Market Mechanisms for Sustainable Neighbourhood Development
MAKING SUSTAINABILITY HAPPEN: MARKET MECHANISMS FOR SUSTAINABLE NEIGHBOURHOOD DEVELOPMENT
Christopher Martin Lindberg B.Sc. (Honours) Simon Fraser University,
THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS
In the Department of Geography
O Christopher Martin Lindberg 2007
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
Spring 2007
All rights reserved. This work may not be reproduced in whole or part, by photocopy or other means, without the permission of the author. APPROVAL
Name: Christopher Martin Lindberg
Degree: Master of Arts
Title of Thesis: Making Sustainability Happen: Market Mechanisms For Sustainable Neighbourhood Development
Examining Committee:
Chair: Dr. N.K. Blomley Professor, Department of Geography
Dr. M. Roseland, Professor Department of Geography Senior Supervisor
Dr. P. Condon, Professor Faculty Landscape Architecture, UBC Committee Member
Dr. B. Cohen, Assistant Professor External Examiner Faculty of Business, Technical and Operations Management, Simon Fraser University
Date Approved: March 28, 2007 SIMON FRASER &.&V UNIVERSITYIi brary
DECLARATION OF PARTIAL COPYRIGHT LICENCE
The author, whose copyright is declared on the title page of this work, has granted to Simon Fraser University the right to lend this thesis, project or extended essay to users of the Simon Fraser University Library, and to make partial or single copies only for such users or in response to a request from the library of any other university, or other educational institution, on its own behalf or for one of its users.
The author has further granted permission to Simon Fraser University to keep or make a digital copy for use in its circulating collection (currently available to the public at the "Institutional Repository" link of the SFU Library website
The author has further agreed that permission for multiple copying of this work for scholarly purposes may be granted by either the author or the Dean of Graduate Studies.
It is understood that copying or publication of this work for financial gain shall not be allowed without the author's written permission.
Permission for public performance, or limited permission for private scholarly use, of any multimedia materials forming part of this work, may have been granted by the author. This information may be found on the separately catalogued multimedia material and in the signed Partial Copyright Licence.
The original Partial Copyright Licence attesting to these terms, and signed by this author, may be found in the original bound copy of this work, retained in the Simon Fraser University Archive.
Simon Fraser University Library Burnaby, BC, Canada
Revised: Fall 2006 +"' SIMON FRASER P-@ -3 IJNWERS~TY~ibra ry
STATEMENT OF ETHICS APPROVAL
The author, whose name appears on the title page of this work, has obtained, for the research described in this work, either:
(a) Human research ethics approval from the Simon Fraser University Ofice of Research Ethics,
(b) Advance approval of the animal care protocol from the University Animal Care Committee of Simon Fraser University; or has conducted the research
(c) as a co-investigator, in a research project approved in advance,
(d) as a member of a course approved in advance for minimal risk human research, by the Office of Research Ethics.
A copy of the approval letter has been filed at the Theses Office of the University Library at the time of submission of this thesis or project.
The original application for approval and letter of approval are filed with the relevant offices, Inquiries may be directed to those authorities.
Bennett Library Simon Fraser University Burnaby, BC, Canada Abstract
This paper presents the concept of market mechanisms for sustainable community development (SCD). The research examined definitions of SCD, policy development and market mechanisms; used focus groups to explore how these concepts have been applied in British Columbian urban centres; developed, tested and revised a research framework for exploring market mechanisms and community policy development; and prepared two case studies of "sustainable neighbourhood" development in B.C.
The research was motivated by contemporary interest in sustainability; the lack of clarity around market mechanism and SCD approaches; and the "planning-implementation gap" faced by many communities.
Market mechanisms for SCD comprise instruments, policies and practices that have been expressly designed to mobilize citizens and influence market outcomes for the improvement of community capital. Their successful implementation requires the alignment of all five elements of the research framework: market actors, community values & vision, governance & decision-making structures; policy development processes and policy design.
Keywords: Sustainable Development; Sustainable Community Development; Market Mechanisms; Sustainable Neighbourhood Development; Community Planning;
iii For Larisa and T.C.
"We have lived by the assumption that what was good for us would be good for the world. We have been wrong. We must change our lives, so that it will be possible to live by the contrary assumption that what is good for the world will be good for us. And that requires that we make the effort to know the world and learn what is good for it. We must learn to cooperate in its processes, and to yield to its limits. But even more important, we must learn to acknowledge that the creation is full of mystery; we will never clearly understand it. We must abandon arrogance and stand in awe."
- Wendell Berry, Recollected Essays Acknowledgements
I owe thanks to many people for their support in the creation of this thesis:
On the academic side, Dr. Mark Roseland provided me with a spacious sandbox in which to explore, imagine, invent and even implement solutions to sustainability problems. My second committee member, Dr. Patrick Condon always pushed me to see the big picture while regaling me with his insights on change-making. I am very grateful for the incredible freedom I have enjoyed under their tutelage. My research colleagues and partners in crime, Sean Connelly and David Hendrickson, were equally instrumental in the success of both my academic and applied adventures. While it's possible that I may have been able to survive graduate school without them, it would have been a dark and lonely journey. Finally, many thanks to the rest of the researchers and staff (especially Christina Lai) both at the Centre for Sustainable Community Development and in the Geography Department who have each supported and taught me in their own unique ways.
On the funding side, I was financially supported by two of Dr. Mark Roseland's grants and am consequently very grateful to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (for the "Market Mechanisms for Sustainable Community Development" grant) and the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (for the "Site Control for Sustainable Community Development" grant). I am also grateful to the SSHRC Canada Graduate Scholarship program and to Simon Fraser University for supporting me with a Special Graduate Entrance scholarship and Graduate Fellowship.
On the applied side, a vast array of individuals and organizations supported the Making Sustainability Happen event that formed the core of my thesis research. In particular, I would like to thank Candace Bonfield for her professionalism and boundless enthusiasm in helping to organize and coordinate the event. Much gratitude also goes to all of the volunteers, participants and sponsors. Also on the applied side, I would like to acknowledge the role of the non-profit Light House Sustainable Building Centre in the development of my thinking and thesis. I co- founded Light House as a direct result of my thesis research and learned an immeasurable amount in the process. Many, many thanks to Mark, Sean, David, Christina and everyone else who helped to make that dream a reality.
On the personal side I would like to express my deepest gratitude to the friends and family who have steadfastly supported (and tolerated) me during the past two-and-a-half years of joyous insanity. From my parents and brother to my extended family of "in-laws" and "in-commons", I have been showered with advice, strategic distraction and good wishes. Finally, and most importantly, I would like to thank my partner and soul-buddy Larisa Deme, for packing up her life and driving with me on this wet and wild adventure. I could fill a second volume with lists of your countless acts of love, support, sacrifice and sugar-delivery. This thesis is dedicated to you and our little T.C. who taught us so much about love and living in his brief time with us. At the heart of everything I have done has been the dream of a healthy, happy, sustainable future for our family and community. Table of Contents
.. Approval ...... 11 ... Abstract ...... 111 Dedication ...... iv Acknowledgements ...... v .. Table of Contents ...... VII List of Figures ...... ix List of Tables ...... ix 1 Introduction...... I 1. 1 Research Context and Purpose ...... I 1.2 Research Approach Overview ...... 3 1.3 Significance of the Research ...... 4 2 Methods ...... 6 2.1 Overview ...... 6 2.2 Methodological Considerations in Research Design ...... 8 2.3 Literature Review and Development of the Framework and Discussion Papers ...... 8 2.4 Research Question 1: Making Sustainability Happen Event ...... 9 2.4.1 Event Design ...... 9 2.4.2 Data Collection ...... II 2.4.3 Analysis ...... 12 2.4.3.1 Emergent Analysis ...... 14 2.4.3.2 Framework Analysis ...... 16 2.5 Research Question 2: Dockside Green and East Clayton Case Studies ...... 17 2.5.1 Literature Review ...... 17 2.5.2 Case Study Design ...... 17 2.5.3 Case Study Selection ...... 18 2.5.4 Data Collection ...... 19 2.5.5 Analysis ...... 20 2.6 Validity of the Research Design ...... 21 3 Literature Review ...... 23 3.1 Context and Rationale ...... 23 3.2 Defining Sustainable Community Development ...... 24 3.2.1 Core Meanings of Sustainable Community Development ...... 25 3.2.2 The Community Capital Framework ...... 26 3.2.3 SCD is "Strong" Sustainability ...... 27 3.3 Sustainable Neighbourhoods and Land-Use Development ...... 29 3.3.1 The Planning-Implementation Gap in Land Development ...... 31 3.4 Understanding Public Policy Development ...... 33 3.5 Defining Market Mechanisms ...... 38 3.5.1 Market Mechanisms Approaches ...... 40 3.5.2 Market Mechanisms and the "Invisible Elbow" ...... 41 3.5.3 Market Mechanisms for Sustainable Community Development ...... 44 3.6 The Research Framework: Market Mechanisms for Sustainable Community Development ...... 45 3.6.1 Evaluating the research framework ...... 47
vii 4 Phase I .Market Mechanisms for Sustainable Community Development ...... 52 4.1 Overview ...... 52 4.2 Making Sustainability Happen Results ...... 53 4.2.1 Results of the Emergent Analysis ...... 53 4.2.2 Results of Framework Analysis ...... 57 4.3 Conclusions ...... 62 4.3.1 Validity and Reliability of the Research ...... 62 4.3.2 Validation of the Market Mechanism Framework ...... 63 4.3.3 Policy and Market Mechanism Design ...... 65 4.3.3.1 Financial Instruments ...... 66 4.3.3.2 Voluntary Instruments...... 67 4.3.3.3 Regulatory Instruments ...... 68 4.3.3.4 Public Expenditure...... 69 4.3.4 The Role of Governance and Decision Making in the Framework ...... 70 4.3.5 Barriers to Market Mechanisms for Sustainable Community Development ...... 71 4.4 Discussion - Refining the Research Framework ...... 72 4.4.1 .1 Market Actors ...... 74 4.4.1.2 Community Values and Vision ...... 75 4.4.1.3 Governance and Decision-making Structures ...... 75 4.4.1.4 Policy Elements and Development Process...... 76 4.4.1.5 Community and Market Outcomes ...... 77 4.4.2 Applying the Revised Research Framework: Research Questions 1 & 2 ...... 77 5 Phase II .Market Mechanisms for Sustainable Neighbourhoods ...... 79 5.1 Overview ...... 79 5.2 Results ...... 79 5.2.1 Overview ...... 79 5.2.2 East Clayton (Headwaters) and Dockside Case Studies ...... 80 5.3 Conclusions ...... 89 5.3.1 Comparing the cases - Drivers, Obstacles and Processes ...... 89 5.3.2 Applying the Research Framework ...... 91 5.3.3 Conclusions - Market Mechanism Roles and lrnplications ...... 98 6 Overall Conclusions and Discussion ...... 102 6.1 The Research Framework ...... 103 6.2 Broader Lessons and Best Practices for Market Mechanisms for SCD ...... 104 6.2.1 Recommendations for Community Values and Vision ...... 108 6.2.2 Recommendations for Governance and Decision-making ...... 109 6.2.3 Recommendations for Policy Elements and Development Process ...... 111 6.2.4 Recommendations for Policy Design ...... 111 6.2.5 Recommendations for Market Actors ...... 113 6.2.6 Recommendations for Community and Market Outcomes ...... 113 6.3 Discussion - Significance of the Research and Next Steps ...... 114 6.3.1 Significance of the Research ...... 114 6.3.2 Final Thoughts ...... 117 References ...... 120 Appendices ...... 126 Appendix A: Research Collaborators and Copyright Information ...... 127 Appendix B: Making Sustainability Happen Agenda. Participants. Data Collection Forms and Raw Data ...... 128 Appendix C: Making Sustainability Happen Results Tables ...... 149 Appendix D: Sample Case Study Interview Questions ...... 164 Appendix E: East Clayton Respondents and Resources Reviewed ...... 166 Appendix F: Dockside Respondents and Resources Reviewed ...... 169 Appendix G: Key Mechanisms from the Case Studies ...... 171
viii List of Figures
Figure 3-1 Types of Community Capital ...... 27 Figure 3-2 The Community Capital Framework ...... 28 Figure 3-4 The Policy Development Process ...... 38 Figure 3-5 The Preliminary Research Framework ...... 48 Figure 4-1 The Final Research Framework ...... 74 Figure 5-1 The Case Study Sites ...... 81 Figure 6-1 The Final Research Framework (repeated) ...... 108
List of Tables
Table 2-1 Research Overview ...... 7 Table 2-2 Summary of Data Collection Questions and Coding ...... 12 Table 2-3 Summary of Data Analysis Methods ...... 14 Table 2-4 Tactics for Establishing Validity and Reliability ...... 21 Table 3-1 Means of Influencing Sustainable Land Use Planning and Development ...... 33 Table 3-2 Examples of Market Mechanisms for Sustainable Community Development ...... 49 Table 4-1 Numeric Summary of Emergent Analysis Trends ...... 54 Table 4-2 Summary of Emergent Analysis Results ...... 55 Table 4-3 Typology of Market Actors ...... 57 Table 4-4 Numeric Summary of Framework Analysis Strategies and Instruments ...... 59 Table 4-5 Summary of Framework Analysis Strategies and Instruments ...... 60 Table 5-1 Side-by-Side Comparison of East Clayton and Headwaters ...... 82 Table 5-2 Comparative Framework Analysis of East Clayton and Dockside Green ...... 92 I Introduction II Research Context and Purpose
Planning for sustainable development has become an issue of critical importance for governments, industry, communities, and citizens both within Canada and around the globe (Bell, 2002; Boyd, 2004; [EACCC], 2006; [FCM], 2006; Gahin, Veleva, & Hart, 2003; [ICLEI], 2002a; [NRTEE], 2003). Local authorities - urban, small town, rural, Aboriginal - are considered the appropriate locus for applying sustainable development principles as they are the most affected by global social, environmental and economic trends, as well as being the only locally elected, representative and accountable bodies responsible for community decision-making (Brugmann, 1994; [EACCC], 2006; Parkinson & Roseland, 2002; Roseland, 2005). These factors have led to increasing interest in sustainable community development (SCD), a field that integrates community economic development, community planning, and sustainable development (Hamstead & Quinn, 2005; Roseland, 2005).
However, while many communities have integrated sustainable development principles into their planning and/or decision-making processes, few have succeeded at translating their high-level goals and objectives into tangible projects and actionable implementation strategies. Barriers to implementation include inadequate human and financial resources; a limited awareness of, and experience with, sustainable development tools; and a lack of long-term stakeholder engagement (Dale, 2001; Gahin et al., 2003; Parkinson & Roseland, 2002).
Resolving this 'planning-implementation gap' is complicated by the significant challenges Canadian communities face in managing the combined impacts of globalisation, changing demographics, environmental depletion, and infrastructure degradation (Roseland, 2005). Many governments have responded to fiscal hardship by adopting more entrepreneurial approaches to service provision, such as outsourcing and public-private partnerships. Equally important, community-based development strategies (e.g. Social Entrepreneurship, Community Economic Development) are rapidly evolving to incorporate the market-led realities of planning, development, and funding. These trends have created an expanded role for private and non-profit entities in governance- and planning-related decision-making. This has resulted in an increased interest in engaging the market through the use of "market mechanisms" to guide, reward, monitor, and penalize private sector involvement in planning decisions and development projects.
The challenges associated with marketing and implementing SCD are particularly apparent at the level of land use and neighbourhood planning. The development of sustainable or "green" neighbourhoods requires new processes for coordinating the planning of key community aspects (such as transportation, land-use, and economic development), integrating public and private infrastructure development, and collaborating in their implementation. It also requires a regulatory and business climate that provides unambiguous directives and incentives for sustainability.
How are these trends intersecting? Both sustainability advocates and neoclassical economists are calling for a shift from traditional 'command-and-control' approaches to governance towards the use of more flexible, market-based instruments or market mechanisms (Bell, 2002; Currie, 2005; [NRTEE], 2002, 2003; Roseland, 2005; Stavins, 2001; [UKPIU], 2001; Whitten, Bueren, & Collins, 2003). However, they advocate for very different strategies and outcomes. While neoclassical economists favour privatization on the basis of increasing economic wealth and minimizing government intervention in the market, ecological economists favour full-cost accounting on the basis of increasing natural and social capital and controlling the negative impacts of market forces.
The purpose of this thesis is therefore to explore the existing and potential roles of these market mechanisms in supporting sustainable community development and closing the 'planning- implementation' gap. Research was conducted in two phases. The first phase focussed on defining market mechanisms and identifying broad issues related to their use in urban British Columbia. The second phase focused on a specific community aspect - land use planning - and examined the role of market mechanisms in two British Columbian case studies of sustainable neighbourhood planning and development. These two phases are represented by the two primary research questions below and their associated subsidiary questions:
1. What are the existing and emerging roles for market mechanisms in supporting sustainable community development in major urban centres of British Columbia?
a. What are market mechanisms and how do they impact sustainable community development?
b. What are barriers to, opportunities for, and examples of the use of market mechanisms to move from planning to implementation across key community aspects (such as transportation, water, energy, etc.)?
2. What are the existing and emerging roles for market mechanisms in the planning and development of sustainable neighbourhoods in major urban centres in British Columbia?
a. What drivers, obstacles, and processes have influenced the planning and development of two planned sustainable neighbourhoods in British Columbia (Dockside Green in Victoria and East Clayton in Surrey)? b. What are the existing and emerging roles of market mechanisms in those two cases?
c. What are the broader lessons learned from these cases for market mechanisms and sustainable community development?
1.2 Research Approach Overview
The research encompassed a literature review, two phases of primary research (one for each question) and a period of analysis and integration. Much of the work was undertaken collaboratively by a team of three researchers - Chris Lindberg, David Hendrickson and Sean Connelly - under the supervision of Mark Roseland. The research contributed to and was informed by two larger CSCD research projects: Market Mechanisms for Sustainable Community Development and Site Control for Sustainable Community Development.
The research is primarily qualitative and is descriptive, exploratory and explanatory; primary methods used are questionnaires, interviews, and document reviews as part of focus groups and comparative case studies. Exploratory focus groups are well suited to both theory and effect (applied) applications; they are well-suited to generating ideas, identifying needs and developing models (Fern, 2001). The case study method is ideal for researching complicated social phenomena because of its ability to deal with multiple data types and methods, incorporate real world context and provide a holistic or 'thick description' of the case (Hammersley & Gomm, 2000; Peattie, 1994; Stake, 1978; Yin, 1984, 2003). Reliability and validity for both cases and focus groups were ensured through data triangulation, research design and key informant review, as per Yin (1984).
Research question #Iwas explored through a full-day series of focus-group discussions and dialogues on market mechanisms for sustainable community development. This event was entitled Making Sustainability Happen and was held May 5Ih 2005 at Harbour Centre in downtown Vancouver as the central event of Super Sustainable British Columbia (SSBC)'. Prior to the event, the researchers prepared and circulated a discussion paper containing a draft market mechanisms framework and several shorter discussion papers with examples of market mechanisms for a variety of community topics (e.g, energy, transportation etc.). The framework was presented at the event along with two other presentations related to market mechanisms and sustainability. The event had both applied and theoretical objectives. From an applied perspective
Super Sustainable British Columbia (SSBC) was a two-day series of events focused on sustainable community development held May 5-6th 2005 at Harbour Centre in downtown Vancouver. SSBC was organized by Simon Fraser University's Centre for Sustainable Community Development (CSCD) in partnership with the International Centre for Sustainable Cities (ICSC), the SFU Sustainable Campus Coalition and SFU Net Impact. Chris Lindberg initiated and coordinated this event on behalf of the CSCD. For more information please visit http://www.sfu.ca/-ssbc its broad objectives were to promote discussion, generate innovative and strategic ideas for advancing sustainability in the region and facilitate individual and collaborative action on sustainability. Its theoretical objectives were to explore the validity of the proposed market mechanism framework, identify cross-cutting issues, and examine the potential role of market mechanism strategies, instruments and actors in addressing those issues.
Over 100 senior decision-makers from businesses, non-governmental organizations, universities and all levels of government participated in the invitation-only event. Participants were identified using the "snowball" technique based on their experience with and interest in sustainable development issues. Several discussion papers were prepared for the event and data was collected at the event through two questionnaires (one pre-event and one post-event) and note- taking during facilitated focus-group discussions at 16 tables of 6-8 people covering nine different topics (recorded in poster format). The data was coded and analysed in terms of identified barriers, opportunities, successes and market mechanisms; it was then reviewed to look for cross-cutting themes and issues. Finally, it was compared to the research framework.
Building on the results of the earlier work, Research question #2 was explored through comparative case studies focused on land use planning and development. Two case study sites were selected where the municipalities had made explicit commitments to developing a sustainable community, engaged in a land-use planning process, and took appropriate measures to ensure implementation: Dockside Green in Victoria and East Clayton (the Headwaters Project) in Surrey. The goal was to understand how and why a commitment to sustainable development was made in these two cases in order to identify existing and emerging roles for market mechanism strategies, instruments and actors in fostering this type of development. Relevant documents for each case were reviewed and key informants were questioned in semi-structured interviews.
1.3 Significance of the Research
This research has both theoretical and practical significance. In terms of theory, the use of multiple cases and focus-groups allows for comparison and analytical generalization regarding the roles of market mechanisms in sustainable community development (Yin, 1984). Schofield (Schofield, 1990) suggests three domains of theory to which a researcher may generalize; by studying two exceptional examples of development innovation (Dockside Green and East Clayton), the research aims to generalize the domain of "what could be" and provide insight into the theory and processes underlying the development of sustainable communities. Theoretical contributions include:
- Contributing to the theory of sustainable community development and clarifying the key issues in moving from planning to implementation. - Developing a framework for classifying and defining market mechanisms and their relevance to, and impact on, sustainable community development.
- Further developing our understanding of sustainable neighbourhoods; the processes and frameworks that support their development; and existing and emerging roles of market mechanisms in facilitating them.
This research also has practical contributions, both for the stakeholders in each case and for the broader community of practitioners. Practical and applied contributions include:
Identifying cross-cutting barriers to and opportunities for using market mechanisms to support sustainable community development in urban British Columbia and more broadly.
Providing insights and recommendations for stakeholders involved in the two case studies (Dockside Green and East Clayton).
Developing concrete recommendations for the development of market mechanisms to facilitate and accelerate the creation of sustainable buildings and neighbourhoods in urban British Columbia and more broadly. Methods
2.1 Overview
A multi-stage research methodology was developed to explore the role of market mechanisms in overcoming the sustainable community development planning-implementation gap using the research framework described above. Table 2-1 below provides an overview of the methodology and researchers involved with answering each research question. The following sections provide details on each method used.
It is important to note that this research did not follow a conventional linear approach to the literature review, method development, data collection and analysis; rather it was more iterative and evolutionary:
The starting point for research was the identification of the broad research objective which was to explore the existing and emerging roles for market mechanisms in supporting sustainable community development. This was then refined in terms of scope and scale and articulated as Research Question #I.Research Question #2 was intentionally left undefined to allow for it to emerge from the research itself.
A literature review followed to identify key issues and develop a preliminary market mechanism research framework. This formed the basis for a series of discussion papers on market mechanisms and SCD.
The next step was to hold a one-day facilitated dialogue with senior decision-makers to i) explore and develop market mechanisms for SCD in the Lower Mainland, ii) evaluate and refine the preliminary research framework, and iii) identify potential areas of focus for Research Question #2.
Based on the outcomes and preliminary analysis of the dialogue, Research Question #2 was developed to focus specifically on case-studies of sustainable neighbourhood development.
A second literature review followed to identify key issues in sustainable neighbourhood development and explore their link with the market mechanism framework.
Two case studies were selected; the case study research was conducted in parallel with the ongoing literature review. After the case studies had been prepared a comparative analysis was conducted using the final research framework. Table 2-1 Research Overview
Question 1: What are the existing and emerging roles for market mechanisms in supporting sustainable community development in major urban centres of British Columbia? a. What are market mechanisms and how do they impact sustainable community development? b. What are barriers to, opportunities for, and examples of the use of market mechanisms to move from planning to implementation across key community aspects (such as transportation, water, energy, etc.)? Timeline Methodology and Researchers lnvolved Sep 2004 - 1. Literature Review: Initial market mechanism framework development and Apr 2005 link to sustainable community development - C. Lindberg, D. s end ricks on, S. Connelly, M. Roseland Apr 2005 2. Preparation of market mechanism discussion and briefing papers for Making Sustainability Happen focus-group event - C. Lindberg, D. Hendrickson, S. Connelly, M. Roseland with assistance from various volunteers May 5-6 3. Collection of data from at Making Sustainability Hamen event 2005 -- Registration and Evaluation qu&ionnaires designed by C. Lindberg, D. Hendrickson, S. Connelly, M. Roseland -- Event design by C. Lindberg, M. Laberge and A. Svendsen with D. Hendrickson, S. Connelly and M. Roseland; -- Note-taking by various volunteer table facilitators; -- Data analysis by C. Lindberg with input from D. Hendrickson, S. Connelly, and M. ~oseland- May 2005 - 4. Analysis of data from Making Sustainability Happen event -- C. Lindberg with input from D. Hendrickson, S. Connelly, and M. Roseland Question 2: What are the existing and emerging roles for market mechanisms in the planning and development of sustainable neighbourhoods in major urban centres in British Columbia? a. What drivers, obstacles, and processes have influenced the planning and development of two planned sustainable neighbourhoods in British Columbia (Dockside Green in Victoria and East Clayton in Surrey)? b. What are the existing and emerging roles of market mechanisms in those two cases? c. What are the broader lessons learned from these cases for market mechanisms and sustainable community development? Timeline Methodology and Researchers lnvolved May 2005 - 1. Literature Review: Additional reading and framework revision for Research Aug 2006 Question 2 as a result of event and data analysis. -- C. Lindberg with input from D. Hendrickson, S. Connelly and M. Roseland May - Jun 2. Case Study Selection and preparatory literature review 2005 - C. Lindberg Au~- NOV 3. Dockside Case Study 2005 - Interviews by C. Lindberg, S. Connelly and D. Hendrickson; - Analysis and writing by C. Lindberg with input from D. Hendrickson and S. Connelly. Apr - Jun 4. East Clayton Case Study 2006 - Interviews and analysis C. Lindberg Sep - Dec 5. Comparative analysis of Dockside and East Clayton 2006 - C. Lindberg 2.2 Methodological Considerations in Research Design
As presented by Graham (2005), researchers must make some fundamental choices in terms of broad bodies of theory. Following her typology, this research comes from an "anti-naturalist" worldview that recognizes that social sciences are fundamentally different from natural sciences in that they deal with interpreting and understanding human behaviour. As a human geographer, the researcher accepts that human behaviour is governed by the interplay of biological forces and conscious intentionality, rationality and reflexivity. Behaviour is inextricably linked to the context of cultural practices, experiences and norms that are associated with an individual's or organization's context in terms of geography, socio-economic status and political realities, and interests.
This research is both applied and theoretical; it is also participatory and action-oriented, following Peattie (1994) and Graham (2005). Lisa Peattie describes three goals of research based on Aristotle: episteme, techne and phronesis. Whereas episteme seeks universal, demonstrable truths and techne seeks to describe the "art or craft of bringing something into being" (technique), phronesis seeks the knowledge of what to do in particular circumstances (ibid. p393). Peattie proposes that "progressive phronesis" is an approach to research as the basis for action, and that case studies are the ideal method for this approach. Her proposal is well aligned with Graham's description of a "third type of science, critical science" as research that seeks to not only understand society but also to make it better, and their position that a critical human geography would produce "action-oriented knowledge" that positions itself both in terms of how society is and how it "ought to be" (Graham 2005 p32). This research both explores and advocates for sustainable community development as a goal for British Columbian communities.
Finally, this research is linked to geography in that it is inherently concerned with issues of place, space and physical realities; specifically with the community processes that shape the physical environment and the social, political and physical structures that embody and support sustainable community development.
2.3 Literature Review and Development of the Framework and Discussion Papers The first stage of the research consisted of a review of the literature within three main fields: sustainable community development, sustainable development and community economic development. Other fields that were explored included eco-industrial networking (industrial ecology), ecological economics, and sustainable community planning and design. Sources included academic and professional journals, reports, case studies, and seminal books in sustainability such as Toward Sustainable Communities (Roseland, 2005) and Natural Capitalism (Hawken, Lovins, & Lovins, 1999). The focus of this initial research was on exploring issues in these fields related to market mechanisms, market-based instruments, and policy development.
Based on this review, models of policy development and land development were created; policy instruments were categorized; and a definition of, and framework for, market mechanisms for sustainable community development was developed. A discussion paper was prepared summarizing this information and providing examples of different market mechanisms; additional briefing papers were prepared with mechanism examples across a variety of topics (e.g. transportation, education, etc.) as described below.
2.4 Research Question 1: Making Sustainability Happen Event
The Making Sustainability Happen event was designed to collect data to refine the market mechanism framework and answer research question #I.Data collection comprised of questionnaires and a focus group. For complete details of the event, and participants see (Lindberg, 2005).
2.4.1 Event Design
Making Sustainability Happen was a full-day workshop and dialogue on market mechanisms for sustainable community development held May 5Ih 2005 at Harbour Centre in downtown Vancouver as the central event of Super Sustainable British Columbia (SSBC)'. Over 100 senior decision-makers from businesses, non-governmental organizations, universities and all levels of government participated in the invitation-only event.
The event had both applied and theoretical objectives. From an applied perspective its three broad objectives were to promote discussion; generate innovative and strategic ideas for advancing sustainability in the region; and facilitate individual and collaborative action on sustainability. Its theoretical objectives were to answer research question 1 through questionnaires and focus-group discussions that explored the validity of the research framework, identified cross-cutting issues, and examined the potential role of market mechanism strategies, instruments and actors in addressing those issues.
Methodologically, the Making Sustainability Happen dialogue was a series of round-table focus groups linked by presentations to and brief discussions with all of the participants. Focus groups are commonly used as exploratory tools early in the research process to refine frameworks or
2 Super Sustainable British Columbia (SSBC) was a two-day series of events focused on sustainable community development held May 5-6th 2005 at Harbour Centre in downtown Vancouver. SSBC was organized by Simon Fraser University's Centre for Sustainable Community Development (CSCD) in partnership with the International Centre for Sustainable Cities (ICSC), the SFU Sustainable Campus Coalition and SFU Net Impact. Chris Lindberg initiated and coordinated this event on behalf of the CSCD. For more information please visit http://www.sfu.ca/-ssbc formulate hypotheses (Hoggart, Lees, & Davies, 2002); they are also a vehicle for public participation in the research process (Bloor, Frankland, Thomas, & Robson, 2001). Key design considerations are selecting and recruiting participants, determining group size, structuring interaction through questions and facilitation, and collecting and interpreting data.
Selecting and recruiting participants for the event: The desired audience were senior decision-makers from industry, government, academia and non-governmental organizations that had an interest in and understanding of sustainability. An invitation list was developed through "snowballing" (Valentine, 2005) as a means of controlling the composition and quality of participants. To avoid bias in the sample, the invitation list was decided on by the core research team (Lindberg, Connelly, Hendrickson and Roseland) with recommendations from the SSBC partners (BC Hydro, Translink, Western Diversification, City of Vancouver, Natural Resources Canada and the International Centre for Sustainable Cities). Participants were required to pre- register and commit to staying for the whole day (though some did not).
Group size and selection of participants at each table: Group size was set at a maximum of seven participants and one moderator per table with a total of 16 tables in the room. Participants were seated at tables based on expertise, interest and table-balance. During registration, participants indicated their Ist, 2nd, and 3rd choices among ten topics. The majority were assigned home tables based on their 1'' or 2ndchoices; efforts were also made to split up individuals from the same organization and balance representation from industry, government, research and other organizations. The topic tables were: Transportation (2 tables); Energy (2 tables); Regional Development (2 tables); Water and Sewerage (1 table); Education and Training (1 table); Financing, Investment and Sustainability (2 tables); Agriculture and Food Security (1 table); Housing and Community Development (2 tables); Sustainable Business (3 tables). Due to insufficient interest, the tenth topic -Waste and Recycling - was not represented on the day.
Structure: The event was designed by the research team with the assistance of two professional facilitators, A. Svendsen and M. Laberge. Volunteers were recruited and trained to facilitate at each table. Participants spent most of the day at their home table and then rotated twice to other topic tables to provide feedback and identify cross-cutting ideas. Brief presentations and whole group discussions were scheduled throughout the day. Focus group data was recorded in a variety of formats by the facilitators; however, the poster data (described below) was the only data used in this research.
Questionnaire Design: Two questionnaires were developed - one pre-event (the registration form) and one post-event (the evaluation form) - using a combination of open-ended and ranking questions. Both are described in detail below. 2.4.2 Data Collection
Literature review data was provided to participants in three formats to set the context for the event and to ensure that the participants had a common market mechanisms conceptual framework:
A Discussion Paper titled "Making Sustainability Happen: Market Mechanisms for Sustainable Community Development" (Lindberg, Roseland, Connelly, & Hendrickson, 2005) was circulated 10 days prior to the event and presented the definitions and framework (3 pages) as well as providing examples of market mechanisms (4 pages).
Briefing Papers on each of the ten topics were prepared with an overview of the issues for market mechanisms in that field (1 page) and examples (2-3 pages). These were provided to each relevant table at the event itself.
A 10 minute Oral Presentation of the discussion paper at the event itself.
Research data was collected at the event in three formats:
Registration Form - Participants were asked to answer five open-ended questions on market mechanisms and indicate their top three community topic choices as part of their online registration process; 83 registrants answered all or some of the questions.
Evaluation Form - Participants were asked to answer four open-ended questions on market mechanisms and four ranking questions on the event as an evaluation of the day; 75 registrants participated.
Facilitated Focus-Group Discussions and Posters - Each of the tables had a volunteer facilitator who guided and documented the discussion and a 'lead participant' who had expertise in the topic of discussion and stayed at the home table throughout the day. Each facilitator was trained prior to the event and followed a tightly structured format throughout the day. The key research deliverable was a list of barriers, opportunities, successes, cross- cutting issues and promising mechanisms for catalyzing sustainability in their topic area. This information was recorded and presented on poster display boards which represented some level of consensus within the table group.
Table 2.2 below presents the questions used for each of the three data sources and provides a label for each one (i.e. R1, El etc.) that will be used throughout the remainder of this paper. Table 2-2 Summary of Data Collection Questions and Coding Label Question
1. Registration Questions (R)
R1 How do you use and how are you impacted by market mechanisms in your work? Can you describe an example? R2 What barriers have you encountered or do you anticipate encountering in using market mechanisms to advance SCD? R3 Where do you see the greatest potential for using market mechanisms to support
R4 Are there any references, examples, web-links, case studies or examples related to market mechanisms and sustainable community development that you think should be incorporated into the report or website? Comments IQuestions?
2. Evaluation Data (E)
What does SCD mean to you? Identify the most promising market mechanism for SCD that you think is most likely
to- succeed-- --~ in the next 5~ vrs.- What do you feel is the largest obstacle or barrier to implementing the market mechanism for SCD identified in #2 (above)? Making Sustainability Happen Dialogue - How effective is this type of process for mobilizing sustainable community development? Suggestions for other processes? Format of the day - Rank the following five items from 1-5 where 5=exceeded expectations and l=below expectations: Location, Food and Venue; Speaker Presentations; Opportunities for Interaction; Format of the day's events; Table Facilitation; Event Facilitation.
3. Poster Data (P)
What are the barriers to implementing SCD? What are the opportunities for implementing SCD? What are the cross-cutting issues across the various table topics? What are three to five "low-hanging fruit" - those market mechanism strategies1 opportunities1 actions that could create real forward momentum towards sustainability for your topic? Note - Each table and idea were also labelled by table number (1-16) and idea (A- E) i. e. IA, 12C etc.
2.4.3 Analysis
The content analysis followed the three iterative, non-linear steps -description, classification, and connection -of the "universal approach" to analysing and interpreting qualitative data (Kitchin & Tate, 2000). A 'thick description' of the situational context and process of the one-day dialogue was prepared covering the event layout, agenda, participants and objectives is available online at www.sfu.ca1-ssbc (Lindberg, 2005).
The data was then systematically reviewed and classified in two separate analyses and then integrated into a final set of results. The "Emergent Analysis" sought to identify trends, recommendations and barriers in the data itself, without imposing any pre-conceived structure or framework. The "Framework Analysis" explored the data through the lens of the proposed market mechanisms framework by analysing the data in terms of actors, strategies and mechanisms.
The focus of all the analyses was to answer Research Question 1 through an analysis of participant definitions, examples and recommendations of market mechanisms for sustainable community development.
All the analyses followed the same general process:
o Transcription: Each data source (registration, evaluation, poster) and data set (e.g. R1, R2 etc.) was transcribed and stored electronically in Microsoft Word and Excel tables and broken into data units (or indicators) consisting of 1-2 sentences. The raw poster data is provided for reference in Appendix B.
o Categories: Categories were developed based on the data (Emergent Analysis) or the preliminary research framework (Framework analysis). Each data set was analysed independently. Each data unit was assigned to one or more broad categories; sorted; grouped with similar data units; and then summarized into "concepts" of one or two lines. Additional categories or other organizational units were created as needed.
o Integration and revision: The data sets were compared and then integrated into a single file. Concepts were reviewed to eliminate similar and overlapping concepts by combining or otherwise modifying them. The overall organizational structure was modified as necessary to create a finalized structure of categories, sub-categories and concepts. o Quantification: The final step was to tally the number of indicators from each data source associated with each of the final concepts.
Table 2-3 below presents a summary of the analyses performed on each data set; additional details on Emergent, Framework and Integrative analyses are provided below. Table 2-3 Summary of Data Analysis Methods
Label (question summary - see Emergent Framework Analysis Table 2-2 for complete Analysis Develop Typology Identify strategies questions) of Actors and mechanisms R1 (how use) Y Y R2 (barriers) Y Y R3 (potential) Y Y R4 (examples) Y R5 (comments) Y
El (what SCD) Not used in thesis. E2 (promising mechanism) Y Y E3 (barrier to E2) Y Y
2ffective event) L E5 (f 'orrnat of day) -
PI (barriers) Y Y Y P2 (opportunities) Y Y Y P3 (cross-cutting) Y Y Y P4 (3-5 ideas) Y Y Y
- P5 (interest) Not used in thesis.
Y = Data used in that analysis
The data from El was not used primarily because it was not the focus of this research, and secondarily because the data had little substance to it. The data from E4, E5 and P5 was analysed for the applied component of research and is not discussed in this paper. As a reference, E4 was summarized by reading through it, grouping similar responses and developing some high-level headings and categories. E5 consisted of numeric rankings and was summarized quantitatively in terms of average values. The data from P5 was also quantitative and summarized in a graph.
2.4.3.1 Emergent Analysis
The "Emergent Analysis" sought to identify trends, recommendations and barriers in the data itself, without imposing any pre-conceived structure or framework. The Emergent Analysis was applied to the data in the following sequence:
1) Category development. The first data set to be analysed was the Poster data (PI-P4) starting with P4 which consisted of the 3-5 market mechanism ideas developed by each table (from 1A to 16F). o The researcher reviewed all of the ideas and assigned one or more high-level category labels to each one and then sorted them by category. The labels were not preconceived but emerged from the researcher's interaction with the data within the broad theme of seeking cross-cutting recommendations for action. The indicators within each category were summarized into concepts as described above. o The categories were finalized over three iterations of coding, analysis and reflection. Two other researchers (S. Connelly and D. Hendrickson) reviewed the summaries and assisted with category development. The outcome was five concept clusters for "cross-cutting action areas" that were used for the next phase of analysis: Education, Governance, Pricing and Taxation, Innovation, and Regulations.
2) Concept Development. The next step was to code the remaining poster data sets PI (barriers) and P2 (opportunities) and P3 (cross-cutting ideas) using the five categories and then summarize the data units into concepts. Indicators that did not fit within one of the categories were labelled "?", reviewed at the end of the process, and then either integrated or discarded for the time being.
3) Structure Revision. Once all of the Poster data had been coded, it was then reviewed as a whole to place it within the broader framework of the research question. o At this stage, it was noted that there was significant overlap among PI-P4 data, and it was decided to integrate all of the data into three types of information: (i) cross-cutting recommendations for sustainable community development; (ii) barriers and (iii) observations. A single table was created with a separate column for each information type and rows for each of the five concept categories. The coded data from PI-P4 was then assigned to appropriate columns and rows. o The table was then reviewed to eliminate similar and overlapping concepts by combining or otherwise modifying them.
4) Analysis of Evaluation and Registration Data. A similar process was followed for the Evaluation data (E2 and E3) and the Registration data (R2-R5). o E2 and E3 were analysed together as they were linked (E3 being the barrier to E2). E3 indicators were not summarized but were grouped according to their associated E2 indicator concept. o R2 and R3 were analysed independently through the same process of concept cluster coding, sorting, grouping and summary into concepts. R4 and R5 both had very few responses; they were reviewed and either incorporated into R2 or R3 or discarded for the time being.
5) Integration and Revision. The next step was to integrate all of the evaluation and registration data with the poster data. A new table was created for each of the three categories (recommendations, barriers, observations) with separate rows for each individual concept. Evaluation and Registration concepts were placed into one of the three tables and then reviewed to eliminate similar andlor overlapping concepts through combination or modification. Finally, each of the resulting concepts was reviewed to ensure that they were associated with the appropriate concept cluster. o During the integration process, the five cross-cutting action areas were modified slightly and renamed to: Governance and Decision-Making; Education and Outreach; Policy Development; Pricing and Taxation; and Innovation.
6) Quantification. The final step was to tally the number of indicators from each data source associated with each of the final concepts. This was done manually through a review of all of the data, and presented by source (registration, evaluation, poster) and as a combined total. The data was then sorted by category and number of indicators and then reviewed to inform the discussion. This quantitative data was not used for a formal statistical analysis but rather as an indicator of the support for each concept.
2.4.3.2 Framework Analysis
After completing the Emergent Analysis the data was then analysed through the lens of the market mechanism framework. This occurred through two separate processes:
1) Developing a Typology of Actors involved reviewing the R1 and PI-P4 data and highlighting all of the references to different market actors involved in developing and/or delivering the proposed mechanisms. These were then summarized into a table that proposed nine types of actors and provided examples of each type (from the data). This table was then reviewed with S. Connelly and D. Hendrickson and then revised to include four types.
2) Identifying Strategies and Mechanisms involved applying the same content analysis to the data as described above but with the following differences:
Framework Categories: Rather than allowing a framework to emerge from the data, this analysis used the five-part market mechanism typology presented in the discussion paper: Regulatory mechanisms; Voluntary instruments; Public Expenditure; Financial instruments; and Ownership and Organizational Structures. These "framework concept clusters" were used to code and organize the data.
Category Revision: The analysis started by coding the P4 data set. However, it became apparent that much of the data did not fit into the five framework concept clusters and so a sixth cluster - "General Policy Development Recommendations" - was created. Once coded, the data was sorted and indicators were grouped and summarized as concepts within categories. Again, rather than purely seeking emergent concepts the definitions of each of the framework clusters were used to help develop and organize concepts. The result was a four-level organizing hierarchy of framework categories (e.g. Financial Incentives), sub- categories (e.g. Loans, grants, investment and financing), category strategies (e.g. Increased government investment in sustainable innovation), and strategy mechanisms and examples (e.g, public bonds issued for sustainable development and technologies). o The same process was then applied to the P1-P3, E2-E3, and R1-R3 data sets and then they were integrated together into a single table. o Quantification: The data sets were then reviewed to tally the number of indicators per strategy from each data set (registration, poster, evaluation). Again, this quantitative data was not used for a formal statistical analysis but rather as an indicator of the support for each concept.
2.5 Research Question 2: Dockside Green and East Clayton Case Studies
2.5.1 Literature Review
A second literature review was undertaken that involved a targeted search of literature within the same fields as the first review as well as a review of literature related to land-use planning and sustainable neighbourhoods to inform Research Question 2. This review is presented along with the initial review in Chapter 3.
2.5.2 Case Study Design
Research Question 2 was developed based on the outcomes of the Making Sustainability Happen event and ensuing discussions with the research team. The decision was made to prepare two explanatory case studies of sustainable neighbourhoods in urban BC.
Case studies are considered the ideal method for answering how or why questions about complex social phenomena, and for understanding the role of process and context in affecting change (Peattie, 1994; Yin, 1984). Explanatory (causal) case studies present "data bearing on cause-effect relationships-explaining how events happened' (Yin, 2003 p5). An explanatory case study is considered to be the most appropriate method when asking "how" or "why" questions about contemporary events over which the researcher has little or no control (Yin, 1984).
Case study research design should include research questions; hypotheses or assumptions that guide decisions about the unit of analysis and relevant data to collect; a defined unit of analysis; a method of linking data to the propositions; and criteria for interpreting the findings (Yin, 1984). The research questions are described above. Data was collected based on its relevance to two broad questions: i) What were the key success factors (e.g. processes, actors, etc.) that enabled these projects to happen; and ii) What tools and mechanisms are needed to enable these types of sustainable neighbourhood development to become the norm, rather than the exception?
Details on case study selection (unit of analysis) and the method of analysis are provided below.
2.5.3 Case Study Selection
The goal of the case studies was to explore the role of market mechanism strategies, actors and instruments in overcoming the planning-implementation barriers to developing sustainable neighbourhoods. The two cases - Dockside Green (Victoria) and East Clayton (Surrey) were qualified based on the following criteria:
Commitment to sustainability: Both projects make explicit commitments to sustainability in their mission I vision statements. Furthermore, both projects have been recognized by numerous third party organizations (such as the Federation of Canadian Municipalities) and professionals for their sustainability features.
Site and Scale: Both projects are zoned as urban developments, located in major BC urban municipalities, neighbourhood in scale (comprising multiple city blocks), and deal with the development of largely open, empty areas.
Implementation: Both projects include mechanisms to ensure their implementation; at the time of the research, East Clayton was in the process of being constructed while Dockside Green had been sold to a developer with a comprehensive development agreement that ensured implementation.
Logistics: The projects were highly accessible to the research team as they were well- documented, current (planned processes completed within the last three years), and physically accessible.
Similarities: The projects were both i) led by the municipality with the assistance of third- party experts (BCBC and UBC); ii) involved extensive public engagement processes;
Differences: Key differences among the projects include:
Previously rural greenfield site (East Clayton) versus downtown, urban brownfield development.
Conventional zoning and planning structure through the development of a new Neighbourhood Concept Plan (NCP) in East Clayton versus site specific development within an existing NCP in Dockside. 2.5.4 Data Collection
Data was collected through document review, site visits and key respondent interviews. Relevant documents were available on the municipal websites and were also provided by respondents.
Respondents were selected based on their role in the project and included representatives from: City Council, the real estate development industry, public advisory committees, city staff and key third parties (such as the James Taylor Chair at UBC and the BC Buildings Corporation). Respondents were also identified using 'snowball' technique though not all recommendations were followed up on due to limitations of time and resources. Respondents were not typical of a broader population; but are considered representative of the key decision-makers in each project.
Respondents were contacted by email and phone and then interviewed; all Dockside and one- third of the East Clayton interviews were in person; the rest over the phone. Interviews ranged in duration from 30-90 minutes. The interviews were semi-structured and all shared the same common framework of questions (below); additional questions were added for specific respondents based on their role and the need for clarification Iverification of information from the documents. The interview schedule was modified based on responses; however, all questions were addressed in each interview. Reasons for varying questions asked included a desire to capture more detail on a specific organization, area of expertise, desire of respondents to focus on a particular aspect or requirements to shorten the interview because of availability. Notes were typed directly into a computer for the majority of the interviews; in two cases notes were hand- written and transcribed within 48 hours. Core questions were:
How did you get involved in this project? What was your role?
What was different about this project as compared to other planning processes? Were there unique peoplelorganizations involved or tools used?
What were the key factors (people, policies, process) that led to its success? Were there any particular tools that helped make it happen?
What were the hardest challenges to overcome?
What impact has this project had on you, on the community, on the city? Has it been positive I negative? Has it changed the policies, process or people (organizations) involved?
What would be needed to duplicate I replicate this project on site throughout Surrey and the Lower Mainland? What do you see as the key 'lessons learned' that can be applied to other communities? Chris Lindberg was present for all of the interviews; D. Hendrickson and S. Connelly were present for all of the Dockside interviews. Ten (10) respondents were interviewed for Dockside, and fourteen (14) for East Clayton. A summary of the documents reviewed and respondents interviewed is provided in Appendices E and F.
Ethics requirements for adequate information, consent and confidentiality were addressed during the process of contacting and interviewing respondents and during the interview process itself as well as in subsequent data analysis and reporting.
2.5.5 Analysis
All data was typed in table format. Immediately after the interview it was re-read for completeness and comprehensibility. Interview notes were then amalgamated into tables in a single Microsoft Word file; unique initials were used to identify the respondent for each comment. No attempt was made to create sub-groups within the interviewees for analysis because of the small number interviewed within each group and because of the research focus on looking for overall trends in the process
Nine categories for analysis were developed before the interview process: Narrative History; Process1Tools; Barriers to the project; Success Factors; Unique aspects of the project; Impacts on surrounding areas or other project; Replication Elements (e.g. things that could be replicated elsewhere) ; Lessons Learned; and Miscellaneous.
Data was reviewed to identify relevant units and place them into one or more of the categories. Each category was then reviewed to look for patterns and to identify the range and level of agreement between responses. Wherever possible, similar comments were then grouped together and summarized using key terms or phrases.
Some additional categories were originally used for Dockside but were condensed as above during analysis. All of the notes taken while reviewing key documents were placed in the same categories as the interview data and were reviewed again during the analysis to see how the applied to these categories.
Once integrated, the notes from both the interviews and documents were reviewed to look for trends and errors in categorization. Data within each section was coded according to similarities and summarized in the case study text as follows: Overview, Context, Timeline and Key Events, Unique Features, Challenges, Solutions and Success Factors, Outcomes and Impacts, Key Mechanisms, Lessons Learned 2.6 Validity of the Research Design
Table 2-4 presents four general tests of research validity and reliability and presents the strategies used in the research for addressing each test.
Table 2-4 Tactics for Establishing Validity and Reliability I Test: General Tactics: Tactics Applied to this Research: Use multiple sources of evidence - Multiple sources of evidence in overall establishing correct (triangulation); develop and follow thesis (e.g. SSBC dialogue and operational measures data collection protocols; maintain a comparative case studies). for the concepts being complete chain of evidence; have text - Multiple sources of evidence in each studied. reviewed by key informants. component (e.g. SSBC dialogue uses three comparable data collection methods; Each case study involves multiple interviews combined with document review). - Semi-structured interviews with consistent question format. - Case studies reviewed by key informants. Internal Validity: Identify and anticipate areas of - Research Question 1 largely establishing a causal research where inference is exploratory; trends and patterns in the relationship whereby necessary; use pattern matching, data identified through content certain conditions are explanation-building, time-series analysis. shown to lead to other analysis to develop and support - Case studies focus on timelines and conditions as inferences. success factors of existing projects. distinguished from - Key informants selected to represent spurious relationships. each decision-making actor (e.g. the municipality, the developer etc.). - Case studies reviewed by key informants. Recognize that the goal of the - Review of existing literature and case establishing the research is to expand and generalize studies domain to which a theories (analytical generalization) - Comparison of two case studies study's findings can be and not to enumerate frequencies - Selection of sites that represent the generalized. (statistical generalization); address leading edge of change and therefore replication by referencing other cases generalizing to what may be and to where similar generalized implications what could be (as per Schofield, 1990). were found; use good research - Focusing on identifying tools and design processes that can be applied throughout the case study area and in other jurisdictions Reliability: Develop and use a case study - Use and development of consistent demonstrating that the protocol for data collection, analysis case study protocol for data collection operations of a study - etc.; develop and reference a case and analysis such as the data study database. - Collaboration with other researchers to collection review methodology and analysis. procedures-can be repeated, with the same results.
- Source: Table compiled by author based on Yin 1984: 40-45 and Kidder, 1981:7-8 in Yin 1984: 40).
As presented in Table 2-4 above, the research employed a variety of strategies to address issues related to validity and reliability. Furthermore, the analysis and discussion of the research does not attempt to generalize beyond what is reasonable. However, as with all research in the real world, the researcher was not able to control all of the variables involved and had to work with the data available. These limitations are presented in the relevant sections below. 3 Literature Review
The Literature Review served three purposes. First, it provided the context and rationale for the research. Second, it provided the background for addressing the research questions. Third, it was used to develop the preliminary research framework for understanding and exploring question 1. This research framework was then revised based on the results of research question 1 and applied to the case studies in research question 2.
The results are presented in six sections corresponding to each of the three goals above: Context and Rationale; Defining Sustainable Community Development; Sustainable Neighbourhoods and Land-Use Development; Understanding Public Policy Development; Defining Market Mechanisms; and The Research Framework.
It is important to note that various parts of this review were undertaken by a three-person research team; please see Appendix A for details and copyright information.
3.1 Context and Rationale
A combination of three trends provides the context for this research. The first is increasing community interest in planning for sustainable development (Bell, 2002; Boyd, 2004; [EACCC], 2006; [FCM], 2006; Gahin et al., 2003; [ICLEI], 2002a; [NRTEE], 2003) accompanied by the recognition that local authorities are the most appropriate scale for applying sustainability principles (Brugmann, 1994; Parkinson & Roseland, 2002; Roseland, 2005). Examples include the Integrated Community Sustainability Plans required as part of the Canadian 'New Deal for Cities' and the US Mayors' Climate Protection Initiative.
A second trend is the "planning-implementation gap" faced by many communities. For example, while many communities have integrated sustainable development principles into their community plans, few have succeeded at translating their high-level goals and objectives into tangible projects and actionable implementation strategies. Barriers to implementation include inadequate human and financial resources; a limited awareness of, and experience with, sustainable development tools; and a lack of long-term stakeholder engagement (Dale, 2001; Gahin et al., 2003; Parkinson & Roseland, 2002).
A third trend is the combined impact of globalisation, changing demographics, environmental depletion, and infrastructure degradation on community governance, policy and decision-making (Roseland, 2005). Governments at all levels have responded to economic, fiscal and political pressures by adopting more entrepreneurial approaches to service provision, such as outsourcing and public-private partnerships. Equally important, community-based development strategies (e.g. Social Entrepreneurship, Community Economic Development) are rapidly evolving to incorporate the market-led realities of planning, development, and funding. This has resulted in an expanding role of private and non-profit entities in governance- and planning-related decision- making
At the local level these three trends have resulted in an increased interest in (and need for) engaging the market through the use of market-based approaches to guide, reward, monitor, and penalize private sector involvement in planning decisions and development projects (Bell, 2002; [EACCC], 2006; Osborne & Gaebler, 1993). This is particularly apparent at the level of land use and neighbourhood planning. Official Community Plans and documents such as the Liveable Region Strategy outline clear goals for density and development, yet in many regions the market has not responded with compatible projects. The development of sustainable or "green" neighbourhoods requires new processes for coordinating the planning of key community aspects (such as transportation, land-use, and economic development), integrating public and private infrastructure development, and collaborating in their implementation. It also requires a regulatory and business climate that provides unambiguous directives and incentives for sustainability.
Sustainability can (and must) be applied in a variety of contexts (e.g. energy, transportation etc) using a wide-range of strategies (e.g. Smart Growth, Zero Waste etc.), mechanisms (e.g. taxes and zoning bylaws), and actors (e.g. community, government, business, etc.). Yet there is often resistance to applying SCD principles due to the persistent belief that implementing sustainability jeopardizes economic growth, technological innovation, and competitiveness. It is often assumed that only some mechanisms (such as financial incentives) are 'market-friendly' while other approaches (such as traditional command-and-control regulations) impede its effective functioning (Nelson, 1997; Stavins, 2001; Whitten et al., 2003). Further confusion arises regarding the definitions of market mechanisms or market-based instruments; the differences between these mechanisms and 'the price mechanism' generated by market forces; the strategies advocated for by competing models of economic development; the breadth of policy tools available to the decision-makers; and the rationale for their use.
The goal of this research, therefore, was to explore the emerging and potential roles of "market mechanisms" and market-oriented policy approaches in overcoming the 'planning-implementation gap' and facilitating the sustainable development of neighbourhoods and communities.
3.2 Defining Sustainable Community Development
Sustainable development is broadly defined as "meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (Brundtland, 1987). Similarly, community economic development (CED) can be defined as the processes by which communities "initiate and generate their own solutions to their common economic problems and thereby build long-term community capacity and foster the integration of economic, social and environmental objectives" (McRobie & Ross, 1987 pl). Sustainable Community Development (SCD) is a relatively new field of research that applies the concept of sustainable development to the local, community level; CED is, therefore, seen as one of several mechanisms for achieving SCD.
In this context, sustainable communities are those that use their resources to meet current needs while ensuring that adequate and equitable resources are available for future generations. Whereas CED is typically described as having a "double-bottom line" that is focused on human communities and economies, SCD focuses on an integrated "triple-bottom line" of community, economic, and environmental tools, models, and strategies based on principles of sustainability (Hamstead & Quinn, 2005; Vodden, 1999).
3.2.1 Core Meanings of Sustainable Community Development
To understand sustainability, it is important to first recognize that sustainable development is a moral, ethical and political ideal. As with other political ideals (such as democracy, justice, or equity), sustainable development embodies almost universally acceptable core meanings; the debate stems from how to interpret and implement them (Jacobs, 1993; Roseland, 2005). While anyone can co-opt a term for their own purposes (e.g. a corrupt dictator claiming to have been elected democratically) familiarity with the core meanings of an ideal provides a filter for evaluating the veracity of such a claim (e.g. voting rights and conditions). Just as embracing democracy has implications for all communities (e.g. the need for fair elections) a commitment to sustainability entails acceptance of five widely accepted principles or "core meanings":
1) Participatory Processes: Sustainability requires an interdisciplinary, multi-stakeholder and participatory approach for the identification of needs, priorities and actions at the community level.
2) Recognizing Natural Constraints: An acknowledgement that we are living in a closed system (the Earth) which provides unique and non-substitutable products and life- support services and inherently places biophysical limits on extraction, deposition and growth. In essence, the 'carrying capacity' of local, regional and global ecosystems define what types, levels and scales of consumption are sustainable (or not).
3) Development is Different than Growth: An emphasis on qualitative and quantitative development as opposed to only economic growth; in other words, measures of success that include non-financial and qualitative components, such as indicators of environmental quality, quality of life and cultural diversity. 4) Systems thinking and Integration: The use of systems thinking and integration of economic, social, and ecological factors into decision-making, i.e, seeking decisions that are ecologically viable, socially desirable, and economically feasible.
5) Equity: SCD emphasizes the need for inter- and intra-generational equity in terms of access to environmental, economic and social resources and opportunities. This requires that we plan for the long-term benefit of all members of our communities.
(Connelly, Lindberg, Roseland, & Hendrickson, 2006; Hamstead & Quinn, 2005; Hendrickson, Lindberg, Connelly, & Roseland, 2006; Jacobs, 1993; Lindberg et al., 2005; Roseland, 2005)
In other words, a sustainable community is committed to multi-stakeholder, collaborative and participatory decision-making processes that recognize environmental constraints, strive towards qualitative and quantitative development, use multiple bottom lines to evaluate success, and consider issues of inter- and intra-generational equity. These key concepts form the foundation for sustainable governance and decision-making.
3.2.2 The Community Capital Framework
Capital typically refers to the accumulated wealth owned or controlled by an individual or organization (Thompson, 1995). It is a product of investment that yields a flow of benefits (interest) over time ([DFID], 1999). Capital is created by investing time, effort, and resources into transformation and transaction activities (Ostrom, 1993). Money is not considered a form of capital - it is a unit of exchange whose value comes from its ability to purchase factors of production. Conventional wisdom is that the prudent use of capital dictates that an individual build up their stock of capital assets through saving and investment and spend only the interest.
Contemporary thinkers have suggested that a sustainable society is dependent on three or more forms of capital ([DFID], 1999; [EACCC], 2006; Hawken et al., 1999; Roseland, 2005). The SFU CSCD uses a "community capital" framework (Roseland, 2005) as their foundation for understanding and implementing sustainable community development. As presented in Figures 3.1 and 3.2 below, the framework suggests that communities can be thought of in terms of six different types of assets (or capital): natural, physical, economic, human, social and cultural. Sustainability dictates that the stock of, and "income" from, each type of capital needs to be nurtured and managed so as to pass on an equivalent amount to the next generation. The goal of sustainable community development, therefore, is to adopt strategies and structures that mobilize citizens and their governments in the quantitative and qualitative improvement of all six forms of capital. Community mobilization serves to coordinate, balance and catalyze the values, visions and activities of various community actors through democratic processes, resulting in outcomes that strengthen all forms of capital. It is through a culture of community involvement, multi-stakeholder participation and consensus-building within our communities that the values, visions and outcomes can be identified to make our cities and communities more sustainable (Roseland, 2005).
Figure 3-1 Types of Community Capital
Types of Community Capital Natural capital or environmental capital, consists of the biophysical resources, living systems and life-support services of our planet. Natural capital can be usefully divided into three categories: (i) Environmental resources (non-renewable, renewable, and continuing resources), (ii) The finite capacity of natural systems assimilate wastes, and (iii) The provision of environmental or 'life-support' services such as oxygen etc.
Physical capital is the stock of material resources such as equipment, buildings, machinery and other infrastructure that can be used to produce a flow of future income. As cited in Roseland (2005), physical capital is sometimes referred to as produced capital (NRTEE 2003), manufactured capital (Goodland 2002) or public capital (Rainey et al 2003).
Economic capital refers to the ways we allocate resources and make decisions about our material lives. Economic capital should be maintained in order for people to live off the interest, or income.
Human capital is the "knowledge, skills, competencies and other attributes embodied in individuals that facilitate the creation of personal, social and economic well-being" from OECD, 2001 as cited in Roseland (2005 p8).
Social capital is "the relationships, networks and norms that facilitate collective action" (from OECD 2001 as cited in Roseland (2005 p9), or the shared knowledge, understandings, and patterns of interactions that a group of people bring to any productive activity (from Coleman 1988 and Putnam 1993 as cited in Roseland (2005 p9)).
Cultural capital is the product of shared experience through traditions, customs, values, heritage, identity, and history. Cultural capital is particularly important in aboriginal communities and in other communities with a long history.
(Compiled from Toward Sustainable Communities, Roseland (2005 p4-14))
3.2.3 SCD is "Strong" Sustainability While these core meanings and principles provide considerable clarity regarding the overall direction of sustainable development they leave many questions unanswered. By definition, sustainable development requires that we leave the next generation sufficient resources to meet their own needs, but it does not define what 'equity' and 'needs' are and how they should be measured. Daly (2002) presents two interpretations of what is to be "sustained" by sustainable development: utility and throughput. Sustaining utility implies that each generation maintain at least the same level of utility or happiness, whereas sustaining throughput implies that each generation maintain at least the same level of "access to biophysical resources and services supplied by the ecosystem" (ibid.:18). Utility is a common term in conventional economics, but not one that is easily or meaningfully measured in this context as we cannot "bequeath utility or human happiness to future generations" (ibid,:28). In contrast, the entropic throughput of natural capital through human systems is eminently measurable and requires that decision-makers acknowledge the biophysical limits of our planet.
Figure 3-2 The Community Capital Framework
The Community Capital Framework Sustainable community development requires mobilizing citizens and their governments to strengthen all forms of community capital. Community mobilization is necessary to coordinate, balance and catalyze community capital (Roseland, 2005).
In assessing throughput, two interpretations of what constitutes intergenerational equity are: (1) that assets (such as environmental resources) be sustained at levels that guarantee the avoidance of catastrophe (e.g, the maintenance of life-support services), or (2) that each generation leave the next with a stock of assets at least as great as that which they inherited themselves (Jacobs, 1993; Roseland, 2005). These two options are associated with 'weak' and 'strong' sustainability approaches respectively.
"Weak SustainabilityJ'supportsa constrained growth model of economic development and posits that sustainability objectives can be met simply by valuing natural resources (natural capital) and incorporating them into economic decision-making. This approach supports the neoclassical economic assumption that a deficit in any factor of production (natural resources, labour, capital, entrepreneurship) can be compensated for, or substituted with, another factor. This interpretation supports the notion that the level of assets passed on to the next generation should be determined in terms of their utility as an aggregate of all types of capital (natural, economic, etc.) expressed in a common unit, such as GNP (Hamstead & Quinn, 2005; Jacobs, 1993; Roseland, 2005).
In contrast, "strong sustainability"requires that we distinguish among all community capital types in determining the basket of resources that should be passed on to each generation. The basis for this argument is that the unique services and value of natural, human, social, and cultural capital are difficult to quantify and non-substitutable and any damage to their stocks may be irreversible on a human timescale. Furthermore, strong sustainability re-defines development as being the quantitative and qualitative improvement of all types of capital (as opposed to simply economic growth), and posits that development decisions should be based on preserving and improving stocks of human and natural capital while only utilizing renewable and continuing flows. Strong sustainability therefore requires a fundamental restructuring of the relationship between society, the economy, and the environment (Hamstead & Quinn, 2005; Hawken et al., 1999; Jacobs, 1993; Roseland, 2005).
From the SFU CSCD definition it is clear that SCD should adhere to a 'strong' sustainability approach that values setting sustainable levels of throughput; ensures that each generation receive an equivalent stock of community capital; and advocates for the maintenance and continual improvement of the resource stocks of all types of community capital.
3.3 Sustainable Neighbourhoods and Land-Use Development
SCD can be thought of as both a noun and a verb; that is, it both provides a vision of what a sustainable community would be (e.g. one with a healthy and balanced allotment of community capital) and prescribes methods, processes and indicators for achieving it (e.g. mobilizing community around sustainability principles to strengthen community capital). Implementing SCD requires fundamental shifts in planning and decision-making processes and a re-definition of what is considered the "highest and best use" of land and resources.
How is SCD applied 'on the ground' - i.e. what constitutes a sustainable community? After presenting his community capital framework, Roseland (2005) then explores sustainability in terms of land use, transportation, housing, energy, water, waste, air, community economic development and governance. Similarly, Peck and Dauncey (2000) suggest that sustainable communities should focus on twelve features or community issues (see Figure 3.3). Figure 3-3 Features and Principles of Sustainable Communities Twelve Key Features of Sustainable Communities (CMHC 2000) 1. Ecological protection 2. Higher density and transit-supportive urban design 3. Urban infill 4. Village centres 5. Healthy local economy 6. Sustainable transportation 7. Affordable housing 8. Liveable community 9. Low-impact sewage and stormwater treatment 10. Water conservation 11. Energy efficiency 12. The three 'Rs' (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle)
Eight Design Principles for Smart Growth Neighbourhood Planning (SGOG 2004) 1. Each Neighbourhood is Complete 2. Options to our Cars Exist 3. Work in Harmony with Natural Systems 4. Buildings and Infrastructure are Greener and Smarter 5. Housing Serves Many Needs 6. Jobs are Close to Home 7. The Centre is Distinctive, Attractive and Vibrant 8. Everyone has a Voice
ustainable or 'complete' communities are therefore those that address all of these issues and provide affordable housing, accessible transit, diverse local employment and efficient 'green' infrastructure that supports a thriving natural environment (Condon, Proft, Teed, & Muir, 2003; [SGOG], 2004). Applying these concepts and criteria to land use planning at a neighbourhood scale yields the eight sustainable principles used by the Smart Growth on the Ground project ([SGOG], 2004) and presented in Figure 3.3.
The James Taylor Chair in Landscape and Liveable Environments (JTC) at the University of British Columbia (a major partner in SGOG) expands considerably on these eight principles and presents six overarching Design Principles and thirty associated Design Guidelines for sustainable neighbourhoods based on four tenets of sustainability (green infrastructure, social infrastructure, movement, and cost) and four scales of urban design (district, corridor, block, and parcel) (Condon et al., 2003). They also present a collaborative public process centered around an interactive design charrette as the process for designing and implementing sustainable neighbourhood plans.
In sum, a variety of criteria can be used to assess the 'sustainability' of a community. For the purposes of this research, the two case studies of sustainable neighbourhood development will be selected based on the following criteria: 1. Explicit commitment to developing a sustainable neighbourhood as the overarching goal of the project.
2. Development and use of a framework that both describes principles of economic, environmental and social sustainability and provides measurable criteria for achieving them. An example of this are the eight SGOG design principles presented above; SGOG also provides additional details on the process and measures used to evaluate the application of each principle.
3.3.1 The Planning-Implementation Gap in Land Development
As noted previously, many communities have integrated sustainable community development principles into their land use planning and/or decision-making processes, yet few have been successful in translating their high-level sustainability goals and objectives into tangible on the ground projects. This planning - implementation gap has significant consequences including: 1) increased public scepticism regarding the value of participating in planning processes and of the value of the concept of sustainable development as a tool for change; 2) continued erosion of the six forms of community capital (economic, natural, social, cultural, physical and human); and 3) lost opportunities as key land and infrastructure are developed with little regard for long-term local sustainability and community development.
One of the major reasons for this implementation gap is the gridlock in the planning and implementation processes for decision-making that all Canadian communities face. This gridlock is not due to lack of research, knowledge and information residing in communities, but rather has arisen as a result of the solitudes, silos and stovepipes (Dale, 2001) that characterize community governance. Governance is seen to be far beyond governments, that is, the enlargement of public space to include the dynamic and vibrant third sector. Existing governance processes have been unable to moderate the disparate priorities of individual actors (such as property owners and community members) resulting in gaps and conflicts among sustainability values, community visions and development outcomes (Bell, 2002; Dale, 2001; Young & von Maltke, 1993). The issues are multi-faceted and include a lack of: coherent dialogue, congruence between different political levels, political will, and a sustainable development ethos between levels of government and community stakeholders. These challenges are complicated by fundamental disconnections among federal, regional and local governments, between rural and urban communities, and critically, among the business, research and non-profit communities (Dale, 2001; Gahin et al., 2003; [ICLEI], 2002b; Parkinson & Roseland, 2002).
Prohibitive or outdated bylaws and regulations also impede implementation. Much energy has gone into the development of toolkits and resources for municipalities for planning and regulatory and by-law reforms that promote sustainable community development and provide guidance for the changes needed to regulations and incentives (Crofton, 2001; Curran, 2003). Some communities have adopted these practices; however, innovative planning tools, municipal by-law reforms or other policy instruments on their own have been unable to shift development and redevelopment towards sustainability on a larger scale.
Less attention has been paid to the shifts needed in the real estate market itself. It is argued that there is a need for more flexible economic valuation processes and a broader range of market- based approaches that support the more complex, multi-layered objectives of sustainability (Williamson, 2001). These new approaches need to be responsive not only to the market, but also to proactive community participation whose local social structures are powerful forces in the determination of urban processes (Imrie, Thomas, & Marshall, 1995) and must account for all aspects of community capital. Adding multiple bottom-lines (i.e. considering social, environmental and economic impacts equally) to land use planning and decision-making or to real estate development is something that few communities have been able to achieve. Condon et al. (2003) identify several necessary next steps including:
1. Changing how cities are financed and serviced (e.g. restructuring finance levers and incentives)
2. Developing risk management structures for developers and local governments (e.g. to reduce the risk of adopting new technologies and designs)
3. Developing alternative financing tools that recognize the assets of complete communities and support sustainability (e.g, location-efficient mortgages)
Achieving sustainability is clearly dependent on holistic approaches that address the changes needed in planning and regulatory processes as well as the real estate and development market itself. Implementing sustainable community development requires the creation of actors, governance structures, decision-making processes, community values and visions and policy development processes that support sustainability. Table 3-1 presents some of the means of integrating sustainability into land-use planning and development. New instruments, actors and strategies are needed to champion and implement these strategies and support the development of sustainable neighbourhoods. Table 3-1 Means of Influencing Sustainable Land Use Planning and Development I Influence on: I Examples: I Actors and - An "actor" may be an individual, organization, business or institution. Values - SCD may influence the motivation, values, mission and vision of an actor, such as the triple-bottom-line mission statement of Windmill Development (see Dockside case study). - The extent of influence may be impacted by the type and legal structure of the actor (e.g. non-profit, government, corporation etc.) Values and - SCD provides principles for guiding the planning process (e.g. five core Strategies principles) as well as for the nature and design of the development outcomes (e.g. Smart Growth design principles). - SCD also provides a vision for ideal community development outcomes that can be used for "backcasting" a path towards them; this is frequently done through community planning and visioning processes. Regulations - Regulations can be evaluated in terms of whether they support or obstruct sustainability (e.g. West Coast Environmental Law Smart Growth Bylaws). Governance - SCD core principles can be used to inform development decision-making Structures and processes (e.g, the Dockside RFP triple-bottom-line evaluation matrix) as Processes well as informing government-community-developer relations and consultations (e.g. AccountAbility's Stakeholder Engagement guidelines). Development - A development outcome can be evaluated in terms of the built form and Outcomes infrastructure itself (e.g, certification programs for green buildings), how it fits within the community context and how it impacts community capital in areas such as water, waste, transportation, economic development etc.
I Note: This table has been ada~tedfrom Connellv et al. (20061. 1 3.4 Understanding Public Policy Development
A basic understanding of the policy development process and the instruments available to policy makers is required for any exploration of community policy. In broad terms, governments and public policy serve two main objectives: i) the direct provision of services to the public (e.g. infrastructure and waste collection), and ii) regulating, influencing or dictating how others provide services to the public (e.g. zoning bylaws and environmental regulations) (Hahn et al., 2005). In essence, governments develop policy to plan and manage the economic, social and environmental aspects of the communities in their jurisdiction (Roseland, 2005).
The Canadian Voluntary Sector Initiative (VSI) defines public policy and public policy development as follows ([VSI], 2003 p5):
Public Policy - is a set of interrelated decisions, taken by public authorities, concerning the selection of goals and the means of achieving them.
Public Policy Development - is the complex and comprehensive process by which policy issues are identified, the public policy agenda is shaped, issues are researched, analyzed and assessed, policies are drafted and approved and, once implemented, their impact is assessed.
Public policy development generally involves several different steps. The VSI (2003) describes a six-part circular process of issue identification, agenda-setting, policy design, implementation, monitoring and impact assessment. In essence, this involves identifying relevant community values and visions; adopting a strategic direction; identifying complementary goals, objectives and targets; and then selecting a strategy and policy instruments (e.g. taxes, laws, etc.) to achieve them ([PMSU], 2004b). The sections below provide a brief overview of each of these elements.
1) Values and Vision
Guiding values and principles describe how a community intends to operate, build relationships, make decisions and develop future policies and strategies. Visions describe the highest level of end-point for a particular organization, program or policy and present a description of the long- term desired future states or outcomes stated in broad community or societal terms (Boess, 2005; [TBCS], 2006). Outcomes are the external impacts or "consequences that can be attributed to a specific organization, policy, program or initiative that are considered significant ...they may be described as immediate, intermediate or final, direct or indirect, intended or unintended" ([TBCS], 2006). They describe and represent the long-term impact of a program beyond specific metrics. Outcomes describe broad "big picture" changes in behaviour, attitudes, knowledge, and/or community functions as related to the goals, strategic directions and visions. Ideally, policy should be designed to address the gaps between the desired outcomes and vision of the future and the current realities and trends.
Values and visions form the heart of all government policy and are the subject of considerable debate. Of most relevance to this paper are debates over which products and services are best provided by government versus the market; and whether human interests should have priority over ecological needs. In general, there are there are three types of value arguments that drive the creation of government policy ([UKPIU], 2001):
- Equity arguments are related to distributional considerations based on social and political values, such as the redistribution of wealth through differential tax rates or the creation of government programs to serve particular markets ([UKPIU], 2001).
- Ethical arguments arise where there are perceived boundaries or limits to the roles that markets should play (e.g. Canadian commitments to public education and health care) or the types of markets that should exist (e.g. human embryos). These are driven by social and political values ([UKPIU], 2001). - Efficiency arguments are based on the existence of market or government failures that result in the "inefficient" allocation of resources. Conventional economists are concerned about those failures that result in deviations from the ideal supply-demand equilibrium point described by neoclassical models; economists concerned with sustainability (such as ecological economists) use broader definitions of efficiency that include resource efficiency, ecosystem stability, quality of life and community economic multiplier effects (Roseland, 2005; [UKPIU], 2001).
Equity and ethical arguments are clearly linked to community values and vision and illustrate how values inform strategic policy direction. Efficiency arguments are frequently presented as value- neutral strategies for achieving societal ends; however, numerous authors have highlighted the values and assumptions embedded in conventional economic models (Hawken et al., 1999; Jacobs, 1993; Nelson, 1997). This debate is discussed in more detail in section 3.5 below.
2) Strategic Direction
Strategies are defined as the methods, actions and activities that an organization will use to deliver services and achieve its desired ends (i.e. vision, goals, objectives, and targets). Strategies may be simple or complex and there may be several strategies for achieving a specific end. Strategies and strategic thinking are applied to all levels of policy development and can be thought of in terms of both overall strategic direction and specific strategies for achieving goals, objectives and targets ([NGPG], 2006; Trachtman, 2003).
Public officials set strategic directions based on their perceptions of public interests, opinion, values, goals and visions for their community. Strategic Directions should address the gaps between the relevant values and vision and the current realities. The strategic direction should identify desired outcomes, the public and political will required to achieve them and stakeholder roles and rationales for action ([PMSU], 2004b).
3) Setting, Goals, Objectives and Targets
Goals, objectives and targets are defined based on the strategic direction and the action needed to bring it about ([PMSU], 2004b). Short, medium and long term goals should be supported by specific objectives and milestones measured with regards to concrete targets.
Goals provide a broad statement of a desired end-point that fits within the vision and aligns with a particular strategic direction; multiple goals are generally identified for each vision (Bornhoeft, 2003; [NGPG], 2006; [TBCS], 2006; Trachtman, 2003). Goals must be consistent with the vision but describe a specific set of circumstances and accomplishments within a particular area of action and period of time. Depending on the context and scope a goal may be broad or specific; however, goals should be supported by a series of objectives needed to realize them. Objectives present a precise, measurable, time-phased result that supports one or more goals ([NGPG], 2006). Effective objectives should be "SMART?" which stands for specific; measurable; agreed to and achievable; realistic or 'reachable'; and time-limited, with the "?" representing the question "as measured by what?" to ensure that measurement and evaluation are incorporated into their design (Boess, 2005). Targets are objectives that have been broken down into smaller units and related in numerical terms ([NGPG], 2006).
3) Policy Design and Delivery
This phase involves several key elements which form the strategy for achieving the goals, objectives and targets: generating options, engaging stakeholders, selecting policy instruments, developing implementation and change management plans, defining measures of success (indicators) and engaging in ongoing monitoring and evaluation ([PMSU], 2004b). This process may be informed by pre-existing strategies and their associated tools and processes; examples of broad strategies related to sustainability include demand-side management, integrated design and Smart Growth.
The policy instruments themselves are of most interest to this research. Policy instruments can be classified according to a number of schemes. The UK Prime Minister's Strategy Unit (2004a) identifies five overlapping policy types: information, education and advice; direct intervention; economic instruments; regulation and other legislation; and market-based solutions. Similarly, Jacobs (1993) and Roseland (2005) classify policy according to regulations, voluntary instruments, public expenditure and financial incentives. Following from Roseland and Jacobs, four categories were used in this research:
- Regulatory lnstruments are legislative measures taken by governments such as laws, licenses, standards and permits that govern behaviour and can create new markets (such as tradable emissions credits).
- Voluntary lnstruments are actions taken by firms, individuals, or governments that generally do not require regulations or financial incentives. They include the provision of information (through public education campaigns or advisory services) and the use of voluntary agreements that do not require regulations or financial incentives. Voluntary instruments encompass a range of government involvement from simply increasing the accessibility of information to seeking to change or shape preferences, attitudes or actions.
- Public Expenditures consist of any use of public money such as contracting, monitoring, investment, procurement, enterprise, and direct service provision or commissioning (e.g. waste management). - Financial Instruments include pricing, taxes, charges, subsidies, tax incentives, grants, loans, rebates, rewards, surety bonds and vouchers.
Key factors to consider in selecting a policy option include its likely efficacy, cost and affordability, potential unintended consequences, distribution of impacts, uncertainty, legality, enforcement, public acceptability, and capacity (Ledbury, Miller, Lee, Fairman, & Clifton, 2006)
Policy is not developed in isolation, but rather through an iterative process of stakeholder consultation, research and policy formulation. Each stakeholder (or actor) involved brings their own values and vision to the process, with their own set of desired outcomes, goals, objectives and preferred policy instruments. Stakeholders interact with each other and with policymakers through formal and informal processes.
At the implementation stage, the key factors are the instruments (e.g. voluntary, regulatory, public expenditure, financial incentives), the actors that use them (e.g. governments, businesses, institutions, citizens, non-profits) and the various levels of strategy that guide and inform their implementation (e.g. demand-side management, Smart Growth, etc.).
This policy development process is summarized in Figure 3-4 below. The figure also presents the role of SCD in policy development. At the highest level, SCD values and principles and the community capital model provide a foundation for the vision, and mobilizing community and government actors towards the strengthening and improvement of all six forms of community capital (human, social, cultural, economic, physical, natural) provides foundation for the strategic direction. Goals and objectives are determined based on the specific policy topic (e.g. transportation, housing etc.) but should be aligned with desired SCD outcomes. The Policy Development stage as a whole is unchanged, with the caveat that there are specific strategies (such as smart growth or demand-side management), and actors (such as co-operatives) that are uniquely suited to achieving SCD objectives. Figure 3-4 The Policy Development Process
Policy Development 1 Sustainable Community Development visions, values, strategies, goals and objectives
Policy Design & Policies informed by SCD values, visions and strategies, and designed to achieve SCD goals and objectives
The Policy Development Process Policies are shaped by relevant community and government values and a vision for desired community outcomes; the strategic direction adopted to achieve the vision; and the associated goals and objectives. At the policy design stage strategies, actors and instruments and are identified and developed for implementation. Sustainable Community Development (SCD) can influence all stages of policy development.
3.5 Defining Market Mechanisms
Historically, Canadian governments have primarily relied on three approaches to solve environmental problems ([NRTEE], 2002):
1) Regulatory command-and-control approaches to define minimum standards;
2) Government investment in research, public infrastructure and services (such as waste management and sewerage); and
3) Public or peer pressure for the voluntary adoption of best practices, etc.
While these approaches have been successful at addressing many environmental problems, there is a growing awareness of their inadequacy for addressing more complex challenges (e.g. disposable consumer culture; diffuse sources of pollution) and failure to stimulate innovation or capitalize on the potential efficiency and efficacy of the market ([NRTEE], 2002). Furthermore, the focus of environmental management has been on regulating unwanted behaviour through regulatory and legislative approaches, with little attention paid to the economic rationale behind unsustainable behaviour. As a result, regulatory approaches and market forces often work at cross-purposes, adding to market distortions and limiting the impact of regulatory initiatives (Myers, 1998; [NRTEE], 2002, 2003; Pearce & Barbier, 2000).
Perverse subsidies are one example of the manifestation of conflicts between different policy initiatives. Myers (1998) suggests that $1.45 trillion of an estimated $1.9 trillion of global government subsidies consist of these "perverse subsidies" that have adverse effects on both the economy and the environment. Examples include $6.7 billion annually for German coal, an amount which exceeds the combined salaries of the coal miners; $20 billion to subsidize the depletion of oceanic fisheries; and $1700 per American per year on oil, gas, and transportation subsidies in the US. These subsidies increase the cost of government (and taxes), divert public funds, distort market prices and signals, and benefit a select group of individuals at the expense of the broader public (Myers, 1998). In Canada, the federal government has spent $2 on petroleum tax subsidies for every $1 spent on reaching the Kyoto Protocol ([GBC], 2006). Consequently, it is not very surprising that Canada's GHG emissions have actually increased by 24 per cent between 1990 and 2003.
This type of data has led to a growing acquiescence that conventional approaches are inadequate to preserve biophysical resources and redirect economic drivers to compliment Canadian values ([NRTEE], 2003). Command-and-control measures are seen as too rigid, government capacity for compliance is spread too thin, and there is more need for expenditures and incentives to stimulate innovation, and shift economic emphasis to 'user pay' and 'polluter pay' principles ([NRTEE], 2002, 2003).
Market mechanisms are presented as an alternative approach that offers flexibility and efficiency ([NRTEE], 2002; Stavins, 2001; Whitten et al., 2003). They are generally understood to be those policy approaches and instruments that use markets and market forces to accomplish policy objectives (Gustafsson, 1998; Hahn et al., 2005; Ledbury et al., 2006; Nelson, 1997; Stavins, 2001; [UKPIU], 2001; Whitten et at., 2003). Stavins (2000 pl) broadly defines market-based instruments as those
"instruments or regulations that encourage behaviour through market signals rather than through explicit directives."
He goes on to note that, if well-designed, these instruments harness market forces by encouraging firms and individuals to undertake actions out of their own self-interest that collectively meet policy goals. Hahn (2005 p4) describes market-based mechanisms as policy interventions that have been designed in ways that harness market forces through:
- Introducing competition between service providers - Allowing individuals a degree of choice over the services they receive and who provides them; or
- Creating markets where rights and obligations can be traded.
3.5.1 Market Mechanisms Approaches
In his review of North American market-based policies, Stavins (2001) presents four major categories of market mechanisms: pollution charges; tradable permits; market friction reductions; and government subsidy reductions. Hahn et al. (2005) present five broad categories: competitive tendering of service provision; introducing user choice; marketable permits ('cap and trade'); taxes and subsidies; and regulating access whereas Murtough et al. (2002) refer to taxes, subsidies and market creation.
All of these fit into three broad policy categories or approaches: price-based, rights-based and market friction reduction (Whitten et at., 2003).
- Price-based approaches alter the price of a product to reflect or internalize environmental andlor social costs. Using this approach, the government effectively sets the price of the pollutant (or other product) and the market's response determines the quantity produced (Sargent, 2002; Whitten et al., 2003). It provides certainty in terms of cost but the overall outcome (e.g. amount of pollution) is uncertain. Pollution charges, subsidies and taxes are examples of price-based instruments.
- In contrast, rights-based approaches are aimed at assigning new rights or obligations with regards to the type or amount of good or service produced (e.g. pollution permits). Here government sets limits on the quantity or quality produced and then the market's response sets the price. It provides certainty in terms of outcomes but uncertainty in terms of price and cost (Murtough, Aretino, & Matysek, 2002; Whitten et al., 2003). Tradable permits, market creation and regulated access are examples of rights-based instruments. Regulating access refers to introducing competition within natural monopolies (e.g. the electricity grid) through controlled access to it (e.g. competition among generators of electricity) (Hahn et al., 2005).
- Market friction reduction approaches are aimed at levering behavioural change through improving the functioning of existing markets. Conventional economists recognize four major types of market failures that may require government intervention to remedy: market power (monopoly); public goods; externalities and information failures (Hahn et al., 2005; Jacobs, 1993). Strategies include: i) creating markets for inputs or outputs associated with environmental quality, ii) establishing liability for environmental or social impacts; (iii) creating information programs such as product labelling requirements (e.g. for energy efficiency) and reporting requirements (e.g. for toxic substances), (iv) reducing market barriers such as transaction costs; and (v) engaging in research and development (Stavins, 2001; Whitten et al., 2003).
These categories overlap and complement each other. For example, tradable permits (rights- based) may be created, promoted and managed by the government (market friction) and may be impacted by taxes or fees (price-based). Market creation may require going beyond the assignment of rights to address issues of market friction such as large transaction costs, high uncertainty about the attributes of a good or service, asymmetric information and insufficient buyers and/or sellers (Murtough et al., 2002).
Some approaches do not easily fit into these three categories. Competitive tendering involves inviting private- and/or public-sector providers to compete to become the provider of a particular public service (e.g. through request for proposal processes) and could be interpreted as rights- based or market friction (Hahn et al., 2005). The same is true for "user choice" which refers to allowing users of a publicly supported service (e.g. education) to choose among rival public and/or private suppliers of that service rather than controlling access (e.g. choice of schools or school vouchers) (Hahn et al., 2005).
How do these market mechanism approaches (or strategies) relate to the categories of policy instruments presented earlier? In terms of instruments, all three conventional categories - price, rights, market friction - fit within the broader four policy types presented earlier. Price-based approaches use Financial lnstruments (e.g. charges, subsidies, taxes); rights-based approaches refer to different Regulatory lnstruments (e.g. tradable permits, markets) and market-friction reduction approaches use Voluntary, Regulatory, and Public Expenditure instruments.
This suggests that rather than a new category of policy instruments, market-based approaches primarily reflect shifts in strategic direction (e.g. from command-and-control to market incentives) and the role of government agencies in service provision (e.g. away from providing services to administering contracts). Applying these strategies may involve creating new instruments or simply shifting the use of existing instruments (such as taxes and property rights) to meet new objectives (e.g. ecological tax shifting, tradable emissions permits etc).
3.5.2 Market Mechanisms and the "Invisible Elbow"
Market mechanisms are generally advocated for based on the efficiency gains predicted by conventional economic thinking. However, many economic predictions and assumptions regarding efficiency are widely criticized by environmental and sustainability advocates who have responded by creating new fields of economic thinking such as environmental and ecological economics (Costanza, 2001 ; Hamstead & Quinn, 2005; Jacobs, 1993; Nelson, 1997; Nozick, 1992; Pearce & Barbier, 2000). Consequently, while both sustainability advocates and neoclassical economists are calling for a shift towards the use of more flexible, market-based instruments that leverage the power of the price mechanism, they advocate for very different strategies, values and outcomes. While neoclassical economists favour privatization on the basis of increasing economic wealth and minimizing government intervention in the market, sustainability advocates favour full-cost accounting on the basis of increasing natural and social capital and controlling the negative impacts of market forces (Gustafsson, 1998; Hawken et al., 1999; Jacobs, 1993; Lindberg et al., 2005; Murtough et al., 2002; Nelson, 1997; [NRTEE], 2002; Pearce & Barbier, 2000; Stavins, 2001; [UKPIU], 2001; Whitten et al., 2003). The debate can be characterized as the "invisible hand" versus the "invisible elbow" (Jacobs, 1993).
A quick overview of economic thinking is required as background to this debate. The central focus of economics is on how society makes choices about i) what products and services should be produced; ii) how and by whom they are produced and consumed; and iii) what legal and political structures limit and enable their interactions (Daly, 2005; Jacobs, 1993; Pearce & Barbier, 2000). Microeconomics is concerned with how individual consumers and producers interact within markets that are structured to a greater or lesser degree by government instruments such as property rights, taxes and regulations. Less-regulated markets are considered to be more 'free' than highly-regulated ones. In contrast, macroeconomics is concerned with the collective impact of individual decisions about what to sell and buy at the level of the economy; market forces are the macro-scale impacts and outcomes of these unplanned and uncoordinated market choices.
These market forces have been referred to as "the market mechanism" or "the price mechanism" (Hahn et al., 2005; Jacobs, 1993). To avoid confusion, this paper will simply reference it as the price mechanism, invisible hand or invisible elbow and reserve the term "market mechanism" for market-based instruments and approaches.
Conventional (neoclassical) economic thinking argues that, just as a "rising tide raises all boats" the key to achieving societal objectives is to promote economic growth and allow the "invisible hand" of market forces to both allocate resources and distribute benefits. In other words, economic problems (such as poverty and environmental degradation) are all seen as having a common solution: an increase in wealth through economic growth (Daly, 2005). The market is presumed to be not only the "most efficient mechanism for allocating resources between different activities (both consumption and investment)" but also the "most effective mechanism for creating and increasing national income" ([UKPIU], 2001 p2). The price mechanism is presented as a value-neutral tool for achieving efficiency and market equilibrium (Nelson, 1997). Ongoing economic growth is seen as the key to societal welfare and wealth and as such is considered not just as a means to an end but as an end in itself (Nozick, 1992). From this perspective, free markets are the preferred method of allocating resources and a primary focus of government policy. Market mechanisms should therefore be designed to both create free markets with a minimum of government involvement and address the market failures that prevent real world markets from functioning according to theory and thereby reduce their efficiency, efficacy and social return. Environmental and social problems are seen as primarily related to inadequate allocation of rights or costs, hence the three conventional strategies of rights-based, price-based and market-friction reduction instruments. With regards to achieving sustainability, this perspective is (at best) aligned with the "weak sustainability" approach presented in section 3.2.3.
In contrast, Jacobs (1993) argues that, as currently structured, market forces tend to act as an "invisible elbow" that systematically discounts the value of natural systems and the interests of future generations. Rather than uncommon exceptions, he and other advocates of "strong" sustainability present market failures as inherent, systemic flaws. Nelson (1997) argues that once the impacts of incomplete (non-equilibrium) markets, externalities and information failures are incorporated into the analysis there is no quantitative evidence to indicate that the market is any more efficient than alternative solutions. Daly (2005) argues that conventional measures of economic growth measure physical throughput; ignore biophysical limits and issues of scale; and in fact create higher net costs than benefits resulting in increasing "ilth" rather than wealth. In sum, an abundance of evidence suggests that the structure of most contemporary markets is inherently unsustainable and is driving the rapid degradation of environmental and human resources (Costanza, 2001; Daly, 2005; Hamstead & Quinn, 2005; Hawken et al., 1999; Jacobs, 1993; Lindberg et al., 2005; Nelson, 1997; Schmid & Thompson, 1999).
These differences reflect what Costanza (2001) refers to as the "empty world" and "full world" eras of economic thinking (influenced by Boulding's (1973) differentiation of cowboy and spaceman economies). In an empty world or cowboy economy, development is limited by human- made capital and growth is a logical indicator of success, whereas in a full-world or spaceship economy natural capital becomes the limiting factor and success is better measured in terms of resource efficiency and the productivity, quality, and complexity of human, social, cultural, economic, and physical capital (Costanza, 2001; Hamstead & Quinn, 2005; Hawken et al., 1999).
From the "strong sustainability" perspective, market mechanisms should be designed to tackle the market, policy and institutional failures that lead to unsustainable behaviour (Pearce & Barbier, 2000). These failures extend beyond the four conventional market failures described above and include revisiting many of the assumptions, structures, metrics and decision-making tools that form the basis of conventional markets. These produce distorted economic incentives that ignore or under-value environmental andlor social externalities (e.g. air pollution and associated health impacts) and take only short-term valuations into account. Consequently, implementing sustainable development requires policies and regulations that address the cumulative, system-level impacts of human activities. Government and market actors must set explicit limits, or targets, for the outcomes of human activities, such as resource consumption and waste disposal (Jacobs, 1993). Human interactions with the environment must be managed so as to minimize our consumption of essential natural capital, maintain and improve all stocks of natural capital whenever possible, and only harvest or use those flows that are renewable within a human timeframe (Roseland, 2005). Similar strategies must be adopted to minimize the degradation and maximize the development and retention of social, human, and cultural capital.
Planning for sustainable development therefore involves establishing appropriate market structures and prescribing macroeconomic outcomes of economic activity but it does not necessarily dictate the methods used by the market to achieve these outcomes. Similar to the use of conventional economic policy to control interest rates and inflation, sustainable development policy should be focussed on controlling the effects and outcomes of market forces but not necessarily the activities of the markets themselves (Jacobs, 1993). In effect, advocates argue that sustainability requires a focus on the structure of our economic system and the role of government in setting the desired outcomes for economic activity. Rather than society taking direction from the market (i.e. letting the market "optimize" economic outcomes as an end in itself), society should control and direct the market as a means to societal ends (Gustafsson, 1998; Jacobs, 1993; Nelson, 1997; Nozick, 1992).
3.5.3 Market Mechanisms for Sustainable Community Development
In sum, market mechanisms for sustainable community development (SCD) should differ from conventional market policies in several key ways:
- SCD supports a broader range of government "interventions" in the market based on equity and ethical arguments, and disputes conventional assumptions regarding market behaviour, growth, failure and efficiency.
- SCD advocates for community development as measured by social, ecological and economic outcomes, and advocates for significant reforms to market structures, processes and metrics as the means of supporting those ends.
- SCD considers a broader range of strategies (e.g. demand-side management) and actors (e.g. enterprising non-profits) and supports both collaboration and competition in economic development.
Consequently, in defining market mechanisms for sustainable community development, the researchers opted to consider the full range of policies, practices and structures that produce market signals and influence market decisions and outcomes. These include a myriad of factors such as the nature of the product or service under consideration; its supply and demand; pricing and valuation structures; and the overall business climate formed by the interaction of market actors (i.e. governments, businesses, associations and not-for-profits, etc.) through their policies, business practices and activities.
From this perspective, what distinguishes a market mechanism from an ordinary policy tool is its intention to manage market behaviour and outcomes. Therefore, the researchers define market mechanisms as policy instruments that have been ex~resslvdesiqned to influence market decisions, behaviour, structure, and/or outcomes. Market mechanisms for sustainable community development, therefore, are those policy instruments that have been expresslv desiqned to mobilize citizens and influence market decisions, behaviour, structure, and/or outcomes for the quantitative and qualitative improvement of all six forms of community capital.
This definition is intentionally broader and more encompassing than Stavin's definition of "using market signals rather than ...explicit directives" (2001 pl). It recognizes the fact that most policy directly or indirectly impacts the market by influencing factors such as consumer behaviour, market structure, and access to resources. It also encompass policies that aim to reform market structures and valuation processes and that go beyond the definition of "market friction reduction" instruments presented above. Green development bonuses, corporate social responsibility programs, energy pricing structures, green procurement programs, social housing, sponsored transit passes and tradable emissions credits illustrate examples of market mechanisms for SCD. The remainder of the document will use the term "market mechanisms" to refer to the above definition.
As defined, market mechanisms for sustainable community development are most relevant at the policy design level of policy development (see figure 3.4 above). Consequently, the researchers propose to classify market mechanisms in terms of instruments, strategies and actors. In terms of instruments, they support the full range of policies (e.g. voluntary, regulatory, public expenditure, financial incentives) and go beyond conventional price-, rights- and market-friction based approaches. In terms of actors, they include the role of non-profits and government agencies in market transactions and the social economy. In terms of strategies and strategic direction, they include a range of policy approaches such as co-management, full-cost accounting and tax shifting.
3.6 The Research Framework: Market Mechanisms for Sustainable Community Development
The final objective of the literature review was to create a research framework for exploring the existing and emerging roles of market mechanisms in supporting sustainable community development (SCD). The key points from the literature review to date with regards to shaping the research framework can be summarized as:
- SCD recognizes the need for "strong sustainability" and calls for a fundamental restructuring of the relationships among society, the economy, and the environment that is predicated on a reconsideration of many of the assumptions that underlie conventional economic thinking (Hamstead & Quinn, 2005; Hawken et al., 1999; Jacobs, 1993; Roseland, 2005). SCD provides a set of values, visions for desired community outcomes and high-level goals and objectives that form a foundation for sustainability policies.
- There is a growing awareness that conventional approaches to environmental management (i.e. voluntary, research and command-and-control) are inadequate for addressing complex challenges and place inadequate attention to the economic rationale behind unsustainable behaviour. Perverse subsidies are one example of this.
- A manifestation of these issues is the planning-implementation gap in land-development. This gap can be attributed in large part to inadequate governance structures for integrated decision-making; the lack of regulations and bylaws that support sustainability; and inadequate attention to market incentives and realities. Achieving sustainability is dependent on changes to planning and regulatory processes as well as the real estate and development market itself. New actors, instruments and strategies are needed to address these issues.
- Market mechanisms present an alternative to conventional command-and-control approaches to environmental problems. Market mechanisms for SCD require an emphasis not only on creating and improving the performance of markets but also addressing fundamental issues of structure and valuation that are seen to drive many environmental and social problems. Consequently, they include a broader range of strategies, instruments and actors than conventional approaches
The literature review identifies a myriad of options for examining the role of market mechanisms in community development, ranging from evaluating the success or efficacy of individual mechanisms to exploring their implications for economic development theory. The researchers opted to take an exploratory and applied approach, starting with an inventory of how market mechanisms for SCD are currently being used across a wide variety of topic areas in order to identify cross-cutting issues and to clarify their role within the policy development process.
Consequently, the researchers developed the preliminary research framework presented in figure 3-5 below. The framework is based on the four elements of policy development: relevant community values and vision, strategic direction, goals and objectives, and policy design and implementation. As defined, the concept of market mechanisms represents an approach to achieving policy outcomes and enters the framework at the policy design stage; mechanisms are comprised of strategies, actors and instruments. All of these components must be coordinated and aligned in order to achieve the desired community outcomes of the policy.
3.6.1 Evaluating the research framework
An additional literature review was conducted to evaluate the utility and validity of this market mechanism definition and framework before applying it to the primary research. This review was specifically focused identifying examples of market mechanism actors, strategies and instruments that support sustainable community development.
Documents, websites and the academic literature were reviewed to identify policies that fit the market mechanisms definition and classify them according to the framework of actors, strategies and tools. Due to the broad range of mechanisms in the literature and the limited resources for this study, this review focused on identifying existing mechanisms being used by community members, municipalities and regional authorities in North America. Specific legislative and jurisdictional issues were not considered. Figure 3-5 The Preliminary Research Framework
Policy Development Values and Strategic Goals and Vision Direction Objectives
Policy and Market Mechanism Design
Instruments Strategies Actors
Community and Market Outcomes
The Preliminary Research Framework This figure presents how the research defines market mechanisms within the broader policy development process. Market mechanisms are characterised by strategies, actors and instruments and are developed at the Policy Design stage. Market Mechanisms for Sustainable Community Development are those instruments that have been expressly desianed to mobilize citizens and influence market decisions, behaviour, structure, and/or outcomes for the quantitative and qualitative improvement of all six forms of community capital.
Rather than a generic focus on "sustainability tools", the researchers explored instruments in ter topic areas: Transportation; Energy; Regional Development; Water and Sewerage; Education and Training; Financing, Investment and Sustainability; Agriculture and Food Security; Housing and Community Development; Sustainable Business; and Waste and Recycling. Brief (2-4 page) discussion papers were prepared for each topic highlighting current issues and examples of market mechanism actors, strategies and each of the five policy instrument categories and then summarized into a longer discussion paper that was distributed to participants in the research focus groups (see Chapter 2 and Chapter 4). Table 3-2 demonstrates how the research was applied and prov~dessome cross-cutting examples from this work. Table 3-2 Examples of Market Mechanisms for Sustainable Community Development
Examples (by actor, strategy and instrument)
Community Development Corporations are non-profit or for-profit actors who provide t financing, function as real estate developers, or invest in local businesses and development. Food cooperatives: Members pool their resources (money, labour, purchasing, and distribution) in buying clubs to buy food in bulk quantities at reduced costs. Retail cooperative food stores maintain an inventory of food and non-food items similar to a regular retail store. "Missing Actors" Public sector actors do not necessarily have the resources, inclination andlor ability to act in a timely manner to implement sustainability on a site-by-site basis. A case study in Nelson, B.C. identifies the need for new market actors to take on large-scale strategic sustainable community development (Connelly et al., 2006).
Asset-backed securitization is a risk-management strategy that involves bringing forward future uncertain cash flows to secure the debt or equity required to finance sustainable development initiatives. Demand-side management strategies use a variety of instruments to manage customer demand instead of simply expanding supply. Three broad market strategies for sustainability include (Hawken et al., 1999): - Radical Resource Productivity (i.e. the efficient use of energy and resources); - Biomimicry or Industrial Ecology (i.e. designing industrial systems to eliminate toxicity and maximize the closed-loop cycling of materials); and - Service and Flow (i.e, a shift from the sale of goods, such as lightbulbs, to the provision of service flows, such as lighting or heating). Interface Inc., the largest commercial carpet manufacturer in the world, has incorporated these principles into their "seven sustainability fronts" resulting in $235 million in savings since 1994 (Interface, 2004).
Xerox's Design for Environment voluntary initiatives and guidelines support the reduction of environmental impacts associated with product use and end-of-life issues (Xerox, 2004). Canada's Voluntary Challenge and Registry, implemented in 1995, encourages companies to limit their greenhouse gas emissions voluntarily. However, the Pembina Institute has reported that although a large share of industrial emitters signed up their follow-through reporting has been poor and industrial emissions increased 24% between 1990 and 2001 (Bramley, 2002). These results illustrate the potential ineffectiveness of voluntary instruments Examples (by actor, strategy and instrument)
The GVRD's Smart Steps program provides business tools, technical assistance and information to businesses in the GVRD so that they can become more eco-efficient and competitive. ([GVRD], 2005).
3b - Public Expenditure
Heidelberg, Germany has incorporated the goals of reduced energy demand, promotion of co-generation (heat and electricity), recovery of waste heat from industry and the use of local renewable energy resources into the city's contracting policies ([MEELS], 2003). London Remade in the U.K. is a partnership to develop and promote markets and industries based on the collection, reprocessing and reuse of London's recycled materials (London Remade, 2004)
3c - Regulatory Instruments
Development Permits: As part of Boulder, Colorado's growth management strategy, development permits are issued based on standards designed to recognize the financial and ecological limits to growth in the region (Fodor, 1999). Transfer Development Rights (TDRs): New Jersey created a bill that grants municipalities the flexibility to adopt a TDR program that meets their specific growth and preservation needs to ensure that regional planning needs are taken into consideration ([SERC], 2005).
The Portland Family of Funds are local investment funds that are able to capitalize federal tax credits to significantly reduce the costs of loans for redevelopment activities that generate triple-bottom line returns ([PCS], 2005; Smith, 2005). The Road Congestion charging scheme in central London charges for vehicles entering the downtown core. In 12 months it reduced congestion by 30 percent, traffic volume by 15 and bus travel times by 50 percent (Transport for London, 2004, 2005).
I New York State provides tax credits for energy efficiency in commercial or residential investment properties (Larsson, 2001).
Los Angeles requires irrigators of large turf areas to reduce their outdoor water use by 10 percent compared to water consumption rates in 1986; a 10% surcharge (which increased monthly to a high of 100 percent) was charged for non-compliance. New York City adopted a program to install water meters in all buildings in the city by 2008. By 2002 meters had been installed in 94% of the City, and those properties that have refused to meter have been assessed with a 100% surcharge on their annual bill ([NYCDCP], 2002). Sarasota County, Florida commissioners adopted a resolution creating a "green" building program for both public and private construction in the county. Private sector incentives include fast-track permitting for building permits and a reduction of fees (Hinds, 2003). This research verified that the definition and framework had validity in that an abundance of examples existed for each category (strategy, actor, instrument) and it was intuitive to use. It also had utility insofar as it provided a useful means of organizing information; one limitation was that many programs used a combination of different types of instruments (regulations, fees etc) to accomplish their goals which created challenges with classification.
The preliminary research framework - and the definitions and concepts that underlie it - was further evaluated and refined through two phases of primary research described in Chapters 4 and 5. 4 Phase I - Market Mechanisms for Sustainable Community Development
4.1 Overview
Phase 1 of the research and the Making Sustainability Happen event was designed to evaluate the preliminary research framework and answer Research Question 1:
What are the existing and emerging roles for market mechanisms in supporting sustainable community development in major urban cenfres of British Columbia?
a. What are market mechanisms and how do they impact sustainable community development?
b. What are barriers to, opportunities for, and examples of the use of market mechanisms to move from planning to implementation across key community aspects (such as transportation, water, energy, etc.)?
One-hundred and fifteen representatives from government, industry, academia and the non-profit sector participated in the one-day Making Sustainability Happen event. Participants were seated in small groups at fifteen tables covering nine different topics related to sustainability (i.e. water, transportation etc.). The participants were provided with the definition of market mechanisms, the three categories (strategies, actors, instruments), the four policy instrument types (financial, voluntary, public expenditure, regulatory) and both generic and topic-specific examples of market mechanisms. A volunteer facilitator guided the process at each table.
Raw data from the event was collected in three formats: Registration forms (pre-event, questions R1-R5); Evaluation forms (post-event, questions El-E5); and table Posters (during the event, questions PI-P4). On the registration form they were asked how they used andlor were impacted by market mechanisms in their work as well as being asked to discuss barriers, potential opportunities and examples. During the event itself they were tasked with identifying barriers to, examples of, cross-cutting issues in and recommendations for, advancing sustainability in the region. Finally, in the evaluation form they were asked to identify the most promising market mechanism from the day's discussion, present barriers to its application and then comment on the quality and effectiveness of the event itself. A detailed overview of the research methods and structure of the event is provided in Chapter 2.
It is important to note that various parts of this research were undertaken by a three-person research team; please see Table 2.1 and Appendix A for details and copyright information.
This section is presented in three parts: Results, Conclusions and Discussion. 4.2 Making Sustainability Happen Results
The data was summarized, categorized and analysed through two content analysis processes: the Emergent Analysis and the Framework Analysis. Both analyses were informed and driven by research questions laand lb, with particular emphasis on evaluating the utility of the research framework for exploring these ideas.
The goal of the Emergent Analysis was to identify trends and concepts and develop an organizing framework based on the data itself. In contrast, the goal of the Framework Analysis was to organize the data in terms of the research framework of market mechanism actors, strategies and instruments.
Many of the results are presented and ranked according to the number of "data indicators" that support each concept (see Methods section 2.4.3). It is important to note that no statistical analysis was done on this numerical data. The number of indicators simply provides a broad indication of the level of support for, and interest in, a particular idea. As a rule of thumb, ideas that are within 1-4 indicators are considered to have similar levels of support (see section 4.3.2 below for further discussion).
4.2.1 Results of the Emergent Analysis
The Emergent Analysis identified diverse, cross-cutting recommendations and barriers across five themes - Governance and Decision-Making; Education and Outreach; Market and Pricing; Policy Development; and Innovation. Much of the actual content is most relevant for the applied aspect of this research and is not discussed in detail here. What is most relevant for this research is how the concepts and themes relate to the research framework and identify barriers to and opportunities for market mechanisms to support SCD in B.C.
The Emergent Analysis incorporated registration data (R2-R5), evaluation data (E2-E3) and poster data (Pl-P4). The five cross-cutting themes identified by the Analysis are presented in the two summary tables below; the complete tables and concepts are available in Table C-1 in Appendix C.
Table 4-1 presents an overall summary of the number of concepts and indicators (in columns) associated with the recommendations and barriers of each theme (in rows). Columns provide the total number of concepts, the number of indicators from each data source (registration forms, posters, evaluation forms) and the total number of indicators. Overall, Governance and Decision- Making had the most concepts and indicators by a significant margin and was associated with more than three times the number of indicators than Policy Development. In terms of recommendations, Education and Outreach had the most concepts and indicators followed closely by the Governance and Policy themes. Governance and decision-making were seen as the largest barriers with more than twice the indicators of any other theme.
Table 4-1 Numeric Summary of Emergent Analysis Trends Theme Total # of # Concepts Indicators Indicators Indicators Indicators from Reg. from from Post. Eval. I) Overall 246 Governance and 91 Decision-Making - Education and Outreach .- 5 1 Market and Pricing 58 Policy Development 18 Innovation 28 3 3 14 75 - 1) Cross-Cutting 4~ 92 193 98 Recommendations - Education and Outreach 13 21 61 15 - Governance and 10 21 54 17 Decision-Making - Market and Pricing 6 32 37 22 Policy Development 8 8 24 33 65 Innovation 5 10 17 11 38
2) Cross-Cutting 50 154 113 69 336 Barriers Governance and 17 70 4 3 43 156 Decision-Making Education and Outreach 30 2 7 18 75 Market and Pricing 26 12 3 41 Innovation 18 16 3 37 Policy Development 10 15 2 27
Table 4-2 presents a breakdown of the results for each theme in terms of cross-cutting recommendations for and barriers to advancing sustainability (see Table C-I in Appendix C for complete results). The order of themes presented corresponds to the total number of indicators associated with each theme (total recommendation indicators plus total barrier indicators). Each theme and its associated concepts are presented in rows and sorted in descending order based on their total number of associated indicators. Themes are labelled "En for Emergent and then A- E based on their rank; concepts are numbered based on their theme (e.g. EA), whether they are a recommendation (I) or barrier (2) and then based on their rank (e.g. the top recommendation concept for theme A is labelled EAI .I). The top two recommendation and barrier concepts for each theme are provided, along with the total number of concepts. The final column provides a tally of the number of indicators from that support each statement. Table 4-2 Summary of Emergent Analysis Results I mary of Emergent Analysis Results # Ind. - EA) Governance and Decision-Making: Concepts related to governance structures anc decision-making practices and tools. 248 I EAl) Cross-Cutting Recommendations (10 concepts: the top 2 concepts are below) EAI .I.A strong, collaborative regional governance body is needed to establish a shared vision of sustainability for the region and develop common, integrated and sustainable approaches to land-use, transportation, regulation and financing in the region. EA1.2. Support less adversarial and more collaborative, integrative, inter-departmental and multi-stakeholder decision-making and problem solving.
EA2) Cross-Cutting Barriers (17 concepts: the top 2 concepts are below)
EA2.1. Political antagonism, resistance and indifference to the changes associated with sustainability (e.g. from vested interests, opposition to specific policy instruments such as regulation, taxation and user fees; prioritization of shareholder profit above all else), including the nature of government intervention in the market. EA2.2. Lack of political leadership and will. EB) Education and Outreach: Concepts related to education, outreach, research, training and marketing. I B1) Cross Cutting Recommendations (I3 concepts; the top 2 concepts are below) EB1 .l. Ongoing, localized and meaningful multi-forum education and outreach campaigns for all audiences on the principles, importance and benefits of sustainability as a win-win-win scenario for business, community, and the environment. EB1.2. Research, education and outreach regarding the business case for sustainability. I EB2) Cross-cutting Barriers (7 concepts; the top 2 concepts are below) EB2.1. There is a lack of education, awareness and understanding of sustainability and basic issues such as where food comes from and the implications EB2.2. How do we shift people's values and cultural preferences? Unsustainable behaviour is well-marketed and people have entrenched behaviours. Sustainability requires a paradigm shift in thinking and in values; that is extremely difficult to do and we lack the capacity and resources to implement such a program. EC) Market and Pricing: Concepts related to taxation and other market- and price- related policies. Total number of indicators:
IEC1) Cross-Cutting Recommendations (6 concepts; the top 2 concepts are below)
EC1.A. Revenue-neutral tax and fee shifting to increase cost of unsustainable activities and decrease cost of sustainable activities (e.g. metering and charging for water consumption while reducing property taxes) Summary c mergent Ana lysis Results # Ind.
EC1.2. Adopt tax, policies, and fee structures that reflect true (or full) costs and thereby 30 reduce or eliminate "perverse subsidies" (e.g. for auto use, fossil fuels). Steps towards this include developing cradle-to-cradle product stewardship legislation (to link disposal and production costs) and full-cost pricing for resource and infrastructure services (e.g. water, waste and roads).
EC2) Cross-Cutting Barriers (1 1 concepts; the top 2 concepts are below)
EC2.1. Taxes, user fees and other cost structures which ignore full-costs and result in incentives for unsustainable behaviour (e.g. development cost charges; paying for water consumption from property taxes) EC2.2. Access to and affordability of alternative (sustainable) products ED) Policy Development: Concepts related to the general processes and tools used to develop policy. Total number of indicators:
EDI) Cross Cutting Recommendations (8 concepts; the top 2 concepts are below)
ED1.I. New and existing policy should be evaluated and revised based on its "triple- bottom-line" impacts in order to create policies that provide both incentives for sustainability and disincentives for unsustainable practices (e.g. green building standards, commitment to carbon-neutral development, resource efficiency and conservation, cradle-to-cradle product regulation, demand-side management). ED1.2. Create fast-track approvals and permitting processes that support sustainability (e.g. for transit-oriented development, renewable energy generation, and green buildings).
ED2) Cross-Cutting Barriers (7 concepts; the top 2 concepts are below)
- - - KD2.1. Government policy directions (e.g. resource development, fossil fuel dependence) that favour unsustainable practices over sustainable alternatives. iD2.2. Disconnect between planning and implementation. EE) Innovation: Concepts related to developing and supporting new and innovative ;elutions for sustainability issues. Total number of indicators:
EEI) Cross-Cutting Recommendations (5 concepts; the top 2 concepts are below)
:El .I. Increased direct government investment and partnering in sustainable technology development, pilot/ demonstration projects and other innovation (e.g. sustainable feed-in tariffs for renewable energy; petroleum heritage fund; equity and loan funding) :El .2. Government reduced lending rates, tax incentives and guarantees for investments that support sustainable development (e.g. low cost capital for energy efficiency improvements; early adopter programs; accelerated depreciation)
:E2) Cross-Cutting Barriers (8 concepts; the top 2 concepts are below)
:E2.1. Institutional barriers to experimentation and innovation (e.g. electoral systems, managerial structures, policy development process) Summary of Emergent Analysis Results # Ind. tt~.~.Kegularory rrameworks that create disincentives for sustainable projects such as 6 approval processes and bylaws (e.g. greenfield development approved quicker than brownfield; bylaws prohibiting greywater recycling).
4.2.2 Results of Framework Analysis
The Framework Analysis was undertaken in two parts.
The first part - Typology of Actors - focussed on identifying participant perceptions of the various types of actors involved in market mechanisms based on a review of registration data (RI) and poster data (PI-P4). Relevant comments were highlighted, summarized and then grouped to create a ten-part typology of market actors for sustainable community development. These ten types were then sorted into four higher level categories - For-Profit, Community, Regulatory, Hybrid - based on the researchers' analysis. The typology is presented in Table 4-3 below.
Table 4-3 Typology of Market Actors Type of Market Actor Examples from the Event Data*" 1) For-Profit Actors These are actors who provide market services using conventional business structures. Businesses with varying levels Members of Corporate Social Responsibility of commitment to sustainability organizations Investors and financial Low-cost loans for energy efficiency institutions offering premium Socially responsible investment funds products to support Enterprising non-profit loan and grant programs sustainability objectives Businesses whose primary Renewable energy companies (e.g. wind, micro-hydro, products and services are solar) linked to sustainability Sustainability consultants (on policy, market trends, (regardless of their governance business structure, community planning, procurement structure) etc.) Producers of organic products Information dissemination Media outlets and journals organizations -, 1 These are actors who provide market services and have a blend of explicit community and market obligations through their governance structures and/or corporate values. Market actors who have an Nature's Path foods explicit commitment (as part of Some credit-unions (e.g. Vancity) their governance structure) to Some co-operatives (e.g. Mountain Equipment Co-op) multiple-bottom lines and/or Enterprising non-profits sustainability in their Temporary actors for pilot projects and events (e.g. operations, products and VANOC) services Ideas for new actors include a Strategic Site Control Actor and a Sustainable Housing Centre Type of Market Actor Exam~lesfrom the Event Data** Crown corporations and Translink publicly-owned utilities who BC Hydro have a mandate related to the CMHC Granville Island public interest. Private-Public Partnerships Government seeded-initiatives to facilitate private- sector initiatives in developing sustainability markets These are mission-based actors who provide education, research, capacity building andlor other services at - subsidized (below market) rates. Education and research Researchers, students and academic institutions (e.g. organizations and institutions Centre for Sustainable Community Development) Organizations and instructors offering sustainability courses and programs Applied research and development (e.g. fuel cells, etc.) Non-profit societies, Non-profits and industry associations (e.g. Smart associations and institutions Growth BC, Canadian Green Building Council) who study, advocate for and implement programs related to - advancing sustainability 1 These are actors who regulate various aspects of the market. Regulatory Actors Municipal, regional, provincial, federal governments and agencies Bureaucrats and internal sustainability champions Conference identified the need for a new (or revitalized) regional regulatory body to develop a shared regional vision and coordinate land-use, transportation, economic development and reduce municipal com~etition.
**Note: The actor examples are taken from the event participants and data; consequently, they are specific to the Vancouver region and may not make sense to readers unfamiliar with them.
The second part - Strategies and Instruments - focussed on identifying participant recommendations for strategies and instruments based on a review of registration data (Rl-R3), evaluation data (E2-E3) and poster data (Pl-P4). This was the most intensive analysis and is described in detail in the Methods chapter; summaries of the results are provided in Tables 4-4 and 4-5 below (see Table C-2 in Appendix C for complete results). Data was sorted by policy instrument type (regulatory, voluntary, financial, public expenditure andlor combination) and then analysed to develop categories within each instrument type, strategies within each category and examples and indicators within each strategy.
Table 4-4 presents an overall summary of the number of categories, strategies and indicators (in columns) associated with each policy instrument type (in rows); indicator data from each data source (registration forms, posters, evaluation forms) is provided. An additional row provides a summary of indicators that were only associated with governance and decision-making and did not fit into any of the four policy types. All four policy types had similar numbers of categories and strategies. In terms of indicators, however, Financial lnstruments led by a significant margin followed by Voluntary and Regulatory.
Table 4-4 Numeric Summary of Framework Analysis Strategies and lnstruments Policy Type # of # of Number of Indicators from each Cat. Strat. data source Reg. Post. Eval. SUM Total 13 49 136 137 84 357 Financial Instruments 4 12 52 5 1 4 0 143 Voluntary Instruments 3 13 ( 31 1 39 10 1 80 Regulatory Instruments 3 11 120 1 2 5 17 [ 62 Public Expenditure Instruments 3 1 13 1 16 ( 15 9 1 40 Strategies Using a Combination of I 1 17 1 7 8 1 32 lnstruments
Additional indicators associated with governance and 6 24 9 39 decision-making not included in this analysis
Note: Cat. = Category; Strat. = Strategy; Reg. = Registration Form; Post. = Poster; Eval. = Evaluation Form.
Table 4-5 below presents a breakdown of the results for each policy type in terms of categories, strategies and indicators. The order of policy types, categories and strategies presented corresponds to the total number of indicators associated with them (in sorted in descending order). Policy types are labelled "F" for Framework Analysis and then A-E based on their rank; strategies are numbered based on their type (e.g. FA), their category (e.g. 1) and then based on their rank (e.g. the top strategy for type A is labelled FA1 .I).Note that only the top two strategies are present and only a subset of the instruments within each strategy are presented and they are not labelled. Columns provide a tally of the number of indicators from each data set (R=registration, P=Poster, E= Evaluation) that support each statement. See Table C-2 in Appendix C for a complete listing of all of the strategies and the instruments within each strategy.
Note that one of the challenges with this process was creating a consistent hierarchy of categories, strategies and instruments. This was due to both significant variation in the data and the attempt to identify broad, cross-cutting strategies and instruments. Consequently, while all strategies are worded as action recommendations, there is significant variation in the scope and specificity of strategies and instruments. Table 4-5 Summary of Framework Analysis Strategies and lnstruments I Framework Analysis - Strategies and lnstruments 1# Ind FA) Financial lnstruments Number of categories = 4; Number of strategies = 12; Total indicators: 143 FAI) Charges and Pricing Number of strategies =2; The top 2 strategies are below. 47 FA1.I. Use market and full-cost accounting1 pricing for municipal infrastructure 24 and services (water, energy, waste, development cost charges etc) lnstruments include tolls on new infrastructure; local improvement charges to finance transit improvement; increasing the marginal cost of driving through vehicle insurance charges and other mechanisms etc.
FA1.2. Set fees and charges to encourage- sustainable activities andlor discourage 23 unsustainable activities - I lnstruments include discounted community transit passes for existing and/or new developments; reduced fees for buildings using sustainable technologies etc. FA2) Taxes and Tax Shifting Number of Strategies = 4; The to1o 2 strateaies are below. - FA2.1. Use revenue generating or neutral tax shifts to produce appropriate market signals for sustainability I lnstruments include accelerated de~reciationDroarams: PST and GST exem~tions,etc. . w I FA2.2. Create tax incentives for research and development of sustainable technology lnstruments include accelerated depreciation programs on green capital investments; tax credits. FA3) Loans, grants, investment and Financing Number of strategies = 4; The top 2 strategies are below. - Tie funding sources and loan products (from banks, government etc) to sustainable practices and plans lnstruments include "Green" development financing; Affordable housing funds; Finance for coo~eratives.etc.
- Increase government investment in sustainable--.-~-- ~- innovation~-~--...- ~ lnstruments include public bonds issued fc 3r sustainable development and technologies; investment post-secondary research, etc. FA4) Direct lncentives and Subsidies Number of strategies = 2; The top 2 strategi es are below. 1 25 FA4.1. Provide incentives for sustainable behaviour and innovation lnstruments include "Scrap-it" programs; lncentives for transit; Employer transit passes; etc. FA4.2. Eliminate "perverse incentives" such as fossil-fuel and automobile subsidies lnstruments include eliminating fossil-fuel and automobile subsidies I FB) Voluntaw Instruments I Number of categories = 3 ; ~umbe;of strategies = 13 ; Total indicators: 80 FBI) Education and Training Number of strategies = 6; The top 2 strategies are below. 42 FBI.I. Produce and distribute case studies, best management practices, market 16 research, policy papers etc. lnstruments include development of business case and competitive advantages of sustainability; incentives for interdisciplinary teaching and research focused on sustainabilitv. etc. r Analysis - Strategies and Instruments I # lnc I FBI.2. Deliver specific training and capacity building programs for sustainability 11 skills 1lnstruments include training the trades people and professionals in sustainable ~ractices;online courses in Smart Growth. FB2) Social Marketing and Outreach Campaigns Number of strategies = 5; The top 2 strategies are below. 33 FB2.1. Deliver external social marketing and outreach programs to change 12 community, client or supply chain behaviour lnstruments include a education campaigns to sell the image of sustainable transportation, Positive "Peer-Pressure" campaigns, etc. FB2.2. Facilitate and support network development 8 . Instruments include identifying, promoting nn.4 ,4,,.4,,;nm "nnrl., -A,-.n4n~.-" -,A In-An,,. Technology Olympics for renewable enerc FB3) Voluntary Programs Number of strategies = 2; The top 2 strategi'es are below. 15 FB3.1. Create voluntary standards and c ertifications lnstruments include organizations such as the Forest Stewardship Council; a certification program for sustainable busin1ess. etc. FB3.2. Create other programs Instruments include Urban Agriculture lnitiatives, Technology transfer programs, Citizen and corporate citizenship programs I
FC) Regulatory lnstruments Number of cateaories = 3: Number of strateaies = 11 : Total indicators:
rb I. I. ~II~II~GLIIC: UUIIUIIIY LUU~~IIU LUIIIIIY ~L~IIU~IU~LU ~U~~UIL ~U~LCIIIICIUI~ outcomes lnstruments include lower parking requirement standards for new buildings; energy and water efficiency building codes, etc. FC1.2. Create controls and restrictions lnstruments include disposal bans, source protection legislation to protect surface- and ground-water, permanent protection of ALR. FC2) Other regulations and non-financial incentives Number of strategies = 6; The top 2 strategic3s are below. FC2.1. Deliver non-financial incentives fc. ,,,.,.. .,,., --..,- .-,. lnstruments include dedicated highway lanes for strategic road-users; pay-as-you-drive (~erkm) insurance. FC2.2. Integrate land-use, transportation, water and energy planning lnstruments include transit-, cycling- and walking- oriented communities; supporting in- the ALR.
umber of strategies FC3.1. Link application and approval processes to sustainability objectives lnstruments include density bonuses as incentives; Expedited "fast-track" approval processes. FC3.2. Create permits and licences that create new markets and requirements to support sustainability Instruments include tradable emission credits; energv licenses, etc. Framework Anal]tsis - Strategies and Instruments I # lnd
FD) Public Expenditure Number of cateaories = 3: Number of strateaies = 13: Total indicators: 40 FDI) Provision of infrastructure and related services Number of strategies = 9; The top 2 strategies are below. I 99 FD1.I. Improve transportation (highways and public transit) lnstruments include revitalize transit system to incorporate movement of people a freight; investing in shift from car-oriented transportation. FD1.2. Use Public-Private partnerships Instruments include cor~orate~artnershi~s to develo~ infrastructure FD2) Procurement practices and policies Number of strateaies = 2; The tor, 2 strateaies are below. 4 a FD2.1. Source andlor pay more for products with environmental or ethical attributes that meet performance standards lnstruments include buy-local programs and preferences; Vehicle purchases; Renewable enernv-- auotas,. etc. FD2.2. Develop sustainable standards for supply chain management FD3) Projects and Events Number of strategies = 2; The top 2 strategies are below. FD3.1. Support pilot projects and events aimed at providing sustainability services and stimulating market shifts lnstruments include creation of a Sustainable Housing Centre; pilot projects for innovative environmental technologies. FD3.2. Set requirements for public expenditures lnstruments include municipalities requiring GHG neutral projects
FE) Strategies that Use a Combination of Instruments Total number of strategies = 9; The top 2 strategies are below: 33 t I ~UII-costaccountmg ana prlclng: I 11 FE.2. Demand-side management 19
4.3 Conclusions
The Making Sustainability Happen participants were tasked with identifying barriers, cross-cutting issues and recommendations for three to five market mechanism ideas or "low-hanging fruit" for advancing sustainability in the region. The analysis of their responses (above) yields several conclusions about research question 1 and the framework designed to answer it. These are presented in several sections below.
4.3.1 Validity and Reliability of the Research The research design and the various strategies used to ensure its validity and reliability are presented in Chapter 2 (Methods) and specifically in section 2.6 (Validity of the Research Design). The application and the implementation of the research design at the Making Sustainability Happen event was relatively straightforward. The intent of this section is to highlight deviations and challenges encountered.
The primary challenge was with recruiting a balanced mix of participants in the event. Table B-2 in Appendix B presents a breakdown of the participants according to the four-part market actor typology. Ideally, the participants would have been evenly distributed among all of the actor types. In reality, however, 50 participants (43%) were Community Actors, 28 (24%) were Hybrid Actors, 22 (19%) were Regulatory actors and only 15 (13%) were For-Profit Actors.
The primary reasons for this distribution were (i) the use of the snowball method to identify participants without an explicit focus on a specific breakdown of for-profit, regulatory and non- profit actors, (ii) the requirement that participants spend the entire day at the event, which for- profit actors are generally less willing to commit to; (iii) the use of an online registration system, which was first-come, first-served; and (iv) the explicit desire of the organizers to invite regional experts in sustainability, which tend to be Community and Hybrid actors. Of these four issues, the most challenging to resolve in future research is #2 which would suggest that a shorter event with a more explicit business focus may be needed to attract these participants.
The impacts of this distribution on the research results are considered to be minor and include a potential bias towards focussing on policy- and governance-oriented solutions, as opposed to market solutions.
The second challenge encountered was in the nature of participant responses to the various questions in the registration, evaluation and poster data collection processes. Many were too vague (e.g. "use incentives") andlor broad (e.g. "provide child care") to be interpreted precisely. This suggests that (i) as anticipated, market mechanisms are not uniformly understood and there is a tremendous variation in interpretation, (ii) all participants may not have read the discussion paper before responding to questions, and (iii) some of the questions may not have been clear or precise enough. Some of the challenges with this data discussed below; overall, the researchers were pleased with the quality and quantity of data collected.
4.3.2 Validation of the Market Mechanism Framework
On one level, the results validate the framework of market mechanisms and policy design and provide a wealth of information on their existing and emerging roles in advancing sustainable community development. Table 4-3 provides a four-part typology of market actors (for-profit; community, regulatory, hybrid) which highlights the emerging roles of 'hybrid' actors whose mission, mandate andlor governance structure incorporate the multiple-bottom lines and sustainable values. Table 4-4 provides a detailed breakdown of thirteen different categories of market mechanism instruments and strategies across all four policy types and a total of forty-nine different strategies within those categories (including several examples of those using combinations). Examples of many of those strategies, instruments and actors can be found in Table 3-5.
One challenge with applying the framework was deciding how different mechanisms should be classified. Many instruments proposed by the Making Sustainability Happen respondents were vague or all encompassing (e.g. full-cost accounting); required the use of multiple instruments (e.g. a Local First campaign); or applied to a different level of policy development (e.g. regional governance structures). Similar challenges were encountered during the preparation of the discussion papers. For the most part, however, the definitions of policy types were precise enough to enable broad classification. One exception was education which can be a service delivered through public expenditure (representing a societal commitment to universal education), a market actor (such as a non-profit organization) and a voluntary initiative to transform the market (such as subsidized green building trades training). For consistency, all education and training mechanisms were categorized as voluntary instruments.
In terms of the recommendations within each theme and policy type, the two analyses essentially present the same strategies but with different wordings and rankings. This is to be expected given that they use the same data set. However, a comparison of the results tables emphasizes that the numerical data is valuable simply as a broad guide as opposed to a definitive ranking. For example, the "one-stop-shopu-relatedrecommendation received 9 indicators under Education in the Emergent analysis (EBI .4) yet a total of only 7 indicators in the Framework analysis under Voluntary (FB2.4, 4 indicators) and Public Expenditure (FD3.1, 3 indicators). This could be the result of inconsistency on the part of the researcher; the differences in wording of the recommendations; the methodological differences in the Framework and Emergent approaches or a combination of all of these factors. For that reason, the discussion relies on both analyses and takes an integrative approach to interpreting the results; small variations in indicators (i.e. 1- 4) are not considered to represent significant differences. This is consistent with the main focus of the research which was to develop a framework and identify emerging roles for market mechanisms, not to precisely rank and quantify those options.
In sum, the market mechanism definition and its three components (actor, strategy, instrument) was both a useful way of organizing data and a valid depiction of the types of mechanisms recommended by decision-makers. It should be noted that the participants were not directed to present their mechanisms in terms of actors, strategies or instruments, nor were they directed to frame them in terms of voluntary, regulatory, public expenditure or financial instruments; yet the data analysis found that their recommendations contained numerous examples of each element of that framework. 4.3.3 Policy and Market Mechanism Design
The research provides an abundance of recommendations in terms of policy and market mechanism design, including upwards of 24 recommendations from the Emergent Analysis and all 49 strategies and their associated instruments in the Framework Analysis. All four policy types had similar numbers of categories and strategies, but Financial Instruments had the majority of indicators, followed by Voluntary and Regulatory.
The top six policy recommendations (by indicator) from the Emergent Analysis were (from Tables 4.3 (above) and C-1 in Appendix C):
ED1.l (Policy Development) New and existing policy should be evaluated and revised based on its "triple-bottom-line" impacts in order to create policies that provide both incentives for sustainability and disincentives for unsustainable practices (46 indicators)
EC1.l (Market and Pricing) Revenue-neutral tax and fee shifting to increase cost of unsustainable activities and decrease cost of sustainable activities (40 indicators)
ECl.P.(Market and Pricing) Adopt tax, policies, and fee structures that reflect true (or full) costs and thereby reduce or eliminate "perverse subsidies" (30 indicators)
EE1.l (Innovation) Increased direct government investment and partnering in sustainable technology development, pilot1 demonstration projects and other innovation (23 indicators)
EB1.l (Education and Outreach) Ongoing, localized and meaningful multi-forum education and outreach campaigns for all audiences on the principles, importance and benefits of sustainability as a win-win-win scenario for business, community, and the environment (20 indicators).
EB1.2 (Education and Outreach) Research, education and outreach regarding the business case for sustainability (18 indicators).
Of all 49 strategies in the Framework Analysis the top six (by indicator) were (from Table 4-5 (above) and Table C-2 in Appendix C):
FA21 (Taxes and Tax Shifting) Use revenue generating or neutral tax shifts to produce appropriate market signals for sustainability (32 indicators)
FA1.l (Charges and Pricing) Use market and full-cost accounting Ipricing for municipal infrastructure and services (water, energy, waste, development cost charges etc.) (24 indicators) FA1.2 (Charges and Pricing) Set fees and charges to encourage sustainable activities andlor encourage unsustainable activities (23 indicators)
FA4.1 (Direct Incentives and Subsidies) Provide incentives for sustainable behaviour and innovation (22 indicators)
FB1.l (Education and Training) Produce and distribute case studies, best management practices, market research, policy papers etc. (16 indicators)
FC1.l (Standards, certification, controls and restrictions) Change the building code and zoning standards to support sustainable outcomes (15 indicators)
As illustrated above, the most challenging element of using the framework was classifying items as strategies or instruments. All of these high-ranking strategies are also quite broad in scope, and may be more suited to the Strategic Direction level as opposed to the instrument strategy level. This classification challenge was compounded by the fact that the data was inherently incomplete; for example, the only data that referenced child care was the blanket statement "provision of child care services" (FDI.8 in the Framework Analysis in Appendix C, Table C-2). Rather than excluding it from the data set, it was classified as a rather broad strategy under public expenditure.
This challenge could be surmounted in future research by developing more precise definitions for different levels of strategies, developing a complete reference classification system based on the literature, and then categorizing research results in terms of that structure. However, that is beyond the scope of this research and its utility is questionable. Some strategies (such as demand side management) represent an approach to policy that can be applied at any level; others (such as changing the building code) are more limited in scope and defined in direction. Each policy maker and community will inevitably adopt and develop their own strategies and apply them in unique ways.
In part, the value of this research and sample classification system is in providing examples of the wide array of strategies that can be used to influence the market, and the importance of applying the full range of policy tools to achieve community objectives. Highlights from the analysis of each of the four policy types based on the tables in Appendix C are provided below:
4.3.3.1 Financial Instruments
Financial instruments were the top-ranked instrument in the Framework Analysis and were also captured by the six recommendations and eleven barriers in the Market and Pricing theme. Four categories of instrument (charges & pricing; taxes and tax shifting; loans, grants, investment and financing; and direct incentives and subsidies) were described covering 12 different strategies. The top four strategies captured 71% of the indicators and focussed on establishing market signals for sustainability through tax shifting (FA2.1), market pricing for municipal services (FA1.I), the strategic use of fees and charges (FA1.2), and the use of direct incentives and subsidies (FA4.1). Other strategies recommended structural shifts such as linking funding and taxes to sustainability outcomes (FA3.1, FA2.4), creating new financing tools and incentives (FA3.2-3.4, FA2.2), regional tax pooling (FA2.3) and the elimination of 'perverse' subsidies (FA4.2).
Similar recommendations were distilled from the Emergent Analysis, where the top two Market and Pricing recommendations were associated with 77% of that theme's indicators and supported the same strategies as in the framework analysis: tax- and fee-shifting (ECI .I) and tax and fee structures (ECI 2)that provide unambiguous price signals support sustainable products, services and activities. The top barriers were similarly linked to price signals as a result of regulatory tax and fee structures (EC2.1) that fail to incorporate externalities (EC2.3) and lead to the higher the cost of sustainable alternatives (EC2.2). The remaining recommendations focussed on adopting community economic development strategies (ECI .3), creating new products and services (ECI.4, EC1.5) and creating new market actors (ECI.6). The remaining barriers had fewer than three indicators each and focussed on market structures (EC2.5, EC2.10), public awareness, trust and voice (EC2.4, EC2.6, EC2.7, EC2.9), and market expectations (EC2.11). Additional barriers from other themes included preferences, perceptions and stereotypes around sustainability (EA2.3) and conventional neo-conservative market norms, structures and behaviours (EA2.7).
In sum, the financial instruments identified present a conventional approach to market mechanisms that is focused on factors that directly influence the price and availability of products and services.
4.3.3.2 Voluntary Instruments
Voluntary instruments were ranked second overall in both the Framework analysis and the Emergent analysis, where they were largely captured under the heading Education and Outreach. The Framework analysis presented three broad categories of instrument: Education and training (six strategies and 52% of indicators); Social marketing and outreach (five strategies and 41% of indicators); and Voluntary programs (two strategies and 6% of indicators). The top three strategies represented 49% of the indicators and focussed on producing and distributing information and best practices (FBI.I), engaging in social marketing and outreach campaigns (FB2.1), and specific training and capacity building in sustainability skills (FBI.2). An additional four strategies representing 36% of the indicators focused on building networks (FB2.2), engaging in general outreach and awareness raising (FB2.3), integrating sustainability into formal curricula (FBI .3), and targeted education for decision-makers and opinion-leaders (FBI .4). The remaining strategies each had fewer than 4 indicators and included one-stop-shops (B2.4), technical assistance programs (FBI.5), internal social marketing (FB2.5), education incentives (FBI .6) and both Voluntary program strategies, such as certification (83.1) and other programs (83.2).
Similar recommendations were distilled from the Emergent analysis, where the top three recommendations were associated with 49% of the indicators and focussed on education and outreach campaigns (EBI .I), development and dissemination of information on the business case for sustainability (EBI .2) and social marketing campaigns (EBI .3). The next five strategies representing 31% of the indicators focused on first-stop-shops (EBI .4), recognition programs (EB1.5), training and capacity building (EBI .6), curricula development (EB1.7), and targeted education (EBI .8). The remaining strategies each had fewer than 4 indicators and included networks (EBI .9), targeted workshops (EBI .I0, EBI .I3), interdisciplinary research (EBI .I1) and values-based education (EB1.12). In terms of barriers, the top three represent 72% of the indicators and compliment the recommendations by emphasizing the lack of education, awareness and understanding (EB2.1), the challenges of shifting values and preferences (EB2.2) and the lack of current, accessible data on tools and success stories (EB2.3). The remaining four focus on the lack of sustainability education in schools (EB2.4, EB2.5), lack of funding (EB2.6) and lack of time (EB2.7). All of the barriers had 4 or more indicators.
In sum, the Voluntary instruments focused predominantly on the need for broad, ongoing education, outreach and social marketing to bring about the shifts in values, perceptions and behaviour required for sustainability. They emphasize that, rather than specific tools, the key to sustainability is embedding its values in every aspect of society from its schools and institutions to the marketplace itself.
4.3.3.3 Regulatory Instruments
Regulatory instruments were ranked third overall in the Framework analysis and were captured by the fourth-ranked Policy Develop theme in the Emergent Analysis as well as in various other themes. The Framework analysis presented three broad categories of instrument: standards, certifications, controls and restrictions (three strategies and 35% of indicators); other regulations and non-financial incentives (six strategies and 34% of indicators); and permits and licenses (two strategies and 31% of indicators). The top three strategies represented 63% of the indicators and came from each of the three categories: changing the building code and zoning strategies (FC1 .A); linking application and approval processes to sustainable outcomes (FC3.1); and providing a variety of other non-financial incentives (FC2.1). Two additional strategies (creating new markets using permits and licenses (FC3.2) and controls and restrictions (FCI .2)) had four or more indicators; the remaining strategies had three or fewer and included providing information, certification and other requirements (FCI.3; FC2.3); regulating integrating planning processes (FC2.2); and implementing cradle-to-cradle (FC2.4), full-cost accounting (FC2.5) and waste-exchange (FC2.6) regulations.
Regulatory instruments were described under a variety of headings in the Emergent analysis. The top recommendations include the need to use triple-bottom-line thinking to create incentives and disincentives using standards and regulations (ED1 .Iand EAI .8 with 46 and 10 indicators); create regulations that support full-cost pricing and cradle-to-cradle stewardship (ECI .2 and EAI .I1 with 30 and 7 indicators); use regulations to enable the creation of new products and markets (ECI .7 and ED1.6 with 7 and 2 indicators); integrate sustainability into required curricula (EBI .7 with 6 indicators); create fast-track approval process (ED.12 with 5 indicators); and use flexible, relevant, performance-based indicators for zoning and decision-making (ED1.3 and EAI .12 with 3 and 2 indicators). The top relevant barriers include political and bureaucratic antagonism, resistance, indifference and risk aversion (EA2.1, EA2.3 and EA2.6 with 27,12 and 11 indicators); compartmentalized "silo" thinking and non-cooperative approaches (EA2.5 with 11 indicators); administrative challenges in, and the complexity of, designing and implementing market mechanisms (EA2.15); and the lack of accessible markets (EA2.15 with 3 indicators).
In sum, the Regulatory instruments focussed on revising and streamlining regulatory processes to provide incentives for sustainable products and behaviour; set stringent requirements for compliance; and accelerate and facilitate approval processes for sustainable initiatives. The abundance of recommendations supports the idea that regulations are critical components of any market policy and provide significant direct and indirect incentives (and disincentives) for sustainability. Achieving sustainability requires a regulatory environment that actively promotes and rewards sustainable initiatives.
4.3.3.4 Public Expenditure
Public Expenditure was ranked fourth overall in the Framework analysis and was represented across all the themes of the Emergent analysis. Public Expenditure was one of the more challenging instruments to classify, as all policy instruments require some level of expenditure in their development, implementation and evaluation. The decision was made to distinguish among conventional spending requirements (such as infrastructure) and program-spending (such as a financial incentive or technical assistance program). As noted above, a decision was made to group all Education-related instruments within the Voluntary category, despite the fact that some strategies (such as the creation of first-stop service centres (FB2.4) should arguably be classified as a type of public expenditure. Consequently, public expenditure instruments were limited to three broad categories: provision of infrastructure and related services (nine strategies and 57% of indicators); procurement practices and policies (two strategies and 33% of indicators); and projects and events (two strategies and 10% of indicators). The top strategy was sourcing and/or paying more for products with environmental or social attributes (FD2.1 with 30% if indicators); next were the catch-all strategies of transportation (FDA .Iwith 18% of indicators) and public-private partnerships (FD1.2 with 13% of indicators). The remaining ten strategies had three or fewer indicators and ranged from a catch-all infrastructure categories (FDI.3 to FDI.9), to supply chain standards (FD2.2) and setting requirements for public expenditures (FD3.2).
The top public expenditure-related recommendations in the Emergent Analysis included increased direct government and partnering in pilot projects and sustainable technology development (EEI .Iwith 23 indicators); demonstrating institutional leadership through procurement and other activities (EA1.6 with 10 indicators) and providing reduced lending rates and investment guarantees (EE2.2 with 7 indicators). The top barriers related to public expenditure cut across all of the different themes and have largely been described already; examples include EA2.3, EA2.7, EA2.10, EA2.14, EB2.6, EC2.2, EC2.3, EC2.5, ED2.1, EE2.4, and EE2.7.
Expenditure is a very broad category of policy tool that has the potential for wide-ranging impacts from both public- and private-sector leaders. Strategies need to move beyond examining the services provided by governments to advocating for procurement practices that support the sustainable objectives of communities.
4.3.4 The Role of Governance and Decision Making in the Framework
On another level, the results emphasize that, as defined, the market mechanisms themselves are only one component of the larger policy development framework of values and vision; strategic direction; goals & objectives; and policy design. They also suggest that understanding the role of market mechanisms requires the expansion of the research framework to address the context in which policy is developed, both in terms of larger governance and decision-making structures and the nature of the actual processes (e.g. integrated, interdisciplinary, etc.).
These issues were highlighted in both the Framework and Emergent analyses. During the Framework analysis, thirty-nine data indicators related to governance, decision-making and process were not included in the analysis because they did not fit within the market mechanism definitions. Many other indicators that were included in the analysis under different headings (such as "requiring long-term triple-bottom line financial reporting" under FC2.3) also served as indicators for governance and decision-making recommendations in the Emergent Analysis. Perhaps the most compelling indicator of the need to refine the framework was the result of the Emergent Analysis. Numerous recommendations and barriers across all five themes referenced process and decision-making elements. Overall, the most indicators were associated with Governance and Decision-Making; in fourth place was Policy Development whose recommendations barriers were largely related to process. In total, these two themes contained 42 concepts associated with 340 indicators, or 47% of the total.
The remaining three themes (Education, Market and Innovation) contained twenty-four recommendations and twenty-six barriers that fit within the existing market mechanism framework. In total these fifty concepts were associated with 379 indicators or 53% of the total indicator references in the Emergent Analysis. Education and Outreach had the highest number of recommendations (13 concepts and 97 indicators), second highest number of barriers (7 concepts and 75 indicators) and the second highest overall ranking.
4.3.5 Barriers to Market Mechanisms for Sustainable Community Development
Barriers were coded and summarized during the Emergent analysis and are presented with each of the five themes in Tables 4.1 and 4.2 above and Table C-1 in Appendix C. There were 50 barriers in total associated with 336 indicators. The top six barriers overall (by indicator) were:
EB2.1 (Education, 28 indicators) There is a lack of education, awareness and understanding of sustainability and basic issues such as where food comes from and the implications of that.
EA2.1 (Governance, 27 Indicators) Political antagonism, resistance and indifference to the changes associated with sustainability (e.g. from vested interests, opposition to specific policy instruments such as regulation, taxation and user fees; prioritization of shareholder profit above all else), including the nature of government intervention in the market.
EA2.2 (Governance, 15 indicators) Lack of political leadership and will
EA2.3 (Governance, 14 indicators) Preferences, perceptions and stereotypes around sustainability (e.g. that there is not a market demand for sustainable products, that it is too expensive, high risk and low reward; not relevant).
EB2.2 (Education, 13 indicators) How do we shift people's values and cultural preferences? Unsustainable behaviour is well-marketed and people have entrenched behaviours. Sustainability requires a paradigm shift in thinking and in values; that is extremely difficult to do and we lack the capacity and resources to implement such a program.
EB2.3 (Education, 13 indicators) A lack of current, available and accessible data and research on precedents, tools and success stories (small business, large business, full- cost pricing).
All of these barriers were associated with Governance and Education; the top barriers for Market and Pricing (11 indicators), Policy Development (II indicators) and Innovation (8 indicators) were ranked 8Ih (4-way tie) and 15'~(2 way tie) respectively.
It is also interesting to note how the results varied among the recommendations and barriers. Tables 4-2 and 4-7 provide a numeric summary of the Emergent Analysis. With regards to recommendations, the top three themes (Education, Governance and Market) had similar numbers of recommendation indicators (97, 92 and 91 respectively) but were dramatically different in terms of barrier indicators (75, 146 and 41 respectively). This suggests that whereas Education, Governance and Market are all equally important in terms of the recommendations for action, the perception is that the barriers to sustainable Governance and Decision-making are more significant that those associated with Education and Market.
The nature of those barriers is also significant. Of the barriers identified for education, three of the seven barriers (EB2.1, EB2.2 and EB2.7 representing 60% of the indicators) were focused on general values, awareness and time as opposed to specific policy practices or structures. Similarly, in terms of governance, the barriers were largely political and attitudinal in nature; nine of the seventeen barriers (EA2.1-6, EA2.8, EA2.10, and EA2.16 representing 69% of the indicators) were focused on issues of attitude, perception, resistance to change, indifference, timeframes and trust. In contrast the barriers associated with the market and pricing theme were primarily structural and mechanism oriented and only two of the eleven barriers (EC2.6 and EC2.7 representing 12% of the indicators) were focused on issues of trust and understanding.
4.4 Discussion - Refining the Research Framework The conclusions support the use of the preliminary research framework for exploring, classifying and presenting the broad range of instruments, actors and strategies available for advancing sustainable community development. However, they also indicate that the framework is inadequate for truly exploring the broader role of market mechanisms in case studies of sustainable community development.
As noted earlier. implementing SCD is dependent on the large scale adoption and integration of its values, principles and desired outcomes at all levels of policy development; within community and market actors; and within official and unofficial representations of community values and visions. Furthermore, SCD is outcome-oriented and emphasizes the importance of all actors and processes being oriented towards and driven by the desired sustainable community outcomes.
Ultimately, the choice and design of instrument is significantly influenced by the processes used to develop policy as well as broader issues of governance, decision-making and community engagement, including the strategic decision to consider a sustainable, market-based approach in the first place. Consequently, a revised, final Research Framework was developed to form the basis for exploring the case studies in research question 2 and is presented in Figure 4.1 below.
The revised framework presents six interacting elements that inform policy development: market actors, community values and vision, governance and decision-making structures, policy elements and development process, policy and market mechanism design, and community and market outcomes. It maintains the core policy elements from the preliminary research framework (figure 3.5), and adds the governance, decision-making and process context emphasized in the results above. It also recognizes the role that market actors play in governance and policy development outside of the policy design and implementation stage. The "Community values and Vision" element is included as in response to the results emphasizing education, community engagement and community visioning. As noted in the literature review, policy is developed in response to community values and visions; however, the values and visions of policymakers are not always well aligned with those of the community, nor do community actors generally share the same vision for the future.
An additional change in this framework is the recognition that policy does not lead directly to community or market outcomes. Each policy interacts with external factors (such as market actor interests and strategies) and internal factors (such as other policies) to produces community and market signals. Perverse subsidies are an example of what happens when these are not aligned (Myers, 1998).
The revised framework also recognizes that all of these elements are dynamically linked and interconnected. Consequently, the linear, one-way diagram of the preliminary framework is replaced by two-way arrows connecting all of the components.
The revised framework also requires the expansion of the definition of market mechanisms for SCD to include policies and practices as well as instruments. The revised definition is therefore those instruments, policies, and practices that have been exi~resslvdesiqned to mobilize citizens and influence market decisions, behaviour, structure, and/or outcomes for the quantitative and qualitative improvement of all six forms of community capital. Figure 4-1 The Final Research Framework
Internal External Factors Factors
Market Sif
The Final Research Framework for Policy Development presents five interacting elements that inform and direct policy and community development: market actors, community values and vision, governance and decision-making structures, policy elements and development process, and policy and market mechanism design. These produce community and market signals that interact with internal factors (such as other policies) and external factors (such as market actor strategies) to create community and market outcomes.
The following sections explore each of the six framework elements in terms of the research findings.
4.4.1 .I Market Actors
Market actors influence policy development and community outcomes in a variety of ways. Each actor's values inform a vision for its future which it implements through its own set of strategies, tools and activities. Each actor and actor-type (for-profit, community, regulatory, hybrid) may have similar or dissimilar motivations, mandates and market roles.
In terms of the role of these market actors as agents (or mechanisms) of sustainable community development, Table 4-3 reveals several interesting points. Among the for-profit actors it highlights the role of conventional businesses and financial institutions with commitments to developing andlor delivering sustainability services, andlor being accountable to voluntary third party standards or certifications such as Corporate Social Responsibility programs. Among the community actors it highlights the importance of research, education and outreach in generating the knowledge, awareness and momentum needed to transition to sustainable practices. This point is also emphasized by the fact that the Education and Outreach trend in the Emergent Analysis had the second highest number of concepts and associated indicators (Table 4-1). Finally, it presents the concept of 'hybrid actors' (such as enterprising non-profits) who have an explicit commitment to community and sustainability objectives embedded within their governance structures, shareholder values (e.g. family-owned businesses such as Nature's Path foods) andlor corporate charters.
4.4.1.2 Community Values and Vision
Market actors interact through the market, through formal policy and planning processes, and through community activities. Their values and visions are collected through these processes and represented in various degrees in formal vision documents (such as Official Community Plans) and through networks and organizations (such as the Canada Green Building Council).
The importance of developing, celebrating and governing from shared community values and visions is highlighted by various recommendations and barriers identified in the Emergent Analysis (for example, see Al-1, 62-1 and 62-2 in Table 4-2). The identification of shared values is not enough; it must be accompanied by mechanisms to assure accountability to them.
4.4.1.3 Governance and Decision-making Structures
Ten recommendations and seventeen barriers associated with Governance and Decision-making were identified, and the top two are presented in Table 4-2 (for a complete result see Appendix C). The results imply that making sustainability happen is not simply a matter of creating the right policies and mechanisms; it is also paramount to change organizational structures and practices themselves. Institutionally, there is a need for inspired leadership and a regional body that has the mandate and means to coordinate, implement and arbitrate development in the region. To succeed in that endeavour requires that both organizations and individuals shift from competitive, adversarial and disconnected decision-making models and processes towards those favouring integration, collaboration and cooperation. Other recommendations for governance include supporting innovation and risk taking; demonstrating institutional leadership; and creating participatory structures for stakeholder engagement. Decision-making recommendations include using longer-time horizons; considering implications across multiple-bottom-lines using full-cost accounting; and adopting monitoring and evaluation systems using appropriate indicators (such as Genuine Progress Indicators).
Barriers associated with sustainable governance are well-documented in the literature (Bell, 2002; Dale, 2001; Young & von Maltke, 1993). These barriers were also highlighted in this research. Political and bureaucratic antagonism, resistance and indifference were cited as the top barriers along with stereotypes and a general lack of political will to enact sustainable policies. Other barriers included a lack of understanding of sustainability; a lack of trust in government; external factors such as globalization; and administrative challenges associated with designing complex market mechanisms.
4.4.1.4 Policy Elements and Development Process
While the original research framework described the four key elements of policy development (values & vision; strategic direction; goals & objectives; policy design), it did not reference the processes by which these are developed. As noted in the literature review, SCD is predicated on values of participation, equity and integration which must be reflected in the processes by which we develop policy and make decisions.
This message was clear from the respondents with eight recommendations and seven barriers associated with the theme Policy Development. Included among them was the top recommendation (by indicator) which was summarized as
"New and existing policy should be evaluated and revised based on its 'triple-bottom-line' impacts in order to create policies that provide incentives for sustainability and disincentives for unsustainable practices" (ED1.I, Table 4-2)
This recommendation is very broad and essentially represents a strategic direction for policy review and development based on SCD values and outcomes. It captures the idea at the heart of market mechanisms for SCD: creating unambiguous incentives and market signals that support SCD targets. The remaining recommendations (from Appendix C) included adopting integrated, multi-disciplinary, bottom-up approaches for policy development that use the full range of policy tools, and pursuing policy directions such as fast-track approval processes and performance- based equivalencies. Relevant barriers included current government policy directions (such as supporting fossil fuel development); the disconnect between planning and implementation; a lack of monitoring and enforcement programs; and a lack of adequate consequences for lack of compliance with policies. 4.4.1.5 Community and Market Outcomes
As presented in the literature review and the original framework, sustainable community development considers the economy and market to be a means of achieving community goals as opposed to ends (e.g. economic growth) in themselves. Community outcomes influence and are influenced by market actors and community values and vision. From this perspective, community outcomes are both the results of policy activities and the drivers of policy development. An SCD approach to ecoriomic development therefore entails identifying desired community outcomes and then designing policy mechanisms that provide a combination of market signals and constraints to support their achievement. The final policy design creates a set of community and market signals that influence market actors; however, these signals can be confounded by other factors such as market conditions (e.g. a slumping housing market), the perceived strength or flexibility of the policy (e.g. the likelihood of successful rezoning or exemptions) and other policy (e.g. development cost charges or "perverse" subsidies). Achieving desired community and market outcomes therefore requires the alignment of all of five of the other policy development components as well as other internal policies and external factors.
4.4.2 Applying the Revised Research Framework: Research Questions 1 & 2
Research question 1 was concerned with defining market mechanisms; identifying their existing and emerging roles; and then identifying barriers to and opportunities for applying them to support sustainable community development. The literature review provided a definition and classification scheme for market mechanisms and situated them within the broader policy development process. The research described above -both validated the utility of the model and provided an extensive set of examples, strategies, instruments and actors. Perhaps most importantly, the data set was compiled from data across ten different topic areas (transportation, agriculture etc.) of key significance to community sustainability. The resulting recommendations and strategies are therefore truly cross-cutting and represent an approach that can (and has) been applied to addressing virtually any aspect of sustainable community development.
The research also demonstrated that the design of market mechanism strategies and instruments is only one part of a larger policy and community context. While the definition of market mechanisms provided by the research applies specifically to the design stage, the approach, values and strategic direction associated with market mechanisms for sustainable community development can (and must) be applied to governance and decision-making processes. It must also be integrated into not only the values and visions of each market actor but also the community as a whole. This is represented in the revised, six-component research framework. Consequently, the second phase of the research set out to explore how these issues, strategies, processes and instruments have been applied in real community situations. Land use planning and development was identified as an appropriate area to study due to its cross-cutting nature (e.g. integrating transportation, housing, water etc.) and the abundance of innovative projects in British Columbia. Chapter 5 below outlines how the revised research framework has been used to address research question 2 and presents the research results and conclusions. 5 Phase II - Market Mechanisms for Sustainable Neig hbourhoods 5.1 Overview
The second phase of the research was designed to evaluate the research framework and address research question 2 regarding the existing and emerging roles for market mechanisms in the planning and development of sustainable neighbourhoods in major urban centres in British Columbia.
Two case studies were prepared on sustainable neighbourhoods in BC (Dockside Green in Victoria and East Clayton in Surrey) that had successfully bridged the planning-implementation gap. The case studies were focussed on identifying drivers, success factors, barriers, processes and policies related to the success of the projects (question 2a). Once the case studies were completed, they were compared using the framework to evaluate the roles of market mechanisms in the project (question 2b) and determine broader lessons for sustainable community development (question 2c).
It is important to note that various parts of this research were undertaken by a three-person research team; please see Appendix A for details and copyright information.
This chapter is presented in two sections: Results and Conclusions.
5.2 Results
5.2.1 Overview
This second phase of research used the following definitions and research framework developed in the first phase:
- Market mechanisms are presented as being part of a larger policy development framework (Figure 4.1) consisting of six interrelated parts: market actors; community values and vision; governance and decision-making structures; policy elements and development processes; policy (market mechanism) design; and community and market outcomes.
- Market mechanisms for sustainable community development are defined as instruments, policies, and practices that have been ex~resslydesiqned to mobilize citizens and influence market decisions, behaviour, structure, and/or outcomes for the quantitative and qualitative improvement of all six forms of community capital.
- Market mechanisms are categorized in terms of instruments (e.g. voluntary, regulatory, public expenditure, financial incentives), the actors that use them (e.g. hybrid, for-profit, community, regulatory) and the strategies that guide and inform their implementation (e.g. demand-side management, co-management, P3s, etc.).
The research consisted of comparisons of two case studies of sustainable neighbourhood development in E3.C. that had successfully moved from planning to implementation. The two case study sites were selected based on the following criteria (see the Methods chapter for complete details):
- Projects with an explicit commitment to sustainability and incorporation of sustainability principles in design andlor development.
- Projects at the implementation and development stage.
- Similarities in terms of scale (neighbourhood), timing (initiated within the past 10 years), actors (both driven by municipality), jurisdiction, and site condition (both largely vacant).
The projects were dissimilar in terms of site (greenfield vs. brownfield), ownership (private vs. municipal), scale and process (neighbourhood concept plan vs site plan).
5.2.2 East Clayton (Headwaters) and Dockside Case Studies
Figure 5-1 provides maps of both case study sites. Table 5-1 provides a side-by-side comparison of the East Clayton (Headwaters) and Dockside Green case studies; for additional details on both see Appendices D-G. The cases are presented in terms of overview and context; barriers and challenges; solutions and success factors; and outcomes and impacts. Figure 5-1 The Case Study Sites
a-sn~-\ v K a I-
Victoria, British
The case study sites. (a) and (b) present the East Clayton site in Surrey, B.C. (images modified by the author and reprinted with permission. 02007 City of Surrey Planning and Development Department). (c) and (d) present the Dockside Green site in Victoria , B.C. (imaqes modified bv the author and reorinted with ~ermission.0 2007 Dockside Green). I able 3-1 s~ue-t)y-s~aeLomparison or tasr uayron ana neaawarers
Dockside Green, Victoria BC
1. Overview and Context
The East Clayton area comprises about250 hectares (617 acres) of A 14.6 acre (5.9 hectare) brownfield sitein downtown Victoria which former 'greenfield' undeveloped rural landin north-eastern Surrey, B.C. once contained shipbuilding yards,railway works, and an asphalt and is touted as British Columbia's first sustainably planned community. operation is being redeveloped intoa model sustainable community. Dockside Green has been developed and designed to meeta triple- The result of the 1998 "Headwaters Project" partnership among the City bottom line (TBL) of social, environmental and economic objectives. of Surrey Planning and Development Department, the Pacific Resources Centre and the James Taylor Chair in Landscapeand The site is being remediated througha combination of removal, Liveable Environment (JTC) at the University of British Columbia (UBC), treatment and risk management (containment and monitoring). Over the the East Clayton Neighbourhood Concept Planwas developed through next ten to twelve years it will be built out into a mixed-use development a series of charrettes, workshops and public consultations oriented of light industrial, commercialand residential that will host a variety of around seven "sustainable development principles" for land-use public spaces and amenities, provide its own greenhouse-gas-neutral planning. power, treat its wastewater and sewageonsite, and meet the highest environmental standards in green building(LEEDB platinum3).It will As a complete community, East Clayton will contain relatively compact, incorporate both workllive and livelwork units. walk-able neighbourhoods witha mix of residential dwelling types, commercial and live-work areas connected by a grid network of streets Once complete, the Dockside Green will be a community for and 'green infrastructure' consisting of parks, greenways andmore approximately 2,500 people and comprise 26 buildings totalling 1.3 ecologically-oriented stormwater drainage systems. When complete,it million square feet. will house approximately 11,200 residents, 40,000 sq.m. (-373,000 sq. ft.) of commercial space and a business park of up to 107,326 sq. m. (-1 ,I 55,000 sq. ft.).
2. Summary of Key Events 2. Summary of Key Events
1 Dec I - "Headwaters Project" partnership createdto I 1989 - City of Victoria ("the City") purchases Dockside from the ( 1998 1 demonstrate susiainable development principlesand - 2001 Province of BC in 1989 and generates $3.1 millionin
LEED@is a green building certification program administered bythe US and Canadian Green Building Councils. It stands for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design.
ide Green, Victoria BC
made public in September. - Sale finalized and development permit issued (Sept); construction start date Feb 2006.
3. Barriers and Challenges -riers and Challenges
The time and cost of having such an involved public process Institutional Inertia internal resistance to change at the City - for both staff time and public participant volunteers. of Surrey including shifting from a risk-averse, departmentalized mentality to a cross-departmental, collaborative andinnovation- The lack of trust among community, developers and the City: generating process. Community frustrated with history of developmentand behaviour of city and developers. External resistance to change - developers: Hesitant to switch Market Timing: Residential building costsin Victoria have from known products with known costs, liabilities and marketability increased almost 20% from 2004 to 2005. to new products with uncertain costs, liabilities andmarket appeal. Site contamination and remediation issues: Required site Balancing idealism and pragmatism - Design challenges and analysis and created uncertainty for regulatory approval. trade-offs: Integrated planning inevitably led to the needto make Inconsistent zoning bylaws and policies: Many existing bylaws trade-offs (e.g. among parklands and density; innovation and risk and policies provided disincentives for sustainable site development mitigation etc.). (e.g. prohibiting rooftop gardens) Being on the leading edge: There were few models to reference Risk aversion to using "new" technology. and little leadership from development community Cost of risk mitigation: As a result of risk aversion, the City City of Victoria structure: Some stakeholders complainedthat the required a dual system for drainage that resulted in significant City operated in a dysfunctional fashion and lacked leadership, increases in cost. vision and a strategy for Victoria's future.
Existing site conditions and infrastructure: Predominantly undeveloped "greenfield" land with limited servicing and transit infrastructure and poor soil drainage.
Fragmented land ownership: The area comprised 191 privately- owned parcels.
Market perceptions and realities: Concern that the marketwas not aware of andlor interested in sustainability features. East Clayton (Headwaters), Surrey BC de Green, Victoria BC
- Lack of clear metrics and standards: Lack of clarity around the application of new principles and standards.
4. Solutions and SIuccess Factors a) Patrick Condon and the James Taylor Chair (JTC) in Landscape Project Sustainability Champions- Key city staff and consultants and Liveable Environments: All of the respondents agreed that were versed in sustainability and had the authorityto drive the Patrick Condon and the JTC were critical becauseof their: process and "sell" the visionof creating a model sustainable community on the site. - Organization and personal characteristicssuch as passion; expertise; multi-stakeholder approach; capacityto communicate City as owner and regulator - As both the owner and the sustainable development principlesto a variety of audiences; and regulator, the City had complete site control andthe ability to revise emphasis on achieving the highest possible standardsof planning documents and regulationsto suit their needs. This was a sustainability. key factor as various regulations, bylaws and planning documents (e.g. OCP etc.) have hadto be completely revisedto accommodate - "Working with the willing" though a competitive application the project. process. City commitment to site sustainability- The City committed to - Using applied visioning events (charettes and workshops); using TBL criteria throughout the design and evaluation process and adopted a 'break-even' policy that considered project financial - Iterative approach to partnership development over several returns in context with other TBL factors. years and processes. Public consultation - Extensive public consultationand b) City of Surrey: Key success factors in terms of the City's participation throughout the process helped overcome trust issues involvement included : and build momentum and support. - Project champions with passion, commitment and the capacity for Multi-disciplinary collaboration- A focus on inter- and intra- holistic thinking. departmental collaboration and the inclusionof diverse community - Strategic engagement of publicity and media: Applying for stakeholders both built broad support and ensuredthat the project awards and involving media generated positive attention, political reflected and integratedmany varied perspectives. momentum and public awareness. Pragmatic, vision-led process-A realistic site vision was - Council commitment to supporting staff innovation: This developed based on sustainability principles andthe market and real estate economics of the site:~his vision drove the design East Clayton (Headw Dockside Green, Victoria BC - -- contributed to a culture of staff trust and empowerment. stages of development, and adherence to the vision was supported by the TBL matrix and other tools. :) Context and timing: Key success factors in terms of the contextand :iming included: Access to "market-neutral" real estate and green building expertise - Through their partnership with BC Buildings - The need for an alternative drainage system: The City had been Corporation (BCBC), the Cityhad access to expertise that was not successfully sued for erosion and flooding damage. compromised by market interests. - An undeveloped, "green-field" site: Gave flexibility to layout Accessibility of the project to developers committed to services and infrastructure and simplified engagement. sustainability - The explicit commitment to TBL criteria attracted sustainability-minded developers basedon the commitment to - The key stakeholders each Synchronicity of timing and interest: evaluate proponents on multiple criteria. came to the table with their own interestsand motivation to see development happen differently. Existence of developers committed to sustainability - VanCity - Enterprises and Windmill are atypical developers that have mission Recent precedents and community support: Creation of statements that reference sustainability and multiple-bottom lines standard Neighbourhood Concept Plan(NCP) process and Clayton and may accept lower financial returns for sustainability gains. Community Advisory Community (CCAC)and influence of JTC Design Charrette.
- Government interest and Funding: Grants totalling over $900,000 were awarded to the City to offset design and infrastructure costs. d) Integrated Design Process: The central features of the integrated design process were the 2 two-day design charrettes and theiruse of a "Design Table" comprised of stakeholder representatives and technical experts. Key success factors - Pragmatic sustainable development principles as a shared vision of success: The JTC seven, practical principles for designing sustainable communities - Multi-stakeholder and multi-disciplinary engagement from the beginning of the project:
- Participation and engagement of market actors: Real estate East Clayton (Headwaters), Surrey BC Dockside Green, Victoria BC
agents and developers representedon Design Table
- Participation and engagement of community members:
- Shared decision-making: Design Table decisions had tobe endorsed by all of the participants; shared responsibility
5. Outcomes and lmpacts 5. Outcomes and lmpacts
- Development impacts: East Clayton developments have sold Development market impacts.If Dockside Green is successful it extremely well and it has built out faster than anticipated andhas may trigger shifts in development culture, market interest and become a desirable place to build and to live. The best practices demand, and the municipality's approach to sustainability as a and lessons learned are being appliedto other neighbourhoods and market opportunity. adjacent communities. Community Relationships: The project has raised the bar for - Market impacts: East Clayton has demonstratedhow a more community-municipal consultation and has createdan excellent compact, mixed-use community fits intothe suburban context and foundation for building trust among community members, the has created several new market products, most notably small-lot municipality and developers. The public consultation processwill dwellings within a more heterogeneous mix of densities. need to be formally incorporated into the city's policy frameworkin order to have longer term impacts. - Community relationships: The process has contributedto shifts in the relationship between developers, the community andcity staff Shifts in City culture and regulations: Thus far, all of the and has also opened up other opportunities for communication. changes in planning culture have been ad-hoc, and are not incorporated in any formal process or policy; these initiatives must - Creation of Smart Growth on the Ground Project: The success be formalized and institutionalizedif they are to have long-term of East Clayton led the JTCto partner with Smart Growth BC and impacts. The project has clearly demonstrated the value of and create Smart Growth on the Ground (SGOG). need for:
- Shifts in City culture and regulations: It is important to note that 1. Incorporating sustainability and TBL principles into staff many of these city-wide changes are occurring as a result of a shift training, planning and decision-making processes. in the culture and peopleat the city of Surrey as opposed to any formal structural or policy changes; these initiatives must be 2. Inter- and intra-departmental collaboration and consultation formalized and institutionalized if they are to have long-term in handling sustainable building applications; impacts. Examples include: 3. Flexible, performance- and outcome-based frameworks for East Clayton head^raters), Surrey BC
1. Shift in perspective of what is possible: zoning, design, and decision-making;
2. Shift in external perception of Surrey: 4. Pro-active allocation of resources to support and 'fast-track' desired initiatives throughthe approvals process; 3. Increased inter-departmental collaboration 5. Ongoing public consultation and engagement; and 4. Application of sustainable development principlesin other neighbourhoods 6. Developing internal expertise in orderto ground land-use decisions in real estate principles and economics. 5. Development of standard community advisory committee (CAC) and neighbourhood concept planning (NCP) processes
6. New city-wide zoning bylaws for density and mixed-use
7. New standards for storm water drainage 5.3 Conclusions
The two case studies (East Clayton vs. Dockside) deal with different scales of development (250 vs. 5.9 hectares), locations (new urban greenfield vs. downtown brownfield), planning approaches (neighbourhood concept plan vs. site specific development), sustainability objectives (sustainable land-use principles vs triple-bottom-line (TBL) matrix), owner-regulator relations (city as regulator vs. city as owner-regulator), and stages of development at the time of the research (largely built- out vs. at the land remediation stage).
They also share similarities in terms of their broad approaches to public engagement, the use of integrated teams, the presence of hybrid actors, and their adoption of vision-led processes. Most importantly, in both case studies the project champions were committed to 'doing development differently' and acting on their visions of creating model sustainable communities. The focus of this analysis and discussion is on examining the roles that market mechanisms and each element of the research framework played influencing the process and outcomes
5.3.1 Comparing the cases - Drivers, Obstacles and Processes As presented in Table 5-1 above, both projects encountered barriers related to municipal structure; internal and external resistance to change; site conditions; intra-actor trust; and being on the 'leading edge' of integrating sustainability principles. However, differences in ownership structure and site location resulted in different challenges. City ownership allowed Dockside to create a customized development concept, site zoning and Master Development Agreement; however, it also required them to conduct a series of site, market and financial assessments to ensure that their vision was financially viable and to engage in a North American marketing campaign. In contrast, East Clayton was limited to a conventional planning framework (the NCP) and had to address the concerns and risk aversion of both community members and land- owners; however, they did not have to engage in the same level of real estate analysis and were able to develop zonings, tools and processes that could be readily applied to other regions of the city. A further difference came in the financial models of the two cases: whereas Victoria could recoup all of its costs through the sale of the land, Surrey was limited to development cost charges. A final difference came in terms of location: Dockside's downtown location meant that community members readily supported density in exchange for amenities whereas Surrey's more rural location led to difficulties with both density issues and a lack of leading edge 'sustainable' developers.
In terms of success factors, both projects benefited from the role of individual and organizational champions; city Council commitments to sustainability principles; extensive public consultation and engagement: hybrid community-market actors (such as JTC and BCBC); and the creation of inter-disciplinary and multi-stakeholder teams that engaged in vision-led, integrated design processes. Headwaters also benefited from government funding, the shared market and public interest in alternative drainage standards, and the long-term partnership between JTC and the City. Dockside benefited from being both owner and regulator and from the existence of local developers committed to sustainability principles.
In terms of outcomes and impacts, both projects have influenced market, community and municipal perceptions, interactions and structures to varying degrees. East Clayton has developed rapidly and has made tangible contributions including a shift in average Surrey lot sizes; the creation of new city-wide zonings and standards; and the application of process and sustainability principles on other projects and in other areas. Dockside was still in the development stage at the time of the research but has had tremendous public exposure through awards and media profiles; it has definitely raised community and City expectations and demonstrated the value of integrated teams, flexible zoning, and market assessment.
However, in both projects the changes to internal city structure and operation had yet to be formalized or institutionalized through explicit policy or structural changes. This exposes both cities to the risk of losing the long-term benefits for other projects when key staff and/or Council leave. In fact, many of the managers and champions of both projects have already moved on to different organizations.
There was also variation in terms of accountability to the plans at the implementation stage. The size, scope and nature of the East Clayton project requires that a wide variety of City staff (from property inspectors to parks staff, engineers and permitting officials) are intimately familiar with the intent and requirements of the sustainability features and infrastructure. However, there has not been a formal education process and zoning variances have already been approved that set precedents for non-compliance. Furthermore, there is uncertainty regarding the performance and monitoring of alternative drainage systems. While the Headwaters project has been successful on a wide variety of fronts, these realities combined with the lack of involvement of the Headwaters Project Team beyond the planning stages and the lack of formal structures, leaves some doubt concerning the full implementation of the sustainable vision for the site.
In contrast, the Dockside project contained a wide variety of measures for insuring accountability to the site vision. These are largely attributable to the fact that the City owned the site and were able to include various covenants, stipulations and financial incentives (penalties) for non- compliance with the sustainability objective~. 5.3.2 Applying the Research Framework
The case studies have been compared in terms of their context, key events, barriers, success factors and outcomes; the next step in the analysis was to evaluate them using the research framework. Table 5-2 below presents a discussion of each framework element. Table 5-2 Comparative Framework Analysis of East Clayton and Dockside Green
East Clayton (Headwaters) Dockside Green I. Community Values and Vision I. Community Values and Vision The official documents that encapsulatethe broader community's The official documents that encapsulate the broader community's vaiues and vision are the 1996 City of Surrey Official Community Plan values and vision were the 1995 City of Victoria's Official Community (which designated Clayton as an urban area) andthe 1999 Clayton Plan, the 1986 VictoriaWest Neighbourhood Plan,and the 2001 General Land Use Plan. Victoria Harbour Plan all of which supported Dockside'szoning as low- The goal of the projectwas to build on these plans and a density light industrial/ commercial. NeighbourhoodConcept Planfor EC that incorporatedsustainability During the development of the Business Caseit became apparent that principles. The JTCled the I I-month process to develop the NCP and the land value as currently zoned was insufficientto pay for the site involved communitymembers through the stakeholder groups(such as remediation. Furthermore,the OCP and theVWNP were ten and twenty the EC Community Advisory Committee);the Design Team; and a years out of date respectivelyand did not necessarily reflectthe process of multi-disciplinary charrettes,mini-charrettes and open contemporary community visionfor the site. Consequently,an houses. extensive, multi-stage, two-year public consultationprocess was While the Stage 1 (Land-use) NCP was completed within 11 months undertaken to create a Development Conceptrepresenting community (and only 7 months of active consultation), Stage2 (Services) was values and sustainability principles. This visionwas reflected in the delayed an additional 30 months due to conflictsamong the VCENVindmill proposal that described Dockside as a "socially vibrant, sustainability vision, engineering standards andthe interests and ecologically restorative& economically soundand just community" that market perceptions of the developer. would serve as a model sustainable community for the rest ofthe world. Key to the success of this vision processwas the fact that it was pragmatic and grounded inthe economic realityof the site as determined by the Business Planand Market Analysis. This enabled participants to understand and recognizethe trade-offs inherent in each decision (e.g. lower density yield fewer public amenities). It alsoallowed the City to estimate and set a minimum "break-even" policy for the project. 2. Governance and Decision-Making -- 2. Governance and Decision-Making As the regulator,the City has ultimatecontrol over land-use planning As the owner and regulator,the City had complete control oversite processes. However, the Headwaters Project createda partnership (via planning, development and decision-making. They partnered with a memorandumof understanding) among the City,JTC and the Pacific BCBC to manage and develop the project. Governance structures Resources Centre to jointly manage the EC NCP Stage 1 process. A included a Project Team, Steering Committee, Community Advisory Design Team was created with representationfrom each of six Committee, and Evaluation Committee. The Council retained the East Clayton (Headwaters) Dockside Green consrlruency or lnreresr groups rnar were conveneo as pan or rne authority to make final decisions; however,to build trust and consultation process. Decision-makers andthe Design Team were transparency, both community and fairness auditors were appointedto brought together with experts tomake decisions during planning confidentially overseethe final decision-making process. meetings and charrettes. This resultedin a very rapid, broadly A key success factor was the use of internal inter- and intra- supported process. departmental teams to break down siios and faciiitate integrated A key success factor was the use of seven pragmatic, sustainable decision-making. A set of team behaviour rules was developed to development principlesto create a shared vision of success among facilitate this process.Another factor was the development of tools participants. Council's adoptionand endorsement of the principles let to (such as the TBL matrix) to formally ensure accountabilityto the site the creation of the project in the first place. Council continuedto support vision. staff recommendations at key votes throughout the process.An The public consultation process of open houses, committee meetings additional success factor was theuse of process principles (described and workshops allowedfor considerable community influence onthe in (3) below). development. It should be noted, however,that while the City described A key challenge was the end of the partnership after Stage 1. Though a it as among the most comprehensive consultationsthey had ever variety of factors account for the 30 month delay in finalizing Stage2, undertaken, some community respondents found that the the lack of an integrated Design Team certainly contributedto both the communication tended to be "one-way"and prescriptive, limiting delay and the eventual compromise on someof the sustainability participants to respondingand commenting as opposed to collaborating commitments.- and co-creating. 3. Policy Elements and I3evelopment Process 3. Policy Elements and Development Process The East Clayton policywas firmly grounded in all four policy elements The Dockside policy was firmly grounded in all four policy elements (values and vision; strategic direction; goals and objectives; and policy (values and vision; strategic direction; goals and objectives; and policy design) and used an integrated design processto develop the NCP. design) and used an integrated design process to create the In terms of policy elements, development concept and guide the sale ofthe property. In terms of policy elements: - The initial values came from the existing planning documents and the seven sustainability principles and ledto the vision of creating - The initial values emerged from the staff project championsand a sustainable urban neighbourhood with particular emphasison their consultation with community members.The history of alternative drainage standards. development in the area and resulting lack of trust drove the desire to 'do development differently' and led to the visionof creating a - The strategic direction was to focus on using conventional land-use model sustainable neighbourhood. instruments and an integrated design processto achieve the vision. The project was also positioned as a pilot and - The strategic direction was to focus on creating a vision for the site demonstration project and supportwas solicited from other levels grounded in principlesof social, economic and environmental of government; sustainability. The team sought (and received)a commitment from the Council to treat the site as a pilot, maximize the 'triple-bottom- Goals and objectives were grounded in the sustainability principlesI 1- and included performance standards and design guidelines for line' return rather than simplythe economic one, and disregard and each of four land-use types as well as the ecological infrastructure rewrite existing planning documents, zoningsand bylaws to fit the (building sites, streets, natural areasetc.) plan. The decision was also made to set objectives and evaluate - Policy design is described in a separate section below. outcomes and performance ratherthan using prescriptive zoning for roads, set-backs etc. The integrated design process included extensive public consultation - and both internal and external collaboration and partnership. The Goals and objectives were grounded in sustainability principles and design table and charrettes were the key process structures through clearly articulated both in the development conceptand the triple- which planning and design problems were presented andsolved; city bottom-line matrix usedto evaluate proposals. staff then followed up with the development of concrete policies(e.g. - Policy design is describedin a separate section below. zoning regulations, development cost chargesetc.) which were The integrated design process included extensive public consultation approved by both the design tableand council. The charretteswere and both internal and external collaboration and partnership. Rather founded on eight 'process principles'for collaboration and decision- than a charrette process, the Project Team usedmore conventional making. As noted above, a key success factor was the use of the seven tools, such as open houses, workshops and team meetings. Likea sustainability principles as both the starting and referencepoint for charrette, however, the emphasiswas on making decisions that were policy development. practical, feasible and grounded in relevant technical information.As noted above, the development conceptwas grounded in an understanding of the market value of the site as informed by an environmental assessment, market risk analysisand business case analysis.
4. Policy and Market Mechanism Design 4. Policy and Market Mechanism Design
A variety of policy instruments and mechanismswere used to A variety of policy instruments and mechanisms were used to implement the project; a comprehensive table of mechanisms is implement the project; a comprehensive table of mechanisms is provided in Appendix G. The following provides a summary of the role provided in Appendix G. The following provides a summary of the role of market mechanisms from each of the policy types in the project. of market mechanisms from eachof the policy types in the project. Overall the intent of the project was to create an NCP that embodied Overall the intent of the projectwas to create a development concept community and sustainability principles and objectives while also that embodied community and sustainability principlesand objectives attracting and engaging landowners and other market actorsto develop while also attracting and engaging market actors to purchase and the area. The guiding strategy was to use an integrated design process develop the site. The guidingstrategy was to use an integrated to create a sustainable yet practical plan for the site. approach to develop a set of sustainable yet practical outcomes for the Financial instruments were used to recover the site servicing costs site and then allow the marketto propose the best methods for (through development cost charges) and also asan incentive to offset achieving them. the approximately $5,000 per lot in additional costs associatedwith the Financial Instruments were used to attract applicants and ensure East Clayton (Headwaters) Dockside Green alternative drainage featuresonsite. The City contributed $625 per lot accountability to the development concept. They included direct and secured an additional $$I 25 per lot in regional, provincial and incentives during the RFP stage(e.g. a $50,000 payment to federal funding. Direct incentives(i.e. development cost charge unsuccessful finalists);the indication that the city would accepta exemptions) were also providedto encourage secondary suites. "break-even" financial return in exchangefor social and environmental Voluntary instruments were used to engage the communiiy, markei amenities; and the inclusion financial penalties for compliance failures and regulatory actors. The projectwas marketed internally and in the Master Agreement Plan. externally through horizontally- and vertically-integrated teams and Voluntary instruments were used to engage the community, market committees; public consultation processes; applying for awards; and and regulatory actors. The projectwas marketed internally through strategic engagement of the media. horizontally and vertically integrated teams and committees.A request Regulatory instruments were used to ensure and provide incentives for expressions of interest (RFEI)was issued throughout North America for compliance with the various features of the NCP.New zonings were that indicated triple-bottom-line criteria would be usedto evaluate developed to accommodate small lot housing, secondary suites, manor candidates throughout the RFEI and RFP processes. The project was suites and live-work housing; each of these zones included bonus marketed to the community through the public consultation process, density allotments for the inclusion of coach houses, secondary suites including inviting the publicto develop the site vision and principles. and/or multiplexes. Alternative engineeringand servicing performance Regulatory instruments were used both as non-financial incentives objectives, standards and guidelines were also developedto and to ensure compliance. The City provided incentives by indicating it accommodate elements suchas lanes and ecological infrastructure. would revise existing plans and bylaws to accommodate innovative Public Expenditure was directed to supporting the extensive proposals and also by takinga non-prescriptive approach to site design partnership and planning process and was leveraged through by providing planning principles, desired outcomesand a range of applications to other levels of government (as noted above). Site options for densities and services. Compliance was ensured largely services and infrastructure were designed basedon the sustainability through the Master AgreementPlan and the project-specific zoning. principles and included narrower streets, back lanes, swales and other Public Expenditure was also leveraged to provide non-financial alternative and ecological infrastructure. incentives and to ensure that the project was financially sustainable. As an incentive, the site servicesand infrastructure were left largely unstructured to provide greater flexibility toproponents. In terms of finances, the RFP and Master Agreement Plan were structured to require a minimum return to cover the majority of the City's project costs. Expenditure was also used to purchase the site in the first place. East Clayton (Headwaters) Dockside Green 5. Market Actors 5. Market Actors The key For-profit actors included the land-owners and developers The key For-profit actors included the project consultants (Morrow (such as BFW Developments Ltd.) and various consultants. The Environmental Consultants and Colliers International) and theRFP Regu!atory actors included the City of Surrey. Community actors respondents (such as Westbank Projects Corporation). Regulatory included the Citizen's Advisory Committee andmembers of the public. actors included the City of Victoria and the Province of BC. University actors would normally be classified as 'community actors', Community actors included the Community Advisory Committee, the however the JTC is considered a Hybrid actor because it provides a Victoria West Community Association (VWCA) and the members of the combination of market, research and education services. Accordingto public. Hybrid actors included the City of Victoria as both owner and the respondents, JTC playeda critical role as a trusted, market-neutral regulator of the property; Vancity Enterprises (VCE) and Windmill initiator, facilitator and expert. Developments as multiple-bottom-line actors with explicit commitments As noted above, barriers related to actors included internal and to sustainability; and BC Buildings Corporation (BCBC)as a consultant external resistance to change; fragmented land ownership; and market and project partner. According to respondents, each hybrid actors perceptions and realities.Success factors included the presenceof played a critical role in the success of the project: BCBC provided individual and organizational champions; useof applied, market-neutral real estate and green building expertise;VCE I Windmill interdisciplinary, multi-stakeholder design and engagement processes; pushed boundaries and were willingto compromise on financial return adoption of shared decision-making processes; and the useof to meet sustainability objectives; and the City similarly adopteda sustainability principles to develop shared visionsof success. multiple-bottom line return strategy. In terms of market mechanisms the regulatory and financial As noted above, barriers related to actors included a lack of trust; the instruments were critical for engaging land developerswho were risk time and cost of involved public processes; uncertainty regarding averse and sceptical of market interest and demand. Thelack of both regulatory approval; and the Cityof Victoria structure. Success factors sustainability-oriented developersand engineers meant that the city had included the presence of individual and organizational champions, to negotiate at length and compromise on some features, notably the access to market-neutral expertise, emphasis on multi-stakeholder, alternate drainage systems. multi-disciplinary collaboration; and the existenceof a land owner and developers committed to sustainability (hybrid actors). In terms of market mechanisms the non-financial incentiveswere critical for VCE /Windmill, who indicated that they would not have applied for, nor been considered by, a conventional RFEl process without a TBL matrix. Furthermore, the flexible, performance-oriented development concept and the City's willingnessto revise regulations enabled them to design the infrastructure systemsto make the project both sustainable and financially viable. East Clayton (Headwaters) Dockside Green
6. Community and Market Outcomes 6. Community and Market Outcomes
The key outcomes have been described in the Outcomes and lmpacts The key outcomes are described in the Outcomes and lmpacts section section of Table 5.1. Of note with regards :a the framework was the of Table 5.1. As the land cwner and regulator, the City sent clear disconnect between some of the desired outcomes in the NCP and the signals to the market and community that proponents and proposals market interest in delivering them. would be evaluated based on the triple-bottom-line matrix.The City also For example, the East ClaytonNCP created zonings with built-in clearly indicated their opennessto revising existing policy to density bonuses and requirements for 'live-work' construction (see accommodate sustainability featuresin the development. Table 5.2 - section 4 above). These send clear signals regarding what type of development was desired and required. However,as one respondent noted, a variety of external factors (e.g. expertise and experience) and internal factors (e.g. other Surrey regulations) result in the fact that developers make more money at some of the lower densities and therefore aren't taking advantageof the density bonuses available. In other cases, developers have been successful in getting permission to not includethe structural modifications requiredby the live-work zoning; this has resultedin a ripple effect of adjustment applications on adjoining sites. 5.3.3 Conclusions - Market Mechanism Roles and Implications Applying the framework to the case studies enables an evaluation of both the relative role of each framework element and the overall value of the framework itself. It also provides the opportunity to explore the role of market mechanism instruments, strategies and actors within the framework.
In terms of community values and visions, the projects differed in that Headwaters sought to create a new NCP for the area based on the existing OCP and Clayton Land Use Plan whereas Dockside sought to create a site-specific development concept that did not need to build on the existing OCP and NCP.
In terms of market mechanisms, however, both cases shared the strategic objective of influencing the market outcomes of the site. As the land owner, the city of Victoria identified the market value and then developed an economically-viable vision for site density and characteristics. As the regulator, the city of Surrey engaged land owners and developers in a process to identify sustainable outcomes and incentives. This acknowledged that (i) communities had the right to dictate market and community outcomes and (ii) achieving those outcomes was dependent on collaboration with market actors to develop appropriate financial and non-financial incentives and requirements.
In both cases, the project managers focused on identifying the formal documents that were valued by the current Council and communities; identifying relevant sustainability principles; and then engaging stakeholders to develop project-specific visions and values that incorporated both elements.
The key success factor for both projects was creating sustainability principles and desired outcomes that were specific enough to convey a tangible vision of success yet flexible and high- level enough to both avoid "NIMBYism" and allow for a variety of means of achieving them. For example, sustainability principle #3 for East Clayton was:
"Communities designed for people; therefore all dwellings present a friendly face to the street in order to promote social interaction"
This principle conveys a specific outcome ("friendly face to the street") and value ("social interaction") without being associated with a particular design or location. Consequently, all of the stakeholders readily accepted the seven principles. This was incredibly useful for building trust, creating a shared vision of success, and providing a reference for resolving disputes. For example, near the end of the East Clayton NCP process some members of the public complained about a specific element of the plan but withdrew their complaint after a link was made to the original agreed-upon principles. However, the delay in finalizing the engineering standards for the NCP resulted (in part) from conflict among staff and the development community on how to best implement specific principles (primarily alternative drainage standards).
Similarly, the first step in the Dockside public consultation process was creating a site vision and planning principles. As discussed in the Policy Process section below, a unique (and important) aspect of this process was that this vision was grounded in the market data and sustainability values brought by the city staff. Rather than being prescriptive, the resulting vision provided clear boundaries and indicated required elements but left the developer the flexibility to be innovative with land uses, density, amenities, form and character.
In terms of Governance and Decision-making, the projects differed in that Victoria owned the land and Surrey did not; however, both municipalities entered into partnerships with hybrid actors (JTC and BCBC) and created teams and committees to govern the projects. These teams included horizontally- and vertically-integrated internal representatives as well as strategically selected external representation. As per above, governance actors' interests were aligned through the development of shared visions and values. Furthermore, meetings and decision- making processes were structured to promote collaboration, consensus and innovation. For Dockside, this included adopting 'team behaviour rules' to support collaboration and communication; for East Clayton this included a set of eight process principles for meetings and charrettes.
The role of market mechanisms at this stage was primarily strategic. Decision-makers were convinced to adopt three key strategies: i) directly influencing market outcomes on the sites, ii) adopting sustainability principles to guide planning and decision-making, iii) devolving significant decision-making authority to integrated project teams that included all four types of market actors.
Both projects also encountered challenges with governance. In East Clayton, conflicts delayed the completion of the Stage 2 NCP by 30 months; this was in part attributable to the termination of the Project Team after the Stage 1 plan was completed. In Dockside, Council insisted on maintaining ultimate decision-making authority rather than being bound by the score of the TBL evaluation, and some respondents complained of a lack of true consultation. This challenge was addressed in part through the use of fairness and community auditors.
In terms of the policy elements and development process, in both cases the project teams engaged in all four policy elements (vision, strategic direction, goals, design) and used integrated design processes that were guided by high-level site and sustainability principles and informed by site and technical data. Furthermore, these processes included active community consultation and engagement as well as varying degrees of community decision-making. The role of market mechanisms at this level, again, was primarily strategic. The vision, strategic direction and goals & objectives were taken from the community values and vision as described above. Victoria delivered on this vision by using site-specific instruments and attaching conditions to the sale of the land. Surrey, in contrast, delivered through a conventional neighbourhood planning framework which resulted in policies and processes that could readily be applied to other sites and plans.
This analysis really points to how the broader framework (community values & vision, governance etc.) that applies to the community as a whole is also replicated at the policy development level. What appears to be unique in this instance is the continuity and link between the two levels. In essence, both projects blended project governance, decision-making and policy development processes through team-based integrated design processes. Once Council approved the high- level principles and guidelines, much of the decision-making authority was devolved to the Project Team. These integrated teams in turn engaged community stakeholders, technical experts and senior municipal decision-makers throughout the policy development process.
In terms of policy design, both East Clayton and Dockside used the full range of policy tools and a variety of strategies. Both were concerned about creating flexible structures for market actors to deliver on the desired sustainability objectives. Their approaches to market mechanisms focussed on three main strategies:
- Providing financial and non-financial incentives and disincentives to link community and sustainable values and visions to market realities.
- Setting requirements and regulations that balanced flexibility with mechanisms to ensure performance.
- Engaging the community and building political will through internal and external education, marketing, outreach based on clear outcomes, guidelines and principles.
In terms of the market actors, both cases engaged all four types of actors (for-profit, community, hybrid and regulatory). Hybrid actors (e.g. JTC, BCBC, VCE, Windmill) were essential to the success of each project due to their capacity to balance economic, environmental and social outcomes both in the project and in terms of their organizational return on investment.
In terms of Community and Market Outcomes, these have been discussed in detail in section 5-1 (Comparing the cases) above. The key points to note here are:
- Both have had positive impacts on their communities and have "raised the bar" in terms of expectations around community engagement and sustainable development. However, at the time of the research, neither community had formalized or institutionalized most of the innovative sustainability, process and decision-making values, principles and structures that were so critical to the success of the projects.
Dockside represents a model and pilot of what is possible in terms of pushing the boundaries on sustainability. Dockside's success was due in part to clear and consistent market and community signals and their ability to develop the site without the constraints of existing plans and policies. However, it is not clear how replicable it will be in other parts of Victoria and beyond.
East Clayton does not push the boundaries in terms of sustainability in the same way; however, by focussing on using existing planning structures and tools (such as zoning) it has created a suite of tools and internal approaches that have already been applied in different parts of Surrey as well as in outlying areas. Its challenge is in both developing better mechanisms to ensure accountability to the plan and revising existing policies, fee structures and variance protocols to send clear and consistent market and community signals. 6 Overall Conclusions and Discussion
This research was developed in response to three trends - increasing interest in sustainability, the planning-implementation gap, and governance changes from fiscal challenges - that are considered to be driving community interest in market-based approaches and mechanisms.
This research has presented definitions of sustainable community development, policy development and market mechanisms; explored how these concepts have been applied in British Columbian urban centres; developed a research framework for investigating market mechanisms in community development; and examined two cases of leading edge "sustainable neighbourhood" development in B.C. The research has been motivated by the lack of clarity around market mechanisms and approaches and the need to identify mechanisms to overcome the "planning-implementation gap" faced by so many communities.
This final chapter presents a summary of overall conclusions from the research and discusses implications for market mechanisms and sustainable community development in general. For the reader's convenience and reference, the research questions are presented below:
1. What are the existing and emerging roles for market mechanisms in supporting sustainable community development in major urban centres of British Columbia?
a. What are market mechanisms and how do they impact sustainable community development?
b. What are barriers to, opportunities for, and examples of the use of market mechanisms to move from planning to implementation across key community aspects (such as transportation, water, energy, etc.)?
2. What are the existing and emerging roles for market mechanisms in the planning and development of sustainable neighbourhoods in major urban centres in British Columbia?
a. What drivers, obstacles, and processes have influenced the planning and development of two planned sustainable neighbourhoods in British Columbia (Dockside Green in Victoria and East Clayton in Surrey)?
b. What are the existing and emerging roles of market mechanisms in those two cases?
c. What are the broader lessons learned from these cases for market mechanisms arid sustainable community development? 6.1 The Research Framework
Market mechanisms for sustainable community development have been presented as instruments, policies, and practices that have been expressly desiqned to mobilize citizens and influence market decisions, behaviour, structure, and/or outcomes for the quantitative and qualitative improvement of all six forms of community capital. They have been further categorized in terms of strategies, actors and instruments.
The preliminary research framework (Figure 3-5) positioned market mechanisms as being most relevant at the policy design stage of a four part policy framework (values and vision; strategic direction; goals and objectives; policy design). The Making Sustainability Happen dialogue and associated literature review then sought to identify cross-cutting issues, barriers, strategies, instruments and actors across a variety of municipal action areas (such as water, energy etc.). The data was analysed in two parts. The Emergent analysis identified recommendations and barriers across five action area themes (Tables 4-1 and 4-2): Governance & Decision-Making; Education & Outreach; Market & Pricing; Innovation; and Policy Development. The Framework analysis led to a four-part typology of actors (for-profit, community, hybrid, , regulatory) (Table 4- 3) and identified a total of 49 strategies across all four policy instrument types (financial, voluntary, regulatory, public expenditure) (Table 4-5). The research focused on those mechanisms that support SCD; the numerous examples of market mechanisms that negatively impact SCD were not explored beyond their identification as barriers.
These analyses led to several high-level conclusions related to Research Question 1:
- The market mechanism definition and classification system was useful and examples of mechanisms were identified across all actor, strategy and instrument types. Market mechanisms impact every aspect of sustainable community development that was examined in the research.
- The successful development, design and implementation of market mechanisms is dependent on processes and community factors outside of the policy design stage. Many of the strategies and instruments proposed (and barriers identified) applied to broader issues of governance and decision-making and the values, actors, processes and strategies associated with them.
- Consequently, the research framework was revised (Figure 4.1) to a six-part model that included market actors, community values and vision, governance and decision-making structures, policy elements and development process, policy and market mechanism design and community outcomes. The second phase of the research applied this framework to understanding the existing and emerging roles of market mechanisms in sustainable neighbourhood development. Two case studies (East Clayton, Surrey, B.C. and Dockside, Victoria B.C.) where communities had been successful in overcoming the planning-implementation gap were prepared and key drivers, obstacles and processes identified (Table 5-1). The final research framework was then applied to the cases to evaluate the role of market mechanisms and the utility of the revised framework (Table 5-2).
These analyses led to several high-level conclusions related to Research Question 2:
- The market mechanism definition and revised framework was useful and examples of market mechanism strategies, actors and instruments were identified at every level of the framework. Outside of the policy design level, the mechanisms were primarily related to strategic direction (e.g. deciding to influence market outcomes to support sustainability) and process (e.g. the use of integrated processes with representation from all market actor types).
- The use of well-designed market mechanisms alone (such as density bonuses) is not sufficient to ensure market uptake; these policies have to be considered within the broader market and policy context to ensure there are unambiguous incentives for community sustainability.
6.2 Broader Lessons and Best Practices for Market Mechanisms for SCD
The following presents a summary of overall findings and suggested best practices. The recommendations are an attempt to synthesis and summarize the key research findings from chapters 4 and 5, and include a review of recommendations, success factors and barriers.
A wide variety of barriers were identified to both implementing sustainable community development in general and the use of market mechanisms as a means of achieving those ends. The numbers from the Emergent analysis (see Tables 4-1 and 4-2 and Table C-I in Appendix C) suggest that whereas Education, Governance and Market & Pricing are all equally important in terms of the recommendations for action, the perception is that the barriers to sustainable Governance and Decision-making are more significant that those associated with Education and Market & Pricing. The majority of the barriers to Education and Governance recommendations were political and attitudinal in nature and focused on issues of values, resistance to change (political, bureaucratic and market), and lack of awareness, information or time. In contrast, the barriers associated with Market & Pricing, Policy Development and Innovation were largely focused on a lack of adequate structures, instruments or tools, with only a handful specifically referencing issues of trust and understanding. These results were consistent with the findings of the case study research (see Tables 5-1 and 5- 2). The key success factors for both projects were the presence of champions and the use of sustainability principles and integrated processes to bring together stakeholders and develop communal political will. Yet even with these champions, issues of trust, resistance to change, market perceptions, decision-making structures and risk aversion featured prominently; other barriers identified included cost, prohibitive regulations and technical issues.
When considered in the context of the final research framework above, this suggests that market mechanisms for sustainable community development need to operate on two distinct levels: policy design and strategic direction.
At the policy design level classifying market mechanisms in terms of actors, strategies and instruments was useful, but the results suggest that refinement of the classification system could provide additional insight. The utility of classification likely lies in demonstrating to policy makers the range of policy options available to them and expanding their understanding of market mechanisms; the use of additional classification criteria could make it easier to identify the appropriate instruments. For example, market impacts could be classified along spectrum of direct (e.g. subsidies) to indirect (e.g. information requirements) market impacts. Or a more useful approach may be to classify instruments by type (voluntary etc.) and then arrange them according to their relationship with a particular strategic direction or market impact. This approach could build on the three broad approaches identified by Whitten et al. (2003) - price- based, rights-based and market friction reduction - with one or more additional categories to capture those policies aimed at reforming market structures and valuation processes.
The research also suggests the need for additional refinement of the market mechanisms definition to recognize the key role of concepts and tools and how they inform and direct strategies. Some of the strategies in Table 4-5 (such as full-cost accounting, cradle-to-cradle product regulation, Smart Growth, Eco-Industrial Networking, triple-bottom-line accounting) are perhaps more appropriately labelled as "sustainability market concepts". They provide a set of principles and desired outcomes and suggest a variety of strategies, instruments and tools for achieving them
At the strategic direction level the research supports the findings of the literature review that, rather than a new category of policy instruments, market mechanisms primarily reflect shifts in strategic direction and the role of government in service provision. Central to this strategic shift is the recognition that while markets are effective means of allocating resources, their current structure tends to create "invisible elbows" of market forces with negative environmental and social impacts. In terms of sustainability, therefore, the emphasis should be on recognizing the market as a means to an end and not simply an end in itself. As with Dockside Green, decision- makers should focus on identifying desired community outcomes, developing policies that are accountable to (and supportive of) those outcomes and then allowing market actors the flexibility to determine the best means of achieving them.
Adopting this approach requires that decision-makers also adopt certain values and beliefs. Chief among them is the value that long-term, multiple-bottom line impacts and objectives need to be considered in decisions and policy development and the belief that this approach leads to optimum solutions. These solutions are less about trading-off costs and benefits and more about redefining the problem and generating solutions that maximize all benefits.
These shifts in strategic thinking and values represent a significant paradigm shift and arguably present the greatest challenge to sustainable community development. As Nelson (1997) suggests, current market structures and economic analyses embed values and assumptions that are flawed and inherently unsustainable. Following Nelson's argument, the question becomes can the current system can be reformed to accommodate sustainable values and structures or does sustainability in fact require a revolutionary approach and the creation of a completely new system? While this research does not provide an answer to this broad question, it does provide some valuable insights that support the argument for 'reform'. These insights revolve around the role of vision, accountability and process in institutionalizing change.
Both case studies succeeded in large part because they created a community-supported vision for the site that was grounded in sustainability principles and market realities. The successful implementation of the vision was dependent on various accountability mechanisms. Both case studies used measurable principles that were clearly linked to both a set of values and desired sustainability outcomes. These principles formed a constant reference point for evaluating the success of the project. Other levels of accountability included regulatory tools and contractual details. They key is to start with those Canadian values and principles that are already closely aligned with sustainability (McAllister Opinion Research, 2006) and use those to both build political support and develop accountability. The lesson here is that, in these cases at least, sustainability visions were developed and achieved within current market structures through the strategic application of political and legal accountability mechanisms.
The second point relates to the role of process and the value of integrated design and decision- making. The value of integrated processes lies in their capacity to i) reframe the problem to be solved to integrate additional values (such as sustainability), and ii) bring together the full-range of individuals and organizations who are impacted by the project andlor responsible for its implementation. When properly designed, these processes allow teams to leapfrog expensive incremental changes and look at systemic solutions that meet environmental, economic and social objectives. VCEI Windmill have clearly demonstrated this at Dockside Green where they used integrated design to develop a plan for treating all of their own sewage, generating all of their own power, producing units at market prices and obtaining a respectable rate of return on their investment. The implication for the reform1 revolution debate is that a tremendous amount of change can happen within institutions simply by shifting the organizational processes for planning and decision-making. While this is certainly a significant challenge, it is eminently more achievable (and practical) than discarding current systems and starting anew.
Organizations can start on the path to institutionalizing these changes by simply committing to a set of sustainability values and principles, committing to metrics that will hold them accountable to these values, and then adopting more integrated processes for planning and decision-making.
As this research has demonstrated, not only do British Columbians value the outcomes of these approaches (as evidenced by the tremendous support for Dockside and East Clayton) but the optimal solutions can provide equally strong financial returns for individual firms (as stated by Windmill and Vancity Enterprises) and better overall returns for communities.
In sum, the successful use of market mechanisms to support sustainable community development is heavily dependent on the strategic direction adopted at each stage of the process. These considerations have led to the structure of the broad recommendations in the sections below. An overall strategic direction, best practices and suggested market mechanisms are provided for each component of the final research framework (presented again for convenient reference as Figure 6-1 below). This is followed by a discussion of the overall significance of the research and next steps. Figure 6-1 The Final Research Framework (repeated)
qovernance & Decision-Making Structures
Internal External Factors Factors
The Final Research Framework for Policy Development presents five interacting elements that inform and direct policy and community development: market actors, community values and vision, governance and decision-making structures, policy elements and development process, and policy and market mechanism design. These produce community and market signals that interact with internal factors (such as other policies) and external factors (such as market actor strategies) to create community and market outcomes.
6.2.1 Recommendations for Community Values and Vision
Strategic Direction - Sustainability principles and objectives need to be integrated into visioning processes. This requires that the community develop and adopt a sustainability policy that they can bring to the process. Of particular importance are those principles that relate to community economic development and the role and responsibility of community in influencing market outcomes. Best Practices
Collection of baseline data in terms of site characteristics (market value, state of services, site conditions etc.), requirements (regulatory constraints, required outcomes) and formal community documents (OCP, NCP etc.).
Development of multiple-bottom-line sustainability principles based on relevant best practices and community experience.
Community engagement to i) educate community members on the site and sustainability requirements and principles and (ii) identify the values and visions of stakeholders and constituencies of interest.
Implementation of an inter-disciplinary, multi-stakeholder process to integrate the above and create a shared vision and set of values, principles and visions for the site. These principles should be specific enough to allow for accountability through monitoring and evaluation yet broad enough to allow for innovation (e.g. the sustainability principles in East Clayton or the triple-bottom-line matrix in Dockside).
Formalizing and institutionalizing integrated processes for stakeholder engagement and visioning.
Formalizing and institutionalizing mechanisms to ensure accountability to the principles and broad outcomes identified in the vision.
Market Mechanism Strategies and Instruments
a) Voluntary Mechanisms - Regulators need to develop in-house market and sustainability expertise through capacity building (e.g. training, case-studies) andlor partnership development (e.g. with hybrid actors). Social marketing and outreach campaigns on sustainability for community members are also important.
b) All of the voluntary mechanisms described in Tables 4-5 and C-I (Appendix C) section FB1- FB3 would help directly or indirectly develop community capacity for engaging in sustainable visioning processes.
6.2.2 Recommendations for Governance and Decision-making Strategic Direction - Adopting governance and decision-making processes and structures that are integrated (vertically, horizontally and across disciplines and stakeholder groups), collaborative and guided by (and accountable to) sustainability principles and long-term community outcomes. Best Practices
Use of high-level sustainability principles to get buy-in from decision-makers for staff to proceed with innovative projects. These principles should include long-term planning horizons, systems thinking, full-cost accounting, support for innovation and consideration of multiple-bottom-lines.
Creating interdisciplinary, vertically- and horizontally-integrated teams to oversee both planning and implementation.
Creating structures that allow for community stakeholders to participate in, influence and share decision-making.
Adopting team decision-making rules, principles and practices that support dialogue, collaboration, integration and capacity building (such as the eight process principles used in the East Clayton project (see Appendix G)).
Ensure that decisions are aligned with community values, visions and sustainability principles and grounded by relevant and current environmental, economic and social data. Performance and outcome indicators and associated monitoring programs should be developed to aid with this (such as the triple-bottom-line performance evaluation matrix in the Dockside Master Agreement).
Create organizational structures and internal policies that formalize and institutionalize this integrated process of decision-making.
Market Mechanism Strategies and Instruments
Voluntary Mechanisms - Regulators need to develop in-house integrated process expertise through capacity building (e.g. training) and/or partnership development (e.g. with hybrid actors).
Other voluntary mechanisms described in Tables 4.5 and C-2 (Appendix C) section FB (specifically 1.3, 1.4, 2.1 and 2.2) would help develop community capacity for engaging in sustainable governance and decision-making processes.
Regulatory mechanisms described in Tables 4-5 and C-2 (Appendix C) section FC (specifically 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1 and 3.2) would improve the quality of information available to guide decision-making.
There are a wide variety of mechanisms whose use would demonstrate institutional leadership and send a strong signal to market actors. Examples are the mechanisms described in Tables 4-5 and C-2 (Appendix C) section FD (Public Expenditure) and section FA (Financial Incentives) items 1.I, 1.2 and 4.1.
6.2.3 Recommendations for Policy Elements and Development Process
Strategic Direction - Policy should be developed using integrated teams and processes; be driven by sustainability principles and community visions, goals and objectives; and consider the full range of policy instruments available.
Best Practices
Policy should be developed using integrated teams, processes and tools (such as charrettes) as outlined in Governance above (#2-5)
The use of a structured, hierarchical process that includes all four policy elements (values & vision; strategic direction; goals & objectives; policy design).
Values & Vision -The integration of broad community values and visions from existing plans and sustainability policies with site-specific values and visions developed through an integrated process.
Strategic Direction - The use of both conventional planning tools (e.g. zoning, neighbourhood concept plans) and innovative pilot or demonstration projects to provide incentives and opportunities for market actors to move towards sustainability.
Goals and Objectives - Goals and objectives should be grounded in sustainability principles. Targets and indicators should also be developed and monitored.
The policy development team should be involved throughout the planning, implementation, monitoring and revision process.
Market Mechanism Strategies and Instruments a) The first three suggestions for Governance and Decision-Making (above, a-c) also apply to the policy development process.
6.2.4 Recommendations for Policy Design
Strategic Direction - New and existing policy should be evaluated in terms of its "multiple- bottom-line" impacts in order to create unambiguous financial and non-financial incentives for sustainable community and market outcomes. Where appropriate, regulations should emphasize performance and outcomes while providing flexibility in the means of delivering them. Engaging the community and building political will through internal and external education, marketing, outreach based on clear outcomes, guidelines and principles.
Best Practices
Consideration of the full-range of policy instruments available.
Examination and revision of existing policies to avoid conflicting signals such as "perverse incentives' (e.g. development cost charges that support greenfield development over brownfield).
Financial lnstruments - The use of fees, charges, taxes, loans and other instruments to provide both direct incentives and disincentives to create a 'push' and 'pull' towards sustainability. The use of full-cost accounting to evaluate and set prices for infrastructure and services. Tax-shifting from general-purpose taxes (e.g. property taxes) to fees and charges that are linked to consumption (e.g, water metering).
Voluntary lnstruments - The development and delivery of education, training, outreach and social marketing programs around sustainability concepts, skills and issues, including support for curriculum revision. Support for sustainability-oriented market actors through the development of 'first-stop' service centres, networks and voluntary standards and certifications.
Regulatory lnstruments - The creation of requirements (e.g. building codes, standards, etc.), other non-financial incentives (e.g. fast-track approvals) and markets (e.g. renewable energy license, stormwater use permits) that support sustainability objectives. Strategic considerations include an emphasis on prescribing performance and outcomes while being flexible in the means to achieve them.
Public Expenditure - Demonstrating institutional leadership and driving market change through the integrated planning and provision of public infrastructure and services (e.g. transportation, water), adoption of sustainable procurement policies and support for pilot and demonstration projects. This also includes coordinating the timing, planning and integration of infrastructure development to support sustainability outcomes. Public expenditure can also be used for direct market involvement through real estate development (e.g. Dockside), public- private partnerships or other investment.
Market Mechanism Strategies and lnstruments
a. All of the instruments described in Tables 4-5 and C-2 (Appendix C). 6.2.5 Recommendations for Market Actors
Strategic Direction - All four types of market actors (for-profit, non-profit, community, hybrid) need to be engaged in the development and delivery of community plans. The objective should be to not only identify their interests but also to align them with each other as well as with broader community values and visions. Successful implementation depends on the presence of market actors with the capacity for, and interest in, innovation that supports project goals.
Best Practices
1 Pro-active early identification of, and support for, relevant market actors that can support desired community outcomes. Hybrid actors in particular can play a key role as collaborators (e.g. BCBC, JTC) and delivery agents (e.g. VCE).
Market Mechanism Strategies and lnstruments
a. Voluntary instruments described in Tables 4-5 and C-2 (Appendix C) section FB (specifically 1.l, 1.2, 1.5, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4 and 3.1) to support, promote and connect sustainability leaders.
b. Public Expenditure instruments described in Tables 4-5 and C-2 (Appendix C) section FD (specifically 3.1) to provide grants and support pilot and demonstration projects.
6.2.6 Recommendations for Community and Market Outcomes
Strategic Direction -Adopting outcomes-based planning, management and decision-making frameworks that support community- and sustainability-based visions for the future. These require effective monitoring, evaluation, enforcement and revision.
Best Practices
1. Policy impacts should be monitored, evaluated, enforced and revised based on indicators that reflect desired multiple-bottom-line outcomes. Careful attention should be paid to the interaction of new policy with internal (e.g. other policies) and external (e.g. market conditions) factors.
Market Mechanism Strategies and lnstruments
c. All of the instruments in Table 4-5 (and C-2 in Appendix C) are concerned with fostering sustainable outcomes. Some instruments (such as regulations) are more directly linked to outcomes, such as FA3.1, FC1.l, FC1.2, FC2-4 and FC3.2. 6.3 Discussion - Significance of the Research and Next Steps
6.3.1 Significance of the Research
This research set out to answer two questions (and their sub-questions) and to contribute to both the practice and theory of sustainable community development. The previous sections have laid out clear and specific responses to the research questions; this section will focus on the identifying the research's theoretical and practical significance as well as opportunities for future research.
In terms of theory, it has provided a definition and classification system for market mechanisms for sustainable community development and a framework for exploring their impact and influence at the community level. This framework has been tested, evaluated and refined through a comparative analysis of two case studies of leading edge sustainable neighbourhood developments. In the process, it has produced a rich set of data from the case studies and focus groups that provides a baseline for future research in this area. As a whole it has clearly contributed to the theory of sustainable community development and to our understanding of how communities move from planning to implementation and the roles played by processes, instruments, actors and strategies.
At a practical level, it has identified barriers, success factors, instruments, strategies and actors related to making sustainability happen in our communities. These have been summarized and presented as a glossary of ideas and instruments (Chapter 4 and Appendix C), through detailed case studies (Chapter 5) and as a series of best practices and strategic recommendations within a practical framework for community change (Chapter 6). These recommendations have been presented to the case study communities in a separate report with a less academic format.
The research also has practical and theoretical applications for a broader audience. While empirically based only in this region and in the case study communities, the emphasis on best practices provide an opportunity for theoretical generalization to the domain of "what could be" and provides insights that could be applicable to communities throughout British Columbia and beyond. This generalization is justified by the focus on structures and processes (e.g. integrated design and land-use planning) that are common to all North American communities. However, it is up to the reader to determine the degree to which this information is applicable to their own unique situation.
Shortcomings of the Research
It is important to also recognize the shortcomings of this work in terms of the literature review, research methodology and analysis. In general, this research suffers from the breadth of issues it attempts to integrate and investigate. This is clear in the literature review which endeavours to provide overviews of economics, policy development, sustainable neighbourhoods and the various fields of sustainable development. In that process it leaves some significant gaps, notably the lack of research on other case studies of sustainable neighbourhood development either in British Columbia or other parts of the world. An overview and comparison of these cases could have provided valuable insight into key issues and the construction of the framework itself. It would also have allowed for hypothesis building and the comparison of both cases to those already described in the literature.
The rationale for not having completed this aspect of the literature review comes from the research approach and methodology. The initial focus of the research was to explore the role of market mechanisms in sustainable community development at its broadest level and therefore included a review of strategies and instruments from every aspect of community policy. This led to the Making Sustainability Happen event and the first half of the research. The decision to explore case studies of sustainable neighbourhood development was made based on the results of the event. As a result, there was limited time available for the review and the emphasis was on defining sustainable neighbourhoods in order to provide criteria for selecting the cases. At a practical level, the researcher lacked the time and resources; this limitation could have been overcome by limiting the scope of the second half of the research and only developing a single case study. However, the decision was made that the benefits of comparing two original cases using the same methodology and approach outweighed those of a more thorough analysis of the literature. This was also justified by the exploratory nature of the research, its focus on market mechanisms and the desire to create strong linkages between the first and second halves of the research.
Future Research
There are a variety of recommendations. In terms of next steps, in order to have an impact this research must be packaged and disseminated to a variety of audiences. The researcher has already provided the case study communities with copies of the cases themselves and will be following up with a summary of the comparative analyses that will be distributed through online postings, email and the offer to present the findings in person to Council and staff.
In terms of future research, the following issues and questions flow from this work:
- Development of a glossary of concepts, strategies and instruments. Tables 4.5 and C-2 (Appendix C) were developed based on the research only and as such have a variety of gaps. They need to be integrated with the literature review (e.g. Table 3-2) and packaged in a more accessible format that would be of use to municipal policy makers. Once completed, an additional research question could be to assess which tools are (or are not) being used in the Greater Vancouver area and why (or why not).
Refinement of the classification system for market mechanisms. As noted earlier, it may be worthwhile to conduct additional research to classify mechanisms in terms of their impact (direct versus indirect) and linkages with broader strategies and market impacts (e.g. price- based, rights-based, market friction reduction).
Exploration of market mechanisms that do yJ support sustainable community development. This would provide an interesting counterpoint and help clarify the role of strategic direction and design as compared to the nature of specific mechanisms themselves.
Exploration of the processes, structures and instruments for creating accountability to community visions and plans. The research highlighted the role of integrated teams and their associated decision-making and design processes. How have these processes and structures been effective in other circumstances? What instruments have been (or could be) used to provide accountability?
Exploration of the role of market-based strategies for sustainable community development. This research struggled with classifying and analysing the different roles played by strategies and concepts and the levels at which they applied. There would be value in exploring how sustainable strategies differ from conventional ones and their implications for approaches to economic development, business incubation, land-use planning and other aspects of community-market interactions.
Refinement of the market actor typology and the role of hybrid actors. This is particularly relevant given the increasing interest in public-private partnerships and the rise of enterprising non-profits. How prevalent are hybrid actors and what are their appropriate market roles? How and why do actors transition among the categories?
Market mechanisms for other actors. This research has focused on instruments and actions by municipal actors. How can some of these instruments and strategies be described more broadly? How do they link in with other frameworks for social and market transformation?
Additional case study development and analysis. This would involve both a review and comparison of existing case studies in the literature as well as the development of additional cases using a similar methodology and framework.
The SFU Centre for Sustainable Community Development has already begun work on the last suggestion. An eighteen-month research project, Strategic Sustainability, was launched in September 2006 to conduct an extensive literature review of community sustainability initiatives that have successfully overcome the planning-implementation gap; prepare case studies of rural, urban and first-nations communities; and develop courses and recommendations based on their finding. The methodology, approach and framework will integrate the findings of this thesis research.
6.3.2 Final Thoughts
The title of this thesis is Making Sustainability Happen so it seems fitting to conclude by considering the implications of this work for change-making in BC communities. Up to this point, the researcher has endeavoured to present the work as impartial and academic. However, for this final section I would like to take the opportunity to bring more of my personal reflections into the discussion.
1) We need to clearly communicate and translate "sustainability" for community, for-profit, regulatory and hybrid actors. There is significant confusion around the meaning of this term and its implications for communities, yet Canadians are strongly supportive of its values and outcomes. In a recent survey, only 17% of Canadians could define the term sustainable development but over 80% ranked it as a top or high national priority after being provided with the Brundtland definition (McAllister Opinion Research, 2006). The high level of public support for projects such as Dockside and East Clayton underline this point. What is needed, therefore, are tools and documents and approaches that can translate the abstract concept of community into principles and indicators that resonate with the average person. The sustainability principles developed for East Clayton are one example; the triple-bottom-line matrix for Dockside is another. Policy makers require a set of clearly defined sustainability values and principles that are linked to tangible objectives, outcomes and indicators. Once developed, this would provide a multi-level tool-kit for sustainability champions to engage their communities and attach some accountability to the term.
2) We need to use these principles to strategically engage decision-makers and community members. Principles need to be linked to decision-making processes in a fashion that creates accountability to them. East Clayton provides an excellent example of how high-level (yet tangible) principles were used to engage and gain approval from all of the relevant stakeholders at the outset of the planning process. These principles then became a standard and metric that was referred to through the process. Decisions that were unpopular with some stakeholders (e.g. narrow streets) were then justified and implemented because they were linked to the principles. If the principles had been introduced later on in the process it seems feasible that they could have become side-lined by other interests. 3) The process of engagement and decision-making is critical. Conventional meeting processes and hierarchical and segmented decision-making structures do not tend to promote dialogue, innovation, risk-taking and problem solving, nor are they typically driven by (and accountable to) a set of community outcomes. In contrast, the integrated design processes followed in the case studies required additional time, resources and research, but led to innovative and achievable solutions. Sustainability is ultimately about changing the nature of the problem to be solved, and that requires changing the processes used to frame, discuss and develop those solutions.
4) The nature of incentives is critical, both within and among organizations. Communities need to examine the breadth of their policies to identify what signals they are sending to community members. Achieving sustainability requires unambiguous market, price and context signals that support it and not simply moral imperatives. There is little incentive to take a bus to school if it costs more than parking, takes twice as long and is uncomfortable or crowded. Similarly, developers will tend to build what makes them the most money, so it is up to regulators to ensure that they are sending price signals (via fees, taxes etc.) that support their broader objectives.
An organization's internal drivers are also critical, as exemplified by the role of hybrid actors. Windmill and VCE's internal commitments to sustainability are what drove them to invest the time and energy in seeking innovative, sustainable solutions. BCBC and JTC's public mandates and missions similarly influenced them. What Windmill is adamant about, however, is that they are still making an excellent return on their investment. Communities truly interested in sustainability need to seek out and support market actors that share their commitment.
5) We need to translate these principles into strategies and actions that demonstrate the 'business case' for sustainability. Books such as Natural Capitalism (Hawken et al., 1999) and Toward Sustainable Communities (Roseland, 2005) have already done much of this work and advocate for 'service and flow' economies that maximize resource productivity and cycling. These strategies need to be articulated at the municipal level and presented in terms of revenue streams and infrastructure costs.
6) We need to foster and support government leadership on sustainability. Municipal governments need to work across departments to align planning and decision-making processes with sustainability principles in order to optimize social, economic and environmental benefits for communities. Other levels of government (regional, provincial, federal) need to provide financial and regulatory support so that projects such as Dockside Green and East Clayton become the norm rather than the exception 7) We need more sustainability entrepreneurs. Sustainability consultants can have great efficacy on a project-by-project basis, but real change is dependent on greatly increasing the number of 'hybrid' market actors in our communities, particularly for-profit actors with internalized commitments to sustainable operations and alternative strategies and business models.
Ultimately, all of these recommendations are not so much about changing the fundamental structure of our community economies as much as aligning strategies and policies with the underlying values and visions humans have for their lives and families. We need to break down the myths and assumptions about cost and efficiency, the role of government and the role of 'the market'. As demonstrated by this research, the market alone does not (and will not) produce the types of communities that we all want to live in; but it can when we work together to provide the incentives and inspiration to do so. References
Bell, D. V. J. (2002).The Role of Government in Advancing Corporate Sustainability. Background Paper for the G8 Environmental Futures Forum. Retrieved Dec 26,2006, from http://www.g7.utoronto.ca/scholar/2002/bell11062002.pdf Bloor, M., Frankland, J., Thomas, M., & Robson, K. (2001).Focus Groups in Social Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Boess, M. (2005).SMART? Targets: A Fill-in-the-Blanks Model for Crafting Unbeatable Outcome Measures. Retrieved December 206,2006, from http://charitychanneI.com/publish/templates/default.aspx?a=2916&z=16 Bornhoeft, J. S. (2003).Goals, Outcomes and Objectives - Keeping them Straight. Retrieved December 26,2006, from http://charitychanneI.com/publish/templates/?a=307&z=O Boyd, D. R. (2004).Sustainability within a Generation: A New Vision for Canada. Retrieved September 5,2005, from http://www.davidsuzuki.org/filesNVOL/DSF-GG-En-Final.pdf Bramley, M. (2002).The Case for Kyoto: The Failure of Voluntary Corporate Action: Pembina Institute and the David Suzuki Foundation. Brugmann, J. (1994).Who Can Deliver Sustainability? Municipal Reform and the Sustainable Development Mandate. Third World Planning Review, 16(2). Brundtland, G. H. (1987).Our Common Future. US: Oxford University Press. City of Surrey Planning and Development Department (2007)Map and satellite photo of East Clayton area. Retrieved March 20, 2007 from http://www.surrey.ca/ Reprinted with permission. Condon, P., Proft, J., Teed, J., & Muir, S. (2003).Sustainable Urban Landscapes - Site Design Manual for BC Communities (version 1.5,PDF). Retrieved April 24, 2005,from http://ww.sustainable-communities.agsci.ubc.ca/projects/DesignManual.html Connelly, S., Lindberg, C. M., Roseland, M., & Hendrickson, D. (2006).Final Report: Site Control for Sustainable Community Development. Burnaby, BC: Centre for Sustainable Community Development at Simon Fraser University. Costanza, R. (2001).Visions, Values, Valuation, and the Need for an Ecological Economics. BioScience, 51(6). Crofton, F. S. (2001).Sustainable Community Planning and Development: Participations Tools and Practices: Final Report. Ottawa, ON: CMHC. Curran, D. (2003).A Case for Smart Growth. Retrieved April 15,2005, from http://www.wcel.org/resources/publications/default.cfm Currie, C. (2005).The need for a new theory of economic reform. Journal of Socio-Economics J1. 34(4),425-443. Dale, A. (2001).At the Edge: Sustainable Development in the 21st Century. Vancouver: UBC Press. Daly, H. E. (2002).Sustainable Development: Definitions, Principles, Policies. Invited Address, World Bank, April 30, 2002, Washington, DC. Retrieved April 10,2005, from http://www.publicpolicy.umd.edu/faculty/daly/Dalypapers.html Daly, H. E. (2005).Economic Growth and Development - A Briefing: University of Maryland. Retrieved May 30,2006 from http://ww.ussee.org/policy~briefs/EconomicGroh.doc. [DFID], Department for International Development (1999). Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets. In Livelihoods connect: Creating sustainable livelihoods to eliminate poverty. London, IJK: Department for International Development [DFID]. Dockside Green (2007) Map and artist's impression of Dockside Green. Retrieved March 20, 2007 from http://www.docksidegreen.ca/ Reprinted with permission. EACCC], External Advisory Committee on Cities and Communities (2006). From Restless Communities to Resilient Places: Building a stronger future for all Canadians: Final report of the External Advisory Committee on Cities and Communities. Retrieved September 5, 2006, from http:/lwww.infrastructure.gc.ca/eaccc-ccevc/rep-rap/index~e.shtml [FCM], Federation of Canadian Municipalities (2006). Canada's Communities: Keys to Our Prosperity. Retrieved May 31, 2006, from www.fcm.ca/english/documents/platform2006.pdf Fern, E. F. (2001). Advanced Focus Group Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Fodor, E. (1999). Better, Not Bigger: How to Take Control of Urban Growth and Improve Your Community. Stoney Creek, CT: New Society Press. Gahin, R., Veleva, V., & Hart, M. (2003). Do Indicators Help Create Sustainable Communities? Local Environment 8(6), 661-666. [GBC], Green Budget Coalition (2006). Recommendations for Budget 2006: Leading Opportunities for our Environment, our Economy and our Health (PDF). Retrieved May 31, 2006, from http://www.greenbudget.ca/main-e.html Graham, E. (2005). Philosophies underlying human geography research. In R. Flowerdew & D. Martin (Eds.), Methods in human geography :a guide for students doing a research project. New York, NY: Prentice Hall. Gustafsson, B. (1998). Scope and limits of the market mechanism in environmental management. Ecological Economics, 24(2-3), 259-274. [GVRD], Greater Vancouver Regional District (2005). Smart Steps: Business Tools for Sustainability. Retrieved April 15, 2005, from http:l/www.gvrd.bc.calsmartsteps/. Hahn, R., Coombs, J., Kalmus, C., Razo, C., Curry, K., & LECG. (2005). Public Policy: Using Market-Based Approaches - DTI Economics Paper No. 14: DTI. Retrieved June 15,2006 from http:l/www.dti.gov.uk/ccplpdf/pubpolicy0905,pdf Hammersley, M., & Gomm, R. (2000). Introduction. In R. Gomm, M. Hammersley & P. Foster (Eds.), Case Study Method (pp. 1-17). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hamstead, M. P., & Quinn, M. S. (2005). Sustainable Community Development and Ecological Economics: Theoretical Convergence and Practical Implications. Local Environment, 10(2), 141-158. Hawken, P., Lovins, A., & Lovins, L. H. (1999). Natural capitalism :creating the next industrial revolution. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Co. Hendrickson, D., Lindberg, C. M., Connelly, S., & Roseland, M. (2006). Money Matters: The Role of Market Mechanisms for Integrated Sustainability Planning in Local Communities: Discussion Paper for the World Planners Congress Vancouver BC June 17-20 2006. Burnaby, BC: Centre for Sustainable Community Development at Simon Fraser University. Hinds, A. (2003). Progress Report on Building Energy Efficient Structures Today. Retrieved April 15, 2005, from http://www.co.marin.ca.us/EFiles/BS/AgMn/O30325/html/lO-CDA-BEST- LTR.pdf Hoggart, K., Lees, L., & Davies, A. (2002). Researching Human Geography. New York, NY: Oxford University Press Inc. [ICLEI], lnternational Council for Local Environmental lnitiatives (2002a).Local Governments' Response to Agenda 21: Summary Report of Local Agenda 21 Survey with Regional Focus. Toronto, ON: lnternational Council for Local Environmental lnitiatives (ICLEI) Canada. [ICLEI], lnternational Council for Local Environmental lnitiatives (2002b).Second Local Agenda 21 Survey; Background Paper No. 15 for World Summit on Sustainable Development: UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Imrie, R., Thomas, H., & Marshall, T. (1995).Business organisations, local dependence and the politics of urban renewal in Britain. Urban Studies, 32(1). 31-47. Interface. (2004).Storyline - Interface Inc. 2003 Annual Report. Retrieved May 30,2006, from http://media.corporate-ir.netlmedia~files/irol/l1/112931/reports/2003ar.pdf Jacobs, M. (1993).The Green Economy: Environment, Sustainable Development and the Politics of the Future. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press. Kitchin, R., & Tate, N. J. (2000).Conducting Research in Human Geography: Theory, Methodology, and Practice. San Francisco, CA: Prentice Hall. Larsson, N. (200'1).Canadian Green Building Strategies. Paper for the 18th lnternational Conference on Passive and Low Energy Architecture, Florianopolis, Brazil, 7-9 November. Retrieved April 15, 2005,from http://greenbuiIding.ca/iisbe/gbpn/documents/policies/countries/CA- Canadian-GB-strategies-larsson-plea2001 .pdf Ledbury, M., Miller, N., Lee, A., Fairman, T., & Clifton, C. (2006).Understanding Policy Options - Home Office Online Report. Retrieved June 15,2006, from www. homeoffice.gov.uklrds/pdfs06/rdsolr0606.pdf Lindberg, C. M. (2005).Making Sustainability Happen: Interim Report. Retrieved January 10, 2007,from http://www.sfu.cal-ssbclReportslSSBC~Making~Sust~Happen~lnterim~Report.pdf Lindberg, C. M., Roseland, M., Connelly, S., & Hendrickson, D. (2005).Making Sustainability Happen: Market Mechanisms for Sustainable Community Development Discussion Paper. Vancouver, BC: Centre for Sustainable Community Development at Simon Fraser University. London Remade. (2004).2003/04 Annual Report and Green Procurement Code. Retrieved April 15,2005, from http://www.londonremade.com McAllister Opinion Research. (2006).The Sustainability Poll 2006:James Hoggan + Associates Inc. McRobie, G., & Ross, D. (1987).A Feasibility Study for a Centre for Community Economic Development at Simon Fraser University. Vancouver, BC: Community Economic Development Centre, Simon Fraser University. [MEELS], Project MEELS (2003).Using the Concession as a Tool for Policy - Heidelberg. Retrieved May 31, 2006,from http:l/www.energie- cities.org/meels/documents/case~studies/heidelbergde.pdf Murtough, G.,Aretino, B., & Matysek, A. (2002).Creating Markets for Ecosystem Services. Retrieved 2006,June 19,from http://www.pc.gov.aulresearchlstaffres/cmfes/cmfes.pdf Myers, N. (1998).Perverse Subsidies: Tax $s Undercutting Our Economies and Environments Alike. Winnipeg, MN: lnternational Institute for Sustainable Development. Nelson, R. H. (1997).In memoriam: On the death of the 'market mechanism'. Ecological Economics, 20(3),187-1 97. [NGPG], Nonprofit Good Practice Guide (2006). Terminology. Retrieved December 26, 2006, from http:l/www.npgoodpractice.org/CompleteGlossary.aspx?ID=-l Nozick, M. (1992). No Place Like Home: Building Sustainable Communities. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Council on Social Development. [NRTEE], National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (2002). Towards an Agenda for Ecological Tax Reform. Ottawa, ON: National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. [NRTEE], National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (2003). Environmental Quality in Canadian Cities: The Federal Role. Ottawa, ON: National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. [NYCDCP], New York City Department of City Planning (2002). Chapter seven - housing and infrastructure in 2002 annual report on social indicators. Retrieved April 15, 2005, from http://w.nyc.gov/html/dcp/htmI/pub/socind02.html Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1993). Reinventing Government. New York, NY: Plume. Ostrom, E. (1993). Social Capital and Development Projects. Paper presented at the Social Capital and Economic Development, American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Cambridge, MA. Parkinson, S., & Roseland, M. (2002). Leaders of the Pack: an analysis of the Canadian 'Sustainable Communities' 2000 municipal competition. Local Environment, 7(4), 41 1- 429. [PCS], P. C. S. (2005). What is the Portland Family of Funds? Retrieved April 15, 2005, from http://www.pcs.org/armory/faq. html Pearce, D. W., & Barbier, E. (2000). Blueprint for a Sustainable Economy. London, UK: Earthscan. Peattie, L. R. (1994). An Approach to Urban Research in the 1990s. In R. Stren & J. K. Bell (Eds.), Perspectives on the City VIV Urban Research in the Developing World. (Vol. 391- 415). Toronto, ON: Centre for Urban and Community Studies. Peck, S., & Dauncey, G. (2000). 12 Features of Sustainable Community Development: Social, Economic and Environmental Benefits and Two Case Studies. Retrieved April 24, 2005, from http://www.peck.ca/nua/ip/ip0l .htm [PMSU], Prime Minister's Strategy Unit. (2004a). Alternative Policy Instruments. Retrieved June 15, 2006, from http://w.strategy.gov.uk/downloads/survivaIguideldownloads/alternative~policy~instru ments.pdf [PMSU], Prime Minister's Strategy Unit (2004b). Strategy Sun~ivalGuide. Retrieved June 15, 2006, from http://www.strategy.gov.uk/downloads/survivalguide/index.htm Roseland, M. (2005). Toward Sustainable Communities: Resources for Citizens and their Governments. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers. Sargent, J. H. (2002). The Economics of Energy and the Environment: The Potential Role of Market-Based Instruments. Canada -- United States Law Journal, 28, 499-510. Schmid, A. A., & 'Thompson, P. (1999). Against Mechanism: Methodology for an Evolutionary Economics. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 81(5), 1160. Schofield, J. W. (1990). Increasing the Generalizability of Qualitative Research. In R. Gomm, M. Hammersley & P. Foster (Eds.), Case Study Method (Vol. 69-97). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [SERC], Slate Environmental Resource Centre (2005).Transfer of Development Rights Policy Issues Package. Retrieved April 15,2005, from http://www.serconline.org/tdr/background.html. [SGOG], Smart Growth on the Ground (2004).Design Brief: Maple Ridge Charrette (PDF). Retrieved April 25,2005, from http:llwww.sgog.bc.caluplo/MRbrief.pdf Smith, C. (2005).The Portland Armory Goes Green. Retrieved April 15,2005, from http:Nwww.ortns.orglArmory.asp Stake, R. E. (1978).The Case Study Method in Social Inquiry. In R. Gomm, M. Hammersley & P. Foster (Eds.), Case Study Method (pp. 19-26).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Stavins, R. N. (2001).Lessons from the American experiment with market based environmental policies. Retrieved June 20,2006, from http:llwww.rff.org/documents/RFF-DP-01-53.pdf [TBCS], T. B. o. C. S. (2006).Guide for the Development of Results-based Management and Accountability Frameworks: Annex A - Lexicon for Results-Based Management and Accountability. Retrieved December 26,2006, from http://www.tbs- sct.gc.calevallpubs1RMAF-CGRRhmafcgrrO5-e.asp Thompson, D. (Ed.). (1995).The concise Oxford dictionary (9th edition). Oxford, NY: Clarendon Press. Trachtman, L. H. (2003).Back to Basics: Goals, Objectives and Strategies. Retrieved December 26,2006, from http:/lcharitychanneI.com/publishltemplates/default.aspx?a=3O9&z=l6 Transport for London. (2004).Central London Congestion Charging Scheme lmpacts Monitoring Second Annual Report April 2004. Retrieved April 15,2005, from http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/cclondon/cc~monitoring-2nd-report.shtml Transport for London. (2005).Central London Congestion Charging Scheme lmpacts Monitoring Summary Review: January 2005. Retrieved April 15,2005, from http://www.tfl.gov,uk/tfl/cclondon/pdfs/impacts-monitoring-report-january-2005.pdf [UKPIU], U. K. P. a. I. U. (2001).PUBLIC SERVICES: THE RATIONALE FOR GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION. Retrieved June 15,2006, from http:llwww.strategy.gov.ukldownloads/survivalguide/downloads/rationale.pdf Valentine, G. (2005).Tell me about using interviews as a research methodology. In R. Flowerdew & D. Martin (Eds.), Methods in human geography : a guide for students doing a research project. New York, NY: Prentice Hall. Vodden, K. (1999).'Nanwakola :co-management and sustainable community economic development in a BC fishing village. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC. [VSI], V. S. 1. (2003).Participating in Federal Public Policy: A guide for the voluntary sector. Retrieved December 26,2006, from http://www.vsi- isbc.ca/eng/policy/policy~guide/policy~guide.pdf Whitten, S., Bueren, M. v., & Collins, D. (2003).An Overview of Market-Based Instruments and Environmental Policy in Australia. Retrieved June 15,2006, from http:/lwww.ecosystemservicesproject.org/htmllpublications/docslMBls~overview. pdf Williamson, 1. (2001).Land administration best practice: Providing the infrastructure for land policy implementation. Land use policy, 18(4), 297-307. Xerox. (2004).Xerox 2004 Progress Report (PDF). Retrieved March 15,2005, from http:l/xerox.com/downloads/usa/en/elehs~2OO4~progress~report.pdf Yin, R. K. (1984).Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Yin, R. K. (2003).Applications of Case Study Research (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Young, O., & von Maltke, K. (1993). To Avoid Gridlock. Governance Without Government. Working Progress, l4(2),4- 12. Appendices Appendix A: Research Collaborators and Copyright Information
The research encompassed a literature review, two phases of primary research (one for each question) and a period of analysis and integration. Much of the work was undertaken collaboratively by a team of three researchers - Chris Lindberg, David Hendrickson and Sean Connelly - under the supervision of Mark Roseland. The research contributed to and was informed by two larger CSCD research projects: Market Mechanisms for Sustainable Community Development (funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada) and Site Control for Sustainable Community Development (funded by the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation).
Various sections of the text included in this thesis were modified from documents that were co- authored with other researchers. Consequently, all of the co-authors mentioned are free to use and/or reproduce any of the text referenced in the table below:
Document Section (Paragraphs) Researchers with co-authorship
I.I Introduction (Paragraphs 1-3) Text modified from (Connelly et al., 2006; Hendrickson et al., 2006; Lindberg et al., 2005)
3.2.1 Core Meanings of Sustainable Text modified from (Connelly et al., 2006; Community Development Lindberg et al., 2005; Roseland, 2005) 1 3.2.3 The Community Capital Framework I I 3.3 Sustainable Neighbourhoods and Land- Significant parts of the entire section were Use Development taken from (Connelly et at., 2006)
3.5 Defining Market Mechanisms (Paragraphs The introductory text and the definition of 1-3) market mechanisms are modified from (Hendrickson et al., 2006)
5.2.2 Dockside and East Clayton Case Studies Much of the Dockside case study was first presented in (Connelly et al., 2006) Appendix B: Making Sustainability Happen Agenda, Participants, Data Collection Forms and Raw Data This appendix contains the following:
- Table B-1 Making Sustainability Happen Agenda
- Table 8-2 Making Sustainability Happen Participants (by actor type)
- Making Sustainability Happen Registration Form
- Making Sustainability Happen Evaluation Form
- Table 8-3 Making Sustainability Happen Raw Poster Data (by table)
For complete event details see (Lindberg, 2005) Table B-I Making Sustainability Happen Agenda
Making Sustainability Happen Age1 0800 Participant Registration and Continent 0830 Welcome & lntroductions Welcome: Chris Lindberg, SSBC Director Myriam Laberge, SSBC Moderator Sustainability star and s able lntroductions Presentations: Market Mechanisms for Sustainable Community Development - Mark Roseland, Director, Centre for Sustainable Community Development Modelling Regional Development - Metroquest - Dave Biggs, Co-Founder, Envision Sustainability Tools Home table discussions relating sustainability to their topic 1000 Break 11 5 Topic Table Discussion! Home table discussions to identify barriers, opportunities, and success stories. Participants changed tables to cross-fertilize ideas and identify cross-cutting issues. - 1150 FullI Group PIenary - 1215 Lunch - 1300 1'resentati "Greening our Communities: A Develooer's Persoective" - Joe van Belleghem, Partner, windmill ~evelo~;nent 1330 Topic Table Discussions Home table discussions to share reactions and cross-cutting ideas and to identify three-to- five market mechanism strategies1 opportunities/ actions that would create real forward momentum towards sustainability for their topic. Each table's discussions were summarized on a display board and posted ii the concourse. 1430 Break and Gallery Walkabout I Participants browsed the display boards and identified those ideas they were most interested in being involved with or learning more about. 1500 Topic Table Discussions I Participants changed tables to discuss and refine the ideas presented by that table. I Participants returned to their home table for a final refinement and discussion of their three- to-five most promising ideas. 1620 Closina Plenarv Session Closing comments, completion of evaluations and assembly of the Sustainability Star 1700 End of Dav
Table B-2 Making Sustainability Happen Participants (by actor type)
Type of Market Ac 1) For-Profit Actors tjuslnesses wlrn varylng levels or commlrmenr to susralnatmry 15 Investors and financial institutions offering premium products to support sustainability I O* obiectives 1 Businesses whose primary products and services are linked to sustainability 9 (regardless of their governance structure) Information dissemination organizations 1 2) Hybrid Actors 28 Market actors who have an explicit commitment (as part of their governance 18 structure) to multiple-bottom lines andlor sustainability in their operations, products and services Crown corporations and publicly-owned utilities who have a mandate related to the 1 9 ~ublicinterest. I Private-Public Partnerships (1 3) Community Actors I 50 Education and research organizations and institutions 1 17 Non-profit societies, associations and institutions who study, advocate for and 1 33 im~lement~roarams related to advancina sustainabilitv I 4) Regulatory Actors 22 Regulatory and Government Actors 22 TOTAL PARTICIPANTS (not including volunteers and facilitators) 115 Part. = Participants. * Vancity was the only financial institution in attendance and is considered a hybrid actor Making Sustainability Happen Registration Form Note - this was an online form and is pasted from the website.
Welcome to the online registration for Making Sustainability Happen: Market Mechanisms for Sustainable Community Development on 08:30-17:OO May 5 2005. To register for other SSBC events such as Envisioning Sustainability, the Habitat plus 30 Update Session, or an afternoon workshop on the 6th please click here.
The goal of Making Sustainability Happen is to discuss the practical barriers and opportunities associated with using market mechanisms to foster sustainable community development. Green development bonuses, energy pricing structures, appliance rebate programs, employer transit passes and tradable emissions credits are all examples of market-oriented policy. The day will be dynamic, interactive and participant-driven and will alternate between brief presentations, small group discussions and plenary sessions. Please note: Space is limited at this event so registration priority will be given to invited guests. There is no fee for this event. Breakfast and lunch will be provided on-site thanks to the generous support of our major partners -- BC Hydro, City of Vancouver Sustainability Group, Natural Resources Canada, and the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority -- as well as our sponsors, Simon Fraser University and the Simon Fraser University Student Society.
REGISTRANT INFORMATION: Please scroll down to complete your contact information, indicate your topic preferences and answer the six questions below. Please do not press
Firstname: I Surname: I I Organization: I I I Mailing Address: I city: I Province: I Postal Code: 1 1 Telephone: I Email Address: I 1. Participants will start the day seated at round tables according to their interest and expertise. Please select your top three interests from the list below.
First Choice Second Choice Third Choice Transportation Transportation Transportation Energy Energy Energy Regional Development Regional Development Regional Development Water and Sewage Water and Sewage Water and Sewage Education and Training Education and Training Education and Training Financing, lnvestment and Financing, Investment and Financing, Investment and Sustainability Sustainability Sustainability Agriculture and Food Security Agriculture and Food Security Agriculture and Food Security Housing and Community Housing and Community Housing and Community Development Development Development Sustainable Business Sustainable Business Sustainable Business Waste and Recycling Waste and Recycling Waste and Recycling
2. How do you use and how are you impacted by market mechanisms in your work? Can you describe an example?
3. What barriers have you encountered or do you anticipate encountering in using market mechanisms to advance sustainable community development?
4. Where do you see the greatest potential for using market mechanisms to support sustainable community development?
5. We will be producing summary documents for Making Sustainability Happen and the SSBC event as a whole. These and other references will be available on the SSBC website (www.sfu.ca/-ssbc). Are there any references, examples, web-links, case studies or examples related to market mechanisms and sustainable community development that you think should be incorporated into the report or website? 6. Comments IQuestions:
Making Sustainability Happen Evaluation Form
Please give us your comments to help guide us in our research and a follow-up event on Market Mechanisms for Sustainable Community Development in 2007. Your comments will be kept anonymous.
Name Home Table #:
What does sustainable community development mean to you?
Identify the most promising market mechanism for sustainable community development that you think is most likely to succeed within your community in the next 5 years.
What do you feel is the largest obstacle or barrier towards implementing the market mechanism for sustainable community development you listed in #2?
Making Sustainability Happen Dialogue - How effective is this type of process for mobilizing sustainable community development? Suggestions for other processes?
Format - Please circle a number from 1 (below expectations) - 5 (exceeded expectations), based on your impressions of the following aspects of this event:
Location, Food and Venue 1 2 3 4 5 Speaker Presentations 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities for Interaction 1 2 3 4 5 Format of the day's events 1 2 3 4 5 Table Facilitation 1 2 3 4 5 Event Facilitation 1 2 3 4 5 6. Additional Comments? ~p- Table1 Transport Table 1 continued (doesn't fit on one Opportunities page) Better use of what we have Use current capacity in transit system Make transportation pricing an incentiveto use sustainable transportation Tax cars by their size Rationalizing parking strategy: - standards supply and pricing - move away from free parking - reflect the high value of land ($20,000 per stall) Uncouple buying home from buying car spot Land use and transportation mustwork together Undeveloped areas around transit stations Land use cannot be separatedfrom transportation - integration of the functions Governing trade-offs region versus municipal needs: how we work, where we work at, what we work at, understand that work is changing. Transit works if transit oriented developments are built. Education selling image of alternative transportation (sustainable transportation) Normalizing alternative transportation (cyclingetc.) will increase usage What is in it for the person? Marketing: Change message from timeto time from gloom and doomto positive messaging; including environmental componentin advertising Marketing leading to behaviour change Message should not be abstract but personal - more time - better health - more money Market transit in a way to reflect their personal views Sell transit pass and car share as parking substitute Prepay model for transit (example U-Pass) Better transit system for maximum efficiency of transportation network Barriers & Opportunities / Overlaps & Cross-Cutting Issues
2A. Co-ordinate regional land use Barriers Attempts and Successes and transportation either through Lack of shared regional vision U-Pass municipal co-operation or new Transportation can't be separated from land In-fill development along arterials regional powers use Car co-op 2B. Community pass for new Inter-municipal competition Network of bike routes developments Lack of implementation Overlaps and Cross-Cutting Issues 2C. Road user priorities(e.g. HPV Opportunities Competition between municipalities lanes) High oil prices Marginal pricing 2D. Pay-as-you-drive insurance Good understanding of sustainability principles Perverse incentives 2E. Sustainable land use and locally Lack of shared vision transportation policies at the local Sellinglexporting the sustainability principles level learned here to other jurisdictions Community pass Barriers & Opportunities Overlaps & Cross-Cutting Issues
3A) Education & Advocacy - Barriers Overla~sand Cross-Cutting Issues government, civil society& the 1) Government regulationslpoliciesthat favour consumer awareness - social marketing private sector. fossil fuels vs alternative, renewable energy Focus on the 'earlier adopters' -the 3B) Municipal permitting- fast development. innovators. Look at their lessons learned. tracking, supporting, and nurturing 2) Lack of political leadership Post secondary institutes can piaya of all alternative energy projects. 3) Capacity requirements needto be significant role in providing tools to realize 3C) Economically efficient pricing considered to realize opportunities. the 'leading edge'. 3D) Energy Efficiency Building 4) Lack of true market mechanisms. Businesses - seeing sustainability Code. 5) Lack of thoughtful and meaningful alternatives as a competitive advantage 3E) Eliminate fossil energy supply government policies. Highlight the leadersladvocated in all subsidies. Opportunities sectors. 1) Energy credits and the household level- Policieslgovernment leadership to support market mechanisms integratedwith the growth of sustainable options. government regulationslpolicies. Capacity to realize current incentives is an 2) Demand side management coupledwith fill- issue for municipalitieslregionslcompanies costltriple bottom line accounting. Focus on how the change (ie at the 3) Ongoing, localized, and meaningful locallindividual level, etc) is to occur - we education for all those reliant upon energy apparently know where we want to go, but developmentluse - EVERYONE. how we get there is the outstanding question 4A. Legislated R2000 for all Barriers Overlaps and Cross-Cutting new construction (mandatory Consumptive behavioursand values Issues solar and rain collection - silver Higher costs for sustainable measures Need integrated ideas- minimum) Silo thinking, non-cooperative approaches integration across sectors (for 4B. Technology Olympics for Regulatory and institutional barriers approval process for example) renewable energy (application Opportunities Push the envelope - design parallel for 2010 or sooner) Create mandatory energy codesfor energy efficiency and mechanisms to encourage 4C. Creation of sustainable health and safety creative and innovative ideas. "heritage fund" from fossil fuel Heritage fund from fossil fuelswith revenue usedlearmarked Education of public and revenues for sustainable technologies decision-makers - make 4D. Municipalitiesto commit Legislated renewable portfolio standardson all levels of information for becomingmore tolrequire GHG neutral projects government sustainable readily available 4E. Creation of sustainable Be a leader and support other countriesin solving their for public and private sectors. feed-in tariffs for renewable energy problems (export opportunities) energy Mandatory energy auditson property transfer with Energuide for every building Ideas 1 - 5A) Revaluation of pricing to Barriers Attempts and Successes reflect total costs Municipal decision making:need broad community supportto Surrey Water Metering 5B) location efficient and approve sustainable decisions; political structures make it Initiative: metering is voluntary sustainability oriented hard for politicians to take chances at first (iow usage consumers mortgages (CMHC and Banks) Regulation: Need government enforcement mechanisms for sign up). Costs then transfer 5C) government seeded future growth; voluntary instruments have limited effect to non-metered consumersto initiatives to facilitate private Opportunities encourage total transfer to sector initiatives (when markets Regional tax base sharing: Multiple Account Evaluations meters. Long range plan - 20 aren't ready) or vice-versa. (MAE) cost and benefits across broad spectrum of land use; years. Ending in partnerships to equitably distribute costs and benefits of individual Agricultural Land Reserve 5D) challenge existing growth municipal decisions management strategies Tax Shifts to create appropriate market signals: marginal legislation ot create better pricing like insurance per km driven; prepare to wean off taxes implementation mechanisms from unsustainable actions (losing single occupant cars 5E) Allow equivalencies to means less money to support transit therefore need newtax introduce flexibility in structures) development standards Long Term Cost Pricing: Development Costs to reflect per meter developed instead of units built 1Ideas Overlaps 8 Cross-Cutting Issues
6A- lncentives for homeowners to Barriers Overlaps and Cross-Cutting Issues encourage sustainability Fractured regions (jurisdictional conflicts) Jurisdictional overlap in every 6B- Implement TBL practicese.g. Lack of a shared regional economic strategy region Government use for proposal evaluation "Winner takes all" approachto development Disconnect between plans made 6C - Tax Pooling: Sharing taxes among and tax revenues and their successful municipalities lncentives which encourage a 'raceto the implementation 6D - Full cost accounting labels to bottom' Need poly-municipality strategies influence lifestyle decisions Opportunities to replace competition between 6E- Tie Funding to sustainable practices Region has huge natural capital, a 'second cities and plans paycheque' from nature andthe environment Fear of change needs to be 6F - Educate on alternatives to Peaceful multicultural relations overcome at all levels conventional practices. E.g. business Political response to public sustainability organizations giving members information priorities is beginning on alternative products 1 practices Use positive PR, 'Peer Pressure' to support progressive businesses and organizations Overlaps 8 Cross-Cutting Issues
7A.lmplement site specific solutionsto: Barriers Attempts and Successes Eliminate waste 1. Paradigm Shift from quantityto quality and from 1. Land acquisition cheaper than Promote resource conservation supply to demand management. building new infrastructure by 7B. Source protection: bring out legislation 2. Fragmented 1 multi I overlapping jurisdiction. protecting water source (New York) for protection of groundwater and surface 3. Risk of liability for new approaches. 2. Provinciai BC mandate io bring iii water 4. Governance. low-flow toilets 7C. Shifting regulatory frameworks by 5. Resource Protections (water resource 3. Metering proved to bring down Cutting down red tape protection) consumption in Calgary Reducing development charges for 6. Disincentives are not there (over consumption; 4. Risk Assessment and demand side building using sustainable highways 1 paved ways) management patched togetherwith technologies different funding sources into Water Adopting bottom up approaches for New Ideas I Opportunities Smart BC. creating regulations supportedby 1. Flow through the systemto people Overlaps and Cross-Cutting Issues decision makers 2. Integrated policy for paradigm shift 1. Education 3. Close more tightly the loopof sewer treatment 7D. lncentives such as Benefits to community to district I neighbourhood scale. Financial How cost less 4. Gas tax "new deal for cities" tied to New Technologies Subsidies for water efficient sustainability criteria appliances Social Marketing 5. Metering for both water use and sewer 2. Policy Changes (Bylaws, metering 7E. Full cost pricing for discharge Extraction (inflow I outflow), utility charge) Water use 3. lncentives (all levels of government) 4. Whole cost accounting Runoff Sewer discharge Overlaps 8 Cross-Cutting lssues -- - 8A Networking to facilitate all other Barriers Overlaps and Cross-Cutting Issues objectives: There's competition over what we teach Need to collaborate ideas Canadian Network for sustainability within schools Business role in consulting with education Make move from competition to collaboration consumers; role within supply Competitions for sustainable Examples of sustainability are not being chain development blw schools showcased in schools Need to educate all stakeholders Improved and strong collaboration How do we shift values? Need to make sustainability a between educators to network and Quality of life vs. standard of living lifestyle share learning and leadership Design and quality of sustainable eco-friendly Bridge gap between whatwe talk experiences. products must match or be better than current about and what we do 8B Values based research and education: product Marry ideaslsolutions Identify audiences' values toenable Opportunities Differences messages to be targeted Train the trades people Don't just talk to the converted 8C Systemic Changes, e.g. Tax shifting, Must marry theory with practice What does it mean to live gov't legislation and incentives: Regulation on productslservices sustainably as an individual Higher value on education, gov't There must be a better reflectionof true costs It's about changing the belief legislation, shifting of subsidies and on products system taxes, and incentives for Higher education is becomingmass There is a lack of values for the incorporating sustainability into education so sustainability must become the educational system education. foundation of our institutions and curriculum New Ideas 8D Program Implementation: Must create leaders in sustainability Adopt results based management Implementation of education Educate media to influence programs at all levels of formal sustain. education that teach, lead, and Engage public, private and civil model sustainability principles. society 8E - Leadership I Demonstration Projects: Break down silos within Strong leadership by schools, sustainable development districts, ministry of education, as Participatory development well as private and NGO education orgs on implementation and demonstration of sustainability principles into all aspects of the institution. Up beat, positive TV series on sustainable, smart growth communities i.e. GVTV - Overlaps & Cross-Cutting Issues - - 9A - Require long-term (20 yr +) Barriers Overlaps and Cross-Cutting Issues triple bottom line financial reporting Compartmentalized thinking Cooperative approachto utilities 9B - Create $100 million Regulatory barriers Broadening investor baseby diversifying "sustainability fund" through public Overuse of jargon investment options bond issue Educating potential stakeholdersof Attention to impacts andtrends in the insurance 9C - Tax incentives for green financial benefits and costs industry technology (e.g. accelerated Opportunities Marketing depreciation on capital) Encouraging long-term vision Pressure from the insurance industry Using a collaborative model for utilities use - micro-utilities Diversify - match needs and services Community based ownershipof projects Sustainability bonds Ideas Barriers 8 Opportunities Overlaps 8 Cross-Cutting Issues
10A. Incorporate "sustainable" Barriers Attempts and Successes criteria in all banking relationships; 1. The level of risk for sustainable 1. Quality of Life Initiative in Victoria: Createda distance based insurance; trust investments is often seen as critical mass around a vision of sustainability that based financing; micro-credit; unacceptable in part because social then influenced business and financial wage-based terms for low income and environmental benefits aren't investment. clients; location efficient based considered. 2. Community ReinvestmentAct (in USA). mortgages 2. Lack of cohesion within Mandated that a portion of bank investment 10B. Use tax incentives, pricing communities and therefore lack of returned to community sustainability projects. structures and fees to reflect true political will. VanCity is a local example of a financial costs. This ensures that 'good' Opportunities institution reinvesting in community projects investments are also profitable. 1. Establish price signals that are voluntarily. 10C. Fed I Prov. Governments can consistent with sustainable Overlaps and Cross-Cutting Issues encourage financial institutionsto development. 1. Create improved investment climate for increase sustainable development 2. Build bridges across sectors and innovators. or green loans I investments: loan community, business, government. 2. There are many policy instruments, guarantees, finance cooperatives, 3. Provide incentives for and reward technologies etc. that we know are possible and lower cost money available to green investment. present good opportunities but we needthe banks. courage to fully make use of them. 1OD. Promote direct investment from financial institution treasuries, foundation endowments, pension funds, mutual funds, into community projects, green infrastructure etc. by articulating the business case for this and showcasing success stories. 10E. Create forums and education campaigns to help individuals, businesses, governments and financial institutions understand the possibilities and potential for sustainable financial tools. Ideas Overlaps 8 Cross-Cutting Issues
1 1A Local First Barriers Overlaps and Cross-Cutting Issues Multi faceted approach Lack of awareness of public about ALR : provides land for food and contains urban including where food comes from andthe sprawl -infrastructure for local implications Need for funding for alternative transportation storage Domination of trans-national means and not oniy focus on highways (gaieway -seed and breed protection companies in the structure of the food strategy) -incentives such as chain Lifecycle costs not known: hidden costs related preferential access to funding Pressure on what is local such as on to distance need to be taken into account for locally oriented producers the Agricultural Land Reserve -other avenues for Government policies oriented towards purchasing local foods such globalisation as farmer marketslfarmer Opportunities stands and side walk vendors local production and marketing of local -institutional procurement production -education and agri-tourism Revitalize rail links 11 B Urban agriculture initiatives Solve the pattern of bad nutrition 11 C Permanent protectionof through hands-on education Agricultural Land Reserve 11 D Collection of basic information about the real cost of food including the environmental cost 11 E Focus on developing less adversarial leadership models, more sustainable work within some economic model that values qualities like lifestyle, education, environmental stewardshipas opposed to only volume growth Barriers & Opportunities Overlaps & Cross-Cutting Issues - -- - 12A. Sustainable housing Centre Barriers Attempts and Successes 128. Expedite Approval process for Lack of consumer voice for thosewho Use BC mindset to change attitude towards green SCD want to purchase green housing. development ?2C. Capacity building for SCD Financial risk to developers Overlaps and Cross-Cutting Issues 12D. Financial incentives for SCD Short term thinking Vs long term Compact housing aiso protectsagricdiurai aieas. in particular DCC needs Short term Vs long term reflection of true costs 12E Strategic Site Control Actor Opportunities Shaping the pattern of development Development a "GO To" place for consumers. Co-oplwebsite.NGO or for profit Cost Incentives for developers for green building. Density bonuses. Financing of homes to reflect long term, not just sq foot costs. Barriers & Opportunities Overlaps & Cross-Cutting lssues
13A Leadership -choose 3arriers Attempts and Successes democratically elected leaders with Resistance (from developers, Dockside green -Victoria sustainability in mind municipality, community) UniverCity Encourage leadership within Lack of education and understanding Location Efficient mortgages the community (advocacy) of sustainability Linkage programs
D 13B Integration -integrate through Need for leadership Power Smart as a model education, municipal advocates, Need for affordable housing 3verlaps and Cross-Cutting lssues leadership and through action fora Opportunities Need for collaboration (multi-stakeholder groups) like this Municipal advocates(staff, Need for education Interaction between community, political, developers) Difference betweenwhat we say we want and community and municipality Green Light approvals what we buy drives the development group Flexible zoning Need for examples of people-friendly dense with its vision (ex. Vancouver Tie development approvals to development community planning, implementing sustainability (onlyif The way to change perceptions is by trying things Seymour area) municipality is also leading by Triple Bottom Line accounting can drive the 13C Education - more workshops example and are partners in change for multiparty participants, sustainability ). Need to evaluate Differences especially for municipal , provincial projects on the triple bottom line Movement of types of jobs (ex. Port Kells) and federal levels Triple Bottom Line Approach Role of levels of government Implement sustainability in Municipal Sustainable development Tax shifting school curricula and research ombudsperson in each municipality Some people do not wish to live where they work Sustainability team -similar to above- Market as the key focus -need to bundle money for developers to liaise with savings and time savings with other benefits Creative Financing Safety New or Interesting Could town centre development encourage sprawl? Need for regional economic strategy Representation (politically) Need for studies on examples of dense development to encourage others Education through documentariesto encourage change Need to remove the stigma attached to some sustainable development Overlaps & Cross-Cutting lssues
14A Recommendation to Barriers Attempts and Successes government: Perceptual: Separating business and Form business interest groups(e.g. Tax shifting and other sustainability (too expensive, not relevant, construction groups, packagers)they relate to policy innovations not clear on terms) issues of common interest on sustainability 145 Recommendation aimed Change management: Perception of high issues r define market mechanisms that work at business: risks Success in business: Create subject area Demonstrate how Lack of Education on sustainability: Public, interest groups to move sustainable practices sustainability can drive university & public school system, business ahead in that area - e.g. construction, logistics, innovation and a sector transportation, ocean shipping, packaging, etc. competitive advantage: Lack of documentation of success stories The undergraduate program in dialogue (SFU) incentives for risk taking (small business, large business) BALLE Conference at UBC in early June within organizations and Short time frames (Business Alliance for Local Living Economies) innovation "Business as usual" business education (not Progressive business educationin USA - 14C Recommendation to in sustainability) Cornell business school, university of Michigan educators (both formal and Economic & ecological literacy Overlaps and Cross-Cutting Issues informal): Lack of understanding between professional Combining various market mechanisms Interdisciplinary and culture Positive regulatory environmente.g. $45 to whole systems lncentives are for specialization (create silos) recycle electronic appliances approaches: Opportunities Importance of education and awareness raising aim for organizational Business education and executive education Sustainability in curriculum for teacher training and personal is integrating sustainability into business and students transformation curriculum e.g. Darden Business School Case study sharing always question our Sharing stories in different forums Funding for research, basic and appliedr bring axioms Make the business case for sustainability sustainability technology to market Senior level create spacefor sustainability Management of locating businesses champions to emerge rn Faith buys time to catch up with learning curve Support voluntary mechanismswith other forms of mechanisms lncentives for interdisciplinary teaching and research focused on sustainability lncentives supporting short-term benefits (e.g. PR benefits) Ideas Barriers & Opportunities Overlaps & Cross-Cutting lssues
15A - Awareness raising and social Barriers Attempts and Successes marketing of win/wins and best Access to information and goodcases/ guides Novel couriers (hybrid fleet) 5 report on practices in sustainable business Unaligned regulatory regime impacts by / for / with business. Traditional economic thinking practices Small potatoes urban deiiveryof organic 15B - Create a strong collaborative (especially re: externalities) food (affected supply chain and farms) body that develops common/ Perception of high risk and low reward in Hydro - replaced all of BCls traffic lights coherent approach to regulations change with Leeds and financing for the region No proper tools to measure progress and Overlaps and Cross-Cutting Issues 15C - Build capacity and programs integration within business mindset Harmonized tax shifting for sustainable procurement Opportunities Incentives for consumersto demand 15D - Create an affordable, Create incentives for businessto take the time change accessible, points-based to rethink their approach. Use case studies to show it can be done certification program for sustainable Publicize the "case" for business to make these well and profitably business changes (case studies) 15E - create supportive networks Energy price increase provides strong rationale with mentorship / incubators / for business to adopt triple bottom line resources / info for green business approach innovators Growing consensus that changeis needed and that business is partof the solution 16 Business Appendix C: Making Sustainability Happen Results Tables
This Appendix contains the following information:
Table C-I Complete Results of the Emergent Analysis
Table C-2 Complete Results of the Framework Analysis
Table C-I Complete Results of the Emergent Analysis
(EA) - Governance and Decision-Making Concepts EA) Governance and Decision-Making: Total number of concepts related to governance structures and decision-making practices and tools.
EAI) Cross-Cutting Recommendations for Advancing Sustainability
EA.l .I. A strong, collaborative regional governance body is needed to establish a shared vision of sustainability for the region and develop common, integrated and sustainable approaches to land-use, transportation, regulation and financing in the region. EA.1.2. Support less adversarial and more collaborative, integrative, inter- departmental and multi-stakeholder decision-making and problem solving. EA.1.3. Structures are needed that are participatory and reinvigorate citizenship and public engagement in government while building bridges across sectors and among community, government and the private sector. EA.1.4. Support innovation and risk taking and create space for sustainability leaders and champions to emerge. EA.1.5. Make decisions based on a triple-bottom-line analysis of environmental, social and economic implications. EA..I .6. Demonstrate and support strong institutional leadership (government, schools, etc.) in sustainability (e.g. through sustainable procurement, resource efficiency targets, renewable energy portfolios, municipal recycling programs etc.) EA. 1.7. Governance should be structured to support poly-municipal collaboration rather than competition (e.g. regional tax base sharing). EA.1.8. Use full-cost accounting and systems thinking to evaluate success and identify alternatives. EA.1.9. Use long time horizons (20+ years) in planning and decision-making. KA.1 .lo. Decision-making should be guided by results and performance as measured by appropriate indicators (e.g. genuine progress indicators) 1 (EA) - Governance and Decision-Making Concepts
EA2) Cross-Cutting Barriers to Advancing Sustainability
EA.2.1. Political antagonism, resistance and indifference to the changes associated with sustainability (e.g. from vested interests, opposition to specific policy instruments such as regulation, taxation and user fees; prioritization of shareholder profit above all else), including the nature of government intervention in the market. EA.2.2. Lack of political leadership and will. EA.2.3. Preferences, perceptions and stereotypes around sustainability (e.g. that there is not a market demand for sustainable products; that it is too expensive, high risk and low reward; not relevant) (EA.2.4. Bureaucratic antagonism, resistance and indifference to the changes 1 9 I associated with sustainability (e.g. to new practices and policies; to specific I policy instruments), including the nature of government intervention in the market. EA.2.5. Cornpartmentalized, "silo" thinking and non-cooperative approaches instead of integration and interdisciplinary collaboration i.e. transportation planning can't be separated from land use planning EA.2.6. Risk aversion and fear of change 3 EA.2.7. Conventional neo-conservative market norms, structures and 5 ] behaviours (e.g. focus on quantity, supply and standard of living instead of 1 quality, demand and quality of life. EA.2.8. Short-term planning and thinking instead of long-term. 14 (~~2.9.Jurisdictional issues and overlap among governments in every region 1 2 (e.g. dealing with externalities) EA.2.10. Decision-makers' lack of understanding of the need, benefits and 3 value of sustainability EA.2.11. Inter-municipal and regional-municipal conflict and competition regarding issues such as land use, transport supplylcapacity, taxes. EA.2.12. Lack of a compelling shared regional vision for sustainability and 3 economic development EA.2.13. Lack of adequate stakeholder involvement, consultation and 4 partnership EA.2.14. External factors (e.g. international trade agreements, globalization) 3 EA.2.15. Administrative challenges and complexity of designing and 5 implementing market mechanisms EA.2.16. Lack of trust in government (e.g. due to a lack of transparency) 2 EA.2.17. Lack of strategic thinking on a sectoral basis 1 (EB) - Education and Outreach Concepts
EB) Education and Outreach: Total number of concepts related to education, outreach, research, training and marketing:
EB1) Cross Cutting Recommendations for Advancing Sustainability
EB.l .l.Ongoing, localized and meaningful multi-forum education and outreach campaigns for all audiences on the principles, importance and benefits of sustainability as a win-win-win scenario for business, community, and the environment EB.1.2. Research, education and outreach regarding the business case for sustainability. EB.1.3. Social marketing campaigns to change behaviour within organizations and supply chains and the general public (e.g. employee credits for alternative transportation; counteracting conventional marketing; marketing sustainable features, etc). 58.1.4. Development of accessible sustainability 'first-stop-shops' and information portals for decision-makers and the general public (e.g. sustainable housing centre, sustainable education website). -8.1.5. Recognition programs (e.g. competitions, awards etc.) to highlight the success of sustainability leaders and create "positive peer pressure" (e.g. Technology Olympics for 2010; sustainable schools competition) -8.1.6. Development of specific training programs (courses, workshops) to build capacity in sustainable development, including management skills (e.g. triple-bottom-line decision-making, full-cost accounting, etc.) and technical skills (e.g. trades training, etc.) for individuals and organizations. iB.1.7. Integration of sustainability into teacher training and all levels of school, college and university curricula, including specific programs to develop leaders in sustainability. ZB.1.8. Targeted education for financial institutions and investors on the business case for sustainable development and the financial tools that support it, such as location-efficient mortgages, micro-credit, and trust-based financing IB.1.9. Development of advocacy and education networks for sustainability (e.g. sustainable business network, Canadian network for sustainability education) IB.1.10. Targeted multi-party workshops for decision-makers (especially at municipal, provincial and federal levels) EB.1.11. Interdisciplinary teaching and research focused on sustainability (e.g. systems thinking, case studies, business case, market mechanisms, certification standards, accounting practices etc) IB.1.12. Recognition of the value basis of sustainability and focus on values-based research and education IB.1.13. 'Targeted education for media organizations on sustainability. (EB) - Education and Outreach Concepts E SUM
EB2) Cross-cutting Barriers to Advancing Sustainability 18 75
IEB.~.~.There is a lack of education, awareness and understanding of 6 28 sustainability and basic issues such as where food comes from and the implications EB.2.2. How do we shift people's values and cultural preferences? 2 13 Unsustainable behaviour is well-marketed and people have entrenched behaviours. Sustainability requires a paradigm shift in thinking and in values; that is extremely difficult to do and we lack the capacity and resources to implement such a program. EB.2.3. A lack of current, available and accessible data and research on 1 13 precedents, tools and success stories (small business, large business, full- cost pricing) EB.2.4. There's competition over what we teach within schools and examples of 18 sustainability are not being showcased; EB.2.5. Lack of professional programs (university etc.) in sustainability on the 15 theory and practical applications of sustainability (particularly in business education) EB.2.6. Lack of funding to support the activities that are needed. 4 4 EB.2.7. Time - People are too busy to engage in reflexive practices and have no 3 4 time to participate. C
(EC) - Market and Pricing Concepts IRIPIEISUM Ill1 /EC) Market and Pricing: Total number of concepts related to taxation and other 1/1158 49 25 132 I market- and price-related policies: Ill1 I
L EC.l.l. Revenue-neutral tax and fee shifting to increase cost of unsustainable 14 11 15 40 activities and decrease cost of sustainable activities (e.g. metering and charging for water consumption while reducing property taxes) EC.1.2. Adopt tax, policies, and fee structures that reflect true (or full) costs and 11 15 4 30 I thereby reduce or eliminate "perverse subsidies" (e.g. for auto use, fossil ( 1 I I ( I fuels). Steps towards this include developing cradle-to-cradle product 1/11 1 I stewardship legislation (to link disposal and production costs) and full-cost / I I ( I pricing for resource and infrastructure services (e.g, water, waste and roads). EC.1.3. Adopt sustainable community economic development strategies such as 3 5 1 9 local first programs, urban agriculture, etc. EC.1.4. Implement policies that enable the development of new products and 3 2 2 7 markets that support sustainability (e.g. emissions markets, pay-as-you drive insurance, net-metering.) EC.1.5. Incorporate sustainability criteria into all banking relationships 3 3 EC.1.6. Create new, community-owned market actors (e.g. social enterprises, 1 1 2 strategic site control actors) I (EC) - Market and Pricing Concepts
EC2) Cross-Cutting Barriers to Advancing Sustainability
EC.2.1. Taxes, user fees and other cost structures which ignore full-costs and 5 5 ' result in incentives for unsustainable behaviour (e.g. development cost charges; paying for water consumption from property taxes) EC.2.2. Access to and affordability of alternative (sustainable) products 5 2 EC.2.3. Many real costs and impacts are difficult or impossible to quantify and so 4 they are often ignored or externalized EC.2.4. Lack of a consumer voice for those who want to purchase sustainable 3 products (e.g. green housing) and lack of market 1 government leadership in developing them (e.g. lack of affordable housing). EC.2.5. Closed, monopolistic industries and sectors (e.g. the food system) 2 1 EC.2.6. Lack of trust in and understanding of market mechanisms. 3
EC.2.7. A lack of economic literacy among the general public and ecological L illiteracy among the economically literate EC.2.8. Transition costs (e.g. training, capacity building) 2 EC.2.9. Lack of understanding of the true costs of public-private partnerships 2 EC.2.10. Lack of accessible and fairly-priced markets (e.g, for sale of 3 GHG credits, for waste exchange, for sale of "green" power and renewable energy) EC.2.11. Design and quality of sustainable eco-friendly products must 1 match or be better than current product
(ED) - Policy Development Concepts ~R~P~E~SUM
1 ED) Policy Development: Total number of concepts related to the general / 1 / 35 1 92 / lprocesses and tools used to develop policy: HII I i- IIII :Dl) Cross Cutting Recommendations for Advancing Sustainability mexistingpolicy should be evaluated and revised based on its j7 j9 j30j46 1 ( "triple-bottom-line" impacts in order to create policies that provide both IIII I I incentives for sustainability and disincentives for unsustainable practices II I ( I (e.g. green building standards, commitment to GHG neutral development, resource efficiency and conservation, cradle-to-cradle product regulation, demand-side management). ED.1.2. Create fast-track approvals and permitting processes that support sustainability (e.g. for transit-oriented development, renewable energy generation, and green buildings). ED.?.3. Use performance-based equivalencies to introduce flexibility in meeting development standards ED.1.4. Develop and integrate the full range of policy tools available (e.g. 12 3 voluntary, financial, regulatory, public expenditure, ownership) to achieve sustainability objectives. I (ED) - Policy Development Concepts IR~P~ESUM ED.1.5. Create bottom-up approaches for rapidly developing new regulations 2 2 ED.1.6. Create and adopt flexible, points-based sustainability certification and 2 2 labelling systems (e.g. for products, organizations) ED.1.7. Link program funding to sustainability policies (e.g. require long-term, 2 2 triple bottom line reporting) ED.1.8. Develop policy through integrated, multi-disciplinary planning and design 2 2 processes.
:D2) Cross-Cutting Barriers to Advan cing Sustainability - Government policy directions (e.g. resource development, fossil fuel dependence) that favour unsustainable practices over sustainable
ED.2.2. Disconnect between planning and implementation. 4 4 ED.2.3. Inadequate monitoring and enforcement 2 2 4 ED.2.4. Policies that lack adequate consequences for non-compliance (or 3 14 "teeth"). ED.2.5. Lack of adequate resource protection (e.g. for water and agricultural 2 2 land) ED.2.6. No proper tools to measure progress and integration within business 1 1 mindset ED.2.7. Many communities / organizations / companies lack the internal capacity 1 1 to realize current incentives.
(EE) - Innovation Concepts R E SUM
EE) Innovation: Total number of concepts related to developing and supporting 28 14 75 new and innovative solutions for sustainability issues:
11 38
- -- EE.l .I. Increased direct government investment and partnering in sustainable 3 11 23 technology development, pilot/ demonstration projects and other innovation (e.g. sustainable feed-in tariffs for renewable energy; petroleum heritage fund; equity and loan funding) EE.1.2. Government reduced lending rates, tax incentives and guarantees for 4 7 investments that support sustainable development (e.g. low cost capital for I energy efficiency improvements; early adopter programs; accelerated I depreciation) EE.1.3. Support the creation of networks, mentorship programs and educational 2 4 organizations around sustainability EE.1.4. Capitalize on research at post-secondary institutions (e.g. mechanisms I I 3 to put research findings into action) EE.1.5. Create business and technology incubation centres 1 iE) - Innovation Concepts R P E SUM
kcq bruas-buttlrly ~arrlarsto Advancing Sustainability
EE.2.1. Institutional barriers to experimentation and innovation (e.g. electoral systems, managerial structures, policy development process) EE.2.2. Regulatory frameworks that create disincentives for sustainable projects such as approval processes and bylaws (e.g. greenfield development approved quicker than brownfield; bylaws prohibiting greywater recycling). EE.2.3. Lack of access to financing and other supportive infrastructure for new ' products and moving beyond projects and pilots. 1 EE.2.4. Risk of liability for new approaches (e.g. financial risk to real estate developers) 1 EE.2.5. The level of risk for sustainable investments and decisions is often seen i as unacceptable in part because social and environmental benefits (and I externalities) aren't considered. EE.2.6. Finding Iidentifying innovators and early adopters EE.2.7. Technological barriers (e.g, finding alternatives to plastics) EE.2.8. Government policy directions (e.g. resource development, fossil fuel dependence) that favour unsustainable practices over sustainable alternatives. Table B-2 Complete Results of the Framework Analysis
Strategies, lnstruments and Examples
PA) Pmancial Instruments Number of categories = 4; Number of strategies = 12; Total indicators: FAI) Charges and Pricing Number of strategies =2; Total number of indicators: FA1.1. Use market and full-cost accounting1 pricing for municipal infrastructure and services (water, energy, waste, development cost charges etc) Put tolls on new infrastructure Use local improvement charges to finance transit improvement Increasing the marginal cost of driving through vehicle insurance charges and other mechanisms Shift away from free parking to reflect the high cost of providing parking spaces Stumpage fees Long Term Cost Pricing: Development Cost Charges to reflect per meter developed instead of units built Full-cost pricing for water including extraction, use, runoff and sewerage costs using metering on both water inflow and sewer discharge. Internalizing externalities into pricing and costs Including the cost of greenhouse gas emission offsets in energy pricing Examples include the surrey Water Metering Initiative where metering is voluntary at first and the costs are transferred to non-metered consumers to encourage total transfer to meters. FA1.2. Set fees and charges to encourage sustainable activities andlor discourage unsustainable activities Discounted community transit passes for existing andlor new developments modeled on the successful U-Pass that reduce overall and marginal cost of transit Reduced fees (e.g. development cost charges) for buildings using sustainable technologies Setting development cost charges to recover the full costs of long-term servicing of the development lncreased fees for greenfield and sprawl development Price transit so that it is affordable and accessible "Feebates" on cars based on fuel-efficiency
FA2) 'raxes and Tax Shifting Number of Strategies = 4; Total number of indicators: FA2.1. Revenue generating or neutral tax shifts to produce appropriate market signals for sustainability Accelerated depreciation programs PST and GST exemptions Transit tax-exemptions Parking taxes capital cost allowances, flow-through and deprecation Tax cars based on their size and emissions e.g. lower taxes on low- emission vehicles Change tax rules for employer-provided parking Decreasing property taxes while installing water metering Tighter land taxes on converting land ~xam~lesinclude ecological tax shifting in Scandinavia Strategies, Instruments and Examples SUM FA2.2. Tax incentives for research and development of sustainable technology Accelerated depreciation programs on green capital investments Tax credits FA2.3. Regional tax base sharing to equitably distribute costs and benefits of individual municipal decisions Multiple Account Evaluations (MAE) cost and benefits across broad spectrum of land use
FA2.4. Linking taxes on unsustainable activities to specific programs- - aimed at resolving those issues Creation of sustainable "heritage fund" from fossil fuel revenues Using gas taxes to fund transit improvements ~ocalimprovement charges to pay for transit FA3) Loans, grants, investment and Financing Number of strategies = 4; Total number of indicators: FA3.l. Tie funding sources and loan products (from banks, government etc) to sustainable practices and plans "Green" development financing Affordable housing funds Finance for cooperatives Preferential access to funding for local commercial and agricultural producers Location-efficient mortgages Trust based financing Micro-credit Wage-based terms for low income clients Financing of homes to reflect long term, not just sq foot costs. Low-cost loans for energy efficiency Enterprising non-profit loan and grant funds Low-cost financing for high upfront costs of infrastructure provision (such as district energy systems) Examples include the FCM Green Municipal Fund, Vancity- Clean Air Auto Loan and Vancity Enterprising non-profits program FA3.2. Increased government investment in sustainable innovation Public bonds issued for sustainable development and technologies e.g. Create $100 million "sustainability fund"
I Increased investment in capitalizing on and applying post-secondary research FA3.3. Broaden the investor base by diversifying investment options (e.g. socially responsible investment funds)
I Socially responsible investment funds
I Sustainability investment funds b Local or community investment funds Conservation financing Tax credits for a sustainable investment fund, investing in public and private sustainable utility-style investments FA3.4. Governments can encourage financial institutions to support sustainable development Loan guarantees Lower cost money available to banks for sustainable purposes - I Strategies, Instruments and Examples SUM FA4) Direct lncentives and Subsidies Number of strateaies = 2: Total number of indicators: I FA4.1. Provide incentives for sustainable behaviour and innovation 1- "Scrap-it" programs (e.g, paying for appliances) ( lncentives for transit such as a transportation allowance for employees to ( encourage non-automotive transport I Employer transit passes I Renewable energy incentives (e.g. wind energy subsidies) I Incentive programs for information production and dissemination (e.g. I incentives to create 1 publish case studies) I lncentives for interdisciplinary and whole-systems research 1- lncentives for homeowners to encourage sustainability 1 lncentives for water and energy efficient appliances ( lncentives for local commercial and agricultural production lncentives for individuals to install sustainable water treatment systems FA4.2. Eliminate "perverse incentives" such as fossil-fuel and automobile subsidies Eliminate fossil-fuel subsidies Eliminate automobile subsidies
1 FB) Voluntary Instruments Number of categories = 3 ; umber-of strategies = 13 ; Total indicators: FBI) Education and Training umber of strategies = 6; ~otalnumt FB1.l. Production and distribution of case studies, best management practices, market research, policy papers etc. Business case and competitive advantages of sustainability Collection of basic information about the cost of products (e.g. food) using full-cost or lifecycle accounting lncentives for interdisciplinary teaching and research focused on sustainability Best practices resources FB1.2. Specific training and capacity building programs for sustainability skills Train the tradei people and professionals in sustainable practices (e.g. green building, biodiesel production, greywater systems) Online courses in Smart Growth FB1.3. Integration of sustainability into all levels of formal school I curricula and research 1 Education on energy use and efficiency 1- Must create leaders in sustainability Interdisciplinary and whole system approaches Examples include the SFU undergraduate semester in dialogue program and progressive business programs at Cornell and the University of Michiaan , Instruments and Examples FBI .4. Targeted education campaigns for decision-makers and opinion leaders Workshops for multiparty participants from all levels of government Educate media to influence sustain Promote direct investment from financial institution treasuries, foundation endowments, pension funds, mutual funds, into community projects, green infrastructure etc. by articulating the business case for this and showcasing success stories Workshops and forums on the possibilities and potential for sustainable financial tools FBI .5. Technical assistance Programs Business waste or energy audits Carbon offset services Requirements or incentives for students and researchers to partner with communities to research sustainability solutions FB1.6. Providing incentives for incorporating sustainability into education Tuition credits for research ~artnershi~swith communitv arouDs -u , FB2) Social Marketing and Outreach Campaigns Number of strategies = 5; Total number of indicators: FB2.1. External social marketing and outreach programs to change community, client or supply chain behaviour Green Citizenship program Education campaigns normalize and sell the image of alternative (sustainable) transportation Positive "Peer-Pressure" campaigns to support progressive businesses and organizations Marketing of win-win and best practices for business Values-based research and education - Identify audiences' values to enable messages to be targeted Awards and recognition programs Outreach programs to reinvigorate citizenship and promote elections of sustainability leaders Examples include the Green Citizenship Passport Program FB2.2. Facilitating and supporting network development * Identify, promote and study "early adopters" and leaders Technology Olympics for renewable energy (application parallel for 2010 or sooner) Canadian Network for sustainability education create supportive networks with mentorship 1 incubators Iresources I info for green business innovators Form business interest groups (e.g. construction groups, packagers) they relate to issues of common interest on sustainability issues Competitions for sustainable development blw schools Creating peer-to-peer networks such as collaboration among educators to share learning and leadership experiences Examples include the Business Alliance for Local Living Economies BC (BALLE BC) - Strategies, lnstruments and Examples SUM - FB2.3. General education and awareness raising on sustainability 7 Up beat, positive TV series on sustainable, smart growth communities i.e. GVTV Consumer awareness campaigns. - on the costs and benefits of sustainable products FB2.4. First- and one-stop shops and clearinghouses (both online and physical resource centres) GVRD Buildsmart program Eco-Industrial Networking centres Sustainable Housing Centre FB2.5. Internal social marketing programs to change employee behaviour Education on recycling opportunities Incentives for alternative transportation Examples include Better Environmentally Sound Transportation (BEST) providing employee allowance based on alternative transportation. FB3) Voluntary Programs Number of strategies = 2; Total number of indicators: FB3.1. Voluntary standards and certifications Forest Stewardship Council Canadian Business for Social Responsibility Create an accessible, affordable, points-based certification program for sustainable business Examples include Novex couriers (hybrid fleet) - voluntarily reporting on impacts FB3.2. Other programs Urban Agriculture Initiatives Technology transfer programs Citizen and corporate citizenship programs Examples include Translink OnBoard program
FC) Regulatory lnstruments Number of categories =.3;Number of strategies = 11 ; Total indicators: FCI) Standards, certification, controls and rest rictions Number of strategies = 3; Total number of indicators: FC1.l. Changing the building code and zoning standards to support sustainable outcomes Lower parking requirement standards for new buildings. Mandatory energy and water efficiency and health-related building codes Legislated R2000 for all new construction (mandatory solar and rain collection - silver minimum) Allow performance-based equivalencies to introduce flexibility in development standards Enable the separation of parking stalls and housing units Adopting "Smart Growth" bylaws and zoning Green building initiatives in general FC1.2. Controls and restrictions Disposal bans Source protection legislation to protect surface- and ground-water. Permanent protection of the Agricultural Land Reserve - I Strategies, Instruments and Examples SUM FC1.3. Providing information and certification requirements that support sustainable practices and decision-making Mandatory energy audits on property transfer with Energuide program for every building Full-cost accounting labels to influence consumer decisions Create an affordable, accessible, points-based certification program for sustainable business FC2) Other regulations and non-financial incentives Number of strategies = 6; Total number of indicators: FC2.1. Non-financial incentives for sustainable behaviour Dedicated highway lanes for strategic road-users such as buses, HOV, trucking Provide pay-as-you-drive (per km) insurance FC2.2. Integrating land-use, transportation, water and energy planning Transit-, cycling- and walking- oriented communities Support in-fill development along arterial routes ~xbandin~the ~~ricultural and-~eserve FC2.3. Other requirements for market actors Mandate that a portion of bank investment is returned to community sustainability projects. Require long-term (20 yr +) triple bottom line financial reporting Amending the Utilities Commission Act to require energy utilities to implement programs that capture cost-effective energy savings among their customers. Examples include Community Reinvestment Act (in USA) and VanCity (a local example of a financial institution reinvesting in community projects voluntarily) FC2.4. "Cradle-to-cradleJ' product regulation FC2.5. Full-cost accounting legislation Requiring companies to report on full-costs of production including externalities FC2.6. Supporting "waste exchanges" for Eco-Industrial Networking Creating regulations that allow for the collection and use of non-potable water (e.g. from storm sewers) in industrial applications FC3) Permits and licenses umber of strategies = 2; Total number of indicators: FC3.1. Linking application and approval processes to sustainability objectives Density bonuses as incentives Expedited "fast-track" approval processes for green development, transit- oriented development, renewable energy etc. FC3.2. Creation of permits and licences that create new markets and requirements to support sustainability Tradable Greenhouse Gas emission credits Renewable energy licenses Aircare Strategies, lnstrurr ndExamples SUM -
FD) Public Expenditure Number of categories = 3; Number of strategies = 13; Total indicators: FDI) Provision of infrastructure and related services Number of strategies = 9; Total number of indicators: FDI.I. Transportation (highways and public transit) Revitalize transit system to make better use of what we have e.g. incorporate movement of people and freight Invest resources to create shift from car-oriented to sustainable transportation FD1.2. Public-Private partnerships Corporate partnerships to develop infrastructure FD1.3. Community based ownership of projects Creation of strategic site control actor FDI.4. Water and sewerage Focus on neighbourhood- and district-level wastewater treatment (instead of regional) It is cheaper to focus on land acquisition to protect existing water sources rather than building new infrastructure FD1.5. Infrastructure to support local agriculture Food and seed storage facilities Selling facilities e.g. farmers' markets Urban agriculture programs FD1.6. Recycling and waste reduction services Site specific so1;tions to eliminate waste FDI .7. Sustainable energy projects District heating infrastructure Renewable energy production Using a collaborahe model for utilities use - micro-utilities FD1.8. Provision of child-care services FD1.9. Parks Establish a stronger sense of parkland as habitat and native species food chain FD2) Procurement practices Number of strategies = 2; Tota FD2.1. Sourcing andlor paying more for products with environmental or ethical attributes that meet performance standards Buy-local programs and preferences vehicle purchases Renewable energy quotas Renewable energy feed-in tariffs Organic food-purchasing policies FD2.2. Developing sustainable standards for supply chain management Examples include Small potatoes urban delivery of organic food (affected supply chain and farms) FD3) Projelcts and Events Number of !strategies = 2; Total number of indicators: Strategies, Instruments and Examples I R I P I E ISUM FD3.1. Supporting pilot projects and events aimed at providing 1 2 3 sustainability services and stimulating market shifts Creation of a Sustainable Housing Centre as "go-to" place for consumers Championing pilot projects for innovative environmental technologies
FD3.2. Setting-. requirements for public expenditures 1 1 Municipalities to commit tohequire GHG neutral projects I I I I FE) Strategies that Use a Combination of lnstruments Total number of strategies = 9; Total number of indicators: 17 7 9 33
FE.1. Full-cost accounting and pricing: A comprehensive strategy that 4 3 4 11 would require regulatory, financial, voluntary and public expenditure mechanisms (as noted in those sections). Examples include "full-cost fossil fuel pricks", "full-cost food" and "full-cost dar travelr'.
FE.2. Demand-side management in general. Examples include energy-. 6 1 2 9 and water efficiency and conservation campaigns using variety of tools; and transportation demand management. FE.3. Smart Growth integrated approaches to land-use planning using I 1 1 3 all policy tools FE.4. Sectoral strategies to mitigate commodity production model to 11 2 facilitate moving to the value-added model. Sectors need strategic 1 I 1 I approaches and infrastructure such as access to equity, access to I I I I strategic business planning resources and strategic education about I I I 1 possibilities. One example would be to focus on creating value and jobs through waste management, recycling and re-use. FES- Buy-Local and Local-first campaigns (e.g. for agriculture). 11 2 These multi-faceted strategies would include infrastructure, incentives for local consumption and production, distribution and market access mechanisms, and education. FE.6. Eco-Industrial Networking 2 2 FE.7. Green and sustainable buildina initiatives: A comprehensive 2 2 strategy that would require all markettools. FE.8. Economic diversification 1 1 FE.9. Developing a conservation economy 1 1 Appendix D: Sample Case Study Interview Questions Note - These questions are from the East Clayton case study - the Dockside case study used similar questions. The text below was sent to all of the intetviewees in an email before the interview and then revie wed it with them before the interview. No written consent forms were used. The prepared case studies were circulated to all of the respondents for comments before being made available to anyone else.
As per our correspondence, today's interview is for a case study I'm preparing on the East Clayton sustainable community and Headwaters project. I'm a graduate student and 1 work with both Patrick Condon at UBC and Mark Roseland at SFU. Below is the list of questions I would like to discuss with you during the interview - you are also welcome to send me your thoughts over email. The intent of the case study is to understand the combination of policies, people and process that resulted in development happening differently at East Clayton and to compare them to what's happening now in Victoria with the Dockside Green project. Through reviewing the documents on the project and interviewing key individuals, 1 hope to clearly identify the following:
- Success factors i.e. what were the key elements (people, policies, process) that made this a success?
- Obstacles encountered i.e. what were the biggest barriers?
- Impacts of the project i.e. did this process change city policies or individual business practices?
- Lessons learned i.e, what can other communities learn from this project? How can they do the same?
What does all of this have to do with you? 1 would like 30-60minutes of your time to discuss the questions below. 1 will circulate the case study to all of you for comments before it is published. I will not be quoting you in the report unless you would like to be - your names will be listed as people 1 interviewed but your answers can remain anonymous. I will be recording this interview to help me with note-taking; please let me know if at any time you would like me to turn off the recorder.
Key Questions
1) How did you get involved in this project? What was your role?
2) What was different about this project as compared to other neighbourhood planning processes?
a. Were there unique people/organizations involved or tools used? 3) What were the key factors (people, policies, process) that led to its success ?
a. Were there any particular tools (e.g. the charette, design table, zoning1 bylaws, etc) that helped make it happen?
4) What were the hardest challenges to overcome?
5) What impact has this project had on you, on the community, on the city?
a. Has it been positive I negative? Has it changed the policies, process or people (organizations) involved?
6) What would be needed to duplicate I replicate this project on site throughout Surrey and the Lower Mainland?
a. What do you see as the key 'lessons learned' that can be applied to other communities? Appendix E: East Clayton Respondents and Resources Reviewed The East Clayton (Headwaters) case study research was completed between May lSt- 26th 2006 and included telephone and in-person interviews with key informants (municipal officials, an elected council member, community members, developers etc.); site visits; and a review of written material (including planning documents, corporate reports to council, and the James Taylor Chair charrette and project reports). All the interviews and document review were undertaken by Chris Lindberg.
Key Documents Reviewed:
The following documents were downloaded from http://www.surrey.ca between April and June 2006.
Corporate Report: Clayton Neighbourhood Concept Plan General Land Use Concept (1998)
Corporate Report: Status Report: East Clayton Neighbourhood Concept Plan (1999)
Corporate Report: East Clayton Neighbourhood Concept Plan - Update (2000)
Official Community Plan By-law No. 12900. (2001)
Corporate Report: Sustainable Aspects of the East Clayton Neighbourhood Concept Plan (NCP) and Implications for the First Development Application (2001)
Corporate Report: Alternative Development Servicing Standards for Increased Sustainability (200 1)
Corporate Report: East Clayton Neighbourhood Concept Plan (NCP) - Stage 2 Process. (2002)
East Clayton Neighbourhood Concept Plan and Sustainable Development Initiative Final Open House. (2002)
East Clayton Neighbourhood Concept Plan Stage 2 - Final Report (2003).
East Clayton Neighbourhood Concept Plan (NCP) (2003).
Corporate Report - East Clayton Expansion Neighbourhood Concept Plan - Stage I Component (2004)
Corporate Report: Status Report on the East Clayton Neighbourhood and Proposed Next Phase of Planning for East Clayton (North of 72 Avenue) (2004)
. 2005. Corporate Report: Annual Review of Surrey Official Community Plan By-law, 1983, No. 12900. (2004). - Council Resolution and Corporate Report: East Clayton NCP Extension -West of 188 Street Stage 1 and 2 Report (2005)
- Neighbourhood Concept Plan - East Clayton Extension North of 72 Avenue (East Clayton North Extension) - Stage 2 Report (2005)
- Presentation - Building Sustainable Communities: The East Clayton Sustainability Initiative. (2005)
The following additional documents were also reviewed:
- City of Surrey Planning and Development 1998. Alternative Development Standards for Sustainable Community. (Unpublished presentation for shirt-sleeve discussion with Surrey City Council July 7).
- City of Surrey. 2006. Submission to 2006 FCM-CH2M Hill Sustainable Community Awards. Unpublished document provided by Wendy Whelen, May 2006.
- Condon, Patrick M. (ed.). 1996. Sustainable Urban Landscapes - The Surrey Design Charrette. University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
- Condon, Patrick M. 2003. Sustainable Urban Landscapes - Site Design Manual For BC Communities Version 1.5. (PDF file). Available from http:Nwww.sustainable- communities.agsci.ubc.ca/projects/DesignManual.html
- UBC James Taylor Chair in Landscape and Liveable Environments. 2000. Draft East Clayton Neighbourhood Concept Plan, (PDF file) Available from http://www.sustainable- communities.agsci.ubc.ca/projects/Headwaters.html
The Fourteen Respondents Interviewed were:
John Turner, Progressive Construction and BFW Developments (East Clayton landowner and developer spokesperson at the Design Table). May 11,2006.
Kelvin Neufeld, Fraser Valley Real Estate Board (East Clayton landowner and developer) May 15,2006.
How Yin Leung, City of Surrey Acting General Manager Planning and Development (Manager of Area Planning and Development division during East Clayton planning process and City Design Table spokesperson). May 11, 2006.
Paul Ham, City of Surrey Engineering General Manager (Manager of Utilities during East Clayton planning process). May 11, 2006.
Preet Heer, City of Surrey Senior Planner for East Clayton (check title) May 16, 2006.
David Hislop, City of Surrey Engineering, Drainage (check title). May 16, 2006. - Wendy Whelen, Viridian Planning Group (formerly City of Surrey Senior Planner and Project Manager for the East Clayton and City Design Table spokesperson). May 15,2006.
- Allan Grant, BC Hydro Hydrogen Fuel Cell Program (Manager of BC Hydro Community Energy Planning during East Clayton planning process and Utilities Design Table spokesperson). May 8, 2006.
- Amar Bains, East Clayton Citizens' Advisory Committee (landowner and developer). May 12, 2006.
- Bob Worden, Ramsay Worden Architects (urban design consultant during East Clayton charrettes). May 12, 2006.
- Francisco Molina, City of Vancouver (formerly Senior Planner and Urban Designer with the City of Surrey and participant in East Clayton planning process). May 12, 2006.
- J. Marvin Hunt, City of Surrey City Council, May 17, 2006.
- Judy A. Villeneuve, City of Surrey City Council, May 16, 2006.
- Patrick Condon, James Taylor Chair in Landscape and Liveable Environment (JTC) at the University of British Columbia (UBC), May 1'' and May 24lh 2006. Appendix F: Dockside Respondents and Resources Reviewed The bulk of the case study research was completed through a week-long site visit to Victoria at the beginning of August, 2005, with the remainder completed through telephone interviews. The sources of research material included interviews with key informants (municipal officials, local politicians, community members, and developers, etc.) and written material (such as planning documents, project proposals, contracts and newspaper articles). Three students (Chris Lindberg, Sean Connelly and David Hendrickson) collaborated in the research and interviews; Chris Lindberg took the lead in writing the case study and paper.
Key Documents reviewed
The following documents were downloaded from http://www.victoria.ca/cityhall/currentprojectsdockside.shtml between August and September 2005.
- Dockside Business Case (2002)
- Environmental Report - Dockside and Remediation Planning. (2002)
- Dockside Development Concept (2004)
- Fact Sheet: RFEl & RFP for the Dockside Lands (2004)
- Dockside Lands: Request For Proposals - September loth, (2004)
- Westbank Projects Corp. Proposal (Nov 2004)
- VanCity Enterprises / Windmill Developments Proposal (Nov 2004)
- Dockside Master Development Agreement (Sept 2005)
- Various Media Releases (2002 to 2005)
The Ten Respondents Interviewed were:
- Kim Fowler, formerly Victoria City Manager, Regulatory and Development Services and Dockside Project Team lead. August 16, 2005
- Carola Bloedorn, BCBC Dockside Project Manager and Project Team member. August 18 2005.
- Jack Basey, formerly City of Victoria Planning Director. Dockside Project Team member. August 17 & 18 2005
- Allison Meyer, City of Victoria Planning Department, August 17 2005. - Dianne Carr, Victoria West Community Association land-use committee representative and Dockside Community Advisory Committee member. August 17 2005.
- Pam Madoff, City of Victoria Councillor and Steering Committee member. August 19.
- Dennis Carlsen, City of Victoria Planning Department and Dockside Project Team member. August 19 2005.
- Joanne Youmans, President, Victoria West Community Association and Dockside Community Advisory Committee member. August 17 2005.
- Joe Van Belleghem, Windmill Developments, September 28, 2005.
- Jacques Khouri, CEO, Vancity Enterprises, September 26, 2005 Appendix G: Key Mechanisms from the Case Studies This section contains the following information:
- Table G-1 Key Mechanisms from East Clayton.
- Table G-2 Key Mechanisms from Dockside.
Both tables present the mechanisms that were identified as being key contributors to the success of the projects. The mechanisms have not been organized in terms of the market mechanism categories of actor, strategies and policy instruments. Note that these two tables are in different formats. Table G-1 Key Mechanisms from East Clayton
(1) James Taylor Chair and Speculative Visioning Exercises: The Charrette Method Description & Mechanisms The James Taylor Chair in Landscape and Liveable Environment (JTC) at the University of British Columbia (UBC) was established in 1994 to explore the relationships between site design and sustainability. In 1995 and 1998, the JTC invited 14 municipalities to apply to be the focal point of design processes in exchange for in-kind contributions of staff time for preparation. Speculative visioning exercises allow participants to develop innovative ideas for real sites as a precursor to seeking agreement on implementation. The ideas generated from the Surrey Design Charrette, for example, have been applied in various locales throughout the lower mainland.
Information and guidelines for conducting charrettes and integrated design processes can be found in the Sustainable Urban Landscapes Site Design Manual for Sustainable Communities (Condon et al., 2003) on the JTC website; reports on the 1995 Surrey Design Charrette and the 1998 Alternative Development Standards Workshop are also available from the JTC. The descriptions below are drawn from the 2003 Design Manual:
A charrette is defined by the JTC as a "time-limited design event in which a diverse group of people strive to produce a mutually agreeable answer to a complex community design problem" (Condon et at., 2003). The Headwaters Project used two different types of charrettes: visioning and implementation.
Visioning charrettes are considered ideal means to generate, explore andlor test the feasibility of multiple policy objectives for a site through developing innovative urban design scenarios that could be applied both onsite andlor on other sites. Visioning charrettes allow a region's best minds to collaboratively produce scenarios for more sustainable communities.
Implementation charrettes are complex and time-consuming and designed to develop regulatory andlor physical models for implementation at an actual site. They have the advantage of involving all appropriate parties in determining the exact future design for a community. All parties take ownership of the plan and opposition is dealt with as part of the design process, not afterwards. Implementation charrettes often produce more conservative results than do visioning charrettes as inevitable compromises occur as an integral part of the design process. Participants must have sufficient authority to "negotiate on the fly" and to stand behind their decisions once projects are implemented. The process takes many hours and can be costly; funds ordinarily directed to creating standard neighbourhood area plans can and should be redirected into this kind of process. :2) Integrated Planning Process for the East Clayton NCP 1Description & Mechanisms The integrated planning process was derived from Headwaters Project partnership that included the JTC, City of Surrey and the Pacific Resource Centre. This partnership was formalized using a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the intent to demonstrate i) sustainable urban development "on the ground" and ii) an integrated planning method that uses the charrette to bring together all involved and to expedite approval processes and implementation.
The integrated planning process for East Clayton was guided by the seven sustainable development principles presented below and the following eight process principles:
Build capacity for integration through shared awareness and determination to act jointly. Involve early on (preferably at the beginning) those people, agencies and organizations that can influence planning policy and development standards (including their implementation). Share information equally. Share resources across mandates for mutual gain. Build confidence in the process, in planning policies and in alternative development standards Ensure the direct involvement of municipal staff. Gain access to the necessary technical expertise. Deal with issues efficiently.
The NCP was developed in two complementary stages: Stage 1 (Land Use Plan) and Stage 2 (Servicing Strategy). The JTC led an integrated planning process from January - July 1999 that included conventional consultation processes (through the East Clayton Citizen Advisory Committee, public meetings and open houses) and unconventional processes, chiefly the use of workshops and two 2-day implementation charrettes. Meetings and workshops were held with groups within six broad "constituencies of interest" (Developers, City of Surrey, City of Surrey Operations, Utilities and Services, Environment and Community). One or more representatives from each group sat on a Design Table which met throughout the process and during the charettes; these representatives were given opportunities to report back to their constituencies throughout the process.
Council was kept informed about the progress and issues through staff reports at key stages of the project. Information material was distributed to each property owner in Clayton prior to the open houses and questionnaires were provided at the open houses. Council support for the broad process was obtained during an informal 'shirt sleeve' session with city staff in July 1998 where they agreed to endorse the sustainable development principles.
The advantages of integrated design processes tend to be time savings, improved design, and increased stakeholder buy-in and support. This entire process was compressed into approximately seven months and generated strong interest and support from the community and various levels of government.
The success of the NCP, including the performance of the residential component, depends on retaining the integrated approach and ensuring that the interdependency of the sustainable development principles is not compromised while also recognizing the need for flexibility in the face of any unforeseen issues. Therefore, the City established an Implementation Team consisting of Planning, Engineering and Parks staff. The team meets regularly to coordinate, guide and monitor the development of the East Clayton NCP to ensure the goals and objectives of the NCP are maintained
One final note - the MOU used for East Clayton stipulated the responsibilities of all involved but was limited to the planning stages; the JTC and Pacific Resource Centre therefore have no formal involvement in im~lementation.This is seen as a weak ~ointin the aareement and subsequent MOUs used'by the JTC with the Smart Growth on'the Ground boject allow for their ongoing involvement. (3) Seven Sustainable Development Principles Description & Mechanisms Seven sustainable development principles were developed based on the Surrey Design Charrette and Alternative Design Standards workshop. They served as an effective focal point, common framework and shared vision for all stakeholders. The principles are:
1. Increase density to conserve energy by designing compact walkable neighbourhoods to encourage pedestrian activities where basic services (schools, parks, transit, shops, etc.) are within 5 to 6 minutes walking distance from homes. 2. Different dwelling types (a mix of housing types, a broad range of densities from single family homes to apartment buildings) in the same neighbourhood and even on the same street. 3. Communities designed for people; therefore all dwellings present a friendly face to the street in order to promote social interaction. 4. Car storage and services handled in lanes at the rear of dwellings. 5. Inter-connected street network, in a grid or modified grid pattern, to provide for a variety of itineraries and to disperse traffic congestion; and public transit to connect with the surrounding region. 6. Narrow streets shaded by rows of trees to save costs and to provide a greener and friendlier environment. 7. Preservation of the natural environment and promotion of natural drainage systems where stormwater is held on the surface and permitted to seep naturally into the ground.
(4) Infrastructure Design Description & Mechanisms
~p ~ .~ Interconnected Road-grid with Rear lanes
This supports the principles to achieve housing diversity and density and to promote social interaction by dwellings presenting a friendly face to the street and providing car storage at the back of the dwellings in the following manner:
- Blocks of land with interconnected roads allow for a range of housing options to be accommodated, from single family detached housing to multi-family residential - The rear lanes allow for the option to accommodate secondary units (coach houses) at the rear of the lots, providing for gradual densification of the neighbourhood without affecting neighbourhood character and streetscape - At least 60% of the single family residential lots are required to have rear lane access to ensure that the resulting streetscape promotes social interaction by relegating the garages to the rear. (5) Performance Objectives, Standards and Desi n Guidelines Description & Mechanisms
All developments in the East Clayton undergo a review using the performance objectives, standards and design guidelines provided in the NCP. These standards and guidelines were directly and deliberately developed to ensure adherence to the sustainable development principles.
A) Performance Objectives: I The NCP stipulates the following performance objectives in four categories: i) Built Environment
To reinforce a strong single family neighbourhood character:
- Ensure pedestrian priority over vehicles along all local residential streets with minimum driveway interruptions. - Maximize opportunities for extending the fine grained interconnected pedestrianlbike circulation system to increase options for passive recreational activities for all age groups. - Ensure that semi-private areas (covered or open) are provided at the interface between buildings and street. - Ensure that buildings retain a human scale with one or two storey portions of the building being dominant at the interface area with the street. - Ensure that building designs reinforce street activity and provide opportunities for casual surveillance. - Ensure variety of open spacelpark areas that satisfy the recreational needs of the various age groups within close proximity to home.
ii) Ecology To improve air quality by reducing auto use:
- Ensure that commercial and transit services are within a 400 metre (114 mile) walk-able radius of all residents. - Ensure that walking and cycling are viable alternatives to the use of cars to access local facilities and activity nodes. To maintain stream health and to enhance habitat:
- Maintain or enhance ecological performance of native aquatic habitats. - Maximize existing opportunities for parks, riparian areas, and greenways to retain significant habitat value. - Maintain existing base flow level in all on-site and off-site streams. - Eliminate storm surge. - Minimize opportunities for water pollution.
iii) Equity - Maximise opportunities for providing work places in proximity to areas of residence. - Provide a wide variety of unit types and sizes appropriate to citizens of all ages, family types and income groups.
iv) Economy - Orient as many residential units as possible so that passive solar heating is maximized. - Reduce cost of infrastructure. - Maximize efficiency in use of land. - Incorporate imaginative financing devices (e.g. mortgage helpers in the form of secondary suites). - Facilitate opportunities to supplement family income with businesses operated from the place of residence.
6) Residential Performance Standards and Design Guidelines Examples of how the principles and performance objectives were translated into performance standards and guidelines include:
- Prescribing anticipated density ranges and minimum "base densities" for the different residential land use designations to ensure the objective of increasing the housing density is achieved and that neinhbourhood amenities (parks, trails, police and fire protection and library materials) can 6e funded in keeping w'ith Surrey's policy of "developer pays". Conventionally in Surrey, the residential designations in NCPs had prescribed specific types of residential uses, e.g. single family residential, small lot residential, townhouses, multiple residential, etc. This, more often than not, resulted in conventional housing options. Breaking away from this convention, the East Clayton NCP leaves it up to developers to propose appropriate housing mixes and solutions by using the available zones to satisfy the anticipated densities providing guidelines for the area of the lot that can be covered by impervious surfaces to allow for the natural drainage and requires the developers to demonstrate how prescribed natural infiltration targets will be achieved. Encouraging coach houses on all corner lots to contribute to the housing density and provide options for affordable housing. Encouraging a variety of lots and housing types within the same block or area to increase the housing diversity and options, and opportunities for social interaction. Requiring that, at the outset, the Special Residential projects clearly define both the residential and commerciallbusiness components in the dwelling units and that the design and construction allow for the use of the commercial space readily when the owner decides to use it for that purpose. This is to ensure that the intent of this unique housing option providing the livelwork opportunity is maintained.
C) Green lnfrastructure Performance Standards and Guidelines Green infrastructure in this case refers primarily to the seventh sustainable development principle. The following objectives for Green lnfrastructure were adopted in addition to the overall site performance objectives:
- To reduce immediate as well as life cycle costs of the storm drainage system. - To protect and enhance the environment. - To increase access to, and variety of, recreational opportunities. - To protect habitat, especially fish habitat. - To maintain stream hydrology and stream water quality - To eliminate the need for removing any soil from the site - To enhance community value, quality and appeal.
These objectives were translated into performance standards and guidelines; examples include: - Setting a maximum of 60% impervious surface and requiring that all runoff be directed to pervious areas so as to mimic the predevelopment conditions and meet an infiltration target rate of 12-24 mmlday. - Requiring that all soil from excavation be retained onsite and that pervious areas have a minimum topsoil depth of 600 mm (2 ft). - Roadside swales and infiltration trenches required in some areas to facilitate collection of runoff and allow rainwater to filter and percolate through soil to the aquifer.
(6) Zoning Tools Description & Mechanisms
Several new and innovative zones were created to support the sustainable development winciples; these zones are available throughout the City and not just in the East Clayton site. The 'allowing descriptions are taken from Surrey's 2006 FCM submission: A) Small Lot Housing Zones (RF-12, RF-12(C), RF-9, RF-9(C), RF-SD, RM-23)
In support of achieving diversity, two of these zones provide a variety of options such as lot configurations (narrow & deep lots and/or wide & shallow lots), minimum lot widths and sizes, minimum setbacks and ability to provide additional dwelling units on the same lots. Staff encourage and recommend developers to use the RF-12(C) and RF-9(C) zones to provide options for affordable housing and allow for increase in the density over time. To date, all detached housing in East Clayton has been developed under the RF-12 (C) or RF-9(C) Zones.
RF-12 and RF-12 (C) Zones: These zones were developed to accommodate detached houses on 12-metre wide lots, as small as 320 sq. m. in area. They allow for the option of vehicle access from a rear lane or fronting street depending on the site-specific circumstances. The RF-12 (C) Zone also provides for the option of secondary units in the basements or in coach houses at the rear of the lots that have lane access thereby increasing affordable housing options. As an incentive, the secondary units are exempt from the Development Cost Charges which are normally payable on a per unit basis.
RF-9 and RF-9 (C) Zones: These zones were developed to accommodate detached houses on smaller lots having a minimum of 9 metres width and 250 sq. m. area, with the option of having up to one-third of the lots reduced to 8 metres in width and 220 sq. m. in area. The RF-9(C) Zone, similar to the RF-12 (C) Zone, allows for basement suites and coach houses.
RF-SD: This zone permits two side-by-side dwelling units as part of a single structure. Each of the two dwelling unit is located on its own fee-simple lot and the units are attached along the common lot line between the two adjacent lots. The minimum lot width is 7.2 metres and lot size is 200 sq. m.
RM-23: This zone permits dwelling units, in the form of row housing, located on fee-simple lots as small as 165 sq. m. in size and 6 metres in width.
(6)Special Residential Land Use to Accommodate LiveMlork The Special Residential concept was developed to provide an innovative way of increasing housing options while allowing for up to 30% of the floor area of the residences to be used for small-scale, low-impact retail, service commercial and business ventures. The RF-9s zone was xeated to allow this land use in detached houses, and the NCP envisions this land use option in Auplexes, row houses or townhouses in the future, as it becomes more widely accepted.
[C) Manor Houses The Manor House category in the East Clayton NCP was developed to add to the variety of lousing choices and residential density. Manor Houses are fourplexes containing ground- xiented units. They resemble large houses on fee-simple lots with rear lane access. Currently, :his land use is being accommodated through the use of site-specific Comprehensive 3evelopment Zones (CD Zones). Table G-2 Kev Mechanisms from Dockside (1) Public Consultation & Involvement Description & Mechanisms Comments Creation of Project Advisory Committee - Concerns about the time and cost of having to develop vision and principles such an involved public process. Use of open houses, presentations and - The focus on being open, transparent and workshops to develop, refine and interactive is key; some respondents felt they comment on various project aspects. were being asked to approve plans rather than Online posting of key documents and help develop them. provision of comment forms 1 - The auditors built public trust in the proposal Formal Public Hearings with Council evaluation process; the Community Auditor couldn't tell people what happened but could Targeted consultation with community monitor and intervene in the process. groups - Respondents were happy with the results of the Fairness and Community Auditors on process; some respondents felt this success proposal evaluation committee was due to the people involved rather than the I process itself. . (2) Business Case (BC) and Market Risk Analysis (MRA) - Description & Mechanisms =( BC was developed based on - Allowed the City and community to evaluate conventional real estate analysis of options based on the same land-economic remediation costs; potential land-uses assumptions as potential developers and led to and density; and market conditions using a more realist and achievable development a conventional pro-forma analysis. concept. MRA was developed based on the BC - Multiple-bottom lines were accommodated by and the land-use and density options lowering the purchase price (return) in exchange identified by the public consultation. It for other values (e.g. amenities and green focused on determining the scenario(s) building standards). that (i) incorporated the vision and - Concern that conventional pro-forma and net- planning principles, (ii) provided a present value analyses are short-term and may reasonable return for the developer, (iii) not be well-suited to evaluating projects with provided high quality public amenities, integrated green buildings and infrastructure (iv) had an FSR with the least negative impact on the triple bottom line, and (v) provided a minimum 'break-even' return for the City -- (3) Development Concept (DC) and Request for Proposals (RFP) Description & Mechanisms I Conlments - RFP was modelled after the DC. - RFP was performance- and outcome-based and - RFP set requirements for site provided developers with significant flexibility in remediation, land use, urban design and site design. Municipal staff described this as a site servicing and presented a triple- 'sandbox' or 'form-based coding' approach that bottom-line matrix for evaluating provided clear boundaries and indicated proposals based on the adherence to the required elements but left the developer the RFP and DC (see below). flexibility to be innovative with land uses, density, amenities, form and character. These - Rather than being prescriptive about how documents also demonstrated the City's the development needed to occur on willingness to disregard existing zoning and each site (e.g. indicating specific create new zoning regulations that support the densities, set-backs and uses for each sub-site), the RFP provided planning sustainable objectives for the site. principles and desired ouk~t~-~es(e.g. a - Criticism that the Development Concept did not range of possible densities and uses Per take a more comprehensive approach to the site; mandatory, negotiable and optional impacts on the surrounding area. An adjacent public amenities, etc.). Even the location property leaser is now concerned about future and nature of site services and pressure from Dockside residents to reduce infrastructure remained flexible. noise at his industrial site.
(4) Triple-bottom-line (TBL) Evaluation Matrix
, ,,,. .,..,. . - ...-,. .~n Used to evaluate the project proposals. - The matrix was circulated to the Council, A combination of passlfail and rated municipal staff, RFEl-qualified developers and criteria with a total of 300 points the community association for comments prior to distributed evenly among environmental, being finalized. This provided a transparent social and economic categories; a evaluation mechanism and built trust in the minimum score of 50 points in each process; a criticism was Council's choice to category and a "pass" for all passlfail retain ultimate discretion on the decision. criteria was required for the project to - The issue of price was dealt with by setting a proceed to Council for consideration. minimum "break-even" purchase price as a The Council retained the right to make passlfail criteria and assigning points to bids that the ultimate decision regardless of the exceeded it. scores and evaluation committee - All the project stakeholders interviewed recommendation considered the TBL to be among the most innovative and important success factors in the project; the VCENVindmill team felt it was key to their success and interest- in the project. (5) Multi-Stage RFP process - Description & Mecha m Request for Expressions of Interest - RFEl was unusual in that financial capacity was (RFEI). Proponents evaluated based on evaluated on a passlfail basis; this levelled the finances, experience, proposal, and playing field for smaller developers (such as references. VCENVindmill) Request for Proposals (RFP) - The City kept the RFEl results confidential but Evaluation by Evaluation Committee to indicated there would be a maximum shortlist of determine qualifying proposals based on 4-6; this allowed applicants to gauge how much TBL matrix. effort to put into proposal development. Open House presentation to Council. A - The RFP specifically prohibited proponents from stipend of up to $50,000 to cover out-of- directly or indirectly communicating about the pocket proposal development costs was project with the public, municipal staff or council provided to all unsuccessful proponents members. This was imposed to prevent who made it to this stage. lobbying; however, it also prevented proponents from collaborating and building trust with Required public meetings to refine community members. successful proposal
(6) Master Agreement Plan (MAP) A wide variety of tools were used in the MAP; this section provides highlights. Description & Mechanisms Comments Compliance and Monitoring: A - The MAP was developed through genuine restrictive covenant is included with the collaboration and consultation among the MAP; the City and developer share the relevant actors; team rules were established to cost of a staff person to administer and ensure positive communication and a more monitor the MAP on behalf of the City. 'human' environment. This was facilitated bv The developer will also have to provibe I team members sharing the same values and an annual performance report related to vision for the site. the TBL matrix criteria. - By focusing on performance measurements and Parking: The site has reduced off-street ongoing evaluation instead of on specific items parking requirements in exchange for or technologies (e.g bike racks) the MAP allows Transportation Demand Strategies for flexibility, adaptability and innovation in including a mini-transit program and car achieving the desired outcomes. share co-op. To be reviewed every - The Project Team continually demonstrated their second year in relation to performance willingness to think outside the box; According to objectives. the developer examples include not being Public Amenity Fund: The developer is charged DCC costs and not being charged committed to a specific number of sewer side of the water utility bill because of amenities and responsible for any cost onsite treatment. overruns in delivering them; a budget - A success factor is the fact that the site was value has been assigned to each item large enough to allow for economies of scale in which will be deposited in a Public the site infrastructure and services (e.g. Amenity Fund if the developer defaults. minimizing road costs through design) and to There are also penalties set for not permit phased development to respond to constructing the on-site sewage market changes and learn from previous treatment ($685,000) and the waste- phases. wood co-generation facility ($750,000) - Residential building costs in Victoria have LEED Certification: Developer pays a increased almost 20% over the past year; this penalty of $1 per ft2 not certified to the resulted in VCENVindmill shifting its commitment applicable standard; penalty is doubled if to affordable housing from a specific number of the lot is sold to a third party. Also units to a maximum financial commitment ($3 required to ensure that future owners / million). property managers are given the education needed to maintain these systems. Onsite Utilities: The developer is committed to a sewage treatment system and waste-wood cogeneration facility to meet 100% of on-site sewage and heating requirements. The City is committed to buying heat /electricity at market rates. Affordable Housing: A commitment of up to 31% as either Non-Market Units or Market Affordable Housing Units (rental, rent-to-own, own); also a provision to include rental housing in those buildings with affordable housing units. The developer has committed funds to Non- Market Housing and must also apply for other funding. Market Affordable Housing will be provided by limiting the developer profit margin to 13% and protected from price increases by a restrictive covenant.