Transcript Slide 1

Policy Uses of Community
Indicator Projects:
Social and Policy learning from Seattle to
Vancouver
Meg Holden, Ph.D.
Urban Studies Program
Simon Fraser University
CSIN Learning Event, 8 December 2005
URBAN STUDIES PROGRAM
Outline of presentation
1. Expectations of Policy Uses of Community and
Sustainability Indicators Depend on the Policy
Model in Use
•
The Rational Model
•
The Ideal Policy Cycle
•
The Take-Off Point Model
•
The Deep Measures Model
•
The Pyramid Model
2. Lessons about Policy Uses of Indicators from
Sustainable Seattle
3. A New Experiment: The Regional Vancouver Urban
Observatory
What impacts are expected of community and
sustainability indicator studies?
The Rational Model:
H1: Indicator trends are used to inform policy
decisions.
H2: Improving indicator trends is a major policy
objective.
Better
Information
Better
Cities
Define
Goals & Set
Agendas
Monitor &
Evaluate
Results
Implement
Option
The Ideal
Policy
Cycle
Select
Policy
Option
Research &
Analyze
Alternatives
. . . Where do
indicators fit?
The Take-Off Point Model of Indicator
Uptake via Social Learning
SOCIAL LEARNING
Sustainable
Development?
4th Indicator
Report (2006?)
3rd Indicator
Report (1998)
2nd Indicator
Report (1995)
S2 Civic
Forum
Neighborhood
Indicators Project (2003)
1st Indicator Report
(1993)
1st Earth
Day
Status Quo
Development
1970
1990
TIME
2000
2005
The Deep Measures Model for Embedding
Sustainability Indicators in Social Institutions
INDICATORS
INCEPTION:
A process of “Beach
Head Work” that is:
•Collaborative
•Linkage-oriented
•Power-sensitive
• In addition to
focusing on
measuring and
monitoring
TAKE-OFF:
“Getting out
of the
shallows”
DEEP
MEASURES:
•Learning that is
social
•Attitude-shifting
in all 4 dimensions
•Effective across
professional
networks
•Form new norms
and institutions
The Pyramid Model of
Policy and Social Learning
Codified
and Tacit
Knowledge
Communities
of Inquirers
Codes of Practice
Systems of Policy Practice
insights in social learning
• Information becomes knowledge through a
process of coding that is not transparent.
• Knowledge and knowledge transfer hold people
and groups together in different ways.
• Agents in a community of inquirers are bound to
one another by a commitment to enhance a
particular codebook of knowledge.
• Knowledge and the community of inquirers are
constantly in a state of flux.
• Knowledge spreads differently outside a
knowledge community.
insights in policy learning
• Fluid boundaries among government, ngo, and
private sectors enable exchange and innovation
• Policy areas with poorly defined jurisdictions of
responsibility can be opportunities for sharing
the risk and recognition for innovation
• Policy makers’ imaginations are captured by
demonstrable ideas that fit within the conceptual
language of committed frameworks
• Policy windows of opportunity for innovation and
anchoring of new approaches and information
can arise unexpectedly
S2 Policy Impacts 1: Identify communities of inquirers as
units of analysis, recognizing mixed jurisdictions
Nov. 8, 1993: 20 indicators, 200
volunteers, over 2500 copies sold
Nov. 15, 1995: 40 indicators, 250
volunteers, over 4500 copies sold
Apr. 20, 1998: 40 indicators, 75
volunteers, approx. 1000 copies sold
S2 Policy Impacts 2: Investigate tacit knowledge by
studying group routines and imaginations
In September 1991, S2 established a set of seven goals:
1. To educate ourselves and other citizens about the values,
principles, and practices of sustainability;
2. To provide a forum for dialogue about the meaning and practice of
sustainability;
3. To seek to establish sustainability as a key criterion in planning and
decision-making;
4. To facilitate the development of cooperative partnerships in efforts
to move toward sustainability;
5. To monitor sustainability through developing indicators of economic,
cultural and environmental health;
6. To identify, encourage, and link existing efforts for sustainability; 7.
To work together to build a more sustainable way of life.
S2 Policy Impacts 3: Study processes of change within
communities and across fluid boundaries
Observable but Indirect Policy
Impacts:
• Comprehensive Planning
Process: Toward a Sustainable
Seattle (1994)
• New city Office of
Sustainability and Environment
(2000)
• “Sustainability” Job Titles in 5
Other City Departments
•Series of New Sustainability
Indicator Projects
“[Sustainable Seattle] was great
because frankly, I would call them up
and say, you know, we’ve got to do an
indicator in this area, do you guys
have some ideas? And they would
because they had thought about it and
tried out some things . . .they were the
beginners, we all learned from them. .
. And so we literally borrowed some of
their ways to track things. We had to
make it pretty much up as we went
along.”
-- Cynthia Moffitt, Director of Growth
Management Benchmark program
S2 Diffusion of Board Members in Government, NGO, For Profit Sectors
S2 Policy Impacts 4: The diffusion of knowledge to a system
of policy practice
2ND GEN.
3RD GEN.
STATE
‘NEXT’ GEN.
Sustainable
Washington Panel
(2003)
COUNTY/
REGION
Growth Mgmt
Benchmarks (‘96,
‘03)
PSRC Regional
Review (’97, ’98)
Communities Count
(2000,2002)
Puget Sound
Milestones (2001)
CITY
Comprehensive Plan
indicators (’96, ’98,
’03)
Dept. of Information
Technology
Indicators (2002)
Environmental Action
Agenda (2002)
NGO
Cascadia Scorecard ‘04
S2 Neighborhoods
Project (2003) + S2
Regional Rebirth ‘05
RVu Vision
RVu will be a long term observatory for our region with integrated public
engagement, research, and reporting functions. Its outlook is toward
continuous learning and action for sustainable development. At RVu, we
believe better information will build our region stronger when indicators
and information systems reflect our region’s many faces and voices,
deepest feelings and highest goals.
RVu Goals – “The 3 Cs”
At RVu, we’re counting on a Vancouver region that is up for the challenge
of urban sustainable development. Our goals are to:
•Connect and coordinate critical indicators for the region;
•Capacity-Build via partnerships with existing indicator projects in
the region and existing community and research networks;
•Communicate our process and results to local decision makers and
others via multiple media and learning channels.
Global Connections and Divergent Views
• RVu is a member of the Global Urban Observatory Network
http://www.unchs.org/programmes/guo/
• Headquartered at UN-Habitat in Nairobi, Kenya with over 100
member local urban observatories
• Established in 1997 to support local partners, authorities, private
sector & communities evaluate & monitor performance, at first in
housing indicators/shelter
• LUOs have provided a unique technical-assistance based link
between UN-Habitat and member cities
• Network’s effectiveness has been limited by the lack of
expertise/lack of reliable comparable data and lack of capacity of the
GUO to provide sufficient technical and strategic assistance
RVu: A New Model for Indicator
Policy Effects
New consensus
for strategies
and action
Diverse
Perspectives
Better Information
Different
Priorities
Alliances among
existing networks
& communities of
inquirers
Better Cities
Social, Community,
and Political
Capacity for Change
Developing habits
of appreciative
and challenging
inquiry
RVu Organizational Structure
Sponsors
Phase 1
Membership/
Resources
Project Team
Research Advisors
Committee
Committee Committee
Phase 3
Public Process/Study Groups
Phase 2
Information
Advisory Board
RESEARCH ADVISORY PROCESS
(JUN – DEC 05): Focusing our Existing View
FCM QOL
Indicators
BC
Sprawl
Report
City Social
Indicators
ICURS
FBC
Regional
Reports
SE False
Creek Public
Investment
Model
City Food
Security
Index
RVu
GVRD
SRI
Reporting
ICSC
Cities +30
GPI
United Way
Communities
in Action
RIIM
STUDY GROUP
PROCESS
(Oct 24 – Apr 3):
Expanding Our View
• Formation of 8 study groups of 8-15
participants around self-selected
priority issues or focal points;
• 6-month process of face-to-face
workshops, on-line discussion and
events toward citizen-based indicator
recommendations;
• Build on existing body of work in
focus areas for the region;
• Identify 1-3 headline indicators to
track performance by 2015
CRUNCH & COMMUINCATION PROCESS
(MAR – JUN 06 and beyond):
Relating and Reflecting on Our View
• World Urban Forum 3: pre-workshop, launch and networking events
with local residents and international GUO members;
• Counting on Vancouver: Our view of the region, mixing process and
outcome lessons of RVu;
• Special issue of Cities Journal reporting on the expert process;
• Work with partners to communicate key indicator results widely, in
different languages (including policy language!) and education formats;
• Work with SFU graduate students and other partners to develop
plans for original data collection;
• Renewed engagement cycles and ongoing monitoring.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!
FIND OUT MORE AT www.rvu.ca
CONTACT US AT [email protected]
OR 604.291.5948
The RVu Project Team thanks our funders, Western Economic
Diversification Canada, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council, and the SFU Urban Studies Program; our Advisory Board
members, our Research Advisors, and all our participants and partners.