[C. Simon, B.S. Steel, and N.P. Lovrich, State and Local Government, Sustainability in the 21st Century, 3rd ed. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press, 2024]

Introduction

Rural local governments are presently grappling with a variety of existing and emerging challenges that complicate their efforts to maintain existing and expand new public services and programs.  The ways in which governmental officials respond to these challenges will materially impact the enduring health of nearly all local governments across the United States and Canada. Many rural communities have deep ties to their environment, often due to reliance on sectors like agriculture, forestry, and fisheries.  This close bond with their environment tends to engender a deep-seated respect for ecological conservation and a propensity towards embracing sustainable practices that protect these critical natural assets.  A tradition of ingenuity and autonomy is characteristic of rural communities, leading to a predisposition towards initiatives such as recycling, water conservation, and energy-saving measures, consistent with their values of thriftiness and judicious use of resources.  Moreover, the strong focus on localism and community in these areas acts as a powerful incentive for the adoption of sustainability measures, especially when these efforts are seen as advantageous to the local populace and the preservation of their immediate environment.

However, the pressing need for rural economic viability quite often overshadows ecological concerns in many rural locales.  Environmental sustainability measures that are perceived as harmful to local industries or threaten employment — such as land-use regulations that impede farming or logging activities — may meet with substantial opposition.  Accordingly, the successful introduction of sustainability programs or projects in rural settings may be more effective through grassroots initiatives rather than through top-down directives, necessitating investments in both resources and personnel by local governments to finance, implement and administer these programs.

This chapter delves into the existence of plans, policies, or programs in place among rural local governments in the Cascadia region of Canada and the U.S. (British Columbia, Oregon, and Washington) aimed at promoting environmental sustainability.  The initiatives under scrutiny encompass recycling, water resource preservation, conservation of open spaces, community-based environmental education, and the management of growth.  The study explores various factors that may influence the adoption of such policies, including cultural, demographic, geographic, economic, and political elements.  As a case study, it provides insights into similar dynamics at play in other regions of the United States and Canada.

Literature Review and Rationale

Environmental sustainability presents a complex and urgent issue for rural communities in Canada and the U.S.  These areas, which are intrinsically linked to natural resources, face distinct ecological challenges that necessitate innovative and collective responses (Freshwater, 2007; Green, 2014).  The efforts to tackle these challenges involve a range of activities, including recycling in rural communities, conserving water resources, preserving open spaces, educating the community about the environment, managing growth, and planning for community wildfire protection during a time of global climate change (Doukas et al., 2012).  These endeavors are crucial for the environmental and economic health of rural areas.

In the Cascadia region, spanning parts of Canada and the U.S., rural communities encounter specific hurdles and prospects when it comes to implementing sustainable practices. Studies examining rural and urban perspectives highlight differences in environmental attitudes and behaviors, with urban dwellers often being perceived as more eco-conscious and engaged in sustainability promotion than their rural counterparts (Bonnie et al., 2020; Kennedy et al., 2009).  Yet, research strongly suggests that a substantial proportion of rural inhabitants in the American West (73%) and a majority in Canada recognize the importance of environmental preservation (Bonnie et al., 2020; Kennedy et al., 2009).  Notably, Bonnie et al. (2020) uncovered minimal rural-urban disparity regarding economic sacrifices for environmental conservation or general environmental concern.  Contrasts were more pronounced concerning the level of government intervention, with rural citizens showing a preference for state leadership over federal oversight on environmental matters (Bonnie et al., 2020).

Although rural and urban communities may share many environmental concerns, variations in action may arise due to fundamental differences related to population density, economic shifts, and access to services.  Rural regions in both nations are experiencing notable population decreases (Lichter and Johnson, 2023; Statistics Canada, 2022), a trend with significant consequences for sustainability.  Declining populations lead to lower local demand for services and products, thus reducing the economic drive to maintain or expand environmental protection practices.  This chapter examines the existence (or lack thereof) of initiatives concerning recycling, water resource preservation, open space conservation, community environmental education, and growth management plans within small and rural local governments in the Cascadia region (see figure 4.1 for short definitions).

Figure 4.1 Ecological Sustainability Plans and Program Descriptions

Recycling: The logistics of recycling in rural communities can be somewhat problematic due to the distance from service centers, rendering convenient options such as curbside recycling a challenge to implement (Dickson, 2019).  In British Columbia, rural residents have called upon provincial authorities to subsidize recycling programs to alleviate the financial burden on communities and individuals for such services (Dickson, 2019).  Establishing effective recycling would not only prevent recyclables from contributing to landfill mass but would also discourage the practice of burning refuse in barrels or trash piles — a process that risks releasing toxic fumes and creating dangerous smoke. In an effort to support rural recycling initiatives, the Recycling Infrastructure and Accessibility Act of 2022 (S.3742) was proposed in Congress to fund and foster recycling programs, especially in rural locales.  Although the bill did not pass, it underscores the significant challenge of financing recycling programs in rural areas that could help mitigate air and water pollution from trash incineration and lessen the amount of waste directed to landfills.

Water conservation: Regions once known for their plentiful water supplies, such as Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia, have encountered prolonged periods of drought in recent times (Baker, 2023; Drought.gov, n.d.).  These global climate change-induced dry spells are intensely felt in rural areas, where the local economies are frequently tied to farming, ranching, tree orchards or water-dependent recreational and tourist activities (Wlostowski et al., 2023).  In Washington State, irrigation represents approximately 59 percent of the state’s water consumption (USGS, 2015), while in Oregon irrigation consumers up to 85 percent of the state’s water annually (OWRD, 2022); in British Columbia, irrigation is responsible for 25 percent of the province’s water use (Ansieta and Marzook, 2021).  Traditional irrigation methods face challenges such as water loss through evaporation and soil runoff that can affect water bodies.  The costs of upgrading to more water-efficient agricultural systems can be quite daunting for many farmers and tree fruit producers in an area where apples, pears, cherries, berries, and grapes are major crops (Glennon, 2021). Programs like the Agricultural Water Infrastructure Program in British Columbia and the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act are designed to invest substantially in water-saving irrigation technologies, potentially lessening the severity of drought effects (IAF, 2023; Glennon, 2021).  These programs, however, require major contributions from local irrigation districts, local governments, individual irrigators, and Indigenous communities; their ability to participate is often contingent on available resources and personnel.

Open space and “Smart Growth”: The preservation of open spaces is valued highly by a vast majority of Canadians and residents of the Western United States (CPAWS, 2022; Center for Western Priorities, 2022).  As the population in the Pacific Northwest is on an upward trajectory, with projections indicating continued growth over the coming decades (BC Gov News, 2024; WA Office of Financial Management, 2023), the region faces major challenges such as adequate supplies of affordable housing, the need to safeguard open spaces, need to curb urban sprawl, and need to protect environmental resources and wildlife habitat.  Urban centers may be expanding, but most rural areas are experiencing depopulation and a reduction in available agricultural land (U.S.EPA, 2021).  That said, a large number of rural localities are undergoing swift expansion due to the influx of newcomers drawn by the natural amenities present and quality of life associated with living in the countryside.  These areas often grapple with housing affordability issues and the pressures associated with rapid development, which can overextend local infrastructure and land resources if adequate planning has not occurred at the county and local government levels.

Smart growth principles, advocating for the deliberate development of compact, efficient communities to counteract sprawl and the erosion of open spaces, are being recommended in numerous locations to address these very issues (Litman, 2022).  These principles build upon existing policies aimed at farmland preservation in British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon alike.  The expansion of smart growth strategies in rural areas may encompass comprehensive planning for housing and other developments, access to highspeed broadband Internet services, promoting public transportation and alternative “ride-sharing” transit solutions to decrease reliance on personal vehicles and alleviate traffic, and the conservation of farmland and additional open spaces (U.S. EPA, 2024).

Growth Management: Growth management is a systematic approach to shaping the growth and expansion of communities in a way that promotes sustainability (Weber and Howell, 2019; Kelly, 2004).  This approach includes a suite of policies and strategies aimed at influencing the timing, placement, and nature of new residential and commercial development.  Growth management of particular significance in small and rural communities where it is essential to harmonize growth with the conservation of the existing distinctive attributes, environmental resources, and overall quality of life already in place.  Effective administration of growth can circumvent haphazard expansion, safeguard agricultural territories and open spaces, optimize infrastructure utilization, and preserve the social and cultural essence intrinsic to local communities which often take great pride in their historical roots (Dolbey, 2008; Green et al., 2005).  Through careful planning, small and rural areas can stimulate economic health, enhance their livability, and secure enduring sustainability, thus prospering while maintaining their valued rural identity.

Community Environmental Education Programs: Bridging the gap between recycling, water resource and land conservation, and the strategic expansion of rural communities is the exchange of knowledge among academics, community members, and policymakers.  Studies indicate that while scientific knowledge can often pinpoint the particular environmental protection measures communities would be wise to adopt, successful implementation of such measures must align with the cultural and political contexts within which they are attempted (Arlettaz et al., 2010).  Environmental education has evolved significantly from a linear approach (expert instructs local resident) to an integrated systems approach that involves various levels of community engagement — from individuals to society to ecosystems (Ardoin et al., 2020).  Research analyzing the effects of environmental education programs has shown that the success of such programs is greatly dependent upon the systematic development of precursors to environment-regarding behavior, enhancing the community’s capacity for collective action and co-production of environmental actions, and involving both communities and individuals in planning out doable, practical steps toward an agreed-upon set of goals for the future (Ardoin et al., 2020).  Support and funding for environmental education initiatives are accessible through the government of British Columbia and the federal and state governments of Oregon and Washington. While many programs are directed at K-12 education, there are also initiatives aimed at fostering environmental knowledge across all age groups in rural communities.

Capacity and Acceptability: Rural communities often face significant hurdles in establishing and maintaining the institutional and infrastructural support necessary for robust ongoing environmental management (Bantjes, 2011).  These challenges include difficulties with enforcing environmental rules, a lack of knowledge in use of more sustainable methods of commerce and daily living, and scant access to funding and technological advancements.  Additionally, when it comes to undertaking and overseeing major sustainability initiatives, rural locales can be hindered by limited local government capacity and a inadequate cooperation and collaboration among different groups present in the community.  Very often a local consensus on future visions for the community is lacking.

Moreover, the sparse populations typifying rural areas too often result in limited political clout at the state or provincial level, which can lead to rural needs being quite marginalized and underrepresented in legislative processes.  Implementing governmental policies and programs can be particularly taxing in remote areas because of the higher costs and logistical hurdles involved, potentially giving rise to less efficient and/or delayed services.  Furthermore, the smaller tax bases and constrained resources of these areas can burden local governments, affecting their capacity to provide services and respond to the needs of their communities.

Seeking external support from other government bodies is frequently the most feasible route for addressing local or programmatic requirements.  Unfortunately, there is an increasing urban-rural political divide in both the U.S. and Canada, with rural regions typically leaning more towards conservative ideologies while urban areas lean more towards liberal public policy preferences (Wherry, 2021; Parker et al., 2018).  Rural communities often are skeptical of policies and initiatives perceived to be imposed by distant authorities, such as federal or state governments, particularly when they seem at odds with local preferences or interests.  This wariness can become a roadblock to adopting any sustainability measures which are not locally driven.  Furthermore, the prevailing political and ideological tendencies in many rural communities can shape their overall stance on environmental policies.  In some cases, there is a mistrust of governmental interference or a preference for individual freedoms over collective or environmental needs, factors which can hinder the uptake of certain environmental standards or programs.

Canada – U.S. Culture and Institutions

The regions of Oregon and Washington in the U.S., along with the Canadian province of British Columbia, are often collectively considered as a single ecologically distinctive zone known as the “Pacific Northwest” or “Cascadia.”  These state and provincial jurisdictions share many noteworthy commonalities in geographical patterns of varied population density, natural resource and fisheries wealth, shared history of reliance upon extractive industries, and a diffuse sense of geographical detachment from the central cultural centers of their respective countries.  While sharing much in common, distinct political traditions have evolved over two centuries between Canada and the U.S., giving rise to different political structures, processes, norms, and values within their shared common heritage of being from the Northwest (Adams, 2004; Fox, 1985; Horowitz, 1966; Wise and Brown, 1967; Wise, 1972).  Canada’s political culture is generally more deferential, communal, and supportive of government authority, as opposed to the U.S.’s more individualistic and entrepreneurial political culture, which is often characterized by a pronounced skepticism toward government (Pierce et al., 2000; et al., 2017).  However, regional nuances do exist, with research indicating that western Canadian and U.S. cities share similarities that supersede national distinctions (Reese and Rosenfeld, 2004).  A common ‘Far West’ ethos has been identified by Pierce et al. (2000) in both British Columbia and Washington state, influencing public attitudes toward citizenship, environmental views, and governance perceptions.

Institutionally, Oregon and Washington feature state bicameral legislatures and independently elected executives, contrasting with British Columbia’s parliamentary system.  At the local government level, both similarities and differences are evident.  Oregon operates under a “home rule” framework, granting local governments substantial autonomy in service provision and revenue collection, as long as their actions are in accordance with the state constitution.  This includes a variety of governing bodies, from counties and municipalities to special purpose and school districts, with cities managed by either a strong or weak mayor system and city councils or commissions (Husain et al., 2018).

Washington’s local governance also encompasses counties, cities, special purpose districts, and regional councils, with cities governed by various systems, including mayor-council, council-manager, or commission.  Here too, mayors can be part of strong or weak mayor systems, with councils elected at-large or by district, and cities are granted home rule for charter adoption and local ordinances (Clayton and Lovrich, 2011).

In British Columbia, local governance is divided between municipalities and regional districts, with municipalities enjoying elected councils and mayors while regional districts function as a federation of municipalities, electoral areas, and sometimes Treaty First Nations.  Local governments handle services such as water, sewage, planning, and policing, whereas the provincial government oversees healthcare, education, transportation, natural resources, and environmental regulation.  Funding for local government operations and services in British Columbia is sourced from property taxes, user fees, and provincial grants, governed by the Local Government Act and Community Charter (British Columbia Provincial Government, 2023).

British Columbia Provincial Policy Initiatives

British Columbia is recognized among Canadian provinces and territories as a frontrunner in environmental policymaking (Baynham and Stevens, 2014; Fairbrother and Rhodes, 2023).  It led North America by instituting a comprehensive and revenue-neutral carbon tax in 2008 and was the inaugural region to mandate municipal greenhouse gas reduction targets (Stevens and Senbel, 2012).  The intergovernmental dynamic in BC is often characterized by “gentle imposition,” a system encouraging cooperative efforts and regional synchronization.  The Community Charter of 2003, which outlines the entire statutory context for BC municipalities (excluding Vancouver), ingrains a culture of reciprocal respect and collaborative intent.

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs in BC plays a pivotal role in aiding local governments, while the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, including the Climate Action Secretariat (CAS), oversees a comprehensive climate action plan for BC (Clean BC).  Rural development used to lie under the purview of the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development, reflecting the Province’s resource-driven rural economy, but has since transitioned to the Ministry of Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation, signifying a shift toward economic diversification in regional development planning.  The Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness (EMCR) leads the charge in emergency management for BC communities, encompassing all facets — from preparedness, first-response, rescue, to recovery.

Policy coordination between the provincial and municipal levels is a focus within the Community Charter, ensuring an alignment of interests.  This cooperative spirit is exemplified by the B.C. Climate Action Charter of 2007, a voluntary pact between the BC government, the Union of B.C. Municipalities, and local governments, now endorsed by nearly all local authorities in BC.  This agreement has resulted in a joint committee and a suite of tools and resources to assist local governments in climate efforts.  Among these resources is the Community Climate Funding Guide, an invaluable tool for Indigenous and local governments cataloging funding opportunities across various sectors. Municipal signatories to the Climate Action Charter commit themselves to developing carbon-neutral corporate operations, measuring and reporting community greenhouse gas emissions, and investing resources in more energy-efficient infrastructure. However, as Ryser et al., (2003) note, these reporting requirements can be challenging for communities to implement, particularly rural ones, and additional funds have not been provided to support this work. Importantly, a Climate Action Revenue Incentive Program (CARIP) which was created to provide all local and regional governments grants equal to the amount of carbon tax they paid was cancelled in 2021, further limiting municipal capacity (UBCM, 2021).

In terms of specific policy areas, most recycling in British Columbia is provided by Recycle BC, a not-for-profit organization responsible for residential packaging and paper product recycling. The organisation provides recycling services either directly to communities or in partnership with local governments, First Nations, private companies, and other not-for-profit organizations. However, there is a service gap for smaller communities as contracted collectors can only join if they are an incorporated municipality with a minimum population of 5,000 residents and have had a curbside garbage collection program in place for a minimum of two years.  BC has also adopted Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) as part of BC Recycling Regulation wherein the producer is responsible for reducing environmental impact and managing the product is extended across the whole lifecycle of the product.  Water conservation is in BC is regulated under the Water Sustainability Act (WSA) of 2016 which introduced groundwater licensing and new area-based tools, such as Water Sustainability Plans (WSP) and Objectives, to support watershed planning, regional water management and watershed governance (Government of British Columbia, 2024a). There are also a number of planning initiatives to protect aquatic ecosystems and to manage water allocation in agriculture, industry and energy production.

British Columbia does not have stringent growth management practices. However, this is a policy areas that is rapidly evolving as the province seeks to respond to a lack of housing affordability alongside broader sustainability goals.  The B.C. Legislature has passed several pieces of legislation that change the local government land use planning framework including the requirement that every municipality in the Lower Mainland and most areas within municipalities of over 5,000 people permit, at a minimum, four-plexes up to three stories tall on lots currently zoned for single-family or duplex use (Government of British Columbia, 2024b). British Columbia also protects agricultural land through the 2002 Agricultural Land Commission Act, which was recently revised to accommodate some housing flexibility to support both farm and non farm businesses.

In terms of climate education, British Columbia’s K-12 provincial curriculum offers a strong foundation for climate change education and the B.C. Climate Action Secretariat (CAS) coordinates with the Ministry of Education and Child Care to identify actions to prepare and adapt to climate change, and build climate resilience, including with community partners. There are also communities of practice at the local level that build expertise.  For example, the BC Climate Leaders initiative which is part of the BC Municipal Climate Leadership Council provides training and support to local government members.

More generally, it bears noting that BC’s rural sustainability initiatives have a strong focus on natural resources and energy, with an emphasis on clean energy investments for remote and BC’s Indigenous communities (Krawchenko et al., 2023).  However, the question of capacity is crucial, particularly in discussions of rural sustainability.  While larger municipalities may hire sustainability coordinators who integrate across departments to secure grant funding and launch projects, smaller rural and remote municipalities frequently lack these specialized roles.  Recognized also is the sustainability action divide between southern and northern communities.  To enhance regional cooperation, networks such as the Northern BC Climate Action Network (NorthCAN) and the Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities Climate Leadership Plan have been established, linking smaller and larger local governments to share expertise and resources.  The Community Energy Association, a nonprofit organization, provides ongoing administrative support to these networks.

Oregon and Washington State Policies

Oregon and Washington have both established themselves as models for proactive sustainability and community resilience (Bowersox, 2018; Weber and Rogers, 2018).  They have put into place a variety of policies that promote environmental stewardship, economic vitality, and social welfare.  The governance dynamics between the state and local levels in Oregon and Washington are characterized by a mix of autonomy and interdependence.  Local authorities have considerable freedom in handling local matters but must align with state laws and often work alongside state agencies on broader issues such as environmental sustainability.

Local governments in Oregon are required to implement recycling programs, and the state is known for some of its trailblazing environmental measures such as the landmark Beverage Container Act of 1971 which encourages recycling by offering a refund for returned beverage containers.  Oversight and regulation of recycling and waste management in Oregon are the purview of the state’s Department of Environmental Quality, which has set ambitious targets for waste reduction and recycling rates.  In contrast, Washington does not enforce a mandatory recycling program on local governments but rather actively endorses and supports such initiatives, urging local authorities, businesses, and residents to participate in recycling efforts and reduce waste on a voluntary basis.

Both Washington and Oregon encourage local governments to enact water conservation plans, although this is not mandated.  The legal framework for water conservation in these states is based on the doctrine of prior appropriation and the requirement of beneficial use, stipulating efficient use of water and risking the loss of water rights if it is not utilized for the purposes stated.  Washington’s Department of Health mandates that all municipal water suppliers must craft and enforce water conservation programs, which include defined goals, purity standards, and performance measures.

While Washington does not unilaterally compel the preservation of open spaces by local governments, it does facilitate such efforts through the Growth Management Act (GMA) of 1990.  This statute requires local governments (counties and incorporated municipalities) to develop comprehensive land-use regulations that can incorporate open space conservation goals.  The Department of Commerce assists Washington’s local governments in meeting the GMA’s goals. Oregon’s approach to conserving open spaces is articulated through its Land Use Goals and Guidelines, including Goal 5 which focuses on the protection of open spaces and natural features.  The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) assists local governments in adhering to these land use goals.

Community environmental education programs are not a requirement for local governments in either Oregon or Washington.  Educational directives at the K-12 level are set by the states’ education departments, while implementation is left to local school districts acting “under state guidance” (read strong recommendation).  Many community-based environmental education initiatives in Oregon and Washington emerge from partnerships involving local governments, non-profits, environmental organizations, and educational bodies (Bowersox, 2018; Weber and Rogers, 2018).  These collaborative efforts produce an array of educational opportunities, from local workshops, field trips, guided tours to academic curricula, and often include volunteer stewardship group activities that serve as practical learning experiences on environmental issues.

In the context of Open Space Preservation, neither Oregon nor Washington has a state-wide mandate enforcing “smart growth” or stringent growth management practices upon local governments.  Land use and zoning decisions rest overwhelmingly with local authorities, who are recognized by both states for their jurisdictional authority.  This local control enables cities and counties to steer the creation and execution of land use plans within their domains.  Consequently, they have the autonomy to determine how land within their jurisdictional boundaries will be utilized or conserved within the framework of private ownership rights, ensuring that land use decisions are attuned to the specific needs and conditions of the local community.

While the clear onus of land use falls on local governments, both Oregon and Washington have put in place comprehensive legal frameworks that establish foundational principles and standards for local land use planning.  These frameworks aim to balance local autonomy with state-level objectives, such as curbing haphazard sprawl, safeguarding natural resources, and fostering sustainable development.  The Growth Management Act of Washington, enacted with great fanfare in 1990 and somewhat amended since, delineates broad objectives that must be reflected in local comprehensive plans, granting local governments the flexibility to adapt these goals to their unique contexts and thus promoting uniformity in land use planning throughout the state.  Three major features of the GMA require that attention be given to the protection of environmental sensitive areas, the management of instream flow where salmon spawn, and provision of affordable housing in the permitting of residential developments.

Oregon, in parallel, upholds state-wide land use planning goals and guidelines instituted in the early 1970s that serve to inform local planning efforts.  Oregon’s approach is comparatively more directive than Washington’s, specifying explicit targets in local comprehensive plans that address the conservation of farmland, forestland, and natural resources.  This more prescriptive system underscores the state’s commitment to comprehensive stewardship of its environmental assets.  In both Washington and Oregon the regional and local planning professions are well developed and state law is likewise well developed through the adjudication of disputes in state courts.

Methods

To assess the implementation of environmental sustainability initiatives across small and rural jurisdictions, comprehensive lists containing contact information for all cities, towns, and villages (including districts within British Columbia) with populations of 30,000 or fewer were compiled into a database.  This compilation specifically excluded governments of First Nations or Native American communities; including this important sector of Cascadia would have expanded the study far beyond the scope of time and resources available.  A concise mail-based survey, which also offered a digital response option, was designed, drawing upon the structure and insights of similar surveys previously conducted in these regions in 2012 (Steel, 2012) and again in 2017.

The survey’s design and implementation were guided by Dillman’s Tailored Design Method, entailing two rounds of mail dispatches followed by a final email prompt, with an alternative to participate online via Qualtrics (Dillman et al., 2014).  Conducted in the later part of Summer and the onset of Fall 2023, the survey included a cover letter providing a URL and QR Code for the online version completion.  Signatories from the University of Victoria, Washington State University, and Oregon State University endorsed the cover letter, which was aimed at enhancing response rates, and it was accompanied by a pre-paid postage return envelope.  This survey was disseminated to mayors across the study areas, with responses in Oregon and Washington directed back to Oregon State University, and those from British Columbia sent to the University of Victoria.  Following the initial mailing, non-responding local governments received a second mailed survey with a personalized cover letter and another pre-paid return envelope two weeks later.  Additionally, email reminders were issued where possible to further prompt engagement and survey participation.

Findings

To ascertain the adoption of environmental sustainability initiatives in Cascadia, the survey requested local government mayors to report the status of various programs and policies within their jurisdictions.  The surveyed programs and policies encompassed curbside recycling, water conservation, open space preservation, community environmental education, and growth management, also referred to as “smart growth.”  Respondents could answer “yes,” “no,” or “in consideration” regarding the presence of each program/policy.  The findings are summarized in a table that lists the percentages of local governments that either have these programs and policies already implemented or are contemplating their adoption.  For clarity in presentation, the percentages of local governments lacking these programs and policies are omitted from the display.

Curbside Recycling: The Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy in British Columbia sets recycling and waste reduction targets for local governments and oversees program implementation.  The exact obligations differ by municipality size and type, but it is incumbent upon local governments to provide their residents with some type of recycling services.  Depending on the community, this may involve centralized recycling centers, collection points in multi-residential buildings, or curbside recycling with regular pickups at private homes and apartment complexes.

Oregon, similarly, has established mandates for local government recycling programs and is recognized for pioneering a variety of environmental initiatives.  This includes the 1971 Beverage Container Act, or “Bottle Bill,” which promotes recycling through a refund system for returned beverage containers.  The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality enforces recycling and waste management regulations, and the state aims high with waste reduction and increased recycling targets.  In contrast, Washington State does not obligate local governments to create recycling programs, but it does encourage and endorse such efforts strongly.  The state has a history of promoting recycling and sustainability, urging local governments, businesses, and citizens to engage in recycling and waste reduction through public service announcements (PSAs) and local government workshops held during annual meetings of the Association of Washington Cities (AWC) and the Washington State Associations of Counties (WASAC) and the Washington Association of Counties (WACO) which brings together county commissioners and other county-level elected officials and principal staff.

While curbside recycling is not compulsory in any of the three regions, British Columbia and Oregon see a large majority of their local governments offering such services, with rates at 73.8 percent and 78.0 percent, respectively.  Despite no state mandate being in force in Washington, 65.6 percent of the local governments surveyed have implemented recycling programs.  When considering the adoption of curbside recycling, 8.3 percent of British Columbia’s local governments are contemplating it, as are 9.3 percent in Oregon and 10.4 percent in Washington.  Focusing on local governments without curbside recycling, British Columbia has the largest proportion at 17.9 percent, compared to Oregon’s 12.7 percent, and Washington has the highest at 22.1 percent.  This finding indicates that in the absence of robust state policy requirements, fewer local governments in Washington have curbside recycling, and the region holds the largest percentage of governments without such a policy.

Table 4.1. Presence of Environmental Sustainability Policies, Programs, and Plans

Question: Please indicate if you have or do not have a plan, program or policy in place to promote—ecological—sustainability. [1=Yes, 2=No, 3=In Consideration]

Water conservation plans: In British Columbia, the Ministry of Environment and Climate Strategy is responsible for the management and conservation of water resources, but it does not mandate local governments to implement water conservation plans.  While specific requirements for such plans are absent, the province does encourage municipalities to adopt water-conserving measures as a part of its routine activities.  Similarly, in Washington and Oregon, there are no statutory obligations for local governments to develop and maintain water conservation plans, but both states’ respective environmental departments strongly encourage the development and adoption of these strategies.

Despite the lack of mandates, what is the extent of water conservation plan adoption in Cascadia?  The survey results displayed in Table 4.1 reveal high engagement levels with water conservation planning across local governments in all three regions.  The array of approaches is diverse, ranging from voluntary reductions in use to mandatory rationing, yet the majority of communities have some form of water resource plan in place, with 89.6 percent in Washington, 89.3 percent in British Columbia, and 77.1 percent in Oregon embracing water conservation measures.

The Chi-square statistic points to significant uptake of these programs, despite them not being a requirement.  Among local governments considering the introduction of water conservation strategies, 3.6 percent in British Columbia, 8.5 percent in Oregon, and 3.1 percent in Washington are deliberating over such programs.  Oregon emerges with the largest percentage of local governments yet to institute water conservation plans at 14.4 percent, while Washington has 7.4 percent, and British Columbia has the lowest at 7.1 percent.

Open Space Preservation: While British Columbia does not specifically require local governments to preserve open spaces through a particular policy, it does offer a supportive framework and provides guidelines for such initiatives.  Local governments in BC hold the power to establish their own land use planning and zoning bylaws.  Similarly, Washington State does not impose a uniform mandate on local governments for open space preservation, but the state strongly encourages them through the GMA, providing a supportive framework for how stakeholders can become engaged in the process at the county level of government.  In the same vein, Oregon does not prescribe a uniform approach to open space preservation, but the state underscores its importance through the 1970 Oregon Land Use Goals and Guidelines found in Chapter 197 of the Oregon Revised Statutes.

According to the information set forth in Table 4.1, Washington leads with the highest proportion of local governments implementing open space preservation programs at 64.4 percent.  Oregon follows with 58.5 percent, and British Columbia with 56 percent.  A majority of local governments across all three regions have embraced such programs.  For those considering the adoption of such programs, 14.3 percent of BC local governments are contemplating it, as are 8.5 percent in Oregon, and 3.1 percent in Washington.  Interestingly, about one-third of the surveyed local governments in these regions do not have and are not considering open space preservation programs (BC at 29.8%, Oregon at 33.1%, and Washington at 32.5%).  These figures are somewhat unexpected, especially for Oregon, which has had comprehensive land use planning legislation for over fifty years.  It might be anticipated that a higher percentage of local governments would have open space programs in place; however, the presence of many small and remote rural governments in Oregon might mean such programs are often not a top priority concern for local government officials.

Community Environmental Education: In British Columbia, the Ministry of Education, which is a large part of the provincial government, oversees all areas of education.  The agency establishes the core curriculum for public schools, but does not mandate that local governments develop and maintain community environmental education programs.  Oregon and Washington also don’t require such programs at the local level.  Though the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (an elective office) sets K-12 policy and core curriculum, local school districts run all public schools and offer educational programs under state guidelines.

Table 4.1 shows that a modest majority of local governments in each region have community environmental education programs in place.  Specifically, 54.8% in British Columbia, 52.5% in Oregon, and 52.1% in Washington had such programs in place at the time of the survey.  Considering future adoption, 7%+ in British Columbia, 8.5% in Oregon, and 16% in Washington are contemplating it.  On the flip side, 39% of Oregon, 38.1% of British Columbia, and 31.9% of Washington local governments lack such programs.

Growth Management (“Smart Growth”): Land use planning and zoning decisions fall primarily under the jurisdiction of local governments in British Columbia, Oregon, and Washington alike, without provincial or state mandates enforcing “smart growth” or growth management.  Nonetheless, these governments do shape the overall legal land use framework with foundational legislation such as British Columbia’s Local Government Act, Washington’s Growth Management Act, and Oregon’s Land Use Goals and Guidelines.  Survey results reveal that growth management plans have been adopted by 52.4% of the British Columbia small rural government respondents, 50.8% of Oregon cities, and 54.6% of Washington cities.  Plans are being considered by 11.9% of British Columbian respondents, 7.6% in Oregon, and 5.5% in Washington. The absence of such plans is highest in Oregon at 41.5%, then Washington at 39.9%

To summarize, strict sustainability program mandates are absent, yet a notable adoption of related policies exists among small, rural local governments in the Cascadia region.  British Columbia and Oregon typically have higher curbside recycling rates, and water conservation efforts are notably extensive in Washington and BC.  Washington stands out for its promotion of open space preservation, and most small rural local governments have instituted community environmental education and growth management plans, although there are some differences across the regions.

Additional analyses were conducted to investigate correlates of environmental sustainability policy adoption across the region (see Table 4.2).  The research findings documented in this 2023 study suggest that in the Cascadia region local governments’ adoption of environmental sustainability programs and plans decisions are largely influenced by several factors such as government type, rate of population growth/decline, local area economic conditions, and geographic factors.  Local governments blessed with professional city managers, growing populations, robust local economic conditions, and less remote location from major population centers are significantly more likely to adopt such programs.  More specifically, the study finds that:

• Across all environmental policies (A to E), local governments with a city manager tend to have higher percentages of adoption compared to those with other forms of governance. City managers often have professional backgrounds in public administration, which may include some expertise in environmental policy and sustainability. Their training and experience may lead them to prioritize environmental initiatives and advocate for the implementation of environmental policies within the cities which they manage.
• In general, local governments experiencing high population change tend to have higher percentages of adoption for all environmental policies compared to those with low population change. High population change often leads to increased demand for resources and infrastructure, as well as heightened pressure on the environment.  Local governments may respond to these challenges by implementing environmental policies to manage growth sustainably, protect area natural resources, and mitigate adverse environmental impacts.
• Larger cities (12,000 to 30,000 population) among our rural small government sample consistently show higher percentages of adoption for all environmental policies compared to the smallest cities (50 to 650 population). Larger cities generally have more ample budgets and enjoy greater financial resources compared to smaller cities.  This relative affluence allows them to allocate more funding towards environmental initiatives, such as recycling and waste reduction programs, water resource conservation projects, and community environmental education programs.  Also, larger cities often have more specialized staff and expertise dedicated to environmental management and sustainability. They may employ environmental planners, engineers, and specialists who can develop and implement comprehensive environmental policies tailored to the city’s needs.
• The least remote local governments tend to have higher percentages of adoption for all environmental policies compared to highly remote local governments. Less remote areas often have greater access to financial and human resources, which can aid in the development, initial implementation, and long-term maintenance of environmental policies.  Also, in less remote areas, there may be more exposure to information about the benefits of environmental policies, leading to greater public support and demand for these policies.  Governments in less remote areas may also provide more public services, including environmental services, due to higher tax bases and greater demand from community residents.
• Local governments with high revenue growth tend to have higher percentages of adoption for all environmental policies compared to those with low to no revenue growth. Higher revenue growth expands the range of possibilities for a local government to act on environmental concerns and provides a cushion that can absorb the initial costs associated with these policies.  More revenue can also fund the necessary infrastructure sometimes required for environmental policy implementation, such as recycling facilities or public transit and ride-sharing programs.
• Local governments with little to no inflationary impact on the budget tend to have higher percentages of adoption for all environmental policies compared to those with negative inflation impacting the budget. Inflation can erode the value of financial reserves over time.  If a government is not facing inflationary pressures, it can plan and budget for the long term with more certainty, making it easier to fund environmental initiatives.

Table 4.2 Characteristics of Local Government Adoption of Environmental Sustainability Plans and Programs

A = Curbside recycling
B = Water conservation
C = Open Space Preservation
D = Community Environmental Programs
E = Growth Management (Smart Growth)

Summary and Policy Implications

This case study highlights the fact that small and rural local governments are indeed grappling with a range of issues impacting their ability to maintain and implement public services and programs.  The focus of this study is the Cascadia region in Canada and the U.S., an area where local government decision makers play a crucial role in community sustainability, often working within the confines of limited resources and somewhat circumscribed authority.

This case study reveals that factors such as local economic conditions, jurisdiction types, population growth, and relative remoteness from major population centers are significantly associated with the adoption of environmental sustainability programs, providing better insight than state or provincial policies alone.  Overall, the adoption of these initiatives seems to be more influenced by local conditions and priorities rather than by broader state or provincial policies. However, the strong policies set forth in statutes in British Columbia, Oregon, and Washington are seen as instrumental in encouraging and promoting environmental sustainability, suggesting that without such foundational state and provincial level support the uptake of these initiatives might be much lower.

Key policy implications arising from this case study include:

• The importance of recognizing local economic conditions, jurisdiction types, population growth, and remoteness in crafting environmental sustainability programs points to the need for appropriately customized strategies for local governments as opposed to generic state or provincial policies.
• The tendency of financially challenged local governments to prioritize sustainability programs implies a persistently high value being placed on responsible environmental stewardship, despite ever-present budgetary constraints. This suggests the necessity for federal and state-level funding frameworks that facilitate the establishment and sustenance of such local programs, duly acknowledging economic hurdles such as prevailing rates of inflation.
• Small and rural local governments typically operate with more limited resources and less legal authority than their larger counterparts. There is a public policy requirement to bolster their governance capacities, best achieved through providing training for local government officials, investing in local community infrastructure, and forming partnerships with other governmental tiers and the private sector.
• The existence of strong sustainability-supportive policies in British Columbia, Oregon, and Washington illustrates how state and provincial frameworks can positively influence local program adoption. This underlines the need for cohesive policies that enable even resource-limited governments to implement sustainability initiatives.
• The capacity of small and rural local governments to adapt to new and persistent challenges, including those pertinent to sustainability, will be determinant in their enduring functionality. Policymakers should contemplate adaptive strategies that could include diversifying economies, extending highspeed broadband Internet access, securing clean energy access, managing resources sustainably, and protecting against environmental threats such as global climate change.

 References

Adams, M. (2004). Fire and ice: The United States, Canada and the myth of converging values. Penguin Books.

Ansieta, P. and Marzook, E. (2021). Agricultural irrigation patterns in Canada from 2012-2018. Statistics Canada. Retrieved from https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/16-508-x/16-508-x2021001-eng.htm

Ardoin, N.M., Bowers, A.W., and Gaillard, E. (2020). Environmental education outcomes for conservation: A systematic review. Biological Conservation, 241. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108224

Arlettaz, R., Schaub, M., Fournier, J., Reichlin, T., Sierro, A., Watson, J.E.M., and Braunisch, V. (2010). From publications to public actions: When conservation biologists bridge the gap between research and implementation. BioScience 60, 835-842.

Baker, R. (2023). When it comes to water security, small rural communities in B.C. largely left high and dry. Canada’s National Observer, September 6, 2023. Retrieved from https://www.nationalobserver.com/2023/09/06/news/when-it-comes-water-security-small-rural-communities-bc-largely-left-high-and-dry

Bantjes, R. (2011). Rural sustainability and the built environment. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 5, 158-178.

Baynham, M., and Stevens, M. (2014). Are we planning effectively for climate change? An evaluation of official community plans in British Columbia. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 57, 557-587.

BC Gov News. (2024). BC Stats report confirms growing population. Retrieved from https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2024MUNI0001-000109

Bonnie, R., Bennett, D., Diamond, E.P., and Rowe, E. (2020). Attitudes of rural westerners on the environment and conservation. Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions. Retrieved from https://www.uwyo.edu/haub/_files/_docs/ruckelshaus/private-lands-stewardship/2020-attitudes-of-rural-westerners.pdf

Bowersox, J. (2018). Environmental policy: The challenge of managing biodiversity in Oregon, in R.A. Clucas, M. Henkels, P.L. Southwell and E.P. Weber eds., Governing Oregon: Continuity and change. Oregon State University Press.

British Columbia Provincial Government. (2023). British Columbia and our governments.  Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/governments

Center for Western Priorities. (2022). New poll shows voters strongly support conservation efforts in the West but are increasingly frustrated with lack of action. Retrieved from https://westernpriorities.org/2022/07/new-poll-shows-voters-strongly-support-conservation-efforts-in-the-west-but-are-increasingly-frustrated-with-lack-of-action/

Clayton, C.W. and Lovrich, N.P. (2011). Governing Washington: Politics and government in the evergreen state. Washington State University Press.

Dillman, D.A., Smyth, J.D., and Christian, L.M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys. John Wiley and Sons.

Dolbey, M. (2008). Implementing smart growth strategies in rural America. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 14, 243-283.

Doukas, H., Papadopoulou, A., Savvakis, N., Tsoutsos, T., and Psarras, J. (2012). Assessing energy sustainability of rural communities using principal component analysis. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16, 1949-1957.

Drought.gov. (n.d.) Drought early warning system: Pacific Northwest. Retrieved from https://www.drought.gov/dews/pacific-northwest

Fairbrother, M., and Rhodes, E. (2023). Climate policy in British Columbia: An unexpected journey. Frontiers in Climate, 4, 1043672.

Fox, W.T. (1985). A continent apart: The United States and Canada in world politics. University of Toronto Press.

Freshwater, D. (2007). Rural development and the declining coherence of rural policy: An American and Canadian perspective. Agricultural Economics Staff Paper #467. University of Kentucky: Department of Agricultural Economics.

Glennon, R. (2021). A water strategy for the parched West: Have cities pay farmers to install more efficient irrigation systems. The Conversation. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/a-water-strategy-for-the-parched-west-have-cities-pay-farmers-to-install-more-efficient-irrigation-systems-185820

Government of British Columbia (2002). Agricultural Land Commission Act [SBC 2002] chapter 36. Retrieved from https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/02036_01

Government of British Columbia (2003). Environmental Management Act [SBC 2003] Chapter 53. Retrieved from https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/03053_00

Government of British Columbia (2008). Bill 27 – 2008: Local government (green communities) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008. Retrieved from https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/lc/billsprevious/4th38th:gov27-1.

Government of British Columbia (2024a). Water planning and strategies. Retrieved from  https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/water-planning-strategies

Government of British Columbia (2024b). Local government housing initiatives. Retrieved from  https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/housing-tenancy/local-governments-and-housing/housing-initiatives

Green, G.P., Deller, S.C., and Marcouiller, D.W. (eds.) (2005). Amenities and rural development: Theory, methods and public policy. UK: Edward Elgar.

Green, G.P. (2014). Sustainability and rural communities. Kansas Journal of Law and Public Policy, 23, 421-436.

Growth Management Act (2023). Department of Commerce, State of Washington. Retrieved from https://www.commerce.wa.gov/serving-communities/growth-management/

Horowitz, G. (1966). Conservatism, liberalism, and socialism in Canada: An interpretation. Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, 32, 143-171.

Husain, A.E., and Steel, B.S. (2018). Local government, in Oregon state and local politics: innovation and change, Weber, E.P., Clucas, R., Southwell, P., and Henkels, M., Eds. Oregon State University Press.

IAF. (2023). Agricultural water infrastructure program. Retrieved from https://iafbc.ca/agricultural-water-infrastructure-program/

Kelly, E.D. (2004). Managing community growth. Greenwood Publishing.

Kennedy, E.H., Beckley, T.M., Mcfarlane, B.L., and Nadeau, S. (2009) Rural-urban differences in environmental concern in Canada. Rural Sociology, 7, 309-329.

Krawchenko, T., Hayes, B., Foster, K., and Markey, S. (2023). What are contemporary rural development policies? A Pan-Canadian content analysis of government strategies, plans, and programs for rural areas. Canadian Public Policy, 49, 252-266.

Lichter, D.T., and Johnson, K.M. (2023). Urbanization and the paradox of rural population decline: Racial and regional variation. Socius, 9. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/23780231221149896

Litman, T. (2022). Evaluating criticism of smart growth. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Retrieved from https://www.vtpi.org/sgcritics.pdf

Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD). (2022). 2022 Legislative report water use measurement and reporting. Retrieved from https://www.oregon.gov/owrd/WRDReports/OWRD_2022_LegislativeReport_WaterUse_Measurement_Reporting.pdf

Parker, K., Horowitz, J.M., Brown, A., Fry, R., Cohn, D., and Igielnik, R. (2018). Urban, suburban and rural residents’ views on key social and political issues. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/05/22/urban-suburban-and-rural-residents-views-on-key-social-and-political-issues/

Pierce, J.C., Lovrich, N.P., Steel, B.S., and Steger, M.A. (2000). Political culture and public policy in Canada and the United States: Only a border apart? Edwin Mellen Press.

Reese, L.A. and Rosenfeld, R.A. (2004). Local economic development in the United States and Canada: Institutionalizing policy approaches. The American Review of Public Administration, 34, 277-292.

Ryser, L., Halseth, G., Markey, S., & Young, A. (2023). Tensions between municipal reform and outdated fiscal levers in rural British Columbia. The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe canadien, 67(1), 150-164.

Statistics Canada (2020). Index of remoteness (2020). Retrieved from https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/17-26-0001/172600012020001-eng.htm

Statistics Canada (2022). Population growth in Canada’s rural areas, 2016 to 2021. Retrieved from: https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/as-sa/98-200-x/2021002/98-200-x2021002-eng.cfm

Steel, B.S. (2012). “Local government sustainability plans, programs and policies in Oregon’s wine producing area,” in  Andreopoulou, Z., Cesaretti, G.P., and Misso, R. Eds. Development sustainability and territorial dimension: The role of regional systems with rural vocations. Naples: Franco Angeli Press.

Stevens, M., and Senbel, M. (2012). Examining municipal response to a provincial climate action planning mandate in British Columbia, Canada. Local Environment, 17, 837-861.

Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM). (2021). Cancellation of the Climate Action Revenue Incentive Program. Retrieved from https://www.ubcm.ca/convention-resolutions/resolutions/resolutions-database/cancellation-climate-action-revenue

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2021). Putting smart growth to work in rural communities. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/putting-smart-growth-work-rural-communities

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2024). Smart growth in small towns and rural communities. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/smart-growth-small-towns-and-rural-communities

USGS (2015). Water use in Washington. (2015). Retrieved from https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2018/3058/fs20183058.pdf

Washington Office of Financial Management (2023). Washington tops 7.9 million residents in 2023. Retrieved from https://ofm.wa.gov/about/news/2023/06/washington-tops-79-million-residents-2023

Weber, B.A., and Howell, R.E. (2019). Coping with rapid growth in rural communities. Routledge.

Weber, E.P., and Rogers, E. (2018). Environmental and natural resource policy in the evergreen state, in Clayton, C.W., Donovan, T., and Lovrich, N.P., Governing the evergreen state: Political life in Washington. WSU Press.

Wherry, A. (2021). Two new solitudes – rural and urban – now define the Canadian political landscape. CBC News, October 3, 2021. Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/2021-election-rural-urban-conservative-liberal-1.6197095

Winther, A.M. (2017). Community sustainability: a holistic approach to measuring the sustainability of rural communities in Scotland. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 24, 338-351.

Wise, R.G., and Brown, S.F. (1967). Canada Views the United States: Nineteenth-century Political Attitudes. Toronto: Macmillan. Retrieved from https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1130000796115189632

Wlostowski, A.N., Jennings, K.S., Bash, R.E., Burkhardt, J., Wobus, C.M., and Aggett, G. (2023). Dry landscapes and parched economies: A review of how drought impacts nonagricultural socioeconomic sectors in the US Intermountain West. WIREs Water, 9. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1571