The Social Science Journal 49 (2012) 202–209

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

The Social Science Journal

j our na l ho me p age: www.elsev ier .com/ locate / sosc i j

Civil society in Canada: A case study of rural and urban planningcontexts

Wendy de Gómeza,1, Ryan Bullockb,∗

a University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1b School of Environment and Sustainability, University of Saskatchewan, Room 323, Kirk Hall, 117 Science Place, Saskatoon, SK, Canada S7N 5C8

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 5 December 2010Received in revised form 23 August 2011Accepted 27 August 2011Available online 18 April 2012

a b s t r a c t

This paper explores the political concept of civil society and its emergence in multi-levelrural and urban planning contexts. The first section conceptualizes civil society in thebroader context within which it develops and we discuss global civil society to establishthe need for a more local and regional focus. We then present considerations for assess-ing civil society and outline the research approach. The second section presents two caseexamples: (1) rural civil society in British Columbia, Canada focusing on the socio-politicalenvironment that enabled a shift away from conventional top-down, state-led forest man-agement to devolved local control, and; (2) urban civil society in Waterloo Region, Ontario,which illustrates the response of local organizations to the wider socio-economic problemsof housing provision in the Region. In both rural and urban contexts, there was longstand-ing tacit local support for each cause but significant triggers were needed to open policy

windows and enable civil society organizations to help shift management ideologies in theforestry and housing sectors. Empowering civil actors through, for example, the devolutionof decision making and responsibilities, and the redistribution of resources, helped to fosterforms of legitimacy needed for emerging local and regional civil society organizations andnetworks.

© 2011 Western Social Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Although civil society is not a novel concept, the con-textual specificities of its emergence are often overlookedin the political science literature. With respect to geo-graphical contexts for instance, the differences across ruraland urban areas are significant in fully understandingplanning and management dynamics as well as organi-

zational capacities that enable effective development ofcivil societies in the “political sense” (Bullock, Hanna,& Slocombe, 2009; Dale & Newman, 2006; Reed, 2007;

∗ Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: wendy-juancarlos@rogers.com (W. de Gómez),

ryan.bullock@usask.ca (R. Bullock).1 Tel.: +1 519 579 8601; mobile: +1 519 880 6130.

0362-3319/$ – see front matter © 2011 Western Social Science Association. Publidoi:10.1016/j.soscij.2011.08.014

Walker & Fortmann, 2003). One reason for this sort ofresearch ‘blind spot’ is, as Hess (2009) asserts, that theconcept of civil society is based on undone science—thatthere is an absence of scientific research for social move-ments and other civil society organizations to draw uponwhen attempting to make epistemic claims in the politicalfield. Much research conducted by Civil Society Organiza-tions (CSOs) is not published in peer-reviewed academicjournals and therefore seems to lack scientific credibility(Hess, 2009). Therefore, conceptualizing the nature of spe-cific CSOs is a crucial task in determining the legitimacy oftheir function.

This paper merges the political concept of civil society

with current geographical concepts, namely adaptive gov-ernance within rural and urban settings (Lebel et al., 2006),and local and regional planning dynamics, to highlightthe importance of contextual influences and legitimacy on

shed by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

cial Scie

ttdirsonicap

2

2

twAcvpRw(afpmgwptsBor(lmtF

atirtdtath“tpnE1

W. de Gómez, R. Bullock / The So

he emergence and civil society initiatives. The first sec-ion of this paper conceptualizes civil society to addressefinitional and contextual challenges and identify some

mplications for assessment. The research approach and aationale for case selection are also outlined. The secondection then examines two cases of emergent civil societyrganizations, namely regional groups pursuing commu-ity forestry in British Columbia (BC) and housing provision

n Waterloo Region, Ontario. The concluding section dis-usses some implications for the concept of civil societynd its assessment as a multi-scaled and contextualizedhenomenon.

. Civil society—a conceptualization

.1. A brief history and concepts

The concept of civil society can most often be attributedo Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America 1835,hen he described the “art of association” to describemerican propensity for civil association to counter theonundrum of modern democracy, which is intensely indi-idualistic (Edwards, 2009; Fukuyama, 2001). In otherarts of the world, such as France during the Frenchevolution, civil associations were important to give theeak a stronger voice against the minority political elite

Fukuyama, 2001). Yet the rise of civil society as more thann associational concept can be traced to the more recentailure of both the state model of welfare and centralizedlanning from 1945 to the mid-1970s, and the failure ofarket-based Reaganomics and structural adjustment pro-

rams from the 1970s to early 1990s. The new approachas framed as “new localism”, “the third way” or “com-assionate conservatism” and functioned on the idea of ahree way partnership involving the state, market and civicpheres (Edwards, 2009; Seligman, 1992). The fall of theerlin Wall in 1989 was a rallying cry for the progressionf a new type of civil society, based on popular democ-acy, and began the trend in many parts of Eastern EuropeEdwards, 2009; Howard, 2003). Although civil society hasong held tradition in both Central America and Africa,

any formal movements gained significant popularity athe beginning of the 1990s as well (Escobar & Alvarez, 1992;ox & Hernandez, 1992; Hassan, 2009).

However, the rise of global markets and productionctivities have elevated the role of civil society as a responseo perceived weaknesses in the legitimacy and accountabil-ty of governments and institutions that are ill-equipped toespond to these increasingly challenging issues. Globaliza-ion has contributed to a steady rise in social consciousnessue to the increasing complexity of global labor markets,he rise of civil and national identities within countries,nd increased developments in technology and transporta-ion (Castells, 2006). A problem with global civil societyowever is that there is no common forum where globallycommon” issues can be raised (Brown, 2008). Althoughhese sorts of issues may have similar roots in economic,

olitical or environmental ideologies, they also vary sig-ificantly in their contextual characteristics (Brown, 2008;berly, 2008; Edwards, 2009; Manor, Robinson, & White,999; Salamon & Anheier, 1997). In other words, while

nce Journal 49 (2012) 202–209 203

there are common consequences of globalization, theseconsequences play out differently through space and time.Civil society actors have endeavored to find solutions toglobally common problems through international forums,but these forums often provide unspecified standards,morals, and guidelines that are not enforceable by existinginstitutional arrangements across different settings.

Some argue that the globalization of the world econ-omy is nothing more than a new type of economiccolonization (Viotti & Kauppi, 2009). Opponents of theglobalization movement—often called ‘anti-globalists’—areconsidered a type of civil society organization that devel-oped in response to unequal global economic principlesand instruments, such as trade agreements, organizationsfor economic development and cooperation, and the majoreconomic institutions of the new global economy (Clark,2008; Seters, 2008). A main concern behind the glob-alization debate is what type of responsibility citizensare willing to assume on different issues. For example,a recent empirical study by Bickerstaff, Simmons, andPidgeon (2008) identified global issues such as radioac-tive waste, cell phone disposal, genetically modified cropsand climate change and measured the level of responsibil-ity citizens were willing to accept for each issue. Findingsindicated citizens were less likely to assume responsibility(and hence to take action) for climate change and similarissues with larger or diffuse contextual factors and moreabstract physical implications. And although participantsrecognized that individual behavior contributed to theproblem, there was little faith that personal action couldmake a meaningful contribution to the solution becauseits effects were diffused and even negated by the inac-tion of others (Bickerstaff et al., 2008). These are seriouslimitations of civil society as conceived in global politicalspace.

Given the complexity of the global arena, and thecross-level challenges and contradictory policies createdby multi-level institutional and political arrangements, thispaper calls for the need to examine the concept of civilsociety in a regional context. As the state as a politicalentity may become increasingly unimportant in the globalcontext, there is a distinct need for civil society to pro-mote itself within local and regional contexts to avoid thepoliticization of issues that are context specific. Definitionalissues and considerations for assessment are presented inthe following section to set the stage for the case studyanalyses.

2.2. Defining and assessing civil society

Civil society is located at the crossover between thestate, the family and the market. It is a fluid concept withmany definitions and indicators and, as such, establishingclear rules for what entities and actions represent civil soci-ety is a difficult task (Angeles & Gurstein, 2007; Manor et al.,1999). Civil society roles and associations vary extensively

across cultures and regions, making the postulation of uni-versally applicable boundaries an untidy task, and makingclear operational guidelines for context-specific boundarysetting essential (Manor et al., 1999).

cial Scie

204 W. de Gómez, R. Bullock / The So

In this paper, civil society includes an array of organi-zations and associations that are arranged around valuesand visions that mobilize social energies. Civil societycan be differentiated from government agencies, corpo-rations and the business of the market sector, as wellas the kinship values of families (Brown, 2008). There isa common but not always cohesive nature within CSOs.This nature includes the ability to mobilize people andresources through commitments to social values and mis-sions that are considered to enhance the public good(Angeles & Gurstein, 2007; Brown, 2008; Hess, 2009). Civilsociety typically involves a wide range of stakeholders.Finally, civil society adopts causes on behalf of marginal-ized peoples (Brown, 2008), which in the context of thispaper includes forest-dependent rural communities andurban homeless populations. Based on these definitionalattributes, the extent to which civil actors recognize andaccept the assumed role and cause of a given CSO as legit-imate indicates whether civil society is effectively at workin a political domain.

Existing civil society research reveals a tendency tofocus on either organizational attributes or key functionsin efforts to assess civil society. Comparative Non-profitSector’s (CNS) structural operational definition is themost widely known approach that employs an organiza-tional perspective (Salamon & Anheier, 1997; Salamon,Sokolowski, & List, 2004). These structural features seekto describe collective citizen action in terms of its quantity(extent) and quality (effectiveness). Non-profit organiza-tions (NPOs) are regarded as the core expression of civilsociety. To qualify as a NPO, an association has to beorganized, private, non-profit, distributing, self-governingand voluntary (Salamon et al., 2004). Yet this defini-tion excludes the elements of voluntary organizations,such as the social economy (Evers & Laville, 2004), hous-ing associations (Morris, 2000), grassroots associations(Horton Smith, 1997), informal associations (Lyons, 1996)and many forms of associational life found in developingcountries (Fowler, 2002). Additionally the approach omitsconcepts such as collective citizen action outside of orga-nizations. Similarly Howard’s (2003) definition for civilsociety in post-communist Europe lacks empirical validityas it uses the share of membership in voluntary organiza-tions as the sole empirical indicator.

In contrast the Civil Society Index (CSI) uses anoperational definition that includes individual citizen par-ticipation, demonstrations, social movements and otherunorganized forms of civic engagement (Anheier, 2001;Heinrich, 2004). Additionally, the CSI is applicable in awide variety of contexts because it focuses on the broadnotion of citizens advancing their interests beyond themarket, family, and state. The CSI uses both a norma-tive structural and theoretical cultural approach (Anheier,2001; Heinrich, 2004). Approaches that include a cul-tural dimension of civil society empirically investigate theextent to which specific norms and interests are presentin civil society, rather than employing these norms as cri-

teria for defining civil society’s boundaries (as is the casewith most normative–theoretical work), which would leadto excluding a priori any intolerant practices from therealm of civil society (Heinrich, 2005). Operationalizing

nce Journal 49 (2012) 202–209

these cultural features includes aspects such as: examplesof citizen’s respect for the rule of law, democratic prac-tices with the CSOs, corruption within civil society, civilsociety action to promote transparency, and non-violencewithin CSOs (Heinrich, 2005). The normative structuralelements would include variables such as the percent-age of citizen participation, percentage of civil societyorganizations, percentage of volunteering, average hoursof volunteering, geographical distribution and effective-ness of umbrella bodies, and the adequacy of supportinfrastructure (Heinrich, 2005). Most existing assessmentapproaches treat civil society as a multidimensional con-cept, ruling out the reduction of civil society to a singlevariable (Bothwell, 1998; Bratton, 1994; Croissant, Lauth,& Merkel, 2000; Dekker & van den Broek, 1998; Uphoff &Krishna, 2004).

Accordingly, the concept of legitimacy encompassesnormative, legal, sociological, and cultural meanings. Legit-imacy has long been recognized as a core element ingovernance regimes, dealing with the complex relationshipbetween societal acceptance of regimes and institutionsand their ability to exercise power and authority effectively(Brickerhoff, 2005; Brown, 2008; Mitchell, 2002). As thispaper focuses on local organizations and regional contextsto assess civil society across rural and urban political spacein Canada, assessing legitimacy as a multidimensional ele-ment that is necessary for the existence of civil society canindicate whether selected case organizations are, in fact,working effectively as CSOs.

Brown (2008) offers a legitimacy framework to assessCSO effectiveness based on the following six criteria:

1. regulatory legitimacy (compliance with legal require-ments and regulations);

2. associated legitimacy (links with other institutions rec-ognized as legitimate);

3. performance legitimacy (expertise, resources and stake-holders interests);

4. political legitimacy (meaningful representation of mem-ber interests);

5. normative legitimacy (widely held values and norms),and;

6. cognitive legitimacy (develops out of how stakeholdersview the world).

It should be noted that both normative and cognitivelegitimacy may be viewed as examples of cultural indi-cators although not specified as such in Heinrich (2005).These criteria are useful because they have been developedfor a wide conceptualization of civil society, they are eas-ily understood, and they incorporate said factors missed byprevious scholars.

2.3. Case selection

British Columbia Community Forest Pilot Program andthe Homeless and Housing Umbrella Group (HHUG) in

Waterloo, Ontario were chosen due to their timeliness andsignificance in the rural forestry and urban housing sectorsin Canada, as well as the high level of grassroots activismand social conflict inherent in these settings. Comparing

cial Scie

thCrw(rtti2trvicc

a

lo2tsmainoatGoai(coc

3a

3

dh

W. de Gómez, R. Bullock / The So

ypical or representative case experiences (Yin, 2003)elps to understand how the ongoing efforts of regionalSOs encouraged municipal and provincial governmentesponses to address governance gaps associated withhat are seen as quintessentially rural (forestry) and urban

homelessness) issues. (This is not to say that the effects ofesource industry collapse and homelessness are isolatedo rural and urban areas, however). As governance shiftsypically occur through socio-political pressure and/or leg-slative changes that catalyze regime change (Armitage,008), contrasting the selected cases provides an oppor-unity to assess civil society in different contexts and at theegional level of scale where actors have emerged to fillacant political spaces and address relevant multi-scaledssues. In turn these cases point to conceptual and practi-al implications of civil society in rural and urban planningontexts in Canada.

Furthermore, the lessons from a Canadian perspectivere important because as Friedmann (2005) states:

“Canadian culture generally can perhaps be character-ized by a greater reliance on the state to defend thepublic interest and to resolve ensuing conflicts with aconsensus-building approach involving lengthy nego-tiations among the contending parties. It is also moreseriously concerned with social issues of urban devel-opment and with listening to a multiplicity of voices.Organized civil society is perhaps no stronger in Canadathan in the United States, but it is politically more active,in part because it is encouraged to occupy political spaceat the municipal level.”

The enforced pursuit of civil society at the municipalevel is due to irregular and poor funding and the lackf basic policy priorities at the national level (Phillips,010). In many countries the civil society sector is cen-ral to citizenship and democracy, community building,ocial innovation and as a force for economic develop-ent (Phillips, 2010). The HHUG network could be viewed

s both a mechanism for community building and socialnnovation and the community forest model that of eco-omic development, perhaps placing Canadian civil societyn a new path—a path that many CSOs may follow inttempts to fill broad knowledge gaps in the uncharterederritory of solving specific public-policy problems (Frickel,ibbon, Kempner, Ottinger, & Hess, 2010). Case studiesf the British Columbia Community Forest Pilot Programnd the Homeless and Housing Umbrella Group (HHUG)n Waterloo, Ontario are developed below using Brown’s2008) legitimacy framework to examine the importance ofontextual influences on the emergence and effectivenessf civil society initiatives across rural and urban regionalontexts in Canada.

. Civil society emergence and legitimacy in ruralnd urban contexts

.1. Rural civil society in BC’s forestry sector

In the context of this paper, a rural community isefined here as a definable aggregation of interrelatedouseholds within a discrete spatial extent located outside

nce Journal 49 (2012) 202–209 205

delineated urban areas (Smit & Wandel, 2006). House-holds are considered linked by the forests and resourcesthat provide the ecological and economic base for ruralcommunities. Adaptation is used in the sense of adap-tive co-management (Armitage, 2008) and considers therelationships between ecological systems and politicaleconomy, the latter of which relates to political andsocial power relations, resource use and global economies(Blaikie & Brookfield, 1987). Adaptive capacity includes thespecific types of management and practices used by a ruralcommunity to respond to larger structural changes (Ford& Smit, 2004; Keskitalo, Klenk, Bullock, Smith, & Bazley,2011; Sutherland, Smit, Wulf, & Nakalevu, 2005). In thiscase, the concept of adaptive co-management does notrefer to the formal type of sectoral management approach(Mitchell, 2002), but rather to the governance system usedto adapt to the changes in the socio-political and economicenvironments of a community (Lebel et al., 2006).

British Columbia’s Community Forests Agreement pro-gram serves as the primary adaptive mechanism utilizedby forest-based communities as a means to encourage amanagement shift from planning processes at higher lev-els of scale to regional and landscape units through a newgovernance framework. The framework was developed bythe British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range withgrassroots input (Bullock et al., 2009). The establishmentof the Community Forests Pilot Program enabled a growingnetwork of local forest communities to become involved inforest management through Community Forest Agreementlicenses (Pinkerton, Heaslip, Silver, & Furman, 2008). Whilesenior government and grassroots initiative helped triggerchanges to support a more local agenda in the forest sector,community capacity to embrace change is considered herewith respect to the legitimacy of the emerging regional civilsociety networks that provided the governance framework.

The development of the community agenda in theBritish Columbia forest sector has been rooted in thatProvince for decades and the push for conservation andeffective yield management remains a primary sourcefor environmental rallying (Pinkerton et al., 2008). Thegreen-political platform of the Provincial New DemocraticParty (NDP) in the early 1990s, and the subsequent imple-mentation of regulatory policies such as The Old GrowthManagement Strategy (1992), The Protected Area Strategy(1993), and the changes to planning practices outlinedin the Forest Practices Code (1994), created the triggersfor effective change (Bullock & Hanna, 2008; Pinkertonet al., 2008). In the 1990s the NDP strongly responded tochanges in global labor markets and the environmentalagenda foresaw the necessity to rely on market structuresto enable their localized movements. The political spacebetween the NDP and their ability to effectively utilizethe globalization movement allowed the community for-est movement the recognition that they could use marketinstruments such as controls on the free flow of woodproducts and the log sort and auction model, which uti-lizes the economic viability of alternative logging methods;

the utilization of a greater spectrum of wood and of get-ting better prices for wood; and returning wood royaltiesto the government rather than large-scale logging compa-nies (Pinkerton et al., 2008). The organizational structures

cial Scie

206 W. de Gómez, R. Bullock / The So

of community forest initiatives became more formalizedthrough self-organizing grassroots planning processes, lob-bying and the collective mobilization of resources (Bullocket al., 2009). Subsequently, the British Columbia Commu-nity Forests Association (BCCFA) emerged as a network ofrural, community-based organizations engaged in and/orpursuing community forest management. Those involvedin the organization saw it as part of a global movementcommitted to culturally, ecologically, and economicallysustainable forestry (Gunter, 2004).

The rise of co-management efforts in the BC forestindustry represents a governance shift—a societal adapta-tion to the political climate and public pressures. Provincialgovernments bestowed important rights on certain BCCFAmember communities through Community Forest Agree-ments. These rights and responsibilities included: thecreation of an inventory of timber supply and conductingtimber supply analysis; access to lands within the bound-ary of the community forest and the withdrawal of timberfrom that land; regulation of logging activity throughfive-year management plans; enhancement of timber pro-duction through silvicultural techniques, and; the abilityto exclude ‘outsiders’ from timber in the Community For-est area (Pinkerton et al., 2008). The devolution of controlover forests to community actors marks an unprecedentedchange in a governance system long-dominated by seniorgovernment and the private sector.

The Harrop-Procter Community Forest is one exam-ple of the shift in planning ideology in British Columbiabeginning in the 1990s. In order for the Harrop-ProcterCommunity Forest to effective, the organization institutedsix mechanisms to bolster legitimacy. (1) The first was thedevelopment of policies that grew out of provincial regu-latory arrangements and that included sufficient revenue,combined with volunteer labor, to support the operationof the community forest. (2) A co-management arrange-ment was created with the Province to ensure associatedlegitimacy. (3) Establishing clear processes for organiza-tional decision-making generated performance legitimacythrough community meetings, an elected board, and a localmonitoring procedure. (4) Political legitimacy was ensuredwhen Harrop-Procter Community Forest embraced anorganizational form (cooperative) that represented thelocal values of the political constituents and included awide range of community stakeholders. (5) Normativelegitimacy was produced through the framing of broadlyrepresentative visions, goals, and objectives linked to whatthe organization and community members wanted fromlocal forests. (6) Finally, the Harrop-Procter communitiesvalued the tacit support of First Nations whose territoriesover-lapped with the community forest as a means to legit-imize the activities for a wide range of stakeholders, whichfurthered the cognitive legitimacy of the civil movement(Pinkerton et al., 2008).

The forest sector endured a period of immense adap-tation to larger political processes in British Columbia inthe early 1990s. The adaptive responses of rural CSOs

and networks successfully enhanced local access to andcontrol over forests and resources. The capacity of localorganizations to develop co-management techniques withthe government and negotiate access to free-markets

nce Journal 49 (2012) 202–209

outside of corporate interests points to the effectivenessof civil society at work in a rural setting. When certainconditions of legitimacy were fulfilled, civil society actorshelped to develop and implemented important changesin the political-ecological landscape of British Columbia.Although the Neo-Liberal agenda was a main driver in thesuccess of the local agenda, there were other factors thatenabled success (Bullock & Hanna, 2008; McCarthy, 2006;Pinkerton et al., 2008; Teitelbaum, Beckley, & Nadeau,2006). The importance of mainstreaming the local agendainto the larger the socio-political process and the encour-agement of partnerships between institutions, enabledco-management advocates responding to the changes inthe global economic environment. Additional factors suchas the cohesiveness of the resource base (i.e., forests), thelong history of and support for the environmental move-ment in the province, and the homogeneity of the socialgroups engaged in the civic changes, all permitted andpromoted an effective civil society movement to emerge(Agrawal, McSweeney, & Perrin, 2008). However, as the riseof civil society in this case was inextricably linked to thechanging provincial and global political contexts, questionsarise as to whether similar civil arrangements could arisein rural regions where larger political-economic forces donot align with local objectives.

In the next section, the above observations are con-trasted with the emergence of a housing initiative in theRegion of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, as one example fromthe urban civil society experience.

3.2. Urban civil society in Waterloo Region’s housingsector

Urban systems are complex, interconnected structureswhere there is often steep competition within and betweencivil organizations for resources and political space. Usinga case of a successful CSO is a suitable way to under-stand this complexity (Woodlard & Reese, 1999). Taking abroad view of urban systems recognizes the complexity ofthe demographic features of urban populations, especiallyin a multi-cultural country such as Canada. The divi-sions of urban civil action can become quite narrow, oftenwith specific ethnic identities being the main impetus forchange in governance and particular agencies (Mouritsen& Jorgensen, 2008; Sandercock, 2004). Instead, the emer-gence of civil society in this case is considered in the largersocio-economic aspects of governmental functions for ser-vice provision as a mechanism for civil change involvingmany diverse groups.

Due to the complexity of service provision in urbanareas, civil society organizations often emerge as aresponse to the inadequate or uneven distribution of theprovision of essential services (Brown, 2008). This couldinclude various types of services such as food-security,waste management, infrastructure development or hous-ing. Service gaps in urban areas result from socio-politicalstructures that must choose between numerous actors

with diverse and often opposing interests, as well asinter-governmental competition for resource allocation(Clemente, Magnier, & Ramierz, 2008). The focus here ison the housing sector in Waterloo Region, with particular

cial Scie

eeU

cp(wtiGRtlHgiHMaSi

rt1npClHCWaattal

naciia2oRaah(

trsRsa(

W. de Gómez, R. Bullock / The So

mphasis on the development of a regional civil soci-ty organization referred to as the Homeless and Housingmbrella Group (HHUG).

HHUG is a non-partisan group consisting of con-erned individuals, agencies and groups committed toreventing and reducing homelessness in Waterloo RegionHomelessness and Housing Umbrella Group, 2007). Thereere several triggers for the development of the organiza-

ion, namely the 1999 report Understanding Homelessnessn Waterloo Region and the subsequent the 2001 Regionalrowth Management Strategy—both developed by theegional Municipality of Waterloo. The reports outlinedhe need for improvements to housing provision in Water-oo Region and called for the development of a Communityousing Plan in order to address anticipated economicrowth in the region. The HHUG took on the responsibil-ty of writing the Community Housing Plan. Communityousing Plan representatives requested that the Regionalunicipality of Waterloo be the regional entity to man-

ge the 1.3 million (CAD) in federal funding (from theupporting Communities Partnership Initiative) for planmplementation.

The HHUG vision was for Waterloo Region to be aegional community where everyone would have accesso appropriate housing and support (HHUG, 2008b). Since999, the HHUG successfully initiated other regional orga-izations initiated to better understand the persistentroblem of homelessness. Other examples include theambridge Action on Homelessness Group, the Water-

oo Region Community Homelessness Network, the Youthomeless coordinating Group, the Kitchener Downtownommunity Collaborative and many others (Region ofaterloo Social Services, 2005). The HHUG has played an

ctive part in calling for housing development propos-ls to address persistent homelessness, capital projectshat sustain, enhance and increase the capacity of longer-erm housing stability programs, and projects that addressnd/or prevent youth homelessness (both capital or time-imited projects) (HHUG, 2007).

Although the individual groups that form the HHUG doot provide the final decision on projects, HHUG acts asn information body reporting to Waterloo Regional Coun-il. In addition, the HHUG provides updates regarding themprovement of housing services in the Region and, moremportantly, produces a Report Card for the Region, thuscting as a monitoring group for housing initiatives. In May008 the first Report Card determined that there was noverall improvement to housing access and stability in theegion based on indicators such as: rental housing avail-bility, support to maintain housing, rental housing costsnd income and percentages of populations experiencingomelessness or who are at risk of becoming homelessHHUG, 2008a).

The information collection and monitoring functions ofhe organization are well-developed and provide empiricalesearch and base line data to help better understand thepecific areas where housing provision gaps in Waterloo

egion. However, the HHUG does not have any project deci-ion making power. The partner agencies have education,dvocacy, and communication as their primary functionsRegion of Waterloo Social Services, 2005). Therefore, the

nce Journal 49 (2012) 202–209 207

outcome effectiveness of the organization is based on theresponsiveness of regional governmental agencies to lis-ten and act upon the HUGG’s recommendations. In thissense the HUGG acts as a sort of “bridging organization”—aforum for civil deliberation and the planning of initiativesrather than as a strategic operational decision making body(Elbakidze, Angelstam, Sandström, & Axelsson, 2010).

The HHUG satisfies several of Brown’s (2008) legiti-macy criteria and, as such, it is an effective CSO. (1) Firstit holds regulatory legitimacy through Waterloo Regionand responsibilities to provide housing data under spe-cific acts outlined by the Region such as the Urban Areasof All Roads Lead to Home: A Homelessness to Housing Strat-egy for Waterloo Region and the Community Housing Planfor the Region of Waterloo. (2) The HUGG gains associatedlegitimacy through links with other regional institutionsas demonstrated by alliances with other member groupsas well as regional government. (3) The HUGG displaysperformance legitimacy by incorporating a wide varietyof stakeholder opinions and interest, as well as a formallyresourced monitoring component. (4) Furthermore, theHUGG gained political legitimacy by representing the inter-ests of similar organizations such as the Cambridge Actionon Homelessness Group. (5) The organization also satisfiednormative legitimacy through its broad appeal and found-ing belief that everyone has the right to access housing. (6)And although the views of the stakeholders differ at timeswith respect to housing types, functions and access equity,the housing strategy was developed for the stakeholdersprimarily. This point is somewhat tenuous, however, dueto the fact that many people who need access to housingmay not understand nor be interested in the larger philo-sophical underpinnings of the movement. The HUGG meetsthe civil society legitimacy requirements outlined in thispaper.

4. Conclusion

This paper has developed understanding of the concep-tual definition and contextual aspects of civil society, aswell as identified some contradictory facets of the conceptand tensions across local-global political space. In particu-lar, we have illustrated that the emergence of civil society,as a response to societal challenges, is supported when gov-ernance solutions are matched to the scale and scope ofsuch ‘problems’. As we have highlighted, civil society mustbe understood as a multi-leveled phenomenon that coa-lesces and plays out differently across different contexts(Brown, 2008). In a multi-level world this means empow-ering civil actors through the devolution of decision makingand responsibilities, and the redistribution of resources inorder to facilitate CSOs and networks that, in turn, cangenerate and draw upon various forms of legitimacy. Theability to identify and act on opening policy windows andtriggers is crucial.

Addressing the need to further define and clarify civilsociety roles and practices can assist civil actors to actually

find themselves in otherwise diffuse problems and solu-tions (Bickerstaff et al., 2008). Better understanding localcivil society roles, actions and relationships at the local andregional scale can help civil society actors and supporters

cial Scie

208 W. de Gómez, R. Bullock / The So

to make the links needed to address complexity (Westley,Zimmerman, & Quinn Patton, 2007), and thus give tractionto the popular “think global, act local” philosophy. Tack-ling the conceptual and practical limitations of civil societyand how social change occurs (through empirical research)would enable local and regional civil society to create oroccupy “vacant” political spaces in order to address gover-nance gaps in rural and urban systems.

The cases document current experiences and lessonsfrom civil society in Canada. They highlight how differ-ent sources of legitimacy contributed to the emergence ofrural and urban civil society organizations in both rural andurban contexts. The case of community forestry in BritishColumbia illustrates the importance of socio-political fac-tors in the development of a regional network consistingof local-level civil society organizations during the 1990s,and how local actors adapted to form a new kind of for-est governance regime based on desires for increased localcontrol of resources and co-management with senior gov-ernment. Community forestry groups were successful dueto, in part, the socio-economic context that enabled thedevelopment of the environmental movement in BritishColumbia and the common commodity (forests) for whichchange was being advocated. Conversely, urban civil soci-ety was shown to emerge through the development ofan issue-specific working group that came to serve as aresearch and monitoring institution intended to bridgegaps in housing provision in Waterloo Region. The urbancivil society example developed out of a distinct gap inservice provision and the forward thinking of advocateswho worked on behalf of the common cause of hous-ing provision in a region with anticipated demographicgrowth.

Both case examples can be regarded as successful inachieving their specific civil society goals, but both casesare also subject to the changing priorities of larger politicalengines. Both the rural and urban examples needed signif-icant triggers to enable participant organizations to shiftmanagement ideologies in the forestry and housing sec-tors. Focusing on local civil society and regional networkinitiatives suggests it is necessary to have accountabilitychecks by government agencies and donors, as well as thepeople for whom the organizations exist. Legitimacy, as anindication of civil society emergence and efficacy, is moreeasily identified at the local level due to the contextu-ally specific nature of civil society organizations workingin different geographic locations, albeit for the samecauses.

References

Agrawal, A., McSweeney, C., & Perrin, N. (2008). Local institutions andclimate change adaptation. The Social Dimensions of Climate Change,113, 1–8.

Angeles, L., & Gurstein, P. (2007). Introduction: Learning civil societiesfor democratic planning and governance. In P. Gurstein, & L. Angeles(Eds.), Learning civil societies: Shifting contexts for democratic planningand governance (pp. 3–22). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Anheier, H. (2001). Measuring global civil society. In H. Anheier, M. Glasius,& M. Kaldor (Eds.), Global Civil Society Yearbook 2001 (pp. 221–230).Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Armitage, D. (2008). Governance and the commons in a multi-level world.International Journal of the Commons, 2(1), 7–32.

nce Journal 49 (2012) 202–209

Bickerstaff, K., Simmons, P., & Pidgeon, N. (2008). Constructing responsi-bilities for risk: Negotiating citizen-state relationships. Environmentand Planning A, 40(6), 1312–1330.

Blaikie, P. M., & Brookfield, H. (1987). Land, degradation and society. Lon-don: Methuen.

Bothwell, B. (1998). Indicators of a healthy civil society. In J. Bur-bidge (Ed.), Beyond prince and merchant (pp. 249–262). New York:Pact.

Bratton, M. (1994). Civil society and political transition in Africa. IDR Report11, 6. Boston: Institute for Development Research.

Brickerhoff, D. (2005). Organizational legitimacy, capacity, and capac-ity development. In Paper presented at Public Management ResearchAssociation 8th Research Conference, University of Southern CaliforniaSchool of Policy, Planning, and Development Los Angeles, Califor-nia, September 29–October 1. Available at www.pmranet.org/confer-ences/USC2005/../pmra.brinkerhoff.2005.doc Accessed 1.07.11

Brown, D. (2008). Creating credibility. Legitimacy and accountability fortransnational civil society. Sterling, VA: Kumarian Press.

Bullock, R., & Hanna, K. (2008). Community forestry: Mitigating or creat-ing conflict in British Columbia? Society and Natural Resources, 21(1),77–85.

Bullock, R., Hanna, K., & Slocombe, D. S. (2009). Learning from communityforestry experience: Lessons and challenges from British Columbia.The Forestry Chronicle, 85(2), 293–304.

Castells, M. (2006). Mobile communications and society: A global perspective.Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Clark, J. D. (2008). The globalization of civil society. In J. W. St. Walker, & A.S. Thompson (Eds.), Critical mass: The emergence of global civil society(pp. 3–25). Waterloo: Wilfred Laurier Press.

Clemente, J., Magnier, A., & Ramierz, M. A. (2008). Local gover-nance as government-business cooperation in Western democracies:Analyzing local and intergovernmental effects by multi-level com-parison. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 32(3),531–547.

Croissant, A., Lauth, H. J., & Merkel, W. (2000). Zivilgesellschaft undtransformation: ein internationaler Vergleich. In W. Merkel (Ed.), Sys-temwechsel 5. Zivilgesellschaft und Transformation (pp. 9–49). Opladen:Leske þ Budrich.

Dale, A., & Newman, L. (2006). Sustainable community development, net-works and resilience. Environments, 34(2), 17–27.

Dekker, P., & van den Broek, A. (1998). Civil society in comparative per-spective: Involvement in voluntary associations in North America andWestern Europe. Voluntas, 9(1), 11–38.

Eberly, D. (2008). The rise of global civil society: Building communities andnations from the bottom up. New York: Encounter Books.

Edwards, M. (2009). Civil society. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Elbakidze, M., Angelstam, P. K., Sandström, C., & Axelsson, R. (2010).

Multi-stakeholder collaboration in Russian and Swedish ModelForest initiatives: Adaptive governance toward sustainable for-est management? Ecology and Society, 15(2), 14 [online] URL:http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss2/art14/

Escobar, A., & Alvarez, S. (Eds.). (1992). The making of social movements inLatin America: Identity, strategy and democracy. Boulder, CO: WestviewPress.

Evers, A., & Laville, J. L. (Eds.). (2004). The third sector in Europe. EdwardElger: Cheltenham.

Ford, J., & Smit, B. (2004). A Framework for assessing the vulnerability ofcommunities in the Canadian Arctic to risks associated with climatechange. Arctic, 57, 389–400.

Fowler, A. (2002). Civil society research funding from a global perspective:A case for redressing bias, asymmetry and bifurcation. Voluntas, 13(3),286–300.

Fox, J., & Hernandez, L. (1992). Mexico’s difficult democracy: Grass-roots movements, NGOS and the local government. Alternatives, 17,165–208.

Frickel, S., Gibbon, H., Kempner, J., Ottinger, G., & Hess, D. (2010). Undonescience: Charting social movement and civil society challenges toresearch agenda setting. Science Technology and Human Values, 35(4),444–473.

Friedmann, J. (2005). Globalization and the emerging culture of planning.Progress in Planning, 64(93), 179.

Fukuyama, F. (2001). Social capital civil society and development. ThirdWorld Quarterly, 22(1), 7–20.

Gunter, J. (Ed.). (2004). The Community Forestry Guidebook: Tools and

Techniques for Communities in British Columbia, FORREX and BCCFA.FORREX Series 15.

Hassan, H. A. R. (2009). The state and civil society in Africa: A North Africanperspective. African Journal of Political Science and International Rela-tions, 3(2), 066–076.

cial Scie

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

K

L

L

M

M

M

M

M

P

W. de Gómez, R. Bullock / The So

einrich, V. F. (2004). Assessing and strengthening civil society world-wide. In A Project Description of the CIVICUS Civil Society Index: AParticipatory Needs Assessment and Action-Planning Tool for Civil Soci-ety. Johannesburg: CIVICUS.

einrich, V. F. (2005). Studying civil society across the world: Exploringthe thorny issues of conceptualization and measurement. Journal ofCivil Society, 1(3), 211–228.

ess, D. (2009). The potential and limitations of civil society research:Getting undone science done. Sociological Inquiry, 79(3), 306–327.

omelessness and Housing Umbrella Group. (2007). Newsletter. Fall.Available at www.hhug.ca Accessed 1.01.11.

omelesssness and Housing Umbrella Group. (2008a). Report Card ofWaterloo Region Housing Stability. Available at www.hhug.ca Accessed1.01.11.

omelesssness and Housing Umbrella Group. (2008b). About Us. Availableat www.hhug.ca Accessed 1.01.11.

orton Smith, D. (1997). The rest of the nonprofit sector: Grassroots asso-ciations as the dark matter ignored in prevailing “flat earth” maps ofthe sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 26(2), 114–131.

oward, M. M. (2003). The weakness of civil society in post-communistEurope. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

eskitalo, E. C. H., Klenk, N., Bullock, R., Smith, A. L., & Bazley, D. R. (2011).Preparing for and responding to disturbance: Examples from the for-est sector in Sweden and Canada. Forests, 2(2), 505–524.

ebel, L., Anderies, J. M., Campbell, B., Folke, C., Hatfield-Dodds, S., Hughes,T. P., et al. (2006). Governance and the capacity to manage resiliencein regional social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 11(1), 19[online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art19/

yons, M. (1996). Nonprofit sector and civil society: Are they competingparadigms? Sydney: Centre for Australian Community Organisationsand Management Working Paper 35.

anor, J., Robinson, M., & White, G. (1999). Civil society and governance.A concept paper. IDS Civil Society and Governance Programme.http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0017/001780/178020e.pdfAccessed 1.07.11

cCarthy, J. (2006). Neoliberalism and the politics of alternatives: Com-munity forestry in British Columbia and the United States. Annals ofthe Association of American Geographers, 96(1), 84–104.

itchell, B. (2002). Resource and environmental management. Harlow:Pearson Education Limited.

orris, S. (2000). Defining the nonprofit sector: Some lessons from history.

Voluntas, 11, 25–43.

ouritsen, P., & Jorgensen, K. (Eds.). (2008). Constituting communities. NewYork: Palgrave MacMillian.

hillips, S. D. (2010). Canada: Civic society under neglect. The Philan-thropist, 23(1), 65–73.

nce Journal 49 (2012) 202–209 209

Pinkerton, E., Heaslip, R., Silver, J., & Furman, K. (2008). Finding “space”for co management of forests within the neoliberal paradigm: Rights,strategies and tools for asserting a local agenda. Human Ecology, 36,343–355.

Reed, M. (2007). Uneven environmental management: A Canadian per-spective. Environmental Management, 39, 30–49.

Region of Waterloo Social Services. (2005). Summary of Local GroupsAddressing Homelessness in Waterloo Region. March. Available atwww.region.waterloo.on.ca/socialservices

Sandercock, L. (2004). Sustaining Canada’s Multi-cultural Cities. Unpub-lished manuscript. Canadian Federation for the Humanities and SocialSciences. Available at http://www.scarp.ubc.ca/faculty%20profiles/sandercock.htm.

Salamon, L., & Anheier, H. (1997). Defining the nonprofit sector. A cross-national analysis. New York: Manchester University Press.

Salamon, L., Sokolowski, S. W., & List, R. (2004). Global civil society: Anoverview. In L. M. Salamon, S. W. Sokolowski, & Associates (Eds.),Global civil society. Volume 2. Dimensions of the Nonprofit Sector (pp.3–60). Bloomfield: Kumarian Press.

Seligman, A. (1992). The idea of civil society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Uni-versity Press.

Seters, P. (2008). Approaching Global Civil Society. In J. W. St, G. Walker, &A. S. Thompson (Eds.), Critical mass: The emergence of global civil society(pp. 25–37). Waterloo: Wilfred Laurier Press.

Smit, B., & Wandel, J. (2006). Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnera-bility. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 282–292.

Sutherland, K., Smit, B., Wulf, V., & Nakalevu, T. (2005). Vulnerability inSamoa. Tiempo, 54, 11–15.

Teitelbaum, S., Beckley, T., & Nadeau, S. (2006). A national portrait of com-munity forestry on public land in Canada. Forestry Chronicle, 82(3),416–428.

Uphoff, N., & Krishna, A. (2004). Civil society and public sector institu-tions: More than a zero-sum relationship. Public Administration andDevelopment, 24(4), 357–372.

Viotti, P. R., & Kauppi, M. (2009). International relations theory. 4th ed.:Pearson Hall.

Walker, P., & Fortmann, L. (2003). Whose landscape? A political ecologyof ‘exurban’ Sierra. Cultural Geographies, 10, 469–491.

Westley, F., Zimmerman, B., & Quinn Patton, M. (2007). Getting to maybe:How the world is changed. Toronto: Vintage Canada.

Woodlard, R., & Reese, W. (1999). Social evolution of urban systems and

directions for sustainability. In J. Pierce, & A. Dale (Eds.), Communitydevelopment and sustainability across Canada (pp. 27–30). Vancouver:UBC Press.

Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). ThousandOaks, California: Sage Publications Inc.