PatrickWYLo_ValueBasedSocialHousingDecisionMaking

APPLYING VALUE-BASED DECISION MAKING TO ADDRESS
CONFLICTS OVER SOCIAL HOUSING PROJECTS
THE CASE OF THE TERWILLEGAR HOUSING PROJECT IN
EDMONTON, ALBERTA
PATRICK WAI YAN LO
2016 MARCH

APPLYING VALUE-BASED DECISION MAKING TO ADDRESS CONFLICTS OVER SOCIAL HOUSING
PROJECTS: THE CASE OF THE TERWILLEGAR HOUSING PROJECT
IN EDMONTON, ALBERTA
by
PATRICK WAI YAN LO
B. Sc., The University of Alberta, 2013
A PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE (PLANNING)
in
THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES
School of Community and Regional Planning
We accept this project as conforming
to the required standard
___________________________________________
___________________________________________
___________________________________________
THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
March 2016
© Patrick Wai Yan Lo, 2016

VALUE-BASED DECISION MAKING TO ADDRESS CONFLICTS OVER SOCIAL HOUSING PROJECTS
1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, I would like to sincerely thank Dr. Leonora Angeles for her helpful guidance as my
research supervisor, as well as her patience as I flipped and flopped through my Master’s program. I
would also like to sincerely thank Mr. Nathan Edelson for graciously acting as my second reader for
this research project, as well as for his kind understanding when I had to withdraw from his course.
Thank you to my peers and professors at the School of Community and Regional Planning for their
support over these past three years. Thank you also to new friends and acquaintances I have met
during my time at the University of British Columbia for sharing with me various interesting, fun,
and valuable experiences.
A thank you goes to all of the participants in the Terwillegar housing project debate in my
hometown of Edmonton, for providing such a controversial yet inspirational real-life community
planning story to motivate both my capstone research project and my planning career. On a related
note, thanks to Jasper Place Wellness Centre for keeping the posts and visitor comments written
during the Terwillegar controversy still online and publicly accessible on their Facebook page.
On a humorous note, thanks to the 24-hour facilities at Simon Fraser University, which, unlike the
facilities at the University of British Columbia, provided on many occasions an academic, quiet, and
comfortable place for me to study and work during the hours deep into the night.
And lastly, thanks to my family and my closest friends for always being there.

2
PREFACE
This paper presents and explores a decision-making process for decisions on social housing
projects that is likely quite different from the decision approaches that are commonly used or
championed by those involved in making decisions related to social housing. For one thing, this
process centers on people’s values, which are based largely on opinions and perspectives, rather
than centering on more rational facts and evidence. The author does not have a clear answer as to
how best to fit such a value-based process within the broader policy and decision making
framework that exists in our society today, which might often put more emphasis on evidence than
values. Perhaps it can be argued that considering people’s values through a structured decision
process can actually contribute some sort of meaningful ‘evidence’ for the benefits and drawbacks
of different alternatives in social housing decisions.
In any case, the decision-making process described in this paper, and to some extent, this paper in
general, is a response to the frustrating dilemma that the author sees whenever localized
opposition and controversy arises over a proposal for a new social housing development – the
dilemma between providing important and valuable help for those less fortunate, and enabling
residents to have more influence over decisions that might (or might not) affect their lives. Many
people might not consider this to be a real dilemma – simply read the commentary on any related
news item to see people who lean heavily towards one side or the other. But for the purposes of this
paper, let us step back, and imagine for a bit…

3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Professional Planning Project paper proposes a value-based decision-making process for
decisions on social housing projects, with the intention of trying to address the conflicts that all-
too-often occur between stakeholders with differing opinions and values. Drawing upon concepts in
the literature on value-based decision making and conflicts over social housing projects, the author
developed a framework for this value-based decision-making process, and hypothetically applied it
to the case of the controversial Terwillegar housing project in Edmonton, Alberta.
During the summer of 2013, Edmontonians were embroiled in an intense debate regarding a new
social housing project in the suburban neighbourhood of Terwillegar. The proposed project was to
be located on land owned by the Anglican Diocese of Edmonton adjacent to a neighbourhood
church, and was to be developed and operated by a local non-profit service provider, Jasper Place
Health and Wellness Centre. Edmontonians living within Terwillegar, as well as Edmontonians
living elsewhere in the city, expressed passionate opinions of all kinds about the project. The
intensity of the debate might be attributable to this project being the first proposed development of
its kind in a suburban area in Edmonton. The controversy only ended when the Anglican Diocese
decided to withdraw the project primarily due to the intense controversy and lack of public support.
Essentially, the value-based decision-making process involves framing the debate about a social
housing project around people’s values, working intimately with key stakeholders on all sides of the
conflict to specify their values, and then creating alternatives for the decision based on those values.
For the explicit purpose of addressing conflicts over social housing projects, it matters which
stakeholders will be considered when eliciting stakeholder values. Stakeholders that should be
included in value elicitation, if they are present in the specific decision context, are the developer
and operator of the social housing project, the ‘enabler’ who is partnering with the developer by
providing the property for the social housing project, the funders of the developer for the specific
project, and the neighbours of the proposed social housing.
Stakeholders that should be excluded from value elicitation are politicians, and supporters who are
not part of the neighbourhood. Politicians are excluded because they can obstruct direct dialogue
between stakeholders, and their presence can introduce an unnecessary power dynamic that is

4
unhelpful for creating and maintaining a process that is inclusive and encompassing of all
viewpoints and participants. Nonetheless, with respect to broader government policies related to
social housing that must be considered in all local social housing decisions, the developer and the
funders will very likely convey at least the intents of these policies through their identified
stakeholder values. Outsider supporters are excluded because including them can incite animosity
amongst participants from the neighbourhood, which is detrimental for trying to resolve conflict
over the social housing project at hand. However, as part of this decision-making process, it is still
possible to constructively involve outsider supporters not directly as stakeholders at the table, but
indirectly as some sort of consultants to provide evidence-based information to those at the table.
Decision makers and facilitators should be open-minded about the number of alternatives needed
to best satisfy the identified stakeholder values. For instance, it is fine to have a set of coordinated
alternatives, such as a main alternative with add-on minor ‘alternatives’; such a set can always be
treated as a single alternative at the end of the decision process. As well, the author highly
recommends consideration of “process alternatives” (Keeney, 1992) – alterations to the decision
process itself – that increase stakeholder participation and inclusion in the process. This is
especially pertinent if a specific social housing proposal has already been put forward and conflict
between stakeholders is already considerable.
As much as possible, decision makers and facilitators should strive to address each and every one of
the stakeholder values that are identified. The author believes treating all stakeholder values
equally, unless there is a clear prioritization of the values agreed upon by stakeholders themselves,
can make the decision process more encompassing, such as by possibly enabling a greater diversity
of alternatives. This is beneficial for addressing conflict between stakeholders.
This paper presents the procedure below to create an alternative or alternatives from a list of
stakeholder values or objectives that could be useful for a social housing decision or any value-
based decision. Here is when facts and other evidence-based information, provided by the outsider
supporter-consultants or other parties with expertise about the social housing decision at hand, can
contribute to this decision process.
 Start with thinking about alternative(s) for one fundamental value that forms the core of the
decision, that without satisfying it, there is essentially no point to any outcome of the
process.

5
 Then, consider how to address those values that are easier to achieve, that can be satisfied
by adding aspects onto the identified alternative(s) without impacting the other values.
 Next, consider, again through adding-on of aspects to the alternative(s), how to satisfy the
values that are harder to achieve and which might be involved in trade-offs between other
values.
 Finally, consider how the remaining values that might have been on the losing end of trade-
offs can be brought back into the currently identified alternative(s).
Various insights were obtained from the Terwillegar case study about applying value-based
decision making to address conflicts over proposed social housing projects. First of all, there needs
to be people who are willing to engage at all. Even if people are screaming and yelling at the
decision makers, at least they are engaging in the discussion, and signal at least a bit of willingness
to participate in the process. These people are more helpful than people who might choose to only
protest silently while the process occurs. Decision makers and facilitators should strive to reach out
to as many diverse voices in the neighbourhood as possible, and it is hoped that a better decision
process will encourage all residents who have thoughts about a social housing project to check out
the new process and become engaged.
Also, it is important to have people who are willing to receive, and perhaps even seek out, new
knowledge about aspects of the social housing project and decision. Researchers have observed
that for a value-based decision-making process to be useful for resolving conflicts, it is important
that participants experience a learning effect through their participation (Hostmann, Bernauer,
Mosler, Reichert, & Truffer, 2005). Furthermore, people who are open to learning new knowledge
will likely participate more substantially and constructively in the process, such as by being able to
contribute more diverse ideas for alternatives. This kind of “social learning” (Briggs, 2008) can
resolve the potential problem of this decision process resulting in overly narrow thinking or actions.
In the same vein, it is beneficial to have proponents who are able and willing to organize
opportunities for the aforementioned kinds of learning. In particular, there are many positives to
letting concerned and opposed neighbours visit similar existing social housing developments, or
providing a chance for them to meet and chat in-person with people living in and people living near
existing developments.

6
To accurately and thoroughly elicit stakeholder values, there should be a good facilitator who is
able to distinguish the noise from the message. Obviously, this facilitator must remain as neutral as
possible, and avoid being perceived as suggesting participants hold certain underlying values when
they actually do not. This facilitator needs to be able to really listen to what people are saying or
deduce what people are really conveying through written comments. The deeper the facilitator is
able to go to uncover stakeholders’ opinions, motivations, and values, the more likely that concerns
and opposition to a social housing project will be dealt with successfully.
It is extremely helpful to have the presence of a key stakeholder on the decision maker side who
genuinely wishes to work with stakeholders and not impose something on them. Such a stakeholder
will be more willing than other stakeholders to try out processes that are intended to address
stakeholder conflict and improve public and stakeholder engagement. In addition, by taking on the
role of an “interested facilitator” (Briggs, 2008), who is both willing to improve the stakeholder
engagement process but at the same time hoping the process will achieve certain outcomes such as
getting a social housing project built, these stakeholders are well-positioned to encourage capacity
building for collective action by resolving process breakdowns between stakeholders.
Regardless of what alternative for the social housing decision is chosen after going through the
value-based decision-making process, it is strongly recommended that after the decision is
implemented, periodic check-ins are conducted with those who participated in the process, along
with any new stakeholders, such as new members of the neighbourhood including tenants of the
new social housing. The purpose of these check-ins is to review whether the values and objectives
identified through the value-based decision process have actually been satisfied, as well as to
discuss any new or ongoing issues and ideas for improving the social housing project.
Lastly, in any scenario, when trying to overcome community opposition to social housing, the
decision maker and facilitator should always keep an open mind about participants and stay
optimistic. As time passes, as more information and knowledge about a social housing project is
shared with concerned stakeholders, and as mutual trust begins to develop between stakeholders,
people can indeed change their positions and become more supportive of the social housing project.

7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................11
1.1. What is the problem?..............................................................................................................................................11
1.2. A proposal: Value-based decision making.....................................................................................................12
1.3. Project approach.......................................................................................................................................................15
1.4. Project limitations....................................................................................................................................................16
1.5. Organization of report............................................................................................................................................17
2. VALUE-BASED DECISION MAKING AND SOCIAL HOUSING PROJECTS .....................................................19
2.1. Foundations of value-based decision making ..............................................................................................19
2.1.1. Specifying values or objectives............................................................................................................................20
2.1.2. Creating and selecting alternatives..................................................................................................................22
2.2. Applications of value-based decision making ..............................................................................................23
2.3. Stakeholders in decisions on social housing projects...............................................................................26
2.4. Common sources of conflict over social housing projects ......................................................................27
2.5. Addressing conflicts over social housing .......................................................................................................28
2.6. Caveats of using value-based decision making............................................................................................31
3. THE TERWILLEGAR CASE STUDY – CONTEXT AND METHODS...................................................................32
3.1. Case study context ...................................................................................................................................................32
3.1.1. The project site...........................................................................................................................................................32
3.1.2. The social housing project.....................................................................................................................................38
3.2. Case study data collection.....................................................................................................................................40
4. A VALUE-BASED DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK FOR SOCIAL HOUSING PROJECTS AND ITS
APPLICATION TO THE TERWILLEGAR CASE............................................................................................................42
4.1. Framework for value-based decision making for a social housing project......................................42
4.1.1. Recognize a decision problem.............................................................................................................................43
4.1.2. Specify values ..............................................................................................................................................................44
4.1.3. Create alternative(s)................................................................................................................................................48
4.1.4. Evaluate alternative(s)...........................................................................................................................................49
4.1.5. Select an alternative................................................................................................................................................49
4.2. Applying value-based decision making to the Terwillegar case...........................................................50
4.2.1. Recognize a decision problem.............................................................................................................................50

8
4.2.2. Specify values ..............................................................................................................................................................50
4.2.3. Create and evaluate alternative(s)...................................................................................................................58
5. DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS............................................................................................................................................61
5.1. Factors for ‘success’ in the case study .............................................................................................................61
5.2. Lessons for applying value-based decision making to social housing decisions...........................63
5.3. Recommendations for future research ...........................................................................................................66
6. CONCLUSION......................................................................................................................................................................68
REFERENCES...........................................................................................................................................................................69

9
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. A comparison of steps involved in value-focused thinking and alternative-focused thinking
for making a decision...........................................................................................................................................19
Table 2. Demographics of the Terwillegar Towne and South Terwillegar neighbourhoods compared
to the entire City of Edmonton. Data taken from the City of Edmonton’s Neighbourhood
Profiles, which used Statistics Canada’s 2011 Census of Canada data............................................36
Table 3. Values of Jasper Place Health and Wellness Centre as expressed through their statements
about the Terwillegar housing project. ........................................................................................................51
Table 4. Values of the Anglican Diocese of Edmonton and Holy Trinity Riverbend Anglican Church as
expressed through their statements on the Terwillegar housing project......................................52
Table 5. (Split into three sub-tables) Themes expressed by Terwillegar residents in discussions
about the Terwillegar housing project on Jasper Place Health and Wellness Centre’s
Facebook page. Individuals are denoted by their initials. ....................................................................53
Table 5.1. Themes expressed by Terwillegar residents A. A. to J. C...................................................................53
Table 5.2. Themes expressed by Terwillegar residents J. K. to M. H.................................................................53
Table 5.3. Themes expressed by Terwillegar residents M. L. to W. M..............................................................54
Table 6. Sample of statements, categorized by theme, made by Terwillegar residents in discussions
about the Terwillegar housing project on Jasper Place Health and Wellness Centre’s
Facebook page.........................................................................................................................................................54
Table 7. Popularity of themes expressed by Terwillegar residents in discussions about the
Terwillegar housing project on Jasper Place Health and Wellness Centre’s Facebook page. 55
Table 8. Stakeholder values held by Jasper Place Health and Wellness Centre (JPHWC) and their
funders, the Anglican Diocese of Edmonton and Holy Trinity Riverbend Anglican Church,
and the neighbouring residents in the Terwillegar community. .......................................................57
Table 9. Structuring the values of stakeholders involved in the decision process for the Terwillegar
housing project into categories around five fundamental values or objectives..........................58

10
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Aerial imagery of the neighbourhood around the Terwillegar housing site.............................32
Figure 2. Aerial imagery of the larger area around the Terwillegar housing site. .....................................33
Figure 3. Photo of Holy Trinity Riverbend Anglican Church where the proposed Terwillegar housing
project is located....................................................................................................................................................35
Figure 4. Photo of streetscape across from Holy Trinity Riverbend Anglican Church where the
proposed Terwillegar housing project is located.....................................................................................35
Figure 5. Official land use map for the neighbourhood of South Terwillegar, as presented in the City
of Edmonton’s South Terwillegar Neighbourhood Area Structure Plan. .......................................37
Figure 6. A framework for value-based decision making to address conflict over a social housing
project.........................................................................................................................................................................43

INTRODUCTION
11
1. INTRODUCTION
Yes, I get that they want to change their lives. I do not wish to change mine. I have
rights in this community too. I have lived in it for 10+ years, and I deserve to know
what is going on. I deserve to know what the plan is. I deserve to know if I should kick
back and relax 'cause everything is going to be just fine, or if I should actively protest a
project that isn't a good fit for the prospective residents or the community in which I
live. I deserve to know if I will be uncomfortable enough to move. I deserve to be able
to plan. I deserve that.
T. H., comment on Jasper Place Health and Wellness
Centre’s Facebook page, 2013 July 7.
1.1. What is the problem?
Homelessness is one of the most pervasive issues in urban communities around the world. Housing
for homeless individuals can take a vast range of different forms, and the terminology used to refer
to housing for the homeless is likewise variable. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
(CMHC), the federal government agency that oversees housing matters in Canada, lists housing
forms such as emergency shelters, transitional housing, supportive housing, and subsidized housing
(CMHC, 2016). BC Housing, the Government of British Columbia’s Crown Corporation responsible
for affordable housing issues, lists housing types such as emergency housing, supportive housing,
subsidized housing, and affordable rental housing (BC Housing, 2016).
For the purposes of this project, the term ‘social housing’ will be used, and shall be defined as
housing that is:
 not for profit,
 not distributed through the private housing market,
 targeted to low-income or no-income individuals, and
 intended to provide longer-term rather than temporary shelter. This excludes emergency
shelters, but includes all types of transitional, supportive, and subsidized non-market
housing.

INTRODUCTION
12
The term ‘social housing’ is preferred over ‘affordable housing’ because ‘affordable housing’ is a
considerably broad term that may encompass both non-market and market housing, as long as the
costs of the housing are considered ‘affordable’. In Canada, ‘affordable’ housing costs officially
means less than 30% of a household’s pre-tax income go toward housing (CMHC, 2016); this
definition is used in the United States as well (Iglesias, 2002). Another reason to use ‘social housing’
instead of ‘affordable housing’ is because ‘social housing’ has been used in recent government
policies as a term to contrast with private, market housing (Government of British Columbia, 2014).
Homelessness is recognized by many politicians, community leaders, and members of the general
public as an important problem to address and alleviate. Yet, far too often, when governments and
non-profit agencies try to address homelessness by providing more social housing, proposals for
new social housing projects are met with controversy and conflict in the public sphere between
stakeholders with differing viewpoints. Many social housing developers consider public or
neighbourhood opposition to social housing the most significant barrier to the development of
social housing, besides lack of funding (Iglesias, 2002).
Local, neighbourhood-level opposition to social housing has arguably become almost cliché. What
usually happens after opposition arises? Perhaps because such conflicts are commonly viewed as
intractable or require too much effort to deal with, decision makers either give in and withdraw the
social housing proposal, or simply choose to approve the project in spite of public outcry. Both of
these paths are unsatisfactory in a society that supposedly values both democracy and helping
fellow humans who are less advantaged.
1.2. A proposal: Value-based decision making
In this paper, the author proposes that a decision process focused on and revolving around values
can be used in deliberations on social housing proposals in order to reduce and perhaps even
resolve conflicts between stakeholders. A “value” shall be defined as any concept or issue that a
participant in the process believes is important and should be taken into consideration. In his book
Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decisionmaking, Ralph Keeney (1992) proposed a
paradigm for decision making that focuses on the values involved in a decision, in contrast with the
typical paradigm that focuses on the alternatives available. Keeney argues that “value-focused

INTRODUCTION
13
thinking” leads to better decision making because focusing on values can enable decision makers to
create better alternatives.
The framing of debates over social housing has been considered crucial to the outcome of a social
housing project’s decision process (Nguyen, Basolo, & Tiwari, 2013). This Professional Planning
Project is based on the fundamental argument that framing debates about a social housing project
in terms of values, and making values the centerpiece of the decision process, enables a more
accessible and inclusive process that gives all participants more equal footing. Everyone has things
that they consider important. And everyone can have a myriad of rationales, whether ‘right’ or
‘wrong’, whether moral, logical, rational, emotional, or otherwise, for ‘knowing’ that something is
important. Each concern, criticism, and opinion expressed by an individual is motivated by some
underlying value held by that individual, and moreover, these values can be shared to different
extents by individuals across the spectrum of opinions (see Mindell’s definition of ‘role’ below).
Focusing on values when addressing conflict over a proposed social housing project has the
potential to bring diverse and opposing views together to create better outcomes through a more
satisfactory decision process.
Arnold Mindell (1995) provides the following definition of a “role” in the context of facilitation and
conflict resolution in large group settings:
A cultural rank, position or viewpoint that depends on time and place. Roles […]
change rapidly because they are a function of the moment and locality. Roles in groups
are not fixed, but fluid. They are filled by different individuals and parties over time,
keeping the roles in a constant state of flux. (p. 42)
Mindell (1995) also suggests that facilitators and negotiators should, instead of considering
participants as “staked in clearly marked positions”, focus on promoting dialogue between
participants even amidst “tension and chaos” (p. 202). Applying this to stakeholder engagement in a
social housing decision process, instead of thinking that opponents of the housing project will
always have fixed viewpoints and be unyielding in their opposition, decision makers should keep an
open mind as well as be optimistic that the opposition and conflict is not intractable. Furthermore,
if decision makers focus on stakeholders’ values instead of on the stakeholders themselves, there
should be a greater chance of resolving core concerns that might lead any individual to become
opposed to the project.

INTRODUCTION
14
It might seem that the approach that will be described in this paper is similar to other
communicative and deliberative methods of public and stakeholder engagement. Indeed, this
approach is communicative as it places emphasis on dialogue between stakeholders. As well, it fits
the general definition of “deliberation” – a discussion that is informed, value-based, and potentially
transformative for participants (Blacksher, Diebel, Forest, Goold, & Abelson, 2012). However, an
essential element of public deliberation is the opportunity to not only reflect on and discuss varying
viewpoints, but also to “challenge and test competing […] claims” (Blacksher et al., 2012). With the
current approach, the author recommends that there be an avoidance of challenging and testing of
stakeholders’ viewpoints, because any kind of challenging could favour those individuals who are
able to more eloquently or rationally present their viewpoints, and would create an environment
that is not as inclusive and accessible as it could be. This is not to say, of course, that facilitators and
decision makers should neglect the importance of maintaining a safe, welcoming space for
discussion and dialogue.
The author was unable to find, in the academic literature or otherwise, cases where value-based
decision making had been applied for proposed social housing projects. Why might decision makers
not choose value-based decision processes for social housing decisions? One reason might be that
there is a prevalent belief that “when applying communicative and deliberative planning processes
at the neighborhood level, regional needs – such as affordable housing or racial integration – can be
overlooked” (Tighe, 2010). Given that many political leaders, service providers for the homeless,
and other decision makers generally recognize the importance and urgency in addressing the
homelessness problem, and might be all-too-familiar with local opposition to development projects,
it is not inconceivable that decision makers might simply prefer an easier route to getting social
housing built. Besides, studies have shown that neighbours of housing projects for homeless or low-
income individuals eventually become positive about the projects anyway (Tighe, 2010). This gives
one more rationale for decision makers to skip spending of time and effort on an in-depth
stakeholder engagement process – whether value-based, deliberative, or otherwise.
For a process such as the one described in this paper that is aimed at addressing conflict between
stakeholders by giving voice and influence to all viewpoints regardless of their ‘merit’, there are
some common concerns that might be raised. One is the concern that a kind of “tyranny from below”
(Briggs, 2008, p. 308) will result, in which participants use a “parochial” type of decision making

INTRODUCTION
15
(Briggs, 2008, p. 308) and choose actions that might be overly narrow in scope and perhaps neglect
the rights or wellbeing of some individuals or groups. Another concern is that while a more
collective decision process can be preferable to a more unilateral or autocratic process in terms of
being more inclusive of different voices, collective processes are only as good as their ability to
overcome collective impasse and enable people to actually accomplish things that make people’s
lives better (Briggs, 2008, p. 315). The author believes there are ways that these concerns can be
addressed through the value-based decision-making process proposed.
1.3. Project approach
This Professional Planning Project is largely an analytical investigation of the application of value-
based decision making to decisions on social housing projects. First, the researcher will draw upon
concepts in the literature on value-based decision making and conflicts over social housing projects
to create a value-based decision-making framework applicable to decisions on proposed social
housing projects. Then, this framework will be tested on the single case study of the controversial
Terwillegar social housing project in Edmonton, Alberta. The results of the case study will provide
insight on the application of a value-based decision process for social housing decisions in
Edmonton and beyond.
During the summer of 2013, Edmontonians were embroiled in an intense debate regarding a new
60-unit, supportive housing project for people who have experienced homelessness. The proposed
project was to be located in the suburban neighbourhood of Terwillegar in the southwest part of
the city, on land owned by the Anglican Diocese of Edmonton adjacent to a neighbourhood church.
It was to be developed and operated by a local non-profit service provider, Jasper Place Health and
Wellness Centre (JPHWC, now known as Jasper Place Wellness Centre). Edmontonians living within
Terwillegar, as well as Edmontonians living elsewhere in the city, expressed passionate opinions of
all kinds about the project. The intensity of the debate could perhaps be attributed to the fact that
this project was “the first proposed development of this size and scope in a suburban area” in
Edmonton (Anglican Diocese of Edmonton, 2013a). The controversy continued until early
November 2013, when the Anglican Diocese decided to withdraw the project primarily due to the
intense controversy and lack of public support (CBC News, 2013). The land continues to sit vacant
today.

INTRODUCTION
16
Data from the Terwillegar case study are needed to elicit stakeholder values for the hypothetical
value-based decision-making process. These data were collected by using public documents and
other archival records rather than through direct observation or interviews. Specifically, the author
examined press releases and official responses by stakeholders, as well as publicly accessible posts
on social media related to the debate. Primary sources such as those listed above were preferred
for value elicitation over secondary sources such as media reports because the author believes
primary sources provide more direct, honest, and blunt insights, without being filtered by
intermediaries. Document analysis and discourse analysis were conducted to draw inferences
regarding what themes were expressed and what underlying values were held by the key
stakeholders involved.
The Terwillegar housing project, to be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 3, is an excellent social
housing case to use for this project because of the following reasons:
 The project failed as a result of the process. It is interesting, whether from a scholarly
perspective, a homeless advocate perspective, or a public engagement practitioner
perspective, to imagine what could have become of the project if a different process took
place.
 The debate around the project still forms a prominent part of Edmontonians’ collective
ethos, two-and-a-half years after it occurred (Stolte, 2016).
 As will be explained later, the presence and role of the Anglican Church as a stakeholder in
the project could have been very helpful to the application of a value-based decision
process.
1.4. Project limitations
This project is a hypothetical application of a decision-making process to a decision from 2013 that
has already concluded. Consequently, it will not have as much grounding in reality as a concrete
application to an ongoing decision through a physical collaboration with stakeholders. In addition,
the author had no contact with the stakeholders involved in the Terwillegar case, and therefore has
not obtained the stakeholders’ opinions on how and whether a value-based decision process would
have worked. Despite being unable to know for sure whether the proposed process will succeed in

INTRODUCTION
17
real life, the author will still attempt to draw out key insights and recommendations for potential
applications of the process.
For eliciting values of the local neighbours of the Terwillegar housing project, the author used only
the comments and posts available on the Facebook page of Jasper Place Health and Wellness Centre,
which is completely open to the public.1 The author is aware of other Facebook pages where there
were discussions of the project, but those pages are either closed to the public (they are private
groups/pages), require logging in to Facebook, and/or do not appear to contain a large amount of
conflicting opinions. In particular, there is a Facebook page named Terwillegar Speaks that gained
infamy during the controversy as a place for neighbours opposed to the project to express their
opinions (Kozicka, 2013), but unfortunately it requires an invitation to gain access. This page would
have provided a wealth of data about stakeholders opposed to the project; however, for the
purposes of this project, the author feels that the data obtained from the JPHWC Facebook page are
sufficient.
1.5. Organization of report
The following section, Chapter 2, of this paper discusses the conceptual bases of value-based
decision making and applications of value-based decision making. It also presents information
about the stakeholders and the conflicts that are potentially present in the decision process of a
social housing proposal.
The case study section, Chapter 3, begins with an overview of the context of the Terwillegar housing
project, providing information about the Terwillegar neighbourhood, the specific site of the
proposed housing, and the various stakeholders involved in the process. Afterwards, details are
also provided on the author’s data collection process for the case study.
The next section, Chapter 4, presents a framework for a value-based decision-making process that
is applicable to controversial proposed social housing projects. A walkthrough is provided of how
the value-based decision-making framework can be applied to the Terwillegar case.
1 https://www.facebook.com/Jasper-Place-Wellness-Centre-155878244434660/

INTRODUCTION
18
The paper concludes with a discussion about the ‘success’ of the case study, insights and lessons
learned about applying value-based decision making to social housing decisions, and
recommendations for future research.

VALUE-BASED DECISION MAKING AND SOCIAL HOUSING PROJECTS
19
2. VALUE-BASED DECISION MAKING AND SOCIAL HOUSING PROJECTS
2.1. Foundations of value-based decision making
Ralph Keeney (1992) proposed “value-focused thinking” as a better way of thinking about decisions
than the typical paradigm which Keeney termed “alternative-focused thinking”. Table 1 shows the
basic sequence of activities in each of the two approaches when a decision maker is confronted with
a decision. The key difference is that in alternative-focused thinking, the decision maker considers
what alternatives are available to choose from before thinking about what values are important to
the decision, whereas in value-focused thinking, the decision maker first considers what values are
important to the decision and then imagines alternatives based on those values. In other words,
Value-focused thinking involves starting at the best and working to make it a reality.
Alternative-focused thinking is starting with what is readily available and taking the
best of the lot. (Keeney, 1992, p. 6)
Table 1. A comparison of steps involved in value-focused thinking and alternative-focused thinking for
making a decision.
Value-focused thinking Alternative-focused thinking
1) Recognize a decision problem Recognize a decision problem
2) Specify values Identify alternatives
3) Create alternatives Specify values
4) Evaluate alternatives Evaluate alternatives
5) Select an alternative Select an alternative
Source: Adapted from Keeney (1992, p. 49).
Keeney (1992) believes that using a value-based decision process will “broaden the range of
alternatives considered by eliminating any anchoring on already-identified alternatives” (p. 50). As
well, it has been argued that centering a decision process on objectives, intentions, and desired
results – all of which relate to values – makes it easier to achieve the desired consequences of a
decision (Selart & Johansen, 2011).

20
2.1.1. Specifying values or objectives
Keeney (1992) states that the values of decision makers and stakeholders are made explicit using
objectives. An objective is a clear statement of the thing someone wants to achieve, and contains “a
decision context, an object, and a direction of preference” (Keeney, 1992, p. 33-34). Various
methods can be used to identify objectives of stakeholders and thereby identify their values
(Keeney, 1992, p. 57-65); these methods include:
 Wish-listing: asking a participant to say, without any limitations, what they think is
important.
 Using existing or hypothetical alternatives and thinking about what is good and what is bad
about each.
 Focusing on existing problems or shortcomings of the status-quo: What should be changed
or how can things be improved?
 Asking participants to consider the decision problem from different perspectives, real or
imaginary.
 Considering “generic objectives”, which are things relevant to the decision at hand that
might be of concern to any participant regardless of who they are.
 Considering “strategic objectives”, which are things that a participant is always concerned
about regardless of the specific decision at hand.2
With any method of identifying objectives, it is helpful to ask participants questions that probe why
participants make certain statements (Keeney, 1992, p. 57-58), as well as questions that probe
whether there are other things that participants have not mentioned but are still important
(Keeney, 1992, p. 64).
Keeney (1992) distinguishes between two types of objectives (p. 34-35). What he terms a
“fundamental objective” is an “essential reason” for a stakeholder to be interested in the decision,
and it is crucial to all of the effort in the decision process. In contrast, a “means objective” is an
intermediate factor that leads to achievement of a fundamental objective.
2 As a side note, another one of Keeney’s main ideas is that value-focused thinking can be used to identify or
create “decision opportunities”, such as by broadening the context of a decision, or by brainstorming ideas to
achieve strategic objectives. See Keeney (1992, Chapter 9). Because the focus of this project is value-based
decision making to address conflicts, this implies there is already a well-defined decision around which the
conflict revolves; hence, the author believes it would not be useful to examine “decision opportunities”.

21
Keeney (1992) emphasizes the importance of structuring both types of objectives to identify
relationships among the objectives (p. 78, 81-82). There is a separation between facts and values in
this structuring. For fundamental objectives, value judgements should be used to construct
“fundamental objective hierarchies”, which identify categorical relationships between objectives.
This can be done by any participant in the process. On the other hand, judgements about facts
should be used to organize means objectives into “means-ends networks”, which identify cause-
and-effect relationships between objectives. Keeney suggests that this is best done by individuals
with technical expertise or factual knowledge about the issues relevant to the decision.
Using an example from Keisler, Turcotte, Drew, & Johnson (2014), a community-based
development organization might have an overall fundamental objective to improve the quality of a
neighbourhood. Fundamental objectives that are sub-categories of the overall fundamental
objective include improving the character of the neighbourhood, and improving the quality of
residents’ lives. Means objectives to improve neighbourhood character include improving the safety
and the aesthetics of the neighbourhood, while means objectives to improve the quality of residents’
lives include improving social connections among neighbours and improving health outcomes.
Generally, when communicating with members of the public, as opposed to communicating with
individuals with background or expertise related to the issues at hand, it is better to focus on the
fundamental objectives instead of the means objectives (Keeney, 1992, p. 278). This is because
fundamental objectives represent the things that participants in the process care the most about,
and therefore pay the most attention to. Furthermore, the implications of the decision in terms of
fundamental objectives are generally understandable without specialized knowledge.
For decision situations with multiple stakeholders involved, Keeney (1992) recommends that
values and objectives of each stakeholder be individually elicited and structured, and then the
structured objectives of each stakeholder be aggregated into a single structure (p. 95). The final,
combined objectives structure should be reviewed and approved by all stakeholders so that all
stakeholders are in agreement that the structure contains everything that is fundamentally
important for the decision (Keeney, 1992, p. 98).

22
To allow for a more complete use of objectives, Keeney (1992) suggests that decision makers
identify the attributes by which each objective’s performance should be measured. Keeney (1992)
also suggests “quantifying” objectives through the construction of a value or utility model. A value
model specifies mathematical relationships between different values or objectives, giving
information such as which values or objectives are prioritized over others and to what extent.
There are both advantages and disadvantages to quantifying objectives when facilitating a decision
process with multiple stakeholders. One advantage is that, once a single set of values/objectives is
identified for the decision, constructing a value model for each stakeholder that quantifies the
stakeholder’s value judgements allows a facilitator to identify points of agreement and points of
disagreements between stakeholders’ viewpoints (Keeney, 1992, p. 282). However, Keeney (1992)
recognizes that quantifying values requires more skill than listing and categorizing values;
fortunately, the development of alternatives in the next step of the process does not require that
values are quantified (p. 281).
2.1.2. Creating and selecting alternatives
How can objectives or values be used to create alternatives? Decision makers should begin with the
fundamental objectives, as these are the essential goals that the decision makers should want the
alternatives to achieve. Keeney (1992) states that making the fundamental objectives more detailed
than not, for example by questioning for whom or in what circumstances does an objective matter,
can increase the number of alternatives that come to mind (p. 202). The attributes that might have
been specified as performance measures for each of the objectives can also help clarify what
alternatives might be appropriate; in fact, considering different attributes for the same objective
can enable creation of different alternatives (Keeney, 1992, p. 203). The means-ends network
constructed from the means objectives is also very useful for generating alternatives that
incorporate different sets of means objectives (Keeney, 1992, p. 205). Furthermore, while Keeney
(1992) cautions against anchoring on a single alternative that readily comes to mind, he does
suggest that a decision maker can examine the readily available alternative to stimulate thought
about what is good or bad about that alternative, and thereby imagine better alternatives (p. 209).
Keeney (1992) also emphasizes that in a decision process focused on values, it does not matter
whether the fundamental objectives are achieved through a single alternative or several,
“coordinated” alternatives (p. 216-217). For example, after a decision maker has identified a ‘best’

23
alternative, the decision maker can search for “add-on alternatives”, that is, any modifications or
additions that allow the identified alternative to achieve some more objectives.
When working on a decision involving multiple stakeholders, Keeney (1992) suggests that
consideration of different decision processes be part of the alternatives (p. 219). Keeney calls these
alternatives “process alternatives”. For example, one can consider alternatives that vary which
stakeholders are involved in the process, how and when they are involved, and how their input is
used.
Different process alternatives can themselves lead to the creation of new alternatives. Sharing the
effort of creating alternatives with all stakeholders, rather than having solely the decision maker or
facilitator come up with the alternatives, can generate a wide variety of alternatives that differ
based on different stakeholders’ value judgements (Keeney, 1992, p. 233-234). In cases where a
majority of stakeholders have found an alternative that they prefer, but this alternative is one that
will cause a few stakeholders to ‘lose’, the facilitator can examine whether the preferred alternative
can be tweaked in a way that does not affect the majority’s preference of the alternative but results
in improved outcomes for the potential ‘loser’ stakeholders (Keeney, 1992, p. 235-237).
Finally, Keeney (1992) reminds decision makers and facilitators that while it is likely not possible
to change the underlying “strategic objectives” held by a participant in the decision process, it is
possible to change which values and objectives a participant applies to the current decision
situation (p. 261-262). This can be done through influencing the participant’s knowledge and
understanding of the facts about how the decision situation relates to the participant’s objectives. If
successful, the participant might change their views about the relative attractiveness of the
alternatives.
2.2. Applications of value-based decision making
In a literature survey that examined journal articles published between 1992 and 2010 related to
Keeney’s concept of value-focused thinking, Parnell, Hughes, Burk, Driscoll, Kucik, Morales, & Nunn
(2013) found that amongst the articles describing applications of value-focused thinking, common
domains that applied value-focused thinking included military defense, environment and energy,

24
government, and corporate. The clients of these applications were primarily either
government/national policy leaders, or military leaders; although, there were some clients from
university, corporate, and non-profit backgrounds as well. Interestingly, Parnell et al. (2013) also
found that 65% of the application articles described using value-focused thinking to evaluate
alternatives, while only 32% of these articles described using value-focused thinking to design or
improve alternatives. They recommend that practitioners should more frequently use values in
designing better alternatives, since one of Keeney’s key intended benefits of value-based decision
making is for decision makers to create better alternatives. However, at the same time, they suggest
that perhaps the problem is there is a lack of “systematic and repeatable” techniques that
practitioners can use for generating alternatives from values.
The set of decision methods known as multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods are
commonly used to formally implement a value-based decision approach (Hostmann, Bernauer,
Mosler, Reichert, & Truffer, 2005). MCDA methods provide a framework that incorporates differing
opinions, priorities, and values into a structured decision process (Stich, Holland, Noberga, &
O'Hara, 2011).
Stich et al. (2011) created a framework that utilises both multi-criteria decision analysis methods
and geographic information systems (GIS) to enhance the interaction between decision makers,
public engagement participants, and transportation planners in the corridor planning process for a
new highway in the Memphis, Tennessee region. Just as with social housing planning, in
transportation planning delays to projects can frequently occur if stakeholders – both amongst the
public and amongst government agencies – have different, conflicting opinions and value
judgements. By inputting stakeholder values and prioritizing conflicting values using a GIS program,
planners and members of the public alike were able to view alternatives for the highway that
reflected their different value judgements. Stich et al.’s framework enabled the public not only to
get involved in an interactive manner, but also to learn about how different values can lead to
different outcomes.
Hostmann et al. (2005) believe that value-based decision processes can perform well for conflict
resolution, because such processes enable things that facilitate conflict resolution – clarifying
stakeholders’ positions/values, improving transparency of alternatives’ outcomes, and increasing
the set of possible objectives. They tested their hypothesis by applying a multi-criteria decision

25
analysis framework to a decision on rehabilitation of a river in Switzerland. They found that a
majority of stakeholders reconsidered and changed their preferences for the alternatives under
consideration after being exposed to results of the analysis, and furthermore, stakeholders changed
to favouring more balanced and more consensus-oriented alternatives. Stakeholders stated that
their opinion changed because they considered more objectives after having applied the value-
based approach once, they became more aware of and acknowledged the interests of other
stakeholders, and because the approach enabled them to reconsider without losing credibility in
front of other stakeholders. Hostmann et al. concluded that for a value-based decision process to be
truly useful for resolving conflicts, stakeholders not only need to understand the method and accept
its results, but also experience some kind of learning effect, such as becoming more knowledgeable
or gaining awareness about aspects of the decision.
Multi-criteria decision analysis methods are not the only methods usable for implementing value-
based decision making. Contingent valuation, an economics method used in social cost-benefit
analysis, elicits values from participants by asking participants about their willingness to pay for
things (McDaniels, 1996). Another method is a voting-based framework to elicit values and
preferences from the public called a “structured value referendum” (SVR); this method was
developed by McDaniels (1996) for a decision about wastewater treatment in Victoria, British
Columbia. This voting framework reveals value judgements of the public in terms of their
preferences for a set of structured decision alternatives, which “entail[ed] explicit trade-offs among
objectives important to voters”. McDaniels argues that SVR has the advantage of requiring less
precision and less cognitive effort from the participants in order to express their value judgements,
compared to other methods. However, he also states this method is best suited for decision
contexts where there are distinct, specific alternatives, and the alternatives’ consequences can be
clearly forecasted and described to participants.
Is value-based decision making a foreign or rarely-used concept in the planning field, with perhaps
the exception of transportation planning? There is evidence that, to some extent, value-based
approaches are used in planning decision processes even without formal value-based frameworks
or methods. For example, in the currently ongoing City of Vancouver planning process for the future
of the False Creek Flats area, participants were first asked for their thoughts about the challenges
and opportunities that exist for the area, as well as what they thought is important to consider
when developing the plan for the area (City of Vancouver, 2016). Arguably, these all relate to the

26
participants’ values regarding the False Creek Flats. The next step for the city planners is to come
up with a set of “emerging directions” – general planning policy ideas based on the feedback
received from participants in the first step, in addition to any relevant municipal and regional
government policies. This is similar to the creation of alternatives using stakeholders’ values,
except instead of trying to create multiple alternatives, planners are effectively creating a single
alternative that hopefully incorporates all of the values expressed by participants. Of course, there
could always still be more alternative “directions” proposed further along in the planning process.
2.3. Stakeholders in decisions on social housing projects
A stakeholder can be defined very generally as any individual or group that is interested in the
matter at hand. Perhaps the most obvious stakeholder in any social housing project is the developer
of the proposed social housing.
Wynne-Edwards (2003) separates stakeholders in social housing projects into two basic groups:
opposition groups and respondent groups. Opposition groups include adjacent neighbours who live
right next to the project site, local residents living in the same community as the proposed housing,
local schools, and local businesses. Respondent groups, which are typically the decision makers,
include service providers, municipal planners, local councillors, provincial or municipal boards, and
funding bodies such as the federal and provincial governments.
According to Iglesias (2002), there are five “audiences” that can be critical to determining the
success of a social housing proposal, and each of these audiences requires different considerations
from the developer:
 Local government – This includes both municipal staff and politicians. Iglesias suggests that
the most important thing for the developer to keep in mind is how they can obtain and
maintain the necessary votes from politicians to get project approval.
 Supporters – These can be individuals or organizations. Ideally, they are from the
neighbourhood where the social housing is proposed. However, supporters from elsewhere
in the local jurisdiction, and credible established groups based inside or outside the
jurisdiction, are useful to have as well.

27
 Concerned neighbours – These are members of the neighbouring community who have
concerns about the project.
 The media – It is important for the developer to consider how it will get its message about
the social housing project out to the public.
 The courts – Legal action through the court system is a worst-case scenario, but the
developer can still use the law in terms of educating decision makers (referring here to city
staff and politicians), providing an excuse to approve a project for well-meaning decision
makers facing opposition pressure, or taking enforcement actions against decision makers if
the developer's rights are violated.
2.4. Common sources of conflict over social housing projects
When determining the sources of stakeholders’ opposition to a social housing project, it can be
useful to distinguish between the arguments or concerns that are raised and the bases that might
underlie the opposition.
According to the Greater Victoria Coalition to End Homelessness (2016), there are six common
themes to the arguments made by people who are opposed to a proposed social housing
development in their neighbourhood. These themes are objections about:
 lowered property values,
 crime and safety,
 density (causing strain on neighbourhood infrastructure),
 negative effect on the neighbourhood’s physical character,
 new resident behaviours, and
 already having enough or too much social housing in the neighbourhood.
Iglesias (2002) lists seven “bases of concern” that exist among opposed community members.
These bases are what Iglesias believes are the causes of opposition:
 lack of information, or misinformation,
 fear of negative impacts,
 complaints about the process, such as wanting or expecting greater participation,
 prejudice or bias toward prospective residents,

28
 “conflicting interests” about typical land use concerns, such as traffic,
 “value conflicts”, such as a desire to use the project site for another purpose, and
 issues unrelated to the specific proposal, such as displeasure with the government.
Despite the diversity of concerns or arguments against a social housing project that can be brought
up, and the various bases that may underlie those concerns, there is evidence in the literature
suggesting that the primary cause of opponents’ opposition is their perceptions of the residents of
social housing (Tighe, 2010). Nguyen, Basolo, & Tiwari (2013) suggest that opposition to social
housing is based on opponents’ “social construction” of the tenants of social housing, and that
conceptualizations of the potential tenants’ race, ethnicity, class, and citizen/immigrant status lead
to tenants being considered “deviant” and “undeserving” of help. Even Iglesias (2002), who listed
the seven “bases of concerns” above, acknowledges that “local opposition [to social housing] has
deep roots in fear, racism, classism, ablism, and growing antidevelopment reactions".
2.5. Addressing conflicts over social housing
Wynne-Edwards (2003) uses the metaphor of an iceberg to describe the types of objections raised
by opponents against a proposed social housing project and the approaches that can be used to
address each type:
 The tip of the iceberg, visible above the water surface, consists of objections about the
decision process and the physical design of the project. These are the objections that are
generally voiced at formal public engagement activities and environments. They can be
addressed through having a good project proposal and an inclusive planning and decision
process.
 Just below the surface are “presage” objections which are primarily based on speculation
rather than facts about the project, as well as “pretext” objections which relate to prior
conditions or experiences of the neighbourhood. These are voiced at community meetings,
demonstrations, and through the media. They can be addressed through providing good
information and building trust.
 Deep underwater, at the bottom of the iceberg, are objections based on fear and prejudice.
These tend to be unpublicized and voiced only privately. They can only be addressed

29
through education and public awareness, with the intention of changing the minds of
individuals and groups.
Wynne-Edwards (2003) stresses the need for proponents and decision makers to strive to uncover
and address objections at every level of the iceberg, because opposition to social housing projects
will persist if only the surface-level objections are addressed. In particular, fear, located at the
bottom of the iceberg, is one of the strongest motivators of opposition to social housing and it must
be addressed to truly overcome this opposition.
It is an interesting coincidence that Wynne-Edwards (2003) uses an iceberg metaphor to illustrate
shallower versus deeper objections to social housing projects, just as practitioners of Deep
Democracy use an iceberg metaphor to illustrate people’s and groups’ conscious versus
unconscious thoughts and issues (Bojer, n.d.; Deep Democracy Limited, 2014). Deep Democracy is a
facilitation methodology developed by Myrna and Greg Lewis with a strong basis in the ideas of
Arnold Mindell, who was referenced in this paper’s introduction. It involves uncovering underwater,
unconscious thoughts and issues in order to allow different parties to discover their common
experiences and feelings, and thereby bring out shared wisdom or enable them to gain potential
together. Somewhat similarly, Wynne-Edwards recommends uncovering and addressing
underwater, deeper objections to social housing in order to really overcome conflict and opposition
between stakeholders and decision makers.
In terms of educating opponents of social housing, some homelessness advocacy groups distribute
informational publications containing facts that refute common objections by opponents, with the
intent of informing conversations and encouraging dialogue between stakeholders (Greater
Victoria Coalition to End Homelessness, 2016). However, Nguyen et al. (2013) caution that
education might work but can only go so far – decision makers should also strive to understand “the
complexities of opposition” to social housing, and might even need to “deconstruct the negative
image” held by opponents toward social housing residents. According to Tighe (2010), many
scholars have proposed different techniques and processes to deal with opposition to social
housing, but at the same time, many scholars agree that the core issue involves how to change
people’s attitudes about people who are different from them. Tighe suggests that regardless of the
specifics of each project and its stakeholders, it is always important to understand who is opposing
and why they oppose.

30
Iglesias (2002) states that at the outset, the range of opposition encountered to a social housing
project might seem daunting to the developer; however, “the universe is limited” as generally,
opponents’ arguments, issues, and even tactics are very repetitive and thus predictable. Iglesias
also recommends that instead of trying to eliminate opposition or gain ‘community acceptance’,
developers should focus on the more "modest" goal of "peeling away" the opposition and reducing
the number of contentious issues. In particular, Iglesias warns against striving for ‘community
acceptance’ as it might be impossible, unnecessary, or might require concessions to please
opponents that can be legally problematic – for example, allowing neighbours to screen potential
residents will infringe upon the rights of potential tenants. In Canada, the courts have ruled it illegal
to do ‘people zoning’, that is, discriminating against people through land use zoning regulations
(Wynne-Edwards, 2003).
With respect to common concerns about community participation in the decision process, Iglesias
(2002) states that there is no good solution, as "it seems that no matter what the developer decides
[about how to engage the public], it is either 'too early' or 'too late' in the view of some neighbours".
Therefore, Iglesias suggests developers should choose engagement methods and timelines by
considering what would "maximize [their] possibility of receiving a fair hearing and developing
constructive relationships" with the community.
In spite of the difficulties of working with conflicts over social housing, there is still reason to be
optimistic. Based on an idea of “subjective procedural justice”, Wynne-Edwards (2003) suggests
that even if the outcome of a social housing decision process is not ideal in the eyes of opponents, if
the process is perceived by opponents to be fair, they might still be satisfied. The key is that conflict
needs to be addressed as soon as possible, while still in its "youth" phase, that is, when people first
hear about the housing proposal and develop their first impressions and reactions. In addition,
despite the real possibility that fear and prejudice ultimately underlie all opposition to social
housing, Wynne-Edwards states that:
Underlying concerns and the root of opposition will not be at a level that will not
afford you with the luxury of convincing people to support you based on project
information.

31
2.6. Caveats of using value-based decision making
A critical part of a value-based decision process is that participants in the process specify their
value judgements or objectives. But a study by Bond, Carlson, & Keeney (2008) found that decision
makers are generally incompetent at using personal knowledge and values to form objectives
important to them regarding a decision at hand. In a series of experiments, Bond et al. found that
participants initially omitted nearly half of the objectives that they later identified as relevant. They
believe that this result can be explained as such: When thinking about a decision problem,
individuals can become "mired in an overly narrow mental representation" that they use to simplify
the problem, and consequently only the objectives "cued by this incomplete representation" come
to mind. Bond et al. suggest the following ideas to assist decision makers identify objectives:
 Have a good facilitator that can stimulate thinking about what's important.
 Have the facilitator guide participants in approaching the task from different perspectives.
 Provide a master list containing all possible considerations about the decision.
 Aggregate responses of multiple participants, and share these aggregated lists.
 Allow participants to obtain expert or peer opinion.
 Provide an opportunity for participants to "try out" alternatives, so that participants can
“confront their [identified] objectives experientially” and reconsider their objectives as
needed.
If decision makers perform poorly at identifying objectives or specifying value judgements, how do
they perform at generating alternatives? Selart & Johansen (2011) conducted a study where
participants were instructed to complete a decision task by using either a value-focused thinking
approach or an alternative-focused thinking approach. Their study suggested that using value-
focused thinking produces a smaller range of alternatives, but the alternatives produced are better
in terms of creativity and innovation. Just as Keeney would have predicted, the participants in their
study who used alternative-focused thinking anchored on alternatives revolving around one factor
that was easier and less time-consuming to think about. Nevertheless, Selart & Johansen caution
that because people are generally not as accustomed to value-focused thinking as they are to
alternative-focused thinking, more cognitive effort might be required to use value-focused decision
approaches, which could lead to lower effectiveness and productivity.

CASE STUDY CONTEXT AND METHODS
32
3. THE TERWILLEGAR CASE STUDY – CONTEXT AND METHODS
3.1. Case study context
3.1.1. The project site
The site of the proposed Terwillegar social housing project is located on land owned by and
immediately adjacent to the Holy Trinity Riverbend Anglican Church, at 1428 156 Street NW,
Edmonton, Alberta. Figures 1 and 2 provide maps of the neighbourhood and of the larger area
around the project site, respectively.
Figure 1. Aerial imagery of the neighbourhood around the Terwillegar housing site.
The site is indicated by a star; the location indicated by a diamond is the street intersection closest to
the site and where the closest bus transit stops can be found; the area indicated by a triangle has two
elementary schools and a park; the area indicated by a square is the neighbourhood’s ‘town square’
with multi-family housing and limited commercial services.
Source: Google (2016).

33
Figure 2. Aerial imagery of the larger area around the Terwillegar housing site.
The site is indicated by a star; the location indicated by a diamond is where the closest bus transit
stops can be found; the area in the lower left (indicated by an oval) is Currents of Windermere, an
auto-oriented ‘big box’ shopping centre with stores such as Safeway, Walmart, and Cineplex Theatres;
the area in the top centre (indicated by a rectangle) is the Terwillegar Community Recreation Centre,
a major public facility with two secondary schools and a bus transit exchange adjacent to it.
Source: Google (2016).
The project site is officially located at the northwest edge of the South Terwillegar neighbourhood,
bordering the adjacent neighbourhood of Terwillegar Towne. Taken together, the combined
‘neighbourhood’ of Terwillegar Towne and South Terwillegar is bounded by arterial roadways on
all sides: 23 Avenue on the north, Rabbit Hill Road on the east, Anthony Henday Drive on the south,
and Terwillegar Drive on the west (Figure 2). A small Terwillegar ‘town centre’ exists close to the
project site, but contains only limited commercial services such as a convenience store (Figure 1).
Bus transit service is available within walking distance to the project site, at the intersection of 156

34
Street and South Terwillegar Boulevard.3 Edmonton Transit System buses service this intersection
seven days a week at a frequency of approximately 30 minutes, and it takes less than 10 minutes to
travel from this intersection to the bus transit exchange located near the Terwillegar Community
Recreation Centre (City of Edmonton, 2015a; City of Edmonton, 2015b). From there, travellers can
take other buses to reach Edmonton’s light rail transit system and various shopping centres such as
Currents of Windermere to the south of Terwillegar.
Holy Trinity Riverbend Anglican Church and the project site both back onto vacant public land that
is part of the rights-of-way of Terwillegar Drive and Anthony Henday Drive. Adjacent to the Church
and project site is a low-rise apartment building, and across the street are single-family houses
separated by a public trail along a utility right-of-way (Figures 3, 4).
Table 2 displays various points of information about the population and the housing in the
neighbourhoods of Terwillegar Towne and South Terwillegar. Both neighbourhoods are quite new,
with their housing being constructed predominately during the 2000s. The vast majority of the
housing is owned rather than rented, and while there is some medium density housing available
(row housing and low-rise apartment units), the majority of the housing is in the form of single-
family detached houses. Compared to the population of Edmonton, the residents of Terwillegar
Towne and South Terwillegar are generally wealthier, and the residents also consist of more young
children and less older adults.
3 Imagery from Google Maps’ Street View service shows that bus service was available here since at least
2012, and service back then was provided by the same bus routes as today.

35
Figure 3. Photo of Holy Trinity Riverbend Anglican Church where the proposed Terwillegar housing
project is located.
A low-rise apartment building can be seen behind the left side of the Church. In the distance (where the
transmission tower is) is Anthony Henday Drive.
Source: The author (December 2015).
Figure 4. Photo of streetscape across from Holy Trinity Riverbend Anglican Church where the proposed
Terwillegar housing project is located.
Source: The author (December 2015).

36
Table 2. Demographics of the Terwillegar Towne and South Terwillegar neighbourhoods compared to
the entire City of Edmonton. Data taken from the City of Edmonton’s Neighbourhood Profiles, which
used Statistics Canada’s 2011 Census of Canada data.
Terwillegar
Towne
South
Terwillegar
Edmonton
Age group (%) 0-9 18 17 12
10-19 12 9 11
20-29 12 24 18
30-39 21 26 15
40-49 16 13 14
50-59 9 7 14
60-69 4 3 8
70+ 7 2 8
Household income
(2010 CAD)
Median 119,587 97,201 72,248
Average 136,782 110,487 90,340
Residential units
(%)
Single-detached house 72 50 51
Semi-detached house 7 16 7
Row house 19 7 10
Apartment (5+ stories) 0 0 8
Apartment (< 5 stories) 2 27 23
Moveable dwelling 0 0 1
Housing tenure type
(%)
Owned 89 82 65
Rented 11 18 35
Housing
construction period
(%)
1960 or before 0 0 18
1961-1980 0 0 35
1981-1990 0 0 15
1991-2000 17 0 11
2001-2005 56 10 11
2006-2011 27 90 10
Source: City of Edmonton (2014a); City of Edmonton (2014b).

37
The Anglican Diocese property on which both the project site and Holy Trinity Riverbend Anglican
Church are located is zoned as “mixed use (institutional and residential)”, according to the official
land use map for the South Terwillegar neighbourhood (Figure 5).
Figure 5. Official land use map for the neighbourhood of South Terwillegar, as presented in the City of
Edmonton’s South Terwillegar Neighbourhood Area Structure Plan.
Source: City of Edmonton (2011).
The original reason for this somewhat bizarre land use designation was to accommodate a seniors’
residence apartment building attached to the Church (City of Edmonton, 2004a). The Anglican
Diocese has wanted to construct such an apartment building since at least 2003, and applied to the
City of Edmonton for rezoning of its property in 2004, almost ten years prior to the Terwillegar

38
social housing project debate. According to Edmonton City Council public hearing records, there did
not appear to be opposition to this rezoning at that time (City of Edmonton, 2004b). It is unclear
what happened to this proposal for a seniors’ apartment building. Regardless, the fact that the
existing zoning of the project site allows for apartment-type residential uses explains why Jasper
Place Health and Wellness Centre and the Anglican Diocese would have only needed to obtain a
development permit and did not need to go through a rezoning process (which would involve
formal public hearings) in order to construct the proposed social housing project (Annable, 2013).
3.1.2. The social housing project
The proposed Terwillegar social housing project was intended to “embrace” the philosophy of
Housing First, which is about providing “permanent housing along with support services, based on
individual needs, to help people maintain their housing over the long term” (Jasper Place Health
and Wellness Centre, 2013c). The Housing First philosophy encourages spreading out social
housing across a city in order to avoid concentrating social housing in certain places (Edmonton
Committee to End Homelessness, 2009); this is definitely aligned with the proposal of building
social housing in the suburban, relatively affluent neighbourhood of Terwillegar.
The developer of the housing is Jasper Place Health and Wellness Centre (JPHWC), a non-profit
“social care agency” which prides itself on supporting Edmontonians from “all walks of life” who
need assistance (JPHWC, 2013c). JPHWC has been, and still is, operating a supportive housing
development in the relatively lower-income Jasper Place area of Edmonton (Jasper Place Wellness
Centre, 2014), and wanted to expand housing services to other, more suburban areas of Edmonton,
in accordance with the Housing First philosophy (JPHWC, 2013c).
JPHWC defined this project as a permanent, supportive housing apartment building, with support
staff on-site at all hours of the day (JPHWC, 2013c). JPHWC emphasized that the development was
not a “placement program”, as it would be accessible to prospective tenants through an application
process that assesses whether a tenant is “low-risk” and can pay rent at below-market rates
(JPHWC, 2013d). While the exact physical details of the development had not been finalized yet,
JPHWC stated that up to 60 residential units would be in the building, and the building would have
a mix of different types of units (JPHWC, 2013c).

39
According to Jasper Place Health and Wellness Centre, the Terwillegar social housing project had
been “in talks” since 2010, and the City of Edmonton had been aware of the potential of the project
site for development of social housing since 2011 (JPHWC, 2013c). In 2012, the congregation at
Holy Trinity Riverbend Anglican Church rejected an offer by a private housing developer to
purchase their property, and instead decided to make the property available for development of
housing for the homeless (Annable, 2013). The Anglican Diocese of Edmonton signed a
Memorandum of Understanding with Jasper Place Health and Wellness Centre in March 2013 which
would have formed the basis of the Anglican Diocese’s 100-year lease of the property to JPHWC
(JPHWC, 2013d). JPHWC applied for funding from the Government of Alberta, as well as from
Homeward Trust Edmonton, which distributes grants on behalf of various governmental and
private partners (Homeward Trust Edmonton, 2016), for the funds required for the construction of
this project; JPHWC had received conditional approval for $12.1 million by the end of April 2013
(JPHWC, 2013c). Between the end of May and the end of June 2013, JPHWC met with those they
considered “key community stakeholder groups” to provide information on their organization and
the proposed development, thus beginning their engagement with the community. Specifically,
JPHWC met with elected representatives for the local area at all levels of government, as well as
members of the “recognized” community residents’ association, the Terwillegar Community League
(JPHWC, 2013c). The Terwillegar Community League represents residents not only of the
neighbourhoods of Terwillegar Towne and South Terwillegar, but also two other neighbourhoods
which are farther from the project site (Terwillegar Community League, 2015). JPHWC’s intention
was to sign a “Good Neighbour Agreement” with the Terwillegar Community League that would be
the basis of an ongoing, long-term relationship with the community, emphasizing dialogue and
accountability (JPHWC, 2013c; JPHWC, 2013b).
News about the social housing proposal broke in the media at the end of June 2013, and a
passionate debate immediately ensued amongst residents of Terwillegar and the wider Edmonton
community. The controversy reached a critical point when the Holy Trinity Riverbend Anglican
Church was vandalized with the spray-painted words “NO HOMELESS” in early July 2013 (Kornik,
2013). Public open houses and a townhall-style information meeting were held in August 2013 and
were completely packed with hundreds of interested residents on all sides of the debate (Lazzarino,
2013). The Anglican Diocese intended for this townhall meeting to mark the beginning of a
respectful consultation process (Anglican Diocese of Edmonton, 2013a), but by this point tensions
amongst the public and the stakeholders had already risen to considerable levels. The conflict

40
reached another critical point in September 2013 when the Terwillegar Towne Homeowners
Association, an organization representing residents solely of the neighbourhood of Terwillegar
Towne, voted to spend $35,000 in legal fees to fight the housing project (CBC News, 2013).
Everything concluded in early November 2013 when the Anglican Diocese voluntarily chose to
withdraw the project, citing intense opposition and a broken process (CBC News, 2013).
3.2. Case study data collection
The author sought to investigate what values were held by key stakeholders in the conflict over the
proposed Terwillegar social housing project – specifically, Jasper Place Health and Wellness Centre,
the Anglican Diocese of Edmonton and Holy Trinity Riverbend Anglican Church, and residents of
the Terwillegar community.
For the values of Jasper Place Health and Wellness Centre, the author analyzed a series of question-
and-answer documents written by JPHWC (JPHWC, 2013a; JPHWC, 2013c; JPHWC, 2013d),
JPHWC’s proposed Good Neighbour Agreement with the Terwillegar Community League (JPHWC,
2013b), as well as an informational brochure that was mailed out to residents in Terwillegar
(JPHWC, 2013e). All of these items are accessible through the JPHWC Facebook page.
For the values of the Anglican Diocese, the author analyzed the speech that Jane Alexander, the
Anglican Diocese’s Bishop, gave at the August 2013 townhall meeting in Terwillegar (Anglican
Diocese of Edmonton, 2013a), as well as a press release that the Diocese released in November
2013 when it chose to withdraw the project (Anglican Diocese of Edmonton, 2013b). Both
documents are available through archives of the ‘news’ section on the website of the Anglican
Diocese of Edmonton. The author also found and used one blog post on the website of Holy Trinity
Riverbend Anglican Church that is pertinent to the Terwillegar housing project (Holy Trinity
Riverbend, 2013).
Records of discussions about the housing project on social media were used to elicit values of
Terwillegar residents. Specifically, the author examined all of the posts relevant to the Terwillegar
housing project that were posted onto the official Facebook page of Jasper Place Health and

41
Wellness Centre4 between the end of June 2013 and early November 2013, as well as all of the
comments written beneath each of those posts. Not all of the participants of the discussions on the
JPHWC Facebook page are from Terwillegar, however. To ascertain which participants are
Terwillegar residents are which are not, the author used a combination of inferring from the
participants’ expressed viewpoints on the JPHWC Facebook page, cross-checking participants’
names with names on the members’ lists of two Terwillegar-oriented, non-public Facebook groups
(Terwillegar Community League5 and Terwillegar Speaks6), and deducing from their activity on the
“JPHWC Project in Terwillegar” Facebook page7 which is a forum open to any individual interested
in the project. 76 participants posted or commented on the official JPHWC Facebook page,
excluding JPHWC themselves. 46 participants, or 61%, were determined by the author to be
Terwillegar residents. These 46 participants authored a total of 206 comments and posts, making
up 56% of the total 371 comments and posts on the JPHWC Facebook page that were not authored
by JPHWC themselves.
4 https://www.facebook.com/Jasper-Place-Wellness-Centre-155878244434660/
5 https://www.facebook.com/groups/43763598465/

THE VALUE-BASED DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK AND ITS APPLICATION
42
4. A VALUE-BASED DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK FOR SOCIAL HOUSING PROJECTS AND
ITS APPLICATION TO THE TERWILLEGAR CASE
4.1. Framework for value-based decision making for a social housing project
The framework shown in Figure 6 is proposed to guide the application of a value-based decision-
making process for a proposed social housing project, with the intention of addressing conflict –
whether potential or already present – between stakeholders.
This framework is tailored for projects with an already-identified project site. It is neither intended
for making decisions where a decision maker is still in the stage of choosing where it would like to
develop social housing, nor intended for making decisions about social housing policies that apply
on a wider or more general scale.
The following subsections will elaborate on the stages in the value-based decision process, using
the template from Keeney’s (1992) Value-Focused Thinking which was presented earlier in Table 1.
The term ‘decision maker’ will be used to refer to whichever stakeholder, or group of stakeholders,
is spearheading the effort for the proposed social housing project; they can also be generally
referred to as ‘proponents’. Although not always mentioned explicitly, it is reasonable to expect that
there may be a facilitator who guides the decision maker and the other stakeholders through the
entire process.

43
Figure 6. A framework for value-based decision making to address conflict over a social housing
project.
4.1.1. Recognize a decision problem
An important question that must be answered when starting to apply the value-based decision-
making process is, “Does a specific social housing proposal exist?” This means whether the decision
maker has already come up with, though not necessarily decided upon, specific details about the
proposed social housing, such as the type of housing, the housing’s intended tenants, or the
Recognize decision problem
Does a specific social housing
proposal exist?
Specify values
Neighbours
Developer
Funders
Enabler
Neighbours
Developer Enabler
Specify values
Y N
Create
alternative(s)
Evaluate
alternative(s)
Coordinated
alternatives
Process
alternatives
Select an alternative

44
population it will serve. If a specific proposal does not exist yet, that means there merely has been
an expressed desire to develop social housing at the identified project site. The answer to this
question has implications during the specification of values stage and the creation of alternatives
stage.
Note that the answer to this question is highly dependent on when the decision maker chooses to
begin applying the process. Generally, if conflict or controversy has already started to appear, the
answer to this question is most likely ‘Yes’. In fact, ‘Yes’ is probably the more common scenario for
many decision makers as they begin to consider external stakeholder engagement, as ‘No’ would
require essentially a blank slate in terms of concepts for social housing at an identified site.
Nevertheless, given that the literature suggests the earlier a conflict or potential conflict is
addressed, the easier it becomes to work with the conflict (Wynne-Edwards, 2003), it is definitely
advisable for the decision maker to apply the process while the answer to this question is
effectively still ‘No’.
4.1.2. Specify values
The stakeholders that are included in this stage, from whom values will be elicited, are selected
because they are important to addressing conflict over the social housing project. The following are
the stakeholders that should be considered:
 The neighbours – These are the people who live adjacent to the site or in the nearby area;
the scope of this area can vary. When considering the neighbours, do not separate residents
into sub-groups such as supporters versus opponents; instead, treat neighbours along the
entire spectrum of opinion – regardless of whether they fully support, fully oppose, or land
somewhere in between – as one heterogeneous group. Treating the neighbours as one
group lessens the possibility of the decision maker or facilitator being perceived as
favouring some neighbours over others, and also accounts for the real possibility that
people’s viewpoints and positions can change during the process over time.
 The developer – This is the stakeholder that will develop the social housing project. They
might commonly be a government agency or a non-profit service provider, but can also be a
private sector firm or even some kind of community group; there are many possibilities.
Sometimes, such as in the Terwillegar case, the developer might both develop and operate
the social housing project; at other times, the developer might choose a separate

45
organization to be the operator of the project. In the latter case, for the purposes of this
decision-making process, it is fine to consider the developer and the operator together as
one stakeholder role as long as they share the same goals for the project.
 The funders – This is the group that provides funding, through grants or otherwise, to the
developer so that the social housing can be built. Examples of funding bodies are senior
levels of government and philanthropic organizations. Because the developer will have to
adhere to clear conditions and satisfy clear criteria in order to receive funding, any values
of the funders relevant to the decision are likely to be channeled through the developer.
 The enabler – This can be understood as the stakeholder who is enabling the project by
providing the property – the land and/or building – that is identified as the project site for
the proposed housing. They are a partner for the developer. The Terwillegar case
prominently featured a stakeholder as the enabler – the Anglican Diocese. Perhaps in many
scenarios, such as where the government owns the property on which it plans to develop
social housing, the enabler is equivalent to the developer. Nevertheless, the author believes
distinguishing between a developer role and an enabler role is helpful even if they are
occupied by essentially the same stakeholder, because doing so can clarify what state of
mind the stakeholder is in depending on the current decision context.
The answer to the question “Does a specific social housing proposal exist?” changes what
stakeholders are present at this stage.
 If the answer is ‘Yes’: The developer, and by extension, the funders, are both present. The
enabler might be present but this depends on the context of the decision. For example, the
enabler would be equivalent to the developer if the developer has complete ownership of
the property where the housing project is proposed. The developer, and possibly the
enabler as well depending on their level of involvement, occupies the role of the ‘decision
maker’. Note that if a specific proposal exists, the values of the decision maker can be
elucidated through that proposal.
 If the answer is ‘No’: The enabler is present. The developer is not present, unless the
developer is equivalent to the enabler, or unless a separate developer has been selected
even though a specific proposal has not yet been prepared. Regardless, there are no funders
present yet. The enabler, and possibly the developer, occupies the role of the ‘decision
maker’.

PatrickWYLo_ValueBasedSocialHousingDecisionMaking

PatrickWYLo_ValueBasedSocialHousingDecisionMaking

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (11)

Similar to PatrickWYLo_ValueBasedSocialHousingDecisionMaking

Similar to PatrickWYLo_ValueBasedSocialHousingDecisionMaking (20)

PatrickWYLo_ValueBasedSocialHousingDecisionMaking