6.0 Concluding Remarks

6.1 Summary
In conclusion, one sees that the research supports existing literature describing barriers to action-taking and identifies additional barriers which play a role in limiting municipal actions in response to opportunities to support sustainability.
Analysis of table one, in chapter four, reveals that the authorities responsible for implementing Clouds of Change, namely Council and civic staff, perceived the three biggest barriers to action-taking to be: limitation of jurisdiction, competing issues, and inadequate funds. A complete ranking by these groups of all the barriers is presented in table three. From the perspective of Council and civic staff, lack of understanding about the issues refers to citizens' limited understanding which results in citizen resistance to City efforts to implement Clouds of Change recommendations which would affect neighbourhoods.
Similar analysis of table one with respect to the perceptions of Task Force members and citizens reveals that these groups view different barriers as the primary impediments to action-taking (see table four). Lack of understanding about the issues and perceived lack of empowerment were the two most commonly cited problems, followed by lack of buy-in by Council and fear of losing constituent support which tied for third. Lack of understanding in this case refers both to the citizenry and to government. Perceived lack of empowerment refers primarily to citizens and, as identified in chapter four, is fundamentally a learnt perception based on citizens' experiences in government public participation processes. This finding highlights a key area of concern which city officials may wish to address. Current public participation processes seem to weaken the relationship between citizens and their government. This detracts from Vancouver's civicness, which, as discovered in chapter five, undermines government's effectiveness.

In the case of Clouds of Change, the primary barriers identified by all groups were: lack of understanding about the issues, perceived lack of empowerment, competing issues, inadequate funds, fear of losing constituent support, and limitation of jurisdiction (for a complete list see table five). These barriers represent all three categories of barriers established in the research: Perceptual/Behavioural, Institutional/Structural and Economic/Financial. The barriers seem to operate in a mutually-reinforcing way. Perceptual barriers such as perceived lack of empowerment and competing issues are reinforced by institutional barriers, e.g. limitation of jurisdiction. Financial considerations and economic realities, such as inadequate funds, further influence perceptions of what is and, perhaps more importantly, what is not feasible.


Many barriers seem to operate in this cycle. In addition to those named above, other barriers also played an important role in impeding government action-taking. Differences in perception, especially when it is linked to municipal department heads, severely impedes government's attempts to implement policies. The introduction of new goals for the City must follow a process which brings department heads on side. Workshops including Councillors, department heads and some staff should always be a part of the policy recommendation process. The research shows that agreement among these groups is crucial if goals of sustainability are to be achieved.


Inappropriate structure of government (vertical), weak linkages among the policies of civic and senior levels of government, fear of losing control/power, and lack of a prioritizing mechanism are also important barriers. The research has demonstrated that government structure is not well suited to addressing environmental issues. First, because political survival is defined by a short-term electoral process, actions occur in response to needs for which there is an immediate demand. The result is a government which is reactionary by nature. Unless there is pressure by the constituency to address long-term concerns, government initiatives expressed as actions are not forthcoming. Second, government operates in the context of a market based economy; therefore, it is confined to the consideration of finances as an indicator of what is possible. Combined with the pressures imposed by a short-term electoral process, it becomes very difficult for government decision-makers to look at feasibility of an initiative in anything but immediate terms. The result is a government which is unmotivated to take action unless it is financially feasible in the short term. Third, opportunities to promote self-help and self-governance among citizens are not fully pursued as viable alternatives, largely because of a belief that such efforts will not be supported by citizen initiative over the long term. Finally, because departments (be they municipal, provincial or federal) operate as separate entities, endowed with their own mandates, jurisdictions and budgets, lack of coordination characterizes intra- and inter-governmental initiatives. Efforts of one department are often either repeated or undermined by the next. The result is a governance system which is organised in such a way that it is unable to meet the demands placed upon it by the challenge of sustainability.



Table 3: Most Commonly Cited Barriers by Council and Civic Staff

Limitation of Jurisdiction 15
Weak Understanding of Action Roles 5
Competing Issues 14
Union Regulations 5
Inadequate Funds 13
Perceived Inequity 4
Lack of Buy-in by Civic Staff 11
Lack of Cooperation and Information Sharing Among Civic Departments 4
Lack of Understanding About Issues 10
Fear of Disadvantaging the Poor 4
Fear of Losing Constituent Support 10
Overwhelming Complexity of Issues 3
Differences in Perception 9
Prestige Motive 3
Perceived Lack of Empowerment 9
Lack of Championing by Mayor or C.M. 3
Citizens Disunited/not supportive 9
Lack of Catalytic Personality 3
Disjunction Between Verbal Support and Willingness to Take Action 9
Lack of Information Sharing 3
Inadequate Resources 9
Financial Gain Motive 3
Acceptance of the Status Quo 8
Marginal Pricing and Economic Valuation 3
Weak Link Among Policies of Civic and Senior Levels of Government 8
Existing Funds Pre-allocated 3
Inappropriate Structure of Government (vertical) 8
Intangible Nature of the Resource 2
Fear of Losing Control/Power 8
Media’s Presentation of Information 2
Attention Pressure 7
Lack of ENGOs 2
Weak Link Between Government and Constituents 7
Weak Link Between Civic Dep
artments and the Public 2
Failure to Guarantee Results 7
Lack of Buy-in by Council 1
Lack of Prioritizing Mechanism 7
Uncertainty About Whether Certain Policies Need to be Implemented 1
Lack of Choices 6 Inappropriate Structure of Government (political term) 1
Perception of Effectiveness 6
Weak Diversity Among Decision Makers 1
Weak Link Between Government and Civic Departments 6
Lack of Familiarity with Environmental Policies in Own Department -
Unwillingness to Pay More Taxes 6
Uncertainty About How to Implement New Policies Uncertainty 5
Unequal Balance of Power and Resources Among Community Organizations -


Table 4: Most Commonly Cited Barriers by Task Force Members and Citizens

Lack of Understanding About Issues 13
Lack of Buy-in by Civic Staff 4
Perceived Lack of Empowerment 13
Citizens Disunited/not supportive 4
Lack of Buy-in by Council 9
Media’s Presentation of Information 4
Fear of Losing Constituent Support 9
Lack of Information Sharing 4
Weak Link Between Government and Constituents 8
Inappropriate Structure of Government (political term) 4
Financial Gain Motive 8
Weak Diversity Among Decision Makers 4
Weak Link Among Policies of Civic and Senior Levels of Government 7
Lack of Championing by Mayor or C.M 3
Inappropriate Structure of Government (vertical) 7
Lack of Catalytic Personality. 3
Competing Issues 6 Limitation of Jurisdiction 3
Acceptance of the Status Quo 6
Failure to Guarantee Results 3
Marginal Pricing and Economic Valuation 6
Fear of Disadvantaging the Poor 3
Inadequate Resources 6
Disjunction Between Verbal Support and Willingness to Take Action 2
Inadequate Funds 6
Lack of Cooperation and Information Sharing Among Civic Departments 2
Uncertainty 5
Uncertainty About How to Implement New Policies 2
Lack of Choices
5 Existing Funds Pre-allocated 2
Differences in Perception 5
Weak Link Between Government and Civic Departments 1
Intangible Nature of the Resource 5
Weak Link Between Civic Departments and the Public 1
Perceived Inequity 5
Lack of Familiarity with Environmental Policies in Own Department 1
Attention Pressure 5
Uncertainty About Whether Certain Policies Need to be Implemented 1
Lack of ENGOs 5
Unequal Balance of Power and Resources Among Community Organizations 1
Weak Understanding of Action Roles 5
Union Regulations 1
Fear of Losing Control/Power 5
Unwillingness to Pay More Taxes 1
Overwhelming Complexity of Issues 4
Lack of Prioritizing Mechanism 1
Prestige Motive 4
Perception of Effectiveness -


Table 5: Most Commonly Cited Barriers by All Groups

Lack of Understanding About Issues 23
Marginal Pricing and Economic Valuation 9
Perceived Lack of Empowerment 22
Lack of Prioritizing Mechanism 8
Competing Issues 20
Overwhelming Complexity of Issues 7
Fear of Losing Constituent Support 19
Intangible Nature of the Resource 7
Inadequate Funds 19
Prestige Motive 7
Limitation of Jurisdiction 18
Lack of Information Sharing 7
Lack of Buy-in by Civic Staff 15
Lack of ENGOs 7
Weak Link Between Government and Constituents 15
Weak Link Between Government and Civic Departments. 7
Weak Link Among Policies of Civic and Senior Levels of Government 15
Unwillingness to Pay More Taxes 7
Inappropriate Structure of Government (vertical) 15
Fear of Disadvantaging the Poor 7
Inadequate Resources 15
Perception of Effectiveness 6
Differences in Perception 14
Lack of Championing by Mayor or C.M 6
Acceptance of the Status Quo 14
Lack of Catalytic Personality 6
Citizens Disunited/not supportive 13
Media’s Presentation of Information 6
Fear of Losing Control/Power 13
Lack of Cooperation and Information Sharing Among Civic Departments 6
Attention Pressure 12
Union Regulations 6
Lack of Choices 11
Inappropriate Structure of Government (political term) 5
Disjunction Between Verbal Support and Willingness to Take Action 11
Weak Diversity Among Decision Makers 5
Financial Gain Motive 11
Existing Funds Pre-allocated 5
Uncertainty 10
Weak Link Between Civic Departments and the Public 3
Lack of Buy-in by Council 10
Uncertainty About How to Implement New Policies 2
Weak Understanding of Action Roles 10
Uncertainty About Whether Certain Policies Need to be Implemented 2
Failure to Guarantee Results 10
Lack of Familiarity with Environmental Policies in Own Department 1
Perceived Inequity 9
Unequal Balance of Power and Resources Among Community Organizations 1



These realities of government are not easily changed, but since the need to become sustainable shall not disappear, certain adaptations are required. Analysis of table two and a review of the conditions which facilitated action-taking reveals that most of the recommendations which have been fully implemented are ones for which the City was already preparing to take action. Financial need was a stimulant for action-taking with respect to those recommendations which would immediately save the City money. In this respect it seems that action-taking is stimulated more by present need rather than by potential gains or benefits. Viewing implementation of the recommendations as a way to save the City money over the long term was not a widely reported perception.

Suggestions for overcoming barriers primarily focussed on improving the level of civicness in the City. This addresses three key issues:

&Mac183; improving communication between government and the constituency,
&Mac183; involving staff and Councillors in a revision of the Clouds of Change implementation strategy,
&Mac183; promoting self-help and civic participation among citizens.
Planners and policy makers wishing to pursue a recommendation process similar to Clouds of Change in the future should bear in mind the following suggestions:
&Mac183; Those responsible for implementing the recommendations must be a part of their initial design. Unless those charged with completing the task believe in its worth and attainability, motivation to do the work will be lacking.
&Mac183; Increased attention must be paid to highlighting the benefits of pursuing the recommendations, and wherever possible, to demonstrating how implementation of recommendations can meet current City needs.
&Mac183; Detailed attention should also be given to mapping out the strategies for implementing the recommendations. As one interviewee observed "large organizations change in small steps." Improving the range of choices available to citizens, providing test and/or pilot projects wherever possible, preparing comprehensive plans of phase-in stages are all part of the incremental steps which eventually can lead to dramatic behavioural change.

Regarding structural adaptations in government which may improve its ability to address ecological issues, it is useful to recall Ashby's law of requisite variety. The administrative structure must effectively be suited to that which it is trying to manage. A primary consideration, therefore, is to examine ways of getting government departments to work integratively, reflecting the integrative nature of many environmental issues. Second, structures in government must be created to address both short-term and long-term considerations to mirror the short-term and long-term issues that confront the City. Council is well suited to short-term oriented governance. However, one must also consider the fact that the City and its issues have grown tremendously; thus, additional decision-making mechanisms should be considered. Help may be required from citizens in the form of mini-councils or community forums. Examining the potential of the ward system was commonly referred to by interviewees. Long-term decision-making structures could take the form of civic round tables.

Finally, it is often the case that one government agency designs its own policy to address an environmental issue, yet aspects of the policy's implementation invariably depend on the support and/or cooperation of other agencies. Such support is not always forthcoming, at least not in as timely or comprehensive a manner as is needed. A more integrative approach to policy-making could minimize this problem. In order to get the different levels of government operating more cohesively, plans to address climate change and improve air quality should be the result of a joint effort among them. When designing air quality policies for metropolitan areas, one agency (perhaps from the GVRD) should lead a group process that involves all government agencies who play a role in implementing air quality initiatives in developing a comprehensive strategy. Together, these agencies should map out the roles and responsibilities each is willing and able to perform in order to implement the mutually agreed upon policies. Then, with a common goal in mind and a clear understanding of their role and responsibilities in the implementation strategy, each agency can fulfill its obligations according to its mandate.
In conclusion, the research has demonstrated that despite government's intention to take precautions and to adopt behaviours that support sustainability, it nevertheless continues to function in a primarily reactive manner which for the most part supports the status quo. Thus, it is logical to conclude that a bifurcation point may occur before barriers to action-taking are overcome, before action-taking at the level required to address atmospheric change issues is implemented.

6.2 Additional Findings
Under each barrier heading in chapter four is a list of the recommendations it impeded. This information was gathered by tracking examples of how barriers functioned to prevent action-taking with regards to specific recommendations. Tabulation of this information (see table six) reveals that acceptance of the status quo proved to be the biggest barrier to action-taking in the case study. Limitation of jurisdiction, competing issues, and differences in perception presented the next three biggest barriers respectively.

The majority of barriers that ranked in the top third of table six match the top third of barriers perceived by all interview groups as the ones causing the greatest impediment to action taking (table five). This finding reveals that perceptions of barriers are, for the most part, validated by examples. Subsequent barriers in both tables also show close similarities in ranking order. Some differences between tables five and six should be expected because: first, a large number of the barriers under analysis are perceptual in content. These can be difficult to track in terms of how they affect actual decisions. Second, as discussed in chapter four, the study of barriers to action-taking by government involves the study of a complex system involving many factors such as the human mind, institutional structures, and economic systems. These factors work together in myriad ways, affecting many possible outcomes. Thus, it is difficult to track the precise impact each barrier has had on impeding the recommendations. As a result, the influence of some barriers may be under-represented in the analysis. Finally, it should be remembered that other factors, not examined in the research, such as the physical geography of the City and its built environment, may also act as barriers and may have a confounding affect on the findings of the impact of barriers studied in this research.

Another important finding is that catalytic personalities do play a significant role in improving government's ability to take actions that support sustainability. In terms of implementing Clouds of Change recommendations, catalytic personalities proved instrumental in drawing attention to those areas where further actions are required. Examples are the ongoing lobbying by Council members such as Gordon Price, the public speeches of previous Council member Libby Davies and Task Force member Dr. Mark Roseland, and research projects such as this one directed by Dr. William Rees. Catalytic personalities have also demonstrated their influence as the driving force behind initiatives to introduce into the institutional structure of government adaptations which should improve government's action-taking abilities towards sustainability. Examples are the resurrection of the Special Office for the Environment and the enrollment of the City in the International Commission for Local Environmental Initiatives. Both are, to large degree, the result of efforts by Nick Losito, Director of the City's Environmental Health Department.
Examples of autocatalytic reactions were not identified in the case study. However, their potential should not be discounted.


6.3 Suggestions for Further Research
The research has identified the important role barriers play in inhibiting knowledge about the need for supporting sustainability from being turned into action. It identifies that a greater understanding of how barriers operate to this end is required if sustainability goals are to be achieved. Of key interest for future research is the way government and citizens carry out need-meeting behaviours and what factors influence these behaviours. Here, the role of perception seems paramount, and the academic disciplines of psychology and medicine may provide useful information regarding the way perceptions are formed and the function of risk perception in influencing behaviour.
A second important area for future research is improving understanding of how civic responsibility and participation is engendered in a society and how institutional reforms or adaptations can contribute to this process. It may be the case that self-organising and self-help initiatives stem completely from outside the institutionalized government structure. Nevertheless, the factors which motivate them should be well understood. Government roles for facilitating their occurrence might be identified.
Findings from the case study reveal that the following tasks for government require further research: examining ways to improve public participation processes so that citizens do not become discouraged from participating in civic governance, and investigating ways to improve communication between government and the constituency to reduce the alienation each feels from the other. Also recommended is further research into developing mechanisms for a) reducing the fragmented nature of government organizations and for b) improving cooperation in the identification of priority issues and mutually supportive strategies for addressing those issues.
Finally, further research into the cost-savings of pursuing ecologically considerate policies should be conducted. The scientific materialist paradigm lends itself to short-term thinking, and as a result, decision-makers may mistakenly perceive actions that support sustainability as increasing the costs of government. However, taking a long-term view and considering the ecological and social costs which are presently ignored, i.e. internalizing the externalities, quickly corrects this fault and reveals that actions to support sustainability are cost-effective. The field of ecological economics provides guidance to adopting a long-term perspective and accounting for the costs which are presently overlooked by most decision-makers. Also, research into the potential uses of social capital as a means to reducing reliance on monetary capital for implementing sustainability initiatives may prove very useful.
The research examined the perceptions of those people who have in some way been involved with the creation or implementation of the Clouds of Change report. A study of perceptions of barriers to action-taking held by people who are not familiar with the report might contribute new insights. In terms of specifically building upon this research, there might be some basic rules by which all complex adaptive systems operate, be they social, ecological, etc (Boothroyd, 1992,150; Gell-Mann, 1994, 17; Jacobs, 1984, 224; Prigogine, 1984, 76). Understanding them may inform what capabilities organisms require to successfully function together in such a system. The barriers identified in this research could be re-categorized according to their impact on i) an organism's capability to function as a part of a group and ii) that group’s capability to function as part of the ecosphere. For example, an organism or group of organisms must be able to sense the impacts it is making on its environment. Barriers which prevent this would be grouped according to their "functional impact" of impeding opportunities to sense feedback. Other barriers with other impacts would be grouped in different categories. In the end, all the barriers might be collapsed into a few "functional impact" categories. Tools for addressing the barriers in each category might then be discovered. For example, the ACC tool used to determine appropriated carrying capacity helps societies overcome barriers to sensing their own impacts on changing conditions in the environment (Rees and Wackernagel, 1994; Wackernagel, 1993). Other tools designed to address the functional impacts of other barrier groups may evolve as an outcome of this type of research. With the help of such tools, new means of bridging the gap that separates knowledge form action may result.

Bibliography

Altman, Steven, Enzo Valenzi and Richard M. Hodgetts. Organizational Behaviour: Theory and Practice. New York: Academic Press Inc., 1985.

Argyris, Chris. Knowledge for Action: A Guide to Overcoming Barriers to Organizational Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., 1993.

Bates, D.V., M. Baker-Anderson, R. Sitzo. "Asthma Attack Periodicity: A Study of Hospital Emergency Visits in Vancouver." Environmental Research vol. 51, no. 1, Feb. 1990: 51-70.

Beer, Stafford. The Heart of Enterprise. New York: John Wiley and Sons Ltd., 1979.

Block, Walter E. ed. Economics and the Environment: A Reconciliation. Vancouver, B.C.: The Fraser Institute, 1990.

Boudon, Raymond. Theories of Social Change: A Critical Appraisal. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1986.

Brauer, M., S. Vedal, J. Brook. "Effect of Ambient Ozone Exposure on Same-Day Lung Function Change in Adult Farm Workers." American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. vol. 149, no. 1, April 1994: A659.

Boothroyd, Peter. "Managing Population-Environment Linkages: A General Systems Theory Perspective." Population -Environment Linkages: Toward a Conceptual Framework. Peter Boothroyd ed. Vancouver, B.C.: Centre for Human Settlements, University of British Columbia, 1992.

Brown, Lester. Building a Sustainable Society. New York: W.W. Norton and Company Inc., 1981.

Brown, Lester and John E. Young. "Feeding the World in the Nineties." State of the World. Ed. Lester Brown et al. Washington D.C.: Worldwatch Institute, 1990: 59-78.

Brown, Lester et al. State of the World. Washington D.C.: Worldwatch Institute, 1990.

Brown, Lester et al. State of the World. Washington D.C.: Worldwatch Institute, 1992.

Bush, Kenneth. Climate Change, Global Security and International Governance. Ottawa Ont.: Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security, 1990.

Buttle, "Air Pollution Report Criticized." Vancouver Sun, 25 June, 1990: B2.

Castells, Manuel. The City and the Grassroots: A Cross-Cultural Theory of Urban Social Movements. London: Edward Alan Ltd. 1983.

Census 1991, cited in Moffatt ed., Redbook: B.C. Municipality Yearbook 1993. Burnaby B.C.: Journal of Commerce, 1993.

City of Vancouver, Task Force on Atmospheric Change. Clouds of Change. Vancouver, B.C.: City of Vancouver, June 1990a.

City of Vancouver, Clouds of Change: Recommendations as Amended and Adopted by Vancouver City Council. Vancouver, B.C.: City of Vancouver, October 16, 1990b.

City of Vancouver, Medical Health Officer, Director of Legal Services, Director of Permits and Licenses, Manager of Special Office for the Environment, Policy Report: Environment. File: CC35/91. Vancouver, B.C.: City of Vancouver, October 15, 1991.

City of Vancouver, Special Office for the Environment, Policy Report: Environment. File: SOE 2/92. Vancouver: City of Vancouver, May 19, 1992.

City of Vancouver, Special Office for the Environment, Ideas Fair Questionnaire, 192 respondents. Vancouver, B.C.: City of Vancouver, May, 1993a.

City of Vancouver, Special Office for the Environment, State of the Environment: First Draft. Vancouver, B.C.: City of Vancouver, April, 1993b.

Christensen, P. "Driving Forces, Increasing Returns and Ecological Sustainability. " in Ecological Economics: The Science and Management of Sustainability. Ed. R. Costanza. New York: Columbia University Press, 1991.

Daly, Herman and John Cobb. For the Common Good. Boston: Beacon Press, 1989.

Dasgupta, Partha S. and Geoffrey M. Heal. Economic Theory and Exhaustible Resources. London: Cambridge University Press, 1979.

De Man, Huibert. Organizational Change in its Context. Delft, Holland: Eburon, 1988.

Downs, Anthony. "Up and Down with Ecology: the Issue Attention Cycle." The Public Interest. Vol. 28, 1972: 38-50.

Flavin, Christopher. "Building a Bridge to Sustainable Energy." State of the World. Ed. Lester Brown et al. New York: W.W. Norton Inc., 1992.

French, Wendell L. and Cecil H. Bell. Organization Development: Behavioural Science Interventions for Organization Improvement. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc., 1984.

Funk and Wagnalls Standard Dictionary. New York: Harper and Row Publishers Inc., 1983.

Gell-Mann, Murray. The Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the Simple and the Complex. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company, 1994.

Hanna, Dawn. "Freedom to Move Keeps People in their Cars" Vancouver Sun, 18 June, 1992: A13.

Hardin, Garrett. "The Tragedy of the Commons" Science Vol. 162, 1968: 1243-1248.

Heilbroner, Robert L. The Worldly Philosophers. New York: Simon and Schuster Inc., 1980.

Herman, Edward and Noam Chomsky. Manufacturing Consent: the Political Economy of Mass Media. New York: Random House Inc., 1988.

Hultman, Ken. The Path of Least Resistance: Preparing Employees for Change. Austin, Texas: Learning Concept Publishers, 1979.

Hutton, Thomas and Craig Davis. "Prospects for Vancouver's Sustainable Development: An Economic Perspective," Perspectives on Sustainable Development in Water Management: Towards Agreement in the Fraser River Basin. Ed. Anthony H.J. Dorcey. Vancouver, B.C.: Northburn Printers and Stationers Ltd. 1991.

Jacobs, Jane. Cities and the Wealth of Nations: Principles of Economic Life. New York: Random House Inc., 1984.

Lee, Jeff. "Council Hopes Report will Clear the Air" Vanocouver Sun, 17 Oct., 1990: A1.

Lees, Ray and Marjorie Mayo, Community Action for Change. London: Routledge adn Kegan Paul Plc., 1984.

Lenssen, Nicholas. "Confronting Nuclear Waste." State of the World. Ed. Lester Brown et al. New York: W.W. Norton Inc., 1992.

Ley, David. A Social Geography of the City. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1983.

McAllister, Anne B. An Approach to Manpower Planning and Management Development in Canadian Municipal Government. Toronto: The Institute of Public Administration of Canada, 1979.

Mann, W.E. Overview of Social Change Theory. Department of Sociology, York University, 1992.

Milbrath, Lester. Envisioning a Sustainable Society: Learning Our Way Out. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1989.

Munro, Harold. "Smog Heads List of Concerns for Future" Vancouver Sun, 30 Nov., 1992: B2.

Munro, Margaret. "Air-Pollution Fight Called Urgent" Vancouver Sun,23 June, 1990: A5.

Munro, Margaret. "Clouds of Change' Plans Disappear into Thin Air." Vancouver Sun, 9 June, 1993: A1-A2.

Nairne, Kathryn. Governance and Community Organizations: Structural Barriers and Opportunities to Healthy, Sustainable Communities. Vancouver: prepared for the U.B.C. Task Force on Planning Healthy and Sustainable Communities, Sept. 16, 1991.

Osborn, David and Ted Gaebler. Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company Inc., 1992.

Parry, Martin L. Climate Change and World Agriculture. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd. in association with The International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis, United Nations Environmental Programme, 1990.

Pearce, David, Anil Markandya and Edward B. Barbier. Blueprint for a Green Economy. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd., 1989.

Prigogine, Ilya, and Isabelle Stengers. Order Out of Chaos. Forward by Alvin Toffler. New York: Bantam Books, Inc., 1984.

Putnam, Robert, Robert Leonardi, and Raffaell Y. Nanetti. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, N.J.:Princeton University Press, 1993.

Quinn, Hal. "Window on the Pacific: Michael Harcourt Welcomes Asian Trade." Maclean's vol. 106, no. 34, 24 Aug. 1992: 24.

Rees, William E. and Mathis Wackernagel. Perceptual and Structural Barriers to Investing in Natural Capital. Presented to the Second Meeting of the International Society for Ecological Economics. Stockholm, Sweden. August, 1992.

Rees, William E. and Mathis Wackernagel. "Ecological Footprints and Appropriated Carrying Capacity: Measuring the Natural Capital Requirements of the Human Economy." Investing in Natural Capital: The Ecological Economics Approach to Sustainability. Eds. A-M. Jannson, M. Hammer, C. Folke, R. Costanza. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1994: 363-390.

Rees, W.E. "Ecological Worldview" diagram, School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia, 1994a.

Rees, W.E. "Necessary Conditions for Global Sustainability" photocopy, School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia, 1994b.

Rees, W.E. "A Definition of Sustainable Development" photocopy, School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia, 1994c.

Rees, W.E. Sustainability, Growth and Employment: Toward an Ecologically Stable, Economically Secure, and Socially Satisfying Future. Vancouver, B.C.: School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia, 1994d.

Rees, W.E. conceptual sketches, reproduced by author, School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia, 1994e.

Robbinson, Stephen P. Organizational Behaviour: Concepts, Controversies and Applications. sixth edition: Englewood Cliffds N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1993.

Rogers, Adam. The Earth Summit: A Planetary Reckoning. Los Angeles: Global View Press, 1993.

Roseland, Mark. Toward Sustainable Communities: A Resource Book for Municipal and Local Governments. Ottawa, Ont.: The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, 1992.

Rosen, William and Barbara Rosen eds. William Shakespeare: The Tragedy of Julius Caesar. New York: Signet Classic, Penguin Inc., 1987.

Ryan, John C. "Conserving Biological Diversity" State of the World. Ed. Lester Brown et al. New York: W.W. Norton Inc., 1992. 9-26.

Sale, Kirkpatrick. Human Scale. New York: Coward, McCann and Geoghegan Ltd., 1980.

Samuelson, Paul A. and Anthony Scott. Economics: Fifth Canadian Edition. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Ltd., 1980

Schlesinger, Arthur M. jr. Robert Kennedy and His Times. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1978.

Schneider, Louis. Classical Theories of Social Change. New Jersey: General Learning Press, 1976.

Simon, Julian. The Ultimate Resource. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981.

Smith, Stuart L. A Growing Concern: Soil Degradation in Canada. Ottawa: Science Council of Canada, 1986.

Stein, Jess ed. The Random House College Dictionary. revised edition: New York, Random House Inc., 1984.

Strasser, Hermann and Susan Randall. An Introduction to Theories of Social Change. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd., 1981.

Tindal, C.R. and S. Nobes Tindal. Local Government in Canada. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Ltd. 1984.

United Nations "Call to a World Congress of Local Governments for a Sustainable Future." in
City of Vancouver, Task Force on Atmospheric Change. Clouds of Change. Vancouver, B.C.: City of Vancouver, June, 1990.

Van Rees, Wim. "Neighbourhoods, the State and Collective Action" Community Development Journal. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991. pp. 96-102.

Victor, Peter. "Indicators of Sustainable Development: Some Lessons from Capital Theory." Ecological Economics vol. 4, 1991: 191-213.

Waldrop, M. Mitchell. Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos. New York: Simon and Schuster Inc., 1992.

Wackernagel, Mathis and The University of British Columbia Task Force on Planning Healthy and Sustainable Communities. How Big Is Our Ecological Footprint? Using the Concept of Appropriated Carrying Capacity for Measuring Sustainability. Vancouver, B.C.: Department of Family Practice, University of British Columbia, 1993.

Weiss, Carol H. Evaluating Action Programs: Readings in Social Action and Education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon Press Ltd., 1972.

Yates, Douglas. The Ungovernable City. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1977. p. 91. in C.R. Tindal and S.N. Tindal. Local Government in Canada. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Ltd., 1984.








APPENDIX A






CLOUDS OF CHANGE - STATUS REPORT
(Prepared by the Special Office for the Environment)






APPENDIX B






QUESTIONNAIRE
(Qualitative Section)

QUALITATIVE SECTION

General Perceptions:
1. Do you think adequate progress is being made in implementing the report's recommendations and why do you think that?

2. How serious do you consider the threat of atmospheric problems to be relative to other issues confronting Council? (or your department, your life)

Impact:
3. What impact has the report had generally on decisions made by Council? (or your department, your life)

4. Can you cite a specific example where Clouds of Change made an impact and describe how the impact was made?

5. To what extent do you think the report has affected the way City Hall departments operate?

6. Why do you think this? (Can you provide a specific example?)) To what extent do you think the report has affected the way other agencies operate? (federal, development industry etc.)

Coal Harbour:
7. Are you familiar with the Coal Harbour development?

8. Using the specific example of the Coal Harbour development, how strongly has Clouds of Change affected the outcome of decisions made by Council on this project?

9. Can you cite specific examples where Clouds of Change affected the outcome of the Coal Harbour project. i.e. what aspects of Coal Harbour are different now, thanks to the report, than they were when the plans were originally presented to Council?

Effort and Effectiveness:
10. What sorts of things has Council done so far in support of the recommendations (lobbying responsible agencies: GVRD, prov. govt.) and/or in its attempt to adopt them as bylaws?

11. Do you think what they have done so far has been effective in making progress (e.g. in persuading the responsible agencies to implement more quickly or in adopting recommendations as bylaws)?

12. Why or why not?

13. What could they be doing to improve their performance (effectiveness)?

14. What have the City Hall departments done so far in support of implementing the bylaws that have been adopted by Council?

15. Do you think what they have done so far has been effective in making progress (e.g. in implementing the bylaws)?

16. When it became evident that the City (i.e. Council and City Hall) were not implementing the report's recommendations according to schedule, did you take action to pursuade the City to move faster?

17. If yes, what prompted you to act?

18. If no, why did you not take action? (i.e. what prevented you from taking action: through letter writing, raising public awareness etc.)

Facilitative:
19. Are you aware of some of the recommendations which have been fully implemented? (Fully in this context means action initiated and consequent goal obtained, or for those recommendations intended to become bylaws: passed as a bylaw and duly implemented and/or enforced by the responsible civic department.)

20. If yes, which ones?

21. For the recommendations which have been fully implemented, what do you think has facilitated their implementation? (e.g. qualities of the bylaw itself such as being finite in scope so that it could be implemented quickly and at low cost, or circumstances, e.g. strong public support.)

22. Were there any impediments (i.e. barriers) that slowed progress in implementing any of these recommendations? If yes, what were they and how did they work to slow things down?

23. How were these impediments overcome?

24. Generally speaking, can you identify any positive factors that promoted implementation of the report's recommendations? (i.e. What are the qualities that make certain recommendations easy to implement? Why and how do they exist? How do they operate?) (Examples of positive factors are: short time frame until results achieved, does not require large financial investment, etc.)

Barriers:
25. Are you aware of which recommendations have not yet been fully implemented? (Not fully implemented in this context means goal of recommendation not yet achieved by the agency responsible for its implementation, or for recommendations intended to become bylaws: not yet passed as a bylaw, passed but not duly implemented and/or enforced by the responsible civic departments.)

26. If yes, which ones?

27. For those bylaws which have not been fully implemented what are the barriers to implementation?

28. How do these barriers work?

29. Will these bylaws ever be fully implemented?

30. What would have to change for the bylaws to become fully implemented?

31. Are you frustrated with the barriers, or do they serve a purpose?

32. Generally speaking, can you identify any negative factors that impeded implementation of the report's recommendations? (i.e. What are the qualities that make certain recommendations difficult to implement? Why and how do they exist? How do they operate?) (Examples of negative factors are: long time frame until results achieved, may spark disapproval among a certain sector of society, will require large financial investments, etc.)

Civic Performance:
33. To what extent do you think City Hall departments have implemented the bylaws?

34. Do you think some departments have been more progressive than others?

35. If yes, why?

36. What do you think are the barriers (difficulties) that some, or all, of the departments have encountered?

Personal Perceptions:
37. What is your own feeling on this issue, i.e. the report and its recommendations?

38. Do you feel satisfied with the pace of progress to date?

39. Would you be supportive of an even faster rate of implementation?

40. If yes, why?

41. If no, why not?

42. What should we be doing next? Given the fact that we have Clouds of Change adopted, how can we mobilize to get all of the recommendations implemented?

43. If you were to re-write the report, what would you do differently to counter-act or overcome the barriers that it has encountered?

44. Furthermore, if the report were fully implemented, do you feel that it would make a substantive impact on local air quality and/or global atmospheric change?

Specific Recommendations:
45. Recommendation #10, Preferential Parking and Pricing, was one that the City had the power to implement, but chose not to, why?

46. Recommendation #9, Trip Reduction bylaw, was one that the City had the power to implement, but chose to pass up to the GVRD level of governance. Understandably, transportation issues are of regional concern, but this recommendation involved the passing of a municipal bylaw: why was it passed up to the regional level despite this fact?

47. For the recommendations listed below, what qualities does each one have that make it easy or difficult to implement?

a) Recommendation #9: Trip reduction bylaw

b) Recommendation #30b: Leadership by example, substitute free transit passes for parking passes for all City employees.

c) Recommendation #19: Proximity policies and incentives.

d) Recommendation #11: Bicycle transportation network.










APPENDIX C




QUESTIONNAIRE
(Quantitative Section)


QUANTITATIVE SECTION

1. Clearly, progress in implementing some of the recommendations has been more rapid than others. Generally speaking, however, are you satisfied overall with the rate of progress made to date in implementing the report's recommendations as a whole?

1 2 3 4 5
Unaware Progress Progress Progress Progress
of is too is barely is too fast
progress slow adequate appropriate


2. How supportive do you think the public is of this report?

1 2 3 4 5
Do not Not very Somewhat Supportive Very
know supportive supportive supportive


4. Do you feel that the public is satisfied with the rate of progress made to date?

1 2 3 4
Unaware Rate is Rate is Rate is
of rate too slow barely adequate appropriate


5. Do you feel the public would be supportive of a faster rate of implementation?

1 2 3
No Not Sure Yes


6. Clearly implementation of some of the report's recommendations has been more successful than others. Generally speaking, however, how successful (i.e. to what extent) do you think Council has been in implementing the whole report?

1 2 3 4 5

Negligible Slight Moderate Strong Extensive
Success Success Success Success Success



7. How serious do you consider the threat of atmospheric problems to be relative to other issues confronting Council (or your department, or you)? (depends on who is being interviewed.)

1 2 3

Not serious; Mid range severity; Extremely Serious;
there are other recommendations recommendations
issues of greater should be kept in should be strictly
priority. mind, but can be adhered to
over-ridden if and should take
circumstances priority over
warrant it. other interests.


8. How serious do you consider the threat of atmospheric problems to be personally?

1 2 3

Not serious; Mid range severity; Extremely Serious;
there are other recommendations recommendations
issues of greater should be kept in should be strictly
priority. mind, but can be adhered to
over-ridden if and should take
circumstances priority over
warrant it. other interests.









APPENDIX D






INTERVIEW PARTICIPANTS




Interview Participants Defined by Personal Identity:

Task Force Members:
Dr. Frederic Bass, British Columbia Medical Association.

Michael J. Brown, Ventures West Management Inc.

Dianna Colnett

Ted Droettboom, Deputy City Manager.

David Loukidelis, Lidstone, Young, Anderson, Barristers and Solicitors.

Dr. William E. Rees, Director, School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia.

Dr. Mark Roseland, School of Resource and Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University.

Christopher Richardson.

Dr. Douw G. Steyn, Atmospheric Advisor, Department of Geography, University of British Columbia.

Dr. Robert F. Woollard, Department of Family Practice, University of British Columbia.

Annonymous

City of Vancouver Council Members:
Gordon Campbell

Libby Davies

Phillip Owen

Gordon Price

Harry Rankin

Pat Wilson


Civic Staff:
Ken Anderson, Equipment Manager, Department of Engineering, City of Vancouver.

Dr. F.J. Blatherwick, Director, Department of Health, City of Vancouver

Ken Dobell, City Manager, City of Vancouver.

Ted Droettboom, Deputy City Manager, City of Vancouver.

John Dumont, Environmental Analyst for the Special Office for the Environment, Department of Engineering, City of Vancouver.

Nathan Edelson, Department of Planning, City Planner

Douglas G. Glenn, Environmental Analyst for the Special Office of the Environment, Environmental Health, Department of Health, City of Vancouver.

Tom Hammel, Budgets Engineer, Department of Engineering, City of Vancouver.

Rhonda Howard, Department of Planning, City Planner

Sam Kuzmick, Deputy Director, Department of Finance, City of Vancouver.

Ann MacAfee, Associate Director, City Planning, Department of Planning, City of Vancouver.

Neil McCreedy, Environmental Analyst for the Special Office for the Environment, Environmental Protection, Department of Permits and Licensing, City of Vancouver.

J.L. Mulberry, Director, Department of Legal Services, City of Vancouver.

Nick Losito, Chair of the Special Office for the Environment, Envirionmental Health, Department of Health, City of Vancouver.

Jack Perri, Director, Department of Permits and Licensing, City of Vancouver.

Doug Roberts, Environmental Protection, Department of Permits and Licensing, Member of the Special Office for the Environment, City of Vancouver.

Dave Rudberg, Director, Department of Engineering, City of Vancouver.

Rick Scobie, Associate Director of Planning, Land Use and Development, Department of Planning, City of Vancouver.

Peter Steblin, Deputy, Department of Engineering, Member of the Special Office for the Environment, City of Vancouver.

Annonymous

Annonymous

Presenters to the Task Force and Interested Citizens:
Leigh Carter, Chair, B.C.A.A. Environmental Task Force

William E. Cooke, Ageless Adventures, Division of Pegasus Worldwide Travel Inc.

Simon Cowieson

Guy Dauncy, Interested Citizen, Healthy Atmosphere 2000.

Stuart Hertzog, Citizens Action Network.

Ann Hillyer, Barrister and Soliciter, West Coast Environmental Law Association.

Oliver Hockenhull

Brian M. Lees, President and Managing Director, Downtown Parking Corporation Limited.

David Masuhara, V.P. of Legal and Regulatory Affairs, B.C. Gas, also member of the B.C. Round Table on Economy and the Environment.

Morris Mennell, Administrator, Program Planning and Development, Air Quality and Source Control Department, Greater Vancouver Regional District.

Isabel Minty, Kitsilano Planning Committee.

Kirk Jonnstone, Manager, Science Division, Atmospheric Environment Service, Environment Canada.

Dr. T.R. Oke, Department of Geography, University of British Columbia.

David E. Park, The Chancellor Partners.

Laura Porcher, Coordinator, Healthy Atmosphere 2000.

David Reardon

Terry Slack, Southland's Planning Committee.

Eric Taylor, Atmospheric Environment Service, Environment Canada.

William Walker.

Hellen Warn, Vancouver Region, Cycling British Columbia