The first part of the research involved undertaking a literature review of both the Canadian environmental policy process and pressure group theory. A review of the literature suggested that there is a need for further study in the area of policy analysis as it applies to the Clayoquot Land Use Decision. More specifically, the review revealed a need for further study into the level of participation by the main interests involved in the policy process. The literature also revealed a void in information pertaining to the influence interests have on the policy process depending on their access to the necessary resources, and the potential outcome if the resources are not made available.
The second part of the research involved a case study. The case study focuses on an area on the west side of Vancouver Island, British Columbia known as Clayoquot Sound (see Appendix - Map). Clayoquot Sound is approximately 350,000 hectares in size consisting mostly of temperate rainforest. Since 1980, Clayoquot Sound has been the focus of intense public debate about land use and resource development (Province 1993a, 1). The debate has led to confrontation, civil disobedience, and economic uncertainty.
The objective of a case study is to highlight specific incidences, individuals, and issues (Yin 1989, 18). The case study was chosen because of the research objective. A case study is meant to draw out the “what” questions in the policy analysis. The case study focused on the Clayoquot Land Use Decision as an example of a public policy. There are several reasons for selecting the Clayoquot Sound forest logging issue, and specifically a moment in time (Clayoquot Land Use Decision - detailed in Chapter Six), for the case study analyzed in the present work. The logging disputes in Clayoquot Sound have been going on for over two decades, thus providing a selection of pivotal moments from which to choose when studying the development of public policy. Along with selection is the availability of information. There has been a considerable amount of study done on the Clayoquot Sound issue, thus providing ample credible information to a researcher willing to sift through large amounts of data.
To analyze this policy decision Kingdon’s and Pross’ policy models (see Appendix: Models) were used. These two models were chosen because both were developed to look specifically at the details involved in the development of public policy. These two decision-making models were applied to the case study in order to analyze the development of the Clayoquot Land Use Decision (see Section 6.5). Additionally, a range of information sources such as government reports, the news media, and published texts were utilized that looked specifically at the Clayoquot Land Use Decision.
By applying Kingdon’s policy model and then Pross’ policy model, the Clayoquot Land Use Decision was examined to better understand the policy decision. Kingdon’s model provides an overview of the policy process, whereas Pross’ model provides greater detail into the policy decision. The steps of the policy process were outlined by first applying Kingdon’s model. The results from this first step were then applied to Pross’ model to detail further the participants and their role in the policy process, the interaction between the various participants, and the resources identified as essential when participating in the policy process.
In doing the Clayoquot Land Use Decision case study, numerous participants in the policy process were identified (see Appendix: Models - Pross’ Policy Communities Model). These participants were identified in various sources such as newspapers and periodical publications. To delve further into the policy process from a participants perspective, every individual and organization identified (who had a contact number or address) in doing the case study was contacted via fax or electronic mail requesting an interview (Appendix: Letter of Request - Interview). All (a total of four) replies of acceptance were followed-up on, resulting in four separate interviews. The interviews were done using a semi-structured interview methodology by either phone interview or electronic mail. The literature suggests that the use of the semi-structured interview methodology can be an effective approach to data gathering of this nature (Baruah 1998, 67; Fontana & Frey 1994, 361). The semi-structured interview methodology allows interaction between the respondent and the questions asked. This approach allows the respondent to elaborate on any aspect of the area of focus unhindered (Bickman, Rog, & Hendrick 1998, 22).
The questions asked of each of the interview participants were as follows:
1) Who do you think the main participants were in the Clayoquot Land Use Decision?
2) Identify the interactions/alliances between participants that may have influenced the policy decision.
3) Identify the resources that each participant needed in order to influence the policy decision.
4) Based on your response above, outline how you perceive the Clayoquot Land Use Decision was made.
The information provided by the above questions were essential in realizing what occurred in the policy process prior to the announcement of the Clayoquot Land Use Decision, from the perspective of the participant. Each of the participants in the interviews were very much involved in the Clayoquot Land Use policy process. Each of the interviewees had the experience to make an informed assessment of the activity leading up to the announcement of the land use decision.
The third part of the research involved a survey of activists from across Canada. This survey was included in the research in order to obtain the opinions of activists - the people in the field. These responses were then compared with the opinions of pressure group theorists - the more academic perspective. Activists were solicited for their input via electronic mail, accessed by using various mailing lists available through organizations such as the Canadian Environmental Network and the Environmental Studies Association of Canada (ESAC). These types of lists were used because they were available, and they provided access to activists from all over Canada. All participants who responded to the general request, and accepted the conditions detailed (Appendix: Letter of Request - Survey), were included in the survey. The final question in the survey asked what they deemed as essential resources in order for activists to accomplish their goals. The survey was conducted as a broader evaluation of the experiences of environmental activists in Canada. From this broad evaluation, the research effort then focused on participation resources (Appendix- Survey, Question 11). The results from this question were then compared with the pressure group theory literature review to establish an essential list of resources (detailed in Chapter 7). This list of information was then compared with the findings from the case study.
Separate from the goal of the research was a sociodemographic questionnaire (Appendix: Sociodemographic Questionnaire). This questionnaire simply provided a breakdown on details such as gender, age, level of education, occupation, and income (detailed in Chapter Seven). The results from the questionnaire provided a general context of the respondents.
There are certain limitations that are inherent in the methodologies chosen for this research. These limitations are intrinsic to the survey and semi-structured interview. The limitations include the following: existence of researcher biases, the limited generalizability of research results, and the imbalance in the origins of the information examined. Case study limitations also include the actual case chosen to be studied; a case study is time- and situation-specific. These limitations can be addressed in various ways such as in the design of the questions, interviewer skill, and objective reporting of the research results. By noting and accounting for the methodology limitations, the researcher was able to maximize the validity of the study’s findings (Yin 1998, 225).
The results from the survey, and the interviews, should be put into context. The responses are from the perspective of each of the participants. These responses should not be seen as objective, value-free, or quantifiable. The responses are based on the experiences of each of the participants, and as such are subject to some variability. In stating this, the value of each of the respondent’s participation in the research results remains valuable to the conclusions drawn. The purpose in stating the above is solely one of clarification.
This concludes the section on methodology. The next section details the environmental policy process in Canada, looking specifically at the various stages of the process and issues regarding the process.