Institutional Politics, Power Constellations, and Urban Social Sustainability: a Comparative-Historical Analysis Jason M

Home , Art Phillips, Beacon Food Forest, Jack Volrich, Jenny Kwan, Jim Green (councilman), Seattle City Council

Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2014 Institutional Politics, Power Constellations, and Urban Social Sustainability: A Comparative-Historical Analysis Jason M. Laguna

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND PUBLIC POLICY

INSTITUTIONAL POLITICS, POWER CONSTELLATIONS, AND URBAN SOCIAL

SUSTAINABILITY: A COMPARATIVE-HISTORICAL ANALYSIS

JASON M. LAGUNA

A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Sociology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Awarded: Summer Semester, 2014 Jason M. Laguna defended this dissertation on May 30, 2014. The members of the supervisory committee were:

Douglas Schrock Professor Directing Dissertation

Andy Opel University Representative

Jill Quadagno Committee Member

Daniel Tope Committee Member

The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members, and certifies that the dissertation has been approved in accordance with university requirements.

This is dedicated to all the friends, family members, and colleagues whose help and support made this possible.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables ...... vi Abstract ...... viii 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Historical Development of Sustainability ...... 5 Overview of the Dissertation ...... 8

2. CONCEPTUALIZING AND MEASURING SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY ...... 13 Fragmented Conceptualizations of Social Sustainability ...... 14 Assessment Frameworks of Urban Social Sustainability ...... 20 Social Sustainability of Urban Policy ...... 27 Synthesizing and Modifying Conceptualizations and Assessment Methods of Social Sustainability...... 44

3. INSTITUTIONAL POLITICS AND POWER CONSTELLATIONS ...... 51 Institutional Politics Theory ...... 53 Power Constellations Theory ...... 65 Adapting Institutional Politics Theory and Power Constellations Theory for Urban Policy Research ...... 78

4. RESEARCH METHODS ...... 89 The Cities: Vancouver, Seattle, and Portland ...... 89 Comparative Historical Methods ...... 95 Dissertation Methods and Data ...... 98 Conclusion ...... 115

5. ASSESSMENT OF SOCIALLY SUSTAINABLE URBAN POLICY ...... 117 Housing ...... 121 Transportation ...... 136 Food ...... 151 Leisure and Recreation ...... 164 Social Cohesion ...... 177 Identity and Sense of Place ...... 193 Conclusion ...... 201

6. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THEORETICAL PROPOSITIONS ...... 205 Testing Institutional Politics Theory ...... 211 Metropolitan Fragmentation ...... 212 Governmental/Bureaucratic Capacity ...... 220 Citizen Participation...... 231 Testing Power Constellations Theory ...... 240 Strength of Organized Labor ...... 241 Women’s Labor Force Participation ...... 248 Strength of Center-Left Political Parties ...... 253 Scoring and Comparing the Theories ...... 270

Conclusion ...... 277

7. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ...... 279 Assessment of Social Sustainability ...... 279 Testing Theories of Policy Development ...... 283 Limitations and Avenues of Future Research ...... 287 Conclusion ...... 291

REFERENCES ...... 294 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 313

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Policy Areas and Social Sustainability Criteria ...... 49

Table 2. Institutional Politics Theory: Summary of Approach, Selected Theoretical Propositions and Adapted Versions of Theoretical Propositions...... 84

Table 3. Power Constellations Theory: Summary of Approach, Selected Theoretical Propositions and Adapted Versions of Theoretical Propositions...... 88

Table 4. Socio-Demographic Data for Vancouver, Seattle, and Portland...... 90

Table 5. Policy Areas, Social Sustainability Criteria, and Data Sources ...... 100

Table 6. Theoretical Perspectives, Criteria, and Data Sources...... 106

Table 7. Social Sustainability Criteria for Housing Policy and Social Sustainability Scores ....121

Table 8. Quantitative Criteria for Socially Sustainable Housing ...... 135

Table 9. Social Sustainability Criteria for Transportation Policy and Social Sustainability Scores ...... 136

Table 10. Quantitative Criteria for Socially Sustainable Transportation ...... 151

Table 11. Social Sustainability Criteria for Food Policy and Social Sustainability Scores ...... 152

Table 12. Quantitative Criteria for Socially Sustainable Food Policy ...... 164

Table 13. Social Sustainability Criteria for Leisure and Recreation Policy and Social Sustainability Scores ...... 165

Table 14. Quantitative Criteria for Socially Sustainable Leisure and Recreation Policy ...... 176

Table 15. Social Sustainability Criteria for Social Cohesion Policy and Social Sustainability Scores ...... 178

Table 16. Quantitative Criteria for Socially Sustainable Social Cohesion Policy ...... 192

Table 17. Social Sustainability Criteria for Identity and Sense of Place Policy and Social Sustainability Scores ...... 193

Table 18. Social Sustainability Assessment Framework ...... 202

Table 19. Indicators of Metropolitan Fragmentation ...... 214

Table 20. Indicators of Governmental/Bureaucratic Capacity ...... 222

Table 21. Indicators of Citizen Participation ...... 233

Table 22. Indicators of Strength of Organized Labor ...... 242

Table 23. Indicators of Women’s Participation in the Labor Force ...... 249

Table 24. Indicators of Strength of Center-Left Political Parties ...... 254

Table 25. Support for Institutional Politics Theory ...... 271

Table 26. Support for Power Constellations Theory ...... 271

Table 27. Contributions of Center-Left Political Parties in Vancouver to Social Sustainability Policy ...... 275

vii

ABSTRACT

The concept of sustainability is theoretically comprised of three distinct dimensions: environmental, economic, and social. Most public and academic discourse, however, focuses on environmental and economic sustainability to the neglect of social sustainability, which refers to a condition where an extended set of basic needs are met for all residents regardless of their race/ethnicity, age, religion, gender, socioeconomic status and/or level of ability and the highest possible level of social inclusion and participation in community life is promoted. While some scholars and policymakers have recently turned their attention to social sustainability, conceptualizing and assessing social sustainability is fraught with problems. In this dissertation, I develop a comprehensive social sustainability assessment framework that focuses on six key policy areas: housing, transportation, food, leisure and recreation, social cohesion, and identity and sense of place. I then incorporate data on Vancouver, Seattle, and Portland into the social sustainability framework in order to conduct a comparative analysis of the cities’ relative degree of social sustainability. My analysis—which brings both qualitative and quantitative data to bear on 30 social sustainability criteria—indicates that Vancouver is ranked higher than Seattle and

Portland in terms of social sustainability. I then adapt and use two sociological theories of policy development—institutional politics theory and power constellations theory, which tend to focus on the national or state level—to test which one better explains the differential level of social sustainability in the aforementioned cities. In short, I find that power constellations theory best explains why Vancouver has the most socially sustainable policies and programs, primarily due to the strength of organized labor and center-left political parties in the city. Overall, this dissertation contributes to research on social policy development and social sustainability and

viii provides scholars and policymakers with a deeper understanding of the institutional and political determinants of social sustainability.

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The concept of sustainability has been refined over the years and is commonly interpreted as being comprised of three interdependent dimensions: environmental, economic and social.

Sustainability is based on the principle that all of the resources needed for survival and well- being depend on our natural environment (Environmental Protection Agency 2013).

Consequently, sustainable development is defined as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (World

Commission on Environment and Development Our Common Future 1987:43). Environmental sustainability involves improving human welfare by protecting the sources of raw materials for human needs and holding waste emissions within the assimilative capacity of the natural environment without impairing it while economic sustainability involves the maintenance of human-made, natural, social and human capital (Goodland and Daly 1996:1003). Social sustainability is much more difficult to define. This is due to a large amount of fragmentation and disagreement within the body of literature on social sustainability. For the purpose of this dissertation, I define social sustainability as a condition where an extended set of basic needs are met for all residents regardless of their race/ethnicity, age, religion, gender, socioeconomic status and/or level of ability and the highest possible level of social inclusion and participation in community life is promoted.

Historically, research and policy development guided by the concept of sustainability has overwhelmingly focused on the environmental dimension of sustainability. As a result, social sustainability is an under-theorized concept and academics from various disciplines are in

1 general disagreement about how to conceptualize and measure social sustainability. In recent years, however, the social dimension of sustainability has begun to attract the interest of academics and has gained political and institutional support. Organizations like the United

Nations and the European Union have sponsored research projects (like the UNESCO M.O.S.T. program) and urban regeneration projects (like the EU sustainable communities agenda) that are guided by social sustainability principles. Additionally, cities around the world have adopted working definitions of social sustainability and are developing frameworks for the implementation of social sustainability policies.

While these developments are a sign of the increasing popularity of social sustainability as a research topic, few sociologists have analyzed social sustainability in general and urban social sustainability in particular. Because of this, relatively little is known about the institutional and political factors that affect the ability of cities to develop socially sustainable policies. To address these limitations in the literature, I use comparative historical methodology to compare urban policy in three sample cities (Vancouver, British Columbia, Seattle, Washington and

Portland, Oregon), assess the relative social sustainability of policy choices made in each of my sample cities, and I test two sociological theories of social policy--institutional politics theory and power constellations theory-- in order to determine which one better explains differences in the social sustainability of urban policies in my three sample cities. I also develop a working definition of social sustainability and social sustainability policy that is based on the existing literature.

Social sustainability is important because it addresses issues related to quality of life. If policy development is pursued without taking social sustainability into account, benefits derived from these policies will not be equitably distributed. This will increase levels of inequality and

2 social exclusion. In comparison, when social sustainability considerations are taken into account, policy decisions can potentially combat social exclusion and promote higher levels of participation in community life for a greater proportion of residents in the community. For example, policies that increase the number of market rate housing units, favor the use of the personal automobile for transport, discourage the development of community gardens and community kitchens detract from social sustainability by providing benefits to residents who can afford market rate housing, personal automobiles, and have access to high quality supermarkets.

By contrast, policies that foster the development of social and supportive housing, multi-modal transportation systems, community gardens, and community kitchens support social sustainability by providing benefits to those who cannot afford market rate housing, have disabilities or addiction issues which make it more difficult to live alone and be independent, cannot afford a personal automobile or cannot drive, and do not have access to affordable and high quality food in their communities. Thus, focusing on identifying the social sustainability of policies can potentially lead to the development of policies that benefit a larger percentage of the population including groups that are sometimes marginalized (i.e. seniors, the disabled, youth, low-income residents, and residents struggling with addiction) while policies that do not take these considerations into account tend to benefit a smaller, more privileged subset of the population.

While identifying the social sustainability of policies is currently more difficult than identifying the environmental sustainability of policies, advances in the field of social sustainability assessment will contribute to our understanding of how urban policy decisions affect the social sustainability of communities. Many of the policy areas that are often discussed in relation to environmental sustainability also have impacts on social sustainability. For

3 instance, both transportation and leisure and recreation policies can contribute to environmental sustainability by reducing carbon emissions and protecting the natural environment but they can also contribute to social sustainability by improving mobility and access to resources and providing public areas where diverse groups of residents can engage in healthy activities together. Because of the relationship between the environmental and social dimensions of urban policy, it is important for decision makers to take all dimensions of sustainability into account when developing policies. Rather than just focusing on the environmental impact of urban policy decisions, decision makers should also consider the potential social ramifications of decisions.

One way to achieve this is by increasing the level of community participation in the decision making process whenever it is feasible. This allows decision makers to engage in a dialogue with residents in order to better understand the potential social ramifications of policy decisions. Once potential social impacts are assessed, plans that take these issues into account can be formulated and implemented. Because these efforts promote communication between decision makers, planners, and residents, they can potentially result in the development of policies that more accurately reflect the needs of community members and make more efficient use of the funds available. Moreover, by opening up the decision-making process, decision makers can make full use of the knowledge base and creativity in their community. This increases the number of options and interpretations available and could potentially lead to creative problem solving and planning. In sum, increasing the level of community participation in the decision-making process helps support democratic, collective, and creative policy making.

This chapter is organized as follows. First, I discuss the historical development of sustainability and related concepts such as sustainable development. I begin by reviewing the international conferences and commissions that contributed to our current understanding of

4 sustainability in order to shed light on the gradual development and refinement of the concept.

Subsequently, I present my two research questions and indicate how I plan on answering both questions. In the second section of the chapter, I provide an overview of the dissertation focusing on what I will cover in each chapter.

Historical Development of Sustainability

Sustainability and related concepts such as sustainable development and urban sustainability are rooted in contemporary environmentalism and have been defined through various international conferences and commissions. The 1972 United Nations Conference on the

Human Environment in Stockholm, Sweden was perhaps the first event that brought attention to the relationship between economic growth and environmental degradation (Edwards 2005).

More than a decade later, in 1987, the publication of “Our Common Future,” which is also known as the Brundtland Report, helped to further refine our understanding of sustainability. In this report, which was created by the UN’s World Commission on Environment and

Development (WCED), we find the creation of the “first framework for concerted action to protect the Earth’s life support systems while promoting both economic and social justice goals” and the “first articulation of the key to contemporary sustainability-the importance of evaluating any proposed initiative with reference to the interaction of three fundamental criteria: ecology/environment, economy/employment and equity/equality, known today as the Three E’s”

(Edwards 2005:17).

Five years after the publication of “Our Common Future,” in 1992, the United Nations

Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), or the Earth Summit as it is commonly known, took place in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. It was at this conference that a global program for

5 action on sustainable development was articulated. This program, referred to as Agenda 21 to symbolize a new sustainable development agenda for the 21st century, brought attention to the social and economic dimensions of sustainability and was subsequently adopted by 178 governments worldwide. In order to monitor and report on the progress of Agenda 21’s implementation, the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) was created.

Two years later, in 1994, the social and human sciences sector of the United Nations

Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, or UNESCO, developed the Management of

Social Transformations, or M.O.S.T., program. From the very beginning, the M.O.S.T. program represented a strong commitment to the promotion of research that was comparative, international, interdisciplinary, and policy relevant. In addition, the M.O.S.T. program sought to organize and promote international research networks, to give attention to capacity building and to establish a clearing house of social scientific knowledge in the area of sustainability policy.

What is perhaps most important about the M.O.S.T. program, however, was its focus on generating policy relevant knowledge on the management of multi-ethnic and multi-cultural urban areas, city governance, and coping with the impact of globalization (Polese and Stren

2000). This attention to the effects that globalization and increases in ethnic diversity have on the governance and management of urban areas has led to the development of a burgeoning body of literature on the social dimension of sustainability in general, and the social sustainability of urban regions in particular.

In 1997, the General Assembly of the United Nations held a special session in order to evaluate the success of Agenda 21’s implementation. This assembly, popularly known as Rio+5 to symbolize the progress five years after the development of Agenda 21 in Rio de Janeiro, identified three important trends that characterize the “uneven” progress of Agenda 21. These

6 trends included increasing globalization, widening levels of income inequality, and continued deterioration of the global environment. Five years later, in 2002, the World Summit on

Sustainable Development (WSSD) conference was held in Johannesburg, South Africa. It was during this summit that the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation was adopted in order to affirm the United Nations’ commitment to the full implementation of Agenda 21. Taken together, it was these important events that helped to shape our contemporary understanding of sustainability as consisting of three interdependent dimensions usually referred to as the Three E’s of environment, economy, and equity.

While, in theory, these three dimensions are interdependent, in practice, most sustainable development initiatives do not fully incorporate all three dimensions. Of the three dimensions of sustainability, social sustainability is the least likely to be incorporated into initiatives geared towards implementing urban sustainability (Portney 2003; Saha and Paterson 2008). As a result, some of the most “sustainable” cities have managed to address environmental issues while neglecting or under-emphasizing social sustainability issues that form a cornerstone of true sustainability. These cities have, for example, lowered the collective ecological footprint of their inhabitants, pursued renewable energy sources, invested in light rail or other forms of energy efficient public transportation, engaged in brownfield and mixed use development and created transit oriented developments, etc. At the same time, however, many of these cities have also experienced unprecedented levels of gentrification and subsequent displacement of low income residents, increases in crime, increasing income gaps between high income and low income residents, and unequal distribution of local resources and job opportunities.

If many so-called “sustainable” cities are still facing problems that can potentially jeopardize the social dimension of sustainability, then what particular policy responses foster

7 social sustainability? Moreover, what accounts for the differential ability of cities to develop socially sustainable policies? I answer the first question by developing an analytic framework that uses specific criteria to measure the social sustainability of policy decisions made in six policy areas. I answer the second question by testing the theoretical propositions of two major sociological theories of social policy development in order to identify the institutional and political factors that account for the differential ability of cities to develop socially sustainable policies. In the following subsection, I provide an overview of the dissertation, focusing specifically on what I discuss in each chapter.

Overview of the Dissertation

This dissertation is organized in the following manner. In Chapter 2, I review literature on the evolving conceptualization of social sustainability. I begin by highlighting how the social dimension of sustainability has historically been underemphasized in sustainability research. I also focus on how the body of literature on social sustainability is highly fragmented, partly due to the fact that conceptualizations of the concept are as varied as the academic disciplines that have tried to address it. I then provide an overview of the various ways that social sustainability has been assessed by focusing on two comparative analytic frameworks that have been developed to assess the relative social sustainability of urban policy decisions and urban regeneration initiatives. Finally, I identify the criteria that I will later use to determine the social sustainability of policy decisions made in my sample cities by focusing on research that assesses the social sustainability of policy in six areas: housing, transportation, food, leisure and recreation, social cohesion, and identity and sense of place.

In Chapter 3, I review the literature on institutional politics theory and power constellations theory and select three theoretical propositions from each theory that I will test in my second analysis chapter. Both theories are “middle-range” theories of social policy development that look at how different combinations of institutional and political factors shape social policy outcomes. Institutional politics theory maintains that the level of democratization, the nature of political party systems, the fragmentation of political institutions and authority and the relative level of governmental or bureaucratic capacity mediates the effect that reform- oriented regimes and pro-spending social movements have in shaping social policy outcomes

(Amenta and Poulsen 1996; Amenta 1998; Amenta and Halfmann 2000; Amenta, Bonastia and

Caren 2001). Power constellations theory argues that differential political articulation of class interests shapes social policy outcomes with “power constellations” comprised of strong labor unions, mobilized working women and center/left political parties being most favorable for the development of generous social policy (Huber, Rueschemeyer and Stephens 1993; Huber,

Rueschemeyer and Stephens 1997; Huber and Stephens 2001; Huber, Mustillo and Stephens

2004; Huber and Stephens 2004; Huber, Nielsen, Pribble and Stephens 2005; Huber, Stephens,

Bradley, Moller and Nielsen 2009).

In Chapter 4, I provide information about my sample cities, discuss my method of data collection, describe the types of data that I use in my analysis chapters, illustrate my research methodology, and talk about limitations in my data. I begin by providing some basic background information about each of my sample cities including population, total number of households, population by gender, population by race, and median age. I then move on to a more detailed discussion of my cities’ differences and similarities. Afterwards, I talk about how I collected data for my dissertation and describe the types of data I collected for each of my analysis chapters.

Subsequently, I describe how I constructed my comparative analytic framework and discuss how

I assign social sustainability scores to each of my sample cities. I also review the methods I use in order to test the theoretical propositions of institutional politics theory and power constellations theory. Finally, I outline some of the difficulties that I experienced while collecting data and highlight some of the limitations of my data.

In Chapter 5, I analyze policies in the six aforementioned policy areas in each of my three sample cities. For each policy area, I assess whether policy decisions meet social sustainability criteria from my SSAF. For housing policy, I assess whether policies facilitate the development of social, mixed-income and supportive housing and support housing stability. For transportation policy, I determine whether policy decisions allow for multi-modal competition and increased access to transit for the disabled, the poor and the elderly. For food policy, I analyze the extent to which policy decisions increase food security for vulnerable and marginalized members of the community by improving access to farmers markets, community gardens and community kitchens. For leisure and recreation policy, I establish whether there are policies that improve access to programs and facilities for young, elderly, disabled and low-income residents. For policy that addresses social cohesion, I investigate whether my sample cities have created policies that include and integrate residents from diverse backgrounds into social life and increase access to available resources and services. Finally, for policy that addresses identity and sense of place, I assess whether there are policies in place that support historical preservation of neighborhoods and include citizen participation and input in the planning process.

In Chapter 6, I conduct a test of selected theoretical propositions from institutional politics theory and power constellations theory in order to determine which theory better explains the relative difference in socially sustainable policy decisions in my three sample cities.

For institutional politics theory, I test the following three theoretical propositions: low levels of institutional fragmentation lead to development of social policy, high levels of governmental or bureaucratic capacity lead to development of social policy, and high levels of citizen participation in decision-making lead to development of social policy. For power constellations theory, I test the following three theoretical propositions: strength of organized labor leads to development of social policy, high percentage of women’s participation in the labor force leads to development of social policy, and strong center/left political parties lead to development of social policy. If institutional politics theory is the better explanatory tool, I would expect to find the city with the most socially sustainable policies to have metropolitan governance agencies and other examples of low levels of institutional fragmentation, the fiscal and governmental capacity to operationalize social sustainability through the development of policy and the presence of institutions that allow for citizen participation in the decision making process. If power constellations theory is the better fit, I would expect to find the city with the most socially sustainable policies to have a strong, local organized labor movement, a high percentage of women in the labor force and the presence of strong center-left or social democratic political parties in the municipal or metropolitan government.

In Chapter 7, I review my findings and talk about future avenues of research. First, I discuss my contributions to the conceptualization and assessment of urban social sustainability. I show how I selected criteria from the fragmented body of literature on social sustainability to create a social sustainability assessment framework (SSAF) that utilizes both “hard” and “soft” thematic dimensions of social sustainability. I then show how I used this framework to assess the relative social sustainability of my sample cities and discuss the results of my analysis. Second, I discuss how I contributed to an increased understanding of how institutional and political factors

11 shape urban social sustainability outcomes. I achieve this by testing selected theoretical propositions from institutional politics theory and power constellations theory in order to see which theory better explains the differential social sustainability of my sample cities. Finally, I discuss limitations of my project, suggest future avenues for research and talk about the implications that my research has on the social sustainability of cities.

CHAPTER 2

CONCEPTUALIZING AND MEASURING SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY

While sustainable development, as defined by the Brundtland Report and the various conferences that followed, is theoretically composed of the three interdependent dimensions of environmental, economic, and social sustainability, it is clear that not all three dimensions of sustainable development have received equal attention by academics and decision makers

(Therivel 2004; Drakakis-Smith 1995; Metzner 2000). In particular, the social dimension of sustainability has historically been under emphasized in relation to the other two dimensions of sustainability which has resulted in the concept of social sustainability having little “implicit meaning” (Maloutas 2003; Marcuse 1998). This is due, in part, to a lack of consensus on how to conceptualize and assess social sustainability.

In this chapter, I begin by discussing the fragmented approach to conceptualizing social sustainability. I then discuss the ways that social sustainability has been assessed by looking at two comparative analytic frameworks that have been developed to measure the relative social sustainability of urban policy decisions and urban regeneration initiatives. Subsequently, I look at how social sustainability has been discussed within the context of six specific urban policy areas (housing, transportation, food, leisure and recreation, social cohesion, and identity and sense of place). Finally, I synthesize and adapt a selection of contemporary conceptualizations and assessment methods of social sustainability and create a social sustainability assessment framework (SSAF) that is appropriate for measuring the relative social sustainability of urban policy in selected North American cities.

Fragmented Conceptualizations of Social Sustainability

In this section, I focus on the fragmented approaches to conceptualizing social sustainability. I begin by illustrating the variety of multi-disciplinary approaches to conceptualizing social sustainability and the wide variety of social sustainability themes that have been reviewed in the literature. I then discuss a variety of issues that have hindered the ability of scholars to develop a clear definition or a straightforward means of assessing social sustainability. After this, I focus specifically on social sustainability’s lack of theoretical grounding, the inability of researchers to reach consensus on whether social sustainability is a process or a goal of sustainable development, and the “post-political” critique of social sustainability. Finally, I review some recent trends in social sustainability conceptualization, including the transition from “hard” to “soft” social sustainability themes and the emphasis on managing diversity in contemporary urban settings.

Social sustainability has been researched by scholars from a number of academic disciplines who have focused on a wide variety of themes and topics related to social sustainability (Polese and Stren 2000; Chiu 2004; Littig and Griesler 2005; Colantonio and

Dixon 2009; Bramley and Power 2009; Mak and Peacock 2011; Colantonio and Dixon 2011;

Ghahramanpouri, Lamit and Sedaghatnia 2013). In recent years, social sustainability has been discussed by scholars from urban planning, geography, policy studies, urban design and other academic disciplines (Ghahramanpouri et al. 2013). In their quest to conceptualize social sustainability, these scholars have focused on a wide variety of topics including, but not limited to, quality of life, education, social justice, community participation, recreation, human rights, labor rights, corporate governance, social cohesion, racial/ethnic diversity, social equity, work, gender, urban form and more (Polese and Stren 2000; Chiu 2004; Littig and Griesler 2005;

Colantonio and Dixon 2009; Bramley and Power 2009; Mak and Peacock 2011; Colantonio and

Dixon 2009; Colantonio and Dixon 2011). Because of the interdisciplinary approach and the wide variety social sustainability themes covered in social sustainability research, the existing body of literature on social sustainability is highly fragmented and complex.

There is a general lack of differentiation between certain dimensions of social sustainability which has led to disagreement on how to define and assess social sustainability

(Littig and Griesler 2005; Davidson 2009).This lack of agreement on how to conceptualize social sustainability may be partly due to the fact that there is no clear differentiation between the political, normative and analytical dimensions of social sustainability (Littig and Griesler

2005:69). This is in stark contrast to the environmental dimension of sustainability, which according to Davidson (2009), carries such a significant amount of normative weight that most people automatically consider environmental concerns when thinking about the concept of sustainability. Littig and Griesler (2005) also argue that most attempts at conceptualizing social sustainability are rooted in feasibility and current political agendas instead of being theoretically grounded. In sum, scholars argue that the literature on social sustainability indicates a lack of differentiation between the dimensions of the concept, a lack of normative meaning and a lack of theoretical grounding. Together, these trends have led to a lack of consensus on how to define or assess social sustainability.

To counter the trend of social sustainability conceptualizations not being rooted in theory,

Littig and Griessler (2005:71-72) devise a sociological theory of social sustainability that focuses on the relationship between “needs” and “work.” The authors extend the definition of “needs” beyond the classic “basic needs” interpretation of the term (e.g. food, housing, clothing, sexuality, health care, healthy environment, potable water, freedom from bodily harm, and

15 protection in case of illness, old age and social hardship) by including factors such as education, recreation/leisure, social relationships, and self-fulfillment. Littig and Griessler (2005:71) also emphasize the role of “work” as a key role for social sustainability since it is the primary way that citizens satisfy their “needs.” More specifically, they emphasize the role of women’s paid work and a “gender sensible social and welfare policy” as a central feature of any social sustainability initiative (Littig and Griessler 2005:76). This conceptualization of social sustainability is rooted in sociological theory, extends the classic interpretation of basic needs and focuses specifically on the importance of women’s paid labor.

Other scholars are in disagreement about whether social sustainability is a social process, an end state, or a quality possessed by some cities and not by others. In Sachs’ (1999) view, for instance, social sustainability is a socio-historical process fueled by human ingenuity and limited only by the constraints of the natural environment. This perspective conceptualizes social sustainability as a process that cannot be reduced to a simplistic zero-one calculation, with

“zero” indicating lack of sustainability and “one” indicating sustainability. Assefa and Frostell

(2007) take a different approach to conceptualizing social sustainability. They maintain that social sustainability is the end state or result of sustainable development while the environmental and economic dimensions of sustainability should be viewed as both goals of sustainability and the tools needed for its achievement (Asseffa and Frostell 2007). McKenzie (2004) conceptualizes social sustainability as both a process and a quality possessed by some communities. Specifically, the author defines social sustainability as a “life-enhancing condition within communities, and a process within communities that can achieve that condition”

(McKenzie 2004:12).While some scholars view social sustainability as a process that is only

16 limited by the availability of natural resources, others view social sustainability as a goal of sustainable development or a quality possessed by some communities but not by others.

A lack of attention to political factors has caused some researchers to criticize the development of social sustainability policy as “technocratic” or “post-political” in nature. More specifically, Davidson (2010) argues that attempts to implement social sustainability policy are inherently post political because they shift attention away from redistributive politics towards more “technocratic” policy oriented “fixes” that do not jeopardize the existing power dynamics and institutional arrangements of contemporary societies. Drawing connections between the sustainability movement and larger political processes, many contemporary researchers have extended the “post-political” or “technocratic” critique. For example, Keil (2007:61) argues that sustainability is “connected intrinsically to the demise of the Fordist-Keynesian regime of accumulation and the emergence of a globalized neoliberal, post-Fordist regime under American hegemony.” Similarly, Maloutas (2003:168) suggests that the political pragmatism surrounding the framing of social sustainability policy signifies a “general withdrawal from radical objectives of social equality and justice in favor of the less ambitious objectives of social cohesion, solidarity and inclusion.” Taken together, these conceptualizations argue that social sustainability has emerged as a feasible and politically expedient goal that has replaced more radical goals related to social and political change.

Additional conceptualizations of social sustainability emphasize maintenance of social arrangements that balance democratic political activity. Pares and Sauri (2007:165) argue that

“social or sociocultural sustainability may be understood as one that pursues the stability of social and cultural systems or that guarantees the durability of social capital within a particular society. The objective therefore is to maintain the interactions between individuals and social

17 networks as well as the trust and reciprocity norms that arise from these interactions.” Similarly,

Baehler (2007:27) focuses on the notion of balance and maintenance when he states that “we might venture to define social and political (or ‘nationhood’) sustainability as the ability of a society to resist internal forces of decay while also maintaining and reproducing the background social, cultural, and institutional conditions necessary for healthy democratic social relations to flourish.” These conceptualizations portray social sustainability as a balancing mechanism between social and cultural systems and a force for the maintenance of conditions that are necessary for the functioning of democracy.

One recent trend in the body of work on social sustainability is the gradual broadening of social sustainability themes. Yiftachel and Hedgcock’s (1993) conceptualization of urban social sustainability highlights this trend in social sustainability research by focusing on the transition from traditional “hard” social sustainability themes such as employment, equity and poverty reduction to a newly emerging set of “soft” social sustainability themes such as happiness, sense of place and social cohesion. For the authors, “the socially sustainable city is marked by vitality, solidarity and a common sense of place among its residents. Such a city is also characterized by a lack of overt or violent intergroup conflict, conspicuous spatial segregation, or chronic political instability” (Yiftachel and Hedgcock 1993:140). This conceptualization emphasizes both “hard” themes (such as poverty reduction) and “soft” themes (such as social cohesion and sense of place).

Another recent trend in social sustainability research is the increasing emphasis on cities and the inclusion of issues related to policies, institutions and diversity. In “The Social

Sustainability of Cities: Diversity and the Management of Change,” Polese and Stren (2000:3) refer to social sustainability as the “policies and institutions that have the overall effect of

18 integrating diverse groups and cultural practices in a just and equitable fashion.” More specifically, they describe social sustainability as “development that is compatible with harmonious evolutions of civil society, fostering an environment conducive to the compatible cohabitation of culturally and socially diverse groups while at the same time encouraging social integration, with improvements in the quality of life for all segments of the population” (Polese and Stren 2000:15-16). In their definition of social sustainability, Polese and Stren (2000) focus on the tension between economic development and social integration of diverse groups. Indeed,

Polese and Stren (2000) suggest that social inclusion of diverse groups, or “management of diversity” to quote the title of their book, is the main challenge that today’s cities face. This conceptualization of social sustainability is more focused and specific. Polese and Stren (2000) focus on how policies and institutions of the modern city manage increasing levels of ethnic and racial diversity and argue that social sustainability is inextricably linked to social integration of diverse groups.

In summation, contemporary research on social sustainability is characterized by a high degree of fragmentation. Scholars from various disciplines have conceptualized social sustainability in a variety of ways. These multi-disciplinary approaches have resulted in a lack of normative meaning for social sustainability, a lack of agreement on how to define and assess the concept, and a lack of theoretical grounding. Additionally, while some scholars define social sustainability as a social process, others frame the concept as an end-state or goal related to sustainable development. Another group of scholars couches their discussions of social sustainability in contemporary dialogues about neoliberal politics and democracy. Other conceptualizations of social sustainability include subjective dimensions such as social cohesion and sense of place. A more recent trend within social sustainability conceptualization focuses on

19 how urban policies and institutions facilitate the integration of diverse groups. In the next section, I discuss how the recent emphasis on cities, institutions and policies has contributed to the development of comparative analytic frameworks that are being used to assess urban social sustainability in a number of contexts.

Assessment Frameworks and Urban Social Sustainability

In this section, I focus on the assessment of urban social sustainability. I do this by looking at two comparative analytic frameworks that have been developed to measure urban social sustainability. The first framework, referred to as the “institutional-territorial nexus,” assesses the relative social sustainability of urban policy decisions in six specific policy areas

(Polese and Stren 2000). This framework is used to analyze the social sustainability of policy decisions made in each of the policy areas in a selection of cities from around the world. The second framework, referred to as a social sustainability assessment framework (SSAF), uses a variety of criteria to assess the relative social sustainability features of modern urban regeneration initiatives (Colantonio and Dixon 2011). While both frameworks have been developed to assess urban social sustainability, there are a number of limitations that I discuss at the end of this section and in the next section.

The first comparative analytic framework was developed as part of the United Nations

Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO) Management of Social

Transformations (MOST) program. The MOST program, which was launched in 1994, was developed in order to produce high-quality interdisciplinary social scientific research that is cross-national and comparative in scope (UNESCO Social and Human Sciences Sector MOST

Programme 2013). As part of this project, Mario Polese and Richard Stren (2000) edited a book

20 entitled The Social Sustainability of Cities: Diversity and the Management of Change. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, the authors argue that one of the main concerns of modern cities is managing increasing levels of diversity. According to Polese and Stren (2000), a city’s social sustainability is directly related to its ability to successfully integrate diverse populations of urban residents. In order to assess the social sustainability of cities around the world, the authors developed an “institutional-territorial nexus” of six policy areas designed to act as an analytic framework for comparative research on urban social sustainability policy. These six policy areas include governance, social and cultural policies, social infrastructure and public services, urban land and housing, urban transport and accessibility, and employment, economic revitalization, and the building of inclusive public spaces. These specific policy areas were chosen because they address the relationship between the changing socio-cultural dynamics of cities and the matrix of factors that serve as prerequisites and policy reflections of sustainable urban development (Polese and Stren 2000:15). This framework is comprised of six broad policy areas and was developed in order to assess the extent to which cities are able to integrate residents of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds.

In order to test the analytic capabilities of the framework, the authors apply the institutional territorial nexus to case studies of ten cities from around the world. The cities used in the analysis include four from North America (Montreal, Toronto, Miami and Baltimore), two from Western Europe (Geneva and Rotterdam), two from Latin America (San Salvador and Sao

Paulo) and two from Africa (Nairobi and Cape Town) (Polese and Stren 2000:5-7). In general, each city is analyzed in relation to one or more of the aforementioned policy areas instead of all of the cities being analyzed based on their performance in all six of the policy areas. For instance, Montreal, Toronto and Rotterdam are analyzed in order to determine how the

21 reorganization of metropolitan governance structures has either facilitated or hampered social sustainability. In Sao Paulo, the authors examine how pressure from non-governmental organizations (NGOs), human rights groups and grass roots housing movements led to the development of the National Low-Cost Housing Fund and analyze the effect of this policy on social sustainability. In Cape Town, the authors examined how reorganization of the local governance system incorporated formerly white municipalities and non-white townships into unified and democratically elected councils (Polese and Stren 2000:10-11). Thus, the institutional territorial nexus was used to analyze the social sustainability of cities in one or more policy areas.

As part of their research, Polese and Stren (2000) use examples from city-specific case studies to highlight policy decisions that either facilitate or hamper social sustainability. For instance, the authors use findings from the case studies of Miami and Baltimore to suggest that cities with underdeveloped public transit and well developed urban highway systems often foster social exclusion and promote inner-city decline by allowing suburban residents to drive directly into downtown without coming into contact with “undesirable” inner-city dwellers and supporting a car dependent built environment that curtails the development of lively, walkable urban spaces. This is in stark contrast to Geneva and Rotterdam, which have highly developed public transit systems, do not have highways crossing the center of town and are characterized by vibrant and socially-mixed downtown areas (Polese and Stren 2000:316). The cities of Montreal and Toronto are used to exemplify the positive effect that central transfers and metropolitan governance have on social sustainability and the provision of services. In Canada, which is characterized by central transfers, primary education is funded at the provincial level, with all schools getting an equal amount of funding regardless of geographical location. In the U.S.,

22 which is characterized by greater levels of fiscal decentralization, primary schools are funded at the local level primarily through property taxes which are levied by local school boards. This ensures that the quality of primary schools is largely dependent on the local tax base.

Consequently, in the U.S., location and socio-economic status of residents will determine the quality of schools in metropolitan areas that are divided into municipalities of varying wealth, while in Canada there are far fewer differences in the quality of primary schools based on geographic location due to the more egalitarian effect of central transfer funding (Polese and

Stren 2000:321). Examples of socially sustainable policy decisions include multi-modal transportation networks that promote the use of public transit and the funding of public services through central transfers rather than fiscal decentralization.

The second comparative analytic framework, known as a social sustainability assessment framework (SSAF), was developed to assess the social sustainability of urban regeneration initiatives (Colantonio and Dixon 2009; Colantonio and Dixon 2011). This framework is based on existing conceptualizations of social sustainability, case study analysis and contemporary

European Union (EU) sustainable development policy (Colantonio and Dixon 2009:70). The purpose of the framework is to: 1.) provide practical and simplified guidance to identify, assess and measure key broad social impacts of single development projects; 2.) rank ex-ante project proposals according to their consideration of social sustainability themes; 3.) monitor ex-post the social sustainability performance of projects against baseline indicators; and 4.) identify areas for improvement of project proposals in terms of particular social sustainability aspects (Colantonio and Dixon 2009:70). This framework assesses the social sustainability of urban regeneration initiatives both before and after implementation.

The SSAF exemplifies contemporary trends in social sustainability assessment. This framework builds on existing analytic frameworks by incorporating “hard” themes (Housing,

Education, Employment, Health and Demographic Change) and “soft” themes (Social Mixing,

Social Cohesion, Identity, Sense of Place, Culture, Social Capital, Well-Being, Happiness and

Quality of Life) that often focus on subjective perceptions. The SSAF also includes indicators that measure political and institutional factors (Empowerment, Participation and Access). Of particular importance to the authors are the indicators that measure institutional and political factors. In fact, the authors argue that “participation in interactive governance and public involvement in the planning of development projects have been regarded as fundamental elements of social sustainability and the delivery of sustainable development policies”

(Colantonio and Dixon 2011:25). This framework incorporates new trends in social sustainability assessment by incorporating hard and soft social sustainability policy dimensions and including indicators that take institutional and political factors into consideration.

In order to test the efficacy of their framework, the authors use the SSAF to analyze the social sustainability of urban regeneration initiatives in European cities. In their analysis, the authors focus on five case studies: La Mina in Sant Adria de Besos, Spain; Leipziger Osten in

Leipzig, Germany; Porta Palazzo in Turin, Italy; Roath Basin in Cardiff, Wales; and South Pact in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. In La Mina, the construction of free market housing helped to stimulate social mixing, social targets were created to establish social sustainability benchmarks that could be compared to Barcelona as a whole and faith groups and community leaders played a vital role in the regeneration process (Colantonio and Dixon 2009:38-39). In Leipziger Osten, vertically and horizontally integrated management and monitoring systems allowed for efficient oversight while flexible long-term funding supported the initiative (Colantonio and Dixon

2009:45). In Porta Palazzo, the location of the regeneration agency in the main square of the development allowed for the creation of a neighborhood forum, which increased citizen involvement and lowered criminal activity while home improvement loans improved sense of attachment to the area (Colantonio and Dixon 2009:53-54). In Roath Basin, the development of a socially responsible investment (SRI) framework initiated by Igloo, the regeneration agency, was instrumental in assessing the social sustainability of the project while a legacy fund provided an effective post-project sustainability strategy (Colantonio and Dixon 2009:59). In South Pact, the

City of Rotterdam implemented a number of indicator systems, such as the Sociale Index and the

Safety Index, in order to monitor the social sustainability of the regeneration project and linked regeneration with other municipal development while private sector housing agencies helped to provide high quality housing and service provision and reduce the stigma of mixed-income neighborhoods (Colantonio and Dixon 2009:68-69). In sum, the SSAF was used to identify socially sustainable regeneration practices rather than being used to compare how each city performed in relation to each other.

Ultimately, each comparative analytic framework contributes to a greater understanding of how to assess different dimensions of urban social sustainability. Polese and Stren’s (2000) institutional-territorial nexus is comprised of six policy areas and was used to analyze case studies of ten cities from around the world. The analysis shows that socially sustainable policies are those that integrate diverse populations within urban contexts. These types of policies include, but are not limited to, multi-modal transportation policies that support public transportation rather than the use of the automobile and the funding of public services through central transfers rather than through fiscal decentralization. Colantonio and Dixon’s (2009, 2011)

SSAF is comprised of 15 indicators that represent hard and soft social sustainability themes and

25 institutional and political considerations. The SSAF was used to assess the social sustainability of urban regeneration initiatives in five European cities. The analysis shows that different cities have different strengths regarding the social sustainability of their urban regeneration projects.

Because of these two analytic frameworks, we now know more about what policies are being utilized to support integration of diverse groups in cities around the world and what types of urban regeneration projects foster social sustainability.

Even though each of the comparative analytic frameworks has increased our understanding of what makes urban regions more socially sustainable, there are a number of limitations that need to be addressed. The policy areas used in the institutional-territorial nexus are very broad and each area could potentially be divided into several dimensions. Furthermore, the institutional-territorial nexus is used to analyze cities in relation to one or more of the aforementioned policy areas instead of being used to analyze all of the cities based on their performance in all six of the policy areas. The SSAF has a more specific and comprehensive list of social sustainability indicators that is based on hard and soft social sustainability themes and institutional and political factors, but the scope of the SSAF is limited because it is only used to look at regeneration initiatives rather than policy at the municipal or metropolitan level. In the section on synthesizing and modifying conceptualizations and assessment methods of social sustainability, I address these limitations in more detail focusing specifically on how I plan to draw from the existing literature on social sustainability to create a SSAF that is comprehensive and appropriate for a cross-national comparative assessment of urban social sustainability policy.

In the next section, I review the literature on social sustainability of urban policy.

Social Sustainability of Urban Policy

In this section, I review the research on social sustainability of six urban policy areas.

While some scholars have focused on conceptualizing social sustainability or creating analytic frameworks in order to compare case studies, others have focused more on specific policy areas.

This line of research blends the theoretical with the empirical and attempts to either create policy specific analytic frameworks or develop criteria that can be used to measure the social sustainability of policy choices made in certain areas of urban policy. The policy areas that I discuss focus on housing, transportation, food, leisure and recreation, social cohesion and identity and sense of place.

Housing

Bramley and Power’s (2009) analysis of housing in the U.K. focuses on the relationship between residential density and social sustainability. The authors find that increased levels of residential density worsen neighborhood problems and dissatisfaction while, at the same time, improving access to local services. They also identify five important elements that facilitate social sustainability at the neighborhood level: interaction with other residents or social networks; participation in collective community activities; pride or sense of place; residential stability (versus turnover); and security (lack of crime and disorder) (Bramley and Power

2009:33). Each of the five elements is differentially associated with levels of residential density.

Overall, their findings challenge previous research that found higher density levels to be associated with a greater chance of meeting and communicating with other community members, thereby creating a “greater sense of community” among local residents (Glynn 1981; Nasar and

Julian 1995; Talen 1999; Duany and Plater-Zyberk 2001). They criticize the assumption that

27 residential density has a positive, linear relationship with social interaction. Instead, they argue that these effects are most closely associated with medium levels of density, rather than the highest possible levels of urban density. Overall, this line of research identifies five important components of neighborhood level social sustainability and finds that the relationship between residential density and components of social sustainability is non-linear.

Additional research on housing in U.K. cities has generated similar findings. In an analysis of five medium sized British cities, researchers also found that the relationship between residential density and elements of neighborhood sustainability was complex and non-linear

(Bramley, Dempsey, Power, Brown and Watkins 2009). More specifically, they found that outcomes related to neighborhood pride and attachment, housing stability, safety, environmental quality and home satisfaction all displayed negative, non-linear relationships with density while outcomes related to social interaction and group participation improve at the medium level of density. The outcomes with the strongest negative relationship to residential density were found to be home satisfaction and safety, which the authors argue is part of the rationale for the preference for medium and low density settlements among some urban and suburban dwellers in the U.K. (Bramley et al. 2009:2139). This body of work extends previous research on the relationship between residential density and urban social sustainability and supports previous findings.

Chiu (2004) develops a framework for analyzing the socio-cultural sustainability of housing. The framework consists of five distinct aspects: the social preconditions conducive to the production and consumption of environmentally sustainable housing; equitable distribution and consumption of housing resources and assets; harmonious social relations within the housing system; acceptable quality of housing conditions and preservation of housing heritage (Chiu

2004:69). While Chiu identifies five distinct aspects of socio-cultural sustainability in her analytic framework, she makes it clear that she does not provide sustainability criteria for each aspect for three reasons. First, Chiu states that it is impossible to provide universal standards for socio-cultural sustainability of housing given the socio-cultural and geographical diversity of human settlements and that it is better for localities to develop their own standards based on consensus. Second, she states that environmental sustainability is so recent that societies are still in the process of facilitating “green consciousness” of housing rather than focusing on ultimate targets. Third, she maintains that monitoring trends by using qualitative and quantitative indicators is more meaningful than defining standards of sustainability at this stage (Chiu

2004:75). While this framework identifies five aspects of socio-culturally sustainable housing, it does not provide specific criteria that can be used to assess the socio-cultural sustainability of housing.

Strandbakken and Heidenstrom (2011) analyze case studies of housing initiatives in selected European countries and identify the social sustainability components of those initiatives.

While their larger sample comes from the EU 27 (all 27 countries that are currently in the

European Union), they focus specifically on four countries in their analysis: Ireland, Finland,

Belgium and Romania. They found that each country focuses on a different dimension of social sustainability in their housing initiatives. Ireland focuses on mixed-income social housing developments, Finland focuses on providing housing to homeless residents in order to abolish long-term homelessness, Belgium emphasizes housing for the disabled by building adapted housing for people with special mobility needs and Romania develops more rental housing for young single residents and young families (Strandbakken and Heidenstrom 2011:3). This study identifies specific housing strategies that have been implemented by various European countries

29 and illustrates the wide variety of policies that have been used to foster social sustainability of housing.

Transportation

Research on the social sustainability of transportation has consistently emphasized the positive effects of multi-modal transportation on other areas of urban life. Mercier (2009), for instance, identified a connection between policy decisions made in the area of urban transportation and other factors such as social justice, equity, health, land use and environmental issues. The interdependent nature of these factors is due to the fact that sustainable and equitable urban life can be understood as a “bundle of tangled elements” that is “design sensitive”

(Mercier 2009:145). In other words, “the way we build our urban areas, how we design them in terms of land use and transportation especially, has important consequences on other factors, particularly health, the environment, and social equity” (Mercier 2009:149). When comparing land use policies that emphasize public transit, walking or cycling to land use policies that prioritize the personal automobile as the primary mode of transit, it is clear that the former land use strategy is more socially inclusive and the latter land use strategy is more socially exclusive

(Mercier 2009:149). Moreover, because of the interdependent quality of urban policy, cities that invest in quality public transit while also focusing on land use that allows for multi-use development of commercial, residential and leisure and recreation space are more likely to make the use of the automobile “optional but not compulsory for more urban citizens” thereby facilitating social inclusion of residents who, for various reasons, do not want to or cannot use an automobile for transportation (Mercier 2009:160). Mercier’s (2009) research finds that urban land use and transportation planning are highly interdependent and that emphasis on multi-use

30 development and multi-modal transportation planning have positive effects on social inclusion and equity.

Research by Litman and Brenman (2012) argues that social equity impact analysis should be integrated into transport policy decision making processes in order to incorporate social equity and environmental justice considerations into transport policy initiatives. Sadly, according to the authors, the contemporary trend in many transport policy initiatives favors mobility over accessibility and automobile travel over other modes of travel. Emphasizing mobility and automobile based transport is inequitable in several ways. First, there is a horizontally inequitable distribution of transport funding which results in non-drivers receiving less than their fair share of transportation funding in most jurisdictions. For example, between 10-20% of trips are made by non-motorized means while approximately 2-5% of total governmental expenditures focus on the development and maintenance of infrastructure that caters to non-motorized modes of travel Second, a higher proportion of governmental funding for infrastructure that is intended for motorized modes of travel results in wider roads, higher traffic volumes and speeds, more pollution and other issues which adversely and disproportionately affect residents who use non- motorized modes of transport. Third, because physically, economically and socially disadvantaged residents tend to use walking, cycling and public transit at higher rates, they are the ones who are most likely to feel the effects of these policy choices (Litman and Brenman

2012:5). In sum, these policy biases have resulted in a form of transport system discrimination that disproportionately affects the disabled and the poor (Litman and Brenman 2012:2). Based on their findings, the authors suggest recommendations for a new social equity oriented urban transport agenda that incorporates social equity analysis in all planning stages, recognizes the value of transport system diversity, focuses on functional factors (disability and poverty) rather

31 than demographic factors (race/ethnicity and age), supports pricing reforms that benefit marginalized residents and develops comprehensive, high quality public transport systems with commuter bus and urban rail (Litman and Brenman 2012:14). Litman and Brenman’s (2012) research shows that including social equity impact analysis into transportation policy initiatives can prevent horizontally inequitable transportation funding, disproportionate funding for motorized vehicle infrastructure, and negative impacts for residents who do not use motorized vehicles as the primary mode of transport.

Research by Atkins (2008) and Lucas (2013) also indicates that contemporary transport policies have tended to favor mobility over accessibility and that this trend has hampered the social sustainability of urban transportation systems. In order to address these issues, both authors suggest key transport policy decisions that can foster higher levels of social sustainability. Atkins (2008:5-7) suggests that accessibility planning that improves access to activities that enhance life satisfaction is one of the most important social sustainability goals of urban transport systems. Atkins (2008:8) also argues that urban transport can combat social exclusion by helping residents overcome local disadvantages, gain access to better jobs, educational opportunities, social services and recreational activities. Lucas (2013:5) defines socially sustainable mobility as “achieving the mobility that is necessary to maintain a reasonable quality of life while respecting the limits of the Earth’s capacity.” Socially sustainable mobility, according to Lucas (2013:5), is comprised of five elements: equal opportunity to be mobile and participate in key activities, actual and perceived levels of safety, freedom from pollution and the promotion of healthy travel, absence of adverse effects from transport system and having a voice in the decision-making process. Lucas (2013) and Atkins (2008) identify the recent trend towards mobility in transport and argue that the dominance of mobility as a

32 consideration has come at the expense of a more socially sustainable transport model that focuses on accessibility.

Goldman and Gorham (2006) review sustainable urban transport initiatives and group them into a typology with four categories: new mobility, city logistics, intelligent system management and livability. New mobility initiatives utilize innovative technology and business models to provide competitive alternatives to the automobile as the dominant mode of transport.

These types of strategies emphasize provision of real-time travel information to residents, fare integration techniques, carsharing programs, bikesharing programs, and auto-free housing developments (Goldman and Gorham 2006:266-68). City logistics strategies focus on making urban freight policy more environmentally sustainable and increasing the economic efficiency of urban freight operations by focusing on neighborhood drop off points, centralized urban distribution and logistics centers, construction logistics and environmental zones (Goldman and

Gorham 2006:268-69). Intelligent system management involves introducing new system management and pricing techniques such as congestion charging, comprehensive bus system management, automated traffic enforcement and comprehensive business plans in order to

“contribute to urban sustainability by ensuring that the historical centers of metropolitan areas remain economically competitive” (Goldman and Gorham 2006:269-70). Finally, livability strategies often focus on “accessibility, the allocation and design of public space, opportunities for social engagement and recreation, and the overall health and economic welfare of city residents” (Goldman and Gorham 2006:270). More specifically, livability strategies emphasize pedestrian realms, breaking the driving routine, bus rapid transit and shared space (Goldman and

Gorham 2006:270-71). Goldman and Gorham’s (2006) research groups contemporary

33 sustainable urban transport initiatives into four different types and emphasizes issues related to technology, urban freight policy, system management, pricing techniques and accessibility.

Food

One of the key themes in research on the social sustainability of food systems and policy is food security. The World Health Organization defines food security as existing “when all people at all times have access to sufficient, safe, nutritious food to maintain a healthy and active life” (World Health Organization 1996). Lack of food security, or food insecurity, can be defined as “the inability to obtain sufficient, nutritious, personally acceptable food through normal food channels or the uncertainty that one will be able to do so” (Davis and Tarasuk 1994:51). Elaine

Power’s (2009:31) research on Canadian food security found that the first food bank to open in

Canada since the Great Depression opened in 1981, and by 1997, 501 communities in Canada had opened food banks. For Power (2009), this is strong evidence of the growing food insecurity in Canada.

Elaine Power (2009) identified two major approaches to conceptualizing food security: the anti-poverty or social justice approach and the sustainable food systems approach. The anti- poverty approach to food security views food insecurity as being tied to largo macro-level structural issues such as high unemployment, polarization of the job market, minimum wages below the poverty line, inadequate welfare benefits, high costs of housing, regressive taxation policies, offloading of social programs to smaller units of government like urban regions and municipalities and unequal distribution of wealth (Power 2009:31). According to this view, increasing food security involves raising awareness about inequality and poverty and focusing on increasing income security. The sustainable food systems approach to food security focuses on

34 the production, distribution, preparation, consumption, recycling and disposal of food products and links ideas of sustainable agriculture with ideas related to social justice by focusing on how both poverty and unsustainable agricultural policies are rooted in the larger capitalist system

(Clancy 1994; Power 2009:32). While both approaches address food security, the anti-poverty approach focuses on macro-level structural issues that affect food security while the sustainable food systems approach focuses on the various ways that food is produced, distributed and disposed of.

Two types of food security projects associated with the sustainable food systems approach include alternative food distribution and marketing projects and “self provisioning” activities (Power 2009:33). Alternative food distribution and marketing includes farmers markets and community supported agriculture projects while “self provisioning” activities include efforts on behalf of residents to grow, preserve, and prepare their own foods, often in a collaborative setting through community gardening and community kitchens programs. For Power (2009), these types of food security projects are considered to be “community development food projects.” Community development food projects are seen as affording the poor more dignity than charitable food distribution, like food pantries or food banks, because they teach self- reliance, education and skill building and they foster relationships between urban consumers and small farmers (Power 2009:33).

Other researchers focus more specifically on the anti-capitalist dimension of community development food projects. Frazer and Lacey (1993) argue that community food projects are guided by communitarian ideals, whose appeal rests in a pervasive feeling of alienation and a fear that community centered ideals such as solidarity and reciprocity are disintegrating. In this view, coming together with other concerned residents in a community development food project

35 allows people to rediscover communitarian ideals that are disappearing rapidly. Other scholars take a more critical, Marxist approach. Gerry and Connolly (1985) argue that community development food projects allow participants to escape from capitalist relations of production, experience release from the alienation of work, connect with nature and unite with a well defined community. Jolly (1997) maintains that community development food projects and other forms of urban agriculture have become essential for the poor in societies where the food system has essentially become two-tiered with one tier being comprised of a market based system for the rich and one tier being comprised of a subsistence system based on self-sufficiency for the poor.

These conceptualizations of community development food projects are rooted in a critique of capitalism and focus on how these types of food projects create and maintain social bonds, allow for an escape from capitalist relations of production, combat alienation and provide self- sufficiency for the poor in a two-tiered food system.

Leisure and Recreation

To my knowledge, there are no studies that specifically analyze the social sustainability of leisure and recreation policy in a contained context. What I mean by this is that there are studies that mention leisure and recreation as an important component of urban social sustainability, but these studies discuss the role of leisure and recreation in relation to other policy areas like housing, transportation and land use rather than identifying socially sustainable leisure and recreation policies in and of themselves. In keeping with the themes that are present in other research on the social sustainability of policy areas, I consider socially sustainable leisure and recreation policies to be those that promote high levels of accessibility and social inclusion for a wide range of community members, regardless of their level of ability,

36 socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity and age. However, before moving on to a discussion of the next policy area (social cohesion), I will review how leisure and recreation has been discussed in relation to urban social sustainability in general and other urban policy areas in particular.

Several scholars include leisure and recreation as a component of their conceptualizations of social sustainability. As a central feature of their conceptualization of social sustainability,

Littig and Griesler (2005) suggest that an expanded set of basic needs should move beyond access to food, safe drinking water, housing, clothing, health care and protection in case of illness, old age and social hardship, etc., to include other needs such as education, self- fulfillment, social relationships and leisure and recreation, but the discussion of leisure and recreation stops there. Beumer (2010:4) argues that access to neighborhood based leisure and recreation activities has become increasingly important as traditional domestic activities have become simplified by modern technology and subsistence activities now take place in spatially diffuse networks. According to Beumer (2010), these larger structural changes have brought quality and accessibility of local public space to the forefront in the governance of urban social cohesion. Polese and Stren (2000:309) state that social inclusion in the modern urban context is

“inextricably linked to access to ‘spaces’ that define one’s participation in society: to land, living space, recreational space, workspace, localized institutions, and services.”While few scholars speak specifically about the social sustainability of leisure and recreation policy, several scholars argue that access to leisure and recreation is an important feature of social sustainability.

Similarly, in discussions of transportation and its relationship to social sustainability, leisure and recreation is mentioned as being connected to socially sustainable transportation decisions. Several scholars indicate that the development and maintenance of multi-modal transportations networks that facilitate walking, cycling and other non-motorized means of

37 transportation increase levels of social inclusion for traditionally marginalized populations

(Atkins 2008; Mercier 2009; Litman and Brenman 2012; Lucas 2013). Increasing the infrastructure related to non-motorized means of transportation often indirectly or directly includes modifications to existing leisure and recreation infrastructure as paths, greenways, multi-use trails and the like are often maintained and constructed by the parks and recreation departments of local governments. In their analysis of urban social sustainability and transportation, Goldman and Gorham (2006:270-271) emphasize the role of “livability strategies” in promoting accessibility to shared space, increased allocation of public space, more emphasis on design of public spaces, pedestrian realms and more opportunities for recreation and social engagement. Also, as stated earlier, Mercier (2009) argues that sustainable and equitable urban life is facilitated by a bundle of design sensitive elements such as land use, natural environment, transport, and health and that mixed-use development that balances commercial, residential and recreational uses is most beneficial for social inclusion. Thus, transportation is often considered to be socially sustainable when it promotes accessibility to shared public spaces that can be used for leisure and recreation.

Social Cohesion

Issues related to social cohesion have been discussed in previous subsections on the social sustainability of policy areas in a tangential fashion with specific decisions in policy areas such as housing, transportation, food and leisure and recreation being associated with higher levels of interaction between community members of different social locations and greater participation in urban life for a wide variety of residents. For instance, research on housing policy indicates that higher levels of residential density in the U.K. are associated with an

38 increased chance of meeting and communicating with other community members (Bramley and

Power 2009). Transportation policy research indicates that multi-modal transportation networks and mixed-use development strategies allow greater levels of social inclusion for marginalized residents. Food policy research has found that community development food projects aimed at increasing food security allow residents to come together and socialize with a well defined community, foster relationships between urban consumers and small farmers and are guided by communitarian ideals of reciprocity and solidarity (Gerry and Connolly 1985; Frazer and Lacey

1993; Power 2009). Finally, research on leisure and recreation shows that provision of high quality and accessible public space is a central component of the governance of social cohesion at the neighborhood level (Beumer 2010). The topic of social cohesion in often included in conceptualizations of social sustainability and discussions of social sustainability policy but is not often discussed on its own. This may be due, in part, to the fact that social cohesion is a soft social sustainability policy dimension that is difficult to measure or assess.

Colantonio and Dixon (2009) include social mixing, inclusion and cohesion as one of the social sustainability themes in their social sustainability assessment framework (SSAF). For this particular theme, they list four measurement criteria that can be “expanded and tailored to local social and built environment contexts” (Colantonio and Dixon 2009:103). The four measurement criteria for the social mixing, inclusion and cohesion thematic area include the following: 1.)

Public spaces encourage social interaction in the community, especially amongst the different house tenures and household types; 2.) A broad social impact assessment has been conducted by project promoters to assess if specific groups will bear disproportionate burdens or accrue disproportionate benefits in environmental, social or financial terms; 3.) The project promotes intercultural understanding and envisages programs or projects that encourage interaction

39 between people of varying ages, incomes, ethnicities and abilities; 4.) The scheme forecasts informative ‘training’ workshops for newcomers concerning the social qualities of the area

(Colantonio and Dixon 2009:108). Colantonio and Dixon (2009) include social mixing, inclusion and cohesion as a social sustainability theme in their SSAF and identify four measurement criteria that can be used to measure this theme in urban regeneration projects.

Research by Colantonio and Dixon (2009) on the social sustainability of urban regeneration projects in Europe identifies the strategies used by some projects to facilitate social mixing and cohesion. In general, they found that while social mixing and cohesion was emphasized in some urban regeneration projects, it was not a central feature of all of their case studies. Furthermore, in the regeneration projects that did feature social mixing and cohesion as an aim of regeneration, it was not always given the same priority as other dimensions of the regeneration project. In La Mina, they found that the urban regeneration consortium, known locally as the Consorci, planned to promote social mixing of residents from different racial/ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds in order to break the cycle of social deprivation in the area. Two strategies discussed by the Consorci included voluntary relocation of residents and the usage of a “random selection” process of current residents for relocation in newly planned social housing projects (Colantonio and Dixon 2009:38). In Cardiff, the regeneration of the

Roath Basin has had a potential negative impact on local residents of the Bute Town neighborhood as increasing property values have led to gentrification and the subsequent displacement of local residents. In order to combat this process, developers and local decision makers have suggested mixing social housing in with expensive, market rate condominiums and apartments. The authors, however, feel that this plan may backfire and dissuade potential buyers from purchasing properties in the newly regenerated Roath Basin (Colantonio and Dixon

2009:59).Finally, in Rotterdam, the South Pact regeneration project is noted for its emphasis on facilitating social inclusion in decision-making process. This was achieved by administering surveys to local residents that measured satisfaction with their communities. These surveys were part of a larger social sustainability measurement framework called the Sociale Index that was used as part of the South Pact regeneration project (Colantonio and Dixon 2009:69). The authors find that social cohesion is emphasized in some urban regeneration projects more than others and that strategies to foster social inclusion differ from project to project.

Identity and Sense of Place

Compared to the other policy areas that have previously been discussed, identity and sense of place is underemphasized in the body of literature on social sustainability. This may be due, partly, to the fact that identity and sense of place can be grouped in with the newer set of

“soft” policy areas that are based on subjective appraisals, which makes it more difficult to measure or assess (Yiftachel and Hedgcock, 1993; Colantonio and Dixon 2009; Colantonio and

Dixon 2011). Colantonio and Dixon (2009) include identity, image and heritage as one of the social sustainability themes in their social sustainability assessment framework (SSAF). For this particular theme, they list six measurement criteria. The six measurement criteria for the identity, image and heritage thematic area include the following: 1.) The scheme contributes to community sense of place and identity through spaces for performing arts, museums, festivals, farmers’ markets and local craft fairs; 2.) The project contributes to sense of community pride through hosting pioneering programs, landmark buildings, jewel parks, etc.; 3.) The project protects or enhances buildings and areas of significant cultural or heritage value; 4.) The project supports commercial free public spaces; 5.) The project supports adequate multi-faith

41 infrastructure; and 6.) Local residents have been consulted on the demolition or move to a different location of buildings of historic and cultural importance for the area (Colantonio and

Dixon 2009:107-108). Like the measurement criteria used in the thematic area of social mixing, inclusion and cohesion, the criteria for the identity, image and heritage thematic area are limited due to their subjective nature and their application in measuring the social sustainability of urban regeneration projects rather than measuring social sustainability in a larger urban policy context.

Colantonio and Dixon (2009) include identity, image and heritage as a social sustainability theme in their SSAF and identify six measurement criteria that can be used to assess whether an urban regeneration project takes this theme into consideration.

In sum, the current body of work on social sustainability is highly fragmented and underdeveloped. Academics from various disciplines have conceptualized and defined social sustainability in different ways. This, in conjunction with the recent trend of emphasizing “soft,” often subjective, dimensions of social sustainability has made it difficult to measure or assess social sustainability. Scholars have also shed light on the potentially “post-political” dimension of social sustainability, arguing that contemporary attempts to craft socially sustainable policies are ameliorative, “technocratic” solutions that steer people away from fighting for radical changes to the political system. Other scholars have either focused on creating comprehensive analytic frameworks designed to assess the social sustainability of various policy areas or developing policy-specific analytic frameworks and criteria for measuring social sustainability.

Additionally, there is a relative lack of research that has attempted to assess the relative social sustainability of cities in a comparative, cross-national context. What little research does exist does not focus on comparing a range of policy areas in North American cities.

To address these limitations in the body of literature, it is necessary for me to do a number of things. First, I must identify the key themes that are present in the body of literature on social sustainability. I argue that while the body of literature on social sustainability is highly fragmented, there are a number of common themes that tie the disparate attempts to conceptualize social sustainability together. Second, I need to develop simple and concise definitions of social sustainability and social sustainability policy by drawing on themes from the existing literature. Third, I need to modify existing social sustainability assessment methods in order to make them appropriate for an analysis of the social sustainability of urban policy in a cross-national and comparative context. To date, most social sustainability assessment methods have focused on urban regeneration projects or larger, national level policy initiatives. While some assessment frameworks have focused on urban policy areas, they have not been used to compare a number of cities based on the same set of criteria or policy areas. Instead, they have focused on analyzing detailed case studies of individual cities and suggesting a list of best policy practices that are thought to facilitate social sustainability. Finally, I need to construct a SSAF that incorporates policy areas and a selection of qualitative and quantitative social sustainability criteria that are drawn from the body of literature on social sustainability. In the next section, I address all of the aforementioned issues in detail by summarizing the current approach to conceptualizing and assessing social sustainability, identifying key themes, creating working definitions of social sustainability and social sustainability policy, and developing a SSAF comprised of policy areas and assessment criteria drawn from the literature.

Synthesizing and Modifying Conceptualizations and Assessment Methods of Social Sustainability

In this section, I synthesize and modify existing conceptualizations and assessment methods of social sustainability in order to develop working definitions of social sustainability and social sustainability policy and create a social sustainability assessment framework (SSAF).

I begin with a summary of the existing body of literature on social sustainability focusing on the various approaches to conceptualizing and assessing social sustainability. Then, I define social sustainability and social sustainability policy by drawing on the existing literature. While the existing literature on social sustainability is complex and highly fragmented, there are a number of recurrent themes that appear in different strains of the literature. I identify key themes such as accessibility, social inclusion and basic needs for both of my definitions. After defining social sustainability and social sustainability policy, I discuss the policy areas and measurement criteria that I use in my SSAF, focusing on the necessary modifications that have been made to my chosen criteria because of differences in scope of research and limitations in empirical research on social sustainability.

As discussed earlier in this chapter at length, the body of literature on social sustainability is highly fragmented. The concept has been discussed by scholars from numerous academic disciplines, such as urban planning, urban design, policy studies and, to a much lesser extent, sociology (Ghahramanpouri et al. 2013). Because of the mutli-disciplinary approaches to conceptualizing social sustainability, a number of themes have been identified as being central to social sustainability. These themes include quality of life, education, social justice, community participation, recreation, human rights, labor rights, corporate governance, social cohesion, racial/ethnic diversity, social equity, work, gender, urban form, accessibility and others (Polese

44 and Stren 2000; Chiu 2004; Littig and Griesler 2005; Colantonio and Dixon 2009; Bramley and

Power 2009; Mak and Peacock 2011; Colantonio and Dixon 2009; Colantonio and Dixon 2011).

This disjointed body of multi-disciplinary approaches to conceptualizing social sustainability has resulted in a lack of agreement on how to define the concept. While some scholars define social sustainability as a process, others frame the concept as a goal of sustainable development. To address this issue, I draw from the existing literature in order to provide straightforward definitions of social sustainability and social sustainability policy.

I define social sustainability as a condition where an extended set of basic needs are met for all residents regardless of their race/ethnicity, age, religion, gender, socioeconomic status and/or level of ability and the highest possible level of social inclusion and participation in community life is promoted. By extension, social sustainability policy consists of programs and services that seek to provide equal access to goods, services and resources while meeting an extended set of basic needs for an increasingly diverse public. By “extended set of basic needs,” I am drawing on Littig and Griessler’s (2005) critique of how basic needs are defined in the

Brundtland Report’s definition of sustainability. As stated earlier in this paper, Littig and

Griessler (2005) extend the definition of “needs” beyond the classic “basic needs” interpretation of the term (e.g. food, housing, clothing, sexuality, health care, healthy environment, potable water, freedom from bodily harm, and protection in case of illness, old age and social hardship) by including factors such as education, recreation/leisure, social relationships, and self- fulfillment. While I do not include education as a policy area in my SSAF, I include classes and courses offered by community centers and other institutions in my analysis because they offer free or reduced price educational experiences to residents. Leisure and recreation is included as a policy area of interest in my SSAF and policies and programs related to social relationships and

45 self-fulfillment are explored in all of my policy areas in general, and in the Social Cohesion and

Identity and Sense of Place policy areas in particular.

In addition to a lack of agreement on how to define social sustainability, there is also a lack of consensus on how to assess social sustainability. Despite the lack of agreement on how to assess social sustainability, there are two general approaches to assessing social sustainability.

The first approach consists of creating analytic frameworks in order to compare case studies.

Two analytic frameworks that have been developed to assess social sustainability include Polese and Stren’s (2000) institutional-territorial nexus and Colantonio and Dixon’s (2009) social sustainability assessment framework. The first analytic framework consists of six broad policy areas (governance, social and cultural policies, social infrastructure and public services, urban land and housing, urban transport and accessibility, and employment, economic revitalization, and the building of inclusive public spaces) and has been used to assess the social sustainability of policy decisions made in ten cities from around the world (Toronto, Montreal, Miami,

Baltimore, Geneva, Rotterdam, Sao Paulo, San Salvador, Cape Town and Nairobi) (Polese and

Stren 2000). In essence, the institutional-territorial nexus was used to determine whether policy decisions made by the aforementioned cities promote social cohesion and integration of diverse groups.

The second analytic framework, known simply as a social sustainability assessment framework (SSAF), consists of 15 policy areas (housing, education, employment, health and demographic change, social mixing, social cohesion, identity, sense of place, culture, social capital, well-being, happiness, quality of life, empowerment, and participation and access) that have been drawn from the literature on social sustainability (Colantonio and Dixon 2009). These policy areas represent both hard and soft social sustainability themes and incorporate institutional

46 and political concerns. This framework has been used to assess the relative social sustainability of urban regeneration initiatives in five European cities: La Mina in Sant Adria de Besos, Spain;

Leipziger Osten in Leipzig, Germany; Porta Palazzo in Turin, Italy; Roath Basin in Cardiff,

Wales; and South Pact in Rotterdam, the Netherlands (Colantonio and Dixon 2009). Essentially, the SSAF was used to identify the unique social sustainability features of urban regeneration initiatives in European cities.

The second approach to assessing social sustainability focuses on developing social sustainability criteria for specific policy areas. For this dissertation, I have chosen to focus on research that identifies social sustainability criteria for the following policy areas: housing, transportation, food, leisure and recreation, social cohesion, and identity and sense of place.

Research on housing policy has identified the importance of residential stability, subsidized and supportive housing and residential density. Transportation policy research has focused primarily on multi-modal and accessible transportation. Food policy research has emphasized the role of food-based organizations and strategies and community development food projects in combating food insecurity. Social sustainability criteria derived from the body of research on leisure and recreation, social cohesion, and identity and sense of place is more difficult to identify. Research on leisure and recreation focuses on accessibility and integration into other policy areas, like transportation. Social cohesion and identity and sense of place are often included in conceptualizations of social sustainability or as social sustainability themes in comparative analytic frameworks. In general, however, research on the social sustainability of specific policy areas identifies criteria that can be used to assess the relative social sustainability of policy decisions made in that area.

The aforementioned approaches to assessing social sustainability have a variety of limitations. The policy areas used in the institutional-territorial nexus are overly broad and the framework is used to analyze cities in relation to one or more of the aforementioned policy areas instead of being used to analyze all of the cities based on their performance in all six of the policy areas. The SSAF has a more focused and comprehensive list of indicators but the scope of the SSAF is limited because it is only used to look at urban regeneration initiatives rather than urban policy. Furthermore, the institutional-territorial nexus focuses on specific case studies of cities from around the world while the SSAF focuses exclusively on European cities. The policy specific approaches to assessing social sustainability identify a number of important criteria for specific policy areas, but they do not incorporate a number of different policy areas and criteria into a comprehensive comparative analytic framework. For these various reasons, it is necessary for me to make some modifications to the existing assessment methods of social sustainability so that I can analyze the social sustainability of policy decisions in my sample cities.

To address the aforementioned limitations, I develop a social sustainability assessment framework (SSAF) comprised of thematic policy areas that correspond to policy areas identified in the literature as being important components of urban social sustainability. Table 1 illustrates a detailed list of policy areas and the qualitative and quantitative criteria that I use to measure the social sustainability of policy decisions made in each area. I assess the social sustainability of housing policy in my sample cities by analyzing residential stability programs, subsidized and supportive housing programs, population density levels, average housing costs, median value of housing, and homeownership rates. In order to determine the social sustainability of transportation policy, I analyze each of my cities’ transportation systems and determine the relative level of multi-modal transit and accessibility features. I also assess ridership by

48 analyzing quantitative data related to bus, light rail and commuter rail use. To assess the social sustainability of food policy, I examine each city’s food based organizations, strategies, and community development food projects. I also determine the number of community gardens and farmers markets in each of my sample cities. For leisure and recreation policy, I determine social sustainability by examining each city’s leisure and recreation management system, identifying targeted leisure and recreation policies and programs, and comparing each city’s number of parks, number of community centers, and percentage of land area devoted to parks. In order to assess the social sustainability of social cohesion policy, I look at policies and programs for seniors, youth, the disabled, women, LGBTQ residents and other marginalized populations. I also analyze policies and programs that are geared towards connecting marginalized residents with existing resources or programs. In addition to focusing on policies and programs, I also analyze a number of quantitative criteria in order to determine the relative level of social cohesion in each of my sample cities. These include percentage of residents living alone, percentage of residents living in poverty, percentage of single-parent households, median individual income, and median household income. Finally, for policy that addresses identity and sense of place, I analyze historical preservation and community planning programs.

Table 1. Policy Areas and Social Sustainability Criteria List of Policy Areas Qualitative Social Sustainability Quantitative Social Sustainability Criteria Criteria Housing Residential stability Population density Subsidized and supportive housing Average monthly housing cost by ownership type Median value of owner occupied housing units Homeownership rate Transportation Multi-modal transportation Bus and rail boardings per capita Accessible transportation Bus trips per capita Light rail trips per capita Commuter rail trips per capita Food Food-based organizations and strategies Number of community gardens Community development food projects Number of farmers markets Leisure and Leisure and recreation management Number of parks Recreation Targeted leisure and recreation programs Number of community centers Percentage of land area devoted to parks

Table 1-continued. List of Policy Areas Qualitative Social Sustainability Quantitative Social Sustainability Criteria Criteria Social Cohesion Targeted social cohesion programs Percentage of residents living alone Increasing accessibility to existing programs Percentage of residents living in poverty and resources Percentage of households that are single- parent households Median individual income Median household income Identity and Sense of Historical preservation N/A Place Community planning

To sum up, although there has been an effort in the body of literature on social sustainability to develop comparative analytic frameworks and policy-specific social sustainability criteria, a number of limitations exist. The institutional-territorial nexus framework developed by Polese and Stren (2000) uses six broad policy areas to assess the social sustainability of policy decisions made in cities, but it identifies innovative policies from one or more policy areas in specific cities rather than assessing performance in all six policy areas in a selection of cities. The SSAF developed by Colantonio and Dixon (2009) is comprised of a more focused and comprehensive set of policy areas but it is limited in scope because it is only used to assess the social sustainability of urban regeneration initiatives in European cities. Policy- specific research on social sustainability has identified a number of assessment criteria, but certain areas such as leisure and recreation, social cohesion, and identity and sense of place are underemphasized or discussed in relation to other policy areas rather than being discussed on their own. In order to address these limitations, I develop my own SSAF that includes six policy areas (housing, transportation, food, leisure and recreation, social cohesion, and identity and sense of place). My SSAF also has a selection of qualitative and quantitative criteria that have been drawn from the literature. This SSAF is used to assess the relative social sustainability of urban policy in my three sample cities in Chapter 5 of this dissertation.

CHAPTER 3

INSTITUTIONAL POLITICS AND POWER CONSTELLATIONS

The term policy can be defined as a definite course or method of action selected from among alternatives and in light of given conditions to guide and determine present and future decisions. Most sociological research on policy focuses on social policy. Social policy is defined as state programs and services that address economic inequality resulting from risks to income that are bureaucratically administered to specified groups of citizens in specified circumstances

(Amenta et al. 2001:214). Historically, there have been several theoretical approaches within sociology that address issues of social policy development. These approaches have focused on several issues related to the development of social policy, including industrialization or modernization (Wilensky 1975), political parties and institutions (Hewitt 1977; Stephens 1979;

Korpi 1980; Korpi 1983; Hicks and Swank 1984; Weir, Orloff and Skocpol 1988; Hicks and

Swank 1992) and welfare state regimes (Esping-Andersen 1990). More recent studies of social policy development have emphasized the effects of globalization, post-industrial economic transition and gender (Myles and Quadagno 2002). Contemporary “middle range” theories borrow from classic and modern theoretical explanations of social policy development (Amenta

2003). These theories argue that specific combinations of institutional and political factors effect social policy outcomes in different ways.

For this dissertation, I have chosen to focus specifically on two “middle range” theories: institutional politics theory (Amenta and Poulsen 1996; Amenta 1998; Amenta and Halfmann

2000; Amenta et al. 2001) and power constellations theory (Huber et al. 1993; Huber et al. 1997;

Huber and Stephens, 2001; Huber et al. 2004; Huber and Stephens 2004; Huber et al. 2005;

Huber et al. 2009). Institutional politics theory emphasizes the role that institutional factors have

51 on mediating the effect of political factors and how this relationship affects the development of social policy while power constellations theory focuses on the effect that differential mobilization of political groups and articulation of class interests has on the development of social policy. Traditionally, both theories have been used in comparative-historical and quantitative analyses of nations and states. I have chosen these two theories because their theoretical propositions include a number of interesting features that can be adapted in order to determine why some cities are better able to develop social sustainability policies than others.

These features include an emphasis on political fragmentation, bureaucratic capacity, and democratization in the case of institutional politics theory and organized labor, women’s participation in the work force and presence of center/left political parties in the case of power constellations theory.

In this chapter, I review the two aforementioned theories and argue that these theories can be adapted in order to analyze the development of social sustainability policy in urban regions.

Like the aforementioned definition of social policy, my definition of social sustainability policy focuses on addressing inequality. However, rather than focusing primarily on economic inequality that results from risks to income, my definition of social sustainability policy addresses inequality in a broader sense. I define social sustainability policy as programs and services that seek to provide equal access to goods, services and resources while meeting an extended set of basic needs for an increasingly diverse public. This chapter is organized in the following manner. I begin by reviewing each theory in detail, focusing specifically on the institutional and political factors identified by each theory as having an effect on social policy outcomes and the empirical research that has been done to address the effects of these factors.

After discussing how researchers have studied these factors in the past, I then suggest how these

52 factors could be adapted in order to analyze urban policy. I also review the overlap in social sustainability research and sociological research on social policy development in order to provide a rationale for why adapted versions of these two theories are suitable for determining the differential ability of a city to develop socially sustainable urban policies. Subsequently, I choose three theoretical propositions from each theory which I will later test in Chapter 6 in order to determine which theoretical tradition better explains the differential level of socially sustainable policy in my sample cities.

Institutional Politics Theory

Institutional politics theory is a middle range, or theoretically synthetic, theory of social policy development that borrows from institutional or state-centered theories and political theories of social policy. Essentially, this theory maintains that a variety of institutional and political factors determine whether or not redistributive social policy is likely to be developed.

Institutional factors that affect the development of social policy include level of democratization, the nature of the political party system, fragmentation of political institutions and authority, and governmental or bureaucratic capacity. Political factors that influence social policy development include the existence of reform-oriented regimes and pro-spending social movements. The relative success of the aforementioned political factors in affecting the development of social policy is mediated by the institutional context of the polity. Thus, reform-oriented regimes and pro-spending social movements are more likely to positively affect the development of redistributive social policy in polities that are democratized, have partisan oriented political parties, have low levels of political fragmentation and have high levels of bureaucratic capacity.

Conversely, these same political factors will not be as likely to positively affect the development

53 of generous social policy in polities that are under-democratized, have patronage-oriented political parties, have high levels of political fragmentation and have low levels of bureaucratic capacity (Amenta 1998; Amenta and Halfmann 2000; Jenkins, Leicht and Wendt 2006).

Institutional Factors

In this section, I review four institutional factors identified by institutional politics theory as having an important effect on shaping social policy outcomes. The four institutional factors that I discuss include democratization, nature of the political party system, fragmentation of political institutions and authority, and governmental or bureaucratic capacity. Each subsection is roughly organized into two parts. In the first part of each subsection, I discuss the role that each of the various institutional factors plays in shaping social policy outcomes. In the second part of each subsection, I review empirical research that has analyzed the role of each institutional factor. In the section that follows, I review the political factors that interact with the institutional factors to shape social policy outcomes.

Democratization. One of the key institutional factors that discourages the development of social policy is under-democratization. Under-democratized polities often have publicly elected, rather than appointed, officials, but there are usually “great restrictions on political participation, assembly, discussion, voting and choices among leadership groups” (Dahl 1971; Amenta

1998:20; Amenta and Halfmann 2000:508). In these types of polities, a combination of factors leads to disenfranchisement of the citizenry. Measures often exist to deny voting rights to certain members of the population and there are often few meaningful differences between the local political parties so that even if disenfranchised members of society were able to vote, there are no viable political parties that exemplify their political will. In these situations, the ability of

54 citizens to legally assemble in order to discuss political issues or vote does not have a strong effect on social policy development because the political parties that are on the ballot do not reflect their ideals. In addition, in these types of polities, pro-spending social movements find it very difficult to organize, partially because there is no electoral reason for local politicians to support them and because there is not much chance that they will have “defenders in the state apparatus” (Amenta 1998:21). Because of this disenfranchisement, politicians in underdemocratized polities seek the support of wealthy voters, who generally do not support robust social spending. Underdemocratized societies discourage the development of social policy by denying voting rights to specific groups, limiting meaningful representation by political parties, limiting the opportunity to assemble and decreasing the ability of pro-spending movements to affect positive social change.

Research on the relationship between democratization and social policy has found that the U.S. has historically been underdemocratized. By 1903, all of the Southern states that were formerly part of the Confederacy had developed and implemented disenfranchisement policies

(Piven and Cloward 1989; Amenta 1998:21). While some of these states eventually reformed some of these policies, several states kept these policies until the mid-1960s. Until the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, many states in the southern U.S. could have been typified as under-democratized. At the time that the Act was passed, 11 states throughout the South were characterized by poll taxes, literacy tests, electoral fraud, and in the worst cases, lynch mobs

(Kousser 1974; Amenta and Poulsen 1996:39). In these “rotten boroughs,” these features prevented the poor in general, and poor African Americans in particular, from voting and when the poor cannot vote there is little reason for politicians to support initiatives and policies geared toward their interests (Amenta and Poulsen 1996; Amenta 1998:21). However,

55 underdemocratization was not limited to the South. Several Northern states created institutional barriers to voting by developing registration rules and regulations that were meant to limit the voting rights of immigrants and their offspring while a handful of Western states restricted voting access for Asian and Latino voters (Burnham 1970; Teixeira 1992; Amenta 1998). In sum, the U.S. has a long history of underdemocratization. A majority of Southern states had disenfranchisement policies such as poll taxes and literacy tests until the mid-1960s and a large number of Northern and Western states developed registration rules to limit the ability of Asians,

Latinos and other immigrants to vote.

Nature of the political party system. Another institutional factor that affects the development of social policy is the nature of the political party system. In general, there are two major types of political party systems: Patronage-oriented and Partisan-oriented. Patronage oriented systems can be defined as systems with hierarchical political parties whose main goal is to win elections and maintain their own existence through the provision of individualized benefits to party members and other supporters (Amenta et al. 2001:225). These types of political parties avoid programmatic social policies because doing so involves the development of a professional bureaucracy, which usually necessitates merit based, rather than nepotistic, hiring practices. Programmatic social policies also eliminate the fiscal freedom that is needed to distribute individualized benefits and raise taxes, which takes power away from elected officials who promise to lower taxes for key constituents (Amenta 1998:22-23; Mayhew 1986:292-294).

Partisan-oriented systems are characterized by the presence of programmatic, partisan-oriented political parties. These types of political parties provide collective, rather than individualized, benefits to large groups of people and tend to support social spending programs and the professional bureaucracies that implement them (Amenta and Halfmann 2000:508).

Research on the nature of political party systems indicates a strong connection between programmatic political parties and redistributive social policy. Analysis of senate roll call votes on Works Progress Administration, or WPA, wages and state level variations in WPA wages at the end of the 1930s indicates that patronage-oriented party affiliation had a negative effect on

WPA wages while increased voting rights, strong union membership and Democratic Party affiliation had a positive effect on WPA wages (Amenta and Halfmann 2000:523-524).

However, patronage-oriented party affiliation was positively correlated with support for social programs that had greater levels of discretion in the provision of benefits (Amenta and Halfmann

2000). Throughout the 20th century, patronage oriented political parties thrived in at least 13 states in portions of the Northeast and Midwest (Mayhew 1986). The Progressive movement of the early 20th century was partly successful in establishing a base in the West and Northwest of the U.S., but only because patronage-oriented political parties were not entrenched in these regions (Shefter 1983). Finally, Amenta and Poulsen (1996:55) argue that support for increases in social spending for Old-Age Assistance pensions (OAA) and WPA wages were only evident in states that had non-patronage oriented party systems. This research shows that patronage- oriented political parties have a negative effect on WPA wages while partisan-oriented political parties, along with strong union membership and increased voting rights, have a positive effect on WPA wages and OAA pensions.

Fragmentation of political institutions and authority. A third institutional factor that determines the generosity of social policy is the level of fragmentation of political institutions and authority. Fragmented polities are less likely to develop generous social policies because divisions in political institutions and authority provide “veto points” where small minorities can block legislation (Amenta 1998:24). Fragmentation of political institutions and authority can be

57 conceptualized by identifying vertical and horizontal dimensions of fragmentation. Vertical fragmentation refers to the degree to which political institutions are integrated at the national level. For example, federal systems are an example of vertical fragmentation because they consist of various levels of government, each of which is accountable to the level above it (i.e. national, state, county, metropolitan or regional, and municipal) (Amenta 1998:26). Horizontal fragmentation refers to the extent to which political institutions are integrated across the national government. Examples of horizontal fragmentation include non-parliamentary systems, independent courts and fragmentation within the various branches of government (Amenta

1998:25).

Much of the research on the fragmentation of political authority and institutions has focused on the U.S. for two important reasons. First, political fragmentation in the U.S. is characterized by high levels of vertical fragmentation. This is due, primarily, to the presence of numerous sub-national governments (states, counties, regional governments, municipal governments) with relatively high levels of power (Amenta 1998:24-26). Traditionally, states in the U.S. have had great power over the implementation of social policy. According to Amenta

(1998), sub-national governments have historically resisted giving up control of social policy to larger, more powerful levels of government. Political fragmentation in the U.S. has been shown to negatively affect the spatial distribution of funding for Old Age Assistance pensions and WPA wages at the end of the New Deal period (Amenta and Poulsen 1996:53). Studies also indicate that political fragmentation in the U.S., combined with a relatively weak organized labor movement, has historically prevented the implementation of federal level economic development intervention strategies (Jenkins et al. 2006:1174).

Second, the U.S. has high levels of horizontal fragmentation. The U.S. has a presidential, rather than parliamentary, system. This type of system allows for higher levels of intramural conflict and is typified by a higher degree of fragmentation within the national legislature than is commonly found in other democracies (Amenta 1998; Amenta et al. 2001:220). In the U.S., members of Congress that are members of the same political party can choose not to participate in the president’s legislative program and can, in fact, develop competing programs without risking loss of office. In addition, legislators represent districts rather than political parties and any legislation that is developed can be blocked by the U.S. Supreme Court by being deemed unconstitutional (Amenta 1998:26; Amenta et al. 2001:220). Thus, political institutions and authority in the U.S. are both vertically and horizontally fragmented.

Bureaucratic capacity. A fourth institutional factor that affects the development of social policy is governmental or bureaucratic capacity. Generally speaking, capable, well-funded domestic bureaucracies tend to support social policy development. This is largely due to the fact that domestic bureaucracies are sometimes capable of autonomous action in the arena of policy development. Autonomous bureaucracies are most likely to develop in democratized, partisan- oriented political systems where a state bureaucracy with executive power is necessary to implement social policy and where merit based hiring practices prevent the types of nepotistic hiring practices followed in patronage-oriented systems. In these types of systems, autonomous state bureaucracies are able to levy taxes, raise revenue, and develop social policy in an independent manner, largely unaffected by political parties, social movements, public opinion, interest groups and organized business groups (Amenta 1998:27-28; Skocpol 1985; Skocpol

1992). In regimes characterized by partisan oriented politics, bureaucracies are likely to be

59 staffed by unqualified party loyalists, which diminishes the capacity of the bureaucracies to develop social policy (Amenta and Halfmann 2000:510).

Research on bureaucratic capacity indicates that while the U.S. has traditionally had a weak state with relatively low levels of bureaucratic capacity there have been specific periods of bureaucratic growth. Even though there have been periods of bureaucratic growth, these periods are not always associated with social policy development. For instance, while the New Deal period is often associated with both social policy development and bureaucratic growth, the domestic bureaucracy in general, and the civil service in particular, experienced a more dramatic expansion during the time period between the Progressive Era and WWI (1901-1921) and the time period during and after WWII (1939-1947), neither of which was associated with the development of generous social spending policies (Amenta 1998:28). For Amenta (1998), only specific types of bureaucratic expansion and autonomy (i.e. the expansion of social spending bureaucracies) can be associated with development of social policy. Research by Amenta and

Halfmann (2000) found that WPA wage rate increases at the state level were positively associated with greater domestic bureaucratic powers. This research indicates that there is a non- linear relationship between bureaucratic capacity and social policy development with only certain kinds of bureaucracies (i.e. social spending bureaucracies) being associated with high levels of social policy development.

Taken together, the aforementioned institutional factors play an important role in shaping social policy outcomes. Research on these institutional factors indicates a number of interesting findings related to the effects that democratization, nature of the political party system, fragmentation of political institutions and authority and bureaucratic capacity have on the development of social policy in the U.S. A number of states throughout the U.S. developed

60 disenfranchisement policies to limit voter turnout among the poor and among ethnic and racial minorities. In 11 of the Southern states, poll taxes, literacy tests and electoral fraud were common until the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965. In Northern and Western states, registration guidelines were created to limit the ability of Asians, Latinos and other immigrants from voting. Patronage-oriented political parties, which were common in many areas of the U.S. throughout the 20th century, have been shown to have a negative effect on WPA wages while partisan-oriented political parties have been shown to have a positive effect on WPA wages and

OAA pensions. When compared to other similar countries, the U.S. has high levels of both vertical and horizontal fragmentation of political institutions and authority. Evidence of vertical fragmentation can be found in our federal system of government which grants our sub-national levels of government relatively high levels of power. Evidence of horizontal fragmentation can be found in our independent court system, our separate branches of government and our presidential system, which is characterized by high levels of intramural conflict. Finally, bureaucratic capacity has been shown to have a non-linear effect on the passage of social policy.

Some periods of U.S. history are characterized by both significant bureaucratic growth and little social policy development.

Political Factors

In this section, I review two political factors identified by institutional politics theory as having an important effect on shaping social policy outcomes. The two political factors that I discuss include reform-oriented regimes and pro-spending social movements. Much like the previous section on institutional factors, each subsection is roughly organized into two parts. In the first part of each subsection, I discuss the role that each of the various political factors plays

61 in shaping social policy outcomes. In the second part of each subsection, I review empirical research that has analyzed the role of each political factor.

Reform-oriented regimes. Institutional politics theory also maintains that a number of political factors influence the development of social policy, but that political factors are mediated by the institutional conditions of the society in question. One political factor that affects social policy development is the presence of reform-oriented regimes. Reform-oriented regimes are defined as coalitions of centrist or left-wing parties and pro-spending movements with control over the government, with closer ties to pro-spending groups being associated with greater orientations to reform (Amenta and Halfmann 2000:510). While alliances between social democratic political parties and pro-spending groups such as organized labor are most often discussed, other types of coalitions are possible, especially in the U.S., where both social democratic parties and organized labor are either non-existent or weak. Reform-oriented regimes can exist at different levels of government and are expected to support and enact social spending legislation (Amenta and Halfmann 2000:510).

In the U.S., the Democratic Party has generally been a central component of reform- oriented regimes. At the federal level, a president with a strong orientation towards reform working in concert with a large pro-social spending congressional contingent is the most likely coalition to support generous social policy. This combination, however, is further supported by a connection to pro-spending social movements and the presence of a professional bureaucracy with executive powers. That being said, the Democratic Party has not always been oriented towards reform. In the period before the New Deal, Democrats had not formed any lasting alliances with pro-spending movements or organizations. It was not until the beginning of the

New Deal that members of the federal Democratic Party shifted towards the left of the political

62 spectrum. Moreover, Democrats in different regions were more likely to be oriented towards reform with many Democrats in the underdemocratized South either unwilling or unable to support reform-oriented social policy (Amenta 1998; Amenta and Halfmann 2000:510). In addition to post- New Deal Democrats, there were also smaller “third” parties at the state level such as the Wisconsin Progressive party and the Minnesota Farmer Labor party that were strong supporters of social spending during the 1930s (Amenta and Poulsen 1996:40; Amenta

1998:171). Historically, social democratic political parties and labor unions have not had as strong of a presence in the U.S. as they have had in other democracies. Because of this, reform- oriented regimes in the U.S. have commonly been comprised of alignments between the post-

New Deal Democratic Party, smaller regional third parties, pro-spending social movements and pro-spending congressional contingents.

Pro-spending social movements. A second political factor that influences the development of social policy is the existence of pro-spending social movements. Social movements in favor of social spending are most likely to positively affect the development of social policy under two distinct conditions. First, the social movement must be organizing in a society with a professional bureaucracy capable of developing and implementing social policy.

Second, the social movement must have a large following and must have the ability to influence elections and/or legislation (Amenta, Dunleavy and Bernstein 1994; Amenta and Halfmann

2000). In a general sense, pro-spending social movements tend to have less of an influence on social policy development than reform-oriented regimes, partially because they are smaller and more focused on a specialized issue while reform-oriented regimes are larger, and are usually comprised of a coalition of political parties and pro-spending movements.

Research on pro-spending social movements in the U.S. has focused on a variety of groups. Historically, one of the most influential pro-spending movements in the U.S., at least in the time period before and during the New Deal, has been the organized labor movement. Even before the New Deal, state-level labor unions and organizations such as the American Federation of Labor supported old-age pensions in 1929 and state-level unemployment insurance programs in 1932 (Nelson 1969; Amenta and Poulsen, 1996:40). The passage of the National Labor

Relations Act in 1935, during the second New Deal, supported fair labor practices and collective bargaining and effectively solidified the bond between organized labor and the Democratic

Party. Other pro-spending groups such as the Share Our Wealth Society, which was led by

Louisiana Senator Huey P. Long and gained a following of around 7 million members at its height, advocated for a taxation system that taxed the rich and used the revenues to provide services for the poor (Brinkley 1982; Amenta and Poulsen 1996:40). Another group, commonly referred to as the Townsend Movement, formed in California and spread east through the U.S. fighting on behalf of increased services for the elderly and demanding $200 per month for everyone over the age of 60 (Holtzman 1963; Amenta and Poulsen 1996:40). Examples of pro- spending social movements that were active during different periods of U.S. history include organized labor, the Share Our Wealth Society and the Townsend Movement.

In sum, institutional politics theory argues that a number of institutional and political factors act in combination to effect social policy outcomes. Institutional factors identified by institutional politics theory as having an effect on social policy outcomes include level of democratization, nature of the political party system, fragmentation of political institutions and authority, and governmental or bureaucratic capacity. The effects of these institutional factors on social policy development are mediated by the presence of two important political factors:

64 reform-oriented regimes and pro-spending social movements. The body of research rooted in institutional politics theory has focused primarily on national and state level policies in the U.S. during the 20th century with a heavy emphasis on the time periods before, during, and just after the New Deal era of the 1930s.

Power Constellations Theory

Like institutional politics theory, power constellations theory is also a middle range theoretical approach to explaining the development of social policy. However, unlike institutional politics theory, power constellations theory borrows from power resources or social democratic theories and feminist theories of social policy development and the welfare state.

Fundamentally, power resources theory maintains that the political articulation of class interests, women’s mobilization and participation in the labor force, and state structure are the most important determinants of social policy outcomes. Center-left political parties in general, and social democratic political parties in particular, along with labor unions and affiliated groups like corporatist organizations, are the key actors defending and articulating the collective interests of the working and lower middle classes. A strong women’s movement that is connected with larger center-left or social democratic parties, labor unions and affiliated groups and organizations also has a positive effect on the development of social policy. Finally, centralized democratic polities with constitutional provisions that limit veto points are more likely to develop social policies.

In this section, I review five factors that shape policy outcomes. The five factors that I discuss include political parties, organized labor, women’s political mobilization and participation in the workforce, constitutional provisions, and long-term partisan government.

Each subsection is roughly organized into two parts. In the first part of each subsection, I discuss the role that each of the various institutional factors plays in shaping social policy outcomes. In the second part of each subsection, I review empirical research that has analyzed the role of each factor. In the section that follows, I discuss how I will adapt theoretical propositions from institutional politics theory and power constellations theory in order to make them appropriate for an analysis of urban policy.

Political Parties

According to power constellations theory, political parties play the most important role in articulating class interests and determining the generosity of social policy. While center-left and social democratic political parties have historically represented the working and lower middle classes, class interest articulation is both structurally and ideologically determined. This simply means that political mobilization based on class and gender is not monolithic or easily predictable. The particular political and historical context of the society in question can shape what political parties are most likely to articulate the interests of different social groups (i.e. social class or gender) in society. For example, in some countries and in some time periods different segments of the working class may find their collective interests articulated by communist, anarcho-syndicalist, social democratic, Christian democratic, populist, or even conservative political parties. In addition, competition between working-class parties and more conservative parties may push more conservative parties to adopt and implement social policies that are often associated with more left of center parties (Huber and Stephens 2001:19). That being said, in modern democratic capitalist countries it has been center-left or social democratic political parties aligned with labor unions and affiliated organizations that have most effectively

66 articulated the interests of working and lower middle class residents. Consequently, long term center-left or social democratic incumbency is most likely to result in the development of social policies that benefit the working and lower middle classes while center-right incumbency is more likely to result in the development of different types of social policy (Huber and Stephens

2001:24-25). Additionally, viable competition between centrist and center-left parties has been shown to force centrist parties to adopt a more left-wing stance in terms of policy support and development (Huber and Stephens 2001:20). In short, long term partisan incumbency affects the generosity of social policies and the types of social policies that will be developed and supported.

In general, Huber and Stephens (2001) argue that political parties played the strongest role in determining social policy outcomes in the three decades following WWII. Their research on the development of social policy during this time period indicates that political affiliation of partisan incumbency (either social democratic, Christian democratic, secular center and right) shaped the “generosity, the structure of transfer payments and the type and volume of services offered” in a handful of countries from the mid 1940s until the early 1980s (Huber and Stephens

2001:1). Research on 22 Latin American and Caribbean countries from 1970-2000 indicated that right-wing seat share in national legislatures positively affected social security spending while left-wing seat share positively affected spending on health and education. Additionally, a high level of spending on social security was found to be positively associated with high levels of income inequality (Huber et al. 2004:13). Catholic and Christian Democratic political parties also have the ability to generate social spending legislation in political contexts where these parties compete with left-wing parties and organized labor for working-class votes (Van

Kersbergen 1995). Left-wing government incumbency has been shown to have a strong positive effect on lowering poverty rates among single mothers (Huber et al. 2009). This is especially true

67 of social democratic government incumbency, due to the fact that social democratic parties provide public child care in addition to generous tax and transfer programs (Huber et al.

2009:31). Providing child care allows women, whether they are single or not, to work outside the home and gain income. Overall, research on countries from around the world and from different time periods indicates that political affiliation of partisan incumbency shapes the generosity and scope of social policy in a number of important ways.

Organized Labor

Partisan incumbency is moderated by structural factors like the strength of organized labor. Traditionally, organized labor, affiliated groups such as corporatist organizations and center-left and social democratic parties have played an important role in articulating the collective interests of the lower-middle and working classes (Huber and Stephens 2001:18).

While organized labor and center-left or social democratic alliances are well documented, the relative strength and organization of the labor movement in question has a strong effect on the relationship between organized labor and political parties. Strength and organization of organized labor can be assessed by focusing on the relative centralization or de-centralization of labor unions. Centralized labor union movements are more likely to support social democratic political parties and are more likely to favor collective bargaining agreements that have a positive effect on the entire lower-middle and working class, rather than a limited effect on certain trades or occupations. De-centralized labor union movements are less likely to support social democratic parties and are more likely to support collective bargaining agreements that selectively favor labor unions that represent specific trades or occupations (Stephens 1979). In addition to the relative centralization or de-centralization of the labor movement, the presence of

68 corporatist organizations is considered to have an important positive effect on social policy development. Corporatist organizations engage in “institutionalized consultation and bargaining between the state and encompassing and centralized representative organizations of labor and capital” (Huber and Stephens 2001: 16). Examples of corporatist organizations include regional, municipal, state and/or federal labor councils. To sum up, the relative strength and organization of labor unions (i.e. centralized or de-centralized) has an important effect on the political articulation of class and the relationship between organized labor and political parties.

Centralized labor unions are more likely to support social democratic political parties and class- wide issues while de-centralized labor unions are less likely to support social democratic parties and are more likely to focus on issues that affect members of specific trade based unions rather than issues that affect the entire working class.

Research on the relative difference in centralization of labor movements in the United

Kingdom and Sweden sheds light on this relationship (Stephens 1979). In the U.K, where the labor movement is characterized as being fairly de-centralized, labor leaders are less likely to support wage solidarity measures and more likely to support policies that protect the wage gains of their constituents at the expense of policy development that would benefit the broader collectivity. By contrast, Sweden’s labor movement, which is characterized as being highly centralized, takes a more class-wide leftist perspective and makes decisions that benefit the working class rather than simply benefitting workers from one industry or trade. Sweden’s labor movement is more likely to donate significant resources to the Social Democratic political party and Social Democratic newspapers. Moreover, Sweden’s labor movement is more likely to support wage solidarity policies during collective bargaining, effectively turning down wage gains if it means that policies will be passed that lower unemployment and provide additional

69 benefits to the working class as a whole (Stephens 1979:142). Because Sweden’s more centralized labor movement was able to donate significant resources to the Social Democratic party and its press, by the 1970s around 20% of Sweden’s newspapers were Social Democratic in orientation and Sweden has maintained higher levels of class consciousness and a higher proportion of left-wing votes than the U.K. (Huber and Stephens 2001:26). In sum, the relative strength and organization of labor unions in the U.K. and Sweden affects their level of support for wage-solidarity measures and other class-wide issues as well as having impacts on the strength of the Social Democratic party and the left-wing media.

Women’s Political Mobilization and Participation in the Workforce

Women’s political mobilization, including membership in center-left and social democratic political parties, labor unions, and the women’s movements more generally, and participation in the workforce is also seen as having strong effects on the development of social policy. This is especially true regarding the passage of gender-egalitarian and “decommodifying” policies, such as the provision of care work (Huber et al. 2009). However, research indicates that the “types” of feminists that comprise movements are likely to support different types of social policies. Equity feminists, who tend to reflect the values of working women and are more likely to be allied with social democratic political parties and movements, advocate gender equality in terms of equal access to professional and social positions for women and men and tend to support policies like affordable child care, parental leave and “comparable worth” pay scales.

Difference feminists, who tend to reflect the values of women who stay home to raise children and are more likely to be allied with Christian democratic political parties and movements, emphasize that men and women have different roles and needs in society and tend to support

70 policies like pension rights on basis of years spent raising children and subsidies for women who stay home in order to raise children (Huber and Stephens 2001:27; Sainsbury 1996).

In other studies, women’s labor force participation, part-time work among women and women’s political mobilization has been shown to have a positive effect on the relative wage of women in couples (Huber et al. 2009). These factors, however, were modified by welfare state and labor market configurations such as the provision of care work (Huber et al. 2009:2). In most societies, women are responsible for the vast majority of care work, which includes activities such as caring for children and elderly relatives. Political parties that support policies which provide affordable day care, uninterrupted school days, maternity leave and labor market regulations facilitate women’s employment. Studies show that governments with center-left or social democratic incumbency are the most likely to develop these types of policies and that center-left and social democratic incumbency has a direct and positive effect on reducing poverty for single mothers and increasing the relative wage of women in couples (Huber et al. 2009).

However, care work that is publicly provided or heavily subsidized tends to privilege a larger proportion of women while care work that is available as a commodity in the private market tends to privilege “more highly educated/skilled women who can command an income that allows them to pay for private care” (Huber et al. 2009:3). Thus, moving care work out of the home allows for women to enter the workforce in greater numbers, but the extent to which care work is publicly provided through taxes and transfers or made available in the private market has differential effects on women from different socio-economic backgrounds.

Constitutional Provisions

Like institutional politics theory, power constellations theory also maintains that constitutional provisions that create veto points are a barrier to the development of social policy.

The presence of veto points slows the pace of social policy development and change. Presidential systems are a good example of political systems with a large number of veto points. Systems with less veto points, such as those characterized by unicameralism, unitary systems, parliamentary systems and no referenda, allow for more rapid social policy development and change (Huber and Stephens 2001:2). On the other hand, systems with high numbers of veto points are thought to fare better during times of social policy retrenchment because the same structural features that allow intramural conflict and the blockage of social policy development also allow the blockage of social policy retrenchment.

Research by Huber and Stephens (2001:2) indicates that countries with many veto points, such as the United States and Switzerland, were not as successful in developing strong welfare states in the post WWII period while countries with relatively few veto points, such as the United

Kingdom and Denmark, were able to develop their respective welfare states more rapidly during the same time period. During the era of welfare state retrenchment, starting in the late 1970s and lasting through the 1980s, countries with few veto points, conservative political incumbency and single-member district plurality elections, such as the United Kingdom and New Zealand, experienced rapid social policy retrenchment, while countries with many veto points, such as

Switzerland, had social policy retrenchment efforts blocked by left-wing parties (Huber and

Stephens 2001). In Latin America, the presence of veto points was found to hamper social spending on health and education, while having little effect on spending related to social security programs (Huber et al. 2004:14). This research indicates that countries with many veto points are

72 less likely to develop strong welfare states but are also less likely to experience rapid retrenchment of social policy once the policies are in place.

Long-term Partisan Government and Change in Social Policy

In addition to acknowledging the effect of partisan incumbency, strength of organized labor and women’s mobilization and workforce participation, Huber and Stephens (2001:4) propose four different mechanisms that connect long term partisan government to enduring changes in social policy. These four mechanisms include structural limitation, ideological hegemony, the policy ratchet effect, and regime legacies. Structural limitation refers to the phenomenon of policy options being limited or constrained by the constellation of power in a given country. In other words, power relations dictate what policy options are thought of as feasible and what policy options are “off the table.” Ideological hegemony suggests that strong social democratic labor movements often develop “ideological hegemony” in their societies which dominates public opinion on social policy regardless of the political orientation of the incumbent government. The policy ratchet argument centers on the idea that broad universalistic social spending policies are extremely popular and are not likely to be subject to the same retrenchment as other types of policies. Finally, regime legacies refer to the tendency among welfare state production regimes to shape future policy options based on precedent.

All four of the mechanisms identified by Huber and Stephens (2001) modify earlier understandings of path dependency. While the authors support the concept of path dependency as it relates to welfare state development, they do not support the idea that welfare state development fits the strongest version of the path dependency argument, known as the “critical junctures” argument (Huber and Stephens 2001:3). This argument suggests that welfare states

73 develop a policy trajectory and a supporting network of institutional arrangements that lock that trajectory in place indefinitely. Huber and Stephens (2001:3) argue that power relations, public opinion, policy configurations, and institutional arrangements limit the power of any incumbent government but that a sequence of consecutive governments with a political orientation that is different than the political orientation of the previous government can lead to changes in social spending policies.

Research on structural limitations indicates that social policy development options are often limited by the constellations of power present in a society during a given period. In

Sweden, during the 1960s, business leaders were faced with opposition from a strong coalition comprised of a highly centralized labor movement and a Social Democratic political party. This power balance forced business leaders to rule out a wide range of policy alternatives that would have been favorable for business leaders in more pro-business political contexts (Huber and

Stephens 2001:29). If the power constellations in Sweden during the 1960s featured alliances between secular conservative political parties, pro-business leaders and other groups that were opposed to center-left and social democratic social policy platforms, the business community would have been able to count on the passage of policies that were favorable to the expansion of private enterprise. This research indicates that a strong constellation comprised of centralized labor unions and the Social Democratic political party was able to block the passage of policies that would have been favorable to Sweden’s business leaders in the 1960s.

Research on ideological hegemony finds that while there have been instances of right- wing, conservative governments passing legislation that was previously championed by center- left and social democratic political parties, there is little indication that the social democratic political party or affiliated pro-spending movements and labor organizations have been able to

74 define the policy development agenda of right-wing political parties who have maintained incumbency for consecutive terms over a long period of time (Huber and Stephens 2001:11).

One instance of a “bourgeois” government implementing social policies that were put on the agenda by a coalition of social democratic political parties and organized labor is in Norway during the mid 1960s, when the dominant conservative government passed the supplementary pension plan (Huber and Stephens 2001:11). Thus, while center-right political parties may often pass legislation that was originally supported by center-left political parties and affiliated organizations, these types of organizations have little effect on shaping the policy platforms of center-right political parties that have long-term incumbency.

The policy ratchet effect on social policy development has also received support in empirical research. Huber and Stephens (2001) consider this mechanism to be the most important in determining the effect of long-term partisan incumbency on social policy development during time periods characterized by welfare state expansion. Until the late 1970s, when the era of social policy retrenchment began, secular conservative political parties worldwide rarely rolled back policy innovations that were developed by center-left, social democratic or Christian democratic political parties (Huber and Stephens 2001:28). This trend led to policy outcomes being shaped by progressive and working-class political parties. Secular conservative political parties were not willing to do away with social policies that had been developed by center-left, social democratic and Christian democratic parties because they were popular with the public.

This was especially true of universalistic social policies dealing with pensions, education and health care (Huber and Stephens 2001:29). Once these policies became a feature of many societies, their popularity grew and bolstered a strong, society-wide and cross-class opposition to cutting or eliminating them. This research indicates that center-left political parties shaped the

75 policy agenda in many countries worldwide and that center-right political parties were not able to easily roll back the policies that were implemented by center-left political parties, which were popular with the public, until the era of retrenchment began in the early 1970s.

Studies on the effects of regime legacies on social policy development show that the potential possibilities for the development of social policy and production regimes are largely dependent on historical precedent. For example, in the Scandinavian countries, strong centralized labor movements affiliated with influential social democratic political parties put pressure on business leaders and politicians to provide jobs with high wages. This eliminated competition from low-wage employers and effectively eliminated low-wage sectors of the economy (Huber and Stephens 2001:30). More recent research by Linan and Mainwaring (2013) suggests that regime legacies in Latin America exert strong effects on democracy even when long periods of authoritarian rule fall in between two periods of democratic rule. According to the authors (Linan and Mainwaring 2013:393) political parties and legal institutions are the two main “institutional carriers of regime legacies” that provide continuity of democracy even during periods of competitive politics. Political parties often have a vested interest in expanding democracy and they support predictable sets of policies and values that persist, even during times of authoritarian rule. Research on regime legacies indicates that strong center-left coalitions in

Sweden applied pressure to the business community and forced them to create high-wage jobs while research based in Latin America shows that pro-democracy political parties can act as

“institutional carriers of regime legacies” by providing democratic continuity, even when that continuity is interrupted by long stretches of authoritarian rule.

To my knowledge, there is a general lack of research that has tested the theoretical propositions of institutional politics theory against the theoretical propositions of power

76 constellations theory in order to determine which theory better explains a variety of social policy outcomes. What research does exist simply draws on both theories and selects theoretical propositions to explain particular processes rather than selecting theoretical propositions and testing them against each other in order to determine which theory better explains the relative differences in social policy development between different nations, states or cities. Research on sub-national economic development policy by Jenkins, Leicht and Wendt (2006) draws on institutional politics theory, power constellations theory and political resource theory to explain the growth of state level economic development policies. In doing so, they select the following five theoretical propositions from the aforementioned theories to explain the process of sub national economic development policy: 1.) articulation of class interests; 2.) state level political institutions; 3.) prior political legacies; 4.) underlying production regimes; and 5.) interactions of strong political institutions and class mobilization (Jenkins et al. 2006:1).

Their research identifies four mechanisms that represent the combined effects of political institutions and class forces on economic policy outcomes. First, they argue that political institutions and class forces can independently facilitate the development of state level economic development policies. Second, they suggest that political institutions may mediate the effect that class forces have on state level economic development policy. Third, they maintain that political institutions may condition the effects of class forces on state-level economic development policies by providing contexts that either promote or block the development of certain policies.

Fourth, they find that prior political legacies and related institutions may facilitate or hamper subsequent state level economic development policies (Jenkins et al. 2006:1172-1174). In the next section, I discuss how I will adapt the theoretical propositions of institutional politics theory

77 and power constellations in order to suit my comparative analysis of urban social sustainability policy.

Adapting Institutional Politics Theory and Power Constellations Theory for Urban Policy Research

In this section, I illustrate how institutional politics theory and power constellations theory have traditionally been used to analyze social policy development at the national and state level, identify the theoretical propositions that I intend to use in my analysis of urban social sustainability, and discuss the adaptations that are necessary if I am to use these theories to explain the development of social sustainability policy at the municipal and metropolitan level.

Historical emphasis on large units of analysis has resulted in a lack of application of either theory to understanding municipal or metropolitan level policy development. In addition, there is a considerable amount of overlap between institutional politics theory, power constellations theory and research on urban social sustainability. Social sustainability researchers suggest findings that resonate with the theoretical propositions of institutional politics theory and power constellations theory but do not ground their research in these bodies of literature. This overlap represents a promising avenue for research that links sociological theories of social policy development to conceptualizations and assessment methods of social sustainability. Combining the two approaches may result in a better understanding of the determinants of urban social sustainability.

This section is organized in the following way. I begin by summarizing the findings of institutional politics theory, identifying the theoretical propositions that I intend to use in my analysis, discussing how each proposition has been applied in previous research and, finally, reviewing how I will adapt each proposition to make it appropriate for my analysis. I then repeat

78 the same steps for power constellations theory. At the end of each theory-specific subsection, I include a table that summarizes the theory, lists the theoretical propositions that I will use in my analysis and describes how I have adapted each proposition to make it appropriate for an analysis of urban social sustainability policy. Throughout this section, I attempt to draw connections between the sociological literature on social policy development and the body of work on urban social sustainability whenever it is feasible. I do this by discussing how propositions from each theoretical perspective have been addressed in the literature on social sustainability. Shedding light on how social sustainability research has addressed theoretical propositions from sociological theories on social policy development provides me with a rationale for choosing and adapting specific propositions for my analysis.

Institutional Politics Theory

Most research that is grounded in institutional politics theory has focused on national and state level social policy. In a general sense, institutional politics theory has been used to explain the development of social policy in the U.S. during the New Deal period (Amenta 1998).

Researchers have focused on state level variation in Works Progress Administration wages

(Amenta and Halfmann 2000), social spending for Old Age Assistance pensions (Amenta and

Poulsen 1996), issues of vertical political fragmentation related to features of the U.S. federalist system (Amenta 1998, Amenta et al. 2001), issues of horizontal political fragmentation due to features of the U.S. national legislature (Amenta 1998, Amenta et al. 2001 ), the relationship between social policy development and underdemocratization in certain regions of the U.S.

(Kousser 1974, Amenta and Poulsen 1996, Amenta 1998), the negative effects of patronage- oriented political parties on social policy development (Amenta and Halfmann 2000), organized

79 labor’s support of old age pensions and state level unemployment insurance (Nelson 1969,

Amenta and Poulsen 1996) and pro-spending social movements such as the Share Our Wealth

Society and the Townsend Movement that operated at both the state and national level

(Holtzman 1963, Brinkley 1982, Amenta and Poulsen 1996).

I have chosen to test three theoretical propositions of institutional politics theory in

Chapter 6. In order to make the theoretical propositions appropriate for an analysis of the relative social sustainability of urban policy I have modified them slightly. The three theoretical propositions that I have chosen to use deal with political fragmentation, government or bureaucratic capacity and democratization. I’ve modified the proposition on fragmentation so that it is appropriate for an analysis of urban regions by choosing to focus on metropolitan or regional governments. Presence of metropolitan/regional government reduces the amount of intra-municipal conflict in decision-making and policy formation and allows for more effective solutions to problems that often times cross municipal boundaries and affect several adjacent municipalities located within the same metropolitan region. In order to evaluate the governmental or bureaucratic capacity of my sample cities, I have analyzed the proposed budgets for 2014, focusing specifically on how much money and resources are allocated for certain policy areas. To assess the relative level of democratization in my sample cities, I have decided to focus on programs and policies that seek to include residents in the decision-making processes of local government and increase levels of citizen participation overall.

While issues related to fragmentation of political authority and institutions have been studied by proponents of institutional politics theory and power constellations theory, these studies have focused on national level or state level case studies. Research at the municipal or metropolitan level must take into account different authorities and institutions. Rather than

80 looking at constitutional provisions that produce veto points, branches of national government, independent courts and other measures of horizontal and vertical fragmentation at the national level, at the urban level the number of and relationship between municipal governments within a metropolitan area become an important topic of focus. To this end, Rusk (1993), Polese and

Stren (2000), Savitch and Kantor (2002) and LeBlanc (2006) argue that metropolitan or regional governance is more effective in facilitating social sustainability for several reasons. In his research on the effects of metropolitan governance, David Rusk (1993) finds that urban regions with metropolitan-wide governments are less racially segregated and are less likely to show dramatic differences in income between suburban and urban residents than in metropolitan areas that are highly fragmented. Polese and Stren (2000:325) argue that urban regions characterized by municipal autonomy, rather than metropolitan governance and redistribution of resources, are more likely to become a collection of “unequal socially and ethnically homogenous municipalities” where “municipal political boundaries become the equivalent of social and cultural boundaries” as citizens “vote with their feet, not only to choose the desired bundle of services and level of local taxation, but also to choose the desired racial and social group with which to live.” Savitch and Kantor (2002) find that metropolitan governance constitutes a type of territorial reorganization that modifies the institutional and political equilibrium at the regional level, creates more channels for citizen participation and redefines the margins local authorities have to shape development. Finally, in LeBlanc’s (2006:572) research on metropolitan governance in Toronto and Montreal, she finds that financing and implementation of social housing, public security and public transport are more effective at the metropolitan level and that metropolitan governance systems are more effective in redistributing and financing services in metropolitan regions where there are noticeable differences in the wealth of adjacent

81 municipalities. Because of these findings, I focus on identifying the extent to which my sample cities are governed by metropolitan governance systems.

Governmental or bureaucratic capacity at the national level is usually studied by focusing on the ability of social spending bureaucracies to develop social policies despite the activities of organized resistance. At the urban level, city budgets and the interaction between metropolitan governance agencies and municipal governance agencies and larger units of government can determine the effectiveness of social policy development. As Polese and Stren (2000:321) argue, fiscal decentralization can facilitate social exclusion in urban regions characterized by municipal autonomy. More specifically, the authors compare the different ways that public schools are funded in the U.S. and Canada to prove their point. In the U.S., public schools are funded primarily by local school boards who have the power to levy taxes and generate revenue through local real estate/property taxes. Since different communities within an urban region have different housing values, the amount of revenue generated is inherently unequal. In Canada, on the other hand, public education is funded at the provincial level, which frees up the governments of urban regions to fund other types of services. In sum, where most public services are dependent on local taxation, the quality of services will depend on local levels of wealth. In regions with metropolitan governance, available tax revenue is pooled and redistributed in a different way, allowing for a more predictable and equal quality of services. Thus, in order to analyze the governmental or bureaucratic capacity of my sample cities, I examine the operating budgets of both municipal and, where it is available, metropolitan governance systems.

At the national and state level, citizen participation is often measured by analyzing voting patterns, rights related to assembly and organization, and other issues related to democratization.

It is important, however, to note that democratization deals not only with political culture, voting

82 patterns and political parties, but also with issues related to citizen participation in local decision- making processes. Colantonio and Dixon (2011) illustrate that participation and empowerment are two of the most common policy themes that are emerging within the context of socially sustainable European urban regeneration initiatives. Elaine Power’s (2009) research on community development food projects finds that citizen participation in community gardening and similar food production projects is more empowering than relying on charitable food distribution such as food pantries or food banks because it helps build skills and gives participants a feeling of self-reliance. Thus, cities with governance systems that engage residents, seek collaborative solutions to important issues and provide opportunities for residents to provide feedback to elected officials support social sustainability by promoting inclusion within the decision-making process and allowing a higher degree of democratization. Consequently, I focus on programs in my sample cities that promote high levels of citizen participation in decision making processes.

In summation, while institutional politics theory has been traditionally used to explain the development of social policy during the New Deal era in the U.S., research on urban social sustainability indicates that several propositions from institutional politics theory are suitable for an analysis of urban social sustainability. In Table 2, I illustrate how I have adapted the theoretical propositions of institutional politics theory to better suit my analysis. More specifically, I provide a summary of institutional politics theory, identify the theoretical propositions that I have chosen to use in my analysis of urban social sustainability and describe how I have adapted each proposition to better suit my analysis. I argue that fragmentation, governmental or bureaucratic capacity, and level of democratization can best be assessed at the urban level by determining the degree of metropolitan fragmentation, analyzing proposed

83 operating budgets at the municipal and metropolitan level, and examining policies that promote citizen participation in the decision making process at the local level.

Table 2. Institutional Politics Theory: Summary of Approach, Selected Theoretical Propositions and Adapted Versions of Theoretical Propositions. Theoretical Summary of Approach Selected Theoretical Propositions Adapted Theoretical Perspective Propositions Institutional This theory suggests that the  Low levels of institutional  Low levels of Politics arrangement of social and political fragmentation lead to metropolitan institutions determines the development of social policy fragmentation lead to Theory development and shape of social  High levels of development of policy initiatives. Democratization, governmental/bureaucratic socially sustainable fragmentation of political capacity lead to development of urban policies institutions, nature of political social policy  High levels of parties, and bureaucratic  High levels of democratization municipal and fragmentation affect a government’s lead to development of social metropolitan ability to develop social policy. policy financial capacity lead to development of socially sustainable urban policies  High levels of citizen participation in the decision-making process at the urban level leads to development of socially sustainable urban policies

Power Constellations Theory

Research guided by power constellations theory has also traditionally focused on national level social policy. Generally speaking, power constellations theory has been used to analyze the development of welfare states in the post WWII period and their relative ability to resist retrenchment in the modern era (Huber and Stephens 2001). Researchers grounded in this theory have found that right-wing seat share in national legislatures positively affected social security spending while left-wing seat share positively affected spending on health and education in 22

Latin American and Caribbean countries from 1970 to 2000 (Huber et al. 2004). Power constellations theorists have also found that Catholic and Christian Democratic political parties have an ability to generate social spending legislation in political contexts where these parties

84 compete with left-wing parties and organized labor for working-class votes (Van Kersbergen

1995) and that left-wing government incumbency has a positive effect on lowering poverty rates among single mothers (Huber et al. 2009).

I have chosen to test three theoretical propositions of power constellations theory in my second analysis chapter. In order to make the theoretical propositions appropriate for an analysis of the relative social sustainability of urban policy I have modified them slightly. The three theoretical propositions that I’ve chosen to use deal with the strength of organized labor, participation of women in the workforce and the presence of center-left parties. I’ve modified the proposition on the strength of organized labor so that it is appropriate for an analysis of urban regions by choosing to focus on union membership rates in my sample cities and in the surrounding metropolitan areas. I have also included information about union membership in the states and provinces (and in the case of Canada, the country as well) that my sample cities are situated in to place more emphasis on the larger context. My discussion of women’s participation in the workforce focuses on my sample cities and their respective metropolitan areas. I also provide selected information about unemployment rates and employment rates by race/ethnicity and marital status. For presence of center-left political parties I focus on provincial parties in

British Columbia, autonomous civic political parties in Vancouver, the partisan incumbency and policy positions of governors in Washington and Oregon and the partisan affiliation of mayors and selected City Councilors who have been elected in Seattle and Portland. I also provide some background information on selected ballot measures in Washington and Oregon to give the reader some insight into the larger political context of the region.

Research guided by power constellations theory argues that organized labor allied with strong center/left political parties facilitates the development of social policy at the national and

85 state level. To my knowledge, there is no research guided by power constellations theory that analyzes the effects of organized labor on social policy at the level of the urban region. Similarly, there is no literature that I am aware of that addresses the relationship between urban regional level organized labor organizations and urban social sustainability. Although I discuss national, provincial and state level organized labor organizations, I focus specifically on urban and regional level organized labor and corporatist organizations, like regional labor councils in order to better understand the relationship between urban and regional level organized labor and the development of socially sustainable urban policies.

Research rooted in power constellations theory finds that high levels of women’s participation in the labor force leads to higher levels of political mobilization and a higher chance of social policy development. Research indicates that women’s labor force participation, part-time work among women and women’s political mobilization has been shown to have a positive effect on the relative wage of women in couples but that these factors were modified by welfare state and labor market configurations such as the provision of care work (Huber et al.

2009:2). From a social sustainability perspective, Littig and Griesler (2005) emphasize the role of women’s paid work and a “gender sensible social and welfare policy” as a central feature of any social sustainability initiative (Littig and Griessler 2005:76). In my analysis, I focus specifically on women’s labor force participation in my three sample cities.

Strong center/left political party incumbency is associated with generous social policy development in power constellations literature. Research shows that political parties played the strongest role in determining social policy outcomes worldwide in the three decades following

WWII (Huber and Stephens 2001). Specifically, the political affiliation of partisan incumbency

(either social democratic, Christian democratic, secular center and right) shaped the “generosity,

86 the structure of transfer payments and the type and volume of services offered” in selected countries from the mid 1940s until the early 1980s (Huber and Stephens 2001:1). Research conducted on Latin American and Caribbean countries indicated that right-wing seat share in national legislatures positively affected spending on social security while left-wing seat share positively affected spending on health and education (Huber et al. 2004:13). In my analysis, I examine the relationship between political parties at the state, provincial and city level and the development of socially sustainable urban policy. I also briefly discuss the voting history of residents from state, provincial and city levels to provide some context to the reader.

In summation, while power constellations theory has been traditionally used to explain the development of welfare states in the post WWII period and the relative ability of countries to resist retrenchment in the 1970s and on, research on urban social sustainability indicates that several propositions from power constellations theory are suitable for an analysis of urban social sustainability. In Table 3, I illustrate how I have adapted the theoretical propositions of power constellations theory to better suit my analysis. More specifically, I provide a summary of power constellations theory’s approach to explaining social policy development, I identify the theoretical propositions that I have chosen to use in my analysis of urban social sustainability, and I describe how I have adapted each proposition to better suit my analysis. I argue that strength of organized labor, women’s participation in the labor force, and strength of center-left political parties can best be assessed at the urban level by determining the level of union membership, analyzing women’s labor force participation and unemployment, and examining the presence and influence of center/left political parties at the municipal and metropolitan level.

Table 3. Power Constellations Theory: Summary of Approach, Selected Theoretical Propositions and Adapted Versions of Theoretical Propositions. Theoretical Perspective Summary of Approach Selected Theoretical Adapted Theoretical Propositions Propositions Power Constellations This theory suggests that  Strength of organized  Strong local and Theory variation in the mobilization labor leads to regional level of political groups, political development of social organized labor party incumbency and policy leads to governmental structure  High % of women in the development of determines the trajectory and labor force leads to socially composition of social policy. development of social sustainable Strength of organized labor, policy urban policies women’s participation in the  Strong center/left political  High % of labor force and the presence parties lead to women in the of strong center/left political development of social labor force at parties affect a government’s policy the level of the ability to develop social urban region policy, especially in contexts leads to socially where there are constitutional sustainable provisions that limit the urban policies number of veto points.  Strong center/left political parties at the local level lead to development of socially sustainable urban policies.

CHAPTER 4

RESEARCH METHODS

In this chapter, I provide information about my case studies, review comparative- historical research methodology, discuss my data and research methods, and address limitations in my data. This chapter is organized in the following manner. First, I begin by providing the reader with some basic background information on my three sample cities. Then, I provide a general overview of comparative-historical research methodology and situate my dissertation into this body of literature. I then illustrate how I collected my data, describe the types of data, and provide detailed information about my research methodology for each analysis chapter, focusing specifically on how I assess the relative social sustainability of my cities and how I conduct a comparative analysis of theoretical propositions from institutional politics theory and power constellations theory. Finally, I briefly discuss limitations in my data.

The Cities: Vancouver, Seattle, and Portland

This dissertation is based on an analysis of policies, institutional factors and political factors in three cities. The three cities I have chosen to analyze in this dissertation are

Vancouver, British Columbia, Seattle, Washington and Portland, Oregon. All three cities share a number of similarities, including natural setting, cultural features and progressive politics. There are, however, a number of important ways that my sample cities differ from each other that are worth noting. Before going into more detail about the similarities and differences, I will first present some basic background information about each city.

In Table 4, I list each city’s total population, total number of households, population by gender, population by race, and median age. Because of differences in how Canada and the U.S.

89 administer the Census and related studies (National Household Survey for Canada and the

American Community Survey for the U.S.) the categories used for population by race are slightly different (i.e. for Vancouver, I list Black instead of African American and Aboriginal instead of

Native American). I also have a more detailed set of data regarding Vancouver’s population by race which I will discuss in the next paragraph. This is due to the fact that the Canadian National

Household Survey collects very detailed information on the national origins of each minority group. It should also be noted that information on race and ethnicity is collected in the Canadian

National Household Survey, which estimated a lower population of 590,205 in 2011 due to differential response rates between the Canadian Census and the National Household Survey.

Due to these differences in how the population is estimated, the total number of residents counted in the population by race category does not add up to the number that I have provided

(603,495), which was estimated based on the results of the Canadian Census of 2011.

Table 4. Socio-Demographic Data for Vancouver, Seattle, and Portland. Socio-Demographic Vancouver Seattle Portland Data Total Population 603,495 612,916 585,888 Total Households 264,575 285,476 248,549 Population by Gender Male: 295,100 Male: 303,982 Male: 288,940 Female: 308,400 Female: 308,934 Female: 296,948 Population by Race Caucasian: 284,590 Caucasian: 432,714 Caucasian: 454, 159 Black: 5,720 African American: 47,887 African American: 37,922 Aboriginal: 14,675 Native American: 4,930 Native American: 4,602 Asian: 292,445 Asian: 85,935 Asian: 42,426 Pacific Islander: 5,040 Pacific Islander: 2,236 Pacific Islander: 3,405 Other race(s): 1,175 Other race(s): 9,244 Other race(s): 18,278 Two race(s): 8,680 Two race(s): 29,970 Two race(s): 25,096 Hispanic/Latino: 9,595 Hispanic/Latino: 37,880 Hispanic/Latino: 54,420 Median Age 39.7 36.1 36

The total population, total number of households, gender distribution, and median age of my sample cities are all quite similar to each other. However, the population distribution by race is strikingly different in my three sample cities. Vancouver has a markedly smaller number of

Caucasians at 284,590 when compared to Seattle, which has 432,714, or Portland, which has

454,159. When compared to Seattle and Portland, Vancouver has a much larger Asian population. In fact, Vancouver’s residents of Asian origin represent more than half of the population at 292,445 while Seattle has 85,935 and Portland has 42,426. Although I did not include detailed information on the national origins of Vancouver’s Asian population in the table because I was not able to collect similarly detailed information on Seattle and Portland, I will briefly describe the distribution now. Of Vancouver’s 292,445 residents that are of Asian origin,

170,265 are Chinese, 38,005 are Filipino, 29,690 are Indian, 14,850 are Vietnamese, 11,695 are

Japanese, 9,075 are Korean, and the rest are from other areas of Asia and the Middle East

(Statistics Canada National Household Survey 2011). Finally, both Seattle and Portland have a greater number of Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, and multi-racial residents than

Vancouver.

One of the other key differences between my sample cities, and one of the differences that initially attracted me to studying these three cities, lies in the fact that Vancouver is the only one of the three to have adopted a working definition of social sustainability and created a framework for its implementation. In 2005, the city of Vancouver adopted a working definition of social sustainability. Below is the city of Vancouver’s definition of social sustainability:

For a community to function and be sustainable, the basic needs of its residents build on

its own resources and have the resiliency to prevent and/or address problems in the

future. There are two types or levels of resources in the community that are available to

build social sustainability (and, indeed, economic and environmental sustainability),

individual or human capacity, and social or community capacity. Individual or human

capacity refers to the attributes and resources that individuals can contribute to their own

well-being and to the well-being of the community as a whole. Such resources include

education, skills, health, values and leadership. Social or community capacity is defined

as the relationships, networks and norms that facilitate collective action taken to improve

upon quality of life and to ensure that such improvements are sustainable. To be effective

and sustainable, both these individual and community resources need to be developed and

used within the context of four guiding principles--equity, social inclusion and

interaction, security, and adaptability (City of Vancouver 2005a).

In order to implement the adopted working definition of social sustainability, the City of

Vancouver also developed a Social Development Plan, or SDP (City of Vancouver 2005b).

According to the City of Vancouver, the intent of the SDP is to “plan, facilitate and/or partner with other levels of government and the community to develop responses appropriate to

Vancouver’s changing needs” and to “guide the City’s social development work within a larger framework of sustainability” (City of Vancouver 2005b:5). The plan also indicates that the

“social sustainability components provide the basis of an analytical framework to identify how social development activities complement and enhance opportunities for environmental and economic sustainability” (City of Vancouver 2005b:6). More specifically, Vancouver’s SDP identifies city policies and programs, how those policies and programs have been implemented, and principles or best practices for social sustainability. In addition, the social development plan also identifies the social sustainability component of each policy or program by emphasizing how each policy or program meets basic needs, human capacity or social capacity. For example, in the SDP appendix, Vancouver’s Mural Program is identified as promoting human capacity by

92 providing “youth and former graffiti taggers with more positive forms of self-expression and creative outlets” while the City’s Street Furniture program promotes social capacity by providing a more welcoming pedestrian environment, supporting more sustainable forms of transportation and encouraging seniors and disabled community members to be more mobile (City of

Vancouver 2005b).

Vancouver’s definition of social sustainability and framework for the implementation of social sustainability are important for several reasons. First, Vancouver is widely considered to be the first city to adopt a framework for social sustainability (Colantonio 2008). Second, several other municipalities (Burnaby, Surrey, North Vancouver and Richmond) within the greater

Vancouver metropolitan area have also adopted their own working definitions of social sustainability which shows evidence of inter-municipal coordination. Third, the City of

Vancouver developed its definition of social sustainability through a cooperative effort with the local regional metropolitan authority, Metro Vancouver. Finally, there has been an ongoing effort to include citizens in the process of developing social sustainability indicators. This effort has been initiated by the Regional Vancouver Urban Observatory (Holden 2011). In sum,

Vancouver’s development of a working definition of social sustainability and a framework for the implementation of social sustainability is innovative and unprecedented.

At first glance, Vancouver’s adoption of a working definition of social sustainability and development of a framework for its implementation might appear to give the city an unfair advantage over Seattle and Portland in a comparative analysis of urban social sustainability.

However, rather than using Vancouver’s definition of social sustainability as a criteria for overall level of urban social sustainability, I purposefully intended, at the outset of my dissertation research, to devise a way of assessing each city’s level of social sustainability that did not take

93 this factor into account. Simply stated, I did not want to take Vancouver’s word for it. I instead wanted to look deeper into the subject of social sustainability and develop an assessment framework that allowed me to analyze a number of policy areas and determine the social sustainability of policy decisions made in those policy areas.

Apart from the aforementioned socio-demographic differences, all three cities share a number of similarities. All three cities and their respective urban regions are located in the same bioregion, which is a region whose limits are naturally defined by topographic and biological features. Some researchers refer to this region, which includes the U.S. Pacific Northwest and the adjacent portion of British Columbia, on the Canadian side of the border, as an ecolopolis. An ecolopolis is “a region of networked metropolitan areas found within a common bioregion, where the individual metropolitan areas are separated by working and wild landscapes”

(Cascadia Ecolopolis 2.0 2006:6). It is important to note the difference between the term ecolopolis and megalopolis. The term megalopolis was first used to describe the continuously urbanized region stretching from Washington D.C. to Boston which effectively encompassed the majority of the Northeastern seaboard of the United States (Gottmann 1964). Many local residents and decision-makers in my area of study prefer to describe their region as an ecolopolis rather than a megalopolis for two reasons. First, they argue that the region is not characterized by continuous urbanization in the same way that the Northeastern U.S. is. Second, they point to the long history of support for smart growth initiatives and sustainable development in this region

(Cascadia Ecolopolis 2.0 2006).

Other groups of locals refer to this region as Cascadia. According to the Cascadian

Independence Project, Cascadia is a “unique coastal bioregion that defines the Pacific Northwest of the United States and Canada, incorporating British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, parts of

Idaho, southern Alaska, northern California and in many ways is geographically, culturally, economically, and environmentally distinct from surrounding regions” (Cascadian Independence

Project 2014). Groups that are part of this larger movement are currently in the process of fighting for greater levels of self-sufficiency and autonomy and have gone so far as to create their own flag and a number of regional organizations that are affiliated with the larger

Cascadian Independence Project. These organizations, which are part of the Cascadia Affiliates

Network, include the Cascadia Football Organization, the Cascadia Wiki Project, the Cascadia

PDX (Portland) Branch, the Cascadia Education Project, the Cascadia Review, Cascadia Earth

First!, the Cascadia Institute, the Cascadia Cuisine Initiative, and finally, the Cascadia Public

Trust Initiative (Cascadian Independence Project 2014). Taken together, there are a number of factors that tie all three urban regions together into one larger ecolopolis.

Comparative Historical Methods

In this dissertation, I draw from comparative-historical methods. Comparative-historical analysis is an analytical approach within the larger field of historical sociology that is characterized by the use of systematic comparison and the analysis of processes over time to explain large-scale outcomes such as revolutions, political regimes, and welfare states (Mahoney and Rueschemeyer 2003). Comparative-historical research methodology is a distinct form of research that should be differentiated from other forms of analysis that sometimes use comparative or historical approaches. For instance, some types of methodological approaches can be considered comparative, but not historical (cross-national analyses with quantitative or formal qualitative methods), while other forms of research can be considered historical, but not comparative (historiography, or historical case studies) (Amenta 2003:94). Some types of causal

95 research are neither comparative nor historical. Examples of these types of research include within-country quantitative work and present-day case studies (Amenta 2003:94).

Typically, comparative-historical analysis strategies involve the development of methodological tools for causal and/or descriptive inference (Mahoney 2004). Methodological tools designed for causal inference allow researchers to test hypotheses related to necessary and sufficient causes and complex temporal processes (Mahoney 2004:81). Tools for testing hypotheses related to necessary and sufficient causes include: 1.) typological theory, which involves the construction of typologies whose cells represent different values on independent and dependent variables, and 2.) Boolean algebra, which is effective for the analysis of combinations of variables that are sufficient for the occurrence of a specific outcome, and 3.) fuzzy sets, which allows researchers to continuously code variables based on the degree to which they correspond to qualitative categories of interest (Ragin 1987; Ragin 2000; Mahoney 2004; George and

Bennett 2005). Tools for studying temporal processes include: 1.) process analysis, or the

“analysis of sequences of events that occur within cases,” and 2.) sequence and duration arguments (Mahoney 2004:88-90).

Comparative-historical analytic tools for descriptive inference typically use case studies to develop concepts. According to Mahoney (2004:93) some of the dominant definitions of concepts such as authoritarianism, capitalism, corporatism, democracy, development, feudalism, ideology, nationalism and revolution have been produced by comparative-historical researchers.

Additionally, the approach often fosters conceptual distinctions in ways that create typologies.

For example, comparative-historical researchers have identified different types of revolutions

(political, social, anti-colonial), regimes (democratic, totalitarian, authoritarian), and welfare systems (Christian democratic, liberal, social democratic) (Mahoney 2004:93).

Measurement validity involves avoiding error when operationalizing concepts and scoring cases. Operationalization is the process of developing indicators with which to measure a concept and scoring cases is the process of rating or ranking cases (Adcock and Collier 2001;

Mahoney 2004). For instance, in order to operationalize the concept of democracy at the national level, a researcher might develop the following indicators to measure the concept: voter turnout and number of political parties. To score cases with these indicators, a researcher would first determine levels of voter turnout and the number of political parties for each of the cases being studied in the research project. The researcher would then compare the findings across nations to establish which one has a higher level of democracy. Comparative-historical research methodology increases measurement validity by allowing researchers the ability to modify conceptual definitions, indicators, and scores in different iterations of analysis and adapt the meaning of indicators to specific contexts (Mahoney 2004:95-96).

Research guided by both institutional politics theory and power constellations theory often use comparative-historical methods, either by itself or in combination with other analytic methods, to appraise their arguments about social policy development. Scholars have tested theoretical claims forwarded by institutional politics theory by mapping and analyzing historical trajectories of social policy, comparing the development and fates of programs, examining variation in federal programs across states of the union, and using cross-national comparisons

(Amenta 1998). Examples of the first two strategies include documenting policy breakthroughs over two decades (1930s and 1940s) and comparing the effects that reform-oriented regimes and bureaucratic capacity had on national level programs and programs where national government and sub-national governments shared control (Amenta 1998:44-47). Examples of the last two strategies include determining the likelihood that states in the U.S. would develop their own

“little New Deals” based on existing institutional and political factors and comparing the U.S. with Britain in order to sustain more general claims about social policy development (Amenta

1998:47-50).

Theoretical arguments forwarded by power constellations theory have been tested with case study methods of analytic induction that utilize both comparative-historical analysis and cross-national quantitative analysis (Huber et al. 1993). For example, Huber and Stephens

(2001:32) use this combination of analytic methods to “achieve generalizability and to establish causality through tracing links between events and actors’ behavior in the historical narrative.”

The authors (Huber and Stephens 2001) compare nine case studies that represent three different types of welfare state regimes. Four of the countries in their analysis (Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark) represent social democratic regimes, three countries (Austria, Germany, and the

Netherlands) represent Christian democratic regimes, and two countries (Australia and New

Zealand) represent wage earner welfare state regimes (Huber and Stephens 2001:34). In all nine of the case studies, the authors analyze the interaction between a variety of institutional and political factors including, but not limited to, constitutional provisions, strength of organized labor, women’s labor force participation, and incumbency of center-left political parties (Huber and Stephens 2001).

Dissertation Methods and Data

My dissertation utilizes the aforementioned methods to 1.) assess relative levels of social sustainability in my sample cities and 2.) test whether institutional politics theory or power constellations theory best explains the development of social sustainability. More specifically, in my first analysis chapter (Chapter 5), I utilize a social sustainability framework (SSAF) to

98 analyze 30 qualitative and quantitative criteria from six policy areas in order to determine the relative social sustainability of my sample cities. In my second analysis chapter (Chapter 6), I test theoretical propositions from institutional politics theory and power constellations theory in order to identify which theory better explains the results of my first analysis chapter. In the following two sections, I provide more detail about the criteria I use to assess social sustainability and test the theories, what data I draw on to measure these criteria, and how I rank the cities.

Assessing Social Sustainability

In this section, I describe the data and research methods that I use to address the following research question in Chapter 5: Is Vancouver, Seattle, or Portland more socially sustainable? Based on my review of the literature on conceptualizations and assessment methods of social sustainability (Chapter 2), I developed a social sustainability assessment framework

(SSAF) designed to assess the relative level of social sustainability in six specific policy areas

(housing, transportation, food, leisure and recreation, social cohesion, and identity and sense of place). In order to assess the relative level of social sustainability of each of my sample cities, I selected a number of qualitative and quantitative criteria for each policy area. In Table 5, I list the six policy areas, the corresponding criteria for each policy area, and examples of the data that

I bring to bear in order to measure my social sustainability criteria. Below, I go into more detail about how I assess the relative social sustainability of each sample city, distinguishing how I bring data to bear on each of my criteria and distinguishing my qualitative criteria from my quantitative criteria for each of the policy areas of my social sustainability assessment framework.

Table 5. Policy Areas, Social Sustainability Criteria, and Data Sources Policy Areas Social Sustainability Criteria Data Sources Housing Residential Stability City information on foreclosure prevention and down payment programs Subsidized and Supportive Housing City information on social housing and permanent supportive housing programs Population Density Reports from U.S. Census Bureau and Statistics Canada Average Monthly Housing Cost by Ownership Reports from U.S. Census Bureau and Type Statistics Canada Median Value of Owner Occupied Housing Units Reports from U.S. Census Bureau and Statistics Canada Homeownership Rate Reports from U.S. Census Bureau and Statistics Canada Transportation Multi-Modal Transportation Reports from regional transportation authorities Accessible Transportation Reports from regional transportation authorities Bus and Rail Boardings Per Capita Reports from regional transportation authorities Bus Trips Per Capita Reports from regional transportation authorities Light Rail Trips Per Capita Reports from regional transportation authorities Commuter Rail Trips Per Capita Reports from regional transportation authorities Food Food-Based Organizations and Strategies Local food policy councils and regional food policy strategies Community Development Food Projects Detailed information from city governments on community gardens, community kitchens, and neighborhood food networks Number of Community Gardens Documents from city government Number of Farmers Markets Documents from city government Leisure and Recreation Leisure and Recreation Management Reports from parks and recreation departments Targeted Leisure and Recreation Programs Reports from parks and recreation departments on leisure and recreation programs for youth, seniors, disabled residents and other groups. Number of Parks Reports from parks and recreation departments Number of Community Centers Reports from parks and recreation departments Percentage of Land Area Devoted to Parks Reports from parks and recreation departments Social Cohesion Targeted Social Cohesion Programs Reports from city governments on number/types of specialized programs for the disabled, seniors, youth, LGBTQ residents, and low-income residents Increasing Accessibility to Existing Programs and Reports from city governments on Resources number/types of outreach programs, harm reduction programs, and programs that help to find residents housing and treatment for addiction Percentage of Residents Living Alone Reports from U.S. Census Bureau and Statistics Canada Percentage of Residents Living in Poverty Reports from U.S. Census Bureau and Statistics Canada Percentage of Households that are Single-Parent Reports from U.S. Census Bureau and Households Statistics Canada Median Individual Income Reports from U.S. Census Bureau and Statistics Canada Median Household Income Reports from U.S. Census Bureau and Statistics Canada

100

Table 5-continued Policy Areas Social Sustainability Criteria Data Sources Identity and Sense of Place Historical Preservation City information on number/types of historical preservation programs and policies Community Planning City information on number/types of community planning programs

In order to assess the social sustainability of housing policy, I analyze the following criteria: residential stability, subsidized and supportive housing, population density, average monthly housing cost by ownership type, median value of owner occupied housing units, and homeownership rate. The first two qualitative criteria are used to assess social sustainability of housing policy because they pertain to issues related to housing tenure and turnover of residents, availability of non-market housing for low-income residents, and availability of housing for residents with disabilities or addiction issues. To assess these criteria, I compare each sample city’s programs and policies that have been designed to increase residential stability and extend housing opportunities for low-income and disabled residents and residents who are struggling with addiction issues and rank each city’s performance in these areas in relation to each other.

The last four quantitative criteria address issues related to density and its relationship to increased access to services, housing affordability, and homeownership rate. These criteria are easier to measure from an objective standpoint and determine which city scores higher in which criteria. Data that I use to measure these criteria consisted of information from municipal governments on programs for foreclosure prevention, down payment programs, social housing and supportive housing as well as statistical reports from the U.S. Census Bureau, and Statistics

Canada.

To assess the social sustainability of transportation policies in my sample cities, I analyze the following criteria: multi-modal transportation, accessibility, bus and rail boardings per capita,

101 bus trips per capita, light rail trips per capita, and commuter rail trips per capita. The first two criteria are qualitative in nature and I analyze these criteria by examining the transportation systems of my sample cities and determining the number and types of transit options and accessibility features and rank each city’s performance in relation to each other. The last four criteria are quantitative and I analyze these criteria by determining ridership, per person, per year and determining which of my sample cities has higher rates of ridership. Data that I use to measure these criteria consisted of reports on transit options, accessibility features, and ridership and were drawn from the following regional transportation authorities (TransLink, SoundTransit,

King County Metro, and TriMet) and private agencies such as the Puget Sound Bikeshare.

To assess the relative social sustainability of food policy in my sample cities, I analyze the following criteria: food-based organizations and strategies, community development food projects, number of community gardens, and number of farmers markets. The first two criteria are qualitative and I analyze them by comparing local food policy councils, food strategies, and community gardens and community kitchens programs in each of my sample cities and establishing which city performs better in these criteria. The last two criteria are more quantitative in nature and I analyze them by determining the number of community gardens and farmers markets in each of my sample cities and illustrating which of my sample cities has more of them. Data that I used to assess the aforementioned criteria consisted of detailed information and reports drawn from local and regional food policy councils and municipal governments.

In order to establish the social sustainability of leisure and recreation policy in my sample cities, I analyze the following criteria: leisure and recreation management, targeted leisure and recreation programs, number of parks, number of community centers, and percentage of land area devoted to parks. The first two criteria are qualitative and I analyze them by comparing each

102 sample city’s parks and recreation departments and programs geared towards seniors, youth,

LGBTQ residents, disabled residents, and other groups. The last three criteria are quantitative and I analyze them by determining the number of parks and community centers, and the percentage of land area devoted to parks in each of my sample cities and ranking each city in relation to each other. All of the data that I used to assess these criteria consisted of information and reports that were drawn from municipal parks and recreation departments.

To ascertain the social sustainability of social cohesion policy in each of my sample cities, I analyze the following criteria: targeted social cohesion programs, increasing accessibility to existing programs and resources, percentage of residents living alone, percentage of residents living in poverty, percentage of households that are single-parent households, median individual income, and median household income. Analyzing the first two qualitative criteria consists of identifying specialized programs for youth, seniors, LBGTQ residents, disabled residents, residents struggling with addiction and mental health issues, and residents who are at-risk of becoming homeless and discussing outreach programs that seek to connect marginalized residents with existing programs and resources. The last five criteria are quantitative and analyzing them consists of identifying the statistics related to each criteria and ranking each city based on the statistics. Data that I used to assess these criteria consisted of reports on specialized programs and outreach programs drawn from municipal governments and statistics drawn from the U.S. Census Bureau and Statistics Canada.

To assess the social sustainability of identity and sense of place policy, I analyze two criteria: historical preservation and community planning. Both of these criteria are qualitative in nature. I analyze these criteria by examining each sample city’s historical preservation initiatives and programs and identifying programs that seek to include citizens in the planning process.

103

Unfortunately, it was very difficult to identify quantitative criteria for this policy area. This may be due, in part, to the fact that this policy area represents a “soft” social sustainability theme that is difficult to conceptualize and operationalize. Because of this, I did my best and chose two qualitative criteria that I believe can be used to gauge the social sustainability of this area. Data that I used to assess these criteria consisted of detailed information on historical preservation and community planning programs drawn from municipal governments.

In order to rank the cities with regard to social sustainability I will assign a relative numerical value for each criteria of the social sustainability policy area listed in Table 5. For example, for housing policy I have included the following social sustainability criteria: residential stability, subsidized and supportive housing, population density, average monthly housing cost by ownership type, median value of owner occupied housing units, and homeownership rate. The highest possible score for this policy area is six, because there are six social sustainability criteria. For each social sustainability criterion—for example, residential stability—I will assign a value of 1 for the city ranked the highest, .75 for the second rated city,

.50 for the third best. If my sample cities perform similarly in a specific criterion, I will award them with the same score. So if the data—whether qualitative or quantitative—make it difficult to assess whether, for example, Vancouver or Seattle is better with regard to residential stability, but the data show that they both are better than Portland, I will give both Vancouver and Seattle a score of 1 and give Portland a score of .75. The reason why I am assigning a social sustainability score based on relative performance is simply because there are no commonly accepted objective social sustainability benchmarks that I can compare my cities to.1

1For instance, there is literature that suggests that multi-modal and accessible transportation contributes to socially sustainable transportation policy, but it does not specify that a certain number of bus routes, light rail lines, and accessibility features constitutes socially sustainable 104

After ranking the cities in relation to each other to determine which city has the highest social sustainability score per criterion, I will determine the overall social sustainability score by adding up the values of all 30 criteria. The highest possible overall social sustainability score is thus 30 because there are 30 different criteria assessed. A score of 30 would indicate that the city ranked highest on all criteria. If one of my sample cities ranked last on all social sustainability criteria, then it will receive a total score of 15 (indicating a .5 for all 30 criteria). In my analysis chapter, I will examine data with regard to the criteria of each policy area, rank the cities, and create tables to indicate the scores on specific criteria as well as the city’s overall score.

Testing Theories of Policy Development

In this section, I describe the data and research methods that I use to address the following research question in Chapter 6: Does institutional politics theory or power constellations theory best explain the differences in cities’ social sustainability policies? To answer this research question, I selected and slightly modified three theoretical propositions from each theory and gathered appropriate data to test the modified theoretical propositions (see Table

6). The theoretical propositions I chose from institutional politics theory address issues related to the fragmentation of political authorities and institutions, governmental/bureaucratic capacity, and citizen participation. The theoretical propositions I chose from power constellations theory address issues related to strength of organized labor, women’s labor force participation, and

multi-modal transportation. Therefore, I compare each of my city’s transportation systems to each other and try to determine, as best as I can, which city has the most comprehensive multi- modal and accessible transportation system.

105 strength of center-left political parties. Each of the six theoretical propositions that I have chosen has been slightly adapted to make them appropriate for an analysis of urban policies.

Table 6. Theoretical Perspectives, Criteria, and Data Sources. Theoretical Criteria Data Sources Perspectives Level of governmental Data on regional governments including services Institutional Politics Theory fragmentation at the provided and whether regional governments are metropolitan level elected or appointed

Level of Adopted operating budgets for municipal and governmental/bureaucratic regional governments capacity Level of citizen Programs designed to increase levels of citizen participation in decision involvement in the decision-making process making

Power Strength of organized Union membership data for municipalities and Constellations labor urban regions and data on corporatist organizations (local labor councils) Theory

Women’s labor force Reports from U.S. Census Bureau, the Bureau of participation Labor Statistics, and Statistics Canada.

Strength of center-left Local election systems (non-partisan vs. civic political parties political parties), local political parties, ballot initiatives, and election results

In order to assess the relative level of metropolitan fragmentation in my sample cities, I determine whether regional governments in each of my cities’ respective urban areas provide a wide range of services and are elected or appointed. Data used in this assessment were drawn from regional government agencies (Metro Vancouver, METRO, and Puget Sound Regional

Council) and the British Columbia Ministry of Municipal Affairs. This data consisted of pieces of important legislation (the Local Government Act of British Columbia), and general information about the responsibilities and administrative powers of regional governments. I chose to use these criteria to measure the relative fragmentation of my sample cities due to research that analyzes the relationship between metropolitan fragmentation and social sustainability. Research in this field indicates that urban regions with metropolitan governments are less racially segregated, less likely to show large income differences between suburban and 106 urban residents, more likely to have a greater amount of channels for citizen involvement, and more likely to have well funded social housing, public security and public transit systems than urban regions characterized by greater degrees of municipal autonomy (Rusk 1993; Polese and

Stren 2000; Savitch and Kantor 2002; LeBlanc 2006). While research indicates that urban regions with regional/metropolitan governments are more socially sustainable, there are no objective benchmarks related to regional governance. As such, I determine which city’s respective regional government provides the most services and is the most accountable to its citizenry. I measure accountability by determining whether the regional government is elected or appointed.

To assess relative levels of governmental or bureaucratic capacity in my sample cities, I analyze operating budgets of municipal and regional governments. Data for my assessment of governmental/bureaucratic capacity were drawn from regional government agencies (Metro

Vancouver, METRO, and Puget Sound Regional Council), and municipal government departments of all three sample cities. This data consisted of municipal and regional government operating budgets and descriptions of budget priorities and services provided by each level of government. Some of the analysis of operating budgets crosses over with analysis of the previous theoretical proposition of metropolitan fragmentation. By looking at budgets for both municipal and regional governments and determining, in a simplistic way, what the budgetary priorities are for each level of government, I am able to assess levels of governmental/bureaucratic capacity and fiscal decentralization. Where most public services are dependent on local taxation, the quality of services will depend on local levels of wealth. In urban regions with comprehensive regional governance, available tax revenue is pooled and redistributed in a different way, allowing for a more predictable and equal quality of services throughout the greater urban

107 region. Like the analysis of metropolitan fragmentation, I rank each city’s performance in relation to each other rather than assigning an objective score based on an established benchmark.

In order to assess the level of citizen participation in decision making processes in my sample cities, I analyze citizen participation programs in each city. Data for my assessment of citizen participation were drawn from municipal government departments of all three cities. This data consisted of programs created by municipal government departments in order to facilitate citizen involvement in the decision-making process. Colantonio and Dixon (2011) argue that participation and empowerment are two of the most common policy themes that are emerging within the context of socially sustainable European urban regeneration initiatives. Instead of focusing on urban regeneration initiatives, I focus on city or region wide programs and initiatives geared towards fostering higher levels of citizen participation in the decision making process.

Examples of programs geared towards these goals include Vancouver’s Engaged City Task

Force and Public Consultation initiatives, Seattle’s Outreach and Engagement and People’s

Academy for Community Engagement (PACE) programs, and Portland’s Citizen Participation

Plan (CPP). As with the previous two analyses of metropolitan fragmentation and bureaucratic/governmental capacity, I rank each city in relation to each other.

To determine the relative strength of organized labor in each of my sample cities, I analyze reports from a number of labor union organizations and labor councils in order to determine union membership rates and other statistics related to union membership. Research guided by power constellations theory indicates that strong, centralized organized labor movements allied with strong center/left political parties facilitates the development of social policy at the national and state level (Stephens 1979; Huber and Stephens 2001). However, to my

108 knowledge, there is no research guided by power constellations theory that analyzes the effects of organized labor on social policy at the level of the urban region. Similarly, there is no literature that I am aware of that addresses the relationship between urban regional level organized labor organizations and urban social sustainability. In order to address these limitations, I focus specifically on identifying the level of union membership in each of my sample cities and identifying the presence of local corporatist organizations, such as local labor councils. Identifying relative strength of organized labor in my cities is relatively straightforward. To do this, I simply compare union membership rates that have been accessed from the aforementioned data sources and determine which city has a higher level of union membership.

To assess women’s labor force participation in each of my sample cities, I evaluate reports from the U.S. Census Bureau, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and Statistics Canada.

Research rooted in power constellations theory finds that high levels of women’s participation in the labor force leads to higher levels of political mobilization and a higher chance of social policy development at the national level and some social sustainability conceptualizations include “gender sensible social and welfare policy” as a cornerstone of social sustainability initiatives (Littig and Griesler 2005; Huber et al. 2009). However, less is known about the relationship between women’s labor force participation and the development of social sustainability policy at the municipal and metropolitan level. To address this limitation, I analyze women’s labor force participation rates and unemployment rates in my cities. Much like my assessment of strength of organized labor, this assessment is fairly straightforward.

To assess the relative strength of center-left political parties in each of my sample cities, I analyze local election systems, local political parties, ballot initiatives, and election results. Data

109 for my assessment of center-left political party strength was drawn from a variety of media sources such as newspapers, magazines and broadcasting corporations (Canadian Broadcasting

Corporation, the Federationist, The Globe and Mail, Seattle Times, The Province, The Georgia

Straight, the Vancouver Sun, TIME), online media sources (Daily Kos, Politico, Huffington

Post), and finally, from political parties themselves (New Democratic Party, Coalition of

Progressive Electors). This data consisted of information on election systems, election history, and history of local political parties and politicians. In national and state level analyses guided by power constellations theory, strong center/left political party incumbency is often identified as one of the most important determinants of social policy development (Huber and Stephens

2001). An overemphasis on large units of analysis within the body of work on power constellations theory has resulted in a lack of information on how center-left political party strength effects social policy development at the city level. Moreover, there is a general lack of information on the relationship between center-left political party strength at the urban level and development of social sustainability policy. To address these limitations, I analyze the effect that the relative strength of center-left political parties has on the development of social sustainability policy in my sample cities. Compared to the assessments of organized labor strength and women’s labor force participation, this assessment was more difficult. This difficulty was due, in part, to the fact that my sample cities have different electoral systems. Thus, in order to effectively assess the relative strength of center-left political parties, I had to examine a number of factors related to election systems and political parties.

In order to rank the cities with regard to their support for each theory I will assign a relative numerical value for each criterion of institutional politics theory and power constellations theory listed in Table 6. For example, for institutional politics theory I have

110 included the following criteria: level of governmental fragmentation at the metropolitan level, level of governmental/bureaucratic capacity, and level of citizen participation in decision making. The highest possible score for this test of theoretical support is three, because there are three criteria being used to test support for this theory. For each criterion—for example, level of governmental fragmentation at the metropolitan level—I will assign a value of 1 for the city ranked the highest, .75 for the second rated city, and .50 for the third best. If my sample cities perform similarly in a specific criterion, I will award them with the same score. So if the data— whether qualitative or quantitative—make it difficult to assess whether, for example, Seattle or

Portland is better with regard to metropolitan fragmentation, but the data indicate that they both are better than Vancouver, I will give both Seattle and Portland a score of 1 and give Vancouver a score of .75. The reason why I am assigning a theoretical support score based on relative performance is simply because there are no commonly accepted objective benchmarks of theoretical support for institutional politics theory or power constellations theory that I can compare my cities to.

After ranking the cities in relation to each other to determine which city demonstrates the highest level of support for each theoretical support criterion, I will determine the overall level of support for each theory by adding up the values of all the criteria that I have listed for each theory. The highest possible overall theoretical support score for each theory is thus three because there are three different criteria assessed. A score of three would indicate that the city ranked highest on all criteria. If one of my sample cities ranked last on all theoretical support criteria, then it will receive a total score of 1.5 (indicating a .5 for all three criteria). In sum, I will examine data with regard to the criteria of each theory, rank the cities, and create tables to indicate the scores on specific criteria as well as the city’s overall score.

111

After establishing which city demonstrates the highest level of support for each theory, I determine which theory better explains the findings of the previous analysis chapter (Chapter 5).

I do this by selecting the that city was given the highest overall social sustainability score in the previous analysis chapter, identifying the criteria from this analysis chapter that the city scored highest in, and attempting to discover which criterion displays the most positive effect on the results of the previous analysis chapter. For instance, if Seattle was given the highest overall social sustainability score in Chapter 5 due to high levels of performance in housing policy, transportation policy, food policy, and leisure and recreation policy and Seattle also received the highest scores in metropolitan fragmentation and strength of organized labor criteria in this analysis chapter, I would examine the effect that Seattle’s regional government and labor unions had on the development of policy in the four aforementioned areas in order to establish a causal link.

Methodological Limitations

In this section, I briefly discuss some of the limitations of my data. Because my SSAF is comprised of policy areas that represent both “hard” and “soft” sustainability themes, there was a certain amount of difficulty selecting criteria for each policy area. Some policy areas, like housing, transportation, food, and leisure and recreation, were easier to select qualitative and quantitative social sustainability criteria for. For instance, socially sustainable housing policy depends on availability of subsidized and supportive housing programs and high levels of population density, among other things. Analyzing each city’s policies and programs related to subsidized and supportive housing represents the qualitative spectrum of social sustainability

112 criteria for this policy area while identifying each city’s level of population density represents the quantitative dimension of social sustainability for this policy area.

A similar point can be made with regard to determining the social sustainability of transportation policy. Socially sustainable transportation policy includes attention to multi-modal transit options and accessibility features, so it analyzing each city’s policies and programs in order to identify which city’s transportation system offers the most multi-modal transit options and accessibility features represents a form of qualitative social sustainability criteria. Socially sustainable transit systems are also systems that are well used by residents, so analyzing ridership rates of the various means of transportation within the system represents a quantitative criteria for assessing social sustainability.

However, for policy areas such as social cohesion and identity and sense of place, the issue of selecting qualitative and quantitative social sustainability criteria and identifying appropriate data to assess social sustainability criteria becomes more difficult and complex. This is due, in part, to the fact that these policy areas represent “soft” social sustainability themes.

This simply means that these two policy areas are more open to interpretation and are often based on subjective perceptions (Yiftachel and Hedgcock 1993; Colantonio and Dixon 2009).

Confronted with a lack of data that measures residents’ perceptions of social cohesion and identity and sense of place in all of my sample cities, I selected a number of criteria that I thought would best operationalize each policy area. For social cohesion, I selected two qualitative social sustainability criteria (targeted social cohesion programs and increasing access to existing programs and resources) and five quantitative social sustainability criteria (percentage of residents living alone, percentage of residents living in poverty, percentage of households that are single-parent households, median individual income, and median household income). The

113 qualitative criteria illustrates each sample city’s effort to create programs that include marginalized groups in public life while the quantitative criteria presents a measurable and comparable snapshot of issues related to social cohesion (isolation, poverty, family composition and stability). For identity and sense of place, I was not able to identify any type of meaningful quantitative criteria that could be used to measure this concept. Instead, I chose two qualitative criteria (historical preservation and community planning). These criteria demonstrate how each city creates policies and programs to preserve local identity and sense of place by preserving historic structures and neighborhoods and allowing the local community to be part of the planning process in order to guide this trend of historical preservation.

There were also several other instances during the analysis process where limited data proved to be frustrating. None of my sample cities has a definitive listing of farmers markets.

Instead, my sample cities provide maps, directories and lists of farmers markets by neighborhood or only during the current season. In order to collect data on this criterion, I had to search a variety of sources and make an educated guess. Also, in Chapter 6, it was difficult to determine the relative strength of center-left parties in Seattle and Portland because both cities have non- partisan elections. It is clear that both cities have a long history of progressive politics, but because the political affiliation of candidates running for office is not indicated on the ballots of either city’s elections, it made it more difficult to assess the strength of center-left political parties in Seattle and Portland. Vancouver, on the other hand, has a unique election system dominated by autonomous civic political parties, several of which are clearly center-left parties that have had electoral success in past elections. In order to make up for this shortcoming in the data, I also looked at other issues like ballot initiatives and voting patterns for presidential and gubernatorial elections to portray the political landscape of Seattle and Portland as best as I could

114

Finally, I encountered some difficulties when ranking cities in relation to each other in both analysis chapters. In Chapter 5, it was sometimes difficult to determine whether a city showed full support for a social sustainability criterion. As stated before, there are no established objective social sustainability benchmarks for the policy areas I have chosen to analyze. Rather, there are findings in the literature on social sustainability of policy that suggest a number of indicators of social sustainability for specific policy areas. As such, I attempted to ascertain how my cities performed in each of my selected criteria and compare them to each other in order to determine their social sustainability scores. In some cases, if my cities performed similarly in a specific criterion, I assigned the same score, which resulted in ties between cities in various criteria. With some criteria, it was much simpler to assign an objective score because it was easier to determine which city performed better. For instance, with quantitative criteria like population density or homeownership rates, it was simply a matter of identifying the comparing the statistics for each criteria. Similarly, in Chapter 6, it was sometimes difficult to determine which city exhibited a higher level of support for certain theoretical perspectives. When testing for relative levels of citizen participation, for instance, it was difficult to determine which city had more effective citizen participation programs. However, when testing for relative strength of organized labor, it was fairly easy to determine which cities had higher levels of union membership.

Conclusion

In this chapter, I have provided information on my case studies, given an overview comparative-historical research methodology, outlined the data and research methods that I use in my two analysis chapters, and briefly discussed a number of limitations in data availability

115 and research design. In a general sense, comparative-historical research often analyzes case studies based form of analysis that seeks to explain the effects of various factors on an outcome of interest. These analysis methods have been successfully applied in research on social policy development in sociology. In keeping with standard comparative-historical research methodology, my dissertation utilizes a case study based analysis that examines the effects that a variety of institutional and political factors have on social sustainability in Vancouver, Seattle, and Portland. My dissertation addresses two research questions: 1.) Is Vancouver, Seattle, or

Portland more socially sustainable? 2.) Does institutional politics theory or power constellations theory best explain the differences in cities’ social sustainability policies? In order to answer these research questions, I have developed and utilized a social sustainability assessment framework and devised a test of theoretical propositions from institutional politics theory and power constellations theory. Methodological limitations of my dissertation include difficulties in measuring criteria related to policy areas and theoretical propositions and ranking my cities in relation to each other in the absence of objective benchmarks for social sustainability and theoretical support.

116

CHAPTER 5

ASSESSMENT OF SOCIALLY SUSTAINABLE URBAN POLICY

A general lack of agreement on how to define and assess social sustainability has resulted in a fragmented approach to studying the relationship between urban policy decisions and social sustainability. In recent years, social sustainability has emerged as a topic of discussion among academics representing a variety of academic disciplines including, but not limited to, planning, geography, policy studies and urban design (Ghahramanpouri et al. 2013). In their mission to conceptualize social sustainability, these scholars have focused on a wide variety of issues such as quality of life, education, social justice, community participation, recreation, human rights, labor rights, corporate governance, social cohesion, racial/ethnic diversity, social equity, work, gender, urban form and more (Polese and Stren 2000; Chiu 2004; Littig and Griesler 2005;

Colantonio and Dixon 2009; Bramley and Power 2009; Mak and Peacock 2011; Colantonio and

Dixon 2011).

Reasons for the fragmentation of social sustainability research are as numerous as the academic disciplines that study the concept and the conceptualizations that have been developed.

Davidson (2009), for instance, argues that social sustainability has historically been underemphasized because of the great “normative weight” of the environmental dimension of sustainability. Littig and Griesler (2005) suggest that the fragmented approach to understanding the concept of social sustainability is largely due to the fact that social sustainability is rooted in feasibility and political agendas rather than being rooted in theory. Other scholars disagree as to whether social sustainability is a process (Sachs 1999), a goal of sustainable development

(Assefa and Frostell 2007) or a quality possessed by some communities and not by others

(McKenzie 2004). Another group of scholars identifies social sustainability as an inherently

117

“post-political” withdrawal from radical, redistributive politics that is “technocratic” in nature and related to the rise of American hegemony and neo-liberal, post-Fordist politics around the globe (Maloutas 2003; Keil 2007; Davidson 2010).

Some scholars who have chosen to focus specifically on the social sustainability of urban regions have created analytic frameworks to compare different types of urban policies in different contexts. For instance, Polese and Stren (2000) created an “institutional-territorial nexus” of six policy areas designed to act as an analytic framework for comparative research on urban social sustainability policy. These six policy areas include governance, social and cultural policies, social infrastructure and public services, urban land and housing, urban transport and accessibility, and employment, economic revitalization and the building of inclusive public spaces. According to the authors, these policy areas were chosen because they address the relationship between the changing socio-cultural dynamics of cities and the matrix of factors that serve as prerequisites and policy reflections of sustainable urban development (Polese and Stren

2000:15).

Focusing more exclusively on urban regeneration strategies in Europe, Colantonio and

Dixon (2011) devised a social sustainability assessment framework, or SSAF, that draws from existing frameworks by incorporating “hard” social sustainability themes (Housing, Education,

Employment, Health and Demographic Change) and “soft” social sustainability themes (Social

Mixing, Social Cohesion, Identity, Sense of Place, Culture, Social Capital, Well-Being,

Happiness and Quality of Life) that often focus on subjective perceptions. In their analysis of urban regeneration initiatives in Spain, the Netherlands, Wales, Italy and Germany they identify three policy areas that have become common themes in urban regeneration projects in European

118 cities. These themes include participation and empowerment, social mixing and social capital

(Colantonio and Dixon 2011).

Other scholars who have also chosen to analyze the social sustainability of urban policy have narrowed their focus on specific policy areas. Research on housing policy has focused on residential density, social networks, participation in collective community activities, pride or sense of place, residential stability, security, the social preconditions conducive to the production and consumption of environmentally sustainable housing, equitable distribution and consumption of housing resources and assets, harmonious social relations within the housing system, acceptable quality of housing conditions, preservation of housing heritage, mixed-income social housing developments, housing for homeless residents, housing for the disabled and rental housing for young single residents and young families (Chiu 2004:69; Bramley and Power

2009:33; Strandbakken and Heidenstrom 2011:3). Research on transportation has found that multi-modal transportation policies that support high levels of accessibility are more effective in combating social exclusion and facilitating social sustainability than policies that favor the use of the personal automobile as the exclusive form of transport (Goldman and Gorham 2006; Atkins

2008; Mercier 2009; Litman and Brenman 2012; Lucas 2013). Studies on food policy (Power

2009) identify two main approaches to food security --the anti-poverty and sustainable food systems approach-- and argue that community development food projects, such as alternative food distribution and self provisioning, are preferable to other forms of charitable food distribution because they offer the poor more dignity, help them build skills and facilitate communication between small farmers and urban consumers (Power 2009:33). Access to leisure and recreation enters into several conceptualizations of social sustainability. Polese and

Stren(2000:309) , for instance, state that social inclusion in the modern urban context is

119

Gorham (2006:270-71) emphasize the role of “livability strategies” in promoting accessibility to shared space, increased allocation of public space, more emphasis on design of public spaces, pedestrian realms and more opportunities for recreation and social engagement. Finally, research on social sustainability of urban regeneration and housing finds that social cohesion and identity and sense of place are important dimensions of socially sustainable cities (Bramley and Power

2009; Colantonio and Dixon 2011).

The goal of this chapter is to address the following question: Is Vancouver, Seattle, or

Portland more socially sustainable? To answer this research question, I use a social sustainability assessment framework (SSAF) to assess the relative social sustainability of policy decisions made in six distinct policy areas in my three sample cities. These policy areas have been chosen based on a review of the existing literature on social sustainability. I have included policy areas that represent “hard” policy themes from classic interpretations of social sustainability and “soft” policy themes from emerging research on social sustainability. My aim is to evaluate policy decisions in six distinct policy areas against my definition of social sustainability in order to determine what innovative policy decisions are being made in my sample cities to foster social sustainability. For each policy area, I use criteria drawn from the literature to determine the relative social sustainability of policy decisions. In addition to looking at how policy decisions meet social sustainability criteria in a subjective sense, I also include selected quantitative criteria to bolster my analysis. I begin my analysis with a review of housing policy in my three sample cities before moving on to discussing transportation, food, leisure and recreation, social cohesion and, finally, identity and sense of place.

120

Housing

In this section I analyze the social sustainability of housing policy in my three sample cities. To do this, I examine six social sustainability criteria (residential stability, subsidized/supportive housing, population density, average monthly housing cost by ownership type, median value of owner occupied housing units, and homeownership rate). In Table 7, I list the social sustainability criteria that I have chosen to examine for this policy area and the social sustainability scores that I have given to each city. The highest possible score for this policy area is six points. Seattle had the most comprehensive set of policies geared towards maintaining residential stability with specific programs for foreclosure prevention, down payment assistance, homebuyer programs for teachers and residents with developmental disabilities and home repair and weatherization loans. Vancouver had a more robust approach to providing subsidized and supportive housing with ambitious benchmarks for development that outpaced both Portland and

Seattle. Vancouver also had the highest population density of all three sample cities by a wide margin. However, overall, I awarded Portland with the highest social sustainability score in this category with a score of 4.5 points while Seattle and Vancouver tied with 4.25 points each.

Portland’s higher score was due largely to more affordable housing and a higher rate of homeownership.

Table 7. Social Sustainability Criteria for Housing Policy and Social Sustainability Scores Social Sustainability Vancouver Seattle Portland Criteria for Housing Policy Residential Stability .75 1 .75

Subsidized/Supportive 1 .75 .75 Housing Population Density 1 .75 .5

121

Table 7-continued Social Sustainability Vancouver Seattle Portland Criteria for Housing Policy Average Monthly .5 .5 .5 Housing Cost by Ownership Type Median Value of Owner .5 .75 1 Occupied Housing Units Homeownership Rate .5 .5 1 Total 4.25 4.25 4.5

In the remainder of this section, I provide more detail about how each of my cities performed in the social sustainability criteria listed in Table 7. I begin by analyzing my two qualitative social sustainability criteria (residential stability and subsidized/supportive housing) in some detail, highlighting the programs and policies that foster residential stability and the development of subsidized and supportive housing in my sample cities. I then designate a subsection to analyzing my four quantitative social sustainability criteria (population density, average monthly housing cost by ownership type, median value of owner occupied housing units, and homeownership rate), focusing on comparing my cities based on their performance in these criteria.

Residential Stability

Residential stability is a key element of socially sustainable communities (Bramley and

Power 2009). Neighborhoods with high levels of tenant turnover are sometimes perceived to be unsafe and undesirable when compared to communities that are characterized by residents who have lived in their dwellings for a long period of time (Bramley et al. 2009; Bramley and Power

2009). Identifying the determinants of residential stability and the relationship between residential stability and other elements of socially sustainable communities is difficult. Research indicates that there is a negative non-linear relationship between residential stability and 122 population density, with dense urban neighborhoods in the U.K. being associated with higher levels of residential turnover than neighborhoods that are less dense and more suburban in character (Bramley et al. 2009). In this subsection, I review several policy decisions in each of my sample cities that address issues of residential stability. Overall, it is difficult to identify specific policies that address this issue because there are many root causes to the phenomenon of residential stability. I have chosen to focus on policies that discourage foreclosure, mitigate the displacement caused by gentrification, and help residents find long term housing. While all three cities have highly developed residential stability programs, Seattle’s emphasis on programs geared towards down payment assistance, foreclosure prevention, weatherization set it apart from Vancouver and Portland.

Vancouver. While the City of Vancouver does not directly provide foreclosure prevention programs and loans, the Vancouver Rent Bank (VRB) provides services intended to support residential stability in a number of ways. The VRB is funded by the City of Vancouver, the

Streetohome Foundation and the Vancouver Foundation. The VRB provides short term, interest free loans for families and individuals that are at risk of eviction because of past due rent or utility disconnection because of unpaid bills. The VRB also provides short term, interest free loans to families and individuals who need extra money for security deposits or first month’s rent. Eligibility requirements include, but are not limited to, having a low-income, being a resident of British Columbia, being at least 19 years of age, having a consistent source of income, having a bank account, providing proof of tenancy, not being in the process of bankruptcy and owing no more than two months of rent. The maximum amount given to individuals is $1,300 and the maximum amount given to families is $1,800 and loans must be paid back within two years (Vancouver Rent Bank 2011).

123

Another creative policy decision undertaken by the City of Vancouver that is intended to promote residential stability is the Kingsway Continental non-market housing project, which seeks to mitigate the displacement caused by the closure of non-market housing complexes in downtown Vancouver. In November 2012, the City purchased a former Ramada Inn hotel and is in the process of converting it into a facility that will provide 123 units for individuals that were displaced when the Old Continental, a City operated non-market housing building in the downtown area, was closed. While priority is given to former residents of the Old Continental, residents that have been displaced from other non-market facility closures and area residents who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless will be given accommodation if there is space available. The location of the Kingsway Continental was chosen because of the number of units available and its location, which is close to a variety of resources and amenities including the

Joyce Skytrain station, the Collingwood Neighborhood House, the Evergreen Community Health

Centre and a branch of the Vancouver Public Library (City of Vancouver Kingsway Continental

2012).

The Rental Standards Database is another example of a creative program aimed at increasing access to appropriate housing for residents of Vancouver. This database is an online searchable database of rental properties within city limits. The database contains information on all licensed rental buildings, both privately and publicly owned, in Vancouver with five or more units and provides detailed information collected by the City regarding property bylaw issues, outstanding work orders, owners of the rental properties, fire safety, standards of maintenance, tree protection and building safety. This is designed to help renters make educated decisions and motivate landlords and property owners to keep their properties in good shape for current and prospective tenants. The types of properties in the database include single room occupancy

124 hotels, or SROs, private rental housing units, social housing units and supportive housing units

(City of Vancouver Rental Standards Database 2013).

Seattle. Seattle’s Office of Housing offers Down-payment Assistance Programs that provides down-payment assistance to homebuyers with modest incomes and special needs. The

Office of Housing builds partnerships with a variety of local nonprofits and lending institutions that use, and often match, funds from the Office of Housing to help low and modest income residents purchase homes. The following programs and organizations use funds from the Office of Housing to help residents purchase a home: Habitat for Humanity, HomeSight, Homestead

Community Land Trust, HomeTown Home Loans from Home Street Bank, House Key Plus

Seattle, Parkview Services Homebuyer Program, Seattle Teacher Homebuyer Program. Some of the aforementioned organizations offer generous assistance for select groups. For instance,

Parkview Services is a King County, Washington based non-profit organization that provides up to $127,500 in purchase assistance for individuals with developmental disabilities and family members who will live with them and assist them. The Seattle Teacher Homebuyer Program waives lender fees, discounts closing costs and provides up to $45,000 in purchase assistance for eligible teachers’ first home purchase. The program is available for full-time Seattle Public

Schools teachers and instructional assistants enrolled in a teacher certification program provided they meet certain income requirements (City of Seattle Homeownership Programs 2013).

Seattle also has programs designed to prevent foreclosure on residential properties. The

Seattle Foreclosure Prevention Program helps homeowners avoid default and construct realistic repayment plans in order to stay in their homes or gain enough time to sell their homes by providing financial and mortgage counseling, assistance in working with lenders and

“stabilization” loans of up to $5,000. Since the program’s inception in 2008, more than 30

125 homeowners have avoided default and been able to either stay in their own homes and restructure their payment plans or sell their homes on their own terms. Like the Downpayment

Assistance Programs, the Office of Housing provides funds which are contributed to, or matched, by non-profit organizations. This program is administered by the non-profit organizations Urban

League of Metropolitan Seattle and Solid Ground (City of Seattle Foreclosure Prevention

Program 2013).

Owner occupied residential properties can also receive loans through Seattle’s Home

Repair Loan Programs and HomeWise Weatherization Services. These programs are funded by local and federal programs and they prioritize health and safety repairs and structural deficiencies but they can also be used for accessibility needs and modifications, new appliances if existing appliances are hazardous or non-functional, bathroom repair, chimney repair, driveway repair, electrical upgrades, furnace/boiler repair or replacement, plumbing repair, kitchen repair and roof repair or replacement. The HomeWise Weatherization program is also available for homes with low income households and includes services such as insulation of the attic, walls, etc., air sealing, energy conservation related repairs, window caulking and so forth

(City of Seattle Homeownership Programs 2013).

Portland. Like Seattle, the City of Portland also provides Home Repair Loan, Foreclosure

Prevention and Down Payment Assistance Loan programs. The Home Repair Loan program offers no-interest rate loans of up to $15,000 to fund critical repairs. To qualify, residents must earn 80% or less of the area Median Family Income, or MFI. Additional funds are provided for residents who live in either the Portland Interstate Corridor or the Lents Town Center Urban

Renewal Area. Loans offered through the Home Repair Loan program are not charged interest and do not need to be paid back unless the home is sold, refinanced or is no longer the primary

126 place of residence for the individual or family who received the loan. Additionally, the loan is forgiven after 15 years. All foreclosure prevention services in Portland are handled by local non- profit organizations. The following organizations are listed as resources for foreclosure prevention on the Portland Housing Bureau website: 211 Info, African American Alliance for

Homeownership, Community Housing Resource Center (CHRC), Department of Consumer and

Business Services, Hacienda Community Development Corporation, Homeownership

Preservation Foundation, Making Home Affordable, Open Door Counseling Center, Oregon

Homeowner Stabilization Initiative (OHSI) and Oregon Homeowner Support. Finally, Portland’s

Down Payment Assistance Loan program, which is intended to help first time homebuyers purchase a home in either the Portland Interstate Corridor or the Lents Town Center urban

Renewal Area, is also partially handled by a non-profit organization called the Minority

Homeownership Assistance Collaborative (MHAC) (Portland Housing Bureau Home Repair

2013; Portland Housing Bureau Foreclosure Prevention 2013; Portland Housing Bureau Down

Payment Assistance Loan 2013).

Subsidized and Supportive Housing

Subsidized and supportive housing facilitates social sustainability by providing housing options to residents with low incomes, substance abuse issues, physical or mental disabilities and homeless individuals. There is a small body of research that focuses specifically on the social sustainability of subsidized and supportive housing. What research does exist tends to focus on issues related to the spatial distribution and architectural integration of social housing, the development of mixed-income communities in the context of urban redevelopment initiatives, housing for the homeless, adapted housing for the disabled and rental housing for young families

127

(Polese and Stren 2000; Colantonio and Dixon 2009; Stranbakken and Heidenstrom 2011). I focus specifically on policies and programs that provide subsidized and supportive housing in order to identify which of my sample cities has the most comprehensive approach to providing housing options for residents of all incomes and levels of ability. Even though all three cities have a comprehensive set of subsidized and supportive housing programs, Vancouver has a slight edge over both Seattle and Portland because of its plans to provide a greater number of social housing and supportive housing units in the near future.

Vancouver. The City of Vancouver has a variety of innovative housing policies and programs. Perhaps the most ambitious of these is the Housing and Homelessness Strategy 2012-

2021 which builds on existing housing and homelessness plans and was developed in 2011. This plan provides an outline for ending street homelessness by 2015, creating accessible and affordable housing for families, seniors and residents with disabilities, regardless of their income level, and contains provisions that will improve and preserve existing housing. The strategy will be implemented through a series of three year action plans, each of which is guided by a set of strategic directions. The three strategic directions for the first three year action plan (2012-2014) include increasing the amount of affordable housing, encouraging a mix of housing types

(market housing, social housing, supportive housing, shelters, etc.) across all city neighborhoods with the goal of increasing quality of life for all residents and providing support for renters in order to increase housing stability and discourage residential turnover. The strategy also includes a robust public involvement dimension with the development of the “Talk Housing with Us” engagement program which was designed to give stakeholders, experts and other interested community members a chance to provide input, seek advice and engage with one another regarding the development of the strategy. In order to measure the success of the strategy the

128

City of Vancouver created a set of benchmarks for 2021 which include 2,900 new supportive housing units, 5,000 additional social housing units, 11,000 new market rental housing units and

20,000 market ownership units (City of Vancouver Housing and Homelessness Strategy 2012-

2021 2012).

There are a variety of non-market housing options in Vancouver. Supportive housing refers to affordable housing that also provides access to various types of support staff that help tenants stabilize their lives, enhance independence and reconnect with their surrounding communities. The services provided to tenants vary from building to building depending on the need of the tenants with some services being provided by on-site staff and some services provided by outreach programs. Some supportive housing buildings are considered to be

“dedicated” which means that all units are supportive while other supportive housing units are interspersed with non supportive housing units in the same complex or building. In general, supportive housing is designed for people with mental illnesses or addictions. Studies undertaken on behalf of the City show that the development of new supportive housing units has been associated with a 32% decrease in emergency room visits, a 57% decrease in hospital bed use, a reduction of symptoms associated with mental illnesses such as schizophrenia and psychosis, increased levels of residential stability and less residential turnover and increased levels of independence and empowerment.

Other types of non-market housing include public housing which is owned and operated by government agencies, non-profit housing which is owned and operated by public and private non-profit groups, co-operative housing which is owned and managed by co-operative associations that have been organized by residents and urban native housing which is owned and operated by non-profit groups and targeted to Aboriginal peoples. A final type of non-market

129 housing, social housing, is operated by the province of British Columbia through the organization BC Housing and consists of long-term housing with rent that is reduced (usually to

30% of household income, before taxes) to fit the budget of residents with modest incomes (City of Vancouver Housing and Homelessness 2012).

Finally, the City of Vancouver provides various homeless and low-income support services designed to provide shelter, free or low-cost food and other services to homeless and low-income residents. The Winter Response Shelter Strategy sets up temporary cold-weather shelters and provides access to housing and community-based support services for homeless individuals throughout Vancouver. Temporary cold-weather shelters open on December 1st and remain open until no later than May 31st, are operational 24/7 and provide meals for patrons. The

Vancouver Rent Bank increases housing stability by preventing evictions and/or the loss of essential utilities by offering one-time interest free loans to low income individuals or families in temporary financial crisis and also provides advocacy and referral services. Programs that offer free or low-cost food will be discussed in detail in the food policy subsection of this analysis chapter (City of Vancouver Homeless and Low-Income Support Services 2012).

Seattle. The City of Seattle has a number of inventive housing policies and programs designed to increase access to affordable, quality housing and support residential stability and maintenance of housing units. The Multifamily Property Tax Exemption Program, or MFTE, offers tax exemptions for developers of multifamily residential properties that set aside 20% of the units for residents of moderate income. The MFTE program is also available to developers who are building or renovating mixed-use properties (with both residential and business spaces) as long as at least 50% of the gross floor area is designated for permanent residential use. These tax exemptions are available for new construction or rehabilitation of existing multifamily

130 residential properties. The MFTE programs is designed to stimulate the construction of multifamily dwellings, contribute to neighborhood and community development and revitalization, preserve and protect buildings of historic and cultural significance and encourage the development of mixed income and mixed-use developments (City of Seattle Multifamily

Property Tax Exemption Program 2013).

Seattle’s Housing First program is a creative approach to ending chronic homelessness guided by the concept of Assertive Community Treatment whereby rapid access to low-cost housing with vital medical, mental health and related support services on site is offered to homeless individuals and families. In addition to supportive services, tenants are also taught skills related to managing finances (or securing a payee if needed), handling conflicts with other tenants and managing day to day domestic responsibilities. The Substance Abuse and Mental

Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) recognizes that Assertive Community Treatment

(ACT), the use of peer mentors and integrated support services are evidence based practices that have proven to be effective. Housing First was implemented in 2008 and by 2011approximately

569 low-cost supportive housing units had been put into operation. In some Housing First developments, community rooms where activities and meals are shared are included with the aim of helping tenants feel connected to their community, which has shown to be an important part of recovery and housing stability (City of Seattle Housing First 2013).

Another interesting feature of Seattle’s Housing Policy is the Seattle Housing Levy.

Since 1981, voters in Seattle have approved one bond and four levies to create affordable housing and the City has responded by funding the construction of over 10,000 affordable housing units for seniors, low and moderate wage workers and formerly homeless individuals and families. Revenue generated through the Seattle Housing Levy has also funded down-

131 payment loans to more than 600 first-time homebuyers and rental assistance to more than 4,000 households. In 2002, Seattle voters renewed their commitment to affordable housing by passing a seven year, $86 million dollar property tax levy to provide affordable housing and in 2009 when the 2002 Levy was finished, it had met or exceeded all of its goals (Seattle Housing Levy

2013).

Finally, the Seattle Housing Authority has a variety of programs that provide housing assistance to more than 26, 000 people. Low-income public housing managed by the Seattle

Housing Authority is available for residents who earn 80% of area median income or less, pay

30% of their household’s monthly income for rent and utilities, live alone, with a partner or with individuals who make up a larger household, meet screening criteria related to rental and criminal histories and are citizens or have eligible immigration status at the time of admission to the program. Housing choice vouchers (Section 8) are provided for low-income residents and are designed to cover part of the monthly rent for privately owned apartments or homes. To qualify, residents must earn 30% of area median income or less and pay 30% to 40% of their household’s monthly income for rent and utilities. Low and moderate income residents over the age of 62 may qualify for the Seattle Senior Housing Program. Elderly residents who qualify pay affordable rent at one of four levels, depending on income (Seattle Housing Authority Housing

Programs 2013).

Portland. The City of Portland’s Housing Bureau has a number of programs and policies designed to address housing needs in the city of Portland. The Portland Housing Bureau’s (PHB) mission is to “solve the unmet housing needs of the people of Portland” and their vision is that

“all Portlanders can find affordable homes in healthy neighborhoods with strong schools, good parks and recreation, healthy natural areas, safe streets and quality food stores” and that “all

132

Portlanders have equitable access to housing and to the opportunities that safe, stable housing can deliver, free from discrimination” (Portland Housing Bureau). In recent years, the PHB has delegated much of the operation of its programs to local non-profit organizations. For instance, a non-profit organization called Home Forward handles all rent assistance programs instead of the city and, as of December 6th 2012, the PHB has transferred all federal Neighborhood

Stabilization Program 3 (NSP3) funds to an acquisition and rehabilitation program administered by two local non-profit organizations called Proud Ground and the NAYA Family Center

(Portland Housing Bureau 2013).

As part of Portland’s 10-Year Plan to End Homelessness, the City, along with partners, intends to construct 1,600 Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) units for chronically homeless single adults and 600 PSH units for homeless families with special needs by 2015. Around half of these units will consist of newly constructed units or acquisition and rehabilitation of existing units while the other half will consist of existing affordable and private market units that will be reprogrammed as PSH by attaching rent subsidies and supportive services. Unlike other areas of the U.S., the City of Portland partners with local Community Development Corporations (CDCs) in order to provide PSH units for residents of Portland. In other areas of the U.S., CDCs are not the primary developer of PSH units. Portland’s local CDC industry is so large, by comparison, that a trade association of local CDCs and associated low-income housing developers known as the Community Development Network brought together a large number of stakeholders including the Housing Development Center, homeless service providers, the Portland Housing

Bureau, Housing Authority of Portland, Portland Development Commission and representatives from local County governments to analyze the resources needed to achieve the PSH goals outlined in the 10-Year Plan to End Homelessness, research models and best practices, identify

133 barriers and develop a toolkit for PSH development (Portland Housing Bureau Permanent

Supportive Housing 2013; Portland Housing Bureau 10-Year Plan to End Homelessness 2013).

Quantitative Social Sustainability Criteria

One way to compare the social sustainability of housing policy in my sample cities is to not only look at what policies are in place, but also to look at data on various quantitative social sustainability criteria as well. Below in Table 4, I list four distinct quantitative criteria that can be used to augment my analysis of socially sustainable housing policies. The criteria I examine include population density, average monthly housing cost by ownership type, median value of owner occupied housing units and, last but not least, homeownership rates. Even though research indicates that population density has a non-linear and complex relationship with other dimensions of urban social sustainability (Bramley and Power 2009; Bramley et al. 2009), I have included it because it is still a good indicator for determining access to local services and resources. Average monthly housing cost by ownership type and median value of owner occupied housing units are important criteria of socially sustainable housing because they measure housing affordability while homeownership rates provide more information on residential stability.

Table 8 shows that Vancouver has the highest population density by a very wide margin with 13,590 persons per square mile. Seattle, with the second highest population density, is only slightly more than half as dense as Vancouver, with 7,250 persons per square mile.

Portland, in third place, has around 4,375 persons per square mile. Portland has the most expensive average monthly housing cost for owned units and the cheapest average monthly housing cost for rented units while Vancouver has the most expensive average monthly housing

134 cost for rented units and the second highest average monthly housing cost for owned units.

Seattle’s average monthly cost for owned units is the cheapest of the three while the average monthly cost for rented units falls in between Vancouver and Portland. Vancouver has the highest median value of owner occupied housing units while Seattle comes in second and

Portland comes in third. Portland has the highest homeownership rate with 54%, while

Vancouver comes in second with 49% and Seattle comes in third with 47% (Statistics Canada

National Household Survey 2011; U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 2012).

While most of the quantitative criteria are fairly straightforward and easy to interpret, I do not know why Portland has such a high average monthly housing cost for owned homes when compared to Vancouver or Seattle. I also do not understand why Portland’s average monthly housing cost for owned homes is so much larger than the average monthly cost for rented homes.

Taken together, the quantitative criteria indicate that Vancouver has the highest population density, Seattle has the cheapest average monthly housing cost for owned homes while Portland has the highest, Portland has the cheapest average monthly housing cost for rented homes while

Vancouver has the highest, Vancouver has the highest median value of owner occupied housing units while Portland has the lowest, and Portland has the highest homeownership rate while

Seattle has the lowest.

Table 8 Quantitative Criteria for Socially Sustainable Housing Quantitative Social Vancouver Seattle Portland Sustainability Criteria Population density 13,590 persons per square mile 7,250 persons per square mile 4,375 persons per square mile Avg. monthly housing Owned: $1,462 Owned: $1,317 Owned: $1,782 cost by ownership type Rented: $1,089 Rented: $959 Rented: $778 Median value of owner $752,016 $441,000 $288,300 occupied housing units Homeownership rate 49% 47% 54%

135

Transportation

In this section, I assess the social sustainability of transportation policy in my three sample cities. In order to do this, I analyze six social sustainability criteria (multi-modal transportation, accessible transportation, bus and rail boardings per capita, bus trips per capita, light rail trips per capita, and commuter rail trips per capita). In Table 9, I list the social sustainability criteria that I have chosen to examine for this policy area and the social sustainability scores that I have given to each city. The highest possible score for this policy area was six points. Vancouver scored the highest in multi-modal transportation due to the variety of transit options managed by the regional transit authority and the geographic scope of the transit system. Both Seattle and Portland scored higher than Vancouver in accessible transportation because even though Vancouver has a strong focus on accessibility, both Seattle and Portland offer reduced fares for seniors and low-income residents, which is not a service provided by

Vancouver. In three of the four quantitative social sustainability criteria aimed at measuring transit ridership, Vancouver outpaced the other two sample cities with higher numbers of bus and rail boardings and trips per capita. In commuter rail trips per capita, Vancouver tied with

Portland, but both cities beat Seattle in this category. Overall, I gave Vancouver the highest score in this policy area with a total of 5.5 points while Seattle and Portland tied with 4 points each.

Table 9. Social Sustainability Criteria for Transportation Policy and Social Sustainability Scores Social Sustainability Vancouver Seattle Portland Criteria for Transportation Policy Multi-Modal 1 .75 .75 Transportation Accessible .75 1 1 Transportation Bus and Rail Boardings 1 .5 .5 Per Capita Bus Trips Per Capita 1 .5 .5

136

Table 9-continued Social Sustainability Vancouver Seattle Portland Criteria for Transportation Policy Light Rail Trips Per 1 .5 .75 Capita Commuter Rail Trips .75 .75 .5 Per Capita Total 5.5 4 4

This section is organized as follows, I begin by analyzing my first two qualitative social sustainability criteria (multi-modal transportation and accessible transportation). I focus specifically on determining which of my sample cities has a more multi-modal and accessible transportation system by reviewing information drawn from regional transportation authorities. I then shift my focus towards analyzing the remaining four quantitative social sustainability criteria (bus and rail boardings per capita, bus trips per capita, light rail trips per capita, and commuter rail trips per capita) in each of my cities and comparing each city’s relative performance in these criteria.

Multi-modal Transportation

Multi-modal transportation refers to transportation systems that represent a wide range of transit options, rather than focusing solely on providing infrastructure for automobile centered travel. Multi-modal transportation systems contribute to social sustainability because they offer increased levels of accessibility and mobility to a wider range of residents. Many residents of cities who are seniors, low-income, young or disabled find it difficult to rely primarily on automobiles to travel through the urban region. Research on the effects of multi-modal transportation indicates that urban regions with a wide variety of transit options such as buses, light rail, subways, commuter rail, ferries, bicycling infrastructure, well maintained sidewalks

137 and trails, etc., are more socially inclusive in nature, while urban regions that provide a disproportionate amount of funding and support for automobile centered infrastructure are more socially exclusive in nature (Atkins 2008; Mercier 2009; Litman and Brenman 2012; Lucas

2013). While all three cities have highly developed public transportation systems, Vancouver shows the highest level of performance in this area because of it wider range of transit options and its more comprehensive system of public transportation. Perhaps the best indicator of

Vancouver’s high performance in this area is Skytrain, the elevated and automated rapid transit system that links Vancouver to four of its surrounding suburbs and the local international airport.

Vancouver. TransLink is the regional transportation authority responsible for planning and managing Metro Vancouver’s public transportation system. TransLink operates a number of transit services in the Metro Vancouver area including buses, an elevated and automated rapid transit system called SkyTrain, a ferry system called SeaBus, and a commuter rail system called

West Coast Express. The TransLink bus system consists of a variety of routes that link to areas throughout the Metro Vancouver area and several specialized services such as community shuttles and 12 separate late night buses (TransLink 2013). Skytrain is noted as being the oldest and one of the longest elevated and automated rapid transit systems in the world (TransLink

2013). The SkyTrain system currently consists of 47 stations and three separate lines. The Expo and Millenium lines connect downtown Vancouver to the neighboring cities of Burnaby, Surrey and New Westminster while the Canada line connects downtown Vancouver to the Vancouver

International Airport and to the neighboring city of Richmond (TransLink 2013). The SeaBus is a passenger-only ferry service that seats up to 400 passengers and crosses the Burrard Inlet from downtown Vancouver’s Waterfront Station to North Vancouver’s Lonsdale Quay Station. The ferry departs approximately every 15 minutes during the day and every 30 minutes during the

138 evening (TransLink 2013). The West Coast Express commuter rail service runs Monday through

Friday during peak commuting hours and travels between downtown Vancouver and Mission,

B.C. stopping at stations in Port Moody, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Pitt Meadows, Maple

Meadows and Port Haney in between (TransLink 2013).

Vancouver’s comprehensive transportation master plan is called the Transportation 2040

Plan. The goals of the plan are shaped by sustainability principles and address Vancouver’s economic, environmental and social needs by envisioning an efficient, affordable, accessible and comprehensive transportation system that supports a thriving regional economy while enhancing the safety of Vancouver’s residents and protecting the natural environment. High-level priorities of the plan affect 7 distinct transportation related themes: 1.) land use, 2.) walking, 3.) cycling,

4.) transit, 5.) motor vehicles, 6.) goods, services and emergency response and, lastly, 7.) education, encouragement and enforcement. Throughout the process of implementation, the plan seeks to involve and empower the community in the decision making process by engaging nearby residents, businesses and other stakeholders with approaches that will “foster constructive dialogue, unleash creativity and inspire positive action” (City of Vancouver Transportation 2040

Plan 2013).

Part of Vancouver’s emphasis on multi-modal transport planning has to do with rising levels of cycling around the city. According to the City of Vancouver, trips by bike have increased 40% between 2008 and 2011. In order to be responsive to this trend, the City has implemented a series of programs, policies and changes to the built environment to make cycling a safer and more attractive option. Separated bicycle lanes, which are dedicated lanes with concrete medians, planters, bicycle parking spots and vehicle parking lanes that separate cyclists from vehicular traffic, were introduced in 2010 and are currently being expanded citywide.

139

Separated bicycle lanes also protect pedestrians from colliding with cyclists by giving cyclists a place to ride that is grade separated from the sidewalk (City of Vancouver Cycling in Vancouver

2013).

Vancouver also provides bicycle parking and public air pumps for cyclists and is in the process of developing a bike sharing program. The City installs traditional bike racks, U-shaped bike racks, bike corrals and bike lockers. Bike lockers are situated at SkyTrain stations and Park and Ride lots and provide a way for residents to combine cycling with other forms of transportation in order to commute in a stress free and environmentally friendly way. Bike lockers are available for monthly rental and provide a safe place to store your bicycle, helmet, bags and any other items in an enclosed, secure location. The City also offers a bike valet service, free of charge, at certain events so that cyclists can cycle to the event, check their bike with a valet, receive a ticket and retrieve their bike after the event. This service encourages residents to find alternative forms of transportation, like cycling, to the many events throughout the year that are sponsored by the City. Two free public bike pumps have also been installed along two of the most heavily trafficked cycling routes (Science World and Union and Hawks intersection) in Vancouver. In 2014, Vancouver plans to launch a public bike share (PBS) system similar to Montreal’s Bixi system which has proven to be so successful that it has been used as a template for other PBS systems in other North American cities such as Boston, Toronto,

Washington D.C., Chicago and Minneapolis (City of Vancouver Cycling in Vancouver 2013).

Seattle. The Seattle metro area is served by two major transit authorities: Sound Transit and King County Metro Transit. Sound Transit operates express buses, the Link light rail system and the Sounder Train commuter rail system (Sound Transit 2013). The Express bus system is comprised of 25 routes that connect major urban centers in Pierce, King and Snohomish

140 counties. Express buses make a limited number of stops, often connect to other transit options and are mostly available seven days a week (Sound Transit 2013). The Link light rail system is comprised of two separate lines. The Central Link light rail line runs from Sea-Tac airport to downtown Seattle’s Westlake station and has a total of 13 stops. The Tacoma Link light rail line runs from the Theater District to the Tacoma Dome station in downtown Tacoma, has a total of six stops and is currently free to ride although there is a plan to implement a fare some time during 2014 (Sound Transit 2013). The Sounder Train commuter rail service travels between

Lakewood and Seattle, with stops in South Tacoma, Tacoma, Puyallup, Sumner, Auburn, Kent and Tukwila, and between Everett and Seattle, with stops in Mukilteo and Edmonds, usually only during weekday mornings and afternoons (Sound Transit 2013).

King County Metro Transit operates buses, the Seattle Streetcar system, the Seattle

Center Monorail and two separate Water Taxi services. The Metro Bus system is comprised of over 200 routes that connect areas throughout King County. Within this network of bus routes is a variety of standard, express, late night and specialized routes (King County Metro 2013). The

Seattle Streetcar system is currently comprised of only one line, the South Lake Union line, which runs for 2.6 miles and links downtown Seattle to the South Lake Union neighborhood.

There are plans for expanding the existing system by incorporating three more lines that link several neighborhoods to downtown Seattle. These lines will include the Broadway line, the

Center City line and the First Hill line (Seattle Streetcar 2013). The Seattle Monorail was built for the 1962 Seattle World’s Fair and currently connects the Westlake Center to the Seattle

Center, where there are a variety of tourist attractions such as the Space Needle and the Pacific

Science Center (Seattle Monorail 2013). The Water Taxi services operated by King County

141

Metro Transit connect Downtown Seattle to Vashon Island and West Seattle neighborhoods and run several times a day (King County Metro 2013).

Seattle has a number of creative transportation policies and programs that contribute to the overall social sustainability of the urban region. Seattle’s Bicycle Master Plan (BMP) guides the planning and development of cycling infrastructure in the city of Seattle. Since its adoption in

2007, the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) has invested nearly $36,000,000 in cycle infrastructure improvements guided by this plan. These improvements and modifications have been funded by the voter-approved Bridging the Gap transportation levy and include the construction of 129 miles of bike lanes, 98 miles of signed routes, 9 miles of multi-use trail improvements and 2,230 bike parking spaces. The BMP is guided by two goals: to triple the amount of cycle trips in Seattle between the years 2007 and 2017, and to simultaneously reduce the number of serious collisions and cyclist fatalities by one third over the same time period

(City of Seattle Bicycle Master Plan 2013).

The voter-approved Bridging the Gap transportation levy, which was passed in 2006, allocates $365 million for transportation maintenance and improvement over the course of 9 years. Maintenance and improvements funded by the levy include paving, sidewalk enhancement and repair, seismic upgrades, tree pruning and planting, upgrades to the Bicycle and Pedestrian

Master Plans, funding for the Safe Routes to School program and funding for the Neighborhood

Street Fund, which allows local residents to collectively decide on what large transportation projects get built in their neighborhoods. The levy is also the primary funding source for

Seattle’s Neighborhood Greenways. Neighborhood Greenways are “residential streets where signs and pavement markings are used to guide people along the route; and speed and volume management measures discourage cars from avoiding main streets by cutting through on

142 neighborhood streets. These amenities can be especially beneficial for families, children and seniors who might find these routes more comfortable than busier nearby streets.” (City of

Seattle, Seattle Department of Transportation, Neighborhood Greenways, 2013). Seattle’s

Neighborhood Greenway plan is partially modeled after similar plans in other North American cities such as Chicago, Minneapolis, Portland, Tucson and Vancouver, B.C. (City of Seattle

Bridging the Gap 2013).

SDOT also funds the construction, maintenance and improvement of multi-use trails and cycle tracks throughout the city. Multi-use trails are designed to connect neighborhoods to business districts, natural areas and recreational opportunities and allow for two-way, off-street pedestrian and bicycle use, although joggers, skaters, wheelchairs and other non-motorized users are welcome as well. The five multi-use trails in Seattle include: Alki Trail, Burke Gilman Trail,

Chief Sealth Trail, Interurban Trail and the Ship Canal Trail. Cycle tracks provide space for cyclists that is separated from motor vehicle traffic in a number of ways and provides the safety of a separated path and the user experience of a conventional bike lane. There six operational cycle tracks in Seattle include: Linden, Cherry St., Broadway, Alki, N.E. 65th St., and Westlake

Ave. N. (Seattle Department of Transportation 2013).

A non-profit organization called Puget Sound Bike Share, or PSBS, was formed in June

2012 in order to bring a public bike sharing system to Seattle. In April 2013, PSBS selected

Portland based Alta Bicycle Share as its public bike share operator and PSBS and Alta are currently working on developing a public bike share system in Seattle with approximately 500 bikes at 50 stations situated throughout the city with an expected launch date sometime in 2014.

Once implemented, the public bike share system will help meet BMP and wider public transit goals by extending the reach, attractiveness and accessibility of transit, providing more multi-

143 modal public transit options, creating a mainstream biking constituency, supporting BMP’s safety and ridership goals, reducing vehicular congestion and carbon emissions and encouraging active and healthy lifestyles (Puget Sound Bikeshare 2013).

In 2011, SDOT launched initiatives designed to measure the number of cyclists, document attitudes towards cycling in Seattle and improve pedestrian safety. As part of this effort, SDOT conducted its first ever Bicycle Participation phone survey. Questions on the survey included asking how far cyclists ride, what facilities they use, reasons for not riding more, who has access to a bicycle, how often residents ride their bicycles and for what purpose residents ride their bicycles. They found that more than two thirds of residents ride solely for recreation. Other features of this initiative include citywide and downtown bicycle counts that utilize a new systematic bicycle counting methodology pioneered by the National Bicycle and

Pedestrian Documentation (NBPD) methodology. Citywide counts were collected quarterly in

January, May, July and September at 50 locations throughout the city at three different time periods: PM peak (5-7pm), off peak (10am-noon) and Saturday (noon-2pm). Downtown counts used volunteers to document the number of cyclists on one day (September 28th, 2011) from

6:30am-9:00am at 16 different locations in downtown Seattle. Seattle’s Pedestrian Master Plan guides the design, installation and construction of sidewalks, curb ramps, marked crosswalks, pedestrian and school crossing signs, curb bulbs and crossing islands at pedestrian crossing locations. Among the goals listed in the Pedestrian Master Plan are several that deal directly with social dimensions of sustainability. These include increasing social interaction on the streets, building strong communities and livable neighborhoods and providing mobility and access for all

(Seattle Department of Transportation 2013).

144

Portland. Tri-Met is the regional transportation authority responsible for planning and managing the metro Portland area’s public transportation system. Tri-Met currently operates buses, the MAX light rail system, the WES commuter rail system, and the Portland Streetcar system (Tri-Met 2013). Tri-Met operates 80 bus routes that cover a large portion of the Portland metro area and connect to other forms of transit within the greater Tri-Met system (Tri-Met

2013). The MAX (Metropolitan Area Express) light rail system connects downtown Portland with other areas of the metropolitan area such as Beaverton, Clackamas, Gresham, Hillsboro,

North and Northeast Portland and the Portland International Airport and currently consists of four lines: the Blue Line (Hillsboro/City Center/Gresham), the Green Line (Clackamas/City

Center/PSU), the Red Line (Airport/City Center/Beaverton), and the Yellow Line (Expo

Center/City Center/PSU) (Tri-Met 2013). The WES (Westside Express Service) commuter rail service connects suburbs on Portland’s west side, such as Wilsonville, Tualatin, Tigard and

Beaverton to the aforementioned MAX light rail Red Line, allowing commuters to get to downtown Portland without having to use a car (Tri-Met 2013). Finally, the Portland Streetcar

System circulates through downtown Portland on two lines (the Central Loop line and the

North/South line) and has nine stops (Tri-Met 2013).

Compared to other large urban areas in the United States, Portland has the largest percentage of commuters who travel by bicycle, currently at 6% of the total population. More than 17,000 workers commute by bicycle everyday in Portland. Between the years 2000 and

2010, there was a 238% increase in the number of residents who commuted to work by bicycle.

Close to 80% of cyclists in Portland wear helmets and cyclist safety is a top priority of decision makers in Portland. There are currently 319 miles of bikeways in Portland, comprised of 59 miles of Neighborhood Greenways, 181 miles of bike lanes and 79 miles of paths. Funding for

145 more than 50 additional miles of bikeways has been approved for the next few years. 80 schools are served by Portland’s Safe Route to Schools Program (SRSP) with services that include 28 traffic engineering plans designed to enhance safety and decrease carbon emissions and drop-off and pick-up points and 40 education programs that teach children about traffic, pedestrian and bicycle safety. Lastly, Portland has hosted 17 Sunday Parkway events that have drawn more than

330,000 residents since 2008, 90% of which were on bicycles (City of Portland Bureau of

Transportation Fact Sheet 2013).

The Portland By Cycle program provides a supportive setting for adults who are new to cycling by offering classes, guide rides and the opportunity to meet other adults who are either just getting into cycling or getting back into cycling. Classes cover topics such as bicycle safety basics, bicycle maintenance, shopping by bike and learning how to ride during the rainy season.

Guided bike tours include tours of specific neighborhoods in Portland and “Ride to the MAX” tours, which teach new riders how to ride to MAX light rail stations, bring their bikes on board and plan trips using more than one type of non-automobile transit. Another related program,

Women on Bikes, offers a free, women-only series of classes on basic riding skills, bicyclists’ rights and responsibilities, bicycle fitness plans, route planning, basic maintenance and flat tire repair. The Women on Bikes program also offers free guided 8 to 12 mile group rides that allow adult women the chance to meet other women and ride together for fun and fitness. Currently, around 35% of cyclists in Portland are female. Portland also has a Senior Cyclist Program that allows senior citizens the chance to participate in guided group rides along the Willamette

Greenway Trail in SW Portland. The City provides three-wheeled cycles and helmets for seniors and the program is free. Like Vancouver and Seattle, Portland also offers a variety of ways to park you bicycle securely, including bicycle lockers that can be found at many locations

146 throughout the city (Downtown, Portland State University, Lloyd District, TriMet MAX transit centers) and can be rented for the price of $50 for three months or $95 for six months with a $95 refundable key deposit. Portland is also in the process of launching a public bike share program that is set to open in the Spring of 2014 (City of Portland Bureau of Transportation 2013).

Accessible Transportation

The accessibility of an urban region’s transit system is an important feature of social sustainability. Policies and programs that increase accessibility focus on adapting the infrastructure and transit options to meet the specialized needs of a region’s residents. Research on socially sustainable transportation finds that many cities have historically favored mobility over accessibility and that this has translated into disproportionate support for automobile centered infrastructure development (Atkins 2008; Litman and Brenman 2012; Lucas 2013).

While some researchers argue that this development trend has led to the social exclusion of certain urban populations (i.e. seniors, youth, the disabled, low-income residents), few have specifically discussed how making existing transportation systems more accessible may have positive effects on social sustainability. In this subsection, I focus on identifying the various ways that my sample cities have made their transportation networks more accessible. More specifically, I emphasize how my cities have developed programs to modify existing infrastructure and transit modes and how my cities have developed programs to provide transit options for a larger subset of the urban population. All three cities have highly accessible transit, but both Portland and Seattle do better than Vancouver in this area because both cities offer reduced fares for certain residents (i.e. seniors and/or low-income residents).

147

Vancouver. The Metro Vancouver area is the first urban region in Canada to adopt a policy that will eventually make all public transit fully accessible to individuals with special needs. Currently, all buses, community shuttles, SeaBus ferries, SkyTrain services and West

Coast Express trains are fully accessible to people of all abilities. In addition, approximately 80% of all transit stops in Vancouver are fully accessible. TransLink also provides a door to door paratransit service for people with physical or developmental disabilities called HandyDART

(TransLink 2013).

Increasing the walkability and accessibility of Vancouver’s streets has been a City priority long before it started focusing on the cycling infrastructure. The City has installed an average of 200 curb ramps on sidewalks every year since the 1960s and today there are curb ramps on over 95% of the sidewalks in the downtown core. Small modifications like this make the city far more accessible to disabled individuals. In addition to modifying the built environment to enhance pedestrian safety, the City also hosts events that are designed to reduce the number of cars on city streets and transform city streets into vibrant, pedestrian-only public spaces. One example of this type of event is VIVA Vancouver. VIVA Vancouver is an ongoing program that closes select roads to vehicle traffic during different parts of the summer so that local businesses and non-profits can host different types of events such as art installations, farmers markets, concerts and collaborative street mural festivals. In 2013 VIVA Vancouver launched a Parklet Pilot Program to convert parking spaces into innovative seating areas designed and constructed by local designers, offering places for people to sit, relax and people watch (City of Vancouver VIVA Vancouver 2013).

Seattle. Like Vancouver, Seattle is committed to enhancing the accessibility of all transit options in the city. Currently, all SoundTransit express buses are equipped with ramps or

148 wheelchair lifts, Sounder commuter train stations have boarding ramps that conductors use to assist passengers with disabilities, Central Link light rail features level boarding which allows users with wheelchairs to board directly from the platform without using a lift or a ramp and

Tacoma Link light rail is outfitted with accessibility symbol buttons that signal the driver to lower a ramp to let passengers with disabilities off of the light rail cars. In addition to these modifications to the transit system, the transit system has other measures for increasing accessibility like fare discounts for residents aged 65 and over and for residents with disabilities, both of which qualify for Regional Reduced Fare Permits. Finally, Seattle offers a limited

Paratransit service for eligible individuals who are unable to connect to buses, trains and light rail (SoundTransit 2013).

Portland. Like both Vancouver and Seattle, Portland is focused on improving accessibility to transit. TriMet, the regional transit authority for the Portland area, operates buses, light rail, streetcars and commuter rail, all of which are accessible to seniors and residents with disabilities. Accessibility features include modifications that allow individuals with limited mobility, vision impairment and hearing impairment to access all forms of transit in the region.

Additionally, seniors, residents with disabilities and residents on Medicare qualify for reduced

“Honored Citizen” fares. Neighborhood shuttles, medical transportation and LIFT paratransit services are also available for seniors and residents with disabilities who cannot readily access other forms of public transit (TriMet 2013).

Quantitative Social Sustainability Criteria

In addition to comparing the social sustainability of transportation policy in my sample cities by looking at what policies are in place, I also look at data on various quantitative social

149 sustainability criteria as well. Below in Table 10, I list four distinct quantitative criteria that can be used to augment my analysis of socially sustainable transportation policies. The criteria I examine include bus and rail boardings per capita, bus trips per capita, light rail trips per capita and commuter rail trips per capita. For each of the criteria, I list the average number of transit boardings per person, per year in 2010. In general, all four criteria measure usage of public transit. Data for my quantitative social sustainability criteria were drawn from two online news sources (Williams-Derry 2012a; Williams-Derry 2012b). It should be noted that light rail trips per capita for Seattle only included trips on the Monorail and the Southlake Union Trolley.

Including information from the Link light rail system, which has since been expanded, would most likely increase Seattle’s light rail trips per capita. However, this hypothetical increase in light rail trips per capita would not put Seattle’s numbers above Portland and Vancouver, both of which have far more extensive light rail systems than Seattle.

In general, Vancouver outperforms the other two sample cities in nearly every category.

For bus and rail boardings per capita, Vancouver comes in first with 147, while Seattle comes in second with 53 and Portland comes in last with 47. For bus trips per capita, Vancouver comes in first with 56, while Seattle comes in second with 43 and Portland comes in last with 32.

Vancouver comes in first in light rail trips per capita with 33, while Portland comes in second with 21 and Seattle comes in last with only 3. For commuter rail trips per capita, Vancouver and

Seattle were tied at 1 while Portland came in last with 0. While these criteria are limited in scope, they provide insight into the different levels of public transportation usage in my sample cities.

Overall, Vancouver has a higher level of public transportation usage when compared to both

Seattle and Portland. In sum, when compared to Seattle and Portland, Vancouver has a higher rate of bus and rail boardings per capita, a higher rate of bus trips per capita, a higher rate of light

150 rail trips per capita, and a number of commuter rail trips that is equal to Seattle and more than

Portland.

Table 10 Quantitative Criteria for Socially Sustainable Transportation Quantitative Social Vancouver Seattle Portland Sustainability Criteria Bus and rail boardings 147 53 47 per capita Bus trips per capita 56 43 32 Light rail trips per 33 3 21 capita Commuter rail trips per 1 1 0 capita

Food

In this section I assess the social sustainability of food policy in my three sample cities. I do this by analyzing four social sustainability criteria (food-based organizations and strategies, community development food projects, number of community gardens, and number of farmers markets). In Table 11, I list the social sustainability criteria that I have chosen to analyze for this policy area and the social sustainability scores for each city. The highest possible score for this policy area was four points. All three sample cities received the highest possible score of 1 point in the food-based organizations and strategies category. This is due to the fact that each city has a food policy council and a food strategy. Seattle scored higher than either Vancouver or Portland in the community development food projects criteria, largely because of the strong community garden program which also featured community gardens in public housing facilities and the

Beacon Food Forest project, which is one of the only projects of its kind in North America today.

This was a difficult decision to make and was largely subjective in nature. Initially, I wanted to award Vancouver the highest score in this category simply because Vancouver, unlike Seattle

151 and Portland, has a very strong network of community kitchens. In the end, however, I chose to give Seattle the highest score in this category. Seattle also has the highest score in the community gardens category with Vancouver coming in second and Portland coming in third.

All three sample cities received the highest possible score in the farmers market category. In total, I awarded Seattle with the highest social sustainability score in this policy area with a score of 4, while Vancouver came in second with 3.75 and Portland came in third with 3.5.

Table 11. Social Sustainability Criteria for Food Policy and Social Sustainability Scores Social Sustainability Vancouver Seattle Portland Criteria for Food Policy Food-based Strategies 1 1 1 and Organizations Community 1 1 1 Development Food Projects Number of Community .75 1 .5 Gardens Number of Farmers 1 1 1 Markets Total 3.75 4 3.5

This section is organized in the following manner. I begin by analyzing the first two qualitative social sustainability criteria (food-based strategies and organizations, and community development food projects) in each of my cities, focusing on local food policy councils, local and regional food strategies and community garden and community kitchen programs. I then move on to an analysis of my last two quantitative social sustainability criteria (number of community gardens and number of farmers markets), where I compare each of my cities based on their respective number of community gardens and farmers markets.

152

Food-based Strategies and Organizations

Food policy is developed and enacted by a number of organizations. These organizations include food policy councils and certain departments and bureaus of city government.

Organizations such as these identify issues related to food security and safety, develop strategies to address these issues, and work with community level groups to implement their food strategies. Overall, this organizational and institutional level support is what helps community- based groups take action on issues related to production, distribution, availability, affordability and safety of food at the local level. There is a general lack of research that links food-based organizations and strategies to the social sustainability of cities. In this subsection, I identify the strategies and organizations that have been developed to deal with issues of food security in each of my sample cities. All three cities show a similarly high level of performance in this criterion.

Vancouver. The Vancouver Food Strategy is an attempt, on behalf of the City of

Vancouver and the Vancouver Food Policy Council, to integrate existing food policies into a coordinated approach, address unequal food access and distribution throughout Vancouver and align food system goals with plans and processes from other policy areas. On February 15th,

2007 the City of Vancouver adopted the Vancouver Food Charter. The charter defines a healthy food system as one in which “food production, distribution and consumption are integrated to enhance the environmental, economic, social and nutritional health of a place” (Vancouver Food

Charter 2007). The six elements of a food system include production, processing, distribution, access, consumption and waste management. This charter presents a vision for an equitable and environmentally sensitive food system that contributes to all three dimensions of sustainability, encourages local businesses and institutions to support local food production and recognizes that access to safe, nutritious and culturally appropriate food is a basic human right for all Vancouver

153 residents. Additionally, the charter outlines five important principles for a just and sustainable food system. These principles include community development, ecological health, social justice, collaboration and participation and celebration. Throughout the process of drafting the

Vancouver Food Charter, the City supported public consultation meetings that were attended by over 2,200 Vancouver residents. These consultations were guided by the following set of principles: engage ethno-culturally diverse communities, engage socio-economically diverse, age-diverse and harder-to-reach communities through storytelling, emphasize collaboration and partnerships and create tools and resources that can be used beyond the consultation process

(Vancouver Food Policy Council 2013; Vancouver Food Strategy 2013).

Another creative feature of Vancouver’s effort to strengthen the regional food system is the presence of Neighborhood Food Networks in many of the neighborhoods of Vancouver.

Neighborhood Food Networks (NFNs) are “coalitions of citizens, organizations and agencies that support a right-to-food philosophy and promote health, wellness and positive change for communities and the environment” (Neighbourhood Food Networks 2013). Each network is involved in a number of food initiatives that revolve around food skills building, education and awareness and engagement opportunities. There are currently nine existing NFNs in Vancouver which include: Cedar Cottage Food Network, Downtown Eastside Kitchen Tables, Downtown

Eastside Right to Food Network, Grandview-Woodland Food Connection, Hastings Sunrise

Community Food Network, Renfrew-Collingwood Food Security Institute, South Vancouver

Food Network, West End Neighbourhood Food Network and the Westside Food Collaborative.

Two NFNs (Cedar Cottage Food Network and Westside Food Collaborative) were already noted for their roles in providing mobile food markets to underserved communities in different

154

Vancouver neighborhoods, but NFNs are responsible for a number of different types of food initiatives (City of Vancouver Neighbourhood Food Networks 2013).

Seattle. The Seattle City Council passed Resolution 31019 in April, 2008 effectively creating the Local Food Action Initiative (LFAI). The LFAI outlines goals, establishes a policy framework and identifies specific actions designed to strengthen Seattle and the region’s food system. Other than strengthening the local and regional food system, the LFAI’s goals include assessing and mitigating negative ecological impacts of the existing food system, encouraging the use of renewable energy and enhancing energy efficiency and stimulating demand for healthy foods in low-income areas while, at the same time, increasing access to healthy and affordable foods. Like other food policy initiatives, the LFAI seeks to increase opportunities for residents to grow food, provide educational and community kitchen programs, address access disparities and recover as much surplus edible food as possible for re-distribution into local food pantries. Since its inception, the LFAI has supported expansions to the City’s P-Patch community garden program, helped to convert the seven acre, City owned Atlantic Street Nursery into the Rainier

Beach Urban Farm and Wetlands, established a farmers market at City Hall, worked with the

King County Board of Health to adopt a set of guidelines that provide healthy food choices in area vending machines and helped to form the local Regional Food Policy Council (City of

Seattle Local Food Action Initiative 2013).

Another important part of Seattle’s food policy deals with collaboration between community members and other stakeholders in the regional food system. Food systems are very complex, and dealing with all of the various issues surrounding the governance of the regional food system is facilitated by the Regional Food Policy Council (RFPC), the Urban Farm Hub

(UFH) and the Cascade Harvest Coalition (CHC). The RFPC was founded in September, 2010 as

155 part of the larger Puget Sound Regional Council in order to “bring together community, government, business and agricultural interests to work on integrated and sustainable policy recommendations to strengthen the regional food system” (Regional Food Policy Council 2011).

As part of RFPC’s work, they have drafted a series of food policy blueprints related to integrating local food production into the City’s comprehensive plan, urban agriculture, farmers markets, local food procurement and rural farmland preservation.

The RFPC has also sponsored research projects to measure urban agriculture activities in

Seattle in order to provide a baseline dataset that can be used to guide future policy decisions related to urban agriculture (Regional Food Policy Council 2013). The UFH is simply a website that provides current news about urban agriculture in the Puget Sound region. The website provides information for people interested in urban homesteading, community gardening, canning and preserving homegrown food products, recipes, suburban farming policies and related issues. The UFH also provides information about local non-profit organizations related to food. The CHC is a local food and farming resource center that provides information about local groups, programs, and policies related to the regional food system. The CHC also links members to businesses that feature locally grown products and harvest celebrations sponsored by local farms (The Urban Farm Hub 2013; Cascade Harvest Coalition 2013).

Portland. The Portland Multnomah Food Policy Council (PMFPC) is a community based advisory council that brings citizens and professionals together to address issues related to food access, land use and planning issues, local food purchasing plans and other issues related to the regional food system. The PMFPC’s governing principles include the recognition that all City and County residents have the right to an adequate supply of nutritious, affordable and culturally appropriate food, food security contributes to well being of residents and lowers the cost of

156 medical care and social services, food and agriculture are central features of the regional economy, a strong regional food system that addresses issues related to production, distribution, access and reuse contributes to the environmental, economic and social well-being of the greater region and food brings people together in celebrations of community and diversity. Based on the

PMFPC’s recommendations, the City of Portland and Multnomah County have made a commitment to support an economically, environmentally and socially sustainable regional food system, enhance the viability of local farms by facilitating linkages between local farmers and local consumers, ensure access to local food through local stores and food service operations, promote availability of a variety of foods at a reasonable cost, maintain food safety and promote access to information about food and nutrition (Portland Multnomah Food Policy Council 2013).

Community Development Food Projects

Community development food projects consist of alternative forms of food distribution and various types of “self-provisioning” activities (Power 2009:33). Alternative forms of food distribution include farmers markets and community supported agriculture projects while self- provisioning activities include community gardens and community kitchens. These types of projects are generally seen as being preferable to other forms of charitable food distribution like food pantries and food banks because they teach self-reliance, build skills, stimulate interaction and build connections between small farmers and local area residents. In this subsection, I identify the various types of community development food projects that have been developed in my sample cities. As with the previous section on food-based strategies and organizations, all three cities also show a similarly high level of development in their community development food projects.

157

Vancouver. In addition to adopting a food charter, the City of Vancouver encourages food-friendly neighborhoods by providing facilities and organizational support for community gardens and community kitchens. Recently, in an effort to extend food security and access to locally produced food to vulnerable populations, the City has made application processes for creating or participating in community gardens more user-friendly. Currently, Vancouver has a network of over 75 community gardens with a total of more than 3,260 garden plots distributed around City Parks, public schools, private lands and even on the grounds of City Hall. The City has also introduced an innovative program known as the “Grow a Row, Share a Row” program which invites local gardeners to grow an extra row of vegetables and donate their extra produce to the Greater Vancouver Food Bank Society. Vancouver also provides support for urban beekeeping initiatives in community gardens in order to improve pollination and produce local honey (City of Vancouver Food-Friendly Neighbourhoods 2013).

Community kitchens are public places where people from the community can come together to cook, learn and share knowledge about nutrition, cooking and different cuisines and meet new people and build community. There are currently more than 50 community kitchens in

Vancouver and an online directory to Vancouver’s community kitchens, called Fresh Choice

Kitchens, is managed by the Greater Vancouver Food Bank Society’s (GVFBS) Community

Kitchen Program. Fresh Choice Kitchens was founded in 1996 under its original name,

Vancouver Community Kitchen Project, with the goal of “building the capacity of individuals and the community through advocacy, education, training, support and collaboration” (Fresh

Choice Kitchens 2013). Through Fresh Choice Kitchens, the GVFBS provides workshops on kitchen safety, cooking classes, support for community groups who want to start a community kitchen, an equipment donation program and maintains cooperative relationships with

158 stakeholders and related organization across the province of British Columbia (Fresh Choice

Kitchens 2013; Greater Vancouver Food Bank Society 2012).

Seattle. The P-Patch Program is a central part of Seattle’s food policy. This P-Patch

Program is the community garden program of Seattle’s Department of Neighborhoods. There are approximately 85 community gardens situated throughout Seattle with around 1,900 plots and over 4,000 gardeners. Some gardens contain personal plots and collective gardening space and some of which are gardened collectively with no personal plots. Examples of collective gardening spaces include orchards, food forests and “giving gardens.” Personal plot fees are $26 for the application and $12 for every 100 square feet of garden and personal plots typically range in size from 40 square feet to 400 square feet but individuals who cannot afford to pay plot rental fees are not turned away if there is space available. P-Patch gardeners are required to volunteer at least 8 hours a year for the common good of the community garden system. Once an individual or group is granted access to a personal or collective plot, they are responsible for the garden year round. This includes winterization, spring weeding and planting, Fall cleanup, Summer maintenance and harvesting. Participants in the P-Patch Program are allowed to grow any vegetables, small fruits, flowers and herbs provided they are grown organically. No synthetic pesticides, insecticides, herbicides, weed-killers or fertilizers are allowed in P-Patch garden (City of Seattle P-Patch Community Gardens 2013).

In 1995, the P-Patch Program formed a partnership with Seattle Housing Authority and currently there are 12 community garden plots within three mixed-income Seattle Housing

Authority communities (Rainier Vista, High Point and New Holly), one low-income community

(Yesler Terrace) and in the non-profit housing community Mt. Baker Village Apartments. In

2012, the P-Patch Program launched a new project called the P-Patch Market Garden. The P-

159

Patch Market Garden is a community supported agriculture (CSA) project designed to link urban gardeners with consumers by delivering seasonal produce grown in P-Patch Community Gardens to residents who sign up for the program. While it is expected to expand, it currently delivers produce to 39 households over the course of a 20 week growing season. The P-Patch Market

Garden program also hosts a weekly on-site farm stand which allows consumers to buy produce directly from P-Patch gardeners. In addition to supporting the CSA project and the on-site farm stand, the Market Garden program supports the development of other CSA and farm stand projects in low-income neighborhoods throughout Seattle (City of Seattle P-Patch Community

Gardens 2013).

Seattle has a number of programs designed specifically to increase access to healthy food for all residents. Seattle’s Healthy Food Here (HFH) program provides support for local small food store owners who want to stock locally produced healthy food. The HFH program helps small food stores with marketing, information and business assistance, merchandizing and store layout, inventory management, WIC and EBT authorization and small business development resources. Marketing assistance includes help with posters, shelf signs, flyers and other promotional materials, while information and business assistance helps store owners with promoting products, ordering efficiently to reduce waste, store layout design, assistance in identifying low-cost suppliers and assistance in applying for and/or retaining WIC and EBT authorizations.

The Farm to School program, funded by the Washington State Department of

Agriculture, provides assistance for local urban farmers who want to sell produce to schools by introducing them into local supply chains or arranging for them to sell directly to area schools, forming partnerships with area farms to explore options for processing and distribution of locally

160 produced foods and providing training and workshops for local farmers who want to expand their distribution into school or institutional settings.

The Parks Urban Food Systems (PUFS) program encourages stewardship of parklands, provides coordinated recreation and educational activities that are directly related to the Urban

Food System and brings people together with food by supporting community gardens in parks and community kitchens. In addition to supporting community kitchens, the PUFS program supports a Teen Top Chef program that sends delegates from various Teen Late Night Recreation sites who are participating in the Healthy Cooking Program around the city to compete in a city wide cooking contest whereby teens use locally grown food to cook meals that are judged by a panel (City of Seattle Healthy Food For All 2013; City of Seattle Parks Urban Food Systems

2012).

Perhaps one of the most innovative community development food projects in Seattle is the Beacon Food Forest (BFF). The BFF is a community supported permaculture project designed with the goal of converting public land into an edible forest ecosystem. This seven acre site “mimics a woodland ecosystem by substituting edible trees, shrubs, perennials and annuals.

Fruit and nut trees make up the upper level, while berry shrubs, edible perennials and annuals make up the lower levels” (Beacon Food Forest 2013). The BFF will eventually include an

Edible Arboretum, a Berry Patch, a Nut Grove, a Community Garden based on the P-Patch model, a Gathering Plaza for education and harvest celebrations, a Kid’s Area and a Living

Gateway. The BFF is located in the Beacon Hill neighborhood, approximately 2.5 miles from downtown Seattle. The first 2-acre phase of the BFF is set to open in 2014 and when the BFF is completed it will be fully accessible to everyone (Beacon Food Forest 2013).

161

Portland. PMFPC supports a number of food policy related projects in and around

Portland. In 2004, the PMFPC conducted a survey in the Lents neighborhood to assess the extent of food insecurity and identify ways that access to food could be enhanced. The study found that while many residents had access to local grocery stores, many of them experienced occasional food insecurity and wanted more information on how to grow their own food, buy locally grown and produced food and prepare fresh food. Based on the findings of the study, and with the help of funding through the Robert Wood Johnson Healthy Eating by Design program, the PMFPC, along with other partners, were able to set up the Lents Project in 2005. The Lents Project worked to provide residents of the Lents neighborhood with resources to set up home gardens, cooking classes for youth and adults and a children’s summer camp at Zenger Farm. The project also allowed area residents to form the Lents Food Group, a community based group that works on food security related issues in the Lents neighborhood. Recently, the Lents Program received an award from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation as its most effective community-based project in the U.S. Because of the success of the Lents Project, the PMFPC is working with local government agencies to figure out the best way to replicate this model in other low-income neighborhoods in Portland (Portland Multnomah Food Policy Council Lents Project 2013).

Local institutions of higher learning are also involved in efforts to strengthen Portland’s food system. Portland State University’s (PSU) Learning Garden Laboratory (LGL) is a good example of how partnerships between the City and local institutions of higher learning can result in positive outcomes for the local food system. The LGL is a hands-on garden education program aimed at teaching public school children more about local, seasonal food. The LGL involves local Portland Public School students, PSU graduate students and interested community members in interactive learning activities focused on agriculture, food culture and nutrition. The

162 project is partially funded by the City of Portland. The City awarded $125,000 to PSU who matched the offer to launch the LGL program. Due primarily to this program’s popularity and success, an intergovernmental agreement was formally adopted by the Portland City Council in order to continue the program.

Another example of collaboration between the City and PSU is the Diggable City program. In November, 2004 the Portland City Council unanimously passed a resolution calling for the creation of an inventory of public land suitable for farming. In response to this resolution, a group of PSU Urban Planning graduate students worked on studying new ways to implement urban agriculture initiatives and developing a land inventory using GIS analysis. In 2005, the students presented the City Council with a report entitled The Diggable City: Making Urban

Agriculture a Planning Priority. After reviewing and accepting the report, the City Council instructed the PMFPC to advise the group of students on the best way to proceed with the implementation of the Diggable City program. The PMFPC subsequently created an Urban

Agricultural Subcommittee and six Techical Advisory Committees that reached out to the community to draft a report based on community consultation with more than 30 community members. The report was presented to the City Council in February, 2006 and has helped guide urban agriculture policy and programs developed since then (City of Portland Diggable City

2013; City of Portland Learning Garden Laboratory 2013).

Quantitative Social Sustainability Criteria

In addition to identifying and analyzing criteria related to food policy in each of my sample cities, I also provide quantitative criteria that will help me to more accurately assess the performance of my sample cities in this policy area. Below in Table 12, I list two distinct

163 quantitative criteria that can be used to augment my analysis of socially sustainable food policies. The criteria I examine include number of community gardens and number of farmers markets. Seattle has the highest number of community gardens with 85 while Vancouver comes in at a close second with over 75 community gardens. With 48 community gardens, Portland comes in third place (City of Vancouver Community Gardens 2012; P-Patch Community

Gardens 2013; City of Portland Community Gardens 2013). The number of farmers markets is more difficult to ascertain than the number of community gardens at any given time because of a lack of data and because numbers of farmers markets fluctuate with the seasons. Moreover, it is rare to find an up to date and comprehensive clearinghouse of farmers markets that are currently in operation in my sample cities. Currently, all three of my sample cities have a robust farmers market network at both the municipal and metropolitan level. (City of Portland Farmers Market

Listings 2013; Puget Sound Fresh 2013; City of Vancouver Farmers Markets 2013; B.C.

Association of Farmers Markets 2013).

Table 12 Quantitative Criteria for Socially Sustainable Food Policy Quantitative Social Vancouver Seattle Portland Sustainability Criteria # of community gardens 75+ 85 48 # of farmers markets 20+ 20+ 20+

Leisure and Recreation

In this section I assess the social sustainability of leisure and recreation policy in my three sample cities. To do this, I analyze five social sustainability criteria (leisure and recreation management, targeted leisure and recreation programs, number of parks, number of community centers, and percentage of land area devoted to parks). In Table 13, I list the social sustainability criteria that I use assess social sustainability in this policy area and the social sustainability scores for each of my sample cities. The highest possible score for this policy area was five

164 points. Vancouver received the highest score in the leisure and recreation management category simply for being the only one of the three sample cities with an elected parks board. Vancouver received the highest possible social sustainability score in the targeted leisure and recreation programs category because even though all three cities have highly developed programs geared towards seniors, youth and residents with disabilities, Vancouver has a slightly higher score because of its leisure access program (LAP) that provides low-income residents with discounted fares for leisure and access activities and programs. Seattle scored higher than Vancouver and

Portland in the number of parks category, while both Vancouver and Seattle scored higher than

Portland in the number of community centers category. For percentage of land area devoted to parks, both Vancouver and Portland beat Seattle. In sum, I gave Vancouver the highest social sustainability score in this policy area with a score of 4.5 points, while Seattle came in second with 4.25 points and Portland came in third with 3.75 points.

Table 13. Social Sustainability Criteria for Leisure and Recreation Policy and Social Sustainability Scores Social Sustainability Vancouver Seattle Portland Criteria for Leisure and Recreation Policy Leisure and Recreation 1 .75 .75 Management Targeted Leisure and 1 .75 .75 Recreation Programs Number of Parks .5 1 .5 Number of Community 1 1 .75 Centers Percentage of Land Area 1 .75 1 Devoted to Parks Total 4.5 4.25 3.75

This section is organized in the following way. I begin by analysing the first two qualitative social sustainability criteria (leisure and recreation management, and targeted leisure and recreation programs) in each of my cities, focusing on local parks and recreation departments and specialized leisure and recreation programs for seniors, youth, disabled 165 residents and other groups. I then analyze the last three quantitative social sustainability criteria

(number of parks, number of community centers, and percentage of land area devoted to parks) in each of my cities and determine the relative performance of my cities in these criteria.

Leisure and Recreation Management

Leisure and recreation systems consist of many different venues and resources. These resources include, but are not limited to, parks, beaches, community centers, pools, skate parks, recreational programs, gyms, ice skating rinks and other types of public spaces. In order to develop and maintain these venues and resources, municipalities and metropolitan areas often have different forms of leisure and recreation management. In this subsection, I briefly review the leisure and recreation amenities and resources provided by each of my sample cities and highlight differences in the way that each system is managed. While all three cities have well developed systems of leisure and recreation management, Vancouver scores higher than either

Seattle or Portland for having an elected park board.

Vancouver. Vancouver is currently the only municipality within Canada to have an elected, rather than appointed, park and recreation board. The Vancouver Board of Parks and

Recreation’s mandate is to support the City’s parks and recreation system, which includes maintenance of existing parks, natural areas, community centers, sports and recreational programs, social and cultural activities, educational programming and special events. Currently, the Board maintains more than 220 parks which make up around 11% of Vancouver’s land, 10 oceanside beaches, one freshwater lake, 24 community centers, 8 skate parks, 8 indoor ice skating rinks and 14 fitness centers. The Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation also supports arts and cultural activities at several arts centers where residents can use art studios, take art

166 classes, watch and/or participate in cultural events and watch plays or use available theatre space to participate in plays. Many of the social, recreational, arts and cultural activities sponsored by the Board are held at local community centers. In addition there are three community centers

(Carnegie Community Centre, Evelyne Saller Centre and the Gathering Place Community

Centre) in the Downtown Eastside which provide specialized services for low-income, homeless and at-risk adults and are run separately from the aforementioned 24 community centers. These three community centers will be discussed in more detail in the Social Mixing and Cohesion subsection that follows (City of Vancouver Parks, Recreation and Culture 2012).

Seattle. Seattle’s Parks and Recreation Department supports a robust network of facilities and programs, with a strong focus on increasing accessibility to all residents. The Department supports over 400 parks, totaling to more than 6,200 acres of park land, 26 community centers, several public pools and tennis centers, a performing arts venue, 3 Teen Life Centers, a technology program called RecTech that is administered through local Community Technology

Centers, or CTCs, as well as a number of programs geared towards specific groups of residents such as the Specialized Programs, Seattle Adaptive Sports, the Lifelong Recreation Program, and a number of programs geared towards LGBTQ youth (Seattle Parks and Recreation 2013).

Portland. The Portland Bureau of Parks and Recreation manages a network of 209 parks and natural areas that comprise 11,546 acres of City land, 15 community and art centers, 13 indoor and outdoor pools, 5 golf courses, 1 motorsports raceway, 123 baseball/softball diamonds,

109 soccer/football fields, 229 basketball hoops, 48 community gardens, 155 miles of regional trails, 33 dog parks, 129 playgrounds, 5 skateparks and 5 river beaches (City of Portland: PP & R

By the Numbers, 2013). According to surveys of, 86% of residents report that City parks are good or very good. Throughout the impressive parks and recreation system, there are a number

167 of programs and activities that offer opportunities for underserved community members. Some of these programs include senior recreation, the Adaptive & Inclusive Recreation (AIR) program,

Inclusion Services, SUN community schools, and the Parks Race and Ethnicity Project (City of

Portland Parks and Recreation 2013).

Targeted Leisure and Recreation Programs

In a general sense, leisure and recreation programs that provide all residents with access to high-quality and affordable amenities contribute to social sustainability by providing a place for people of all walks of life to come together and collectively enjoy themselves. In order to provide universal access to existing amenities, it is sometimes necessary to make adaptations and modifications for certain residents. In this subsection, I focus on programs that have been developed to increase access to leisure and recreation facilities, resources and amenities for youth, seniors, the disabled, LGBTQ residents and residents of modest income. All three cities have a wide variety of targeted leisure and recreation programs, but Vancouver scores higher on this criterion because of its Leisure Access Program, which provides reduced fares for leisure and access based activities and events for low-income residents.

Vancouver. The City of Vancouver has a number of adapted and integrated recreational programs for residents with disabilities. Sports offered directly through the adapted and integrated recreational program include sledge hockey, blind hockey, basketball, bocce ball, ball hockey, wheelchair rugby and indoor soccer. During the summer months, the adapted and integrated recreational program works with various outdoor recreation organizations to provide adapted versions of canoeing, golf, kayaking, sailing and waterskiing. A variety of adapted swimming courses also allows for residents with disabilities to learn how to swim, take classes in

168 synchronized swimming and/or water aerobics and enjoy public pool facilities managed by the

Board of Parks and Recreation. Additionally, adapted exercise classes provide a range of rehabilitative exercises for individuals with disabilities or chronic conditions such as arthritis while adapted social and recreation programs provide a wide range of activities including cooking classes, group counseling, card and board games, art therapy and others (City of

Vancouver Adapted and Integrated Programs 2013).

The Arts and Health project focuses on improving seniors’ health and well-being through participation in community engaged arts by providing instruction in a wide variety of arts including the visual arts, creative writing, digital storytelling and multidisciplinary performances.

This program brings local artist together with seniors, provides workshops and opportunities for seniors to visit art galleries and arts related events and helps to link the work of seniors to the larger arts community in Vancouver. By creating these connections and facilitating creative expression among seniors, this program hopes to “redefine and enhance perception of senior’s role in their community” (City of Vancouver Arts and Health Project 2012).

Vancouver supports an impressive amount of arts and cultural activities designed to allow local residents to express their creativity and take part in local events. Painters and visual artists who live in the Greater Vancouver region, have valid identification, and are at least 19 years old may qualify to sell their wares at a select number of locations situated in Vancouver’s parks. 105 permits are available at any given time for a small fee and artists are allowed to create and sell their art in certain locations within Stanley Park and Queen Elizabeth Park. Street performers, also known as Buskers, are permitted to perform in select locations without permits and in more heavily trafficked locations with the purchase of a permit from the City provided they follow a number of guidelines. Photography classes and workshops are available to

169 residents of all skill levels with darkroom facilities available at Brittania Community Services

Centre and Dunbar Community Centre while a number of other crafts and hobbies such as pottery, woodworking, poetry, dance and acting and theatre are supported by classes and workshops at various community centers situated throughout the city (City of Vancouver Arts and Health Project 2012).

One of the ways that the City of Vancouver enhances accessibility to the wide range of activities, programs and events sponsored by the Board of Parks and Recreation is by providing subsidized passes to low-income residents. There are two main types of subsidized passes. The

Agency Pass allows staff and volunteers at local qualifying non-profit organizations the ability to assist their clients in accessing basic recreation programs for free. The Leisure Access Program

(LAP) provides residents access to recreational programs for free or for reduced cost, based on income. The LAP offers a variety of discounts and benefits at local community centers, selected fitness centers, pools and ice skating rinks. Senior and youth rates for access to programs and activities sponsored by the Board are already reduced and the LAP program is intended for low- income adults only. Under the LAP program, qualifying residents are granted access to pools and ice rinks (with skate rentals and skate lessons included) for free and to a 50% discount at fitness centers, more advanced swimming and skating lessons, group fitness programs like indoor cycling, one community center program per person per season(i.e. pottery, woodworking, guitar lessons, theatre classes, creative writing, etc.), racquet ball courts, Stanley Park Miniature

Railway, Van Dusen Botanical Gardens, the Vancouver Aquarium, Stanley Park Horse Drawn

Tours, the Bloedel Conservatory and local mini-golf courses. In addition, residents who qualify for the LAP program can purchase a OneCard, which provides access to all Parks and Recreation activities, with a built in LAP subsidy to avoid having to produce a separate, stigmatizing card or

170 voucher at the time that services or programs are accessed (City of Vancouver Leisure Access

Program 2013).

Seattle. Like Vancouver, the City of Seattle offers several recreational programs for residents with disabilities. The two main types of specialized recreational services include

Specialized Programs and Seattle Adaptive Sports (SAS). Many of the activities offered within the Specialized Program are suitable for residents with severe developmental disabilities and multiple disabilities. Specialized programs include Special Olympic sports of all kinds, wheelchair basketball, weekend and day trips, a variety of classes and workshops on cooking, dance, aerobics and other hobbies/skills, and camping programs during the summer (Seattle

Parks and Recreation Specialized Programs 2013). SAS is a non-profit organization partially supported by the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation. The goal of SAS is to contribute to the health, well-being and self-esteem of disabled residents by giving them opportunities to socialize and to participate in and compete in adapted sporting events such as basketball and track and field. SAS serves over 100 athletes in the greater Seattle area and sponsors events each year which bring disabled athletes to the area from all over the country to participate in sponsored tournaments (Seattle Adaptive Sports 2012).

Seattle’s Parks and Recreation Department also supports a number of programs designed for the LGBTQ community. Seattle is in the process of hiring 6 youth Peer Outreach

Coordinators for the upcoming Bearing Witness Quare Arts Project, a performing arts project geared towards Seattle’s LGBTQ youth of color. The Born This Way Kafe, is a social group supported by the Parks and Recreation Department that offers events like bingo nights, karaoke nights, movie nights for local teens of all sexual orientations. Seattle and local municipal and county governments in the greater Seattle area have begun focusing more on providing outlets

171 for local LGBTQ youth due to the estimated 6,000 LGBTQ youth in King County, Washington and the increasing attention in the media on suicides within the teen LGBTQ community and the lack of resources and programs for LGBTQ youth (KOMO News 2011; Seattle Parks LGBTQ

2013).

Seattle’s Lifelong Recreation (LR) program provides “fitness and social programs for people 50 and better” (Seattle Parks and Recreation Lifelong Recreation 2013). Sound Steps,

LR’s group walking program, provides opportunities for qualifying residents to meet together and go on guided group walking tours of Seattle’s neighborhoods and parks. The Sound Steps program is intended to provide both social and health benefits by encouraging an active lifestyle and promoting socialization. The Get Out and Go Group, LR’s field trip program, offers older residents two field trips a month for a modest fee. Field trips include outings to the Seattle Art

Museum, indoor skydiving events, bowling, light mountain hiking and trips to Snoqualmie Falls.

Other activities sponsored through the LR program include lawn bowling, softball and the

Northwest Senior Games, a modified version of the Olympic events where older residents can participate in and compete against other seniors from the Pacific Northwest.

The Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation offers a variety of programs for youth.

These programs include the VERA project and several Teen Life Centers that offer late night entertainment, youth violence prevention, and other types of programs. The VERA project contributes to community transformation through “collaborative, youth-driven engagement in music and art” (The Vera Project 2013). VERA combines community organizing and volunteer driven activities to manage a music and arts venue that hosts concerts, arts programs, experiential learning opportunities and more. Seattle Parks and Recreation manages three Teen Life Centers:

Garfield Teen Life Center, Meadowbrook Teen Life Center and Southwest Teen Life Center.

172

These centers offer a variety of programs including late night events, special events, computer labs, tutoring, game rooms, recording studios and a variety of classes and workshops on art, dance, music and other topics (Seattle Parks Teens 2013). Seattle Parks Teens’ Late Night programs provide a safe place for teens to congregate and engage in supervised activities between the hours of 7pm and midnight on Friday and Saturday nights (Seattle Parks Teens

2013). The Youth Violence Prevention Program offers a variety of youth focused and youth made activities that focus on civic engagement, employment, arts, education, environment and community capacity building (Seattle Parks Teens 2013).

Seattle offers underserved residents access to technology and training through the innovative RecTech program, supported by the Parks and Recreation Department. The RecTech program’s mission is to “facilitate effective technology driven programs providing education, recreation and community development services for children, families and neighborhoods” (City of Seattle RecTech 2013). RecTech provides access to technology and training to encourage personal and career development in low-income neighborhoods across south and central Seattle.

Services are offered through a number of Community Technology Centers (CTCs) and include youth development services, workforce training, senior citizen programs, adult digital literacy classes, computer labs and access to training in web design, office technology skills, blogging and access to online government services (City of Seattle RecTech 2013).

Portland. Portland’s AIR program offers activities and services to children, teens and adults with disabilities and/or special needs with the goal of improving health, well-being and independence. The program was formerly known as Disabled Citizens Recreation and was launched in 1964. It is widely recognized as one the most successful specialized community recreation programs in the U.S. Much like the Senior Recreation program, the AIR program

173 offers a wide variety of social, recreational, leisure and cultural activities to qualifying residents.

The program employs trained staff with experience in community recreation, therapeutic recreation, special education, clinical settings, counseling and social work. Activities include, but are not limited to, cooking classes, art classes, bowling field trips, monthly dances, oceanside dinners/lunches, nature hikes, Portland Trailblazers (NBA basketball team) viewing parties, museums, arts and cultural events and access to resources from other organizations which provide services to disabled and special needs residents like Oregon Disability Sports, TOP

Soccer, Forward Stride (horseback riding lessons for residents with special needs and/or disabilities) and others (City of Portland Adaptive and Inclusive Recreation 2013). The Bureau of Parks and Recreation also offers Inclusion Services which provide accommodations for residents with disabilities and/or special needs who want to take advantage of activities, classes and programs sponsored through community centers, SUN community schools and other sites and organizations managed by the Bureau (City of Portland Inclusion Services 2013).

Portland provides a number of services and activities for senior residents through the

Senior Recreation program. Through the program, residents aged 55 and up qualify for a number of specialized activities and outings, although most are not free. The goal of the program is to present seniors with opportunities to stay active and fit, learn new skills or hobbies, express themselves creatively, learn about new cultures and meet other likeminded seniors in the community. Services are offered for English and non-English speaking seniors and include, but are not limited to, ethnic supper clubs, excursions to local coastal areas, wilderness areas, wineries, farms, museums and cultural events, music and art classes, guided hikes and walks, tai chi, qigong and yoga classes, dance classes, genealogy research and writing classes, bonsai and

174 gardening classes and more (City of Portland Senior Recreation Winter 2014 Program Catalog

2013).

Portland’s SUN community school program is a collaborative effort on behalf of the

Multnomah County Department of Schools, Portland Parks and Recreation, and 6 different local school districts (Centennial, Reynolds, Parkrose, David Douglas, Gresham-Barlow and

Portland). There are currently 58 SUN community schools, 11 of which are operated by the

Bureau of Parks and Recreation. SUN community schools aim to improve student achievement, behavior and overall academic success, increase parent, family and community involvement in local schools, improve collaboration among local school districts and improve and integrate the use of local public facilities, programs and services. Many programs and activities hosted by

SUN community schools are intergenerational in nature and require both parents/family members and children to attend. SUN community schools offer a similar range of activities to the other aforementioned programs including arts and cultural events, fitness classes, field trips to museums and natural areas, sports and other events (SUN Community Schools 2013).

Finally, as a way to gauge whether the Bureau of Parks and Recreation is serving all member s of the community equally, the City of Portland has launched a Parks and Recreation

Race and Ethnicity Project. This project collects data about who used Parks and Recreations services, programs and activities in order to understand if there are City residents who are still being underserved. Residents who are registered with the Parks and Recreation system have profiles that are in the process of being updated with information about race and ethnicity.

Currently registered members will be asked a one-time question regarding race or ethnicity membership when registering for future classes, activities or programs. Members are also encouraged to call the Parks and Recreation Bureau or stop by the front desk to update their

175 accounts during normal business hours. As data is collected, the City will compare gathered data to the most recent Census figures and annual data compiled by Portland Public Schools (City of

Portland Race and Ethnicity Project 2013).

Quantitative Social Sustainability Criteria

One way to compare the social sustainability of leisure and recreation policy in my sample cities is to not only look at what policies are in place, but also to look at data on various quantitative social sustainability criteria as well. Below in Table 14, I list three distinct quantitative criteria that can be used to support my analysis of socially sustainable leisure and recreation policies. The criteria I examine include number of parks, number of community centers and percentage of land area devoted to parks.

Seattle has the highest number of parks with over 400 in the city limits. Vancouver comes in second with over 220 parks within the city limits. Portland comes in third with 209 parks within the city limits. Seattle comes in first with the highest number of community centers with a total of 26, while Vancouver has just one less with 25 and Portland has 15. Even though Portland scored last in the number of parks within the city limits, the city comes in first with percentage of land devoted to parks with a full 12% of land area being set aside for parks. Vancouver comes in second in this category with 11% of city land devoted to parks. Seattle comes in third with 9% of city land being allotted for parks (City of Vancouver Parks, Recreation and Culture 2013; City of

Portland Parks and Recreation 2013; City of Seattle Parks and Recreation 2013).

Table 14 Quantitative Criteria for Socially Sustainable Leisure and Recreation Policy Quantitative Social Vancouver Seattle Portland Sustainability Criteria # of parks 220+ 400+ 209 # of community centers 25 26 15

176

Table 14 continued Quantitative Social Vancouver Seattle Portland Sustainability Criteria % of land area devoted 11% 9% 12% to parks

Social Cohesion

In this section, I assess the social sustainability of social cohesion policy in my three sample cities. In order to do this, I analyze six social sustainability criteria (targeted social cohesion programs, increasing accessibility to existing programs and resources, percentage of residents living alone, percentage of residents living in poverty, percentage of households that are single-parent households, median individual income, and median household income). In

Table 15, I list the social sustainability criteria that I use to assess social sustainability in this policy area and the social sustainability scores for each of my sample cities. The highest possible score for this policy area was six points. For both targeted social cohesion programs and increasing accessibility to existing programs and resources Vancouver beat Seattle and Portland.

Vancouver has a greater number of programs aimed at integrating diverse groups of residents into city life and combating social isolation and exclusion. These include, but are not limited to, programs for aboriginal residents, senior residents, LGBTQ residents, young residents, supervised injection sites for residents with substance abuse and addiction issues, and comprehensive outreach programs and community centers for homeless and at-risk residents.

For the categories that analyzed percentage of residents living alone, percentage of residents living in poverty, and percentage of households that are single-parent households it was necessary to implement an inverse rating scale where lower social sustainability scores in each category indicated higher percentages in each category. Seattle has the highest percentage of

177 residents living alone with roughly 42% of the population living by themselves, while Vancouver comes in second with 38% and Portland comes in third with 35%. Vancouver has the highest percentage of residents living in poverty with 21%, while Portland comes in second with 17% and Seattle comes in third with 15%. Portland has the highest percentage of single-parent households with 14%, while Seattle has the second highest with 9% and Vancouver has the third highest with 8%. For median individual income and median household income, higher figures indicate higher levels of social sustainability. Vancouver had the highest median individual and household income when compared with the other two sample cities. Overall, I gave Vancouver the highest social sustainability score in this policy area with a score of 6.5 points while Seattle came in second with 5.25 points and Portland came in third with 4.25 points.

Table 15. Social Sustainability Criteria for Social Cohesion Policy and Social Sustainability Scores Social Sustainability Vancouver Seattle Portland Criteria for Social Cohesion Policy Targeted Social Cohesion 1 .5 .5 Programs Accessibility to Existing 1 .5 .5 Programs and Resources Percentage of Residents 1 .75 1 Living Alone Percentage of Residents .5 1 .75 Living in Poverty Percentage of 1 1 .5 Households that are Single-Parent Median Individual 1 .75 .5 Income Median Household 1 .75 .5 Income Total 6.5 5.25 4.25

This section is organized in the following way. I begin by analyzing the first two qualitative social sustainability criteria (targeted social cohesion programs, and accessibility to

178 existing programs and resources) in each of my sample cities. I do this by identifying specialized programs for marginalized and at-risk populations and outreach programs designed to increase access to existing programs and resources. I then analyze my remaining five quantitative social sustainability criteria (percentage of residents living alone, percentage of residents living in poverty, percentage of households that are headed by a single-parent, median individual income, and median household income) in each of my cities and determine the relative level of performance of my cities in these criteria.

Targeted Social Cohesion Programs

Targeted social cohesion programs focus on providing different types of opportunities for specific groups of residents. In many cases, these types of programs help to combat social isolation by fostering communication between marginalized social groups and decision makers.

These types of programs also raise consciousness about issues that affect certain members of the population and allow members of these populations to come together and work towards feasible solutions. Groups that benefit from targeted social cohesion programs include ethnic and racial minorities, seniors, youth, the disabled, women, LGBTQ residents and others. In this subsection,

I review programs that focus on specific marginalized groups in each of my sample cities. While all three cities have a variety of programs geared towards specific groups of residents,

Vancouver has a much larger variety of programs for at-risk and marginalized community members than either Seattle or Portland.

Vancouver. The City of Vancouver provides assistance to the Aboriginal community in a number of important ways. First, the City is in the process of drafting an Aboriginal Accord that would help build a framework for ongoing respectful and meaningful dialogue between

179

Aboriginal groups and the City, identify priorities, and collectively work towards creating plans to address priorities. Second, the City of Vancouver provides advocacy for Aboriginal issues by staging a monthly Vancouver Aboriginal Council designed to help members discuss community initiatives and to network with other community members. Third, the City provides reduced cost leasing of City owned buildings for Aboriginal groups. Fourth, the City provides capacity building in the form of funding, mentorship, and by fostering partnerships with other organizations that have overlapping goals. Fifth, the city has developed a program known as

Storyscapes, which provides a forum for Aboriginal residents to share their stories through a variety of media including written form, video, public art, theatre, dance, and song (City of

Vancouver, People and Programs, Building Community, Vancouver’s Aboriginal communities,

2012).

Vancouver is also developing policies and programs geared towards children, child care, and child development. Current initiatives in this area include a symposium entitled “Inspiring

This poll, administered in the spring of 2010, surveyed 800 respondents throughout British

Columbia and revealed an overwhelming support for increased government spending on family services and support programs. The City is also in the process of updating its Childcare Design

Guidelines to ensure that they reflect current best practices in urban design and architecture.

Finally, the City oversees major grants programs for childcare operators in order to assist in cost control and defray the costs for Vancouver’s citizens (City of Vancouver Getting Childcare in

Vancouver 2012; City of Vancouver Seniors, Women and Youth 2012).

180

The organization Vancouver Youth chronicles the City’s current policy initiatives geared towards youth and youth development. The City has supported and currently supports several innovative programs geared towards youth in the greater Vancouver region. For example, the

YouthPolitik program was the City of Vancouver’s civic education and civic leadership development program that ran from 2006-2012. The program was free to all participants and was available for all Vancouver residents from the ages of 15 to 20. The YouthPolitik program gave members the opportunity to engage in dialogue about social issues like urban sustainability, gentrification and urban renewal and revitalization with elected officials from City Council, take workshops in public speaking and even present Council with ideas for policy solutions to pressing problems. The Vancouver Youth Leadership Development Network fosters “the desire and the capacity to affect positive change both in the world around them and in their own lives”

(Vancouver Youth, 2013). The City also provides programs that engage young people in participatory municipal planning initiatives and community mapping programs, anti-racism and anti-discrimination initiatives, and programs designed to educate youth about municipal politics and elections (Vancouver Youth 2013).

Vancouver’s LGBTQ advisory committee works closely with City Council to improve access to City services and programs for LGBTQ residents. The committee engages in outreach in order to disseminate information about services and programs, exchanges information with

LGBTQ groups, works cooperatively with City agencies and private organizations to initiate new programs and projects, provides input to City Council about issues of concern to the LGBTQ community and acts as a resource for City staff during the public involvement process. The

Committee is comprised of six distinct subcommittees: Housing to Home, Safe, Healthy and

Engaged Communities, Davie Village Revitalization, TRANSformations, PRIDE and

181

Communications and Engagement. The LGBTQ committee meets four times a year, allows residents to become members and requires that members engage in additional correspondence, meetings, research and networking activities (City of Vancouver LGBTQ Advisory Committee

2013).

Vancouver has developed various programs to address issues related to residents with special needs. The City of Vancouver currently defines two major types of facilities that deal with special needs populations. The first, referred to as “Community Care Facilities,” include all facilities that cater to seniors and individuals with mental illnesses and developmental disabilities that require considerable care. Vancouver currently operates 121 Community Care Facilities.

The second type of special needs facility defined by the City is the “Group Residence Facility.”

These facilities provide accommodation to six or more people who are currently undergoing rehabilitation of some sort. The City currently operates 32 Group Residence Facilities.

According to the City, these two types of facilities “provide housing options for people who are frail or have illnesses and disabilities and are an important part of the City’s vision for an inclusive and socially sustainable city” (Vancouver Coastal Health 2013).

Vancouver also develops important programs and policies for the elderly. The City currently assists several centers and programs that provide services for seniors. These groups include the 411 Seniors Centre, West End Seniors Network, South Granville Seniors Centre,

SUCCESS Seniors Quality of Life, and others. The City has also developed the “Vancouver

Cross Cultural Seniors Network” in order to “create a network among seniors of all ethno- cultural backgrounds, for the purposes of sharing information, learning from each other, and working together on common issues” (City of Vancouver Cross Cultural Seniors Network 2011).

The Vancouver Cross Cultural Seniors Network is particularly interested in bringing diverse

182 groups of seniors together to identify problems related to access to services and resources and work with City officials to resolve these problems. Finally, the City supports a network of

Seniors Supportive and Assisted Housing which provide “hospitality services” such as meals, housekeeping, laundry, social/recreational activities, and 24 hour emergency response (City of

Vancouver Seniors, Women and Youth 2012).

Seattle. Seattle’s Race and Social Justice Initiative (RSJI) is a multi-faceted program aimed at managing diversity and ensuring that racial and ethnic minorities in Seattle are valued and given opportunities to succeed and thrive. According to the City’s website the RSJI “seeks to reduce disproportionality in economic opportunity, education, civic engagement, and other areas, and to make City services more relevant to Seattle’s diverse populations” (City of Seattle: Race and Social Justice Initiative, 2013). The RSJI is primarily implemented through the efforts of the

Department of Neighborhoods (DON). The DON supports increased economic opportunity for racial and ethnic minorities by working with local businesses and chambers of commerce to strengthen area small business districts, works with the Office for Education in order to reduce the racial/ethnic achievement gap in Seattle schools , administers the Families and Education

Levy to fund a wide variety of services and programs designed to increase student readiness, support at-risk students and bring families, communities, students and schools together to find solutions to educational problems in the City of Seattle. The DON also works with local neighborhood district councils to increase civic participation and diversify the membership of neighborhood councils (City of Seattle Race and Social Justice Initiative 2013).

In order to support local women, the City of Seattle supports a specialized advisory commission that addresses topics of interest to women in Seattle. The Seattle Women’s

Commission (SWC) is comprised of twenty commissioners that are appointed by the Mayor and

183

City Council and serve two year appointments with the possibility of being re-appointed for a second two year appointment. The SWC researches and analyzes women’s issues and makes recommendations to the Mayor, the City Council and City Departments regarding policy and program development. The Commission meets once a month and more frequently as smaller, specialized committees in order to address a broad range of issues including economic opportunity for women, race and social justice, disparities in health for low-income women and women of color as well as women’s health issues in general, affordable child-care, violence against women and challenges that immigrant women face in the City. In 2002, 2003, 2005 and

2007 the SWC sponsored the Seattle Women’s Summit, which brought local women from all walks of life together to discuss challenges that women face in Seattle and identify solutions. The

Summits provide resources, information and workshops on financial literacy, women’s mental health, violence prevention and an array of other topics (City of Seattle Women’s Commission

2013).

The City of Seattle also supports an LGBTQ Commission that addresses issues pertinent to the local LGBTQ community. Like the SWC, the LGBTQ Commission advises the Mayor, the

City Council and City Departments on issues relevant to the local LGBTQ community and recommends policies, programs, services and legislation designed to address issues. The LGBTQ

Commission is comprised of fifteen commissioners, seven of which are appointed by the Mayor, seven of which are appointed by City Council and one of which is appointed by the Commission itself. The Commission’s current priority areas include economic justice, providing education about intersectional identities, promoting anti-bullying initiatives and distributing the Total Bull anti-bullying resource card, establishing an LGBTQ community center, working with issues related to LGBTQ elders and immigrants, strengthening relationships with local police

184 departments, improving services for LGBTQ youth and working on issues related to transgender inclusion (The City of Seattle LGBT Commission 2013 Workplan 2013).

Portland. Portland has a number of interesting programs designed to facilitate social cohesion. The City’s New Portlander Programs provide a handful of services for integrating newly arrived immigrants into Portland’s social fabric. According to the City website, Portland ranks eleventh among U.S. cities in resettling international refugees. There are two types of organizations in Portland that help to resettle and integrate newly arrived immigrants: local organizations that provide resettlement and employment services to refugees (Lutheran

Community Services, Immigrant and Refugee Community of Oregon, Catholic Charities of

Oregon, Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon) and local organizations that provide social, education, legal, health and advocacy services for immigrants (IRCO Asian Family Center and Africa

House, Center for Intercultural Organizing, Latino Network, SUN Schools, and others) (City of

Portland Office of Equity and Human Rights 2013).

The City also supports a Commission on Disability that works with the City Council to address issues related to accessibility for disabled residents. The Commission seeks to broaden outreach to disabled residents, foster inclusion of disabled residents, represent a wide spectrum of disabilities and special needs and facilitate increased information exchange and collaboration between persons with disabilities, City bureaus and the City Council in order to make the best informed decisions regarding policy and legislation. Some of the Commission’s guiding principles include providing opportunities for disabled residents to attain their highest level of independence and self-determination, extending and supporting disabled residents’ rights to participate in all community activities and decisionmaking processes and services, supporting a wide range of policies designed to address the similarly wide range of disabilities and using input

185 from residents to guide policy formation (City of Portland Office of Equity and Human Rights

2013).

Accessibility to Existing Programs and Resources

Social cohesion policies can also focus on increasing accessibility to programs and resources that already exist. Many times, lack of mobility and lack of knowledge about existing programs and resources limits the effectiveness of those very programs. Programs designed to provide educational, job-placement, health and social services are often underutilized because of a lack of outreach and consciousness raising activity. In many cases, it is more financially feasible to connect residents with existing programs and resources rather than creating more programs and resources. In this subsection, I focus on the outreach programs that have been developed to increase access to existing programs and resources. As with the previous section,

Vancouver has a wider array of outreach programs designed to increase access to existing programs and resources than either Seattle or Portland.

Vancouver. The City of Vancouver supports three community centers in the low-income

Downtown Eastside neighborhood that offer special services for homeless and at-risk residents.

The Evelyne Saller Community Centre and the Gathering Place Community Centre offer a range of services to residents of the Downtown Eastside include free health, grooming and medical services such as showers, de-lousing, laundry and haircuts, community cafeterias that are open

24 hours a day, 365 days of the year, as well as a variety of services common to all community centers such as recreational activities and social clubs. The Carnegie Community Centre (CCC), is larger and more comprehensive than the other two Downtown Eastside community centers and offers a variety of educational, recreational and social services to Downtown Eastside residents

186 on-site, at the nearby Oppenheimer Park and through an outreach team. Health, recreation and social services for up to 4,000 senior residents of the Downtown Eastside neighborhood are offered through the CCC. Senior residents make up almost two thirds of the residents who access service at this center. Because of the large number of residents who are at-risk of becoming homeless and the large number of residents who struggling with substance and alcohol abuse, the

CCC offers yearly membership for only $1 and has pushed down the age at which a resident can claim senior status to 40 (City of Vancouver Programs at Carnegie Centre 2013).

CCC’s unique outreach program, which started in 1999, offers assistance to local residents who are at-risk, homeless and/or have mobility issues in finding available educational, social, recreational and/or housing services in the Downtown Eastside and is the only program of its kind in British Columbia. Perhaps the two most innovative practices linked to the outreach program are the street and alley outreach program and the homeless outreach project. The Street and Alley Outreach Program employs staff that patrols the alleys of the Downtown Eastside on weekday evenings and for 12 hours a day on weekends. Outreach staff offer immediate emergency assistance such as first aid, emotional support, harm reduction services and supplies such as needle exchange and safer sex supplies, referrals to local health, social service, detoxification facilities and homeless shelters and, on occasion, they escort residents to local facilities if they are having trouble transporting themselves. The Homeless Outreach Project operates in much the same way as the Street and Alley Outreach Program by offering services to the most at-risk residents of Vancouver by facilitating same-day turnaround of social and housing services for local homeless individuals. In 2007, the Homeless Outreach Project received the Premier’s Award for Excellence and has consequently been extended to other communities throughout British Columbia. Finally, the CCC offers a cafeteria that is open 24

187 hours a day 365 days of the year which provides local residents with a rotating menu of hot, freshly prepared food for very little money (City of Vancouver Programs at Carnegie Centre

2013).

In addition to providing a number of important services for homeless and at-risk residents of the Downtown Eastside neighborhood, the City of Vancouver, along with Vancouver Coastal

Health and the government of British Columbia support Insite, one of the most contentious, controversial and innovative solutions to the prevalent problem of substance abuse and addiction in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver. Insite is North America’s first and only supervised injection clinic. Insite opened in 2003 in the Downtown Eastside with the purpose of providing a safe place for intravenous drug users to inject drugs and access a number of health and social services. Insite staff provides users with sterile needles and equipment, monitors the users to make sure that nobody has an overdose, and provides treatment for abscesses, hepatitis, sepsis,

HIV and other types of illnesses. From 2004 to 2010, there have been 1,418 documented overdoses, but because trained staff are on site at all times and respond to overdoses immediately none of the overdoses have been fatal. Since the opening of Insite, overdoses in the direct vicinity have decreased by 35% and overdoses throughout the city have decreased by 9%.

Onsite, which is a detox facility located on the second floor, has 12 rooms with private bathrooms where clients can detox if they choose to do so. Mental health workers, counselors, nurses and doctors work with clients to help them through their detoxification period. Once they have completed the initial detoxification period, clients can then choose to move to the third floor, which has transitional recovery housing that is meant to help clients become further stabilized and eventually help them to find permanent supportive housing and treatment for their addictions (Vancouver Coastal Health Insite 2013).

188

The City of Vancouver also celebrates the diversity of its residents by observing many special days and times of the year that are special to various ethnic and racial groups in the region. Some of the observed days and times of year include Black History Month in February,

International Women’s Day on March 8th, International Day for the Elimination of Racial

Discrimination on March 21st, Vancouver Pride during July and August, Diwali in November and International Day of Persons with Disabilities on December 3rd. In addition to officially recognizing certain days and times of year that are special to Vancouver’s diverse communities, the City has a number of other programs and initiatives aimed at respecting and celebrating the area’s diversity. Vancouver creates special light displays on the grounds of City Hall during specific religious and culturally relevant holidays, grants Cultural Harmony awards to groups or individuals who work to improve acceptance of diversity and positive relations between the

City’s diverse groups, offers mentorship programs to help new immigrants find work that is relevant to their expertise and interests, supports a Multicultural Advisory committee that works with City staff, Council and other agencies on key issues related to diversity and inclusion and funds a program called CitizenU, which works with youth and their families to combat bullying, discrimination and racism (City of Vancouver Diverse Communities and Multiculturalism 2012).

Seattle. The City of Seattle’s Public Outreach and Engagement Program (POE) operates through various Neighborhood Planning efforts, Public Outreach and Engagement Liaisons and

Neighborhood District Coordinators to provide access to resources, civic processes and information for Seattle’s increasingly diverse residents. Historically underserved groups that are the focus of the POE program include: Afaan-Oromo speakers, African Americans, American

Indians and Alaska Natives, Amharic Speakers, Cambodians, Chinese, Filipinos,

Hispanic/Latino communities, Hmong communities, Lao communities, Mien, People with

189

Disabilities, renters, seniors, small businesses, Somalis, Tigrinya Speakers, Vietnamese and youth. Neighborhood Planning efforts refer to collaborative attempts to plan neighborhoods by utilizing input from local community members and groups. Seattle began the process of

Neighborhood Planning in 1995 and today 38 neighborhood plans have been developed throughout Seattle. Public Outreach and Engagement Liaisons, or POELs, are bi-cultural and bi- lingual members of their respective ethnic and/or racial community’s cultures that act as “bridge builders” by offering engagement and outreach in a culturally appropriate manner which provides comfort for community members while supplying them with important information about civic processes. Neighborhood District Coordinators, or NDCs, encourage civic engagement, act as liaisons between the City and community members and facilitate governmental transparency by coordinating activities that bring the government closer to the community (City of Seattle Outreach and Engagement 2013).

Seattle’s People’s Academy for Community Engagement (PACE) program is a civic leadership development program designed to help members of Seattle’s diverse communities develop skills in outreach, neighborhood planning, community-building and community organizing. Through the program, participants can refine their communication and organizing skills, increase capacity to sustain vital neighborhoods, identify resources that can be used to empower communities and develop an appreciation of cultural competency and more inclusive forms of community engagement. The PACE program provides participants with the opportunity of collaborating with existing neighborhood groups to facilitate emerging and/or ongoing neighborhood projects. Currently, there are 6 ongoing projects located in different areas of the

City. Two of the projects from the Northside neighborhoods of Fremont and the University

District include a Cheers for Chambers program that showcases different local businesses from

190 in and around the Fremont neighborhood and the Seattle Neighborhoods Actively Prepare, or

SNAP, program which identifies local resources and a neighborhood triage area in case of an emergency event (City of Seattle PACE 2013).

Portland. In September 2012, the City of Portland established a Citywide Equity

Committee (CEC) in order to facilitate and coordinate a citywide initiative to draw attention to, and eliminate, racially inequitable policies and practices. The CEC is responsible for the development of a strategic equity plan for the City of Portland and is guided by the vision of the

City of Portland conducting business with the public in a racially equitable manner and empowering its employees to facilitate and support racial equity in their own bureaus and throughout the City. The City’s Office of Equity and Human Rights also conducts equity training workshops to help City employees develop an “Equity Mindset.” The equity training team conducts bureau specific and citywide training workshops to help City employees eliminate barriers to equity in the workplace, mandates training for all managers and supervisors in Human

Resources and provides technical assistance to any bureau wanting to launch an internal equity program (City of Portland Equity Training and Education 2013).

Quantitative Social Sustainability Criteria

In addition to analyzing the social sustainability of social cohesion policy by analyzing qualitative criteria, I also include a number of quantitative criteria that addresses issues related to social cohesion. Below in Table 16, I list five distinct quantitative criteria that can be used to bolster my analysis of socially sustainable leisure and recreation policies. The criteria I examine include percentage of residents living alone, percentage of residents living in poverty, percentage of households that are single-parent households, median individual income and median

191 household income. It should be noted that for the first three measures in this set of criteria it is necessary to implement an inverse rating scale with higher percentages of residents living alone, in poverty and in single-parent households indicating lower levels of social sustainability. For median individual income and median household income, higher figures indicate higher levels of social sustainability.

Seattle has the highest percentage of residents living alone with roughly 42% of the population living by themselves, while Vancouver comes in second with 38% and Portland comes in third with 35%. Vancouver has the highest percentage of residents living in poverty with 21%, while Portland comes in second with 17% and Seattle comes in third with 15%.

Portland has the highest percentage of single-parent households with 14%, while Seattle has the second highest with 9% and Vancouver has the third highest with 8%. Vancouver has the highest median individual income with $49,842. Seattle comes in second with $35,082 and Portland comes in third with $27,632. Last but not least, Vancouver has the highest median household income with $69,271, while Seattle comes in second with $63,470 and Portland comes in third with $51,238 (U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 2012; Statistics Canada 2011

Census; Statistics Canada National Household Survey (NHS) Profile, Vancouver, CY, British

Columbia, 2011 National Household Survey).

Table 16 Quantitative Criteria for Socially Sustainable Social Cohesion Policy Quantitative Social Vancouver Seattle Portland Sustainability Criteria # of residents living alone 38% 42% 35% # of residents living in 21% 15% 17% poverty # of households that are 8% 9% 14% single-parent households Median individual $49,842 $35,082 $27,632 income Median household $69,271 $63,470 $51,238 income

192

Identity and Sense of Place

In this section I assess the social sustainability of policy related to identity and sense of place in my three sample cities. To do this, I analyze two social sustainability criteria (historical preservation and community planning). In Table 17, I list the social sustainability criteria for this policy area and the social sustainability scores for my cities. The highest possible score for this policy area was two points. All three sample cities received the highest score possible in the historical preservation category while Vancouver beat both Seattle and Portland in the community planning category. Vancouver’s high score in the community planning category is due to its long history of local area planning initiatives including CityPlan and various contemporary Community Plans as well as the Great Beginnings: Old Streets, New Pride program that involves local Downtown Eastside residents in the revitalization of that neighborhood. In total, I gave Vancouver the highest social sustainability score in this policy area with a total score of 2 while both Seattle and Portland were tied with scores of 1.5.

Table 17. Social Sustainability Criteria for Identity and Sense of Place Policy and Social Sustainability Scores Social Sustainability Vancouver Seattle Portland Criteria for Identity and Sense of Place Policy Historical Preservation 1 1 .75

Community Planning 1 .5 .5

Total 2 1.5 1.5

This section is organized in the following manner. I begin by analyzing my first qualitative social sustainability criterion (historical preservation) in each of my sample cities.

This consists of examining historical preservation policies and programs enacted by municipal governments. In the second sub-section, I analyze my second qualitative social sustainability

193 criterion (community planning) in each of my cities by reviewing programs that foster citizen participation in the planning process. Due to limitations in available data, I was not able to include quantitative social sustainability criteria for identity and sense of place.

Historical Preservation

In a general sense, cities can promote social sustainability by promoting historical preservation of buildings, neighborhoods and other sites of historical significance. By doing this, cities preserve cultural continuity and increase the chance that people will form an attachment to their communities. Individuals who feel a sense of pride about their communities are more likely to engage in activities that support that community. In this section, I review historical preservation programs in each of my sample cities. Each of the three cities have well developed historical preservation programs, but both Vancouver and Seattle have a slight edge over

Portland because of the comprehensive nature of their programs.

Vancouver. The City of Vancouver has a number of programs that support the preservation and restoration of historic buildings. Zoning bylaws, subdivision bylaws and parking bylaw relaxations as well as density bonuses and transfers and permit fast-tracking provide developers with incentives to restore historic structures and allow for their continued use by the community. Density incentives, such as the transferable density program, grant additional density allowances for developers who agree to preserve historic buildings on their development sites. If the development site in question has certain limitations which prohibit increased density, the developer can “transfer” the bonus density to a separate site as long as they still preserve the historic structure(s) on the initial development site. Regions of the City that are eligible for

194 transferable density program initiatives include Downtown, the West End, Central Broadway,

Chinatown and Gastown (The City of Vancouver Heritage Conservation 2012).

The City Council also uses heritage designation and heritage revitalization agreements to save historic sites from demolition, facilitate their preservation and create designated heritage areas. Heritage designation involves protecting historic structures or landscapes from alteration that alters the characteristic features resulting in loss of historical character. Heritage revitalization agreements are legally binding agreements that are negotiated between the City and owners of historic heritage properties. These agreements support the restoration of the property by providing the owner of the property with development incentives if they maintain the historical character of the property. Currently, Vancouver has 2,150 registered heritage buildings and 131 parks and trees that have been designated as having historical significance. Many of

Vancouver’s historic sites are situated in the following heritage areas: Chinatown, Gastown,

Shaughnessy and Yaletown. Regulations developed by the City ensure that new development in the aforementioned heritage areas is compatible with the historical character, architecture and built environment of the neighborhoods (The City of Vancouver Heritage Conservation 2012).

Seattle. In the 1960s, citizen led initiatives and protests in Seattle successfully blocked the destruction of Pioneer Place and Pike Place Market in the name of urban renewal. In 1970, the City Council saved Pioneer Square by designating it as the first historical district in the City.

Two years later, Pike Place Market became the second designated historical district. Since then,

The City of Seattle has established eight historic districts within City limits. These districts include Ballard Avenue, Columbia City, Fort Lawton, Harvard-Belmont, the International

District, Pike Place Market, Pioneer Square and the Sand Point Naval Air Station. The appearance and historical integrity of the built environment within these districts is regulated by

195 the Landmarks Preservation Board and/or various citizens’ boards with processes and criteria established by the City. Overall, the Historic Preservation Program is responsible for the historical designation and protection of over 450 structures, sites and objects throughout the City

(City of Seattle Historic Preservation 2013).

Portland. The City of Portland supports a small number of initiatives geared towards preserving the identity and sense of place of Portland’s neighborhoods. The City works in close partnership with the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the National Park

Service (NPS) to designate historical buildings and places and donate matching grants from the

State’s allotment of Federal historical preservation funding. In order the City to maintain its certification and eligibility to receive support and funding from the SHPO and the NPS, it must maintain a historic preservation committee (Portland Historic Landmarks Commission), administer a preservation ordinance (a portion of Portland’s Zoning Code determines criteria for preservation eligibility), participate in updating and expanding the State’s historic building inventory, review National Register of Historic Places nominations within City limits to check for accuracy and fulfill obligations to enforce State and Federal preservation laws (City of

Portland Historic Resources and Preservation 2013).

Community Planning

Community planning contributes to social sustainability because it allows residents to have a say in how their communities are developed. Cities that do not develop community planning measures run the risk of implementing planning initiatives that are not in the best interest of community members. By providing the opportunity for local community members to enter into a dialog with developers and decision makers in city government, cities grant residents

196 higher levels of agency in the planning process. In this section, I analyze each city’s community planning programs. While each city has some programs that foster citizen participation in the planning process, Vancouver long history of local area planning programs gives it a slight edge over Seattle and Portland.

Vancouver. In the past, The City of Vancouver has supported a variety of programs that were intended to preserve local identity and sense of place. Starting in the mid 1970s, Vancouver began supporting strong Local Area Planning, or LAP2 (I’ve chosen to refer to these programs as

LAP2 programs in order to distinguish them from the Leisure Access Program (LAP) discussed earlier), programs. Many of these programs, which were implemented in neighborhoods throughout the City of Vancouver, were comprehensive, resource intensive and long-range in orientation. In fact, the last LAP2 initiative was completed in the early 1990s. In 1995, the City adopted a comprehensive planning initiative called CityPlan. CityPlan was the first comprehensive plan since the original Bartholomew Plan which was adopted in 1928 and its main goals were to strengthen neighborhood centers, improve safety, support community services, reduce reliance on the car, improve environmental sustainability, increase the variety and affordability of housing, define and preserve neighborhood character, diversify parks and public places and facilitate greater involvement on behalf of the public in decisions that affect their neighborhoods. As part of CityPlan’s effort to focus on neighborhoods, The Community

Visions Program (CVP) was launched in 1997 with the intention of targeting single family neighborhoods that had not yet adopted a local area plan. The CVP program was centered around outreach to community members in order to collaborate and create a shared vision of the future based on community members’ needs and aspirations (The City of Vancouver Neighbourhood

Planning Projects 2013).

197

Since then, the City has supported a wide range of other types of neighborhood planning projects like Community Plans. Community Plans are “policy documents that provide guidance and direction on a variety of topics, from land use and urban design, to housing, transportation, and community facilities” (The City of Vancouver Neighbourhood Planning Projects 2013).

Several community plans are either in the development phase or are currently in the process of being implemented. One of the most innovative community plans currently in effect is the

Downtown Eastside Local Area Plan. This plan addresses many of the issues that plague the

Downtown Eastside of Vancouver which is the poorest neighborhood in the City. There are four phases to the Downtown Eastside Local Area Plan which include: Phase 1 (Reviewing), Phase 2

(Planning), Phase 3 (Feedback) and Phase 4 (Monitoring and Evaluation). The plan provides a clear, but flexible framework for the development of the Downtown Eastside over the next thirty years, and was developed over the course of a two year period of collaboration between the City, community members, and Local Area Planning Process, or LAPP, committees which represent various community groups, residents, Aboriginal organizations, businesses, housing organizations and social service organizations. Over 4,300 individuals were involved in the discussions, focus groups and workshops that made up the development process. The plan has nine major objectives: improved well-being for all, healthy homes for all, vibrant and inclusive local economy, improved transportation infrastructure and safety, arts and culture opportunities, celebrate heritage, improved, safe, accessible parks and open space, community place making and a well managed built form (City of Vancouver Downtown Eastside Local Area Plan

Summary 2013).

The City of Vancouver has also developed a program called Great Beginnings: Old

Streets, New Pride which empowers local residents of low-income neighborhoods, like the

198

Downtown Eastside, to revitalize their own communities. The Great Beginnings program operates under five major themes: improving public spaces, supporting arts and culture, promoting community living, raising the capacity of the community and fostering community pride. The project offers seed money for community based initiatives that can be successfully adapted and taken over by local organizations and agencies. The major focus of the project is revitalization through improvements to streets, buildings and public spaces and support for local, place-based arts and cultural activities, celebrations and street festivals for both residents and visitors but there is also a secondary emphasis on social enterprise development and job and skills training. A community survey was administered between 2008-2010 in order to gauge community attitudes and perceptions towards the City’s infrastructure, services and initiatives geared towards the Downtown Eastside. The survey results indicated that the residents of the

Downtown Eastside have become progressively more positive about safety and cleanliness in public spaces.

Specific Great Beginnings supported projects that improve public space include the

Oppenheimer Park Commemorative Project, the creation of a documentary called Seeds of the

Inner City which chronicles the development of SOLEfood Farm, Vancouver’s first inner city urban farm run entirely by inner city residents, community flower hanging baskets, a toilet accessibility program for the Downtown Eastside’s homeless residents, Oppenheimer Park

Community Garden and the Clean Streets program. Other Great Beginnings supported projects which focus specifically on fostering community pride include Megaphone Magazine, which helps publicize local marginalized writers, Youth Programming at the annual Chinatown

Festival, Traces: Projecting Stories of Strathcona, a multi-media living history project that engages local youths, seniors and artists and a Downtown Community Court program that allows

199 offenders to make direct amends for offences committed in the Downtown Eastside as an alternative to being circulated through the penal system (City of Vancouver Great Beginnings:

Old Streets, New Pride 2013).

Seattle. Seattle’s Neighborhood Matching Fund (NMF) program, developed in 1988, provides support for community driven projects that enhance and strengthen local neighborhoods. Since 1988, the NMF program has donated more than $49 million to more than

4,000 projects throughout Seattle, generated an additional $72 million in community matching funds and engaged over 86,000 volunteers who have donated more than 574, 000 hours of their time (City of Seattle Neighborhood Matching Fund 2013). The NMF program supports three types of funds: Small Sparks Funds, Small and Simple Projects Funds and Large Projects Funds.

Small Sparks Funds provides awards of up to $1,000 to help fund projects that encourage civic engagement, are free and open to all members of the public, emphasize self-help, are created by the very community members the program aims to serve and/or help, demonstrate the ability to provide matching funds and are within the City limits while Small and Simple Projects Funds and Large Projects Funds provide up to$25,000 and $100,000, respectively, for projects that build community capacity by strengthening relationships and encouraging cooperation in the completion of a project (City of Seattle Neighborhood Matching Fund 2013).

Portland. Portland’s Office of Neighborhood Involvement (ONI) manages a network of

95 neighborhood organizations and 7 district coalition offices dedicated to increasing resident involvement and strengthening local neighborhoods and communities. The ONI offers support in the form of grants and technical assistance to community based organizations, neighborhood volunteer organizations and individual citizen-activists working to promote positive change in neighborhoods throughout Portland. The ONI also supports a Neighborhood Small Grants

200

Program, training events, best practices manuals, liaison and coordination with City bureaus on issues that affect neighborhood organizations and coalitions, and support for monthly neighborhood organization and coalition meetings (City of Portland Office of Neighborhood

Involvement 2013).

Conclusion

In this chapter, I assessed the relative level of social sustainability in each of my cities.

To accomplish this, I utilized a social sustainability assessment framework (SSAF) that analyzed

30 qualitative and quantitative criteria in six distinct policy areas (housing, transportation, food, leisure and recreation, social cohesion, and identity and sense of place). I assigned a numerical score to each city based on their performance in the social sustainability criteria. However, rather than being objective in nature, the numerical scores (1, .75, or .5) were assigned based on how each city performed in relation to each other. This was due to the absence of objective social sustainability benchmarks. I then ranked my cities in relation to each other by using the scores that I assigned to them based on their performance in the aforementioned social sustainability criteria.

In Table 18, I illustrate my social sustainability assessment framework, or SSAF. My

SSAF lists the social sustainability scores that I assigned to each of my cities based on their performance in the criteria that I discussed at length in the body of this chapter. In essence, this analysis chapter indicates that each of my sample cities has achieved a different level of social sustainability in the policy areas of housing, transportation, food, leisure and recreation, social cohesion, and identity and sense of place.

201

Vancouver had the highest social sustainability scores in transportation (5.5), leisure and recreation (4.5), social cohesion (6.5), and identity and sense of place (2). Vancouver’s greater level of social sustainability in these policy areas is due to the presence of a more comprehensive multi-modal transit system, an elected park board, an inclusive set of leisure and recreation programs that includes fare discounts for low-income residents, a number of targeted social cohesion programs such as specialized community centers for the homeless and at-risk residents, outreach programs, and a supervised injection site for residents struggling with drug abuse and addiction, and finally, stronger community planning programs. Seattle had the highest social sustainability score in the food policy category (4) due to the presence of innovative programs such as the Beacon Food Forest and the P-Patch Community Gardens program, which also sponsors community gardens in public housing developments across Seattle. Finally, Portland had the highest social sustainability score in the housing category (4.5) largely due to more affordable housing and a higher rate of homeownership. Ultimately, Vancouver was awarded the highest overall social sustainability score with 26.5 out of a possible 30 points while Seattle came in second with 23.25 points and Portland came in third with 21.5 points.

Table 18. Social Sustainability Assessment Framework Policy Areas Vancouver Seattle Portland Housing 4.25 4.25 4.5

Transportation 5.5 4 4

Food 3.75 4 3.5

Leisure and Recreation 4.5 4.25 3.75

Social Cohesion 6.5 5.25 4.25

Identity and Sense of Place 2 1.5 1.5

Total Social Sustainability 26.5 23.25 21.5 Score

202

To sum up, although there has been an effort in the body of literature on social sustainability to develop comparative analytic frameworks and policy-specific social sustainability criteria, I contribute to this body of work by addressing several limitations. The institutional-territorial nexus framework developed by Polese and Stren (2000) assesses social sustainability in six broad policy areas (governance, social and cultural policies, social infrastructure and public services, urban land and housing, urban transport and accessibility, and employment, economic revitalization, and the building of inclusive public spaces) by identifying innovative policies from one or more policy areas in specific cities rather than assessing performance in all six policy areas in a selection of cities. I address these limitations in two ways. First, I use a more specific set of policy areas (housing, transportation, food, leisure and recreation, social cohesion, and identity and sense of place) in my framework and I assess the social sustainability of those policy areas with 30 qualitative and quantitative criteria. Second, I apply all 30 of my social sustainability criteria to my sample cities, assign them a social sustainability score based on their performance in the criteria, and rank them in relation to each other in order to determine which city is the most socially sustainable. Overall, my approach is more systematic because my policy areas are more specific and I use a selection of qualitative and quantitative criteria to assign social sustainability scores to my cities that can be ranked to determine relative levels of social sustainability.

The SSAF developed by Colantonio and Dixon (2009) is comprised of a focused and comprehensive set of policy areas and indicators but it is limited in scope because it is only used to assess the social sustainability of urban regeneration initiatives in European cities. To address this limitation, I have focused on areas of urban policy that are larger in scope than urban regeneration initiatives. Urban regeneration initiatives commonly focus on one neighborhood or

203 region of a city. In contrast, the policy areas that I analyze in my framework encompass entire cities and urban regions as well as specific neighborhoods. Thus, the scope of my research is larger and more comprehensive.

Finally, policy-specific research on social sustainability has identified a number of assessment criteria, but certain areas such as leisure and recreation, social cohesion, and identity and sense of place are underemphasized or discussed in relation to other policy areas rather than being discussed on their own. In order to address this limitation, I include these policy areas in my framework, identify a number of criteria that can be used to assess social sustainability for each policy area, and I analyze these criteria in my three sample cities. Taken together, I contribute to the existing body of literature on social sustainability assessment in four ways: 1.) I use a specific set of policy areas (housing, transportation, food, leisure and recreation, social cohesion, and identity and sense of place) in my framework and I assess the social sustainability of those policy areas with 30 qualitative and quantitative criteria. 2.) I apply all 30 of my social sustainability criteria to my sample cities, assign them a social sustainability score based on their performance in the criteria, and rank them in relation to each other in order to determine which city is the most socially sustainable. 3.) I focus on areas of urban policy that are larger in scope than urban regeneration initiatives. 4.) I analyze three policy areas (leisure and recreation, social cohesion, and identity and sense of place) that have been underemphasized in the existing literature on social sustainability assessment.

204

CHAPTER 6

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THEORETICAL PROPOSITIONS

In the previous chapter, I assessed the relative social sustainability of my sample cities. I accomplished this by utilizing a social sustainability assessment framework, or SSAF, comprised of 30 qualitative and quantitative criteria. These criteria were selected in order to assess the social sustainability of policy in six policy areas (housing, transportation, food, leisure and recreation, social cohesion, and identity and sense of place) for each of my cities. I assigned each of my cities a social sustainability score based on their performance in each of the criteria in my

SSAF. I then calculated each city’s total social sustainability score (out of a possible 30 points) and compared them to each other. Total social sustainability scores for my three cities were as follows: Vancouver (26.5), Seattle (23.25), and Portland (21.5). Vancouver was given the highest score in four of the six policy areas (transportation, leisure and recreation, social cohesion, and identity and sense of place), while Seattle was given the highest score in the food policy category and Portland was given the highest score in the housing policy category. In sum, my analysis results indicated that Vancouver was the most socially sustainable of the three cities, while

Seattle came in second and Portland came in third.

The goal of this chapter is to address the following question: Does institutional politics theory or power constellations theory best explain the differences in cities’ social sustainability policies? To answer this research question, I test a selection of theoretical propositions from institutional politics theory and power constellations theory in order to identify what institutional and political factors lead to the development of socially sustainable policies at the urban level.

While both theories have historically been used to explain social policy development at the

205 national or state level, I modify three theoretical propositions from each theory to make them appropriate for an analysis of urban policy.

Institutional politics theory and power constellations theory are two of the leading contemporary sociological theories of social policy development. Institutional politics theory is a middle range that focuses on the role that institutional and political factors play in determining social policy development. Institutional politics theory maintains that institutional factors such as level of democratization, the nature of the political party system, fragmentation of political institutions and authority, and governmental or bureaucratic capacity interact with political factors such as the existence of reform-oriented regimes and pro-spending social movements to determine social policy outcomes (Amenta 1998). For institutional politics theorists, reform- oriented regimes and pro-spending social movements are more likely to positively affect the development of redistributive social policy in polities that are democratized, have partisan oriented political parties, have low levels of political fragmentation and have high levels of bureaucratic capacity (Amenta 1998; Amenta and Halfmann 2000; Jenkins et al. 2006).

Power constellations theory is also a middle range theoretical approach to explaining the development of social policy. However, power resources theory maintains that the political articulation of class interests, women’s mobilization and participation in the labor force, and state structure are the most important determinants of social policy outcomes (Huber and

Stephens 2001). Power constellations theorists argue that “power constellations” comprised of center-left political parties, labor unions, affiliated groups like corporatist organizations, and strong women’s movements are the key actors defending and articulating the collective interests of the working and lower middle classes and that their efforts are most likely to positively affect social policy outcomes in centralized democratic political systems with constitutional provisions

206 that limit veto points (Huber and Stephens 2001; Huber et al. 2004; Huber et al. 2009). Overall, both theories have expanded our knowledge on the institutional and political determinants of social policy development.

Institutional politics theory and power constellations theory have historically focused on large units of analysis like nations and states. Because of this emphasis, less is known about how institutional and political factors affect urban policy development in general and urban social sustainability policy development in particular. In general, institutional politics theory has been used to explain the development of social policy in the U.S. during the New Deal period

(Amenta 1998). Scholars guided by this theory have focused on state level variation in Works

Progress Administration wages (Amenta and Halfmann 2000), social spending for Old Age

Assistance pensions (Amenta and Poulsen 1996), issues of vertical political fragmentation related to features of the U.S. federalist system (Amenta 1998, Amenta et al. 2001), issues of horizontal political fragmentation due to features of the U.S. national legislature (Amenta 1998,

Amenta et al. 2001 ), the relationship between social policy development and underdemocratization in certain regions of the U.S. (Kousser 1974, Amenta and Poulsen 1996,

Amenta 1998), the negative effects of patronage-oriented political parties on social policy development (Amenta and Halfmann 2000), organized labor’s support of old age pensions and state level unemployment insurance (Nelson 1969, Amenta and Poulsen 1996) and pro-spending social movements such as the Share Our Wealth Society and the Townsend Movement that operated at both the state and national level (Holtzman 1963, Brinkley 1982, Amenta and

Poulsen 1996).

Power constellations theory has been used to analyze the development of welfare states in the post WWII period and their relative ability to resist retrenchment in the modern era (Huber

207 and Stephens 2001). Researchers grounded in this theory have found that right-wing seat share in national legislatures positively affected social security spending while left-wing seat share positively affected spending on health and education in 22 Latin American and Caribbean countries from 1970 to 2000 (Huber et al. 2004). Power constellations theorists have also found that Catholic and Christian Democratic political parties have an ability to generate social spending legislation in political contexts where these parties compete with left-wing parties and organized labor for working-class votes (Van Kersbergen 1995) and that left-wing government incumbency has a positive effect on lowering poverty rates among single mothers (Huber et al.

2009). While both theories have increased our knowledge of social policy development, neither theory has been applied to an analysis of urban policy development. Consequently, the theoretical propositions of each theory have not been tested in order to determine which theory better explains differential policy outcomes in urban regions.

Factors that are essential to institutional politics theory and power constellations theory, such as fragmentation of political authority and institutions, governmental or bureaucratic capacity, democratization, and women’s participation in the labor force have received attention in the literature on urban social sustainability. For instance, urban social sustainability scholars find that highly fragmented urban regions with a large number of autonomous municipal governments are less successful in facilitating social sustainability than urban regions with metropolitan or regional governance systems (Rusk 1993; Polese and Stren 2000; Savitch and

Kantor 2002; LeBlanc 2006). Presence of metropolitan or regional governance systems also contributes to greater amounts of governmental or bureaucratic capacity because available tax revenue is collected and redistributed in a different way, allowing for a more predictable and equal quality of services throughout the urban region (Polese and Stren 2000). Additionally,

208 urban regions with governance systems that create opportunities for residents to provide feedback to elected officials stimulate collaborative solutions to important issues and support social sustainability by promoting inclusion within the decision-making process and allowing a higher degree of democratization (Power 2009; Colantonio and Dixon 2011). Finally, Littig and

Griesler (2005) emphasize the role of women’s labor force participation and a “gender sensible social and welfare policy” as a central feature of any social sustainability initiative (Littig and

Griessler 2005:76).

Two theoretical propositions from power constellations theory which deal with the effects of organized labor and center/left political parties on the development of social policy are not directly discussed in the literature on urban social sustainability. However, with some modifications, each of these propositions can be applied in order to understand their effect on urban policy development. This connection between the two disparate bodies of literature indicates that theoretical propositions from institutional politics theory and power constellations theory may be used to identify the determinants of differential policy outcomes in urban regions.

For institutional politics theory, I determine the effects that political fragmentation, government or bureaucratic capacity, and democratization have on the development of urban social sustainability policy in Vancouver, Seattle and Portland. I’ve modified the proposition on fragmentation so that it is appropriate for an analysis of urban regions by choosing to focus on metropolitan or regional governments. Presence of metropolitan/regional government reduces the amount of intra-municipal conflict in decision-making and policy formation and allows for more effective solutions to problems that often times cross municipal boundaries and affect several adjacent municipalities located within the same metropolitan region. In order to evaluate the governmental or bureaucratic capacity of my sample cities, I have analyzed the proposed budgets

209 for 2014, focusing specifically on how much money and resources are allocated for certain policy areas. To assess the relative level of democratization in my sample cities, I have decided to focus on programs and policies that seek to include residents in the decision-making processes of local government and increase levels of citizen participation overall.

For power constellations theory, I determine the effects that strength of organized labor, participation of women in the workforce and the presence of center-left parties have on the development of urban social sustainability policy in Vancouver, Seattle and Portland. I’ve modified the proposition on the strength of organized labor so that it is appropriate for an analysis of urban regions by choosing to focus on union membership rates in my sample cities and in the surrounding metropolitan areas. I have also included information about union membership in the states and provinces (and in the case of Canada, the country as well) that my sample cities are situated in to place more emphasis on the larger context. My discussion of women’s participation in the workforce focuses on my sample cities and their respective metropolitan areas. I also provide selected information about unemployment rates and employment rates by race/ethnicity and marital status. For presence of center-left political parties

I focus on provincial parties in British Columbia, autonomous civic political parties in

Vancouver, the partisan incumbency and policy positions of governors in Washington and

Oregon and the partisan affiliation of mayors and selected City Councilors who have been elected in Seattle and Portland. I also provide some background information on selected ballot measures in Washington and Oregon to give the reader some insight into the larger political context of the region.

This chapter is organized as follows. I begin by testing three theoretical propositions from institutional politics theory. These include metropolitan fragmentation, governmental or

210 bureaucratic capacity, and citizen participation. Subsequently, I test three theoretical propositions from power constellations theory. These include strength of organized labor, women in the labor force, and presence of center/left political parties. In the last subsection of this chapter, I compare the outcomes of the theoretical proposition tests in order to identify which theory better explains the results of my previous analysis chapter. I accomplish this by examining how each of my sample cities performs in each theoretical proposition category. If institutional politics theory is the better explanatory tool, I would expect to find that Vancouver has the lowest level of metropolitan fragmentation, the highest amount of governmental or bureaucratic capacity, and the highest rate of citizen participation. If power constellations theory is the better explanatory tool, I would expect to find Vancouver to have the strongest organized labor movement, the most amount of women in the labor force, and the strongest presence of center/left political parties.

Testing Institutional Politics Theory

Researchers have focused on state level variation in Works Progress Administration wages

(Amenta and Halfmann 2000), social spending for Old Age Assistance pensions (Amenta and

(Kousser 1974, Amenta and Poulsen 1996, Amenta 1998), the negative effects of patronage-

211 oriented political parties on social policy development (Amenta and Halfmann 2000), organized labor’s support of old age pensions and state level unemployment insurance (Nelson 1969,

Amenta and Poulsen 1996) and pro-spending social movements such as the Share Our Wealth

Society and the Townsend Movement that operated at both the state and national level

(Holtzman 1963, Brinkley 1982, Amenta and Poulsen 1996).

In this section, I test three modified theoretical propositions from institutional politics theory. I begin by determining the level of metropolitan fragmentation in each of my sample cities. Fragmented metropolitan areas are characterized by a large number of autonomous municipalities while less fragmented metropolitan areas are typified by the presence of centralized metropolitan governance systems with the power to provide services across municipal boundaries. I then assess the level of governmental or bureaucratic capacity in each of my sample cities by evaluating operating budgets. Finally, I assess levels of citizen participation in each of my sample cities by reviewing programs and policies that seek to include citizens in the decision-making process. After testing the aforementioned theoretical propositions from institutional politics theory, I test three theoretical propositions from power constellations theory

(strength of organized labor, women in the labor force, and presence of center/left political parties) and conclude this chapter by summarizing the results of my theoretical proposition tests.

Metropolitan Fragmentation

Institutional politics theorists have cited institutional fragmentation as an impediment to the formation of generous social policy. While research guided by institutional politics theory has focused primarily on policy development at the national or state level, I argue that fragmentation can also hamper the development of socially sustainable policy at the urban

212 regional level. Metropolitan areas with a large number of independent municipalities are less likely to have the capacity or willingness to create comprehensive social policies that benefit the majority of residents within the metropolitan region. On the other hand, metropolitan areas with a smaller number of municipalities that are managed by centralized metropolitan governance systems are far more likely to have the ability to create wide reaching policies that encourage cooperation between municipalities within a region and result in more redistributive and socially sustainable policy decisions that benefit a larger percentage of the population in the urban region

(Rusk 1993; Polese and Stren 2000; Savitch and Kantor 2002; LeBlanc 2006).

In this section, I assess the relative levels of metropolitan fragmentation in my sample cities. In Table 19, I list indicators of metropolitan fragmentation for each of my sample cities.

Both Vancouver and Portland have true regional governance systems in place with the power to provide services, while Seattle has a regional council that offers planning and consultation but does not provide services to local residents. Metro Vancouver and the Puget Sound Regional

Council in Seattle are both comprised of appointed officials while Portland’s METRO government is comprised of elected officials. Metro Vancouver provides drinking water, sewerage, solid waste management, regional park maintenance, affordable housing, utilities, air quality control and regional growth planning. Seattle’s Puget Sound Regional Council provides planning and consultation for regional transportation, growth management and economic development. Portland’s METRO manages the region’s urban growth boundary, engages in transportation planning, offers waste disposal and recycling, operates the regional zoo, preserves natural areas, manages preservation of natural areas and restoration of natural habitats, engages in long-range planning activities and provides venues for arts and cultural events. Based on the aforementioned criteria, I identified Portland as having the most comprehensive regional

213 government and the lowest level of metropolitan fragmentation while Vancouver comes in second and Seattle comes in third. Below, I provide more detail about how each city performed in the selected indicators of metropolitan fragmentation.

Table 19. Indicators of Metropolitan Fragmentation Metropolitan Vancouver Seattle Portland Fragmentation Regional government Metro Vancouver Puget Sound Regional Council METRO Is the regional Appointed Appointed Elected government elected by the public or internally appointed? Services provided by the drinking water regional transportation management of the regional regional government sewer and draining service planning urban growth boundary solid waste management growth management planning transportation planning regional parks economic development waste disposal affordable housing planning operation of the regional zoo utilities recycling air quality control preservation of natural areas regional growth planning habitat restoration long-range planning provision of venues for arts and cultural events

This section is organized in the following manner. I begin by analyzing the aforementioned indicators of metropolitan fragmentation (see Table 19) for each of my cities and then I summarize my findings at the end of the section. For Vancouver, I focus on legislation that has allowed for the strengthening of regional government in the Vancouver region and outlining some of the basic features of Vancouver’s regional government, Metro Vancouver, including the types of services that it provides. For Seattle, I provide information about the Puget Sound

Regional Council, highlighting the fact that it acts in an advisory role rather than providing services, like Vancouver and Portland’s regional governments. Finally, I discuss Portland’s regional government, METRO, focusing on the fact that it is the only elected regional government in my sample and describing the services it provides.

214

Vancouver

A fairly recent change in legislation in British Columbia proposed in 1996 and enacted in

1998, which renamed the Municipal Act to the Local Government Act, formally recognized municipalities as independent and accountable orders of government, thereby granting them broader corporate powers and providing greater flexibility for public-private partnerships and organization of regional districts or metropolitan governance systems. The Act has also made it easier for local municipalities to engage in cooperative efforts with other municipalities located within the same metropolitan region. This Act “encourages the local governments within a region to work cooperatively with each other in the public interest, recognizing that many of the issues that local governments deal with cross jurisdictional boundaries” and recognizes that one of the “major irritants for municipalities over the years has been that residents outside their boundaries make use of the services they provide” (Municipalities and the New Local

Government Act 2000:7).

In order to combat this trend, the Act provides new opportunities for municipalities to deal with this concern in a cooperative and collaborative manner by teaming up with other local municipalities and electoral areas to provide services “on a joint basis over a larger area which may lead to more efficiency in delivery and perhaps even the development of new services”

(Municipalities and the New Local Government Act 2000:7). The Act also recognizes that

“regional districts are an independent, responsible and accountable order of government within their jurisdiction” and defines the purpose of regional districts as “providing good government for its community, providing the services and other things that the board considers are necessary or desirable for all or part of its community, providing for stewardship of the public assets of its

215 community, and fostering the current and future economic, social and environmental well-being of its community” (B.C. Laws Local Government Act 1996).

Previous legislation under the Municipal Act did not recognize municipalities as autonomous entities in British Columbia, which made coordinated efforts to develop and implement policy at the level of the urban region very difficult if not impossible. Similar legislative arrangements, which do not officially recognize municipalities as independent entities of government, exist and have existed in other Canadian provinces as well, although similar waves of legislative reforms have changed the relationships between Federal, Provincial,

Municipal and Regional forms of government in Canada in recent years. In 1998, two years after the legislative change was approved, the B.C. Municipal Affairs Minister Jenny Kwan announced that the Local Government Act is “historic legislation that will empower local governments by giving more autonomy to municipalities and regional districts” and helping to

“move us from a top-down model towards a true partnership with local governments across

British Columbia” (B.C. Ministry of Municipal Affairs 1998). Kwan also stated that the reforms would allow local governments to dispose of property, enter into agreements respecting any of their activities, provide a wider range of assistance to community organizations and delegate powers to municipal officials (B.C. Ministry of Municipal Affairs 1998).

Transitioning from the Municipal Act to the Local Government Act in 1998 allowed for the development of regional government in the Vancouver area. Vancouver now has a regional government in place with the capacity to make wide ranging decisions that affect municipalities throughout the metropolitan region. Metro Vancouver is “a political body and corporate entity operating under provincial legislation as a ‘regional district’ and ‘greater boards’ that deliver regional services, policy and political leadership on behalf of 24 local authorities” (Metro

216

Vancouver 2011). The 24 local authorities include 22 municipalities, one electoral area and one treaty First Nation (similar to a Native American reservation in the U.S.). Through Metro

Vancouver, representatives from each of the 24 local authorities have a say in various aspects of how the larger urban region is managed. Four separate corporate entities operate under the name

Metro Vancouver: Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD), Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Draining District (GVS&DD), Greater Vancouver Water District (GVWD) and the Metro

Vancouver Housing Corporation (MVHC). The official roles of Metro Vancouver are to provide services, policy and political forum. Services, which are provided to municipalities within the metropolitan region, include drinking water, sewer and draining service and solid waste management. Services provided directly to the public include regional parks and affordable housing. Metro Vancouver’s policies mostly fall under the areas of planning and regulatory responsibilities and include utilities, air quality control and regional growth. Metro Vancouver also serves as the major political forum for discussions about regional issues, governs labor relations and collective bargaining agreements, and acts as a facilitator, mediator, partner, advocate and a major source of information and education to the community (Metro Vancouver

2011). Thus, the implementation of the Local Government Act in 1998 strengthened regional governance and enhanced service provision in the Vancouver metropolitan area.

Seattle

Unlike Vancouver, the Seattle area does not have a regional governance agency that is responsible for providing services, policies and programs to local municipalities and residents.

Instead, Seattle’s Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) provides regional transportation, growth management and economic development planning and advises local municipalities on

217 policy decisions. The Council operates under a two year budget and work program, receives funds from federal, state and local sources and is governed by a general assembly and executive board with each member of the Council acting as a voting member of the assembly. The general assembly meets at least once a year to establish the annual budget, vote on major decisions and elect new officers.

The PSRC is comprised of a number of boards and committees, each of which is dedicated to researching different policy areas. The major boards within the PSRC are the

Transportation Policy Board, the Growth Management Policy Board and the Economic

Development District Board. PSRC committees include the Regional Staff Committee, the

Regional Project Evaluation Committee, the Transportation 2040 Prioritization Working Group, the Transportation Operators Committee, the Regional Traffic Operations Committee, the

Regional Freight Mobility Roundtable, the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee, the

Regional Food Policy Council (already discussed in the Food Policy sub-section of the first analysis chapter) and a handful of other specialized committees (Puget Sound Regional Council

2013).

The PSRC, in conjunction with local municipalities in four central Puget Sound region counties (King, Pierce, Snohomish and Kitsap), has developed three comprehensive plans to guide future growth in the greater Puget Sound region: VISION 2040, Transportation 2040 and

Prosperity Partnership. VISION 2040 is a comprehensive regional strategy designed to accommodate projected population growth in the region through 2040. The plan contains an environmental framework, a numeric regional growth strategy, and six policy sections

(environment, development patterns, housing, economy, transportation, and public services) guided by overarching goals as well as implementation actions and measures to monitor progress

218

(Puget Sound Regional Council VISION 2040 2013). Transportation 2040 is an action plan for making improvements to existing transportation networks and expanding transportation infrastructure in order to support anticipated population and job growth in the region. This plan also suggests a strategy for reducing the environmental impact of local transportation systems and outlines changes in how local transportation developments should be funded with an increasing emphasis on users paying for improvements in transportation throughout the region

(Puget Sound Regional Council Transportation 2040 2013). The Prosperity Partnership is a

“coalition of more than 300 government, business, labor and community organizations dedicated to improving long-term economic prosperity for the Central Puget Sound Region” (Puget Sound

Regional Council Prosperity Partnership 2013). Recently, the Prosperity Partnership has worked on strengthening and expanding the following seven “industry clusters” throughout the greater

Puget Sound Region: Aerospace, Clean Technology, Life Sciences, Information Technology,

Logistics and International Trade, Military and Tourism (Puget Sound Regional Council:

Prosperity Partnership, 2013). In sum, Seattle’s regional government (Puget Sound Regional

Council) acts in an advisory role rather than providing services to local communities.

Portland

Portland is unique among cities in the U.S. in having the only elected, rather than appointed, regional government in the country. Portland’s regional government, known as Metro, began operations in 1979 and serves over 1.5 million people in the 25 cities and three counties

(Clackamas, Multnomah and Washington) that make up the Portland metropolitan region (Berg

2012; Metro 2013). When Metro was first created, its charter was to provide “planning, policy making and services to preserve and enhance the region’s quality of life” and its responsibilities

219 included management of the region’s urban growth boundary, transportation planning, waste disposal and operation of the regional zoo. Today, as regional municipalities have increasingly turned to Metro for region-wide decision making and policies, Metro’s role in regional governance has expanded to include recycling, preservation of natural areas, long-range planning, habitat restoration and provision of venues for arts and cultural events and other types of events and conventions (Metro 2013).

The Metro Council includes an elected council president, six councilors elected by district and a region-wide auditor. Council is advised by a number of committees that deal specifically with a diverse range of policy areas. Metro advisory committees are made up of community members and elected officials and include the Metro Exposition and Recreation

Commission, the Metro Policy Advisory Committee, the Metro Technical Advisory Committee, the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation, the Transportation Policy Alternatives

Committee, the Natural Areas Program Performance Oversight Committee, the Metro Solid

Waste Advisory Committee, the Smith and Bybee Wetlands Management Committee, the Metro

Audit Committee and the Metro Public Engagement Review Committee (Metro 2013). In summation, Portland’s Metro is an elected regional government that provides a wide variety of services to residents throughout the Portland metropolitan area.

Governmental/Bureaucratic Capacity

Governmental or bureaucratic capacity is identified as one of the key determinants of social policy development by institutional politics theorists. However, because of institutional politics theory’s focus on large units of analysis, assessing what constitutes governmental or bureaucratic capacity has traditionally hinged upon analyzing the relationship between state level

220 bureaucrats and political institutions. At the level of the urban region, budgets of municipal, and in some cases metropolitan, governments become crucial determinants of governmental or bureaucratic capacity. Understanding how municipal and regional governments determine budgetary priorities and how this translates into policy and program development is important when assessing the relative social sustainability of urban policy decisions.

In this section, I assess the relative level of governmental/bureaucratic capacity in my sample cities. In Table 20, I list indicators of governmental or bureaucratic capacity for each of my sample cities. It is clear that Seattle has the highest level of governmental/bureaucratic capacity at the municipal level with an operating budget of $4.4 billion. Portland has the second highest level of governmental/bureaucratic capacity at the municipal level with $2.65 billion and

Vancouver has the third highest level of municipal level governmental/bureaucratic capacity with an operating budget of $1.2 billion and a capital budget of $285 million. At the regional level, Vancouver has the highest level of governmental/bureaucratic capacity with an operating budget of $647 million for its regional government. Portland has the second highest level of governmental/bureaucratic capacity at the regional level with an operating budget of $491 million for its regional government. Seattle’s regional council, with its limited capacity to provide services and its primary function as a planning and consultation organization, has the lowest level of governmental/bureaucratic capacity with a budget of $29 million for the 2014-

2015 fiscal year. All three sample cities devoted a large percentage of budgetary funds to utilities and public safety. Taken together, Seattle has the highest level of governmental/bureaucratic capacity while Portland comes in second and Vancouver comes in third. Below, I provide more detail about how each city performed in the selected indicators of governmental/bureaucratic capacity.

221

Table 20. Indicators of Governmental/Bureaucratic Capacity Governmental/Bureaucratic Vancouver Seattle Portland Capacity Proposed 2014 municipal $1.2 billion operating $4.4 billion $2.65 billion (after intra- budget budget city fund transfers are $285 million capital taken into account) budget Operating budget for $647 million $29 million $491 million regional government Budgetary priorities for 23% for utilities 58% for utilities and 26.7% for Public municipal government 20% for police transportation Utilities 10% for corporate 14% for administration 26.3% for Public Safety support 13% for public safety 14.9% for Community 9% for parks and 7% for arts, recreation Development recreation and culture 14.7% for City 8% for fire department 6.4% for health and Supported Services 8% for debt and capital human services 10.4% for 6% for engineering and 3% for neighborhoods Transportation and public works and development Parking 5% for general 1% for funds, subfunds 6% for Parks, government and other Recreation and Culture 5% for community 0.9% for Elected services Officials 4% for public library 2% for planning and development 1% for other services Budgetary priorities for 37% for the Water 36% for Council Salaries 33.9% for Visitor regional government District 21% for Consultation Venues 31% for Liquid Waste Services 21.4% for General 16% for Solid Waste 20% for Benefits Expenses 10% for the Regional 13% for Overhead 17.5% for Parks and District 6% for Encumbrance Environmental Services 6% for the Housing 4% for Contingency 15.2% for the Corporation Sustainability Center 5.4% for Central Services 4.2% for Planning and Development 1.4% for Elected Officials 1.1% for the Research Center

Vancouver

The City of Vancouver has a proposed 2014 operating budget of $1.2 billion and a capital budget of $285 million. As an ongoing effort to increase transparency, the City has provided more detailed information on City departments and services for this fiscal year, with 292 metrics across 56 different city services (City of Vancouver 2014 Capital and Operating Budget 2013).

The proposed capital and operating budget for 2014 focuses on four key priorities: a strong economy, being the greenest city in the world, eliminating street homelessness and creating a safe, creative, and inclusive community. In order to fund the combination of programs and

222 policies that will help the City address its priorities the City has proposed a 1.9% tax increase and a 1% fee increase. These tax and fee increases are projected to result in a 2.6% increase in revenue, a $13.5 million increase in property taxes and a $10.9 million increase in utilities. The expected increase in revenue is projected to result in a 2.6% increase in expenditures which will fund $12.2 million in utilities increases and $17.8 million increase in department services while saving approximately $400,000 in reduced debt and capital costs. The operating expenditures are allocated as follows: 20% for Police, 8% for the Fire Department, roughly 23% for Utilities (9% for Water, 8% for Sewer, and around 6% for Solid Waste), 6% for Engineering and Public

Works, 10% for Corporate Support, 8% for Debt and Capital, 5% for General Government, 9% for Parks and Recreation, 4% for the Public Library, 5% for Community Services, 2% for

Planning and Development and 1% for other services (City of Vancouver 2014 Capital and

Operating Budget 2013:5).

Vancouver’s capital budget deals with “creating and sustaining City-owned infrastructure, while ensuring that we sustain the core services most valued by our citizens as well as invest in new infrastructure” (City of Vancouver 2014 Capital and Operating Budget

2013:6). Important capital investments for the 2014 fiscal year include $150.7 million in transportation, utilities and public works (including, but not limited to $25.6 million in main sewer separation, $7.9 million in water pipe replacements, $23.1 million for the Powell Street overpass and $6.8 million for the Burrard Bridge rehabilitation), $68.3 million in community facilities, parks/open spaces, and housing (including, but not limited to $10.0 million for Taylor

Manor (Housing), $9.1 million for Hastings Park Greening and $7.0 million for the Strathcona

Library) and $58.9 million in civic infrastructure (including, but not limited to $15.4 million in vehicles and equipment, $9.8 million in enhanced services for permits and licenses). The capital

223 budget also includes an additional $5.1 million in investments for the following new priorities:

$2.3 million in social inclusion, culture and recreation, $1.0 million in Greenest City initiatives,

$0.7 million in improved safety and emergency planning and $0.5 million in enhanced digital services. Taken together, the 2014 capital budget expenditures are allocated as follows: 25% for

Transportation, 1% for Public Safety, 6% for Housing, 7% for Parks and Open Spaces, 11% for

Community Facilities, 21% for Civic Infrastructure, 28% for Utilities and Public Works and a leftover 1% to be used City-wide wherever it is needed (City of Vancouver 2014 Capital and

Operating Budget 2013:6).

Vancouver’s regional government, Metro Vancouver, has a proposed operating budget of

$647.1 million for the 2014 fiscal year which is an increase of $7.8 million (1.2%) over 2013’s operating budget. The increase over 2013’s operating budget can be attributed to increases in operating costs ($13.3 million, +3.5%) and capital funding ($1.0 million, +0.7%) and $6.5 million in debt payments. The proposed increase in cost to the average household in the region will be $5 for the 2014 fiscal year, which is only a 1.2% increase in cost from 2013. Metro

Vancouver’s 2014 operating budget will fund projects in the Greater Vancouver Regional

District (Regional Parks Review, maintenance of existing Regional Parks infrastructure, air quality regulation, greenhouse gas reduction programs and Regional Growth Strategy implementation), the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District (including, but not limited to Liquid Waste Management Plan implementation, Biosolids Management Plan implementation, reduction of future long-term debt related costs, planning and design for secondary treatment upgrades, Zero Waste Challenge program, and New Waste-to-Energy

Capacity), the Greater Vancouver Water District (including, but not limited to completion of the

Seymour/Capilano Filtration Project, continued work on the Port Mann, Second Narrows and

224

Annacis water supply tunnels, water conservation and energy recovery projects, and upgrades to the District’s facilities to meet current seismic and safety standards to ensure that water is available in the event of a natural disaster) and the Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation

(including, but not limited to maintenance of aging wood structures, continued work on Heather

Place redevelopment, focus on tenant community support and the Regional Affordable Housing

Strategy updates). The 2014 operating budget expenditures are allocated to the aforementioned service providers as follows: 37% for the Water District, 31% for Liquid Waste, 16% for Solid

Waste, 10% for the Regional District and 6% for the Housing Corporation. The revenue that funds Metro Vancouver’s 2014 operating budget comes from the following sources: 36% from water sales, 29% from the sewer tax levy, 14% from the solid waste trapping fee, 7% from tax requisitions, 6% from external revenue, 5% from housing rents and 3% from other sources

(Metro Vancouver 2014 Budget in Brief 2013).

Seattle

The City of Seattle has a proposed 2014 budget of $4.4 billion, which includes a $1 billion General Fund. The proposed budget and the General Fund for 2014 are a 1.9% and 3.4% increase, respectively, over what was projected in the 2014 endorsed budget. Notably, the proposed budget for 2014 is the first budget to not make cuts to the social programs funded by the City since the beginning of the Great Recession in 2009. Instead, there are a number of modest investments and increases in funding for certain programs that are designed to address several needs which have emerged since 2009. These needs include enhancing public safety, protecting and expanding the Human Services safety net, strengthening Seattle’s neighborhoods, protecting and enhancing diversity, maintaining and expanding the City’s transportation

225 infrastructure, improving the efficiency and effectiveness of City government and expanding the

City’s work force by 167 full-time equivalents, or FTEs, which would bring the City’s work force to a total of 11,196 FTEs (City of Seattle 2014 Proposed Budget Executive Summary

2013:2-4). Expenditures for the 2014 budget are as follows: 58% for utilities and transportation,

14% for administration, 13% for public safety, 7% for arts, culture and recreation, 6.4% for health and human services, 3% for neighborhoods and development, and 1% for funds, subfunds and other expenditures (City of Seattle 2014 Adopted Budget 2014:41).

Of particular importance to this investment in newly emerging needs is the emphasis on public safety. The 2014 budget allocates 56% of General Fund revenues to public safety.

Additional resources allocated in the 2014 budget include increasing the size of the police force, improving 911 response times, continuing to implement the Center City Initiative (CCI) which enhances public safety in downtown Seattle, expanding the Park Ranger program to increase safety in City owned and operated parks, promoting pedestrian safety and improving oversight of

Driving Under the Influence offenders. The City is committed to expanding the existing police force and improving 911 response times by responding to high priority calls in seven minutes or less, allocating 30% of officer time to “proactive policing” that allows police officers to resolve the underlying conditions that foster criminal activity and deploying 10 additional back-up police vehicles to be available at all times. The Seattle Police Department has either met or exceeded all goals set by previous budgets and the result has been a significant decrease in crime. Since 2009, there has been a reduction of 9% in violent crime and a reduction of 12% in property crime City- wide (City of Seattle 2014 Proposed Budget Executive Summary 2013:4-7).

Supporting the ongoing CCI program provides reinforcement to Seattle’s public safety investments in a number of ways. The 2014 budget increases the City’s investment in the CCI

226 program by adding an additional $3.5 million in order to help fund case management, homeless services, and the LEAD program, which is a type of diversion program for individuals who engage in minor crimes in the downtown area. Expansion of the Park Ranger program allows

Rangers to better enforce the Parks Code of Conduct and to more effectively coordinate with service providers so that vulnerable populations who utilize the City parks can find appropriate services and programs, such as housing services and mental health counseling, to meet their needs. Increases in funding for pedestrian safety initiatives focus on expanding Seattle’s School

Zone Camera Program. This increased investment will add automated speed enforcement cameras to six more schools, bringing the total number of schools with these types of cameras to

15 City-wide. With this increase in safety infrastructure, the City expects to collect $8.6 million in revenues from school camera citations. The budget mandates that these revenues be funneled back into the Pedestrian Safety program in order to fund the maintenance and expansion of school cameras and other safety infrastructure improvements like crosswalk, sidewalk and curb upgrades. New improvements to the oversight of DUI offenders outlined under the proposed budget include the mandated installation of ignition interlock devices in the cars of residents with

DUI convictions, and pre-trial breath and urinalysis tests (City of Seattle 2014 Proposed Budget

Executive Summary 2013:4-7).

Another feature of the 2014 budget is expansion of the existing Human Services safety net. The 2014 proposed budget allocates an increase of $5.6 million over what was suggested in the 2014 endorsed budget, which is a 9% increase in funding. Three key areas of emphasis are preventing domestic violence and providing services for the homeless and for seniors. The 2014 budget provides an additional $850,000 for services geared towards the homeless. These investments will keep the City Hall women’s shelter and the winter shelter open year-round,

227 increase hygiene center hours by 12 hours on Sundays and allow the centers to stay open 7 days a week, support a new day center and shelter location just south of downtown and help residents currently living in cars by tripling the number of safe parking spaces and enhancing existing connections to services for individuals and families living in their vehicles. Due primarily to sequestration and cutbacks of federal and state services for the elderly, the 2014 budget has allocated an additional $210,000 to nine senior centers located throughout Seattle. These centers provide services for over 14,000 senior residents, 60% of which live alone and 65% of which have low incomes. The budget also provides backfill funding for programs that have seen cuts do to federal and state level cutbacks, which allows programs such as Aging and Disability Services

(ADS) to continue to provide meal services, transportation, adult day services, case management, family caregiver services and healthy aging programs to seniors across the City. Finally, the proposed budget also puts aside an additional $450,000 for Domestic Violence response services to bring the total amount allocated to this area to $5.4 million (City of Seattle 2014 Proposed

Budget Executive Summary 2013:8-10).

Seattle’s 2014 budget allots significant funding for empowering residents, strengthening neighborhoods, supporting diversity, maintaining and expanding transportation infrastructure and increasing the efficiency of City government. Seattle empowers residents by investing in ways to help local residents seek economic advancement. These efforts include creating a pilot program that will develop a civic leadership institute specifically for refugee women, allocating an additional $715,000 for increasing construction employment opportunities for residents and providing an additional $500,000 for improving early learning and affordable child care opportunities. Strong and diverse neighborhoods are supported by increasing funding for the

Neighborhood Matching Fund (NMF), enhancing traffic flow in the downtown area, supporting

228 neighborhoods in the Duwamish River region, investing in Seattle’s historic entertainment venues and promoting coordination and communication with neighborhoods during major development or revitalization projects. Increases of $500,000 to the NMF bring NMF grant levels to pre-recession levels while additional allotments of $250,000 to the Duwamish River neighborhoods allows for the development of a Duwamish River Opportunity Fund to help local area residents enhance existing programs, develop new programs, and support community based organizations and businesses. Seattle supports local, historic entertainment venues as an effort to maintain historical continuity and strengthen neighborhoods. As part of the 2014 budget, Mayor

Mike McGinn has committed to allocating more than $455,000 to three historic entertainment venues (The Moore Theater, The Egyptian Theater and Washington Hall) that serve as neighborhood landmarks (City of Seattle 2014 Proposed Budget Executive Summary 2013:10-

14).

The City of Seattle has also made a major commitment to investing in transportation infrastructure and increasing the efficiency of local government. The newest budget assigns

$407.2 million to transportation infrastructure maintenance and expansion, which is a significant increase of 27% in relation to the 2013 adopted budget. These funds will be used to support multiple modes of travel, road, bridge and signal maintenance, pedestrian and bicycle improvements, transit and multi-modal improvements to the 23rd avenue corridor. In order to improve efficiency and efficacy of City government, the 2014 budget has set aside funds to enhance the City’s customer service functions, further “Green” the City’s fleet of vehicles, promote gender equity in the City’s workforce, evaluate programs in order to assess effectiveness and feasibility and invest in the City’s business technology infrastructure (City of

Seattle 2014 Proposed Budget Executive Summary 2013:14-19). Seattle’s regional council, the

229

Puget Sound Regional Council, has an adopted operating budget of $29.3 million for the 2014-

2015 fiscal year (Puget Sound Regional Council Biennial Budget and Work Program Fiscal

Years 2014-2015). Roughly 52% of the revenues for the adopted budget come from state and federal sources while 34% of the revenue is carried over from the previous budget and 14% comes from local funds. The budgetary expenditures are as follows: 36% for the salaries of council members, 21% for consultation services, 20% for benefits, 13% for overhead, 6% for encumbrance, and 4% contingency.

Portland

The City of Portland has a total adopted budget of $3.44 billion for the 2013-2014 fiscal year, which is a $64.1 million, or 1.8%, decrease from the previous budget. However, this amount reflects total operating costs and internal transactions between funds. After eliminating intra-City transfers of revenue, a more accurate total for the 2013-2014 adopted budget is $2.65 billion. Budget expenditures by City bureau are as follows: 26.7% for Public Utilities, 26.3% for

Public Safety, 14.9% for Community Development, 14.7% for City Supported Services, 10.4% for Transportation and Parking, 6.0% for Parks, Recreation and Culture and the remaining 0.9% to be used by Elected Officials. The City’s budget is comprised of revenues that are designated and set aside as funds which can be categorized into one of three categories: governmental, proprietary and fiduciary. The most important of these three types of funds, for the purpose of this analysis, are governmental funds, which are used to account for governmental activities like the development of programs, policies and plans and the everyday operation of City government bureaus. Of the various types of governmental funds, the General Fund is the most important because it “includes all activities of the City that are supported by property taxes and other non-

230 dedicated revenues” and is used to support City bureaus (City of Portland FY 2013-2014

Adopted Budget 2012:39). The General Fund budget for the 2013-2014 fiscal year is

$494,277,076 and funding sources for the General Fund are as follows: 39.2% from Property

Taxes, 16.0% from Business Licenses, 15.7% from Utility License Fees, 12.4% from Transfers from Other Funds, 5.9% from Service Charges and Other Charges, 5.2% from Intergovernmental sources, 3.9% from Lodging Taxes and 1.7% from the Beginning Fund Balance (City of Portland

FY 2013-2014 Adopted Budget 2012:30).

Portland’s regional government, METRO, has a total adopted budget of $490.6 million for the 2013-2014 fiscal year which is a 2.9% increase over the budget from the previous fiscal year (METRO FY 2013-2014 Adopted Budget: Organizational Summary 2013). METRO’s budget expenditures by organization are as follows: 33.9% for Visitor Venues, 21.4% for

General Expenses, 17.5% for Parks and Environmental Services, 15.2% for the Sustainability

Center, 5.4% for Central Services, 4.2% for Planning and Development, 1.4% for Elected

Officials, and 1.1% for the Research Center. Visitor Venues include the Oregon Convention

Center, the Portland Center for the Performing Arts, the Portland Expo Center, and the Oregon

Zoo. Central Services include communications, finance and regulatory services, human resources, information services, and the offices of the METRO attorney.

Citizen Participation

One central theoretical proposition of IP theory deals with the relationship between democratization and social policy. Underdemocratized polities, according to IP theory, are less likely to have generous social policy. It is important, however, to note that democratization deals not only with political culture, voting patterns and political parties, but also with issues related to

231 citizen participation in the decision-making processes of local government. Cities with governance systems that engage residents, seek collaborative and collective solutions to pressing issues and provide avenues for residents to provide feedback to elected officials support social sustainability by promoting inclusion within the decision-making process and allowing a higher degree of democratization.

In this section, I analyze citizen participation in each of my sample cities. In Table 21, I list indicators of citizen participation for each of my sample cities. While all three sample cities focus on different dimensions of citizen participation, it is clear that each city has a well developed framework of policies and programs that are designed to stimulate citizen participation in the decision-making process. Vancouver’s citizen participation programs are geared towards collecting feedback in order to collectively develop sustainability indicators, increasing communication and interaction between the City government and residents, promoting resident participation in City agencies, boards and committees, and using resident feedback to create a budget that reflects the needs of the community. Seattle’s citizen participation programs focus on promoting civic participation among young residents and developing effective community based citizen participation models. Portland’s citizen participation programs emphasize including residents in planning and advising activities as well as promoting participation in the budget development process. In sum, all three cities have similarly developed citizen participation programs. Consequently, it is difficult to determine, with any level of certainty, which city excels in this area. Below, I provide more detail about how each city performed in the selected indictors of citizen participation.

232

Table 21. Indicators of Citizen Participation Citizen Participation Vancouver Seattle Portland Programs and Policies Regional Vancouver Urban Get Engaged Program Citizen Participation Plan Observatory Citizen Participation Community Budget Forums Engaged City Task Force Evaluation Budget Advisory Committees User friendly directories Service Priorities Report for Budget

Vancouver

The City of Vancouver considers public involvement to be a vital part of the democratic process. Consequently, the City has a number of policies and programs that are focused on increasing levels of citizen participation in local governance. The Regional Vancouver Urban

Obsersvatory (RVu), which is a project based at Simon Fraser University, is one of several urban observatories organized by UN-Habitat designed to measure progress towards the goal of sustainability. The RVu project is the first of its kind in Canada and is the first UN-Habitat urban observatory to be created in a developed, wealthy country (Holden and Mochrie 2006).

The RVu’s mission is to pull together the diverse views and public values related to

Vancouver’s sustainability, track progress in the region on the issues that people in Vancouver care about and provide accurate and reliable data to inform social mobilization and decision- making. In order to properly function, the RVu maintains a distance from decision-making organizations and institutions and instead acts in an advisory capacity to local and regional governments. RVu’s vision is to create sustainability measures that match citizens’ values in order to achieve a “Vancouver region in which public decisions are informed by information that matters and in which we are accountable to dynamic targets toward a global sustainable future

(Regional Vancouver Urban Observatory 2009).

Vancouver’s Engaged City Task Force (ECTF) was developed to increase public participation in the decision-making process. The ECTF focuses on enhancing the various ways

233 that the City engages with citizens, improving the ways that the City consults with residents on policy issues, increasing voter turnout and enabling community connections at the neighborhood level. The ECTF was established in October 3, 2012 by City Council with the aforementioned mandate and is comprised of 22 citizens, selected from a total of 117 applicants. On May 22,

2013 the ECTF released their first report to the City with 16 suggestions on how the City could increase public involvement and engagement with residents. These 16 recommendations, called

“quick starts” in the report, are designed to be implemented over a 6 month period and are broken down into the following four categories: Engagement at a Neighborhood Level, Improve

Civic Education, Improve the Development Process and Social Media for Civic Engagement

(Vancouver Mayor’s Engaged City Task Force Quick Starts 2013).

For the first category (Engagement at a Neighborhood Level), the Task Force suggests creating a pilot “mini-City Hall” program to “bring City Hall to the community,” establishing a

City-wide neighborhood block party day, developing a responsive, community level neighborhood councilor liaison for residents to communicate with and allowing for participatory budget planning at the neighborhood level. For the second category (Improve Civic Education), the Task Force recommends setting aside an “Open Door” day at City Hall to let residents visit and tour the facility in order to see City government in action, making it easier to register to vote by creating a permanent online voter registration and elections page that is available 24/7 to City residents on the City website, developing a City Hall 101 webpage on the City’s website with user friendly information on how the public can interact with the City, and creating a City Hall

Storytelling event that shares information about City works through the medium of storytelling, which may resonate with some community members. For the third category (Improve the

Development Process), the ECTF suggests that the City should foster earlier public involvement

234 in major rezoning proposals by requesting that major developers hold “open house” events before design proposals are put forward to the City Council. The Task Force also recommends updating public signage related to planning and development by replacing arcane technical jargon with clearer language and increasing the amount of time that residents have access to council reports before public City Council meetings. Currently, the City posts council reports 5 or 6 days before a public meeting will be held which doesn’t provide enough time for some residents to understand the issues. The Task Force suggests increasing this amount of time to 1 and a half to 2 weeks before public Council meetings. Finally, for the fourth category (Social

Media for Civic Engagement), the ECTF suggests bringing the 311 information system online, crowdsourcing venue lists for neighborhood functions, and creating and promoting an Engaged

City listserve, Twitter account, and an Online Engagement Panel (Vancouver Mayor’s Engaged

City Task Force Quick Starts 2013).

As part of a larger effort to make sure that the City’s decision-making processes are transparent and that policies reflect the needs of the community, Vancouver also encourages residents to join City agencies, boards and committees. This effort is facilitated by providing user friendly directories with lists of agencies, boards and committees, vacancies, mission statements, eligibility requirements and application forms to streamline the process for interested residents.

Community members also have the opportunity to view current rezoning applications and submit opinions and suggestions about rezoning initiatives and fill out online requests to speak at public

City Council and Park Board meetings. To increase transparency, residents are granted full access to meeting minutes and can follow the City on social media for up to date information on developments, plans and policies. Taken together, these outlets allow residents to see plans

235 before they happen and weigh in on what direction they think plans for redevelopment and rezoning should take (City of Vancouver Public Consultation 2013).

Another good example of this effort is the Service Priorities Report. The City of

Vancouver published the Service Priorities Research report for the 2014 budget in order to provide information about which service priorities mattered most to the residents of Vancouver.

The report is based on research conducted by the City in order to measure satisfaction with services provided to residents and businesses and was used in service priority deliberations prior to the creation of the proposed 2014 operating and capital budget. The City collected the data used to generate this report by engaging with members of the public through the 311 information system and through a more thorough Service Satisfaction Survey. According to the study, residents and businesses had slightly different priorities. Residents’ top five issues were

Infrastructure/Transportation (61%), Housing/Accommodation (44%), Social Issues/Social

Services (36%), Cost of Living (17%) and Development (17%). Businesses’ top five issues were

Infrastructure/Transportation (56%), Cost of Living (34%), Housing/Accommodation (21%),

Development (15%) and Economy/Economic Issues (15%) (City of Vancouver Service Priorities

Research 2014). In sum, Vancouver’s RVu and ECTF programs include residents in decision making processes while the Service Priorities Report collects information on what types of services residents think the City should prioritize.

Seattle

The City of Seattle’s Get Engaged program is a unique effort to increase civic participation among young residents. The program is operated in partnership with the

Metrocenter YMCA and is designed to provide opportunities for residents aged 18-29 to serve on

236

15 different City Boards and Commissions each year. The goal of the program is to help young interested residents build their leadership skills and get hands-on experience in local government.

For the 2013- 2014 period, the Get Engaged program has successfully placed young applicants into the following 14 of the qualifying 15 Boards and Commissions: Seattle Arts Commission,

Seattle Bicycle Advisory Board, Citizen’s Telecommunications and Technology Advisory

Board, Commission for People with Disabilities, Seattle Design Commission, Design Review

Boards, Seattle Human Rights Commission, Landmarks Preservation Board, Seattle LGBT

Commission, Seattle Board of Parks Commissioners, Seattle Pedestrian Advisory Board, Pioneer

Square Preservation Board, Seattle Center Advisory Commission and the Seattle Women’s

Commission (Get Engaged Seattle 2013).

In 2000, The Seattle Planning Commission, in conjunction with City Council, the

Strategic Planning Office and the Department of Neighborhoods, published a Citizen

Participation Evaluation in order to gauge the various types of citizen participation in the City of

Seattle. According to the official report, “the overall purpose of this evaluation project is to provide guidance to the City on effective geographically based citizen participation models and techniques that should be supported by the City” (Seattle Planning Commission Citizen

Participation Evaluation 2000). The report found that opportunities for citizen participation increased in the ten years prior to the publication of the report (1990-2000) and that people involved in the various City sponsored citizen participation processes found their experiences to be meaningful and felt that they were able to affect positive social change.

The study found that the Neighborhood Planning Project, in particular, trained thousands of citizens in community organizing skills and brought them together with City staff to collectively work towards the goals of smart growth and increasing quality of life in various

237 neighborhoods throughout the City. The report also concluded with a set of recommendations to maintain high levels of citizen participation and enhance opportunities for citizen participation in the future. These recommendations include: clearly establishing and carrying out the City’s expectations for City initiated and supported groups, ensuring that citizen groups receive fair and consistent treatment, establishing clear expectations and capacity to support City initiated citizen advisory groups and processes, providing City resources for City supported participation bodies and processes to ensure that expectations on both citizens and staff can be met, providing ongoing City support for Neighborhood Planning Stewardship efforts, and, last but not least, clarifying and improving District Council and Neighborhood Planning Stewardship roles and relationships (Seattle Planning Commission Citizen Participation Evaluation Executive Summary

2000:6-8). Thus, Seattle’s Get Engaged program includes youth in the decision making process while the Citizen Participation Evaluation collects data about citizen participation city-wide and finds that the Neighborhood Planning Project has helped to train thousands of residents in community organizing.

Portland

Portland has a number of initiatives that have been specifically designed to facilitate public involvement. The Citizen Participation Plan (CPP) was developed in 2005 as a distinct component of the Consolidated Plan. The CPP’s goal is to “involve all interested local citizens as planners, advisors, and partners in the development and implementation of the housing and community development programs of all the jurisdictions in the Portland Consortium:

Multnomah County, the City of Gresham, and the City of Portland” (City of Portland

Consolidated Plan 2011:361). The CPP outlines a citizen participation structure comprised of the

238

Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC), the Office of Neighborhood

Involvement (ONI), Community/Neighborhood Plans, Competitive Allocation Panels and a number of special committees and citizen commissions and organizations.

The Plan also indicates that jurisdictions will encourage participation by low and moderate income residents living in economically depressed areas by holding community meetings sponsored by development agencies and organizations, consulting with advisory groups through staff contacts, consulting with service providers that serve residents in low and moderate income areas of the City, providing technical assistance to groups representing low and moderate income residents in order to facilitate the development of proposals for the use of available funds, and educating residents on how to use the ONI network of associations and organizations

(City of Portland Consolidated Plan 2011:368-369). Another interesting feature of the CPP is its emphasis on the minimization of displacement. The Plan mandates that jurisdictions will minimize the displacement of residents as a result of development activities using federal funds by committing to implement activities so as to minimize displacement of residents and businesses, developing and implementing an anti-displacement strategy and providing information as to how and when displacement assistance is to be made available (City of

Portland Consolidated Plan 2011:373).

The City of Portland’s Community Budget Forums (CBFs) give residents the opportunity to speak to Council about specific service priorities for the City’s annual budget.

This creates an outlet for citizens to engage with the City and collectively and cooperatively align budget priorities and community needs. In addition to CBFs, the City provides a variety of opportunities for residents to learn more about and participate in the City’s budget process.

These opportunities include a user friendly website with links to City budget suggestions and

239 comments, information about CBFs, budget calendars for the most recent fiscal year budget process (FY 2013-2014), a “Budget 101” presentation that provides basic information on City budgeting practices and processes, and a description of the various service areas covered in the annual budget. The City also sponsors Budget Advisory Committees, or BACs, which are bureau level committees that inform the City Council about bureau specific services and budget decisions and allow community residents to join. The goals of BACs are to provide effective venues for the community to provide input throughout the budget process, increase citizen involvement in the management of the City’s resources, gain an understanding of City bureaus and the relationship between those bureaus and the needs of the residents who access the services of City bureaus, and, finally, to provide recommendations to bureaus regarding goals, priorities, policies and budgets (City of Portland About BACs 2013). In sum, Portland’s Citizen

Participation Plan and Community Budget Forums allow residents to participate in decision making that affects housing development, community development, and budget creation.

Testing Power Constellations Theory

Latin American and Caribbean countries from 1970 to 2000 (Huber et al. 2004). Power constellations theorists have also found that Catholic and Christian Democratic political parties

240 have an ability to generate social spending legislation in political contexts where these parties compete with left-wing parties and organized labor for working-class votes (Van Kersbergen

1995) and that left-wing government incumbency has a positive effect on lowering poverty rates among single mothers (Huber et al. 2009).

In this section, I test three modified theoretical propositions from power constellations theory. I begin by determining the strength of organized labor in each of my sample cities. I do this by identifying union membership rates and local corporatist organizations like labor councils. I then assess the level of women’s participation in the labor force. Finally, I examine the effect that center/left political parties have on the development of social policy in my three sample cities. After testing the aforementioned theoretical propositions from power constellations theory, I conclude this chapter by summarizing the results of my theoretical proposition tests.

Strength of Organized Labor

One of the key theoretical propositions of the Power Constellations (PC) theory is that a strong, centralized labor movement leads to the development of more generous social policy.

Traditionally, PC theory has been used to study larger units of analysis like the polity. Because the focus of my study is cities and their respective urban regions, I argue that state, provincial, county, regional and/or municipal level labor organizations are important in shaping the types of policy and programs that are developed at the local level.

In the following section, I assess the relative centralization and power of organized labor groups in my three sample cities. In Table 22, I list indicators of strength of organized labor.

Overall, Vancouver has the highest rate of union membership when compared to both Seattle and

241

Portland. While all three sample cities have corporatist organizations at the provincial/state and urban regional levels, Vancouver is situated in a province and in a country with higher levels of overall union membership and a stronger organized labor movement in general. In addition, advantages of union membership seem to be particularly noticeable for women. While there is no specific data for unionized women in the Vancouver region in this analysis, women who are members of CLC affiliated unions make an average of almost $15,000 more per year than their non-unionized counterparts and only around 6% of women in CLC affiliated unions in Canada make less than $13.33 per hour. In sum, Vancouver has the highest level of performance in this area. Below, I provide more detail about how each city performed in the selected indicators of strength of organized labor.

Table 22. Indicators of Strength of Organized Labor Strength of Organized Vancouver Seattle Portland Labor % of workforce unionized 29% 17% 15% Provincial/state level British Columbia Washington State Labor Oregon AFL-CIO corporatist organizations Federation of Labour Council (AFL-CIO) (BCFED) Urban regional level Metro Vancouver Labor M.L. King County Northwest Oregon corporatist organizations Relations Department Labor Council (AFL- Labor Council (AFL- CIO) CIO)

Vancouver

In 2012, approximately 31.5% of Canada’s workforce was unionized in. Provincial unionization rates fluctuate quite a bit with Alberta having the lowest rate of unionized workers at 23.5% in 2012 and Quebec having the highest rate of unionized workers at 39.9% in 2012. In comparison, British Columbia’s unionization rate stands somewhere in the middle of all

Canadian provinces at 31.3% in 2012. In 2012 there were 309,400 union members working in the greater Vancouver region which accounts for around 29% of all employees and a total payroll of around $292 million every week. Unionized workers in the Vancouver region earn an

242 average of $4.37 more per hour (around $26.96 per hour, on average) than their non-union counterparts which translates into an extra $48 million per week that gets re-circulated into the local economy (Canadian Labour Congress The Union Advantage in Vancouver 2013). National unionization rates, however, have dropped steadily from around 33.7% of the national workforce in 1997 to 31.5% of the national workforce in 2012. At the national level, workers that are members of CLC affiliated labor unions earn an average of almost $7 more per hour, get better benefits and have longer vacations. The difference is especially noticeable for women, who make an average of $7.94 more, per hour, than their non-union counterparts, which averages to almost

$15,000 more per year for women who are members of CLC affiliated labor unions. In addition,

53% of non-union women in Canada earn less than $13.33 an hour while only 6.4% of unionized

Canadian women earn less than that amount.

While access to health care is a non-issue for Canadian citizens and permanent residents, the CLC and the BCFED fight to help workers gain access to extra benefits like pension plans, drug plans and dental plans. Approximately 92.3% of large unionized workplaces (with 500 or more employees) have pension plans compared to only 68.4% of non-unionized workplaces of comparable size. In smaller unionized workplaces 47.6% of workers have drug, vision and dental plans while 34.2% have pension plans. In comparably sized workplaces that are not unionized only 31.1% of workers have drug, vision and dental plans while only 12.5% have pension plans.

Overall, these differences amount to around 88.5% of unionized workers receiving benefits like drug, vision and dental plans and 76% of unionized workers receiving pension plans while only around 68.6% of non unionized workers receive drug, vision and dental plans and only around

28% of non-unionized workers receive pension plans (B.C. Federation of Labour How Unions

243

Make a Difference 2013; Employment and Social Development Canada Work-Unionization

Rates 2013).

At the provincial level, The British Columbia Federation of Labour, commonly known as

BCFED, is the primary representative for over 500,000 members of over 1,100 affiliated labor unions working in every sector of British Columbia’s economy. The BCFED operates under the motto “what we want for ourselves, we wish for all” and is a member of the larger Canadian

Labour Congress (CLC) (B.C. Federation of Labour 2013). The constitution of the BCFED states

10 purposes for its existence: 1.) To support the principles and policies of the CLC. 2.) To promote the interests of its affiliates and generally to advance the economic and social welfare of the workers of British Columbia. 3a.) To assist affiliated organizations in extending the benefits of mutual assistance and collective bargaining to workers. 3b.) To assist, wherever possible, in the organization of the unorganized into unions for their mutual aid, protection and advancement, giving recognition to the principle that both craft and industrial unions are appropriate, equal and necessary as methods of union organization. 4.) To encourage all workers without regard to race, creed, color, sex or national origin to share in the full benefits of union organization. 5.) To secure provincial legislation which will safeguard and promote the principle of free collective bargaining, the rights of workers, and the security and welfare of all people. 6.) To promote and strengthen our democratic institutions, to secure full recognition and enjoyment of the rights and liberties to which we are justly entitled, and to preserve and perpetuate the cherished traditions of our democracy. 7.) To promote the cause of peace and freedom in the world and to assist and cooperate with free and democratic labor movements throughout the world. 8.) To aid and encourage the sale and use of union-made goods and union services through the use of the Union

Label and other symbols; to promote the labor press and other means of furthering the education

244 of the labor movement. 9.) To protect the labor movement from all corrupt influences and from the undermining effects of any agencies which are opposed to the basic principles of democracy and free and democratic unionism. 10.) To preserve the independence of the labor movement from political control, to encourage workers to vote, to exercise their full rights and responsibilities of citizenship, and to perform their rightful part in the political life of the municipal, provincial and federal governments. To promote and develop action in the political field and to support the legislative program of the Canadian Labour Congress (B.C. Federation of

Labour Constitution 2012:2-4).

At the regional level, Metro Vancouver’s Labour Relations (LR) department provides labor relations and ancillary services to municipalities throughout the metropolitan Vancouver area. The LR department negotiates collective agreements, evaluates and reclassifies jobs, researches important collective bargaining information like pay and benefits levels and provides other related labor relations services. Metro’s LR department negotiates more than 60 collective bargaining agreements representing more than 15,000 employees on behalf of 35 employers throughout the greater Vancouver region. Unions certified within Metro Vancouver include the

Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), the International Association of Fire Fighters

(IAFF), the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE), the International

Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (simply referred to as Teamsters) and all of the local organized labor chapters associated with the aforementioned larger unions.

Today, the LR department is comprised of two divisions: The Compensation Division and the Research Division. The Compensation Division is responsible for using whole job classification processes to respond to requests for job reviews initiated by employees, unions or

245 management. Reviews identify the skills and knowledge required to perform specific jobs and the information derived from reviews is analyzed in order to develop class specifications and recommend a compensation level to the employer. The Compensation Division also represents employers or provides detailed information to legal counsel in the event of a dispute or arbitration with local union chapters. The Research Division provides research on matters of labor relations for the LR department’s collective bargaining division and for municipalities served by Metro’s LR department, develops reports that compare pay and benefits, analyzes the potential cost of bargaining proposals and settlements that have been reached during the collective bargaining process and conducts specialized research as needed (Metro Vancouver

Labour Relations and Collective Agreements 2011). In sum, Vancouver has a strong network of organized labor unions and corporatist organizations at the provincial, regional, and municipal level.

Seattle

The Union Membership and Coverage Database provides specialized data on residents currently in the workforce, union members, workers covered by collective bargaining agreements and the percentage of workers that are unionized and covered by collective bargaining agreements in the U.S. In 2012, the Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue metropolitan area had a total workforce of 1,604,127 people. Out of those workers, 276,133 were union members. A total of 290,037 workers were covered by collective bargaining agreements. Around 17.2% of all workers in the Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue metropolitan area are unionized while around 18.1% of all workers in the greater Seattle area are covered by collective bargaining agreements. The M.L.

King County Labor Council, which is affiliated with the national American Federation of Labor

246 and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) is the Seattle area’s centralized body of labor organizations. The Council is comprised of over 75,000 working men and women who represent more than 150 different affiliated organizations throughout the greater Seattle region.

The key responsibilities of the Council are to “assist workers and their unions in the struggle for social and economic justice; support efforts to organize and bargain fair contracts; lobby, endorse and involve working people in the political process; advocate and support laws that protect working people; support community services outreach work; and unite with community allies who are also struggling for justice” (Union Membership and Coverage Database, Union

Membership, Coverage, Density and Employment by Combined Statistical Area (CSA) and

MSA, 2012; M.L. King County Labour Council 2013). To conclude, Seattle has a union membership rate of around 17% and a local corporatist organization that manages labor agreements (M.L. King County Labor Council).

Portland

In 2012, the Portland metropolitan area had a total workforce of 922,061 people. Of those workers, 139,414 were union members. A total of 146,034 workers in the Portland metropolitan area were covered by a collective bargaining agreement. Taken together, approximately 15.1% of all workers in the greater Portland region were unionized while around 15.8% of all workers were covered by collective bargaining agreements. The Northwest Oregon Labor Council, which like the M.L King County Labor Council in the Seattle area is also affiliated with the national

AFL-CIO, is the Portland area’s central body of labor unions. The Northwest Oregon Labor

Council is affiliated with the Portland based Oregon AFL-CIO which represents more than

135,000 workers and 37 affiliated labor unions throughout the state. Another important labor

247 organization headquartered in Portland is the Oregon chapter of the American Federation of

State, County and Municipal Employees, or AFSCME. Oregon’s AFSCME chapter represents around 25,000 workers state-wide, most of which are public employees who work for the State of Oregon, City or County governments or special districts. On August 28th 2010, Portland sponsored the first annual AFL-CIO young workers conference. The conference, which was sponsored in part by the AFSCME Young Emerging Labor Leaders (YELL) program offered a variety of workshops and classes on organizing labor unions and networking (Union

Membership and Coverage Database, Union Membership, Coverage, Density and Employment by Combined Statistical Area (CSA) and MSA, 2012; Oregon AFSCME 2013; Northwest

Oregon Labor Council 2013). In sum, Portland has a union membership rate of around 15% and a number of local corporatist organizations.

Women’s Labor Force Participation

According to research rooted in power constellations theory, women’s labor force participation is one of the key factors determining the development of certain types of social policy. This body of research finds that women’s participation in the workforce has strong effects on the passage of gender-egalitarian and “decommodifying” policies, such as the provision of care work, and on the relative wage of women in couples (Huber et al. 2009).

Selected conceptualizations of social sustainability also reinforce the importance of women’s participation in the labor force by suggesting that “gender sensible” welfare policies that provide opportunities for women to earn an income outside of the house contribute to higher levels of social sustainability (Littig and Griesler 2005).

248

In this section, I analyze women’s labor participation rates and unemployment rates in my three sample cities. In Table 23, I list indicators of women’s participation in the labor force.

Seattle has the overall highest level of women’s labor force participation with 73%, while

Portland has the second highest level with 69% and Vancouver has the lowest level with 62%.

Both Vancouver and Seattle have a 7% unemployment rate for women while Portland has an 8% unemployment rate. Based on these indicators, Seattle has the best overall level of women’s participation in the labor force with Portland coming in second and Vancouver coming in third.

However, it is worth noting that the results of the previous analysis sub-section indicate that

Vancouver has a higher overall unionization rate and that unionized women in Vancouver experience a number of important advantages including higher average levels of pay, higher chance of having a pension in addition to social insurance (social security) payments, and increased access to supplementary dental, vision and medication coverage. Unfortunately, a lack of data on this issue prevented me from using comparable statistics to compare all three of my sample cities on this dimension. Including this data may have changed the results of this analysis subsection. Below, I go into greater detail about how each of my cities performed in the selected indicators of women’s labor force participation.

Table 23. Indicators of Women’s Participation in the Labor Force Women in the Vancouver Seattle Portland Labor Force

Women’s labor 62% 73% 69% force participation

Women’s 7% 7% 8% unemployment rate

249

Vancouver

According to the portion of the 2011 National Household Survey that dealt directly with labor force activity in Metro Vancouver, there were 1,926,225 people aged 15 and older in Metro

Vancouver with around 1,273,330 (66.1%) participating in the local labor force. These statistics brought the employment rate up to 61.4% and the unemployment rate to 7.1%. Of the total number of individuals participating in the labor force in 2011, 612,870 were women and 660,465 were men. The participation rate for women in Metro Vancouver in 2011 was 61.7% while the participation rate for men in the same year was 70.8%. The employment rate in 2011 was 57.3% for women and 65.8% for men while the unemployment rate was 7.2% for women and 7.1% for men. In 2012, approximately 61.3% of women aged 15 and older were either employed or currently looking for work in British Columbia and in November 2013 the unemployment rate for women in British Columbia aged 25 years and over was 5.9%, compared to 5.2% for men aged 25 and over.

As stated earlier in this dissertation, the City of Vancouver has a number of programs related to child care and child development which de-commodify women and allow them to enter the local labor force in greater number. In addition to the symposium entitled “Inspiring

Innovation” that addresses issues related to early childhood learning and development and the development of a Childcare and Family Policy Poll co-created in conjunction with the YWCA, the City is also in the process of updating its Childcare Design Guidelines and overseeing a major grants programs for childcare operators in order to assist in cost control and minimize the costs for Vancouver’s citizens. These programs aim to provide women in Vancouver the option to access high quality, affordable child care, thus allowing them to seek full-time work in the local labor force (City of Vancouver Getting Childcare in Vancouver 2012; City of Vancouver

250

Seniors, Women and Youth 2012; Statistics Canada 2011 National Household Survey Labour

Force Activity in Metro Vancouver). In sum, Vancouver had a women’s labor force participation rate of around 62% and an unemployment rate of around 7% for women in 2011, along with a number of programs designed to allow women to enter the labor force in growing numbers.

Seattle

In 2011, the civilian labor force participation rate for women in the Seattle metropolitan area was 62.4% while the employment-population ratio was 57.2% and the unemployment rate was 8.3%. However, there were significant differences by race/ethnicity and marital status.

White women in the Seattle metropolitan area had a civilian labor force participation rate of

63.0%, an employment-population ratio of 58.3% and an unemployment rate of 7.5%.

Black/African American women (including large numbers of non-African American populations such as Somali and Ethiopian) had a civilian labor force participation rate of 53.9%, an employment-population ratio of 43.3% and an unemployment rate of 19.8%. Asian women had a civilian labor force participation rate of 59.6%, an employment-population ratio of 55.4% and an unemployment rate of 7.1%. Hispanic/Latino women had a civilian labor force participation rate of 61.4%, an employment-population ratio of 51.9% and an unemployment rate of 15.6%.

Married women of all races/ethnicities with the spouse present had a civilian labor force participation rate of 62.4%, an employment-population ratio of 58.4% and an unemployment rate of 6.5%. Unmarried women who maintained families had a civilian labor force participation rate of 68.7%, an employment-population ratio of 61.4% and an unemployment rate of 10.6%

(Bureau of Labor Statistics, Selected Metropolitan Areas, Metropolitan Divisions, and Cities:

Civilian Labor Force Participation Rates, Employment-Population Ratios, and Unemployment

251

Rates, by Sex, Age, Race, Hispanic or Latino Ethnicity, and Marital Status, 2011 annual averages).

In addition to providing data for metropolitan Seattle, the Bureau of Labor Statistics also provided data for the City of Seattle. The data provided for the City of Seattle does not include information about race/ethnicity, other than data for white women, and does not include information about unmarried women who maintain families. In 2011, women in the City of

Seattle had a civilian labor force participation rate of 73.4%, an employment-population ratio of

68.4% and an unemployment rate of 6.9%. White women in the City of Seattle had a civilian labor force participation rate of 76.7%, an employment-population ratio of 71.6% and an unemployment rate of 6.7%. Married women of all races/ethnicities with the spouse present had a civilian labor force participation rate of 69.8%, an employment-population ratio of 68.1% and an unemployment rate of 2.4% (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Selected Metropolitan Areas,

Metropolitan Divisions, and Cities: Civilian Labor Force Participation Rates, Employment-

Population Ratios, and Unemployment Rates, by Sex, Age, Race, Hispanic or Latino Ethnicity, and Marital Status, 2011 annual averages). In total, Seattle had women’s labor force participation rates of around 62% at the metro level and 73% at the city level and women’s unemployment rates of 8% at the metro level and 7% at the city level with significant differences in both rates by race/ethnicity.

Portland

The Bureau of Labor Statistics also provides data on women’s labor force participation for the City of Portland, but not for the metropolitan area of Portland. Like the data provided by the Bureau for the City of Seattle, the data for the City of Portland is limited. The data provided

252 for the City of Portland does not include information about race/ethnicity, other than data for white women, and does not include information about unmarried women who maintain families.

In 2011, women in the City of Portland had a civilian labor force participation rate of 68.9%, an employment-population ratio of 63.6% and an unemployment rate of 7.7%. White women in the

City of Portland had a civilian labor force participation rate of 71.7%, an employment-population ratio of 66.9% and an unemployment rate of 6.7%. Married women of all races/ethnicities with the spouse present had a civilian labor force participation rate of 69.5%, an employment- population ratio of 66.1% and an unemployment rate of 4.9% (Bureau of Labor Statistics,

Selected Metropolitan Areas, Metropolitan Divisions, and Cities: Civilian Labor Force

Participation Rates, Employment-Population Ratios, and Unemployment Rates, by Sex, Age,

Race, Hispanic or Latino Ethnicity, and Marital Status, 2011 annual averages). In sum, Portland had women’s labor force participation rates of around 69% at the city level and women’s unemployment rates of 8%.

Strength of Center-Left Political Parties

Research on the effect of political parties on the development of social policy indicates that the political orientation of parties in power in the three decades after WWII shaped policy outcomes in distinct ways. Huber and Stephens (2001) found that center-left and social democratic political parties have historically articulated the interests of working class and lower middle class residents. The authors (Huber and Stephens 2001) also found that viable competition between centrist and center-left parties has been shown to force centrist parties to adopt a more left-wing stance in terms of policy support and development. Overall, this research

253 indicates that the presence of center-left and social democratic political parties changes the policy landscape, even when there are periods of centrist or right-wing political incumbency.

In this section, I determine the relative strength of center-left political parties in each of my sample cities by analyzing a number of indicators. In Table 24, I list the indicators that I use to determine the strength of local center-left political parties. While all three cities have a long history of supporting center-left policies, programs, and political candidates, Vancouver is the only city that has a strong tradition of autonomous civic political parties. By contrast, both

Seattle and Portland have non-partisan elections although it is clear that both cities strongly favor the Democratic Party. In Vancouver, there are two civic political parties that have had electoral success that are center-left (TEAM and Vision Vancouver). A third social-democratic party,

COPE, has had relatively less success, electing only one mayor and a handful of councilors.

However, all three parties are associated with the development of important policies and programs that have contributed to Vancouver’s higher level of social sustainability. Because of these factors, I argue that Vancouver has the strongest presence of center-left political parties, while Seattle has the second strongest presence and Portland has the third. Below, I go into greater detail about how my cities performed in the selected indicators of center-left political party strength.

Table 24. Indicators of Strength of Center-Left Political Parties Strength of Center-Left Vancouver Seattle Portland Political Parties Civic Election System Autonomous Civic Political Non-Partisan Elections Non-Partisan Elections Parties Viable Center-Left Parties Yes No No Center-Left Political TEAM 1973-1986 Democratic Party Preference Democratic Party Preference Incumbency COPE 2002-2005 Vision Vancouver 2008-present

254

Vancouver

Unlike many other cities in Canada, the City of Vancouver has a number of autonomous civic political parties that dominate local mayoral, council, school board and park board elections. This is in sharp contrast to the way civic elections are held in other Canadian cities. In most other Canadian cities, candidates run as unaligned independents. Vancouver’s municipal political parties include the center-right Non-Partisan Alliance (NPA), the centrist, populist party known as The Electors Action Movement (TEAM), the social democratic Coalition of

Progressive Electors (COPE), the center-left Vision Vancouver (VV) party, and two new civic party upstarts that plan on running in the 2014 municipal elections: The Cedar Party and

Vancouver First. Before discussing Vancouver’s civic political parties, it is important to provide some background information on the rise and fall of the national, provincial and municipal level socialist party known as the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) in order to inform the reader about the larger political context which facilitated the development of local civic political parties in Vancouver.

Canada’s first socialist political party, the CCF, was founded on July 31st, 1932 in a

Calgary, Alberta legion hall by a coalition of political activists, academics, labor unions and socialist organizations. At this time, the effects of the Great Depression were strongly felt by farmers and other workers in Canada’s western and central provinces. The CCF’s first leader,

James Shaver Woodsworth, framed the widespread poverty and unemployment as a structural, rather than personal, issue, which resonated with the early members of the CCF. Motivated by this realization, early CCF members met in Regina, Saskatchewan in 1933 to collectively develop the party’s platform. The group voted and decided that the key tenets of the CCF’s platform would be universal pension, health and welfare insurance, unemployment insurance, a

255 minimum wage, wage security for farmers and the development of a socialist economic system through democratic elections rather than through revolution. This platform, which was a dramatic departure from the previously existing system of free-market capitalism, would later be known as the Regina Manifesto (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Canada: A People’s

History Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, 2001).

At the provincial and municipal levels, the CCF was able to gain a foothold in both

British Columbia and Vancouver. In the 1933 provincial election in British Columbia, the CCF received enough of the vote to become the official opposition party in the provincial government.

Much of the electoral support for the CCF at the provincial level came from urban areas throughout British Columbia, with perhaps the strongest support coming from Vancouver’s working class eastside neighborhoods. Subsequently, two provincial CCF party members won seats in East Vancouver wards, thus signaling the era of CCF’s foray into municipal politics. The consolidation of a municipal socialist party that had already enjoyed electoral victories at the provincial level horrified local politicians and news outlets.

Gerry McGreer, the mayor of Vancouver from 1935-1936, was famously quoted as saying “if you elect those people, they’ll take away your home, they’ll take away your car, and burn down your churches. Furthermore, they’ll nationalize your women” (Canadian

Broadcasting Corporation, Canada: A People’s History, Co-operative Commonwealth

Federation, 2001). Similarly, Vancouver’s largest daily newspaper, the Vancouver Sun, warned

Vancouver residents of the dangers of a municipal socialist political party in City Hall. In the

1936 municipal election, 3 of the 8 aldermen elected to City Council were members of the CCF and 24% of Vancouver’s electorate voted for the CCF. In response to the CCF’s growing popularity in Vancouver, British Columbia’s labor newspaper, the Federationist, issued the

256 following statement: “It (the CCF) has broken the stranglehold of individual capitalistic endeavors…It has consolidated the CCF movement in Vancouver….This victory if not audible in Montreal, will be distinctly heard in Victoria (British Columbia’s provincial capital)”

(Federationist, December 10 & 17, 1936; Smith 1982:57). In preparation for the 1937 provincial elections, the CCF’s leadership revised the party’s platform to reflect a strengthened commitment to “doctrinaire” socialism. That year, the CCF captured 28.3% of the popular vote, most of which was drawn from its Vancouver power base (Tennant 1980; Smith 1982).

The CCF also enjoyed electoral success at the federal level and at the provincial level in other provinces besides British Columbia. In the 1935 federal elections, the CCF won the largest share of British Columbia’s popular vote at 33.2%. Five CCF members were elected to

Parliament. One of these members, Tommy Douglas, later became the first CCF premier of a

Canadian province when he was elected as premier of Saskatchewan in 1944. Tommy Douglas’ victory in the 1944 provincial election effectively allowed the CCF to form the first social- democratic government in North America in the prairie province of Saskatchewan. Soon after his election, CCF premier Tommy Douglas introduced universal healthcare to Saskatchewan, a policy that was later adopted at the federal level by Lester B. Pearson, Canada’s Liberal Prime

Minister from 1963 to 1968. Universal health care and several other social policies that still exist in Canada to this day are part of the CCF’s legacy in Canada. In 1961, the CCF merged with the

Canadian Labour Congress to become the New Democratic Party (NDP), which is still in existence today as Canada’s only federal and provincial social democratic political party

(Tennant 1980; Smith 1982; Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Canada: A People’s History,

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, 2001; New Democratic Party History 2013).

257

The CCF’s federal, provincial and municipal electoral successes fueled an anti-CCF offensive in Vancouver. On November 3, 1937 a group of eight prominent business leaders and professionals met in downtown Vancouver in order to discuss the City’s political future. As a result of that meeting, the Non-Partisan Association, or NPA, was born. From the beginning, the

NPA sought to eliminate partisan politics in Vancouver. However, far from being non-partisan, as the name of the organization would suggest, the NPA was comprised of a coalition of anti-

CCF provincial Conservatives and Liberals who thought that the best way to combat their socialist CCF opponents was to form an alliance at the local level (Smith 1982:59). The employment background and political ties of the NPA’s founding members is a testament to both the partisan nature and the provincial origins of the NPA. The group of founding members included a newspaper publisher, a successful lawyer, a senior officer at the Canadian Bank of

Commerce, a provincial manager of Crown Life Insurance, a president of a shipyard company with extensive provincial holdings, the owner of the Pemberton Realty Company and an influential grain broker (Smith 1982:60).

The NPA’s effort to win electoral support and undermine the burgeoning CCF was almost immediately successful. In 1937, the same year that the NPA was founded, no CCF aldermen were able to gain office in Vancouver. By 1940, the NPA had successfully dominated

City Council, even gaining substantial support in Vancouver’s eastside, which was once a stronghold of CCF support. Much of the NPA’s success was due to substantial amounts of contributions from supporters within the local business community, sophisticated organizational skills, access to Conservative and Liberal voters’ lists, assistance of experience provincial

Conservative and Liberal party organizers, and campaign opportunities for NPA candidates at

258 provincial association meetings (Smith 1982:62). Eventually, the CCF withdrew from municipal politics and focused on federal and provincial politics.

From the 1940s until the late 1960s, the NPA dominated civic politics in Vancouver. Of the nine mayors that were in office between the years 1941 and 1972 (Jack Cornett, Gerry

McGeer, Charles Jones, George Miller, Charles Thompson, Frederick Hume, A. Thomas

Alsbury, William Rathie, and Tom Campbell) seven were members of the NPA when they took office, one was an independent who later joined the NPA and one remained independent but had strong affiliations with the NPA. During this period, the NPA focused on promoting commercial growth and development. One of the most controversial projects supported by the NPA near the end of this time period was the construction of a freeway which would have cut directly into the heart of downtown. In 1967, the NPA dominated City Council attempted to move forward with the construction of the downtown freeway. In November of that year, a public hearing on the construction of the freeway became unruly when over 800 public attendees, more than half of which were professors and students at the University of British Columbia (UBC), filled City Hall in order to voice their opposition to the project. Soon after, local media outlets started to cover the story, referring to it as the “great freeway debate.” More local area residents started to voice their demands for greater citizen participation in civic policy making and within weeks a number of anti-NPA groups started organizing (Smith 1982:62; Tennant 1980:7,9,10,14).

By January 1968 some of the anti-NPA groups were recruiting members and by March of that same year one of the larger and more organized groups formed a civic political party called

The Electors Action Movement, or TEAM, and elected Art Phillips as interim president. From the beginning, TEAM was oriented towards reform, civic participation in decision-making processes, and inclusivity. TEAM’s commitment to inclusivity is evidenced by the diversity of

259 its original membership. Former TEAM City Council and Park Board member May Brown stated that “the basis of TEAM was to be as inclusive as possible….We had members from

COPE, NDP, the Liberals, the Conservatives” (The Paradise Makers Series 2008).

Representatives from TEAM contested the 1968 municipal elections and two aldermen, four school board trustees and one park commissioner were elected.

From 1968 to 1972, TEAM was actively involved in opposing destructive urban renewal and development attempts in poor Vancouver neighborhoods which solidified TEAM’s image as a community focused civic political party. The 1973 municipal elections brought TEAM to power with Art Phillips being elected mayor and 8 out of the 10 alderman seats, 8 out of the 9

School Board seats and 4 out of the 7 Park Board seats going to TEAM members. The new

TEAM council members were younger and more highly educated than previous NPA dominated

Councils. Of the newly elected TEAM Council members, 11 had university degrees, 8 had post- graduate degrees, 4 were university professors and all of them were an average of a decade younger than the previous Council members. Between 1973 and 1986, three TEAM members were elected mayor (Art Phillips 1973-1976, Jack Volrich 1977-1980, and Michael Harcourt

1980-1986). Together, these three mayors and their allies in civic government stopped downtown freeway development, instituted local area planning initiatives, outlawed large advertising billboards, fought for rapid transit, acquired more parkland and supported the construction of more social housing in Vancouver (City of Vancouver Archives The Electors’ Action

Movement 2013; The Paradise Makers Series 2008; Tennant 1980:15, 18, 19).

The Coalition of Progressive Electors (COPE) represents the more left-wing factions of the anti-NPA groups that formed in the late 1960s. COPE was formed in 1968 as a “coalition of the Vancouver and District Labour Council, housing activists, and residents concerned with the

260 municipal government’s inaction on important issues for working people” (Coalition of

Progressive Electors 2013). From the beginning, COPE has fought for affordable housing, lower transit fares, affordable daycare, environmental protection, unionized jobs, women’s liberation,

LGBTQ movements, indigenous rights and racial justice. Some of the goals supported by COPE, such as affordable housing, reduced transit fares and affordable daycare, are framed by COPE as contributing to the social sustainability of the City of Vancouver (Coalition of Progressive

Electors 2013). Policies and candidates supported by COPE are all voted on by party members and a high degree of cooperation and collective decision-making is pursued at all levels.

Unlike TEAM, COPE did not enjoy much electoral success. The first three decades of

COPE’s existence is characterized by attempts of varying success to form alliances with other civic political parties. In 2002, former Royal Canadian Mounted Police member and Chief

Coroner for British Columbia, Larry Campbell, was elected as Vancouver’s first COPE affiliated mayor. While in office, Campbell supported a number of innovative initiatives in Vancouver’s impoverished Downtown Eastside neighborhood. His initiatives centered on the Four Pillars

Drug strategy, which is based on the following principles: harm reduction, prevention, treatment, enforcement. Most notably, in 2003, Campbell championed the opening of Insite, North

America’s first and only supervised injection clinic (Campbell 2006; City of Vancouver Four

Pillars Drug Strategy 2012). Even though COPE was able to gain control of City Council in the

2002 civic election, its dominance in civic politics was short lived. Divisions between the more moderate forces and the more leftist forces within COPE splintered the party and eventually led to the formation of the more moderate, yet left of center political party Vision Vancouver, which would come to dominate politics in the City of Vancouver in the post-COPE period.

261

In December of 2004, after a period of infighting between the mayor and more left-wing members of the City Council, a new caucus was formed within the Council. The new caucus was comprised of more moderate COPE members such as the mayor along with likeminded councilors Jim Green, Raymond Louie and Tim Stevenson. Local media outlets referred to the new moderate caucus as “COPE Light,” to differentiate them from the more leftist “COPE

Classic” City Council members. While the COPE Classic councilors were supported by the majority of COPE’s membership, COPE Light councilors comprised the majority on the City

Council. This separate caucus eventually became the new, more moderate yet still center-left civic party Vision Vancouver. After Vision Vancouver was formed, in 2005, party members quickly worked with COPE to sign a “non-competition” pact to avoid vote splitting between the two parties. This decision, however, led to both parties losing the 2005 civic elections to the better funded and more organized NPA party, who nominated Sam Sullivan as the mayor of

Vancouver in 2005. COPE retained one seat on City Council while Vision Vancouver had a moderately more successful electoral victory, gaining 4 seats on City Council and becoming the official second party in City Council after the center-right NPA.

In 2008, Vision Vancouver swept the civic election winning 4 more seats on City Council to bring the total to 8 and electing Gregor Robertson as mayor of the City. COPE won an additional seat on City Council to bring the total of seats to 2. While Vision Vancouver’s campaign leading up to the civic election of 2008 was based on center-left rhetoric such as eradicating homelessness, building more social housing, and increasing civic participation in the decision-making process, COPE members and other left of center groups and organizations soon began criticizing the party for its inaction on social issues and its pandering to private developers

(Palecek 2011; Bula 2013).

262

In the 2011 civic elections, Vision Vancouver maintained its dominance of City Hall and

COPE lost both of its seats on City Council and maintained only one of its seats on the School

Board. Some political commentators have noted that Vision Vancouver’s second electoral victory in a row is a sign that Vancouver’s political climate is changing and that Vision

Vancouver has benefitted from breaking away from the traditional left-wing COPE party.

Frances Bula (2011) notes that Vision Vancouver’s moderate approach has allowed the party to draw support from a wide base of Vancouver’s residents including voters under the age of 40, members of the traditional left-wing contingent, all the major labor unions, a wide group of ethnic communities including the Filipino, Indo-Canadian and Chinese communities and members of the traditional right-wing contingent like business owners and developers. Bula

(2013) goes on to say that this phenomenon is nothing new. On the contrary, certain progressive coalitions, such as the aforementioned TEAM party, have been able to come to power on moderate platforms thus transcending the traditional right-wing (NPA) and left-wing (COPE) divide in civic political party choices. Vision Vancouver’s position in the middle of the political spectrum has even attracted members of other civic political parties. For example, Allan Wong, the lone COPE holdout on the School Board and the last elected COPE member in City Hall, subsequently joined the Vision Vancouver party in 2013 (Bula 2011; Bula 2013).

While Vision Vancouver has enjoyed two back-to-back electoral sweeps, not everyone is happy about the party’s rise to power. Siphoning off members from COPE and diminishing its influence in civic politics as well as not delivering on the promises that it has made during election campaigns has fueled opposition to the ruling party in recent years. Old parties like

TEAM and NPA have re-branded and strengthened their efforts to win seats in the upcoming

2014 civic elections. Two new civic political parties, the Cedar Party and Vancouver First, have

263 also formed in order to contest the upcoming civic elections and attempt to unseat the ruling

Vision Vancouver party.

The Cedar Party was formed by Glen Chernen, a local westside resident and investment manager, in 2012 in response to Vision Vancouver’s new housing affordability plan. According to Chernen, the rapid re-zoning of some parts of the city was carried out in an undemocratic fashion and is evidence that Vision Vancouver cares more about forming relationships with private developers than increasing citizen involvement in the decision-making process.

Chernen’s upstart party supports less development, a reversal in the current re-zoning trend, more accountability and transparency in City Hall, donation limits and campaign finance reform, even going so far as to set a $2,400 maximum annual donation for their own party. The party also supports the controversial idea of building less bike lanes in Vancouver (Cooper 2013; Lee

2013; Pablo 2013a).

Another new civic political party, Vancouver First, has also formed to oppose Vision

Vancouver’s control of City Hall. Vancouver First was founded by Jesse Johl, president of the

Riley Park Hillcrest Community Association, in 2013 and describes itself as a grassroots centrist to center-right political party that is a coalition of Conservatives and Liberals. Johl is part of a coalition comprised of six different community associations that are currently in the process of suing City Hall over the management of resources allocated to community centers. In an interview with local newspaper, The Georgia Straight, Johl stated that: “Vancouver First’s philosophy is simple….We’re about getting back to the core principles and reasons of civic government: schools, police, fire, parks, community centers, streets, sewers, the basic inner workings and functions of a city. We’re not here to save the world. We’re just here to save the city” (Pablo 2013b). In sum, Vancouver has a strong system of autonomous civic political parties

264 at the municipal level and several of these political parties (TEAM, COPE, Vision Vancouver) are center-left in their politics.

Seattle

Unlike Vancouver, Seattle does not have a system of civic political parties. Instead,

Seattle has a system of non-partisan elections that was established in the 1910 city charter

(Seattle Times 2001). While this makes it more difficult to formally identify the incumbency of any particular political party in local government, it is clear that Seattle’s political environment is, and has been for quite some time, decidedly left of center. Interestingly, because Seattle and its surrounding metro area is the largest in the state of Washington, voting patterns in this region have often times decided the fate of social policy and legislation statewide, much to the chagrin of residents east of the Cascades, who tend towards conservative values and voting patterns.

Largely because of Democratic Party preference in voting patterns and the strong support for progressive policy and legislation in the Seattle metro area, the state of Washington legalized the recreational use of marijuana and same-sex marriage in November of 2012, has voted for a

Democratic presidential candidate in every presidential election since 1988 and has elected a

Democratic governor for more than the past three decades.

The newly elected Governor of Washington, Jay Inslee, who took office in January 2013, carried only 8 out of 39 counties in the State of Washington. All 8 of those counties were within

100 miles of Seattle. The last Mayor of Seattle, Michael McGinn, who was in office from 2010 to 2013, famously shifted far to the left in his run for re-election at the end of 2013 when he attacked Whole Foods for not allowing their workers to unionize and criticized their comparatively low wages. He subsequently called for the City to review their payrolls, which

265 won him support from Washington’s largest private sector labor union, United Food and

Commercial Workers, and one of the largest local unions, the Boeing Machinists. Even though he lost the most recent municipal election to his opponent Ed Murray, his pro-labor stance is nothing new in Seattle. Ed Murray, the newly elected Democratic Mayor of Seattle, is openly gay, was a strong supporter of the same sex marriage initiative, supports raising the minimum wage for all City workers to $15, is pioneering a universal preschool program for the City of

Seattle and is committed to making improvements to the City’s public transportation network

(Webley 2013; Westneat 2013; Ed Murray for Mayor 2013; Lavender 2014; Seattle Times

Editorial 2014).

Seattle also made history in 2013 when Kshama Sawant, a member of the national

Socialist Alternative party, was elected to City Council, effectively unseating 16 year incumbent

Richard Conlin and becoming the first socialist elected to public office in Seattle in over 100 years. Sawant, like newly elected Mayor of Seattle Ed Murray, is a supporter of raising the minimum wage for all City workers in Seattle to $15 per hour. Councilor Sawant also supports imposing a millionaire’s tax to fund mass transit and education, unionizing workers at large

Seattle area private sector employers like Amazon and Starbuck’s, ending corporate welfare, organizing to boycott the use of coal derived energy in Seattle, dramatically expanding public transit and bicycling infrastructure, imposing a system of rent control in order to ensure a supply of affordable housing, fighting police brutality, passing legislation to label all genetically modified food products, implementing publicly financed elections and granting full citizenship rights to undocumented immigrants in Seattle among other issues (Vote Sawant 2013). Sawant, a former community college economics professor and software engineer, made the following statements when she was sworn into City Council in 2014: “I will do my utmost to represent the

266 disenfranchised and the excluded, the poor and the oppressed….I wear the badge of socialist with honor” (Rawlings 2014). In sum, Seattle has a system of non-partisan elections which makes it difficult to determine the strength of center-left political parties in the city. However,

Seattle, and the Seattle metro area, has a history of support for center-left politics.

Portland

Like Seattle, the City of Portland does not have civic political parties but instead has a system of non-partisan municipal elections. Also like Seattle, Portland has a long history of progressive politics. Since the early 1970s the vast majority of elected mayors have been members of the Democratic Party. Of the mayors who were not, only one, Connie McCready, was a registered Republican and she was appointed, rather than elected, when her predecessor

Neil Goldschmidt resigned as Mayor in order to take the office of United States Secretary of

Transportation under Jimmy Carter’s administration. Since McCready left office in 1981 every

Mayor of Portland has been either a Democrat or a left-leaning Independent. In recent presidential elections, Multnomah County in general, and the City of Portland in particular, has overwhelmingly favored the Democratic Party, although there are slight voting differences in different cities within the county and different quadrants within the city boundaries.

At the county level, in 2012, Multnomah County gave Barack Obama 265,938 votes, which accounted for 75.8% of all votes. By contrast, Obama’s Republican competitor, Mitt

Romney, only received 73,306 votes, or 20.9% of all votes. At the city level, Inner Southeast

Portland, which has the largest population of any quadrant within the city with approximately

145, 000 residents, gave Barack Obama 85.77% of the two party vote in 2008 and 86.76% of the two party vote in 2012. The Inner Northeast, which has the second largest population of any

267 quadrant in Portland with around 120,000 residents, gave Barack Obama 88.45% of the vote in

2008 and 88.16% of the vote in 2012. The third largest quadrant in Portland is the Outer

Southeast, with approximately 85,000 to 90,000 residents. This quadrant still has a Democratic majority, albeit a less overwhelming one than the previously mentioned quadrants, with Barack

Obama getting 66.91% of the vote in 2008 and 66.53% of the vote in 2012. Southwest Portland gave Barack Obama 82.45% of the vote in 2008 and 80.35% of the vote in 2012. North Portland, home to around 67,000 residents, has historically been home to Portland’s largest African

American community before widespread gentrification in recent decades pushed area residents further into the Northeast and Outer Northeast neighborhoods. This area gave Barack Obama

86.77% of the vote in 2008 and 89.17% of the vote in 2012.The Outer Northeast, home to about

43,000 residents, gave Barack Obama 66.01% of the vote in 2008 and 67.77% of the vote in

2012. Northwest Portland, with the smallest population in the City at about 30,000 to 32,000 estimated residents, gave Barack Obama 86.22% of the vote in 2008 and 81.77% of the vote in

2012 (Allen 2013; Politico 2012).

At the state level, Oregon has a more mixed voting history of electing both Republican and Democratic governors. Since 1987, Oregon has elected four Democratic governors in a row:

Neil Goldschmidt (1987-1991), Barbara Roberts (1991-1995), Ted Kulongoski (2003-2011), and most recently, John Kitzhaber, M.D. (from 2011 to the present). Interestingly, however, some of the most progressive governors in Oregon’s history have been Republicans. Perhaps the most notably progressive Republican governor of Oregon in semi-recent history is Thomas Lawson

McCall, who was governor from 1967 to 1975. One of McCall’s first actions as governor was to become the Chairman of the State Sanitary Authority in order to clean up the Willamette River.

McCall also created the State Office of Energy Research and Planning with the purpose of

268 finding renewable sources of energy in Oregon and instituting measures to conserve energy.

Additionally, Portland’s Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), which was developed in 1977 by the

Columbia Region Association of Governments in order to preserve neighboring farmland from the encroachment of urban sprawl and to promote smart growth and efficient land use, was made possible because of statewide legislation that was championed by McCall (Metro, Urban Growth

Boundary, 2013; National Governors Association, Oregon Governor Thomas Lawson McCall,

2013). Oregon’s system of land-use regulation was enacted by Senate Bill 100 which was supported by McCall and a coalition of progressive interest groups. The bill, which was passed in1973, created the state Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) and the

Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) and required cities in Oregon to develop UGBs guided by 19 distinct statewide planning goals, which included provisions to preserve high quality farmland and conserve forests and natural areas, and to submit UGB proposals to the LCDC for review and approval (The Oregon Encyclopedia 2013).

Oregon voters also have a recent history of defeating progressive ballot measures. In

2004, Oregon voters passed Ballot Measure 36, which effectively amended the Oregon

Constitution so that it defined marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman

(Oregon Votes 2013). Since the passage of Ballot Measure 36, an organization called Basic

Rights Oregon has organized a campaign to put a measure on the 2014 mid-term election ballot that will effectively overturn Measure 36 (Basic Rights Oregon 2013). More recently, in 2012,

Oregon failed to pass a ballot measure legalizing the recreational use of marijuana in the same year that neighboring Washington both successfully legalized recreational marijuana and legalized same-sex marriages, with 53.5% of the electorate voting “no” and 46.5% of the electorate voting “yes” on the ballot measure (Politico 2013). Like Seattle, Portland has a system

269 of non-partisan elections which also makes it difficult to determine the strength of center-left political parties in the city. Portland also has a history of supporting center-left politics as well, though not to the same extent as Seattle.

Scoring and Comparing the Theories

The objective of this chapter was to determine whether institutional politics theory or power constellations theory best explains the cities’ differential levels of social sustainability determined in the previous chapter. As you may recall, Vancouver was given the highest social sustainability score, while Seattle came in second and Portland came in third. In order to identify which theory is a better explanatory tool, I selected three theoretical propositions from each theory and modified them to make them appropriate for an analysis of policy in an urban context.

In Tables 25 and 26, I assign each city a numerical score in order to identify the level of support that each city shows for my selected theories. Table 25 illustrates level of support for institutional politics theory while Table 26 shows level of support for power constellations theory.

The scoring system is as follows: 1 indicates that the city in question performed the best of the three cities in regard to the criteria, .75 indicates that the city performed the second best, and .5 indicates that the city performed the third best. The highest score for each theoretical test is three, which would indicate the highest possible level of support for the theory. For Table 25, I have utilized an inverse scoring method with the highest possible score (1) indicating the lowest relative level of metropolitan fragmentation. The remaining two criteria from Table 25

(bureaucratic/governmental capacity, and citizen participation) are not scored with an inverse scoring method. For instance, the highest possible score in both of these criteria (1) indicates the

270 highest relative level of bureaucratic/governmental capacity and the highest relative level of citizen participation, respectively. All of the criteria in Table 26 utilize a standard, rather than inverse, scoring method.

Table 25. Support for Institutional Politics Theory Institutional Politics Theory Vancouver Seattle Portland Metropolitan Fragmentation .75 .5 1 Bureaucratic/Governmental .5 1 .75 Capacity Citizen Participation 1 1 1

Total Theory Support Score 2.25 2.5 2.75

Table 26. Support for Power Constellations Theory Power Constellations Theory Vancouver Seattle Portland Strength of Organized Labor 1 .75 .5

Women’s Labor Force .5 1 .75 Participation Strength of Center-Left 1 .75 .5 Political Parties Total Theory Support Score 2.5 2.5 1.75

According to the test of modified theoretical propositions from institutional politics theory (see Table 25), the results indicate that all three cities score similarly on all three propositions with slight advantages for Portland in metropolitan fragmentation, Seattle in governmental/bureaucratic capacity and equally high performance in citizen participation for all three cities. Determining whether Vancouver or Portland had lower levels of metropolitan fragmentation was difficult, but it was clear that both cities performed better than Seattle in this respect because while both Vancouver and Portland have true regional governments that offer services (such as utilities and waste disposal) to local residents and municipalities, Seattle has a regional council that only provides planning and consultation services to local municipalities. I

271 identified Portland as having the most comprehensive regional government and the lowest level of metropolitan fragmentation because the regional government is elected, rather than appointed, and because Portland’s regional government offers a wide variety of services.

I identified Seattle as the sample city with the highest level of governmental or bureaucratic support because its proposed municipal budget ($4.4 billion) for 2014 was much larger than either Vancouver’s (roughly $1.5 billion when operating budget and capital budget are combined) or Portland’s ($2.65 billion). It should be noted, however, that the operating budget for Vancouver’s regional government ($647 million) was larger than Seattle’s ($29 million) or Portland’s ($491 million). However, even when Vancouver’s regional government budget is combined with Vancouver’s municipal budget Seattle’s municipal budget alone is still larger. All three cities had similar budgetary priorities which prevented that indicator from having a strong effect on the outcome of that theoretical proposition test.

Finally, I identified all three sample cities as having a strong emphasis on citizen participation due to a similar presence of programs designed to foster public involvement in the decision-making process. Taken together, however, Portland was awarded with the highest level of support for institutional politics theory with a score of 2.75, while Seattle came in second with

2.5 and Vancouver came in third with 2.25.

According to the test of theoretical propositions from power constellations theory (see

Table 26), the results indicate that Vancouver has a strong advantage over the other two sample cities in strength of organized labor and strength of center-left political parties while Seattle has a very slight advantage over Vancouver and Portland in women’s labor force participation. I determined that Vancouver had an advantage over Seattle and Portland in strength of organized

272 labor due to a higher rate of union membership (29%) than Seattle (17%) and Portland (15%) and a stronger network of corporatist organizations at the provincial and regional level.

I identified Seattle as having a slight edge over Vancouver and Portland in terms of women’s labor force participation. Seattle had 73% women’s labor force participation while

Vancouver had 62% and Portland had 69%. All three cities had similar unemployment rates for women (Vancouver 7%, Seattle 7%, Portland 8%). Even though it was not included as an indicator in this proposition test, it should be noted that Vancouver’s higher unionization rate can potentially have positive effects for working women in the Vancouver region. Research indicates that unionized women in the Vancouver region make almost $15,000 more per year than their non-unionized counterparts and have higher levels of access to pensions and supplementary medical plans. Other factors that were not included in this proposition test, like percentage of women that are retired, could potentially explain the differences in women’s labor force participation as well.

Finally, I determined that Vancouver had the clear advantage in strength of center-left political parties due to a civic election system characterized by autonomous civic political parties, the presence of viable center-left and social democratic political parties that have enjoyed electoral success and a strong history of center-left and social democratic political incumbency.

Overall, Vancouver and Seattle tied in their level of support for power constellations theory with

2.5 points while Portland was awarded a score of 1.75.

Now that I have established my cities’ relative levels of support for each theory, I will determine which theory better explains differences in social sustainability in my sample cities.

Because Vancouver was ranked first, Seattle second, and Portland third with regard to social sustainability, if institutional politics theory was the best explanation for the difference, one

273 would expect the “total theory support score” row in Table 25 to reflect this ordering. In contrast, the opposite pattern arose. That is, in ranking the cities with regard to the criteria of institutional politics theory, Portland was given the highest score (2.75), Seattle was given the second highest

(2.5), and Vancouver was given the third highest (2.25). Thus institutional politics theory does not seem to a very good explanation of the differential degrees of social sustainability.

Power constellations theory seems on the surface to be a stronger, but not perfect, explanation of differential social sustainability. As Table 26 shows, in ranking the cities with regard to the criteria of power constellations theory, Vancouver and Seattle tied for the highest score (2.5), while Portland came in third with the lowest score (1.75). Thus, compared to institutional politics theory, power constellations theory appears to better explain the difference between the cities ranked first (Vancouver) and third (Portland) in social sustainability, and the difference between the cities ranked second (Seattle) and third (Portland) in social sustainability.

Power constellations theory would have stronger support if the city with the highest degree of social sustainability—Vancouver—would also have a higher (instead of tied) total theory support score than Seattle. Let me look more deeply into these patterns.

Vancouver scored higher than either Seattle or Portland in two theoretical propositions of power constellations theory: strength of organized labor and strength of center-left political parties. Vancouver was ranked third, however, in the power constellations theory’s proposition about women’s labor force participation. If women’s labor force participation were taken out of the equation, power constellations theory would more clearly explain differential social sustainability. More specifically, in terms of the total theory support score for power constellations, this would give Vancouver the highest score (2.0), Seattle the second highest

(1.5), and Portland the third highest (1.0). Such a ranking corresponds perfectly with the ranking

274 of the cities with regard to social sustainability. It is worth noting that if any one of the criteria for institutional politics theory were excluded from the analysis, this would still not have resulted in Vancouver being given the highest theory support score. This further reinforces the fact that power constellations theory seems to best explain differential social sustainability differences.

Because political party incumbency is generally acknowledged within power constellations theory research as being the most important determinant of social policy development, let me explore this aspect of the theory in more detail. More specifically, I will analyze the effect that strength of center-left political parties has on the high level of social sustainability policy development in the aforementioned four policy areas from the previous analysis chapter (transportation, leisure and recreation, social cohesion, and identity and sense of place). This is summarized below in Table 27, where I list the four policy areas in which

Vancouver had the highest social sustainability scores from Chapter 5 (transportation, leisure and recreation, social cohesion, and identity and sense of place) and the contributions that specific center-left political parties in Vancouver have made to these policy areas.

Table 27. Contributions of Center-Left Political Parties in Vancouver to Social Sustainability Policy Center-left political Transportation Leisure and Social Cohesion Identity and Sense parties in Recreation of Place Vancouver TEAM Helped to prevent Parkland acquisition Development of social Developed local area freeway construction in housing facilities planning initiatives and downtown and other forms of supported development community planning of rapid transit system (SkyTrain) COPE Affordable transit Environmental Four Pillars approach to N/A options protection drug policy, Insite (supervised injection clinic), LGBTQ rights, women’s rights, daycare facilities Vision Vancouver Improved pedestrian Improved funding for Housing affordability, N/A and cycling park infrastructure homeless shelters and infrastructure, launched development resources, expanded the VIVA Vancouver Four Pillars approach to program, drug policy

275

In Vancouver, The Electors’ Action Movement, or TEAM, dominated civic politics between 1973 and 1986 and helped stop the development of a downtown freeway, developed local area planning initiatives, outlawed advertising on billboards, supported the development of rapid transit, acquired more parkland, and constructed more social housing. Vancouver’s social democratic party, COPE, has consistently fought for affordable housing, transit, and daycare, union jobs, women’s rights, LGBTQ rights, environmental protection, and other progressive issues. During COPE’s incumbency in City government, from 2002 to 2005, a number of important policies were introduced, the most notable of which is the Four Pillars Drug Strategy which facilitated the opening of North America’s first and only supervised injection site, Insite.

Finally, Vision Vancouver, which has been the dominant party since 2008, has focused on housing affordability, homelessness, improved pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure, walkability

(the VIVA Vancouver program), funding for parks infrastructure, and extending the Four Pillars

Drug Strategy.

Overall, policies and programs championed by Vancouver’s center-left and social democratic civic political parties have contributed greatly to Vancouver’s higher level of social sustainability. Of the six policy areas that were included in my social sustainability assessment framework, Vancouver scored higher than Seattle and Portland in transportation, leisure and recreation, social cohesion, and identity and sense of place. High levels of performance in all of these policy areas can be directly linked to policies that were originally created by center-left or social democratic civic political parties like TEAM and COPE. In contrast, the percentage of women in the workforce in and of itself does not seem to have a direct impact on developing social sustainability policies.

276

Vancouver also had stronger labor unions than the other cities, which may help explain the aforementioned findings. Although labor unions in Vancouver did not often overtly champion these measures of social sustainability (except women’s rights as workers), they did lend support to the center-left political parties who successfully created them. In some cases, they were part of the coalitions that helped to form the parties themselves. This is especially true with the formation of TEAM and COPE in the late 1960s. The strength of labor unions in

Vancouver may have also contributed women’s ability to opt out, at least temporarily, from paid employment—which might explain how that proposition from power constellations theory (% of women in workforce) seems less important in fostering social sustainability. This suggests that it may very well be the strength of organization labor in combination with center-left and social democratic parties that best explains the development of social sustainability policy at the city level.

Conclusion

In sum, this analysis indicates that power constellations theory provides a better explanation for the cities’ differential levels of social sustainability. Of the three theoretical propositions that I chose to test from power constellations theory in this analysis chapter, it seems that strength of center-left political parties had the strongest and most direct effect on social sustainability. Vancouver’s history of autonomous civic political parties and center-left political party incumbency is directly responsible for the development of policies and programs that resulted in higher levels of social sustainability in four of the six policy areas (transportation, leisure and recreation, social cohesion, identity and sense of place) in my SSAF. Thus, much like the findings of research guided by power constellations theory (Huber and Stephens 2001; Huber

277 et al. 2004; Huber et al. 2005), I also argue that political party incumbency in general, and strength of center-left political parties in particular, is the most important determinant of social policy development. Labor unions, however, may have an indirect effect in terms of their support for those parties.

This analysis chapter contributes to the existing body of literature on sociological theories of social policy development in two important ways. First, while most research guided by institutional politics theory and power constellations theory focuses on large units of analysis like the nation or state, I focus on the urban region. This sheds light on how factors such as fragmentation of political authority and institutions, governmental or bureaucratic capacity, citizen participation, strength of organized labor, women’s labor force participation, and strength of center-left political parties effects the development of social sustainability policy in cities and urban regions. Second, this analysis links bodies of research on sociological explanations of social policy development and urban social sustainability. This increases our knowledge on the connection between these two interrelated, but seldom explored, topics. In the next chapter, I discuss these contributions in more detail, discuss limitations of this research project, and explore areas of future research.

278

CHAPTER 7

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

In this chapter, I summarize the findings and contributions of my dissertation and discuss limitations and future avenues of research. Because each of my analysis chapters are analytically distinct and have unique findings and contributions, I will organize this chapter into two sections that focus on the findings and contributions of each analysis chapter (Chapter 5 and Chapter 6).

In each section I will highlight the findings of the analysis, focusing on how I assessed the relative social sustainability of my sample cities and emphasizing how I determined whether institutional politics theory or power constellations theory best explained cities’ differences in social sustainability. I will then illustrate the ways that these analysis chapters contribute to the existing bodies of literature on social sustainability and sociological explanations of social policy development. Subsequently, I will discuss the limitations of my dissertation and suggest future avenues of research based on my topic of interest. Finally, I conclude with a discussion of why social sustainability is an important topic of research and how cities can foster social sustainability.

Assessment of Social Sustainability

In Chapter 5, I assessed the relative social sustainability of Vancouver, Seattle, and

Portland. To do this, I applied a social sustainability assessment framework to my sample cities. I developed this framework by reviewing existing literature on the conceptualization and assessment of social sustainability and identifying recurrent themes from the body of literature.

Based on my review of the literature, I selected six policy areas (housing, transportation, food,

279 leisure and recreation, social cohesion, and identity and sense of place) and a total of 30 qualitative and quantitative social sustainability criteria. For each policy area, I used the corresponding criteria to assess each city’s relative level of social sustainability and assign a social sustainability score. After scoring each of my cities, I ranked them in relation to each other in order to establish their relative levels of social sustainability. Overall, Vancouver was awarded with the highest total social sustainability score (26.5), while Seattle came in second (23.25) and

Portland came in third (21.5).

I awarded Vancouver higher social sustainability scores than Seattle or Portland in the following policy areas: transportation, leisure and recreation, social cohesion, and identity and sense of place. When compared to Seattle and Portland, Vancouver had a more comprehensive multi-modal transportation network and an overall higher level of transit ridership. Vancouver also had a more developed leisure and recreation management system, an elected park board, a more comprehensive system of targeted leisure and recreation programs, a greater number of community centers per capita, and a larger percentage of land area devoted to parks. For social cohesion policy, Vancouver had a more developed network of targeted social cohesion programs for specific groups of residents (i.e. youth, seniors, disabled residents, homeless residents), more outreach programs, and higher median individual and household incomes than Seattle and

Portland. Finally, for identity and sense of place, all three cities had similarly developed historical preservation programs, but Vancouver had more highly developed community planning programs than Seattle or Portland.

I gave Seattle a higher social sustainability score than Vancouver or Portland in the area of food policy. While all three cities have very highly developed programs and policies related to food, Seattle has a number of innovative policies that set it apart from Vancouver and Portland.

280

All three cities have comprehensive food-based organizations and strategies and community development food projects such as community gardens and community kitchens. However,

Seattle has more community gardens overall, a program that creates community gardens in public housing complexes, and an edible food forest.

I assigned Portland a higher social sustainability score than Vancouver or Seattle in the area of housing policy. This score was primarily due to more affordable housing and higher rates of homeownership. In other criteria for this policy area, Vancouver and Seattle scored higher.

For instance, Vancouver had more highly developed subsidized and supportive housing policies and a higher level of population density than either Seattle or Portland. Seattle had a more extensive array of residential stability programs than either Vancouver or Portland. Overall, however, Portland’s greater performance in the criteria that assessed housing affordability and homeownership resulted in a higher social sustainability score for this policy area.

This analysis chapter made a number of contributions to the literature on social sustainability. First, this analysis contributes to the existing body of literature on social sustainability by utilizing a social sustainability assessment framework (SSAF) that incorporates a number of policy areas and a selection of quantitative and qualitative social sustainability criteria. By doing so, I incorporate classic “hard” social sustainability themes and newly emerging “soft” social sustainability themes (Yiftachel and Hedgcock 1993; Colantonio and

Dixon 2011). In a general sense, “hard” themes refer to themes, such as poverty and unemployment, which can be easily quantified and measured, while “soft” themes, such as social cohesion and identity and sense of place, refer to themes that are more difficult to measure and are often based on researchers’ subjective assessment.

281

Second, the policy areas that I have chosen to include in my assessment framework are more specific than the policy areas that have typically been used in previous research. For example, Polese and Stren (2000) use very general policy areas in their analysis of urban social sustainability. These policy areas include governance, social and cultural policies, social infrastructure and public services, urban land and housing, urban transport and accessibility, and employment, economic revitalization, and the building of inclusive spaces. Some of these policy areas are so broad that it is difficult to determine what types of policies they may include and how these policies are related to each other. For instance, employment, economic revitalization, and the building of inclusive spaces is one policy area in Polese and Stren’s (2000) comparative analytic framework. It is difficult, just from looking at the title of that policy area, to identify what types of policies would be analyzed and what they have to do with each other. In contrast,

I use a more specific set of policy areas (housing, transportation, food, leisure and recreation, social cohesion, and identity and sense of place).

Third, I utilize my SSAF to assess the relative social sustainability of urban policy in three cities in a cross-national context. Previous utilization of comparative analytic frameworks differs in several ways. For instance, Polese and Stren’s (2000) institutional-territorial nexus framework is used to analyze cities in relation to one or more of the aforementioned policy areas instead of being used to analyze all of the cities based on their performance in all six of the policy areas. Colantonio and Dixon’s (2011) social sustainability assessment framework has a more comprehensive and specific set of indicators and it is applied to all of the sample cities that they analyze, but its scope is limited because it is only used to look at regeneration initiatives rather than additional sustainability policies at the municipal or metropolitan level. Thus, the

282 scope of my dissertation is more comprehensive because it applies the same social sustainability criteria to all three of my sample cities and looks at a wide variety of policy areas.

Testing Theories of Policy Development

In Chapter 6, I conducted a test of theoretical propositions from institutional politics theory and power constellations theory in order to determine which theory better explains the difference in my sample cities’ social sustainability. To do this, I reviewed the literature on institutional politics theory and power constellations theory. Based on my review of the literature, I selected three theoretical propositions from each theory. For institutional politics theory, I chose theoretical propositions that dealt with the following issues: fragmentation of political authority and institutions, bureaucratic/governmental capacity, and citizen participation.

For power constellations theory, I chose theoretical propositions that dealt with the following issues: strength of organized labor, women’s labor force participation, and strength of center-left political parties. In order to successfully test each of the theoretical propositions I modified them to make them appropriate for an analysis of city-level case studies. I accomplished this by selecting municipal and metropolitan level data that could be used to assess each theoretical proposition in each of my cities. I then determined which city showed the highest level of support for each proposition.

In order to determine the relative level of support for institutional politics theory, I assessed each city’s level of metropolitan fragmentation, bureaucratic/governmental capacity, and level of citizen participation. To assess metropolitan fragmentation, I determined whether each city had a regional government, whether that regional government was elected or appointed, and which regional government provided a more comprehensive set of services. To assess

283 bureaucratic/governmental capacity, I analyzed operating budgets and budget priorities for each city and its respective regional government. Finally, in order to assess level of citizen participation, I analyzed each city’s citizen participation programs.

For each of the three criteria above, I assigned a score to each city depending on how it performed in relation to the other sample cities. The city that performed the best was given a 1, while the city that performed second best was given a .75 and the city that performed third best was given a .5. If cities showed a similar level of support, they were assigned the same score. As such, the highest possible score for this theory test was 3. Analysis of the aforementioned criteria yielded the following findings. Vancouver was given a .75 for metropolitan fragmentation, a .5 for bureaucratic/governmental capacity, and a 1 for citizen participation. Seattle was given a .5 for metropolitan fragmentation, a 1 for bureaucratic/governmental capacity, and a 1 for citizen participation. Portland was given a 1 for metropolitan fragmentation, a .75 for bureaucratic/governmental capacity, and a 1 for citizen participation. Portland was awarded the highest score in this test of theoretical support with 2.75 points, while Seattle came in second with 2.5 and Vancouver came in third with 2.25.

In order to determine the relative level of support for power constellations theory, I assessed strength of organized labor, women’s labor force participation, and strength of center- left political parties in each of my cities. To evaluate strength of organized labor, I analyzed union membership rates and identified the presence of corporatist organizations such as local and regional labor councils. To assess women’s labor force participation, I compared labor force participation and unemployment statistics in each of my cities. Finally, in order to assess strength of center-left political parties, I analyzed electoral systems, political parties, voting statistics, and ballot initiatives.

284

For each of the three criteria above, I assigned a score to each city based on how it performed in relation to the other sample cities. As with the test of institutional politics theory, the city that performed the best was given a 1, while the city that performed second best was given a .75 and the city that performed third best was given a .5. If cities showed a similar level of support, they were assigned the same score. Thus, the highest possible score for this theory test was 3. Analysis of the aforementioned criteria produced the following findings. Vancouver was given a 1for strength of organized labor, a .5 for women’s labor force participation, and a 1 for strength of center-left political parties. Seattle was given a .75 for strength of organized labor, a 1 for women’s labor force participation, and a .75 for strength of center-left political parties.

Portland was given a .5 for strength of organized labor, a .75 for women’s labor force participation, and a .5 for strength of center-left political parties. Overall, Vancouver and Seattle were awarded tying scores in this test of theoretical support with 2.5 points each, while Portland was given a 1.75.

After awarding my cities with theoretical support scores and establishing which city showed higher levels of support for each theory, I determined which theory better explained the findings of my previous analysis chapter. Because the city with the highest score for the institutional politics theory scale (Portland) was ranked lowest in social sustainability and the city with the lowest score (Vancouver) was ranked highest in social sustainability, I concluded that this theory does not fare well in explaining the cities’ differences in social sustainability. In contrast, power constellations theory better explains the difference. The city with the lowest level of social sustainability (Portland) also received the lowest score on the power constellations scale, and the most socially sustainable city (Vancouver) tied with Seattle on receiving the highest power constellations score. Vancouver, however, scored higher than Seattle or Portland

285 in two criteria of power constellations theory: strength of organized labor and strength of center- left political parties. My subsequent analysis of the role that center-left political parties have in supporting social sustainability policies makes it clear that this is a key finding. Therefore, I concluded that power constellations theory better explains the development of social sustainability at the city level than does institutional politics theory.

This analysis chapter made a number of contributions to the body of literature on sociological explanations of social policy development. First, contemporary research guided by both institutional politics theory and power constellations theory focuses on national and state level case studies (Amenta and Poulsen 1996; Amenta 1998; Amenta and Halfmann 2000; Huber and Stephens 2001; Huber et al. 2004; Huber et al. 2005). In contrast, this dissertation uses modified theoretical propositions from each theory to determine levels of theoretical support and connections between those levels of support and the development of social sustainability policy at the municipal and metropolitan level.

Second, rather than focusing on social policy development during the New Deal era in the U.S., the development of welfare states in the post WWII period, and retrenchment of social policies, like institutional politics theory and power constellations theory have done in the past, I focus on assessing the relative social sustainability of cities. Apart from being a difference in unit of analysis, this represents a departure from the types of policies that have been studied. My social sustainability assessment framework assesses the relative social sustainability of decisions made in six distinct policy areas (housing, transportation, food, leisure and recreation, social cohesion, and identity and sense of place) that have not received treatment in previous analyses guided by institutional politics theory and power constellations theory. Thus, rather than focusing on historical periods of social policy development, I focus on assessing the relative social

286 sustainability of policy and the determinants of social sustainability policy development in a contemporary setting.

Finally, this analysis joins two disparate bodies of literature in a new and unprecedented way. This application of sociological theories to the assessment of social sustainability has yielded results that speak to existing critiques within the body of research on social sustainability. For instance, some researchers critique social sustainability as being post-political in nature (Maloutas 2003; Keil 2007; Davidson 2010). I address the post-political critique of social sustainability by including a variable that assesses the strength of center-left political parties and their effect on the development of social sustainability policies at the urban level. My findings indicate that center-left political parties in Vancouver had a direct effect on the development of social sustainability policies in four policy areas (transportation, leisure and recreation, social cohesion, and identity and sense of place).

Limitations and Avenues of Future Research

In this section, I discuss limitations of my dissertation and possible avenues of future research. There were a number of methodological limitations that I encountered which shaped my analysis in different ways. A lack of objective benchmarks for many of the criteria that I was analyzing forced me to score my cities in relation to each other based on their performance in the criteria. For instance, assessing the social sustainability of transportation policy involved determining the extent of each city’s levels of multi-modality, accessibility, and ridership. While levels of multi-modality and accessibility can be established, there are not studies that indicate that a certain number of transit options or accessibility features indicate social sustainability.

287

Instead, studies argue that transit systems that are more multi-modal in nature and offer more accessibility are more socially sustainable.

As such, I simply analyzed both criteria (multi-modality and accessibility) in my sample cities and determined how each city performed in relation to the other sample cities. I indicated level of performance by assigning social sustainability scores for each criterion that was analyzed. The city that performed the best was given a 1, while the city that performed second best was given a .75 and the city that performed third best was given a .5. Establishing levels of ridership was more straightforward, because I could simply compare statistics related to transit ridership for different modes of transit (i.e. buses, light rail, and commuter rail). But again, there are not objective benchmarks for socially sustainable levels of ridership. Studies simply argue that more ridership equals higher levels of social sustainability.

The lack of objective benchmarks for social sustainability also forced me to use a selection of qualitative and quantitative criteria to determine relative levels of social sustainability. I selected a total of 30 criteria to assess social sustainability in my six policy areas

(housing, transportation, food, leisure and recreation, social cohesion, and identity and sense of place). For the first five policy areas, I was able to use both qualitative and quantitative criteria to assess social sustainability. For the last policy area (identity and sense of place) I was unable to find quantitative criteria that could accurately assess social sustainability. As such, I used two qualitative criteria (historical preservation and community planning). Overall, I feel that combining both qualitative and quantitative criteria to assess the relative social sustainability of my cities strengthened my analysis.

Despite the limitations that I have identified above, I believe that this dissertation could be used as a departure point for future research. The case studies that I analyzed in this

288 dissertation were selected because they seem to be very similar to each other and I wanted to illustrate their differences in terms of social sustainability policy development. In a future iteration of this study, a more generalizable sample of cities from the U.S. and Canada could be selected as case studies. Because Canada has approximately one tenth of the population that the

U.S. does and because roughly 81% of Canada’s residents lived in cities in 2011 (Statistics

Canada 2011), it would make sense to select the largest cities in Canada. Because the U.S. has many more large cities than Canada, selection of cities would either have to be similar in size to the Canadian cities or similar in other ways. Another factor to consider is whether or not to include the population of each city’s respective metropolitan area.

For example, I could select Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, and

Ottawa for my Canadian case studies. If I was selecting U.S. cities based on similarity in municipal population without including metropolitan areas, I could include Chicago,

Philadelphia, Seattle, San Jose, Austin and Columbus. If I were selecting U.S. metropolitan areas that were similar in size to the metropolitan areas of the Canadian cities listed above I could include Miami, Seattle, Portland, Raleigh, Salt Lake City, and Richmond. (U.S. Census Bureau

2012; Statistics Canada 2011). More research would need to be done, however, to determine whether similarities in population are enough to justify comparing cities that could differ in so many other socioeconomic and demographic factors.

In the future, research on this topic could also include a wider array of policy areas and criteria. Other policy areas such as healthcare, education, welfare, economic development, community development, and criminal justice, to name a few, could also be included into the comparative analytic framework. Criteria to measure cities’ relative levels of social sustainability in these areas would then be chosen accordingly. However, it should be noted that if the sample

289 cities were from Canada and the U.S. the choice of policy areas would have to take into account the different relationships between different levels of government in Canada and the U.S. and the implications that this has for service provision and policy development. For instance, because of

Canada’s healthcare and education policies, these two services and the policies that guide their provision are very different than in the U.S. Canada has a much more comprehensive system of central transfers, whereby the federal and provincial governments have a much stronger role in providing certain services (like healthcare and education). The U.S., by contrast, is characterized by fiscal decentralization in these policy areas. The result is that both healthcare and education are funded in different ways and by different levels of government depending on where you are in the U.S.

A final avenue of research in this area could focus more closely on one policy area or even on one or two specific criteria of interest rather than creating a more comprehensive set of policy areas and criteria. For instance, focusing specifically on the effect that strength of organized labor and center-left political parties has on the development of social sustainability policies in cities in Canada and the U.S. could prove to be fruitful. Both of these criteria could be operationalized in a number of ways using more sophisticated methods of analysis.

Subsequently, they could be applied to a more generalizable sample of cities in both countries to determine the relative effect that these factors have on the development of social sustainability policy. This type of analysis could shed more light on the role of important structural differences

(i.e. non-partisan electoral systems vs. electoral systems with autonomous civic political parties) between Canada and the U.S. and discuss the implications that these structural differences have on social sustainability policy development at the municipal and metropolitan level.

290

Conclusion

In sum, this dissertation makes a number of contributions to the bodies of literature on social sustainability and sociological explanations of social policy development. Contributions to social sustainability literature include a synthesis of existing conceptualizations and assessment methods, and development of a social sustainability assessment framework comprised of specific policy areas and a selection of qualitative and quantitative criteria designed to assess relative levels of urban social sustainability in a cross-national context. Contributions to sociological literature on social policy development include an emphasis on different units of analysis (i.e. cities instead of countries or states), a focus on types of policies that have not received attention in research guided by institutional politics theory and power constellations theory (i.e. housing, transportation, food, leisure and recreation, social cohesion, identity and sense of place), and application of sociological theories to issues of social sustainability policy development.

The findings of this dissertation also have implications for decision makers in municipal and metropolitan governments as well as academics. My research indicates that a number of policy innovations in six policy areas (housing, transportation, food, leisure and recreation, social cohesion, and identity and sense of place) can contribute to urban social sustainability. Socially sustainable housing policies promote residential stability and the development of subsidized and supportive housing. Transportation policies foster social sustainability when they increase the number of transit options and accessibility features. Food policies contribute to social sustainability when they promote the development of community gardens, community kitchens, and farmers markets. Leisure and recreation policies that foster social sustainability focus on providing reduced fares for low-income residents and programs for seniors, youth, disabled residents and other groups. Social cohesion policies add to urban social sustainability by

291 providing programs for at-risk and marginalized residents and offering outreach programs to increase accessibility to existing programs and services. Finally, identity and sense of place policies support social sustainability through historical preservation initiatives and community planning efforts.

This dissertation also indicates that center-left political parties operating at the municipal level have a direct effect on the development of social sustainability policies in a number of policy areas. This effect seems to be most evident in regions with electoral systems that allow for the development of autonomous civic political parties. In systems characterized by non-partisan elections, center-left political parties, in and of themselves, seem to have less of a direct effect on the development of social sustainability policies. This may support efforts to institute different forms of electoral systems that promote the development of political parties that represent a wide range of points on the political spectrum at the municipal and metropolitan levels.

Social sustainability is important because it makes a positive impact on quality of life and because communities are both physical and social environments. In a general sense, the extent to which social sustainability considerations are taken into account when developing policy has a positive effect on quality of life for residents. If decisions made in specific policy areas are designed to provide more benefits to a diverse cross-section of individuals within a community, quality of life will be increased for more residents of that community. For instance, if policy decisions made in transportation support the development of an affordable, comprehensive, and accessible multi-modal transit system, a greater number of seniors, low-income residents, residents with disabilities, and youth will be able to enjoy high levels of mobility. This enhanced mobility will allow these residents greater access to other amenities such as employment, leisure and recreation, health care, and housing. In a community that does not have an accessible and

292 affordable transit system, mobility and access to amenities is reserved for residents who own a personal vehicle. Thus, social sustainability is increased by developing policies that benefit a greater amount of residents.

In sum, taking social sustainability into account when developing policies may allow decision makers in urban areas to meet an extended set of basic needs for all residents regardless of their race/ethnicity, age, religion, gender, socioeconomic status and/or level of ability while promoting the highest possible level of social inclusion and participation in community life.

Moreover, accomplishing this goal may be easier than it seems. By simply paying more attention to the potential ramifications that decisions may have on the social environment and taking these considerations into account before implementing changes, local decision makers can avoid increasing levels of social exclusion. Allowing community members to participate in the decision making process, whenever it is feasible to do so, may strengthen the ability of local decision makers to make changes that support all dimensions of sustainability.

293

REFERENCES

Adcock, Robert, and D. Collier. 2001. “Measurement Validity: A Shared Standard for Qualitative and Quantitative Research. American Political Science Review 95:529-46.

Allen, James. 2013. “Oregon Political Geography: Portland.” Daily Kos. Retrieved March 22, 2013 (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/28/1189845/-Oregon-Political- Geography-302-Portland).

Amenta, Edwin, and Drew Halfmann. 2000. “Wage Wars: Institutional Politics, WPA Wages, and the Struggle for U.S. Social Policy.” American Sociological Review 65:506-28.

Amenta, Edwin, and Jane Poulsen. 1996. “Social Politics in Context: The Institutional Politics Theory and State-Level U.S. Social Spending Policies at the End of the New Deal.” Social Forces 75:33-60.

Amenta, Edwin, Chris Bonastia, and Neal Caren. 2001. “U.S. Social Policy in Comparative and Historical Perspective: Concepts, Images, Arguments, and Research Strategies.” Annual Review of Sociology 27:213-234.

Amenta, Edwin, Kathleen Dunleavy, and Mary Bernstein. 1994. “Stolen Thunder? Huey Long’s Share Our Wealth, Political Mediation and the Second New Deal.” American Sociological Review 59:678-702.

Amenta, Edwin. 1998. Bold Relief: Institutional Politics and the Origins of Modern American Social Policy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Amenta, Edwin. 2003. “What We Know about the Development of Social Policy.” Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, 91-130.

Assefa, G., and B. Frostell. 2007. “Social Sustainability and Social Acceptance in Technology Assessment: A Case Study of Energy Technologies.” Technology in Society (29): 63-78.

Atkins, Steve. 2008. “Transport and Social Sustainability.” Paper presented at a seminar at Oxford University Center for the Environment (OUCE).

B.C. Association of Farmers Markets 2013. Retrieved February 15, 2013 (http://www.bcfarmersmarket.org/).

B.C. Federation of Labour 2013. Retrieved March 13, 2013 (http://bcfed.ca/).

B.C. Federation of Labour Constitution 2012. Retrieved March 13, 2013 (http://bcfed.ca/wp- content/uploads/2013/07/BCFed_Constitution.pdf).

294

B.C. Federation of Labour How Unions Make a Difference 2013. Retrieved March 13, 2013 (http://bcfed.ca/why-unions-matter/).

B.C. Laws Local Government Act 1996. Retrieved March 11, 2013 (http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/ID/freeside/96323_00).

Baehler, K. 2007. “Social Sustainability: New Zealand’s Solutions for Toqueville’s Problem.” Social Policy Journal of New Zealand 31:22-40.

Basic Rights Oregon Marriage Equality 2013. Retrieved March 21, 2013 (http://www.basicrights.org/programs/marriage-equality/).

Beacon Food Forest 2013. Retrieved February 15, 2013 (http://www.beaconfoodforest.org/).

Berg, Nate. 2012. “The Only Elected Regional Government in the U.S.” Atlantic Cities. Retrieved March 12, 2013 (http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2012/03/only- elected-regional-government-us/1371/).

Beumer, Carijn. 2010. Social Cohesion in a Sustainable Urban Neighbourhood. Paper presented at the 2nd Annual SUN Colloquium.

Bramley, Glen, and Sinead Power. 2009. “Urban Form and Social Sustainability: The Role of Density and Housing Type.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 36:30- 48.

Bramley, Glen, Nicola Dempsey, Sinead Power, Caroline Brown, and David Watkins. 2009. “Social Sustainability and Urban Form: Evidence from Five British Cities.” Environment and Planning 41:2125-2142.

Braumoeller, Bear F., and Gary Goertz. 2000. “The Methodology of Necessary Conditions.” American Journal of Political Science 44:844-58.

Brinkley, Alan. 1982. Voices of Protest: Huey Long, Father Coughlin, and the Great Depression. New York: Random House.

British Columbia Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development: Municipalities and the New Local Government Act 2000. Retrieved March 11, 2013 (http://www.cscd.gov.bc.ca/lgd/policy_research/library/lga_guide_municipal.pdf).

Bula, Frances. 2013. “Vancouver’s Political Landscape Shifting ahead of Election Season.” The Globe and Mail. Retrieved January 7, 2014 (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/vancouvers-political- landscape-shifting-ahead-of-election-season/article15835209/).

Bureau of Labor Statistics 2011. Retrieved March 21, 2013 (http://www.bls.gov/).

295

Burnham, Walter Dean. 1970. Critical Elections and the Mainsprings of American Politics. Norton.

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Co-operative Commonwealth Federation 2001. Retrieved March 21, 2013 (http://www.cbc.ca/history/EPISCONTENTSE1EP13CH3PA1LE.html).

Canadian Labour Congress The Union Advantage in Vancouver 2013. Retrieved on March 20, 2013 (http://www.canadianlabour.ca/sites/default/files/vancouver-en.pdf).

Cascadia Ecolopolis 2.0. 2006. Portland State University. Retrieved March 21, 2013 (http://www.america2050.org/pdf/cascadiaecopolis20.pdf).

Cascadian Independence Project. 2014. Retrieved January 13, 2014 (http://cascadianow.org/).

Chiu, Rebecca L.H. 2004. “Socio-Cultural Sustainability of Housing: A Conceptual Exploration.” Housing, Theory and Society 21(2):65-76.

City of Portland. About BACs 2013. Retrieved February 10, 2013 (http://www.portlandoregon.gov/cbo/article/430018).

------. Adaptive and Inclusive Recreation 2013. Retrieved February 8, 2013 (http://www.portlandoregon.gov/parks/39830).

------. Bureau of Transportation Fact Sheet 2013. Retrieved February 7, 2013 (https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/407660).

------. City Budget Office: FY 2013-2014 Adopted Budget 2012. Retrieved February 10, 2013 (http://www.portlandoregon.gov/cbo/26048).

------. Community Gardens 2013. Retrieved February 8, 2013 (http://www.portlandoregon.gov/parks/39846).

------. Diggable City. Portland Multnomah Food Policy Council Year End Report 2011. Retrieved February 8, 2013 (https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/386369).

------. Down Payment Assistance Loan 2013. Retrieved February 7, 2013 (https://www.portlandoregon.gov/phb/61007).

------. Farmers Market Listings 2013. Retrieved February 8, 2013 (http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/303417).

------. Foreclosure Prevention 2013. Retrieved February 7, 2013 (https://www.portlandoregon.gov/phb/60806).

------. Historic Resources and Preservation 2013. Retrieved February 9, 2013 (http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/39750).

296

------. Home Repair 2013. Retrieved February 7, 2013 (https://www.portlandoregon.gov/phb/61057).

------. Inclusion Services 2013. Retrieved February 8, 2013 (http://www.portlandoregon.gov/parks/51926).

------. Office of Equity and Human Rights 2013. Retrieved February 9, 2013 (http://www.portlandoregon.gov/oehr/62165).

------. Office of Equity and Human Rights: Commission on Disability 2013. Retrieved February 9, 2013 (http://www.portlandoregon.gov/oehr/62222).

------. Office of Equity and Human Rights: Equity Training and Education 2013. Retrieved February 9, 2013 (http://www.portlandoregon.gov/oehr/article/450420).

------. Office of Neighborhood Involvement 2013. Retrieved February 9, 2013 (http://www.portlandoregon.gov/oni/25967).

------. Parks and Recreation: Healthy Parks, Healthy Portland 2013. Retrieved February 8, 2013 (http://www.portlandoregon.gov/parks/35300).

------. Permanent Supportive Housing 2013. Retrieved February 7, 2013 (https://www.portlandoregon.gov/phb/61210).

------. Portland Housing Bureau 2013. Retrieved February 7, 2013 (https://www.portlandoregon.gov/phb/).

------. Portland Multnomah Food Policy Council 2013. Retrieved February 8, 2013 (https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/42290).

------. PP&R Race and Ethnicity Project 2013. Retrieved February 9, 2013 (http://www.portlandoregon.gov/parks/article/448942).

------. Senior Recreation 2013. Retrieved February 8, 2013 (http://www.portlandoregon.gov/parks/39833).

------. SUN Community Schools 2013. Retrieved February 9, 2013 (http://www.portlandoregon.gov/parks/39840).

------. The Consolidated Plan 2013. Retrieved February 10, 2013 (http://www.portlandoregon.gov/phb/51008).

City of Seattle. 2014 Proposed Budget Executive Summary 2014. Retrieved March 8, 2013 (http://www.seattle.gov/financedepartment/14adoptedbudget/documents/adoptedbudgete xecsummary.pdf).

297

------. Bicycle Data 2013. Retrieved November 7, 2013 (http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/bikedata.htm).

------. Bridging the Gap 2013. Retrieved February 10, 2013 (http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/bridgingthegap.htm).

------. Food Action Plan: Healthy Food for All 2013. Retrieved February 11, 2013 (http://www.seattle.gov/environment/food/food-action-plan).

------. Foreclosure Prevention Programs 2013. Retrieved March 8, 2013 (http://www.seattle.gov/housing/buying/ForeclosurePrevention.htm).

------. Homeownership Programs 2013. Retrieved March 8, 2013 (http://www.seattle.gov/housing/buying/default.htm).

------. Housing First 2013. Retrieved March 8, 2013 (http://www.seattle.gov/housing/homeless/housingfirst.htm).

------. Local Food Action Initiative 2008. Retrieved February 11, 2013 (http://www.seattle.gov/council/newsdetail.asp?id=8411&dept=28).

------. Multifamily Property Tax Exemption (MFTE) Program 2013. Retrieved March 8, 2013 (http://www.seattle.gov/housing/incentives/mfte.htm).

------. Outreach and Engagement 2013. Retrieved February 12, 2013 (http://www.seattle.gov/neighborhoods/engage/).

------. Parks Urban Food Systems (PUFS) 2013. Retrieved February 11, 2013 (http://www.seattle.gov/parks/pufs/default.htm).

------. P-Patch Community Gardens 2013. Retrieved February 11, 2013 (http://www.seattle.gov/neighborhoods/ppatch/).

------. Pedestrian Master Plan 2013. Retrieved February 10, 2013 (http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/pedestrian_masterplan/).

------. Pedestrian Program 2013. Retrieved February 10, 2013 (http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/pedestrian.htm).

------. People’s Academy for Community Engagement (PACE) 2013. Retrieved February 12, 2013 (http://www.seattle.gov/neighborhoods/engage/pace.htm).

------. Race and Social Justice Initiative (RSJI) 2013. Retrieved February 12, 2013 (http://www.seattle.gov/rsji/).

298

------. Seattle Bicycle Master Plan 2013. Retrieved February 10, 2013 (http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/bikemaster.htm).

------. Seattle Cycle Tracks 2013. Retrieved February 10, 2013 (http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/pbl.htm).

------. Seattle Department of Neighborhoods: Historic Preservation 2013. Retrieved February 12, 2013 (http://www.seattle.gov/neighborhoods/preservation/agendas.htm).

------. Seattle Department of Neighborhoods: Neighborhood Matching Fund 2013. Retrieved February 12, 2013 (http://www.seattle.gov/neighborhoods/nmf/).

------. Seattle Housing Levy 2013. Retrieved March 8, 2013 (http://www.seattle.gov/housing/levy/default.htm).

------. Seattle LBBT Commission 2013. Retrieved February 12, 2013 (http://www.seattle.gov/lgbt/).

------. Seattle Multi-Use Trails 2013. Retrieved February 10, 2013 (http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/urbantrails.htm).

------. Seattle Parks and Recreation 2013. Retrieved February 11, 2013 (http://www.seattle.gov/parks/).

------. Seattle Parks LGBTQ 2013. Retrieved February 11, 2013 (http://www.seattle.gov/parks/LGBTQ/default.htm).

------. Seattle Parks and Recreation: Lifelong Recreation 2013. Retrieved February 11, 2013 (http://www.seattle.gov/parks/seniors/index.htm).

------. Seattle Parks and Recreation: Specialized Programs 2013. Retrieved February 11, 2013 (http://www.seattle.gov/parks/SpecialPops/index.htm).

------. Seattle Parks Teens 2013. Retrieved February 11, 2013 (http://www.seattle.gov/parks/teens/default.htm).

------. Seattle RecTech 2013. Retrieved February 11, 2013 (http://rectech.seattle.gov/).

------. Seattle Women’s Commission 2013. Retrieved February 12, 2013 (http://www.seattle.gov/womenscommission/).

City of Vancouver. 2014 Capital and Operating Budget 2013. Retrieved January 13, 2014 (http://vancouver.ca/your-government/budgets.aspx).

------. A Social Development Plan for the City of Vancouver: Moving Towards Social Sustainability. Administrative Report. 2005b.

299

------. Adapted and Integrated Programs 2013. Retrieved February 6, 2013 (http://vancouver.ca/parks-recreation-culture/adapted-and-integrated-programs.aspx).

------. Arts and Health Project: Healthy Aging through the Arts 2013. Retrieved February 6, 2013 (http://vancouver.ca/parks-recreation-culture/arts-and-health-project.aspx).

------. Community Gardens 2013. Retrieved February 6, 2013 (http://vancouver.ca/people- programs/community-gardens.aspx).

------. Cross-Cultural Seniors Network 2013. Retrieved February 6, 2013 (http://vancouver.ca/people-programs/seniors-support-outreach-and-networking.aspx).

------. Cycling in Vancouver 2013. Retrieved February 5, 2013 (http://vancouver.ca/streets- transportation/biking-and-cyclists.aspx).

------. Diverse Communities and Multiculturalism 2012. Retrieved February 6, 2013 (http://vancouver.ca/people-programs/diversity-and-multiculturalism.aspx).

------. Definition of Social Sustainability 2005a. Retrieved March 7, 2012 (http://former.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk//20050524/documents/p1.pdf).

------. Farmers Markets 2013. Retrieved February 6, 2013 (http://vancouver.ca/people- programs/farmers-markets.aspx).

------. Food Friendly Neighbourhoods 2013. Retrieved February 6, 2013 (http://vancouver.ca/people-programs/food-friendly-neighbourhoods.aspx).

------. Four Pillars Drug Strategy 2012. Retrieved February 7, 2013 (http://vancouver.ca/people- programs/four-pillars-drug-strategy.aspx).

------. Getting Childcare in Vancouver 2012. Retrieved February 6, 2013 (http://vancouver.ca/people-programs/getting-childcare.aspx).

------. Great Beginnings: Old Streets, New Pride 2012. Retrieved February 7, 2013 (http://vancouver.ca/people-programs/great-beginnings-old-streets-new-pride.aspx).

------. Heritage Conservation 2012. Retrieved February 6, 2013 (http://vancouver.ca/home- property-development/heritage-conservation.aspx).

------. Homeless and Low-Income Support Services. 2013. Retrieved February 5, 2013 (http://vancouver.ca/people-programs/homeless-and-low-income-resources.aspx).

------. Housing and Homelessness Strategy 2012-2021. 2012. Retrieved February 5, 2013 (https://vancouver.ca/people-programs/vancouvers-housing-strategy.aspx).

300

------. Kingsway Continental non-market housing project. 2012. Retrieved February 5, 2013 (http://vancouver.ca/people-programs/kingsway-continental.aspx).

------. Leisure Access Program 2013. Retrieved February 6, 2013 (http://vancouver.ca/parks- recreation-culture/leisure-access-card.aspx).

------. LGBTQ Advisory Committee 2013. Retrieved February 6, 2013 (http://vancouver.ca/your-government/lgbtq-advisory-committee.aspx).

------. Mayor’s Engaged City Task Force 2013. Retrieved May 12, 2013 (http://vancouver.ca/your-government/engaged-city-task-force.aspx).

------. Neighbourhood Food Networks 2013. Retrieved February 6, 2013 (http://vancouver.ca/people-programs/neighbourhood-food-networks.aspx).

------. Neighbourhood Planning Projects 2013. Retrieved February 6, 2013 (http://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/heritage-conservation.aspx).

------. Parks, Recreation, and Culture 2013. Retrieved February 6, 2013 (http://vancouver.ca/parks-recreation-culture.aspx).

------. Programs at Carnegie Centre 2013. Retrieved February 6, 2013 (http://vancouver.ca/parks-recreation-culture/carnegie-centre-programs.aspx).

------. Public Consultation 2013. Retrieved May 12, 2013 (http://vancouver.ca/your- government/public-consultation.aspx).

------. Rental Standards Database. 2013. Retrieved February 5, 2013 (http://vancouver.ca/people-programs/rental-standards.aspx).

------. Seniors, Women, and Youth 2012. Retrieved February 6, 2013 (http://vancouver.ca/people-programs/seniors-women-and-youth.aspx).

------. Service Priorities Research for the 2014 Budget 2013. Retrieved January 13, 2014 (http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/Budget_2014_Priorities_Research.pdf).

------. The Electors’ Action Movement. Retrieved from City of Vancouver Archives on May 12, 2013 (http://searcharchives.vancouver.ca/electors-action-movement).

------. Transportation 2040 Plan: A Transportation Vision for the City of Vancouver 2013. Retrieved February 5, 2013 (https://vancouver.ca/streets-transportation/transportation- 2040.aspx).

------. VIVA Vancouver: Creating Vibrant Pedestrian Spaces 2013. Retrieved February 5, 2013 (http://vancouver.ca/streets-transportation/reducing-cars-on-city-streets.aspx).

301

------. Vancouver Food Charter 2007. Retrieved February 5, 2013 (http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/Van_Food_Charter.pdf).

------. Vancouver Food Strategy 2013. Retrieved February 6, 2013 (http://vancouver.ca/people- programs/vancouvers-food-strategy.aspx).

------. Vancouver Food Policy Council 2013. Retrieved February 6, 2013 (http://vancouver.ca/your-government/vancouver-food-policy-council.aspx).

Clancy, K. 1993. “Sustainable Agriculture and Domestic Hunger: Rethinking a Link Between Production and Consumption.” In Allen, P. ed., Food for the Future: Conditions and Contradictions of Sustainability. New York, NY: Wiley and Sons.

Coalition of Progressive Electors 2013. Retrieved March 20, 2013 (http://cope.bc.ca/).

Colantonio, Andrea, and Tim Dixon. 2009.Measuring Socially Sustainable Urban Regeneration in Europe. Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development (OISD). School of the Built Environment. Oxford Brookes University.

Colantonio, Andrea, and Tim Dixon. 2011. Urban Regeneration and Social Sustainability: Best Practice from European Cities. Wiley-Blackwell.

Colantonio, Andrea. 2008. Traditional and Emerging Prospects in Social Sustainability. OISD working paper number 4.

Cooper, Sam. 2013. “Leader of Vancouver’s New Cedar Party Hoping to Put a Spoke in Mayor Gregor Robertson’s Wheels.” The Province. Retrieved January 22, 2014 (http://nvcityvoices.wordpress.com/2013/10/27/leader-of-vancouvers-new-cedar-party- hoping-to-put-a-spoke-in-mayor-gregor-robertsons-wheels/).

Dahl, Robert. 1971. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven, CT and London, England: Yale University Press.

Davidson, Mark. 2009. “Social Sustainability: A Potential for Politics?” Local Environment 14:607-621.

Davidson, Mark. 2010. “Social Sustainability and the City.” Geography Compass 4(7):872-880.

Davis, B, and V. Tarasuk. 1994. “Hunger in Canada: Agriculture and Human Values.” 11(4):50- 57.

Dempsey, Nicola, Glen Bramley, Sinead Power, and Caroline Brown. 2009. “The Social Dimension of Sustainable Development: Defining Urban social Sustainability.” Sustainable Development 19:289-300.

302

Dion, D. 1998. “Evidence and Inference in the Comparative Case Study.” Comparative Politics 30:127-45.

Drakakis-Smith, David. “Third World Cities: Sustainable Urban Development 1.” Urban Studies 32 (4-5):659-677.

Duany, Andres, and E. Plater-Zyberk. 2001. Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream. San Francisco, CA: North Point Press.

Ed Murray for Mayor 2013. Retrieved January 22, 2014 (http://murray4mayor.com/).

Edwards, Andres R. The Sustainability Revolution: Portrait of a Paradigm Shift. New Society Publishing.

Employment and Social Development Canada Work-Unionization Rates 2013. Retrieved March 13, 2013 (http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/[email protected]?iid=17).

Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. What is Sustainability? Retrieved Feb 4, 2014 (http://www.epa.gov/sustainability/basicinfo.htm).

Esping-Andersen, Gosta. 1990. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton, N.J. Princeton University Press.

Frazer, E., and N. Lacey. 1993. The Politics of Community: A Feminist Critique of the Liberal- Communitarian Debate. University of Toronto Press.

Fresh Choice Kitchens 2013. Retrieved February 13, 2013 (http://www.freshchoicekitchens.ca/).

George, AL, and A. Bennett. 2005. Case Studies and Theory Development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Get Engaged Seattle 2013. Retrieved March 11, 2013 (http://www.pugetsoundoff.org/GetEngaged).

Ghahramanpouri, Amir, Hasanuddin Lamit, and Sepideh Sedaghatnia. 2013. “Urban Social Sustainability Trends in Research Literature.” Asian Social Science 9(4):185-193.

Glynn, T. 1981. “Psychological Sense of Community: Measurement and Application.” Human Relations 34:789-818.

Goldman, Todd, and Roger Gorham. 2006. “Sustainable Urban Transport: Four Innovative Directions.” Technology in Society 28:261-273.

Goodland, Robert, and Herman Daly. 1996. “Environmental Sustainability: Universal and Non- Negotiable.” Ecological Applications 1002-1017.

303

Gottman, Jean. 1964. Megalopolis: The Urbanized Northeastern Seaboard of the United States. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Greater Vancouver Food Bank Society 2013. Retrieved February 13, 2013 (https://www.foodbank.bc.ca/).

Hewitt, Christopher. 1977. “The Effect of Political Democracy and Social Democracy on Equality in Industrial Societies: A Cross-National Comparison.” American Sociological Review 42:450-64.

Hicks, Alexander, and Duane H. Swank. 1992. “Politics, Institutions, and Welfare Spending.” American Political Science Review 86:658-74.

Hicks, Alexander, and Duane Swank. 1984. “On the Political Economy of Welfare Expansion: A Comparative Analysis of Eighteen Advanced Capitalist Democracies, 1960-1971.” Comparative Political Studies 17:81-118.

Holden, Meg, and Clare Mochrie. 2006. “Counting on Vancouver: Our View of the Region.” Regional Vancouver Urban Observatory.

Holden, Meg. 2011. “Public Participation and Local Sustainability: Questioning a Common Agenda in Urban Governance.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 35(2):312-329.

Holtzman, Abraham. 1963. The Townsend Movement: A Political Study. Bookman.

Huber, Evelyne, and John D. Stephens. 2001. Development and Crisis of the Welfare State: Parties and Policies in Global Markets. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Huber, Evelyne, and John D. Stephens. 2004. “Combating Old and New Social Risks.” Paper delivered at the 14th International Conference of Europeanists, Palmer House Hilton, March 11-13.

Huber, Evelyne, Dietrich Rueschemeyer, and John D. Stephens. 1993. “The Impact of Economic Development on Democracy.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives 7(3):71-86.

Huber, Evelyne, Dietrich Rueschemeyer, and John D. Stephens. 1997. “The Paradoxes of Contemporary Democracy: Formal, Participatory, and Social Dimension.” Comparative Politics 29(3):323-342.

Huber, Evelyne, Francois Nielsen, Jenny Pribble, and John D. Stephens. 2005. “Social Spending and Inequality in Latin America and the Caribbean.” Paper prepared for delivery at the Annual Meetings of Research Committee 19 of the International Sociological Association, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, September 8-10, 2005.

304

Huber, Evelyne, John D. Stephens, David Bradley, Stephanie Moller, and Francois Nielsen. 2009. “The Politics of Women’s Economic Independence.” Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society 16(1):1-39.

Huber, Evelyne, Thomas Mustillo, and John D. Stephens. 2004. “Determinants of Social Spending in Latin America.” Paper prepared for the meetings of the Society for the Advancement of Socio-Economics, Washington D.C., July 8-11, 2004.

Jenkins, Craig J., Kevin T. Leicht, and Heather Wendt. 2006. “Class Forces, Political Institutions, and State Intervention: Subnational Economic Development Policy in the United States, 1971-1990.” American Journal of Sociology 111:1122-80.

Jolly, D. 1997. The Dialectics of Urban Agriculture in the Context of Hunger and Food Access Constraints. Paper presented at the International Conference on Sustainable Urban Food Systems, May 22-25, Ryerson University, Toronto, Ontario.

Keil, R. 2007. Sustaining Modernity, Modernizing Nature: The Environmental Crisis and the Survival of Capitalism. In: Krueger, R. and Gibbs, D. eds. The Sustainable Development Paradox: Urban Political Economics in the United States and Europe. London: Guilford Press.

King County Metro 2013. Retrieved February 12, 2013 (http://metro.kingcounty.gov/).

KOMO News: Parks invites LGBTQ teens to get social at Born This Way Kafe 2011. Retrieved February 10, 2013 (http://www.komonews.com/communities/capitolhill/197116031.html).

Korpi, Walter. 1980. “Social Policy and Distributional Conflict in the Capitalist Democracies: A Preliminary Framework.” West European Politics 3 (3):296-316.

Korpi, Walter. 1983. The Democratic Class Struggle. London: Routledge and Keagan Paul.

Kousser, JM. 1974. The Shaping of Southern Politics: Suffrage Restriction and the Establishment of the One-Party South, 1880-1910. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Lavender, Paige. 2014. “Seattle Mayor Ed Murray Pushes $15 Minimum Wage for City Workers.” Huffington Post. Retrieved January 22, 2013 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/03/15-minimum-wage_n_4538302.html).

Le Blanc, Marie-France. 2006. “Two Tales of Municipal Reorganization: Toronto’s and Montreal’s Diverging Paths Toward Regional Governance and Social Sustainability.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 39(3):571-590.

Learning Garden Laboratory 2013. Retrieved February 9, 2013 (http://www.pdx.edu/elp/learning-gardens-laboratory).

305

Lee, Jeff. 2013. “Big Fish, Little Fish: Vancouver Parties Already Running Hard for 2014 Election.” The Vancouver Sun. Retrieved January 22, 2014 (http://www.vancouversun.com/news/fish+little+fish+Vancouver+parties+already+runni ng+hard+2014+civic+election/9285897/story.html).

Litman, Todd, and Marc Brenman. 2012. “A New Social Equity Agenda for Sustainable Transportation.” Paper presented at theVictoria Transport Policy Institute’s 2012 Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting. Littig, Beate, and Erich Griessler. 2005. “Social Sustainability: A Catchword Between Political Pragmatism and Social Theory.” International Journal of Sustainable Development 8(1- 2):65-79.

Lucas, Karen. 2013. “Social Sustainability in Transport: UK R&D.” Paper presented at the Nordic Transport Forum, Linkoping, Sweden, September 1.

M.L. King County Labor Council AFL-CIO 2013. Retrieved March 14, 2013 (http://www.mlkclc.org/).

Mahoney, James, and Dietrich Rueschemeyer. 2003. Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Mahoney, James. 2004. “Comparative-Historical Methodology.” Annual Review of Sociology 30:81-101.

Mak, Michael Y., and Clinton J. Peacock. 2011. “Social Sustainability: A Comparison of Case Studies in UK, USA and Australia.” Paper delivered at the 17th Pacific Rim Real Estate Society Conference, Gold Coast, Australia, January 16-19.

Maloutas, T. 2003. “Promoting Social Sustainability.” City: Analysis of Urban Trends, Culture, Theory, Policy, Action. 7:167-181.

Marcuse, P. 1998. “Sustainability is Not Enough” Environment and Urbanization 10:103-111.

Mayhew, David R. 1986. Placing Parties in American Politics. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

McKenzie, S. 2004. “Social Sustainability: Towards some Definitions.” Hawke Research Institute, Working Paper Series 27, University of South Australia.

Mercier, Jean. 2009. “Equity, Social Justice, and Sustainable Urban Transportation in the Twenty-First Century.” Administrative Theory and Praxis 31(2):145-163.

Metro FY 2013-2014 Adopted Budget Organizational Summary 2013. Retrieved January 11, 2014 (http://library.oregonmetro.gov/files/budsum_fy13-14_adopted_vol1-2.pdf).

306

Metro Vancouver 2011. Retrieved March 11, 2013 (http://www.metrovancouver.org/Pages/default.aspx).

Metro Vancouver 2014 Budget in Brief 2013. Retrieved February 12, 2013 (http://www.metrovancouver.org/programsandbudget/BudgetDocs/2014DraftBudgetinBri ef.pdf).

Metro Vancouver Labour Relations and Collective Agreements 2011. Retrieved March 14, 2013 (http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/labour/Pages/default.aspx).

Metro Vancouver Sustainability Framework 2010. Retrieved March 11, 2013 (http://www.metrovancouver.org/about/publications/Publications/MV- SustainabilityFramework.pdf).

Metzner, A. 2000. Caring Capacity and Carrying Capacity-A Social Science Perspective. Paper presented at the INES 2000 Conference: Challenges for Science and Engineering in the 21st Century, Stockholm, Sweden.

Myles, John, and Jill Quadagno. 2002. Political Theories of the Welfare State. Social Service Review 76:34-57.

Nasar, J, and D. Julian. 1995. “The Psychological Sense of Community in the Neighbourhood.” Journal of the American Planning Association 61:178-184.

Nelson, Daniel. 1969. Unemployment Insurance: The American Experience, 1915-1935. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

New Democratic Party History 2013. Retrieved March 20, 2013 (http://www.ndp.ca/history).

Northwest Oregon Labor Council AFL-CIO 2013. Retrieved March 14, 2013 (http://www.or.aflcio.org/511/).

Oregon AFSCME 2013. Retrieved March 14, 2013 (http://www.oregonafscme.com/).

Oregon Votes Measure 36 2013. Retrieved March 21, 2013 (http://www.oregonvotes.org/pages/history/archive/nov22004/guide/meas/m36_es.html).

Pablo, Carlito. 2013a. “New Vancouver Civic Party Vows fewer Bike Lanes, More Democracy.” The Georgia Straight. Retrieved January 23, 2014 (http://www.straight.com/news/429171/new-vancouver-civic-party-vows-fewer-bike- lanes-more-democracy).

Pablo, Carlito. 2013b. “Vancouver First is the Latest New Civic Party to Challenge Vision and the NPA.” The Georgia Straight. Retrieved January 23, 2014 (http://www.straight.com/news/497661/vancouver-first-latest-new-civic-party-challenge- vision-and-npa).

307

Palecek, Mike. 2011. “COPE Decimated in Vancouver Election.” Fightback: The Marxist Voice of Labour and Youth. Retrieved March 21, 2013 (http://www.marxist.ca/canada/bc/713- cope-decimated-in-vancouver-civic-election-vision-vancouver-wins-second-term.html).

Pérez-Liñán, Anibal, and Scott Mainwaring. 2013. “Regime Legacies and Levels of Democracy: Evidence from Latin America.” Comparative Politics 45(4):379-397.

Piven, Frances Fox, and Richard A. Cloward. 1989. “Government Statistics and Conflicting Explanations of Nonvoting.” PS: Political Science and Politics 22:580-588.

Polese, Mario, and Richard E. Stren, eds. 2000. The Social Sustainability of Cities: Diversity and the Management of Change. University of Toronto Press.

Politico 2012 Oregon Ballot Measures Results 2012. Retrieved March 23, 2013 (http://www.politico.com/2012-election/results/ballot-measures/oregon/).

Politico 2012 Presidential Election Results Map by State 2012. Retrieved March 21, 2013 (http://www.politico.com/2014-election/results/map/senate/#.U2wBr9jnfTo).

Portney, Kent E. 2003. Taking Sustainable Cities Seriously: Economic Development, the Environment, and Quality of Life in American Cities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Power, Elaine M. 2009. “Combining Social Justice and Sustainability for Food Security.” In Koc et al. eds., For Hunger-proof Cities: Sustainable Urban Food Systems IDRC.

Puget Sound Bikeshare 2013. Retrieved February 13, 2013 (http://pugetsoundbikeshare.org/).

Puget Sound Regional Council 2013. Retrieved March 11, 2013 (http://www.psrc.org/).

Puget Sound Regional Council Biennial Budget and Work Program Fiscal Years 2014-2015 2013. Retrieved January 13, 2014 (http://www.psrc.org/assets/9326/BudgetFY2014- 15.pdf).

Puget Sound Regional Council Prosperity Partnership 2013. Retrieved March 11, 2013 (http://www.psrc.org/transportation/t2040).

Puget Sound Regional Council Transportation 2040 2013. Retrieved March 11, 2013 (http://www.psrc.org/transportation/t2040).

Puget Sound Regional Council VISION 2040 2013. Retrieved March 11, 2013 (http://www.psrc.org/growth/vision2040).

Puget Sound Regional Council: Regional Food Policy Council 2013. Retrieved February 13, 2013 (http://www.psrc.org/about/advisory/regional-food-policy-council/).

308

Ragin, Charles C. 1987. The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Ragin, Charles C. 2000. Fuzzy-Set Social Science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Rawlings, Nate. 2013. “Socialist Sworn in as Seattle City Council Member.” TIME. Retrieved January 22, 2014 (http://nation.time.com/2014/01/07/socialist-sworn-in-as-seattle-city- council-member/).

Regional Vancouver Urban Observatory 2009. Retrieved February 22, 2012 (http://www.rvu.ca/).

Rusk, D. 1993. Cities Without Suburbs. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Sachs, I., 1999. Social sustainability and Whole Development: Exploring theDimensions of Sustainable Development. In: B. Egon and J. Thomas, eds.,Sustainability and the social sciences: a cross-disciplinary approach to integrating environmental considerations into theoretical reorientation. London: Zed Books. Saha, Devashree, and Robert G. Paterson. 2008. “Local Government Efforts to Promote the “Three Es” of Sustainable Development Survey in Medium to Large Cities in the United States.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 28(1):21-37.

Sainsbury, Diane. 1996. Gender, Equality and Welfare States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Savitch, Harold V., and Paul Kantor. 2002. Cities in the International Marketplace: The Political Economy of Urban Development in North America and Western Europe. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Seattle Adaptive Sports 2012. Retrieved February 10, 2013 (http://www.seattleadaptivesports.org/).

Seattle Housing Authority. Housing Programs 2013. Retrieved February 11, 2013 (https://www.seattlehousing.org/housing/).

Seattle Monorail 2013. Retrieved February 12, 2013 (http://www.seattlemonorail.com/).

Seattle Planning Commission Citizen Participation Evaluation 2000. Retrieved March 11, 2013 (http://www.seattle.gov/planningcommission/).

Seattle Streetcar 2013. Retrieved February 12, 2013 (http://www.seattlestreetcar.org/).

Shefter, Martin. 1983. “Regional Receptivity to Reform: the Legacy of the Progressive Era.” Political Science Quarterly 98:459-83.

309

Skocpol, Theda. 1985. “Bringing the State Back In: Strategies of Analysis in Current Research.” Pp. 3-37 in Bringing the State Back In, edited by P.B. Evans, D. Rueschemeyer, and T. Skocpol. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Skocpol, Theda. 1992. Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Smith, Andrea B. 1982. “The CCF, NPA, and Civic Change: Provincial Forces Behind Vancouver Politics 1930-1940.” B.C. Studies 53:45-65. Society (29): 63-78.

Sound Transit 2013. Retrieved February 12, 2013 (http://www.soundtransit.org/).

Statistics Canada National Household Survey (NHS) Labour Forces in Metro Vancouver 2011. Retrieved March 14, 2013 (http://www.metrovancouver.org/about/publications/Publications/2011NHS_Bulletin_La bourForce.pdf).

Statistics Canada. 2011 Census. Retrieved March 11, 2013 (http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census- recensement/index-eng.cfm).

Statistics Canada. National Household Survey (NHS) 2011. Retrieved November 21, 2012 (http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/index-eng.cfm).

Stephens, John. 1979. The Transition from Capitalism to Socialism. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Strandbakken, Pal, and Nina Heidenstrom. 2011. “Socially Sustainable Housing.” National Institute for Consumer Research (SIFO), Oslo, Norway.

Talen, E. 1999. “Sense of Community and Neighbourhood Form: An Assessment of the Social Doctrine of New Urbanism.” Urban Studies 36:1361-1379.

Teixeira, Ruy A. 1992. The Disappearing American Voter. Brookings Institution Press.

Tennant, Paul. 1980. “Vancouver Civic Politics, 1929-1980.” B.C. Studies 46:3-27.

The Cascade Harvest Coalition 2013. Retrieved February 13, 2013 (http://www.cascadeharvest.org/).

The History of Metropolitan Vancouver The Paradise Makers 2008. Retrieved March 20, 2013 (http://www.vancouverhistory.ca/archives_paradiseMakers.htm).

The Honourable Larry W. Campbell Biography 2006. Retrieved March 20, 2013 (http://www.larrycampbell.ca/biography.shtml).

310

The Seattle Times Mayors of Seattle 2001. Retrieved January 22, 2014 (http://seattletimes.com/news/local/seattle_history/articles/seattle_mayors.html).

The Seattle Times. 2014. “Editorial: Priorities for Seattle and Mayor Ed Murray after Inauguration Day.” Retrieved on January 22, 2014 (http://seattletimes.com/html/editorials/2022597028_seattlemayorcitycounciledmurrayks hamasawantedit06xml.html).

The Urban Farm Hub 2013. Retrieved February 13, 2013 (http://www.urbanfarmhub.org/).

Therivel, R. 2004. "Sustainable Urban Environment-Metrics, Models and Toolkits-Analysis of Sustainability/social tools." Report to the sue-MoT consortium 9, 2004.

TransLink 2013. Retrieved February 12, 2013 (http://www.translink.ca/).

Tri-Met 2013. Retrieved February 13, 2013 (http://trimet.org/).

U.S. Census Bureau. American Community Survey (ACS) 2012. Retrieved November 21, 2012 (http://www.census.gov/acs/www/).

Union Membership and Coverage Database from the Current Population Survey (CPS) 2013. Retrieved March 14, 2013 (http://www.unionstats.com/).

United Nations Conference on Environment and Development 1992. Retrieved November 20, 2012 (http://www.un.org/geninfo/bp/enviro.html).

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Management of Social Transformations Programme 1994. Retrieved November 20, 2012 (http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/most- programme/about-most/).

United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future 1987. Retrieved November 20, 2012 (http://www.un-documents.net/wced-ocf.htm).

Van Kersbergen, Kees. 1995. Social Capitalism. London: Routledge.

Vancouver Coastal Health 2012. Retrieved February 6, 2013 (http://www.vch.ca/).

Vancouver Coastal Health Insite-Supervised Injection Site (SIS) 2013. Retrieved February 6, 2013 (http://supervisedinjection.vch.ca/).

Vancouver Rent Bank. Network of Inner City Community Services Society 2011. Retrieved February 5, 2013 (http://www.niccss.ca/VRB).

Vancouver Youth 2013. Retrieved February 11, 2013 (http://www.vancouveryouth.ca/).

311

Vote Sawant 2013. Retrieved February 22, 2014 (http://www.votesawant.org/).

Webley, Kayla. 2013. “A State Divided: As Washington Becomes More Liberal, Republicans Push Back.” TIME. Retrieved February 23, 2014 (http://nation.time.com/2013/01/15/a- state-divided-as-washington-becomes-more-liberal-republicans-push-back/).

Weir, Margaret, Ann Orloff, and Theda Skocpol, eds. 1988. The Politics of Social Policy in the United States. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Westneat, Danny. 2013. “Mayoral Vote Becomes “Liberal” City’s Identity Test.” The Seattle Times. Retrieved January 22, 2014 (http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021488296_westneat28xml.html).

Wilensky, Harold. 1975. The Welfare State and Equality. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Williams-Derry, Clark. 2012a. “Transit Smackdown: Seattle vs. Portland vs. Vancouver” Sightline Daily, July 18, p.1-8

Williams-Derry, Clark. 2012b. “Transit Geeks Rejoice!” Sightline Daily, July 19, p.1-5

World Health Organization Definition of Food Security 1996. Retrieved November 21, 2013 (http://www.who.int/trade/glossary/story028/en/).

World Health Organization: World Summit on Sustainable Development 2002. Retrieved on November 20, 2012 (http://www.who.int/wssd/en/).

Yiftachel, O, and D. Hedgcock. 1993. “Urban Social Sustainability: The Planning of an Australian City.” Cities 10:139-157.

312

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Jason M. Laguna

EDUCATION______

Currently working on PhD from Florida State University PhD Dissertation tentatively titled: “Institutional Politics, Power Constellations and Urban Social Sustainability: A Comparative Historical Analysis” Committee: Dr. Douglas Schrock (Chair), Dr. Jill Quadagno, Dr. Daniel Tope, & Dr. Andy Opel.

M.S. in Sociology from Florida State University, 2006 M.S. thesis: “Co-opting Global Justice: A Guatemalan NGO’s Framing of Victims, Villains, and Heroes.” Committee: Dr. Doug Schrock (Chair), Dr. Jill Quadagno, & Dr. Marc Dixon

B.A. in Anthropology from Florida State University, 2003

A.A. in Anthropology from Broward College, 2001

PROFESSIONAL PRESENTATIONS______

Laguna, Jason M. 2011. “Exploring the Social Dimensions of Sustainability: A Comparative Historical Analysis” Pacific Sociological Association annual conference, Seattle, WA.

Laguna, Jason M. 2009. “Exploring the Social Dimensions of Sustainability: A Comparative Historical Analysis” Southern Sociological Society annual conference, New Orleans, LA.

313

Laguna, Jason M. 2007. “Co-opting Global Justice: A Guatemalan NGO’s Framing of Victims, Villains, and Heroes” Southern Sociological Society annual conference, Atlanta, GA.

PAPERS IN PROGRESS______

Laguna, Jason M. “Institutional Politics, Power Constellations, and Urban Social Sustainability: A Comparative Analysis.” Expected Completion date: Summer of 2014.

HONORS AND AWARDS______

Congress of Graduate Students Travel Award ($500) 2011, 2009, 2007 Graduate Tuition Scholarship Fund Grant ($600) 2007 Dean’s List-Undergraduate (2001-2003)

COURSES TAUGHT______

 Introduction to Sociology: Florida State University, St. Petersburg College, University of South Florida  Social Problems: Florida State University, University of South Florida  Global Justice Movement: Florida State University

COURSES ASSISTED______

 Sociology of Law: Florida State University  Global Justice Movement: Florida State University  Deviance and Social Control: Florida State University  Population and Society: Florida State University  Environmental Sociology: Florida State University  Social Problems: Florida State University  Social Psychology of Groups: Florida State University

314

RESEARCH EXPERIENCE______

Dissertation Research: I am currently in the process of revising my dissertation which is based on data related to sustainable urban development initiatives in the U.S. and Canada.

Master’s Paper Research: I translated and coded over 100 periodicals from the N.G.O. “Entremundos” and collected interview data from eleven research participants in Guatemala for my M.S. thesis in 2006.

Southeastern Archeological Conference (SEAC): I identified and catalogued historical archeological artifacts from sites in North Florida and South Georgia for a period of two years.

RESEARCH AGENDA

Future research interests will focus on the relationship between urban sustainability and social equity, initiatives geared towards ending homelessness, the social consequences of new urbanist and transit oriented development, urban revitalization and housing policy, urban and regional food policy, lifestyle movements and neo-localism and other issues related to the social dimensions of sustainable urban development.

PROFESSIONAL SERVICE______

 Sociology Graduate Student’s Union-Member  Union of Concerned Scientists-Member  Environment Florida-Member  Southern Sociological Society-Member  American Sociological Association-Member  Qualitative Research Group-Member  Florida State University Aikido Club-Member  Sustainable Urban Agriculture Coalition-Member

315