An interactive Web site and e-mail campaign became the primary focus of a coalition’s community mobilization strategy to advocate for changes to the local smoking bylaw in a large Canadian urban center. This article presents the findings of an Internet survey of 2,200 Internet mailing list recipients in which 26% (n = 605) submitted responses. Findings from four focus groups of the survey respondents (n = 28) are also reported. The survey found that a majority of the mailing list respondents (66.1%) contacted the city council during the campaign. Only 35.8% of respondents had contacted a city council member prior to this campaign. As a result of their participation in the Internet campaign, 50.6% stated that they were more likely to get involved in future civic issues. These findings were confirmed by focus groups that found increased capacity for political involvement on this issue as well as capacity for future social and political action.
Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission. (2002). Tobacco basics handbook. Edmonton, Canada: Author.
2.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
3.
Bimber, B. (1998). The Internet and political transformation: Populism, community, and accelerated pluralism. Polity, 31(1), 133-160.
4.
Bimber, B. (1999). The Internet and citizen communication with government: Does the medium matter?Political Communication, 16, 409-428.
5.
Bimber, B. (2000). The study of information technology and civic engagement. Political Communication, 17, 329-333.
6.
Calgary Tobacco Reduction Action Coalition (CTRAC). (2000). What does smoking mean to Calgarians? A public consultation regarding tobacco issues in the Calgary region. Retrieved August 15, 2003, from http://www.smokefreecalgary.com/survey.html
7.
Calhoun, C. (1998). Community without propinquity revisited: Communications technology and the transformation of the urban public sphere. Sociological Inquiry, 68(3), 373-397.
8.
Cavanaugh, J. W. (2000). E-democracy: Thinking about the impact of technology on civic life. National Civic Review, 89(3).
9.
City of Calgary, City Clerk’s Department. (2000). Calgary civic census. Calgary, Canada: Author.
10.
The Colorado Trust. (1998). Promoting health by building community capacity: Evidence and implications for grantmakers. Retrieved April 30, 2004, from http://www.coltrust.org/repository/publications/pdfs/ComCapEvid.pdf
11.
Crilley, R. (2003). Synthesis research on community capacity: Operationalizing and measuring community capacity. Ottawa: Health Canada, Health Policy Research Program.
12.
Crompton, S. (2002). Vox populi: Canadians who speak up. Canadian Social Trends, 66, 12-14
13.
Delli Carpini, M. X. (2000). Gen.com: Youth, civic engagement, and the new information environment. Political Communication, 17, 341-349.
14.
Gastile, J. (2000). Is face-to-face citizen deliberation a luxury or a necessity?Political Communication, 17, 357-361.
15.
Goodman, R. M., Speers, M. A., McLeroy, K., Fawcett, S., Kegler, M. C., Parker, E., et al. (1998). Identifying and defining the dimensions of community capacity to provide a basis for measurement. Health Education & Behavior, 25(3), 258-278.
16.
Hawe, P., King, L., Noort M., Gifford, S., & Lloyd, B. (1998). Working invisibly: Health workers talk about capacity building in health promotion. Health Promotion International, 13(4), 285-295.
17.
Hawe, P., Noort, M., King, L., & Jordens, C. (1997). Multiplying health gains: The critical role of capacity building within health promotion programs. Health Policy, 39, 29-42.
18.
Health Canada. (1999, February-December). Trends in smoking, 1999. Canadian Tobacco Use Monitoring Survey. Wave 2/Annual. Ottawa, Canada: Author.
19.
Health Canada. (2002, February-June). Canadian Tobacco Use Monitoring Survey. Retrieved August 18, 2003, from http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hecs-sesc/tobacco/research/ctums/index.html%232002
20.
Hill, K. A., & Hughes, J. E. (1998). Cyberpolitics: citizen activism in the age of the Internet. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
21.
Pope, J. (2003). Social capital and social capital indicators: A reading list (Working Paper Series No. 1). Adelaide, Australia: University of Adelaide, Public Health Information Development Unit.
22.
Putnam, R. (2001) Social capital: Measurement and its consequences. Isuma Canadian Journal of Policy Research, 2(1), 41-51.
23.
Statistics Canada. (2004). Household Internet Use Survey: Households with at least one regular Internet user, by location of access, census metropolitan areas (CANSIM, Table 358-0002, Catalogue No. 56F0004MIE). Ottawa, Canada: Author. Retrieved from http://cansim2.statcan.ca/
24.
Sullivan, J., Borgida, E., Jackson, M. S., Riedel, E., Oxendine, A., & Gangl, A. (2002). Social capital and community electronic networks. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(5), 868-886.
25.
van Kemenade, S. (2003). Social capital as a health determinant: How is it measured? (Health Policy Research Work Paper Series, Population and Public Health Branch). Ottawa, Canada: Health Canada.
26.
Wellman, B., Quan Haase, A., Whilte, J., & Hampton, K. (2001). Does the Internet increase, decrease, or supplement social capital?American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3), 436-455.
27.
The World Bank Group. (2004). Social capital for development. Retrieved May 4, 2004, from http://www.worldbank.org/poverty/scapital/whatsc.htm
28.
World Health Organization. (1997, July 21-25). The Jakarta declaration on leading health promotion into the 21st century. Fourth International Conference on Health Promotion, Jakarta, Indonesia. Retrieved May 6, 2003, from http://www.who.int/hpr/archive/docs/jakarta/english.html
