{"id":371,"date":"2025-10-07T17:31:52","date_gmt":"2025-10-07T21:31:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/foundationsofevaluation\/?post_type=chapter&p=371"},"modified":"2026-05-28T12:38:14","modified_gmt":"2026-05-28T16:38:14","slug":"findings","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/foundationsofevaluation\/chapter\/findings\/","title":{"raw":"13.4 Findings","rendered":"13.4 Findings"},"content":{"raw":"The data from the focus groups and the questionnaires (17 participants) was analyzed to identify the OCP\u2019s strengths, potential risks, and areas for improvement according to the planetary health dimensions.\r\n

Shared opinions<\/h3>\r\nMany saw that the OCP, as drafted, will support most of the planetary health dimensions well. Most opinions from the five focus groups centred on the governance and power relations dimensions of the Planetary Health Framework. Key themes that emerged from the focus groups included the need for transparent decision-making, better community engagement, and addressing the challenges of Sooke\u2019s commuter town status.\r\n

OCP\u2019s potential contribution to planetary health<\/h3>\r\nThe questionnaire offered an overview of the OCP\u2019s assessment using planetary health lenses (see Figure 13.3).\r\n\r\nFigure <\/strong>13<\/strong>.<\/strong>3<\/strong> Snapshot of All Questionnaire Responses Across Focus Groups regarding Participant Perceptions on the Official Community Plan\u2019s Alignment with Planetary Health<\/em>\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_710\" align=\"alignnone\" width=\"1024\"]\"Pie Source: Mountfort, K. R. (2025). An Evaluation of the District of Sooke\u2019s Official Community Plan from a Planetary Health Perspective. University of Victoria. https:\/\/hdl.handle.net\/1828\/20884[\/caption]\r\n\r\nInterestingly, but not surprisingly, the assessment varied across groups. Figures 13.4 and 13.5 show how results differed according to the type of respondents. Here we present the results from the Social Group and the Business Group, as an example of groups\u2019 contrasting views. Group positions were elicited in the main report but are not presented in this chapter.\r\n\r\nFigure <\/strong>13<\/strong>.<\/strong>4<\/strong> Snapshot of Questionnaire Responses from the Social Group<\/em>\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_711\" align=\"alignnone\" width=\"1024\"]\"Pie Source: Mountfort, K. R. (2025). An Evaluation of the District of Sooke\u2019s Official Community Plan from a Planetary Health Perspective. University of Victoria. https:\/\/hdl.handle.net\/1828\/20884[\/caption]\r\n\r\nFigure <\/strong>13<\/strong>.<\/strong>5<\/strong> Snapshot of Questionnaire Responses from the Business Group<\/em>\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_712\" align=\"alignnone\" width=\"1024\"]\"Pie Source: Mountfort, K. R. (2025). An Evaluation of the District of Sooke\u2019s Official Community Plan from a Planetary Health Perspective. University of Victoria. https:\/\/hdl.handle.net\/1828\/20884[\/caption]\r\n\r\nEach dimension of the Planetary Health Framework was then documented using the focus group verbatims to explore how the OCP\u2019s policies and actions might contribute to or detract from planetary health. Table 13.1 presents a summary of the findings.\r\n\r\nTable <\/strong>13<\/strong>.<\/strong>1 <\/strong>OCP\u2019s Potential Contributions to Planetary Health<\/em>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Planetary Health dimensions<\/strong><\/td>\r\nStrengths<\/strong><\/td>\r\nRisks<\/strong><\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
 \r\n\r\nPollution<\/td>\r\nThe OCP included measures to reduce pollution, such as promoting green infrastructure and sustainable transportation options.<\/td>\r\nUrban sprawl and increased traffic congestion were identified as potential sources of pollution. Participants emphasized the need for better infrastructure to support non-car travel.<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
 \r\n\r\nWaters and Lands<\/td>\r\nThe OCP\u2019s focus on protecting natural environments, such as watersheds and green spaces, was well-received. The Trails and Parks Master Plan (an accompanying policy document to the OCP) was highlighted as a positive initiative.<\/td>\r\nConcerns were raised about the lack of enforcement and monitoring of environmental protections. Participants called for stronger regulations and better coordination with regional authorities.<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
 \r\n\r\nBiodiversity<\/td>\r\nThe OCP\u2019s policies on biodiversity conservation, including habitat protection and green space expansion, were praised.<\/td>\r\nThe need for clearer metrics and stronger protections for biodiversity was emphasized. Participants highlighted the importance of mitigating the impacts of development on local ecosystems.<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
 \r\n\r\nProsperity<\/td>\r\nThe OCP aimed to promote economic prosperity by supporting local businesses and creating job opportunities. The focus on sustainable economic development was appreciated.<\/td>\r\nBalancing economic growth with environmental sustainability and community well-being was identified as a challenge. Participants stressed the need for diverse economic opportunities and better support for local businesses.<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
 \r\n\r\nEquity<\/td>\r\nThe OCP\u2019s commitment to promoting equity and inclusion was recognized. Initiatives to support marginalized communities and improve accessibility were seen as positive steps.<\/td>\r\nThe lack of clarity and inclusivity in the OCP\u2019s operational elements was a concern. Participants called for more engagement with diverse community groups to ensure their needs are addressed.<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
 \r\n\r\nHealth<\/td>\r\nThe OCP\u2019s focus on promoting health through green spaces, recreational facilities, and walkable infrastructure was well-received.<\/td>\r\nLimited access to healthcare services and the need for better emergency preparedness were highlighted. Participants emphasized the importance of addressing mental health and providing resources for youth.<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
 \r\n\r\nGovernance<\/td>\r\nThe OCP was seen as a significant improvement over previous plans, with a strong focus on community values and aspirations.<\/td>\r\nConcerns about decision bias, lack of transparency, and insufficient resources for implementation were raised. Participants called for better coordination and accountability in governance.<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
 \r\n\r\nPower relations<\/td>\r\nEfforts to engage the community and promote participatory decision-making were appreciated. The Memorandum of Understanding with the T\u2019sou-ke Nation was seen as a positive step towards reconciliation.<\/td>\r\nThe influence of lobby groups and the need for more inclusive decision-making processes were significant concerns. Participants stressed the importance of ensuring that all community voices are heard and valued.<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<\/tbody>\r\n<\/table>\r\nSource: Mountfort, K. R. (2025). An Evaluation of the District of Sooke\u2019s Official Community Plan from a Planetary Health Perspective.<\/em> University of Victoria. https:\/\/hdl.handle.net\/1828\/20884<\/a><\/sub>","rendered":"

The data from the focus groups and the questionnaires (17 participants) was analyzed to identify the OCP\u2019s strengths, potential risks, and areas for improvement according to the planetary health dimensions.<\/p>\n

Shared opinions<\/h3>\n

Many saw that the OCP, as drafted, will support most of the planetary health dimensions well. Most opinions from the five focus groups centred on the governance and power relations dimensions of the Planetary Health Framework. Key themes that emerged from the focus groups included the need for transparent decision-making, better community engagement, and addressing the challenges of Sooke\u2019s commuter town status.<\/p>\n

OCP\u2019s potential contribution to planetary health<\/h3>\n

The questionnaire offered an overview of the OCP\u2019s assessment using planetary health lenses (see Figure 13.3).<\/p>\n

Figure <\/strong>13<\/strong>.<\/strong>3<\/strong> Snapshot of All Questionnaire Responses Across Focus Groups regarding Participant Perceptions on the Official Community Plan\u2019s Alignment with Planetary Health<\/em><\/p>\n

\"Pie
Source: Mountfort, K. R. (2025). An Evaluation of the District of Sooke\u2019s Official Community Plan from a Planetary Health Perspective. University of Victoria. https:\/\/hdl.handle.net\/1828\/20884<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Interestingly, but not surprisingly, the assessment varied across groups. Figures 13.4 and 13.5 show how results differed according to the type of respondents. Here we present the results from the Social Group and the Business Group, as an example of groups\u2019 contrasting views. Group positions were elicited in the main report but are not presented in this chapter.<\/p>\n

Figure <\/strong>13<\/strong>.<\/strong>4<\/strong> Snapshot of Questionnaire Responses from the Social Group<\/em><\/p>\n

\"Pie
Source: Mountfort, K. R. (2025). An Evaluation of the District of Sooke\u2019s Official Community Plan from a Planetary Health Perspective. University of Victoria. https:\/\/hdl.handle.net\/1828\/20884<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Figure <\/strong>13<\/strong>.<\/strong>5<\/strong> Snapshot of Questionnaire Responses from the Business Group<\/em><\/p>\n

\"Pie
Source: Mountfort, K. R. (2025). An Evaluation of the District of Sooke\u2019s Official Community Plan from a Planetary Health Perspective. University of Victoria. https:\/\/hdl.handle.net\/1828\/20884<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Each dimension of the Planetary Health Framework was then documented using the focus group verbatims to explore how the OCP\u2019s policies and actions might contribute to or detract from planetary health. Table 13.1 presents a summary of the findings.<\/p>\n

Table <\/strong>13<\/strong>.<\/strong>1 <\/strong>OCP\u2019s Potential Contributions to Planetary Health<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Planetary Health dimensions<\/strong><\/td>\nStrengths<\/strong><\/td>\nRisks<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
 <\/p>\n

Pollution<\/td>\n

The OCP included measures to reduce pollution, such as promoting green infrastructure and sustainable transportation options.<\/td>\nUrban sprawl and increased traffic congestion were identified as potential sources of pollution. Participants emphasized the need for better infrastructure to support non-car travel.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
 <\/p>\n

Waters and Lands<\/td>\n

The OCP\u2019s focus on protecting natural environments, such as watersheds and green spaces, was well-received. The Trails and Parks Master Plan (an accompanying policy document to the OCP) was highlighted as a positive initiative.<\/td>\nConcerns were raised about the lack of enforcement and monitoring of environmental protections. Participants called for stronger regulations and better coordination with regional authorities.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
 <\/p>\n

Biodiversity<\/td>\n

The OCP\u2019s policies on biodiversity conservation, including habitat protection and green space expansion, were praised.<\/td>\nThe need for clearer metrics and stronger protections for biodiversity was emphasized. Participants highlighted the importance of mitigating the impacts of development on local ecosystems.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
 <\/p>\n

Prosperity<\/td>\n

The OCP aimed to promote economic prosperity by supporting local businesses and creating job opportunities. The focus on sustainable economic development was appreciated.<\/td>\nBalancing economic growth with environmental sustainability and community well-being was identified as a challenge. Participants stressed the need for diverse economic opportunities and better support for local businesses.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
 <\/p>\n

Equity<\/td>\n

The OCP\u2019s commitment to promoting equity and inclusion was recognized. Initiatives to support marginalized communities and improve accessibility were seen as positive steps.<\/td>\nThe lack of clarity and inclusivity in the OCP\u2019s operational elements was a concern. Participants called for more engagement with diverse community groups to ensure their needs are addressed.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
 <\/p>\n

Health<\/td>\n

The OCP\u2019s focus on promoting health through green spaces, recreational facilities, and walkable infrastructure was well-received.<\/td>\nLimited access to healthcare services and the need for better emergency preparedness were highlighted. Participants emphasized the importance of addressing mental health and providing resources for youth.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
 <\/p>\n

Governance<\/td>\n

The OCP was seen as a significant improvement over previous plans, with a strong focus on community values and aspirations.<\/td>\nConcerns about decision bias, lack of transparency, and insufficient resources for implementation were raised. Participants called for better coordination and accountability in governance.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
 <\/p>\n

Power relations<\/td>\n

Efforts to engage the community and promote participatory decision-making were appreciated. The Memorandum of Understanding with the T\u2019sou-ke Nation was seen as a positive step towards reconciliation.<\/td>\nThe influence of lobby groups and the need for more inclusive decision-making processes were significant concerns. Participants stressed the importance of ensuring that all community voices are heard and valued.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Source: Mountfort, K. R. (2025). An Evaluation of the District of Sooke\u2019s Official Community Plan from a Planetary Health Perspective.<\/em> University of Victoria. https:\/\/hdl.handle.net\/1828\/20884<\/a><\/sub><\/p>\n

Media Attributions<\/h2>
  • Figure 13.3 Snapshot of All Questionnaire Responses Across Focus Groups regarding Participant Perceptions on the Official Community Plan\u2019s Alignment with Planetary Health <\/li>
  • Figure 13.4 Snapshot of Questionnaire Responses from the Social Group <\/li>
  • Figure 13.5 Snapshot of Questionnaire Responses from the Business Group <\/li><\/ul><\/div>","protected":false},"author":20,"menu_order":4,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":["astridbrousselle","kai-mountfort"],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[49],"contributor":[61,63],"license":[],"class_list":["post-371","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry","chapter-type-numberless","contributor-astridbrousselle","contributor-kai-mountfort"],"part":359,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/foundationsofevaluation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/371","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/foundationsofevaluation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/foundationsofevaluation\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/foundationsofevaluation\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/20"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/foundationsofevaluation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/371\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":713,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/foundationsofevaluation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/371\/revisions\/713"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/foundationsofevaluation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/359"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/foundationsofevaluation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/371\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/foundationsofevaluation\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=371"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/foundationsofevaluation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=371"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/foundationsofevaluation\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=371"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/foundationsofevaluation\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=371"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}