Summer of Solidarity


flash info site	mission	history	surveys/reports	water concerns	contact us
land stability	community	solutions	forest practices code?	news releases	calendar

Welcome:

*Photos*

Door-to-Door Survey

Elliott Anderson Christian Trozzo Water Users Committee

May 11 - June 6, 2000

Methodology
Results
Conclusion

Introduction

During the early summer of 2000, 133 people in 92 households were surveyed in the EACT (Elliot - Anderson - Christian - Trozzo) region of the Slocan Valley. Using a 95% confidence interval, the sample results indicate that 84%-94% of EACT residents "support zoning out all industrial logging from consumptive use watersheds in the Slocan Valley." Between 89% and 94% of EACT residents agree that "in place of industrial logging... the Slocan Valley [should] become an example of a sustainable alternative--where the community manages its resources through ecosystem-based planning." Between 90% and 98% of EACT residents "encourage tax incentives for conservation." Finally, between 96% and 100% "oppose chlorination as a method of water treatment."

The results of this survey arrive at an important time. This summer, Slocan Forest Products intends to build logging roads into both the north and south ends of the EACT drainage. At last year's FLOW conference, a recurring theme was the need to create a "model of sustainability" in the Slocan Valley. The EACT survey provides further evidence that the residents of the Valley are both ready and willing to make this transition. However, if SFP is allowed to follow through on their plans to log the remaining intact watersheds of the valley, the opportunity to create the model of sustainability will be lost.

Because of the immanent threat to the EACT watersheds, an action training camp was held recently to train local residents in the techniques of non-violent civil disobedience. As of this writing (June 7), EACT residents are in the thirteenth day of their protest at the entrance to the Trozzo Creek road. Slocan Forest Products is now in the process of applying for an injunction against the residents. If this is granted, people could be arrested for protecting their water supply for the short-term economic interests of a large corporation. The survey results indicate that a broad base of community support backs this protest. Therefore, if SFP succeeds in logging the EACT watershed, it will be in the face of widespread community opposition.

Methodology

Top of page

The EACT survey was conducted over a period of nearly a month: from May 11 to June 6. During this time, ten representatives from the EACT Water User's Committee went door to door and asked the community whether or not they agreed with a series of four points. An effort was made to be as exhaustive as possible. However, while the survey was not comprehensive, no residence was purposely overlooked. Thus, the survey team was able to gather a very large random sample. In total, 133 people from 92 households responded to the survey. The survey was worded as follows:

If this were a referendum and you bad the chance to make a final decision on the following points, what would you say?

Please answer all following statements with either "yes" (if you agree), "no" (if you don't agree) or "I don't know" (if you are unsure).

Point #1: I support zoning out all industrial logging from consumptive use watersheds in the Slocan Valley

Point #2: In place of industrial logging I support that the Slocan Valley become an example of a sustainable alternative -- where the community manages its resources through ecosystem-based planning.

Point #3: I encourage tax incentives for conservation. For example: I would give land tax breaks to land owners who don't log their private land rather than giving tax breaks to land owners who do log their property. Another example: I would give tax breaks to businesses that don't pollute the environment and charge higher taxes to the ones that do pollute the environment.

Point #4: I oppose chlorination as a method of water treatment.

The survey was read aloud to respondents and the interviewers recorded answers. While respondent identity was kept confidential, responses were linked to the individual watershed in which the respondent lived (Elliot, Anderson, Christian or Trozzo). All of the survey data was then compiled for processing.

Results

Top of page

Point #1 in the survey is: "I support zoning out all industrial logging from consumptive use watersheds in the Slocan Valley." Of the 132 people who responded to this point, 118 were in agreement, ten disagreed and four were unsure. Expressed as a percentage of respondents, 89.39% agreed, 7.58% disagreed and 3.03% were unsure (see Fig. #1).

On the basis of the large sample size--and assuming a normal distribution of responses--we may extrapolate from the sample results to estimate the proportion of the total EACT region that supports this point. At the 95% level of confidence, the population proportion is between 0.837 and 0.943. In other words, between 83.7% and 94.3% of the EACT population "supports zoning out all industrial logging from consumptive use watersheds in the Slocan Valley."

Point #2 in the survey is: "In place of industrial logging I support that the Slocan Valley become an example of a sustainable alternative -- where the community manages its resources through ecosystem-based planning." Out of 132 respondents, 123 agreed, none disagreed and nine were unsure. Expressed as percentages, 93.18% agreed, zero per cent disagreed and 6.82% were unsure (see Fig. #2).

By extrapolating from the sample population, as described above, we may conclude that between 89.9% and 98.1% of the EACT population agrees that the "Slocan Valley should become an example of a sustainable alternative…"

Point #3 in the survey is, "I encourage tax incentives for conservation." Out of 131 respondents, 123 agreed, three disagreed and five were unsure. Expressed as percentages, 93.89% agreed, 2.29% disagreed and 3.82% were unsure (see Fig. #3).

By extrapolating from the sample population, we may conclude--at a 95% level of confidence-that between 89.9% and 98.1% of the EACT population does "encourage tax incentives for conservation."

Finally, point #4 of the survey is, "I oppose chlorination as a method of water treatment." Out of 133 respondents, 130 agreed with this statement, none disagreed and three were unsure. Expressed as percentages, 97.74% agreed, zero per cent disagreed and 2.26% were unsure (see Fig. #4).

Once again, by extrapolating from the sample results, we may conclude at the 95% level of confidence that between 95.6% and 100% of the EACT population opposes "chlorination as a method of water treatment."

During both the collection and the processing of the survey data, the responses were subdivided according to the individual watershed in which the respondent lives. In the few cases where the respondent's water source was not one of the four main EACT creeks--Elliot, Anderson, Christian and 'Trozzo-but an adjacent creek, their data was placed into the category of the creek which they were closest to. Figure #5 summarizes the proportion of respondents who agree with the survey statements, sorted in accordance to their watershed of residence.

While there are differences in support levels for the survey statements from one watershed to the other, no survey point achieves less than 84% support in any watershed. The range of response for point #1 is ten per cent, where Anderson Creek shows the highest level of support (96%) and Trozzo Creek shows the lowest level of support (86%) for "zoning out all industrial logging from consumptive use watersheds in the Slocan Valley." For point #2, the range of support is 16%. Here, Anderson Creek shows the highest level of support (100%) and Christian Creek shows the lowest level of support (84%) for creating "an example of a sustainable alternative -- where the community manages its resources through ecosystem-based planning." For point #3, the range of support is 6%. Here, 96 % of both Elliot and Anderson Creek residents support "tax incentives for conservation," while 90% of Christian Creek residents support such tax incentives. Finally, 100% opposition to "chlorination as a method of water treatment" was recorded among both Elliot and Christian Creek respondents, while 96% of Anderson and Trozzo Creek respondents voiced opposition to chlorination, producing a range of support of four percent.

Conclusion

Top of page

The door to door survey conducted during May and June 2000 by the Elliot -Anderson - Christian - Trozzo Water Users Committee demonstrates that a large majority of EACT residents support zoning out industrial forestry within the consumptive use watersheds of the Slocan Valley. Instead, there is a widespread support for the ideal of creating a sustainable alternative in the Slocan Valley. Unfortunately, Slocan Forest Products appears willing to override community opposition to industrial logging in the EACT watersheds. By ignoring the wishes of EACT residents, Slocan Forest Products and the Ministry of Forests are once again demonstrating that Crown land (i.e. "public" land) is being managed for the benefit of corporate profit margins, rather than for the benefit of local communities.