-
extracted text
-
A Q-methodology Study: Stakeholder perspectives on the
future management of Capitol Lake, Olympia, Washington
by
Melanie Kincaid
A Thesis: Essay of Distinction
Submitted in partial fulfillment
Of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Studies
The Evergreen State College
September 2011
© 2011 by Melanie Kincaid. All rights reserved.
ABSTRACT
A Q-methodology Study: Stakeholder perspectives on the
future management of Capitol Lake, Olympia, Washington
Melanie Kincaid
Natural resource management is often a difficult issue in environmental policy when
decisions may transform the cultural identity of an area while at the same time providing
uncertainty in the economic and environmental complexities that emerge from the
transformation. Increasingly, policy analysts and natural resource managers utilize
stakeholder involvement to facilitate the decision making process on issues that have
polarized stakeholder groups. This research describes Q-methodology, a method that can
be used to set the foundation for productive stakeholder involvement and also to identify
areas of contention and consensus in the area of natural resource management.
Additionally, this research expands existing literature on polarized policy issues and the
use of Q-methodology to help policy makers in contested natural resource decisionmaking. In order to test this methodology, Q-methodology is applied to the polarized
issue of the future management of Capitol Lake in Olympia, Washington. The data
analysis provides insights into stakeholder perspectives that would not be available
through traditional social science methodologies and offers a foundation for stakeholder
involvement to address and overcome polarization on issues.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures …………………………………………………………….………..…..…v
List of Tables ….………………………………………………………………………….v
Acknowledgements ……………………………………………………………………....vi
1. Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 1
2. Q‐methodology and Discursive Democracy.......................................................................... 3
2.1. Discursive Democracy in Natural Resource Management ..................................................... 3
2.2. Use of Q‐methodology in Discursive Democracy ....................................................................... 5
2.3. Research Objectives ................................................................................................................................ 6
3. Case Study Background ................................................................................................................. 8
3.1. Historical Framing................................................................................................................................... 9
3.2. Capitol Lake Adaptive Management Plan (CLAMP)............................................................... 13
3.3. Post CLAMP Committee...................................................................................................................... 15
4. Q‐Methodology Applications .....................................................................................................17
4.1. Concourse Development.................................................................................................................... 17
4.2. Sampling a Concourse......................................................................................................................... 18
4.3. Selection of the P‐set ........................................................................................................................... 20
4.4. Q‐sort.......................................................................................................................................................... 20
4.5. Data analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 22
4.6. Results ....................................................................................................................................................... 23
4.6.1 Factor A: Business Focus............................................................................................................. 25
4.6.2 Factor B: Natural Systems Focus ............................................................................................. 26
4.6.3 Factor C: Location of Restoration Focus............................................................................... 27
4.6.4 Consensus and Contention ......................................................................................................... 28
4.6.5 Interviews.......................................................................................................................................... 30
5. Discussion..........................................................................................................................................34
5.1. Critique of Work .................................................................................................................................... 35
6. Conclusion .........................................................................................................................................38
7. Bibliography .....................................................................................................................................40
8. Appendices ........................................................................................................................................45
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Map of Capitol Lake, Olympia, Washington…………………………………...8
Figure 2: Aerial view of the upper, middle, and lower basin of Capitol Lake……………8
Figure 3: 1930’s picture of Little Hollywood, Olympia, Washington…………………...11
Figure 4: Participant conducting a Q-sort………………………......................................22
Figure 5: Graphical representation of distinguishing statements between factors……....31
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Sampling matrix for selecting statements from the topic concourse…………...19
Table 2: The structural design of the quasi-normal Q-sort…………………………...….21
Table 3: Unrotated factor matrix…………………………………………………………23
Table 4: Factor matrix with an ‘X’ indicating a defining sort …………………………..24
Table 5: Description of significant factor groups ……………………………………….25
Table 6: Correlation between factor scores……………………………………………...29
v
Acknowledgements
The support of many people has been essential in completing this thesis project. I
would first like to thank Dr. Martha Henderson for her guidance and suggestions
throughout the thesis process. I am also grateful to faculty members Dr. Ralph Murphy
and Dr. Gerardo Chin-Leo for their guidance while I was developing the thesis
prospectus. I would like to thank the many participants in this study who gave their time
and insights. Finally, I wish to express my gratitude to my family and friends for seeing
me through this process. To my MES cohort for the friendships we developed in the two
short years of the program. Most importantly, thank you to my husband, for his
encouragement to pursue a Masters degree and his support throughout the entire program.
vi
1. Introduction
Natural resource management is controversial in many settings. Management
issues are often deliberated beyond the known and/or theorized technical knowledge.
Changes to the landscape affect multiple stakeholder groups on various levels including,
but not limited to, social, economic, and environmental. Disagreement about management
goals and objectives is common among stakeholders, regulators, and natural resource
managers when deciding the course of action to pursue. Policy analysts and natural
resource managers increasingly elicit stakeholder involvement to overcome obduracy on
an issue and achieve an acceptable solution.
Eliciting stakeholder involvement is at the core of discourse theory which looks at
how people view their world based on the normative and factual side on an issue. In
discourse theory, facts and values are viewed as inseparable. It is the core of this theory
that “outcomes are legitimate to the extent they receive reflective assent through
participation in authentic deliberation by all those subject to the decision question”
(Dryzek, 2001, p. 65).
One of the ways that literature suggests to analyze discourses is through the use of
Q-methodology (Dryzek, 2001; Clark, 2002; and Brown, 1980). Q-methodology was
initially intended to study human subjectivity in the political spectrum but has been
applied on a limited but increasing basis to study the discourse in natural resource
management and environmental policymaking. It has been especially useful to policy
makers and natural resource managers when issues are complex, uncertain, and polarized.
Q-methodology has provided the foundation for the implementation of discourse theory
1
applications to reframe an issue that identifies shared goals between groups, consensus
and contention items, and also areas of further research.
The primary purpose of this research is to test Q-methodology in order to
determine whether or not Q-methodology should be considered a productive means of
analyzing and eliciting stakeholder perceptions to assist policy makers and natural
resource managers in reframing intractable issues. The case study of the future
management of Capitol Lake in Olympia, Washington highlights a regional issue that has
over twelve years of controversy in which the management alternatives have polarized
stakeholder groups and regulators on the different management alternatives. The results
of this study provide information to policy makers and natural resource managers about
the current context of the issue as viewed through stakeholder perspectives. This
information can be used to reframe the issue and give facilitators a means to move the
discussion forward to create an acceptable management plan.
2
2. Q-methodology and Discursive Democracy
Natural resource management and environmental policy making decisions are
often complex and decisions involve a multitude of factors that often are at odds with one
another. The theoretical framework of discursive democracy is the idea that
communication between stakeholder groups focused on mutual understanding is the best
way to build democratic solutions to complex problems (Dryzek, 1990). Q-methodology,
when applied to the theoretical framework of discursive democracy, provides the
foundation for stakeholder groups and natural resource managers to begin the decisionmaking process on a contested issue.
2.1.
Discursive Democracy in Natural Resource Management
Highly contested natural resource management issues are interdisciplinary by
nature and are often simultaneously debated on scientific, political, economic, and social
levels. As the social discourse over the management issue becomes more polarized and
contested in the community, policy makers and natural resource managers need to
effectively understand the attitudes of groups involved in the issue. Discursive democracy
brings stakeholder groups together and helps natural resource managers find a
management solution.
The initial step in the application of discursive democracy is to identify the
discourse surrounding an issue. Dryzek defines discourse as “…a shared means of
making sense of the world embedded in language. Any discourse will always be
grounded in assumptions, judgments, contentions, dispositions, and capabilities”
(Dryzek, 1990, p. 18). Discourses are seen as intertwined with the social practices in
3
which they are created and evolve over time (Mendonca, 2008). When facts and values
are viewed as inseparable as they are in discursive democracy, this illustrates the
normative perspective through which people view their reality and thus shape their
decisions. It is this dynamic of stakeholder perspectives that plays an especially strong
role in shaping natural resource management plans.
The careful examination of the spectrum of stakeholder perspectives has the
potential to provide a platform for meaningful discussion between different stakeholder
groups over a regional resource management issue. “A stakeholder perspective is the
cognitive representation that a stakeholder makes of the external reality and his or her
position in this reality” (Raadgever, Mostert, & van de Giesen, 2008, p. 1097). The
examination of perspectives provides natural resource managers and other stakeholders
with the launching point to work towards a democratic solution to a natural resource
management plan.
Discursive democracy views the process of deliberation in the public sphere as an
extended and feasible process in order to reach mutual understanding on natural resource
management plans. The focus on bringing to light the variety of positions of stakeholder
groups can lead to more complex and acceptable solutions. It is the communication
between stakeholder groups that directs citizens to seek mutually acceptable ways to
solve disagreements. Additionally, discursive democracy applications provide a means of
educating stakeholders on the viewpoints of others in the interest of moving the
democratic process forward.
4
2.2.
Use of Q-methodology in Discursive Democracy
Q-methodology has been used as an effective tool to advance the use of discursive
democracy in the decision making process because it is a systematic means to analyze
stakeholder perspectives (Dryzek, 1993). The Q-methodology study selects participants
from different stakeholder groups to rank-order statements about the topic under
investigation. These statements are ranked according to their preference (ie: most agree to
least agree). This process shows the participants’ subjective meaning to the statements.
Participants’ sorts are then factor analyzed to show clusters of subjectivity. This process
reveals groups of stakeholder perspectives and the similarities and differences in
viewpoint over the issue. These perspectives help to create a platform for meaningful
discussion between different stakeholder groups in the discursive democracy process.
Q-methodology research also avoids many of the problems of traditional survey
research. This is done by offering a means for the subject to choose how they interpret
categories instead of being subject to parameters specified by the researcher as it is in
traditional surveys. Sullivan et. al describes a drawbacks of traditional surveys:
The problem lies in investigating the concepts in a particular way, by
operationalizing them in an a priori manner that can severely and
arbitrarily restrict the domain within which people can respond. Given this
modus operandi, investigators are not likely to learn much from the
subjects of their inquiry, other than whether people generally respond as
predicted by researchers’ hunches or theories. A richer process of learning
and discovery by truly listening to respondents’ views is precluded (1990,
p. 3).
To contrast, in Q-methodology studies, the perspectives of the individuals can be
extracted with minimal interference from the researcher because the participant responds
to each statement in the set and ranks the statements in context with their reactions to the
other statements. The ranking of each statement is in accordance with the facts and values
5
that form their unique perspective. The data analysis of the Q-sorts provides insights into
stakeholder perspectives that would not be available through traditional social science
methodologies.
Q-methodology has been used to evaluate stakeholder perspectives on
controversial natural resource management issues. These studies have ranged from timber
industry management (Swedeen, 2006), global climate change (Addams & Propps, 2000),
siting of nuclear locations (Venables, Pidgeon, Simmons, Henwood, & Parkhill, 2009), to
river management (Raadgever et al., 2008). Although these studies do not directly
connect Q-methodology with applying discursive democracy techniques, all studies were
conducted to understand the normative views of stakeholders in efforts to bridge
polarized issues in order to come to a resource management plan.
2.3.
Research Objectives
The goal of this thesis research is to analyze stakeholder perspectives of a local
controversial issue and provide further analysis of Q-methodology as an effective use of
stakeholder voices in natural resource management decision-making. The research
hypothesis is that Q-methodology is an effective tool for natural resource management
and environmental policy making in highly contested resource management issues.
In order to test Q-methodology as a useful tool in natural resource management
and environmental policymaking, I used the case study of the future management of
Capitol Lake in Olympia, Washington. The issue has divergent views of how to manage
the north, middle, and southern basin of the Deschutes River. Chapter three describes the
issue of the future management of Capitol Lake in a historical, cultural, economic,
environmental, and technical framework. Chapter four discusses the application of Q-
6
methodology, and chapter five discusses the effectiveness of Q-methodology used in the
natural resource management decision-making process.
Q-methodology will be used as a tool to examine the broad range of perspectives
between stakeholder groups on the future management of Capitol Lake. This information
can be used to gain a better mutual understanding and consensus between stakeholders.
The information can also help decision makers move forward on plans for the future
management of Capitol Lake. The study has the potential to facilitate discussion and
support critical reflection on the perceptions of stakeholders.
7
3.
Case Study Background
The controversial issue of the future management of Capitol Lake in Olympia,
Washington was chosen for this research study. Capitol Lake is a 260-acre impounded
lake that serves as a reflecting pool for the state capitol building of Washington. In the
2010 Census, the City of Olympia has a population over 46,000 people with a population
density of 2,544.4 people per square mile. To the north of Capitol Lake, most of lower
downtown Olympia was built on fill material. The downtown is a moderately developed
city including shops, restaurants, and places of business. The Capitol Lake area today
provides a focal point for Olympia residents as a place for recreation and community
events.
Figure 1 (left): Map of Capitol Lake, Olympia,
Washington
(The Seattle Times, 2009).
Figure 2 (top): Aerial view of the upper, middle
and lower basin of Capitol Lake (General
Administration, 2011).
8
To understand the full discourse on the future management of Capitol Lake, I
conducted a literature review of related documents. The bulk of the information was
drawn from studies commissioned between 1996 and 2009 for the Capitol Lake Adaptive
Management Plan (CLAMP). Through these documents, I gathered historical, social,
political, environmental, and technical information related to the issue. Additional
information was collected from the Olympia Historical Society, Department of Ecology,
Fish and Wildlife, advocacy groups, newspaper articles, proposed legislature, and letters
to the General Administration. This information enabled me to discern the full spectrum
of the issue. To understand the contemporary debate, a brief historical summary is
provided in the following sections.
3.1.
Historical Framing
Prior to the 1854 Treaty of Medicine Creek, the Steh-Chass people are thought to
have lived in the Budd Inlet area for hundreds of years. The Steh-Chass people
established a permanent village near the falls of the Deschutes River because it was
important shellfish gathering site (Stevenson, 1996). The descendants of these people are
known today as the Squaxin Island Tribe. Additional tribes utilized the Deschutes River,
Budd Inlet, and South Puget Sound as a transportation route for trade.
In 1845, European settlement began in the Tumwater Falls region. Development
grew quickly in the Olympia area because it was the northern most terminus of the
Oregon Trail which brought settlers to the area (Stevenson, 1996). Thurston County was
established in 1852, and Olympia was named the county seat. Shortly after, in 1855,
Olympia was named the Washington Territory Capitol. Overcoming several attempts to
9
move the capitol to other locations, Olympia became the state capitol in 1889. At this
time, the General Administration and the State Capitol Committee were designated with
primary oversight for the design and maintenance of the capitol grounds.
To move forward on the design of the capitol grounds, a design competition was
held in 1911. The plan by Walter R. Wilder and Harry K. White won the competition
(Nicandri & Valley, 1980). The Wilder and White plan represented the City Beautiful
movement that focused on using beautification and monumental grandeur in cities. What
resulted was the design for the current neo-classical buildings seen on the bluff
overlooking the City of Olympia. A master landscape plan was also created. AHBL
(2009) conducted a study of the cultural and spiritual values of Capitol Lake, reported the
following statement:
Both plans envisioned a visual connection from the Campus to Puget Sound, and
both envisioned that part of the Deschutes estuary would be turned into a
reflecting pool, enhancing the visual impact of the Capitol as viewed from the
City (AHBL, Inc., 2009).
During the Depression of the 1930’s, a shantytown developed on the eastern shore
of the tidal-basin. Homes floated near the shoreline and were built from planks and
crates. Residents were allowed to live rent free throughout the Depression years
(Lockman, 2000). The town was coined “Little Hollywood” and continued until the
1940’s when the State Capitol Committee began making plans to create Capitol Lake.
The movement towards creating a lake was used as an urban renewal project. Some
segments of the community viewed Little Hollywood as an eyesore, and the
environmental degradation of the tidal basin was also strongly evident. The area had no
wastewater treatment system at the time and untreated human waste was dumped into the
10
Deschutes estuary from city dwellers. Figure 3 depicts the appearance of Little
Hollywood during this period.
Figure 3: A 1930’s picture of ‘Little Hollywood’ in Olympia, Washington (Thurston
County, 2011). Photo from the Susan Parish Collection.
Dredging of Olympia’s harbor occurred between 1866 to 1911 in order to allow
ship passage during low-tide. As a result, Olympia’s downtown region was expanded
using the dredge materials as fill, which also allowed for use of Percival Dock without
the need of a long wharf. Dredging materials created most of north downtown Olympia in
which it “…added twenty-nine blocks of land in an effort which removed two million
cubic yards of mud” (Stevenson, 1996, p. 118).
11
Today, most Olympians do not remember a time before there was a lake. In 1951,
the 5th Avenue Bridge Dam was constructed and created the 260-acre artificial Capitol
Lake. The mudflats were submerged as well as many artifacts and cultural sites of Native
Americans. Early in the creation of Capitol Lake, the lake was used for water-recreation.
A public beach was created in which swimming and boating were popular past-times of
local residents.
Native Americans continued to have a presence in the area after the dam was
built, increasingly since the Boldt Decision of 1974. The Boldt Decision ensured that
Native Americans have access to their usual and accustomed hunting and gathering
places dictated by the Treaty of Medicine Creek in 1854 (United States v. Washington,
1974). Specifically to this region, Native Americans have exercised their right to fish for
salmon at the 5th Avenue dam and harvest shellfish. However, many of these practices
were modified due to the environmental transformation of the landscape.
The lake’s creation resulted in a change of the habitat for the area. Populations of
freshwater-dependent species increased and new species appeared, such as trout and bass.
While some species declined, other species thrived in the lake environment including
some migratory birds and a local bat colony.
Environmental problems with Capitol Lake became apparent due to siltation and
lack of water circulation in the late 1970’s. These factors contributed to the growth of
algae and noxious weeds resulting in increased turbidity and fecal coliform concentration
(AHBL, Inc., 2009). The swimming area was closed in 1985 due to health reasons. To
mitigate environmental problems, the lake was dredged in 1979 and 1986. Studies began
12
in the mid 1970’s to investigate sediment removal, water quality, and maintenance
protocols to preserve Capitol Lake.
3.2.
Capitol Lake Adaptive Management Plan (CLAMP)
In 1996, the General Administration created the CLAMP steering committee
whose purpose was to address the issue of the long-term planning and management of
Capitol Lake. Representatives from nine stakeholder groups were placed on the steering
committee to include the City of Olympia, City of Tumwater, Department of Ecology,
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of General Administration, Department of
Natural Resources, Squaxin Island Tribe, Port of Olympia, and Thurston County. The
formation of CLAMP was necessary to address long-term planning issues of water
quality, tribal rights, maintenance costs, invasive species, and endangered species habitat.
Between 1996 and 2009, the CLAMP committee reviewed four alternatives for
the future management of Capitol Lake. These included the status quo lake, managed
lake, estuary, and the dual basin estuary. The status quo lake option keeps the lake in its
current state by retaining the dam and not dredging the lake. Implementation of the status
quo option would ultimately lead to the lake being filled in from sedimentation. The
managed lake alternative would implement a dredging schedule to remove sediment.
Conversely, the estuary alternative would entail removing the 5th Avenue Bridge Dam,
dredging the estuary canal initially, and restoring the area to an estuary. The dual basin
estuary alternative would allow for both an estuary and a lake. The 5th Avenue Bridge
Damwould also be removed under the dual basin alternative and an artificial lake would
be created at the South end of the Deschutes River.
13
Most of the research efforts were spent evaluating the management alternatives to
maintain Capitol Lake or restore the Deschutes Estuary. The management alternatives of
the status quo and the dual basin were not explored in-depth. Cost factors of
implementation excluded the dual basin estuary alternative from consideration. The
status quo lake was socially undesirable in which participants perceived that downtown
business would decrease, cultural and spiritual values would be diminished, and
environmental benefits would be reduced (ABHL, 2009).
The Deschutes Estuary Feasibility Study was commissioned with funds from the
State of Washington to explore the estuary option. This study consisted of numerous
smaller studies that focused on the areas of impacts of the estuary was restored to include
the biology of the area (Tanner, Gelfenbaum, George, Garono, & Tonkin, n.d.),
engineering of infrastructure (Philip Williams & Associates, Ltd., 2008), economic
effects (Cascade Economics LLC, Northern Economics, Inc., & Spatial Informatics
Group LLC, 2007), and community values (AHBL, Inc., 2009). Community forums were
held throughout the deliberation period to gain stakeholders input (Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2006). The debate became very controversial and two
dominant management perspectives emerged: those in favor of maintaining the lake and
those in favor of returning the lake to an estuary.
In July 2009, the CLAMP Committee issued their recommendation. The
committee voted to restore the Deschutes Estuary with six members in favor, two
members opposed, and one member did not take a position. The majority who voted in
favor of estuary restoration included the Department of Natural Resources, Department of
Fish and Wildlife, Olympia City Council, Squaxin Island Tribe, Thurston County, and the
14
Department of Ecology. CLAMP Committee members opposed to restoration efforts
included the Port of Olympia and Tumwater City Council. The Department of General
Administration (GA) did not take a position.
The Director of the GA was expected to make a recommendation after reviewing
the CLAMP committee’s management recommendation. To date, there has been no
action on this issue from the GA’s office. To complete the decision-making process of
the future management of Capitol Lake, recommendations are needed from the GA and
Capitol Campus Committee (the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, and
Commissioner of Public Lands). The final decision will rest with the Washington State
Legislature.
3.3.
Post CLAMP Committee
In 2010, the State Legislature disbanded the CLAMP Committee. The CLAMP
Committee had operated for thirteen years and commissioned $1.7 million dollars for
studies related to the future management of Capitol Lake (Dodge, 2009 July 9). A formal
recommendation has never been delivered from the GA’s office; however, legislation was
brought up in the House of Representatives in the 2011 Legislative Session.
Representative Chris Reykdal introduced House Bill 1938 to place Capitol Lake under
historical preservation status and implement a maintenance schedule. The legislation
passed out of House Committee on State Government and Tribal Affairs but did not reach
the House floor for a vote.
Division between the two sides of the debate have been widening since the
CLAMP Committee recommendation. Non-profit organizations and associations have
been created to advocate for restoring the estuary, maintaining Capitol Lake, or
15
maintaining the economic viability of the waterfront through continuation of Capitol
Lake. Those in favor of the estuary rely on the technical data presented in the CLAMP
study. Those in favor of maintaining the lake point out flaws in the CLAMP study and
have developed modified technical and financial projections.
The history of the future management of Capitol Lake helps to understand the
context of the issue. There are different perspectives surrounding this issue and each
perspective has been formed through a historical context. Q-methodology is applied to
this case study to draw out these perspectives and also be used as a tool to set the
foundation for future conversations between stakeholder groups.
16
4. Q-Methodology Applications
Q-methodology is a quantitative means to assist in the orderly examination of
human subjectivity. To briefly describe the Q-Method process, the researcher begins by
conducting an extensive literature review on the topic being studied. A collection of
statements, called the concourse, is gathered that represent the entire spectrum of the
public discourse. From the concourse, a Q-set is selected that still represents the spectrum
of public discourse but is a manageable set of statements for a participant to sort. The Qset is then administered to participants, the P-set, who rank-orders the statements in a
forced quasi-normal distribution in order of least agree to most agree. The process of
rank-ordering the statements is called the Q-sort. The data collected from the Q-sort is
then analyzed using a statistical analysis program. The application of Q-methodology for
this thesis is described in detail in the following sections.
4.1.
Concourse Development
Concourse development consisted of two stages for this case study. The first stage
required a review of all documents relating to the Capitol Lake Adaptive Management
Plan (CLAMP). Town hall meetings, focus groups, qualitative studies, and technical
reports were conducted, recorded, and created through the CLAMP studies. The notes
and reports from these studies were utilized to develop the concourse. Additional aspects
of the literature review included statements gathered from newspaper articles, position
papers, and websites.
The second stage of the concourse development was the in-person interviews.
Four individuals with in-depth or personal experience of this issue were recruited to
17
participate in a semi-structured interview. The interviews ensure that the full spectrum of
perceptions on the discourse were identified. Individuals interviewed represented
stakeholder groups from the Squaxin Island Tribe, Deschutes Estuary Restoration Team,
Capitol Lake Improvement Protection Association, and the economic perspective of a
local economics professor.
The two stages of the concourse development elicited 210 statements, Appendix
A, to represent the discourse on the future management of Capitol Lake. These
statements were taken directly from interviews, written correspondence, articles, and
reports. The statements were not edited beyond occasionally supplying the noun for
pronouns in the statement, correcting misspellings, and inserting punctuation.
4.2.
Sampling a Concourse
The next step in conducting a Q-methodology study is to take a sampling of the
concourse in order to reduce the number of statements down to a manageable set of
statements for the participants to sort. A matrix procedure was utilized to select the Q-set
from the concourse in a systematic fashion, which was initially developed by Dryzek and
Berejikian (1993) and then further modified by Paula Swedeen (2006). A 12-cell matrix
was used to select 48 statements from the concourse. Statements, which are a part of the
discourse element, were sorted into type of claim categories. The first aspect of the sort
identified statements into content areas to include:
•
State of the ecosystem (SE) describes the state at which the ecosystem is
recognized as existing;
•
Management of ecosystem (ME) addresses options available for management of
the ecosystem;
18
•
Economic (EC) describes the economic relationships that surround the discourse
of the future management of Capitol Lake; and
•
Motivation (MO) describes the different cultural, spiritual, and aesthetic values
held throughout the community.
The statements were further sorted by the type of judgment they represented. I adapted
the sampling matrix from Dryzek and Berejikian’s 1993 study, “Reconstructive
Democratic Theory”, and is described in their research as:
•
•
•
Designative (D), concerning questions of fact;
Evaluative (E), concerning the worth of something that does or could exist; and
Advocative (A), concerning something that should or should not exist (p. 52).
The matrix is a tool that the researcher can use to identify different aspects of the
discourse and ensure that each aspect is included in the selection of the Q-set. Table 1
describes the sampling matrix that was utilized for this study.
DISCOURSE ELEMENT
TYPE OF
State of
Management Economic
Motivation
CLAIM
Ecosystem
of ecosystem
(SE)
(ME)
(EC)
(MO)
Designative (D)
SE-D
ME-D
EC-D
MO-D
Evaluative (E)
SE-E
ME-E
EC-E
MO-E
Advocative (A)
SE-A
ME-A
EC-A
MO-A
Note: The letters are the codes that identify the cells used in this study
Table 1: Sampling matrix for selecting statements from the concourse
After the statements were designated a matrix code then four statements were
randomly selected from each cell. The final statements were numbered randomly from 1
to 48 and placed on index cards. Of the 48 statements selected, two came from newspaper
articles, 29 from community forums recorded through the CLAMP public involvement
19
study, 11 from unstructured interviews held in 2011, 9 from CLAMP reports, and 2 from
political position papers.
4.3.
Selection of the P-set
The P-set represents the people selected to participate in the Q-sort. These
participants are not a random sample and instead are a selected group of people that
represent a wide and possibly complete range of stakeholders on the topic. Small sample
size is not an issue because the aim of Q-methodology studies is to indentify the
discourse patterns within the issue being investigated. Typical Q-methodology studies
range from 20 to 45 respondents (McKeown & Thomas, 1988). The P-set in this study
consisted of 22 people. Participants were selected from key stakeholder groups. They
included representatives from the Squaxin Island Tribe, Capitol Lake Improvement and
Protection Association (CLIPA), Deschutes Estuary Restoration Team (DERT), faculty at
The Evergreen State College Environmental Studies Program, People for Puget Sound,
the Olympia Downtown Association, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia City
Council, Washington State Legislature, Department of Health and Human Services,
International Longshoreman’s Association, Olympia Yacht Club, and the Olympia
community. These stakeholder groups were identified through the literature review
process.
4.4.
Q-sort
After the P-set participants were identified and they agreed to take part in the
study, an interview was scheduled to perform the Q-sort. During the interview,
participants first were given an informational page and a consent form approved through
The Evergreen State College Human Subject Review Board. After the consent form was
20
completed, each participant received a stack of statements numbered 1 through 48. An
instruction sheet detailing the Q-sort was provided to each participant. All participants
were asked to read through the cards to help understand the spectrum of statements. In
addition to the instruction sheet, instructions were also given verbally to twenty of the
twenty-two participants. Four of the twenty-two participants were given the option to
perform the sort on their own time.
The participants then sorted the statement cards into three piles to indicate
statements with which they agreed, disagreed, or were unsure about. Within the general
groups, participants then rank ordered the statements according to the extent they agreed
or disagreed with the statements. The ranking process allows the participants to model
their point of view without having a specific problem definition forced upon them.
Participants were asked to place the statements in a forced quasi-normal distribution,
which aids the participants in thinking about the relationship between statements. Table 2
portrays the number of cards to rank in each level of the distribution. Figure 4 illustrates a
participant in the process of rank sorting the statements.
Least
agree
-3
(3)
Neutral
-2
(6)
-1
(9)
0
(12)
1
(9)
2
(6)
Most
Agree
3
(3)
Table 2: The structural design of the quasi-normal Q-sort. The numbers in
parenthesis indicate the number of cards within each ranking.
21
Figure 4: Participant conducting a Q-sort (Wikimedia, 2011).
After the participants completed the Q-sort they filled out demographic information and
underwent a semi-structured interview to ensure accuracy and understanding of their
participation. Information gained from the interviews was noted in the results section of
this thesis paper. Two participants were unavailable to participate in the follow-up
interviews.
4.5.
Data analysis
The PQ-Method 2.11 software (Schmolck & Atkinson, 2002) was utilized to
analyze the twenty-two Q-sorts and identify patterns and commonalities between
participants. This software uses factor analysis to explain as much of the variance among
the individual Q-sorts as possible. Data analyzed with the PQ-Method 2.11 software
reveals scoring patterns called factors. A factor can be described as a shared perspective.
Q-methodology inverts factor analysis by grouping participants’ Q-sorts, thereby
indicating underlying shared perspectives (Venables et al., 2009).
22
4.6.
Results
In order to analyze the data, the first step was to determine the number of
significant factors. The analysis was done by factor-analyzing the data collected from the
Q-sorts through the PQ-Method 2.11 software. Eigenvalues, as seen in Table 3, were
used to determine which factors were statistically significant. Eigenvalues are calculated
using centroid factor analysis and rotated according to the varimax principle. Factors that
had eigenvalues greater or equal to one were selected as significant (McKeown &
Thomas, 1988). Factor 4, as shown in Table 3, was included in the study because its
eigenvalue was within .01 of 1.
Eigenvalues
% Explained
Variance
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor 3
Factor 4
Factor 5
Factor 6
Factor 7
2.13
10.32
0.55
0.99
0.094
0.79
0.46
10
47
3
4
0
4
2
Table 3: Unrotated Factor Matrix
*Underlined eigenvalues were the values deemed significant for this study.
The assessment of eigenvalues revealed three statistically significant factors,
which identify patterns and commonalities between participants. The extraction of the
three factors, showed six people loading purely and statistically (p<.01) on Factor A, ten
people loading on Factor B, and four people loading on Factor C. Two people did not
load significantly on any factor. Table 4 shows the defining sorts amongst participants.
23
Participant
Number
1
Description
Olympia Downtown Association
2
3
4
5
Economics Professor
Longshoreman
Environ. Engineer/Marina Owner
Concerned Citizen
6
7
8
9
Factor A
0.409
Factor B
-0.4561
Factor C
0.4194
0.341
0.6598X
0.6884X
-0.3337
-0.0668
-0.0712
-0.4678
0.7596X
0.6882X
0.3226
0.0814
0.1671
City Council Member
Marine Biologist
Fish Habitat Biologist
Water Resources
0.1861
0.0123
-0.2129
-0.1315
-0.1561
0.7894X
0.8673X
0.7240X
0.5568X
-0.3298
-0.0388
-0.2782
10
11
12
13
Retail Management
Biological Field Technician
Biologist
Biologist/Squaxin Tribe
-0.1451
-0.146
-0.1815
-0.1681
0.8291X
0.7553X
0.8598X
0.7423X
-0.2525
-0.196
-0.0284
-0.35
14
15
16
17
Consultant
Graduate Student
Public Health
Concerned Citizen/CLIPA
-0.3168
-0.3149
0.1958
0.5774X
0.7698X
0.5733X
-0.1653
-0.4385
-0.3334
-0.0051
0.6028X
0.2586
18
19
20
21
State Representative
Concerned Citizen/CLIPA
Legislative Assistant
State Representative
0.6945X
0.6507X
0.6178
0.3919
-0.0985
-0.3653
-0.4655
-0.1163
0.2394
0.2364
0.4354
0.4800X
22
Concerned Citizen/CLIPA
0.7391X
-0.1307
0.2947
Table 4: Factor Matrix with an X Indicating a Defining Sort
The data analysis has simply revealed the natural differences among the participants’
perspectives and has shown how those perspectives are grouped.
After the three factors were extracted, the data analysis using the PQ-Method 2.11
software generated an idealized Q-sort score for each perspective which “…represents
how a hypothetical individual loading 100% on a factor would order the statements”
(Dryzek & Berejikian, 1993, p. 52). The idealized Q-sort for each discourse is reported in
Appendix B. To determine the character of each factor, the defining statements were
analyzed for each factor based on the normalized factor scores.
24
Based on the characteristics found in each factor they were termed business focus,
natural systems focus, and location of restoration focus. These labels cannot represent all
aspects of their categories but are simply used for identification purposes. Table 5 gives a
brief description of each of the subgroups.
Factor Subgroup
Factor A: Business Focus
Description
Categorized by the business and aesthetic value
that Capitol Lake holds for this subgroup.
People sorting on this factor related the
aesthetics of the Lake as an important
component of the health of the downtown
business economy and community recreation.
Factor B: Natural Systems Focus
Categorized by a strong concern for the
environment of the Puget Sound region as a
whole. People sorting on this factor had strong
agreement that entire ecosystem needs to be
protected and restored, regardless of the
location.
Factor C: Location of Restoration
Focus
Categorized by advocating for location specific
restoration projects that do not impede on the
current urban landscape. People sorting on this
factor strongly agree with the social and
community components that Capitol Lake
provides to community members.
Table 5: Description of significant factor groups
The following sections indicate the significant statements at p<.01 and provides
an interpretation of the overall characteristics found in each factor. The numbers in
parentheses indicate the corresponding statement number to the description listed in
Appendix B.
4.6.1 Factor A: Business Focus
Factor A is categorized by the business and aesthetic value of Capitol Lake.
People sorting on this factor connected the aesthetics of the lake to the health of the
25
downtown business economy. It is distinguished from the other two factors by its strong
agreement that if the estuary was restored there would be vulnerability of the port both
functionally and economically (8, 14); a decrease in aesthetics to the area in which the
Wilder and White Plan would be ruined (34); and flood risks to the downtown area (5).
Participants who loaded on Factor A ranked the following statements as indifferent or
neutral in which they had an idealized score of zero. The neutral statements placed little
importance on the location to implement restoration (4); that the current use of the lake is
important to prevent pollution to the sound (20); and the benefits of creating an estuary
(3). This is significant because the other two factors had strong agreement or
disagreement with these statements.
People sorting on Factor A strongly disagree that the dual basin alternative would
be ecologically and economically productive (47); that the marina and the Port of
Olympia can remain viable with estuary restoration (14); and that the estuary will bring
cost savings (10). They had distinguishing statements that ranked statements negatively
while Factors B and C ranked them positively. These included disagreement with the
functionality of the dual basin estuary (46, 17); and the Deschutes Estuary being able to
improve the ecology of the area (29).
4.6.2 Factor B: Natural Systems Focus
Factor B can be categorized by a strong concern for the regionally interconnected
nature of Puget Sound, its estuaries, and the regional watershed. People sorting on this
factor had strong agreement that the community and government need to make decisions
that aid in restoration of the entire Puget Sound (37, 13); Capitol Lake is an unhealthy
system (42, 2); and that estuaries are needed to maintain health and restore habitat (27,
26
33). Participants sorting on this factor also had mild agreement that maintaining a
unnatural construct is a good management plan (43, 11); the Port of Olympia and the
marinas will remain viable with estuary restoration (7); the Deschutes Estuary restoration
would bring cost savings (10); and the restoration of the natural processes of the estuary
would be educational and inspire deeper connection with community members and the
environment (35, 31).
People sorting on this factor strongly disagree that restoration efforts should be
focused on other areas (6, 4, 45); and that the smell and aesthetics of the estuary will be
offensive (41, 25). People had a mild disagreement that the lake is needed as a
community resource (12, 44, 18, 26); dredging would be needed if the estuary was
restored (39); and that the cost to restore the estuary would be prohibitive (19).
People sorting on Factor B typically showed a polarized perspective from Factors
A and C throughout the results. However, the severity of polarization differs between
factors and opens the potential of deeper conversation between stakeholder groups.
4.6.3 Factor C: Location of Restoration Focus
Factor C can be categorized by advocating for location specific restoration
projects that do not impede on the urban landscape and its recreational uses to the
community. People sorting on this factor strongly agree that there are better locations to
implement restoration projects (4); and Capitol Lake provides social and community
values (44). There is mild agreement that the dual-basin plan provides a good alternative
that integrates both environmental and social-economic considerations (46, 47, 17).
People sorting on this factor strongly disagree that artificial construction cannot
be maintained in a natural environment (11); and that there should not be a “do what ever
27
it takes” mentality when choosing restoration projects (21). People had mild
disagreement that the estuary option will reduce mosquito problems (15). Factor C had
the least distinguishing statements as compared to Factor A and B. However, the focus on
the ideal location for restoration projects was the overall distinguishing perception
between Factor C and the other factor groups.
4.6.4 Consensus and Contention
Identifying the consensus and the contention items is important to help facilitate
stakeholder groups to reach an agreement on the goals needed for management. Results
from this study clarified that there is deep polarization between the two major
management options of maintaining Capitol Lake or restoring the Deschutes Estuary.
While there were a multitude of contention items, the study reported only one consensus
item that was scored outside of the neutral ranking. The primary consensus statement that
emerged is statement 37:
A
+1
B
+3
C
+1
(37) It is our task to ensure that the Puget Sound forever will be a
thriving natural system, with clean marine and freshwaters, healthy
and abundant native species, natural shorelines and places for
public enjoyment, and a vibrant economy that prospers in
productive harmony with a healthy Sound.
Statement 37 summarizes the many dynamics that are involved with the Capitol
Lake management issue in terms of the social, environmental, and economic
considerations. All stakeholders want the best option for their community but they have
not decided upon a consensual means to achieve these goals. Consensus items can be
used in discursive democracy settings to facilitate group discussion in a positive manner
by focusing on common perspectives.
28
Consensus items between Factor B and C provide further insight on aspects that
facilitators could use to explore in further discussion. This is important to consider
because of the positive correlation, as seen in Table 6, between Factors A and C show
Factor
A
Factor A: Business Focus
1
Factor B: Natural Systems Focus
-0.5315
Factor C: Location of Restoration Focus
0.5811
Table 6: Correlation Between Factor Scores
B
-0.5315
1
-0.3666
C
0.5811
-0.3666
1
very similar consensus on items. The following statements may be effective to further the
discussion on management options because Factors B and C are negatively correlated but
show some consensus items. The statements below list the consensus items with their
normalized score for each factor.
A
-1
B
+1
C
+1
0
-2
-2
(20) The lake gives you a place to capture all the pollutants and
then scoop them away before they enter the Puget Sound.
0
-3
-2
(3) There is no real benefit to creating a tide flat.
+2
-1
-1
(8) One good winter rainstorm could fill in the Yacht Club and
Percival Landing to the point that they are not useable if the
estuary were to be restored.
(29) The estuary might be an important step in improving the
health of Puget Sound.
These areas of consensus bring additional avenues of facilitating group discussion
of the future management of Capitol Lake. Stakeholders in Factors B and C recognize the
importance of an estuary environment but also recognize that there are potential
unintended risks that may result if implemented. There is also recognition of uncertainty
29
regarding the sediment transfer to the marinas and the Port of Olympia, however, both
Factor B and C have mild disagreement to perceived impact.
Facilitators should also recognize the strong correlation between Factors A and C.
These two factors both showed strong agreement that Capitol Lake holds strong aesthetic
value for the community (18, 26); and that the State has defaulted on their responsibility
to keep maintain the lake (24). Factors A and C also showed strong disagreement that the
restoration of the estuary would improve the health of the Puget Sound (27); artificial
constructions cannot be maintained in a natural environment (11); and that the aesthetic
value to walkers and birders would be increased with estuary restoration (31).
Overall, Factors A and C held polar opposite perceptions on the future
management of Capitol Lake than Factor B. The general topic areas in contention
included ideal location of restoration projects, costs involved with implementing
management alternatives, the viability of sustaining economic and social endeavors under
the estuary restoration option, and the aesthetic value of management decisions. A
graphical representation of the consensus and contention items between factor groups is
presented in Figure 5.
4.6.5 Interviews
Interviews are used in Q-methodology studies to give the researcher feedback
about the understanding of the statements presented, to identify any aspects missing in
the Q-sort, and to enable the researcher to further interpret the findings in the data
analysis. Overall participants reported ease of understanding with the Q-sort procedure.
The first ten participants did not report any missing topic areas and the Q-sort remained
30
Figure 5: Graphical representation of the distinguishing contention statements
between the three factors.
31
unchanged throughout the study. However, a few participants did identify some missing
areas late in the study. This included concerns about the infrastructure costs reported in
the CLAMP studies, the effects of dredging on the health of the estuary, and the concept
that management should instead be focused on controlling non-point pollution (pollution
in which you cannot identify the source).
The strength of conducting interviews following the Q-sort is that the participant
can reflect on the statements they just encountered and expand on their perceptions. This
information can be used in group facilitation as subject matter that needs to be defined
and explained. Interviews can also generate new areas that need to be explored in terms
of policy making or through additional research. The remaining information of this
section highlights the information gained from the interviews.
Some participants loading on Factor A further explained their concern with
estuary restoration if the Port of Olympia and the marina were to remain viable. This
perspective focused on the environmental outcomes of dredging if the estuary was
restored. Participants remarked about the need to dredge the Port and marinas when the
area was impacted with too much sediment. Further explanation showed concern that
dredging would eliminate any environmental merit of the restoration project.
Consequently, some Factor A participants believe the financial burden would be
excessive for the little perceived benefit that came from the restoration.
Some participants loading on Factor B expressed their confidence in scientific
studies conducted during for CLAMP. Numerous participants expressed that estuary
restoration is the best management option based on the science that is here today. A few
participants also expressed that the CLAMP studies reflect the possible range of
32
economic and technical values for the different management options and any call for
further studies is excessive and unnecessary.
Some participants loading on Factor C stressed the idea that estuary restoration
would not be effective because of the location of the water body to an urban center.
Because of the location, the non-point pollution will continue to degrade the area. Instead
the management issue should be how to control non-point pollution instead of the way
the Lake is managed. Participants sorting on Factor C also expanded upon the perspective
of location specific restoration projects. Some participants expressed that they wanted a
“win-win” for both increasing environmental benefits as well as maintaining a strong and
vibrant downtown. The idea of the dual basin alternative was raised in three of the four
participants sorting on Factor C as a management solution. These participants noted that
they believed the benefits to the environment as well as the downtown businesses and the
community for recreation would be supported through the dual basin alternative.
Interestingly, some participants loading on Factor A and C expressed their lack of
understanding on the functions of estuaries and the importance that estuaries have within
ecosystems. This study recommends that further education on these topics is needed if
stakeholder facilitation is held in the future. Some participants from all factor groups
expressed the need to develop cost sharing option between the State, local government,
and private users of the Port and the marinas. There is an understanding between all
stakeholder groups that this aspect would need to be determined if estuary restoration
would take place.
33
5. Discussion
As demonstrated through the case study presented in this research, Qmethodology studies are important to systematically identify and quantifiably weigh
stakeholder perspectives on a natural resource management issue. The identification of
the different perspectives provides an avenue for stakeholders to see how other
stakeholder groups view the issue. This information can then be used as a foundation to
open a dialog between stakeholder groups and natural resource managers to begin the
decision making process.
Facilitators can use the results from this Q-methodology study to bring
stakeholder groups together. Consensus items bring a common perspective to the group
and can be leveraged to begin discussion. The discussion then evolves to include the
areas of conflicting perspectives. The challenge for facilitators will be to expose these
contentious areas and have stakeholder groups participate in the application of discursive
democracy. This entails willingness on behalf of all stakeholder groups to be educated
about opposing viewpoints and to be open minded when weighing new information.
For the issue on the future management of Capitol Lake, this study is timely, as
meetings between the major advocacy organizations (CLIPA and DERT) are beginning
to be set-up through government agencies. At the conclusion of my data collection, I had
the opportunity to attend one of the first meetings that included both management
perspectives of Capitol Lake since the CLAMP Committee disbanded. The meeting, held
by the Department of Ecology, was a task force to look at the Total Daily Maximum
Load (TMDL) of the Capitol Lake area. TMDL is defined as the maximum amount of a
34
pollutant that can be received by a water body and still safely meet the water quality
standards (United States Code, 2007).
At the meeting described above, two organizations with differing management
perspectives of the future management Capitol Lake were able to present their positions
and findings. Meetings such as these are attempting to incorporate all aspects of the
issues and involve key stakeholders in the decision making process. The participatory
process in the decision making of natural resource management is at the core of
discursive democracy. Results from Q-methodology studies can be used to help facilitate
future meetings and set the foundation for further discussion between stakeholder groups.
It is here that facilitators hold meetings between stakeholder groups to work towards an
acceptable solution for all parties.
5.1.
Critique of Work
Based on the experience of implementing a Q-methodology study, a review of the
processes have revealed certain aspects that could have been structured differently to
make the results even more dynamic. This includes the selection of the Q-set and the Pset, as well as ranking categories for polarized issues. These aspects can be applied to
future Q-methodology studies to strengthen the structure.
For this case study, the Q-set was structured to minimize researcher bias. The 210
statements were coded to represent the spectrum of the discourse and then randomly
selected in each coding group. While random selection is valuable to an extent, a stronger
set of statements could have been derived if some deviation was utilized. A simple
solution would be to randomly select statements and then review the statements to ensure
that no perspective is missing. If a perspective is missing, the researcher then adds it to
35
the total number of statements.
Another modification to this study would be to expand the ranking categories to
include -4 and +4 ranking categories. Previous research focused on polarized issues,
utilized a tighter ranking system to best capture areas of consensus (Van Eeten, 2001).
However, the ranking system that was utilized within this study seemed to limit the
degree of strength each participant could place value on each statement. An alternative
way to modify the ranking categories could be to specify more statements ranked in the
extreme categories (ie: four statements in both the -3 and +3 ranking categories).
Selection of the P-set is another possible modification to this study. In the
literature review of Q-methodology studies, some researchers identified participants
based on the stakeholder groups identified in the concourse development (Sweeden,
2006). However, other researchers had implemented a more regimented selection of
participants in order to ensure the full spectrum of possible discourses is met (Brown,
1970). Through this research, it is recommended that future practitioners of Qmethodology use a more structured approach in selection of the P-set. The same caution,
as suggested in the Q-set, is extended for the researcher in order to review the list of
participants and add people if a stakeholder group is suspected of not being represented.
Q-methodology studies are set up and implemented to remove researcher bias,
however, the interpretation of the factor groups still lies heavily on the researcher. The
researcher bias during interpretation can be avoided by involving stakeholder groups in
the data analysis. This would take discursive democracy to the next level in which
participants are identifying the different perspectives of other stakeholder groups and
provide a starting point for further discussions. However, further research is needed to
36
test the applicability of stakeholder groups to analyze and interpret the data with minimal
guidance from the researcher.
Lastly, this study notes that in order to conduct a Q-methodology study, it takes a
significant amount of time to develop the concourse as well as administer the Q-sort
compared to survey studies. Typically, to administer a Q-sort, the researcher spends thirty
to forty-five minutes with the participant with an additional ten to twenty minutes for the
follow-up interview. However, a study by Van Tubergen and Olins (1979) indicated that
Q-methodology Q-sorts are just as effective when distributed by mail as they are through
in-person meetings. The limitation to mail distributed Q-sorts is that the researcher is
unable to conduct an in-person interview and explain the sorting process if the participant
is confused.
In summation, Q-methodology studies provide a wealth of information about
stakeholder perspectives, and natural resource managers can use this information to help
facilitate stakeholder meetings. Modifications as listed in this section, can help make
future studies stronger and also provide a means for more productive dialogue between
stakeholder groups. The option to distribute the Q-sorts by mail will reduce the time
intensive aspects of the methodology and thus making it feasible for natural resource
managers to conduct a Q-methodology study.
37
6. Conclusion
Q-methodology has yet to overcome the research paradigm of traditional survey
studies. However, every year, more studies are conducted using Q-methodology. The
information derived from these studies is finding more resonance when natural resource
managers are working to include public participation in the decision-making process.
This case study of the future management of Capitol Lake presents another opportunity to
advance Q-methodology as a useful tool in natural resource management and
environmental policy decision-making.
Q-methodology avoids many of the limitations of qualitative studies, such as the
conventional surveys, by providing a structure that minimizes researcher biased. Mainly,
this is apparent in implementation of the Q-sort where the participant chooses the
information that is important to then and ranks the cards accordingly to their held
perception. Additionally, Q-methodology is a means to gain insights of stakeholder
perspectives that would not be available through traditional social science methodologies.
The importance of this case study and other Q-methodology studies is that
through quantitative means, the areas of consensus and contention are identified between
stakeholder groups. The information obtained from Q-methodology studies can be
utilized to give context of the perceptions stakeholder groups hold and also identify
additional research areas. Ultimately, Q-methodology studies build the foundation to
facilitate stakeholder meetings. Facilitation efforts can progress, even in contested issues,
by recognizing and identifying areas of consensus and contention.
Although findings in this case study may seem obvious to the stakeholders who
38
are immersed in the issue, this information gives a clear picture of the overall discourse
and a clear framework of areas of concern and agreement. In order to move forward and
create a resource management plan that is feasible, all stakeholder groups must move
towards mutual understanding through the process of discursive democracy. Otherwise,
the management result that no stakeholder group desires, the status quo lake, will prevail
by default of taking no action. Therefore, the discourse must continue in order to meet the
needs of all stakeholder groups, and Q-methodology provides a launching point for this
discourse to occur.
39
7. Bibliography
Addams, H., & Propps, J. (2000). Social Discourse and Environmental Policy: An
Application of Q Methodology. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing
Limited.
AHBL, Inc. (2009). Study of Cultural & Spiritual Values Associated with Future
Alternatives for Capitol Lake Basin. Department of General Administration.
Retrieved from
http://www.ga.wa.gov/CapitolLake/documents/Cultural_Exec_Intro.pdf
Brown, S. (1970). On the use of variance designs in Q methodology. Psychological
Record, 20, 179-189.
Brown, S. (1972). The History and Principles of Q Methodology in Psychology and the
Social Sciences. Department of Political Science, Kent State University, Kent,
Ohio. Retrieved from http://facstaff.uww.edu/cottlec/QArchive/Bps.htm
Brown, S. (1980). Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in Political
Science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Cascade Economics LLC, Northern Economics, Inc., & Spatial Informatics Group LLC.
(2007). Deschutes Estuary Feasibility Study: Net Social and Economic Benefit
Analysis. Retrieved January 18, 2011, from
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:hDbjclR1B3QJ:www.ga.wa.gov/Ca
pitolLake/Reports/04DEFSNetSocialAndEconomicBenefitAnalysis(June2007).pdf+%22deschutes+est
uary+feasibility+study:+Net+social+and+economic+benefit+analysis%22&hl=en
40
&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgKg2TkoLBGogeeyKCmP9NyD9NHoRf9Ua2
oRxOfOCTcBmnYbAImBUTnruZ1gcUXDJwRODNHbav1xwVKwfYplwBpHs
maicU0MU0FRns4x030RkjNZU-Vd2NNElNGnNnCp7Juo3n&sig=AHIEtbQRn-sRNOjJdEjgNbz9vZZ2QmYmFQ&pli=1
Clark, T. (2002). The Policy Process: A Practical Guide for Natural Resource
Professionals. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Dodge, J. (1990, July 3). Tide Turns for Capitol Lake, estuary. The Olympian. Retrieved
August 1, 2011 from http://www.theolympian.com/2009/07/03/899802/tide-turnsfor-capitol-lake-estuary.html
Dryzek, J. (1990). Discursive democracy: Politics, policy, and political science. London:
Cambridge University Press.
Dryzek, J. S., & Berejikian, J. (1993). Reconstructive Democratic Theory. The American
Political Science Review, 87(1), 48-60.
Dryzek, J. (2001). Legitimacy and economy in deliberative democracy. Political Theory,
29(5), 651-669.
General Administration Washington State (2011). Retrieved May 17, 2011 from
http://olympiawa.gov/community/sustainability/extraordinary-olympia/capitollake.aspx
Lockman, H. (2000). Building a Capitol City: Olympia's Past Revealed Through its
Historic Architecture. Olympia, WA: Capital City Press.
McKeown, B. & Thomas, D. (1988). Q methodology (Quantitative Applications in the
Social Sciences series, Vol. 66). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Mendonca, R. (2008, February). Why discursive democracy? Research School of Social
41
Sciences, Australian National University.
Nicandri, D. & Valley, D. (1980). Olympia Wins: Washington's Capitol Controversies.
Olympia, WA: Washington Capitol Museum.
Philip Williams & Associates, Ltd. (2008, June 27). Deschutes Estuary Feasibility Study
Final Report. Retrieved from http://www.ga.wa.gov/capitollake/Reports/03DeschutesEstuaryFeasibilityStudyFinalReport(June20.pdf
Raadgever, G. T., Mostert, E., & van de Giesen, N. C. (2008). Identification of
stakeholder perspectives on future flood management in the Rhine basin using Q
methodology. Hydrology & Earth System Sciences, 12(4), 1097-1109.
Schmolck, P., & Atkinson, J. (2002). PQMethod (Version 2.11 for Windows). Retrieved
from http://www.lrz.de/~schmolck/qmethod/downpqx.htm
Stevenson, S. (1996). Olympia, Tumwater, and Lacey: a pictorial history. Virginia
Beach, VA: The Donning Company Publishers.
Sullivan, J., Fried, A., Theiss-Morse, E., & Dietz, M. (1990). "Mixing Methods: A Multistage Strategy for Studying Patriotism and Citizen Participation." University of
Minnesota. Typescript.
Swedeen, P. (2006). Post-normal science in practice: A Q study of the potential for
sustainable forestry in Washington State, USA. Ecological Economics, 57(2),
190-208.
Tanner, C., Gelfenbaum, G., George, D., Garono, R., & Tonkin, S. (n.d.). Deschutes
River Estuary Feasibility Study Part One: Physical and Biological Science
Studies. Retrieved January 18, 2011, from
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Vy-
42
Y63SNpdAJ:www.csc.noaa.gov/cz/CZ07_Proceedings/PDFs/Thursday_Abstracts
/3453.Tanner.pdf+future+management+of+deschutes+estuary&hl=en&gl=us&pi
d=bl&srcid=ADGEEShMPWtAJ6W1i0w7_QQmbtj_Pu1UolcZztkjvMIAeYP1b
VlFupCfW58RVRXRDsIlJBbzv5oY3Ni5N-MWmjoQXIoSUyYzbqSNeF0T7nasBXesDnyn6I7POzP9xHaVNVm6_Kdvma&sig=AHIEtbR-syP9I6qw5dp5_bVwKOkb_1r0Aw
The Seattle Times (2009). Retrieved May 17, 2011 from
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2009/02/03/2008704185.gif
Thurston County (2011). Images and information courtesy of Susan Parish Collection at
Shadow Catchers. Retrieved on May 17, 20011 from
http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/history/location.asp?mod=next&locid=7&currecord
=15
United States Code 33 USC 1313 (2007). Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Retrieved
August 7, 2011, from http://uscode.house.gov/uscodecgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t33t36+938+0++%28%29%20%20AND%20%
28%2833%29%20ADJ%20USC%29%3ACITE%20AND%20%28USC%20w%2
F10%20%281313%29%29%3ACITE
United States v. Washington (1974) Civ. No. 9213, UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON, TACOMA
DIVISION , 384 F. Supp. 312; 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12291. Retrieved
August 1, 2011, from http://www.ccrh.org/comm/river/legal/boldt.htm
Van Eeten, M. (2001). Recasting Intractable Policy Issues: The Wider Implications of
The Netherlands Civil Aviation Controversy. Journal of Policy Analysis and
43
Management, 20(3), 339-414.
Van Tubergen, G. & Olins, R. (1979). Mail vs personal interview administration for Q
sorts: A comparative study. Operant Subjectivity, 2, 51-59.
Venables, D., Pidgeon, N., Simmons, P., Henwood, K., & Parkhill, K. (2009). Living
with Nuclear Power: A Q-Method Study of Local Community Perceptions. Risk
Analysis: An International Journal, 29(8), 1089-1104.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. (2006, June). Deschutes Estuary
Feasibility Study Net Benefits Analysis: Stakeholder Involvement. Retrieved
January 18, 2011, from http://www.ga.wa.gov/CapitolLake/Reports/04DEFSNetSocialAndEconomicBenefitAnalysis(June2007).pdf
Webler, T., Danielson, S., & Tuler, S. (2009). Using Q method to reveal social
perspectives in environmental research. Greenfield MA: Social and
Environmental Research Institute. Retrieved on August 15, 2011 from
www.serius.org/pubs/Qprimer.pdf
Wikimedia (2011). Retrieved March 5, 2011 from
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f
44
8. Appendices
Appendix A: Concourse Development
The dual basin estuary will support the drainage problem and keep the public who use the area.
The dual basin option supports all of the current recreation valves while improving the habitat.
A hybrid of the current pond and a natural tide flat would be the best option.
The dual basin estuary will support the drainage problem and keep the public who use the area.
The Lake is good for the city, tourism, economy, boating.
The dual alternative does the most to meet people’s needs and wants by also creating crucial habitat for
salmon.
The marinas and the Port of Olympia can remain viable with estuary restoration.
Restoration would be an environmental success story that could remind us that we can correct what we
have done wrong or carelessly in the past. It could be a model for other areas and communities that also
need large scale restoration.
Eventually people will get it. You cannot maintain an artificial construct in a natural environment.
I see this as a very tribal thing. It is part of the campus and the Tribe should not be involved.
The importance of salmon spawning with the return of the estuary would only fill the Indians pockets with
plenty of cash to support the future political campaigns of those on Capitol Hill in charge of this decision.
Maintaining the lake is pushing against the current, it does not make sense.
The estuary will bring cost savings.
I think returning the lake to an estuary will make it even more attractive for walkers and birders.
By seeing the natural process of an estuary at work, people in the urban environment would have more a
sense of place with Puget Sound.
There is too much invested in the Lake and too many businesses that would be negatively impacted.
A healthy waterway would have real economic benefits.
Fewer people will recreate with the estuary because of the smell, which will result in businesses declining,
then a large decrease in tax revenue, and thus less revenue to build and support the parks.
The Olympia Yacht Club, along with the docks outside Anthony’s, would become obsolete with the large
amount of silt to flood the southern portion of the sound.
Local marinas and the Port of Olympia will remain viable with estuary restoration and cost less than long
term lake management.
If you destroy Percival Landing, you destroy a major player in the rejuvenation of Olympia.
Olympia has not made the progress that it should in revitalizing downtown, but the establishment of mud
flats would make any chance of revitalizing downtown even more remote and difficult.
Once the 5th Avenue Dam is removed and a new bridge is in place, the traffic flow will improve, pedestrian
safety across the very narrow sidewalk at the dam will improve, and will serve as a major economic
stimulus to our region.
We need more money for healthcare. Stop wasting money on expensive maintenance.
A healthy downtown is what is important and taking away the lake would hurt it.
Return the lake to an estuary. Allow the natural processes to provide balance and health to Puget Sound
and all its wildlife.
Capitol Lake is part of an unhealthy ecosystem. All is in various stages of unhealthy and it needs recovery.
The ecology of the area needs this estuary to maintain its health.
The Deschutes estuary was a natural functioning system until it was dammed. Restoring the estuary would
give the Deschutes a connection to salt water and natural functioning conditions could reoccur to restore
45
habitat that’s supposed to be there.
We have plenty of areas for birds and wildlife here in Washington State and we need to dredge this
beautiful lake before it becomes a mud hole with swamp grass.
We’ve destroyed most of Washington’s estuaries in the last 150 years. It’s time to take responsibility for
our historic mistakes.
I would love to see the Lake swimmable again. Olympia is so disappointing it does not have any
swimmable areas.
The Lake will need to be managed to keep it healthy.
The estuary is compatible with Heritage Park. Walking/jogging trails will remain and should be enhanced
with a 5th Avenue bridge replacing the now dangerous narrow sidewalk along the dam.
Without extensive management of the Lake, I would rather the Deschutes look like Totten or Eld.
Wetland restoration and protection is vital if we are to have a healthy Puget Sound waterway.
I am frustrated that we do not manage the lake.
I feel there are better spots to do estuary restoration in a more rural setting. A downtown environment lends
itself more to a lake.
Puget Sound is indeed an icon of our state — there are few other places in the nation that can compare.
And yet the state Capitol is the home of a dammed-up estuary that is polluted, full of invasive species and a
public health hazard.
I go to the visit and look at things around the Lake, but I would always wonder 'what did it look like before
this'?
The estuary may reduce mosquito populations.
The estuary might be an important step in improving the health of Puget Sound.
The General Administration is not capable of managing the resource. They are ignorant of the resource and
it is not their expertise. They do not understand the natural system management. A different state agency is
needed to manage Capitol Lake.
What happens if the estuary does not work? Will there be problems with erosion and what if the public
does not like the results?
If the new estuary is formed, I certainly would support rigorous sustainable actions, information paths and
signs, educational activities based on exploration and sharing of information.
If you are going to turn that area into what it was, you would take out all of downtown.
A “Mudd Bay” is not aesthetically acceptable to our Capitol City, which of course, is urban. Expanding the
cost sharing partners and maintaining the lake should be our emphasis.
We can change the environment and it will stay that way for a while but the natural processes will put it
back that way it is eventually.
How can environmental authorities and state legislators support the contradiction of a lake while
encouraging, funding, and sometimes requiring restoration of other near shore and estuarine areas?
We need to return to dredging protocols of the mid 1980s.
The people before had a great idea for the lake and the Capitol.
The upland needs to be cleaned up so it keeps the lake healthy.
We need to consider dredging only the North basin, there is a nearby site for dredge spoils to be deposited
Restoring the estuary might negatively affect the lovely Heritage Park and lake area; all development with
public funds.
We have a responsibility to improve our natural environment where possible. This is a unique opportunity
to restore one of the largest estuaries in the Puget Sound.
An estuary is much cheaper over the long run and will save taxpayers millions of dollars compared to
managed lake.
I think there are a lot of mitigating factors for restoration. Lots of lurking and intervening areas that could
cause further environmental degradation.
Dredging Capitol Lake will only become a financial black hole.
46
Management of this ecosystem would be better in the hands of the Department of Natural Resources or
another state resource management agency, instead of its current overseer, the Department of General
Administration.
While there’s no surplus of state funds for lake maintenance, there could be federal funds available to help
pay for estuary restoration
Natural systems such as estuaries are basically maintenance free.
Still, while science and symbolism are both important, I fear that the fate of Capitol Lake will be decided
by inertia or short-term economics, and as time passes and nothing is done, the status quo will have
prevailed by default.
Reverting back to mud flats would be a disaster for Olympia from both an aesthetic and economic point of
view. It would forever mark this community as a dumpy, dirty, unhealthy place because of dirty mud flats.
One good winter rainstorm could fill in the Yacht Club and Percival Landing to the point that they are not
useable if the estuary were to be restored.
The dredging costs to the marinas will probably be prohibitive under the estuary option.
Olympia is an industry-based estuary and we may want to focus our money else where that would be more
productive.
The state has more important financial responsibilities than a reflecting pond.
The estuary will save taxpayers a lot of money, especially when we are focusing on cleaning up Puget
Sound.
Restoring the Deschutes estuary from its current incarnation as Capitol Lake would be environmentally and
financially beneficial to the State and the local community.
Over the long term the estuary is less expensive because after the dam is gone, it will manage itself.
It is a lot less expensive to maintain as a Lake if it were maintained properly.
A duel basin is a great compromise financially, socially, and biologically.
Removing the dam would be three times as much money over 50 years than maintaining the Lake.
The estuary option is not only the most ecologically beneficial decision, but also the cheapest.
An estuary is much cheaper over the long run and will save taxpayers millions of dollars compared to
managed lake.
When presented with some of the costs to turn it into an estuary, I was flabbergasted. I can’t imagine
spending so much money to turn it into something else while we already have a lake.
I think that time and money should be spent on protecting estuaries of greater significance than the
Deschutes, preferably in areas not already substantially altered by human activity.
As we try to alter nature, it wreaks havoc with our environment, and the ability of native plants and animals
to survive.
Economically, you would either destroy the Port of Olympia yacht club or you would commit the State to a
regular program of dredging with estuary restoration.
The lake is a wonderful resource.
The State has defaulted on their responsibility to keep it a functional lake.
The lake gives you a place to capture all the pollutants and then scoop them away before they enter the
Puget Sound.
Dual basin estuary seems the best of both worlds as an ecological and social value for Olympia’s people
and wildlife.
We forget how grand and how beautiful the natural state is because we have touched everything and
changed everything that we forget what the natural beauty can offer to us as humans.
It is time we begin to undo some of our past mistakes and work to restore Puget Sound’s ecology.
Without hydraulic controls of a dam, the lake will look like a glistening dung stinking mudflat devoid of
wildlife or any recreation aesthetic.
Retuning Capitol Lake to an estuary would be the second largest restoration project ever undertaken in the
Puget Sound and it would be right on the state capitol campus thus showing that Washington really does
have the will to lead Puget Sound recovery.
47
We have lots of estuaries; let’s keep this beautiful landmark.
An urban estuary with walking paths, park benches, and educational kiosks provides a way for people to
understand and appreciate the importance of the natural world.
Capitol Lake is a landmark and a big part of the charm and character of Olympia.
A mudflats may meet the esoteric personal needs of a few "back to nature" self-serving "purists", but so
would tearing down all the buildings in the city so that the trees can grow back. Restoring the estuary is not
in the best interest of the community.
As much as I am pro conservation of natural habitat-there needs to be something for people too. This body
of water is a gathering place for the community and a walking place for individuals. A dual estuary seems
to offer some habitat for both animals and people.
Restoring the natural estuary would provide openness and health. To me, this is aesthetically pleasing.
Downtown Olympia and our State Capitol Campus would benefit from the opportunity to reconnect with
nature.
I think the restoration of the estuary would represent a significant move forward in recognizing and
accepting our responsibility to share the land with other organisms.
While a natural mudflat and habitat can provide a peaceful setting, it does not compare to the tranquility of
a water body that reflects its historical and natural surroundings at a glance.
It is important to have places to go, to see, to touch, to smell, to understand how healthy systems require
health and balance in its smaller components.
To turn the northern reflecting pond into an estuary would ruin one of the most scenic landmarks in our
community.
When Capitol Lake was created, it made sense in response to the needs of the times. What makes sense
now is to invest in our environmental and ecological health, and do whatever we can to provide a clean
environment for future generations.
Walking by the lake soothes my soul.
Capitol Lake helps prevent flooding.
There is no real benefit to creating a tide flat.
If the reflecting surface of the lake in front of the Capitol was maintained and other portions were restored
to a more natural state and the water quality improved, then I think civic pride would increase, recreational
and other businesses would increase, the entire area would be more accessible providing more public use.
The estuary would ruin the beautiful Wilder and White plan for a reflecting lake for the Capitol buildings
and it would lessen the amount of open space in the North Capitol Campus.
I believe the use of the lake area would decrease greatly if the estuary was restored. It would no longer be a
place to enjoy as it is now.
Capitol Lake serves a lot of activities that go on in Olympia.
I do not see how creating an estuary would help communicate the history of the area.
I do not think anyone would be orientating events around a mud flat.
Salmon are not historically from the Deschutes River and should not be a factor in the debate.
The Lake is recent history and artifact of man made intervention and should be restored to the natural
function.
Dredging the lake is a goofy 50’s vision of the world.
Capitol Lake is a connection between constituency and government in a democracy with a direct
relationship to the physical and natural place of the state.
The site was originally changed from an estuary to the reflecting lake because it was such an eyesore.
There is no better way to instill a sense of place for what the northwest than providing access to a unique
estuarine ecosystem every day in our downtown.
Just because an estuary is the least expensive option is no reason to destroy this beautiful asset of our City
and State.
Estuaries are better for boating and kayaking. The estuary will draw kayakers, fisher people and wildlife
48
enthusiasts.
So much of our efforts have been spent on containing nature. Almost always, this robs us spiritually.
Estuary restoration will provide a hands-on opportunity for our local schools at all levels to teach their
students about marine sciences and wetland restoration.
Restoration is the path of altruism — a path this society would do well to get on.
It is always better to have a natural area than a contrived one.
Being the State Capital, it would have the added benefit of sending a message to the rest of the state- and
the nation – that legislators here are not just talking the talk, saying “Do as I say, not as I do”.
Deschutes Estuary restoration will have a positive impact on educational opportunities at all academic
levels.
The cost of maintaining the lake vs. an estuary should have nothing to do with the decision; it’s the
aesthetic value.
If Capitol Lake is saved, we will continue to have a Capitol Lake Fair as opposed to a “Mudflat Fair”.
People are holding on to a century old ideal.
Why build some new mud flats and justify them on an educational basis when we are not taking
"advantage" of the mud flats that we have.
The State of Washington and the City of Olympia have set ambitious goals for environmental
sustainability, and this is an enormous opportunity to help them achieve these goals, to “walk the walk”.
The estuary alternative brings improved recreation and traffic safety.
If trying to build momentum with restoration, you should use the most promising site that will be easy to
implement given limited resources. The Deschutes Estuary is not this site.
Our city, our State, our environment deserves better than Capitol Lake.
If you really need an estuary to teach something that is not available for a lake, go a few miles north to the
Nisqually River area. THAT area was preserved by our forbearers to do this kind of teaching.
As it is today with its landscaping and parks, Capitol Lake is a wonderful recreation center for our
community from dawn to dusk. It is a focal point for walking and special events. The city center is not the
place for an estuary.
The lake is one of the most beautiful parts of a fantastic city and state capital. To throw this away will
reduce the beauty of the city.
Anything you do to Capitol Lake detracts from the markets downtown and downtown is already struggling.
The Lake is a calm expanse of water, birds, wind, and sounds that bring a new dimension to our urban
setting.
The whole character of the downtown waterfront and Percival Landing will change with estuary
restoration. The marinas and public docking areas will not be able to function because of increased
sedimentation. All the recreational boats will be gone.
The smells that come from the seashore bring back good memories for many people who grew up around
the sea.
Today’s cultural values and personality of Olympia are centered on downtown and Capitol Lake. We need
to keep the lake so our traditions can be kept as well.
This is one of the rare occasions where aesthetic considerations outweigh those of environmental purity.
An estuary would bring more people to the edge of an estuary, which is much needed. Residents of
Southern Puget Sound do not have much access to the Sound and restoring the estuary would make the
Sound accessible.
An estuarine ecosystem is beautiful; it’s magical; it is full of LIFE.
The mud flats are beautiful.
The reflecting pond in front of the Capitol is aesthetically pleasing and makes the walk around the lower
portion of the lake very tranquil and comforting. It provides balance in our busy lives.
The reflection is truly stunning.
There is a great learning opportunity for kids and adults to have a natural estuary right here in downtown.
49
The tidal changes would have a positive impact on the aesthetics of the area. With water moving in and
out, it gives a real sense of seeing nature at one of its finest moments.
The estuary alternative threatens the downtown location of the yacht club and will likely affect easy access
to downtown amenities.
People come to Olympia from all over the world and we should be the leader in restoration management.
The aesthetic value of this civic icon is enormous; it defines our community; it is our Central Park.
The lake is a critical part of the Capitol Campus and Olympia, enjoyed by joggers and hikers who don’t
want mudflats downtown.
A restored Deschutes Estuary will enhance public recreation at the Capitol Campus and will draw users to
the newly opened tidal waterway, now blocked by the 5th Avenue Dam.
Even with the algae problem the lake now experiences, it is a gem in the center of the city from a beauty
standpoint and a gathering point for families and community events.
The Lake provides the ability to reflect the beautiful buildings on the West Capitol Campus.
The peaceful water provides a wonderful solace for spiritual reflection.
An estuary would be beautiful at all tidal levels. Mud flats are inherently beautiful, although, very different
from impounded water.
The relationship of a clear water body associated with a wooded hillside and monumental buildings at the
peak has a long and powerful role in the Western landscape tradition.
I am a walker and use Percival Landing a lot. It would not be a walking destination if it were mud.
Capitol Lake as a reflection pond is a reason to go to downtown.
The estuary would take away the ability to reflect the beautiful Capitol Group of buildings.
Capitol Lake symbolizes that containing the spirits of true expression can only result in stagnation.
With an estuary at low tide, visitors will leave Olympia remembering us as just another backwater town.
The smell of Capitol Lake if returned to an estuary will resemble Bud Bay; an awful and unpleasant smell
of a mud bog.
Current cultural activities will be negatively impacted by the dam removal.
It is silly to eliminate something that is so iconic to the Olympia area.
An urban estuary restoration project serves as a showcase to our region and the nation on how to improve
the health and beauty of an ailing waterway.
Restore the estuary to realize the true cultural and spiritual values of our Pacific Northwest marine and
Native American heritage.
The current lake is a highly identifiable part of our State Capitol and city, an integral part of our urban
living and economy, and a destination for all citizens of the State.
Many of the events held at the lake would no longer want to be around the mud flat.
It has great value in its current form, in the built environment.
To me the lake is more attractive and has a historical connection to the state Capitol.
We need to keep the lake for the cultural and community recreational values it provides if for nothing else.
An issue I have not seen discussed is the potential for increased mosquito production, especially the salt
marsh mosquitoes. The estuary area at south bend/Raymond has a considerable problem at certain times of
the year. How would this be different?
Capitol Lake is important for bats.
The opportunity here is to convert a failing, unhealthy lake into a major restoration project at the base of
south Puget Sound
If Capitol Lake is made into an estuary, it will have all kinds of bugs.
We need areas like the estuary because we have lost many such areas and are in danger of losing many of
the forms of life that need them.
50
The estuary would play a role in Puget Sound cleanup, improve habitat for native fish and wildlife and
provide an environmental education opportunity in the capital.
The dual basin alternative allows continued existence of the reflecting pool for community events and also
restores the estuary that will rebuild natural habitat and cleanse the lower Budd Inlet of pollutants.
We need to restore the balance necessary to ensure the mutual health of everyone, human beings and other
creatures alike, as well as the health of the waters.
We should restore the area to its most natural state.
Returning the lake to an estuary will return salmon to the area, which will help the fishing industry.
The lake itself is a dead zone. Restore to estuary and bring in native vegetation to support the return of
wildlife.
The smell of organic rot wafting across the estuary will be what is in store for Olympia if Capitol Lake is
changed into an estuary.
Isn't dredging the inlet so boats and ships can move freely? It’s only fair that they pay for it.
It is our task to ensure that the Puget Sound forever will be a thriving natural system, with clean marine and
freshwaters, healthy and abundant native species, natural shorelines and places for public enjoyment, and a
vibrant economy that prospers in productive harmony with a healthy Sound.
The marinas and port existed long before the dam was built, and deep draft ships sailed to the port and into
what is now the lake.
Capitol Lake is not a lake… it is a river attempting to reconnect with its estuary.
Recreation will be negatively impacted by the increase sediment of the dam is removed. Percival Landing
will become the new ‘mud bay”.
Prior to the dam, the natural scouring action of the undammed river provided deep water areas and
transported much of the annual sediment load further into the deeper parts of Budd Inlet.
The waters of the Salish Sea (aka Puget Sound) have suffered severe damages by industrial activities. The
Salish Sea, an ecological system, has a right to exist, to be healthy, and to flourish robustly. It is wrong,
morally and ecologically incorrect, for our society to harm the health of the waters. It is wrong to harm the
health of the creatures therein and thereupon.
At the time Capitol Lake was created, lack of sewage or industrial waste treatment meant that the
Deschutes Estuary was polluted with human waste. That is no longer the case.
Estuary environments are vibrant, clean environments, with thriving wildlife populations and few or none
of the types of problems that are created by the damming of the Deschutes Estuary.
I think an estuary would increase the presence of wildlife, particularly birds and fish, which would have a
very positive aesthetic value.
An increase in habitat for these species with the Deschutes Estuary restoration would have an effect on bird
species.
Salmon are not historically from the Deschutes River, keep the lake.
A naturally functioning Deschutes Estuary would also cool water temperature, improve water quality in
Budd Inlet, curtail noxious weeds and invasive species, and provide vastly increased habitat for fish and
wildlife.
Is there a guarantee that destroying the current ecological niche for wildlife will create a positive ecological
niche for any desirable critters?
The estuary is a productive area and a part of a whole system in which everything is connected: Fish,
shellfish, water quality, living conditions, and the spiritual connection.
The port should pay their share.
I don’t want to stop eating salmon… Do what it takes to help these threatened fish.
Both the estuary and the Lake serve as a reflecting point for the Capitol.
If we are to reach the states goal of restoring Puget Sound to health by 2020, every city, every town, every
municipality, every agency and every citizen must make local decisions for the benefit of the entire Sound.
The estuary will contribute to a healthy Puget Sound and to the health of the nearby ocean.
The dual basin estuary would be good for wildlife that use that lake as well as the people/pets that spend
51
time on or around it.
The silt washed from the river will expand the mud flat estuary far into Budd Inlet.
There are a lot of shore birds on the tidal flats of mud bay that cannot live on Capitol Lake because there is
no habitat for them.
The estuary will provide increased habitat and will be a naturally functioning system.
You would displace the current species that live there.
52
Appendix B: Idealized Q-sort for each discourse
Statement Scores on Each Factor
FACTORS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
If you really need an estuary to teach something that is not
available for a lake, go a few miles north to the Nisqually
River area. THAT area was preserved by our forbearers to
do this kind of teaching.
Puget Sound is indeed an icon of our state — there are few
other places in the nation that can compare. And yet the
state Capitol is the home of a dammed-up estuary that is
polluted, full of invasive species and a public health hazard.
There is no real benefit to creating a tide flat.
I feel there are better spots to do estuary restoration in a
more rural setting. A downtown environment lends itself
more to a lake.
Capitol Lake helps prevent flooding.
A
0
B
-2
C
0
-2
2
-1
0
1
-3
-2
-2
3
1
-2
0
6.
Olympia is an industry based estuary and we may want to
focus our money else where that would be more productive.
1
-1
1
7.
The marinas and port existed long before the dam was built,
and deep draft ships sailed to the port and into what is now
the lake.
One good winter rain storm could fill in the Yacht Club and
Percival Landing to the point that they are not useable if the
estuary were to be restored.
Restoration would be an environmental success story that
could remind us that we can correct what we have done
wrong or carelessly in the past. It could be a model for
other areas and communities that also need large scale
restoration.
The estuary will bring cost savings.
-3
1
-3
2
-1
-1
-1
2
0
-3
1
-1
Eventually people will get it. You cannot maintain an
artificial construct in a natural environment.
The lake is a wonderful resource.
-2
1
-3
2
0
2
If we are to reach the states goal of restoring Puget Sound
to health by 2020, every city, every town, every
municipality, every agency and every citizen must make
local decisions for the benefit of the entire Sound.
The marinas and the Port of Olympia can remain viable
with estuary restoration.
0
3
0
-1
1
-1
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
The estuary may reduce mosquito populations.
0
0
-1
16.
An issue I have not seen discussed is the potential for
increased mosquito production, especially the salt marsh
mosquitoes. The estuary area at south bend/Raymond has a
considerable problem at certain times of the year. How
would this be different?
The dual alternative does the most to meet people’s needs
and wants by also creating crucial habitat for salmon.
0
0
0
-1
0
1
17.
53
Statement Scores on Each Factor
FACTORS
A
3
B
-1
C
2
Economically, you would either destroy the Port of Olympia
yacht club or you would commit the State to a regular program
of dredging with estuary restoration.
2
-1
1
The lake gives you a place to capture all the pollutants and
then scoop them away before they enter the Puget Sound.
I don’t want to stop eating salmon… Do what it takes to help
these threatened fish.
Both the estuary and the Lake serve as a reflecting point for the
Capitol.
Anything you do to Capitol Lake detracts from the markets
downtown and downtown is already struggling.
0
-2
-2
0
1
-3
-1
0
0
1
-1
2
The State has defaulted on their responsibility to keep it a
functional lake.
Reverting back to mud flats would be a disaster for Olympia
from both an aesthetic and economic point of view. It would
forever mark this community as a dumpy, dirty, unhealthy
place because of dirty mud flats.
2
0
2
0
-3
1
26.
As it is today with its landscaping and parks, Capitol Lake is a
wonderful recreation center for our community from dawn to
dusk. It is a focal point for walking and special events. The city
center is not the place for an estuary.
3
-2
2
27.
The ecology of the area needs this estuary to maintain its
health.
I go to the visit and look at things around the Lake, but I would
always wonder 'what did it look like before this?
-2
2
-2
0
1
-1
29.
The estuary might be an important step in improving the health
of Puget Sound.
-1
1
1
30.
The port should pay their share.
2
0
0
31.
I think returning the lake to an estuary will make it even more
attractive for walkers and birders.
-2
1
-2
32.
Isn't dredging the inlet so boats and ships can move freely? It’s
only fair that they pay for it.
0
0
0
33.
The Deschutes estuary was a natural functioning system until it
was dammed. Restoring the estuary would give the Deschutes
a connection to salt water and natural functioning conditions
could reoccur to restore habitat that’s supposed to be there.
-1
2
-1
34.
The estuary would ruin the beautiful Wilder and White plan for
a reflecting lake for the Capitol buildings and it would lessen
the amount of open space in the North Capitol Campus.
2
-1
0
18.
The lake is one of the most beautiful parts of a fantastic city
and state capital. To throw this away will reduce the beauty of
the city.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
28.
54
Statement Scores on Each Factor
FACTORS
A
-1
B
2
C
-1
Return the lake to an estuary. Allow the natural processes to
provide balance and health to Puget Sound and all its wildlife.
-2
2
-2
37.
It is our task to ensure that the Puget Sound forever will be a
thriving natural system, with clean marine and freshwaters,
healthy and abundant native species, natural shorelines and
places for public enjoyment, and a vibrant economy that
prospers in productive harmony with a healthy Sound.
1
3
1
38.
Capitol Lake is important for bats.
1
0
1
39.
The dredging costs to the marinas will probably be prohibitive
under the estuary option.
1
-1
1
40.
If the reflecting surface of the lake in front of the Capitol was
maintained and other portions were restored to a more natural
state and the water quality improved, then I think civic pride
would increase, recreational and other businesses would
increase, the entire area would be more accessible providing
more public use.
0
0
0
41.
The smell of organic rot wafting across the estuary will be
what is in store for Olympia if Capitol Lake is changed into an
estuary.
-1
-3
0
42.
Capitol Lake is part of an unhealthy ecosystem. All is in
various stages of unhealthy and it needs recovery.
0
3
-1
43.
Maintaining the lake is pushing against the current, it does not
make sense.
We need to keep the lake for the cultural and community
recreational values it provides if for nothing else.
-3
1
-2
1
-1
3
45.
We have plenty of areas for birds and wildlife here in
Washington State and we need to dredge this beautiful lake
before it becomes a mud hole with swamp grass.
1
-2
0
46.
The dual basin estuary will support the drainage problem and
keep the public who use the area.
-1
0
1
47.
A hybrid of the current pond and a natural tide flat would be
the best option.
-2
0
2
48.
To me the lake is more attractive and has a historical
connection to the state Capitol.
3
-1
3
35.
By seeing the natural process of an estuary at work, people in
the urban environment would have more a sense of place with
Puget Sound.
36.
44.
55
