HEALTHY COMMUNITIES Legislative Comparison Survey Report
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
HEALTHY COMMUNITIES Legislative Comparison Survey Report DECEMBER 2013 Prepared by: Production of this report has been made possible through a financial contribution from Health Canada, through the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer. The views expressed in this report represent the views of the Canadian Institute of Planners and do not necessarily represent the views of the project funder. Authors 1112 - 141 Laurier Avenue West 208 – 131 Water Street Ottawa ON K1P 5J3 Vancouver BC V6M 4B3 www.cip-icu.ca www.ecoplan.ca Funders Acknowledgements John Ingram, MCIP, RPP, Paul Siggers, Hollis Andrews and Lorien Nesbit from EcoPlan International Inc. created the Legislative Survey Report for the Canadian Institute of Planners (CIP). Professor Michael Meitner from UBC provided survey design support. The consultant team was advised by the following members of the CIP Healthy Communities Subcommittee and CIP Staff: George McKibbon, MCIP, RPP; Hazel Christy, MCIP, RPP; Meredith Gilbert, AICP, MCIP; Olimpia Pantelimon, MCIP, RPP; David Harrison, MCIP, LPP; Kim Perrotta; Andrew Sacret, MCIP, RPP; and Jacklyn Nielsen. Table of Contents Foreword .................................................................................................................................. i 1.0 Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... 1 Provincial Comparison ...................................................................................................................................... 1 Opportunities ................................................................................................................................................... 2 Obstacles .......................................................................................................................................................... 4 2.0 Project Overview .............................................................................................................. 6 3.0 Survey Participants ........................................................................................................... 7 4.0 Survey Results and Findings ............................................................................................. 9 General Findings ............................................................................................................................................... 9 Findings by Province ....................................................................................................................................... 17 APPENDIX 1: Survey Instrument .............................................................................................. 20 APPENDIX 2: Survey Responses ............................................................................................... 23 Part 1: Introductory Questions ....................................................................................................................... 23 Part 2: The Policy and Legislative Environment ............................................................................................. 28 Provincial .................................................................................................................................................... 28 Regional ..................................................................................................................................................... 40 Municipal/Local .......................................................................................................................................... 47 Part 3: Partners and Champions..................................................................................................................... 57 Part 4: Resources ............................................................................................................................................ 65 Foreword As an active partner in the Healthy Canada by Design CLASP1 initiative, the Canadian Institute of Planners (CIP) is committed to mobilizing professional planners across the country, disseminating current research and best practices, and facilitating connections between planners and allied professionals to create healthy communities for Canadians. Early in the Healthy Canada by Design Initiative, CIP’s Healthy Communities Subcommittee compiled a comprehensive online library of articles, studies, tools, and web links targeted to planners. CIP also commissioned a set of Healthy Community Fact Sheets and a Best Practice Guide with broad application across Canada. All of these resources are housed in the Healthy Communities section of the CIP website for unrestricted access. Whenever possible, these resources are also distributed at conferences and other events, either in hard copy or via specially-created USB memory drives. Despite the availability and broad applicability of these pan-Canadian resources, it is recognized that policymaking and action in the realms of planning and health largely take place at the provincial, regional and municipal levels of government. To this end, CIP commissioned EcoPlan International, Inc. to undertake the current study to distinguish the differences at the provincial level on how the varying legislative, policy and administrative structures affect the ways in which planners approach the question of creating healthy built environments. Ultimately the research illuminates significant ways that the CIP can continue to support the efforts of planning professionals, alongside their counterparts in allied professions, to foster good health through planning and community design. The way forward for CIP and its partner organizations is rooted in action within the following four focus areas: 1) Creating a better legislative enabling environment; 2) Expanding access to research and best practice resources; 3) Building linkages and networks; and 4) Ongoing education and advocacy. The benefit of taking a high-level perspective on policy trends is that planners and CIP’s affiliated organizations can extract transferable lessons when they are working on provincial policy reviews and 1 The Healthy Canada by Design CLASP Initiative is led by the Heart and Stroke Foundation with funding from the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer’s Coalitions Linking Action and Science for Prevention (CLASP) program. Healthy Communities Legislative Comparison Survey Report i local initiatives. CIP is also uniquely positioned to remain abreast of national trends and relationships in health policy and infrastructure planning, and to provide input to national policies where appropriate. With respect to accessing research and best practice resources, the CIP web site, particularly following a major overhaul in early 2014, will continue to serve as an electronic clearinghouse for innovative examples of research, policy, design guidelines, community plans, and zoning bylaws that address public health priorities. Further, CIP’s national presence enables it to facilitate opportunities for planners to take “time out” and reflect with national organizations of public health officials on what is being accomplished as well as discover new opportunities to improve the creation of healthy communities across Canada. Now, as always, it is an exciting time to be a planner! Sincerely, Andrew Sacret, MCIP, RPP David Harrison, MCIP, LPP Director, Policy & Public Affairs Chair, Healthy Communities Subcommittee Canadian Institute of Planners Canadian Institute of Planners Healthy Communities Legislative Comparison Survey Report ii Canadian Institute of Planners 1.0 Executive Summary The Canadian Institute of Planners (CIP) and the CIP Healthy Communities Subcommittee are continuing their work to help planners better understand and plan for healthy, active communities. As part of this work, CIP conducted a survey and follow-up interviews with 15-members from CIP affiliates across Canada to better understand the legislative and regulatory differences, opportunities and constraints that are affecting planners in their healthy communities work. An additional four CIP Healthy Communities Subcommittee members completed the survey portion alone. This work is part of CIP’s involvement in the Healthy Canada by Design CLASP Initiative, which is a partnership of health, planning and transportation professionals, academics and non-governmental organizations that are collaborating on healthy communities with funding provided by the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer. The survey is also intended to help CIP and project partners: 1. Better determine what new research and planning tools might be required to more effectively assist members in this important work; 2. Better understand how these products can be effectively used in each of the CIP’s affiliates, and to refine their promotion accordingly; and 3. Develop better administrative frameworks and increased collaboration between the public health and planning professions and communities. Provincial Comparison According to survey respondents, policy support for healthy community design varies widely from province to province. Some provinces take a more prescriptive approach to policy-making around growth management and healthy built environments, while others maintain flexible legislative environments that allow for change, but are not explicitly helpful or supportive of building healthy communities. While survey participants had mixed responses toward the effectiveness of a more flexible legislative