A Case Study of the City of Vancouver's Climate Change

Motivating Policy Responses to Climate Change: A Case Study of The City of Vancouver’s Climate Change Adaptation Strategy

A Thesis Submitted to the Committee on Graduate Studies in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Masters of Arts in the Faculty of Arts and Science

TRENT UNIVERSITY Peterborough, Ontario, Canada

© Sara Fralin 2014 Sustainability Studies M.A. Program January 2015 ABSTRACT Motivating Policy Responses to Climate Change: A Case Study of The City of Vancouver’s Climate Change Adaptation Strategy By Sara Fralin This research investigates urban climate governance through a case study of climate change adaptation policy making in the Canadian municipality of

Vancouver, British Columbia (BC). It investigates the context in which the City of Vancouver was motivated to develop its climate change adaptation strategy

(CCAS) by exploring the motivating factors and drivers behind the formulation of this plan. The research approach involved content analysis of policy documents underlying the CCAS as well as interviews with key politicians and policy makers familiar with the strategy. I conceptualize the development of the CCAS using Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework, leading me to conclude that the convergence of three streams, namely: 1) knowledge of local climate change impacts and their cost to city assets, 2) political leadership and

3) green policy coordination in the City of Vancouver, created an opportunity that was seized upon by policy champions to address adaptation.

Keywords: local climate change governance, municipal adaptation policy, climate change adaptation policy formulation, urban climate governance, adapting cities to climate change.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my supervisor Stephen Hill and advisor David

Holdsworth for their support. The many conversations we had provided guidance throughout the process of developing my research proposal, preparing for interviews, analyzing data and actually writing this thesis.

Stephen’s sense of humour helped me to keep the pressure of completing my project in perspective. David’s feedback challenged me to think deeper about my research and its many implications. Without their direction this thesis would have been over 300 pages long.

I would also like to thank all of the students who joined me in Trent’s

2012-14 Sustainability Studies graduate program. We created a unique community of caring and dedicated researchers. Your encouragement and company made tackling challenges head-on less scary. Our weekly yoga class and many escapes to the Muskoka Lakes kept me sane during the long and cold Ontario winters.

Finally I would like to thank my family and friends on Team Sara for your encouragement throughout my post-secondary education. Your advice gave me the confidence to keep learning and to tackle some of the ‘wicked problems’ my generation will face in the years to come.

III

Dedication

This thesis is dedicated to all the exceptional women in my life. My grandmother Ethel Karmel and her daughters Sandi Karmel and Lorraine

Fralin inspired me to care about the world I live in, given me the confidence to stand up for what I believe and provided exemplary footsteps to follow in. My grandmother Ethel’s passion to preserve the Cambie St. Boulevard as a city heritage site inspired me to get involved in municipal politics. My aunt Sandi’s dedication to child welfare fostered my strong care ethic; and my mother

Lorraine’s strong voice helped me find my own. Thank you for being such positive influences on my life.

I would like to thank my dad, Peter Fralin, who provided IT support throughout my studies and fostered my love for outdoor adventures. He taught me to swim, ski, and bike in the Pacific Ocean, Coast Mountains and sea side trails surrounding Vancouver, giving me memories and experiences that tie me to this special place.

Lastly, I would like to thank Fred Phinn for reminding me that my education is a privilege and that I have a responsibility to use my knowledge for the benefit of everyone.

Table of Contents

Abstract II Acknowledgements III Dedication IV Table of Contents V List of Figures VIII List of Tables IX Glossary of Abbreviations X Chapter 1. Introduction...... 1 1.1 Rationale ...... 3 1.2 Problem Statement ...... 8 1.3 Research Purpose ...... 10 1.4 Case Selection: The City of Vancouver BC...... 11 1.4.1 Vancouver’s Institutional and Electoral Context ...... 14 1.4.2 Climate Change Adaptation Strategy (CCAS) ...... 15 Chapter 2. Research Approach ...... 19 2.1 Research Questions ...... 19 2.2 Qualitative Research Approach ...... 21 2.3 Research Methods ...... 23 2.3.1 Literature Review ...... 23 2.3.1.1 Academic Literature Review ...... 24 2.3.1.2 Review of Policy Documents and Grey Literature ...... 25 2.3.2 Semi-Structured Interviews with Key Informants ...... 27 2.4 Qualitative Analysis of Data ...... 30 2.5 Case Selection Justification ...... 33 Chapter 3. Literature Review ...... 35 3.1 Multi-level Climate Governance Regime ...... 37 3.2 History of Urban Climate Change Governance ...... 41 3.3 Local Climate Change Adaptation Governance ...... 48 3.3.1 Goals of Adaptation Policy ...... 48 3.3.2 Type of Adaptation ...... 50 3.4 Climate Change Adaptation Policy Formulation ...... 50

3.4.1 Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework ...... 53 3.4.2 The Role of Ideas and Issue Framing ...... 57 3.4.2.1 Sustainability and Climate Change Lenses ...... 58 3.4.2.2 Emergency and Disaster Risk Management ...... 62 3.4.3 Development Path ...... 63 3.4.3.1 Sustainable Development in Vancouver ...... 65 3.5 Factors Driving Urban Climate Change Adaptation Governance ...... 67 Chapter 4. Analysis of Results ...... 75 4.1 Framework for Analysis of Results ...... 77 Chapter 5. Problem Stream Findings: The Economics of Local Impacts ...... 83 5.1 Finding 1: Knowledge of Local Impacts Brought the Problem of Climate Change to the Attention of Policy Makers ...... 85 5.2 Finding 2: Understanding the Costs of Action versus Inaction Transformed the Apolitical Conditions of Global Climate Change into a Political Problem ....89 5.3 Finding 3: Framing Adaptation as part of Sustainable Development Motivated Action on Climate Change because it Contributes to a Competitive Business Environment ...... 94 5.4 Finding 4: Key Events Focused Attention and Influenced Public and Policy Makers’ Perceptions of Climate Change ...... 97 Chapter 6. Politics Stream Findings: Organizational and Individual Leadership ...... 101 6.1 Finding 1: Political Leadership Placed Adaptation on the Political Agenda ...... 104 6.2 Finding 2: Engineers’ Sense of Infrastructure Stewardship and Responsible Management Maintained Attention on the Issue of Climate Change Impacts ...... 106 6.3 Finding 3: Organizational Leadership from Vision Vancouver Led to a New Way of Doing Business that Integrated Adaptation and Sustainable Development ...... 110 6.4 Finding 4: Key External Events and a Lack of Federal Leadership Focused Local Political Leadership on Adaptation ...... 114 Chapter 7. Policy Stream Findings: Green Policy Coordination ...... 120 VI

7.1 Horizontal Policy Coordination ...... 121 7.2 Finding 1: Mainstreaming Sustainability Generated Potential Solutions to the Local Impacts of Climate Change and Shaped Criteria for Selecting Policy Solutions ...... 122 7.2.1 Example: 1990 Clouds of Change Report ...... 129 7.2.2 Example: Sustainability Group ...... 131 7.2.3 Example: 2009 GCAP ...... 133 7.3 Vertical Policy coordination ...... 136 7.4 Finding 2: Vertical Policy Coordination Generated Potential Solutions, and Shaped Criteria for Selecting Policy Solutions ...... 137 7.4.1 Policy Coordination with Metro Vancouver Shaped Overarching Development Policy Goals of Livability, Sustainability and Resiliency .... 138 7.4.2 Policy Coordination with the BC Provincial Government Generated Potential Solutions, and Shaped Criteria for Selecting Policy Solutions .. 143 7.4.2.1 Example: Devolution of Flood Proofing Standards Motivated Municipal Action ...... 145 7.5 Finding 3: Partnership with ICLEI Facilitated Policy Coordination with Municipalities in Metro Vancouver ...... 148 Chapter 8. Policy Window Findings: Integrated Sustainability Planning Creates Opportunities for Policy Champions to Address Adaptation ...... 152 8.1 Finding 1: City Staff and Elected Official Seized a Window of Opportunity during the Development of GCAP ...... 155 8.1.1 Example: 2009 GCAP ...... 156 8.2 Finding 2: Adopting an Integrated Planning Approach Increased Opportunities for Policy Champions ...... 157 Chapter 9. Discussion ...... 163 9.1 Synthesis of the Literature ...... 164 9.1.1 Climate Change Adaptation Governance ...... 164 9.1.2 Factors that Drive Urban Adaptation Policy Development ...... 166 9.2 Synthesis of Findings ...... 167 9.2.1 How Vancouver Developed their CCAS ...... 167

VII

9.2.2 Driving/ Motivating Factors ...... 170 9.2.3 Multiple Streams Interpretation of Findings ...... 173 9.2.3.1 Problem Stream ...... 173 9.2.3.2 Politics Stream ...... 175 9.2.3.3 Policy Stream ...... 177 9.2.3.4 Policy Window ...... 178 9.3 Methodological Limitations ...... 181 9.3.1 Limitations of Kingdon’s Mulitple Streams Framework ...... 183 9.4 Implications and Significance ...... 184 9.5 Future Directions and Unanswered Questions ...... 188 9.6 Conclusion ...... 189 Appendices ...... 193 Appendix A: Interview Question Guide ...... 193 Appendix B1: Vancouver Municipal Policy Context ...... 197 Appendix B2: Regional Government Policy Context ...... 215 Appendix C: Chronological Presentation of the Historical Processes that Influenced Vancouver’s Policy Development Context ...... 220 Appendix D: Waves of Eco-state Restructuring ...... 223 Appendix E: Focusing Events ...... 225 Appendix F: Key Events Create Complex Conditions as Identified by Interviewees ...... 229 Appendix G: Key Actors and Ideas ...... 230 Works Cited ...... 231

VIII

List of Figures

Figure 1-1 Vancouver's Adaptation Strategy: Process and Timeline (City Of Vancouver, July 24, 2012) ...... 17 Figure 2-1. Original Coding Structure Showing Factors that Drive Urban Climate Change Adaptation Policy Development...... 31 Figure 3-1 Emerging Multi-Level Governance of Adaptation Structures and Programs...... 37 Figure 3-2 Institutional Relations Between Local Government Climate Initiatives and The Global Climate Governance Regime, From Zeppel (2013, P. 221) ...... 44 Figure 3-3 Conceptual Framework Showing, in Shaded Area, Iterative Steps Involved in Planned Coastal Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change, from Klein et al. (1999)...... 51 Figure 3-4 Climate and Sustainability Lenses: Showing two lenses: 1) climate change lens: evaluation of mitigation and adaptation options and their effects, and climate change impacts on human and natural systems; and 2) sustainable development lens: alternative development pathways focus on mitigative and adaptive capacity; modified from Robinson, et al. (2006). 59 Figure 3-5 General Factors of Influence that Motivate Municipal Climate Change Adaptation Policy Making ...... 73 Figure 3-6 Organizational Structure of Vancouver's City Hall and the Office of the City Manager (City of Vancouver, 2013a) ...... 74 Figure 4-1 Initial Framework for Analysis ...... 76 Figure 4-2 Framework for Analyzing Results ...... 79 Figure 7-1 Metro Vancouver’s definition of Livability, Sustainability and Resilience, from citiesPLUS (2003) ...... 141 Figure 8-1 City of Vancouver Policy Window...... 154 Figure 10-1 Metro Vancouver Planning Context, from (Timmer & Seymoar, March 2005, pp. 7-8) ...... 219

List of Tables

Table 1 List of Abbreviations and Key Terms ...... XI Table 2 The Affiliations of The Sixteen Key Informants Interviewed ...... 29 Table 3 Waves of Eco-State Restructuring ...... 223 Table 4 Key Events Create Complex Conditions as Identified by Interviewees ...... 229 Table 5 Key Policy Actors, Ideas and Policy Responses ...... 230

Table 1 List of Abbreviations and Key Terms Adaptation is a function of vulnerability and risk, where: Vulnerability = exposure (e.g., exposed to sea level rise) X sensitivity (i.e., the degree to which the system is affected) X Adaptation adaptive capacity (i.e., ability of the system to adapt); and Risk = likelihood (i.e., probability of a hazard) X consequence (i.e., severity of impact) Assessment Reports, referring to the IPCC’s research on climate AR change science The Climate Leadership Group C40 is a network of the world’s megacities taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. With a unique set of assets, the C40 works with participating cities to address climate risks and impacts locally and globally. C 40 Each city in the C40 is unique in its infrastructure and progress in addressing climate change. C40 works to empower cities to connect with each other and share technical expertise on best practices (Climate Leadership Group, 2014). Vancouver is a member. CBC Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

CCAS City of Vancouver’s climate change adaptation strategy

Local Governments for Sustainability’s (ICLEI’s) Cities for CCP Climate Protection (CCP) program Carbon disclosure project: CDP's cities program provides a voluntary climate change reporting platform for city governments. The program is open to any city government, regardless of size or geographic location. The 73 cities reporting to CDP this year are demonstrating leadership, transparency, and CDP a commitment to measure and manage their greenhouse gas emissions. Their responses showcase the cutting-edge climate change actions that are happening at the local level in every region of the world (Carbon Disclosure Project, 2014). Vancouver is a member. Conference of Parties (COP) The COP is the supreme decision- making body of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. All States that are Parties to the Convention are represented at the COP, at which they review the COP implementation of the Convention and any other legal instruments that the COP adopts and take decisions necessary to promote the effective implementation of the Convention, including institutional and administration arrangements. (UNFCCC, 2014)

Coalition of Progressive Electors (COPE) left-of-center civic COPE organization (i.e. political party) in Vancouver

ENGO Environmental non-governmental organization

FCM The Federation of Canadian Municipalities The City of Vancouver’s Greenest City Action Plan or the Greenest City 2020 Action Plan. This Greenest City initiative is GCAP the City’s management system for urban sustainability; it promotes environmental preservation and conservation. GHG Greenhouse gases, usually in the form of carbon emissions

GVRD/Met BC’s lower mainland regional government formally called the ro Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD). Vancouver Local Governments for Sustainability is an association of local governments. Their mission is to build and serve a worldwide movement of local and regional governments that are committed ICLEI to achieving tangible improvements in environmental sustainability. Vancouver became a member in 1993 (ICLEI, 2014). IGO Intergovernmental organization

IPCC Intergovernmental panel on climate change

For definitions according to Metro Vancouver see Figure 7-1 Livability Metro Vancouver’s definition of livability, sustainability and resilience, from citiesPLUS (2003. Maladaptation refers to adaptation actions that undermine other climate change mitigation or sustainable development goals; for example: High densities that minimize travel distances and Maladaptat facilitate community energy schemes can also intensify urban ion heat island effects, reduce urban drainage capacities, and increase thermal discomfort and health risks; for more information see Bizikova, Neale, & Burton (2008).

Non-Partisan Association (NPA) center-right civic organizations NPA (i.e. political party) in Vancouver

XII

National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE) was a department in Canada’s federal government. Last year’s federal budget gave the order to shut the NRTEE down on March 31, 2013. That shutdown has effectively happened already, as the research and analysis from their 25 years of NRTEE existence has now been removed from their website. It isn’t clear whether the round table’s past research will be easily accessible; in the meantime you can find an unofficial archive of their work online, including a list of their publications dating back to the early 1990s (Horne, 2013 ).

OECD The Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development

The Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium is a regional climate service centre at the University of Victoria that provides practical PCIC information on the physical impacts of climate variability and change in the Pacific and Yukon Region of Canada (PCIC, 2013) The partners for climate protection (PCP): PCP is a partnership between the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) and ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability. The Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) program is a network of Canadian municipal governments that have committed to reducing greenhouse gases and acting on climate change. PCP is the PCP Canadian component of ICLEI's Cities for Climate Protection (CCP) network, which involves more than 900 communities worldwide. PCP is a partnership between the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) and ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability. PCP receives financial support from FCM's Green Municipal Fund. The Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions is a dynamic knowledge network that brings together leading researchers PICS from British Columbia (BC) and around the world to study the impacts of climate change and to develop positive approaches to mitigation and adaptation (PICS, 2012).

Parts per million – a measure of the global atmospheric ppm concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2)

XIII

Resilience does not have one agreed upon definition in the literature. According to Vancouver’s climate change adaptation strategy “resilience is the ability of a system and its component parts to anticipate, absorb, accommodate, or recover from the effects of a hazardous event in a timely and efficient manner, Resilience including ensuring the preservation, restoration, or improvement of its essential basic structures and functions.” For other definitions of resilience and more information see Mayunga (2007). For definitions according to Metro Vancouver see Figure 7-1 Metro Vancouver’s definition of livability, sustainability and resilience, from citiesPLUS (2003. Framework for sustainable adaptation and mitigation (SAM), developed by the Adaptation and Mitigation in the context of Sustainable Development (AMSD) program based at UBC. SAM SAM emerged from workshops held in BC in 2006 and 2008, and it has been piloted in Richmond and Quesnel BC. (Bizikova, Neale, & Burton, 2008) SRI Metro Vancouver’s Sustainable Region Initiative (SRI) Sustainability does not have one agreed upon definition in the literature. In general, descriptions focus on balancing economic, social and environmental considerations in decision-making. The goal is to ensure the sustainability of eco-systems in order to meet the needs of present and future generations. This understanding stems from the Brundtland Commission Report Sustainabil that defines sustainable development as “development that ity meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (World Commission on Environment and Economy (WCED), 1987, p.43). For definitions according to Metro Vancouver see Figure 7-1 Metro Vancouver’s definition of livability, sustainability and resilience, from citiesPLUS (2003.

XIV

Sustainable development was first introduced into international politics at the UNCED in 1972 in Stockholm Sweden as “the notion that environmental protection and development, particularly poverty alleviation, were compatible and necessary for a better quality of life” (Eliadis, et al., 2003). The classic definition of sustainable development originates in the Sustainabl Brundtland Report Our Common Future (1987), as “development e that meets the needs of the present without compromising the Developme ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” It is from nt this idea of sustainable development that the city becomes a place where environmental issues have been addressed over the past hundred years and will continue to do so as urbanization increases (Bulkeley & Betsill, 2003, pp. 21-22). I will discuss the influence of development paths on climate policy in section 3.4.3 Development Path. A sustainable Vancouver is a community that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It is a place where people Sustainabl live, work, and prosper in a vibrant community of communities. e In such a community sustainability is achieved through Vancouver community participation and the reconciliation of short and long term economic, social and ecological well-being (Gates & Lee, May 10, 2005). The Electors’ Action Movement (TEAM) left-of-center civic TEAM organizations (i.e. political party) in Vancouver

UNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and Development

UNFCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change /UNFCCC

The Vancouver City Planning Commission is an advisory body of volunteers appointed by Council with a broad mandate to consider and advise Council on matters relating to the future of Vancouver. The Commission carries out this mandate through special projects on relevant issues, and by selecting specific matters on Council’s agenda on which to provide comment VCPC during Council’s deliberations. In carrying out this work, the Commission organizes conferences, consultations, competitions, presentations and research on a variety of topics including housing, public realm, transportation, public engagement and neighbourhoods (The Vancouver City Planning Commission, 2014) XV

The Vancouver Economic [Development] Commission is an agency of the City of Vancouver that works to strengthen the City's economic future by helping existing businesses, attracting VEC or investment, researching the business environment and making VEDC policy recommendations. The VEC works closely with elected officials and relevant departments of all levels of government. (Vancouver Economic Commission, 2012) Vision Vancouver (VV) left-of-center civic organizations (i.e. political party) in Vancouver. It is one of multiple municipal civic associations that run a slate of candidates for city council, parks VV and school board, along with one mayoral candidate. They have won a majority of council seats and elected the City’s mayor in two consecutive municipal elections in (2008 & 2011).

XVI

Chapter 1. Introduction Cities and Thrones and Powers Stand in Time’s eye, Almost as long as flowers, Which daily die: But, as new buds put forth To glad new men, Out of the spent and unconsidered Earth, The Cities rise again. (Poem by Rudyard Kipling, 1906)

My research investigates urban climate governance through a case study on climate change adaptation policy making in the Canadian municipality of

Vancouver, British Columbia (BC). I investigate the context in which the City of

Vancouver (hereinafter called the City) was motivated to develop its climate change adaptation strategy (CCAS).1 In particular, I explore the motivating factors and drivers that led this municipal government to formulate an adaptation plan. There are two primary research questions that guide the thesis:

1. How was Vancouver able to develop its CCAS?

2. What factors motivated or drove climate change adaptation policy making in the City of Vancouver, BC?

Key lessons learned from this case study may provide insight for other municipal policy makers looking to addresses local climate change impacts through adaptation policy.

1 For a list of abbreviations used throughout this document please see Table 1 List of Abbreviations and Key Terms on p. xi.

The document is organized into nine chapters. Chapter 1 provides an introduction to the research problem and the case organization: the City of

Vancouver. Chapter 2 outlines my research approach, including the methods of data collection and analysis. Chapter 3 introduces and summarizes key themes from the climate governance and public policy literatures, specifically around adaptation policy making at the municipal level, and provides a brief history of urban climate change governance. Section 3.5 looks specifically at the literature’s depiction of factors that drive or motivate climate change adaptation policy making in cities. Chapter 4 explains the framework I used to present my findings. Chapters 5, 6, 7 and 8 present my findings and the key factors that drove the development of climate change adaptation policy in the

City of Vancouver. Specifically, Chapter 5. describes indicators that brought the problem of local climate change impacts to the attention of policy makers such as data about local impacts and their cost. Chapter 6. looks at the political forces that affect what issues got placed on the agenda such as political leadership. Chapter 7. outlines how adaptation actions were generated and selected as a policy solution. Chapter 8 analyzes how these three driving factors came together to open a policy window for adaptation actions. It explains how movement in the policy-making process occurred when policy champions seized policy windows, such as adding adaptation to the City’s sustainable development plan. These chapters are based on data gathered in this study from both literature and interviews. In conclusion, Chapter 9 discusses the significance of this research. It provides a synthesis of the

3 literature presented in Chapter 3 and the findings presented in Chapters 5-8. It also outlines the methodological limitations of this study, explains the significance for policy makers, and suggests directions for future research.

I conclude that Vancouver’s CCAS was developed though three key steps: 1) city council requested staff report on the potential local impacts and cost of climate change, 2) the city’s adaptation working group initiated vulnerability and risk assessments, and developed an adaptation planning framework and 3) key staff members integrated adaptation into city’s

Greenest City Action Plan (GCAP) climate leadership goal. The formulation of

Vancouver’s CCAS was contingent upon the convergence of 1) knowledge of local impacts and their cost, 2) political leadership of staff and elected officials and 3) green policy coordination, which created a policy window within the

GCAP. In Vancouver certain focusing events and ideas framed public and political discourse and perceptions of climate change in a wider context of sustainable development.

1.1 Rationale

Cities must adapt if they are to confront what Brown, Harris, & Russell (2010) refer to as the “wicked problem” of climate change (p. 5). Climate change is a wicked problem because it is global in scale, comprises complex social and environmental issues, has no fixed solution, and resists conventional attempts to resolve it (Brown, Harris, & Russell, 2010).

Climate change mitigation is concerned with reducing and/or capturing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, such as carbon. Climate change adaptation involves adjusting structures (e.g., sewer separation), practices (e.g., water conservation), or processes (e.g., temporary shelters for extreme weather events or all-hazards risk management) to respond or cope with changing climate conditions (McCarthy, et al., 2001). The City of Vancouver defines adaptation as a function of vulnerability and risk, where:

 Vulnerability = exposure (e.g., exposed to sea level rise) X sensitivity (i.e., the degree to which the system is affected) X adaptive capacity (i.e., ability of the system to adapt); and  Risk = likelihood (i.e., probability of a hazard) X consequence (i.e., severity of impact; City of Vancouver Sustainability Group, 2012, pp. 5- 6). Adaptation refers to actions that respond to the impacts of climate change (i.e., changes in average conditions and more extreme weather events) by taking advantage of opportunities to reduce risk and vulnerability (e.g., modifying coastal development to account for sea level rise, or the provision of heat refuges during heat waves; City of Vancouver Sustainability Group, 2012, p. 3).

Equating adaptation to risk reduction is not the only way to define adaptation, for instance it can refer to things that we can do to change our own capacity to remain viable in a changing environment. Risk is a socially characterized concept that extends well beyond the technical definition that most empirical risk assessment employ. Mitigation and adaptation actions are not mutually exclusive, and in Vancouver many sustainability policies contribute to both goals (City of Vancouver Sustainability Group, 2012, p. 4).

Two significant global trends make research on urban climate change adaptation governance important for policy makers. First, global efforts to mitigate climate change have failed to date and the risk of future impacts is clear (Schipper, 2009; Richardson, 2010; IPCC, 2013). The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) was 390 ppm in 2011 - this is 40% greater than in 1750 – and continues to rise (IPCC, 2013, p. 161). Second, urbanization has transformed the face of the earth in less than a human lifespan. In 1950 only 29% of people lived in cities; in 2010 that figure was

50.5% and it is expected to reach 70% by 2050 (Spencer & Butler, 2010, p.

900). Global cities, determined by levels of production and consumption, connection to the global economy, and integration into the world city network, are quickly becoming important sites for climate governance (Betsill &

Bulkeley, 2007; Taylor , 2009). Climate change impacts are already being felt and adaptation has made its way onto political agendas (Schipper, 2009).

In Canada, momentum around adaptation has gradually grown since the mid-2000s. Examples include:

 2004: The BC Government released the report Weather, Climate and the Future: BC’s Plan (BC Ministry of Environment, 2004), which discusses mitigation and adaptation actions.  2007: Natural Resources Canada released the report From Impacts to Adaptation: Canada in a Changing Climate.  2008, October 28 - 29: The Institute of Public Administration of Canada (IPAC) organized the Climate Change and Canadian Public Policy: Adaptation and Action Conference in Toronto, ON.  2010: Natural Resources Canada released the report Adapting to Climate Change: An Introduction for Canadian Municipalities.

While climate change adaptation has been the focus of some government activities, few meaningful actions have been taken in Canada to implement concrete policies at the local level (Picketts, Curry & Rapaport, 2012; May,

2011, p. 16).2 Traditional approaches to governing climate change have been piecemeal, creating a false dichotomy between mitigation and adaptation that can lead to unsustainable development or maladaptation (Wilbanks, 2003;

Bizikova, Neale & Burton, 2008; Harford, November 2008, p. 3).

According to Johnston, Nicholas & Parzen (2013), vanguard cities across North America have taken up the sustainability challenge and are leading a quiet revolution to transform the way cities conduct business and engage with communities (p. 217). They claim that many gateway or global cities in North America are transforming into green3 and resilient urban communities. The authors conclude:

The need for even more advancements and investments in the long- term vitality of our cities has never been more obvious and urgent. Hurricane Sandy emphatically made that point in October 2012 when it slammed in to New York City and other communities along the coast of New York and New Jersey, killing more than 125 people and costing $10-20 billion in property damage and lost business, with overall economic damage estimated at $30-50 billion. The whole world took notice, not only the coastal cities but communities everywhere that already find themselves struggling to anticipate and manage all manner of climate-related risks, from heat waves that imperil their most

2 Primarily at the Federal level, however some provinces including BC have adopted a carbon tax. Moreover, Robinson & Gore (2011) show that 67 canadian municipalities are taking some form of adaptation action, but less then 5% have completed implementing these actions (Robinson & Gore, 2011). 3 Green is treated here as synonymous with environmentally friendly or sustainable.

vulnerable residents to droughts that threaten regional supplies of food, water, and energy. Sandy’s message to cities everywhere was loud and clear: the race to resilience is on (Johnston, Nicholas & Parzen, 2013, pp. 217-218).

Sandy taught us that cities are not prepared for the local impacts of climate change. Green and resilient cities reframe their response to climate change via a sustainability approach that integrates the traditionally disparate development goals of economic growth, environmental stewardship, and social welfare (Johnston, Nicholas & Parzen, 2013, pp. 218-222). Finally, the authors delegate responsibility for building resilient cities to those governments with the capacity to make strategic investments in sustainable development; stating:

North Americans have both an opportunity and an obligation to lead the way. American and Canadian cities are among the wealthiest in the world, and their prosperity was built in large part on the carbon- intensive development model that we now know lies at the root of the climate crisis … The green city movement and the race to resilience aren’t about planting a bunch of trees, restoring a few wetlands, weather-stripping some houses, and checking the box of “gone green.” They are about creating next-generation cities – vibrant and beautiful urban communities in which people enjoy clean air and water, healthy food, access to affordable shelter and meaningful work, and a sense of belonging and worth (Johnston, Nicholas & Parzen, 2013, pp. 225-226).

The City of Vancouver has set a goal to be the greenest city in the world by

2020 and has adopted a number of policies that address climate change adaptation through a strategic planning approach that aims to build resilience.

1.2 Problem Statement

Understanding climate change adaptation policy making is important for local governments seeking to mitigate negative impacts. As previously noted, climate change will impact growing urban populations and local adaptations are necessary to mitigate the severity of these impacts. Several studies have analyzed the role of national adaptation strategies in adaptation policy making; however, according to Bauer, Feichtinger & Steurer (2012), “the public governance of climate change adaptation going beyond [national] adaptation strategies is still a blind spot in climate policy research” (p. 280).

Similarly, research by the OECD identifies “a need for information, resources and institutional support that will enable cities to develop robust adaptation programs” (Carmin, Dodman & Chu, 2013, p.4); and Betsill & Bulkeley (2007) point to gaps in existing research and suggest new directions for work in this area including “how local authorities are planning for the impacts of climate change” (p. 453). This gap in knowledge is problematic because ignoring the question of “how to effectively develop adaptation policies through adequate governance” would inevitably hamper effective adaptation driven by public policies (Bauer, Feichtinger & Steurer, 2012, p. 280). In other words, local governments ought to be concerned with how to create policy that transforms adaptive capacity into adaptation actions. This is important because understanding how to develop adaptation policies may encourage adaptation actions. By investigating how the City of Vancouver has developed its CCAS

9 this research contributes to a larger body of knowledge on climate policy making in Canada.

Climate change governance and policy making in the City of Vancouver has been researched by three scholars: Burch (2009), Schwartz (2012), and

Holden (2013). They have each investigated climate policy in Vancouver, identifying barriers and enablers of action. Burch (2009) recognizes the City of

Vancouver for having made significant progress towards the translation of response capacity into mitigative capacity, and mitigative capacity into a measure of real greenhouse gas reductions. The creation of the centralized

Sustainability Group was particularly important in this regard, because it is responsible for addressing climate change in both the corporate and community realms (Burch, 2009). According to Burch it is clear that a more sustainable development path is being carved out by Vancouver. She notes “as skills grow and learning occurs, this city will be more likely to successfully act in the future because it has acted in the past” (Burch, 2009, p. 94). Schwartz

(2012) looks at climate change policy making in Vancouver and Toronto, focusing on mitigation strategies. These two cities have been more successful than most Canadian cities in implementing climate change mitigation policies

(Schwartz, 2012). The most important factors for the creation of mitigation policy include: ideational factors (such as the principled beliefs of key officials), participation in municipal level IGOs, learning from ENGOs, as well as the existence of a dedicated environment department (Schwartz, 2012).

According to Holden (2013) the City of Vancouver has a culture of environmental urbanism and an awareness of the risks of climate change. She classifies Vancouver as a mature city in terms of climate change leadership, and concludes that Vancouver’s GCAP represents valuable lessons for other cities across North America (Holden, 2013). For more information on GCAP see Appendix B1: Vancouver Municipal Policy Context.

My research builds upon this previous work to create a more complete picture of the climate policy process in the City of Vancouver. By tracing how climate change adaptation policies were developed, I identify causal mechanisms (e.g., focusing events) and show how particular variables (e.g., political leadership and new partnerships) matter, whether on their own or in combination with other factors. This research focuses on climate change adaptation policy making, filling a growing gap in urban climate change governance literature.

1.3 Research Purpose

This study identifies factors that motivated the formulation of climate change adaptation policy. It specifically addresses the core elements that led to the creation of Vancouver’s CCAS in 2012, termed motivating factors or driving forces. The goal is to identify and understand what motivated this municipal government to develop policies that support climate change adaptation. By examining how Vancouver engages in problem definition and agenda setting, I describe the evolution of climate policy in Vancouver. To this end I explore the

11 ways in which the problem of climate change is understood and the policy solutions chosen and consider the influence of wider events not primarily associated with climate change.

I rely on theoretical constructs that emphasize the role of actors and ideas and the significance of process and timing in my analysis of the development of Vancouver’s CCAS. According to Rowlands (2007) by focusing upon ideas, I am able to draw attention to the ways in which participants inside and outside government conceptualize both the policy problem and the policy solution as well as the criteria for solutions selected in the political arena (Rowlands, 2007). Determining how issues get on the political agenda and what motivates policy makers to take action on these issues is a critical part of the policy-making process. The Multiple Streams Framework, originally developed by Kingdon (1984), offers a useful framework to help determine

“which issues will be considered, which will be further examined, and which will be abandoned by policy makers” (Kingdon, 1995; Anderson 2010, p. 119).

The Multiple Streams approach emphasises two areas of influence: the role of ideas and the role of timing (Kingdon, 1995). Finally, there are instances when certain individual actors—who are also known as policy champions—make links across the streams, and thus, stimulate policy change.

1.4 Case Selection: The City of Vancouver BC

The Metro Vancouver region is bordered by mountains to the north and east, water to the west and the US border to the south. This geographical context

12 limits the space for growth and sprawl and has helped shape the need for dense urban development. The creation of high-density neighbourhoods with plenty of community amenities on the edge of downtown is an approach to development that became known worldwide as Vancouverism (Ward, 2011).

Vancouverism promotes a freeway-free city where residents live, work, and play in their neighbourhood, creating liveable communities where residents don’t have to commute by car. Vancouverism specifically refers to the City of

Vancouver’s 1991 Central Area Plan (aka the Downtown Plan, Pandolfi, 2010), see Appendix B1: Vancouver Municipal Policy Context.

Indeed, there is more to Vancouverism than just view corridors, slim towers juxtaposed with mid-rise developments and bike paths. Vancouver’s approach to development affects its level of vulnerability and risk associated with a changing climate. Vancouver’s development strategy in the 1990’s recognized the city’s future did not lie in road expansion, but in prioritizing sustainable alternative transportation choices. In other words, shifting investment towards transportation options that use renewable fuels or use fuels more efficiently (e.g., transit, ride-sharing, and low carbon vehicles), or don’t use fuel at all (e.g., walking and cycling; City of Vancouver, 2012, p. 8).

This is reiterated in Vancouver’s most recent transportation plan,

Transportation 2040, adopted in 2012 in conjunction with the City’s GCAP.

The Transportation 2040 plan includes the goal to “be resilient in the face of climate change and increasing fuel prices, helping residents and local

13 businesses survive and even thrive in a post-carbon era” (City of Vancouver,

2012, p. 9). Vancouver has a history of dedication to quality of life and urban sustainability that it continues to promote.

According to Kiger, (2014) the real secret to Vancouver’s success has been its deliberative, values-driven development process, “in which local government planners, developers, and the citizenry have laboured over the past few decades to form a consensus vision of what their city should be like— and then come up with creative solutions for achieving it.” According to

Gordon Price, a former City Councillor, this united vision is a “resilient city”

(quoted in Kiger, 2014). Vancouverism as a development paradigm has helped prepare the City to better cope with climate change by creating complete neighbourhoods that facilitate social interaction and engagement, diverse economies, and sustainability.

The City of Vancouver has been proactive in addressing climate change issues for nearly three decades. It demonstrated leadership throughout the

1990s by reducing highway infrastructure planned for downtown, bringing housing back to the downtown, and increasing pedestrian amenities around the City – decreasing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing social capital

(Cool Vancouver Task Force, 2003). It took a strong position against increasing road infrastructure and in its place shifted the focus of transportation to transit and non-automobile modes (Cool Vancouver Task Force, 2003).

Overall, Vancouver has taken a position of both responsibility and leadership

14 in addressing climate change; however the 21st century has posed new challenges and renewed the call for determination and creativity in addressing these issues within the City’s jurisdiction (Cool Vancouver Task Force, 2003).

In Vancouver policy making around climate change adaptation is supported by linking it to sustainable development and climate change mitigation, as well as coordinating with the region via Metro Vancouver. Policies outlined in the appendix illustrate the intersection of these three policy priorities; see

Appendix B1: Vancouver Municipal Policy Context and Appendix B2: Regional

Government Policy Context.

1.4.1 Vancouver’s Institutional and Electoral Context

The City of Vancouver has a unique institutional and electoral context.

Previous research on Vancouver by Burch (2009), Schwartz (2012), and

Holden (2013) highlights three important institutional features: 1) the

Vancouver Charter; 2) use of an at-large electoral system; and 3) the City bureaucracy is led by the City Manager and includes a dedicated environmental office. For more information on the Vancouver Charter and environmental office see Appendix B1: Vancouver Municipal Policy Context.

The electoral system used by the City of Vancouver is an at-large election rather than the ward, or neighbourhood system as is common in most

Canadian cities. Vancouver is also unusual for a Canadian municipality because prospective Mayors and City Councillors tend to organize themselves into

“civic organizations” – the equivalent of political parties – each of which runs a

15 slate of candidates (Schwartz, June 2012, p. 25). Residents elect one Mayor and ten City Councillors. The main civic organizations in Vancouver are: left-of- center The Electors’ Action Movement (TEAM), left-of-center Coalition of

Progressive Electors (COPE), center-right Non-Partisan Association (NPA), and left-of-center Vision Vancouver (VV), and minor ones include the left-of-center

Green party of Vancouver, and centrist Neighbourhoods for a Sustainable

Vancouver (NSV), among others. Previous research in Vancouver identifies the at-large electoral system as a barrier to effective climate governance because it promotes partisan politics (Burch, 2010, p. 294). Overcoming partisan politics and the formation of Vision Vancouver is discussed further in section 6.3

Finding 3: Organizational Leadership from Vision Vancouver.

1.4.2 Climate Change Adaptation Strategy (CCAS)

Climate change adaptation is explicitly mentioned in five policies: Clouds of

Change, Community Climate Action Plan, Flood Proofing standards, the GCAP, and the CCAS. The CCAS ensures Vancouver remains a “liveable and resilient city in the face of climate change” (City of Vancouver Sustainability Group,

2012, p. 2). In order to accomplish this, the policy aims to:

• increase the resilience of city infrastructure, programs and services to anticipated local climate change impacts (e.g., sewer separation); • promote and facilitate the incorporation of climate change information into city business (e.g., budgets, capital and operational planning); • improve awareness, knowledge, skills and resources of city staff. (e.g., create a central location for climate change projections in the Sustainability Group); and

• enhance opportunities for coordination and cooperation through the development of networks and partnerships (e.g., work with the Vancouver Economic Commission and Board of Trade to build awareness and take action; City of Vancouver, Sustainability Group, 2012, p. 2). The local impacts of global climate change began to gain political attention in

Vancouver in 2007 when City Councillor Heather Deal requested staff begin to examine potential impacts of climate change on city assets and recommend an adaptation planning framework. In 2009, the City Council prioritized adaptation planning on the policy agenda by inserting it as a quick start action under the ‘Climate Leadership’ goal in the Greenest City 2020 Action Plan

(GCAP). In 2010, the City joined the ICLEI Climate Change Adaptation Initiative pilot to work through its five milestone methodology with the goal of developing and implementing a climate change adaptation strategy over two years. Vancouver’s realization of ICLEI’s milestones encompass:

Milestone 1 - Initiate: interview General Managers, compile climate science, identify existing adaptations and impacts; hold workshops with staff to brainstorm actions to prepare for, or reduce risk from, the prioritized impacts. Milestone 2 - Research: initiate Risk and Vulnerability assessments in conjunction with PCIC’s climate science project: the Georgia Basin Adaptation Initiative. Milestone 3 - Plan: Identification and prioritization of adaptation actions; criteria from The Canadian Communities’ Guidebook for Adaptation to Climate Change were used to rank the actions (Bizikova, Neale, & Burton, 2008, p. 45). Milestone 4 - Implement: Implement the Local Action Plan. Milestone 5 - Monitor: Monitor Progress and Report Results (City of Vancouver, 2012). To date, Vancouver has achieved milestones 1-3 and is in the process of implementing the plan (see Figure 1-1, below).

Figure 1-1 Vancouver's Adaptation Strategy: process and timeline (City of Vancouver, July 24, 2012)

The CCAS consists of nine primary actions and over 50 supporting actions that address local impacts from climate change. Primary actions include:

1. Complete a Coastal Flood Risk Assessment; 2. Amend Flood-proofing policies; 3. Develop and implement a Citywide Integrated Storm-water Management Plan; 4. Continue with sewer separation; 5. Develop a back-up power policy; 6. Continue to implement water conservation actions; 7. Support and expand extreme heat planning; 8. Include climate change adaptation measures in the next Vancouver Building Bylaw update; and 9. Develop and implement a comprehensive Urban Forest Management Plan (City of Vancouver, Sustainability Group, 2012). Each of these primary actions build on existing projects, which will bring

Vancouver closer to reaching its Greenest City 2020 Action Plan goals, and

18 provide benefits to the community regardless of the extent of climate change impacts. In July 2012 City Council adopted the CCAS and the City began implementing several primary actions including integrated storm water management planning, flood-proofing policy review and urban forest management planning.

This chapter has provided an introduction to the research problem and case study area. There is a growing call for research on urban climate governance because of the climate change impacts projected for these growing populations. The purpose of this research is to understand when and how the

City of Vancouver was able to prioritize climate change adaptation in their policies. The next chapter outlines my research approach, including the methods of data collection.

Chapter 2. Research Approach

My research examines climate change adaptation policies adopted by the City of Vancouver. In Vancouver climate change adaptation engages a wide range of issues, “particularly emergency management, health and the needs of vulnerable populations in a changing climate” (City of Vancouver

Sustainability Group, 2012, p.2). It focuses on policies that discuss climate change adaptation and those that recognize the link between mitigation, adaptation, and sustainable development. This research seeks to explain how this municipal government was able to develop their CCAS by investigating movement through stages in the policy-making process (e.g., problem identification, agenda setting, policy formulation, decision making and policy window).

2.1 Research Questions

This research investigates urban climate governance through a case study on climate change adaptation policy making in the City of Vancouver. It specifically identifies the motivating factors and drivers that prompted the municipal government to develop their CCAS. The goal is to understand what encouraged this municipal government to adopt holistic and integrated policies for adapting to climate change. By understanding how the City of

Vancouver engaged in problem definition and agenda setting, I will explain the evolution of adaptation policy in Vancouver. There are two primary research questions that guide the thesis:

1. How was Vancouver able to develop its CCAS? 2. What key factors motivated or drove climate change adaptation policy making in the City of Vancouver, BC?

Understanding how and why this city succeeded in creating its climate change adaptation policy may provide helpful insights for other municipalities. The limited transferability of this study and the importance of the local context are outlined in section 9.3 Methodological Limitations. I recognize that there may be idiosyncratic features and the potential for multiple casual pathways that led this city to develop adaptation policy. I hope that by understanding the core elements that led the City to formulate and adopt this policy, I will identify lessons learned from policy makers’ experiences.

In order to answer these questions my case study will focus on key stages in the policy development process. I will analyze the formative stages in the policy-making process, termed: agenda setting, policy formulation

(including Kingdon’s alternative specification stage, outlined in section 3.4.1

Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework) and decision making. I use Kingdon’s

Multiple Streams Framework to explain how public policy is designed and movement in the policy-making process (Kingdon, 1995). This study is focused on identifying key factors that promoted adaptation as a policy response in each stage. I investigate vital stages in the policy-making process in order to determine “which issues will be considered, which will be given further examination, and which will be abandoned” (Anderson 2010, p. 119). Based on

Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework and findings from Corfee-Morlot, et al.

(2009), I identified key formative stages in the policy cycle and developed the aforementioned research questions. Key formative stages include:

1. Agenda setting, including: how climate change impacts are perceived as a political problem, how information collection and awareness raising influenced decision makers, and how the issue is framed by city staff, elected officials and the general public. 2. Policy formulation and decision-making, including: policy planning and design, specifically generating solutions, and selecting those that incorporate both adaptation policy criteria (e.g., resilience) and other urban development objectives (e.g., livability and sustainability). 3. Policy Window, including: when it became politically feasible to act on adaptation, and how policy champions seized opportunities to pursue a policy response.

This study focuses on identifying key factors that promoted adaptation as a policy response in each stage. The following section will outline my specific research approach and method.

2.2 Qualitative Research Approach

This descriptive case study uses a qualitative research approach that integrates stories from individuals, about the City of Vancouver, to make inferences about the organization and construct a partial meta-narrative about how it developed public policy on adaptation. According to Babbie (2008),

“[d]escriptive studies answer questions of what, where, when, and how”

(p.99). A case study method is a “subset of qualitative methods that aspires to cumulative and progressive generalizations about social life and seeks to develop and apply clear standards for judging whether some generalizations fit the social world better than others” (George, 2005, p. 19). Case studies are

22 usually more useful for 1) descriptive rather than causal inferences, 2) studies prized for depth over breadth and 3) exploratory rather than confirmatory research (Gerring, 2004, pp. 341-2).

I chose a case study approach because it allowed me to use different units of analysis to collect data from individuals about an organization, and make inferences about organizational theories and public policy development

(Yin, 1994, pp. 30, 72). Also because case studies are known to produce rich narratives that can reveal “the complexities and contradictions of real life”

(Flyvberg, 2004, pp. 429-430). This is important because using a narrative approach enabled me to offset the risk of my case not being sensitive to local conditions. I used localized narratives to make my study context specific; by assembling multiple individual stories into a partial meta-narrative on the City of Vancouver’s climate change adaptation policy-making process I explain actions taken by the organization as a whole. A case study may be hard to generalize into broader theory, but it contains a rich ambiguity that helps people gain understanding to address complex issues (e.g., responding to climate change) that a heuristic framework and standard rules cannot address

(Flyvbjerg, 2004, p. 430). The analyses of policy and governance in complex systems - like the social-ecological systems of cities in Canada - can be gainfully conducted using qualitative and case study based research approaches.

2.3 Research Methods

My research design involved three data collection methods: academic literature review, policy document analysis and semi-structured interviews.

These methods were selected because they each contribute a different type of data, allowing convergence and triangulation of data from multiple sources, which is useful when formulating findings, evaluating reliability and validity, and drawing conclusions. By tracing the development of climate change adaptation policy in Vancouver, I identified causal mechanisms and evaluated the importance of particular variables, whether on their own or in combination with other factors. This study used face-to-face interviews with key policy actors in Vancouver’s municipal and regional governments, and others with special interest in municipal policy and climate change. This approach provided a description of the policy-making process and a historicised understanding of the complexity of climate governance.

2.3.1 Literature Review

The scope of the literature review included both academic and grey literature.

The literature came from diverse disciplines including: urban planning, public policy, political ecology, green politics and environmental governance. My research strategy contained key word search in various databases and the review of works cited in each document retrieved. I reviewed approximately

360 documents from the academic, policy and grey literature to understand the context and story of climate governance in Vancouver.

2.3.1.1 Academic Literature Review

The academic literature review identified academic conversations and theories in relation to urban climate governance and municipal policy making. The purpose was first to understand where municipalities fit in a multi-level climate governance regime and second what motivates or drives cities to develop adaptation policy. My review of academic articles explored two key areas. First, I considered city-scale action on climate change within a multilevel governance framework; and second, the public policy process, specifically the planning behind local climate change action plans and policies. This is examined in five parts:

1. Where cities fit in a multi-level climate governance regime is explored in section 3.1 Multi-level Climate Governance Regime 2. How cities historically engaged with climate governance is explored in section 3.2 History of Urban Climate Change Governance 3. What is local climate change adaptation governance, is explored in section 3.3 Local Climate Change Adaptation Governance 4. How local adaptation policy is formulated is explored in section 3.4 Climate Change Adaptation Policy Formulation 5. What motivates or drives the formulation of local adaptation policy is explored in section 3.5 Factors Driving Urban Climate Change Adaptation Governance

The academic literature review was conducted using key word search on

Google Scholar, TOPCAT and Scholars Portal via the Trent University Library. I reviewed the works cited in these documents to identify other sources of information. An initial search on Google Scholar produced 33 results using the search terms "policy making" AND "urban climate change adaptation"; more

25 broadly 3650 results were produced using the search terms "policy making",

“urban”, "climate change adaptation". Documents were selected for review based on their relevance; the scope of case studies needed to focus on climate change adaptation in cities located in developed nations.4 Studies were prioritized by date, and searches were limited by my ability to access them online or through Trent University’s library.

2.3.1.2 Review of Policy Documents and Grey Literature

The policy and grey literature review identified the local policy context, a historical evolution of climate related policies and the wider political discourses in relation to climate change governance in the City of Vancouver.

The policy and grey literature review was conducted using key word search on

Google and government web sites including the City of Vancouver archives. I reviewed the works cited in these documents to identify other sources of information. In order to understand the contemporary history of climate policy in Vancouver, five types of grey literature were reviewed: popular news and political blogs, non-governmental organizations’ (NGOs’) web sites, public surveys and government documents. Overall, 114 documents were reviewed, these include:

4 By developed nations I am referring to countries in North America, Western Europe and Scandinavia, and other nations with high levels of socio-economic development (e.g., members of the OECD).

 Popular news sources e.g., the CBC, The Vancouver Sun, The Province, the Vancouver Observer, the Globe and Mail, and Vancity Buzz.  Political blogs e.g., Price Tags (Gordon Price), Frances Bula and Mayor of Vancouver Gregor Robertson.  NGO data collection was comprised of documents from environmental networks and think tanks e.g., Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI) and The Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM), and research institutes such as the Fraser Basin Council, the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions (PICS) and the Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium (PCIC).  Public surveys conducted by the GVRD and the Vancouver City Planning Commission (VCPC) ranging from the early 1970’s to 2012 were reviewed to understand public opinion and issue salience.  Government data collection comprised of online documents from the City of Vancouver, Metro Vancouver, the Province of BC, and the Government of Canada’s web sites and archives including policies, reports, staff memos and council minutes.

Policy documents focused on urban planning and climate change initiatives in relation to the City of Vancouver. Although many policies exist that do not explicitly target climate change, there are many that nevertheless contribute to adaptation (such as policies directed at risk management, sustainable development, green buildings, eco-density, parks, social engagement and transportation), this study considered only those policies that explicitly articulate climate change adaptation related goals.

Policy documents were analyzed with the goal of understanding the historical evolution of the policy, including: key events that drove the policy- making process, the key actors involved, the temporal scale, the spatial scale, the central adaptive issues of interest (i.e., adaptation of what, to what and for whom), the responsible parties, stakeholders engaged and the criteria used to

27 select and prioritize actions. This enabled me to build a chronology that critically engages with contemporary theoretical climate governance models.

This information is integrated into my results chapters and presented in

Appendix B1: Vancouver Municipal Policy Context, Appendix B2: Regional

Government Policy Context and illustrated in Appendix C: Chronological

Presentation of the Historical Processes that Influenced Vancouver’s Policy

Development Context.

2.3.2 Semi-Structured Interviews with Key Informants

Key informants were selected for interviews based on their intimate knowledge and experience with Vancouver’s CCAS. The idea of qualitative research is to purposefully select informants and documents that will best answer the research question (Creswell, 1994, p. 148). No attempt was made to randomly select informants.

The interviews were semi-structured: a list of questions provided a common framework or guide for all the interviews, but the exact wording of the questions and their order flowed from the conversation. All questions were open-ended, allowing respondents to express themselves freely. See Appendix

A: Interview Question Guide for the interview guide and the informed consent letter provided to participants. This project was approved by the Trent

Research Ethics Board, approval #022976. Interviewees were not compensated for their participation, although a thank you card for their time

28 was mailed and an electronic copy of the completed thesis was promised upon request.

I interviewed members from the City of Vancouver Office of the City

Manager’s Sustainability Group, Engineering Department and City Council; along with other contributors to Vancouver’s sustainability and climate change policies (e.g., GCAP and CCAS), including individuals consulted during the policy development process. Individuals were identified and selected based on the following criteria:

1) Their role as a policy developer with the City of Vancouver and in relation

to the GCAP or CCAS as members of the Working Group, Task Force, and

other consultative assemblies. Policy documents and media reports

enabled me to identify a set of key informants; those I felt had

comprehensive knowledge and experience with the City’s CCAS. In

particular, I identified thirty-one key informants based on their

involvement in developing the CCAS (e.g., GCAP, GC action team, CCAS

working group, Sustainability Group, elected officials, and municipal

reporters).

2) During the interview process I used the snowball technique to identify

other key informants. I did this by asking each interviewee to suggest other

key informants; individuals who they felt would be a helpful contributor to

my research. This resulted in twenty-three recommendations, twenty-one

were novel, and only seven were actually interviewed.

In total, fifty-two key informants were identified as potential interviewees for my study. I was able to contact thirty-three of the fifty-two key informants, and sixteen agreed to be interviewed. Twelve key informants were not available to be interviewed, five were not amenable to being interviewed and nineteen could not be reached.

Interviews with key informants took place in Vancouver, either in person or by phone, between July and September 2013. Key informants included current and former elected officials and city staff. A variety of municipal political parties were represented including: The Electors’ Action Movement

(TEAM), Coalition of Progressive Electors (COPE), Non-Partisan Association

(NPA), and Vision Vancouver (VV).5 One interviewee, Frances Bula, is a reporter with thirty years’ experience covering local politics in the City of

Vancouver. One interviewee, Ken Cameron, was a regional planner at Metro

Vancouver. One interviewee, Key informant #10, is a member of the board of

ICLEI. All interviewees had between ten and thirty-two years of experience related to policy making or urban planning, with the exception being Frances

Bula.

Table 2 Affiliations of the Sixteen Key Informants Interviewed

City of Vancouver elected officials:

 1 current Vancouver City Councillor: Key informant #05

5 For more information on the evolution of Vancouver’s civic associations see Lee (2013)

 3 former Vancouver City Councillors: Key informant #02, Key informant #10, Gordon Price  1 Metro Vancouver regional planner: Ken Cameron  1 former Mayor of Vancouver: Key informant #02

City of Vancouver municipal staff (bureaucrats):

 4 senior staff members from the Sustainability Group: Key informant #03, Key informant #06, Key informant #08, Mark Holland  3 members from the Greenest City Steering Committee: Key informant #07, Key informant #09, Key informant #11  4 members of the Greenest City Action Team: Key informant #05, Key informant #10, Mark Holland, Gordon Price  3 members of the Greenest City Climate Leadership advisory group: Key informant #03, Key informant #08, Key informant #09  2 members of the Cool Vancouver Task Force: Key informant #10, Gordon Price  1 senior staff member from the Adaptation Working Group: Key informant #08  1 senior staff member from the City Manager’s office: Key informant #11  1 senior staff member from the Engineering Department: Key informant #04  1 senior staff member from the Transportation Department: Key informant #07  Deputy Chief Building Official: Pat Ryan  Former SEFC/Vancouver Olympic Village senior planner, and green building planner: Dale Mikkelsen

Other Key Informants

 1 member of the board of ICLEI: Key informant #10  1 local journalist of city politics: Frances Bula

2.4 Qualitative Analysis of Data

I analyzed my data using the qualitative research software NVivo10. First, I transcribed all my interviews. Then I inductively coded all interview transcripts, all

31 relevant policy documents and grey literature to derive a set of concepts that I used to analyze the interview transcripts. Influential factors were initially organized into three main areas of influence (see Figure 2-1. Original coding structure showing factors that drive urban climate change adaptation policy development). I organized key events and other influential factors (e.g., elections and policies) into a chronology, to determine causal events over time. See 10.4 Appendix C:

Chronological Presentation of the Historical Processes that Influenced Vancouver’s

Policy Development Context. My analysis sought to locate motivating/driving factors for developing policy that confronted climate change impacts via adaptation.

Socio-economic Ideas and Actors Institutions and Structures Development Pathways

Electoral Factors Bureaucratic Capacity Local culture of •Branding the City •resource availability •Sustainability, Green •Policy Network/ •Livability, •Attract buisness Community •Green •Economic interests •Policymaking capacity Environmentalism •Issue Salience Geography of Metro •Interest Groups Vancouver Jurisdictional Ideational Factors Coordination City of Vancouver •Partnerships •Vertical and Horizontal Policies •Principled Beliefs •Policy integration •Environmental Office Focusing Events Institutional Context •Issue Framing Good Governance •Planning Timeframe •Global Leadership •Stakeholder engagement

Figure 2-1. Original coding structure showing factors that drive urban climate change adaptation policy development.

The policy document analysis helped answer my first research question. It explained how Vancouver was able to develop its CCAS. I did this by exploring the various stages in the policy-making process that were outlined in municipal policy and other civic documents. Analysis of my interviews answered my second research question. It identified the key factors that motivated and drove climate change adaptation policy making in the City of Vancouver. I did this by identifying where key events came together to create complex conditions, and by attaching key actors to concepts to form an explanation of the historical process of policy development. For a summary of these findings see Appendix F: Key Events Create Complex Conditions as

Identified by Interviewees and Appendix G: Key Actors and Ideas.

NVivo’s query search tools enabled me to triangulate key concepts to determine where they were repeated in both interview transcripts and the policy and grey literature. This verified my results were accurate. I developed a conceptual structure based on my thematic analysis that provided the framework for the results chapters of this thesis (see Chapter 4. Analysis of

Results). Finally, I compared the key drivers identified in my findings with the academic literature reviewed to inform my discussion. This led to the reorganization of my results - presented in Chapter 4. Analysis - into a new structure presented in section 4.1 Framework for Analysis of Results.

2.5 Case Selection Justification

The City of Vancouver was chosen as a case study because of its leadership in climate change policy among Canadian cites (Schwartz, 2012, pp. 165-9;

Johnston, Nicholas, & Parzen, 2013; Harcourt & Cameron, 2007). Vancouver was the first Canadian municipality to adopt a comprehensive CCAS (City of

Vancouver Sustainability Group, 2012,) and it has continued to receive much public attention for its success (VO Staff Reporter, 2014; Koronowski, 2014;

Sinoski & Lee, 2012; Weigeldt, 2013; Canadian Underwriter Editor, 2012;

Moore, 2013; The Canadian Press, 2013). Vancouver has received numerous awards for its efforts to become the greenest city in the world, these include:

 February 8, 2012: Received the 2012 FCM Sustainable Communities Award for the City’s GCAP  2012: Vancouver received the Guangzhou International Award for Urban Innovation  March 19, 2013: The distinguished Earth Hour City Challenge jury recognized the City of Vancouver as the international champion, Global Earth Hour Capital, and People’s Choice awards. The City Challenge, created by World Wildlife Fund (WWF), celebrates cities that are taking remarkable steps towards a 100% renewable future  April 22, 2013: The City of Vancouver was recognized as one of Canada's Greenest Employers for the second year in a row by the editors of Canada's Top 100 Employers. This award honours organizations with a “culture of environmental awareness, where thinking green guides how they operate today and plan for tomorrow.”  2013: Vancouver was ranked in the top 5 in the Corporate Knights North American Sustainable Cities Scorecard (City of Vancouver, 2014).  2014: Vancouver was ranked the second most resilient city in the world by the Grosvenor's Resilient Cities study (Grosvenor, 2014).

Vancouver provides an important example of a community transitioning towards sustainability because it is part of a larger economic and policy

34 context, characterized by a shared concern over the resilience of infrastucture and industries to varrious hazards (Rockel, 2009). According to John Robinson, a professor at UBC’s Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability and UBC’s Vice Chancellor of Sustainability:

Europe is regarded as a leader in sustainable development. But …European countries tend to be consumers rather than producers of resources and have stable or declining populations. By contrast, BC better reflects global trends because it has a resource-based economy and a growing population. …If we can figure out sustainability in that context, that’s way more interesting to developing countries and most fast-growing economies around the world than the European model (Rockel, 2009, p. 1).

Lessons learned from this study contribute to a larger body of research on urban climate change adaptation governance, providing a positive case for other communities to learn from.

Finally, I chose the City of Vancouver as my case study area because it is my home. I was born and raised in Vancouver, as was my mother and grandmother. I grew up spending time in nature, camping in BC’s provincial parks and Gulf Islands, swimming in the Pacific Ocean and skiing on the North

Shore and Whistler-Blackcomb mountains. I feel connected to both the urban and natural environments that make Vancouver a great place to live, work and play. It is important to me to ensure my urban family thrives into the future.

Chapter 3. Literature Review

This chapter presents information on urban climate change adaptation governance in order to understand the context in which adaptation policy is being developed in Vancouver. There are three goals traditionally associated with the climate change question: minimizing climate change impacts, increasing adaptive capacity, and reducing emissions (IPCC, 2013). My review of the literature was a research strategy to understand city-scale action on climate change within a multi-level governance framework, and the public policy process, specifically the planning behind local climate change action plans and policies. As well, a review of select theoretical perspectives and strategic themes from the climate governance and policy formulation literatures was undertaken in order to explore movement in the policy-making process and factors that drive urban climate change adaptation policy making.

This literature review helped me answer my two research questions by contextualizing the local governance of climate change adaptation and it enabled me to corroborate my findings by comparing Vancouver’s experience to those of other early adapters. By exploring how climate change is governed in a multi-level climate governance regime, how adaptation policy is formulated in the public policy cycle, and what drove other cities to move through stages in the policy cycle I elucidate the larger governance context in which Vancouver was able to develop its CCAS.

This context is examined in five parts. First, I explore where cities fit in a multi-level climate governance regime. In section 3.1, Multi-level Climate

Governance Regime, I provide a general overview of the multi-level governance regime that frames the local policy context, the historical dominance of the climate change mitigation agenda and barriers to municipal climate policy making. Second, I explore how cities have historically engaged with climate governance. In section 3.2, History of Urban Climate Change

Governance, I provide a brief history of urban climate governance that accounts for how climate change has evolved on municipal agendas. Third, I explore what is local climate change adaptation governance. In section 3.3,

Local Climate Change Adaptation Governance, I look specifically at adaptation governance outlining various types of adaptation policy. Fourth, I explore how local adaptation policy is formulated. In section 3.4, Climate Change

Adaptation Policy Formulation, I explain how adaptation policy is formed using Klein’s conceptual framework for planned coastal adaptations and

Kingdon’s Multiple Streams approach to policy making. Finally, I explore what motivates or drives the formulation of local adaptation policy in section 3.5,

Factors Driving Urban Climate Change Adaptation Governance, where I investigate factors that influence urban climate change adaptation policy making by exploring studies on other vanguard cities.

3.1 Multi-level Climate Governance Regime

National governments in developed countries are the primary actors at the center of a multi-level, multi-spatial adaptation governance regime (Betsill &

Bulkeley, 2006, p. 3; Cockfield, 2013, p. 70); see Figure 3-1 Emerging multi- level governance of adaptation structures and programs. Increasingly, non- state actors (i.e., businesses, NGOs & civil society) and sub-national governments (e.g., local, regional and municipal governments) are investing in planned adaptation actions (Zeppel, 2013, p. 217). These local governments have been successful in capturing the macro level global climate change policy debate and transforming it into concrete actions at the micro or local level

(Zeppel, 2013, p. 252). This is important because while local governments are essential actors in this multi-level governance regime they have been overshadowed by national actors and the dominance of the mitigation agenda, and because they face many barriers to policy making.

Figure 3-1 Emerging multi-level governance of adaptation structures and programs. Note: black arrows indicate some degree of formal governance; dashed lines indicate voluntary interactions - from Cockfield (2013).

First, multiple researchers have highlighted the importance of linking climate change science (e.g., IPCC reports) to climate change policy (e.g.,

UNFCCC, Kyoto, UNCED and Millennium Development Goals), and international climate governance to urban sustainable development (Bulkeley

& Betsill, 2003; Huq, Reid, & Murray, 2006; Robinson, et al., 2006; Pachauri &

Reisinger, 2007; Parry, 2009). I think this is important because cities make critical development decisions that impact local sustainability.

Second, the research and policy on climate governance focused on mitigation until the mid-2000’s (Bulkeley, et al., 2009). I think this is important because muncipalities have, surprisingly, engaged in many mitigation efforts, such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This is because municipal leaders recognize that the issue of climate change resonates locally, and they feel a moral and collective obligation to act to preserve local quality of life (Bulkeley, et al., 2009). These municpal leaders integrate broader principles of urban sustainability, and are influenced by learning through networks or coalitions of municpalities (Bulkeley & Betsill, 2003; Bulkeley, et al., 2009; Gore &

Robinson, 2009; Gore C. D., 2010; Zeppel, 2013). According to Gore (2010) existing research in Canada suggests that four broad, interrelated factors help explain why municipalities have taken up the climate change challenge:

1. Leadership: Municipal leaders recognize that the imperative to respond to the global problem of climate change resonates locally (Gore, 2010, p. 34). 2. Responsibility: Municipalities have been persuaded to act on climate change out of a moral and collective obligation (Gore, 2010, p. 34).

3. Co-benefits: Municipalities are responding for very tangible reasons related to local quality of life and the potential to produce co-beneﬁts from action (e.g., green roofs that reduce GHG emissions and keep buildings cool). They are highly cognizant of broader principles of urban sustainability and are taking practical and institutional steps to integrate these principles into municipal practices to achieve tangible local beneﬁts, which are being realized through local political and bureaucratic leadership (Bulkeley & Betsill, 2003; as cited in Gore, 2010, pp. 34-35). 4. Learning networks: Municipalities are taking action due to their participation in domestic and international networks or coalitions of municipalities—networks where membership obligations are weak, but opportunities for knowledge exchange and learning are high. It is these networks that have been the focus of increased research attention, particularly for their potential to inspire greater municipal or national climate action, and for the role intercity cooperation (as opposed to competition) may contribute to the rescaling of climate governance (Bulkeley, et al., 2009; as cited in Gore, 2010, p. 35).

Although these factors drive climate change mitigation actions, I think it is interesting to note that they are similar to drivers of climate change adaptation, discussed in section 3.5. My review of the adaptation literature identified the motivating factors of leadership and responsibility, finding co- benefits that promote livability and sustainability, as well as supportive learning networks. Each of these factors contributes to both climate change mitigation and adaptation becoming a policy focus in urban areas.

Finally, local governments encounter multiple barriers to developing climate change mitigation and adaptation policy. It is uncommon for municipalities to create climate change policy because it is often difficult to design, enact, and implement. This is due to high levels of uncertainty, the concentration of costs and dispersion of benefits, and the need to consider long-term trade-offs (Schwartz, 2012). In general, access to knowledge,

40 governance capacity, policy mainstreaming, partnerships, and networks can be both barriers and enablers to formulating local climate policies (Betsill &

Bulkeley, 2004, p. 180; McCarney et al., 2011; Schwartz, 2012, p. 127; Bauer, et al., 2012). Burch (2010) discusses how to transform barriers into enablers in the City of Vancouver and Metro Vancouver regional government. Strategies to overcome barriers to action on climate change include:

1. Organizational culture and effective leadership: This relationship between leadership and culture is demonstrated in the case of the City of Vancouver, in which a culture of innovation and collaboration has been intentionally nurtured within the planning department. According to the values of a persuasive leader within the planning department, new staff were hired who felt similarly about the importance of inter- departmental collaboration (such as between planners and engineers) and modern planning principles (including a city-building approach rather than neighbourhood focus, and the desirability of environmentally sustainable density; Burch, 2010, p. 292). 2. Inter-jurisdictional context: Planning for climate change at the regional level is one way in which many of the barriers related to inter- jurisdictional context may be transformed into enablers of action. After all, the Metro Vancouver region is a highly interconnected web of urban cores and suburban peripheries, linked with industrial and agricultural land (Burch, 2010, p. 293). 3. Institutionalization of long-term action: Evidence from the literature suggests that adaptation is likely to be implemented only if it is consistent with programs designed to cope with non-climatic stresses and that effective mitigation actions are very likely to be those that are most fully integrated into more general policy strategies. In other words, isolating climate change responses in an organizational or policy sense (for instance, by leaving the entirety of climate action to a small group of specialists without the buy-in throughout the range of municipal departments) is unlikely to yield the depth or scale of transformation required to produce truly resilient, carbon neutral communities. This integration, however, is not just a matter of encouraging the emergence of champions throughout the organization (which is necessary during the initial stages of local climate change action). Instead, climate change action must eventually become more independent of the vagaries of personality and political will that may render it fragile in the long run (Burch, 2010, p. 294).

According to the literature reviewed barriers can be transformed into enablers of climate change governance through strong political leadership, policy mainstreaming, and framing the issue in terms of wider sustainable development paths (Gore & Robinson, 2009; Burch, 2009; Burch, 2010;

Schwartz, 2012). I think this is important because these three factors are also recognized in the climate governance literature as influences that facilitate municipal action on adaptation.

3.2 History of Urban Climate Change Governance

Since the late 1980s, local governments in North America have emerged as leaders in responding to climate change and important actors in a multi-level system of climate governance. I find it is surprising that municipal governments have taken action to reduce their GHG emissions, because reducing your community’s emissions does not correlate to a reduction in risk from climate change impacts. Local mitigation efforts challenge conventional governance approaches to climate change, which address global problems at a global level and involve transnational and state actors (i.e., the United Nations and National governments). These local policies also challenge the conventional wisdom that city governments are expected “to be policy-takers, not policy-makers” (Gore, 2010, p. 30). I think this is important because it means municipalities have repositioned themselves as important players spearheading action in response to climate change rather than merely following the direction of higher levels of government.

According to Bulkeley (2013), municipal urban climate change governance has moved through two phases: Municipal Voluntarism and

Strategic Urbanism (p. 166). There has been a shift in municipal climate change governance, from a voluntary approach to one in which climate change is a strategic issue for many different actors seeking to develop specific forms of urbanism in cities globally (Bulkeley, 2013, pp. 166-167). This shift may be due to increased focus on issues of equity and justice, and options that offer alternative visions of sustainable economic development (Bulkeley, 2013, pp.

166-167). Similarly the OECD asserts that effective urban development strategies appear to be driven by “the climate change imperative, where climate change mitigation and adaptation is seen to be a potential source of regional economic development” (Corfee-Morlot, et al., 2009, p. 86). This represents a paradigm shift from perceiving growth and sustainability as conflicting policy goals, to defining them as mutually reinforcing (i.e. ecological modernization; Corfee-Morlot, et al., 2009, p. 221). The evolution from

Municipal Voluntarism to Strategic Urbanism can also be thought of as the transition from self-governing, provision and regulation modes of governance towards modes of enabling and partnership governance (Bulkeley, 2013, p.

160).6 I think this is important because Vancouver strategically developed its

6 It is interesting to note that Bulkeley (2013) is the only historicized account of climate governance I found in my literature review, other than Ferguson, Perl, Holden, & Roseland (2007) who provide historical examples of cities that “have chosen to take proactive, precautionary action in the face of imminent catastrophe” (p. 11); and Betsill & Bulkeley (2007) who focus on the networks of communities, cities and states responding to climate change.

CCAS within a larger context of sustainable development and Vision Vancouver views sustainability as fundamental to urban prosperity.

The earliest urban responses to the issue of climate change emerged in the late 1980s and early 1990s. (Bulkeley, 2013, p. 158) This first phase, termed municipal voluntarism, involved predominately small and medium- sized cities in North America and Europe. During this phase, individuals within municipal authorities recognized the potential significance of climate change and offered some form of response (Bulkeley & Betsill, 2013, p. 139). I think this is important because this volunteer response can be seen in the development of Vancouver’s 2003 corporate climate action plan that focused on reducing GHG emissions. Many cities, including Vancouver, engaged with transnational municipal networks that provided frameworks and tools for developing climate mitigation plans. Three transnational networks dominated activity during this time: ICLEI’s Cities for Climate Protection (CCP) program, the Climate Alliance, and Energie-cities (Betsill & Bulkeley, 2007, p. 447).

These were reminiscent of social movements due to their focus on gathering intentions, knowledge and purpose towards common goals (Bulkeley & Betsill,

2013, p. 139). Reported actions were primarily focused on climate change mitigation and the reduction of GHG emissions from within municipal operations (Bulkeley & Betsill, 2013, p. 139).

Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI) is an important NGO because of its role connecting local governments to the wider international

44 climate governance community, through transnational local government networks. According to Zeppel (2013) ICLEI has represented local governments at the UNFCCC Conference of Parties (COP) global climate summits since 1995, and in 2009 became the first local government observer organization at the IPCC (Zeppel, 2013, p. 220). ICLEI has led the Local

Government Climate Roadmap process at UNFCCC meetings since 2007, and was officially recognized as a governmental stakeholder at the 2010 COP 16 climate summit (Zeppel, 2013, p. 220). The involvement of ICLEI in global climate negotiations illustrates “a key concern of governance is processes of networking and partnerships” (Zeppel, 2013, p. 221). For more information on

ICLEI’s relations with both local and global climate initiatives see Figure 3-2

Institutional relations between local government climate initiatives and the global climate governance regime, from Zeppel (2013, p. 221), below.

Figure 3-2 Institutional relations between local government climate initiatives and the global climate governance regime, from Zeppel (2013, p. 221)

By the early 2000s, municipal authorities were engaged in a more overtly political approach, termed strategic urbanism, in which climate change became integral for pursuing wider urban agendas like carbon control and urban ecological security (Bulkeley & Betsill, 2013, p. 140). This occurred partly in response to the challenges of institutional capacity and political economy that were encountered as municipal authorities sought to mitigate climate change beyond their own operations during the late 1980s and early

1990s (Bulkeley & Betsill, 2013, p. 140). Bulkeley and Betsill (2013) suggest that a process of eco-state restructuring is taking place involving a growing interest amongst world cities in resource security and the impacts of environmental change (Mieg & Töpfer, 2013, p. 79). This has also been researched by Meadowcroft (2005), who defines an eco-state or ecological state as “a state which places ecological considerations at the core of its activity”; and “is predicated on a recognition that environmental systems are critical to long term social welfare, and that their protection and enhancement require conscious and continuous adjustment by the public power” (pp. 3-5).

Municipalities viewing climate change as a strategic issue has led to what some have deemed politics of “secure urbanism and resilient infrastructure”

(Bulkeley & Betsill, 2013, pp. 145-146) and others describe as an era of

“carbon control” (While, Jonas & Gibbs, 2010) (See Appendix D: Waves of Eco- state Restructuring). This new politics focuses on new programs for reducing

GHG emissions that are “accompanied by overt references to enhancing the security and independence of energy supply for cities and reducing the costs of

46 energy for residents” (Bulkeley & Betsill, 2013, p. 146). This phase of urban climate change response is characterized by new modes of governance including: a growing reliance on different forms of partnership (or the blending of public and private authority), and a renewed interest in the ways in which both public and private actors might provide new forms of low- carbon and resilient infrastructure in cities (Bulkeley & Betsill, 2013).

Examples include: Transnational climate networks, such as Cities Climate

Leadership Group (C40), ICLEI, and the US Mayors Climate Protection

Agreement (Bulkeley & Betsill, 2013).

According to Bulkeley (2013), this new form of climate governance is grounded in urban development and resource security. It seeks to address broader questions of urban adaptation that aligns resource security issues with the priorities of other actors in order to offer an alternative to

“development as usual” and transition to a low-carbon, resilient economy

(Bulkeley, 2013, p. 160). This strategic approach is termed low-carbon resilient urbanism. It has facilitated the emergence of alternative initiatives that reframe the climate change issue in “radically different ways, offering an alternative to its alignment with the priorities of dominant business and government interests” (Bulkeley, 2013, p. 165). Alternative initiatives are based on ideals of self-sufficiency and community, and are largely orchestrated by the concerns of middle-class urban residents worried about issues of overconsumption (e.g., The Transition Town Movement and Pacific Climate

Impacts Consortium; Bulkeley, 2013, p. 165). These innovative alternatives provide models of low-carbon living that recognize “that resource security is an essentially contested and unequal concept, with the result that vulnerability and resilience are highly differentiated with-in the city” (Bulkeley, 2013, p.

166). These alternatives have fostered the emergence of new discourses around climate change in cities that advocate “integrating a more radical sense of urban economic development with the climate change agenda” (Bulkeley,

2013, pp. 165-166). In other words, economic development is intimately tied to ideas of ecological sustainability, equity and social capital. It is in this new green public sphere that the disparate interests of security and sustainability are coming together to create a more just form of urban climate governance

(Bulkeley, 2013, pp. 165-166; Torgerson, 2000). The green public sphere arose from environmentalism, and encompasses diverse discourses that challenge the domination of nature (non-human beings) and people (human beings) embedded in industrialism (Torgerson, 2000).

The challenge of effective climate governance is to balance issues of resource security and infrastructure resilience with those of social equity and ecological integrity to create alternative visions of sustainable development and resilient urban communities. Finding an appropriate development path that leads cities to be economically, socially and environmentally resilient to future climatic changes presents a unique challenge for policy makers. Climate change has created an opportunity for municipalities to reposition themselves

48 as strategic policy-makers and enables them to pursue adaptation within a wider context of strategic urban sustainability.

3.3 Local Climate Change Adaptation Governance

The governance of climate change adaptation requires knowledge of anticipated regional and local climate effects, and planning to deal with the expected impacts on human activity (Meadowcroft, May 2009). According to

Pelling (2011), accademic investigations on adaptation are from multiple fields of study, and can be summed up in three main streams of thinking:

First… are those perspectives on adaptation that have drawn from the ecological systems (cybernetics and coevolution). This strategy has its roots in early sustainable development theory building with efforts to overcome the false dualism of nature and society. Second is a body of work that uses the language of adaptation and learning to describe policy development over time (adaptive management). Third are those approaches that have come from the interface of international development, governance and disaster studies (coping; Pelling 2011, p. 41).

For the purpose of this research I am focusing on coping strategies that combine sustainable development, municipal governance, and disaster risk management, because that is the type of adaptation strategy the City of

Vancouver has developed.

3.3.1 Goals of Adaptation Policy

According to Bauer, Feichtinger and Steurer (2012) public policies on adaptation to climate change ought to be concerned with 1) “changing behavioural patterns of individuals or societal groups, for example, by raising

49 awareness, building adequate capacities, and helping them to put adaptation capacities into action,” 2) “resolving conflicts of interest and/or reducing external effects that are triggered or reinforced by a changing climate,” and 3)

“ensuring that public infrastructure withstands future climate impacts”

(Bauer, Feichtinger & Steurer, 2012). These goals emphasize social capacity building, public accountability and future-proofing public assets. More pertinently, according to the Government of Canada (2008), the goals of adaptation emphasize preventing and mitigating climate change impacts by building resilience into the complex social-ecological systems that make up urban municipalities (Walker, 2004; Lemmen, et al., 2008, p. 29). In other words, adaptation requires recognizing where a community is vulnerable to climate change impacts and working to build adaptive capacity to become resilient to those anticipated impacts. Hence, adaptation planning is necessarily local and involves a wider range of sectors and actors, operating across a range of timescales from very immediate issues of disaster relief to long-term investment decisions (Bulkeley, et al., 2009). These goals correlate well with the purpose of Vancouver’s CCAS because it is embedded in a larger framework of sustainability and risk reduction, prioritizes the protection of people and infrastructure, and promotes building social, ecological and economic resilience.

3.3.2 Type of Adaptation

Adaptation can either be reactive or anticipatory, private or public, planned or autonomous (Klein & Nicholls, 1998; Klein, Nicholls & Mimura, 1999).

Adaptations can also be short/long term, localized or widespread (McCarthy, et al., 2001, pp. 879-902). According to the IPCC report: Climate Change 2001:

Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, adaptations undertaken by individuals/communities are classified as:

1. Timing: Reactive or Anticipatory: Reactive adaptation takes place after the initial impacts of climate change have occurred. Anticipatory adaptation takes place before impacts become apparent. In natural [non-human] systems, there is no anticipatory adaptation. 2. Decision maker: Private or Public: The distinction is based on whether adaptation is motivated by private (individual households and companies) or public interest (government). 3. Type: Planned or Autonomous: Planned adaptation is consequence of deliberate policy decision, based on the awareness that conditions have changed or are expected to change and that some form of action is required to maintain a desired state. Autonomous adaptation involves changes that systems will undergo in response to changing climate irrespective of any policy, plan or decision (McCarthy, Canziani, Lear, Dokken, & White, 2001, p. 884).

For the purpose of this study I am interested in anticipatory, public, and planned adaptations to climate change.

3.4 Climate Change Adaptation Policy Formulation

Klein, Nicholls & Mimura (1999) have developed a conceptual framework outlining the process of planned adaptations aimed at changing existing management practices in coastal zones (see Figure 3-3). In this model, adaptation is a continuous and iterative cycle, involving several steps: 1)

51 information collection and awareness raising, 2) planning and design

(incorporating policy criteria and development objectives), 3) implementation and 4) monitoring and evaluation (Klein, Nicholls & Mimura, 1999). In Klein et al.’s framework, climate change, together with other stresses on the coastal environment brought about by existing management practices, produce actual or potential impacts (Klein, Nicholls & Mimura, 1999). These impacts trigger efforts of mitigation to remove the cause of the impacts, or adaptation to modify the impacts (Klein, Nicholls & Mimura, 1999). The process of adaptation is conditioned by other policy criteria and coastal development objectives and interacts with existing management practices (Klein, Nicholls &

Mimura, 1999).

Figure 3-3 Conceptual framework showing, in shaded area, iterative steps involved in planned coastal adaptation to climate variability and change, from Klein et al. (1999).

Klein’s model is comparable to traditional depictions of policy-making processes, comprised of agenda-setting, policy formulation, decision-making, policy implementation and policy evaluation stages (Howlett, 2009, p. 161).

Similarly, according to Kingdon’s Multiple Streams approach, public policy is

52 the result of four important processes: 1) agenda setting, 2) generating solutions (alternative specification), 3) policy formulation, and 4) policy implementation (Kingdon, 1995, p. 3). The planning behind policies that specifically address climate change can be divided into five stages: agenda setting, policy formulation, implementation, evaluation, and dissemination

(Corfee-Morlot, et al., 2009, p. 32).

Corfee-Morlot, et al. (2009) articulate the influence urban political leaders have had in climate change mitigation and adaptation policy making in recent years through agenda setting and policy formulation. They state:

 Agenda setting or strategic planning can be driven by political leadership or support from the business sector or general public. Local governments and regions may respond to climate change because of concerns about the long-term effects of inaction or the potential to create “green” jobs. Obstacles include overlapping mandates, lack of decision-making authority in key policy areas, and low prioritization of motivation for adaptation policies (Corfee-Morlot, et al., 2009, p. 9).  Policy formulation and approval typically involves coordination among stakeholders and policy leaders to discuss policy priorities, implementation strategies and monitoring mechanisms (Corfee-Morlot, et al., 2009, p. 9).

Explaining factors that drive the policy-making process is also researched by

Kingdon (1995). He asserts that movement in the policy process can be explained by the efforts of policy entrepreneurs to exploit policy windows by coupling elements in three different streams: problems, policies and politics

(Kingdon, 1995). I will return to Kingdon’s conceptual framework in the next section.

3.4.1 Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework

The Multiple Streams Framework, developed by J. W. Kingdon in 1984, attempts to explain how public policy is designed (Kingdon, 2003). It outlines vital stages in the policy-making process in order to determine “which issues will be considered, which will be given further examination, and which will be abandoned” (Kingdon, 1995; Anderson 2010, p. 119). As mentioned above, public policy is the result of four processes: 1) agenda setting, 2) generating solutions (alternative specification), 3) policy formulation, and 4) policy implementation (Kingdon, 1995, p. 3). As opposed to viewing policies as coming into existence incrementally, Kingdon believes that transformational changes arise because “an idea’s time has come” (Kingdon, 1995, p. 20).

Kingdon builds on Cohen, March and Olsen (1972) garbage can model of organizational choice to understand agenda setting and alternative generation.

I chose to use Kingdon’s Multiple Streams approach because it has been recognized in the literature for is universal applicability. Although Kingdon’s work addresses policy making at the national level, the Multiple Streams

Framework offers guidance for analysing policy choices of municipal governments, for example Henstra (2010) applied it to municipal emergency management. Specifically, it succeeds in explaining how policies are made in pluralistic, federal democratic states, and under conditions of ambiguity

(Howlett & Ramesh, 1995). According to Canadian researcher Michael Howlett, most types of policy windows identified in Kingdon’s model are valid in the

Canadian context. Howlett (1998) concludes it is appropriate to apply this model to the Canadian political and social context to guide analysis of policy processes (p. 514).

The Multiple Streams Framework emphasises two key areas of influence: the role of ideas and the role of timing. First, ideas are represented through a number of different forms including:

 frames or the underlying structures of belief, perception and appreciation,  problem definition or the process of characterizing problems in the political arena, policy images or simplified ways of explaining the issues and justifying public policy approaches to them, and  discourse or the ensemble of ideas, concepts and categories through which meaning is given to phenomena (Rowlands, 2007).

I will return to the influence of ideas, in particular issue framing in the following section: 3.4.2 The Role of Ideas and Issue Framing.

Second, the Multiple Streams Framework emphasizes the role of timing.

It asserts that movement in the policy process can be explained by the efforts of policy entrepreneurs to exploit policy windows by coupling elements in three different streams: problems, policies and politics (Kingdon, 1995). These three streams enable me to identify factors that influence government agenda- setting, generating solutions, and when it becomes feasible to take action (i.e., a policy window opens). The three streams include:

1. Problems stream: indicators bring problems to the attention of policy makers, and transform apolitical conditions (like climate change) into political problems demanding action, such as: • Problem attributes (i.e., is the problem getting better or worse?), • focusing events (e.g., extreme weather events), • feedback (e.g., government monitoring programs), and • budgets (i.e., cost of action vs. inaction; Kingdon, 1995, p. 90). . All indicators are influenced by decision maker values and issue framing (Kingdon, 1995, p. 111). 2. Politics stream: the public mood, political forces and government jurisdiction all affect what issues get placed on the agenda, including: • Consensus building through bargaining • Election results, change of administration, partisan politics and interest groups (Kingdon, 1995, p. 162). • Policy makers often take their reading of the public mood from politicians (Kingdon, 1995, p. 163). 3. Policies stream: generating potential solutions, and criteria for selecting policy solutions such as past policies that constrain future actions • Solutions are proposed by the policy community via the ‘Garbage can model’ i.e., ‘primeval soup’ (Kingdon, 1995, p. 116). • Solutions generated are revised and ‘short listed’ via criteria for consideration (technical feasibility and policy effectiveness, and value acceptability or decision maker values, political support, and anticipation of future constraints, etc.; Kingdon, 1995, pp. 132-133). • Policy entrepreneurs within the policy community advocate certain proposals; however, it is the idea not the pressure exerted that ensures the survival of a solution (Kingdon, 1995, p. 141).

According to Kingdon, public policy may be adopted when these three streams converge, creating a window of opportunity (i.e., policy window). Policy windows can be political windows, created by generally predictable events such as administration change, or problem windows, created by unpredictable

56 events such as extreme weather. Once a window of opportunity opens up, it is policy entrepreneurs or champions that play the critical role in seizing this opportunity (Kingdon, 1995, p. 180). Attention to ideas and process is not new, for a summary of various frameworks see Rowlands (2007).

The frameworks from Corfee-Morlot, et al. (2009), Klein, et al. (1999), and Kingdon (1995), each depict stages in the policy cycle including: agenda setting, policy formulation, and policy implementation. They differ in a couple of key ways. First, in Klein’s model information awareness represents a part of the agenda setting stage, in the sense that it identifies a problem; and planning and design is a part of policy formulation because it identifies solutions.

Second, Kingdon’s model separates the political from the procedural elements of policy making. He identifies the specific stage of generating solutions as separate from policy formulation, in other words brainstorming multiple possible solutions is a key step, separate from the selection of those potential solutions. Furthermore he does not include an adaptive management approach that calls for ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of policy actions. Third, Corfee-Morlot, et al. (2009), include the additional step of dissemination not included in the other two models. I chose to use Kingdon’s model because it helps me answer my second research question about the motivations and drivers behind policy making, by explaning movement through stages in the policy cycle.

3.4.2 The Role of Ideas and Issue Framing

Framing has been described as a process by which actors construct and represent meaning to understand a particular event, process or occurrence

(McEvoy, Fünfgeld & Bosomworth, 2013, p. 281). Frames can be characterised as “organising principles that enable a particular interpretation of a phenomenon” (Funfgeld & McEvoy, 2010, pp. 15-16; McEvoy, Fünfgeld &

Bosomworth, 2013, pp. 281-282). Frames allow certain questions to be asked while others get silenced, making them decisive in knowledge production as part of research, policy development and policy implementation because they are of agenda-setting character (Funfgeld & McEvoy, 2010, p. 16; McEvoy,

Fünfgeld & Bosomworth, 2013, p. 282). Thus, framing is an unavoidable reality of communication processes, especially in public affairs and policy, and therefore critical to the direction any public policy discourse will take (Nisbet,

2009, p. 15). Framing becomes particularly important when attempting to arrive at a shared meaning and sense of purpose of complex socio-ecological phenomena, such as climate change (McEvoy, Fünfgeld & Bosomworth, 2013, p. 282).

There are five common types to frame climate change adaptation, termed governance approaches: hazards approach, climate impacts approach, risk management approach, vulnerability approach, and resilience approach

(Funfgeld & McEvoy, 2010, pp. 36-45; McEvoy, Fünfgeld & Bosomworth, 2013, p. 284). Understanding frames can help policy developers, decision makers

58 and practitioners develop adaptation processes that are best suited to a given context. Bulkeley, et al. (2009) outlined the importance of localising climate change and of issue bundling; both strategies serve to make climate change an important issue on local agendas (p. 19). Their research suggests that this has been very important in moving climate action forward and has identified

“issue framing that has linked adaptation to pressing urban social, economic and environmental issues” as an important motivating factor (Bulkeley, et al.,

2009, p. 78).

3.4.2.1 Sustainability and Climate Change Lenses

It has been argued by the IPCC and elsewhere that developing a dialogue between climate change and sustainable development is one way to overcome barriers to developing climate change policy (Robinson, et al., 2006, p. 2).

Much of the literature examines sustainable development through a climate change lens, focusing on how climate change policies might accomplish sustainability goals. However, Robinson, et al. (2006) argue for examining climate change through a sustainable development lens, which leads to a focus on how to achieve climate change goals by following paths to sustainability (p.

3). See Figure 3-4 Climate and Sustainability Lenses below.

• Evaluation of mitigation and adaptation options and their effects • Climate change impacts on human and Climate natural systems Change Lens • Policy focus: international climate change negotiations • Sustainability as ancillary benefit

• Alternative development pathways Sustainable • Focus on mitigative and adaptive capacity Development • Policy focus: achieving sustainable (low Lens emission) futures • Climate goals as ancillary benefit

Figure 3-4 Climate and Sustainability Lenses: Showing two lenses: 1) climate change lens: evaluation of mitigation and adaptation options and their effects, and climate change impacts on human and natural systems; and 2) sustainable development lens: alternative development pathways focus on mitigative and adaptive capacity; modified from Robinson, et al. (2006).

Moreover, sustainable development may offer a significantly more productive way to pursue climate policy goals than climate policy itself because:

1. The choice of the underlying technological and socioeconomic development path can swamp the effects of the choice of climate policy, and that achieving climate stabilization in high-emission-baseline scenarios will be prohibitively difficult and expensive, and 2. developments in British Columbia suggest that framing climate goals in a sustainable development context offers major opportunities for emission reduction in a framework that is attractive to business, government, and civil society interests (Robinson, et al., 2006, p. 6).

These two arguments come together around the issues of development paths, scenarios, and public acceptance. The authors suggest two strategies to capitalize on this opportunity:

1. New forms of partnership among the private, public, NGO, and research sectors are required to begin to articulate the business plans, policies, and visions required to implement sustainable urban strategies in each region (Robinson, et al., 2006). 2. A political constituency for change can be created if alternatives are recognized and believed to be possible: Develop new forms of engaging the public and interested stakeholders in thinking through the consequences and characteristics of alternative development paths (Robinson, et al., 2006).

The result is that with regard to all three goals traditionally associated with the climate change question (minimizing climate change impacts, increasing adaptive capacity, and reducing emissions); the successful achievement of sustainable development futures may be a prerequisite of the successful achievement of climate policy goals (Robinson, et al., 2006; IPCC, 2013).

The OECD presents the notion of applying a climate lens in development planning in response to the issue of climate change adaptation

(Corfee-Morlot, et al., 2009). They define a climate lens as an analytical tool to examine a strategy, policy, plan, programme or regulation (Corfee-Morlot, et al., 2009, p. 220). The application of such a climate lens at the national level involves examining:

1) the extent to which a measure – be it a strategy, policy, plan or programme – under consideration could be vulnerable to risks arising from climate variability and change,

2) the extent to which climate change risks have been taken into consideration in the course of the formulation of this measure, 3) the extent to which it could increase vulnerability, leading to maladaptation or, conversely, miss important opportunities arising from climate change, and 4) for pre-existing strategies, policies, plans and programmes which are being revised, what amendments might be warranted in order to address climate risks and opportunities (Corfee-Morlot, et al., 2009, p. 220).

The OECD has called for the use of a climate lens or more broadly a sustainability lens in development planning in urban and regional areas

(Corfee-Morlot, et al., 2009, p. 221). They apply a climate lens to specific strategies and policies and a sustainability lens to broader development and regional planning.

Robinson, et al. (2006) and Corfee-Morlot, et al. (2009) both advocate for the use of a sustainability lens for overarching or visionary policies (i.e. long term development plans) as means to pursue climate change mitigation and adaptation. Robinson, et al. see the sustainability lens as a prerequisite for effectively using a climate change lens, while Corfee-Morlot, et al. add a second level of analysis at the level of individual policy actions where they employ the climate change lens. Thus, I think sustainable development may offer a more integrative and effective way to pursue climate policy goals than climate policy alone.

3.4.2.2 Emergency and Disaster Risk Management

Adaptation is necessarily local and will include disaster management to limit vulnerability to current and future hazards such as floods, water shortage or heat waves (Corfee-Morlot, et al., 2009, p. 170). According to the Urban

Climate Change Research Network (2011) it is important when addressing climate change in cities that a broader framework of risks confronting cities be considered (p. 264). The authors state that the goal of urban climate resilience is to ensure that human settlements are vital and viable into the future, this means that climate change mitigation and adaptation are integral to a larger program of environmental, economic, and social sustainability (McCarney, et al., 2011, p. 265). Similarly according to Infrastructure Canada (2006):

Disaster management is important for areas at risk of in-land flooding and for coastal zones because potential climate change impacts are not infrastructure specific. Furthermore, adaptation options for coastal zones are more acceptable and effective when they are incorporated into coastal zone management, disaster mitigation programs, land-use planning, and sustainable development strategies (p. 16).

According to Bulkeley, et al. (2009), risk can be mitigated by “empowering and training of civil society in ways that help strengthen service provision, environmental management and the livelihoods of the most vulnerable people, and by nurturing a sense of readiness for disaster emergency” (p. 77). Thus, the future of cities depends on fostering both sustainability and resilience, and sustainable development may offer an effective path to pursue climate policy goals.

3.4.3 Development Path

The climate change issue is part of the larger challenge of sustainable development. Development paths determine the type and level of greenhouse gas emissions, condition the type and level of expected impacts, and shape the adaptive capacity of society (Robinson, et al., 2006, p. 2). Thus, climate policies can be more effective when embedded within broader strategies designed to make development paths more sustainable (IPCC, 2002). This is because, first, unsustainable development - in the past and the present - is the root cause of climate change; and second, sustainable development is certainly a necessary, and probably a sufﬁcient condition for overcoming this challenge (Parry, 2009, p. 5). Parry goes on to note that simply “adding on mitigative and adaptive strategies to unsustainable development will not work” (p. 5). Furthermore, sustainable development can reduce vulnerability to climate change by reducing sensitivities through adaptation and exposure through mitigation

(Pachauri & Reisinger, 2007, p. 70).

A complex interweaving of institutional, technological and cultural forces forms the underlying development path, or context within which human behavioural responses to risks such as climate change emerge (Burch, 2011).

In the IPCC’s 4th AR a development path is deﬁned as “a complex array of technological, economic, social, institutional, cultural and biophysical characteristics that determines the interactions between human and natural systems” (IPCC, 2007, p. 691). The most extensive examination of underlying

64 development paths by the IPCC was contained in the work of the Special

Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES; 2000). Several important conclusions are illustrated by this analysis:

 The choice of underlying development path has a major effect on future baseline emissions.  A strong commitment to sustainable development goals can give rise to scenarios that result in CO2 emissions in 2100 that are lower than today.  The choice of baseline dominates the climate policy effects. As a result, achieving low-emission baseline futures is probably a condition of successful achievement of climate stabilization at 550 ppm or less.  Low-emission baseline scenarios embody conditions and outcomes that correspond to high levels of adaptive capacity (Nakicenovic & Swart, 2000).

Thus a sustainable development path can lead to a resilient city, capable of coping with the impacts of climate change because it fosters high levels of adaptive capacity.

Additionally, Denton and Wilbanks (2011) argue that in some systems and regions, the ability to reduce climate change vulnerabilities and risk through a combination of mitigation and adaptation actions might be a factor in determining whether or not development paths are sustainable (p. 3). They note that climate policies can have critical development impacts, for example favouring one energy resource versus another could mean development benefits for some and difficulties for others (Denton & Wilbanks, pp. 4-5).

Overall, the literature on effective climate governance argues for adopting an overarching sustainable development framework so governments can better address climate change as an alternative to development as usual.

By adopting sustainable development practices cities are transitioning towards resilience. This is important because sustainability promotes long term planning and incorporates the impacts from climate change in to development plans.

3.4.3.1 Sustainable Development in Vancouver

Research in British Columbia suggests that framing climate goals in a sustainable development context offers major opportunities for emission reduction in a framework that is attractive to business, government, and civil society interests (Robinson, et al., 2006, p. 3). Much like the rest of the

Province of BC, the City of Vancouver has made sustainable development the main policy focus and climate goals are a consequential benefit (Robinson, et al., 2006, p. 3). Vancouver’s City Council has endorsed sustainability as a guiding principle for future development, defined as:

A sustainable Vancouver is a community that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It is a place where people live, work, and prosper in a vibrant community of communities. In such a community sustainability is achieved through community participation and the reconciliation of short and long term economic, social and ecological well-being (Gates & Lee, May 10, 2005).

According to Burch (2010), Vancouver’s use of a sustainability lens made the

City more responsive to climate change. When political leadership changed in

2009 a culture of innovation and collaboration was intentionally nurtured within the Planning Department (Burch, 2010, p. 293). She notes:

[N]ew staff were hired who felt similarly about the importance of inter- departmental collaboration (such as between planners and engineers) and modern planning principles (including a ‘city-building’ approach rather than neighbourhood focus, and the desirability of environmentally sustainable density). Interviewees indicated that these newly hired planners represented a sea-change in the culture of the planning department, and led directly to initiatives geared towards emissions reduction, resiliency, and energy efﬁciency. This effectively caused development proposals to be viewed through a sustainability ‘lens’ while, simultaneously, new policies are created and vetted by utilizing the expertise of an inter-disciplinary team of municipal staff. In the long run, strong leadership (on the part of a senior planner, in this case) may have contributed to a new ‘path’ in the City of Vancouver: one that is highly responsive to the challenges of a changing climate (Burch, 2010, p. 293).

Similarly Davidson (2010), affirms the City of Vancouver has adopted a sustainability lens. He notes:

Over the past 10 years, the municipality of the City of Vancouver has aggressively positioned sustainability at the forefront of its planning agenda. This has been in part stimulated by the Greater Vancouver Regional District’s (GVRD, renamed Metro Vancouver in 2007) sustainability agenda, the Sustainable Region Initiative (SRI; Davidson 2010, p. 396).

Metro Vancouver’s Sustainable Region Initiative (SRI) was introduced in 2002.

It is a wide‐ranging agenda that has sought to bring together governmental and non‐governmental actors (businesses and citizens) in order to generate the changes required to make the metropolitan region sustainable (Davidson,

2010, p. 396). The SRI explicitly states that “it is responding to the Brundtland

Report in terms of developing a multi‐dimensional understanding of sustainability.” A major priority for Metro Vancouver is to provide a sustainability lens from which coordinated action across its 23 member municipalities can be taken (Davidson, 2010). I will return to Metro

Vancouver’s role influencing the City of Vancouver’s policy context in section

7.4.1 Policy Coordination with Metro Vancouver. For more information on the history of sustainable development in Vancouver see (Harcourt & Cameron,

2007; Johnston, Nicholas & Parzen, 2013).

3.5 Factors Driving Urban Climate Change Adaptation Governance

This section of the literature review presents strategic themes from the climate governance and policy formulation literatures in order to understand movement in the policy cycle and factors that influence urban climate change adaptation policy making. It specifically identifies key policy drivers by exploring the literature’s depiction of factors that drive or motivate climate change adaptation policy making in cities. The development and implementation of adaptation plans for cities is at a very early stage. Although climate change adaptation is a new policy domain with few recognized drivers of action, some studies have been done on cities that appear to be ahead of the curve. These early adapters are cities that have engaged in analysis of climate impacts and adaptation options and are in the infancy stages of policy implementation (Penny & Wiedtz, p. 56). However, to the best of my

68 knowledge very few publications in the climate governance and policy development literatures specifically discuss drivers of urban adaptation policy making. The remainder of this section describes the limited publications and key lessons emerging from the experience of these early adapters.

Through my literature review, I found that capacity is a precondition to policy making. Capacity involves access to knowledge, and human and financial resources. Capacity is discussed by the following researchers:

Bulkeley, Schroeder, et al. (2009) in terms of good governance and access to human and financial resources, knowledge and data; the IPCC 4th AR (2008) in terms of institutional requirements of technical and buraucratic capacity;

Meadowcroft (2009) in terms of knowledge of impacts and ongoing monitoring capabilities; Jackson, Barry and Marzok (2013) in terms of financial and human resources; Bulkeley and Tuts (2013) in terms of building governance capacity; Romero-Lankao, et al. (2012) in terms of institutional and technical capacity; IPCC (2012) in terms of access to resources; and the

IPCC (2014); in terms of community adaptation capacity, institutional capacity and access to financing.

Through the literature review, I found that responsibility, collaboration, learning and leadership are all enabling factors that facilitate more effective policy development. Responsibility refers to the division of governments’ responsibilities, specifically jurisdictional control, multi-level governance,

69 vertical and horizontal policy coordination and good governance.7 Good governance refers to competent, capable, and accountable government; it requires leadership that deploys scarce resources for the common good

(Bulkeley, et al., 2009, pp. 35-36). Responsibility is discussed by the following researchers: Bulkeley, Schroeder, et al. (2009) in terms of the remit of local governments; Kazmierczak and Carter (2010) in terms of jurisdictional autonomy, and coordination with a regional or national policy framework;

Meadowcroft (2009) in terms of long term planning for infrastrucutre and socio-economic sectors; Bulkeley and Tuts (2013) in terms of improving multi- level governance, and long term visioning; Romero-Lankao, et al. (2012) in terms of attracting business and jobs, and municipal authority; IPCC (2012) in terms of adaptive management; and the IPCC (2014) in terms of multi-level urban risk governance, horizontal and vertical policy coordination, and strengthened local government.

New actors and ideas influences climate change adaptation policy making in municipalities through partnerships, networks and other collaborative learning opportunities. Learning occurs when diverse actors come together to share ideas and best practices. In municipalities learning is facilitated by collaborative partnerships with NGOs and businesses; learning

7 The mechanisms of good governance for adaptation includes: foresight, the willingness to develop a safety net for all residents, especially for the urban poor (Bulkeley, et al., 2009; Satterthwaite, 2008), stakeholder participation, access to knowledge, accountability and transparency (Keenan & Wilby, 2012).

70 networks with other municipalities; and from stakeholders through engagement and consultation. Collaboration is discussed by the following researchers: Bulkeley, Schroeder, et al. (2009) in terms of networks and partnerships, and engaging communities; Kazmierczak and Carter (2010) in terms of collaboration with internal and external stakeholders; Meadowcroft

(2009) in terms of public education for collective and individual adaptation actions, and engaging stakholders in the green public sphere; Anguelovski and

Carmin (2011) in terms of global climate governance efforts; IPCC (2012) in terms of learning; and the IPCC (2014) in terms of synergies with the private sector, and engaging marginalized groups and vulnerable communities.

Two types of leadership are identified, first, internal political leadership of key actors (e.g., city staff or elected officials) influence the agenda setting and policy-making processes at Vancouver’s City Hall (i.e., policy champions); and second, the City demonstrates global leadership as a progressive and responsible government. Leadership is discussed by the following researchers:

Bulkeley, Schroeder, et al. (2009) in terms of political leadership; Kazmierczak and Carter (2010) in terms of policy champion, orgnizational and public suport; Anguelovski and Carmin (2011) in terms of stakeholder accountability, global leadership and elected officials and staff maintaining attention on an issue; Jackson, Barry and Marzok (2013) in terms of community and political leadership; Bulkeley and Tuts (2013) in terms of strong political will; Romero-

Lankao, et al. (2012) in terms of leadership at the individual and

71 organizational levels; and the IPCC (2012) in terms of innovation and leadership.

Through the literature review, I found that the opportunity to exploit policy windows can be the trigger for action. The Multiple Streams Framework asserts that movement in the policy process can be explained by the efforts of policy entrepreneurs to exploit policy windows by coupling elements in three different streams: problems, policies and politics (Kingdon, 1995). This framework enabled me to understand movement in the policy-making process, by identifying vital stages in the policy cycle and the convergence of multiple streams. Analyzing the convergence of the three streams helped me to determine how adaptation was prioritized on the political agenda. In other words, to determine which issues would be considered by Vancouver, which would be given further examination, and which would be abandoned. Policy windows can open via issue framing, problem definition, and policy images and discourse; which, in turn, are influenced by development paths and focusing events. Policy window is discussed by the following researchers:

Bulkeley, Schroeder, et al. (2009) in terms of issue framing; Meadowcroft

(2009) in terms of development paths and issue framing, ideas and timing;

Jackson, Barry and Marzok (2013) in terms of extreme weather events, funding opportunities, policy co-benefits, political pressure and public suport;

Bulkeley and Tuts (2013) in terms of framing and altering development paths;

McEvoy, Fünfgeld, and Bosomworth (2013) in terms of agenda setting,

72 development pathways, and adaptation outcomes; Romero-Lankao, et al.

(2012) in terms of issue framing to avoid maladaptation, and focusing events; and the IPCC (2012); in terms of focusing events, and public support. These factors were identified from the academic literature as important for enabling climate change adaptation policy development.

In sum, five general areas of influence have been identified through this literature review: 1) capacity, including access to knowledge, human and financial resources; 2) responsibility for jurisdictional coordination and good governance; 3) collaboration with municipal networks and stakeholders; 4) leadership on the global stage and from individual policy champions; and 5) policy windows opened via issue framing, development path and focusing events. See Figure 3-5, General factors of influence that motivate municipal climate change adaptation policy making. A government’s capacity to access knowledge, human and financial capital is a precondition municipalities need in order to develop effective adaptation plans appropriate to the local context.

The enabling factors, which are leadership, responsibility, collaboration and learning, influence the agenda setting and policy formulation phases of urban climate change adaptation governance. Finally windows of opportunity in the policy cycle can be exploited to bring climate change adaptation to the forefront of political agendas. These policy windows are shaped by focusing events, policies, development paths and/or other factors that influence how the issue of climate change adaptation is framed in the public sphere.

Collaboration & Learning • Networks and Partnerships Responsibility • Stakholder Engagment • Vertical Coordination (Multi- level Governance) • Horizontal Coordination Leadership (Mainstreaming, integration, • Policy Champion co-benefits) • Global

Capacity Policy Windows • Technical • Frames • Buraucratic • Development Path • Governance Climate Change • Focusing Events Adaptation Policy Making

Figure 3-5 General factors of influence that motivate municipal climate change adaptation policy making

Furthermore, the local institutional context can also influence or

facilitate effective policy making on climate change adaptation through

structural/operational factors. This refers to features of the organization’s

structures and procedures. For example, where the Sustainability Group is

located within the organizational structure of City Hall influences the amount

of authority, funding and legitimacy it receives. In Vancouver the Sustainability

Group is located in the Office of the City Manager, giving it a high level of

authority, see Figure 3-6 Organizational structure of Vancouver's City Hall and

the Office of the City Manager from the City of Vancouver web site (City of

Vancouver, 2013a). This is important because, in Vancouver, the Office of the

City Manager directs city departments in carrying out council policies, it oversees both Emergency Management and Sustainability among other offices.

These structures and procedures inﬂuence both the day-to-day activities of municipal staff (e.g., inter-departmental communication) and the longer- term policy direction of the municipality (e.g., community development plans;

Burch, 2010a, p. 7579).

Figure 3-6 Organizational structure of Vancouver's City Hall and the Office of the City Manager from the City of Vancouver web site (City of Vancouver, 2013a)

Chapter 4. Analysis of Results

If there are five general factors (capacity, responsibility, collaboration, leadership, and policy windows) that influence municipal climate change adaptation policy making, then what are the key motivating factors? Through my review of the literature I determined that: capacity is a precondition to policy making; leadership, responsibility, collaboration and learning are the enabling factors that facilitate policy development; and the opportunity to exploit policy windows is the trigger for action. However, these general factors that influence municipal climate change adaptation policy making do not specifically account for the specific driving forces or motivating factors underlying the development of urban adaptation policy.

I initially coded my interview transcripts inductively leading to Figure

2-1. Original coding structure showing factors that drive urban climate change adaptation policy developmentpresented on page 31. These results highlighted many driving factors including: electoral, ideational, good governance, focusing events, bureaucratic capacity, multi-jurisdictional coordination, institutional context, culture of environmentalism, physical geography, and other policies. Because my analysis sought to locate the specific motivating/driving factors for climate change adaptation policy making, I organized these results into a framework to try and identify where key events, ideas and actors came together to create conditions for addressing adaptation.

See Figure 4-1 Initial framework for analysis below.

Ch. 5 Preconditions Capacity prerequisites for policy making Technical Capacity Bureaucratic Capacity Governance Capacity • Knowledge and data • Human and Financial • All Residents Matter Capital • Jurisdictional control

Ch. 6 Motivating Factors People and Processes: Leadership, Collaboration & Learning , Responsibility Leadership Collaboration & Learning Responsibility • Political Leadership • Stakeholder Engagement • Jurisdictional • Global Leadership • Parthernships and coordination • Electoral factors Networks • Economic Interest • Adaptive Management • Planning timeframe

Ch. 7 Exploiting windows of opportunity Ideas and Timing: Policy Windows Mulitple streams approach Policy Widows • Problems • Focusing Events • Policies • Issue Framing • Politics • Development Path • Existing policies

Figure 4-1 Initial framework for analysis

However, this framework did not clearly capture the key driving factors, identify where key events came together to create complex conditions, or attach key actors to concepts to form an explanation of movement in the policy process. So I replaced this initial framework with one that better correlates with Kingdon’s Multiple Streams approach, focusing on the specific driving forces precipitated by key events, actors and ideas. This new

77 framework for analysis is outlined in the following section, 4.2 Framework for

Analysis of Results, and in Figure 4-2 Framework for analyzing results.

4.1 Framework for Analysis of Results

Following Kingdon’s Multiple Streams approach, this research identifies what brought the problem of climate change adaptation to the attention of policy makers; how this issue got placed on the political agenda; and how the solution of adaptation was selected. Based on interviews with city staff and elected officials I have identified three primary drivers for Vancouver’s climate change adaptation policy process. These are: 1) an understanding of local climate change impacts and their economic cost, 2) the political leadership of city staff and elected officials, and 3) green/sustainable policy coordination.

These drivers were precipitated or triggered by key actors and their ideas including city staff who frame adaptation as a technical process of risk management and elected officials who frame adaptation as part of sustainable development. As well as particular external events that focused public and political attention on adaptation. See Figure 4-2 Framework for analyzing results, for an overview.

The framework captures the key driving factors by accounting for movement in the policy-making process. It helped me to identify where key events came together to create complex conditions, and attach key actors to concepts to form an understanding of factors that drove policy development.

See Appendix F: Key Events Create Complex Conditions as Identified by

Interviewees and Appendix G: Key Actors and Ideas. This new framework better aligns with Kingdon’s Multiple Streams approach. By accounting for the influence of multiple streams, I highlight specific driving forces precipitated by and contingent upon key events, actors and ideas. My findings are orgainzied into this framework and presented in chapters 5 to 8.

Kingdon’s Multiple Staff frame Elected External influences Streams approach adaptation as officials frame and focusing events technical (risk adaptation as

Drivers management) sustainable development Problems stream: Cost of climate Diversify Extreme weather indicators bring impacts economy events, and problems to the  Staff working  Green  2006 Stern review attention of policy group: sectors  2008 recession makers, and compiled data  Brand city transform apolitical Data of local impacts of local impacts Green

conditions (like Economic  Good business  Partner with PCIC climate change) into or fiscal  Insurance Bureau political problems responsibility of Canada demanding action. Politics stream: the Engineers Vision IPCC 4th assessment:

public mood, political Vancouver:  Infrastructure  local adaptation forces and Greenest city stewardship actions needed government and end  Responsible  SAM jurisdiction all affect homelessness Political management what issues get placed leadership Lack of national on the agenda. leadership Policies stream: Upcycle and Mainstream Multi-level generating potential integrate past Greenest City: governance: solutions, and criteria policies with  Centralize  Metro Vancouver for selecting policy existing plans : the Sustainability solutions, such as past

coordination

 Add adaptation Sustainabili plans policies which to GCAP Climate ty office  Prov. download constrain future Leadership goal  GCAP flood-proofing

actions Policy  Urban Forest  Partner with ICLEI Management

Green Plan. The convergence of Movement in the policy-making process occurs when

the three streams policy champions seize policy windows. opens a policy Internal technical and sustainability frames converge 8 window. Policy

Window with external influences and focusing events to create a policy window for Vancouver’s CCAS

Figure 4-2 Framework for analyzing results

8 Modified from: (Kingdon, 1995)

First, the problem stream refers to indicators that bring problems to the attention of policy makers, and transform apolitical conditions (like climate change) into political problems demanding action. The first key driver of adaptation policy in the City of Vancouver is economic forces. Economic forces refer to threats that have the potential to negatively affect city assets either directly (e.g., 2006 Stanley Park storm) or indirectly (i.e., unattractive business environment). Key external events predicated a response from the City. These include: the 2006 Stern review, the 2008 – 2011 economic recession, various extreme weather events, and reports from the Insurance Bureau of Canada

(e.g., Insurance Bureau of Canada, 2008a; Insurance Bureau of Canada, 2008;

Insurance Bureau of Canada, 2009; Insurance Bureau of Canada, June 2012).

City staff in the Engineering Department identified the issue of local impacts from climate change and their potential cost to the City. Understanding what local impacts were and how they would affect city assets transformed the apolitical condition of climate change into a political problem demanding action at the local level. City staff also promoted the good business practice of fiscal responsibility by coupling infrastructure projects to minimize the cost of adaptation actions. Elected officials, specifically Vision Vancouver’s mayor and council, in response to an economically constrained environment, diversified

Vancouver’s economy by branding the City green in order to attract new green business sectors and industry.

Second, the politics stream refers to the public mood, political forces and government jurisdiction that affect what issues get placed on the political agenda. In 2007 the 4th IPCC AR was released, drawing attention to the local impacts and potential cost of climate change and the benefits of combining sustainable development with both mitigation and adaptation actions. This report was widely publicized throughout Vancouver’s City Hall, causing council to ask staff to continue tracking progress on the climate change issue.

This gave staff the mandate to pursue vulnerability and risk assessments and develop an adaptation planning framework. The political leadership of individual policy champions pushed adaptation on to the political agenda. This occurred in response to staff’s commitment to the responsible management of city assets and infrastructure stewardship; Vision Vancouver’s platform to become the most sustainable or greenest city in the world and to end homelessness; and the lack of national leadership on this problem.

Third, the policies stream refers to generating potential solutions, and criteria for selecting policy solutions, such as past policies that constrain future actions. Vancouver’s commitment to sustainability since the 1970s has led to the creation of numerous policies that aim to protect the natural environment and regulate development. Generating solutions to climate change impacts (e.g., identifying adaptation actions) involved upcycling old policies and integrating them with the GCAP. Mainstreaming these green policies was facilitated by the centralized sustainability office. Coordinating

82 climate policy with the regional government - Metro Vancouver - and neighbouring local governments was facilitated through a partnership with

ICLEI. ICLEI provided a framework for adaptation planning and a forum to discuss the planning process.

Movement through stages in the policy process occurred in Vancouver when policy entrepreneurs (staff and elected officials) identified and seized a policy window by coupling elements in the three streams: problems, policies and politics. Internal technical and sustainability frames converged with external influences and focusing events to create a policy window for

Vancouver’s CCAS. This process is described in detail in four results chapters, chapters 5 through 8.

Chapter 5. Problem Stream Findings: The Economics of Local Impacts

Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework asserts that the problems stream consists of indicators that bring problems to the attention of policy makers, and transform apolitical conditions (e.g., global climate change) into political problems demanding action (e.g., local sea level rise). In the City of Vancouver indicators such as problem attributes, budgets, and focusing events are influenced by issue framing. My findings suggest that access to data about local climate change impacts and their cost to city assets brought the problem of climate change adaptation to the attention of policy makers. Key informants interviewed discussed how various economic interests have motivated the development of climate change adaptation policy in the City of Vancouver in relation to either avoiding the cost of local impacts or attracting green business by branding the City green.

According to the National Round Table on the Environment and the

Economy, world-wide greenhouse gas emissions and subsequent climate change impacts will have major costs to Canada in the absence of adaptive policy efforts (NRTEE, 2011). They predict that the economic impact will be $5 billion annually by 2020 and between $21 and $43 billion annually by 2050

(NRTEE, 2011, p. 15). Specific to BC, flooding damages to coastal dwelling could cost between $1 and $8 billion per year by the 2050s (NRTEE, 2011, p.

16). Ignoring climate change now will cost Canadians more in the long run, and adaptation is a cost-effective way to alleviate many climate change impacts

(NRTEE , 2011, p. 15). The SFU Adaptation to Climate Change Team’s 2012 cost-benefit study echoed the NRTEE findings, concluding that between 40% and 68% of the loss in GDP expected by 2030 could be averted through adaptation measures; meaning the economic benefits of adaptation outweigh their costs (Sandford, 2012 cited by City of Vancouver Sustainability Group,

2012, p. 24). Similarly, an OECD (2008) report ranked Vancouver 15th out of

136 large port cities in terms of the value of city assets exposed to sea level rise (City of Vancouver Sustainability Group, 2012, p. 25). Avoiding these costs lies in shifting development paths away from carbon intensive and fossil fuel dependant growth, towards sustainable development and green economies.

According to Slater (2011) environmental preservation is good for business, she states:

The idea is that cities with greener economies will be more prosperous and competitive into the future because they have grasped [at least partially] the importance of operating their economies within environmental limits and have implemented policies and policy processes that reflect this reality (Slater, 2011, p. 16).

This correlates with findings from the OECD that assert climate change adaptation is a potential source of regional economic development (Corfee-

Morlot, et al., 2009, p. 86).

This chapter will outline the four findings that brought the issue of local climate change impacts to the attention of policy makers. In Vancouver, data about the potential costs of climate change motivated policy responses in multiple ways. First, knowledge about how much local climate impacts will

85 cost brought the issue of local climate impacts to the attention of policymakers. Second, understanding the costs of taking action to mitigate local impacts versus the cost of recovering after the impact transformed the apolitical problem of global climate change into a local political problem demanding government action. Third, elected officials who frame adaptation as sustainable development are motivated to address climate change because it contributes to a competitive business environment. Fourth, key events focused public and political perceptions about climate change impacts and their costs. These events triggered the issue of climate change impacts to be added to the political agenda by identifying it as a problem requiring a political response. Overall, eight interviewees discussed how various economic interests motivated the development of climate change adaptation policy in the City of Vancouver.9

5.1 Finding 1: Knowledge of Local Impacts Brought the Problem of Climate Change to the Attention of Policy Makers

The policy focus on climate change adaptation began gaining momentum in

2007. At this time, Vancouver’s City Council put forward a motion requesting city staff to examine the potential impacts of climate change on the City's infrastructure and suggest measures that should be taken to minimize them.

An informal staff working group on adaptation was initiated to develop an adaptation planning framework and gather local climate change projections. In

9 (#03, 2013; #04, 2013; #05, 2013; #06, 2013; #08, 2013; #09, 2013; Ryan, 2013; Price, 2013)

2008, the staff working group on adaptation developed the Climate Change

Adaptation administration report that summarized the adaptation planning framework and local climate projections (Beck & Crowe, 2008).10 This framework was never fully implemented because of various constraints. For instance, the global economic recession starting in 2007, and an NPA11 municipal government that viewed Vancouver’s economy as dependent on new urban development projects halted implementation of the framework.

Freezing progress on the adaptation planning framework relegated climate change to the bottom of the NPA government’s agenda.

Staff expressed their concern about climate change adaptation during this time, in regards to infrastructure stewardship and what local changes would impact Vancouver. Key informant #09 spoke about their12 involvement in initiating the staff working group on adaptation noting it was evident that the City needed to start figuring out how to incorporate the impacts of climate change into their designs and plans. S/he13 described the working group, noting:

10 Stages in the adaptation planning framework are outlined in Appendix B!: Vancouver Municipal Policy Context - 2007 Motion to look at the impacts of climate change & 2008 Staff report on the impacts of climate change. 11 Non-Partisan Association (NPA) is a center-right civic organization in Vancouver 12 ‘Their’ is being used as the singular ‘they’ to be gender-neutral. 13 Many people identify outside the sex and gender binary of male/female and man/woman, therefore, I strive to use gender-neutral language in my writing. I use the gender neutral pronoun s/he to refer to individuals.

It didn’t have a formal mandate, just a few of us in the engineering department, and eventually a couple of other key departments, like parks, who had an interest to learn more about this. We worked with some people in the Sustainability Group who were doing most of the mitigation work and started talking to them about, well, what about adaptation? …and then eventually there became some political interest in it at the City and we were well positioned to respond to that political interest because we had done a little bit of work ourselves (#09, 2013).

Local climate impact projections were compiled by the staff working group on adaptation in collaboration with Environment Canada, the BC Government,

Metro Vancouver, BC Hydro, the Fraser Basin Council, and the Pacific Climate

Impact Consortium (PCIC). Multiple studies on climate change impacts and local vulnerabilities have been done in BC including the PCIC regional impact studies in 2007, 2009, and 2012. These PCIC studies developed regional projections for all Georgia Basin ICLEI Adaptation Initiative participants

(including Delta, North Vancouver, Surrey, Vancouver, and Metro Vancouver)

Rodenhuis, et al., 2007, revised 2009; Murdock, et al., 2012).

Key informant #09 also discussed the importance of understanding local impacts, citing access to relevant and accurate data as the reason why staff tried to provide the most accurate PCIC projections in their 2008 Climate

Change Adaptation administrative report. S/he stated:

We were municipal engineers, planners and so on. We’re not climate scientists, so we had to do a lot of work with other agencies to try and provide us with some kind of input. In terms of anticipated impacts, local impacts, that was probably the most progressive thing in the report. Rather than just talking about generic climate change and how to adapt to it. We made an attempt in that report to be as specific as we could on what climate modeling said would happen in Vancouver, and then respond accordingly. Groups like the Pacific Climate Impact Consortium were so happy to work with us because we were

practitioners trying to turn an academic exercise into a practical exercise and actually utilize data (#09, 2013).

Climate modeling, such as the IPCC global climate models and PCIC’s local climate projections, are one way the City accesses data on future climate impacts. This has enabled the City of Vancouver to develop detailed adaptation actions that mitigate local impacts. Key informant #09 recounted how City

Council responded to the 2008 Climate Change Adaptation administrative report. S/he said:

It was very well received by council. Then it was kind of forgotten, well, it dropped below the radar a fair bit for a couple of years. We said we would try to do a bunch more work in 2008, but a lot of things happened in 2008, in the economy and so the focus changed. Our priorities changed. And we didn’t accomplish as much as we wanted (#09, 2013).

Later in 2010, when Vancouver joined ICLEI’s Climate Change Adaptation

Initiative pilot program, it performed both risk and vulnerability assessments.

A study of regional climate science was researched in conjunction with ICLEI,

PCIC’s climate science project and the Georgia Basin Adaptation Initiative to support adaptation planning and inform the vulnerability and risk assessments City of Vancouver Sustainability Group, 2012, pp. 7-8). Thus, access to knowledge of local impacts brought the problem of climate change to the attention of policy makers. This knowledge helped motivate the formulation of climate change adaptation policy.

5.2 Finding 2: Understanding the Costs of Action versus Inaction Transformed the Apolitical Conditions of Global Climate Change into a Political Problem

City staff and elected officials gathered information about the costs of taking action to address the climate change question (minimizing climate change impacts, increasing adaptive capacity, and reducing emissions) versus inaction, through vulnerability and risk assessments. This cost-benefit information transformed the apolitical condition of global climate change into a local political problem demanding government action.

In 2008 the global economic recession and the United States housing mortgage crises began and Vancouver experienced a quick retraction in bureaucratic capacity. Gordon Price noted this shift in government priorities, stating “… because of the affluence at that time, pre-2008, they [municipal government] tried out every toy they could think of, because at that point you definitely had political momentum” (Price, 2013). Meaning, before the economic recession the City had financial resources and political support to invest in innovative solutions to confront climate change; after 2008 the City became more fiscally conservative. For example Pat Ryan, the City’s Deputy

Chief Building Official, discussed a unique photography project Vancouver employed called Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR). LiDAR photography records three dimensional urban structures (e.g., buildings, trees and underlying terrain), to provide accurate estimates of surface cover, shade and temperature in the City (Tooke, Coops, & Voogt, 20-22 May 2009). This helps

90 to determine where Vancouver is vulnerable to climate change impacts and the urban heat island effect, and plan accordingly. LiDAR and terrain modelling

(e.g., Digital Elevation Models) were used to produce a digital orthophoto (i.e., a digital image of the environment) of Stanley Park immediately after the 2006 windstorm to document and assess damage (Integrated Mapping

Technologies, 2009).

Key informant #09 discussed how the City of Vancouver responded to its diminished bureaucratic capacity by broadening its policy focus and promoting economic diversification as a source of resilience:

[I]n 2008 there was the economic down turn, and Vancouver felt very susceptible to that because… Vancouver’s economy is so dependent on development, and a lot of industry had left, and the jobs were mostly around developing new townhouses or the hospitality industry… [Then in 2008] suddenly there wasn’t money available for development, and it was unknown how severe and how long that would be. There was a real concern that, we don’t want to be so dependent [on development]. You’ve got to diversify and be resilient to those kinds of changes too, economic drivers and so on (#09, 2013).

Key informant #09 is making the connection between becoming resilient to climate change and making your city resilient to other economic and social impacts. This is important because different types of development have different risks and produce different economic benefits. For example tourism is vulnerable to fluctuations in the global economy, while locally owned and operated businesses such as street food vendors build resilience through diversity and social capital. Later, in 2009, the City of Vancouver recognized the need to diversify its economy to create more resilient and therefore secure

91 sources of income by expanding its green business sector and attracting new green industries.

In light of the City’s restricted financial environment, Key informant

#09 commented on how the City changed its policy to focus on measures that didn’t cost a lot of money and ones that fulfilled multiple objectives (i.e., co- benefits). S/he noted how adaptation went from a staff idea in the mid 2000’s to a council imperative by the time s/he co-authored the 2008 Climate Change

Adaptation administrative report. S/he mentioned that council requested this report to verify staff were making progress on identifying local impacts and to ensure that the best emerging science was incorporated into the planning and maintenance of the City’s assets (#09, 2013). To illustrate cost saving actions, s/he gave the example of Vancouver’s seawall, which surrounds the City’s downtown and Stanley Park. Key informant #09 said:

[W]e have a lot of waterfront walkways in Vancouver, the seawall [is] an incredible asset in the City. With sea level rise you might say we need to raise it all, and what’s that going to do? That’s going to be incredibly expensive and have a huge impact on the overall development and the residents behind the seawall. … [W]e have a huge tidal fluctuation in Vancouver, we have our highest tides twice a year - early winter and late spring - sometimes called the king tides. Those are the times when the seawall actually will be inundated. …We actually have sections of the seawall that are designed to be inundated as an architectural feature. Maybe we can adopt that philosophy where we need to protect habitable spaces? Who cares if the seawall floods twice a year? As long as we built the thing so it can resist it, [then] it’s not a major public impact (#09, 2013).

The seawall is an example of where Vancouver is employing innovative design techniques, such as the engineering principle of fail-safe or concept of flexible adaptation. Fail-safe means that a device is designed in such a way so that when a failure does occur, it will fail in a predictable manner to a “safe state”; whereas flexible adaptation strategies can be retrofitted into existing facilities in stages avoiding inflexible commitment of significant resources and conforming to actual climatic changes (Weeks, 2013). In lieu of raising the seawall the City of Vancouver is designing sections of it to be inundated with water, this way it can handle the overflow from rising sea levels. This saves money and prevents further development in flood-prone areas.

According to Key informant #06, the City of Vancouver, like any business, must be financially responsible and accountable to residents. S/he outlined the business case for investing in adaptation actions, stating:

We would be doing a disservice to the tax payers by not planning ahead, because future generations will be paying billions to deal with it, if we don’t deal with it both from a mitigation and an adaptation point of view right now. It’s really just good business sense; it’s a good financial thing to do, while sustainability has some costs, from a tax payer point of view, we are actually going to save the tax payers a significant amount of money by doing things like climate change adaptation and dealing with these issues before we have to spend. I’d rather spend millions trying to deal with them now, as opposed to spend[ing] billions responding to the outcomes that are going to happen later (#06, 2013).

Put more concisely Key informant #07 said: “what drove the strategy was: the environment is cheaper to conserve than it is to build” (#07, 2013). This basic

93 understanding of the value of ecosystem services and the virtual impossibility of technology being able to effectively replace them has enabled policy makers to focus on conservation mechanisms and biological solutions. Key informant

#07 talked about it being too costly to just invest in adaptation actions alone

“because we have so many competing needs, we need to be efficient and affordable. You can’t just take one, [you] can’t afford to come in with something for a single purpose, it’s just too expensive” (#07, 2013). This was reiterated by Key informant #05, who said, “I think for adaptation you can really highlight the co-benefits. There is very little we do, that we can put in place now that isn’t going to provide benefit of some kind, add a green space, roads, there are a million co-benefits” (#05, 2013). Co-benefits are important because they tie sustainable development actions to other policy goals, such as adaptation.

Understanding the costs and benefits of taking action to prepare for climate change (minimizing climate change impacts, increasing adaptive capacity, and reducing emissions) versus inaction transformed the apolitical condition of global climate change into a local political problem demanding government action. This knowledge motivated the municipality to begin looking for solutions, such as the formulation of climate change adaptation policy.

5.3 Finding 3: Framing Adaptation as part of Sustainable Development Motivated Action on Climate Change because it Contributes to a Competitive Business Environment

In Vancouver, politicians who frame adaptation as sustainable development are motivated to address climate change because it contributes to a competitive business environment. Branding the City green is important to attract green business and the creative class. According to Slater (2011) cities that choose to implement sustainability using targeted, informed and context specific policies will become increasingly economically competitive into the future. She argues that adopting a green economic strategy will make Canada more competitive, productive, creative, and healthier into the future, and suggests that environmental preservation is good for business (Slater, 2011).

Similarly Corfee-Morlot, et al., (2009) assert that economic factors have been driving climate change policy in recent years, through agenda setting and policy formulation. They state that governments may be more concerned about making climate change policies because they want to create a green economy (Corfee-Morlot, et al., 2009).

Vancouver’s green reputation is derived from a number of factors.

These include:

 Vancouver’s well preserved natural beauty,  residents’ commitment to environmental protection,  the City’s use of renewable hydro electric energy,  the presence of ENGO’s such as Greenpeace, the Suzuki Foundation, the Globe Foundation and the Canada Green Building Council, and  the green policies of the municipal, regional and provincial governments (VEDC, March 2010, p. 25).

This green reputation attracts green businesses, and employees who want to work for sustainable enterprises. Vancouver’s Mayor, Gregor Robertson, asserts on his website that the City is striving to be a leader in the new green economy. The website states:

Attracting and growing these green industries creates enormous benefits for every other sector in our city and region. That’s why we used the opportunity of the 2010 Winter Games as a way to put Vancouver on the map. With our new business brand of Vancouver Green Capital, we leveraged the once-in-a-lifetime economic development potential of the Games to strengthen and grow our local businesses. We profiled our best and brightest green businesses and targeted international companies to set up shop in Vancouver. Our work is paying off – we’ve already secured over $60 million in new investment in Metro Vancouver, related directly to our efforts during the Olympics (City of Vancouver, 2014).

Vancouver Green Capital is a brand that represents the City’s commitment to position itself at the forefront of the emerging global green economy. It is especially relevant to Southeast False Creek / the Vancouver Olympic Village, because it supports green expertise and facilities (Bayley, et al., 2009, p. 40 in ch.7 ). Vancouver Green Capital is the brand under which the City pursues all its international economic development initiatives (VEDC, March 2010, p. 25).

Attracting green enterprises and expertise has been noticed by other urban scholars such as Richard Florida, who considers Vancouver as one of the most creative regions on the continent (VEDC, March 2010, p. 28). Branding the City green is demonstrated by the City of Vancouver by their goal to be the greenest city in the world by 2020, promoting their green reputation, and making the

2010 Winter Olympics the most sustainable Games. Encouraging green

96 business by branding the City green helps to diversify the local economy, attract new business and foster economic sustainability in the City.

Multiple interviewees discussed how the City of Vancouver was motivated to take action on climate change because it fosters economic development and sustainability co-benefits. According to Key informant #04:

Businesses are making decisions today about where they locate, often around what it will take to get the types of employees that they need. So you want creative, motivated employees, then most likely they’re not going to want to go to Detroit right now. They want to go to a place where they are going to have a reasonable standard of living, where their families are going to feel good about moving too. And so, knowing that, what kind of policies do we need to shape around how we build public space, public grounds, how we make the City walkable, how we approach things like cycling, so that women and kids feel comfortable cycling into downtown. Those are the kind of things that municipalities can do to influence the decisions corporations make and that really is about creating a city that is resilient in the future. And again this ties right back to climate change and adaptation (#04, 2013).

In order for Vancouver to attract green businesses, which will support its local economy, it needs to have policies that foster an attractive business environment. Vancouver’s green economy supports the viability of other business sectors such as local food, and the resources that support them such as water. Key informant #05 discussed this:

When we said we wanted to be the greenest city in the world, many people interpreted that as most climate policy oriented. So it was very important for us that the GCAP was a holistic strategy that it didn’t look at solving climate without thinking about waste or water or food. From there it flows that we would want to be looking at mitigation and adaptation when it comes to climate. It’s hard to look at the future of food, the future of water the future of waste, without also thinking, gee the temperature and the climate are going to be a lot different, and how are we going to deal with all those things? (#05, 2013).

Viewing climate change as an isolated issue ignores the intimate connections between adapting to climate change and other sustainability initiatives such as preserving local food and access to water. It is in the best interest of municipal governments to minimize the cost of adaptation by finding co-benefits with other sustainable development projects. Interviewees advocated for investing in protecting infrastructure and other city assets now, to minimise the cost of future impacts. Thus, politicians who frame adaptation as sustainable are demonstrating how Vancouver has connected being green to being economically prosperous. This shows that adaptation actions that are well integrated into long-term sustainable development plans can be viewed as beneficial to the local economy and avoid maladaptation. Therefore, the political will to foster a competitive and sustainable business environment can motivate climate change adaptation policy making.

5.4 Finding 4: Key Events Focused Attention and Influenced Public and Policy Makers’ Perceptions of Climate Change

All interviewees mentioned focusing events that influenced their personal perceptions, the public agenda and/or the City’s policy agenda. These include: extreme weather events, scientific reports, insurance changes, proceedings from the US, and policy in other vanguard cities. Interviewees identified specific focusing events that stimulated the economic drivers of adaptation policy making. These include the following:

Extreme weather events:  1998 Quebec storm, 5.4 billion damages (#05, 2013; #06, 2013)  1999 Taiwan flood (#06, 2013; #10, 2013)  2005 Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans (#04, 2013; #05, 2013; #06, 2013; #10, 2013; #11, 2013; Holland, 2013)  2005 Toronto rainstorm, $500 million damages (#03, 2013; #05, 2013; #06, 2013; #09, 2013; #11, 2013)  2005 Canadian prairies drought, $5 billion damages (#10, 2013)  2006 Vancouver’s Stanley Park windstorm (#05, 2013; #09, 2013)  2010–2012 Christchurch earthquakes NZ – lessons in risk management (#05, 2013; Ryan, 2013)  2012 Hurricane Sandy (#05, 2013; Ryan, 2013)  2013 June Calgary flood (#05, 2013; #06, 2013; #09, 2013; #10, 2013; #11, 2013; Cameron, 2013; Ryan, 2013; Price, 2013)  2013 July Toronto flood (#06, 2013; #11, 2013) Reports:  2006 Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change (#05, 2013; Mikkelsen, 2013)  2007 IPCC 4th AR (#09, 2013; Holland, 2013) Other focusing events:  1988 James Hansen testimony to US Senate on climate change (Price, 2013)  2006 April, TIME Magazine special report on global warming: ‘Global Warming: Be Worried. Be Very Worried.’ (Mikkelsen, 2013)  2006 Al Gore’s Inconvienient Truth film/tour (#05, 2013; #09, 2013; Price, 2013; Mikkelsen, 2013; Bula, 2013)  Global economic recession from December 2007 to June 2009 (Holland, 2013; #06, 2013; #09, 2013; Price, 2013)

For a comprehensive list of all focusing events listed by interveiwees, see

Appendix E: Focusing Events.

One City Council member, Key informant #05, noted that the public is becoming more aware of extreme weather events as connected to climate change. S/he cited specific external events that influenced both public and policy makers’ perceptions of climate change. S/he said

There was this interplay between the Inconvenient Truth coming out and Hurricane Katrina; so you had this explosion of climate interest: the carbon tax, the road to Damascus speech from [BC Premier Gordon] Campbell, and the throne speech where he surprised us all with his ‘it’s going to be carbon all the time” thing. So there is all this momentum and public interest in climate. When we said we wanted to be the greenest city in the world, many people interpreted that as most climate policy oriented. …The Nicolas Stern report, it looked at the cost [of] what happens if we act vs. what happens if we don’t’ act. That was the first time, policy makers went ‘oh, this is [the] cost of investing in adaptation ten years from now, maybe we should start thinking about that now.’ And the insurance industry of Canada did a lot of work with institutions around why it made sense to start looking at adaptation costs (#05, 2013).

Thus, key events focused public attention on the issues of climate change impacts and influenced policy makers’ perceptions of climate change adaptation.

In sum, knowledge of local impacts, understanding the cost of action vs. inaction, framing adaptation as sustainable development, attracting green business and key focusing events brought the problem of climate change impacts to the attention of policy makers, and transformed the apolitical condition of climate change, into a political problem demanding a local policy response. Multiple interviewees identified city staff and elected officials’ interest to minimize the future cost of adaptation as a motivating attention on

100 the issue of impacts. This includes: minimizing the need for new investments in protecting infrastructure and other city assets, and fostering a competitive business environment. These are key economic factors that helped drive the development of Vancouver’s CCAS.

101

Chapter 6. Politics Stream Findings: Organizational and Individual Leadership

Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework asserts that the politics stream consists of indicators (such as the public mood, political forces and government jurisdiction) that determine what issues get placed on the political agenda. Indicators include the public mood, various political forces and government jurisdiction. Some indicators such as elections, partisan politics, issue salience and consensus building are influenced by issue framing, problem definition and discourse. In the City of Vancouver, the political leadership of key city staff and elected officials determined that climate change impacts - previously identified as an apolitical problem - were placed on the political agenda. Organizational and individual leadership built consensus around and maintained attention on the issue of climate change impacts, and later placed the solution of adaptation on the political agenda. Finally, as mentioned earlier the City of Vancouver has a unique institutional context, the

Vancouver Charter grants the City a high level of jurisdictional control over key sectors such as building codes, which influence the City’s areas of responsibility (see section 1.4.1 Vancouver’s Institutional and Electoral

Context).

The internal political leadership of city staff and elected officials influenced the agenda setting and policy-making processes at City Hall

(Bulkeley, et al., 2009, p. 74). Policy champions are key actors in government

102 who demonstrate political leadership in order to change policy outcomes

(Schwartz, 2012, p. 11). This leadership is critical for overcoming departmental fragmentation when building consensus on the climate change agenda (McCarney, et al., 2011, p. 267). In terms of adaptation, leadership comes from the personal investments of policy champions in the case of avoiding climate change and their conviction that action at the local level can make a difference (Schwartz, 2012, pp. 11-12). According to the Urban Climate

Change Research Network (2011) strong leadership can overcome both individualism and partisan politics. They state:

The ability to build consensus and coordination better facilitates investments in infrastructure and amenities that make the City more resilient to climate change. Strong leadership in the affairs of metropolitan governance means not only building consensus, but also aggregating these fragmented interests in a way that builds legitimacy and accountability to stakeholders in the process (McCarney, Blanco, Carmin, & Colley, 2011, p. 267).

Similarly Penny & Wiedtz (2007) outline how a political or executive champion can put adaptation on the agenda and keep it there. Political leadership was also highlighted by Anguelovski & Carmin (2011), who acknowledge both elected ofﬁcials for promoting climate action within the City government and individual staff within city departments for maintaining the agenda across political administrations (p. 172). Strong leadership can address both substantive and technical climate change issues, and stimulate a culture of innovation and cooperation (Anguelovski & Carmin, 2011, p. 172). The electoral considerations of politicians, including high levels of issue salience

103 and pressure from interest groups, can motivate individual leadership (Lebel, et al., 2006, p. 2; Schwartz, 2012). The personal commitments of key actors have been shown to influence the development of climate change mitigation and adaption policy in Vancouver (Burch, 2011; Schwartz, 2012).

In the City of Vancouver, Vision Vancouver (VV)14 won the 2008 municipal election on their campaign to become the greenest city in the world; and they continue to promote this citywide sustainable development goal. The

City’s at-large electoral system fostered years of divisive partisan politics that eventually led to the establishment of a new civic association, VV in 2005

(Burch, 2010, p. 294). VV strove to overcome political divisions and focus on a unified vision for a sustainable future. Holden (2013) demonstrates how leadership from VV propelled the evolution of climate policy. She highlights the 2008 election (and re‐election in 2011) of Mayor Gregor Robertson from the VV party (Holden, 2013). This new party is considered key to the current phase of climate policy in Vancouver because the Mayor’s election platform held two promises: to make Vancouver the greenest city in the world by 2020, and to eliminate homelessness in the City concurrently with this timeline

(Holden, 2013). Politicians and staff in Vancouver believe in climate change science and support incorporating mitigation with adaptation policy; however, this may come from more overarching commitments to sustainability and reducing consumption (Schwartz, 2012, pp. 183-4). According to Holden

14 Vision Vancouver (VV) is a center-left civic organization in Vancouver

104

(2013), the political culture of Vancouver is to invest in climate change action.

Strong leadership from individual city staff, elected officials from VV, and the organization as a whole, all helped drive the formulation of Vancouver’s CCAS

6.1 Finding 1: Political Leadership Placed Adaptation on the Political Agenda

In general, ideational factors and individual leadership were discussed by twelve interviewees.15 In the City of Vancouver adaptation policy champions included both city staff from the Engineering Department and elected officials from Vision Vancouver. Gordon Price defines a political champion as

“somebody who is in the elected position, who can bring the issue forward and more importantly maintain the pressure, political and staff, and have an interaction with the community so that it doesn’t get pushed to a sideline”

(Price, 2013). Mark Holland identified the leadership of the Engineering

Department at City Hall, and he noted that “political leadership is mandatory” to overcome capacity restraints.

The most commonly cited policy champions were city staff in the

Engineering Department and City Manager’s office, and elected officials from the municipal party VV. For example key informants #03, 08 & 09 identified the political leadership of Councillor Heather Deal. Deal spearheaded the 2007 motion requesting staff to examine the potential impacts of climate change on

15 (#02, 2013; #03, 2013; #04, 2013; #06, 2013; #08, 2013; #09, 2013; #11, 2013; Cameron, 2013; Price, 2013; Bula, 2013; Ryan, 2013; Holland, 2013)

105 the City's infrastructure and suggest measures to minimize them (Deal, 2007).

The principled beliefs of key players can be influenced by any number of factors, according to the key informants interviewed, individuals pushed for action on climate change adaptation because they care about the future of the

City. This was illustrated by Key informant #08 who said:

For me it was, I’m not an environmentalist, I’m an engineer and businessperson, and my family is growing up in Vancouver and I‘ve an underlying interest in making our community better for our children. So for me this was just one of the things we needed to do. And I could do something about it. So it was one of the things we should not ignore. To help make our community a better place for future generations (#08, 2013).

Similarly, individuals advocated for action on climate change adaptation because they care about the future of civilization. This was illustrated by Key informant #06 who said:

You know nature’s going to be fine, it’s the human race that’s really at risk. It’ll be very easy to wipe out the human race but nature will carry on just millions of years after we are gone. So it’s a very selfish and (self-preservationist) self-centred thing we’re doing with climate adaptation and sustainability because we are really just trying to protect the social fabric that we have here. It’s not touchy feely about saving newts and chameleons and toucans, as much as that’s important, it is about us, about the finance at the end of the day. Kind of the hard cold truth behind sustainability [is] people think we’re a bunch of tree huggers but were not it’s just good business (#06, 2013).

Policy champions exhibit political leadership in order to affect the agenda setting and policy development process. Thus, political leadership from policy champions within the municipality placed adaptation on the political agenda.

106

6.2 Finding 2: Engineers’ Sense of Infrastructure Stewardship and Responsible Management Maintained Attention on the Issue of Climate Change Impacts

When adaptation was not on Vancouver’s policy agenda (e.g., during the 2007-

9 global economic recession), individual leadership kept advancing the issue.

For instance, the staff working group on adaptation released their Climate

Change Adaptation administrative report in 2008 (Beck & Crowe, 2008). The working group also continued to push the adaptation agenda by including adaptation in the GCAP (#08, 2013; #09, 2013). Key informant #08 discussed the influence the 2008 adaptation report had, because it maintained pressure to keep adaptation on the political agenda. S/he said:

I went off on a tangent to go at this subject and make sure we solidified a council report to basically draw a line in the sand. And say we are committed to the concept of [adaptation] and this is what we’re doing about it. …So at that time, basically the goal was to talk about the no regrets measures. The things we were kind of doing anyways, that were in the right areas… What didn’t happen in that publicly released document, it didn’t talk about what we did internally. There was an internal sell that was happening. So by doing that council report I was able to internally bring in cross-functionally all the regular operations to mainstream the efforts. That was really the beginning of the mainstreaming of climate change adaptation in the City of Vancouver. … We behind the scenes knew there was something we needed to do. (#08, 2013)

Developing the 2008 adaptation report maintained attention on the issue through building consensus internally across city departments; this helped place adaptation on the political agenda. Individual leadership was also demonstrated in 2009, during the development of the GCAP. Initially the plan’s

Climate Leadership goal focused on mitigation and did not address adaptation

107

(#08, 2013). Indeed, one interviewee claimed that climate change adaptation was added to the final draft of GCAP Climate Leadership goal only at the last minute and only on that individual’s urging. This policy champion secured a mandate (see Appendix B1: Vancouver Municipal Policy Context, GCAP) for staff to develop Vancouver’s CCAS. I will return to this policy window in

Chapter 8 and in section 8.1.1 Example: 2009 GCAP.

The principled beliefs of engineering staff can be influenced by any number of factors. For example, key informant #09 outlined their motivations as a sense of responsibility for the planning and management of scarce resources, noting: “We are the stewards of the infrastructure, and part of that is we recognized the need to incorporate adaptation into that stewardship”

(#09, 2013). Similarly, key informant #04 echoed this sense of stewardship over infrastructure, noting:

Our infrastructure is in much better condition than most cities because we have a pretty strong culture of taking care of it. So the sewer system, for years and years we’ve had a policy to replace one percent every year, because it lasts about 100 years. And it’s just so we have an ongoing replacement program every year- one percent of the system. This provides the opportunity to adjust along the way. You can put in bigger pipes if you need to put in bigger pipes or adopt filtration or green roof strategies along the way. So for whatever reason, successive councils have had that mindset (#04, 2013).

Vancouver prides itself on its stewardship practices, taking care of the natural and built environment that sustains the high quality of life in this City.

According to Pat Ryan the Deputy Chief Building Official - who’s “seen things

108

[local climate change impacts] go down in Australia, [and] definitely supports sustainability and climate change adaptation” (#03, 2013) -the City has always recognized the need to deal with adaptation because we are “stewards of the community.” S/he noted:

[T]here was enough vision and foresight to recognize the nature of our environment and the need to go and address these issues, and ready to show leadership at that level. Because the City of Vancouver has always been very progressive on many fronts; we’ve always prided ourselves on that progressive behaviour. Applying it as best we can, given we control a lot of what we do. So we’ve always had that ideology in the City (Ryan, 2013).

Individual policy champions pushed adaptation by coupling it with the broader stewardship and sustainability policy agendas. Specifically, city engineers’ sense of infrastructure stewardship and responsible management kept adaptation on the political agenda through the informal staff working group on adaptation. Multiple engineers discussed minimizing risk to climate change impacts through a new all-hazards risk management regime that exists at the intersection of emergency, risk, and disaster management, climate change adaptation and resilience (#03, 2013; #06, 2013; #09, 2013). This new management regime integrates planning (preparing for, responding to and recovering from) around various hazards such as earthquakes, climate change, oil spills, and disease epidemics; for more information on the all-hazard approach see Province of BC (2012).

City engineers are responsible for maintaining infrastructure and managing city assets. Staff responsibilities are influenced by the City’s level of

109 jurisdictional control as set out in the Vancouver Charter. The Vancouver

Charter gives the City authority to control its own building codes and flood construction levels (FCLs). Five key informants referenced the Vancouver

Charter as an influential factor to the development of climate change adaptation policy. This is because it grants the City a large amount of jurisdictional control over key areas such as: the building code including special energy, seismic and accessibility provisions, air quality (via boilers, heater, various sources of combustion, dry cleaners, volatile organic compounds), and emergency management (Ryan, 2013; Cameron, 2013;

Mikkelsen, 2013; Holland, 2013; #04, 2013). This was reiterated by Mark

Holland who said the City must be a leader because it has the capacity and jurisdictional control to act. He elaborated on this idea, saying:

I would say Vancouver carries a unique role in that, Vancouver is one of the only communities in BC that has its own building code, it’s got its own Charter. It has powers that no other municipalities have. … They can ask for things above and beyond the current building code, but they can only do so within the limits of their jurisdiction. I think a couple of years ago [the Charter] did allow them to look at air emissions, climate change, water emissions. And take action within the limits they can: bylaws, development cost charges, etc., to help push some of that forward (Holland, 2013).

Jurisdictional control influences policy making on adaptation because it determines what infrastructure and assets the City and its staff are responsible for maintaining. I will return to the influence jurisdictional of control and expand on the influence of jurisdictional coordination in Chapter 7. Policy

110

Stream; for more information on the Vancouver Charter see Appendix B1:

Vancouver Municipal Policy Context.

6.3 Finding 3: Organizational Leadership from Vision Vancouver Led to a New Way of Doing Business that Integrated Adaptation and Sustainable Development

The City of Vancouver is striving to be a global leader in the green city movement. Living up to this goal was a strong motivating factor that placed adaptation on the political agenda. Vancouver has a history as an innovative policy maker taking on leadership roles in regards to urban environmental governance. For example one interviewee talked about being at the 2006 UN-

Habitat World Urban Forum III in Vancouver, and wanting to show that

Vancouver was taking leadership on urban environmental issues (#02, 2013).

In 2009, a new city council led by Vision Vancouver (VV) created the opportunity to bring adaptation back on to the policy agenda under the

Climate Leadership goal of the GCAP. This change in administration affected what issues were placed on the political agenda. Ten key informants interviewed brought up the significant role VV’s Mayor and Councillors played in pushing the green environmental and sustainability agenda forward.16 This leadership fostered the creation of the City’s big green agenda,17 an umbrella term for a group of sustainability related policy areas, such as: climate change

16 (Holland, 2013; #05, 2013; #04, 2013; #06, 2013; #03, 2013; #09, 2013; #10, 2013; Price, 2013; Mikkelsen, 2013; Bula, 2013) 17 Big green agenda is a term used by interviewees

111 mitigation and adaptation, active transportation, reduce waste, clean air and water, food security, and green buildings (#04, 2013; #05, 2013; #06, 2013;

#07, 2013).

Key informant #06 related the election of VV to a rise in public interest in environmental and sustainability issues. S/he notes “As opposed to one big event that may have pushed us in the early 2000’s, [I] think it was more of a groundswell of expectations from the residents of Vancouver that the City and the politicians take some leadership in this area.” S/he goes on to say VV was elected in 2008 because their mandate was focused on the environment and sustainability without ignoring the interests of local business (#06, 2013). The establishment of VV signified an effort to overcome past partisan divisions, find common ground around sustainable development and attract a new green business sector. City Councillor, Key informant #05, discussed the influence partisan politics in Vancouver has had on policy making, and VV`s attempt to overcome this barrier. S/he said:

In 2008 it [Vision Vancouver] was a three-year-old party. It still represents [an effort] to get beyond left and right, and you did this in 1993 and it pissed me off so I’m going to do this now, and all that baggage stuff and even just the institutional inertia of a large organisation with a long history. It’s like an anchor and not in a good way, it weighs an organisation down. So here you have NDP, Green, Liberals, some broad spectrum of politics, and a lot of people who wouldn’t be involved in politics if you had a party with any of those three names, because they don’t like the established parties. You had them start working together creating a policy, being able to put down the baggage, guns and knives, and all the things that happen in debates sometimes, and think about the outcomes. We want to be the greenest city, affordable housing, end street homelessness, a viable economy that

112

doesn’t undermine all those things, and a safe inclusive community. … It doesn’t seem so challenging to me when we all sit down together without partisan hats on. Its hard work, but it’s not, we really haven’t been as divided as we think we are. We spend a lot of time talking about the differences, when in fact we agree on a hell of a lot. So let’s get going with a hell of a lot (#05, 2013).

VV was an attempt by the electorate and politicians alike to overcome the historical bias and drama of the established political parties and build momentum around a unified vision for a sustainable city. Key informant #04 discussed how VV is also driving climate change adaptation policy making by focusing on being proactive policy leaders, not on getting re-elected (#04,

2013). This represents a shift from issue-centered partisan politics towards a backcasting approach to governance where residents work towards a unified vision of the future. Overall five interviewees discussed the influence backcasting and long term planning has on framing resilience and creating a policy window for climate change adaptation to enter the political agenda.18

This is because backcasting enables politicians to understand where they are, where they want to be and plan how to get there.

Key informant #05 discussed Vancouver’s aspirational goal of becoming the ‘Greenest City’ in the world, and the public’s support for being the best “-est” of anything positive. Key informant #05 outlined how being a leader in anything positive is highly motivating, stating:

18 (# 04, 2013; #05, 2013; #07, 2013; #09, 2013; and Pat Ryan, 2013)

113

The aspirational target of being the Greenest City in the world by 2020, love it or hate it, most people actually really love the concept of being the[best] -est [of] something, a positive -est something. No one wants to be the dirtiest or the noisiest, but the greenest city in the world by 2020 that feels good, right? …. So when you’re talking to your friends, and they go ‘wow you want to be the greenest city, that’s kind of neat.’ And then we see international awards and international media stories and it’s given us some mojo as a city. Forget green it’s just the -est were excited about. … So green and -est is kind of exciting for us. If we had come in and said we want to do a climate change adaptation strategy, I think that would have been a much harder sell. But of course the greenest city in the world is going to have a climate change adaptation strategy. It’s just actually a fairly minor piece as far as the public’s concerned (#05, 2013).

This also speaks to how the issue of climate change adaptation was framed by the City as part of their larger sustainable development goals and branding the

City as green. Key informant #05 noted that many people associate greenest city with effective climate governance due to high levels of issue salience, stating:

It was very important for us that the GCAP was a holistic strategy that it didn’t look at solving climate without thinking about waste or water or food. In my opinion all those things are all heavily interrelated with climate. For many people they don’t [understand]; I mean climate is transportation, and maybe they understand it’s buildings and maybe even fewer understand that it’s waste and fewer understand that it’s food. So to us it wasn’t about climate or not climate, it was about if you’re going to be the best in sustainability policy, although we all hate the word sustainability, so if you’re going to have this policy around being the Greenest City what does it need to contain? We wanted to make sure it contained a lot more then climate. From there it flows that of course we would want to be looking at mitigation and adaptation when it comes to climate. It’s hard to look at the future of food, the future of water the future of waste, without also thinking gee, the temperature and the climate are going to be a lot different and how are we going to deal with all those things (#05, 2013).

114

For Vancouver aiming to be the greenest city in the world promoted both adaptation and mitigation on the political agenda by integrating it into wider sustainable development priorities. The electoral considerations of politicians

(including levels of issue salience and pressure from interest groups) motivated individual leadership. The at-large electoral system fostered years of divisive partisan politics that eventually led to the establishment of a new civic association - Vision Vancouver (VV). This party strove to overcome political divisions and focus on a unified vision for a sustainable future.

6.4 Finding 4: Key External Events and a Lack of Federal Leadership Focused Local Political Leadership on Adaptation

Multiple external events focused political leadership on adaptation. The IPCC’s

4th AR affirmed that local adaptation actions are needed, connected sustainable development to climate change mitigation and adaptation, and highlighted the cost of inaction. This report was noted by Key informant #03, a senior climate change adaptation planner, who said:

In 2007 there was a motion by Councillor Deal for staff to look into the impacts of climate change on the City of Vancouver. That, I think, was precipitated by the release of the last IPCC 4th AR [that] came out in 2007. It, really for the first time, stressed that we were kind of over a tipping point with mitigation and we should look at adaptation as well. So Councillor Deal made that motion and there was some initial work done on the heels of that by two engineers… They were following the King County [adaptation plan], out of Washington [State] methodology and they did some good initial work and went back to council in 2008 with a report that said we think these are the main impacts (#03, 2013).

115

New information from the IPCC motivated Councillor Deal to direct staff to address this issue. Learning from other positive case studies, specifically from

King County, helped the City develop its own adaptation framework. Key informant #10 discussed how King County is using adaptation policy to promote ecological restoration projects, noting:

There are a number of cities that have done biodiversity studies and King County has done one, they looked at the issue of an iconic species like salmon. Salmon won’t go up [the river] to spawn if there is a one degrees centigrade difference in temperature. That means as climate change happens more and more of these salmon are not going into the rivers of their birth and are now looking for other places to go and spawn. King County looked at that and asked what can we do with helpful adaptation to help encourage salmon to come back there? And they’ve done a whole planning program to keep the waters cool so that those salmon [return] (#10, 2013).

While international climate reports stimulated political interest around localized impacts and their cost to municipalities; other cities adaptation plans provided positive case studies for Vancouver to learn from. This knowledge stimulated political leadership around climate change adaptation policy making.

Another external influence that drove political leadership on adaptation was the lack of national leadership on adaptation. In Canada the federal government continues to invest in unsustainable fossil fuel resource extraction and export as demonstrated by the Alberta Oil Sands. Holden (2013) notes the lack of Canada’s federal commitment to adaptation may be motivating local responses; in addition:

116

…the City can be seen to be gathering authority and voice from a policy stance which is counter to policy at senior government levels. One such example is the mayor’s outspoken opposition to additional oil pipelines through Port Metro Vancouver in Burrard Inlet, despite the Province’s failure to oppose this move (Holden, 2013).

Opposition to policies from a higher level of government that counteract adaptation, or encourage maladaptation, was expressed by multiple interviewees. This was noted by Key informant #04 who said:

[T]he challenge in Canada is people see our economy linked with pumping oil out of the ground and as a consequence I think at a policy level people don’t really want to talk about that as being a contributor to climate change, and you can’t really talk about alternatives, or put a lot of money into alternatives, when your trying to promote this other thing. Just in Canada we have this huge tension between all of those things right now (#04, 2013).

Key informant #10 also discussed how the failure of national governments to take action on climate change has pushed more local responses. S/he stated:

I think that in reality, what we saw was we weren’t making the changes on the mitigation side. And I think where that really broke down for us was with Kyoto. We saw all of these, we [ICLEI] had 1200 cities that presented in Copenhagen and we wanted an agreement coming out of Copenhagen that would seriously address climate change; and it didn’t happen. [So] we said well if that’s not going to happen then the corollary is we better begin looking at adaptation, because we’re going to have to adapt. … So that’s the context in which adaptation became a clear and present priority we can no longer ignore and now ICLEI has 11,000 and some odd cities that are now working on adaptation (#10, 2013).

Key informant #05 articulated their experience of disappointment and frustration because other levels of government are not taking action to address climate change. S/he said:

117

I kind of just lost faith in federal or provincial governments being able to act with the speed and intensity on the ground that we need to see action on climate change, on environmental policy, on social policy, on economic policy, on cultural policy. You name it. They are not nimble, flexible, high intensity governments. They are like big broad, I’m trying to think of an analogy, they are like the ocean, and I was looking for a fast flowing river to get this stuff happening. Over the years of being an environmental and social justice advocate, the problems are like a hydra, they keep multiplying and the solutions tend to come in these not hydra like forms, like a little life raft floats by and you get a little boat once in a while. And we need the super tanker of solutions to make change. And it just felt like stuff wasn’t happening. (#05, 2013).

The lack of national leadership on adaptation influenced municipal staff and elected officials to promote action on climate change adaptation. In Vancouver politicians and city staff began to understand how the local impacts of climate change would affect the City. Their understanding and sense of stewardship motivated them to push the adaptation agenda and advocate for the formation of adaptation policy. Thus, external influences and events focused political leadership on adaptation.

Overall, interviewees identified three key leadership factors that prioritized climate change adaptation on Vancouver’s political agenda and drove policy making. First, political leadership is necessary for allocating funds and other resources towards a particular policy goal (e.g., the 2007 motion to investigate climate impacts by Council, formation of the staff working group on adaptation). Second, engineers and other key city staff maintained attention on the issues of climate change impacts through the informal staff working group on adaptation and their 2008 adaptation impacts report by Beck and Crowe.

Municipal governments have the responsibility of ensuring the safety, health

118 and welfare of their communities and the Vancouver Charter outlines the cities high level of jurisdictional control over key sectors such as building codes and flood construction levels. Engineers demonstrated how political leadership can overcome a lack of capacity and can be used to “mask your plan under other issues” such as integrating adaptation into other green policies (e.g. GCAP,

Climate Leadership goal) (Holland, 2013). Vancouver’s large jurisdictional control and clearly defined responsibilities (i.e., for public infrastructure, parks, and building codes; granted by the province via the Vancouver Charter) encouraged a sense of global leadership and fostered strong individual leadership. Third, organizational leadership in Vancouver was demonstrated by the Vision Vancouver (VV) council, mayor, and other policy champions.

Climate change adaptation was placed on the agenda under the political commitment to become the greenest city in the world, due to pressure from policy champions, and other municipalities who waited for Vancouver to take the first step (e.g., try innovative pilot projects, and make risky investments;

#03, 2013). Finally, key focusing events (e.g., Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth) and external forces (e.g., lack of action from the federal government) focused political attention on the issue of impacts and placed adaptation on the political agenda.

In sum, climate change adaptation policy is motivated by the individual leadership of policy champions and the organizational leadership of Vision

Vancouver. These, in turn, are shaped by electoral factors (such as issue

119 salience). Leadership from both city staff and elected officials promoted the creation of adaptation policy in Vancouver by maintaining political attention on the issue of climate change impacts and by placing adaptation on the political agenda. Thus, the organizational leadership from Vision Vancouver led to a new way of doing business that integrated adaptation and sustainable development, this put adaptation on the political agenda and helped drive the development of the CCAS.

120

Chapter 7. Policy Stream Findings: Green Policy Coordination Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework asserts the policies stream consists of generating potential solutions and criteria for selecting policy solutions, such as past policies that constrain future actions. In the City of Vancouver the vertical and horizontal coordination of green/sustainable policy framed the selection of adaptation solutions and was supported by partnering with ICLEI.

Regulatory and legislative factors of jurisdictional control influence climate change adaptation policy making through the interactions between multiple levels of government, and between fragmented municipal institutions

(Burch, 2010a, p. 7580). The jurisdictional coordination of policies and measures across local agencies and levels of government is termed horizontal and vertical coordination (Bulkeley, et al., 2009). According to McCarney,

Blanco, Carmin & Colley (2011) jurisdictional coordination is a common challenge cities face worldwide. They state this challenge takes two forms:

Multi-level jurisdictional coordination of services vertically across multiple levels of government and inter-jurisdictional coordination of services horizontally across the metropolitan area. In the case of the former, the inter-governmental relations involved in the governance of cities are often in ﬂux, with extensive and complex decentralization processes in motion in many countries worldwide. Multiple tiers of government and various levels of state agencies are involved in the climate change agenda and vertical coordination is often weak or non- existent. In the case of the latter, existing governing institutions are often horizontally fragmented, uncoordinated, and in many cases ad hoc when it comes to climate change strategy, due to multiple jurisdictional and electoral boundaries that span the territories of vast metropolitan areas. Coordination is fundamental not only in basic sectoral areas … and related ﬁscal and funding solutions, but in addressing issues of poverty and social exclusion through innovative mechanisms of inter-territorial solidarity (p. 267).

121

The integration of sustainability related policies into other departments and policy areas through horizontal and vertical policy integration is cited by a number of researchers as key factors that influence climate change adaptation policy making; and this integration is supported by the presence of a dedicated environmental office (Harrison, 1996; Bizikova, Neale, & Burton, 2008, p. 45;

Bulkeley, et al., 2009, p. 79; McCarney, Blanco, Carmin, & Colley, 2011, p. 267;

Bauer, Feichtinger, & Steurer, 2012; Hooghe & Marks, 2001 as cited in Bulkeley

& Betsill, 2013, pp. 137-138).

7.1 Horizontal Policy Coordination

Horizontal policy coordination in relation to climate change adaptation refers to inter-departmental collaboration to build on existing programs or policies and to provide co-beneﬁts with mitigation and broader sustainability goals.

Primary actions here are policy mainstreaming or integrating climate change adaptation into municipal development plans. A common definition of mainstreaming does not appear to exist, although the term is widely used in policy literature. It seems that policy mainstreaming is used interchangeably with policy integration and holistic policy. According to the UNDP adaptation mainstreaming refers to the integration of adaptation objectives, strategies, policies, measures or operations such that they become part of the national and regional development policies, processes and budgets at all levels and stages (Bizikova, Neale, & Burton, 2008, p. 90). According to UN-Habitat

(2014) mainstreaming climate policy is:

122

The process by which climate risks are considered in city plans, programmes, activities and policies, and by which adjustments are made to address the risks. Mainstreaming assumes that other projects can be enhanced – e.g. poverty reduction, urban sustainability – and their benefits increased by integrating climate planning with existing city plans and policy instruments (plans, strategies, programmes, guidelines). Mainstreaming helps to ensure that a city’s plans and policies are not at odds with climate risks now and in the future (Ingram & Hamilton, 2014).

Similarly, according to Anguelovski & Carmin (2011), policy mainstreaming is imporatnt to embed mitigation and adaptation into existing plans, and channel resources to support multiple agendas (p. 739).19

7.2 Finding 1: Mainstreaming Sustainability Generated Potential Solutions to the Local Impacts of Climate Change and Shaped Criteria for Selecting Policy Solutions

In Vancouver, politicians and staff have built consensus around key urban issues, such as sustainable development. This has driven the formation of policy around broad sustainability goals and created Vancouver’s big green agenda. As mentioned before, the City’s big green agenda is an umbrella term for a group of sustainability related policies including: climate change mitigation and adaptation, active transportation, reduce waste, clean air and water, food security, and green buildings (#04, 2013; #05, 2013; #06, 2013;

#07, 2013). In other words, the many areas of sustainability regulated under the City’s GCAP. Mainstreaming green and sustainability policy in the City

19 It is important to note that mainstreaming is not unique to adaptation; it is a policy principle for introducing all multilateral environmental issues onto the policy agenda (Perez & Yohe, 2004)

123 influenced the selection of adaptation options through sustainability based criteria and by repackaged existing policies.

First, in 2010, with the help of ICLEI, Vancouver was the first Canadian municipality to adopt a comprehensive CCAS. The City joined the ICLEI Climate

Change Adaptation Initiative pilot to work through a five milestone methodology with the goal of developing and implementing a CCAS over two years. Milestones include:

Milestone 1: Initiate: interview General Managers, review climate science and identify existing adaptations and impacts. Milestone 2: Research: perform risk and vulnerability assessments via the PCIC climate science project: Georgia Basin Adaptation Initiative. PCIC at the University of Victoria used climate models to identify anticipated regional climate changes. Impacts from these anticipated changes were identified across the City. Milestone 3: Plan: identification and prioritization of adaptation actions. Workshops were created to brainstorm adaptation measures to prepare for, or respond to, impacts. Adaptation measures were evaluated, reviewed, and selected. Milestone 4: Implement: implement the local action plan. Milestone 5: Monitor: monitor progress and report results (City of Vancouver, 2012).

Similar to the garbage can model discussed earlier, the generation of adaptation measures was done through workshops with staff that brainstormed actions to prepare for, or reduce risk from, the prioritized impacts. The evaluation and selection of specific adaptation policy actions came from criteria in the Canadian Communities’ Guidebook for Adaptation to

Climate Change by Bizikova, Neale & Burton (2008). These criteria were used

124 to rank and select adaptation actions because it provided “information about the trade-offs between different responses, the urgency of needed responses and the availability of resources - both financial and institutional for implementation” (Bizikova, Neale & Burton, 2008). These criteria for evaluating adaptation responses include an approach to generate mitigation co-benefits in the context of sustainable development. Mainstreaming sustainability via the City’s GCAP generated potential solutions and shaped criteria for selecting policy solutions.

Second, Vancouver’s CCAS is comprised of existing projects and repackaged policies. In July 2012 the City of Vancouver began implementing several primary actions including integrated storm water management planning, flood-proofing policy review, and urban forest management planning. Primary actions built on existing projects and plans including: the

Integrated Stormwater Management Plan, the Urban Forest Management Plan, the Building By-law Update 2017, the Sewer Separation Strategy, the Extreme

Hot Weather Committee and the GCAP (City of Vancouver Sustainability

Group, 2012, pp. 37-38). The adaptation strategy brings the City closer to reaching its GCAP goals, specifically Climate Leadership, and provides benefits to the community regardless of the extent of climate change impacts. Reviving old policies and integrating them with existing plans saves cost and provides multiple benefits, facilitating horizontal policy coordination.

125

Key informant #09 noted that while climate change has motivated better coordination of policies, many of the policies origins date back to the

1970s or 1980s and have been recycled or updated to include building resilience to climate change. S/he said:

Climate change is a growing factor, but it wasn’t the initial factor. [For example] Sewer separation, so combining sewer overflows, is something that’s been a city priority beginning in the 1970’s. So it’s a case of long-term infrastructure management. We have a sewer system that was built as a combined system, a one pipe system. In the 1970’s we changed the policy so that anything new was built as a two pipe separated system. But in the 1980’s we were recognizing that a lot of the system is aging and needs to be replaced as it wears out so let’s have a strategy whereas the pipes age you will separate them. And we will eventually eliminate combined sewer overflows for environmental reasons. [This was] Absolutely driven by protecting the oceans and rivers, and its only recently that we’ve said oh well this is interesting there is an additional benefit here, in that as we separate the system we eliminate the problem of raw sewage backups during rain storms, that happen in some of the worn out, poorer, undersized areas of the system. And so as storm intensity becomes more of a problem, these sewer backups also become more of a problem, they are a horrible experience, certainly nothing you want to take lightly and subject our residents too (#09, 2013). Reviving old policies and integrating them with existing plans occurred because the formal adaptation working group performed a policy scan to determine what adaptation actions were already underway. Similarly, Key informant #03 described this process, noting:

We did scan all the policies that could be linked to adaptation in some ways. So maintenance bylaws and sewer bylaws, and looked at OK where are the ones that might have an opportunity to change something small to reflect adaptation, or where are the opportunities going forward. So we did do a policy scan. That’s one of the steps in here (ICLEI steps in strategy); and then in our task force, [in] one of our first meetings we talked about adaptation that was already happening at the City. So obviously [older policies] never considered adaptation in

126

those terms, but I think that’s the nice thing about adaptation is that people have been dealing with climate variability forever, I mean sewers engineers, it’s part of their common daily work to think about climate variability. So it’s not new; and they have already been doing a lot of things to deal with, what they perceive as increasing rain fall, or more extreme rain fall. Just talking about those say hey if this got worse, would we still have functionality, would it still be useful, this pipe or whatever?... It’s pretty amazing; there was already an extreme heat committee in place, as a result of a man passing away in a park during a hot day…. Or the whole sewer separation program is massive and [was est.] over many years, and that was maybe instigated to decrease combined sewer overflows. But it’s hugely helpful in terms of building resilience to heavier rain fall in the physical infrastructure sense. So there has been tons’ going on. [Also, city] Arborists have been thinking about the change in zone, and what kind of trees for a long time (#03, 2013).

This policy scan along with staff workshops identified adaptation actions that the City is already taking and plans that were forgotten. Using a climate lens within an overarching sustainable development plan can identify co-benefits.

Key informant #03 went on to discuss the benefit of adding a climate change adaptation lens because it highlights co-benefits with older policies. S/he said:

I think adaptation is really hard to sell in the cost-benefit [and] return on investment realm by itself. So you really need to find those projects that are already happening and add an adaptation lens. Also we were able to push forward things like the urban forest strategy by saying we need to do this for adaptation as well, and saying OK let’s move that off the shelf and get going on it. So adaptation became a driver or lens, I think that was a helpful way to look at it (#03, 2013).

Adding an adaptation lens to current projects and policies can elucidate co- benefits and low cost actions, motivating easy to implement policy responses.

Key informant #09 commented on opportunities to implement no-regrets initiatives through the cities normal infrastructure replacement plan. S/he said:

127

…noting that climate change means more intense storms, then sewer separation is becoming even more important, and storm water management is very important because it’s one of the tools that we can use to reduce combined sewer overflows, reduce sewer backups, and reduce overland flooding that’s going to become more frequent as a result of climate change. So it’s one of those no-regrets initiatives that we are doing anyway because of aging infrastructure and environmental protection and if we do it right we can get a big climate change adaptation benefit as well. We are now doing the size, trying to separate the sewer system, [and] we’re not just trying to do it. We are investing massively in it. We’ll have it substantially done, but not until 2050, it takes that long (#09, 2013).

Repackaging policies to fulfill multiple objectives is easy in Vancouver because of a history of progressive environmentalism. Key informant #10 talked about the role of Canada’s environmental NGOs, stating:

What we’ve grown up in is a milieu of progressive thinking, around us was the founding of Greenpeace, the founding of Canada’s first environmental movement was in Vancouver so a context has always existed here for people who wanted environmental consciousness; and politically that was able to happen more and more as we got into this century. I think that more and more there is a recognition of what’s going on globally, and more people politically subscribe and support that kind of transformative process (#10, 2013).

Similarly Key informant #04 was asked how s/he got political support to address adaptation. Their response was surprising, s/he said:

We don’t particularly, but successive counsels for years and years, have been moving down’ the same path around creating a resilient [and] sustainable city. There are a few tweaks that we need to make around adaptation, but basically doing those other things address a lot of what you need to address for adaptation. … So I think you can’t be too smug about what we are achieving, a lot of it is like I said before, is accidental, in that people made good decisions along the way that are all leading in the same direction without necessarily realizing that before anybody really realized that there would be major impacts of climate change like sea level rise for example (#04, 2013).

128

The evolution of green and sustainability related policies in Vancouver can be attributed to a history of progressive environmental policy making. These policies informed the formation of Vancouver’s CCAS. For example, according to one Interviewee - Key informant #06 - the geographic constraints on

Vancouver’s growth led to more environmentally sustainable and dense development. S/he noted:

Density and mode shift were the real push in the 90’s, so getting people out of their cars getting them walking, biking, into transit… Building high density civic centers where people could live and work in similar areas was really critical. Vancouver is lucky because we are constrained by our geography, there is water all around us, mountains on one side, down town is really a peninsula but almost an island. So back in the 70s we couldn’t keep sprawling we had to densify, just by the nature of how we were laid out. That gave Vancouver a benefit over the other municipalities who had the ability to just sprawl (#06, 2013).

This means, Vancouver’s development strategy in the 1990’s recognized the cities future did not lie in road expansion, but in prioritizing sustainable alternative transportation choices and eco-density.

The City of Vancouver has adopted what Robinson (2006) calls a sustainable development lens. The City is attempting to achieve its climate change adaptation goals by following alternative development paths towards sustainability that focus on building mitigative and adaptive capacity. They have done this through strong stakeholder engagement as seen in the broad

SEFC and GCAP public consultation processes. Dale Mikkelsen discussed the

129 influence public consultation had on shaping sustainable development in

Vancouver, he stated:

SEFC generated so many good ideas, it took so long to develop because it was such an idea generator for Vancouver in terms of sustainable landscape practices and sustainable building practices and social equity. SEFC for years was a big thing that caused a lot of good discussion to happen. A part of me always says that the biggest failing in SEFC/Athletes [Olympic] Village was actually building it, because we no longer had that thing that no one knew what it was and everyone had a million ideas of what it should be to talk about. If you go all the way back to the SEFC policy statement and the iteration of the stewardship group and the public process and the planners around what could be built there catalyzed so many discussions about other developments in Vancouver … It was SEFC was a catalyzer for anything sustainability minded (Mikkelsen, 2013).

For more information on the 1999 The Southeast False Creek Sustainable

Urban Neighbourhood (SEFC) Policy Statement and GCAP see Appendix B1:

Vancouver Municipal Policy Context. The following sections will provide examples of policy mainstreaming, via repackaging the urban forest strategy, centralizing the Sustainability Group and adopting the GCAP.

7.2.1 Example: 1990 Clouds of Change Report

Climate change adaptation is first mentioned in the City of Vancouver in the

1990 Clouds of Change report authored by The Task Force on Atmospheric

Change (Letcher, et al., 1990). Thirteen interviewees noted this important

130 policy document.20 In this policy, recommendation #33 is to Study Adaptive

Measures. Its purpose is “To be prepared for those consequences of atmospheric change for which we may already be committed” (Letcher, et al.,

1990, p. 23). Through this policy Council instructed “the Engineering

Department to continue to monitor global warming trends and potential adaptive measures and report periodically to Council on current scientific consensus and possible adaptation strategies” (Letcher, et al., 1990, p. 23). It is interesting to note that in the initial policy proposal, measures to study sea level rise and estimate the cost of adaptive measures including shoreline stabilization, emergency planning and the relocation of low lying facilities were included. Whereas the final policy document was significantly watered down from the original proposal, and most adaptation measures were not adopted. This policy is the first recorded recommendation from the City of

Vancouver’s Council to begin planning for long-term measures to adapt to climate change and to develop means for financing such measures (Letcher, et al., 1990, p. 23). In 1990 Council endorsed the Park Board's Street Tree

Management Plan to improve tree maintenance and provide for sustained replanting. The Park Board looks after some 1.5 million trees in parks and

128,000 on the City's streets. As part of this plan, 3400 street trees are planted annually. In 1991, Council adopted a bylaw to regulate removal and planting of trees on private property (City of Vancouver Corporate Management Team,

20 (#02, 2013; #03, 2013; #04, 2013; #06, 2013; #07, 2013; #08, 2013; #09, 2013; #10, 2013; #11, 2013; Bula, 2013; Cameron, 2013; Holland, 2013; Price, 2013)

131

2002). This policy, overlooked for over a decade, has regained political and administrative support, and reappears in both the Cities GCAP and CCAS. For more information on the Clouds of Change report see (Moore, 1990).

According to interviewees the reappearance of policies in the CCAS was not an accident (#03, 2013). In other words adaptation is “just one piece of a green puzzle” to build a resilient city (#04, 2013). Vancouver used the green agenda to repackage a variety of sustainability related policies under the

Greenest City Acton Plan.

7.2.2 Example: Sustainability Group

Ten key informants referenced the significant influence Vancouver’s centralized Sustainability Group has had on developing the CCAS.21 According to Key informant #06, from the Sustainability Group:

Sustainability is a department that reports up to the City Manager. I think the City was very intelligent and strategic by doing that. Initially when Sustainability was developed around 2005 or so, and there was a few staff hired, it was put in the Engineering Department. One of the reasons that it was put in Engineering is that Engineering has a good reputation for getting stuff done. … But Engineering is really focused on the public works part of it, they are not as focused on the overall development across the whole city. … So eventually they moved it to the City Manager’s Office to give it a higher profile. So when we reach out to someone we are doing on behalf of the City Manager, so that gives us a little more leverage. And it also signals to everyone else in the City that this is a priority and important and that’s the hub. We’re [a] centralized organization and our job is to support everybody else in meeting their greenest city goals. … You know people are doing a lot of good stuff but

21 (#03, 2013; #04, 2013; #06, 2013; #07, 2013; #08, 2013; #09, 2013; #11, 2013; Bula, 2013; Holland, 2013; Ryan, 2013)

132

unless you know what everybody else is doing, you don’t really know how to leverage that. And sustainability isn’t just about leveraging it internally it’s about all those external relationships too. So we’ll sit down every couple months with BC Hydro and say what are you working on? Oh we’re doing this. We’re (Sustainability Group) aware of someone who wants to do something with the steam heat plant downtown maybe you can have a conversation with them, and then we go talk to forests and say you might want to get in on this too. So it’s really bringing together all these like-minded people (#06, 2013).

Frances Bula talked about this shift from a decentralized sustainability office to a centralized one located under the City Manager, stating:

The old model that City Manager Judy Rogers espoused was that Sustainability shouldn’t be its own separate little department doing its own thing it should integrated into every department. [However,] Vision councillors really said, then no one really does anything and no one takes responsibility and they wanted a stronger Sustainability Office (Bula, 2013).

Consequently, in 2009 the Sustainability Group was given its own office in

Vancouver’s City Hall, under the jurisdiction of the new City Manager Sadhu

Johnston. Multiple interviewees noted the benefits of having a centralized office to facilitate interdepartmental communication around environmental concerns like climate change adaptation (#06, 2013; #09, 2013). For example, when redesigning a park getting various staff (e.g., parks planners, climate adaptation working group, urban forest managers) to collaborate and talk with each other was a challenge before the sustainability office was centralized.

Now the centralized Sustainability Group acts as a central hub “connecting the dots” of various projects and ideas to allow synergetic collaboration between departments that result in huge multipliers and benefits without spending a lot more money (#06, 2013). Key informant #06 identified three important

133 factors of the Sustainability Group that contributed to motivating climate governance. S/he noted that nesting the Sustainability Group under the City

Manager’s office built a higher profile and greater legitimacy; having a central hub with a full time staff enabled easy access to information and helped to foster both internal and external communication and collaboration (via horizontal coordination internally and stakeholder engagement externally;

#09, 2013). For more information on the Sustainability Group see Appendix

B1: Vancouver Municipal Policy Context: 1990 The Special Office for the

Environment (SOE).

7.2.3 Example: 2009 GCAP

The City of Vancouver adopted the ambitious goal to become the greenest city in the world by 2020. This goal is to be accomplished through the GCAP and is supported by four other key strategies: CCAS, greening city operations, greening business, and helping residents ‘go green’ (City of Vancouver, 2012).

To become the greenest city in the world, municipal staff working groups are collaborating with Council, residents, businesses, NGOs, and provincial and federal levels of government to implement the GCAP. The Action Plan is divided into 10 smaller goals/plans; combined, these ten plans address three overarching areas of focus: carbon, waste, and ecosystems (City of Vancouver,

Greenest City Action team and staff working groups, 2012). GCAP is an important policy because it introduced a variety of social, economic and environmental issues onto the policy agenda, connects diverse problems to

134 systemic issues, and provides integrative and holistic solutions via sustainable development. For more information on GCAP see Appendix B1: Vancouver

Municipal Policy Context.

Fourteen interviewees discussed the influence the GCAP had on the development of the CCAS.22 Key informant #05 commented on the intention to engage policy actors who were general practitioners rather than climate experts during the development of the GCAP to encourage sustainable development which offers a better way to pursue climate policy goals than climate policy itself. S/he stated:

The public at that time was very climate focused … the center of gravity at the public debate was very much climate. So that was sort of a see- saw, it was by that point in time heavily weighted down with climate, so we wanted to add these other nine categories to try to re-balance it. That’s why we have buildings, transportation, food, water, ecological literacy, lighter footprint goals. We wanted to make sure [it wasn’t just focused on climate policy], we wanted to pull it back to a more [broad sustainable development approach], because I don’t want to make climate sound like a fad because god help us if that’s the way it is. … The way the team was set up, we went out of our way to make sure that they weren’t climate specialists, or food specialists, or waste specialists. People who think about environment as a sustainability issue, they were willing to not say climate change adaptation is most important or access to nature is most important, or whatever the issue was that they were bringing to the table. So we were really trying to draw the conversation back out from just climate and in all of our opinion, the problems that have created the climate crises are not climate problems, they are system problems. So unless you solve the whole system, maybe you [‘ve managed to] solve the climate problem, but suddenly you’ve got a massive toxic waste problem. So we wanted to make sure we weren’t creating [maladaptation] (#05, 2013).

22 (#02, 2013; #03, 2013; #04, 2013; #05, 2013; #06, 2013; #07, 2013; #08, 2013; #09, 2013; #10, 2013; #11, 2013; Bula, 2013; Ryan, 2013; Holland, 2013; Price, 2013)

135

According to Ken Cameron, Vancouver’s big green agenda and Sustainability

Group have helped to overcome fragmented silos of jurisdiction and better integrate planning across city departments. He said:

The City of Vancouver is a really big organization and complex and there’s always been lots of silos. Parks, engineering, planning, and CSG [community services] have all been doing their own thing very well, but in their own little bell jar. Over the last 5-10 years we’ve really been knocking down those walls and getting people to talk, and climate change adaptation has just been, … [put] under one umbrella and having a single person who everyone knows, ‘oh if I’m doing this lets I talk to that person, and that person knows what everyone else is doing and will connect the dots, and see if there is any synergies we can reach and get people to talk together.’ (Cameron, 2013).

GCAP represents a holistic and integrated approach to sustainability and climate governance because as interviewee #05 notes: the issues that cause climate change are complex system problems that require well-coordinated solutions.

Coordinating actions horizontally across city departments is facilitated by a centralized Sustainability Group headed by staff that people can turn to with questions or comments about their projects and connections to broader urban sustainability. Mainstreaming green and sustainability related policies comprised of recycling policies, centralizing the Sustainability Group, and adopting the GCAP all helped integrate knowledge and actions across city departments. Mainstreaming green policy in Vancouver contributed to generating potential adaptation solutions, and influenced criteria for selecting policy solutions, such as past policies that constrain future actions.

136

7.3 Vertical Policy coordination

As originally developed by Hooghe and Marks (2001), multilevel governance is seen as comprising two, related, sets of processes:

 Type I, which involves the negotiation of authority and competencies between different levels of government, and  Type II, where multiple overlapping and interconnected horizontal spheres of authority are involved in governing particular issues (Bulkeley & Betsill, 2013, pp. 137-138).

The importance of vertically integrating adaptation policies across different levels of government is widely acknowledged in the 10 OECD countries surveyed by Bauer, Feichtinger and Steurer (2012). This is because policymakers at the national/federal level are aware that adaptation pressures materialize locally and that many adaptation activities lie within the responsibilities of sub-national provinces and/or municipalities (Bauer,

Feichtinger & Steurer, 2012). In the United States, Australia and Canada, declarations of intent to address climate change grew most rapidly in the face of the reluctance of federal administration to address the issue (Bulkeley &

Betsill, 2013, p. 144). At the city level, many important sectors – such as coastal management and agriculture – are not within the direct remit of city governments, this means that a need for vertical coordination is built into the adaptation issue (Bulkeley, et al., 2009).

Authors such as UBC’s Kathryn Harrison have stressed the often difﬁcult relationships between the federal and provincial governments in Canada. She

137 highlights ‘buck passing’ as an issue that stems from the ambiguous division of responsibility for environmental issues between federal and provincial governments, in combination with the desire for both levels of government to protect their electoral interests (Harrison, 1996). Other authors have emphasized the importance of involving a wider range of institutions, because they have links across jurisdictions that facilitate the ﬂow of ideas and expertise across policy arenas (Betsill & Bulkeley, 2006).

The City of Vancouver is nested under the jurisdiction of higher levels of government according to Canada’s federal distribution of powers. Influencing levels of government include the Metro Vancouver Regional Government, The

Provincial Government of B.C. and The Federal Government of Canada. In

Canada adaptation is being addressed by all levels of government, however jurisdictional responsibility for climate change adaptation (including: emergency management and disaster response) has been delegated to municipalities. This tiered response system, means that local governments respond first to emergencies and are supported by higher-level governments only if local resources are exhausted (Scanlon, 1995).

7.4 Finding 2: Vertical Policy Coordination Generated Potential Solutions, and Shaped Criteria for Selecting Policy Solutions

Eight out of sixteen key informants interviewed discussed the influence of vertical coordination on adaptation policy making, either because of

138 federalism, working with Metro Vancouver or the devolution of responsibility from higher levels of governments (e.g., the Province of BC) to municipalities.23

7.4.1 Policy Coordination with Metro Vancouver Shaped Overarching Development Policy Goals of Livability, Sustainability and Resiliency

The City of Vancouver is part of a regional federation of municipalities that provide services to the metropolitan area, Metro Vancouver, is governed by a board made up of elected municipal ofﬁcials appointed from their municipality. It conducts regional planning for growth, and carries responsibilities for sewage and waste management, regional parks, a small housing program, and public transit investments and operations (Jones, 2012, p. 981). Metro Vancouver, formally the Greater Vancouver Regional District

(GVRD), is the regional governing body for BC’s Lower Mainland region. It is both a non-partisan political body and single corporate entity operating under provincial legislation as a ‘regional district’ and ‘greater boards’ on behalf of twenty-two member municipalities and one electoral area (Metro Vancouver,

2011). Metro Vancouver’s three primary roles are service delivery, planning, and political leadership. Its three main areas of planning and regulatory responsibility relate to: regional growth (land use through municipalities and transportation through Trans Link), waste management (solid and liquid

23 (#03, 2013; #04, 2013; #05, 2013; #09, 2013; Holland, 2013; Ryan, 2013; Cameron, 2013; Price, 2013)

139 waste) and air quality management (a delegated Provincial function; Metro

Vancouver, 2011).

In 2000 Environment Canada provided to GVRD a Climate Change

Summary Report (Taylor & Langlois, 2000). Since 2002, the GVRD has made sustainability its strategic priority, largely defining its role in this effort as a coordinator and facilitator (Davidson, 2010). Metro Vancouver is working to reduce GHGs and ensure that it is resilient to the impacts of climate change, both across the region and within the organization (Metro Vancouver, 2014).

Various policies illustrate this effort such as: the Liveable Region Strategic

Plan, the Sustainable Region Initiative, and citiesPLUS. See Appendix B2:

Regional Government Policy Context.

Metro Vancouver was one of nine metropolitan areas from around the world selected to participate in the International Sustainable Urban Systems

Design Competition in 2003 (City of Vancouver Corporate Management Team,

April 15, 2002). Participants demonstrated how their metropolitan areas can achieve sustainability by 2100. The Sheltair Group wrote Metro Vancouver’s winning citiesPLUS plan. They also prepared a preliminary assessment of climate impacts and adaptation options and showed how these fit within a general sustainability framework for the region (Penny & Wiedtz, May 2007, p.

49). The citiesPLUS visioning project helped the greater Vancouver region to clarify its overarching policy goals of Livability, Sustainability and Resiliency

(Moffatt, et al., 2003, p. 105). These goals are reaffirmed in Vancouver’s CCAS.

140

See Figure 7-1 Metro Vancouver’s definition of livability, sustainability and resilience, from citiesPLUS (2003. The resilience approach to urban planning assumes that the future will include a major element of surprise, and that urban systems must be designed and operated in ways that accommodate sudden and unexpected changes (Sheltair Group, 2003; Seymoar, 2004).

CitiesPLUS outlines eight cross-cutting catalyst strategies for action called

Vancouver’s 100-year Strategies for Sustainability (Moffatt, et al., 2003, pp.

120-135). CitiesPLUS defined the regions sustainable development goals of

Livability, Sustainability, and Resilience, principles that are echoed in City of

Vancouver policy documents.

141

• Livability refers to the quality of life of residents. We value an urban system that contributes to the physical, social, and mental well-being and personal development of all its inhabitants. We aspire to delightful and desirable urban spaces that offer and reflect cultural and sacred enrichment. Key principles that give substance to this theme are: equity, dignity, accessibility, conviviality, participation, and empowerment. • Example: Principle of Accessibility Provide equal access to resources for all community members.

Livability Allow for the creation of an accessible neighbourhood in terms of who can live in and visit. Ensure a range of opportunities for a variety of income groups and physical abilities

• Sustainabililty requires a city to function in a way that ensures its long-term survival as well as its integrity, normal functioning, and self-reliance. It requires that environmental, social, and economic parameters conform to the productive and assimilative capacity of the biosphere. Key principles that give substance to this theme are: efficiency, interdependence, connectivity, stewardship, durability, and appropriateness. • Example: Principle of Stewardship Accept responsibility for the conservation, restoration, and management of resources so as to satisfy present and future uses. Recognize the importance of long- term growth rather

Sustainability than focusing on present development.

• Resilience means enhancing the personal and collective capacity of individuals and institutions to respond to and influence the course of economic, social, and environmental change even in the face of the unexpected. Resilience enables our urban system to secure the basics needs of life while we travel the bumpy road to sustainability. Key principles that give substance to this theme are: adaptability, robustness, reliability, responsiveness, diversity, and precaution. • Example: Principle of Precaution Proceed not in haste, but rather consider the long-term benefits and consequences of actions. Factor in life-cycle and Resilience full-cost analyses to make certain that societal and environmental costs are fully acknowledged in decision- making.

Figure 7-1 Metro Vancouver’s definition of livability, sustainability and resilience, from citiesPLUS (2003)

142

Metro Vancouver has started integrating climate change adaptation into its regional development plans through its Regional Growth Strategy: Metro

Vancouver 2040 – Shaping our Future (adopted on July 29th, 2011). Metro

Vancouver's Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) is organized along five key interconnected goals that provide a sustainability framework to accommodate the additional 1.2-million people and 600,000 jobs that are expected in the region by 2041 (City of Vancouver, 2013, p. 5). The RGS goals are:

 Create a compact urban area  Support a sustainable economy  Protect the environment and respond to climate change impacts  Develop complete communities  Support sustainable transportation choices (Metro Vancouver, 2011, p. 7).

This forced the City of Vancouver to adopt its Regional Context Statement

Official Development Plan on September 24, 2013. This document describes how the City plans to “protect the environment and respond to climate change impacts,” by encouraging land use and transportation infrastructure that improves the ability to withstand climate change impacts and natural hazard risks (City of Vancouver, 2013). This goal is implemented through the City’s

Flood Proofing Policies (1988, 1995, 2007), and CCAS (2012).

Four interviewees expressed a desire to see more integrated adaptation actions at the regional level with Metro Vancouver. Ken Cameron talked about coordinating policy responses to climate change through an integrated land use plan in Metro Vancouver. He stated:

143

Its combustion that produces the local air quality problems and the ozone problems, which lead to the smog problems; and it’s [also] combustion that produces the CO2 emissions. … That goes to the basic thought that I have about regional planning, which is, that you only need to concentrate and make sure you’re managing only five key resources: Land, water, air, energy, capital. And if you manage energy you’re helping to manage air, and if you manage land you’re helping to manage water, but they are the life support of the region. … Of really key importance to me was the fact that your best transportation plan is a good land use plan that brings origins and destinations together. And your best land use plan is a transportation plan that forces those land use objectives….So we really got into that approach, really saw that as a 3 sided triangle between air quality, land use and transportation. …There are five resources to be managed, and there are three concepts to help you manage them. [Respectively: Land, water, air, energy and capital; Livability, Sustainability, and Resilience.] (Cameron, 2013).

Partnering with ICLEI facilitated policy coordination with the participating regional government: Metro Vancouver and 5 of 23 member municipalities in

BC’s lower mainland (#03, 2013; Holland, 2013).

7.4.2 Policy Coordination with the BC Provincial Government Generated Potential Solutions, and Shaped Criteria for Selecting Policy Solutions

The BC Provincial Government has a strong interest in climate change policy and has introduced regulatory measures such as the Carbon Tax and the

Climate Change Charter. These provide additional resources to the City of

Vancouver and other BC municipalities for climate change actions (Jones,

2012, p. 1261).

The Local Government Act in BC requires all Official Community Plans

(OCPs) to identify restrictions on the use of land that is subject to hazardous conditions (e.g., flooding) or is environmentally sensitive (BC Ministry of

144

Environment, 2013, p. 30). In BC, under the Emergency Program Act, local authorities have primary responsibility for responding to emergencies and must have an emergency plan in place to address potential flood events and maintain public safety. The emergency management of floods consists of several phases– emergency planning and preparedness for a flood, the readiness of the Emergency Operations Centre of each local authority, flood responses (flood alert, flood evacuation order and all clear when the threat of flooding has past), and recovery (including disaster financial assistance; BC

Ministry of Environment, 2013, p. 39) . In 1999, the BC Water Management

Branch and the Provincial Emergency Program (PEP) published the Flood

Planning and Response Guide for British Columbia to assist local authorities and diking authorities to prepare a flood response plan to guide activities during flood events (BC Ministry of Environment, 2013, p. 39).

In 2004, the Province delegated to municipalities its responsibility respecting flood-proofing standards and published “Flood Hazard Area Land

Use Managements Guidelines”, to assist municipalities in assuming this responsibility (Scobie, 2007, p. 5). A series of seminars and discussions, including two workshops held in British Columbia in 2006 and 2008 involving a group of academic researchers, government scientists and local community representatives produced the SAM pilot (Sustainable development, Adaptation and Mitigation; Bizikova, Neale and Burton, 2008, p. 15). Finally in May, 2011, the BC Ministry of Environment released new guidelines for sea dikes and

145 coastal flood hazard land use. These provide data for planning for sea level rise and a methodology for incorporating sea level rise into development calculations. Examples would be appropriate elevations for buildings in flood prone areas, including identifying vulnerable areas and infrastructure in order to improve resilience planning.

7.4.2.1 Example: Devolution of Flood Proofing Standards Motivated Municipal Action

The devolution of responsibilities from the federal and provincial levels of government to municipalities is another driver of local climate policy. Key informant #03 talked about the downloading of Provincial Flood-Proofing policies, stating:

…you know municipalities are really leading on adaptation now, and there really isn’t a lot of support from the province or the federal government. It’s incredibly expensive in a lot of cases, especially when it comes to sea level rise, trying to decide what to do. There is no president, it’s a novel challenge. And there is a great group at the Province [of BC] but certainly they came out with those [Flood- Proofing] guidelines without much thought as to how is this going to impact local governments. How can local governments implement this? So it was sort of here, here you go. Wash our hands with this. But really it just created a myriad of problems versus solving any. So the constraint and the responsibility was downloaded from the province in 2004, and I think that’s a trend generally (#03, 2013).

Multiple interviewees sited the 2004 BC provincial downloading of flood- proofing responsibility had on shaping the development of Vancouver’s CCAS

(#03, 2013; #04, 2013). In 2004 the Province of BC delegated to municipalities the jurisdiction and responsibility to manage development on lands that may

146 be subject to flooding. This policy document clarified the cities flood proofing role and acknowledges the risk of climate change impacts. According to the policy:

Staff expect that additional revisions to the City’s flood-proofing policies will be required to adapt to climate change. Current estimates of climate change impacts, such as sea level rise and increased storm intensities, vary widely. Staff will be closely monitoring the emerging scientific understanding of climate change impacts and will recommend appropriate policy changes in future Council reports, as more specific local estimates are developed (Scobie, April 3, 2007, p. 2).

The original flood proofing policy was developed in 1988 in accordance with provincial regulations. This policy was updated in 1995 to modify the requirements for non-residential development and to clarify the survey datum for establishing flood construction levels. The 2007 update reflects the identification of climate change on sea level rise and flood risk, and calls for staff to keep track of research on climate change impacts on the region by the

Fraser Basin Council, Environment Canada and the IPCC. The City’s flood proofing policy was updated in 2007 in response to the 2004 provincial downloading of responsibilities.

The devolution of responsibilities produces multiple challenges, for example it is not followed by funding needed to address these new areas of jurisdiction (#04, 2013). Key informant #10 commented on the restricted financial environment Canadian cities find themselves in, paired with growing urban populations. S/he stated:

147

In Canada we get 8 cents of the tax dollar and yet basically 85% of the Canadian population lives in cities. And we then have to go beg and scrimp from provincial and national governments to get there resources to do the things in our city that need to be done. And therein lays the problem, a problem that obviously could be rectified by having more resources come to cities. That would involve opening up the constitution in the case of Canada and it’s always a push and pull between the rural and the urban. But what we’re having globally is an urban immigration…We’re seeing transformation that is not for the better in terms of what’s happening globally on a climate bases (#10, 2013).

The City of Vancouver has taken a strategic approach to addressing the lack of vertical coordination by taking on a strong leadership role. Interviewee #05 asked:

How could you expect a reluctant, or an outright hostile partner to come to the table if you are not showing and demonstrating that you are willing to do absolutely everything you can to make this policy outcome happen? So we’re not going to draw them in by saying that’s not our responsibility, that’s yours, so we’ll wait for you, and when you’re here maybe we’ll do something. We’ll draw them in by doing stuff and showing it gets results and it has popular support and that is exactly how we’ve been able to draw them in on these issues.

Overall, vertical policy coordination is not a significant driver of climate change adaptation policy for the City of Vancouver. Although four respondents expressed a wish to see more integrated adaptation actions especially at the regional level with Metro Vancouver. Most interviewees did not emphasize this issue; however, partnering with ICLEI did facilitate policy coordination with the regional government and neighbouring municipalities, this influence is discussed below.

148

7.5 Finding 3: Partnership with ICLEI Facilitated Policy Coordination with Municipalities in Metro Vancouver

In 2010 the City of Vancouver joined the NGO Local Governments for

Sustainability (ICLEI), Climate Change Adaptation Initiative pilot. Where participating governments work through ICLEI’s five-milestone methodology with the goal of developing and implementing a CCAS over a two year period

(City of Vancouver Sustainability Group, 2012, pp. 7-8). Partnering with ICLEI facilitated policy coordination with participating local governments including:

Metro Vancouver and 4 of 23 member municipalities in BC’s lower mainland

(Delta, North Vancouver, Surrey, Vancouver and Metro Vancouver; #03, 2013;

Holland, 2013).

Five interviewees sited the ICLEI climate change adaptation pilot program as a key step that facilitated the development of Vancouver’s CCAS

(#08, 2013; #03, 2013; #06, 2013; #10, 2013). Key informant #08 connects climate impacts to the global failure to achieve GHG emissions reductions, he/she stated:

Another motivating factor was the fact that climate change programs [like PCP] were niggling at us that we couldn’t ignore adaptation, that it was a part of the [climate] issue. There was this concern that maybe in the end of the day we wouldn’t be able to address and mitigate [GHGs] to the point that we can change, adjust, globally what was happening. In the end we might have to do more work on adaptation. So we were being resolute about it I think as a local government. We realized. That was a motivating factor. I hate to say that failure in mitigation drove us to adaptation, but that was in fact a little bit of what was happening (#08, 2013).

149

Key informant #08 noted that partnering with global networks such as ICLEI helped Vancouver coordinate its response with the region and access financing for adaptation planning. S/he said:

“We felt like this wasn’t a local government thing, it was really a regional thing. … We needed to all go together, so we joined up with the ICLEI initiative. … by joining actively we committed a little money so that other local governments could be a part of it, because it made it easier for all of us to follow a process [together]” (#08, 2013).

The ICLEI initiative helped Vancouver to secure finding from the BC government Gas Tax and hire an Adaptation Planner (#08, 2013). Key informant #10 also discussed the benefits of working with ICLEI, which s/he notes “has 11,000 and some odd cities that are now working on adaptation”.

S/he said:

What’s different about going to an ICLEI meeting is everyone is talking to people about solutions in their communities that's being tried. ICLEI provides a kind of Petri dish of learning. Where everyone can learn from what others are doing or have done (#10, 2013).

Key informant #03 also discussed the benefits of joining ICLEI because it facilitates communication with other vanguard cities that are taking action on climate change adaptation. S/he said:

So there was a group of us that met a few times with ICLEI and that was helpful. … We quickly became good contacts, and lots of questions got asked informally back and forth, and we still talk to all those people that were involved in that, about adaptation as we are going forward. … Within that group, it creates a common language; you can say how did you rank on your vulnerability assessment, and everybody knows what you’re talking about. So that is helpful as well as understanding where different people are at, which stage, being able to do comparisons is helpful. I think that’s true not just of those following ICLEI, for instance,

150

Seattle is just starting their adaptation strategy and we are talking to them a fair bit. It’s great to see what cities like Portland and Seattle have done not using ICLEI but following similar steps (#03, 2013).

Key informant #06 talked about working with regional partners to foster collaboration and networks providing a place of learning and coordinates actions at a regional level. S/he said:

You know people are doing a lot of good stuff but unless you know what everybody else is doing, you don’t really know how to leverage that. Sustainability [Group] isn’t just about leveraging it internally it’s about all those external relationships too. So we’ll sit down every couple months with BC hydro and say what are you working on? Oh, we’re doing this [and] we’re aware of someone who wants to do something with the steam heat plant downtown maybe you can have a conversation with them, and then we go talk to forests and say you might want to get in on this too. So it’s really bringing together all these like-minded people…. (#06, 2013).

Another example of collaborative networks in Canada is the Federation of

Canadian Municipalities (FCM) Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) program.

PCP is the Canadian component of ICLEI's Cities for Climate Protection (CCP) network. This partnership between the FCM and ICLEI involves more than

1,100 communities worldwide and works to promote mitigation and adaptation at the local level (Ford, 2011, p. 108). In 1995, Vancouver joined the Federation of Canadian Municipalities’ 20% Club, which became the

Partners for Climate Protection Program (PCP) in 1998 (Cool Vancouver Task

Force, June 2003). Vancouver partnered with ICLEI to complete both its mitigation and adaptation 5 milestone frameworks resulting in the City of

Vancouver’s Community and Corporate Climate Change Action Plans, and CCAS

151

(Cool Vancouver Task Force, 2004, p. 5). The FCM administers two federal funds (Green Municipal Enabling Fund and Green Municipal Investment Fund) to support municipal actions to make the country more sustainable and reduce emissions. The City of Vancouver has accessed these funds on a number of occasions to support its initiatives, including studies on the SEFC project (Cool

Vancouver Task Force, 2003).

In sum, regional commitments to livability, sustainability, and resilience have helped foster a coordinated response to climate change through Metro Vancouver. Provincial downloading of flood-proofing responsibilities has added new jurisdictional management areas to the

Vancouver municipal government. The legal responsibility has motivated policy response in the City, this response is supported and coordinated by

Metro Vancouver in partnership with ICLEI.

152

Chapter 8. Policy Window Findings: Integrated Sustainability Planning Creates Opportunities for Policy Champions to Address Adaptation

Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework asserts movement in the policy process occurs when policy entrepreneurs exploit policy windows by coupling elements in three streams: problems, policies and politics (Kingdon, 1995).

Similarly, the window of opportunity is created when the three streams converge, and can be used by policy champions as a vehicle for promoting action on climate change within a city (Bulkeley, et al., 2009, p. 74). According to Anguelovski & Carmin (2011) “in some cities, adaptation planning is sparked by the perception or experience of a threat, such as those that stem from natural disasters or changing temperatures, and the goal of reducing potential risks and vulnerability” (p. 170). For example the 2006 Stanley Park windstorm which leveled 41 hectares of forest, causing extensive damage to the Seawall, and creating a crisis situation that required an organization-wide response (City of Vancouver, 2013).

Consistent with Kingdon’s model, Vancouver adopted policy when the problem, politics and policies streams converged, and when policy champions seized this window of opportunity to formulate adaptation policy. This convergence involved identifying local impacts (e.g., vulnerability and risk assessments) and their anticipated costs, the political change in administration

(e.g., the 2008 election of Vision Vancouver) and mainstreaming green policy

(e.g., the GCAP). These streams show when Vancouver internally identified

153 climate change impacts as a problem, adaptation as the solution, and prioritized it on the political agenda. This created a policy window for policy entrepreneurs to take action and develop policy. Key policy champions exploited the window of opportunity through strong political leadership, collaboration with ICLEI and by framing adaptation as a part of a broader commitment to sustainable development, specifically the GCAP. This process is illustrated in Figure 8-1 City of Vancouver policy window. This depicts the adaptation policy-making process in Vancouver: The City of Vancouver internally identifies climate change impacts as a problem, adaptation as the solution, a policy window is created through administration change, and key policy champions exploit the window of opportunity through strong leadership and by framing the adaptation as a sustainability issue. Policy entrepreneurs are influenced by ideas, represented by frames, problem definition and discourse. In Vancouver internal technical and sustainability frames converge with external influences and focusing events to create a policy window for Vancouver’s CCAS.

154

• Vancouver: 1990 Clouds of Change, 2005 Community Climate Action Plan, 2007 Flood Proofing standards, 2007 council motion to look Problem ID: at impacts of climate change. • Metro Vancouver: 2001-2003 CitiesPLUS: Climate Change sheltar group's climate change impact impacts assessment. (1990 - 2007) • 2004 BC Provincial downloading flood proofing • External Focusing events: 2006 wind storm, stern report, 4th IPCC report.

Policy formulation: • Engineers establish informal staff working group on climate change adaptation. generate and • 2007 Vancouver updates flood proofing policy. select solutions • 2008 report to City of Vancouver council on climate = adaptation change impacts by staff. (2007 - 2008)

Priorities • 2008 election of Vision Vancouver: greenest city. adaptation on • 2009 Sustainability Group relocated to City Managers the political office. • 2009 Vision Vancouver starts Greenest City 2020 agenda Action Plan (GCAP) planning process. (2008 - 2009)

Policy Window opens and is • Add Adaptation to GCAP Climate Leadership goal; Exploited by • 2010 City of Vancouver joined ICLEI for climate change Policy adaptation pilot program; Champions • Develop Climate Change Adaptation Strategy (CCAS). (2009-2010)

Figure 8-1 City of Vancouver policy window.

155

8.1 Finding 1: City Staff and Elected Official Seized a Window of Opportunity during the Development of GCAP

Ten key informants expressed the idea of exploiting opportunities via policy windows such as new policy goals or elections.24 Key informants expressed this idea through various concepts such as future-proofing public assets (e.g., through the cities ongoing infrastructure replacement program) and by being a leader in sustainability (#04, 2013; #07, 2013; #09, 2013). According to key informant #08 using your strategic strengths to exploit opportunities is important because:

I think that local governments need to be strategic and look at the unique levers that each local government has. It’s different in each piece, sometimes they’ll have a strong green initiative, [and] sometimes they’ll have more risk management as a priority. So you need to think about what your levers are, that’s important and then secondly, seizing the opportunity. I was at a global conference for climate leaders, actually it was a Nordic conference, that I was invited too along with some other Canadians who we were felt by the Nordic leaders to be part of their Nordic effort. So I went over there. The real top theme was ceasing the opportunity when it’s there. And not just always building up your case, but really being strategic about it when you see the opportunity (#08, 2013).

In Vancouver the window of opportunity created by the Vision’s GCAP was recognized by city staff who exploited this brief moment to add climate change adaptation as a policy goal. See Example: 2009 GCAP.

As previously demonstrated, policy windows can be opened by internal events - such as the 2008 election - or external events - such as Al Gore’s

24 (#03, 2013; #04, 2013; #05, 2013; #06, 2013; #07, 2013; #08, 2013; #09, 2013; #11, 2013; Price, 2013; Ryan, 2013)

156

Inconvenient Truth movie/tour - that shape public interest, and motivate political action at the municipal level. Focusing events influence issue salience, and both public and political perceptions or understanding of climate change and adaptation. These events can be triggers for getting adaptation on the political agenda, problem definition, and opening policy windows. All interviewees mentioned some key events that influenced their personal perceptions, the public agenda and/or the cities policy focus. The most commonly cited events were the 1990 Clouds of Change policy, the 1999 planning process for South East False Creek (SEFC) / Vancouver Olympic

Village, the establishment of the City’s Sustainability Group in 2005, the 2008 election of Vision Vancouver, and the 2009 GCAP planning process. See

Appendix E: Focusing Events.

8.1.1 Example: 2009 GCAP

Fourteen interviewees discussed the influence the GCAP had on the development of the CCAS, starting in 2009.25 Internally there were a series of events that helped Vancouver’s City Council decide adaptation was a policy problem the City needed to address. According to Key informant #03 key factors came together in 2009 to open a policy window to refocus the agenda on adaptation. S/he said:

25 (#02, 2013; #03, 2013; #04, 2013; #05, 2013; #06, 2013; #07, 2013; #08, 2013; #09, 2013; #10, 2013; #11, 2013; Bula, 2013; Holland, 2013; Ryan, 2013; Price, 2013)

157

When the GCAP was going forward, under the Climate Leadership goal, there was nothing under adaptation. So then one of the staff involved in that 2008 report, was like this is a gap we need to [fix]… so he got adaptation added at the end there. [Also] he saw the invitation for the ICLEI pilot and forwarded it to some staff and said we should pursue this. It didn’t have to go back to council for us to be part of that adaptation initiative that decision was made internally by staff (#03, 2013).

This relates back to Finding 1: Political Leadership Placed Adaptation on the

Political Agenda. Key informant #03 also identified the window of opportunity created by the GCAP. This opportunity was recognized by city staff who then took advantage of this brief moment to add climate change adaptation as a policy goal (#03, 2013). According to Key informant #08 it was obvious that the GCAP should include climate leadership, and it was really important that there was a section on adaptation (#08, 2013). Key informant #09 also noted the opportunity to revamp existing projects and repackage policies:

So it was really in response to the GCAP, when we said we still have a bunch more work to do on adaptation. [We] always will, but this would be a good incentive to restart that work. So we plugged the reference into the GCAP and got the mandate to do more work on adaptation (#09, 2013).

The policy window in Vancouver opened when the City started planning the

GCAP and was seized by staff who added adaptation to GCAP’s Climate

Leadership goal.

8.2 Finding 2: Adopting an Integrated Planning Approach Increased Opportunities for Policy Champions

This policy window reflects a change in how the City operates. The election of

Vision Vancouver fostered a restructuring of City Hall and represented the

158

City’s new commitment to innovation and collaboration. The new Mayor,

Gregor Robertson, replaced the City Manager, Judy Rogers, with newly hired

Sadhu Johnston from Chicago; they repositioned the Sustainability Group as a central office with its own staff that reports to the City Manager, and promoted select like-minded city staff, like engineer Peter Judd. This institutional restructuring along with new employees with fresh ideas empowered to make decisions illustrated the City’s drive to encourage innovation and collaboration. Multiple interviewees commented on the new way the

Vancouver is doing business. Key informant #11 shared their first impression after this restructuring, noting that political priorities shifted away from climate and then back again:

So I came in kind of with a sense that Vancouver was clearly driven in this area [addressing climate change]. … But when I came in I was a little surprised and actually hit the ground working on these issues, surprised we weren’t further ahead on adaptation issues. Like there had clearly been some direction, years ago and some initial analysis, but it hadn’t been followed through and updated. As science and modeling and new data had come in, greater clarity around the issues that we hadn’t continued on [with] it, which is why we really started to prioritize it (#11, 2013).

The prioritization of adaptation on the political agenda was only possible after the 2008 election and restructuring of City Hall. Key informant #06 commented on key changes in how Vancouver operates identifying strong horizontal and vertical collaboration. S/he said:

159

So a lot of the approaches we are doing now is we are working really closely with our social policy people and our emergency management and climate adaptation and healthy city people, and getting them all in a room and having those conversations about well, were going to spend money on the bridge to make sure it doesn’t fall down but also what are we going to do to support these [other adaptation] areas, and figuring out where those vulnerabilities are. And also bringing in way more partners, so those are all partners within the City, back when I was doing emergency planning in the 90s it was about well what is Vancouver going to do. There is a lot more, let’s talk to the region, let’s talk to Burnaby, let’s talk to Metro Vancouver, let’s bring in the Port [of Vancouver] and make sure they are a part of the conversation as well; let’s bring in UBC. (#06, 2013).

This change in how the City of Vancouver does business was also referenced by Price, who noted that 2008 was a seminal moment. S/he contributes this change to “a variety of reasons: change in Council, the move of the zeitgeist, not just the public but I really think the whole society [and] culture had shifted to again make it legitimate for government to pursue an approach that the private sector wouldn’t as a way of demonstrating that sustainability was a priority” (Price, 2013). This new way of doing business is associated with the adoption of sustainable development and city-wide planning, in other words it focused on building a complete sustainable and resilient city.

The City’s new way of doing business is an integrated planning approach that aims to minimize the cost of adaptation actions, and foster horizontal policy coordination. This innovative vision fostered the use of new policy tools that were prioritized in Vancouver, including:

160

 No regrets actions – actions that have no negative consequences even if climate projections are wrong.  Multi-purpose actions with multiple benefits – each investment has multiple outcomes therefore saving cost, for example: o The Mitigation/Adaptation nexus – many actions can address both at the same time i.e., SAM, and o Win-win actions – actions that support multiple or conflicting interests  Systems thinking and a holistic planning approach – issues are viewed in a wider social-ecological sustainability context and in relation to underlying causal factors, and solutions contribute to breaking down silos and increasing adaptive capacity  Risk aversion – Such as keeping people in their homes during and after a disaster or not building in flood prone areas.  Adopting a city-wide sustainable development lens and using that to add an adaptation lens to specific projects or policies  Collaborating through networks and partnerships with consulting firms, regional organizations, NGOs and businesses.

These new policy tools helped drive Vancouver to develop its CCAS by making actions more affordable and finding development pathways that achieve a variety of socio-economic and environmental goals, without sacrificing any one for the sake of the others.

Interviewees demonstrated that city staff are aware of policy windows.

According to key informant #03 the use of a climate change adaptation lens when planning for sustainable development is important because it highlights co-benefits. S/he stated:

161

I think consistently speaking to the fact that if we do these when there are windows of opportunity [then] we are only adding a small increment of cost. And we can add co-benefits, often times. And so always talking about the co-benefit … helped because you could always tie adaptation to GCAP. We are supposed to plant 150 thousand trees as a part of the GCAP. So then when you think about climate change, where does it make the most sense to plant them? Where can we plant them where there are vulnerable populations, or where it’s really hot, or where can we plant them because we are doing a storm water, green infrastructure pilot, or whatever. I think showing the windows of opportunity, that small increment in cost where there could be a potential long-term benefit, cost avoided in the future, and the window of opportunity. There is a project going ahead, just adding a lens of adaptation is a good idea. (#03, 2013).

Key informant #03 also identified cost avoidance via issue bundling as a driver of adaptation policy, stating “showing the windows of opportunity that small increments in cost [invested now] where there could be a potential long-term benefit, [leads to] costs avoided in the future. … [When] there is a project going ahead, just adding a lens of adaptation is a good idea” (#03, 2013).

Movement in the policy process occurred in Vancouver when policy entrepreneurs (staff and elected officials) identified and seized the policy windows (GCAP Climate Leadership goal) by coupling elements in the three streams: problems, policies and politics (Kingdon, 1995). In this chapter I identified the key motivating and driving factors that converged to enable the development of climate change adaptation in Vancouver. These were:

162

 Access to data about local climate change impacts and their cost to city assets. This brought the problem of climate change adaptation to the attention of policy makers (problem stream);  The political leadership of city staff and elected officials. This placed adaptation on the political agenda (politics stream); and  The vertical and horizontal coordination of green policy. This generated and framed the selection of adaptation solutions (policies stream). The change in administration led to a new integrated planning approach that increased opportunities for policy champions to promote adaptation on the political agenda and develop adaptation actions.

The following section, Chapter 9, discusses the significance of this research. It provides a synthesis of the literature presented in Chapter 3, and the findings presented in Chapters 5 through 8. It also outlines the methodological limitations of this study, explains the significance for policy makers, and suggests directions for future research. I conclude that the convergence of 1) knowledge of local impacts and their cost, 2) political leadership and 3) green policy coordination in the City of Vancouver created a policy window within the Greenest City Action Plan. This policy window was seized by staff to formulate the City`s CCAS.

163

Chapter 9. Discussion This research explored the City of Vancouver as a positive case study of urban climate governance; in particular, for successfully developing policy that confronts local climate change impacts. I have investigated the development of

Vancouver’s CCAS; I researched the motivating factors and drivers that led this local government to develop an adaptation plan. This research used Kingdon’s

(1995) Multiple Streams Framework to make sense of when and how the City of Vancouver developed its CCAS.

I used the Multiple Streams Framework to understand the role of ideas and timing in agenda setting and policy formulation (Kingdon, 1995). I investigated influential ideas represented through a number of forms including: issue framing (Robinson, et al., 2006; Nisbet, 2009; Bulkeley, et al.,

2009; Davidson, 2010; Funfgeld & McEvoy, 2010; McCarney, et al., 2011;

McEvoy, Fünfgeld & Bosomworth, 2013), problem definition and discourse

(Kingdon, 1995; Rowlands, 2007). I investigated movement in the policy process by identifying the efforts of policy champions to exploit policy windows that were created by coupling elements in Kingdon’s three different streams: problems, policies and politics (Kingdon, 1995).

My discussion relates my research findings (presented in the Results sections, Chapters 5, 6 &7) with the broader literature that was introduced in the Literature Review (Chapter 3). This discussion is divided into five sections: first, I provide a synthesis of the academic literature reviewed, followed by a

164 synthesis of my findings, and my interpretation using Kingdon’s Multiple

Streams approach. Next I discuss the strengths, weaknesses and limitations of this research; followed by my suggestions for further research. Then, I explore the implications and significance of this research for policy makers and politicians in municipalities. The last section provides an overall conclusion, and recommendations to increase climate change adaptation policy making in urban communities.

9.1 Synthesis of the Literature

The Literature Review (Chapter 3) provided the academic context for this

Master’s research on municipal climate change adaptation policy making. The literature reviewed describes the global climate governance regime, climate change adaptation governance at the local level, and factors that drive or motivate the development of climate change adaptation public policy in cities.

Key aspects of this literature are reviewed briefly below, and provide the context for further analysis within this chapter.

9.1.1 Climate Change Adaptation Governance

Climate change adaptation is comprised of coping mechanisms that aim to prevent and mitigate climate change impacts (Pelling, 2011). The goal is to build resilience into the complex social-ecological systems that make up urban municipalities (Walker, 2004; Lemmen, et al., 2008). This is achieved through anticipatoy, public, and planned adaptation actions (McCarthy, et al., 2001).

Adaptation policy is formed though a traditional policy-making process,

165 comprised of agenda setting, policy formulation, decision making, policy implementation and policy evaluation stages (Howlett, 2009). Policy formation is shaped by other policy criteria, development objectives, and interactions with existing management practices (Klein, Nicholls, & Mimura, 1999;

Nakicenovic & Swart, 2000; Corfee-Morlot, et al., 2009; Denton & Wilbanks,

2011 ; Burch, 2011).

Municipal urban climate change governance has evolved through two phases: Municipal Voluntarism and Strategic Urbanism (Bulkeley, 2013).This represents a transition from self-governing, provision and regulation modes of governance towards modes of enabling and partnership governance (Bulkeley,

2013; Bulkeley & Betsill, 2013). During the late 1980s and early 1990s, municipalities that sought to mitigate climate change beyond their own operations encountered two challenges: limited institutional capacity, and political economy. This led to a form of eco-state restructuring, where urban agendas began to pursue carbon control and urban ecological security

(Meadowcroft, 2005; While, Jonas, & Gibbs, 2010; Bulkeley & Betsill, 2013;

Mieg & Töpfer, 2013). A new form of climate governance emerged, termed low-carbon resilient urbanism, grounded in sustainable urban development and resource security. Low-carbon resilient urbanism seeks to address broader questions of urban adaptation that aligns resource security issues with the priorities of other actors (e.g., political commitment to sustainability).

166

The end goal is to offer an alternative to development as usual, and transition to a low-carbon, resilient economy (Bulkeley & Betsill, 2013).

9.1.2 Factors that Drive Urban Adaptation Policy Development

Climate change adaptation is a new policy domain with few recognized drivers of action. However, some studies have explored vanguard cities that have engaged in climate change adaptation policy making (Craft, Howlett, Crawford,

& McNutt, 2013; Penny & Wiedtz, May 2007). For example, cities may seek co- benefits such as financial savings, or reputational gains to achieve other environmental goals (Betsill, 2001). Cities may also seek to fill gaps left by more senior levels of government (Bulkeley & Betsill, 2003). My research differs from other research because it recognizes the agency of specific actors within the municipality, in particular, politicians and staff. The motivations of these actors, which can be material or ideational, are fundamental to cities’ policy outcomes (Schwartz, 2012). This is consistent with much of the broader politics of public policy literature (Niskanen 1971; Moe 1984; Scharpf 1997; as cited by (Schwartz, 2012)).

Overall research on climate change adaptation governance is primarily being done by the following scholars: Harriet Bulkeley on the urban politics of climate change adaptation and sustainability; Michele Betsill on global environmental issues and the governance of climate change; and Isabelle

Anguelovski on urban climate change adaptation planning. These authors outline influential factors that may motivate or drive adaptation policy making.

167

Through the literature review, I identified five general factors of influence that motivate municipal climate change adaptation policy making. These are: 1) capacity, including access to knowledge, human and financial resources; 2) responsibility for jurisdictional coordination and good governance; 3) collaboration with municipal networks and stakeholders; 4) leadership on the global stage and from individual policy champions; and 5) policy windows opened via issue framing, development path and focusing events.

9.2 Synthesis of Findings

9.2.1 How Vancouver Developed their CCAS

The review of key policy documents answered my first research question: how was Vancouver able to develop its CCAS. The review explored the various stages in the policy-making process that were outlined in municipal and policy documents.

Throughout the 1990s Vancouver adopted policies that prioritized sustainable development, reducing carbon emissions, and responding to climate change (City of Vancouver, 2012). Climate Change Adaptation is explicitly mentioned in five policies: 1990 Clouds of Change, 2005 Community

Climate Action Plan, 2007 Flood Proofing Strategy, the 2010 GCAP, and the

2011 CCAS. These policies represent Vancouver’s ongoing commitment to sustainability and livability by effectively preparing for and responding to climate change. The CCAS aims “[t]o ensure that Vancouver remains a liveable

168 and resilient city, maintaining its values, character and charm in the face of climate change“ (City of Vancouver, 2012).

The policy focus on climate change adaptation began gaining momentum in 2007. At this time Vancouver’s City Council requested city staff to examine the potential impacts of climate change on the City's infrastructure and suggest measures that should be taken to minimize them. An informal staff working group on adaptation was brought together to develop an adaptation planning framework that followed these key steps:

1. Gather local climate change projections (this was done in collaboration with Environment Canada, the BC Government, Metro Vancouver, Fraser Basin Council, and the Pacific Climate Impact Consortium (PCIC)). 2. Summarize early issues and opportunities, emphasis on public works (e.g., sewers, parks, water utility and roadways). 3. Interview city staff leaders in order to broaden the scope of adaptation planning to include: land-use planning, housing and commercial buildings, energy supply, urban agriculture, human health, recreation, business and tourism, transportation, communications, police, fire and other emergency services. 4. Complete a citywide vulnerability assessment to identify sensitive areas. 5. Complete selected risk assessments to identify possible impacts in the areas of highest sensitivity. 6. Complete selected cost/benefit studies to prioritize actions (Beck & Crowe, 2008).

In 2008 the Climate Adaptation Working Group developed the Climate Change

Adaptation report that explains how the first three steps in the adaptation planning framework were accomplished. However, no actions were taken on the remaining three steps for another two years. This was primarily due to the

169 global economic recession staring in 2007, paired with an NPA26 municipal government that viewed Vancouver’s economy as dependent on new urban development projects, along with other constraining factors. Freezing progress on the adaptation planning framework relegated climate change to the bottom of the NPA government’s agenda.

In 2008, the election of a new City Council led by Vision Vancouver27 brought adaptation planning back on to the policy agenda under the GCAP,

Climate Leadership goal. In 2010 the City joined the ICLEI’s Climate Change

Adaptation Initiative pilot. Where participating governments work through

ICLEI’s five-milestone methodology with the goal of developing and implementing a CCAS over a two year period (City of Vancouver Sustainability

Group, 2012, pp. 7-8). In 2011 Vancouver became the first Canadian municipality to adopt a comprehensive CCAS.

The CCAS ensures that Vancouver remains a liveable and resilient city in the face of climate change. It plans to do this through nine primary actions. The primary actions build on existing projects including: Integrated Stormwater

Management Plan, Urban Forest Management Plan, Building By-law Update

2017, Sewer Separation Strategy, the Extreme Hot Weather Committee and the

GCAP (City of Vancouver Sustainability Group, 2012, pp. 37-38). The CCAS brings the City closer to reaching its GCAP goals, specifically Climate

26 Non-Partisan Association (NPA) is a center-right civic organization in Vancouver 27 Vision Vancouver (VV) is a center-left civic organization in Vancouver

170

Leadership, and provides benefits to the community regardless of the extent of climate change impacts (City of Vancouver, 2012).

9.2.2 Driving/ Motivating Factors

Analysis of my interviews answered my second research question, identifying key factors that motivated or drove climate change adaptation policy making in the City of Vancouver. I did this by identifying where key events come together to create complex conditions and by attaching key actors to concepts to create policy. I used Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework to organize and aid my interpretation of interviews. Through this process I explored how the problem of climate change impacts became a political problem demanding action, how the City generated and selected policy solutions, and how adaptation was placed on the political agenda to elucidate movement in the policy process. I identified the key motivating and driving factors of climate change adaptation policy making in Vancouver. These were:

 Access to data about local climate change impacts and their cost to city assets. This brought the problem of climate change adaptation to the attention of policy makers (problem stream);  The political leadership of city staff and elected officials. This placed adaptation on the political agenda (politics stream); and  The vertical and horizontal coordination of green policy. This framed the selection of adaptation solutions (policies stream). These motivations were framed by key actors and their ideas, including city staff that viewed adaptation as a technical process of risk management, and elected officials who framed adaptation as part of sustainable development.

171

Additionally, key focusing events concentrated public and political attention on adaptation, and also motivated local climate change adaptation policy making.

I identified where key events came together to create complex conditions, and attached key actors to ideas to develop an understanding of the key factors that drove policy development. First, a sequence of focusing events created complex conditions that allowed adaptation to enter the public and political spheres of discourse (e.g., the green public sphere). These events triggered policy development in Vancouver through: issue framing, problem definition, and discourse, because they connected adaptation to other social, environmental and economic issues. These focusing events are listed in

Appendix F: Key Events Create Complex Conditions as Identified by

Interviewees. Second, I attached key actors to concepts and ideas to understand movement in the policy process. (I correlate key actors with ideas to identify where the possibility for policy response came from). Here, both the problem definition and agenda setting stages are influenced by two other factors: decision makers’ values, and issue framing by other actors.

Interviewees identified these actors, ideas and contingent policy responses, and this information is summarized in Appendix G: Key Actors and Ideas.

Consistent with Kingdon’s model, Vancouver seems to have adopted policy when the problem, politics and policies streams converged. This convergence involved identifying local impacts (vulnerability and risk

172 assessments), the political change in administration (the election of Vision

Vancouver), and planning for the Greenest City Action Plan (GCAP). The GCAP planning process created a window of opportunity for city staff to add adaptation to the City’s Climate Leadership policy goal. City staff recognized this window of opportunity and took steps to promote adaptation on the political agenda. Overall, there was a strong political dedication to quality of life within Vancouver that led to the development of the CCAS. This is expressed through the City’s policy focus on livability, sustainability and resilience. Indeed, Vancouver’s CCAS is a holistic, well integrated policy because it was created through a sustainability lens. Three factors demonstrate that this sustainability lens was important for climate change adaptation policy making in Vancouver. These three factors were: the creation of a centralized sustainability office; Vancouver’s commitment to becoming the greenest city in the world (through the GCAP), and the development of the

CCAS (via the sustainability indicators used to select climate change adaptation actions). I conclude that the convergence of 1) knowledge of local impacts and their cost, 2) political leadership and 3) green policy coordination converged in the City of Vancouver creating a policy window via GCAP. This policy window was seized by staff to formulate the City`s CCAS.

This research reinforces findings from Johnston, Nicholas, & Parzen

(2013) who concluded vanguard cities across North America have taken up the sustainability challenge and are leading a quiet revolution to transform the

173 way cities conduct business and engage with communities (p. 217). Vancouver is quickly becoming a green and resilient city due to the dedication of policy champions who have pioneered progressive policies over the past decade. The

City has reframed their response to climate change via a sustainability approach that integrates economic growth, environmental stewardship, and social welfare. It is because of Vancouver’s dedication to sustainability and sustainable development that climate change adaptation was able to enter the political agenda, gain political acceptance, and be addressed through policy.

9.2.3 Multiple Streams Interpretation of Findings

These findings relate to other literature concerning climate change adaptation governance and policy making. Using Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework, this section examines how my research relates to previous findings. From the information I gathered, from both documents and interviewees it was clear to me that a movement in the policy process occurred in response to accurate knowledge, political leadership, and mainstreaming green policy. I analyze how these key findings are similar or different to those from previous literature.

9.2.3.1 Problem Stream

Knowledge of local impacts and their cost turned the apolitical problem of climate change impacts into one demanding government action. Access to data about local climate change impacts and their cost to city assets brought the problem of climate change adaptation to the attention of policy makers. By

174 accessing data about local climate change impacts and their associated costs, policymakers were made aware of the cost of taking action to mitigate climate change impacts and the cost of inaction. With this knowledge, staff and council decided to confront the issue of adaptation. Interviewees identified key drivers, including: access to knowledge and data of local impacts, stakeholder engagement and an economically constrained fiscal environment. Knowledge and data refers to access to information on local climate change impact projections, via vulnerability and risk assessments, collaboration with experts

(e.g., PCIC; to access and implement academic theories), the scientific community (to access climate data), along with residents, businesses, and First

Nations (to share local knowledge about Vancouver’s climatic events).

Stakeholder engagement identified grassroots expectations, generated ideas around sustainable practices, concerns about future climate impacts, and contributed to building social capital and community resilience through conversations that create opportunity for change. Economic influences include responding to the 2008 economic recession through increased fiscal responsibility, diversifying the local economy and attracting green business by branding the City green. These helped to diversify the local economy in order to build economic resilience. A fiscally constrained policy environment led to the development of policy that focuses on no-regrets actions and those with co- benefits because they use fewer resources and provide cost-savings. This correlates with various research reviewed in the literature on capacity, collaboration and learning including: Bulkeley, Schroeder, et al. (2009);

175

Meadowcroft (2009); Kazmierczak & Carter (2010); Anguelovski & Carmin

(2011); Romero-Lankao et al. (2012); IPCC (2012); Jackson, Barry & Marzok

(2013); Bulkeley and Tuts (2013); and IPCC (2014). Specifically this research reinforces findings from Corfee-Morlot, et al. (2009), who show “Local governments and regions may respond to climate change because of concerns about the long-term effects of inaction or the potential to create “green” jobs”

(Corfee-Morlot, et al., 2009, p. 9). In sum, knowledge of local impacts, understanding the cost of action vs. inaction, framing adaptation as sustainable, attracting green business and key focusing events brought the problem of climate change impacts to the attention of policy makers, and transformed the apolitical condition of climate change into a political problem demanding a local policy response.

9.2.3.2 Politics Stream

The political leadership of city staff and elected officials placed adaptation on the political agenda. Interviewees identified key drivers including: the actions of policy champions who put pressure on government to act. These leaders pass the test of political sincerity28 by helping to establish policy, gain support from council, allocate resources, engage staff and the community, and/or by advocating for prioritization by authorities. Policy champion’s value sustainability, consider future generations’ quality of life and hold a sense of

28 Price noted that you can measure political sincerity towards an issue by whether or not elected officials allocate resources to confront the issue.

176 responsibility or stewardship. Individual policy champion’s motivations may be shaped by electoral concerns (i.e., issue salience, residents’ expectation that the City take action and pressure from interest groups - such as ENGO’s that exert pressure on politicians to take unified action.) In addition, partisan politics led to the formation of a new centrist civic association: Vision

Vancouver, who prioritized sustainability. Finally organizational leadership demonstrated by the City and specifically via the leadership of Vision

Vancouver who made sustainability part of their political platform. This type of organizational leadership is termed global environmental / sustainability leadership; and it drove Vancouver to strive to become the greenest city in the world. The City has taken on a global sustainability leadership role because it is aware others municipalities look to it as an example, and it seeks to confront the Federal Government’s maladaptation policies. This correlates with various research reviewed in the literature on global leadership including: Bulkeley,

Schroeder, et al. (2009); Kazmierczak & Carter,(2010); Anguelovski & Carmin

(2011); Jackson, Barry & Marzok (2013); Bulkeley and Tuts (2013); Romero-

Lankao et al. (2012); and IPCC (2012). Especially with Jackson, Barry &

Marzok (2013), who identify that some communities are motivated by their

“…history of proactive community leadership and are building on that footing when it comes to adaptation planning” (p. 19). In sum, climate change adaptation policy is motivated by the individual leadership of policy champions and the organizational leadership of Vision Vancouver that promoted the creation of adaptation policy by maintaining political attention

177 on the issue of climate change impacts. This led to a new way of doing business that integrated adaptation and sustainable development. This frame pushed adaptation on to the political agenda and helped drive the development of the

CCAS.

9.2.3.3 Policy Stream

The vertical and horizontal coordination of green policy framed the selection of adaptation solutions by integrating adaptation with wider regional sustainable development goals. Policy coordination, including the vertical and horizontal coordination of green policy framed the selection of adaptation solutions. Interviewees identified key drivers including: vertical drivers such as multi-level governance coordination, the devolution of responsibility, and a lack of national action. They identified clearly defined and broad municipal jurisdictional control as a driver because it fosters stewardship over both the built and natural environment. Horizontal drivers include: policy integration, holistic planning, mainstreaming sustainability / green policy, a centralized environmental office or Sustainability Group with authority, collaboration between departments’ staff, policy recycling i.e., the garbage can model, policy co-benefits and no regrets actions. Vancouver’s development path includes a history of eco-density development, the establishment of the BC Agricultural

Land reserve, and well ingrained local sustainable development goals of livability, sustainability, and resilience. This also includes good decisions made along the way (via past policies and staff) all leading in the same direction. A

178 part of this is happy chance that past political leadership also supported sustainable development practices. This correlates with various research reviewed in the literature on responsibility and development path including:

Bulkeley, Schroeder, et al. (2009); Meadowcroft (2009); Kazmierczak & Carter

(2010); Meadowcroft (2009); Bulkeley and Tuts (2013); Romero-Lankao et al.

(2012); IPCC (2012); McEvoy, Fünfgeld, & Bosomworth (2013); and the IPCC

(2014). Especially with Ingram and Hamilton (2014), who identify policy mainstreaming as a key driver because it “assumes that other projects can be enhanced – e.g. poverty reduction, urban sustainability – and their benefits increased by integrating climate planning with existing city plans and policy instruments (plans, strategies, programs, guidelines).” Likewise, Zeppel (2013) specifically identifies partnerships with urban climate networks as a driver of local adaptation policy making (p. 218). In sum, vertical and horizontal coordination of green/sustainable policy both generated potential solutions and framed the selection of specific adaptation solutions through sustainability criteria. This was also supported and facilitated by partnering with ICLEI.

9.2.3.4 Policy Window

According to Kingdon, public policy may be adopted when these three streams converge, creating a window of opportunity (e.g., Policy window). Public policy was adopted in Vancouver when the problem, politics and policies streams converged around both the identification of the problem of local impacts (via

179 vulnerability and risk assessments), and the political change in administration

(i.e., the 2008 election of Vision Vancouver). These are framed by key actors and their ideas, including city staff that view adaptation as a technical process of risk management, and elected officials who frame adaptation as part of sustainable development. Additionally, key focusing events concentrated public and political attention on adaptation. Interviewees identified key drivers including issue framing and focusing events.

First, politicians frame climate change adaptation as a sustainability issue by being strategic and using levers (i.e., places of influence) to exploit opportunities for multiple benefits. Employing a sustainability lens (e.g.,

Vancouver’s big green agenda) or by employing an adaptation lens (e.g., investing small increments now to achieve long term benefits and cost savings) encourages horizontal coordination, and identifies windows of opportunity. These all broaden the green public sphere, enabling more ideas to enter the arena of public discourse. Second, engineering staff frame climate change adaptation as a technical issue. They do this by focusing on multi - hazard risk management that values responsible stewardship practices, identifying vulnerable communities, assessing and accounting for risk, fostering horizontal coordination, and focusing on business continuity via partnerships. By preparing for disasters, they understand that conditions will get really bad before the mobilization of resources can build resilience; they recognize the failure of mitigation efforts; and it is this recognition of risk that motivated response planning. Finally, the Zeitgeist around sustainability refers

180 to the change in the public and private discourse that now expects the public sector to lead if we want the private sector to follow. This is consistent with various research reviewed in the literature on policy windows and issue framing including: Torgerson (2000); Bulkeley, et al. (2009); Meadowcroft

(2009); Jackson, Barry & Marzok (2013); Bulkeley and Tuts (2013); McEvoy,

Fünfgeld, & Bosomworth (2013); Romero-Lankao et al. (2012); and the IPCC

(2012). It correlates well with the literature on climate governance that asserts sustainable development is fostered by partnerships who articulate visions for sustainable urban strategies and a political constituency for changing development paths (Robinson, et al., 2006). Vancouver’s use of a sustainability lens in development planning represents a paradigm shift away from perceiving growth and sustainability as conflicting policy goals towards defining them as mutually reinforcing (Corfee-Morlot, et al., 2009, p. 221).

Movement in the policy process occurred in Vancouver when policy champions identified and seized the policy window that opened during the planning process of the GCAP. This was precipitated by the convergence of three key policy processes. As mentioned above, these include:

181

The change in administration led to a new integrated planning approach that increased opportunities for policy champions to promote adaptation on the political agenda and develop adaptation actions.

Overall, Vancouver has risen to the challenge of effective climate governance by striking a balance between issues of resource security and infrastructure resilience with those of social and ecological equity to create alternative visions of sustainable development and resilient urban communities. Vancouver is actively seeking to create an appropriate development path that leads it to be economically, socially and environmentally resilient to future climatic changes. This unique challenge for policy makers was met in Vancouver by embedding urban climate governance in broad sustainable development framework. Climate change has created an opportunity for Vancouver to reposition itself as strategic policy-maker and enables it to pursue adaptation within a wider context of strategic urban sustainability.

9.3 Methodological Limitations

As noted previously in Chapter 2, there are certain limitations within this research. These include sampling bias, in terms of how the participants were selected and their availability, the limited generalizability of this research, and the subjective nature of the coding process.

First, participants in this research were intentionally selected through my policy document literature review along with the snowball technique.

182

Participants represent a subgroup of relevant policy actors and others who possess an intimate knowledge, and historicized understanding of policy in the

City of Vancouver. It is possible other policy actors could have differing explanations or perceptions on how Vancouver was able to develop its CCAS, and what key factors motivated or drove climate change adaptation policy making in the City. However, I did actively seek and experience saturation in my data, demonstrated by the repetition of key themes in interviewees’ responses; this helped me to validate my findings and conclude my interviews.

Therefore, my research is a positive case study of a very particular group of policy actors and key informants, and does not represent the full diversity of policy makers within the City of Vancouver.

I transcribed and coded all interviews myself. I was the only researcher to code the themes from interview transcripts, meaning that the themes identified were likely to reflect my own personal bias. Themes were organized into a framework I developed for analyzing my results. This framework attempted to capture the key driving factors behind policy making based on

Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework (the limitations of Kingdon’s

Framework are addressed below). However, this framework may also be a reflection of my own prejudices. My prepossession formed in advance of meeting interviewees based on biographical information reviewed during the grey and policy literature review.

183

The qualitative methods used in this research are limited in scope.

However, this represents a methodological strength because the findings are specific to a particular case study, and provide a depth of understanding about their process of policy-making. It is also a novel study examining climate change adaptation policy making in the City of Vancouver. This positive case study shows how adaptation policy was formed in Vancouver, and also identifies key driving forces and motivating factors of influence (e.g., economic constraint, political leadership, and green policy coordination).

9.3.1 Limitations of Kingdon’s Mulitple Streams Framework

The Multiple Streams Framework provides a good approach for analyzing the development of Vancouver’s CCAS. There are, however, some limitations to

Kingdon’s model. For example Mucciaroni (1992) criticizes the

“independence” of the Multiple Streams by asserting their interdependency

(Mucciaroni, 1992, p. 460). In essence, the factors identified in this research

(e.g., economic constraint, political leadership, and green policy coordination) relate to each other, rather than being independent factors.

Another limitation of the Multiple Streams Framework was that interviewees highlighted important factors that could not be predicted by

Kingdon’s theory. For example, multi-level governance that extends beyond the nation state – and commonly associated with climate governance - is underrepresented in Kingdon’s model. Nevertheless, interviewees raised the notion of global leadership and regional policy coordination, in response to the

184 absence of federal action. This driver is also supported by the literature as noted by Bulkeley, et al. (2009). While some factors were not identified through Kingdon’s model (e.g., upcycling/reintroducing older policies), other research on policy making (Klein, Nicholls, & Mimura, 1999) and issue framing

(Robinson, et al., 2006) provided insights that were relevant to my findings.

Similarly, Kingdon’s theory lacks a distinctive consideration of learning processes, and underestimates the importance of networks (Brunner, 2008, p.

506). According to Bulkeley, et al., (2009) one of the key drivers of urban climate change adaptation includes joining municipal networks (e.g., ICLEI) and building partnerships (p. 80). Multiple interviewees cited the influence of cross municipal networks such as ICLEI and partnerships with PCIC.

Furthermore, municipal and international networks are found to be successful in enrolling and keeping members in so far as they can offer expertise, funding opportunities, and the ability to disseminate and learn from good or best practices (Bulkeley, 2010, p. 237). In spite of its limitations, the Multiple

Streams approach was helpful because it enabled me to identify the influential role of actors, ideas, events and timing, and form an overall framework that explained movement in the policy-making process.

9.4 Implications and Significance

The preceding chapters offer contributions to both the theory and practice of climate change adaptation policy making at the local level. This exploratory study of the City of Vancouver climate change adaptation policy-making

185 process has uncovered some key elements that have led to the adoption of adaptation policy – most importantly the knowledge of local impacts and their cost, the leadership of politicians and staff, and the mainstreaming of green or sustainable development. This section draws out the implications and significance of this research with regard to these two realms, and the practical and pragmatic implication of my research findings for elected officials and municipal staff. This section aims to aid local governments in developing policy to adapt to climate change and create sustainable communities both in Canada and other countries.

This case study adds theoretical insights and empirical evidence to current debates about the drivers of city politics. There was a common view amongst interviewees about Vancouver’s approach to policy making going beyond mainstream development discourse describing this as a "new way of doing business" or a "new way of thinking". Interviewees expressed this in different ways but tended to focus on a need to tip the balance away from the influence of vested economic and development interests and place greater emphasis on mainstreaming environmental sustainability as the foundation for decision-making. They believed this would also result in a window of opportunity to develop policy on climate change adaptation. Without the personal commitments to climate change action from Vision Vancouver and high ranking bureaucrats, coupled with the knowledge of local impacts and the

186 adoption of overarching sustainable development plans, Vancouver would not have the CCAS that is currently in place.

The delicate balance of collaboration and leadership that is required to facilitate policy development indicates that cities must develop climate change adaptation strategies with broader sustainable development goals in mind.

This research is useful because it identifies key elements that have led to the adoption of adaptation policy in Vancouver. These are:

 Emphasis on a "new way of doing business" that puts environmental sustainability at the foundation of decision-making.  Three key drivers: o Understanding the future cost of local climate change impacts o Leadership (individual staff and elected officials and global organizational) o Green / Sustainable policy mainstreaming  Key policy tools: o Data of local impacts and their cost - vulnerability and risk assessment in collaboration with scientists o All adaptation actions should be no-regret actions that have multiple / co-benefits which address sustainability, mitigation and adaptation (SAM) o Overarching sustainable development plans that guide adaptation actions to avoid maladaptation and can open policy windows to concurrently address adaptation and sustainable development. Furthermore, this work gives us a deeper understanding of the specific sources of path dependency in municipal institutions, and thus a better appreciation of the forces that must be overcome in order to develop adaptation strategies. At a more pragmatic level, linking adaptation and sustainable development helps to expose synergies between the two strategies, and makes important trade-

187 offs more evident (Wilbanks, 2003; Wilbanks & Kates, 2010). This is a critical step in the planning of communities that are both resilient and following low- carbon development paths, i.e., sustainable communities. The findings of this research help to illuminate the necessary ingredients for effective planning for action on climate change adaptation in municipalities. First, elected officials should take away a few key points from this study. These include:

 Mainstream Green: Adopt overarching sustainable development plans that act as an umbrella for addressing local issues including adapting to climate change. I.e., putting environmental sustainability at the forefront of the decision making process. o Climate change adaptation can be highly technical, thus leave the technical details to the experts and focus on horizontal and vertical policy coordination. (e.g., a centralized sustainability office can facilitate this).  Your leadership matters because you can influence people, so spearhead a cause, build momentum (get the public exited), and get internal (staff) buy in.  Remember path dependence matters so even if your policy isn’t implemented today it may be in the future via the garbage can model and upcycling. Sustainable decisions today open paths for more sustainable actions in the future. Second, city staff should take away a few key points from this study. These include:

 Collaborate with other research organizations, levels of government (i.e., Metro Vancouver) and civic departments to understand local impacts, coordinate policy responses and harness co-benefits.  Your leadership matters, be persistent in pushing your agenda forward and maintaining the agenda across political administrations.  Build an economic argument – understand the cost of inaction vs action.

188

 Progressive engineering: e.g., principle of “fail-safe” or concept of “flexible adaptation”, Steward public goods i.e., City infrastructure (long term planning, understand the lifecycle of infrastructure) These findings start to describe, amongst this group of practitioners at least, a more sustainable approach to decision-making. This can be summarized as an approach that puts environmental sustainability at the forefront or foundation of decision-making with a view to achieving environmental, social and economic outcomes that people can relate to. It is an approach that engages diverse groups of people in collaborative policy processes. The approach is fostered by a stronger focus on a green economy, reconnecting people with the natural world and considering both past and future generations in decision- making.

9.5 Future Directions and Unanswered Questions

This study contributes to a larger body of research on the public governance of climate change going beyond national adaptation strategies, urban climate change adaptation governance literature, and specifically climate change adaptation policy making in Canadian municipalities. Future work should move towards a more complete explanation of municipal climate change adaptation policy making in Canada that takes into account the driving forces and motivating factors identified in this study. More evidence is needed to create a fuller picture of climate change adaptation governance in cities, and specifically in Canadian municipalities. This study could be repeated in other

189 municipalities as part of a comparative analysis between cities, which may produce more generalizable recommendations across Canada.

In Vancouver, the development of adaptation policy can be understood as the result of a fiscally constrained development economy, strong political leadership, and an overall sustainability policy framework. Future research could also look at interactions between sustainable development and climate change adaptation at the municipal level, specifically around how the issue is framed by various policy actors, politicians and the public. Specific research questions could ask

 How does adopting an overall sustainable development framework facilitate cities responding to climate change?  Cities are beginning to incorporate green initiatives into policy and planning in order to adapt to changing economic and environmental realities that are increasingly rooted in environmental limits to growth. How does this happen?  What kinds of policy processes emerge in greener cities with adaptation plans?

9.6 Conclusion

Global climate change impacts are already affecting communities around the world. To mitigate this, anticipatory public coping efforts are currently underway. Governments prepare for these impacts through the deliberate creation of public policies on climate change adaptation. Since the majority of the world’s population now reside in cities, it is critical to engage municipal

190 governments in developing public policies and plans to adapt to climate change.

This research has investigated urban climate governance through a case study on climate change adaptation policy making in the City of

Vancouver. I investigated the context in which the City of Vancouver, BC was motivated to develop its climate change adaptation strategy. In particular, I explored the motivating factors and drivers that led this local government to develop an adaptation plan. This thesis was guided by two primary research questions that I answered through my review of select academic, grey and policy literature, in conjunction with interviews with key informants.

This thesis introduced and summarized key themes from the climate governance literature, specifically around adaptation policy making at the municipal level, and provided a brief history of urban climate change governance. It looked specifically at factors that drive or motivate climate change adaptation policy making in cities. I developed a framework based on

Kingdon’s model and used it to analyze and present my findings. Results were comprised of the key factors that drove the development of urban climate change adaptation policy in the City of Vancouver; these included: economic, leadership, and green policy coordination. Finally, I described how these three driving factors converged to open a policy window for adaptation actions, and lessons learned from interviewees’ experience with developing adaptation policy.

191

Through this process I determined that knowledge about the costs of local climate impacts, political leadership, and mainstreaming green policy were key factors that instigated climate change adaptation policy making in the City of Vancouver. Movement in the policy process occurred in Vancouver when policy entrepreneurs -staff who framed adaptation as technical and elected officials who framed adaptation as sustainable- identified and seized policy windows. They did this by transforming the apolitical condition of climate change into a political problem demanding adaptation actions, placing that problem on the political agenda, and generating local adaptation solutions. This transpired when, first, city staff from engineering along with key external events brought the problem of local climate change impacts to the attention of policy makers. This transformed the apolitical condition of global climate change into a political problem demanding action from municipal authorities. Second, political leadership from policy champions -including engineering staff who maintained the agenda across political administrations and the Vision Vancouver Mayor and Council who promoted climate action under the GCAP- propelled responding to local climate change impacts on to the City’s political agenda. Finally, adaptation measures that promote livability, sustainability and resiliency were selected as policy solutions by upcycling older policies (e.g., the Urban Forest Management plan) and integrating them with the GCAP.

192

Lastly, I discussed the significance of this research, outlined the strengths and weaknesses of this study and identified where further research should focus. I conclude that internal actor’s technical and sustainability frames along with key external focusing events instigated a quest for knowledge, economic responsibility, political leadership and green policy coordination, which converged to create a policy window within

Vancouver’s Greenest City Action Plan to develop their climate change adaptation strategy. These results are consistent with other studies which have shown that, with regard to all three goals traditionally associated with the climate change question (minimizing climate change impacts, increasing adaptive capacity, and reducing emissions), the successful achievement of sustainable development futures encourages the successful achievement of climate policy goals.

193

Chapter 10. Appendices 10.1 Appendix A: Interview Question Guide

Data were gathered through semi-structured, open-ended interviews. Interviews were used to collect information about climate change adaptation policy and policy making in Vancouver, BC and the factors that influence policy development. As well as politicians’ and bureaucrats’ knowledge of, and attitudes towards, municipal climate change adaptation.

Semi-structured, open-ended interviewing was intentionally designed to allow me the flexibility to adapt to the flow of each interview. Thus, specific questions varied from interviewee to interviewee, but typical questions are listed below. These questions followed an introduction of the research project and research goals by the interviewer, review of the consent form and verbal confirmation of consent, verbal reconfirmation of the interviewee’s willingness to be audio recorded, and an opportunity for interviewee questions before the interview began. Interview questions were divided in to five sections to ensure information was gathered about the interviewee; how and when was Vancouver able to prioritize climate change adaptation in their policy; what was the political context that enabled Vancouver’s municipal government to develop and adopt climate change adaptation policies; are their lessons that can be derived from Vancouver’s story; use snow ball technique to find other key informants.

Questions for semi-structured interviews About interviewee 1. Bio interviewee: employment history, involvement in City of Vancouver climate related policy development, personal stance on climate change

194

2. Can you tell me about your work for the City of Vancouver in relation to climate change adaptation? 3. Can you tell me about your personal views on climate change? 4. In your experience what role should a municipal government (like Vancouver’s) play in regards to climate change adaptation? How and when was Vancouver able to prioritize climate change adaptation in their policy? The 1990 clouds of change report are often cited as Vancouver’s first climate change related policy, followed by the corporate and community Climate change action plans in 2003/5, and most recently Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Official Development Plan (2010), adaptation appears in more recent policies: The 2011 GCAP and The 2012 Climate Change Adaptation Strategy. 1. Can you tell me about any other policies that prioritize climate change adaptation in the COV (City of Vancouver)? 2. Can you tell me about your involvement, if any, in the development of these policies? 3. In your opinion, why is climate change adaptation addressed these policies? 4. Can you tell me about how these climate related policies were prioritized on the political agenda? What was the political context that enabled Vancouver’s municipal government to develop and adopt climate change adaptation policies? 1. Can you tell me about some of the seminal events that made climate change adaptation a policy priority in Vancouver? 2. Can you tell me about some of the key actors involved in making climate change adaptation a policy priority in Vancouver? Who put it on the political agenda? 3. Did you perceive any significant events or tipping points that were leveraged in the development of the 2012 Climate Change Adaptation Policy? 4. Can you tell me why you think Vancouver got involved in climate change adaptation? Are their lessons that can be derived from Vancouver’s story? 1. Can you tell me about some lessons, if any, you’ve learned from being involved in climate change adaptation policy for the COV? 2. In your opinion what lessons can be drawn from Vancouver’s experience with climate change adaptation that other cities or policy makers might employ? Snow Ball 1. Can you recommend any other individuals for this study? 2. Would you be willing to put me in touch with them, either by forwarding my interview request letter to them, or by sending your own email of introduction?

195

Letter of Informed Consent

Title of Research: Towards a sustainable city: a story of climate change governance in Vancouver Researcher: Sara Fralin, MA Candidate, Trent University Sustainability Studies Contact Information: Tel: 604-2020-6550 and Email: [email protected] Supervisor: Stephen Hill, associate professor of environmental & resource studies at Trent University

This form is provided to you, the interviewee, to inform you of why you are being interviewed and the purpose to which the interview will be utilized. It thus ensures and serves as evidence that your consent to be interviewed is informed.

You have been selected to be interviewed as part of a study that will take place in Vancouver BC. This Research study is titled: Towards a sustainable city: a story of climate change governance in Vancouver. I am the researcher, Sara Fralin, a graduate student at Trent University in Sustainability Studies. My academic supervisor is Stephen Hill. This project has been approved by the Trent Research Ethics Board, and Karen Mauro can be contacted at the Office of Research.

Purpose of the research: The aim of this study is to understand when and how the City of Vancouver was able to prioritize climate change adaptation in their municipal policy, so other cities can begin the process of building resilience to mitigate climate change impacts. The questions will focus on your ideas about how, when, and why Vancouver was able to prioritize climate change adaptation in their policy; what was the political context that enabled Vancouver’s municipal government to develop and adopt climate change adaptation policies; and are their lessons that can derived from Vancouver’s story? I hope that this study will generate practical recommendations for policy makers.

What is involved in participating: The semi-structured interview will last approximately one hour. Participation in this study is voluntary. You have the right to refuse to participate in the research with no negative ramifications; similarly, you have the right to refuse to answer any question during the interview. Also you can withdraw at any time and all data relating to your interview will be destroyed.

196

There may be some minimal social risks to participating in this study including but not limited to possible loss of status, privacy and / or reputation. You will be contacted by e-mail or phone if I would like to identify you by name in the final report, and you will be given an opportunity via email to review select sections of the final report to confirm the appropriate representation of your interview statements. As interviews are generally tape-recorded or/and written down by note-taking, all information gathered in this research project will be stored securely by me at Trent University. Tapes and notes will be kept in locked storage. Digital information will be stored on a password-protected and encrypted drive; I will encrypt all data that is being collected from the interview using TrueCrypt. All information from this research will be destroyed by July 1, 2018.

With all of the above in mind, you are now considered fully informed and are asked to sign below signifying that you freely consent to participate in this research project. Please check the boxes that are appropriate for you.

Consent: I have read the above information and agree to participate in the study Yes  No  I agree to be tape recorded Yes  No  I agree that my name may be included in any written document as an interviewee Yes  No  I agree to be quoted or cited in the final report, without further consultation Yes  No  I agree to be quoted or cited in the final report, pending my approval Yes  No  I would like to remain anonymous in the final report Yes  No  I have received a copy of this consent form Yes  No  I would like a copy of the thesis once it has been completed Yes  No 

Participant Name: Organization: Phone Number: Email Address: Participant Signature Date

If you would like more information please contact: Sara Fralin (Researcher) Phone: 604.2020.6550 Email: [email protected] Stephen Hill (Academic Supervisor) Phone: 705.748.1011x7368 Fax: 705.748.1569 Email: [email protected] Karen Mauro, (Certifications and Regulatory Compliance Officer) Phone: 705-748-1011 ext. 7896 Email: [email protected] File #: 22976; Title: Towards a sustainable city: a story of climate change governance in Vancouver. Trent University REB approval date: June 21, 2013, Version 2.

197

10.2 Appendix B1: Vancouver Municipal Policy Context

Government of BC, and The Federal Government of Canada. In Canada adaptation is being addressed by all levels of government, however jurisdictional responsibility for climate change adaptation (including: emergency management and disaster response) has been delegated to municipalities. This tiered response system, means that local governments respond first to emergencies and are supported by higher- level governments only if local resources are exhausted (Scanlon, 1995). In the City of Vancouver, municipal jurisdiction is governed under the Vancouver Charter.

1953 Vancouver Charter

The Vancouver Charter is a provincial charter that grants the City of Vancouver special status with additional jurisdictional control. Under the Vancouver Charter, the City has the authority to pass by-laws to regulate land use, buy and sell property, collect certain taxes, take on debts, give grants and hire and discharge employees

(Jones, 2012, p. 1252). Importantly it gives the City authority to control its own building codes and flood construction levels. Under the authority of the Charter the

City of Vancouver has undertaken much of its sustainability agenda without the need for provincial approval (Jones, 2012, p. 1252). Notably, in 2008 the Provincial

Government amended the Local Government Act and Vancouver Charter to introduce changes that enabled local governments to address climate action in their

198 communities. The Green Communities legislation (Bill 27, 2008) includes a requirement for local governments to have targets, policies and actions to reduce

GHG emissions in their Official Community Plans. Finally climate change adaption was integrated in to Vancouver’s Regional Context Statement Official Development

Plan (ODP; Rutherford, 2009). The Vancouver Charter requires Vancouver City

Council to prepare and adopt a Regional Context Statement in support of the

Regional Growth Strategy (City of Vancouver, 2013). This Regional Context

Statement, adopted by City Council as an Official Development Plan (ODP), shows how Vancouver’s polices and plans work toward achieving the goals and strategies set out in the Regional Growth Strategy. Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth

Strategy, Metro Vancouver 2040 Shaping Our Future, aims to protect the environment and respond to climate change impacts through various strategies such as encouraging land use and transportation infrastructure that improves the ability to withstand climate change impacts and natural hazard risks (Metro

Vancouver, 2011, p. 33).

1986 Vancouver Plan

The 1986 Vancouver Plan is a strategy to deal with significant, but uncertain changes in store for Vancouver’s future (Vancouver City Council 1982-1986, July

1986, p. 1). The policy states “[p]lanning for the future means planning for change in an uncertain context.” It’s comprised of four parts:

1. The Framework for understanding change: seeks to understand and guide change by focusing on the relationship among four key elements of the City: core employment, city housing, transportation, and urban environment. (The

199

focus on air quality, automobile emissions and pollution relates to climate governance; Vancouver City Council 1982-1986, July 1986, p. 5) . 2. The Criteria for evaluating change: derived from the VCPC Goals for Vancouver they assist in evaluating the desirability of any plan, policy, or project affecting Vancouver. (The value on beautiful natural settings, security, and health relates to building a resilient community; Vancouver City Council 1982-1986, July 1986, p. 6). 3. The options for choosing change help deal with the imbalance between employment, growth, housing, and transportation while undertaking environmental protection measures (Vancouver City Council 1982-1986, July 1986, p. 7). 4. The Direction for guiding change confronts uncertainty about both facts and values by preferring choices which: require modest spending, can weather changing circumstances, are adaptable to new situations, and open up options to those which constrain future decisions (Vancouver City Council 1982-1986, July 1986, p. 9).

This plan implies an active intent to pursue housing densification, improve efficiency of the transportation system, preserve and enhance public amenities and account for the social consequences of city change (Vancouver City Council 1982-

1986, 1986, p. 16). The Vancouver Plan created a policy context on which future policy actions could take place including: Key informant #02’s eco-density plans, the clouds of change report on air quality management, a move towards adaptive management and integrative policy making, and the idea of resiliency in the CCAS,

1990 The Special Office for the Environment (SOE)

In Vancouver, the original environment office was formed in the 1980s as part of the

Health Department and was then transferred to the Engineering Department when responsibility for public health was transferred back to the province (Schwartz,

2012, p. 20). The Special Office for the Environment (SOE) was established in 1990.

The proposed responsibilities included: reporting to Council on senior government

200 actions concerning the environment that might impact on the City, producing State of the Environment reports, producing an Environmental Policy and Environmental

Agenda for the City (adopted 1996), initiating environmental audits for City operations, developing climate protection initiatives, administering the

Environmental Grants Program, and establishing and administering the

Environment Week functions including the Mayor's Environmental Awards. Two staff positions are assigned to advance SOE initiatives. Recent activities have focused on grant and awards programs and Environmental Week activities (City of

Vancouver Corporate Management Team, 2002). This office transformed into the

Sustainability Group in 2003.

The current Sustainability Group, established in 2003 by Mark Holland, coordinates and supports the development of climate change policy in the City

(Schwartz, 2012, p. 20; Crowley, Filión, McKearnan, & Nicholas, 2011, p. 80). It is devoted to incorporating climate protection and environmental goals into city plans and projects (Schwartz, p. 169). Two key Sustainability Group reports relate to climate change adaptation:

 March 1, 2007, Climate Change impact study on infrastructure, Vancouver Municipal City Council directed staff to examine potential impacts of climate change on City of Vancouver infrastructure and identify measures to minimize these impacts.  May 27, 2008, Climate Change vulnerability and risk assessment, Vancouver Municipal Council received an informational report on climate change adaptation that recommended completion of a vulnerability and risk assessment to prioritize adaptation work. The report included climate projections and identified early issues and opportunities (sewers, parks and urban landscape, the water utility and roadways). See report: Beck and Crow,

201

Climate Change Adaptation administrative report May 27, 2008 (City of Vancouver, July 24th, 2012).

According to Crowley, Filión, McKearnan and Nicholas (2011), the sustainabity group has been reinventing it’s team to better confront complex issues like climate change. According to their case study:

Since its establishment in 2003, the team has undergone many organizational changes. It began as a group of two in the City Manager’s office and grew to a robust team of 12 with a $2 million annual budget in just three years. It was then relocated to a less prominent position within the City bureaucracy, where it stayed for two years, reporting to the General Manager of Engineering instead of to the City Manager. In 2009, the team was again relocated back to the City Manager’s office, and began a process of reinventing itself to assist the City with crafting and implementing an ambitious plan for becoming the greenest city in the world (Crowley, Filión, McKearnan, & Nicholas, 2011, pp. 80-81).

The City of Vancouver’s Sustainability Group has helped drive climate change adaptation policy making by creating synergy between social, economic and environmental policies, collaboration between municipal departments, and centralized support for policy implementation and access to information. For a detailed look at the evolution of Vancouver’s Sustainability group see: Crowley,

Filión, McKearnan and Nicholas, 2011, pp. 80-90.

1990 Clouds of Change

The story of climate change adaptation in the City of Vancouver starts in 1990 with the Clouds of Change report authored by The Task Force on Atmospheric Change

(Letcher, et al., 1990). In this policy document recommendation #033 is to Study

Adaptive Measures. Its purpose is “To be prepared for those consequences of

202 atmospheric change for which we may already be committed” (Letcher, et al., 1990, p. 23). Here Council instructs “the Engineering Department to continue to monitor global warming trends and potential adaptive measures and report periodically to

Council on current scientific consensus and possible adaptation strategies” (Letcher, et al., 1990, p. 23). Although significantly watered down from the original proposal, measures to study sea level rise and estimate the cost of adaptive measures including shoreline stabilization, emergency planning and the relocation of low lying facilities were not adopted. This policy is the first recorded recommendation from the City of Vancouver’s Council to begin planning for long-term measures to adapt to climate change and to develop means for financing such measures (Letcher, et al.,

1990, p. 23).

1991 Central Area Plan: Goals And Land Use Policy The Central Area Plan was adopted by City Council on December 3, 1991. This official development plan, also known as the Downtown Plan, represents a policy framework that has shaped developed in the area north of Broadway west of Main and east of Arbutus, including the downtown peninsula. This plan set forth, for the first time, a single vision for the Central Area. Constructed in the context of the

Liveable Region Program and responsive to the disproportion of jobs to population in Vancouver, the plan was intended to shift the City through five major policy points. Broadly guiding these policies were the following goals, which provide some insight into the City’s working definition of livability (Larcombe, DeMarco, Smith,

Kay, & Owen, 2008).

203

1995 Cityplan

Cityplan is a directional plan for sustainable development in Vancouver.

Groundwork done in 1980 for ‘Goals for Vancouver’ by the Vancouver City Planning

Commission, and updated in 1987 informed Cityplan (VCPC, 1980, p. 4). Residents in Vancouver have a history of public interest in environmental issues and urban development. This was demonstrated in the early 1970s, when the City acted as host to both the formal UN Habitat Conference on Human Settlements and grassroots alternative Habitat Forum. At that time, two key public surveys conducted by the

Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) and the Vancouver Planning

Commission (VCPC), documented this public priority for creating sustainable relationships with our natural environment (Hardwick, 2012; Artibise, Bublick,

Cadell, Gildermeester, & Hardwick, 2013). The Vancouver City Planning Commission

(VCPC) began “to obtain ideas and opinions of the citizens of Vancouver about the future of their city;” surveys conducted in 1979 and 1980 engaged almost ten thousand participants, comprised of individuals, households, and organization

(VCPC, 1980, p. 4).

According to the VCPC in Vancouver the future city: Goals for Vancouver,

“Vancouverites live in a city and an atmosphere which preserves man’s close identity with nature and this natural presence has shaped the attitudes and mentality of its citizens” (VCPC, 1980, p. 6). Key environmental values identified in this survey have guided policy making in the region since 1980. These values include:

204

 Vancouver’s natural setting (e.g., the North Shore mountains, Fraser River, public beaches) was identified by 65% of respondents as contributing most to the uniqueness of Vancouver.  Preserving views of the mountains and water was the most important objective for residents of Vancouver as indicated 96% of respondents.  Residents placed a high value (80%) on landscaping and greenery.  Cleaning the waters of English Bay, the Fraser River and the Vancouver Harbour so it is fit for wildlife and recreation, was ranked as the highest priority for Vancouverites, while pollution control (e.g., the reduction and regulation of pollutants) was rated number four.  A large portion of respondents indicated pride and contentment with the City’s quality of life, rating it as the number one cause for satisfaction. (VCPC, 1980, pp. 6-8,13,62)

According to the Vancouver Planning Commission (VCPC), improving residents’ quality of life is an important objective of civic policy (VCPC, 1980, p. 71). This involves:

 caring for vulnerable groups,  providing facilities, services and amenities,  economic development,  creating a safe and accessible living environment,  promoting environmental management,  fostering cultural and ethnic diversity,  conserving resources, and  encouraging citizen participation in government (VCPC, 1980, p. 71).

Cityplan establishes Vancouver’s approach to sustainability and provides a framework of directions to guide development. This policy aims to mitigate GHG’s by regulating areas of transportation, economy, downtown development, corporate and community planning (VCPC, 1980). Over 20,000 individuals and organizations were consulted throughout the development of the plan, providing increased legitimacy for planning based on a city of neighbourhoods. Despite wide spread

205 public support; successive regimes at City Hall have abandoned Cityplan in favour of

Eco-Density (The Editors , 2014).

1996 The City Environment Policy and Environmental Action Plan

The City Environment Policy and Environmental Action Plan (1996) commit the City of Vancouver to:

1. Ensuring environmental considerations are integrated into all City of Vancouver decisions respecting planning, growth, service delivery, finance, and operations, 2. Initiating and promoting compliance with City by-laws protective of the environment, 3. Advocating for appropriate environmental protection actions by other levels of government and the private sector, 4. Ensuring that the City's own operations comply with environmental legislation, 5. Involving and communicating with citizens and businesses in the establishment and attainment of the City's environmental objectives, 6. Encouraging and demonstrating the wise use of natural and fiscal resources, and 7. Adopting and updating an environmental agenda and action plan to achieve the City's environmental objectives (City of Vancouver Corporate Management Team, 2002).

1997 Transportation Plan

Based on Cityplan (1995) this transportation policy document focused on:

 Cleaner more sustainable transportation system  Increase road capacity without increasing road space.  Diversify modes of transportation to incentivize walking, cycling, and public transit (Pander, 2007).

206

This plan emphasized: providing more comfortable biking and walking environments, traffic calming in neighbourhoods, the need for increased provision and use of transit, limiting overall road capacity to the present level, and maintaining an efficient goods movement network (Pander, 2007). It placed a priority on pedestrian, cycling, and transit improvements and resulted in an increase in walking trips of 44%, bike trips of 180%, and a decrease in vehicles trips in and out of the City by 10% over the past decade (Pander, 2007). Transit ridership in Vancouver has also increased 20% - growing faster than in any other major

Canadian city (Pander, 2007).

1998 PCP Process

In 1995, Vancouver joined the Federation of Canadian Municipalities’ “20% Club”, which became the Partners for Climate Protection Program in 1998. PCP is a national program that brings Canadian municipal governments together to reduce the local production of GHG emissions and improve the quality of life. Through participating in the PCP, the City of Vancouver has been implementing various measures to reduce GHG emissions and ultimately, to contribute to the Government of Canada's international commitment to reduce GHG emissions globally (Cool

Vancouver Task Force, June 2003). PCP Milestones and progress to date include:

1. Take emissions inventory and forecast future emissions: Status: To report back with a community-wide inventory (through the Task Force) 2. Set a reduction target: Status: To be determined by the Task Force. Note: on March 25, 2003, Council approved a 20% reduction from 1990 levels by 2010 for the City (organization) as an interim measure, subject to a review of the finalized emissions inventory and development of a Greenhouse Gas

207

Emissions Reduction Action Plan to ensure that the target is realistic for the City of Vancouver. 3. Develop a local action plan: Status: Draft components of an Action Plan to be developed by the Task Force - to be considered, within a sustainability framework, after Milestone 2 has been completed. 4. Implement the plan: Status: To act on after Milestone 3 has been completed and adopted by Council, Note: numerous actions have already been completed to reduce emissions to date both community-wide and organizationally. 5. Measure progress: monitor, verify & report reductions (Cool Vancouver Task Force, 2003).

1999 The Southeast False Creek Sustainable Urban Neighbourhood (SEFC) Policy Statement

The Southeast False Creek Sustainable Urban Neighbourhood (SEFC) emerged as an initiative recommended by the Clouds of Change Report in 1990. In the mid-1990s

Council approved planning for a "model sustainable urban neighbourhood" for an

80 acre site along the southeast shore of False Creek (City of Vancouver Corporate

Management Team, 2002). This sustainable urban neighbourhood strives to achieve several key goals:

· Promote a healthy social community, · Provide economic viability and vitality without subsidy, · Improve the ecological health of the False Creek Basin, · Reduce the consumption of non-renewable energy and resources, and · Reduce waste and pollution (City of Vancouver Corporate Management Team, 2002).

In 1999 Council approved the SEFC Policy Statement to develop a complete community where people can work, play, and learn within walking, cycling, or convenient transit distance (City of Vancouver Corporate Management Team, 2002).

208

One of the Sustainability Principles governing development outlined in the official development plan is “Adaptability: Development is to promote adaptability and diversity by ensuring that SEFC is a community that can renew and adapt itself effectively to new social and economic conditions, policies, programmes, legislation, and technology” (City of Vancouver Corporate Management Team, 2002). The SEFC

Sustainable Urban Neighbourhood initiative was developed by an inter- departmental team, managed by the Central Area Branch of the Planning

Department, and including staff from Real Estate, Engineering, and the Park Board

(City of Vancouver Corporate Management Team, 2002). In 2013 SEFC receives the

Urban Land Institute award for urban open spaces (City of Vancouver, 2014). As of

April 2014, the City of Vancouver has “officially paid down the entire $630 million debt of the Olympic Village development, as well as recovered an additional $70 million” (City of Vancouver, 2014). This is an example of a successful experiment in sustainable development that reinforces planning complete communities. For more information see Vaughan (2008).

2002 Definition and Principles of Sustainability

On April 23, 2002, Council adopted a Definition and Principles of Sustainability to guide, prioritize, and improve the sustainability of City actions and operations (City of Vancouver Corporate Management Team, 2002). The Cities GHG Reduction Action

Plans (see 2003 corporate and 2005 community climate action plans) were developed with awareness that this process is part of a larger perspective and position on increasing the overall sustainability of the City. The GHG Reduction

209

Action Plans are seen as a key step in the process of making the City more sustainable (Cool Vancouver Task Force, 2003, pp. 26-27). According to this document the definition of a Sustainable Vancouver includes:

 A sustainable Vancouver is a community that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.  It is a place where people live, work and prosper in a vibrant community of communities. In such a community, sustainability is achieved through community participation and the reconciliation of short and long term economic, social and ecological well-being.  Sustainability is a direction rather than a destination. A sustainable city is one that protects and enhances the immediate and long-term well-being of a city and its citizens, while providing the highest quality of life possible.  Sustainability requires integrated decision-making that takes into account economic, ecological, and social impacts as a whole (City of Vancouver Corporate Management Team, 2002).

2003 Cool Vancouver Task Force

In 2003 Council asked for advice from a diverse group of people who were experts on climate change. The group formed the Cool Vancouver Taskforce, bringing together a wide range of stakeholder groups in Vancouver and the region including; educators, builders, environmentalists, corporate leaders and government (City of

Vancouver, 2008). Based on recommendations of the Cool Vancouver Taskforce the

City created the Corporate Climate Change Action Plan (for emissions from municipal operations) and the Community Climate Change Action Plan (for community-wide emissions; City of Vancouver, 2008). Key accomplishments by the

Task Force include:

210

• Task Force had regular meetings and gave excellent advice and guidance • Discussion Paper completed – June 24th 2003 • Corporate CCAP Approved – Dec 2nd 2003 • Community Action Plan Approved – 2005 (City of Vancouver, 2008).

2003 Corporate Climate Change Action Plan

In March 2003, Council approved the Corporate Climate Change Action Plan to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from civic operations to 20% below 1990 levels by 2010. The Corporate Plan does not explicitly address adaptation. Priority areas include:

 Energy efficient retrofits for facilities  Green design for new and replacement civic buildings  Efficient driver training and anti-idling  Fuel-efficient fleets and fleet management  Energy efficient street/park lighting and traffic control signals  Corporate waste reduction and landfill gas utilization (City of Vancouver, 2008)

2004 Official Development Plan for SEFC

2004 Official Development Plan for SEFC and establishing the objective of making this major brownfield development a model sustainable community with all buildings meeting a minimum LEED Silver standard (LEED Gold for buildings in the

Athlete’s Village; Holden, MacKenzie, & VanWynsberghe, 2008).

2005 Sustainability Group

The current Sustainability Group, established in 2005, coordinates and supports the development of climate change policy in the City (Schwartz, 2012, p. 20).

2005 Community Climate Action Plans

211

The Community Climate Action plan outlines how the City should develop a better understanding of the range of anticipated climate change impacts, evaluate our health, water, energy, and other systems to assess their vulnerability to these changes, and develop an Adaptation and Resilience Strategy to reduce the negative consequences of those changes (Cool Vancouver Task Force, 2005, p. 54). The plan outlines opportunities to integrate it with existing health, health infrastructure, and emergency plans must be pursued, including Police, Fire, the Health Authority, E-

Comm and others (Cool Vancouver Task Force, 2005, p. 54). This is an example of:

Municipal Volunteerism and policy coordination (Gordon, 2013, p. 291). Priority areas:

 Home renovations for energy efficiency  Energy efficient retrofits for institutional facilities  Energy efficient retrofits for large commercial buildings  Low carbon vehicle options such as bio-diesel fuel blends  Green energy and sustainable dense development  Active and public transportation  Encouraging residents to reduce individual energy use (City of Vancouver, 2008).

2008 Eco-Density charter

On June 10, 2008 Vancouver City Council adopted the EcoDensity Charter and a set of Initial Actions. The EcoDensity Charter commits the City to make environmental sustainability a primary goal in all city planning decisions - in ways that also support housing affordability and livability - and the Initial Actions provide the ‘roadmap’ to begin implementation of the EcoDensity Charter (City of Vancouver, 2010). With the adoption of the EcoDensity Charter and Initial Actions, the City of Vancouver began

212 a new chapter in planning for a sustainable, affordable, and liveable future (City of

Vancouver, 2010). The initiatives use density, design, and land use to help reduce the City’s carbon footprint, expand housing choices, and ensure Vancouver remains one of the most liveable cities in the world. (City of Vancouver, 2010)

2007 Motion to look at the impacts of climate change & 2008 Staff report on the impacts of climate change

The policy focus on climate change adaptation began gaining momentum in 2007. At this time Vancouver’s City Councillor Heather Deal requested city staff to examine the potential impacts of climate change on the City's infrastructure and suggest measures that should be taken to minimize them. An informal staff working group on adaptation was brought together to develop an adaptation planning framework that followed these key steps:

1. Gather Vancouver climate change projections (this was done in collaboration with Environment Canada, the B.C. Government, Metro Vancouver, Fraser Basin Council, and the Pacific Climate Impact Consortium (PCIC)); 2. Summarize early issues and opportunities, emphasis on public works (e.g., sewers, parks, water utility and roadways); 3. Interview city staff leaders in order to broaden the scope of adaptation planning to include: land-use planning, housing and commercial buildings, energy supply, urban agriculture, human health, recreation, business and tourism, transportation, communications, police, fire and other emergency services; 4. Complete a city-wide vulnerability assessment to identify sensitive areas; 5. Complete selected risk assessments to identify possible impacts in the areas of highest sensitivity; 6. Complete selected cost/benefit studies to prioritize actions.29

29 (Beck and Crowe, Climate Change Adaptation admin report May 27, 2008)

213

In 2008 the Climate Adaptation Working Group developed the Climate Change

Adaptation report, which summarizes how the first three steps in the adaptation planning framework were accomplished. However, no actions were taken on the remaining three steps for another two years. This was primarily due to the global economic recession staring in 2007, paired with an NPA30 municipal government that viewed Vancouver’s economy as dependent on new urban development projects, along with other constraining factors. Freezing progress on the adaptation planning framework relegated climate change to the bottom of the NPA government’s agenda.

Vancouver’s GCAP (GCAP) The City of Vancouver has adopted an ambitious goal to become the greenest city in the world by 2020. This goal is to be accomplished through the GCAP and is supported by four other key strategies: the climate change adaption strategy, greening city operations, greening business, and helping residents ‘go green’ (City of

Vancouver, 2012). To become the greenest city in the world, municipal staff working groups are collaborating with Council, residents, businesses, other organizations, and provincial/federal levels of government to implement the GCAP (City of

Vancouver, 2012). The Action Plan is divided into ten smaller goals/plans, each with a long-term (2050) and near-term (2020) targets. Working together to form one integrated plan, these ten goals are comprised of: Goal 1: Green Economy, Goal 2:

Climate Leadership, Goal 3: Green Buildings, Goal 4: Green Transportation, Goal 5:

30 Non-Partisan Association (NPA) is a center-right civic organization in Vancouver

214

Zero Waste, Goal 6: Access to Nature, Goal 7: Lighter Footprint, Goal 8: Clean Water,

Goal 9: Clean Air, Goal 10: Local Food (City of Vancouver, 2012). Combined, these ten plans address three overarching areas of focus: Carbon, Waste, and Ecosystems

(City of Vancouver, 2012).

Development of Vancouver’s GCAP engaged over 60 City staff, 120 organizations, 35,000 individuals from around the world and more than 9,500 local residents (City of Vancouver, Greenest City Action team and staff working groups,

2012, p. 8). Voluntary public consultation engaged key local stakeholders who shared their ideas, insights, and feedback to help determine the best ways to achieve this plan. Public participation has been vital in developing this plan and is necessary for its implementation:

On their own, City led actions can only achieve about one third of the target. The active participation of the whole community, including individuals, businesses, and other organizations will be essential for achieving the remaining two thirds. That’s why the actions in this plan are focused on supporting partnerships to create the tools, resources and opportunities for all of us, in our own way, to meet this challenge and succeed (City of Vancouver, Greenest City Action team and staff working groups, 2012, p. 52).

Vancouver’s GCAP defines success as results that improve quality of life, make the

City more globally competitive, and help communities live in better balance with the

Earth’s natural systems (City of Vancouver, Greenest City Action team and staff working groups, 2012, p. 7). The City seeks solutions that address climate change and other environmental challenges while creating value such as green jobs, strengthening community, increasing the livability of the City and improving the well-being of citizens (City of Vancouver, Greenest City Action team and staff

215 working groups, 2012, p. 7).

10.3 Appendix B2: Regional Government Policy Context

Greater Vancouver’s regional government is called Metro Vancouver. It is made up of 21 member municipalities from BC’s lower mainland.

1996 Liveable Region Strategic plan (LRSP)

Greater Vancouver’s regional growth strategy, aims to maintain livability and protect environment in anticipated growth. It calls for the region to develop in a more compact form, by situating jobs closer to where people live.

2002 SRI- sustainable region initiative

Introduced in 2002, the SRI is a wide‐ranging agenda that has sought to bring together governmental and non‐governmental actors, along with increased levels of citizen participation, in order to generate the changes required to make the metropolitan region sustainable (Davidson, 2010). The SRI explicitly states that it is responding to the Brundtland Report in terms of developing a multi‐dimensional understanding of sustainability. It also recognized the complications of this position, by stating that different ‘groups tend to view sustainability through their own unique perspectives’ (p. 8) and, therefore, the SRI has attempted ‘to provide a common point‐of‐reference’ (p. 8). A major priority for the GVRD has therefore been to provide a ‘sustainability lens’ (p. 10) from which coordinated action across its member municipalities can be taken (Davidson, 2010).

216

2002 citiesPLUS

In 2002-3 the GVRD worked with several partners to create a 100-year sustainability plan for Vancouver, winning the Sustainable Urban Systems Design international competition over eight other finalists (Penny & Wiedtz, May 2007, p.

49). The Sheltair Group, which wrote the winning citiesPLUS plan also prepared a preliminary assessment of climate impacts and adaptation options, and showed how these fit within a general sustainability framework for the region (Moffatt, et al.,

2003). In the same time period, the GVRD established the Sustainable Region

Initiative (SRI) to provide a sustainability framework for the region and its plans for growth management, drinking water, waste, air quality, parks and other services.

However, climate change adaptation does not explicitly figure into the Sustainable

Region Initiative framework and appear to be absent from the agenda of the Task

Force that oversees the SRI. GVRD staff members have considered potential climate impacts in drawing up several recent plans and guidelines, but argue that more information is needed before climate considerations are likely to change policy

(Roodselaar, Woods, and Margolick 2006 cited in Penny & Wiedtz, May 2007). In the meantime, there appears to be no clear institutional mechanism for ongoing consideration and integration of climate and adaptation into regional plans and policy (Penny & Wiedtz, May 2007, p. 49).

The +30 Network emerged out of a project undertaken in Greater Vancouver between 2001 and 2003 called citiesPLUS (an acronym for Cities Planning for Long- term Urban Sustainability; Timmer & Seymoar, March 2005). CitiesPLUS was

217 developed by a collaborative of the Greater Vancouver Regional District or GVRD

(the regional planning authority for 21 municipalities), the Sheltair Group (a private sector consulting firm), the International Centre for Sustainable Cities (a development NGO headquartered in Vancouver) and the Liu Institute for Global

Issues (a think tank located at the University of British Columbia; Seymoar, 2004).

The theme of ‘livability’ evolved within the context of planning for the

Greater Vancouver region. As the table below illustrates livability remains an essential objective for Metro Vancouver, however, livability has been joined by sustainability and resiliency as additional policy goals that have emerged in the past five years, see Figure 10-1 Metro Vancouver Planning Context, from (Timmer &

Seymoar, March 2005, pp. 7-8). These additional themes have stimulated renewed discussions about livability and led to a reassessment of the factors that determine the region’s quality of life.

Corporate Climate Action Plan

June 2010, Corporate Climate Action Plan (CCAP), includes strategies and actions towards achieving Metro Vancouver’s commitment to corporate carbon neutrality and to adapt corporate infrastructure and activities to climate change (Metro

Vancouver regional government, June 16, 2010).

- Vision: A carbon neutral corporation resilient to the impacts of climate change. - Adaptation: A number of activities to improve corporate resiliency to climate change are outlined in other plans, such as the DwMP and LwMP. Corporate resiliency to climate change is also closely linked to the actions

218

of others. Municipal actions in implementing green infrastructure, reducing inflow and infiltration and separating combined sewers will all reduce loading on corporate wastewater infrastructure, increasing corporate resiliency in adapting to climate change. Provincial and local government actions to raise dykes to protect vulnerable communities from rising sea levels are critical in protecting corporate infrastructure. Reducing demand for potable water also increases the corporate resiliency by limiting the need to upgrade infrastructure (Metro Vancouver regional government, June 16, 2010, p. 15). o Adapt Existing Infrastructure and Operations Modify existing infrastructure to reduce its vulnerability to climate change impacts o Plan and Build Resilient New Infrastructure and Facilities Infrastructure and facilities will need to be planned, designed and constructed with the impacts of climate change, including sea level rise, in mind (Metro Vancouver regional government, June 16, 2010).

In June 2010 Metro Vancouver adopted its Corporate Climate Action Plan (CCAP).

The purpose of the CCAP is to set out strategies and actions towards achieving

Metro Vancouver’s commitment to corporate carbon neutrality and to adapt our corporate infrastructure and activities to the anticipated consequences of climate change (Metro Vancouver, 2014).

219

Figure 10-1 Metro Vancouver Planning Context, from (Timmer & Seymoar, March 2005, pp. 7-8)

220

10.4 Appendix C: Chronological Presentation of the Historical Processes that Influenced Vancouver’s Policy Development Context

221

222

* Note: dates listed here may not reflect the exact day, for example many events (such as planning processes) did not have a start and end day recorded, but only the month or year. All dates with day 1 listed was automatically generated by the timeline software.

223

10.5 Appendix D: Waves of Eco-state Restructuring

Table 3 Waves of eco-state restructuring Sustainable Pollution From: While, developmentalism control (mid- Carbon control (late Jonas, & Gibbs ⁄ecological 1960s to late 1990s onwards) (2010) modernization (mid- 1980s) 1980s to mid-2000s) Problems seen Problems rooted in the as being rooted growth trajectory of Problem rooted in the Problem in the negative industrial capitalism: oil-dependence of identification externalities of there are limits to capitalism. large-scale growth. Capitalism Transition to low- Proposed A new regime of requires better carbon capitalism solution via accumulation based regulation to based on non-fossil modes of around ecological internalize fuel energy regulation modernisation. externalities. alternatives. Acid rain. Societal rejection of Climate science. Key drivers Nuclear power. the norms of industrial Extreme weather of change Environmental capitalism. Economic events. Influential activism. crisis. politicians. 1972 Limits to Growth 1997 Kyoto Protocol Key Oil spills. Love 1987 Brundtland 2004 An Inconvenient moments Canal pollution. Report 1992 Rio Earth Truth Summit 2006 Stern Review International Glocalisation coordination imaginary – think reflecting the global act local – Concerted action at all cross-national emphasizes spatial scales, but externalities of Scale interconnectedness. oriented around local polluting dimensions Strong emphasis on national management industries. Local local responses within within a global impact on a framework of framework. residents and increased international coastal regulation. dwellers. Command and New regulatory Cap and trade market control restraint frameworks designed environmentalism. on firms. to promote win-win- Increased taxation and Regulatory Economic and win solutions. Flexible regulatory control of focus social crises frameworks for carbon emissions. undermine decision making. Regulatory and market possibilities for Regulatory and market incentives to promote radical incentives to promote low-carbon

224

environmental green technologies. technologies. Changes policy. Internalised within the in consumption as well neoliberal competition as production norms. state. Internalised within the neoliberal competition state? In theory, fairness Ideas of climate (inter- and intra- injustice point to the Improvements generational) is an uneven and unequal Equity and to public health explicit part of geographical impacts social through decision making. In of climate change. justice industrial clean- practice, socio-spatial ‘Contract and dimensions up. inequalities increase convergence’ during this era. Ideas emphasises the need of global social equity. for global equity. For more information see (While, Jonas, & Gibbs, 2010).

225

10.6 Appendix E: Focusing Events • 1970-74 Provincial BC NDP government, and creation of ALR – All key focusing events listed by Agricultural Land Reserve39 interviewees, along with municipal • 1972 Book: Limits to Growth by election dates and the elected political Meadows40 party and Mayor • 1972 Greenpeace founded in Early years: colonial to regional Vancouver41 governance31 • 1973 1st Urban Futures Survey, • 1948 Flood in Lower mainland GVRD.42 (Fraser river City of Vancouver to • 43 Hope, set stage for regional 1973 Oil crises planning)32 • Change Building Code: 44 • 1949 Est. Lower Mainland Regional increace home insulation Planning Boards LMRPB33 • 1975 GVRD - Liveable Region Plan45 • 1953 Vancouver Charter34 • • 1956 City of Vancouver “Plan 56”, a City of Vancouver Mayor 1973-76 zoning by-law allowing the first Art Phillips TEAM development of high-density • City of Vancouver Mayor 1977-80 development in the City Jack Volriich TEAM 1960s Freeway protests35 1980s: The Dark Ages of Planning in BC46 • Transit oriented development36 • • TEAM – political party Province eliminated regional planning as a statutory function. established37 Inter-municipal planning activities • Law Building built on side, “totem were voluntary, until 1989 when of capitalism”38 development services as a regional • City of Vancouver Mayor 1967-72 mandate was granted.47 Tom Campbell NPA • City of Vancouver Mayor 1981-86 1970s Mike Harcourt INP (TEAM - COPE alliance)

39 (#02, 2013; #05, 2013; Bula, 2013; Price, 31 (Cameron, 2013) 2013; Cameron, 2013) 32 (Cameron, 2013) 40 (Price, 2013) 33 (Cameron, 2013) 41 (Holland, 2013; #10, 2013) 34 (Ryan, 2013; Cameron, 2013; Mikkelsen, 42 (Cameron, 2013) 2013) 43 (#02, 2013; Bula, 2013) 35 (#02, 2013; #04, 2013; #07, 2013; #11, 44 (Bula, 2013) 2013; Cameron, 2013) 45 (#06, 2013; #07, 2013; Ryan, 2013; 36 (#11, 2013) Cameron, 2013) 37 (#02, 2013) 46 (Timmer & Seymoar, March 2005) 38 (#02, 2013) 47 (Cameron, 2013)

226

• City of Vancouver Mayor 1986-92 • 1997 Transportation plan City of Gordon Campbell NPA Vancouver56 • 1987 Brudtland report, ‘Our • 1998 Quebec storm 5.4 billion common future’, environment and damages57 development. (definition of • 1999 Taiwan flood58 sustainable development)48 • 1999 start planning South East • 1988 James Hansen testimony to False Creek / Olympic Village59 US senate on climate change49 2000s : policy lens - Sustianbility, • 1988 City of Vancouver’s first flood City of Vancouver assist people in prrofing policy, in support of the meeting their own green targets60 existing Provincial flood-proofing standards • City of Vancouver Mayor Larry Campbell (22-2005) COPE61 1990s: policy lens -Livability - City of Vancouver influence people to be • 2001-3 CitiesPLUS: Cities Planning green!50 for Long-term Urban Sustainability62 • 1990 2nd Urban Futures Survey51 • 2002 Cool Vancouver Task force63 • 1990 Clouds of Change Report City of Vancouver52 • 2004 BC provincial downloading of flood-proofing responsibility64 • City of Vancouver hire Larry Besley as city planner53 • City of Vancouver Mayor Sam Sullivan (2005-2008) NPA65 • ‘Creating Our Future’ 1990 with updates in 1993 and 199654 • 2005 Est. Sustainability Group at City of Vancouver66 • 1991 Downtown Plan City of Vancouver • 2005 Hurricane Katrina67

• City of Vancouver Mayor '93-'2 Philip Owen NPA 56 (#07, 2013; Ryan, 2013; Cameron, 2013) 57 (#05, 2013; #06, 2013) 55 • 1995 CityPlan 58 (#06, 2013; #10, 2013) 59 (#02, 2013; #06, 2013; #07, 2013; #09, 2013; #10, 2013; Bulla, 2013; Holland, 2013; Mikkelsen, 2013; Price, 2013; Ryan, 2013) 48 (Holland, 2013; Ryan, 2013; Cameron, 2013) 60 (#06, 2013) 49 (Price, 2013) 61 (#06, 2013; Bulla, 2013) 50 (#06, 2013) 62 (Cameron, 2013) 51 (Cameron, 2013) 63 (#05, 2013; #10, 2013; Holland, 2013) 52 (#02, 2013; #03, 2013; #04, 2013; #06, 64 (#03, 2013; #04, 2013) 2013; #07, 2013; #08, 2013; #09, 2013; #10, 65 (#02, 2013; #04, 2013; Bulla, 2013; Ryan, 2013; #11, 2013; Bulla, 2013; Cameron, 2013) 2013; Holland, 2013; Price, 2013) 66 (#02, 2013; #03, 2013; #06, 2013; #07, 53 (#06, 2013; Holland, 2013; Mikkelsen, 2013) 2013; #09, 2013; #11, 2013; Bulla, 2013; 54 (Cameron, 2013; #06, 2013) Holland, 2013; Ryan, 2013) 55 (#04, 2013; #03, 2013; #07, 2013; Ryan, 67 (#04, 2013; #05, 2013; #06, 2013; #11, 2013; Bulla, 2013) 2013; Holland, 2013; #10, 2013)

227

• 2005 Toronto rainstorm $500 Lower Mainland, shift from million damages68 earthquake to all-hazards planning 78 • 2003 & 5 City of Vancouver approach. Corporate and Community Climate • 2007 Gordon Campbell throne Plans69 speeach on carbon79 • 2005 Canadian Prairies drought - • 2007 (March) City of Vancouver $5 billion damages70 motion to look at impacts of • 2006 April, Time cover: "Global climate change, and est. climate 80 Warming: Be Worried. Be Very change adaptation working group Worried"71 • 2007 (April) City of Vancouver • 2006 Al Gore’s Inconvienient Flood-Proofing Policies updated Truth72 • 2007 King County Climate Plan81 • 2006 Stern Review on the • Global economic recession from economics of climate change73 December 2007 to June 200982 • 2006 3rd World Urban Forum, in • 2008 Eco-density Charter 74 Vancouver • 2008 Climate Wars: The Fight for • 2006 City of Vancouver Stanley Survival as the World Overheats by Park windstorm75 Gwynne Dyer83 • 2006 Gordon Campbell UBCM 2008 - Present, Vision Vancouver speech: road to demascus76 and policy lens - the Resilient City • 2006 (Dec.) Fraser Basin Council • Election of City of Vancouver releaces flood profile for lower Mayor Gregor Robertson (2008- Fraser River present) Vision Vancouver84 • 2007 4th IPCC report77 • 2008 BC Carbon Tax85 • 2007 GVRD “Integrated • 2008 report to City of Vancouver Partnership” model for regional council on climate change impacts emergency management in the by Beck and Crowe86

78 (#03, 2013; #06, 2013; #09, 2013) 68 (#03, 2013; #05, 2013; #06, 2013; #09, 79 (#05, 2013; Cameron, 2013) 2013; #11, 2013) 80 (#02, 2013; #03, 2013; #06, 2013; #08, 69 (#03, 2013; #06, 2013; #09, 2013; #11, 2013; #09, 2013; #11, 2013; Price, 2013; 2013; Ryan, 2013) Ryan, 2013) 70 (#10, 2013) 81 (#03, 2013; #05, 2013; #08, 2013; #10, 71 (Mikkelsen, 2013) 2013) 72 (#05, 2013; #09, 2013; Bulla, 2013; Price, 82 (#06, 2013; #09, 2013; Holland, 2013; Price, 2013; Mikkelsen, 2013) 2013) 73 (#05, 2013; Mikkelsen, 2013) 83 (Holland, 2013) 74 (#02, 2013) 84 (#03, 2013; #04, 2013; #05, 2013; #06, 75 (#09, 2013; #05, 2013) 2013; #09, 2013; #10, 2013; Bulla, 2013; 76 (#05, 2013; #08, 2013) Holland, 2013; Mikkelsen, 2013; Price, 2013) 77 (#09, 2013; Holland, 2013) 85 (Bulla, 2013; #05, 2013)

228

• 2009 City of Vancouver GCAP planing starts87 • 2010–2012 Christchurch earthquakes NZ88 • 2010 City of Vancouver joined ICLEI for climate change adaptation pilot program89 • 2011 BC Ministry Of Environment: Climate Change Adaption Guidelines for Sea Dikes and Coastal Flood Hazard Land Use 90 • 2011 City of Vancouver adopted CCAS • 2012 Hurricane Sandy91 • 2013 June Calgary flood 92 • 2013 July Toronto flood93

86 (#03, 2013; #08, 2013; #09, 2013) 87 (#02, 2013; #03, 2013; #04, 2013; #05, 2013; #06, 2013; #07, 2013; #08, 2013; #09, 2013; #10, 2013; #11, 2013; Bulla, 2013; Holland, 2013; Price, 2013; Ryan, 2013) 88 (#05, 2013; Ryan, 2013) 89 (#03, 2013; #06, 2013; #08, 2013; #10, 2013) 90 (#02, 2013; #03, 2013; #09, 2013; Ryan, 2013) 91 (#03, 2013; #05, 2013; #06, 2013; #10, 2013; #11, 2013; Price, 2013) 92 (#05, 2013; #06, 2013; #09, 2013; #10, 2013; #11, 2013; Cameron, 2013; Ryan, 2013; Price, 2013) 93 (Johnston, Draft Greenest City 2020 Action Plan, January 5, 2011; #06, 2013)

229

10.7 Appendix F: Key Events Create Complex Conditions as Identified by Interviewees

Table 4 Key Events create complex conditions as identified by interviewees Public / Weather Political Economic Media

1998 Quebec 1990 Clouds of Change Report 2006 2006 Stern storm 5.4 billion 1999 start planning South East April, Review on the damages False Creek / Olympic Village Time economics of 1999 Taiwan flood cover: climate change 2001-3 CitiesPLUS: Cities "Global (climate change 2005 huricane Planning for Long-term Urban Warmin threatens ‘the Katrina Sustainability g: Be basic elements of 2005 Toronto 2004 BC provincial downloading Worried. life for people rainstorm $500 of flood-proofing responsibility Be Very around the world

million damages Worried - access to water, 2006 Gordon Campbell UBCM " food, health, and 2005 Canadian speech: ‘Road to Demascus’; and use of land and Prairies drought - 2007 Gordon Campbell throne 2006 Al terviews Gore water in $5 billion damages speeach on carbon: ‘All carbon all Inconvie environment)

by the time.’ 2006 City of nient 2007 4th IPCC Vancouver Stanley 2007 GVRD “Integrated Truth report Park windstorm Partnership” model for regional 2008 (recognizes that 2012 Hurricane emergency management in the global warming is

identified Climate Lower Mainland, shift from Sandy Wars: unequivocal and earthquake to all-hazards can be expected 2013 June Calgary The planning Framework. to drive global Events flood Fight for Election of Mayor Gregor Survival patterns in 2013 July Toronto Robertson (2008- present) Vision as the rainfall, wind flood Vancouver World patterns and extreme events in 2011 BC Ministry Of Overheat ice distribution) Environment: Climate Change s by Adaption Guidelines for Sea Dikes Gwynne Global economic and Coastal Flood Hazard Land Dyer recession from Use December 2007 to June 2009

Focus on Focus on sustainable Focus on Focus on cost emergency development at the local level preparing savings, co- response and risk for and benefits and no- management at the responding regret actions

Complex regional level to climate

conditions impacts

230

10.8 Appendix G: Key Actors and Ideas

Table 5 Key policy actors, ideas and policy responses Actors Concept/idea Policy response Metro Vancouver Livability, sustainability, 22 Sustainable Region resilience Initiative Respond to climate change 2011 Regional Growth impacts Strategy: Metro Vancouver 2040 – Shaping our Future Sheltair Group Sustainable urban systems 2003 citiesPLUS plan design: regional impact assessment, and adaptation options coordinate with regional sustainability framework ICLEI Regional policy 2010 ICLEI Climate coordination, and access Change Adaptation financing Initiative pilot; Impact and vulnerability 2012 Georgia Basin ICLEI assessments Adaptation Initiative PCIC Regional climate 2007,2009, & 2012 projections Regional impact studies with ICLEI Councillor Deal In response to the 2007 4th 2007 (March) City of IPCC report Vancouver motion to look at impacts of climate change, and est. climate change adaptation working group Informal staff Knowledge of local impacts 2008 report to City of working group on and their costs. Vancouver council on adaptation: Beck Stewardship of public climate change impacts and Crowe works e.g., infrastructure (vulnerability and risk assessment) Vision Vancouver Most sustainable city and 2009 City of Vancouver mayor and council end homelessness GCAPning starts Sustainability Coordinate with region 2010 City of Vancouver group and Legitimacy joined ICLEI for climate Adaptation task Step by step framework change adaptation pilot force program

231

Chapter 11. Works Cited #02, (2013, August 30). City of Vancouver Adaptation interview. (S. Fralin, Interviewer) #03, (2013, August 15). City of Vancouver Adaptation Interview. (S. Fralin, Interviewer) #04, (2013, August 8). City of Vancouver Adaptation Interview. (S. Fralin, Interviewer) #05, (2013, September 6). City of Vancouver Adaptation interview. (S. Fralin, Interviewer) #06, (2013, September 12). City of Vancouver Adaptation interview. (S. Fralin, Interviewer) #07, (2013, September 12). City of Vancouver Adaptation interview. (S. Fralin, Interviewer) #08, (2013, August 29). City of Vancouver Adaptation interview. (S. Fralin, Interviewer) #09, (2013, August 28). City of Vancouver Adaptation interview. (S. Fralin, Interviewer) #10, (2013, August 8). City of Vancouver Adaptation interview. (S. Fralin, Interviewer) #11, (2013, August 30). City of Vancouver Adaptation interview. (S. Fralin, Interviewer) Anderson, J. (2010), Public Policy, (7th, Ed.). Boston USA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. Anguelovski, I., & Carmin, J. (2011). Something Borrowed, Everything New: Innovation and Institutionalization in Urban Climate Governance. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 3(3), 169-175. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2010.12.017 Artibise, Y., Bublick, R., Cadell, W., Gildermeester, L., & Hardwick, C. (2013). Greater Vancouver Urban Futures Opinion Survey 2012. Vancouver: PlaceSpeak. Bauer, A., Feichtinger, J., & Steurer, R. (2012). The Governance of Climate Change Adaptation in 10 OECD Countries: Challenges and Approaches. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 14(3), 279-304. doi:10.1080/1523908X.2012.707406 Bayley, R., Cheevers, S., Hay, S., Moscovich, R., & Winham, N. (2009). The Challenge Series. Vancouver: Roger Bayley Inc. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Canada License. Retrieved from http://www.thechallengeseries.ca/about/

232

BC Ministry of Environment. (2013). Sea Level Rise Adaptation Primer: A Toolkit to Build Adaptive Capacity on Canada's South Coasts. The Arlington Group Planning + Architecture Inc.; EBA, a Tetra Tech Company; DE Jardine Consulting; Sustainability Solutions Group. Victoria: British Columbia Ministry of Environment. Beck, B., & Crowe, B. (May 27, 2008). Climate Change Adaptation administrative report. General Manager of Engineering Services. Vancouver: City of Vancouver city council. Retrieved from http://former.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20080610/documents/a3 .pdf Betsill, M. M. (2001). Mitigating Climate Change in US Cities: Opportunities and Obstacles. Local Environment, 6(4), 393-406. Betsill, M. M., & Bulkeley, H. (2006). Cities and the multilevel governance of global climate change. Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations, 12(2), 141-159. Betsill, M., & Bulkeley, H. (2004). Cities and Climate Change (Vol. 4 of Routledge Studies in Physical Geography and Environment). Routledge. doi: 203219252, 978203219256 Betsill, M., & Bulkeley, H. (2007). Looking back and thinking ahead: a decade of cities and climate change research. Local Environment, 12(5), 447-56. Bizikova, L., Neale, T., & Burton, I. (2008). Canadian Communities' guidebook for adaptation to climate change. Including an approach to generate mitigation co-benefits in the context of sustainable development. Vancouver BC: Environment Canada and University of British Columbia. Brown, V., Harris, J., & Russell, J. (2010). Tackling Wicked Problems through the Transdiciplinary Imagination. London: Earthscan. Brunner, S. (2008). Understanding policy change: Multiple streams and emissions trading in Germany. Global Environmental Change, 18, 501- 507. Bulkeley, H. (2010). Cities and the Governing of Climate Change. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 35, 229–53. Bulkeley, H. (2013). Ch. 13 - Climate change and urban governance a new politics? In D. A. Stewart Lockie, Routledge International Handbook of Social and Environmental Change (pp. 157-167). Routledge. Bulkeley, H., & Betsill, M. (2003). Cities and Climate Change Urban Sustainability and Global Environmental Governance. London: Routledge. Bulkeley, H., & Betsill, M. M. (2013). Revisiting the urban politics of climate change. Environmental Politics, 22(1), 136 – 154.

233

Bulkeley, H., & Tuts, R. (2013). Understanding urban vulnerability, adaptation and resilience in the context of climate change. Local Environment, 18(6), 646-662. Bulkeley, H., Schroeder, H., Janda, K., Zhao, J., Armstrong, A., Chu, S. Y., & Ghosh, S. (2009). Cities and Climate Change: The role of institutions, governance and urban planning. 5th Urban Research Symposium: Cities and Climate. Marseille: University of Oxford. Retrieved from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTURBANDEVELOPMENT/Resou rces/336387-1256566800920/6505269- 1268260567624/Bulkeley.pdf Bula, F. (2013, September 5). City of Vancouver Adaptation interview. (S. Fralin, Interviewer) Burch, S. (2009). Local Responses to Climate Change: An Exploration of the Relationship between Capacity and Action. Vancouver: The University Of British Columbia. Burch, S. (2010). Transforming barriers into enablers of action on Climate Change. Global Environmental Change, 20, 287–297. Burch, S. (2010a). In pursuit of resilient, low carbon communities: An examination of barriers to action in three Canadian cities. Energy Policy, 38, 7575-7585. Burch, S. (2011). Sustainable Development Paths: Investigating the Roots of Local Policy Responses to Climate Change. Sustainable Development, 19, 176-188. doi:10.12/sd.435 Cameron, Ken. (2013, August 21). City of Vancouver Adaptation interview. (S. Fralin, Interviewer) Canadian Underwriter Editor. (2012, 7 24). Vancouver creates plan for climate change adaptation. Canadian Underwriter. Retrieved from http://www.canadianunderwriter.ca/news/vancouver-creates-plan- for-climate-change-adaptation/1001569599/?&er=NA Carbon Disclosure Project. (2014). Home. Retrieved from Carbon Disclosure Project: https://www.cdproject.net/en-US/Results/Pages/Company- Responses.aspx?company=20113 Carmin, J., Dodman, D., & Chu, E. (2013). Urban Climate Adaptation and Leadership: From Conceptual Understanding to Practical Action. OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k3ttg88w8hh- en City of Vancouver. (2008). Sustainability and Climate Protection. Retrieved 04 05, 2014, from http://former.vancouver.ca/sustainability/climate_protection.htm

234

City of Vancouver. (2010, September 2). EcoCity Initiatives. Retrieved 04 05, 2014, from http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/ecocity/ City of Vancouver. (2012). Greenest City 2020 Climate Adaptation: Climate Change Adaptation Strategy. Vancouver BC: City of Vancouver. City of Vancouver. (July 24, 2012). Climate Change Adaptation Strategy: Council Report Reference PPT-rr1 presentation. Vancouver BC: City of Vancouver. City of Vancouver. (2012, August 2). Greenest City 2020: A Bright Green Future. Retrieved 10 13, 2012, from City of Vancouver http://vancouver.ca/green-vancouver/a-bright-green-future.aspx City of Vancouver. (2013). Regional Context Statement Development Plan. Vancouver: City of Vancouver. Retrieved from http://vancouver.ca/docs/council/regional-context-statement-council- report.pdf City of Vancouver (2013a) City Operations Organizational Chart. Retrieved 4 2, 2014, from City of Vancouver: http://vancouver.ca/your- government/organizational-structure.aspx City of Vancouver. (2014). Greenest City 2020 Action Plan. Retrieved 04 04 2014, from City of Vancouver http://vancouver.ca/green- vancouver/greenest-city-2020-action-plan.aspx City of Vancouver. (2014, 04, 02). Green Capital. Retrieved 4 2, 2014, from Mayor of Vancouver Gregor Robertson: http://www.mayorofvancouver.ca/green-capital City of Vancouver. (2014, 04 30). Olympic Village. Retrieved from City of Vancouver: http://vancouver.ca/home-property- development/olympic-village.aspx City of Vancouver Corporate Management Team. (April 15, 22). Creating a Sustainable City - Urban structure/environment/social development/other. Vancouver: City of Vancouver Council. City of Vancouver. (July 24th, 2012). Climate Change Adaptation Strategy Council Report Reference. Vancouver: City of Vancouver. City of Vancouver. (October 31, 2012). Transportation 2040. City Council. Vancouver: City of Vancouver. City of Vancouver. (September 24, 2013). Regional Context Statement Official Development Plan. Vancouver: City of Vancouver. Retrieved from http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/BYLAWS/odp/rcs.pdf City of Vancouver, (01 Mar, 2013). After the windstorm, Story of Stanley Park, Parks Recreation and Culture. Vancouver: City of Vancouver. Retrieved

235

from http://vancouver.ca/parks-recreation-culture/stanley-park- restoration.aspx City of Vancouver Sustainability Group. (7/3/2012). Climate Change Adaptation Strategy. City of Vancouver City Council. Vancouver: Amanda Pitre-Hayes. City of Vancouver, Greenest City Action team and staff working groups. (2012). Greenest City 2020 Action plan. Vancouver: City of Vancouver and the Green Municipal Fund. Climate Leadership Group. (2014). C 40 Cities. Retrieved from Climate Leadership Group: http://www.c40cities.org/c40cities Cockfield, G. (2013). Climate Change and Global Policy Regimes: In T. Cadman, Climate change and global policy regimes, towards institutional legitimacy (pp. 61-78). UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Cohen, M., March, J., & Olsen, J. (1972). A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice. Administration Science Quarterly, 17, 1-25. Cool Vancouver Task Force. (2004). the Climate Friendly City: A Corporate Climate Change Action Plan. Vancouver: City of Vancouver. Cool Vancouver Task Force. (June 2003). A Discussion Paper on Greenhouse Gas Reduction Planning for the City of Vancouver. Vancouver: City of Vancouver. Cool Vancouver Task Force. (March 2005). The Climate Friendly City: Community Climate Change Action Plan: Creating Opportunities. Vancouver: City of Vancouver. Corfee-Morlot, J., Kamal-Chaoui, L., Donovan, M. G., Cochran, I., Robert, A., & Teasdale, P. (2009). Cities, Climate Change and Multilevel Governance. OECD publishing. Craft, J., Howlett, M., Crawford, M., & McNutt, K. (2013). Assessing Policy Capacity for Climate Change Adaptation: Governance Arrangements, Resource Deployments, and Analytical Skills in Canadian Infrastructure Policy Making. Review of Policy Research, 30, 42-65. Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. Crowley, M., Filión, N. A., McKearnan, S., & Nicholas, S. (2011). Creating, Leading, & Managing Change: A Resource Guide for Local Sustainability Leaders Version 2.0. Chicago, IL: Institute for Sustainable Communities. Retrieved from http://www.iscvt.org/who_we_are/publications/USLA_2.0_Resource_G uide_for_Download.pdf

236

Davidson, M. (2010). Sustainability as Ideological Praxis: The Acting Out of planning’s master‐signifier. City, 14(4), 390-405. doi:10.1080/13604813.2010.492603 Deal, Heather. (March 1, 2007). Climate Change. Vancouver: City of Vancouver. Denton, F., & Wilbanks, T. (25 July 2011). Chapter 20. Climate-Resilient Pathways: Adaptation, Mitigation, and Sustainable Development. In IPCC WGII AR5. IPCC. Eliadis, P., Creech, H., Glanville, B., et al. (2003). Advancing sustainable development in Canada, policy issues and research needs. International institute for sustainable development, Privy Council office. Ottawa: Government of Canada. Ferguson, K., Perl, A., Holden, M., & Roseland, M. (2007). Supporting Global Sustainability by Rethinking the City. Journal of Urban Technology, 14(2), 3–13. Field, C. B., Barros, V. R., Mastrandrea, M. D., Mach, K. J., et al. (31 March 2014). Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. WGII AR5 Summary for Policymakers. Yokohama: IPCC. Retrieved from http://ipcc- wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/IPCC_WG2AR5_SPM_Approved.pdf Flyvbjerg, B. (2004). Five Misunderstanding about Case-Study Research. In C. Seale, G. Gobo., J.F.Gubrium, & D. Silverman, Qualitative Research Practice (pp. 420-434). London: Sage Publication. Ford, J. D. (2011). Climate Change Adaptation in Developed Nations from Theory to Practice (Vol. 42). London, New York: Springer. Retrieved from http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/368/bfm%253A978-94- 007-0567- 8%252F1.pdf?auth66=1406848850_439aa53ddaf7d2663a1a48ed0ba7 ed7f&ext=.pdf Funfgeld, H., & McEvoy, D. (2010). Framing Climate Change Adaptation in Policy and Practice. Victoria Australia: Victorian Centre for Climate Change Adaptation Research. Retrieved from http://www.vcccar.org.au/sites/default/files/publications/Framing_pr oject_workingpaper1_240 Gates, R., & Lee, M. (May 10, 2005). Social Development. Director of Social Planning, in consultation with the Manager of the Sustainability Group. Vancouver: City of Vancouver. Retrieved from http://former.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20050524/documents/p1 .pdf George, A. (2005). Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

237

Gerring, J. (2004). What Is A Case Study and What Is It Good for? American Political Science Review, 98(2), 341-354. Gordon, D. J. (2013). Between local innovation and global impact: cities, networks, and the governance of climate change. Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, 19(3), 288–307, Gore, C. D. (2010). The Limits and Opportunities of Networks: Municipalities and Canadian Climate Change Policy. Review of Policy Research, 27(1), 27-46. Gore, C., & Robinson, P. (2009). Local government response to climate change: our last, best hope? In H. Selin, & S. VanDeveer, Changing climates in North American politics: institutions, policymaking and multilevel governance (pp. 137-158). Cambridge MA: MIT press. Government of Canada. (2009, September 22). The Summit on Climate Change. Retrieved 05 31, 2014, from Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper: http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2009/09/22/summit-climate-change Grosvenor. (8 April 2014) Resilient Cities Research Report. Retrieved from http://www.grosvenor.com/getattachment/194bb2f9-d778-4701- a0ed-5cb451044ab1/ResilientCitiesResearchReport.pdf Harcourt, M., & Cameron, K. (2007). City Making In Paradise. Vancouver BC: Douglas & Mcintyre. Hardwick, C. (. (2012). 2012 Urban Futures Survey. Vancouver BC: PlaceSpeak. Retrieved from www.urbanfuturessurvey.com Harford, D. (November 2008). Climate Change Adaptation: Planning for BC. Victoria BC: Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions. Harrison, K. (1996). Passing the buck: Federalism and Canadian environmental policy. Vancouver: UBC Press. Henstra, D. (2010). Explaining Local Policy Choices: A Multiple Streams Analysis of Municipal Emergency Management. Canadian Public Administration, 53(2), 241 - 258. Holden, M. (2013, January 3). Case study: City of Vancouver. (Royal Roads University) Retrieved 06 2013, 06, from MC3: http://www.mc- 3.ca/city-vancouver Holden, M., MacKenzie, J., & VanWynsberghe, R. (2008). Vancouver's Promise of the World's First Sustainable Olympic Games. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 26(5), 882. Holland, M. (2013, August 29). City of Vancouver Adaptation interview. (S. Fralin, Interviewer)

238

Horne, M. (2013, March 28). Farewell to National Round Table on Environment and Economy. Retrieved from The Pembina Institute: http://www.pembina.org/blog/705 Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (1995). Studying Public Policy. Toronto: Oxford University Press. Howlett, M. (1998). Predictable and Unpredictable Policy Windows: Institutional and Exogenous Correlates of Canadian Federal Agenda Setting. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 31(3), 495-524. Howlett, M. (2009). Policy analytical capacity and evidence-based policy- making: lessons from Canada. Canadian Public Administration, 52(2), 153-175. Huq, A., Reid, H., & Murray, L. (2006). Climate Change and Development Links. Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Livelihoods Programme, Natural Resources Group. London: International Institute for Environment and Development. ICLEI (2014) Membership, List of Members. Retrieved 04 04, 2014, from Local Governments for Sustainability: http://www.icleicanada.org/members/list-members Infrastructure Canada. (2006). Adapting infrastructure to climate change in Canada's cities and communities, a literature review. Infrastructure Canada, Research & Analysis Division Part of the Transport, Infrastructure and communities portfolio. Ottawa: Government of Canada. Ingram, J., & Hamilton, C. (2014). Planning for Climate Change: Guide, A strategic, values-based approach for urban planners. Nairobi: United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat). Insurance Bureau of Canada. (2008a, May 7). Media Release: IBC CEO to deliver keynote address at Atlantic Conference on Disaster Management: Stresses urgent need to adapt to climate change. Retrieved 04 04, 2014, from Insurance Bureau of Canada: http://www.ibc.ca/en/Media_Centre/News_Releases/2008/05-07- 2008.asp Insurance Bureau of Canada. (2008, May 31). Media Release: IBC carries climate change message to Quebec and Canadian Federation of Municipalities. Retrieved 03 2, 2014, from Insurance Bureau of Canada: http://www.ibc.ca/en/Media_Centre/News_Releases/2008/05-31- 2008.asp Insurance Bureau of Canada. (2009, December 22). Costly lessons from 2009: IBC announces year's costliest extreme weather events. Retrieved 04 04, 2014, from Insurance Bureau of Canada:

239

http://www.ibc.ca/en/Media_Centre/News_Releases/2009/12-22- 2009.asp Insurance Bureau of Canada. (June 2012). Telling the Weather Story. Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction. Retrieved from http://www.ibc.ca/en/Natural_Disasters/documents/McBean_Report. pdf Integrated Mapping Technologies. (2009, July 5). Corporate Social Responsibility. Retrieved from Integrated Mapping Technologies: http://www.imtcan.com/news.htm IPCC. (22). Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report, Summary for policymakers. London: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/vol4/index. IPCC. (2007). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Fourth Assessment Report: climate change 2007. Climate Change 2007: Working Group III: Mitigation of Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved 11 12, 2013, from http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch12s12-2- 1.html IPCC. (2012). Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. (C. V.-K. Field, Ed.) Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 582 pp. IPCC. (2013). Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley . United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Jackson, E., Barry, L., & Marzok, N. (26/2/2013). Changing Climate, Changing Communities: Guide and Workbook for Municipal Climate Adaptation. Toronto ON: ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability, Canada Office. Johnston, S. (January 5, 2011). Draft Greenest City 2020 Action Plan. Deputy City Manager and Director, Sustainability Group. Vancouver: City of Vancouver Council. Retrieved from http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/gc2020-targets.pdf Johnston, S., Nicholas, s., & Parzen, J. (2013). The Guide to Greening Cities. Washington DC: Island Press / The center for resource economics. Jones, S. (2012). A Tale of Two Cities: Climate Change Policies in Vancouver and Melbourne — Barometers of Cooperative Federalism? International Journal of Urban and Regional Research (36), 1242–1267. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2427.2011.01083.x

240

Kazmierczak, A., & Carter, J. (June 2010). Adaptation to climate change using green and blue infrastructure, a database of case studies. The University of Manchester. Manchester UK: Green and blue space adaptation for urban areas and eco towns (GRaBS). Retrieved 04 12, 2014, from http://www.grabs- eu.org/membersArea/files/Database_Final_no_hyperlinks.pdf Keenan, R., & Wilby, R. L. (2012). Adapting to flood risk under climate change. Progress in Physical Geography, 36(3), 348–378. doi: 10.1177/0309133312438908 Kiger, P. (2014, 2 12). How Vancouver Invented Itself. Urban Land: the magazine of the urban land institute. Retrieved from http://urbanland.uli.org/development-business/how-vancouver- invented-itself/ Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, (2nd, Ed.). New York: Harper Collins. Kingdon, J. W. (2003). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, (with new forward by James A. Thurber). (2nd, Ed.). New York and London: Longman. Klein, R. J., Nicholls, R., & Mimura, N. (1999). Coastal adaptation to climate change: Can the IPCC Technical Guidelines be applied? Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 4(3-4), 239–252. Klein, R., & Nicholls, R. (1998). Coastal zones. In J. Feenstra, I. Burton, J. Smith, & R. Tol, Handbook on Methods for Climate Change Impact Assessment and Adaptation Strategies, Version 2.0 (pp. 7.1-7.35). Vrije University, Nairobi and Amsterdam: United Nations Environment Programme and Institute for Environmental Studies. Koronowski, R. (2014, February 5). While The World Waits For A Real Climate Deal, Megacities Are Taking Action. Climate Progress. Retrieved from http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/2/05/3244311/megacities- cutting-carbon-emissions/ Larcombe, E., DeMarco, M., Smith, P. M., Kay, V., & Owen, J. (2008, Nov. 11). Vancouver Group. Retrieved from Central Area Plan: http://vancouvergroup.wordpress.com/governance/central-area- plan/ Lebel, L., Anderies, J. M., Campbell, B., Folke, C., Hatfield-Dodds, S., Hughes, T. P., & and Wilson, J. (2006). Governance and the Capacity to Manage Resilience in Regional Social-Ecological Systems. (M. S. Scholarship, Ed.) Ecology and Society, 11(19), 52. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/sms_facpub/52/ Lee, J. (2013, December 15). Times Colonist. (Glacier Community Media) Retrieved 04 06, 2014, from Vancouver’s civic parties already running

241

hard for 2014 election: http://www.timescolonist.com/news/b- c/vancouver-s-civic-parties-already-running-hard-for-2014-election- 1.760061 Lemmen, D., Warren, F., Bush, E., & Lacroix, J. (2008). From Impacts to Adaptation: Canada in a Changing Climate2007. Environment Canada, Natural Resources Canada. Ottawa, ON: Government of Canada. Letcher, G., Bass, F., Brown, M., Droettboom, T., Passmore, D., Rees, W. E., Roseland, M. (1990). Clouds of Change. City of Vancouver, Task Force on Atmospheric Change. Vancouver: City of Vancouver. May, E. (2011, June 15). Objects in Mirror are closer than they appear. Embassy, p. 16. Retrieved from http://act-adapt.org/wp- content/uploads/2011/05/2011_Jun15_Embassy.pdf Mayunga, J. S. (2007, July 22 – 28). Understanding and Applying the Concept of Community Disaster Resilience: A capital-based approach. ): 1-16. Summer Academy for Social Vulnerability and Resilience Building. https://www.ehs.unu.edu/file/get/3761 McCarney, P., Blanco, H., Carmin, J., & Colley, M. (2011). Cities and climate change. . In C. Rosenzweig, W. D. Solecki, S. A. Hammer, & S. Mehrotra, Climate Change and Cities: First Assessment Report of the Urban Climate Change Research Network (pp. 249–269). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. McCarthy, J. J., Canziani, O. F., Lear, N. A., Dokken, D. J., & White, K. S. (2001). Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Working Group II to the 3rd AR of the IPCC. Cambridge, United Kingdom: The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. McEvoy, D., Fünfgeld, H., & Bosomworth, K. (2013). Resilience and Climate Change Adaptation: The Importance of Framing. Planning Practice and Research, 28(3), 280–293. doi:10.1080/2697459.2013.787710 Meadowcroft, J. (2005). From Welfare State to Ecostate. In J. Barry, & R. Eckersley (eds.), The State and The Global Ecological Crisis (pp. 3-23). MIT Press. Meadowcroft, J. (May 2009). Climate Change Governance. The World Bank, Development Economics and World Development Report Team. The World Bank. Retrieved from http://econ.worldbank.org Metro Vancouver. (June 16, 2010). Corporate Climate Action Plan. Vancouver: Metro Vancouver. Retrieved from http://www.metrovancouver.org/planning/ClimateChange/ClimateCh angeDocs/CorporateClimateActionPlanFINAL.pdf

242

Metro Vancouver. (2011). Planning. Retrieved 06 06, 2012, from Metro Vancouver: http://www.metrovancouver.org/planning/Pages/default.aspx Metro Vancouver. (July 29th, 2011). Regional Growth Strategy: Metro Vancouver 2040 – Shaping our Future. Burnaby: Greater Vancouver Regional District Board. Metro Vancouver. (2014, 03 15). Metro Vancouver. Retrieved from Services > Air Quality and Climate Change > What Metro Vancouver is doing > Climate Action Program: http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/air/whatsMVdoing/climate /Pages/default.aspx Mieg, H. A., & Töpfer, K. (Eds.). (2013). Institutional and Social Innovation for Sustainable Urban Development. New York, NY: Routledge. Retrieved from http://books.google.ca/books?id=1Zz3eA3MtXwC&dq=While+et+al.+2 010,+%22strategic+urbanism%22&source=gbs_navlinks_s Mikkelsen, Dale. (2013, September 10). City of Vancouver Adaptation interview. (S. Fralin, Interviewer) Moffatt, S., Axworthy, L., Harcourt, M., Cameron, K., Seymoar, N.-K., Vampbell, E., Wiggin, M. (2003). Cities Planning for Long-term Sustainability (PLUS). Vancouver: Sheltair Group. Moore, D. (2013, August 20). Vancouver near Top of List of Cities Threatened by Rising Sea Levels. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/flooding- due-to-rising-seas-could-cost-1-trillion-by-2050-study- says/article13889544/ Moore, J. L. (1990). What's Stopping Sustainability? Examining the Barriers to Implementation of Clouds of Change. Faculty of Graduate Studies, School of Community and Regional Planning. Vancouver BC: The University of British Columbia. Mucciaroni, G. (1992). The Garbage Can Model & the Study of Policy Making: A Critique. Polity, 24(3), 459-482. Murdock, T., Sobie, S., Eckstrand, H., & Jackson, E. (2012). Georgia Basin: Projected Climate Change, Extremes, and Historical Analysis. Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium, University of Victoria. Victoria BC: PCIC. Retrieved from http://www.pacificclimate.org/~tmurdock/GeorgiaBasin/GeorgiaBasi nImpacts_Draft_v6.2.pdf Nakicenovic, N., & Swart, R. (2000). Special Report on Emissions Scenarios. IPCC. London: Cambridge University Press.

243

Nisbet, M. C. (2009). Communicating climate change: why frames matter for public engagement. . Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 51 (2), 12-23. NRTEE. (2011). Paying the Price: The Economic Impacts of Climate Change for Canada. Ottawa: National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy Canada. Retrieved from http://collectionscanada.gc.ca/webarchives2/20130322143132/http:/ /nrtee-trnee.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/paying-the-price.pdf Pachauri, R., & Reisinger, A. (2007). Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC. Pahl-Wostl, C. (2009). A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Global Environmental Change, 19(3), 354-365. Pander, Sean. (2007). Climate Protection Progress Report. Manager of the Sustainability Group in consultation with the General Managers of Engineering Services, Community Services, Corporate Services, Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation, and Olympic and Paralympic Operations. Vancouver: City of Vancouver. Pandolfi, C. (2010, October 18). Department of unusual certainties, reprinted from Mono Magazine. (Mono Magazine) Retrieved from Vancouverism is everywhere: http://departmentofunusualcertainties.wordpress.com/2010/10/18/v ancouverism-is-everywhere-in-monu/ Parry, M. (2009). Climate change is a development issue, and only sustainable development can confront the challenge. Climate and Development, 1(1), 5-9. PCIC. (2013) Home. Retrieved from the Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium http://www.pacificclimate.org/ Pelling, M. (2011). Adaptation to Climate Change: from Resilience to Transformation. London: Taylor & Frances Books. Penny, J., & Wiedtz, I. (May 2007). Cities Preparing for Climate Change A Study of Six Urban Regions. Toronto ON: Clean Air Partnership. Retrieved from http://www.cleanairpartnership.org/pdf/cities_climate_change.pdf Perez, R. T., & Yohe, G. (2004). Ch. 9 Continuing the Adaptation Process. In B. Lim, E. Spanger-Siegfried, I. Burton, E. Malone, & S. Huq, Adaptation Policy Frameworks for Climate Change: Developing Strategies, Policies and Measures (pp. 205-225). Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.

244

PICS. (2012). About, Turning Climate Knowledge into Climate Action. Retrieved from Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions http://pics.uvic.ca/about Picketts, I. M., Curry, J., & Rapaport, E. (2012). Community Adaptation to Climate Change: Environmental Planners' Knowledge and Experiences in British Columbia, Canada. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 14(2), 119-137. doi:10.1080/1523908X.2012.659847 Price, Gordon, (ND) Price Tags, Blog at WordPress.com. Retrieved 4 2, 2014, from http://pricetags.wordpress.com/ Price, Gordon. (2013, August 12). City of Vancouver Adaptation interview. (S. Fralin, Interviewer) Richardson, G. R. (2010). Adapting to Climate Change: An Introduction for Canadian Municipalities. Natural Resources Canada. Ottawa, ON: Government of Canada. Robinson, J., Bradley, M., Busby, P., Connor, D., Murray, A., Sampson, B., & Soper, W. (2006). Climate Change and Sustainable Development: Realizing the Opportunity. Ambio, 35(1), 2-8. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4315675. Robinson, P. J., & Gore, C. D. (2011). The Spaces in Between: A Comparative Analysis of Municipal Climate Governance and Action. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Seattle, Washington. Rockel, N. (2009, November 4). 2040 Vision: BC and Climate Change. BC Business, p. 5. Retrieved from http://act-adapt.org/wp- content/uploads/2011/03/2009_Nov4_BC-Business.pdf Rodenhuis, D., Bennett, K., Werner, A., Murdock, T., & Bronaugh, D. (2007, revised 2009). Hydro-climatology and future climate impacts in British Columbia. University of Victoria. Victoria BC: Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium. Retrieved from http://www.pacificclimate.org/sites/default/files/publications/Roden huis.ClimateOverview.Mar2009.pdf Romero-Lankao, P. (2012). Governing Carbon and Climate in Cities: an overview of policy and planning challenges and options. European Planning Studies, 20(1), 7-26. doi:10.1080/09654313.2011.638496 Rowlands, I. H. (2007). The Development of Renewable Electricity Policy in the Province of Ontario: The Inﬂuence of Ideas and Timing. Review of Policy Research, 24(3), 185-207. Rutherford, S. (2009). Bill 27: Opportunities and Strategies for Green Action by BC Local Governments. Vancouver BC: West Coast Environmental Law.

245

Ryan, Pat. (2013, September 13). City of Vancouver Adaptation interview. (S. Fralin, Interviewer) Satterthwaite, D. (2008). Climate change and urbanization: Effects and implications for urban governance. Population Division, United Nations Expert Group Meeting on Population Distribution, Urbanization, Internal Migration and Development. New York: United Nations Secretariat. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/esa/population/meetings/EGM_PopDist/P16_Satt erthwaite.pdf Scanlon, J. (1995). Federalism and Canadian emergency response: Control, cooperation and conflict. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 10(1), 18-24. Schipper, E. L. (2009). The Earthscan Reader on Adaptation to Climate Change. London: Earthscan. Schwartz, E. (2012). Chapter 6: Local Solutions to a global problem? Climate change policy making in Vancouver. In B. J. Richardson, Local climate change law: environmental regulation in cities and other localities (pp. 164-194). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. Schwartz, E. (June 2012). Ph.D. Thesis: The Making of Climate Change Policy in Vancouver and Toronto: A comparative analysis. A Paper presented to the Canadian Political Science Association. Edmonton, AB: UBC. Scobie, F. (April 3, 2007). Flood-Proofing Policies. Subdivision Approving Officer and Chief Building Official, in consultation with the General Manager of Engineering Services. Vancouver: City of Vancouver Council. Seymoar, N.-K. (2004, 10 25). Planning for Long-term Urban Sustainability: A Guide to Frameworks and Tools. Retrieved from http://pdf.aminer.org/000/249/235/comprehensive_urban_planning_ a_framework_for_group_decision.pdf Sandford, Bob. (2012). SFU Adaptation to Climate Change Team. Briefing Paper for Decision Makers: Climate Change Adaptation and Water Governance. Retrieved from http://act-adapt.org/water-security/ Sheltair Group. (2003). A Sustainable Urban System, the Long-term Plan for Urban Vancouver. Retrieved from Sheltair Group: www.sheltair.com/library_usp.html Sinoski, K., & Lee, M. V. (2012, July 20). Vancouver plans to face climate change head-on. The Vancouver Sun. Retrieved from http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Vancouver+plans+face+climate +change+head/6968006/story.html Slater, L. A. (2011). MA Thesis: A Case Study of the Green Building Sector in Vancouver. Vancouver: SFU.

246

Spencer, N., & Butler, D. (2010). Cities: The century of the City. Nature, 467(7318), 899-92. doi:10.1038/467900a Stoddart, M., Tindall, D., & Greenfield, K. (2012). “Governments Have the Power”? Interpretations of Climate Change Responsibility and Solutions among Canadian Environmentalists. Organization & Environment 25(1), 39 –58. Taylor, E., & Langlois, D. (2000). Climate Change and the Greater Vancouver Regional District. Pacific and Yukon Region. Vancouver: Environment Canada. Taylor, P. (2009, March 2). Measuring the World City Network: New Results and Developments. Retrieved from Globalization and World Cities (GaWC) Research Network: http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/rb/rb300.html The Canadian Press. (2013, August 20). Future flooding scenario shows Metro Vancouver at risk. (Canadian Broadcasting Company) Retrieved from CBC News British Columbia: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british- columbia/future-flooding-scenario-shows-metro-vancouver-at-risk- 1.1382617 The Editors. (2014, 04 05). Regional Context Statement. Retrieved from City Hall Watch: http://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/special- topics/regional-context-statement/ The Province of BC. (4/11/2012). The All-Hazard Plan: Emergency Management in British Columbia. Retrieved from http://embc.gov.bc.ca/em/hazard_plans/All-Hazard_Plan.pdf The Vancouver City Planning Commission. (2014). Retrieved from The Vancouver City Planning Commission: http://www.vancouverplanning.ca/ Timmer, V., & Seymoar, N.-K. (March 2005). The Livable City. International Centre for Sustainable Cities. Retrieved from http://www.cscd.gov.bc.ca/lgd/intergov_relations/library/wuf_the_liv able_city.pdf Tooke, T., Coops, N., & Voogt, J. (20-22 May 2009). Assessment of urban tree shade using fused LIDAR and high spatial resolution imagery. Urban Remote Sensing Event (pp. 1 - 6). Vancouver, BC: Forest Resources Management, University of British Columbia. doi:10.1109/URS.2009.5137619 Torgerson, D. (December 2000). Farewell to the green movement? Political Action and The Green Public Sphere. Environmental Politics, 1-19.

247

UNFCCC. (2014). Home > Bodies > Conference of the Parties (COP). Retrieved from United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: http://unfccc.int/bodies/body/6383.php Vancouver City Council 1982-1986. (July 1986). The Vancouver Plan: the City's strategy for managing change. Vancouver BC: City of Vancouver Planning department, Ray Spaxman (director). Vancouver Economic Commission. (2012). VEC Your Business Link. Retrieved from Vancouver Economic Commission: http://www.vancouvereconomic.com/page/vec-your-business-link Vaughan, T. (2008). Collaborative practice towards sustainability: the Southeast False Creek experience. Urban Studies. Burnaby: Simon Fraser University. Retrieved from http://summit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/8909/etd3482.pdf VCPC. (1980). Vancouver the future city: Goals for Vancouver. Vancouver BC: Vancouver City Planning Commission. VEDC. (March 2010). Vancouver as a city-region in the global economy. Vancouver Green Capital. Vancouver BC: Vancouver Economic Development Commission. Retrieved from www.bcbc.com/content/583/2020_201004_VEDC.pdf Vancouver Observer (VO) Staff Reporter. (2014, February 3). Mayor Robertson to attend climate change conference in South Africa. Vancouver Observer (VO). Retrieved from http://www.vancouverobserver.com/news/mayor-robertson-attend- climate-change-conference-south-africa Walker, B. H. (2004). Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability in Social – ecological Systems. Ecology and Society, 9(2), 5. Ward, D. (2011, March 31). Conflicts and consensus in Vancouver's political history. Vancouver Sun. Retrieved from http://www2.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=45390 88 Weeks, J. (2013, March 20). The Daily Climate. Retrieved 04 01, 2014, from for engineers, climate failure becomes an option: http://www.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2013/03/flexible- infrastructure-climate-stress Weigeldt, N. (2013, June 14). Vancouver Showcases Its Adaptation Leadership At Resilient Cities 2013. ICLEI Canada. Retrieved from http://www.icleicanada.org/news/item/92-iclei-canada-at-resilient- cities-2013-recap While, A., Jonas, A. E., & Gibbs, D. (2010). From sustainable development to carbon control: eco‐state restructuring and the politics of urban and

248

regional development. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 35(1), 76-93. Wilbanks, T. J. (2003). Integrating climate change and sustainable development in a place-based context. Climate Policy 3S1, S147–S154. Wilbanks, T. J., & Kates, R. W. (2010). Beyond Adapting to Climate Change: Embedding Adaptation in Responses to Multiple Threats and Stresses. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 100(4), 719-728. doi:10.1080/00045608.2010.5200 World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our Common Future. United Nations. Retrieved from A/42/427 http://conspect.nl/pdf/Our_Common_Future- Brundtland_Report_1987.pdf Yin, R. K. (1994). Case Study Research Design and Methods (2 ed., Vol. 5). Thousand Oaks, London, and New Delhi: Sage publications. Zeppel, H. (2013). The ICLEI cities for climate protection programme: local government networks in urban climate governance. In T. Cadman, Climate Change and Global Policy Regimes, Towards Institutional Legitimacy (pp. 217-231). UK: Palgrave Macmillan.