The 'agency' of sustainable community development

& Oxford University Press and Community Development Journal. 2010 All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com doi:10.1093/cdj/bsq013 Advance Access Publication 24 February 2010 The ‘agency’ of sustainable community development Ann Dale* and Jennie Sparkes Abstract This article describes research that builds on a previous study of social capital conducted in 2002 and 2003 in a Canadian community, exploring the relationship between agency and sustainable community development. It examines what is agency and, based on reinterviewing the ‘nodes’ or ‘connectors’ from previous research, it identifies the characteristics of agency and whether or not agency is an a priori condition for network formation and social capital at the community level. Introduction The word ‘agency’ is somewhat of an odd term. It often conjures images of organizations and bureaucracies, places of control and power. In this milieu, ‘agency’ is a noun; a team or structure of people performing specific tasks for a specific purpose (Barber, 2001). Examples of such agencies are the Canada Revenue Agency; job search agencies; property management agencies or travel agencies. Yet, the word ‘agency’ holds meaning beyond these institutional pictures. It can also refer to intentional actions and processes that result in a new ‘state of affairs’ that would not have otherwise emerged (Bhaskar, 1994). In this context, agency is a verb; it is the actions of individuals and groups that as individual actions, leadership and drivers of change in communities. These are people who weave community members and groups together by being ‘nodes’ (Dale and Sparkes, 2007) that span dialogues across networks. In doing so they both enjoy and are able to capitalize on the diversity that exists within their community. In this research, the focus is on agency as a verb, at the individual level, but not on the outcomes of agency, instead on the qualities that exist in *Address for correspondence: Ann Dale, Sustainable Community Development, Royal Roads University, Victoria, BC, Canada V9B 5Y2; email: ann.dale@royalroads.ca 476 Community Development Journal Vol 46 No 4 October 2011 pp. 476 –492 ‘Agency’ of sustainable community development 477 certain people and groups of people that enable them to be agents of change for sustainable development in their communities. Barraket (2005) explains that sustainable community development ‘emphasizes an integrated response to economic, social and environmental imperatives within a given locale, and an emphasis on intergenerational equity with regard to resource use’ (p. 77). Achieving such equity is a pressing and ongoing task that requires the engagement of the hearts and minds of not only elected officials, but also every citizen. Sustainable community development requires the creation of new visions for the future and the building new relationships that redefine what is possible for communities. The implementation of sustainable community development requires agency at multiple scales. This research, therefore, explores the origins of agency at the individual level, and focuses on the questions such as what are the characteristics of human agency? How does individual agency contribute to social capital and network formation? What is the relationship between human agency, social capital and sustainable community development? Background definitions Sustainable development involves the process of reconciliation of three imperatives (Dale 2001; Robinson and Tinker, 1997). These imperatives are the ecological requirement to live within the carrying capacity of the planet; the social need to have governance structures that enable people to voice and enact their values and the economic responsibility to ensure that the basic needs of all people and life are met at a global level. Actualizing the reconciliation of the social, economic and ecological imperatives at the community level is at the core of sustainable community development. It recognizes that communities are a nested matrix of social, ecological and economic interactions often defined by a geographic place – but not restricted to place – with the possibility of also being defined by practices or interests.1 These communities are continually adjusting their social structures and economic activities to adapt to the capacities of the natural resources upon which they depend. Sustainable communities do not mortgage their resources for the present benefit or exploitation but instead draw upon their environment at a rate and scale that enables the resources to replenish themselves so that these resources will also be 1 Community of practice/interest is a community of people who share a common interest or passion. These people exchange ideas and thoughts about the given passion, but may know (or care) little about each other outside of this area. Participation in a community of interest can be compelling, entertaining and create a ‘sticky’ community where people return frequently and remain for extended periods. Frequently, they cannot be easily defined by a particular geographical area (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_of_interest, 4 June 2009). 478 Ann Dale and Jennie Sparkes available for future generations. Dale (2001) and her colleges attempted to derive social principles that mimic the structures and processes of natural systems. Human activity systems must become closed loop systems. † Diversity is essential for self-organization to occur. † Systems must be diverse, flexible and resilient. † The integrity of the social, ecological and economic aspects of the system must be considered. † Human growth is limited by the capacity of the biosphere to support the population and the biosphere will determine the limits to human growth and progress. † Social capitalization mobilization is essential to its implementation. Dale and Onyx (2005) advocate that while networks can build social capital, agency is also an essential feature, at both the individual and group levels, for the mobilization of social capital for sustainable community development. In other words, agency is an a priori condition in individuals that enables and strengthens social capital and contributes to collective social agency. It is the agency of individuals and the synergy of the group that creates the self-perpetuating efficacy needed to inspire and organize networks to take action, and to persist through failure(s). Self-efficacy is our belief in our ability to succeed in specific situations (Bandura, 1998). It appears that self-efficacy in people is critical for organizing citizens towards more sustainable choices and lifestyles. van Wagner (2007) found that people who believe that they can perform well, in other words have self-efficacy, are more likely to view difficult tasks such as promoting and advancing sustainability, as something to be mastered instead of avoided. People with high levels of self-efficacy set challenging goals for themselves and then maintain a strong commitment to those goals (van Wagner, 2007). They heighten their convictions to a cause when faced with the possibility of failure; quickly recovering when faced with failure or setbacks (van Wagner, 2007). They would, therefore, approach a threatening situation, such as climate change and social inequity, with a sense of assurance that they can influence positive solutions over these situations. Social capital has become a popular term with a diversity of definitions. Essentially, social capital is about the type of connections people make with one another and the possibilities that open up to these people as a result of their connections. For the purpose of this research two definitions are used to illustrate the complexity of the concept; first from Lin (2001) and the second from Putnam (1995). Lin (2001) defines social capital as the resources embedded in a social structure that are accessed and/or mobilized in purposive action. Lin (2001) notes that this definition holds three ‘Agency’ of sustainable community development 479 distinct elements: the resources (e.g. knowledge, skills, money) embedded in the social structure; the accessibility of individuals to these resources and the use of these resources by individuals to achieve some desired ‘purposive’ action. Putnam’s (1995) concept of social capital focuses on the supply of active connections between people, which includes the trust, mutual understanding, shared values and the behaviour that binds members of human networks and communities, thus making cooperative actions possible. Within his definition Putnam focuses on the attributes of social connections within social capital, while Lin focuses more on the structural mechanics of social capital. It could be analogized that Putnam examines the glue that binds people into relationships while Lin explores the building blocks of social capital. Both are essential for collective action and provide a glimpse into how agency becomes part of, flows through and is reinforced by social capital. These definitions of social capital suggest that a person can pursue their own personal choices by embedding themselves in networks where they have trust, mutual understanding, shared values and behaviours that are similar to other members of network. Through this alignment with others of similar interests, a person can inspire others to support and perhaps advocate for the same desired community change. This works well as long as people respect the diversity of thoughts and values that define their community. Otherwise, exclusion can happen. Both Putnam (2001) and Portes (2000) identified this exclusion as a problem within social capital. They recognized that social capital can have positive and negative outcomes, and that these two different faces of social capital exist in every community (Portes, 2000). The positive outcomes of social capital include better cooperation, higher quality of life and relationships, higher levels of trust and the capacity for communities to adapt to change. However, the negative qualities included exclusion and restrictions on personal freedoms (Portes, 2000). It is precisely for this reason that Wellman and Frank (2001) believe that it is important to examine ‘network capital’, and explore the ability of individuals in networks to build bridges to other community networks. The wealth of social capital comes ‘contingently from a variety of persons, ties, and networks, rather than stably from a single, solitary group’ (Wellman and Frank, 2001, p. 234). This accumulated wealth contributes to community resilience. Network capital focuses on the ability of diverse groups of people, perhaps holding differing views, to work together. Wellman and Frank (2001) note that it is rare for a community to work in solidarity around an issue and that it is unusual for a network of people to expect all members 480 Ann Dale and Jennie Sparkes of a network to become engaged around an issue. Instead, involvement becomes dependent upon the characteristics of each network member and type of tie that they have with one another (e.g. close friend vs. neighbour down-the-street). This leads to the observation of Newman and Dale (2005) that the type of social capital in which a group engages is dependent upon the level of agency of individuals in combination with the openness of the group to members of other networks. It is this capacity of a person to express their own desires for change (choices) and be open to a diversity of groups, perspectives and possible outcomes that creates a fresh, emergent and richer form of capital, a community agency, that was not available when working as individuals or isolated networks. When considering the types of ties that exist in social capital, Woolcock (2001a) found that social capital is comprised of three types of relationships: bonding, bridging and linking social capital. Bonding social capital refers to connections between like-minded people within a community; it involves a high level of trust, and is exemplified by the ‘network of people we turn to when we are sick or need an important errand run’ (Woolcock, 2001a, p. 13). Bridging social capital refers to the people ‘who share broadly similar demographic characteristics’ (Woolcock, 2001a, p. 13). This form of social capital is characterized by the ‘building of connections between heterogeneous groups’ and these connections are ‘likely to be more fragile but foster social inclusion’ (Schuller, Baron and Field, 2000, p. 10). The inclusive nature of bridging social capital can contribute to better understanding of a diversity of beliefs, norms and institutions which contribute to more holistic problem solving and solution building (Sparkes, 2002). Linking social capital pertains to connections with people in power, whether they are in politically or financially influential positions (Woolcock, 2001a). Linkage social capital connects the civic community to political decision-making and financial resources and relates ‘to the capacity to lever resources, ideas and information from formal institutions beyond the community’ (Woolcock, 2001b, p. 13). Methodology This research builds upon on a previous research program exploring the relationship between social capital and sustainable development (2002 and 2003). The initial case study focused on how the citizens of a small island community on Canada’s west coast, rich in ecological, financial, human and social capital, were able to organize an environmental campaign to take on a developer who threatened critical ecosystems in their community. Initial research revealed several observations about how the various disperse groups in the community were able to form new networks, ‘Agency’ of sustainable community development 481 optimize capacity and collaborate on resources and approaches to curtail the development. ‘The success of this campaign was rooted in the diversity of network formations and the opportunities and synergy these multiple pathways created to accomplish the community’s common goal’ (Dale and Sparkes, 2007, p. 6). One of the conclusions of the 2002/2003 study was that the leadership of six key community members (described as critical nodes) who acted as connectors between groups of citizens, the corporation and the government was key to the success of the campaign. It was observed that ‘for these six critical nodes, their communicative rationality (Dryzek, 1992), their depersonalization of the problem and their ability to continually strive for solutions, was a major contribution of these networks to the building of social capital between normally diverse groups of people, with deeply held values and beliefs’ (Dale and Sparkes, 2007, p. 12). These six individuals stood out from many of the others involved in the campaign for their role as facilitators of collaboration as well as their interest-based approach to communications. Through their actions, they built momentum for community level linking social capital to emerge through engaging and inspiring community members to become involved in and support a shared vision. This new research builds on the previous case study, involving three of the six people from the identified as critical nodes. In addition, through snowballing sampling, seven others were identified for interviews. Triangulation of the sample occurred through cross-checking and verifying them as nodes repeatedly with their peer groups, they were not self-selected. All seven were recognized by their peers as connectors of people, groups and ideas in the original campaign, and as agents of positive influence in their community. This research focuses on what made these ten people unique from other community members with respect to individual agency; such as their life experiences, personal qualities, perspectives and motivations. What inspired them, gave them agency to realize that the ‘living world was not ‘out there’ somewhere, but in [their] own hearts’ (Hawkins, 2009) and to draw upon this worldview to give themselves the strength to move forward at a community level with their ideas and dreams. During the summer of 2008, the six people identified as critical nodes within the 2002/2003 research were contacted to see if they would agree to be interviewed about their personal agency characteristics. Of these six people, three were available for interviews, and a structured questionnaire was developed to guide the researcher. At the end of each of their interviews, these first interviewees were asked to identify other campaign participants that they believed were critical nodes bridging networks and 482 Ann Dale and Jennie Sparkes who were instrumental in the success of the community campaign of the early 2000s. From this snowball technique, a sample of ten interviewees were identified. For the purposes of these interviews, agency was defined as the ability to respond to events outside one’s immediate sphere of influence to produce a desired effect. It is the intentional causality and process that brings about a novel state of affairs which would not have occurred otherwise (Bhaskar, 1994). Nine of the interviews were conducted by telephone, and one in person. An interview protocol with nineteen questions was used. The questions were developed by the authors over a period of months preceding the research. The questions were grouped around three themes connected to agency: self-efficacy (Bandura, 1989), worldviews and network formation. For the purpose of the interviews, self-efficacy was defined as a person’s beliefs about their capabilities to influence events in their life. The research questions were structured, although supplemental clarifying questions were asked to ensure the interviewer probed as deeply as possible for ‘thicker’ data (Geertz, 1973). Nine of the questions also had a quantitative self-ranking scale that required the interviewee to either identify their perceived levels of influence related to specific situations (four questions); or identify their network involvement (five questions). The interviews ranged from forty-five minutes to two hours depending upon the depth of sharing and time available from the interviewee. When a question was asked, the interviewer would read back to the participant what had been recorded to ensure accuracy in interpreting their responses. The data collected was then analysed to identify common patterns emerging from the four thematic areas. The interview sample was composed of four men and six women. Two of the women and two of the men now held political positions in their communities at the time of the interviews. All participants were over forty years old and all, accept one, had post secondary education. A compounding variable may be that agency increases as a function of age, and that is a question for future research for this project. For this case study, the focus was on the social imperative of sustainable community development; specifically examining the attributes of people who become engaged in their communities as a means to influence change. To better understand the intersection of agency and sustainable community development, the research introduces the concept of social capital as a bridge between these two constructs. It presupposes that social capital is a necessary condition for influencing governance (Dale and Newman, 2010); and that agency is a fundamental a priori condition to social capital formation that inspires and results in the coordination of people towards collective action. The focus of the interview protocol was ‘Agency’ of sustainable community development 483 therefore on the characteristics of individual agency, while it is recognized that agency may manifest at both the individual and collective levels. Analysis The success of the community for this particular environmental campaign was rooted in the diversity of networks that existed in the community and the ability of individuals with high levels of agency in the community to form bridging social capital between these diverse groups. Wellman and Frank (2001) refer to this bridging as network capital, a cross-pollination of knowledge and ideas that results in trust and goodwill between diverse groups of interest. This network capital reduces the possibility of conflict through the empowerment of greater numbers of citizens, and through the sharing of power at the community level. The various independent groups were not threatened by the differences of the other groups, but instead capitalized on the similarities as well as the unique skills and strengths each group brought to the table. It was the ‘butterfly’ role of the people with agency (the nodes or connectors) that enabled this crosspollination of dialogue to occur and for community-level agency to emerge through the synergy of these connections. The agency qualities of the interviewees are organized into two categories, personal qualities and motivations; and perspectives/worldviews to capture individual characteristics and to reveal emergent data at the collective level. van Wagner (2007) identified the following attributes of agency, which were confirmed by the sample in this case study: † † † † † † strong convictions to a cause; able to recover quickly to setbacks; maintain strong commitment to goals; believe they will perform well; view tasks to be mastered not avoided; and sense of assurance that they can control the situation. As previously mentioned the questionnaire protocol was grouped around three main themes – self-efficacy, worldviews and network formation. Self-efficacy Interviewees consistently ranked themselves high (eight to nine out of ten) in their ability to influence change in their community. The only moderate ranking resulted when the interviewees questioned their ability to influence change. When asked to consider why they believed they had this high level of influence, the most commonly cited reason was their reputation or past track record of getting things done. The other cited reasons were their ability to stay emotionally unattached to the issue; their clarity of focus or 484 Ann Dale and Jennie Sparkes vision from the onset of their involvement; their communication skills; analytical and organizational skills, and their ability to ensure that other views were included. In terms of locus of control, 90 percent of the interviewees rated themselves very high, with an average rating of 8.2 out of 10. In one anomaly, further probing revealed that their perceived lack of control was relied to their Buddhist practice. Three interviewees mentioned that although they believed they had little control over broader world events, they believed they could influence their local situation. In terms of setbacks, universally the response can be summed up in the following responses — analyse the situation; learn from the experience and, if possible, adapt one’s approach, and try again. Almost all interviewees mentioned the importance of knowing when to let go of an issue and to move on to something else. In addition to these attributes, discussions with the interviewees also revealed the importance of their sense of having a positive reputation for change within their community as a contributor to their self-efficacy. There appears to be a direct relationship between perceived reputations based on their ‘past track record’ in their community and their confidence or comfort (sense of assurance) in their ability to influence change within their community. This suggests that their reputations contributed to creating and maintaining strong levels of trust that were necessary for cultivating bonding and bridging social capital. They also perceived that they were better connected within their community than the average person, and they enjoyed and honoured this high level of involvement. They also placed a high level of importance on being in relationship with a diversity people outside their own family, in other words extending their networks beyond bonding social capital, to build bridging social capital to other groups, often diverse in perspectives and interests. For 50 percent (N ¼ 5) of the participants, they were involved in more than sixteen community groups. In such a small community, this would mean networking into a diverse number of communities of interest. This suggests that they sought diversity of experiences, issues and people in their relationships and, in doing so, found a diversity of ways in which to experience and influence their community. These personal connections to a diversity of groups enriched their network capital and opportunities to influence more people in their community, thus contributing to more sustainable outcomes. This suggests that a high level of connections to people and their communities, that is, a high level of connectivity, coupled with an openness to diversity contributes to the adaptive capacities of a community – a key element of sustainable communities (Dale, submitted). In general, interviewees expressed having a strong sense of freedom to make choices and changes in their life, leaving the majority of participants feeling ‘Agency’ of sustainable community development 485 that they held a high level of control over the events in their lives. This could be a compliment to having self-assurance and their willingness to explore and accept diversity. With self-assurance perhaps comes the confidence to make decisions; and with acceptance of diversity the confidence to be and become something different than what one currently is familiar is less threatening. This sense of freedom also appeared to enable a sense of ‘ownership’ to involvement in, and outcomes around, the issues they choose to engage in. It suggests that there is a positive relationship between an individual having the ability to make choices and their personal level of self determination. As van Wagner (2007) found, the interviewees were strongly goal oriented. However, balancing this commitment was the acknowledgement that it was important for them to know when to let go and move on from an issue. This highlighted their understanding that flexibility was important in finding ways to achieve multiple goals. In general, this acceptance of group consensus occurred when they felt that the group had heard what they wished to share. Interviewees were able to accept that their idea(s) would not dominate the outcomes, but they felt good about being able to be heard and to share their ideas. The interviewees clearly valued mastery of an issue as being more important than having control over the group or the issue. Many felt that they had made a difference by simply being, or expressing, their values. This illustrated their conviction for personal integrity, their need to ‘walk their talk’ and to have personal congruence first and foremost. Although it was not explicitly stated, their willingness to let go of an issue suggests that they were aware of the importance of reciprocity in building and maintaining trust, social capital and network capital between people. Instead of focusing on being the one to ‘win’ in the discussions, the interviewees knew that there was a danger in being positional and being difficult within groups and understood the importance of being able to graciously exit from an issue to preserve their relationships. At some time, all interviewees had experienced setbacks and disappointments in their interactions with others, but they viewed these setbacks as learning opportunities; opportunities to gain insights about their community and themselves. Rather than becoming disempowered by failure, they drew strength from their new insights around other people or of themselves when things did not turn out their way. For some this took some time and required the sharing of frustrations with loved ones or trusted friends first; but for others they we able to reflect on the experience and let go without retreating indefinitely into their bonded social capital for reaffirmation. Regardless, participants were able to quickly recover from disappointments and become reengaged in their community free of grudges or without a sense of shaken identity. It is possible that this 486 Ann Dale and Jennie Sparkes ability to let go of disappointments enabled these people to retain their sense of personal efficacy and in doing so, retain their belief that they had the ability to influence the events that affect their lives. The interviewees identified that they were interested in bridging to diverse communities of interest (interest groups) to mobilize citizens. They also identified a deep appreciation for and connection to both the social and ecological characteristics of their community, and planet. This suggests a strong sense of place (Dale et al., 2008). Because of the universal ‘sense of place’ expressed among interviewees, it suggests that the broader community involved in this case study has a ‘sense of place’ that is constructed from both the natural and social dimensions of this community. In this context ‘place’ refers to spaces that are familiar to us and hold meaning for us (Tuan, 1977). All interviewees in this research held a strong willingness to mobilizing fellow citizens to maintain, or control the influences on, the social and ecological character of their community, to protect their sense of place. In doing so they were able to re-evaluate, redefine and/or reaffirm the meaning and purpose of their, and the collective, sense of place. Interestingly, while ‘place’ was located in a physical realm of the world around all of the community members, ‘agency’ was located in the unseen space that occupied the imaginations, desires and decisions of a smaller segment of the community. The interviews suggest that sense of place and agency were bound to each other through a subtle weave of ‘meanings imposed upon a place’ by community members and a human desire to protect their ‘meanings’, by drawing upon their own agency. Worldviews Interviewees used many different phrases to express their worldviews. The common theme that surfaced was a deep sense of connection to the earth, people and the universe, and the critical importance of diversity – social and ecological in their lives. Many of the comments had both a social justice and a ‘spiritual’ context (Christian, Buddhist, new age). All interviewees believed that they had personally made a difference to injustice or unfairness towards other life forms. Direct actions that they took to manifest this worldview included advocating for an expanded view of diversity and its importance to human society; respecting and protecting diversity; mindfulness of injustice and unfairness, direct donations to causes and supporting sustainability strategies. Through this personal understanding of the interconnectedness of all life, interviewees appeared to have a deeper appreciation surrounding both the fragility of the web of life as well as the urgency for people to reduce their collective ecological footprint. Most of the interviewees stated that their worldview was the place where they drew their strength from when pursuing a particular issue. It was ‘Agency’ of sustainable community development 487 important for them to be their worldview in whatever ways they could, as often as possible; recognizing that it was an impossible expectation of themselves to always live their worldview. It may well be that there is an inverse relationship between the strength and consistency of worldviews and agency, a subject that requires further exploration. Network formation Interviewees place a high value (averaging eight out of ten) on the value of relationships outside of their own family, extending far beyond bonding social capital. Their main rationale was reciprocity, to give and receive support from others and to feel a greater sense of connectedness. The next most cited reasons was communicative rationality (sharing ideas and spreading message), learning, followed by being stimulated/energized for fun and entertainment. When asked where they believe that ‘agency’ was located, all interviewees indicated it manifested at both individual and group levels for several reasons. First, working in groups helped people to realize selfefficacy; second, sharing collectively reinforces social action; third, individual and group actions are mutually complimentary and self-reinforcing; groups provide a diversity of skills and opportunities, individuals embody groups and the group is more than the sum of individuals, and provide a capacity for scalability. All interviewees agreed that leadership was directly correlated with agency, although this needs further study. The most common cited characteristic of an ideal leader was an individual who reflected strong personal and community values, followed by the ability to inspire or encourage others, and integrity. Having a personal conviction to a vision, intelligence, decisiveness, listening skills, caring and empathy were also universally cited common characteristics of ideal leadership. Conclusions The characteristics of the human agency revealed by the data often mirrored the same qualities that van Wagner (2007) identified. Our research disclosed that the people identified as active agents in this community had the following characteristics: self-directed; personal connection to something larger than themselves; goal-oriented;high levels of integrity;unafraid to take on challenges; flexibility; open personalities; strong values on diversity; adaptive; highly collaborative; strong feelings of connectivity to others and community; involved in a diversity of networks and groups; actively informed about issues; highly communicative, had high levels of self-efficacy, see 488 Ann Dale and Jennie Sparkes Figure 1. Also, human agency appears to be a critical a priori condition to the transformation of network capital into social capital. Interestingly the qualities that the interviewees admired in a leader were qualities that they themselves often exhibited or spoke about having during their interviews. The qualities they admired in a leader included agency, reflecting strong personal or community values; inspiring or encouraging others; ability to speak with integrity; personal conviction to a vision; intelligence, decisiveness, being a good listener, caring and empathy. This suggests that either consciously or unconsciously, they intrinsically manifest the attributes they extrinsically attributes to qualities of good leadership, as summarized by the following diagram. With respect to the relationship between individual agency, social capital, network formation and sustainable community development, this research suggests that there is a definite relationship, which is dynamic and mutually synergistic. An individual requires a sustained level of motivation that appears to stem from an inherent sense of self-efficacy thus prompting them to act on issues that they view as important to them individually and to their community. Yet, for community level change, an individual requires the support of others in the community, thus they must cultivate action at a larger scale. The ability of an individual to network with and inspire others towards a shared vision that contributes to sustainable development is a critical component in creating the conditions for agency to manifest itself beyond the individual to the collective level. Figure 1 Comparison of interviewee characteristics with attributes of persons with agency and interviewee ideal leadership qualities. ‘Agency’ of sustainable community development 489 Social capital appears to have a role in the creation of agency in that the networks associated with bridging and linking social capital enable persons with agency to engage a broader cross section of citizens, collective mobilization. It appears that the formation of novel connections between networks, increased both the trust, mutual understanding and sharing aspects of social capital that Putnam (1995) describes as well as access to resources that Lin (2001) has explored, the linking social capital, that is, bridging and vertical ties (Newman and Dale, 2005). Together, these appear to facilitate positive social cohesion in a community and its capacity to respond to, or take a leadership role in, change. This suggests that there is a correlation between the availability of individuals in a community who have agency, and who can generate linking social capital and its success in mobilizing sustainable development initiatives or protecting sustainability values. It also suggests that creating and maintaining the cohesive aspect of social capital (trust, mutual understanding and sharing) are necessary and sufficient conditions for agency to be transformed into meaningful social change, but it was only one critical element of social capital in this case study. As we know communities are made up of a myriad of groups with their own interests. These communities of interest can be small and self-serving. This research suggests that when a threat emerges which impacts the core values of enough of these groups or individuals, they can use their personal agency and connections as leavers for protecting their community values. This becomes important when community members identify strongly with a particular place. These communities of interest become critical in preserving the overarching values that enable citizens to also be a community of place. Altruism is a deliberate selflessness where people set a high priority on helping other people and/or nature. According to Benson (2008), these people believe that the planet is fragile and that all of life is interconnected. These ideals combine to create what Stern calls ‘a personal norm’, which is a sense of moral obligation to take action. Emerging from the research is the thought that altruism, defined as a deliberate selflessness where people set a high priority on helping other people and/or nature, reflected from the worldview data combined with self-efficacy appear to be foundational elements of agency. Dietz and Burns (1992) argue that self-efficacy requires creativity; Dale (2005) argues that agency to be manifested requires a sense of being heard; while Benson (2008) suggests that it also requires an opportunity to act that includes ‘access to authority’. Our research suggests that it is possible to consider all these elements of altruism and efficacy as building blocks of agency. These building blocks are personal norms, creativity, opportunities to act, and access to authority, as summarized by Figure 2. 490 Ann Dale and Jennie Sparkes Figure 2 Attributes of agency. The data show that an individual requires the motivation/intent/desire that manifests as agency to purse matters that are important to them. Yet, for community-level change, the individual requires the support of others in the community and the capacity to act collectively. The ability of an individual to network with and inspire others towards a shared vision becomes fundamental in creating the conditions for agency to manifest itself at a group level. Equally important is having the legal and social structures in place to empower, inform and educate groups of people about issues and collaborative processes for resolution. Network formation and linkages appear to be augmented through people with high agency who become nodes that bridge networks, when a supportive social environment exists that gives them a voice and provides them with the feedback that their voice makes a difference. When the social capital that emerges from networks creates a positive feedback loop to the person with agency, their altruistic behaviour is reinforced resulting in even more altruistic behaviour. It appears that the formation of new connections between networks increases social capital, thus enhancing cohesion in a community and its capacity to respond to change. This suggest that there is a correlation between individual agency, a community’s ability to generate bridging and linking social capital and its success in mobilizing sustainable development initiatives or protecting sustainability values. ‘Agency’ of sustainable community development 491 Funding The authors are grateful for the funding received from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council that made this research possible. Ann Dale is a Canada Research Chair in Sustainable Community Development, Royal Roads University, Victoria, BC, Canada. Jennie Sparks is a Social Science Project Manager, Parks Canada, Western and Northern Service Centre, Winnipeg, Canada. References Bandura, A. (1989) Human agency in social cognitive theory, American Psychologist, 44 (9), 1175 –1184. Bandura, A. (1998) Self-efficacy, in H. Friedman, ed., Encyclopaedia of Mental Health, Academic Press, San Diego. Barber, K. (ed.) (2001) The Canadian Oxford Dictionary, Oxford University Press, Don Mills. Barraket, J. (2005) Enabling structures for coordinated action: community organizations, social capital, and rural community sustainability, in A. Dale and J. A. Onyx, eds, Dynamic Balance: Social Capital and Sustainable Community Development, UBC Press, Vancouver. Benson, E. (2008) Society’s grand challenges: global climate change, insights from psychological science, http://www.apa.org/science/GC-ClimateChange-small.pdf, accessed 20 June 2008. Bhaskar, R. (1994) Plato, Etc. The Problems of Philosophy and Their Resolution, Verso, New York. Dale, A. (2001) At the Edge: Sustainable Development in the 21st Century, UBC Press, Vancouver. Dale, A. (2005) Social Capital and Sustainable Community Development: Is There a Relationship?, in A. Dale and J. A. Onyx, eds, Dynamic Balance: Social Capital and Sustainable Community Development, UBC Press, Vancouver. Dale, A. and Newman, L. (2010) Social capital: a necessary and sufficient condition for sustainable community development?, Community Development Journal, 45, 5 – 21. Dale, A. and Onyx, J. (2005) Dynamic Balance: Social Capital and Sustainable Community Development, UBC Press, Vancouver. Dale, A. and Sparkes, J. (2007) Protecting ecosystems: network structure and social capital mobilization, Community Development Journal, 43 (2), 143 – 156. Dale, A., Ling, C. and Newman, L. (2008) Does place matter? Sustainable community development in three Canadian communities, Ethics, Place, & Environment, 11 (3), 267 –281. Dietz, T. and Burns, T. (1992) Human agency and the evolutionary dynamics of culture, Acta Sociologica, 35, 187 – 200. 492 Ann Dale and Jennie Sparkes Dryzek, J. (1992) Ecology and discursive democracy: beyond capitalism and the administrative state, Capitalism, Nature Socialism, 3 (2), 18 – 42. Geertz, C. (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. Basic Books, New York. Hawkins, P. (2009) Commencement: healing or stealing?, University of Portland Commencement Address 2009, unpublished manuscript, http://www.up.edu/ commencement/default.aspx?cid=9456, accessed 3 June 2009. Lin, N. (2001) Building a network theory of social capital, in N. Lin, K. Cook and R. Burt, eds, Social Capital: Theory and Research, Aldine De Gruyter, New York. Newman, L. and Dale, A. (2005) The role of agency in sustainable local community development, Local Environment, 10 (5), 477 –486. Portes, A. (2000) Social capital: its origins and applications in modern sociology, in E. Lesser, ed., Knowledge and Social Capital: Foundations and Applications, Butterworth Heinemann, Woburn. Putnam, R. (1995) Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital, Journal of Democracy, 6 (1), 65 – 78. Putnam, R. (2001) Social capital measurement and consequences, ISUMA, 2 (1), 41 – 52. Robinson, J. B. and Tinker, J. (1997) Reconciling ecological, economic and social imperatives: a new conceptual framework, in T. Schrecker, ed., Surviving Globalism: Social and Environmental Dimensions, Macmillan, London. Schuller, T., Baron, S. and Field, J. (2000) Social Capital: a Review and Critique, Social Capital: Critical Perspectives, Oxford University Press, New York. Sparkes, J. (2002) Social capital as a means of maintaining and restoring ecological integrity in National Park ecosystems, Unpublished Master’s thesis, Royal Roads University, Colwood, BC, Canada. van Wagner, K. (2007) What is self efficacy? Kendra van Wagner’s Psychology Blog, http://psychology.about.com/b/2007/04/24/what-is-self-efficacy.htm, accessed 5 December 2007. Wellman, B. and Frank, K. A. (2001) Network capital in a multilevel world, in N. Lin, R. S. Burt and K. Cook, eds, Social Capital, Aldine De Gruyter, Hawthorne. Woolcock, M. (2001a) Social Capital: The Bonds that Connect, Asian Development Bank, http://www.adb.org/Documents/Periodicals/ADB_Review/2002/vol34_2/ social_capital.asp, accessed 21 May 2002. Woolcock, M. (2001b) The place of social capital in understanding social and economic outcomes, ISUMA, 2 (1), 11 –17.