Survey
The survey was completed by a total of 37 environmental activists from across Canada. In order to obtain participants, a general request was sent out utilizing electronic mail via various mailing lists available through organizations such as the Canadian Environmental Network and the Environmental Studies Association of Canada (ESAC). All participants who responded to the general request, and accepted the conditions detailed (Appendix: Letter of Request - Survey), were included in the study. Unfortunately, due to time constraints and the need to further focus on the Clayoquot Sound case study, only one question has been highlighted and included in the research. (For the complete list of survey questions see Appendix: Survey. This question (question eleven) was part of the survey sent out during the month of November of 1998.
Questionnaire
Following the survey was a sociodemographic questionnaire (Appendix: Sociodemographic Questionnaire). This questionnaire provided a breakdown on details such as gender, age, level of education, occupation, and income. The results from the questionnaire are provided below in order to afford a basic profile of the respondents. The following offers a summary of this questionnaire.
There were a total of 29 respondents to this questionnaire (not all of the participants of the main survey chose to participate in the sociodemographic questionnaire) resulting in a generous amount of data. Confidentiality was the basis of participation, therefore the identity of each of the respondents has not been included with the results. Of the 29 respondents:
|
Male |
Female |
Volunteer |
Professional |
Post secondary education |
Age 20-40 |
Age 41-60 |
|
20 |
9 |
8 |
16 |
29 |
11 |
14 |
The volunteer/professional categories refer to the capacity in which each of the respondents involve themselves in the environmental field. Inconsistencies occurred because some respondents chose not to respond to either category, and because some other respondents stated as being involved both professionally and as a volunteer. All of the respondents achieved some level of post secondary education ranging from college/technical to a doctorate. The age distribution of the respondents ranged mostly between 20 and 60 years of age, with the remaining respondents above 60 (none of the respondents were under the age of 20).
|
< $20,000 |
$20,000-$30,000 |
$31,000-$40,000 |
$41,000-$50,000 |
$51,000-$60,000 |
$61,000-$70,000 |
<$71,000 |
|
8 |
5 |
2 |
8 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
The level of income, if charted, would illustrate a type of ‘u’ shape with the majority of respondents either at less than $20,000 per year or at a more comfortable $41,000 to $50,000 per year annual income. (Interestingly, as a side note, when the level of income is cross-referenced with gender, the data showed that the two lowest income brackets are dominated by females, whereas the highest four brackets are dominated by males.)
|
Years
active 0-5 |
Years
active 6-11 |
Years
active >11 |
|
6 |
11 |
10 |
The respondents, when asked how many years they have been active in the environmental movement in Canada, are evenly distributed throughout the year ranges with the majority having been involved for six years or more.
|
Prov./Terr. BC, AB, SK, MN |
Prov./Terr. NS, NB, PEI |
Prov./Terr. NWT, YK |
Urban |
Rural |
|
19 |
7 |
2 |
18 |
7 |
The provincial/territorial distribution of the respondents indicates a western provincial slant, which coincides with the fact that the four western provinces are home to less than 30% of the population, but with almost half of Canada’s environmental organizations based there (Stefanick 1996, 71). Perhaps not of particular surprise is that the majority of respondents are urban dwellers. And finally, when asked the question as to the position held within an environmental organization, 93 percent of the total respondents stated as being involved in some capacity. The involvement ranged from a door-to-door campaigner to a director.
Survey Question
The following is question eleven of the survey. The question asked of the respondents that will be considered herein was: What do you consider necessary resources in environmental activism (i.e. money, time, volunteers)?
The following table provides the results from question eleven, as well as the results from the pressure group theorists (taken from the literature review). In both of the columns below, the resources are listed according to priority based on the number of times each one was listed as necessary in the survey and literature review. Next to each of the resources listed are the number of times that the resource was mentioned. The “(1) ...” indicates that the resources following are mentioned once. The table includes a bottom column listing the resources deemed necessary by one, but not reiterated by the other.
Question 11 of Survey
|
11) What do you [the activist] consider necessary resources in environmental activism (i.e. money, time, volunteers)? |
Resources Defined as Essential by Pressure Group Theorists from the Literature Review |
|
· money (27) · time (20) · volunteers (19) · staff (4) · scientific data (3) · leadership & motivation (3) · education (to radicalize our citizens to action) (2) · people power (2) · media support (2) · network of connections (2) · visionaries (1) .... · direction and information · connections to the grassroots · patience · expertise · clear, distinct policies · open minds · political support · ideas · authority power · a good cause · solid beliefs and values · commitment · excellent intelligence gathering and sharing · networking and communication · clear objective with multiple ways of achieving it · community support · attentive government · human resources · political power · people who are good with the media |
· leadership skills (4) · money/large budgets (3) · membership (well informed) (3) · expert advice/knowledge (2) · knowing access to appropriate policy makers (2) · strategy (1) .... · legitimacy (with gov’t, public, and politicians) · access & influence (legislators & bureaucrats) · communication skills · paid staff · an appealing issue · permanent organizational structure · flexibility · cooperation (gov’ts want advice & technical info) |
Resources Declared Necessary by Either
Activists or Pressure Group Theorists that were Not Mentioned in Neighbouring
Column
|
· time (20) · education (2) · media support (2) · patience (1) .... · clear, distinct policies · open minds · solid beliefs and values · commitment |
· permanent organizational structure (1)... · flexibility · cooperation (gov’ts want advice & technical info) |
The priority placed on each of the resources by both the activists and the theorists indicates that money was found to be the most essential resource. Money would allow participants in the policy process to concentrate on the issue instead of having to deal with the hurdles imposed because of the lack of access to the necessary finances (i.e. transportation costs, administrative costs, fees to access information, consultative fees, etc).
Followed by money was the need for ‘time’. Time can initially be seen as a resource not easily addressed by the facilitators of policy development. However, if participants were able to concentrate on their participation in actions such as the policy process, instead of on their lack of monetary requirements, the issue of time (of the lack thereof) may largely be addressed.
The fact that pressure group theorists asserted leadership skills as a priority resource over money may indicate that without good leadership, no amount of money could ensure success. It could also, however, indicate that theorists (compared with the activists ‘in the field’) are somewhat out of touch in terms of what are truly priority resources. It could also be that due to the limitations imposed by the lack of money, good leadership goes largely under-utilized.
It was also found that both the activists and the theorists agreed that the participation of members of the public are essential resources (membership & volunteers); people are seen as essential. Volunteers are necessary, especially with persistent fiscal restraint. A solid membership is also necessary in order to organize and present a ‘strong front’ in any policy process.
Another resource identified was the need for, and access to, information, scientific data, and expert knowledge. These are considered essential resources by both the activists in the survey and the theorists in the literature review. Accurate information was found to be necessary in making appropriate decisions and planning courses of action.
The priority placed on the resources by one group and not by the other provides opportunity for speculation as to why this may be. For example, activists indicated that time was one of the top priorities in terms of resources, whereas pressure group theorists failed to mention this resource at all. This may be, as mentioned above, because activists are in the field and therefore would know first hand the difficulties incurred due to the lack of essential resources. They have experienced the difficulties of trying to be effective activists, but because of the lack of time are largely unsuccessful.
The same can be said of the other priorities cited by one and not the other. Activists are able to provide insight into an area of policy influence (via activism) that theorists cannot. Activists are in the field, and therefore are able to provide first-hand knowledge of what are necessary resources, and the level of priority for each one. Pressure group theorists may largely be divorced from the activism but are perhaps better at ‘stepping back’ and providing an objective analysis. A theorist’s analysis of the policy process, and the identification and prioritization of necessary resources, may be seen as more credible due to their seemingly neutral position.
The results from question eleven and the literature review have demonstrated parallels between what activists ‘in the field’ believe are essential resources in order to be effective, and what pressure group theorists believe to be essential resources in order for activists to be effective. By combining the input from both activists and theorists, a comprehensive list of necessary resources have been developed. However, it is interesting to note the lack of priority placed on one specific resource by both groups; political alliances. Political alliances were found to be the most important in the interviews, as well as by Hessing and Howlett. Whereas political alliances were not specifically listed by either the activists or theorists. Instead, the activists alluded to this resource by listing “network of connections”, and the theorists list “access and influence (legislators and bureaucrats)”.
Ideally, with this information, government and other participants in policy development are provided with a list of necessary requirements in order to ensure that all participants at ‘the table’ are able to contribute equally. This would certainly be true provided the government is able to meet the demand of each of the necessary resources.