Course talk:POLI380JAN2011Owen/Survey/Environment--Government Policy

Are we interested at all in investigating to what level people are comfortable with the government getting involved in markets in order to remedy some of these supposed 'market failures'...

How supportive are you of a carbon tax? How supportive are you of a cap and trade program? Do you believe that global warming is a substantive threat to our environment?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you presuppose not only that these people are informed actors, but irrational ones -rational actors are defined in economics as self-interested logical thinkers. Unless they are informed about how much environmental impact carbon emissions have, their comfort level is not a good measure of how much the government should be involved. Common resources such as air/oceans -i.e., "the environment"- to rational, self-interested actors, should be exploited to the maximum benefit of that actor, since the effect of said actor is negligible. Yet the aggregate effect of these actors, who do not possess a personal reason for the sustainability of X resource, can be very damaging (e.g. the Atlantic cod industry.) Therefore, only the irrational, non-self-interested (moral?) economic actor would feel favourable to government intervention that attempts to limit extensive exploitation.

By asking about their "comfort" level, we ask the "people" to overcome their rational economic interests in over-exploitation of X resource. This is a tall order.

I furthermore disagree with some of the wording of your questions. How supportive are you of a carbon tax? -very few people are supportive of taxes, yet the same people are supportive of services provided by the government such as stimulus spending in times of recession, healthcare, and student grants.

Do you believe that global warming is a substantive threat to our environment? -"substantive" is how much of a threat, exactly? Isn't this quite subjective? If you wish to generate a dichotomous response, this question should simply be, "Do you believe that global warming is an environmental threat?" Rather, I think this should utilize the Likert Scale and be framed something like: "Global warming is a threat to our environment" Strongly Agree/Agree/Neutral/Disagree/Strongly Disagree Actually, it might be interesting to use the Thurstone scale as well. (this order would be randomized): 1. Methods such as carbon taxes should be used to fund "green" projects such as funding solar energy technology advances. 2. Big businesses that cause carbon emissions should be fined/taxed/capped. 3. Governments should watch firms and their effects on the environment. 4. Firms should watch their effects on the environment. 5. I'm unsure about the environment. 6. The environment is not a major priority compared to issues like recession. 7. Governments do not need to control the environment. 8. Governments should not interfere in supposed 'market failures' like common resources. 9. Global warming is not a substantive threat to the environment. 10. Global warming isn't caused/accelerated by humans.

Jennifer fyi substantive means "Having a firm basis in reality and therefore important, meaningful, or considerable", not 'how much'. Further we are not concerned with whether actors are rational or not, rather just measuring the degree of public support for said policy option. Further the more supportive a person is of said policy would indicate (based on your take rational choice theory, the problem of collective action, and negative externalities) that they are able to overcome their 'rational self-interest'. Finally rational actors make decisions based on utility. Utility of course can be defined in many different ways, according to how people assign value. Although I understand what you are getting it, I really think nothing of what you have brought up is really of any use. Of course people quite often engage in 'rational action' which can lead to degradation of public goods when externalities are not internalized, but this has no bearing on our purpose of measuring public opinion.

I will explain why this research question is not worded well.

"Are we interested at all in investigating to what level people are comfortable with the government getting involved in markets in order to remedy some of these supposed 'market failures'... " (emphasis mine) It is presupposed that people understand and are willing to acknowledge that there is a tradeoff between government involvement (i.e. taxes) and their remedial capacity (i.e. economic stimulus in times of recession, or prevention of the "Tragedy of the Commons") We cannot get a decent grasp on informed public opinion. I am not interested in learning that uninformed public opinion wants both government services and no taxes.

"How supportive are you of a carbon tax? How supportive are you of a cap and trade program?" As I mentioned above, this presupposes that the public know of these specific policies, and the wording is inappropriate ("supportive") because it is biased in favour of less government intervention. "Is a carbon tax necessary?" is relatively more neutral.

"Do you believe that global warming is a substantive threat to our environment?" I asked how much substantive means in this case, because it is unclear and very subjective. It again displays a bias; it suggests doubt that global warming is a important/considerable/meaningful threat to our environment. As a prescription I recommend taking the word out. Thank-you for your clarification of what "substantive" means, but the fact that you felt you needed to explain to me is an indicator that the general public may not know what you mean. Again, presupposition of knowledge/use of jargon.

In regards to your Thurstone scale option, would the question be "In what way do you think the government should interact/respond to current environment issues?" and then you would list the options?

I'm in favor of the Thurstone scale option! We could even elaborate with it as to target the Enbridge pipeline, the Site C dam project, or BC government's approach to environmental issues specific to the province. The question can be formed to target people with and without much knowledge about politics here in BC.

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but you presuppose not only that these people are informed actors, but irrational ones -rational actors are defined in economics as self-interested logical thinkers. Unless they are informed about how much environmental impact carbon emissions have, their comfort level is not a good measure of how much the government should be involved. Common resources such as air/oceans -i.e., "the environment"- to rational, self-interested actors, should be exploited to the maximum benefit of that actor, since the effect of said actor is negligible. Yet the aggregate effect of these actors, who do not possess a personal reason for the sustainability of X resource, can be very damaging (e.g. the Atlantic cod industry.) Therefore, only the irrational, non-self-interested (moral?) economic actor would feel favourable to government intervention that attempts to limit extensive exploitation."

Modern philosophy and neurological research, contrary to economic and traditional philosophical standpoints, have made arguments that people can be and are (especially when making decisions) irrational. Economic theory makes the assumption that all economic actors are rational, and that they only are interested in the production of money (Mill argues this in his definition of political economy). Many people have, of course, other interests besides the production of wealth, and are not only self-interested actors. Equating government interference in the environment with irrationality is essentially taking a very limited viewpoint of human nature. However, all this is somewhat irrelevant to our topic and development of our survey questions. I agree with some of your editing of the initial questions since you raise important points about the presupposition of knowledge, but I do think it seems a little biased in favour of the non-environmentalist standpoint. Here are my edits:

1. Carbon taxes should be used to fund environmental projects such as funding solar energy technology advances. 2. Alternative, green energies (solar, or wind) should be subsidized to lower initial consumer costs. 3. Companies that release carbon emissions should be fined, taxed, or capped proportionally to their emissions. 4. Companies that cause environmental damage should pay for the restoration of the land or water to its state before exploitation of that land. 5. Governments should monitor and regulate firms and their effects on the environment. 6. Firms should be responsible for the monitoring of their effects on the environment. 7. I'm unsure on current government policy on the environment. 8. I'm unsure if the government should or should not enact environmental legislation. 9. I'm unsure of environmental issues. 10. The environment should not a major priority. 11. The economy is more important that pollution regulation, carbon emissions, and environmental protection. 12. Global warming is not a threat to the environment. 13. Global warming is not, nor has not been caused by humans. 14. Global warming is not, nor has not been accelerated by humans.

We could also - in order to combine with the topics on the Alberta tar sands, ask people to rate which environmental issues they consider to be the most important, as follows.

"Rank the following environmental issues in order of the most important for the federal, Canadian government to focus on. If you do not believe a certain issue(s) is/are important, please mark it/them as "0"." __ Alberta tar sands __ Loss of biodiversity __ Air pollution and air quality __ Carbon emissions __ Climate change __ Overfishing __ Waste disposal __ Water pollution __ Check here if you do not believe the government should do anything about any of these issues.

Thoughts?

I like your idea Samantha. I think instead though we should have a 0,1,2 option . Aka, 0 = not important , 1= important and 2 = dont know. Because we don't just want people answering if they dont know what one of these topics are.

Samantha, I raised those points exactly because there are problems with presupposition of knowledge and a bias in favour of the non-environmentalist (capitalist/economist) standpoint.

Hey everyone,

I decided to put together the results of all the threads so we can clearly state our five final questions. I think we can all agree that the current Canadian government is doing very little to protect the environment or prevent / deal with climate change. So, for our survey, I think its good we have focused on finding out what Canadians want the government to do, or what they think they should be doing, as well as incorporate where Canadians stand on environmental issues. I have tried to combine the questions and been inclusive as possible. In a couple places people were saying the same things and having the same ideas, so it actually works out pretty well. If you have any problems with any of the questions speak now! I'll post these into the course page at 11:45 with any changes. :)

1. "What resources do you think are most important for interest groups attempting to influence environmental policies? Rank in order of 1 to 7, with '1' being most important and '7' being least important

a) Money b) Public opinion c) Connections with government d) Control over Investment and Jobs e) Expertise f) Skilled Leadership g) Having an Appealing Cause

2. How effective do you think each of the following interest groups are in influencing environmental policies made by the government? Rank each of the following groups;

Energy firms: 1) very effective 2) somewhat effective 3) neutral 4) somewhat ineffective 5) very ineffective Industry Trade Groups: 1) very effective 2) somewhat effective 3) neutral 4) somewhat ineffective 5) very ineffective

Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations ('NGO's'): 1) very effective 2) somewhat effective 3) neutral 4) somewhat ineffective 5) very ineffective

Aboriginal Groups: 1) very effective 2) somewhat effective 3) neutral 4) somewhat ineffective 5) very ineffective

3. Who do you think is most effective in formulating environmental policies to ensure sustainability?

a)international organizations b)the federal government c)the provincial governments d)local governments

4. Agree or disagree with the following statements.

a) Carbon taxes should be used to fund environmental projects such as solar energy technology.

b) I'm unsure about current government policy on the environment.

c) Companies that release carbon emissions should be fined, taxed, or capped proportionally to their emissions.

d) Companies that cause environmental damage should pay for the restoration of the land or water to its original state before exploitation of that land.

e) Governments should monitor and regulate firms and their effects on the environment.

f) Firms should be responsible for the monitoring of their effects on the environment.

o) The provincial government should introduce a composting system in Vancouver.

g) Alternative green energies (for example solar or wind) should be subsidized to lower initial consumer costs.

h) I'm unsure if the government should or should not enact environmental legislation.

i) I'm unsure of environmental issues.

j) The environment should not be a major priority for any level of government.

k) The economy is more important than pollution regulation, carbon emissions, and environmental protection.

l) Global warming is not a threat to the environment.

m) Global warming is natural and has not been caused by humans.

n) Global warming is natural and has not been accelerated by humans.

o) BC's waterways and coastline should be free of oil tanker traffic.

5. Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree that the following issues impact the environment ;

Alberta oil sands

1) Strongly Agree 2) Agree 3) Neutral 4) Disagree 5) Strongly Disagree

Loss of biodiversity

1) Strongly Agree 2) Agree 3) Neutral 4) Disagree 5) Strongly Disagree

Air pollution and air quality

1) Strongly Agree 2) Agree 3) Neutral 4) Disagree 5) Strongly Disagree

Carbon emissions

1) Strongly Agree 2) Agree 3) Neutral 4) Disagree 5) Strongly Disagree

Climate change

1) Strongly Agree 2) Agree 3) Neutral 4) Disagree 5) Strongly Disagree

Overfishing

1) Strongly Agree 2) Agree 3) Neutral 4) Disagree 5) Strongly Disagree

Waste disposal

1) Strongly Agree 2) Agree 3) Neutral 4) Disagree 5) Strongly Disagree

Water pollution

1) Strongly Agree 2) Agree 3) Neutral 4) Disagree 5) Strongly Disagree

I would like to add this statement to No. 5, as I believe it is an important issue for the BC's future endeavor to preserve its unique wildlife and ecosystems:

Protecting the BC coastal environment from Oil Tanker traffic__

I think for question one the wording is a little vague "Contacts" - What contacts? and like in the government or just in general? and the quality of them or? "Control over investment" Control of any investment? Investment is a pretty broad word and a statement like control over investment could mean just about anything. "Expertise, skilled leadership" I don't know if this is really a good one, are we asking if interest groups most important factor is have expertise? or skilled leadership. I think maybe organization might be a better word here. "Ability to spread information" this again sounds a little bit non-descript maybe things like public influence, or simply the size of the organization.

I agree....'ability to spread information' one would think would be dependent on all the other options given

I agree with Thomas about question one, though I think we really ought to (at least partially) reiterate the question itself. I am relatively new to this thread, however the question ""What resource do you think is most necessary for interest groups in order to influence environmental policies?" seems somewhat long. To make it more concise, I propose we perhaps ask "Which of the following do you feel most help interest groups influence environmental policies" instead.

Returning to Thomas' point of the vagueness of some of the potential answers however, I feel that "contacts" and "ability to spread information" are two that I would like to see changed. 'Contacts' could imply a lot of things - are we talking about contacts in the government (if so, federal or provincial?), from private businesses, or extra-political organizations? I think we need to narrow contacts down to perhaps 'political contacts in government' since we are dealing with policy making, but this is my personal opinion. As for 'ability to spread information', we could change it to 'media-distributive capacity' or simply 'marketing'.

Just my two cents! :)

I think the vagueness actually contributes to the generality we want to have in our questions, I dont think its so vague that we should change it. I think we should keep what samantha had originally.

I changed tar sands to oil sands. I just feel it may influence people's responses if we frame the energy project as a 'dirty' one.

I also changed trade association to industry trade group. Just seems a lot more colloquial. Also, I added the oil tanker moratorium question to the final question.

Also i cleaned up the first question to bring it in line with all the comments people have posted. I opted to allow the respondents to rank the resources according to relative importance. Hope thats fine with everything.

I changed NGO's to its full name just to provide clarity for participants. Also I'm a little uncertain about the possibility of redundancy in the question 5 by including Climate Change and Carbon emissions. Would someone who is concerned about carbon emissions only be concerned about it because of its effects on climate change? With Question 3 I'm also a little concerned that option 'e' may draw so many people to select it simply because they do not really have a strong opinion on it...hence reducing the validity of our results. Would not removing it and/or adding an 'I don't know option' improve the quality of our data? The wording on 4m and 4n also seems a bit awkward. Any thoughts?

I edited the wording on 4m and 4n, as well as fixed some minor grammatical errors. Minor edits such as these everyone should carry out and not leave to Samantha! (it's a lot of work for her, and this final piece should have everyone's input)

Question 1: is this a "Circle 1" kind of question or "Circle all that apply" kind of question? (circle one is implied of course, since we say "most", but we should probably clarify.)

Question 3: Let's chose the label that's better, "local" or "municipal", and stick to that. Really though, I'm a little leery of this question, because I'm pretty sure the huge majority of people will just pick (e) so that they don't have to think about it (ignoring the quite probable logistical nightmare of such a collaboration and subsequent large costs in taxpayer dollars of such an endeavor.) I think perhaps we should think of a replacement question...

Question 4... is a little long and I'm unsure if people will fully read all the options... for example, I didn't read it fully until I edited this response like 4 times and finally saw this: k) The economy is more important that pollution regulation, carbon emissions, and environmental protection. Couldn't we just shorten that to k)The economy is more important than environmental protection. ? Or does that obscure/over-simplify something? And should we use "protection" or "sustainability"?

Another point for question 4: while I love the composting in Vancouver idea, it kind of looks thrown into this question. I think we should either remove it, or add provincial/federal options too, such as: The provicial government should regulate oil-related threats to the coastline. The federal government should regulate national airspace pollution.

Question 5 asks us to "rank", which suggests a 1st place/2nd place/4th place etc., i.e. placement of the issues in order of importance, however there are 8 choices... it's a little confusing. I forsee some people just choosing 5, in which case we don't know if they chose the 5 they thought was most important.

Should we maybe change "rank" to "classify" or something like that?

Or maybe we should restructure it into a Likert scale 1) Strongly Agree 2) Agree 3) Neutral 4) Disagree 5) Strongly Disagree

instead of very important(1), somewhat important (2), not very important (3) not important (4) or don't know (5)

I'm not sure if very important/somewhat important/not very important/not important is very good at approximating intervals in opinion (and it has no neutral "0" point).

I think Question 1 should be restructured. Like Jennifer says, it's kind of confusing. Maybe ask them to list them in order of importance?

As for question 4, I find it very long. But this might not be a problem, since people already sit down to answer the survey. And it has a whole range of issues that is good to get answered anyway.

And again I agree with Jennifer on question 5, we should use the LIkert scale 1) Strongly Agree 2) Agree 3) Neutral 4) Disagree 5) Strongly Disagree instead of the ranking system.

yes, i agree. I think the Likert scale would be more effective and less confusing for the people answering the survey

I changed "contacts" to "connections", is that a better term? I think it's closer to what we mean, although it's still quite nuaced so... there may be better terms.

I also changed the framework of the last question. it uses the Likert scale now. Should the middle option be "neutral" or "undecided"?

Hi everyone, so I know this is really last minute but I'm gonna go ahead and pitch my question. Please comment on it - your feedback is appreciated!

Question: Will people who originally come from areas that are geographically closer to the Athabasca oil sands be more likely to support oil extraction from said oil sands?

Hypothesis: If relative environmental outlook is related to the geographical distance one's hometown is located from the Athabasca oil sands, then the geographically closer one's home is to the Athabasca oil sands, the more likely they are to express positive environmental outlooks in relation to the oil extraction process.

Assuming that local corporations and businesses receive the majority of their income through the Athabasca oil sands, it is likely that the majority of people living close to the oil sands will look on the project fondly. Thus, it is likely that they would express positive opinons on the extraction of oil from the Athabasca oil sands.

Potential Questions to ask people:

1)Are you a Canadian citizen, if so which province are you from?

(Offer several provinces as answer; place 'other' for people born outside of Canada)

What are your thoughts on the Alberta oil sands project and its relation to the environment?

a) Very destructive b) Destructive c) Somewhat Destructive d)Not very destructive e) Not destructive (at all)

2) How reliant do you feel Canadians currently are on the Alberta Oil Sands

a) Very reliant b) Reliant c) Somewhat reliant d) Not very reliant e) Not reliant

I predict that we would find that people located closer to the tar sands (mostly people from Alberta) would express positive views on it, with the exception of Aboriginal Communities located near the Athabasca Oil Sands that are negatively impacted by the pollution associated with bitumen extraction. Arguably, this could be a confounding variable - could anyone suggest a way around this perhaps?

I think it would be interesting to look at the level of interest people of BC have on environmental policy making.

1) I believe it is important that BC stakeholders (First Nations, community groups, interest groups, and its citizens) and their opinions are thoroughly considered in political issues regarding the future of BC's unique environment and ecosystems.

2) As a citizen of BC, I regard First Nation's influence in BC environmental politics highly. 1) Strongly Agree 2) Agree 3) Neutral 4) Disagree 5) Strongly Disagree

3) I believe it is important that the public opinion is thoughtfully considered in environmental policy-making affecting the future of BC's nature and wildlife. 1) Strongly Agree 2) Agree 3) Neutral 4) Disagree 5) Strongly Disagree

4) I am certain that the general opinion in BC is adequately accounted for in BC environmental policy making?

1) Strongly Agree 2) Agree 3) Neutral 4) Disagree 5) Strongly Disagree

Through these statements, I'm hoping to see how involved people in BC are regarding the preservation of the unique environment and wildlife in the province, and how important this political issue is to them.

I was just thinking that the previous posts here are somewhat scattered in focus.

What kind of area are we focusing on? Should we focus on one specific subject, such as the suggested Tar Sands of Alberta? Or should we focus on a broader theme like Green Energy? Or sould it be even broader, like the suggested Interest Groups' influence over Government policy?

I think if we determine what kind of area of Government environmental policy we'd like to focus on, then we can start finding a specfic subject/topic, and it will be easier to narrow down a RQ, and easier for people to contribute.

Personally I like the Tar Sands of Alberta. It's a greatly debated issue, and we'd have no trouble getting interesting answers from people.

As far as I know, we don't need to try and come to a consensus on which general theme we like best and formulate 5 questions just on that topic. We can brainstorm on all of them, and perhaps by the deadline chose the 5 questions that look best. Alternatively, we'll have more than 5 questions and the marker (Prof. Owen or the TAs) will chose which are the best.

Agreed, I also like the Alberta Tar Sands issue, there is alot that can be explored there and alot that can be questioned in regards to government involvement (both present and future). I also like the idea of formulating 5 questions (as long as they're relatively diverse in what they ask). We should also ask the questions so that they can be answered by numeric ranking/importance.

Personally, I prefer the issue of the Alberta Tar Sands because it is both a provincial and national issue, implying that it would raise a lot of questions regarding power relations between the Provincial and Federal Governments related to environmental policy. I will try to design several survey questions to try and address this issue in the near future...

Research Question: With regards to the formation of environmental policies how influential are interest groups such as energy firms, trade associations, environmental NGO’s, and aboriginal groups?

Possibly change Research question to...

With regards to the formation of environmental policies which interest groups are most influential?

(MarieVanderZalm)

Possible Survey Questions: How effective do you think interest groups are at influencing environmental policies made by the government? 1) very effective 2) somewhat effective 3) neutral 4) somewhat ineffective 5) very ineffective

As a result of the changed research question, this survey question could be reformulated to...

How effective do you think each of the following interest groups are in influencing environmental policies made by the government? Rank each of the following groups (Energy firms, trade associations, environmental NGO's, and aboriginal groups)as;

1) very effective 2) somewhat effective 3) neutral 4) somewhat ineffective 5) very ineffective

(MarieVanderZalm)

What resource do you think is most necessary for interest groups in order to influence environmental policies? a) Money b) Public opinion c) Contacts d) Control over investment e) Expertise, skilled leadership

What does control over investment mean?

I like your survey questions. I wonder if "interest groups" is too broad though? I personally think, for example, large energy (oil) firms and trade associations would have significantly more effectiveness than aboriginal groups.

Another resource I would imagine some groups have to influence government is the amount of votes they could sway, for example a union telling its members how to vote. Does this count under "Public Opinion" you think?

1) What does control over investment mean?

Control over investment is the power that businesses obtain in the sense that they create jobs for people. Governments are constrained from initiating policies that undermine the business climate because their main concern is re-election which is very dependent on the healthiness of the economy.

2) Are interest groups too broad? Effectiveness of aboriginal groups in comparison to trade associations?

Yes, I think you are right about interest groups being too broad of a category to research as a whole. I have added changes above to the research and survey questions; let me know what you think. Regarding the effectiveness of aboriginal groups in comparison to the others, it is important to acknowledge that aboriginals obtain jurisdictional resources which allow them to veto certain projects with regards to the impacts it may have on their land and the lifestyle they want to maintain.

3) Public Opinion:

The amount of votes a group can sway is a result of their effectiveness as a group. All groups are aiming to have public opinion in their favour due to the fact that governments often use public opinion as a measure to consider when formulating policies.

I think we would have to change the wording of "Control over Investment" to something that could be easily understood by the general public. Maybe "independence from external authorities"?

Marie I really like this original question: Research Question: With regards to the formation of environmental policies how influential are interest groups such as energy firms, trade associations, environmental NGO’s, and aboriginal groups?

its simple and the survey choices you provided beneath are clear and concise. The only thing I would do is specify the actors: So I propose we keep NGO's and energy firms, but also add in epistemic communities.

I agree, I like this question. Also agree with Boris, let's specify the actors to get some direct results.

"What resource do you think is most necessary for interest groups in order to influence environmental policies? a) Money b) Public opinion c) Contacts d) Control over investment e) Expertise, skilled leadership?"

I think being able to spread "information" is key for interest groups who wish to successfully influence environmental policy. I think it would be good if we can ask people "how informed" they are about specific environmental issues or what kind of information they've been open to in regards to environmental issues/policy. For example: How many times have you heard about the Alberta Tar Sands issues within the last year: 1. More than 5 times 2. More than once but less than 5 times. 3. Never. (just an example) We can also ask through what means the information was communicated, and how many times etc.

Nice one.

I think the particular example Boris gave is an excellent example of the kinds of questions we could potentially ask people if we wanted to know how well they were informed a propos to some environmental policy/ issue X, though I would be careful around structuring our the answers we provide them to reflect a realistic frequency of times they have been exposed to a certain issue. So, in the context of this Tar Sands example, I think we'd have to be rational and assume that the gregarious people of MetroVancouver have (likely) heard of the Tar Sands at least more than 5 times a year - it would be more like 5 times per month.

We could ask a population what their opinions about composting are, or better yet, ask whether or not they like the city of Vancouver subsidizing composting! I think this is a relevant topic, because its a fairly recent development.

http://www.vancouverobserver.com/city/sustainability/2010/03/31/city-vancouver-encourages-waste-reduction-through-composting

Also, I dont think we should put too much specialized knowledge into these questions. Obviously, we got to choose these questions, so we probably chose what we were interested in, aka our group probably knows more than the average person about environmental policy. We should aim to make general questions. I think stuff like the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline wont give us reliable answers because most people dont know/care about it. (Even though its important) I liked the general questions made by Jennifer, we should probably start off with one of those.

I liked this question and I think it is pretty relevant to Vancouver, considering the recent bylaw on this plus at UBC we are currently debating new waste management strategies for the campus! I also agree alot with the point about the pipe line and the Tar Sands, alot of what people know is hearsay, so we would probably have to give them alot of information. Though I guess we run into that problem with everything because people are generally misinformed.

Another possible topic: Political Parties and environmental policy.

I think this would be a good topic considering that we are in a political science course. We could ask whether or not people think that the party in power (cons, lib, ndp, green) have an impact on environmental issues. Or ask people to rank which parties are best equipped to deal with environmental issues or something of that nature.

Ya I think this question could be interesting, such as rank the parties in the strength of their environmental policy. I also think you should ask people how important the environment is to them, and which party the prefer overall. Then you could also ask how much a parties environmental policy plays a role in whether they support them or not.

Sadie, I think it is a great idea to ask a question that involves people's opinions or perceptions on different parties capabilities to effectively deal with environmental issues. Were you thinking of having people give a score to each party individually or have them rank them from most effective to least? It may be a good idea to have them score each party with a number (1-5) individually, thus giving people the opportunity to rank two or more parties with the same score if they feel the parties are equally proficient?

I also like Thomas' suggestion of including an additional question regarding "how much parties environmental policy plays a role in whether they support them or not".

I'm not so sure about this one. Though we are a political science class, I don't think this is politics class. Sure, it would be interesting to find out what people think of each individual party's contribution to environmental policies, but this assumes people will give neutral, non-biased answers that do not reflect their views on the party's other policies. Some people are strongly passionate about certain parties, while they hate others. Assuming we do remove the most biased and skewed answers (from the already limited group of people who know anything at all about ALL the parties' environmental policy), I still think it would be very difficult to get anyhing useful out of this question.

But that's just my opinion on the people and their attitude towards political parties directly. I think we'd be better off doing something more appealing and directly related to people.

I think Marie's idea of ranking is probably the best way to go about it, because it gives people the ability to rank the parties the same. Unfortunately, this numerical system is quite arbitrary, which I see as a bit of a problem. But honestly, I would personally like to know peoples ordered preferences of parties, compared to one another, so in that respect I would like the most effective to least scale.

I forsee two problems with this one:

a)Party loyalty, as mentioned above but perhaps more significantly, specifically because of the nature of our topic...

b)"mainstream" versus "protest/interest" party -the two main federal parties, liberal/conservative, have the most control at the national level -however, when we talk about "best equipped" it is probably the Green Party, as they specialize in/take part in/fund etc. environmental research and advocate policy based on this (a sort of bias, I guess?) -therefore, we can't really say "most effective"; the Green Party would be the most effective but they will not take power any time soon in Canada. The Conservatives are "most effective" in that they are the ones making up environmental policy, however are probably not saving/protecting/sustaining the environment as well as the Green Party would (or perhaps even the Liberals.)

Basically, the power of the party in the legislature i.e. whether they have a large legislative majority, or a minority (as is recently prevalent) to a large extent determines its "effectiveness". This would confuse the issue with environmental policy.

That said, if we could somehow overcome the obstacles, it's an interesting question...

Jennifer explains my point better than me. I think the issue of specific parties would be an interesting question, and could perhaps be one of our question related to the issue, but I don't think it should be a primary one, or even one related to others. It could be an aside, or like a bonus question: "and final question, which party would you deem the most fit to solve the issue of X?", X being Alberta Tar Sands or whichever issue we've asked them about. 'deem the most fit' can then relate to which party has the best and most realistic ideas to bring to the table.

One of the major criticisms of the G-20 summit in Toronto was the lack of environment on the agenda (although the fire-bombing anarchist radicals took most of the media attention). Our recent global recession took centre stage.

Is recovery from recession the top priority for nations in this era? For people?

A few possible survey questions: Is the environment a priority for the Federal/Provincial Government of Canada? yes/no/unsure

Are Canadian Federal policies successful in sustaining the environment? yes/no, needs improvement/no, does not need improvement/unsure

Is the Canadian economy sustainable? yes/no/unsure

Would Likert be a better scale?

instead of protecting the environment, we could use sustaining the environment? It's a little less presupposing prehaps. I think yes/no/maybe is good if we add in an "unsure/don't know" option and instead of "maybe" we could say "needs mprovement"? I'm not too sure if I like the word maybe, i feel like when answering the question, people may answer maybe when they don't know how else to respond to the question, but I don't know, what do you think?

Edited. Is that better?

Jennifer - I like these questions - they are nice and general, but I think definitely using the Likert would be a better scale. We also might want to include "Do you believe" before all your questions. Although sustaining is still ambiguous, and requires knowledge about the environment and economy that our respondents may not have. We may also want to include a time frame, like "in the past five years" or "since the Conservative government has held a minority government".

Some questions that build upon yours would be "How serious do you consider global warming to be" "What percentage of the federal government budget should be put towards environmental issues?" "Do you think that subsidies should be provided for green energies?" "If affordable and available, would you be willing to switch to a green energy source?"

I kind of agree with what Samantha said but maybe we could something asking people to rank in importance what the canadian government should be handling. I think asking really specific stuff like what percentage of the federal budget should go to something is a bit off. Maybe if the question itself had some figures such as right now X percentage goes to this and X percentage to that, should this be higher or lower in your opinion. Something like that. Then you could add in more questions that are yes/no like the subsidies one.

I like this idea, its clear and concise. I also suggest that we "rank importance" instead of posing yes and no questions to more debatable and open issues. I think we should choose a couple environmental issues and ask how these are being handled by the govt in terms of priority, or choose a single one (ie BC forestry or biodeiversity) and ask (in rank form) how the government/province is addressing the question at hand.

One of the major environmental issues that Canada must face is the consequenses of the exploitation of Alberta's massive oil reserves. A friend of mine (and a recent UBC engineering grad)recently moved to Fort McMurray and is making a lot of money there. I'm very curious about federal and provincial controls on this lucrative and destructive industry.

http://oilsands.alberta.ca/ This particular chart made me laugh: http://oilsands.alberta.ca/FactSheets/The_Facts_v5_FINAL.pdf

A much more critical perspective: http://informedvote.ca/2009/11/19/the-alberta-tar-sands-and-the-environment-does-canada-set-the-agenda-or-will-the-u-s-determine-our-fate/

If we were to include the Tar sands into our survey, I think we should make a small section on current environmental projects in Canada. Possible questions: What do you think about the potential creation of the Site C dam in Northern BC? good/bad/unsure What do you think about the potential creatin of the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline? good/bad/unsure What do you think about the extraction of oil from Alberta's oil sands? good/bad/unsre

But these questions are only addressing the public's opinion on current environmental debates and are not including discussion of government policy. Suggestions?

We could also include a question addressing who should have more say in these projects. Potential question: Who do you think is most effective in formulating environmental policies to ensure sustainability? 1) international organization 2) federal government 3)provincial government 4) local government 5) differnet levels of government should decide together

Kelli, I like the idea of including questions regarding current environmental projects in Canada (Enbridge Northern Gateway, Site C dam, etc). We could broaden our research question to something like; "What are citizen's attitudes towards current environmental projects in Canada, and who do they think would be most effective in formulating environmental policies to ensure the projects are done in a sustainable manner?"

Then we could incorporate survey questions regarding both current environmental events and policy decision making related topics. Let me know what you think?

We're supposed to have 5 questions. Marie, I think we should separate your question into two since it's asking two different things.

Should we ask what surveyor A thinks are other citizens' attitudes? Or should we just ask what A's attitude is (toward environmental projects)? In this case, I would like to use an open-ended format. What do you think of Canada and environmental issues? _______________________________________________________________________________________ (max 500 words etc.)

I like the second question. Do we want to ask "effective" or more "moral" i.e. "should" formulate environmental policy? "Who do you think is most effective in formulating environmental policies to ensure sustainability?" 1)international organization 2)federal government 3)provincial government 4)local government 5)different levels of government should decide together vs "Who do you think should make decisions on environmental policy?" etc...

Really like this latter question. think it is a keeper.

Really like this latter question. think it is a keeper.

I really like this question as well. I also thought of it from this perspective: "What actor has the strongest influence in ensuring that environmental policies are sustainable?

1) International Organization 2) Federal Government 3) Provincial Government 4) Local Government 5) Local (independent) Organizations (Perhaps: Voters/citizens/individuals)

I think it is interesting to see what actor people generally believe is the most influential / powerful in environmental politics and policy making! Especially here in BC, where people are more environmental conscientious.

Jennifer, I like your suggestion on the second question so I edited it.

Are we allowed to include open-ended questions into surveys? That may be hard to measure once we need to put the data together.

I'm really not sure because I don't know how much flexibility we have. http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/qual.php

How much "funding" (in terms of our time) does Dr. Owen expect us to use?

We would have to have a trade off if we did include open-ended questions (they take more time).

I'm guessing we're supposed to stick mainly to more easily quantifiable question structures...

How would we change that question to something not open-ended?

A lot of people are uninformed about current environmental projects in Canada. Im concerned that if we ask questions without prompting people with at least some basic information, we wont get reliable results. and I am not sure that prompting people with info is what Owen wants us to do. What do you guys think?

Hey Everyone,

Sadie - I agree with you. I don't think the Site C dam or the Enbridge pipeline is quite common knowledge in Canada. However, if we wanted to we could measure awareness of these issues with questions like "Are you aware of the development of Site C" and "... the Enbridge Dam in North Vancouver". We could also ask Canadians to weigh the environmental costs with the economic benefits, although we would have to do some research to what those are if we wanted to do that question.

I do like the question "What do you think about the extraction of oil from Alberta's oil sands? good/bad/unsure", but I think we should modify it to "How supportive of you of the Alberta tar sands?" with a scale of 1 - 5 1 being very supportive etc.

I think this would be the best approach to specific issues as well. I'm not from Canada, and all I've ever heard of the tar sands dispute is that it's incredibly damaging to the environment. All this talk of "site C" and "Enbridge Dam" make no sense to me. Granted, I'm not the person we'd be surveying, but I'm sure I'm not the only one with questions on this subject.

So I like the proposal that we ask more general questions, but that we keep it concerning big issues like the Tar sands. We should ask how much people know about the topic, and if they feel the government is providing sufficient information on the subject. and if not, should the people actually be better informed? Or are people willing to leave this to be figured out between Government and Firms?

I really like the idea of using a scale, 1-5, to rank people's support concerning issues such as the Alberta Oil Sands.

In regards to questions about environmental policy decision making, the wording of who has the greater influence or who people think would be most effective of initiating policies regarding sustainable actions are quite different. What are we wanting to measure? 1)Who people think would be most effective in formulating and ensuring environmental policies are sustainable? OR 2)Which actors people think have the strongest influence in ensuring that environmental policies are sustainable?

or both?