frameworks for assessing community … for assessing community sustainability: a synthesis of...

FRAMEWORKS FOR ASSESSING COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY: A SYNTHESIS OF CURRENT RESEARCH IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

N. A. MacKendrick and J. R. Parkins

Northern Forestry Centre

Information Report NOR-X-392

FRAMEWORKS FOR ASSESSING COMMUNITYSUSTAINABILITY: A SYNTHESIS OF CURRENT RESEARCH

IN BRITISH COLUMBIA


INFORMATION REPORT NOR-X-392

Canadian Forest ServiceNorthern Forestry Centre

2004

© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2004

Catalogue No. Fo46-12/392EISBN 0-662-36164-4ISSN 0831-8247

This publication is available at no charge from:

Natural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest ServiceNorthern Forestry Centre5320 – 122 StreetEdmonton, Alberta T6H 3S5

A microfiche edition of this publication may be purchased from:

Micromedia Ltd.240 Catherine Street, Suite 305Ottawa, Ontario K2P 2G8

National Library of Canada cataloguing in publication data

MacKendrick, Norah

Frameworks for assessing community sustainability : a synthesisof current research in British Columbia

(Information report ; NOR-X-392)Includes an abstract in French.Includes bibliographical references.ISBN 0-662-36164-4Cat. no. Fo46-12/392E

1. Sustainable forestry – British Columbia.2. Rural development – British Columbia.3. Sustainable development – British Columbia.I. Parkins, J. (John), 1967-

II. Northern Forestry Centre (Canada)III. Series: Information report (Northern Forestry Centre)) ; NOR-X-392.

SD146.S3M32 2004 634.9’09711 C2004-980058-2

This report has been printed on Canadian recycled paper.

ii Inf. Rep. NOR-X-392

Inf. Rep. NOR-X-392 iii

MacKendrick, N. A.; Parkins, J.R. 2004. Frameworks for assessing communitysustainability: a synthesis of current research in British Columbia.Nat. Resour. Can., Can. For. Serv., North. For. Cent., Edmonton, AB. Inf.Rep. NOR-X-392.

ABSTRACT This report describes five recent research projects identifying indicators of

community sustainability in rural British Columbia. A sustainable community, asunderstood by this body of research, is one that strives to maintain a healthy andthriving economy, society, and environment; adapts and responds to external andinternal stresses and opportunities; provides a high quality of life for residents;and persists through time. A synthesis approach is developed that combineselements from all five projects into an overarching framework for indicatorsresearch. More specifically, the framework organizes indicators derived from theprojects into four basic types of capital: natural, economic, social, and human. Italso identifies five specific outcomes: ecological integrity, economic vitality, civicvitality, physical and mental health, and recreational opportunities. Thisframework may serve as a useful organizing tool for indicators research in ruralcommunities within British Columbia and beyond.

RÉSUMÉ Le présent rapport décrit cinq projets de recherche récents qui ont permis

d’identifier des indicateurs de durabilité communautaire dans des régions ruralesde la Colombie-Britannique. Une « communauté durable », telle que définie dansle cadre de ces travaux, est une communauté qui s’efforce de maintenir la santé etla vigueur de son économie, de sa tissu social et de son environnement, quis’adapte et répond aux stress externes et internes et aux possibilités qui seprésentent, qui permet à ces membres de jouir d’une bonne qualité de vie et quipersiste dans la durée. L’approche synthétique élaborée combine des éléments dechacun des cinq projets afin d’établir un cadre obligatoire pour la recherche surles indicateurs. Ce cadre de travail organise en particulier les indicateurs issus desprojets en quatre types de « capitaux » de base : naturel, économique, social ethumain. Il identifie également cinq résultats distincts : intégrité écologique,vitalité économique, vitalité civique, santé physique et mentale et possibilités deloisir. Ce cadre de travail pourra servir d’outil organisationnel pour les travaux derecherche sur les indicateurs dans les communautés rurales de la province etailleurs.

iv Inf. Rep. NOR-X-392

Inf. Rep. NOR-X-392 v

CONTENTSINTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................1

APPROACHES TO MEASURING COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY..................2

OVERVIEW OF CURRENT COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY PROJECTS INBRITISH COLUMBIA.....................................................................................................3

Wellbeing Assessment.............................................................................................3

New Rural Economy Project ..................................................................................5

Resilient Communities Project...............................................................................6

Sustainability of Human Communities................................................................7

Landscape Visualization and Visible Stewardship.............................................9

MELDING APPROACHES: A POSSIBLE STRATEGY FOR FUTUREINITIATIVES .................................................................................................................10

A Synthesis Approach ...........................................................................................10

Selecting Indicators................................................................................................12

Limitations ..............................................................................................................16

CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................16

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................................17

LITERATURE CITED....................................................................................................17

TABLES1. Five projects on community sustainability under way in

British Columbia .........................................................................................................4

2. Wellbeing Assessment indicators: the example of the wealthdimension within the human subsystem................................................................4

3. Examples of indicators for a synthesis approach.................................................13

FIGURES

1. Community capacity model ......................................................................................6

2. Causal model of community resilience ...................................................................7

3. Synthesis approach to measuring community sustainability ............................11

vi Inf. Rep. NOR-X-392

Inf. Rep. NOR-X-390

The assessment of community sustainabilityhas become increasingly widespread, especially inforest-based communities facing internal andexternal pressures from, among others, changes ininternational markets for forest products, shifts inlocal demographics, and investments in technologyto replace labor. As research in this area expands,approaches to measuring community sustainabilityare gradually becoming more sophisticated, whichhas generated a more detailed understanding of theantecedents, contributors, and processes central toan application of sustainability principles. TheInternational Institute of SustainableDevelopment’s compendium of indicatorinitiatives lists more than 35 projects either recentlycompleted or ongoing in Canada (IISD 2003). Eachinitiative examines a different subset ofsustainability issues and employs a distinctapproach to measuring and evaluatingsustainability. Because of the diversity of theseapproaches and the constant development withinthis area, it is difficult to identify a single bestmethod of studying community sustainability.

The study of community sustainability inBritish Columbia mirrors the expansion ofindicators research across North America. Researchin forest-dependent communities is particularlyactive, because of dramatic policy changes in thepast decade and the sheer number of heavily forest-dependent communities—77 in total (a numberderived from the number of forest-dependentcensus subdivisions, according to 1996 census datafrom Statistics Canada; when a community has 50%or greater personal income from base activities inthe forest sector, it is considered heavily forestdependent [White, W.; Watson, D. 2001. Naturalresource based communities in Canada: an analysisbased on the 1996 Canada census. Nat. Resour.Can., Can. For. Serv., North. For. Cent., Edmonton,AB. Unpubl. rep.]). Conflict in British Columbia’sforest sector was particularly pronounced duringthe 1980s and 1990s as evidence documenting theenvironmental impacts of forest managementactivities on forest ecosystems began to emerge(Hoberg 2001). Influential environmental groupsthreatening international boycotts and mountinglocal education campaigns, an increasinglyenvironmentally aware public demandingimprovements in forestry practices, and a change inprovincial government leadership were all

significant in transforming this conflict into policychange (Hayter 2000; Hoberg 2001). At thefoundation of this policy change were criticism ofthe sustained-yield timber management paradigmand the emergence of an alternative paradigm morecommonly referred to as sustainable forestmanagement. Central to this latter notion isecosystem sustainability, as well as communitysustainability. Concerns about the sustainability offorest-based communities, particularly “instanttowns” (Marchak 1983), emerged in response toobservations of negative social impacts from thecyclic forest industry and the substitution oftechnology for labor in these communities(Marchak 1995). The policy shift to sustainableforest management coincided with dissatisfactionexpressed by forest-dependent communitiesgrappling with the local effects of economicrecessions in the early 1980s and early 1990s andcritiques of the globalizing forest industry(Marchak 1995; Hayter 2000). More recently, severalforest certification schemes emphasizing thesustainability of ecosystems and, to some extent,social systems have become increasingly prominentand have motivated an industry-wide interest inthe development of indicators of communitysustainability (FSC 2000; CSA 2002; SFI 2003).

In British Columbia, several studies ofcommunity sustainability are under way or havebeen recently completed, each taking a uniqueapproach to assessing sustainability. Of these manyinitiatives, five studies can be identified thatexamine natural-resource–based communities,adopt a broad project scope, and are characterizedby significant conceptual rigor. Two initiatives, theWellbeing Assessment and the ResilientCommunities Project, focus on coastalcommunities. While the first of these two projects(CIT 2002) is developing a series of quantitativemeasures of ecosystem and human system well-being, the second (Resilient Communities Project2003) combines qualitative and quantitativeapproaches to assess community resilience toeconomic stress. A third initiative, the New RuralEconomy Project (NRE 2003) is a cross-nationalexamination of community capacity that includesthree British Columbia communities. In the RobsonValley Forest District, a fourth initiative, entitled theSustainability of Human Communities, wasrecently completed (Parkins et al. 2004). This project

INTRODUCTION

2 Inf. Rep. NOR-X-392

Early studies of community sustainabilityfocused on the goal of community “stability.” Fromthe late 1940s to the mid-1980s the concept ofcommunity stability received considerableattention when negative social impacts wereobserved in boomtowns and forest-dependentcommunities suffering from extreme fluctuations inresource flows and market demand for naturalresources (Kusel 1996, 2001). During that periodideal communities were thought to have stableindustries supported by a constant supply oftimber, employment, and labor (Beckley et al.2002b). It was soon evident, however, thattechnology could replace labor withoutdestabilizing the local forest industry (Beckley et al.2002b) and that desirable communities alsorequired functioning social systems andecosystems, as well as viable economies. Althoughthe community-centered approach within the socialsciences has stimulated research on a broad rangeof indicators associated with social and economicsystems—evidenced by many of the projectsdescribed in this report—the forest sector has takena significantly different approach to forest-

dependent communities. Initiatives that recognizehuman communities as an important dimension ofsustainable forest management are increasinglybeing adopted by forest companies. In contrast tothe social science approach, the forest sector hasidentified indicators associated with communitysustainability that are controlled or managed byforest companies or provincial natural resourceagencies. For example, the indicators of communitysustainability developed for the Morice & LakesIFPA region include many that are categorizedunder the value of “community stability,” such asthe percentage of public comments on forestmanagement receiving a response from licenseesand the amount of government revenue directedinto the local economy as the result of stumpagepayments (Tesera Systems Inc. 2003. Morice andLakes IFPA indicator list. Prince George, BC.Unpubl. rep.). As indicators research evolves,however, the orientation of forest sector measuresof community sustainability remains fairly distinctfrom most of the social science work in this area.The forest sector approach to communitysustainability tends to focus first on the forest, only

APPROACHES TO MEASURING COMMUNITYSUSTAINABILITY

developed a suite of indicators allowingcommunities to track their progress on a range ofsocial, economic, and ecological indicators. Thefifth initiative, a landscape visualization project(Sheppard 2003) is also included in this overview;although not a study of community sustainability,it assesses the visible evidence of sustainable forestmanagement and could be incorporated into abroader sustainability study. Because of the sheerpace of development in the field of communitysustainability, however, it is possible that other keyprojects with similar scope have recently emergedand are not covered by this overview. Twoinitiatives not included here, for example, are theCommunity Economic Development Projectundertaken by researchers at Simon FraserUniversity (CEDC 2003) and the indicator study inthe Morice and Lakes timber supply areas (M&LIFPA 2003). The Community EconomicDevelopment Project defines tools and approaches

for community capacity assessments but does notactually measure community capacity, whereas theMorice & Lakes Innovative Forest PracticesAgreement (IFPA), an agreement between majorforest companies and the BC Ministry of Forests topromote new approaches to forest management,has developed socioeconomic indicatorsappropriate for forest industry applications butwith limited application for broader communitysustainability.

The purpose of this report is to describe the fiveprojects listed above, highlighting their generalapproach and identifying how these frameworkscould be combined to generate a synthesis approachapplicable to other regions. As a preface to thisoverview, the disconnection between dominantforest sector approaches to assessing communitysustainability and more recent social scienceapproaches to this assessment is briefly discussed.

Inf. Rep. NOR-X-392 3

later incorporating a social angle that typicallyexplores the ways in which the forest sectorcontributes to community life. The resultingcommunity sustainability indicators often containforest-related contributions such as jobs andrecreation opportunities. The Canadian StandardsAssociation guidelines (CSA 2002) are a goodexample of such an approach, in that they recognizepublic participation in forest management and theeconomic and recreational benefits and drawbacksof forestry development as key to assessingcommunity sustainability. Similarly, the nationalstatus report on sustainable forest management ofthe Canadian Council of Forest Ministers (CCFM2000) identifies three forest-based measures ofcommunity sustainability: number of communitiesin the economic base with a significant forestrycomponent, index of the diversity of the localindustrial base, and diversity of forest uses at thecommunity level.

In contrast, the dominant social scienceapproach, represented by the projects describedbelow, recognizes the social processes andcommunity capabilities, in all aspects ofcommunity life as keys to sustainability (Farrell andHart 1998; Parkins et al. 2001). In other words, thesocial science approach starts with the communityand, among many other factors, looks for ways in

which the forest contributes—through jobs but alsothrough a wide range of nontimber benefits—tocommunity well-being. Although this distinctionbetween the forest sector and the social sciences isfairly significant, in the most recent version of itscriteria and indicators, the CCFM (2003) hasmodified the indicators dealing with forestcommunities to express a more direct link tocommunity well-being and resilience. Theindicators associated with forest communitiesinclude economic diversity, education attainment,employment rate, and the incidence of low income.This most recent set of indicators represents asignificant policy shift toward community-centeredmeasures of sustainability and may provide a basisfor a more universal approach to the assessment ofsustainable forest-based communities.

For most of the projects described in this report,a sustainable community is one that strives tomaintain a healthy and thriving economy, society,and environment; adapts to internal and externalstresses; takes advantage of internal and externalopportunities; provides a high quality of life forresidents; and persists through time. This notion ofcommunity sustainability is employed throughoutthis report, particularly in a latter section, whichdiscusses a synthesis approach to the study ofcommunity sustainability.

OVERVIEW OF CURRENT COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITYPROJECTS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

British Columbia is currently host to numerouscommunity sustainability research projects, anddemand for similar research appears to be growingsteadily. Five key projects are currently under wayor have been recently completed in this province.Four of the five projects target communitysustainability, and the fifth is being used to evaluatethe social dimensions of ecosystem sustainability.However, all of the projects contribute to acomprehensive, synthesis approach to studyingcommunity sustainability that can be applied inother regions of the province. The following sectiondescribes the five projects and the key relationshipsthat are being examined, as well as certainvariables—and in some cases indicators— that arebeing measured. Table 1 lists these projects and thekey concepts driving their research.

Wellbeing Assessment

The Wellbeing Assessment (WA), or the“barometer of sustainability,” is a quantitativeapproach to evaluating human and ecosystem well-being. Developed by Prescott-Allen and publishedunder the title The Wellbeing of Nations: ACountry-by-Country Index of Quality of Life andthe Environment (Prescott-Allen 2001), the WA wasfirst used in a comprehensive internationalcomparison of human and ecosystem well-being.The premise behind the WA is that both humanwell-being and ecosystem well-being are key toregional or national sustainability. Ecosystem well-being is defined as “a condition in which theecosystem maintains its diversity and quality—andthus its capacity to support people and the rest of

Individual wealth Societal wealth

Individual needs Contributors Size and productivity Contributorsand income and constraints of economy and constraints

Food and Income Emloyment Financial Size of Productivity Owner- Business Infra- Debtshelter and access commitments economy or productive ship and diversty structure

to resources potential invest- andment viability

aAdapted from Coast Information Team preliminary documents. The process of dividing a dimension into its critical component indicators is appliedto all other dimensions in the human and ecosystem subsystems.


life—and its potential to adapt to change andprovide a wide range of choices and opportunitiesfor the future” (Prescott-Allen 2001, page 5).Human well-being is “a condition in which allmembers of society are able to determine and meettheir needs and have a large range of choices tomeet their potential” (Prescott-Allen 2001, page 5).

The WA method is currently being used in aCoast Information Team (CIT) projectencompassing the central and northern coast ofBritish Columbia. The CIT was formed in 2002 aspart of a joint agreement between the provincialgovernment, First Nations governments,environmental nongovernmental organizations,communities, and the forest industry. The purposeof the CIT is to bring together scientific,environmental, traditional, and local knowledgeand expertise to provide independent informationand analyses for the development and

implementation of ecosystem-based managementalong the northern and central coasts of BritishColumbia (CIT 2002). The following summary ofthe WA is based on the CIT approach.

The WA uses four indexes to measure humanand ecosystem well-being: a human well-beingindex, an ecosystem well-being index, a combinedecosystem and human well-being index, and afourth index quantifying the impact ofimprovements in human well-being on ecosystemhealth. The first two indexes are broken down intoa suite of indicators tied to specific data sets. Thehuman system, for example, is broken down intofive dimensions: health and population, wealth,knowledge and culture, community, and equity,each further divided into their component parts,which results in a series of indicators allowing themeasurement of specific features of human well-being. As an example of this process, Table 2

Table 1. Five projects on community sustainability under way in British Columbia

Project Principal investigator Key concepts Status

Wellbeing Assessment Robert Prescott-Allen • Ecosystem well-being Ongoing• Human well-being

New Rural Bill Reimer • Community capacity Phase I completeEconomy Project • Natural, social, economic,

and human capital

Resilient Communities Ralph Matthews • Community resilience OngoingProject • Social cohesion

• Social capital

Sustainability of John Parkins • Community sustainability CompleteHuman Communities • Community capacity

Landscape visualization Stephen Sheppard • Visible stewardship Completeand visible stewardship

Table 2. Wellbeing Assessment indicators: the example of the wealth dimension within the humansubsystema


illustrates the subdivision of the wealth dimensioninto indicator groups. The core components ofecosystem well-being are land, water, air, speciesand genes, and resource use, and each of thesecomponents is also divided into specific indicators.

The WA includes numerous indicators in bothhuman and ecosystem well-being. Each indicator islinked to a specific objective defined by theresearchers and community advisory groups,which allows the researchers to determine if acommunity is meeting certain stated objectives. If,for example, individual income is an indicator ofwealth, the objective might be defined as“individuals within the region earn sufficientincome to secure their material well-being.”Researchers would then obtain data describingindividual income for the region being assessedand determine to what extent the objective is beingmet. The WA uses a great deal of secondary data,such as census data, as well as primary datacollected from a random sample surveyadministered in the study communities.

Once each indicator has been defined andmeasured, it is also rated according to a commonunit of measurement called a performance score.Performance scores are based on regional standardsand expert opinion. A high performance scoreindicates that the objective for a particular indicatorhas been achieved, whereas a lower score indicatesthat the objective has not been achieved. Forexample, in a region where few people have anincome to meet their basic needs, the indicator forincome would receive a low performance score.The performance scores for human well-being arethen combined as a single index, and the same isdone for the performance scores for ecosystemwell-being. The human well-being and ecosystemwell-being index scores are then plotted ascoordinates on a two-dimensional scale to yield avisual representation of the two index scores. Thistwo-dimensional scale is called a barometer ofsustainability.

New Rural Economy Project

The New Rural Economy (NRE) Project is anongoing research and education programexamining changes in rural communities acrossCanada (NRE 2003). The project is studying 32communities, including Tumbler Ridge innortheastern British Columbia, Mackenzie in thenorth central region of the province, and Port Alice

on Vancouver Island. The first phase of this two-phase project was completed in 2002, and thesecond phase is currently under way. The secondphase identifies requirements for, responses to, andprocesses for building capacity in ruralcommunities (NRE 2003). The following summaryis drawn from several key publications discussingcommunity capacity that arose from the first phaseof this research (Beckley et al. 2002a; Reimer 2003;Martz, D.; Sanderson, K. 2003. Four capitals andfour capacity outcomes in four prairie agriculturalcommunities. Centre for Rural Studies andEnrichment, Saskatoon, SK. Unpubl. rep.). TheNRE Project also examines rural communitycommunication and services, but these aspects arenot discussed here.

The NRE Project is examining the notion ofcommunity capacity, where the capacity to prosperand respond to exogenous and endogenous stressesis thought to be central to sustainability. Moreformally, the NRE researchers define communitycapacity as “the collective ability of a group (thecommunity) to combine various forms of capitalwithin institutional and relational contexts toproduce desired results or outcomes” (Beckley et al.2002a, page 7). This definition of communitycapacity suggests that communities require certaincapital and resources, as well as the ability tomobilize them through social organizations andrelationships to produce desired results andoutcomes. The NRE researchers have broughtforward four specific capacity outcomes:

• The capacity to maintain or enhance economicvitality

• The capacity to access resources from the state• The capacity to create or maintain a vital civic

culture• The capacity to subsist or persist.

Figure 1 illustrates the NRE Project capacitymodel and demonstrates how NRE researchersenvision the production of these four outcomes.Although the model presents the process as linear,Beckley et al. (2002a) maintain that it is cyclic, withfeedbacks between the capacity outcomes and thevarious forms of capital.

The model identifies several forms of capitalcentral to community capacity: natural, human,economic, and social. Researchers attempt tomeasure each of these forms of capital separately, aswell as the four capacity outcomes. Natural capital


is produced by the natural environment andsustains the community. It includes environmentalservices, such as clean air and water, as well asnatural resources, such as forests and fossil fuels.Human capital refers to the skills, education, andhealth of individuals within the community andultimately contributes to the skill base and theeconomic performance of the community.Economic capital is the physical infrastructure,such as road networks, water treatment facilities,and administrative buildings, as well as the liquidassets, or financial capital, such as organizationalbudgets, operating funds, and household savings.Social capital is a slightly more abstract conceptwith many different definitions, several of whichhave been adopted by the various initiativesdocumented in this current report. The NREresearchers view social capital as comprising therelationships between community members andrelate it to the norms and networks facilitatingcollective social action.

The NRE Project is examining the contributionof four overlapping spheres of social relations—market, bureaucratic, associative, and reciprocity—to each of the four forms of capital and the fourcapacity outcomes. The NRE researchers definemarket relations as the social relations producingincome and employment, in addition totransactions intended to produce goods andservices, such as labor, financial capital, propertyrights, and natural capital. Bureaucratic relationsare thought to encompass public service and otherinstitutions designed to provide governance andlaw and order and to control property rights.

Organizations that come together to producecapacity outcomes not provided by thebureaucratic and market spheres are calledassociative relations, where these relations are theproduct of shared interests organized to act towarda common goal producing mutual benefits.Examples of organizations within the associativesphere include churches, recreational groups, andorganizations providing voluntary services.Reciprocity relations are perhaps more difficult todefine and less structured than the other threespheres. Transactions within this sphere are basedon trust, loyalty, and reciprocity, and producenetworks of support among individuals.

Community capacity is measured by means ofvariables representing the four forms of capital andthe specific capacity outcomes. Each form of capitaland capacity outcome is assigned a number ofvariables that measure its core components.Secondary data, such as census data, as well asprimary data obtained from a household randomsample survey, are used to measure these variables.The performance scores for these variables areplotted separately on a diagram for eachcommunity, to illustrate the community’s relativeperformance in the capital and capacity outcomeareas.

Resilient Communities Project

The Resilient Communities Project is a 3-year studythat has been undertaken by a team of researchersfrom the University of British Columbia to examinesocial cohesion and resilience to economic changein the province’s coastal communities. This project

Economic capital

Social capital

Natural capital

Human capital

·

Market relations

Associative relations

Bureaucratic relations

Reciprocityrelations

Capacity outcomes

• Maintain or enhanceeconomic vitality

• Access resourcesfrom the state

• Create and maintaina vital civic culture

• Subsist or persist

·

Figure 1. Community capacity model. Adapted from Beckley et al. (2002a).


has observed a crisis in these communities, wherecommunity existence is threatened by depletion ofnatural resources and changes in global markets.Rather than framing the research in terms ofsustainability, this project views resilience, oradaptability to economic stress, as a desiredoutcome for rural communities.

To explore both social cohesion and resilience,the project examines the extent to which socialcapital enables or prevents adaptation to economicdecline. The research model, illustrated in Figure 2,predicts that social capital produces communityresilience and leads to economic well-being. Twoaspects of social capital are explored in this model:the community social psychological component,involving trust between individuals and personalidentification with, and commitment to, thecommunity; and the community socialorganizational component, consisting ofinterpersonal relationships and obligationsbetween community members, as well as the socialnorms enabling positive contributions fromcommunity members to their communities.Community resilience, considered an interveningrather than a dependent variable, is defined as acommunity’s ability to respond positively tointernal and external economic stresses thatthreaten the community’s economic viability orexistence (Matthews, R. 2003. The resilientcommunities project in British Columbia:identifying the relationship between communitysocial cohesion and economic change. Univ. BritishColumbia, Resilient Communities Project,Vancouver, BC. Unpubl. rep.). Economic well-beingis assessed with an economic performance indexconsisting of several community-level employmentand income measures, including overall income,occupational composition, job loss, and economicgrowth.

Research for the Resilient Communities Projectis taking place in three stages. The first stage is amacro-level community profiling exercise toconstruct the economic performance index and toassess the relationship between economicperformance and various social indicators. Thesecond stage involves a more detailed analysis ofapproximately 20 communities. Researchers havedesigned a questionnaire to be administered to arandom sample of 120 individuals within each ofthese communities to measure social cohesion andsocial capital. The survey contains questionsmeasuring the social psychological and socialorganizational aspects of social capital, as well asquestions assessing individual economic andemployment history, migration behavior, politicalparticipation, community relations, and individualhealth. Data from the questionnaire will beanalyzed and used to describe the function of socialcapital in buffering the negative impacts of pooreconomic performance and enabling a positivecommunity response promoting future economicgrowth. The third stage of the research involves anintensive ethnographic study of eight communitiesto generate a detailed understanding of theformation and use of social capital, as well as thecultural, generational and gender dynamics withinthe community and perceptions of the future of thecommunity.

Sustainability of Human Communities

Since the mid-1990s, the Canadian ForestService (CFS) has been studying rural forest-basedcommunity sustainability and developingindicators of sustainability. Early indicatorsresearch developed thick descriptions (rich,detailed accounts of an observation [Neuman2000]) of community conditions by linking censusprofile data on indicators such as income,

Independent variable

Figure 2. Causal model of community resilience.

Dependent variable

Social capital Community resilience Economic well-being

• Community social psychology • Community and• Community social organization individual economic

performance

Intervening variable


employment, and education attainment withindividual interview data from the community(Parkins and Beckley 2001). Since that time,indicators research at the CFS has led to methods ofidentifying local-level indicators that requireextensive contact with communities and primarydata collection through workshops and surveys. Ingeneral, indicators of sustainability used in CFSprojects are locally defined and provide baselinedata that can be used to track a community’sprogress toward future desired conditions.Indicators of sustainability are defined as “thesocial, economic and environmental factors that aredeemed crucial for measuring a future desiredstate” (Parkins et al. 2004). In recent years, this focuson indicators of sustainability has expanded toinclude some community capacity measures thatare more consistent with the NRE Project.

The CFS Social Science Research Grouprecently completed a study of communitysustainability in the Robson Valley Forest District inthe northeast interior of British Columbia. Thefollowing summary is based on the Robson Valleywork. The Robson Valley project took advantage ofthree approaches to the study of communitysustainability: quality of life, community capacity,and a specific sustainability evaluation framework.By integrating these three approaches, researcherswere able to generate conceptually grounded, butlocally relevant indicators sensitive to thecommunity in question. The quality-of-lifeapproach led to the development of indicatorsevaluating personal life, such as family life, leisure,and friendship networks, as well as general societalconditions, particularly housing, employment, andrecreation. Indicators in this area were generatedlocally using information provided by residents ofthe Robson Valley. Drawing on the communitycapacity literature, key measures of human andsocial capital were also developed. Similar to theNRE definitions, human capital wasconceptualized as the collective skills and abilitiesof community members, whereas social capital wasdefined as the social relations within thecommunity, particularly trust and reciprocitybetween community members and attachment tothe community.

Finally, researchers used a sustainabilityevaluation framework developed by Hart (2000) toassess quality-of-life and capacity indicatorsaccording to their relevance to sustainability.According to Hart’s framework an indicator mustmeet the following criteria:

• Address the carrying capacity of naturalresources, ecosystem services, and the estheticquality of the environment

• Address the carrying capacity of thecommunity’s social capital, built capital, andhuman capital

• Be understandable and usable by the community• Take a long-term view of progress• Address economic, social, or biological diversity• Address intra- and inter-generational equity• Show linkages between social, economic, and

environmental factors• Monitor use of natural resources• Address the state of ecological services• Address the beauty and life-affirming qualities

of nature• Address social, built, or financial capital• Examine whether sustainability comes at the

expense of other communities.

Indicators were generated after several stagesof data collection, analysis, and evaluation. Datacollection began with workshops asking residentsto discuss quality-of-life priorities in theircommunities. During the workshops, specific socialindicator themes were developed. Personalinterviews were used to expand on and validatesome of the themes generated during theworkshops. On the basis of these themes, arandom-sample community survey was developedto prioritize indicators identified during workshopsand interviews. Using information fromworkshops, interviews, the survey exercise, and thesocial science literature, researchers were then ableto identify specific indicators and measures ofsustainability. Most indicators were based on localdata collection; however, a few were includedbecause of their importance in the social scienceliterature. Profile indicators and process indicators,for example, were drawn almost entirely from theliterature. Beckley et al. (2002b) described profileindicators as descriptive and static, usuallyconsigned to socioeconomic or demographicaspects of the community. Process indicators, on theother hand, explore social processes and behavior,allowing more precise determination of the causesof certain social phenomena. In other words,process indicators help to answer questions such as,“How did this community achieve these social andeconomic conditions?”

Measures for the suite of indicators wereidentified and evaluated according to severalcriteria, including their relevance to the indicator,how well they allowed researchers to understand


the indicator, and the accessibility of data to goalong with the measure. The final product of thisresearch was a locally relevant suite of indicators ofcommunity sustainability, rooted in the literature,which could be employed to track progress towardspecific community goals and aspirations.

Landscape Visualization and Visible Stewardship

The landscape visualization approach and theconcept of visible stewardship are not designedspecifically to assess community sustainability;rather, they can be used as tools and variableswithin broader studies of community sustainability.The landscape visualization technique is becomingmore widely used in forest planning and perceptualresearch; for example, the Collaborative forAdvanced Landscape Planning at the University ofBritish Columbia has applied it to publicparticipation and sustainability assessment in apilot project that is part of the Arrow IFPA study inthe West Kootenay region of British Columbia.Scenario planning, like the work undertaken by theMorice & Lakes IFPA (Tesera Systems Inc. 2003.Morice and Lakes IFPA indicator list. PrinceGeorge, BC. Unpubl. rep.), is also becoming animportant component of sustainable forestmanagement planning. As computer modelsbecome more sophisticated, visual renderings offuture forests can be presented for publicconsideration during the planning process. Both thelandscape visualization approach and the conceptof visible stewardship described here suggest a wayin which this major component of forest planningcan be incorporated into a broader communitysustainability framework.

In the landscape visualization approach,computer-simulated visual representations ofexisting landscapes under various change scenarios(e.g., change under a specific harvest regime overtime) are presented to a group of individuals, whoare asked to rate their preferred scenario accordingto certain criteria (Sheppard, S.R.J.; Meitner, M.2003. Using multi-criteria analysis and visualisationfor sustainable forest management planning withstakeholder groups. Univ. British Columbia,Collaborative for Advance Landscape Planning,Vancouver, BC. Unpubl. rep.). For example,

researchers have taken a computer-simulatedimage of a hillside familiar to community residentsand shown, using computer-simulated projections,how that landscape might change over time undera certain timber harvesting method with variousecological, economic, and social consequences.Viewers compare images of the same landscapeunder several different harvest scenarios, togetherwith mapped and tabular data from technicalevaluations and choose the scenario that theybelieve demonstrates the highest level ofsustainability. Using this information, researchersor forest managers can then evaluate how closelythe public’s preferred harvest regime matchesscenarios determined by experts to be the mostecologically or economically sound and howstrongly various harvest scenarios communicate tothe public a commitment to sustainable forestmanagement.

This latter determination is also called visiblestewardship (Sheppard 2001). Visible stewardshiphas the potential to inform forest-based communitysustainability studies, particularly given thatsustainable communities are dependent on healthyecosystems and sustainable forest managementdepends on public satisfaction with managementpractices. Visible stewardship takes into accountthe relationship between actual forest stewardshipand the visible evidence of stewardship, whereesthetically acceptable landscapes must also bedeemed by experts to be sustainable (Sheppard2001). According to Sheppard (2003), the concept ofvisible stewardship entails three tests to determinewhether a landscape is communicating sustainableforest management to the public: determine if thereis visible evidence of forest management andplanning, determine if the visible evidence looks“good,” and verify—with expert opinion—whetherthe visible evidence actually reflects sustainableperformance or good management. The concept ofvisible stewardship therefore links moreconventional management or communityobjectives for visual quality to criteria of ecosystemhealth and broader assessments of sustainability; italso addresses aspects of transparency incommunication with communities and sociallearning.


MELDING APPROACHES: A POSSIBLE STRATEGY FORFUTURE INITIATIVES

With the exception of the last approachdescribed, the studies reviewed in this report can bedescribed as studies of community sustainability,although some use other distinct terms to describetheir work (i.e., well-being, capacity, or resilience).Again, based on a general view taken by theseprojects, a sustainable community is one that strivesto maintain a healthy and thriving economy,society, and environment, adapts to external andinternal stresses, takes advantage of internal andexternal opportunities, provides a high quality oflife for residents, and persists through time. On thebasis of a review of some of the literature oncommunity sustainability and our overview of thefive BC projects, we propose a synthesis approachto the study of community sustainability, to takeadvantage of the strengths offered by theseindividual projects. Figure 3 illustrates theconceptual model we propose for this synthesisapproach, and Table 3 lists indicators underconsideration.

A Synthesis Approach

Several guidelines for developing appropriatemeasures of sustainability, as derived from theliterature, can also be used in developing asynthesis approach to assessing communitysustainability. In general, all indicators ofcommunity sustainability should have a clearconceptual basis and should measure not only thesymptoms of social phenomena, but also theirunderlying causes (Cobb and Rixford 1998).Moreover, Kusel (1996, 2001) has recommendedusing indicators that assess structural conditionsand institutional arrangements (e.g., concentrationof power, land ownership), while not confusingincome or wealth with well-being. Kusel alsobelieved that indicators should recognize theimportance of individual and communitycapabilities and functioning (i.e., capacity). When aset of indicators is applied to a community, Kuselrecommended using sociodemographic andsubjective data together, such that the basiccommunity conditions can be described and theseconditions explained according to local socialrelationships and processes.

Following these guidelines, we believe that thecapacity approach used by the NRE Project, theResilient Communities Project, and theSustainability of Human Communities projectcould serve as an “umbrella” approach to the studyof community sustainability. This model isillustrated in Figure 3, where community capacityis the central concept and a focal point for a studyof community sustainability, with processindicators, quality-of-life concerns, and asustainability evaluation framework includedduring the process of indicator development.

Capacity, an attribute that allows communitiesto adapt to stressful periods and take advantage ofopportunities (Kusel 1996, 2001), is built on severalforms of capital (Kusel 1996, 2001; Beckley et al.2002a). Hence, our model includes indicators for allthese forms of capital. Although certain projectsreviewed in this report do not present theirvariables as measures of capital, we used Reimer’s(2003) definition of capital as the resources andassets that can be invested to achieve certainoutcomes and found that many variables could becategorized under these various forms of capitals.

Although the study of community capacityshould identify these assets and resources, capacitycan also be observed by determining whethercertain conditions enabling sustainability are beingmet within the community. Consequently, wesuggest that a synthesis model also identifyindicators for specific capacity outcomes, whereoutcomes relate to community goals and describecommunity conditions. We have identified fivecapacity outcomes related to the NRE Project andthe Sustainability of Human Communities project:ecological integrity, economic vitality, civic vitality,physical and mental health, and recreationalopportunities. From our review of currentsustainability projects, we consider these outcomesrelevant in most resource-based communities.

Once indicators for these forms of capital andcapacity outcomes have been defined, werecommend identifying process indicators todescribe the social phenomena and socialrelationships within the communities being


studied. Process indicators, such as leadership,resilience, and sense of place, help to explain howcommunities are able to mobilize various forms ofcapital to produce sustainability. By includingprocess indicators in their research, investigatorscan begin to explain why some communities excelin certain indicator areas and others do not.

In Table 3 we provide an extensive list ofindicators suitable for a synthesis approach; this listwould need to be condensed or shortened forpractical application. The list of indicators in Table3 could be presented to a community for local inputto generate a list of locally relevant indicators.Community feedback is also crucial for theidentification of quality-of-life indicators. Bydiscussing quality of life in the community in thecontext of the list of indicators, residents canhighlight certain indicators as representing qualityof life and identify new quality-of-life indicators notalready included. This local input also contributes

to the development of indicators relevant to certainspecific communities, such as First Nationscommunities, which might define capacityoutcomes differently from those identified bynon–First Nations communities. We recommendthat researchers use community feedback andprioritization of indicators to develop an initialindicator suite, keeping in mind the need to includerelevant indicators identified by the literature,particularly process indicators.

As a final step, we suggest checking this initialsuite against a sustainability evaluation frameworkto ensure that all indicators are representative ofcommunity sustainability and are well distributedbetween the four forms of capital and the fivecapacity outcomes. This evaluation frameworkcould be similar Hart’s (2000) evaluationframework used in the Sustainability of HumanCommunities project.

Community capacity

Capacity outcomes

• Ecological integrity

• Economic vitality

• Civic vitality

• Physical andmental health

Figure 3. Synthesis approach to measuring community sustainability.

Process indicators

Forms of capital

• Natural capital

• Economic capital

• Social capital

• Human capital

Local level input/Quality-of-life variables

Final suite of capitalindicators

Final suite of capacityindicators

Sustainability evaluation framework


Selecting Indicators

Using the synthesis model described above, wecan begin to identify specific indicators within thevarious categories of capital and capacity outcomesfor application in a study of communitysustainability. Table 3 presents indicators derivedfrom the projects reviewed here according to theform of capital or capacity outcome to which theyrelate, along with references to the projectsthemselves and related literature. Processindicators are presented as a separate category inthis table, although some of these could becategorized under certain forms of capital orcapacity outcomes.

Under human capital we have groupedindicators that assess education attainment andtraining, as well as personal health. Within naturalcapital, we have listed many of the ecosystem well-being variables used in the WA, as that projectprovides a balanced and comprehensiveassessment of the core components of naturalcapital, particularly resource and speciesinventories. Economic capital includes indicatorsmeasuring financial capital (the stock and flow ofmoney), physical capital (the physicalinfrastructure supporting the economy), and accessto state funds for infrastructure, as well as laborforce recruitment and retention. Within socialcapital we have included a large number ofindicators to ensure that the numerous approachesto measuring social capital are addressed.Consistent with the approach of the ResilientCommunities Project, some of these indicatorsrelate to social capital at the communityorganizational level, whereas others characterizesocial psychological components. We have alsoincluded indicators that measure theorganizational and service infrastructuresupporting social networks within communities.

Indicators for the five capacity outcomes havealso been identified. Under ecological integrity, wehave included many of the WA variables used toassess overall ecosystem well-being, such as degreeof land modification and protection and quality ofland and water. Also included is visiblestewardship, which is used to assess whether locallandscapes are perceived by various groups to be

sustainably managed. Whereas economic capitalincludes measures of the resources and assetscontributing to economic activity, economic vitalityincludes indicators that assess the activity anddiversity of the economy in terms of economicdiversity, employment, and income diversity. Civicvitality is understood as the degree to whichcommunity members are involved in and feelattached to their community (Martz, D.; Sanderson,K. 2003. Four capitals and four capacity outcomesin four prairie agricultural communities. Centre forRural Studies and Enrichment, Saskatoon, SK.Unpubl. rep.), as well as citizens’ satisfaction withthe community. Within this category, we haveincluded indicators assessing social organizationalaspects of social capital, individual commitment tothe community, and the quality of local leadershipand local services. Physical and mental healthrefers to the health of individuals within thecommunity, specifically strong physical and mentalhealth with little incidence of disease or physical ormental disorders, particularly among the youngerpopulation. This category includes generalmeasures of physical and mental health as well asinfant and adult mortality rates. We have alsoincluded measures of perceived or self-reportedhealth as in the Resilient Communities Project.Recreational opportunities within the communityare also thought to be key to communitysustainability. This category includes indicatorsdocumenting actual recreational opportunities,such as the number of outdoor and indoorrecreational facilities and programs, as well assatisfaction with these opportunities.

The final category in this table is processindicators, such as leadership, resilience, andcommunity cohesion, which mobilize human,economic, natural, and social capital. Water quality,for example, is an indicator under natural capital,yet it may depend on a certain degree of leadershipencouraging the protection of watersheds.

Many indicators within Table 3 reflect quality-of-life concerns and as such this notion is notpresented as a separate category. Quality-of-lifeindicators (e.g., water quality, opportunities foreducation, and community support) will begenerated locally and will likely overlap withmany of the indicators already included in Table 3.


Table 3. Examples of indicators for a synthesis approach

Form of capital orcapacity outcome Examples of indicators References

Human capital Education • Beckley et al. 2002a; Parkins et al. 2004Professional trainingDemographic informationStudent enrollment • Parkins et al. 2004Individual health • Beckley et al. 2002a; Mattherws 2003a

Access to health careAccess to household servicesAccess to state services • Beckley et al. 2002a

Natural capital Flowering plants, other plants, • Prescott-Allen 2001Mammals, birds, reptiles,

fishes, amphibiansInvertebratesFungi, protists, bacteriaResource stocks Hydropower and water supplyTourismMinerals, oil and gas, energyMaterials

Economic capital Business and property values • Beckley et al. 2002aCommunity license to natural

resources • Prescott-Allen 2001; Beckley et al. 2002aAccess to money for infrastructure • Beckley et al. 2002aFinancial capital • Prescott-Allen 2001; Patriquin et al. 2003

Gross domestic productLabor force recruitment and

retention • Beckley et al. 2002a; Matthews 2003a;Parkins et al. 2004

Household income • Beckley et al. 2002a; Matthews 2003a;Parkins et al. 2004

Physical capital • Beckley et al. 2002aTransportation infrastructureSchoolsHealth care infrastructureHosting of government facilitiesInternet • Beckley et al. 2002a; Matthews 2003a

Community service infrastructure • Parkins et al. 2004

Social capital Social psychological aspects • Beckley et al. 2002a; Matthews 2003a;Trust in other community Parkins et al. 2004

members, leaders, civic groupsSocial networksMigration history, likelihood of

future migration • Beckley et al. 2002a; Parkins et al. 2004Average number of years in

community • Parkins et al. 2004



Social capital Social organizational aspects • Reimer 2003Social cohesionPopulation health • Matthews 2003a

Religious institutions • Beckley et al. 2002aLocal representative in provincial

or federal governmentInstitutional embeddedness • Matthews 2003a

Social capital infrastructure • Reimer 2002Financial services, institutionsCommunication services,

bureaucratic services,commercial services, communityorganizationsand services within 30 min drive of community

Community integration events

Ecological integrity Visible stewardship • Sheppard 2003Land conversion, modification • Prescott-Allen 2001Land protectionForest and soil qualityInland aquatic ecosystem diversityInland and marine water qualityMarine ecosystem diversityGlobal and local air quality

Economic vitality Ownership of household dwellings • Beckley et al. 2002a; Matthews 2003a;Parkins et al. 2004

Rates of entrepreneurship • Beckley et al. 2002a; Parkins et al. 2004Sources of income • Beckley et al. 2002aLow economic leakageb • Parkins et al. 2004Diverse economic base • Parkins et al. 2004Unemployment • Beckley et al. 2002a; Matthews 2003a;

Parkins et al. 2004

Civic vitality Personal identification withcommunity • Beckley et al. 2002a; Matthews 2003a

Personal commitment to community • Matthews 2003a

Views about community leadership • Beckley et al. 2002a; Matthews 2003a

Family dimensions of community lifeSupport from communityViews about community efforts

to effect change • Matthews 2003a

Social supportSatisfaction with community

services • Parkins et al. 2004

Table 3. Continued



Civic vitality Associational behavior • Beckley et al. 2002aCivic participation • Matthews 2003a; Parkins et al. 2004Political participation • Matthews 2003a

Physical and Personal health (self-reported) • Matthews 2003a

mental health Stress (self-reported) • Beckley et al. 2002aPopulation mental health • Veenstra 2002Infant mortality rate • Prescott-Allen 2001Mortality rate • Veenstra 2002Life expectancy • NIRHB 2001Cancer (all sites)Low birth weight • Prescott-Allen 2001

Recreational Outdoor recreational areas • Parkins et al. 2004opportunities Recreation facilities

Recreation programsParticipation in recreational activities Satisfaction with recreational activities

Process indicators Leadership • Beckley et al. 2002b; Matthews 2003a; Volunteerism Parkins et al. 2004Entrepreneurialism and

entrepreneurshipSense of place: meanings, • Beckley et al. 2002b; Parkins et al. 2004

satisfaction, and attachmentResilience • Matthews 2003a

a Matthews, R. 2003. The resilient communities project in British Columbia: identifying the relationship between community socialcohesion and economic change. Univ. British Columbia, Resilient Communities Project, Vancouver, BC. Unpubl. rep.

b Parkins et al. (2004) measure economic leakage by assessing the proportion of spending in local and non-local businesses.

Table 3. Continued


Studies of community sustainability haveexpanded in recent decades, particularly in BritishColumbia, where there are a large number ofheavily forest-dependent communities. We havereviewed five studies addressing communitysustainability in this province, drawing on theirtheoretical foundation and methodologicalapproaches to develop a synthesis approach tocommunity sustainability that could be applied inother regions. This synthesis approach recognizescommunity capacity as an overarching conceptguiding the study of community sustainability.

The synthesis approach differs in several waysfrom previous forestry-based and communitystability approaches. Indicators included in thisapproach relate primarily to community well-being, while allowing for measures characterizingthe local economy and resource base. The focus onsustainability, rather than stability, is also a keybenefit of this approach, as this notion emphasizesfunctioning natural, economic, and social systems,rather than stable economic systems and laborforces. With the synthesis approach, communitiescan be actively involved in generating indicatorsthat are locally relevant and reflect local quality-of-life concerns.

Finally, there is the question of how theseindicators could be used by the forest sector. In

general, the synthesis framework can be used as aguide for strategic investments in community well-being. If a community is observed to be deficient insome aspect of human or social capital, thenconcerted efforts can be made to invest in andimprove those forms of capital. For example,strategic investments by local industries andgovernment agencies in entrepreneurial trainingmight play an important role in contributing to thehuman capital, and therefore the sustainability, of ahost community. In this way, the indicatorsframework can be used to identify important areasof concern and can facilitate decisions aboutappropriate and targeted investments in acommunity.

Our approach has identified numerousindicators that could be used to measure acommunity’s performance in generating andmaintaining human, economic, natural, and socialcapital, as well as indicators assessing the socialprocesses that mobilize these forms of capital intodesirable outcomes. This model of communitysustainability can be used to guide the work offuture community sustainability studies, and withthat in mind we have outlined a generalmethodology for indicator development and haveprovided an extensive list of indicators reflectingthe current state of practice in the province ofBritish Columbia.

CONCLUSIONS

Limitations

There are some limitations to the synthesisapproach. First, certain indicators, such as spiritualand cultural values, are not covered, mainlybecause they have received only limited attentionin the existing sustainability literature. Werecognize, however, that these variables wouldmake a significant contribution to the synthesisapproach and may emerge in future studies, asresearch in community sustainability continues todevelop. Second, although our framework presentsa large suite of indicators on which a study ofcommunity sustainability might draw, it does notelaborate on their relative importance. Realistically,however, community leaders or policymakers willassess these indicators on the basis of their relativevalue in representing and addressing the important

issues within their own communities. Third, thesynthesis framework does not discuss potentialtrade-offs between indicators, for example,between increased economic activity and poorerenvironmental quality (economic and socialdevelopment inevitably draws on natural capitaland alters the natural environment). Similarly, thissynthesis approach does not discuss the notion ofan ecological carrying capacity or environmentalthreshold. Although local ecosystems do havelimits to the level of community development theycan support, these limits are not well understood,and few benchmarks exist at this time. Theproposed synthesis framework does not attempt tomeasure or evaluate these trade-offs betweeneconomic progress and ecological limits, althoughthis will be an important area for future research.


The Morice & Lakes Innovative Forest PracticesAgreement provided funding for this project. Theauthors gratefully acknowledge the assistance ofthe principal investigators and co-investigators

working on the projects reviewed here. Four peerreviewers also provided important contributions tothis manuscript.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

LITERATURE CITED

Beckley, T.; Nadeau, S.; Wall, E.; Martz, D. 2002a. Multiplecapacities, multiple outcomes: delving deeper into themeaning of community capacity. Annu. Meet. RuralSociolog. Society, Chicago, Illinois, 14–17 August 2002.

Beckley, T.; Parkins, J.; Stedman, R. 2002b. Indicators of forest-dependent community sustainability: the evolution of theresearch. For. Chron. 78(5):626–636.

(CCFM) Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. 2000. Criteria andindicators of sustainable forest management in Canada:national status report 2000. Nat. Resour. Can., Ottawa, ON.

(CCFM) Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. 2003. Definingsustainable forest management in Canada: criteria andindicators. Nat. Resour. Can., Ottawa, ON.

(CEDC) Community Economic Development Centre 2003.Welcome to the Community Economic DevelopmentCentre. [on-line]. Simon Fraser University, CEDC, Burnaby,BC. Accessed 28 Nov. 2003. <http://www.sfu.ca/cedc/>.

(CIT) Coast Information Team. 2002. Analyses: wellbeingassessment [on-line]. CIT Secretariat. Victoria, BC. Accessed28 Nov. 2003. <http://www.citbc.org/anawell.html>.

Cobb, C.W.; Rixford, C. 1998. Lessons learned from the history ofsocial indicators. Redefining Progress, San Francisco, CA.

(CSA) Canadian Standards Association. 2002. Sustainable forestmanagement: requirements and guidance. CSA standardZ809-02. Mississauga, ON.

Farrell, A.; Hart, M. 1998. What does sustainability really mean?The search for useful indicators. Environment40(9):4–9,26–31.

(FSC) Forest Stewardship Council. 2000. FSC principles andcriteria [on-line]. Bonn, Germany. Accessed 24 Nov. 2003.<http://www.fscoax.org/principal.htm>.

Hart, M. 2000. Sustainable community indicator checklist [on-line]. Sustainable Measures, North Andover, MA.Accessed 24 Nov. 2003. <http://www.sustainablemeasures.com/Indicators/ChecklistItself.html>.

Hayter, R. 2000. Flexible crossroads: the restructuring of BritishColumbia’s forest industry. Univ. British Columbia Press,Vancouver, BC.

Hoberg, G. 2001. Policy cycles and policy regimes: a frameworkfor studying policy change. Pages 3–30 in B. Cashore, G.Hoberg, M. Howlett, J. Rayner, and J. Wilson, eds. In searchof sustainability: British Columbia forest policy in the1990s. Univ. British Columbia Press, Vancouver, BC.

Kusel, J. 1996. Well-being in forest-dependent communities. PartI. A new approach. Pages 361–373 in Sierra Nevadaecosystem project: final report to Congress. Vol. 2.Assessments and scientific basis for management options.Univ. California, Cent. Water Wildland Resour., Davis, CA.

Kusel, J. 2001. Assessing well-being in forest dependentcommunities. Pages 359–383 in G.J. Gray, M.J. Enzer, and J.Kusel, eds. Understanding community-based forestecosystem management. Haworth Press, Binghamton, NY.

(IISD) International Institute for Sustainable Development. 2003.Compendium: a global directory to indicator initiatives[on-line]. Winnipeg, MB. Accessed 24 Nov. 2003.<http://www.iisd.org/measure/compendium/>.

Marchak, P. 1983. Green gold: the forest industry in BritishColumbia. Univ. British Columbia Press, Vancouver, BC.

Marchak, P. 1995. Logging the globe. McGill-Queen’s Univ.Press, Montreal, QC, and Kingston, ON.

(M&L IFPA) Morice & Lakes Innovative Forest PracticesAgreement. 2003. Morice & Lakes innovative forestpractices agreement [on-line]. Prince George, BC. Accessed24 Nov. 2003. < http://www.moricelakes-ifpa.com/>.

Neuman, W.L. 2000. Social research methods: qualitative andquantitative approaches. Ally and Bacon, Boston, MA.

(NIRHB) Northern Interior Regional Health Board. 2001. Healthservices plan 2001–2004. Prince George, BC.

(NRE) New Rural Economy Project. 2003. NRE2: building ruralcapacity in the new economy [on-line]. ConcordiaUniversity, NRE Project, Montreal, QC. Accessed 28 Nov.2003. <http://nre.concordia.ca/nre2.htm>.

Parkins, J.; Beckley, T. 2001. Monitoring communitysustainability in the Foothills Model Forest: a socialindicators approach. Nat. Resour. Can., Can. For. Serv.,Atlantic For. Cent., Fredericton, NB. Inf. Rep. M-X-211E.


Parkins, J.; Stedman, R.; Varghese, J. 2001. Moving towardslocal-level indicators of sustainability in forest-basedcommunities: a mixed-method approach. Soc. Indic. Res.56:43–72.

Parkins, J.; Varghese, J.; Stedman, R. 2004. Identifying indicatorsof community sustainability in the Robson Valley, BritishColumbia. BC J. Ecosys. Manage. 4(2).

Patriquin, M.; Alavalapati, J.; Wellstead, A.; Young, S.;Adamowicz, W.; White, W. 2003. Estimating the impacts ofresource management policies in the Foothills ModelForest. Can. J. For. Res. 33:147–155.

Prescott-Allen, R. 2001. The wellbeing of nations: a country-by-country index of quality of life and the environment. IslandPress, Washington, DC.

Reimer, B. 2002. Understanding social capital: its nature andmanifestation in rural Canada. Can. Sociol. Anthr. Assoc.Annu. Conf., Toronto, Ontario, 29 May – 1 June 2002.

Reimer, B. 2003. Understanding and measuring social capital andsocial cohesion [on-line]. Concordia University, New RuralEconomy Project, Montreal, QC. Accessed 28 Nov. 2003.<ftp://132.205.87.156/spss_2001/3csmeasures1.pdf>.

Resilient Communities Project. 2003. Project outline. Theresilient community: social capital and economic change inBritish Columbia coastal communities [on-line]. Univ.British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. Accessed 28 Nov. 2003.<http://www.arts.ubc.ca/rcp/outline.htm>.

(SFI) Sustainable Forestry Initiative. 2003. SFI labeling program[on-line]. American Forest & Paper Association,Washington, DC. Accessed 28 Nov. 2003.<http://www.aboutsfi.org/sfilabel.asp>.

Sheppard, S.R.J. 2001. Beyond visual resource management:emerging theories of an ecological aesthetic and visiblestewardship. Pages 149–172 in S.R.J. Sheppard and H.W.Harshaw, eds. Forests and landscapes: linking ecology,sustainability, and aesthetics. IUFRO Res. Se., No. 6. CABIPublishing, Wallingford, UK.

Sheppard, S.R.J. 2003. Knowing a sustainable forest when yousee one: implications for results-based forestry. For. Chron.79(5):865–875.

Veenstra, G. 2002. Social capital and health (plus wealth, incomeinequality, and regional health governance). Soc. Sci. Med.54:849–868.

FRAMEWORKS FOR ASSESSING COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY: A SYNTHESIS OF CURRENT RESEARCH IN BRITISH COLUMBIA


Northern Forestry Centre

Information Report NOR-X-392

frameworks for assessing community … for assessing community sustainability: a synthesis of...

Documents