Open Collections

UBC Graduate Research

Shaping a Disaster- Resilient Region: The Role of Land Use Planning in Mitigating Seismic Risk in Metro.. Tse, Wendy 2011-11-30

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
310-SCARP_2012_gradproject_Tse.pdf [ 15.2MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 310-1.0102557.json
JSON-LD: 310-1.0102557-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 310-1.0102557-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 310-1.0102557-rdf.json
Turtle: 310-1.0102557-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 310-1.0102557-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 310-1.0102557-source.json
Full Text
310-1.0102557-fulltext.txt
Citation
310-1.0102557.ris

Full Text

SHAPING A DISASTER RESILIENT REGION: THE ROLE OF LAND USE PLANNING IN MITIGATING SEISMIC RISK IN METRO VANCOUVER, 2041 by WENDY TSE B.A., The University of British Columbia, 2008 A PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS (PLANNING) in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES School of Community and Regional Planning  We accept this project as conforming to the required standard ...................................................... ..................................................... ..................................................... THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA November 2011 © Wendy Tse, 2011  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The aim of this master’s project is to understand how land use affects disaster resiliency in Metro Vancouver. Located in one of the highest seismic zones in Canada, the likelihood of a structurally damaging crustal or subcrustal earthquake occurring in Metro Vancouver is estimated to be 2.5 percent over the next 10 years, 12 percent over 50 years, and 22 percent over 100 years (Onur and Seemann, 2004). With the region expected to grow significantly over the next 35 years, the probability of a large seismic event occurring in Metro Vancouver is significant and poses a real threat to residents. Using the population and dwelling unit projections provided by Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy, Metro Vancouver 2040 – Shaping Our Future, this research explores the seismic risk consequences of four land use and density scenarios: 1. Status Quo Growth - growth follows current development and new population will be distributed to all currently settled areas in a variety of building types proportionally to current population; 2. Compact Growth - new population will only locate to current and anticipated high density areas in multi-family building structures; 3. Sprawled Growth - new population will only locate to current low-density areas in single detached dwellings and a limited number of multi-family low-rise structures; and, 4. Safe Growth – new population will not be allowed to locate in MMI VIII areas (i.e. areas with high shaking intensity in the earthquake scenario considered); growth will only be distributed to areas with a MMI level of VII or lower in primarily wood frame buildings. Specifically, the research question is, “How might future earthquake casualties in Metro Vancouver vary depending on land use and density?” This question is investigated in the context of a hypothetical magnitude 7.3 subcrustal earthquake in 2041 with the epicentre under the Strait of Georgia. Estimates of deaths and serious injuries were calculated using a casualty model adapted from the United States Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) loss estimation model, HAZUS-MH. To ensure the model is applicable to Metro Vancouver, building damage was estimated based on a model by Ventura et al. (2005) that reflects the building practices and standards of British Columbia. While all four scenarios provide insight into the potential number of casualties resulting from land use development, the Safe Growth scenario is the only scenario to use a sustainable hazard mitigation approach. The concept of ‘sustainable hazard mitigation’ helps link the “wise management of natural resources with local economic and social resiliency, viewing hazard mitigation as an integral part of a much larger context” (Mileti, 1999, p.2). Therefore, in managing growth and development through land use, local and regional governments can work to “shift existing development and steer new development to areas that are relatively hazard free” (Burby, 1999, p.10). Results indicate that the earthquake event would produce relatively similar numbers of deaths and serious injuries in all four scenarios, although the Safe Growth scenario would result in the fewest casualties at 14 deaths and 31 serious injuries. The other three Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  i  scenarios showed the same number of deaths at 16, but varied in terms of serious injuries at 34 for Status Quo Growth, 36 for Sprawled Growth, and 37 for Compact Growth. All deaths in the region are attributed to unreinforced masonry structures, which are known to be more vulnerable to ground shaking than other structural types (Ventura et al., 2005). For the Safe Growth scenario, in addition to the reduction in casualties, the model also estimates a significant decrease in the number of people living in significantly damaged dwellings. This indicates that land use planning could be effective at reducing risk in Metro Vancouver. Yet, while shifting new development from less hazardous areas is effective at reducing risk, the loss in development revenue for local municipalities would likely result in negligible adoption of this approach in practice. In order to create a more disaster-resilient region, especially in light of climate change, a truly regional governance structure should be explored. One of Metro Vancouver’s key goals is to create a compact urban area. While this has sustainability benefits, this research indicates that compact growth may exacerbate seismic risk in the region. The findings in the Compact Growth scenario are quite contrary to the existing literature that supports compact growth as a risk mitigation measure. However, most of this research has been on land use planning and floods, which may be more responsive to direct land use interventions (e.g. limiting development on flood plains) (Burby, 1998). Seismic risk, on the other hand, involves a multitude of factors, ranging from the built environment to geological conditions and prevailing social systems and institutions. Therefore, this type of hazard risk may be harder to control with land use planning because of the possible convergence of multiple vulnerabilities to exacerbate damage and disruption. Overall, this research provides a much needed methodology and estimate of earthquake casualties in the Metro Vancouver region. By being proactive in understanding future seismic risk, this research can provide a sound basis for decision-making in the region regarding the placement, form and density of development that best protects the residents of Metro Vancouver in the likely event of an earthquake.  Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  	
    ii  TERMS AND DEFINITIONS To promote the common understanding of disaster risk reduction concepts and to assist the risk reduction efforts of authorities, practitioners and the public, the disaster and risk management community uses terminology in a very specific fashion (UNISDR, 2009). This report adheres to these conventions and the terms and definitions referred to in this report are provided below.  	
    Disaster: a serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society involving widespread human, material, economic or environmental losses and impacts, which exceeds the ability of the affected community or society to cope using its own resources Disaster risk: a function of the characteristics and the frequency of hazards experienced in a specific location, the nature of the elements at risk and their inherent degree of vulnerability or resilience Disaster risk management: the systematic process of using administrative directives, organizations, and operational skills and capacities to implement strategies, policies and improved coping capacities in order to lessen the adverse impacts of hazards and the possibility of disaster Emergency management: the organization and management of resources and responsibilities for addressing all aspects of emergencies, in particular preparedness, response and initial recovery steps Mitigation: any structural (physical) or non-structural (e.g. land use planning, public education) measure undertaken to minimize the adverse impact of potential natural hazard events Natural hazard: a natural process or phenomenon (e.g. earthquake, landslide, tsunami, windstorm, wave or surge, flood or drought) that may cause loss of life, injury or other health impacts, property damage, loss of livelihoods and services, social and economic disruption, or environmental damage Resilience: the ability of a system, community or society exposed to hazards to resist, absorb, accommodate to and recover from the effects of a hazard in a timely and efficient manner, including through the preservation and restoration of its essential basic structures and functions Risk: the combination of the probability of an event and its negative consequences (risk = hazard x vulnerability) Vulnerability: the characteristics and circumstances of a community, system or asset that make it susceptible to the damaging effects of hazard Source: UNISDR, 2009 and Benson and Twigg, 2007  Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  iii  TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................. i	
   TERMS AND DEFINITIONS ....................................................................... iii	
   TABLE OF CONTENTS.............................................................................iv	
   LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................vi	
   LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................. vii	
   1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 1	
   1.1 Overview ........................................................................................ 1	
   1.2 Research Context ............................................................................. 1	
   1.3 Aims and Research Question ................................................................ 3	
   1.4 Scope and Approach .......................................................................... 3	
   1.5 Significance..................................................................................... 4	
   2.0 BACKGROUND................................................................................. 4	
   2.1 Metro Vancouver Overview ................................................................. 4	
   2.1.1 Governance Structure .....................................................................5	
   2.1.2 Population Growth .........................................................................6	
   2.1.3 Building Stock ...............................................................................8	
   2.1.4 The British Columbia Building Code .....................................................9	
   2.1.5 Growth Management and the Regional Growth Strategy.............................9	
   2.1.6 Regional Seismic Hazard ................................................................ 12	
   2.2 Disaster and Risk Management Overview................................................ 13	
   2.2.1 “Unnatural” Disasters ................................................................... 13	
   2.2.2 Sustainable Hazard Mitigation.......................................................... 14	
   2.2.3 Land Use Planning as a Sustainable Hazard Mitigation Approach ................. 15	
   3.0 EARTHQUAKE SCENARIO...................................................................17	
   3.1 Scenario Overview ........................................................................... 17	
   3.2 Scope ........................................................................................... 17	
   4.0	
   RESIDENTIAL CASUALTY MODEL........................................................18	
   4.1 Model Framework ............................................................................ 18	
   4.2 Methodology ................................................................................... 20	
   4.2.1 Building Inventory Model ................................................................ 20	
   4.2.2 Damage Model ............................................................................ 22	
   4.2.3 Casualty Model............................................................................ 23	
   4.3 Model Scenarios .............................................................................. 23	
   4.3.1 Scenario 1 – Status Quo Growth ........................................................ 24	
   4.3.2 Scenario 2 – Compact Growth .......................................................... 25	
   4.3.3 Scenario 3 – Sprawled Growth .......................................................... 28	
   4.3.4 Scenario 4 – Safe Growth................................................................ 30	
   5.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.................................................................32	
   5.1 Results Summary ............................................................................. 32	
   5.2 Implications for Future Growth in Metro Vancouver.................................. 36	
   5.2.1 Land Use ................................................................................... 36	
   Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  	
    iv  5.2.2 Governance................................................................................ 38	
   5.2.3 Building Technology...................................................................... 39	
   5.2.4 Model Limitations ........................................................................ 39	
    6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS – PATH TO A DISASTER-RESILIENT REGION ...................40	
   7.0 CONCLUSIONS................................................................................41	
   8.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................43	
   9.0 APPENDIX .....................................................................................50	
   Appendix A: Population and Dwelling Unit Projections for Metro Vancouver ........ 50	
   Appendix B: Areas of Analysis (AOAs) ......................................................... 51	
   Appendix C: Roles of Metro Vancouver ....................................................... 52	
   Appendix D: Population and Dwelling Unit Increases, 2006 to 2041 ................... 53	
   Appendix E: Local Government Act – Part 25 – Regional Growth Strategies .......... 54	
   Appendix F: Goals of Metro Vancouver 2040 – Shaping Our Future .................... 56	
   Appendix G: Strategy for Managing Natural Hazard Risks in Metro Vancouver through Land Use and Transportation Infrastructure ................................................ 57	
   Appendix H: Soil Map of Metro Vancouver ................................................... 58	
   Appendix I: Examples of Projected Changes in Extreme Climate Phenomena, with Examples of Projected Impacts................................................................. 59	
   Appendix J: Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale for MMI VI and Higher and Description of Effects ............................................................................ 60	
   Appendix K: Building Inventory Model Percentages for Transforming Census Structural Types into Building Types.......................................................... 61	
   Appendix L: British Columbia Building Classes .............................................. 62	
   Appendix M: Status Quo Growth Scenario 2041 – Building and Population Totals ... 63	
   Appendix N: Compact Growth Scenario 2041 – Building and Population Inventory . 64	
   Appendix O: Sprawled Growth Scenario 2041 – Building and Population Inventory. 65	
   Appendix P: Safe Growth Scenario 2041 – Building and Population Inventory ....... 66	
    Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  v  LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Relative Seismic Hazard in Canada .......................................................2 Figure 2: Member Municipalities of Metro Vancouver .............................................5 Figure 3: Population Change between 2001 and 2006 by Census Tract ........................6 Figure 4: Growth Concentration Area and Regional Town Centres, 2006 ......................7 Figure 5: Regional Dwelling Inventory by Structural Type, 1991 to 2006 ......................8 Figure 6: Urban Containment Boundary and Regional Land Use Designations in Metro Vancouver .............................................................................................. 11 Figure 7: Cascadia Subduction Zone ............................................................... 12 Figure 8: Earthquake Scenario in the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia ................... 17 Figure 9: Conceptual Diagram of Casualty Model ................................................ 19 Figure 10: Estimated Ground Shaking in Metro Vancouver ..................................... 20 Figure 11: Map of Census Tracts Selected in Compact Growth Scenario ..................... 26 Figure 12: Town Centres and Transportation Corridors ......................................... 26 Figure 13: Metro Vancouver Density Map (Residents per Acre) in 2006 ...................... 27 Figure 14: Map of Census Tracts Selected in Sprawled Growth Scenario..................... 29 Figure 15: Map of Census Tracts Selected for Safe Growth Scenario ......................... 31 Figure 16: Comparison of Wood Frame and Concrete Frame Building Class Fragility Curves................................................................................................... 36  	
   	
    Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  	
    vi  LIST OF TABLES 	
    Table 1: Earthquake Scenario Scoping Assumptions ............................................. 18 Table 2: Model Building Types and Corresponding Census Structural Types ................. 21 Table 3: Building Classes Utilized in Building Inventory Sub-Model ........................... 22 Table 4: Damage States and Description .......................................................... 22 Table 5: Ventura Damage States and Corresponding HAZUS-MH Damage States............ 23 Table 6: Summary of Census Tracts by Municipality selected for Compact Growth Scenario ................................................................................................ 27 Table 7: Summary of Census Tracts by Municipality selected for Sprawled Growth Scenario ................................................................................................ 30 Table 8: Summary of Census Tracts by Municipality selected for Safe Growth Scenario .. 32 Table 9: Summary Results by Growth Scenario for Metro Vancouver ......................... 33 Table 10: Summary Results by Growth Scenario for AOAs and Municipalities ............... 33 Table 11: Deaths and Serious Injuries based on Building Class ................................ 35 Table 12: Number of Deaths and Serious Injuries for 1971, 2006 and 2041 ................. 37  	
   	
    Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  vii  1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Overview As urban regions become more complex and interconnected, the potential for significant damage and disruption from natural hazards is dramatically increasing. To protect against economic, social and human losses, risk reduction strategies such as early warning and education, relief and insurance, and structural protection have been widely utilized (Burby, 1999). While these strategies do help to a certain extent, there is growing consensus that a more proactive and sustainable approach is needed to successfully mitigate risk. Therefore, the concept of ‘sustainable hazard mitigation’ helps link the “wise management of natural resources with local economic and social resiliency, viewing hazard mitigation as an integral part of a much larger context” (Mileti, 1999, p.2). One promising sustainable hazard mitigation approach is land use planning. In managing growth and development through land use, local and regional governments can work to “shift existing development and steer new development to areas that are relatively hazard free” (Burby, 1999, p.10). In addition, land use planning can influence the design and construction of the built environment to account for area-specific vulnerabilities (Burby, 1999). By fully understanding the hazards, vulnerabilities, and limits to a place, urban planners can help to foster the development of both sustainable and disasterresilient communities. The aim of this master’s project is to understand how land use affects disaster resiliency in Metro Vancouver, a region highly susceptible to seismic activity. Using the region’s population and dwelling unit projections for 2041, this research investigates how future earthquake casualties in Metro Vancouver might vary depending on land use and density. The earthquake scenario is a hypothetical magnitude 7.3 earthquake occurring in 2041. By understanding the relationship between land use, density and seismic risk, this research can provide valuable insight to planners and decision makers about the effectiveness of using land use planning to facilitate disaster resiliency. This is especially important in the context of a growing region, such as Metro Vancouver, to ensure that economic, social and human losses are minimized in the likely event of an earthquake.  1.2 Research Context Metro Vancouver, a highly populated metropolitan region in southwestern British Columbia, is located in one of the highest seismic zones in Canada (Onur and Seemann, 2004) (Figure 1). This area has experienced nine earthquakes with a magnitude of 6 or 7 in the past 130 years (Rogers, 1998). More recently, a magnitude 6.4 earthquake with an epicentre 300 kilometres west of Vancouver occurred on September 9, 2011 and was felt in many parts of the region (Natural Resources Canada, 2011). The likelihood of a large seismic event occurring in the region is significant and poses a real threat to residents. According to Onur and Seemann (2004), the likelihood of a  Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  1  structurally damaging1 crustal or subcrustal earthquake occurring in Metro Vancouver is 2.5 percent over the next 10 years, 12 percent over 50 years, and 22 percent over 100 years. In addition, numerous municipalities in the region are situated on soils that are susceptible to seismic amplification and liquefaction, which could potentially exacerbate damage and disruption in large seismic events (Cassidy and Rogers, 2004). According to the 2006 Census of Canada, Metro Vancouver is home to an estimated 2.1 million people (Statistics Canada, 2006). Based on the region’s new Regional Growth Strategy (RGS), Metro Vancouver 2040 - Shaping our Future, this area is expected to increase to 3.4 million people by 2041 (Appendix A). To accommodate this growth, over 570,000 dwelling units are projected for the next 35 years (Metro Vancouver, 2011a). This represents a substantial increase in both population and housing units in the region. Depending on how the region develops and whether sustainable hazard mitigation is considered, many residents, existing and new, could be exposed to considerable risk in the event of an earthquake.  	
    Metro Vancouver  Figure 1: Relative Seismic Hazard in Canada Source: Natural Resources Canada, 2011 (used with permission)  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   1  Onur and Seemann (2004) determined the threshold for structural damage to be ground shaking levels of VII or greater on the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale. Other significant levels of ground shaking intensity include MMI V (a widely-felt earthquake event) and MMI VI (threshold for nonstructural damage) (Onur and Seemann, 2004).	
   Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  	
    2  1.3 Aims and Research Question The primary aim of this research is to understand how land use and density affects disaster resiliency in a seismically active region. Using the case study of Metro Vancouver, this project utilizes the region’s population and dwelling unit projections for 2041 to explore the social consequences of four land use and density scenarios: 1. Status Quo Growth - growth follows current development and new population will be distributed to all currently settled areas in a variety of building types proportionally to current population; 2. Compact Growth - new population will only locate to current and anticipated high density areas in multi-family building structures; 3. Sprawled Growth - new population will only locate to current low-density areas in single detached dwellings and a limited number of multi-family low-rise structures; and, 4. Safe Growth – new population will not be allowed to locate in MMI VIII areas; growth will only be distributed to areas with a MMI level of VII or lower in primarily wood frame buildings. Specifically, the research question is, “How might future earthquake casualties in Metro Vancouver vary depending on land use and density?” This question is investigated in the context of a hypothetical magnitude 7.3 earthquake occurring in 2041. This project further aims to educate planners and decision makers about the importance of incorporating hazard information and risk mitigation in land use plans and policies. In particular, this research provides a viable methodology for assessing different land use and density scenarios in the attempt to better understand the consequences of developing in areas susceptible to earthquakes. This methodology could serve as a powerful tool for all levels of government in encouraging development that respects the natural environment and reduces vulnerabilities that exacerbate seismic risk.  1.4 Scope and Approach A strong seismic event can cause significant losses, as well as extensive disruption, in a large metropolitan region. Furthermore, damage can be exacerbated by secondary hazards triggered by the initial seismic event. While it would be of great interest and importance to explore the interconnections between seismic hazard, vulnerability and level of disruption in Metro Vancouver, the complexity of this research is beyond the scope of this project. The context of this study is limited to human casualties (deaths and serious injuries) resulting from the initial earthquake event. The secondary hazard of soil amplification is also considered, but only as a determinant of physical building damage. The modeling framework used for this project is a casualty model adapted from the loss estimation model, HAZUS-MH. HAZUS-MH is a well-established methodology for estimating the physical, economic, and social impacts of earthquakes, floods, and hurricanes in the United States (FEMA, 2011). To ensure the model is applicable to the Metro Vancouver  Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  3  region, building damage was estimated with building damage probabilities specific to British Columbia to account for regional building practices (Ventura et al., 2005). This research is the continuation of a larger study on seismic risk in Metro Vancouver. The modeling approach used in this project is adopted from retrospective analyses already conducted for the region for the years 1971 and 2006 (Chang et al., forthcoming). The results from this study will help develop a fuller picture of how risk has changed, and is continuing to change, in Metro Vancouver. The unit of analysis in this model is an Area of Analysis (AOA). These spatial units correspond generally to municipalities. In some cases, municipalities were divided into two or more AOAs that are comprised of census tract aggregations of relatively homogeneous soil types and urban development. Using this methodology, Metro Vancouver was divided into 32 AOAs. Overall, these smaller spatial units allow for a more precise and accurate analysis of seismic risk and how it varies within the region.  1.5 Significance This research provides valuable insight into the feasibility of land use planning in mitigating seismic risk in Metro Vancouver. This is important because while the disaster management community often recommends land use planning for risk reduction, few authorities have fully applied this approach in practice. In addition, the exploratory nature of this research provides insight into the impacts of land use and density before development actually occurs. This knowledge can inform where development should occur in the region, now and into the future, to ensure lives are protected in a region highly susceptible to seismic events. This research further provides a methodology that not only estimates earthquake casualties, but can also help local authorities, policymakers and the general public ‘visualize’ different development scenarios. This visualization can help generate community discussions about the tradeoffs of developing in hazard prone areas, and through the process, improve preparedness though public awareness.  2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 Metro Vancouver Overview Metro Vancouver, officially named the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD), is comprised of 22 municipalities, one electoral area, and one treaty First Nation (Metro Vancouver, 2011c) (Figure 2). The region has a land area of 2,877 square kilometres and is the most populated regional district in British Columbia, with a population density of 735.6 people per square kilometre in 2006 (Statistics Canada, 2006).  Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  	
    4  Figure 2: Member Municipalities of Metro Vancouver Source: UBC Transportation Planning, 2011 (used with permission)  2.1.1 Governance Structure As the regional authority, Metro Vancouver fulfills three interconnected roles - political forum, policy, and services (Metro Vancouver, 2011c) (Appendix C). In its policy role, Metro Vancouver develops and uses an integrated system of plans to manage and administer resources and services that are best dealt with at a regional level (Metro Vancouver, 2011c). Both growth management and regional emergency management are part of the organization’s planning and regulatory responsibilities. Member municipalities have control in the management of the region through the Metro Vancouver Board. Directors of the Board are members of a municipal, electoral area, or First Nation council who have been appointed by their respective councils on a ‘representation by population’ basis (Metro Vancouver, 2011c). Directors are allowed one vote for every 20,000 people in their area, up to a total of five votes. In addition, the Board uses a consensus-based decision-making model whereby full agreement among representatives must be reached for actions to pass (Tomalty, 2002). Since 2002, Metro Vancouver has formally put the concept of sustainability at the centre of its operating and planning philosophy (Metro Vancouver, 2011c). Known as the Sustainable Region Initiative, a comprehensive sustainability framework was later adopted in 2008 to ensure sustainability principles are reflected in all of the organization’s activities (Metro Vancouver, 2011c). This process lead to the development of three sustainability principles to inform decision-making: 1. Protect and enhance the natural environment;  Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  5  2. Provide for ongoing prosperity; and 3. Build community capacity and social cohesion (Metro Vancouver, 2011c).  2.1.2 Population Growth Metro Vancouver is one of the fastest growing metropolitan regions in Canada (Metro Vancouver, 2007). Between 2001 and 2006, Metro Vancouver’s population increased from 1,986,965 to 2,116,581, representing a growth rate of 6.5 percent (Statistics Canada, 2006). This rate is slightly lower than the 8.5 percent from the preceding five years (1996 to 2001), but is still higher than both the provincial and national growth rates at 5.3 and 5.4 percent, respectively (Metro Vancouver, 2007). In terms of absolute population growth between 2001 and 2006, Surrey led all municipalities with 47,151 additional residents, followed by Vancouver (32,370), Richmond (10,115), and Burnaby (8,845) (Metro Vancouver, 2007). However, in terms of growth rate, population growth in suburban municipalities, such as Anmore, Surrey, and Port Moody, is quickly outpacing the traditional core cities of Vancouver, Burnaby and New Westminster (Metro Vancouver, 2007) (Figure 3).  Figure 3: Population Change between 2001 and 2006 by Census Tract Source: Statistics Canada, 2007 (used with permission)  Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  	
    6  While population growth is shifting towards the suburban municipalities, the majority of residents still lived within the Growth Concentration Area in 2006 (Figure 4). In fact, the population within this area increased by 65,110 over the 2001 to 2006 census period, accounting for 64 percent of the region’s total population (Metro Vancouver, 2007). The share of dwelling units also increased in the Growth Concentration Area from 66 percent of the region’s total between 1996 and 2001 to 67 percent between 2001 and 2006 (Metro Vancouver, 2007).  Figure 4: Growth Concentration Area and Regional Town Centres, 2006 Source: Metro Vancouver, 2007 (used with permission)  Based on the population projections provided by the current Regional Growth Strategy, Metro Vancouver is expected to reach 3.4 million residents by 2041 (Metro Vancouver, 2011a) (Appendix A). The municipalities projected to receive the highest population growth in the next 35 years include Surrey (324,000), Vancouver (131,900), the Township of Langley (113,300) and Coquitlam (108,900) (Appendix D). To accommodate this growth, dwelling units are also expected to increase from approximately 848,000 units2 in 2006 to 1,422,000 units in 2041 (Metro Vancouver, 2011a).  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   2  The number of dwelling units in 2006 is different between the Regional Growth Strategy (848,000) and Statistics Canada (817,035). The higher number reported by the regional plan could be due to the inclusion of the Census undercount. Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  7  2.1.3 Building Stock To accommodate Metro Vancouver’s high growth rate, the regional building stock has seen a noticeable shift in the quantity and density of buildings. Between 1991 and 2006, the region increased from 609,380 to 817,035 dwellings for an increase of 238,650 units (Metro Vancouver, 2011b). Most of this increase has been in the form of apartments, which now accounts for the largest share of all dwelling types in the region (Metro Vancouver, 2011b) (Figure 5). Single detached dwellings, which have been the predominant dwelling type in the past, have experienced the most significant decrease, accounting for only 35 percent of building stock in 2006 (Metro Vancouver, 2011b).  Figure 5: Regional Dwelling Inventory by Structural Type, 1991 to 2006 Source: Metro Vancouver, 2011b (used with permission)  The growth rate for dwelling units varies significantly depending on the municipality. Between 1991 and 2006, the municipalities south of the Fraser River, including Surrey and the Township of Langley, had a growth rate between 22 to 25 percent, well above the regional growth rate at 18 percent (Metro Vancouver, 2011b). In contrast, the North Shore municipalities of the City of North Vancouver, the District of North Vancouver and West Vancouver only had a growth rate of 8 percent during this same period (Metro Vancouver, 2011b). Overall, the spatial distribution of the built environment is changing considerably, especially in suburban municipalities that are experiencing high growth. Another important consideration in regards to the building stock and seismic risk is the building vintage. Vintage is a key concern because modifications to building codes and construction practices have led to variations across building vintages in structural type, design, and vulnerability characteristics (Chang et al., forthcoming). In British Columbia, buildings constructed prior to the 1970s have limited structural resistance to earthquake Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  	
    8  effects (Ventura et al., 2005). This represents a significant source of vulnerability in the region since there were 515,870 dwelling units constructed before 1970 in 2006, or almost one-third of housing units in Metro Vancouver (Statistics Canada, 2006).  2.1.4 The British Columbia Building Code In British Columbia, the building code “is a provincial regulation for new construction and building alterations, establishing minimum standards for safety, health, accessibility, fire and structural protection and protection from water and sewer damage” (BC Ministry of Housing, 2010). While these standards mainly govern the design and construction of new buildings, the code does require that if an “existing building is altered, rehabilitated, renovated or repaired, or there is a change in occupancy, the level of life safety and building performance shall not be decreased below a level that already exists” (BC Ministry of Housing, 2006). However, the building code cannot “enforce the retrospective application of new requirements to existing buildings or existing portions of relocated buildings, unless specifically required by local regulations or bylaws (BC Ministry of Housing, 2006). Therefore, older buildings built to lower structural standards are highly vulnerable to seismic impacts. The BC Building Code does contain seismic provisions to aid the design and construction of buildings to be as “earthquake-proof as possible” (Natural Resources Canada, 2008). However, these guidelines are only minimum standards. “They are meant to prevent structural collapse during major earthquakes and thereby protect human life. The provisions, may not, however, prevent serious damage to individual structures” (Natural Resources Canada, 2008). While building codes are effective at mitigating risk, there are limitations. For instance, building codes often create a false sense of security among authorities and citizens. This is particularly dangerous if this false sense of security becomes a justification for increasing development in known hazard areas (Nelson & French, 2002). This predicament, termed the “Safe Development Paradox,” explains how attempts to make hazardous areas safer for development are in fact making them targets for catastrophe because of well-intentioned, but short-sighted, government policies (Burby, 2006). Another limitation of building codes is that while these standards are developed on sound scientific research, they are only designed to reduce the probability of loss from disasters up to certain extents. Disasters that exceed these limits can result in catastrophic outcomes to both lives and property (Nelson & French, 2002).  	
   	
   2.1.5 Growth Management and the Regional Growth Strategy Metro Vancouver is often recognized as a jurisdiction with highly progressive growth management plans and policies. Since the region’s first growth management strategy, the Livable Region Plan, in 1975, the organization has continued to have an enduring planning vision of creating a livable and sustainable region (Tomalty, 2002). Even today, through multiple iterations of the plan, the core ideas of creating a more compact urban region, improving transit and reducing car use, concentrating growth in the metropolitan core Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  9  and regional town centres, and establishing a regional green system remain important objectives (Tomalty, 2002). The Local Government Act provides all regional districts in British Columbia the statutory authority to manage growth with a regional growth strategy. According to the Act, “the purpose of a regional growth strategy is to promote human settlement that is socially, economically and environmentally healthy and that makes efficient use of public facilities and services, land and other resources” (BC Laws, 2011) (Appendix E). Included in a list of considerations for the regional growth strategy is “settlement patterns that minimize risk associated with natural hazards” (BC Laws, 2011). The Local Government Act also strengthens regional planning institutions by requiring municipalities to respect the regional plan (Tomalty, 2002). While municipal governments remain responsible for planning and land use decisions (Government of British Columbia, 2011), the Act requires municipalities to prepare a Regional Context Statement (RCS) outlining how its Official Community Plan (OCP) complies with the growth strategy. In cases where the OCP is not consistent with the regional plan, the RCS must indicate how the plan will be brought into conformance with the strategy (BC Laws, 2011). The relationship between the region and its member municipalities is ‘horizontal’ rather than ‘vertical’ (Tomalty, 2002). A regional district needs all member municipalities to agree to the regional strategy before the plan may be adopted. In turn, municipalities are required to include the regional plan in their own planning documents (Tomalty, 2002). This process of mutual agreement helps ensure the regional plan has a high degree of support among member municipalities. Metro Vancouver’s current Regional Growth Strategy, Metro Vancouver 2040 – Shaping Our Future, was adopted on July 29, 2011 (Metro Vancouver, 2011). This plan focuses on land use policies to guide the future development of the region and support the efficient provision of transportation, regional infrastructure and community services (Metro Vancouver, 2011). Metro Vancouver 2040 is structured around five key goals: • • • • •  GOAL GOAL GOAL GOAL GOAL  1 2 3 4 5  – – – –  Create a Compact Urban Area Support a Sustainable Economy Protect the Environment and Respond to Climate Change Impacts Develop Complete Communities Support Sustainable Transportation Choices (Appendix F)  Each goal further has strategies and policies that detail how these goals will be achieved and the actions expected of Metro Vancouver, member municipalities and other levels of government (Metro Vancouver, 2011c). Another important component of the regional plan are land use designations. Aimed at guiding future land use decisions, one of the most important designations in the RGS is the Urban Containment Boundary, which limits where urban development can occur in the region (Figure 6). To ensure growth is contained within the Boundary, Metro Vancouver  Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  	
    10  restricts extension of regional sewage services into areas outside of these boundaries3 (Metro Vancouver, 2011a).  Figure 6: Urban Containment Boundary and Regional Land Use Designations in Metro Vancouver Source: Metro Vancouver, 2011a (used with permission)  The current RGS recognizes natural hazards to be a significant challenge to creating a livable and sustainable region: The major natural hazard risks facing the Metro Vancouver region include earthquakes, floods, and slope instability. Many of these are exacerbated by the global threat of climate change. The challenge is to prepare for and mitigate regional natural hazards and reduce the greenhouse gas emissions which can increase many of these risks, not only through mitigation strategies, but also through land use and transportation patterns generally (Metro Vancouver, 2011a, p.6).  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   3  Exceptions to this policy include: to address a public health issue, protect the region’s natural assets or service agriculture or agri-industry (Metro Vancouver, 2011a) Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  11  The inclusion of a sustainable hazard mitigation ideology in the RGS is very progressive since disaster resiliency has seldom been considered in regional land use plans. Yet, while actions have been outlined for Metro Vancouver and other levels of government (Appendix G), how this strategy is translated into practice remains to be seen.  2.1.6 Regional Seismic Hazard Metro Vancouver is highly susceptible to seismic activity due to its proximity to the Cascadia Subduction Zone. At this Zone, the Juan de Fuca plate is being forced beneath the North America plate, producing three distinct types of earthquakes: shallow (crustal) earthquakes within the North America plate, deep (subcrustal) earthquakes within the Juan de Fuca plate, and “megathrust” earthquakes at the interface of the two plates (Onur and Seemann, 2004) (Figure 7).  Figure 7: Cascadia Subduction Zone Blue circles indicate crustal earthquakes and red circles indicate subcrustal earthquakes Source: Onur and Seemann, 2004  Seismic activity in southwestern British Columbia is predominantly crustal and subcrustal. A large concentration of subcrustal earthquakes occurs beneath the Strait of Georgia, the waterway separating Vancouver Island from the coastal mainland, affecting major urban areas including Metro Vancouver (Onur and Seemann, 2004). In a study conducted by Onur and Seemann (2004), the authors determined that the likelihood of a crustal or subcrustal earthquake producing structurally damaging ground shaking (MMI VII or greater) is 2.5 percent over the next 10 years, 12 percent over 50 years, and 22 percent over 100 years. The same study found that the probability of a non-structurally damaging earthquake (MMI VI) is 35 percent in the next 50 years (Onur and Seemann, 2004). Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  	
    12  Megathrust earthquakes, on the other hand, have much longer recurrence periods but produce significantly larger magnitude events. The last megathrust earthquake to occur at the Cascadia subduction interface was in the year 1700 and had an estimated magnitude of 9.0 (Onur and Seemann, 2004). Geological evidence indicates that large subduction earthquakes have occurred in this region every 300 to 800 years (Natural Resources Canada, 2011). Onur and Seemann (2004) estimate the probability of the next Cascadia subduction earthquake occurring in the next 50 years to be 11 percent. Ground motion amplification refers to “the increase in the intensity of ground shaking that can occur due to local geological conditions, such as the presence of soft soils” (Monahan et al., 2000). This type of ground response is important when assessing seismic risk because “site conditions play a major role in establishing the damage potential of incoming seismic waves” (Finn and Wightman, 2003, p.272). For example, the response of loose sediments to seismic shaking is substantially different than that of firm ground because wave velocities in loose sediment are significantly higher than that found in young alluvial and deltaic sediment (Clague et al., 1998). Soil conditions in Metro Vancouver are quite diverse (Appendix H). The City of Vancouver, for example, lies almost entirely on glacial till and is therefore not expected to experience significant amplification of ground shaking intensities (Onur et al., 2004). In contrast, the Fraser River delta is overlain with thick Holocene deltaic deposits, which are especially prone to ground amplification (Uthayakumar and Naesgaard, 2004). In a study conducted by Cassidy and Rogers (2004) on the variation in ground shaking in the Fraser River delta, the authors found that near the centre of the delta where soft soils were thickest, peak amplification of four to ten times that of bedrock was measured. However, when measured near the edge of the delta, amplification was up to 12 times relative to bedrock (Cassidy and Rogers, 2004). Therefore, the municipalities of Richmond and Delta are especially vulnerable to seismic acitivity.  2.2 Disaster and Risk Management Overview 2.2.1 “Unnatural” Disasters 	
   It is increasingly recognized that while hazards are natural, the catastrophic economic, social and human losses that result from disaster events are not. Instead, these “unnatural” disasters expose the cumulative implications of many earlier decisions (Sanghi, 2010). Thus, while natural disasters are often described as random “Acts of God”, they are more often the consequences of systematic and deliberate actions (or inactions). The misunderstanding with disasters begins with the idea that people can use technology to control nature (Alexander, 1999; Mileti, 1999). This technocratic attitude assumes that human ingenuity is sufficient to “overcome a particular hazard, either by modifying it or by making the environment safe” (Alexander, 1999, p.16). Yet, despite significant improvements in engineering and technology, the direct and indirect costs of hazard events have continued to rise. Furthermore, the more technologically complex our society becomes, the more diverse are the risks and impacts of disasters (Alexander, Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  13  1999). Therefore, human vulnerability is often the “result of ignorance not merely about the scope of natural disaster impacts but also about the limited degree to which a given technology is capable of mitigating them” (Alexander, 1999, p.16). Another misconception is that disasters are unique and exceptional events (Alexander, 1999). Extreme hazard events have occurred consistently throughout human history. Yet, prolonged lulls between events often lead to complacency from individuals and governments about the need to prepare for hazards, as well as to reduce vulnerabilities (Alexander, 1999). This is reflected in the fact that most governments spend more money on post-disaster relief than on prevention (Sanghi, 2010). While prevention is often considered an expensive course of action for an “unpredictable” hazard, mitigation would likely cost less than the economic, social and human costs (direct and indirect) accrued from a disaster event (Sanghi, 2010).  2.2.2 Sustainable Hazard Mitigation The disaster management community today is a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary group of researchers and practitioners. The expansion in the breadth and knowledge in this field has helped to produce better understandings of the complexities between hazards, the natural environment, the built environment and human society. As a result, a shift is occurring where the traditional technocratic approach of controlling nature is being replaced with a more progressive vision of cooperating with nature (Burby, 1998). The concept of sustainable hazard mitigation “links the wise management of natural resources with local economic and social resiliency, viewing hazard mitigation as an integral part of a much larger context” (Mileti, 1999, p.2). Nested in the principle of sustainability, sustainable hazard mitigation represents a fundamental shift in the character of how citizens, communities, governments, and businesses conduct themselves in relation to the natural environments they occupy (Mileti and Gailus, 2005). Rather than simply responding to natural hazards in an ad hoc way as they arise, this approach provides a holistic way of understanding the complex factors that contribute to disaster events (Mileti and Gailus, 2005). Sustainable hazard mitigation further utilizes a global systems perspective to recognize that “disasters arise from the interactions among the earth’s physical systems, its human systems, and its built infrastructure, rather than from discrete environmental events” (Mileti and Gailus, 2005, p.496). This perspective views human actions as the cause of disaster losses and shifts responsibility from nature to people. This approach also minimizes the role of technology. While technology remains a useful tool, it is no longer regarded as the ultimate solution to natural hazards mitigation (Mileti and Gailus, 2005). Rather, the new perspective recognizes hazards to be dynamic and under the influence of both natural and anthropogenic factors. One particularly important influence today is climate change, which is drastically altering physical phenomena, including natural hazards (van Aalst, 2006; Helmer and Hilhorst, 2006) (Appendix I). Not only does climate change cause changes in known hazard risks, it also raises the level of uncertainty in the intensity and reoccurrence of hazard events (van Aalst, 2006). It is thus Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  	
    14  important that disaster risk reduction strategies be adaptable to the increasing risks associated with climate change. This paradigm shift to sustainable hazard mitigation is gaining momentum. The seven recommendations for fostering sustainable hazard mitigation developed by Mileti (1999) has been a useful aid in this process: 1. Develop local ‘sustainable hazard mitigation networks’ in communities that would bring together various stakeholders to carry out plans for identifying and dealing with potential hazards; 2. Redesign government and policy framework so that policies and programs related to hazards and sustainability are integrated and consistent; 3. Conduct nationwide hazard and risk assessment to examine the interactions between the physical, social, and constructed systems that can affect the outcome of natural hazards; 4. Build national databases about mitigation efforts and losses from past and current disasters to determine the true cost of hazards and disasters; 5. Provide comprehensive, interdisciplinary education and training in hazard mitigation and preparedness for people involved with hazards management; 6. Think about issues related to natural hazards that may fall outside of one’s traditional fields of study; and 7. Share the knowledge internationally and learn from other.  2.2.3 Land Use Planning as a Sustainable Hazard Mitigation Approach Disaster reduction policies and measures need to be implemented with a two-fold aim: to enable societies to be resilient to natural hazards while ensuring that development efforts do not increase the vulnerability to these hazards. - U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development, 2001 A significant aspect of human vulnerability to natural hazards stems from where and how human development occurs (Mileti and Gailus, 2005). While both location and design are important considerations in creating disaster-resilient communities, the locational approach is far superior in reducing disaster losses because it limits development in hazardous area (Burby, 1998). Burby (1998) explains that in managing the location of development, local governments can work to shift existing development and steer new development to areas that are relatively hazard free. Furthermore, local governments have various regulatory and non-regulatory tools to enable this approach. For example, zoning is a land use regulation that can easily restrict development in hazardous areas, while locating development-inducing infrastructure only in areas that are relatively free of hazard is a good example of a non-regulatory strategy (Burby, 1998). While the locational approach is powerful, it is certainly less popular with government authorities. This is due to the fact that the gains of risk reduction come at the cost of giving up the economic benefits of development (Burby, 1998). Yet, the consequence of not adopting this approach is serious since most losses from disasters have occurred Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  15  where settlements have developed in known hazard areas (Godschalk, 2003). Regrettably, disasters have tended to occur in tandem with unsustainable development (Mileti and Gailus, 2005). In contrast, the goal of the design approach is safe construction in hazardous areas (Burby, 1998). This type of land use allows economic gains to be realized, but at the cost of greater loss of natural values and susceptibility to greater damage when events exceed the design standards employed (Burby, 1998). Examples of regulatory design techniques include building codes and stand-alone ordinances that require structural compliance against hazards. Non-regulatory design techniques would consist of more voluntary measures, such as public information, training programs, and subsidies (Burby, 1998). A properly conducted planning process would allow communities to find the appropriate mix of these two land use approaches (Burby, 1998). While using land use planning to mitigate risk is important in all locales, it may be especially critical in cities and larger metropolitan regions. This is because urban areas are at risk both from a wide range of hazards and from their own multiple vulnerabilities (Moor, 2001). As Moor (2001) notes, points of urban vulnerability are numerous and can range from infrastructure systems and buildings to telecommunications, transport, and energy supply lines. This focus on urban risk has led to the idea of resilient cities. According to Godschalk (2003), a resilient city is a sustainable network of physical systems and human communities. Physical systems are the constructed and natural environmental components, such as roads, buildings, and infrastructure, as well as waterways, soils, and topography. Human systems, on the other hand, are the social and institutional components of the city and include all formal and informal, stable and ad hoc human associations that operate in an urban area (Godschalk, 2003). During a disaster, both systems must be able to survive and function under extreme stress. In addition, while hazard mitigation has primarily focused on making physical systems resistant to disaster forces, Godschalk (2003) argues that future mitigation must also focus on teaching the city’s social communities and institutions to reduce risks and respond effectively to disasters. Overall, land use planning is not only an effective risk mitigation strategy because of its ability to control the location and design of development, but also because it can convey hazard information to communities. For instance, land use plans are effective communications materials to explain the potential limitations of hazard-prone areas (Burby, 1998). Furthermore, in the process of creating these plans, local governments often engage residents. This process provides an effective forum for dialogue with stakeholders about hazards in the areas, as well as suitable mitigation strategies for the community. Overall, land use management and plans enhance prospects for a sustainable future – one in which citizens and their elected officials make informed choices about using hazardous areas in ways that will not jeopardize the long-term viability of their community (Burby, 1998).  Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  	
    16  3.0 EARTHQUAKE SCENARIO 3.1 Scenario Overview The hypothetical earthquake scenario selected for this research is a magnitude 7.3 subcrustal earthquake with the epicentre under the Strait of Georgia, approximately 18 kilometres southeast of Gibsons, British Columbia (Figure 8). This scenario was developed by the Analyzing Infrastructures for Disaster-Resilient Communities4 research team at the University of British Columbia, in collaboration with the British Columbia Provincial Emergency Program. This scenario is a strong, but realistic event for this region.  Epicentre  Figure 8: Earthquake Scenario in the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia Source of base map: Google Maps, 2011  3.2 Scope The level of damage and destruction caused by an earthquake is determined by the intersection of various temporal, physical and social factors. While these factors are important, they can also be highly complex to model. Therefore, in order to simplify the model, this earthquake scenario makes certain scoping assumptions, including the time of day, the presence of aftershocks and secondary hazards, and the structural type (Table 1).  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   4  For more information about the Analyzing Infrastructures for Disaster-Resilient Communities at the University of British Columbia, please visit http://www.chs.ubc.ca/dprc_koa/index.html. Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  17  Table 1: Earthquake Scenario Scoping Assumptions  CONSIDERATION  SCOPE  EXPLANATION  Structural type  Residential buildings only  Focus of this research is on the population and dwelling unit projections provided by the region  Time of day  4am (weekday morning) Model focuses on deaths and injuries associated with residential structures, therefore an earthquake event in the middle of the night may be the best time approximation for when the majority of people are at home  Ground failure (e.g. ground motion amplification, liquefaction, landslide) caused by initial event  Ground motion amplification only  Amplification of different soil types found in the region provide the spatial pattern of ground shaking that is used to calculate structural damage in the model  Aftershocks or secondary hazards caused by initial event  None  Only deaths and serious injuries caused by the initial earthquake event is considered in this research  4.0 RESIDENTIAL CASUALTY MODEL 	
   4.1 Model Framework A casualty model to estimate earthquake deaths and serious injuries was used for this analysis. Developed by Dr. Stephanie Chang and collaborators from the University of British Columbia, the basic model framework was adopted from the United States Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) loss estimation model, HAZUS-MH. HAZUS-MH is a well-established model for estimating potential losses from earthquakes, floods and hurricanes (FEMA, 2011), but is highly specific to the United States. Therefore, to ensure the model is applicable to Metro Vancouver, building damage was estimated based on a model by Ventura et al. (2005) that reflects the building practices and standards of British Columbia. The casualty model retains the HAZUS-MH casualty rates in determining deaths and serious injuries. Overall, the “model is comprised of three sequential sub-  Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  	
    18  models that respectively estimate building inventory, building damage (given ground shaking intensities), and human casualties” (Chang et al., forthcoming) (Figure 9).  	
    Figure 9: Conceptual Diagram of Casualty Model Source: Chang et al., forthcoming  	
   As noted earlier, the spatial unit of analysis in this model is an Area of Analysis (AOA). Aggregated from census tracts, AOAs were formed based on areas that had distinctly different soil compositions from adjacent areas and relatively homogeneous urban development. Soil typology was of particular importance in determining AOA boundaries due to the fact that soil types respond differently to seismic waves, resulting in varying levels of damage within the region (Gregorian, 2010). For this model, ground shaking is estimated in terms of MMI from a range of VI to VIII, depending on the proximity to the epicentre of the earthquake and predominant soil type (Figure 10) (Appendix J). AOA boundaries were further delineated to match municipal boundaries. This correspondence ensures model results are provided at the municipal level, which is important given that “each municipality within Metro Vancouver is responsible for their own emergency management and response” (Metro Vancouver, 2011c). In total, the region is divided into 32 AOAs (Appendix B). Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  19  Figure 10: Estimated Ground Shaking in Metro Vancouver Source: Chang et al., forthcoming  Overall, this model was designed to emphasize risk factors that are influenced by urban growth and change (Chang et al., forthcoming). Therefore, using this model, casualty estimates are determined for four different land use and density scenarios through changes to the building inventory, the distribution of population with respect to structural types and the location of buildings.  4.2 Methodology 4.2.1 Building Inventory Model The first sub-model estimates the total building inventory in Metro Vancouver. In order to calculate this, both dwelling unit and population data were required. Since this analysis is for the year 2041, both variables had to account for existing and projected numbers. Therefore, existing dwelling units were ascertained for each census tract using the 2006 Census of Canada variable, “occupied private dwellings by structural type,” in addition to the period of construction. Existing population was also provided by the 2006 census at the census tract level. Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy provided the 2041 projections for both variables (Appendix A). Metro Vancouver’s projections are presented at the municipal level, not by census tracts. Therefore, part of the task for creating each land use and density scenario was to allocate different dwelling unit and population estimates to each census tract. This process is explained in the next section on Model Scenarios. Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  	
    20  The next step in this model was to transform the census structural types into five categories: Single Family, Multi-Family Townhouse, Apartment Buildings Under Five Storeys, Apartment Buildings Five Storeys and Above, and Mobile Home (Table 2). This step was executed using percentages informed by historical periods with distinct building practices (e.g. building codes had limited seismic provisions prior to the 1970s (Mitchell et al., 2010)), regional construction trends, anecdotal evidence, as well as certain assumptions. For example, the model assumes that of the total apartment buildings five storeys and above constructed prior to 1945, 97 percent were mid-rise (five to eight storeys) and three percent were high-rise. In contrast, for the period after 1945, the model assumes 90 percent of all apartments constructed in the region are high-rise apartments (Hutton, 2010). A detailed table of the percentages is provided in Appendix K. Table 2: Model Building Types and Corresponding Census Structural Types  Building Type in Model  Corresponding Census Structural Type(s)  Single Family  Single-Detached House  Multi-Family Townhouse  Semi-Detached House; Row House, Apartment Duplex; and, Other SingleAttached House  Apartment Building <5 Storeys  Apartment Building that has Fewer than Five Storeys  Apartment Building 5+ Storeys  Apartment Building that has Five or More Storeys  Mobile Home  Movable Dwelling  Building types were subsequently manipulated to correspond to a structural classification scheme suitable for earthquake damage modeling. The classification scheme selected was Ventura et al.’s (2005) building classes because of their suitability to the model, as well as their relevance to British Columbia construction practices. Table 3 provides the list of building classes selected for analysis. A complete list of building classes in British Columbia is included in Appendix L. Once all dwelling units were transformed into Ventura et al.’s (2005) building classes, the results from each census tract were aggregated into the larger spatial units of AOAs. The population of each AOA was then distributed to each building class by multiplying the total population in the AOA by the percentage that each building class represented as a total of the building stock in the AOA.  Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  21  Table 3: Building Classes Utilized in Building Inventory Sub-Model  Building Class  Code  Wood Light Frame Residential Wood Post and Beam Wood Light Frame Low Rise Residential Unreinforced Masonry Bearing Wall Low Rise Unreinforced Masonry Bearing Wall Medium Rise Concrete Frame with Infill Walls Concrete Frame with Concrete Walls Low Rise Concrete Frame with Concrete Walls Medium Rise Concrete Frame with Concrete Walls High Rise Mobile Home  WLFR WPB WLFLR URMLR URMMR CFIW CFCWLR CFCWMR CFCWHR MH  4.2.2 Damage Model The damage model estimates the level of physical damage caused by ground shaking in the region. These estimates were calculated by converting Ventura et al.’s (2005) building fragility equations from their lognormal form into damage probability matrices. These matrices are each specific to a building class and translate ground shaking intensity (measured by MMI) into the probability of experiencing different damage states (Chang et al., forthcoming). The seven damage states used in this model include: none, slight, light, moderate, heavy, major, and destroyed (Table 4). Using the population by building class results from the building inventory model, each AOA was multiplied by the corresponding building class damage state based on the MMI value assigned to each AOA (Figure 8; Appendix B). The results for the seven Ventura et al. (2005) damage states were then aggregated into the HAZUS-MH damage states (none, slight, moderate, extensive, and complete) to allow for the final step of casualty estimation (Table 5). Table 4: Damage States and Description  Source: Ventura et al., 2005 Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  	
    22  Table 5: Ventura Damage States and Corresponding HAZUS-MH Damage States  Ventura Damage States  Corresponding HAZUS-MH Damage States  None Slight and Light Moderate Heavy and Major Destroyed  None Slight Moderate Extensive Complete  	
   	
   4.2.3 Casualty Model 	
   The final step of the casualty model is to calculate the number of deaths and serious injuries for each AOA. Serious injuries in this model include “both life-threatening injuries and those non-life-threatening injuries that require medical care or medical technologies, such as x-rays or surgery” (Chang et al., forthcoming). Total casualties were estimated by multiplying the results from the damage model with casualty rates provided by HAZUSMH. The casualty rates for deaths and serious injuries correspond to HAZUS-MH Severity Levels two, three and four. The final number of deaths and serious injuries were aggregated by building class and damage state for each AOA and summed over all AOAs to produce a projection of potential casualties in Metro Vancouver in 2041. Results are rounded to the closest integer.	
    	
   	
   4.3 Model Scenarios 	
   In order to understand the effects of land use and density on seismic risk in Metro Vancouver in 2041, four scenarios were developed for analysis: 1. Status Quo Growth - growth follows current development and new population will be distributed to all currently settled areas in a variety of building types proportionally to current population; 2. Compact Growth - new population will only locate to current and anticipated high density areas in multi-family building structures; 3. Sprawled Growth - new population will only locate to current low-density areas in single detached dwellings and a limited number of multi-family low-rise structures; and, 4. Safe Growth – new population will not be allowed to locate in MMI VIII areas (i.e. areas with high shaking intensity in the earthquake scenario considered); growth will only be distributed to areas with a MMI level of VII or lower in primarily wood frame buildings. The Status Quo Growth scenario presents a development trajectory where growth continues as it is currently occurring in each census tract and by each structural type. The Compact Growth and Sprawled Growth scenarios represent opposite ends of the land use spectrum. On one end, the Compact Growth scenario concentrates growth in census tracts that already are, or are expected to become, highly dense areas with Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  23  predominantly larger-scale multi-family development. On the other end of the spectrum is the Sprawled Growth scenario, which allocates the new growth in low-density census tracts. The building types utilized in this scenario are single detached homes and developments with lower densities, such as duplexes and townhouses. The final scenario, Safe Growth, represents a sustainable hazard mitigation approach. In this case, no new growth is allowed in AOAs with a ground shaking level of MMI VIII, the highest MMI level estimated in Metro Vancouver for a M7.3 earthquake scenario. Instead, growth is distributed only to AOAs with ground shaking levels of MMI VII or lower. For the City of Richmond, which is classified entirely as MMI VIII, the projected growth is redistributed equally to AOAs with a MMI level of VI (the lowest MMI in the region). All four scenarios utilize the dwelling unit and population projections provided by the Regional Growth Strategy (Appendix A). The difference between the 2041 estimates and the 2006 census figures represents the amount of growth expected in the region in the next 35 years. According to Metro Vancouver, the region is to grow by 1,192,120 people and 565,900 dwelling units during the 35-year period (Metro Vancouver, 2011a). The growth figures were then allocated according to the land use and density scenario. Once the allocation process was complete, each scenario was put into the casualty model to calculate the number of deaths and serious injuries that would result from a seismic event in 2041.  	
   	
   4.3.1 Scenario 1 – Status Quo Growth 	
   The Status Quo Growth scenario depicts Metro Vancouver in 2041 to be very similar, in both land use and density distribution, to the region today. The only difference is the additional people and dwelling units that must be accommodated between now and 2041 (Appendix A). To ensure the development trajectory stays the same, this scenario utilizes the current percentages for each structural type in each census tract as the basis for allocating growth. Since the Metro Vancouver growth projections are provided at the municipal level, the data has to first be manipulated and then redistributed to individual census tracts in order to facilitate the use of the casualty model. Therefore, the 2006 census values for total occupied dwelling units for each census tract was divided by the municipal total to obtain the percentage that each census tract represented in the municipality. This percentage was then multiplied by the projected growth in dwelling units for the municipality to determine how many units should be allocated to each census tract in 2041. Once the number of dwelling units for each census tract was determined, it was then necessary to calculate the proportion of each building type in the census tract. This followed a similar process where the total occupied dwellings in each building type by census tract was divided by the total number in each building type to determine its percentage of the whole. This percentage was then multiplied by the established number of units for each census tract to determine the number of units to be allocated to each building type. Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  	
    24  This process was completed for every census tract in Metro Vancouver, except for the census tract representing the municipality of Bowen Island, which is not a designated growth area in the current Regional Growth Strategy (Metro Vancouver, 2011a). The new units were later added to the existing 2006 census data to provide a complete dwelling unit and population total for 2041 (Appendix M). This information is subsequently incorporated into the casualty model to estimate the number of deaths and serious injuries resulting from this development scenario.  4.3.2 Scenario 2 – Compact Growth 	
    The Compact Growth scenario provides a high-density vision of growth in Metro Vancouver. In this scenario, new development can only locate in a few core areas within each municipality. Furthermore, this growth will primarily be in the form of compact, higher-density developments. In this scenario, the percentage breakdown for new growth in each structural type is as follows: • • • • •  0 percent single family dwellings; 10 percent townhouses; 30 percent apartments under five storeys; 60 percent apartments five storeys and above; and, 0 percent mobile homes.  A map of the census tracts selected for growth is provided in Figure 11. In total, only 149 out of 408 census tracts were selected for future development in this scenario.  	
   Census tracts were chosen through consideration of two factors: current densities and anticipated densities. Current densities were calculated by first separating all dwellings in the region into two categories: lower density dwellings (e.g. single-detached house, semi-detached house, apartment duplex, other single-attached house and movable dwelling) and higher density dwellings (e.g. row houses, apartments fewer than five storeys and apartments with five or more storeys). Afterwards, both categories were divided by the total number of dwellings in Metro Vancouver. Census tracts that already had a high percentage of higher density dwellings (80 percent of higher) were then selected for this scenario. Determining whether certain areas were anticipated for higher density development required the consideration of additional information. For instance, the Official Community Plans and land use maps for each municipality in Metro Vancouver were assessed to determine which areas are slated for future growth. In addition, factors such as town centre designations, transportation corridors, and comprehensive development areas were also considered in the selection of census tracts for this scenario (Figure 12). Overall, the Compact Growth scenario corresponds well to density trends seen in the region (Figure 13).  	
   	
    Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  25  	
   Figure 11: Map of Census Tracts Selected in Compact Growth Scenario Shaded areas represent development areas; black area represents no data available Source: Tse, 2011  	
    Figure 12: Town Centres and Transportation Corridors Source: Metro Vancouver, 2011c (used with permission)  Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  	
    26  Figure 13: Metro Vancouver Density Map (Residents per Acre) in 2006 Source: Sightline Institute, 2008 (used with permission)  Once the census tracts were identified for this scenario, the tracts were summed for each municipality and divided by the new growth projected for each local area. Table 6 provides a summary of the census tracts selected for each municipality in this scenario. The complete dwelling unit and population totals are provided in Appendix N. Table 6: Summary of Census Tracts by Municipality selected for Compact Growth Scenario  Municipality  Vancouver  AOA(s)  Dwelling Unit Growth Between 2006 to 2041  Number of 'Dense' Census Tracts  Number of Dwelling Units per Census Tract  Existing and Expected Dense Areas of Municipality  (1-3)  74,000  48  1,542  Downtown Vancouver; Coal Harbour; Olympic Village; Broadway Corridor; Cambie Street Corridor; River District (Fraser River)  4  6,000  1  6,000  University Lands  Electoral Area A (UBC)  Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  27  City of North Vancouver  5  8,000  3  2,667  District of North Vancouver  6  13,000  4  3,250  West Vancouver  7  3,000  2  1,500  Richmond  (8-10)  51,000  8  6,375  Delta  (11-12)  16,000  8  2,000  13  3,000  2  1,500  Surrey  (14-17)  146,000  18  8,111  New Westminster  (18-19, 31)  19,000  6  3,167  Burnaby  (20-21)  68,000  10  6,800  Port Moody  22  8,000  2  4,000  Coquitlam  (23-24)  50,000  10  5,000  Port Coquitlam  25  19,000  5  3,800  Maple Ridge  26  25,000  7  3,571  Pitt Meadows Township of Langley City of Langley  27  4,000  1  4,000  28  46,000  10  4,600  29  6,000  3  2,000  Bowen Island  30  0  0  0  Electoral Area (Anmore, Belcarra, Lions Bay)  32  900  1  900  565,900  149  White Rock  TOTAL  Lonsdale Regional Town Centre Lower Lynn, Lynn Valley, Maplewood Town Centres; Lower Capilano-Marine Village Centre Marine Drive/Ambleside City Centre; No. 3 Road Corridor Ladner Municipal Town Centre; North Delta; Tsawwassen White Rock Municipal Town Centre Surrey City Centre; Guilford; Newton; Cloverdale New Westminster Downtown; Queensborough Metrotown; Edmonds, Lougheed, Brentwood Town Centres Port Moody Town Centre Coquitlam Town Centre; Northeast Coquitlam; Burquitlam and Lougheed Neighbourhoods Port Coquitlam Town Centre Blaney, Forest and Horse Hamlets; River Village Pitt Meadows Town Centre Aldergrove, Walnut Grove, Willoughby Langley Town Centre * No growth because not in Urban Growth Boundary * Anmore, Belcarra and Lions Bay Town Centres  	
   4.3.3 Scenario 3 – Sprawled Growth 	
   The third scenario analyzed is a Sprawled Growth scenario, where new development is distributed to all census tracts not selected in the Compact Growth Scenario. Two local areas, the University of British Columbia and Electoral Area, were included in both scenarios, although the nature of development changed accordingly. For the Sprawled Growth scenario, new growth was overwhelmingly accommodated in detached dwellings. A limited amount of growth was also distributed to lower density multi-family structures, such as townhouses.  Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  	
    28  Using this criterion, a total of 261 census tracts were chosen (Figure 14). The structural type percentages for new growth are as follows:  	
   	
    • • • • •  85 percent single family dwellings; 10 percent townhouses; 0 percent apartments under five storeys; 0 percent apartments five storeys and above; and, 5 percent mobile homes.  	
   Figure 14: Map of Census Tracts Selected in Sprawled Growth Scenario  	
   	
    Shaded areas represent development areas; black area represents no data available Source: Tse, 2011  Current densities were calculated using the same methodology as the Compact Growth scenario, although the focus was shifted to lower-density dwellings. Table 7 provides a summary of the total number of census tracts selected for each municipality in this scenario. The 2041 dwelling unit and population totals for this scenario is listed in Appendix O. While this scenario represents an unlikely growth situation because of the region’s commitment to creating compact communities, this scenario provides insight into the implications of sprawled growth.  	
   	
    Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  29  Table 7: Summary of Census Tracts by Municipality selected for Sprawled Growth Scenario  	
    (1-3)  Dwelling Unit Growth Between 2006 to 2041 74,000  Electoral Area A (UBC)  4  6,000  City of North Vancouver  5  8,000  5  1,600  District of North Vancouver  6  13,000  13  1,000  Municipality  Vancouver  West Vancouver  AOA(s)  Number of 'Sprawled ' Census Tracts  Number of Dwelling Units per Census Tract  59  1,254  1  6,000  7  3,000  7  429  Richmond  (8-10)  51,000  25  2,040  Delta  (11-12)  16,000  11  1,455  White Rock Surrey New Westminster Burnaby  13  3,000  2  1,500  (14-17)  146,000  60  2,433  (18-19, 31)  19,000  7  2,714  (20-21)  68,000  31  2,194  Port Moody  22  8,000  4  2,000  Coquitlam  (23-24)  50,000  12  4,167  Port Coquitlam  25  19,000  4  4,750  Maple Ridge  26  25,000  6  4,167  Pitt Meadows  27  4,000  2  2,000  Township of Langley  28  46,000  8  5,750  City of Langley  29  6,000  3  2,000  Bowen Island  30  0  0  0  Electoral Area (Anmore, Belcarra, Lions Bay)  32  900  1  900  565,900  261  TOTAL  	
   4.3.4 Scenario 4 – Safe Growth The Safe Growth scenario provides a sustainable hazard mitigation example for analysis in this project. While the first three scenarios distributed growth to all areas of Metro Vancouver regardless of ground shaking intensity, this scenario prohibits new growth in AOAs with a MMI level of VIII, which is the highest MMI level estimated for the region for the scenario earthquake under study. By preventing new growth from occurring in highly vulnerable areas, this scenario uses land use planning to minimize the number of people exposed to seismic risk in the region. A total of six AOAs have a MMI level of VIII in this study (AOA 2, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 20). Since no growth can be allocated to these particular AOAs, only 351 out of a total of 408 census tracts were chosen to accept growth in this scenario Figure 15). In the unique case of Richmond, which is located entirely in an area with a MMI level of VIII, the 51,000 dwelling units projected for the city was distributed evenly to all AOAs in the region with a MMI level of VI, the lowest MMI level in the region. Population projections for these Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  	
    30  restricted AOAs were also distributed evenly to other AOAs in the municipality, or in the case of Richmond, were re-allocated to AOAs with a MMI level of VI. Appendix P provides the complete dwelling unit and population totals for this scenario. Table 8 provides a summary of the number of units each AOA is to accommodate in this scenario. The percentage breakdown for new growth in each structural type is: • • • • •  40 percent single family dwellings; 30 percent townhouses; 30 percent apartments under five storeys; 0 percent apartments five storeys and above; and, 0 percent mobile homes.  Lower density, wood frame buildings were favoured in this scenario because of the ability of these structures to withstand significant ground shaking (Ventura et al., 2005). Overall, the first three growth scenarios present different land use patterns for regional growth, while the Safe Growth scenario provides a sustainable hazard mitigation approach that actually limits growth in highly vulnerable areas. The latter scenario is of particular interest because it provides much needed insight into the feasibility of using land use controls to mitigate seismic risk in the Metro Vancouver region.  Figure 15: Map of Census Tracts Selected in Safe Growth Scenario Lighter shaded areas represent development areas; darker shaded areas represent development areas allocated additional growth because of their lower MMI level; black area represents no data available Source: Tse, 2011  Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  31  Table 8: Summary of Census Tracts by Municipality selected for Safe Growth Scenario Municipality  AOA  MMI  Dwelling Unit Growth Between 2006 to 2041  Number of 'Safe' Census Tracts 77  Number of Dwelling Units per Census Tract 740  Vancouver (Eastside and Westside)  1  VII  South Vancouver  2  VIII  Downtown Vancouver  3  VII  University of British Columbia  4  VII  City of North Vancouver  5  VII  District of North Vancouver  6  District of West Vancouver  7  Richmond  8  VIII  Richmond (Airport)  9  VIII  Mitchell Island/North Richmond  10  VIII  0  0  Delta (Tsawwassen)  11  VII  4  4,000  Delta (Ladner and North Delta)  12  VIII  White Rock  13  VI  Surrey (South)  14  Surrey (Central)  15  Surrey (North)  16  VI  Surrey (Seaport)  17  New Westminster (Queensborough)  18  New Westminster  19  VI  Downtown New Westminster  31  Burnaby (Big Bend)  20  Burnaby  21  VII  Port Moody  22  VI  Coquitlam (South)  23  VII  Coquitlam (North)  24  VI  Port Coquitlam  25  VII  19,000  9  2,111  Maple Ridge  26  VI  25,000  13  1,923 + 386*  Pitt Meadows  27  VII  4,000  3  1,333  Township of Langley  28  VI  46,000  18  2,556 + 386*  City of Langley  29  VII  6,000  6  1,000  0  0  1  900  74,000  0  0  23  740  6,000  1  6,000  8,000  8  1,000  VII  13,000  16  813  VII  3,000  9  333  0  0  0  0  51,000*  16,000  0  0  4  750 + 386*  VI  10  1,872 + 386*  VII  12  1,872  55  1,872 + 386*  VII  1  1,872  VII  2  1,462  9  1,462 + 386*  VII  2  1,462  VIII  0  0  3,000  146,000  19,000  68,000 8,000 50,000  Bowen Island 30 VII 0 Electoral Area 32 VII 900 (Anmore, Belcarra, Lions Bay) TOTAL 565,900 * Population growth for Richmond divided equally between all AOAs with MMI VI  40  1,700  6  1,333 + 386*  5  2,273  17  2,273 + 386*  351  5.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 5.1 Results Summary 	
    The results from the casualty model indicate that a hypothetical earthquake event in Metro Vancouver in 2041 would produce relatively similar numbers of deaths and serious Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  	
    32  injuries, although the Safe Growth scenario would result in the fewest casualties at 14 deaths and 31 serious injuries. The other three scenarios showed the same number of deaths at 16. In terms of serious injuries, the Status Quo Growth scenario resulted in a few more injuries than the Safe Growth scenario at 34, followed closely by the Sprawled Growth example at 36 and the Compact Growth case at 37. The casualty numbers for each scenario are presented at the regional level in Table 9 and by individual municipalities in Table 10. Table 9: Summary Results by Growth Scenario for Metro Vancouver Status Quo Growth  Compact Growth  Sprawled Growth  Safe Growth  Total Population in 2041*  3,308,551  3,308,551  3,308,551  3,392,251  Population in MMI=VIII Areas  407,267 2,885,219 (87.2%) 17,544 (0.1%) 377,341 (11.4%) 35,909 (1.1%)  407,267 2,238,101 (67.3%) 17,488 (0.1%) 1,049,195 (31.7%) 51,420 (1.5%)  407,267 2,945,339 (89.0%) 18,104 (0.1%) 262,944 (7.9%) 41,313 (1.2%)  287,389 3,071,200 (90.5%) 17,672 (0.1%) 290,282 (8.6%) 27,614 (0.1%)  1,374,442  1,377,968  1,376,965  1,383,145  16  16  16  14  0.0048  0.0048  0.0048  0.0042  34  37  36  31  Population in Wood Frame Buildings Population in Masonry Buildings Population in Concrete Frame Buildings Population in Significantly** Damaged Dwellings Total Dwelling Units in 2041* Number of Deaths Fatality Rate (Deaths/1,000 People) Number of Serious Injuries  Serious Injury Rate (Injuries/1,000 People) 0.0103 0.0112 0.0109 0.009 * Total population and dwelling units may not match Metro Vancouver projections due to the author’s use of existing census data, rather than projections, as well as rounding ** Significantly damaged dwellings include “moderate,” “extensive,” and “complete” damage states  Table 10: Summary Results by Growth Scenario for AOAs and Municipalities Growth Scenarios Municipality Vancouver (Eastside and Westside) South Vancouver Downtown Vancouver University of British Columbia City of North Vancouver District of North Vancouver District of West Vancouver Richmond  AOA  MMI  Status Quo Growth  Compact Growth  Sprawled Growth  Safe Growth  Deaths  Injuries  Deaths  Injuries  Deaths  Injuries  Deaths  Injuries  1  VII  8  9  8  9  7  8  7  8  2  VIII  2  3  2  3  2  3  1  2  3  VII  2  6  2  6  3  8  2  7  4  VII  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  5  VII  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  6  VII  0  1  0  1  0  1  0  1  7  VII  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  8  VIII  1  7  1  9  1  8  1  5  Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  33  Richmond (Airport) Mitchell Island/North Richmond Delta (Tsawwassen) Delta (Ladner and North Delta) White Rock  9  VIII  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  10  VIII  0  1  0  1  0  1  0  1  11  VII  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  12  VIII  0  3  0  4  0  3  0  3  13  VI  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  Surrey (South)  14  VI  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  Surrey (Central)  15  VII  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  Surrey (North)  16  VI  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  Surrey (Seaport) New Westminster (Queensborough) New Westminster  17  VII  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  18  VII  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  19  VI  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  Burnaby (Big Bend)  20  VIII  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  Burnaby  21  VII  2  3  2  3  2  3  2  3  Port Moody  22  VI  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  Coquitlam (South)  23  VII  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  Coquitlam (North)  24  VI  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  Port Coquitlam  25  VII  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  Maple Ridge  26  VI  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  Pitt Meadows Township of Langley City of Langley  27  VII  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  28  VI  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  29  VII  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  Bowen Island Downtown New Westminster Electoral Area (Anmore, Belcarra, Lions Bay) TOTAL CASUALTIES  30  VII  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  31  VII  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  32  VII  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  16  34  16  37  16  36  14  31  While the primary objective of this research is to estimate earthquake casualties, other factors also need to be considered to fully understand seismic risk in relation to land use. For example, it is interesting to note that by prohibiting new development from MMI VIII areas, in addition to allocating most growth to wood frame structures, the Safe Growth scenario resulted in substantially fewer people living in significantly damaged dwellings (27,407) than compared to the Status Quo Growth (35,909), Sprawled Growth (41,313), and Compact Growth (51,420) scenarios. The potential for greater risk from higherdensity development is supported by research conducted by Berke et al. (2009). The authors found that high-density developments often place more people, residential and commercial buildings, and infrastructure at risk than conventional low-density development on an equivalent land unit exposed to hazards (Berke et al., 2009). While the potential risks associated with higher-density development are acknowledged, the authors do not advocate for sprawl. Instead, they argue for greater awareness and  Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  	
    34  anticipation of local hazards, as well as more proactive mitigation in areas with higher densities. 	
    When analyzing by AOA, it becomes clear that certain municipalities are particularly vulnerable. In particular, the City of Vancouver accounts for the majority of deaths and serious injuries in all four scenarios. The City of Burnaby is also projected to have two deaths and 3 serious injuries in all growth scenarios. Casualties in both cities can most probably be attributed to the fact that both are older municipalities with large concentrations of pre-1973 building vintages. The vulnerability of older building vintages to seismic shaking, especially unreinforced masonry buildings, cannot be ignored. As Table 11 illustrates, building class remains an important indicator of casualties in 2041, as the deaths in all four scenarios were attributed to unreinforced masonry. This is because unreinforced masonry “exhibits higher probabilities of being in higher damage states at all MMI levels compared with other building types” (Ventura et al., 2005). Table 11: Deaths and Serious Injuries based on Building Class  Building Class  Status Quo Growth Deaths  Injuries 8 (28%)  Deaths  Injuries 5 (16%)  Deaths  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  16 (100%)  16 (55%) 4 (14%)  16 (100%)  0  0  0  Deaths  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  16 (52%) 3 (10%)  16 (100%)  16 (52%) 5 (16%)  14 (100%)  14 (56%) 4 (16%)  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  1 (3%)  0  7 (23%)  0  0  0  1 (4%)  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  1 (3%)  0  0  16  29  16  31  16  31  14  25  0  Wood Post and Beam  Mobile Home TOTAL CASUALTIES *  Safe Growth  Injuries 9 (29%)  Wood Light Frame Residential Wood Light Frame Low Rise Residential Unreinforced Masonry Bearing Wall Low Rise Unreinforced Masonry Bearing Wall Medium Rise Concrete Frame with Infill Walls Concrete Frame with Concrete Walls Low Rise Concrete Frame with Concrete Walls Medium Rise Concrete Frame with Concrete Walls High Rise  Growth Scenarios Compact Sprawled Growth Growth  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  Injuries 6 (24%)  * Numbers of deaths and serious injuries may not match final totals due to rounding For final totals, numbers are rounded to closest zero after aggregated for each AOA)  While the Safe Growth scenario accounted for ground shaking levels, the other three scenarios did not. Therefore, looking at soil type and its influence on these three cases, the results indicate that most deaths did not occur in municipalities with soils more susceptible to ground shaking (indicated by a higher MMI value in the model). It was expected that soil amplification would influence deaths, but for each of the three  Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  35  scenarios only 19 percent of fatalities occurred in AOAs with the highest MMI value of VIII. This is reflected by the relatively minor difference in casualties between the sustainable hazard mitigation approach and the other more general land use scenarios. However, soil types did seem to correspond more with the incidence of serious injuries. For instance, the percentage of serious injuries that occurred in the highest MMI value for the Status Quo Growth, Compact Growth and Sprawled Growth scenarios were 41 percent, 46 percent and 42 percent, respectively. Overall, the presence of soils susceptible to amplification alone does not seem to cause significant damage. Rather, it is likely the combination of both vulnerable soils and building types that result in the highest casualty rates. Understanding the dominant building class in each scenario further helps to explain the results. According to Ventura et al. (2005), fragility curves that lie further to the right of the graph and are flatter at higher intensities and damage states reflect relatively less observed damage at higher shaking levels. Therefore, comparing the Wood Light Frame Residential (WLFR) building type that predominates the Safe, Status Quo and Sprawled Growth scenarios to the Concrete Frame Concrete Wall High-Rise (CFCWHR) of the Compact Growth case, the differences between the fragility curves are noticeable (Figure 16).  Figure 16: Comparison of Wood Frame and Concrete Frame Building Class Fragility Curves Source: Ventura et al., 2005  	
   5.2 Implications for Future Growth in Metro Vancouver 5.2.1 Land Use This research is first and foremost an investigation into whether land use is an effective seismic risk mitigation tool in the Metro Vancouver region. Based on the results of the model, it appears that the Safe Growth scenario does result in fewer deaths and serious injuries. If comparing only the scenarios that did not use a sustainable hazard mitigation Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  	
    36  approach, the Status Quo Growth scenario, which allocated new growth according to the current development trajectory, seems most successful at mitigating seismic risk. The success of the Safe Growth and Status Quo Growth scenarios is even more evident when a retrospective analysis of risk in the region is provided. Table 12 shows the results of research conducted on seismic risk in Metro Vancouver in 1971 and 2006. All three time periods, 1971, 2006 and 2041 were analyzed using the same methodology, thereby allowing an assessment to be made on how seismic risk has changed over time. Table 12: Number of Deaths and Serious Injuries for 1971, 2006 and 2041 1971 Total Population* Population in MMI=VIII Areas Population in Wood Frame Buildings Population in Masonry Buildings Population in Concrete Frame Buildings Population in Significantly** Damaged Dwellings Total Dwelling Units* Number of Deaths Fatality Rate (Deaths/1,000 People)  2006  2041 - Status Quo Growth  2041 – Safe Growth  1,080,035  2,116,431  3,308,551  3,392,251  122,585 (11.4%)  287,389 (13.6%)  407,267 (12.3%)  972,304 (90.0%)  1,842,201 (87.0%)  2,885,219 (87.2%)  287,389 (8.7%) 2,983,495 (90.4%)  30,611 (2.8%)  19,010 (0.9%)  17,544 (0.1%)  17,382 (0.1%)  72,646 (6.7%)  240,610 (11.4%)  377,341 (11.4%)  286,459 (8.7%)  21,545 (2.0%)  32,078 (1.5%)  35,909 (1.1%)  27,407 (0.1%)  256,235  802,675  1,374,442  1,383,145  29  16  16  14  0.0269  0.0076  0.0048  0.0042  43 34 34 31 Number of Serious Injuries Serious Injury Rate 0.0398 0.0161 0.0103 0.009 (Injuries/1,000 People) * Total population and dwelling units for 2041 may not match Metro Vancouver projections due to the author’s use of existing census data, rather than projections, as well as rounding ** Significantly damaged dwellings include “moderate,” “extensive,” and “complete” damage states  	
   	
    The results in Table 12 show that seismic risk in Metro Vancouver has been decreasing since 1971. The number of deaths and serious injuries in 1971 went from 29 and 43, respectively, to 16 and 34 in 2041 for the Status Quo scenario and 14 and 31 for the Safe Growth scenario. Furthermore, the 2041 casualty numbers for the Status Quo Growth case, which are the same as 2006 numbers in absolute terms, are actually decreasing relative to population growth. This is indicated by the fatality and serious injury rates, which went from 0.0076 and 0.0161, respectively, in 2006 to 0.0048 and 0.0103 in 2041. While the number of casualties has been decreasing since 1971, the number of people living in strong MMI shaking areas has increased, in absolute terms, for both the 2006 and the 2041 Status Quo scenarios. While this number is decreasing in relation to the entire population, there remains a large population of people living in vulnerable areas. Conversely, the Safe Growth scenario in 2041 shows a substantial decrease in the number of people living in strong MMI shaking areas. This reduction was achieved by deliberately limiting new growth from known hazardous areas in the region (areas with a MMI level of Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  37  VIII). This research clearly shows that land use planning can help mitigate seismic risk in the region. However, whether this approach will be adopted in actual practice is questionable. Based on the current governance structure in the region, municipalities need to champion growth and development in their jurisdiction for revenue. This means that limiting development will not be a popular idea to municipalities unless a more regional approach to governance is explored.  	
   5.2.2 Governance While Metro Vancouver is the regional authority, its power to influence land use planning is limited. In this region, municipalities are in charge of all planning and land use decisions, including the location and design of development projects. Therefore, while the region may recognize the challenge of natural hazards in the area, how risk will be mitigated at the local scale remains up to individual municipalities.  	
    In the context of global climate change and the need for a more sustainable and resilient future, other methods of governance are now being explored. One approach that could potentially aid disaster management is Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM). This method of governance integrates the “environment and development planning within a coherent management unit, defined in terms of biophysical and socioeconomic similarities (a bioregion)” (Slocombe, 1993). Overall, EBM is a management approach that: • • • • • •  Integrates ecological, social and economic goals and recognizes humans as key components of the ecosystem; Considers ecological- not just political – boundaries; Addresses the complexity of natural processes and social systems and uses an adaptive management approach in the face of resulting uncertainties; Engages multiple stakeholders in a collaborative process to define problems and find solutions; Incorporates understandings of ecosystem processes and how ecosystems respond to environment perturbations, and, Is concerned with the sustainability of both human and ecological systems (Ecosystem-Based Management Tools Network, 2010).  The adoption of a governance structure such as EBM could significantly alter the way risk is managed in Metro Vancouver. Viewing the region as a bioregion, rather than solely a political entity, growth could be managed in a way that is not constrained by municipal boundaries. In the case of disaster management, growth could be allocated to areas that are relatively hazard free, as opposed to the current method of distributing growth to all member municipalities with no consideration of local risk factors. The impacts of climate change further pose a threat to Metro Vancouver as disruptions to natural systems, including natural hazards, are expected to increase in intensity and variability (van Aalst, 2006). Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy does take Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  	
    38  climate change and its impacts into account. However, whether the current governance system is effective in dealing with the challenges of climate change is unknown. The municipalities most susceptible to seismic risk in the region, such as Richmond and Vancouver, are also likely areas to be affected by climate change impacts (e.g. sea level rise, flooding, etc.). Adopting a stronger hazards mitigation approach in the region can help complement climate change adaptation strategies. By identifying risks, reducing vulnerabilities and encouraging mitigation, disaster management activities can help to foster resilient communities that are more able to withstand and overcome disruptions to the natural, economic and social systems.  	
   5.2.3 Building Technology 	
   Understanding and utilizing sound building technologies can significantly reduce risk in Metro Vancouver. However, a particular vulnerability in the region is the older building stock that was constructed before seismic standards were incorporated into the provincial building code. This is particularly relevant to heritage buildings, which are often protected by planners and government officials because of their history and value to the community. In fact, the province acknowledges that “to apply present Building Code provisions to existing buildings is, in many cases, impractical and with heritage buildings may compromise historic appearances or authenticity” (BC Ministry of Housing 2006). Furthermore, while the building code advocates for the use of sprinklers in heritage buildings, there are no recommendations for seismic upgrades or retrofits. The valuing of authenticity over structural safety may be compromising disaster resiliency in the region. To rectify this, government authorities need a firm action plan on older buildings, whether that is in the form of retrofits or demolition. This is an opportune time as many older buildings are now in need of repairs. Furthermore, while this topic is relevant to residential structures, it may be even more important for critical infrastructure buildings, such as hospitals, and public institutions, such as schools. While building safety is an important part of reducing risk in Metro Vancouver, the overreliance on building technologies can unknowingly exacerbate risk. This is especially true if other vulnerabilities, such as where development is located, are overlooked because of a strong belief on technological fixes.  5.2.4 Model Limitations 	
    A series of assumptions were made in the development of the model and in the calculation of the growth scenarios that could potentially limit the applicability of this analysis. One potential limitation is the percentages used to transform the census structural types into Ventura et al. (2005) building types (Appendix K). While all percentages were chosen with support from existing literature and anecdotal evidence, there could potentially be errors in the percentages and in how the percentages were allocated to each structural category. This is especially true for older building vintages where information was very limited. Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  39  Another possible limitation is the separation between mid-rise apartments and high-rise apartments that was created for this analysis. Due to the fact that Statistics Canada only provides a general category of “apartments five storeys and above,” the separation between mid-rise (five to eight storeys) and high-rise apartments (eight storeys and above) was made to account for their very different construction methods. However, since there was no data available, anecdotal evidence had to be used to determine the prevalence of each building type. It was therefore decided that prior to 1945, approximately 97 percent of apartments over five storeys were mid-rises, while after 1945, only 10 percent of apartments over five storeys were mid-rise apartments (Hutton, 2010). Understanding the prevalence of older mid-rise apartments was important because of the common practice then of using unreinforced masonry, which is the most vulnerable building type in the region and exhibits higher probabilities of being damaged in a seismic event than other building classes (Ventura et al., 2005). In addition, only current building practices and development regulations are considered in this analysis. Future changes to building codes, construction practices, land use, density and zoning may result in very different casualty estimations for the region. Demolition of existing buildings is also not taken into account. With the research results indicating that all estimated deaths in the region are to occur in unreinforced masonry structures, the removal of this building type from the region’s housing stock could significantly reduce seismic risk in Metro Vancouver.  6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS – PATH TO A DISASTER-RESILIENT REGION 	
    This research estimated the number of deaths and serious injuries that would result from four growth scenarios in Metro Vancouver in 2041. While the Status Quo Growth scenario represents the existing development trajectory of the region, the Compact Growth and Sprawled Growth scenarios characterize the opposite ends of the development spectrum. The Safe Growth scenario, which serves as the sustainable hazard mitigation example, appears most effective at reducing the number of casualties, as well as at minimizing the population living in significantly damaged dwellings. Yet, better refinement to each growth scenario is needed; therefore, one recommendation would be to work directly with municipalities in Metro Vancouver to develop more probable scenarios of future growth. One of the key goals of Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy is to create a compact urban area. However, based on this analysis, the Compact Growth scenario resulted in the highest number of serious injuries and the highest number of people living in significantly damaged dwellings. Overall, this research does not suggest that this goal be disregarded, especially in light of the many sustainability benefits afforded by highdensity development, including less disruption to the natural environment by concentrating growth and increased capacity for more active forms of transportation. However, better research on and understanding of the relationship between high-density development and seismic risk is needed to ensure the region is not exacerbating vulnerabilities and unknowingly putting residents in harm’s way. Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  	
    40  In addition, this project primarily worked within the confines of Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy and utilized the population and dwelling unit projections, as well as the list of municipalities expecting growth, in the allocation process. A more complete investigation into the effectiveness of land use could use multiple scenarios to explore different combinations of AOA growth allocations, structural types and hazard levels. This would significantly refine the casualty estimates provided by the Safe Growth scenario and reveal greater insight into the impacts of land use planning in mitigating seismic risk in the region. This format would be more in line with the locational and design approaches advocated by Burby (1998) and would contribute to a better understanding of sustainable hazard mitigation in practice. Another recommendation would be to utilize visualization, in conjunction with the model. By doing so, the scenarios would seem more ‘real’ and approachable. In addition, having more hands-on tools could help facilitate the move to a more participatory and engaging process for risk management, which can help increase public awareness and education about hazards and vulnerabilities. In addition, further refinements to the model can also be made, especially in regards to resolving the assumptions and limitations of the current model. Furthermore, an expansion in scope, such as including all building structures and infrastructure, could significantly improve understandings of the potential social disruption caused by an earthquake event. Accounting for economic disruption would further round out this methodology. While this would undoubtedly make the model more complex, the results of the model would also be more applicable to real world situations.  7.0 CONCLUSIONS The purpose of this research has been to develop a better understanding of how land use and density affects seismic risk in the growing region of Metro Vancouver. The casualty estimates calculated in this report do confirm that land use planning, as a sustainable hazard mitigation approach, is effective at reducing the number of deaths, serious injuries, and people living in significantly damaged dwellings. However, the reductions achieved by limiting development from more hazardous areas is only slightly better than the other three scenarios (Status Quo Growth, Compact Growth, and Sprawled Growth) in terms of number of deaths and serious injuries. Therefore, while shifting new development from less hazardous areas is effective at reducing risk, the loss in development revenue for local municipalities would probably result in negligible adoption of this technique in practice. While the Safe Growth scenario proved superior in mitigating risk in Metro Vancouver, the other three scenarios represent more likely development situations in the region. This may be especially true for the Compact Growth scenario, which represents a development vision similar to Metro Vancouver’s goal of creating a compact, urban region. Yet, this scenario resulted in the same number of deaths as the Status Quo and Sprawled scenarios at 16, and higher numbers for both serious injuries and people living in significantly damaged structures.  Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  41  The results of the Compact Growth scenario are quite contrary to the existing literature on land use, compact growth, and risk mitigation. This is likely due to the fact that most of this research is focused on floods, which may be more responsive to direct land use interventions such as limiting development on flood plains (Burby, 1998). Seismic risk, on the other hand, involves a multitude of factors, ranging from the built environment to geological conditions and prevailing social systems and institutions. Therefore, this type of hazard risk may be harder to control with land use planning because of the possible convergence of multiple vulnerabilities to exacerbate damage and disruption. Overall, this research provides a much needed methodology and estimate of earthquake casualties in the Metro Vancouver region. By being proactive in understanding future seismic risk, this research can provide a sound basis for decision-making in the region regarding the placement, form and density of development that best protects the residents of Metro Vancouver in the likely event of an earthquake.  	
  	
    Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  	
    42  8.0 REFERENCES Advisory Committee for the International Decade for Natural Hazard Reduction. (1989). Reducing Disaster’s Toll: The United States Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Alesch, D.J., L.A. Arendt and J.N. Holly. (2009). “Chapter 20 – Before the Next Disaster: Hazard Mitigation.” Managing the Long-Term Community Recovery in the Aftermath of Disaster. Fairfax, VA: Public Entity Risk Institute. Alexander, D. (1999). Natural Disasters. London, UK: UCL Press Limited. BC Laws. (2011). “Part 25 – Regional Growth Strategies.” Local Government Act. Accessed online 15 October, 2011 from http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/ document/ID/freeside/96323_29#part25. BC Ministry of Housing. (2006). “British Columbia Building Code 2006.” Victoria, BC: Crown Publications. BC Ministry of Housing. (2010). “Building and Safety Standards Branch.” Housing and Construction Standards. Accessed online 5 April, 2010 from http://www.housing.gov.bc.ca/index.htm. BC Provincial Emergency Program. (2004). “Are you Ready for an Earthquake in B.C.” Emergency Management BC. Accessed online 4 April, 2010 from http://www.pep.bc.ca/hazard_preparedness/Earthquakes_2004.pdf. Benson, J. and Twigg, C. (2007). Tools for Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction: Guidance Notes for Development Organizations. Geneva, Switzerland: ProVention Consortium. Berke, P.R., Song, Y. and M. Stevens. (2009). “Integrating Hazard Mitigation into New Urban and Conventional Developments.” Journal of Planning Education and Research. Vol. 28, No. 4, P. 441-455. Burby, R.J. (2006). “Hurricane Katrina and the Paradoxes of Government Disaster Policy: Bringing about Wise Governmental Decisions for Hazardous Areas.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. Vol. 604. P. 171-191. Burby, R.J., T. Beatley, P.R. Berke, R.E. Deyle, S.P. French, D.R. Godschalk, E.J. Kaiser, J.D. Kartez, P.J. May, R. Olshansky, R.G. Paterson and R.H. Platt. (1999). “Unleashing the Power of Planning to Create Disaster-Resilient Communities.” Journal of the American Planning Association. Vol. 65, No. 3, P.247-258. Burby, R.J., ed. (1998). Cooperating with Nature: Confronting Natural Hazards with Land Use Planning. Washington, DC: John Henry Press.  Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  43  Cassidy, J.F. and Rogers, G.C. (2004). Variation in Ground Shaking on the Fraser River Delta (Greater Vancouver, Canada) from Analysis of Moderate Earthquakes. 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (Vancouver, Canada). Paper No. 1010. Chang, S.E., Gregorian, M., Pathman, K., Yumagulova, L. and W. Tse. (forthcoming). “Urban Growth and Long-Term Change in Natural Hazard Risk.” Environment and Planning A. City of Burnaby. (1998). Burnaby Official Community Plan Bylaw 1998. Accessed June 3, 2011 from http://www.burnaby.ca/City-Services/Policies--Projects--Initiatives/Community-Development/Policies.html. City of Coquitlam. (2006). Citywide Official Community Plan. Accessed 3 June, 2011 from http://www.coquitlam.ca/Business/Developing+Coquitlam/Strategic+Plans/Citywi de+Official+Community+Plan.htm. City of Langley. (2005). Official Community Plan. Accessed 3 June, 2011 from http://city.langley.bc.ca/index.php/business/official-community-plan. City of North Vancouver. (2002). Official Community Plan. Accessed 3 June, 2011 from http://www.cnv.org/server.aspx?c=3&i=636. City of Pitt Meadows. (2007). Pitt Meadows Official Community Plan. Accessed 3 June, 2011 from http://www.pittmeadows.bc.ca/EN/main/business/1156/1181.html. City of Port Coquitlam. (2005). PocoPlan: Planning Our Community (Official Community Plan). Accessed 5 June, 2011 from http://www.portcoquitlam.ca/City_Hall/ City_Departments/Development_Services/Official_Community_Plan_-_OCP.htm. City of Port Moody. (2011). City of Port Moody Official Community Plan. Accessed 3 June, 2011 from http://www.portmoody.ca/index.aspx?page=313. City of Richmond. (1999). Official Community Plan. Accessed 3 June, 2011 from http://www.richmond.ca/services/planning/ocp/sched1.htm. City of Surrey. (2002). Official Community Plan. Accessed 5 June, 2011 from http://www.surrey.ca/plans-strategies/1318.aspx. City of Vancouver. (2010). “CityPlan and Community Visions.” City of Vancouver Website. Accessed June 5, 2011 from http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/cityplan/ visions/. City of White Rock. (2008). White Rock Official Community Plan. Accessed 6 June, 2011 from www.whiterockcity.ca/assets/.../Official-Community-Plan-1837.pdf.  Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  	
    44  Clague, J.J., P.T. Bobrowsky and R.D. Hyndman. (1995). “The Threat of a Great Earthquake in Southwestern British Columbia.” Accessed online 7 April, 2010 from http://earthquakescanada.nrcan.gc.ca/zones/cascadia/menace/index-eng.php. Clague, J., Luternauer, J.L. and D.C. Mosher. (1998.) “Geology and Natural Hazards of the Fraser River Delta, British Columbia.” Geological Survey of Canada. Bulletin 525, 270 pp. Corporation of Delta. (1985). The Corporation of Delta Official Community Plan. Accessed 3 June, 2011 from https://delta.civicweb.net/Documents/ DocumentList.aspx?ID=39403. District of Maple Ridge. (2006). Maple Ridge Official Community Plan. Accessed 5 June, 2011 from http://www.mapleridge.ca/EN/main/business/4389/ocp.html. District of North Vancouver. (2011). The District of North Vancouver: Our Official Community Plan for a Sustainable Future. Accessed 28 July, 2011 from http://identity.dnv.org/. District of West Vancouver. (2004). Official Community Plan. Accessed 6 June, 2011 from http://westvancouver.ca/Level2.aspx?id=1446. Ecosystem-Based Management Tools Network. (2010). About Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM). Accessed online 1 November, 2011 from http://www.ebmtools.org/about_ebm.html. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (2011). “Hazus: FEMA's Methodology for Estimating Potential Losses from Disasters.” Federal Emergency Management Agency. Accessed online 8 November, 2011 from http://www.fema.gov/plan/ prevent/hazus/. Finn, W.D. L. and Wightman, A. (2003). “Ground Motion Amplification Factors for the Proposed 2005 Edition of the National Building Code of Canada.” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering. Vol. 30, P. 272-278. Godschalk, D.R. (2003). “Urban Hazard Mitigation: Creating Resilient Cities.” Natural Hazards Review. Vol. 4, No. 3, P. 136-143. Government of British Columbia. (2011). “Local Government Department.” Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development. Accessed online 30 September, 2011 from http://www.cscd.gov.bc.ca/lgd/municipality/municipal_planning.htm. Gregorian, M. (2010). Social Disruption Following an Earthquake in Metro Vancouver: A Spatial Assessment of Social Vulnerability to Earthquakes in Metro Vancouver, British Columbia. School of Community and Regional Planning Masters’ Project.  Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  45  H. John Heinz III Centre for Science, Economics and the Environment. (2000). “Chapter 3 – Towards an Improved Understanding of the True Costs of Coastal Hazards and Disasters.” The Hidden Costs of Coastal Hazards. Washington, DC: Island Press. Helmer, M. and Hilhorst, D. (2006). “Natural Disasters and Climate Change.” Disasters. Vol. 30, No. 1, P. 1-4. Hutton, T. (2010). Personal Communications. University of British Columbia School of Community and Regional Planning. Kenter, P. (2008). “Building to Resist the Risks of a Seismic Event in Canada.” Daily Commercial News and Construction Record. Accessed online 7 April, 2010 from http://www.dailycommercialnews.com/cgibin/dcnhome.pl?rm=print_story& story_id=26159&source=article. Kreimer, A., M. Arnold, and A. Carlin, eds. (2003). Building Safer Cities: The Future of Disaster Risk. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Metro Vancouver. (2007). “2006 Census Bulletin #1: Population and Dwelling Counts.” Greater Vancouver Regional District. Metro Vancouver. (2011a). “Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping Our Future (Regional Growth Strategy).” Greater Vancouver Regional District. Metro Vancouver (2011b). “Metro Vancouver Housing Data Book.” Metro Vancouver. Accessed online 10 August, 2011 from www.metrovancouver.org. Metro Vancouver. (2011c). Metro Vancouver Website. Accessed online 15 September, 2011 from http://www.metrovancouver.org/Pages/default.aspx. Mileti, D.S. (1999). Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States. Washington, DC: John Henry Press. Mileti, D.S. and Gailus, J.L. (2005). “Sustainable Development and Hazards Mitigation in the United States: Disasters by Design Revisited.” Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. Vol. 10, P. 491-504. Mitchell, D., Paultre, P., Tinawi, R., Saatcioglu, M., Tremblay, R., Elwood, K., Adams, J., and R. DeVall. (2010). “Evolution of Seismic Design Provisions in the National Building Code of Canada.” Université de Sherbrooke Civil Engineering. Accessed online 16 October, 2011 from http://.civil.usherbrooke.ca. Monahan, P.A., Levson, V.M., Henderson, P. and A. Sy. (2000). “Relative Amplification of Ground Motion Hazard Map of Greater Vancouver. British Columbia Ministry of Energy and Mines. Accessed online 2 September, 2011 from http://www.em.gov.bc.ca/MINING/GEOSCIENCE/SURFICIALGEOLOGYANDHAZARDS/ VICTORIAEARTHQUAKEMAPS/AMPLIFICATION/Pages/default.aspx. Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  	
    46  Moor, J. (2001). “Cities at Risk.” Habitat Debate. Vol. 4, No. 4, P. 1-6. National Research Council Canada. (2009). “2005 NBC.” National Model Construction Code Documents. Accessed online 5 April, 2010 fromhttp://www.nationalcodes. ca/nbc/index_e.shtml. Natural Resources Canada. (2011). “Recent Earthquakes.” Earthquakes Canada. Accessed online 2 November, 2011 from http://earthquakescanada.nrcan.gc.ca/recent_eq/ 2011/20110909.1941/index-eng.php. Natural Resources Canada. (2008). “Seismic Hazard Calculations.” Earthquakes Canada. Accessed online 7 April, 2010 from http://earthquakescanada.nrcan.gc.ca/hazardalea/zoning/haz-eng.php. Nelson, A.C. and French, S.P. (2002). “Plan Quality and Mitigating Damage from Natural Disasters: A Case Study of the Northridge Earthquake with Planning Policy Considerations.” Journal of the American Planning Association. Vol. 68, No. 2, P. 194-202. Oliver-Smith, A. (1994) “Chapter 3 - Peru’s Five Hundred Year Earthquake: Vulnerability in Historical Context.” Disasters, Development and Environment.(Varley, A., ed.) P. 31-48. Onur, T. and Seemann, M.R. (2004). Probabilities of Significant Earthquake Shaking in Communities Across British Columbia: Implications for Emergency Management. 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (Vancouver, Canada). Paper No. 1065. Onur, T., Ventura, C. E. and W.D.L. Finn. (2004). Effect of Earthquake Probability Level on Loss Estimations. 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (Vancouver, Canada). Paper No. 2608. Pearce, L. (2003). “Disaster Management and Community Planning, and Public Participation: How to Achieve Sustainable Hazard Mitigation.” Natural Hazards. Vol. 28, P. 211-228. Rogers, G.C. (1998). “Earthquakes and Earthquake Hazard in the Vancouver Area,” in Geology and Natural Hazards of the Fraser River Delta, British Columbia. Geological Survey of Canada Bulletin. Vol. 525, P. 17-25 Sanghi, A. (2010). Natural Hazards, Unnatural Disasters: The Economics of Effective Prevention. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Sightline Institute. (2008). “Animated Map: Sprawl and Smart Growth in Greater Vancouver, BC.” Sightline Institute. Accessed 1 October, 2011 from http://www.sightline.org/maps/animated_maps/vancouver-density2006.  Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  47  Slocombe, D.S. (1993). “Implementing Ecosystem-based Management: Development of Theory, Practice, and Research for Planning and Managing a Region.” Bioscience. Vol. 43, No. 9, P. 612-622. Statistics Canada. (2006). “2006 Census of Canada Community Profiles – Greater Vancouver.” Statistics Canada. Accessed 13 January, 2011 from http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-591/details/ Page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CD&Code1=5915&Geo2=PR&Code2=59&Data=Count&Searc hText=Greater%20Vancouver&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&Custom=. Statistics Canada. (2007). “Vancouver CMA – Population Change, 2001 to 2006, by 2006 Census Subdivision. Statistics Canada. Accessed 16 November, 2011 from http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/as-sa/97-550/mapscartes/pdfs/cma_csd_maps-cartes/vancouver_csdchng_ec_v2.pdf. Thouret, J-C. (1999). “Urban Hazards and Risks; Consequences of Earthquakes and Volcanic Eruptions: An Introduction.” GeoJournal. Vol. 49, P. 131-135. Tierney, K. (2004). “Guidance for Seismic Safety Advocates: Communicating Risk to the Public and Other Stakeholders,” in Alesch, D., P. May, R. Olshansky, W. Petak and K. Tierney. Promoting Seismic Safety: Guidance for Advocates. Buffalo, NY: Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research. Tomalty, R. (2002). “Growth Management in the Vancouver Region.” The Assessment and Planning Project – BC Case Report No.4. Accessed 31 October, 2011 from www.environment.uwaterloo.ca/research/asmtplan/pdfs/BC_4.pdf. Township of Langley. (1979). Township of Langley Official Community Plan. Accessed 6 June, 2011 from http://www.tol.ca/Default.aspx?TabID=168&cid=4. United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR). (2009). “2009 UNISDR Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction.” International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations. University of British Columbia (2011). “U-Pass BC Eligibility, Exemptions and Subsidies.” University of British Columbia. Accessed 4 November, 2011 from http://www.upass.ubc.ca/exemptions-and-subsidies/. Uthayakumar, U.M. and Narsgaard, E. (2004). Ground Response Analysis for Seismic Design in Fraser River Delta, British Columbia. 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (Vancouver, Canada). Paper No. 2104. van Aalst, M.K. (2006). “The Impacts of Climate Change on the Risk of Natural Disasters.” Disasters. Vol 30, No. 1, P. 5-18.  Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  	
    48  Ventura, C.E., Finn, W.D.L., Onur, T., Blanquera, A., and M. Rezai. (2005). “Regional Seismic Risk in Metro Vancouver – Classification of Buildings and Development of Damage Probability Functions.” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering. Vol. 32, P. 372-387. Village of Anmore. (2004). Village of Anmore Official Community Plan. Accessed June 5, 2011 from https://anmore.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=106. Village of Belcarra. (2011). Village of Belcarra Official Community Plan Bylaw 435, 2011. Accessed 13 October, 2011 from www.belcarra.ca/bylaws/vob-bylaw-435_officialcommunity-plan.pdf. Village of Lions Bay. (2002). Village of Lions Bay Official Community Plan. Accessed 6 June, 2011 from www.lionsbay.citymax.com/f/Lions_Bay_OCP_REPORT.pdf. World Health Organization. (2007). Risk Reduction and Emergency Preparedness: WHO Six Year Strategy for the Health Sector and Community Capacity Development. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization Publications.  Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  49  9.0 APPENDIX Appendix A: Population and Dwelling Unit Projections for Metro Vancouver  Source: Metro Vancouver, 2011a (used with permission) Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  	
    50  Appendix B: Areas of Analysis (AOAs)  32  7  6 5  24  3  4  21  1 9  25  27  26  19 23 20 18 31 17 16  2 10 8  15  12  11  13  29  28  14 	
    Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  51  Appendix C: Roles of Metro Vancouver  Source: Metro Vancouver, 2011a (used with permission)  Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  	
    52  Appendix D: Population and Dwelling Unit Increases, 2006 to 2041 Total Population 2006 2041 Growth* 1,900 4,400 2,500 700 1,000 300 212,100 348,000 135,900 120,100 229,000 108,900 102,100 130,000 27,900 11,300 23,000 11,700 24,600 38,000 13,400 97,700 211,000 113,300 1,400 1,520 120 72,900 134,000 61,100 61,800 105,000 43,200 47,900 68,000 20,100 88,100 115,000 26,900 16,800 24,000 7,200 55,200 95,000 39,800 28,800 48,000 19,200 182,800 272,000 89,200 415,000 739,000 324,000 607,100 739,000 131,900 46,800 54,000 7,200 19,700 28,000 8,300 2,214,800 3,406,920 1,192,120  Municipalities Anmore Belcarra Burnaby Coquitlam Delta Electoral Area A Langley City Langley Township Lions Bay Maple Ridge New Westminster North Vancouver City North Vancouver District Pitt Meadows Port Coquitlam Port Moody Richmond Surrey Vancouver West Vancouver White Rock Metro Vancouver  Total Dwellings 2006 2041 Growth* 600 1,300 700 300 400 100 82,000 150,000 68,000 43,000 93,000 50,000 35,000 51,000 16,000 5,000 11,000 6,000 11,000 17,000 6,000 35,000 81,000 46,000 500 600 100 26,000 51,000 25,000 29,000 48,000 19,000 23,000 31,000 8,000 32,000 45,000 13,000 6,000 10,000 4,000 20,000 39,000 19,000 11,000 19,000 8,000 64,000 115,000 51,000 137,000 283,000 146,000 267,000 341,000 74,000 19,000 22,000 3,000 10,000 13,000 3,000 856,400 1,422,300 565,900  * Calculations performed by author  Source: Metro Vancouver, 2011a (used with permission)  Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  53  Appendix E: Local Government Act – Part 25 – Regional Growth Strategies 	
   849 Purpose of regional growth strategy (1) The purpose of a regional growth strategy is to promote human settlement that is socially, economically and environmentally healthy and that makes efficient use of public facilities and services, land and other resources. (2) Without limiting subsection (1), to the extent that a regional growth strategy deals with these matters, it should work towards but not be limited to the following: (a) avoiding urban sprawl and ensuring that development takes place where adequate facilities exist or can be provided in a timely, economic and efficient manner; (b) settlement patterns that minimize the use of automobiles and encourage walking, bicycling and the efficient use of public transit; (c) the efficient movement of goods and people while making effective use of transportation and utility corridors; (d) protecting environmentally sensitive areas; (e) maintaining the integrity of a secure and productive resource base, including the agricultural land reserve; (f) economic development that supports the unique character of communities; (g) reducing and preventing air, land and water pollution; (h) adequate, affordable and appropriate housing; (i) adequate inventories of suitable land and resources for future settlement; (j) protecting the quality and quantity of ground water and surface water; (k) settlement patterns that minimize the risks associated with natural hazards; (l) preserving, creating and linking urban and rural open space including parks and recreation areas; (m) planning for energy supply and promoting efficient use, conservation and alternative forms of energy; (n) good stewardship of land, sites and structures with cultural heritage value. 850 Content of regional growth strategy (1) A board may adopt a regional growth strategy for the purpose of guiding decisions on growth, change and development within its regional district. (2) A regional growth strategy must cover a period of at least 20 years from the time of its initiation and must include the following: (a) a comprehensive statement on the future of the region, including the social, economic and environmental objectives of the board in relation to the regional district; (b) population and employment projections for the period covered by the regional growth strategy; (c) to the extent that these are regional matters, actions proposed for the regional district to provide for the needs of the projected population in relation to (i) housing, (ii) transportation, (iii) regional district services, (iv) parks and natural areas, and (v) economic development; (d) to the extent that these are regional matters, targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the regional district, and policies and actions proposed for the regional district with respect to achieving those targets. Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  	
    54  (3) In addition to the requirements of subsection (2), a regional growth strategy may deal with any other regional matter. (4) A regional growth strategy may include any information, maps, illustrations or other material.  Source: BC Laws, 2011  Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  55  Appendix F: Goals of Metro Vancouver 2040 – Shaping Our Future  Source: Metro Vancouver, 2011a (used with permission)  Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  	
    56  Appendix G: Strategy for Managing Natural Hazard Risks in Metro Vancouver through Land Use and Transportation Infrastructure  Source: Metro Vancouver, 2011a (used with permission)  Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  57  Appendix H: Soil Map of Metro Vancouver  Source: Geological Survey of Canada, 2011 (used with permission)  Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  	
    58  Appendix I: Examples of Projected Changes in Extreme Climate Phenomena, with Examples of Projected Impacts  Source: van Aalst, 2006  Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  59  Appendix J: Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale for MMI VI and Higher and Description of Effects  	
    	
   Source: Ventura et al., 2006  Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  	
    60  Appendix K: Building Inventory Model Percentages for Transforming Census Structural Types into Building Types 	
   Wood Frame Census Structural Type and Vintage Single- Detached House - 1946-1960 - All other vintages Other Dwellings - Semi-Detached House - Row House - Apartment, Duplex Other Single-Attached House Apartment <5 Storeys - Pre-1970 - 1971-2006 Apartment 5+ Storeys - Medium-Rise Pre-1945 - Medium-Rise Post-1945 - High Rise Movable Dwelling  WLFR  WPB  80% 100%  20%  Masonry  WLRLR  URMLR  90% 90%  10%  URMMR  Mobile Home  Concrete Frame CFIW  CFCWLR  CFCWMR  CFCWHR  MH  100% 100% 100% 100%  10% 40%  45%  15% 100% 100% 100%  Source: Chang et al., forthcoming  Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  61  Appendix L: British Columbia Building Classes  Source: Ventura et al., 2005 Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  	
    62  Appendix M: Status Quo Growth Scenario 2041 – Building and Population Totals 	
   Population by building type Masonry Concrete Frame  Wood Frame  AOA WLFR  WPB  WLFLR  URMLR  URMMR  CFIW  Mobile  CFCWLR  CFCWMR  CRCWHR  MH  TOTAL Dwellings  Population  1  285168  4456  164947  6053  231  260  12275  30929  972  157  207810  2  24197  378  16317  748  0  0  1065  717  22  0  16327  505447 43444  3  8068  11  44805  1680  2204  2479  3298  96550  3131  196  101670  162421 22531  4  5860  74  10634  44  8  9  1137  4621  143  0  10398  5  24978  482  25943  809  9  10  2074  11139  345  46  29255  65834  6  86743  2806  11714  221  10  11  1081  8034  249  73  43168  110942  7  34776  1366  3758  109  91  102  309  10785  340  187  20979  51823  8  154791  940  55198  327  18  20  5806  13619  422  713  101145  231854  9  1118  41  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  503  1159  10  25971  117  2310  5  0  0  251  1764  55  174  11259  30647  11  19954  166  5882  56  0  0  598  265  8  0  12321  26929  12  84888  639  9787  155  0  0  932  1023  32  918  37109  98373  13  12434  253  10970  170  0  0  1049  2113  65  0  12489  27055  14  88931  395  14647  43  0  0  1585  225  7  1298  48811  107132  15  82721  237  5328  38  0  0  554  0  0  111  33823  88989  16  360842  2032  118229  695  11  12  12442  13571  420  7597  189352  515852  17  5953  100  522  2  0  0  56  0  0  479  2979  7113  18  7003  41  5843  30  0  0  619  7565  234  102  8938  21436  19  26875  560  27228  810  91  102  2215  14490  454  38  32782  72863  20  1452  30  276  5  0  0  25  0  0  0  655  1789  21  178122  3224  82078  1577  140  158  7543  61926  1924  218  144298  336910  22  34832  260  9221  91  0  0  934  1333  41  0  17951  46712  23  41611  484  11461  115  0  0  1159  2106  65  1085  24264  58085  24  113696  744  38261  325  0  0  3927  7153  221  1073  66476  165399  25  72926  342  17166  84  0  0  1823  0  0  150  37282  92492  26  108411  879  15091  176  0  0  1500  3141  97  1000  49490  130295  27  18999  56  3267  12  0  0  351  0  0  138  9761  22823  28  178943  606  14098  35  0  0  1531  60  2  12277  79089  207552  29  16623  79  18243  181  0  0  1846  0  0  35  16497  37006  30  3211  47  70  0  0  0  8  0  0  26  1295  3362  31  231  6  3282  111  22  24  253  3414  107  0  4018  7450  32  6355  21  91  3  0  0  7  0  0  354  2247  6832  SUM  2116681  21873  746665  14710  2834  3188  68252  296542  9358  28448  1374442  3308551  * Totals might not fully match regional projections because calculations were performed using exact numbers from the 2006 Census of Canada, while Metro Vancouver uses rounded numbers Source: Statistics Canada, 2006 and Metro Vancouver, 2011a  Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  63  Appendix N: Compact Growth Scenario 2041 – Building and Population Inventory 	
   Population by building type Masonry Concrete Frame  Wood Frame  AOA WLFR  WPB  Mobile  WLFLR  URMLR  URMMR  CFIW  CFCWLR  CFCWMR  CRCWHR  MH  TOTAL Dwellings  Population 505447  1  243240  4753  159989  6457  247  277  11320  76647  2387  130  194800  2  18798  357  15088  707  0  0  969  7298  226  0  17265  43444  3  10604  10  44509  1496  1962  2208  3450  94981  3067  135  114168  162421 22531  4  3737  74  8010  44  8  9  846  9508  295  0  10405  5  19829  481  23714  807  9  10  1828  18549  574  34  29320  65834  6  63172  2800  17195  221  10  11  1690  25017  774  51  43260  110942  7  30353  1365  5221  109  91  102  471  13526  424  160  20995  51823  8  91214  895  58751  311  17  19  6217  71836  2223  371  106250  231854  9  1083  76  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  275  1159  10  25873  214  2310  10  0  0  247  1764  55  174  6150  30647  11  14317  166  6331  56  0  0  648  5250  162  0  12365  26929  12  60470  637  15198  155  0  0  1534  19164  593  622  37195  98373  13  10038  253  10090  170  0  0  951  5385  167  0  12500  27055  14  88492  835  14647  90  0  0  1537  225  7  1298  23105  107132  15  82458  500  5328  81  0  0  511  0  0  111  16010  88989  16  168362  1633  131273  558  8  10  14028  191177  5913  2890  235630  515852  17  5842  212  522  5  0  0  53  0  0  479  1410  7113  18  5157  43  5822  32  0  0  615  9413  291  64  8417  21436  19  20140  639  24732  924  103  116  1824  23622  737  25  28755  72863  20  1426  56  276  10  0  0  20  0  0  0  350  1789  21  108942  3207  86243  1568  140  157  8014  124659  3865  116  145100  336910  22  21335  259  10726  91  0  0  1101  12804  396  0  18030  46712  23  24231  560  13474  133  0  0  1364  17222  533  568  20970  58085  24  57835  706  41914  308  0  0  4349  58033  1795  460  70055  165399  25  40492  340  21121  84  0  0  2263  27274  844  74  37500  92492  26  60043  875  25186  175  0  0  2623  39669  1227  498  49750  130295  27  12143  56  4450  12  0  0  483  5430  168  82  9785  22823  28  86937  604  38399  35  0  0  4231  70016  2165  5163  79390  207552  29  11902  78  15247  180  0  0  1514  7820  242  22  16525  37006  30  3211  47  70  0  0  0  8  0  0  26  1295  3362  31  604  3  2356  51  10  11  210  4077  127  0  8693  7450  32  4078  21  793  3  0  0  85  1590  49  213  2250  6832  TOTAL  1396360  22754  808986  14883  2605  2931  75004  941956  29304  13766  1377968  3308551  	
   * Totals might not fully match regional projections because calculations were performed using exact numbers from the 2006 Census of Canada, while Metro Vancouver uses rounded numbers Source: Statistics Canada, 2006 and Metro Vancouver, 2011a  Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  	
    64  Appendix O: Sprawled Growth Scenario 2041 – Building and Population Inventory 	
   Population by building type Masonry Concrete Frame  Wood Frame  AOA WLFR  WPB  WLFLR  URMLR  URMMR  CFIW  Mobile  CFCWLR  CFCWMR  CRCWHR  MH  TOTAL Dwellings  Population  1  342781  4028  115446  5472  209  235  7355  21546  680  7694  229863  2  28969  349  11681  691  0  0  606  513  16  617  17657  505447 43444  3  8064  14  44805  2170  2846  3202  2808  95184  3131  196  78710  162421  4  14781  74  4502  44  8  9  456  1946  61  650  10405  22531  5  35097  481  18864  807  9  10  1289  8095  251  932  29320  65834  6  91182  2867  8388  226  10  11  706  5746  178  1628  42260  110942  7  36648  1365  3221  109  91  102  249  9216  291  531  20995  51823  8  182152  990  31751  344  19  21  3184  7816  243  5335  96050  231854  9  1099  9  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  51  2315  1159  10  27722  92  993  4  0  0  106  758  23  949  14310  30647  11  21348  182  4364  61  0  0  424  197  6  347  11274  26929  12  87618  619  6440  150  0  0  565  673  21  2286  38286  98373  13  15558  253  8337  170  0  0  756  1606  50  325  12500  27055  14  95305  406  7134  44  0  0  749  110  3  3380  47438  107132  15  83802  177  1887  29  0  0  181  0  0  2913  45210  88989  16  424468  2142  58982  732  11  13  5821  6758  210  16715  179663  515852  17  6421  78  192  2  0  0  19  0  0  401  3843  7113  18  11538  46  3852  34  0  0  394  4987  154  433  7964  21436  19  46065  517  14752  747  84  94  892  7777  246  1690  35541  72863  20  1662  8  38  1  0  0  3  0  0  77  2544  1789  21  241968  3256  44282  1593  142  160  3328  33269  1038  7875  142906  336910  22  38953  259  5130  91  0  0  479  741  23  1036  18030  46712  23  48564  500  5357  119  0  0  476  984  30  2054  23470  58085  24  137405  732  17022  320  0  0  1572  3182  98  5068  67555  165399  25  80325  340  8469  84  0  0  857  0  0  2417  37500  92492  26  115697  875  7507  175  0  0  659  1562  48  3771  49750  130295  27  20073  56  1931  12  0  0  203  0  0  548  9785  22823  28  189158  604  5929  35  0  0  624  25  1  11176  79390  207552  29  23323  78  11619  180  0  0  1111  0  0  694  16525  37006  30  3211  47  70  0  0  0  8  0  0  26  1295  3362  31  227  9  3282  189  37  41  175  3382  107  0  2360  7450  32  6401  21  55  3  0  0  3  0  0  349  2250  6832  2467585  21474  456280  14638  3466  3899  36060  216075  6910  82164  1376965  3308551  SUM  	
   	
   * Totals might not fully match regional projections because calculations were performed using exact numbers from the 2006 Census of Canada, while Metro Vancouver used rounded numbers Source: Statistics Canada, 2006 and Metro Vancouver, 2011a  Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  65  Appendix P: Safe Growth Scenario 2041 – Building and Population Inventory 	
   Population by building type Masonry Concrete Frame  Wood Frame  AOA WLFR  WPB  WLFLR  URMLR  URMMR  CFIW  Mobile  CFCWLR  CFCWMR  CRCWHR  MH  TOTAL Dwellings  Population  1  306847  4316  159941  5863  224  252  11908  23086  729  118  217860  2  21118  282  12205  558  0  0  798  414  13  0  17820  513284 35388  3  26881  12  44696  1786  2343  2636  3180  78367  2578  161  95730  162640  4  11533  74  8010  44  8  9  846  1946  61  0  10405  22531  5  34054  535  26385  898  10  11  2034  9006  279  37  29320  73249  6  77617  2613  16046  206  9  10  1577  5238  163  48  43260  103527  7  34796  1365  5221  109  91  102  471  9216  291  160  20995  51823  8  101906  1138  36524  396  22  24  3663  8991  279  472  55250  153415  9  717  50  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  275  767  10  17120  142  1528  7  0  0  163  1167  36  115  6150  20279  11  94506  413  33437  139  0  0  3576  448  14  0  24365  132533  12  65752  731  7607  178  0  0  668  795  25  713  25195  76469  13  20455  318  13816  214  0  0  1322  2018  62  0  14045  38205  14  85193  439  22600  48  0  0  2463  118  4  684  45687  111549  15  78429  231  18025  37  0  0  1966  0  0  51  38472  98739  16  365055  1825  132273  624  9  11  14073  5757  179  3229  213829  523035  17  6063  103  1496  2  0  0  164  0  0  233  3282  8062  18  8719  39  5156  29  0  0  544  4303  133  58  8173  18981  19  43103  583  27023  843  94  106  2160  8772  277  23  35886  82985  20  854  34  165  6  0  0  12  0  0  0  350  1071  21  204110  3213  86427  1572  140  157  8031  32836  1025  116  145100  337628  22  41681  284  13552  100  0  0  1406  814  25  0  20348  57862  23  38340  493  12776  117  0  0  1302  971  30  501  22334  54531  24  124774  716  45846  312  0  0  4782  3111  96  467  75260  180103  25  68609  340  21121  84  0  0  2263  0  0  74  37500  92492  26  107020  863  28336  173  0  0  2975  1541  48  491  54773  141445  27  17741  56  4450  12  0  0  483  0  0  82  9785  22823  28  166468  585  41959  34  0  0  4628  25  1  5002  86345  218702  29  19964  78  15247  180  0  0  1514  0  0  22  16525  37006  30  3211  47  70  0  0  0  8  0  0  26  1295  3362  31  4383  6  3784  124  24  27  296  2217  70  0  5283  10933  32  5718  21  793  3  0  0  85  0  0  213  2250  6832  SUM  2202736  21948  846517  14697  2975  3347  79361  201158  6417  13097  1383145  3392251  * Totals might not fully match regional projections because calculations were performed using exact numbers from the 2006 Census of Canada, while Metro Vancouver used rounded numbers Source: Statistics Canada, 2006 and Metro Vancouver, 2011a  Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011  	
    66  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.310.1-0102557/manifest

Comment

Related Items