Coastal resource and tourism management

Policy and planning

The focus of this case study is on a small community of 1600 people on the west coast of Vancouver Island, British Columbia. This community is part of a municipality that was historically resource dependent (i.e. fishing and forestry), but attempting to transition to an increased reliance on alternative industries such as ecotourism.

A community-based research collaborative was initiated in 2004 between Malaspina University-College and the District of Ucluelet, which developed into the Malaspina-Ucluelet Research Alliance. The objective of this partnership was to better understand how the transitioning economy might take place while continuing to maintain community held values. The project also coincided with the revision of the Official Community Plan, which included the identification and development of policy and planning strategies for the municipality’s sustainable growth and development.

Source: http://www.longbeachmaps.com/travel-frameset.html

The alliance continues to thrive, having won a range of prestigious awards including several United Nations International Awards for Liveable Communities in 2006 (Malcolm 2007). These awards acknowledge their grass-roots approach to community planning and research, where the community-university research alliance has been lauded as “an example of world’s best practice” (Morphet 2006).

   
Source: Bergen K. 2007, Ucluelet-Malaspina Research Alliance: A Best Case Example, URL: http://www.trip-project.ca/uploaded/case-studies/Ucluelet%20case.pdf
The case study demonstrates the value of applying community-based participatory research principles to empower small communities in transition.

The community and community leaders had concerns in regard to the viability of the historically important industries of fishing and forestry, which were becoming increasingly uncertain. The focus was to gain increased understanding on ways to support a transitioning and diversifying economy to one that included increased reliance on ecotourism and service industries. It was important to the community and community leaders, however, that this was achieved in a way that was sensitive to local needs.

The methods used throughout the project focused on a range of informal and formal settings, as well as engaging various established community groups, to connect with a diversity of stakeholders. For the purposes and context of this study, this was an important element in generating inclusiveness among participants [Link: Principle 1: Inclusiveness]. Using a variety of engagement methods also encouraged more opportunities for community participation at varying levels [Principle 3: Participation].

Source: Bergen K. 2007, Ucluelet-Malaspina Research Alliance: A Best Case Example, URL: http://www.trip-project.ca/uploaded/case-studies/Ucluelet%20case.pdf

To encourage trust, local people residing in the community were used to facilitate the engagement process. This was offset to some degree by the fact that they were housed in a municipal building, which caused some participants to link them to a government authority and therefore were less likely to speak openly earlier in the project [Principle 2: Respect, understanding and trust]
Principles of the collaboration in relation to research goals, communication protocols, decision-making processes, procedures for disseminating results and ethics issues were systematically identified at the beginning of the alliance [Principle 4: Communication]; [Principle 5: Joint ownership]. Issues of power sharing and distribution of resources, such as time and money, were also addressed early in the relationship [Principle 5: Joint ownership]; [Principle 9: Equity and consensus].

The process has led to increased economic benefit through tourism activities but, due to the quality of the research and planning, negative impacts on the community have been minimised (e.g. reduced housing affordability, infrastructure failure, loss of public amenity), issues that are confronting other local communities [Principle 8: Empowerment].

Other benefits extending to the community from the research are that the municipal authority, their staff and community volunteers now have better access to research information and resources (e.g. increased capacity to collect planning data). They also have increased linkages to non-research resources outside the community and to other communities facing similar issues. For a small community with limited resources, this is highly significant. In addition, Malaspina University-College now have increased access to municipal authority resources (e.g. Council staff teaching workshops), as well as expanded opportunities for student employment and field experience [Principle 8: Empowerment].

A shining achievement of the Alliance is that Ucluelet is now a ‘best practice show case’ to other resource-dependent communities of a resource community in transition, allowing the community to share policy research and planning knowledge. Communities participating in the International Awards for Liveable Communities receive worldwide recognition and opportunities for promotion of tourism and investment.  [Principle 8: Empowerment]; [Principle 11: Action].

The Official Community Plan was created directly from community involvement and data generated from the research. This input has been ongoing as the Alliance continues to expand [Principle 11: Action].

From this project it became evident to those involved that researchers should have specialised knowledge about working with communities. Equally, community members should also learn about working with researchers. It is clear that this learning and knowledge may only become apparent through the act of collaborating, however, it is an important point that should be acknowledged at the outset of the partnership [Principle 2: Respect, understanding and trust].

It is the case that all participants may not have the confidence or research background to be meaningfully involved. Nonetheless, opportunities should be presented in such a way as suit the individual. That said, participation cannot be imposed on a research process. The degree of participation will be dependent on the unique circumstances within the community [Principle 3: Participation].
Lack of time among overcommitted participants is a common difficulty. Participation in research that didn’t lead to action can also influence participant involvement [Principle 3: Participation].
Also, in terms of the level of participation, researchers need to be clear at the outset about whether they are viewing community members as advisors or consultants, or whether they see them as full partners in all phases of the research [Principle 3: Participation].

From the perspective of maintaining an effective partnership, lack of time is a significant barrier. Institutional researchers have their deadlines that are imposed by a range of factors often relating to institutional obligations. Nonetheless, research partnerships will require time, will, skills and ongoing attention on both sides [Principle 5: Joint ownership].

Determining research questions, selecting data collection methods and conducting analysis should be shared among community members and scientists throughout the research. This will require a willingness to share power that is genuine on both sides. Power sharing and distribution of resources (e.g. time and money) should be addressed early in the relationship [Principle 5: Joint ownership].
Academic standards (e.g. grants, publications and scientific rigour) and community standards (e.g. building resources and incorporating local knowledge) must be balanced, but they are not always compatible [Principle 5: Joint ownership].

Flexibility of administrative arrangements can be particularly challenging. Short-term research grants often do not consider the long set-up time for participatory projects. For example, interracial relationships require significant time to overcome historic breaches of trust and power discrepancies. This presents a significant challenge in terms of finding funding organisations that understand the long-term nature of research relationships. Funding agencies tend to be more willing to work with partnerships after they are well established [Principle 6: Flexibility].
It is also worth noting that research organisations may also need to adjust the way researchers are rewarded to accommodate the goals of participatory research; for example, flexibility with time lines and publishing expectations [Principle 6: Flexibility].

From an equity perspective, decisions about how benefits of the research will be distributed among the community can be challenging. Conflicts can arise between researchers and participants about who owns the research results and who can decide whether the results should be shared publicly [Principle 9: Equity and consensus].