Environmental Policy and : An Exploration of the Toronto Green Standard

by

Danielle Angela Tessaro

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Leadership, Higher and Adult Education University of Toronto

© Copyright by Danielle Tessaro 2019

Environmental Policy and Discourse: An Exploration of the Toronto Green Standard

Danielle Tessaro

Doctor of Philosophy

Leadership, Higher and Adult Education University of Toronto

2019 Abstract

This project is a qualitative case study of the Toronto Green Standard (TGS), Toronto’s first ever green building policy, affecting all new developments in Toronto since 2010 (City of Toronto

Planning and Development, 2018a). The research uses Foucault’s (1972, 1980) notions of discourse, and analyzes for various environmental policy (Dryzek, 2005; Hajer, 1995;

Robinson, 2004), in order to identify and question the discourses that are produced, and reproduced by the TGS. By assessing the dominant discourses, I also question what discourses are excluded, and the implications of these findings for who or what is served or excluded. Data was collected through document analysis, interviews, and the observation of TGS sites. Data was analyzed according to a six-step analytic method, which served to make discursive truths visible, and to denaturalize and destabilize the orders and hierarchies produced through discourse

(Foucault, 1980; Graham, 2005; Hook, 2001).

I found that the more radical, pro-environment discourses of and survivalism were present in the conception phases of the TGS. However, certain aspects of the institutional policy- making process meant the deprioritization of these discourses early on. Key moments were the

Cost-benefit analysis, and stakeholder review and approvals. Through these processes, TGS discourse assumed a prioritization of development “as-is” almost from the get-go, creating a ii space for the production and dominance of economic development discourses. The result is that the economic-focused discourses of and economic rationalism are reproduced as dominant. These discourses serve Toronto’s leading, largest developer firms, such as through transformation — the expansion of the green building sector — and through a process that I refer to as “urban environmental classism”. I argue that “urban environmental classism” is an outcome of ecological modernization, whereby being “green,” costs more, and excludes those who cannot afford it. I found that the TGS reproduces this phenomenon in the building sector. The dissertation discusses other implications of the economic-focused discourses, and concludes that in addition to economic factors, social factors should be considered during the creation of environmental policy, so that environmental policy does not exacerbate social and economic inequalities.

iii

Acknowledgments

First and foremost I would like to thank my supervisor Jean-Paul Restoule. You are one of the smartest people I have ever met, let alone had the pleasure to work for. Thank you for taking me on as a student and especially as a research assistant. It has been such an honour to be involved in your work. Plus, since you are a genius, it was always nice to hear your feedback on my Chapters. I knew I could trust your guidance in all aspects, because you would be right about everything. I am so happy and grateful that you opted to maintain your role as my supervisor when you moved on to bigger and better things. Really, endless thanks Jean-Paul!

I would also like to thank my other Committee members Jennifer Sumner and Marcelo Vieta. Jennifer you are so on top of things and such an inspiration to me, and Marcelo, I am so appreciative of your support, enthusiasm and directness in all of this. You three were the best committee members a PhD student could hope for! Within the department, I would also like to thank Vesna and Karolina for their knowledgeable guidance and continued support.

I owe a lot of my graduate school successes to my Masters supervisor Thembela Kepe. Thembela, I know you already know that, because you like to remind me of it at least a few times per year. But in addition to thanking you for all you have done — the MA supervision, many employment contracts and countless reference letters — thank you for being a great friend to me over the past many years. A special mention also goes to Kelly Snow. My entire project was oddly reliant on you. You brought me closer to the world of City Planning that then became the topic of the thesis. You fostered the connections that made the thesis possible. Thank you.

Thank you to all of my interview participants who extended their time and opinions to me. Finally, I must thank UofT as a whole, my department LHAE, and program AECD, for having me as a student and for providing or administering various funds, including my OGS and SSHRC awards.

To my parents, of course, thank you for letting me live at your house when I needed to, for all the great food and drives to places, and for your constant support, especially during the tough times that have occurred over these past four and a half years. Also, thank you for making me an annoyance to those who take strong positions on the philosophical nature vs nurture debate. I owe both to you: smartness runs in the family, but you also taught me to read and do chemistry

iv way earlier than the other kids at school. It was a wise move, and I plan to carry that forward to the future generation of Tessaro-Spences.

Thanks to both of my sisters who I love and am always grateful for. You two are the extreme opposites of each other and I am happy to have both personalities so close to me in my life. Nicole for stepping up at all times, especially organizational tasks, and Emilia for a person to talk to about all matters — most of them involving pizza. And thank you to my nieces, for being adorable, and to Craig for regularly supplying videos of said adorable-ness.

Finally, my husband, Scott. Your level of support has been unbelievable. The most obvious example would be that you moved from the opposite side of the world to be with me during this process. But there are so many others, including the 10,000 walks home from OISE, which I looked forward to 10,000 times. Thanks for being my IT guy and relentless source of support, but mostly, thanks for being a smart, wonderful person, and a perfect husband. I love you!

v

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments...... iv

Table of Contents ...... vi

List of Tables ...... xiii

List of Figures ...... xiv

List of Abbreviations ...... xv

List of Appendices ...... xviii

Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1

1.1 Context ...... 1

1.2 Problem statement ...... 2

1.3 Theoretical framework and research questions ...... 3

1.4 Research methods & scope ...... 4

1.4.1 Analysis...... 5

1.5 Literature, environmental discourses and conceptual framework ...... 5

1.6 Findings...... 8

1.6.1 Research significance...... 10

1.7 Chapter overview ...... 10

Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework ...... 12

Theoretical framework introduction ...... 12

2.1 What is a Foucauldian approach? ...... 12

2.2 Biopolitics and social constructionism ...... 13

2.3 Archaeology and genealogy of knowledge ...... 14

2.4 Power and discourse ...... 15

2.4.1 Discourse: Theoretical implications and questions...... 16

2.5 Why not a different approach? Rationale for Foucault over institutional ethnography or content analysis...... 18

vi

2.6 Critiques of Foucault...... 21

2.7 Theoretical framework conclusion ...... 23

Chapter 3: Research Methods ...... 24

Research methods: Introduction ...... 24

3.1 Research design: Case study ...... 24

3.1.1 Justification of case study selection ...... 25

3.2 Research methods overview ...... 26

3.2.1 Significance of multiple research methods ...... 27

3.2.2 Significance of multiple research methods in a Foucauldian framework ...... 28

3.3 Document analysis ...... 28

3.4 Interviews: Overview ...... 32

3.4.1 Interview sampling methods and participants...... 34

3.4.2 Interview questions ...... 36

3.4.3 Researcher and participant positionalities ...... 37

3.5 Observations of TGS sites: Overview...... 40

3.5.1 Selection of sites to observe ...... 41

3.5.2 Observation of TGS Sites: Process ...... 43

3.5.3 Limitations of TGS site observations ...... 44

3.5.3.1 Use of data from site observations ...... 44

Chapter 4: Data analysis ...... 46

Introduction: Foucauldian discourse analysis ...... 46

4.1 Data analysis ...... 47

4.2 Analysis preliminary step: Understandings of relevant discourses ...... 48

4.3 Analysis step 1: Select statements from the texts ...... 49

4.4 Analysis step 2: Observe the objects that the statement creates ...... 50

4.4.1 Questioning the object: Example 1 ...... 51 vii

4.4.2 Questioning the object: Example 2 ...... 51

4.4.3 Questioning the object: Example 3 ...... 52

4.5 Analysis step 3: What is the opposing object?...... 53

4.5.1 Oppositional or excluded object: Example 1 ...... 54

4.5.2 Oppositional or excluded object: Example 2 ...... 54

4.5.3 Oppositional or excluded object: Example 3 ...... 55

4.6 Analysis step 4: Question knowledge, truth, orders, and hierarchies ...... 55

4.6.1 Questioning knowledge, truths, orders and/or hierarchies: Example 1 ...... 56

4.6.2 Questioning knowledge, truths, orders and hierarchies: Example 2 ...... 56

4.6.3 Questioning knowledge, truths, orders and/or hierarchies: Example 3 ...... 57

4.7 Analysis step 5: Consider discursive themes ...... 57

4.7.1 Considering discursive themes: Examples 1, 2 and 3 ...... 59

4.8 Step 6: Question discourse ...... 60

4.9 Analysis follow up and the third research method: Moving from textual analysis to observations of physical realities ...... 61

4.10 Analysis: Finalization of findings and use of results ...... 62

Chapter 5: Environmental Discourses ...... 64

Literature review: Introduction ...... 64

5.1 Introduction to environmental discourse literature: Distinctions and commonalities ...... 65

5.2 Survivalism ...... 67

5.3 Prometheanism ...... 68

5.4 Environmental problem-solving discourses: Administrative rationalism and democratic pragmatism ...... 69

5.5 Economic rationalism ...... 70

5.6 Sustainability...... 72

5.6.1 Sustainability concept: ...... 74

5.6.2 Sustainability discourse as individual agency and the bottom-up approach...... 74 viii

5.7 discourse: Non-radical reform ...... 76

5.8 Ecological modernization ...... 78

5.9 Discourse summary table ...... 81

Chapter 6: Discourse and policy-making ...... 83

Introduction: The link between discourse and understanding environmental issues ...... 83

6.1.1 Discursive storylines, metaphors, and emblems ...... 84

6.2 The link between discourse and environmental policy ...... 85

6.3 Discourse criticisms: Global environmental discourses ...... 87

6.3.1 Criticisms of the economic-focused discourses ...... 88

6.3.2 “Alternative” discourses ...... 89

6.4 Building onto critical ideas: Who or what are the discourses leaving out? ...... 90

6.5 Environmental discourse literature: Recent developments and going forward ...... 92

Chapter 7: Beyond the TGS - A Review of Other Municipal Environmental Frameworks and Green Building Policies ...... 95

Introduction: Situating the research ...... 95

7.1 Green building guides beyond Toronto ...... 95

7.2 What the research is saying: Policy implementation ...... 97

7.2.1 What the research is saying: Policy influences ...... 99

7.3 policy: From local to global ...... 102

7.4 Influences of municipal environmental policy from a discourse perspective ...... 103

7.4.1 Municipal planning and green building discourse: Conclusion ...... 107

Chapter 8: Context of the TGS and Discourse...... 108

Findings Chapters: Introduction ...... 108

8.1 Context of the TGS and discourse: Introduction ...... 110

8.2 Prometheanism ...... 112

8.2.1 Discourse sub-topic: TGS Relationship with private rating systems ...... 114

ix

8.2.2 Discourse subtopic: TGS relationship with the development industry ...... 117

8.2.3 Relationship to TGS production through stakeholder input and feedback ...... 118

8.2.4 Relationship with developers and the TGS’ financial rebate framework ...... 120

8.3 Development Industry: Structural problems that the TGS aims to address ...... 120

8.4 Democratic pragmatism and the relationship to the province ...... 124

8.4.1 Democratic pragmatism discourse: Setting the parameters for the TGS ...... 125

8.5 Administrative rationalism through science and trust in experts ...... 127

8.5.1 Administrative rationalism through hierarchies...... 128

8.6 Summary of key points, Chapter 8: Context of the TGS and discourse ...... 129

Chapter 9: TGS Goals, Creation Process and Discourse ...... 130

Chapter 9 Introduction: TGS goals ...... 130

9.1 TGS Goal 1: Changing the structuralist nature of development ...... 133

9.2 TGS Goal 2: Preventing the reproduction of urban environmental classism ...... 133

9.3 TGS Goal 3: Market transformation ...... 135

9.3.1 Who or what does market transformation serve? ...... 136

9.4 TGS goals and discourse ...... 138

9.5 TGS creation processes and the impacts on discourse: Stakeholder review process and the TGS’ Tier 2 ...... 139

9.6 Discursive effects of the Cost-benefit study ...... 140

9.7 Market transformation outcomes ...... 144

9.8 The reproduction of urban environmental classism through the TGS’ Two-tiered framework ...... 145

9.8.1 Urban environmental classism: Exceptions and limitations to the findings ...... 148

9.8.2 What about the Tier 1’s? ...... 149

9.8.3 Who has achieved Tier 2? ...... 150

9.9 Summary of key points, Chapter 9: TGS goals, creation process & discourse ...... 152

Chapter 10: Sustainability and Sustainable Development Knowledges and TGS discourse ...... 154 x

Chapter 10 Introduction ...... 154

10.1 Sustainability discourse as influential for the creation of the TGS ...... 154

10.2 Sustainability and survivalism as structural change ...... 156

10.2.1 Sustainability and the capacity for individuals to make a change ...... 157

10.3 TGS production: Top-down and globalized versus bottom-up and locally-derived ...... 158

10.3.1 The TGS as externally-derived, top-down and/or globalized ...... 159

10.3.2 Bottom up or locally derived production ...... 160

10.4 Sustainability conclusion ...... 161

10.5 Sustainable development discourse ...... 161

10.6 Summary of key points, Chapter 10: Sustainability and sustainable development knowledges and TGS discourse ...... 164

Chapter 11: TGS production and reproduction of the economic-focused discourses ...... 165

Ecological modernization and economic rationalism: Introduction ...... 165

11.1 Ecological modernization and economic rationalism evidence ...... 167

11.1.1 Economic arguments and the Cost-benefit study ...... 168

11.1.2 Ecological modernization as the pursuit of green ...... 169

11.2 Economic-focused knowledges and truths as reproduced by the TGS ...... 171

11.2.1 Ecological modernization as and Environment: Findings and exception ...... 174

11.3 Economic-focused discourses conclusion ...... 175

11.4 Summary of key points, Chapter 11: TGS production and reproduction of the economic-focused discourses...... 177

Chapter 12: Discussion - Implications of TGS discourse ...... 179

Discussion introduction ...... 179

12.1 Implications of the economic-focused discourses ...... 179

12.2 Discourses excluded from the production and reproduction of the TGS ...... 181

12.3 Revisiting the Foucauldian theoretical framework ...... 186

xi

12.4 Who/what is served? ...... 188

12.5 Who/what is excluded? ...... 190

Chapter 13: Conclusion...... 192

Summary of key research findings and implications ...... 192

13.1 Research self-reflection, limitations and future research ...... 194

13.1.1 The production of Ecological Modernization: What I learned during the research process ...... 195

13.2 Directions forward ...... 195

References ...... 197

xii

List of Tables

Table 1. Documents selected for analysis 29

Table 2. Interview participants 32

Table 3. TGS Sites selected for observation 42

Table 4. Summary of environmental policy discourses 81

xiii

List of Figures

Figure 1. TGS sites: Screenshot of Google Photo albums 43

Figure 2. The link between policy and discourse 85

xiv

List of Abbreviations

ADHD Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

CBNRM Community-based Natural Resource Management

Chris Interview participant

City Often used on its own to stand for the City of Toronto’s municipal government, as an entity

City Planning Used interchangeably with full title, City of Toronto City Planning and Development Division

CNN Cable News Network

Cost-benefit study One of the documents analyzed, full title Final Report: Toronto Green Development Standard Cost-Benefit Study

DDT Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, an insecticide well-known for its hazardous impacts to human and

Development charge One of the documents analyzed, full title Development Charge refund doc Refund Program Version 2

FLAP Fatal Light Awareness Program

GGH Greater Golden Horseshoe, a region of Southern Ontario

Green building map One of the documents analyzed, full title Ontario Green Building Map

Green roof bylaw One of the documents analyzed, full title Green Roof Bylaw, Toronto Municipal Code

Green roof webpage Webpage incorporated into document analysis

IE Institutional Ethnography

IPAT The abbreviated version of the equation Impact = x Affluence x Technology, used to quantify one’s ecological footprint

IPCC International Panel on

Jane Interview participant

Jesse Interview participant

John Interview participant

xv

Kelly Interview participant

LEED Leadership in Energy and

LEED certification Name of webpage incorporated into document analysis homepage

LEED supplement One of the documents analyzed, full title Toronto LEED Supplement

Mark Interview participant

Mary Interview participant

N.C. North Carolina

OBC Ontario Building Code

OMA Ontario Medical Association

Shayna Interview participant

Ted Interview participant

TGDS Toronto Green Development Standard, the previous title of the Toronto Green Standard

TGDS staff report One of the documents analyzed, full title Toronto Staff Report: The Toronto Green Development Standard

TGS Toronto Green Standard

TGS high-rise One of the documents analyzed, full title Toronto Green Standard: Making a Happen: For New Mid to High-Rise Residential and all Non-Residential Development

TGS low-rise One of the documents analyzed, full title Toronto Green Standard: Making a Sustainable City Happen - For New Low-Rise Residential Development

TGS review and update One of the documents analyzed, full title Report for Action: Toronto Green Standard Review and Update

TGS website Webpage incorporated into document analysis

Tier 1 The part of the TGS that is required to all new developments in Toronto over a certain size. Tier 1 is a municipal bylaw

xvi

Tier 2 The part of the TGS that is the voluntary, higher set of green standards. Tier 2 certified developers are eligible for rebates from the City of Toronto

Tier 2 project profiles Name of webpage incorporated into document analysis

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

VP Vice President

WCED World Commission on Environment and Development

WWF World Wildlife Fund

xvii

List of Appendices

Appendix A – Documents Analyzed 210

Appendix B – Interview Participants Table 213

Appendix C – TGS Sites Observed 215

Appendix D – Ethics Protocol 216

Appendix E – Sample Recruitment Email 235

Appendix F – Information and Consent Form 237

Appendix G – Sample Interview Guide 239

Appendix H – Google Map Screenshot of TGS Sites 240

Appendix I – Analysis Tracking Table 241

Appendix J – Discourse Summary Table 243

xviii

Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 Context

In October, 2018, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported, “global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate” (IPCC, 2018, p. 56). The report explained that consequences for earth’s aquatic and terrestrial will be dire, should global warming continue at its current rate, and that “rapid and far-reaching” reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are required immediately (Earth Day Network, 2018; IPCC, 2018). That same month, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) reported that all mammals, birds, fish and reptiles saw “an overall decline of 60% in species population sizes between 1970 and 2014” (WWF, 2018, p. 10), among other frightening figures.

A few months later, in early December, 2018, political leaders from 196 countries, and 28,000 participants met in Katowice, Poland, at the 24th annual United Nations Conference of Parties (McGrath, 2018; UN News, 2018). Here, they discussed the details of a global “rulebook” on efforts to mitigate climate change, to enter into effect in 2020 (Evans & Timperley, 2018). During that same time, mass riots broke out in Paris, France, in response to French President Macron’s fuel tax. The fuel tax places greater economic strain on France’s poor and rural (Mufson & McAuley, 2018). As I write this introduction (January, 2019), the Paris protests have continued for eight straight weekends, with no end in sight (McGuinness, 2019).

Each of these recent, international events — that occurred over a period of only four months — speak to the context of my research in three ways. One, climate change is no longer up for debate. Reducing carbon emissions is a matter that requires immediate action. Two, immediate action must be taken in the form of widespread, drastic environmental policy, from political leaders all over the world. And three, environmental policy does not exist in a vacuum. Political efforts to reduce environmental impact have economic and social consequences that need to be better understood, and thoroughly considered. My doctoral thesis explores the influences and implications of environmental policy, and through the thesis I argue that environmental policy has the potential to exacerbate class-based divisions.

1

1.2 Problem statement

The study narrows in to focus on Toronto, Canada’s most populous city, which also holds significant influence over the Canadian political economy. With global urban populations exceeding rural populations for the first time in 2009 (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2015), cities have become major contributors to climate change, while simultaneously representing key sites for innovative environmental policy (Cohen, 2015; Miller, 2018; Watts et al., 2015). Specifically, my research is conducted as a case study on the Toronto Green Standard (TGS), Toronto’s first ever green building policy, implemented as a requirement for all new developments in Toronto in 2010 (City of Toronto Planning and Development, 2018a). The TGS strives to reduce “future infrastructure demands and environmental impacts making a healthier, more livable city” (City of Toronto Planning Division, 2015).

By employing Foucault’s notions of discourse (1967, 1972, 1980, 1981), and analyzing for various environmental policy discourses (Christoff, 1996; Dryzek, 2005; Hajer, 1995; Redclift, 2005; Robinson, 2004), I question the ideas, knowledges and truths that are produced by the TGS, and discuss their environmental, social and economic implications. I found that although the knowledges and truths of the more radical, pro-environment discourses of sustainability (Robinson, 2004) and survivalism (Dryzek, 2005) inspired the initial creation of the TGS, institutional policy making processes, such as the Cost-benefit study and stakeholder review process, led to the prioritization and reproduction of the economic-focused discourses, namely ecological modernization (Hajer, 1995) and economic rationalism (Dryzek, 2005). I also argue that through the TGS, the reproduction of the economic-focused discourses serves Toronto’s high-end, leading and largest developer firms, through processes such as market transformation, and by producing a discourse of green development that is associated with more financial capital.

In turn, the reproduction of ecological modernization discourse — whereby pursuing green development is meant to be profitable (Hajer, 1995) — also means the reproduction, or even heightening, of one of its truths, that I refer to in this thesis as “urban environmental classism.” Urban environmental classism is a phenomenon that I theorize in Chapter 6, whereby the economic value of environmental sustainability is realized and taken up by , turning it into an item that costs extra. That is, environmental sustainability becomes a luxury item. In an

2

urban context such as Toronto, I argue adding cost for environmental friendliness impacts the cultural and built forms, such as by the relatively expensive restaurants serving vegan or otherwise environmentally conscious meals. Due to these more expensive, albeit “greener” spaces, there is an added class-based divide along the lines of being more or sustainable, since the lower, and sometimes middle classes are priced out of affording green products and services. For the research, I considered whether the findings surrounding Toronto’s green buildings would perpetuate or negate my argument that a sort of environmental class-based division exists. My data confirmed that prior to the TGS, green building was associated with luxury developments, and that this is actually reproduced through the TGS.

1.3 Theoretical framework and research questions

The project used a Foucauldian theoretical lens to inform the conceptual framework, methodology, analytic framework, and the research questions. The approach especially centers on Foucault’s (1967, 1972, 1980, 1981) notions of discourse. For Foucault, discourse underlines the relationship between institutional knowledge production and power. As described in Chapter 6, environmental policy theorists such as Dryzek (2005) and Hajer (1995) argue that environmental policy is indicative of society’s understandings of environmental issues, which is reflective of discourse. The argument that environmental policy is influenced by prevalent discourse (Dryzek, 2005; Hajer, 1995), correlates with Foucault’s argument that discourse is reproduced and reinforced by institutions and relationships of power (Foucault, 1980, 1982; Fraser, 1981; Patton, 1998). The importance of discourse in environmental policy research highlights the relevance and significance of a Foucauldian theoretical framework.

For Foucault, (1967, 1980, 1981), discourse allows for positivist notions of true and false to remain invisible, and to be reproduced as knowledge. Ultimately, the theoretical approach, which uses Foucault’s archaeology (1972) and genealogy (1980) of discourse, seeks to denaturalize what has become natural, and to destabilize discourse in order to reconsider its discursive functions (Hook, 2001). Using the Foucauldian framework, I explored the following main research question:

• What discourses produce, and are reproduced by, the TGS?

And subquestions: 3

• What discourses are excluded from the production and reproduction of the TGS?

• What are the influences and implications of these discourses that produce, are reproduced by, or are excluded by the TGS?

• Who or what do the discourses serve and/or exclude? By answering these questions, the goal of the research is to provide insight into the larger, overarching influences and implications of municipal environmental policy making, through a case study on the TGS and green development in Toronto. Another goal is to use the findings to discuss implications within the broader field of urban environmental policy, since cities are important sites for innovative policy that strives to tackle climate change and other environmental issues.

1.4 Research methods & scope

This research was conducted as a case study on the TGS and the City of Toronto, selected for its size and relative influence over the Canadian political economy, its burgeoning environmental policy sector, as well as its location and accessibility to the researcher. The case study research design allowed for in-depth focus on the selected setting and topic (Denscombe, 2007). Although Chapter 7 addresses examples of green building policies in other North American cities, the case study approach limits the scope and generalizability of the data. This is not a comparative study. However, many of the findings and discussions are applicable to institutional policy making processes and phenomena that exist beyond Toronto and the TGS.

Data collection and analysis were conducted through qualitative research methods. Qualitative methods are the most suitable for the research goals, as they provide means of determining explanations for certain relationships and processes (Scheyvens & Storey, 2006). The two primary research methods were document analysis and interviews, and were used to gather texts — documents or transcribed interviews — that were then analyzed for discursive statements (described below). Following these two methods and the organization of their findings, a third research method of observation of TGS sites was utilised, and contributed to the findings and discussion. The documents collected for the document analysis method were primarily gathered through searches, and 14 different documents were analyzed (Appendix A). Semi- structured interviews were conducted with nine participants (Appendix B), including three from 4

Toronto City Planning who work directly on the TGS. These two primary methods were conducted simultaneously, from September 2017 to May 2018. TGS site observations took place in June 2018, when I visited nine different TGS sites (Appendix C). Each of the research methods was used to gather data to better identify and assess the influences and implications of the TGS, especially by identifying and questioning discourses. The use of multiple research methods was important for expanding the range of data, and for triangulation during analysis (Bryman, Teevan & Bell, 2009). Further, by using multiple methods, the intent was to mitigate the limitations presented by each method, if they had been used alone (Brewer & Hunter, 2005).

1.4.1 Analysis

Following a review of Foucauldian literature (Fairclough, 2003; Foucault, 1972, 1980, 1981, 2001; Graham, 2005; Hook, 2001), and a review of environmental-political discourses (Bellamy Foster, 1999; Christoff, 1996; Dryzek, 2005; Hajer, 1995; Kalland, 2003; Lomborg, 2001; Vogel, 1986), I outlined a six-step analytic framework. Although outlining a step-by-step method is inherently un-Foucauldian (Graham, 2005), and although subjectivity in social research is unavoidable (Foucault, 1972; Graham, 2005; Rose, 1997), the analytic method was outlined to limit subjectivity as much as possible, and to ensure that the study is replicable.

The six analytic steps (detailed in Chapter 4) are: 1) Select statements from the texts; 2) Observe the objects that the statement creates; 3) Question and identify the opposing object; 4) Question knowledge, truth, orders, and hierarchies; 5) Consider discursive themes; 6) Question discourse. There is then a follow-up step, “Moving from textual analysis to observations of physical realities,” which entailed the third research method, observing TGS sites around Toronto. Overall, the analytic framework served for the observing and questioning of normative and opposing objects, to make discursive truths visible, and to denaturalize and destabilize the orders and hierarchies reproduced through discourse. These goals align with Foucault’s archaeology and genealogy (1972, 1980), and with the project’s conceptual framework.

1.5 Literature, environmental discourses and conceptual framework

In this project, I considered the environmental-political discourses that produce, and are reproduced by, the TGS. Achieving the research goal of questioning and assessing environmental 5

discourses required a thorough grasp of the concept of “discourse” (Chapter 2 & Chapter 4). The usage of discourse is derived from Foucault (1967, 1972, 1977, 1980, 1981, 1982, 2001, 2007), the discussions of Foucauldian scholars, and/or experts in discourse analysis (Dryzek, 2005; Fairclough, 2003; Graham, 2005; Hook, 2001; Kendall & Wickham, 1999; Sharp & Richardson, 2001). Beyond a purely linguistic conception of discourse, Foucault attributes power to discourse, seeing it as the purveyance of worldview, and of contemporary societal conditions and power relations (Dryzek, 2005; Foucault, 1981). Discourse serves to naturalize and reproduce hierarchical relationships, and wield power on the basis of being truth (Hook, 2001). By utilising a conception of discourse that goes beyond its existence in language and texts, to processes, systems, and forms of practice, the ability of discourses to reproduce power relations is recognized, and is integral to my research and analysis of the TGS.

The conceptual framework is also founded on previously theorized environmental policy discourses. Each of the environmental policy discourses, which I considered as I was analyzing the TGS, are outlined in Chapter 51. They are: Dryzek’s (2005) survivalism, Prometheanism, administrative rationalism, democratic pragmatism, and economic rationalism; Robinson’s (2004) sustainability and sustainable development; and Hajer’s (1995) ecological modernization. Survivalism and Promethean discourses form the extreme ends of the environmental policy discourse spectrum. Survivalism is the belief that environmental problems can only be addressed with a radical change in economic and social structures and systems, whereas Promethean discourse is a blind faith in humanity and economic systems, including the denial of environmental limits and existence of human-caused environmental problems (Bellamy Foster, 1999, 2015; Dryzek, 2005; Lomborg, 2001; Meadows, Meadows, Randers, & Behrens, 1972).

Important discourses to the conceptual framework also include sustainability, sustainable development, and ecological modernization. Although sustainability and sustainable development have become household terms, I use the work of Robinson (2004) and other sustainable development critics (Bellamy Foster, 1999, 2015; Redclift, 2005; Springett, 2013) to differentiate the two terms. For Robinson (2004), sustainability is the term preferred by

1 The full set of environmental discourses is also summarized in Table 4, and attached as Appendix J

6

environmental activists and academics, as opposed to sustainable development. Sustainability prioritizes ecological wellbeing, whereas sustainable development discourse has been co-opted by governments and that prioritize economic growth (Redclift, 2005; Robinson, 2004). Sustainability emphasizes living within our means, individual behaviour changes for the sake of the environment, and not exceeding earth’s natural limits (Bellamy Foster, 1999; Klein, 2014, 2017; Robinson, 2004). On the other hand, sustainable development is premised on the idea that growth and development are necessary, but should be slightly modified for the sake of the environment (Escobar, 1995; Redclift, 2005; Springett, 2013; World Commission on Environment and Development [WCED], 1987).

Similarly, ecological modernization supports economic growth and development, but in this discourse, economic development is inseparable from environmental considerations. Ecological modernization presents an optimistic, win-win situation, where dealing with environmental problems will benefit the economy and/or turn a profit (Christoff, 1996; Fairhead, Leach, & Scoones, 2012; Hajer, 1995). Related to both sustainable development and ecological modernization, the research also considers Dryzek’s (2005) economic rationalism, which is faith in the market and people’s rational economic decisions to solve environmental problems. If it makes economic sense to pursue environmental concerns or to protect the environment, then people will do it, and the problem will be solved. After analyzing the TGS, findings for economic rationalism and ecological modernization were mostly inseparable (as explained in Chapter 11), and so I often refer to the two as the “economic-focused discourses.”

The economic-focused discourses — and sustainable development, since it is also an environmental problem-solving discourse premised on economic development — have drawn criticisms by environmental and development scholars (Bellamy Foster, 1999; Escobar, 1995; Harvey, 1996, 2009). The main criticism of the economic-focused, environmental problem- solving discourses is that they do not change the systems of development and social structures that caused significant environmental problems and degradation in the first place, such as forms of capitalist exploitation (Harvey, 1996, 2009; Klein, 2014; Peet, Robbins, & Watts, 2011). This criticism, among others, is detailed in Chapter 6, and revisited as a key discussion topic in Chapters 12 and 13, since the TGS reproduces economic-focused environmental problem-

7

solving discourse, and excludes those discourses that seek systemic, structural and/or radical environmental change.

1.6 Findings

The analysis of TGS data led to several findings and topics of discussion, which comprise Chapters 8-12. First, I found that Promethean discourse is excluded from the production and reproduction of the TGS. For example, the TGS acknowledges that environmental problems exist and need to be addressed, negating Promethean discourse. The finding that Prometheanism is excluded from the production and reproduction of the TGS is an important win for the City of Toronto and City Planning, who are faced with the task of mediating Promethean discourse that still exists in politics and the building development sector.

I also found that the discourses of sustainability and survivalism were present in the conception phases of the TGS, and inspired the creation of the policy. However, certain aspects of the policy-making process meant the deprioritization of these discourses from TGS production early on. Specifically, the key moments that exclude survivalism, deprioritize sustainability, and prioritize economic-focused discourse, are the conducting of the Cost-benefit study, and the stakeholder review and approval processes. Through the institutional policy-making process, TGS discourse assumed a prioritization of development “as-is”, almost from the get-go. This, and especially the stakeholder review processes, meant that a space was created for economic development discourse to dominate the production and reproduction of the TGS. The result is that ecological modernization and economic rationalism dominate the arguments that were used to create the TGS, and are reproduced by the TGS. Further, these discourses serve the reproduction of Toronto’s leading, dominant and high-end developers.

As discussed in Chapter 9, the goals of the TGS creators that aligned with survivalist and sustainability discourses are deprioritized, in favour of goals that align with ecological modernization, namely, market transformation. Market transformation — indicated as a TGS priority in several documents (Kesik & Miller, 2008; Lintern, 2017; Tyndorf, 2006) and

8

interviews (Jane, Jesse, Kelly, Shayna2) — is the expansion of the green building and green development sectors through increased demand for green products and services. Notably, the expansion of the market to include new sectors focused on green development, technology and innovation is textbook ecological modernization discourse (Christoff, 1996; Fairhead et al., 2012; Hajer, 1995). Ecological modernization is a dominant discourse that produces, and is reproduced by the TGS, such as through market transformation.

Findings also center on the difference between the TGS’ two tiers. The TGS’ Tier 1 is required, via municipal bylaw, to all new developments in Toronto3, whereas Tier 2 is an additional, voluntary set of green standards. Developers who achieve Tier 2 standards eligible for up to 20% financial rebates on development charges, which is a sizable sum (Kelly, Jesse). By analyzing the data and the discursive differences between the two Tiers, I found that Tier 1 entails a course of regulatory action that contributes to the production of the dominant discourse, ecological modernization, through market transformation. Further, ecological modernization via market transformation is advantageous to the largest, leading and high-end developers, who were already reliant on the green building sector for products and services, prior to the TGS. These are the same developers who consulted on the creation of the TGS and were able to produce TGS discourse. I also found that the same largest, leading developer firms comprise the majority of Tier 2 financial rebate recipients. Thus, by reproducing ecological modernization discourse that perpetuates the economic dominance of the leading, largest developer firms, who are also considered the greenest, the TGS reproduces urban environmental classism, whereby the characteristic of being “green” is associated with financial capital. Thus, The TGS reproduces a system where the largest firms are rewarded.

Overall, the economic-focused discourses produce, and are reproduced by the TGS. These discourses include sustainable development, ecological modernization and economic rationalism, all which approach environmental problems via economic channels. Since these discourses

2 Interviewee first names or pseudonyms are used as interview identifiers throughout the dissertation. See details, and full list of interviews and identifiers, in Chapter 2, Table 2, and reattached as Appendix B

3 Except for residential developments under five dwelling units 9

actually approach environmental problems, instead of ignoring them, this finding is a step forward for the environment. However, the economic-focused discourses perpetuate structures and systems of capitalist growth that are argued to be the root causes of widespread environmental problems. This discussion is revisited in Chapter 12 and 13.

1.6.1 Research significance

The research identifies the discourses that produce, and are reproduced by the TGS. By identifying the dominant discourses of production and reproduction, I also question what discourses are excluded, and the implications for the dominant versus excluded discourses, in terms of who or what they serve or exclude. I found that the TGS reproduces economic-focused discourses, the ideals of “green development,” and that green development serves the economic interests of the dominant, leading developer firms, such as through urban environmental classism. This research is important as cities, regions, nations and institutions move forward with creating environmental policy. My findings highlight that it is crucial to consider the social and economic impacts of environmental policy, in order to avoid situations where environmental policy exacerbates social and economic inequalities.

1.7 Chapter overview

Moving forward from the Introduction (Chapter 1), Chapter 2 outlines the Foucauldian theoretical framework and introduces the conceptual framework, such as by delineating notions of discourse as produced by knowledge, truth, institutions and power. Chapter 2 also justifies the choice of the Foucauldian lens over other approaches, such as Institutional Ethnography, discusses common criticisms of Foucault’s work, and how the project aimed to avoid replicating those. Chapter 3 details each of the research methods: document analysis, interviews, and observations of TGS sites. The Chapter also situates the methods in a Foucauldian theoretical framework, and covers the project’s scope, ethical considerations, and limitations of the research methods. Chapter 4 then begins by expanding on Foucault’s notions of discourse as it frames the analysis, and then proceeds by outlining each of the six steps that I used to analyze the data.

Chapters 5-7 comprise the literature review. The first literature review chapter, Chapter 5, is a review of the different environmental political discourses that formed the conceptual framework

10

for analysis, findings and discussion. Chapter 6 explores the linkages between discourse and environmental policy. The chapter includes discussion of “alternative” discourses, and the important contributions they make by offering perspectives that differ from mainstream, hegemonic discourse. Chapter 6 also outlines the premise of urban environmental classism, as an outcome of ecological modernization. The final literature review chapter, Chapter 7, moves from theory to the applied subject matter. The chapter discusses other examples of green building standards, policies, and municipal environmental policy in general.

Chapters 8-11 consist of the research findings. In addition to detailing the findings for democratic pragmatism and administrative rationalism discourse, Chapter 8 depicts that Prometheanism is excluded from the production and reproduction of the TGS. The chapter also discusses the relationship of the TGS to the development industry, the province of Ontario, and to private rating systems such as LEED. Chapter 9 identifies three main goals of the TGS, and discusses how they are indicative of particular discursive truths, including truths that align with sustainability and survivalist discourses. The chapter then hones in on institutional policy making processes, such as the stakeholder review and Cost-benefit study, to evidence how they enable the exclusion of sustainability and survivalism discourses, and the reproduction of the economic- focused discourses. Chapter 10 explicitly discusses the role of sustainability and sustainable development discourses for producing the TGS, while Chapter 11 describes the reproduction of the economic-focused discourses, of economic rationalism and ecological modernization.

Chapter 12 discusses the main findings in the context of the research questions: the discourses that produce and are reproduced by the TGS, the discourses that are excluded, the implications, and who or what the discourses serve, versus who or/what they exclude. The chapter discusses the implications of the truths, knowledges and hierarchies that are associated with the reproduction of the economic-focused discourses, including urban environmental classism. The dissertation is then concluded in Chapter 13. Chapter 13 includes overall takeaways from the research and policy recommendations, such as the recommendation that in addition to economic factors, social factors should be considered in the creation of environmental policy, so that environmental policy does not exacerbate socioeconomic inequalities. The dissertation will now proceed to Chapter 2.

11

Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework Theoretical framework introduction

The research and its methodologies are aligned with the work of the political theorist, Michel Foucault. The project employs what is referred to as a “Foucauldian” theoretical framework. This chapter will describe the linkages between various pieces of Foucault’s (1967, 1972, 1980, 1981, 1982) work, especially those pieces that centre on discourse. Foucault’s theories of discourse and knowledge production are behind the research questions and methodologies constructed for this thesis. This chapter will also describe the relationship of various Foucauldian concepts to this research project, especially surrounding his discussions of discourse and institutional power.

2.1 What is a Foucauldian approach?

It is important to note that many Foucauldian scholars, including Foucault himself, have indicated that there is no clear-cut, step-by-step Foucauldian approach (Foucault, 1996; Gain, 2013; Kendall & Wickham, 1999; Lemke, 2011). Foucault argues that knowledge production is constantly in flux in connection with institutional power and discourse, stating that an intellectual “doesn’t know exactly where he is heading nor what he’ll think tomorrow, because he is too attentive to the present” (Foucault, 1996, p. 225). In saying that, the philosopher avoided identifying a definitive, one-size-fits-all research approach. Instead, he advocated that his broad range of theories be used as a tool-box, and that pieces of his work be considered when applicable and useful (Graham, 2005; Sharp & Richardson, 2001). Different aspects of Foucault’s work are applied by scholars across various disciplines, including political science, criminology, , education, development, and policy studies (Dryzek, 2005; Escobar, 1995; Fairclough, 2003; Graham, 2005; (Fairhead et al., 2012); Jacobs, 1999). For my own research, Foucault’s explicit connections between power, institutions, discourse, and knowledge production serve as valuable tools. While the remainder of the thesis refers to a “Foucauldian” theoretical framework, it is important to recognize that the specific implications of “Foucauldian” can shift across disciplines and from project to project. Yet, despite its ability to shape-shift from project to project, Foucault’s work remains useful and prominent in social

12

studies, often employed to call into question relationships of power (Foucault, 1978, 1982, 2007a, 2011; Patton, 1998) and knowledge (Foucault, 1972, 1980, 1981, 2007b; Hook, 2001).

2.2 Biopolitics and social constructionism

Various concepts and theories of Foucault’s informed the ideas behind this research. For example, Security, Territory, and Population (Foucault, 2007a) and The Birth of Biopolitics (Foucault, 2010) include discussions of what Foucault calls “biopolitics”. Similar to discussions of political economy (Hayek, 1982), biopolitics are the political power that controls life4, due to the dialectical relationship between economic and political realms. According to Foucault, the conflicting relationships between collective political rights and individual economic rights are the crux of liberal society. He depicts an inverse relationship between individual economic liberties and collective rights and securities. For instance, as individual economic freedoms increase, competition associated with a increase, incentivizing low wages, thereby decreasing financial security for minimum wage workers. Foucault’s biopolitics, and its attention to the inseparability of economy and politics, represents a central relationship that the thesis considers. The research explores the TGS: a government-issued policy and standard that uses economic incentives and to protect the collective, environmental wellbeing. The TGS gently restricts market freedoms by requiring developers to prove they have considered the environment before their projects are approved. Yet, the design and implementation of the TGS’ policies were not meant to be too restrictive on developer’s market freedoms, so as to deter developers from Toronto (Jane interview). Therefore, Foucault’s biopolitics is useful for theoretically framing understandings of TGS creation, goals and outcomes, which were analyzed and are described throughout the findings chapters.

Further, a Foucauldian approach is interlinked with social constructionism (Poster, 1989; Scheurich, 1994; Sharp & Richardson, 2001), whereby knowledge and truth are subjective, and situated culturally and historically (Berger & Luckmann, 1996). Both Foucauldian and socially constructionist approaches question how knowledge is produced, as well as the abilities to make

4 In “biopolitics”, “bio” equates to “life” 13

claims of absolute truth (Fairhurst & Grant, 2010; Foucault, 2007b). In a constructionist approach, statements within a discourse gather meaning and accrue “truth”, and truth is situated within historical and socio-political circumstances (Hook, 2001). Skepticism towards absolute truth contributes to the Foucauldian approach being widely used in analyses of discourse and environmental policy (Jacobs, 1999; Richardson, 1997; Scheurich, 1994). While Foucault’s “biopolitics” frames considerations of the TGS’ broader political-economic dynamics, the specific research goals and methodologies are more acutely framed by Foucault’s constructionist discussions of knowledge production. In Foucault’s theories of knowledge production, several themes are fundamental, including consciousness, institutional power, and discourse. These topics are discussed later in this chapter, following the introduction of Foucault’s archaeology and genealogy below.

2.3 Archaeology and genealogy of knowledge

In Foucault’s The Archaeology of Knowledge (1972), which is argued to be his only book that discusses research methods, he begins by critiquing the discipline of history. Here, Foucault questions the persistence of history, and how it relies on a narrative of genres and trends. In the process of formulating genres and trends, the historian must ultimately remove the discontinuities and occurrences that do not fit into an intended description of a particular history. Where “discontinuity was the stigma of temporal dislocation that it was the historian’s task to remove from history,” (Foucault, 1972, p. 8), he is critiquing the generalized, structuralist nature of history produced as knowledge and truth. After trivializing this production of history to become knowledge and truth, Foucault then proposes an archaeology of knowledge, in order to dig up history and knowledge as it was conceived, and discontinuities were excluded.

Upon searching for what has been left out via the archaeology of knowledge, Foucault also advocates for a genealogy of knowledge. In a translated and transcribed lecture in Power/Knowledge, Foucault (1980) indicates that subjugated knowledges and discontinuities are part of a “historical knowledge of struggles” (p. 78), and that genealogy is research that concerns the rediscovery of these struggles. Foucault’s archaeology and genealogy of knowledge thus provided a framework for the starting points of the research: what knowledge is produced by the TGS? What knowledge has been excluded?

14

Within his critique of “truth” surrounding the disciplines, exemplified by history, Foucault incites his perceptions of consciousness. Interestingly, in The Archaeology of Knowledge, Foucault (1972) contrasts the processes behind the construction of the disciplines with the production of consciousness. Specifically, he questions “the sovereignty of the subject” (p. 12), arguing that the thoughts of the subject are not in fact sovereign. Instead, thoughts are linked directly to consciousness, which is a product of a continuous development. Therefore, while Foucault problematizes disciplines for forming around continuities and generalizations, he argues that consciousness itself is “a history that would be not division, but development” (p. 13). History is alive in the present, and in consciousness. This idea relates to the research approach, in that while analyzing texts and documents is critical for analysis, Foucauldian research seeks to address “beyond the confines of text” (Sharp & Richardson, 2001, p. 16), in order to understand the ideas and consciousnesses that led certain productions of knowledge. Thus, the interview component of the proposed research is relevant to the Foucauldian emphasis on the role of consciousness. Conversations with the TGS’ creators and implementers at City Planning sought to unveil the particular ideas and influences behind the TGS, to further understand its knowledge production and reproduction processes.

2.4 Power and discourse

Relatedly, Foucault (2001) attributes the continuous development of consciousness to systems of thought that are all within a given domain and time, and are in constant flux due to shifts in power, between institutions, and discourse. For Foucault (1978, 1980, 2007b), power enables the production of knowledge through the dialectical relationships of institutions and discourse. The development of consciousness interacts with discourse, meaning, “discourses are productive” (Kendall & Wickham, 1999, p. 34). Through interviews and document analysis, this research explored the ways in which discourse informs consciousness and knowledges that produce — and are reproduced by — the TGS. By highlighting the significance of discourse for welding and reproducing power, another dimension is added to the Foucauldian framework, elaborated in the following paragraphs.

In a Foucauldian framework, “‘a discourse’ is not a communicative exchange, but a complex entity which extends into the realms of ideology, strategy, language and practice, and is shaped

15

by the relations between power and knowledge” (Sharp & Richardson, 2001, p. 8). Through language and a broad conceptualization of texts, discourse is a component of societal circumstances that is closely related to other components, and is reinforced through institutions and pedagogical processes (Foucault, 1981; Hook, 2001). In The Archaeology of Knowledge (Foucault, 1972), discourse is exemplified by a book. Here, discourse holds power, in that it informs and is informed by the subconscious of the present. The book is produced by, and contributes to further production of, discourse and its associated knowledges.

For Foucault (1972), all discourse has a “secret origin - so secret and so fundamental that it can never be quite grasped” (p. 23). In this quote, Foucault is referring to his argument that discourse is part of a history, and represents a population of events, organized in a particular way at the given moment in time. It is widely acknowledged by Foucauldian scholars that discourse is constituted through a relationship with power. Discourse enables power by ensuring a reproduction of a social system, founded on principles of exclusion and truth (Hook, 2001; Potter, Wetherell, Gill & Edwards, 1990). Foucault’s conception of discourse and the power it holds provides an interesting frame for the research. The TGS is not simply be viewed as a sovereign policy. Instead, the “material with which one is dealing is, in its raw, neutral , a population of events in the space of discourse in general” (Foucault, 1972, p. 27). For this project, a Foucauldian framework provokes a critical perspective towards knowledge and “truth” purveyed through environmental discourse in the TGS. Power is constituted through accepted forms of knowledge, and embedded in discourse (Foucault, 1978; Kelly, 2013). Power is in constant flux and renegotiation between institutions, leading to shifts in discourse, which in turn condition shifts in institutional frameworks and policy (Richardson, 1997). In this thesis, I identify and question the environmental-political discourses that affect policy-making, by exploring the case of the TGS. Foucault’s notions of discourse that frame this thesis are further detailed in the following paragraphs.

2.4.1 Discourse: Theoretical implications and questions

For Foucault (1972), discourse is a product of history, of what has already been said, and “never- said” (p. 25). Applying his criticisms of the production of history and its evasion of discontinuities, “the manifest discourse, therefore, is really no more than the repressive presence

16

of what it does not say” (p. 25). For Foucault (1980), discourse only wields power on the basis of being “truth”, and must exclude other knowledges in order to do so. In “The Order of Discourse”, Foucault (1981) states that

In every society the production of discourse is at once controlled, selected, organised and redistributed by a certain number of procedures whose role is to ward off its powers and dangers, to gain mastery over its chance events, to evade its ponderous, formidable materiality.” (p. 52)

The archaeological and genealogical research processes that Foucault condones include the questioning of the reproduction of power through discourse, and the globalizing, hierarchical, and privileged relationships that discourse may be reinforcing. He advocates exploring discourse to see whether the surface value represents an effect of “more firmly grounded entities” (Foucault, 1972, p. 26).

The relationship between environmental policy and discourse is important for the research. Many environmental policy theorists argue that environmental policy is ultimately a reflection of prevalent discourse (Dryzek, 2005; Hajer, 1995; Reed, 2008). This argument is expanded in the Chapter 6’s discussion of environmental policy in a Foucauldian framework, and underlines the significance of Foucault’s conjectures surrounding discourse as powerful tools in shaping the research goals. For the research, a Foucauldian theoretical framework strengthens the approach by invoking questions about discourse, such as: who or what is a particular discourse excluding? What power relations are being reproduced? Who or what does the truth of a particular discourse serve? In this sense, many Foucauldian analyses that are explicitly focused on discourse explore how certain statements are created, and what can be said and cannot be said within a discourse (Fairclough, 2003; Graham, 2005; Hook, 2001; Potter et al., 1990). For Foucault (1980), power interacts with global phenomena through discourse, and by questioning discourse that appears natural and universal, he believes that one can then describe otherwise invisible unities that have been formed by a means of controlled decisions. This depiction of discourse, power, and invisible unities speaks to the line of questioning and analysis conducted for this thesis. What contextual set of power relations produced, and is reproduced by, the TGS? This question is approached in this thesis through Foucault’s notions of discourse. What discourse does the TGS

17

reproduce as natural and universal, and what are the implications for the reproduction of this discourse? The entirety of this thesis — from the research questions, methods, analytic framework, to the findings and discussion — is framed by Foucault’s questioning of power through discourse.

2.5 Why not a different approach? Rationale for Foucault over institutional ethnography or content analysis

So far, Chapter 2 has described the concepts that frame this thesis, as derived from Foucault and Foucauldian research. This section will now describe the reasons for opting for a Foucauldian approach over Institutional Ethnography (IE) and content analysis. Similar to Foucault, IE and content analysis are both useful tools for research that concerns policy, and questions of power and discourse. Early on in the formation of this research project, it was suggested that I consider using an IE approach. IE investigates social organization, often using workplace procedures as a “point of entry”, and especially centres on the use of texts in the workplace (Smith, 1990; DeVault, 2006). While IE would be a suitable approach for an exploration of the TGS, a review of both Foucauldian and IE literatures and studies led me to selecting Foucault over IE. The main reason for my choice is that I do not work in City Planning, at the City of Toronto, or directly on the TGS in any form. I am a research who is external to the production of the TGS. From my perspective, and for ethical reasons, this negates the “ethnography” aspect that constitutes IE. While not always the case, the ethnographic component of IE means that the research approach is more applicable to someone who is already part of the participant community. Beyond the fact that I do not work at the City or on the TGS, I do not have access to observing the creators and implementers of the TGS over extended periods of time. An extended observation would be required for a fruitful IE, and finding time during the day to schedule 30-minute interviews with each participant proved quite challenging. The method of IE requires observation of daily procedures and tasks in the workplace, and I did not have access to that type of research. However, the directions for future research, discussed in the Conclusion chapter, do note that future research should consider use of an IE. Yet, a future IE project would need to be co- conducted with at least one person who works directly on the policy in question.

18

Second, the documents that I have available, including long policy documents, reports, and a 276-page Cost-benefit study, allows for a broader starting point than that of IE. In an edited volume by Turner and Smith (2014), the examples of IE projects begin with the researcher observing the boxes that health care and child service workers check on their forms from day to day, for instance. For my own research, an IE method would start by assessing daily workplace tasks and practices for the TGS policy makers. The approach would also involve observations of the relevant workers, and assessing why they do particular activities, and what these mean. While this method of data collection could be interesting, again, I do not have access to full-day or long term observations of people at the City of Toronto, or people who implement the TGS. Questioning workplace processes was still very important for my research, but not necessarily in the form of observing people at work and recording what they do, as with IE. Instead, through interviews with relevant TGS personnel, I was able to target questions about the exact material that I was curious about, including processes and practices. I was able to directly ask policy makers what influenced their decisions, as opposed to gathering this information via observing textually mediated practices in the workplace. Through interviews, I was better able to access the knowledges and ideas of the persons at the City of Toronto, as opposed to observing them during a day at work. Conducting interviews along with document analysis were therefore viable and preferable options, over IE. This is true especially given the wide range of documents to analyze using a Foucauldian analytic method, which is described in the analysis chapters. Interviews as opposed to observations were better for myself as the researcher, as well as for participants, in that they were able to control their own answers. Participants were comfortable during interviews, and their ability to provide — or not provide — answers to direct questions is arguably more ethically sound than observational methods. Participants had full control over what they said during interviews, especially since I sent each participant the interview questions in advance.

Further, I have always been drawn to grand theories of political, economic, and social phenomena. My BA and MA degrees are in Human Geography, which I was drawn to because it teaches about processes that affect the entire globe. For my doctoral research, I was drawn to a Foucauldian framework because of the way that discourse is understood to operate on a grand scale, such as by affecting public knowledge. Having this idea as a foundation for the research

19

works both for IE and a Foucauldian approach, however the latter is more flexible in terms of how data is gathered and assessed. My choice of theoretical framework also takes into consideration the frameworks of some of my favourite literatures, especially Dryzek (2005) and Hajer (1995), who both refer to Foucault’s work as influential. Both Dryzek (2005) and Hajer (1995) use multiple instances and phenomena from various sources to make their arguments about environmental policy and politics, whereas IE tends to be more narrow are centralized on particular workplace practices. Notably, I believe that an IE of the TGS or environmental policy making in Toronto would better serve as a follow-up study, after some of the multitudes of available documents have been assessed, and more intricate details can be examined. As noted, this type of follow-up project would also require permission on behalf of the policy-makers involved to be observed while they are at work, or for a worker to conduct the research to fulfill the “ethnography” component of IE.

Similarly, employing a content analysis, or coding for discourse, had been considered as a research approach. Content analysis would allow for coding of interviews and documents as methods of data collection. There are many examples in policy studies that have used coding (Krippendorff, 2004; Yang & Miller, 2008). However, Foucault and the work of Foucauldian scholars (Foucault, 1972; Hook 2001; Sharp & Richardson, 2001) offers more to be done with analyzing texts than content analysis. A Foucauldian approach looks beyond linguistics and factors in the larger ideas surrounding discourse, where discourse is created, or reinforced by statements (Fairclough, 2003; Graham, 2005). Instead of using signal words for content analysis, the method that I used questioned entire statements. What objects do the statements create? What ideas are purveyed? What ideas are excluded or opposing? The importance of questioning statements for the Foucauldian analytic approach is discussed in the analysis chapter. The analysis chapter also highlights that while linguistics is not the be-all end-all of data in a Foucauldian research project, language is not ignored, and is recognized as an important component of discourse (Fairclough, 2003; Foucault, 1981; Graham, 2005). In my own approach to a Foucauldian analytic method, linguistics play into the formation of entire statements — sentences or paragraphs — as opposed to single code words. Thus, after careful considerations of several research methods and theoretical frameworks, including IE and content analysis, I

20

decided that a Foucauldian framework was the best fit. However, this does not mean that Foucault’s work is devoid of flaws, some of which are addressed below.

2.6 Critiques of Foucault

Foucault’s work is not void of certain flaws, which have been highlighted by scholars such as Habermas (1986) and Fraser (1981). The following section will identify some of the broad criticisms of Foucault’s work, and will then describe how this project aimed to overcome certain limitations of the theoretical framework.

A series of critiques on Foucault arose in regard to his debates with other philosophers, over issues of power in society. A notable example stems from his debate with Habermas (1986). General criticisms, often incited in support of Habermas’ work, claim that Foucault’s dissertations are inconsistent and rather incoherent, using “empirical insights and normative confusions” (Fraser, 1981, p. 17). Agreeably, reading through a range of Foucault’s work proves tedious at times, especially where a single narrative invokes a lengthy amount of smaller narratives to yield a single argument. Nonetheless, I do not believe this is a reason to dismiss Foucault’s work. Upon managing to follow the complex narratives or “empirical insights”, the reader is rewarded by a genealogical understanding of his overall targeted exposition. In turn, an understanding of his conceptions of power, discipline, knowledge, and truth, for instance, provide extremely viable interpretations of these phenomena within contemporary society, even all these years after Foucault’s authorship.

Relatedly, an important critique of Foucault’s writing includes that he is highly selective in his use of sources and examples, choosing select few that correlate with his observations (Fraser, 1981; Jacobs, 1999; Sharp & Richardson, 2001). Of course, a narrow selection of sources can be problematic, and should either be overcome by gathering a vast range of sources, or by acknowledging and rationalizing a limited number of examples. For this thesis, I do acknowledge the use of a case study, which means there are not a high volume of policies that I have studied nearly as in-depth as the TGS. The case study approach is justified in Chapter 3, such as by pointing out that exploring a single case is important for bringing focus to my thesis, among other reasons. Additionally, I actively avoid Foucault’s error of using too few sources. Throughout the four and a half year course of my doctoral studies, I have been continuously 21

reading relevant literature and gathering useful sources for this thesis. This is especially depicted in the literature review Chapters 5-7. After reading a large selection of relevant literature, the thesis incorporates as many scholarly discussions and perspectives as possible.

Foucault is also critiqued for purveying very broad ideas that are not often clearly defined (Gane, 2013; Webb, 2013). Relevant to this research, his notions of discourse are criticized for the lack of clear definition (Mchoul & Grace, 1997; Sharp & Richardson, 2001). Thus, in conducting research using a Foucauldian lens, interpretations of discourse and its definitions are rather subjective. However, in line with social constructionist notions of a Foucauldian framework, subjectivity should be recognized as inherent to all research, as interpretations can vary depending on a number of factors (Graham, 2005). As in all social research, the issue of subjectivity must be addressed by acknowledging positionality (Bryman et al., 2009). As such, my positionality as a researcher is described in the Chapter 3. The methods and analysis chapters (Chapters 3-4) also carefully depict the ways that Foucault’s notions of discourse were defined and used for this thesis.

Finally, Foucault has often been criticized for invoking a rather pessimistic view of human agency, in that his descriptions of all-encompassing power relations do not entail directions for pursuing resistance or change (Habermas, 1986; Hoy, 1998; Patton, 1998). Critics point out that in his analysis of power, Foucault does not offer criteria for identifying power as repressive or unacceptable, and does not suggest an ideal conception of power, or circumstances of liberation to strive towards (Habermas, 1986; Patton, 1998). Thus, with an unclear foundation of ideal power relations, and the previously noted lack of clear-cut definitions and methods, research that undertakes a Foucauldian approach can face difficulties in producing material results and recommendations (Kendall & Wickham, 1999; Sharp & Richardson, 2001). That is, while the Foucauldian framework is drenched in theory, when used on its own, it is not a framework that usually aims to procure recommendations of what should be done, especially given the social constructionist emphasis of the careful considerations of context (Escobar, 1995; Fairhurst & Grant, 2010). For the proposed research, this limitation of the framework is not a deterrent, since generating recommendations for policy change, for instance, is not one of the main research goals. While I do briefly note policy recommendations in the dissertation conclusion, the

22

research goal is mostly to better understand the discursive processes and influences of policy- making, by exploring the TGS.

2.7 Theoretical framework conclusion

In conclusion, Foucault’s work provides a useful theoretical frame for the proposed research for numerous reasons. These reasons include his conception of biopolitics, and the productions of history, consciousness, knowledge, truth and discourse (Foucault, 1972, 1980, 2010). His notions of archaeology and genealogy of knowledge are effective frames for the goals of the project. Further, Foucault’s hypothesis of the relationships between institutions, power, knowledge, and discourse are fundamental to the theoretical frame of this project, and advocate for questions of who or what a particular discourse serves or excludes (Foucault, 1972, 2001; Kendall & Wickham, 1999). However, Foucault’s work is not without its criticisms (Fraser, 1981; Gain, 2013; Webb, 2013). One of these critiques noted at the onset of this theoretical framework section is that Foucault never indicates a preferable, precise, step-by-step methodological framework (Foucault, 1996; Kendall & Wickham, 1999; Sharp & Richardson, 2001). Nevertheless, the methods proposed for this research are in line with numerous components of Foucault’s work, and are described in the following section.

23

Chapter 3: Research Methods Research methods: Introduction

The following chapter will outline the methodology used for the research project. First, I will describe the overall research design, with a justification of the selected case study for both the theoretical framework and the research goals. Second, I will detail the methods of data collection, which are document analysis, semi-structured interviews, and observations of Toronto Green Standard (TGS) Tier 1 and Tier 2 sites, and will describe how these methods are directly applicable to a Foucauldian framework. The chapter will also identify the potential limitations of the research methods, and how I strived to mitigate the limitations.

The methods will be outlined as they were used for my own investigation, and the chapter will also incorporate discussions of Foucault and Foucauldian scholars. For my own methods and analysis, I especially considered Foucault’s (1972, 1980, 1981) notions of archaeology and genealogy. While the description of the theoretical framework in Chapter 2 elaborated on poststructuralist concepts of power and truth that are important for framing the project, this section will discuss how these concepts translate into a methodology, especially centered upon discourse.

3.1 Research design: Case study

This project was conducted as a case study. Case studies involve a detailed and intensive analysis of a single case (Bryman et al., 2009), and allow for focus on specific relationships and processes that occur within the selected setting (Denscombe, 2007). Case studies seek to provide rich descriptions of subject matter, and are therefore often associated with qualitative research methods (Dyer & Wilkins, 1991). This thesis was conducted as a single case study of the TGS, which is a set of building standards and requirements based out of the City of Toronto’s Environmental Planning Division5. The study explored a single case, in a single geographic region, as opposed to a comparative case study of several cities or several policies. By selecting a

5 Often referred to as “City Planning” for short 24

single case, I was able to conduct a very thorough analysis. However, case studies, especially of single cases, lack generalizability (Merriam, 2009). The limitation of generalizability for case studies is supportive of the Foucauldian theoretical framework, in that the application of findings as a one-size-fits-all discussion would be inherently structuralist (Poster, 1989). At the same time, it is also important that I strive to achieve the goals of the thesis, one of which is to contribute to discussions of urban environmental policy making in general, beyond the City of Toronto. While my findings are derived from a case study of the TGS, some of the policy making processes that were analyzed and questioned are quite consistent across various institutions. Two instances of policy making processes that came into question are the Cost- benefit study, and the stakeholder review. Each of these processes holds significance in the thesis findings, and each occurs during policy production outside of just the TGS and the City of Toronto. However, it is still important to acknowledge that discussions of original findings in this thesis are derived from a single case study.

3.1.1 Justification of case study selection

This study seeks to contribute to discussions of urban environmental policy, which justifies the selection of the City of Toronto’s TGS as an imperative case. Worldwide, cities are ever- expanding contributors to climate change (Cohen, 2015; Rosenzweig, Solecki, Hammer & Shagun, 2011), and have become critical sites for innovative environmental policy (Watts et al., 2015). As Canada’s largest city, Toronto is an important case for contributing to worldwide discussions of cities and environmental policy. Due to its size and relative influence over Canada’s biopolitical sphere, Toronto exemplifies an important site of potentially impactful environmental policy.

The case study selection is pertinent to a Foucauldian theoretical framework. The TGS is a political document that determines economic provisions based on a set of environmental standards. Its embodiment of institutional and economic parameters exemplifies Foucault’s (2007, 2010) biopolitics, where economic and political realms intersect to control life in neoliberal society. The TGS requires certain regulations — restrictions on individual developer’s market freedoms — through Tier 1, and financially rewards those firms who are certified as Tier 2. The City Planning division itself exemplifies Foucault’s biopolitics, as a division of a political

25

institution in charge of regulating the spatial and economic intersections of urban development. The Environmental Planning division, in charge of the TGS, grapples with pressure from pro- development versus pro-environment groups on a regular basis. The two interests — rapid condominium development and environmental and ecological wellbeing — are often highly conflictual, and demonstrate what Foucault problematized in his descriptions of biopolitics. The City of Toronto has implemented the TGS, which is a contentious biopolitical policy. It detracts from the freedoms of developers by adding a number of regulations on all new developments, in order to protect the city’s environment, residents, tourists, and future generations. In summary, the case study selections of the City of Toronto and the TGS align with the theoretical framework and the overall research goals.

3.2 Research methods overview

For this project, data collection and analysis were conducted through qualitative research methods. Qualitative methods are the most suitable for the research goals, as they provide means of determining explanations for certain relationships and processes (Scheyvens & Storey, 2006). In this case, qualitative methods are used to explore the processes and relationships that contributed to the production of, and were reproduced by, the TGS. The two qualitative, primary research methods used were document analysis and interviews. Following these two methods and the organization of their findings, a third research method of observation of TGS sites was utilised, and contributed to the findings and discussion.

The two primary research methods were document analysis and interviews, and were used to gather texts — documents or transcribed interviews — that were then analyzed for discursive statements. Each of the research methods was utilised to gather data to better identify and assess the influences and implications of the TGS, especially by identifying and questioning discourses. Although both primary methods were considered primary due to the equal significance and amount of data that was contributed, the method of document analysis commenced in September 2017, prior to interviews, which started in January 2018. Once interviews started, document analysis occurred simultaneously, with both data collection methods finishing in late May 2018. The rationale for starting document analysis before interviews was to prepare for interviews with a scope of the TGS, and to optimize the interview questions with any document-related follow-

26

up. For this reason, the Toronto green standard for new mid to high-rise residential and all non- residential development (2015) was analyzed first, as it is the most comprehensive and current version of the TGS. Notably, while data collection was taking place, each primary method supplemented the other, with document analysis informing a portion of the interview questions, and interview answers indicating additional important documents for analysis, and more potential interviewees. Similarly, findings from the first two methods helped to determine the parameters of the third method, site observations.

3.2.1 Significance of multiple research methods

For this research, I collected data through the primary research methods of document analysis and semi-structured interviews, and gathered some additional findings by observing TGS sites. The use of multiple research methods was important for expanding the range and amount of data, and for triangulation during data analysis. While exploring social phenomena, triangulation involves the use of multiple research methods so that findings can be more effectively crosschecked (Bryman et al., 2009). Utilising various research methods increases the range of data collected and analyzed, and aims to increase the validity of the results through triangulation, or crosschecking of findings (Creswell, 2003).

For all research, each individual research method entails its own set of limitations. By using multiple methods, the intent was to mitigate the limitations presented by each method, if they were to be used alone (Brewer & Hunter, 2005). For example, using document analysis alone would limit the data to textual resources and an interpretation of these. By adding interviews, I was able to gain broader insight into the personal experiences and occurrences that contributed to the production of the TGS. By using more than one research method, confidence in the research findings is higher, and discussion is informed by multiple sources and mediums of data. After conducting the two primary methods of document analysis and interviews, some interesting differences arose, and are discussed in the findings. For instance, a central finding from the interviews was that the TGS aims to make incremental changes regarding the very structure of the development process in Toronto. The particular changes to the structure of development were not readily evident from the document analysis, but were highlighted during several interviews. The third method of visiting TGS sites added at least one other finding that contradicted earlier

27

findings from interviews and document analysis. The added or contradictory findings are outlined in the findings Chapters 8-11, and demonstrate the significance of using multiple research methods in this project.

3.2.2 Significance of multiple research methods in a Foucauldian framework

For Hook (2001), searching beyond purely conventional forms of printed texts, such as books and articles, is essential to a Foucauldian analysis. He emphasizes the importance of data from diverse sources to better grasp institutional links. Discourse analysts such as Fairclough (2003) and Schneider (2013) argue that understandings of contexts are essential to assessing the broader social meanings of texts, and that for Foucault, authors can be indicative of discourse. Therefore, for this project, understandings of the TGS are informed not only by analysis of the TGS documents themselves, but with the persons who are responsible for creating these documents. In this project, the three largest documents analyzed were the TGS High-Rise (2015), the TGS Low- Rise (2015), and the Cost-Benefit Study (Kesik & Miller, 2008). After analyzing the documents, I interviewed the persons who produced these documents: the City Planning environmental division TGS team, and the UofT professor who led the Cost-benefit study. By gathering information via interviews from these authors, I attained a much greater understanding of the contexts in which the TGS was produced. Ultimately, the use of multiple research methods strengthened the findings and is deemed necessary by some Foucauldian researchers (Fairclough, 2003; Hook, 2001; Schneider, 2013). The upcoming paragraphs outline the details and significance of each of the three research methods: document analysis, interviews, and observations of TGS sites.

3.3 Document analysis

In September 2017, the project began with an analysis of the Toronto green standard for new mid to high-rise residential and all non-residential development (2015), and later moved on to other relevant documents, reports, webpages, articles, and one map. The incorporation of a broad range of textual or image-based mediums aligns with the broad conceptualization of “texts” in a Foucauldian approach (Fairclough, 2003; Graham, 2005; Hook, 2001). All of the documents that were analyzed are listed in Table 1 below. The table shows the document identifiers as well as

28

the full reference. From here on in, each document will be referred to by its shortened identifier, instead of the much longer full document titles, or formal citations whereby several of them start with “City of Toronto Planning and Development”. The numbered order represents the order that I analyzed the documents in, from first document analyzed to the last. The table also indicates the document type, whether it be a policy document, report, webpage, map, or bylaw. The last column indicates a brief description of each document and any important comments. For ease of reference, Table 1 is also attached at the end of the dissertation, as Appendix A.

Table 1. Documents selected for analysis. Listed in the order that they were analyzed.

# Document Formal reference Document Description identifier type

1 TGS high-rise Toronto green standard: Making a Policy Considered the most important sustainable city happen - for new mid to document/ document for the analysis. high-rise residential and all non- report Longest + most residential development. (2015). (No. 2.1). comprehensive version of the Toronto, ON: City of Toronto Planning TGS, as of 2017. First Division & Livegreen Toronto. document analyzed.

2 TGS low-rise Toronto green standard: Making a Policy Similar to TGS high-rise but sustainable city happen - for new low-rise document/ much shorter document, residential development. (2015). (No. 2.1). report because there are fewer Toronto, ON: City of Toronto Planning requirements + options for Division & Livegreen Toronto. low-rise

3 Cost-benefit Kesik, T., & Miller, A. (2008). Final Report 276-page document detailing study report: Toronto green development the Cost-benefit study used to standard cost-benefit study. Toronto, ON: justify the TGS. Compiles University of Toronto John H. Daniels existent data from green Faculty of Architecture, Landscape and building studies. Design.

4 TGS review Lintern, G. (2017). Report for action: Report Outlines the progress that the and update Toronto green standard review and TGS has made up to Sept (2017) update. (No. PG23.9). Toronto, ON: City 2017, and how the upcoming of Toronto Planning Division. version will be changed.

29

5 TGDS staff Tyndorf, T. (2006). Toronto staff report - Report First announcement about the report the Toronto Green Development Standard. TGS, previously referred to as Toronto, ON: City of Toronto the Toronto Green Development Standard (TGDS)

6 LEED Toronto LEED supplement. (2014). (No. Policy Outlines the ways that TGS supplement 2.0). Toronto, ON: Canada Green Building document/ overlaps with LEED, so that it Council and City of Toronto guide is easier to pursue both Environmental Planning. standards in unison

7 TGS website City of Toronto Planning and Webpage Homepage for the TGS on the Development. (2018a). Toronto green City of Toronto’s online standard. Retrieved from directory. Describes the https://www.toronto.ca/city- program and has links to many government/planning- relevant webpages, which development/official-plan- were also analyzed. guidelines/toronto-green-standard/

8 Green building Ontario green building map (2018). Online Depicts the locations of green map Toronto, ON: Canadian Green Building interactive buildings in Ontario. Includes Council - Greater Toronto Chapter. map LEED and TGS buildings

9 Green roof City of Toronto Planning and Webpage Homepage for the information webpage Development. (2018b). Green roofs. of the green roof bylaw and Retrieved from general info about the green https://www.toronto.ca/city- roofs that have been built government/planning- since the TGS came into effect development/official-plan- guidelines/green-roofs/

10 Development City of Toronto Planning and Webpage Outlines the details and charge refund Development. (2018c). Development procedures of the Tier 2 doc charge refund program version 2. incentive program, specifically Retrieved https://www.toronto.ca/city- the refund on development government/planning- charges development/official-plan- guidelines/toronto-green-standard/toronto-

30

green-standard-version-2/development- charge-refund-program-version-2/

11 LEED Canada Green Building Council. (2016). Webpage Homepage for LEED certification New Construction - LEED Canada NC certification regarding new homepage 2009. Retrieved from construction. Describes https://www.cagbc.org/CAGBC/Programs/ requirements, procedures, and LEED/CommercialInstitutional/RatingsSys different LEED certifications tems/NewConstruction/NewConst.aspx

12 Green roof Green roof bylaw, Toronto Municipal Policy Part of City of Toronto’s bylaw Code. Chapter 492 (2009). Retrieved from document/ municipal code; formal legal https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/municode/ bylaw document 1184_492.pdf

13 Tier 2 project City of Toronto Planning and Webpage Lists a sample of ten Tier 2 profiles Development. (2017). Tier 2 project linking to projects. Each project is profiles. Retrieved from other profiled on its own page. The https://www.toronto.ca/city- webpages profiles were analyzed, and I government/planning- visited half of the sites. This development/official-plan- page was analyzed later than guidelines/toronto-green-standard/tier-2- other documents, as it was part project-profiles/ of the 3rd research method: observations of TGS sites

The document analysis comprised of 13 documents and many hundreds of pages, with one document alone being 246 pages (Cost-benefit study, 2008). Each document that was analyzed contributed long documents of findings that were later organized into themes in combination with interview findings, and later on, findings from site observations.

The actual process of analyzing documents was quite extensive, and was applied to all documents and interview transcripts. I used a Foucauldian lens that questions the orders and truths purveyed by statements in each document or transcript, in order to assess and question discourse. Since the process of “Foucauldian document analysis” was not limited to just the documents listed in the table above, but was also applied to all of the interview transcripts, the process of conducting interviews will be described here, prior to the description of the

31

Foucauldian document analysis. So in a sense, the description of the document analysis is broken up into two parts. One is this very section, which has outlined the actual documents that I collected, and the other is the later chapter on the analytic approach, which applied to both the documents and interview transcripts. The description of the document analysis as a step-by-step methodology, which was used for documents collected as well as interview transcripts, is so extensive that it will necessitate its own, upcoming chapter. As such, the analysis chapter (Chapter 4) will follow this upcoming section on the remaining two methods of data collection, beginning with the description of how interviews were conducted.

3.4 Interviews: Overview

Semi-structured interviews were conducted in early 2018 with available respondents who could provide insight into the processes behind the TGS. In addition to unpacking the research questions, interviews aimed to follow up on preliminary findings from the document analysis. This section will provide details pertaining to the sampling, recruitment, the interview process and the use of participant data. Note that extensive detailing of the ethical considerations for all interview related processes are provided in Appendix D: Ethics Protocol, which was approved by the University of Toronto’s Ethics Review Board in 2017, and again in 2018. Appendix D includes discussions of the recruitment and informed consent processes, among other details. Further information regarding the interviews are included in Appendix E: Sample Recruitment Email, and Appendix F: Information and Consent.

The table below provides a concise reference point for the interviews that were conducted. The table indicates the interview identifier, for easy reference during the findings and discussion sections, as well as the date of the interview. Interview identifiers are the participants’ first names. Where participants requested that their name and/or occupation remain anonymous, I have replaced their real names with a pseudonym. Pseudonyms are marked in the table with an asterisk. The interviews are listed here in the order that they were conducted, from first to last. The table also indicates where the interview took place, a description of the participant’s connection to the TGS, and any additional pertinent comments. For ease of reference, Table 2 is also attached at the end of the dissertation, as Appendix B.

Table 2. Interview participants. Listed in the order that interviews took place. 32

Interview Interview Interview location Description identifier date

Shayna January 31, City Planning meeting room, Shayna designs the planning aspects of the TGS, 2018 22nd floor, Metro Hall, 55 John especially site level and urban design Street, Toronto components; administers Tier 2 application approvals, and more.

Kelly January 31, City Planning meeting room, Created the TGS’s bird friendly guidelines and 2018 22nd floor, Metro Hall, 55 John consults on other and Street, downtown Toronto components of the TGS

Jesse February 6, Windmill Developments’ office Construction project manager; has used TGS Tier 2018 boardroom, 401 Richmond Street 1 and Tier 2 on all his projects West, Studio 236, Toronto

Jane February 9, Jane’s office, 22nd floor, Metro Project manager for Environmental Planning, 2018 Hall, 55 John Street, Toronto Strategic Initiatives, Policy and Analysis; original TGS creator; manages TGS group

Mark* March 7, Aquila Group offices, Suite VP of engineering at Aquila group, an 2018 1300, 40 University Ave, engineering and architecture firm; uses TGS Tier Toronto 1 requirements on a regular basis

John* March 9, City of Toronto offices, Metro Checks the status of certain application 2018 Hall, 55 John Street, Toronto requirements at construction sites at new buildings. Employee did not wish to disclose name or position

Mary* March 9, City of Toronto offices, Metro Consults on TGS energy and efficiency 2018 Hall, 55 John Street, Toronto components

Chris* March 9, City of Toronto offices, Metro Consults on TGS energy and efficiency 2018 Hall, 55 John Street, Toronto components

Ted March 10, Interview questions and UofT Professor. His presentation instigated the 2018 responses sent over email creation of the TGS; hired to lead the Cost- benefit study

33

3.4.1 Interview sampling methods and participants

Interviewees were selected through purposive and snowball techniques. The City Planning members who work directly on the TGS were contacted and asked if they were interested in participating in interviews. The criteria of creating the TGS yields a small number of people at City Planning, specifically four. All four members were contacted. Three of the four members agreed to participate in interviews, with the fourth member responding to a recruitment email but suggesting that the other three participants would have already provided all the necessary information. This respondent did not respond to further emails. Snowball sampling was then used during the interviews with the three City Planning members who agreed to participate, where each was asked if they could send along my information to anyone else who they may deem of interest to the research. Several persons were referred to me through snowball sampling, but not all ended up participating in interviews for reasons they did not disclose. Ultimately, three participants were successfully recruited through snowball sampling. One of these recruits was Ted Kesik, a professor at the University of Toronto’s Daniels Faculty of Architecture, Landscape, and Design, and “the principal investigator conducting a life cycle cost-benefit analysis of the first Toronto Green Standard” (Ted). Interviewee Jane attended a presentation on the life-cycle benefits of green buildings in the mid-2000s. The presenter was Ted, and his presentation inspired Jane and her (now retired) boss to create a set of development measures that would later become the TGS.

I mention this chain of relation between interviewees Jane and Ted for two reasons — the first being that it is quite remarkable that a professor’s presentation inspired such a major transition affecting the future of Toronto. Second, because this relationship that instigated TGS production relates to Foucauldian notions of discourse, in that true genealogy is impossible. For Foucault (1981), it is impossible to track discourse to a single point of origin, yet it is possible to describe the social conditions from which the beginnings of a new truth or new set of power relations emerge. The ideas and discourses of the TGS stem from existent discourses and ideas, such as those from Ted, which have their own origins, and so on and so forth, so that a single point of origin is impossible to track down.

34

Beyond the Environmental Planning group, I pursued additional interviews to assess a wider range of TGS understandings and opinions. Other recruits were drawn from LinkedIn, as I was interested in particular departments and sectors. The targeted sample here were any additional persons who work with or on the TGS, and who may have useful opinions and input in regard to its implications. This included persons from a City of Toronto division that consulted on the TGS, as well as persons who work in the Toronto building sector, among others. Part of this additional sample was drawn from existent connections on LinkedIn, but I also messaged persons on the platform who were not connected to me. Ten persons were contacted on LinkedIn, but only three ended up participating. These three respondents were extremely valuable to the research, often corroborating the findings from TGS creators, yet from the perspective of a completely different group. In addition to several City of Toronto staff, this sample included both a manager and a Vice President from two different development firms, who work with the TGS on a daily basis. Each of these respondents offered very different viewpoints, and work for very different firms, with one firm being extremely environmentally conscious, and the other sticking to the minimum environmental requirements. The construction manager, Jesse, is from Windmill Developments, a very environmentally conscious firm. The reason that I reached out to staff from that company is because one of the former directors is listed as a stakeholder on the Cost-benefit study, which was an important piece of the document analysis.

Despite contacting just over twenty people via direct and snowball sampling methods, the interview sample size ended up being nine. Although the interview sample size ended up being quite small, the qualitative, semi-structured nature of each interview allowed for in depth discussions with participants, and interviews contributed a substantive portion of the findings. Further, a small sample size had been expected prior to the research and was indicated in the thesis proposal, especially knowing that City Planning’s TGS team only consists of four people. Interviews were not intended as stand-alone data, but to supplement the other primary method of document analysis. In conjunction with document analysis and site observations, the sample size of nine interviewees provided ample data and discussions for the thesis.

35

3.4.2 Interview questions

Interviews were semi-structured so that follow up questions were able to take place during the interview (Bryman et al., 2009). Each interview was guided by a set of questions that I tailored for each participant (see sample interview guide Appendix G). Interview questions varied by participant depending on their place of employment and role surrounding the TGS, but some consistencies crossed all of the sets of interview questions. For instance, all interviewees were asked if they could suggest anyone else to speak to, so as to further the recruitment process via snowball sampling. Moreover, all interviewees were asked: to you, what is the purpose or role of the TGS? What are the benefits of the TGS? What’s your/your department’s vision or understanding of sustainability? What’s your/your department’s vision or understanding of development? These questions were asked to observe ideas surrounding the TGS, and how these ideas or opinions may change depending on the overall discourse that each interviewee operates within, by observing their/their department’s thoughts on sustainability and development, for instance. Respondents were also generally asked if their attitudes towards the environment and sustainability had changed over the years since working with or on the TGS. Each interview ended with “any additional comments or thoughts on the TGS?” or something of this manner, to allow for more discussion. After analyzing interviews according to the analytic method described in the following chapter, I ended up with findings that were outside of — even contradictory to — the document analysis findings. Understanding how discourse shapes practice is an important component of Foucauldian research. For Foucault (1972, 1981), practices are established and organized according to the particular discourses in which they operate. Therefore, I asked interview questions in regard to the practices put forth in relation to the TGS. Questions sought to assess how discourses play out in reality, by shaping relevant processes. For example, persons involved in consulting or creating the TGS were asked several questions about the process, while the development sector participants were asked about their experiences implementing the TGS. Understanding the practices that contributed to the production of the TGS bolstered the analysis, increasing the scope of understanding from textual to material events.

In-person interviews were audio recorded on my personal laptop and later transcribed. However, the employee in the City of Toronto division who requested to remain anonymous (pseudonym John) also requested that there be no direct quotes used from him or his two colleagues, Chris

36

and Mary. Instead of recording and then transcribing these three interviews from John, Mary and Chris, I only summarized notes of what they said during the interviews. I actually did not record or transcribe these interviews, to make sure they felt comfortable with how the information would be used. This way, I do not have any direct quotes from them in any document. My only stored data from the interviews is in the form of handwritten notes, each labelled with the interviewee’s pseudonym. In many places for the thesis discussion, direct quotes from interviewees are quite useful, however I did not find that my inability to use quotes or names from the three City of Toronto interviews affected the quality of my findings or discussion. The ideas that they discussed were extremely useful in providing insight into the production and implementation of the TGS, and are paraphrased in the thesis where need be.

3.4.3 Researcher and participant positionalities

Positionality of the researcher must be considered in any research process, and refers to the various positions that the researcher represents or inhabits within society that may influence the research process and the relationships between the researcher and participants (Scheyvens & Storey, 2006). The positionality of the researcher must be addressed, since inevitably, the information presented in the findings and conclusions is subject to the personal interpretations of the researcher (Creswell, 2003). Similarly, many Foucauldian and post-structural scholars argue that no matter how an examiner positions oneself, or attempts to produce research that is not affected by personal values, true “objectivity” cannot be achieved, and the interpretations of data will always be affected by the position of the researcher (Graham, 2005; Rose, 1997). Foucault describes the extensiveness of subjectivity when he states that “there is nothing absolutely primary to interpret because, when all is said and done, underneath it all everything is already interpretation” (as cited in Dreyfus & Rabinow, 1982, p. 107). Addressing the researcher’s positionality is a necessary step, intended to inform readers of the ways in which inevitable personal interpretations may have been predetermined based on this position (Denscombe, 2007). By acknowledging one’s positionality, power relations between the researcher and participants should be identified. It is important to determine power relations since they can affect the dynamic between researcher and the participants, and may ultimately influence the research results (Scheyvens & Storey, 2006). Foucault (1982) consistently iterates that power relations are inescapable. Every human relationship exists within the realms of power, whether

37

that relationship involves problematic subjections, such as in the case of domination, or not (Patton, 1998).

My own positionality reflects representations within groupings of being a white, middle class, female researcher. Between myself and the participants, there were no implications of class alone, since there were no obvious differences in class. Unlike the positionalities of being white and female, being middle class is not readily visible, and did not need to be mentioned for the purposes of the research. The same applied for the participants, since their personal wealth or status was not mentioned, nor were any implications of class noticeable. The only known class- based factor relates to all participants being employees of a particular institution or company, however this is still not indicative of class, per-se. Therefore, there were no impacts of my middle class positionality for the power dynamics in this research — unless you include the very fact that the research exists because I am pursuing a PhD, which can be less accessible to some persons for systemic reasons.

As a female conducting research, researcher-participant relationships risk being affected by forms of sexism toward females or gender bias. When conducting research for my Master’s thesis, I conducted interviews in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa (Kepe & Tessaro, 2014; Tessaro, 2012), where discrimination and violence toward women are reported as more common when compared to Toronto, Canada (Dowden, 2009). The willingness of males to participate in the research, as well as the manner in which they related to me if they did choose to participate, was affected by my gender. The dynamics between men and women in professional and academic settings are expected to be more equal in Toronto than in rural Eastern Cape, South Africa, but sexism is still prevalent. Therefore, prior to the research, possible limitations of being a female researcher were noted, such as male participants perhaps being less serious about the study. Now that the research is complete, I can not say that I noticed anything outside of a completely normal interaction with participants. At the same time, “normal” is subjective and is what I am used to as a female. I cannot compare my own experience with these exact participants conducting this exact research as a male, since being female is all I know. As far as I can tell, my gender did not affect interviews. Three of the participants were female, and the other six males. While this suggests that perhaps more males were inclined to participate, there were also a number of males that I contacted who did not choose to participate, as well as two females. Thus, 38

I believe that the ratio of male to female participants says more about the particular industries that I aimed to recruit, rather than my positionality as a researcher.

Beyond class and gender, differences in ethnicity can be sources of tension or discrimination in many social situations, including research, however I do not believe that participant-researcher relationships were affected by racial positionality in this research. Positionality as a white researcher can have strong implications where the target sample population is a racial or cultural minority, especially with populations where colonial legacies persist, and where cultural knowledge has been misappropriated and misused (Smith, 2012). For this project, the sample population was not racially or culturally based. Interview participants were selected based on their relevance to the TGS, and therefore based on employment at the City or a particular agency. Some of the participants could be viewed as “white”, but not all of them. Since we did not declare cultural background I am not comfortable making guesses as to any of the participants’ ethnicities for the purposes of reporting them here, or in general. Therefore, although the research seeks to question cultural norms as reproduced by discourse, power dynamics as shaped by race or culture did not affect the researcher-participant relationships in this project.

While implications of race or culture did not affect dynamics during interviews, the role of culture is pertinent to the research in general. Cultural situatedness is important to note for the discourses affecting the TGS. In a Foucauldian theoretical framework, it is crucial to ask not only what discourses are being purveyed by the item or process in question, but also what discourses are being left out. These questions are integral to my thesis, and are discussed in the findings. Further, my positionality as a white Canadian of European ancestry must be addressed for its implications over the project’s theoretical lens. In working with Foucauldian conceptualizations of discourse, it is critical to understand that society operates within particular discursive frames. The society that I have nearly always operated in is therefore constructed in part by discourse. My assumptions about what is natural or common sense are affected by my cultural positionality through discourse. Certainly, for this thesis, data collection and analysis could be affected by my interpretations and assumptions of what is natural. From a social constructionist perspective, subjectivity in research is unavoidable (Foucault, 1972; Graham, 2005; Rose, 1997). I can not make my own assumptions, perspectives and overarching discourses disappear for the sake of the research. The best that I can do is to identify and 39

understand them, and to question the discourses that I may be excluding. Fortunately, the thesis research provided plenty of space for these exercises. The entire thesis process, from its conceptualization to finalization, required engaging in a range of readings regarding discourses outside of my own. I am well aware that my cultural discourse is not the only one that exists, and have spent time exploring discourses outside — and questioning — my own. There are many possible beliefs and understandings about what is natural, alternative to my own. Thus, discourse that appears natural must be identified and questioned, whether it is my own cultural discourse, or the discourse deemed inherently natural through Toronto’s political economic system and the TGS. While the research aims to be as objective as possible, such as by utilising the steps outlined in the Analytic Methods, some aspects of subjectivity are unavoidable. This statement applies to all research.

3.5 Observations of TGS sites: Overview

The two primary methods were document analysis and interviews. After conducting the two primary methods and analyzing from September 2017-May 2018, I organized the findings into themes, and then more coherent structures, throughout June and early July 2018. Then, for two weeks in late July of 2018, I conducted the third research method: observations of TGS sites. This research method was a follow up to the first two research methods, and was conducted with a list of preliminary findings and themes, to see if they existed in visible form on the building exteriors. Having the preliminary findings helped determine what sites I should be observing. The third research method aimed to increase the scope of the study, and to observe if sites would confirm the findings from document analysis and interviews, or contradict them. In the end, the observation of TGS sites did both — corroborated and contradicted findings, and even led to new findings. I would also like to note that the description of this method is in this chapter because the observations of sites was, technically, a method of obtaining data. However, it is out of chronological order here — I actually conducted this method as a follow up to analysis, which is thoroughly outlined in the next chapter. The observation of sites is referenced again later, when I outline the steps of analysis, since it served as a follow up step. Here, I will describe the process of planning, visiting, and observing sites, and how the data was incorporated into the thesis.

40

Originally, I had been planning to record observations during interviews, such as by observing interviewee practices and workplaces. I did start to record these observations during interviews, however I did not find them relevant to the research goals or findings. Further, I did not feel comfortable incorporating my observations of the interviewee workplaces and practices into the research findings after such short visits, without the interviewees openly disclosing the information as part of the interview. However, I maintained the research method of the observation of TGS sites as its own method, separate from the interview sites and participants.

3.5.1 Selection of sites to observe

The findings from the two primary research methods indicated important differences between the TGS’ Tier 1, which is a set of regulations for all new buildings, versus the TGS’ Tier 2, which is the higher, voluntary set of standards. In selecting TGS sites to visit, I aimed to gather an equal mix of Tier 1 and Tier 2 buildings. Finding Tier 2 sites proved to be very simple. The TGS website contains a page entitled “TGS Tier 2 Profiles” with links to ten pages, each describing a Tier 2 certified building in Toronto. The project profiles themselves also proved to be useful, and were incorporated into the document analysis. After obtaining the list of ten Tier 2 sites from this webpage, I marked them on a hard copy map and then re-entered them onto my phone’s Google Maps application. A screenshot of a Google map depicting of all the sites I visited is attached as Appendix H.

Alternatively, finding TGS Tier 1 sites to observe was a much more intricate process, especially considering that the TGS Report and Update states that there are over 1300 Tier 1 sites across the city. An obvious approach here would be to simply observe one of the many new buildings in Toronto, assuming that if they are not indicated as Tier 2, that they are Tier 1. First of all, I did not want to make that assumption, second, Tier 1, the mandatory version of the TGS, was only introduced in 2010. Therefore, the building would have to have obtained its building permit from City Planning after 2010. This criterion leaves a much smaller sample size, since many new buildings are mega-projects, with the building process beginning years after obtaining a permit. I attempted internet searches for Tier 1 buildings in Toronto, however the searches were not fruitful given the criteria of being Tier 1. I then emailed interviewee Shayna, who deals with building permit approvals. Shayna sent me a list of building permits closed in 2018. At the time

41

that I viewed the list, in July 2018, there were 21,930 permits on the list. One would imagine that this left plenty of Tier 1 sites to choose from. However, only a fraction of a percent of the permits are for new buildings. Therefore, most of the permits on the list are not applicable to the TGS at all. After editing the list down to only those with permits obtained 2011 onward, completing a “CTRL+F” search for “new building” permits, ensuring the building plan was large enough to qualify for the TGS, and making sure that the permits had been cleared instead of cancelled, I was only left with eight sites. Evidently, there must have been more of them in the list that I missed due to my search criteria, however I determined that eight was enough. The sample of eight Tier 1 sites was almost equivalent to my Tier 2 sample size (ten), and when mapped, provided a range of locations in Toronto, from the downtown core to various areas north, east, and west of the core. Notably, the difficulty in finding Tier 1 sites versus the ease of finding Tier 2 sites became incorporated as a finding itself, discussed in later chapters.

Beyond aiming to observe a near-equivalent number of Tier 1 and Tier 2 sites, I also aimed to control for location as much as possible. I have grown up and worked in many different locations across Toronto, and know that there are vast differences between neighbourhoods. I figured that a new building in the east-end, for instance, could be different in some ways from a downtown core building, based on a range of factors including different population densities. Therefore, if I were to observe a Tier 1 east-end building, I should also observe at least one other east-end building, and it should be Tier 2, so that I do not mistake the differences between buildings in different areas as differences due to Tier. Ultimately, nine sites were observed, and are listed in the Table 3, below. The table indicates the site’s TGS Tier, the address that serves as the identifier to be used in this thesis, and the location designation, based on the inclusion in, or general direction from, the downtown core. The designation of downtown core is based on the City of Toronto’s updated downtown delineation, framed by Lake Ontario on the south edge, Bloor Street on the north, Don Valley River on the east, and Bathurst Street on the west (Planning and Growth Management Committee, 2018). For ease of reference, Table 3 reappears as Appendix C at the end of the dissertation.

Table 3: TGS Sites selected for observation

TGS Tier Address/Identifier Location designation

42

Tier 2 105 George Street Downtown

132 Berkeley Street Downtown

570 Bay Street Downtown

35 Saranac Boulevard North

775 King Street West West

Tier 1 297 College Street Downtown

20 Joe Shuster Way West

160 Vanderhoof Avenue North

120 Raglan Avenue North

3.5.2 Observation of TGS Sites: Process

Once I had my sites selected, I set out to observe the buildings. I travelled to each site either by foot or public transit, and carried my list of preliminary findings as reminders of what to look for on the sites. The questions I had when observing each site included: are there indications of classism? Are there indications of relationships with other private rating systems such as LEED? Are there indications of ecological modernization? Of sustainability discourse? What comments can be made about this building's exterior? Initially I was planning to record my observations in a notebook, however as I was walking around, I found it easier to audio record the observations onto a voice recorder application on my phone. After returning to work from each set of visits, I transcribed each voice recording onto my computer. Further, I used my mobile phone to take photographs of each site. Many photographs were taken of the sites, from multiple angles, so that I could use them as references for physical findings if need be. The photos were uploaded to my Google Photos account, and grouped into albums based on the relevant site. A screenshot of my Google Photo albums is depicted below, and displays one sample photo per site visited.

Figure 1. TGS sites: Screenshot of Google Photo albums, displaying site name and Tier

43

3.5.3 Limitations of TGS site observations

This research method solely involved photographing and observing the exterior of each building. Most of the buildings included publicly accessible back lots. I did not enter any building, question or make notes about any human subjects. In analyzing and using the data, the small sample size of buildings and lack of long term observation, personal entry, and interviewing of subjects at the sites did pose a limitation. For example, I could not confirm or deny findings about classism based solely on short observations of building exteriors. However limited in scope, the method of TGS site observations was still useful for triangulating data from the primary methods of interviews and document analysis.

3.5.3.1 Use of data from site observations

Each of the nine sites had its own set of observations that were transcribed into typed documents. After transcribing, I went through each document and made notes about anything remarkable or by comparing to my existent findings from document analysis and interviews. I also analyzed all ten Tier 2 project profile pages, even though I had only visited five of the sites. The analysis of the online profile pages served as useful additions to the data. As noted, by the time this tertiary method was conducted, I had already completed document analysis and interviews, and had a set of findings outlined. Therefore, I did not analyze the findings from the site observations with as much of a blank slate as I had for the two primary methods, which went through many months of 44

analysis and rethinking until they eventually became coherent findings. The data collected from the first two methods make up the bulk of the findings and discussion, while the observational findings contributed much less. The site observation method was more used for triangulation, to see if observing TGS sites would confirm or conflict with my existent findings, or if any new findings arose. All three of those scenarios occurred: there were findings that were confirmed, findings that could not be confirmed, and at least one new key finding from the observation of sites. Thus, the method was successful in increasing the scope of the study, even if it was only a minor increase. In conclusion, this chapter has outlined each of the three methods that were used to collect data. The following chapter will describe the steps used for analysis.

45

Chapter 4: Data analysis Introduction: Foucauldian discourse analysis

This chapter will provide a thorough explanation and justification of the steps that were used for data analysis, which were formed through a review of other Foucauldian analyses. The analysis of the data collected in this project is centered on Foucault’s notions of discourse. Therefore, this section will begin by expanding on the Foucauldian conceptualization of discourse, beyond that of the Chapter 2, to directly apply to the analysis. Many scholars differentiate meanings of discourse as it applies to a Foucauldian versus non-Foucauldian analysis, whereby the latter is purely linguistic and text based (Graham, 2005; Hook, 2001; Taylor, 2004). In linguistic analyses, the conceptualization of discourse is language based, whereas Foucauldians attribute more power to discourse, seeing it as the purveyance of worldview, and of contemporary societal conditions and power relations (Dryzek, 2005). To Foucault (1981), discourse is actually the component of social relations that is positioned between thought and speech. While speech is the textual or audible expression of thought, discourse’s goal is to remain undetectable, allowing for speech to appear as “simply thought made visible by means of words” (p.65).

Although language and texts are not the be-all and end-all of a Foucauldian analysis, their significance is not dismissed. By reviewing literature on Foucauldian methodologies, one can observe that language is often a starting point for data collection, in the shape of textual analysis (Fairclough, 2003; Graham, 2005; Sharp & Richardson, 2001). Fairclough (2003) argues that Foucauldian research must account for language, in that it is interconnected with other realms of social life. Relatedly, the Foucauldian analysis described by Graham (2005) begins with the observation of language in the form of statements, in order to identify and assess the discourse in which these statements are operating. For Foucault (1972, 1980, 1981), language is an important vehicle for discourse, and therefore for power relations. Yet, the Foucauldian conception of discourse does not rest in language alone. Hook (2001) argues that by being limited to a linguistic definition of discourse, analysis can only conceive of discourse as an effect of power, instead of discourse as power. Based on Foucault’s (1981) work, discourse not only “translates struggles or systems of domination, but is the thing for which and by which there is struggle” (p. 52-53). By utilising a conception of discourse that goes beyond its existence in language and

46

texts, to processes, systems, and forms of practice, the ability of discourses to reproduce power relations can be recognized. This recognition of the power of discourse is especially important for understandings of institutional discourse, such as in policy and pedagogical studies (Graham, 2005; Jacobs, 1999; Scheurich, 1994). Extended notions of discourse are crucial components of much of Foucault’s work (1972, 1978, 1980, 1981), and therefore are crucial for this analysis that seeks to identify and discuss institutional discourses affecting the TGS.

4.1 Data analysis

The following paragraphs will detail the specific data analysis steps used in this project. Previously, I have noted Foucault’s avoidance of producing a concrete, step-by-step methodology. With his stance in mind, many Foucauldian scholars also avoid generating clear, concise methodologies (Hook, 2001; Lemke, 2011; Patton, 1998), to deter crossing an imaginary boundary that would deem them “un-Foucauldian”, or “too structuralist”. However, for doctoral students who need to meet certain research criteria, a vague, but safely Foucauldian methodology can be problematic, especially regarding ethical considerations. Hence, those who want to remain as Foucauldian and post-structuralist as possible, while meeting academic requirements, ultimately face a conflict. The conflict of remaining post-structural and Foucauldian, while simultaneously striving to meet academic criteria, have been noted by Graham (2005). The author expresses difficulties in successfully locating concise descriptions of Foucauldian analyses, especially pertaining to genealogy, and I certainly concur.

Relatedly, in Foucauldian scholarship, there is much debate about what Foucault actually intended for the applications of his theorizations of discourse and genealogy (Hook, 2001; Hoy, 1998; Patton, 1998; Potter et al., 1990), for instance. Across the literatures, there are many arguments for what is the right versus wrong way to conduct a Foucauldian analysis, with no widely agreed upon consensus. From this, I have observed that each scholar uses Foucault’s work to generate their own arguments in support of their own frame of reference, and/or current and past research goals. Thus, scholars can be quite selective in suggesting the right and wrong way to conduct a Foucauldian analysis, and the right way tends to be what works best for them, and correlates with their specific research direction. I argue that the process of selectively highlighting Foucault’s work to support one’s own research goals is an inherently Foucauldian

47

methodology. Foucault himself was often critiqued for doing the same: using examples of phenomena selectively as they supported his arguments (Fraser, 1981; Jacobs, 1999; Sharp & Richardson, 2001). Foucault viewed his own work as a theoretical toolbox, to be employed where applicable and useful (Foucault, 1996; Lemke, 2011). With his ideals in mind, I believe that there is no specifically right or wrong way to conduct a Foucauldian analysis. Interpretations of Foucault’s arguments may vary, causing methodologies to vary, but it does not mean that any of these variations are necessarily right or wrong. Therefore, I also do not believe that providing a clear outline of research methods is ultimately un-Foucauldian, especially where this process is required as part of a doctoral thesis, and uses theoretical insight from Foucault.

That being said, for this research, I did propose a step-based set of analytic methods. The outlined approach is especially in line with Foucault’s archaeology (1972), as was described in Chapter 2. Foucault’s archaeology seeks to dig up discourse by questioning the knowledge it produces and reproduces, and the discontinuities or other knowledges that discourse excludes. The goals of analysis are to identify and question discourse, especially by questioning reproductions of discursive truth. The steps described are drawn from various scholars (Dryzek, 2005; Hook, 2001; Sharpe & Richardson, 2001). I especially draw from Graham (2005), who pays special attention to the analysis of statements, and who openly acknowledges that her step- by-step analytic was more structured than the majority of Foucauldian literature available at the time. I do not believe that my own take on a Foucauldian approach is the only “right” one. Instead, it is an articulation of previous work from Foucault and Foucauldian scholars, which best suits the goals of my research and its available resources.

4.2 Analysis preliminary step: Understandings of relevant discourses

The overall goal of analysis is to identify and question discourses within the sample texts, so that the discourses identified can lead to understandings and implications of the production and reproduction of the TGS. Essentially, the identification of discourses from the data eventually become answers to the research questions. This necessitates a preliminary analytic step, which is to research and ensure an understanding of different possible environmental policy discourses. For laying the groundwork prior to analysis, having an understanding of various discourses

48

related to environmental theory was crucial. A review of relevant environmental discourses can be found in Chapter 5. These discourses helped to inform the analysis and the findings by providing a basis for the different possibilities for types of discourses that could emerge. The range of the discourses considered in the review continued to expand throughout the course of the research, as I was engaging with more and more literature. The goal of the literature review was not to define set discourses for findings to be placed, but to ensure a general understanding of various discourses that have been put forward by others. Further, it is important to be versed in possible discourses to be able to question which discourses are being excluded (Foucault, 1972) from the transcripts and documents analyzed. Important references on environmental discourses include Dryzek (2005), Robinson (2004), and Hajer (1995).

Reviewing previous work on environmental discourses helped to inform possible analysis outcomes. In entering the data analysis phase with certain environmental discourses in mind, the goal was not to immediately assert the texts into particular discursive formations. A project that goes directly from reading texts to identifying discourses would certainly produce subjective findings. Thus, I created a set of analytic steps to limit subjectivity as much as possible, and to enable the analysis to be as replicable as possible. As such, the upcoming paragraphs will describe the analytic approach that was used, and the questions that were asked to thoroughly interrogate the discourses influencing, and being reproduced by, the TGS. Ultimately, the approach seeks to denaturalize what has become natural, and to destabilize discourse in order to reconsider its discursive functions (Foucault, 1972, 1980; Hook, 2001).

4.3 Analysis step 1: Select statements from the texts

Data analysis for this project occurred through the examination of statements, which were drawn from TGS-related documents and interview transcripts. For the purposes of describing the analysis, it is useful to note that data obtained from various methods will be referred to as “texts”, whether the data stemmed from a document, interview transcript, map, or image. All texts were analyzed in the same way, according to the process that is outlined here. As previously noted, referring to a wide variation of mediums as “texts” is a common Foucauldian analysis attribute (Fairclough, 2003), and is typical in fields such as cultural studies and media studies.

49

Throughout the data collection process between September 2017 to July 2018, as texts were attained, they were also being analyzed. As I read through each text, I selected statements. There were no critical selection criteria for statements, other than appearing to express an idea, or being part of an overall idea. The lack of criteria for statements to select for analysis meant that I actually ended up analyzing almost all of the statements of several key documents. Key documents included all of the interview transcripts, and the two TGS versions: TGS high-rise (2015), and TGS low-rise (2015). On the other hand, some documents contained many pages of non-pertinent information, such as the 17 pages of legal technicalities in the Green Roof Bylaw (2009). For the sample of less-pertinent documents, I was able to be more selective with statements. However, for the majority of the documents, this analysis step yielded a very high number of selected statements. Right off the bat, this was something that I had not originally planned for. Based on the examples of Graham (2005) and Kendall and Wickham (1999), I envisioned being able to select only certain statements that seemed important. However, as I selected nearly all statements in most of the texts, this was not the case. Even when they seemed unimportant, they could become important later, so I did not want to discount them early on. Nonetheless, selecting statements, one statement at a time, is the first step of the Foucauldian analysis that I proposed and carried out for my research. The purpose of this first step is simply to have something to analyze. As such, when I selected a statement, I copied and pasted onto a separate document, so that I could question it with the analysis steps that followed.

4.4 Analysis step 2: Observe the objects that the statement creates

Following the first step of selecting a statement to be analyzed, the next analytic steps are meant to limit subjectivity, before identifying discourse. The second step entails questioning the object that the statement creates. To Foucault, discourse operates through statements, and statements work to create objects that operate in reality, or in practice (Foucault, 1967; Hook, 2001). It is important to observe statements for the objects that they create and privilege, and the practices they codify. An analysis of statements, beyond what is said directly, can answer certain questions about what is not being said (Foucault, 1972), and the power relations and hierarchies that are being reproduced (Kendall & Wickham, 1999). A discourse acquires power by the ordering of statements into something recognizable: an object (Dreyfus & Rabinow, 1982). A statement can

50

subconsciously indicate an object, which in turn has its own functions. Graham (2005) argues that discourse operates in the status of objects that come together to be something nameable and observable. The objects can become ordered, with some being a location of praise and/or normativity, while others, directly or indirectly, a subject of scrutiny. In her studies of ADHD discourse, Graham points out that a school’s Code of Conduct is a set of statements that come together to produce an object, which is a well-mannered, well-behaved student. In applying this step to my own research, given the high number of statements that were analyzed, there are many examples that can be provided. Here, I will present three. It is also important to note that for each example, there were many objects and opposing objects identified. However, for the sake of this demonstration, I will limit the number of objects, opposing objects and trains of thought that each statement provoked to one or two per statement.

4.4.1 Questioning the object: Example 1

The first example considers the statement from the TGS Review and Update (2017): “this report was prepared in consultation with Toronto Building, Environment and Energy, , and Recreation, Toronto Water, Transportation Services, Solid Waste, Legal Services and Corporate Finance Divisions as well as the Chief Resilience Officer” (pg. 2). Based on this statement, I can observe that the object being created or referred to is a report on an environmental standard (the TGS) that in some way involved a multitude of municipal government divisions and municipal government personnel. Upon further reading of the document, it can be noted that the City divisions and staff listed are not just consulted for the report, but were consulted in the process of reviewing and updating the TGS for its third, upcoming version. Thus, as the analysis continues, the object here can be narrowed down to an environmental standard (the TGS) that consulted many City divisions and staff.

4.4.2 Questioning the object: Example 2

For a second example, I will draw upon a set of introductory statements from both the TGS high- rise and TGS low-rise, which outline the type of new buildings that qualify for the TGS:

There are two versions of the Toronto Green Standard, each relating to different development types:

51

• “Low-Rise Residential” applies to row and townhouses, up to 4 storeys (under Part 9 of the Ontario Building Code) with a minimum of 5 dwelling units. • “Mid to High-Rise Residential and Non-Residential” applies to residential apartment buildings 4 storeys and higher and all Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (ICI) development. (p. 2)

After observing the statement, it can be noted that one object is a set of environmental standards (the TGS) that apply only to certain building types and sizes. Specifically, for residential properties, the new building must have five dwelling units or more to qualify for the TGS. So, the object is an environmental standard that automatically applies to new developments of a certain type, whereas for residential developments, there must be at least five dwelling units.

4.4.3 Questioning the object: Example 3

In both the TGS high-rise and TGS low-rise, directly following the previous example is a statement about the two-tiered structure of the TGS: “Tier 1 is required through development approvals implemented by City Planning and Tier 2 is the higher, voluntary standard” (p. 2). This statement is central to the TGS framework, and is reiterated in some shape or form in many of the texts (Kelly, LEED supplement, Shayna, TGDS staff report, TGS review & update). By observing the statement, it is evident that the object is a hierarchical framework. Going into further details, the object is a hierarchical framework with the first tier being required to all developments of a certain type and size and the second, higher tier being voluntary.

In each of the statements exemplified, the object that is created is being purveyed as a normative object: a norm that is produced or reproduced by the statement. Examples two and three — the residential size qualifier and the two-tiered framework — are central to the operation of the TGS. In this sense, the normative objects created or reproduced in these two examples are not just pertinent to the statements alone, but to the totality of the TGS. Moving forward, at this stage in the analytic framework, statements have been selected, and we have observed and identified an object that each statement speaks to or creates. I consider this step to be an observation of what is said by the statements, which leads us to the next step: the questioning of what is not said.

52

4.5 Analysis step 3: What is the opposing object?

For Foucault (1967, 1972, 1980), questioning overarching discourse should lead to a better understanding of what is said, and what is not said by that particular discourse. As discussed in the Chapter 2, discourse creates a set of rules through what is said, while at the same time operating through a set of exclusions (Foucault, 1972, 1980, 1981). By delineating what fits into a discourse and what does not, objects and their exclusions shape what is not said, which is an important question for Foucauldian scholars to ask (Dreyfus & Rabinow, 1982; Kendall & Wickham, 1999). In some circumstances, the object that operates outside the norm may be indicated as problematic, and may even become the object of an oppositional, or abnormal discourse (Scheurich, 1994). The framing of an oppositional discourse may then produce a course of action surrounding the oppositional object. Drawing on Foucault (1967), an example of the normative object and discourse is the discourse of reason, where the object made recognizable is a reasonable, rational person. Here, a second object is indirectly created, pertaining to those that operate outside the normative discourse. Thus, the discourse of reason naturalizes the exclusion of those who are considered unreasonable, or irrational. By being excluded from the normative discourse, the irrational person is problematic, and a second discourse forms around this problematization. In this instance, Foucault describes it as the discourse of madness. A course of action is then formed around the discourse of madness, and the object requires psychiatric treatment or a “cure” such as institutionalization.

Further, Graham (2005) depicts a similar function of “what is not said” by the statements within the school’s Code of Conduct. From the statements of the Code, the normative object created is the well-behaved student, so an opposing object would be the unruly student. In turn, this opposing object can become the object of a discursive problematization, which may include ADHD discourse. Graham argues that the discourse of the Code overlies the oppositional discourse of a student that potentially has ADHD, for which the course of action is the prescribing and administering of ADHD medication. For both Foucault’s (1967) and Graham’s (2005) oppositional objects and oppositional discourses, the course of action that is formed is that of . With these conjectures in mind, following the identification of objects that are purveyed as norms, my Foucauldian analysis asks: what object is outside of this norm? The purpose of questioning an opposing, or excluded object is to eventually discuss the implications

53

of these exclusions for discourse. The questioning of the opposing object adds to the analysis of statements, to understand more about overarching discourse. So far, with the examples from the thesis, we have selected statements and observed the normative objects that they create or reproduce. By being normative, objects that function outside the norm would be different or oppositional in some way. That is, by creating or reproducing normative objects, each statement is then to be questioned for its opposing object. What object is oppositional to, outside of, or excluded by the object that the statement creates? Let’s look at the examples.

4.5.1 Oppositional or excluded object: Example 1

In the first example, the object created by the TGS Review and Update (2017) was an environmental standard (the TGS) that involves the input of a multitude of municipal government divisions. Based on this object, one opposing object would be no environmental standard at all. Or, observing the long list of municipal governmental bodies, an opposing object might be an environmental standard that is non-governmental, or privately run. LEED and other privately-run, for-profit green building standards exemplify the type of object excluded by this statement. Here, we can note that both opposing objects speak to the conditions that existed before the TGS was created: there was no green building requirement run by the City of Toronto. There was only the option of pursuing privately-run standards, such as LEED. From here, a question to pursue in interviews and further analysis is: what led to the City’s decision to create the TGS? Why did the City decide to create their own standard instead of requiring LEED, such as in the City of Vancouver (Pander, 2016)?

4.5.2 Oppositional or excluded object: Example 2

The object from the second statement is an environmental standard that automatically applies to all new industrial and commercial developments, and residential developments over five stories. Again, one opposing object would be no environmental standard. Another opposing or excluded object is an environmental standard that includes the many residential developments across Toronto that are under five dwelling units. Already, you can see how the questioning of the object and the opposing object would have lead to further trains of thought, questioning and analysis as the research progressed. For instance, based on the opposing object in this example, I jotted down the question to ask some of my interviewees — why are developments under five

54

dwelling units excluded from the TGS? The answers had to do with municipal versus provincial jurisdiction over new, smaller residential units, which speaks to democratic pragmatism discourse. In the discourse of democratic pragmatism, environmental policies are largely affected and shaped by government’s bureaucratic and democratic structures (Dryzek, 2005).

4.5.3 Oppositional or excluded object: Example 3

The object from the third statement was a hierarchical framework where Tier 1 is required and Tier 2 is a higher, voluntary standard. Here, an oppositional object would be a non-hierarchical framework, where all of the same standards are required of every development, instead of having the option for some to be ranked higher. Similarly, there could be no requirement or regulation, and everyone is only subject to a voluntary standard, if they should choose to pursue it. Again, based on the questioning of an object and an opposing object from the statement regarding the tiers, you can see how the analysis would lead to more questions about the choices that the TGS staff made. Why did they opt for the two-tiered system with both regulations and a higher, voluntary level? This is an example of a question that arose through the analysis, which led to more rounds of questioning and analysis, and eventually to themes regarding discourse.

4.6 Analysis step 4: Question knowledge, truth, orders, and hierarchies

For Foucault (1967, 1980, 1981), discourse allows for positivist notions of true and false to remain invisible, and to be reproduced as knowledge. Discourse serves to naturalize and reproduce hierarchical relationships, and wield power on the basis of being truth. In this analysis, observing and questioning normative and opposing objects seeks to make discursive truths visible, and to denaturalize and destabilize the orders and hierarchies reproduced through discourse. These goals align with Foucault’s archaeology and genealogy (1972, 1980). For Foucault (1967), the hierarchy produced through discourse is the reasonable person over the mad; for Graham (2005), the hierarchy produced by the school’s Code of Conduct is the well- behaved student over an unruly student. The hierarchies that are embodied within statements persist through discourse and have major effects on functions in the real world (Foucault, 1972; Mchoul & Grace, 1997). Identifying and questioning naturalized hierarchies, orders and truths is thus an important step in the research. By analyzing the normative and opposing objects of

55

statements conveyed by the texts, further questions about the objects and power relations arise. Based on each statement, the object it creates or reproduces, and its opposing object, what truths, ideas, hierarchies, and/or orders emerge? To demonstrate, I will revisit the three examples from the TGS high-rise, TGS low-rise, and the TGS Review and Update.

4.6.1 Questioning knowledge, truths, orders and/or hierarchies: Example 1

From the first example, the object observed was the environmental standard that is overseen by a range of municipal governmental bodies. The opposing objects include a privately-run, for profit environmental standard. From this, one can observe that in the discourse of the TGS Review and Update, a City-run green standard is ordered over a privately run, for-profit standard. Why? What does this say about the relationship between the municipal government, the creators of the TGS, and privately-run green standards? Is there a reason that the city chose to create and implement its own standard as opposed to implementing a private standard, like some other municipalities have done? I was then able to follow up on such questions during interviews. Further, several documents that detail the popular green building rating system known as LEED, in relation to the TGS, were then added to the list of documents to analyze. This shows how the analysis of one statement led to a new line of questioning and analyzing.

4.6.2 Questioning knowledge, truths, orders and hierarchies: Example 2

In the second example, the object is a green building standard that automatically applies to commercial and industrial development, and larger residential developments. From the statement and the object, we see that smaller residential developments are excluded from the TGS. As described, the analysis of this statement and its objects led to further interview questions: why are smaller residential projects excluded? Further, if we analyze the statement and the objects for truths, orders and hierarchies, it can be noted that for the TGS, larger residential projects are ordered above smaller ones. This is evidenced by the statement and the objects, where residential projects under four stories have their own, shorter version of the TGS (TGS low-rise), and residential projects under five dwelling units are excluded from the TGS altogether. Since the TGS is a green building standard, a truth being purveyed here is that for development in Toronto, larger residential projects are automatically required to be greener, by qualifying for the TGS, and potentially qualifying for the more extensive version of the TGS that has more requirements

56

(TGS high-rise), in addition to having the option for financial rebates through Tier 2. Residential developments under five dwelling units do not have the option to participate in the TGS, but must find another standard6. So, as reproduced by the TGS, larger scale residential projects are automatically required to be greener than smaller scale projects. A hierarchy has emerged in terms of green development.

4.6.3 Questioning knowledge, truths, orders and/or hierarchies: Example 3

From the analysis of the statement, object and opposing object in example three, I have already identified the line of questioning that was pursued as a result. Why did the city opt for a two- tiered program, with voluntary incentives and regulations? What are the benefits of each? Additionally, from this analytic step, notions of hierarchies, orders and truths emerge. Tier 1 and Tier 2 projects are different from each other, based on the level of green development that they have pursued. Tier 2 projects are of a higher standard; they are “greener” than Tier 1 projects. Many additional questions arise from these ideas, to be pursued through further document analysis and interviews. For instance, what other differences are there between Tier 1 and Tier 2 projects? And, on a more general level, are the voluntary incentives effective? Are Tier 2 projects common in relation to Tier 1 projects? Why or why not? What are the implications of having two different TGS tiers? The goal of this fourth analytic step is to question orders, hierarchies, and truths that are produced or reproduced by the objects that the statements create.

4.7 Analysis step 5: Consider discursive themes

Analysis steps one through four are repeated for each of the statements selected, from all of the texts. Once the analysis of statements, objects, truths, and hierarchies is complete, the next step is to review the analytic findings, and organize according to theme. Assigning themes can be problematic in a poststructuralist Foucauldian framework (Poster, 1989). However, the analytic steps up to this point have aimed to reduce the subjectivity of assigning themes. There has been a consideration of objects, exclusions, orders and knowledge, but no assumptions about discourse.

6 At this moment in time, there are no other options of government-run green building standards in Toronto. Further, many provincial rebates for green buildings and homes have recently been cancelled in Ontario, on account of the new Progressive Conservative Party leadership (Kalinowski, 2018) 57

What we are left with, at this current point in the analysis, are volumes and volumes of analysis notes. For this project, the analysis of the 22+ texts pertaining to the TGS that occurred over an eight-month period yielded 215 pages of typed notes. The number of pages that resulted from the analysis of each text was documented, attached as Appendix I: Analysis Tracking Table.

At this stage in the analysis, the 215 pages of data were in the sequential order through which statements were analyzed and questioned. The data needed to be reorganized and restructured to become usable. As such, I created sub-documents, each pertaining to a general discursive theme. For Foucauldian scholars such as Dryzek (2005), and Kendall and Wickham (1999), themes that emerge from analysis of texts are important indications of discourse. My notes were divided accordingly, with the notes surrounding each statement copied and pasted into a separate parent document that represented a particular theme. To further limit subjectivity at this stage, many statements were copied into multiple parent documents, so that they were not limited to being part of one theme, or just one set of findings. I also created a document for miscellaneous notes that did not fit into any of the themes, but could potentially lead to something later. Notes continued to move around as the project progressed.

The parent themes were based on ideas that had emerged from the analysis thus far, as well as the environmental discourses outlined in Chapter 5, which were reviewed for their potential relevance to the TGS. For example, certain discourses from the literature review are based on a prioritizing of the economy to make environmental policy decisions, such as economic rationalism. Therefore, I entitled a document “economic focused”, and as I went through my 215 pages of analysis, I copied and pasted notes where I had commented on the prioritization of the economy into the document. Another document was entitled “relationship with the province”, where I pasted all notes about the city’s relationship with the province, and limitations as set by the province. Analysis surrounding Tier 1 requirements versus Tier 2 as a voluntary incentive were also collected into a separate document. All in all, there ended up being eleven themed, parent documents. There was lots of crossover between the themes. From here, since there were so many notes and so much data, the process of reorganizing into more coherent themes had to be repeated several times. Each time, the themes and ideas were refined into better-organized documents. Through the process of re-reading and re-organizing my notes several times, discourse, and the implications of discourse, became more visible. 58

4.7.1 Considering discursive themes: Examples 1, 2 and 3

To demonstrate Analysis Step 5, I will draw upon the notes from the examples that I have been using so far. From the analysis of the examples, we have notes and questions regarding numerous ideas. These include the objects of the green standard and set of Tier 1 requirements that are city-run, the minimum size requirement as a qualifier for the TGS, and the Tier 1 versus Tier 2 hierarchy that is purveyed through the structure of the TGS. The opposing objects for Example 1 speak to the conditions that existed in Toronto prior to the TGS. These opposing objects were: no green building regulation across Toronto and only voluntary, and/or privately run, optional green standards available. When combined with the analysis of statements from other documents and interviews, it becomes apparent that prior to the TGS, only a select few of the largest, “leading edge”, high-end development companies were pursuing the voluntary green standards (Cost-benefit study, Jane, Kelly, Shayna). This context is indicative of what I refer to in the remainder of the thesis as “urban environmental classism”. Urban environmental classism is assessed as a potential outcome of ecological modernization discourse, whereby green development and green products are priced at higher levels than their non-green counterparts, creating a division of environmental to non-environmental, along the lines of class. Applying the examples of opposing discourse from Foucault (1967) and Graham (2005) to the statements and context of urban environmental classism, opposing objects are the non-green developers. The course of action that forms around the opposing object is again a form of regulation. For Foucault (1967) it was psychiatry and institutionalization, for Graham (2005) it was ADHD medication, and for an existent discourse of urban environmental classism it is a green building requirement: the TGS’ Tier 1. The smaller, lower-end developers are the opposing objects that necessitated the creation of a discourse of regulatory action, that becomes the TGS’ Tier 1. This example and its implications are detailed in the findings and discussion chapters.

When combined with other analysis notes in the parent document about the Tiers, and the document about the economy, for instance, we continue to see a connection to discourse. The notes from the examples 1, 2 and 3 outlined here speak to notes from other statements, including a table from the TGS Review and Update. The table shows the higher average levels of investment required for Tier 2 projects. All together, the analysis shows that larger residential projects automatically qualify for the TGS, and require higher levels of financial input to achieve

59

the higher level of green certification (Tier 2). The emergent finding here is that “greener” development is still equated with higher investment, and so the TGS reproduces urban environmental classism. Here, the process of combining notes into findings has been considerably simplified for demonstration purposes. In actuality, each themed document was very lengthy. The economic-focused document was 46 pages, for example, and the process of analyzing notes was much more extensive than what I have demonstrated. The ultimate goal of the organizing of notes by theme is to eventually gather findings in regard to discourse.

4.8 Step 6: Question discourse

In this thesis, I sought answers to the following research questions:

• What discourses produce, and are reproduced by, the TGS?

• What discourses are excluded from the production and reproduction of the TGS?

• What are the influences and implications of these discourses that produce, are reproduced by, or are excluded by the TGS?

• Who or what do the discourses serve and/or exclude?

Up to now, the analysis has gathered and analyzed large volumes of data for statements, objects, hierarchies, truths and general parent themes. When the analyses are re-read and reorganized several times, answers to the research questions emerge. What do these compiled analyses and documents say about discourse? The organized and re-organized data contain findings about the discourses that dominate the production and reproduction of the TGS.

Additionally, excluded discourses, and the implications of these exclusions for who or what the TGS excludes, could be better assessed when findings about dominant discourses were made visible. As the findings about discourse were re-read, a document named “what’s excluded” was produced simultaneously, to become its own parent document. The questioning of the excluded objects in analysis step three — what is not said — was particularly useful here. In the justification of that analysis step, I referenced the exclusion of objects that in turn created their own discourses of exclusion or even problematization. The examples were the discourse of the mad (Foucault, 1967), and ADHD discourse (Graham, 2005). From my own research, I will briefly demonstrate here with example one, where the object was an environmental policy (the

60

TGS) that was formed by multiple City divisions and staff. This along with other notes speak to Dryzek’s discourses of government-based environmental problem-solving: administrative rationalism and democratic pragmatism. When we examined the same statement for opposing objects, and then combine these notes with other findings, we see that an excluded discourse is full neoliberalism. The TGS is evidently created by multiple public units, so a discourse where environmental decisions are made exclusively by private entities is excluded.

From example three, the object was the TGS as a two-tiered framework, and the excluded object was a non-hierarchical, non-binary environmental standard. When combined with all the other analyses, it is apparent that the two-tiered framework reproduces a discourse of financial competition, which speaks to ecological modernization and economic rationalism discourses. When we revisit the opposing object and combine with other notes, excluded discourses are noted as those that produce equality, such as biocentric or Indigenous discourses. When combined with the economy-based findings in particular, excluded discourses are those that highlight financial equality, such as socialist discourses. All in all, by completing the steps in the analysis, reorganizing and assessing the findings, discourses that dominate TGS production and reproduction emerge, as well as excluded discourses. From there, implications can be better assessed, including who or what the discourses are serving and/or excluding.

4.9 Analysis follow up and the third research method: Moving from textual analysis to observations of physical realities

For Foucauldian researchers Sharp and Richardson (2001), textual analysis is significant, but Foucauldian analyses should seek to address “beyond the confines of text” (p. 16). In my own Foucauldian analysis, as influenced by various works and scholars (Foucault, 1967, 1972, 1980; Graham, 2005; Hook, 2001; Kendall & Wickham, 1999; Sharp & Richardson, 2001), objects were analyzed for their production, reproduction and ordering through statements and through discourse. These objects have functions that exist in the real world. They are not objects solely within the text, but discursive objects that exist and function within power relations in the material world. This understanding is important to avoid underestimating the material effects of discourse, and discursive effects on the material. Throughout his work, Foucault (1967, 1972, 1980) underlines the inseparability of discourse and material physicality. The strong relation of

61

power and discourse is an epistemological strength of Foucault’s work (Hook, 2001), and ultimately shapes my own research, where the purpose is to understand the process of environmental policy production. In addition to analyzing discourse from the sample texts, the research aimed to observe extra-textual discursive formations, to better understand discourse’s web of effects (Hook, 2001).

As previously outlined, in this thesis I have used three research methods: two primary methods of document analysis and interviews, and one additional method of the observation of TGS sites. The final research method, observation of TGS sites, aimed to increase the scope of the existent data. In line with Foucault’s emphasis on the power of discourse and its effects on the real, the third method was also used to observe discourses in physical reality at sites where buildings embody the TGS. At this stage, the data has been analyzed and organized into findings about discourse. Now, goals and directives for the observation of TGS sites could be derived from the findings. What sites should be observed? What should I observe or question at the selected sites? The rationale behind where and how this method should take place was described in Chapter 3. Ultimately, the third method of TGS site observation is used as a follow up to analysis. Findings from this method were then organized by theme and added to existent parent theme documents. Some of the findings from the observations of the sites corroborated existent findings, while some conflicted. By observing discursive realities in TGS sites, I was better positioned to discuss the implications of TGS discourse in reality.

4.10 Analysis: Finalization of findings and use of results

At this stage in the analysis, all of the data has been collected, analyzed, and organized. All that remains is to turn the notes into findings and discussion chapters. Having read through the statements from the texts, the notes on the objects, opposing objects, hierarchies, truths, knowledge and themed documents several times, outlines for findings and discussions could be created. The multi-step method of narrowing down findings from statements meant that statements were often used as proof of findings throughout the findings and discussion chapters. Having the findings organized with statements from different sources also allowed data to be cross-checked. Differences in findings between each research method could be observed. Do the findings from TGS documents vary from interview or site observation findings? And vice versa.

62

All in all, the thesis results are used to form a discussion about the discourses that produce, and are reproduced by the TGS, and the implications of the discourses. While the description of this final process — turning the organized notes into findings and discussion chapters — is relatively short and straightforward, the process took approximately five months, from August to December of 2018. In conclusion, this chapter depicted the thesis’ analytic framework. The following chapter will approach the research topic through a review of environmental policy discourse literature.

63

Chapter 5: Environmental Discourses Literature review: Introduction

Now that Chapters 2-4 have identified the thesis’ use of Foucault’s discourse, the following Chapters 5-7 will review all other relevant literature. The literature review is broken up into three smaller chapters. Since the goal of the research is to explore the discourses that have influenced an environmental policy document, Chapter 5 begins by walking through major discourses that are argued to have affected environmental politics and policy. This first literature review chapter (Chapter 5) outlines the environmental discourses that were considered throughout data collection and analysis, and are revisited in the findings Chapters 8-11. These discourses include survivalism, Prometheanism, economic problem-solving discourses, sustainability, sustainable development, and ecological modernization. Foundational texts include The Politics of Environmental Discourse (Hajer, 1995) and The Politics of the Earth (Dryzek, 2005), with both works accrediting Foucauldian theory. Chapter 6 will then demonstrate that environmental discourses shape the ways that environmental issues are interpreted, defined, and mobilized. The chapter uses instances from the literature to assert that understandings of environmental issues ultimately set the stage for creating environmental policy, and that this process is strongly affected by discourse. The third and final literature review chapter (Chapter 7) steps away from discourse theory, by providing a review of other green building policies and municipal environmental policies similar to the TGS.

Similar to Foucault (1980, 1981), Hajer (1995) argues that environmental discourses are not formed through a linear, value-free process, but through a struggle between various institutions and their actors, such as scientific, political, and activist organizations. Together, these institutions “develop and sustain a particular discourse, a particular way of talking and thinking about environmental politics,” (p. 10) especially through the employment of specific storylines. What Hajer indicates as storylines, or, common threads, stories, or issues that occupy a particular discourse, may be interpreted and acted on differently by the varying institutions or groups, according to their own interests and positions. Relatedly, this chapter will contend that environmental discourses and their storylines shape the defining of environmental issues and policy. Prior to this argument, the upcoming paragraphs will describe the environmental

64

discourses that have been identified by scholars such as Dryzek (2005), Hajer (1995), and Robinson (2004) as most influential to contemporary environmental policy, and therefore to this research. Attending to the Foucauldian framework, the literature review Chapters 5-7 will also introduce some of the criticism and implications of the major contemporary environmental discourses, by asking who or what is being served by these discourses, and who or what is being left out. These questions are introduced in Chapters 5-7 to set the stage for the findings and discussions chapters (Chapters 8-12).

5.1 Introduction to environmental discourse literature: Distinctions and commonalities

This chapter describes several of the main discourses that have been theorized and assessed in relation to environmental politics and policy across relevant literatures. Since a “discourse” can refer to an overarching perspective or set of beliefs, an extensive number of environmental discourses that have been described across the literatures. This section does not claim to be a comprehensive guide for all possible environmental discourses, but will review the discourses that have affected the trajectory of widespread environmental policy in some way. The review of pertinent discourses will also include some of their criticisms, which often stem from environmental discourses that have been widely excluded from dominant environmental politics, often categorized as “alternative” or “radical” (Harvey, 1996; Kalland, 2003).

It is also important to note that the specific definitions, categorizations, and applications of each discourse vary from author to author. For instance, Mühlhäusler and Peace (2006) describe what they call micro and macro discourses, while Herndl and Brown (1996) categorize discourses according to whether they are predominantly ethnocentric, ecocentric, or anthropocentric. From my own experience, the latter of these categorizations has been used regularly in university courses, along with the broad distinctions of environmentalist and conservationist discourses (Ruijgrok, Vellinga & Goosen, 1999; Tessaro & Kepe, 2014). Further, Dryzek (2005) categorizes discourse as it has played out into politics, such as into survivalist, Promethean and problem-solving discourses. Similarly, in Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference, Harvey (1996) describes relationships to nature that are discursive components of major political regimes, drawing examples from authoritarianism, conservatism, and liberalism.

65

While there are many variations that can be found across environmental discourse literature, there are also many common threads. For instance, it is widely recognized that the discourses that surround environmental policy are in constant shift according to time and place (Bromley & Paavola, 2002; Dryzek, 2005; Mühlhäusler & Peace, 2006), a viewpoint that correlates with Foucault’s (1972) notions of discourse. For instance, Mühlhäusler & Peace (2006) argue that society’s predominant environmental discourses have shifted in recent decades, from the view of the environment as mostly self-regulating, to the need for its protection. Relatedly, according to many theorists (Dryzek, 2005; Hajer, 1995; Jamison, 2001; Jänicke, Jörgens, & Weidner, 1997; McCormick, 2001), environmental politics entered onto the international stage in 1972, at the United Nations Conference of the Human Environment, held in Stockholm, Sweden. The year 1972 also saw the Club of Rome’s Limits to Growth (Meadows et al., 1972), which compared Malthus’s principles of to a set of finite resources. For Bellamy Foster (1999, 2015), whose book The Vulnerable Planet (1999) was a requirement in my undergraduate geography program, the shift in environmental discourse that took place in the 70’s and 80’s was a “Great Climacteric”. Bellamy Foster, as well as Burton, Kates, and White (1993), uses the term Climacteric to describe a critical period where serious change must occur in order to mitigate danger. Reference to the international events of 1972 as a “Great Climacteric” demonstrates the significance of this year, as emphasized across the field. Essentially, 1972 introduced a shift in international environmental discourse that underlined the need for some form of change in human treatment of the environment, to be implemented through policy (Burton et al., 1993; Bellamy Foster, 2015; Hajer, 1995; Mühlhäusler & Peace, 2006). The year brought concerns for the environment into the international political sphere, and the role of environmental concerns in international politics has slowly expanded from there.

The predominant environmental discourses that are described in the literatures, and argued to have been most influential over shifts in environmental politics, are outlined in following paragraphs. These discourses are survivalism, Prometheanism, economic decision making discourses, sustainability, sustainable development, and ecological modernization. The literature review stems from a wide range of literature, but several authors in particular were used for this thesis. These authors are: Dryzek, (2005) for survivalism, Prometheanism, and the environmental decision making discourses; Robinson (2004) for sustainability and sustainable development;

66

and Hajer (1995) for ecological modernization. The notions of discourse put forward by each of these authors are not necessarily original or standalone works, especially for household discourses such as sustainability and sustainable development. However, their literatures were selected for their extensive consideration and critical thought of each discourse role in environmental politics. Each discourse is described below, beginning with survivalism.

5.2 Survivalism

For Dryzek (2005), “survivalism” is an important environmental perspective, and has been influential over the general trajectory of environmental discourses. The discourse is based on a storyline of looming tragedy, and encompasses concepts such as and limits to growth. A fundamental notion of survivalist discourse is that exponential growth cannot go on forever. The earth has a finite amount of resources and therefore a finite capacity. Well-known examples within survivalist discourse include the essay “The ” (Hardin, 1968), whereby adding more cows for the benefit of the individual quickly destroys the commons, and the Club of Rome’s Limits to Growth (Meadows et al., 1972). While I have come across strong threads of survivalist discourse in both academic and activist circles, which demonstrates the significance of this discourse for knowledge production at the university level, the global political economy is inhospitable to full survivalism discourse (Dryzek, 2005). In a dominant economic system that emphasizes growth and strives to attain wealth (Bellamy Foster, 1999), and where this economic system produces dominant socio-politics, alternative politics that revolve around finite limits and radical conservationism are unable to flourish, despite what the science says. However, given that this discourse exists in environmental literature and that it underlines some forms of , it is considered as a possible discourse for the production of the TGS. True, that the discourse has not flourished and dominated widespread politics, but this does not mean that threads of it do not exist at the local level in Toronto’s municipal government. For this reason, survivalism’s underlying concepts of finite limits and carrying capacity were considered during analysis, and were found to have influenced the creation of the TGS in its earliest stages.

Despite its challenges for being integrated into widespread policy, I argue that survivalism plays an important role for the trajectory of dominant environmental policy discourse. As noted, many

67

authors contend that today’s prevalent environmental discourses were developed following events that took place in the 1970s and 80s, especially the Limits to Growth thesis (Meadows et al., 1972). Survivalist discourse is inherently linked to the emergence of environmental awareness onto the international stage, and whether or not the discourse has seen mass uptake into politics, it represents an important shift in society’s conception of environmental relations. Survivalist discourse calls for the need for some form of ecological protection, to be implemented via environmental policy. Hence, I argue that survivalism is an important discourse for understanding environmental policy discourses today, even due to its opposition to some predominant political economic discourses, including Prometheanism.

5.3 Prometheanism

Where survivalism is an important discourse for its call to attention of environmental concerns, the opposing discourse is Prometheanism. The storyline of Prometheanism follows the denial of limits, and “unlimited confidence in the ability of humans and their to overcome any problems, including environmental problems” (Dryzek, 2005, p. 51). For this discourse, growth and development are always positives. Interestingly, despite its opposition to survivalism, I have also come across Promethean discourse at university. A well-known advocate of Prometheanism is Bjorn Lomborg, whose book The Skeptical Environmentalist (2001) was a required reading for one of my undergraduate geography courses. The discourse also affects the political economy. For example, following the notion that economic growth is unlimited and indicative of political strength, many political campaigns set their first task as economic growth during elections. Donald Trump’s campaign centered solely on economic growth, while completely disregarding negative environmental impacts, and in some instances even promising to reverse milestones. The fact that he was elected President by America’s Electoral College and almost 63 million voters (CNN Politics, 2016) speaks to the contemporary significance of Prometheanism for a widespread demographic, and in turn, political parties. Similarly, the daily news and media provide consistent economic reports, whereby growth is always positive, and decline is negative, regardless of the implications of these shifts for other ecological factors.

68

Since Dryzek’s (2005) conceptualizations of Prometheanism exist in today’s dominant political spheres, the discourse was considered during the analysis of the TGS. The very fact that the TGS is an environmental policy could have eliminated Prometheanism as a potential discursive finding, because it demonstrates at least some awareness of environmental problems that are being approached through policy. However, the TGS has more than one side. As a policy that affects all new buildings, it is not only an environmental policy, but also a development framework that fundamentally rests upon the premise of Toronto’s continuous growth. The TGS’s split between being an environmental policy and a development framework means that there are multiple and potentially opposing influences and implications of this policy. Therefore, Prometheanism was considered a possible discourse for the TGS.

5.4 Environmental problem-solving discourses: Administrative rationalism and democratic pragmatism

So far, I have discussed two main discourses: survivalism, which ultimately calls for radical change, and Prometheanism, which calls for no changes in socio-political structure, besides continuous growth and development. Somewhere in between, there is a set of discourses that do not seek to transform the political economy, but do acknowledge the need for some sort of reform and control in the ways that humans interact with the environment. These discourses are very relevant to the environmental policies of recent decades, and are within a category that Dryzek (2005) refers to as “environmental problem-solving”. Based around a storyline of problem solving, these discourses recognize environmental problems and the need to mitigate them. However, they do not suggest the need to radically transform existent political economic and social structures, and instead support beliefs that environmental problems can be solved within society’s bureaucratic, democratic, and economic structures (Bromley & Paavola, 2002; Dryzek, 2005; Herndl & Brown, 1996; Vogel, 1985). For Dryzek (2005), the three main discourses under the environmental problem-solving category are: administrative rationalism, democratic pragmatism, and economic rationalism. As the author indicates, each of these discourses has played a role in informing environmental policy at some point in time, in various countries. Therefore, these problem-solving discourses are potentially important for understanding the TGS, and are briefly outlined here.

69

Along with the overall belief that contemporary political economic structures have the capacity to resolve environmental issues through a set of policies, administrative rationalism discourse emphasizes the role of experts (Vogel, 1986). In this discourse, citizens do not contribute to solving environmental problems. Instead, the state, and the experts within the state, are seen as both responsible and capable of problem mitigation. This discourse is characterized by a trust of experts, which includes scientists, and a reliance on scientific facts (Bromley & Paavola, 2002). Problematically, this discourse is strongly hierarchical, with humans being above nature, the state being above citizens, and scientists and experts being above others within the state’s internal structure (Reed, 2008). An example of how administrative rationalism has shaped policy in general is through the environmental impact assessment, which has become a standard component of development proposals (Dryzek, 2005). Administrative rationalism was found as a discursive tool throughout the TGS, as scientists and both internal and external expert groups are referred to throughout the policy documents.

Similarly, democratic pragmatism is an environmental problem-solving discourse that Dryzek (2005) differentiates from administrative rationalism by its emphasis on democratic decision making. In this discourse, more than just select experts contribute to decision making processes. For instance, a wider group within the state, such as a council, stakeholders, or citizens votes on a policy or development proposal (Reed, 2008). Democratic pragmatism discourse is exemplified by the addition of public consultations to many development processes, which have become critical components of community planning and many development discourses (Tessaro, 2012; Tessaro & Kepe, 2014). Democratic pragmatism is an important discourse for TGS production, as it sets the boundaries for the processes of policy-creation and TGS implementation.

5.5 Economic rationalism

The third discourse that Dryzek (2005) includes in the environmental problem-solving category is economic rationalism, defined as the “commitment to the intelligent deployment of market mechanisms to achieve public ends” (p. 121). Economic rationalism is linked to the ideas of Prometheanism, where decisions to protect the environment should not impede economic development. However, as an environmental problem-solving discourse, ecological problems are recognized, but the solutions to these problems are found within a capitalist free market and

70

competition (McCormick, 2001). Essentially, a free market and competition are able to solve environmental problems, according to this discourse. As such, economic rationalism values minimal environmental management from the government. Instead, the discourse would justify the privatisation of as much as possible, with the rationale that private owners are expected to take full responsibility of their environments, and would therefore ensure it is well cared for, for the sake of competition (Baumol, 1988). Beyond the examples of owners looking after their own property, such as by cleaning up litter, this discourse is problematic in reality. For instance, the air can never truly be a private good, so this discourse is unable to mitigate air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions (Dryzek, 2005).

At the same time, an economic rationalist discourse is important for the research. Even though the discourse supports free markets and minimal government interference, less radical economic rationalism sees the value in some form of government regulation of environmental problems via financial incentives (Dryzek, 2005). Financial incentives from the government, awarded for green buildings, can be applied either as sums of money, or as tax reductions (Kaplow, 2009). For example, tax reductions can be offered as a voluntary incentive for firms who reduce their pollution emissions or meet certain reductions targets (Baumol, 1988; Mühlhäusler & Peace, 2006; Walker, Brower, Stephens & Lee, 2009). The economic rationalist argument for green taxes is that they should provoke all firms to innovate or seek out technology that reduces pollution, because it will ultimately reduce costs through tax breaks (Burton et al., 1993; Kaplow, 2009). However, with the minimal government interference that is characteristic of economic rationalism, green taxes would be optional as opposed to a bylaw, meaning that large, high profit firms may find it more cost effective to simply pay the full taxes (Dryzek, 2005). This less extreme version of economic rationalism that advocates government incentives shapes the TGS. In the TGS, financial incentives are applied through development tax rebates, whereby the City refunds up to 20% of development charges if the Tier 2 requirements are met (Jesse, Kelly, LEED supplement, TGS website). Financial incentives for green buildings play a very significant role in both the premise behind, and implications of, the TGS. Therefore, economic rationalism delineates an important discourse for this research.

While examples of economic rationalist policies are easily identifiable in modern politics, the discourse can be problematic in its prioritization of economic liberties over the common good. In 71

this sense, the discourse incites a clear-cut hierarchy with above public and environmental wellbeing (Dove et al., 2003). The difficulties in finding balance between individual, private rights and freedoms, and the collective good — in this case, the environment — are exemplary of Foucault’s (2010) notion of biopolitics. For Foucault, the conflictions of private versus citizen rights are the crux of neoliberal society. Taking this into consideration, economic rationalism is understandably criticized for its lack of role for citizens, as opposed to democratic pragmatism, which emphasizes collective decision making, and sustainability, which emphasizes the agency of individuals, as described below. Further criticisms of environmental discourses that prioritize economy over environment are described later in this chapter.

5.6 Sustainability

Sustainability is an extremely common term that can be used for environmental, economic, and/or social aspects. With relation to the environment, sustainability often infers some form protection of the environment and its resources (Redclift, 2005; Robinson, 2004). However, beyond its use as a household term, sustainability can entail a set of beliefs, practices, and behaviours in regard to the environment. Therefore, it can be viewed as more than just a word: sustainability is a discourse. For this dissertation, Robinson’s (2004) paper “Squaring the Circle” is used to frame understandings of sustainability as a discourse, since he explores the concepts, practices, and behaviours that sustainability has come to entail.

For Robinson (2004), sustainability is the term preferred by environmental activists and academics, as opposed to sustainable development. The use of sustainability by these groups, according to the UofT professor, is solely concerned with ecological wellbeing, whereas sustainable development discourse has migrated to more of an emphasis on economic growth, as described in the following section on sustainable development discourse. Essentially, sustainability is truly centered on the environment, instead of environment as a subsidiary or add on to economic development. As noted, there are many applications of the term “sustainability”, outside of anything to do with the environment. However, in this thesis, I apply Robinson’s argument that sustainability is a term used to delineate environmental focus, and prioritization of environment over economic development. This understanding of sustainability became useful during the analysis of the TGS and the interviews: are there ideas involved in the production and

72

reproduction of the TGS that truly prioritize the environment? Or is the environment only a subsidiary to human-centered and economic development centered interests?

However, it is extremely important here to note that I am not suggesting that the “correct” interpretation of sustainability involves a prioritization of environmental concerns. In fact, it is quite the opposite — sustainability is a fluid concept that should be defined and applied according to needs and within relevant context. For instance, in a review of Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) projects (Dressler et al., 2010), environmental organizations partnered with Indigenous groups across different nations to create community- owned and run conservation areas. The most successful of the CBNRM projects was in Nicaragua, where the Indigenous peoples of Bosawas created their own definition of “sustainability”. As a result, they were able to prioritize their own land rights as part of the environmental conservation project. In this context, for this group of people, the environment alone was not at the forefront of sustainability discourse. However, for the analysis of sustainability discourse utilised in this thesis, I use Robinson’s (2004) argument where unlike “sustainable development,” the term “sustainability” is most often employed by groups and purposes that do prioritize environmental concerns. Yet, this usage should not be confused with suggesting that it is the only way, or the correct way, to understand sustainability.

In relation to the discourses described thus far, sustainability inherently recognizes that environmental problems do exist and can perpetuate if the discourse is ignored. Like survivalism, sustainability emphasizes living within our means, and not exceeding the earth’s natural limits (Bellamy Foster, 1999; Klein, 2014, 2017; Robinson, 2004). Sustainability also shares survivalism’s approaches of reductionism and classical environmental conservation — the idea of using and consuming less for the sake of the environment. However, if the discourses were to be placed on a spectrum of radical to non-radical solutions to environmental problems, sustainability would be fundamentally less radical than survivalism. The distinction here is justified by Robinson’s (2004) argument that sustainability is more conducive to individual behaviour changes, as opposed to Dryzek’s (2005) argument that survivalism views radical society-wide change as the only viable solution to environmental problems.

73

5.6.1 Sustainability concept: Ecological footprint

The concept of ecological footprint is tied to sustainability’s notions of reductionism and conservation. Ecological footprint, sometimes referred to as , is a relatively common term used to problematize carbon emissions. In its formal usage, ecological footprint is meant to express the outcome of the equation abbreviated as IPAT, standing for Impact = Population x Affluence x Technology (Chertow, 2000). IPAT emerged in the 1970s, following debate “about the principle driving forces of anthropogenic environmental impacts” (York, Rosa & Dietz, 2003, pp. 352). The result of the equation is your ecological footprint, and is meant to demonstrate the amount of land and water required to support you, based on culture and lifestyle.

Ecological footprint is defined as

The impact of human activities measured in terms of the area of biologically productive land and water required to produce the goods consumed and to assimilate the wastes generated. More simply, it is the amount of the environment necessary to produce the goods and services necessary to support a particular lifestyle. (WWF, 2017)

Ecological footprint as derived from IPAT is often used to invoke a certain agenda. Individuals and their societies are exceeding their carrying capacity, and that people should change consumption patterns to better conserve the natural environment (Marques, Rodrigues, Lenzen & Domingos, 2012). With the definition in mind, and its deriving from IPAT, ecological footprint is directly linked to the ideas of sustainability and attempting to promote individual behaviour change. Overall, ecological footprint is conceptually aligned with the goals of survivalism and sustainability discourses, as it strives for reductionism and the changing of consumption and development patterns. Did/do the creators and implementers of the TGS work with ecological footprint in mind? Is the TGS designed to reduce ecological footprint?

5.6.2 Sustainability discourse as individual agency and the bottom-up approach

The economic development-focused discourses, including economic rationalism, ecological modernization and sustainable development, rely on scientific innovation, government work, and/or corporations to make changes for the environment. For instance, ecological modernization

74

may rely on the electric vehicles, whereby individuals can be passive consumers. Sustainable development may rely on governments to pass bills, such as those that force developers to reduce buildings’ carbon emissions (Kaplow, 2009; Walker et al., 2009), as in the TGS. On the other hand, for Robinson (2004) sustainability is a discourse that emphasizes and enables individual agency in making a difference to improve environmental outcomes. In this sense, sustainability has far reaching impact in our daily actions and social norms. For example, in private residences in Toronto, individuals are to be provided with the option to recycle or compost their waste (City of Toronto Services, 2016; The Canadian Press, 2017). For some people, placing waste into the proper receptacle in private and public settings has become a norm. Speaking from my experiences and observations around the UofT campus, many now carry reusable water bottles, walk or bike if possible, and turn off the lights when leaving an empty room. These are measures individuals are taking to consciously or subconsciously reduce individual impact on the environment. For many of us, these examples are now habits — normative practices that we do not even think about anymore. In this sense, sustainability embodies the idea of Foucault’s (1972, 1981) discourse: we don’t necessarily notice it, but sustainability discourse influences knowledges, practices, behaviours, and even the layout of our kitchens.

In addition to prioritizing the environment and emphasizing individual agency and reductionism, Robinson (2004) argues that advocates of environmental sustainability are historically aligned with anti- movements. In Sustainability and the Civil Commons: Rural Communities in the Age of Globalization, Sumner (2005) argues that some forms of globalization, such as corporate globalization, “can interrupt, reduce and even destroy sustainability, result in decreased well-being for individuals and communities, and ultimately ruin the natural environment on which we depend for existence” (p. 8-9). In this way, sustainability discourse is often purveyed through bottom-up, locally derived, or grassroots movements (Blaser, de Costa, McGregor, & Coleman, 2010; Feit, 2010; Klein, 2017; Sumner, 2007). During analysis, these features were useful to consider and to question. Are the influences of the TGS top-down and globalized, or derived from local, bottom-up or grassroots notions?

75

5.7 Sustainable development discourse: Non-radical reform

As noted, scholars associate the emergence of the international environmental politics with Stockholm’s UN Conference on the Human Environment, in 1972. Fifteen years later, the UN assembled the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). The two significant problems that the WCED aimed to address are simplified by Robinson (2004) as: number one, underdevelopment, for which the solution is more development, and two, the threat of “overdevelopment” to the environment, for which the solution is to alter environmentally harmful development. Henceforth, the concept of “Sustainable Development” was born, formally defined in the Brundtland Report (WCED, 1987) as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (p. 23).

Since being introduced by the Brundtland Report (WCED, 1987), the term sustainable development has flourished and become a household term. The definition is vague enough to be used by different groups in ways that conflict with each other, and with the original purposes of the WCED. The term has been co-opted by governments and companies to pursue an agenda equated with economic development and growth (MacDonald, 2010; Hove, 2004; Robinson, 2004). Even though the WCED aimed for social, economic and ecological growth and wellbeing, the definition’s inclusion of “development” was ambiguous enough for the term to be favoured by groups pursuing the same type of economic development interests as they had been before. Or, pursuing the same type of development as before, which caused the problems in the first place, with only slight modifications. Thus, sustainable development discourse has arguably moved away from its original social, environmental, and economic split, and is criticized for its preference towards economic development interests (Hove, 2004; Klein, 2017; Springett, 2013). The co-opting of the term “sustainable development” by corporate and government interests, and the leaning of the term towards economic growth (Robinson, 2004), away from social and environmental wellbeing, are the reasons why the term “sustainability” is now more likely to be found in environmental activist and academic circles, as opposed to “sustainable development”.

Yet, for Foucault (1972, 1980, 1981), discourse is continuously evolving. At this current point in time (2018), I believe that Robinson’s (2004) sustainability discourse is evolving, and becoming similar to what has been described as sustainable development discourse. In a sense, the use of

76

the word “sustainability” is replacing sustainable development, which is arguably becoming less popular. Through my work, I have come across numerous governments and companies7 that reference a three pronged approach to sustainability. The three prongs are ecological, social, and economic wellbeing, or a synonymous version of those. The near-common use of this three- pronged sustainability approach contradicts Robinson (2004), where sustainability was beholden to academic and activist circles and to sole environmental prioritization, and sustainable development was co-opted by governments and the private sector, and allows economic development to overshadow environmental concerns. I believe that now, those lines are extremely blurred, and sustainability is following the same trajectory as sustainable development once did. I do not have substantive evidence or literature to support my observations, but would like to explore these questions further in a later research paper. For this dissertation and its analysis, the distinction of sustainability versus sustainable development discourse will remain as they are depicted by Robinson (2004).

There are several concepts across sustainable development literature that can be considered in the analysis of TGS discourse. First, sustainable development discourse is widely criticized for promoting development as is, with slight modifications (Hove, 2004; Redclift, 2005). Is this idea produced or reproduced by the TGS? Second, as described, sustainable development discourse has been criticized for losing focus on the environment, in favour of the economy. Is this observable in the production and reproduction of the TGS? The question of how the environment ranks in accordance with economic development is important for a policy such as the TGS, which is premised on economic development (new buildings) and environmental protection (greener buildings). Is one of these more important than the other for the TGS?

Finally, since sustainable development discourse offers no fundamental change in the conceptualizations of development, critics argue that the approach is not radical enough (Bellamy Foster, 1999; Hove, 2004; Klein, 2017; Redclift, 2005). Development “as is” has led to ecological crisis and fervent socio-economic inequalities (Escobar, 1995; Sachs, 1992; Timmons-Roberts & Parks, 2007). Are the ideas that inform the TGS non-radical? Do radical

7 Examples include Haliburton Forest Conservatory and Windmill Developments 77

threads exist? Are the intentions of the TGS development “as is”? Thus, sustainable development is an important discourse to consider in the TGS analysis. Moreover, the common criticisms of sustainable development overlap with criticisms of economic rationalism and another discourse named ecological modernization, described below.

5.8 Ecological modernization

Another discourse that is highly pertinent to the research is Hajer’s ecological modernization, examined in The Politics of Environmental Discourse (1995). Similar to the other environmental-economic discourses discussed so far — with the exception of Prometheanism — ecological modernization recognizes that environmental problems exist and need to be addressed. In fact, the discourse is framed by a storyline and approach closely aligned with sustainable development’s: environmental problems can be fixed alongside more development, with slight modifications to the type of development (Hajer, 1995; Harvey, 1996; WCED, 1987). In this way, and based on its economic growth focus, ecological modernization should also be considered on the less radical end of the spectrum, as compared to the discourses of survivalism and sustainability that require more fundamental changes. However, ecological modernization has one very defining feature that distinguishes it from sustainable development — that economy and environment should mutually benefit each other. The storyline of the discourse is optimistic, maintaining that environmentalist concerns, or the need to deal with environmental problems, will benefit the economy or can turn a profit (Christoff, 1996; Hajer, 1995). Ecological modernization is unique in that it allows for the environment to be placed alongside the economy at the top of development interests. In the other discourses conceptualized and discussed so far, one realm is viewed to be a priority over the other, producing a sort of economic versus environmental dichotomy. Essentially, economy and environment must compete with one another in the other discourses. Where there is focus on economic development and growth, there is a negative consequence for the environment, through resource depletion or the removal of environmental protection. On the other hand, if there is a prioritization of the environment, economic potential will not be recognized and wealth and economic growth will suffer. Economy and environment detract from one another. Ecological modernization presents a sort of win-win, where wealth is obtained by incorporating environmentalist concerns. Neither economy or environment must suffer in any way, according to ecological modernization (Hajer, 1995).

78

The key to ecological modernization discourse is the ability to mitigate environmental concerns while enabling profit for businesses (Hajer, 1995). The discourse yields supporters by creating new sectors for environmental sustainability, accompanied by opportunities for economic growth (Jänicke et al., 1997; MacDonald, 2010). For some theorists, the intertwining of environmental concerns and economic development has instilled ecological modernization as very influential over environmental policy (Christoff, 2000; Hajer, 1995; Herndl & Brown, 1996). Businesses are willing to accept the discourse rather than resist it, as opposed to many other environmental discourses. Another example of this discourse, related to the less radicalized version of economic rationalism, is the notion that “ pays” (Hajer, 1995, p. 27). Here, it is far more cost effective to prevent pollution than to pay for it after the fact, which may entail cleaning up waste, spills, or facing lawsuits or fines. Therefore, as a function of ecological modernization, businesses should embrace pollution prevention.

After the emergence of the environment into international politics in the 70s and 80s, an avid disconnect still existed between environmental and development discourses (Jänicke et al., 1997; Redclift, 2005; Springett, 2013). Ecological modernization merged this gap by using language suitable for economic discourse, such as by conceptualizing pollution as an inefficient, and pollution reduction as cost effective (Hajer, 1995; Jänicke et al., 1997). Further, the discourse parallels economic development by opening up new markets to support aims of environmental wellbeing, such as by creating the need for pollution reduction technology (Mathur, 2009). Ecological modernization then prompts innovation and growth, characteristics often indicated as exemplary of strong . As Hajer (1995) notes, "the discursive power of ecological modernization manifests itself in the degree to which its implicit future scenarios permeate through society and actors reconceptualize their interests and recognize new opportunities and new trouble spots" (p. 261).

Therefore, where other discourses perceive environmental concerns as conflicting with economic growth, ecological modernization presents environmental sustainability as a vehicle for growth and development. While this appears to be similar to sustainable development discourse, I argue that based on the way that sustainable development was co-opted and used by governments and corporations, sustainable development discourse places more emphasis on development “as is”, with minor adjustments for the sake of sustainability. The adjustments made are slight reforms, if 79

that, implemented as an afterthought. This differs from ecological modernization where both economy and environment should be equal — environment is not the afterthought. There does not need to be a slight reform in development, like in sustainable development, but there should be a new way of thinking about development along environmental lines.

A winning situation for the economy, with a consciousness for the environment, could also be considered similar to economic rationalism. However, in economic rationalism, the primary focus is the economy, and the discourse is founded on faith in a free market and competition to sort out environmental problems. Part of this is true for ecological modernization, but for economic rationalism, the focus and concern is only primarily directed towards the economy. If the free market should happen to solve environmental problems, then that works as well. But if the free market does not solve environmental problems, then we should not disrupt it for the environment’s sake. Thus, for ecological modernization and economic rationalism, the outlook towards the environment versus economy is fundamentally different. Ecological modernization’s characteristic of economic and environmental equality was factored in to the analysis. Where does the TGS demonstrate discourse that equally ranks economic development and the environment? Additionally, during the analysis, efficiency fixes and technological solutions to environmental problems were considered, since technology and efficiency improvements play a large role in Hajer’s (1995) ecological modernization.

Additionally, for this research, sustainable development and ecological modernization discourses could often overlap for findings where the TGS pursues more development, except along more environmentally conscious lines. The similar storylines of each discourse meant that they should be discerned from one another, for the sake of analysis. As noted, ecological modernization underlines a win-win for economic and environmental considerations, requiring some changes to the type of development, such as new, environmentally conscious sectors, but no real reforms that should slow down economic development. Therefore, during the analysis, I considered optimistic ideas and beliefs towards “environmentalism as a form of profit” to be ecological modernization discourse, whereas “development as is, with moderate environmental reforms” were viewed as sustainable development. Slight differences such as these are summarized below in Table 4: Summary of environmental policy discourses.

80

5.9 Discourse summary table

Each of the discourses were broken down into conceptual frameworks that could be referred to throughout the analysis, summarized in Table 4, below. Of course, it should be noted that these fine lines between the discourses were meant to enable a productive analysis, and are my own interpretations of the discourses based on the literature review. Just like human identities, identities of discourses are not so clear-cut — the lines between them would be left a lot more blurred if it were conducive to analysis. Despite their similarities and crossovers, distinctions had to be made between each of the discourses. A useful way of discerning each discourse was by the level of change it requires. A spectrum of fundamental, radical systemic change, to no change at all, exists across the range of discourses, and has been articulated as part of each discourse’s description. For discourses such as sustainable development and ecological modernization, whereby optimism exists towards fixing environmental and economic problems, lack of addressing structural, systemic problems is cause for criticism and concern. The approaches are not radical enough, according to discourses such as sustainability and survivalism. The table summarizes each environmental discourse, based on a review of the literatures, and in terms of how each discourse was used for analysis. They are in no particular order, other than to reflect the order of their descriptions in this chapter. Each discourse has its own row, with information that describes: the key literatures and/or most used references; the level of environmental problem-solving approach, ranging from no change to radical systemic change; and a summary of the main concepts or storylines, which were useful to consider throughout the analysis. For ease of reference, Table 4 is reattached at the end of the dissertation as Appendix J.

Table 4: Summary of environmental policy discourses

Discourse Main literature(s) used/ Approach (radical Main concepts/storylines - used for analysis key references or reformist)

Survivalism • Bellamy Foster, 1999 Radical systemic • Finite natural limits • Dryzek, 2005 changes needed • Carrying capacity • Meadows et al., 1972 • IPAT, ecological footprint • Environmental crisis • Environment is doomed without radical change

Prometheanism • Dryzek, 2005 No changes, except • Economic growth is all that matters • Lomborg, 2001 more growth

81

• There are no environmental problems that we should address

Administrative • Dryzek, 2005 No changes • Trust in experts to solve problems rationalism • Trust in scientists • Hierarchical

Democratic • Dryzek, 2005 No changes • Trust in government, democratic structures pragmatism and process. • bureaucratic process

Economic • Dryzek, 2005 No changes • Trust in free market, competition to solve rationalism • Kaplow, 2009 environmental problems • Government incentives useful

Sustainability • Klein, 2017 Fundamental shifts • Individual agency/capacity for positive • Robinson, 2004 in behaviour environmental change needed; a lot of • Prioritizes environment changes to be made, • Ecological footprint close to radical • Bottom up or grassroots, locally derived

Sustainable • Robinson, 2004 Some changes • Development as is, with some (minor) development • WCED, 1987 should be modifications for the sake of the considered; no environment systemic change • Development is good/a priority

Ecological • Hajer, 1995 Change in • Economy and environment benefit in unison modernization perspective, but no • Technological fixes structural changes • Efficiency fixes needed • Environmentalist concerns can make $$

Now that I have outlined each of the environmental policy discourses that were considered during the analysis of the TGS, the following chapter will review broader trajectories and implications of environmental discourse for policy-making.

82

Chapter 6: Discourse and policy-making Introduction: The link between discourse and understanding environmental issues

So far, the literature review has engaged in a discussion of various politically influential environmental discourses as they have evolved from the 1970s onward. Since the research will explore discourse in relation to a green building policy, Chapter 6 will continue by depicting the link between discourse and policy. The main argument of this section is that environmental policy is in part a product of the way that environmental problems are defined. And, the definition and assessment of what constitutes an environmental problem is shaped by discourse. Therefore, discourse and policy are linked by interpretations of environmental problems. That is, before environmental policy can be created, environmental issues must be identified and understood — a process strongly linked to discourse.

In line with Foucault, Hajer (1995) uses a social constructionist approach to describe the role of discourse in environmental policy making. Discourse is formed through a constant process of knowledge production, and through a relationship with institutions and power (Foucault, 2001). Each environmental discourse influences knowledge production in a certain way, including the ways that humans relate to nature (Harvey, 1996; Kalland, 2003). Part of this human- environment relationship includes the understanding of environmental problems, and the type of action that should be taken to solve these problems (Kingdon, 2011; Rapoport & Dinar, 2013; Richards et al., 2012). For Hajer (1995), a dialectical relationship exists where policies are devised to solve problems, and the problems themselves must be defined to enable policy making. By observing how different actors define environmental problems, one can note the influences of discourses, as definitions of problems, and hence solutions, can vary from one group to another. Different actors may have different ideas of what environmental problems are about, why they are caused, and therefore, how to go about mitigating these problems through policy (Burton et al., 1993; Hajer, 1995; Kingdon, 2011; Rapoport & Dinar, 2013). Environmental problems and ecological dilemmas are interpreted and acted upon similar to the storylines, metaphors, or emblems that operate within each discourse, as described in the following section.

83

6.1.1 Discursive storylines, metaphors, and emblems

Throughout the relevant literatures, scholars refer to the main ideas that are representative of a discourse as “storylines” (Dryzek, 2005; Hajer, 1995; Jänicke et al., 1997). These storylines depict interpretations of common sense and environmental relations for each discourse. For instance, the storyline of survivalism is that we are exceeding our natural limits, and environmental crisis is looming. In addition to storylines, scholars refer to the use of emblems or metaphors that belong to each discourse. Together with storylines, emblems and metaphors provide validity to discourse, by depicting its ideas in the real world (Hajer, 1995; Herndl & Brown, 1996). Storylines, emblems, and metaphors are important theoretical components of environmental discourse literatures, because they exemplify the means of interpretation of ecological problems by each discourse.

Dryzek (2005) provides examples of metaphors, that are events or beliefs that wield support and validity for each discourse. For example, a commonly referred to metaphor within the economic rationalist discourse is “the horror story involving governmental action that produces perverse, inefficient, and costly results” (p. 136). By underlining these horror stories, economic rationalism justifies minimal government interference with the free market, hence the lack of support for environmental regulation. Similarly, Mühlhäusler and Peace (2006) argue that contemporary environmental policy discourse often employs scientific facts as storylines and metaphors. For instance, the authors criticize “greenspeaking,” which relies heavily on the use of scientific facts and can replace or postpone “environmental action by just speaking about it in ‘green’ language” (p. 467). Further, Hajer (1995) describes the discursive use of emblems that are representative of storylines. Similar to Dryzek’s (2005) metaphors, emblems are symbolic issues that wield support for particular discourses, and are “issues that dominate the perception of the ecological dilemma in a specific period” (Hajer, 1995, p. 20). Hajer’s definition of emblems correlates with Foucault's (1972) notions of discourse, in that discourse is relevant to a particular time, produced by a present state of knowledge and representing a population of events. The examples of emblems indicated by Hajer (1995) include: pesticide pollution in the 1960s, resource depletion in the 1970s, and the depletion of the ozone layer in the 1980s. These emblems dominated environmental discussions during particular eras, and are interpreted and acted upon in ways that are influenced by overarching environmental discourse.

84

Importantly, theorizing the use of discursive metaphors and emblems does not mean that the issues at hand are any less real, or simply a product of social construction. It is the specific use of each issue as a storyline, metaphor, or emblem that is constructed according to each discourse (Hajer, 1995). Additionally, different discourses perceive and utilise these issues in different ways, not only to wield support for the discourse itself, but for the type of action that should be taken (Burton et al., 1993; Rapoport & Dinar, 2013). The mobilization of discourse through the interpretation of issues as storylines, metaphors, or emblems, may take place in numerous forms, such as activism, protests, further scientific research, or the implementation of government mandates and policy (Jamison, 2001; Richards et al., 2012). As the research is centered upon a government policy, this chapter will continue by discussing the mobilization of environmental knowledge through environmental policy.

6.2 The link between discourse and environmental policy

This section will describe how the literatures depict environmental policy as a close function of discourse. First, as defined by McCormick (2001), environmental policy constitutes

Any action deliberately taken to manage human activities with a view to prevent, reduce, or mitigate harmful effects on nature and natural resources, and ensuring that man-made changes to the environment do not have harmful effects on humans or the environment. (p. 21)

To Hajer (1995), policy making is a dominant source of social, political, economic, and environmental regulation in modern societies. While the concept of environmental policy can appear clear-cut, as just a matter of finding acceptable solutions to environmental problems, the processes and influences behind environmental policy making are complex (Kamieniecki & Kraft, 2013; Kingdon, 2011; Tessaro & Kepe, 2014). Environmental politics, perceptions of human-environment relationships, and understandings of environmental issues are variable and influenced by discourse. The workings of discourse over these fundamental environmental understandings ultimately affects policy making. For visual aid, I have summarized the link between environmental policy and discourse in Figure 2, below.

Figure 2. The link between policy and discourse

85

In the constructionist conceptualization of environmental policy, policy making involves interpreting and dealing with the issues at hand (Bromley & Paavola, 2002; Richards et al., 2012). Both the problem and the solution are interpreted according to discourse, and will reproduce notions of that discourse (Hajer, 1995). As noted, from the 1970s onward and with the formal definition of sustainable development in 1987, environmental issues and understandings have been integrated into international politics and economic development (Christoff, 1996). The increasing presence of sustainable development and ecological modernization discourses also paralleled a shift from remedial to anticipatory environmental policies (Hajer, 1995; Jänicke et al., 1997). Similar to the difference between adaptation and mitigation (IPCC, 2012), where remedial strategies treat existing issues, anticipatory strategies strive to prevent the issues from occurring or worsening. Remedial strategies are exemplified by ‘end-of-pipe’ approaches, such as filters at the end of chimney pipes or drains (Christoff, 1996; Hajer, 1995). For Hajer (1995) the shift towards ecological modernization — and its accompanying concepts of environmental economic opportunities, technologies and innovation — led to the shift from reactive, remedial strategies to precautionary, anticipatory strategies. Anticipatory strategies involve the increasing of efficiency to reduce pollution and waste, including through (Christoff, 1996). Anticipatory strategies can involve technological innovation, such as for increasing the efficiency of production processes to reduce pollution emissions, or can involve structural changes through political action, such as improving public transportation to reduce pollution.

According to Dryzek (2005), political shifts pertinent to ecological modernization took place throughout the 1980s and 1990s in countries that have since been ranked highest by various environmental policy ranking systems. These countries include Finland, , Japan, and the , where alignment with notions of ecological modernization meant the adoption of

86

“innovative and advanced procedures, policies, and institutions for dealing with environmental issues” (p. 163). In political systems influenced by ecological modernization and sustainable development, moderate environmentalists were accepted into the core policy-making circles and processes that they had been previously excluded from (Buttel, 2000; Dryzek, 2005). Discussion surrounding the shifts in environmental policy approaches and ideas alongside discourse are that important for the research. Did the TGS produce any shifts in environmental discourse? Have the attitudes of the interviewees toward the environment, and towards economic development changed, since creating or using the TGS?

6.3 Discourse criticisms: Global environmental discourses

The following sections will address various criticisms of the environmental discourses that have been discussed so far in Chapters 5-6. The sections will address: the globalizing nature of the discourses, the economic-focused discourses’ purveyance of systemic and structural problems, examples of alternative discourses, and the potential of ecological modernization for causing “urban environmental classism”.

Some scholars point out that the idea of an international, global environmental discourse is problematic (Hart, 2001; Reed, 2008; Sachs, 1992). Mühlhäusler and Peace (2006) point out that variations in cultural values across nations and regions prevent environmental discourses from being widely interchangeable. Hajer (1995) argues that grassroots environmental discourses have difficulty reaching the international level, due to lack of interaction between participants, and the existence of these discourses in different languages. Further, a unified global discourse is problematic as it over-simplifies the need for action at the local and individual levels (Hajer, 1995; Mühlhäusler & Peace, 2006; Robinson, 2004).

Contrary to notions of an all-encompassing, oversimplified global discourse, some scholars argue that environmental discourses are formed through understandings that purvey in local and regional contexts (Dove et al., 2003; Hajer, 1995; Jamison, 2001). Exercising caution towards international, globalized discourse is in line with the Foucauldian framework of this thesis. Linked to poststructuralism, Foucault’s (1972) notion of discourse is based on knowledge production that is relevant to a particular time and place, and is constantly being built upon. Therefore, to align with the theoretical framework, it is critical that my research explores a 87

policy document that is relevant to a specific locality, at this current moment in time. However, it is important to note that while the TGS is relevant to contemporary Toronto, many of the discursive components that shape environmental policy in Toronto and across Canada also operate internationally. For instance, the Brundtland Report’s definition of sustainable development (WCED, 1987) shapes development policy at an international scale, especially through the United Nations. Therefore, while poststructuralist understandings of discourse are important for the research in its local urban contexts, some of the thesis’ discussions pertain to concepts and issues that stem beyond Toronto, to the national and international levels.

During analysis, I found it useful to consider the direction of environmental ideas that shaped the TGS. Are the ideas coming from Toronto-based movements, or from other cities? Other countries? The relationship between globalized versus locally-derived policy production was also considered, due to the argument that sustainability is best achieved when it is locally derived (Dressler et al., 2010; Robinson, 2004; Sumner, 2005). Ultimately, the TGS includes many knowledges that were considered during analysis, which stem from various places and directions.

6.3.1 Criticisms of the economic-focused discourses

Ecological modernization and sustainable development have had a strong influence over environmental policy, due to their advocacy of economic development and growth (Hajer, 1995; Harvey, 1996; Buttel, 2000). While they work well for many policy makers, the discourses are also criticized for avoiding structural and systemic changes. Inequalities that exist on a global scale persist if they are not addressed with systemic change (Escobar, 1995; Klein, 2017). In many cases global inequalities are part of vicious cycles of continuous environmental degradation and impoverishment for primary-industry producer countries, and imposed by wealthier countries (Harvey, 1996; Timmons-Roberts & Parks, 2007). Such are the relationships as described in the core-periphery model and , for instance (Harvey, Kellard, Madsen & Wohar, 2010; Prebisch, 1962; Singer, 1950). The perpetuation of structural inequalities is something to consider when advocating and operating within a particular environmental discourse. Although discourses such as ecological modernization address some environmental problems, do the experiences and wellbeing of disenfranchised groups change for

88

the better? Or do they continue on the same trajectory? Additionally, ecological modernization, sustainable development, and the environmental problem-solving discourses uphold that humans are above the environment, and therefore the environment is commodifiable to serve human interests (Fairhead et al., 2012; Selin, 2003). Related to the structural placement of humans above nature, critics argue that these economic-focused discourses do not address the hierarchies that have caused comprehensive ecological problems (Harvey, 1996). Instead, addressing environmental issues would require the rearrangement of society’s values and the diminishing of hierarchies in some way (Blaser et al., 2010; Suzuki, 1992).

6.3.2 “Alternative” discourses

Beyond the discourses that have been described so far in their relationship to environmental politics, there are many discourses that call for the restructuring of society to address ecological crisis. These discourses, such as Indigenous, biocentric and ecofeminist discourses, play an important role in drawing our attention to criticisms and flaws of ecological modernization. For example, Indigenous environmental discourse is holistic, where humans and the natural environment are united as one (Kalland, 2003; Simpson, 2000). In this discourse, human to human relationships are equally as important as human to nature relationships (Nelson, 2008), calling into question the hierarchies that are inherent to contemporary environmental politics. Moreover, supports the abolishment of hierarchies that include humans above the environment, and men above women (Dryzek, 2005). The discourse values both women and the environment as nurturers, arguing that the oppression of both women and nature has led to ecological crisis (Gaard & Gruen, 2003). While the environmental discourses that advocate societal restructuring have had difficulty in permeating widespread policy development, they contribute valuable criticisms and questions toward political-environmental discourses, such as those being reproduced through the TGS. Based on my own familiarity with City staff and policy-making, it was unexpected that alternative discourses, such as ecofeminism and Indigenous discourses, would produce or be reproduced by the TGS. Yet, these discourses still play a role in the analysis. They are useful for the Foucauldian questioning of the implications of the discourses of production, such as who or what do the dominant discourses exclude? The implications and exclusions of dominant discourse are introduced below, and re-visited in the final discussion chapter.

89

6.4 Building onto critical ideas: Who or what are the discourses leaving out?

In a Foucauldian theoretical framework, it is important not only to understand discourse but to question it — one must ask not only what is being said, but what is not being said (Kendall & Wickham, 1999). Who or what is being served by particular discourse? Who or what is being left out? These questions are central to analysis, and are used in this literature review to address the unsaid implications of contemporary environmental discourses, namely, economic rationalism, sustainable development and ecological modernization. These discourses shape environmental policy in ways that can ensure large corporations benefit, while existent social inequalities can be proliferated. The social inequalities facilitated by the economic development-focused discourses can affect various socio-economic, cultural, or geographical scales. For example, literature on critiques the disproportionate instances of environmental degradation and toxic industries situated within, or adjacent to, low income or minority communities (Bullard, 1993). Political geographers such as Harvey (1996, 2009) and Timmons-Roberts and Parks (2007) carry forward notions of environmental racism to the global scale, pointing out that environmental policy discourse perpetuates exploitation of the Global South by the Global North. In a chapter of Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference, Harvey (1996) invokes a leaked memo from an executive at the World Bank that was circulated in 1992. The executive argues, “the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest-wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that” (p. 366). This leaked memo perfectly demonstrates that incorporating environmental considerations, such as where to allocate pollution, into existent socio-political structures that prioritize “economic logic” can be employed to exacerbate inequalities at the national and international levels (Bellamy Foster, 1999; Klein, 2014, 2017). For this thesis, I use the term “economic logic” to refer to the process or result of decision- making based on what makes the most financial sense (Harvey, 1996). During analysis, it became useful to consider items that evidenced economic logic. Although the TGS makes amendments that benefit the environment, economic logic is prevalent throughout the decision- making process and justifications of why the TGS is beneficial, and in many cases speaks to either economic rationalism or ecological modernization discourse.

90

In addition to international inequalities perpetuated by economic structures, the phenomenon of corporate interests superseding the environmental wellbeing of low-income or minority communities has been prevalent across Canada. The most prominent and problematic example is that of Indigenous communities’ exposure to pollutants and loss of natural environment due to a variety of industries, especially oil extraction and refining (Deranger, 2015; Richmond, 2009; Thomas-Muller, 2005). By prioritizing economic development over Indigenous environments, development discourse has furthered the colonial exploitation and oppression of Indigenous communities across Canada (Alfred, 2009; Feit, 2010; Klein, 2014). While socio- political phenomena such as environmental racism, Harvey’s (2009) accumulation by dispossession, the exploitation of the Global South by the Global North, and the continuation of colonial oppression of Indigenous communities across Canada are beyond the jurisdiction of TGS, these discussions are important for considering the implications of prevalent environmental policy discourse.

Moving forward, I will discuss my own interpretations of the never-said, of who or what is being left out by environmental policy discourse, and the implications for the local contexts that are relevant to this research. In addition to phenomena such as environmental racism and accumulation by dispossession that are structured around geographic locations of particular communities, I argue that environmental policy discourse can also contribute to class divisions within an urban geographical setting, based on the capitalist uptake of environmentalist concerns. In ecological modernization discourse, which can be identified through various examples at the local level in Toronto, environmental friendliness and sustainability are often viewed as opportunities for economic development. That is, there is money to be made by incorporating environmental interests into models. However, tending to the unsaid, the profitable nature of ecological modernization may be excluding the middle and lower classes, as sustainability and eco-friendliness are more often being marketed as luxuries.

Lack of affordability of eco-friendly products and services can be exemplified in numerous ways at the local level. Meal prices at any vegan-organic restaurant in Toronto are extremely steep compared to non-vegan or non-organic restaurants of the same caliber. The prices at these restaurants, such as Fresh, Kupfert and Kim and Planta are inaccessible to persons and families of low income. While there have been recent advances in the electric car market, electric 91

vehicles have been out of reach for lower and middle class persons throughout the past decade (Joseph, 2017; Rabson, 2017). Relatedly, options for for homes have yet to become readily affordable and available for Toronto residents, despite government subsidies for items such as solar panels. Moreover, in direct relation to the TGS and Toronto’s urban structures, newer buildings across Toronto that are considered to be eco-friendly are marketed as luxury condominiums or office towers. Thus, the coherence of environmental and capitalist concerns within ecological modernization discourse may actually be heightening class divisions in local contexts, by merging eco-friendly goods and services with an upscale lifestyle. With this in mind, perhaps ecological modernization discourse allows for new forms of class-based divisions and the “Other” (Said, 1979), along the lines of the unaffordability of environmentally friendly urban features. This interpretation of ecological modernization leading to urban environmental classism is based on my own understandings and observations in Toronto. When I hypothesized the existence of urban environmental class-based divisions, I had not yet collected or analyzed my own data. Yet, considering the potential for urban environmental classism throughout the Foucauldian discourse analysis yielded several discussions of implications, especially regarding the TGS’ two-tiered framework, described in the final discussion chapter.

6.5 Environmental discourse literature: Recent developments and going forward

Chapters 5 and 6 have underlined the direct relevance of environmental discourses to trends in policy. Discourses are often mobilized by storylines, metaphors, and emblems, which is important for understanding the ways that discourse also instigates action, including shifts in environmental policy (Dryzek, 2005; Hajer, 2005; Kingdon, 2011). Further, Chapter 6 has evidenced that environmental policy is a product of how environmental issues are defined, and that definitions of environmental issues are strongly influenced by discourse. Importantly, by understanding the role of storylines, emblems, metaphors, and the defining of environmental issues, the research asks what a particular discourse serves, and what it excludes, in the production and reproduction of environmental policy.

Environmental discourse is continuously evolving (Foucault, 1972, 1980), and therefore the findings and discussions of environmental policy and discourse research should also be evolving.

92

The most significant scholarly contributions to the field of environmental discourse, and therefore to this literature review, were authored over ten years ago. Since then, there have been several international events that have intersected with environmental policy discourse, including 2018’s IPCC report, and 2015’s , adopted at the 21st Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) and revisited in Katowice, Poland in 2018. At the time the literature review was conducted, scholarly publications about the significance of these events for environmental discourse were few. There were only opinion pieces and news stories available8. In a news brief in International Social Work, Zelenev (2016) argues that the Paris Agreement’s notice of “efforts to eradicate poverty” (UNFCCC as cited in Zelenev, 2016, p. 420) demonstrate the incorporation of social dimensions into environmental discourse. Here, I would like to note that social dimensions were also a significant priority of Sustainable Development (WCED, 1987), when it was first conceptualized. Further, in line with Dryzek’s (2005) environmental problem-solving discourses and Hajer’s (1995) notions of ecological modernization, the Paris Agreement draws from scientific information and further integrates sustainable development as an international policy storyline. Zelenev (2016) points out a “growing awareness and concerns of the international community regarding the plight of future generations” (p. 421), which aligns with this chapter’s description of the shift from remedial strategies to farther-sighted, anticipatory policy strategies.

For Canada, updating national climate change and emissions policies will instigate major changes in provincial and municipal policies. While major shifts in environmental discourse due to recent international events, including the Paris Agreement, have yet to be thoroughly analyzed in scholarly literature, Bellamy Foster (2015), argues that a mass social discursive shift will have to occur. As previously indicated, Bellamy Foster (1999, 2015) adheres to the need for radical structural change. In The Monthly Review: An Independent Socialist Magazine (2015), he argues that capitalist society is at a new Climacteric. That is, to meet the necessary reductions in carbon emissions as laid out in the Paris Agreement, capitalism will need to be abolished and society

8 Some recent (December, 2018) updates regarding environmental policy are added in the dissertation’s conclusion 93

reorganized. This opinion exemplifies the importance of continuing to observe the storylines and shifts in environmental discourse, amongst an ever-changing political economic landscape.

In conclusion, the shift in environmental policy discourse associated with the past decade’s international political and scientific events justifies the importance of continuing to explore environmental policy discourse. It is also important to conduct this research at the local level, where local action and policy changes are taking place, effectively reflecting and reproducing environmental discourse in regional contexts. As such, the research explores the discourses of production and reproduction of the TGS, to better understand the implications of environmental discourse. The research also aims to contribute to the body of literature that surrounds environmental discourse and policy. Before describing the research findings, the following chapter will review literature regarding green buildings and environmental frameworks similar to the TGS.

94

Chapter 7: Beyond the TGS - A Review of Other Municipal Environmental Frameworks and Green Building Policies Introduction: Situating the research

Chapters 5-6 centered primarily on various environmental discourses and their implications for policy. Moving forward, I will draw from literatures that are relevant to the research’s applied subject matter: municipal environmental policies and green building discourse. Here, I will briefly situate Toronto and the TGS within contexts of similar municipal environmental and building policies, followed by a review of research that has been conducted on such policies. The chapter will then discuss the considerations and contentions of green building discourse and its shifting meanings across different regions and sectors.

7.1 Green building guides beyond Toronto

In this section, I will situate the TGS within the broader realm of green building guidelines that have been implemented in other municipalities. As discussed in Burch (2010a)

While municipalities were once viewed simply as providers of services such as waste collection and utility provision, a shift has occurred in which the municipalities act as leaders on sustainability issues, innovators and early adopters of efficient technologies, and loci for action on climate change. (p. 7575)

This vision of cities as leaders for implementing climate change policy forms the premise of the C40 cities network, of which Toronto is a member (C40 Cities, 2018). With municipalities as leaders on climate change issues, it follows that the TGS is not the only set of guidelines of its kind. Many cities have also introduced broad sets of green building guidelines, with the aims of climate change mitigation and adaptation. Looking within Canada, in 2016, Vancouver’s City Council passed the Zero Emissions Building Plan, which aims for most new buildings in Vancouver to have zero operational greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 (Pander, 2016). The plan employs the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system, which is described in upcoming paragraphs. Additionally, Vancouver’s Zero Emissions Building Plan eliminates the option of new developments being built to use natural gas, and has been criticized by the corporate sector for being “difficult and costly” (Fortis BC, 2016). Note here that the 95

“difficult and costly” quote is from Fortis BC, a natural gas supplier who blatantly resists Vancouver’s environmentally progressive Zero Emissions Building Plan. Developer’s contestation to green building policies, exemplified here in Vancouver, is something that I considered during analysis. What were or are developer reactions to the TGS?

In addition to Toronto and Vancouver, other North American cities with recent green building guidelines include New York City, with its Greener, Greater Buildings Plan (New York City Mayor’s Office, 2017) that targets energy efficiency in new and existing buildings. This differs from the TGS, in that the TGS is run through Toronto’s City Planning, which only has jurisdiction over new buildings that have to apply for site plan approval. The city of Portland has also implemented a policy whereby new buildings over $300,000 in cost must at least meet LEED’s silver standards, with additional standards being required for new city-owned buildings (N.C. Clean Energy Technology Center, 2014). The implementation of higher environmental standards for city-owned buildings is exercised in many cities across the globe, as these development plans are most easily regulated and shifted according to environmental targets. Toronto itself saw city-owned buildings and practices follow green-guidelines throughout the early 2000s, before introducing them as requirements for other new institutional, commercial, or residential buildings in 2010 (Miller, 2017).

The transition from just government-owned buildings to all new buildings being required to meet green standards is described by Kaplow (2009). The author underlines three different regulatory schemes for governments mandating green building law. The first, as noted, is a requirement that all government-owned buildings be built to a particular green standard. This regulatory scheme can be exemplified at all three levels of government in the United States, including cities such as San Francisco, states such as Maryland and Washington, and even the federal government; the federal government accounted for almost 10% of the United States’ LEED-registered projects in 2003 (Kaplow, 2009; , 2007). This regulatory regime applies to Toronto, as mentioned, where City-owned buildings were the first to have green construction requirements. Even with the creation of the TGS as it applies to all new buildings over a certain size, this regulatory scheme still persists through the TGS. That is, as of mid 2018, the TGS requires that all new City-owned buildings must meet green standards of an even higher caliber than non-government buildings (City of Toronto Planning and Development, 2018a; Lintern, 2017). 96

A second regulatory scheme that Kaplow (2009) discusses is voluntary financial incentives, which may include tax breaks or direct grants. He exemplifies this with Baltimore City, where tax credits are offered for meeting LEED standards. He also points out that the state of Maryland offered green building tax credits in 2004, however they soon met their financial cap for these credits and stopped accepting applications. For the TGS, Tier 2 represents this regulatory regime, as it is a voluntary financial incentive. If the Tier 2 requirements are met, developers receive up to 20% of their development charge back (City of Toronto Planning and Development, 2018a). The third regulatory regime (Kaplow, 2009) is whereby local governments mandate green building standards for all new builds of a certain size and/or major renovations. In 2009, when Kaplow authored the referenced article, there were very few US cities with a mandated green building law for all new builds. Boston was the first, in 2007 (City of Boston, 2007), however the green building bylaw only applied to buildings over 50,000 square feet, and required that they should be LEED “certifiable” instead of certified (Kaplow, 2009). Since then, more cities have opted to mandate green building laws, including Toronto in 2010.

In describing cities that have implemented similar green-building guides to the TGS, it is important to observe that these guidelines and standards are predominantly exemplified by cities from within wealthier, developed nations, as poorer nations must divert budgets to arguably more pressing socioeconomic problems (Kingdon, 2011). Even after the ratification of the Paris Agreement across both developed and developing nations, having the political budgetary means for the creation and implementation of green building policies can perhaps be seen as proprietary to privileged municipalities. On that note, after situating the research within other examples of North American cities and their respective green building guides, it is also important to situate the research within other studies of municipal environmental policies and their influences. Still, many of the studies to be discussed are drawn from cases in North America and Europe, with only several outside of these regions.

7.2 What the research is saying: Policy implementation

Since its implementation, there have yet to be academic studies that center directly on the TGS, and my research aims to address this gap. And, while I am not able to discuss TGS literatures, I have reviewed studies that have been conducted for other cities, their municipal governments,

97

and their environmental policies. Yet, it is important to note that since green building laws in general are relatively new (Kaplow, 2009; Kerr, 2008; Vierra, 2016), there is not a plethora of published studies on their influences and implications. However, there are studies on municipal environmental policies in general, which have been reviewed.

Beginning with the Vancouver area, Burch (2010b) explores the implementation of climate change policy in three municipalities in lower mainland BC: the communities of Delta, the District of North Vancouver, and the City of Vancouver. Similar to my study, the researcher conducts document analysis as well as interviews with municipal employees, but in contrast to my study, which explores policy influences, Burch examines barriers to implementation for climate change policies. The researcher utilises the concept of capacity, which denotes the availability of resources and structures available to, or affecting, policy implementation within an institution (Klein, 2014). Factors affecting capacity are exemplified by financial resources, human resources, and available technologies.

Considering the factors contributing to capacity, many municipalities in Canada should be well positioned to create and implement climate policy changes. However, Burch (2010b) finds that while capacity exists in her case study locations, its actual application towards climate change may not be prioritized. Instead of solely referencing capacity, she highlights the role of management that encourages climate change policy innovation as important, as well as the institutionalization of climate change as a priority. Prioritizing climate change policy within an institution is exemplified by assigning new or existing staff to it as their sole responsibility. This is opposed to adding climate change policy to existent staff’s current roles and duties, enabling them to continuously put it off due to overburdened schedules. For instance, municipal managers in Delta state that lack of financial resources is preventing climate change policy implementation. Burch argues that in reality, climate change is not a priority in this municipality, and that they could allocate their existing financial resources toward climate change policy — if it were prioritized. In Burch’s study, she finds that Delta municipal employees do not have the time or inclination to add additional complex tasks to their schedules, and suggests that “climate change mitigation and adaptation must thus become part of the job descriptions and standard operating procedures of municipal employees, rather than ‘extras’” (p. 294). During my own analysis of the TGS and its production processes, I considered the idea of capacity as it applies to 98

the resources available to a municipality. I also took into consideration Burch’s argument that capacity was not always a true limiting factor for climate change policy in her case studies. Instead, it was a matter of prioritization. Is this argument pertinent to City Planning?

For both Burch (2010a, 2010b) and Retzlaff (2010), institutional path dependency can be a problem for the possible scope and real-world implementation of climate change policies. Essentially, challenges are faced due to the fact that it is more conducive for new policies to follow or build upon the trajectories of old policies, even though old policies may not have been effective. The example provided by Retzlaff is that if buildings are being assessed based on their inputs throughout environmental planning processes, it is difficult to shift the paradigm to monitoring outputs, or building performance, since procedures and regulations would revolve around the former. The idea and commonality of path dependency was another concept that I considered throughout data collection and analysis, and it is definitely affecting the realities of the TGS, such as where technology for buildings is concerned. The challenge of monitoring green building performance (Retzlaff, 2010) was certainly indicated my own data (Cost-benefit study, Jesse, John, Ted). Further, Burch (2010b) notes that the scope and effectiveness of climate change policy is also affected by the less invasive method of incentivizing green standards, versus making them bylaws. This finding from Burch is directly linked to my own research, where the difference between green incentives versus green bylaws has a substantial impact on the effectiveness of the TGS, as discussed in the findings chapters.

7.2.1 What the research is saying: Policy influences

Burch’s (2010a, 2010b) work is similar to my thesis in that it explores the processes behind environmental policy at the municipal level, and conducts case studies in Canada. However, her work focuses on policy implementation, and while I do discuss some outcomes and implications of TGS implementation, my research mostly focuses on the TGS’ policy making processes, such as by questioning the influences of the policy. Therefore, I also reviewed studies that explore the influences of environmental policy and the role of the policy making processes. Pickvance (2000) assessed existent literature reviews in order to discuss the influences of environmental policy in areas of the United States and Western Europe. Through the literature, he finds that actors beyond government officials themselves play a significant role in shaping local

99

environmental policy. Influencers of environmental policy can include enterprises, which are often the object of legislation, and the public, since the public ultimately influences local government. Pickvance contends that firms convey underlying pressure on local government to protect their jobs. This is something that we have save seen at the US Federal level, with Trump advocating for the return of coal, to protect coal workers’ jobs. Further, business owners and developers in particular pressure local governments to attract potential development, and to push agendas solely focused on economic growth, so that their business can benefit. This underlying pressure ultimately affects local environmental policies, often encouraging their demotion, as they are superseded by developer and business interests. The relationship between developers and creators of the TGS certainly piqued my interest prior to data collection, especially after I noticed that developers and private companies had consulted on the TGS (Cost-benefit study; TGDS staff report; TGS website). As such, each public sector interviewee was asked about their department’s relationship with developers. The research found that developer input greatly informed the production of TGS discourse, as is revisited as a key topic throughout the findings and discussion chapters (Chapters 8-12).

Furthermore, public opinion can shape local politics. In the case of environmental policy, public awareness and concern with environmental issues, such as climate change, determines levels of support for local environmental policy (Burch, 2010a; Hajer, 1995; Rappaport & Dinar, 2013; Richards et al., 2012). In addition to the influence of the local public, the political goals of national or regional governments will directly shape municipal policy (Kingdon, 2011; Pickvance, 2000; Richardson, 1997). Municipal policy makers may also find it difficult to coordinate their own agenda with that of the province or state, and the nation (Kingdon, 2011; Richards et al., 2012). The relationship between national and local politics varies in strength from place to place, which in turn affects the level of direct influence that national or regional politics has over local policies. The extent and level of jurisdiction that a province allots to a municipality varies from case to case, resulting with some municipalities having more jurisdiction over more realms than others. Relevant to this research, the level of jurisdiction that the City of Toronto has over buildings in Toronto is limited by the province, whereas Vancouver has more control over their own building code (Jane). This observation correlates with Burch (2010a), who attested that the City of Vancouver’s relative autonomy from the federal

100

government, in comparison to Delta and North Vancouver, allotted the municipal government more freedom in exercising and strengthening green building policies. Notably, the City of Vancouver has more autonomy than other municipalities in British Columbia for a number of reasons. First, the Vancouver Charter, legislated by provincial government in 1886 and remaining mostly unchanged since then, “guarantees a separate legislative existence for the city,” and partially shields “the city from all encompassing municipal change initiated by the province” (Murray, 2006, p. 11). Second, the City of Vancouver “finds itself in a stable financial situation, largely due to initiatives taken well in its past”, which “sets it apart from most other Canadian cities” (Murray, 2006, p. 13). This fiscal strength at the municipal level allows for less reliance on the provincial and federal governments for resources, affording the city more autonomy as compared to other municipalities in BC, or even Canada. Based on the literatures and conversations with City of Toronto staff that I engaged in prior to formal data collection (Allen, 2012; Burch, 2010a; M. MacLean, personal communication, September 26, 2017; Richards et al., 2012; Schwartz, 2009), I became interested in the relationship between the province and City Planning in regard to the TGS. According to City staff, what is the relationship like with the provincial government? The national government? How do these relationships affect the TGS?

Another reason that I asked about relationships with different regional government bodies was due to interest in the idea that city governments are competitive, with one another and in some cases with the provincial government (S. Hughes, personal communication, April 5, 2017). This notion of cities and governments competing with one another is derived from the presentation “Learning to Steer: New Directions for Urban Climate Change Mitigation” by University of Toronto Mississauga professor Sara Hughes, as well her publications (Hughes, 2015; Hughes, Pincetl & Boone, 2013). The idea is that city governments compete with one another to be referred to as leaders, innovators, or simply the best at what they are trying to do, even when it comes to climate change policy and innovation. Essentially, city staff want to feel proud and be recognized for their work. Her argument struck me as something that I had already come across in my preliminary research, such as the boasting of Toronto as having the most green roofs in North America, because of the TGS (TGS website). Based on Hughes’ (2015, 2017) argument, I looked for threads of Toronto as a competitive municipality through the analysis of the TGS. I

101

also questioned interview participants on their perspectives of the status of environmental policy in Toronto, as compared to the rest of the province, and to other cities internationally.

7.3 Environmental planning policy: From local to global

This section will discuss literatures that have explored discourse in relation to environmental planning policies. Several researchers (Kaplow, 2009; Kerr, 2008; Pickvance, 2000; Retzlaff, 2010; Vierra, 2016) comment on the fact that the discourses shaping environmental planning policies, such as green building policies, can be similar from place to place. For example, for Pickvance (2000) there is a lot of crossover in the findings on the influences of environmental policy that he reviewed, from cities in both Western Europe and the United States. For Vierra (2016), discursive similarities in green building policies stem from rating systems that have been widely adopted by governments. Rating systems such as the Green Building Initiative (GBI) and LEED are implemented by governments across various regional scales, including city governments. North American cities such as Toronto, Portland, and Vancouver include the standards set out by LEED within, or proxy to, their green building guides (Kaplow, 2009; LEED supplement; N.C. Clean Energy Technology Center, 2014; Pander, 2016). For the TGS, there is a special relationship with LEED, as it is solely a voluntary system, whereas the TGS is mandatory and voluntary, with some crossovers and variations to LEED. City staff have outlined these crossovers in the Toronto LEED supplement, included as part of the document analysis.

In a comparison of green building policy development in the US and the Netherlands, Retzlaff (2010) argues that while both nations include regulatory standards and guidelines such as LEED, the Netherlands federal policy is ultimately more effective than the US’ when it comes to green buildings. The difference is underlined by the fact that many regions in the US rely on voluntary green building certification, whereas the Netherlands has implemented more green building code bylaws, spurring stronger research agendas and innovation. In terms of environmental benefit, Retzlaff finds that one of the reasons for the increased effectiveness of environmental bylaws over incentives is “points chasing”. Points chasing refers to the process of developers seeking to gain the most “points”, offered by environmental programs, such as LEED, for the purpose of achieving tax incentives without considering actual environmental benefit. For businesses and developers, where cost is the determining factor, Retzlaff indicates that between two different

102

means of obtaining a single point, the developer will always choose the less costly method. Specifically, the author uses the example of LEED’s single point for reusing existing building materials for new construction, which is expensive, versus the point awarded for using low emission paint that is much less costly. In this way, a LEED incentive system will result in low emission paint a significant number of times more than it will result in reusing building materials. There will then be lower environmental impact than if various LEED qualifiers were instead required through bylaw. For my own research, this is an interesting consideration, and my interviews revealed similar attitudes towards LEED, as detailed in Chapter 8. Additionally, as previously noted, the implications of financial incentives, such as in LEED and TGS Tier 2, versus bylaws (TGS Tier 1) are very important for the TGS analysis and findings.

Further, the literature has suggested that a benefit of green building bylaws over incentive programs is increased technological innovation (Dryzek, 2005; Retzlaff, 2010). By requiring components of green buildings, businesses, engineers, and architects are more likely to innovate new and more efficient means of meeting the requirements, than if the greening process were optional. With increased innovation, the environmental benefits of local green building bylaws can have a more widespread impact, as new ideas and technologies can be observed and adapted elsewhere, beyond where they are required. For discourses such as ecological modernization, the advancement of green technology is crucial for taking steps to mitigate climate change, (Bélanger, 2016; Miller, 2013; Watts et al., 2015), which speaks to the overall significance of considering the differences between environmental incentives and bylaws at the municipal level.

7.4 Influences of municipal environmental policy from a discourse perspective

This section will discuss other studies of municipal green building policies, specifically through the lens of environmental discourse. As previously noted, Burch (2010b) comments on the lack of prioritization for climate change policy in two of her case municipalities. This finding points to the overarching discourse influencing local governments, expressed through cultural values and organizational structures that prioritize agendas other than climate change. While Burch’s (2010a, 2010b) interviewees highlighted technical barriers preventing environmental policy implementation, a wider discursive lens would point to cultural and systemic barriers that

103

influence municipal discourse. In the wider municipal and systemic discourse, socio-political structures are set up to prioritize items such as economic growth over climate change mitigation. The prioritization of economic growth over climate change mitigation was considered during my analysis, and speaks to the concepts of economic growth-focused discourses such as Prometheanism and economic rationalism.

As noted, environmental discourses can be characterized by storylines and symbols, as well as their agency in mobilizing action from different groups (Dryzek, 2005; Hajer, 1995; Robinson, 2004). For green building discourse, researchers Räisänen and Stenberg (2006) trace the varying symbolic meanings of green building from various times and groups of actors. According to the authors, the term “green building” has been used since the 1960s. However, with changes in technology and overarching discourse, what actually constitutes a green building has changed significantly, with different social constructs shaping how the term “green” applies. For example, in Sweden in the 1980’s, there was widespread concern about “sick building syndrome”, whereby many old buildings were believed to have allergens in them, affecting the health of people living or working in them. As a response to this concern, the construct of “green building” revolved around newer buildings with less allergens. In this context, the green building discourse mobilizes the general public, as well as science and medicine communities. Alternatively, today, green building discourse can incorporate environmental sustainability, biodiversity conservation, and architectural and engineering communities, among others. For Kaplow (2009), while there is no formal legal definition of the term “green building,” formalizing a legal definition is something that should be considered for real estate and leasing purposes, to make the benefits of green buildings more clear to property owners and renters. These arguments (Kaplow, 2009; Räisänen & Stenberg, 2006) demonstrate that the meaning of “green building” can be produced in different ways. Consistent with Foucauldian notions of discourse (Foucault, 1972, 1978; Sharp & Richardson, 2001), green building discourse shifts throughout time and place (Kaplow, 2009; Räisänen & Stenberg, 2006).

The way that “green building” discourse has shifted focus from human health to environmental health (Räisänen & Stenberg, 2006) speaks to larger phenomena within the trajectory of the . Today, studying the impacts of industrial and scientific progress on human health is automatic, as are environmental impact assessments, or tests for chemical safety 104

on almost all products in Canada (Health Canada, 2017). However, these considerations were not always in place, but developed as responses to public concern. As industrialisation, development, and science progressed throughout centuries previous, it was only in the late 1800s and early 1900s that Europeans and non-native North Americans began to question the impacts of ongoing development on the natural environment, and so the modern environmental began with the national park model, in the United States (Schelhas, 2001; Vitousek, 1997). The goal of the national park model was, and remains, to protect and preserve regions of the environment in response to a visible problem — the visible loss and destruction of nature. This thread of environmentalism is often identified as preservationism, which attempts to maintain nature’s unchanged state via protecting certain areas, such as National Parks. In the 1960’s, Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring (1962) furthered widespread concern over environmental impact (Ferrari, 2017; Griswold, 2012). The book described the effects of the widely administered pesticide DDT on animal and human health. From here on in, as a response to public concern for human health, pesticides and other industrial chemicals remain in legal check (Ferrari, 2017). Through these early workings of modern conservation and environmentalism, environmental problem-solving often begins in response to problems that are more readily visible, such as the disruption of nature’s beauty leading to National Parks and nature reserves, or that directly affect human health, such as in the case of pesticides. Public and political response to visible environmental problems, and human-health related problems, is an important part of global environmental discourse and its trajectory, which is what we see in Räisänen & Stenberg’s (2006) discussion of green building discourse. Here, green buildings first became a prevalent discourse in Sweden as a response to human health centered problems, and only later on did they begin to symbolize more energy efficient, environmentally friendly building designs.

In line with Foucauldian considerations of what remains unsaid (Foucault, 1972), in this case we can deduce another important component of global environmental discourse. Here, where it is understood that people are more readily active in mobilizing against environmental problems that are visible, and/or relevant to human health, it can also be understood that this excludes environmental problems that do not directly impact human health, and are invisible and non- quantifiable. Invisible, indirect environmental problems are more difficult to visualize and

105

comprehend. This has been the case with global warming and climate change, which are often cited as rationales for green buildings. Even though they are among the largest global problems of our time, global warming and climate change took years, decades even, before they saw any sort of mass uptake into politics. In addition to resistance from the politically and economically dominant fossil fuel industry, global warming and climate change were slower to enter into environmental policy because they are invisible problems, that do not directly impact humans in ways that are easy to understand. While past decades and especially recent years have seen many more extreme weather events (Campoy & Yanofsky, 2017), for many years, climatologists struggled to convince the world that this is due to global warming, and that global warming is from anthropogenic causes (Hughes, 2000). Anthropogenically-caused climate change is still a contentious topic; there are a lot of deniers9. Despite resistance and extremely slow uptake, climate change is now part of federal, regional or local policy in many parts of the world. Therefore, it only makes sense that green buildings, formerly a response to human-health concerns of a smaller scale, are now a widespread political response to global warming. As such, green buildings as a means to lessen the pace of climate change are only part of a more recent phenomenon, which will continue to expand as more and more about climate change is understood, acknowledged, and approached by policy makers.

Moreover, Kerr (2008) considers green building discourse as it is used in academic circles, by gathering information from conferences. This aspect of environmental discourse is important since discourse is reinforced and reproduced by institutions, including academic institutions (Foucault, 1972, 1981; Graham, 2005; Hook, 2001). After reviewing proceedings from conferences in Singapore, Australia, and Vietnam, Kerr (2008) comments on the discrepancies between the goals of green building discourse between the different nations, as well as between different sectors: government, the private sector, and academia. In the conference proceedings from Singapore, Kerr notes the discontent of the academic sector with the trajectory of green building discourse. Just as with sustainable development discourse, the discontent stems from the belief that simply incorporating the construct of “green building” into continuously booming

9 Again, partially due to widespread resistance from the fossil fuel industry and its hegemonic influence. 106

economic development is not enough to achieve necessary environmental goals. Instead, many academics believe that more radical shifts are needed, outside of current economic growth- focused discourses (Bellamy Foster, 1999, 2015; Hove, 2004; Redclift, 2005; Springett, 2013; Zelenev, 2016).

7.4.1 Municipal planning and green building discourse: Conclusion

In conclusion, this chapter zoned in on municipal environmental policy, as well as studies involving green building discourse. While the subject matter is particularly niched, the chapter identified municipal frameworks similar to the TGS, as well as studies that have considered influences, experiences, discourses and determinants of municipal environmental policy and green building policy. Further, the chapter highlighted that discourse is continuously evolving, by reviewing shifts in green building and environmentalist discourse. Ultimately, the literature that I reviewed for this chapter laid the groundwork for data collection, by provoking certain questions and lines of inquiry. Now that all of the preliminary research has been detailed through Chapters 2-7, I will now proceed to the first chapter of findings.

107

Chapter 8: Context of the TGS and Discourse Findings Chapters: Introduction

In the previous Chapters 1-7, I have outlined the theory, literature, and methodology used to prepare for conducting the research. From here on in, I will present the results of data collection and analysis, including the answers to the research questions. The upcoming findings Chapters 8- 11 will present my analysis results to support several main research findings. First, in addition to detailing the findings for democratic pragmatism and administrative rationalism discourse, Chapter 8 will depict that Prometheanism is excluded from the production and reproduction of the TGS. Similar to Prometheanism, the TGS is centered on development. However, it is also centered on a discourse of green regulation and green development. The TGS acknowledges that environmental problems exist and need to be addressed, negating Promethean discourse.

Next, in Chapters 9-10, I will argue that the discourses of sustainability and survivalism were present in the conception phases of the TGS (Cost-benefit study, Ted, Jane). The knowledges and truths of these discourses inspired the creation of the TGS. However, certain aspects of the policy-making process meant the deprioritization of these discourses from TGS production early on. Specifically, the key moments that exclude survivalism, deprioritize sustainability, and prioritize economic-focused discourse, are the conducting of the Cost-benefit study, and the stakeholder review and approval processes. Through the institutional policy-making process, TGS discourse assumed a prioritization of development “as-is”, almost from the get-go. This, and especially the stakeholder review processes, created spaces where economic-focused discourses could be prioritized, and sustainability and survivalism deprioritized. “Market transformation” — that is, the expansion of the green building products and services market — becomes a necessary, and achievable, TGS goal (Cost-benefit study, Kelly, Shayna, TGS review & Update).

Chapter 9 also depicts that while the TGS’ Tier 2 financially rewards a select few of the largest, leading and high-end developers for achieving the higher, greener Tier, Tier 1 is a set of regulations that requires all developers to build green, for the purpose of market transformation. In turn, Tier 1’s course of regulatory action contributes to the reproduction of the dominant discourse, ecological modernization, through market transformation. Ecological modernization 108

via market transformation is advantageous to the largest, leading and high-end developers, who were already reliant on the green building sector for products and services.

The main finding of the thesis is that the dominant discourses of TGS production and reproduction are the economic-focused discourses of economic rationalism and ecological modernization (Chapter 11). These economic-focused, environmental problem-solving discourses are middle ground for the radical discourses to the left (sustainability and survivalism) and right (Prometheanism). Promethean threads that exist within the development sector are moderated by the interests of environmentally-focused individuals at City Planning, and the TGS creators’ ideals of radical change for the sake of ecological protection are moderated by the economic interests of developers. Further, urban environmental classism existed prior to the creation of the TGS, as green building was deemed proprietary to luxury, high-end developers, and the largest development firms. By reproducing ecological modernization, market transformation, and by Tier 2’s reproduction of economic reward to the largest developers for building green, the TGS ends up reproducing urban environmental classism. Although environmental goals are partially achieved by being infused into development protocol, ecological modernization is a discourse and TGS outcome that serves the largest, leading and high-end development firms.

In these upcoming findings chapters, Chapters 8-11, I will revisit the environmental policy discourses outlined in Chapter 5, and evidence how they were or were not indicated in the analysis of statements from TGS documents, interviews, and site observations. The discourses are: Dryzek’s (2005) survivalism, Prometheanism, administrative rationalism, democratic pragmatism, and economic rationalism, Hajer’s (1995) ecological modernization, and Robinson’s (2004) sustainable development and sustainability. These discourses were derived from a review of relevant literature due to their potential relevance to the production of the TGS, and the attributes of each discourse were summarized in Table 3 (reattached as Appendix J). The beginning of each findings chapter will also briefly recap the attributes of each discourse.

Additional questions pertaining to each discourse will also be discussed throughout the findings Chapters 8-11. The majority of these additional questions were created during the review of relevant literature, and arise throughout Chapters 5-7. These additional discourse-related

109

questions were important for the research, findings and discussion. For example: what is the relationship of the TGS’ creators to developers and to private rating systems, such as LEED? Is the TGS influenced by local or external and globalized sources? What are the implications of the TGS as both a voluntary standard (Tier 2) and as a set of regulations (Tier 1)? There are four findings chapters, ordered in a way that first describes the context of the TGS, then discusses the goals of the TGS as it was created, the creation process, and finally the discursive knowledges that are reproduced. The main findings are summarized at the end of each of the four chapters, and implications are then theorized and described in a final discussion chapter (Chapter 12).

8.1 Context of the TGS and discourse: Introduction

In this first findings chapter I will commence the discussion of findings regarding discourse. Specifically, in this chapter I will present findings for Dryzek’s (2005) discourses of Prometheanism, democratic pragmatism and administrative rationalism. To recap, Prometheanism is a discourse founded on the denial of environmental limits and environmental problems, and the belief that economic growth is all that matters (Dryzek, 2005; Lomborg, 2001). In this chapter, I will evidence that Prometheanism is excluded from the production and reproduction of the TGS. The only shred of evidence supporting this discourse was found during an interview with Mark, who works for a private firm in the development industry. There is reason to believe that Promethean discourse exists in the development industry, but the TGS requires developers in Toronto to incorporate some green development features in their building plans, in order to be approved. Ultimately, the TGS excludes Prometheanism because although it is centered on development, it is also centered on the attempt to require that development be green. The TGS acknowledges that environmental problems exist and need to be addressed, negating Promethean discourse.

Second, democratic pragmatism is Dryzek’s (2005) term for the approach to environmental problem-solving that relies on government, and its democratic and bureaucratic structures. I found that democratic pragmatism discourse does play a role in the production of the TGS, by enabling its very existence as a municipal government-run program, as well as setting the parameters for its legal reach (Cost-benefit study, Jane, Shayna, TGDS staff report). Yet, democratic pragmatism is not a dominant discourse that is reproduced by the TGS. The dominant

110

discourses of TGS reproduction are conducive to economic elements such as “market transformation”, described in Chapter 9 and 11, instead of government regulation. Therefore, democratic pragmatism does not entail a significant role in the key findings.

Third, administrative rationalism is an environmental problem-solving discourse defined by trust in experts, science, and hierarchies (Dryzek, 2005), especially through the division of power over knowledge production. The TGS itself contains many scientific, technical requirements for buildings (TGS high-rise, TGS low-rise), reproducing western scientific knowledge as dominant over non-western, non-scientific knowledge. However, if administrative rationalism via scientific expertise produced the dominant discourses of the TGS, science would dictate the utility and scope of the policy, instead of it being vulnerable to expulsion by future City Councils (Shayna, TGS review & update), and instead of its dominant discourse being produced to favour the largest, leading developer firms, as I will evidence. At the same time, administrative rationalism via hierarchies does play a significant role in the production and reproduction of the TGS. Tier 1 as required to all new developments, versus Tier 2 as the higher, better, greener Tier that requires more financial input, and receives financial reward, are definitive components of TGS discourse. The implications of the two Tiers reproduce environmental classism, which is described in Chapter 9.

In this first findings chapter, Chapter 8, I will also discuss several subtopics based on questions derived from the literature review. These subtopics are: the relationship of the TGS to private rating systems, such as LEED, and the relationship of the TGS to the development industry. On the first topic, I found that the TGS fosters a close relationship with LEED (Jane, Jesse, Toronto LEED supplement). However, the creators of the TGS intentionally decided to create their own set of green standards and requirements, instead of implementing the standards set out by LEED, as some other cities in North America have done (Kaplow, 2009; N.C. Clean Energy Technology Center, 2014; Pander, 2016; Vierra, 2016). This choice was based on an aversion to LEED and other private rating systems being for-profit (Jane), as well as the tendency for developers to consistently opt for the simpler, and/or less expensive development features offered by LEED (Chris, John, Mary, Ted).

111

By creating their own policy, City Planning is able to mandate the features that it deems most important. The important features identified by interviewees are those concerned with energy efficiency. Energy efficiency features tend to be avoided by developers (Chris, Jane, John, Mark, Mary, Ted), a finding that relates to Chapter 8’s second subtopic, of the TGS relationship to the development industry. The data reveals that developers — specifically the dominant, leading and largest development firms in Toronto — do have a close relationship with the TGS, and are able to inform TGS discourse, especially through stakeholder review and feedback (Kelly, Jane, Shayna, Ted). This finding becomes significant for the economic discursive reproductions of the TGS, which serve these same developer groups (Chapter 9, Chapter 11-12).

However, this chapter also highlights that a challenge for green buildings presents itself in the structure of the development industry, where developers are separate from building owners, and often separate from other parties, such as construction and engineering firms. I will sometimes refer to this structure as the structuralism or Fordism of the development industry. Because of this structuralism, many interviewees (Chris, Jane, Jesse, John, Mark, Mary, Ted) pointed out that developers are not financially motivated to build green, because it costs more, and they do not reap the cost savings of building green down the road. Further, there is often a lack of communication between parties during the building development process, which is a problem because the advantages of green buildings are continuously overlooked (Jane, John, Ted). The TGS set out to mitigate this structuralism, by requiring that all parties sit down together during the planning stages of building development, and submit energy efficiency models (Jane, John). The TGS has been successful in requiring early and increased communication between parties, however the question remains as to whether more developers are opting for the more challenging green standards of the TGS’ Tier 2 (Chapter 9). For now, I will move past the introductory summaries of this Chapter, to more extensive detailing of the findings, beginning with the findings for Prometheanism.

8.2 Prometheanism

Prometheanism is the denial of both environmental limits and the existence of environmental problems (Dryzek, 2005). It is also indicative of a fervent preference for economic growth. As predicted, given that the TGS is a green standard, Prometheanist discourse does not exist in any

112

of the documents that concern the production or reproduction of the TGS. Therefore, the document analysis component of the research methods did not yield any results that spoke directly to Prometheanist discourse. Although the TGS is meant to complement economic growth via green building development, the research found that the discourses of production and reproduction for the TGS all attend to environmental problems and concerns in some way. From the discourses outlined in Chapter 5, Prometheanism is the only one that denies the existence of environmental problems. It is the only discourse that is completely excluded from the TGS. The implications of this finding are revisited in the final discussion and conclusion (Chapters 12-13).

The only threads indicative of the truths, knowledges and orders of Prometheanism were conveyed during the interview with Mark of the engineering consulting firm, Aquila. Mark is one of two interviewees from the private sector, who works with the TGS during the design of buildings. Threads of Prometheanism discourse emerged when talking about the demands of his industry increasing, due to more and more projects. He has a bias towards increased building development and growth, because it means more steady income for him and his company. For example, “it’s exciting to always envision something that’s expanding and growing, whereas it’s less exciting the other way. So we always see development as that, growth and prosperity.” This statement forms ordered objects with expansion and growth being equated to prosperity.

Even though he is not speaking directly about the TGS, it is important to note that where Mark’s statements reflect Prometheanism, the ideas of “economic growth is good” remain. In the broader context of this thesis, statements that reflect “economic growth is good” are in some way tied to notions of “green development is good”, and so speak to discourses such as sustainable development, economic rationalism or ecological modernization, instead of Prometheanism. Each of the “green development is good” discourses were found to be predominant in the production and reproduction of the TGS, as will be discussed in later findings chapters. For now, I will continue to detail the research findings by revisiting one of the discourse sub-topics that emerged as a question in Chapter 7: what is the relationship of the TGS to private rating systems such as LEED?

113

8.2.1 Discourse sub-topic: TGS Relationship with private rating systems

During his interview, Mark also commented on his work designing buildings for governmental bodies. He states that the projects “often call for some sort of LEED certification, very rarely do they not have that.” Mark’s statement highlights a sub topic that was pursued as part of the research: what is the relationship between the TGS, or those who work with/on the TGS, and private green building rating systems, such as LEED? This question was based on literature that indicated private rating systems, such as LEED, are often the standard of choice for other major cities in North America that decide to implement some form of green building requirement or standard (Kaplow, 2009; N.C. Clean Energy Technology Center, 2014; Pander, 2016; Park, 2007). For example, Vancouver’s Zero Emissions Building Plan employs LEED (Pander, 2016). On the other hand, the City of Toronto created their own set of standards that form the TGS. I wanted to find out why City Planning chose to create their own, and to gather insight into the relationship with other rating systems, such as LEED. The goal here was to open up more findings about discourse, as was the goal for all of the sub-topics and that were pursued during data collection.

The TGS has an immediately evident relationship with LEED, proven by the existence of the Toronto LEED supplement document (2014), created to aid the pursuit of the TGS and LEED together. For Jane, a director at City Planning and creator of the TGS, “we didn't want one to dissuade the other, but we measure things differently and have different priorities, so they are as complementary as they can be.” From its very beginnings in 2006, the creation of the TGS involved considering elements of LEED to integrate, as evidenced by the statement from the TGDS staff report, “the Toronto Green Development Standard 2006 integrates existing City guidelines and targets with the elements of private rating systems, such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)” (p. 3).

Some of the standards set out in the TGS overlap with LEED, while some vary. When analyzed, the Toronto LEED supplement also provided insight into the relationship between the two guides. LEED supersedes the TGS in terms of scope, as LEED is a national standard, and applies to major renovations. The TGS only concerns new buildings in Toronto. Created in 1992 (LEED certification homepage), LEED has been around over 15 years longer, giving it a large national

114

reach, with 3600 projects across Canada. In contrast, at the time of this study, the TGS’ voluntary Tier 2 standard had only 20 completed projects (TGS Tier 2 Profiles), even in spite of the TGS Tier 2’s financial rebate incentive, which LEED does not have. The council that oversees LEED has 120,000 staff, volunteers and professionals (Toronto LEED supplement), which Mark used to justify his preference for LEED as a rating system, over the TGS. According to the engineering consultant, the number of LEED staff makes LEED more accessible than the TGS, because it is ultimately a faster process. He notes that working with the government and the TGS can be very slow, such as when waiting for approvals. Similarly, and relevant to the differences between LEED and the TGS, Jesse from Windmill stated that LEED is more the go- to standard for his company. The reason he provided is LEED’s wider temporal and geographical scope, because Windmill has completed projects outside of Toronto, in Ottawa and Vancouver, and also within Toronto before the TGS came into effect. “All of our projects have been using LEED platinum. It's important to the owners” (Jesse).

Both LEED and the TGS are not comprehensive enough for some of Windmill’s projects that operate on the community level. For community-scale development projects, Jesse looks elsewhere for sustainability standards, such as to the “One Planet Living” guidelines that have been used in Europe. Therefore, in this research, after analyzing green building discourse from the perspective of the two private sector interviewees, the orders and truths that emerge purvey a preference for privately-run standards, over the TGS. However, Jesse firmly believes that both standards are beneficial, in general and for his company specifically, and that the benefits of each standard are interconnected. He points out, “often in the past we were pursuing LEED on our projects, then there was nice overlap between TGS and LEED so it wasn't really that much more onerous for us to pursue the TGS.” In the case of Windmill, the pursuit of the TGS is in reference to Tier 2, meaning that they were able to receive up to 20% financial rebates on development charges without anything too “onerous”. This highlights the company’s appreciation of the TGS-LEED overlap and interconnectivity. The interconnectedness was further evidenced by the TGS Tier 2 project profiles (2017), analyzed during the thesis’ third method of TGS site observations. Six out of 10 project profiles indicated that they were LEED certified.

115

The data collection also inquired as to City Planning’s intentional differentiation of the TGS from private rating systems such as LEED. One key difference highlighted by all public sector interviewees (Chris, Jane, John, Kelly, Mary, Shayna, Ted) is that LEED is too flexible in terms of what sustainability features developers can choose to pursue. For example, from the LEED supplement “LEED credits are similar in function to TGS Development Features; however the LEED credits cover a wider range of possible environmental impacts” (p.3). The problem with LEED’s more flexible model is that nearly all developers will end up pursuing the same features. They tend to pursue whatever is easiest, while the more challenging features, especially those that seek to improve energy efficiency, are continuously left out (Chris, Jane, John, Mary, Ted). For instance, Chris lamented that to achieve LEED Gold or Silver, developers may not need to include any energy-efficiency standards in their buildings. While the TGS does include some flexibility, improvements in energy efficiency are required components of both Tier 1 and Tier 2.

A second major reason for the creation of a government-run standard, as opposed to simply requiring that new buildings become LEED certified, is that LEED is for-profit. For example, in order to become a LEED adjudicator, of which there are tens of thousands, a person must write an exam, which is usually prepared for by purchasing LEED books, or taking LEED courses. Beyond preparation expenses, the exam itself costs between $250-$550 USD, depending on what type of property someone aims to be able to assess. There are then membership fees of $25 per year, once you pass the exam (LEED certification homepage). Each of these fees become profit for the privately-run Canadian and American Green Building Councils.

The two interviewees that were involved in the creation of the TGS back in 2006-2008, did not want to require a for-profit, privately-run green standard. For Jane,

We had a lot of push at the beginning saying why don’t you just adopt LEED? Number one, it’s third party and it’s for profit, we don’t want to go there. But we can make sure we align with them, so we’re not dissuading someone to achieve LEED — they can do that if they choose to, but we have our priorities and want them met.

Ted, the University of Toronto architecture professor who helped initiate the TGS, was much less gentle than Jane when asked about LEED, noting that “long ago I gave LEED an alternative branding label: Lowest Ethical and Environmental Denominator.” He openly criticized the 116

marketing ploy of privately-run green rating systems in that they are not doing enough for the environment, and that they are often based on a lack of data. On the other hand, he argues that the “TGS, especially in latest version, is much better than LEED on paper but we will have to wait and see how it turns out in practice – the proof is in the pudding”.

In conclusion of this section, while the TGS and private rating systems are interconnected, the relationship is kept at an arm's length for reasons that were discussed by Jane and Ted, including the aversion to being for-profit. The TGS was implemented as a requirement in Toronto that supersedes optional, private rating systems. This section highlighted an important distinction of the TGS and private rating systems, in that the TGS requires certain development features, instead of allowing developers to become certified based on the development features of their own choosing. This distinction between the TGS and private rating systems corroborates Chapter 7’s discussion of “points chasing” (Retzlaff, 2010). In the concept of “points chasing”, and in regard to the TGS, it is argued that developers tend to opt for the least-costly and/or simplest green rating points, collectively avoiding the same, more challenging or costly features, such as improvements in energy efficiency (Chris, Jane, John, Kelly, Mary, Shayna, Ted). Further, from the perspectives of TGS creators Jane and Ted, the production of the TGS should and does exclude full neo-liberal discourse. The TGS is a government run program, which is another important distinction from private rating systems such as LEED. Ted and Jane’s visions for the TGS, as introduced here, become important to the findings of sustainability and survivalist discourses in later chapters. At this point in time, I will move from the discussion of the subtopic on private rating systems, to a similar subtopic, on the TGS relationship to the development industry.

8.2.2 Discourse subtopic: TGS relationship with the development industry

The previous section referenced how TGS creators Jane and Ted aimed to avoid full neoliberal production of the TGS. However, what about the relationship with the development industry? How much influence did/do developers have over the creation of the TGS? As noted in Chapter 7, I sought to question the relationship between developers and the TGS after finding that developers and private companies had consulted on the TGS (Cost-benefit study; TGS website). Did Toronto’s developers directly influence the production of the TGS? On the other hand,

117

Chapter 7 also revealed that in other cities, such as Vancouver, some developers outwardly oppose their locally required green building standards. Was this the case for Toronto? Do developers oppose the TGS and does building green face resistance in the development industry? This chapter will describe the findings on these matters.

Additionally, a key problem with the development industry, as identified by the creators of the TGS, will be introduced, along with the ways that the TGS has aimed to mitigate the industry- wide problem. Briefly, a problem that was highlighted by the TGS creators, and staff at City Planning, is that the building development industry in Toronto tends to be segregated and highly structured, with a lack of communication between parties. The developers are often separate from the construction companies, and very often from the owners, for instance. This structured system of development presents problems for improvements in sustainability. For example, developers are less motivated to build green, because they do not reap the long-term benefits that are associated with green buildings, such as energy cost-savings. Thus, the creators of the TGS aimed to require that the building process be more comprehensive and holistic, in that all parties must sit down and at least discuss energy options together, in the early stages of development. The TGS requires that more parties be involved early on, so that there can be a greater understanding of green building options, and the benefits of these options.

8.2.3 Relationship to TGS production through stakeholder input and feedback

The data shows that the creation of the TGS was, and is, in fact influenced by developers. For example, the initial design of the TGS involved “two workshops held in April 2006 for stakeholders from a variety of sectors, including developers, builders, architects, engineers, property owners and managers, and environmental groups, amongst others” (TGDS staff report, 2006, p. 3). Similarly, the Cost-Benefit study states that “a consultation process was initiated to engage stakeholders on issues concerning the content and implementation of the green development standard. This consisted of an electronic survey of Toronto area developers, and a set of stakeholder workshops” (p. 1). And, as stated in the TGS review and update (2017), “the recommended revised and updated Toronto Green Standard reflects consultation with a number of stakeholders” (p. 1). The “stakeholders,” listed at the bottom of the document, include developers such as those party to the Building Industry and Land Development Association. 118

The lead author of the Cost-Benefit study and U of T professor, Ted, revealed that he was frustrated during the process of TGS creation and with the conducting of the Cost-Benefit study. He opposed the fact that the study had to be approved by stakeholders, which included persons from large condo-development companies. As such, “our process involved all stakeholders and these formed a steering committee that reviewed our work. This is very important because the resulting study is a reflection of the stakeholder perspectives, not exclusively that of the study research team” (Ted).

Part of the rationale for including developers as stakeholders in the TGS creation process, was to make sure that the requirements and guidelines were achievable, from the perspective of the developers (Cost-benefit study, Jane). During the TGS’ renewal every four years, City Planning staff look towards the development industry, amongst other groups, for input and feedback. For instance, Shayna, who designs the TGS updates, describes the linkage to developers as: “they’re big companies that we can kind of rely on them to provide good technical feedback that help us craft more effective regulations.” Jane added a similar comment, with “they [developers] come up with some very good feedback, and we made changes and tweaked things to be more realistic.” The analysis then points to the finding that developers have been able to influence TGS production and reproduction, through stakeholder review processes, as well as influence over Cost-benefit study. My analysis did not find reason to argue that the influence of developers led to a weakening of environmental standards, per se, since there is no version of the TGS that was created prior to the influence of developers: developers were present in the design of the TGS from very early on. However, the analysis did find that developers were able to inform the discourses of TGS production and reproduction, so that ultimately, the TGS reproduces the economic-focused environmental discourses that are favourable to them, such as ecological modernization and economic rationalism. The prevalence of these discourses, as reproduced by the TGS, is outlined in Chapter 11. For now, this section will continue to detail the findings that speak to the direct relationship and influence of developers over the TGS. One of the results of developer influence over the TGS is the decision to offer financial rebates, as introduced below.

119

8.2.4 Relationship with developers and the TGS’ financial rebate framework

In considering how the relationship with developers influenced TGS discourse, one distinct TGS feature is that the TGS offers financial incentives to developers. The “TGS Tier 2 is a voluntary, higher standard with financial incentives” (Toronto LEED supplement, p. 4), and for Kelly of City Planning, “20% on your development charges, if you meet Tier 2 it's a big incentive, a lot of money in some cases.” In the early phases of data collection and analysis, I understood the Tier 2’s financial incentive program as a simple demonstration of the City’s favourability towards the development industry. It appeared to be a clear-cut relationship, where developers can financially benefit from the TGS in three ways: by implementing green building measures, which are proven to be more cost-effective in the long run (Cost-benefit study), by being able to market themselves as “green” developers and thus being able to charge more to renters and buyers10, and then by being eligible for 20% development charge rebates. However, there is a lot more to it than that. The complexities of the Tier 2 incentive rationale and implications are introduced below, and are later revisited as a key discussion topic.

8.3 Development Industry: Structural problems that the TGS aims to address

As revealed through documents and interviews, the logic behind Tier 2’s financial rebates is to refund the cost of investing in more expensive, but more energy efficient11 materials. Ideally, investing in more efficient materials, such as “high efficiency appliances and pumps” (TGS high- rise, p. 6), would make financial sense to a developer, because cost savings on operating the building will be apparent after only a few years (Cost-benefit study, LEED explainer). And because more efficient building materials will lower operating costs, there is an existent market demand for greener, more energy efficient buildings. “Interest is growing among owners,

10 This directly relates to my hypothesized concept of urban environmental classism, where green products, including green buildings, are priced above their non-green counterparts. 11 Reference to “energy efficient” or “energy efficiency” in this dissertation encompasses energy, electricity and . Increased energy efficiency can mean the reduction of demands on energy, electricity and/or water supply. This usage of the term(s) is reflective of the data, as it was common in the documents and among interview participants (Cost-benefit study, Jane, John, LEED explainer, Mark, Tier 2 Project Profiles, TGS Review & Update) 120

particularly those with multiple building holdings who can witness the difference in performance and the business bottom line” (Cost-benefit study, p. 9).

However, the development industry in Toronto is structured so that developers do not have vested interest in investing more in the energy efficiency of building appliances, boilers, etc. In describing his typical engineering contracts with developers in Toronto, Mark states that implementing any sort of required efficiency improvement is “more of just an obstacle to get through”. The reason that the vast majority of developers are not interested in creating more efficient buildings is because they sell off their buildings before they are ever run and operated. The building developers and the building owners are separate entities, each with different goals in mind: the developers want a building made with the lowest input costs, while the owners want a building with the lowest operating costs. The planning of the TGS took this into consideration, with 2008’s Cost-benefit study stating, “the conservatism of the industry and its focus on lowest capital costs (rather than operating costs) was also singled out as a major barrier to energy efficient construction and training (p. 170).” Such statements in the study were confirmed during my interviews, such as with Mark, who commented, “our experience with condo developers for the most part, it’s all about first cost, and then they pass it off right away”.

The problem with the development structure that separates developers and owners, is that most developers are therefore not inclined towards investing in the more efficient materials, or more energy efficient appliances that comprise greener buildings. By never owning or operating buildings, the developers do not benefit first hand from the financial worthiness of a more energy and water efficient building (Cost-benefit study). The issue was also described by Mark. When I asked him how environmental sustainability plays into his work as an engineering consultant, he answered,

It sort of depends on the use and the life cycle of the building, like how the ownership will change. If they’re going to develop it and hand it off, there’s very little that they care about, they’re very much first cost focused and less long term focused. When we have property owners that are going to be owning and maintaining the building for a long period of time, it becomes a much bigger topic of discussion. You deal with like a condo

121

developer, who wants to put the thing up, and leave, in record time, it’s like a totally different world.

This quote highlights that the building developers and owners being separate — which I sometimes refer to as development structuralism, or a Fordist structure of development, because each set of responsibilities is individualized, like in a factory line — contributes to a lack of motivation for building green.

Beyond the lack of motivation for developers to finance greener buildings, another problem with the structuralist model of development in Toronto is simple lack of communication and understanding between parties. The majority of the public sector interviewees (Chris, Jane, John, Mary, Ted) indicated that the way the industry is set up is unsustainable, due to the lack of mutual involvement in projects from all groups, from beginning to end. For instance, John, who consults on the TGS, explained that without a group of people involved in a project from beginning to end, the intentions of a project may never get carried through. The construction team may not implement what the design team had planned, and equipment meant to be energy efficient may be set up and/or run incorrectly.

Importantly, the TGS not only tries to incentivize developers to buy more efficient materials, and to incorporate more efficient appliances and boilers, but also aims to have more groups involved in the building process at earlier stages (Chris, Cost-benefit study, Jane, Ted, TGS high-rise). The initial creators of the TGS (Jane, Ted) saw the negative impact that the development industry’s structuralism was having on green building and energy efficiency, and aimed to alleviate it by requiring that all parties sit down together during the early building planning stages. Awareness of the problems with the development sector’s structuralism are exemplified by Ted’s statements: “Developers tick off the boxes needed to get a go ahead, but then it is unclear how the green features they promised are confirmed in the field”, and “the development industry in Toronto is like a restaurant with a great menu and recipes, but the people in the kitchen are not making healthy foods that are actually anything like what appears in the menu”. To approach the problem, Ted’s Cost-benefit study suggests principles for green building, including: “an integrated, holistic design process”, “involve the contractor and mechanical

122

electrical and plumbing early in the design process,” and “keep in mind the objectives of the decision makers (p. 16-17).”

For Jane, having developers prove that they have at least sat down and considered renewable or more efficient energy sources and usages, through energy modelling, is important for incrementally making buildings more sustainable. It’s what she refers to as “changing the mindset”. She explains,

Part of the application they have to submit an energy strategy, so they have to hire a consultant to say have you thought about district energy, have you thought about blah blah blah, right. It might be tokenism, you know you just hire a consultant, do something, sure, but it’s moving that yardstick right, you’ve thought about, you had to think about it.

Statements such as these from Jane and Ted, and Ted’s Cost-benefit study, are important to consider for the questioning of TGS discourse. Again, Jane and Ted are the only interview participants who were involved in the initial creation of the TGS between 2006 and 2008. Notably, their problematization of the structure of the development industry, of development “as is”, aligns with the knowledges and truths of sustainability and survivalism discourses: that “development” in its current state needs to be questioned, and/or requires radical changes in order to mitigate its detrimental environmental consequences. The work of the industry should be more holistic and comprehensive, as opposed to highly structured and divided. Unlike Ted, the changes that Jane aims for are by no means radical. However, the changes she strives for aim to shift and adjust the structural processes of Toronto’s development industry, to lessen negative impact on the environment. In this way, by exploring the subtopic of the relationship of the TGS with developers, findings regarding discourse begin to emerge. That is, the research found that in numerous ways, the initial goals of the TGS are aligned with sustainability and even survivalist discourses.

The ideas and discourses that led to the creation of the TGS will be expanded and analyzed in later chapters. For now, I will conclude this section on the TGS goal of changing the structuralism of development by highlighting that for Mark of the engineering firm, the TGS “has forced us to do some of the early planning with the project team, understand where we’re going with that application.” He goes on to describe the way that his team now sees the plans for 123

the entire process, whereas before he had only seen the components of it that were directly relevant to him. This, he believes, has allowed him to see the larger picture of the building, which he deems “the more holistic approach.”

Here, we see that for Mark and his team, the TGS has succeeded in achieving the goal of having more groups work together throughout the building development process. This goal is achieved through Tier 1, because Tier 1 requires more groups to be involved in planning, such as in the energy modelling stages (Chris, Jane, Mark, TGS high-rise, TGS low-rise). This chapter also highlighted that the Tier 2 financial incentive program was incorporated into the TGS in part due to the development industry’s divisiveness, whereby developers do not reap the benefits of green buildings, so they tend not to invest in those more costly green materials and services. These two points factor in later on, when I identify the predominant groups who have benefited from the TGS’ Tier 1 requirements, as well as from the TGS’ Tier 2 financial rebates. Specifically, I will highlight that it is the largest, high-end and/or leading developers who were already meeting the Tier 1 requirements, and who were already benefiting from investing in green building before there was a TGS Tier 2 rebate involved. Importantly, it is also the largest, high-end and/or leading developers who were (and are) able to inform the production of the TGS, such as through the stakeholder review processes. Moving forward, the next section will summarize one of Dryzek’s environmental problem-solving discourses, democratic pragmatism.

8.4 Democratic pragmatism and the relationship to the province

The previous section briefly touched on yet another relationship that was explored during data collection, of the TGS and Toronto’s City Planning to the Province of Ontario. This chapter will elaborate on the findings that speak to that relationship, and to the way that Toronto City Planning sees the TGS in comparison to the province and to cities within the province and elsewhere. These questions were incorporated into the analysis following the review of relevant literature, such as where it was highlighted that a municipality’s capacity to create and implement green building requirements can be largely affected by the relationship to its province (Burch, 2010a, 2010b; Kingdon, 2011; Murray, 2006). The relationship of the TGS and City Planning to the province and to other cities was also considered based on the idea that city governments are competitive with one another, and sometimes with the provincial government.

124

Each city government wants to do something new, and/or do something the best, so that it can boast success (S. Hughes, personal communication, April 5, 2017).

The data confirms Hughes’ (2017) discussion of cities being competitive with another, and one way that competitiveness was demonstrated throughout data collection was in the description of Toronto and the TGS, in relation to Ontario and the Ontario Building Code (OBC). The TGS high-rise and low-rise documents consistently refer to the OBC, for voluntary and required standards that should surpass the requirements outlined in the OBC. For example, the Tier 2 energy efficiency standard is to “design and construct the building(s) to achieve at least 12% energy efficiency improvement above the 2017 Ontario Building Code” (TGS high-rise, p. 6). There are many other examples throughout the data whereby the TGS is depicted as being greener than the OBC, especially in the Tier 2 project profiles that depict each project’s improvement over the OBC requirements for energy efficiency, measured in percent value. Beyond the higher environmental standards of the TGS over the OBC, Hughes’ (2017) notion of municipal competitiveness with the province is affirmed in this thesis by the consistent reference to Toronto and the TGS’ leadership-role (Chris, Jane, John, Kelly, Shayna, TGS review & update).

Jane justifies the existence and extent of the TGS with the relative size of the City of Toronto staff in comparison to other municipalities. According to Jane, in terms of human resources, capacity is a determining factor for Toronto and other municipalities, in implementing green policies. This contradicts Burch (2010a, 2010b), as cited in Chapter 7 of this thesis, who argues that municipal climate change policy is not a matter of capacity, but of prioritization. However, it is unclear whether Toronto simply has more staff and therefore the capacity to implement the TGS, as argued by Jane, or whether Toronto actually does prioritize green policies more than other cities in Ontario, and at the same time has enough staff (or purposely hires the staff) to manage the policies.

8.4.1 Democratic pragmatism discourse: Setting the parameters for the TGS

I found that democratic pragmatism discourse does play a role in the production of the TGS, by enabling its very existence, as well as setting the parameters for its reach. The ability to even

125

create a bylaw, such as the TGS Tier 1, is provisioned by the province of Ontario, to Toronto and to other municipalities in Ontario (Jane, Toronto LEED Supplement).

Democratic pragmatism discourse is also highly influential in that the TGS is a government-run program that is subject to the democratic process and to bureaucratic structures. This finding corroborates discussions from Chapter 7, where it was indicated that municipal green policy is subject to the political goals of regional and national governments, as well as the amount of freedom allotted by the province to a city, to allow the city to create its own policies (Burch, 2010a, 2010b; Kingdon, 2011; Murray, 2006). For instance, it was noted that as a Charter City, the City of Vancouver has more freedom than other cities in B.C., in terms of creating and implementing its own policies (Burch, 2010a; Murray, 2005). For Jane, “you have to understand things in context, we always get compared to Vancouver, which is not a fair comparison because they can control their building code and we can’t.” In Toronto, the Ontario building code has more control over building’s indoor regulations through the OBC, limiting the TGS to requirements that affect mostly the exterior of each new building. In this sense, democratic pragmatism is a discourse that sets limits for the TGS, by delineating its legal reach.

Another democratic pragmatism discourse informing the TGS is that it is passed through council every four years. Luckily for Jane and her team at City Planning, when the ideas for the TGS were initially presented, the mayor at the time was the very environmentally-progressive David Miller. However, if Toronto’s political winds ever shift in opposition to green policy, the TGS will be at risk of discontinuation. As stated in the TGS Review and Update, achieving “the 'near zero emissions' goal by 2030” is “dependent upon Council approval of an updated Toronto Green Standard every 4 years” (p. 8). Caution towards progressive policies at the hands of shifts in political party leadership is similarly lamented by White (2007). While discussing the prospects of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, White tempers his enthusiasm by noting that political plans must survive elections and can be killed if political winds turn. Following the recent cancellation of the Cap and Trade program, the abandonment of green policy due to changes in party leadership is something that Ontarians are all too familiar with.

This section has evidenced the role that democratic pragmatism plays in the creation and reproduction of the TGS. The findings discussed as they relate to democratic pragmatism are

126

primarily responsive to ideas and arguments that were presented in the literature review Chapters 5-7. There are no key findings or critical reflections regarding this discourse, other than finding that it does in fact play a role for the TGS in some ways, such as by setting the legal scope of the TGS. In addition to democratic pragmatism, administrative rationalism is another one of Dryzek’s (2008) environmental problem-solving discourses that plays a role in the production and reproduction of the TGS, as described in the following chapter.

8.5 Administrative rationalism through science and trust in experts

Administrative rationalism is a discourse that overtly affects the production of, and is reproduced by, the TGS. Administrative rationalism is characterized by a trust in science, and a trust in experts (Dryzek, 2005). Since buildings are integral to the functioning of urban society, they must be highly safe, functional, comfortable, and last for decades. Thus, they are generally very strictly regulated. The TGS is full of hundreds of technical requirements and voluntary measures, all which rely on experts and science (TGS high-rise, TGS low-rise, LEED supplement). According to Dryzek (2005), these science and expert-based parameters are characteristic of administrative rationalism discourse. There are countless examples of technical requirements in the TGS high-rise and low-rise documents, and many of these are highly technological and scientifically advanced. Examples include: occupancy sensor lighting, green roofs, cool roofs, bird friendly performance guidelines, and stormwater retention and purification methods, amongst many others (TGS high-rise, TGS low-rise).

Administrative rationalism, via trust in science and experts, is very apparent in the technical requirements indicated throughout the TGS. This finding is visible, and speaks to what is said. Yet, for Foucault, (1972, 1981), archaeology and genealogy of discourse reveal invisible unities, to lead to the questioning of what is “un-said”. As such, it should be pointed out that if administrative rationalism via scientific opinion was the dominant discourse of TGS production and reproduction of the TGS, science would dictate the utility and scope of the policy. Instead, I have evidenced, and will continue to evidence, that leading-edge developers were, and are, able to at least partially construct TGS discourse, in favour of their own economic reproduction, over the goals of climate science, for instance. Further, the TGS is subject to the political winds of

127

change. For example, it can be voted out of the municipal budget by City Council when it is up for renewal every four years, and therefore is subject to politics and public opinion instead of scientific expertise. Further, for administrative rationalism, the questioning of the “unsaid” stems from the discourse’s clear-cut hierarchies. Hierarchies are produced and reproduced through the TGS, as introduced below.

8.5.1 Administrative rationalism through hierarchies

In addition to science and expert-based decision making, administrative rationalism is also characterised by hierarchies (Dryzek, 2005). Hierarchies are a structural feature of the TGS, integral via the two tiers, as well as the designation of two TGS versions, one for smaller residential buildings, and the other for larger residential and all industrial and commercial buildings. The TGS that is for smaller residential buildings (TGS low-rise) has a smaller number of requirements. For instance, the TGS low-rise is 13 pages long, whereas the TGS high-rise is 18 pages long. Both required and voluntary components of the TGS high-rise are more comprehensive, with 29 voluntary items for the TGS high-rise, versus 15 voluntary items for the TGS low-rise. Unlike the TGS high-rise, the TGS low-rise does not have requirements for bicycle parking spots, or for electric vehicle parking spots, for example.

This could suggest a hierarchy of “bigger is greener”, as larger residential buildings would end up having more green components, because there are more regulations and options for them — almost double. However, fewer requirements and options for smaller residential buildings means a small-residential developer needs to do less to become Tier 2 certified. Therefore, while the hierarchy of larger versus smaller residential buildings does exist for the TGS, it does not reproduce implications for green discourse. That is, there is no evident ranking of green versus less-green or non-green, due to building size.

On the other hand, the hierarchical discourse and reproduction of the TGS’ two-tiered framework has implications. Administrative rationalism discourse, in the form of hierarchies, is a definitive component of the TGS in the form of clear-cut distinction between Tier 1 and Tier 2. From the TGS high-rise, “Tier 1 is required through development approvals implemented by City Planning and Tier 2 is the higher, voluntary standard implemented through a third party review (p. 1).” Again, contradictory to Foucault’s notions of discourse, hierarchies produced by discourse here 128

are in plain sight; they are not hidden. Tier 2 is a higher rank based on implementing more green measures, thus it is associated with being more green or environmentally-friendly. Besides obviously depicting hierarchies and thus depicting a characteristic of administrative rationalism, there are many implications of the tiered system for discourse, and for the “un-said”. These implications will be unpacked in the following chapter, beginning with the exploration of some of the unsaid goals of the TGS.

8.6 Summary of key points, Chapter 8: Context of the TGS and discourse • The TGS is an attempt to address environmental problems, thus excluding Prometheanism from its production and reproduction.

• There are problems with private rating systems such as LEED that the creators of the TGS wanted to avoid for Toronto’s own green building standard. The problems include that LEED is for profit, and the wide range of green feature options means that the same, harder to achieve and/or more expensive options are often avoided.

• The largest, leading developer firms in Toronto were, and are, able to exert an influence over the creation of the TGS, through consultation and stakeholder reviews, as well as the approval over the Cost-benefit study.

• The development industry is structured so that there is a lack of motivation for developers to go green. Most developers immediately sell new buildings before the cost-savings of going green are accrued. I refer to this as the ‘structuralism’ of the development industry.

• The TGS aims to mitigate the impact of that structuralism by requiring that developers sit down with builders and owners to coordinate plans, and do energy modelling. The TGS requires (through Tier 1) a more holistic and comprehensive development process.

• Administrative rationalism (Dryzek, 2005) produces and is reproduced by the TGS through Tier 1 and Tier 2 hierarchies and scientific/expert knowledge.

129

Chapter 9: TGS Goals, Creation Process and Discourse Chapter 9 Introduction: TGS goals

By questioning and thoroughly analyzing the creation of the TGS, including the decision making behind the two-tiered framework, findings regarding discourse were revealed. This chapter will depict that the initial goals of the TGS, and the beliefs of the TGS creators, are aligned with survivalist and sustainability discourses. However, the TGS creation processes, especially the stakeholder review process and Cost-benefit study, favoured a production and reproduction of the knowledges, truths and orders of the economic-focused discourses, and ultimately urban environmental classism. The dominance of the economic-focused discourses, reproduction of urban environmental classism, and the exclusion of survivalist and sustainability discourses that took place throughout the creation process, are key findings in this thesis.

This chapter will also show that the TGS goal of market transformation, which reproduces ecological modernization discourse, serves the leading, high-end developer firms. Further, I will evidence that the majority of Tier 2 developers are those leading, largest and high-end developer firms who were already building green, and who were already financially benefiting from building green (Jane, Mark, Tier 2 project profiles). The TGS reproduces the economic advantages of these leading, largest and high-end developer firms by rewarding them with relatively large financial rebates (Development charge refund doc, Jesse, Kelly, LEED supplement, TGS review & update). I will also evidence the argument that urban environmental classism exists in Toronto’s development industry, since building green was, and still is, associated with the largest and/or high-end developer firms (Cost-benefit study, Kelly, Jane, Mark, Shayna). The TGS reproduces this knowledge, and heightens differences between developers based on being green and financial input (Chris, Development charge refund doc, John, Mary, Tier 2 project profiles, TGS review & update), and therefore reproduces urban environmental classism.

The chapter will begin by depicting findings about the goals of the TGS. These goals were uncovered through document analysis and interviews, and are in addition to obvious surface- level goals such as “making buildings more environmentally friendly” that can be gathered from the title of the standard alone. The three goals that were uncovered through analysis are, in no 130

particular order: 1) requiring a more holistic and comprehensive approach to building development, 2) undoing what I refer to as “urban environmental classism”, and 3) market transformation.

Interestingly, goals 1 and 2 demonstrate an awareness of structural or systemic problems with Toronto’s development sector, and aim to address those problems. As such, they aim for some form of structural or systemic change. These two goals of changing the structuralism of the development sector, and of undoing urban environmental classism by creating equal access to green buildings, are therefore aligned with the ideals of structural or systemic change that are required by sustainability and survivalist discourses. Finding these goals, as well as their relevance to the more radical discourses, was surprising to me. In all initial literature review of reports and promotional material for the TGS or for green buildings in general, green buildings are consistently presented as a way to ensure financial profit. The knowledge that green building literature tends to reproduce aligns with the economic-focused discourses, especially ecological modernization. For instance, the LEED homepage boasts the standard’s economic value, in that “LEED buildings attract tenants, cost less to operate and boost employee and retention.”

Thus, in my preliminary research and experience with green building literature, I noticed a tendency towards reproduction of ecological modernization discourse — the ability of green buildings to make money. As such, in the interviews with Ted and Jane, the two research participants who were involved in the initial creation of the TGS, I was surprised to find that their intentions for the TGS were to achieve environmental sustainability, and, in the case of Ted, to ensure that green buildings were not solely luxury items, but were accessible to all. Neither Ted or Jane mentioned the ability of green buildings to make money once during their interviews. That was surprising. This distinction — of the TGS goals and beliefs of the TGS creators that align with sustainability and survivalist discourses, versus the economic-focused discourses that dominate the production and reproduction of the TGS12 — becomes a key finding in this thesis. The thesis will show that the transition to economic-focused discourse, as guided

12 As evidenced in Chapter 11 131

by developers, away from discourses of sustainability and survivalism, in fact leads the reproduction of these structural and systemic problems that the TGS creators initially set out to address.

On the other hand, the third goal of the TGS, noted in many documents and interviews, is called “market transformation”. This goal is more aligned with economic-focused discourses like sustainable development or ecological modernization, whereby there is no fundamental social or structural change, only an addition of certain green building products and services to the current market framework. This chapter will provide evidence that speaks to each of the uncovered goals and how each of these goals shaped the TGS’ two-tiered framework. The chapter will then incorporate discussion around the creation process of the TGS, and argue that those processes diverted the TGS away from systemic or structural changes. Instead, the creation processes favoured a production and reproduction of the knowledges, truths and orders of the economic- focused discourse, and ultimately urban environmental classism. Finally, the chapter will analyze findings with regard to whether the goals have been successfully achieved through the TGS or not, and will question the implications of the goals and the two-tiered framework for the reproduction of discourse. The chapter will demonstrate that while the two tiered framework does achieve early indications of successful market transformation (goal three), and mildly addresses the problems with the structuralism of the development sector (goal one), the two- tiered framework has not yet produced any systemic changes in the structuralism of the development sector (goal one), and only reproduces if not amplifies problems of urban environmental classism (goal two). Despite the TGS goals that aimed for structural changes in the development sector, and that aligned with sustainability or survivalism discourses, the creation process of the TGS had the effect of excluding those discourses, reproducing economic- focused and hierarchical discourses instead. This chapter will depict the contribution of the TGS’ two-tiered framework to the reproduction of ecological modernization and urban environmental classism, and the implications of that discursive reproduction for the development sector’s lower and upper tiers.

132

9.1 TGS Goal 1: Changing the structuralist nature of development

Chapter 8 described the goal of changing Toronto’s structuralist — or what I call “Fordist” — model of development. Toronto’s structuralist or Fordist model of development entails that each party of experts involved in building development works separately throughout the process, often meaning that the goals of one party are not properly communicated to another. That same previous chapter also noted that for interviewee Mark, the TGS’ Tier 1 has succeeded in requiring his team to sit down with all parties early on in the process, to discuss more sustainable, efficient building options. The evidence and rationale behind this TGS first main goal, as well as part of its outcomes, have therefore already been described in a previous chapter that focused on the TGS relationship with the development industry.

Having all parties involved in building development sit down early on and consider more efficient building options is an important step for “moving the yardstick” (Jane) of Toronto development, and is surely not diminished in this chapter. However, the chapter will evidence that the TGS’ lower, mandatory Tier 1 has alone moved “the yardstick”, whereas the higher, voluntary Tier 2 is awarded to companies that already embodied this ideal development structure, and were already building green. Tier 2 has not moved the yardstick for green building development in this sense, and has not yet proven helpful in achieving the goal of changing the structuralism of development. The findings that speak to these Tier 1 versus Tier 2 outcomes are detailed later in this chapter, after the other TGS goals are depicted.

9.2 TGS Goal 2: Preventing the reproduction of urban environmental classism

Chapter 6 describes what I refer to as “urban environmental classism”. To summarize the concept, it is the potential outcome of ecological modernization, whereby the economic value of environmental sustainability is realized and taken up by capitalism, turning it into an item that costs extra. That is, environmental sustainability becomes a luxury item. In an urban context such as Toronto, I argue adding cost for environmentally-friendliness impacts the cultural and built forms, such as by the relatively expensive restaurants serving vegan or otherwise environmentally conscious meals. In this context, I argue that there is an added class-based

133

divisiveness along the lines of being more environmentally friendly or sustainable, since the lower, and sometimes middle classes are priced out of buying green. For the research, I considered whether the findings surrounding Toronto’s green buildings would perpetuate or negate my argument that a sort of environmental class-based division exists.

When conducting the literature review, and prior to data collection, I had not come across literature that corroborated my theorizing of urban environmental classism. Instead, urban environmental classism was an extension of the well-theorized ecological modernization (Christoff, 1996; Dryzek, 2008; Hajer, 1995), based on what I observe and experience in Toronto. Interestingly, the first time that I ever came across similar notions of urban environmental classism was during data collection, in the Cost-benefit study that was led by interviewee and University of Toronto Professor, Ted Kesik.

The Cost-benefit study introduces the importance of creating a green building standard, so “that green development does not become a luxury item for purchasers” (p. 1). The idea then is to require certain green components, and to “help to ensure that the standard does not unfairly disadvantage firms unable to absorb or pass off the higher costs of construction,” (p. 1). To help the firms that would be potentially disadvantaged, the study suggests that there should be requirements for green buildings, which rationalizes Tier 1, and that there should be financial rebates for developers whom the requirements may otherwise cause disadvantage, which rationalizes the idea of a Tier 2. Thus, as per this part of the Cost-benefit study, the TGS’ Tier 2 financial rebate system should actually help to level the playing field for building developers when pursuing greener buildings. The study argues that there should be a green standard that “is effective but also attainable for many developers” (p. 1).

In the interview with Ted, he criticises the building industry for marketing green buildings as luxury items and thereby perpetuating class-based inequalities. When describing his ideal of what development should be, he states, “I see development as being entirely about advancing social equity and preserving ecological diversity.” He also criticises LEED for being unethical and only appealing to high-end developers. LEED itself is a tiered-system, with each tier represented by a different colour — green, silver, gold, and platinum — with each higher rank requiring a higher level of input costs (LEED explainer; Toronto LEED supplement). Because of

134

higher input costs, and no direct financial benefit to developers for going green (as explained in the chapter on the structuralism in the development sector), with no required green standard, voluntary standards alone tend to reproduce class-based divisions. They tend to only be pursued by high-end developers. The lack of widespread pursuit of voluntary green building standards is lamented in 2008’s Cost-benefit study, “various industry experts estimate less than 10% of new commercial and institutional buildings in the Toronto area are LEED registered, (p. 9)” and “if these statistics are compared to the number of buildings constructed annually, it is possible to conclude there is very little interest in green development (p. 9).”

The pursuit of green buildings by high-end developers alone was brought up by numerous interviewees (Jesse, John, Mark, Shayna, Ted). Notably, when analyzing statements concerning Ted’s initial goals, objects of discourse speak to sustainability, or even survivalist discourse. The objects created include a problematic, elitist building sector that requires structural change in order to be sustainable. Ted envisions a change whereby all buildings are green, and financial rebates are provided to those who would be disadvantaged by these requirements. Similar to the goal of ensuring that the development sector change from structuralist to more holistic, changing the class-based pursuit of green building standards is more than a minor modification to development. The goal aims for fundamental shifts and changes in common forms of development, thus aligning with more radical environmental discourses of sustainability, or even survivalism.

9.3 TGS Goal 3: Market transformation

When asked how and why the TGS was created, Jane refers to a presentation by University Professor Ted Kesik. Ted presented his criticisms of development, and ideas about what development should be, as described above. He presented on the potential for a green building standard to expand the breadth of green buildings, instead of green buildings being party to only the largest, and/or high-end developers, as with LEED. The presentation caught the interest of Jane and her boss at the time, who is now retired from City Planning. Jane and her boss then began working on creating the Toronto Green Standard. When analyzing the goals of the TGS according to each of the City Planning and City of Toronto interviewees, a common reference to the TGS goal of “market transformation” emerged, and is discussed here.

135

The idea of “market transformation” as it applies to the TGS is really an extension of Ted’s more radical goals, but where Ted was explicitly focused on achieving structural equalities, market transformation is more specific to the economic concepts of supply and demand. For market transformation, the goal is to increase the supply of materials, services and qualified personnel for the green building sector. The TGS aims to achieve market transformation by slowly increasing requirements for green buildings, so that there is time for the market to adjust its supply to meet new demand. Market transformation was referenced as a purpose of the TGS, by interviewees such as Kelly and Shayna. For example, Shayna comments “the TGS has really acted, it's trying to act as a market transformation tool” and “it’s really trying to convey that sustainability is something that’s an integral part of development, to try and transform the market here in Toronto”.

Further, the Cost-benefit study explains that “many industry representatives who participated in this research argued that stronger regulatory requirements are needed to drive demand for energy efficient buildings and transform the marketplace” (p. 170). The benefits of such “regulatory requirements” in driving market demand for green building materials was also emphasized by Windmill Development’s Jesse. Jesse states that

Whatever policy the City can implement to force builders to use certain materials, I think it improves the availability of those materials on the market place, because people or material suppliers and manufacturers start to say ‘oh, there’s actually a market for this product that used to be a niche.

9.3.1 Who or what does market transformation serve?

This thesis is guided by an exploration of TGS discourse, in order to question the orders, knowledges and truths that produced, and are reproduced by, the TGS. The Foucauldian questioning of discourse means that part of that exploration should ask who or what does the discourse serve? Who or what does it exclude? In the continued elaboration of findings regarding discourse, questions of who/what is served or excluded become significant, beginning with the consideration of market transformation.

136

Foucault’s (1972, 1981) exploration of overarching discourse sets out to question the set of social conditions that gave rise to a particular set of truths, orders and knowledges that produce discourse. The set of social conditions that are argued to have existed, prior to the TGS, demonstrate that only a small percentage of developers were pursuing green standards (Cost- benefit study, Jane, Jesse, Mark). The small of percentage of developers that pursued the green standard were leading-edge, and/or high-end firms. Without the rest of the development industry being on board, there was essentially no widespread market for the products and professionals needed to construct and operate green buildings. While the higher-end, leading firms exemplify objects of ecological modernization and economic rationalism discourse, whereby they profit from being green, the rest of the development industry was not participating in those environmental-economic-focused discourses, according to the data (Cost-benefit study, Chris, Jane, Jesse, Mark). According to my findings, the smaller, non-leading and lower-end developers, who were not pursuing green development, are opposing objects of ecological modernization discourse. Similar to Foucault (1967) and Graham (2005), the opposing objects become the targets of a new course of regulatory action. In my study, the regulatory action is the TGS Tier 1. Tier 1 seeks to have all developers enter the market of green building. The market for green buildings will then expand, based on green building as an across-the-board requirement. There is a sort of hegemony that should happen, as the ecological modernization- driven values of the higher-end, leading developer firms are meant to trickle down to the smaller and/or lower-end firms, so that they are required to participate in the green building market through Tier 1.

I would also like to note that this goal and process of market transformation serves the interest of the reproduction of Tier 2, of the high-end, largest and green developers. Beyond the fact that the high-end, largest developers are financially compensated for achieving Tier 2, the goal of “market transformation” benefits them as the range of green building products and services that they rely on expands. A larger range of products and brands to choose from, competitive pricing and lower costs for green building products and services ensue. Here, the production of Tier 1 contributes to the reproduction of the higher Tier 2. There are other ways that the differentiation of Tier 1 and Tier 2 reproduces ecological modernization discourse, with implications for hierarchies and urban environmental classism, which will be discussed later in this chapter.

137

9.4 TGS goals and discourse

When applying the Foucauldian analytic steps to the statements regarding market transformation, it can be noted that objects formed, such as supply and demand, speak to the reproduction of contemporary economic structures. Opposing are objects and discourses of fundamental, radical structural changes. Despite the wording of “market transformation”, there is no major transformation aimed for in this type of goal, only an expansion of the current market to include more green products and personnel. The “market transformation” goal is more like a “market expansion” goal, and aligns with the truths and knowledges of ecological modernization.

Beginning with this section’s discussion of the TGS goals, it can be observed that there is a change in discourse that occurred during the processes of TGS creation. There are initial goals that were identified by Jane and Ted to have spurred the creation of the TGS, which are pertinent to the knowledges and truths of sustainability and survivalism. Then there is the commonly- referenced goal of market transformation. The TGS as a “market transformation tool” (Jesse, Kelly, Shayna, TGS review & update) is reproduced as knowledge about the purposes of such a policy. The knowledges associated with market transformation are aligned with economic- focused discourses. There are many more indications of the reproduction of the economic- focused discourses, over the discourses of sustainability and survivalism, as well as implications, which will be discussed in upcoming chapters.

However, as was noted in the methodology chapter, the goal of the thesis is not to affiliate the implications of discourse with certain individuals at City Planning. I am not suggesting that the transition in goals, such as the more radical ideas from Ted, to that of market transformation, occurred due to City staff. City staff are not responsible for the change in discourse that I am arguing has occurred. Instead, it is the processes of policy production at the institutional level that propagate economic-focused discourses and tend to exclude others. The first of these policy- making processes that I have questioned in the production and reproduction of discourse is the process of stakeholder consultations, elaborated below.

138

9.5 TGS creation processes and the impacts on discourse: Stakeholder review process and the TGS’ Tier 2

In the chapter on the relationship of the TGS to the developer industry, a close relationship is depicted between developers, as “stakeholders,” and the design of the TGS. Developers, as key stakeholders, were consulted during the creation of the TGS. For instance, the consultation of stakeholders “consisted of an electronic survey of Toronto area developers, and a set of stakeholder workshops,” (Cost-benefit study, p. 1). The chapter also explained some of the impacts of developer stakeholder consultations, which lead to the creation of the TGS’ financial rebate program. Namely, it was detailed that due to the structuralism of development, where developers sell off buildings, developers do not directly benefit from the higher input costs of greener, more efficient technology, appliances, etc. As such, the City should reimburse them for those expenses. By doing so, the developers should ideally be more inclined to invest in building greener buildings, since they will no longer be at a loss.

Further, when analyzing the TGS processes of production, there are additional inputs from the stakeholder review process that led to the creation of Tier 2, and ultimately excluded the knowledges and truths of sustainability and survivalism discourses. That is, the high-end developers, who were already pursuing green standards, opposed Ted’s idea of a level playing field and his problematization of green buildings as luxury items. They wanted to remain greener than other developers. As explained throughout the remainder of Chapter 9, the top, high-end leading developers benefit financially by being “greener” than other developers. There are multiple reasons for this that were found during the analysis. Namely, being “green” is a competitive edge that is incorporated into their business models and used for marketing; being green is associated with luxury and/or being high-end; that these leading, high-end and/or luxury developers are able to claim financial rebates through the TGS’ Tier 2; and that these developers are part of a small minority who run comprehensive building development projects. That is, they do not sell off their buildings after construction, but own and operate them afterwards. Therefore, they already financially benefit from going green through long-term cost savings, without the added financial rebates of the TGS’ Tier 2.

139

To exemplify the first point listed above, it was indicated that during the creation of the TGS, through stakeholder consultations, the leading, high-end developers sought to maintain their elite competitive edge. They wanted to remain greener than other developers. For example, Jane states

The Mintos, Daniels and Tridels, they were already kind of there and they were kind of worried that if we made this across the board, if everyone were required, they would lose their edge, in terms of ‘we’re greener, so you should buy with us’

According to this statement and others from the Cost-benefit study, it appears that urban environmental classism did and does in fact exist in the building sector. The most prominent companies were benefiting from being able to market themselves as being greener than others, and therefore would benefit if urban environmental classism were to remain inherent to Toronto’s building sector. This is another reason that through consultations with the development sector, the creation of a higher, voluntary and financially incentivized Tier 2 was justified: so that the largest, leading firms could remain leading in the field of green building. Contrary to the objects created by Tier 1 that are subject to regulation, the objects of Tier 2 are rewarded for successfully demonstrating the leading-edge qualities that successfully reproduce ecological modernization discourse. Tier 2 developers are the objects of a discourse of financial reward from the City and from customers (especially those who can afford luxury developments), for being green.

9.6 Discursive effects of the Cost-benefit study

The inclusion of the stakeholder review process during the creation of the TGS, which included input from leading-edge developers, further rationalized the creation of the higher and financially incentivized Tier 2. Beyond this, Ted pointed out that developers as “stakeholders” also had an impact on the final outcomes and recommendations of the Cost-benefit study that he was commissioned to conduct and lead. During the interview, I asked Ted to provide any general thoughts on the Cost-benefit study. In response, Ted stated “Our process involved all stakeholders and these formed a steering committee that reviewed our work. This is very important because the resulting study is a reflection of the stakeholder perspectives, not exclusively that of the study research team.” He did not elaborate further, but the Cost-benefit study does end up presenting a case for the creation of a voluntary Tier 2, which would pay back 140

developers for their investments. And as I have started to point out, Tier 2 is beneficial for the largest developer firms who were already building green, who were included in stakeholder review process, and who were listed as stakeholders of the Cost-benefit study. Whether Tier 2 has benefited anyone else, remains in question, and is explored in Section 9.8.3.

However, the inclusion of stakeholders is not the only way that the Cost-benefit study affected the discourses of reproduction for the TGS. I argue that the very process of doing a Cost-benefit study favours the reproduction of the economic-focused discourses. A cost-benefit study is required in many institutional policy making process, and in itself speaks to economic-focused discourses, by asking, what are the economic benefits that could be derived from the policy? For the creation of the TGS, the Cost-benefit study had to prove that the TGS made financial sense for developers and for the City of Toronto in general. Here, ideas of sustainability and greater equality for green buildings, which inspired the production of the TGS, are necessarily reduced to numerical and dollar values. Notably, there are many examples of statements in the Cost- benefit study that are indicative of sustainability and survivalist discourses. The statements and their respective survivalist and sustainability discourses correlate with lead author Ted’s sentiments, which were expressed during his interview. These are exemplified and discussed in Chapter 10, and include concerns over ecological limits and social factors affected by rapid urban development.

Yet, the Cost-benefit study also highlights that only economic measures could be assessed; purely environmental and social factors could not be, unless they were able to be converted to dollars. For instance,

Cultural, social and emotional factors are difficult to assess and remain largely beyond the scope of this study. This does not suggest they are unimportant, but simply that we are not at a stage of evolution where we have collectively agreed upon a means of reconciling measures among multi-dimensional phenomena that are related to often contradictory aspirations. Economic measures, such as those presented in this and subsequent sections of the study, remain the only yardsticks, however limited, where the units of measure (dollars) are common to everyone. (p. 42)

141

Here, it is indicated that the study can only compare economic values. Non-economic values are thereby excluded from the study, because they cannot be numerically measured against each other in a cost-benefit analysis.

Some non-economic metrics, such as biodiversity and human health were measured, but these too were converted in dollar values. For example, the study shows that green buildings can improve air quality and therefore human health, which will save the province money in healthcare.

For the purposes of this study, it was assumed the contribution of to improving air quality would be similar to what was ascribed to Ontario's voluntary Anti- Smog Action Plan in the year 2000 OMA study, specifically that Ontario could avoid $1.2 billion in health care system burdens annually. These avoided costs were assumed to be attained under the TGDS energy efficiency requirements by 2031. (Cost-benefit study, p. 206)

Further, while the Cost-benefit study argues that building green will benefit biodiversity protection, the presenting and comparing of evidence in this field is nominal, if not completely excluded from the study. The study only briefly refers to some benefits, such as by protecting biodiversity through green roofs, but in these instances, biodiversity is only mentioned as a factor that is excluded from the economic calculations of benefits. For example,

Research into the benefits of green roofs, identified key quantifiable benefits that would be used in the analysis: stormwater flow reduction (including impact on combined sewer overflow), improvement in air quality, energy use reduction, and reduction of the urban heat island effect. Other, less quantifiable benefits identified included increased biodiversity and the use of green roofs for food production or amenity space. (p. 20)

Similarly, the Cost-benefit study evokes a previous study, titled “The Use of Economic Measures in National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans” (Emerton, 2001). Emerton’s (2001) study is referenced to point out that “economic justification” of biodiversity strategies is “critical to their success, in terms of their ability to overcome the economic causes of biodiversity loss and their ability to ensure that economic incentives are set in place to encourage the conservation of

142

biodiversity” (p. 11). This statement exemplifies the conversion of aspects related to environmental sustainability discourse into dollars, for the sake of justifying their importance. The idea of converting biodiversity into dollar values for the sake of motivating people to conserve it, is consistent with evaluating and measuring what are referred to as “ services” (Daily et al., 2000). Ecosystem services are measured in order to incite rational, “economic logic” (Harvey, 1996) for conservation, and are indicative of ecological modernization and economic rationalist discourses. Further examples of the prioritization of economic-focused discourse in the Cost-benefit study are presented in Section 11.1.1.

As evidenced, the Cost-benefit study converts non-numerical environmental benefits, such as biodiversity, into dollars, such as by emphasizing the economic benefits that green buildings can provide through biodiversity protection. Economic values are then compared, and the Cost- benefit study must indicate a profit in order for the policy creation process to proceed. Ideas that aligned with the more radical discourses of sustainability or survivalism are converted to numbers, to show that green buildings are financially worthwhile. By needing to prove that green buildings are financially worthwhile, an unavoidable conversion to ecological modernization discourse takes place when the Cost-benefit study is conducted. The main storyline of ecological modernization is that pursuing environmental concerns – in this case through green buildings – should be economically profitable (Fairhead et al., 2012; Hajer, 1996; Jänicke et al., 1997). This matches the main storyline of the Cost-benefit study, since the study had to make the argument that building green would be profitable, in order for the policy creation process to proceed.

For example, when describing her experience of creating the TGS, Jane explains

So I got $100,000 from Crest Tech, which was to leverage funding to think about how can we do this, like a feasibility study. What should we do for cost? What difference will energy plans make in the city? Like what benefits would all the different functions of the Toronto Green Standard have in the form it was in to the City? So we knew what our investment was giving us right.

What Jane describes here led to the Cost-Benefit study that was commissioned to Ted, and overseen by multiple stakeholders. The Cost-benefit study totals 276 pages of new and previous

143

research findings regarding green buildings; nearly all of those 276 pages emphasize the economic value, or savings, that green buildings can provide, directly or indirectly.

Finally, the Cost-benefit study is a composite review of existent data and literature. Because of its methodology of using existent data, the study is limited to considering existent forms of building development. For instance,

For the purposes of this study, its scope is limited to the prevalent forms of building development and the urban site technologies that support buildings, notwithstanding the multitude of social, economic and technological interactions that bear upon the sustainability equation. (Cost-benefit study, p. 2)

This statement highlights that the study was limited to existent economic indicators of development. This quote, and the limitation of the Cost-benefit study to presenting forms of development “as is”, are revisited in Section 10.5 on Sustainable Development discourse in the TGS.

This section (9.6) has presented various pieces of evidence to support the argument that the Cost- benefit study is a moment during the policy creation process that served to deprioritize, or even exclude, environmental sustainability and survivalist measures, as well as prioritize and reproduce economic measures and the economic-focused discourses. The Cost-benefit study represents a key moment in the policy making process where ideas of improved social equity and environmental sustainability are converted into numbers or dollars. TGS discourse then becomes centered on ecological modernization: the necessity of going green because it makes more economic sense than not going green. The shift in discourse that occurred through stakeholder consultations and the Cost-benefit study affected the reproduction of TGS discourse, as well as the outcomes of each of the three goals depicted at the beginning of this chapter. The implications for the goals and their outcomes are described below.

9.7 Market transformation outcomes

Although my analysis was not extensive enough to measure an actual increase in quantitative indicators such as market supply and demand, the two development sector interviewees did indicate that the market for green building-related items and technologies has improved since the 144

TGS was implemented. For instance, when discussing improvements in energy efficiency, Mark states that “I think just generally it’s definitely a trend,” and “you can just see the general trend has been towards energy efficiency which is what we focus on”. Further, from Jesse’s point of view, “we’re just seeing that the technology is improving really really quickly especially as there’s more market uptake. And TGS is part of that, especially in a market like the GTA where there’s so many buildings being put up.” Therefore, according to these statements from Mark and Jesse, the TGS goal of market transformation has been achieved, from their point of view. There is more work being done on efficiency for green buildings, and the green building technology market has expanded.

As noted, the goal of market transformation aligns with economic-focused discourses. The outcomes of market transformation are especially aligned with the characteristics of ecological modernization, demonstrated by improvements in green technology and emphasis on energy efficiency. I also argued that market transformation can benefit the largest, leading developers by expanding the options and competitive pricing of green building goods and services, which they were already using. At the same time, TGS Tier 2 allows high-end, leading developers to maintain their “leading edge” (Cost-benefit study, Shayna, TGS review & update) for being considered green. In that sense, Tier 2 has implications for the outcomes of the other two TGS goals indicated earlier in this chapter. The implications are described below.

9.8 The reproduction of urban environmental classism through the TGS’ Two-tiered framework

Contrary to market transformation, the findings demonstrate that the other two goals — of changes to the development sector’s structuralism, and the undoing of urban environmental classism — are yet to be achieved to the same extent. These were the two goals that aimed for more fundamental, structural and social changes, that aligned with sustainability and survivalist discourses. This is an example of one of the dissertation’s main findings: that the discourses of survivalism and sustainability, although they frame initial ideas of TGS creation, were inevitably excluded from the reproduction of the TGS, especially following institutional processes such as the stakeholder consultations and Cost-benefit study.

145

To begin, I will evidence the finding that the TGS’ two-tiered framework reproduces urban environmental classism. The two-tiered framework reproduces hierarchical objects, of greener developers ordered above developers who only meet the basic requirements. The higher, second tier objects are also often characterized by being luxury, and by greater financial input (Cost- benefit study, Ted, TGS review & update). The findings show that the TGS’s two Tiers are distinguishable by financial input, where the second, higher Tier is costlier to achieve. For example, in the TGS Review and Update (2017) the “Zero Emissions Buildings Framework study undertook a capital cost analysis for achieving the recommended performance targets summarized in Table 1” (p. 8). The Table that is then depicted shows the percentage increase in construction costs over the OBC, for each Tier. The table is divided by different building types, and all of the Tier 2 buildings are considerably costlier than Tier 1, such as a Tier 2 commercial retail building costing on average 5.8% more in construction than a Tier 1 building. Beyond the fact that the table is presenting an argument for why the higher Tier should be reimbursed, which benefits the higher Tier, the Foucauldian analysis of the table, along with other findings, shows a purveyance of ordered objects: Tier 2, the higher, greener Tier, is associated with the expenditure and availability of more financial input.

The ongoing association of “green” with the “biggest”, “leading”, “leading-edge”, “high-end” or “luxury” developers and buildings was indicated in several interviews (Jesse, Kelly, Mark, Shayna). For instance, for Kelly

We had two tiers and there was an incentive program for developers and so like Shayna said, all the big companies all wanted that 20% refund. And so that really drives them to take up all of this. So they're leading the charge because they have the resources to utilise, to integrate those elements into their design of the building, and then they get money back right so it's all worked into their pro forma.

Notably, attributing Tier 2 to the biggest, leading companies that have more resources contradicts the initial goal of levelling the playing field for green building. However, this outcome of hierarchical reproduction through the two-tiered system is in line with the goals of the developers who are consulted during the stakeholder review process. For Shayna,

146

We can go to them and consult with them and they clearly have invested in sustainability, and they’re big companies, and that we can kind of rely on them to provide good technical feedback that help us craft more effective regulations.

The largest, leading firms, or the “big companies” benefit from the reproduction of ecological modernization discourse, and from the ordering of objects based on being greener than others. As a result of their input, the TGS was created with the incentivized Tier 2, as previously described. The implication is a reproduction of hierarchies, ordered objects of discourse, and of urban environmental classism.

From the perspective of Mark, who works at a contract engineering firm, the developer firms that think about environmental sustainability and achieve Tier 2 do tend to be wealthier. When asked about his experience with the TGS, Mark describes the difference of Tier 1 and Tier 2 projects. The likelihood of a Tier 2 project

Does depend on their market. Like some of the higher-end — if they’re selling to higher end individuals — financially, then they have higher demand for it, because they care about sustainability more, there’s a market for it there. Then that can drive it.

The association of wealth with environmental sustainability or green buildings is also demonstrated by Mark’s description of his experience with landlords that lease to big corporations. He states

A lot of AAA buildings, so a lot of the really high end like First Canadian Place, the Exchange Tower, 2 Queen Street, umm sort of high-end customers, that the tenants care a lot about energy efficiency, so they’re actually driving that through their leasing quite a bit, saying we want you to be LEED certified, or we want you to meet a certain energy efficiency. Or else these big corporations don’t want to move in, and so that drives then the landlords to pursue these things.

Therefore, the research findings demonstrate a reproduction of ordered objects, where the higher objects are characterized as being wealthier or higher-end, at the same time as being greener or more environmentally conscious.

147

When I presented my research findings on urban environmental classism and the TGS at a recent conference, an audience member asked whether the City had plans to change the tiered structure, so that the green standard would be leveled across all new buildings. Interestingly, the renewal of the TGS will instead see the continued heightening of divisions among Tiers, and the newest (mid 2018) version now includes Tiers one through four. Similar to the arguments presented in the Cost-benefit study, which rationalized the creation of the voluntary, incentivized Tier 2, the TGS Review and Update (2017) speaks of a stakeholder review process, where “Members’ comments focused on the updated performance measures for the voluntary Tier 2 standard and a need for an 'incentive package' to support the voluntary higher performance standards of Tier 3 and Tier 4” (p. 10). The answer to the audience question is no, the tiered structure will have even more tiers, with the continued reproduction of hierarchies that correlate with available financial capital.

9.8.1 Urban environmental classism: Exceptions and limitations to the findings

I would like to note that there is an exception to the reproduction of urban environmental classism. While the two-tiered framework reproduces an environmentally-based classist discourse in the development sector, the TGS does aim to make technical improvements to buildings that are accessible to the public, regardless of class. That is, the TGS mandates components of green buildings that are not associated with being wealthy. Examples include required improvements in pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure, bike parking spots, and a voluntary number of car-share parking spots. Those technical requirements and options of the TGS do not reproduce a system where people of lower income are excluded from being green, at least as far as transit options go. At the same time, there are also green requirements that cater to the rich, such as mandating a certain number of electric vehicle parking spots (TGS high-rise). In Chapter 6, I use electric vehicles to exemplify visible instances of urban environmental classism, since electric vehicles are yet to become readily affordable to persons of low or even medium income. They are better for the environment, and at this moment in time (2018), electric vehicles are only available to those with more income or access to credit.

Further, the findings of urban environmental classism as being reproduced by the TGS were not able to be confirmed nor denied by the third research method, of TGS site observations. For the 148

primary methods of interviews and document analysis, the analytic steps revealed findings of ordered objects based on Tier and financial input or wealth. However, when it came to observing the orders and objects of discourse in reality, I was not able to assess class-based divisions between the Tier 1 and Tier 2 buildings that I visited. I only observed the exteriors of the nine buildings that I visited, and did not measure the cost of the units or construction, or gather information on income of residents, for instance. All of the buildings observed were constructed within the last five years, so the exteriors of all the buildings were quite pristine, regardless of Tier. All of the building exteriors appeared nice, new, and well-maintained, from what I could see. Observing the sites’ size did not reveal discrepancies between Tier 1 and Tier 2, as all the sites observed were high-rise, with the exception of one Tier 1 site (120 Raglan Ave). A null finding also applies for the neighbourhoods of Tier 1 versus Tier 2 buildings. While there was a higher ratio of Tier 2 buildings in the very downtown core, I did not have a comprehensive set of Tier 1 buildings to compare to. As previously explained, certified Tier 1 buildings were difficult to locate — there could be a higher ratio of Tier 1 buildings in the downtown core, which did not surface in my search of City’s closed permit list. Beyond the downtown core, Tier 1 and Tier 2 buildings are dispersed throughout Toronto, often in the same districts as each other. Since there was not a complete dataset available for Tier 1 versus Tier 2 projects in Toronto, a comparison of the two different Tiers by average neighbourhood income would require a follow-up research project.

9.8.2 What about the Tier 1’s?

As I described in Chapter 3’s section on TGS site observations, finding Tier 1 sites to observe was a lengthy process, especially in comparison to Tier 2. Tier 2 sites are profiled on City Planning’s website (Tier 2 Project Profiles). Ten of them are profiled, which according to the TGS Review and Update (2017), equates to half of the total number of Tier 2 projects that exist. On the other hand, the TGS Review and Update also indicates that there have been over 1300 Tier 1 projects. There is no clean list of these projects accessible to the public, or that my interviewees could provide. The Tier 1 projects are buried within the tens of thousands of Toronto’s closed permits per year.

149

The emphasis on the achievements of Tier 2 developers, versus the virtual disappearance of the Tier 1 project details, again aligns with the implications of ordered discourse as described by Foucault (1967) and Graham (2005). Tier 2 developers are the objects of financial reward, and are promoted on the City’s website. On the other hand, the opposing objects are the developers who have not pursued voluntary, higher green standards. They are excluded from that discourse of reward. Instead there is a set of regulations (Tier 1) that forms around them to have them behave more like the Tier 2’s. The discourse of regulation is reflective of that discussed by Graham (2005) and Foucault (1967), who described the discourses of ADHD and of madness, respectively. For the TGS, forming a discourse of regulation (Tier 1) around those who have not previously opted for green building, serves to reproduce ecological modernization discourse and the benefits derived by the largest, leading firms, via market transformation. As previously explained, requiring all developers to participate in the green building market helps those who are already participating in the market, as it expands.

9.8.3 Who has achieved Tier 2?

As described, the third method of TGS site observations did not confirm or contradict the findings of urban environmental classism. However, while observing the TGS sites, a major finding arose in regard to the outcome of the other TGS goal, of changing the structuralist or Fordist model of the development industry. As noted, the creators of the TGS recognized the lack of motivation on the behalf of developers to purchase greener, more efficient materials for their buildings. This is due to the fact that most developers sell buildings immediately, forgoing the long term benefits of the more expensive efficiency improvements. Therefore, one goal of the TGS was to have the building developers, owners, and other parties work together early on, so that they could better co-create and co-design greener and more efficient buildings. Developers, owners and engineers should co-create energy models, to at least better understand the potential benefits of green building (Jane, John, Mary). Further, my findings show that TGS Tier 1 has had some impact, by having all parties work together early on, as was described in a previous chapter.

Interestingly, when I was visiting the TGS sites around Toronto, a sign on one of the Tier 2 buildings read “rental units available”. In downtown Toronto, this type of advertisement directly

150

on a building is actually uncommon. Units are usually rented privately, by individual unit owners. The advertisement “rental units available” indicates that one company may own and manage the entire building, which again, is uncommon downtown. Upon conducting an online search for the company that was advertising that particular Tier 2 property, Concert properties, I confirmed that the company does build, construct, own and manage its own properties. This is outside the norm, and was very interesting because it means that Concert properties received Tier 2’s financial rebates, even though the main rationale for the rebate does not apply to them. As owners, they already reap financial benefits of constructing greener, more efficient buildings. There shouldn’t be a need to pay the developers back for the materials, because they are the developers.

Upon further investigation into the property development companies of each of the ten buildings on the Tier 2 Project Profiles site, I found that nine out of ten companies matched the structure of Concert properties: a single firm that is in charge of both development and ownership. When Jane described the creation of Tier 2, she said that the largest, leading developer companies in Toronto — the “Mintos, Daniels and Tridels” — were interested in the creation of the higher, voluntary Tier 2. Those three large, high-end developer firms comprise six out of the ten Tier 2 project profiles. Notably, their websites all indicate that they develop, construct, own and manage their properties. For instance,

Daniels plans, designs, develops, builds, and manages all residential and commercial properties in-house, enabling the ultimate in quality control and streamlined service. In essence, Daniels is an all-inclusive service provider - a company dedicated to seeing each project through to construction completion and beyond. (Daniels Homes, 2018)

The same comprehensive structure is true for three other Tier 2 Project Profiles, meaning that nine out of ten projects listed received rebates, despite not truly needing to be reimbursed, according to the initial logic behind the rebates. Here we have further evidence that the production of the Tier 2 versus Tier 1 hierarchy serves for the reproduction of existent hierarchies. The largest, leading developer firms that consulted on the TGS were able to ensure that TGS production would directly serve them. They are objects of reward, rewarded for their existent structures, instead of potential changes to their structure.

151

As noted before, the TGS Tier 1 is successful in mitigating some of the separateness of the Fordist style development, by requiring that all parties be present for energy modelling early on. However, there is yet to be evidence that development firms are moving beyond the modelling, to make the switch to higher levels of efficiency, in pursuit of Tier 2. Beyond the finding that at least nine out of ten Tier 2 project profiles are by companies that were already very likely to pursue Tier 2, due to the fact that energy efficient materials would benefit them anyways, there does not appear to be a wide uptake of the higher, voluntary TGS Tier 2. According to 2017’s TGS Review and Update, there is a small ratio of Tier 2 to Tier 1 buildings. There are over 1300 Tier 1s, to only 20 Tier 2s. For Mark, of the engineering firm “I don’t even know if we’ve had a Tier 2. We’ve started on some Tier 2s, and it's always been scaled back to Tier 1.” Further, for Jesse, of Windmill Developments,

I’ve heard through others that not many developers pursue [Toronto] Green Standard’s Tier 2. Even though there’s a large financial incentive for them to do so, a lot of people either don’t care for them or can’t wrap their heads around why you would do that, and perhaps they’re just uneducated on the existence of the financial incentive.

There appears to be little uptake of Tier 2 beyond companies that were already building green, such as the three largest companies that were noted, and beyond several additional companies who were already using a comprehensive development structure. While the TGS as a set of requirements (Tier 1) appears to be effective for achieving some of the goals set out by the creators of the TGS, the TGS as a voluntary, financial reward appears to serve the reproduction of economic-focused discourses, and of the status quo in more ways than one. The largest, leading developers were able to help construct the TGS, and are reproduced as objects of greater financial reward, and of higher status. The following chapter will continue to expand on these dissertation findings, by returning to discussions regarding the main research question: what discourses produced, and are reproduced by, the TGS?

9.9 Summary of key points, Chapter 9: TGS goals, creation process & discourse • The three TGS goals that were uncovered through analysis are:

1. Requiring a more holistic and comprehensive approach to building development. 152

2. Undoing what I refer to as “urban environmental classism”. Green building should not be associated with luxury developments only.

3. Market transformation. The green building sector should expand.

• Goals 1 and 2 align with the approaches and knowledges of sustainability and survivalism discourses.

• However, these two goals and their relevant discourses were eventually excluded through the TGS creation process.

• Key turning points for discourse as found in this research are the 1) conducting of the Cost- benefit study, and 2) the stakeholder review and approval processes.

• Through these processes, the largest, high-end and/or leading developers were able to help justify the creation of a Tier 2.

• Tier 2 rewards them, and is a reproduction of ecological modernization discourse.

• Tier 1 produces a discourse of regulation, which draws on discussions of Foucault (1967) and Graham (2005).

• Tier 1 also serves the reproduction of Tier 2 through market transformation, as the sector that the largest, leading developers rely on expands.

• Further, the association of “green building” with luxury and leading developer firms actually served the leading firms before the TGS.

• Again, the influence that the top developers had over the creation of the TGS means that they were able to reproduce and reinforce these hierarchies and distinctions.

• Urban environmental classism is reproduced by the TGS’ two-tiered framework.

• The majority of Tier 2 financial rebate recipients appear to be companies who were already using a comprehensive development structure, and who were already building green.

• These are the same leading-edge companies who were able to inform TGS creation.

• They benefit from the TGS and its Tier 2 rebate system in multiple ways.

153

Chapter 10: Sustainability and Sustainable Development Knowledges and TGS discourse Chapter 10 Introduction

The previous section explored some of the main goals of the TGS that were found throughout the course of the research. The chapter also depicted that when two of those goals were analyzed for discourse, they were found to align with sustainability, or even the more radical survivalism discourse. This chapter will continue to depict the ways that sustainability and survivalism discourses were found to have influenced the initial creation of the TGS. Further, as the previous chapter argued, there were key moments in the policy creation process that altered the discourses of production and reproduction for the TGS. These moments were the stakeholder review, which include developer consultations, and the Cost-benefit study, which also had to be approved by stakeholders. Although this chapter will demonstrate that Jane and Ted’s knowledges and truths, and reasons for creating the TGS are linked to sustainability and survivalism discourses, the TGS is inherently premised on an assumption of development. This means that from the get-go, development “as is”, and more growth were givens, which conflict with the ideals of sustainability and survivalism, yet favour economic-focused discourses such as sustainable development. By only applying to new buildings, and without any reconceptualizing of existent forms of development, the TGS reproduces discourse that aligns with development “as is”. As such, despite the presence of sustainability and survivalism in the conception of the TGS, these discourses are de-prioritized and eventually excluded through the policy making process, in favour of economic-focused discourses. This confirms Dryzek’s (2005) argument that policy- making is generally inhospitable to survivalism, which requires radical, systemic and structural change.

10.1 Sustainability discourse as influential for the creation of the TGS

To briefly recap, according to Robinson (2004), the characteristics of sustainability as it’s used in academic and activist circles are: a belief that shifts in individual behaviour and major changes in relation to the environment are needed; the prioritization of environmental and ecological welfare over economic growth; that individuals have agency for making changes towards

154

sustainability; the use of reductionist concepts such as ecological footprint; and that sustainability discourse should be locally derived, bottom-up or grassroots. Robinson differentiates sustainability from sustainable development, which tends to be top-down, and has been co-opted by the private sector and governments to push agendas of economic growth.

I would like to begin this section by drawing up a quote from Ted’s interview, for which he paints a picture of his own evolving understanding of sustainability. He states,

My vision has changed over the years. Back in the 1980s, it was about sustaining our way of life, but this did not account for evolution and disruptive technologies and how these impacted our society. Later I imagined sustainability as living within the ecological footprint afforded by nature and then I coupled this to the idea of intergenerational equity. To be sustainable means ensuring one generation’s decisions do not impair the succeeding generation’s ability to navigate toward what they believe to be a sustainable future.

In the analysis of Ted’s statements such as this, at the time that he was involved in the creation of the TGS (the mid-2000s), for the most part, the discourse that emerges aligns with Robinson’s (2004) sustainability. For example, in the quote above, we see an invocation of objects of ecological footprint and of nature’s limits, which are also demonstrative of survivalist discourse.

Again, Ted and Jane were the only interviewees whose visions of sustainability, of development, and of the creation of the TGS, did not prioritize economic growth. Their understandings are focused on environmental welfare, and that is unique amongst the interview participants. They are also the only two interviewees who were involved in the initial creation of the TGS in 2008, hence the correlation of sustainability discourse and TGS creation. For Ted, “The Toronto Green Standard should promote sustainable and resilient buildings that contribute to a more livable and environmentally responsible city of Toronto.” During the interview with Ted, even when I asked specifically about his concept of “development”, Ted stuck with the environmental focus, and continued to exclude economic growth, stating “I see development as being entirely about advancing social equity and preserving ecological diversity. As a society we need to exert the smallest footprint possible and incorporate regenerative capacity into the built environment.”

155

Additionally, for Jane, sustainability is “trying to live within your means concept right, so you’re not robbing future generations. So, trying to narrow that resource intensive place where we have been most of our lives to something more sustainable.” Here, we see the echoing of sustainability discourse that conceptualizes nature’s limits, and excludes prioritization of economic growth. Besides Jane and Ted, all other interviewees, as well as most of the TGS-related documents, focused on the importance of economic growth in some shape or form, which will be evidenced in the upcoming chapter on economic-focused discourses.

10.2 Sustainability and survivalism as structural change

In this thesis, sustainability and survivalism are the only two discourses that suggest societal and/or systemic changes are needed in order to achieve environmental stability. All of the other environmental discourses are based around the addition of environmental concerns into existent socio-economic structures, instead of a restructuring. Again, Ted and Jane, as well as parts of the Cost-benefit study authored by Ted, suggest that major, or even radical, shifts are needed in order to pursue environmental stability, aligning with survivalist or sustainability discourses. For example, the Cost-benefit study describes “the ultimate ecological carrying capacity of the Greater Golden Horseshoe” as nearing a collapse, showing “sufficient early warning signs to indicate that we are near the tipping point, both locally in the GGH and globally” (p. 2). When asked about the factors that that he opted to incorporate into the TGDS Cost-benefit study, Ted states “Each of these factors are related to the negative impacts of buildings and urban development associated with the business-as-usual approach.” The object these statements create is a problematic system of urban development and buildings, that needs to be changed to prevent an ecological crisis.

The Cost-benefit study also contains quotes, such as from Albert Einstein “We cannot solve problems by using the same thinking we used when we created them” (p. viii), and the suggestion that “More than any technology or policy, green development hinges on our social imagination of a sustainable world” (p. viii). And on the phrases “green development” and “sustainable development”, the Cost-benefit study notes,

Optimistically, the day may come when adjectives like ‘green’ and ‘sustainable’ will not precede ‘development’ and it will no longer represent a marketing term. Sustainability 156

will hopefully come to be seen as not just cost effective, but the only possible future course of action. (p. 2)

Despite the correlation of statements in the Cost-benefit study with Ted’s survivalist sentiments during his interview, such as the major changes that are needed to urban development, the Cost- benefit study is unable to use survivalist and sustainability discourses to present its case for the TGS. Instead, the Cost-benefit study is required to use existent data. Specifically, data that is represented in dollar values and economic terms, as was described in Section 9.6. As such, while the Cost-benefit study demonstrates the existence of survivalist and sustainability knowledges, these knowledges are excluded through the process of conducting the Cost-benefit study, which requires numbers, dollar figures and economic logic, in order to build a case for the creation of the TGS. The dominance of economic logic as produced by the Cost-benefit study is revisited in Section 11.1.1, which zones in on the study’s production of ecological modernization discourse.

10.2.1 Sustainability and the capacity for individuals to make a change

On the surface, a green building policy or standard will not reflect the characteristic of Robinson’s (2004) sustainability discourse that advocates for the importance of individual behaviour changes. Policies and standards themselves are changes that work across a wide range, and are implemented at the government or corporate scale, from the top down. The design and construction of green buildings are the responsibility of corporations and should, on the surface, also have little to do with changes in individual behaviour. However, the TGS’ Cost-benefit study (2008) incites the importance of individual behaviour changes for the benefit of the environment, which is part of Robinson’s sustainability discourse. For example, in the study, “Many aspects of performance, such as and , require social cooperation and there is a need to reinforce appropriate behaviour within the community context” (p. viii).

While I argue that sustainability discourse is replaced by economic-focused discourse through the course of TGS policy production, there are some facets of this characteristic of sustainability discourse within the final versions of the TGS. For example, individuals within the new buildings have agency to modify behaviours, in ways that are environmentally beneficial. The TGS requires new buildings encourage and accommodate pedestrians and cyclists (TGS high- 157

rise, TGS low-rise), and Tier 2 buildings should “Provide separated cabinet space in all kitchen suites for segregated collection of: Recyclables, Organics, Garbage” (p. 16). In the Tier 2 Project Profiles, 132 Berkeley St is described as taking “recycling and organic waste disposal to a new level by introducing a modern Sorting Lounge. This large amenity room reinforces a culture of responsible recycling and organic waste disposal.”

The TGS Tier 2 also enables individual agency for environmental conservation by suggesting the installation of individual sub-metering systems for each unit, so that each tenant can opt to reduce energy and water consumption (TGS High-rise, TGS Low-rise, TGS Tier 2 Project Profiles). However, it is unclear whether tenants will opt to reduce consumption so that they can reduce demands on the environment, as would align with sustainability discourse, or on their bank accounts with or without the addition of environmental concerns, as would align with ecological modernization discourse. Either way, while the TGS is a policy that relies on corporations to incite change for the sake of the environment, and on future governments for reinstating the TGS, there are some aspects of the TGS that enable individual agency for modifications in behaviour that are more sustainable.

10.3 TGS production: Top-down and globalized versus bottom-up and locally-derived

So far, this chapter has evidenced that sustainability discourse influenced the initial decisions to create the TGS. There is ample evidence to support different aspects of sustainability discourse for the initiating of the TGS, including instances that are applicable to being locally derived. However, I did not want to discount the parts of the policy production and reproduction that speak to globalized or external knowledges. This section will summarize examples where the TGS was found to be grassroots and/or derived locally, as well as where it was found to be produced from globalized and/or top down sources, in order to evidence that there is no conclusive direction of TGS production. Instead, the research found that the TGS is produced by, and reproduces, discourse that is in some instances locally derived and/or bottom up, and in other instances top-down and/or globalized.

158

10.3.1 The TGS as externally-derived, top-down and/or globalized

Following the presentation by UofT professor, Ted, to commence with the design of a Toronto green building framework, Jane “started researching it, kind of, what are other cities doing?” The pattern of looking to other cities continued with the design of certain elements of the TGS, such as the green-roof bylaw, for which Jane “went down to a conference in Chicago and learned about green roofs”. The design process also included the hiring of a consultant team to “conduct a study of other municipalities, internationally, which are leaders in the formulation and implementation of green development standards, so that Toronto could learn from their experiences,” (Cost-benefit study), which were then adapted for local Toronto contexts.

Further, as previously discussed, LEED and other private rating systems were taken into consideration during TGS production. Beyond TGS creation and through to its current implementation, a relationship is maintained with LEED and other standards, however TGS creators ultimately decided that Toronto should have its own, unique set of standards, that should supersede private rating systems such as LEED (Jane, Ted). Yet, since the TGS itself covers so many elements of building design — there are hundreds of different technical requirements, options, and specifications in the TGS high-rise — the production of the TGS meant the incorporation of some existent standards for measurement. For instance, the green roof or cool roofing requirement refers to the American “Cool Roof Rating Council (CRRC) rated cool roof coatings and single ply Membranes for low-sloped applications” (TGS high-rise). The TGS also incorporates some European-based and international standards or measurements, such as the International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP) “that provides a framework to determine energy and water savings resulting from the implementation of an energy efficiency program” (p. 7). Further, as was detailed in Chapter 8’s section on Democratic Pragmatism discourse, The TGS frequently references province and nation-wide requirements. Relatedly, plans for the TGS indicate that future TGS versions will continue to align “with the Canada Green Building Council Zero Carbon Building Standard released in June 2017” (TGS review & update).

159

10.3.2 Bottom up or locally derived production

Alternative to the indications of top-down or globalized discourse, the TGS is also produced by grassroots, bottom-up and/or locally-derived sources. The best example of bottom-up production is the bird-friendly requirements in the TGS’ ecology section. The bird-friendly requirements were incorporated following push from the Fatal Light Awareness Program (FLAP), a charity organization created and based in Toronto (Fatal light awareness program, 2017). The organization found that hundreds of migratory birds were dying each year because of light pollution drawing them in to cities at night, and thousands more were dying from flying into the reflective glass that commonly forms the exterior of skyscrapers. Bob Mesure, FLAP’s co- founder, brought FLAP’s message to Toronto City Council beginning in the mid-2000s (Kelly). He eventually caught the attention of City Planning interviewee Kelly, who was captivated by the issue. Kelly obtained permission to create a set of guidelines and requirements as part of the TGS in 2010. Years later, cities in Europe began contacting Kelly to find out if they could use the bird-friendly guidelines in their own green building standards. Kelly also highlighted the success of the bird-friendly guidelines by pointing out their expansion beyond Toronto, to Ontario’s and Canada’s building guides.

Well we’ve had a really big influence. Like, I work a lot most specifically on bird friendly and light pollution components of the TGS and we’ve had a direct influence on the province’s position on bird friendly. And eventually we’ll have a national influence, as we’re in the process of leading the technical committee on the development of a national standard.

Further, various interviewees noted the fact the Ontario Building Code (OBC) “copies” the TGS in some ways, such as by continuously raising requirements for energy efficiency (Chris, Jane, John, Mark, Mary). The same point is iterated in the TGS Review and Update: “perhaps most importantly the Toronto Green Standard has served as an important market transformation tool, leading consecutive progressive changes to the energy efficiency requirements in the OBC over the last 10 years.”

Overall, there is no one-sided answer for whether the production and reproduction of the TGS is bottom-up and locally-derived, or top-down and globalized. Various elements come from 160

different directions, and are reproduced as knowledge in Toronto or elsewhere. Yet, beyond the findings for globalized versus locally-derived production, this chapter on sustainability discourse has evidenced that many of the beliefs and knowledges that initiated the creation of the TGS, especially from creators Jane and Ted, are aligned with sustainability and even survivalist discourses.

10.4 Sustainability conclusion

The Cost-benefit study includes some examples of sustainability and survivalist discourses, ideas that were present early on in the creation of the TGS. However, as was previously noted, the Cost-benefit study had to be approved by stakeholders, including leading-edge developers. The Cost-benefit study in itself represents a key moment where sustainability was converted into dollars, thus quickly replacing notions reflective of sustainability, with notions reflective of economic discourses. On several fronts, the data shows that the initiation of ideas and early stages of the TGS included the knowledges and truths that speak to sustainability discourse, and even to survivalism. However, these environmental focused discourses soon became deprioritized in favour of the reproduction of the economic-focused discourses, as described in the remaining chapters.

10.5 Sustainable development discourse

To briefly recap, sustainable development discourse, as it was used for this analysis, entails development “as is”, with minor modifications for the sake of protecting the environment. Sustainable development is premised on the belief that more development is necessary (Hove, 2004; Redclift, 2005; Robinson, 2004), but unlike economic rationalism and ecological modernization (Chapter 11), sustainable development does not make the argument that being green will or should lead to economic profit. In sustainable development, being green is imposed on development, often as a regulation, and often opposed by the private sector (Hajer, 1995).

According to the Foucauldian analysis used for this thesis, the Toronto Green Standard as a whole is an object that speaks to sustainable development discourse. The TGS works within conventional contexts of urban development, such as the construction of high-rise buildings, to infuse notions of environmental sustainability, including better waste management, the bird

161

friendly guidelines that aim to reduce migratory bird deaths, adding green roofs, and air and water pollution reduction (Cost-benefit study, TGDS staff report, TGS high-rise, TGS low-rise). Consistent with the outlining of sustainable development discourse (Robinson, 2004; WCED, 1987) in this thesis, and with criticisms of sustainable development (Bellamy Foster, 1999; Redclift, 2005; Springett, 2013), the TGS does not impose any sort of radical social, economic or structural change. It works within contemporary forms of development, and is premised on continued growth, since it applies only to the construction of new buildings.

Therefore, analysis of the broad idea and applicability of the TGS, which depicts objects of sustainable development discourse, also depicts an opposing or excluded object of a more radical policy and subsequent radical change. For example, the policy does not aim to reduce or abolish construction of new buildings, despite knowledge such as “modelling identified that 53% of GHG emissions in Toronto can be attributed to buildings” (TGS review & update, p. 11). The TGS also only applies to new builds that have a minimum of five dwelling units (TGS low-rise, TGS high-rise). The TGS does not attempt to modify or repurpose existent buildings, or establish new types of housing, such as co-housing or cooperative housing. By selectively applying to new, larger builds, and without consideration of alternative forms of development, development “as is”, and economic-focused development in particular, is automatically able to dominate TGS discourse.

For the analysis of the TGS and the questioning of TGS discourse, I expected that sustainable development discourse would be overwhelmingly represented, because Green building policies and standards are inherently reflective of the discourse. The hypothesis was correct. There are countless examples in the TGS high-rise and TGS low-rise. Select examples from the TGS high- rise include: the continued construction of parking for additional , which should be balanced by the planting of trees — “If surface parking is permitted and provided, plant shade trees throughout the parking lot interior at a minimum ratio of for every five parking spaces supplied” (TGS high-rise, p. 12), and the “protection of water quality during construction and demolition” (p. 8). Each of these statements reproduce objects of continued development, with slight modifications or minor additions that are for the sake of environmental protection or conservation. Radical reform or major changes are not required. Part of the criticism of sustainable development, and the other economic discourses, is the absence of change in the 162

patterns of production and consumption that have historically caused the environmental problems we face as a society. Instead, there is a continuation of consumption, of industrial output, which is evidenced in the TGS: more demolition, more high-rise construction albeit with some added environmentally-friendly aspects like glazed windows for birds, more space for more cars, and added trees and green roofs for air quality.

The inherent alignment of “green buildings” with sustainable development discourse was also acknowledged in the Cost-benefit study, as a limitation of TGS production, evidenced by statements such as

For the purposes of this study, its scope is limited to the prevalent forms of building development and the urban site technologies that support buildings, notwithstanding the multitude of social, economic and technological interactions that bear upon the sustainability equation. (Cost-benefit study, p. 2)

Here, you see the acknowledgement that the production of the TGS is confined to development discourse, and will be produced as a non-radical transformation. So, despite the intentions of sustainability or survivalist discourse that were demonstrated by Ted and Jane, there is effectively an immediate limitation, whereby the TGS must work within the realm of “prevalent forms of building development” (Cost-benefit study, p. 2).

A large part of the rationale for this limitation is that the TGS could not go forward without a thorough study and review of existent studies on green buildings, i.e., the Cost-benefit study. In this sense, the Cost-benefit study again is a turning point for discourse, because it needs to examine existent studies, which are limited to studies on existent forms of buildings. The requirement of conducting a Cost-benefit study thus contributes to the prevention of a radical structural change. From the Cost-benefit study onward, radical discourses are excluded from the production and reproduction of the TGS. Hence, the TGS reproduces sustainable development

163

discourse: the idea that development “as is” should continue and be a priority13, but should be slightly reformed for the sake of the environment.

Given understandings of sustainable development discourse and the inherent premise of a “green building”, the findings surrounding the discourse were mostly as expected. Yet, a Foucauldian interpretation and questioning of the discourse revealed interesting considerations, such as the further evidence of the Cost-benefit study as a turning point for discourse, whereby radical discourses were excluded. The reproduction of sustainable development discourse through the TGS means that contemporary systems and structures of economic development, such as capitalism, are also reproduced, creating space for the reproduction of the economic-focused discourses: ecological modernization and economic rationalism.

10.6 Summary of key points, Chapter 10: Sustainability and sustainable development knowledges and TGS discourse • Sustainability and survivalism discourses were present during TGS infancy.

• The two discourses inform the knowledges and truths that inspired the creation of the TGS, including the need for systemic and/or structural change for the sake of the environment.

• Sustainable development discourse produces, and is reproduced by the TGS.

• By only applying to new buildings, and without any reconceptualizing of existent forms of development, the TGS reproduces a discourse of development “as is”.

• The Cost-benefit study was limited to considering existent data from existing and conventional forms of building development. Thus, the Cost-benefit study is a key moment that more radical discourses were excluded, and sustainable development discourse was produced

13 The prioritization of new construction for affordable housing was one of Jennifer Keesmaat’s 2018 Mayoral campaign platforms, for instance 164

Chapter 11: TGS production and reproduction of the economic- focused discourses Ecological modernization and economic rationalism: Introduction

Briefly, economic rationalism is the belief that environmental problems can be solved through market competition and financial incentives, including government incentives to spur green development (Dryzek, 2005). Similarly, ecological modernization is belief that being green makes the most financial sense. It is economically beneficial to pursue green development, and economically detrimental to ignore it (Hajer, 1995). In this chapter I will evidence that ecological modernization and economic rationalism are the dominant discourses of TGS production and reproduction. For example, key evidence is derived from the Cost-benefit study, which was required to show that green buildings were economically profitable, before the creation of the TGS could proceed. The TGS also reproduces the knowledge that building green is associated with being a market advantage for Toronto’s largest developer firms (Jane, Jesse, Mark, Shayna, TGS Tier 2 profiles), which is consistent with the truths of ecological modernization and urban environmental classism.

As a discourse, ecological modernization also makes the argument that going green will benefit the economy, by adding new economic sectors and spurring technology and innovation (Christoff, 1996; Hajer, 1995). These economic benefits of ecological modernization are thoroughly reflected in the main TGS goal of “market transformation.” Importantly, ecological modernization is reproduced through the TGS and through its push for market transformation, which serves the reproduction of the dominant, leading and largest developer firms. These firms were already building green, prior to the TGS. Thus, the TGS’ regulatory action that requires everyone build green, in order for the green building development sector to grow, serves the economic interests of these leading, largest firms in Toronto, as the market that they rely on for products and services expands.

As evidenced in Chapter 9, some of the initial goals for the TGS, as described by TGS creators, align with the knowledges and truths of sustainability and survivalist discourses. Chapter 9 also detailed key aspects of the policy creation process — the Cost-benefit study and stakeholder 165

approval — that inevitably contributed to the exclusion of those original knowledges from TGS production and reproduction, in favour of the economic-focused discourses. This chapter will describe the relationship of the TGS with the knowledges, truths and orders of the economic- focused discourses of ecological modernization and economic rationalism. These two discourses are the dominant discourses of TGS production and reproduction.

First, I would like to point out that ecological modernization and economic rationalism are not that different from one another. Both discourses argue that the pursuit of being “green” should be profitable, only in ecological modernization green is a certainty and necessity, whereas for economic rationalism it is a choice. Proponents of a carbon tax argue that a rational subject will purchase less as taxes go up, reducing overall consumption. The rational, economic choice speaks to economic rationalism, but carbon taxes are also indicative of ecological modernization’s “pollution prevention pays” (Hajer, 1995). By aiming to reduce the consumption of carbon-emitting products, the overall cost of paying for the results of increased atmospheric carbon, such as more extreme weather events, should eventually go down, resulting in savings. The reduction in expenditure on carbon emitting products should also spur technological innovation for new, low or non-carbon emitting product replacements. In ecological modernization, the economy should include renewable energy sector. While the logic behind a carbon tax is different according to ecological modernization and economic rationalism, a carbon tax is a method of environmental problem-solving that exemplifies both discourses, demonstrating the blurred lines between them. Since both discourses lead to similar methods of environmental problem-solving that take place within current economic markets, I have combined findings for each into one chapter, and will discuss them side by side.

Second, as argued earlier in this thesis regarding urban environmental classism, ecological modernization is a discourse where the more money you can afford to spend, the more green you can be. Instead of emphasizing a reduction in consumption, as with sustainability discourse, consumption patterns in ecological modernization can continue or even increase, because they are not harming the environment. However, the “green” items that are being purchased and/or consumed are often priced higher than the non-green alternatives, thereby excluding those who cannot afford to pay the premium. This plays out in the production and reproduction of the TGS. For example, Tier 2 requires a larger financial input on items such as more energy efficient 166

boilers (Chris, Mary, TGS review & update). The discourse’s inclination towards spending more and the reproduction of consumerism means that ecological modernization tends to be a favourable environmental approach for persons and groups who are financially better off.

In this way, ecological modernization contradicts historical notions of sustainability, where concepts such as ecological footprint would problematize the large consumption of land, consumption of resources and pollution from buildings. If sustainability discourse was dominant for the TGS, the largest developers would be the opposing objects of discourse. Yet they are the objects of TGS reward. This ultimately exemplifies a way in which sustainability discourse is excluded through the production and reproduction of the TGS: new buildings and forms of consumption are rewarded when they are able to achieve Tier 2, and Tier 2 requires higher input costs for more efficient materials. The storyline here is textbook ecological modernization.

Ecological modernization rewards those who can better afford to spend money on environmentally friendly goods and services14. For the TGS, indicators such as “greener”, “greenest” and “most sustainable” are awarded through Tier 2 to the largest developers, who would traditionally be problematized for having the largest footprints. This makes ecological modernization favourable to the top developers, and since the largest developer firms were actively involved in the creation of the TGS, it is no accident that ecological modernization’s truths, orders and knowledges dominate the reproduction of the TGS, while other knowledges are excluded.

11.1 Ecological modernization and economic rationalism evidence

The findings have already highlighted key turning points for TGS discourse: the stakeholder review process and the Cost-benefit study. The stakeholder review process resulted in the integration of financial incentives as a TGS staple, for example, “The stakeholder consultation

14 A prominent example is the United Nations’ assigning Leonardo DiCaprio the title of “Climate Ambassador”, despite the fact that he admits to having a much larger ecological footprint than the average person (Stevens, 2016). DiCaprio’s fame and wealth are valuable tools of ecological modernization, regardless of ecological footprint. 167

process and the Halsall study showed that incentives would be necessary to encourage more uptake of the Standard” (TGDS Staff Report, p. 5). As such, the stakeholder review process that resulted in the TGS as a financial incentive, means that the pursuit of the TGS’ Tier 2 by developers will be aligned with economic rationalist discourse. Economic rationalist discourse includes the pursuit of financial incentives for going green, hence the clear cut relationship of the TGS’ Tier 2 and the discourse.

11.1.1 Economic arguments and the Cost-benefit study

Further, by conducting the Cost-Benefit study, ideas of sustainability and survivalist discourse had to be converted into quantitative data and dollar figures, to prove that the TGS was worth pursuing (as introduced in Sections 9.6 and 10.2). For the creation of the TGS to proceed, the knowledge that the Cost-benefit study was required to produce was that a municipal green building policy would make financial sense for those involved. For example

The cost-benefit analysis will compare the costs of a conventional development to a green development to determine the extent of any increased premium required to achieve the Toronto Standard. The analysis will also examine benefits and costs accruing to the property owner, such as different operating or maintenance costs, as well as the cumulative costs and benefits to the City of having more green developments in Toronto. (TGDS staff report, p. 4-5)

Another key goal of the Cost-benefit study was the “Identification of the key opportunities for the development (or improvement) of products and services that enable cost effective green development while improving the competitiveness of Ontario’s building industry” (p. vi). This key goal of the study and subsequent argument in support of the creation of the TGS aligns with ecological modernization.

Knowledge and truths associated with the economic-focused discourses emerge as dominant from the study, for instance, “This cost-benefit study of the TGDS has concluded that the benefits derived from green development overwhelmingly outweigh the costs associated with building better” (p. vii). So, although the Cost-benefit study demonstrates threads of sustainability and survivalist discourses, which could be due to Ted’s authorship or leadership, a

168

certain outcome is required of the Cost-benefit study in order for the policy to proceed. The required outcome is proof of an economically profitable green building policy, and therefore the Cost-benefit study process requires the reproduction of ecological modernization.

11.1.2 Ecological modernization as the pursuit of green technology

The Cost-benefit study also made a case for the creation of the TGS, where the economically viable pursuit of a green building standard would improve the building technology sector. The study states that

Significant improvements to the quality and performance of building development are cost effectively achievable with currently available technologies. However, there is potential for even greater improvements through strategic investments in research and development (R&D) by the building industry. (Cost-benefit study, p. vii)

Here, the case that the Cost-benefit study is presenting equates to ecological modernization, which entails the benefits of new and expanded green development sectors (Fairhead et al., 2012; Hajer, 1995; Jänicke et al., 1997). The economy and the environment benefit in this win-win situation, further contextualized within Ontario.

Green development, in particular the renewable energy and energy efficiency (RE&EE) industry represents an opportunity to realize sustainable economic growth and the creation of jobs that cannot be outsourced. The RE&EE industry has the potential to offset job losses in Ontario’s ailing auto industry and develop exportable knowledge and technologies. (Cost-benefit study, p. viii)

The Cost-benefit study also suggests that the gains of the green building technology sector will help to grow the number of green retrofits to existing buildings. The green development sector will expand. “The impetus for new development to drive towards a more sustainable built environment will likely have strong spin-off effects on the retrofit of existing buildings, owing largely to the training of an entire industry” (Cost-benefit study, p. 5). Again, here we see the expansion of green economic sectors as an argument for the TGS, aligning with ecological modernization discourse. Interviewee Mark confirmed that his work in green retrofits for existing spaces has increased over the past several years. Relatedly, I Chair a green committee 169

for my apartment building, which was built in the 1980s. The committee was created with the intention that our building remain competitive in terms of green technology. As a renter, I do not share the interest in increasing the value of the apartments, however I was brought on due to my knowledge of green incentive programs. We have pursued green retrofits, and additions of green technology such as electric vehicle charging stations. The motivation for the green committee is primarily financial. Even our waste-reduction projects are for the purpose of reducing charges for garbage pick-up. Thus, in my own anecdotal experience, the “greening” of an existing building has economic drivers, consistent with ecological modernization and economic rationalism.

Additionally, arguments for different technological improvements for green buildings are often financially based, such as the frequently-referenced argument that green roofs reduce peak energy demand (Cost-benefit study; Green roof webpage; Green roof bylaw; Jane). The Cost- benefit study also includes support for the TGS as a passive change for occupants, who would not need to reduce consumption, but would be passively reducing energy and water usage due to more efficient appliances. The study even refers to the growing interest in Canadian consumers as “much more interested in just how green are the goods and services being offered by companies, who have become proxies of a vicarious environmentalism that seeks absolution for ecological sins through green consumption” (p. 7). The study argues that the “trend in green development appears to follow trends in other segments of the economy - consumers prefer consuming green products over modifying their behaviour” (p. 7). The ability to overcome environmental problems without needing to actively reduce consumption or modify behaviour is a truth of ecological modernization: efficiency fixes and technological advances will solve environmental problems. These argued win-win situations of ecological modernization are opposing to sustainability discourse, which advocates individual behaviour changes for actively involved and aware footprint reduction (Robinson, 2004).

Further, the Cost-benefit study includes findings from an Ontario Building Code study that reported that greener buildings “result in substantial long-term savings for Ontario households as well as reduced greenhouse gas production” (p. 9). The economic-environmental win-win scenario is exemplary of ecological modernization. Ultimately, by needing to prove the economic worth of green buildings, including by pulling from previous studies on the economic value and potential of green buildings, the Cost-benefit study altered discourse during TGS 170

production. Following the study, the knowledges, truths and orders indicative of economic- focused discourses serve TGS production and reproduction.

11.2 Economic-focused knowledges and truths as reproduced by the TGS

This section will evidence the knowledges, truths and orders reproduced by the TGS that align with the economic-focused discourses. The data specific to ecological modernization and economic rationalism together produced over 40 pages of evidence, select examples of which will be provided here. As has been noted throughout the thesis, the TGS’ financially incentivized Tier 2 is in line with economic rationalism. “Tier 2 is the higher, voluntary standard implemented through a third party review. Verified Tier 2 projects may be eligible for a refund of development charges equivalent to 20% of the 2014 rate” (TGS high-rise, p. 1). This TGS structure produces the knowledge that the government will supply incentive money for the greening of new buildings, and the incentive equates to a large sum. For example, when discussing a recent Tier 2 project, Jesse points out “it’s quite lucrative, like, on this project, the church project behind you, the incentive was almost six figures and it’s a small job”. Additionally, Kelly of City Planning states, “20% on your development charges, if you meet Tier 2 it's a big incentive. A lot of money in some cases, so it’s good. I think it works well”, and “so like Shayna said, all the big companies all wanted that 20% refund. And so that really drives them to take up all of this”. Here, the TGS’ higher Tier is pursued for its financial incentives; the TGS’ Tier 2 forms objects indicative of economic rationalism.

Since the incentive money provided to Tier 2 developers comes from the municipal government, it is public money. The directing of public assets, in this case the City’s dollars, into the hands of a select number of privately run firms is comparable to ’s accumulation by dispossession (Harvey, 2009). Further, in their discussion on Green Grabbing, which is private purchase of vast plots of land for environmental purposes such as conservation or ecotourism, Fairhead et al. (2012) depict the process as a method of ecological modernization where environmental ends are pursued because they will eventually be profitable. In the instance of Green Grabbing, ecological modernization is paralleled by appropriation by dispossession (Harvey, 2009), where

171

‘Appropriation’ implies the transfer of ownership, use rights and control over resources that were once publicly or privately owned – or not even the subject of ownership – from the poor (or everyone including the poor) into the hands of the powerful. (Fairhead et al., 2012, p. 238)

Here, the “transfer of ownership” from public to private is an outcome of ecological modernization, and is present in the structure and reproduction of knowledge regarding the TGS.

For Dryzek (2005), economic rationalism discourse is the belief that environmental problems can be solved through the fundamentals of a free market15, especially via competition of private firms. This discursive truth of economic rationalism is reproduced as knowledge through the TGS, where higher green standards should “offer a marketing advantage to progressive developers” (Cost-benefit study, p. 225). For example, to revisit Jane’s statement

The Mintos, Daniels and Tridels, they were already kind of there, and they were kind of worried that if we made this across the board, if everyone were required, they would lose their edge, in terms of ‘we’re greener, so you should buy with us’. But they stepped up and they applied for Tier 2, so they stepped up their game

To add to the previous discussion on urban environmental classism as reproduced through the TGS’ Tier 2, the idea of economic competition through the pursuit of being green is also reproduced, aligning with economic rationalism discourse.

Ecological modernization is associated with the truth that green technology can solve environmental problems, and that the pursuit of the will allow for the expansion of green technological and innovation. This argument of ecological modernization was used as a TGS benefit in the Cost-benefit study, and it is certainly knowledge that the TGS reproduces. The TGS is full of examples of technological integrations and additions to buildings — both required and voluntary — that share the unified intent of environmental problem mitigation and adaptation. Examples include, but are not limited to: occupancy and motion sensor lighting,

15 With the exception of government intervention to supply green financial incentives 172

electric vehicle parking spaces, solar photovoltaics, geothermal heating and cooling, green roofs, cool roofs, rainwater retention and re-use, and rain sensors for irrigation systems.

For Jesse, there have been major improvements in green building technology in recent years. Even in the months leading up to our interview, he had seen multiple new options for eco- friendly roofs, referred to as cool roofs in the TGS high-rise and low-rise. The cool roof options were new and aesthetically pleasing, whereas previous options were not. He states, “so the technology is getting better and better whereas some of those sort of aesthetic elements that I guess some people don't like aren’t as much of a concern.” Relatedly, Jesse notes, “we’re just seeing that the technology is improving really really quickly especially as there’s more market uptake and TGS is part of that especially in a market like the GTA where there’s so many buildings being put up”. Here, we see the intertwining of the knowledges associated with ecological modernization. “So many buildings being put up” is not detrimental to the environment, but can actually be equated with being green due to improvements in technology. This idea contradicts traditional understandings of sustainability, where “more and more buildings being put up” cannot be green because it means more consumption of resources, and a larger footprint.

Related to ecological modernization’s technological improvements, environmental problems as solved through efficiency fixes are a key part of TGS knowledge reproduction. For instance, on the TGS website, each of the Tier 2 Project Profiles contains three categories: project details, strategies, and energy efficient measures. Most of the details provided in each Tier 2 Project Profile, across the three categories, are about improvements in efficiency, whether it be more efficient consumption of water, energy, or electricity. For instance, the suites at 1 Old Mill Drive “are equipped with energy-efficient compact fluorescent (CFL) bulbs to maximize energy performance”. Each Project Profile also contains notations of energy savings as a percentage over the basic requirements of the National Energy Code for Buildings, such as 1 Old Mill Drive’s “Energy Savings kWH – 4,287,401 kWh (39% cost saving vs. Model National Energy Code for Buildings)”. Each profile also boasts its technological enhancements, such as the Low Emitting Materials used at 120 Harrison Garden Blvd.

173

Relatedly, when questioned about his vision of environmental sustainability, Mark directly equates environmental sustainability with the potential cost savings that can be obtained from more efficient equipment. As a VP at an engineering firm who uses the TGS regularly in the design of new buildings, Mark’s work is

driven by cost, you know for our existing customers it’s all about driving it down, um, and you know, operational improvements … a lot of which is into the energy side and some of the staffing in terms of running the equipment and things like that, so there’s big savings to be had there if we can reduce that component of their operations

Here, we see knowledge surrounding the design and construction of buildings as indicative of the knowledges and understandings that characterize ecological modernization.

11.2.1 Ecological modernization as Economy and Environment: Findings and exception

The findings from the data collected during the research are extremely indicative of ecological modernization and economic rationalism. However, there is a thread of data that is an exception. In Hajer’s (1995) ecological modernization discourse, the pursuit of environmental concerns is supposed to be automatic, because incorporating environmental or green concerns will make the most economic sense. In that way, economic and environmental considerations are supposed to be on par. However, this characteristic is not fully evidenced in the data.

According to the data (Cost-benefit study, Chris, Jane, John, Mark, Mary, TGS review & update), most developers, with the exception of a few of the leading, largest firms, will not opt for green standards when they are not required. For instance, Mark highlighted that he has never worked on a development that opted for the TGS’ voluntary Tier 2. He has only worked with firms that stick with Tier 1, because it fits better with their budget. He states

In our designs, ultimately we’re working for our clients and getting paid by them, so we can’t do things that are going to cost too much. And if they don’t have a vision that includes that, we won’t be hired to do that work.

174

Economic value is still prioritized, to the extent that it is ruling out the pursuit of a more environmentally friendly design. In fact, most Toronto developers are sticking with the City’s Tier 1 requirements (Chris, Mark, TGS review & update). This is opposing to full ecological modernization.

While the lack of pursuit of Tier 2 by developers opposes full ecological modernization, the argument can be made that the decision by the City to have the TGS include a Tier 1 requirement for all new buildings is in line with the economic-focused discourses. There are various ways that the TGS’ requirements are also economically beneficial for the City. These include: the aesthetic and political attractiveness of green roofs and complete streets with safe pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure; reduced waste disposal and pick-up; reduced demands on sewers during storms; and reduced demands on the city’s water and electricity supply. The ability of the City to supply water and electricity up an ever-growing number of skyscrapers, to tens of thousands more people, was outlined as a major concern of the City’s (Chris, John, Mary). The rapidly growing downtown population and demands on infrastructure, along with increased extreme weather events, also means that Toronto’s downtown is increasingly prone to floods, especially given the flaws of the combined sewer system16. Mitigating Toronto’s steep increases in electricity usage and stormwater runoff from buildings are central aspects of the TGS, and achieve goals that are in line with ecological modernization. The TGS makes economic sense for the City.

11.3 Economic-focused discourses conclusion

This chapter has shown that the TGS reproduces knowledge that aligns with the knowledges, orders and truths of economic rationalism and ecological modernization. While many Toronto developers have yet to pursue the higher, financially incentivized Tier 2, the City and the largest, leading developer firms are reaping the financial benefit of going green. Strategizing to ascertain financial benefits of going green is a trademark of ecological modernization.

16 Combined sewer systems are “sewers that are designed to collect rainwater runoff, domestic sewage, and industrial wastewater in the same pipe” (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2017). On the contrary, many cities have separate sewer systems, including the Toronto region’s Scarborough. 175

Many characteristics of the economic-focused discourses are strongly represented in the data. The trend of pursuing green standards for their economic worth continues to grow (LEED explainer; LEED supplement; Mark, Shayna, TGS review & update). For Jesse, there is a clear correlation between green standards and monetary value. When discussing his own firm, Windmill Developments, he states “our reputation as one of Canada’s greenest developers is very important to our brand and our ability to sell condos.” Similarly, when discussing other firms,

A traditional developer, if they’re thinking about the planet at all, often they’re thinking about using sustainability principles in their marketing materials, or using LEED as a selling feature in their marketing brochures. They don’t actually pursue those improvements out of personal interest or because it’s the right thing to do.

Further, Jane, of City Planning, recognizes that for development firms, including Windmill, economic profit is a driving factor, even when their business plans include environmental standards. On the topic of going green, she states,

The majority of developers, it’s the value they can get in the monetary sense, versus being driven by the value that they want to make a difference. And Windmill is an exception to that. But still, Windmill is not going to do it if they can’t show profit at the end of the day, ‘cause they can’t afford to.

Here, and throughout the data, we see the alignment of statements and their objects with the truths, orders and knowledges of ecological modernization.

This chapter on economic-focused discourses concludes the presentation of data used to answer the main research question: what discourses informed the production, and are reproduced by, the TGS? The chapter — along with previous chapters — has evidenced that the answer to the main research question is complex. While discourses of sustainability, and even survivalism informed the initial motivations for TGS production, the discourses that the TGS reproduces are strongly aligned with ecological modernization and economic rationalism discourses. This subversion of sustainability and survivalism, and propagation of the economic-focused discourses, occurs through the institutional process of policy creation. Based on the analysis, two key moments

176

where the ideas of sustainability and survivalism were replaced by economic-focus were the conducting of the Cost-benefit study, and the stakeholder review process. I will now move forward with the research sub-questions regarding the implications of TGS discourse, such as who or what is served, and who or what is excluded.

11.4 Summary of key points, Chapter 11: TGS production and reproduction of the economic-focused discourses • Economic rationalism and ecological modernization have similar methods and approaches to environmental problems, and are therefore referred to as the “economic-focused discourses.”

• The economic-focused discourses are the dominant discourses of TGS production and reproduction.

• Ecological modernization contradicts historical notions of sustainability, where concepts such as ecological footprint problematize the increased consumption associated with affluence.

• Objects of sustainability discourse, such as reduced consumerism and consumption, are opposing to the objects of ecological modernization, which is profit-driven. Ecological modernization inherently excludes sustainability discourse.

• Ecological modernization favours, and is therefore favoured by, wealthier persons that are able to afford more time and/or money spent on environmental products or environmentally friendly actions.

• This is reflected in the production and reproduction of the TGS. The higher Tier is awarded to the larger, dominant developer companies who construct the most, and can provide higher financial inputs.

• Overall, the data demonstrated an overwhelming tendency of TGS production and reproduction of the economic-focused discourses. Instances include, but are not limited to:

• the TGS’ two-tiered structure and financial rebates: large pools of public money that are accumulated by large, private developer companies

177

• the logic and findings that were required of the Cost-benefit study in order for the TGS to proceed

• the pursuit of the TGS for the expansion of the green building and green technology economic sectors

• the pursuit of green buildings for cost savings to owners and the City

• The ability of the largest, leading developers to influence the creation of the TGS correlates with the outcomes for the reproduction of discourse. The discourse that favours them, ecological modernization, is reproduced, and they are applauded and financially rewarded.

178

Chapter 12: Discussion - Implications of TGS discourse Discussion introduction

The previous chapter evidenced that for the TGS, the economic-focused discourses of economic rationalism and ecological modernization are reproduced as dominant. Moving forward, this chapter will discuss the implications of this main finding. The implications that will be discussed address the research subquestions, and are important considerations in a Foucauldian theoretical framework. Specifically: what discourses are excluded from the production and reproduction of the TGS? What are the influences and implications of these discourses that produce, are reproduced by, or are excluded by the TGS? Who or what do the discourses serve and/or exclude?

12.1 Implications of the economic-focused discourses

As previously discussed, the two discourses of ecological modernization and economic rationalism are not all that different from one another. For both discourses, “going green” will be achieved because it makes economic sense. The methodologies and implications of each discourse are similar, if not the same. Therefore, I describe the implications of each discourse in unison, referring to them as the “economic-focused discourses”.

First, I would like to note that if you isolate for the impact on the local environment and local climate change mitigation, the reproduction of the economic-focused discourses has some positive outcomes and implications. The positive implication is associated with the finding that one of the discourses excluded from TGS production and reproduction is Prometheanism. Finding that the main discourses reproduced by the TGS are ecological modernization and economic rationalism means that environmental problems are being recognized, and that there is an attempt to solve the problems through existent channels of operation. In this case, the channel is the creation of a municipal policy. An implication is that the environment is better off, than if environmental concerns were absent from policy and from the interests of the largest developers. The absence of environmental concerns is certainly a possibility.

The inclusion and reproduction of economic rationalism and ecological modernization through the TGS is an improvement for the environment, over no TGS, as with the realization by high- 179

end and leading firms that “going green” can be profitable. Ignoring environmental impact is a possibility, and was dominant for big businesses in previous decades. Working environmental considerations into a business plan, because it makes economic sense, is better than not considering the environment at all. Therefore, the reproduction of ecological modernization is certainly a step forward for the environment.

However, the environmental problems that the TGS strives to mitigate do not exist in a vacuum. Instead, environmental problems are manifestations of the complexities and intertwinings of predominant societal structures, norms, and forms of exploitation (Bellamy Foster, 1999, 2015; Harvey, 1996; Klein, 2014; Springett, 2013, Thomas-Muller, 2005). The norms and truths perpetuated by the economic-focused discourses do not address those societal structures or norms, but rely on their ability to reproduce and flourish (Buttel, 2000; Christoff, 1996; Hajer, 1995). That is, for ecological modernization to be successful, consumption needs to continue at its current pace, or increase (Fairhead et al., 2012). The environmental problem-solving discourse reproduced by the TGS aligns with this aspect of ecological modernization. There is no radical shift or reduction in consumption and building.

The TGS is premised on continuous building, and proposes to solve environmental problems by replacing products with new more environmentally friendly ones, or adding new ones entirely (TGS high-rise, TGS low-rise). For example, appliances should be replaced with more efficient ones, electric vehicle parking spots should be added, and “complete and modular systems and pre-cultivated vegetation blankets” should be added as green roofs (TGS high-rise, p. 5). Consumerism is not reduced, as it would be if survivalism or sustainability discourses were dominant. Many argue that consumption patterns and ideals of “development” — in this case associated with the continuous construction of new buildings — are what led to environmental problems in the first place, and therefore a new set of environmental relations is needed (Bellamy Foster, 1999; Robbins, 2012; Watts & Peet, 2004). Calls for reduction in consumption and a new environmental ethic are the foundations of survivalism and sustainability discourses (Dryzek, 2005; Klein, 2014; Robinson, 2004), as assessed in this thesis. These discourses highlight the subject of yet another research question: what discourses are excluded from the production and reproduction of the TGS?

180

12.2 Discourses excluded from the production and reproduction of the TGS

First, it should be noted that an infinite number of discourses are excluded from the production and reproduction of the TGS. Based on the fact that the TGS is a green building policy run by the City of Toronto, it can be assumed that the discourses of the TGS will align with a westernized, Global North, government policy narrative. This assumption is correct, and was consistent throughout the findings. A direct example of the production of the TGS stemming from discourses of the Global North is the consideration of other green building standards during the TGS review process. In the TGS Review and Update (2017) statement “The review involved a detailed assessment of twelve mandatory and seven voluntary standards, policies or programs from across Europe, North America and Canada” (p. 7), we see the dominance of the Global North in producing TGS discourse. Using the dissertation’s analytic framework, where for each dominant discursive truth we must ask what is excluded, the statement not only shows the dominance of discourses of the Global North, but also the exclusion of environmental discourses of the Global South, for instance.

A more specific example of the purveyance of westernized, Global North narratives is in the TGS guidelines for trees: “Shade is measured at solar noon at the summer solstice (approximately June 21) and may be provided by existing tree canopy, new shade trees or shade structures” (TGS high-rise, p. 4). Here, the objects of time-telling and the monthly calendar are indicative of dominant narratives for time telling in the western hemisphere and Global North. The opposing or excluded object is a different type of calendar, that would be relevant to a different culture. All discourses that utilise different calendars are excluded from the knowledge produced and reproduced by this statement, including many Indigenous discourses. Analysis findings such as this are consistent throughout, especially with the reproduction of western-based scientific knowledges and forms of measurement. The TGS reproduces western scientific discourse, evidence of which was provided in the chapter on administrative rationalism. Non- westernized scientific, and non-scientific forms of knowledge are consistently excluded throughout TGS production and reproduction.

181

Deep ecology and other biocentric discourses are also excluded from the production of the TGS, and arguably from all policy-making discourses. Biocentric discourses such as maintains the truth that all living things should be treated equally, regardless of use value to humans (Naess, 1973; Suzuki, 1992). These discourses, as well as many Indigenous discourses, are generally in opposition to hierarchical ordering of particular groups over others, including human over non-human beings. Policy-making is based around the exact opposite. The decisions made during the process of policy making are entirely based on determining priorities, and subsequently ranking these priorities. To exemplify using the creation of the TGS: “The Toronto Green Standard (TGS) is a set of performance measures for sustainable development that address the City's environmental pressures and priorities” (LEED supplement, p. 2), and “water conservation has been a documented priority for the City with the introduction of reduction targets” (Cost-benefit study, p. 99).

The decision making processes around what priorities should enter into policy is based around the value of the potential changes to particular groups of people, whom the policy will affect. In the creation of the TGS, and many other policies created at all levels of government, the “stakeholder review process” reflects priorities, as gathered from a particular group of people whom the policy will affect, known as the stakeholders. For example, in the description of the creation of the TGS, “a consultation process was initiated to engage stakeholders on issues concerning the content and implementation of the green development standard” (Cost-benefit study, p. 1). Therefore, based on the assessment and ordered ranking of value and priorities, the production of the TGS, and the process of policy making in general, excludes biocentric and non-hierarchical discourses. The knowledges and truths that the TGS reproduces also exclude biocentric and non-hierarchical discourses. An obvious example is the Tier 1 versus Tier 2 structure of the TGS, a clear cut hierarchy that has been analyzed in this thesis.

The rise of neoliberalism in the 1980’s and 1990’s is an important origin point for the prioritization of economic discourse in policy making processes (Klein, 2014, 2017; Harvey, 1996, 2009). Neoliberal agendas meant that many governments began measuring ideals and proposed policies based on their economic costs (Foucault, 2010). And although full expression of neoliberal discourse is excluded in the production of the TGS as a not-for-profit, government- run green standard, the policy making tactics of measuring policy benefits to costs persists, such 182

as in the TGS’ Cost-benefit study. Perhaps, going forward, “alternative” discourses such as biocentric, ecofeminist and Indigenous discourses should no longer be excluded from policy production, nor should they be suppressed by discourses that prioritize the economy.

As noted throughout the thesis, the inclusion of the dominant, leading and largest developer firms in Toronto in the stakeholder review process reproduced economic-focused discourse that is favourable to them. As stakeholders in the TGS’ policy development and renewal processes, the presence of the largest developers in the policy creation process sways the knowledges, orders and truths of production towards the ideals of sustainable development, ecological modernization and economic rationalism. More building, more products, more technology, more development and more consumption form the dominant truths of the TGS. Market transformation — that is, market expansion to include more production and consumption of green building products — becomes a favourable, and achievable, target for the TGS. Again, by identifying the reproduction of discourses that favour economic growth, it is important to question what discourses are thereby excluded. In this instance, the production and reproduction of the TGS excludes discourses that support market transformation or equilibrium. In the context of the analysis, this characteristic points to the exclusion of survivalism, and perhaps sustainability. Both discourses do not assume that economic growth is necessary (Dryzek, 2005; Robinson, 2004).

Importantly, developers are included as key stakeholders because the regulations imposed by the TGS will directly affect their work. Yet, are they the ones most affected by environmental change? By water conservation and runoff? By access to water? According to fields such as environmental racism (Bullard, 1993; Timmons-Roberts & Parks, 2007), ecofeminism (Gaard & Gruen, 2003) and Indigenous perspectives (Deranger, 2015; Kalland, 2003; Simpson, 2000), it is actually the most vulnerable populations who are most affected by environmental problems — not Toronto’s largest development firms. Although the production of the TGS includes a range of groups as key stakeholders, including university departments, such as Ryerson University’s Department of Architecture, City Divisions, and environmental groups such as FLAP (TGS review & update), alternative discourses and understandings of development are absent from TGS discourse. The idea that you might not even need ‘more’ or ‘better’ products and buildings is absent, as more building, production, consumption and growth are assumed from the get-go. 183

Due to the ranking of priorities, non-hierarchical environmental discourses such as ecofeminism, deep ecology and Indigenous environmental discourses are generally excluded in the production and reproduction of policy. For green building policies, these discourses are further excluded as traditional conceptions of economic development are favoured. The exclusion of “alternative” discourses was confirmed in the analysis of the TGS. This is not a surprise, nor a key finding that I will go into further detail about. Instead, in this thesis I have questioned the prevalence of particular discourses that have been theorized to inform the production of environmental policies. These discourses most closely considered were: Prometheanism, survivalism, administrative rationalism, democratic pragmatism, sustainability, sustainable development, ecological modernization and economic rationalism. All of these discourses are described by other scholars, such as Dryzek (2005), Hajer (1995), and Robinson (2004), for their influence over the production of environmental policy.

As described, Prometheanism is excluded from the production and reproduction of the TGS. Prometheanism is a discourse that is founded on the denial of environmental problems and ecological limits (Dryzek, 2005). The dominance of the economic-focused discourses of ecological modernization and economic rationalism mean that environmental problems are being approached through economic pathways, thus negating the fundamentals of Prometheanism. As noted in the chapter on Prometheanism, there is only one piece of data that speaks to the discourse. The shred of data is drawn from an interview with Mark from the Toronto-based engineering firm, and is due to his work’s increased stability when there is more demand for building. For Mark, because of his job, growth is good. Besides this, the truths of Prometheanist discourse are absent from the production and reproduction of the TGS.

Without the creation and implementation of the TGS, and without the work of City Planning’s Environmental Division that administers approvals, it is very possible that Promethean discourse would be more prevalent in Toronto’s development sector. My research shows that prior to the TGS (Cost-benefit study, Jane, Jesse, Mark, Ted), and in regions and cities that do not require green building, voluntary green building standards are pursued by only a fraction of developers (Cost-benefit study; Green building map; Kaplow, 2009; Retzlaff, 2010). Thus, although I have found that the discourses of sustainability and survivalism are deprioritized during the TGS production process, the finding that the TGS has had an impact on disrupting and weakening 184

Promethean discourse in the developer sector is significant. The policy making process is a sort of battlefield, for which different institutions and actors struggle to define discourse, consistent with Foucault’s (1972, 1980, 1981) theorizations of discourse. It is as if each “stakeholder” in the policy making process has a field of gravity that is able to pull the other stakeholders away from the edges of their respective discursive spectrum, towards a more moderate position.

The implication of the finding that Promethean discourse is excluded from TGS production and reproduction, is that environmental problems are being recognized and approached. This is important, and should be viewed as a win for the City of Toronto, especially the TGS creators and my interviewees from City Planning. One could assume that just like the biocentric or “alternative” discourses that lean to the radical left, Prometheanism is so far from centre that it should have no place in dominating a contemporary North-American government policy. However, this thesis was written at the time of Donald Trump’s US presidency, and Doug Ford’s campaign and electoral victory to become Ontario’s Premier. The policies that these two politicians have put forward, and especially the existing policies that they have cancelled, are evidence that Prometheanism is alive and well in North American politics. The fact that I am able to conclude that Prometheanism is a discourse that is excluded from the production and reproduction of the TGS, which effects all new buildings in Toronto, should be celebrated. Time will tell if it has produced an environmental discourse strong enough to overcome future Mayors, and/or members of City Council, who may very well try to reinstate Promethean discourse back into the building sector when the TGS is up for review every four years. But for now, the TGS is certainly a step forward for the environment in today’s political climate.

The fact that environmental problems exist and that they should be addressed through policy is a truth that produces, and is reproduced by, the TGS. Prometheanism is excluded, in favour of discourses that take the environment into consideration. Additionally, on the other end of the spectrum, the discourses of sustainability and survivalism are also eventually excluded. To discuss this, the chapter will revisit notions of the production of discourse, according to Foucault (1967, 1972, 1981).

185

12.3 Revisiting the Foucauldian theoretical framework

Beyond this chapter’s discussion of the research questions, which were formed and answered using Foucauldian theoretical and analytic frameworks, there are several points that I would like to discuss while explicitly linking them to Foucault’s genealogy (1981) and archaeology (1972). To quote The Archaeology of Knowledge (Foucault, 1972), discourse has a “secret origin - so secret and so fundamental that it can never be quite grasped” (p. 23). Even though the two interviewees who worked on creating the TGS between 2006-2008 (Jane, Ted) are able to provide their insight into their initial ideas and plans, it is true that the ideas and knowledges that produced the TGS have an origin that I cannot trace to single point. Instead of tracing a point of origin, Foucault’s genealogy (1981) seeks to question the social conditions from which a truth or set of power relations is produced or reproduced. This dissertation sought to question the discourses surrounding the TGS, to better understand the implications of the relevant discourses for reproducing certain truths, knowledges, and orders.

The social context out of which the TGS was produced — City of Toronto and City Planning 2006-2008 — is that where conventional forms of development discourse must prevail. The City of Toronto prides itself on population growth, and the fact that developers want to build in the City. The TGS arose out of contexts that also included the existence of privately run green building standards, such as LEED. Yet, the ratio of developers pursuing LEED standards is and was very small. Not enough environmental benefits were being achieved from the existence of voluntary standards alone (Cost-benefit study). This context was, and is, nuanced by knowledges about ecological limits and the burden of continuous development on the environment (Cost- benefit study, Jane, Ted). When discussing their involvement in the creation of the TGS, Jane of City Planning and Ted of the University of Toronto each invoke these knowledges. They both suggest that major changes were, and are, needed, in order to curb the environmental impacts of development. According to Jane, Toronto’s mayor at the time the TGS was created, David Miller, shared her environmental interests and concerns. Further, for Ted, changes should include social and economic restructuring. The ideas described by Ted and Jane align with sustainability and survivalism discourses, as they were assessed in this thesis.

186

Foucault (1972) proposes an archaeology of knowledge, in order to dig up history as it was conceived, and discontinuities were excluded. Through this thesis, I have dug up the production of the TGS, and argue that the truths and knowledges of survivalism and sustainability discourse are discontinuities that were eventually excluded through TGS production. Further, as described in Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework, discourse is constituted through a relationship with institutions and power, and reproduces the truths of a social system, by excluding other knowledges and truths (Foucault, 1967,1972, 1981; Hook, 2001; Potter et al., 1990). By questioning discourse that appears natural and universal, Foucault (1972, 1981) believes that one can then describe otherwise invisible unities that have been formed by a means of controlled decisions. The largest, leading developers were able to wield power over the production of the TGS, and therefore over the production and reproduction of discourse.

The knowledges and truths associated with survivalism and sustainability were excluded during the course of institutional policy making. Instances include the stakeholder review process and the Cost-benefit study, which were required to prove that the TGS would be economically beneficial for the City and all others involved. At the end of the policy-making process, the truths and knowledges of the economic-focused discourses prevail, to the benefit of the largest developer firms. The social conditions that existed during the creation of the TGS are reproduced and reconstructed. Continuous building and development, and large scale growth are still favourable, except now there is a “right” type of development, that should be financially rewarded. The “right” type of development is green, and is the type of development that the largest developer firms were already involved in, before the TGS was created. The pursuit of green development for financial reward is in line with the truths of economic-focused environmental discourses. Alternatively, through Tier 1, the TGS is meant to regulate and weed out the “wrong” type of development, which does not participate in ecological modernization or green building discourses. The questioning of these social contexts that enabled the production or reproduction of a particular discourse leads us to the next important Foucauldian question and research subquestion: who or what do the discourses of production and reproduction serve?

187

12.4 Who/what is served?

Again, since the dominant discourses of the TGS attempt to address environmental problems through channels of economic development, Prometheanism is excluded from TGS production and reproduction. And, although no radical ecological or larger structural survivalist changes are made possible by the economic-focused discourses of the TGS, the discourses do serve the goals of City Planning in some ways. Where development “as is” is a given, the TGS does make gains towards the environmental sustainability and goals shared by Ted and Jane. The TGS is a step forward from no TGS at all, as Prometheanism would have it. The City also benefits from the reproduction of ecological modernization in particular because in the face of continuous expansion, increased “efficiency”, the keystone of ecological modernization, becomes an important tool, as demands on old city infrastructure rapidly grow (C40 Cities, 2018; Chris; Cost-benefit study; John; Mary; Miller, 2013; Watts et al., 2015). In the case of the TGS, increased efficiency via ecological modernization benefits the city’s infrastructure through better or reduced use of water and energy, such as by mandating better broilers or more efficient appliances (John, Mark, Mary, TGS high-rise, TGS low-rise).

The research found that the discourses of TGS production and reproduction are the economic- focused discourses of economic rationalism and ecological modernization. The two discourses are premised on two notions, 1) being green, which can or should lead to 2) economic profit. There are observable implications of this around Toronto, which I described in Chapter 6 as “urban environmental classism”. In urban environmental classism, the addition of “green” to products and services enables a higher pricing point, often excluding those who are unable to opt to pay more. Observing the trend of urban environmental classism, and its correlation with the knowledges and truths of ecological modernization, led me to question whether urban environmental classism exists in the building sector. The hypothesis of the existence of an urban environmental classism was correct, and this has implications that speak to the research subquestion: who or what do the discourses of production and reproduction serve?

The production and reproduction of discourse reflects a set of invisible unities that have been formed by a means of controlled decisions (Foucault, 1967, 1972, 1981). Applied to the creation of the TGS, we know that the economic-focused discourses became dominant during the policy-

188

making process, when other environmental knowledges that had been present were excluded. The top developer firms in Toronto were able to help the construct TGS, through institutional policy-making processes. Their input held weight during the stakeholder review process17 (Cost- benefit study, Jane, Shayna, TGDS staff report, TGS website) and their approval held weight over the results of the Cost-benefit study (Ted). These indications of “controlled decisions” during the TGS’ creation process resulted in the TGS’ Tier 2 being formed.

The sections in Chapter 9 called “The reproduction of urban environmental classism through the TGS’ Two-tiered framework” and “Who has achieved Tier 2?” evidence that given all the data available and assessed, the developer stakeholder proponents of Tier 2 are really the only ones who have achieved Tier 2. For achieving the greener, higher Tier 2, they receive financial rebates. I also evidenced that being green is a characteristic that is equated with the top, largest, high-end and leading developers, and with having more financial resources available (Cost- benefit study, Chris, Kelly, Jane, Jesse, Mark, Shayna, TGS review & update, LEED certification homepage). I argue that this is a truth that ecological modernization produces, and this truth is reproduced through the TGS. The TGS reproduces the truth that being a “green” developer is equated with being high-end and/or a top developer company, and having more available financial capital to invest. This was a truth that existed at the time the TGS was envisioned and created. It is reproduced by the TGS, maybe even amplified, and may continue to be amplified as the number of Tiers expands from two to four (TGS review & update).

The TGS’ Tier 2 serves the top, leading and/or high-end developers, who were already benefiting from being high-end and/or leading developer firms in Toronto, before the TGS. The discourse of the TGS serves them, as they are reproduced as objects of reward. In line with Foucauldian analyses of the discourse of madness (Foucault, 1967), and ADHD discourse (Graham, 2005) the opposing objects of dominant discourse become subject to a discourse of regulation, produced around that object. While not entirely its own discourse, because it is part of the TGS as a whole, Tier 1 is a set of regulations that necessitates a course of action (green building requirements) for non-leading-edge firms. In this case, the course of regulatory action contributes to the

17 And is re-gathered every few years (Shayna, TGS Review & Update) 189

reproduction of the dominant discourse, ecological modernization, through what is referred to as market transformation (Jane, Kelly, Mark, Shayna, TGS review & update, TGS website).

The goal of market transformation operates as a form of hegemony. The lower end developers should behave more like the higher-end developers: they should invest more in green building technologies. As more and more developers are required to invest in the technology and services of the green building sector, the sector expands. The products and services become more available and competitive, and ideally lower in cost. These are the same products and services that the largest, high-end developers were already using, therefore achieving ‘market transformation’ serves them. Market transformation as a TGS goal and outcome, through Tier 1’s across the board set of regulations, serves the perpetuation of the truths of ecological modernization. Here, the winners of ecological modernization are the largest, high-end developers. Ultimately, the dominant discourses of the TGS are the economic-focused discourses of ecological modernization and economic rationalism. Ecological modernization serves those who can attain the most economic value out of going green. The reproduction of ecological modernization through the TGS is no exception.

12.5 Who/what is excluded?

The TGS reproduces a discourse that serves the perpetuation of hierarchies and distinctions based on economic capital, or class. As class-based distinctions are part of the status quo in the global capitalist economy, the TGS’ reproduction of ecological modernization means that there is a perpetuation of status quo, in terms of socio-economic structures. Again, the significance of the achievements for the environment should not be dismissed. While the TGS reproduces discourse that perpetuates the socio-economic status quo, the discourse is also an attempt to address environmental problems within those structures. Yet, the perpetuation of the status quo aligns with the finding whereby TGS production process excluded discourses of sustainability and survivalism. Each of these discourses calls the status quo into question, and seeks structural change. Therefore, by excluding the discourses of survivalism and sustainability, ideas of radical shifts, changes, a new ethic or a new set of relations are also excluded. Structures of social inequality remain, and are reproduced.

190

According to survivalist and sustainability discourses, as well as critical schools of thought such as , the perpetuation of socio-economic structures, and thus capitalism’s systems of exploitation, are problematic for the environment. According to these perspectives, systems of exploitation are the foundation of many environmental problems (Bellamy Foster, 1999; Blaikie, 1985; Robbins, 2012; Watts & Peet, 2004). As such, environmental problems cannot be addressed without addressing capitalist societal motivations for exploitation. The economic- focused discourses reproduced by the TGS do not address capitalist motivations for exploitation, but instead perpetuate and depend on them. This implication is reflective of the common criticisms of environmental discourses, such as sustainable development, that aim to alleviate environmental problems through more development (Robinson, 2004; Springett, 2013). To quote Sumner (2005), “Leaving sustainability to those who hold money values will result only in more of the degradation so often associated with the age of globalization” (p. 5), and “as the choices in the twenty-first century seem to narrow to impossibly econometric ones that threaten both human existence and the natural environment of which we are a part, the need for utopian alternatives grows” (p. 5-6).

191

Chapter 13: Conclusion Summary of key research findings and implications

This section will summarize the main findings and key discussion points that were outlined throughout Chapters 8-12. First, Prometheanism is excluded from the production and reproduction of the TGS. The implication of this finding is that the TGS is a win for the environment, and should be celebrated. Prometheanism is still prevalent in today’s political climate. Since the TGS is reviewed and updated every four years, time will tell if the TGS has produced a strong enough inclination towards green building development, via ecological modernization and market transformation, in order to stave off potential Promethean resurgence from future Toronto City Councils. Yet, Prometheanism’s assumption that growth is necessary still informs the production of TGS discourse, except it is moderated by environmental interests. Similarly, environmental interests that strive for radical environmental protection and structural changes are moderated by economic interests. The result is that the economic-focused environmental problem-solving discourses prevail. These are sustainable development, economic rationalism and ecological modernization.

A main finding is that the economic-focused discourses produce, and are reproduced by the TGS. The discourses approach environmental problems via economic channels. This is a step forward for the environment, because environmental problems are being approached, instead of ignored. Yet, the discourses perpetuate structures and systems of capitalist growth that are argued to be the root causes of widespread environmental problems. The implication for the TGS is that it is premised on continuous growth, and reproduces a system where the largest firms are rewarded. Another implication is that all “alternative” (i.e. non-western, non-Global North, non-scientific and non-hierarchical) discourses are excluded from the production and reproduction of the TGS, including Indigenous discourses, ecofeminism, and deep ecology. These discourses are excluded from policy making processes in general, because the ranking of priorities and assessing of values are central to most policy making processes.

Another key finding is that despite the environmental approaches and knowledges of sustainability and survivalism, which led to the creation of the TGS, the processes of institutional policy making excluded those discourses, in selective favour of the economic-focused 192

discourses. The TGS’ production of the economic discourses, through a process that excludes other knowledges and truths, is consistent with Foucault’s (1972, 1980) theories of discourse, whereby the production and reproduction of dominant discourse occurs as other discourses are excluded.

Key aspects of the TGS’ policy making process where economic-focused discourses dominated, and sustainability focused discourses were excluded, were the Cost-benefit study and the stakeholder consultations. During these key moments, the largest, leading developer firms were able to wield power over the production of the TGS, and therefore over the production and reproduction of discourse. Further, the TGS reproduces discourse that directly serves the largest, leading and high-end developers in numerous ways, including:

• The reproduction of urban environmental classism. The high-end and largest companies are considered the greenest

• They are objects of reward, of the higher Tier 2 certification and sizeable financial rebates

• The logic used to justify the rebates was to reimburse developers who do not benefit from investing in green building. Yet the largest, leading developers already were benefiting due to their comprehensive structure. They own and operate the buildings

• Tier 1 requires that all developers build green. The result is the expansion of the market that the largest, leading developers already relied on

An implication of the exclusion of survivalism and sustainability discourses is that certain knowledges, orders and truths are also excluded. These include ideas of radical shifts, changes, a new ethic or a new set of economic relations. Another key implication of the reproduction of the economic-focused discourses is that structures of social inequality remain, and are reproduced. The TGS produces and reproduces the economic-focused discourses of economic rationalism and ecological modernization. As environmental problem-solving discourses, they are important wins over Prometheanism, which strives for continuous growth without considering the impact on the environment or ecological limits. The TGS is a battle won against this all-too-familiar political-economic logic. Yet, the Foucauldian framework leads us to question the discourses, truths and knowledges that were excluded to produce and reproduce certain knowledges and truths. And for that, I have evidenced that the discourses of radical, systemic or structural change

193

— survivalism and sustainability — were excluded. Socio-economic structures and motivations of capitalism remain, and many argue that these are at fault for environmental degradation (Bellamy Foster, 1999; Blaikie, 1985; Robbins, 2012; Watts & Peet, 2004).

Yet it must be acknowledged that given the tools at hand in City Planning, the TGS is an effective tool for addressing some aspects of locally caused environmental problems. In line with ecological modernization, environmental problems should be addressed using the tools of existent economic structures. Toronto City Planning and the TGS aim to address environmental problems by using a key tool at their disposal: the insatiable demand for continuous development and more building. But something more is needed. And what that “something more” is, we do not know yet, however by questioning and problematizing the inherent truths of overarching discourse, and the never-said (Foucault, 1972), we can at least figure out what it is not.

13.1 Research self-reflection, limitations and future research

For Foucault (1980), and in my research, the exploration of discourse concerns a rediscovery of struggles that have been excluded in the production of discourse, and discourse is produced through a relationship between institutions and power. My research found two instances in the institutional policy-making process that led to the exclusion of certain knowledges, or “struggles” (Foucault, 1980). Prior to, during, and following the conducting of this thesis, I have been thoroughly engaged in the field of environmental knowledges — environmental discourses — and how they relate to policy, politics, environmental problem-solving and general public opinion towards the environment. However, I would not call myself an expert on the technicalities of policy-making itself. Policy-making is a very technical and structured process that varies by location and institutional body. I have worked for five years as a teaching assistant for a course on Municipal and Planning Law in Ontario, but perhaps there are technicalities in the City’s policy-making process that affect the TGS, which I may have missed in my research.

The limitation of not knowing all the ins-and-outs of policy making at the City only came into view after the research was completed, after I had spent months assessing the findings. It was then that I realized the Cost-benefit study and the stakeholder review process were key turning points for discourse, with significant implications. Are there more key institutional moments, steps, or required processes that contributed to these effects on discourse and knowledge 194

production? If I could re-start the research process, I would look closer into a greater range of the policy-making technicalities, to analyze a more comprehensive set of instances where policy making may favour discourses of economic growth over sustainability.

My research focused on the knowledge that was produced, but future research could explore what in the policy-making process caused the production of certain discourses over others, in addition to the stakeholder review and Cost-benefit study? Future research would require in- depth technical knowledge of policy making at the City, which perhaps can only be derived from studying the policy-makers and policy making processes very closely over an extended period of time. In this case, an institutional ethnography would be most suitable. Institutional ethnography is more time-intensive, and was not available to me as a researcher, as I could not access extended periods of observing the TGS creators. Future research could take a more internal approach, such as examining permits and attending TGS renewal meetings, in order to gain closer insight into the specifics of the policy-making process.

13.1.1 The production of Ecological Modernization: What I learned during the research process

When I started conducting the literature review and collecting data, I was in full support of the logic behind ecological modernization. People generally want to make money, so if there are ways to do that and help the environment, or at least not harm it, then it is a “win-win” (Hajer, 1995). Environmental problems are extremely pressing, and I thought perhaps the path of least resistance that ecological modernization offers makes the most sense. However, as the research progressed, my analysis showed that in fact, there were other environmental knowledges and hopes that inspired the creation of the TGS, which strived for greater forms of change. But in the end, those knowledges were excluded, ecological modernization was reproduced, and a status quo of inequality perpetuated. My faith in ecological modernization has dissipated. It is a discourse that serves those who realistically are not in need, and ignores those who are.

13.2 Directions forward

As I write this conclusion (December 2018), riots and protests are breaking out in France in response to carbon taxes that unfairly target the poor, amongst other causes of civil unrest (Mufson & McAuley, 2018). I am by no means equating the situation in France to anything close 195

to the TGS, but each gives rise to questions of critical importance. Policy to protect the environment is absolutely necessary, but how do we create it so that it achieves just and equitable outcomes? How do we move forward with ensuring that environmental policies do not exacerbate class-based divisions?

As it stands, policy making processes tend to — visibly or invisibly — favour discourses of economic growth, while other discourses struggle and/or are excluded. Policy-making processes may benefit from the inclusion of alternative discourses and perspectives, such as Indigenous or biocentric perspectives (Bellamy Foster, 1999, 2015; Klein, 2014, 2017; Thomas-Muller, 2005). This would help perpetuate those policy goals that aim for more than slight modifications to environmental impact within an existent economic value-driven dynamic (Fairhead et al., 2012; Redclift, 2005; Robinson, 2004). Further, I propose that environmental policy be created with considerations of long-term social impact. Currently, the creation of environmental policy considers the environment, and the economy (Bromley & Paavola, 2002; Burch, 2010a; Dryzek, 2005; Kingdon, 2011). Although environmental policy is technically not economic policy, economic value becomes an inherent factor in environmental policy when cost-benefit analyses are conducted, and measurements of how much the policy will cost are calculated. I propose that along with environmental and economic factors, social factors should be considered. This would require additional experts and at least one additional step involved in a policy making process. Similar to a cost-benefit analysis, social indicators and social implications of a possible policy should be considered and measured. In further similarity to a cost-benefit analysis, a proposed policy should have to prove that it will be beneficial for a greater social good, such as greater equality, in order to proceed. In conclusion, environmental policies should not exacerbate inequalities.

196

References

Alfred, T. (2009). Peace, power, righteousness: An Indigenous manifesto (2nd ed). Toronto, ON: Oxford University Press. Allen, K., (2012, June 23). OMB: Good for developers, bad for cities? The Toronto Star Baumol, W. (1988). Introduction. In Oates W. (Ed.), The theory of environmental policy (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Bélanger, P. (2016). Altitudes of urbanization. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology Incorporating Trenchless Technology Research, 55, 5-7. Bellamy Foster, J. (1999). The vulnerable planet: A short economic history of the environment. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press. Bellamy Foster, J. (2015). The great capitalist Climacteric: Marxism and "system change not climate change". Monthly Review, 67(6). Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1996). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York, NY: Random House Publishing. Biemer, J., Dixon, W., & Blackburn, N. (2013). Our environmental handprint: The good we do. Paper presented at the 1st IEEE Conference on Technologies for Sustainability (SusTech), Portland, OR. 146-153. doi:10.1109/SusTech.2013.6617312 Blaikie, P. (1985). The political economy of soil erosion in developing countries. New York, NY: Longman. Blaser, M., de Costa, R., McGregor, D., & Coleman, W. (2010). Reconfiguring the web of life: Indigenous peoples, relationality, and globalization. In M. Blaser (Ed.), Indigenous peoples and autonomy: Insights for a global age (pp. 3-27). Vancouver: UBC Press. Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. (2005). Foundations of multimethod research: Synthesizing styles. London, UK: Sage Publications. Bromley, D., & Paavola, J. (2002). Introduction: Contested choices. In D. Bromley, & J. Paavola (Eds.), Economics, ethics, and environmental policy: Contested choices (pp. 1-3). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Bryman, A., Teevan, J., & Bell, E. (2009). Social research methods (2nd Canadian ed.). Toronto, ON: Oxford University Press. Bulkeley, H., & Betsill, M. (2005). Rethinking sustainable cities: Multilevel governance and the 'urban' politics of climate change. Environmental Politics, 14(1), 42-63. doi:10.1080/0964401042000310178 Bullard, R. D. (1993). Confronting environmental racism: Voices from the grassroots (1st ed.). Boston, MA: South End Press. Burch, S. (2010a). In pursuit of resilient, low carbon communities: An examination of barriers to action in three Canadian cities. , 38(12), 7575-7585. Burch, S. (2010b). Transforming barriers into enablers of action on climate change: Insights from three municipal case studies in British Columbia, Canada. Global Environmental Change, 20(2), 287-297.

197

Burton, I., Kates, R., & White, G. (1993). The environment as hazard (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Buttel, F. (2000). Ecological modernization as social theory. Geoforum, 31(1), 57-65. doi:10.1016/S0016-7185(99)00044-5 Campoy, A., & Yanofsky, D. (2017). Houston’s flooding shows what happens when you ignore science and let developers run rampant. Retrieved from https://qz.com/1064364/hurricane-harvey-houstons-flooding-made-worse-by- unchecked-urban-development-and-wetland-destruction/ C40 Cities. (2018). Toronto membership profile. Retrieved from http://www.c40.org/cities/toronto Canada Green Building Council. (2016). New construction - LEED Canada NC 2009. Retrieved from https://www.cagbc.org/CAGBC/Programs/LEED/CommercialInstitutional/RatingsS ystems/NewConstruction/NewConst.aspx Carson, R. (1962). Silent spring. Greenwich, Conn: Fawcett Publications Chertow, M. (2000). The IPAT equation and its variants. Journal of , 4(4), 13- 29. Christoff, P. (1996). Ecological modernisation, ecological modernities. Environmental Politics, 5(3), 476-500. doi:10.1080/09644019608414283 City of Toronto, Climate, Energy & Resilience. (2018). ResilientTO. Retrieved from https://www.toronto.ca/services-payments/water-environment/environmentally-friendly- city-initiatives/resilientto/ City of Toronto Planning and Development. (2017). Tier 2 project profiles. Retrieved from https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/planning-development/official-plan- guidelines/toronto-green-standard/tier-2-project-profiles/ City of Toronto Planning and Development. (2018a). Toronto green standard. Retrieved from https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/planning-development/official-plan- guidelines/toronto-green-standard/ City of Toronto Planning and Development. (2018b). Green roofs. Retrieved from https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/planning-development/official-plan- guidelines/green-roofs/ City of Toronto Planning and Development. (2018c). Development charge refund program version 2. Retrieved from https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/planning- development/official-plan-guidelines/toronto-green-standard/toronto-green-standard- version-2/development-charge-refund-program-version-2/ City of Toronto Planning Division. (2015). Toronto Green Standard. Retrieved from http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=f85552cc66061410VgnVCM 10000071d60f89RCRD City of Toronto Services. (2016). Recycling, organics and garbage: Toronto's waste strategy executive summary. Retrieved from https://www.toronto.ca/services-payments/recycling- organics-garbage/long-term-waste-strategy/overview/

198

City Planning Division of the Environment. (2016). Green roof bylaw. Retrieved from http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly CNN Politics. (2016). Presidential election results. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/president Cohen, B. (2015). Urbanization, city growth, and the new United Nations development agenda. Cornerstone: The Official Journal of the World Coal Industry. Retrieved from http://cornerstonemag.net/urbanization-city-growth/ Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage Publications. Daily, G. C., Tore Söderqvist, Aniyar, S., Arrow, K., Dasgupta, P., Ehrlich, P. R., . . . Walker, B. (2000). The value of nature and the nature of value. Science, 289(5478), 395-396. Daniels Homes. (2018). Daniels: Our story. Retrieved from https://danielshomes.ca/about- daniels/our-story De La Uz, R., & Ferrari, M. (Producers), & Ferrari, M. (Director). (2017, January 24). Rachel Carson. [From the documentary series The Environment] Maine: PBS. Denscombe, M. (2007). The good research guide: For small-scale social research projects. Maidenhead, UK: McGraw Hill. Deranger, E. T. (2015, June 23). Canada's tar sands aren't just oil fields, they're sacred lands for my people. The Guardian Dove, M., Campos, M., Mathews, A. S., Meitzner Yoder, L., Rademacher, A., Rhee, S., & Smith, D. (2003). The global mobilization of environmental concepts: Re-thinking the western/non-western divide. In H. Selin, & A. Kalland (Eds.), Nature across cultures: Views of nature and the environment in non-western cultures (pp. 19). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Dowden, R. (2009). South Africa, not just another country. Africa - altered states ordinary miracles (pp. 381-414). New York, NY: Public Affairs. Dressler, W., Buscher, B., Schoon, M., Brockington, D., Hayes, T., Kull, C., McCarthy, K., Shrestha, K. (2010). From hope to crisis and back again? A critical history of the global CBNRM narrative. Environmental Conservation, 37(1), 5-15. doi:10.1017/S0376892910000044 Dreyfus, H., & Rabinow, P. (1982). Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics. Brighton, UK: Harvester Press. Dryzek, J. (2005). The politics of the earth: Environmental discourses (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press Dyer, W. G., & Wilkins, A. (1991). Better stories, not better constructs, to generate better theory: A rejoinder to Eisenhardt. The Academy of Management Review, 16(3), 613-619. Earth Day Network. (2018). What you need to know about the new IPCC climate report. Retrieved from https://www.earthday.org/2018/10/08/what-you-need-to-know-about-the- new-ipcc-climate-report/

199

Escobar, A. (1995). Encountering development: The making and unmaking of the third world. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Emerton, L. (2001). The use of economic measures in national biodiversity strategies and action plans: A review of experiences, lessons learned and ways forward. Karachi: IUCN – The World Conservation Union. Retrieved from https://www.cbd.int/doc/nbsap/economics/Synthesis(Economic).pdf Evans, S., & Timperley, J. (2018). COP24: Key outcomes agreed at the UN climate talks in Katowice. Retrieved from https://www.carbonbrief.org/cop24-key-outcomes-agreed-at- the-un-climate-talks-in-katowice Fairclough, N. (2003). Analyzing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London, UK.: Routledge. Fairhead, J., Leach, M., & Scoones, I. (2012). Green grabbing: A new appropriation of nature? Journal of Peasant Studies, 39(2), 237–261. Fairhurst, G., & Grant, D. (2010). The social construction of leadership: A sailing guide. Management Communication Quarterly, 24(2), 171–210. Fatal light awareness program. (2017). Retrieved from flap.org Feit, H. A. (2010). Neoliberal governance and James Bay Cree governance: Negotiated agreements, oppositional struggles, and co-governance. In M. Blaser (Ed.), Indigenous peoples and autonomy: Insights for a global age (pp. 49). Vancouver, BC: UBC Press. Flyvbjerg, B., & Richardson, T. (2002). Planning and Foucault: In search of the dark side of planning theory. In P. Allmendinger, & M. Tewdwr-Jones (Eds.), Planning futures: New directions for planning theory (pp. 44-62). London, UK: Routledge. Fortis BC. (2016). Talking energy: City of Vancouver zero emissions building plan. Retrieved from https://talkingenergy.ca/pages/city-of-vancouver-net-zero-emissions-plan Foucault, M. (1967). Madness and civilization: A history of insanity in the age of reason [Folie et déraison; histoire de la folieà l'âgeclassique] (R. Howard Trans.). Sydney, AU: Tavistock Publications. Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge [L'archéologie du savoir] (A. Sheridan Smith Trans.). London, UK: Tavistock Publications. Foucault, M. (1978). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison [Surveiller et punir] (A. Sheridan Trans.). New York, NY: Pantheon Books. Foucault, M. (1980). In Gordon C., Marshall L., Mepham J. and Soper K. (Eds.), Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977 (C. Gordon Trans.). Brighton, UK: Harvester Press. Foucault, M. (1981). The orders of discourse. In M. Young (Ed.), Untying the text: A post- structuralist reader [The inaugural lecture at the College de France, December 2, 1970] (I. McLeod Trans.). (pp. 48-78). Boston, MA: Routledge. Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. In H. Dreyfus, & P. Rabinow (Eds.), Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics (pp. 208-228). Brighton, UK: Harvester Press. 200

Foucault, M. (1996). End of the monarchy of sex. In S. Lotringer (Ed.), Foucault live: Collected interviews 1961-1984 (pp. 214-225). New York, NY: Semiotext(e). Foucault, M. (2001). Interview with Michel Foucault. In J. Faubion (Ed.), The essential works of Foucault: Power (1954-1984) (R. Hurley Trans.). (pp. 239-297). London, UK: Penguin Publishers. Foucault, M. (2007a). In Senellart M., Davidson A., Ewald F. and Fontana A. (Eds.), Security, territory, population: Lectures at the collège de France, 1977-1978 [Sécurité, territoire, population] (G. Burchell Trans.). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Foucault, M. (2007b). In Lotringer S., Rajchman J. (Eds.), The politics of truth (L. Hockroth, C. Porter Trans.). Los Angeles, CA: Semiotext(e). Foucault, M. (2010). In Senellart M. (Ed.), The birth of biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978-1979 [Naissance de la biopolitique] (G. Burchell Trans.). (1st ed.). New York: Picador. Fraser, N. (1981). Foucault on modern power: Empirical insights and normative confusions. Praxis International, 1(3), 272. Gaard, G., & Gruen, L. (1993). Ecofeminism: Toward and planetary health. Society and Nature, 2(1), 1-35. Gane, M. (Ed.). (2013). Towards a critique of Foucault: Foucault, Lacan and the question of ethics (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Graham, L. (2005). Discourse analysis and the critical use of Foucault. Paper Presented at Australian Association for Research in Education Annual Conference, Sydney, AU. Green buildings, Municipal zoning code U.S.C. 37 (2007). Retrieved from https://www.cityofboston.gov/images_documents/Article%2037%20Green%20Buildings %20LEED_tcm3-2760.pdf Green roof bylaw, Toronto Municipal Code; U.S.C. (2009). Retrieved from https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/municode/1184_492.pdf Griswold, E. (2012, September 21). How 'Silent Spring' Ignited the Environmental Movement. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com Habermas, J. (1986). Taking aim at the heart of the present. In D. C. Hoy (Ed.), Foucault: A critical reader (pp. 103-108). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers. Hajer, M. (1995). The politics of environmental discourse: Ecological modernization and the policy process. New York, NY: Clarendon Press. Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243-1248. doi:10.1126/science.162.3859.1243 Hart, G. (2001). Development critiques in the 1990s: Culs de sac and promising paths. Progress in Human Geography, 25(4), 649–658. doi:10.1191/030913201682689002 Harvey, D., Kellard, N., Madsen, J., & Wohar, M. (2010). The Prebisch–Singer hypothesis: Four centuries of evidence". the review of economics and statistics. Review of Economics and Statistics, 92(2), 367-377.

201

Harvey, D. (1996). Justice, nature, and the geography of difference. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Harvey, D. (2009). The 'new' : Accumulation by dispossession. Socialist Register, 40, 63-87. Hayek, F. A. (1982). Law, legislation and liberty: A new statement of the liberal principles of justice and political economy. London, UK: Routledge. Health Canada. (2017). Consumer product safety. Retrieved from www.canada.ca/en/health- canada.html Herndl C., Brown S. (Eds.). (1996). Green culture: Environmental rhetoric in contemporary America. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Hook, D. (2001). Discourse, knowledge, materiality, history: Foucault and discourse analysis. Theory and Psychology, 11(4), 521-547. Hove, H. (2004). Critiquing sustainable development: A meaningful way of mediating the development impasse? Undercurrent, 1(1), 48-54. Hoy, D. C. (1998). Foucault and critical theory. In J. Moss (Ed.), The later Foucault (pp. 18-32). London, UK: Sage Publications. Hughes, L. (2000) Biological Consequences of Global Warming: is the Signal Already Apparent? Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 15(2):56-61. Hughes, S., Pincetl, S., & Boone, C. (2013). Triple exposure: Regulatory, climatic and political drivers of water management changes in the City of Los Angeles. Cities, 32, 51-59. Hughes, S. (2015). A meta-analysis of urban climate change adaptation in the U.S. Urban Climate, 14, 17-29. IPCC. (2012). Glossary of terms. in: Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation. In C. Field, V. Barros, T. Stocker, D. Qin, D. Dokken, K. Ebi, . . . P. M. Midgley (Eds.), A special report of working groups I and II of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) (pp. 555-564). Cambridge, UK & New York, USA: Cambridge University Press. IPCC. (2018). Global warming of 1.5°C. an IPCC special report. Geneva, Switzerland: World Meteorological Organization. Jacobs, K. (1999). Key themes and future prospects: Conclusion to the special issue. , 36(1), 203-213. Jamison, A. (2001). The making of green knowledge: Environmental politics and cultural transformation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Jänicke M., Jörgens H. & Weidner H. (Eds.). (1997). National environmental policies: A comparative study of capacity-building. New York, NY: Springer. Joseph, R. (2017). Global news Toronto - Reality check: Are electric cars cheaper to own than gas-powered cars? Retrieved from https://globalnews.ca/news/3899054/reality-check- electric-cars-cheaper/

202

Kalinowski, T. (2018, June 20,). Green Ontario cancellation leaves homeowners, industry scrambling. Toronto Star Retrieved from https://www.thestar.com/business/real_estate/2018/06/20/green-ontario-cancellation- leaves-homeowners-industry-scrambling.html Kalland, A. (2003). Environmentalism and images of the Other. In H. Selin, & A. Kalland (Eds.), Nature across cultures: Views of nature and the environment in non-western cultures (pp. 1). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Kaplow, S. D. (2009). Does a green building need a green lease? University of Baltimore Law Review, 38(3), 375. Kelly, M. (2013). Foucault's history of sexuality vol. 1: The will to knowledge. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Kendall, G., & Wickham, G. (1999). Using Foucault's methods. London, UK: Sage Publishers. Kepe, T., & Tessaro, D. (2014). Trading-off: Rural and land rights in South Africa. Land Use Policy, 36, 267-274 Kerr, T. (2008). Sustainability discourse, place and the green building. Paper presented at Provoking Texts: New Postgraduate Research from the Edge, Curtin University, Perth, WA. Kesik, T., & Miller, A. (2008). Final report: Toronto Green Development Standard cost-benefit study. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto John H. Daniels Faculty of Architecture, Landscape and Design. Kingdon, J. (2011). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Klein, N. (2014). One way or another, everything changes. This changes everything: Capitalism vs. the climate. London: Allen Lane. Klein, N. (2017). No is not enough: Resisting the new shock politics and winning the world we need. Toronto, ON: Alfred K. Knopf Canada. Lemke, T. (2011). Foucault, governmentality, and critique. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers. Lintern, G. (2017). Report for action: Toronto Green Standard review and update. (No. PG23.9). Toronto, ON: City of Toronto Planning Division. Lomborg, B. (2001). The skeptical environmentalist: Measuring the real state of the world. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. MacDonald, K. I. (2010). The devil is in the (bio)diversity: Private sector engagement and the restructuring of biodiversity conservation. Antipode, 42(3), 513-550. Marques, A., Rodrigues, J., Lenzen, M., & Domingos, T. (2012). Income-based environmental responsibility. , 84, 57-65. Marsh, T. (2014). Footprints and handprints. The Safety and Health Practitioner, 32(6), 39-41. Mathur, P. (2009). Environmental communication in the information society: The blueprint from Europe. The Information Society, 25(2), 119-138. doi:10.1080/01972240802701676 Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2)

203

McCormick, J. (2001). Environmental policy in the European Union. New York, NY: Palgrave. McGrath, M. (2018). Katowice: COP24 climate change deal to bring pact to life. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46582025 McGuinness, R. (2019). Desperate macron ‘plans to SACK police chief’ after yellow vest chaos. Retrieved from https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1068460/emmanuel-macron- yellow-vest-protests-paris-france-news McHoul, A., & Grace, W. (1997). A Foucault primer: Discourse, power, and the subject. New York, NY: New York University Press. Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. (1972). The limits to growth: A report for the Club of Rome's project on the predicament of mankind. New York, NY: Universe Books. Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass higher and adult education series. Miller, D. (2013, July 14). Climate change is hitting big cities: They need to take action. The Globe and Mail Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/modern- urban-floodpreventionmore-ideas-fewer-emissions/article13201485/ Miller, D. (2017, January). The power of cities to tackle climate change. Presented at Swansea Town Hall, Toronto, ON Minto Group. (2018). About the Minto group - Our organization. Retrieved from https://www.minto.com/about-minto/index.html Mitanis, M. (2016). Skyrise cities: LEED certificiation. Retrieved from https://skyrisecities.com/news/2016/01/explainer-leed-certification Mufson, S., & McAuley, J. (2018). France’s protesters are part of a global backlash against climate-change taxes. Retrieved from /www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/frances- protesters-are-part-of-a-global-backlash-against-climate-change-taxes/2018/ Mühlhäusler, P., & Peace, A. (2006). Environmental discourses. Annual Review of Anthropology, 35, 457-479. Murray, H. (2006, June). Re-Thinking Intergovernmental Relations in Canada? An Analysis of City-Provincial Relations in Winnipeg and Vancouver. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Canadian Political Science Association, York University, Toronto, ON N.C. Clean Energy Technology Center. (2014). City of Portland: Green building policy and LEED certification. Retrieved from http://programs.dsireusa.org/system/program/detail/254 Naess, A. (1973). The shallow and the deep, long-range ecology movement. A summary. Inquiry, 16(1-4), 95-100. doi:10.1080/00201747308601682 Nelson, M. K. (2008). Introduction: Lighting the sun of our future - how these teachings can provide illumination. In M. K. Nelson (Ed.), Original instructions: Indigenous teachings for a sustainable future (pp. 1). Rochester, Vermont: Bear & Company.

204

New York City Mayor's Office of Sustainability. (2017). Green buildings and energy efficiency: Greener, greater buildings plan. Retrieved from http://www.nyc.gov/html/gbee/html/plan/plan.shtml Ontario green building map (2018). Toronto, ON: Canadian Green Building Council - Greater Toronto Chapter. Paikin, S. (2016). Toronto’s ‘tiny perfect mayor’ David Crombie turns 80 this weekend. Retrieved from https://tvo.org/blog/current-affairs/torontos-tiny-perfect-mayor-david- crombie-turns-80-this-weekend Pander, S. (2016). Zero emissions building plan. (Policy Report: Development and building No. 11195). Vancouver, BC: City of Vancouver, Sustainability Group. Park, E. (2007). The U.S. federal green building policy. Sustainable Development Law & Policy, 8(1), 71. Patton, P. (1998). Foucault's subject of power. In J. Moss (Ed.), The later Foucault (pp. 64-77). London, UK: Sage Publishers. Pickvance, C. (2000). Local-level influences on environmental policy implementation in Eastern Europe: A theoretical framework and a Hungarian case study. Environment and Planning: Government and Policy, 18(4), 469-485. Planning and growth management committee meeting minutes, 4, TOcore: Downtown Plan Official Plan Amendment. (2018). Retrieved from http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewPublishedReport.do?function=getDecisionDocumentRep ort&meetingId=13042 Poster, M. (1989). Critical theory and poststructuralism: In search of a context. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Potter, J., Wetherell, M., Gill, R., & Edwards, D. (1990). Discourse: Noun, verb or social practice. Philosophical Psychology, 3(2), 205-217. Prebisch, R. (1962). The economic development of Latin America and its principal problems. Economic Bulletin for Latin America, 7(1), 1-23. Rabson, M. (2017). Electric cars will be cheaper than gas models but Canada lags in EV policy. Retrieved from http://toronto.citynews.ca/2017/12/15/electric-cars-will-be-cheaper-than- gas-models-but-canada-lags-in-ev-policy/ Rapoport A., Dinar A. (Eds.) (2013). Analyzing global environmental issues: Theoretical and experimental applications and their policy implications. New York, NY: Routledge. Redclift, M. (2005). Sustainable development (1987-2005): An oxymoron comes of age. Sustainable Development, 13(4), 212-227. Reed. M.S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biological Conservation, 141(10), 2417-2431. Retzlaff, R. (2010). Developing policies for green buildings: What can the United States learn from the Netherlands? Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy, 6(1)

205

Richards, G., Noble, B., & Belcher, K. (2012). Barriers to renewable energy development: A case study of large-scale wind energy in Saskatchewan, Canada. Energy Policy, 42, 691- 698. Richardson, T. (1997). The trans-European transport network: Environmental policy integration in the EU. European Urban and Regional Studies, 4(4), 333-346. Richmond, C. A. (2009). The social determinants of Inuit health: A focus on social support in the Canadian Arctic. International Journal of Circumpolar Health, 68(5), 471-487. Robbins, P. (2012). Political ecology: A critical introduction (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Robinson, J. (2004). Squaring the circle? some thoughts on the idea of sustainable development. Ecological Economics, 48(4), 369-384. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2003.10.017 Rose, G. (1997). Situating knowledges: Positionality, reflexivities and other tactics. Progress in Human Geography, 21(3), 305-320. Rosenzweig, C., Solecki, W., Hammer, A. and Shagun, M. (Eds.) (2011). Climate change and cities: First assessment report of the Urban Climate Change Research Network. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Ruijgrok, E., Vellinga, P., & Goosen, H. (1999). Dealing with nature. Ecological Economics, 28(2), 347-362. Said, E. W. (1979). Orientalism (25th Anniversary Edition). New York, NY: Vintage Books. Schelhas, J. 2001. The USA national parks in international perspective: Have we learned the wrong lesson? Environmental Conservation, 28(04):300-304 Scheurich, J. (1994). Policy archaeology: A new policy studies methodology. Journal of Education Policy, 9(4), 297-316. Scheyvens, R., & Storey, D. (2006). Development fieldwork: A practical guide. London, UK: Sage Publications Schneider, F. (2013, May 13). How to do a discourse analysis. Retrieved from http://www.politicseastasia.com/studying/how-to-do-a-discourse-analysis/ Schwartz, H. (2009). Toronto ten years after amalgamation. Canadian Journal of , 23(3), 483-494. Selin, H. (2003). Introduction. In H. Selin, & A. Kalland (Eds.), Nature across cultures: Views of nature and the environment in non-western cultures (pp. xix). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Sharp, L., & Richardson, T. (2001). Reflections on Foucauldian discourse analysis in planning and environmental research. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 3(3), 193- 210. Simpson, L. (2000). Anishinaabe ways of knowing. In J. Oakes, R. Riew, S. Koolage, L. Simpson & N. Schuster (Eds.), Aboriginal health, identity and resources (pp. 165). Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada: Native Studies Press.

206

Singer, H. (1950). The distribution of gains between investing and borrowing countries. The American Economic Review, 40(2), 473-485. Smith, L. T. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples (2nd ed.). London: Zed Books. Spaargaren, G. (2011). Theories of practices: Agency, technology, and culture. Global Environmental Change, 21(3), 813-822. Springett, D. (2013). Critical perspectives on sustainable development. Sustainable Development, 21(2), 73-82. Stenberg, A., & Räisänen, C. (2006). The social construction of ‘green building’ in the Swedish context. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 8(1), 67-85. doi:10.1080/15239080600634458 Sustainability Solutions Group. (2017). TransformTO: Climate action for a healthy, equitable, prosperous Toronto. Toronto, ON: City of Toronto. Suzuki, D. T. (1992). Sacred space: The relationship between humans and land. In P. Knudtson (Ed.), Wisdom of the elders: Honoring sacred Native visions of nature. New York: Bantam Books. Syphers, G. Baum, M. Bouton, D., Sullens, W. (2003). Managing the cost of green buildings in K-12 public schools, research laboratories, public libraries, & multi-family affordable housing. Alameda County, California: KEMA. Retrieved from https://www.usgbc.org/Docs/Archive/General/Docs5049.pdf Taylor, S. (2004). Researching educational policy and change in 'new times': Using critical discourse analysis. Journal of Education Policy, 19(4), 433-451. Tessaro, D., & Kepe, T. (2014). ‘Development’ at the crossroads: Biodiversity and land use tensions on South Africa’s Wild Coast. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology. 21(5), 471-479. doi:10.1080/13504509.2014.959090 Tessaro, D. (2012). Political ecology of development in South Africa's Wild Coast: Exploring stakeholder arguments for and against possible development strategies (Unpublished Master’s Thesis). The University of Toronto, Department of Geography and Planning, Toronto, ON. Retrievable from http://hdl.handle.net/1807/33561. Tessaro, D. (October 2018). Environmental policy-making and discourse: Case study on the Toronto Green Standard. Paper presented at the Canadian Association of Geographers Ontario Division, University of Toronto, Toronto The Canadian Press. (2017). CBC news: Ontario considers ban on throwing organic waste into the trash. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-organic-waste- ban-1.4315688 Thomas-Muller, C. (2005). Cycle of destruction: Energy exploitation on sacred native lands. Race, Poverty & the Environment, 12(1), 14-17. Timmons-Roberts, J., & Parks, B. (2007). A climate of injustice: Global inequality, north-south politics, and climate policy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

207

Toronto green standard: Making a sustainable city happen - for new low-rise residential development. (2015). (No. 2.1). Toronto, ON: City of Toronto Planning Division & Livegreen Toronto. Retrieved from https://www.toronto.ca/wp- content/uploads/2017/11/91f2-City-Planning-Toronto-Green-Standard- 2017_LowRise_Standard.pdf Toronto green standard: Making a sustainable city happen - for new mid to high-rise residential and all non-residential development. (2015). (No. 2.1). Toronto, ON: City of Toronto Planning Division & Livegreen Toronto. Toronto LEED supplement. (2014). (No. 2.0). Toronto, ON: Canada Green Building Council and City of Toronto Environmental Planning. Tridel rentals: Renting a home. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.tridel.com/rentals-resales/ Tyndorf, T. (2006). Toronto staff report - the Toronto Green Development Standard. Toronto, ON: City of Toronto. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs - Population Division. (2015). World urbanization prospects: The 2014 revision. (No. ST/ESA/SER.A/366). New York: United Nations. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). (2016). The Paris Agreement. Retrieved from http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9485.php United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2017). What are combined sewer overflows (CSOs)? Retrieved from https://www3.epa.gov/region1/eco/uep/cso.html UN News. (2018). At COP24, countries agree concrete way forward to bring the Paris Climate Deal to life. Retrieved from https://news.un.org/en/story/2018/12/1028681 Vierra, S. (2016). Whole building design guide: Green building standards and certification systems. Washington, DC: National Institute of Building Sciences. Vitousek, P.M. 1997. Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystems. Science, 277 (5325):494-499 Vogel, D. (1986). In Katzenstein P. (Ed.), National styles of regulation: Environmental policy in Great Britain and the United States. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Walker, S., Brower, A. L., Stephens, T., & Lee, W. G. (2009). Why bartering biodiversity fails. conservation letters. Conservation Letters, 2(4), 149–157. Watts, M., & Peet, R. (2004). Liberating political ecology. In R. Peet, & M. Watts (Eds.), Liberation : Environment, development, social movements (2nd ed., pp. 3-43). New York, NY: Routledge. Retrieved from http://myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/login?url=http://lib.myilibrary.com/Open.aspx?id=24 127 Watts, M., Fernandes, A., Schultz, S., Bailey, T., Alexander, J., Vines, K., & Huxley, R. (2015). C40 cities: Potential for climate action. London, UK: C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group. Webb, D. (2013). Foucault's archaeology: Science and transformation. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

208

White, R. (2007). The growth plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe in historical perspective: Neptis papers on growth in the Toronto metropolitan region. Toronto, ON: Neptis Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.neptis.org/sites/default/files/historical_commentary/historicalcomm_web_20 0711291.pdf World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). (1987). . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. WWF. (2017). Ecological footprint. Retrieved from http://wwf.panda.org/knowledge_hub/teacher_resources/webfieldtrips/ecological_balance /eco_footprint/ WWF. (2018). Living planet report - 2018: Aiming higher. Gland, Switzerland: World Wildlife Fund. Retrieved from https://www.worldwildlife.org/publications/living-planet-report- 2018 York, R., & Rosa, E., Dietz, T. (2003). STIRPAT, IPAT and ImPACT: Analytic tools for unpacking the driving forces of environmental impacts. Ecological Economics, 46(3), 351-365. Zelenev, S. (2016). A landmark Paris accord on climate change: A comment. International Social Work, 59(3), 419-421. doi:10.1177/0020872816632162

209

Appendix A – Documents Analyzed

Documents selected for analysis. Listed in the order that they were analyzed.

# Document Formal reference Document Description identifier type

1 TGS high rise Toronto green standard: Making a Policy Considered the most important sustainable city happen - for new mid to document/ document for the analysis. high-rise residential and all non- report Longest + most comprehensive residential development. (2015). (No. version of the TGS, as of 2017. 2.1). Toronto, ON: City of Toronto First document analyzed. Planning Division & Livegreen Toronto.

2 TGS low rise Toronto green standard: Making a Policy Similar to TGS high rise but sustainable city happen - for new low- document/ much shorter document, rise residential development. (2015). report because there are fewer (No. 2.1). Toronto, ON: City of requirements + options for low Toronto Planning Division & Livegreen rise Toronto.

3 Cost-benefit Kesik, T., & Miller, A. (2008). Final Report 276 page document detailing study report: Toronto green development the Cost-benefit study used to standard cost-benefit study. Toronto, justify the TGS. Compiles ON: University of Toronto John H. existent data from green Daniels Faculty of Architecture, building studies. Landscape and Design.

4 TGS review and Lintern, G. (2017). Report for action: Report Outlines the progress that the update (2017) Toronto green standard review and TGS has made up to Sept 2017, update. (No. PG23.9). Toronto, ON: and how the upcoming version City of Toronto Planning Division. will be changed.

210

5 TGDS staff Tyndorf, T. (2006). Toronto staff report Report First announcement about the report - the Toronto Green Development TGS, previously referred to as Standard. Toronto, ON: City of the Toronto Green Toronto Development Standard (TGDS)

6 LEED Toronto LEED supplement. (2014). Policy Outlines the ways that TGS supplement (No. 2.0). Toronto, ON: Canada Green document/ overlaps with LEED, so that it Building Council and City of Toronto guide is easier to pursue both Environmental Planning. standards in unison

7 TGS website City of Toronto Planning and Webpage Homepage for the TGS on the Development. (2018a). Toronto green City of Toronto’s online standard. Retrieved from directory. Describes the https://www.toronto.ca/city- program and has links to many government/planning- relevant webpages, which were development/official-plan- also analyzed. guidelines/toronto-green-standard/

8 Green building Ontario green building map (2018). Online Depicts the locations of green map Toronto, ON: Canadian Green Building interactive buildings in Ontario. Includes Council - Greater Toronto Chapter. map LEED and TGS buildings

9 Green roof City of Toronto Planning and Webpage Homepage for the information webpage Development. (2018b). Green roofs. of the green roof bylaw and Retrieved from general info about the green https://www.toronto.ca/city- roofs that have been built since government/planning- the TGS came into effect development/official-plan- guidelines/green-roofs/

10 Development City of Toronto Planning and Webpage Outlines the details and charge refund Development. (2018c). Development procedures of the Tier 2 doc charge refund program version 2. incentive program, specifically

211

Retrieved https://www.toronto.ca/city- the refund on development government/planning- charges development/official-plan- guidelines/toronto-green- standard/toronto-green-standard- version-2/development-charge-refund- program-version-2/

11 LEED Canada Green Building Council. Webpage Homepage for LEED certification (2016). New Construction - LEED certification regarding new homepage Canada NC 2009. Retrieved from construction. Describes https://www.cagbc.org/CAGBC/Progra requirements, procedures, and ms/LEED/CommercialInstitutional/Rati different LEED certifications ngsSystems/NewConstruction/NewCon st.aspx

12 Green roof Green roof bylaw, Toronto Municipal Policy Part of City of Toronto’s bylaw Code. Chapter 492 (2009). Retrieved document/ municipal code; formal legal from bylaw document https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/munico de/1184_492.pdf

13 Tier 2 project City of Toronto Planning and Webpage Lists a sample of ten Tier 2 profiles Development. (2017). Tier 2 project linking to projects. Each project is profiles. Retrieved from other profiled on its own page. The https://www.toronto.ca/city- webpages profiles were analyzed, and I government/planning- visited half of the sites. This development/official-plan- page was analyzed later than guidelines/toronto-green-standard/tier- other documents, as it was part 2-project-profiles/ of the 3rd research method: observations of TGS sites

212

Appendix B – Interview Participants Table

Interview participants. Listed in the order that interviews took place.

Interview Interview Interview location Description identifier date

Shayna January 31, City Planning meeting room, Shayna designs the planning aspects of the TGS, 2018 22nd floor, Metro Hall, 55 especially site level and urban design components; John Street, Toronto administers Tier 2 application approvals, and more.

Kelly January 31, City Planning meeting room, Created the TGS’s bird friendly guidelines and 2018 22nd floor, Metro Hall, 55 consults on other ecology and biodiversity John Street, downtown components of the TGS Toronto

Jesse February 6, Windmill Developments’ Construction project manager; has used TGS Tier 1 2018 office boardroom, 401 and Tier 2 on all his projects Richmond Street West, Studio 236, Toronto

Jane February 9, Jane’s office, 22nd floor, Project manager for Environmental Planning, 2018 Metro Hall, 55 John Street, Strategic Initiatives, Policy and Analysis; original Toronto TGS creator; manages TGS group

Mark* March 7, Aquila Group offices, Suite VP of engineering at Aquila group, an engineering 2018 1300, 40 University Ave, and architecture firm; uses TGS Tier 1 requirements Toronto on a regular basis

John* March 9, City of Toronto offices, Checks the status of certain application 2018 Metro Hall, 55 John Street, requirements at construction sites at new buildings. Toronto

213

Employee did not wish to disclose name or position

Mary* March 9, City of Toronto offices, Consults on TGS energy and efficiency components 2018 Metro Hall, 55 John Street, Toronto

Chris* March 9, City of Toronto offices, Consults on TGS energy and efficiency components 2018 Metro Hall, 55 John Street, Toronto

Ted March 10, Interview questions and UofT Professor. His presentation instigated the 2018 responses sent over email creation of the TGS; hired to lead the Cost-benefit study

214

Appendix C – TGS sites observed

TGS Tier Address/Identifier Location designation

Tier 2 105 George Street Downtown

132 Berkeley Street Downtown

570 Bay Street Downtown

35 Saranac Boulevard North

775 King Street West West

Tier 1 297 College Street Downtown

20 Joe Shuster Way West

160 Vanderhoof Avenue North

120 Raglan Avenue North

215

216

217

6. FUNDING OF THIS PROJECT (a)

Funding Status Source and Type Details Funded Agency: Fund #: 4 (6 digits) Agency: Fund # :4 (6 digits) Applied for funding Agency: Submission date: Agency: Submission date: Unfunded If unfunded, please explain why no funding is needed: I am a graduate student in a funded cohort, but have not been awarded funding that is specifically for research. For research purposes, there are no costly components of the research. It will be conducted as part of my doctoral research, and does not require travel, as data will be collected in Toronto.

7. CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS

(a) Is this research to be carried out as a contract or under a research agreement? Yes No

If yes, is there a University of Toronto funding or non-funded agreement associated with the research? Yes No If Yes, please append a copy of the agreement with of this application.

Is there any aspect of the contract that could put any member of the research team in a potential conflict of interest? Yes No If yes, please elaborate under #10.

(b) Is this a Division 5, Health Canada regulated clinical trial that involves drugs, devices or natural health products? Yes No (if so, the application must be reviewed by the full board)

8. PROJECT START AND END DATES

Estimated start date for the component of this project that involves human participants or data: February 2017 Estimated completion date of involvement of human participants or data for this project: October 2017

9. SCHOLARLY REVIEW:

(a) Please check one:

I. The research has undergone scholarly review by thesis committee, departmental review committee, peer review committee or some other equivalent (Specify review type – e.g., departmental research committee, supervisor, CIHR, SSHRC, OHTN, etc.): Doctoral supervisory committee II. The research will undergo scholarly review prior to funding (Specify review committee – e.g., departmental research committee, SSHRC, CIHR peer-review committee, etc.): III. The research will not undergo scholarly review (Please note that all research greater than minimal risk requires scholarly review)

(b) If box I or II above was checked, please specify if:

The review was/will be specific to this application

The review was/will be part of a larger grant

UT - ROCO-HREP – Application Form for Supervised/Sponsored Research 3 of 24

218

10. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

(a) Will the researcher(s), members of the research team, and/or their partners or immediate family members: (i) Receive any personal benefits (e.g., financial benefit such as remuneration, intellectual property rights, rights of employment, consultancies, board membership, share ownership, stock options, etc.) as a result of or in connection with this study? Yes No (ii) If Yes, please provide further details and discuss how any real, potential or perceived conflicts of interest will be managed during the project. (Do not include conference and travel expense coverage, or other benefits which are considered standard for the conduct of research.)

(b) Describe any restrictions regarding access to or disclosure of information (during or at the end of the study) that have been placed on the investigator(s). These restrictions include controls placed by the sponsor, funding body, advisory or steering committee.

N/A

(c) Where relevant, please explain any pre-existing relationship between the researcher(s) and the researched (e.g., instructor-student; manager-employee; clinician-patient; minister-congregant). Please pay special attention to relationships in which there may be a power differential – actual or perceived.

For research that includes participants, it is important to indicate any pre-existing relationships between researcher and participant, and to address any possible power dynamics that may come into effect in the research. In this instance, I am personally acquainted with interview participant Kelly Snow, who works for City Planning’s Division of the Environment, and with the group of persons who worked on the Toronto Green Standard (TGS). Our relationship is as friends, but also as employer-employee, since I have worked as a Teaching Assistant during several courses that he teaches in Environmental Planning at the University of Toronto Scarborough. Of course, given the preexisting relationship as employer-employee, one would expect that there is a power dynamic based on being a subordinate. Technically, this power dynamic does exist, since I am in an assistant role where I mark papers and exams for his courses. However, there have not been instances where I feel I am being subordinated. Therefore, although power relations of employer-employee do exist, just as power relations exist in all in all relationships (Foucault, 1982), they are not noticeable, and will not affect a researcher-participant dynamic. At the same time, our pre-existing relationship as friends has impacted the research, in that Kelly has already expressed his willingness to participate in an interview. Based on our established trusting relationship, it is also more likely that his co-workers will be interested in participating in the research. However, it is important that each participant does not feel pressured to be involved in the project. Kelly is well aware that his participation is optional, yet he has already been encouraging and helpful in designing the research questions. For Kelly and the other participants, the Recruitment Emails and Information and Consent letter’s will be clear that participation is optional, so that recruits do not feel pressured to participate.

Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. In H. Dreyfus, & P. Rabinow (Eds.), Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics (pp. 208-228). Brighton, UK: Harvester Press.

SECTION B – SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED RESEARCH

11. RATIONALE

Describe the purpose and scholarly rationale for the proposed project. State the hypotheses/research questions to be examined. The rationale for doing the study must be clear. Please include references in this section.

UT - ROCO-HREP – Application Form for Supervised/Sponsored Research 4 of 24

219

Context/Problem Statement In the wake of the persistent effects of climate change and recent events such as 2015’s Paris Agreement, environmental policy has emerged at the forefront of international politics. Further, with global urban populations exceeding rural populations for the first time in 2009 (United Nations, 2015), cities are increasingly contributing to climate change, while simultaneously representing key sites for innovative environmental policy frameworks (Watts et al., 2015). To mitigate climate change and its associated socio- ecological distresses, politicians and scholars alike have underlined the significance of understanding the implications of environmental policy at the social, cultural, and economic levels, especially in ever-expanding urban settings (Foster, 2015; Rapoport & Dinar, 2013). As Canada’s largest municipality, Toronto represents a critical site for the implementation of environmental policy that can influence environmental politics at the national and international levels. However, research has yet to thoroughly explore the overarching influences and implications of Toronto’s environmental policy frameworks. Yet, without such understanding, the social, cultural, and political-economic dynamics that affect, and are affected by, local environmental policy remain unchecked, allowing for the potential perpetuation of the ecological problems that policy is meant to avert. My research aims to fill this gap by analyzing the influences and implications of the Toronto Green Standard framework (TGS). Implemented by the City of Toronto Planning Division in 2013, the TGS strives to reduce “future infrastructure demands and environmental impacts making a healthier, more livable city” (City of Toronto Planning Division, 2015). The guidelines affect all new development in Toronto, representing a pivotal environmental policy that will shape the city’s future.

Theoretical Approach/Research Questions The project will utilise a Foucauldian theoretical lens, which has strongly influenced the conceptual framework, the methodology, and the research questions. The research approach for this project aligns with Foucault’s (1972, 1980) descriptions of the archaeology and genealogy of knowledge, and especially centers on his notions of discourse. For Foucault, discourse underlines the relationship between institutional knowledge production and power. With this approach in mind, the research will explore environmental policy through the following main research question: • What discourses can be identified as influential in the TGS and its processes of production? And subquestions: • Who or what is being served by the reproduction of these discourses? • Who or what is being left out? • What are the implications of these discourses for understandings of urban environmental policy?

Significance of Research My thesis aims to explore, and especially question, the overarching discourses that influence, and are being reproduced by, the TGS, and to discuss the implications of these discourses for the broader contexts of urban environmental policy. By focusing on discourse, the research will gather and analyze data pertinent to the political and economic forces that affect policy, and the knowledges that policy reinforces and reproduces. The research strives to benefit the participant community, Toronto’s municipal policy makers, by contributing to understandings of the social, political, and ecological implications of the recently implemented policy framework. These findings are especially critical as Toronto is the first city in North America to introduce a Green Roof Bylaw, which is part of the TGS (City Planning Division of the Environment, 2016).

The research does not aim to attribute policy discourse to the individual participants, but to the systems that shape mainstream environmental politics, and are therefore being expressed through environmental policies such as the TGS. The research will particularly zone in on prevalent environmental policy discourses, which are described in the Literature Review chapter of the thesis proposal. Environmental discourse research elucidates hierarchical, globalized, or gendered power relations that are being reinforced and reproduced by institutions and policy (Hajer, 1995; Selin, 2003). As exemplified throughout the proposal’s literature review, environmental policy discourse is indicative of the major political and economic forces and beliefs that shape mainstream politics. The research aims to identify and discuss these discourses, and to draw attention to the discourses and knowledges that have been excluded. Notably, the majority of the literatures in the field of environmental policy discourse were authored over ten years ago. As discourse is constantly evolving and shifting (Foucault, 1972), discussions surrounding environmental discourse should also be evolving, especially in light of recent international events. My research aims to update this body of literature, and to contribute from Toronto, an ever-expanding urban environment.

UT - ROCO-HREP – Application Form for Supervised/Sponsored Research 5 of 24

220

Further, in line with the Foucauldian framework, the research aims to identify and question discourse that appears natural. Discourse only wields power on the basis of being “truth”, and must exclude other knowledges in order to do so (Foucault, 1980). While the origins of discourse are “so secret and so fundamental that it can never be quite grasped” (Foucault, 1972, p. 23), the Foucauldian methodologies of genealogy and archaeology are means of identifying underlying discourse, not only for “what is said,” but for the “never-said.” By questioning the “never-said” of the prevalent discourses that shape the TGS, I intend to discuss who or what is being served, and the groups or knowledges that are being excluded by urban environmental policy discourse. Following a review of Foucauldian literature, I have produced my own interpretation of a Foucauldian analytic method. By devising this Foucauldian analytic framework, I seek to contribute to the field of Foucauldian methodologies. Overall, the research aims to contribute new findings and discussions to several fields: Foucauldian methodologies, environmental discourses, and urban environmental policy. The latter of these fields is constantly evolving, and is of increasing significance as cities across the globe are becoming key players in issues and strategies surrounding climate change.

References

City of Toronto Planning Division. (2015). Toronto Green Standard. Retrieved from http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=f85552cc66061410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD

City Planning Division of the Environment. (2016). Green roof bylaw. Retrieved from http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly

Foster, J.B. (2015). The great capitalist Climacteric: Marxism and "system change not climate change". Monthly Review, 67(6).

Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge [L'archéologie du savoir] (A. Sheridan Smith Trans.). London, UK: Tavistock Publications.

Foucault, M. (1980). In Gordon C., Marshall L., Mepham J. and Soper K. (Eds.), Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977 (C. Gordon Trans.). Brighton, UK: Harvester Press.

Hajer, M. (1995). The politics of environmental discourse: Ecological modernization and the policy process. New York, NY: Clarendon Press.

Rapoport A., Dinar A. (Eds.) (2013). Analyzing global environmental issues: Theoretical and experimental applications and their policy implications. New York, NY: Routledge.

Selin, H. (2003). Introduction. In H. Selin, & A. Kalland (Eds.), Nature across cultures: Views of nature and the environment in non-western cultures (pp. xix). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). (2016). The Paris Agreement. Retrieved from http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9485.php

Watts, M., Fernandes, A., Schultz, S., Bailey, T., Alexander, J., Vines, K., & Huxley, R. (2015). C40 cities: Potential for climate action. London, UK: C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group.

12. METHODS

(a)Please describe all formal and informal procedures to be used. Describe the data to be collected, where and how they will be obtained and how they will be analyzed.

Research Methods For this project, data collection and analysis will be conducted through qualitative research methods. Qualitative methods are the most suitable for the research goals, as they provide means of determining explanations for certain relationships and processes (Scheyvens & Storey, 2006). In this case, I will be exploring the processes and relationships that contributed to the production of, and were reproduced by, the

UT - ROCO-HREP – Application Form for Supervised/Sponsored Research 6 of 24

221

TGS. The qualitative research methods that I will be using for data collection are primarily document analysis and interviews. Additionally, observations of physical environments and practices will be documented throughout the research process, and these observations will also contribute data.

The goal of each primary research method is to attain texts, directly within documents, or through transcribed interviews or recorded observations. The methods of document analysis and interviews will occur within the same period of time, during early to mid-2017. During this time period, each method will supplement the other with more data. For instance, an initial document analysis of the TGS will inform a portion of the interview questions, and interview answers will further indicate important documents for analysis. Texts gathered through data collection will be studied for important themes and statements, which will be analyzed according to a process discussed later in this chapter. In the upcoming paragraphs, I will describe the details and significance of each research method.

Document analysis In early 2017, the project will begin with an analysis of the TGS and its other relevant documents that are available on the City Planning website. This initial analysis will contribute important findings to the research, and will also delineate some of the questions to be used in the interview guides. Throughout the duration of the research process, other documents will be added as sources of data, especially as they are suggested and provided by interview participants. Each document will be analyzed for themes and statements, and accorded to a detailed process described in the Data Analysis paragraph below. In addition to document analysis, interviews will serve as important sources of data.

Interviews: Overview Following an initial document analysis of the TGS, as described above, I will be conducting semi-structured interviews with City Planning members, and other relevant persons who contributed to the processes behind the TGS. Importantly, questions for interviews will revolve around the research questions, as well as data that is accrued through document analysis. The aim of the interviews is to gather data in order to better identify and assess the influences of the TGS, especially by identifying and questioning discourses. I will be asking participants about their involvement in the creation of the TGS, the processes of production leading up to the finalized document, and what influenced their decisions for the document. Ultimately, interviews strive to answer the research questions, however the findings from interviews may be significant enough to formulate new sub research questions to follow up on through additional data collection via document analysis, interviews, or field observation.

I will first recruit and interview persons who work for the City of Toronto, and are contactable through my friend and employer Kelly Snow, and whose information is available on the City of Toronto website. In naming certain groups or experts that influenced their decisions, such as the green roof experts or members of environmental NGOs, I will also seek to recruit these additional key players as interview participants. Beyond unpacking the issues presented by the research questions, the goal of interviews will be to follow up on data that is found, and discourses that are identified, through the initial document analyses. Therefore, the initial document analysis of the TGS will contribute to informing the specific set of interview questions. Further, following initial interviews with persons at the City of Toronto, I will most likely add or modify questions to ask upcoming participants based on these initial findings. Essentially, my interview questions are not set in stone at this point, prior to conducting to research, and will be developed throughout the early stages of conducting research. At this stage I am able to draft a Sample Interview Guide (Appendix A).

Notably, many interview questions will be left open ended to allow for unexpected and free-flowing answers from participants. I will also leave room for probing for further answers, such as by asking participants to “tell me more” about a particular answer. Interviews will be conducted through an approximate eight-month period from February to October 2017, during which I will also be analyzing the data obtained from all three research methods. Each interview participant will receive a Recruitment Email and Information and Consent Document, both of which are described later in this Application.

Interviews: Process Interviews will take place at a time and location of the participant’s choosing within the downtown Toronto area. Interview sites will mostly take place in public locations, near the City Planning office in Metro Hall, located at 55 John Street. There will be no set time limit for each interview, however 45 minutes to one hour

UT - ROCO-HREP – Application Form for Supervised/Sponsored Research 7 of 24

222

will be used as the approximation provided in the Recruitment Email. Participants will also have the option of answering questions over telephone, Skype, or email. However, given the office location of the participants, and that downtown Toronto is easily accessible for the researcher, most interviews are expected to be in person.

I will be audio recording interviews using the QuickTime program on my personal laptop, or the Samsung Recording software on my phone. In addition to the password required to access my laptop, all audio files will be password protected when saved, as will transcribed documents. Audio recordings will be deleted once they are transcribed, to protect from any possible identification of participants’ voices. I will also be writing down any field observations in a personal notebook, if applicable. Field notes will not contain names of participants, but will be identified by the date and time. Interviews will be semi-structured, guided by the set of questions in Appendix A, which will be approved by the manager, Sharon Hill. Following the interviews, I will be transcribing them onto my personal, password protected laptop. If participants choose to conduct interviews over the telephone, this same process of audio recording and transcribing will apply. For participants who wish to answer questions over email, I will be downloading the emails and saving them as password protected documents. I will also delete the email interviews from my Inbox, so that the downloaded transcripts are the only documents with participant answers. All transcripts will only be accessible to myself, and each participant, as I will be sending analysis results and discussion to my supervisory committee, instead of the raw transcripts.

Following interviews, participants will be able to forward my information to any other contacts that they deem important to study. These additional persons will be able to contact me if they wish, whereby I will send them the Recruitment and Informed Consent, and continue with the same interview process as described for City Planning members. Participants will be able to review transcripts, and omit any items that they wish. Once transcripts are approved by each participant, I will be analyzing them according to the analysis process outlined below. Following analysis, a summary of findings and results will be made accessible to each participant over email. While the process of approving the transcripts and results is an important ethical consideration, it is also imperative to note that my research does not seek to compromise the positions of the participants in any form. Information sought during interviews will be non-controversial, and I will not be utilising any potentially controversial information in my thesis. Participants will also have the option of having their real names replaced by a pseudonym, to protect their identity. Further, by utilising a Foucauldian framework, emphasis of any social critique will be on broader social practices and discourses, removed from attribution to individual participants.

Observations During Field Work Within the time that I am collecting data through document analysis and interviews, I will also be taking field notes. Field notes will be my own personal commentary based on observations made at The City of Toronto, or other institutional sites, and during interviews. I also plan on visiting sites where the TGS’s Second Tier of Guidelines has been met, and tax breaks have been rewarded. Many of these sites are listed on the TGS website, and I believe that material observations at these sites can provide useful data. For instance, based on meeting a high number of the TGS’s sustainability criteria, buildings are provided with a metal plaque to affix in their lobbies.

With approval from pertinent managing staff, I plan to visit a few of these sites and take notes based on material objects. No persons will be questioned or observed at these sites for the purposes of the research. These notes will be recorded in a paper notebook, and later transcribed into my password protected file folder on my laptop. In taking field notes based on physical observations and material practices, the goal is to further understand the implications of the TGS, as enacted by developments throughout Toronto. By using physical observations as sources of data, I hope to add to or confirm findings from the document analysis and interviews, and to increase the scope of the research, even if it is only a minor increase.

Data Analysis Following a review of Foucauldian policy research, I have devised a methodology for the analysis of texts, in order to determine and question the discourses being purveyed through environmental policy. The first step is to review and compile relevant environmental discourses, so that findings can be better understood (Fairclough, 2003; Mayring, 2000), as can be found in my thesis proposal’s lit review. Second, texts, including the TGS and interview transcripts, are analyzed for “discursive truth objects” – objects that represent the

UT - ROCO-HREP – Application Form for Supervised/Sponsored Research 8 of 24

223

truths purveyed by discourse (Graham, 2005). From here, the analysis questions what the truth objects are excluding, and moves to local sites to observe the web of effects of discourse (Hook, 2001). Ultimately, the goal is to identify the discourses that have shaped the TGS, and to better understand the sociological implications of these discourses in Toronto.

The results of the data analysis will be discussed in my thesis and thesis defense, which I aim to complete in the summer of 2018. Following the thesis defense, results may also be edited and submitted for publication in one or more academic journals.

(b)Attach a copy of all questionnaires, interview guides and/or any other instruments.

(c) Include a list of appendices here for all additional materials submitted (e.g., Appendix A – Informed Consent; Appendix B – Interview Guide, etc.):

Appendix A – Sample Interview Guide Appendix B – Sample Recruitment Email Appendix C – Information and Consent Document

13. PARTICIPANTS, DATA AND/OR BIOLOGICAL MATERIALS

(a) Describe the participants to be recruited, list the eligibility criteria, and indicate the estimated sample size (i.e. min-max # of participants). Where applicable, please also provide a rationale for your choice in sample size and/or sample size calculation.

Interviews: Sampling Interviewees will be selected through purposive and snowball techniques. The City Planning members who worked on the TGS team will be contacted and asked if they are willing to participate in interviews. Following interviews with City Planning members, participants will have the option of passing my information along to other key informants, who may then contact me if they are willing to contribute additional information, or participate in an interview. At this stage, it is difficult to gage a sample size, but I will be aiming to conduct five to ten semi-structured interviews. In the City Planning environmental division, there are roughly four people who ultimately set the TGS guidelines. The sample will include these City Planning division members, depending on the number that are willing to participate, and other key informants referred throughout the process. Although the interview sample size is expected to be quite small, qualitative, semi-structured interviews will allow for in-depth discussions with participants, which are expected to contribute substantive data. Projected sample size may also increase as the research progresses, to an approximate maximum of 20 interviews.

Eligibility Criteria For the sample population, recruitment will only be based on one inclusion criterion, which is involvement in the production of the TGS. Anyone who contributed to the production of the TGS in some way will be eligible for an interview, as they may have information that is valuable to the project. Therefore, persons who are eligible for interviews will all be employees of City Planning, City of Toronto municipal government, or a partnering agency. This implies that all interview participants will be adults, and there will be no further inclusion or exclusion criteria based on age, gender, or cultural background.

(b) Where the research involves extraction or collection of personally identifiable information, please describe the purpose, from whom the information will be obtained, what it will include, and how permission to access the data is being sought. (Strategies for recruitment are to be described in section #15.)

The goal of the study is to elaborate on broad environmental discourses, and I do not seek to attribute these to one single person, but to the more general processes of institutional reproduction. The information gathered is for the purposes of institutional research, instead of individualized research that necessitates findings based on a participant’s age, cultural background, or gender. Therefore, for the purposes of the study, I will not be gathering specific participant information, such as gender, ethnic background, or exact age. I will only be gathering participant names, contact information, and roles of employment, for the purposes of

UT - ROCO-HREP – Application Form for Supervised/Sponsored Research 9 of 24

224

organizing and utilising data from interviews. However, participants have the option of having their names and positions anonymized and replaced with pseudonyms for the thesis, and any subsequent presentations or publications. In these instances where participants opt for remaining anonymous, only I will have access to participants’’ names and occupations. This information will remain in a password-protected file on a password-protected laptop, and will be deleted ten years after the defense of my thesis.

Names of persons who work for City Planning are already available online, and I am already acquainted with some of them, so I do not require permission to access their names. For further recruits beyond city planning, I will leave it up to them to contact me, so I also do not need permission to access their names. As for accessing their work roles and utilising these as well as their names within the study, permission will be requested on the Information and Consent letter. Participants will be made aware of their option to remain anonymous in the Recruitment Email, and will be able to select this option by checking a box on the Information and Consent document. They will be able to change their minds at any time before the results are published in the thesis or journal publications.

(c) Is there any group or individual-level vulnerability related to the research that needs to be mitigated (for example, difficulties understanding informed consent, history of exploitation by researchers, power differential between the researcher and the potential participant)? If so, please provide further details below.

There is no group or individual level vulnerability amongst the target population. Participants will be employed persons of the City of Toronto or a relevant agency, and will not be targeted or identified based on any vulnerable forms of identity, such as ethnicity that links them to a minority population. Participants’ status or position within their company will not be vulnerable, and this will be made very clear in the Recruitment Email and Information and Consent documents. Participants will be reassured that the study will not jeopardize their positions. Information will be gathered for an analysis of institutional discourse, which does not speak to individual attributes. It will also be indicated that their supervisor, Sharon Hill, has approved of my research, under the conditions that I will not vilify the institution. Each participant will be assured that data and raw transcripts will not be accessible to any one beyond themselves (each participant) and the researcher, and that their manager will not be reviewing or have access to these transcripts. Participants will have access to their transcripts, and can approve or disapprove of any quotes that they may not want included in the data, and can withdraw their consent to participate at any time.

(d) If your research involves the collection and/or use of biological materials (e.g. blood, saliva, urine, teeth, etc.), please provide details below. Be sure to indicate how the samples will be collected and by whom.

N/A

14. EXPERIENCE OF INVESTIGATORS WITH THIS TYPE OF RESEARCH

(a)Please provide a brief description of previous experience by(i) the principal investigator/supervisor or sponsor, (ii) the research team and (iii) the people who will have direct contact with the participants. If there has not been previous experience with this type of research, please describe how the principal investigator/research team will be prepared. Only one investigator will perform this thesis research, as all recruitment emails, scheduling, interviews, and analyses will be completed by the individual researcher. My previous research experiences position me well to conduct this proposed research. The majority of my relevant research experience stems from my Master’s research, which took place through the University of Toronto. This project included defending a thesis proposal, writing interview questions, recruitment emails, informed consent documents, gathering signatures, properly storing documents, ensuring anonymity, conducting interviews over Skype and email, transcribing interviews, conducting analyses and sending results to the participants. Prior to conducting interviews, my MA research was approved by UofT’s REB, and I ensured high ethical standards prior to, during, and following my interactions with participants.

Further, I conducted similar research as a Research Assistant for my MA supervisor, Dr. Thembela Kepe, under an African Initiative research grant. This project included fieldwork in rural communities of the Eastern

UT - ROCO-HREP – Application Form for Supervised/Sponsored Research 10 of 24

225

Cape province, South Africa. Here, my role was also to prepare interview questions, conduct group interviews using a translator from a local university, transcribe, analyze and assist in publishing the results. I was also granted individual ethic’s approval from UofT’s REB for this project.

My doctoral supervisor, Dr. Jean-Paul Restoule has overseen and approved the proposed research, and will continue to do so until it is complete. Dr. Restoule is extremely well-versed in the research methods I will be using for this research, especially conducting interviews. His expertise is demonstrated by his teaching of graduate level research methods courses, such as Indigenous Research Methodologies – a course which I completed in spring 2015. He has been awarded numerous research grants during his time as a professor, including a SSHRC Partnership Development Grant (PDG) for which I am a Graduate Assistant. The PDG includes data collection via interviews in person, over email, telephone and SKYPE. As the Graduate Assistant for this project, I have helped compile the interview and ethics protocols. The project received approval from the REB in late 2016. All in all, my research experience and support from my doctoral supervisor and committee will serve as a direct asset to the proposed research, and I am confident that all ethical standards will be ensured and maintained even after the research is complete.

15. RECRUITMENT OF PARTICIPANTS

Where there is recruitment, please describe how, by whom, and from where the participants will be recruited. Where participant observation is to be used, please explain the form of insertion of the researcher into the research setting (e.g., living in a community, visiting on a bi-weekly basis, attending organized functions). If relevant, describe any translation of recruitment materials, how this will occur and whether or not those people responsible for recruitment will speak the language of the participants.

At this stage, I have already discussed my research plan with my colleague, Kelly Snow, and his manager Sharon Hill, of City Planning at the City of Toronto. They have confirmed that I may speak to the staff in City Planning who devised the TGS, however I will still be engaging in steps to ensure an ethical recruitment process. I see Kelly regularly for our work at UTSC, and he has put me in touch with his manager, Sharon. We speak over email, where I have informed her of my research goals and have been granted permission to interview her staff members. I have answered her questions and made sure she is aware she can contact me at any time with questions, preferences, or to discuss the project. The institution that I am researching, The City of Toronto, does not have their own Research Ethics Board or ethics protocol, so with her approval and the approval of UofT’s REB, I will be able to move forward with recruitment.

Upon ethics approval, I will be contacting the relevant staff members via email so as to describe my research and request their participation. This Recruitment Email (Appendix B) will be sent from my utoronto email account, and will contain information that participants need to know in order to sign the Information and Consent document (Appendix C). The email contains the title of the project, my contact information and that of my supervisor. Participants are informed that the project will both fulfill the requirements to complete my doctoral thesis, as well as benefit themselves and their institution through an understanding of the broader implications of environmental planning policy.

The Recruitment email requests a semi-structured interview that is approximately 45 minutes long, during which I will ask questions that center around the process of creating the TGS and more general conversations about environmental policy. The Recruitment Email notes that I am able to provide participants with interview questions beforehand, and highlights that participation is completely voluntary and they are free to withdraw at any time. Email recipients will be informed that they are not putting themselves at risk by participating in interviews, and that they can remain anonymous throughout the research unless they indicate otherwise.

Interview participants may refer other potential participants to me. If a participant believes someone they have worked with could be of value to my research, they can pass my information along to that person, who may then contact me. Once contacted, I will send them a Recruitment Email with the information described above, and repeat the processes of ensuring highly ethical research. Therefore, emailing persons at the City of Toronto and then having them pass my information along to other key informants are the only forms of recruitment.

UT - ROCO-HREP – Application Form for Supervised/Sponsored Research 11 of 24

226

Attach a copy of all posters, advertisements, flyers, letters, e-mail text, or telephone scripts to be used for recruitment as appendices.

16. COMPENSATION

Please see U of T’s Compensation and Reimbursement Guidelines.

(a) Will participants receive compensation for participation? Financial Yes No In-kind Yes No Other Yes No

(b) If Yes, please provide details and justification for the amount or the value of the compensation offered.

As a token of gratitude for participation, I will be providing each interviewee with a $20 gift card to Tim Horton’s or Starbucks, depending on which coffee chain they prefer. Compensation is not required by City Planning or UofT’s ethics guidelines, but will simply be a thank you for participating, as I will greatly appreciate willingness to participate for the purposes of my research. Twenty dollars will be an appropriate amount given the small approximate sample size, the personal budget of the researcher, and because it is a token amount that will not unduly influence decisions to participate. Gift cards will be handed to each participant at the time of the interview. For interviews conducted over telephone or skype, gift cards can be mailed to participants.

(c) If No, please explain why compensation is not possible or appropriate.

(d) Where there is a withdrawal clause in the research procedure, if participants choose to withdraw, how will compensation be affected?

There will be no consequences for withdrawal from the study. Following interviews, if participants decide to withdraw from the study, they will not be required to return the gift card.

SECTION C –DESCRIPTION OF THE RISKS AND BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED RESEARCH

17. POSSIBLE RISKS

(a) Please indicate all potential risks to participants as individuals or as members of a community that may arise from this research:

(i) Physical risks (e.g., any bodily contact or administration of any substance):Yes No

(ii) Psychological/emotional risks (e.g., feeling uncomfortable, embarrassed, or upset):Yes No

(iii) Social risks (e.g., loss of status, privacy and/or reputation): Yes No

(iv) Legal risks (e.g., apprehension or arrest, subpoena): Yes No

(b) Please briefly describe each of the risks noted above and outline the steps that will be taken to manage and/or minimize them.

There are few perceived risks for the participants in this project. Participants will be reassured that the study will not jeopardize their positions. Information will be gathered for an analysis of institutional discourse, which does not speak to individual attributes. It will also be indicated that their supervisor, Sharon Hill, has approved of my research, under the conditions that I will not vilify the institution. Participants will also have access to

UT - ROCO-HREP – Application Form for Supervised/Sponsored Research 12 of 24

227

their transcripts, and can approve or disapprove of any quotes that they may not want included in the data, and can withdraw their consent to participate at any time. Interview questions center on environmental policy and will not be emotionally or psychologically distressing. Participants are able to review questions before interviews, as well as transcripts after interviews, and make any amendments to answers that they wish.

At this stage, the only identifiable possible risk to participants is the loss of privacy as the interviews will be most likely be conducted in public spaces. To mitigate this risk, the recruitment and consent letters offer participants the option of choosing their interview location. This way, participants can choose a public location such as a café or restaurant near their work, or a private office (mine or theirs), depending on what they are more comfortable with. Prior to interviews, participants are also reminded that they do not have to answer questions or discuss anything that they are not comfortable with in order to mitigate the risks of loss of privacy.

18. POSSIBLE BENEFITS

· Describe any potential direct benefits to participants from their involvement in the project · Describe any potential direct benefits to the community (e.g., capacity building) · Comment on the potential benefits to the scientific/scholarly community or society that would justify involvement of participants in this study

Persons recruited for interviews will benefit from participation by engaging in conversations that are important within their field of work: conversations around the production of environmental policy and the work of cities in mitigating climate change. The research is directly relevant to the participants’ lines of work, and has the potential to contribute important findings to the field of environmental policy. The topics discussed and the goals of the research are of ever-increasing importance, as urban environments are at the forefront of mitigating climate change through environmental policy (Rosenzweig et al., 2011). Participants will benefit from being directly involved in these conversations, and will ideally gain further insight into the topics, especially when they receive a summarized copy of the thesis results.

Summarized results for participants will also include segments of my literature review that compares the TGS to similar urban environmental policies in other municipalities. Summarized discussions of urban environmental policy from other global cities will likely prove useful to participants. Ideally, participants will find value in the thesis results, and if they are interested in continuing discussions after the research results have been finalized, it will be my pleasure to answer any questions and further the conversations.

SECTION D –INFORMED CONSENT

19.CONSENT PROCESS

(a) Describe the process that will be used to obtain informed consent and explain how it will be recorded. Please note that it is the quality of the consent, not the form that is important. The goal is to ensure that potential participants understand to what they are consenting.

(b) If the research involves extraction or collection of personally identifiable information from or about a research participant, please describe how consent from the individuals or authorization from the data custodian (e.g., medical records department, district school board) will be obtained. a) Recipients of the Recruitment Email will be able to respond to indicate if they are, or are not, willing to participate in an interview. Persons who are willing to participate will be provided with an Information and Consent letter (APPENDIX C), explaining the nature of the study, how interviews will be conducted and recorded, how interview transcripts will be utilised, how they may access the results, and their rights to remain anonymous and to withdraw from the study at any time before the thesis is finalized. Each Information and Consent letter will be typed/printed on OISE/UofT letterhead. The researcher will obtain consent from all of the participants who are interviewed, as all participants will be required to sign a consent form. All participants will be staff at the City of Toronto or affiliated organizations in Toronto, and therefore all use English in the workplace, enabling them to comprehend the Information letters. For each individual interview, there will be

UT - ROCO-HREP – Application Form for Supervised/Sponsored Research 13 of 24

228

two copies of the Information and Consent form – one to be kept by the interviewee, and the other to be kept and stored safely by the researcher. Printed forms will be signed by participants in person before each interview, or will be sent to participants from my utoronto email address and signed electronically if conducting interviews over the telephone or Skype. Hard copies of signed consent documents will be stored in a locked drawer in my OISE office desk, and shredded ten years after my thesis defense. Electronic copies of signed consent documents will be stored in a password-protected folder that will be deleted ten years after my thesis defense. Data collected during interviews, including personal information, will be extracted from the participant only after they have given their consent to do so. Interviews will be transcribed onto a personal, password- protected laptop, and stored in a password-protected folder. Audio recordings of interviews will be deleted once they are transcribed. b) The Information and Consent letters will clearly indicate a selection for participants to remain anonymous in the results of the study. Beside this option, there is the option for participants to give permission to include their name/occupation in the results. The body text of the Information and Consent letter indicates that the research does not aim to shed a negative light on individuals or the institution they work for, and that each participant can review and approve the results before they are published. Participants will be informed that they can contact me with any questions at any time before or after interviews, and can verify information with my doctoral supervisor, whose email will also be provided. Questions regarding anonymity, choices to change this option, or to withdraw from the study will be happily answered and respected.

20. CONSENT DOCUMENTS

(a)Attach an Information Letter/Consent Form For details about the required elements in the information letter and consent form, please refer to our informed consent guide (http://www.research.utoronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/documents/2014/10/GUIDE- FOR-INFORMED-CONSENT-V-Oct-2014.pdf)

Additional documentation regarding consent should be provided such as: - screening materials introductory letters, letters of administrative consent or authorization

(b) If any of the information collected in the screening process - prior to full informed consent to participate in the study - is to be retained from those who are later excluded or refuse to participate in the study, please state how potential participants will be informed of this course of action and whether they will have the right to refuse to allow this information to be kept.

Persons who refuse to participate, are later excluded or choose to withdraw from the study prior to the publication of results will be removed without consequence. Potential participants are informed of this in the Information and Consent letter.

21. COMMUNITY AND/OR ORGANIZATIONAL CONSENT, OR CONSENT BY AN AUTHORIZEDPARTY

(a) If the research is taking place within a community or an organization which requires that formal consent be sought prior to the involvement of individual participants, describe how consent will be obtained and attach any relevant documentation. If consent will not be sought, please provide a justification and describe any alternative forms of consultation that may take place.

No formal consent is required for the participants’ community/organization in this study.

(b) If any or all of the participants are children and/or individuals that may lack the capacity to consent, describe the process by which capacity/competency will be assessed and/or, the proposed alternate source of consent.

N/A

UT - ROCO-HREP – Application Form for Supervised/Sponsored Research 14 of 24

229

(c) If an authorized third party will be used to obtain consent:

i) Submit a copy of the permission/information letter to be provided to the person(s) providing the alternative consent

ii) Describe the assent process for participants and attach the assent letter.

N/A

22. DEBRIEFING and DISSEMINATION

(a) If deception or intentional non-disclosure will be used in the study, provide justification. Please consult the Guidelines for the Use of Deception and Debriefing in Research

N/A

(b) Please provide a copy of the written debriefing form, if applicable.

(c) If participants and/or communities will be given the option of withdrawing their data following the debriefing, please describe this process.

N/A

(d) Please describe what information/feedback will be provided to participants and/or communities after their participation in the project is complete (e.g., report, poster presentation, pamphlet, etc.) and note how participants will be able to access this information.

The results of the research will be made available to participants. They will not need to request results from the researcher, as I will send them results and keep them updated on any publications. Prior to the submission of my thesis, I will summarize results and email copies to each participant. Participants will have the opportunity to read over and approve results within a deadline of three weeks. Once the results are finalized, I will send resend them to participants, if they are different from the previous set of results sent. Following the defense of my thesis, I will be editing and submitting results to academic journals, and will keep my participants informed about publications and where they can be accessed.

23. PARTICIPANT WITHDRAWAL

(a) Where applicable, please describe how participants will be informed of their right to withdraw from the project and outline the procedures that will be followed to allow them to exercise this right.

The recruitment email and consent forms inform the participant that their participation in the research is completely voluntary, and that recruits have the right to refuse participation. Additionally, the interviewees will be informed that they may chose not to respond to specific questions, or to remove themselves from the study at any time. To exercise this right, participants may state at any time that they would like to withdraw from the interview, at which point the interview will be stopped. Participants will also be informed of their right to withdraw orally at the beginning of each interview. If a participant chooses to withdraw from a study after the interview, results that pertain directly to them will be removed from the study, and their transcripts will be deleted. There will be no negative consequences for the participant if she/he withdraws from the study.

(b) Indicate what will be done with the participant’s data and any consequences which withdrawal may have on the participant.

The data of participants who withdraw from the study will not be incorporated into any analysis. Withdrawal from the study will have no consequences for the participants. If a participant expresses the desire to withdraw from the study in the midst of an interview, the interview will be stopped immediately, and any

UT - ROCO-HREP – Application Form for Supervised/Sponsored Research 15 of 24

230

questions or concerns he or she might have will be addressed. If the participant would like the interview up until that point discarded, his or her wishes will be carried out. If a participant expresses the desire to withdraw from the study during the interview, the audio file containing the interview up until that point will be deleted, and not included in the study. If the participant chooses to withdraw after the interview, any audio files, transcripts, field notes or analysis regarding the interview and the participant will be discarded. No data collected from individuals who withdraw will be used in the study.

(c) If participants will not have the right to withdraw from the project at all, or beyond a certain point, please explain. Ensure this information is included in the consent process and consent form.

Participants have the right to withdraw from the project until the thesis is defended and finalized. After this point, participants will not be able to withdraw from the thesis results, but can still withdraw from any subsequent publications until they are published. The thesis is expected to be finalized in mid 2018, which is indicated in the Information and Consent letter.

SECTION E –CONFIDENTIALITY AND PRIVACY

24. CONFIDENTIALITY

Data security measures must be consistent with UT's Research. All identifiable electronic data that is being kept outside of a secure server environment must be encrypted.

(a) Will the data be treated as confidential? Yes No

(b) Describe the procedures to be used to protect the confidentiality of participants or informants, where applicable

Recruitment and Information and Consent letters will highlight the rights of participants, including the rights to confidentiality. For this project, if participants indicate on the Information and Consent letter that they would like to remain anonymous, I will only record their name and contact information on my password protected laptop for the purposes of recruitment and interviewing. After the interview, I will change their name to a pseudonym to apply in all uses of the data: for my thesis results, and any future presentations or publications. While undertaking fieldwork, data will remain solely in the possession of the researcher on a password- protected personal laptop. Audio recordings of interviews will be either on the researcher’s password protected and highly secure phone, on a Samsung recording software that does not connect to any server, or on QuickTime Audio on the researcher’s laptop, which also does not connect to the internet. If participants choose to conduct interviews over the telephone, this same process of audio recording and transcribing will apply. For participants who wish to answer questions over email, I will be downloading the emails and saving them as password protected documents. I will also delete the email interviews from my Inbox, so that the downloaded transcripts are the only documents with participant answers. The researcher will take precautionary measures to keep the phone/laptop/data safe and secure, either on her or stored safely in private. Once audio files are transcribed they will be deleted from the phone or laptop. The data typed/transcribed onto the personal laptop will only be accessible by the researcher, and will not be made available to any insecure server. All transcribed interviews will be saved as encrypted documents, as per UofT’s Data Security Standards. Any documents where participants’ name is indicated will remain in a password protected file folder on my laptop, and will be deleted ten years after the thesis defense. Any hard copy documents that indicate names, such as the Information and Consent signatures, will remain in a locked drawer in my desk, and will also be shredded ten years after my thesis defense.

(c) Describe any limitations to protecting the confidentiality of participants whether due to the law, the methods used, or other reasons (e.g., a duty to report)

N/A

UT - ROCO-HREP – Application Form for Supervised/Sponsored Research 16 of 24

231

25. DATA SECURITY,RETENTION AND ACCESS

(a) Describe how data (including written records, video/audio recordings, artifacts and questionnaires) will be protected during the conduct of the research and dissemination of results.

While undertaking fieldwork, data will remain solely in the possession of the researcher on a password- protected personal laptop. All identifiable electronic data that is being kept outside of a secure server will be encrypted, consistent with the standards described at: http://www.utoronto.ca/security/UTORprotect/encryption_guidelines.htm. Audio recordings of interviews will be either on the researcher’s password protected and highly secure phone, on a Samsung recording software that does not connect to any server, or on QuickTime Audio on the researcher’s laptop, which also does not connect to the internet. The researcher will take precautionary measures to keep the phone/laptop/data safe and secure, either on her or stored safely in private. Once audio files are transcribed they will be deleted from the phone or laptop. If participants choose to conduct interviews over the telephone, this same process of audio recording and transcribing will apply. For participants who wish to answer questions over email, I will be downloading the emails and saving them as password protected documents. I will also delete the email interviews from my Inbox, so that the downloaded transcripts are the only documents with participant answers. The data typed/transcribed onto the personal laptop will only be accessible by the researcher, and will not be made available to any insecure server. All transcribed interviews will be saved as encrypted documents, as per UofT’s Data Security Standards. Any documents where participants’ name is indicated will remain in a password protected file folder on my laptop, and will be deleted ten years after the thesis defense. Any hard copy documents that indicate names, such as the Information and Consent signatures, will remain in a locked drawer in my desk, and will also be shredded ten years after my thesis defense.

For the dissemination of results, I will be emailing results to participants. While their email addresses will indicate their names, these email addresses will be saved in a folder in my password protected utoronto email account. I will also ask participants if they would like to receive the results during the interview or any interview follow up. If they do not wish me to email them results for confidentiality reasons, such as a shared email or unsecured email server, then I will respect their wishes.

(b) Explain how long data or samples will be retained. (If applicable, referring to the standard data retention practice for your discipline) Provide details of their final disposal or storage. Provide a justification if you intend to store your data for an indefinite length of time. If the data may have archival value, discuss how participants will be informed of this possibility during the consent process.

Data stored on my laptop, email account, or hard copies will be deleted ten years following my thesis defense. This will ensure enough time to use the data for upcoming research projects.

(c) If participant anonymity or confidentiality is not appropriate to this research project, please explain.

N/A

(d) If data will be shared with other researchers or users, please describe how and where the data will be stored and any restrictions that will be made regarding access.

Raw data will not be shared with any other researchers or users. My supervisor and all other reviewers of the material will only receive information that has been analyzed and discussed, at which point confidentiality measures for those who wish to remain anonymous will already have been taken. If participants wish to withdraw from the study after I have sent thesis discussions along to my supervisor, prior to the submission of the thesis, I will make modifications and ask him to delete the previous work.

SECTION F – LEVEL OF RISK AND REVIEW TYPE

See the Instructions for Ethics Review Submission Form for detailed information about the Risk Matrix.

UT - ROCO-HREP – Application Form for Supervised/Sponsored Research 17 of 24

232

26. RISK MATRIX: REVIEW TYPE BY GROUP VULNERABILITY and RESEARCH RISK

(a) Indicate the Risk Level for this project by checking the intersecting box

______Research Risk______Group Vulnerability Low Medium High

Low 1 1 2 Medium 1 2 3 High 2 3 3

(b) Explain/justify the level of research risk and group vulnerability reported above:

Group Vulnerability: Low The group vulnerability is low because my research is not targeting any particularly vulnerable populations. Instead, my study is targeting employees of the City of Toronto and affiliated persons that contributed to the TGS. Due to the prerequisite that these persons are employees, participants will be working adults, and are not being targeted based on their belonging to any particular race, ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or class.

Research Risk: Low The research risk is low because participants will only be involved in interviews which will take place in safe locations in downtown Toronto. Interviews are not related to emotional or distressing subject matter, only perspectives on environmental policy. The research does not seek to compromise the positions of the participants in any form. Information sought during interviews will be non-controversial, and I will not be utilising any potentially controversial information in my thesis. The research does not aim to shed any negative light on participants. Further, by utilising a Foucauldian framework, emphasis of any social critique will be on broader social practices and discourses, removed from attribution to individual participants. The focus of the research is on the overall aspects and theories of environmental policy, not the arguments or actions of individuals. Persons will have the opportunity to decline to participate, remain anonymous, withdraw from the study at any time, and review results before the thesis is finalized. Participants will also have the option of having their real names replaced by a pseudonym, to protect their identity.

(Please note that the final determination of Review Type and level of monitoring will be made by the reviewing University of Toronto REB)

Based on the level of risk, these are the types of ethics review that an application may receive:

Risk level= 1: Delegated Review; Risk level = 2 or 3: Full Board Review

For both delegated and full reviews (SSH&E, HS, or HIV), please submit one electronic copy of your application and all appendices (e.g., recruitment, information/consent and debriefing materials, and study instruments) as a single Word document or a pdf. Do not submit your entire research proposal. Please ensure that the electronic signatures are in place and e-mail to [email protected]

The deadline for delegated review (SSH&E or HS) is EVERY Monday, or first business day of the week, by 4 pm. Information about full REB meeting and submission due dates are posted on our website (SSH&E, Short HIV).

HIV REB reviews all applications at full board level but applies proportionate review based on the level of risk.

UT - ROCO-HREP – Application Form for Supervised/Sponsored Research 18 of 24

233

All other submissions (e.g., amendments, adverse events, and continuing review submissions) should be sent to [email protected]

SECTION G – SIGNATURES

27. PRIVACY REGULATIONS

My signature as Investigator, in Section G of this application form, confirms that I am aware of, understand, and will comply with all relevant laws governing the collection and use of personally identifiable information in research. I understand that for research involving extraction or collection of personally identifiable information, provincial, national and/or international laws may apply and that any apparent mishandling of personally identifiable information must be reported to the Office of Research Ethics.

For U of T student researchers, my signature confirms that I am a registered student in good standing with the University of Toronto. My project has been reviewed and approved by my advisory committee or equivalent (where applicable). If my status as a student changes, I will inform the Office of Research Ethics.

Signature of Investigator: ______Date: Jan 13, 2017

***For Graduate Students, the signature of the Faculty Supervisor is required. For Post-Doctoral Fellows and Visiting Professors or Researchers, the signature of the Faculty Sponsor is required. In addition to the supervisor/sponsor, the chair or the dean of the UoT sponsor’s/supervisor’s department is required to approve and sign the form***

As the UofT Faculty Supervisor of this project, my signature confirms that I have reviewed and approve the scientific merit of the research project and this ethics application submission. I will provide the necessary supervision to the student researcher throughout the project, to ensure that all procedures performed under the research project will be conducted in accordance with relevant University, provincial, national or international policies and regulations that govern research involving human subjects. This includes ensuring that the level of risk inherent to the project is managed by the level of research experience that the student has, combined with the extent of oversight that will be provided by the Faculty Supervisor and/or On-site Supervisor.

As the UofT Faculty Sponsor for this project, my signature confirms that I have reviewed and approve of the research project and will assume responsibility, as the University representative, for this research project. I will ensure that all procedures performed under the project will be conducted in accordance with all relevant University, provincial, national or international policies and regulations that govern research involving human participants.

Signature of Faculty Supervisor/Sponsor: ______Date:

As the Departmental Chair/Dean, my signature confirms that I am aware of the requirements for scholarly review and that the ethics application for this research has received appropriate review prior to submission.

In addition, my administrative unit will follow guidelines and procedures to ensure compliance with all relevant University, provincial, national or international policies and regulations that govern research involving human participants. My signature also reflects the willingness of the department, faculty or division to administer the research funds, if there are any, in accordance with University, regulatory agency and sponsor agency policies.

UT - ROCO-HREP – Application Form for Supervised/Sponsored Research 19 of 24

234

Appendix E – Sample Recruitment Email

Dear ______,

My name is Danielle Tessaro and I am a doctoral student and researcher at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto. As part of my doctoral thesis, Environmental Policy and Discourse: A Foucauldian Exploration of the Toronto Green Standard, I am conducting research that aims to study the influences of urban environmental policy. This research is focused on the Toronto Green Standard (TGS) as a case study, and aims to explore urban environmental policy for its role in mitigating climate change in global cities, such as Toronto. The study aims to be of value to yourself and urban environmental policy makers, by contributing to understandings of the influences and implications of urban environmental policy, which plays a vital role in the international environmental politics.

Based on your expertise and important contributions to the TGS, you are invited to participate in an interview. If you wish to participate, interviews will be scheduled at your convenience in person at a location that works best for you, over the telephone, or Skype, and will be approximately 45 minutes long. Interview questions revolve around the creation of the TGS and environmental policy in general. The goal of interviews is not to gather and assess information that is pertinent to you as an individual, but to the broader institution and environmental policy. Conversations during interviews will be flexible, and an interview guide can be sent to you beforehand. As a token of appreciation, I will be providing all participants with a $20 gift card to either Tim Horton’s or Starbucks at the time of the interview.

Participation in this research project is completely voluntary and you may withdraw from the study at any time without consequence. This study is in no way associated with any organization or institution, other than the University of Toronto. There are no foreseeable risks for participation in this study, except for the loss of privacy if you opt to conduct interviews in a public setting (such as a café or restaurant). Interview location is your choice, and you may choose a private location if you are concerned with privacy. Either way, you do not have to discuss any topic or answer any questions you are not comfortable with. If you choose to participate, I will provide the option for your name/occupation to remain anonymous for all

235

forms of data usage and sharing. Upon completion of the analysis, results of the study will be sent to all participants, at which time you will be able to approve or disapprove of the use of the information that you provided.

Please contact the researcher with any questions or concerns, or with your acceptance or refusal to participate in an interview, at [email protected] or 647.390.4022. To verify the researcher, the thesis supervisor Dr. Jean-Paul Restoule may be contacted at [email protected]. The Office of Research Ethics at the University of Toronto may also be contacted with any questions about your rights as a participant at [email protected] or 416.946.3273.

Sincerely,

Danielle Tessaro

Doctoral Candidate, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, UofT [email protected], 647.390.4022

236

Appendix F – Information and Consent Form

Study Title: Environmental Policy and Discourse: A Foucauldian Exploration of the Toronto Green Standard

Researcher: Danielle Tessaro, Doctoral Candidate, Adult Education and Community Development, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at The University of Toronto, 252 Bloor St. W., Toronto, ON, M5S 1V6, [email protected]

Purpose of Research: To better understand the influences and implications of urban environmental policy by conducting a case study on the Toronto Green Standard (TGS)

What the Participant Will Be Asked to Do: You are being asked to participate in research for a Doctoral thesis project. During a 45 minute, face-to-face, semi-structured interview, you will be asked a series of questions relating to your perspectives on environmental policy and the TGS.

Potential Benefits: Your interview will contribute to doctoral research and future publications in the field of urban environmental policy. The research aims to expand knowledge for urban policy-makers, by better understanding the socio-political, economic and ecological influences and implications of local policy.

Compensation: As a token of my appreciation, you will receive a $20 gift card for your participation to either Tim Hortons or Starbucks.

Potential Risks: The researcher does not foresee risks associated with your participation in this study. The research does not aim to shed a negative light on individuals or relevant institutions. Each participant can review and approve the results before they are published.

Confidentiality: All information you supply during the research will be held in confidence. Unless you sign your consent, your name and/or occupation will not be documented and will not appear in any report or publication of the research. Interviews will be recorded on the researcher’s phone or laptop. These audio files will be transcribed and deleted. Transcribed documents will be stored on a private, password-protected laptop, only accessible to the researcher.

Voluntary Participation & Withdrawal: Participation in this research project is completely voluntary. You may choose not to respond to specific questions or to remove yourself from the interview, as well as to have your responses removed and withdraw from the study at any time prior to submission of the thesis (June 2018).

Contact Information: Please do not hesitate to contact Danielle Tessaro with questions or concerns at 647.390.4022 or [email protected]. To verify or report the researcher, the research supervisor, Dr. Jean-Paul Restoule, may be contacted at [email protected]. The Office of Research Ethics at the University of Toronto has reviewed this research and may also be contacted with any questions about your rights as a participant ([email protected], 416.946.3273).

237

Documentation of Informed Consent:

I ______consent to voluntarily participate in this interview conducted by Danielle Tessaro. I have understood the nature of this project and wish to participate. I am not waiving any of my legal rights by signing this form. My signature indicates my willingness to participate.

I give permission to disclose my occupation/institutional affiliation: Initials ______

I give permission to disclose my name: Initials ______

______

Participant’s Signature Date

______

Researcher’s Signature Date

238

Appendix G – Sample Interview Guide

Interview introduction: introduce myself and my research, ensure signed forms, interview will be approx. 45 minutes, participant can stop at any time, can skip over questions, and can ask me questions. Interview will be recorded, but you can omit what you want from recording. Participant keeps a copy of the form and interview questions, and receives the gift card.

Questions

1. What’s your role at the City of Toronto b) how long have you been working here? c) what is your department’s role?

2. Describe your involvement in the TGS, past and current. b) describe your experiences working on the TGS

3. To you, what is the purpose of the TGS? b) what are the priorities? c) what are the benefits of the TGS?

4. What’s your/your department’s vision or understanding of sustainability? b) what’s your/your department’s vision of development?

5. Have your understandings of sustainability and/or development changed over the years that you have been working on the TGS?

6. How does your department’s vision on the environment relate to that of the rest of the province? Or of the country?

7. In your opinion, what’s the relationship like between the TGS and LEED?

8. What’s the relationship like with developers and private companies, in general?

9. Any final comments? Anything you’d like to add

10. Anyone else you recommend I speak to?

11. Any questions you would like to ask me?

239

Appendix H – Google Map Screenshot of TGS Sites

Map of TGS sites visited as part of third research method, observation of TGS sites. Each blue flag is a site. There is no visible differentiation between Tier 1 and Tier 2 sites here, however the labels were available on the map, where I could click on each flag.

240

Appendix I – Analysis Tracking Table

Analysis tracking table. Texts are ordered alphabetically.

Document identifier Type of text Number of pages of analysis notes yielded by the document

John Interview 7

Mary Interview 3

Chris Interview 4

Mark Interview 8

Cost-benefit study Report 22

Development charge refund Webpage 3 doc

Green building map Map (online) 3

Green roof bylaw Policy document 2

Green roof webpage Webpage 5

Jane Interview 11

Jesse Interview 7

241

Kelly Interview 9

LEED certification Webpage 3 homepage

LEED supplement Report 13

Shayna Interview 9

Ted Interview 5

TGDS staff report Report 6

TGS high rise Report 51

TGS low rise Report 17

TGS website Webpage 3

Tier 2 project profiles Webpage 8

TGS review and update Report 16

Total number of pages 215

242

Appendix J – Discourse Summary Table

Discourse summary table

Discourse Main literature(s) used/ Approach (radical or Main concepts/storylines - used for analysis key references reformist)

● Bellamy Foster, 1999 ● Finite natural limits Survivalism Radical systemic ● Dryzek, 2005 ● Carrying capacity changes needed ● Meadows et al., 1972 ● IPAT, ecological footprint ● Environmental crisis ● Environment is doomed without radical change

● Dryzek, 2005 ● Economic growth is all that matters Prometheanism No changes, except ● Lomborg, 2001 ● There are no environmental problems more growth that we should address

● Dryzek, 2005 ● Trust in experts to solve problems Administrative No changes ● Trust in scientists rationalism ● Hierarchical

● Dryzek, 2005 ● Trust in government, democratic Democratic No changes structures and process. pragmatism ● bureaucratic process

● Dryzek, 2005 ● Trust in free market, competition to Economic No changes ● Kaplow, 2009 solve environmental problems rationalism ● Government incentives useful

● Klein, 2017 ● Individual agency/capacity for positive Sustainability Fundamental shifts ● Robinson, 2004 environmental change in behaviour ● Prioritizes environment needed; a lot of ● Ecological footprint changes to be made, ● Bottom up or grassroots, locally derived close to radical

243

● Robinson, 2004 ● Development as is, with some (minor) Sustainable Some changes ● WCED, 1987 modifications for the sake of the development should be environment considered; no ● Development is good/a priority systemic change

● Hajer, 1995 ● Economy and environment benefit in Ecological Change in unison modernization perspective, but no ● Technological fixes structural changes ● Efficiency fixes needed ● Environmentalist concerns can make $$

244