Category Archives: Research

Proposal

With a focus on the Flat Rock block area of the Williams Lake Community Forest, we will attempt to create an Access Management Plan that addresses the uses of the different stakeholders of the area. The Access Management Plan will be a document that will include Standards of Operations Procedures, recommendations for forest management, updated trail access and tenures and updated recreational access and restrictions. This document will also include updated maps and diagrams that will illustrate land uses and trails within the community forest.

We have used a stakeholder analysis theoretical framework to identify the users of the community forest and prioritized their needs with the tasks we have taken on in our research. Among these users, we have identified and will focus on gathering data pertaining to the areas of use by recreational users, mountain bikers, residents, and cattle ranchers. The Access Management Plan will aim to address the different stakeholders individual uses as well as the sustainability of the collective and the community forest.

With all of our stakeholders, our methodological approach in collecting the data has been to interview our stakeholders through phone and skype calls with a standardized set of questions. Through these conversations, we have gathered information regarding problems stakeholders have identified and require further management and research. With the mountain bikers stakeholder group, we will also use participant mapping to review the whether trails in the community forest are being used and listed as official or unofficial which has been identified as a high priority by the management of the forest. We will use the app, Trailforks, and shapefiles provided by the management of the community forest to download initial data and review these datasets with the mountain bikers. Using tools including Google Earth and ArcGIS, we will be able to update the information provided by the mountain bikers for the Access Management Plan and provide analysis and recommendations for trails and roads of conflicts with other stakeholders.

During our visit to Williams Lake, we hope to meet with the different stakeholders of the community forest and discuss the drafts of our Access Management Plan. This will take place in forms of individual and group interviews. Additionally, we will visit the site of the community forest and see the different experiences of the forest. During this visit, we will also conduct research that we were unable to prior to our visit including the environmental assessment of trails and the climbing wall areas.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Proposal

Research Questions

Our research has been focused on answering the following questions:

  1. Which are the overlapping tenures, conflicting or similar interests, and uses of the community forest?
  2. How can we create a working access management plan that mitigates conflicts in the uses of stakeholders while also conserving the natural resources of the forest?
  3. How can we prioritize the different values and stakeholders in the fairest and most sustainable way for Williams Lake? 

Leave a Comment

Filed under Question

Methodology

Methodology
Following our theoretical framework in stakeholder analysis, we have explored the management of other community-based development projects. There are examples of existing access management plans created by regions and communities such as the Whistler Community Forest, the Wezin’kwa Community Forest and the Smithers Mountain Bike Association.

While the community forest has identified their different stakeholders, there is a pressing need for better management of the different land-uses. Creating an access management plan will require the consideration of the private land tenures and uses of the stakeholders as well as the intentions held by the city of Williams Lake. In our research, we are working with stakeholders individually and collectively. Our research aims to consider and listen to all the voices of the people who share an interest in the management of the forest. With all the gathered knowledge and data from the community, the community forest requires that we create an updated map which displays current uses, trails and roads within the community forest. This visualization will also allow us to consider environmental assessment of the forest and identify conflicts of interests. It will also allow us to make recommendations that will allow for mutual benefit for different stakeholders. We hope to utilize an asset-based community development approach in formulating our recommendation.

Data Collection and Tools
Interviews
Individual interviews will be conducted with stakeholders through phone and Skype calls. These stakeholders include but are not limited to members of the board of directors, members of the standing committee, ranchers, residents, city councilors, mountain bikers, and other recreational users. With each group of stakeholders, we have created a standardized set of questions in order to ensure a fair and equal discussion. While we have included a closed fixed response of our interviews, we will also allow for flexibility and informal conservations, and be open to listen to their stories. Through these conservations, we hope to build a better understanding of their experiences and work in the community forest. We will be taking notes during these interviews and transcribing the notes at the end of each interview. As researchers, we have the responsibility to not represent what these stakeholders have communicated to us and ask for clarification when we do not have a clear understanding of their concerns.

Participant Mapping
To gather relevant data for the mountain biking trails, we will ask members of the bike community in Williams Lake to record the trails they take with their bikes using apps they are already familiar with, such as TrailFork. We will use the GPS data and convert this data into files we can use when we map our maps. However, we have also considered that this method of gathering data may be unreliable. From listening to other stakeholders, many bikers who take unofficial trails may not want this information to be known as these trails may be taken out. Additionally, bikers are regularly creating new trails during their trips and have only shared the location of these trails with their friends. The data we gather through this participant mapping may be limited and it may be a challenge to gather the missing information. However, it is important to other stakeholders, including the city of Williams Lake to have the information of trail usage in order to ensure safety regulation in the access management of the community forest.

Participant Observation
During our trip, we have also been invited to see the community forest and the different roads and trails that our stakeholders have identified as problematic or needs attention. This more intimate experience with the community forest will give us the opportunity to experience and understand the different values the community forest holds for it stakeholders. Our trip will be led by members of the board of directors and residents of the community.

Data Analysis
ArcGIS
With the gathered data from interviews as well as spatial information provided by the Alex Fraser Research Forest, we will compile spatial layers of land and trail uses to create an updated map of the community forest. Using ARCGIS, we will be able to create detailed maps and diagrams that help to analysis the stakeholders uses and environmental assessment of the community forest. These maps and diagrams will be included in our final report and recommendations for the community forest. We hope that different stakeholders will see their interest taken into consideration in the map. The map can be a powerful tool the community can use to illustrate the more urgent needs that need to be addressed to its members as well as the city of Williams Lake.

3 Comments

Filed under Methodology

Theoretical Framework

Stakeholder Analysis
We have identified the different stakeholders of the community forest and have been introduced to them by our community contact, Cathy. We will be emailing and skyping with each of these stakeholders individually and interviewing them with questions including their values and uses the community forest, the conflicts they have encountered with other stakeholders, and the concerns they have with the management of the forest. During our visit to Williams Lake, we have considered hosting focus groups with different groups to create conversations in a more informal and comfortable way. A list of stakeholders we have identified include, but are not limited to:

  • Board of Directors (including representatives of the government and the Alex Fraser Research Forest)
  • Standing Committee (including representatives of the Indian band and community members from surrounding regions)
  • Mountain bikers and clubs
  • Bill Stafford and cattle ranching
  • Foresters and Woodlots
  • Participants of general recreation (including hiking/rock climbing/mudbogging/ATVs)

To apply a more theoretical framework to our project, we will need to manage how we prioritize the stakeholders. To do this, we can use the Mendelow Framework to help determine who we will  need to work with the most and will need us to do more work, versus who only needs to be kept satisfied.

Classifying Stakeholders
Active vs Passive
Mahoney (1994) classified stakeholders by those who are active and those who are passive. For example, we have found some members on the steering committee that are actively working on the Community Forest of Williams Lake (active), others who own land in the Community Forest (passive), and others that do not have a stake in the Flat Rock block (passive). Passive stakeholders will not be participating in the policy-making, but we will need to consider their position and needs as they do partake in the long term discussions surrounding the community forest as a whole.

External vs Internal
It will also be important to separate stakeholder needs from internal and external in our report. For example, people using the trails for recreational use (ATVs, mountain bikes etc), are a large issue in the access plan, especially as we are unable to consult with them. The internal stakeholders will be the members of the Williams Lake Community Forest board and steering committee.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Theoretical Framework