reference for proposed land uses.
Several 'informational' public meetings were also held in Powell
River to discuss the Regional Plan.
As indicated earlier, the original intent of the Board was that the Regional Plan would be a composite of all settlement plans. It was assumed that the public would be involved primarily at the local level. In 1977 when they were forced to change their approach public participation was still assumed to have occurred at the local level (Fogarty, July 13, 1983). That meant that areas like Texada Island, which had not completed a settlement plan were now largely deprived of input to the
Regional Plan as well.
Information in the Regional Plan related to Texada Island was based on the data compiled in 1976, despite the fact there had never been any public meetings to allow for a full discussion of the Planning Committee recommendations. Yet it was assumed that there had been adequate • public involvement.
With this minimal involvement, and the inaccessibility of the final document (only available at the Regional District or
Municipal offices) it is not too surprising that many Texada residents interviewed were unaware of its existence, or what its implications were for the Island.
The Islanders' apathy can once again be held responsible for some of their lack of involvement and knowledge. But the
Regional District's staff approached the task in a totally different manner from their previous planning efforts. Perhaps this was due in part to the fact that the Regional District 1 70
viewed the exercise as being something forced upon them by the
Province with its amended legislation. Or it may have been due to the overloading of the planning staff. As Fogarty indicated
"participatory planning can produce good ideas, but is very wearing on the planner" (July 12). Mrs. Fogarty resigned as planner shortly after the completion of the Regional Plan. She
stated that "I started out with ideals and then became more and more bureaucratic and I left when I recognized it" (July 13).
Whatever the cause the consequence was the preparation of a
Regional Plan that had minimal public input.
The implications of the Regional Plan for planning activities on Texada Island have still not been fully realized
by the Islanders. Those who are aware of its existence view it
as just another paper exercise that the government conducted.
When area planning activities occur on Texada in the future, and
the options are constrained by the Regional Plan, conflict
between local aspirations and externally imposed guidelines
appears inevitable.
4. OBSERVATIONS
The results of the Regional District's early efforts at
planning for its rural areas were disappointing.
The Lund-Southview exercise resulted in the production of a
draft Malaspina Settlement Plan. But it stalled at the draft
stage. Fogarty's explanation for this was that, while the
results of the draft were satisfactory "it was difficult to
convert into a useable document. It was an aesthetic idea
. . . that administration was unable to implement" (August 13, 171
1983). It was not until 1982 that a revised settlement plan for
Lund was adopted. The completion of that plan was plagued by
the disillusionment and suspicions of the original volunteers, who felt their efforts had been totally wasted (Ladret: August
4, 1983).
The Texada effort did not even produce a draft plan. All
that volunteers have to show for their efforts are copies of
subcommittee reports which are filed in the Regional District
office. In fact, the 1976 planning attempt actually set the
Island back. The Regional District interpreted the failure as
evidence of the Islanders' anti-planning attitude (T.A.N,
minutes, January 18, 1983). As a result the Island was given a
low priority by the Regional District for any additional
planning effort. Gillies Bay Improvement District was informed
that planning would not start until 1984, at the earliest
(letter from Ladret to Gillies Bay Improvement District, May 2,
1983) . 11 3
The Regional District's planning efforts provide an
excellent demonstration of the conflict between substantial and
functional planning. Fogarty started her planning activities
with ideals. She felt that if the public were involved in
planning that it would raise their level of environmental
consciousness (July 13). She had observed the actions of the
Islands Trust Planner on Lasqueti Island, and admired the
results that were produced. She then attempted to reproduce the
same process in other communities, but the essence of that
planning had eluded her. Lasqueti Islanders had been in control 1 72
of the planning program. They set the agenda, and dealt with the fundamental questions of why there should be a plan, and what its objectives should be.11"
Fogarty approached her own planning tasks assuming that these basic questions had been resolved and that the focus should be on the mechanics of preparing the plan. As a result, while Fogarty was undoubtedly sincere in her desire to involve the public she was directing their participation into areas that she defined. Ironically the type of involvement, and the results that she had admired on Lasqueti, were constrained by her efforts to manipulate the process to produce them. It is this failure to recognize the need to involve the public in fundamental issues that Lash criticizes when he states,
"there is a difference between using people and caring about them, between getting help for your own private agenda or helping people write a new future. It is the difference between 'co-optation' and co-operation, between manipulation and honest human relations" (1977: pg. 32).
D. COMMUNITY INITIATIVE ON PLANNING
1. HISTORY OF SELF-RELIANCE
Hodge and Qadeer state,
"The ethos of mutual help is an asset of small communities in times of natural disaster or external threat, for example, in the case of a proposed highway or dam not desired by the locality. Stories of towns and villages mobilizing to fight floods and resist governmental intrusions are legion. In such unusual times, smallness and residents knowing each other promote unity and community-mindedness" (1983: pg. 137).
The ability of a small community to effectively organize is 1 73
enhanced by any previous experience that it has had with organizing; particularly if the previous cases of community solidarity are viewed positively by residents. On Texada Island the residents who were interviewed repeatedly referred to previous victories by the community.115
The first group action occurred in 1973 when the Regional
District proposed a building standards by-law for unincorporated areas. Not only did this appear to be more government intrusion to many rural residents, it also presented an active threat to the lifestyle of many Islanders who had housing that would not comply with the proposed standards. The residents of Texada
Island organized and packed the public gallery when the Regional
District Board was scheduled to give the by-law third reading and final passage. The by-law was withdrawn, and the Islanders felt that this was due to the pressure they had been able to collectively apply.
In 1974 the Advisory Planning Committee for Texada submitted a brief to the Select Standing Committee, of the
Legislative Assembly, on Municial Affairs and Housing. It objected to the Powell River Regional District's proposed planning policy, and opposed the inclusion of Texada Island in the proposed Gulf Islands Trust. Their message was blunt.
Planning for Texada,
"should have minimal interference from the central government and should be granted a fair degree of autonomy within the Regional District . . . decisions should be made by the residents of Texada" (A planning and development policy for Texada Island: 1974: pg. 9).
While it is doubtful that the views of Texada residents were 1 74
solely responsible for the Provincial government's action on the
Regional District's planning policy, and the exclusion of Texada
from the Trust, some residents of the Island claimed credit
(J. Brennan, T.A.N. Minutes, May 29, 1983).
In 1976 the Regional District initially refused to accept
transfer of recreation facilities that Texada Iron Mine abandonned when it closed. Again Island residents worked
together to demand action. Ultimately the Regional District did
assume ownership and responsibility for the facilities, which
the Islanders viewed as another victory for collective action.
How influential the residents actually were in the
decisions on the above issues, and whether they really 'won'
anything, is immaterial. The events provided residents with a
belief that they could organize and successfully oppose an
external threat.
2. ORGANIZING FOR OPPOSITION
Stinson, in his examination of citizen organizations in
Canada, identified "community defence" as a major reason for
organizing. He described this as the situation where "citizens
in a neighbourhood see their quality of life threatened by
developers or planners and organize to oppose what is identified
as destructive to community" (1975: pg. 19). The activities of
the residents of Texada Island are typical of this type of
involvement in response to an external threat.
Those residents of Texada Island who viewed the Island as a
haven against an increasingly regimented and urbanized society
were suddenly forced to recognize the impact that external 175
forces could have on their community. In November, 1982,
Genstar Corporation116 submitted, and had accepted by the
Greater Vancouver Sewage and Drainage Disrict Board, a proposal to dispose of a minimum of 250,000 tonnes per year of baled municipal wastes to a landfill site on Texada Island.
Once the project was publicly presented to the Greater
Vancouver Sewage and Drainage District Board the Islanders got their first information about the project. As details were released the residents apprehension rapidly increased. Several individuals then began to organize the residents to ensure that their interests were protected during the decision making process.
In his description of the impact of the Columbia River development on the people of the Arrow Lakes region, Wilson states,
"In ordinary times they seemed to get along with a minimum of organization ... At least some of the communities were divided by internal conflicts based sometimes on politics, sometimes on personalities; and in most it was difficult to identify an acknowledged community leader. In this sense there was no existing 'power structure' for Hydro to grapple with. Consensus apparently arose out of common need or crisis, and spokesmen, if not leaders with it" (1973: pg. 12).
The situation on Texada Island was very similar. Those organizations that existed were factionalized and unable to provide leadership in response to an external threat like that represented by the Genstar proposal.
A possible source of leadership would have been the
Regional District Director for Texada Island. This individual would have been the only individual who could claim an elected 176
mandate to speak on behalf of the entire Island. However, neither the incumbent or the residents perceived the Director as a spokesman on the garbage issue.
The public viewed the position as being insignificant because of a lack of appreciation about the impact that Regional
District activities could have on the Island. The position was traditionally held by a retired individual, and was normally filled by acclamation due to disinterest. At the time the
Genstar issue arose Keith Johnson was serving his third term as
Regional Director. His role was so little understood by the
residents that "it took six months [for T.A.N.] to discover that
Johnson was chairman of the Regional District's planning committee" (Cawthorpe, August 3, 1983).
At the same time Johnson also defined his role very
narrowly. He held a very strong "representative" view of his position. In his opinion "public participation is a lot of
bloody bull". His approach to any issue would be to "utilize
the half dozen people who do all the work while the rest go
along for the ride" (July 13, 1983). With this attitude toward
organizing it is not surprising that the Regional Director
provided little leadership when the residents decided organized
action was necessary to oppose Genstar.
Other possible leaders could have been the two elected
Improvement District Boards. However, they are not perceived as
having any influence over matters beyond the immediate delivery
of basic services within their narrow geographic boundaries.
The presence of two such districts on the Island further 177
complicates matters since they are seen as competitors for local dominance. Therefore, neither Board would have any legitimacy with Island residents if it claimed to speak 'for' Texada.
The Improvement Districts did have an indirect role to play in that the familiarity with,government procedures that Trustees of the Districts gained through their involvement on these boards was utilized in the citizens' organization. The chairmen of both Improvement Districts became members of the new organization's executive.
Other potential groups to lead the struggle were the Texada
Island Community Society (T.I.C.S.), and the Texada Chamber of
Commerce. Both groups had Island-wide membership, and were already established, which could have made them logical
spokesmen for the Island.
The Texada Island Community Society was perceived by
residents as a recreation association, despite its stated
objective to be involved in all matters of concern to Texada
Island. It was therefore viewed as having too narrow a focus to
act as Texada's representative on such a major issue. Its
contribution to the new organization was to provide a legal
structure. Texada Action Now was created as a subcommittee of
the Society for financial and legal purposes.
The Texada Chamber of Commerce was considered to be too
preoccupied with promoting economic activity. They were, in
fact, suspected by many residents of being sympathetic to the
landfill proposal. This suspicion was kindled by the fact that
the Chamber of Commerce were addressed by representatives of 178
Genstar Ltd. shortly after their proposal was made public, and some of the Chamber members expressed interest in learning more about potential economic benefits that Texada Island might receive. This was enough to render the organization ineffectual in any further community activity concerning the Genstar proposal. Their role in the new organization was to exert influence on the Island businesses for support.
Texada Action Now was formed utilizing individuals with experience in a variety of the other Island organizations. It also encouraged a great many people who had never previously been involved in any organized activity to come forward. It was established as an umbrella organization to bring all the diverse groups on Texada Island together for a common purpose.
When Texada Action Now was first formed it had no resources except the willingness of the residents to work. As its chairman stated "nobody in T.A.N, had any background in organizing, but we 'lucked out' early ... we were fortunate to happen to contact key people in G.V.R.D. early and got good advice from them" (interview: August 3). In a space of two months T.A.N, extablished an office (and staffed it with volunteers); raised sufficient funds to finance their activities; established regular contact with environmental organizations; directly lobbied with G.V.R.D. politicians and the Provincial Ministers of Environment, Municipal Affairs, and
Mines; conducted a petition and letter campaign to MLA's; prepared an information package consisting of a slide show and printed pamphlet; created a community 'newspaper'; and attended 179
every G.V.R.D. committee meeting that was held to consider the
Genstar proposal. The organization was also compiling technical data on the impact of landfill leachate on the Island's ground
water supply, and had made arrangements117 to take legal action
to oppose the project if their political manuevers should prove
unsuccessful.
Fortunately, T.A.N, did not have to utilize all of its
preparations for what residents had anticipated to be a lengthy
battle. In May of 1983 the Greater Vancouver Sewage and
Drainage District Board withdrew its support for the Genstar
proposal and indicated it would look for other solutions to its
problem. The Texada residents were jubilant and felt that their
efforts have been responsible for the victory.
3. LOOKING TO THE FUTURE
While there was a general sense of relief, and a lessening
of the tension, residents continue to be apprehensive about the
finality of the Greater Vancouver Sewage District's decision.
Very few Islanders expect that a large Corporation like Genstar
would simply abandon a project in which it has a substantial
investment. As Cawthorpe stated,
"the garbage issue is not a dead issue. The G.V.R.D. are just providing stop gap efforts now, and the G.V.R.D. Board changes drastically all the time. Especially since one of Texada's foes is now G.V.R.D. vice chairman, and we lost our best ally, Jim Tunn" (August 3, 1983).
Other residents pointed to the number of reversals that the
G.V.R.D. had made concerning the Spetifore property, and
indicated that this could create a precedent that might 180
ultimately be used to resurrect the Texada landfill proposal
(T.A.N, meeting, minutes, May 29, 1983). This suspicion that the issue could be revived resulted in residents being reluctant to disband T.A.N, without having some safeguards in place. In this respect they were demonstrating a healthy sense of precaution. As Christensen-Ruffman and Stuart point out,
"citizens are often called to fight the same issue all over again. Some are prudent enough to expand into activities that keep the members of the group together" (1977: pg. 93).
The methods that residents opted to utilize as safeguards were to create a more permanent organization to represent their interests, develop allies, and to encourage the utilization of planning to protect and enhance their present life style.
a. Ongoing Organization
Texada Island residents recognized that to respond to any revival of the Genstar proposal, or other future activities that could disrupt their way of life, they would have to create an on-going organization that would attempt to co-ordinate Island activities and to ensure that residents were consulted on any activity that would directly affect the Island. As Cawthorpe stated, "T.A.N, represents every organization on the Island
. . . we can co-ordinate things and tie up loose ends. We must protect ourselves, no one will look after us but us"
(T.A.N, meeting minutes, Feb. 2, 1983). To achieve this
T.A.N, was restructured as a residents and ratepayers association and officially incorporated as a society in October
1983. The objectives of the new association were: 181
a) To promote the welfare of all Texada residents and
taxpayers;
b) To improve conditions of living on Texada Island;
c) To foster co-operation between organizations and
individuals on Texada;
d) To make representation to other on matters of vital
interest to Texada residents" (Rock Island Lines,
no. 2, July 1, 1983: pg. 1).
With the creation of T.A.N, as a residents and ratepayers association the organization evolved from being a single issue protest group into a more permanent political organization.
Certainly for purposes of representing the Island's interests on a variety of issues they stand to gain more credibility. As
Thompson observes, the adoption of a formal legal structure is a means to acquire legitimacy, particularly in the eyes of government and other outside institutions (1977: pg. 29).
b. Finding Allies
The movement to oppose Genstar included a search for support. Local governments, political parties, environmental organizations, and people on neighbouring islands were all contacted.
The most meaningful contacts occurred with residents of other islands, and then the Inter-Island Alliance. This organization had been established by Gulf Island residents to
"maintain clear communications among the islands, to support the
Trust and help it evolve by criticizing it, and to lobby for the
Islands Trust" (Rubin, 1982). Several members of the 182
T.A.N, executive committee attended meetings with the Alliance and found a group of people from neighbouring islands who had recognized the necessity for planning and political organization to protect their way of life. They were, for example, urged to create a Ratepayers Association since this not only would bring together all the diverse groups on the Island, but also it was a
form of organization that the provincial government recognizes and accepts (letter to T.A.N, from Inter-Island Alliance
representative, May 10, 1983).
T.A.N, representatives also visited Denman and Hornby
Islands. They reported back to T.A.N, general meetings, and
once again the need for organization and planning was
emphasized. J. Cawthorpe concluded his report on the two other
Islands by stating,
"They are beautiful places, and it just didn't happen. They had to cope with pressures sooner than has happened to us, they've had their battles and we've just gone through one, and probably the one that faces us now is going to be tougher because in the last set to we all had a common goal against the garbage, and here it seems when you get around to setting up community plans and that gets people worried and afraid that 'I can't do this or I can't do that' if we get a plan and that's not the case at all. Lots of times you have to fight harder to keep things the same. We should all realize that if we don't have some input, somebody else will as civilization catches up to us" (from minutes, T.A.N, general meeting, May 29, 1983).
As a result of this contact the T.A.N, general membership voted
to establish regular contact with the Alliance, and to
investigate the possibility of being included in the Gulf
Islands Trust. Those actions indicated a major shift in the
orientation of Texada residents. 183
Texada residents, like most rural residents have a tendency to be parochial, and assume that their community is somehow different and superior to others.118 Jane Abramson describes the tendency that rural and small town residents have,
"to be localistic in their interests and view--very much limited in their view and their concerns to their own local community and this might mean that they give less consideration to the total context in which decisions about regional development are made" (Rural Education and Development Association: 1979: pg. 33).
Texada residents had previously viewed their Island life style as not only different from the Powell River 'main landers', but also different from that of the other Gulf
Islanders. They perceived the other Islands as being
residential in character, and thus different from Texada where there was an established industrial base. This attitude is
reflected in the committee work that was done to develop a community plan in 1976. Their report states,
"Texada Island is the largest of the islands in the Gulf of Georgia and is quite unique among these islands in that it has an industrial base .... Thus the fourteen hundred residents of Texada Island, unlike those on other Gulf Islands have welcomed and respected productive mining activity which has occurred since late in the last century" (Texada Planning Committee report, 1976).
This attitude was also reflected in the concerns raised at
T.A.N, public meetings, once stronger links with the other
islands were advocated. it was argued by J. Brennan that any
planning would have to realize,
"that this Island is different than the other islands in the Islands Trust. They are residential. This Island is residential and industrial, and it is the feeling of everybody that we want industry and opportunity for employment, and certainly not going to 184
do anything to jeopardize that" (Minutes, T.A.N, general meeting, May 29).
Isolation from the other Gulf Islands is partially explained by the transportation links in the region which tend
to isolate the residents of the various islands from each other.
To get to the nearest islands means a journey involving at least
3 ferry trips. To reach Lasqueti, for example, would mean a
ferry to Powell River, then another to Comox, a 60 mile trip to
Parksville, and then a third ferry to Lasqueti. All this to
reach an island that is less than a mile away from Texada. When
this type of physical barrier is combined with the localistic
sentiments of Texada residents, it is not surprising that the
T.A.N, representatives were visiting neighbouring islands for
the first time. It also explains why Texada residents had
initially opposed inclusion in the Gulf Islands Trust. Almost a
decade after the creation of the Trust Texada Island people were
beginning to recognize that they had common concerns with other
Islands.
c. Planning Activity
One of the principal means that T.A.N, identified to
achieve its long term objective to provide safeguards for the
Islanders life style, was to use planning. The struggle to
resist the landfill proposal had clearly demonstrated how
vulnerable the Island was. There were no regulations to
prohibit dumping garbage, or any other noxious practice.
Instead of remaining aloof from rules and regulations, the
Island had been growing increasingly vulnerable as surrounding 185
communities had restricted or regulated development. This became increasingly clear to residents as T.A.N, attempted to establish support for its opposition to Genstar.
T.A.N, invited Dr. Tyhurst from Gabriola Island to address a public meeting on January 18, 1983. In an emotional, almost evangelical fashion, Tyhurst described the process by which
Gabriola Island residents had organized in response to efforts to subdivide and develop on their Island. The message to the meeting was blunt and basic, organize to protect yourselves and use planning to protect your way of life. He states,
"Now there is great reluctance to develop community planning in most areas particularly rural areas, and we've been through all of this. That is that it is a dictatorship, a bunch of people are forcing zoning down somebody's throat. What the hell, I didn't come here to be told what I can do with my place, and all the rest of it. The fact is that some of those things have to be given up if you are going to continue your way of life. There is absolutely no other way . . . unless you get down in writing what the aims of your community are, and the style of life that you wish to have, it's going to do down the drain. I can absolutely guarantee it. You are as helpless as sheep amongst a bunch of wolves. I can guarantee it. Have it in writing, otherwise every single issue that is the initiative of the people on the island will have no legislative backing and no support and you'll be having a crisis every time somebody wants to do something. Unless you have written down that you would like a rural way of life, that you want your quarries used for certain purposes, that you don't want roads of a certain kind, everything, including the use of the environment, your life style and everything. This can be written out in a community plan" (from transcript of Tyhurst speech, Jan. 18, 1983).
This message, coming from an individual with whom the Texada
Islanders could identify convinced many residents of the need for planning.
The most positive attitude toward planning is a change in 186
residents' perception . about how planning occurs. All earlier experiences with planning have been directed by an external agency, and are viewed as impositions on the community. .The message from individuals like Tyhurst, and groups like the
Inter-Island Alliance, is that planning can be directed locally.
When Cawthorpe was challenged about the need for planning at a public meeting his response was indicative of the new attitude.
He states, "I think one of the big differences is we will be the planners, not some outsiders coming in here and planning for us"
(Minutes, T.A.N, meeting, January 18, 1983). It is this change
in perception that has resulted in planning being viewed as a means to identify and achieve community goals instead of just
'more rules and regulations'. It also explains why the
community is now taking the initiative in planning instead of
waiting for expert direction.
Initial efforts by T.A.N, to get the Regional District to
start a community plan for Texada were rejected (letter from
F. Ladret to Chairman, Gillies Bay Improvement District, May 2,
1983). But instead of accepting this response the residents
took the position "we've got to look after ourselves. The
Regional District in Powell River is just interested in the
[pulp] mill and the [natural gas] pipeline" (Cawthorpe, Minutes,
T.A.N, meeting, May 26, 1983).
Alternative sources of planning expertise were sought
rather than sitting back passively and waiting for the Regional
District. It was felt that, through the Westwater Research
Centre and graduate student research on the Island, T.A.N, could 187
develop some independent information. This would reduce the residents' dependency on the Regional District's planning staff. 1 19
The association also continued to apply pressure on the
Regional District. The incumbent electoral district representative was defeated by a member of the T.A.N, executive,
C. Childress. He had repeatedly urged the T.A.N, members to prepare an official community plan to protect the Islanders' life style. Moreover, Childress advocated a more comprehensive approach to planning than the typical land use planning that occurs for an official community plan. He argued for "planning to ensure a balance of activities so that we don't end up a heavy industry area like Squamish with all its problems" (July
12, 1983).
The efforts of T.A.N, appear to be achieving some success.
The Regional District's planning schedule has been revised, and preparations for a Texada Island Community plan were initiated in 1984. Relations with Regional District staff are also improving. Earlier suspicions and criticisms of the Regional
District staff have subsided and contact is described as
"friendly" (Cawthorpe, August 3, 1983).
4. OBSERVATIONS
In its study of citizen participation in community planning
Bousfield Associates observed that,
"Active public involvement was often sparked by a single issue, but attention (at least by group leaders) soon was dircted toward altering the overall process of decision making" (1976: pg. 1). 188
On Texada the ad hoc coalition to oppose a specific development has progressed to a different level of activity. A permanent political organization has been established. The localistic orientation of the community has been reduced by its involvement with a larger regional organization like the Inter-Island
Alliance. The new organization has also significantly broadened its sphere of activity to include other issues that are of concern to residents, such as preserving recreational areas,120 and the quality of education on the island.121
The organization is still in its infancy and its chances of continued success are limited. As one critic of the new residents and ratepayers organization states, "any new organization may only flourish for a few years and then it will just add to the number of ineffectual organizations"
(D. Sprague, August 2, 1983). The generally poor survival record of voluntary organizations would also tend to confirm that there is a high likelihood of failure. However, the survival of the citizen's organization is of less importance than its effect on the public. Will there be any lasting impact in terms of changes in the attitudes, and behavior, on residents? As Nicholls points out,
"there is a danger that even with 'grass roots' problems that they might only touch the surface (the leaders) but have the general population consider the development process too theoretical and impractical" (1967: pg. 66).
The creation of a cohesive community, with the necessary skills and resolve to effectively participate in decisions that are made about planning activities that will affect it, is a 189
time consuming process. It is far too early in the process to make any conclusions about how effective the people on Texada
Island will be in gaining some control over planning. But, as
Sadler states, "public participation, whatever general form it
takes is a process of social change and systems transformation'
(1979: pg. 3). For Texada Islanders changes have already
started with some of their fundamental beliefs. The process of
transformation is in motion.
E. APPLICATION OF RURAL PLANNING MODEL
As the T.A.N, executive discovered, when they were looking
for support in their struggle with Genstar, their community is
not as unique as many residents had assumed. Even the nature of
the threat they perceived from the landfill proposal is not all
that uncommon.122 The problems that are confronting the
Islanders, and their aspirations (especially their desire to
retain their familiar life style, and to have some say in their
community's future) are common features of rural communities.
Halverson identified four qualities that all "hinterland rural
communities" share: local political power is restricted; the
nature of daily life is determined by outside powers, to which
the community responds; community life is on a personal face to
face basis; and the small size of the community limits the
development of services and facilities (1980: pg. 374). Texada
certainly possesses all of these characteristics, and therefore
provides a realistic case study against which the theoretical
model of rural planning, and the roles for public participation
can be compared. 190
1. PLANNING 'OF' TEXADA ISLAND
This approach was clearly apparent in the planning efforts on Texada of the Provincial Government. Both the 1973 proposed land use plan, which was prepared by Municipal Affairs staff for the use of the Lands, Parks and Housing Administration; and the forestry planning which has been done by the District and
Regional planning staff of the Ministry of Forests, represent cases of senior government agencies planning rural communities primarily for external benefits. This approach to planning is obviously going to continue wherever the Provincial government
feels there is a necessity to include Texada in its considerations for any project—such as the proposed Vancouver
Island natural gas pipeline.
Public participation in these two planning activities differed. In the creation of the 1973 Proposed Land Use Plan
the planner responsible bluntly stated there "was no public
participation" (Quin, July 22, 1983). This was due to a
perception by Quin there would be no value to the government
from involving the public, and since the plan was not going to
have any official status the planner did not believe there was
any requirement to involve the local people. This attitude, and
the lack of any public participation, tends to confirm the
earlier observation that in this approach to rural planning the
role\ that the public can play will depend on what value the
agency perceives such participation will have for it.
The Ministry of Forests does recognize that the public has 191
a role to play in the planning process. However, the proper role is for the public to become members of recognized interest groups, and to be represented by interest group spokesmen. This approach confines the general public to a passive role, as the recipients of a public information program or a very subordinate rule in the production of information for Forest Services
Planners to evaluate.
Texada residents are limited in their ability to participate in forestry planning since the District Forestry
Office, with which they would be dealing, focuses on the preparation of subunit and operation plans. These site specific plans are intended to determine how to produce a specified quality of timber out of a given area, but not to address any policy issues.
Most of the general decisions, such as which areas would go into the Georgia Straits Provincial Forest, are made at a higher level in the Forestry hierarchy. At this higher level of planning the Ministry of Forests makes extensive use of the public information approach to public participation. As indicated earlier the Forest Service do go to more effort than many other government agencies to gain public support for their policies. They have recognized there is merit in making some information about their planning activities and policies public, and have produced a series of pamphlets and brochures outlining programs such as the Provincial Forest System.
Logging operators on Texada would be consulted, and their local expertise utilized, in the preparation of the site 1 92
specific plans. The views of the other residents would tend to be discounted since Forest Service staff interviewed believe the public do not understand forest management or harvesting praet ices.
2. PLANNING 'FOR' TEXADA ISLAND
The planning episode that most closely resembles this approach to planning was the 1979 Official Regional Plan. It is necessary to be cautious about describing the regional plan as an illustration of planning 'for' a rural area because some
Texada residents interveiwed indicated a great deal of suspicion about the Regional District, and its motives. This suspicion was due to the apparent domination of the Regional District by the District Municipality of Powell River. As B. Turner stated,
"in the Regional District Powell River has seven votes against our one. They run the Regional District for their benefit"
(August 2).123 As a result the regional plan, which was done without a great deal of public involvement could be viewed as an example of Powell River attempting to exploit the Island.
Despite these suspicions both of the planners who were involved in preparing the Regional Plan maintain that they were acting in Texada's best interests. Fogarty (July 13, 1983) and
Ladret (July 12, 1983) both stated that those aspects of the
Regional Plan that relate directly to Texada were based on the information and objectives that were prepared by the Texada
Planning Committee in 1976.
The lack of effort by the Regional District to get public
input into the Regional Plan was compounded by the source of the 193
data that was used for Texada. The 1976 material had never been finalized. Nor were the residents of Texada even given an opportunity to comment on the proposed objectives that had been prepared. Yet the information formed the basis on which Texada
Island was incorporated into the Regional Plan.
The Regional District approached the Regional Plan as another one of the hoops through which the Provincial government forced local governments to jump. This sense of compulsion, and the attitude that zoning was not an appropriate tool for their areas, may have resulted in the Regional Board not attaching much importance to the document. This would explain why the
Board would have little interest in promoting active public participation in preparing the plan. The planners believed that the residents should trust them to act in the best interests of the residents. Consequently they did not perceive the benefits of encouraging public involvement that would outweigh the costs.
As Fogarty said, "participatory planning can produce good ideas, but it is very wearing on the planner" (July 13, 1983).
3. PLANNING 'WITH' TEXADA ISLANDERS
The efforts to develop a settlement plan for Texada Island
in 1976 appear to fall within this category. The impetus for planning came from the regional planner, not as a local
initiative. But once the process was started an active
volunteer group developed almost all of the data that was
compiled, and generated a series of recommendations.
What was most notable about the planning 'with' Texada
residents episode was its domination by the professional. The 1 94
planner determined when the planning would commence, provided a
lengthy list of subjects that the volunteer committee had to consider, a detailed time schedule for when the committee was to do its work, and ultimately unilaterally decided that the
planning process could be terminated. The lack of followup by
the Texada Planning Committee has been labelled as apathy.124 A
more likely explanation for the lack of enthusiasm in following
up on the Committee's work is that the members of the Committee
had the function of the public participation clearly defined in
their own minds by the approach the planner took. It emphasized
that there were professional rites that would have to be
performed by one who was initiated into the mysteries of
planning. At the point where the process broke down most of the
Committee members no doubt assumed that their work, as lay
people, was almost complete.
4. PLANNING 'BY' TEXADA ISLANDERS
The actions of the new Residents and Ratepayers
organization are consistent with the planning 'by' the rural
community approach.
A group of rural people were able to independently organize
to oppose powerful external interests. Once organized they were
able to achieve some significant results, and in the process
altered some deeply held beliefs of the Islanders. They have
also progressed beyond the point where their organization is
simply a single interest protest group. This progress
demonstrates that planning 'by' rural people is not just an
idealistic notion. 195
The use of this approach to planning by Texada residents demonstrates its practical appeal. If planning 'by' the community was being advocated solely on the basis that it complies with democratic ideology, or some theories about strengthening community ties, it would be very unlikely that rural residents would have accepted it. As Stinson discovered,
in rural areas,
"the environment appears to be traditional, pragmatic and person centred. Receptivity to change was low when the change appeared to be novel, radical, idealistic or abstract. When change ideas were based on easily recognized values, appeared to be practical, and allowed people to be involved no more than they wished to be in something of immediate interest they could be accepted" (1979: pg. 121).
Its acceptance by Texada Islanders is an encouraging indication
of the potential inherent in the planning 'by' rural communities
approach.
The Texada experience also appears to demonstrate the
ability of the public to organize, and pursue community
objectives. The steps initiated by T.A.N. include: forming
alliances with other communities; creating an ongoing
organization to function as the community's watchdog; and
approaching planning as something that should be done in a
comprehensive manner. T.A.N. received advice from Dr.
Tyhurst, and members of the Inter-Island Alliance, but this was
more akin to listening to neighbours recount their own
experiences than it was to receiving expert direction. The
residents are now seeking professional assistance of the
Regional District planner to create a community plan. They have 1 96
also sought professional assistance to plan for the protection of their water resources. This approach to the use of professional expertise views the expert's role to be a supporting one. The residents have taken the initiative, and want to establish objectives for their community, and the planners are expected to assist in the process.
A further observation from the community's involvement in planning on Texada is that planning 'by' the community is not restricted to situations where there is local autonomy. Texada
Island has no formal local authority, and its residents will have to work through the Regional District or some other government agency, to implement the goals they identify in their plans. However, this limitation has not caused residents to assume a defeatist attitude. They have banded together to oppose large outside interests, and have determined that it is possible to direct the local planning process and to have a
strong role in related decisions. 197
VIII. CONCLUSIONS
This thesis is based on the premise that there are qualities about rural communities that are unique and which
therefore justify a specialized approach to planning. The
author also contends that there are requirements that must be
satisfied if meaningful rural planning is going to occur. One
of the most important of these requirements is for rural people
to be actively involved in the planning process.
A. RURAL PLANNING
1. PERSISTENCE OF'RURAL SOCIETY
As noted earlier there are those who view rural communities as voids between urban centres—areas that are devoid of "all potential creativity" as Paris describes non-urban areas (1975:
pg. 136). Others argue that the mass society has produced a
rural population that is virtually indistinguishable from its
urban neighbours, and thus no specialized approach would be
required to plan in rural areas. Freidmann and Miller, for
example, claim "what is properly urban and properly rural can no
longer be distinguished" (quoted in Ford: 1978: pg. 3).
Assumptions about the demise of the rural way of life, and
impact of the "process of massification", as Ellul described it
(1964: pg. 323), appear to have been overly pessimistic.
Certainly recent experience has demonstrated that rural
population losses have decreased, and many rural areas are
experiencing actual growth while metropolitan area populations
decline. Hodge, for example, found that since the sixties most 198
small communities in Canada have been growing, and even places that did not grow in population have experienced new residential construction. Moreover, the rural population increase was not limited to those areas where urban sprawl was occurring around metropolitan centres (1982: pg. 5). This has lead Hodge
(1982b), and others, to optimistically describe the situation as a 'rural renaissance'.
While rural growth may not have reached a level of
intensity that justifies euphoric descriptions like a
'renaissance', it certainly does call for reappraisal of the gloomy predictions that were being made about the demise of
rural lifestyles. One writer who has revised his assessment in
light of the new evidence is Olaf Larson. In 1961 he wrote that
rural-urban differences were decreasing in the direction of mass
society. Then in 1978 he acknowledged his earlier assumptions
were wrong, and that recent studies "challenge any assumption
that all the important rural-urban differences and beliefs are
rapidly vanishing" (1978: pg. 110).
Nor does this rural revival appear to be simply a matter of
increasing populations as assumed by some writers. They argue
that "the new trend is not so much that people are leaving the
city for the country, as that the city itself is moving into the
country" (White: 1984: pg. 3). Rural lifestyles appear to be
resistant to blending into mass society. Technology has created
opportunities for mass society, but it has not eliminated many
of the distinctive aspects of rural life. It is important to
recognize that the impact of technology can vary. As Willets et 1 99
al. point out,
"Similar T.V., radio, movies, magazines and newspapers availability does not guarantee similar impact. Individuals can be selective—watching, listening to, and reading those materials that are most in keeping
with their prior values, beliefs and interestso . . . . a sense of both superiority and inferiority may provide a kind of psychological isolation to set the rural dweller apart from his non-rural counterparts" (1982: pg. 73).
Even the 'citification' process (Paris: 1975) created by technological advances does not imply that rural communities will necessarily become indistinguishable from urban ones. As
Hodge states, "citification creates access to urban accoutrements; levels of [their] use vary according to community circumstances" (1981: pg. 45). As that statement implies there is room for diversity and an opportunity for rural lifestyles to persist.
2. A SPECIALIZED APPROACH TO RURAL PLANNING
Given the persistence of rural society is this enough to justify a distinctive type of planning for rural areas? There are numerous differences between various urban neighbourhoods, and cities, so why would the differences that planners would encounter in rural communities necessitate a special rural approach?
A major reason for having a rural planning approach is that many planners, as a result of their training and urban experience, have an urban bias. Their perception of a rural community, and its needs, are coloured by urban values.
Distinctive rural features tend to be overlooked, or discounted, 200
as being minor local anomalies.
Planning efforts where techniques, that were developed to deal with urban situations, were simply transposed to rural settings have frequently failed. As Dybella et al. observe,
"conventional local and regional planning methods for rural areas have come under serious attack, even from members of the planning profession. The appropriateness of urban techniques, originally designed for use in metropolitan communities, is questioned. The complex language and segregated land uses of zoning and the predominant implementation techniques of many plans do not fit the needs of many rural communities. And attitudes of planners and other professionals, perhaps more appropriate in sophisticated urban areas, appear elitist, overly technical, and patronizing" (1981: pg. 16).
Planning in rural communities can not be effective if key rural features are minimized in the planning process. If planning is being conducted conscientiously then the planners will have to compensate for their tendencies to view all issues from an urban perspective. Adopting a rural planning approach, which requires distinctive rural values and features to be taken
into consideration, will act as a counter-balance.
But rural planning is not a simple uniform method for planning in rural areas. This thesis argues that within the general framework of rural planning there are four distinct approaches that can be identified. These approaches differ on the primary purpose for planning, and who controls the planning process. Examples of planning which demonstrates these various approaches were cited. The four which were identified may not be exhaustive, but there appears to be sufficient evidence provided in the Texada example to demonstrate that rural 201
planning can not be viewed as a uniform approach to planning.
The categories of: planning "of" rural communities; planning
"for" rural communities; planning "with" rural communities; and planning "by" rural communities, offer a graphic means of describing the major subdivisions within rural planning.
3. WHY BOTHER ABOUT RURAL PLANNING?
Martindale and Hanson state bluntly that,
"the Jeffersonian ideal of autonomous small towns has become an anachronism. Power is shifting from locality to the great centres of government, industry and finance. If the small town survives at all it is not as an autonomous centre of local life but as a semi-dependent agency of distant power centres" (quoted in Swanson et al.: 1979: pg. 243).
If rural communities are so devoid of power, why should planners, or anyone else for that matter, be concerned about local reaction to planning? Furthermore, if they are just dependent satellites revolving around an urban metropolis, shouldn't it be sufficient to plan for the center?
a. Rural Opposition
Clearly, one reason for rural planning is that rural people can frustrate the implementation of any planning objectives that they perceive to be inconsistent with a rural lifestyle.
The limited resources allocated by governments for use in rural communities makes a high degree of voluntary compliance very important. The ability to enforce regulations is more difficult in rural communities when the government network is more loosely organized. In many cases there are simply no practical means of ensuring supervision and enforcement. 202
Regional districts, or the Provincial Government, can enact regulations that would appear most commendable on paper, but without the manpower required to administer them in thinly populated areas the government's actions could really be counter-productive since it merely breeds contempt for the unenforceable law (and the government that attempted to solve its problems on paper). Manning expressed this point when he stated "the legal system is ultimately and fundamentally dependent on voluntary compliance .... We are witnessing an increasing disregard for and decline in voluntary compliance
. . . non-compliance in turn brings a kind of disrespect" (1979: pg. 25).
It may well be that a rural community's main power is its ability to resist and oppose an initiative by a government agency. Certainly this is a common experience for citizen organizations, who find our government system provides means to block proposals but frustrates attempts to stimulate action
(Chapin and Deneau: 1978: pg. 23). However, the fact that this power is a negative one does not mean that it can be discounted by government. Unless an agency is prepared to devote substantial resources to policing any changes that it may have imposed by regulation it must recognize the need for an approach to planning that displays some sensitivity to rural people's concerns.
Even the most externally oriented approach, planning "of" rural communities, must devote some attention to the residents of the community affected. In many cases this consideration may 203
be only on the means to minimize the impact of a proposed development on local people. As was the case with the relocation of the Arrow Lake residents (Wilson: 1973). To ignore the local population's interests totally is to indulge in blatant exploitation that few government agencies would feel secure enough in which to indulge. If an agency were to feel confident, and cynical enough, to pursue such a strategy its actions would be obvious enough to guarantee intense local resistance. The rejection of Texada residents of the 1973 document prepared by the B.C. Department of Municipal Affairs
illustrates the level of opposition that is generated when the residents are not consulted.
b. Impact On The Larger System
The other, more fundamental, question of why anyone should be concerned about relatively unimportant rural communities has
to be addressed on two levels. At an abstract level the purpose
for concern about rural communities relates to the author's conviction that our society must attempt to provide equity for all its members. On a more pragmatic level the concern for
rural communities is reinforced by the knowledge that disparity
between various areas will tend to impede the growth of the
entire system.
Arguments that are based upon democratic principles, such
as the need for equity, are appealing to a strongly held social
norm. Bryden, for example, describes it as "the fundamental
tenet of classical democratic theory" (1982: pg. 100).
Certainly the concept of equity is integrated differently by 204
various segments of society, but there is clearly a strong emotive power to any statement that calls for equity. As
Friedman states, "a society that fails to provide for equal access to [its] resources cannot be a just society; in a more profound sense, it cannot be a good society" (1973: pg. 6). The call to redress the balance between rural and urban communities, by giving more consideration to rural needs, is such a
statement.
Concern about rural communities can also be justified on more utilitarian basis. Rural communities are firmly integrated within larger regional, and national, social systems. There is an extensive body of literature that describes the linkages, and
the strong influence that external factors can have on these communities. What is less often acknowledged is that, as
components of the larger system, the well-being of these local
communities can affect the health of the system.
If rural communities lag substantially behind urban ones
there is a danger that the rural communities will be caught in a
downward spiral of underdevelopment that becomes difficult to
stop. The dangers of this type of disparity were identified
recently by a resident of Northwest British Columbia. He
observed that,
"We mine molybdenium, copper, silver and gold. We also build new mines, produce pulp, generate electricity and soon will produce methanol. We don't clothe ourselves, feed ourselves and don't really house ourselves, we just assemble the materials. Increasingly, what we sell requires fewer people to produce—increasingly, we find ourselves dependent on a society that produces few necessities and imports more goods. Virtually every scheme for 'developing' our own area reinforces these weaknesses" (Northwest 205
Study Conference: 1982: pg. 1).
Once rural communities have reached this unenviable position they become a perpetual drain upon the resources of the larger
society. Local resources are incapable of supporting even basic
services and external support becomes essential. At the same
time the emotional distance between urban and rural people
lengthens as rural animosity builds. This resentment can have a destabilizing effect on the entire system as rural people
support populist movments that offer extreme solutions and look
for urban culprits to blame for rural disparities.125
B. MEANINGFUL RURAL PLANNING
Planning must be approached as a tool, and not as an
esoteric art form that is conducted for it own sake. Rural
planning has to be examined in this context to determine how
useful a tool it provides.
1. ROLE FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
D'Amore writes,
"Our society is in a state of rapid transition, so it is more important now than ever before that people from all walks of life have an opportunity to voice their concerns and have their say in decisions affecting their neighbourhood community, city, province and nation" (1977: pg. 110).
In rural planning public participation becomes more than
'important', it is a critical factor in determining if rural
planning efforts will be effective. As previously indicated the
involvement of rural people is one of the principal means to
ensure that the planning being conducted is rural planning. 206
Once a rural planning approach is adopted, recognition of rural values, such as self-reliance, and rural suspicions of planning should result in active public participation.
A component of the 'particularistic' nature of rural society is a high emphasis on the value of individuals. Studies of rural society have demonstrated that rural people do believe in individualism and local autonomy.126 Whether these beliefs are based on a realistic assessment of rural conditions is immaterial. The important point is that they are strongly held by many rural people. As Vidich and Bensman point out, such beliefs are important since they actually condition the way people act--people will make an effort to comply with their self-image (1960: pg. 31). This fact was also demonstrated by the T.A.N. organization that emphasized the Island's history of self-help. Thus there is a strong motivation for rural people to be involved in decision making for their community since a sense of involvement in decision making is important to their self esteem.
Also on a very practical basis planners should support public participation in rural planning programs. Many of the unique aspects of rural areas are related to the values of rural residents. Having rural people participate in the planning process will help to ensure that a rural planning approach is applied. They will emphasize those values that are significant
to rural residents, and provide indications of local preferences. Such information can mean the difference between
the application of city planning to a rural area, and utilizing 207
a rural planning approach that recognizes there are
distinctively rural factors that must be considered.
Rural suspicions about planning were previously discussed
in detail. It is the author's contention that such suspicions,
and the opposition they can generate, are strong enough that
they can only be overcome if rural people feel confident that
they can have a significant role in the planning process.
2. EVALUATING APPROACHES TO RURAL•PLANNING
The various approaches, and their application on Texada
Island, have been described in detail in this thesis. As they
were analyzed it became apparent that some approaches are more
effective than others. Effective in the sense, that they will
produce enduring results. Their recommendations are capable of
being implemented and gaining popular support, while other
'plans' are relegated to a shelf to collect dust.
Planning "of" a rural community may produce some very short
term results for the agency that commissioned the plan, but it
is incapable of providing any long term direction. It is simply
too divorced from the aspirations of local residents to gain any
support from them. Instead, as the Newfoundland government
discovered, in small communities "if planning is generally seen
to be merely an arbitrary, and apparently unreasonable, set of
restrictions, the Plan has already failed" (Project Planning
Associates: 1968: pg. 51).
Planning "for" rural community is premised on a laudable
intention, but it has great limitations in its ability to relate
to real rural concerns. Hodge and Qader claim that "planning is 208
most effective for small communities when their plans and other planning instruments can be used to solve their own local problems" (1983: pg. 190). With planning "for" rural communities, a major difficulty is that the issues to be dealt with are based on outsiders' perceptions of rural communities.
As Christiansen-Ruffman and Stuart state,
"potential problems are also created by interactional processes stemming from different world views. Citizens and each type of professional, looking at the same situation, tend to see very different factors as relevant . . . this includes different perspectives on time and strategies" (1977: pg. 80).
This may appear to be a difficulty that communication could
overcome. But having witnessed a number of standardized zoning
regulations applied to small rural communities that contained
provisions such as the maximum height for fences on residential
properties and detailed restrictions for parking private
vehicles, the author is sceptical about how easily it would be
to overcome such perceptual differences.
Planning "with" a rural community has more promise. In
this approach the main limitation is the expert domination of
the planning process. Bregha claims that "nothing will destroy
the essence of participation more quickly than direction by
'professionals'" (1977: pg. 123). The basic problem with
professionals directing the process has been explained by
Friedmann. As he points out planners utilize processed
knowledge which creates "distorted images of reality" (1973:
pg. 105). When processed knowledge is dominant it leads to
emphasis on technical aspects and ignores the need for action on
specific problems. Friedmann argues that what is necessary is a 209
process of mutual learning where,
"planners and client each learn from the other--the planner from the clients personal knowledge, the client from the planner's technical expertise. In this process, the knowledge of both undergoes a major change. A common image of the situation evolves through dialogue; a new understanding of the possibilities for change is discovered. And in accord with this new knowledge the client will be predisposed to act" (1973: pg. 185).
Because planning "with" a rural community originates from a concern over a local issue it is possible that the authority may be prepared to adopt a more responsive attitude. The public may have a significant role in the planning exercise, however the planning process itself remains beyond their control. As with the 1976 Texada planning committee they may work very hard to achieve an agenda and schedule that is set by the external authority.
D'Amore summarizes the limitations inherent in these three approaches when he states,
"planning which prepares a program and then tries to 'sell' it to the affected public is no longer effective in our society. Equally inappropriate is planning that asks the publics to choose between alternatives they have not had a role in formulating" (1977: pg. 102).
Is planning "by" a rural community any more effective than the other approaches? Advocating that rural people, with minimal technical skills and very little control over government decision making, should control the planning process will be dismissed by many as an intellectual illusion, a noble sentiment but just not 'practical'. Such a dismissal would have overlooked several pertinent aspects about this approach to 210
rural planning.
This thesis has focused on planning, and public involvement, in local issues. On these issues there is often room for external government and local interests to converge since the resolution of rural problems can contribute positively to the larger social system. Moreover, planning "by" a rural community does not imply a sharp division between the public and government. Unlike the proponents of 'citizen power' who view social groups as being in direct competition for power,127 this thesis argues that planning "by" rural communities can be a more co-operative process. The local community must define the problems, and identify solutions, while government can provide technical support and assist with implementation. As Stohr and
Taylor indicate, in their study of development,
"development 'from below', however, may also require certain external inputs. In order to facilitate . . . development policies must involve some assistance from central decision making units" (1981: pg. 475).
Hodge provides a suggestion as to how this partnership can be achieved. He proposes that provincial governments should,
"Reverse the present paternalistic system and make the province an 'interested party' on local planning which must be advised of proposed local planning resources and could object as other interested parties do. That is, urge small communities to plan, provide the technical assistance they need, and then let them get on with it intervening only to protect the provincial interest" (1976: pg. 17).
These feature of planning "by" a rural community may
explain why such an approach can exist, but they can not explain
why it may be an effective form of planning. To explain why it 21 1
works where other approaches fail it is necessary to look at other aspects of this approach.
One reason for its success is that this approach corresponds with rural values. As a result it generates more local support. Stohr claims that underdeveloped communities have a "higher potential for informal small-scale interaction
(interpersonal social relations, group identity, small-scale solidarity, active cultural participation) than have materially highly developed areas" (1981: pg. 44). These are attributes that are important in planning "by" rural communities. They contribute to the consensual form of decision making that is necessary to ensure that decisions are supported by community in general, and not just reflecting a small interest group within the community.
Planning "by" a rural community is also effective because it is part of a larger process of rural development. The planning activities will identify community goals, and suggest means to achieve them. But then, as part of a rural development process, there will be a conscious effort to implement the plan's recommendations. This is an advantage that this approach to planning has over other forms of planning. Too often planning and implementation are segregated. The planning activity produces a set of recommendations, and then the planning staff turn their attention to other issues. When planning is part of a process like rural development it then becomes possible for planning to be a continual process.
Instead of one brief effort that produces a fixed plan which 212
resists revision as experience dictates, there is a possibility for planning to become responsive.
One final reason why planning "by" a rural community is likely to be more effective is the degree of local initiative that is inherent in this approach. While some external assistance may be required this approach has the attractive
feature, for government agencies, of being the least demanding on their resources. Emphasizing 'self-help' the community can actually perform most of the work involved .in planning by
itself. Communities like Texada, working through resident organizations such as T.A.N., have been able to demonstrate that
rural people are capable of independent action. This is
becoming an increasingly significant feature as a sluggish
economy dictates that there are fewer resources to utilize for
programs like rural planning.
This thesis has argued that planning in rural areas should
be conducted in a manner that recognizes unique rural values and
characteristics. It also contends that public participation is
a critical component of effective rural planning, and that the
more attention that is given to involving the community's
residents the more productive the planning process can become.
It contends there is a positive linear correlation between
increased public involvement and meaningful planning.
In a thesis that argues for greater public involvement in
rural planning it would seem appropriate that the concluding
comments should come from rural people. At a workshop for rural
residents on the problems and goals of modern rural communities 213
one of the group's main conclusions was:
"If rural citizens, of any background, can get together to talk over their views, decide on a role, and seek support and advice, then all the energy, skills and intellect invested in rural people could be mobilized in a manner consistent with their low-key rural image. They could resolve some of the challenges that face them--such that coping with change introduced from somewhere else could be replaced by change controlled in terms of direction and pace by rural people themselves" (Fuller and Starr: 1977: pg. 61). 214
IX. CHAPTER NOTES
Notes on Chapter I
1 One basic distinction in rural planning is between the industrialized nations and the rest of the world. The concept of what is rural even differs in this case.
2 Generally research on rural areas and small communities in Canada has shown that a high proportion of them are unincorporated. Hodge and Qadeer refer to the 1976 census which identified approximately 9500 towns and villages and note that almost 80% of these were unincorporated (1983, p. 14).
3 The Islands Trust was established in 1974 and includes the following inhabited Islands (as well as noninhabited Islands that were excluded due to their designation as Indian Reserves):
Bowen Island Gambier Island North Pender Island Denman Island Hornby Island Saltspring Island Gabriola Island Lasqueti Island Saturna Island Galiano Island Mayne Island South Pender Island
(source: British Columbia Islands Trust Act), Dec. 13, 1974).
" The duties and restrictions on Improvement Districts are prescribed in the Municipal Act (Revised Statutes of British Columbia 1979, Chapter 290, consolidated October T5~, 1982) , Sections 822-856. Some of the differences between an Improvement District and a municipality are:
i) Cabinet can arbritrarily create or eliminate an Improvement District. A municipality can only be dissolved following approval by a majority of its electors.
ii) An Improvement District may only deal with those basic services that are identified in its Letters Patent. A municipality may opt to become involved in a variety of areas where the Act has provided general enabling powers.
iii) Election procedures for Improvement District are far less formal, and are held in conjunction with an annual general meeting.
iv) All Improvement District by-laws are only valid if the Inspector (e.g., a provincial civil servant) approves them, and he has authority to reject a by-law if he considers it to be in the "interest of the district or province." No such restriction exists on a municipality's legislative powers.
v) The debts of an Improvement District are guaranteed by the Province. No such reassurance is offered to 215
municipalities.
vi) The electors of Improvement Districts have certain rights that are more similar to the 'New England town meeting' than they are to the province's municipalities. They have voting rights at the annual general meeting, and also have the right to select the auditors that the Improvement District must use to prepare their audit.
It is differences like the above that lead Morley e_t al. to conclude that while Improvement Districts are corporate bodies, administered by elected trustees, they are not to be included in the same classification as municipalities (1983, p. 240)
Notes on Chapter II
5 One striking feature of modern rural areas is their heterogenity. This feature has been repeatedly observed in the literature, for example, Gilford et al. (1981: p. 12); Hodge (1981: p. 44); Swanson et al. (1979: p. 262); Dillman and Hobbs (1982: p. 13); Larson (1978: p. 110); Nellis (1980: p. 22); Isberg (1981: p. 15); Matthews (1976: p. 83).
6 P. Sorokin and C. G. Zimmerman are credited with the creation of the rural-urban continuum model. Their nine dimensions included: size of community; household size; occupation; density; social stratification; types of social interaction; sex ratio; dependancy ratio; and educational levels. A. brief summary of their model is contained in Hodge and Qadeer (1983).
7 To the extent that 'mass society' is developing and there is a convergence between rural and urban areas in social characteristics the dimensions included in the rural-urban continuum developed for rural sociology are not as valuable as they were originally.
8 There is a considerable variety as to how to approach the population size, and what the actual numbers should be. One approach is to use "the people and communities in the nation's [U. S.] nonmetropolitan counties—counties that have no city with as many as 50,000 people" (Dillman and Hobbs: 1982). Brinkman argues that the appropriate cut off point is where an area contains no city of over 25,000 people (1974: p. 31). Others utilize a figure of 10,000 (Hodge, 1982a; Swanson et al.: 1979) . Another approach is to use census figures which define rural areas as those which have less than 2,500 people (McRae: 1980) . It even goes to the extreme where Robertson contends that his definition of "small town is really small", and emphasizes communities of 300 to 1500 people (1980: p. 12).
9 The influence of population size on rural values has been cited by a number of authors. Some of the arguments include: 216
Larson argues that in values and general outlook there are substantial rural-urban differences and that these vary consistently by size (1978: p. 110); Sanders claims that, due to size, interpersonal direct relationships are most important to the residents (1977: p. 122); Willets et al. also state that small size leads to a dominance of personal social relationships and the comparative slowness in altering traditions (1982: p. 70); Qadeer states "the smallness promotes a personalized, informal, face to face integration . . . giving cohesion to a small community" (1979: p. 109). Finally, Cohen criticizes the planning profession for not recognizing that "difference in community size may constitute substantive differences in kind" (1977: p. 4).
10 Some of the writers who describe rural residents' use of space as a buffer are: Nellis (1980); Hahn (1970); Runka (1980); and Hodge and Qadeer (1983).
11 There have been attempts to distinguish between rural and wilderness areas. Frederick Smith attempts to do it by focusing on the ecosystem. He argues that rural land is "agriculture and forest (land) where natural systems are modified and put to work producing useful products." Wildlands, in his terms, are where "natural ecosystems flourish undisturbed" (1980: p. 110). Such a division seems unrealistic in modern society. It is hard to visualize an area where the natural ecosystem has not been modified in some fashion by man, and it seems inappropriate not to view as wilderness those extensive areas that are included within tree farm areas or mineral claims, but which have not been exploited. Until such time as the resource extraction actually occurs there is a potential for wilderness activities, and the possibility that the future use of the area may change. A more useful method to distinguish rural from wilderness areas would be to utilize population and density variables. In this thesis a wilderness area is defined as a geographical area that has too few permanent inhabitants (there may be seasonal activities or temporary camps in such areas) to provide sufficient social interaction to constitute a community (this again involves density of settlement since it would be possible to have situations where a very small number of people could be viewed as a community if they were located in close enough proximity for social interaction, or a situation where several hundred people would not be considered a community because their physical isolation from each other would preclude regular interaction).
12 'Community' is often seen as being an entity consisting of 'like minded' individuals, or as Biddies defines it, "community is an achievement, not something given by reason of geographic residence. It is not fixed; it changes as a result of experience or purposeful effort" (1965: p. 77). But for purposes of this thesis such a definition is too all encompassing. Instead the term will be used in the same manner as, 217
"Parsons, Warren, and Sanders, among others, who view the community as a social system composed of people living in the same spatial relationship to one another, who share common facilities and services, develop a common psychological identification with the locality symbols and together frame a common communications network" (Chekki: 1979: p. 5).
13 Hodge (1982a: p. 5) points out that "one of the most widely held views is that small town growth results from the suburbanizing effects of metropolitan centres." This assumption is obvious in the work of those writers who describe the increasing dominance of mass society. Paris, for example, states that the rural population growth is because the "urban encroaches into the countryside and village residents become more urban when the city moves to them" (1975: p. 136). However, as pointed out previously, this assumption has not been supported by statistics on recent rural growth. In both the United States (Beale: 1978; Swanson et al.: 1979) and Canada (Hodge: 1982b) it has been demonstrated that metropolitan proximity has little influence on small centre growth.
1 * Hahn (1970) provides an excellent description of how rural and suburban residents approach issues from different perspectives, and the potential for conflict between them.
15 Martinez-Brawley refers to one of these efforts.
"Ruburban, a geographical mezzanine between the rural and suburban. Ruburbs are small country towns barely within commuting distance of city centres, where agrarian values rub--and sometimes chafe—elbows with middle class attitudes" (1984: p. 18).
16 Other writers who define rural areas specifically on the basis of their physical environment include: Dyballa et al., who claim "rural people are more likely to earn their living directly or indirectly from the areas's natural resources" (1981: p. 1); and Youmans, who defines rural areas as "areas that are dependent socially, culturally and economically on natural resources" (1983: p. 3).
17 Unincorporated rural areas are faced with the same problems as incorporated rural communities, of organizing for collective action and achieving some general agreement of community goals, but they must contend with the additional problem of having to get a senior level of government to act on their behalf whenever financial resources or legal action (such as making planning results 'official') are required. As Hodge and Qadeer point out: 218
"The small [unincorporated] center in this situation is, thus, dependent on the council of the 'parent' incorporated area not only to appreciate the planning problems of the small center but also to be willing to undertake planning" (1983: p. 187).
18 Examples of writers who state there is a need to focus on local issues, but who fail to define what they consider a local issue, include: Hodge (1976); Williams (1980); and Hahn (1970).
19 There is considerable discussion in the public participation literature about who should have the right to be consulted and how to identify the affected public. This tends to be very prevalent in the work by government agencies. Some of the writers who deal with this issue include: Wengert (1971) who discusses at length the question of "who should participate"; Cupps who states administrators face "the dual questions of representation and legitimacy: precisely whom do public interest groups speak for and how accurately do they reflect the viewpoints of their constituency" (1977: p. 450); Tyler who talks about public participation as "a process by which specific segments of a population—a 'public', identified by a decision making body, actively share in the decision making process" (1977: p. 17); Creighton who calls public participation a "process by which interested and affected individuals and organizations are consulted and included in the decision making" (1981: p. 8); and Heberlein who talks about the need to identify "representative publics" (1976: p. 6).
20 Downs makes this point when he describes the "issue-attention cycle." After a period of "euphoric enthusiasm" the popular support for a public issue often drops off gradually as it becomes recognized that the costs of solving a problem could be very high and "would also require major sacrifices by large groups of the population. The public thus begins to realize that part of the problem results from arrangements that are providing significant benefits to someone" (1978: p. 40).
Notes on Chapter III
21 Heberlein argues that "the demand for direct public involvement is closely related to trust" (1976: pg. 1). This is also related to the comments of other writers that "participation is a therapeutic device to overcome the alienation and anomie of large numbers" (Wengert: 1971: pg. 27); Coppock also feels alienation is the main reason for demands for more participation (1977: pg. 208).
22 Such an argument is made by Thompson who states, 219
"One rationale for public participation is that it provides the opportunity for those interests in society that do not have economic power to redress the weakness by influencing the exercise of political power" (1979: pg. 18).
But this argument is criticized by others who view public participation as being merely a middle class tool. It is felt that such participation is not available to lower classes because they do not have the competence to participate effectively. The literature presenting this argument is reviewed in detail by Bromling (1976).
23 The concern that public participation will weaken the representative system is cited by: Lucas: 1977: pg. 49; Burton: 1977: pg. 15; Schatzow: 1977: pg. 151; and Perks: 1979: pg. 298.
2 * The power of non elected groups has been extensively documented. Some of the writers who have pointed to the declining influence of elected representatives include: Chapin and Deneau: 1978; Perks: 1979; Burton: 1977; and Lucas: 1977.
25 Hampton summarizes this position when he states,
"types of democracy lie along a continuum from representative to participatory in a manner that can be obscured by conventional bipolar analysis. We do not have either representative democracy or participatory democracy; we have a system which in its complexity is a mixture of both. The introduction of public participation techniques into the planning process implies a movement along the continuum from representative to participatory democracy" (1977: pg. 29).
26 The argument for devolution of authority is based on the need for direct interaction between the decision makers and the public. It is referred to by: Aleshire: 1970; Brydon: 1982; Friedman: 1973; Burton: 1977.
27 Benefits that decision makers anticipated are identified by the following writers: a) improved information—Heberlein: 1976; Farrell et al. : 1976; Williams: 1982; and Cullingworth: 1984. b) more creative solutions—Levine: 1965; Hampton: 1977; and Hodge and Hodge: 1977. c) reducing opposition and improving implemention—Heberlein: 1976; Levine: 1965; Cooley: 1979; Bregha: 1973; and Farrell et al.: 1976. d) educate—Thompson: 1979; and Farrell et al.: 1976. 220
28 Costs which decision makers anticipate are identified by the following writers: a) time and money—Aleshire: 1970; Thompson: 1979; Heberlein: 1976; Sewell and Coppock: 1977. b) unrealistic expectations (or expectation-delivery gap as some describe it)--Pross: 1975; McNiven: 1974; Aleshire: 1 970. c) nontechnical interference--Fagence: 1977; Corry: 1979, Cupps: 1977; Schatzow: 1977. d) radicals take over--Schatzow: 1977; Cupps: 1977. e) confusion about process--McNiven: 1974.
29 Alienation and a sense of powerlessness because of the complexity of modern institutions is cited by many as a reason for the increasing demands for public participation. Some of the writers who identify this factor are: D'Amore: 1977: pg. 99; Thompson: 1979: pg. 18; Coppock, 1977: pg. 207; Farrell et al.: 1 976.
30 The self esteem factor can be very important to individuals as Verba and Nie pointed out:
"under conditions of democratic norms one's self esteem is seriously damaged if one has all decisions made for him and does not participate in those that affect his own life. From some perspective, lack of ability to participate can imply lack of full membership within the system" (1977: pg. 5).
31 Costs and benefits described by Aleshire (1970) were:
costs benefits 1) time and money 1) participation as 2) inefficient decision making democratic right 3) promise-delivery gap 2) check & balance on 4) rational decision technocrats making suffers 3) forum for priority selling 5) problem of defining who 4) leadership development is the citizen 5) issue development 6) no protection for 6) create issue politics 'unrepresented' (future instead of personality politics generations, or large area 7) citizen as iconoclast interests) (test of 'assumptions' 7) demand for premature action about public desires) 8) need for technical 8) unifying planning skills to promote participation (social & physical structures) 9) conflict over choices
32 The most publicized attempt to establish a hierarchical view of public participation was Sherry Arnstein's "ladder of public participation" (1969). She started from the premise that public participation can be equated with citizen power, and ranked different approaches on the basis of how they contribute to (or 221
detract from) the creation of citizen power. Hampton provides a good critique of Arnstein's 'ladder'. He argues that such an hierarchical relationship is:
"singularly inappropriate in a discussion of public participation in planning. ... a public participation programme may contain elements from various parts of Arnstein's typology; and different actors in the process may be standing on different rungs. The resulting conflicts are part of the normal political process of reconciling the different objective of those participating and make it difficult to place any particular participation program within an hierarchical typology" (1977: pg. 32).
33 Arnstein's framework consists of eight levels of participation that she views as progressing from: the bottom level of manipulation (which is really nonparticipation); therapy; informing; consultation; placation; partnership; delegated power; and ultimately citizen control (or full citizen power) .
3 * The more elaborate frameworks described indicate the substantial variety that can occur in the ways in which public participation can be approached. Restricting the number of approaches to participation in this thesis will obviously disguise subtle factors. However, the focus of this thesis is quite specific. It deals with the ways in which public participation can be utilized, in rural planning, for areas that have minimal local control. With these limitations it is possible to discard the more elaborate approaches to public participation. In describing the general approaches to public participation that appear appropriate for such areas it must be emphasized that these should be seen as overlapping categories. Also while this thesis is concerned about the control in decision making for local problems that residents can achieve it does not imply that there will be any inevitable climb up, through the various approaches, to some pinnacle where 'citizen power' (as Arnstein uses the term) is achieved. It is distinctly possible that the level of resident control over decision making will vacillate greatly at various times, with the different issues and actors that may be involved.
35 This thesis refers to the need for open access to the decision making process because it has to be recognized that those individuals who wish to be involved are going to vary, depending on the issue and their particular interests. As McNiven stated, "the real question is not whether everyone is getting involved, or how many, but in making sure that everyone has some form of access to the decision making system when they so desire to have it" (1976: pg. 154). 222
36 Better decisions are not inevitable from public involvement. Data on local conditions is subject to individual interpretation, and is filtered through the preconceptions of the residents. As a result the information provided by residents may also contain inaccuracies. Furthermore, the values and desires of the residents may be short term and self-interested.
Notes on Chapter IV
37 This is the approach of those who advocate 'growth centres' and who claim that benefits will ultimately 'trickle down' to rural areas. This concept has come under increasing criticism, but still strongly influences the action of many government agencies. The 'trickle down' effect was described by Hirschman (1958). The same phenomena was described in more critical terms by Myrdal (1959) as the 'backwash' effect.
38 Runka points out that the strong emphasis on private property rights is not simple because rural people are adhering to the conservative principles of Jefferson. For rural residents there are practical reasons for emphasizing private property rights, "many regard rural land as their source of income, an inflation hedge, their saving account, part of the family history—and their own personal commodity. Obviously, any planning that interferes with these beliefs is bound to meet opposition" (1980: pg. 19).
39 Some of the writers who have documented the rural oppostions to planning are: Halverson: 1980; Runka: 1980; Nichols: 1967; Lassey: 1977; Ford: 1978; Nellis: 1980; Isberg: 1981; Getzels and Thurow: 1980; Hahn: 1970.
40 The importance of individual families is related to the large number of social interconnections that individuals have in rural communities (Martinez-Brawley: 1984); and the fact that rural society tends to be personalized (Sanders: 1977: pg. 122).
41 As Baer points out planning is so pervasive in modern society because our system is in a constant state of crisis, due to the "currently explosive rate of change [which] produces perturbations at intervals that are shorter than the relaxation time of our institutional system (1974: pg. 59). In order to achieve a more stable society Baer argues that it is necessary to be able to regulate the level of variety so it does not exceed the critical point. He sees planning as a "variety attenuator" (pg. 91) that can reduce the range of variety to the point it can be dealt with by the system.
42 The examples of successful rural self-help projects are limited, and therefore any optimism about this approach has to be very tentative. But some do exist: Hugh Bodmer has 223
documented the success of the Regional Resource Project in Alberta (1980); Thompson (1977), and Pell and Wisner (1981) document cases of rural community development activities; and Stinson (1979) describe how a rural community organized to provide social services.
43 Mannheim distinguishes between 'substantive' and 'functional' rationality, on that basis. Substantive planning would start by asking questions about 'what' and 'why' planning is going to occur; while functional planning accepts these basic questions as being givens, and starts with 'how' questions (from Friedman: Retracking America: pg. 30).
44 Self-help is one approach to community development. It emphasizes public participation because "it is the participation of people learning to do for themselves that distinguishes the self-help approach from others that assume people must be directed" (1982: pg. 268).
45 The Biddies argue that "the process of community development provide a promising means for the democratization of planning" (1965: pg. 155).
46 This thesis refers to rural planning in a general manner since it is the opinion of the author that the principles regarded for rural planning are applicable to all forms of rural planning. Qadeer subdivides rural planning into two categories: sectoral planning, to meet specific rural needs; and area development planning which is "addressed to the community as a whole and not to any one sector of a locality" (1979: pg. 113). However, even when these divisions are made he does not advocate a separate set of principles for each category.
47 Some of the writers who claim urban bias has influenced planning for rural areas include: Cherry: 1976; Cohen: 1977; Hahn: 1970; Hodge: 1976; Isberg: 1981; Lassey: 1977; Nellis: 1980; Dyballa et al.: 1981; and Lapping: 1981.
48 Matthews has reviewed DREE's efforts and his conclusion is that "the basic thrust of Canadian regional development has been directed towards phasing out rural areas and toward encouraging urbanization and industrialization" (1976: pg. 125).
49 An example of the preference of rural residents for social relations over physical services is Goudy: 1977.
50 The dangers of resource dependency are the basis of the Staples theory. A description of the implications of resource dependency for British Columbia is found in T. Gunton's 1981 Resources, Regional Development and Provincial Policy: A case study of British Columbia.
51 The concern about lack of local expertise is identified by: Swanson et al.: 1979; Dillman and Hobbs: 1982; Isberg: 1981; 224
Qadeer: 1979; and Dyballa et al.: 1981.
52 This sense of local pride has been documented in many of the sociological studies that have been done of small communities, including Vidich and Bensman: 1960; Mathews: 1976; Goudy: 1977; Haynes: 1979.
53 The persistence of rural values, and recent studies that support these claims was discussed in Chapter II.
54 Some examples documenting the personal orientation of rural residents are: Sanders: 1977; Qadeer: 1979; Stinson: 1979; and Dyballa et al.: 1981.
55 For the purpose of this thesis, 'external agencies' will include regional districts. For many unincorporated rural areas in B.C. a regional distict is their first tier of government (and is often described as local government). However, because the representation of rural areas on the Regional District Board is very slight, and the functions of the regional district are unclear for many rural residents, it is appropriate to describe the regional district as an external agency.
56 At the time of writing this thesis the B.C. government had tabled legislation in the Provincial Legislative. Assembly that would eliminate the mandatory aspect of settlement plans.
57 Cases when the public are involved to some extent in decision making include: Arnstein's (1969) description of situations where the public receive a degree of political control in a partnership, delegated power, and in rare occasions even as citizen control; Farrell et al. (1976) identify cases where residents can share in decision making through joint planning, delegated authority and self determinism; Bregha (1973) sees joint planning and delegated authority as feasible within the current political system.
58 The time factor in rural planning is cited by Dyballa et al. They claim:
"Work with rural local governments is a time consuming process . . . programs with tight time schedules run the risk of being counter productive if planners attempt to force action on issues" (1981: pg. 150).
This is also reflected by Friedman who argues that participant planning is "extraordinarily demanding of time" (1973: pg. 77).
Notes on Chapter V
59 Wilkinson, for example, states it is a 'fact that no one 225
controls the outcome of interaction in a social field" (1978: pg. 121).
60 Descriptions of how public participation can be used as therapy are provided by: Arnstein: 1969; Burke: 1968; and Farrell et al.: 1976.
61 The Biddies states,
"Basically, community development is a social process by which human beings can become more competent to live with, and gain some control over local aspects of a frustrating and changing world. It is a group method for expediting personality growth which can occur when geographic neighbours work together to serve their growing concept of the good of all" (1965: pg. 78).
An excellent short description of the process of community development, and a list of related literature, is contained in A. Stinson (ed.): 1979. Canadians Participate.
62 Within the general field of community development this is referred to as the 'technical assistance approach'. It assumes: a) someone knows something that another does not; b) someone decides that the potential recipient needs help; c) a provider-receiver relationship is established (Cramm and Fisher: 1980: pg. 49).
63 Powers and Moe point out that even many of those groups, such as environmental organizations, that profess an interest in rural areas are urban agrarians "with an urban political bias and a great diversity in motivation for 'helping' rural areas—not all of which turn out to be helpful from the perspective of those in rural areas" (1982: pg. 16).
64 Alinsky's concept of community organizing are described in his various handbooks for organizers, such as Rules for Radicals In Canada community organizing has been less frequently used, but was utilized, with varying degrees of success in the 1960's and early 1970's. An example of Canadian experience with community organizing is to be found in Keating: 1975. The Power to make it happen.
65 The term 'community building' refers to efforts to encourage people to learn to work together, to form strong personal ties between individuals within a geographic community, and to develop new skills and personal resources that will allow the public to have more control over their own lives.
66 Littrell defines the self help approach as "a process that assumes people can come together, examine their situations, design strategies to deal with various segments of their 226
surroundings and implement plans for improvement" (1980: pg. 19).
67 Examples of what community economic development corporations are, and can do, are provided in: Thompson: 1977. People do it all the time; and Pell and Wismers: 1981. Community profit.
68 This type of failure is demonstrated in the efforts that were made to make the affairs of local government subject to public scrutiny. The Municipal Act requires that all local government bodies must make their minutes and by-laws accessible to the public (as well as holding all their council meetings in public). But this public accessibility consists of maintaining a copy of the required material in the local government office where interested members of the public can come to examine it. Very few people are even aware of the existance of many of the materials that are officially designated as public documents, let alone their right to demand the opportunity to regularly examine them.
69 Farrell et al. (1976) provide an excellent summary of the various techniques that could be utilized to extend information to the public.
70 An example of how government utilizes this argument to resist public participation in planning is contained in Pross (1975) study of Nova Scotia.
71 This criticism is particularly likely to be considered a personal attack at local levels of government where politicians are often individuals who 'volunteer' due to a sense of civic responsibility. As T. O'Riordan observes,
"at the local level . . . many politicians see themselves as altruistic citizens . . . Citizen politicians feel indignant of vituperative public criticism and are especially distraught when criticism stems from a hard core of 'professional participatory citizens' who, while carrying none of the responsibilities of public office, still get much publicity over their allegations of political non-responsiveness" (1977: pg. 165).
72 Effect of this belief in individualism is described by: Guildford et al.: 1981; and the Rural Education and Development Association: 1979.
73 One example is the manual prepared on water resource planning by Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill (1979). It provides a step by step approach for a community to follow in planning for its water supply.
74 Lucas and Franson describe the frustration that the general 227
public experience when government departments act in a contradictory manner. They point to the situation in British Columbia where the Pollution Control Board was encouraging participation, and giving citizens access to its files; while other provincial departments were planning resource development projects in secret (1975: pg. 97).
75 Getzels and Thurow maintain that the same situation applies for planners,
"much of the work of technical assistance is accomplished through one's ability to search out available financial assistance. While many planners tend to reject this type of work in favour of traditional planning work, a rural planner must demonstrate considerable skill in 'grantsmanship'" (1980: pg. 11).
76 Some of the authors ' who cite a lack of political understanding as a failure of citizens groups are: Draper: 1977: pg. 37; Lucas: 1977: PG. 51; Chapin and Deneau: 1978: pg. 23; and Halverson: 1980: pg. 278.
77 Articles which refer to government's problem of determining who to consider the "affected public" include: Tyler: 1977; Haberlein: 1976; Williams: 1982; Wengert: 1971; and McNiven: 1 974.
78 A recommendation for an explicit policy will be seen as naive by those who argue that public policy is created in an incremental fashion. Undoubtedly many government decisions are made on an incremental basis; and even if there is a formal policy established there is no guarantee that it will not be overriden in the name of expediency. But there is reason to believe that a policy to identify the affected public could be created because of its utility to decision makers.
79 Other writers have identified skills within rural communities that could be utilized in the planning process. Some of those who advocate the use of these skills are: Robertson: 1980; Nellis: 1980; Williams: 1980.
80 This thesis used the terms monitoring and evaluation to mean: 1) monitoring--supervision of ongoing activities to ensure compliance with decisions that followed a planning exercise; 2) evaluation—examination of the effectiveness of the planning process for possible further modifications.
81 Some examples of SPARC'S activities include the following publications: 1975. Community realities; 1976. Survival in the seventies, organizational skills resource materials; and 1979. 228
Getting organized: Community education and citizen training project in British Columbia.
Notes on Chapter VI
82 The data obtained on the Island's history is a composite of information from a variety of sources. The most extensive 'history' of Texada was prepared by the Texada Centennial Committee in 1960. Their book, Texada, provides an extensive account of Texada from 1871 to 1960. Another valuable source of historical data was a videotape production entitled 'Texada Island Pioneers Night' that was produced by the Old Age Pensioners Organization with the technical facilities of Powell River Cable T.V. Company, and aired in June, 1983. Other sources include anecdotal information from personal interviews; the subcommittee reports prepared for the Texada- Planning Committee in 1976; and the Texada Island Proposed General Land Use Plan prepared by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs in 1973.
83 Earlier attempts to provide a comprehensive inventory of Texada's resources were:
i. Texada Island: Proposed General Land Use Plan, prepared by the Department of Municipal Affairs in 1973. While it was entitled a draft land use plan, it was really more an effort by the provincial government to compile an inventory for its own use.
i i. Approaches to Planning in the Powell River Regional District. This report was prepared by students from the University of British Columbia's School of Community and Regional Planning in 1974. This report dealt with the entire regional district but its information base included Texada Island.
iii. Texada. Provides a good description of the physical features of the Island—from a resident's point of view.
8" This figure for mining makes it the largest employer retirement is not viewed as an occupation. In the Texada survey 34.6% indicated they were retired!
85 Grilse Point was the site that Genstar Corporation proposed to use as a landfill site for garbage from the G.V.R.D. In view of its limited size, proximity to a highly productive marine area, and the difficulty that would occur in containing leachate (it is not a 'hole' as Genstar implied, but rather a flat bench), the idea of utilizing it to store garbage appears ludicrous. But as Texada Action Now (TAN) pointed out it is a strip of level land of approximately 12.8 acres that is adjacent to the waterfront (at an elevation of 15 ft.), something that 229
exists nowhere else in the Powell River Regional District, and making it highly desirable for future development. In addition it already has road access, electrical power to the site, and is located at the main harbour on Texada.
86 An example of the mine's productivity is provided in the Dept. of Municipal Affairs proposed land use plan. In 1971 the mine shipped: 542,479 tons of iron ore; 9,626 tons of copper concentrate; 56,916 ounces of silver; and 1,569 ounces of gold (197 3: pg. 17).
87 The implication of being in a Provincial Forest is that it is then more fully under the control of the B.C. Forest Service. Portions of the land can be removed for other purposes, at five year intervals, with forestry's approval, but in the interval Forestry has full management. The Provincial Forests are called integrated resources management areas in the Government's publications but it is made very clear that the principal objective is to manage these areas for timber production.
88 The rejection of tourism on account of the ugliness of the quarries' is interesting since one of the tourist attractions in Powell River is a tour of the pulp mill, which combines a unattractive industrial appearance with a particularly strong unpleasant odor.
89 Statements such as this were a fairly common reaction to questions about the relationship between Powell River and Texada. The language used was very similar in most cases (although some added a reference to clams and oysters) so it seems inappropriate to attribute this comment to any one individual — it is more of a local cliche.
90 The following retail and personal services are available on the Island. Vananda: Grocery store (general market) Var iety/hardware Service station Hairdresser Insurance/real estate office Hotel/cafe/lounge Post office Plumber Transport company Gillies Bay: Medical Clinic Bank Grocery store (general market) Stationary store Laundermat Service station Cafe/lounge Motel Liquor outlet Electrical contractor 230
91 During the 7 months of 1983 that the new terminal was in operation there were a total 2004 flights transporting 3400 people (Texada Island Lines, No. 3, Dec. 1, 1983).
92 This is the population estimate used by TAN in their material. A figure of 1500 has also been referred to by the Regional District. The recent census count was 1147 which would indicate a continued decline. However, there is a fairly high level of transients, and a number of squatters who are not particularly anxious to come to the attention of any official agency (even census enumerators). The population also fluctuates seasonally as 'summer residents' utilize their property on the Island.
93 Information on Ideal's plans comes from interviews with: K. Johnston, assistant manager of Ideal's operations and chairman of Texada Chamber of Commerce. OPC's plans were reported in the Powell River News, March 28, 1982 and August 15, 1984.
9 * At the present time the following subdivisions (legal or informal) are in progress: 1) Gillies Bay—a proposed subdivision of 12 lots at the head of the bay. It is being opposed by the Improvement District since the lots are too small, and there is not adequate provision for disposal of domestic sewage. 2) Cox's Lagoon--property owned by Aim Forests, which is proposed for development as a mobile home recreational subdivision. 3) Dyck Island--'informal' subdivision of a small islet immediately adjacent Shelter Point Regional Park. Because of its informal nature the number of units to be constructed is unknown. At present time an 1-1/4 water line is being installed to the islet. 4) Mouat Bay--proposed for a bare land strata subdivision. 5) Cook Bay--lots are currently being advertised a this site. The approximately 400 acres are being subdivided into lots of 10 acres. 6) Shelter Point Road--a small subdivision of 4 lots at 5 acres each is being completed. 7) J&G Logging--the road access for the Shelter Point subdivision is going to be utilized to create a subdivision of 20 lots. 8) Crescent Bay (Woodhead)--a small subdivision of six acreage lots has occurred. Development is complete and lots are on sale. 9) Crescent Bay (Acquarian)—a proposed subdivision was rejected and is expected to proceed on a partnership basis. 10) Sprague subdivision—a small subdivision of 8 acreage lots developed in 1981. Most of the lots have been sold and occupied.
95 This loss of control to summer residents was documented on Hornby Island by G. H. Lubkowski. 1972. A planning strategy for water supply: Hornby—a case study (M.A. thesis, University 231
of British Columbia).
96 There are currently two such 'nonsubdivisions' proceeding. Dyck Island, which is in the centre of the Shelter Point Park area is being developed by its owners. Since the Islet is a rock outcrop there is no way that subdivision could be allowed due to inadequate provisions for sewage. The owners will circumvent the subdivision regulations by selling partnerships instead of individual lots. The other development is Acquarian Company at Crescent Bay. Again subdivision was refused on technical grounds, but will proceed informally.
Notes on Chapter VII
97 This the claim that Robert Williams makes in his evaluation of the Ministry of Forests' public involvement program (1982: pg. 4).
98 The Provincial Forest system has been described in a number of publications issued by the Forest Service and the Ministry of Lands, Parks, and Housing, including Establishing Provincial Forests and Provincial Forests: Multiple Use of B.C.'s Forests and Range Resources.
99 Even without a Provincial Forest designation the Forest Service are able, by lobbying with the Ministry of Lands, Parks, and Housing, to strongly influence land use decisions for the area (interviews: Whitehorn, August 9, 1983, and Sorken, August 17, 1983).
100 Logging on Texada is seen as being competitive, despite the poor quality timber, because operating costs are cheaper on the Island. The current assessment by Forestry officials is that there is sufficient timber to sustain existing operators. No conflicts are foreseen for the next 20 years. Even then the problem will not be a shortage, but rather unequal access to timber by operators.
101 Details on Powell River Forest District operations and planning program were obtained in interviews with J. Coulter and S. Whitehorn, August 9, 1983.
102 Representatives of the Forest Service and Regional District reported their personal satisfaction with the level of consultation and co-operation (interviews with Whitehorn, August 9, 1983, and Ladret, July 12, 1983).
103 While 'significant' is an imprecise description of the extent of Forestry's program it was the descriptive adjective used by Forest Service officials. There were no actual dollar values available for what had been spent on Texada since the funding is identified for the District's operations and Texada 232
is only one component of the district. The silvaculture that has occurred on Texada includes spacing, planting, and fertilizing programs.
10a When the Texada Island Proposed General Land Use Plan is compared against the form and content recommended for official settlement plans in the Ministry's 1979 Technical Guide for the Preparation of Official Settlement Plans (pg. 15-21) it is hard to detect any significant difference.
105 Some developments, such as the subdivision southeast of Gillies Bay are consistent with the recommendations in the document. But disposal of Lot 289 in Vananda to a private individual was in conflict with the recommendation that this lot be reserved as a picnic and park site. The 1976 sale of lots along the highway near Cranby Lake also conflicted with strong recommendations against ribbon development, and the need to protect community watersheds.
106 By themselves none of the population centres on Texada are large enough to form an effective community. Co-operation between all centres is necessary to provide basic community facilities and organizations. For that reason they are best viewed as 'rural neighbourhoods' in the way that Warren used the term:
"Students of the rural community have also found an additional social unit between the individual family and the community—the rural neighbourhood. Typically with a place name known to its inhabitants, the neighbourhood covers a smaller area than the community, and while it does not have an extensive complement of institutional services it may have one or a few of them" (1963: pg. 23).
107 Sorken indicated that Lands Branch receives one inquiry about availability of land on Texada approximately every two weeks. Most of these requests, and formal applications are for a very specific area, crown land in the vicinity of Shelter Point (adjacent to Harwood Regional Park), and end of pavement.
108 The Regional District's planning policy was the subject of considerable criticism. A petition was submitted to the Minister of Municipal Affairs by District representatives. A submission was made by the Texada Island Advisory Planning Commission to the Select Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs, complaining about the policy's "ecofreak" bias and the unrepresentative nature of the proposed environmental protection committee (A Planning & Development Policy for Texada Island. Presented to the Select Standing Committee on Municipal Matters and Housing, July 18, 1974). Individual representatives for various mining and forestry interests pointed out to the Board that their proposed policy was ultra vires when it proposed that 233
mining or forestry activities would require land use permits from the Regional District. J. Parr, Gulf Island Trust, informed the Board that her "general impression is that the by-law is somewhat naive" (letter to Regional District, July 4, 1975).
109 Planning a strategy to cope with the mine's closure, and the Island's economic future would have been a great help. But the planning process underway was not viewed by the planner as being 'development planning'. The emphasis was, on the compilation of a conventional land use plan which would conform to the provisions of the Municipal Act's requirement for an official settlement plan. As Ladret indicated (interview, August 4) the Regional District views planning for economic development as the responsibility of other agencies—such as the Powell River Economic Development Commission.
110 Baker claims that a common co-optive mechanism that government agencies use in rural areas is to formally appoint committees that are unrelated to the community political system (1971: pg. 90).
111 An expression of the concern over the 'pushing' by the planner was expressed by B. Wells who stated "the Regional District was in a big panic to have it done" (interview, August 23) .
112 The Regional District, in response to requests from individual residents, initiated a by-law to protect the Vananda Watershed in 1977. The by-law proposed to regulate the construct of residential dwellers adjacent to the lakes which constitute Vananda's water supply. When the by-law was submitted to a public hearing the affected property owners attended and strongly opposed the infringement on what they saw as their rights. In the face of this opposition the by-law was withdrawn. The issue presumably would have been dealt with in a comprehensive way in the settlement plan.
113 In fact the Regional District initiated planning for a Texada Settlement Plan in March 1984. It is following the same format as the 1976 episode, but the Planning Committee was to be structured in a way that ensures representation from all areas of the Island, and from all the influential groups of the Island.
114 The Lasqueti Island Official Community Plan was adopted in 1976. It describes the process by which planning was initiated,
"The people of Lasqueti Island, concerned with the impact of increased population and development on the atmosphere and ecology of the island and the surrounding waters, have found it desirable to create a community plan that will preserve and protect the island by stating some clear but general guidelines 234
for its future" (pg. 1).
115 Some of these interviewed who specifically referred to earlier examples of group action were: Wells, Childress, L. Diggon, and Cawthorpe.
116 For purposes of simplicity this thesis refers to 'Genstar Corporation' as 'Genstar'. This should be considered as an abbreviation for Genstar Conservation Systems, a wholly owned subsidiary of Genstar Corporation. It is the parent company who controls quarries on Texada Island. It also directly controls Seaspan International Ltd. which would barge the garbage to Texada.
117 Legal preparations had included retaining a lawyer and obtaining a financial commitment of $15,000 from the Powell River Regional District to provide funding for a legal battle.
118 Writers who identify the tendency for rural communities to see themselves a unique and superior to neighbouring communities include: Vidich and Bensman (1960: pg. 30-31); Farrell et al. (1976: pg. 3); and Biddle and Biddle (1965: pg. 77).
119 These arguments were presented at the T.A.N, meeting on May 29 when a motion was passed to provide some financial assistance to a graduate student who was prepared to do a thesis on the subject of planning for Texada's water resources. The public were also urged to fully co-operate with the student research projects since this was an opportunity to have some input.
120 T.A.N, in May 1983 attempted to gain support for the establishment of a park, and the preservation of other recreational areas. Concern was expressed about the rapidly diminishing number of public areas that were available to residents for recreational use.
121 The educational budget cut-back resulted in the closure of the Gillies Bay school in June, and the consolidation of all grades at Vananda with all high school children being ferried to Powell River. T.A.N, has become involved in activities initiated by parents to prevent the cut in educational services on the Island.
122 Tne current dispute over a hazardous waste dump near Ashcroft is an illustration. Another recently reported case from Oxford, Ontario, bears many similarities to the Texada case. In that case a hamlet (Salford) and the Township that represents it have been locked in a legal battle with the County of Oxford over a new landfill site near Salford. The Township has argued that "the geology was so complex that hydrological predictions were unreliable. There was a risk of contamination to wells, ponds, recharging areas, and aquafiers that the Board could not accept" (Municipal World, Sept. 1983, pg. 226). 235
123 Powell River Regional District utilizes a population of 2,000 as a voting unit. Representation is then determined on the following basis:
Population Votes Directors ('76 census)
District of Powell River 13,674 Electoral district A (Malaspina) 786 Electoral district B (Powell River) 1 ,006 Electoral district C (Southview) 1 ,848 Electoral district D (Texada) 1 ,409 Electoral district E (Lasqueti) 258
The formula for calculating the number of votes and number of Directors is contained in the Municipal Act, sec. 770. It provides: a) number of votes is obtained by dividing the population by the voting unit, and where the resulting quotient is not an integer using the next highest integer b) number of directors is obtained by dividing the number of votes by five, and where resulting quotient is not an integer using the next highest c) no director shall have more than 5 votes.
124 During the 1983 confrontation with Genstar several Islanders blamed the residents' apathy for the earlier planning failure, including: Childress (T.A.N, meeting minutes, May 29); and H. Diggon (interview: July 25). The Regional District also argues that Texada residents were opposed to planning, and cited the 1976 failure as an indication of their apathy (interview: Ladret, July 12).
Notes on Chapter VIII
125 Richards and Pratt (1979) provide an excellent summary of the history of Canadian and American populism. However, rural tendencies to support populist movements should not be dismissed as simply a historical phenomena. The creation of groups like the Farm Survival Movement attest to its continuing appeal. Halverson also observed in his study of rural B.C. that people had a
"populist consciousness at once suspicious of government, yet reliant on and expecting government to deliver up immediate material prosperity. We have a history of government by populists who are willing to sacrifice long term policy to deliver short term tangibles" (1980: pg. 373). 236
126 Some of the studies that stress the rural belief in 'rugged individualism' are Rural Education and Development Association: 1979; Vidich and Bensman: 1960; Gilford, Nelson and Ingram: 1981; and Blackwood and Carpenter: 1978.
127 Typical of the 'citizen power' proponents are: Arnstein, who states "participation with redistribution of power is an empty and frustrating process for the powerless" (1969: pg. 216); and Keating, who states public participation efforts are futile as long as the "main ingredient—the power to decide--is still where it always was, with the government" (1976: pg. 36). 237
LITERATURE CITED
Alberta Department of the Environment. 1982. "Report on public participation conference". Edmonton, Alta.
Aleshire, Robert. 1970. Planning and citizen participation: costs, benefits and approaches. Urban Affairs Quarterly.
Alinsky, Saul. 1971. Rules for radicals. New York: Random House.
Arnstein, Sherry. 1969. "A ladder of citizen participation". American Institute of Planners (AIP) Journal 35: 216-224.
Axworthy, L. 1979. "The politics of urban populism: A decade of reform". In Urban and regional planning in a federal state: The Canadian experience. Edited by W. Perks and I. Robinson. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutinson and Ross.
Baker, William. 1971. "Community development in changing rural society". In Citizen participation: Canada. Edited by James Draper. Toronto: New Press.
Beale, Calvin. 1978. "People on the land". In Rural USA: Persistence and change, pp^_. . Edited by T. Ford. Ames: Iowa State University Press.
Beer, Stafford. 1974. Designing freedom. Toronto: CBC Publicat ions.
Biddle, William and Biddle, Loureide. 1965. The community development process: The rediscovery of local initiative. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.
Blackwood, Larry and Carpenter, Edwin. 1978. "The importance of anti-urbanism in determining residential preferences and migration patterns". Rural Sociology 43: 31.-47.
Bodmer, Hugh. 1980. "Regional resources project no. 1: An innovative approach to economic and social development". Plan Canada 20/2 (January 1980): pg. 81-90.
Booher, David E. 1974. "A theory of participatory planning". M.S. thesis. University of Tennessee.
Bousfield Associates. 1976. Citizen participation in the preparation of municipal plans. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Housing, Planning Act Review Committee.
Bowles, Roy. 1982. Little communities and big industrie. Toronto: Butterworth. 238
Bregha, Francis. 1977. "Further directions for public participation in Canada". In Involvement and environment vol. 1: Proceedings of Canadian Conference on Public Participation, pp. 120-126. Edited by B. Sadler. Edmonton: Environment Council of Alberta.
Bregha, Francis. 1973. Public participation in planning policy and programme. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Cultural and Recreation.
Brinkman, G. 1974. "The condition and problems of nonmetropolitan America". In The development of rural America. Edited by G. Brinkman. Lawrence KS: University Press of Kansas.
Bromling, Alvin I. 1970. "Resident participation in rural development: A comparative analysis of the Alberta experience". M.A. thesis. University of Alberta.
Brydon, Kenneth. 1982. "Public input into policy-making and administration: The present situation and some requirements for the future". Canadian Public Administration 25/1: 81-107.
Burke, Edmund. 1968. "Citizen participation strategies". Journal of the American Institute of Planners 34: 287-294.
Burton, A. W. and Johnson, R. 1976. Public participation in planning: A review of experience in Scotland. Glasgow: The Planning Exchange. Burton, Thomas. 1977. "A review and analysis of Canadian cases in public participation". Involvement and environment Vol. II: Proceedings of Canadian Conference on Public Partieipation, pp. 3-16. Edmonton: Environment Council of Alberta.
Canadian Council on Rural Development. 1969. Rural Canada 1970: Prospects and problems. Ottawa: Queen's Printer.
Canham, R. 1979. Citizen involvement strategies in community growth issues. Western Regional Extension Publication, no. 21. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Western Rural Development Center.
Chapin, Henry and Deneau, Denis. 1978. Citizen involvement in public policy-making: Access and the policy making process. Ottawa: Canadian Council on Social Development.
Chekki, D. 1979. "A prolegomena to community development and planned change". In Chekki, D. (ed.), Community development: Theory and method of planning change, (pg. 3-26). New Delhi, India: Vikas Publishing House. 239
Cherry, Gordon E. (ed.). 1976. Rural planning problems. London: Leonard Hill.
Christenson, James. 1982. "Community development". In Dillman, D. and Hobbs, D. (eds.), Rural society in the U.S.: Issues for the 1980s. Boulder: Westview Press.
Christiansen-Ruffman, Linda and Stuart, Barry. 1977. "Actors and processes in citizen participation: Negative aspects of reliance on professionals". In Sadler, B. (ed.), Involvement and environment vol. I: Proceedings of Canadian Conference on Public Participation^ (pg. 77-119). Edmonton: Environment Council of Alberta.
Cohen, Richard. 1977. "Small town revitalization planning: Case studies and a critique". Journal of the American Institute of Planners 43/1 (January 1977): 3-12.
Cooley, Nancy. 1979. "The Britanna Services Centre: A lesson in participatory planning and design". In Perks, W. and Robinson, I. (ed.), Urban and regional planning in a federal state: The Canadian experience, (pg. 338). Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutinson, and Ross.
Coppock, J. T. 1977. "Postscript". In Sewell, D. and Coppock, J. (eds.), Public participation in planning. London: Wiley.
Correy, J. D. 1979. "Sovereign people or sovereign government". In Kroeker, H. V. (ed.), Sovereign people of sovereign governments. Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy.
Coughenour, M. and Busch, L. 1978. "Alternative futures for rural America: The cloudy crystal ball". In Ford, T. (ed.), Rural U.S.A.: Persistence and change. Ames: Iowa State University Press.
Cramm, Larry and Fisher, Frederick. 1980. "The technical assistance approach". In Christenson, J. and Robinson, J. (ed.), Community development in America, (pg. 48-63). Ames: Iowa State University Press.
Creighton, James L. 1981. The public involvement manual. Cambridge, MA: Abt Books.
Cullingworth, J. Barry. 1984. Canadian planning and public and participation, Research paper no. 148, Centre for Urban and Community Studies. Toronto: Centre for Urban and Community Studies, University of Toronto.
Cupps, Stephen. 1977. "Emerging problems of citizen participation". Public Administration Review37: 478-486. 240
D'Amore, Louis J. 1977. "St. John 1986: An experiment in anticipatory democracy". In Sadler, B. (ed.), Involvement and environment vol. II: Proceedings of Canadian Conference on Public Participation, (pg. 99-110). Edmonton: Environment Council of Alberta.
Dahms, Fred. 1983. "Wroxeter, Ontario: The anatomy of a "dying" village". Small town 14/2 (September-October 1983): 17-23.
Downs, Anthony. 1972. "Up and down with ecology—the 'issue-attention cycle'". The Public Interest 28 (pg. 38-50).
Draper, James. 1977. "Evolution of citizen participation in Canada". In Sadler, B. (ed.), Involvement and environment vol. I: Proceedings of Canadian Conference on Public Participation(pg. 26-42). Edmonton: Environment Council of Alberta.
Dyballa, Cynthia, Raymond, L. S., and Hahn, Alan J. 1981. The Tug Hill program: A regional planning option for rural areas. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.
Elder, P. S. 1975. "The participatory environment in Alberta". In Elder, P. S. (ed.), Environmental management and public participation. Toronto: Canadian Environmental Law Research Foundation.
Ellul, Jacques. 1964. The technological society. New York: Vintage Books.
Ford, Thomas. 1978. "Contemporary rural America: Persistence and change". In Ford, T. (ed.), Rural USA: Persistence and change. Ames: Iowa State University Press.
Fagence, Michael. 1977. Citizen participation in planning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Farrell, G. M. , Melin, J. P. and Stacey, S. 1976. Involvement: A Saskatchewan perspective.
Friedmann, John. 1973. Retracking America. Emmaus, PA: Rodale Press.
Friedmann, John. 1973. "The public interest and community participation: Toward a reconstruction of public policy". Journal of the American Institute of Planners (January 1973): 2-7.
Fuller, A. and Starr, M. (ed.). 1977. The changing rural community: Problems and goals. Proceedings of a workshop series. Publication No. 1. Guelph: Rural Development Outreach Project, University of Guelph. 241
Getzels, Judith and Thurow, Charles (eds.). 1980. Rural and small town planning. Chicago: American Planning Assoc iation.
Gilford, Dorothy, Nelson, Glen, and Ingram, Linda. 1981. Rural America in passage: Statistics for policy. Washington: National Academy Press.
Goudy, Willis. 1977. "Education of local attributes and community satisfaction in small towns". Rural sociology 43: 371-381 .
Gunton, T. I. 9181. Resources, regional development and provincial policy: A case study of British Columbia, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives no. 7. n.p.
Hahn, Alan. 1970. "Planning in rural areas". Journal of the- American Institute of Planners 36/1 (January 1970): 44-49.
Halverson, Douglas. 1980. "Local planning for rural British Columbia: Responding to the metropolis". In In search of place (pg. 368-382). Proceedings of Canadian Institute of Planners National Conference 1980. Kingston, Ont.
Hampton, William. 1977. "Research into public participation in structure planning". In Sewell, D. and Coppock, J. (eds.,), Public participation in planning, (pg. 27-42). London: Wiley.
Hoynes, Alan. 1979. "Western voices: Socio-economic development viewed by community leaders". Proceedings of the Rural Development Forum, Alberta. Edmonton, Alta: Rural Education and Development Association.
Heberlein, Thomas. 1976. Principles of public involvement, Staff paper series in rural and community development, n.p.: Co-operative Extension Programs, University of Wisconsin.
Hirschman, Albert. 1958. "Interregional and international transmission of economic growth". In Friedmann, J. and Alonso, W.(eds.), Regional policy: Readings in theory and application(pg. 139-157 ) . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hodge, G. D. and Qadeer, M. A. 1983. Towns and villages in Canada: The importance of being unimportant. Toronto: Butterworths.
Hodge, Gerald. 1982a. "Vital small Canadian towns challenge image of decline". Small town (January/February 1982): 4-6. 242
Hodge, Gerald. 1982b. "Canadian small town renaissance: Implications for settlement system concepts". Regional studies 17/1: 19-28.
Hodge, Gerald. 1981. "The citification of small towns: A challenge to planning". Plan Canada 21/2 (June 1981): 43-47.
Hodge, Gerald. 1976. Planning for small communities , Background paper no. 5. Toronto: Planning Act Review Committee, Ministry of Housing.
Hodge, Patricia and Hodge, Gerald. 1977. "Comparisons of public participation in environmental planning at three levels of government in eastern Ontario". In Sadler, B. (ed.), Involvement and Environment vol. II: Proceedings of Canadian Conference on Public Participation (pg. 340-351). Edmonton, Alta: Environment Council of Alberta.
Isberg, Gunnar. 1981. "Toward a rural planning approach for evolving communities". Small town (September/October 1981): 15-18.
Keating, Donald. 1976. The power to make it happen: Mass based community organizing. Toronto: Green Tree Publishing.
Lapping, Mark. 1981. A conceptual premise for rural planning: Duildinq a theory for action. Paper presented at 2nd Annual Canadian Rural Social Work Forum, Thunder Bay, Ontario, April, 1981.
Larson, Olaf. 1978. "Values and beliefs of rural people". In Ford, T. (ed.), Rural USA: Persistence and change. Ames: Iowa State University Press.
Lash, Harry. 1977. Planning in a human way, Urban prospects series. n.p.: Ministry of State for Urban Affairs.
Lassey, William. 1977. Planning in rural environments. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lewis, G. J. 1979. Rural communities: A social geography. London: David & Charles.
Levine, Aaron. 1965. "People and the plan". Community planning review 15/1: 17-26.
Littrell, Don. 1980. "The self-help approach". In Christenson, J. and Robinson, J. (eds.), Community development in America (pg. 64-72). Ames: Iowa State University Press. 243
Lubkawski, G. H. 1972. "A planning strategy for water supply: Hornby--a case study". M.A. thesis, University of British Columbia.
Lucas, Alastair. 1977. "Fundamental prerequisites for citizen participation". In Sadler, B. (ed.), Involvement and environment vol. I: Proceedings of Canadian Conference on Public Participation (pg. 43-76). Edmonton: Environment Council of Alberta.
Lucas,A. L. and Franson, R. T. 1975. "Environmental decision making in British Columbia". In Elder, P. S. (ed.), Environmental management and public participation. n.p.: Canadian Environmental Law Research Foundation.
Manzer, Audrey. 1979. "Dartmouth Lakes Advisory Board 'commentary'". In Sadler, B. (ed.), Public participation in environmental decision making: strategies for change (pg. 31-33). Edmonton: Environment Council of Alberta.
Martinez-Brawley, Emilia. 1984. "Working with the local community". Small town 14/5 (March/April 1984): 14-21.
Matthews, Ralph. 1976. There's no better place than here: Social change in three Newfoundland communities. Toronto: Peter Martin.
McNiven, J. D. 1974. Evaluation of the public participation programme embodies in the Prince Edward Island Development Plan. Halifax: Institute of Public Affairs, Dalhousie University.
McRae, James D. 1980. The influence of exurbanite settlement on rural areas: A review of the Canadian literature, Working paper no. 3. n.p.: Lands Directorate of Environment Canada.
Milne, Claudia. "Farming community meets planners". Community planning review 24/6 (June 1974): 3-6.
British Columbia. Ministry of Forests. 1982. Public involvement handbook. Victoria: Ministry of Forests.
Morley, J. T., Ruff, N. J., Swainson, N. A., Wilson, R. J., and Young, W. D. 1983. The reins of power: Governing British Columbia. Vancouver: Douglas & Mclntyre.
"The anguish of Oxford". Municipal World. September 1983, pg. 226.
Myrdal, Gunnar. 1959. Economic theory and under-developed regions. New York: Harper and Row. 244
Nellis, Lee. 1980. "Planning with rural values". Small Town (May/June 1980): 20-24.
Nicholls, William. 1967. Views on rural development in Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Council on Rural Development.
Northwest Study Conference. 1982. Development or underdevelopment: Our future or theirs? Terrace: Northwest Study Conference.
O'Riordan, Timothy. 1977. "Citizen participation in practice: Some dilemmas and possible solutions". In Sadler, B. (ed.), Involvement and environment vol. I: Proceedings of Canadian conference on Public Participation. Edmonton: Environment Council of Alberta.
Paris, Jacques, 1975. "Citification: Prospecting a new concept". Plan Canada 15: 134-141.
Pell, David and Wismer, Susan. 1981. Community profit: Community-based economic development in Canada. Toronto: Is Five Press.
Perks, William. 1979. "Public participation". In Perks, W. and Robinson, I. (eds.), Urban and regional planning in a federal state: The Canadian experience. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutinson, and Ross.
Polsby, Nelson. 1980. Community power & political theory. 2nd ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Powers, R. and.Moe, E. 1982. "The policy context for rural-oriented research. In Dillman, Donald and Hobbs, Daryl (eds.), Rural society in the U.S.: Issues for the 1980s. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Project Planning Associates. 1968. Planning for smaller towns: A report on methods of preparing Municipal Plans in small towns. n.p.: Department of Municipal Affairs, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Pross, Paul. 1975. Planning and development: A case of two Nova Scotia communities. Dalhousie: Institute of Public Affairs.
Qadeer, Muhammad. 1979. "Issues and approaches of rural community planning in Canada". Plan Canada 19/2: 106-121.
Richards, J. and Pratt, L. 1979. Prairie capitalism: Power and influence in the New West. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart.
Robertson, Marvin. 1980. "David and Goliath: Small town renewal". Small town (January/February 1980): 12-14. 245
Rubin, Dan. 1983. "Inter-Island Alliance supports the Trust". The islands 1/3 (December 1983): 2.
Runka, Gary. 1980. "Planning for rural land". In search of place (pg. 14-24). Proceedings of Canadian Institute of Planners National Conference 1980. Kingston, Ont.
Rural Education and Development Association. 1979. Proceedings of the Rural Development Forum, Alberta. Council on Rural Development Canada.
Sadler, Barry. 1979. "Public Participation and the planning process: Intervention and integration". Plan Canada 19/1: 15-24.
Sanders, Irwin. 1977. Rural society. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Schatzow, Steven. 1977. "The influence of the public on federal environment decision making in Canada". In Sewell, D. and Coppock, J. (eds.), Public participation in planning (pg. 203-208). London: Wiley.
School of Community and Regional Planning. 1974. Approaches to planning in the Powell River Regional District. Vancouver: University of British Columbia.
Sewell, D. and Coppock, J. 1977. "A perspective on public participation in planning". In Sewell, D. and Coppock, J. (eds.), Public participation in planning (pg. 1-14). London: Wiley.
Skidmore, Owings and Merrill. 1979. A guidebook: Community planning for water resources management. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Water Research and Technology.
Slocan Valley Community Forest Management Committee. 1974. Final Report: Slocan Valley Community Forest Management Project. n.p.
Smith, Frederick. 1980."The environment". In Woodruff, A. (ed.), The farm and the city: Rivals or allies? Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Stinson, A. 1979. "North Frontenac community services: Case study of a rural community service centre". In Wharf; Brian (ed.), Community work in Canada (pg. 87-128). Toronto: McClelland and Stewart.
Stinson, A. (ed.). 1979. Canadians participate. Ottawa: Centre for Social Welfare, Carleton University. 246
Stinson, A. (ed.). 1975. Citizen action: An annotated bibliography of Canadian case studies. Ottawa: Community Planning Association of Canada.
Stohr, Walter and Taylor, Fraser (ed.). 1981. Development fro above or below? New York: Wiley.
Swanson, B., Cohen, R. and Swanson, E. 1979. Small towns and small towners: A framework for survival and growth. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Texada Island: Proposed general land use plan. 1973. Victoria: Department of Municipal Affairs, Government of British Columbia.
Texada Centennial Committee. 1960. Texada. Powell River, B.C.: Powell River News.
Thompson, A. R. 1979. "A disciplined framework for public participation". In Sadler, B. (ed.), Public participation in environmental decision making: Strategies for change (pg. 15-30). Edmonton: Environment Council for Alberta.
Thompson, Rollie. 1977. People do it all the time, Urban prospectus series. n.p.: Ministry of State for Urban Affairs.
Tyler, E. J. 1977. "Planning public participation". In Sadler, B. (ed.), Involvement and environment vol.11: Proceedings of Canadian Conference on Public Participation (pg. 17-22) . Edmonton: Environment Council of Alberta.
Tweeton, Luther and Brinkman, George. 1976. Micropolitan development: Theory and practice of greater rural economic development. Ames: Iowa State University Press.
Verba, Sidney and Nie, Norman. 1972. Participation in America: Political democracy and social equality. New York: Harper and Row.
Vidich, A. and Bensman, J. 1960. Small town in mass society: Class, power and religion in a rural community. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
Warren, Roland. 1963. The community in America. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Wengert, Norman. 1971. "Public participation in water planning: A critique of theory, doctrine and practice". Water resources bulletin 7/1: 26-32.
White, Randall. 1984. "Metropolis without growth in southern Ontario". Municipal World 94/1 (January 1984): 3-6. 247
Wilkinson, K. 1978. "Rural community change". In Ford, T. (ed.), Rural USA: Persistence and change. Ames: Iowa State University Press.
Williams, Robert. 1982. Proposed handouts—public involvement in strategic planning. Internal document. n.p.: Ministry of Environment.
Williams, William. 1980. "Strategies for growing up small". Small town (July/August 1980): 8-19.
Willits, F., Bealer, R. and Crider, D. 1982. "Persistence of rural/urban differences". In Dillman, Donald and Hobbs, Daryl (eds.), Rural Society in the U.S.: Issues for the 1980s. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Wilson, J. W. 1973. People in the way: The human aspects of the Columbia River project. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Wolfe, J. and Fuller, A. 1978. More effective rural development through public participation in rural planning. Unpublished paper presented to the Conference on Attitudinal and Behavioral Changes in Rural Life, Lincoln, Nebraska, April 1978.
Youman, Russell. 1983. Factors that influence rural development: The state of the art. Corvallis, OR: Western Rural Development Centre, Oregon State University. 248
APPENDIX A - INTERVIEWS RELATED TO CASE STUDY
The following individuals were interviewed in conjunction with planning activities on Texada Island:
Name Residence Involvement
Barclay, J. H, Gillies Bay Board Member, Gillies Bay Improvement District
Pres., T.A.N. Cawthorpe, J. Vanada Pres., Texada Residents and Ratepayers Association
Vice-Pres., T.A.N. Childress, C. Gillies Bay Chairman, Vanada Improvement District Member, Texada Parks Board Regional Director, Electoral area E (as of Oct. 1983)
Coulton, J. Powell River B.C. Forest Service officer
Diggon, H. Gillies Bay Assistant Manager, Ideal Basic Industries Quarry Chairman, Texada Chamber of Commerce Member, 1976 Texada Planning Committee
Diggon, L. Gillies Bay Former member, Gillies Bay Improvement District Member, 1976 Texada Planning Committee
Fogarty, F. Powell River Regional planner PRRD, 1974-80
Johnson, K. Texada Regional Director, Electoral (rural) area E, 1976-83 Chairman, 1976 Texada Planning Committee Former manager, Ideal Quarry
Klein, W. Gillies Bay Member, 1976 Texada Planning Committee 249
Name Residence Involvement
Ladret, F. Powell River Regional Planner PRRD, 1980- Assistant planner 1973-80
Prime, K. Gillies Bay Former employee, Texada Iron Mines
Quin, A. L. Victor ia Senior planner, Dept. of Municipal Affairs, prepared 1973 Proposed Land Use Plan
Sorken, L. Vancouver Official in Lands Branch, responsible for Texada crown land administration
Spraques, D. Texada Directors, T.A.N. & E. (rural)
Turner, B. Gillies Bay Chairman, Gillies Bay Improvement District Director, T.A.N. Foreman, Dept. of Highways, Texada Crew
Wells, B. Vananda Member, 1976 Texada Planning Committee
Whitehorn, S. Powell River B.C. Forest Service District 250
APPENDIX B - PLANNING POLICY FOR POWELL RIVER REGIONAL DISTRICT
Under the Municipal Act one of the prime responsibilities of this Regional Board is to move into the field of planning and Land Use. It is timely that we should now agree on a direction and a policy in keeping with the desires of the people of the area. We should also set about drawing up legislation which will put teeth into this policy and offer the needed protection.
At our last Board meeting we had urgent appeals for protection from the people of both Lund and Lasqueti Island who feel threatened by pending major impact developments in their districts.
At present we have no legislation that can offer them any help whatever.
The Provincial Government also expect us to adopt a Regional Plan. Such a plan would be a general scheme without detail for the projected use of land within the Regional District. The question is, therefore, how should our Board respond to these needs. The nature of our response will decide whether or not we are going to let ourselves in for the same problems which have devastated the ecologies of other relatively unspoiled and unpolluted districts.
NOW, developers tend to move secretly. Spring Bay development on Lasqueti island was being worked on before it had government approval and was finally approved without so much as a public hearing. Studies carried out last year indicated that the environment of Lasqueti is now approaching its carrying capacity for human population. There is no room for the type of development that breaks up the land to sell houses clustered along the shore and, by means of advertising campaigns, fills these houses with people. Pressure generated by large subdivisions and other industrial development could rapidly cause complete degeneration of existing rural society and culture of Lasqueti. Some examples: four developments are being planned for the island. The one at Spring Bay is already approved. At present sixty one and two acre lots are mapped along the margin of the waterfront. It's possible that more will be created in the interior of the development.
THE URGENCY & THE DANGER
Another proposal by another company would fill the area between False Bay and Johnson's Lagoon with seventy to ninety one third to one half acre lots. A syndicate of thirty five doctors has bought the old Schumack Farm on the west end of the island with an eye to development. Another development threatens to concentrate a high population density around Lennie's Lagoon--not merely famous for its shellfish and clear, unpolluted waters, but also a nesting place for bald eagles. 251
Only ten or twelve houses to the best of our knowledge, but as yet the owner's plans are indeterminate. As things stand today, no permit is required from the Regional Board for any of these procedures, nor have we any control over these projects.
We have used the example of Lasqueti because it is a particularly fragile island ecology with certain life-styles and social economies which we feel are resources to be conserved, as is the land itself.
We know that early speculative development could have a devastating effect upon the realisation of the potential of this area. Coming closer to home, the urban sprawl that threatens Paradise Valley and Claridge Road today may already be gobbling up areas that by now should have been reserved as green belt areas surrounding the municipality of Powell River. Without proper land use controls and policy, the normal expectation for this area is that growth will be haphazard, sporadic — represent ing short term values with little taste or skill. Subdivision and development will slowly force nature to recede to be replaced by growing islands of housing and industry. These will in time coalesce into a mass of low-grade urban tissue having eliminated all natural beauty, diminished rare excellences, both modern and historic. The opportunity for the real alternative of rural life will recede again, for town and country dweller alike, to a more distant place, up the coast and to a future generation.
The process has an air of inevitability. The Province abounds in examples: Savary Island, the Fraser Valley—even Sechelt.
THE NEED
Ours is a beautiful inheritance; a serious responsibility; an area threatened; a challenge and an opportunity. Almost a thousand square miles including the peninsula and the islands containing clean lakes, superb recreation and shellfish beaches, great sweeping valleys, wooded ridges and plateaus, an intricate pattern of streams, rural roads and uncluttered highways. Totally unprotected by any Regional Land Use policy. Our proposition is brief: 1. The area is beautiful and vulnerable. 2. Some population growth is inevitable and must be accommodated. 3. Uncontrolled growth is inevitably destructive. 4. Regional goals must be defined and development must conform to these. 5. Observation of conservation principles can avert destruction and ensure enhancement. 6. The pace and nature of growth must be decided, not by developers, planners or economic interests, but by the local people. 7. We feel that public and private powers can be joined 252
in partnership to realise this plan.
We have been asked to get involved in area planning. The question is just what kind of legislation and policy do we envisage?
Under the Municipal Act we should have due regard for the following considerations:
The promotion of health, safety, convenience and welfare of the public; the prevention of the over-crowding of land and the preservation of the amenities peculiar to any area; the securing of adequate light, air and access; the value of the land and the nuture of its present and prospective use and occupancy; the character of each zone, the character of the buildings already erected and the peculiar suitability of the zone for particular uses; the conservation of property values.
WHY NOT ZONING?
It is becoming apparent that in other areas the traditional methods of planning and zoning have not protected either the land or the people in accordance with the above mentioned considerations. It is ironic that much of the urban disorganisation and sprawl and environmental pollution which afflicts North America today, has taken place during the very period when traditional planning and zoning methods have bloomed. It's not unfair then to ask whether planning is not partially a cause for many of these problems, rather than merely a response to them. The facts seem to indicate that traditional zoning practices do not work. Zoning has been a spectacular failure in protecting either the environment or the populace. It succeeds only in preserving property values because it was designed to do exactly that.
No one has ever claimed that planning and zoning have protected the environment or prevented suburban sprawl, speculative rip-offs or over-intense subdivision. In fact, by pin-pointing particular zones for investment and development, zoning has had a greater destructive effect than non-zoning. The rationale behind the old-fashioned zoning game has been refined to a science. Some planners attribute the failures of zoning to faulty human application. Then they bolster up the basic zoning principle with scores of remedial schemes such as 'planned unit development', 'boards of variance', 'special land use contracts' and, finally, the ultimate admission of failure—out and out 'rezoning'.
Over the years, though, one fact has remained constant: environmental and human values are still relegated to minor roles. This preoccupation with the preservation of land values can be self-defeating. The proof of the pudding is California—a place that was as close to being Eden as any place on earth. There zoners and planners have been active and virile 253
since before World War One. They sought to protect the whole state, and in so doing they mutiliated great tracts of it. Then the bubble burst.
Since 1969 Californians in large numbers have migrated here, driven out by conditions created under conventional zoning and planning. The new words Losangelisation and Californication ring with resourding significance for us who live up the coast, yet just around the corner.
ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING--QUR METHOD: I
To keep our options open, then, a prompt change from past procedures seems essential.
This area does not belong to us to do with it what we choose. We belong to this area; and we can have a worthwhile future only as a co-operating part of its ecology. To conserve this area so that our children may enjoy some, if not all, of these surroundings, the basis of our plan must start from different concepts.
It would seem reasonable that our locally enacted plan should at least seek partial solutions in re-ordering priorities. That environmental considerations should head the list, of course, goes without saying.
Environmental Protection Zones must be mapped and set aside. But first a complete study must identify these areas. We have already taken steps to launch this study. Four types of environmental zones will be classified. 1. Areas in which natural processes perform work for man: for example—natural water purification; atmospheric pollution control; climatic amelioration; water storage; forest and wildlife inventory increase; flood, drought, and erosion control. 2. Those areas which offer protection or are hostile: for example—marshes; floodplains, etc. needed for fish. 3. Areas which are unique or especially precious: for example—areas of important ecological, geological or historical interest. 4. Those areas which are especially vulnerable: for example—nesting, spawning and breeding grounds, water catchment areas, oyster and clam beaches, etc.
Any map drawn of our Regional District under this plan will bear a passing resemblance to that reproduced below in this report: with the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AREAS, GREEN BELT AREAS, WILDERNESS AREAS AND THE PROVINCE'S AGRICULTURAL RESERVE, all in different colours and all protected by legislation.
OUR METHOD: II
Undesignated Areas—The Public Hearing Concept 254
The problem then becomes one of how to control growth in the otherwise undesignated or white areas on the map. These are the areas which will be especially vulnerable to high density subdivision, uncontrolled ripoffs, spiralling land values, industrial pollution and ecological disaster.
Our policy must ensure that the people who live in this area can exercise a large measure of control over their destiny.
This is the basis of our plan—the PUBLIC HEARING CONCEPT. By providing the Public Hearing with a major role to play in the decision making process, this plan will be a viable and desirable alternative to the old, inflexible zoning method of land use control. There can be little discussion of this plan until there is a general understanding of how it will operate. Suffice to say, at this point, if the concept were enacted by by-law, its overall effect would be one of freezing 'as is' all lands under Regional District jurisdiction and making any proposed changes to the status quo subject to Public Hearing. That is not to say, however, that all proposed changes will, of necessity, by subject to Public Hearing; but rather, that all proposed changes (with one notable exception) may be subject to Public Hearing.
The single exception referred to arises only in the case of individuals. There is nothing either in the spirit or intent of the proposed Public Hearing By-law that would restrict an individual or family unit from erecting on his land a single family residence and other outbuildings for private and accessory uses, provided the builder comply with alrady existing legislation. Neither is there anything in the intent of the proposed By-law that would serve to nullify the terms of Section 713 A of the Municipal Act which conditionally allows for the subdivision of land for the purpose of providing a separate residence for the owner, or for the father, mother, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son, daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law or grandchild of the owner.
THE PUBLIC HEARING CONCEPT: IN ACTION!
Generally speaking there are only two types of changes that can affect a single parcel of land: one is sub-division—a change to the legal boundaries of the land; the other is development—a change to the character of the land. The scope of the proposed By-law is such that both will come under its jurisdiction. All sub-dividers and developers will be required to make application•to the Board for a permit to entitle him to proceed with his plans. In making application the applicant must supply pertinent information as to the nature and extent of the development. The Board will first determine the environmental impact of the proposal by referring the application to its Environmental Protection Committee. This committee has already been established. The Board may also call 255
for the opinions of other local expertise in reaching a decision on the application. This may be in the form of either internal or external committees, organisations or individuals. They will be allowed access to such information as is necessary in the formation of their recommendations.
Should the Board refuse the permit, the developer will have the right to bring the issue to public hearing. Should the Board grant the permit, the public, on petition by a stated number of district residents (the suggested figure is eleven), may express dissatisfaction with the Board's decision, whereupon the Board must take the issue to Public Hearing and reconsider in view of the findings thereof.
Information about all development applications must be made available by the Board for the Advisory Planning Commissioners elected in each area, so that they can inform the local residents before any permit is granted. Furthermore any decisions made by the Board must also be communicated in like manner. On the other hand the Commissioners have already been elected in most areas.
Essentially then, without going into too much detail at this stage, that's how the proposed By-law would work: with the Public Hearing aspect functioning as an appeal process available to electors and, it must be emphasized, to sub-dividers and developers as well.
Any public hearing would be restricted to those electors whose lives and properties are apt to be influenced by the scope of the development in question. The potential impact of any development would decide the scope of the hearing. Later on we hope to have much debate, discussion and input on this very point, presumably when the By-law is being drafted and during the first and second readings.
The nature and scope of each public hearing would be defined by the Board in consultation with the Advisory Planning Commissioners, the local Board member and, of course, the people's organisations. Low impact developments might only concern the immediate neighbours. Larger developments might call for a public hearing of the whole electoral area. Very large impact developments might, in fact, call for a hearing involving the whole regional district.
However, its unlikely that all but the biggest issues will reach the public hearing stage. For example, subdivision of 160 acres into four 40 acre blocks would hardly become a matter of great concern to most residents. However, the same sub-division into 160 one acre lots is an entirely different matter. It would be surprising indeed, had the Board granted such a permit, that it was not called to justify its decision at a public hearing. 256
This Public Hearing By-law, outlined here in this policy statement and later to be refined, will in effect be a Land Use By-law. This type of approach will have a number of positive advantages. Not the least of these is that the Board becomes accountable to the public for its decisions. Secondly, it might help to hold down land prices by removing some of the speculative value from the land.
However, the real merit of the Public Hearing concept lies in its flexibility, in its ability to function according to the temper of the times. While slow growth is a generally accepted district philsophy now, it may not always be so. In any case the residents of the district, to a great and desirable extent, will be in a position to determine the direction and rate of growth according to the exigencies of the.moment.
SUMMARY
Our policy is to encourage slow, rational growth. This policy will neither be narrow nor discriminatory. Granted no development, subdivision, or industrial expansion will be tolerated which is environmentally harmful. However, under this plan the people, through their Advisory Planning Commissioner, will be givern ample notice of any applications for permits and the nature of these applications. This will be the first step in any approval process for any sub-division, strata title, proposal to log, draw water from lakes, build new roads, etc.
Both the Public Hearing By-law and the establishment of Environmental Protection Zones, go hand in hand with the other proposals mentioned earlier: the setting up of green belt reserves surrounding the urban areas, the preservation of certain cultural locations—as provided for in the Municipal Act. At the same time we will maintain for the individual homeowner in the rural area: the freedoms he enjoys today whatever his lifestyle. Over the last two years the people of this area have loudly and clearly indicated on numerous occasions that they desire neither restrictive building nor zoning codes. This policy has been designed to meet these needs, while simultaneously fulfilling our responsibility in the field of environmental protection. It is a break from the old methods of planning. With unity and co-operation it will be successful. We trust it will now be adopted as the official policy of the Powell River Regional Board. Then we can get on with the job. 257
APPENDIX C - POWELL RIVER REGIONAL DISTRICT PLANNING PROCEDURES
The attached material was given to Texada residents in 1976 by the Regional Planner. It provides the process to be followed: what was to be approached and how it was to be approached. Included is a time table for completion of various activities. 258
MUNICIPAL ACT, (chap. 255, verses 694-699)
PART XXI
COMMUNITY PLANNING
694. No by-law adopted pursuant to this Part, excepting Division (5), applies to land designated in a tree-farm licence, or to land constituting a forest reserve pursuant to the Forest Act, or to land designated in a tree-farm certificate under the Taxation Act so long as the land continues to be so designated or reserved. 1971, c. 38, s. 50.
Division (1)--Official Community Plan
695. In this Part or in any by-law adopted under this Part, "community plan" means an an expression of policy for (a) any use or uses of land, including surfaces of water; or (b) the pattern of the subdivision of land; and either or both may apply to any or all areas of the municipality. 1957, c. 42, s. 692; 1958, c. 32, s. 304; 1961, c. 43, s. 36.
696. The Council may have community plans prepared or revised from time to time, and they may be expressed in maps, plans, reports, or any combination thereof. 1957, c. 42, s. 693; 1961, c. 43, s. 37; 1968, c. 33, s. 164.
697. (1) The Council may, by by-law adopted by an affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of all the members thereof, designate any community plan prepared under section 696 as the official community plan or as a part of the official community plan.
(2) A by-law adopted under subsection (1) does not come into force and effect until it has received the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. 1957, c. 42, s. 694; 1958, c. 32, s. 305; 1961, c. 43, s. 38.
698. (1) The Council shall not enact any provision or undertake any works contrary to or at variance with the official community plan or a plan adopted under Division (6) of this Part.
(2) Subsection (1) does not empower the Council to impair, 259
abrogate, or otherwise affect the rights and privileges to which an owner of land is otherwise lawfully entitled. 1957, c. 42, s. 695; 1961, c. 43, s. 39.
699. (1) An official community plan does not commit the Council or any other administrative body to undertake any of the projects therein suggested or outlined.
(2) The adoption of a community plan does not authorize the Council to proceed with the undertaking of any project except in accordance with the procedure and restrictions laid down therefore by this or some other Act. 1957, c. 42, s. 696; 1961, c. 43, s. 40. 260
HOW DEC. 1975
co m
o —i
PLANNING COMMITTEE
{f3J {—) (Q) (3) (£) (o^) (TJi) f2) (OJ) (rv)
SUB - COMMITTEES FORMED^ TO CONSIDER
5 o > 33 33 > o o O O o ro 33 o o c 33 c~> m > to O 33 co —i m X 33 > o o CO -< —i 33 o 33 CZ m < > rn 33 O 2 m cn m 3) o O co o 33 33 c 33 n 33 33 < co n o co m m n CO co 33 co < x >
o O O 2
m 33 o
4/ collect tech. data measure public op. pr epa r e brief \1/
DRAFT COMMUNITY PLAN
REFER TO COMMUNITY AND REG. 30; CM WHAT
THE AlM'b Of TH£
THe Kv^NX im£P-- ReuATeD FACTORS
SHOWN IN THV^