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

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
SCARP_2012_gradproject_Tse.pdf [ 15.2MB ]
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0102557.json
JSON-LD: 1.0102557+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0102557.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0102557+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0102557+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0102557+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0102557 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0102557.txt
Citation
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, 2011Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011 i 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 ii 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 iii 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 iv 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 ................................................................................... 36Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011 v 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 vi 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 vii 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 1 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 disaster- resilient 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 2 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.     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 non- structural damage) (Onur and Seemann, 2004). Metro Vancouver Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011 3 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 4 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 5   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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 1 - Create a Compact Urban Area • GOAL 2 – Support a Sustainable Economy • GOAL 3 – Protect the Environment and Respond to Climate Change Impacts • GOAL 4 – Develop Complete Communities • GOAL 5 – 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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.     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.    Epicentre Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011 18 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 19 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 20   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 21 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 Single- Attached 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 22 Table 3: Building Classes Utilized in Building Inventory Sub-Model  Building Class  Code Wood Light Frame Residential WLFR Wood Post and Beam WPB Wood Light Frame Low Rise Residential WLFLR Unreinforced Masonry Bearing Wall Low Rise URMLR Unreinforced Masonry Bearing Wall Medium Rise URMMR Concrete Frame with Infill Walls CFIW Concrete Frame with Concrete Walls Low Rise CFCWLR Concrete Frame with Concrete Walls Medium Rise CFCWMR Concrete Frame with Concrete Walls High Rise CFCWHR Mobile Home 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 23 Table 5: Ventura Damage States and Corresponding HAZUS-MH Damage States  Ventura Damage States Corresponding HAZUS-MH Damage States None None Slight and Light Slight Moderate Moderate Heavy and Major Extensive Destroyed 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 HAZUS- MH. 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 24 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 25 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 26  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 27   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 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 Vancouver (1-3) 74,000 48 1,542 Downtown Vancouver; Coal Harbour; Olympic Village; Broadway Corridor; Cambie Street Corridor; River District (Fraser River) Electoral Area A (UBC) 4 6,000 1 6,000 University Lands Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011 28 City of North Vancouver 5 8,000 3 2,667 Lonsdale Regional Town Centre District of North Vancouver 6 13,000 4 3,250 Lower Lynn, Lynn Valley, Maplewood Town Centres; Lower Capilano-Marine Village Centre West Vancouver 7 3,000 2 1,500 Marine Drive/Ambleside Richmond (8-10) 51,000 8 6,375 City Centre; No. 3 Road Corridor Delta (11-12) 16,000 8 2,000 Ladner Municipal Town Centre; North Delta; Tsawwassen White Rock 13 3,000 2 1,500 White Rock Municipal Town Centre Surrey (14-17) 146,000 18 8,111 Surrey City Centre; Guilford; Newton; Cloverdale New Westminster (18-19, 31) 19,000 6 3,167 New Westminster Downtown; Queensborough Burnaby (20-21) 68,000 10 6,800 Metrotown; Edmonds, Lougheed, Brentwood Town Centres Port Moody 22 8,000 2 4,000 Port Moody Town Centre Coquitlam (23-24) 50,000 10 5,000 Coquitlam Town Centre; Northeast Coquitlam; Burquitlam and Lougheed Neighbourhoods Port Coquitlam 25 19,000 5 3,800 Port Coquitlam Town Centre Maple Ridge 26 25,000 7 3,571 Blaney, Forest and Horse Hamlets; River Village Pitt Meadows 27 4,000 1 4,000 Pitt Meadows Town Centre Township of Langley 28 46,000 10 4,600 Aldergrove, Walnut Grove, Willoughby City of Langley 29 6,000 3 2,000 Langley Town Centre Bowen Island 30 0 0 0 * No growth because not in Urban Growth Boundary * Electoral Area  (Anmore, Belcarra, Lions Bay) 32 900 1 900 Anmore, Belcarra and Lions Bay Town Centres TOTAL   565,900 149      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 29 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 30 Table 7: Summary of Census Tracts by Municipality selected for Sprawled Growth Scenario Municipality AOA(s) Dwelling Unit  Growth Between  2006 to 2041 Number of 'Sprawled ' Census Tracts Number of Dwelling Units  per Census Tract Vancouver (1-3) 74,000 59 1,254 Electoral Area A (UBC) 4 6,000 1 6,000 City of North Vancouver 5 8,000 5 1,600 District of North Vancouver 6 13,000 13 1,000 West Vancouver 7 3,000 7 429 Richmond (8-10) 51,000 25 2,040 Delta (11-12) 16,000 11 1,455 White Rock 13 3,000 2 1,500 Surrey (14-17) 146,000 60 2,433 New Westminster (18-19, 31) 19,000 7 2,714 Burnaby (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 TOTAL   565,900 261    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 31 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 32 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 Number of Dwelling Units  per Census Tract Vancouver (Eastside and Westside) 1 VII 77 740 South Vancouver 2 VIII 0 0 Downtown Vancouver 3 VII 74,000 23 740 University of British Columbia 4 VII 6,000 1 6,000 City of North Vancouver 5 VII 8,000 8 1,000 District of North Vancouver 6 VII 13,000 16 813 District of West Vancouver 7 VII 3,000 9 333 Richmond 8 VIII 0 0 Richmond (Airport) 9 VIII 0 0 Mitchell Island/North Richmond 10 VIII 51,000* 0 0 Delta (Tsawwassen) 11 VII 4 4,000 Delta (Ladner and North Delta) 12 VIII 16,000 0 0 White Rock 13 VI 3,000 4 750 + 386* Surrey (South) 14 VI 10 1,872 + 386* Surrey (Central) 15 VII 12 1,872 Surrey (North) 16 VI 55 1,872 + 386* Surrey (Seaport) 17 VII 146,000 1 1,872 New Westminster (Queensborough) 18 VII 2 1,462 New Westminster 19 VI 9 1,462 + 386* Downtown New Westminster 31 VII 19,000 2 1,462 Burnaby (Big Bend) 20 VIII 0 0 Burnaby 21 VII 68,000 40 1,700 Port Moody 22 VI 8,000 6 1,333 + 386* Coquitlam (South) 23 VII 5 2,273 Coquitlam (North) 24 VI 50,000 17 2,273 + 386* 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 Bowen Island 30 VII 0 0 0 Electoral Area (Anmore, Belcarra, Lions Bay) 32 VII 900 1 900 TOTAL   565,900 351  * Population growth for Richmond divided equally between all AOAs with MMI VI   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 33 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 407,267 407,267 407,267 287,389 Population in Wood Frame Buildings 2,885,219 (87.2%) 2,238,101 (67.3%) 2,945,339 (89.0%) 3,071,200 (90.5%) Population in Masonry Buildings 17,544 (0.1%) 17,488 (0.1%) 18,104 (0.1%) 17,672 (0.1%) Population in Concrete Frame Buildings 377,341 (11.4%) 1,049,195 (31.7%) 262,944 (7.9%) 290,282 (8.6%) Population in Significantly** Damaged Dwellings 35,909 (1.1%) 51,420 (1.5%) 41,313 (1.2%) 27,614 (0.1%) Total Dwelling Units in 2041* 1,374,442 1,377,968 1,376,965 1,383,145 Number of Deaths 16 16 16 14 Fatality Rate (Deaths/1,000 People) 0.0048 0.0048 0.0048 0.0042 Number of Serious Injuries 34 37 36 31 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 AOA MMI Status Quo Growth Compact Growth Sprawled Growth Safe Growth       Deaths Injuries Deaths  Injuries Deaths Injuries Deaths Injuries Vancouver (Eastside and Westside) 1 VII 8 9 8 9 7 8 7 8 South Vancouver 2 VIII 2 3 2 3 2 3 1 2 Downtown Vancouver 3 VII 2 6 2 6 3 8 2 7 University of British Columbia 4 VII 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 City of North Vancouver 5 VII 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 District of North Vancouver 6 VII 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 District of West Vancouver 7 VII 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Richmond 8 VIII 1 7 1 9 1 8 1 5 Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011 34 Richmond (Airport) 9 VIII 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mitchell Island/North Richmond 10 VIII 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 Delta (Tsawwassen) 11 VII 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Delta (Ladner and North Delta) 12 VIII 0 3 0 4 0 3 0 3 White Rock 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) 17 VII 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 New Westminster (Queensborough) 18 VII 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 New Westminster 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 27 VII 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Township of Langley 28 VI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 City of Langley 29 VII 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bowen Island 30 VII 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Downtown New Westminster 31 VII 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electoral Area (Anmore, Belcarra, Lions Bay) 32 VII 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL CASUALTIES   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 higher- density 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 35 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   Growth Scenarios Building Class Status Quo Growth Compact  Growth Sprawled  Growth Safe Growth   Deaths Injuries Deaths  Injuries Deaths Injuries Deaths Injuries Wood Light Frame Residential 0 8  (28%) 0 5  (16%) 0 9  (29%) 0 6 (24%) Wood Post and Beam 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wood Light Frame Low Rise Residential 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unreinforced Masonry Bearing Wall Low Rise 16 (100%) 16  (55%) 16  (100%) 16 (52%) 16 (100%) 16 (52%) 14 (100%) 14 (56%) Unreinforced Masonry Bearing Wall Medium Rise 0 4  (14%) 0 3 (10%) 0 5  (16%) 0 4 (16%) Concrete Frame with Infill Walls 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Concrete Frame with Concrete Walls Low Rise 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Concrete Frame with Concrete Walls Medium Rise 0 1  (3%) 0 7  (23%) 0 0 0 1 (4%) Concrete Frame with Concrete Walls High Rise 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mobile Home 0 0 0 0 0 1 (3%) 0 0 TOTAL CASUALTIES * 16 29 16 31 16 31 14 25 * 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 36 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 37 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 2006 2041 - Status Quo Growth 2041 – Safe Growth Total Population*  1,080,035 2,116,431 3,308,551 3,392,251 Population in MMI=VIII Areas 122,585 (11.4%) 287,389 (13.6%) 407,267 (12.3%) 287,389 (8.7%) Population in Wood Frame Buildings 972,304 (90.0%) 1,842,201 (87.0%) 2,885,219 (87.2%) 2,983,495 (90.4%) Population in Masonry Buildings 30,611 (2.8%) 19,010 (0.9%) 17,544 (0.1%) 17,382 (0.1%) Population in Concrete Frame Buildings 72,646 (6.7%) 240,610 (11.4%) 377,341 (11.4%) 286,459 (8.7%) Population in Significantly** Damaged Dwellings 21,545 (2.0%) 32,078 (1.5%) 35,909 (1.1%) 27,407 (0.1%) Total Dwelling Units* 256,235 802,675 1,374,442 1,383,145 Number of Deaths 29 16 16 14 Fatality Rate (Deaths/1,000 People) 0.0269 0.0076 0.0048 0.0042 Number of Serious Injuries 43 34 34 31 Serious Injury Rate (Injuries/1,000 People) 0.0398 0.0161 0.0103 0.009 * 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 38 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 39 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 over- reliance 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 40  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 high- density 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 41 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 42  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 43 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 44 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 45 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 46 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 47 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/hazard- alea/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 48 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/maps- cartes/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 49 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_official- community-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 50 9.0 APPENDIX   Appendix A: Population and Dwelling Unit Projections for Metro Vancouver     Source: Metro Vancouver, 2011a (used with permission)Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011 51 Appendix B: Areas of Analysis (AOAs)   32 7 6  5       3   4     1     2     9   10 8    12    11   16   17   15   13   14      29   28   21     20     18     19     23   24     25    27   26   31 Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011 52 Appendix C: Roles of Metro Vancouver     Source: Metro Vancouver, 2011a (used with permission)                 Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011 53 Appendix D: Population and Dwelling Unit Increases, 2006 to 2041     Total Population Total Dwellings Municipalities 2006 2041 Growth* 2006 2041 Growth* Anmore 1,900 4,400 2,500 600 1,300 700 Belcarra 700 1,000 300 300 400 100 Burnaby 212,100 348,000 135,900 82,000 150,000 68,000 Coquitlam 120,100 229,000 108,900 43,000 93,000 50,000 Delta 102,100 130,000 27,900 35,000 51,000 16,000 Electoral Area A 11,300 23,000 11,700 5,000 11,000 6,000 Langley City 24,600 38,000 13,400 11,000 17,000 6,000 Langley Township 97,700 211,000 113,300 35,000 81,000 46,000 Lions Bay 1,400 1,520 120 500 600 100 Maple Ridge 72,900 134,000 61,100 26,000 51,000 25,000 New Westminster 61,800 105,000 43,200 29,000 48,000 19,000 North Vancouver City 47,900 68,000 20,100 23,000 31,000 8,000 North Vancouver District 88,100 115,000 26,900 32,000 45,000 13,000 Pitt Meadows 16,800 24,000 7,200 6,000 10,000 4,000 Port Coquitlam 55,200 95,000 39,800 20,000 39,000 19,000 Port Moody 28,800 48,000 19,200 11,000 19,000 8,000 Richmond 182,800 272,000 89,200 64,000 115,000 51,000 Surrey 415,000 739,000 324,000 137,000 283,000 146,000 Vancouver 607,100 739,000 131,900 267,000 341,000 74,000 West Vancouver 46,800 54,000 7,200 19,000 22,000 3,000 White Rock 19,700 28,000 8,300 10,000 13,000 3,000 Metro Vancouver  2,214,800 3,406,920 1,192,120 856,400 1,422,300 565,900  * Calculations performed by author  Source: Metro Vancouver, 2011a (used with permission)   Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011 54 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 55 (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 56 Appendix F: Goals of Metro Vancouver 2040 – Shaping Our Future     Source: Metro Vancouver, 2011a (used with permission) Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011 57 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 58 Appendix H: Soil Map of Metro Vancouver      Source: Geological Survey of Canada, 2011 (used with permission)Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011 59 Appendix I: Examples of Projected Changes in Extreme Climate Phenomena, with Examples of Projected Impacts    Source: van Aalst, 2006Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011 60 Appendix J: Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale for MMI VI and Higher and Description of Effects  Source: Ventura et al., 2006Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011 61 Appendix K: Building Inventory Model Percentages for Transforming Census Structural Types into Building Types  Source: Chang et al., forthcoming  Wood Frame Masonry Concrete Frame Mobile Home Census Structural Type and Vintage WLFR WPB WLRLR URMLR URMMR CFIW CFCWLR CFCWMR CFCWHR MH Single- Detached House      - 1946-1960 80% 20%              - All other vintages 100%          Other Dwellings      - Semi-Detached House 100%               - Row House 100%               - Apartment, Duplex 100%          Other Single-Attached House 100%          Apartment <5 Storeys     - Pre-1970   90% 10%           - 1971-2006   90%    10%    Apartment 5+ Storeys      - Medium-Rise Pre-1945     40% 45%  15%        - Medium-Rise Post-1945        100%        - High Rise         100%  Movable Dwelling          100% Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011 62 Appendix L: British Columbia Building Classes  Source: Ventura et al., 2005Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011 63 Appendix M: Status Quo Growth Scenario 2041 – Building and Population Totals   Population by building type AOA Wood Frame Masonry Concrete Frame Mobile TOTAL   WLFR WPB WLFLR URMLR URMMR CFIW CFCWLR CFCWMR CRCWHR MH Dwellings Population 1 285168 4456 164947 6053 231 260 12275 30929 972 157 207810 505447 2 24197 378 16317 748 0 0 1065 717 22 0 16327 43444 3 8068 11 44805 1680 2204 2479 3298 96550 3131 196 101670 162421 4 5860 74 10634 44 8 9 1137 4621 143 0 10398 22531 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 64 Appendix N: Compact Growth Scenario 2041 – Building and Population Inventory   * 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    Population by building type AOA Wood Frame Masonry Concrete Frame Mobile TOTAL   WLFR WPB WLFLR URMLR URMMR CFIW CFCWLR CFCWMR CRCWHR MH Dwellings Population 1 243240 4753 159989 6457 247 277 11320 76647 2387 130 194800 505447 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 4 3737 74 8010 44 8 9 846 9508 295 0 10405 22531 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 Wendy Tse | SCARP 2011 65 Appendix O: Sprawled Growth Scenario 2041 – Building and Population Inventory   Population by building type AOA Wood Frame Masonry Concrete Frame Mobile TOTAL   WLFR WPB WLFLR URMLR URMMR CFIW CFCWLR CFCWMR CRCWHR MH Dwellings Population 1 342781 4028 115446 5472 209 235 7355 21546 680 7694 229863 505447 2 28969 349 11681 691 0 0 606 513 16 617 17657 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 SUM 2467585 21474 456280 14638 3466 3899 36060 216075 6910 82164 1376965 3308551 * 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 Appendix P: Safe Growth Scenario 2041 – Building and Population Inventory     * 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    Population by building type AOA Wood Frame Masonry Concrete Frame Mobile TOTAL   WLFR WPB WLFLR URMLR URMMR CFIW CFCWLR CFCWMR CRCWHR MH Dwellings Population 1 306847 4316 159941 5863 224 252 11908 23086 729 118 217860 513284 2 21118 282 12205 558 0 0 798 414 13 0 17820 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 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
Canada 12 1
United States 4 0
China 3 21
Russia 1 0
United Kingdom 1 0
New Zealand 1 0
City Views Downloads
Vancouver 9 0
Beijing 3 0
Ashburn 2 0
Unknown 2 0
Boardman 1 0
Glasgow 1 0
Calgary 1 0
Mountain View 1 0
Wellington 1 0
Richmond 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats

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