Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The St. George Rainway : building community resilience with green infrastructure Welsh, Joshua 2013

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2014_spring_welsh_joshua.pdf [ 5.36MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0166842.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0166842-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0166842-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0166842-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0166842-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0166842-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0166842-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0166842-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0166842.ris

Full Text

THE ST. GEORGE RAINWAY:BUILDING COMMUNITY RESILIENCE WITH GREEN INFRASTRUCTUREbyJoshua WelshBachelor of Fine Arts, School of Design, Rochester Institute of Technology,Rochester, NY, 1997A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENTOF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ADVANCED STUDIES IN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTUREin The Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral StudiesThe University of British Columbia(Vancouver)January 2014?Joshua Welsh, 2014AbstractThis ?thesis ?was ?written ?with ?cognizance ?of ?humanity?s ?passage ?into ?the ?current ?epoch: ?the ?Anthropocene. ?Impacts ?the ?human ?species ?currently ?have ?upon ?the ?biosphere ?are ?physically ?and ?chemically ?altering ?it ?to ?degrees ?that ?have ?crossed ?thresholds ?of ?sustainability. ?The ?side ?effects ?of ?this ?call ?for ?resilience ?to ?enable ?healthful ?transitions ?into ?the ?unstable ?and ?unpredictable ?future. ?Central ?to ?global ?climate ?change ?and ?central ?to ?the ?profession ?of ?landscape ?architecture ?is ?the ?element: ?water. ?The ?St. ?George ?Rainway ?offers ?a ?new ?opportunity ?to ?be ?a ?demonstration ?project ?for ?the ?City ?of ?Vancouver ?where ?the ?City ?and ?the ?community ?of ?Mount ?Pleasant ?act ?as ?collaborators ?with ?design, ?construction, ?and ?maintenance ?of ?a ?project ?with ?water ?in ?the ?public ?realm.There ?are ?three ?components ?essential ?to ?this ?work: ?a ?community ?survey, ?a ?series ?of ?stakeholder ?and ?expert ?interviews, ?and ?a ?design-??application ?of ?theory ?using ?landscape ?architecture. ?The ?survey ?and ?interviews ?establish ?the ?local ?context ?for ?the ?thesis, ?a ?baseline ?for ?presence ?of ?social ?cohesion, ?and ?a ?framing ?for ?the ?applicability ?of ?the ?ten ?prominent ?characteristics ?of ?resilient ?communities. ?Taken ?together, ?the ?application ?of ?design ?responds ?to ?the ?collective ?voice ?and ?needs ?of ?the ?community ?and ?provides ?a ?set ?of ?goals, ?phases, ?strategies ?for ?design ?as ?a ?framework ?to ?help ?realize ?future ?implementation ?of ?the ?St. ?George ?Rainway. ?The ?voluntary ?engagement ?in ?the ?physical ?transformation ?of ?one?s ?community ?can ?provide ?opportunity ?for ?a ?growth ?in ?social ?cohesion. ?Subsequently, ?this ?growth ?can ?improve ?the ?conditions ?that ?fostered ?the ?bonds ?and ?bridges ?within ?that ?community ?that ?inspired ?the ?initial ?voluntary ?engagement. ?Green ?infrastructure, ?when ?considered ?through ?this ?lens, ?has ?a ?reciprocal ?relationship ?with ?social ?cohesion, ?where ?the ?improvement ?of ?one ?feeds ?into ?the ?improvement ?of ?the ?other. ?This ?model ?could ?therefore ?provide ?both ?a ?resilient ?option ?for ?physical ?development ?of ?land ?and ?for ?social ?development ?of ?community ?for ?a ?neighbourhood ?like ?Mount ?Pleasant ?by ?encouraging ?more ?interaction ?among ?neighbours ?and ?with ?the ?local ?public ?realm. ?The ?St. ?George ?Rainway: ?Building ?Community ?Resilience ?with ?Green ?Infrastructure ?aims ?to ?provide ?a ?framework ?for ?this.iiPrefaceThis ?thesis ?is ?original, ?unpublished, ?intellectual ?product ?of ?the ?author, ?J. ?T. ?Welsh. ?The ?fieldwork ?used ?as ?a ?foundation ?for ?Chapters ?3-??4 ?was ?covered ?by ?UBC ?Human ?Ethics ?ID ?#H13-??00450.iiiTable of Contents................................................................................................................................................................Abstract ? ii................................................................................................................................................................Preface ? iii.................................................................................................................................................Table ?of ?Contents ? iv........................................................................................................................................................List ?of ?Figures ? x.........................................................................................................................................................Definitions ? xvi...........................................................................................................................................Acknowledgements ? xxii........................................................................................................................................................Dedication ? xxiv..........................................................................................................................CHAPTER ?1 ? An ?Introduction ? 1...................................................................................................................................... ? 1.1 ? ?A ?Preface ? 1.......................................... ? 1.2 ? ?The ?Salmon ?& ?The ?Jay: ?Framing ?The ?Need ?for ?Green ?Infrastructure ? 2......................................................................................... ?  ? 1.2.1 ? ?Stormwater ?Infrastructure ? 6................................................................................................................... ?  ? 1.2.2 ? ?Resilience ? 8........................................................................................................ ?  ? 1.2.3 ? ?Urban ?Resilience ? 9...................................................................................................... ? 1.3 ? ?The ?Neighbourhood ?Context ? 9............................................................................................. ?  ? 1.3.1 ? ?The ?St. ?George ?Rainway ? 9.......................................................................................... ?  ? 1.3.2 ? ?Efforts ?From ?Community ? 13............................................................... ?  ? 1.3.3 ? ?A ?Survey ?from ?The ?Vancouver ?Foundation ? 14................................................... ? 1.4 ? ?The ?St. ?George ?Rainway ?Project: ?Objectives ?and ?Limitations ? 16............................................................................................................. ? 1.5 ? ?Research ?Methodology ? 18.......................................................................................CHAPTER ?2 ? The ?Nature ?of ?The ?Built ?Environment ? 20................................................................................................................................. ? 2.1 ? ?A ?Synopsis ? 20............................................................................................... ? 2.2 ? ?The ?Urban ?Context ?of ?Resilience ? 21........................................................................... ? 2.3 ? ?Characteristic ?#1: ?A ?High ?Degree ?of ?Diversity ? 25............................................................ ? 2.4 ? ?Characteristic ?#2: ?Effective ?Governance ?& ?Institutions ? 27.......................................................... ? 2.5 ? ?Characteristic ?#3: ?Acceptance ?of ?Uncertainty ?& ?Change ? 28iv............................................................. ? 2.6 ? ?Characteristic ?#4: ?Non-??equilibrium ?System ?Dynamics ? 29.................................................... ? 2.7 ? ?Characteristic ?#5: ?Community ?Engagement ?& ?Participation ? 30........................................................ ? 2.8 ? ?Characteristic ?#6: ?Capacity ?For ?Preparedness ?& ?Planning ? 31.............................................................................. ? 2.9 ? ?Characteristic ?#7: ?A ?High ?Degree ?of ?Equity ? 32........................................................................... ? 2.10 ? ?Characteristic ?#8: ?Presence ?of ?Social ?Capita ? 33.................................................................................. ? 2.11 ? ?Characteristic ?#9: ?Capacity ?for ?Learning ? 34........................................................................ ? 2.12 ? ?Characteristic ?#10: ?A ?Cross-??scalar ?Perspective ? 35............................................................................................ ? 2.13 ? ?The ?Case ?for ?Water ?in ?Vancouver ? 37............................................................................. ? 2.14 ? ?The ?Urban ?Context ?of ?Ecosystem ?Services ? 44................................................................................ ? 2.15 ? ?Social ?Cohesion ?as ?an ?Ecosystem ?Service ? 49............................................................................CHAPTER ?3 ? Quantifying ?Social ?Capital ?& ?Social ?Cohesion ? 57................................................................................................................................. ? 3.1 ? ?A ?Synopsis ? 57................................................................................................................ ? 3.2 ? ?Framing ?The ?Surveys ? 58.................................................................................................... ?  ? 3.2.1 ? ?The ?Parent ?Survey ? 58.................................................................................... ?  ? 3.2.2 ? ?The ?Mount ?Pleasant ?Survey ? 58.................................................................................. ? 3.3 ? ?Statistical ?Methodology ?for ?The ?Surveys ? 63................................................................................................................ ? 3.4 ? ?Personal ?Friendships ? 64................................................................................................ ? 3.5 ? ?Neighbours ?& ?Neighbourliness ? 70......................................................................................................... ? 3.6 ? ?A ?Connected ?Community ? 76................................................................................................ ? 3.7 ? ?Mount ?Pleasant ?& ?The ?Rainway ? 81...................................................................CHAPTER ?4 ? Qualifying ?Characteristics ?of ?Resilient ?Community ? 88................................................................................................................................. ? 4.1 ? ?A ?Synopsis ? 88........................................................................................ ? 4.2 ? ?The ?Interviews: ?Framing ?& ?Methods ? 89................................................................................................... ?  ? 4.2.1 ? ?Interview ?Framing ? 89.................................................................................................. ?  ? 4.2.2 ? ?Interview ?Methods ? 91............................................................................................. ? 4.3 ? ?The ?Exemplar ?and ?Green ?Streets ? 93v........................................................................................ ? 4.4 ? ?The ?Advocate ?and ?the ?Country ?Lane ? 97...................................................................................... ? 4.5 ? ?The ?Expert ?and ?Harnessing ?Hindsight ? 101...................................................................... ? 4.6 ? ?The ?Manager ?and ?Bureaucratic ?Temperament ? 104............................................................................. ? 4.7 ? ?The ?Connector ?and ?Building ?Relationships ? 107............................................................................... ? 4.8 ? ?The ?Champions ?and ?Attachment ?to ?Place ? 110...................................................................................... ? 4.9 ? ?The ?Long ?View ?and ?the ?Role ?of ?Youth ? 113.................................................................. ? 4.10 ? ?The ?Visionary ?and ?Connecting ?Narrative ?to ?Place ? 116.................................................................................. ? 4.11 ? ?Insights ?into ?Resilience ?Characteristics ? 120..................................................................................... ?  ? 4.11.1 ? ?A ?High ?Degree ?of ?Diversity ? 121...................................................................... ?  ? 4.11.2 ? ?Effective ?Governance ?& ?Institutions ? 121................................................................... ?  ? 4.11.3 ? ?Acceptance ?of ?Change ?& ?Uncertainty ? 122....................................................................... ?  ? 4.11.4 ? ?Non-??equilibrium ?System ?Dynamics ? 122.............................................................. ?  ? 4.11.5 ? ?Community ?Engagement ?& ?Participation ? 123.................................................................. ?  ? 4.11.6 ? ?Capacity ?for ?Preparedness ?& ?Planning ? 123........................................................................................ ?  ? 4.11.7 ? ?A ?High ?Degree ?of ?Equity ? 124..................................................................................... ?  ? 4.11.8 ? ?Presence ?of ?Social ?Capital ? 124............................................................................................ ?  ? 4.11.9 ? ?Capacity ?for ?Learning ? 125.................................................................................. ?  ? 4.11.10 ? ?A ?Cross-??scalar ?Perspective ? 126.................................................................... ? 4.12 ? ?Lessons ?from ?Green ?Streets ?and ?Country ?Lanes ? 126........................................................................................CHAPTER ?5 ? Activating ?the ?Strategies ?for ?Design ? 129................................................................................................................................ ? 5.1 ? ?A ?Synopsis ? 129............................................................................................................................... ? 5.2 ? ?A ?Synopsis ? 129......................................................................................................... ? 5.3 ? ?Water ?Balance ?Modeling ? 133............................................................................ ? 5.4 ? ?Shortfalls ?of ?Using ?The ?Ten ?Characteristics ? 139.................................................................................................... ? 5.5 ? ?Ecosystem ?Services ?as ?Goals ? 141...................................................................................................................... ? 5.6 ? ?Implementation ? 146vi.......................................................................................................................... ? 5.7 ? ?The ?Strategies ? 151........................................................................ ? 5.8 ? ?Strategy ?1: ?Rain ?Gardens ?& ?Food ?Provisioning ? 152............................................................................................... ?  ? 5.8.1 ?Intentions ?for ?Design ? 152........................................................................................................... ?  ? 5.8.2 ? ?The ?Strategy ? 152............................................................................................................... ?  ? 5.8.3 ? ?Goals ?Met ? 156............................................................................. ? 5.9 ? ?Strategy ?2: ?Laneways ?& ?Permeable ?Paving ? 161.............................................................................................. ?  ? 5.9.1 ? ?Intentions ?for ?Design ? 161........................................................................................................... ?  ? 5.9.2 ? ?The ?Strategy ? 161.............................................................................................................. ?  ? 5.9.3 ? ?Goals ?Met ? 164........................................... ? 5.10 ? ?Strategy ?3: ?Downspout ?Disconnection ?& ?Rainwater ?Harvesting ? 168............................................................................................ ?  ? 5.10.1 ? ?Intentions ?for ?Design ? 168......................................................................................................... ?  ? 5.10.2 ? ?The ?Strategy ? 168............................................................................................................. ?  ? 5.10.3 ? ?Goals ?Met ? 173............................................... ? 5.11 ? ?Strategy ?4: ?Community ?Cisterns ?& ?Dedicated ?Fire ?Protection ? 178............................................................................................. ?  ? 5.11.1 ? ?Intentions ?for ?Design ? 178.......................................................................................................... ?  ? 5.11.2 ? ?The ?Strategy ? 178.............................................................................................................. ?  ? 5.11.3 ? ?Goals ?Met ? 182.................................................. ? 5.12 ? ?Strategy ?5: ?Traffic ?Calming, ?Pocket ?Wetlands, ?& ?Woonerfs ? 186............................................................................................. ?  ? 5.12.1 ? ?Intentions ?for ?Design ? 186......................................................................................................... ?  ? 5.12.2 ? ?The ?Strategy ? 186.............................................................................................................. ?  ? 5.12.3 ? ?Goals ?Met ? 191......................................................................................... ? 5.13 ? ?Strategy ?6: ?A ?Constructed ?Stream ? 195............................................................................................. ?  ? 5.13.1 ? ?Intentions ?for ?Design ? 195......................................................................................................... ?  ? 5.13.2 ? ?The ?Strategy ? 195............................................................................................................. ?  ? 5.13.3 ? ?The ?Goals ? 204.............................................................................................................. ? 5.14 ? ?A ?Note ?About ?Trees ? 208vii.................................................................................................... ? 5.15 ? ?Needs ?for ?Implementation ? 209................................................................ ?  ? 5.15.1 ? ?Formation ?of ?a ?parent ?oversight ?group ? 209.................................................................................... ?  ? 5.15.2 ? ?Partnerships ?with ?the ?City ? 210................................................................. ?  ? 5.15.3 ? ?Partnerships ?with ?stakeholder ?groups ? 210................................................................................. ?  ? 5.15.4 ? ?Champions ?for ?each ?project ? 210........................................................................... ?  ? 5.15.5 ? ?Charrettes ?with ?the ?community ? 210............................................................... ?  ? 5.15.6 ? ?In-??kind ?design ?and ?engineering ?services ? 211............................................................................ ?  ? 5.15.7 ? ?Dialogue ?around ?past ?initiatives ? 211...................................................................................................................CHAPTER ?6 ? Thesis ?Conclusion ? 212........................................................................................................... ? 6.1 ? ?Revisiting ?the ?Rationale ? 212............................................................................................................... ? 6.2 ? ?Lessons ?from ?Theory ? 215........................................................................................................... ? 6.3 ? ?Lessons ?from ?Panarchy ? 217................................................................................................................ ? 6.4 ? ?Lessons ?from ?Water ? 219........................................................................................... ? 6.5 ? ?Lessons ?from ?Ecosystem ?Services ? 219...................................................................................................... ? 6.6 ? ?Lessons ?from ?The ?Surveys ? 220.................................................................................................. ? 6.7 ? ?Lessons ?from ?The ?Interviews ? 221....................................................................................... ? 6.8 ? ?Resilience ?Characteristics ?Emulated ? 222..................................................................................... ?  ? 6.8.1 ? ?A ?High ?Degree ?of ?Diversity ? 223..................................................................... ?  ? 6.8.2 ? ?Effective ?Governance ?& ?Institutions ? 223................................................................... ?  ? 6.8.3 ? ?Acceptance ?of ?Change ?& ?Uncertainty ? 223....................................................................... ?  ? 6.8.4 ? ?Non-??equilibrium ?System ?Dynamics ? 224.............................................................. ?  ? 6.8.5 ? ?Community ?Engagement ?& ?Participation ? 224.................................................................. ?  ? 6.8.6 ? ?Capacity ?for ?Preparedness ?& ?Planning ? 224........................................................................................ ?  ? 6.8.7 ? ?A ?High ?Degree ?of ?Equity ? 225..................................................................................... ?  ? 6.8.8 ? ?Presence ?of ?Social ?Capital ? 225............................................................................................ ?  ? 6.8.9 ? ?Capacity ?for ?Learning ? 225viii................................................................................... ?  ? 6.8.10 ? ?A ?Cross-??scalar ?Perspective ? 226..................................................................................................... ? 6.9 ? ?Lessons ?from ?The ?Rainway ? 226.....................................................................................................................................................Bibliography ? 233.......................................................................................................................................................Appendices ? 249....................................................................................... ? Appendix ?A: ?The ?Mount ?Pleasant ?Survey ? 251.......................................................................................................... ? Appendix ?B: ?The ?Interviews ? 274.............................................................................. ?  ? Transcript ?of ?Sara ?Orchard ?Interview ? 274.............................................................................. ?  ? Transcript ?of ?Mike ?Klassen ?Interview ? 283............................................................................. ?  ? Transcript ?of ?Sandra ?James ?Interview ? 289...................................................................... ?  ? Transcript ?of ?Joyce ?Lee ?Uyesugi ?Interview ? 299....................................................................... ?  ? Transcript ?of ?Shahira ?Sakiyama ?Interview ? 305............................................ ?  ? Transcript ?of ?Teresa ?Comeau ?and ?Barry ?Calhoun ?Interview ? 313....................................................................... ?  ? Transcript ?of ?Susan ?Stevenson ?Interview ? 320........................................................................ ?  ? Transcript ?of ?Naomi ?Steinberg ?Interview ? 328ixList of Figures...............................Figure ?1.1 ? ? ? The ?reciprocal ?relationship ?between ?social ?cohesion ?and ?green ?infrastructure ? 2.............................................................................Figure ?1.2 ? ? ? Current ?status ?of ?CO2 ?in ?the ?Earth?s ?atmosphere ? 4............................................................................Figure ?1.3 ? ? ? The ?ecological ?footprint ?of ?the ?City ?of ?Vancouver ? 5...............................................................Figure ?1.4 ? ? ? The ?inverse ?relationship ?of ?green ?and ?grey ?infrastructure ? 7..................................................................................................Figure ?1.5 ? ? ? 2013 ?Mount ?Pleasant ?Days ?Parade ? 10....................................................................................Figure ?1.6 ? ? ? Existing ?condition ?of ?the ?Rainway ?sub-??basin ? 11..................................................................................................Figure ?1.7 ? ? ? Storytellers? ?Bench ?in ?Robson ?Park ? 13...................................................................................................Figure ?1.8 ? ? ? A ?daylighted ?portion ?of ?Still ?Creek ? 15...................................................................................................Figure ?1.9 ? ? ? Vancouver?s ?Crown ?Street ?project ? 16....................................................................................................................Figure ?1.10 ? ? ? Research ?flow ?diagram ? 19.........................................................Figure ?2.1 ? ? ? A ?comparison ?between ?models ?of ?sustainable ?development ? 23...................................................................................................Figure ?2.2 ? ? ? Vancouver ?water ?usage ?by ?sector ? 40........................................................................................................Figure ?2.3 ? ? ? Rainwater ?harvesting ?formula ? 42.............................................................................................Figure ?2.4 ? ? ? Determinants ?of ?ecosystem ?integrity ? 45...............................................................................Figure ?2.5 ? ? ? Various ?categorizations ?of ?ecosystem ?services ? 50.................................................................................................Figure ?2.6 ? ? ? The ?eight ?domains ?of ?social ?capital ? 53...................................................................................Figure ?2.7 ? ? ? Social ?capital ?as ?a ?subset ?of ?social ?cohesion ? 54.........................................Figure ?2.8 ? ? Resilient ?communities ?as ?a ?subset ?of ?resilient ?socioecological ?systems ? 55........................................................................................................Figure ?3.1 ? ? ? Door-??to-??door ?flier ?distribution ? 59.............................................................................Figure ?3.2 ? ? ? Mount ?Pleasant ?survey ?distribution ?techniques ? 60..............Figure ?3.3 ? ? ? Response ?rate ?comparison ?between ?the ?parent ?survey ?and ?the ?Mount ?Pleasant ?survey ? 62...................................................................................Figure ?3.4 ? ? ? Pathways ?to ??Caring ?& ?Involved ?Residents? ? 65........................................................Figure ?3.5 ? ? ? ?How ?many ?people ?would ?you ?count ?amoung ?your ?friends?? ? 66....................................................Figure ?3.6 ? ? ? Percentage ?who ?visits ?with ?close ?friends ?2-??3 ?times ?each ?month ? 67x.......................................................................................Figure ?3.7 ? ? ? ?It ?is ?difficult ?to ?make ?new ?friends ?here.? ? 68......................................................................................................................Figure ?3.8 ? ? ? Le ?March? ?St. ?George ? 70....................................Figure ?3.9 ? ? ? The ?five ?benchmark ?parameters ?for ?growing ?neighbourhood ?connections ? 71Figure ?3.10 ? ? ? ?When ?you ?think ?about ?why ?you ?may ?not ?know ?some ?of ?these ?people ?very ?well? ?[how ?many] ?................................................................................... ? speak ?languages ?different ?from ?your ?own?? ? 73Figure ?3.11 ? ? ? ?When ?you ?think ?about ?why ?you ?may ?not ?know ?some ?of ?these ?people ?very ?well? ?[how ?many] ?are ?............................................................................................ ? in ?a ?different ?ethnic ?group ?than ?you?? ? 73Figure ?3.12 ? ? ?How ?comfortable ?do ?you ?think ?your ?neighbours ?would ?be ?if ?a ?shelter ?or ?group ?home ?for ?home.............................................................................. ? less ?people ?moved ?into ?your ?neighbourhood?? ? 75Figure ?3.13 ? ? ? ?How ?comfortable ?do ?you ?think ?your ?neighbours ?would ?be ?if ?shelter ?or ?group ?home ?for ?people ?................................................ ? with ?alcohol ?or ?drug ?addiction ?moved ?into ?your ?neighbourhood?? ? 75............................................................Figure ?3.14 ? ? ? ?I ?do ?not ?experience ?discrimination ?in ?my ?day-??to-??day ?life.? ? 77Figure ?3.15 ? ? ? ?Most ?people ?are ?tolerant ?of ?different ?ethnic ?groups, ?but ?most ?prefer ?to ?be ?with ?people ?in ?the ?................................................................................................. ? same ?ethnic ?group ?as ?themselves.? ? 78Figure ?3.16 ? ? ? ?People ?who ?live ?here ?and ?do ?not ?speak ?English ?simply ?do ?NOT ?try ?hard ?enough ?to ?be ?part ?of ?the................................................................................................................................... ? community.? ? 78Figure ?3.17 ? ? ? ?Is ?each ?of ?the ?following ?a ?major ?obstacle, ?a ?minor ?obstacle, ?or ?no ?obstacle ?at ?all ?to ?your............... ? particpation ?in ?activities ?that ?could ?make ?your ?neighbourhood ?a ?better ?place ?to ?live?? ? 80...................................................................Figure ?3.18 ? ? ? CityRepair ??Sunnyside ?Piazza? ?project ?in ?Portland, ?OR ? 82....................................Figure ?3.19 ? ? ? ?How ?did ?your ?feelings ?change ?about ?the ?project ?after ?it ?was ?complete?? ? 83..............Figure ?3.20 ? ? ? ?How ?did ?the ?mural ?project ?change ?your ?level ?of ?engagement ?within ?the ?community?? ? 83...................................Figure ?3.21 ? ? ? ?Sustainability ?Cycle? ?for ?health ?promotion ?and ?community ?development ? 85Figure ?3.22 ? ? ? The ?relative ?factorial ?scoring ?of ?the ??Caring ?and ?Involved ?Residents? ?model ?between ?the ?two ?............................................................................................................................................ ? surveys ? 86.......................................................................................................Figure ?4.1 ? ? ? Green ?Street ?at ?4th ?and ?Yukon ? 94xi.......................................................................................................Figure ?4.2 ? ? ? Green ?Street ?at ?8th ?and ?Maple ? 94........................................................................................Figure ?4.3 ? ? ? Kensington-??Cedar ?Cottage ?Country ?Lane ? 98....................................................................................................Figure ?4.4 ? ? ? Community ?barbecue ?in ?the ?lane ? 98.......................................................................................Figure ?4.5 ? ? ? Mountainview ?Country ?Lane ?installation ? 102.........................................................................................Figure ?4.6 ? ? ? ?Welcome ?to ?the ?St. ?George ?Rainway? ? 108...............................................................................................Figure ?4.7 ? ? ? Detail ?image ?of ?the ?Rainway ?mural ? 108......................................................................Figure ?4.8 ? ? A ?scene ?from ?2013 ?Celebrate ?Mount ?Pleasant ?Days ? 116....................................................................................Figure ?4.9 ? ? Creek ?stewards ?exploring ?False ?Creek ?Flats ? 117...............................................................................................................Figure ?4.10 ? ? ? Storytellers? ?Bench ?in ?use ? 119......................................................................................................Figure ?4.11 ? ? ? The ?mural ?and ?the ?fence ?fishes ? 119..........................................................................................................Figure ?4.12 ? ? ? ?Flows ?to ?St. ?George ?Creek? ? 128Figure ?5.1 ? ? ? Major ?fundamental ?and ?demand-??driven ?ecosystem ?services ?generated ?by ?marine ?and ?freshwater.............................................................................................................................. ? fish ?populations ? 131..................................................Figure ?5.2 ? ? ? Space ?required ?for ?a ?traditional ?daylighting ?of ?St. ?George ?Creek ? 132............................Figure ?5.3 ? ? ? The ?reciprocal ?relationship ?between ?social ?cohesion ?and ?green ?infrastructure ? 133...................................................................................Figure ?5.4 ? ? ? Soil ?testing ?locations ?and ?a ?table ?of ?results ? 136............Figure ?5.5 ? ? ? Stormwater ?volume ?summary ?for ?area ?increases ?of ?green ?infrastructure ?(GI) ?strategies ? 138...................................................................Figure ?5.6 ? ? ? The ??Panarchy? ?model ?of ?complex ?adaptive ?systems ? 140Figure ?5.7 ? ? ? Green ?infrastructure ?systems ?and ?catchment ?area ?measurements ?with ?their ?corresponding................................................................. ? suitability ?to ?soil ?types ?and ?minimum ?infiltration ?rates ? 145....................Figure ?5.8 ? ? ? Applied ??Sustainability ?Cycle? ?for ?health ?promotion ?and ?community ?development ? 147Figure ?5.9 ? ? ? Diagrams ?of ?possible ?phasing ?correlated ?with ?the ?increase ?in ?surface ?management ?and ?treatment ? ? of ?stormwater, ?resulting ?a ?graduated ?reduction ?of ?flows ?of ?untreated ?stormwater ?to ?False ?............................................................................................................................................. ? Creek ? 148........Figure ?5.10 ? ? ? A ?conceptual ?rendering ?of ?the ?Rainway ?from ?the ?City ?of ?Vancouver?s ?Urban ?Design ?Studio ? 149xii.............................................................Figure ?5.11 ? ? ? Scales, ?speeds, ?and ?linkages ?between ??Panarchy? ?cycles ? 150...................................................................................................Figure ?5.12 ? ? NE ?Siskiyou ?Green ?Street ?retrofit ? 153.......................................................................................Figure ?5.13 ? ? ? Nonprofit ?organization ?Depave ?in ?action ? 153.......................................................................................................................Figure ?5.14 ? ? ? Native ?salmonberry ? 155............................................................................................................................Figure ?5.15 ? ? ? Common ?fig ?tree ? 155.......................................................................................Figure ?5.16 ? ? ? Recommended ?locations ?for ?Strategy ?#1 ? 158......................................................................................................Figure ?5.17 ? ? ? Selected ?details ?for ?Strategy ?#1 ? 159..............................................................................................................Figure ?5.18 ? ? ? Goals ?met ?for ?Strategy ?#1 ? 160......................................................................................Figure ?5.19 ? ? ? Kensington-??Cedar ?Cottage ?Country ?Lane ? 162......................................................................................Figure ?5.20 ? ? ? Recommended ?locations ?for ?Strategy ?#2 ? 165.....................................................................................................Figure ?5.21 ? ? ? Selected ?details ?for ?Strategy ?#2 ? 166..............................................................................................................Figure ?5.22 ? ? ? Goals ?met ?for ?Strategy ?#2 ? 167.........................................................................................Figure ?5.23 ? ? ? Example ?of ?a ?disconnected ?downspout ? 170.....................................................................................Figure ?5.24 ? ? ? The ?Nine ?Mile ?Run ?Watershed ?rain ?barrel ? 170.......................................................................................Figure ?5.25 ? ? ? Historic ?image ?of ?20-??story ?steel ?slag ?pile ? 172Figure ?5.26 ? ? ? Summerset ........................................................................................., ?a ?new ?use ?for ?the ?slag ?pile ? 172......................................................................................Figure ?5.27 ? ? ? Recommended ?locations ?for ?Strategy ?#3 ? 174.................................................Figure ?5.28 ? ? ? Selected ?details ?for ?Strategy ?#3 ?(downspout ?disconnection ?only) ? 175Figure ?5.29 ? ? ? Selected ?details ?for ?Strategy ?#3 ?(downspout ?disconnection, ?including ?a ?cistern ?& ?greywater ?reuse.......................................................................................................................................... ? system) ? 176..............................................................................................................Figure ?5.30 ? ? ? Goals ?met ?for ?Strategy ?#3 ? 177......................................................................................Figure ?5.31 ? ? ? Example ?of ?an ?underground ?SRPE ?cistern ? 179..........................................................................Figure ?5.32 ? ? ? Photograph ?of ?Vancouver?s ?DFPS ?on ?False ?Creek ? 179...................................................................................Figure ?5.33 ? ? ? Residential ?cistern ?in ?water-??starved ?Tuvalu ? 181..............................................................................................Figure ?5.34 ? ? ? Sign ?for ?Tuvalu?s ?community ?cistern ? 181xiii......................................................................................Figure ?5.35 ? ? ? Recommended ?locations ?for ?Strategy ?#4 ? 183.....................................................................................................Figure ?5.36 ? ? ? Selected ?details ?for ?Strategy ?#4 ? 184..............................................................................................................Figure ?5.37 ? ? ? Goals ?met ?for ?Strategy ?#4 ? 185.................................................................................................Figure ?5.38 ? ? ? Constructed ?wetland ?in ?Salmo, ?BC ? 187...........................................................................Figure ?5.39 ? ? ? Chicanes ?used ?for ?traffic ?calming ?in ?Seattle, ?WA ? 187...................................................................................Figure ?5.40 ? ? ? Waitangi ?Park ?in ?Wellington, ?New ?Zealand ? 189...................................................................................................Figure ?5.41 ? ? ? Woonerf ?in ?Southwest ?Montreal ? 189......................................................................................Figure ?5.42 ? ? ? Recommended ?locations ?for ?Strategy ?#5 ? 192.....................................................................................................Figure ?5.43 ? ? ? Selected ?details ?for ?Strategy ?#5 ? 193..............................................................................................................Figure ?5.44 ? ? ? Goals ?met ?for ?Strategy ?#5 ? 194...........................................................................................Figure ?5.45 ? ? ? Daylighted ?Cheonggyecheon ?in ?Seoul ? 196......................................................................................Figure ?5.46 ? ? ? Daylighted ?Kid?s ?Creek, ?Traverse ?City, ?MI ? 196....................................................................................................Figure ?5.47 ? ? ? Salmon ?in ?daylighted ?Still ?Creek ? 198.....................Figure ?5.48 ? ? ? Existing ?condition ?of ?the ?Rainway ?sub-??basin ?including ?storm ?sewer ?inlet ?locations ? 199Figure ?5.49 ? ? ? Proposed ?condition ?for ?the ?Rainway ?sub-??basin ?illustrating ?a ?reduction ?in ?storm ?sewer ?inlet ?flows ? leading ?to ?greater ?prevalence ?of ?surface ?treatment ?and ?cleaner ?flows ?for ?the ?St. ?George........................................................................................................................................ ? Rainway ? 200...............................................Figure ?5.50 ? ? ? Space ?required ?for ?a ?constructed ?stream ?along ?St. ?George ?Street ? 202.........................................................................................Figure ?5.51 ? ? ? Community ?tree ?planting ?at ?Still ?Creek ? 203......................................................................................Figure ?5.52 ? ? ? Recommended ?locations ?for ?Strategy ?#6 ? 205....................................................................................................Figure ?5.53 ? ? ? Selected ?details ?for ?Strategy ?#6 ? 206.............................................................................................................Figure ?5.54 ? ? ? Goals ?met ?for ?Strategy ?#6 ? 207...................................................................Figure ?6.1 ? ? ? The ?rationale ?for ?the ?work ?undertaken ?by ?this ?thesis ? 214.............................................................Figure ?6.2 ? ? ? Scales, ?speeds, ?and ?linkages ?between ??Panarchy? ?cycles ? 218.........Figure ?6.3 ? ? ? The ?presence ?of ?the ?Eight ?Goals ?of ?The ?Rainway ?throughout ?the ?Six ?Strategies ?for ?Design ? 227xivFigure ?6.4 ? ? ? The ?presence ?of ?the ?10 ?Characteristics ?of ?Resilient ?Communities ?throughout ?the ?Six...................................................................................................................................... ? Strategies ? 228......................................................................................Figure ?6.5 ? ? ? The ?bisection ?of ?the ?St. ?George ?Rainway ? 230..................................................................................................Figure ?6.6 ? ? ? The ??Lost ?Streams ?of ?Vancouver? ? 231........................Figure ?6.7 ? ? ? Exponential ?projection ?of ?the ?positive ?feedback ?loop ?of ?the ?St. ?George ?Rainway ? 231xvDefinitionsAdaptive ?Management ?is ??an ?integrated, ?multidisciplinary ?approach ?for ?confronting ?uncertainty ?in ?natural ?resources ?issues?[that] ?acknowledges ?that ?managed ?resources ?will ?always ?change ?as ?a ?result ?of ?human ?intervention, ?that ?surprises ?are ?inevitable, ?and ?that ?new ?uncertainties ?will ?emerge?Adaptive ?management ?acknowledges ?that ?policies ?must ?satisfy ?social ?objectives, ?but ?also ?must ?be ?continually ?modified ?and ?flexible ?for ?adaptation ?to ?these ?surprises? ?(Gunderson, ?1999, ?p. ?2). ?Blueways ?are ??existing ?and ?potential ?access ?to ?waterways? ?(France, ?2005, ?p. ?210). ?In ?the ?case ?of ?the ?St. ?George ?Rainway, ?the ?term ?blueway ?is ?synonymous ?with ?rainway.Cascadia ?refers ?to ?the ??geographical ?affinity?[that] ?crosses ?state, ?provincial, ?and ?international ?boundaries ?and ?is ?variously ?defined ?as ?comprising ?British ?Columbia, ?the ?Yukon, ?and ?the ?US ?states ?of ?Washington, ?Oregon, ?Idaho, ?Montana, ?and ?Alaska. ?The ?more ?common ?definition, ?however, ?limits ?its ?area ?to ?Washington, ?Oregon, ?and ?British ?Columbia? ?(Hodge ?& ?Robinson, ?2002, ?p. ?310). ?This ?project ?uses ?the ?more ?common ?definition. ?Combined ?Sewer ?Overflow ?(CSO) ?occurs ?when ??a ?combined ?sewer ?system ?conveys ?both ?sanitary ?sewage ?and ?stormwater ?in ?one ?piping ?system. ?During ?normal ?dry ?weather ?conditions, ?sanitary ?wastewater ?collected ?in ?the ?combined ?sewer ?system ?is ?diverted ?to ?the ?wastewater ?treatment ?plant ?before ?it ?enters ?natural ?waterways. ?During ?periods ?of ?significant ?rainfall, ?the ?capacity ?of ?a ?combined ?sewer ?may ?be ?exceeded. ?When ?this ?occurs, ?excess ?flow, ?a ?mixture ?of ?stormwater ?and ?sanitary ?wastewater, ?is ?discharged ?at ?CSO ?points, ?typically ?to ?rivers ?and ?streams. ?Release ?of ?this ?excess ?flow ?is ?necessary ?to ?prevent ?flooding ?in ?homes, ?basements, ?businesses, ?and ?streets? ?(US ?EPA, ?2013b).Complex ?Adaptive ?Systems ?(CAS) ?are ?systems ??in ?which ?macroscopic ?system ?properties ?such ?as ?trophic ?structure, ?diversity-??productivity ?relationships, ?and ?patterns ?of ?nutrient ?flux ?emerge ?from ?interactions ?among ?components, ?and ?may ?feed ?back ?to ?influence ?the ?subsequent ?development ?of ?those ?interactions? ?(Levin, ?1998, ?p. ?431). ?xviDaylighting ?refers ?to ?a ?process ?that ?takes ?a ?historically ?present ?body ?of ?water ?with ?a ?current, ?that ?was ?once ?channeled ?into ?a ?pipe, ?and ?bring ?it ?to ?the ?surface ?of ?the ?land. ?The ?goal ?is ?to ?remove ?the ?body ?of ?water?s ?flows ?from ?the ?loads ?of ?the ?sewer ?system ?and ?revitalize ?the ?historic ?stream, ?creek, ?river, ?etc. ?to ?a ?degree ?of ?its ?original ?condition ?above ?ground ?and ?open ?to ?the ?air ?and ?sky ?(France, ?2010).The ?Dedicated ?Fire ?Protection ?System ?(DFPS) ?in ?Vancouver ?is ?a ??project ?that ?will ?make ?sure ?there ?is ?a ?good ?supply ?of ?water ?for ?fighting ?fires ?in ?the ?high-??density ?areas ?of ?the ?downtown ?peninsula, ?Kitsilano, ?and ?Fairview ?Slopes. ?The ?DFPS ?consists ?of ?two ?saltwater ?pumping ?stations, ?and ?a ?dedicated, ?earthquake-??resistant ?pipeline? ?(City ?of ?Vancouver, ?2012c).Downspout ?Disconnection ??refers ?to ?the ?rerouting ?of ?rooftop ?drainage ?pipes ?to ?drain ?rainwater ?to ?rain ?barrels, ?cisterns, ?or ?permeable ?areas ?instead ?of ?the ?storm ?sewer. ?Downspout ?disconnection ?stores ?stormwater ?and/or ?allows ?stormwater ?to ?infiltrate ?into ?the ?soil. ?This ?simple ?practice ?may ?have ?particularly ?great ?benefits ?in ?cities ?with ?combined ?sewer ?systems? ?(US ?EPA, ?2013c).The ?Ecological ?Footprint ??tracks ?humanity?s ?demands ?on ?the ?biosphere ?by ?comparing ?humanity?s ?consumption ?against ?the ?Earth?s ?regenerative ?capacity, ?or ?biocapacity. ?It ?does ?this ?by ?calculating ?the ?area ?required ?to ?produce ?the ?resources ?people ?consume, ?the ?area ?occupied ?by ?infrastructure, ?and ?the ?area ?of ?forest ?required ?for ?sequestering ?CO2 ?not ?absorbed ?by ?the ?ocean? ?(World ?Wildlife ?Fund, ?2012, ?p. ?36). ?Ecosystem ?Services ?are ??the ?benefits ?people ?obtain ?from ?ecosystems. ?These ?include ?provisioning ?services ?such ?as ?food ?and ?water; ?regulating ?services ?such ?as ?flood ?and ?disease ?control; ?cultural ?services ?such ?as ?spiritual, ?recreational, ?and ?cultural ?benefits; ?and ?supporting ?services, ?such ?as ?nutrient ?cycling, ?that ?maintain ?the ?conditions ?for ?life ?on ?Earth? ?(World ?Health ?Organization, ?2005). ?Green ?infrastructure ?is ?an ?approach ??to ?maintain ?healthy ?waters, ?provide ?multiple ?environmental ?benefits ?and ?support ?sustainable ?communities. ?Unlike ?single-??purpose ?gray ?stormwater ?infrastructure, ?which ?uses ?pipes ?to ?dispose ?of ?rainwater, ?green ?infrastructure ?uses ?vegetation ?and ?soil ?to ?manage ?rainwater ?where ?it ?falls. ?By ?weaving ?xviinatural ?processes ?into ?the ?built ?environment, ?green ?infrastructure ?provides ?not ?only ?stormwater ?management, ?but ?also ?flood ?mitigation, ?air ?quality ?management, ?and ?much ?more? ?(US ?EPA, ?2012a).Greenways ?are ??the ?publicly ?accessible ?parks, ?trails, ?and ?corridors ?of ?open ?space ?often ?bordering ?rivers ?and ?streams? ?(France, ?2005, ?p. ?210).Global ?Climate ?Change ?(GCC) ?refers ?to ??a ?change ?of ?climate ?which ?is ?attributed ?directly ?or ?indirectly ?to ?human ?activity ?that ?alters ?the ?composition ?of ?the ?global ?atmosphere ?and ?which ?is ?in ?addition ?to ?natural ?climate ?variability ?observed ?over ?comparable ?time ?periods? ?(UNFCCC, ?2013).Grey ?Infrastructure ??takes ?wastewater ?away ?from ?our ?fields, ?homes ?and ?businesses. ?In ?cities ?and ?towns, ?we ?rely ?on ?sewers ?to ?move ?and ?treat ?human ?or ?commercial ?waste. ?Storm ?sewers ?carry ?rain ?and ?snowmelt. ?Often ?this ?water ?contains ?pathogens ?and ?bacteria ?from ?human ?and ?animal ?waste, ?chemicals ?and ?heavy ?metals ?from ?our ?industries, ?gas ?& ?oil ?from ?roads, ?and ?fertilizers ?and ?pesticides ?from ?farms ?and ?gardens?[but] ?the ?idea ?that ??dilution ?is ?the ?solution ?to ?pollution? ?is ?not ?the ?way ?to ?get ?away ?from ?stormwater ?and ?its ?pollutants? ?(US ?EPA, ?2013a).Greywater ?contains ??water ?from ?the ?kitchen, ?bath ?and/or ?laundry, ?which ?generally ?does ?not ?contain ?significant ?concentrations ?of ?excreta? ?(World ?Health ?Organisation, ?2006, ?p. ?136). ?This ?type ?of ?water ?can ?be ?commonly ?used ?for ?non-??potable ?tasks ?such ?as ?toilet ?flushing ?and ?laundry ?washing.Panarchy ?describes ??a ?concept ?that ?explains ?the ?evolving ?nature ?of ?complex ?adaptive ?systems. ?Panarchy ?is ?the ?hierarchical ?structure ?in ?which ?systems ?of ?nature ?(for ?example, ?forests, ?grasslands, ?lakes, ?rivers, ?and ?seas), ?and ?humans ?(for ?example, ?structures ?of ?governance, ?settlements, ?and ?cultures), ?as ?well ?as ?combined ?human-??nature ?systems ?(for ?example, ?agencies ?that ?control ?natural ?resource ?use)?and ?social-??ecological ?systems ?(for ?instance, ?co-??evolved ?systems ?of ?management)?are ?interlinked ?in ?never-??ending ?adaptive ?cycles ?of ?growth, ?accumulation, ?restructuring, ?and ?renewal? ?(Holling, ?2001, ?p. ?392).xviiiPermeable ?Paving ?refers ?to ??paved ?surfaces ?that ?infiltrate, ?treat, ?and/or ?store ?rainwater ?where ?it ?falls. ?Permeable ?pavements ?may ?be ?constructed ?from ?pervious ?concrete, ?porous ?asphalt, ?permeable ?interlocking ?pavers, ?and ?several ?other ?materials? ?(US ?EPA, ?2013c).Pocket ?Wetlands ??are ?constructed ?shallow ?marsh ?systems ?designed ?and ?placed ?to ?control ?stormwater ?volume ?and ?facilitate ?pollutant ?removal. ?As ?engineered ?constructed ?facilities, ?pocket ?wetlands ?have ?less ?biodiversity ?than ?natural ?wetlands ?but ?still ?require ?a ?base ?flow ?to ?support ?the ?aquatic ?vegetation ?present. ?Pollutant ?removal ?in ?these ?systems ?occurs ?through ?the ?settling ?of ?larger ?solids ?and ?course ?organic ?material ?and ?also ?by ?uptake ?in ?the ?aquatic ?vegetation? ?(WERF, ?2009).Rain ?Gardens, ??also ?known ?as ?bioretention ?or ?bioinfiltration ?cells?are ?shallow, ?vegetated ?basins ?that ?collect ?and ?absorb ?runoff ?from ?rooftops, ?sidewalks, ?and ?streets. ? ?Rain ?gardens ?mimic ?natural ?hydrology ?by ?infiltrating ?and ?evapotranspiring ?runoff? ?(US ?EPA, ?2013c).Rainwater ?Harvesting ?(RWH) ?use ?systems ?to ??collect ?and ?store ?rainfall ?for ?later ?use. ?When ?designed ?appropriately, ?rainwater ?harvesting ?systems ?slow ?and ?reduce ?runoff ?and ?provide ?a ?source ?of ?water? ?(US ?EPA, ?2013c). ?Harvested ?water ?is ?most ?commonly ?acquired ?from ?rooftops, ?but ?could ?be ?sourced ?from ?other ?impervious ?surfaces ?such ?as ?parking ?lots, ?sidewalks, ?and ?roadways.Rainway ?(see ?Blueways)Resilience ?is ?the ??ability ?of ?a ?social ?system ?to ?respond ?and ?recover ?from ?disasters ?and ?includes ?those ?inherent ?conditions ?that ?allow ?the ?system ?to ?absorb ?impacts ?and ?cope ?with ?an ?event, ?as ?well ?as ?postevent, ?adaptive ?processes ?that ?facilitate ?the ?ability ?of ?the ?social ?system ?to ?reorganize, ?change, ?and ?learn ?in ?response ?to ?a ?threat? ?(Cutter, ?et ?al., ?2008). ?Further, ??in ?a ?resilient ?socialecological ?system, ?disturbance ?has ?the ?potential ?to ?create ?opportunity ?for ?doing ?new ?things, ?for ?innovation ?and ?for ?development? ?(Folke, ?2006).xixSocial ?Capital ??considers ?both ??individual ?social ?capital? ?(the ?social ?networks ?through ?which ?an ?individual ?finds ?the ?resources ?he ?or ?she ?needs), ?as ?well ?as ??collective ?social ?capital? ?(the ?networks ?formed ?by ?social ?groups ?within ?a ?community ?to ?achieve ?the ?resources ?needed ?to ?attain ?their ?goals)? ?(Health ?Canada, ?2006).Social ?Cohesion ?is ??a ?state ?of ?affairs ?concerning ?both ?the ?vertical ?and ?the ?horizontal ?interactions ?among ?members ?of ?society ?as ?characterized ?by ?a ?set ?of ?attitudes ?and ?norms ?that ?includes ?trust, ?a ?sense ?of ?belonging ?and ?the ?willingness ?to ?participate ?and ?help, ?as ?well ?as ?their ?behavioural ?manifestations? ?(Chan, ?et ?al., ?2005).Socioecological ?Systems ?(SES) ?exist ?with ?the ?understanding ?that ??there ?are ?neither ?natural ?or ?pristine ?systems ?without ?people ?nor ?social ?systems ?without ?nature. ?Social ?and ?ecological ?systems ?are ?not ?just ?linked ?but ?truly ?interconnected ?and ?co-??evolving ?across ?spatial ?and ?temporal ?scales?[and] ?that ?earth?s ?ecosystems, ?from ?local ?areas ?to ?the ?biosphere ?as ?a ?whole, ?provide ?the ?biophysical ?foundation ?and ?ecosystems ?services ?for ?social ?and ?economic ?development? ?(Stockholm ?Resilience ?Centre, ?2007).Sustainable ?Development ?is ?composed ?of ?two ?parts. ??Sustainability ?is ?the ?capacity ?to ?create, ?test, ?and ?maintain ?adaptive ?capability. ?Development ?is ?the ?process ?of ?creating, ?testing, ?and ?maintaining ?opportunity. ?The ?phrase ?that ?combines ?the ?two, ??sustainable ?development?, ?therefore ?refers ?to ?the ?goal ?of ?fostering ?adaptive ?capabilities ?while ?simultaneously ?creating ?opportunities. ?It ?is ?therefore ?not ?an ?oxymoron ?but ?a ?term ?that ?describes ?a ?logical ?partnership? ?(Holling, ?2001, ?p. ?399).Traffic ?Calming ??is ?the ?combination ?of ?mainly ?physical ?measures ?that ?reduce ?the ?negative ?effects ?of ?motor ?vehicle ?use, ?alter ?driver ?behaviour ?and ?improve ?conditions ?for ?non-??motorized ?street ?users? ?(Transportation ?Association ?of ?Canada ?& ?Canadian ?Institute ?of ?Transportation ?Engineers, ?1998, ?p. ?1). ?In ?Vancouver, ?common ?traffic ?calming ?methods ?include ?traffic ?circles, ?curb ?bulges, ?laneway ?speed ?humps, ?traffic ?diverters, ?and ?separated ?lanes. ?Water ?Balancing ?refers ?to ?the ?following: ??At ?land ?surfaces ?the ?soil ?column ?responds ?dynamically ?to ?the ?climatic ?sequence ?of ?precipitation ?and ?evapotranspiration ?events ?and ?accepts ?part ?of ?the ?moisture ?during ?periods ?of ?precipitation, ?pumps ?some ?of ?this ?back ?to ?the ?surface ?during ?evaporative ?periods, ?and ?rejects ?the ?remainder ?to ?the ?xxwater ?table ?more ?or ?less ?continuously?The ?quantitative ?relation ?among ?the ?long-??term ?averages ?of ?this ?partition ?of ?precipitation ?is ?called ?the ?'water ?balance'? ?(Eagleson, ?1978, ?p. ?705). ?Water ?Regulation ?is ?the ??role ?of ?land ?cover ?in ?regulating ?runoff ?& ?river ?discharge? ?(De ?Groot, ?et ?al., ?2002, ?p. ?396).A ?Woonerf ?is ?a ??living ?or ?shared ?street, ?which ?represents ?a ?powerful ?strategy ?for ?calming ?streets ?and ?neighbourhoods. ?(Woon ?means ??residential? ?in ?Dutch, ?and ?erf ?means ??yard?). ?Specifically, ?the ?woonerf ?is ?a ?residential ?street ?where, ?through ?bends ?and ?curves ?in ?roadways ?and ?through ?tree ?plantings ?and ?brick ?and ?stone ?designs, ?car ?traffic ?is ?slowed ?significantly?and ?the ?roadways ?are ?shared ?with ?pedestrians, ?bicyclists, ?and ?children? ?(Beatley, ?1999, ?p. ?142).xxiAcknowledgementsTo ?Samantha ?Margaret ?Lefort ?Welsh: ?We ?met ?when ?we ?each ?were ?university ?students ?and ?I ?was ?just ?beginning ?my ?graduate ?school ?journey?and ?now ?we ?are ?married! ?Thank ?you ?for ?being ?a ?part ?of ?this ?journey ?and ?for ?continuously ?inspiring ?me ?to ?stay ?on ?task, ?think ?bigger, ?and ?push ?further ?in ?ways ?I ?never ?thought ?I ?could. ?With ?you, ?I ?am ?so ?much ?greater ?than ?who ?I ?was ?when ?I ?first ?arrived ?to ?the ?coasts ?of ?British ?Columbia.To ?my ?parents, ?Marcia ?and ?Thomas: ?I ?have ?always ?played ?the ?role ?of ?the ?middle ?child ?well. ?When ?my ?siblings ?were ?buried ?in ?books, ?I ?wanted ?only ?to ?be ?outside ?and ?free ?of ?school. ?Because ?of ?your ?guidance ?and ?unwavering ?belief ?in ?my ?abilities, ?I ?have ?reached ?this ?milestone. ?Thank ?you ?for ?all ?that ?you ?have ?done ?to ?teach ?me ?the ?value ?of ?education. ?To ?my ?siblings, ?Emily ?and ?Jeremy: ?It ?looks ?like ?we ?are ?all ?masters ?now! ?Thank ?you ?for ?the ?inspiration ?and ?drive ?by ?getting ?here ?first ?and ?supporting ?me ?all ?along ?my ?way.To ?my ?Advisor ?Patrick ?Mooney: ?Thank ?you ?for ?your ?patience, ?your ?countless ?recommendations, ?and ?your ?belief ?in ?me ?as ?someone ?that ?has ?more ?to ?offer ?than ?this ?graduate ?thesis. ?I ?look ?forward ?to ?whatever ?collaborations ?the ?future ?may ?bring ?for ?us.To ?my ?two ?other ?committee ?members, ?Cynthia ?Girling ?and ?Carolyn ?Drugge: ?Thank ?you ?for ?your ?keen ?understanding ?of ?the ?context ?of ?my ?work ?and ?the ?pointed ?guidance ?you ?each ?provided ?throughout ?the ?process. ?Without ?this, ?the ?level ?reached ?by ?this ?work ?would ?not ?have ?been ?attainable.To ?the ?Interviewees ?Sara, ?Mike, ?Sandra, ?Joyce, ?Shahira, ?Teresa, ?Barry, ?Sue, ?and ?Naomi: ?Thank ?you ?for ?your ?time ?and ?for ?allowing ?me ?to ?understand ?and ?convey ?your ?perceptions, ?convictions, ?and ?recommendations. ?May ?they ?live ?on ?to ?help ?build ?the ?St. ?George ?Rainway ?as ?a ?place ?for ?all ?to ?enjoy.To ?the ?anonymous ?survey ?respondents: ?Thank ?you ?for ?your ?time ?and ?contributions ?as ?well. ?I ?know ?the ?survey ?was ?long, ?but ?please ?do ?not ?let ?this ?deter ?you ?from ?providing ?whatever ?insight ?the ?Rainway ?needs ?from ?its ?community ?in ?the ?future. ?Thank ?you ?also ?Sentis ?Research ?for ?lending ?the ?parent ?survey. ?Without ?it, ?my ?focused ?work ?would ?not ?have ?been ?possible.To ?the ?Rainway ?Group: ?Thank ?you ?Shahira ?Sakiyama, ?Rita ?Wong, ?Bryn ?Davidson, ?Naomi ?Steinberg, ?Sarah ?Primeau, ?Oliver ?Kellhammer, ?Amy ?Kiara ?Ruth, ?Sara ?Pour, ?Niall ?McGarvey, ?and ?others ?for ?carrying ?the ?torch ?of ?this ?project. ?I ?look ?forward ?to ?continuing ?work ?with ?you ?all ?to ?help ?with ?the ?return ?of ?Te ?Stetlew.To ?Don ?Vaughan: ?Thank ?you ?for ?being ?the ?first ?to ?welcome ?me ?to ?Vancouver, ?for ?reminding ?me ?to ?think ?like ?an ?artist, ?and ?for ?being ?such ?a ?good ?friend ?and ?mentor.xxiiTo ?my ?original ?Van ?crew ?of ?T, ?C, ?& ?L: ?Thank ?you ?for ?teaching ?me ?the ?ways ?of ?academic ?rigor ?and ?for ?reminding ?me ?how ?one ?should ?always ?make ?time ?for ?fun.And ?to ?the ?remainder ?of ?my ?Vancouver ?and ?Sunshine ?Coast ?friends, ?colleagues, ?and ?cohorts ?at ?the ?University ?of ?British ?Columbia, ?City ?of ?Vancouver, ?CityStudio, ?and ?the ?Vancouver ?Board ?of ?Parks ?and ?Recreation: ?Thank ?you ?all ?for ?being ?a ?part ?of ?this ?journey.xxiiiDedicationThis ?work ?is ?dedicated ?to ?you, ?my ?grandmother, ?Mary ?Ellen ?Jobes. ?For ?thirty ?years ?since ?your ?John ?L. ?passed, ?you ?kept ?the ?ghosts ?of ?solitude ?at ?bay ?by ?keeping ?busy ?with ?life. ?Thank ?you ?for ?waiting ?for ?me ?to ?see ?you ?one ?last ?time ?before ?moving ?on ?to ?the ?next. ?Your ?ninety-??six ?years ?of ?living ?and ?loving ?will ?always ?inspire ?me ?and ?each ?those ?who ?were ?graced ?by ?your ?joyous ?presence ?and ?selfless ?dedication ?to ?the ?happiness ?of ?others.xxiv1 An Introduction The Interplay of Local Decisions and Global Consequences1.1 A PrefaceSocial ?cohesion ?refers ?to ??a ?state ?of ?affairs ?concerning ?both ?the ?vertical ?and ?the ?horizontal ?interactions ?among ?members ?of ?society ?as ?characterized ?by ?a ?set ?of ?attitudes ?and ?norms ?that ?includes ?trust, ?a ?sense ?of ?belonging ?and ?the ?willingness ?to ?participate ?and ?help, ?as ?well ?as ?their ?behavioural ?manifestations? ?(Chan, ?et ?al., ?2005). ?Green ?infrastructure ?is ?an ?approach ??to ?maintain ?healthy ?waters, ?provide ?multiple ?environmental ?benefits ?and ?support ?sustainable ?communities ?[that] ?uses ?vegetation ?and ?soil ?to ?manage ?rainwater ?where ?it ?falls. ?By ?weaving ?natural ?processes ?into ?the ?built ?environment, ?green ?infrastructure ?provides ?not ?only ?stormwater ?management, ?but ?also ?flood ?mitigation, ?air ?quality ?management, ?and ?much ?more? ?(US ?Environmental ?Protection ?Agency, ?2012a). ?Regarding ?social ?cohesion, ?green ?infrastructure ?can ?be ?considered ?a ??behavioural ?manifestation? ?of ?a ?community ?in ?its ?efforts ?to ?increase ?the ?bonds ?and ?bridges ?between ?its ?residents ?and ?other ?groups. ?Through ?this ?lens, ?it ?can ?provide ?both ?a ?resilient ?option ?for ?physical ?development ?of ?land, ?and ?also ?for ?the ?growth ?of ?community ?for ?the ?neighbourhood ?of ?Mount ?Pleasant.At ?the ?global ?scale, ?this ?thesis ?should ?be ?considered ?as ?a ?narrative ?that ?expresses ?the ?power ?that ?lies ?in ?replication ?of ?initiatives ?similar ?to ?the ?St. ?George ?Rainway ?throughout ?a ?city ?to ?create ??more ?vibrant ?communities ?[and]? ?design ?living ?spaces ?that ?encourage ?more ?interaction ?among ?neighbours? ?(DiPaula ?et ?al., ?2012, ?p.6). ?It ?is ?through ?the ?pivotal ?step ?of ?building ?bonds ?and ?bridges ?within ?community ?that ?we ?might ?create ?vibrant ?and ?resilient ?cities ?to ?help ?plan ?for ?and ?face ?the ?inevitable ?climate ?and ?resource ?challenges ?of ?the ?future. ?It ?is ?by ?utilizing ?public ?open ?space ?that ?communities ?can ?provide ?opportunities ?for ?fostering ?interaction ?among ?neighbours. ?The ?natural ?systems ?present ?in ?the ?public ?realm ?require ?tending ?and ?stewardship ?to ?ensure ?they ?can ?thrive, ?and ?provide ?ecosystem ?services, ??the ?benefits ?people ?obtain ?from ?ecosystems? ?(World ?Health ?Organization, ?2005) ?that ?characterize ?healthy ?natural ?places. ?Therefore, ?a ?provision ?for ?community ?involvement ?with ?implementation ?and ?maintenance ?of ?ecosystems ?can ?additionally ?offer ?social ?cohesion ?as ?an ?ecosystem ?service.1The ?findings ?of ?this ?thesis, ?The ?St. ?George ?Rainway ?Project: ?Building ?Community ?Resilience ?with ?Green ?Infrastructure, ?demonstrate ?how ?the ?implementation ?of ?green ?infrastructure ?can ?offer ?another ?dimension ?beyond ?the ?ecosystem ?services ?it ?traditionally ?offers. ?Further, ?it ?posits ?that ?the ?voluntary ?engagement ?involved ?in ?the ?physical ?transformation ?of ?one?s ?community ?can ?simultaneously ?provide ?opportunity ?for ?increasing ?the ?bonding ?and ?bridging ?(social ?cohesion) ?within ?it. ?Therefore, ?social ?cohesion ?both ?increases, ?and ?can ?be ?increased ?by, ?the ?implementation ?of ?green ?infrastructure. ?Furthermore, ?social ?cohesion ?can ?create ?a ?positive ?feedback ?loop ?in ?its ?ability ?to ?reciprocally ?improve ?the ?establishment ?and ?success ?of ?the ?green ?infrastructure ?from ?where ?it ?grew. ?(See ?Figure ?1.1.)THE RECIPROCAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SOCIAL COHESION & GREEN INFRASTRUCTURERESILIENT COMMUNITYG R E E N  I N F R A S T RUCT URESOCIAL COHESIONFigure 1.1: The reciprocal relationship between social cohesion and green infrastructure1.2 The Salmon & The Jay: Framing The Need for Green InfrastructureSomewhere ?beyond ?city ?limits ?in ?the ?region ?known ?as ?the ?Lower ?Mainland ?to ?some ?and ?as ? ?Cascadia ?to ?others, ?there ?exists ?a ?coho ?salmon ?fortunate ?enough ?to ?be ?one ?of ?an ?unbroken ?line ?of ?upstream ?swimmers ?whose ?spawning ?place ?remains. ?Free ?from ?the ?encroachment ?of ?human ?development, ?his ?ancestral ?migration ?route ?is ?2one ?of ?a ?few ?to ?remain ?healthy, ?away ?from ?various ?diseases ?plaguing ?many ?of ?his ?brethren. ?His ?home ?is ?where ?he ?will ?come ?to ?rest. ?Here ?he ?will ?provide ?nourishment ?to ?his ?temperate ?rainforest ?ecosystem; ?here ?he ?will ?provide ?an ?opportunity ?to ?continue ?his ?ancient ?lineage ?until ?the ?next ?run ?from ?salt ?to ?fresh.Nearby, ?a ?Steller?s ?Jay ?flits ?and ?whistles ?with ?fervor ?up ?and ?around ?an ?ancient ?oak. ?It ?is ?non-??breeding ?season, ?so ?she ?is ?here ?to ?stockpile ?as ?many ?dispersed ?stores ?of ?acorns ?as ?she ?can ?before ?the ?tree ?lightens ?its ?heavy ?limbs ?and ?its ?seeds ?are ?lost ?under ?cover ?of ?frost ?and ?snow. ?This ?year, ?like ?every ?year, ?she ?will ?gather ?more ?food ?than ?she ?needs ?in ?case ?a ?redundant ?stash ?here ?or ?there ?is ?lost ?or ?forgotten.Of ?all ?the ?challenges ?facing ?development, ?the ?two ?most ?prominent ?are ?global ?climate ?change ?and ?resource ?depletion ?(Newman ?et ?al., ?2009). ?Until ?this ?century, ?the ?practice ?of ?developing ?and ?maintaining ?cities ?has ?existed ?without ?heeding ?ecological ?and ?water ?footprints. ?Earth ?and ?its ?bounties ?were ?assumed ?to ?be ?limitless. ?All ?signs ?however, ?point ?to ?the ?waning ?of ?the ?comforts ?of ?predictable ?weather ?and ?cheap ?and ?abundant ?energy ?and ?commodities ?(Rockstr?m ?et ?al., ?2009; ?World ?Wildlife ?Fund, ?2012). ?By ?the ?time ?this ?piece ?of ?graduate ?work ?joins ?the ?archives ?of ?its ?host ?institution, ?the ?concentration ?of ?carbon ?in ?the ?atmosphere ?will ?have ?surpassed ?400 ?parts-??per-??million ?(ppm). ?As ?a ?time-??stamp ?for ?the ?start ?of ?this ?work: ?it ?is ?398 ?ppm ?currently, ?up ?three ?points ?from ?March ?one ?year ?ago ?(NOAA ?& ?Mauna ?Loa ?Observatory, ?2013). ?To ?maintain ?a ??safe ?operating ?space? ?for ?humanity ?and ?keep ?the ?planet ??well ?away ?from ?climatic ?tipping ?points,? ?a ?reduction ?to ?maintain ?a ?concentration ?of ?350 ?ppm ?would ?be ?immediately ?necessary ?(Foley, ?2010; ?Rockstr?m ?et ?al., ?2009). ?(See ?Figure ?1.2.) ?Currently, ?no ?signs ?point ?to ?a ?reversal ?of ?CO2 ?concentration ?(Gillis, ?2013). ?One ?of ?these ?tipping ?points ?and ?thresholds ?is ?another ?number: ?450. ?This ?concentration ?of ?atmospheric ?CO2 ?has ?been ?shown ?to ?be ?the ?point ?at ?which ?the ?world?s ?oceans ?begin ?to ?acidify ?(McNeil ?& ?Matear, ?2008). ?At ?500 ?ppm, ?which ?will ?be ?reached ?by ?the ?end ?of ?the ?century ?given ?the ?current ?trajectory, ?the ?tipping ?point ?of ?functional ?collapse ?for ?coral ?reef ?systems ?will ?have ?been ?surpassed ?(Hoegh-??Guldberg ?et ?al., ?2007). ?The ?discussion ?of ?climate ?change ?and ?the ?harbingers ?of ?the ?collapse ?of ?life ?on ?earth ?is ?no ?longer ?one ?of ?prevention, ?but ?of ?preparation ?and ?stemming ?the ?tide ?of ?its ?forces ?and ?impacts, ?of ?which ?the ?severity ?is ?historically ?unprecedented.3As ?regards ?to ?resource ?depletion, ?the ?collective ?global ?human ?civilization ?in ?2008 ?would ?require ?1.5 ?years ?to ?generate ?the ?resources ?used ?in ?just ?that ?year. ?This ??ecological ?overshoot,? ?this ?50% ?deficit ?to ?biocapacity ?of ?the1 . CLIMATE CHANGE 2. OCEAN ACIDIFICATION 3. STRADOSPHERIC OZONE 4. GLOBAL P AND N CYCLES 5. ATMOSPHERIC AEROSOL LOADING 6. FRESHWATER USE 7. LAND USE CHANGE 8. BIODIVERSITY LOSS 9. CHEMICAL POLLUTION?PLANETARY BOUNDARIES?ATMOSPHERIC CO2(RESULTING IN GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE)3 50 ppm4 0 0 ppm (Start of Thesis)Figure 1.2: Current status of CO2 in the Earth?s atmosphere (data adapted from Foley, 2010; Rockstr?m et al., 2009)planet, ?began ?around ?1970 ?when ?collective ?consumption ?outpaced ?the ?ability ?for ?the ?Earth ?to ?replenish ?its ?bounty ?(World ?Wildlife ?Fund, ?2012). ?Another ?means ?to ?understand ?this ?would ?be ?to ?look ?at ?the ?hectares ?per ?person ?it ?would ?take ?for ?human ?civilization ?to ?live ?with ?sustainable ?consumption. ?In ?2008, ?the ?biocapacity ?of ?the ?planet ?could ?provide ?the ?equivalent ?of ?1.78 ?hectares ?(4.4 ?acres) ?to ?each ?member ?of ?the ?global ?human ?population. ?In ?North ?America, ?the ?consumptive ?practices ?put ?an ?average ?demand ?of ?7.12 ?hectares ?(17.59 ?acres) ?per ?person ?(World ?Wildlife ?Fund, ?2012). ?To ?understand ?the ?context ?local ?of ?this ?thesis, ?one ?should ?consider ?the ?City ?of ?Vancouver. ?Noting ?the ?2011 ?population, ?when ?multiplied ?by ?the ?average ?Canadian ?ecological ?footprint ?of ?6.43 ?hectares, ?the ?city ?requires ?a ?global ?biophysical ?area ?of ?a ?landmass ?over ?337 ?times ?its ?size ?(Statistics ?Canada, ?2013b). ?(See ?Figure ?1.3 ?on ?the ?following ?page.)4Size of Va n c o uve r La n d m a s s Req u i r e d to Sup p o r t t h e Colle c t ive Cons u m p t i o n o f Va n c o uve r = 337 Times Its SizeTHE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT of  THE CITY OF VANCOUVERFigure 1.3: The ecological footprint of the City of Vancouver (data adapted from Statistics Canada, 2013b; World Wildlife Fund, 2012)To ?avoid ?systemic ?ecological, ?social, ?and ?economic ?collapses, ?how ?we ?build ?and ?repair ?cities ?must ?anticipate ?the ?unpredictable ?forces ?of ?known ?unknowns ?caused ?by ?ecological ?overshoots ?of ?climate ?and ?resources. ?Before ?expense ?or ?a ?catastrophic ?event ?makes ?it ?harder ?to ?implement ?changes, ?it ?is ?crucial ?that ?cities ?plan ?for ?and ?implement ?these ?shifts ?now. ?Cities ?may ?never ?be ?sustainable ?regarding ?their ?own ?carrying ?capacities ?(Folke ?et ?al., ?1997), ?yet ?they ?host ?boundless ?opportunity ?for ?creating ?changes ?that ?inspire ?a ?more ?resilient ?means ?of ?existence ?and ?a ?realigning ?of ?civilization ?with ?nature. ?They ?are ?home ?to ?the ?world?s ?majority ?of ?humans, ?ideas, ?and ?opportunities ?for ?transdisciplinary, ?transcultural, ?and ?transgenerational ?collaboration. ?Those ?professions ?situated ?within ?the ?realm ?of ?development ?would ?do ?well ?to ?heed ?the ?salmon ?and ?the ?Jay. ?The ?stories ?of ?these ?creatures ?is ?one ?that ?expands ?the ?understanding ?and ?role ?of ?green ?infrastructure.51.2.1 Stormwater InfrastructureTraditional ?grey ?infrastructure, ?the ?common ?practice ?of ?North ?American ?cities, ?does ?not ?concern ?itself ?with ?the ?actions ?of ?the ?jay ?or ?the ?existence ?of ?the ?salmon. ?Rather, ?it ?maintains ?its ?rigid ?nature ?as ?a ?centralized ?system ?that ?relies ?on ?a ?set ?of ?relative ?constants ?to ?provide ?one ?service?stormwater ?regulation. ?Its ?approach ?is ?one ?that ?builds ?capacity ?into ?storm ?sewer ?systems ?to ?manage ?100-??year ?storm ?events ?but ?without ?concern ?for ?smaller ?storm ?events, ?water ?cleansing, ?habitat ?provision, ?recreation, ?and ?so ?on ?(Pincetl, ?2010). ?Urban ?waterways ?grow ?more ?polluted ?with ?development, ?and ?the ?once ?rare ?storms ?for ?which ?storm ?sewer ?systems ?are ?designed ?are ?now ?experienced ?at ?frequencies ?that ?belie ?their ?name ?and ?redefine ?how ?cities ?must ?consider ?systems ?for ?managing ?stormwater ?(Milly ?et ?al., ?2002).In ?many ?North ?American ?cities, ?storm ?sewer ?systems ?are ?combined ?with ?waste ?sewer ?systems ?to ?help ?manage ?flows ?of ?water ?that ?overwhelm ?the ?design ?of ?the ?storm ?sewer ?system. ?In ?some ?cities, ?at ?the ?end ?of ?these ?pipes ?is ?a ?waste ?treatment ?plant, ?with ?a ?life ?span ?of ?up ?to ?50 ?years, ?designed ?to ?remove ?the ?pollutants ?from ?the ?flows ?of ?water ?(Metro ?Vancouver, ?2011c). ?In ?other ?cities, ?these ?combined ?sewage ?events ?(CSOs) ?empty ?directly ?into ?urban ?waterways, ?befouling ?water ?resources ?and ?habitat ?with ?a ?cocktail ?of ?excreted ?pharmaceuticals, ?heavy ?metals, ?petroleum, ?bits ?of ?microscopic ?plastic, ?and ?so ?on ?(Browne ?et ?al., ?2011; ?Maestre ?& ?Pitt, ?2005). ?This ?system ?is ?quite ?reliable ?if ?the ?goals ?are ?to: ?1. ?treat ?all ?water ?as ?a ?waste ?product; ?2. ?maintain ?the ?flows ?within ?an ?anticipated ?range; ?and ?3. ?ensure ?the ?system ?can ?be ?maintained ?with ?the ?allotted ?budget ?and ?labor ?force. ?The ?current ?state ?rather ?is ?one ?of ?a ?need ?to ?embrace ?water ?as ?a ?resource, ?increasing ?unpredictability ?in ?precipitation, ?city ?budget ?shortfalls, ?and ?an ?increasing ?urban ?impermeability ?leading ?to ?higher, ?more ?polluted ?water ?flows ?and ?systems ?(Mehan, ?2011; ?US ?EPA, ?2001; ?US ?EPA, ?2012a; ?US ?EPA, ?2012b; ?US ?EPA, ?2012c). ?By ?comparison, ?the ?stormwater ?regulation ?aspect ?of ?green ?infrastructure ?embodies ?a ?dynamic ?decentralized ?system ?with ?redundancies ?that ?allow ?for ?flexibility. ?Its ?network ?of ?vegetated ?elements ?favor ?infiltration ?over ?conveyance. ?This ?network ?is ?one ?of ?vegetated ?elements ?that ?simulate ?natural ?systems? ?ability ?of ?infiltration, ?filtering, ?storage, ?and ?evaporation ?of ?stormwater ?runoff ?on ?site ?(Benedict ?& ?McMahon, ?2006; ?US ?EPA, ?2012a; ?6Prince ?George?s ?County ?DER, ?1999). ?By ?simulating ?natural ?systems? ?abilities, ?waterways ?can ?be ?cleaned ?and ?water ?balance ?can ?be ?achieved ?despite ?variability ?in ?weather ?(Boyle ?et ?al., ?2010). ?In ?addition, ?there ?is ?an ?inverse ?relationship ?to ?the ?values ?between ?green ?and ?grey ?over ?time. ?As ?ecosystems ?and ?their ?components ?embodied ?by ?green ?infrastructure ?mature ?and ?grow ?healthier, ?they ?improve ?their ?provision ?of ?a ?collection ?of ?ecosystem ?services?the ?ways ?in ?which ?ecosystems ?provide ?benefits ?to ?people?which ?are ?discussed ?in ?greater ?detail ?in ?Chapter ?2 ?(Brauman, ?2007; ?Turner, ?et ?al., ?2008; ?Walsh ?et ?al., ?2005). ?Conversely, ?as ?grey ?infrastructure ?grows ?older, ?the ?need ?for ?reinvestment ?and ?repair ?increases ?(Foster ?et ?al., ?2011; ?Kessler, ?2011). ? ?(See ?Figure ?1.4.)GREY INFRASTRUCTURET I M EINVESTMENTGREEN INFRASTRUCTUREINVESTMENT RELATIONSHIP of  GREEN & GREY INFRASTRUCTUREFigure 1.4: The inverse relationship of green and grey infrastructure (data adapted from Foster et al., 2011; Kessler, 2011)When ?grey ?and ?green ?infrastructure ?are ?used ?together, ?the ?smaller ?storm ?events ?that ?account ?for ?the ?majority ?of ?the ?flows ?and ?pollution ?can ?be ?managed ?with ?provisions ?for ?major ?overflow ?events.71.2.2 ResilienceIn ?concert ?with ?green ?infrastructure, ?the ?broad ?theory ?of ?resilience, ?or ?the ?ability ?to ?return ?quickly ?to ?a ?preferred ?condition ?after ?disruption, ?can ?help ?continue ?to ?re-??imagine ?how ?cities ?might ?provide ?their ?accustomed ?amenities ?with ?greater ?longevity ?(Bahadur, ?Ibrahim, ?& ?Tanner, ?2010). ?In ?the ?case ?of ?North ?American ?cities, ?residents ?expect ?trash ?to ?be ?collected ?regularly, ?electricity ?to ?be ?provided ?at ?the ?flip ?of ?a ?switch, ?and ?the ?flows ?of ?water ?to ?be ?regulated ?despite ?our ?usage ?patterns. ?How ?does ?a ?society, ?one ?of ?its ?cities, ?or ?a ?community ?within ?that ?city ?develop ?in ?a ?way ?that ?allows ?it ?to ?rebuild ?and ?return ?to ?its ?preferred ?state ?quickly ?after ?a ?catastrophic ?event? ?Such ?events ?could ?disrupt ?any ?basic ?function ?of ?cities ?and ?take ?the ?form ?of ?severe ?storms ?or ?drought, ?commodity  ?price ?spikes, ?or ?a ?major, ?fire, ?storm, ?or ?earthquake. ?The ?challenge ?is ?both ?about ?preparing ?for ?and ?adapting ?to ?the ?unprecedented ?forces ?such ?as ?global ?climate ?change ?that ?will ?disrupt ?the ?status ?quo ?of ?civilization. ?With ?her ?tendency ?for ?redundancy ?and ?decentralization, ?the ?Steller?s ?Jay ?can ?boost ?her ?resilience ?and ?anticipate ?an ?ever-??present ?supply ?of ?food ?for ?her ?lifetime. ?Even ?if ?the ?oak ?is ?lost ?to ?a ?lightning ?strike ?or ?disease ?or ?wind ?storm, ?she ?can ?always ?find ?another ?tree, ?or ?feast ?on ?an ?array ?of ?nut, ?berry, ?and ?invertebrate ?or ?small ?rodent ?options.A ?deeper ?understanding ?of ?resilience ?is ?articulated ?as ?the ??ability ?of ?a ?social ?system ?to ?respond ?and ?recover ?from ?disasters?as ?well ?as ?post-??event, ?adaptive ?processes ?that ?facilitate ?the ?ability ?of ?the ?social ?system ?to ?reorganize, ?change, ?and ?learn ?in ?response ?to ?a ?threat? ?(Cutter ?et ?al., ?2008). ?Yet, ?regardless ?of ?the ?definition, ?the ?underlying ?theme ?to ?each ?is ?adaptation. ?So ?often ?do ?designed ?landscapes ?attempt ?to ?exist ?as ?snapshots ?of ?their ?pinnacle ?function ?and ?aesthetic, ?and ?yet ?nothing ?in ?nature ?reaches ?equilibrium ?or ?maintains ?a ?static ?state, ?but ?is ?in ?a ?constant ?state ?of ?flux ?(Holling, ?1973). ?To ?discount ?this ?premise ?and ?create ?built ?worlds ?that ?require ?continual ?maintenance ?of ?their ?static ?structure ?fails ?to ?acknowledge ?the ?natural ?order. ?Further, ?it ?fails ?to ?anticipate ?changes ?to ?their ?systems ?the ?future ?will ?bring. ?The ?landscapes ?that ?we ?design ?have ?the ?opportunity, ?if ?not ?the ?responsibility ?as ?well, ?to ?be ?adaptive ?and ?anticipate ?disruptions ?of ?familiar ?weather ?patterns ?and ?flows ?of ?resources. ?Professionals ?and ?projects ?with ?the ?opportunity ?to ?implement ?green ?infrastructure ?have ?the ?power ?to ?seed ?resilience ?and ?anticipate ?unpredictable ?forces.8Upstream ?the ?coho ?is ?still ?swimming. ?With ?the ?stature ?as ?a ?keystone ?species, ?he ?exemplifies ?each ?of ?the ?four ?parent ?categories ?of ?ecosystem ?services ?as ?originally ?devised ?by ?the ?Millennium ?Ecosystem ?Assessment ?(World ?Health ?Organization, ?2005). ?As ?a ?food ?source ?for ?humans ?and ?over ?200 ?species ?of ?wildlife, ?he ?is ?the ?product ?of ?a ?provisioning ?service ?(Willson ?& ?Halupka, ?1995). ?As ?a ?third-??tier ?carnivore, ?his ?feeding ?acts ?as ?a ?regulating ?service ?as ?a ?biological ?control ?to ?keep ?populations ?of ?various ?subspecies ?in ?check ?(Shiomoto, ?et ?al., ?1997). ?His ?existence ?also ?provides ?cultural ?services, ?namely ?spiritual ?and ?religious ?values, ?educational ?value, ?recreational ?and ?ecotourism ?value, ?and ?a ?sense ?of ?place ?to ?regions ?like ?Cascadia ?(Brodeur, ?et ?al., ?2003; ?Jacob ?et ?al., ?2010). ?Lastly, ?the ?coho ?postmortem ?personifies ?a ?supporting ?service ?with ?his ?contribution ?to ?help ?provision ?his ?region?s ?temperate ?rainforest ?habitat ?after ?his ?essential ?nutrients ?release ?back ?into ?the ?environment ?(Gresh ?et ?al., ?2000).1.2.3 Urban ResilienceWhile ?urban ?development ?projects ?might ?not ?readily ?identify ?with ?the ?salmon ?or ?the ?Jay, ?the ?wisdom ?in ?their ?stories ?warrants ?exploration. ?To ?consider ?and ?test ?new ?biophilic ?modes ?of ?design ?and ?planning ?that ?follow ?the ?lead ?of ?natural ?systems ?is ?to ?embrace ?adaptation ?and ?foster ?resilience. ?For ?green ?infrastructure ?to ?function ?optimally, ?development ?must ?consider ?its ?capacity ?for ?resilience ?and ?its ?support ?of ?ecosystems. ?It ?would ?be ?prescient ?to ?emulate ?the ?coho?s ?multifunctional ?stature, ?and ?it ?would ?be ?best ?to ?take ?heed ?of ?the ?Jay?s ?anticipation ?of ?known ?unknowns?storms ?are ?gathering ?everywhere ?and ?one ?cannot ?be ?sure ?of ?their ?impending ?severity. ?Cities ?need ?to ?be ?better ?prepared; ?green ?infrastructure ?as ?applied ?through ?the ?lens ?of ?resilience ?can ?help; ?and, ?this ?thesis, ?guided ?by ?the ?question?Could ?green ?infrastructure ?provide ?both ?a ?resilient ?option ?for ?physical ?land ?development ?as ?well ?as ?opportunity ?for ?social ?cohesion ?within ?communities??aims ?to ?provide ?a ?model ?to ?illustrate ?how ?it ?can.1.3 The Neighbourhood Context1.3.1 The St. George RainwayBounded ?by ?the ?streets ?of ?Clark ?and ?Cambie ?to ?the ?east ?and ?west ?and ?Great ?Northern ?Way ?and ?16th ?Avenue ?to ?the ?north ?and ?south ?is ?the ?Vancouver ?neighbourhood ?of ?Mount ?Pleasant. ?This ?neighbourhood ?was ?once ?home ?to ?9the ?first ?downtown ?core ?of ?Vancouver, ?when ?Broadway ?was ?known ?only ?as ?9th ?Avenue ?and ?Kingsway ?was ?called ?Westminster. ?It ?is ?situated ?upon ?the ?slopes ?leading ?down ?to ?False ?Creek ?Flats ?that ?were ?once ?in ?a ?past ?age ?home ?to ?several ?Salmon-??spawning ?creeks, ?including ?the ?historic ?Brewery ?Creek ?(City ?of ?Vancouver, ?2010). ?Figure 1.5: 2013 Mount Pleasant Days ParadeOf ?the ?lesser ?creeks ?was ?one ?of ?note ?that ?flowed ?alongside ?that ?of ?Brewery ?Creek. ?This ?creek ?today ?is ?called ?by ?the ?name ?of ?the ?street ?paved ?above ?the ?majority ?of ?its ?original ?run. ?St. ?George ?Creek ?is ?the ?subject ?of ?this ?thesis. ?In ?concert?the ?modern ?existence ?of ?the ?St. ?George?s ?right-??of-??way ?with ?the ?ecological ?heritage ?of ?the ?stream ?beneath?this ?corridor ?has ?become ?known ?as ?the ?St. ?George?s ?Rainway. ?The ?remaining ?flows ?from ?this ?creek ?travel ?northward ?beneath ?the ?street ?and ?are ?piped ?as ?part ?of ?the ?storm ?sewer ?main ?buried ?there. ?A ?study ?of ?the ?storm ?sewer ?catchment ?and ?contours ?creating ?this ?corridor ?reveals ?a ?pipe ?sub-??basin ?that ?roughly ?encompasses ?one-??quarter ?of ?the ?area ?of ?Mount ?Pleasant. ?This ?is ?home ?to ?the ?study ?site ?of ?and ?contributing ?namesake ?to ?this ?thesis. ?(See ?Figure ?1.6 ?on ?the ?following ?page.)In ?2010, ?the ?St. ?George ?Rainway ?initiative ?was ?organized ?as ?a ?subgroup ?of ?the ?False ?Creek ?Watershed ?Society. ?It ?was ?established ?to ?help ?support ?a ?healthy ?False ?Creek ?watershed ?by ?transforming ?St. ?George ?Street ?into ?a ?10SUB-BASIN CATCHMENT AREAST. GEORGE STORM SEWER MAINRAINWAY ?HEADWATERS?HISTORIC SHORE LINEFigure 1.6: Existing condition of the St. George Rainway sub-basin11blueway. ?Since ?then, ?studies ?have ?envisioned ?options ?for ?daylighting ?sections ?of ?the ?culverted ?creek ?as ?well ?as ?establishing ?a ?freshwater ?wetland ?in ?the ?False ?Creek ?Flats ?to ?remediate ?runoff ?water ?from ?Mount ?Pleasant ?before ?it ?contributes ?to ?the ?combined ?sewage ?overflow ?and ?adds ?pollution ?to ?False ?Creek. ?In ?partnership ?with ?the ?False ?Creek ?Watershed ?Society, ?the ?St. ?George ?Blueway ?Group ?created ?a ?report ?in ?2011 ?illustrating ?the ?challenges ?and ?opportunities ?for ?constructed ?wetlands ?and ?potential ?daylighting ?(Davidson, ?2011). ?Later ?that ?year, ?a ?graduate ?study ?from ?the ?University ?of ?Victoria ?partnered ?with ?the ?St. ?George ?Rainway ?initiative ?to ?create ?a ?feasibility ?study ?for ?the ?creation ?of ?the ?proposed ?freshwater ?wetland ?in ?False ?Creek ?Flats, ?fed ?by ?the ?St. ?George ?storm ?sewer ?(Blair, ?2011). ?Yet, ?as ?this ?thesis ?will ?illustrate, ?while ?the ?sister ?cities ?of ?Seattle ?and ?Portland ?and ?nearby ?municipalities ?of ?North ?Vancouver ?and ?Burnaby ?have ?grown ?their ?initiatives ?with ?green ?infrastructure, ?the ?City ?of ?Vancouver ?remains ?cautious ?to ?adopt ?such ?initiatives ?and ?expand ?their ?program. ?Communities ?within ?the ?city ?however, ?aim ?to ?force ?the ?issue.During ?the ?summer ?of ?2012, ?the ?St. ?George ?Rainway ?initiative ?distributed ?a ?survey ?and ?held ?two ?design ?charrettes ?to ?guide ?the ?creation ?of ?the ?mural ?that ?now ?adorns ?the ?surface ?of ?the ?roadway ?between ?7th ?and ?8th ?Avenues ?(Sakiyama ?& ?Wong, ?2012). ?The ?mural?s ?goal ?is ?to ?initiate ?the ?story ?of ?how ?the ?rain ?that ?falls ?on ?Vancouver ?might ?someday ?help ?to ??renew ?the ?greenway, ?strengthening ?our ?resilience, ?reducing ?burden ?on ?the ?sewers.? ?Further, ?the ?founders ?of ?the ?initiative ?state, ??in ?reconnecting ?with ?our ?watershed, ?we?ll ?build ?a ?better ?future ?for ?our ?neighbourhood?s ?children, ?for ?our ?swirling ?planet? ?(Viva ?Vancouver, ?2012). ?(See ?Figure ?1.5 ?for ?an ?image ?of ?the ?mural.) ?This ?awareness-??building ?project ?was ?made ?possible ?through ?their ?partnership ?with ?the ?Mount ?Pleasant ?Elementary ?School ?and ?collaboration ?with ?local ?groups ?including ?the ?False ?Creek ?Watershed ?Society ?as ?well ?as ?with ?Vancouver?s ?Water ?and ?Sewer ?Division ?and ?Viva ?Vancouver, ?a ?City-??run ?initiative ?to ?close ?roads ?to ?vehicle ?traffic ?and ?transform ?them ?into ?public ?spaces ?(City ?of ?Vancouver, ?2012d).During ?the ?Autumn ?of ?2012, ?the ?24-??year ?old ?Vancouver ?Society ?of ?Storytelling ?inspired ?and ?organized ?members ?of ?the ?community ?to ?help ?create ?and ?build ?a ?bench ?from ?cob ?and ?mosaic. ?The ?placement ?and ?aesthetic ?of ?the ?bench ?located ?at ?the ?Northwest ?corner ?of ?Mount ?Pleasant?s ?Robson ?Park, ?calls ?attention ?to ?the ?symbolic ?12Figure 1.7: Storytellers? Bench in Robson Parkheadwaters ?of ?St. ?George ?Creek. ?(See ?Figure ?1.7 ?for ?an ?image ?of ?the ?bench.) ?Here, ?next ?to ?the ?park?s ?community ?garden ?and ?next ?to ?the ?Mount ?Pleasant ?Family ?Centre, ?anyone ?can ?sit ?with ?prospect ?of ?the ?St. ?George ?Street ?corridor ?and ?imagine ?its ?past ?and ?the ?future ?the ?community ?is ?galvanized ?to ?usher ?in. ?Over ?the ?span ?of ?three ?years, ?community ?members ?of ?Mount ?Pleasant ?have ?grown ?public ?awareness ?of ?the ?stream ?and ?of ?the ?potential ?for ?the ?nine-??block ?residential ?section ?of ?the ?street. ?They ?have ?activated ?other ?members ?of ?the ?community ?and ?have ?engaged ?members ?of ?City ?staff ?and ?of ?local ?organizations ?to ?become ?more ?involved ?with ?the ?transformation. ?The ?interview ?findings ?in ?Chapter ?4 ?will ?expound ?upon ?the ?drivers ?and ?impacts ?of ?this ?transformation.1.3.2 Efforts From CommunityDuring ?these ?three ?years ?as ?the ?activation ?of ?community ?was ?increasing ?and ?awareness ?around ?contextual ?issues ?was ?being ?raised, ?an ?initiative ?was ?created ?and ?a ?document ?was ?published ?to ?guide ?its ?work ?between ?July ?2012 ?and ?December ?2014. ?Both ?call ?attention ?to ?the ?need ?for ?this ?type ?of ?community ?engagement ?and ?enrichment ?to ?flourish. ?The ?initiative, ?Weaving ?Policy, ?People ?and ?Place ?Together ?(WPPPT), ?was ?spearheaded ?by ?the ?Mount ?13Pleasant ?Neighbourhood ?House, ?a ?not-??for-??profit ?group ?dedicated ?to ?hyperlocal ?community ?development ?since ?1967, ?to ??help ?coordinate ?collaborative ?work ?on ?how ?Mount ?Pleasant ?develops: ?specifically, ?changes ?to ?the ?built ?environment ?and ?how ?that ?built ?environment ?helps ?nurture ?community? ?(Mount ?Pleasant ?Neighbourhood ?House, ?2012, ?p.1). ?This ?work ?is ?contained ?in ?the ?vision ?of ?the ?Mount ?Pleasant ?Community ?Plan ?of ?2010, ?which ?grew ?out ?of ?four ?years ?of ?work ?gathering ?the ?input ?of ?over ?2,000 ?individuals ?who ?work ?and ?live ?in ?Mount ?Pleasant ?(Mount ?Pleasant ?Neighbourhood ?House, ?2012). ?Of ?its ?seven ??bedrock ?intentions,? ?the ?following ?two ?are ?highly ?relevant ?to ?the ?St. ?George ?Rainway ?Project ?are:To ?strengthen ?the ?public ?realm ?and ??turn ?strangers ?into ?neighbours? ?by ?improving ?the ?area?s ?walking ?appeal ?and ?enhancing ?both ?the ?number ?and ?nature ?of ?public ?gathering ?spaces ?(possibly ?modest ?in ?size ?yet ?powerful ?in ?their ?programming ?and ?design ?elements): ?spaces ?that ?encourage ?people ?of ?all ?ages ?and ?stripes ?to ?venture ?out, ?explore, ?mix ?and ?learn ?with/from ?one ?another ?[and]?To ?increase ?the ?overall ?social ?cohesion ?in ?Vancouver ?neighbourhood(s) ?while ?also ?deepening ?citizen ?engagement ?in ?ongoing ?city-??building ?(Mount ?Pleasant ?Neighbourhood ?House, ?2012, ?p.2).Much ?beyond ?these ?two ?particular ?guiding ?intentions ?is ?stated ?throughout ?this ?document, ?yet ?all ?is ?steeped ?in ?the ?pursuits ?of ?creating ?a ?sense ?of ?place, ?civic ?literacy ?and ?stewardship, ?and ?increasing ?the ?bonds ?and ?bridges ?amongst ?members ?of ?the ?Mount ?Pleasant ?community.1.3.3 A Survey from The Vancouver FoundationAnother ?relevant ?document, ?which ?was ?published ?just ?a ?few ?months ?prior ?to ?WPPPT, ?is ?titled, ??From ?Connections ?to ?Engagement: ?Pathways ?to ?a ?More ?Caring ?and ?Involved ?Citizenry? ?(DiPaula ?et ?al., ?2012). ?It ?contains ?survey ?findings ?published ?by ?the ?Vancouver ?Foundation ?that ?are ?echoed ?in ?the ?intentions ?of ?WPPPT?identifying ?a ?strong ?need ?for ?both ?strengthening ?of ?social ?cohesion ?throughout ?Vancouver. ?Of ?the ?findings, ?those ?key ?to ?note ?are ?as ?follows:141. ?Metro ?Vancouver ?can ?be ?a ?hard ?place ?to ?make ?friends; ?2. ?Our ?neighbourhood ?connections ?are ?cordial, ?but ?weak; ?3. ?Many ?people ?in ?Metro ?Vancouver ?are ?retreating ?from ?community ?life; ?4. ?There ?are ?limits ?to ?how ?people ?see ?diversity ?as ?an ?opportunity ?to ?forge ?meaningful ?connections; ?[and] ?5. ?The ?affordability ?issue ?in ?Metro ?Vancouver ?is ?affecting ?people?s ?attitudes ?and ?beliefs ?(Vancouver ?Foundation, ?2012b, ?p.7).The ?survey ?was ?the ?first ?step ?in ?working ?towards ?building ?more ?connected ?communities ?within ?Metro ?Vancouver ?and ?is ?the ?benchmark ?for ?the ?St. ?George ?Rainway ?Project. ?The ?survey ?and ?its ?findings ?ask ?of ?projects ?like ?the ?Rainway ?to ??include ?a ?dimension ?that ?builds ?bridges ?and ?brings ?together ?people ?who ?may ?not ?have ?had ?the ?opportunity ?to ?work ?together ?before? ?(Vancouver ?Foundation, ?2012b, ?p.40).The ?interface ?between ?the ?St. ?George ?Rainway ?and ?the ?controlled ?flows ?of ?stormwater ?through ?Vancouver ?provides ?a ?unique ?condition. ?The ?Rainway ?offers ?a ?new ?opportunity ?to ?be ?a ?demonstration ?project ?for ?the ?City ?of ?Vancouver ?where ?the ?city ?and ?the ?community ?act ?as ?collaborators ?with ?design, ?construction, ?and ?maintenance ?of ?the ?project. ?Having ?successfully ?daylighted ?portions ?of ?Still ?Creek ?and ?implemented ?sustainable ?street ?initiatives ?like ?Crown ?Street, ?the ?City ?of ?Vancouver ?has ?set ?a ?precedent ?for ?investing ?in ?the ?health ?of ?urban ?streams ?(City ?of ?Vancouver ?Community ?Services, ?2002; ?City ?of ?Vancouver, ?2006).(See ?Figures ?1.8 ?and ?1.9 ?for ?Figure 1.8: A daylighted portion of Still Creek (City of Vancouver, n.d.)15Figure 1.9: Vancouver?s Crown Street Project (City of Vancouver, n.d.)corresponding ?images.) ?The ?Country ?Lanes ?Demonstration ?Project ?of ?2002 ?and ?the ?still ?active ?Green ?Streets ?program ?set ?the ?precedent ?for ?a ?collaborative ?model ?between ?community ?and ?city ?to ?implement ?and ?maintain ?green ?infrastructure ?initiatives ?(City ?of ?Vancouver, ?2002; ?City ?of ?Vancouver, ?2013a). ?Meanwhile, ?Metro ?Vancouver?s ?2011 ?Drinking ?Water ?Management ?Plan, ?Vancouver?s ?Greenest ?City ?2020 ?Action ?Plan, ?and ?the ?Mount ?Pleasant ?Community ?Plan ?each ?guide ?the ?additional ?work ?needed ?to ?meet ?the ?visions ?of ?the ?region, ?the ?city, ?and ?the ?neighbourhood ?that ?all ?are ?home ?to ?The ?Rainway ?(City ?of ?Vancouver, ?2012b; ?Metro ?Vancouver, ?2011a; ?City ?of ?Vancouver, ?2010).1.4 The St. George Rainway Project: Objectives and LimitationsThe ?primary ?objective ?of ?this ?thesis ?is ?to ?provide ?assistance ?to ?both ?the ?residents ?of ?the ?community ?of ?Mount ?Pleasant ?and ?the ?employees ?for ?the ?City ?of ?Vancouver ?to ?progress ?the ?physical ?manifestation ?of ?the ?St. ?George ?Rainway. ?The ?secondary ?objective ?is ?to ?demonstrate ?transferability ?of ?such ?a ?project ?citywide. ?Through ?several ?opportunities ?for ?consultation ?with ?community ?and ?city, ?various ?needs ?have ?been ?identified ?and ?act ?as ?drivers ?for ?this ?thesis.16For ?the ?residents, ?the ?need ?for ?a ?greater ?understanding ?of ?the ?opportunities ?and ?constraints ?within ?the ?community ?concerning ?the ?increase ?of ?pathways ?to ?bonding ?and ?bridging ?within ?and ?between ?communities, ?or ?the ?existence ?of ?social ?cohesion, ?has ?been ?identified. ?The ?cited ?Vancouver ?Foundation ?report ?identifies ?the ?shortcomings ?of ?the ?region ?as ?a ?whole. ?To ?move ?forward ?and ?address ?these ?needs ?in ?a ?hyperlocal ?context, ?more ?data ?is ?required. ?One ?half ?of ?this ?thesis ?collects ?this ?data ?through ?use ?of ?a ?community ?survey ?and ?selected ?stakeholder ?and ?expert ?interviews, ?and ?identifies ?opportunities ?for ?growth ?of ?social ?cohesion ?as ?well ?as ?community ?resilience.For ?the ?planning ?staff ?of ?the ?city, ?the ?need ?for ?additional ?biophysical ?site ?assessment ?and ?design ?exploration ?of ?the ?St. ?George ?Rainway ?was ?identified. ?Staff ?from ?various ?departments ?have ?toured ?the ?site ?and ?generated ?discussion ?and ?ideas ?for ?the ?site, ?but ?have ?not ?taken ?the ?Rainway ?further ?due ?to ?lack ?of ?time ?and ?funding. ?The ?second ?half ?of ?this ?thesis ?tackles ?aspects ?of ?this ?assessment, ?sufficient ?to ?also ?create ?strategies ?for ?design ?of ?the ?rainway ?that ?proposes ?several ?green ?infrastructure ?strategies ?to ?improve ?the ?water ?balance ?and ?functionality ?of ?the ?site.As ?outlined ?in ?the ?introduction, ?the ?timing ?for ?this ?thesis ?aligns ?with ?several ?initiatives ?taking ?place ?throughout ?the ?community. ?However, ?due ?to ?the ?scope ?of ?such ?a ?project, ?involving ?no ?less ?than ?the ?re-??envisioning ?of ?a ?ten-??block ?long ?urban ?local ?street, ?the ?scope ?of ?this ?thesis ?cannot ?progress ?further ?than ?the ?phases ?of ?data ?collection ?and ?analysis ?and ?schematic ?design. ?Steps ?involving ?such ?things ?as ?community ?organization ?and ?activation, ?or ?the ?design ?development ?and ?creation ?of ?construction ?documents ?for ?the ?building ?phases ?of ?the ?rainway, ?will ?not ?be ?included ?in ?this ?scope ?of ?work. ?A ?re-??administering ?of ?the ?survey ?to ?achieve ?the ?larger ?response ?rate ?could ?provide ?opportunity ?for ?a ?multivariate ?analysis ?of ?perspectives ?within ?the ?community ?to ?greater ?understand ?challenges ?and ?opportunities ?within ?its ?makeup.In ?addition, ?a ?charrette ?process ?where ?the ?community ?contributes ?and ?responds ?directly ?to ?design ?details ?for ?the ?Rainway ?is ?highly ?recommended ?for ?next ?steps, ?but ?will ?also ?not ?be ?included ?in ?this ?work. ?To ?overcome ?these ?limitations ?for ?those ?leading ?its ?subsequent ?phasing, ?it ?is ?also ?an ?objective ?of ?this ?thesis ?via ?the ?cited ?literature, ?17published ?data, ?and ?proposed ?design ?direction, ?to ?establish ?a ?framework ?to ?progress ?the ?next ?steps ?for ?the ?Rainway ?to ?improve ?its ?chances ?for ?implementation ?in ?a ?timely ?and ?directed ?manner.1.5 Research MethodologyThe ?St. ?George ?Rainway ?Project: ?Building ?Resilience ?with ?Green ?Infrastructure ?involves ?a ?literature ?review ?of ?applicable ?theory, ?both ?qualitative ?and ?quantitative ?research ?elements, ?and ?strategies ?for ?a ?landscape ?design. ?The ?product ?of ?each ?of ?these ?phases ?is ?unveiled ?in ?this ?order ?as ?the ?following ?four ?chapters. ?The ?chapter ?following ?this ?includes ?a ?synopsis ?of ?the ?findings ?for ?the ?work. ?To ?start, ?the ?literature ?review ?establishes ?the ?theoretical ?and ?practical ?foundations ?for ?the ?work, ?and ?covers ?topics ?including: ?complex ?adaptive ?systems, ?socioecological ?resilience, ?social ?cohesion, ?ecosystem ?services, ?green ?infrastructure, ?and ?place ?attachment. ?Subsequently, ?the ?community ?survey ?and ?expert ?interviews ?establish ?establish ?the ?local ?context ?for ?the ?thesis, ?a ?baseline ?for ?presence ?of ?social ?cohesion, ?and ?a ?framing ?for ?the ?applicability ?of ?the ?ten ?prominent ?characteristics ?of ?resilient ?communities. ?Taken ?together, ?the ?application ?of ?design ?responds ?to ?the ?collective ?voice ?and ?needs ?of ?the ?community ?and ?provides ?a ?set ?of ?goals, ?phases, ?strategies ?for ?design ?as ?a ?framework ?to ?help ?realize ?future ?implementation ?of ?the ?St. ?George ?Rainway. ?(See ?Figure ?1.10 ?on ?the ?following ?page.)18Literature ReviewBACKGROUND THEORYBIOPHYSICAL CONTEXTGREEN INFRASTRUCTUREECOSYSTEM SERVICESSOCIOECOLOGICAL RESILIENCEMETRO VANCOUVERCITY OF VANCOUVERMT. PLEASANT STU DY SITEResearch QuestionCOULD GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PROVI DE BOTH A RESILIENT OPTION FOR PHYSICAL LAN D DE VELOPMENT AS WELL AS OPPORTUNITY FOR SOCIAL COHESION WITHIN COMMUNITIES ?Quantitative ResearchCONCLUSIONSASSUMPTIONAPPLICATIONVERIFICATIONCOMPARIT IVESURVEYPROFESSIONAL + STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWSDesignQualitative ResearchB a s e l i n e  U n d e r s t a n d i n g  o f  C o n t e x t& N e e d s  o f  S t u d y  L o c a t i o nJ USTIFICATIONA r t i c u l a t i o n  o f  GOALS , PHASES , PROJECTS ,  AN D  TECHNOLOGIESGOALS,  PHASES,  & STRATEG IES FOR DESIGNFigure 1.10: Research flow diagram 192 The Nature of The Built Environment Matters of Resilience, Water Regulation, & Social Cohesion2.1 A SynopsisThe ?following ?chapter ?addresses ?the ?bulk ?of ?the ?theory ?that ?is ?the ?foundation ?for ?the ?work ?of ?this ?thesis. ?It ?contains ?four ?sections ?to ?provide ?the ?theoretical ?background ?to ?this ?work. ?In ?the ?first ?section, ?The ?Urban ?Context ?of ?Resilience, ?socioecological ?resilience ?is ?introduced ?as ?the ?type ?most ?aligned ?with ?community ?development. ?The ?first ?section ?introduces ?resilience ?in ?the ?urban ?context. ?From ?here, ?the ?section ?transitions ?into ?a ?discussion ?of ?the ?interconnectedness ?between ?socioecological ?resilience, ?stormwater ?regulation, ?and ?social ?cohesion, ?which ?is ?a ?theme ?carried ?throughout ?the ?thesis. ?Research ?of ?socioecological ?resilience ?produced ?a ?series ?of ?ten ?characteristics ?that ?guide ?the ?discussion ?and ?applications ?of ?building ?resilient ?urban ?communities. ?Cities ?and ?the ?communities ?of ?which ?they ?are ?comprised ?are ?socioecological ?systems; ?by ?association, ?these ?characteristics ?directly ?apply.The ?second ?section ?of ?this ?chapter ?builds ?the ?case ?for ?water ?in ?Vancouver. ?It ?does ?this ?to ?frame ?the ?primary ?vehicle ?for ?delivering ?green ?infrastructure, ?the ?chosen ?method ?for ?applying ?the ?ten ?characteristics ?outlined ?in ?the ?previous ?section. ?Water ?is ?an ?element ?central ?to ?the ?identity ?of ?Vancouver ?and ?the ?region ?of ?Cascadia. ?Through ?an ?analysis ?of ?its ?relationship ?with ?various ?bylaws, ?as ?well ?as ?reasoning ?for ?the ?region?s ?belief ?in ?infinite ?supply, ?water ?is ?shown ?to ?provide ?opportunities ?if ?the ?perception ?of ?it ?shifts ?from ?it ?as ?a ?waste ?product ?to ?it ?as ?a ?resource. ?Furthermore, ?an ?additional ?goal?conveyed ?water ?cleanliness?is ?proposed ?for ?the ?Greenest ?City ?2020 ?Action ?Plan.The ?third ?section ?introduces ?the ?concept ?of ?ecosystem ?services, ?also ?in ?the ?urban ?context. ?In ?Chapter ?5, ?a ?set ?of ?ecosystem ?services ?taken ?from ?the ?literature ?review ?will ?provide ?the ?framework ?for ?the ?goals ?of ?the ?design. ?Special ?attention ?is ?given ?to ?social ?cohesion, ?as ?it ?is ?central ?to ?the ?success ?of ?collaborative ?projects ?involving ?the ?public ?realm. ?The ?fourth ?section ?defines ?social ?cohesion ?and ?proposes ?the ?means ?by ?which ?to ?view ?it ?as ?an ?additional ?ecosystem ?service. ?It ?does ?this ?by ?framing ?its ?context ?to ?the ?levels ?of ?connections ?and ?engagement ?highlighted ?in ?the ?2012 ?Vancouver ?Foundation ?survey ?and ?how ?their ?actuation ?requires ?the ?public ?realm. ?As ?a ?component ?of ?this ?20section, ?the ?relationship ?between ?social ?cohesion ?and ?social ?capital ?is ?described ?to ?solidify ?its ?association ?with ?socioecological ?resilience ?and ?the ?modes ?for ?building ?resilience ?in ?urban ?communities.2.2 The Urban Context of ResilienceResilience, ?stormwater ?regulation, ?and ?social ?cohesion ?are ?each ?players ?in ?the ?efforts ?for ?sustaining ?the ?human ?enterprise. ?Resilience ?is ?best ?defined ?by ?Cutter ?et ?al. ?(2008, ?p. ?599) ?as ?the ??ability ?of ?a ?social ?system ?to ?respond ?and ?recover ?from ?disasters ?and ?includes ?those ?inherent ?conditions ?that ?allow ?the ?system ?to ?absorb ?impacts ?and ?cope ?with ?an ?event, ?as ?well ?as ?postevent, ?adaptive ?processes ?that ?facilitate ?the ?ability ?of ?the ?social ?system ?to ?reorganize, ?change, ?and ?learn ?in ?response ?to ?a ?threat.? ?Further, ?it ?should ?be ?noted ?how ??in ?a ?resilient ?social-??ecological ?system, ?disturbance ?has ?the ?potential ?to ?create ?opportunity ?for ?doing ?new ?things, ?for ?innovation ?and ?for ?development? ?(Folke, ?2006, ?p. ?253). ?Simply ?put, ?stormwater ?regulation ?is ?the ??role ?of ?land ?cover ?in ?regulating ?runoff ?& ?river ?? ?(De ?Groot ?et ?al., ?2002, ?p. ?396). ?This ?role ?is ?commonly ?undertaken ?by ?a ?stormwater ?sewer ?system.Social ?cohesion ?requires ?a ?presence ?of ?social ?capital ?which ?is, ?according ?to ?Health ?Canada, ?the ?resources ?attained ?through ?community ?networks ?that ?provide ?individuals ?and ?groups ?the ?means ?to ?meet ?their ?goals ?(2013). ?Through ?this, ?trust, ?a ?sense ?of ?belonging, ?and ?the ?willingness ?to ?participate ?and ?help ?can ?translate ?into ?action ?and ?grow ?the ?social ?cohesion ?of ?a ?group ?(Chan ?et ?al., ?2005).Because ?the ?three ?concepts?resilience, ?stormwater ?regulation, ?and ?social ?cohesion?coexist ?within ?the ?context ?of ?linked ?social ?and ?ecological ?or, ?socioecological, ?systems, ?the ?strength ?of ?their ?individual ?abilities ?is ?only ?as ?great ?as ?the ?level ?of ?interconnectedness ?between ?them. ?Water ?regulation ?and ?social ?cohesion ?are ?each ?means ?by ?which ?to ?address ?adverse ?forces, ?such ?as ?flooding ?from ?a ?100-??year ?storm, ?that ?act ?upon ?the ?resilience ?of ?community, ?or ?its ?ability ?to ?absorb ?and ?react ?to ?disrupting ?forces ?in ?a ?way ?that ?allows ?for ?learning ?and ?reorganization ?(Cutter ?et ?al., ?2008). ?In ?this ?light, ?it ?is ?essential ?to ?first ?understand ?the ?theories ?and ?applications ?of ?resilience.21The ?concept ?of ?resilience ?is ?widely ?discussed ?throughout ?academia, ?and ?with ?every ?mention ?comes ?at ?least ?as ?many ?definitions ?per ?discipline ?context. ?It ?is ?commonly ?applied ?to ?economics, ?engineering, ?social ?science, ?psychology, ?and ?so ?on. ?This ?project ?focuses ?solely ?on ?the ?concept ?of ?resilience ?as ?applied ?to ?urban ?development.The ?St. ?George ?Rainway ?is ?situated ?within ?an ?urban ?neighbourhood ?where ?its ?success ?will ?rely ?upon ?the ?interactions ?between ?water, ?plants, ?and ?soils ?and ?the ?interaction ?between ?residents ?and ?institutions ?and ?the ?Rainway. ?It ?is ?a ?project ?that ?aims ?to ?demonstrate ?the ?viability ?of ?developing ?sustainably ?with ?the ?pillars ?of ?ecology, ?society, ?and ?economy.With ?a ?Venn ?diagram ?of ?three ?equal ?and ?overlapping ?circles, ?these ?pillars ?of ?sustainability ?have ?been ?widely ?conceptualized ?as ?a ?three-??legged ?stool. ?This ?model ?implies ?that ?without ?one ?of ?the ?legs, ?the ?stool ?will ?collapse. ?Each ?are ?interdependent ?on ?one ?another ?in ?order ?to ?realize ?the ?success ?of ?sustainable ?development. ?The ?concept ?of ?this ?model, ?when ?given ?this ?explanation, ?could ?be ?applicable ?to ?the ?Rainway ?project. ?Visually ?however, ?this ?model ?is ?flawed. ?If ?each ?of ?the ?rings ?are ?to ?represent ?the ?three ?concepts?ecology, ?society, ?and ?economy?the ?viewer ?is ?left ?pondering: ?to ?what ?the ?non-??overlapping ?parts ?of ?the ?diagram ?refer. ?A ?revised ?version ?of ?this ?diagram, ?where ?the ?rings ?are ?not ?overlapping, ?but ?rather ?are ?concentric, ?more ?closely ?relates ?to ?the ?reality ?of ?socioecological ?resilience ?and ?the ?challenge ?of ?sustainable ?urban ?development. ?(See ?Figure ?2.1 ?on ?the ?following ?page ?for ?a ?comparison ?of ?these ?two ?models.) ?Planet ?Earth ?is ?a ?non-??growing ?ecosphere, ?upon ?which ?humans ?are ?dependent ?residents. ?Meanwhile, ?culture ?and ?the ?economy ?are ?strictly ?human ?constructs. ?Economies ?rely ?upon ?the ?actions ?of ?humans ?who ?rely ?upon ?the ?health ?of ?the ?ecosphere?hence ?their ?nested ?disposition. ?A ?localized ?biophysical ?representation ?of ?this ?is ?the ?relationship ?between ?bioregion ?of ?Fraser ?Valley ?Basin, ?the ?Metro ?Vancouver ?region, ?and ?the ?neighbourhood ?of ?Mount ?Pleasant. ?There ?is ?a ?synergy ?between ?the ?nesting ?of ?ecology, ?society, ?and ?economy ?and ?socioecological ?systems, ?or ?the ??integrated ?concept ?of ?humans-??in-??nature? ?(Berkes, ?Folke ?& ?Colding, ?2000). ?In ?their ?case, ?resilience ?must ?be ?considered ?for ?the ?entire ?system ?and ?not ?only ?its ?social ?and ?ecological ?subsystems. ?Further, ?if ?one ?is ?to ?use ?resilience ?as ?a ?benchmark ?for ?development, ?it ?is ?essential ?to ?identify ?the ?state ?of ?the ?system ?whose ?maintenance ?22is ?preferred?the ?resilience ?of ?what?as ?well ?as ?the ?outside ?forces ?that ?may ?act ?upon ?it?the ?resilience ?to ?what?that ?might ?transform ?its ?state ?into ?one ?altogether ?different ?(Carpenter, ?2001). ?In ?the ?case ?of ?the ?Rainway, ?the ?ECOLOGYCONCEPTUAL MODELS of  SUSTAINABILITYSOCIETY ECONOMYWHERE SUSTAINABILITY HAPPENS?The Thre e -Leg ge d Stoo l? Th re e Conc e n t r i c Rin g s(The Ecological Reality)Figure 2.1: A comparison between models of sustainable developmentproposed ?design ?in ?Chapter ?5 ?utilizes ?the ?implementation ?and ?maintenance ?of ?green ?infrastructure ?by ?members ?of ?the ?community ?to ?establish ?a ?network ?of ?living ?organisms?plants ?and ?soil ?microorganisms?to ?provide ?the ?capacity ?for ?ecosystem ?services. ?This ?state ?of ?the ?local ?urban ?form ?is ?meant ?to ?be ?resilient ?to ?the ?perturbations ?brought ?by ?a ?changing ?climate. ?More ?directly, ?the ?design ?provides ?opportunities ?for ?increased ?social ?and ?ecosystem ?health ?to ?subsequently ?increase ?the ?robustness ?of ?the ?community ?to ?address ?future ?challenges. ?Attention ?is ?given ?most ?to ?global ?climate ?change ?as ?it ?holds ?preeminent ?status ?as ?the ?top ?global ?challenge ?for ?creating ?a ??safe ?operating ?space ?for ?humanity? ?(Rockstr?m ?et ?al., ?2009) ?and ?for ?the ?City ?of ?Vancouver?s ?plan ?to ?build ?adaptive ?capacity ?to ?its ?localized ?impacts ?(City ?of ?Vancouver, ?2012a). ?23A ?review ?of ?the ?current ?body ?of ?literature ?analyzing ?socioecological ?resilience ?produces ?a ?series ?of ?common ?threads ?that ?can ?begin ?to ?help ?characterize ?its ?measure ?in ?the ?context ?of ?urban ?development. ?Ten ?in ?particular ?are ?most ?commonly ?represented ?throughout ?research ?literature ?(Bahadur, ?Ibrahim, ?& ?Tanner, ?2013). ?The ?resulting ?list ?offers ?indicators ?that ?can ?provide ?insight ?into ?engagement ?opportunities ?between ?communities ?and ?the ?impacts ?from ?stressors ?such ?as ?climate ?change. ?Deeper ?insight ?into ?how ?these ?characteristics ?each ?relate ?to ?the ?St. ?George ?Rainway ?will ?be ?provided ?in ?Chapter ?5, ?Activating ?the ?Strategies ?for ? ?Design.The ?ten ?primary ?characteristics ?of ?resilient ?socioecological ?systems ?will ?not ?provide ?metrics ?for ?this ?thesis ?related ?to ?preferred ?quantities ?or ?combinations ?of ?green ?infrastructure ?strategies ?for ?instance, ?but ?they ?do ?provide ?a ?framework ?for ?where ?to ?begin ?to ?envision ?resilient ?communities. ?They ?are ?characterized ?by ?Bahadur, ?Ibrahim, ?& ?Tanner ?(2013) ?as:24THE 10 PRIMARY CHARACTERISTICSOF RESILIENT COMMUNITIESA Hig h D e g r e e o f D ive r s i t yKEY DESCRIPTORS: h e t e r o g e n e o u s , m u l t i d i s c i p l i n a r y, m u l t i f u n c t i o n a l Effe c t ive Gove r n a n c e & Ins t i t u t i o n sKEY DESCRIPTORS: d e c e n t r a l i z e d , l i n k e d , a c c o u n t a b l e Acc e p t a n c e o f Cha n g e & Unc e r t a i n t yKEY DESCRIPTORS: f l e x i b l e , a d a p t i v e , t e s t a b l e Non - e q u i l i b r i u m Sys t e m Dy n a m i c sKEY DESCRIPTORS: e n e r g y - c o n s e r v i n g , e c o l o g i c a l l y - b a l a n c e d Com m u n i t y Eng a g e m e n t & Part i c i p a t i o nKEY DESCRIPTORS: l o c a l , s e n s e o f ow n e r s h i p , p l a c e - b a s e d Ca p a c i t y fo r Pre p a r e d n e s s & Pla n n i n gKEY DESCRIPTORS: re d u n d a n t , y i e l d i n g , p r o j e c t i n gA Hig h D e g r e e o f Eq u i t yKEY DESCRIPTORS: a c c e s s i b l e , u n b i a s e d , e g a l i t a r i a nPre s e n c e o f Soc i a l Ca p i t a lKEY DESCRIPTORS: p a r t i c i p a t i n g , s u p p o r t i v e , t r u s t i n g , we l c o m i n g , e n g a g e d , c o n n e c t e dCa p a c i t y fo r Lea r n i n gKEY DESCRIPTORS: c r e a t i v e , a c t i v e l e a r n i n g , k n o w l e d g e r e t e n t i o nA Cros s - s c a l a r Pers p e c t iveKEY DESCRIPTORS: c r o s s - t e m p o r a l , c r o s s - s p a c i a l , c a s c a d i n g1.2.3.4.5. 6.7.8.9.10.Each ?characteristic ?can ?be ?applied ?to ?the ?St. ?George ?Rainway. ?The ?following ?begins ?to ?define ?each ?of ?the ?ten ?in ?the ?local ?context ?of ?the ?project:2.3 Characteristic #1: A High Degree of DiversityA ?high ?degree ?of ?diversity ?is ?cited ?as ?a ?key ?characteristic ?throughout ?the ?prominent ?academic ?literature ?focused ?on ?resilient ?socioecological ?systems ?(Berkes, ?2007; ?Carpenter ?et ?al., ?2001; ?Folke ?et ?al., ?2002; ?Folke, ?2006; ?Klein ?et ?al., ?2004; ?Norris ?et ?al., ?2007; ?Walker ?et ?al., ?2002). ?In ?the ?case ?of ?a ?project ?that ?implements ?green ?infrastructure ?as ?a ?means ?to ?provide ?ecosystem ?services ?to ?a ?community, ?a ?high ?degree ?of ?diversity ?enhances ?25the ?stability ?and ?functionality ?of ?the ?ecosystem, ?thus ?contributing ?to ?its ?resilience ?(Holling, ?1973; ?Klein ?et ?al., ?2004). ?Regarding ?the ?social ?component ?of ?the ?system ?as ?it ?relates ?to ?building ?a ?team ?for ?decision ?making ?and ?adaptation ?around ?the ?potential ?impacts ?of ?climate ?change, ?it ?is ?important ?to ??acknowledge ?the ?importance ?of ?heterogeneity ?of ?stakeholders? ?(Osbahr, ?2007, ?p. ?21). ?Maintaining ?this ?heterogeneity?this ?diversity?will ?help ?with ?adaptation ?to ?changes ?and ?effects ?upon ?the ?system ?as ?it ?will ?bring ?with ?it ?a ?multidisciplinary ?set ?of ?knowledge ?and ?expertise.The ?application ?of ?these ?principles ?to ?the ?design ?of ?the ?St. ?George ?Rainway ?results ?in ?a ?project ?with ?a ?network ?of ?physical ?components ?that ?can ?act ?individually ?but ?enhance ?the ?overall ?functionality ?of ?the ?system ?when ?linked. ?For ?example, ?one ?block ?of ?one ?street ?can ?include ?elements ?such ?as ?permeable ?paving ?adjacent ?to ?filter ?strips ?that ?lead ?into ?rain ?gardens. ?These ?individual ?elements ?infiltrate, ?slow, ?and ?treat ?stormwater ?respectively. ?When ?linked, ?they ?accomplish ?all ?of ?this ?with ?the ?water ?that ?flows ?through ?the ?site ?they ?occupy. ?Additionally, ?components ?such ?as ?these ?when ?linked ?together ?lessen ?the ?burdens ?of ?function ?upon ?each ?component ?if ?they ?were ?to ?operate ?individually. ?Permeable ?paving ?and ?filter ?strips ?help ?to ?sift ?silt ?and ?slow ?water ?flows, ?that ?could ?otherwise ?inundate ?and ?erode ?the ?soils ?of ?a ?rain ?garden. ?Likewise, ?without ?the ?rain ?garden, ?the ?other ?two ?elements ?would ?lack ?a ?connection ?with ?the ?treatment ?of ?polluted ?runoff. ?Linked ?green ?infrastructure ?components ?also ?help ?establish ?a ?diverse ?network ?of ?groups ?and ?individuals ?dedicated ?to ?its ?functionality ?(Benedict ?& ?McMahon, ?2006). ?The ?roles ?for ?involvement ?would ?be ?phased ?to ?create ?opportunities ?for ?anyone ?throughout ?the ?life ?of ?the ?Rainway?from ?installation ?to ?maintenance?to ?contribute. ?One ?example ?lies ?with ?a ?proposed ?rainwater ?harvesting ?component ?to ?the ?design. ?The ?current ?model ?for ?the ?city ?accounts ?for ?only ?a ?handful ?of ?holding ?reservoirs ?within ?the ?city ?limits. ?In ?the ?event ?that ?lines ?from ?the ?primary ?reservoirs ?located ?within ?the ?north ?shore ?mountains ?are ?cut ?to ?the ?city?s ?holding ?reservoirs, ?the ?supply ?will ?quickly ?run ?out. ?Provisions ?for ?localized ?rainwater ?harvesting, ?treatment, ?and ?storage ?in ?neighbourhoods ?could ?anticipate ?complications ?from ?such ?an ?event. ?Further, ?providing ?a ?system ?with ?several ?redundancies, ?in ?the ?form ?of ?linked ?cisterns ?with ?UV ?treatment ?capabilities, ?for ?instance, ?would ?support ?a ?high ?26level ?of ?diversity ?characteristic ?and ?increase ?resilience ?to ?impacts ?to ?a ?potable ?water ?supply. ?Such ?a ?system, ?devoid ?of ?treatment ?needs, ?could ?also ?be ?envisioned ?as ?a ?supplement ?Vancouver?s ?dedicated ?fire ?protection ?system ?(DFPS) ?that ?currently ?exists ?in ?anticipation ?of ?a ?large ?earthquake ?event ?(City ?of ?Vancouver, ?2012c).Noted ?key ?words:heterogeneous, ?multidisciplinary, ?multifunctional ? ?2.4 Characteristic #2: Effective Governance & InstitutionsThe ?local ?scale ?of ?the ?Rainway ?project ?is ?aligned ?with ?a ?prevalence ?in ?the ?literature ?that ?calls ?for ?resilient ?socioecological ?systems ?to ?have ?a ?decentralized ?organizational ?structure ?(Berkes ?& ?Folke, ?1998; ?Folke, ?2006; ?Gunderson ?& ?Holling, ?2001; ?Osbahr, ?2007; ?Ostrom, ?2009). ? ?Decentralization ?will ?allow ?for ?a ?multiplicity ?of ?voices ?when ?addressing ?adaptation ?challenges. ?The ?characterization ?of ?effective ?governance ?and ?institutions ?embodies ?this ?type ?of ?structure. ?The ?fact ?that ?governance ?and ?institutions ?are ?linked ??by ?the ?context ?in ?which ?they ?operate? ?(Martin-??Breen ?& ?Anderies, ?2011, ?p. ?17), ?could ?simultaneously ?pose ?synergies ?and ?discrepancies. ?The ?decentralized ?stakeholder ?groups ?will ?rely ?upon ?the ?City ?of ?Vancouver ?for ?help ?with ?materials, ?funding, ?and ?expertise, ?while ?the ?city ?will ?rely ?upon ?the ?engagement, ?creativity, ?labor, ?and ?local ?knowledge ?of ?the ?stakeholder ?groups ?and ?the ?Mount ?Pleasant ?community ?they ?represent.In ?periods ?where ?forces, ?such ?as ?a ?severe ?summer ?water ?shortage ?from ?prolonged ?drought, ?threaten ?a ??release? ?stage ?upon ?the ?Mount ?Pleasant ?community, ?decisions ?made ?about ?approaches ?to ?adaptation ?will ?inevitably ?be ?complex. ?Despite ?the ?resilient ?nature ?of ?its ?decentralized ?network ?structure, ?the ?governance ?and ?institutions ?involved ?will ?need ?to ?establish ?trust ?and ?accountability ?throughout ?in ?order ?to ?guarantee ?their ?effectiveness ?(Martin-??Breen ?& ?Anderies, ?2011). ?According ?to ?Mayunga ?(2007), ?the ?level ?of ?social ?capital ?and ?degree ?of ?equity ?and ?cooperation ?within ?and ?between ?groups ?is ?responsible ?for ?trust ?and ?accountability. ?Social ?capital ?is ?one ?of ?the ?ten ?characteristics ?of ?resilient ?socioecological ?systems, ?a ?subset ?of ?social ?cohesion, ?and ?will ?later ?be ?discussed ?further ?as ?the ?eighth ?characteristic.27Noted ?key ?words:decentralized, ?linked, ?accountable2.5 Characteristic #3: Acceptance of Uncertainty & ChangeA ?portion ?of ?the ?socioecological ?system ?resilience ?literature ?identifies ?the ?need ?for ?acceptance ?of ?uncertainty ?and ?change ?(Berkes ?& ?Folke, ?1998; ?Berkes, ?Colding, ?& ?Folke, ?2003; ?Folke, ?2006; ?Holling, ?2001; ?Norris ?et ?al., ?2007). ?Necessary ?to ?enhancing ?community ?resilience, ?according ?to ?Norris ?et ?al. ?(2007, ?p. ?143), ??communities ?must ?plan, ?but ?they ?must ?also ?plan ?for ?not ?having ?a ?plan; ?this ?means ?that ?communities ?must ?exercise ?flexibility ?and ?focus ?on ?building ?effective ?and ?trusted ?information ?and ?communication ?resources ?that ?function ?in ?the ?face ?of ?unknowns.? ?The ?degree ?to ?which ?the ?community ?of ?Mount ?Pleasant ?is ?structured ?to ?address ?unknowns ?related ?to ?such ?known ?forces ?as ?global ?climate ?change ?is ?directly ?related ?to ?their ?levels ?of ?connectivity ?and ?engagement ?with ?one ?another. ?In ?Chapter ?3, ?findings ?from ?the ?survey ?of ?Mount ?Pleasant ?will ?illustrate ?how ?they ?score ?against ?all ?of ?Metro ?Vancouver ?by ?providing ?insights ?into ?their ?strengths, ?weaknesses, ?opportunities, ?and ?constraints ?with ?connectivity ?and ?engagement.The ?need ?for ?acceptance ?of ?uncertainty ?and ?change ?relates ?also ?to ?the ?concept ?of ?adaptive ?management?an ?iterative ?management ?practice ?that ?accounts ?for ?uncertainty ?with ?active ?system ?monitoring?as ?used ?when ?confronting ?uncertainty ?around ?natural ?resources ?(Holling, ?1978). ?Adaptive ?management ?also ?relates ?to ?the ?resilient ?socioecological ?systems? ?characteristics ?of ?effective ?governance ?and ?institutions, ?capacity ?for ?preparedness ?and ?planning, ?and ?capacity ?for ?learning ?in ?the ?sense ?that ?it ?helps ?prepare ?for ?inevitable ?surprises. ?It ?does ?this ?by ?acknowledging ?how ??policies ?must ?satisfy ?social ?objectives, ?but ?also ?must ?be ?continually ?modified ?and ?flexible ?for ?adaptation ?to ?these ?surprises. ?Adaptive ?management ?therefore ?views ?policy ?as ?hypotheses; ?that ?is, ?most ?policies ?are ?really ?questions ?masquerading ?as ?answers. ?Because ?policies ?are ?questions, ?then ?management ?actions ?become ?treatments, ?in ?an ?experimental ?sense? ?(Gunderson, ?1999, ?p. ?2). ?In ?order ?for ?the ?Rainway ?to ?work ?and ?improve ?socioecological ?resilience, ?its ?design ?and ?guiding ?policies ?must ?utilize ?adaptive ?28management ?and ?be ?considered ?as ?malleable ?from ?the ?start; ?if ?it ?does ?not ?embody ?flexibility ?and ?adaptability, ?it ?will ?likely ?fail ?(Norris ?et ?al., ?2007).Noted ?key ?words:flexible, ?adaptive, ?testable2.6 Characteristic #4: Non-equilibrium System DynamicsWith ?systems, ?the ?concept ?of ?equilibrium ?only ?exists ?in ?theory. ?Rather, ?the ?study ?of ?thermodynamics ?explains ?how ?systems ?naturally ?approach ?equilibrium, ?but ?never ?reach ?it. ?For ?instance, ?the ?equilibrium ?state ?of ?a ?human ?body ?would ?be ?akin ?to ?an ?amorphous ?blob, ?consisting ?of ?a ?diffused ?ray ?of ?its ?building ?blocks: ?oxygen, ?carbon, ?hydrogen, ?nitrogen, ?calcium, ?phosphorus, ?and ?a ?number ?of ?other ?trace ?elements ?(Harper, ?1973). ?Like ?the ?human ?body, ?any ?system ?requires ?a ?constant ?input ?of ?high ?quality ?energy ?for ?it ?to ?maintain ?its ?organizational ?structure ?(Kay ?& ?Schneider, ?1994; ?Prigogine, ?1997; ?Schneider ?& ?Kay, ?1995). ?The ?closer ?a ?system ?approaches ?equilibrium, ?the ?more ?susceptible ?it ?becomes ?to ?the ?perturbations ?that ?could ?force ?a ??release? ?or ?collapse ?of ?that ?system ?(Berkes, ?Colding, ?& ?Folke, ?2003; ?Holling, ?1973; ?Holling, ?Gunderson, ?& ?Peterson, ?2002).The ?characteristic ?of ?non-??equilibrium ?system ?dynamics ?is ?a ?characteristic ?of ?resilience ?in ?that ?it ?supports ?active ?participation ?of ?the ?players ?in ?a ?system ?to ?keep ?it ?from ?reaching ?a ?close-??to-??equilibrium ?state. ?In ?terms ?with ?socioecological ?systems, ?they ??must ?adapt ?to ?eco-??reality ?and ?learn ?to ?live ?within ?the ?eco-??thermodynamic ?means ?of ?nature? ?in ?order ?to ?avoid ?catastrophic ?and ?cascading ?collapses ?within ?the ?system ?(Rees, ?2012, ?p. ?293). ?The ?St. ?George ?Rainway ?embraces ?the ?eco-??realities ?of ?green ?infrastructure ?to ?transform ?and ?adapt ?the ?stormwater ?management ?component ?of ?the ?street ?into ?a ?system ?characterized ?by ?greater ?resilience. ?The ?result ?will ?allow ?natural ?processes ?to ?provide ?a ?share ?of ?the ?input ?of ?high ?quality ?energy ?to ?maintain ?the ?system ?and ?clean ?stormwater ?runoff, ?versus ?a ?city-??owned ?and ?managed ?stormwater ?management ?system ?that ?utilizes ?only ?grey ?infrastructure. ?Currently ?the ?City ?of ?Vancouver ?and ?Metro ?Vancouver ?bear ?the ?costs ?of ?maintaining ?energy ?inputs ?into ?the ?stormwater ?infrastructure ?responsible ?for ?conveyance ?and ?treatment.29Noted ?key ?words:energy-??conserving, ?ecologically-??balanced2.7 Characteristic #5: Community Engagement & ParticipationCommunity ?engagement ?and ?participation, ?in ?these ?forms ?and ?others, ?such ?as ?ownership ?and ?local ?knowledge, ?is ?another ?prominent ?characteristic ?of ?socioecological ?system ?resilience ?(Berkes, ?2007; ?Berkes, ?Folke, ?& ?Colding, ?2000; ?Berkes, ?Colding, ?& ?Folke, ?2003; ?Manyena, ?2006; ?Mayunga, ?2007; ?Nelson, ?Adger, ?& ?Brown, ?2007; ?Norris ?et ?al., ?2008; ?Osbahr, ?2007; ?Ostrom, ?2009). ?Engagement, ?participation, ?and ?a ?subsequent ?sense ?of ?ownership ?grow ?in ?direct ?relationship ?with ?the ?collective ?place ?attachment ?of ?individuals ?from ?a ?community ?(Manzo ?& ?Perkins, ?2006; ?Cantrill ?& ?Senecah, ?2001; ?Low ?& ?Altman, ?1992). ?Place ?attachment ?refers ?to ?the ?bond ?individuals ?have ?with ?places, ?including ?the ?people ?with ?whom ?they ?coexist ?(Low ?& ?Altman, ?1992). ?It ?is ?from ?this ?place ?attachment ?that ?localized ?and ?indigenous ?knowledge ?can ?provide ?identification ?of, ?and ?insights ?for ?adaption ?to, ?the ?slow ?and ?difficult-??to-??identify ?systemic ?changes ?that ?might ?arise ?from ?climate ?change ?(Berkes, ?2007). ?In ?the ?case ?of ?the ?place ?known ?as ?Mount ?Pleasant, ?the ?survey ?results ?and ?stakeholder ?interview ?findings ?published ?later ?in ?Chapter ?3 ?will ?illustrate ?a ?method ?and ?measure ?of ?place ?attachment. ?Manzo ?and ?Perkins ?(2006, ?p. ?347) ?clarify ?how ??affective ?bonds ?to ?places ?can ?help ?inspire ?action ?because ?people ?are ?motivated ?to ?seek, ?stay ?in, ?protect, ?and ?improve ?places ?that ?are ?meaningful ?to ?them?[and ?how] ?processes ?of ?collective ?action ?work ?better ?when ?emotional ?ties ?to ?places ?and ?their ?inhabitants ?are ?cultivated.? ?The ?greater ?the ?ownership ?of ?and ?participation ?in ?the ?realization ?of ?the ?Rainway, ?the ?stronger ?the ?role ?this ?characteristic ?will ?play ?in ?strengthening ?resilience. ?Further, ?with ?greater ?diversity ?in ?the ?community ?comes ?a ?greater ?depth ?of ?input ?into ?the ?participation ?involved ?with ?the ?creation ?and ?maintenance ?of ?the ?Rainway.Noted ?key ?words:local, ?sense ?of ?ownership, ?place-??based ?302.8 Characteristic #6: Capacity For Preparedness & PlanningHaving ?the ?capacity ?for ?preparedness ?and ?planning ?is ?another ?characteristic ?of ?resilient ?socioecological ?systems ?as ?related ?to ?disaster ?and ?post-??disaster ?planning ?(Berke ?& ?Campanella, ?2006; ?Bruneau ?et ?al., ?2003; ?Burby, ?2003; ?Burby ?et ?al., ?2000; ?Cutter ?et ?al., ?2008; ?Olshansky ?& ?Kartez, ?1998). ?Embodying ?preparedness ?and ?planning ?for ?perturbations ?refers ?to ?the ?ability ?of ?a ?community ?to ?respond ?to ?a ?change ?with ?means ?to ?ensure ?avoidance ?of ?entire ?systemic ?collapse. ?Two ?of ?the ?methods ?to ?improve ?response ?are ?to ?prepare ?for ?collapse ?and ?plan ?with ?redundancy ?(Bahadur, ?Ibrahim, ?& ?Tanner, ?2013). ?The ?practical ?application ?of ?these ?methods ?to ?urban ?development ?is ?exemplified ?in ?the ?following ?by ?Sanchez-??Rodriguez ?(2009, ?p. ?204):[It] ?is ?worth ?stressing ?the ?urgency ?of ?building ?adaptation ?strategies ?to ?climate ?change ?in ?urban ?areas. ?The ?life ?span ?of ?urban ?structures ?is ?at ?least ?70 ?years. ?Those ?constructions ?built ?now ?will ?likely ?operate ?under ?different ?climatic ?conditions ?as ?those ?of ?today. ?Further ?delays ?incorporating ?climate ?change ?in ?the ?design ?of ?new ?urban ?constructions ?can ?reduce ?their ?functionality ?and ?aggravate ?the ?negative ?consequences ?of ?climate ?change. ?Efforts ?in ?this ?direction ?can ?make ?a ?difference ?in ?the ?livelihood ?of ?millions ?of ?present ?and ?future ?urban ?inhabitants.The ?City ?of ?Vancouver ?Climate ?Change ?Adaptation ?Strategy ?anticipates ?substantial ?climate ?change, ?in ?the ?form ?of ?temperature ?increases ?and ?precipitation ?decreases, ?to ?arrive ?within ?the ?next ?four ?decades ?(City ?of ?Vancouver, ?2012a).The ?primary ?adaptation ?action ?dictated ?by ?the ?strategy ?is ?to ??increase ?the ?resilience ?of ?City ?infrastructure? ?by ?completing ?a ?comprehensive ?Integrated ?Stormwater ?Management ?Plan ?and ?continuing ?with ?the ?sewer ?separation ?plan ?(City ?of ?Vancouver, ?2012a, ?p. ?3, ?7). ?Chapter ?5 ?will ?illustrate ?the ?details ?of ?the ?strategies ?for ?design ?of ?the ?Rainway ?which ?will ?include ?built-??in ?redundancies ?and ?preparations ?for ?the ?impacts ?of ?climate ?change ?with ?both ?the ?social ?and ?ecological ?components ?of ?the ?system. ?As ?previously ?noted, ?each ?of ?these ?characteristics ?of ?resilient ?socioecological ?systems ?have ?varying ?degrees ?of ?overlap ?with ?one ?another. ?Here, ?the ?decentralized ?organizational ?structure ?of ?the ?effective ?governance ?and ?institutions ?characteristic ?has ?synergy ?with ?designing ?31with ?redundancy ?to ?help ?plan ?for ?unknowns. ?The ?City ?of ?Vancouver ?has ?developed ?the ?strategy ?and ?plans; ?actions ?follow ?plans.Noted ?key ?words:redundant, ?yielding, ?projecting ? ?2.9 Characteristic #7: A High Degree of EquityCommunity ?resilience ?literature ?speaks ?to ?a ?high ?degree ?of ?equity ?also ?as ?a ?predominant ?characteristic ?(Adger, ?2000; ?2002; ?Cutter ?et ?al., ?2010; ?Nelson ?et ?al., ?2007; ?Twigg, ?2007). ?However, ?its ?overview ?exclusively ?revolves ?around ?the ?social ?and ?socioecological ?components ?of ?systems, ?as ?the ?term ?equity ?is ?largely ?used ?in ?an ?anthropocentric ?sense. ?In ?nature, ?with ?a ?salmon ?run ?for ?instance, ?the ?river ?does ?not ?distribute ?safe ?passage ?throughout ?the ?school ?of ?returning ?fish. ?Likewise, ?the ?grizzly ?bears ?attempting ?to ?catch ?the ?salmon ?only ?have ?chance ?and ?skill ?on ?their ?side ?if ?they ?hope ?to ?have ?a ?meal. ?According ?to ?Pearce ?(1988), ?equity ?for ?humans ?with ?natural ?systems ?often ?refers ?to ?the ?degree ?of ?intragenerational ?and ?intergenerational ?access ?to ?natural ?capital ?and ?the ?ecosystem ?services ?that ?flow ?from ?them. ?Twigg ?(2007) ?clarifies ?this ?further ?to ?support ?an ?equitable ?distribution ?of ?property ?and ?social ?wealth ?in ?order ?to ?ensure ?community ?resilience. ?The ?degree ?to ?which ?ecosystem ?services?in ?such ?forms ?as ?access ?to ?nature ?and ?water ?regulation?are ?considered ?accessible ?to ?each ?member ?of ?the ?Mount ?Pleasant ?community, ?will ?be ?further ?highlighted ?by ?the ?survey ?and ?interview ?findings.For ?the ?design ?of ?the ?Rainway ?to ?function ?with ?a ?high ?degree ?of ?equity, ?the ?ecosystem ?services ?and ?amenities ?it ?provides ?must ?be ?accessible ?regardless ?of ?economic ?or ?social ?class ?and ?sustainably ?regarded ?for ?the ?benefit ?of ?future ?generations. ?The ?nature ?of ?the ?Rainway ?existing ?within ?the ?public ?right-??of-??way ?should ?guarantee ?a ?level ?of ?democracy ?with ?its ?public ?accessibility ?(Mitchell, ?2003). ?Management ?of ?individual ?components ?that ?provide ?such ?assets ?as ?food ?and ?harvested ?water ?will ?be ?contingent ?upon ?the ?strength ?of ?the ?effective ?governance ?and ?institutions ?characteristic. ?An ?instance ?of ?a ?food ?asset ?provisioned ?by ?the ?Rainway ?could ?take ?the ?form ?of ?cherry ?trees. ?While ?every ?visitor ?to ?the ?Rainway ?may ?be ?granted ?access ?to ?the ?trees? ?fruits, ?a ?more ?equitable ?system ?32may ?involve ?a ?distribution ?of ?responsibilities, ?whereas ?some ?individuals ?may ?harvest ?hard-??to-??reach ?fruits ?and ?manage ?pruning ?of ?the ?trees; ?while ?others ?may ?be ?responsible ?for ?canning ?and ?preservation; ?while ?still ?others ?may ?take ?on ?delivery ?of ?the ?food ?asset ?to ?members ?of ?the ?community ?with ?less ?mobility. ?Such ?an ?equitable ?and ?decentralized ?system ?would ?not ?be ?possible ?without ?effective ?governance ?and ?institutions ?in ?place.Noted ?key ?words:accessible, ?unbiased, ?egalitarian ?2.10 Characteristic #8: Presence of Social CapitaPresence ?of ?social ?capital ?is ?another ?characteristic ?repeated ?in ?the ?literature ?applied ?to ?community ?resilience ?(Adger, ?2000; ?Adger, ?2003; ?CPSSC, ?2011; ?Martin-??Breen ?& ?Anderies, ?2011; ?Mayunga, ?2007; ?Norris ?et ?al., ?2008; ?Pfefferbaum ?et ?al., ?2007). ?The ?idea ?of ?social ?capital ?is ?one ?derived ?from ?the ?study ?of ?economics. ?As ?applied ?to ?community ?resilience, ?it ?refers ?to ?assets ?from ?social ?networks, ?such ?as ?personal ?connections, ?that ?are ?accessed, ?used, ?and ?further ?developed ?from ?their ?patterns ?of ?sharing ?(Lin, ?2001). ?Health ?Canada ?has ?two ?classifications ?for ?social ?capital. ?An ?individual?s ?social ?capital ?is ?referred ?to ?as ??the ?social ?networks ?through ?which ?an ?individual ?finds ?the ?resources ?he ?or ?she ?needs,? ?while ?a ?collective?s ?social ?capital ?refers ?to ??the ?networks ?formed ?by ?social ?groups ?within ?a ?community ?to ?achieve ?the ?resources ?needed ?to ?attain ?their ?goals? ?(Health ?Canada, ?2013).Social ?capital ?is ?therefore ?about ?relationships. ?Such ?relationships ?have ?signature ?psychological ?dimensions ?of ?a ??sense ?of ?community, ?place ?attachment, ?and ?citizen ?participation? ?where ?sense ?of ?community ?is ?characterized ?by ??high ?concern ?for ?community ?issues, ?respect ?for ?and ?service ?to ?others, ?sense ?of ?connection, ?and ?needs ?fulfillment? ?(Norris ?et ?al., ?2008, ?p. ?139). ? ?The ?characterizations ?qualify ?citizen ?participation, ?which, ?in ?turn, ?is ?specifically ?defined ?by ?its ?ability ?to ??be ?sensitive ?to ?the ?diversity, ?ability, ?and ?interests ?of ?members? ?in ?communities ?with ??strong ?and ?responsive ?leadership; ?able ?teamwork; ?clear ?organizational ?structures; ?and ?well-??defined ?roles, ?responsibilities, ?and ?lines ?of ?authority?? ?(Pfefferbaum, ?2007, ?p. ?350-??51).33Social ?capital ?is ?only ?as ?effective ?as ?its ?networks ?and ?the ?decision ?making ?manifested ?within ?(Adger, ?2003), ?again ?calling ?attention ?to ?inter-??characteristic ?synergies. ?Here ?the ?synergy ?is ?with ?effective ?governance ?and ?institutions ?and ?community ?engagement ?and ?participation ?and ?will ?be ?given ?context ?with ?the ?discussion ?of ?social ?cohesion ?in ?Mount ?Pleasant. ?The ?content ?and ?structure ?of ?the ?questioning ?for ?each ?the ?survey ?and ?interview ?phases, ?discussed ?at ?length ?in ?Chapter ?3, ?attempts ?to ?measure ?social ?cohesion ?and ?identify ?opportunities ?for ?growth. ?The ?questions ?posed ?by ?the ?survey ?and ?interviews ?are ?built ?directly ?from ?the ?parent ?Vancouver ?Foundation ?survey, ?which ?identifies ?the ?need ?of ?strengthening ?both ?bonds ?within ?groups ?and ?bridges ?between ?groups ?to ?build ?social ?capital ?(DiPaula ?et ?al., ?2012). ?It ?is ?through ?the ?collective ?endowment ?of ?social ?capital ?components ?that ?a ?community ?or ?society ?grows ?in ?cohesion. ?Noted ?key ?words:participating, ?supportive, ?trusting, ?welcoming, ?engaged, ?connected ? ?2.11 Characteristic #9: Capacity for LearningComplex ?Adaptive ?Systems, ?of ?which ?socioecological ?systems ?are ?a ?subset, ?are ?understood ?to ?be ?cyclical. ?This ?implies ?that ?eventual ?collapse ?or ??release? ?is ?inevitable. ?However, ?it ?is ?understood ?that ?the ?practice ?of ?learning ?through ?such ?structures ?as ?policies ?may ?stall, ?temper, ?and/or ?reduce ?the ?costs ?of ?the ?eventual ?collapse ?and ?lessen ?the ?capital ?needed ?for ?the ?restructuring ?that ?follows ?(Carpenter ?et ?al., ?2001). ?Learning ?is ?also ?discussed ?throughout ?the ?literature ?with ?similar ?capacity ?and ?as ?an ?integral ?component ?to ?adaptive ?management ?(Folke ?et ?al., ?2002; ?Folke ?et ?al., ?2003; ?Gunderson, ?1999; ?Gunderson ?& ?Holling, ?2001; ?Olsson ?et ?al., ?2004; ?Tompkins ?& ?Adger, ?2004). ?Adaptive ?management ?with ?resilient ?socioecological ?systems ?requires ?attention ?to ?the ?slowly-??changing ?variables ?in ?the ?system ?by ?harnessing ?diversity ?and ?collective ?memory ?and ?creativity ?to ?build ?ability ?to ?adapt ?and ?respond ?to ?unexpected ?circumstances ?(Folke ?et ?al., ?2002). ?Learning ?in ?this ?context ?is ?therefore ?more ?aptly ?referred ?to ?as ?active ?learning, ?as ?it ?requires ?continual ?revision, ?or ?adaptation, ?to ?keep ?pace ?with ?changes ?in ?the ?system ?to ?which ?it ?corresponds.34A ?challenge ?that ?is ?intrinsic ?to ?the ?notion ?of ?learning ?is ?the ?requirement ?for ?an ?action ?or ?state ?to ?learn ?from. ?With ?this ?framing, ?learning ?can ?be ?implied ?as ?a ?post-??perturbation ?act. ?For ?example, ?possibilities ?for ?learning ?from ?a ?changing ?climate ?would ?require ?experiencing ?some ?aspect ?of ?the ?changes. ?Enhancing ?the ?ability ?of ?this ?characteristic ?would ?require ?paralleled ?precedence, ?and ?therefore ?would ?require ?help ?from ?those ?who ?have ?demonstrated ?resilience ?in ?the ?face ?of ?systemic ?challenges. ?Individuals ?most ?likely ?to ?embody ?this ?knowledge ?are ?our ?elders, ?namely ?those ?of ?local ?First ?Nations ?communities ?who ?have ?much ?uncolonized ?wisdom ?to ?share ?and ?insight ?into ?addressing ?the ?various ?face ?of ?great ?adversity ?(Cameron, ?2012).Learning ?can ?also ?imply ?the ?hypothetical, ?in ?the ?case ?access ?to ?post-??trauma ?wisdom ?is ?unavailable. ?According ?to ?Carpenter ?et ?al. ?(2001, ?p. ?778), ?one ?would ?need ?to ??consider ?a ?range ?of ?plausible ?hypotheses ?about ?future ?changes ?in ?the ?system; ?to ?weigh ?a ?range ?of ?possible ?strategies ?against ?this ?wide ?set ?of ?potential ?futures; ?and ?to ?favor ?actions ?that ?are ?robust ?to ?uncertainties, ?reversible, ?and ?likely ?to ?reveal ?crucial ?new ?information ?about ?system ?function.? ?Further, ?and ?directly ?relating ?to ?the ?characteristic ?of ?effective ?governance ?and ?institutions, ??learning ?is ?advanced ?by ?institutions ?that ?can ?experiment ?in ?safe ?ways, ?monitor ?results, ?update ?assessments, ?and ?modify ?policy ?as ?new ?knowledge ?is ?gained? ?(p. ?778). ?With ?the ?Rainway, ?hypotheticals ?and ?the ?adaptive ?management ?approach ?will ?be ?the ?starting ?point ?for ?this ?characteristic.Noted ?key ?words:creative, ?active ?learning, ?knowledge ?retention2.12 Characteristic #10: A Cross-scalar PerspectiveThe ?last ?of ?the ?ten ?characteristics ?is ?referred ?to ?by ?Bahadur ?(2010, ?2013) ?as ?a ?cross-??scalar ?perspective. ?This ?characteristic ?is ?best ?illustrated ?through ?the ?lens ?of ?ecosystem ?science. ?Like ?socioecological ?systems, ?ecosystems ?are ?complex ?adaptive ?systems. ?As ?such, ?they ?contain ?linkages ?that ?cross ?temporal ?and ?spacial ?realities ?(Levin ?1998; ?Levin ?2000). ?Consider ?again ?the ?water ?that ?flows ?through ?Vancouver. ?The ?forest ?ecosystems ?that ?help ?create ?the ?precipitation ?that ?feeds ?the ?Metro ?region?s ?three ?protected ?watersheds ?are ?systems ?that ?act ?at ?35different ?speeds ?and ?scales ?than ?the ?bodies ?of ?water ?below: ?False ?Creek, ?the ?Burrard ?Inlet, ?and ?ultimately ?the ?Pacific ?Ocean. ?Changes ?at ?any ?scale ?within ?any ?of ?these ?ecosystems, ?such ?as ?the ?change ?in ?water ?temperature, ?availability, ?or ?acidity, ?can ?impact ?the ?function ?of ?the ?others. ?Likewise, ?changes ?at ?the ?level ?of ?the ?regional ?hydrologic ?cycle, ?that ?result ?from ?global ?climate ?change, ?will ?also ?impact ?these ?linked ?systems.The ?cross-??scalar ?perspective ?is ?one ?that ?grew ?out ?of ?the ?work ?around ?theories ?of ?resilience ?and ?applications ?of ?adaptive ?management. ?To ?make ?sense ?of ?a ?cross-??scalar ?perspective ?with ?complex ?adaptive ?systems, ?Holling ?proposed ?the ?theory ?of ?Panarchy ?(2001). ?Devised ?from ?the ?root ?prefix ??pan-??,? ?meaning ??all? ?or ??everything? ?as ?well ?as ?referring ?to ?the ?Greek ?god ?of ?nature, ?and ?the ?suffix ??archy,? ?referring ?to ?the ??rule,? ?this ?theory ?attempts ?to ?explain ?how ?all ?such ?systems ?(and ?thus ?all ?socioecological ?systems) ?function. ?The ?theory ?of ?Panarchy ?will ?be ?discussed ?with ?more ?detail ?in ?Chapter ?5. ?A ?panarchy ?is ?a ?nesting ?of ?subsystems ?within ?a ?complex ?adaptive ?systems, ?where ?each ?have ?linkages ?to ?one ?another, ?and ?where ?the ?collapse ?(during ?the ?release ?phase) ?of ?one ?can ?have ?cascading ?effects ?throughout ?the ?system. ?In ?a ?healthy ?system, ?each ?nested ?subsystem ??is ?allowed ?to ?operate ?at ?its ?own ?pace, ?protected ?from ?above ?by ?slower, ?larger ?levels ?but ?invigorated ?from ?below ?by ?faster, ?smaller ?cycles ?of ?innovation. ?The ?whole ?panarchy ?is ?therefore ?both ?creative ?and ?conserving? ?(Holling, ?2001, ?p. ?390). ?The ?concept ?of ?sustainable ?development, ?Holling ?(2001, ?p. ?390) ?continues, ?is ?where ??sustainability ?is ?the ?capacity ?to ?create, ?test, ?and ?maintain ?adaptive ?capability ?[and] ?development ?is ?the ?process ?of ?creating, ?testing, ?and ?maintaining ?opportunity. ?The ?phrase?thus ?refers ?to ?the ?goal ?of ?fostering ?adaptive ?capabilities ?and ?creating ?opportunities.? ?The ?St. ?George ?Rainway ?may ?only ?be ?a ?nine-??block ?long ?project, ?yet ?its ?constraints ?and ?equally ?its ?impact ?will ?inevitably ?be ?regionally ?cross-??scalar. ?Because ?the ?Rainway ?and ?the ?water ?that ?will ?flow ?through ?it ?are ?a ?cog ?in ?the ?machine ?that ?is ?the ?regional ?hydrologic ?cycle, ?the ?water ?that ?it ?could ?clean, ?infiltrate, ?or ?transpire ?will ?in ?some ?way ?impact ?the ?cycle. ?Such ?a ?relationship ?therefore ?implies: ?with ?greater ?replication ?comes ?greater ?impact ?and ?cleaner ?waterways. ?36Noted ?key ?words:cross-??temporal, ?cross-??spacial, ?cascading2.13 The Case for Water in VancouverThe ?biosphere ?in ?which ?all ?things ?on ?Earth ?are ?embedded, ?is ?a ?complex ?system ?(Levin, ?1998). ?This ?type ?of ?system ?does ?not ?always ?respond ?to ?the ?mechanical ?thinking ?and ?rules ?by ?which ?cities ?are ?designed. ?The ?keystone ?cities ?of ?Cascadia?Portland, ?Oregon; ?Seattle, ?Washington; ?and ?Vancouver, ?British ?Columbia?intensely ?understand ?the ?incongruity ?of ?these ?systems, ?specifically ?regarding ?the ?challenges ?related ?to ?urban ?stormwater ?management. ?Climate ?science ?teaches ?us ?that ?for ?every ?degree ?Celsius ?rise ?in ?temperature, ?the ?concentration ?of ?water ?vapor ?in ?the ?atmosphere ?increases ?by ?approximately ?7% ?(Shindell, ?2001; ?Rosenlof ?et ?al., ?2001). ?With ?storm ?intensities ?currently ?compounding ?issues ?with ?storm ?sewer ?capacity ?and ?CSOs, ?will ?also ?increase. ?The ?current ?rate ?of ?urban ?population ?growth ?further ?exacerbates ?the ?challenge ?of ?shifting ?the ?status ?quo ?of ?infrastructure ?design ?and ?execution. ?Consider ?the ?water ?that ?flows ?through ?Vancouver. ?Countless ?trees ?transpiring ?as ?they ?grow ?taller ?and ?thicker ?provide ?some ?of ?the ?moisture ?that ?becomes ?the ?snow ?that ?falls ?upon ?Metro ?Vancouver?s ?north ?shore ?mountains. ?This ?snowpack ?is ?what ?feeds ?the ?Metro ?region?s ?three ?protected ?watersheds?Capilano, ?Coquitlam ?and ?Seymour?which ?provide ?all ?of ?its ?2.5 ?million ?people ?the ?water ?to ?drink ?from ?their ?taps, ?to ?wash ?their ?whites ?and ?darks, ?and ?to ?irrigate ?their ?prized ?lawns ?(Metro ?Vancouver, ?2011d). ?The ?same ?source ?of ?precipitation ?also ?falls ?upon ?every ?resident?s ?roof ?and ?runs ?off ?into ?each ?street, ?where ?this ?water, ?laden ?with ?that ?aforementioned ?deadly ?cocktail, ?is ?quickly ?diverted ?with ?the ?pipes ?of ?grey ?infrastructure ?away ?from ?human ?contact. ?In ?Vancouver, ?storm ?sewer ?pipes ?that ?have ?already ?been ?disconnected ?from ?the ?combined ?sewer ?system ?flow ?directly ?into ?culverted ?streams ?and ?daylighted ?waterways, ?and ?then ?into ?larger ?collecting ?bodies ?such ?as ?False ?Creek. ?The ?City ?of ?Vancouver ?is ?currently ?working ?towards ?an ?entirely ?separated ?system ?(City ?of ?Vancouver, ?2013d). ?Storm ?sewer ?separation ?is ?a ?key ?component ?to ?improving ?the ?health ?of ?waterways ?in ?the ?face ?of ?large ?37storm ?events?the ?increased ?capacity ?of ?the ?new ?separated ?storm ?sewer ?system ?enables ?the ?waste ?sewer ?to ?direct ?flows ?to ?the ?waste ?treatment ?plant, ?without ?the ?risk ?of ?overflow ?present ?in ?a ?combined ?system.Currently, ?the ?Vancouver ?neighbourhood ?of ?Mount ?Pleasant ?still ?functions ?with ?a ?combined ?system, ?where ?all ?flows, ?storm ?and ?waste, ?are ?directed ?for ?treatment ?at ?the ?Iona ?Island ?Wastewater ?Treatment ?Plant. ?Not ?only ?does ?this ?system ?place ?large ?demands ?upon ?the ?treatment ?plant, ?it ?risks ?CSO ?events ?during ?larger ?storms. ?Separation ?is ?noble ?in ?this ?regard, ?but ?would ?pose ?a ?new ?challenge ?for ?the ?smaller ?events ?responsible ?for ?the ?stormwater ?flows ?created ?by ?the ?majority ?of ?the ?rainfall ?(Sansalone ?& ?Buchberger, ?1997; ?Watson ?& ?Adams, ?2010). ?Heavy ?metals ?and ?hydrocarbons ?from ?vehicles, ?detergents ?washed ?into ?the ?street, ?and ?countless ?other ?pollutants ?are ?picked ?up ?and ?carried ?downstream ?with ?each ?rainfall, ?despite ?its ?size. ?The ?runoff ?from ?these ?smaller ?events, ?currently ?receiving ?primary ?treatment ?at ?Iona ?Island ?prior ?to ?its ?discharge ?into ?the ?Georgia ?Straight, ?will, ?in ?a ?separated ?system, ?enter ?untreated ?directly ?into ?False ?Creek, ?the ?Burrard ?Inlet, ?and ?the ?Fraser ?River.This ?shift ?in ?flows ?would ?threaten ?the ?progress ?in ?improving ?the ?health ?of ?local ?waterways, ?exemplified ?by ?the ?herring ?and ?juvenile ?salmon ?that ?have ?begun ?again ?to ?populate ?False ?Creek ?(Brauer, ?2009). ?Instead, ?this ?water, ?most ?recently ?drunk ?and ?transpired ?by ?the ?stands ?of ?the ?region?s ?vast ?temperate ?rainforest, ?will ?eventually ?flow ?unclean ?and ?into ?False ?Creek, ?the ?Burrard ?Inlet, ?and ?ultimately ?the ?Pacific ?Ocean. ?Here ?the ?hydrologic ?cycle ?re-??cycles ?as ?clouds ?form ?over ?Earth?s ?largest ?body ?of ?water, ?make ?landfall, ?and ?soak ?rooted ?soils ?again. ?As ?the ?allegory ?of ?the ?salmon ?and ?the ?squirrel ?demonstrated, ?green ?infrastructure ?can ?be ?used ?to ?intervene ?and ?help ?filter ?and ?cleanse ?the ?water ?before ?it ?recycles ?again ?as ?it ?has ?since ?it ?was ?first ?formed ?millennia ?ago.In ?the ?case ?of ?Vancouver ?the ?adoption ?of ?stormwater ?as ?a ?resource, ?not ?a ?waste ?product, ?has ?received ?some ?policy ?attention, ?but ?little ?action ?by ?the ?municipality. ?The ?latest ?approach ?to ?this ?adoption ?comes ?in ?Section ?4 ?of ?the ?City ?of ?Vancouver?s ?Sewer ?Utility ?Long ?Range ?Plan ?with ?its ?asks ?of: ??not ?only ??What ?should ?the ?sewer ?take ?away ?from ?the ?neighbourhood?? ?but ?also ??What ?can ?the ?sewer ?contribute ?to ?the ?neighbourhood?? ?(City ?of ?38Vancouver ?Sewer ?Utility, ?2010, ?p.28). ?However, ?the ?document ?does ?little ?to ?articulate ?the ?means ?by ?which ?to ?grow ?the ?City?s ?Integrated ?Rainwater ?Management ?Plans ?and ?promote ?green ?infrastructure ?practices.The ?roots ?of ?the ?perception ?of ?rainwater ?as ?an ?invaluable ?resource ?could ?stem ?from ?the ?fact ?that ?it ?rains ?in ?this ?city ?for ?nearly ?nine ?months ?out ?of ?the ?year. ?It ?typically ?rains ?4.5 ?times ?as ?much ?in ?November ?as ?it ?does ?in ?July. ?Summer ?lasts ?one-??quarter ?of ?a ?year, ?accounts ?for ?only ?8.6% ?of ?the ?annual ?rainfall ?in ?Vancouver ?(Environment ?Canada, ?2013a). ?Because ?of ?this ?and ?the ?fact ?that ?the ?three ?summer ?months ?are ?time ?for ?peak ?residential ?water ?use, ?the ?city ?made ?the ?1993 ?lawn ?watering ?regulations ?a ?ticketable ?offense ?during ?the ?summer ?of ?2011 ?(City ?of ?Vancouver, ?2012f). ?Residential ?water ?use ?accounts ?for ?56% ?of ?consumption, ?so ?with ?this ?effort, ?Vancouver ?has ?grown ?incrementally ?closer ?to ?another ?Greenest ?City ?Goal: ?to ?reduce ?per ?capita ?water ?consumption ?by ?33% ?from ?2006 ?levels ?(City ?of ?Vancouver, ?2012b). ?(See ?Figure ?2.2 ?on ?the ?following ?page.) ?With ?such ?programs ?as ?this, ?mandated ?low-??flow ?water ?fixtures ?for ?new ?construction, ?and ?a ?recently ?approved ?mandate ?to ?incrementally ?implement ?water ?metering ?in ?all ?new ?residential ?construction, ?21% ?of ?the ?33% ?reduction ?has, ?by ?all ?estimates, ?been ?accounted ?for ?(Welsh, ?2011).Accounting ?for ?the ?remaining ?12% ?reduction ?can ?be ?achieved ?through ?the ?widespread ?use ?of ?rainwater ?harvesting ?and ?reuse ?techniques. ?If ?all ?residential ?structures ?were ?to ?implement ?rainwater ?harvesting ?to ?supplement ?their ?potable ?water ?use, ?it ?could ?account ?for ?an ?average ?monthly ?reduction ?of ?water ?consumption ?3930%1 1%4%4%25%26%VANCOUVER WATER USAGE BY SECTORSINGLE/TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGSINDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL, INSTITUTIONALMULTI- FAMILY DWELLING PARKSSYSTEM LEAKAGEOTHERFigure 2.2: Vancouver water usage by sector (figure adapted from Welsh, 2011, p. 5)by ?nearly ?20%. ?As ?well ?as ?reaching ?this ?numbered ?goal, ?harvesting ?rainwater ?can ?achieve ?two ?important ?and ?practical ?goals:1. ?The ?use ?of ?rainwater ?would ?divert ?a ?portion ?of ?the ?highest ?quality ?potable ?water ?in ?the ?world ?currently ?used ?to ?perform ?non-??potable ?tasks ?as ?washing ?clothing, ?flushing ?toilets, ?and ?ground ?irrigation ?of ?lawns ?and ?gardens.402. ?The ?capture ?of ?rainwater ?would ?help ?divert ?a ?portion ?of ?the ?41 ?billion ?litres ?of ?annual ?rainwater ?from ?becoming ?runoff ?and ?directly ?polluting ?streams ?and ?larger ?receiving ?bodies ?of ?water.Work ?has ?been ?completed ?to ?bring ?Vancouver ?closer ?to ?regulation ?of ?harvested ?rainwater, ?but ?important ?guiding ?policies ?are ?not ?yet ?in ?place. ?In ?order ?regulate ?the ?use ?of ?rainwater ?and ?greywater ?for ?household ?purposes, ?Vancouver ?Coastal ?Health ?first ?needs ?to ?establish ?a ?non-??potable ?water ?quality ?standard. ?Of ?the ?18 ?policy ?recommendations ?in ?the ?Closing ?the ?Gap ?With ?Rainwater ?Harvesting ?report, ?this ?was ?to ?lay ?the ?groundwork ?for ?those ?to ?follow ?(Welsh, ?2011).Despite ?its ?annual ?rainfall ?and ?belief ?in ?the ?myth ?of ?infinite ?water ?by ?the ?general ?populace, ?droughts ?do ?plague ?Vancouver; ?they ?happen ?during ?summer ?when ?water ?is ?in ?highest ?demand ?(Metro ?Vancouver, ?2011e). ?Due ?to ?the ?threats ?posed ?by ?climate ?change ?during ?this ?half ?of ?the ?century?the ?decreased ?snow ?melt ?and ?source ?of ?our ?water, ?longer ?dry ?periods, ?and ?water ?demand ?from ?the ?increased ?environmental ?refugee ?population ?it ?will ?bring ?to ?the ?region?the ?sooner ?the ?practices ?of ?conservation ?and ?reuse ?be ?activated, ?the ?greater ?their ?effectiveness ?(City ?of ?Vancouver, ?2012a). ?Just ?1mm ?of ?rainfall ?falling ?upon ?on ?a ?roof ?surface ?measuring ?1m2 ?in ?area ?yields ?1L ?of ?harvested ?water ?(See ?Figure ?2.3 ?on ?the ?following ?page ?for ?a ?graphic ?representation ?of ?this ?formula.) ?Vancouver ?receives ?approximately ?1,158mm ?of ?rainfall ?each ?year ?(Environment ?Canada, ?2013a). ?The ?average ?area ?of ?a ?single ?family ?dwelling ?rooftop ?in ?Mount ?Pleasant ?is ?roughly ?100m2. ?By ?this ?account, ?each ?dwelling ?could ?keep ?115,800L ?from ?inundating ?the ?combined ?sewer ?system ?each ?year ?by ?redirecting ?their ?downspout ?flows.There ?are ?over ?50 ?dwellings ?alone ?that ?flank ?the ?9-??block ?St. ?George ?Street ?study ?site. ?By ?the ?time ?the ?system ?is ?fully ?separated, ?this ?captured ?water ?could ?know ?an ?array ?of ?uses ?instead ?of ?contributing ?to ?the ?polluted ?stormwater ?flows. ?What ?is ?not ?used ?by ?homeowners ?could: ?1. ?be ?slowly ?released ?to ?recharge ?groundwater; ?2. ?be ?stored ?in ?a ?linked ?system ?for ?emergency ?uses; ?or ?3. ?be ?gradually ?released ?to ?feed ?a ?small ?stream ?that ?runs ?alongside ?a ?St. ?George ?Street ?converted ?into ?one ?lane ?of ?traffic ?and ?one ?linear ?greenway ?for ?all ?to ?enjoy.41HARVESTED RAINWATER VOLUME FORMULAFigure 2.3: Rainwater harvesting formula The ?first ?target ?of ?the ?Greenest ?City ?2020 ?Clean ?Water ?goal, ?to ??meet ?or ?beat ?the ?strongest ?of ?British ?Columbian, ?Canadian, ?and ?appropriate ?international ?drinking ?water ?quality ?standards ?and ?guidelines? ?was ?met ?before ?it ?was ?set ?(Welsh, ?2011, ?p.4). ?The ?locale ?of ?Vancouver ?affords ?its ?residents ?access ?to ?some ?of ?the ?cleanest ?drinking ?water ?in ?the ?world. ?It ?comes ?from ?snowmelt ?that ?is ?filtered ?by ?the ?protected ?forests ?and ?reservoirs ?of ?the ?mountains ?above ?North ?Vancouver. ?To ?guarantee ?its ?cleanliness, ?the ?Seymour-??Capilano ?Filtration ?Plant ?processes ?all ?drinking ?water ?before ?it ?reaches ?homes. ?From ?here, ?a ?small ?amount ?of ?chlorine ?is ?added ?to ?the ?water ?to ?ensure ?its ?cleanliness ?during ?transport ?through ?pipes, ?and ?to ?date, ?this ?system ?has ?prevented ?any ?cases ?of ?waterborne ?disease ?or ?toxins ?(Metro ?Vancouver, ?2011a).In ?2011, ?the ?annual ?average ?daily ?flows ?of ?water ?from ?the ?north ?shore ?reservoirs ?into ?Vancouver ?was ?304 ?million ?litres. ?Its ?average ?flow ?during ?peak ?summer ?usage ?was ?381 ?million ?litres ?per ?day ?(Metro ?Vancouver, ?2011e). ?Residential ?water ?consumption ?account ?for ?56% ?of ?Vancouver?s ?total ?water ?consumption, ?totaling ?over ?2 ?billion ?42litres. ?Of ?this, ?single-??family ?dwellings ?account ?for ?30% ?while ?multi-??unit ?dwellings ?make ?up ?the ?remaining ?26%. ?For ?the ?nine ?rainy ?months, ?residential ?water ?use ?is ?primarily ?limited ?to ?the ?indoor ?use. ?Of ?the ?total ?indoor ?use, ?30% ?is ?used ?for ?toilet ?flushing. ?During ?the ?remaining ?three ?months ?of ?the ?year, ?18% ?of ?the ?total ?residential ?use ?is ?for ?toilet ?flushing, ?while ?30% ?is ?used ?for ?lawn ?and ?garden ?irrigation. ?Since ?toilet ?flushing ?and ?outdoor ?irrigation ?are ?the ?safest ?and ?easiest ?uses ?of ?harvested ?rainwater, ?citywide ?adoption ?of ?these ?options ?could ?account ?for ?offsetting ?over ?one-??third ?of ?potable ?water ?use ?in ?residences, ?totaling ?over ?1.2 ?billion ?litres ?(Welsh, ?2011). ?Despite ?its ?state ?of ?being ?some ?of ?the ?purest ?potable ?water ?in ?the ?world, ?its ?metered ?cost ?during ?peak ?usage ?remains ?extremely ?low ?at ?1? ?for ?every ?10 ?litres ?used ?(Metro ?Vancouver, ?2011a). ?This ?is ?mostly ?due ?to ?its ?being ?supplied ?by ?a ?gravity ?fed-??system. ?Such ?a ?cost, ?that ?is ?nearly ?one-??third ?of ?what ?residents ?of ?Toronto ?are ?required ?to ?pay ?for ?water, ?does ?little ?to ?sway ?belief ?in ?the ?myth ?of ?infinite ?water ?(City ?of ?Toronto, ?2013). ?The ?only ?current ?foreseeable ?change ?in ?this ?system ?is ?an ?increase ?in ?capacity. ?Plans ?for ?raising ?the ?height ?of ?the ?Coquitlam ?Reservoir ?walls ?have ?been ?considered ?by ?Metro ?Vancouver ?to ?address ?projected ?population ?increases ?and ?the ?potable ?water ?demand ?that ?will ?follow ?(Metro ?Vancouver, ?2011a). ?Therefore, ?the ?second ?target ?of ?the ?Clean ?Water ?goal, ?to ?reduce ?per ?capita ?consumption, ?is ?the ?more ?the ?actionable ?pursuit.The ?work ?of ?this ?thesis ?highlights ?the ?need ?for ?a ?third ?target. ?Similar ?to ?the ?initiatives ?put ?forth ?around ?Puget ?Sound ?and ?the ?Chesapeake ?Bay ?in ?the ?United ?States, ?the ?primary ?receiving ?bodies ?of ?water ?addressed ?their ?issues ?with ?pollution ?upstream ?and ?upland ?by ?looking ?at ?land ?use ?decisions ?as ?the ?root ?of ?the ?problem ?(WGBH ?Educational ?Foundation, ?2009). ?The ?Burrard ?Inlet, ?the ?Georgia ?Strait, ?and ?the ?Fraser ?River ?are ?the ?three ?primary ?receiving ?bodies ?of ?water ?impacted ?by ?polluted ?stormwater ?runoff ?in ?Vancouver. ?The ?third ?target ?should ?propose ?a ?reduction ?of ?stormwater ?runoff ?to ?ensure ?the ?city?s ?waterways, ?essential ?to ?ecosystem ?integrity, ?tourism, ?and ?industrial ?uses, ?continue ?to ?improve ?in ?health. ?Aquatic ?life ?has ?returned ?to ?these ?waters ?to ?spawn. ?Decreasing ?pollution ?would ?improve ?the ?chances ?of ?spawning ?along ?the ?banks ?of ?Habitat ?Island, ?drawing ?more ?grey ?whales ?to ?feed ?on ?the ?school?s ?eggs ?(Wood, ?2010). ?To ?begin ?to ?approach ?addressing ?such ?a ?target, ?all ?water, ?not ?just ?that ?which ?originates ?in ?the ?pristine ?mountains ?to ?the ?north, ?must ?be ?considered ?a ?resource. ?Water?43stormwater, ?grey ?water, ?black ?water, ?potable ?water, ?and ?so ?on?may ?have ?different ?uses ?based ?upon ?its ?definition, ?yet ?as ?the ?hydrologic ?cycle ?continually ?demonstrates, ?all ?water ?is ?one ?water. ?Its ?health ?directly ?benefits ?the ?health ?of ?the ?region. ?The ?Greenest ?City ?2020 ?Action ?Plan ?could ?reflect ?this ?by ?calling ?for ?a ?revised ?clean ?water ?goal ?and ?include ?a ?target ?that ?impacts ?conveyed ?water ?as ?well.2.14 The Urban Context of Ecosystem ServicesEcosystems ?in ?the ?urban ?context ?can ?be ?considered ?as ?a ???set ?of ?interacting ?species ?and ?their ?local, ?non-??biological ?environment ?functioning ?together ?to ?sustain ?life?? ?(Moll ?& ?Petit, ?1994). ?In ?consideration ?of ?the ?geographic ?locale ?of ?the ?City ?of ?Vancouver, ?with ?mountain ?wilderness ?to ?its ?north, ?ocean ?straits ?to ?its ?west, ?and ?the ?boundary ?of ?the ?rich ?Fraser ?River ?basin ?to ?its ?south, ?the ?level ?of ?ecosystem ?integrity ?by ?comparison ?is ?quite ?fragmented. ?Within ?its ?boundaries, ?there ?is ?greenspace?components ?of ?ecosystems?thriving ?as ?tree-??lined ?streets, ?private ?property ?lawns, ?daylighted ?streams, ?beach ?ecotones, ?and ?parks. ?Taken ?in ?this ?context, ?the ?non-??biological ?elements ?of ?its ?environment, ?including ?its ?buildings ?and ?right-??of-??ways, ?require ?incorporation ?if ?the ?City ?of ?Vancouver ?is ?to ?be ?considered ?an ?urban ?ecosystem.Not ?including ?blueways, ?such ?as ?False ?Creek ?and ?the ?Burrard ?Inlet ?and ?the ?tributaries ?that ?feed ?them, ?the ?City ?of ?Vancouver ?is ?covered ?by ?over ?1,300 ?hectares ?(11% ?of ?its ?landmass) ?of ?greenways ?and ?parkland ?(City ?of ?Vancouver, ?2012e). ?While ?this ?coverage ?in ?area ?is ?the ?least ?of ?Canada?s ?major ?cities, ?its ?percentage ?in ?landmass ?remains ?the ?highest ?(Saccoccio, ?2007). ?The ?nature ?of ?the ?impact ?of ?this ?percentage ?with ?regard ?to ?ecosystem ?integrity ?can ?only ?understood ?through ?the ?lenses ?of ?size, ?connectivity, ?and ?spacing ?(Collinge, ?1998) ?(See ?Diagram ?2.4 ?on ?the ?following ?page ?for ?a ?representation ?of ?this ?relationship.) ?The ?strength ?of ?the ?services ?that ?ecosystems ?provide ?is ?directly ?related ?to ?each ?of ?these ?components ?in ?the ?ways ?they ?impact ?the ?level ?of ?biodiversity ?(Haines-??Young ?and ?Potschin, ?2010; ?Walker,1992). ?According ?to ?Collinge ?(1998), ?the ?size ?of ?habitat ?fragments ?effects ?the ?amount ?of ?species ?loss; ?corridors ?between ?fragments ?effect ?the ?ability ?of ?species ?recolonization; ?and ?how ?land ?is ?configured ?directly ?effects ?levels ?of ?species ?richness. ?Vancouver?s ?Greenest ?City ?2020 ?Action ?Plan ?Access ?to ?Nature ?goal ?has ?two ?targets, ?each ?to ?take ?place ?by ?the ?year ?2020 ?(City ?of ?Vancouver, ?2012b):441. ?All ?Vancouver ?residents ?are ?to ?live ?within ?a ?five ?minute ?walk ?of ?a ?park, ?greenway, ?or ?other ?green ?space. ?2. ?Plant ?150,000 ?new ?trees. ? ?DETERMINANTS of ECOSYSTEM INTEGRITYSpac i n gSizeCon n e c t ivi tyHABITAT PATCHESFigure 2.4: Determinants of ecosystem integrity (data adapted from Collinge, 1998)According ?to ?the ?document, ?greenspace ?is ?considered ?as ??parks ?and ?fields, ?greenways, ?the ?seawall, ?street ?mini-??parks, ?natural ?green ?spaces, ?as ?well ?as ?park-??like ?spaces ?such ?as ?the ?grounds ?around ?institutional ?buildings ?like ?45City ?Hall, ?hospitals, ?and ?schools. ?It ?also ?includes ?linear ?green ?space ?such ?as?the ?extensive ?Champlain ?Heights ?walkway ?system.? ?Among ?the ?goal?s ?highest ?priority ?actions, ?the ?first ?is ?to ??create ?four ?to ?six ?new ?mini-??parks ?by ?converting ?street ?right-??of-??ways ?to ?parks? ?(City ?of ?Vancouver, ?2012b, ?p.42). ?Such ?parks ?are ?to ?be ?developed ?in ?concert ?with ?the ?goals ?and ?wishes ?of ?the ?impacted ?community ?to ?determine ?use ?for ?such ?things ?as ?allotment ?gardens, ?orchards, ?public ?plazas ?or ?yards, ?or ?naturalized ?habitat.Planting ?150,000 ?trees ?more ?than ?doubles ?the ?city?s ?current ?tally ?of ?street ?trees. ?This ?challenge ?has ?proven ?to ?be ?difficult ?as ?the ?majority ?of ?city-??owned ?land ?has ?nearly ?maximized ?the ?appropriate ?space ?for ?planting ?new ?trees, ?though ?the ?Vancouver ?Board ?of ?Parks ?and ?Recreation ?is ?still ?pushing ?to ?increase ?planting ?on ?this ?land ?by ?15,000 ?trees. ?The ?deficit ?will ?have ?to ?take ?place ?on ?private ?land, ?in ?newly ?created ?parks, ?or ?on ?land, ?such ?as ?that ?of ?the ?Vancouver ?School ?Board, ?that ?currently ?does ?not ?have ?its ?tree ?planting ?tracked ?(City ?of ?Vancouver, ?2012b). ?Because ?of ?this ?siting ?challenge, ?capitalizing ?on ?synergies ?will ?be ?important ?to ?argue ?the ?case ?for ?new ?plantings. ?Such ?synergies ?include ?the ?increase ?in ?bird, ?insect, ?and ?small ?mammal ?habitat, ?the ?increase ?of ?food ?production ?with ?fruit ?and ?nut ?trees, ?and ?a ?mediation ?of ?stormwater ?runoff.Access ?to ?nature ?is ?empirically ?proven ?to ?provide ?restorative ?qualities ?to ?humans. ?As ?a ?sampling ?of ?an ?array ?of ?findings ?during ?the ?past ?few ?decades, ?exposure ?to ?natural ?systems ?has ?been ?shown ?to ?lower ?stress, ?improves ?cognitive ?development ?and ?decreases ?attention ?deficit ?disorder ?in ?children, ?speed ?up ?healing ?times, ?and ?increase ?longevity ?amongst ?seniors ?(Frumkin, ?2003; ?Kuo, ?2011, ?Kaplan ?& ?Kaplan, ?2005; ?Park ?et ?al., ?2007; ?Taylor ?et ?al. ?2006). ?In ?this, ?the ?Greenest ?City ?2020 ?Action ?Plan ?is ?a ?noble ?pursuit. ?In ?order ?to ?increase ?the ?substantive ?nature ?of ?Vancouver?s ?Greenest ?City ?2020 ?Goals, ?and ?begin ?to ?quantify ?provisions ?for ?ecosystem ?services, ?much ?data ?is ?needed. ?To ?understand ?how ?Vancouver?s ?fragmented ?green ?space ?impacts ?wildlife, ?for ?instance, ?mapping ?the ?canopy ?of ?the ?city?s ?urban ?forest ?is ?needed. ?Simply ?locating ?green ?space ?within ?a ?five-??minute ?walking ?distance ?from ?everyone?s ?home ?falls ?short ?of ?the ?potential ?of ?a ?green ?network ?that ?optimizes ?ecosystem ?health ?through ?the ?sizes, ?connectivity, ?and ?spacing ?of ?its ?fragments. ?To ?understand ?how ?the ?planting ?of ?additional ?trees ?might ?impact ?the ?storm ?sewer ?loads ?of ?a ?combined ?sewer ?46system ?in ?Mount ?Pleasant, ?the ?base ?flows ?of ?water ?through ?the ?site ?need ?to ?be ?known. ?At ?present, ?such ?keystone ?pieces ?of ?data ?do ?not ?exist. ?Without ?them, ?the ?level ?of ??green? ?that ?Vancouver ?might ?achieve ?cannot ?be ?fully ?quantified. ?Further, ?without ?noted ?quantification, ?the ?ways ?by ?which ?initiatives ?may ?be ?built ?upon ?one ?another ?are ?greatly ?limited.Ecosystem ?services ?are ?more ?nuanced ?than ?simplistic ?classification ?of: ?the ?benefits ?ecosystems ?provide ?humans ?(World ?Health ?Organization, ?2005). ?Rather, ?the ?concept ?includes ?the ??natural ?ecosystems, ?the ?services ?they ?provide, ?and ?the ?benefits ?that ?people ?get ?from ?those ?services?[as ?well ?as ?the] ?physical ??stock? ?of ?resources ?that ?provides ?a ?continuing ??flow? ?of ?services ?and ?benefits ?to ?people? ?(Brown ?and ?Mooney, ?2013). ?Without ?the ?preservation ?or ?maintenance ?of ?the ?physical ?stock ?nature ?provides, ?otherwise ?known ?as ?natural ?capital, ?the ?ability ?for ?ecosystems ?to ?render ?services, ?and ?thus ?benefits, ?is ?compromised.In ?the ?urban ?context, ?where ?humanity ?has ?dealt ?a ?heavy ?hand ?of ?intervention, ?the ?discussion ?of ?ecosystems ?is ?primarily ?related ?to ?mediation ?and ?regulation. ?Of ?the ?total ?groups ?outlined ?by ?the ?Common ?International ?Classification ?of ?Ecosystem ?Services ?(CICES) ?(2013), ?the ?most ?current ?system ?in ?use, ?eight ?can ?be ?considered ?to ?have ?great ?importance ?in ?urban ?areas ?(Bolund ?and ?Hunhammer, ?1999):1. ?Water ?Flow ?Regulation2. ?Water ?Pollution ?Regulation3. ?Water ?Provisioning4. ?Biomass ?Provisioning5. ?Air ?Flow ?Regulation6. ?Erosion ?Control7. ?Micro ?Climate ?Regulation8. ?Physical ?& ?Intellectual ?Interaction47In ?the ?case ?of ?Vancouver, ?another ?cultural ?output ?that ?should ?be ?considered ?an ?addition ?to ?this ?list ?is ?the ?spiritual ?& ?symbolic ?interaction ?component. ?The ?presence ?of ?First ?Nation ?culture ?is ?prevalent ?throughout ?Vancouver ?and ?it ?bears ?strong ?spiritual ?ties ?to ?natural ?systems, ?in ?the ?forms ?of ?both ?terrestrial ?and ?aquatic ?life. ?The ?lessons ?embedded ?in ?these ?traditions ?are ?rich ?symbolism, ?meaning, ?and ?value ?and ?deserve ?inclusion.Green ?infrastructure ?can ?contribute ?to ?establishing ?each ?of ?the ?nine ?urban-??focused ?ecosystem ?services. ?By ?its ?attempts ?to ?work ?with ?the ?living ?elements ?of ?plants ?and ?soil, ?it ?provides ?several ?ecosystem ?services ?compared ?to ?the ?one?water ?regulation?that ?grey ?infrastructure ?only ?partially ?simulates. ?Of ?the ?ecosystem ?services ?provided ?by ?green ?infrastructure, ?as ?outlined ?by ?the ?University ?of ?Arkansas ?Community ?Design ?Center ?(2010), ?are ?the ?following:1. ?Atmospheric ?Regulation2. ?Climate ?Regulation3. ?Disturbance ?Regulation4. ?Water ?Regulation5. ?Water ?Supply6. ?Erosion ?Control ?& ?Sediment ?Retention7. ?Soil ?Formation8. ?Nutrient ?Cycling9. ?Waste ?Treatment10. ?Pollination11. ?Species ?Control12. ?Habitat ?Provision13. ?Food ?Production14. ?Raw ?Material ?Production15. ?Genetic ?Resources4816. ?Recreation17. ?Cultural ?EnrichmentAs ?grouped ?in ?the ?accompanying ?table, ?many ?of ?these ?services ?fall ?under ?the ?noted ?eight ?broad ?CICES ?classifications. ?Those ?not ?directly ?associated ?with ?these, ?such ?as ?nutrient ?cycling ?and ?pollination, ?can ?be ?inferred ?with ?any ?system ?that ?utilizes ?living ?plant ?matter. ?(See ?Figure ?2.5 ?on ?the ?following ?page ?for ?a ?that ?comparison ?between ?the ?list ?above, ?CICES, ?and ?from ?the ?Millennium ?Ecosystem ?Assessment). ?In ?a ?similar ?perspective, ?the ?very ?nature ?of ?ecosystem ?services ?requires ?that ?water ?be ?viewed ?as ?a ?resource ?and ?not ?a ?waste ?product. ?Ecosystems ?require ?water ?to ?perpetuate ?life. ?This ?simple ?reframing ?of ?the ?perception ?of ?water ?in ?the ?urban ?environment ?is ?where ?the ?discussion ?of ?resilience, ?framed ?by ?the ?use ?of ?green ?infrastructure ?and ?goals ?defined ?by ?ecosystem ?services, ?can ?begin.2.15 Social Cohesion as an Ecosystem ServiceSocial ?isolation ?and ?social ?cohesion ?are ?ideas ?that ?contrast ?in ?the ?way ?a ?comparison ?might ?be ?made ?between ?Hartley ?Bay ?and ?Vancouver. ?One ?sits ?145 ?km ?from ?the ?northernmost ?transportation ?hub ?of ?Prince ?Rupert ?and ?boasts ?a ?population ?of ?about ?200. ?The ?other ?and ?its ?metropolitan ?region ?is ?approaching ?a ?population ?density ?of ?over ?5,000 ?people ?per ?square ?kilometer ?and ?a ?total ?population ?of ?over ?3 ?million ?(Statistics ?Canada, ?2013b). ??Social ?isolation? ?refers ?strictly ?to ?the ?absence ?of ?a ?social ?network, ?namely ?one?s ?neighbours ?in ?the ?context ?of ?urban ?design ?and ?planning ?(Weiss, ?1973). ?Social ?cohesion, ?a ?younger ?idea, ?cannot ?be ?summarized ?with ?such ?a ?succinct ?definition. ?As ?mentioned ?in ?Chapter ?1, ?it ?is ?understood ?as ??a ?state ?of ?affairs ?concerning ?both ?the ?vertical ?and ?the ?horizontal ?interactions ?among ?members ?of ?society ?as ?characterized ?by ?a ?set ?of ?attitudes ?and ?norms ?that ?includes ?trust, ?a ?sense ?of ?belonging ?and ?the ?willingness ?to ?participate ?and ?help, ?as ?well ?as ?their ?behavioural ?manifestations? ?(Chan ?et ?al., ?2005).In ?this ?light, ?the ?original ?comparison ?between ?remote ?Hartley ?Bay ?and ?the ?Vancouver ?metropolis ?grows ?a ?bit ?more ?grey. ?It ?may ?be ?that ?in ?a ?town ?of ?200, ?most ?people ?know ?and ?trust ?one ?another, ?and ?thus ?willingly ?work ?together ?towards ?the ?betterment ?of ?their ?community. ?Likewise, ?higher ?population ?density ?does ?not ?49CATEGORIZATION OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICESGenet ic Resou rc e sRaw Mater i a l Pro d u c t i o nF r e s h Water Supp lyWater Provi s i o n i n gBiom a s s Provi s i o n i n gF o o d Pro d u c t i o nEro s i o n & Sedi m e n t Regu l a t i o nDist u r b a n c e Regu l a t i o nCli m a t e Regu l a t i o nSpec i e s Cont ro lPo l l i n a t i o nWater Regu l a t i o nWaste Trea t m e n tAtmo s p h e r i c Regu la t i o nCult u ra l Enric h m e n tRecre a t i o nSoil For m a t i o nHab it a t Provi s i o nNutr i e n t Cycl i n gNutr i t i o nMaint e n a n c e of Phys i c a l , Chem ic a l , & Biolo g i c a l Cond i t i o n sMedia t i o n of Waste , Toxic s ,& Other Nuisa n c e sPhys i c a l & Inte l l e c t u a l Inte ra c t i o n s wit h Biota , Ecosyst e m s , & la n d - /se a s c a p e s (e nvi r o n m e n t a l set t i n g s )Spir i t u a l , Symb o l i c & Other Inte ra c t i o n s wit h Biota , Ecosyst e m s , &la n d - /se a s c a p e s( e nvi r o n m e n t a l set t i n g s )Media t i o n of FlowsMater i a l sEnerg yBio m a s sSoi l Fo r m a t i o n & Comp o s i t i o nPe s t & Disea s e Cont r o lWate r Cond i t i o n sMass Fl ow sLiq u i d Fl ow sGase o u s & Air Fl ow sMed ia t i o n o f Biot aMed ia t i o n by Eco sys t e m sAtm o s p h e r i c Comp o s i t i o n &Cli m a t e Regu l a t i o nLif e cyc l e Maint e n a n c e , Hab it a t & Gene Po o l Pr o t e c t i o nP hy s i c a l & Exp e r i m e n t a lInt e r a c t i o n sInt e l l e c t u a l & Rep re s e n t a t ive Int e r a c t i o n sSpir i t u a l a n d/o r Emb l e m a t i cOthe r Cult u r a l Outp u t sWate rBio m a s sWate rBio m a s s - b a s e d Ener g y Sourc e sMecha n i c a l Ener g yP R O V I S I O N I N G  S E R V I C E SR E G U L A T I N G  S E R V I C E SS U P P O R T I N G  S E R V I C E SC U L T U R A L  S E R V I C E SComm o n Int e r n a t i o n a lCla s s i f i c a t i o n o f Ecosys t e m Servi c e s (CICES)Ecosys t e m Servi c e s Wit h Im p o r t a n c e t o Urb a n Area sEcosys t e m Servi c e s Ass o c i a t e d wi t h Gree n In f r a s t r u c t u r eWater Flow Regu l a t i o nWater Po l l u t i o n Regu l a t i o nAir Flow Regu l a t i o nEro s i o n Cont ro lMicro Clim a t e Regu l a t i o nPhys i c a l & Inte l l e c t u a lInte ra c t i o nSpir i t u a l & Symb o l i cInte ra c t i o nFigure 2.5: Various categorizations of ecosystem services (data adapted from Bolund and Hunhammer, 1999; CICES, 2013; and University of Arkansas Community Design Center, 2010)50automatically ?equate ?to ?higher ?levels ?of ?social ?cohesion. ?Rather, ?as ?was ?found ?by ?the ?2012 ?published ?Vancouver ?Foundation ?study ??From ?Connections ?to ?Engagement: ?Pathways ?to ?a ?More ?Caring ?and ?Involved ?Citizenry,? ?Metro ?Vancouver ?suffers ?from ?a ?growing ?deficit ?of ?social ?cohesion ?and ?a ?need ?for ?both ?strengthening ?the ?social ?bonds ?within ?groups ?and ?bridges ?between ?groups ?in ?communities ?throughout ?the ?city ?(DiPaula ?et ?al., ?2012).Overall, ?the ?study, ?which ?is ?the ?parent ?survey ?for ?this ?thesis, ?confirmed ?the ?concerns ?from ?the ?original ?stakeholder ?consultations. ?It ?found ?how ??most ?neighbourhood ?connections ?are ?weak, ?most ?residents ?do ?not ?participate ?in ?any ?form ?of ?community ?activity, ?and ?forging ?meaningful ?relationships ?is ?a ?challenge ?for ?many, ?particularly ?across ?barriers ?of ?difference ?such ?as ?ethnicity? ?(DiPaula ?et ?al., ?2012, ?p.3). ? ?Another ?key ?finding ?from ?the ?survey ?highlights ?how ?nearly ?75% ?of ?residents ?did ?not ?participate ?in ?community ?activities ?during ?the ?year ?before ?the ?survey ?was ?taken. ?The ?primary ?reason ?cited ?for ?this ?was ?not ?for ?a ?lack ?of ?time ?or ?access ?to ?activities, ?but ?was ?the ?sense ?that ?they ?had ?little ?to ?offer ?their ?neighbourhood. ?Further, ?one-??third ?of ?those ?surveyed ?expressed ?difficulty ?in ?making ?friends ?throughout ?the ?region, ?while ?one-??fourth ?stated ?how ?they ?were ?alone ?in ?life ?more ?than ?they ?wished ?to ?be ?(DiPaula ?et ?al., ?2012, ?p.4).Vancouver ?is ?a ?city ?with ?great ?cultural ?diversity ?but ?with ?little ?cross ?pollination ?between ?ethnic ?groups; ?it ?is ?a ?city ?of ?great ?monetary ?and ?ecological ?wealth ?but ?struggles ?to ?bridge ?a ?growing ?class ?divide, ?specifically ?with ?respect ?to ?access ?to ?housing ?(DiPaula ?et ?al., ?2012). ?The ?reasons ?for ?the ?challenge ?of ?social ?isolation ?as ?highlighted ?by ?the ?original ?survey ?are ?complex ?and ?in ?some ?cases ?not ?entirely ?known. ?What ?is ?known ?is ?how ?social ?cohesion ?requires ?behavioural ?manifestations ?of ?a ?sense ?of ?belonging ?and ?a ?willingness ?to ?take ?part ?in ?community. ?The ?key ?finding ?that ?Metro ?Vancouver?s ??neighbourhood ?connections ?are ?cordial, ?but ?weak,? ?has ?much ?to ?do ?with ?neighbours ?offering ?more ?than ?a ??hello? ?to ?one ?another, ?not ?having ?opportunity ?to ?establish ?a ?sense ?of ?trust ?with ?one ?another, ?or ?simply ?harboring ?a ?preference ?to ?keep ?to ?themselves ?(DiPaula ?et ?al., ?2012, ?p.3).The ?Access ?to ?Nature ?goal ?of ?the ?Greenest ?City ?2020 ?Action ?Plan ?calls ?attention ?to ?the ?deficit ?that ?not ?everyone ?in ?Vancouver ?has ?walking ?distance ?access ?to ?a ?public ?open ?space ?(City ?of ?Vancouver, ?2012b). ?With ?its ?well-??known ?challenge ?of ?being ?land-??constrained ?while ?maintaining ?some ?of ?the ?highest ?cost ?of ?living ?and ?property ?values ?in ?51North ?America, ?the ?reality ?of ?creating ?parks ?in ?the ?most ?practiced ?means, ?where ?a ?parcel ?of ?private ?land ?or ?swath ?of ?denuded ?or ?underutilized ?public ?land ?is ?transformed ?into ?a ?park ?amenity, ?is ?not ?an ?easily-??attained ?reality ?for ?Vancouver ?(Employment ?Conditions ?Abroad ?Limited, ?2013). ?What ?this ?leaves ?in ?an ?established ?neighbourhood ?such ?as ?Mount ?Pleasant, ?are ?the ?public ?right-??of-??ways. ?These, ?as ?correlated ?by ?the ?Greenest ?City ?2020 ?Access ?to ?Nature ?goal, ?are ?ripe ?for ?transformation.At ?the ?core ?of ?developing ?a ?sense ?of ?belonging ?and ?the ?behavioural ?manifestations ?of ?willingness ?to ?participate ?with ?one?s ?community ?is ?the ?concept ?of ?social ?capital. ?Introduced ?as ?the ?eighth ?characteristic ?of ?resilient ?socioecological ?systems, ?social ?capital ?is ?about ?relationships ?(Health ?Canada, ?2013; ?Lin, ?2001; ?Norris ?et ?al., ?2008). ?According ?to ?Forrest ?and ?Kearns ?(2001, ?p.2137), ??social ?cohesion ?at ?the ?societal ?level ?may ?be ?derived ?from ?the ?forms ?and ?quality ?of ?social ?interaction ?at ?the ?local ?level. ?In ?this ?model ?of ?society, ?social ?cohesion ?is ?viewed ?as ?a ?bottom-??up ?process ?founded ?upon ?local ?social ?capital, ?rather ?than ?as ?a ?top-??down ?process.? ?Therefore, ?the ?limits ?to ?a ?city?s ?ability ?to ?improve ?social ?capital ?could ?lie ?with ?the ?contributions ?it ?makes ?to ?the ?setting?the ?public ?realm?in ?which ?social ?capital ?might ?flourish. ?This ?relationship ?can ?be ?further ?understood ?through ?the ?lenses ?of ?the ?eight ?domains ?of ?social ?capital ?(Forrest ?& ?Kearns, ?2001). ?Figure ?2.6 ?(on ?the ?following ?page) ?provides ?both ?a ?description ?of ?each ?of ?these ?as ?well ?as ?their ?application ?through ?local ?policy. ?From ?these ?domains ?grew ?the ?lines ?of ?questioning ?for ?both ?the ?parent ?survey ?as ?well ?as ?the ?focused ?survey ?and ?interviews ?for ?this ?thesis. ?Also ?from ?this ?grew ?the ?understanding ?of ?social ?capital ?as ?being, ?in ?essence, ?a ?subset ?of ?social ?cohesion. ?(See ?Figure ?2.7 ?following ?the ?next ?page.)The ?sidewalk ?and ?street, ?the ?community ?centre, ?the ?park?each ?of ?these ?spaces ?compose ?a ?shared ?public ?realm. ?Before ?the ?advent ?of ?digital ?communication ?and ?mass ?use ?of ?personal ?vehicles, ?versions ?of ?these ?spaces ?were ?solely ?the ?social ?territory ?where ?people ?connected ?and ?engaged ?(Lofland, ?1998). ?They ?were ?and ?are ?where ?the ?patterns ?of ?everyday ?activity ?play ?out ?and ?help ?form ?personal ?identity ?(Eyles, ?1989). ?These ?spaces ?are, ?still, ?in ?the ?digital ?age, ?where ?people ?convene ?when ?a ?face-??to-??face ?meeting ?is ?required. ?Public ?open ?spaces, ?such ?as ?parks ?or ?greenways, ?are ?shown ?to ?encourage ??repeat ?visitation ?and ?thus ?an ?emotional ?attachment? ?(Vaske ?& ?Kobrin, ?52Empowe r m e n tPa r t i c i p a t i o nAsso c i a t i o n a l Activi ty & Com m o n Pu r p o s eSup p o r t i n g Netwo r k s & Reci p r o c i tyColl e c t ive Norm s & Va l u e sTru stSaf etyBelo n g i n gTHE EIGHT DOMAINS OF SOCIAL CAPITAL DOMAIN SUPPORTING POLICYDESCRIPTIONWhen in d ivi d u a l s a n d orga n i z a t i o n s co o p e ra t e to su p p o r t on e a n o t h e r fo r mu t u a l or on e - si d e d ga i n ; a n exp e c t-at i o n t ha t he l p wo u l d b e give n to or rec e ive d f ro m ot h e r s wh e n ne e d e dWhen p e o p l e co o p e ra t e wit h on e a n o t h e r t h r o u g h t h e fo r m a t i o n of for m a l a n d i n f o r m a l gro u p s to f u r t h e r t h e i r i n t e r e s t sWhen p e o p l e ta ke pa r t i n soc i a l a n d co m m u n i ty act ivi t i e s ; lo ca l eve n t s occ u r a n d a re we l l at t e n d e dWhen p e o p l e f e e l t h ey have a vo ic e wh i c h i s li st e n e d to ; a re i nvo lve d i n p ro c e s s e s t ha t a f f e c t t h e m ; ca n t h e m s e lve s ta ke act i o n to i n i t i a t e cha n g e sWhen p e o p l e f e e l co n n e c t e d to th e i r co - re s i d e n t s , t h e i r ho m e a re a ; have a se n s e of b e l o n g i n g to th e p la c e a n d it s p e o p l eWhen p e o p l e f e e l sa f e i n th e i r ne i g h b o u r h o o d a n d a re not re st r i c t e d i n th e i r u se of p u b l i c sp a c e by f ea rWhen p e o p l e f e e l t h ey ca n tru st t h e i r co - re s i d e n t s a n d lo ca l orga n i z a t i o n s re s p o n s i b l e fo r gove r n i n g or servi n g t h e i r a re aWhen p e o p l e sha re co m m o n va l u e s a n d no r m s of b e h avi o rCrea t i n g , d eve l o p i n g , a n d/o r su p p o r t i n g a n et h o s of co o p e ra t i o n b etwe e n i n d ivi d u a l s a n d orga n i z a t i o n s wh i c h d eve l o p id e a s of co m m u n i ty su p p o r t ; go o d ne i g h b o u r awa r d sDeve l o p i n g a n d su p p o r t i n g netwo r k s b etwe e n orga n i z a t i o n s i n th e are aEsta b l i s h i n g a n d/o r su p p o r t i n g lo ca l act ivi t i e s a n d lo ca l orga n i z a t i o n s ; p u b l i c i z i n g lo ca l eve n t sPr ovi d i n g su p p o r t to co m m u n i ty gro u p s ; givi n g lo ca l p e o p l e vo i c e ; he l p i n g to p rovi d e so l u t i o n s to p ro b l e m s ; givi n g lo ca l p e o p l e a ro l e i n po l i cy p ro c e s s e sCrea t i n g , d eve l o p i n g , a n d/o r su p p o r t i n g a se n s e of b e l o n g i n g i n re s i d e n t s ; b o o st i n g t h e id e n t i ty of a p la c e via d e s i g n , st re e t f u r n i s h i n g s , na m i n gEnco u ra g i n g a se n s e of sa f e ty i n re s i d e n t s ; i nvo lve m e n t i n loca l cr i m e p reve n t i o n ; p rovi d i n g vi s i b l e evi d e n c e of secu r i ty mea s u r e sEnco u ra g i n g tru st i n re s i d e n t s i n th e i r re l a t i o n s h i p s wit h ea c h ot h e r ; d e l ive r i n g on po l i cy p ro m i s e s ; b r i n g i n g co n f l i c t i n g gro u p s to ge t h e rDeve l o p i n g a n d p ro m u l g a t i n g a n et h o s wh i c h re s i d e n t s re c o g n i z e a n d acc e p t ; se c u r i n g ha r m o n i o u s soc i a l re l a t i o n s ; p ro m o t i n g co m m u n i ty i n t e r e s t sFigure 2.6: The eight domains of social capital (figure adapted from Forrest & Kearns, 2001, p. 2140)532001, ?p.20), ?where ?participation ?in ?this ?typology ?of ?space ?supports ?a ?greater ?propensity ?for ?environmentally-??responsible ?behavior. ?Assuming ?use, ?public ?open ?space ?therefore ?supports ?its ?own ?existence. ?Building ?such ?spaces ?will ?not ?only ?attract ?users, ?it ?will ?strengthen ?the ?bonds ?users ?have ?with ?them ?over ?time. ?If ?one ?is ?to ?help ?achieve ?a ?greater ?commitment ?between ?residents ?and ?their ?communities, ?transformation ?of ?shared ?public ?spaces?right-??of-??ways?into ?public ?open ?spaces ?demand ?exploration.RELATIONSHIP of  SOCIAL COHESION & SOCIAL CAPITALSOCIAL COHESION SOCIAL CAPITALFigure 2.7: Social capital as a subset of social cohesionThe ?relationship ?of ?user ?to ?public ?open ?space ?and ?the ?benefits ?such ?spaces ?offer ?users ?in ?the ?North ?American ?context ?is ?well ?documented. ?The ?missing ?link ?in ?the ?discussion ?of ?social ?cohesion ?in ?Vancouver ?is ?rooted ?in ?how ?such ?spaces ?can ?improve ?relationships ?between ?people. ?Much ?work ?has ?shown ?how ?urban ?design ?typologies ?can ?inspire ?social ?activity ?(Alexander ?et ?al., ?1977; ?Gehl, ?2010; ?Gehl, ?2011; ?Jacobs, ?1961; ?Lynch, ?1981; ?Whyte, ?1980). ?There ?are ?groups ?throughout ?Vancouver, ?including ?the ?city ?itself ?with ?the ?VIVA ?Vancouver ?initiative ?and ?the ?54Mayor?s ?Engaged ?City ?Task ?Force, ?dedicated ?to ?the ?improvement ?of ?the ?public ?realm ?and ?fostering ?connections ?at ?the ?neighbourhood ?level ?(City ?of ?Vancouver, ?2012d; ?City ?of ?Vancouver, ?2013b). ?The ?one ?currently ?active ?in ?Mount ?Pleasant ?is ?Livable ?Laneways ?Vancouver, ?a ?non-??profit ?organization ??dedicated ?to ?transforming ?the ?overlooked ?laneways ?and ?alleys ?of ?Vancouver ?into ?pedestrian-??friendly ?civic ?spaces? ?(Livable ?Laneways ?Vancouver, ?2010). ?Currently, ?they ?are ?one ?of ?the ?community ?stakeholders ?consulting ?with ?the ?city ?to ?help ?craft ?the ?final ?Mount ?Pleasant ?Community ?Plan ?Implementation ?(City ?of ?Vancouver, ?2013c).NESTING & SUBSETS of  RESILIENT SYSTEMSRESILIENT SOCIOECOLOGICAL SYSTEMSRESILIENT COMMUNITIESFigure 2.8: Resilient communities as a subset of resilient socioecological systemsThe ?existence ?of ?public ?open ?space ?provides ?opportunity ?for ?fostering ?connections. ?Combined ?with ?the ?presence ?of ?natural ?systems ?that ?require ?tending ?and ?stewardship ?to ?ensure ?they ?can ?thrive ?in ?a ?natural ?setting, ?such ?spaces ?can ?offer ?opportunity ?for ?growing ?social ?cohesion. ?With ?this ?understanding, ?in ?combination ?with ?the ?10 ?characteristics ?of ?resilient ?socioecological ?systems, ?the ?design ?and ?implementation ?of ?the ?St. ?George ?Rainway ?55begins ?to ?take ?shape. ?A ?provision ?for ?community ?involvement ?with ?the ?implementation ?and ?maintenance ?the ?natural ?systems ?that ?make ?up ?the ?Rainway ?can ?offer ?an ?additional ?ecosystem ?service: ?social ?cohesion. ?The ?strategies ?for ?design, ?proposed ?in ?Chapter ?5 ?and ?informed ?by ?research ?within ?the ?community ?of ?Mount ?Pleasant,  ?will ?demonstrate ?how. ?Lastly, ?because ?communities ?are ?socioecological ?systems ?and ?the ?context ?for ?this ?project ?has ?been ?wholly ?established, ?resilient ?socioecological ?systems ?will ?henceforth ?be ?referred ?to ?as ?resilient ?communities. ?(See ?Figure ?2.8 ?on ?the ?previous ?page.)563 Quantifying Social Capital & Social Cohesion The Surveys of Metro Vancouver & Mount Pleasant3.1 A SynopsisThis ?chapter ?is ?focused ?on ?people ?from ?the ?community ?ultimately ?responsible ?for ?the ?life ?of ?the ?St. ?George?s ?Rainway. ?It ?establishes ?the ?baseline ?for ?understanding ?how ?social ?cohesion ?present ?in ?Mount ?Pleasant ?compares ?to ?the ?entire ?Metro ?Vancouver ?region. ?Together ?with ?the ?interviews ?outlined ?in ?the ?chapter ?to ?follow, ?the ?parameters ?and ?impacts ?of ?engagement ?of ?community ?with ?projects ?using ?green ?infrastructure ?as ?the ?development ?tool ?are ?shown.The ?chapter ?begins ?with ?a ?framing ?of ?the ?survey ?administered ?for ?this ?thesis ?in ?concert ?with ?the ?parent ?survey ?from ?the ?Vancouver ?Foundation. ?Methods ?of ?distribution, ?sampling ?sizes, ?and ?justifications ?for ?each ?survey ?are ?explained ?in ?this ?section. ?Following ?this ?section ?is ?one ?that ?outlines ?the ?statistical ?methodology ?used ?to ?frame ?the ?validity ?for ?each ?the ?Mount ?Pleasant ?survey ?and ?the ?parent ?survey. ?The ?constructs ?described ?in ?this ?section ?correspond ?to ?the ?particular ?survey ?questions? ?findings ?highlighted ?throughout ?the ?remainder ?of ?this ?chapter. ?(NOTE: ?The ?questions ?for ?each ?of ?the ?surveys ?can ?be ?located ?in ?Appendix ?A.)The ?following ?three ?sections ?each ?provide ?a ?different ?lens ?that ?bridges ?three ?scales ?by ?which ?data ?was ?collected ?and ?compared ?between ?the ?Mount ?Pleasant ?and ?parent ?surveys. ?These ?sections ?are: ?1. ?Personal ?Friendships; ?2. ?Neighbours ?& ?Neighbourliness; ?and ?3. ?A ?Connected ?Community. ?Each ?speak ?to ?a ?different ?aspect ?of ?how ?the ?neighbourhood ?compares ?to ?Metro ?Vancouver ?regarding ?the ?pathways ?to ?bonding ?and ?bridging ?within ?each. ?The ?analysis ?of ?these ?findings ?will ?show ?how ?Mount ?Pleasant ?is ?uniquely ?situated ?to ?activate ?themselves ?and ?strengthen ?their ?community ?by ?utilizing ?the ?social ?cohesion ?evident ?within ?the ?findings. ?To ?close, ?the ?data ?that ?was ?unique ?to ?the ?Mount ?Pleasant ?survey ?is ?examined ?in ?Mount ?Pleasant ?& ?The ?Rainway. ?With ?references ?to ?outside ?precedence, ?the ?example ?of ?the ?mural ?painting ?completed ?along ?the ?St. ?George ?57Rainway ?is ?used ?to ?acknowledge ?the ?position ?Mount ?Pleasant ?holds ?within ?its ?metropolitan ?region, ?while ?demonstrating ?the ?potential ?for ?future ?involvement ?of ?community ?for ?shaping ?the ?public ?realm.3.2 Framing The Surveys3.2.1 The Parent SurveyBefore ?one ?can ?determine ?the ?best ?paths ?to ?a ?Mount ?Pleasant ?that ?is ?more ?engaged ?and ?connected, ?it ?is ?necessary ?to ?establish ?a ?baseline ?of ?these ?indicators ?as ?they ?currently ?exist. ?The ?Vancouver ?Foundation, ?with ?its ?survey ?of ?3,841 ?individuals, ?was ?able ?to ?identify ?a ?broad ?overview ?of ?the ?gaps ?in ?engagement ?and ?connection ?for ?the ?entire ?Metro ?Vancouver ?region ?(Vancouver ?Foundation, ?2012). ?Each ?neighbourhood ?comes ?with ?its ?own ?unique ?demographic ?and ?set ?of ?challenges ?and ?the ?parent ?survey ?did ?not ?offer ?such ?a ?fine-??grained ?view. ?How ?individual ?neighbourhoods ?stack ?up ?against ?the ?overall ?findings ?remains ?a ?relative ?unknown; ?the ?few ?data ?points ?gathered ?for ?Mount ?Pleasant ?were ?not ?numerous ?enough ?to ?speak ?to ?its ?context. ?Therefore, ?the ?finer ?grain ?of ?distribution ?of ?this ?survey ?was ?the ?first ?undertaking ?of ?the ?research ?portion ?of ?this ?thesis.The ?need ?for ?the ?parent ?study ?of ?the ?relative ?levels ?of ?connections ?and ?engagement ?throughout ?Metro ?Vancouver ?grew ?from ?a ?previous ?consultation ?that ?took ?place ?between ?the ?Vancouver ?Foundation ?and ?106 ?community ?leaders ?and ?276 ?not-??for-??profit ?organizations. ?The ?result ?of ?the ?Foundation ?interviewing ?and ?surveying ?these ?individuals ?drew ?the ?most ?attention ?to ?the ?issue ?of ??a ?growing ?sense ?of ?isolation ?and ?disconnection.? ?Those ?consulted ?stated ?how ?people ?in ?their ?communities ??live ?increasingly ?in ?silos, ?separated ?by ?ethnicity, ?culture, ?language, ?income ?and ?even ?geography? ?[and] ?they ?lamented ?what ?they ?saw ?as ?a ?deepening ?civic ?malaise, ?a ?retreat ?from ?neighbourhood ?and ?community ?life, ?and ?a ?corrosion ?of ?caring ?that ?they ?said ?hurts ?them ?personally ?and ?hurts ?their ?community? ?(DiPaula ?et ?al., ?2012, ?p.3).3.2.2 The Mount Pleasant SurveyThe ?sample ?size ?for ?the ?Vancouver ?Foundation ?survey ?was ?all ?of ?Metro ?Vancouver ?and ?all ?its ?residents, ?2,313,328 ?per ?the ?2011 ?Statistics ?Canada ?(2013a) ?report. ?Using ?this ?population ?count, ?the ?randomized ?parent ?survey ?58obtained ?0.166% ?of ?the ?opinion ?of ?Metro ?Vancouver, ?27% ?through ?phone ?interviews ?and ?remainder ?with ?an ?online ?survey. ?The ?results ?were ?deemed ?to ?be ?an ?adequate ?representation, ?with ?a ?margin ?of ?error ?at ?+/-?? ?1.6% ?at ?a ?95% ?level ?of ?confidence ?(Vancouver ?Foundation, ?2012b).Figure 3.1: Door-to-door flier distributionAccording ?to ?the ?Planning ?and ?Development ?Services ?department ?of ?Vancouver, ?the ?2011 ?population ?count ?of ?Mount ?Pleasant ?was ?25,064 ?individuals. ?There ?were ?two ?sampling ?frames ?for ?the ?survey ?conducted ?for ?this ?thesis. ?The ?first ?was ?comprised ?of ?a ?collective ?email ?contacts ?list ?of ?the ?city ?community ?planner ?dedicated ?to ?Mount ?Pleasant ?(approximately ?900 ?contacts), ?the ?Mount ?Pleasant ?Neighbourhood ?House ?(MPNH) ?(approximately ?300 ?contacts), ?and ?the ?Vancouver ?Society ?of ?Storytelling ?(VSOS) ?(approximately ?100 ?contacts), ?for ?a ?total ?approximation ?of ?1,300 ?contacts. ?The ?second ?was ?determined ?by ?the ?hand-??delivery ?of ?fliers ?to ?each ?residence ?within ?a ?one-??block ?radius ?of ?the ?9-??blocks ?long ?St. ?George ?Street ?study ?area ?(approximately ?300 ?contacts). ?(See ?Figure ?3.2 ?on ?the ?following ?page ?for ?survey ?distribution ?techniques.) ?The ?purpose ?of ?the ?tighter ?59sampling ?frame ?was ?to ?concentrate ?the ?outreach ?efforts ?within ?the ?study ?area ?and ?obtain ?as ?much ?data ?specific ?to ?this ?area ?as ?possible. ?The ?survey ?was ?administered ?digitally ?to ?the ?larger ?sampling ?frame ?generated ?by ?the ?collective ?1,300 ?contacts. ?In ?addition, ?the ?survey ?was ?hand-??delivered ?to ?the ?smaller ?300 ?contacts ?sampling ?frame ?via ?paper ?fliers. ?Both ?the ?digital ?and ?paper ?submissions ?provided ?a ?website ?link ?to ?the ?online ?survey.MOUNT PLEASANT SURVEY DISTRIBUTION TECHNIQUESVSOS CONTACTSCITY COMMUNITY PLANNING CONTACTS MPNH CONTACTSHAND-DELIVERED FLIERS19%6%19%56%Figure 3.2: Mount Pleasant survey distribution techniques60Each ?of ?the ?groups ?accounting ?for ?the ?larger ?sampling ?frame ?have ?been ?involved ?in ?the ?direction ?of ?development ?initiatives ?throughout ?the ?study ?area ?of ?Mount ?Pleasant, ?including ?the ?Mount ?Pleasant ?Community ?Plan, ?the ?Weaving ?Policy, ?People ?and ?Place ?Together ?initiative, ?and ?the ?street ?mural ?between ?7th ?and ?8th ?streets. ?The ?goal ?in ?using ?these ?contact ?lists ?was ?to ?again ?focus ?the ?questioning ?on ?those ?within ?the ?vicinity ?of ?the ?study ?site. ?Each ?of ?these ?lists ?grew ?over ?time, ?through ?various ?means ?of ?public ?outreach, ?and ?reflect ?a ?cross-??section ?of ?the ?population ?diverse ?enough ?to ?embody ?the ?randomness ?of ?the ?parent ?survey.The ?Mount ?Pleasant ?survey ?was ?built ?using ?a ?Canadian ?online ?survey ?tool ?application ?hosted ?by ?the ?University ?of ?British ?Columbia ?(University ?of ?British ?Columbia, ?2013). ?The ?survey ?consisted ?of ?a ?total ?of ?86 ?questions. ?Nine ?of ?the ?questions ?did ?not ?appear ?on ?the ?parent ?survey ?due ?to ?their ?framing ?specific ?to ?the ?study ?site. ?Two ?from ?the ?parent ?survey ?were ?omitted ?due ?to ?their ?irrelevant ?nature?one ?for ?its ?request ?for ?the ?postal ?code ?of ?the ?neighbourhood ?in ?which ?the ?participants ?lived ?and ?the ?other ?related ?to ?the ?volunteering ?of ?the ?participants ?to ?perform ?for ?additional ?surveys ?or ?follow ?up ?questions. ?Beyond ?these ?additions ?and ?omissions, ?the ?Mount ?Pleasant ?survey ?mimics ?the ?parent ?survey ?to ?achieve ?a ?proper ?comparison ?of ?the ?data ?sets. ?The ?combination ?of ?the ?focused ?response, ?the ?response ?rate, ?and ?the ?line ?of ?questioning ?account ?for ?successful ?comparative ?analysis.Question ?#1 ?of ?the ?Mount ?Pleasant ?survey ?was ?written ?to ?capture ?whether ?or ?not ?the ?participants ?lived ?between ?the ?streets ?of ?Fraser ?and ?Prince ?Edward ?to ?the ?east ?and ?west ?& ?and ?between ?Great ?Northern ?Way ?and ?Kingsway ?to ?the ?north ?and ?south ?was ?added ?to ?the ?demographics ?section ?of ?the ?Mount ?Pleasant ?survey ?to ?capture ?the ?effectiveness ?of ?the ?approach ?used. ?Of ?the ?54 ?respondents, ?32 ?were ?from ?the ?targeted ?catchment ?area, ?thus ?achieving ?a ?majority ?voice. ?Furthermore, ?the ?total ?response ?accounts ?for ?0.215% ?of ?all ?of ?Mount ?Pleasant, ?or ?3.375% ?of ?the ?two ?sample ?frames. ?Each ?of ?these ?percentages ?achieve ?a ?greater ?response ?rate ?to ?that ?of ?the ?model ?parent ?survey. ?(See ?Figure ?3.3 ?on ?the ?following ?page ?for ?a ?bar ?graph ?comparison ?between ?response ?rates.)61One ?of ?the ?respondents ?to ?parent ?survey ?noted ?how ??Getting ?people ?connected ?and ?engaged ?to ?their ?community ?underpins ?everything. ?Without ?that ?sense ?of ?responsibility, ?vast ?numbers ?of ?people ?will ?sit ?on ?the ?sidelines ?and ?we ?will ?not ?be ?able ?to ?tackle ?the ?serious ?problems ?facing ?our ?community? ?(Vancouver ?Foundation, ?2012b, ?p. ?41). ?This ?statement ?embodies ?the ?intention ?of ?the ?community ?research ?component ?to ?this ?thesis. ?As ?the ?following ?data ?analysis ?will ?show, ?the ?neighbours ?of ?Mount ?Pleasant ?are ?more ?connected ?and ?engaged ?than ?the ?average ?Metro ?Vancouver ?resident.RESPONSE RATES FOR EACH SURVEYPARENT SURVEY MOUNT PLEASANT SURVEY (SAMPLE FRAME # 1)MOUNT PLEASANT SURVEY (SAMPLE FRAME # 2 )1%2%3%4%Figure 3.3: Response rate comparison between the parent survey and the Mount Pleasant survey623.3 Statistical Methodology for The SurveysA ?rich ?and ?sustained ?address ?of ?regional ?complex ?issues ?related ?to ?disparities ?in ?wealth ?and ?basic ?needs ?has ?been ?a ?goal ?of ?the ?Vancouver ?Foundation. ?However, ?it ?was ?identified ?that ?this ?could ?not ?be ?addressed ?without ?first ?identifying ?the ?underlying ?causes ?for ?disconnection ?and ?disengagement ?amongst ?residents, ?or, ?inversely, ?how ?to ?produce ??caring ?and ?involved ?residents? ?(Vancouver ?Foundation, ?2012a, ?p. ?5). ?The ?parent ?survey, ?created ?by ?Sentis ?Market ?Research, ?Inc., ?was ?designed ?to ?use ?a ?collection ?of ?statistical ?techniques ?known ?as ?Structural ?Equation ?Modeling ?(SEM) ?to ?test ?the ?relationships ?between ?the ?independent ?variables ?noted ?as ?specific ?drivers ?of ?change ?(Ullman ?& ?Bentler, ?2001). ?According ?to ?DiPaula ?et ?al., ?SEM ??illustrates ?how ?one ?set ?of ?variables, ?or ?a ?construct, ?influences ?another ?and, ?in ?turn, ?how ?that ?construct ?influences ?yet ?another?[while ?providing] ?a ?roadmap ?of ?how ?change ?occurs ?and ?can ?help ?organizations ?prioritize ?investments ?in ?the ?community? ?(2012, ?p.6). ?Because ?the ?parent ?survey ?was ?built ?upon ?past ?work ?by ?Sentis ?Market ?Research, ?Inc. ?and ?the ?Vancouver ?Foundation ?in ?the ?realm ?of ?social ?capital, ?the ?constructs ?of ??bonds ?within ?groups? ?and ??bridges ?between ?groups? ?helped ?to ?identify ?the ?two ?pathways ?used ?by ?the ?model ?(DiPaula ?et ?al., ?2012, ?p.6). ?That ?status ?of ?connections, ?or ?the ?bonding ?pathway, ?was ?determined ?by ?measuring ?the ?strength ?and ?breadth ?of ?relationships ?between ?friends ?and ?neighbours, ?of ?which ?broader ?community ?is ?comprised. ?The ?survey ?model ?measures ?the ?amount ?of ?conversation ?and ?sharing ?of ?thoughts ?and ?ideas ?with ?neighbours, ?which ?leads ?to ?measurement ?of ?deeper ?interaction ?and ?greater ?time ?spent ?with ?one ?another, ?which ?brings ?about ?an ?understanding ?of ?growth ?in ?trust ?between ?one ?another. ?Therefore, ?the ?bonding ?pathway ?was ?this: ?Conversation ?with ?Neighbours ?> ?Getting ?Together ?with ?Neighbours ?> ?Trust ?Between ?Neighbours ?(DiPaula ?et ?al., ?2012; ?Vancouver ?Foundation, ?2012a)The ?other ?half ?of ?the ?focus, ?engagement, ?or ?the ?bridging ?pathway, ?was ?determined ?by ?first ?measuring ?how ?free ?individuals ?are ?from ?discrimination. ?Such ?discrimination, ?be ?it ?the ?result ?of ?race, ?disability, ?age, ?or ?economic ?status, ?had ?been ?identified ?as ?the ?primary ?barrier ?to ?beginning ?to ?develop ?a ?sense ?of ?belonging ?within ?a ?place. ?Only ?through ?the ?growth ?in ?a ?sense ?of ?belonging ?can ?growths ?in ?trust ?and ?connections ?across ?original ?boundaries ?63of ?discrimination ?take ?place. ?The ?combined ?ability ?to ?connect ?across ?boundaries ?while ?maintaining ?trust ?between ?neighbours, ?by ?the ?accounts ?of ?the ?model, ?results ?in ?residents ?who ?are ?both ?caring ?and ?involved ?within ?their ?communities. ?Therefore, ?the ?bridging ?pathway ?was ?this: ?Freedom ?from ?Discrimination ?> ?Sense ?of ?Belonging ?> ?Connecting ?across ?Boundaries ?(DiPaula ?et ?al., ?2012; ?Vancouver ?Foundation, ?2012a).The ?combined ?bonding ?and ?bridging ?construct ?pathways ?can ?be ?seen ?in ?Figure ?3.4 ?(on ?the ?following ?page). ?Along ?the ?pathways ?between ?each ?construct ?is ?a ?coefficient. ?Each ?coefficient ?represents ??the ?relative ?strength ?of ?the ?causal ?relationship? ?(DiPaula ?et ?al., ?2012, ?p.20) ?between ?each ?construct ?and ?was ?determined ?through ?testing ?of ?over ?100 ?models ?with ?Amos ?statistical ?software. ?The ?iterative ?testing ?with ?this ?software ?was ?driven ?by ?the ?hypothesis ?of ?the ?parent ?survey, ?its ?findings ?and ?findings ?from ?other ?surveys, ?and ?a ?literature ?review ?of ?social ?capital. ?Many ?causal ?models ?were ?explored, ?though ?the ?model ?shown ?in ?Figure ?3.4 ?was ?deemed ?to ?have ?the ?greatest ?potential ?for ?direct ?impacts ?upon ?increasing ?the ?potential ?for ??Caring ?and ?Involved ?Residents? ?(DiPaula ?et ?al., ?2012, ?p.18).The ?three ?sections ?following ?this ?one ?each ?highlight ?various ?questions. ?These ?questions ?were ?chosen ?primarily ?for ?their ?direct ?relationship ?to ?the ?Caring ?and ?Involved ?Residents ?model ?described ?above. ?Each ?question ?represents ?a ?variable ?for ?one ?of ?the ?three ?constructs ?for ?the ?bonding ?pathway?Conversation ?with ?Neighbours, ?Getting ?Together ?with ?Neighbours, ?or ?Trust ?Between ?Neighbours?or ?one ?of ?the ?three ?constructs ?for ?the ?bridging ?pathway?Freedom ?from ?Discrimination, ?Sense ?of ?Belonging, ?or ?Connecting ?across ?Boundaries. ?The ?three ?scales ?by ?which ?these ?constructs ?and ?corresponding ?questions ?are ?examined ?are ?the ?following: ?1. ?Personal ?Friendships; ?2. ?Neighbours ?& ?Neighbourliness; ?and ?3. ?A ?Connected ?Community.3.4 Personal FriendshipsAs ?the ?parent ?survey ?found, ?Metro ?Vancouver ?suffers ?from ?high ?rates ?of ?social ?isolation ?and ?can ?be ?a ?hard ?place ?to ?foster ?new ?friendships ?(Vancouver ?Foundation, ?2012b). ?Personal ?relationships ?are ?the ?foundation ?for ?social ?capital, ?and ?thus, ?indicative ?of ?social ?cohesion ?and ?are ?the ?foundation ?for ?both ?the ?bonding ?and ?bridging ?pathways ?(Chan ?et ?al., ?2005; ?DiPaula ?et ?al., ?2012; ?Health ?Canada, ?2013; ?Forrest ?& ?Kearns, ?2001; ?Lin, ?2001). ?Of ?64those ?surveyed ?in ?Mount ?Pleasant, ?84% ?were ?found ?to ?have ?4 ?or ?more ?close ?friends ?when ?compared ?to ?the ?66% ?from ?Metro ?Vancouver. ?(See ?Figure ?3.5 ?for ?a ?comparison ?of ?responses.) ?Regarding ?the ?frequency ?of ?getting ?CONNECTING ACROSS BOUNDARIESFREEDOM FROM DISCRIMINATIONCONVERSATIONS WITH NEIGHBOURSGET-TOGETHERS WITH NEIGHBOURSTRUST BETWEEN NEIGHBOURSSENSE OF BELONGINGCARING & INVOLVED RESIDENTS. 1 8. 20 . 2 3 . 2 3. 27. 3 4 . 2 8. 2 2. 4 8. 3 2 . 2 4.XXCOEFFICIENTS REPRESENTINGTHE STRENGTH OF THE CAUSAL RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN QUESTIONSPATHWAYS TO ?CARING & INVOLVED RESIDENTS?BRIDGING PATHWAY BONDING PATHWAYFigure 3.4: Pathways to ?Caring & Involved Residents? (diagram adapted from DiPaula et al., 2012, p.20)65?HOW MANY PEOPLE WOULD YOU COUNT AMONG YOUR FRIENDS? ?4 OR MORE FRIENDS LESS THAN 4 FRIENDSPARENT SURVEY MOUNT PLEASANT SURVEY34%66%16%84%?HOW MANY PEOPLE WOULD YOU COUNT AMONG YOUR FRIENDS? ?4 OR MORE FRIENDS LESS THAN 4 FRIENDSPARENT SURVEY MOUNT PLEASANT SURVEYFigure 3.5: ?How many people would you count amoung your friends?? (from Mount Pleasant survey question #18)together ?with ?close ?friends, ?Mount ?Pleasant ?also ?ranked ?higher ?in ?a ?few ?indicative ?categories. ?Compared ?to ?the ?26% ?throughout ?Metro ?Vancouver ?who ?visit ?with ?close ?friends ?2-??3 ?times ?per ?month, ?35% ?of ?those ?in ?Mount ?Pleasant ?do. ?(See ?Figure ?3.6 ?on ?the ?following ?page ?for ?a ?comparison ?of ?responses.) ?Meeting ?more ?frequently?once ?or ?more ?each ?week?did ?not ?vary ?much ?between ?residents ?of ?Mount ?Pleasant ?versus ?Metro ?Vancouver. ?As ?the ?reasons ?given ?for ?obstacles ?for ?getting ?together ?with ?close ?friends, ?the ?percentages ?for ?the ?top ?two ?from ?each ?survey ?ranked ?nearly ?identical: ?work ?or ?school ?obligations ?being ?the ?greatest, ?and ?family ?obligations ?being ?the ?next, ?accounting ?for ?nearly ?half ?the ?tallied ?reasons. ?Events ?that ?transcend ?the ?workplace, ?the ?school ?building, ?and ?the ?home, ?and ?involved ?volunteer ?service ?or ?educational ?experiences ?could ?help ?to ?forgo ?this ?obstacle.The ?parent ?survey ?and ?legwork ?involved ?with ?forming ?its ?line ?of ?questioning ?found ?Vancouver ?a ?difficult ?place ?to ?make ?friends ?(Vancouver ?Foundation, ?2012b). ?Mount ?Pleasant ?was ?found ?to ?be ?no ?different. ?A ?slightly ?higher ?percentage ?of ?respondents ?agreed ?with ?this ?statement, ?balanced ?out ?by ?an ?equal ?increase ?in ?those ?who ?66PERCENTAGE WHO VISITS WITH CLOSE FRIENDS 2- 3 TIMES EACH MONTHMETRO VANCOUVER MOUNT PLEASANT7%14%21%28%35%PERCENTAGE WHO VISITS WITH CLOSE FRIENDS 2- 3 TIMES EACH MONTHMETRO VANCOUVER MOUNT PLEASANT7%14%21%28%35%Figure 3.6: Percentage who visits with close friends 2-3 times each month (from Mount Pleasant survey question #22)disagreed ?with ?this ?statement ?when ?compared ?to ?the ?findings ?for ?Metro ?Vancouver. ?(See ?Figure ?3.7 ?on ?the ?following ?page ?for ?a ?comparison ?of ?responses.) ?These ?increases ?could ?be ?accounted ?for ?by ?a ?lesser ?percentage ?of ?individuals ?in ?Mount ?Pleasant ?feeling ?undecided ?about ?the ?question. ?Another ?correlation ?between ?this ?neighbourhood ?and ?the ?metro ?region ?was ?in ?the ?demographic ?most ?likely ?to ?agree ?with ?this ?statement: ?those ?aged ?24 ?to ?34. ?Within ?the ?same ?realm ?of ?existence ?of ?finding ?it ?difficult ?to ?make ?friends ?is ?the ?sense ?of ?feeling ?alone. ?When ?asked ?if ?they ?felt ?alone ?more ?than ?they ?wished ?to ?be, ?nearly ?one-??third ?of ?the ?respondents ?agreed ?with ?the ?672%37% 19%33%10%1%7%33%27%24%7%?IT IS DIFFICULT TO MAKE NEW FRIENDS HERE.?PARENT SURVEY MOUNT PLEASANT SURVEYDON?T KNOW/PREFER NOT TO ANSWERAGREESTRONGLY AGREE DISAGREESTRONGLY DISAGREENEITHER AGREE OR DISAGREEFigure 3.7: ?It is difficult to make new friends here.? (from Mount Pleasant survey question #48)statement ?versus ?one-??quarter ?for ?all ?of ?Metro ?Vancouver. ?However, ?when ?applying ?a ?filter ?to ?understand ?the ?relationship ?between ?length ?of ?stay ?in ?the ?neighbourhood, ?the ?findings ?were ?inverse ?to ?that ?of ?Metro ?Vancouver. ?Those ?living ?in ?Mount ?Pleasant ?for ?less ?than ?five ?years ?were ?less ?likely ?to ?agree ?that ?they ?were ?alone ?more ?often ?than ?they ?wished ?to ?be, ?thus ?indicating ?that ?Mount ?Pleasant ?can ?relatively ?be ?a ?more ?welcoming ?place ?for ?newcomers.Those ?living ?in ?Mount ?Pleasant ?appear ?to ?have ?stronger, ?healthier ?social ?lives. ?This, ?in ?turn, ?correlates ?with ?having ?healthier ?physical ?lives ?as ?well ?(Cacioppo ?et ?al., ?2002; ?Frandsen ?& ?Smith, ?1996). ?The ?findings ?from ?the ?Mount ?Pleasant ?survey ?back ?this ?correlation ?with ?less ?than ?4% ?relating ?how ?they ?are ?in ?fair ?health. ?No ?respondents ?were ?noted ?to ?be ?in ?a ?worse ?physical ?condition, ?while ?a ?majority ?of ?the ?remaining ?96% ?noted ?how ?they ?are ?in ?very ?good ?health. ?The ?greatest ?room ?for ?improvement ?within ?the ?community ?of ?Mount ?Pleasant ?does ?not, ?therefore, ?point ?to ?its ?residents. ?Rather, ?the ?noted ?shortcomings ?relate ?to ?the ?effects ?the ?place ?has ?on ?68fostering ?new ?friendships ?and ?dispelling ?loneliness. ?These ?shortcomings ?do ?not ?embody ?the ?same ?correlation ?with ?housing ?typologies ?as ?understood ?in ?the ?parent ?survey. ?With ?extremely ?low ?representation ?from ?either ?ends ?of ?the ?housing ?spectrum?single ?detached ?house ?versus ?basement ?suite ?living?the ?typical ?markers ?of ?either ?positive ?or ?negative ?impacts ?upon ?personal ?friendships ?and ?loneliness ?were ?irrelevant. ?Aside ?from ?those ?aged ?24 ?to ?34 ?having ?a ?harder ?time ?making ?friends, ?none ?of ?the ?negative ?findings ?appeared ?to ?have ?any ?bias ?towards ?one ?demographic ?over ?another ?in ?comparison ?with ?a ?number ?of ?the ?parent ?survey ?findings. ?This ?supports ?evidence ?of ?a ?higher ?degree ?of ?equity ?in ?Mount ?Pleasant.It ?does ?not ?rain ?any ?more ?in ?Mount ?Pleasant ?than ?elsewhere ?throughout ?Metro ?Vancouver. ?Likewise, ?the ?neighbourhood ?does ?not ?suffer ?from ?an ?access ?to ?nature ?deficit ?as ?defined ?by ?walking ?distance ?parameter ?of ?the ?city?s ?Greenest ?City ?2020 ?Goal ?(City ?of ?Vancouver, ?2012b). ?The ?aspect ?impacting ?the ?public ?realm ?could ?however, ?relate ?to ?its ?makeup ?of ?uses. ?At ?either ?end ?of ?the ?study ?area ?of ?the ?St. ?George ?Rainway ?sits ?two ?prominent ?parks: ?Robson ?and ?Guelph ?Parks. ?In ?between ?these ?two ?bookends ?is ?a ?sea ?of ?residential ?housing, ?bisected ?only ?once ?by ?the ?commercial ?corridor ?that ?is ?Broadway. ?However, ?this ?section ?of ?Broadway, ?known ?as ??Broadway ?East? ?as ?outlined ?in ?the ?Mount ?Pleasant ?Public ?Realm ?Plan, ?lacks ?pedestrian ?scale, ?and ?thus, ?a ?pedestrian ?presence ?(City ?of ?Vancouver, ?2013c). ?Twenty ?blocks ?south, ?along ?another ?portion ?of ?St. ?George ?resting ?in ?a ?different ?sub-??watershed, ?is ?a ?caf?-??grocer ?that ?embodies ?what ?it ?means ?to ?be ?a ?cultural ?hub ?and ?supports ?the ?pedestrian ?presence ?lacking ?throughout ?Broadway ?East. ?Since ?its ?opening, ?it ?has ?become ?known ?as ?an ?essential ?piece ?to ?its ?neighbourhood?s ?potential ?for ?making ?new ?connections, ?building ?friendships, ?and ?ultimately ?dispelling ?loneliness. ?During ?one ?of ?the ?stakeholder ?interviews, ?which ?will ?be ?discussed ?further ?in ?this ?chapter, ?residents ?of ?Mount ?Pleasant ?spoke ?of ?Le ?March? ?St. ?George ?in ?such ?a ?fashion: ??Their ?story ?is ?incredible?they ?supposedly ?sent ?out ?an ?email ?to ?the ?neighbourhood ?the ?day ?before ?they ?opened ?and ?next ?day, ?30 ?families ?with ?kids ?showed ?up. ?Talk ?about ?a ?sense ?of ?community?It ?has ?become ?a ?huge ?hub ?for ?the ?blocks ?around ?it.? ?Mount ?Pleasant ?has ?its ?parks, ?its ?community ?centre, ?family ?centre, ?and ?neighbourhood ?house, ?and ?bisecting ?commercial ?arteries ?such ?as ?Main ?Street. ?Like ?69most ?of ?Vancouver, ?it ?is ?well-??zoned, ?but ?not ?well-??mixed, ?and ?could ?benefit ?from ?an ?increased ?presence ?of ?nodes ?and ?connections, ?such ?as ?those ?a ?pedestrian ?greenway, ?or ?a ?rainway, ?could ?offer.Figure 3.8: Le March? St. George3.5 Neighbours & NeighbourlinessAs ?introduced ?in ?Chapter ?2, ?the ?missing ?link ?in ?the ?discussion ?of ?social ?cohesion ?in ?Vancouver ?is ?rooted ?in ?how ?public ?spaces ?can ?improve ?relationships ?between ?people. ?The ?bonding ?pathway ?of ?the ?survey ?model ?manifests ?itself ?in ?the ?public ?realm. ?Its ?strength ?corresponds ?with ?the ?strengths ?of ?having ?Conversation ?with ?Neighbours, ?Getting ?Together ?with ?Neighbours, ?and ?having ?Trust ?Between ?Neighbours. ?Meeting ?one?s ?neighbour ?most ?often ?occurs ?as ?one ?is ?leaving ?or ?arriving ?home. ?Exchanges ?of ?ideas ?happens ?on ?either ?side ?of ?a ?fence ?or ?hedge, ?or ?from ?one ?porch ?to ?another, ?all ?in ?earshot ?of ?the ?public ?right-??of-??way. ?Meeting ?to ?shake ?hands ?or ?lend ?a ?cup ?of ?flour ?often ?takes ?place ?on ?the ?sidewalk ?in ?front ?of ?either ?neighbour?s ?home. ?In ?an ?urban ?neighbourhood, ?it ?is ?the ?sidewalk ?and ?the ?spaces ?within ?and ?around ?it ?where ?most ?social ?interactions ?take ?place ?(Alexander ?et ?al., ?1977; ?Gehl, ?2010; ?Gehl, ?2011; ?Jacobs, ?1961; ?Whyte, ?1980). ?In ?Vancouver, ?it ?is ?in ?the ?street ?or ?in ?the ?lane, ?where ?community ?barbecues ?are ?held. ?Throughout ?North ?America, ?it ?is ?in ?one?s ?neighbourhood ?and ?home ?where ?the ?majority ?of ?our ?living ?happens.7046%54%74%26%60%40%26%74%47%53%59%41%50%50%FIVE BENCHMARK PARAMETERS OF GROWING NEIGHBOURHOOD CONNECTIONSPARENT SURVEY MOUNT PLEASANT SURVEY#5#4YES NO72%28%Left a key wi t h a ne i g h b o u r to ke e p i n ca s e o f e m e r g e n cy ?Too k ca r e o f a ne i g h b o u r ?s m a i l wh i l e t h ey we r e o u t o f tow n ?#3#2Had ne i g h b o u r s ove r f o r d i n n e r a t le a s t o n c e d u r i n g t h e p a s t ye a r ?Conve r s e wi t h n e i g h b o u r s o n c e or m o r e ea c h we e k ?#1Kn ow t h e n a m e s o f a t le a s t two i m m e d i a t e n e i g h b o u r s ?59%41%10%90%Figure 3.9: The five benchmark parameters for growing neighbourhood connections (from Mount Pleasant survey questions #30-34)71The ?neighbourhood ?connections ?throughout ?Metro ?Vancouver ?were ?found ?by ?the ?parent ?study ?to ?be ??cordial? ?but ?not ??particularly ?deep? ?(Vancouver ?Foundation, ?2012b, ?p. ?17). ?The ?series ?of ?survey ?questions ?regarding ?the ?frequency ?of ?which ?neighbours ?engaged ?in ?barbecues ?with ?neighbours, ?performed ?favours ?such ?as ?collecting ?their ?mail ?and ?newspapers ?while ?the ?other ?was ?out ?of ?town, ?and ?lent ?them ?a ?spare ?key ?in ?case ?of ?emergency, ?were ?designed ?to ?build ?parameters ?for ?this ?characterization. ?In ?the ?case ?of ?Mount ?Pleasant, ?respondents ?scored ?higher ?in ?all ?categories, ?including ?simple ?knowledge ?of ?neighbours ?names, ?as ?well ?as ?the ?frequencies ?of ?saying ?hello ?and ?getting ?together ?to ?share ?a ?meal. ?See ?Figure ?3.9 ?(on ?the ?previous ?page) ?for ?a ?comparison ?of ?the ?findings ?for ?five ?benchmark ?parameters, ?indicative ?of ?the ?familiarity ?that ?can ?lead ?to ?socializing, ?which ?can ?result ?in ?building ?a ?sense ?of ?trust ?between ?neighbours ?(DiPaula, ?et ?al., ?2012).If ?diversity ?has ?an ?impact ?upon ?connections ?within ?Mount ?Pleasant, ?the ?survey ?results ?deem ?it ?is ?one ?that ?is ?positive. ?Combinations ?of ?over ?thirty ?cultural ?origins ?were ?identified ?of ?the ?54 ?respondents. ?Further, ?more ?than ?one-??quarter ?identified ?with ?having ?been ?born ?in ?a ?country ?outside ?Canada, ?a ?number ?slightly ?less ?than ?30% ?from ?the ?parent ?survey. ?To ?obtain ?a ?sense ?of ?the ?perceived ?diversity ?amongst ?the ?immediate ?neighbours ?of ?those ?surveyed ?within ?Mount ?Pleasant, ?which ?would ?statistically ?include ?individuals ?not ?surveyed ?for ?this ?research, ?respondents ?were ?asked ?how ?many ?people ?spoke ?languages ?different ?than ?their ?own? ?(see ?Figure ?3.10 ?on ?the ?following ?page) ?as ?well ?as ?how ?many ?were ?of ?a ?different ?ethnic ?group ?than ?theirs? ?(see ?Figure ?3.11 ?on ?the ?following ?page) ?It ?was ?identified ?that ?nearly ?10% ?more ?individuals ?in ?Mount ?Pleasant ?than ?throughout ?Metro ?Vancouver ?believe ?that ?at ?least ?a ?few ?people ?that ?live ?on ?their ?street ?speak ?different ?languages, ?while ?15% ?more ?perceived ?that ?at ?least ?a ?few ?of ?their ?neighbours ?were ?of ?a ?different ?ethnicity. ?While ?Mount ?Pleasant ?is ?represented ?by ?slightly ?more ?individuals ?who ?claim ?to ?have ?been ?born ?in ?Canada, ?this ?finding ?does ?not ?seem ?to ?have ?lessened ?its ?high ?degree ?of ?cultural ?diversity. ?Neighbourliness ??can ?be ?defined ?as ??the ?exchange ?of ?small ?services ?or ?support ?in ?an ?emergency ?against ?a ?background ?of ?routine ?convivial ?exchanges? ?(such ?as ?greetings ?or ?brief ?chats ?over ?the ?garden ?fence ?or ?in ?the ?street)? ?(Pilch, ?2006). ?When ?asked ?specifically, ?How ?comfortable ?do ?7210%65%23%2%16%13%33%18%20%?WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT WHY YOU MAY NOT KNOW SOME NEIGHBOURS WELL, SPEAK LANGUAGES DIFFERENT FROM YOUR OWN??PARENT SURVEY MOUNT PLEASANT SURVEYABOUT HALFALL OR ALMOST ALL NONEDON?T KNOW/PREFER NOT TO ANSWERA FEW10%65%23%2%16%13%33%18%20%?WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT WHY YOU MAY NOT KNOW SOME NEIGHBOURS WELL, SPEAK LANGUAGES DIFFERENT FROM YOUR OWN??PARENT SURVEY MOUNT PLEASANT SURVEYABOUT HALFALL OR ALMOST ALL NONEDON?T KNOW/PREFER NOT TO ANSWERA FEWFigure 3.10: ?When you think about why you may not know some of these people very well? [how many] speak languages different from your own?? (from Mount Pleasant survey questions #36)2%52%25%21%10%7%35%21%27%?WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT WHY YOU MAY NOT KNOW SOME NEIGHBOURS WELL, HOW MANY ARE IN A DIFFERENT ETHNIC GROUP THAN YOU? ?PARENT SURVEY MOUNT PLEASANT SURVEYABOUT HALFALL OR ALMOST ALL NONEDON?T KNOW/PREFER NOT TO ANSWERA FEW2%52%25%21%10%7%35%21%27%?WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT WHY YOU MAY NOT KNOW SOME NEIGHBOURS WELL, H W NY ARE IN A DIFFERENT ETHNIC GROUP THAN YOU? ?PARENT SURVEY MOUNT PLEASANT SURVEYABOUT HALFALL OR ALMOST ALL NONEDON?T KNOW/PREFER NOT TO ANSWERA FEWFigure 3.11: ?When you think about why you may not know some of these people very well? [how many] are in a different ethnic group than you?? (from Mount Pleasant survey questions #37)73you ?think ?your ?neighbours ?would ?be ?if ?a ?shelter ?or ?group ?home ?for ?homeless ?people ?moved ?into ?your ?neighbourhood? ?(see ?Figure ?3.12 ?on ?the ?following ?page), ?more ?than ?twice ?as ?much ?of ?the ?participating ?body ?in ?Mount ?Pleasant ?than ?that ?of ?the ?parent ?survey ?believed ?their ?neighbours ?would ?be ?comfortable. ?When ?asked, ?How ?comfortable ?do ?you ?think ?your ?neighbours ?would ?be ?if ?a ?shelter ?or ?group ?home ?for ?people ?with ?alcohol ?or ?drug ?addiction ?moved ?into ?your ?neighbourhood? ?(see ?Figure ?3.13 ?on ?the ?following ?page), ?the ?percentage ?expressing ?comfort ?on ?behalf ?of ?their ?neighbours ?was ?only ?slightly ?higher ?than ?those ?of ?the ?parent ?survey, ?yet ?those ?expressing ?discomfort ?was ?half ?of ?that ?of ?the ?parent ?survey. ?Such ?a ?drastic ?discrepancy ?in ?the ?support ?of ?the ?destitute ?and ?the ?recovering ?indicates ?the ?presence ?of ?something ?even ?greater ?than ?neighbourliness; ?it ?indicates ?openness ?and ?a ?willingness ?to ?accept ?change ?in ?the ?community ?of ?Mount ?Pleasant. ?Beyond ?the ?daily ?greeting ?or ?the ?small ?support ?given ?in ?times ?of ?distress, ?another ?indicator ?of ?neighbourhood ?connections ?is ?the ?willingness ?to ?improve ?ties ?with ?one ?another ?and ?to ?work ?together ?to ?solve ?problems ?revolving ?around ?such ?topics ?as ?safety ?(Vancouver ?Foundation, ?2012b). ?The ?belief ?that ?ties ?among ?people ?in ?Mount ?Pleasant ?are ?growing ?stronger ?is ?60%, ?or ?are ?more ?than ?twice ?as ?positive ?as ?those ?of ?Metro ?Vancouver. ?In ?addition, ?fewer ?respondents ?were ?likely ?to ?agree ?that ?it ?would ?be ?hard ?to ?get ?people ?to ?work ?together ?to ?solve ?problems ?in ?their ?neighbourhood ?regarding ?such ?things ?as: ?cars ?driving ?too ?fast, ?people ?not ?taking ?care ?of ?their ?property, ?or ?addressing ?larger ?issues ?such ?as ?pollution ?or ?water ?consumption. ?Schwartz ?(2000), ?in ?her ?account ?of ?a ?series ?of ?surveys ?that ?followed ?up ?work ?to ?restore ?creeks ?within ?San ?Francisco?s ?East ?Bay, ?illustrated ?how ?collaborations ?between ?residents ?and ?NGOs ?were ?successful ?in ?their ?restoration ?initiatives ?and ?as ?well ?with ?raising ?local ?public ?awareness ?about ?runoff ?pollution ?by ?over ?80% ?from ?1991 ?to ?1999.Not ?only ?does ?the ?community ?appear ?to ?be ?building ?upon ?connections ?and ?trust ?and ?becoming ?engaged ?with ?each ?other ?and ?local ?developments, ?the ?perception ?of ?this ?is ?that ?of ?an ?increasingly ?positive ?trajectory. ?Additionally, ?when ?asked ?directly, ?an ?overwhelming ?96% ?of ?those ?surveyed ?in ?Mount ?Pleasant ?felt ?welcome ?in ?the ?neighbourhood ?and ?that ?they ?belong ?there. ?Having ?the ?willingness ?to ?participate, ?an ?existence ?of ?supporting ?networks, ?a ?sense ?of ?trust, ?and ?a ?sense ?of ?belonging ?each ?satisfy ?one ?of ?the ?eight ?domains ?of ?social ?capital. ?How ?74?HOW COMFORTABLE DO YOU THINK YOUR NEIGHBOURS WOULD BE IF A SHELTER OR GROUP HOME FOR HOMELESS PEOPLE MOVED INTO YOUR NEIGHBOURHOOD? ?Comf o r t a b l eUnco m f o r t a b l eNeit h e r co m f o r t a b l en o r u n c o m f o r t a b l eDon? t kn ow/Pr e f e r n o t to a n sw e r0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%METRO VANCOUVERMOUNT PLEASANT?HOW COMFORTABLE DO YOU THINK YOUR NEIGHBOURS WOULD BE IF A SHELTER OR GROUP HOME FOR HOMELESS PEOPLE MOVED INTO YOUR NEIGHBOURHOOD? ?Comf o r t a b l eUnco m f o r t a b l eNeit h e r co m f o r t a b l en o r u n c o m f o r t a b l eDon? t kn ow/Pr e f e r n o t to a n sw e r0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%METRO VANCOUVERMOUNT PLEASANTFigure 3.12: ?How comfortable do you think your neighbours would be if a shelter or group home for homeless people moved into your neighbourhood?? (from Mount Pleasant survey questions #38)?HOW COMFORTABLE DO YOU THINK YOUR NEIGHBOURS WOULD BE IF A SHELTER OR GROUP HOME FOR PEOPLE WITH ALCOHOL OR DRUG ADDICTION MOVED INTO YOUR NEIGHBOURHOOD? ?Comf o r t a b l eUnco m f o r t a b l eNeit h e r co m f o r t a b l en o r u n c o m f o r t a b l eDon? t kn ow/Pr e f e r n o t to a n sw e r0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%METRO VANCOUVERMOUNT PLEASANT80% 90% 100%?HOW COMFORTABLE DO YOU THINK YOUR NEIGHBOURS WOULD BE IF A SHELTER OR GROUP HOME FOR HOMELESS PEOPLE MOVED INTO YOUR NEIGHBOURHOOD? ?Comf o r t a b l eUnco m f o r t a b l eNeit h e r co m f o r t a b l en o r u n c o m f o r t a b l eDon? t kn ow/Pr e f e r n o t to a n sw e r0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%METRO VANCOUVERMOUNT PLEASANTFigure 3.13: ?How comfortable do you think your neighbours would be if shelter or group home for people with alcohol or drug addiction moved into your neighbourhood?? (from Mount Pleasant survey questions #39)75the ?neighbours ?within ?Mount ?Pleasant ?view ?themselves ?within ?their ?community ?demonstrates ?a ?sense ?of ?connection ?and ?a ?potential ?for ?citizen ?participation ?(Norris ?et ?al., ?2008; ?Pfefferbaum, ?2007).3.6 A Connected CommunitySystems ?in ?nature ?are ?nested ?within ?other ?systems, ?cascading ?their ?effects ?to ?those ?above ?and ?below ?themselves. ?Neighbourhoods ?exist ?in ?a ?similar ?paradigm. ?Beneath ?the ?neighbourhood ?are ?its ?streets, ?made ?up ?of ?various ?typologies ?of ?homes, ?and ?so ?on ?down ?to ?the ?individual ?resident. ?Likewise, ?neighbourhoods, ?such ?as ?Mount ?Pleasant, ?are ?nested ?within ?the ?city ?that ?is ?Vancouver. ?Above ?that, ?the ?city ?exists ?alongside ?the ?others ?that ?form ?Metro ?Vancouver. ?As ?Vancouver ?shares ?its ?source ?of ?water ?with ?the ?entire ?metro ?region, ?residents ?of ?Mount ?Pleasant ?share ?services ?with ?individuals ?from ?throughout ?the ?entire ?city. ?To ?realize ?positive ?and ?lasting ?connections ?across ?boundaries, ?groups ?and ?individuals ?must ?meet ?the ?first ?two ?constructs ?of ?the ?bridging ?pathway ?of ?the ?survey ?model: ?1. ?Freedom ?from ?Discrimination, ?and ?2. ?Sense ?of ?Belonging ?(DiPaula ?et ?al., ?2012, ?p.19). ?These ?in ?turn ?support ?individuals ?Connecting ?across ?Boundaries.The ?lines ?of ?questioning ?highlighted ?in ?the ?previous ?section ?indicate ?how ?the ?residents ?of ?Mount ?Pleasant ?are ?accustomed ?to ?diversity. ?To ?understand ?how ?they ?perceive ?themselves ?and ?their ?place ?within ?the ?larger ?community, ?each ?were ?asked ?if ?they ?experience ?discrimination ?throughout ?their ?daily ?living. ?Three-??quarters ?of ?the ?respondents ?expressed ?how ?they ?do ?not, ?while ?only ?two-??thirds ?of ?the ?respondents ?to ?the ?parent ?survey ?expressed ?the ?same ?sentiment. ?(See ?Figure ?3.14 ?on ?the ?following ?page ?for ?a ?comparison ?of ?responses.) ?When ?asked ?to ?respond ?to ?whether ?or ?not ?most ?people ?are ?tolerant ?of ?different ?ethnic ?groups, ?but ?most ?prefer ?to ?be ?with ?people ?in ?the ?same ?ethnic ?group ?as ?themselves ?(see ?Figure ?3.15), ?17% ?more ?within ?broader ?Metro ?Vancouver ?believe ?this ?to ?be ?true. ?Lastly, ?when ?posed ?with ?the ?statement ?that ?people ?who ?live ?here ?and ?do ?not ?speak ?English ?simply ?do ?not ?try ?hard ?enough ?to ?be ?part ?of ?the ?community ?(see ?Figure ?3.16), ?two-??thirds ?of ?Mount ?Pleasant ?residents, ?twice ?the ?number ?reported ?by ?the ?parent ?survey, ?disagreed ?with ?this ?statement. ?Taken ?together, ?these ?three ?indicators ?clearly ?demonstrate ?a ?strong ?prevalence ?of ?tolerance ?and ?freedom ?from ?7612%56%19%14%2%3%14%15%47%19%?II DO NOT EXPERIENCE DISCRIMINATION IN MY DAY-TO- DAY LIFE.?PARENT SURVEY MOUNT PLEASANT SURVEYDON?T KNOW/PREFER NOT TO ANSWERAGREESTRONGLY AGREE DISAGREESTRONGLY DISAGREENEITHER AGREE OR DISAGREE4%5%23%23%31%13%?PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE AND DO NOT SPEAK ENGLISH  SIMPLY DO NOT TRY H RD ENOUGH TO BE PART OF THE COMMUNITY.? PARENT SURVEY MOUNT PLEASANT SURVEYDON?T KNOW/PREFER NOT TO ANSWERAGREESTRONGLY AGREE DISAGREESTRONGLY DISAGREENEITHER AGREE OR DISAGREEFigure 3.14: ?I do not experience discrimination in my day-to-day life.? (from Mount Pleasant survey question #47)discrimination ?in ?the ?focus ?community. ?Discrimination ?can ?come ?in ?other ?more ?subjective ?forms ?such ?as ?obstacles ?that ?are ?a ?shortfall ?of ?earning ?or ?the ?feeling ?that ?one ?does ?not ?have ?much ?to ?offer. ?Vancouver ?is ?known ?to ?be ?the ?most ?expensive ?place ?to ?live ?in ?North ?America ?(Employment ?Conditions ?Abroad ?Limited, ?2013). ?As ?a ?parallel, ?over ?half ?of ?the ?respondents ?from ?each ?survey ?believe ?that ?Vancouver ?is ?becoming ?a ?resort ?town ?for ?the ?wealthy. ?Therefore, ?one ?could ?understand ?how ?beliefs ?in ?such ?obstacles ?here ?are ?fueled. ?A ?more ?detailed ?understanding ?of ?which ?of ?these ?obstacles ?are ?prevalent ?in ?Mount ?Pleasant ?began ?with ?asking ?how ?well ?each ?are ?managing ?financially ?these ?days? ?The ?response ?for ?both ?surveys ?that ?they ?were ?just ?about ?getting ?by, ?or ?worse, ?hovered ?just ?above ?40%. ?As ?long ?as ?communities ?such ?as ?this ?one ?maintain ?a ?characterization ?of ?mixed-??income ?status, ?its ?low-??income ?individuals ?may ?have ?a ?chance ?to ?avoid ?the ?social ?isolation ?and ?the ?breakdown ?of ?social ?cohesion ?that ?characterizes ?poor ?communities ?(Kawachi ?& ?Kennedy, ?1997; ?Tigges, ?et ?al.,1998).778%33%33%15%10%2%4%5%23%23%31%13%?PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE AND DO NOT SPEAK ENGLISH  SIMPLY DO NOT TRY HARD ENOUGH TO BE PART OF THE COMMUNITY.? PARENT SURVEY MOUNT PLEASANT SURVEYDON?T KNOW/PREFER NOT TO ANSWERAGREESTRONGLY AGREE DISAGREESTRONGLY DISAGREENEITHER AGREE OR DISAGREE4%5%23%23%31%13%?PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE AND DO NOT SPEAK ENGLISH  SIMPLY DO NOT TRY HARD ENOUGH TO BE PART F THE COMMUNITY.? PARENT SURVEY MOUNT PLEASANT SURVEYDON?T KNOW/PREFER NOT TO ANSWERAGREESTRONGLY AGREE DISAGREESTRONGLY DISAGREENEITHER AGREE OR DISAGREEFigure 3.15: ?Most people are tolerant of different ethnic groups, but most prefer to be with people in the same ethnic group as themselves.? (from Mount Pleasant survey questions #50)2%6%25%19%42% 6%3%1%12%20%54%10%?MOST PEOPLE ARE TOLERANT OF DIFFERENT ETHNIC GROUPS BUT MOST PREFER TO BE WITH PEOPLE IN THE SAME ETHNIC GROUP AS THEMSELVES.? PARENT SURVEY MOUNT PLEASANT SURVEYDON?T KNOW/PREFER NOT TO ANSWERAGREESTRONGLY AGREE DISAGREESTRONGLY DISAGREENEITHER AGREE OR DISAGREE4%5%23%23%31%13%?PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE AND DO NOT SPEAK ENGLISH  SIMPLY DO NOT TRY HARD ENOUG  TO BE PART OF THE COMMUNITY.? PARENT SURVEY MOUNT PLEASANT SURVEYDON?T KNOW/PREFER NOT TO ANSWERAGREESTRONGLY AGREE DISAGREESTRONGLY DISAGREENEITHER AGREE OR DISAGREEFigure 3.16: ?People who live here and do not speak nglish simply do NOT try hard enough to be part of the community.? (from Mount Pleasant survey questions #51)78There ?are ?several ?obstacles ?to ?becoming ?involved ?in ?one?s ?community, ?not ?just ?a ?lack ?of ?income. ?See ?Figure ?3.17 ?(on ?the ?following ?page) ?for ?a ?comparison ?of ?the ?findings ?for ?six ?diverse ?obstacles ?specifically ?related ?to ?Mount ?Pleasant ?and ?drawn ?from ?a ?educated ?understanding ?of ?individual ?and ?community ?perceptions ?throughout ?Metro ?Vancouver ?(DiPaula, ?et ?al., ?2012) ?Of ?all ?the ?obstacles ?to ?the ?respondents? ?participation ?in ?activities ?that ?could ?make ?[their] ?neighbourhood ?a ?better ?place ?to ?live, ?was ?twice ?as ?great ?as ?the ?next ?ranking, ?not ?having ?enough ?time. ?Having ?any ?obstacle ?at ?all ?can ?be ?viewed ?as ?a ?negative ?in ?light ?of ?building ?community ?connections. ?However, ?such ?a ?reason ?is ?not ?one ?indicative ?of ?a ?lack ?of ?social ?capital, ?important ?to ?both ?the ?development ?of ?social ?cohesion ?and ?the ?characterization ?of ?resilient ?communities. ?The ?feeling ?that ?they ?did ?not ?have ?much ?to ?offer, ?ranked ?fourth ?in ?the ?list ?and ?accounted ?for ?only ?slightly ?greater ?than ?one-??third ?of ?those ?throughout ?Metro ?Vancouver ?who ?found ?this ?to ?be ?an ?obstacle ?to ?improving ?one?s ?community. ?However, ?feeling ?unwelcome, ?the ?third ?reason ?behind ?not ?having ?enough ?money, ?ranked ?about ?10% ?higher ?than ?it ?did ?for ?all ?of ?Metro ?Vancouver. ?Despite ?Mount ?Pleasant ?being ?a ?more ?welcome ?place ?for ?newcomers, ?it ?appears ?to ?have ?a ?deficit ?regarding ?inclusion.The ?dynamic ?of ?having ?people ?who ?believe ?they ?have ?much ?to ?offer ?their ?community, ?but ?feel ?upheld ?for ?reasons ?of ?not ?feeling ?welcome ?is ?something ?that ?could ?be ?addressed ?through ?programming ?and ?outreach. ?As ?well, ?it ?could ?be ?addressed ?more ?passively ?through ?the ?provision ?of ?a ?shared ?amenity ?in ?the ?public ?realm. ?Kim ?and ?Kaplan ?(2004) ?in ?their ?study ?of ?two ?neighbouring ?North ?American ?communities, ?found ?the ?one ?with ?a ?greater ?network ?of ?public ?open ?spaces, ?which ?included ?such ?things ?as ?wetlands, ?trails, ?and ?playgrounds, ?to ?have ?a ?higher ?prevalence ?of ?social ?interaction ?and ?attachment ?to ?and ?identification ?with ?community. ?In ?a ?study ?closely ?related ?to ?the ?establishment ?of ?the ?St. ?George ?Rainway, ?Gooch ?(2003, ?p.9) ?found ?how ??creating ?a ??sense ?of ?place? ?and ?fostering ?ecological ?identity ?can ?be ?one ?way ?of ?building ?on ?the ?existing ?positive ?impacts? ?of ?volunteer ?groups ?working ?towards ?watershed ?restoration ?and ?preservation.79?IS EACH OF THE FOLLOWING IS A MAJOR OBSTACLE, A MINOR OBSTACLE OR NO OBSTACLE AT ALL TO YOUR PARTICIPATION IN ACTIVITIES THAT COULD MAKE YOUR NEIGHBOURHOOD A BETTER PLACE TO LIVE? ?MAJOR OBSTACLE MINOR OBSTACLE NO OBSTACLE AT ALLA fee l i n g t h a t yo u d o n o t have m u c h to o f f e rA phys i c a l or m e n t a l h e a l t h co n d i t i o nt h a t m a ke s it d i f fi c u l t to ge t i nvo lve dNot havi n g e n o u g h t i m eF e e l i n g u nwe l c o m e dA co n c e r n t h a t yo u d o n o t sp e a k t h el a n g u a g e we l l e n o u g hNot havi n g e n o u g h m o n ey0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%A fee l i n g t h a t yo u d o n o t have m u c h to o f f e rA phys i c a l or m e n t a l h e a l t h co n d i t i o nt h a t m a ke s it d i f fi c u l t to ge t i nvo lve dNot havi n g e n o u g h t i m eF e e l i n g u nwe l c o m e dA co n c e r n t h a t yo u d o n o t sp e a k t h el a n g u a g e we l l e n o u g hNot havi n g e n o u g h m o n ey0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%PARENT SURVEYMOUNT PLEASANT SURVEYFigure 3.17: ?Is each of the following a major obstacle, a minor obstacle, or no obstacle at all to your participation in activities that could make your neighbourhood a better place to live?? (from Mount Pleasant survey questions #62-67)80Apart ?from ?the ?existing ?grid ?of ?right-??of-??ways, ?the ?extent ?to ?which ?its ?public ?space ?amenities ?are ?networked ?is ?nonexistent. ?A ?series ?of ?pocket ?wetlands ?or ?a ?visible ?watershed ?to ?collect ?and ?connect ?the ?evidential ?flows ?along ?curbs, ?into ?gutters, ?and ?through ?Mount ?Pleasant?s ?public ?open ?space ?and ?playgrounds. ?Specifically, ?laneways ?could ?receive ?ornamental ?planting ?and ?permeable ?surfacing ?to ?become ?trails ?or ?escape ?routes ?to ?destination ?green ?space. ?Sections ?of ?the ?grid ?could ?have ?their ?impermeable ?asphalt ?repurposed ?by ?volunteer ?groups ?and ?transformed ?into ?rain ?gardens ?and ?greenspace ?to ?create ?spines ?for ?social ?interaction ?and ?ecological ?benefit. ?Portions ?of ?larger ?swaths ?of ?low-??lying ?grassland ?found ?within ?parks ?or ?on ?school ?grounds ?could ?become ?a ?network ?of ?pocket ?wetlands. ?Historically, ?such ?sites ?were ?considered ?less ?desirable ?land ?since ?they ?were ?low-??lying ?and ?were ?often ?occupied ?by ?bogs ?or ?wetlands. ?Portions ?of ?these ?sites ?could ?revisit ?their ?historical ?ecological ?function ?and ?become ?dedicated ?to ?remediating ?polluted ?runoff.3.7 Mount Pleasant & The RainwayThe ?nine ?questions ?that ?did ?not ?appear ?as ?part ?of ?the ?parent ?survey ?were ?designed ?specifically ?to ?gain ?insight ?into ?such ?foci ?as ?how ?the ?community ?might ?respond ?to ?a ?project ?like ?the ?St. ?George ?Rainway. ?One ?question ?from ?both ?surveys: ?In ?the ?past ?12 ?months, ?have ?you ?done ?any ?volunteer ?work ?for ?any ?organization ?or ?group? ?solicited ?a ?response ?from ?those ?in ?Mount ?Pleasant ?that ?77% ?had ?done ?so ?(as ?compared ?to ?49% ?for ?Metro ?Vancouver). ?Of ?this ?number, ?nearly ?80% ?claim ?to ?take ?part ?in ?such ?work ?at ?least ?once ?per ?month, ?while ?nearly ?one-??third ?make ?this ?at ?least ?a ?weekly ?activity. ?If ?this ?volunteer ?work ?was ?focused ?in ?Mount ?Pleasant, ?82% ?said ?they ?would ?participate ?regardless ?of ?the ?nature ?of ?the ?work, ?while ?no ?one ?offered ?an ?outright ?denial ?of ?participation. ?These ?findings ?from ?the ?Mount ?Pleasant ?survey ?therefore ?are ?indicative ?of ?a ?support ?of ?community ?engagement ?and ?participation ?and ?a ?presence ?of ?social ?capital.The ?final ?section ?of ?the ?survey, ?titled ?St. ?George ?Street, ?built ?upon ?the ?noted ?broad ?questions ?about ?volunteering, ?and ?focused ?on ?past ?and ?future ?work ?for ?the ?Rainway. ?Using ?the ?mural ?painting ?between ?7th ?and ?8th, ?with ?which ?78% ?of ?the ?participants ?stated ?they ?were ?already ?familiar, ?it ?was ?learned ?that ?such ?interventions ?could ?have ?a ?positive ?effect ?on ?such ?a ?community ?as ?Mount ?Pleasant. ?Besides ?the ?two ?individuals ?who ?were ?very ?81Figure 3.18: CityRepair ?Sunnyside Piazza? project in Portland, OR (Michael Pittman, 2008)upset ?by ?the ?mural ?painting, ?it ?was ?shown ?to ?increase ?both ?the ?collective ?knowledge ?of ?local ?natural ?systems ?(for ?68% ?of ?the ?respondents), ?as ?well ?as ?encourage ?interest ?in ?volunteering ?for ?future ?work ?with ?the ?Rainway ?(88% ?said ?yes). ?Of ?those ?whose ?impressions ?of ?the ?project ?changed ?after ?the ?mural ?was ?painted ?(42% ?experienced ?no ?change), ?only ?one ?individual ?had ?a ?negative ?response. ?In ?addition, ?the ?response ?profile ?was ?rather ?similar ?for ?the ?body ?of ?respondents ?when ?asked ?how ?did ?their ?feelings ?change ?about ?the ?project ?after ?it ?was ?complete? ?(see ?Figure ?3.19 ?on ?the ?following ?page) ?and ?how ?it ?affected ?their ?level ?of ?engagement ?within ?the ?community? ?(see ?Figure ?3.20 ?on ?the ?following ?page).The ?work ?of ?City ?Repair, ?a ?nonprofit ?group ?from ?Portland, ?Oregon, ?precedes ?that ?of ?the ?St. ?George ?Rainway ?group ?and ?is ?a ?valuable ?precedent ?for ?both ?City ?Repair?s ?ideas ?and ?the ?proven ?potential ?of ?their ?projects. ?Projects ?facilitated ?by ?them ?are ?focused ?on ?developing ??artistic ?and ?ecologically-??oriented ?placemaking ?through ?projects ?that ?honor ?the ?interconnection ?of ?human ?communities ?and ?the ?natural ?world? ?(City ?Repair, ?2013). ?They ?work ?with ?community ?to ?design ?interventions ?within ?the ?public ?realm, ?including ?street ?murals, ?public ?furniture, ?and ?gardens. ?(See ?Figure ?3.18.) ?Indicators ?of ?such ?projects ?that ?took ?place ?in ?three ?different ?neighbourhoods ?in ?82?HOW DID YOUR FEELINGS CHANGE ABOUT THE PROJECT AFTER IS WAS COMPLETE? ?Ve r y m u c h f o r t h e b e t t e rSli g h t ly f o r t h e b e t t e rNo ch a n g eSli g h t ly f o r t h e wo r s eVe r y m u c h f o r t h e wo r s eDon? t kn owPr e f e r n o t to a n sw e r0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%Figure 3.19: ?How did your feelings change about the project after it was complete?? (from Mount Pleasant survey questions #83)?HOW DID THE MURAL PROJECT CHANGE YOUR LEVEL OF ENGAGEMENT WITHIN THE COMMUNITY? ?Grea t ly i n c r e a s e d itSli g h t ly i n c r e a s e d itNo ch a n g eSli g h t ly d e c r e a s e d itVe r y m u c h d e c r e a s e d itDon? t kn ow/ Pr e f e r n o t to a n sw e r0 8% 16% 24% 32% 40%Figure 3.20: ?How did the mural project change your level of engagement within the community?? (from Mount Pleasant survey questions #84)83Portland ?demonstrate ?an ?increase ?in ?sense ?of ?community, ?improvement ?in ?mental ?health, ?and ?a ?growth ?in ?social ?capital ?(Semenza ?et ?al., ?2007; ?Semenza ?& ?Krishnasamy, ?2007; ?Semenza ?& ?March, ?2009).An ?important ?aspect ?to ?such ?projects ?that ?empower ?collective ?action ?within ?community ?is ?to ?sustain ?the ?social ?capital ?that ?it, ?in ?part, ?establishes. ?As ?will ?be ?highlighted ?by ?the ?summary ?of ?stakeholder ?and ?expert ?interviews, ?sustaining ?a ?volunteer ?base ?is ?proven ?to ?be ?a ?challenge ?of ?primary ?interest. ?The ?work ?of ?City ?Repair ?focuses ?on ?social ?capital ?to ?build ?strength ?into ?the ?core ?of ?each ?of ?their ?community-??driven ?initiatives. ??A ?community ?that ?has ?built ?social ?capital ?has ?a ?collective ?understanding ?that ?they ?themselves ?can ?affect ?change ?in ?their ?lives. ?Social ?capital ?will ?guide ?any ?neighbourhood ?through ?the ?process ?of ?realizing ?their ?vision? ?(City ?Repair, ?2006, ?p. ?35). ?Figure ?3.21 ?(on ?the ?following ?page) ?illustrates ?the ?social ?capital ??sustainability ?cycle? ?for ?transforming ?the ?public ?realm ?into ?an ?expression ?of ?community ?collaboration ?and ?creativity. ?As ?diagrammed ?in ?the ?figure, ?the ?work ?of ?City ?Repair ?hypothesizes ?that ?Participation ?generates ?Social ?Capital ?(the ?bonding ?pathway) ?that ?is, ?in ?turn, ?responsible ?for ?Linking ?Social ?Capital ?(the ?bridging ?pathway). ?This ?ultimately ?leads ?to ?Collective ?Action ?that ?feeds ?into ?the ?collective ?awareness ?of ?a ?locality, ?thus ?feeding ?the ?potential ?promotion ?of ?the ?next ?project ?and ?phase ?of ?Participation ?(Semenza ?et ?al., ?2006). ?Since ?1996, ?this ?model ?has ?been ?used ?with ?repeat ?success ?by ?the ?organization.By ?the ?sustainability ?cycle ?model, ?the ?community ?in ?Mount ?Pleasant ?working ?towards ?the ?realization ?of ?the ?Rainway ?has ?completed ?one ?full ?cycle. ?By ?all ?measures ?of ?the ?survey ?and ?from ?a ?portion ?of ?the ?qualitative ?evidence ?gathered ?through ?selected ?interviews, ?the ?mural ?painting ?has ?begun ?the ?processes ?of ?strengthening ?the ?bonding ?and ?bridging ?pathways ?within ?the ?community. ?By ?measures ?of ?the ?comparative ?study ?with ?the ?parent ?survey, ?Mount ?Pleasant ?better ?embodies ?a ?majority ?of ?the ?eight ?domains ?of ?social ?capital ?than ?does ?Metro ?Vancouver. ?This ?was ?determined ?by ?comparing ?the ?answers ?to ?the ?questions ?with ?the ?greatest ?weight ?as ?determined ?by ?the ??Caring ?and ?Involved ?Residents? ?model. ?Each ?of ?the ?answers ?were ?tallied ?as ??greater,? ?84SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY CYCLE for HEALTH PROMOTION & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDESIGN WORKSHOPSPROJECT CONSTRUCTIONDESIGN/PLAN/PERMITTINGURBANBLIGHTCOMMUNITYARTSOCIAL ACTIVITIES &COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENTBRIDGING SOCIAL CAPITALBONDING SOCIAL CAPITALP A R T I C I P A T I ONCOL LECT IVE  A CT IO NFigure 3.21: ?Sustainability Cycle? for health promotion and community development (diagram adapted from Semenza et al., 2006, p. 10)?equal,? ?or ??less ?than? ?with ?factorial ?scoring. ?The ?result ?was ?a ?simplified ?means ?to ?compare ?the ?results ?of ?each ?survey. ?(See ?Figure ?3.22 ?on ?the ?following ?page.)A ?finer ?grained ?examination ?of ?the ?survey ?results ?offers ?direct ?evidence ?of ?a ?greater ?existence ?of ?participation, ?supporting ?networks, ?trust, ?and ?belonging ?was ?highlighted ?in ?the ?survey. ?Further, ?the ?subset ?of ?individuals ?represented ?by ?the ?street ?mural ?implementation, ?and ?the ?additional ?questions ?present ?in ?the ?Mount ?Pleasant ?survey, ?illustrated ?the ?existence ?of ?collective ?norms ?and ?values, ?associational ?activity, ?and ?empowerment. ?Safety, ?the ?remaining ?domain, ?was ?not ?directly ?shown ?to ?exist, ?yet ?its ?existence ?was ?not ?disproven. ?One ?could ?also ?argue ?a ?greater ?presence ?of ?safety ?in ?Mount ?Pleasant ?by ?default ?of ?its ?interconnectedness ?with ?the ?other ?findings. ?Without ?a ?sense ?of ?safety, ?growing ?such ?things ?as ?trust ?and ?participation ?would ?be ?hindered ?and ?unable ?85RELATIVE FACTORIAL SCORING WITHIN THE THREE SCALES OF THE ?CARING AND INVOLVED RESIDENTS? MODELPe r s o n a l Fr i e n d s h i p sNei g h b o u r s & Nei g h b o u r l i n e s sA Conn e c t e d Com m u n i tyMETRO VANCOUVERMOUNT PLEASANT10 32RELATIVE FACTORIAL SCORING WITHIN THE THREE SCALES OF THE ?CARING AND INVOLVED RESIDENTS? MODELPe r s o n a l Fr i e n d s h i p sNei g h b o u r s & Nei g h b o u r l i n e s sA Conn e c t e d Com m u n i tyMETRO VANCOUVERMOUNT PLEASANT10 32Figure 3.21: The relative factorial scoring of the ?Caring and Involved Residents? model between the two surveys.to ?outrank ?findings ?from ?the ?parent ?survey. ?The ?embodiment ?of ?these ?domains ?bodes ?well ?for ?repetition ?of ?the ?sustainability ?cycle ?for ?social ?capital. ?The ?intention ?with ?the ?strategies ?for ?design ?is ?to ?phase ?its ?development ?and ?implementation, ?coupled ?with ?a ?community-??managed ?maintenance ?program, ?to ?build ?upon ?the ?initial ?bonding ?and ?bridging ?cycle ?and ?exponentially ?grow ?social ?capital.Social ?cohesion ?is ?founded ?upon ?social ?capital. ?It ?manifests ?itself ?in ?community ?first, ?and ?not ?in ?a ?top-??down ?fashion ?(Forrest ?and ?Kearns, ?2001). ?Therefore, ?as ?discussed ?in ?Chapter ?2, ?the ?public ?realm ?offers ?the ?best ?opportunity ?for ?a ?collaboration ?between ?city ?and ?community ?to ?improve ?social ?capital. ?However, ?in ?some ?cases, ?such ?as ?those ?where ?a ?neighbourhood ?block ?watch, ?grown ?from ?a ?strong ?presence ?of ?social ?capital, ?begins ?to ?grow ?distrust ?of ?other ?groups, ?the ?bottom-??up ?approach ?could ?lead ?to ?an ?eventual ?decline ?in ?social ?capital ?(Fukuyama, ?1999). ?Social ?capital ?should ?therefore ?be ?viewed ?as ??important ?not ?for ?its ?own ?sake, ?but ?for ?what ?one ?does ?with ?it, ?or ?can ?attain ?by ?it, ?as ?with ?other ?forms ?of ?capital? ?(Forrest ?and ?Kearns, ?2001, ?p.2141). ?In ?the ?86case ?of ?Mount ?Pleasant, ?it ?would ?benefit ?the ?City ?of ?Vancouver ?to ?harness ?the ?positive ?nature ?of ?the ?social ?capital ?that ?exists ?within ?Mount ?Pleasant. ?It ?could ?do ?so ?by ?supporting ?the ?actions ?of ?St. ?George ?Rainway ?group ?with ?policy ?and ?actions ?that ?offer ?opportunities ?for ?participation ?in ?the ?decision-??making ?process, ?building ?networks ?of ?organizations ?with ?common ?purpose, ?fostering ?new ?and ?existing ?synergies ?and ?connections ?between ?individuals ?and ?groups, ?promoting ?interests ?of ?the ?community, ?and ?help ?with ?growing ?the ?community?s ?sense ?of ?place ?through ?design ?intervention ?within ?the ?public ?realm ?(refer ?to ?Figure ?2.6 ?in ?Chapter ?2 ?for ?more). ?It ?is ?within ?the ?public ?realm ?where ?people ?can ?grow ?their ?relationships ?with ?one ?another ?and ?with ?place. ?The ?higher ?level ?of ?social ?cohesion ?in ?Mount ?Pleasant ?relative ?to ?Metro ?Vancouver ?could ?be ?rooted ?in ?the ?makeup ?of ?individuals ?who ?reside ?there; ?it ?could ?be ?due ?to ?the ?predominant ?typology ?of ?residential ?buildings ?with ?porches ?fronted ?by ?tree-??lined ?sidewalk ?streets ?(Katz ?et ?al., ?1994); ?or ?it ?could ?respond ?to ?the ?groups ?and ?institutions ?that ?exist ?in ?Mount ?Pleasant ?and ?promote ?various ?domains ?of ?social ?capital. ?Additional ?research ?would ?produce ?findings ?as ?to ?the ?relevancy ?of ?each ?of ?these ?drivers, ?but ?regardless ?of ?the ?driver ?of ?social ?cohesion, ?the ?setting ?and ?people ?of ?Mount ?Pleasant ?offer ?a ?greater ?opportunity ?for ?success. ?The ?St. ?George ?Rainway ?is ?both ?the ?desired ?outcome ?for ?members ?of ?the ?community ?and ?a ?vehicle ?of ?promise ?for ?the ?City ?of ?Vancouver ?to ?promote ?growth ?of ?social ?capital ?and ?thus, ?social ?cohesion ?amongst ?its ?communities. ?It ?is ?a ?safer ?bet ?to ?start ?in ?Mount ?Pleasant: ?after ?all, ?those ?with ?head ?starts ?have ?greater ?promise ?of ?success.874 Qualifying Characteristics of Resilient Community The Interviews of Experts & Stakeholders4.1 A SynopsisWhere ?the ?previous ?chapter ?offered ?quantifiable ?results ?demonstrating ?the ?relative ?strength ?of ?social ?cohesion ?in ?the ?Mount ?Pleasant ?community, ?this ?chapter ?tackles ?qualification ?of ?perspectives ?through ?deeper ?inquiry ?and ?representative ?voices. ?Each ?of ?the ?eight ?interviews ?performed ?for ?this ?thesis ?embody ?an ?archetype, ?through ?which ?the ?ten ?characteristics ?of ?resilient ?communities ?(shown ?again ?below) ?have ?a ?voice.THE 10 PRIMARY CHARACTERISTICSOF RESILIENT COMMUNITIESA Hig h D e g r e e o f D ive r s i t yKEY DESCRIPTORS: h e t e r o g e n e o u s , m u l t i d i s c i p l i n a r y, m u l t i f u n c t i o n a l Effe c t ive Gove r n a n c e & Ins t i t u t i o n sKEY DESCRIPTORS: d e c e n t r a l i z e d , l i n k e d , a c c o u n t a b l e Acc e p t a n c e o f Cha n g e & Unc e r t a i n t yKEY DESCRIPTORS: f l e x i b l e , a d a p t i v e , t e s t a b l e Non - e q u i l i b r i u m Sys t e m Dy n a m i c sKEY DESCRIPTORS: e n e r g y - c o n s e r v i n g , e c o l o g i c a l l y - b a l a n c e d Com m u n i t y Eng a g e m e n t & Part i c i p a t i o nKEY DESCRIPTORS: l o c a l , s e n s e o f ow n e r s h i p , p l a c e - b a s e d Ca p a c i t y fo r Pre p a r e d n e s s & Pla n n i n gKEY DESCRIPTORS: re d u n d a n t , y i e l d i n g , p r o j e c t i n gA Hig h D e g r e e o f Eq u i t yKEY DESCRIPTORS: a c c e s s i b l e , u n b i a s e d , e g a l i t a r i a nPre s e n c e o f Soc i a l Ca p i t a lKEY DESCRIPTORS: p a r t i c i p a t i n g , s u p p o r t i v e , t r u s t i n g , we l c o m i n g , e n g a g e d , c o n n e c t e dCa p a c i t y fo r Lea r n i n gKEY DESCRIPTORS: c r e a t i v e , a c t i v e l e a r n i n g , k n o w l e d g e r e t e n t i o nA Cros s - s c a l a r Pers p e c t iveKEY DESCRIPTORS: c r o s s - t e m p o r a l , c r o s s - s p a c i a l , c a s c a d i n g1.2.3.4.5. 6.7.8.9.10.88The ?first ?section ?of ?this ?chapter ?provides ?the ?framing ?for ?the ?individuals ?chosen ?for ?interviews ?as ?well ?as ?the ?methods ?used ?for ?the ?interview ?process. ?Also ?included ?is ?a ?justification ?for ?the ?use ?of ?archetypes ?as ?a ?mode ?for ?transference ?of ?insight. ?The ?following ?eight ?sections ?correspond ?with ?each ?of ?the ?archetypes ?(interviewees) ?and ?the ?themes ?to ?which ?their ?interviews ?most ?apply. ?(See ?Appendix ?B ?for ?full ?transcripts ?of ?each ?interview.) ?Lastly, ?the ?concluding ?section ?calls ?attention ?to ?the ?Green ?Streets ?and ?Country ?Lanes ?programs ?discussed ?throughout ?several ?of ?the ?interviews ?and ?assesses ?their ?viability ?as ?precedence ?for ?the ?St. ?George ?Rainway.4.2 The Interviews: Framing & Methods4.2.1 Interview FramingThe ?survey ?results ?situate ?the ?neighbourhood ?of ?Mount ?Pleasant ?as ?one ?with ?evidence ?of ?stronger ?bonding ?and ?bridging ?pathways ?than ?that ?of ?broader ?Metro ?Vancouver. ?The ?data ?highlighted ?for ?analysis ?lays ?the ?foundational ?argument ?of ?a ?stronger ?presence ?of ?social ?cohesion ?within ?the ?neighbourhood. ?Such ?a ?presence ?offers ?a ?greater ?potential ?for ?success ?with ?the ?St. ?George ?Rainway: ?a ?pedestrian-??focused ?infrastructural ?intervention ?within ?the ?public ?realm.A ?deeper ?and ?more ?nuanced ?understanding ?of ?how ?to ?grow ?social ?cohesion ?is ?garnered ?through ?the ?voices ?of ?experts ?and ?stakeholders. ?Those ?chosen ?to ?be ?interviewed ?were ?an ?equal ?mix ?of ?perspectives ?originating ?in ?the ?community ?of ?Mount ?Pleasant, ?or ?from ?the ?City ?of ?Vancouver. ?The ?social ?realm ?addressed ?by ?the ?ten ?characteristics ?of ?resilient ?communities, ?is ?one ?that ?relies ?upon ?fruitful ?and ?healthy ?interaction ?between ?a ?metropolis ?and ?its ?neighbourhoods?between ?a ?bureaucrat ?and ?a ?citizen?or ?between ?a ?grassroots ?organizer ?and ?a ?city ?planner. ?A ?high ?degree ?of ?diversity ?is ?required ?with ?decision ?making, ?such ?that ?it ?comes ?from ?both ?stakeholders ?with ?local ?indigenous ?knowledge ?as ?much ?as ?it ?does ?from ?those ?with ?a ?data-??driven ?planning ?perspective ?(Osbahr, ?2007). ?Effective ?governance ?and ?institutions ?throughout ?a ?particular ?jurisdiction ?are ?inextricably ?linked ?through ?the ?local ?context ?in ?which ?they ?both ?exist ?and ?function. ?A ?decentralized ?decision ?making ?structure ?is ?key ?to ?adaptive ?practices ?(Martin-??Breen ?& ?Anderies, ?2011). ?The ?levels ?of ?attachment ?to ?place ?are ?directly ?related ?to ?the ?community ?engagement ?and ?participation ?that ?are ?inspired ?by ?that ?place ?(Manzo ?& ?89Perkins, ?2006; ?Cantrill ?& ?Senecah, ?2001; ?Low ?& ?Altman, ?1992). ?Community ?members ?have ?as ?much ?responsibility  ?to ?growing ?a ?place ?as ?city ?officials ?do ?with ?providing ?the ?freedoms ?and ?physical ?typologies ?through ?with ?such ?activity ?can ?flourish.Though ?only ?three ?of ?the ?characteristics ?were ?just ?mentioned, ?each ?of ?the ?ten ?embody ?at ?some ?level ?a ?necessity ?for ?collaboration ?between ?the ?people ?and ?their ?governing ?body. ?For ?the ?interviews, ?a ?series ?of ?individuals ?were ?chosen ?to ?capture ?a ?perspective ?different ?from ?the ?next, ?with ?regard ?to ?the ?concept ?of ?social ?cohesion ?in ?the ?context ?of ?the ?neighbourhood ?of ?Mount ?Pleasant. ?Interviews ?of ?the ?following ?individuals ?were ?administered:THE EIGHT INTERVIEWEESSara Orc h a r dMe m b e r o f En g i n e e r i n g Se rv i c e s Bra n c h o f t h e City o f Va n c o u v e rMa n a g e r o f t h e Gre e n St r e e t s Pro g r a mMike Kl a s s e nPa s t Mem b e r o f Va n c o u v e r City Pla n n i n g Co m m i s s i o n Res i d e n t o f Ke n s i n g t o n -Ce d a r Cot t a g e & c a r e t a k e r f o r i t s Co u n t r y La n e Sa n d r a J a m e sPa s t Ne i g h b o r h o o d Pla n n e r f o r City o f Va n c o u v e rCo - c r e a t o r o f s u c h c i t y - c o m m u n i t y c o l l a b o r a t i v e p r o g r a m s a s Co u n t r y La n e sJ oyc e Lee Uye s u g iCu r r e n t Mou n t Ple a s a n t Ne i g h b o u r h o o d Pla n n e r f o r City o f Va n c o u v e r  Sha h i r a Sa kiya m aRe s i d e n t o f Mou n t Ple a s a n tCo m m u n i t y o r g a n i z e r f o r t h e St . Geo r g e Ra i n w a y Pro j e c t Te r e s a Com e a u & Bar ry Cal h o u nRe s i d e n t c o u p l e o f Mou n t Ple a s a n t w h o l i v e a l o n g St . Geo r g e St r e e tSue Steve n s o nCu r r e n t Pri n c i p a l o f Mou n t Ple a s a n t Ele m e n t a r y Sc h o o lNao m i Ste i n b e r gRe s i d e n t o f Mou n t Ple a s a n tCo m m u n i t y a r t i s t a n d o r g a n i z e r f o r t h e St . Geo r g e Ra i n w a y Pro j e c t1.2.3.4.5. 6.7.8.904.2.2 Interview MethodsThe ?interview ?process ?involved ?meeting ?each ?interviewee ?on ?the ?day ?and ?at ?the ?time ?and ?location ?of ?their ?choosing. ?Each ?interview ?lasted ?from ?30 ?to ?50 ?minutes ?and ?were ?intentionally ?unstructured. ?This ?style ?of ?unstructured ?interviewing ?was ?chosen ?for ?a ?two ?primary ?reasons: ?1. ?It ?provided ?freedom ?for ?a ?line ?of ?questioning ?that ?was ?not ?rigid ?and ?offered ?opportunities ?for ?topic ?negotiation ?from ?the ?interviewees, ?thus ?inspiring ?potential ?for ?deeper ?inquiry ?and ?individual ?perspective, ?and ?2. ?The ?individuals ?interviewed ?were ?chosen ?for ?their ?position ?and ?ability ?to ?represent ?perspectives ?broader ?than ?their ?own, ?thus ?offering ?a ?collective ?voice ?larger ?than ?the ?sum ?of ?the ?participants ?In ?addition, ?the ?interviewing ?approach ?provided ?(Hammersley ?& ?Atkinson, ?1995; ?Hollway ?& ?Jefferson, ?1997; ?Miller ?& ?Crabtree, ?1999).The ?eight ?were ?chosen ?and ?characterized ?as ?archetypes ?to ?focus ?the ?discussion ?of ?resilient ?communities ?in ?the ?context ?of ?Mount ?Pleasant ?and ?greater ?Vancouver. ?Archetypes ?have ?been ?used ?in ?both ?ecological ?and ?socioecological ?applications ?of ?resilience ?(Bennett ?et ?al., ?2005; ?Eisenack ?et ?al., ?2006). ?They ?can ?act ?as ?surrogates ?or ?proxies ?that ?have ?been ?developed ?from ?a ?combination ?of ?theory ?and ?case ?studies ?to ?help ?test ?and ?hypothesize ?impacts ?of ?various ?scenarios. ?Eisenack ?et ?al. ?(2006, ?p.13) ?further ?qualifies ?this ?with:?our ?understanding ?and ?design ?of ?institutions ?governing ?environmental ?conditions ?can ?substantially ?benefit ?from ?methods ?bridging ?the ?gap ?between ?case-??specific ?and ?generalized ?reasoning. ?Archetypes ?are ?between ?these ?extremes. ?The ?approach ?has ?the ?further ?advantage ?that?depending ?on ?the ?needs ?of ?the ?study ?and ?the ?capacities ?of ?the ?involved ?teams?it ?can ?be ?expanded ?towards ?a ?formal ?as ?well ?as ?towards ?a ?qualitative ?analysis.The ?ethnographic ?lens ?that ?each ?of ?the ?interviewees ?offers ?also ?exist ?between ?generalized ?and ?case-??specific ?reasoning. ?In ?turn, ?they ?grow ?one?s ?understanding ?of ?the ?framing ?for ?this ?study ?and ?the ?potential ?form ?it ?will ?take. ?The ?shared ?perspectives ?through ?the ?lenses ?of ?archetypes ?allows ?for ?a ?transference ?of ?ideas ?and ?insightful ?correlation ?with ?the ?theoretical ?basis ?for ?resilient ?communities. ?Each ?interview ?began ?with ?a ?discussion ?of ?the ?interviewee?s ?perspective ?of ?social ?cohesion ?in ?the ?context ?of ?Mount ?Pleasant, ?but ?none ?traced ?an ?identical ?path ?91of ?exploration ?and ?conviction. ?The ?archetypes ?grew ?from ?the ?detailed ?transcriptions ?and ?using ?qualitative ?analytic ?coding ?process ?for ?each ?interview. ?This ?process ?involved ?a ?word-??by-??word ?transcription, ?followed ?by ?a ?line-??by-??line ?analysis ?to ?develop ?the ?coding ?of ?the ?data. ?Otherwise ?known ?as ?grounded ?theory, ?this ?process ?did ?not ?begin ?with ?hypotheses, ?but ?rather ?enabled ?the ?development ?of ?themes ?and ?archetypes ?to ?grow ?from ?the ?coding ?itself ?(Charmaz, ?2006; ?Emerson, ?Fretz ?& ?Shaw, ?2011). ?In ?the ?same ?order ?they ?were ?introduced ?by ?name ?and ?title, ?the ?archetypes ?are ?that ?of:THE EIGHT ARCHETYPESThe Exe m p l a rSa r a Orc h a r dTh e Advo c a t eMi k e K l a s s e n  The Exp e r tSa n d r a J a m e sTh e Man a g e rJ o y c e Le e Uye s u g i  The Con n e c t o rSh a h i r a Sa k i y a m a The Cha m p i o n sTe r e s a Co m e a u & Ba r r y Ca l h o u nTh e Lon gv i ewSue Steve n s o nTh e Vi s i o n a r yNa o m i Ste i n b e r g1.2.3.4.5. 6.7.8.The ?goal ?of ?creating ?these ?profiles ?was ?to ?provide ?a ?transferrable ?means ?for ?application ?of ?the ?ten ?characteristics ?of ?resilient ?communities. ?More ?than ?one ?characteristic ?will ?apply ?to ?each ?archetype. ?Following ?are ?the ?insights ?from ?each ?of ?the ?eight.924.3 The Exemplar and Green StreetsSara ?Orchard ?agreed ?to ?meet ?for ?coffee ?at ?a ?spot ?close ?enough ?to ?the ?Engineering ?Services ?offices ?to ?allow ?her ?adequate ?time ?to ?deliver ?more ?than ?the ?marketing ?sound ?bytes ?of ?Vancouver?s ?successful ?Green ?Streets ?program. ?The ?program ?uses ?volunteer ?labour ?to ?maintain ?aesthetic ?planting ?of ?traffic ?calming ?circles ?and ?boulevards ?(City ?of ?Vancouver, ?2013a). ?The ?trade-??off ?for ?sitting ?outside ?to ?enjoy ?the ?sun ?was ?having ?to ?manage ?the ?noise ?and ?exhaust ?of ?the ?bustling ?Broadway ?corridor. ?With ?more ?time ?to ?spare, ?perhaps ?a ?tour ?of ?one ?of ?the ?planted ?traffic ?circles ?would ?have ?taken ?place. ?Yet, ?with ?such ?a ?prevalence ?throughout ?the ?city, ?an ?introduction ?to ?their ?existence ?was ?hardly ?necessary.Sara, ?a ?landscape ?architect ?by ?training, ?is ?the ?current ?Green ?Streets ?Program ?Coordinator. ?She ?and ?the ?program ?she ?manages ?act ?as ?the ?exemplar, ?or ?the ?best-??suited ?active ?precedent, ?for ?demonstrating ?community ?engagement ?with ?a ?City ?of ?Vancouver ?initiative. ?By ?nature ?of ?the ?initiative, ?Sara ?and ?the ?Green ?Streets ?Program ?embody ?the ?fifth ?characteristic ?of ?resilient ?communities: ?community ?engagement ?& ?participation. ?This ?characteristic ?grows ?in ?direct ?relationship ?with ?the ?place ?attachment ?developed ?within ?the ?volunteers ?(Manzo ?& ?Perkins, ?2006; ?Cantrill ?& ?Senecah, ?2001; ?Low ?& ?Altman, ?1992). ?Anecdotally, ?Sara ?provided ?the ?following ?that ?helps ?demonstrate ?this ?relationship:This ?one ?woman ?I ?was ?interviewing ?who ?lived ?in ?a ?high-??rise ?told ?me ?a ?story ?of ?how ?she ?one ?day ?noticed ?one ?of ?the ?green ?street ?signs ?and ?decided ?to ?call. ?Even ?though ?she ?was ?nervous ?about ?what ?it ?was ?going ?to ?entail, ?if ?people ?were ?going ?to ?judge ?her ?by ?what ?she ?planted?but ?once ?she ?started ?to ?volunteer, ?she ?was ?hooked ?instantly. ?There ?was ?something ?about ?being ?able ?to ?work ?on ?the ?ground ?and ?dig ?in ?the ?soil ?that ?captured ?her. ?Being ?connected ?to ?the ?earth ?was ?a ?much ?different ?sensation ?for ?her ?than ?what ?she ?experienced ?in ?her ?elevated ?home.According ?to ?Sara, ?her ?program ?has ?the ?most ?success ?with ?volunteer ?recruitment ?in ?neighbourhoods ?with ?higher ?housing ?density. ?Her ?hypothesis ?for ?this ?is ?that ??people ?who ?live ?in ?condos ?or ?multi-??family ?residences ?have ?less ?access ?to ?greenspace, ?such ?as ?lawns, ?so ?they ?seek ?it ?out ?more.?93Figure 4.1: Green Street at 4th and Yukon (City of Vancouver, n.d.)Figure 4.2: Green Street at 8th and Maple (City of Vancouver, n.d.)94With ?such ?a ?program ?as ?this, ?where ?a ?lack ?of ?volunteers ?would ?force ?it ?into ?nonexistence, ?the ?dynamics ?involved ?with ?recruiting ?and ?maintaining ?a ?volunteer ?base ?are ?given ?much ?attention. ?The ?frequency ?by ?which ?this ?was ?mentioned ?throughout ?the ?transcript?over ?two ?dozen ?times ?for ?a ?40-??minute ?interview?demonstrates ?this. ?Besides ?the ?mention ?of ?there ?being ??high ?gardener ?turnaround ?in ?the ?areas ?where ?there ?is ?a ?high ?renter ?turnaround,? ?things ?such ?as ?project ?scale ?and ?duration ?also ?impact, ?and ?are ?impacted ?by, ?the ?volunteers. ?In ?Sara?s ?words: ??A ?lot ?of ?volunteers ?are ?very ?ambitious ?and ?very ?excited ?about ?gardening, ?but ?don?t ?necessarily ?understand ?the ?ramifications ?of ?how ?that ?maintenance ?is ?ongoing. ?It?s ?not ?just ?one ?or ?two ?seasons; ?it?s ?about ?also ?considering ?what ?happens ?ten ?years ?down ?the ?road.? ?Sustaining ?this ?excitement ?and ?drive ?to ?volunteer ?will ?be ?a ?perpetual ?challenge ?for ?her ?program. ?She ?continues ?with: ?Volunteering ?is ?great, ?but ?we ?all ?know ?how ?life ?can ?get ?busy ?sometimes. ?People ?are ?tied ?to ?their ?jobs ?and ?to ?their ?families ?and ?it ?is ?no ?fault ?of ?a ?volunteer?s ?if ?they ?cannot ?put ?as ?much ?effort ?into ?a ?garden ?as ?they ?have ?in ?the ?past?As ?we ?grow ?and ?change ?throughout ?the ?years, ?our ?life ?situation ?changes, ?so ?we ?may ?not ?have ?the ?same ?time ?to ?volunteer ?anymore. ?Volunteering ?is ?a ?very ?different ?type ?of ?commitment. ?It ?would ?be ?good ?to ?have ?a ?paid ?position ?involved?It?s ?a ?stronger ?pillar ?in ?the ?ground, ?so ?to ?speak, ?than ?just ?having ?a ?few ?neighbours.Public-??nonprofit ?partnerships ?would ?help. ?Sara ?identified ?groups ?like ?Evergreen, ??a ?national ?not-??for-??profit ?that ?inspires ?action ?to ?green ?cities? ?(Evergreen, ?2013) ?that ?have ?paid ?staff ?that ?could ?in ?various ?capacities ?become ?involved. ? ?Public-??private ?partnerships ?could ?also ?help. ?They ?offer ?the ?identified ?shortfall ?in ?city-??budget ?funding, ?mentioned ?on ?more ?than ?one ?occasion ?over ?the ?duration ?of ?the ?interview. ?The ?original ?commitment ?of ?the ?program ?was ?how ?the ?City ?of ?Vancouver ?would ??provide ?[volunteers] ?with ?the ?up-??front ?costs ?to ?initiate ?all ?the ?work, ?while ?the ?community ?is ?responsible ?for ?maintaining ?it.? ?Because ?the ?city ?is ?at ?a ??tipping ?point? ?with ?their ?budget, ?Sara ?stated ?how ??with ?new ?projects, ?we ?try ?to ?get ?gardeners ?in ?ahead ?of ?time. ?If ?we ?don?t ?find ?a ?gardener, ?there ?is ?the ?chance ?we ?won?t ?install ?a ?garden ?there.?95In ?the ?cases ?volunteers ?are ?found ?up ?front, ?it ?has ?grown ?more ?customary ?to ?increase ?volunteers? ?involvement ?and ?allow ?the ?them ?to ?co-??design ?the ?gardens. ?If ?one ?garden ?is ?found ?to ?be ?a ?vocalized ?eyesore ?by ?neighbours, ?the ?extent ?of ?enforcement ?used ?by ?Sara ?to ?help ?resolve ?the ?issue ?would ?have ?her ?saying ?something ?such ?as, ??It ?would ?be ?nice ?if ?you ?weeded ?your ?garden, ?because ?your ?neighbour ?is ?not ?so ?happy ?with ?how ?it ?looks.? ?This ?malleability ?with ?the ?program ?exists ?despite ?the ?fact ?that, ?in ?Sara?s ?words, ??at ?the ?end ?of ?the ?day ?we ?are ?ultimately ?responsible ?for ?the ?gardens ?and ?the ?people ?that ?need ?support.? ?The ?shift ?in ?how ?the ?program ?was ?originally ?conceived ?to ?one ?that ?is ?driven ?more ?by ?the ?volunteer ?base ?demonstrates, ?in ?a ?minor ?way, ?the ?second ?characteristic ?of ?resilient ?communities: ?effective ?governance ?and ?institutions. ?These ?noted ?instances ?of ?deferral ?on ?behalf ?of ?the ?city ?can ?be ?viewed ?as ?an ?act ?towards ?decentralization ?of ?the ?decision-??making ?structure ?for ?this ?program ?and ?spreading ?accountability. ?The ?Green ?Streets ?program ?can ?also ?be ?seen ?as ?an ?example ?of ?a ?presence ?of ?social ?capital, ?the ?eighth ?characteristic ?of ?resilient ?communities. ?The ?personal ?connections ?developed ?by ?volunteers ?between ?one ?another ?and ?with ?the ?broader ?community ?is ?known ?to ?further ?grow ?the ?patterns ?of ?sharing ?and ?relationship ?building ?(Lin, ?2001). ?Sara ?claimed, ??I ?have ?heard ?many ?times ?of ?how ?people ?did ?not ?know ?who ?their ?neighbours ?were ?until ?they ?began ?to ?volunteer ?for ?the ?Green ?Streets ?program, ?and ?how ?after ?starting, ?they ?all-??of-??a-??sudden ?knew ?everyone.? ?In ?addition, ?she ?stated, ??Many ?gardeners ?don?t ?at ?first ?realize ?how ?social ?their ?experiences ?will ?be. ?People ?walking ?by ?will ?often ?stop ?and ?give ?comments ?like, ??great ?job!? ?or ??I ?have ?water ?free ?for ?you ?to ?use?? ?or ??I ?have ?these ?perennials ?that ?I ?divided ?in ?my ?backyard?would ?you ?like ?some ?for ?your ?traffic ?circle ?garden??? ?Through ?her ?words, ?volunteer ?gardening ?has ?been ?identified ?to ?bring ?participation, ?common ?purpose, ?supporting ?networks, ?belonging?each ?integral ?domains ?to ?the ?presence ?of ?social ?capital ?(Forrest ?& ?Kearns, ?2001). ?Sara ?and ?the ?Green ?Streets ?program ?are ?an ?exemplar ?for ?the ?St. ?George ?Rainway ?if ?it ?is ?to ?support ?a ?growth ?of ?resilience ?in ?the ?community ?through ?which ?it ?runs. ?Her ?interview ?was ?primarily ?focused ?around ?the ?program?s ?functionality ?and ?logistics. ?Yet, ?she ?found ?time ?and ?opportunity ?to ?embellish ?the ?ways ?by ?which ?the ?program ?is ?96an ?ideal ?precedent. ?As ?such, ?a ?few ?additional ?selections ?from ?the ?transcript ?should ?be ?noted. ?Sara ?offered, ?how ??in ?terms ?of ?gardens, ?it ?is ?best ?to ?start ?out ?small;? ?how ??it ?is ?good ?to ?try ?and ?seek ?out ?the ?strongest ?connections ?with ?the ?neighbourhood ?and ?feed ?off ?of ?their ?energy;? ?how ??every ?five ?to ?ten ?years, ?each ?garden ?needs ?a ?renovation;? ?and ?how ??phasing ?is ?a ?good ?idea ?[and] ?monitoring?is ?a ?really ?good ?thing ?to ?build ?into ?any ?project.?4.4 The Advocate and the Country LaneFrom ?the ?means ?by ?which ?Mike ?Klassen ?was ?able ?to ?articulate ?the ?history ?and ?importance ?of ?the ?Kensington-??Cedar ?Cottage ?country ?lane, ?one ?would ?have ?never ?known ?him ?to ?have ?moved ?in ?to ?his ?home ?along ?the ?lane ?six ?months ?after ?its ?installation. ?We ?met ?for ?coffee, ?then ?walked ?his ?frontage ?street, ?through ?his ?kempt ?yard, ?and ?into ?the ?alley, ?a ?country ?lane, ?to ?talk ?about ?its ?successes ?and ?opportunities ?for ?replication.The ?country ?lane ?is ?located ?behind ?Mike?s ?home ?between ?Fraser ?and ?Prince ?Albert ?Streets. ?It ?sits ?mid-??block, ?between ?27th ?and ?28th ?streets ?and ?is ?just ?shy ?of ?running ?the ?length ?of ?a ?full ?block. ?Because ?it ?terminates ?into ?a ?service ?lane ?for ?the ?businesses ?along ?Fraser ?to ?the ?west ?and ?into ?a ?lane ?for ?the ?garages ?and ?laneway ?homes ?of ?the ?houses ?along ?Prince ?Albert ?to ?the ?east, ?this ?country ?lane ?sees ?vehicular ?traffic ?almost ?exclusive ?to ?the ?residents ?whose ?properties ?abut ?it. ?[Insert ?aerial ?image ?locating ?this ?country ?lane.] ?When ?he ?and ?his ?family ?first ?traveled ?through ?the ?neighbourhood, ?he ?stated ?how ?they ?accidentally ?turned ?down ?the ?lane ?exclaimed, ??We ?shouldn?t ?be ?here?this ?isn?t ?where ?cars ?should ?be!? ?He ?knelt ?down ?to ?show ?me ?some ?of ?the ?surfacing ?materials ?used ?in ?construction ?and ?continued: ??At ?the ?time, ?there ?had ?been ?newly ?seeded ?grass ?on ?this ?grid. ?It ?looked ?very ?precious ?and ?like ?a ?place ?that ?we ?were ?supposed ?to ?be.? ?Mike, ?as ?both ?a ?caretaker ?of ?the ?lane ?and ?as ?a ?past ?member ?of ?the ?Vancouver ?City ?Planning ?Commission, ?is ?a ?vocal ?advocate ?for ?a ?revival ?of ?the ?Country ?Lanes ?program.The ?Country ?Lanes ?program ?was ?a ?demonstration ?project ?unanimously ?approved ?by ?city ?council ?during ?the ?summer ?of ?2002 ?(Transport ?Canada, ?2004). ?The ?lane ?that ?runs ?behind ?his ?home ?was ?one ?of ?three ?produced. ??This ?one, ?in ?my ?opinion, ?was ?the ?best ?and ?the ?most ?expensive. ?Of ?the ?money ?that ?they ?had ?allotted ?for ?the ?Country ?Lane ?program, ?I ?believe ?they ?spent ?half ?of ?it ?on ?this ?one ?in ?particular.? ?Mike ?continued: ??With ?a ?lot ?of ?97Figure 4.3: Kensington-Cedar Cottage Country Lane (Michael Klassen, 2008)Figure 4.4: Community barbecue in the lane (Michael Klassen, 2008)98these ?types ?of ?projects, ?you ?have ?to ?ask ?yourself: ?If ?you ?are ?going ?to ?spend ?a ?bit ?more ?money ?on ?something ?like ?this, ?what ?are ?the ?benefits? ?What ?are ?the ?social ?benefits? ?What ?are ?the ?environmental ?benefits? ?And ?what ?does ?it ?do ?for ?community?? ?As ?with ?the ?Green ?Streets ?program, ?this ?program ?embodies ?resilient ?communities? ?characteristics ?of ?community ?engagement ?& ?participation ?and ?presence ?of ?social ?capital.The ?community ?engagement ?and ?participation ?came ?primarily ?at ?the ?start ?of ?the ?work, ?using ?labour ?from ?local ?residents ?to ?help ?lay ?all ?the ?modular ?paving ?and ?plant ?all ?the ?plants. ?For ?the ?ten ?years ?since ?its ?original ?installation, ?the ?lane ?has ?required ?only ?a ?few ?caretakers, ?or ?champions, ?at ?a ?time, ?with ?no ?additional ?help ?necessary ?from ?the ?city. ?However, ?Mike ?explained, ??if ?everyone ?didn?t ?care ?about ?it ?and ?considered ?it ?only ?to ?be ?a ?back ?lane ?where ?you ?throw ?your ?garbage ?cans ?once ?each ?week ?and ?that?s ?it, ?I ?don?t ?think ?it ?would ?be ?as ?successful.? ?Regarding ?social ?capital, ?the ?lane ?would ?not ?have ?been ?successful ?without ?neighbours ?feeling ?empowered ?to ?pick ?up ?trash, ?plant ?additional ?plants, ?and ?provide ?any ?needed ?upkeep. ?Such ?participation, ?as ?understood ?throughout ?the ?interview, ?is ?shared ?within ?the ?immediate ?community, ?and ?through ?this, ?has ?helped ?to ?transform ?and ?maintain ?the ?lane ?as ?a ?safe ?place ?where ?the ?community ?has ?traditionally ?congregated. ?In ?Mike?s ?words: ?Communities ?tend ?to ?have ?their ?own ?geographical ?boundaries; ?people ?tend ?to ?centre ?around ?certain ?blocks; ?some ?streets ?tend ?to ?be ?more ?inviting ?or ?walkable?and ?these ?lanes ?have ?the ?ability ?to ?add ?that ?extra ?bit ?of ?desirability ?to ?the ?street. ?Laneways ?can ?create ?a ?centerpiece ?for ?community, ?and ?that ?is ?what ?this ?one ?has ?done. ?It ?allowed ?people ?to ?think ?of ?it ?as ?the ?centre, ?where ?people ?could ?gather.Not ?only ?had ?the ?project ?inspired ?a ?continued ?stewardship ?effort ?from ?the ?surrounding ?neighbours, ?its ?sense ?of ?being ?a ?public ?open ?space ?in ?conjunction ?with ?its ?maintained ?aesthetic ?appeal ?has ?inspired ?respect ?and ?appreciation ?from ?the ?greater ?community. ?It ?has ?been ?home ?to ?nearly ?every ?annual ?neighbourhood ?barbecue ?since ?its ?transformation, ?and, ?Mike ?explained, ??people ?consider ?it ?a ?nice ?detour ?on ?their ?way ?home, ?so ?you ?often ?see ?people ?walking ?through?[and] ?people ?tend ?to ?drive ?more ?slowly ?here.? ?He ?continued ?by ?adding: ??I ?am ?not ?sure ?how ?many ?3-??1-??1 ?calls ?go ?out ?for ?dumping ?in ?a ?typical ?lane, ?but ?there ?has ?never ?been ?any ?dumping ?take ?place ?99here. ?I?ve ?never ?seen ?a ?mattress ?or ?a ?pile ?of ?garbage ?left.? ?All ?of ?this ?comes ?with ?the ?simple ?replacement ?of ?impermeability ?with ?permeability. ?Several ?inches ?of ?asphalt ?were ?replaced ?by ?two ?concrete ?driving ?strips?all ?that ?is ?needed ?to ?manage ?vehicular ?through-??traffic. ?Permeable ?paving ?units ?by ?Golpa, ?in ?conjunction ?with ?structural ?grass, ?was ?used ?to ?provide ?integrity ?to ?the ?surfacing ?connecting ?to ?each ?garage ?and ?driveway. ?Lastly, ?perennials, ?including ?grasses, ?sunflowers, ?and ?native ?shrubs, ?were ?planted ?to ?provide ?a ?softer ?transition ?from ?yard ?to ?lane.No ?such ?Country ?Lane ?has ?been ?installed ?since. ?In ?this, ?it ?could ?be ?argued ?that ?the ?City ?of ?Vancouver ?did ?not ?demonstrate ?capacity ?for ?learning ?or ?effective ?governance, ?two ?other ?characteristics ?of ?resilient ?communities, ?to ?their ?fullest ?potentials. ?According ?to ?Mike, ?this ?country ?lane ??was ?a ?reward ?for ?a ?neighbourhood ?that ?was ?pulling ?together ?in ?the ?face ?of ?social ?disease. ?This ?was ?a ?neighbourhood ?that ?was ?struggling ?a ?bit ?at ?the ?time ?this ?lane ?was ?installed.? ?If ?indeed ?this ?was ?the ?case, ?and ?it ?has ?proven ?to ?grow ?the ?engagement ?and ?spirit ?of ?the ?community, ?the ?city ?failed ?to ?apply ?active ?learning ?or ?adaptive ?management ?to ?the ?project. ?Instead, ?according ?to ?Mike, ?it ?discontinued ?the ?Country ?Lane ?initiative, ?citing ?budgetary ?constraints. ?Having ?the ?capacity ?for ?learning ?and ?an ?ability ?for ?effective ?governance ?should ?have ?instead ?have ?resulted ?in ?a ?monitoring ?of ?results ?to ?help ?grow ?policy ?as ?new ?knowledge ?was ?gained ?(Carpenter ?et ?al., ?2001). ? ?Some ?knowledge ?was ?recorded, ?however ?it ?primarily ?involved ?information ?exclusively ?related ?to ?engineering ?details ?and ?performance ?(Transport ?Canada, ?2004).?We ?have ?here ?a ?gathering ?space ?for ?the ?central ?part ?of ?the ?neighbourhood. ?It?s ?a ?nice ?public ?space, ?and ?a ?nice ?place ?to ?walk ?through. ?You ?may ?not ?necessarily ?want ?to ?hang ?out ?in ?a ?lane, ?but ?if ?you ?decide ?you?d ?like ?to ?put ?up ?some ?barricades ?and ?roll ?out ?a ?barbecue, ?it?s ?a ?great ?place ?to ?do ?that. ?There ?aren?t ?many ?lanes ?in ?this ?city ?that ?you ?can ?say ?this ?about,? ?Mike ?concluded. ?It ?is ?true: ?there ?only ?are ?three ?lanes ?of ?this ?sort ?in ?the ?city, ?and ?this ?is ?considered ?the ?best ?example. ?The ?continuation ?of ?the ?Country ?Lane ?program ?has ?not ?yet ?reconvened, ?yet ?sustained ?learning ?can ?still ?take ?place. ?The ?pilots ?have ?long ?been ?completed ?and ?have ?grown ?the ?collective ?knowledge ?of ?the ?champions ?involved ?with ?their ?successes ?and ?failures. ?Advocacy ?from ?individuals ?like ?Mike ?100Klassen ?might ?indeed ?help ?to ?bring ?more ?of ?these ?lanes ?to ?Vancouver. ?However, ?his ?voice ?makes ?clear ?how ?it ?will ?take ?a ?sustained ?engagement ?from ?the ?city ?and ?a ?recognition ?that ?Country ?Lanes ?can ?do ?much ?more ?for ?community ?than ?improve ?stormwater ?runoff ?rates ?and ?quality. ?This ?will ?likely ?be ?necessary ?for ?them ?to ?become ?integrated ?into ?common ?practice ?Vancouver ?infrastructure.4.5 The Expert and Harnessing HindsightSandra ?James, ?once ?a ?neighbourhood ?planner ?for ?the ?City ?of ?Vancouver ?and ?one ?with ?the ?gift ?of ?hindsight, ?had ?much ?to ?share ?about ?the ?city ?and ?its ?various ?greening ?and ?sustainability ?programs, ?namely ?the ?Country ?Lanes ?initiative. ?Our ?talk ?commenced ?with ?this ?program ?and ?the ?Green ?Streets ?program, ?and ?she ?began: ??First ?of ?all, ?the ?Green ?Streets ?project ?was ?misnamed.? ?Sandy ?went ?on ?to ?explain ?how ?it ?was ?often ?confused ?with ?the ?Blooming ?Boulevards ?program, ?another ?greening ?initiative ?in ?town ?that ?involved ?a ??way ?of ?converting ?streets ?into ?greenways ?that ?were ?not ?already ?designated, ?[and] ?covered ?a ?certain ?square ?foot ?cost ?per ?plant ?with ?the ?help ?of ?a ?grant? ?that ?she ?helped ?to ?procure. ?During ?her ?tenure ?as ?a ?planner ?with ?the ?city, ?she ?helped ?develop ?several ?of ?the ?initiatives ?focused ?on ?both ?environmental ?and ?social ?sustainability. ?Of ?these, ?Sandy ?also ?worked ?closely ?with ?the ?Country ?Lanes ?program. ?For ?her ?depth ?of ?professional ?knowledge ?and ?position ?to ?speak ?candidly ?about ?the ?successes ?and ?failures ?associated ?with ?all ?projects ?with ?which ?she ?worked, ?she ?epitomizes ?the ?archetype ?of ?expert.As ?a ?professional ?neighbourhood ?planner, ?Sandy ?and ?her ?words ?naturally ?embody ?the ?capacity ?for ?preparedness ?and ?planning. ?She ?sees ?the ?city?s ?role ?as ?one ?that ?should ?lead ?by ?example ?by ?offering ?the ?tools ?for ?building ??the ?kind ?of ?city ?that ?we ?want.? ?Yet, ?this ?does ?not ?seem ?to ?be ?happening ?to ?its ?full ?potential. ?Sandy ?explained: ??I ?personally ?have ?a ?quarter-??acre ?of ?land ?that ?is ?all ?garden, ?but ?I ?don?t ?water ?it. ?I ?use ?city ?compost?it?s ?all ?about ?the ?practice. ?How ?can ?people ?know ?the ?practice ?though, ?if ?the ?city ?isn?t ?leading? ?There ?still ?is ?all ?the ?grass ?planted ?around ?City ?Hall ?as ?well ?as ?some ?invasives?part ?of ?the ?puzzle ?is ?to ?lead, ?but ?instead ?we ?have ?this ?restrictive ?benevolence.? ?In ?the ?case ?of ?Vancouver, ?this ?restrictive ?benevolence ?refers ?to ?an ?overbearance ?of ?zoning ?and ?bylaw ?in ?conflict ?with ?expressed ?ideals. ?For ?example, ?Vancouver ?aims ?to ?become ?the ?greenest ?city ?of ?101Figure 4.5: Mountainview Country Lane installation (Sandra James, 2006)the ?developed ?world ?by ?2020 ?and ?yet, ?its ?regulation ?of ?such ?green ?infrastructure ?technologies ?as ?rainwater ?harvesting ?and ?greywater ?reuse ?remain ?highly ?restrictive, ?as ?outlined ?in ?Chapter ?2.With ?the ?Country ?Lanes ?initiative, ?however, ?attempts ?were ?given ?to ?teach ?and ?empower ?community ?to ?manage ?their ?lanes ?at ?the ?same ?time ?crews ?were ?educated ?about ?techniques ?other ?than ?straight ?asphalt ?paving. ?102According ?to ?Sandy, ??We ?created ?the ?main ?runs, ?but ?we ?didn?t ?do ?the ?runs ?to ?the ?personal ?garages. ?The ?reason ?for ?this ?was ?that ?we ?wanted ?to ?show ?the ?neighbours ?how ?to ?do ?it, ?so ?that ?when ?the ?blocks ?came ?loose, ?they ?could ?do ?it ?themselves ?without ?having ?to ?call ?City ?Hall.? ?As ?attested ?by ?Mike, ?the ?advocate, ?this ?proved ?to ?be ?the ?case ?and ?the ?lane ?to ?this ?day ?has ?required ?no ?assistance ?with ?upkeep.Another ?benefit, ?explained ?by ?Sandy ?is ?how, ??by ?them ?all ?getting ?to ?know ?us, ?having ?a ?great ?day, ?and ?sharing ?phone ?numbers, ?it ?built ?up ?a ?long-??term ?connection ?with ?the ?community.? ?There ?are ?three ?country ?lanes, ?but ?not ?all ?were ?created ?equally. ??The ?one ?off ?Yale ?was ?installed ?by ?city ?crews ?without ?the ?oversight ?from ?a ?landscape ?architect. ?The ?maintenance ?cost ?was ?higher ?in ?that ?case ?because ?the ?city ?crews ?were ?trying ?to ?figure ?out ?how ?to ?do ?it ?and ?failed ?to ?follow ?spec ?in ?a ?way ?that ?would ?not ?have ?happened ?if ?a ?landscape ?architect ?was ?overseeing ?the ?project.? ?The ?lane ?behind ?Mike?s ?home ?is ?the ?example ?that ?has ?worked ?the ?best, ?according ?to ?Sandy. ??It?s ?not ?failing ?because ?it ?is ?well-??built ?and ?is ?well-??cared ?for ?by ?engaged ?residents. ?If ?we ?extended ?more ?of ?that ?kind ?of ?model ?to ?the ?project ?off ?Yale ?Street, ?it ?would ?have ?done ?better.?Additionally, ?Sandy?s ?wisdom ?demonstrates ?the ?cross-??scalar ?perspective ?characteristic ?of ?resilient ?communities. ?The ?City ?of ?Vancouver ?and ?its ?departments ?operate ?on ?a ?scale ?different ?to ?that ?of ?the ?residents ?nearby ?the ?successful ?country ?lane. ?Their ?workings ?are ?however, ?linked. ?Because ?the ?exemplary ?lane ?was ?built ?to ?spec ?and ?the ?community ?was ?successfully ?engaged ?and ?empowered ?to ?maintain ?its ?current ?thriving ?state, ?the ?actions ?of ?the ?community ?positively ?effect ?the ?resources ?of ?the ?city ?by ?not ?having ?an ?impact ?on ?their ?maintenance ?budget. ?Conversely, ?Sandy ?identified ?a ?problem ?with ?cooperatively ?working ?with ?the ?city ?on ?projects ?and ?how ?they ??always ?seems ?to ?be ?a ?bit ?mushy ?about ?doing ?joint ?work.? ?She ?candidly ?speculated ?that ?this ?is ?because ?how ??it ?is ?not ?clearly ?identifiable ?with ?regards ?to ?who ?gets ?the ?kudos ?in ?the ?end.? ?Because ?of ?ego, ?or ?perhaps ?a ?lack ?of ?interdepartmental ?collaboration ?that ?remains ?unknown, ?Country ?Lanes ?has ?remained ?but ?a ?pilot ?project ?from ?the ?past. ?Furthermore, ?Sandy ?explains ?how ??everything ?about ?Country ?Lanes ?has ?been ?pulled ?offline ?[from ?vancouver.ca]. ?You ?have ?to ?remember ?why ?people ?did ?that?what ?were ?the ?reasons ?for ?doing ?Country ?Lanes?are ?there ?things ?we ?need ?to ?revisit??103A ?cross-??scalar ?perspective ?is ?one ?that ?requires ?adaptive ?management ?and ?a ?process ?of ?creating, ?testing, ?and ?creating ?opportunity ?across ?scales ?(Holling, ?2001). ?The ?vision ?for ?the ?majority ?of ?projects ?under ?Sandy?s ?purview ?involved ?the ?space ?for ?testing ?to ?come ?from ?both ?the ?community ?and ?the ?city ?until ?an ?initiative ?was ?ready ?for ?greater ?permanence. ?Sandy ?and ?her ?colleagues ??always ?thought ?the ?Country ?Lane ?program ?would ?go ?on ?and ?it ?would ?become ?part ?of ?the ?options ?you ?could ?get ?with ?Local ?Improvements ?initiative ?projects? ?or ?options ?for ?community ?to ?buy ?into ?public ?realm ?improvements ?through ?a ?nominal ?increase ?in ?property ?tax. ?In ?addition, ?she ?relayed ?how ??the ?idea ?for ?greenways ?was ?originally ?to ?have ?them ?eventually ?turn ?into ?one-??ways?or ?a ?closed ?street ?to ?become ?new ?public ?spaces ?as ?the ?city ?densifies ?in ?40 ?to ?60 ?years?but ?all ?of ?a ?sudden, ?that ?got ?lost.? ?Still, ?she ?maintains ?belief ?in ?the ?ability ?of ?such ?projects ?to ?build ?social ?cohesion: ??I ?think ?there ?can ?be ?magic ?through ?urban ?design ?and ?involving ?people ?in ?projects. ?I ?found ?strong ?cohesion ?in ?the ?projects ?I ?was ?involved ?in?? ?Furthermore, ?she ?found ?how ??the ?more ?you ?give ?to ?a ?community, ?the ?more ?they ?want ?to ?give ?back.?Experts ?are ?commonly ?known ?for ?their ?knowledge ?of ?precedents. ?Indicatively, ?the ?interview ?with ?Sandy ?concluded ?on ?a ?note ?of ?inspiration ?for ?the ?Rainway ?project: ??In ?Dinsmore, ?Saskatchewan, ?they ?don?t ?have ?any ?paved ?streets. ?They ?actually ?pulled ?all ?of ?their ?paved ?streets ?up. ?They ?were ?saying ?how ?since ?they ?get ?potholes ?that ?are ?really ?expensive ?to ?fix, ?that ?they ?decided ?to ?go ?back ?to ?dirt ?and ?gravel. ?It ?ended ?up ?being ?more ?affordable ?and ?is ?percolating! ?I ?always ?thought ?the ?incubators ?of ?change ?are ?not ?going ?to ?be ?the ?big ?cities, ?but ?the ?suburbs??4.6 The Manager and Bureaucratic Temperament Per ?her ?tight ?schedule ?as ?a ?planner ?for ?the ?Community ?Planning ?department ?of ?Vancouver, ?Joyce ?Lee ?Uyesugi ?agreed ?to ?meet ?for ?tea ?at ?a ?caf? ?close ?to ?City ?Hall. ?We ?remained ?on-??topic ?throughout ?the ?interview ?and ?began ?with ?the ?discussion ?of ?social ?cohesion ?in ?Mount ?Pleasant ?and ?ended ?with ?her ?posing ?the ?broader ?questions: ??How ?do ?you ?get ?people ?to ?become ?engaged? ?How ?do ?you ?share ?information ?and ?get ?their ?response ?on ?these ?bigger ?issues ?when ?everyone ?is ?so ?busy ?with ?the ?day-??to-??day?? ?The ?position ?of ?manager ?requires ?practicality. ?It ?also ?requires ?a ?balance ?of ?work ?by ?addressing ?issues ?of ?budget, ?time, ?and ?resources. ?Built ?within ?effective ?104management ?is ?a ?high ?degree ?of ?equity ?to ?maintain ?appropriate ?balances ?with ?any ?problem ?at ?hand ?as ?well ?as ?with ?access ?to ?the ?capital ?enabling ?the ?involved ?groups ?to ?work ?on ?solution(s) ?(Pearce, ?1988). ?However, ?a ?drawback ?to ?traditional ?management ?versus ?adaptive ?management ?is ?the ?struggle ?to ?realize ?a ?different ?characteristic ?of ?resilient ?communities: ?acceptance ?of ?change ?and ?uncertainty ?(Berkes, ?Colding ?& ?Folke, ?2000). ?The ?struggle ?to ?find ?compromise ?between ?these ?two ?phenomena, ?or ?characteristics, ?can ?be ?seen ?throughout ?Joyce?s ?interview.The ?balance ?that ?Joyce ?strikes ?is ?one ?that ?applauds ?community ?initiative ?and ?empowerment, ?but ?at ?the ?same ?time ?recognizes ?the ?roles ?and ?sometimes ?temperament ?that ?the ?city ?needs ?to ?play. ?When ?asked ?about ?the ?permanence ?of ?projects ?initiated ?through ?the ?city-??run ?VIVA ?Vancouver ?program, ?Joyce ?stated: ??I ?think ?that, ?in ?the ?public ?realm, ?this ?is ?what ?it ?takes?you ?just ?need ?to ?do ?it, ?figure ?out ?what ?works, ?and ?leave ?it.? ?Yet, ?during ?the ?same ?discussion, ?she ?explained ?how ??any ?improvement ?in ?the ?public ?realm ?requires ?money, ?and ?when ?you ?are ?tied ?to ?a ?city ?program, ?there ?are ?rules ?you ?need ?to ?follow. ?This ?can ?be ?a ?drawback, ?but ?I ?see ?the ?benefits ?of ?the ?support ?staff?s ?knowledge ?and ?coordination ?really ?outweighing ?some ?of ?the ?costs.? ?Regarding ?projects ?initiated ?by ?groups ?independent ?from ?the ?city, ?she ?recognized ?how ?the ?pivotal ?the ?role ?of ?community ?can ?be. ?Because ?of ?bureaucratic ?hurdles ?and ?rules ?that ?need ?to ?be ?followed, ?she ?believes ?how ??it ?is ?more ?likely ?for ?the ?community ?to ?be ?able ?to ?achieve ?something ?new ?and ?unique ?and ?progressive, ?versus ?waiting ?for ?the ?city ?to ?initiate ?anything ?like ?that.?In ?the ?eyes ?of ?the ?city, ??the ?public ?realm ?is ?often ?seen ?as ?a ?bonus ?or ?an ?extra?it ?has ?little ?to ?do ?with ?life ?safety ?for ?instance. ?The ?dollars ?often ?are ?not ?there. ?This ?is ?one ?thing ?that ?worry ?about ?with ?the ?[Mount ?Pleasant] ?Public ?Realm ?Plan. ?How ?is ?the ?city ?going ?to ?implement ?this?? ?Vancouver?s ?2013 ?Capital ?and ?Operating ?Budget ?for ?both ?Utilities ?& ?Public ?Works ?and ?Civic ?Infrastructure ?was ?$128,843,000. ?Of ?this, ?$0 ?of ?the ?$14 ?million ?set ?aside ?in ?the ?2012-??2014 ?Capital ?Plan ?for ??Emerging ?Priorities? ?is ?dedicated ?to ?anything ?but ??City-??Wide ?Overhead? ?(2013e), ?leaving ?one ?to ?ponder ?how ?the ?new ?ideas ?brought ?forth ?by ?the ?Greenest ?City ?2020 ?Action ?Plan ?are ?to ?be ?funded. ?The ?budgeting ?and ?expenditures ?for ?this ?initiative ?were ?not ?outlined ?in ?this ?budget. ?Therefore, ?one ?can ?only ?105assume ?that ?unless ?a ?sewer ?separation ?upgrade ?in ?Mount ?Pleasant ?warrants ?implementation ?of ?such ?things ?as ?greenways ?and ?improved ?pedestrian ?connections, ?the ?Public ?Realm ?Plan ?will ?remain ?just ?a ?plan. ?Budgets ?are ?fixed ?entities ?and ?account ?for ?change ?and ?uncertainty ?only ?in ?a ?reactionary ?sense ?and ?corresponding ?with ?such ?things ?as ?the ?political ?cycle. ?Until ?such ?concepts ?as ?access ?to ?nature ?or ?community ?resilience ?are ?seen ?also ?to ?be ?life ?safety ?items ?by ?cities, ?projects ?such ?as ?the ?St. ?George ?Rainway ?will ?be ?hard-??pressed ?to ?receive ?city-??funding ?beyond ?the ?typical ?allotted ?infrastructural ?budget.Despite ?this ?reality, ?Joyce ?continued ?to ?offer ?ideas ?to ?straddle ?the ?city-??community ?dichotomy. ?She ?wishes ?there ?were ?more ?resources ?to ?build ?relationships ?and ?support ?community ?activities, ?and ?offers ?what ?she ?can ?by ?stating: ??I ?like ?to ?think ?that ?we ?can ?help ?through ?a ?coordinating ?role, ?or ?an ?education ?role ?in ?terms ?of ?what ?other ?initiatives ?are ?happening. ?Certain ?projects ?might ?have ?relationships ?with ?others ?that ?the ?city ?could ?point ?out.? ?Identifying ?and ?supporting ?synergies ?is ?one ?way ?she ?feels ?the ?city ?could ?help. ?Because ?the ?city ?has ?not ?budgeted ?much ??room ?for ?extras?it ?is ?really ?important ?to ?build ?relationships ?with ?communities ?and ?helping ?to ?make ?sure ?they ?have ?the ?capacity.?Still, ?there ?is ?only ?so ?much ?that ?a ?city ?can ?do ?to ?build ?capacity ?and ?social ?capital ?since ?it ?is ?known ?as ?a ?bottom-??up ?process ?(Forrest ?& ?Kearns, ?2001). ?Joyce ?recognizes ?the ?common ?purpose ?and ?participation ?that ?have ?begun ?to ?make ?the ?St. ?George ?Rainway ?a ?reality. ?She ?identified ?how ??the ?fact ?that ?there ?is ?already ?a ?group ?existing, ?a ?group ?formed ?around ?the ?singular ?interest ?of ?creating ?the ?rainway, ?is ?quite ?a ?feat ?unto ?itself. ?The ?ability ?of ?any ?group ?to ?sustain ?itself ?is ?key?there ?often ?seems ?to ?be ?a ?champion ?who ?is ?involved ?at ?the ?front ?end. ?To ?the ?extend ?they ?stay ?involved, ?the ?group ?will ?have ?a ?greater ?chance ?at ?success.?Not ?only ?did ?our ?discussion ?about ?the ?city-??community ?relationship ?touch ?upon ?the ?struggle ?to ?balance ?budget ?realities ?with ?needs ?to ?be ?equitable ?and ?anticipatory ?of ?change ?and ?new ?ideas, ?it ?illustrated ?instances ?of ?other ?characteristics. ?The ?need ?for ?a ?presence ?of ?social ?capital, ?effective ?governance ?and ?institutions, ?and ?community ?engagement ?and ?participation ?all ?were ?echoed ?as ?necessary ?components ?to ?projects ?discussed ?under ?the ?106interview?s ?pretext: ?social ?cohesion. ?The ?synopses ?of ?the ?remaining ?four ?interviews ?and ?their ?archetypes ?will ?further ?exemplify ?these ?and ?more ?of ?the ?ten ?characteristics ?of ?resilient ?communities.4.7 The Connector and Building RelationshipsAs ?a ?mother ?who ?lives ?and ?works ?Mount ?Pleasant, ?and ?as ?a ?community ?organizer ?who ?is ?currently ?involved ?with ?several ?initiatives, ?including ?the ?St. ?George ?Rainway, ?Shahira ?Sakiyama ?is ?someone ?who ?is ?very ?aware ?of ?the ?activities ?and ?relationships ?impacting ?her ?neighbourhood. ?She ?is ?someone ?who ?prefers ?dialogue ?to ?estrangement ?and ?seems ?to ?foster ?neighbourliness ?wherever ?she ?goes. ?We ?met ?for ?her ?interview ?at ?the ?Mount ?Pleasant ?Neighbourhood ?House, ?and ?sat ?amongst ?neighbours ?on ?a ?couch ?in ?the ?middle ?of ?the ?common ?area. ??Here,? ?she ?stated, ??there ?is ?a ?cross-??generational ?aspect ?of ?what ?they ?do. ?It?s ?not ?about ?just ?providing ?needs ?for ?children ?or ?families, ?but ?also ?for ?all ?cross-??sections ?of ?society: ?youth, ?individuals, ?and ?seniors. ?I ?have ?been ?very ?grateful ?to ?be ?able ?to ?expose ?my ?family ?to ?that ?and ?become ?a ?part ?of ?those ?communities.? ?Her ?involvement ?here, ?at ?the ?Mount ?Pleasant ?Family ?Centre, ?and ?throughout ?the ?community ?as ?both ?an ?engaged ?mother ?and ?citizen ?has ?afforded ?her ?and ?her ?family ?many ?opportunities ?for ?connections ?and ?engagement ?with ?the ?public ?spaces ?and ?the ?people ?of ?Mount ?Pleasant. ?However, ?not ?all ?of ?this ?comes ?without ?some ?effort. ?Building ?social ?cohesion ?takes ?effort ?and ?the ?words ?of ?Shahira ?will ?help ?to ?demonstrate ?where ?best ?to ?place ?this ?effort ?to ?achieve ?successes.The ?evolution ?of ?the ?unstructured ?interview ?grew ?into ?a ?discussion ?revolving ?primarily ?around ?means ?for ?growing ?the ?presence ?of ?social ?capital. ?The ?primary ?example ?and ?focus ?for ?this ?discussion ?was ?the ?street ?mural ?painting ?between ?7th ?and ?8th ?Avenues. ?The ?summer ?of ?2012 ?saw ?the ?original ?painting ?of ?the ?mural. ?Shortly ?before ?this ?interview, ?the ?mural ?was ?repainted ?to ?sustain ?its ?presence ?and ?vibrancy. ?According ?to ?Shahira, ?75% ?to ?80% ?of ?the ?original ?team ?of ?painters ?returned ?to ?help ?again. ?To ?her ?it ?was ??great ?to ?have ?such ?continuity. ?Previously ?it ?took ?two ?days ?to ?complete, ?while ?this ?year ?it ?only ?took ?one. ?The ?foundation ?was ?already ?in ?place ?and ?we ?were ?already ?familiar ?with ?the ?structure ?necessary ?for ?completing ?the ?mural, ?so ?it ?took ?less ?time.?107Figure 4.6: ?Welcome to the St. George Rainway?Figure 4.7: Detail image of the Rainway mural108Repeat ?participation ?in ?this ?case ?in ?just ?two ?cycles, ?one ?year ?apart, ?led ?to ?a ?streamlining ?and ?efficiency ?of ?the ?effort. ?Meanwhile, ?less ?organization ?of ?volunteers ?was ?necessary ?for ?the ?second ?year. ?Upwards ?of ?50% ?of ?those ?who ?volunteered ??were ?just ?people ?who ?were ?walking ?by ?and ?got ?caught ?up ?in ?the ?effort? ??Let ?me ?go ?and ?change ?my ?clothes! ?I ?will ?be ?right ?back!?? ?She ?relayed ?how ?when ?others ?would ?say, ??Oh ?no, ?I ?can?t ?help?I?ve ?never ?done ?this ?before!? ?or ??I ?am ?not ?an ?artist?? ?the ?volunteer ?group ?would ?reply, ??That?s ?okay, ?we ?haven?t ?either!? ?From ?such ?displays ?of ?openness ?grew ?a ?sense ?of ?empowerment ?from ?neighbours ?to ?voluntarily ?engage ?in ?such ?numbers. ?Additionally, ?from ?this ?grew ?a ?sense ?of ?belonging: ??It ?was ?amazing ?seeing ?the ?pride ?people ?developed ?in ?themselves ?around ?having ?done ?something ?they ?originally ?never ?thought ?they ?could ?do. ?It ?helped ?to ?create ?a ?sense ?of ?ownership ?in ?those ?that ?participated?There ?is ?something ?to ?the ?experiential ?nature ?of ?this ?project ?that ?was ?able ?to ?draw ?people ?out.?Before ?achieving ?successful ?volunteer ?efforts, ?the ?St. ?George ?Rainway ?Group ?gauged ?the ?interest ?of ?the ?community ?with ?their ?own ?survey. ?There ?were ?a ?few ?voices ?of ?opposition, ?as ?was ?evident ?in ?the ?findings ?from ?the ?survey ?portion ?of ?this ?thesis. ?One ?point ?of ?opposition ?holds ?a ?seat ?of ?power ?in ?one ?of ?the ?strata ?properties ?along ?St. ?George ?Street ?and ?prevented ?the ?Rainway ?Group ?from ?engaging ?with ?other ?residents ?from ?the ?building. ?As ?Shahira ?put ?it, ??Eventually ?we ?found ?an ?in, ?who ?was ?very ?supportive ?of ?the ?project. ?From ?him, ?we ?found ?out ?that ?nearly ?all ?of ?the ?residents ?were ?totally ?in ?support ?of ?the ?project. ?To ?date, ?he ?has ?been ?our ?contact ?for ?communication ?with ?the ?residents?and ?was ?able ?to ?start ?a ?civil ?conversation ?with ?that ?gentleman.? ?In ?this ?case, ?only ?through ?persistence ?was ?a ?set ?of ?collective ?norms ?and ?values ?discovered. ?She ?went ?on ?to ?clarify ?the ?effectiveness ?such ?an ?approach ?to ?finding ?inroads ?to ?discussion ?with ?naysayers: ?You ?can?t ?really ?change ?someone?s ?mind, ?unless ?it ?is ?something ?they ?wish ?to ?do. ?Fliers ?they ?don?t ?read ?and ?events ?that ?they ?don?t ?participate ?in ?is ?not ?going ?to ?change ?anything. ?One-??on-??one ?conversations, ?providing ?the ?space ?to ?allow ?people ?to ?vent, ?and ?finding ?common ?ground ?are ?ways ?to ?make ?some ?movement. ?But, ?if ?people ?aren?t ?even ?willing ?to ?have ?the ?conversation, ?what ?can ?one ?do? ?From ?my ?experience, ?one-??on-??one ?connection ?is ?the ?most ?powerful ?means.109If ?not ?through ?direct ?one-??on-??one ?contact, ?an ?indirect ?contact ?could ?prove ?a ?successful ?means ?to ?build ?trust ?and ?open ?dialogue ?as ?it ?did ?in ?this ?case.After ?the ?initial ?surveying ?of ?the ?community ?by ?the ?Rainway ?Group, ?they ?decided ?a ?block ?party ?would ?be ?the ?next ?phase ?of ?engagement. ?Shahira ?stated ?how ??it ?was ?able ?to ?bring ?together ?neighbours ?that ?might ?have ?never ?talked ?before ?out ?and ?in ?the ?street ?in ?support ?of ?this ?project. ?They ?were ?able ?to ?enjoy ?music ?and ?share ?food?Neutral ?spaces ?like ?this ?where ?people ?can ?come ?together ?can ?provide ?a ?great ?opportunity ?for ?engagement.? ?Neutral ?spaces, ?spaces ?without ?agenda ?beyond ?sharing ?time ?for ?food, ?conversation, ?and ?relaxation ?in ?this ?case ?inspired ?a ?sense ?of ?safety ?that ?might ?not ?otherwise ?be ?present ?in ?a ?more ?formalized ?or ?private ?setting.Whether ?it ?exists ?outside?a ?recognized ?challenge ?with ?Vancouver?s ?annual ?rainfall?or ?inside, ?Shahira ?concurred ??physical ?space ?is ?very ?key ?when ?helping ?to ?foster ?community.? ?She ?continued ?by ?recognizing ?the ?efforts ?of ?the ?mural ?painting ?as ?a ?component ?to ?a ?cross-??scalar ?perspective ?and ?effort ?to ?more ?sustainably ?manage ?local ?water ?as ?a ?precious ?resource ?and ?how ??it ?all ?eventually ?flows ?to ?the ?False ?Creek ?Flats ?[and ?the ?Great ?Northern ?Way ?campus] ?before ?flushing ?out ?into ?False ?Creek. ?This ?is ?why ?my ?energy ?now ?is ?being ?focused ?on ?the ?visionary ?work ?to ?help ?complete ?St. ?George.? ?In ?conclusion, ?she ?shared: ??When ?we ?start ?tearing ?up ?the ?mural ?to ?create ?bioswales, ?that ?will ?be ?great?But ?if ?at ?the ?end ?of ?the ?day, ?if ?this ?water ?ends ?up ?being ?flushed ?into ?pipes ?and ?culverts, ?it ?will ?be ?like ?not ?lighting ?the ?birthday ?candle.?4.8 The Champions and Attachment to Place Teresa ?Comeau ?and ?Barry ?Calhoun ?moved ?into ?the ?Mount ?Pleasant ?neighbourhood ?just ?six ?months ?prior ?to ?their ?interview ?that ?took ?place ?around ?the ?island ?in ?the ?kitchen ?of ?their ?bright ?new ?home. ?She, ?a ?real ?estate ?agent, ?and ?he, ?a ?professional ?photographer, ?moved ?from ?the ?neighbourhood ?of ?Kitsilano ?to ?Mount ?Pleasant ??and ?for ?the ?first ?two ?months,? ?according ?to ?Barry, ??every ?time ?someone ?saw ?me ?coming ?or ?going, ?they ?would ?say, ??Welcome ?to ?the ?neighbourhood!? ?or, ??Wow! ?What ?a ?beautiful ?house!? ?and ?they ?would ?start ?a ?dialogue.? ?To ?110them, ?this ?was ?a ?big ?change ?from ?their ?living ?experience ?across ?town. ??I ?am ?a ?really ?friendly ?guy,? ?Barry ?explains,  ??but ?after ?a ?few ?months ?of ?living ?in ?a ?place ?like ?Kits ?and ?you?ve ?said ?hello ?to ?strangers ?who ?just ?give ?you ?weird ?looks, ?you ?stop ?doing ?it.? ?Six ?months ?into ?their ?new ?neighbourhood, ?they ?have ?sensed ?social ?cohesion ?is ??five ?times ?stronger? ?in ?Mount ?Pleasant ?than ?in ?Kitsilano. ?To ?them, ?social ?cohesion ?is ?a ?place ??where ?people ?know ?their ?neighbours?where, ?even ?if ?you ?don?t ?know ?your ?neighbours, ?people ?are ?friendly ?and ?say ?hello?it ?is ?what ?helps ?make ?up ?a ?community ?with ?churches, ?schools, ?and ?institutions ?that ?help ?bind ?the ?community ?together.? ?Teresa ?and ?Barry ?believe ?they ?have ?found ?this ?in ?Mount ?Pleasant, ?which ?in ?turn ?has ?already ?inspired ?reciprocation, ?marking ?them ?each ?with ?the ?potential ?for ?embodying ?the ?champion ?archetype.By ?one ?means ?or ?another, ?each ?of ?the ?other ?interviewees ?mention ?champions ?as ?being ?an ?integral ?component ?to ?realizing ?community ?work ?within ?the ?public ?realm. ?Without ?strong ?voices ?to ?defend ?the ?needs ?and ?visions ?of ?a ?community, ?change ?is ?hard ?to ?make. ?However, ?before ?one ?can ?become ?a ?champion, ?they ?must ?engage ?with ?the ?issues ?and ?individuals ?they ?represent. ?Through ?their ?words ?and ?actions, ?Teresa ?and ?Barry ?both ?demonstrate ?community ?engagement ?and ?participation. ?This ?characteristic ?of ?resilient ?communities ?requires ?emotional ?bonds ?to ?place ?to ?inspire ?action ?to ?maintain ?or ?improve ?that ?place ?(Manzo ?and ?Perkins, ?2006). ?In ?the ?case ?of ?these ?two ?individuals, ?this ?place ?attachment ?became ?evident ?rather ?quickly.At ?mention ?of ?the ?St. ?George ?Rainway, ?Barry ?inquired ?poignantly ?with: ??The ?idea ?is ?to ?turn ?St. ?George ?into ?a ?one-??way ?street, ?as ?opposed ?to ?a ?two-??way, ?and ?to ?flip ?the ?closed ?lane ?into ?a ?stream/park ?and ?public ?green ?space, ?correct?? ?Upon ?simple ?verbal ?embellishment ?of ?the ?idea, ?he ?freely ?volunteered ?to ??be ?one ?of ?those ?people ?who ?would ?be ?willing ?to ?be ?a ?steward ?and ?help ?with ?gathering ?trash, ?weeding ?rain ?gardens, ?and ?help ?take ?care ?of ?the ?space.? ?He ?clarified ?that ?he ?would ?have ?a ??vested ?interest? ?because ?of ?the ?proximity ?of ?the ?Rainway ?to ?his ?home, ?but ?expressed ?how ?even ?if ?they ??lived ?a ?half-??block ?in, ?[he] ?would ?treat ?the ?amenity ?the ?same?? ?Only ?a ?comprehensive ?survey ?of ?community ?attitudes ?about ?the ?Rainway ?could ?produce ?whether ?a ?non-??homeowner ?would ?feel ?the ?same ?way ?about ?volunteering. ?Regardless, ?such ?a ?reaction ?to ?the ?idea ?of ?the ?Rainway ?demonstrates ?his ?attachment ?to ?the ?place ?that ?is ?his ?locality ?within ?Mount ?Pleasant.111As ?the ?interview ?continued, ?so ?did ?their ?envisioning ?of ?the ?idea. ?Barry ?compared ?it ?to ?either ?Robson ?Park ?or ?Guelph ?Park, ??a ?massive ?park ?where ?everyone ?can ?go ?into ?their ?own ?space ?and ?be ?in ?their ?own ?little ?green ?world?? ?To ?him, ??creating ?the ?full ?vision ?of ?the ?Rainway, ?where ?half ?of ?the ?roadway ?is ?reclaimed ?and ?turned ?into ?a ?stream, ?walking ?path, ?benches, ?and ?so ?on?you ?would ?have ?one ?linear ?element ?that ?would ?attract ?everyone ?[and] ?put ?people ?in ?direct ?contact ?with ?neighbours ?than ?in ?the ?current ?configuration.? ?Teresa ?agreed ?and ?expressed ?the ?importance ?of ?engagement ?with ?the ?idea ?from ?community. ?Here, ?she ?stated, ?is ??where ?phasing ?could ?be ?a ?good ?idea. ?Starting ?small?and ?growing ?from ?something ?similar ?to ?the ?city?s ?Green ?Streets ?program ?could ?work ?well.? ?Continuing ?with ?her ?voice ?of ?optimism ?tempered ?by ?realism, ?Teresa ?pointed ?out ?the ?challenge ?of ?engaging ?with ?neighbours ?who ?are ?not ?in ?favour ?of ?the ?Rainway, ?or ?have ?no ?intention ?to ?participate ?in ?its ?upkeep. ??How ?do ?you ?involve ?the ?kinds ?of ?people ?you ?never ?see ?or ?meet ?in ?your ?neighbourhood? ?If ?they ?don?t ?want ?to ?be ?involved, ?inevitably ?someone ?else ?will ?have ?to ?steward ?their ?area.? ?Barry, ?in ?reply, ?believed ?such ?a ?thing ?is ?rather ?inevitable ?and ?that ?others ?would ?help ?in ?their ?stead. ??Despite ?having ?only ?lived ?here ?for ?such ?a ?short ?period ?of ?time, ?I ?can ?confidently ?say ?how ?I ?don?t ?think ?the ?key ?element ?of ?stewardship ?would ?not ?be ?a ?problem ?to ?find ?here.?As ?a ?means ?to ?meet ?her ?neighbours, ?Teresa ?inquired ?about ?obtaining ?a ?community ?allotment ?garden ?plot ?in ?Robson ?Park ?and ?organized ?a ?neighbourhood ?yard ?sale. ?With ?her ?garden ?inquiry, ?she ?was ?told ?that ?the ?wait ?list ?stood ?at ?70 ?people. ??70?! ?How ?long ?will ?it ?take ?us ?to ?have ?a ?small ?plot ?over ?there?!? ?With ?the ?yard ?sale, ?the ?response ?was ?more ?fruitful, ?but ?spoke ?just ?the ?same ?to ?the ?evidence ?of ?engaged ?neighbours. ?Even ?though ??not ?as ?many ?people ?committed ?who ?spoke ?positively ?about ?it? ?and ?turnout ?was ?not ?what ?she ?hoped ?for, ?Teresa ?did ?believe ?neighbours ?were ?talking ?and ?sharing ?information. ??I ?went ?door ?to ?door ?to ?tell ?people ?about ?it, ?and ?some ?people ?already ?knew ?about ?it ?by ?the ?time ?I ?got ?to ?their ?front ?door,? ?she ?said. ?Though ?not ?yet ?a ?reality, ?one ?story ?was ?found ?to ?be ?particularly ?inspiring ?by ?her: ??We ?had ?some ?houses ?on ?Carolina ?Street ?get ?together ?to ?agree ?to ?spend ?the ?money ?they ?would ?earn ?from ?the ?yard ?sale ?would ?be ?directly ?put ?into ?street ?gardening?sadly ?though, ?the ?person ?who ?was ?spearheading ?it ?got ?called ?away ?to ?work, ?so ?the ?cohesion ?that ?she ?brought ?with ?her ?was ?removed ?and ?they ?had ?to ?promise ?to ?try ?again ?next ?year.?112Whether ?Teresa ?and ?Barry ?will ?rise ?to ?be ?of ?champions ?of ?the ?Rainway ?will ?be ?seen. ?What ?is ?evident ?is ?how ?the ?place ?they ?now ?call ?home ?has ?presence ?of ?social ?capital, ?inspiring ?them ?to ?become ?engaged ?in ?the ?ways ?they ?have ?in ?such ?a ?brief ?amount ?of ?time. ?Some ?research ?has ?shown ?place ?attachment ?to ?be ?a ?phenomena ?related ?more ?to ?connections ?with ?social ?networks ?than ?spacial ?networks ?(Hidalgo ?& ?Hernandez, ?2001). ?Other ?findings ?give ?social ?and ?spacial ?connections ?equal ?weight ?(Low ?& ?Altman, ?1992). ?In ?the ?case ?of ?Teresa ?and ?Barry, ?new ?residents ?of ?Mount ?Pleasant, ?the ?weight ?of ?the ?individual ?drivers ?of ?their ?investment ?in ?community ?is ?of ?no ?consequence ?to ?its ?existence. ?They ?are ?already ?engaged ?and ?building ?connections.4.9 The Long View and the Role of Youth Prior ?to ?the ?interview ?with ?Sue ?Stevenson, ?a ?young ?boy ?sick ?with ?nausea ?was ?gathered ?up ?by ?his ?consoling ?father ?moments ?before ?two ?mothers ?left ?Sue?s ?office ?in ?tears ?after ?what ?appeared ?to ?be ?a ?difficult ?meeting ?regarding ?their ?children. ?Sue ?bid ?them ?good ?day ?and ?greeted ?me ?with ?a ?smile ?and ?the ?strength ?unique ?to ?someone ?held ?responsible ?for ?so ?many ?budding ?youth. ?Sue, ?once ?the ?vice-??principal ?and ?now ?principal ?of ?Mount ?Pleasant ?School, ?one ?of ?the ?two ?primary ?schools ?that ?flank ?St. ?George ?Street, ?has ?been ?working ?in ?the ?community ?for ?over ?14 ?years. ?The ?nature ?of ?a ?position ?of ?service ?that ?involves ?a ?constant ?influx ?and ?turnover ?of ?individuals ?you ?are ?responsible ?for ?requires ?constant ?negotiation ?of ?needs ?for ?the ?present ?with ?needs ?for ?the ?future. ?This ?requires ?a ?constant ?flow ?of ?energy ?of ?many ?forms ?into ?the ?system ?that ?is ?the ?school. ?In ?her ?role ?as ?principal, ?one ?who ?needs ?to ?straddle ?a ?long ?view ?with ?immediate ?needs, ?Sue ?characterizes ?non-??equilibrium ?system ?dynamics ?and ?is ?a ?role ?model ?for ?resilient ?communities. ?Further, ?she ?demonstrates ?support ?for ?high ?degrees ?of ?diversity ?and ?equity ?as ?integral ?components ?to ?the ?discussion.Mount ?Pleasant ?Elementary ?is ?considered ?an ?inner ?city ?school. ?Understanding ?fully ?this ?designation, ?Sue ?sees ?her ?role ?as ?the ?school?s ?principal ?to ??facilitate ?the ?three ?primary ?goals ?of ?urban ?schools.? ?She ?went ?on ?to ?explain ?how ??youth ?and ?family ?workers, ?neighbourhood ?workers, ?staff?all ?of ?these ?people ?are ?focused ?on ?supporting ?these ?goals,? ?which ?are ?as ?follows:113The ?first ?is ?to ?infuse ?literacy ?and ?focus ?on ?it ?wherever ?we ?can?The ?second ?inner ?city ?goal ?is ?social ?responsibility. ?Improving ?self-??esteem ?by ?bring ?students ?out ?into ?the ?community ?and ?teaching ?them ?responsibility ?provides ?opportunities ?for ?developing ?this ?more ?than ?they ?might ?be ?exposed ?to ?in ?their ?homes. ?The ?third ?is ?community ?engagement. ?This ?is ?at ?the ?heart ?of ?what ?we ?do. ?This ?is ?what ?Mount ?Pleasant, ?and ?Strathcona, ?and ?Nightingale, ?and ?the ?fourteen ?other ?inner ?city ?schools ?embrace.Literacy, ?self-??esteem, ?and ?engagement ?each ?are ?about ?instilling ?the ?foundations ?of ?healthy ?habits ?in ?youth, ?when ?the ?representational ?learning ?curve ?is ?not ?as ?steep ?as ?it ?is ?when ?reaching ?adulthood ?(Fischer, ?1980). ?Less ?energy ?is ?therefore ?required ?to ?form ?healthy, ?more ?resilient ?habits ?in ?youth ?than ?adults. ?Of ?the ?three ?goals, ?Sue ?stressed ?the ?brevity ?of ?the ?community ?engagement ?goal, ?expressing ?its ?importance ?as ??huge.? ?She ?continued: ??We ?have ?team ?meetings ?almost ?every ?week, ?where ?the ?four ?of ?us: ?the ?Principal, ?the ?project ?teacher, ?the ?neighbourhood ?worker, ?and ?the ?family ?worker?the ?inner ?city ?team?meet ?to ?discuss ?how ?we ?can ?support ?our ?most ?needy ?and ?at-??risk ?families. ?How ?are ?we ?engaging ?them? ?How ?are ?we ?getting ?them ?into ?our ?school? ?It?s ?a ?big ?piece ?of ?what ?we ?do.? ?One ?very ?visible ?example ?of ?engagement ?with ?the ?broader ?community ?is ?represented ?by ?Celebrate ?Mount ?Pleasant ?Day, ?an ?annual ?event ?that ?transformed ?Mount ?Pleasant ?Elementary ?into ??a ?bustling, ?diverse ?display ?of ?community ?spirit ?and ?celebration? ?(Mount ?Pleasant ?Business ?Improvement ?Area, ?2013). ?In ?her ?own ?words, ?Sue ?explained ?how ??it ?has ?trust, ?it ?has ?people ?chipping ?in; ?it ?has ?a ?real ?community ?sense. ?We ?have ?multicultural ?music ?and ?people ?from ?all ?over ?the ?world?different ?people ?coming ?together ?to ?celebrate ?what ?we ?consider ?to ?be ?our ?neighbourhood.? ?Every ?year, ?the ?event ??keeps ?getting ?better ?and ?better.? ?Yet, ?The ?neighbourhood ?has ?not ?always ?been ?home ?to ?such ?engagement. ?Sue ?has ?noticed ?a ?change ?in ?the ?neighbourhood ?during ?the ?past ?decade, ?and ?expressed: ??In