APPENDICES

A Statistics
Internet Usage (Canadian)

Households Connected to the Internet by Province
(as a percentage of all households in the province)

1998
Alberta 45.1
British Columbia 42.0
Ontario 39.0
Nova Scotia 37.9
Canada Average 35.9
Prince Edward Island 35.4
Saskatchewan 33.8
Manitoba 33.5
New Brunswick 31.0
Newfoundland 28.9
Quebec 26.2

Households Connected to the Internet by City
(as a percentage of all households in the city)
1997 1998

Halifax 39.2 50.2
Quebec City 23.9 28.6
Montreal 24.3 31.6
Ottawa 55.6 55.4
Toronto 38.0 42.0
Kitchener-Waterloo 34.9 42.4
Hamilton 30.4 41.2
St Catharines-Niagara 26.1 29.3
London 31.8 40.4
Windsor 25.7 21.8
Winnipeg 33.1 37.8
Calgary 41.1 52.8
Edmonton 35.9 43.9
Vancouver 35.9 45.7
Victoria 40.1 48.5
Other 23.6 30.1
Canada Average 29.4 35.9

Demographics
Age
Age Groups On-line
(as a percentage of households reporting)
1997 1998
less than 35 years 37.9 45.3
35-54 years 38.8 46.9
55-64 years 21.1 27.5
65+ years 5.5 7.2

Income
Income Levels On-line
(as a percentage of households reporting)
1997 1998
Bottom Quartile 12.4 13.2
Second Quartile 18.4 23.6
Third Quartile 32.8 41.5
Top Quartile 53.7 65.1

Education
Education Levels On-line
(as a percentage of households reporting)
1997 1998
Less than high school 9.0 12.6
High school/College 31.0 37.4
University Degree 59.6 68.1

Family Type
Family Types On-line
(as a percentage of households reporting)
1997 1998
Single Family with children 38.2 47.6
Single Family with no children 27.7 34.2
One Person 16.5 20.4
Multi-family 43.7 45.5

Location
Where the Internet is Accessed
(as a percentage of households reporting)
1997 1998
Home 16.0 22.6
Work 19.9 23.3
School 9.4 12.1
Library 3.7 4.3
Other 2.8 2.6

Use
Uses for the Internet
(as a percentage of Internet user households)
1998
E-mail 85.6
Electronic Banking 24.4
Purchasing 10.9
Searching for Medical Information 42.5
Education/Training 30.0
Looking for Government Information 36.4
Looking for Other Information 67.9
General Browsing 78.1
Playing Games 34.4
Chat Groups 25.4
Other 11.6
Source: Statistic Canada, News Release: http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/990423/d990423b.htm
http://www.gdsourcing.com/substance/datac.htm

 

Civic Participation (Canadian)
Participation rate (%) Percent of participants involved in 2 or more organizations (%)

Province
Newfoundland 49 33
Prince Edward Island 50 39
Nova Scotia 55 43
New Brunswick 47 40
Quebec 43 38
Ontario 52 42
Manitoba 58 45
Saskatchewan 62 52
Alberta 55 48
British Columbia 54 41

Age
15­24 44 33
25­34 48 39
35­44 55 44
45­54 57 48
55­64 54 44
65 and over 45 41

Sex
Male 53 43
Female 49 41

Marital status Participation Percent of participants involved in
rate (%) 2 or more organizations (%)
Married or common law 54 45
Single, never married 46 37
Separated, divorced 44 38
Widowed 39 39

Education
Less than high school 40 33
High school diploma 45 39
Some post secondary 53 36
Post secondary or diploma 53 44
University 74 57

Labour Force Status
Employed 57 44
Full­time 57 44
Part-time 57 42
Unemployed 36 31
Not in the labour force 42 40

Household Income
Less than 20,000 34 36
20,000­39,999 45 38
40,000­59,999 54 41
60,000­79,999 60 42
80,000 or more 71 52
Source: Caring Canadians, Involved Canadians: Highlights from the 1997 National Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participating, Statistics Canada, 1998.

 

B Focus Group Summary
Instead of a one-time survey, a group of individuals, from various areas of expertise, was organized into a network to provide on-going feedback about public participation and using the Internet. Individuals from community groups in the area as well as professional planners were contacted and a survey group was created. A constant relationship with participants was maintained while gathering feedback.

Using a survey in 4 parts, views on public participation as well as views on the potential for the use of the Internet as a public participation tool were gathered from the group. The group was varied and consisted of 8 members, three of which were professional planners. Also involved were two members from government based environmental research groups, two participants involved in government based community and environmental research around the Bay of Fundy and one local community group leader.

While overall comments were similar, the results of the survey did indicate the varying views of individuals from different fields of work on public participation and the implications of an Internet component.

The following is the survey used. It consists of four parts:

Part 1 - introduction: the participants were asked to introduce themselves and the area in which they work. Participants were selected to reflect varying views of different professions.

Part 2 - Public Participation: several questions were designed to reveal participants attitudes concerning the process of public participation.

Overall, there were varying views about public participation, what its constitutes, what makes it work, etc. The professional planners of the group used terms like "stakeholders" and "vested interests". Their views and attitudes were coming from dealing with public participation in a very professional way. Their definitions reflected the official and legal aspects of public participation while also stressing the importance of accurately representing the public's concerns.

Others used terms like "community members" and stressed the importance of open communication, open decision making and full access to information. They expressed their dissatisfaction with public participation programs that are used to "trick" the public into thinking they are really impacting the outcome of their communities when in actual fact the decisions have already been made.

Part 3 - The Internet: This part of the survey was to assess the participants knowledge of the Internet and its technologies. Instead of jumping right to questions about Internet applications and public participation, it was crucial to determine participants levels of knowledge and familiarity with Internet technology.

Participants used mainly email and the Web on a daily or weekly basis for correspondence and information retrieval. Most expressed that while the Internet had impacts on the way they worked (as compared to before the Internet existed), it did not greatly change their day-to-day lives.

Part 4 - Public Participation and the Internet: Here the survey brought the other parts together and participants were asked to visualize, if possible, what an Internet application of public participation might be. Responses to the previous part (Part 3) gave insight into much of the answers given in Part 4.

Participants generally agreed that using the Internet as a public participation tool would be advantageous. Many, however, stressed the importance of not letting become the sole method of public participation. Generally, it was felt that while the Internet would offer a new way to gain and give information, it should not replace traditional forms of public participation.

The survey/focus group was initiated for two reasons. Firstly to observe how an email based survey would perform. Would it indeed be faster, easier, and more efficient to implement? Would more people take part because it was an a form Internet communications? Secondly, it was created and implemented to gather information from people with diverse professional backgrounds about three topics:
their views on public participation, how they've participated themselves and their ideas about what makes a good or bad public participation program, their familiarity and access to the Internet, how they use it on a daily basis and if it has changed they way they live their lives in any way and; their ideas and views on an Internet application of public participation, whether or not they could foresee a successful implementation of the Internet.

It was anticipated that an email survey would take less time than a standard survey because of its speed of transfer, however, it was discovered that email has its drawbacks (such as how to answer multiple choice questions). It possesses a certain unofficial quality that may have lead to the length of time it actually took to complete the survey. Delays may also have been due in part to the subject matter and the fact that the survey was for student research purposes.

Overall, the experiment was useful for gaining input on the thesis topic from a group with varying backgrounds as well as evaluating the practicality of email surveys.

The following is a copy of the survey used:

Public Participation and the Internet: A Public Survey
Part 1: Information
Participants were asked to give a short introduction of themselves and the work they do.

Part 2: Public Participation
How would you define public participation? (ie. What activities constitute a public participation program?)

Please estimate how many public participation programs you have been involved in over the last year (either as organizer or participant). none 1 2 3 4 5 more than 5________

In what types of programs do you usually participate (either as organizer of participant)? (example: environmental issues, policy amendments, etc.)

Why did you become involved in these particular public participation programs?

During the planning process, at what stage(s) do you think it is most important to get public input? Why?

During the planning process, at what stage(s) do you think it is most difficult to get public input? Why?

During the planning process, at what stage(s) do you think it is the easiest to get public input? Why?

Have you been involved in a particularly successful public participation program? (circle) yes no If yes, what aspects of it made it successful?

Have you been involved in a particularly unsuccessful public participation program? (circle) yes no If yes, what aspects of it made it unsuccessful?

How could have the unsuccessful programs been improved?

Additional Comments:

Part 3: The Internet
How often do you use the Internet? (circle)
world wide web daily weekly monthly never
email daily weekly monthly never
Internet Relay Chats (IRC) daily weekly monthly never

From where do you usually connect to the Internet? (circle)
home library office other_________________

Overall, for what reasons do you use the Internet?
world wide web career/profession education community entertainment correspondence/discussion shopping other_________________
email career/profession education community entertainment correspondence/discussion shopping other_________________
Internet Relay Chat (IRC) career/profession education community entertainment correspondence/discussion shopping other_________________

Do you mostly see the Internet as a tool for gaining information for yourself or for giving your information out to others? (circle) gaining information giving information

Please rate your level of expertise of the Internet by answering the following questions with yes or no: Can you build and maintain a website?
Do you use email for regular professional and personal correspondence?
Do you subscribe regularly to listservers and participate in the discussions?
Do you regularly download information from the world wide web?
Do you have a basic understanding of the technical aspects of the Internet?
email?
world wide web?
Has your use of the Internet reduced or eliminated other daily activities? (example: going shopping, going the bank, etc.) Do you think the Internet has greatly impacted your daily activities at home?
at work?
Overall, do you consider yourself an informed and avid user of the Internet?
Additional Comments:

Part 4: The Internet and Public Participation
Can you envision a possible application of the Internet to public participation programs? yes no If yes, what would it look like? Where would it fit in the process? (example: initial "visioning" stages, final evaluations stage, etc.) If no, explain:

Could you see public participation programs improving due to such an application? yes no Please explain why or why not:

What, if any, do you think would be some of the draw backs to implementing the Internet into public participation programs?

Can you offer ideas on how these drawbacks might be eliminated or reduced?

What, if any, would be the legal implications of implementing the Internet into public participation programs? (ie. Could Internet public participation programs legally replace the traditional face-to-face programs?)

Additional Comments:

 

C Seminar Summary
As part of the required curriculum of the course Public Involvement in Resource and Environmental Management at the School for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University, a short seminar about using the Internet as a public participation tool was held involving the other members of the class. The class was used as a source of information in four categories. The seminar lasted one hour and the following focus questions were answered:

What are the problems that exist with traditional methods of public participation?
Which, if any, of these problems can the Internet potentially solve?
What are the new problems created by the use the Internet for public participation?
Overall, how would you evaluate the Internet as a tool for public participation?

Having been studying the principles and process of public participation for several months at this time, the class came up with a wealth of answers to the questions posed. While it is recognized that the class represents a somewhat bias group in that they are all members of the academic society and are enrolled in the course, it must also be noted that this class was particularly diverse consisting of students from disciplines such as Marine Resources, Resource and Environmental Studies, Urban and Rural Planning, and Public Administration.

The following is a summary paper submitted for the course requirement which gives a general overview of the seminar and the ideas and issues that resulted.

 

Using the Internet as a Public Involvement Tool
Guest Speaker and Seminar Summary
Public Involvement in Resource and Environmental Management
Beth Lewis B00116864
December 7, 1999.

Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Public Involvement
1.2 The Internet
1.3 Public Involvement and the Internet

2.0 The Levels of "Publicness" on the Internet
2.1 Information Access
2.2 Information Access and Feedback
2.3 Information Access, Feedback, and Real-time Discussion

3.0 Seminar Investigating the Internet as a Tool for Public Involvement
3.1 Problems Associated with Current Public Involvement Programs
3.2 Potential Solutions by Using Internet Public Involvement Programs
3.3 Problems Created by Using Internet Public Involvement Programs

4.0 Conclusion

 

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Public Involvement
Public involvement is about information and interaction. It is the idea that no one person or organization should make the decisions that affect everyone and that wherever possible those affected should be contacted and have their say.

Programs to involve the public depend on widespread availability and accuracy of information so that informed responses and decisions can be made. Programs should ensure that no single group or individual dominates the involvement process and that equal opportunity for all people affected to become involved is provided.

Public involvement programs should be efficient. They must accurately acknowledge the concerns of the public in a timely and productive manner.

It can often be difficult to achieve this accuracy, availability, diversity, and efficiency. There are many limitations that can cause these difficulties. Some of these will be further discussed in section 3.1.

1.2 The Internet
The internet is undoubtedly the fastest growing technology of the 1990's. It has surpassed even the television as the fastest technological advance to be implemented into the home.

Basically, the internet is a group of thousands of networks and millions of computers around the world that can all work together and share information. The internet and email first appeared publicly in the 1970's and have become household names today. At first terms like world wide web or "dot com" were unknown. Today these terms can be heard in many daily conversations.

Today (and in the future) computers and people around the world are communicating and exchanging information in a manner that is unprecedented. Internet users can interact through the latest in communication technology and it is having a profound impact on society and the way we think about traditional forms of communication and trade.

Some argue that the internet will be the death of face-to-face communication. Others say it can only lead to a great improvement in society's ability to share information and communicate because of its disregard for geographic location. Either way, it can not be denied that the internet has greatly impacted the way the world communicates.

1.3 The Internet and Public Involvement
Because of the need for easily accessed accurate information and a rich diversity of those involved, successful public involvement programs rely on current and attainable information sources as well as useful and efficient modes of communication.

A key tool of the future for public involvement is the internet. The internet consists of the world wide web, email, and chat lines. It, therefore, has the ability to relay up-to-the-minute information, provide instantaneous feedback, and facilitate real-time discussion. It can also offer alternatives to current public involvement practices that appear to lack the qualities required for the keys to success mentioned in section 1.1.

 

2.0 "Publicness" on the Internet
The internet can be analyzed as a public involvement tool by investigating the three levels of "publicness" that exist on-line.

2.1 Public access to information
This is the whole idea and concept behind the web. It is an information source with few boundaries. Documents and information that would otherwise be time-consuming to locate are found easily through search engines on the net. Many government sites offer public access to documents and reports about an array of issues involving the public. The documents can often be downloaded free of charge.

example: Joint Action Group (Muggah Creek Watershed Clean Up)<http://www.muggah.org/>

2.2 Public access to information and feedback
The next step in public involvement would be sites that offer the opportunity to become somewhat interactive with the information presented. This takes the form of bulletin boards, discussion email listservers and on-line surveys. Here, the public can go one step beyond access to information and give a response to what is observed on-line. It can also offer the chance to discuss with other members of the public or other organizations about issues and information that has been presented.

examples: The Fundy Forum <http://is.dal.ca/aczisc/fundy/forum> (see Appendix C)
Coastal Futures 2025: Internet Town Meeting <http://coast2025.nos.noaa.gov/index.html>

2.3 Public access to information, feedback, and real-time discussion
This takes the form of activities like chat lines that happen on-line in real time. Although no direct public involvement program examples were found, the public involvement equivalent could be workshops, seminars, and round table discussions all happening on the internet. The public could become involved without leaving home. The steps of gaining information, giving feedback, and taking part in an actual program could be completed all in one place, at the computer.

The question is "What are the advantages of having all this information and interaction on-line over traditional face-to-face programs?". To answer this we must first identify the problems associated with current public involvement programs. We must then look at some basic internet statistics and decide if on-line programs would actually begin to solve these problems or if they would in fact create more.

 

3.0 Seminar Investigating the Internet as a Tool for Public Involvement

3.1 Problems Associated with Current Public Involvement Programs

same people going to all meetings, no diversity
attendance low, not reaching everyone
people attending but not participating or one person participating too much - dominating
crowd anxiety - participants nervous at the prospect of speaking in front of crowd
transportation: time, money, energy, personal risk - are people willing to sacrifice these to become involved
soap box syndrome - one person uses public involvement as their personal platform to complain
people not fully informed - about both dates, times, etc. and issues involved
programs 'drag on', people not willing to commit that much time
facilitators not fully trained to manage conflict
people too busy to attend
people intimidated by the presence of particular individuals
general lack of structure and the failure to show how public involvement will be used in the decision-making process
ineffective methods of getting the word out
timing of programs, conflicting with public schedules
language barriers
incivility

3.2 Potential Solutions by Using Internet Public Involvement Programs

(1 & 2) reaching another group of individuals who would not normally attend a standard program but would be involved on-line
(4) people might be more likely to speak on-line as opposed to getting up in front of a crowd
(5) staying at home and participating saves time, money, energy and reduces personal risk as those involved can do so from their personal computers
(7) adding the internet to the standard list of information media could reach more people
(10) not having to travel to programs could free up the time of those who are too busy
(11) intimidation could be reduced
(15) language barriers could be reduced as many people fee more comfortable writing in a foreign language than speaking

On-line programs solve many problems with traditional public involvement programs. However, other problems could be created as a result of moving public involvement programs to the internet.

3.3 Problems Created by Using Internet Public Involvement Programs

illiteracy - both computer and reading
difficult for some of the public to get access to the internet
identity of those involved in the programs - trust issues
age, demographics, education - excluding a significant group due to limited access to internet
not actually reaching a new group of people - level of diversity remains the same
a new kind of crowd anxiety emerges
technical problems - computer crashes during workshop
large quantities of "useless information" - no regulation on who can have a website and who can gain access to program - accuracy of information
ensuring that the affected people are actually the ones on-line
takes away form feeling of community
no socialization - ideas often emerge from the "in-between" dialogue in traditional programs
true emotions do not come out or are exaggerated
current legal requirements of public involvement programs

4.0 Conclusion
Upon reviewing the statistics (see Appendices A & B ), I find that one of the main arguments for implementing on-line programs cannot be supported. It is the argument that a whole new group of people would be reached. The same people who use the internet regularly are mostly the same people who are regularly involved in public participation programs of the standard sort. Those who make up the majority of regular or established internet users and those who make up the majority of public involvement participants generally:

As a result of the seminar it is evident that with the use of on-line public involvement programs are accompanied by solutions to current problems but also by a whole new set of problems. There are issues with both forms of seeking the public's input.

There is merit, however, in studying the idea of on-line public involvement. Statistics like "by the year 2005 there will be 717 million people on-line" show that internet use by the general public has sky-rocketed since its inception and is expected to increase. The internet, as it continues to advance and change, may prove to be the future tool of public involvement.

 

D Thesis Model Summary
In an attempt to learn the basics of web design and construction, a website was created to house this thesis online. It was perpetually uploaded and updated on the World Wide Web as it was written.

On the website, viewers had an opportunity to read through the thesis as it was formed and changed and leave their comments through email. Most correspondence was done through email with the supervisor and advisor who gave comments and suggestions on the thesis via email after viewing it on the website. The website address for the the thesis is <http://www.bigfoot.com/~betsergee>. A website was also constructed to present this thesis.

A thesis takes on an interesting dynamic when it is posted to the Internet throughout its construction. Because of the topic, much of the research was conducted online. Those texts or articles that were not available online, were searched out online. Therefore, the online bibliography becomes a dynamic resource. Notes within the thesis can be linked directly to the bibliography. With one click the reader can access the bibliographical information, then, with one more click, the reader can be taken directly to the source or at least where the source can be found.

Any changes made to the thesis were uploaded as they were finished (often daily), therefore the thesis was constantly changing. A paper copy was not necessary to see the changes.

This dynamic nature of the thesis presents an interesting idea of our approach to public documents. Not only are they often difficult to locate, but they can become outdated in very short periods of time because of our changing growing society. The Internet presents a medium through which the public documents (such as plans) could achieve this dynamic nature.

 

[toc] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [Appendices] [Bibliography] [WWW]