1. Profiles of Four Citizen Deliberations

Lorelei L. Hanson

Effective engagement with a broad range of citizens is at the heart of public deliberation focused on realizing principles of inclusion, equality, information, and reason. These principles are integral to ensuring democratic empowerment that provides citizens “the capacities, capabilities and opportunities” to directly “influence public policies” (Johnson 2009, 680). Yet deliberations focused on wicked issues present an additional layer of complexity. Intractable problems that involve competing values and tensions—where time is not costless and those most responsible for the problem have the least immediate incentive to do something about it—challenge existing public policy engagement processes at many levels (Lazarus 2009; Levin et al. 2012; see introduction). Recognition of such complexity has likewise emerged in calls for a new way of approaching how we manage our interactions with natural ecosystems. Kay and Schneider (1994, 32) explain:

Scientific judgments about right and wrong seemed possible when we viewed the world as a set of billiard balls . . . . Unfortunately, this worldview with its approach to governance and law does not recognize, and will not help us deal with, the realities of complex systems. And here we have the crux of the issue. If we are truly to use an ecosystem approach, and we must if we are to have sustainability, it means changing in a fundamental way how we govern our decision-making processes and institutions, and how we approach the business of environmental science and management.

Within environmental management there is increasing recognition of the need for anticipatory, adaptive, and community-based approaches to address the complexity and dynamic nature of socio-natural systems (Diduck et al. 2012; Reed 2008; Tompkins and Adger 2004; Waltner-Toews et al. 2003; Wilner et al. 2012). Adaptive management is “a systematic process for improving management policies by learning from the outcomes of management strategies that have already been implemented” (Pahl-Wostl et al. 2007). Addressing super wicked issues like climate change from such a perspective directs one to consider how to build institutional designs that are not path dependent, but rather flexible, inclusive, and iterative procedures that allow for the development of continuously emergent management approaches. Key to this process is social learning that occurs at both individual and collective levels (Diduck et al. 2012) and allows participants to “monitor the outcome of their decisions and adapt them accordingly” (Reed 2008, 2422).

Social learning theory is informed by a number of disciplines and understandings of how learning occurs (Bandura 1977; Baron and Kerr 2003; Lave and Wenger 1991). Social learning emphasizes that “cognition is not solely an internalized, psychological process, but is essentially context-dependent and interactive” (Muro and Jeffrey 2008, 328). Key to many conceptualizations of social learning is a focus on observing and modelling behaviours, attitudes and emotional reactions, reciprocity and feedback, and social participation. There is no agreed-upon definition of social learning, but within natural resource management scholarship there are some generally agreed-upon outcomes generated from this form of collective and communicative learning:

• New factual knowledge
• Technical and social skills
• Change of cognition and attitudes
• Development of trust and formation of relationships.

Ultimately, these outcomes should result in collective agreement and action; “social learning is not only seen as a prerequisite for individual behavioural change but also for collective action” (Muro and Jeffrey 2008, 332). Given the focus on building collective cognition and action, social learning theory is particularly suited to citizen deliberation.

This chapter outlines four citizen deliberation projects members of Alberta Climate Dialogue (ABCD) actively participated in from 2012 to 2014 in chronological order: City of Edmonton City-Wide Food and Urban Agriculture Citizen Panel; Citizens’ Panel on Edmonton’s Energy and Climate Challenges; Energy Efficiency Choices; and Water in a Changing Climate.

I highlight the unique features of each public deliberation and the successes and challenges in realizing some of the above social learning outcomes, particularly from the vantage point of citizens and the volunteer table hosts and note takers. As one of the core members of ABCD, and a researcher associated with three of the deliberative exercises, I have drawn from my observational notes, as well as documents produced for each deliberation (planning materials, participant handouts, agendas, and final reports), and research data (surveys, and semi-structured and focus group interview transcripts)¹ to outline the structure and activities associated with each deliberation, and the outcomes achieved. The deliberative profiles also include some discussion of a range of factors that were considered in planning the deliberations, and thereby foreground the issues that lie at the heart of more detailed analysis in the remaining chapters of this book.

Edmonton’s City-Wide Food and Urban Agriculture Citizen Panel

The Deliberation Design and Unique Features

The first deliberation members of ABCD participated in was Edmonton’s City-Wide Food and Urban Agriculture Citizen Panels (Food and Ag Panel). The Food and Ag Panel was convened by the Centre for Public Involvement (CPI), a small not-for-profit organization jointly funded by the University of Alberta and City of Edmonton to provide leadership on public participation. Although initial meetings focused on ABCD collaborating with CPI on this project, in the end ABCD played a very minor role because of the constrained project time frame and the politically sensitive context within which this deliberation emerged. Members of ABCD provided some initial recommendations on framing and ongoing research support: two ABCD researchers helped formulate questions for the citizen surveys, and another two observed the deliberation and undertook semi-structured in-depth interviews with five of the citizen panelists. In spite of ABCD’s limited role in the design of the deliberation, the hope was that ABCD could learn from CPI’s experiences (see illustration on pp. 36–37).

The Food and Ag Panel was one of eight public forums convened in the development of fresh, Edmonton’s food and urban agriculture strategy (City of Edmonton 2012); these forums engaged more than 3,300 citizens and stakeholders (Beckie, Hanson, and Schrader 2013). The wide range of public involvement opportunities associated with fresh reflected a formal commitment by the City of Edmonton to engage citizens on issues that affect them (City of Edmonton 2006) but also the “highly politicized context” (Cavanagh 2015) surrounding the development of a food and urban agricultural strategy.

The controversy surrounding the development of fresh largely concerned the rezoning of land in Edmonton’s northeast from agricultural to residential and commercial. In 1982 Edmonton annexed approximately 8,000 hectares of land bordering the northeast, southeast, and southwest parts of the city, and designated these as future Urban Growth Areas (UGAs). Much of this land was zoned agricultural, and largely remained so for over thirty years, making Edmonton one of the few urban municipalities in Canada with a large amount of prime agricultural land within its boundaries (HB Lanarc Consultants 2012). Of the three UGAs, the northeast lands, received the most public attention, as many considered this area to have particularly favourable growing conditions, with a combination of high-quality soils, unique microclimate, and the potential for irrigation due to its proximity to the North Saskatchewan River (Nutter, Hubbard, and Nutter 2011).

The extensive public engagement process that accompanied the development of fresh involved a number of major players who had to complete their work within a very short time span. The City of Edmonton sponsored the process and appointed the planning department to oversee the development of fresh over the course of a year and a half. HB Lanarc Consultants, a Vancouver-based planning and design firm that works with local and regional governments and developers on sustainable community and regional planning, was hired to assist with the engagement process. The mayor selected fifteen local stakeholders to serve on an advisory committee that, with the support of HB Lanarc and several staff from the City of Edmonton’s planning department, was tasked with developing a draft food and urban agriculture strategy.

The citizen deliberations included two full days (the initial and final sessions) and four half-day Saturday sessions that fifty-eight citizens attended. In the first session the panelists identified seven values to guide the process: environmental sustainability; safe, quality food production with ethical treatment of animals; accessible education on food and agriculture for all citizens; food justice with attention to equity, self-sufficiency, transparency, and accessibility; building community; commitment to inclusivity and cultural diversity; and protecting local production. They used these values to frame their discussion of strategies for four goals: strengthening the local economy; protecting the environment; minimizing waste; and creating vibrant, attractive places. At the end of each deliberation day the strategies identified by citizens were submitted to a master writer, who compiled them into a weekly report for the citizens to review (Centre for Public Involvement 2012a). During the final session, with the assistance of a professional facilitator, the citizens reviewed and voted on all the strategies developed for each goal area. A report on the citizen panel process and recommendations, titled City-Wide Food and Urban Agriculture Strategy: Report on Citizen Panel Process and Recommendations, was written by CPI staff in consultation with Edmonton’s planning department and the mayor’s office. The Food and Ag Panel’s top two priority recommendations included:

• Municipal leaders “create and/or amend municipal policy tools . . . to prohibit future development on good fertile agricultural land, particularly the northeast farmland”
• “Maximize spaces and places within the City of Edmonton for urban growing and food production.” (Centre for Public Involvement 2012a)

A range of research was undertaken throughout the deliberation. During five of the six weeks, citizen panelists were asked to complete paper surveys that tracked their opinions and learning on urban food and agriculture, climate change, broader questions of democratic citizenship and participation, and their knowledge of the Food and Ag Panel process and outcomes. The research design also included a control group of randomly selected Edmontonians who were asked to complete all five of the citizen panel surveys to identify changes in perspectives seen only in the citizen panelists over time. As well, semi-structured interviews were conducted with the lead facilitator after the deliberation and with fifteen individuals all involved in the development of fresh including five Food and Ag panelists.

The Food and Ag Panel’s report was submitted to City Council and the Advisory Committee, but it had little influence on policy. Given the short time frame, the report was never formally discussed by either City Council or the Advisory Committee (Food and Ag Interview, KI 6 and KI 7). Later, in October 2012, when City Council’s executive committee convened a non-statutory public hearing to review the draft food and urban agricultural strategy, of the sixty-three individuals who spoke, no one mentioned the Food and Ag Panel.

The fresh strategy received approval in November 2012, thirteen months after the stakeholder advisory committee was appointed. Edmonton’s City Council directed City Administration to prepare an implementation plan and budget, and promised continued funding of $150,000 for one full-time position to support a food council (Hanson and Schrader 2014). In February 2013 public hearings were convened to discuss the area structure plan for Edmonton’s northeast agricultural lands, which, like the non-statutory meetings for fresh, extended over two days due to extensive public interest. In the end, most of the northeast region was rezoned for residential and commercial development to support an adjacent energy and technology park approved in 2010 (Hanson and Schrader 2014).

Social Learning Outcomes

The Food and Ag Panel was designed to feed into the strategy development process by providing a more representative public view of the issues. The goal of the Food and Ag Panel was to “have citizens discuss, learn about, and recommend to City Council strategies about production, distribution and consumption of food” (Centre for Public Involvement 2012b). CPI designed and delivered the deliberation and undertook some research on the process and its impact, but they did not have complete control. Framing of some of the deliberation topics was determined in advance by the planning department in consultation with the mayor, and a couple of times the mayor requested meetings to review the process design. Consequently, as the lead facilitator from CPI explained, they weren’t “able to even . . . within the process design of the panel, fully take up the issue of land and land use” (Cavanagh 2015), even though this was clearly an issue of great interest to many citizens.

In spite of the constraints, most citizens indicated overall satisfaction with the deliberation. For example, given the limited time frame, CPI had difficulty administering the recruitment of participants (Torres Scott 2012), and a number of local food activists who were very knowledgeable about urban agriculture were able to take advantage of this predicament and register as panelists. Nonetheless, citizens didn’t feel that the process was hijacked by food activists but instead spoke about the diversity of views expressed and how inclusive the process was, as illustrated by these citizen panelists’ comments:

The citizen’s panel was really cool because it wasn’t just all people like me. It was a whole bunch of different people with a whole bunch of different ideas and so it gave me a chance to look at their different ideas and see, you know, where they’re coming from and they could see where I was coming from and together as a group we came up with . . . exact things that could be done to fix the problems in the city. (Food and Ag Interview KI 12)

Within the process itself . . . people were given opportunities to disagree in a very respectful way . . . it didn’t even ever feel like compromise. . . . Like on that final day, everybody was happy. . . . So I think the way it was structured, then the facilitation and all worked. (Food and Ag Interview KI 4)

The citizen surveys indicated an increase in the panel participants’ interest in and knowledge of deliberation and local food issues over the six sessions, and in comparison to the control group. For example, the number of citizen panelists who strongly agreed or agreed on understanding the goals of the Citizen Panel rose from 79.6 per cent to 93.6 per cent over the six deliberation sessions, and the number of citizens who strongly agreed or agreed that they understood why the City of Edmonton was undertaking the citizen deliberation increased from 77.5 per cent to 97.5 per cent (Food and Ag Panel Citizen Surveys 1 and 5). With respect to cognition and behaviour change, there was some difference across time for the panelists, but it was not unidirectional or typically matched by the control group. Panelists who strongly agreed or agreed to have the city take action on reducing greenhouse gases increased from 75.5 per cent to 86.8 per cent, whereas it remained constant for the control group (Food and Ag Panel Citizen Surveys 1 and 5; Food and Ag Panel Control Group Surveys 1 and 5). The number of panelists who strongly agreed and agreed on having an interest in where the food they purchase is grown decreased from 80 per cent to 72.3 per cent, and also decreased for the control group from 71.9 per cent to 61.7 per cent (Food and Ag Panel Citizen Surveys 1 and 5; Food and Ag Panel Control Group Surveys 1 and 5). Those who felt it was very important or important that there was land for agriculture within city limits remained fairly constant over the six weeks for the citizen panelists but decreased for the control group from 72 per cent to 60.8 per cent. On the other hand, citizen panelists who indicated frequently purchasing food labelled organic increased from 22 per cent to 32.6 per cent, whereas this remained steady for the control group (Food and Ag Panel Citizen Surveys 1 and 5; Food and Ag Panel Control Group Surveys 1 and 5). The survey results are not statistically significant and therefore cannot be generalized to apply to the entire citizen panel, but they offer some indication of what I and the other researchers heard casually from the participants about the Food and Ag panel being educational and having some influence on their perceptions and behaviours.

Citizens’ Panel on Edmonton’s Energy and Climate Challenges

The Deliberation Design and Unique Features

The Citizens’ Panel on Edmonton’s Energy and Climate Challenges (Edmonton Panel) was principally a collaboration between the City of Edmonton’s Office of the Environment and ABCD: fifteen members of ABCD, five members of the Office of the Environment, and two members of CPI worked together to plan and deliver the deliberation and undertake associated research, and were assisted each deliberation day by small group facilitators, note takers, and assistants (a total of twenty-three, each deliberation session) (see illustration on pp. 44–45). A highly technical Energy Transition Discussion Paper (Pembina Institute and HB Lanarc Consultants 2012), commissioned by the Office of the Environment, served as the foundational document for framing this citizen deliberation by outlining three energy scenarios: current development; reduced energy and carbon; and low energy and carbon. Citizens were directed to provide “their advice and feedback about the discussion paper recommendations: their acceptability, how far and how fast to implement them,” and identify “areas of common ground and divergence” (City of Edmonton 2015).

The core planning team attempted to create a statistically representative citizen panel (MacKinnon, Dale, and Schrader 2014). The desire was to mirror the broader Edmonton population with respect to both demographic variables and attitudes on climate change, including climate skepticism or disbelief that it was human-caused, and including some people whose family incomes depended directly on the energy industry, and at least one participant from each of Edmonton’s twelve municipal electoral districts (see chapter 4). While representational diversity was not fully realized, the fifty-six panelists that attended the deliberation were not the “usual suspects” who often participate in city public engagements; they reflected a wide diversity of values and perspectives. To complement this diversity of views, panelists were purposely exposed to information in a wide variety of formats over the six deliberation days (see chapter 7).

As well, a wide range of research was undertaken with groups involved. In-depth pre- and post-deliberation semi-structured interviews were conducted with the core planning team. Research to capture panelists’ views and experience included pre- and post-deliberation citizen surveys, citizen journalling, and observational analysis. Post-deliberation surveys and two focus groups were conducted with the volunteer small group facilitators and note takers. As well, notes were taken during the debriefing sessions involving the core planning team and volunteer small group facilitators and note takers. Eight panelists volunteered, with the assistance of core team members from ABCD and CPI, to write the Citizens’ Panel on Edmonton’s Energy and Climate Challenges Report (CPEECC 2013), and drafts and the final version were vetted with all panelists. The Edmonton Panel defined four collective values—sustainability, equity, quality of life, and balancing individual freedom and the public good—as common ground that informed their specific recommendations; they urged City “Council and Administration to keep these [values] at the core of decision-making on energy transition issues” (CPEECC 2013, 13). The panelists recommended that the city “take the measures needed to become a low carbon city by 2050” and implement the goals and associated actions outlined in the Energy Transition Discussion Paper (CPEECC 2013, 5).

The citizens’ panel report was completed January 2013 and submitted to the Office of the Environment. In April 2013, six panelists, including one person who self-declared doubt in the existence of climate change, presented their recommendations to the Executive Committee of City Council. The Office of the Environment and supportive members of Edmonton’s City Council warmly received the citizen panelists’ presentations, acknowledging the extended commitment shown by the citizens and how representative the Edmonton Panel was of the city as a whole. Council directed the Office of the Environment to bring back an Energy Transition Strategy based on the feedback they received. The implementation strategy came before Council in March 2015, and six members of the Edmonton Citizens’ Panel attended. During the proceedings several councillors and the Office of the Environment once again drew attention to the presence of the panelists, emphasizing the representative composition of the Edmonton Panel as a whole and its resounding support for the Energy Transition Plan proposed by the Office of the Environment. The City of Edmonton’s Energy Transition Strategy was approved by Council in May 2015.

Social Learning Outcomes

Of the four deliberations in which ABCD members participated, the Edmonton Panel represented the greatest investment with respect to both financial and time commitments. It took a year and half of negotiation and planning between ABCD and the Office of the Environment before delivering the citizen deliberation (with CPI being involved for about ten months of this), and this partnership was maintained more than two years after in order to present the citizens’ panel report to Edmonton City Council and support the adoption of the Energy Transition Strategy. This sustained commitment both resulted from and deepened the relationships and feelings of trust between ABCD and the Office of the Environment (see chapter 6).

The panelists were also asked to make substantial commitments. As the Office of Environment project manager explained, we asked the citizens to do “a deep dive to understand the trade-offs associated with . . . the issue . . . . What you are doing when you are bringing people together to talk about a tough issue is that you are talking about change, and that change has a range of implications and a range of trade-offs. And so that is what we were able to do in this exercise” (Andrais 2015). As one volunteer facilitator explained, “the deliberations were so well-organized . . . they brought together people from a wide range of demographics to engage extremely complex questions thoughtfully and with mutual respect” (Edmonton Panel Small Group Facilitator and Note Taker Survey). The volume and complexity of the energy and climate challenges, and deliberation material, the technical nature of the Energy Transition Discussion Paper, and the complex policy framework translated into considerable information for many panelists to process. The lead facilitators were not trying to make the citizens into technical or policy experts but still had to work at building “citizen capacity to deal with complex issues with confidence” (KI 7-3). Most of the panelists rose to the occasion: the vast majority of panelists “came well prepared . . . motivated and ready to share ideas” (Edmonton Panel Small Group Facilitator and Note Taker Survey). As a note taker declared: “I marvelled at the commitment the panelists made and their eagerness to participate” (Edmonton Panel Small Group Facilitator and Note Taker Survey).

In addition to panelists developing increased capacity to participate, there were many indicators of instances where considerable learning was needed. One Office of the Environment staff member was frustrated when a panelist in week six of the deliberation still thought that hydro power was a source of Edmonton’s electricity, when clear information had been provided to the contrary (KI 2-1). Some panelists were able to participate more fully by the end of the six week period, learning that was observed by one facilitator:

In the beginning there was one lady who . . . said, “You know I read all that stuff last night, three times, and I have no idea what it said.” And I said, “Remember, they said that you have the ability and you have the right to just say that. And just be there.” . . . I think about the fifth session I saw her and said, “Well, how are you doing?” “Good,” she said. She was writing notes up for the mayor. (Edmonton Panel Small Group Facilitator and Note Taker Focus Group 2)

Likewise, in the final panel survey, when asked about what they hoped to get out of this deliberation and whether it succeeded or failed in this respect, seven panelists (n=42) talked about how much they learned. In the words of one panelist, “I learned more than I ever thought I would in six weeks and concentrated a lot more than I thought I would be able” (Edmonton Post-Deliberation Citizen Survey).

A key part of the complexity of addressing a super wicked issue like climate change in a public deliberation, especially in an energy-focused economy like Alberta’s (see chapter 3), is ensuring that all views are allowed articulation, that the overall discussion is informed by science, and that collective agreement is still reached. The core team worked to ensure that there was a diversity of views in the room, and consequently some panelists strongly disagreed with one another about the energy and climate challenges facing Edmonton, yet the panelists still had to find a way to work together (see chapter 7). As one panelist explained, “Although there was [sic] disagreements the panel came to consensus on most issues and we all got to effectively participate” (Edmonton Panel Citizen Post-Deliberation Survey). This view was corroborated by several small group facilitators, as this quote demonstrates:

One of the things I’m getting out of deliberative democracy is that people are allowed to have very opposing beliefs, and their idea doesn’t have to change, they just refine it . . . . the first day people were aggressively disagreeing with each other, but [by] the end of deliberations they were having conversations and would develop an argument. (Edmonton Panel Small Group Facilitator and Note Taker Focus Group 1)

After the sixth session, there remained a few panelists who denied the existence of climate change caused by humans, but there were indications of cognitive shifts in the group and the building of trusting relationships. While one panelist indicated in the last survey: “Now I definitely know that such [energy and climate change] issues exist and are [a] cause of a drastic change” (Edmonton Panel Post-deliberation Citizen Survey), such extreme shifts in perception about the issues were not the norm. But as this volunteer facilitator noted, there were nonetheless significant adjustments of views on the issues among the citizens:

When you talked about the exact same thing, the exact same topic but you took a different approach to it, you used a different perspective and talked about the same thing, suddenly you had all these people who were skeptics for CC but were gung ho, on-board 100% for [putting] solar panels on every house in Edmonton because we will be more energy resilient. (Edmonton Panel Small Group Facilitator and Note Taker Focus Group 2)

As one volunteer facilitator noted, after the second week “participants [were] speaking up more comfortably but also more supportive of each other even when they disagree” (Edmonton Panel Small Group Facilitator, Note Taker and Core Team Debrief 2). It wasn’t just respect that developed, but a common goal: “Most surprising was seeing that people can agree on action so closely yet have almost/seemingly opposite beliefs” (Edmonton Panel Small Group Facilitator and Note Taker Survey). From week one to week six there was a change of energy in the room as panelists became more familiar and comfortable with the process and each other, as noted by this volunteer facilitator: “There was a sense of community. People knew things about each other” (Edmonton Panel Small Group Facilitator, Note Taker and Core Team Debrief 3).

Energy Efficiency Choices Deliberation

The Deliberation Design and Unique Features

In ABCD’s third year a call was sent to members of ABCD to propose deliberation projects, and Jesse Row was one of the people who responded. Row is the executive director of the stakeholder network the Alberta Energy Efficiency Alliance (AEEA) and a representative from the Pembina Institute (a Canadian environmental group). With ABCD support he hired an ABCD deliberation practitioner, Susanna Haas Lyons, to assist him in the design and delivery of an online deliberation. The purpose of the deliberation “was to engage with a representative group of Albertans . . . on what government should be doing with respect to energy efficiency . . . how they should fund energy efficiency programs and whether they should regulate energy efficiency standards. And to use . . . what citizens think on these questions . . . in the Alberta Energy Efficiency Alliance’s engagement with government on the topic” (Row 2015; see illustration on pp. 50–51). At the time the deliberation was convened, the Alberta government was considering which energy efficiency programs it would support, and AEEA wanted to take advantage of this “policy window.” By sharing citizens’ perspectives gathered during the deliberation, the AEEA was hoping to influence government decisions about energy efficiency funding and regulations (Haas Lyons 2015).

The deliberation involved a mix of participants from across Alberta in discussions about incentives and regulations related to provincial energy efficiency programs. A professional polling firm was hired to recruit 400 Albertan participants randomly selected according to gender, age, income, education, and geography. Due to emailing difficulties and attrition, in the end only 164 citizens participated in the deliberation (see chapter 4). While diverse in some respects, the group did not mirror Alberta on several socio-demographic variables such as university education (higher than the Alberta population as a whole), and representation from those under fifty years of age (much lower than the Alberta population [Row 2014]). However, the online deliberation provided a geographically distributed discussion in which panelists entered the forum online or by telephone. Six two-hour events were held in November 2013, each with different panelists. The sessions included an orienting presentation on the topic of energy efficiency and three rounds of small group discussion in which panelists were tasked with discussing pre-established questions. The online breakout sessions were supported by volunteer small group facilitators and note takers (see chapter 7).

A participant guide developed by Row was sent to panelists in advance of the deliberation and used throughout the dialogue to help steer the discussions. The guide defined energy efficiency and outlined its economic and environmental importance, and explained that in 2010 the Alberta government allocated $30 million for advancing industrial energy efficiency but that this represents one of the lowest commitments to energy efficiency in Canada and the United States (AEEA 2013). Panelists were asked to discuss what they considered acceptable funding sources for energy efficiency programs and incentives (general revenues, GHG payments from industry, utility bills, or a new tax) and what conditions were necessary for them to support the government adopting new energy efficiency regulations. According to the lead facilitator, “it was a very instrumentally framed dialogue and not intended to explore the complexities of climate change or the complexities of our own roles or any of those things. It was more about giving advice to the government about what they can do to ensure energy use is more efficient” (Haas Lyons 2015).

A final report written by Row described the public deliberation and detailed the results of the discussions and his follow-up survey. While ABCD financially supported the energy efficiency deliberation with an expectation that the project would enable robust research, it proved a challenge to fulfill this expectation. ABCD research was limited to short panelist surveys and interviews with Row and the lead facilitator before and after the deliberation. According to Row (2015), “the research was one of the challenges . . . faced . . . as the researchers that I had contacted didn’t immediately, or weren’t able to immediately identify what their research focus might be for this type of a project.” In the early developmental stages of the Energy Efficiency Choices deliberation one of ABCD researchers expressed interest in interviewing Row and the lead facilitator, as well as select participants, and explained that to be useful and pertinent her interview questions would emerge from the development of the deliberation, and focus on matters such as the degree to which the organizers and participants felt the project’s objectives were realized. The other ABCD researcher had developed her complete research protocol (questionnaire and email to participants) and submitted this all to Row in advance of his organizing the deliberation. Hence it wasn’t that ABCD’s researchers were unclear about the focus of their research but rather, that, according to the researchers, Row failed to facilitate this research because of time constraints and concerns that the publication of the ABCD research would undermine AEEA’s objectives. In the end, Row conducted his own participant survey and made use of these findings in informal discussions with Government of Alberta staff. Although the influence of the citizen deliberation was likely minimal, the Government of Alberta announced new energy efficiency programs in spring 2014 (Haas Lyons 2014).

Social Learning Outcomes

The technology both enabled a distributed discussion across Alberta and impeded the full participation of panelists. In the initial planning stages, choosing to undertake a public deliberation using online technology restricted what was considered an acceptable length for the discussions and influenced the framing of the discussions: “the framing of the conversation was fairly specific because we didn’t have a lot of time for meandering conversation because of the constraints of the time” (Haas Lyons 2015). The technology also impacted the quality of the panelists’ discussions. As the lead facilitator explained:

The technology had an enormous impact on the deliberation . . . some persons were even unable to attend, even though they had wanted to. They’d get online, they had to figure out how it worked, even though we tried to set the bar as low as possible for technology it actually was fairly complicated for some people . . . so that impacted the diversity of the participants. The technology impacted the conversation . . . the audio quality in the small group discussion was often compromised by one individual having noise in the background and so facilitators of the small group toyed with various approaches such as having everybody muted. And when everyone was muted that took a while for their audio to kick back in . . . but then . . . they would already be talking when their audio kicked in and so people would have to stop and ask about what it was they said in the first part of their sentence. And so there was sort of an awkwardness . . . . (Haas Lyons 2015).

Many of the panelists and volunteer facilitators perceived the impacts of the technology on the discussion as negative, but certainly not all. One panelist indicated, “I think the technology somewhat got in the way of having a discussion” (Energy Efficiency Choices Post-Deliberation Citizen Survey), and a volunteer facilitator characterized the technological problems as “numerous and distracting” (Energy Efficiency Choices Small Group Facilitator and Note Taker Survey). On the other hand, another volunteer facilitator felt “the technology issues were a challenge throughout, but not enough to spoil the experience” (Energy Efficiency Choices Small Group Facilitator and Note Taker Survey). Each session, the convener and facilitator “lost anywhere from 10 to 25 minutes getting people going” (Haas Lyons 2014), and, in each of the six sessions, a few panelists had trouble connecting to a breakout group. In spite of the technological difficulties, 85 per cent of the panelists who completed the post-deliberation survey “expressed a desire to participate in this kind of thing again” (Haas Lyons 2015).

The panelists’ written comments indicated mixed views regarding the educational effectiveness of the deliberation as a whole. With respect to knowledge gained, responses ranged from “[it allowed me to] learn something new” (Energy Efficiency Choices Post-Deliberation Citizen Survey) to it “didn’t work for me because there wasn’t enough information or purpose put forward before the actual event” (Energy Efficiency Choices Post-Deliberation Citizen Survey). Similarly, the small group facilitators and note takers, and panelist survey data, reveal that there was variable understanding of government policy processes and energy efficiency. As one panelist explained:

There were varying levels of adeptness which took up a fair bit of the time. There were also many times that we needed information that we didn’t have to move our discussions forward, for example, who decides building codes and how? Industry government? Local, provincial, federal, a combination? Are they reviewed on a regular basis? etc. (Energy Efficiency Choices Post-Deliberation Citizen Survey)

The exchange of ideas and views and discussion of trade-offs that are often typical in deliberations, and that can contribute to a change of cognition and attitudes, were also limited. The breakout sessions allowed enough time for citizens to voice their views but “people did not interact with one another’s opinions” (Haas Lyons 2015) because the small group discussions were so short and structured. While one panelist wrote that “it was a great way to challenge my own thoughts on energy issues” (Energy Efficiency Choices Post-Deliberation Citizen Survey), many others spoke about the lack of time to fully discuss the questions and related issues, as seen in this panelist survey response:

Generally each individual got to make a statement and then time ran out. I had hoped to see a discussion on energy efficiency, who should be making the choices and what the consequences of those choices would be. The structure prevented any such discussion. (Energy Efficiency Choices Post-Deliberation Citizen Survey)

Perhaps most concerning was that several panelists felt manipulated by the very structured format and others spoke about not trusting that the government would take their recommendations seriously, or not feeling safe enough to fully express their views (Energy Efficiency Choices Post-Deliberation Citizen Survey). Nevertheless, approximately 80 per cent of the participants were interested in participating in another deliberation. (Boulianne and Hellstrom 2014)

Water in a Changing Climate

The Deliberation Design and Unique Features

ABCD’s call for proposals in its third year also produced a deliberative partnership with Gwendolyn Blue, an academic from the University of Calgary who, like Row, had been a member of ABCD since its formation. Blue collaborated with Shannon Frank, the executive director of the Oldman Watershed Council (OWC), a stakeholder organization made up of representatives from government, industry, business, environmental groups, and ordinary citizens who provide recommendations to the Government of Alberta on how to protect and enhance the Oldman River watershed (OWC 2015). Frank remarked “that there wasn’t enough community engagement around issues of climate change,” and so Blue proposed to her that they collaborate on a deliberation (Blue 2015). Using funds from ABCD, Blue hired Jacquie Dale, an ABCD deliberation practitioner, to assist in designing and delivering the deliberation, as well as an outside consultant to act as the project manager (see illustration on pp. 56–57).

The one-day “Water in a Changing Climate” deliberation was held in Lethbridge, a city of just over 100,000 residents in southern Alberta. The purpose of the deliberation was to have an informed dialogue about the watershed and its future; identify common ground and public values that resonate in terms of climate change and water; and identify key topics warranting more community involvement and policy development for consideration by the OWC (Blue 2014b). Because this deliberation occurred after Edmonton’s Citizens’ Panel on Energy and Climate Challenges, Blue designed the deliberation as a comparative case study to engage with communities outside of Alberta’s metropolitan centres, to focus on a different aspect of climate change than was the case in previous deliberations (water instead of energy), and to “see what [could] be accomplished in a day” (Blue 2015; see chapter 5).

Panelists were selected through an application process to represent diversity related to gender, age, occupation, location of residence, and views on climate change. Thirty-three participants were chosen, all of whom lived in the watershed; this included a slight over-representation of women and rural residents relative to the region’s population, and also included three individuals from First Nations, making Water in a Changing Climate the only deliberation where ABCD integrated Indigenous participation into the design of the deliberation (Blue 2014a). Prior to the deliberation, all participants were sent a 26-page participant handbook. The handbook, which about half the panelists read, provided background information comparing deliberation and debate, and discussing values, climate change, and the relationship between climate change and water (Blue 2014a).

Given that there was no pressing policy decision to respond to, a flexible structure was used for the deliberation that allowed panelists to identify their own issues for discussion (Blue 2014a). The lead facilitator was assisted by five local volunteer facilitators and note takers who led and recorded the proceedings of the day’s small group discussions (Blue 2014a). The morning deliberation began with an expert presentation on the “predicted impacts of climate change on regional water supplies” (Blue 2014a), followed by pre-assigned small group discussions focused on mapping concerns and values. The values identified included healthy environment, education, public safety, stewardship, and collective responsibility, and these values were combined with identified concerns and observations to form five themes: land use pressures, environment and public health, extreme weather events, governance, and social justice and responsibility (Blue 2014a). The afternoon activities began with a presentation by Shannon Frank about the OWC, the state of the Oldman watershed, and the kind of advice the OWC hoped to receive from the citizens’ panel. Panelists self-selected themes of most interest and worked with volunteer facilitators to develop advice for the OWC on moving forward on each theme. While the morning session went smoothly, in the afternoon some of the small table facilitators “lost control of the group . . . because they didn’t understand what they were being asked to do” (Blue 2015). Nonetheless, the panelists identified two key priorities: the “importance of education, information and communication,” and the “significance and challenge of fostering collective responsibility for environmental protection” (Blue 2014a).

As was the case with AEEA’s energy efficiency deliberation, there was some miscommunication and misalignment of expectations between Blue and ABCD’s leadership and research team. In spite of there being no clear policy moment to which to tie the deliberation, ABCD leadership expected that there would be some uptake of the panelists’ recommendations by the OWC, and that comparative research would be undertaken to align with the research conducted on the other three deliberations. Research activities included pre- and post-deliberation surveys of panelists, a post-deliberation small group facilitator and note takers survey, and post-deliberation semi-structured in-depth interviews with the core planning team (Blue, Dale, and Frank).

Social Learning Outcomes

A final report, Water in a Changing Climate: Summary and Synthesis (2014a), was written by Blue and sent to the OWC for review and feedback. The report was reviewed by Frank, but because the OWC “haven’t really gotten to this issue yet about water quantity and climate change” (Frank 2015) they did not do anything with the results. However, Frank found the process educational and felt it “opened [the OWC’s] eyes to a different way of approaching community discussions and not just having the old, kind of, town hall public meeting” (Frank 2015). Likewise, 76 per cent of panelists indicated they were satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the facilitation and organization of the sessions, 82 per cent agreed or strongly agreed that the deliberation enhanced their understanding of climate change, and 79 per cent agreed or strongly agreed that it helped clarify the relevance of water to climate change (WCC Post-Deliberation Citizen Survey). When asked “what did you like best,” one of the panelists wrote: “An opportunity to learn more about climate change [and] water issues from others” (WCC Post-Deliberation Citizen Survey).

While all the panelists who participated in Water in a Changing Climate were familiar with the work of the OWC to some degree, ten of the panelists felt that they were exposed to a diversity of views about climate change and water, and effective solutions to address future problems. One panelist elaborated: “I learned from peers with various backgrounds, gained new perspective, new ideas, [and participated in the] sharing of important info” (WCC Post-Deliberation Citizen Survey). More specifically, two panelists spoke about the differences in values within the group (WCC Post-Deliberation Citizen Survey). A table host substantiated the learning that took place for some panelists, remarking: “There were a few times people said, ‘oh, I did not think about that before or in that way’” (WCC Small Group Facilitator and Note Takers Survey).

While 88 per cent of the panelists indicated they were somewhat satisfied or very satisfied with the time given for discussing the issues, both Blue (2015) and Frank (2015) considered the Water in a Changing Climate deliberation to be only a good first step in engaging the public on climate change. Frank talked about the deliberation as a way to gauge where people were on the issue (2015) and Blue considered it a pilot project exploring what can be realistically achieved in one day (2015). Both Frank and Blue also said Water in a Changing Climate revealed to them the need for greater capacity than they had in terms of facilitation and organizational experience, and financial resources to carry a project like this through successfully. In Blue’s words:

It was like we were hitting the ground running with very little training for most of us. And there was no chance, like there was no second day where we could say, ‘oh my goodness that went sour. What do we do about that?’ . . . we didn’t forecast that outwards so we left that last bit in the air. . . Getting the report done, following up on how it’s going to be implemented. That we didn’t put into our charts, and as a result it kind of fell away . . . these [deliberations] take a lot of money, a lot of resources. And they take . . . a lot of capacity. (Blue 2015)

While collective action did not arise from this deliberation, nonetheless more than any of the other ABCD deliberations, Water in a Changing Climate allowed the panelists to actively set the agenda. Participatory inclusion is key to both social learning and good deliberation, serving as a stepping stone for citizens assuming a greater role in resolving public issues. Water in a Changing Climate provided a forum for the panelists to not only articulate their concerns and values related to climate change and water but also frame the problem and solutions, as well as identify how they could use their latent expertise to effect change in their community.

Discussion and Conclusion

Each of the deliberations ABCD members participated in was an experiment in how to engage citizens using deliberative methods on wicked issues. While the four deliberations had different foci, they each included some citizen engagement on climate change and, in so doing, highlighted some of the challenges in addressing the complexity of this wicked issue. On a continuum of direct citizen engagement with climate change, Water in a Changing Climate and the Edmonton Panel were most focused on the topic, whereas the Food and Ag Panel and Energy Efficiency Choices projects included only minor mention of the issue. Nonetheless, in hindsight, we in ABCD learned from each deliberation how to better engage a diverse group of citizens in a collective discussion of what climate change meant for them and what actions could effectively address it. Reflecting on how climate change was taken up in the Water in a Changing Climate deliberation, Blue (2015) explained that:

Probably the biggest thing that was hard was the severity of the issue and how to do that, how to accommodate that . . . in a response to someone’s question, [the scientific expert] said . . . if we hit tipping points we may have 30 years of a survivable climate left. And that comment never got taken up, the severity of it. I mean again, I don’t think we have to believe that that comment is 100% truth, but it’s a pretty significant thing, right, that the level and the depth of the problems that we potentially could be facing, I think, fell by the wayside. And people went back to a sense of safety and security and tweaking really. And so I don’t know how a deliberation can be organized to help people really comprehend the potential severity of what’s happening.

With its focus on values, deliberation provides a forum for citizens to make useful contributions in public policy decision-making processes, whether or not they possess a depth of scientific or technical knowledge about a topic. A focus on values is key in having people connect public policy issues to their own lives and what matters to them (Leighninger 2012). As one of the lead facilitators from the Edmonton Panel explained, including values in public deliberation directs panelists to think about the tensions and trade-offs associated with collective problem solving:

The role of values is of course very important in deliberation . . . what kinds of trade-offs we’re making with values . . . weaving back and forth. . . okay, what do these values really mean to us and are we really mindfully bringing the value choices in? And what is getting privileged and what is getting dropped? And do we understand that enough? To understand what are collective values. . . if you think about citizenship and what you are asking citizens to do as parts of a collective entity where it’s not just voting or choosing for me but what does it mean to others? How values come in tension both internally and externally. (MacKinnon 2015)

Environmental management scholarship highlights the need to embed climate change adaptation in communities through, for example, having adaptation limits conceptualized within the context of thinking about how societies are organized, the values they hold, the knowledge they construct, and the relationships that exist between individuals, institutions, and the state (Collins and Ison 2009). The focus on values within deliberation provides a suitable process for better understanding stakeholder and citizen concerns and preferences in addressing climate mitigation and adaptation, as well as identifying opportunities and constraints for action at a local level. Because social learning happens “within the act and the process of constructing an issue and seeking improvements” (Collins and Ison 2009, 366), adaptive management scholarship points to the need for social learning firmly rooted in a paradigm of knowledge exchange through the emergent co-creation of knowledge, not mere knowledge transfer (McCrum, et al. 2009). ABCD’s experiences with public deliberation demonstrate that citizens are able and willing to act in the collective interest, and that when enabled and supported, they can make important contributions in identifying both the nature of the problem and possible solutions.

Social learning refers to the individual learning that is conditioned by the social environment, as well as learning by social collectives such as organizations (Pelling et al. 2008). This chapter has focused on the first of these in order to highlight views and experiences of the citizens who were central to this project and each deliberation. But in planning to address wicked issues, it is crucial that both forms of social learning are recognized and built into the process, as they are complementary. “In turn this requires new roles and practices relating to facilitation and new kinds of institution and policy” (Collins and Ison 2009, 367), which, as mentioned previously, speaks to the need for more flexible, inclusive, and iterative processes, policies, and institutional contexts. The transformations in democracy, society, and public engagement necessary to address the complexity, uncertainty, immediacy, and multiple stakeholding associated with wicked issues are formidable but not impossible. As these deliberation profiles illustrate, it is not easy to convene deliberations that fully engage citizens in decisions about complex topics like climate change adaptation and mitigation; none of the ABCD deliberations fully explored the multiple layers of social learning required to address climate change, in part because of our own shortcomings, but also because the existing regulatory, fiscal, and educative approaches are insufficiently capable of accommodating this kind of praxis. But in reflecting back on these projects, we are able to identify ways to increase social learning.

The remaining chapters of this book look at these issues in some detail, with an eye to answering the question: How can we use deliberation to better address the complexity, uncertainty, immediacy, and multiple tensions associated with wicked issues?

Note

1. The interview data quoted in this chapter comes from four sources: in-depth semi-structured interviews conducted for each of the four deliberations, mostly of core planning team members; small group facilitator and note taker surveys undertaken for each deliberation; citizen surveys, often pre- and post-deliberation, but, for the Food and Ag Panel, throughout the deliberation and matched by control group surveys; and notes from debriefing sessions for the Edmonton Panel with small group facilitators, note takers and the core planning team. Some of the individuals interviewed are identified by name in the chapter, with their informed consent. For many others, their identity remains confidential, and to anonymize them, the deliberation or policy process is identified in the text, and in an interview a number given to distinguish the key informant, and if applicable, this is followed by a number to identify whether the interview was pre-deliberation (1) or post-deliberation (2). If the comments arose out of a focus group or from a survey, the kind of participants are identified (e.g., small group facilitators and note takers) but no numbers are assigned to distinguish individual focus group participants’ comments.

References

AEEA (Alberta Energy Efficiency Alliance). 2013. “Energy Efficiency Choices Participant Guide: A Citizens’ Discussion on Alberta’s Energy Efficiency Policies and Programs.” Unpublished Deliberation Participant Guide.

Andrais, Jim. 2015. Telephone Interview with Lorelei Hanson, December 9.

Bandura, Albert. 1977. Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Baron, Robert S., and Norbert L. Kerr. 2003. Group Process, Group Decision and Group Action. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Beckie, Mary A., Lorelei L. Hanson, and Deborah Schrader. 2013. “Farms or Freeways? Citizen Engagement and Municipal Governance in Edmonton’s Food and Agriculture Strategy Development.” Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development 4(1): 15–31. doi:10.5304/jafscd.2013.041.004.

Blue, Gwendolyn. 2014a. Water in a Changing Climate: Summary and Synthesis. Unpublished Report.

———. 2014b. “Water in a Changing Climate Citizen Deliberation Debrief Meeting Background Notes.” Unpublished Internal ABCD document. March 12.

———. 2015. Telephone Interview with Lorelei Hanson, June 8.

Boulianne, Shelley, and Mikael Hellstrom. 2014. “Citizen Perceptions of the Efficacy of Deliberative Exercises.” Unpublished ABCD research brief.

Cavanagh, Fiona. 2015. Telephone interview with Kristjana Loptson, June 5.

Centre for Public Involvement. 2012a. City-Wide Food and Urban Agriculture Strategy Report on Citizen Panel Process and Recommendations. July 26. http://centreforpublicinvolvement.com/work/archives/2012/11/28/the-report-on-citizen-panel-process-recommendations/.

———. 2012b. “Session Outputs and Schedule.” Unpublished Internal Document. April 15.

City of Edmonton. 2006. Public Involvement Policy, no. C513. January 17. http://www.edmonton.ca/transportation/C513.pdf.

———. 2012. fresh: Edmonton’s Food and Urban Agriculture Strategy. http://www.edmonton.ca/City_government/documents/FRESH_October_2012.pdf.

———. 2015. Citizens’ Panel on Edmonton’s Energy and Climate Challenges. http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/environmental_stewardship/citizens-panel-energy-climate.aspx.

Collins, Kevin, and Ray Ison. 2009. “Jumping off Arnstein’s Ladder: Social Learning as a New Policy Paradigm for Climate Change Adaptation.” Environmental Policy and Governance 19: 358–73.

CPEECC (Citizens’ Panel on Edmonton’s Energy and Climate Challenges). 2013. Citizens’ Panel on Edmonton’s Energy and Climate Challenges Report https://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/documents/PDF/CitizensPanel-EnergyClimateChallenge.pdf.

Diduck, Alan, A. John Sinclair, Glen Hostetler, and Patricia Fitzpatrick. 2012. “Transformative Learning Theory, Public Involvement, and Natural Resource and Environmental Management.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 55(10): 1311–30.

Frank, Shannon. 2015. Telephone Interview with Lorelei Hanson, July 19.

Haas Lyons, Susanna. 2014. “Learning from Technology’s Role in Energy Efficiency Choices.” Unpublished Alberta Climate Dialogue Workshop Paper.

———. 2015. Telephone Interview with Lorelei Hanson, May 14.

Hanson, Lorelei L., and Deborah Schrader. 2014. “Creating New Urban Spaces of Sustainability and Governmentality: An Assessment of the Development of a Food and Urban Agriculture Strategy for Edmonton, Canada.” In Sustainable Cities: Global Concerns/Urban Efforts, edited by William G. Holt, 195–218. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.

HB Lanarc Consultants. 2012. Agricultural Inventory and Assessment: City of Edmonton City Wide Food and Agriculture Strategy. Edmonton: City of Edmonton.

Johnson, Genevieve Fuji. 2009. “Deliberative Democratic Practice in Canada: An Analysis of Institutional Empowerment in Three Cases.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 42(3): 679–703.

Kay, James J., and Eric Schneider. 1994. “Embracing Complexity: The Challenge of the Ecosystem.” Alternatives 20(3): 32–39.

Lave, Jean, and Etienne Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lazarus, Richard J. 2009. “Super Wicked Problems and Climate Change: Restraining the Present to Liberate the Future.” Environmental Law and Policy Annual Review 40: 10749–56.

Leighninger, Matt. 2012. “The Next Form of Democracy?” Civic Engagement and Democracy Lecture, Institute for Policy and Civic Engagement, University of Illinois, Chicago, April 4. http://www.deliberative-democracy.net/index.php/resources/guides-and-reports.

Levin, Kelly, Benjamin Cashore, Steven Bernstein, and Graeme Auld. 2012. “Overcoming the Tragedy of Super Wicked Problems: Constraining Our Future Selves to Ameliorate Global Climate Change.” Policy Sciences 45(2): 123–52.

MacKinnon, Mary Pat. 2015. Interview with Lorelei Hanson, May 7.

MacKinnon, Mary Pat, Jacquie Dale, and Deborah Schrader. 2014. “Looking Under the Hood of Citizen Engagement: The Citizens’ Panel on Edmonton’s Energy and Climate Challenges, ABCD.” Working Paper. http://www.albertaclimatedialogue.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/ABCD_WP_PractitionersReflecitons_2014-09-02.pdf.

McCrum, Gillian, Kristy Blackstock, Keith Matthews, Mike Rivington, Dave Miller, and Kevin Buchan. 2009. “Adapting to Climate Change in Land Management: The Role of Deliberative Workshops in Enhancing Social Learning.” Environmental Policy and Governance 19(6): 413–26.

Muro, Melanie, and Paul Jeffrey. 2008. “A Critical Review of the Theory and Application of Social Learning in Participatory Natural Resource Management Processes.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 51(3): 325–44.

Nutter, Monique, Debbie Hubbard, and Butch Nutter. 2011. “Food Security in Edmonton’s Municipal Development Plan.” Presentation given at the Faculty of Social Work Research Day. Calgary: University of Calgary.

OWC (Oldman Watershed Council). 2015. “Vision Mission and Goals.” Accessed February 2. http://oldmanwatershed.ca/visionmissiongoals/.

Pahl-Wostl, Claudia, Jan Sendzimir, Paul Jeffrey, Jeroen Aerts, Ger Berkamp, and Katharine Cross. 2007. “Managing Change toward Adaptive Water Management through Social Learning.” Ecology and Society 12(2): art. 30. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art30/.

Pelling, Mark, Chris High, John Dearing, and Denis Smith. 2008. “Shadow Spaces for Social Learning: A Relational Understanding of Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change within Organizations.” Environment and Planning A 40: 867–84. doi:10.1068/a39148.

Pembina Institute and HB Lanarc. 2012. Edmonton’s Energy Transition: Discussion Paper. https://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/documents/PDF/Edmonton_Energy_Transition_Discussion_Paper.pdf.

Reed, Mark S. 2008. “Stakeholder Participation for Environmental Management: A Literature Review.” Biological Conservation 141(10): 2417–31.

Row, Jesse. 2014. “Energy Efficiency Choices: Report on Citizens’ Views.” Unpublished Report.

———. 2015. Telephone Interview with Lorelei Hanson, Deborah Schrader, Mary Pat McKinnon, and David Kahane, June 7.

Tompkins, Emma L., and W. Niel Adger. 2004. “Does Adaptive Management of Natural Resources Enhance Resilience to Climate Change?” Ecology and Society 9(2): 10. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art10.

Torres Scott, Andre. 2012. “Report on the Recruiting Phase, Food and Agriculture Panel.” Unpublished Internal Centre for Public Involvement Document.

Waltner-Toews, Walter, James J. Kay, Cynthia Neudoerffer, and Thomas Gitau. 2003. “Perspective Changes Everything: Managing Ecosystems from the Inside Out.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1(1): 23–30.

Wilner, Kate Bigney, Melanie Wiber, Anthony Charles, John Kearney, Melissa Landry, Lisette Wilson, and on Behalf of the Coastal CURA Team. 2012. “Transformative Learning for Better Resource Management: The Role of Critical Reflection.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 55(10): 1331–4. doi:10.1080/09640568.2011.646679.