UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Spatial patterns of home renovation in Nova Scotia, 1971-1988 Bruce, David 1990

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1990_A8 B78.pdf [ 21.14MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0098276.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0098276-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0098276-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0098276-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0098276-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0098276-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0098276-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0098276-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0098276.ris

Full Text

SPATIAL PATTERNS OF HOME RENOVATION IN NOVA SCOTIA, 1971 - 1988 By DAVID WILLIAM CHARLES BRUCE B.A., Mount A l l i s o n U n i v e r s i t y , 1988 THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Geography) We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming t o the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August 1990 © David W i l l i a m Charles Bruce, 1990 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date AO C^S-r 2S , tffC DE-6 (2/88) ABSTRACT Nova Scotia has a high percentage of homes which were b u i l t before 194 6, as well as a high percentage of homes i n need of repair r e l a t i v e to other provinces. The thesis addresses four major issues i n l i g h t of these problems. F i r s t , how many Nova Scotians are renovating t h e i r homes, and how does t h i s change over time? Second, what i s the d i s t r i b u t i o n of renovation across the province i n settlements of d i f f e r e n t sizes? Third, what are the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of renovators i n Nova Scotia? Fourth, how has the involvement of the government, through funding assistance, affected the renovation process i n Nova Scotia? Drawing on building permit a c t i v i t y , i t was found that renovation i s not increasing s i g n i f i c a n t l y across the province, with more a c t i v i t y occurring i n urban and small town areas than i n r u r a l areas. Using census material and both published and unpublished data from an independent renovation survey, comparison of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of renovators and non-renovators are examined. Renovation i n the Metro region i s more c l o s e l y associated with higher s o c i a l status and f i n a n c i a l security, while i n r u r a l areas v i r t u a l l y no c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s stand out. Renovation touches many d i f f e r e n t types of households. The government programs at both the federal and p r o v i n c i a l l e v e l were found to be well targeted to those areas i n greatest need, and indeed the infusion of funds made a s i g n i f i c a n t impact i n encouraging households which might not otherwise renovate to do so. i i SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OP HOME RENOVATION IN NOVA SCOTIA A b s t r a c t . . . . i i Table of Contents . . . . i i i L i s t of Figures . . . . v L i s t of Tables . . . . v i i Acknowledgement . . . . i x I Introduction . . . . 1 A The Problem of D e f i n i t i o n . . . . 8 B Sources of Renovation Data . . . . 10 C O u t l i n e of Thesis . . . . 12 II Interrelationships i n Renovation . . . . 14 A The Role of the Contractor . . . . 16 B The Role of F i n a n c i a l I n s t i t u t i o n s . . . . 19 C The Role of B u i l d i n g Inspectors . . . . 19 D The Role of Government: Rules and Regulations. . . . 20 E The Role of Government: Federal A s s i s t a n c e Programs . . . . 24 F The Homeowner Decision-Making Process . . . . 30 G C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of R e s i d e n t i a l Upgrading . . . . 35 III Renovation Studies . . . . 40 A N a t i o n a l Trends i n Home Renovation . . . . 40 B The Yukon . . . . 51 C B r i t i s h Columbia (Vancouver) . . . . 52 D A l b e r t a . . . . 53 1 Edmonton . . . . 53 2 Province . . . . 55 E Saskatchewan . . . . 55 F Ontario . . . . 56 1 Kitchener . . . . 56 2 Toronto . . . . 57 3 Province . . . . 59 G A t l a n t i c Canada . . . . 60 H Nova S c o t i a . . . . 62 1 H a l i f a x . . . . 62 2 Province . . . . 63 J Summary . . . . 64 IV Private Sector Renovation i n Nova Scotia . . . . 66 A Research Design . . . . 66 B Study Area . . . . 70 C Renovation A c t i v i t y 1971 - 1988 . . . . 74 D R e l a t i v e D i s t r i b u t i o n of Renovation A c t i v i t y . . . . 89 1 Province . . . . 89 2 Cape Breton Region . . . . 94 3 Northern Nova S c o t i a . . . . 101 4 Annapolis V a l l e y Region . . . . 104 5 South Shore . . . . 105 6 Metro Region . . . . 110 E Summary . . . . 117 i i i V The Forces Behind Home Renovation i n Nova Scotia A E x p l a i n i n g the Patterns of B u i l d i n g Permit A c t i v i t y 1 Province 2 Urban and Rur a l Comparisons 3 Comparing Settlement S i z e s 4 Summary B Personal Responses i n Renovation C Conclusions VI Government Assisted Renovation A c t i v i t y A The R e s i d e n t i a l R e h a b i l i t a t i o n A s s i s t a n c e Program B RRAP A c t i v i t y 1975 - 1988 C R e l a t i v e D i s t r i b u t i o n of RRAP A c t i v i t y 1 Province 2 Cape Breton Region 3 Northern Nova S c o t i a 4 Annapolis V a l l e y Region .5 South Shore 6 Metro Region 7 Summary D Assessment of the Targeting of RRAP 1 Province 2 Urban and R u r a l Comparisons 3 Comparing Settlement S i z e s 4 Summary E P r o v i n c i a l Housing Programs F Conclusions VII Conclusions A Summary of E m p i r i c a l Research B Comparison w i t h Other Studies C I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r Further Study B i b l i o g r a p h y Appendix A Appendix B i v L I S T O F F I G U R E S 1.1 Expenditure on R e s i d e n t i a l Renovation and New C o n s t r u c t i o n , Canada, 1969 - 1987 . . . 2.1 A Model of the I n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n the Renovation Process . . . 2.2 L i f e C y c l e of Housing . . . 4.IA R u r a l M u n i c i p a l i t i e s and Regions, Nova S c o t i a . . . 4.IB Small Towns and C i t i e s , Nova S c o t i a . . . 4.2A T o t a l Number and Value of Renovation Permits, R u r a l M u n i c i p a l i t i e s , Nova S c o t i a , 1971 - 1988 . . . 4.2B T o t a l Number and Value of Renovation Permits, Small Towns and C i t i e s , Nova S c o t i a , 1971 - 1988. . . 4.3 T o t a l Number of Renovation Permits, D i s t r i b u t i o n by Settlement S i z e . . . 4.4 Incidence of Renovation, by Settlement S i z e . . . 4.5 Average Value of Renovation Permits, Current and Constant D o l l a r s . . . 4.6 Renovation and Unemployment, Nova S c o t i a , 1971-1988 4.7 Average Annual Incidence of Renovation, Nova S c o t i a , 1971 - 1975 . . . 4.8 Average Annual Incidence of Renovation, Nova S c o t i a , 1976 - 1980 . . . 4.9 Average Annual Incidence of Renovation, Nova S c o t i a , 1981 - 1985 . . . 4.10 Average Annual Incidence of Renovation, Nova S c o t i a , 1986 - 1988 . . . 4.11 Renovation A c t i v i t y , Cape Breton Region . . . 4.12A Average Annual Incidence of Renovation, Cape Breton County, 1980 - 1984 . . . 4.12B Average Annual Incidence of Renovation, Cape Breton County, 1985 - 1988 . . . 4.13 Renovation A c t i v i t y , Northern Nova S c o t i a . . . 4.14 Renovation A c t i v i t y , A n n a p o l i s V a l l e y . . . 4.15 Renovation A c t i v i t y , South Shore . . . 4.16 Renovation A c t i v i t y , Metro Region . . . 4.17A Average Annual Incidence of Renovation, H a l i f a x and Area, 1980 - 1984 . . . 4.17B Average Annual Incidence of Renovation, H a l i f a x and Area, 1985 - 1988 . . . 4.18 Inc i d e n c e of Need f o r Repair, S i n g l e Family Dw e l l i n g s , Nova S c o t i a , 1981 . . . 6.1A T o t a l Number and Value of RRAP Grants, R u r a l M u n i c i p a l i t i e s , Nova S c o t i a , 1975 - 1988 . . . 6.IB T o t a l Number and Value of RRAP Grants, Small Towns and C i t i e s , Nova S c o t i a , 1975 - 1988 . . . 6.2 T o t a l Number of RRAP Grants, by Settlement S i z e . . . 6.3 Incidence of RRAP Grants, by Settlement S i z e . . . 6.4 Average Annual Incidence of RRAP Grants, Nova S c o t i a , 1976 - 1980 . . . 6.5 Average Annual Incidence of RRAP Grants, Nova S c o t i a , 1981 - 1985 . . . 6.6 Average Annual Incidence of RRAP Grants, Nova S c o t i a , 1986 - 1988 . . . v 6.7 Incidence of RRAP, Cape Breton Region . . . . 164 6.8 Incidence of RRAP, Northern Nova S c o t i a . . . . 165 6.9 Incidence of RRAP, Annapolis V a l l e y . . . . 167 6.10 Incidence of RRAP, South Shore . . . . 168 6.11 Incidence of RRAP, Metro Region . . . .17 0 6.12 Incidence of B u i l d i n g Permits and RRAP . . . . 187 v i LIST OF TABLES 1.1 Period of Dwelling Construction, by Province . . . . 5 1.2 Dwelling by Type of Repairs Needed, 1987, by Province . 6 1.3 Incidence of Need for Repair, A l l Households, by Province . . . . 6 2.1 1985 Renovation S p e c i a l i s t Firms, Size and Age by Region . . . . 18 2.2 Residential R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Assistance Program Annual Commitments, 1974 - 1988 . . . . 26 2.3 Canadian Home Renovation Program, Expenditures . . . . 28 2.4 C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Residential Upgrading . . . . 37 3.1 Repair Requirement i n the Low Rise Stock . . . . 42 3.2 Average Renovation Expenditure, Select C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , 1985 . . . . 42 3.3 Incidence of Renovation, Select C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , 1985 . 44 3.4 Homeowner Renovators Providing Own Labour, 1985 . . . . 44 3.5 Average Renovation Expenditure by Reason f o r Renovation, 1985 . . . . 45 3.6 Reason for Homeowner Not Undertaking Renovations i n 1985 . . . . 45 3.7 Fina n c i a l Constraints on Renovation Behaviour of Homeowners, 1985 . . . . 47 3.8 Renovation A c t i v i t y by Quality of Neighbourhood Services . . . . 48 3.9 Household Income and Renovation . . . . 49 3.10 Period of Construction and Renovation . . . . 50 3.11 Motivations i n Renovating, A t l a n t i c Canada . . . . 61 4.1 Use of Building Permits for Renovations i n A t l a n t i c Canada, 1987 - 1988 . . . . 68 4.2 Incidence of Renovation and Average Cost, Nova Scotia, 1987 - 1988 . . . . 76 4.3 Number and Value of Renovation Permits, by Municipality, 1971 - 1988 . . . . 81 4.4 Summary of Renovation A c t i v i t y through Building Permits . . . . 86 4.5 Average Annual Incidence of Renovation, Cape Breton County, 1980 - 1988 . . . . 98 4.6 Average Annual Incidence of Renovation, Halifax and Area, 1980 - 1988 . . . . 114 5.1 Simple Correlation Analysis for Renovation, Province of Nova Scotia . . . . 127 5.2 Multiple Stepwise Regression Analysis for Renovation, Province of Nova Scotia . . . . 127 5.3 Simple Correlation Analysis for Renovation, Urban and Rural D i s t r i c t s . . . . 131 5.4 Multiple Stepwise Regression Analysis f o r Renovation, Urban and Rural D i s t r i c t s . . . . 131 5.5 Simple Correlation Analysis for Renovation, by Metro, Urban, and Rural D i s t r i c t s . . . . 136 5.6 Multiple Stepwise Regression Analysis for Renovation, b y Metro, Urban, and Rural D i s t r i c t s . . . . 136 v i 1 5.7 5. 5, 5. 5. 5. 5, 6, 6. 6, 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 2 3 Percent of Respondents Who Renovated, Nova S c o t i a , 1987 - 1988 Reasons f o r Renovating Reasons f o r S e l f - H e l p i n Renovating Average Renovation Expenditure How Renovations Are Financed Future Renovations Reasons f o r Not Planning Future Renovations T o t a l Number and Value of RRAP Grants Rental RRAP i n H a l i f a x , 1975 - 1988 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.10 140 141 142 142 144 145 147 155 171 Simple C o r r e l a t i o n A n a l y s i s f o r RRAP, Province of Nova S c o t i a . . . . 174 M u l t i p l e Stepwise Regression A n a l y s i s f o r RRAP, Province of Nova S c o t i a . . . . 174 Simple C o r r e l a t i o n A n a l y s i s f o r RRAP, Urban and R u r a l D i s t r i c t s . . . . 177 M u l t i p l e Stepwise Regression A n a l y s i s f o r RRAP, Urban and R u r a l D i s t r i c t s . . . . 177 Simple C o r r e l a t i o n A n a l y s i s f o r RRAP, by Metro, Urban, and R u r a l D i s t r i c t s . . . . 179 M u l t i p l e Stepwise Regression A n a l y s i s f o r RRAP, by Metro, Urban, and R u r a l D i s t r i c t s . . . . 179 Summary of P r o v i n c i a l Renovation A s s i s t a n c e Programs, Nova S c o t i a , 1979 - 1989 . . . . 183 Incidence of P r o v i n c i a l Program Use, by M u n i c i p a l i t y , 1988 - 1989 . . . . 185 v i i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would l i k e t o take t h i s o pportunity t o express my g r a t i t i u d e t o the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation f o r p r o v i d i n g the f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e t o complete t h i s p r o j e c t through t h e i r U n i v e r s i t y S c h o l a r s h i p f o r Graduate Studies programme. A much deserved 'thank you' t o my p a t i e n t and understanding t h e s i s a d v i s o r , Dr. David Ley. Your kindness and thoughtfulness, e s p e c i a l l y as the p r o j e c t neared i t s completion, was g r e a t l y a p preciated. To Dr. David Hulchanski, my g r a t i t u d e f o r being a member of my t h e s i s committee. In r e c o g n i t i o n of t h e i r h e l p f u l n e s s w i t h i n e v i t a b l e computer problems, thanks t o B r i a n and Jamie f o r your much needed a s s i s t a n c e . To my f i a n c e , Sharon, I thank you f o r your f a i t h , hope and love which c a r r i e d me through the f i n a l stages of the t h e s i s . A h e a r t f e l t note of thanks t o my wonderful parents; without your endless love, support, and care, t h i s would never have been p o s s i b l e . i x Houses have a c e r t a i n p h y s i c a l l i f e s p a n as much as automobiles and other durables. In the case of a w e l l constructed d w e l l i n g , i t s l i f e s p a n can extend t o 50 years and, i n many cases, w i t h proper care, t o much more, c e r t a i n l y more than enough t o amortize and deprec i a t e i t s c a p i t a l cost at a reasonable annual r a t e . Why should a property owner not accept such a concept of d e p r e c i a t i o n - and the r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s which i t i m p l i e s i n a replacement sense - j u s t as he does f o r h i s other p h y s i c a l possessions? 1 CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION Perhaps as a s i g n of housing m a t u r i t y , or perhaps more l i k e l y because of n e c e s s i t y , much a t t e n t i o n i n recent years i s focused on making b e t t e r use of the e x i s t i n g s t o c k . 2 In Canada we are now a t a stage when i t i s important t o prolong the l i f e of our housing stock through maintenance, r e p a i r , and renovation. A number of f a c t o r s i n the 1970s encouraged an increase i n renovation. I n f l a t i o n rose, pushing up the c o n s t r u c t i o n c o s t s of a new home. Increased energy c o s t s , coupled w i t h a d i s s a t i s -f a c t i o n f o r the suburban l i f e s t y l e and commuting t o work i n the downtown core, l e d t o a movement of people i n t o o l d e r d i s t r i c t s of the inner c i t y . I t i s not c o i n c i d e n t a l t h a t these inner c i t y homes became popular as i n t e r e s t i n homes w i t h 'character' and i n t r i g u i n g a r c h i t e c t u r e became more prominent. These homes, Paul H e l l y e r , Report of the Task Force on Housing and Urban  Development. (Ottawa, 1969). p. 67. 2 An e x c e l l e n t example of t h i s i s David Hulchanski, Making  B e t t e r Use of the E x i s t i n g Housing Stock, Ontario M i n i s t r y of Mu n i c i p a l A f f a i r s and Housing. 1982. 1 because of age, needed t o be r e p a i r e d ; these homes, because of t a s t e , were renovated. T e l e v i s i o n shows based on home renova-t i o n , such as Mr. F i x - I t and You Can Do I t a l s o experienced p o p u l a r i t y . Today p u b l i c awareness of home renovation i s on the r i s e and there i s a la r g e volume of popular l i t e r a t u r e on the sub j e c t . Bookstores s e l l , and l i b r a r i e s c i r c u l a t e , an i n c r e a s i n g number of books, magazines and j o u r n a l s 3 on renovation and r e l a t e d t o p i c s . 4 I n c r e a s i n g l y , media coverage i n c l u d e s a v a r i e t y of s t o r i e s on renovation i n an attempt t o po r t r a y a more s a t i s f y i n g view of the housing options and c o n d i t i o n s i n our s o c i e t y . 5 D i s c u s s i o n of renovation p o l i c y has r e c e n t l y moved i n t o the s p o t l i g h t of n a t i o n a l debate. In 1987 CMHC d i s t r i b u t e d a Co n s u l t a t i o n Paper on Housing Renovation. The f e d e r a l government recognized t h a t housing was a n a t i o n a l asset and t h a t i t s continued maintenance and r e p a i r was a v i t a l n e c e s s i t y . Feedback on both p r i v a t e and government a s s i s t e d renovation was sought from more than f i f t y i n t e r e s t groups. 6 To emphasize the impor-tance of t h i s d i s c u s s i o n , the n a t i o n a l expenditure ( i n current 3 Perhaps the most i n t e r e s t i n g of these i s the Old-House  J o u r n a l . published i n New York s i n c e 1974. I t i s dedicated t o g i v i n g i t s readers s t o r i e s on how t o upkeep o l d e r , l a r g e r homes. 4 Maria F l e t c h e r , "Home Renovation," Canadian Consumer. 16(2), 1986. p. 11. 5 The l a r g e s t d a i l y newspaper i n Nova S c o t i a , the M a i l S t a r , r e g u l a r l y p u b l i s h e s at l e a s t one a r t i c l e on renovation i n i t s r e a l e s t a t e s e c t i o n of the Saturday paper. The t o p i c s run the gamut from what t o look f o r i n h i r i n g a c o n t r a c t o r t o inf o r m a t i o n on the co s t s f o r v a r i o u s types of renovations. These a r t i c l e s appear q u i t e r e g u l a r l y through the s p r i n g and summer, and i n f r e q u e n t l y throughout the r e s t of the year. 6 CMHC, The Renovation C o n s u l t a t i o n Process: Round One  Consensus and Round Two Options. (Ottawa: 1988). p. 1. 2 d o l l a r s ) on renovation a c t i v i t y has been c l i m b i n g s t e a d i l y s i n c e the e a r l y 1970s i n both r e l a t i v e and absolute terms (Figure 1.1). In 1968 Canadians spent $1.3 b i l l i o n on renovations, i n 1971, $1.7 b i l l i o n , and i n 1986, $13.3 b i l l i o n . 7 This now accounts f o r one-half of the t o t a l investment i n r e s i d e n t i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n . 8 Moreover, as we s h a l l d i s c u s s more f u l l y l a t e r , government has played a major r o l e i n priming renovation, i n c l u d i n g a commitment of over $3 b i l l i o n t o the R e s i d e n t i a l R e h a b i l i t a t i o n A s s i s t a n c e Program over the p e r i o d 1974-1988. Two other important c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which p o i n t t o the increase i n renovation are age of d w e l l i n g and need of r e p a i r . In Canada a s i g n i f i c a n t number of homes are o l d , e s p e c i a l l y i n A t l a n t i c Canada.(Table 1.1) In Nova S c o t i a approximately one-t h i r d were b u i l t before 1941, and h a l f are more than 3 0 years o l d . Every other r e g i o n i n Canada has s i g n i f i c a n t l y fewer homes b u i l t p r i o r t o 1941. This f a c t c e r t a i n l y suggests t h a t there are d i f f e r e n t f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g renovation i n d i f f e r e n t p a r t s of the country. In a d d i t i o n , the incidence of need f o r r e p a i r i s high i n A t l a n t i c Canada compared t o the r e s t of the n a t i o n . In f a c t , i n 1987, Nova S c o t i a had the highest f i g u r e , and was second only t o New Brunswick i n having the highest incidence of need of major r e p a i r (Tables 1.2 and 1.3). Since 1982 the incidence of need f o r r e p a i r has decreased i n every province except CMHC, Snapshot of the Con d i t i o n of Housing i n Canada. (Ottawa: 1987). p. 1. 8 Teega Research Consultants Inc., A Review of Research on  R e s i d e n t i a l Renovation, Report prepared f o r CMHC. (Ottawa: 1989). p. 1. 3 FIGURE 1.1 CHART 1: EXPENDITURES ON RESIDENTIAL RENOVATION AND NEW CONSTRUCTION, CANADA, 1969-1807 TO 71 71 7J 74 79 71 77 71 71 W It II U •* M •• 17 Source: Teega Research Consultants Inc. A Review of Research on Residential Renovation. Ottawa, 1989. p. 1. 4 Saskatchewan. 9 This i n f o r m a t i o n suggests t h a t Canadians f o r the most p a r t are moving i n the r i g h t d i r e c t i o n i n improving t h e i r homes. TABLE 1.1 PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION, SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS thousands t o t a l pre % 1941 % pre 1941 -1960 1961 % Canada 9556 1862 19. 4 2138 22 .4 41.8 Newfoundland 168 27 16. 1 41 24 .4 40.7 PE I s l a n d 43 14 32 . 6 6 14 .0 46.6 Nova S c o t i a 313 101 32 . 3 55 17 .6 49.9 New Brunswick 246 63 25. 6 48 19 .5 45.1 Quebec 2530 543 21. 5 579 22 .9 44.4 Ontario 3451 747 21. 6 807 23 .4 45.0 Manitoba 405 93 23 . 0 100 24 .7 47.7 Saskatchewan 378 65 17 . 2 94 24 . 9 42 .1 A l b e r t a 872 76 8. 7 171 19 . 6 28 . 3 B r i t i s h Columbia 1149 134 11. 7 236 20 . 5 32 . 2 Source: S t a t i s t i c s Canada. Household F a c i l i t i e s and Equipment  Survey. May 1987. Cat. No. 64-202. Ottawa. This statement i s based on in f o r m a t i o n from S t a t i s t i c s Canada Household and Family Expenditure Survey, 1987, Cat. No. 64-203. 5 TABLE 1.2 DWELLING BY TYPE OF REPAIRS NEEDED(1) 1987 thousands Major Repairs Minor Repairs t o t a l own r e n t t o t a l own re n t Canada 1014 657 357 1533 904 630 Newfoundland 27 23 4 27 22 5 PE I s l a n d - - - 8 6 -Nova S c o t i a 52 39 13 57 43 14 New Brunswick 42 34 8 40 29 11 Quebec 262 142 120 340 173 167 Ontario 354 227 127 596 335 261 Manitoba 45 33 13 77 49 28 Saskatchewan 49 35 14 80 60 20 A l b e r t a 83 55 28 155 93 62 B r i t i s h Columbia 97 67 30 155 95 60 1 Not i n c l u d i n g d e s i r a b l e remodelling, a d d i t i o n s , conversions, energy saving improvements. Source: S t a t i s t i c s Canada. Household F a c i l i t i e s and Equipment Survey, May 1987. Cat. No. 64-202. TABLE 1.3 INCIDENCE OF NEED OF REPAIR, ALL HOUSEHOLDS, 1987 major 3-minor 3-t o t a l 9. Canada •6 10. 6 •6 16. 0 "6 26.6 Newfoundland 16.1 16.1 32.2 P r i n c e Edward I s l a n d - 18.6 -Nova S c o t i a 16. 6 18.2 34.8 New Brunswick 17.1 16.3 33.4 Quebec 10.4 13 .4 23 . 8 Ontario 10.3 17.3 27 . 6 Manitoba 11.1 19.0 30.1 Saskatchewan 13 . 0 21.2 34.2 A l b e r t a 9.5 17 .8 27.3 B r i t i s h Columbia 8.4 13 .5 21.9 Source: C a l c u l a t e d from Table 2. 6 A f i n a l p o i n t of reference i s r e q u i r e d here. A study prepared f o r CMHC i n 1987 i n d i c a t e d t h a t w h i l e the growth of r e s i d e n t i a l renovation i n Canada has been extremely steady, t h i s has not been the case i n Nova S c o t i a . In 1983 r e s i d e n t i a l ' c o n s t r u c t i o n was 19.9% of the t o t a l r e s i d e n t i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n v a l u e ; i n 1984 i t rose t o 21.1%, f e l l t o 17.7% i n 1985, and i n 1986 was at 18.5%. Meanwhile, the d o l l a r value of t o t a l r e s i d e n t i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n and new r e s i d e n t i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n 10 decreased by 26.3% and 27.8% r e s p e c t i v e l y . In l i g h t of these observations, t h i s r e p o r t s e t s out t o di s c u s s s e v e r a l i s s u e s . What i s the year t o year amount of renovation a c t i v i t y i n Nova S c o t i a , and how does t h i s compare to other areas of Canada? I t i s important t o examine the changes i n the amount of renovation t h a t has been o c c u r r i n g i n Nova S c o t i a and t o understand how and why the changes occur. The average expenditure on renovation i s another key i n d i c a t o r of renovation a c t i v i t y ; over time i t r e f l e c t s the investment r a t e i n the e x i s t i n g housing stock. What i s the s p a t i a l p a t t e r n of renovation a c t i v i t y and what are i t s u n d e r l y i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ? Some areas of the province are fundamentally d i f f e r e n t from others. There i s the cos-mopolitan urban core i n Halifax-Dartmouth w i t h i t s r a p i d l y expanding suburban communities. Contrast t h i s w i t h i n d u s t r i a l Cape Breton, an area of d e c l i n i n g p o p u l a t i o n and economy. The t h r i v i n g Annapolis V a l l e y i s d i f f e r e n t from the economically 1 0 DPA Group Inc., F i n a l Report: The Nova S c o t i a Residen- t i a l Renovation Industry Study, Report prepared f o r CMHC. ( H a l i f a x : 1987). p . l . 7 c y c l i c a l f i s h i n g communities of southwest Nova S c o t i a . Each of these subregions i s composed of i t s own matrix of socioeconomic and p h y s i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Therefore, we would expect t o f i n d d i f f e r e n t p a t t e r n s of renovation a c t i v i t y over space and time. What has been the impact of f e d e r a l and p r o v i n c i a l government a s s i s t e d programs? The pervasive arm of the s t a t e i n the s o c i a l and economic realms of our n a t i o n cannot be overlooked when d i s c u s s i n g renovation. The very f a c t t h a t renovation programs e x i s t suggest t h a t there i s an un d e r l y i n g n a t i o n a l agenda on the importance of renovation. As w e l l , the i n f u s i o n of funds from the f e d e r a l government gives r i s e t o the suggestion t h a t t h i s i s an important s t i m u l a n t of p r i v a t e s e c t o r renovation. These three major questions w i l l provide the backbone of thought as the d i s c u s s i o n evolves from a broad assessment of renovation across the province t o an examination of f i n e l y disaggregated data from m u n i c i p a l study areas and uses t h i s d i s a g g r e g a t i o n t o h i g h l i g h t those f a c t o r s ( i f any) which help t o e x p l a i n observed p a t t e r n s . A. THE PROBLEM OF DEFINITION The term 'home renovation' has many connotations. This problem of d e f i n i n g e x a c t l y what one means by 'home renovation' has l e d t o many d i f f e r e n t terms being used i n the d i s c u s s i o n . The R e s i d e n t i a l Renovation Overview published by CMHC describes r e n o v a t i o n as a c a t c h - a l l term t o i d e n t i f y the many d i f f e r e n t forms of renovation, i n c l u d i n g on-going home maintenance, minor 8 and major r e p a i r s , replacements and improvements, and a d d i t i o n s and conversions: 1 1 maintenance: s u s t a i n i n g a b u i l d i n g i n i t s c u r r e n t p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n by r e g u l a r c l e a n i n g and i n s p e c t i o n f o r wear and t e a r ; repairs, i n c r e a s i n g a b u i l d i n g ' s p h y s i c a l s a f e t y or replacement soundness by f i x i n g or s u b s t i t u t i n g new p a r t s f o r those which are weak, worn out, or damaged; improvements: upgrading or modernizing a b u i l d i n g beyond i t s o r i g i n a l c o n d i t i o n ; additions: i n c r e a s i n g the s i z e of a b u i l d i n g by adding rooms or f l o o r space; conversions: changing the number of s e l f - c o n t a i n e d d w e l l i n g s i n a b u i l d i n g or changing a b u i l d i n g i n t o r e s i d e n t i a l use. Renovation has a l s o been defined as "that expenditure necessary t o maintain a constant q u a l i t y of housing". 1 2 1 1 The d e f i n i t i o n s which f o l l o w are taken from Program E v a l u a t i o n D i v i s i o n , R e s i d e n t i a l Renovation Overview: Program  E v a l u a t i o n Report. CMHC, 1988. p. 4. 1 2 D. Capozza, S. W. Hamilton, and R. H e l s l e y , Government  I n t e r v e n t i o n i n R e s i d e n t i a l Renovation: A R a t i o n a l e Review and  Study of the I n t e r v e n t i o n Impacts, Report prepared f o r CMHC. (Fa c u l t y of Commerce and Business A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1986). p. 4. 9 Another important term i s r e h a b i l i t a t i o n . This i s the p h y s i c a l upgrading of e x i s t i n g s t r u c t u r e s t o a minimum standard f o r the purpose of h a b i t a t i o n . There are s e v e r a l other terms which are a s s o c i a t e d w i t h renovation, i n c l u d i n g : renewal, r e t r o f i t t i n g , and re m o d e l l i n g . 1 3 With many d i f f e r e n t terms and d e f i n i t i o n s being used, problems can occur i n f i n d i n g data on renovation. Most data sources deal w i t h r e p a i r s and replacement. For the purpose of t h i s study, renovation means "any permanent improvement, r e p a i r , replacement, a l t e r a t i o n , or a d d i t i o n t o a residence." In Chapter 4 t h i s d e f i n i t i o n w i l l be reassessed i n l i g h t of the a v a i l a b l e data. B. SOURCES OF RENOVATION DATA The task of f i n d i n g sources of data on renovation i s a d i f f i c u l t one, f o r each source uses a d i f f e r e n t d e f i n i t i o n of renov a t i o n (or r e p a i r ) and of t e n has v a r i a b l e r e c o r d i n g and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n schemes. In 1986 CMHC's S t a t i s t i c a l S ervices D i v i s i o n prepared a re p o r t f o r the B u i l d i n g Renovation Forum held i n Toronto, e n t i t l e d Sources of R e s i d e n t i a l R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Data. I t r e v ealed t h a t there were scant resources a v a i l a b l e i n the f i e l d of r enovation data. There are, however, two important published sources. One i s the S t a t i s t i c s Canada B u i l d i n g Permits monthly and annual r e p o r t s . Covering 98.8% of urban and 68.9% of r u r a l 1 3 Clayton Research Assoc. L t d . , The Nature of the Residen- t i a l Renovation Market i n Ontario, 1987. p. 2-3. 1 4 R u r a l and Small Town Research and Studies Programme, The  R e s i d e n t i a l Renovation Industry i n A t l a n t i c Canada: Homeowners, P r e l i m i n a r y H i g h l i g h t s . ( S a c k v i l l e , New Brunswick: 1989). 10 areas, they g i v e i n f o r m a t i o n at the p r o v i n c i a l and m e t r o p o l i t a n l e v e l on the amount of d o l l a r s spent on both new c o n s t r u c t i o n and on renovations. The other i s the Family Expenditure Survey, an o c c a s i o n a l n a t i o n a l survey of a l i m i t e d number of households seeking t o f i n d the r e l a t i v e spending p a t t e r n s on a v a r i e t y of goods and s e r v i c e s . The most recent were i n 1982 and 1985. The s e c t i o n on renovation allows one t o see how much i s being spent, by tenure, and the breakdown i n t o c o n t r a c t , m a t e r i a l s , and labour on an aggregate b a s i s . The respondent i s a l s o asked t o i n d i c a t e the need f o r r e p a i r of the d w e l l i n g . In 1987 a s p e c i a l survey was done, e n t i t l e d Homeowner Repair and Renovation Expenditure i n  Canada. In published form, the i n f o r m a t i o n i s n a t i o n a l l y aggregated. There are other sources as w e l l . The N a t i o n a l Accounts Data gives an adjusted estimate f o r the amount of money spent on r e p a i r s i n Canada based on the r e s u l t s of the two above-mentioned data sources. The i n f o r m a t i o n i s n a t i o n a l i n scope. In some years the census contains data on the homeowner's need f o r r e p a i r , and a l s o on whether or not any r e p a i r s or energy-upgrades have been undertaken. The 1981 Census of Canada asked homeowners to s t a t e whether t h e i r home needed r e p a i r s . This i n f o r m a t i o n , because of the v a r i a b l e wording of the questions, o f f e r s r e s u l t s d i f f e r e n t from those of the Family Expenditure Survey. The 1991 Census w i l l again ask questions about the need f o r r e p a i r s . These sources are u s e f u l f o r r e v e a l i n g a l a r g e aggregate p i c t u r e of renovation a c t i v i t y . But t h i s r e p o r t i s i n t e r e s t e d i n a c t i v i t y at the municipal s c a l e , and the data d e s c r i b e d are 11 p r i n c i p a l l y n a t i o n a l , p r o v i n c i a l , or me t r o p o l i t a n i n nature and do not provide the necessary i n f o r m a t i o n t o allo w f o r smaller areas t o be analyzed. For such a n a l y s i s data must be r e t r i e v e d from i n d i v i d u a l m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , encountering thereby the problem of v a r i a b l e r e cord keeping. Chapter 4 w i l l d i s c u s s t h i s matter i n more d e t a i l . C. OUTLINE OF THESIS The second chapter discusses the broader conceptual framework of the decision-making process i n renovation. F i r s t , a model i s presented t o show the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s of v a r i o u s a c t o r s i n renovation. Second, the r o l e of each of the key ac t o r s i s examined: f i n a n c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s , b u i l d i n g i n s p e c t o r s , c o n t r a c t o r s , the government, and the homeowner. A d i s c u s s i o n of the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of both p h y s i c a l and s o c i a l upgrading processes, h i g h l i g h t i n g g e n t r i f i e r s and incumbent upgraders, concludes the chapter. The t h i r d chapter discusses some of the n a t i o n a l trends i n home renovation. F o l l o w i n g t h i s an examination of renovation s t u d i e s i n other provinces and c i t i e s i n Canada i s completed, w i t h p a r t i c u l a r emphasis placed on themes discussed i n Chapter 2. This d i s c u s s i o n w i l l help t o formulate the nature of enquiry f o r a case study of Nova S c o t i a . Chapter four introduces the research design and c l o s e l y examines the extent of renovation i n Nova S c o t i a . Two major concerns are addressed: the d i s t r i b u t i o n of renovation over space; and the changing p a t t e r n of renovation over time. The 12 f i f t h chapter seeks t o analyze the u n d e r l y i n g f o r c e s d r i v i n g r enovation i n Nova S c o t i a ; f i r s t through a s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s of renovation through b u i l d i n g permit a c t i v i t y , and second, by examining r e s u l t s of a homeowner survey on renovation. Chapter s i x considers the r o l e of government programs i n renovation i n Nova S c o t i a , w i t h p a r t i c u l a r emphasis placed on the f e d e r a l R e s i d e n t i a l R e h a b i l i t a t i o n A s s i s t a n c e Program. Three p r o v i n c i a l programs which a l s o provide funding a s s i s t a n c e f o r home renovation are evaluated. F i r s t , the d i s t r i b u t i o n of use of these programs i s addressed, and second, the s u i t a b i l i t y of the t a r g e t i n g of these programs i s evaluated. The f i n a l chapter o f f e r s some broad conclusions and suggests areas f o r f u r t h e r research. The author recognizes t h a t t h i s work i s a very t e n t a t i v e step toward understanding renovation i n Nova S c o t i a , and t h a t there are many questions yet t o be answered. 13 CHAPTER I I : INTERRELATIONSHIPS IN RENOVATION The process of renovation i s as v a r i e d as the p r o j e c t s one might want t o t a c k l e t o improve a home, and there are many act o r s who could p o t e n t i a l l y become i n v o l v e d . In a d d i t i o n t o the homeowner, there are c o n t r a c t o r s who may do renovation work; f i n a n c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s which may provide loans f o r renovation p r o j e c t s ; government, which r e g u l a t e s many aspects of renovation and which may o f f e r f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e i n the form of loans and grants t o those who q u a l i f y ; and b u i l d i n g i n s p e c t o r s , who enforce government r e g u l a t i o n s . I t i s t h e r e f o r e u s e f u l t o map the var i o u s i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s among the p o t e n t i a l a c t o r s i n v o l v e d i n a renov a t i o n p r o j e c t . Pinsky and S i j p k e s (1974) developed a conceptual model 1 5 of the i n t e r a c t i o n of v a r i o u s a c t o r s i n an o w n e r - i n i t i a t e d r e h a b i l i t a t i o n . Figure 2.1 expands on the model and represents more f u l l y the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s . There are many p o s s i b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n the renovation process. The funding f o r renovation may be from any or a l l of personal savings, a loan from a f i n a n c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n , or a loan or grant from the government. The homeowner may wish t o co n s u l t a p r o f e s s i o n a l (such as an a r -c h i t e c t ) f o r a s s i s t a n c e i n designing the renovating p r o j e c t . The homeowner may h i r e a c o n t r a c t o r t o do the work, use h i s own labour t o do so, or choose some mix of the two. In any case, the homeowner must comply w i t h c e r t a i n r e g u l a t i o n s enforced by l o c a l b u i l d i n g i n s p e c t o r s t o meet minimum standards. 1 5 Barry Pinsky and Peter S i j p k e s , "Housing Renovation and User C o n t r o l , " H a b i t a t . 17(4/5), 1974. p. 23-26. 14 FIGURE 2.1  A MODEL OF THE INTERRELATIONSHIPS IN THE RENOVATION PROCESS professional financial institutions property owner savings > government grant/loan self-help contractor self-help/ contractor buidling permit government regulations, building inspectors I renovation 15 E s s e n t i a l l y what we have i m p l i c i t y demonstrated i s t h a t there are a number of gatekeepers who may be i n v o l v e d i n the renovation process. The term "gatekeeper" r e f e r s t o a person or i n s t i t u t i o n which c o n t r o l s entry t o a s p e c i f i c p l a c e or program, a concept developed from Max Weber's views on advanced s o c i e t i e s . He saw a gradual extension of the power of bureaucracy as a form of mediation i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of s o c i e t a l r e s o u r c e s . 1 6 In the area of home renovation there are s e v e r a l gatekeepers who play important r o l e s i n e i t h e r p r o h i b i t i n g or encouraging a homeowner to renovate. A. THE ROLE OP THE CONTRACTOR There are two types of renovation c o n t r a c t o r s : s p e c u l a t i v e (spec) renovators and c o n t r a c t renovators. Spec renovators purchase property, redesign and r e h a b i l i t a t e i t , and then s e l l i t on the market f o r a p r o f i t . A c o n t r a c t renovator c o n t r a c t s s e r v i c e s t o homeowners to r e n o v a t e / r e h a b i l i t a t e t h e i r property t o design s p e c i f i c a t i o n s . A c o n t r a c t renovator may f u n c t i o n as a general c o n t r a c t o r i n o r g a n i z i n g / s u p e r v i s i n g trade work or may operate alone i n performing minor r e p a i r work. 1 7 Much has bee w r i t t e n about the gatekeeper t h e s i s i n r e l a t i o n t o housing markets, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the B r i t i s h context. See, among others, J . Lambert et a l , Housing P o l i c y and the State:  A l l o c a t i o n f Access, and C o n t r o l ; D. Ley, A S o c i a l Geography of the  C i t y (Chapters 8 and 9 ) ; and R. P a h l , Whose C i t y ? . For general i n f o r m a t i o n on Weber see R. C o l l i n s Weberian S o c i o l o g i c a l Theory, or F. P a r k i n , Max Weber. 1 7 C a r o l Dodds, The R e s i d e n t i a l C o n s t r u c t i o n Industry:  Problems i n S h i f t i n g From New C o n s t r u c t i o n t o Renovation Ac- t i v i t i e s . (Unpublished M.A. t h e s i s , School of Community and Regional Planning, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1985). p. 5. 16 Approximately two-thirds of renovation f i r m s use w r i t t e n 18 c o n t r a c t s , w h i l e about 40% use w r i t t e n guarantees. Most firms r e l y on word-of-mouth to e s t a b l i s h t h e i r r e p u t a t i o n and to a d v e r t i s e . 1 9 This helps t o combat one of the major problems i n the i n d u s t r y ; the damaging e f f e c t t h a t unregulated f l y - b y - n i g h t operations have i n p r o v i d i n g customers w i t h poor workmanship and no c o n t r a c t s or guarantees. In 1981 the Department of Consumer A f f a i r s l i s t e d renovators as number two on t h e i r l i s t of • 20 • • • complaints. However, many homebuilder a s s o c i a t i o n s have formed renovation c o u n c i l s i n an e f f o r t t o curb t h i s problem. The renovation i n d u s t r y i s a h i g h l y f r a c t u r e d one i n Canada. A recent (1986) survey by CMHC revealed t h a t i t i s very d i f f i c u l t t o p i n down the s i z e of the i n d u s t r y : There are thousands of f i r m s i n the renovation i n -dustry. Because a n a t i o n a l inventory of renovation f i r m s does not e x i s t , the t o t a l number of f i r m s e x c l u s i v e l y doing renovation work i s not known . . . The d i v e r s i t y of the i n d u s t r y i s a l s o apparent from the d i f f e r e n t degrees of f i r m s ' involvement i n renovation renovation i s a major, but not the only, component of t h e i r l i n e of work. On average, the surveyed f i r m s r e c e i v e d 63.5% of t h e i r s a l e s from renovation work. 2 1 The i n c i d e n c e of s p e c i a l i z a t i o n i n renovation i s lowest i n A t l a n t i c Canada (44%), and highest i n Ontario (74%) (Table 2.1). This may suggest t h a t there i s l e s s renovation o c c u r r i n g i n A t l a n t i c Canada, or t h a t more homeowners do t h e i r own R e s i d e n t i a l Renovation Overview, p. 57. 1 9 R e s i d e n t i a l Renovation Overview, p. 60. Marion T o f t , " R e s i d e n t i a l Renovators Fin d R e s p e c t a b i l i t y , " Canadian B u i l d i n g . 31(4), 1981. p. 26. 2 1 R e s i d e n t i a l Renovation Overview, p. 52-53. 17 renovations. However, an i n t e r e s t i n g f e a t u r e of the i n d u s t r y i s t h a t s p e c i a l i s t f i r m s i n A t l a n t i c Canada have more employees and have been i n business almost as long as those i n Quebec and Ontario. S p e c i a l i s t f i r m s are newer and smal l e r i n Western Canada. TABLE 2.1 1985 RENOVATION SPECIALIST FIRMS SIZE AND AGE BY REGION number of employees years i n business number of mean median mean median f i r m s Canada 5.3 4.0 10.5 8.0 974 A t l a n t i c 7.5 5.0 11.2 8.0 29 Quebec 6.0 4.0 11.6 8.0 210 Ontario 5.5 4 . 0 11.8 10.0 275 P r a i r i e s 5.1 4 . 0 9.0 6.0 251 B.C. 4.2 3 . 0 9.4 6.0 194 Source: Program E v a l u a t i o n D i v i s i o n . R e s i d e n t i a l Renovation  Overview. Ottawa: CMHC, 1988. p. 57. Perhaps one of the most t e l l i n g s i g n s of the fragmented yet expanding renovation i n d u s t r y i s the f a c t t h a t renovation f i r m s have a very short planning h o r i z o n , accepting jobs on l e s s than one month's n o t i c e . Only 3.5% of a l l jobs were scheduled more than 6 months ahead of time. 2 2 R e s i d e n t i a l Renovation Overview, p. 60. 18 B. THE ROLE OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS F i n a n c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s p l a y a minor r o l e i n the area of r e n o v a t i o n . They o f f e r loans and second mortgages f o r home r e p a i r , w i t h the same loan c r i t e r i a as f o r any o t h e r investment c h o i c e . For l a r g e s c a l e p r o j e c t s and spec r e n o v a t o r s , the r o l e of a f i n a n c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n may be much g r e a t e r . Access t o r e n o v a t i o n funds i s c e r t a i n l y a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r f o r homeown-e r s , p a r t i c u l a r l y those who are poorer and/or e l d e r l y . Indebted-ness i s o f t e n a d e t e r r e n t t o r e n o v a t i o n a c t i v i t y , e s p e c i a l l y f o r 23 s e n i o r c i t i z e n s . C. THE ROLE OF BUILDING INSPECTORS B u i l d i n g i n s p e c t o r s can approve or deny an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a b u i l d i n g permit, and t h e r e f o r e u l t i m a t e l y c o n t r o l whether or not a r e n o v a t i o n p r o j e c t i s allowed t o proceed. The N a t i o n a l B u i l d i n g Code a l l o w s i n s p e c t o r s t o be d i s c r e t i o n a r y and g r a n t " e q u i v a l e n t s " t o e x i s t i n g standards. P r o j e c t s must work on the p r e s c r i b e d schedule of i n s p e c t i o n s , which may h i n d e r the p r o g r e s s of a r e n o v a t i o n job. T h i s was a major f i n d i n g of J . Mercer and D. P h i l l i p s , " A t t i t u d e s of Homeowners and the D e c i s i o n t o R e h a b i l i t a t e P r o p e r t y , " Urban Geography. 12(3), 1981. p. 216-236. I t was shown t h a t "the major f a c t o r d e t e r m i n i n g the amount of p r o p e r t y improvement i n the t h i s (Grandview) d e t e r i o r a t e d s e c t i o n was the l e v e l of p e r s o n a l funds a v a i l a b l e t o the i n d i v i d u a l homeowner. Few homeowners are w i l l i n g t o i n c u r loans from banks f o r p r o p e r t y improvement." p. 23 0. Mark Dehnez, Government Involvement i n R e s i d e n t i a l  Renovation: The L e g a l B a s i s . D i s c u s s i o n paper, Ottawa: CMHC, 1986. p. 35. 19 A survey of A t l a n t i c Canadian b u i l d i n g i n s p e c t o r s shows t h a t only 50% of the in s p e c t o r s always i n s p e c t a p r o j e c t r e q u i r i n g a permit. Inspectors tend t o t r e a t homeowners d i f f e r e n t l y than b u i l d i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l s , w i t h 17% being not as s t r i c t w i t h homeowners, a f u r t h e r 12% g i v i n g them the b e n e f i t of the doubt, and 25% g i v i n g more time f o r the homeowner t o complete the p r o j e c t . 2 5 D. THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT: RULES AND REGULATIONS The government, at a l l three l e v e l s , p l a y s a wide-ranging r o l e i n the area of renovation. L e g i s l a t i o n a p p l i c a b l e t o renovation i s a tangled web of r e g u l a t i o n s , few of which were d r a f t e d w i t h r e s i d e n t i a l renovation i n mind. This o f t e n leads t o awkwardness i n a p p l y i n g e x i s t i n g r u l e s intended p r i m a r i l y f o r new c o n s t r u c t i o n t o r e n o v a t i o n . 2 6 L e g i s l a t i o n from many government departments -housing, f i n a n c e , c u l t u r a l a f f a i r s - a f f e c t r e n o v a t i o n . 2 7 Each l e v e l of government i s i n v o l v e d i n implementing renovation r e l a t e d l e g i s l a t i o n . The f e d e r a l government issues grants f o r , and l e v i e s taxes upon, renovations, and has developed a N a t i o n a l B u i l d i n g Code (which the provinces use as a model) which i s used as a standard f o r a l l c o n s t r u c t i o n . The provinces enforce b u i l d i n g code s t a t u t e s , i s s u e grants, supervise municipal R u r a l and Small Town Research and Studies Programme, The R e s i d e n t i a l Renovation Industry i n A t l a n t i c Canada: Lo c a l B u i l d i n g I n s p ectors, P r e l i m i n a r y h i g h l i g h t s . ( S a c k v i l l e , New Brunswick, 1989). 2 6 Denhez, p. 3. 2 7 Denhez, p. 6. 20 p l a n n i n g processes, and hear appeals. M u n i c i p a l i t i e s , whose powers are granted by the province, can t a r g e t p r i o r i t i e s f o r renovation through planning, land use c o n t r o l s , maintenance and occupancy standards, economic i n c e n t i v e s , property assessments, 28 and a d v i s o r y committees. There i s o f t e n e x t r a c o s t both i n d o l l a r s and time due t o b u r e a u c r a t i c red tape a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a p p l y i n g f o r a b u i l d i n g permit. 2 9 In the area of t a x a t i o n , government both hinders and aids r e n o v a t i o n . On the p o s i t i v e s i d e , the f e d e r a l government exempts b u i l d i n g m a t e r i a l s from r e t a i l s a l e s t a x so as t o encourage new c o n s t r u c t i o n . This saving on m a t e r i a l s i s passed on i n the renovation s e c t o r , but the saving here i s l e s s because a higher p r o p o r t i o n of costs i s f o r labour. For owners there i s no tax l e v i e d on c a p i t a l gains (the increase i n property value r e a l i z e d by sale) from the s a l e of a p r i n c i p a l r e s i d e n c e ; t h i s means tha t gains made through renovations are earned tax f r e e . However, i f the homeowner develops a " h a b i t " of purchasing, renovating, and then s e l l i n g h i s p r i n c i p a l residence, he may be s i n g l e d out and be r e q u i r e d t o pay the t a x . 3 0 A land t r a n s f e r t a x i s a payment made by the buyer on a percentage of a property's s a l e p r i c e . T h i s payment, i f l a r g e enough, may r e s u l t i n a p r o s p e c t i v e buyer Denhez, p. 15. 2 9 Denhez, p. 28. 3 0 Marion T o f t , "By-Laws T r i p Up Renovators," Canadian  B u i l d i n g . 32(6), 1982. p. 25. T o f t c i t e s one i n c i d e n t where a renovator was delayed f o r up t o f i v e weeks as h i s permit was processed. 21 d e c i d i n g t o renovate h i s e x i s t i n g home r a t h e r than move and pay t a x . 3 1 On the negative s i d e , property taxes are p a i d as a percentage of the market value of a property, and are the major source of revenue f o r most m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . I f renovation increases the market value, property taxes go up. This f a c t i s o f t e n a d i s i n c e n t i v e f o r lower income groups t o upgrade t h e i r homes. I t i s a l s o a d i s i n c e n t i v e f o r renovators t o apply f o r a b u i l d i n g permit, and as such many renovations go unreported. I t i s important t o note t h a t a l l homes are reassessed a f t e r they are renovated ( i f a permit has been i s s u e d ) , and most m u n i c i p a l i t i e s have a schedule f o r updating the assessment value of homes every few years. M u n i c i p a l i t i e s , o f t e n f o l l o w i n g f e d e r a l and p r o v i n c i a l d i r e c t i v e s , have i n s t i t u t e d a s e r i e s of r e g u l a t i o n s a f f e c t i n g r e n o v a tion. For example, r e s t r i c t i v e height and bulk l i m i t s might discourage redevelopment and encourage renovation of an e x i s t i n g b u i l d i n g . 3 2 Maintenance and occupancy bylaws l e g a l l y allow m u n i c i p a l i t i e s t o i n s p e c t p r i v a t e property, i n c l u d i n g a l l aspects of i t s p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n . A renovator's n e c e s s i t y t o comply w i t h these r e g u l a t i o n s i s important because i t can a f f e c t the time p e r i o d of c o n s t r u c t i o n (to a l l o w f o r i n s p e c t i o n ) and the amount of work r e q u i r e d (to meet minimum standards). A n a t i o n a l b u i l d i n g code, used as a model by the provinces, s e t s the minimum p h y s i c a l 3 1 Denhez, p. 46-47. 3 2 Unless noted otherwise, the d i s c u s s i o n of government r e g u l a t i o n s i s based on the d i s c u s s i o n of R e s i d e n t i a l Renovation  Overview, p. 61-69. 22 standard f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n . Occupancy and zoning r e g u l a t i o n s determine the number of f a m i l i e s t h a t can l i v e i n a p a r t i c u l a r area; t h i s may prevent a homeowner from renovating t o add a secondary or " i l l e g a l " s u i t e f o r r e n t a l purposes. 3 3 There are d i f f e r e n t standards across the country g u i d i n g the requirement f o r a renovator t o apply f o r a permit. Permits, issued by m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , a l l o w i n s p e c t o r s t o monitor a p r o j e c t . There i s an a p p l i c a t i o n fee f o r a permit and r e g u l a t i o n s which must be met. Both of these may be a hindrance t o the renovator, r e q u i r i n g e x t r a time and money. Many renovation jobs go un-reported f o r t h i s reason, an undoubted l i m i t a t i o n on a l l pub-l i s h e d s t a t i s t i c s which u n i v e r s a l l y under-report the f u l l extent of renovation. A b u i l d i n g may be designated as h e r i t a g e property by an appr o p r i a t e governing body. The purpose of t h i s l e g i s l a t i o n i s t o c o n t r o l the fe a t u r e s which can be changed i n the b u i l d i n g . A l s o , h e r i t a g e d e s i g n a t i o n may be a p r e r e q u i s i t e f o r r e c e i v i n g funding f o r the upgrading of an o l d b u i l d i n g . These are the major r e g u l a t o r y f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g renovation a c t i v i t y . The government's involvement i n renovation r e g u l a t e s property development ( a f f e c t i n g the cost of r e n o v a t i o n ) , property o p e r a t i o n ( a f f e c t i n g the r a t e of r e t u r n on investment), and property s a l e ( a f f e c t i n g the p r o f i t a b i l i t y of investment). There have been many c a l l s f o r planners t o update r e g u l a t i o n s t o meet the needs of renovation today. Carpozza et a l , p. 3 3 - 3 4 . E. THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT: FEDERAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS In 1969 the H e l l y e r Task Force on Housing and Urban Develop- ment is s u e d i t s r e p o r t . In response t o the p u b l i c outcry against urban renewal, clearances, u n c e r t a i n t i e s , and the r e l o c a t i o n of poor f a m i l i e s , 3 4 i t made many recommendations i n the area of housing and urban renewal. In p a r t i c u l a r i t recognized the need t o r e h a b i l i t a t e the e x i s t i n g housing stock: I f one i s t o seek greater e f f o r t t o preserve e x i s t i n g housing stock, one must a l s o be concerned t h a t greater care be taken i n p r e s e r v i n g the s t a t e of i t . The Task Force i s i n favour of main t a i n i n g good used d w e l l i n g s , not of promoting slums or urban b l i g h t . Members recog-n i z e t h a t the p r e s e r v a t i o n of housing stock i n adequate c o n d i t i o n i s anything but an automatic process, but indeed r e q u i r e s a conscious and c o n t i n u i n g e f f o r t on the p a r t of both government and the p r i v a t e homeowner. The Task Force b e l i e v e s t h a t c u r r e n t p o l i c i e s i n t h i s area can and should be improved. 3 5 This r e p o r t launched a much more i n t e n s i v e p e r i o d of government involvement i n the area of home r e n o v a t i o n . 3 6 David Carlson, R e v i t a l i z i n g North American Neighbourhoods. (Washington D.C: The Urban I n s t i t u t e , 1979). p. 2. 3 5 H e l l y e r , p. 66. 3 6 One study found t h a t there were no p o s i t i v e economic e x t e r n a l i t i e s t o be accrued from government involvement i n encouraging home renovation through funding a s s i s t a n c e . In a study of Vancouver, E a r l Tucker (The E x t e r n a l B e n e f i t s of  Government Subsidized R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Programs. Unpublished M.Sc. theses, F a c u l t y of Commerce and Business A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , Univer-s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia) found t h a t there was no r e l a t i o n s h i p between RRAP grants and housing p r i c e s , and t h a t RRAP d i d not n e c e s s a r i l y increase property values or community confidence. What the study f a i l s t o show, however, i s t h a t there i s a s o c i a l aspect of RRAP which i s a l s o important. RRAP, along w i t h NIP, was designed t o help people f e e l good about t h e i r neighbourhood, t o obt a i n some measure of s a t i s f a c t i o n through the p h y s i c a l upgrading of many homes i n a neighbourhood. This i s covered i n another Vancouver study by J . Mercer and D. P h i l l i p s . ("Attitudes of Homeowners and the D e c i s i o n t o R e h a b i l i t a t e Property," Urban  Geography. 12(3), 1981. p. 216-236). 24 The most s i g n i f i c a n t program i n terms of c a p i t a l o u t l a y has been the R e s i d e n t i a l R e h a b i l i t a t i o n A s s i s t a n c e Program (RRAP). However, there have been s e v e r a l other programs, both d i r e c t l y and i n d i r e c t l y i n v o l v e d i n renovation, which have been important i n the f i e l d of home renovation. RRAP was introduced i n 1973 i n concert w i t h the Neighbourhood Improvement Program (NIP) t o improve the p h y s i c a l i n f r a s t r u c t u r e of, and t o upgrade the e x i s t i n g housing stock i n , the inner c i t i e s of Canada. Through RRAP, e l i g i b l e homeowners and l a n d l o r d s i n t a r g e t e d areas r e c e i v e a s s i s t a n c e f o r r e p a i r work t o meet minimum h e a l t h and s a f e t y standards. In 1974, r u r a l areas were i n c l u d e d , and i n 1981, p r o v i s i o n s f o r d i s a b l e d occupants were made. RRAP became u n i v e r s a l i n 1986, no longer r e s t r i c t e d t o designated areas. In 1989, the r e n t a l p o r t i o n of the program was d i s c o n t i n u e d . The program i s targeted t o those i n 'core need' and loans are p a r t i a l l y f o r g i v a b l e based on income. Those w i t h the pro-gram's maximum income e l i g i b i l i t y repay a l l of the loan, and, on a s l i d i n g s c a l e , those at lower incomes repay l e s s . The program i s administered by a v a r i e t y of l o c a l housing agencies, m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , and p r o v i n c i a l agencies across the country. 3 7 There have been l a r g e sums of money spent on t h i s program; i n j e c t i n g about one-quarter of a b i l l i o n d o l l a r s per year i n t o the economy, w i t h almost three and one-half b i l l i o n spent s i n c e i t s i n c e p t i o n (Table 2.2). R e s i d e n t i a l Renovation Overview, p. f l . 25 TABLE 2 . 2 RESIDENTIAL REHABILITATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM Annual Commitments (1), 1974-1988 year amount ($ m i l l i o n s ) 1974 5.5 1975 25.0 1976 91.5 1977 164.1 1978 255.4 1979 221.8 1980 239.7 1981 252 . 0 1982 285.7 1983 388.9 1984 382.9 1985 283.9 1986 237. 6 1987 266. 6 1988 291. 3 t o t a l 3 391.9 1 Includes both budgetary and non-budgetary items, i n current d o l l a r s . Source: CMHC, Annual Report. Various years. The other ongoing program i s the Emergency Repair Program which has been i n place s i n c e 1974 and i s designed t o r e p a i r s e r i o u s l y substandard housing by p r o v i d i n g a s s i s t a n c e t o owner-occupiers on the b a s i s of lowest income, l a r g e s t f a m i l y , worst-housed f i r s t . P r i m a r i l y i t i s designed t o meet minimum h e a l t h and s a f e t y standards u n t i l a l t e r n a t i v e housing can be 26 found. P r i o r i t y i s given t o Native and r u r a l f a m i l i e s , and the loans are 100% f o r g i v a b l e . Renovation cos t s have become e l i g i b l e s i n c e 1987 f o r i n c l u s i o n i n second mortgages insured under the NHA, p r o v i d i n g f o r an a l t e r n a t i v e source of f i n a n c i n g f o r p r o j e c t s g r e a t e r than $10 000. 3 9 E s s e n t i a l l y , t h i s program r e p l a c e s the di s c o n t i n u e d Home Improvement Loans Program which was o p e r a t i o n a l from 1954 t o 1986. Designed t o help t o improve and r e h a b i l i t a t e the housing stock and encourage lenders t o fina n c e home improvements, i t a s s i s t e d over 450 000 dw e l l i n g s i n i t s l i f e s p a n . I n t e r e s t peaked i n the l a t e 1950s but by the 1980s there was so l i t t l e i n t e r e s t i n the program ( p r i m a r i l y due t o the success of RRAP) t h a t i t was c a n c e l l e d . 4 0 Recently three short term programs were s u c c e s s f u l l y introduced and concluded. The s h o r t e s t and most s u c c e s s f u l of these was the Canadian Home Renovation P l a n (CHRP), created i n May of 1982 t o help c r e a t e jobs i n a sagging c o n s t r u c t i o n i n d u s t r y . Homeowner f o r g i v a b l e loans of up t o $3000 t o cover 30% of the cost of improvement, were a v a i l a b l e from the government. There had t o be a minimum expenditure of $2500 and at l e a s t o n e - t h i r d of the grant had t o be spent on labour. Households w i t h an income of l e s s than $48 000 were e l i g i b l e . Improvements had t o be r e s i d e n t i a l and permanent i n nature, and d i d not i n c l u d e luxury 3 8 Housing Programs: In Search of Balance. A study team r e p o r t t o the Task Force on Program Review. (Ottawa: M i n i s t r y of Supply and S e r v i c e s , 1986). p. 88-90. 3 9 R e s i d e n t i a l Renovation Overview, p. f 5 . 4 0 R e s i d e n t i a l Renovation Overview f p. f 3 . 27 items. The program was so s u c c e s s f u l t h a t i t l a s t e d only 14 months. I t was w e l l - l i k e d , easy t o administer, and met i t s goal of s t i m u l a t i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n employment. The f e d e r a l government i n j e c t e d $2 3 5 m i l l i o n i n t o the economy through t h i s program (Table 2.3). The other two programs were energy r e l a t e d . The Canadian Home I n s u l a t i o n Plan ran from A p r i l 1977 t o March 1986. Designed to save energy through upgrading the thermal e f f i c i e n c y of the housing stock, i t f a i l e d because i t d i d not reach those who needed i t most and i n many cases only r e s u l t e d i n i n c r e a s i n g a t t i c i n s u l a t i o n as opposed t o a more comprehensive s e a l i n g and i n s u l a t i o n of the home. CHIP c o n t r i b u t e d o n e - t h i r d of the cost T A B L E 2 . 3 C A N A D I A N HOME R E N O V A T I O N P R O G R A M , E X P E N D I T U R E S ALLOCATION BY PROVINCE TYPE OF WORK province m i l l i o n s work Ontario 7 6.6 Quebec 61.2 B r i t i s h Columbia 22.9 A l b e r t a 17.4 New Brunswick 17.4 Nova S c o t i a 14.7 Manitoba 11.0 Saskatchewan 6.2 Newfoundland 5.6 P r i n c e Edward I s l a n d 2.0 Yukon 0.2 Canada 2 3 5.3 I n s u l a t i o n 10 A d d i t i o n 11 Plumbing 5 S t r u c t u r a l 9 Heating 2 E l e c t r i c a l 3 I n t e r i o r 19 E x t e r i o r 41 Source: C h r i s t i n e Tausig, "Three Cheers f o r CHRP" H a b i t a t . 26(4), 1983. p. 25. C h r i s t i n e Tausig, "Three Cheers f o r CHRP," H a b i t a t . 26(4), 1983. p. 25. 28 of labour and m a t e r i a l s t o a maximum of $500; o v e r a l l , the program cos t j u s t over one b i l l i o n d o l l a r s . S l i g h t l y more than one t h i r d of the 7.3 m i l l i o n e l i g i b l e households took p a r t i n the program. 4 2 The Canadian O i l S u b s t i t u t i o n Program (COSP) ran from A p r i l 1980 to March 1985, and was designed t o encourage conversion of heating systems t o a l t e r n a t i v e energy resources. Close t o one m i l l i o n households r e c e i v e d grants, c o s t i n g the government j u s t over $700 m i l l i o n . The grant provided one-half of the cos t of m a t e r i a l s and labour t o a maximum of $800. 4 3 The government has a l s o been i n v o l v e d i n two other important aspects of renovation. CMHC has published s e v e r a l pamphlets which are a v a i l a b l e t o p o t e n t i a l renovators t o a s s i s t them i n the va r i o u s aspects of home renovation, i n c l u d i n g : The Sensible  R e h a b i l i t a t i o n of Older Houses; New L i f e f o r an Old Home; and, In s p e c t i o n C h e c k l i s t f o r Maintenance and Repair. The government has a l s o been developing renovation c o n t r a c t o r t r a i n i n g programs i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h the Canadian Home B u i l d e r s A s s o c i a t i o n (CHBA) to improve the s k i l l l e v e l of c o n t r a c t o r s . Response i n 1988 was so strong t h a t t h i s seminar program w i l l expand by 50% i n the coming year. 4 4 As w e l l , the two groups have been studying the f e a s i b i l i t y of i n t r o d u c i n g warranties i n t o the f i e l d of contracted r e n o v a t i o n work. 4 5 4 2 Housing Programs, p. 183-186. 4 3 Housing Programs, p. 190-192. 4 4 "Expansion Planned f o r Renovation Seminars," Canadian  Housing. 6(3), 1989, p. 43. 4 5 Snapshot. p. 6. F. THE HOMEOWNER DECISION-MAKING PROCESS The l i f e c y c l e of housing i s d i f f e r e n t w i t h each of the v a r i o u s p o s s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s from which a homeowner may c h o o s e . ( F i g u r e 2.2) Making no r e p a i r s a t a l l sees the l i f e s p a n of the house ending q u i c k l y , w h i l e o t h e r o p t i o n s extend the u s e f u l n e s s of the home. Note t h a t t h i s model i s an economic one w i t h the y - a x i s r e p r e s e n t i n g the v a l u e of the home per u n i t of l a n d . However, both s o c i a l and economic f a c t o r s p l a y major r o l e s i n the p r o c e s s of d e c i d i n g t o renovate. Renovation occurs not o n l y t o p r o v i d e b e t t e r housing c o n d i t i o n s , but a l s o t o i n c r e a s e a home's market v a l u e , 4 6 t o lower o p e r a t i n g and maintenance c o s t s , and t o g i v e the home a longer economic l i f e . These p o t e n t i a l b e n e f i t s are balanced a g a i n s t the c o s t s of r e n o v a t i n g , i n c l u d i n g an i n c r e a s e i n p r o p e r t y taxes, and inconvenience and p o s s i b l e l o s s of income d u r i n g r e n o v a t i o n . 4 7 T h i s r a t i o n a l economic p e r s p e c t i v e can be completely i g n o r e d when one c o n s i d e r s t h a t l i f e s t y l e or q u a l i t y of l i f e f a c t o r s , and the r o l e of h e r i t a g e and a e s t h e t i c s F l e t c h e r (p. 11-13) notes t h a t i n the 1950s and 1960s b u i l d i n g a r e c r e a t i o n room i n the basement was a p o p u l a r c h o i c e f o r a r e n o v a t i o n p r o j e c t . Today, however, as homeowners t r y t o i n c r e a s e the r e s a l e v a l u e of t h e i r homes, t h e r e are what i n s i d e r s c o n s i d e r t o be the top t e n investments i n r e n o v a t i o n : c e n t r a l a i r c o n d i t i o n i n g , c e n t r a l vacuum system, remodelled bathroom, f a m i l y room, remodelled k i t c h e n , master bedroom expansion, p o o l , sunroom/solarium, and w h i r l p o o l s . Some of these, such as the a d d i t i o n of a p o o l , would not be c o n s i d e r e d by many t o be a r e n o v a t i o n . 4 7 A. S. Rakhra and A. H. Wilson, "The Market f o r R e h a b i l i -t a t i o n i n Canada," Canadian A r c h i t e c t . 25(4), 1980. p. 14. 30 FIGURE 2.2 LIFE CYCLE OF HOUSING $ H/L t i A t2 t3 B time A no repairs or maintenance B regular repairs and maintenance C renovation D addition E conversion Source: D. Capozza et a l . Government Intervention i n Residential Renovation: A Rationale Review and Study of Intervention Impacts. Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration, UBC, 1986. p. 14. 31 are f r e q u e n t l y given equal or greater b i l l i n g by the renovator i n the r e n o v a t i o n d e c i s i o n . 4 8 There are three conceptual l e v e l s on which we must look t o AO . understand the d e c i s i o n t o renovate. F i r s t , the homeowner, whose f i n a n c i a l s t a t u s p r i m a r i l y i n f l u e n c e s the d e c i s i o n making process. Those w i t h higher incomes tend t o spend more on renovation. Those w i t h lower incomes, such as the e l d e r l y or s i n g l e , do not have the f i n a n c i a l resources a v a i l a b l e , so they tend t o renovate i n small increments, having a strong d i s l i k e f o r indebtedness and a f e a r of increased taxes, or do not renovate at a l l . A second c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s the house. Housing has a f i n i t e l i f e span i n f l u e n c e d by two f a c t o r s - the q u a l i t y of i n i t i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n and the l e v e l of maintenance. 5 0 Renovation expenditure i s i n f l u e n c e d by the age, s i z e , and p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n of the home. In general, o l d e r and l a r g e r homes need more r e p a i r s , and owners of higher valued p r o p e r t i e s spend more on renovations. A t h i r d v a r i a b l e i s the neighbourhood. I f there i s a negative a t t i t u d e toward p h y s i c a l and s o c i a l change i n the neighbourhood, renovation i s l e s s l i k e l y . On the other hand, i f many people are renovating, others may be encouraged t o do so. Shear has n o t i c e d t h a t the d e c i s i o n t o r e h a b i l i t a t e i s c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o the d e c i s i o n t o move and both are l i n k e d t o l i f e s t y l e Rakhra and Wilson, p. 15. Jean Ashdown, " R e s i d e n t i a l R e h a b i l i t a t i o n : The Homeown-er's D e c i s i o n , " Canadian Home Economics J o u r n a l . 38(1), 1988. p. 17-19. 5 0 L. S. Bourne, Geography of Housing. (London: Winston and Sons, 1981). p. 21. 32 and household c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . He concluded t h a t the a b i l i t y of the homeowner t o adjust the q u a l i t y of housing through r e h a b i l i t a t i o n d r a m a t i c a l l y a f f e c t s the moving behaviour of the household. R e h a b i l i t a t i o n investment c o s t s are lower f o r younger households, and they t h e r e f o r e tend t o be nonmovers. 5 1 At another economic l e v e l , housing i s seen as a product of consumption which provides a s e r v i c e t o consumers. The l e v e l of t h a t s e r v i c e depends on the s i z e and q u a l i t y of the house. The demand f o r t h i s housing s e r v i c e depends on p r i c e s , incomes, and the socioeconomic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the consumer. As these f a c t o r s change, so does the l e v e l of housing s e r v i c e d e s i r e d . To reach a new d e s i r e d l e v e l , the consumer w i l l e i t h e r renovate or r e l o c a t e . 5 2 These two a l t e r n a t i v e s are dependent upon the t e c h n o l -ogy of home renovation, the r e g u l a t i o n s (and t h e i r costs) concerning renovation, and the t r a n s a c t i o n c o s t s i n v o l v e d i n moving. The higher the t r a n s a c t i o n c o s t s , the higher the l i k e l i h o o d of r e n o v a t i n g . 5 3 Thinking back to Figure 2.1 which shows the i n t e r r e l a t i o n -s h i p s i n the renovation process, i t i s important t o r e a l i z e t h a t the r e l a t i o n s h i p between homeowner and c o n t r a c t o r i n v o l v e s many p o s s i b i l i t i e s . The homeowner may decide t o do renovation jobs i n W i l l i a m Shear, "Urban Housing R e h a b i l i t a t i o n and Move D e c i s i o n s , " Southern Economic J o u r n a l . 49(4), 1983. p. 1051. 5 2 Sweeney concludes t h a t the f i r s t response t o a d e s i r e d change i n housing q u a l i t y i s t o increase the l e v e l of main-tenance, not t o move. James Sweeney, "Housing U n i t Maintenance and Mode of Tenure," J o u r n a l of Economic Theory. 8(2), 1974. p. 111-138. 5 3 Carpozza et a l , p. 10-14, and Sweeney, p. 113. 33 s m a l l increments, as h i s source of finances permits. The homeowner may decide t o do the work h i m s e l f , t o i n v e s t i n "sweat e q u i t y " or " s e l f - h e l p " , p u t t i n g h i s own labour i n t o a construc-t i o n p r o j e c t . In an area where there are few and/or expensive c o n t r a c t o r s , s e l f help can r e l i e v e some of the pressures placed on the i n d u s t r y to meet demand, and can save the homeowner money. This helps t o improve homeowner renovation s k i l l s , and a l e v e l of personal s a t i s f a c t i o n i n completing a p r o j e c t i s achieved. Most im p o r t a n t l y , however, sweat e q u i t y reduces the amount of investment r e q u i r e d i n a renovation p r o j e c t by reducing labour c o s t s , thereby making renovation v i a b l e f o r some households who might not be able t o a f f o r d i t otherwise. 5 5 Popular magazines encourage people t o do t h e i r own r e p a i r s : we are a l l given a c e r t a i n amount of i n t e l l i g e n c e and s k i l l s which can be improved upon w i t h study and experience, and r e p a i r i n g your home does not r e q u i r e a graduate degree i n medicine or s o l a r r e s e a r c h . 5 6 However, there are some negative aspects of sweat equity. P o t e n t i a l jobs i n the c o n s t r u c t i o n i n d u s t r y are l o s t . The r e s u l t may be poorer q u a l i t y r e p a i r s t h a t p o s s i b l y may not even meet minimum c o n s t r u c t i o n or s a f e t y standards due t o l i m i t e d s k i l l s and a l a c k of subsequent i n s p e c t i o n . There may be an unexpected C. P. Ind, Sweat Equity i n R e h a b i l i t a t i o n . Report prepared f o r the Community Renewal Branch, CMHC, 1975. p. 1-2. 5 6 R u s s e l l Cowan, "Home Improvement: Do I t Y o u r s e l f This Year," A t l a n t i c Advocate. 77(9), 1987. p. 27. 34 increase i n costs because of mistakes made on the project, or the handyman may lack the proper tools to do the job e f f e c t i v e l y . 5 7 Ideally, each i n d i v i d u a l household should be able to decide whether or not to renovate, and be able to choose between moving and renovating i f necessary. But information f o r making these decisions i s far from perfect. I t has been shown that homeowners in Canada have a low l e v e l of confidence i n the renovation industry, underestimate the need for repair of t h e i r homes, and have a poor knowledge of the benefits of renovation. The government has decided to step i n and become involved i n the decision making process, by informing homeowners of the necessity and benefits of renovating, or i n instances of low income, by o f f e r i n g f i n a n c i a l assistance to those who wish to renovate but cannot a f f o r d to do so. G. CLASSIFICATION OF RENOVATING HOUSEHOLDS There are a number of forces which encourage the physical upgrading of a house. One i s the r i s i n g cost of new home construction. Another i s the increasing i n t e r e s t by the middle cl a s s i n older homes. A t h i r d factor i s the r i s e of neighbour-hood consciousness i n the early seventies, fostered i n part by federal improvement programs. A combination of these factors, p a r t i c u l a r l y the l a s t two, have contributed to a process known as g e n t r i f i c a t i o n ; a much celebrated aspect of renovation i n the 3' Ind, p. 2-4. 5 8 Snapshot, p. 2, and CAHRO, Housing Renovation and the  Residential R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Program i n Canada. 1987. p. 9. 35 housing l i t e r a t u r e . This i s the "process whereby inner c i t y housing i s upgraded for occupancy by residents of considerably higher socioeconomic status than the population being d i s -placed". 5 9 G e n t r i f i c a t i o n i s associated with the changing status of the inner c i t y i n a p o s t i n d u s t r i a l s o c i e t y . 6 0 In essence, i t i s an upward s o c i a l change accompanying a physical change i n the neighbourhood. 6 1 On the other hand, i t i s important to note that t h i s i s not the only form of renovation occurring. Another concept which has recently been developed within the Canadian context i s incumbent upgrading, a process whereby a neighbourhood's housing i s p h y s i c a l l y upgraded at a substantial rate without a s i g n i f i c a n t change i n i t s socioeconomic status. 6 2 This often r e f l e c t s an increase i n homeowner confidence i n the area. The r e l a t i v e i n v i s i b i l i t y of t h i s modest s t y l e of home renovation often masks incumbent upgrading. 6 3 These are not the only two c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s of renovation processes. There are many d i f f e r e n t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s T. E. Bunting, " I n v i s i b l e Upgrading i n Inner C i t i e s : Homeowner's Reinvestment Behaviour i n Central Kitchener," Canadian Geographer. 31(3), 1987. p. 210. 6 0 Hugh Millward, " C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Residential Upgrading Processes: A Halifax Case Study," i n The Changing Canadian Inner  Ci t y . T. Bunting and P. F i l i o n , eds. (Waterloo: 1988). p. 107. 6 1 For more reading on g e n t r i f i c a t i o n see D. Ley, Gentrif- i c a t i o n i n Canadian Inner C i t i e s ; M. Lang, G e n t r i f i c a t i o n and  Urban Decline; D. Gale, Neighbourhood R e v i t a l i z a t i o n and the Post- I n d u s t r i a l C i t y ; and e s p e c i a l l y G e n t r i f i c a t i o n of the City, edited by Smith and Williams. 6 2 Millward, p. 109. 6 3 Bunting, p. 219, and P. Clay, Neighbourhood Renewal. (Lexington: Heath and Co., 1979). p. 49-55. 36 of renovators, as M i l l w a r d o f f e r s i n a u s e f u l m a trix employing the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between p h y s i c a l and s o c i a l changes i n a neighbourhood.(Table 2.4) TABLE 2 . 4 CLASSIFICATION OF RESIDENTIAL UPGRADING r e n o v a t i o n change a c t i v i t y i n s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e bottom o n e - t h i r d middle o n e - t h i r d top o n e - t h i r d above incumbent median upgrading p a r t i a l g e n t r i f i c a t i o n f u l l g e n t r i f i c a t i o n below median downgrading s t a b i l i t v s o c i a l upgrading Source: Hugh M i l l w a r d , " C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of R e s i d e n t i a l Upgrading Processes," i n The Changing Canadian Inner C i t y . E d i t ed by T. Bunting and P. F i l i o n . (Waterloo: U n i v e r s i t y of Waterloo, 1988). p. 108. Why are we i n t e r e s t e d i n these c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s ? At one l e v e l , there may be t e n s i o n between g e n t r i f i e r s and incumbent upgraders over land use p r i o r i t i e s and other i s s u e s , making i t d i f f i c u l t f o r planners t o r e s o l v e development i s s u e s . 6 4 In a d d i t i o n i f renovation i s accompanied by g e n t r i f i c a t i o n and displacement, then the s o c i a l goals of such programs as RRAP and NIP are s e v e r e l y compromised. Several s t u d i e s have suggested t h a t government-funded enhancement programs have indeed primed g e n t r i f i c a t i o n i n a number of cases, f o r example i n H a l i f a x ' s Old M i l l w a r d , p. 119. North End. There has been a tendency i n the l i t e r a t u r e t o dwarf other forms of renovation, e s p e c i a l l y incumbent upgrading, while c o n c e n t r a t i n g on g e n t r i f i c a t i o n . 6 6 In f a c t very l i t t l e work has been done on incumbent upgrading. 6 7 As w e l l , the extensive grey areas which e x i s t between g e n t r i f i c a t i o n and incumbent upgrading make c l a s s i f i c a t i o n d i f f i c u l t : On the whole these homeowners appear t o have more choice than p u b l i c sponsored incumbent upgraders, but, u n l i k e g e n t r i f i e r s , remain c o n s t r a i n e d by t h e i r f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s . 6 8 By understanding these c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , we might b e t t e r be able t o understand and e x p l a i n the observed p a t t e r n s of renovation i n Nova S c o t i a . The l i t e r a t u r e on renovation and g e n t r i f i c a t i o n focuses on a c t i v i t y i n the inner c i t i e s of l a r g e urban areas, and more r e c e n t l y i n medium-sized Canadian c i t i e s . 6 9 As such, the study P. Richards (Neighbourhood R e v i t a l i z a t i o n and the OLd  Northern Suburb, 1985) and R. Fraser (RRAP: I t s Impact on the Rental Market of the NIP I Area of H a l i f a x . 1982) both found t h a t i n H a l i f a x RRAP l e d t o an increase i n the renovation of p r o p e r t i e s and subsequent increases i n r e n t . 6 6 High M i l l w a r d and Donna Davis, "Housing Renovation i n H a l i f a x : 1 G e n t r i f i c a t i o n 1 or 'Incumbent Upgrading'," Pl a n Canada. 26(6), 1986. p. 148-155. 6 7 The only r e a l e m p i r i c a l s t u d i e s have been by M i l l w a r d , Bunting, and Alan Phipps ("Housing Renovations by Recent Movers i n t o the Core Neighbourhoods of Saskatoon," Canadian Geographer. 27(3), 1983. p. 240-262). 6 8 Bunting, p. 220. 6 9 An e x c e l l e n t review of the scope of t h e o r e t i c a l and e m p i r i c a l enquiry i n t o renovation i n the inner c i t y can be found i n T r u d i Bunting, Reinvestment i n Older, I n n e r - C i t y Housing (1986), pages 2-9. She o u t l i n e s the views of the n e o - c l a s s i c a l economic t r a d i t i o n (process i n terms of s o c i e t a l changes such as demographic change, and economic c o n s t r a i n t ) , as w e l l as the neo-Marxist school which emphasises the importance of the 38 of renovation appears t o be the e x c l u s i v e domain of urban s o c i a l geographers. Although g e n t r i f i c a t i o n i s a phenomenon p a r t i c u l a r t o the inner c i t y , the f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g the general process of renovation can be found i n at a l l settlement s i z e s . For these reasons we f i n d extensive 'grey areas' which make c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of renovation a c t i v i t y i n areas outside the inner c i t y d i f -f i c u l t . G e n t r i f i c a t i o n has played a major r o l e i n r e v i t a l i z i n g p o r t i o n s of the inner c i t y of H a l i f a x . Has there been s i m i l a r a c t i v i t y i n other urban areas, namely Dartmouth and Sydney? How does t h i s a c t i v i t y f a r e i n small town and r u r a l areas? Are there s i m i l a r i t i e s i n the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of renovators i n the three settlement s i z e s ? Perhaps one would expect t h a t s m a l l towns and r u r a l areas would have incumbent upgraders and spot g e n t r i f i e r s . We must look f u r t h e r t o see why these people are upgrading i f they are not g e n t r i f i e r s . p o l i t i c a l / e c o n o m i c context of development and redevelopment. In both cases there i s a r e a l l a c k of understanding the r o l e of i n d i v i d u a l behaviours i n the process of renovation, which I see c l e a r l y as being the most important f a c t o r i n i n f l u e n c i n g the p a t t e r n of renovation i n Nova S c o t i a . 39 CHAPTER I I I : RENOVATION STUDIES In t h i s chapter a range of renovation s t u d i e s w i t h i n the Canadian context are examined. The f i r s t h a l f of the chapter d i s c u s s e s some key c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of home renovation on a n a t i o n a l s c a l e . The second h a l f of the chapter looks at some of the e m p i r i c a l work completed over the l a s t f i f t e e n years which examine renovation i n smaller study areas, be they r e g i o n , province or c i t y . A. NATIONAL TRENDS IN HOME RENOVATION Although renovation expenditures have been i n c r e a s i n g at a remarkable r a t e (from $1.7 b i l l i o n i n 1971 t o $13.3 b i l l i o n i n 1986) 7 0 there has been no d e c l i n e i n the r e p a i r requirements of the e x i s t i n g housing stock. The housing stock i s c o n s t a n t l y changing and the aging process ensures t h a t as new homes are b u i l t , o l d e r homes w i l l always need t o be maintained and r e p a i r e d . In a d d i t i o n , t a s t e s c o n t i n u a l l y change, r e s u l t i n g i n a d d i t i o n s or a l t e r a t i o n s t o the s t y l e and form of the home.71 In l i g h t of t h i s , CMHC conducted a n a t i o n a l survey (through a mail-out questionnaire) of home renovation a c t i v i t y i n 1986 and published the r e s u l t s i n R e s i d e n t i a l Renovation Overview (1988) . The f i r s t p a r t of t h i s chapter h i g h l i g h t s some of the key f i n d i n g s of t h a t study. Most of the inc r e a s e , i n cur r e n t d o l l a r s , i s i n the form of a d d i t i o n s and improvements, but r e p a i r s and maintenance s t i l l account f o r one-quarter of the renovation d o l l a r . R e s i d e n t i a l  Renovation Overview, p. 6-7. 7 1 R e s i d e n t i a l Renovation Overview, p. 72. 40 The A t l a n t i c P r o v i n c e s have the h i g h e s t i n c i d e n c e of homeownership. In Newfoundland 80% of the homes are owned, i n New Brunswick and P.E.I. 74%, and i n Nova S c o t i a 72%. More i m p o r t a n t l y , however, over 61% have no mortgage; t h a t i s , t h e r e i s no indebtedness on t h e i r homes. 7 2 T h i s seems t o suggest t h a t t h e r e must be p r i v a t e funds a v a i l a b l e f o r r e n o v a t i o n p r o j e c t s . A t l a n t i c Canada has some of the o l d e s t homes i n Canada (as d i s c u s s e d i n the i n t r o d u c t i o n ) and has the h i g h e s t percentage of homes b u i l t b e f o r e 1941. A l s o , A t l a n t i c Canada i s predominantly r u r a l i n nature. I t i s t h e r e f o r e alarming t o f i n d t h a t the i n c i d e n c e of need f o r r e p a i r i s h i g h e s t i n A t l a n t i c Canada, i n r u r a l areas, and i n homes b u i l t b e f o r e 1941 (Table 3.1). Because the need f o r r e p a i r i s h i g h and because t h e r e are p o s s i b l e funds a v a i l a b l e f o r r e n o v a t i o n , i t seems l o g i c a l t o assume t h a t many A t l a n t i c Canadians would spend more on home r e n o v a t i o n , and do so more o f t e n . However, the average expenditure on r e n o v a t i o n was h i g h e s t i n Quebec, lowest i n the P r a i r i e s , w i t h A t l a n t i c Canada having the f o u r t h lowest expenditure of the f i v e r e g i o n s (Table 3.2). Renovation expenditure was a l s o h i g h e s t i n r u r a l areas, i n households e a r n i n g more than $40 000, and i n households who were r e c e n t movers. I t was lowest i n urban areas, i n households e a r n i n g between $20 000 and $40 000, and i n households l i v i n g i n the same house f o r between 5 and 10 y e a r s . Although i t was found t h a t o n e - h a l f of a l l homeowners d i d r e n o v a t i o n work i n 1985, the i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n was h i g h e s t i n O n t a r i o and lowest i n Snapshot, p. 8. 41 TABLE 3.1 REPAIR REQUIREMENTS IN THE LOW RISE STOCK(l), 1986 Incidence of Incidence of Major R e p a i r s %• Minor R e p a i r s %• A l l D w e l l i n g s o 10.0 o 25.1 A t l a n t i c 13.8 24.8 Quebec 8.6 24.3 O n t a r i o 11.1 25.6 P r a i r i e s 9.2 25.7 B.C. 8.6 24. 6 Urban 8.2 24.2 R u r a l 14 . 0 22.9 Pre-1901 20.5 26.9 1901-1920 20.8 33.6 1921-1940 15. 6 30.6 1941-1960 9.7 28.5 1961-1980 5.2 19.9 1981-1986 2.9 12 .1 Source: Program E v a l u a t i o n D i v i s i o n , R e s i d e n t i a l Renovation  Overview. (Ottawa: CMHC, 1988). p. 20. 1 I n c l u d e s low r i s e r e n t a l stock, and s i n g l e and m u l t i - f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s . TABLE 3.2 AVERAGE RENOVATION EXPENDITURES, SELECT HOMEOWNER CHARACTERISTICS, 1985 $ T o t a l 3380 A t l a n t i c 3270 Quebec 3628 O n t a r i o 3412 P r a i r i e s 3114 B.C. 3357 Urban 3305 R u r a l 3521 l e s s than $20 000 3216 $20 000 - $40 000 2813 more than $40 000 4054 l e s s than 5 years 3698 5 - 1 0 years 2786 more than 10 years 3413 Source: Program E v a l u a t i o n D i v i s i o n , R e s i d e n t i a l Renovation  Overview. (Ottawa: CMHC, 1988). p. 41. 42 Quebec, wi t h A t l a n t i c Canada again ranked f o u r t h (Table 3.3). I n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n was a l s o h i g h e s t i n urban areas, i n households e a r n i n g more than $4 0 000, and i n homes where the occupant was l i v i n g f o r fewer than f i v e y e a r s . The i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n was lowest i n r u r a l areas and i n low income house-h o l d s . S e l f - h e l p , as o u t l i n e d i n Chapter 2, has long been viewed as an important aspect of home r e n o v a t i o n . N a t i o n a l l y , t w o - t h i r d s of a l l homeowners c o n t r i b u t e a t l e a s t some labour t o t h e i r r e n o v a t i o n s . Quebec and A t l a n t i c Canada have the h i g h e s t i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t o r s p r o v i d i n g t h e i r own l a b o u r ; t h i s phenom-enon i s lowest i n O n t a r i o . S e l f - h e l p i s most common t o i n t e r i o r p r o j e c t s (Table 3.4). Homeowners o f t e n c i t e more than one reason t o e x p l a i n why they renovate t h e i r homes. More o f t e n than not, i t i s t o make them look b e t t e r , both i n s i d e and o u t s i d e (Table 3.5). The next two major reasons are economic ones; t o reduce h e a t i n g c o s t s and t o improve the r e s a l e v a l u e of the home. However, people spend on average more money t o e n l a r g e t h e i r home, t o meet h e a l t h and s a f e t y r u l e s , and t o reduce h e a t i n g c o s t s . Thus f a r we have been l o o k i n g a t homeowners who renovate. There are, however, a number who do not renovate. Why? Most c l a i m t h a t no r e n o v a t i o n s are needed or t h a t such an undertaking would be too expensive. But where r e n o v a t i o n need was r e c o g -n i z e d , h i g h c o s t s of r e n o v a t i n g and the importance of 'other' b u s i n e s s were c i t e d as the main reasons f o r not r e n o v a t i n g (Table 3.6). 43 TABLE 3.3 INCIDENCE OF RENOVATION, SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS, 1985 % A t l a n t i c 47 . 0 Quebec 46 .9 O n t a r i o 54 . 3 P r a i r i e s 52 .2 B.C. 50 .3 Urban 52 .8 R u r a l 47 .6 l e s s than $20 000 39 .6 $20 000 - $40 000 52 .4 more than $40 000 57 .1 l e s s than 5 years 54 .3 5 - 1 0 years 53 .8 more than 10 y e a r s 47 .4 Source: Program E v a l u a t i o n D i v i s i o n , R e s i d e n t i a l Renovation  Overview. (Ottawa: CMHC, 1988). p. 40. TABLE 3.4 HOMEOWNER RENOVATORS PROVIDING OWN LABOUR, 1985 A t l a n t i c Quebec O n t a r i o P r a i r i e s BC Canada % % % % % % Any Work 69.5 72.9 62 . 6 68.5 67.8 67.2 E x t e r i o r 58.6 55.4 42.0 55.9 55.2 50.7 I n t e r i o r 60.9 67.4 61.4 63 .1 59.1 62.7 Mechanical 48.3 53.3 39.3 45.1 50.2 45. 3 Source: Program E v a l u a t i o n D i v i s i o n , R e s i d e n t i a l Renovation  Overview. (Ottawa: CMHC, 1988). p. 50. 44 T A B L E 3 . 5 A V E R A G E R E N O V A T I O N E X P E N D I T U R E S BY R E A S O N FOR R E N O V A T I N G , 1 9 8 5 Reason f o r Renovating To look b e t t e r i n s i d e To look b e t t e r o u t s i d e To reduce h e a t i n g c o s t s To i n c r e a s e r e s a l e v a l u e To reduce maintenance c o s t s To make d w e l l i n g s a f e r To meet h e a l t h , s a f e t y r u l e s To make d w e l l i n g b i g g e r To i n c r e a s e d i s a b l e d access Average Expenditure $ 3505 3454 4017 3715 3816 3501 4227 6484 3953 P r o p o r t i o n C i t i n g % 70. 0 64.6 56.1 50.5 49.8 49.6 28.1 23.2 5.8 Source: Program E v a l u a t i o n D i v i s i o n , R e s i d e n t i a l Renovation  Overview. (Ottawa: CMHC, 1988). p. 46. T A B L E 3 . 6 REASONS FOR HOMEOWNERS NOT U N D E R T A K I N G R E N O V A T I O N S I N 1 9 8 5 Reasons C i t e d No r e n o v a t i o n needed Renovation would c o s t too much Other b u s i n e s s more important P r o p e r t y taxes might i n c r e a s e I n t e r e s t r a t e s too h i g h Too much government r e d tape Renovation companies too busy Loan r e q u e s t turned down Loan terms u n s u i t a b l e Other A l l Renovation Need (1) Recognized (2) 53, 20, 15. 4 , 2 , 1. 1. 0. 0, 17, 40. 31. 7. 4. 2 . 2. 1. 1. 35. 1. P r o p o r t i o n of a l l non-renovating homeowners. 2. P r o p o r t i o n of a l l non-renovating homeowners i n d i c a t e t h a t "No r e n o v a t i o n work was needed". who d i d not Source: Program E v a l u a t i o n D i v i s i o n , R e s i d e n t i a l Renovation  Overview. (Ottawa: CMHC, 1988). p. 73. 45 To expand on t h i s f u r t h e r , the c o n s t r a i n t of the h i g h c o s t of r e n o v a t i n g d e t e r s most from doing so. I t i s t o homeowners f e e l i n g t h i s c o n s t r a i n t t h a t the government may be a b l e t o a s s i s t through r e n o v a t i o n a s s i s t a n c e programs. Where r e n o v a t i o n need was r e c o g n i z e d but not undertaken, the c o n s t r a i n t of h i g h c o s t was h i g h e s t i n A t l a n t i c Canada, i n r u r a l areas, i n d w e l l i n g s i n need of major r e p a i r s , and i n households e a r n i n g l e s s than $30 000 (Table 3.7). There i s l i t t l e or no d i f f e r e n c e i n the h i g h c o s t f a c t o r f o r households w i t h low or h i g h mortgage payment t o income r a t i o . C o n s t r a i n t problems i n g e n e r a l plague A t l a n t i c Canadians most. T h i s p o i n t cannot be overemphasized. Almost one i n twenty homeowners who wished t o renovate d i d not because of a loan r e f u s a l . I t has a l r e a d y been shown t h a t most A t l a n t i c Canadians own t h e i r homes o u t r i g h t and t h e r e f o r e should have f i n a n c e s a v a i l a b l e f o r r e n o v a t i o n s . Yet t h e r e i s the problem of h i g h c o s t . Perhaps household incomes are not adequate f o r meeting r e n o v a t i o n needs, or perhaps the need t o renovate i s not r e c o g n i z e d . T h i s problem w i l l be pursued l a t e r i n t h i s chapter and i n Chapter 5. The impact of government a c t i o n i n d e t e r r i n g r e n o v a t i o n a c t i v i t y i s s m a l l but not i n s i g n i f i c a n t ; n a t i o n a l l y almost 10 p e r c e n t of non-renovating households mentioned t h i s as a con-s t r a i n (Table 3.7). The p o t e n t i a l i n c r e a s e i n p r o p e r t y taxes was c i t e d as a problem s l i g h t l y more f r e q u e n t l y i n Quebec and O n t a r i o , i n urban areas, by those i n the middle income br a c k e t , and those w i t h no mortgage. The problem of b u r e a u c r a t i c 'red tape' was not 46 TABLE 3.7 FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS ON RENOVATION BEHAVIOUR OF HOMEOWNERS, 1985 C h a r a c t e r i s t i c Reason f o r not r e n o v a t i n g High I n t e r e s t Loan Loan Red Tax Costs Rates Terms R e f u s a l Tape Increase % % % % % % A l l Homeowners 41.0 4.3 1.3 1.6 2.6 7.2 A t l a n t i c 57.7 4.1 2 . 0 4.7 5.0 5.7 Quebec 30.0 3.7 1.3 0.3 3 . 0 8.3 O n t a r i o 36.8 3.9 0.8 2 . 4 2 . 3 8.1 P r a i r i e s 48.2 5.6 1.7 1.1 2.4 7.2 B.C. 44.7 2.9 1.1 1.1 2.9 4.0 Urban 36.6 4.0 1.1 1.3 2.0 7.5 R u r a l 49.3 4.6 1.6 2.4 4.0 6.4 major r e p a i r s 57.6 4 . 1 2.0 4.7 3.9 6.1 minor r e p a i r s 47.6 4 . 8 1.8 1.5 3.0 5.3 r e g u l a r maintenance 29.1 3.6 0.8 0.5 1.6 8.4 l e s s than $20 000 47.9 3 . 6 1.0 2.9 3.3 8.1 $20 000 - $29 999 44.5 5.5 2.5 1.3 2.7 7.5 $30 000 - $39 999 43.1 5.0 1.2 0.9 2.7 10.0 $40 000 - $49 999 34.1 3.8 1.7 0.4 2.7 5.3 more than $50 000 27.1 3 . 9 0.7 0.7 1.2 4.5 no mortgage 41.1 3 . 0 1.3 1.2 4 .1 8 . 7 1 - 1 4 per cent 41.5 5.3 0.8 1.5 2 . 3 4.6 15 - 29 per cent 43 . 0 3 . 7 1.9 1.2 0.9 6.4 3 0 per cent or more 39.6 5.6 2.9 5.6 1.8 5.9 Source: Program E v a l u a t i o n D i v i s i o n , R e s i d e n t i a l Renovation Overview. (Ottawa: CMHC, 1988). p. 83, 1 87. as w i d e l y c i t e d as tax charges, but i t was c i t e d a l i t t l e more o f t e n i n A t l a n t i c Canada ( e s p e c i a l l y i n P r i n c e Edward I s l a n d and Newfoundland), i n r u r a l areas, by households w i t h low income, and by those without a mortgage. 7 3 R e s i d e n t i a l Renovation Overview, p. 87. 47 CMHC d i s c o v e r e d t h a t t h e r e does not seem t o be a st r o n g c o n n e c t i o n between the q u a l i t y of a neighbourhood ( i t s f a c i l i t i e s and s e r v i c e s such as day-care, s c h o o l s , parks, etc.) and the d e s i r e t o renovate. However, t h e r e does seem t o be evidence t o support the n o t i o n t h a t i n improving and s t a b l e neighbourhoods t h e r e i s more r e n o v a t i o n a c t i v i t y , and l e s s a c t i v i t y i n a neighbourhood which i s d e c l i n i n g ( i . e . the q u a l i t y of the f a c i l i t i e s and s e r v i c e s has decreased i n the p a s t f i v e years) (Table 3.8). T h i s suggests t h a t t h e r e i s both g e n t r i f i c a t i o n and incumbent upgrading o c c u r r i n g . I f a homeowner sees t h a t the q u a l i t y o f a neighbourhood i s improving, t h a t TABLE 3.8 RENOVATION ACTIVITY BY QUALITY OF NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES % Homeowner who renovated i n 1985 a l l 51.5 Neighbourhood Q u a l i t y e x c e l l e n t 51.7 average 50.8 t e r r i b l e 56.1 Change i n Neighbourhood Q u a l i t y improving 56.7 s t a b l e 51.0 d e c l i n i n g 42.7 Homeowner who pla n s t o renovate i n 1987 a l l 71.4 Neighbourhood Q u a l i t y e x c e l l e n t 71.1 average 70.8 t e r r i b l e 79.2 Change i n Neighbourhood Q u a l i t y improving 75.6 s t a b l e 71.1 d e c l i n i n g 64.6 Source: Program E v a l u a t i o n D i v i s i o n , R e s i d e n t i a l Renovation  Overview. (Ottawa: CMHC, 1988). p. 99. 48 neighbourhood becomes a t t r a c t i v e , e s p e c i a l l y t o ' g e n t r i f y i n g 1 households. However, t h i s does not suggest t h a t g e n t r i f i c a t i o n i s the o n l y process happening. Incumbent upgrading (and other upgrading processes) may a l s o be o c c u r r i n g . Note t h a t even i n neighbourhoods which were d e s c r i b e d as being o f t e r r i b l e q u a l i t y (and t h e r e f o r e not amenable t o g e n t r i f i c a t i o n ) , t h e r e i s a s i g n i f i c a n t amount of r e n o v a t i o n and planned r e n o v a t i o n . I t i s i n neighbourhoods which are p e r c e i v e d t o be i n d e c l i n e where t h e r e i s l e s s o f a r e n o v a t i o n presence. A n a t i o n a l survey, Homeowner Repair and Renovation Expendi- t u r e i n Canada found t h a t as incomes i n c r e a s e d , so too d i d the i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n and the average e x p e n d i t u r e (Table 3.9). TABLE 3 . 9 HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND RENOVATION income average i n c i d e n c e expenditure $ l e s s tl" 15 000 20 000 25 000 35 000 45 000 55 000 Source: S t a t i s t i c s Canada, Homeowner Repair and Renovation  Expenditure i n Canada. Cat. No. 62-201. p. 42. $ % 15 000 1098 65.4 19 999 1258 69.6 24 999 1414 73.3 34 999 1662 77.2 44 999 1930 79.1 54 999 1961 78.8 69 999 2379 82.6 70 000 3237 80.6 However, t h e r e was no d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p between the age of the home and r e n o v a t i o n i n c i d e n c e and expenditure (Table 3.10). 49 TABLE 3.10 PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION AND RENOVATION year average incidence expenditure $ % pre 1941 2268 75.0 1941 - 1950 1933 73.6 1951 - 1960 1899 75.4 1961 - 1970 1995 76.1 1971 - 1980 1850 78.5 a f t e r 1980 1955 72.5 Source: S t a t i s t i c s Canada, Homeowner Repair Expenditure i n Canada. Cat. No. 64-201. p. 45. From these s t u d i e s there are s e v e r a l p o i n t s which w i l l need t o be examined i n more d e t a i l i n a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of renovation a c t i v i t y i n Nova S c o t i a : a) the need f o r r e p a i r i s highest i n o l d e r homes and i n r u r a l areas (Table 3.1); b) renovation a c t i v i t y and expenditure are somewhat higher among recent movers (Tables 3.2 and 3.3); c) the incidence of renovation i s somewhat higher i n urban areas (Table 3.3) but average renovation expenditure i s a l i t t l e higher i n r u r a l areas (Table 3.2); d) the incid e n c e of s e l f help i s s l i g h t l y above the n a t i o n a l average i n A t l a n t i c Canada (Table 3.4); e) people renovate t h e i r homes t o make them look b e t t e r , t o reduce he a t i n g c o s t , and t o increase the r e s a l e value of the home (Table 3.5); f) the importance of other business and the high cost of renovating deters some homeowners from renovating (Table 3.6); 50 g) the high cost of renovating c o n s t r a i n s A t l a n t i c Canadians, homeowners i n r u r a l areas, and those w i t h lower incomes, t o a s i g n i f i c a n t degree (Table 3.7); h) neighbourhoods perceived t o be i n d e c l i n e have a lower i n c i d e n c e of renovation (Table 3.8); and i ) t h e r e i s a d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p between income and renovation i n c i d e n c e and expenditure (Table 3.9). I w i l l use these f i n d i n g s t o focus the review of other s t u d i e s of r e n o v a t i o n , and more imp o r t a n t l y , t o d i r e c t the d e s c r i p t i o n of r e n o v a t i o n i n Nova S c o t i a . These i n c l u d e l o c a l s t u d i e s c a r r i e d out at mu n i c i p a l , p r o v i n c i a l , and f e d e r a l l e v e l s , some are from academics, and others from independent research bodies. Consequently they deal w i t h a range of t o p i c s from government programs t o s e l f - h e l p and g e n t r i f i c a t i o n . B. THE YUKON There are two important f e a t u r e s of housing i n the Yukon which must be recognized. F i r s t , almost o n e - t h i r d of the people are i n core housing need, o f t e n having more than one type of housing need ( a f f o r d a b i l i t y , b a s i c f a c i l i t i e s , e t c . ) . Second, where renovation needs are extensive, most renovation p r o j e c t s c o s t more than the maximum f o r g i v a b l e loan from RRAP.74 The Yukon government developed the Home Improvement I n i t i a -t i v e (HII) i n 1987 w i t h three renovation programs: RRAP E n r i c h -ment (RRAP E) ; M u n i c i p a l S e r v i c e s A s s i s t a n c e (MSAP); and Renova-David Hedman, "Home Improvement i n the Yukon," Canadian  Housing. 6(3), 1989. p. 31, 33. 51 t i o n Program f o r Persons w i t h a D i s a b i l i t y (RRPD). In the l a s t two y e a r s the program has a s s i s t e d 207 households w i t h g r a n t s and loans t o t a l l i n g $1,079 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s . 7 5 These programs have help e d t o d e f r a y the c o s t s of many asp e c t s of housing, i n c l u d i n g w e l l i n s t a l l a t i o n s , indoor plumbing, and s e p t i c systems. T h i s program, d e s p i t e some weaknesses and problems, has proved t o be an e f f e c t i v e supplement t o the f e d e r a l RRAP program. C. BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) Mercer and P h i l l i p s 7 6 examined the a t t i t u d e s of homeowners towards r e h a b i l i t a t i o n of t h e i r homes w i t h i n the con t e x t of government a s s i s t e d programs. Three neighbourhoods were examined (two, K i t s i l a n o and Cedar Cottage, were NIP a r e a s ) , a l l charac-t e r i z e d by o l d e r i n n e r c i t y type q u a l i t i e s of moderate income, low l e v e l of community s e r v i c e s , mixed housing q u a l i t y , and an agi n g housing s t o c k . From t h e i r 1975 survey the authors found t h a t respondents who viewed t h e i r neighbourhood n e g a t i v e l y were l e s s l i k e l y t o renovate. No s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between income and housing q u a l i t y e x i s t e d , or between income and r e p a i r s . There was a p r e v a l e n t a v e r s i o n t o indebtedness; those w i t h mortgages o f t e n d i d not apply f o r fu n d i n g a s s i s t a n c e f o r 7 5 Hedman, p. 32. 7 6 Mercer and P h i l l i p s , p. 216-236. See a l s o D. P h i l l i p s " I n f o r m a t i o n D i f f u s i o n W i t h i n an Inner C i t y Neighbourhood," G e o q r a f i s k a Annaler. 61B, 1979. p. 30-42, and D. P h i l l i p s Urban  Housing; Q u a l i t y : The Importance of A t t i t u d e s i n the D e c i s i o n t o  R e h a b i l i t a t e , unpublished M.A. t h e s i s , Department of Geography, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 197 6. 52 r e n o v a t i o n s ; r a t h e r , t h i s path was more l i k e l y t o be chosen by the e l d e r l y (4 0% of RRAP a p p l i c a n t s were s e n i o r s ) . In f a c t : the major f a c t o r determining the amount of property improvement i n t h i s (Grandview) d e t e r i o r a t e d s e c t i o n was the l e v e l of personal funds a v a i l a b l e t o the i n d i v i d u a l homeowner. Few owners were w i l l i n g t o i n c u r loans from banks f o r property improvement. 7 7 P r i d e i n one's home was c i t e d as the most important reason f o r r enovating. F i n a l l y , the authors found t h a t the r o l e of com-munity leaders was important i n informing the r e s i d e n t s about the a v a i l a b i l i t y of f e d e r a l a s s i s t a n c e programs. D. ALBERTA 1. Edmonton Smith and Woodman examined p r i v a t e s e c t o r renovation i n Edmonton f o r the p e r i o d 1971 t o 1986, covering only those o l d e r r e s i d e n t i a l d i s t r i c t s which had not been designated as NIP areas (and t h e r e f o r e not e l i g i b l e f o r RRAP funds). Using assessment records, the study looked at those renovations which "caused the assessed replacement value t o increase by at l e a s t $500 d o l l a r s " . A house was a l s o i n c l u d e d i f i t s assessment had not increased by t h i s amount but i t s ' e f f e c t i v e age' had been reduced through r e s t o r a t i o n . The study found t h a t only 11.4% of the more than 16 500 d w e l l i n g s had been renovated (under these c r i t e r i a ) d uring t h i s time frame. Some of the general c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of renova-t i o n i n Edmonton i n c l u d e : a c o n c e n t r a t i o n on s i n g l e - f a m i l y 7 7 Mercer and P h i l l i p s , p. 23 0. 7 8 Peter Smith and E l i z a b e t h Woodman, Geographic Overview of  Housing Renovations i n Edmonton, mimeo, Department of Geography, U n i v e r s i t y of A l b e r t a , 1989. 53 d w e l l i n g s ; on s m a l l e r - t y p e bungalows; and on houses which were not p a r t i c u l a r l y o l d . In many cases, r e n o v a t i o n o c c u r r e d t o add t o the s i z e of the home or t o add a f e a t u r e t h a t was m i s s i n g i n the o r i g i n a l c o n s t r u c t i o n . T h i s u s u a l l y i n v o l v e d one-storey a d d i t i o n s or f i n i s h i n g a basement. I t was a l s o found t h a t s t r u c t u r a l improvements were of secondary importance f o r renovat-o r s . The authors concluded t h a t r e n o v a t i o n i n Edmonton i s extremely v a r i e d i n type, scope, and s c a l e . However, assessment and p ermit v a l u e s suggest t h a t most improvements are minor and i n e x p e n s i v e . In an attempt t o f o l l o w up on McCann's study of Edmonton, 7 9 the authors a l s o examined l a r g e s c a l e r e n o v a t i o n more c l o s e l y t o see i f t h e r e was some s o r t of p h y s i c a l upgrading t a k i n g p l a c e . About o n e - t h i r d of the renovated homes f e l l i n t o t h i s category (above $7000 assessed replacement v a l u e ) . The authors found t h a t t h e r e was a c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p between non-renovation and apartment redevelopment; because t h i s has taken p l a c e near t o the c e n t r a l core of the c i t y , most r e n o v a t i o n was found t o occur i n the o u t e r areas of the c i t y . I t was found t h a t the West End of the c i t y had the h i g h e s t i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n as w e l l as the h i g h e s t assessed replacement v a l u e s . The l a r g e s c a l e r e n o v a t i o n s were s p a t i a l l y c l u s t e r e d as w e l l . In c o n c l u s i o n , the authors suggest t h a t p r o x i m i t y t o the c e n t r a l area, p r o x i m i t y t o n a t u r a l a m e n i t i e s , and s o c i a l s t a t u s are key f a c t o r s i n e x p l a i n i n g r e n o v a t i o n a c t i v i t y . 7 9 L. D. McCann, Neighbourhoods i n T r a n s i t i o n . O c c a s i o n a l Papers No. 2, Department of Geography, U n i v e r s i t y of A l b e r t a , 1975. 54 2. P r o v i n c e In a province-wide survey, C l a y t o n Research A s s o c i a t e s 80 examined s p a t i a l p a t t e r n s of r e p a i r and r e n o v a t i o n i n A l b e r t a . Renovation has outpaced new c o n s t r u c t i o n i n terms of d o l l a r s spent, a v e r a g i n g about $850 m i l l i o n i n 1984 and 1985, compared w i t h $57 0 m i l l i o n f o r new c o n s t r u c t i o n . I t was a l s o found t h a t about 70% of C a l g a r y and Edmonton homeowners do r e n o v a t i o n work each year a t an average expenditure of $2800 a n n u a l l y . Renovation a c t i v i t y and expenditure are more prominent i n o l d e r d w e l l i n g s than i n newer d w e l l i n g s . A p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p was found t o e x i s t between both the i n c i d e n c e and v a l u e of r e n o v a t i o n and the v a l u e of the home, and the income of the owner. F a m i l i e s w i t h c h i l d r e n , and middle-aged homeowners are more l i k e l y t o do r e n o v a t i o n work. The most important m o t i v a t i o n a l f a c t o r i n r e n o v a t i n g i s t o make the home s u i t the needs and l i f e s t y l e s of the homeowner, not t o improve the r e s a l e v a l u e of the home. The most common types of r e n o v a t i o n are p a i n t i n g , l a n d s c a p i n g , and f e n c i n g , w i t h most jobs c o s t i n g under one thousand d o l l a r s . S e l f - h e l p accounts f o r about one-half of a l l r e n o v a t i o n work i n A l b e r t a . E. SASKATCHEWAN (Saskatoon) Phipps 8 1 surveyed 185 households who had moved i n t o the core of Saskatoon between 1975 and 1980. I t was found t h a t f i n a n c i a l 80 C l a y t o n Research Assoc., R e s i d e n t i a l R e p a i r and Renova- t i o n i n A l b e r t a , 1986. 8 1 Phipps, p. 240-262. 55 c o n s t r a i n t shaped the p a t t e r n of r e n o v a t i o n a c t i v i t y . Cosmetic jobs c o s t i n g l e s s than $500 predominated. In many cases t h e r e was a d e s i r e t o do more r e n o v a t i o n work, but the a b i l i t y t o f i n a n c e such p r o j e c t s was l a c k i n g . Among those who renovated, p e r s o n a l s a t i s f a c t i o n and improvement i n the home's r e s a l e v a l u e were the two most important reasons f o r r e n o v a t i n g . The p e r c e p t i o n of many was t h a t t h e i r homes had o n l y r e c e i v e d minor r e n o v a t i o n s i n the p a s t and would r e q u i r e l a r g e s c a l e r e n o v a t i o n s i n t he f u t u r e . I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o note t h a t neighbourhood d e t e r i o r a t i o n or r e n o v a t i o n f o r s p e c u l a t i v e purposes were not f a c t o r s i n r e n o v a t i o n d e c i s i o n s . E s s e n t i a l l y Phipps has found t h a t c e n t r a l Saskatoon has n e i t h e r l a r g e amounts of d e t e r i o r a t e d s t o c k nor much g e n t r i -f i c a t i o n ; i n s t e a d , a process of modest upgrading predominates. 8 2 F. ONTARIO 1. K i t c h e n e r Bunting conducted a survey ( s i m i l a r t o t h a t of Phipps) i n p a r t o f c e n t r a l K i t c h e n e r . She found t h a t t h e r e was an emphasis on i n t e r i o r r e n o v a t i o n as opposed t o e x t e r i o r work. S m a l l - s c a l e p r o j e c t s predominated, w i t h the m a j o r i t y of the households r e p o r t i n g having used t h e i r own lab o u r . A process of c o n s e r v a t i v e upgrading, r e f l e c t e d i n low ou t - o f - p o c k e t f i n a n c i a l T r u d i Bunting and A l a n Phipps, "Inner C i t y Home Renova-t i o n i n Two Medium-Sized Canadian C i t i e s , " i n The Changing  Canadian Inner C i t y (T. Bunting and P. F i l i o n , e d s . ) . (Waterloo: U n i v e r s i t y of Waterloo, 1988). p. 137-157. T. Bunting, " I n v i s i b l e Upgrading," p. 209-222. 56 o u t l a y s f o r r e n o v a t i o n p r o j e c t s , was noted. In her words, what we f i n d i n K i t c h e n e r i s an " ' i n v i s i b l e ' q u a l i t y of the upgrading" . 8 4 Bunting noted t h a t the b u i l d i n g i n d u s t r y suggests t h a t homeowners should a n n u a l l y i n v e s t 1% of the v a l u e of t h e i r home i n r e n o v a t i o n a c t i v i t y . T h i s amounts t o $1000 t o $5000 over a f i v e year p e r i o d . She found t h a t almost h a l f of those surveyed have spent more than t h i s , w h i l e Phipps found t h a t o n l y 35% d i d so i n Saskatoon. Bunting a l s o found t h a t t h e r e was a c l e a r t r e n d towards upgrading o l d e r i n n e r - c i t y housing s t o c k . The study f i n d s t h a t the demographic p r o f i l e of r e n o v a t o r s does not suggest t h a t these people are g e n t r i f i e r s ; but n e i t h e r does i t suggest t h a t they are incumbent upgraders. T h i s i s because the house-h o l d s are y o u t h f u l , f a m i l y - o r i e n t e d , and somewhat a f f l u e n t . In c o n c l u s i o n , Bunting f i n d s t h a t t h e r e i s an e x t e n s i v e grey area between g e n t r i f i c a t i o n and incumbent upgrading. 2. Toronto 85 Dantas looked a t the R i v e r d a l e d i s t r i c t , an area of o l d e r , l a r g e r homes w i t h l a r g e l o t s , near Cabbagetown i n Toronto, and surveyed homeowners wit h a s i m i l a r q u e s t i o n n a i r e t o t h a t of Bunting and Phipps. I t i s an area c o n s i d e r e d amenable t o g e n t r i f i c a t i o n because i t i s c l o s e t o the downtown core, has r e c r e a t i o n a l space, and o l d e r homes. The area d i s p l a y e d a s h i f t Bunting, " I n v i s i b l e Upgrading," p. 215. 8 5 A l i s o n Dantas, " O v e r s p i l l as an A l t e r n a t i v e S t y l e of G e n t r i f i c a t i o n : The Case of R i v e r d a l e , Toronto," i n The Changing  Canadian Inner C i t y (T. Bunting and P. F i l i o n , e d s . ) . (Waterloo: U n i v e r s i t y of Waterloo, 1988). p. 73-86. 57 toward socioeconomic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h g e n t r i f i c a -t i o n (high income, p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a t u s , u n i v e r s i t y education, more females, 25-34 years of age, r a p i d r i s e i n house p r i c e s ) between 1971 and 1981, as the working c l a s s neighbourhood became m i d d l e - c l a s s . Dantas uses the term ' r i s k - a v e r s e ' household t o de s c r i b e the g e n t r i f i e r s i n R i v e r d a l e . One reason f o r t h i s d e s c r i p t i o n i s the presence of a l a r g e number of c h i l d r e n ; w i t h the m a j o r i t y of households c o n s i s t i n g of three or four members ( c e r t a i n l y not a common g e n t r i f i c a t i o n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c ) . Another reason i s the type of ren o v a t i o n ; there i s an emphasis on i n t e r i o r r a t h e r than e x t e r i o r p r o j e c t s . The r a t e s of reinvestment through renovation were higher here than i n Saskatoon or Kit c h e n e r . I t was a l s o found t h a t households w i t h c h i l d r e n spend more on renovation, w i t h a strong c o r r e l a t i o n between the s i z e of the house and renovation. The advantages of i n n e r - c i t y l i v i n g f o r women i s suggested as one p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n f o r these f i n d i n g s . The second i s the r i s k f a c t o r . E a r l i e r g e n t r i f i e r s ( i n Cabbagetown, f o r example) were predominantly s i n g l e , male, and c h i l d l e s s , w h i l e these l a t e r g e n t r i f i e r s are married w i t h c h i l d r e n , seeking a good place t o r a i s e a f a m i l y . Wekerle 8 6 examined the South R i v e r d a l e area of Toronto (using data from a survey and the census i n the mid-seventies), p a r t of which l i e s w i t h i n a NIP area. An attempt was made t o assess the impact of NIP and RRAP on working c l a s s neighbourhoods i n making Gerda Wekerle. Changing Face: Study of an Inner C i t y  Neighbourhood. CMHC, 1980. 58 p o s i t i v e d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p between income and r e n o v a t i o n a c t i v i t y . The age of the home d i d not p l a y a f a c t o r i n renova-t i o n . The average m a t e r i a l expenditure was $3384; but s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower i n r u r a l areas - $2645 - than i n urban areas - $3730. An estimated $1.43 b i l l i o n was spent on r e n o v a t i o n m a t e r i a l s i n 1987. The average labour expenditure was $1247. R u r a l l a b o u r c o s t s were lower and l e s s f r e q u e n t than urban labour c o s t s . An estimated $539.17 m i l l i o n was spent on labour, f o r a t o t a l o f $2 b i l l i o n spent on r e n o v a t i o n s i n t o t a l i n 1987. Why renovate? In A t l a n t i c Canada the d e s i r e t o i n c r e a s e home comfort and t o conduct r e g u l a r maintenance were the most o f t e n c i t e d reasons. Renovation as an investment ranked f o u r t h . For those who d i d not renovate, s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h the house or ot h e r f i n a n c i a l commitments were the main reasons c i t e d (Table 3.11) . Savings were the major source of r e n o v a t i o n f i n a n c i n g (72.4%) f o l l o w e d by bank loans (10.3%). Grants from the government comprised o n l y 3.7% of the f i n a n c i n g . S e l f h e l p was TABLE 3.11 MOTIVATIONS IN RENOVATING, ATLANTIC CANADA Reasons f o r Renovating Reasons f o r Not Renovating % Improve Home Comfort Regular Maintenance Improve Home S a f e t y As An Investment I n c r e a s e i n Family S i z e Improve Access C h i l d r e n Leaving Home Energy C o n s e r v a t i o n % 55. 6 S a t i s f i e d With House 42 52. 7 Other F i n a n c i a l Comm. 31 17. 0 Int e n d i n g t o Move 10 14. 1 Mortgage Payments 6 6. 5 High I n t e r e s t Rates 2 2 . 2 Other 9 1. 2 0. 5 Source: R u r a l and Small Town Research and S t u d i e s Programme, R e s i d e n t i a l Renovation I n d u s t r y i n A t l a n t i c Canada:  Homeowners. S a c k v i l l e NB, 1989. p. 8, 9. 61 them more a t t r a c t i v e t o 'whitepainting' or g e n t r i f i c a t i o n . The northern h a l f , l y i n g o utside of the NIP area, was seen as a m a r g i n a l l y b e t t e r area w i t h more evidence of r e n o v a t i o n ; the southern p o r t i o n of R i v e r d a l e was s t r i c t l y working c l a s s . Census data (from 1971 and 1976) showed t h a t the p o p u l a t i o n and household s i z e of the area d e c l i n e d . More people of B r i t i s h o r i g i n l i v e d i n the area, and t h e r e was a decrease i n tenant-occupied d w e l l i n g s . The survey q u e s t i o n n a i r e revealed t h a t there was an increase i n the number of people going t o u n i v e r s i t y l i v i n g i n the area, and newer r e s i d e n t s earned s i g n i f i c a n t l y more money than long-time r e s i d e n t s . Most f e l t t h a t an i n c r e a s i n g amount of renovation was d e s i r a b l e . S e l f - h e l p was p r e v a l e n t as 55% i n d i c a t e d c o n t r i b u t i n g t h e i r own s k i l l t o the p r o j e c t s , which i n t o t a l cost averaged about $2500. The southern p o r t i o n was s t a b l e , w i t h low income households and poorer q u a l i t y homes. The northern p o r t i o n was unstable w i t h new r e s i d e n t s a r r i v i n g i n c onjunction w i t h s p e c u l a t i v e renovation. This study concludes t h a t i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o t e l l ( i n 1980) i f the southern area would be taken over by renovators or become an e t h n i c enclave. 3. Province Clayton Research A s s o c i a t e s published a s i m i l a r study t o t h a t of A l b e r t a on the renovation market i n Ontario i n 1987. 8 7 I t found t h a t almost $5 b i l l i o n were spent on renovations i n 8 7 Clayton Research Assoc., The Nature of the R e s i d e n t i a l  Renovation Market i n Ontario. 1987. 59 1985, accounting f o r an i n c r e a s i n g share of the constrjruction d o l l a r , and reaching 52% f o r the 1981-1985 p e r i o d . Some 80% of a l l homeowners do at l e a s t some renovation work i n Ontario, w i t h more than o n e - t h i r d spending l e s s than $2500. Contracted work accounts f o r approximately 75% of the value of a l l renovation work. Owners of o l d e r d w e l l i n g s and of higher value d w e l l i n g s spend more on renovations, w h i l e homes b u i l t a f t e r 1946 account f o r most of the renovation a c t i v i t y . The study showed t h a t r e n o v a t i o n a c t i v i t y and expenditure increases w i t h incomes and education l e v e l s r i s e . G. ATLANTIC CANADA The R u r a l and Small Town Research and Studies Programme (RSTRSP) at Mount A l l i s o n U n i v e r s i t y r e c e n t l y completed a broad survey of homeowners, tradespeople, b u i l d i n g i n s p e c t o r s , and b u i l d i n g supply d e a l e r s i n A t l a n t i c Canada examining many aspects of r e n o v a t i o n f o r the twelve months p r i o r t o September 1988. The survey of 823 (representing a response r a t e of 57%) homeowners found t h a t about e i g h t y percent of a l l homeowners had • 89 • done some type of renovation i n the past twelve months, w i t h urban d w e l l e r s doing s l i g h t l y more than r u r a l d w e l l e r s (82% versus 76%). This was d e s p i t e the f a c t t h a t almost 90% reported t o be very or somewhat s a t i s f i e d w i t h t h e i r homes. The m a j o r i t y of renovators were between 25 and 44 years o l d , and there was a 8 8 R u r a l and Small Town Research and Studies Programme, The  R e s i d e n t i a l Renovation Industry i n A t l a n t i c Canada: Homeowners. P r e l i m i n a r y h i g h l i g h t s . ( S a c k v i l l e , New Brunswick: 1989). 8 9 This 80% compares w i t h 7 0% i n A l b e r t a . 60 a f a c t o r i n 75% of the r e n o v a t i o n s . F o r t y one pe r c e n t used f u l l s e l f h e l p l a b o u r . T h i s was more common i n r u r a l areas (46%) than i n urban areas (38%). The two o v e r r i d i n g f a c t o r s i n t h i s were t o save money and the enjoyment of r e n o v a t i n g . There were fewer s e l f h e l p e r s a t the lower end of the income s c a l e . H. NOVA SCOTIA The c i t y of H a l i f a x has been the primary t a r g e t of renova-t i o n s t u d i e s i n Nova S c o t i a ; here the work of M i l l w a r d and Davis i s used t o show r e n o v a t i o n p a t t e r n s i n H a l i f a x . The r e s e a r c h group DPA conducted a p r o v i n c e wide survey of c o n t r a c t o r s and households on r e n o v a t i o n - r e l a t e d matters; t h e i r work i s a l s o i n s t r u c t i o n a l . I. H a l i f a x In an attempt t o c l a s s i f y upgrading p r o c e s s e s , M i l l w a r d and D a v i s 9 0 used b u i l d i n g permits, v a l u e d a t more than $4000, i s s u e d f o r r e n o v a t i o n a c t i v i t y i n the i n n e r c i t y of H a l i f a x from 1977 t o 1984. They found t h a t t h e r e was more r e n o v a t i o n a c t i v i t y i n both the Old South End and the Old North End than i n the west. The O ld South End i s e s p e c i a l l y amenable t o g e n t r i f i c a t i o n because of i t s p r o x i m i t y t o S p r i n g Garden Road, the P u b l i c Gardens, and the C e n t r a l Business D i s t r i c t . The i n c i d e n c e of Hugh M i l l w a r d and Donna Davis, "Housing Renovation i n H a l i f a x : 1 G e n t r i f i c a t i o n 1 or 'Incumbent Upgrading'," P l a n Canada. 26(6), 1986. p. 148-155. See a l s o Hugh M i l l w a r d , " C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of R e s i d e n t i a l Upgrading Processes: A H a l i f a x Case Study," i n The  Changing Canadian Inner C i t y (T. Bunting and P. F i l i o n , e d s . ) . (Waterloo: U n i v e r s i t y of Waterloo, 1988). p. 107-120. 62 renovation was highest i n the Old North End, yet i t was the area l e a s t g e n t r i f i e d . Federal a s s i s t a n c e programs (NIP and RRAP) and downzoning were i n f l u e n t i a l i n encouraging r e n o v a t i o n i n these two areas. 2. Province DPA r e l e a s e d a CMHC-commissioned, province-wide renovation survey study i n December of 1987. 9 1 The group surveyed both households and renovation f i r m s i n an attempt t o understand the s t r u c t u r e and problems of the renovation i n d u s t r y i n Nova S c o t i a . This survey found t h a t only 44% of a l l homeowners d i d reno v a t i o n work i n the previous twelve months. The highest i n c i d e n c e was i n homes b u i l t i n the l a s t t e n years, i n the Halifax-Dartmouth (Metro) r e g i o n , and i n homes w i t h a higher market value (greater than $80 000) . The lowest i n c i d e n c e was i n the C e n t r a l p a r t of the province and i n homes between 11 and 50 years o l d . The average expenditure was $3300 9 2, highest i n Cape Breton and i n o l d e r homes and more expensive homes. This i s p a r t i a l l y explained by the f a c t t h a t Cape Breton r e c e i v e s higher than average numbers of government gra n t s , r e s u l t i n g i n more expenditures on c o n t r a c t s . Metro had the lowest average expenditure. Two-thirds of a l l renovators d i d not use p a i d labour. Only one-quarter d i d not do any of the work themselves. In general i t could be s a i d t h a t a l a r g e amount of renovation i s conducted 9 1 DPA Group Inc., F i n a l Report: The Nova S c o t i a Residen- t i a l Renovation Industry Study, 1987. 9 2 The d o l l a r f i g u r e i s q u i t e s i m i l a r t o t h a t of the Mount A l l i s o n survey; see Chapter 5. 63 by u n s k i l l e d / u n l i c e n s e d people w i t h accounts s e t t l e d i n cash or payment i n k i n d . 9 3 About 50% of the value of the labour i s 1 f r e e 1. Nine percent of a l l renovators r e c e i v e d funding a s s i s -t a n c e , 9 4 w i t h the incidence higher i n Cape Breton, f o r o l d e r homes, and f o r households w i t h l e s s than $40 000 i n income. In 1985 the f e d e r a l and p r o v i n c i a l governments c o n t r i b u t e d $19.7 m i l l i o n t o 5987 u n i t s f o r the purpose of renovating, r e p r e s e n t i n g a not i n s i g n i f i c a n t 2 t o 3 percent of a l l households i n the province. J . SUMMARY These s t u d i e s p o i n t t o some key is s u e s which must be addressed i n any examination of renovation p a t t e r n s . F i r s t , t h e r e are m o t i v a t i o n a l f a c t o r s . Mercer and P h i l l i p s found t h a t p r i d e i n one's home was an important c o n s i d e r a t i o n , w h i l e others showed t h a t the d e s i r e t o meet household needs or t o improve home comfort were the most important f a c t o r s i n renovation. We s h a l l be asking what i s the p r i n c i p a l reason f o r renovation i n Nova Sc o t i a ? Second, why i s i t t h a t people choose not t o renovate? Most of these s t u d i e s have shown us t h a t f i n a n c i a l c o n s t r a i n t burdens homeowners. T h i r d , what i s the r e l a t i o n s h i p of the inci d e n c e and value of renovation w i t h the socioeconomic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of an area? I t has been demonstrated t h a t y j DPA, p. 2. OA . . » > • This i s a much higher f i g u r e than the Mount A l l i s o n survey found, which was l e s s than one percent. 64 r e n o v a t i o n touches a l l income c l a s s e s and household types; however, we do see t h a t t h e r e are indeed some important charac-t e r i s t i c s , such as those a s s o c i a t e d w i t h g e n t r i f i c a t i o n , which are more p r e v a l e n t than o t h e r s i n s p e c i f i c case s t u d i e s . Fourth, evidence suggests t h a t s e l f - h e l p i s a v i t a l a s p e c t of r e n o v a t i o n which must be addressed. F i n a l l y , the r o l e of the government must be c o n s i d e r e d . The f e d e r a l RRAP program has been shown t o be not o n l y an i n v a l u a b l e source of r e n o v a t i o n funds f o r low income people, but a l s o a source of c o n t r o v e r s y as low income houses are improved and become a t t r a c t i v e t o middle c l a s s homebuyers. Hedman r e v e a l e d t h a t the Yukon t e r r i t o r i a l government c o n s i d e r e d r e n o v a t i o n so important t h a t i t was w i l l i n g t o 'top-up' the f e d e r a l government's sub s i d y f o r r e n o v a t i o n . I t i s t h e r e f o r e incumbent upon t h i s r e p o r t t o address the i s s u e of government involvement i n r e n o v a t i o n . 65 CHAPTER IV: PRIVATE SECTOR RENOVATION IN NOVA SCOTIA This chapter introduces the major body of research data i n an a n a l y s i s of renovation a c t i v i t y i n Nova S c o t i a . The research design and study area are presented i n the f i r s t p a r t of the chapter. F o l l o w i n g t h i s two key questions are addressed: How has the amount of renovation a c t i v i t y changed over time i n Nova Sc o t i a ? What i s the geographical p a t t e r n of reno v a t i o n across the province and i n d i f f e r e n t settlement s i z e s . The l a s t p a r t of the chapter examines i n more d e t a i l the renovation p a t t e r n s of each of the study u n i t s and subareas w i t h i n the province. A. RESEARCH DESIGN Growing up i n a r u r a l p a r t of Nova S c o t i a near the metropo-l i t a n c entre of H a l i f a x has had an impact on the design of t h i s p r o j e c t . Our home of twenty years had been, and was co n t i n u i n g t o be, renovated - the replacement of the basement door w i t h b r i c k t o reduce heat l o s s , added i n s u l a t i o n t o the a t t i c , new storm windows and doors, and a completely r e f u r b i s h e d bathroom - and i t became apparent t h a t we were not the only ones making these s o r t s of changes. Several questions arose. How many other people were doing home renovations? How were they paying f o r these a c t i v i t i e s ? Why are they making changes to t h e i r homes? What can be s a i d of those who choose not t o renovate? The answers t o these and other questions are not easy t o f i n d . One could ask the neighbours i f they were renovating and why, and ask a l s o how they were f i n a n c i n g the p r o j e c t . But t o do t h i s on a province-wide s c a l e f o r many d i f f e r e n t m u n i c i p a l i t i e s 6 6 would r e q u i r e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . Since two surveys of t h i s nature were r e c e n t l y completed i n the province, t h i s d i d not seem t o be an a p p r o p r i a t e path t o f o l l o w . In a d d i t i o n t o us i n g these q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , b u i l d i n g permit a c t i v i t y by m u n i c i p a l i t y from 1971 to 1988 was chosen as a data base, u s i n g the number of permits i s s u e d f o r renovation t o s i n g l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s and t h e i r y e a r l y d o l l a r value. There are, however, f i v e important l i m i t a t i o n s t o us i n g t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n . F i r s t , and most im p o r t a n t l y , an unknown f r a c t i o n of the t o t a l r e n o v a t i o n a c t i v i t y i s recorded through b u i l d i n g permits. One reason f o r t h i s i s the known f a i l u r e of the renovator t o apply f o r a necessary b u i l d i n g permit; and, s i n c e many renovations are minor, i n t e r i o r , and o f t e n unseen, i t i s a very d i f f i c u l t a c t i v i t y f o r b u i l d i n g i n s p e c t o r s t o monitor. A second reason i s t h a t minor renovations, such as a new door or window, u s u a l l y do not r e q u i r e a permit. Some m u n i c i p a l i t i e s s e t minimum d o l l a r values f o r renovation permit requirements. Therefore, s i n c e i t i s l a r g e r s c a l e renovations which tend t o be reported, the use of b u i l d i n g permit a c t i v i t y as an i n d i c a t o r of renovation a c t i v i t y w i l l emphasise more s u b s t a n t i a l r e n o v a t i o n s . 9 6 95 The two surveys were conducted by DPA (1986) and by the R u r a l and Small Town Research and Studies Programme at Mount A l l i s o n U n i v e r s i t y (1988) . The l a t t e r was a study of a l l four A t l a n t i c Provinces covering 823 households, 364 of which were from Nova S c o t i a . The DPA survey covered 1447 households i n Nova S c o t i a . 96 • t . This 'approach' c o n f l i c t s w i t h the d e f i n i t i o n used i n Chapter 1. However, both must be used because of the nature of the data. For the study of b u i l d i n g permits i t i s assumed t h a t the m a j o r i t y of permits are those f o r ' s i g n i f i c a n t ' renovations. When d i s c u s s i n g the Mount A l l i s o n survey we must use the broader d e f i n i t i o n . The u t i l i t y of t h i s approach, f o r example, would 67 How much of an impact does t h i s u n d e r r e p o r t i n g have on the data? A survey of homeowners showed t h a t of a l l r e n o v a t i o n s completed between September 1987 and September 1988, 18.6% r e -q u i r e d a permit ( i n 8.3% p e r c e n t of cases, the homeowner d i d not know i f a permit was req u i r e d ) . However, i n o n l y 74% of these cases was a permit a c t u a l l y o b t a i n e d (Table 4.1), f o r a ' r e p o r t i n g r a t e ' of approximately 13.5%. TABLE 4.1 USE OP BUILDING PERMITS FOR RENOVATIONS, ATLANTIC CANADA, 1987 - 1988 WAS A PERMIT REQUIRED FOR RENOVATION? Small R u r a l Town C i t y P r o v i n c e No Yes Don't Know No Yes Source: 72.7 72.7 18.8 20.0 8.6 7.3 74.6 73.1 16.9 18.6 8.5 8.3 IF YES, WAS A PERMIT OBTAINED? Small R u r a l Town C i t y P r o v i n c e % % % % 28.6 16.7 30.0 26.0 71.4 83.3 70.0 74.0 Unpublished data from R u r a l and Small Town Research and S t u d i e s Programme, Mount A l l i s o n U n i v e r s i t y , S a c k v i l l e , New Brunswick. Second, not a l l m u n i c i p a l i t i e s have b u i l d i n g permit r e c o r d s which date from 1971. In most cases, t h i s i s because t h e r e were no b u i l d i n g i n s p e c t o r s i n a g i v e n m u n i c i p a l i t y u n t i l v ery a l l o w f o r comparisons t o both C l a y t o n ' s A l b e r t a study, which used a broad r e n o v a t i o n d e f i n i t i o n , and Smith and Woodman's Edmonton study which used a narrower d e f i n i t i o n t o f a c i l i t a t e the permit data base. 68 r e c e n t l y . In f a c t , four r u r a l m u n i c i p a l i t i e s and three small towns have only had a b u i l d i n g i n s p e c t o r s i n c e A p r i l 1987, when the p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t u r e passed "An Act t o Adopt and Implement a B u i l d i n g Code f o r the P r o v i n c e " ; 9 7 a f u r t h e r nine have no records on renovations p r i o r t o 1981. Thus the h i s t o r i c a l record of renovation permits i s very uneven across the province. T h i r d , each m u n i c i p a l i t y has i t s own method of r e c o r d i n g b u i l d i n g permit a c t i v i t y . The o r i g i n a l p l a n was t o u t i l i z e the S t a t i s t i c s Canada B u i l d i n g and Demolition Permits form which i s used monthly by each m u n i c i p a l i t y t o r e p o r t on b u i l d i n g permit a c t i v i t y . Of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t f o r t h i s study i s S e c t i o n B — S i n g l e s - A l t e r a t i o n s , A d d i t i o n s , Plumbing, Heating, Sheds, e t c . , 98 (permits valued at l e s s than $25 000). Where t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n • 99 • • was not a v a i l a b l e , the annual B u i l d i n g Inspector's Report was u t i l i z e d . These c o n t a i n the same in f o r m a t i o n , but i n some cases a l s o i n c l u d e d those few renovation permits valued a t g r e a t e r than $25 000. For some m u n i c i p a l i t i e s the b u i l d i n g i n s p e c t o r ' s r e p o r t s only s t a t e d the number of permits issued w i t h no i n d i c a t i o n of B i l l No. 63, An Act t o Adopt and Implement a B u i l d i n g Code  f o r the Province. ( H a l i f a x : Queen's P r i n t e r , 1986). This was introduced i n t o the House by Hon. David Nantes i n the 2nd Session of the 54th General Assembly of the Nova S c o t i a L e g i s l a t u r e . The province adopted the N a t i o n a l B u i l d i n g Code of Canada, 1985, making i t mandatory i n each m u n i c i p a l i t y f o r a b u i l d i n g i n s p e c t o r ( s ) t o enforce t h i s code. (Sectio n 4) 98 • • See Appendix A f o r a sample copy of t h i s form. 99 For example, the records were not a v a i l a b l e i f the m u n i c i p a l i t y d i d not keep a copy of t h i s form a f t e r i t was sent t o S t a t i s t i c s Canada. In a d d i t i o n , S t a t i s t i c s Canada does not p u b l i s h the r e s u l t s from S e c t i o n B, and t o buy t h i s data would be extremely c o s t l y . 69 t h e i r aggregate d o l l a r v a l u e f o r some or a l l y e a r s . Fourteen m u n i c i p a l i t i e s s u p p l i e d the d e s i r e d S t a t i s t i c s Canada monthly r e p o r t s , w h i l e the remaining t h i r t y - o n e s u p p l i e d annual b u i l d i n g i n s p e c t o r ' s r e p o r t s . Fourth, b u i l d i n g permit i s o n l y a statement of i n t e n t t o c a r r y out a c o n s t r u c t i o n a c t i v i t y . However, i t has been found t h a t when a r e n o v a t i o n permit i s i s s u e d , almost a l l jobs are i n f a c t completed. 1 0 0 F i f t h , and most r e g r e t t a b l y , the number of b u i l d i n g permits i s s u e d f o r r e n o v a t i o n purposes may a l s o i n c l u d e some RRAP a c t i v i t y , , dependent upon the nature of the RRAP r e p a i r and upon the d i l i g e n c e of the RRAP d e l i v e r y agency i n i n f o r m i n g the c l i e n t of the need f o r a permit i n cases where i t i s r e q u i r e d . Most of the b u i l d i n g i n s p e c t o r s who commented on t h i s problem s a i d t h a t i t was d i f f i c u l t t o determine the percentage of permits which i n v o l v e d RRAP, and t h a t t h i s percentage v a r i e s from m u n i c i p a l i t y t o m u n i c i p a l i t y . In summary, the data base, w h i l e the most complete a v a i l a b l e of housing r e n o v a t i o n i n Nova S c o t i a , i s uneven and most c e r t a i n l y incomplete. B. STUDY AREA F i g u r e s 4.IA and 4.IB show urban and r u r a l m u n i c i p a l u n i t s w i t h i n Nova S c o t i a , each w i t h i n one of f i v e d e s i g n a t e d r e g i o n s . There are e i g h t e e n c o u n t i e s , s i x of which are d i v i d e d i n t o two See the d i s c u s s i o n i n M i l l w a r d and Davis, p. 150. RURAL MUNICIPALITIES AND REGIONS NOVA SCOTIA Regions 1 Cape Breton 2 Northern Nova Scotia 3 Annapolis Region 4 South Shore 5 Metro Scale 1 : 3 046 000 approx m u n i c i p a l d i s t r i c t s , f o r a t o t a l of 24 r u r a l m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , 23 of these are used i n t h i s s t u d y . 1 0 1 Each of the t h r e e c i t i e s , H a l i f a x , Dartmouth, and Sydney are i n c l u d e d . Nova S c o t i a has 39 s m a l l towns, r a n g i n g i n p o p u l a t i o n from 600 t o 20 000. The 26 • • > . 102 • w i t h a minimum p o p u l a t i o n of 2000 were chosen; of t h i s group, 19 • 103 • are used i n the study. In t o t a l , the p r o j e c t has a base of 45 m u n i c i p a l i t i e s as a study area. For the purpose of t h i s study, c i t i e s c o n t a i n those u n i t s which are d e s i g n a t e d as such by the p r o v i n c e . Small towns i n c l u d e a l l i n c o r p o r a t e d areas over 2000, e x c l u d i n g those above noted. The r u r a l c a t e g o r y i n c l u d e s a l l remaining s e t t l e m e n t s i n the p r o v i n c e , except f o r i n c o r p o r a t e d towns below 2000 i n p o p u l a t i o n . A l s o i n c l u d e d i n the r u r a l category are u n i n c o r p o r a t e d 'urban c e n t r e s ' such as Cole Harbour and S a c k v i l l e i n H a l i f a x County, B i b l e H i l l i n C o l c h e s t e r County, E n f i e l d i n E a s t Hants, and New The s m a l l e s t r u r a l m u n i c i p a l i t y , S t . Mary's, i s not covered by t h i s study because t h e r e are no r e c o r d s a v a i l a b l e . 102 • • . The p o p u l a t i o n of 2000 has been found t o be the minimum f o r a s m a l l town t o be v i a b l e . See F l o y d Dykeman and Ron C o r b e t t , A Matter of Record: A Review of P o p u l a t i o n Changes and the  I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r R u r a l and Small Town Canada and the A t l a n t i c  Region. ( S a c k v i l l e : 1986) . A town of t h i s s i z e would have a f u l l - t i m e b u i l d i n g i n s p e c t o r and adequate r e c o r d keeping. 103 • • The 39 towns range i n p o p u l a t i o n f o r 631 t o 20 647 f o r a t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n of 146 071. There i s no data a v a i l a b l e f o r the towns of Yarmouth ( p o p u l a t i o n 7617), A n t i g o n i s h (5291), P o r t Hawkesbury (3869), Windsor (3665), and W o l f e v i l l e (3277) . Records from the towns of Berwick (2058) and K e n t v i l l e (5208) were combined a t the source and t h e r e f o r e t h i s i s c o n s i d e r e d as one study area. In a s i m i l a r f a s h i o n , the r e c o r d s f o r the town of Shelburne (2312) were combined a t the source w i t h the Shelburne M u n i c i p a l D i s t r i c t (5365) ; t h i s too i s c o n s i d e r e d as one study area w i t h i n the r u r a l category. T h e r e f o r e , t h i s study covers approximately 95.1% of the p o p u l a t i o n i n 1988, and the coverage decreases as the study moves back i n time. 73 Minas i n Kings County. Although these a re d e c i d e d l y urban or s m a l l town i n nature, b u i l d i n g permit a c t i v i t y i s re c o r d e d w i t h t h a t of the r e s t of t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e c o u n t i e s , and as such they are c o n s i d e r e d t o be r u r a l f o r the purpose of t h i s study. C. RENOVATION ACTIVITY FROM 1971 TO 1988 The use of b u i l d i n g permits as a measure of r e n o v a t i o n i s not f u l l y s a t i s f y i n g f o r the reasons a l r e a d y d i s c u s s e d . The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of data c o l l e c t e d from b u i l d i n g permit a c t i v i t y f o r t h i s study i s tempered by t h r e e f a c t o r s ; 1. The number of RRAP g r a n t s . Some RRAP g r a n t s a d m i t t e d l y have been i n c l u d e d i n the r e n o v a t i o n t o t a l s a t the source; however, the number i s b e l i e v e d t o be low. Having s a i d t h i s , i t i s important t o r e c o g n i z e t h a t i n s e v e r a l m u n i c i p a l i t i e s a drop i n the i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n c o i n c i d e s w i t h a drop i n the number of RRAP g r a n t s . The degree t o which t h i s i s a c o i n c i d e n c e or a d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p i s not known, but i t does appear t h a t RRAP shapes the p a t t e r n of r e n o v a t i o n through b u i l d i n g p e r m i t a c t i v i t y i n c e r t a i n areas. 2. The i n t r o d u c t i o n of a new b u i l d i n g a c t i n the p r o v i n c e i n 1987. For those m u n i c i p a l i t i e s without a b u i l d i n g i n s p e c t i o n s e r v i c e p r i o r t o t h i s adoption, the data appear t o show a s t r i c t enforcement of the new code, i n the form of a r e l a t i v e l y h i g h i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n coupled w i t h lower average permit v a l u e s . I t i s u n c e r t a i n whether t h i s p a t t e r n i s a symptom of s t r o n g 74 enforcement and r e p o r t i n g p r a c t i c e s or a r e f l e c t i o n of tougher economic c o n d i t i o n s which reduce l a r g e s c a l e investment i n r e n o v a t i o n . Those m u n i c i p a l i t i e s which show a s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e i n the i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n a f t e r the implementation of the new b u i l d i n g a c t may have been n e g l e c t f u l of the i n s p e c t i o n and r e c o r d i n g of r e n o v a t i o n s p r i o r t o i t s i n t r o d u c t i o n , making the pre-1987 i n c i d e n c e seem lower than i t might otherwise have been. For the l a r g e r m u n i c i p a l i t i e s which a l r e a d y had i n p l a c e a competent and w e l l s t r u c t u r e d i n s p e c t i o n s e r v i c e , t h e r e appeared t o be no impact on the data as a r e s u l t of i t s a d o p t i o n . 3. The a b i l i t y of the b u i l d i n g i n s p e c t o r t o e n f o r c e r e g u l a t i o n s e f f e c t i v e l y . In r u r a l areas i n p a r t i c u l a r , where a s i n g l e b u i l d i n g i n s p e c t o r and a lower o p e r a t i n g budget predominate, i t i s next t o i m p o s s i b l e f o r the b u i l d i n g i n s p e c t o r t o keep r e n o v a t i o n i n s p e c t i o n s and r e c o r d i n g a p r i o r i t y . F a i l u r e t o comply w i t h r e g u l a t i o n s , e s p e c i a l l y i n v o l v i n g r e n o v a t i o n s , i s r a r e l y e n f o r c e d u n l e s s a complaint i s lodged. T h i s must e x p l a i n i n p a r t why r u r a l areas have a lower i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n . C e r t a i n l y , then, b u i l d i n g permits do not and cannot r e v e a l the f u l l e x t e n t of r e n o v a t i o n s as they would f o r new home c o n s t r -u c t i o n . The data f o r the most p a r t are sketchy, e s p e c i a l l y i n the e a r l i e r y e ars of study. The l i m i t a t i o n s d e s c r i b e d may d i s t o r t the r e s u l t s t h a t one might expect t o see. Instead, we can o n l y use them as a guide t o suggest p a t t e r n s w i t h i n t h e i r l i m i t a t i o n s , and make i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s w i t h care and c a u t i o n . 75 In Chapter 3 i t was noted t h a t n a t i o n a l l y the i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n was somewhat h i g h e r i n urban areas w h i l e the average r e n o v a t i o n expenditure was h i g h e r i n r u r a l areas. I t was a l s o found t h a t neighbourhoods (may we suggest communities as wel l ) i n d e c l i n e had a lower i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n as w e l l . The Mount A l l i s o n survey of 823 households i n f o u r A t l a n t i c P r o v i n c e s found t h a t the i n c i d e n c e and expenditure was h i g h e s t i n the c i t i e s , s m a l l e r i n the s m a l l towns, and lowest i n the r u r a l a r e a s . ( T a b l e 4.2) How does t h i s compare w i t h the study of r e n o v a t i o n permits? TABLE 4. 2 INCIDENCE OF RENOVATION AND AVERAGE COST NOVA SCOTIA, 1987 - 1988 Settlement Type Percent Average Average T o t a l % Labour$ M a t e r i a l s $ R u r a l 68.0 878 2009 2885 Small Town 69.1 1065 3227 4292 C i t y 76.6 2177 3315 5492 P r o v i n c e 69.7 1372 2850 4222 Source: Unpublished data from R u r a l and Small Town Research and S t u d i e s Programme, Mount A l l i s o n U n i v e r s i t y , S a c k v i l l e , New Brunswick. In 1988, 5518 r e n o v a t i o n permits were i s s u e d i n Nova S c o t i a , v a l u e d a t $33 506 174. E x t r a p o l a t i n g t h i s f i g u r e based on the Mount A l l i s o n survey f i n d i n g t h a t o n l y 13.5% of r e n o v a t i o n s are r e p o r t e d , i t i s estimated t h a t 4 0 874 permits would have been i s s u e d t o p r o v i d e a f u l l assessment of a l l r e n o v a t i o n work. F i g u r e s 4.2A and 4.2B show the number of r e n o v a t i o n p e r m i t s and t h e i r t o t a l d o l l a r v a l u e s i n c e 1971 i n each study area. These f i g u r e s must be viewed w i t h c a u t i o n . Data c o l l e c t i o n begins a t 76 TOTAL NUMBER AND VALUE OF RENOVATION PERMITS RURAL MUNICIPALITIES NOVA SCOTIA approx TOTAL NUMBER AND VALUE OF RENOVATION PERMITS SMALL TOWNS AND CITIES NOVA SCOTIA 1971 - 1988 Scale d i f f e r e n t y e ars f o r each area based on the a v a i l a b i l i t y of i n f o r m a t i o n , as shown i n T a b l e 4.3. Although i t may appear t h a t t h e r e i s more r e n o v a t i o n i n one area than i n another, i t i s necessary t o determine i n which year the i n f o r m a t i o n begins t o p r o p e r l y a ssess the t o t a l s . T h i s i s why we see a heavy c o n c e n t r a t i o n of a c t i v i t y i n the Halifax-Dartmouth area ( h e r e a f t e r know as Metro) , and i n the more populated c o u n t i e s of Kings, C o l c h e s t e r , P i c t o u , Cape Breton, and East and West Hants. The data f o r these w e l l - a d m i n i s t e r e d m u n i c i p a l i t i e s date t o the e a r l y 1970s. Most cases which e x h i b i t low t o t a l s have v e r y few years of data r e p o r t i n g . L a t e r i n the chapter we w i l l s t a n d a r d i z e these f i g u r e s and undertake a f u l l e r a n a l y s i s . Nonetheless, c e r t a i n f e a t u r e s are worth n o t i n g : a) a c t i v i t y i s p r i n c i p a l l y l o c a t e d i n the metro r e g i o n ; b) t h e r e i s l e s s r e n o v a t i o n i n the urban areas of Cape Breton County than i n those of P i c t o u County; c) a c t i v i t y i s very low i n the southern p o r t i o n of the p r o v i n c e ; d) i n the l a r g e r r u r a l c o u n t i e s such as Kings, C o l c h e s t e r , Hants, P i c t o u , H a l i f a x , and Cape Breton, t h e r e i s a l a r g e amount of r e n o v a t i o n . F i g u r e 4.3 shows the d i s t r i b u t i o n of r e n o v a t i o n permits among the t h r e e s e t t l e m e n t types i n a b s o l u t e f i g u r e s ; again, the i n f o r m a t i o n must be viewed w i t h c a u t i o n because data from new areas i s being added each year. In 1988 r u r a l areas had the g r e a t e s t p r o p o r t i o n of permits a t 58.3%, t h i s i s not s u r p r i s i n g s i n c e the m a j o r i t y of Nova S c o t i a n s l i v e i n r u r a l a reas. The 79 FIGURE 4.3 Total Number of Renovation Permits Distribution by Settlement Size 1971 1 9 7 3 1 9 7 5 1 9 7 7 1 9 7 9 1981 1 9 8 3 1 9 8 5 1 9 8 7 \/7) Rural I V ^ s l Small Towns £ 2 2 3 CWes 8 0 TABLE 4.3 TOTAL NUMBER AND VALUE OF RENOVATION PERMITS RURAL CITIES SMALL TOWNS Pl a c e Number Value Data Beg H a l i f a x 13609 79 734 767 1971 Kings 5709 12 094 002 1971 (1) C o l c h e s t e r 2821 19 877 128 1971 Ea s t Hants 1884 11 300 951 1971 P i c t o u 2762 11 199 703 1972 West Hants 1899 n. a. 1972 B a r r i n g t o n 496 2 938 823 1975 A r g y l e 145 918 354 1976 Yarmouth 485 2 469 702 1978 Cape Breton 1952 13 016 232 1979 Cumberland 1183 4 933 066 1979 (2) V i c t o r i a 851 8 129 095 1979 Guysborough 589 3 423 900 1979 Inverness 222 3 454 500 1981 (3) A n n a p o l i s 747 n .a. 1981 Queens 416 2 193 642 1982 Lunenburg 1255 10 277 333 1983 A n t i g o n i s h 85 725 615 1983 Richmond 1599 5 612 359 1984 Digby 315 1 714 326 1987 C l a r e 355 n .a. 1987 Shelburne 164 959 910 1987 Chester 153 701 808 1988 H a l i f a x 13509 42 563 506 1971 Dartmouth 10594 35 335 862 1971 Sydney 1219 7 526 387 1980 Tru r o 1039 3 719 881 1971 K e n t v i l l e 350 1 919 280 1971 New Glasgow 2892 10 440 530 1972 P i c t o u 1350 5 235 155 1972 S t e l l a r t o n 1351 4 771 945 1972 W e s t v i l l e 1154 3 307 620 1972 Trenton 820 2 571 829 1972 Glace Bay 823 5 111 522 1979 Sydney Mines 742 4 518 223 1979 New Waterford 602 2 754 667 1979 North Sydney 415 2 953 631 1979 Dominion 231 1 018 172 1979 Bridgewater 392 2 396 366 1980 Amherst 686 3 940 538 1981 (4) Bedford 477 3 567 816 1982 L i v e r p o o l 187 196 151 1982 (5) S p r i n g h i l l 54 187 054 1987 (6) Digby 24 147 082 1988 Lunenburg 9 47 840 1988 1 No d o l l a r f i g u r e s f o r 1972-1980, 2 No d o l l a r f i g u r e s f o r 1979-1982, 3 No d o l l a r or permit f i g u r e s f o r 1982 4 No d o l l a r or permit f i g u r e s f o r 1987 5 No d o l l a r f i g u r e s f o r 1982-1986. 6 No d o l l a r f i g u r e s f o r 1987. 1982. no permit f i g u r e s f o r 1981. 81 c i t i e s accounted, f o r 25.3% of the permits and s m a l l towns 16.4%. T h i s compares wi t h the 1987 f i g u r e s of .58.6%, 27%, and 14.4% r e s p e c t i v e l y . As time p r o g r e s s e s i n the f i g u r e r u r a l areas comprise a g r e a t e r share of the t o t a l number of p e r m i t s , p r i m a r i l y due t o the f a c t t h a t new areas are added t o the t o t a l y e a r l y . The number of permits i n s m a l l towns i n c r e a s e s t o a maximum i n 1983 and then d e c l i n e s , as do the number of permits i n c i t i e s . However, the i n f o r m a t i o n p r e s e n t e d so f a r has been i n a b s o l u t e terms. For us t o compare the amount of a c t i v i t y i n d i f f e r e n t areas, the v a l u e s must be s t a n d a r d i z e d . We may compare the i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n , d e f i n e d as the percentage of a l l s i n g l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s i n a m u n i c i p a l i t y t h a t were i s s u e d a r e n o v a t i o n permit. F i g u r e 4.4 r e s t a t e s the data i n F i g u r e 4.3 by e x p r e s s i n g the t o t a l s i n t h i s manner f o r each of the t h r e e s e t t l e m e n t s i z e s and f o r the p r o v i n c e as a whole. An i n t e r e s t i n g p a t t e r n emerges. Outside of two years (1977 and 1978) , c i t i e s have the h i g h e s t i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n over the e n t i r e study p e r i o d . In 1988 4.4% of a l l s i n g l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s were i s s u e d a permit, w i t h a peak of 6.47% i n 1979. Except f o r the f i r s t t h r e e y e a r s , when t h e r e was v e r y l i t t l e i n f o r m a t i o n t o work with, r u r a l areas had the lowest i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n over the e n t i r e study p e r i o d . In 1988 the i n c i d e n c e was 2.84% of a l l s i n g l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s , w i t h a peak i n 1979 of 3.87%. The i n c i d e n c e i n s m a l l towns remained somewhere i n the middle, except f o r the peak ye a r s mentioned above. In 1988 the i n c i d e n c e was 3.04% wi t h a peak of 9.70% i n 1978. The peak i s due i n p a r t t o the presence of some RRAP g r a n t s which were i n c l u d e d i n the t o t a l s f o r some of 82 83 the study areas, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the P i c t o u area towns. I t i s a l s o due t o the f a c t t h a t o n l y seven towns are r e p r e s e n t e d i n the data base a t t h i s p o i n t (see T a b l e 4.3). In g e n e r a l , t h e r e appears t o be a f a i r l y c o n s i s t e n t i n c i d e n c e over the y e a r s i n the p r o v i n c e , w i t h a peak i n the l a t e 1970s of 5.33% and a g r a d u a l but steady d e c l i n e i n the 1980s t o 3.17% i n 1988. A p r o b a b l e f a c t o r here i s the d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t i n f l u e n c e of RRAP, both by adding t o the t o t a l s and by s t i m u l a t i n g o t h e r households t o renovate. Spending on r e n o v a t i o n , or the average v a l u e of r e n o v a t i o n p e r m i t s , climbs s t e a d i l y over the years i n c u r r e n t d o l l a r s . However, i t i s u s e f u l t o examine these v a l u e s i n c o n s t a n t d o l l a r s t o b e t t e r understand the changes from year t o y e a r . C e r t a i n l y a r e n o v a t i o n p r o j e c t c o s t i n g $5000 t e n years ago would be a much b i g g e r u n d e r t a k i n g than one a t the same c o s t today. In constant (1981) d o l l a r s the average permit v a l u e i s v e r y h i g h i n the 1970s and r e l a t i v e l y c o n s i s t e n t over the p a s t f i v e y e a r s i n each of the s e t t l e m e n t s i z e s . ( F i g u r e 4.5) L i k e the p r e v i o u s f i g u r e , c l e a r p a t t e r n s emerge. The permit v a l u e s i n c i t i e s are c o n s i s t e n t l y the lowest, w i t h a c o n s t a n t d o l l a r peak i n 1975 of $5605, f a l l i n g t o $3668 i n 1988. The r u r a l areas are c o n s i s t e n t l y the h i g h e s t , w i t h a peak i n 1975 of $9592, and $4756 f o r 1988. Again, the towns m a i n t a i n the middle ground, peaking i n 1974 a t $8312 and s l i p p i n g t o $4613 i n 1988. There i s a f u r t h e r t r e n d ; i n the l a s t f i v e y e a r s t h e r e i s a remarkable convergence of the average permit v a l u e s i n a l l areas. T h i s p r o b a b l y r e f l e c t s the f a c t t h a t t h e r e i s more complete data from which t o make comparisons. The combination of the t r e n d s i n F i g u r e s 4.4 and 4.5 suggest t h a t i n 84 F I G U R E 4 . 5 Average Value of Renovation Permits by Settlement She 1 ' r 1985 1987 Year • Small Town* Average Value of Renovation Permits by Settlement Size Province 8 5 r u r a l areas t h e r e i s an u n d e r r e p o r t i n g of s m a l l s c a l e p r o j e c t s which i n t u r n lowers the i n c i d e n c e and r a i s e s t he average permit v a l u e s . In the c i t i e s , t he o p p o s i t e i s t r u e , where more c a r e f u l s u r v e i l l a n c e and r e p o r t i n g captures more s m a l l s c a l e p r o j e c t s , r a i s i n g the i n c i d e n c e and low e r i n g the average permit v a l u e s . The sm a l l towns l i e w i t h i n these extremes. Such an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n would r e c o n c i l e the permit data w i t h survey r e s u l t s i n d i c a t i n g t h a t l a r g e r and more c o s t l y r e n o v a t i o n s occur i n c i t i e s . ( T a b l e 4.2) Based on b u i l d i n g permit i n f o r m a t i o n , i n 1988 3.17% of Nova S c o t i a n s renovated, spending an average of $4331.(Table 4.4) T h i s compares t o the Mount A l l i s o n survey r e s u l t s of 69.7% having renovated, a t an average expenditure of $4222 ( c u r r e n t d o l l a r s ) . Although the i n c i d e n c e i s shown t o be the h i g h e s t i n the c i t i e s i n both cases, the Mount A l l i s o n survey found t h a t c i t i e s had a h i g h e r average expenditure than both s m a l l towns and r u r a l areas. T h i s study f i n d s the o p p o s i t e t o be t r u e . The e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h i s seems t o be than i n r u r a l areas where manpower and time are at a premium f o r b u i l d i n g i n s p e c t i o n s , i t i s the l a r g e r and more expensive r e n o v a t i o n s o n l y which tend t o be r e p o r t e d . In c i t i e s and s m a l l towns more s m a l l s c a l e and l e s s expensive r e n o v a t i o n s are r e p o r t e d which reduce the average permit v a l u e . TABLE 4 . 4 SUMMARY OF RENOVATION ACTIVITY THROUGH BUILDING PERMITS Incidence Range Average$ Range 1988 % 1988(1) $(1) R u r a l 2.84 2.66-3.87 4756 4217-9592 Small Towns 3.04 1.24-9.70 4613 3693-8312 C i t i e s 4.40 3.98-6.47 3668 3102-5606 P r o v i n c e 3.17 3.17-5.33 4331 3893-7012 1 Constant (1981) d o l l a r s . 86 P r e v i o u s d i s c u s s i o n s of r e n o v a t i o n have c e n t r e d around two i s s u e s . One i s t h a t the d e c i s i o n t o renovate i s an economic d e c i s i o n based on the r e t u r n from t h i s investment i n housing, an o p t i o n cheaper than moving t o s a t i s f y housing needs. The other i s t h a t r e n o v a t i o n i s a l i f e s t y l e c h o i c e homeowners make t o s a t i s f y t h e i r d e s i r e s and wishes t o a l t e r t h e i r l i v i n g space. T h i s i n v o l v e s choosing t o renovate f o r i t s own sake, f o r s o c i a l and a e s t h e t i c purposes, as opposed t o economic purposes. There i s however, a t h i r d c o n t e x t which i s e q u a l l y important. The s t r e n g t h of the l o c a l economy p l a y s an important r o l e i n the d e c i s i o n t o renovate. F i r s t , i n a weaker economy t h e r e are simply fewer d o l l a r s t o go around f o r such p r o j e c t s as r e n o v a t i o n . Second, those who do have enough income t o renovate are l i k e l y not t o do so i n a neighbourhood (region?) which i s p e r c e i v e d t o be i n d e c l i n e . How does the Nova S c o t i a economy c o n s t r a i n the r e n o v a t i n g landscape? There are h i n t s from incomplete data t h a t e x p e n d i t u r e s , on fewer r e n o v a t i o n s , were somewhat h i g h e r i n the 1970s i n constant d o l l a r s . As w e l l , i t i s noted t h a t the i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n was h i g h e s t i n the l a t e 1970s. We cannot be sure, however, whether these are r e a l t r e n d s or evidence of more l a x r e p o r t i n g and m o n i t o r i n g procedures a t t h a t time. I f these were r e a l t r e n d s , they might r e f l e c t the more buoyant economic and demographic t r e n d s of the 1970s, compared w i t h the r e c e s s i o n a r y decade of the 1980s. F i g u r e 4.6 o f f e r s a comparison of the i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n w i t h unemployment r a t e s i n Nova S c o t i a . The unemployment f i g u r e s r i s e s h a r p l y a f t e r 1981, the year i n 87 88 which the r e c e s s i o n took h o l d , and remain above the l e v e l of the 1970s. While the curves d e s c r i b i n g r e n o v a t i o n and unemployment are approximately p a r a l l e l i n the 1970s (with fewer cases r e p o r t i n g ) , the i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n d e c l i n e s from 1978 onward, d i v e r g i n g from the unemployment curve. So t h i s does suggest t h a t perhaps a weaker economy i n the 1980s l e d t o a d e c l i n e i n the i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n ( l a r g e r , s i g n i f i c a n t r e n o v a t i o n s which tend t o be reported) , and would h e l p t o e x p l a i n the h i g h e r average permit v a l u e s ( i n con s t a n t d o l l a r s ) of the 1970s and t h e i r v ery m a r g i n a l i n c r e a s e over the l a s t f i v e y e a r s . W i t h i n t h i s context, then, i t would be reasonable t o assume t h a t i n many of our study areas t h e r e may be s i g n i f i c a n t changes i n r e n o v a t i o n p a t t e r n s from the 1970s t o the 1980s. D. RELATIVE DISTRIBUTION OP RENOVATION ACTIVITY 1. P r o v i n c e -How has the p a t t e r n o f r e n o v a t i o n changed over time? To answer t h i s q u e s t i o n , we s h a l l f i r s t look a t the p r o v i n c e as a whole and then a t each of f i v e subareas. F i g u r e s 4.7 - 4.10 r e v e a l the average annual i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n i n Nova S c o t i a f o r 1971-1975, 1976-1980, 1981-1985 and 1986-1988, r e s p e c t i v e l y . 1 0 4 The immediate r e a c t i o n i s t h a t no c l e a r p a t t e r n emerges, both from p e r i o d t o p e r i o d , and w i t h i n a g i v e n p e r i o d . However, some i n t e r e s t i n g p o i n t s emerge. The P i c t o u County area and the Metro A l l study areas are i n c l u d e d i n F i g u r e 10, even i f the data i s f o r one or two years o n l y . Only those areas which have data f o r a t l e a s t t h r e e of the f i v e y e a r s a re i n c l u d e d i n the othe r f i g u r e s . 89 AVERAGE ANNUAL INCIDENCE OF RENOVATION NOVA SCOTIA, 1971 - 1975 n i l l Scale 1 : 3 116 000 approx Incidence of Renovation • 036% - 1.85% 2.16% - 2.62% 2.76% - 351% 3.23% - 3.71% 4.60% - 520% no data AVERAGE ANNUAL INCIDENCE OF RENOVATION NOVA SCOTIA. 1976 - 1980 Scale 1 : 3116 000 approx Incidence of Renovation H 0.35% - 1.30% H 1.82% - 2.75% H 3.14% - 453% H 5.98% - 9.52% H 9.97% - 13.14% no data no data approx no data r e g i o n are both c o n s i s t e n t l y h i g h i n i n c i d e n c e i n a l l f o u r p e r i o d s . Over time, more areas i n the South Shore r e g i o n e n t e r the h i g h e r i n c i d e n c e groups, e s p e c i a l l y i n 1986-1988. In g e n e r a l , though, we c o u l d s t a t e t h a t most of the areas w i t h a h i g h i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n are urban, and those w i t h a low i n c i d e n c e are r u r a l . There are some anomalies t o t h i s o b s e r v a t i o n . The c l u s t e r s of s m a l l towns i n the P i c t o u area and Cape Breton have a remarkably d i s s i m i l a r i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n , w i t h the P i c t o u area being much hi g h e r , e s p e c i a l l y i n 1986 - 1988. Among the c o u n t i e s Richmond County has the h i g h e s t average i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n d u r i n g 1986-1988, and t h e r e i s a pocket of h i g h e r r e n o v a t i o n i n c i d e n c e i n C l a r e and Digby. The towns of K e n t v i l l e - B e r w i c k and Lunenburg show s u r p r i s i n g l y low l e v e l s of r e n o v a t i o n a c t i v i t y . E x p l a n a t i o n s f o r these p a t t e r n s b e g i n t o emerge i n a d i s c u s s i o n of r e n o v a t i o n i n each of f i v e subregions w i t h i n the p r o v i n c e . A v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e i n Appendix B i s i n f o r m a t i o n r e l a t i n g t o r e n o v a t i o n f o r each of the f o r t y - f i v e study areas, the t h r e e s e t t l e m e n t s i z e s , and the p r o v i n c e . Included i n the t a b l e s i s the number of permits, the v a l u e of p e r m i t s i n both c o n s t a n t and c u r r e n t d o l l a r s , and the i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n , a l l on a y e a r l y b a s i s . 2. Cape Breton Region The Cape Breton area i s one of economic and p o p u l a t i o n d e c l i n e . Government t r a n s f e r s are a s i g n i f i c a n t p a r t (up t o 25% i n some areas) of f a m i l y incomes. Average f a m i l y incomes (1986) are w e l l below the p r o v i n c i a l average i n a l l communities. The 94 i n c i d e n c e of low income i s about 25% i n the towns and c i t i e s , and c l o s e r t o the p r o v i n c i a l average of 15.3% i n r u r a l areas. Unemployment i s h i g h ; i n 1986 every community experienced an unemployment r a t e of more than 20%. About 50% of the homes i n urban areas were b u i l t b e f o r e 1946; i n r u r a l areas the f i g u r e ranges from 32% t o 38%. The percentage of r e s i d e n t s w i t h a u n i v e r s i t y degree i s f a r below the p r o v i n c i a l average. More than 75% of the r e s i d e n t s have l i v e d i n the same d w e l l i n g f o r more than f i v e y e a r s . Since 1981 t h e r e has been a steady d e c l i n e i n t h e i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n throughout the Cape Breton Region coupled w i t h a r i s e i n the average permit v a l u e s . ( F i g u r e 4.11) In Inverness County the i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n has been s t a b l e but extremely low w h i l e the average permit v a l u e i s extremely h i g h . The data here are dubious. One b u i l d i n g i n s p e c t o r must cover a v e r y l a r g e area which i s s p a r s e l y populated, making permit a p p l i c a t i o n and enforcement d i f f i c u l t . The o p p o s i t e i s t r u e i n both Richmond and V i c t o r i a C ounties where the i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n i s h i g h e r . In these two c o u n t i e s the p o p u l a t i o n s are somewhat more densely c e n t r e d i n a few communities and t h e r e f o r e enforcement of the b u i l d i n g code becomes e a s i e r . The i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n i n Richmond County i s the h i g h e s t i n the p r o v i n c e f o r 1986 - 1988. The i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n i n V i c t o r i a County appears t o be i n f l u e n c e d by the presence of RRAP data added t o the t o t a l ; both RRAP and r e n o v a t i o n drop c o n s i d e r a b l y a f t e r 1984 (see F i g u r e 4.11). In Cape Breton County the i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n has been s t a b l e but below the p r o v i n c i a l average. Average permit v a l u e s 95 FIGURE 4.11 Incidence of Renovation Cap* Breton Region, 1971-1988 Region Year Sydney Ulnee Vlctoria 1971 Average Value of Renovation Permits Cape Breton Region, 1971-1988 Region Yeor Sydney Ulnee 1 • r 1985 1987 Victoria 96 i n both c o n s t a n t and c u r r e n t d o l l a r s have been r i s i n g . T h i s should not be s u r p r i s i n g s i n c e t h i s i s one of the few areas of p o p u l a t i o n growth and s t a b i l i t y . In Sydney and the f i v e s m a l l towns the p i c t u r e v a r i e s somewhat. In every case the i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n drops s h a r p l y a f t e r 1984; t h i s c o i n c i d e s w i t h a drop i n RRAP g r a n t s , and i s r e f l e c t e d i n the example of Sydney Mines i n F i g u r e 4.11. T h i s suggests t h a t homeowners are somewhat dependent upon RRAP gr a n t s t o f i n a n c e r e n o v a t i o n p r o j e c t s , and t h a t w i t h a decrease i n the a v a i l a b i l i t y of RRAP t h e r e i s a decrease i n the amount of r e n o v a t i o n . In other words, i t appears t h a t r e s i d e n t s o f urban Cape Breton are c o n s t r a i n e d by low l e v e l s of income. The two ex c e p t i o n s t o t h i s are i n the two l a r g e s t communities, Sydney and Glace Bay. The drop i n r e n o v a t i o n i s much l e s s and i s r e l a t i v e l y s t a b l e from year t o year. T h i s might be e x p l a i n e d by the r e l a t i v e l y more s t a b l e economies i n the two communities. When average permit v a l u e s are examined an important p a t t e r n emerges. While the i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n d e c l i n e s , the average v a l u e i n c r e a s e s . T h i s supports the the o r y t h a t p e r m i t s tend t o r e c o r d o n l y the l a r g e r s c a l e r e n o v a t i o n p r o j e c t s . As RRAP becomes l e s s important i n the o v e r a l l p i c t u r e , the e f f e c t of RRAP i n lowering the o v e r a l l permit average i s decreased, and so the average permit v a l u e r i s e s . The d i s t r i b u t i o n of r e n o v a t i o n a c t i v i t y w i t h i n Cape Breton County shows a s i m i l a r p a t t e r n of d e c l i n e . Note i n Tabl e 4.5 the s i g n i f i c a n t decrease i n the amount of r e n o v a t i o n a c t i v i t y from 97 TABLE 4.5 AVERAGE ANNUAL INCIDENCE(1) OP RENOVATION CAPE BRETON COUNTY, 1980 — 1988 p l a c e 80- 84 9. 85- 88 s-p l a c e 80- 84 s-85- 88 %• Sydney- 3. •s 12 1. •5 79 D i s t r i c t 8 1. 55 1. 16 North Sydney 3 . 62 1. 81 D i s t r i c t 9 1. 29 0. 81 Sydney Mines 6. 23 1. 06 D i s t r i c t 10 1. 37 0. 71 New Waterford 5. 23 0. 90 D i s t r i c t 11 1. 07 1. 05 Dominion 5. 69 1. 55 D i s t r i c t 12 0. 68 1. 37 Glace Bay 2. 29 1. 19 D i s t r i c t 13 1. 24 1. 39 L o u i s b o u r g 0. 68 1. 05 D i s t r i c t 14 1. 50 1. 23 D i s t r i c t 1 0. 83 1. 28 D i s t r i c t 15 2. 56 0. 84 D i s t r i c t 2 1. 87 1. 85 D i s t r i c t 16 1. 36 1. 19 D i s t r i c t 3 0. 92 0. 72 D i s t r i c t 17 1. 36 1. 49 D i s t r i c t 4 1. 44 1. 20 D i s t r i c t 18 1. 77 1. 05 D i s t r i c t 5 1. 47 1. 65 D i s t r i c t 19 1. 58 0. 72 D i s t r i c t 6 0. 71 0. 84 D i s t r i c t 20 1. 39 1. 23 D i s t r i c t 7 0. 99 0. 97 Source: Annual B u i l d i n g I n s p e c t o r ' s Report, Cape Breton M e t r o p o l i t a n P l a n n i n g Commission. 1 F i g u r e s expressed as the p e r c e n t of a l l s i n g l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s i s s u e d a r e n o v a t i o n permit. the f i r s t t o the second h a l f of the decade i n every town except Louisbourg, which had a s m a l l amount of a c t i v i t y i n i t i a l l y . D i s t r i c t s 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 18, and 19 a l s o had a s i g n i f i c a n t decrease i n r e n o v a t i o n a c t i v i t y . D i s t r i c t s 1 and 12 had s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e s i n r e n o v a t i o n , w i t h the o t h e r areas remaining r e l a t i v e l y s t a b l e . F i g u r e s 4.12A and 4.12B show t h a t the a c t i v i t y i s more c o n c e n t r a t e d i n the s m a l l towns and Sydney i n the e a r l y 1980's, but i n the second h a l f of the decade the area south and e a s t of Sydney, a s c e n i c c o t t a g e area, shows an i n c r e a s e i n r e n o v a t i o n . There appears t o be an emerging p a t t e r n of d i f f u s i o n as the i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n i s h i g h e r i n the areas c l o s e s t t o the urban areas i n i t i a l l y , but r e l a t i v e l y h i g h e r away from the towns i n the second e r a . However, more data would need 98 FIGURE 4.12A AVERAGE ANNUAL INCIDENCE OF RENOVATION CAPE BRETON COUNTY, 1980 - 1984 Sydney Incidence of Renovation Scale 1 : 540 000 approx • 0.68% - 0.83% 0.92% - 1.29% 1.36% - 1.50% 1.55% - 2.56% 3.12% - 6.23% Indian Reserve 99 FIGURE 4.12B AVERAGE ANNUAL INCIDENCE OF RENOVATION CAPE BRETON COUNTY, 1985 - 1988 Incidence of Renovation 0.71% - 0.84% 0.90% - 1.05% 1.06% - 1.20% 1.23% - 1.49% 1.55% - 1.85% Indian Reserve 100 t o be assessed t o f u l l y examine the ex t e n t of t h i s s p a t i a l p r o c e s s . 3. Northern Nova S c o t i a T h i s area s t r e t c h e s from the New Brunswick border along the Northumberland shore t o the e a s t e r n shore of Guysbourough, i n c l u d i n g P i c t o u County and i t s f i v e s m a l l towns. The P i c t o u County r e g i o n has experienced many years of economic d e c l i n e s i n c e the g l o r y days as a t u r n of the ce n t u r y s t e e l a r e a . The remaining p o r t i o n of n o r t h e r n Nova S c o t i a i s marked by sparse and s c a t t e r e d s e t t l e m e n t s and poor t r a n s p o r t a t i o n l i n k a g e s . The town of A n t i g o n i s h does, however, support a u n i v e r s i t y . Unemployment i s above the p r o v i n c i a l average, but not as h i g h as i n Cape Breton. The r e l i a n c e on government t r a n s f e r s f o r income i s a l s o high, e s p e c i a l l y i n Guysborough, W e s t v i l l e , Trenton, S p r i n g h i l l , and Cumberland. Family incomes are somewhat below the p r o v i n c i a l average; a t $24600, Guysborough 1s i s the lowest i n the p r o v i n c e . The i n c i d e n c e of low income i s lower than i n Cape Breton, but s t i l l h i g h e r than the r e s t of the p r o v i n c e . Most of the homes are o l d as most areas have c l o s e t o 50% b u i l t p r i o r t o 1946, except i n A n t i g o n i s h County (27%) and i n New Glasgow (34%). Outside of New Glasgow, few have a u n i v e r s i t y degree. L i k e Cape Breton, t h e r e i s a low p r o p o r t i o n of r e c e n t movers, except i n Amherst and New Glasgow. The i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n peaked i n the l a t e 1970s i n the r e g i o n , w h i l e the average permit v a l u e s have r i s e n m a r g i n a l l y s i n c e t h i s p e a k . ( F i g u r e 4.13) T h i s i s i n f l u e n c e d p r i m a r i l y by the data from the P i c t o u County area, as the data f o r New Glasgow 101 .o FIGURE 4.13 Incidence of Renovation Northon. Nova Scotia. 1071-1088 Raglon + Htm Glasgow Yoor 1085 Cvtysborough UJD. 1087 S i Average Value of Renovation Permits NorttMrn Nova Scotia. 1071-1088 - . 1 1 r 1073 1075 1083 -I 1 r 1085 1087 O RtgSon + KwGlwgow O OyyalMrough MJX 102 i n F i g u r e 4.13 shows. P a r t o f the t r e n d can be e x p l a i n e d by the heavy use of RRAP fu n d i n g which i n f l u e n c e d the permit f i g u r e s both d i r e c t l y and i n d i r e c t l y . However, the impact of RRAP i n the o v e r a l l p i c t u r e i s not as s i g n i f i c a n t as i t was i n the Cape Breton r e g i o n . In f a c t , a f t e r 1984 when RRAP decreased s i g n i f i c a n t l y , the i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n a c t u a l l y i n c r e a s e d i n S t e l l a r t o n and W e s t v i l l e and decreased m a r g i n a l l y i n New Glasgow, P i c t o u , Trenton, and P i c t o u County. Although the i n c i d e n c e i n these towns i s lower than i t was i n the 1970s, i t i s s t i l l among the h i g h e s t i n the p r o v i n c e . T h i s i s due t o the s t r i c t enforcement of b u i l d i n g permit requirements handled through a c e n t r a l agency, the P i c t o u County D i s t r i c t P l a n n i n g Commission. A network of community groups i n c l u d i n g the f i r e department and the p o l i c e department work wit h the b u i l d i n g i n s p e c t o r s t o ensure compliance. The average permit v a l u e s have been c o n s i s t e n t over the l a s t t e n y e a r s . In Guysborough M u n i c i p a l D i s t r i c t (see F i g u r e 4.13) t h e r e i s an i n t e r e s t i n g i n c r e a s e i n r e n o v a t i o n above the l e v e l of the e a r l y 1980s, although average permit v a l u e s have f l u c t u a t e d . Renovation i n Guysborough i s i n f l u e n c e d p a r t i a l l y by absentee landowners (from the H a l i f a x area) who m a i n t a i n summer r e s i d e n c e s and c o t t a g e s i n the area. In some i n s t a n c e s t h e r e i s c o n v e r s i o n of c o t t a g e s t o year-round use. In a manner s i m i l a r t o Inverness, the data f o r A n t i g o n i s h County do not seem t o t e l l t he whole s t o r y of r e n o v a t i o n . The i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n i s abysmally low and the average permit v a l u e s are g r o s s l y o v e r s t a t e d . ( T h i s once more i s evidence t h a t b u i l d i n g permits tend t o r e c o r d o n l y the l a r g e s t of 103 r e n o v a t i o n p r o j e c t s . ) A s i n g l e b u i l d i n g i n s p e c t o r a g a i n c a r r i e s the burden of enforcement over a l a r g e area. Upon examining the r e c o r d s , i t was noted t h a t they were sketchy and piecemeal a t b e s t . The i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n has been r i s i n g i n Cumberland County but d e c r e a s i n g i n Amherst. Average permit v a l u e s have kept pace w i t h i n f l a t i o n i n Cumberland but have been f l u c t u a t i n g w i d e l y i n Amherst. In S p r i n g h i l l , f o r which t h e r e are o n l y two years of data, the i n c i d e n c e i s low d e s p i t e the s i g n i f i c a n t need f o r r e p a i r . T h i s i s due t o the v e r y low incomes i n the a r e a . 4. A n n a p o l i s V a l l e y Region The A n n a p o l i s V a l l e y r e g i o n has seen s i g n i f i c a n t p o p u l a t i o n growth due t o i t s c l o s e p r o x i m i t y t o H a l i f a x , i t s s t a b l e a g r i c u l t u r a l economic base, and i t s n a t u r a l a m e n i t i e s . The town of W o l f e v i l l e supports a u n i v e r s i t y . Unemployment i s below the p r o v i n c i a l average, w i t h West Hants h i g h e s t a t 13%. R e l i a n c e on government t r a n s f e r s i s much lower, w i t h o n l y A n n a p o l i s (19%) and West Hants (17%) approaching 20%. Average f a m i l y incomes are j u s t below $30000 i n r u r a l areas and almost $40000 i n urban areas; however, the i n c i d e n c e of low income remains c l o s e t o 15% i n a l l a r e a s . More of the d w e l l i n g s are newer, r a n g i n g from 28% being b u i l t b e f o r e 194 6 i n Kings County t o 44% i n A n n a p o l i s . A u n i v e r s i t y degree i s h e l d by 14% of the r e s i d e n t s i n K e n t v i l l e , but i n r u r a l areas the f i g u r e s are q u i t e low. The r e g i o n has a h i g h i n c i d e n c e of r e c e n t movers. From the d i s c u s s i o n above, i t would seem t h a t t h e r e should be a h i g h e r i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n than i n the p r e v i o u s r e g i o n s , 104 but new c o n s t r u c t i o n , e s p e c i a l l y i n the urban areas of the V a l l e y , has i n c r e a s e d the t o t a l number of d w e l l i n g u n i t s . The i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n i n the r e g i o n has been c o n s i s t e n t from year t o year w i t h m a r g i n a l i n c r e a s e s throughout most of the 1980s, f o l l o w i n g t h e p r o v i n c i a l i n c i d e n c e c l o s e l y , w h i l e the average permit v a l u e s have remained co n s t a n t throughout the d e c a d e . ( F i g u r e 4.14) These o b s e r v a t i o n s r e f l e c t the r e l a t i v e economic s t a b i l i t y of the r e g i o n , i n c o n t r a s t t o other r e g i o n s (compare F i g u r e s 4.11 and 4.13). In Kings (see F i g u r e 4.14) and West Hants, the areas c l o s e s t t o H a l i f a x , the i n c i d e n c e i s w e l l above the p r o v i n c i a l average. In A n n a p o l i s County the f i g u r e s are somewhat lower; again, one b u i l d i n g i n s p e c t o r i s c o v e r i n g a l a r g e area which has an even p o p u l a t i o n d i s t r i b u t i o n throughout t h e county. When we examine the average permit v a l u e s f o r Kings County, i t shows the same c o n s i s t e n c y as the i n c i d e n c e . These t h r e e areas have s t a b l e economies which a l l o w f o r e x t r a funds t o be c h a n n e l l e d i n t o r e n o v a t i o n p r o j e c t s . The same c o u l d be s a i d f o r K e n t v i l l e - B e r w i c k but the data do not r e f l e c t t h i s f a c t . The i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n i s f a r below the p r o v i n c i a l average, which i s s u r p r i s i n g c o n s i d e r i n g the p o s i t i v e s i z e , l o c a t i o n , and socioeconomic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the towns. The average permit v a l u e i n c o n s t a n t d o l l a r s f l u c t u a t e s c o n s i d e r a b l y i n K e n t v i l l e -Berwick. 5 . South Shore T h i s r e g i o n i s the h e a r t of the f i s h i n g i n d u s t r y i n Nova S c o t i a , and becomes i n c r e a s i n g l y i s o l a t e d w i t h d i s t a n c e from H a l i f a x . P o p u l a t i o n t o t a l s have been d e c l i n i n g m a r g i n a l l y i n most 105 FIGURE 4.14 Incidence of Renovation Annapotte Vafloy, 1971-1988 18 -15 -1 -0 -J 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 ' 1 • 1— 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 Yoar • Region + Kings County Average Value of Renovation Permits Arewpofa Verity. 1971-1988 'i r 1973 1975 1 1 1 r-1983 1985 YMT • Region 106 areas, and the homes are q u i t e o l d . Unemployment ranges from about 11% t o 16%. R e l i a n c e on government t r a n s f e r s i s h i g h e r than the p r o v i n c i a l average, e s p e c i a l l y from Digby t o B a r r i n g t o n ( a l l except Yarmouth are above 20%). Average f a m i l y incomes are s l i g h t l y lower than the p r o v i n c i a l average except i n L i v e r p o o l , Bridgewater, and the town of Lunenburg. However, the i n c i d e n c e of low income i s low except i n the towns. Except f o r Bridgewater, Chester, Shelburne and B a r r i n g t o n , a l l areas have c l o s e t o 50% of the homes b u i l t b e f o r e 1946. Few people have a u n i v e r s i t y degree; o n l y Bridgewater has 10%. The r e g i o n has v e r y few r e c e n t movers. F i g u r e 4.15 shows a steady r i s e i n the i n c i d e n c e of renova-t i o n i n the r e g i o n , which i s most l i k e l y a r e f l e c t i o n of an i n c r e a s e i n the enforcement and r e p o r t i n g of r e n o v a t i o n s . T h i s i s demonstrated by the d e c l i n e i n the average permit v a l u e s , which we have seen demonstrated i n other cases. However, i t might a l s o r e f l e c t the c y c l i c a l nature of the f i s h i n g i n d u s t r y which p e r i o d i c a l l y p r o s p e r s and a l l o w s f o r e x p e n d i t u r e s on p r o j e c t s such as r e n o v a t i o n s . As i n the case of Inverness and A n t i g o n i s h , the data f o r A r g y l e M u n i c i p a l D i s t r i c t i s suspect. The i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n i s extremely low and the average permit v a l u e s are h i g h and f l u c t u a t e o f t e n . Although the r e c o r d - k e e p i n g appeared t o be q u i t e good, the data, when compared t o t h a t of neighbouring m u n i c i p a l i t i e s w i t h s i m i l a r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (Yarmouth, Digby, C l a r e ) , appears dubious. The e x p l a n a t i o n of low budgets and manpower coupled w i t h a wide d i s t r i b u t i o n of p o p u l a t i o n can be used t o e x p l a i n the problem. In Digby, C l a r e , and the town of 107 FIGURE 4 .15 Incidence of Renovation South Short Region. 1071-1988 1971 Region 1973 Yarmouth UJD. Year Bnagewater Average Value of Renovation Permits South Shore Region, 1971-1988 • Bridgewater Digby, the data o n l y begin i n 1987. They show a h i g h i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n , c o n s i d e r a b l y above the p r o v i n c i a l average, i n a l l t h r e e a r e a s . The b u i l d i n g i n s p e c t o r s i n these t h r e e s m a l l m u n i c i p a l i t i e s have been working s i n c e the new b u i l d i n g a c t was adopted i n the s p r i n g of 1987, and have made every e f f o r t t o e n f o r c e the r e g u l a t i o n s r i g o r o u s l y . In Yarmouth M u n i c i p a l D i s t r i c t (see F i g u r e 4.15) the i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n has i n c r e a s e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y s i n c e 1985 t o j u s t below the p r o v i n c i a l average. B e t t e r enforcement of the b u i l d i n g code, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the l a s t two y e a r s , may have r e s u l t e d i n t h i s i n c r e a s e . The average permit v a l u e s have f l u c t u a t e d and are below the p r o v i n c i a l average. The same s t o r y can be t o l d of B a r r i n g t o n M u n i c i p a l D i s t r i c t . The i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n has i n c r e a s e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n 1987 and 1988 due t o the s t r o n g e r enforcement of the r e g u l a t i o n s . Average permit v a l u e s over the l a s t two years have dropped as more s m a l l s c a l e r e n o v a t i o n s are i n c l u d e d i n the t o t a l s . A s i m i l a r p a t t e r n emerges i n other areas of the South Shore. In Bridgewater (see F i g u r e 4.15) the p a t t e r n more c l o s e l y resembles the one p r e v i o u s l y d e s c r i b e d as the i n c i d e n c e i n c r e a s e s i n r e c e n t y e a r s and r e s u l t s i n a drop i n t h e average permit v a l u e s . However, t h e r e are some v a r i a t i o n s from t h i s p a t t e r n i n o t h e r communities. In Queens County the i n c i d e n c e r i s e s i n the l a s t two y e a r s , and so too does the average p e r m i t v a l u e s . In L i v e r p o o l t h i s p a t t e r n i s not q u i t e as p r e v a l e n t f o r although the i n c i d e n c e r i s e s i n the l a s t two y e a r s , i t i s not as h i g h as i n the e a r l y 1980's. In Lunenburg M u n i c i p a l D i s t r i c t the problem of 109 enforcement over a wide area r e a r s i t s head as the i n c i d e n c e i s below the p r o v i n c i a l average i n a l l years except f o r 1985, and permit v a l u e s remain q u i t e h i g h . F i n a l l y , i n Chester, we note a s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n t o t h a t of C l a r e and Digby; the i n s p e c t o r has o n l y been working s i n c e the a d o p t i o n of the b u i l d i n g code and has e n f o r c e d the r e g u l a t i o n s c l o s e l y , r e s u l t i n g i n a h i g h i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n w i t h a lower average permit v a l u e . 6. Metro Region T h i s i s the economic h e a r t of the p r o v i n c e and c o n t a i n s the h i g h e s t p o p u l a t i o n s . The s a t e l l i t e c e n t r e of T r u r o i s a b u s t l i n g t r a n s p o r t a t i o n hub e x p e r i e n c i n g growth. Each of the t h r e e r u r a l areas p r o v i d e s somewhat good farmland. Unemployment i s low; T r u r o , East Hants and C o l c h e s t e r are j u s t over 10%. R e l i a n c e on government t r a n s f e r s i s the lowest i n the p r o v i n c e . Average f a m i l y incomes are the h i g h e s t i n the p r o v i n c e , except i n C o l c h e s t e r and East Hants. The i n c i d e n c e of low income i s around 18% i n T r u r o and H a l i f a x ( t h i s i s h i g h ) . Fewer than one-quarter of the homes were b u i l t b e f o r e 194 6, except i n T r u r o where the f i g u r e i s j u s t over 40%. There i s a mix of o l d e r homes w i t h new as suburbs grow and people move t o r u r a l areas c l o s e t o H a l i f a x . H a l i f a x and Bedford have 20% of t h e i r r e s i d e n t s w i t h a u n i v e r s i t y degree, w h i l e o n l y C o l c h e s t e r and E a s t Hants are below 5%. There appears t o be a h i g h t u r n o v e r of households and r e c e n t movers, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the urban areas. Throughout the study p e r i o d , the Metro Region p r o v i d e s the most ' s t a b l e ' r e s u l t s of any r e g i o n ( F i g u r e 4.16), u n l i k e the w i l d e r swings a s s o c i a t e d w i t h l e s s thorough r e c o r d keeping and 110 FIGURE 4.16 Incidence of Renovation ktetro Region. 1971-1988 Region Houfox Years East Hants Average Value of Renovation Permits Metro Region, 1971-1988 1971 1973 1976 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 Y M T S a Region + Halifax •> East Hants c y c l i c economies i n some other r e g i o n s . The i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n has n e i t h e r i n c r e a s e d nor decreased s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n the l a s t 18 yea r s , although average permit v a l u e s have decreased, e s p e c i a l l y i n the 1980s. T h i s may be a symptom of both the economic d e p r e s s i o n and b e t t e r r e p o r t i n g p r a c t i c e s . The economic d e p r e s s i o n has reduced the number of l a r g e r r e n o v a t i o n s ( d e c r e a s i n g the average permit v a l u e ) , but more s m a l l e r s c a l e r e n o v a t i o n s are being r e c o r d e d which keeps the i n c i d e n c e s t a b l e . Renovation has been r i s i n g i n Bedford a f t e r f a l l i n g i n the mid - 1980s. However, average permit v a l u e s i n co n s t a n t d o l l a r s have been d e c l i n i n g . In H a l i f a x (see F i g u r e 4.16) and Dartmouth the i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n has been s t a b l e , peaking i n the l a t e 1970s (the data are prob a b l y i n f l u e n c e d somewhat by the r i s e and f a l l of RRAP use) and remaining r e l a t i v e l y h i g h . Average permit v a l u e s f o l l o w a s i m i l a r p a t t e r n but are below t h e p r o v i n c i a l average. T h i s i s due mainly t o the s t r i c t enforcement of the b u i l d i n g code, r e s u l t i n g i n more s m a l l r e n o v a t i o n s added t o the t o t a l s . In H a l i f a x County the i n c i d e n c e o f r e n o v a t i o n has been remarkably c o n s i s t e n t but a t pr e s e n t i s below i t s p r e v i o u s peaks. P a r t of t h i s can be e x p l a i n e d by the cont i n u e d i n c r e a s e s i n new home c o n s t r u c t i o n which i n f l a t e the t o t a l number of s i n g l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s without a simultaneous i n c r e a s e i n r e n o v a t i o n . In con s t a n t d o l l a r s , average permit v a l u e s have d e c l i n e d somewhat. Renovation has been f a i r l y s t a b l e elsewhere. The i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n i n C o l c h e s t e r and East Hants (see F i g u r e 4.16) have been c o n s i s t e n t but lower i n r e c e n t y e a r s . L i k e H a l i f a x County, t h e r e have been s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e s i n new home c o n s t r u c t i o n , 112 e s p e c i a l l y i n E a s t Hants, which i n c r e a s e s t h e number of s i n g l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s without i n c r e a s i n g the number of r e n o v a t i o n s . I n e x p l i c a b l y , average permit v a l u e s have f l u c t u a t e d o f t e n i n these two a r e a s . F i n a l l y , i n Tr u r o both the i n c i d e n c e o f r e n o v a t i o n and the average permit v a l u e s have been r i s i n g a f t e r bottoming out i n 1982. The town i s t h r i v i n g e c o n o m i c a l l y and t h i s i s encouraging upkeep and maintenance. What has been the p a t t e r n w i t h i n these t h r e e c o u n t i e s ? From Ta b l e 4.6 we see t h a t the amount of r e n o v a t i o n i n c r e a s e s i n Truro and Bedford from the f i r s t t o the second h a l f o f the decade, w h i l e t h e r e are modest decreases i n H a l i f a x and Dartmouth. S i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e s o c c u r r e d i n D i s t r i c t s 12, 13, 14, 16, and 19 i n H a l i f a x County; i n D i s t r i c t 8 i n East Hants; and i n D i s t r i c t s 1, 6, 10, 13, and 14 i n C o l c h e s t e r County. S i g n i f i c a n t decreases were found i n D i s t r i c t s 2, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 18 i n H a l i f a x County; i n D i s t r i c t s 2, 2A, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, and 12 i n Ea s t Hants; and i n D i s t r i c t s 7, 15, and 16 i n C o l c h e s t e r County. New home c o n s t r u c t i o n was ve r y h i g h i n East Hants i n the second h a l f of the decade, whereas e a r l i e r new home c o n s t r u c t i o n i n C o l c h e s t e r County was r e p l a c e d by r e n o v a t i o n a c t i v i t y . F i g u r e s 4.17A and 4.17B show the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f r e n o v a t i o n i n both the f i r s t and second h a l f of the decade. P r i m a r i l y a c t i v i t y i s c e n t r e d i n H a l i f a x and i t s nearby suburban areas which expanded r a p i d l y i n the l a t e 1970s and 1980s. From 1980 t o 1984 we f i n d t h a t the h i g h e s t l e v e l of a c t i v i t y i s c e n t r e d i n the H a l i f a x area and the surrounding H a l i f a x County d i s t r i c t s . There 113 TABLE 4 . 6 AVERAGE ANNUAL INCIDENCE(1) OF RENOVATION HALIFAX AND AREA p l a c e 80- 84 85- 88 2-p l a c e 80- 84 s-85- 88 H a l i f a x 5. "6 56 4. "6 20 E.H. D i s t r i c t 3 0. 88 0. i> 35 Dartmouth 7. 62 6. 15 E.H. D i s t r i c t 4 0. 94 0. 54 Bedford 4. 27 4. 46 E.H. D i s t r i c t 5 1. 23 0. 35 H.C. D i s t r i c t 1 1. 73 1. 74 E.H. D i s t r i c t 6 0. 96 0. 65 H.C. D i s t r i c t 2 1. 58 0. 99 E.H. D i s t r i c t 7 0. 92 0. 50 H.C. D i s t r i c t 3 1. 60 1. 70 E.H. D i s t r i c t 8 0. 45 0. 56 H.C. D i s t r i c t 4 1. 17 1. 19 E.H. D i s t r i c t 9 0. 77 0. 76 H.C. D i s t r i c t 5 1. 36 1. 11 E.H. D i s t r i c t 10 0. 96 0. 64 H.C. D i s t r i c t 6 0. 50 0. 52 E.H. D i s t r i c t 11 0. 79 0. 64 H.C. D i s t r i c t 7 1. 74 0. 79 E.H. D i s t r i c t 12 1. 18 0. 83 H.C. D i s t r i c t 8 0. 96 0. 90 H.C. D i s t r i c t 9 1. 73 1. 10 Tru r o 2. 02 3. 91 H.C. D i s t r i c t 10 1. 61 1. 08 C.C. D i s t r i c t 1 0. 38 0. 80 H.C. D i s t r i c t 11 1. 74 1. 25 C.C. D i s t r i c t 2 0. 78 0. 59 H.C. D i s t r i c t 12 0. 67 0. 98 C.C. D i s t r i c t 3 0. 70 0. 66 H.C. D i s t r i c t 13 0. 63 0. 91 C.C. D i s t r i c t 4 0. 61 0. 70 H.C. D i s t r i c t 14 0. 91 1. 51 C.C. D i s t r i c t 5 0. 57 0. 60 H.C. D i s t r i c t 15 0. 73 0. 50 C.C. D i s t r i c t 6 0. 60 1. 03 H.C. D i s t r i c t 16 0. 61 0. 73 C.C. D i s t r i c t 7 0. 70 0. 54 H.C. D i s t r i c t 17 0. 36 0. 45 C.C. D i s t r i c t 8 0. 64 0. 78 H.C. D i s t r i c t 18 1. 32 0. 83 C.C. D i s t r i c t 9 0. 61 0. 50 H.C. D i s t r i c t 19 0. 66 1. 10 C.C. D i s t r i c t 10 0. 44 0. 60 H.C. D i s t r i c t 20 0. 45 0. 37 C.C. D i s t r i c t 11 0. 70 0. 52 H.C. D i s t r i c t 21 0. 25 0. 31 C.C. D i s t r i c t 12 1. 11 1. 06 C.C. D i s t r i c t 13 0. 42 0. 93 E.H. D i s t r i c t 1 0. 78 0. 58 C.C. D i s t r i c t 14 0. 60 0. 75 E.H. D i s t r i c t 2 0. 85 0. 50 C.C. D i s t r i c t 15 0. 51 0. 33 E.H. D i s t r i c t 2A 0. 58 0. 33 C.C. D i s t r i c t 16 0. 62 0. 37 1 F i g u r e s the m u n i c i p a l d i s t r i c t s expressed as p e r c e n t of persons i s s u e d a r e n o v a t i o n permit ( i . e . 0.58 i n d i c a t e s 5.8 people per 1000 were i s s u e d a p e r m i t ) . D w e l l i n g count f i g u r e s were not a v a i l a b l e from these areas. F i g u r e s f o r the c i t i e s and towns are expressed as per c e n t of s i n g l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s i s s u e d a r e n o v a t i o n permit. H.C. H a l i f a x County E.H. East Hants M u n i c i p a l D i s t r i c t C.C. C o l c h e s t e r County Source: Annual B u i l d i n g I n s p e c t o r s ' Reports. 114 FIGURE 4.17A AVERAGE ANNUAL INCIDENCE OF RENOVATION HALIFAX AND AREA, 1980 - 1984 Halifax Scale 1 : 912 000 approx Incidence of Renovation 0.25% - 0.57% 0.60% - 0.67% H 0.70% - 0.88% El 0.91% - 1.36% • 1.58% - 1.74% Incidence expressed as a percent of the population issued a renovation permit. 115 FIGURE 4.17B AVERAGE ANNUAL INCIDENCE OF RENOVATION HALIFAX AND AREA. 1985 - 1988 M 0.90% - 1.08% Scale B 1 - 1 0 % ' 1 J 4 % 960 000 Incidence expressed as a percent of the approx population issued a renovation permit. 116 are a l s o some r u r a l d i s t r i c t s i n East Hants which are h i g h . There i s v e r y l i t t l e a c t i v i t y i n the suburbs of T r u r o and i n the bedroom communities of S a c k v i l l e and Cole Harbour which have been expanding r a p i d l y i n r e c e n t y e a r s . From 1985 t o 1988, the p i c t u r e a l t e r s s l i g h t l y . The c o n c e n t r a t i o n of h i g h i n c i d e n c e areas i n c r e a s e s i n the H a l i f a x area. There i s a l s o an i n c r e a s e i n r e n o v a t i o n i n the immediate areas of T r u r o . The c o a s t a l communities near H a l i f a x c o n t i n u e t o r e g i s t e r the h i g h e s t l e v e l s . Some of t h i s can be e x p l a i n e d by the presence of c o t t a g e s and t h e i r upkeep and c o n v e r s i o n t o s e a s o n a l and year-round d w e l l i n g s . The number of c o t t a g e s i s h i g h e s t i n D i s t r i c t s 9 - 1 2 , and a l s o i n D i s t r i c t s 1 and 14. The i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n i n c r e a s e d i n the suburbs of S a c k v i l l e and Cole Harbour now t h a t they have matured somewhat. The i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n i n r u r a l areas of C o l c h e s t e r and East Hants have dropped r e l a t i v e t o those i n H a l i f a x County. E. SUMMARY The p a t t e r n s and d i s t r i b u t i o n of r e n o v a t i o n i n Nova S c o t i a r e f l e c t the l i m i t a t i o n s of the data. In the e a r l y p a r t of the 1980s, a l l of the areas w i t h the h i g h e s t i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n were urban. In the second h a l f of the decade, as more areas are added t o the t o t a l , we f i n d s e v e r a l r u r a l areas d i s p l a c i n g some of the urban areas near the top of the l i s t , i n c l u d i n g Richmond, C l a r e , Digby, and Chester. W i t h i n each r e g i o n data l i m i t a t i o n s a f f e c t the o b s e r v a t i o n s . An i n c r e a s e i n the m o n i t o r i n g of 117 r e n o v a t i o n a c t i v i t y , e s p e c i a l l y s i n c e the a d o p t i o n of a new b u i l d i n g code, a l t e r s both the i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n and the average permit v a l u e s . No c l e a r p a t t e r n emerges from the data. Renovation i s widespread and i s s i g n i f i c a n t i n both urban and r u r a l areas. Before c o n c l u d i n g , l e t us examine the s t a t e d need f o r r e p a i r ( F i g u r e 4.18) t o h e l p us t o assess the p a t t e r n s of r e n o v a t i o n w i t h i n Nova S c o t i a . I t would seem l o g i c a l t o assume t h a t a p a t t e r n of r e n o v a t i o n would c l o s e l y resemble the p a t t e r n of need f o r r e p a i r , f o r i t i s i n these homes where most r e n o v a t i o n should occur. Four t h i n g s w i l l change t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p . F i r s t , as a l r e a d y d e s c r i b e d , the nature of the data c l o u d s t h e e x t e n t of r e n o v a t i o n somewhat. Given an incomplete s e t of i n f o r m a t i o n , we should expect a f u z z y r e l a t i o n s h i p . Second, we know from p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s t h a t r e n o v a t i o n i s o f t e n an i s s u e of economics or need, and t h a t some homeowners c l a i m the c o n s t r a i n t of h i g h c o s t as a reason f o r not r e n o v a t i n g . T h e r e f o r e , i n cases of need f o r r e p a i r t h e r e may be c o s t c o n s t r a i n t s which prevent r e n o v a t i o n . T h i r d , we know from our l i t e r a t u r e review t h a t homeowners may choose t o renovate on the b a s i s of l i f e s t y l e , comfort, and a e s t h e t i c s r a t h e r than need. S e v e r a l s t u d i e s have showed improving home comfort was an important c o n s i d e r a t i o n . T h e r e f o r e i n an area of low need f o r r e p a i r t h e r e may s t i l l be a l a r g e amount of r e n o v a t i o n as homeowners simply make d i s c r e t i o n a r y changes t o t h e i r home. Fourth, homeowners sometimes f a i l t o see the need f o r r e p a i r and b e n e f i t of r e n o v a t i o n , and as such do not renovate. Given t h i s , 118 SOURCE: Census of Canada, Selected Characteristics, Nova Scotia, 1981 1 : 3 ne ooo approx how c l o s e l y does the p a t t e r n of need f o r r e p a i r match th e p a t t e r n of r e n o v a t i o n ? The need f o r r e p a i r i s h i g h e s t i n the urban areas of P i c t o u County and Cape Breton, and i n p a r t s of Northern Nova S c o t i a , the A n n a p o l i s V a l l e y , and the South Shore. An emerging p a t t e r n e x i s t s whereby as the d i s t a n c e from Metro i n c r e a s e s , so too does the need f o r r e p a i r . But does t h i s f a c t r e f l e c t the i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n , as shown i n F i g u r e s 4.7 - 4.10? Renovation a c t i v i t y was shown t o be h i g h e s t i n o n l y Digby, C l a r e , L i v e r p o o l , Guysborough, and the P i c t o u County area w i t h i n t h i s observed group. Conversely, r e n o v a t i o n i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r i n the m e t r o p o l i t a n r e g i o n of H a l i f a x , an area of low need f o r r e p a i r . Why i s t h i s the case? The incomplete i n f o r m a t i o n s e t which d i s t o r t s a c t u a l r e n o v a t i o n i s one e x p l a n a t i o n . Another i s the c o s t c o n s t r a i n t i n some of the h i g h need f o r r e p a i r communities, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n Cape Breton. There are no easy answers; s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s i n the next chapter w i l l examine the r e l a t i o n s h i p among r e n o v a t i o n and a number of v a r i a b l e s t o h e l p f u r t h e r e x p l a i n these o b s e r v a t i o n s . 120 CHAPTER V: THE FORCES BEHIND HOME RENOVATION IN NOVA SCOTIA At t h i s p o i n t i n the a n a l y s i s of r e n o v a t i o n data i n Nova S c o t i a , few c l e a r p a t t e r n s have emerged. S p a t i a l l y , a d i r e c t c o n n e c t i o n has not m a t e r i a l i z e d between areas w i t h a h i g h need f o r r e p a i r and those w i t h a h i g h e r i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n . In t h i s chapter we examine a number of f a c t o r s which have been known t o a f f e c t r e n o v a t i o n p a t t e r n s i n o t h e r s t u d i e s t o see i f and how they i n f l u e n c e the p a t t e r n of r e n o v a t i o n i n Nova S c o t i a . We have shown t h a t t h e r e are d i f f e r e n c e s i n the amount of, and expenditure on, r e n o v a t i o n among the t h r e e s e t t l e m e n t s i z e s i n r e n o v a t i o n a c t i v i t y . Are t h e r e other e x p l a n a t o r y f a c t o r s which account f o r these d i f f e r e n c e s ? I n f o r m a t i o n from both the census and from the survey of the R u r a l and Small Town Research and S t u d i e s Program (RSTRSP) are used i n an attempt t o e x p l a i n the s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s i n the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of r e n o v a t o r s i n Nova S c o t i a . We ended Chapter 3 w i t h a summary of some of the major f i n d i n g s of a n a t i o n a l survey on r e n o v a t i o n and of o t h e r Canadian • * 105 case s t u d i e s . Most s t u d i e s have shown t h a t r e n o v a t i o n touches a l l income, household, and d w e l l i n g t y p e s . However, some important t r e n d s do emerge which are u s e f u l f o r comparison with t h i s study of Nova S c o t i a . People renovate t o make t h e i r homes look b e t t e r , t o reduce h e a t i n g c o s t s and t o i n c r e a s e the r e s a l e v a l u e of the home. High c o s t i s a c o n s t r a i n i n g f a c t o r f o r A t l a n t i c Canadians. S e l f - h e l p i s an important component of r e n o v a t i o n ; i n areas of lower incomes, the importance of s e l f - h e l p may be a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r i n encouraging r e n o v a t i o n w h i l e See f o r example, the work of M i l l w a r d and Davis, Bunting, and Phipps. 121 keeping c o s t s low. Other s t u d i e s have found t h a t both the i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n and average expenditure on r e n o v a t i o n r i s e w i t h c o r r e s p o n d i n g i n c r e a s e s i n d w e l l i n g v a l u e s , incomes, and e d u c a t i o n l e v e l s . Based on the comparison of r e g i o n s and s p e c i f i c areas i n the p r e v i o u s chapter, t h e r e are some p o t e n t i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s which may e x i s t among i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n , permit v a l u e s , and socioeconomic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . For the most p a r t , urban areas had a h i g h e r i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n and a lower average permit v a l u e . Might we expect t o see a s t r o n g p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p , then, w i t h average f a m i l y incomes and average d w e l l i n g v a l u e s , which tend t o be h i g h e r i n urban areas? More of the r u r a l areas had a lower i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n , but a h i g h e r need f o r r e p a i r ; t h i s suggests t h a t a s t r o n g n e g a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p might e x i s t . Average permit v a l u e s were found t o be h i g h e r i n r u r a l areas, and y e t we know t h a t r u r a l d w e l l e r s are o f t e n more c o n s t r a i n e d by h i g h c o s t s and o t h e r economic c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . What i s t h e r e t o say about t h i s apparent anomaly? The chapter i s d i v i d e d i n t o two s e c t i o n s i n an attempt t o seek out the s t r e n g t h (or weakness) of these r e l a t i o n s h i p s . F i r s t , u s i n g i n f o r m a t i o n from the 1986 census and b u i l d i n g permit a c t i v i t y , a s e r i e s of c o r r e l a t i o n and r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s e s are performed. Second, unpublished data from the survey of the R u r a l and Small Town Research and S t u d i e s Programme i s used t o augment the f i n d i n g s . In u s i n g both a r e a l and b e h a v i o u r i a l data, we hope t h a t these complementary s t r a t e g i e s w i l l make any i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of r e n o v a t i o n p a t t e r n s more r e l i a b l e . 122 A. EXPLAINING THE PATTERNS IN BUILDING PERMIT ACTIVITY For the purpose of performing c o r r e l a t i o n a n a l y s i s and stepwise r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s two dependent v a r i a b l e s and e l e v e n independent v a r i a b l e s are used. The f i r s t dependent v a r i a b l e i s the average annual i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n f o r 1986-1988. The second dependent v a r i a b l e i s the average annual permit v a l u e f o r 1986-1988. The y e a r s 1986-1988 were chosen because i t i s f o r t h i s time p e r i o d t h a t the i n f o r m a t i o n i s most complete. The e l e v e n independent v a r i a b l e s are socioeconomic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s taken from the 1986 Census f o r each of the 45 study areas. These are l i s t e d below (with t h e i r c o r r e s p o n d i n g computer v a r i a b l e name), d i v i d e d i n t o t h r e e subgroups: 1. S o c i a l s t a t u s . To determine i f t h e r e i s a r e l a t i o n s h i p with s o c i a l s t a t u s , e d u c a t i o n l e v e l and the m o b i l i t y of the r e s i d e n t s are assessed; a) p e r c e n t of r e s i d e n t s l i v i n g i n the same d w e l l i n g f o r fewer than f i v e y e a r s ; (mobile), and b) p e r c e n t of r e s i d e n t s over 15 years of age h o l d i n g a u n i v e r s i t y degree, (educ) 2. Economic f a c t o r s . These are important as they c o n t r o l the amount of d i s p o s a b l e income a v a i l a b l e f o r p r o j e c t s such as r e n o v a t i n g , even t o the p o i n t of e l i m i n a t i n g t h i s o p t i o n . However, people w i t h lower incomes may engage i n s e l f - h e l p t o reduce the c o s t of r e n o v a t i n g : 123 c) unemployment r a t e ; (unemp) d) average f a m i l y income; (famavg) e) i n c i d e n c e of low income; (lowinc) f) p e r c e n t of homeowners whose major s h e l t e r payments exceed 3 0% of income; (gr3 0pc), and g) p e r c e n t of t o t a l income from government t r a n s f e r s p a i d d i r e c t l y t o i n d i v i d u a l s , (govern) 3. Housing factors. The age and v a l u e of the home are c o n s i d e r e d t o be important f a c t o r s , as o l d e r homes tend t o r e q u i r e more r e p a i r s , and those w i t h homes of a h i g h e r v a l u e tend t o spend more on r e n o v a t i o n s . In a d d i t i o n , the need f o r r e p a i r i s an important i n d i c a t i o n of the p o t e n t i a l f o r r e n o v a t i o n a c t i v i t y : h) average v a l u e of d w e l l i n g ; (dweavg) i ) p e r c e n t of d w e l l i n g s b u i l t p r i o r t o 1946; (pre46) j) p e r c e n t of d w e l l i n g s b u i l t p r i o r t o 1960; (pre60), and k) p e r c e n t of d w e l l i n g s i n need of minor or major r e p a i r , as s t a t e d i n the 1981 Census, ( r e p a i r ) S e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t a n a l y s e s are made i n order t o compare d i f f e r e n t s e t t l e m e n t s i z e s . The f i r s t a n a l y s i s uses data from a l l 45 study areas i n the p r o v i n c e . The second a n a l y s i s separates the data f o r urban and r u r a l areas t o see i f t h e r e are r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n e i t h e r case which may overshadow the o t h e r . The t h i r d a n a l y s i s compares the Metro r e g i o n t o the remaining urban and r u r a l areas. 124 1. P r o v i n c e T a b l e 5.1 g i v e s the r e s u l t s of the c o r r e l a t i o n a n a l y s i s f o r a l l 45 study areas, comparing each of the e l e v e n independent v a r i a b l e s w i t h f i r s t the i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n and then with average permit v a l u e s . Looking a t these r e s u l t s we f i n d t h a t t h e r e are no v a l u e s g r e a t e r than 0.400, i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e r e are v i r t u a l l y no s t r o n g c o r r e l a t i o n s . T h i s i s not s u r p r i s i n g c o n s i d e r i n g the somewhat incomplete nature of the data which has been assembled f o r t h i s study. I t i s s t r i k i n g t o note the s i z a b l e n e g a t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between the dependent v a r i a b l e s themselves; we now have s t a t i s t i c a l c o n f i r m a t i o n f o r our e a r l i e r a s s e r t i o n t h a t h i g h average permit v a l u e s correspond d i r e c t l y w i t h low r e p o r t i n g l e v e l s . Low c o r r e l a t i o n s are a l s o not s u r p r i s i n g s i n c e t h e r e are known d i f f e r e n c e s i n the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of r e n o v a t o r s i n urban and r u r a l areas. There are a few i n t e r e s t i n g o b s e r v a t i o n s t o make, however. While the i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n i s p o s i t i v e (but low) w i t h m o b i l i t y and e d u c a t i o n , average permit v a l u e s are n e g a t i v e w i t h these two v a r i a b l e s . The i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n i s n e g a t i v e , but very low, w i t h the need f o r r e p a i r . T h i s r e f l e c t s the g e n e r a l p i c t u r e i n the p r e v i o u s chapter where t h e r e seemed t o be no r e l a t i o n s h i p between areas of h i g h e s t r e n o v a t i o n and areas of h i g h e s t need f o r r e p a i r . Average permit v a l u e s are p o s i t i v e and h i g h e r i n areas w i t h h i g h e r l e v e l s of unemployment and government t r a n s f e r payments. I f e e l t h a t t h i s r e f l e c t s the f a c t t h a t i n r u r a l areas t h e r e i s an u n d e r r e p o r t i n g of s m a l l e r r e n o v a t i o n s r e s u l t i n g i n h i g h e r o v e r a l l average v a l u e s . 125 M u l t i p l e stepwise r e g r e s s i o n was performed w i t h o b s e r v a t i o n s f o r the e n t i r e p r o v i n c e . (Table 5.2) The R squared v a l u e , or l e v e l of s t a t i s t i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n , i s low f o r both the i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n and f o r average permit v a l u e s . Less than one-quarter of the average permit v a l u e and l e s s than 6% of the i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n can be e x p l a i n e d by the e f f e c t of the l e a d i n g v a r i a b l e s t o g e t h e r . We should not be alarmed a t these low r e s u l t s ; the data are incomplete, and t h e r e are d i f f e r e n c e s i n urban and r u r a l areas which may negate some r e l a t i o n s h i p s . The o n l y s i g n i f i c a n t s t a n d a r d i z e d c o e f f i c i e n t f o r the i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n i n the r e g r e s s i o n equation i s p r o v i d e d by the m o b i l i t y f a c t o r . T h i s f a c t t e l l s us t h a t v a l u e s f o r m o b i l i t y are more l i k e l y t o g i v e us an e s t i m a t e of the r e n o v a t i o n i n an area than any o t h e r v a r i a b l e . For the dependent v a r i a b l e permit v a l u e , the l e a d i n g c o e f f i c i e n t s are unemployment ( n e g a t i v e ) , the p e r c e n t of d w e l l i n g s b u i l t b e f o r e 194 6, and m o b i l i t y (negative) . The data are i n f l u e n c e d by the nature of the u n d e r r e p o r t i n g of r e n o v a t i o n s i n r u r a l areas, which i n c r e a s e s the average permit v a l u e s ; these areas tend t o a l s o have a h i g h e r l e v e l of t r a n s f e r payments. There are e i g h t o u t l i e r s i n the case of i n c i d e n c e of renova-t i o n . In Richmond County the observed v a l u e i s much h i g h e r than the p r e d i c t e d . For some unknown reason, the r e c o r d keeping i n Richmond has been very, v e r y good, r e c o r d i n g most r e n o v a t i o n s , t o the p o i n t of having the h i g h e s t average i n c i d e n c e i n Nova S c o t i a f o r 1986-1988. In Sydney Mines the observed i n c i d e n c e i s much lower than the p r e d i c t e d . T h i s i s an area whose t o t a l s are 126 TABLE 5.1 SIMPLE CORRELATION ANALYSIS FOR RENOVATION, PROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTIA Dependent V a r i a b l e Incidence Value Independent N=45 N=41 V a r i a b l e mobile 0.279 -0.369 educ 0.160 -0.208 unemp -0.136 0.391 famavg 0.121 -0.190 lowinc -0.068 0.153 gr30pc 0.212 0.165 govern -0.156 0.366 dweavg 0.155 -0.202 pre46 -0.051 -0.079 pre60 -0.049 -0.090 r e p a i r -0.092 0.166 Incid e n c e -0.579 Value -0.579 TABLE 5.2 MULTIPLE STEPWISE REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR RENOVATION PROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTIA Incidence P r o v i n c e R squared 0.056 (n=45) Value 0.236 (n=41) Leading V a r i a b l e s : C o e f f i c i e n t ( A ) and S i g n i f i c a n c e ( B ) Incidence Value P r o v i n c e A B A B mobile 0.279 0.064 pre46 -0.394 0.017 unemp 0.376 0.057 mobile -0.298 0.125 O u t l i e r s Based on R e s i d u a l Mapping P r o v i n c e Incidence P i c t o u (t) + A r g y l e + Dartmouth + Richmond + Inverness -A n t i g o n i s h -Sydney Mines -Ann a p o l i s -Value North Sydney + A n t i g o n i s h + Inverness + East Hants + Richmond -S t e l l a r t o n -127 s t r o n g l y i n f l u e n c e d by the use of RRAP, which has dropped s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n the l a s t f i v e y e a r s . In the town of P i c t o u and the c i t y of Dartmouth, the observed v a l u e s a re h i g h e r than the p r e d i c t e d . P i c t o u , d e s p i t e i t s lower incomes and o l d e r housing s t o c k , has maintained a h i g h l e v e l of r e n o v a t i o n , which i s p a r t l y i n f l u e n c e d by the use of RRAP. In Dartmouth, the l e v e l of r e n o v a t i o n i s h i g h e r than t h a t of H a l i f a x , d e s p i t e i t s s l i g h t l y lower incomes. In An n a p o l i s County t h e r e i s an u n d e r r e p o r t i n g of r e n o v a t i o n , as p r e v i o u s l y d i s c u s s e d , which accounts f o r the lower observed i n c i d e n c e o f r e n o v a t i o n . In Inverness, A n t i g o n i s h , and A r g y l e the problem of ve r y poor r e c o r d - k e e p i n g i n l a r g e r u r a l m u n i c i p a l i t i e s has r e s u l t e d i n ve r y low t o t a l s f o r r e n o v a t i o n s being r e c o r d e d through b u i l d i n g permit a c t i v i t y . There are f i v e o u t l i e r s i n the case o f average permit v a l u e s . The observed v a l u e s f o r Inverness and A n t i g o n i s h a re con-s i d e r a b l y h i g h e r than they should be; i t was noted i n the p r e v i o u s chapter t h a t poor r e c o r d keeping i n these c o u n t i e s has recor d e d o n l y the l a r g e s t o f the l a r g e r r e n o v a t i o n s , d r i v i n g up average permit v a l u e s and masking the t r u e r e n o v a t i o n p i c t u r e . E a st Hants has an observed v a l u e which i s h i g h e r than i s p r e d i c t e d . Perhaps i t s c l o s e p r o x i m i t y t o H a l i f a x and the r e c e n t spate of new home c o n s t r u c t i o n has encouraged those who do renovate t o undertake l a r g e r p r o j e c t s t o improve t h e i r homes by emulating the s t y l e s and comforts of d w e l l i n g s i n the c i t y . I n e x p l i c a b l y , the average permit v a l u e i n S t e l l a r t o n i s lower than would be expected. In North Sydney, where t h e r e appears t o be an u n d e r r e p o r t i n g of 128 r e n o v a t i o n , the average permit v a l u e s are h i g h e r than the expected. 2. Urban and R u r a l Comparisons Because the i n f o r m a t i o n f o r the p r o v i n c e as a whole i s com p l i c a t e d and somewhat d i s j o i n t e d , and because t h e r e are pr o b a b l y d i s t i n c t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the nature o f r e n o v a t o r s i n urban and r u r a l areas, (as d e f i n e d i n the l i t e r a t u r e and n a t i o n a l survey) t h i s s e c t i o n separates the cases i n t o urban and r u r a l d i s t r i c t s and an a l y s e s the data from t h i s p e r s p e c t i v e . ( T a b l e 5.3) The r e s u l t s of the c o r r e l a t i o n suggest t h a t t h e r e are s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between urban and r u r a l areas i n r e n o v a t i o n . Most i m p o r t a n t l y , note t h a t f o r every v a r i a b l e i n i n c i d e n c e of renova-t i o n , and f o r s i x v a r i a b l e s i n average permit v a l u e , the s i g n s are d i r e c t l y o p p o s i t e when comparing urban and r u r a l areas. The net d i f f e r e n c e i n v a l u e s between the two are s u b s t a n t i a l i n both i n c i d e n c e and permit v a l u e f o r each v a r i a b l e , except f o r unemployment and m o b i l i t y w i t h the permit v a l u e v a r i a b l e . Examining each of the two areas more c l o s e l y , we f i n d t h a t i n urban areas t h e r e i s a modest p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n and both m o b i l i t y and average f a m i l y income. T h i s matches the f i n d i n g s of s e v e r a l o t h e r s t u d i e s . 1 0 6 There are a l s o p o s i t i v e but s m a l l e r v a l u e s f o r average d w e l l i n g v a l u e and education, which again match ot h e r f i n d i n g s . Together they suggest t h a t those who are f i n a n c i a l l y more secure and of See the r e s u l t s of Smith and Woodman, both C l a y t o n Research Assoc. A l b e r t a and O n t a r i o s t u d i e s , and the R e s i d e n t i a l Renovation Overview. 129 h i g h e r s o c i a l s t a t u s are more l i k e l y t o renovate. A l l of these v a r i a b l e s are n e g a t i v e i n r u r a l a reas. There are important n e g a t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s i n urban areas w i t h unemployment l e v e l s , i n c i d e n c e of low income, and government t r a n s f e r payments. The s i g n f o r average permit v a l u e s i s d i r e c t l y o p p o s i t e t o t h a t of i n c i d e n c e i n a l l cases but one i n urban areas; t h i s i s a symptom of the r e p o r t i n g process which r e c o r d s more s m a l l e r v a l u e permits i n areas where the i n c i d e n c e i s h i g h e s t , r a t h e r than a t r e n d toward s m a l l e r s c a l e r e n o v a t i o n p r o j e c t s . F i n a l l y , note t h a t the n e g a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between i n c i d e n c e and average permit v a l u e s i s much l a r g e r i n r u r a l a reas. T h i s r e i t e r a t e s the p o i n t t h a t the use of b u i l d i n g permits tends t o r e f l e c t the r e c o r d i n g of o n l y those r e n o v a t i o n s which are h i g h e r i n v a l u e , and t h a t t h i s i s more p r e v a l e n t i n r u r a l a reas. The R squared v a l u e s , as shown i n the summary t a b l e of m u l t i p l e stepwise r e g r e s s i o n (Table 5.4), are h i g h e r f o r i n c i d e n c e than permit v a l u e f o r urban areas. Approximately 40% of the i n c i d e n c e can be accounted f o r by the combined e f f e c t of the l e a d i n g v a r i a b l e s . In the case of r u r a l d i s t r i c t s , the R squared v a l u e f o r i n c i d e n c e i s very low a t .085, which suggests t h a t the e x p l a n a t o r y s t r e n g t h of the s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e s i s low. T h i s i s not s u r p r i s i n g g i v e n the poorer q u a l i t y of data from r u r a l a r eas. The s i g n i f i c a n t c o e f f i c i e n t s of d e t e r m i n a t i o n f o r urban r e n o v a t i o n i n c i d e n c e are government t r a n s f e r s ( n e g a t i v e ) , g r e a t e r than 3 0%, and average f a m i l y income ( n e g a t i v e ) . For average permit v a l u e s i n the urban group the o n l y s i g n i f i c a n t c o e f f i c i e n t 130 TABLE 5.3 SIMPLE CORRELATION ANALYSIS FOR RENOVATION, BY URBAN AND RURAL DISTRICTS Dependent V a r i a b l e Urban R u r a l Incidence Value Incidence Value Independent N=22 N=22 N=23 N=20 V a r i a b l e mobile 0.458 -0.449 -0.057 -0.253 educ 0.291 -0.330 -0.250 0.225 unemp -0.413 0.489 0.240 0.317 famavg 0.341 -0.329 -0.370 0.163 lowinc -0.372 0.376 0.204 0.006 gr3 0pc 0.339 0.390 -0.061 -0.144 govern -0.489 0.432 0.263 0.242 dweavg 0. 293 -0.267 -0.232 -0.035 pre46 -0.286 0.083 0.197 -0.219 pre60 -0.148 0.102 0.207 -0.236 r e p a i r -0.235 0.319 0.150 -0.084 Inc i d e n c e -0.493 -0.657 Value -0.493 -0.657 TABLE 5.4 MULTIPLE STEPWISE REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR RENOVATION, BY URBAN AND RURAL DISTRICTS Urban R squared R u r a l R squared Incidence 0.403 (n=22) 0.085 (n=23) Value 0.201 (n=22) Leading V a r i a b l e s : C o e f f i c i e n t s ( A ) and S i g n i f i c a n c e ( B ) I n c i d e n c e Value Urban govern gr30pc famavg R u r a l famavg A -1.056 0.394 -1.031 -0.355 B 0.012 0.033 0.073 0.096 unemp A 0.489 B 0.021 O u t l i e r s Based on R e s i d u a l Mapping Urban Incidence Digby + New Waterford -Value Glace Bay + Amherst + Sydney Mines Digby + S t e l l a r t o n -Dartmouth -R u r a l I n c i d e n c e Richmond + A r g y l e + C l a r e + Chester + A n t i g o n i s h Inverness -Value * * No s i g n i f i c a n t l e a d i n g v a r i a b l e s e n t e r e d i n t o the equation, t h e r e f o r e , t h e r e i s no R squared v a l u e . 131 i s unemployment. The onl y s i g n i f i c a n t c o e f f i c i e n t of d e t e r m i n a t i o n f o r r u r a l i n c i d e n c e i s average f a m i l y incomes ( n e g a t i v e ) . There are no s i g n i f i c a n t c o e f f i c i e n t s which would formulate an equation f o r average permit v a l u e s . There are two o u t l i e r s f o r urban i n c i d e n c e ; New Waterford, and Digby. Digby has onl y had a b u i l d i n g i n s p e c t o r s i n c e the ado p t i o n of the new b u i l d i n g a c t and t h e r e has been a ve r y s t r o n g r e c o r d i n g o f r e n o v a t i o n s , more than would be expected based on i t s socioeconomic s t a t u s and on o b s e r v a t i o n s i n oth e r s m a l l towns. In New Waterford the i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n has dropped s h a r p l y s i n c e the d e c l i n e i n RRAP g r a n t s o f 1984. Both the low incomes i n the town, and the i n f l u e n c e of RRAP i n the data, leave the observed v a l u e s of New Waterford lower than the p r e d i c t e d . There are s i x o u t l i e r s f o r urban average permit v a l u e s : Dartmouth, S t e l l a r t o n , Sydney Mines, Glace Bay, Amherst, and Digby. Glace Bay, l i k e Sydney Mines, has a h i g h e r than expected average permit v a l u e , d e s p i t e the heavy use of RRAP fu n d i n g . In Amherst and Digby the average permit v a l u e s a re much h i g h e r than expected. In S t e l l a r t o n and Dartmouth, they a re lower. In these two areas r i g o r o u s enforcement of the b u i l d i n g code has r e s u l t e d i n many lower v a l u e permits being recorded. There are t h r e e o u t l i e r s i n the i n c i d e n c e of r u r a l r e n o v a t i o n whose observed v a l u e s are much h i g h e r than p r e d i c t e d ; Richmond, C l a r e , and Chester. Richmond was d i s c u s s e d i n the p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n . In the cases of the Chester and C l a r e , observed v a l u e s were much h i g h e r than the p r e d i c t e d v a l u e s . T h i s i s due t o the r i g o r o u s enforcement of the b u i l d i n g a c t s i n c e i t s 1987 132 adoption, which meant t h a t f o r the f i r s t time r e n o v a t i o n s were recorded, and r e c o r d e d w e l l . 3. Comparing Settlement S i z e s We are i n t e r e s t e d i n comparing the p a t t e r n s which occur i n c i t i e s , s m a l l towns, and r u r a l areas. With o n l y t h r e e c i t i e s i n t h i s study s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s i s s c a r c e l y p o s s i b l e . In p l a c e of c i t i e s , we t h e r e f o r e we use the Metro r e g i o n . T h i s i n c l u d e s the c i t i e s of H a l i f a x and Dartmouth, and f i v e o t h e r p l a c e s , and we can p r o j e c t these r e s u l t s i n t o a ' c i t i e s ' c a t e gory. These r e s u l t s are then compared t o an urban category, which now c l o s e l y resembles our s m a l l town category, and a l s o a r u r a l category, without the data from H a l i f a x County, C o l c h e s t e r County, and East Hants, t h r e e r u r a l areas s t r o n g l y i n f l u e n c e d by p r o x i m i t y t o H a l i f a x . In comparing the c o r r e l a t i o n r e s u l t s f o r t h r e e s e t t l e m e n t groups (Table 5.5), i t i s important t o note t h a t as i n the p r e v i o u s cases, t h e r e i s a s t r o n g n e g a t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between average permit v a l u e s and the i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n i n a l l t h r e e areas, and as such we would expect t o have d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t s i n the c o r r e l a t i o n s f o r the two dependent v a r i a b l e s . The f i r s t and most i n t e r e s t i n g t r e n d c o n t i n u e s one which was noted i n the p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n . In seven of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h r e n o v a t i o n i n c i d e n c e , t h e r e i s a marked d e c l i n e from Metro t o urban t o r u r a l . For example, the m o b i l i t y c o r r e l a t i o n i s 0.837 i n metro, 0.326 i n urban, and 0.080 i n r u r a l . Another example i s the average v a l u e of the d w e l l i n g v a r i a b l e , where the c o r r e l a t i o n v a l u e i s 0.612 i n metro, 0.053 i n urban, and -0.242 133 i n r u r a l . T h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p h o l d s t r u e f o r e d u c a t i o n and average f a m i l y income. The r e l a t i o n s h i p i s the same, but w i t h h i g h e r n e g a t i v e v a l u e s i n metro f o r unemployment (as unemployment decreases i n c i d e n c e i n c r e a s e s i n metro), the need f o r r e p a i r , and government t r a n s f e r s . Notable s t r o n g c o r r e l a t i o n s i n urban areas i n c l u d e government t r a n s f e r s ( n e g a t i v e ) , major payments g r e a t e r than 3 0 % , and m o b i l i t y . Average f a m i l y incomes and e d u c a t i o n are the o n l y s t r o n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n r u r a l areas, and they are n e g a t i v e . These are more than s u b t l e s u g g e s t i o n s t h a t t h e r e are major d i f f e r e n c e s among the t h r e e s e t t l e m e n t s i z e s ; i n the c i t i e s r e n o v a t i o n i s denoted by h i g h e r s o c i a l s t a t u s and f i n a n c i a l s e c u r i t y . These f a c t o r s become l e s s important, though present, i n s m a l l towns, and are not a f a c t o r a t a l l i n r u r a l areas. A look a t average permit v a l u e s r e v e a l s some d i f f e r e n c e s . In metro we f i n d t h a t the need f o r r e p a i r i n c r e a s e s as the average permit v a l u e i n c r e a s e s . In r u r a l areas the d i r e c t o p p o s i t e holds t r u e , where t h e r e i s a n e g a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p . T h i s suggests t h a t i n r u r a l areas t h e r e are lower e x p e n d i t u r e s i n communities which need i t the most. In a l l t h r e e areas, but e s p e c i a l l y i n metro, t h e r e are o p p o s i t e c o r r e l a t i o n s t o those of i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n , a product of the r e c o r d i n g of many lower v a l u e r e n o v a t i o n s . We might have expected the average permit v a l u e t o be h i g h e r i n metro (and i n urban areas i n general) based on the f i n d i n g s of the Mount A l l i s o n survey, which found average exp e n d i t u r e t o be h i g h e r i n l a r g e r communities. The use of m u l t i p l e stepwise r e g r e s s i o n f u r t h e r separates the t h r e e d i s t i n c t groupings, as shown i n T a b l e 5.6. The R 134 squared v a l u e s are h i g h e s t i n Metro, the area which i s the most homogeneous and has the b e s t s e t of data f o r study. The R squared v a l u e f o r i n c i d e n c e i s 0.899, f o r average permit v a l u e i t i s 0.584. None of the independent v a r i a b l e s a g a i n s t i n c i d e n c e i n urban areas reach the s i g n i f i c a n c e t h r e s h o l d necessary t o enter the r e g r e s s i o n equation, but f o r average permit v a l u e s the R squared v a l u e i s 0.24 6. In r u r a l areas the R squared v a l u e s are 0.154 f o r i n c i d e n c e and 0.393 f o r average permit v a l u e s . For metro r e n o v a t i o n i n c i d e n c e the s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e s are average f a m i l y incomes and m o b i l i t y ( n e g a t i v e ) . The s i g -n i f i c a n t c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r metro average permit v a l u e s are unemployment and average f a m i l y incomes. There are no s i g n i f i c a n t c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r urban i n c i d e n c e , but f o r urban average permit v a l u e they are m o b i l i t y (negative) and percentage of homes b u i l t p r i o r t o 1946 ( n e g a t i v e ) . The o n l y s i g n i f i c a n t c o e f f i c i e n t f o r r u r a l i n c i d e n c e i s average f a m i l y incomes (negative) w h i l e e d u c a t i o n (negative) and unemployment are s i g n i f i c a n t f o r r u r a l average permit v a l u e s . E a s t Hants and H a l i f a x County are both o u t l i e r s i n an e q u a t i o n p r e d i c t i n g average permit v a l u e s i n metro. Both of these c o u n t i e s have h i g h e r than expected average permit v a l u e s . T h e i r p r o x i m i t y t o H a l i f a x may encourage the spending of l a r g e r sums t o emulate urban s t y l e s and comforts. A n n a p o l i s i s an o u t l i e r i n r u r a l i n c i d e n c e . I t has a lower than expected i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n ; here the b u i l d i n g i n s p e c t i o n s e r v i c e c o v e r s a broad t e r r i t o r y w i t h l i t t l e manpower which cannot s u f f i c i e n t l y monitor 135 TABLE 5.5 SIMPLE CORRELATION ANALYSIS FOR RENOVATION, BY METRO, URBAN, AND RURAL DISTRICTS Dependent V a r i a b l e Metro Urban R u r a l I n c i d e n c e Value Incidence Value I n c i d e n c e Value N=7 N=7 N=18 N=17 N=20 N=17 Independent mobile 0.837 -0.458 0.326 -0.469 0.080 -0.416 educ 0. 647 -0.531 0.114 -0.350 -0.322 0.379 unemp -0.632 0. 697 -0.302 0.455 0.179 0.408 famavg 0.536 0. 300 0.199 -0.442 -0.445 0.319 lowinc 0.427 -0.581 -0.260 0.364 0.190 0.025 gr3 0pc 0.138 -0.439 0.336 0.422 0.034 -0.114 govern -0.592 0.377 -0.345 0.467 0.211 0.324 dweavg 0. 612 -0.431 0. 053 -0.298 -0.242 0.008 pre4 6 -0.211 -0.056 0.016 -0.120 0.144 -0.305 pre60 0. 136 -0.307 -0.174 -0.016 0.167 -0.352 r e p a i r -0.592 0.377 -0.042 0.274 0.129 -0.117 Inc i d e n c e Value -0.679 -0.679 -0.462 -0.462 -0.663 -0.663 TABLE 5.6 MULTIPLE STEPWISE REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR RENOVATION BY METRO, URBAN AND RURAL DISTRICTS Incidence Value Metro R squared 0.899 (n=7) 0.584 (n=7) Urban R squared * 0.246 (n=17) R u r a l R squared 0.154 (n=20) 0.393 (n=17) Leading V a r i a b l e s : C o e f f i c i e n t s ( A ) and S i g n i f i c a n c e ( B ) Incidence Value Metro A B A B famavg 1.806 0. 003 unemp 1.409 0.039 mobile -1.082 0.021 famavg 0.863 0.138 Urban * mobile pre46 -0.620 -0.372 0.017 0.128 R u r a l famavg -0.445 0. 049 educ unemp -0.603 0.575 0. 011 0.014 O u t l i e r s Based on R e s i d u a l Mapping Metro Urban R u r a l I n c i d e n c e Value Incidence Value I n c i d e n c e Value East Hants - * A r g y l e + H a l i f a x Co.- Inverness -A n t i g o n i s h -A n n a p o l i s -* No s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e s entered i n t o the equation. 136 the r e n o v a t i o n a c t i v i t y . Inverness, A n t i g o n i s h , and A r g y l e are a l l too low f o r t h e i r p r e d i c t e d v a l u e s ; t h i s has been e x p l a i n e d p r e v i o u s l y . 4. Summary The use of r e g r e s s i o n and c o r r e l a t i o n a n a l y s e s a l l o w s us t o f l e s h out some of the p a t t e r n s which appeared t o be hidden i n the maps and graphs of Chapter 4. There appeared t o be b e t t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s which e x i s t e d i n r e l a t i o n t o the dependent v a r i a b l e i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n , than w i t h the dependent v a r i a b l e average permit v a l u e s as the f l u c t u a t i o n s i n average permit v a l u e s (as d e s c r i b e d i n Chapter 4) d i s t o r t e d some of the o b s e r v a t i o n s . However, s e v e r a l important f i n d i n g s were made. F i r s t , t h e r e was a s t r o n g n e g a t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between the i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n and the average permit v a l u e s i n each a n a l y s i s . T h i s emphasises the p o i n t t h a t i n Nova S c o t i a t h e r e i s a tendency f o r many m u n i c i p a l i t i e s t o r e p o r t o n l y the l a r g e s t v a l u e r e n o v a t i o n s . Secondly, w h i l e t h e r e were few p a t t e r n s and t r e n d s emerging from the study of the p r o v i n c e as a whole, as the data were d i s a g g r e g a t e d f i r s t i n t o urban and r u r a l d i s t r i c t s and then i n t o metro, urban, and r u r a l c a t e g o r i e s , c l e a r d i f f e r e n c e s s u r f a c e d among the t h r e e s e t t l e m e n t s i z e s . In comparing urban and r u r a l areas, the d i r e c t i o n of the c o r r e l a t i o n s was d i r e c t l y o p p o s i t e , e s p e c i a l l y f o r i n c i d e n c e , and the net d i f f e r e n c e s between the two areas were s u b s t a n t i a l . The v a r i a b l e s w i t h the s t r o n g e s t c o r r e l a -t i o n s a g a i n s t urban i n c i d e n c e were unemployment, average f a m i l y income, and the r e l i a n c e on government t r a n s f e r s , a l l of which were n e g a t i v e . R squared v a l u e s were h i g h e r f o r urban p l a c e s , 137 s u g g e s t i n g t h a t t h e r e i s more homogeneity among the p l a c e s i n t h i s group. When the data were f u r t h e r s e p a r a t e d i n t o the t h r e e s e t t l e m e n t types, t r e n d s p r e v i o u s l y found were heightened. There were extremely h i g h c o r r e l a t i o n s i n urban areas f o r most v a r i a b l e s , and i n seven i n s t a n c e s they d e c l i n e d s t e a d i l y toward the o p p o s i t e s i g n from metro t o urban t o r u r a l . These v a r i a b l e s i n c l u d e d m o b i l i t y , e d u c a t i o n , and average d w e l l i n g v a l u e , a l l of which were h i g h and p o s i t i v e i n metro, and unemployment, government t r a n s f e r s , d w e l l i n g s b u i l t p r i o r t o 1946, and the need of r e p a i r , a l l of which were h i g h and n e g a t i v e i n metro. The t h r e e l a r g e s t net d i f f e r e n c e s from metro t o r u r a l were average f a m i l y income, education, and average d w e l l i n g v a l u e . T h i s suggests t h a t i n Metro r e n o v a t i o n i s more c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d with h i g h e r s o c i a l s t a t u s and f i n a n c i a l s t a b i l i t y . The o v e r a l l t r e n d f o r average permit v a l u e s was not as c l e a r , but i t d i d e x i s t f o r i n c i d e n c e of low income and average d w e l l i n g v a l u e (high and n e g a t i v e i n metro), and f o r need f o r r e p a i r (high and p o s i t i v e i n metro). Again, the R squared v a l u e s t e l l a c l e a r s t o r y . The v a l u e f o r i n c i d e n c e i s h i g h e s t i n metro, s m a l l e r i n urban, and s m a l l e s t i n r u r a l cases. Although the o p p o s i t e i s t r u e f o r average permit v a l u e s , t h i s might be expected because average permit v a l u e s were found t o be h i g h e r i n r u r a l areas. The d i f f e r e n c e s among the t h r e e f o r t h i s v a r i a b l e are s m a l l as w e l l . S t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s , however, cannot t e l l the whole s t o r y . Renovation w i l l occur when homeowners choose t o do so, and they w i l l make t h a t d e c i s i o n w i t h i n t h e i r s o c i a l and economic m i l i e u . Having s a i d t h i s , i t i s u s e f u l t o reexamine the o u t l i e r s , which 138 t e l l us which study areas are anomalies t o the g e n e r a l p a t t e r n . O u t l i e r s among the urban cases i n i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n were New Waterford (too low) and Digby (too h i g h ) . In r u r a l areas, they were Richmond, C l a r e , and Chester, each too h i g h , and A n n a p o l i s , Inverness, A n t i g o n i s h , and A r g y l e , each too low. Thus, i f we take account the problem of o u t l i e r s d i s t o r t i n g the p i c t u r e (which would be expected w i t h t h i s s e t of d a t a ) , we can say t h a t i n g e n e r a l the i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n i s h i g h e s t i n the Metro r e g i o n and the P i c t o u County area, and d e c l i n e s i n areas f u r t h e s t away from these nodes. Having examined the nature of r e n o v a t i o n through b u i l d i n g p e r mit a c t i v i t y i n e x p l a i n i n g r e n o v a t i o n p a t t e r n s i n Nova S c o t i a , the study s h i f t s focus somewhat t o look a t the i n d i v i d u a l , p e r s o n a l s i d e of r e n o v a t i o n . Responses t o a province-wide survey on r e n o v a t i o n behaviour conducted by the R u r a l and Small Town Research and S t u d i e s Programme (RSTRSP) are u s e d 1 0 7 t o supplement and c o l o u r the f a c t s gathered i n the p r e v i o u s d i s c u s s i o n s . Because t h i s i s a very d i f f e r e n t s e t of data from the p r e v i o u s , we would expect t o f i n d d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t s from those p r e v i o u s l y d i s c u s s e d . B. PERSONAL RESPONSES IN RENOVATION For the purpose of t h i s study, the r e s u l t s of the RSTRSP survey of homeowner r e n o v a t i o n a c t i v i t y have been grouped i n t o 1 0 7 The author has r e c e i v e d p e r m i s s i o n from the D i r e c t o r of the Programme t o use the unpublished data from the survey. 139 t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s : r u r a l ( p o p u l a t i o n l e s s than 2500); s m a l l town ( p o p u l a t i o n 2500 t o 20000) ; and c i t y ( p o p u l a t i o n more than 20000) . The Nova S c o t i a p o r t i o n of the survey i n v o l v e d a m a i l o u t of 579 q u e s t i o n n a i r e s w i t h 357 responding (61.7%). There were 197 (55.2%) r u r a l respondents, 82 (23.0%) from s m a l l towns, and 78 • • 108 (21.8%) from the t h r e e c i t i e s . The survey found r e n o v a t i o n t o be s l i g h t l y more p r e v a l e n t i n c i t i e s than i n s m a l l town and r u r a l areas. (Table 5.7) T h i s i s the same r a n k i n g found through b u i l d i n g permit r e c o r d s , w i t h c i t i e s s c o r i n g h i g h e s t and r u r a l d i s t r i c t s s c o r i n g lowest. TABLE 5.7 PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS WHO RENOVATED NOVA SCOTIA, 1987 - 1988 Settlement Type Percent R u r a l 68.0 Small Town 69.1 C i t y 76.6 P r o v i n c e 69.7 The l o g i c a l q u e s t i o n , then, i s why d i d 70% p e r c e n t of the Nova S c o t i a n s surveyed renovate t h e i r homes? The need f o r r e g u l a r maintenance and f o r improving home comfort are the o v e r r i d i n g f a c t o r s l e a d i n g t o r e n o v a t i o n . ( T a b l e 5.8) Renovation f o r investment purposes i s more important i n the c i t y than elsewhere. An i n c r e a s e i n f a m i l y s i z e seems t o be a l e s s important f a c t o r i n T h i s compares t o the 1986 p r o v i n c i a l p o p u l a t i o n breakdown o f : 55.9% r u r a l , 18.2% s m a l l town, and 25.9% c i t y . U n i n c o r p o r a t e d urban areas are c o n s i d e r e d t o be r u r a l . 140 r u r a l areas. S u r p r i s i n g l y , energy c o n s e r v a t i o n was not c i t e d a t a l l as a reason f o r r e n o v a t i n g , but I suspect t h a t improving home comfort would i n c l u d e energy c o n s e r v a t i o n c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . S e l f h e l p i s an important p a r t o f r e n o v a t i n g . The survey found t h a t 50.7% of a l l p r o j e c t s i n v o l v e d some asp e c t of s e l f h e l p . ( T a b l e 5.9) S e l f - h e l p i n c i d e n c e was h i g h e r i n the c i t y and lower i n s m a l l towns. The two most o f t e n c i t e d reasons e x p l a i n i n g the ' d o - i t - y o u r s e l f phenomenon are t o save money and f o r the j o y of r e n o v a t i n g . The average c o s t of r e n o v a t i n g i n the p r o v i n c e was $4222. (Table 5.10) In constant d o l l a r s t he v a l u e would be $3011; both are lower than the f i n d i n g through b u i l d i n g p e r m i t s ($4331), but t h i s should not be s u r p r i s i n g s i n c e b u i l d i n g p e rmits tend t o REASONS R u r a l TABLE 5 . 8 FOR RENOVATING(1) Small Town C i t y P r o v i n c e % % % Regular Maintenance 56.7 Improve Home Comfort 56.0 Improve Home S a f e t y 18.7 As an Investment 11.9 Increase Family S i z e 3.7 Improve Access 4.5 C h i l d r e n L e a v i n g Home 2.2 Energy C o n s e r v a t i o n 0 53.6 64.4 57.8 44.6 55.9 53.4 19.6 18.6 18.9 12.7 16.9 13.3 10.7 10.2 6.8 1.8 1.7 3.2 1.8 3.4 2.4 0 0 0 1 Respondents c o u l d choose more than one answer. 141 TABLE 5.9 REASONS FOR SELF HELP(l) IN RENOVATING Small R u r a l Town C i t y P r o v i n c e % % % % I n c i d e n c e of S e l f Help 51.8 43.9 55.1 50.7 Save Money 84.3 86.1 81.4 84.0 Enjoy Renovating 56.9 36.1 65.1 54.7 Have Experience 5.9 0 0 3.3 No T r u s t i n 2.0 2.8 4.7 2.8 C o n t r a c t o r s Lack of Q u a l i f i e d 3.9 2.8 0 2.8 Workers Other 2 . 0 5.5 2.4 2.8 1 Respondents c o u l d choose more than one answer. TABLE 5.10 AVERAGE RENOVATION EXPENDITURE $ R u r a l 2887 Small Town 4292 C i t y 5492 Pr o v i n c e 4222 r e p o r t o n l y h i g h e r v a l u e r e n o v a t i o n s . In a d d i t i o n t o having the h i g h e s t i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n , urban areas a l s o had the h i g h e s t average expenditure. T h i s d i f f e r s from both the n a t i o n a l survey and w i t h the b u i l d i n g permit f i n d i n g s . Small towns had the second h i g h e s t average expenditure, w h i l e r u r a l d i s t r i c t s had the s m a l l e s t e x penditure. T h i s i s d i s c o u r a g i n g t o f i n d , f o r i t i s i n r u r a l areas t h a t the need f o r r e p a i r i s g r e a t e s t . 142 Access t o f i n a n c i n g i s an important c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n the d e c i s i o n t o renovate. Savings and bank loans are most important i n f i n a n c i n g a p r o j e c t (Table 5.11). Government g r a n t s were not an important f i r s t source of f i n a n c i n g of r e n o v a t i o n s . For the 21% who had a second source of f i n a n c i n g , c r e d i t and s a v i n g s were important. A mortgage was used much more o f t e n as a source of f i n a n c i n g i n r u r a l areas than i n s m a l l towns or c i t i e s . As a second source of f i n a n c i n g , p r o v i n c i a l g r a n t s were more important i n r u r a l areas. The j o b of r e n o v a t i n g i s never complete. While 82% s a i d t h a t t h e i r home needed f u t u r e maintenance or r e p a i r s , o n l y 42.4% s a i d t h a t they were p l a n n i n g r e n o v a t i o n s i n the next twelve months, w i t h a f u r t h e r 26.9% being undecided (Table 5.12). Combining the l a s t two f i g u r e s g i v e s a t o t a l of about seventy p e r c e n t , which matches the survey f i n d i n g . The s t a t e d need f o r r e p a i r and maintenance was h i g h e r i n s m a l l towns and c i t i e s . T h i s does not f o l l o w the p a t t e r n of s t a t e d need f o r r e p a i r i n the 1981 Census. The r u r a l areas were p r i n c i p a l l y those w i t h the h i g h e s t need f o r r e p a i r , along w i t h the s m a l l towns i n the P i c t o u County area and the Cape Breton area. I t i s s u r p r i s i n g t o f i n d t h a t the need f o r r e p a i r i s not h i g h e r i n r u r a l d i s t r i c t s s i n c e p r e v i o u s surveys and s t u d i e s have shown t h a t the need f o r r e p a i r i s h i g h e s t i n r u r a l a r e a s . There are s e v e r a l e x p l a n a t i o n s as t o why the need f o r r e p a i r i s h i g h e s t 143 TABLE 5.11 HOW RENOVATIONS ARE FINANCED FIRST MOST IMPORTANT SOURCE OF FINANCING Small Rura 9. 1 Town 9. C i t y P r o v i n c e 9, Savings •6 67. 7 69. 1 o 72. 7 t> 69. 2 Bank Loan 9. 2 16. 4 9. 1 10. 8 Mortgage 6. 9 1. 8 1. 8 4. 6 Cash 4. 6 4. 6 3. 6 4. 2 C r e d i t 3. 8 1. 8 3. 6 3 . 3 P r o v i n c i a l Grant 2 . 3 3. 6 3. 6 2. 9 F e d e r a l Grant 1. 5 1. 8 1. 8 1. 7 Loan from Family 0. 8 0 3. 6 1. 3 Other 3 . 1 1. 8 0 2. 1 SECOND (1) MOST IMPORTANT SOURCE OF FINANCING Small R u r a l Town C i t y P r o v i n c e 9 - 9 - 3 - 9 -S "6 "6 "6 Use of Second Source 21.3 19. 5 21. 8 21 . 0 C r e d i t 42.9 31. 3 41 . 2 40. 0 Savings 26.2 12 . 5 47 . 1 28. 0 P r o v i n c i a l Grant 11.9 6. 3 5. 9 9. 3 Bank Loan 4.8 18. 8 0 6. 7 Mortgage 2.4 6. 3 0 2. 7 F e d e r a l Grant 2.4 6. 3 0 2. 7 Loan from Family 2.4 6. 3 0 2. 7 Cash 0 0 5. 9 1. 3 Other 7.1 12. 5 0 6. 7 1 Only an a d d i t i o n a l 6.4% of the respondents had a t h i r d source of f i n a n c i n g f o r t h e i r r e n o v a t i o n s . 144 TABLE 5.12 FUTURE RENOVATIONS NEED FOR FUTURE RENOVATIONS Small R u r a l Town C i t y P r o v i n c e % % % % No Renovations Needed 2 0.5 15.0 14.7 18.0 Reg. Maintenance 29.7 40.0 33.3 32.9 Some R e p a i r s 41.0 36.3 48.0 41.4 Major R e p a i r s 8.7 8.8 4.0 7.7 RENOVATING IN THE NEXT TWELVE MONTHS Small R u r a l Town C i t y P r o v i n c e % % % % Yes 38.8 45.5 48.7 42.4 Undecided 30.1 23.4 22.4 26.9 No 31.1 31.2 28.9 30.7 i n r u r a l a reas. A h i g h degree of c o n s t r u c t i o n and maintenance i s performed by homeowners or u n s k i l l e d labour, i m p l y i n g lower standards of workmanship and m a t e r i a l s ; b u i l d i n g standards are i n f r e q u e n t l y e n f o r c e d ; r u r a l r e s i d e n t s have more d i f f i c u l t y s e c u r i n g mortgages due t o p o o r l y developed r e a l e s t a t e markets and r e s t r i c t i v e l e n d i n g p o l i c i e s of f i n a n c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s ; b u i l d i n g and r e p a i r c o s t s a re o f t e n h i g h e r i n r u r a l a reas; many r u r a l f a m i l i e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y farm f a m i l i e s , p l a c e l e s s emphasis on d w e l l i n g maintenance; and r u r a l areas are o f t e n more d i f f i c u l t K e i t h Cossey w i t h Ron C o r b e t t and F l o y d Dykeman, The  R e s i d e n t i a l Renovation I n d u s t r y i n A t l a n t i c Canada. R u r a l and Small Town Research and S t u d i e s Programme, S a c k v i l l e NB, 1990. p. 3. 145 s i t e s w i t h which t o work ( i . e . more exposed t o wind, r a i n , h a i l , freeze/thaw c y c l e s , s a l t spray, e t c . ) . Note i n T a b l e 5.12 more than twenty p e r c e n t i n r u r a l areas s t a t e d t h a t no r e n o v a t i o n s were needed (higher than c i t i e s and s m a l l towns) and fewer than f o r t y p e r c e n t were p l a n n i n g t o renovate i n the next twelve months (lower than c i t i e s and s m a l l towns). Perhaps t h i s i s evidence t o show t h a t r u r a l d w e l l e r s underestimate the need f o r r e p a i r , or more l i k e l y t h a t r u r a l d w e l l e r s do not have the f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s a v a i l a b l e t o p l a n and do r e n o v a t i o n s . Of those r u r a l d w e l l e r s who d i d not p l a n f u t u r e r e n o v a t i o n s or were undecided, most c i t e d o t h e r f i n a n c i a l commitments as the reason (Table 5.13). S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h the home was the p r i n c i p a l reason f o r choosing not t o renovate i n c i t i e s and s m a l l towns. The survey shows t h a t t h e r e are d i f f e r e n c e s i n the amount of r e n o v a t i o n among se t t l e m e n t s i z e s . C i t i e s have a h i g h e r i n c i d e n c e w i t h a lower average valu e , w h i l e the r e v e r s e i s t r u e i n r u r a l a reas. Although r e n o v a t i o n touches a l l households, income groups, and d w e l l i n g types, some c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s stand out. Renovation occurs p r i m a r i l y f o r the purpose of r e g u l a r maintenance and the improvement of home comfort; however, i n the c i t i e s the p r o s p e c t s f o r a good r e t u r n on t h i s investment are important. S e l f - h e l p i s an important aspect of r e n o v a t i o n i n Nova S c o t i a , e s p e c i a l l y i n the c i t i e s and r u r a l areas. The problem of o t h e r f i n a n c i a l commitments d e t e r s a number of r u r a l d w e l l e r s who want t o renovate. 146 TABLE 5.13 REASONS FOR NOT PLANNING FUTURE RENOVATIONS Small R u r a l 9. Town s- c i t y s- P r o v i n c e 9-S a t i s f i e d w i t h Home "S 32.2 "8 50.0 •5 39.5 "5 37.4 Other F i n a n c i a l 38.3 23.8 31.6 33.8 I n t e n d i n g t o Move 10.4 2.4 18.4 10.3 Mortgage Payment 3.5 9.5 10.5 6.2 High I n t e r e s t Rate 7.8 7.1 0 6.2 Other 7.8 7.1 0 6.2 C. CONCLUSIONS There are connections which can be made between these two seemingly d i s p a r a t e bodies of i n f o r m a t i o n . When the b u i l d i n g permit data was broken i n t o t h r e e groups, a c l e a r p a t t e r n emerged which r e l a t e s t o one of the important f i n d i n g s o f the survey; t h a t i n c i d e n c e and expenditure were h i g h e s t i n c i t i e s and lowest i n r u r a l areas. The c o r r e l a t i o n v a l u e s f o r metro c l e a r l y support t h i s f i n d i n g as they r e f l e c t e d i n c i d e n c e as b e i n g h i g h e r i n areas w i t h h i g h e r s o c i a l s t a t u s and economic s t a b i l i t y . The r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h average permit v a l u e s a re not q u i t e as s t r o n g , but n o n e t h e l e s s e x i s t . The survey suggested t h a t t h e r e were few d i s s i m i l a r i t i e s i n the m o t i v a t i o n s f o r re n o v a t i n g / n o t r e n o v a t i n g among the t h r e e s e t t l e m e n t s i z e s . However, oth e r f i n a n c i a l p r i o r i t i e s (which may be i n t e r p r e t e d as a c o s t c o n s t r a i n t ) were an important d e t e r r e n t f o r r e n o v a t i o n i n r u r a l areas. Having concluded an examination o f b u i l d i n g p ermit a c t i v i t y and p e r s o n a l survey responses i n e x p l a i n i n g r e n o v a t i o n p a t t e r n s i n Nova S c o t i a , the study now t u r n s t o examine the impact of f e d e r a l and p r o v i n c i a l programs on r e n o v a t i o n i n the p r o v i n c e . 147 CHAPTER VI: GOVERNMENT ASSISTED RENOVATION ACTIVITY In Chapter 2 we examined the r o l e of the government i n the r e n o v a t i o n p r o c e s s , showing t h a t i t not o n l y p l a y s an important r o l e through i t s r e g u l a t o r y powers, but t h a t i t i s an important c o n t r i b u t o r of funds f o r r e n o v a t i o n a c t i v i t y t o those households who might not otherwise engage i n the p r o c e s s . T h i s chapter examines the impact of the most important f e d e r a l r e n o v a t i o n a s s i s t a n c e program, the R e s i d e n t i a l R e h a b i l i t a t i o n A s s i s t a n c e Program (RRAP) , 1 1 0 i n the r e n o v a t i o n p r o c e s s by showing the d i s t r i b u t i o n of funds and the i n c i d e n c e of RRAP takeup i n each of the f i v e r e g i o n s . The second p a r t of the chapter i n v o l v e s a s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s and d i s c u s s i o n of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of RRAP us e r s i n the p r o v i n c e as a whole and f o r d i f f e r e n t s e t t l e m e n t s i z e s . The t h i r d p a r t of t h i s chapter examines the r o l e of t h r e e important p r o v i n c i a l r e n o v a t i o n a s s i s t a n c e programs i n Nova S c o t i a . The S e n i o r C i t i z e n s A s s i s t a n c e Program (SCAP), Small Loans A s s i s t a n c e Program (SLAP), and the P r o v i n c i a l Housing Emergency Repair Program (PHERP) are o f f e r e d t o a s s i s t those households (the e l d e r l y and the f i n a n c i a l l y c o n s t r a i n e d ) which might not otherwise engage i n the maintenance and r e p a i r of d w e l l i n g s . F i n a l l y , a comparison i s made between government i n i t i a t e d and p r i v a t e s e c t o r r e n o v a t i o n s . The other two ongoing programs are Emergency Repair Program (ERP) and NHA Mortgage Insurance. For a d i s c u s s i o n of o t h e r r e n o v a t i o n programs s i n c e d i s c o n t i n u e d r e f e r t o Chapter 2, or see R e s i d e n t i a l Renovation Overview, p. 120. 148 A. THE RESIDENTIAL REHABILITATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM RRAP has t h r e e components: homeowner, r e n t a l (which was c a n c e l l e d i n 1989), and d i s a b l e d a i d . Homeowner RRAP i s d i v i d e d i n t o urban and r u r a l . T h i s work i s p r i m a r i l y i n t e r e s t e d i n the homeowner aspect of RRAP, which a l l o w s f o r a comparison w i t h the p r e v i o u s a n a l y s i s of r e n o v a t i o n measured through b u i l d i n g permit a c t i v i t y . RRAP i s d e l i v e r e d t o the c i t i z e n s of Nova S c o t i a through a v a r i e t y of government and p r i v a t e housing ag e n c i e s . CMHC c o n t r a c t s the r i g h t t o d e l i v e r the program, and i n r e t u r n the agency r e c e i v e s a fee f o r each grant i t d e l i v e r s on b e h a l f of CMHC. In s i t u a t i o n s where no c o n t r a c t i n g agent can be found, CMHC i t s e l f d e l i v e r s the program. L o c a l m u n i c i p a l governments d e l i v e r the program t o f i v e r u r a l m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , t o ni n e s m a l l towns and t o the t h r e e c i t i e s . In some i n s t a n c e s i t i s a b u i l d i n g i n s p e c t o r or m u n i c i p a l s t a f f member who handles the program; i n other cases an i n d i v i d u a l or group of i n d i v i d u a l s i s h i r e d t o a d m i n i s t e r the program. In the r e s t of the p r o v i n c e p r i v a t e n o n - p r o f i t agencies handle the program. 1 1 1 In the P i c t o u County r e g i o n EXPIC Housing S o c i e t y looks a f t e r the program f o r the County and i t s f i v e s m a l l towns. The C o l c h e s t e r R u r a l Housing S o c i e t y d e l i v e r s the program i n C o l c h e s t e r County. The Hants R u r a l Housing S o c i e t y d e l i v e r s t o both East and West Hants. Housing A s s i s t a n c e N o n - P r o f i t Development S o c i e t y (HANDS) d e l i v e r s both the urban and the r u r a l component of RRAP i n Kings County. ANNACO Housing S o c i e t y i s the agency f o r An n a p o l i s County, w h i l e the Digby M u n i c i p a l Housing S o c i e t y i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r both the Town and the D i s t r i c t of Digby. U n i v e r s i t e de Ste. Anne has o f f i c e s i n C l a r e , Yarmouth, A r g y l e , and B a r r i n g t o n f o r d e l i v e r y i n these areas. F i n a l l y , the Lunenburg-Queens Housing S o c i e t y handles the program i n Shelburne, Queens, and Lunenburg Counties and i n the Towns of Lunenburg and Bridgewater. The County of H a l i f a x i s i n a unique p o s i t i o n because of i t s urban and r u r a l nature. The b u i l d i n g i n s p e c t o r of the 149 B. RRAP ACTIVITY FROM 1975 TO 1988 Annual r e p o r t s from each of the d e l i v e r y agencies were used t o determine the number of RRAP gr a n t s d e l i v e r e d each year. I t i s v e r y important t o note t h a t the amount of money made a v a i l a b l e f o r RRAP each year i s almost always l e s s than the amount needed t o cover the re q u e s t s made by e l i g i b l e homeowners f o r a s s i s t a n c e . In a d d i t i o n the data are somewhat d i f f e r e n t than b u i l d i n g p e r m i t s . We know the RRAP data cover a l l o f the homeowner RRAP i s s u e d i n a g i v e n p l a c e f o r a g i v e n year; t h e r e i s no q u e s t i o n of i t s r e l i a b i l i t y . D e s p i t e t h i s f a c t t h e r e a re s t i l l some gaps i n the r e c o r d s . Records were not a v a i l a b l e from the f o l l o w i n g communities: Amherst, S p r i n g h i l l , Digby, Digby (Town), L i v e r p o o l , and Bedford. H i s t o r i c a l r e c o r d s were not a v a i l a b l e from: Guysborough, A n t i g o n i s h , Kings, K e n t v i l l e - B e r w i c k , A n n a p o l i s , C l a r e , Yarmouth, A r g y l e , B a r r i n g t o n , and H a l i f a x County. Although s e v e r a l d i s c u s s i o n s were made w i t h v a r i o u s members of the CMHC o f f i c e i n H a l i f a x , they were unable t o f u r n i s h the author w i t h the m i s s i n g i n f o r m a t i o n . 1 1 2 County o f f i c e d e l i v e r s the program t o the urban areas of the County, the Pr e s t o n Area Housing S o c i e t y d e l i v e r s i n Prest o n , and the MIKMAKIK Development C o r p o r a t i o n , based i n Truro, d e l i v e r s t o the r e s t of the County. T h i s agency a l s o d e l i v e r s t o A n t i g o n i s h and Guysborough Counties. CMHC d e l i v e r s the program t o the Town of Bedford. I t should be noted t h a t these agencies are i n v o l v e d w i t h more than j u s t RRAP; they o f t e n d e l i v e r o t h e r f e d e r a l housing programs and sometimes are i n v o l v e d w i t h p r o j e c t s of t h e i r own. 1 1 2 I co n t a c t e d s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t people a t the CMHC o f f i c e i n H a l i f a x d u r i n g the summer of 1989, each of whom t o l d me t h a t t h e r e was no ac c o u n t i n g procedure which c o u l d g i v e me the number and t o t a l d o l l a r v a l u e of RRAP g r a n t s i s s u e d each year i n each m u n i c i p a l i t y ; t h i s meant t h a t t h e r e was no way t o rec o v e r h i s t o r i c a l r e c o r d s i n those communities, and no way t o o b t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n from areas f o r which r e c o r d s were not a v a i l a b l e from the d e l i v e r y agency. However, i n December of 1989 I was a b l e t o 150 There are two necessary e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r the nature of the data employed i n t h i s p a r t of the study. F i r s t , because the funds f o r RRAP are c o n t r o l l e d by the f e d e r a l government, we do not undertake an examination of the average v a l u e of RRAP g r a n t s from p l a c e t o p l a c e . U n l i k e the use of p r i v a t e funds, which are used a t the d i s c r e t i o n of the homeowner, RRAP funds have a c e i l i n g and t h e r e f o r e r e s t r i c t the amount of money e l i g i b l e homeowners may put towards a p r o j e c t . However, i t i s a l s o r e c o g n i z e d t h a t homeowners may choose not t o accept the maximum a l l o w a b l e g r a n t , o p t i n g i n s t e a d f o r a lower v a l u e g r a n t which c o v e r s a s m a l l e r amount of r e n o v a t i o n . T h i s study i s i n t e r e s t e d i n the r e l a t i v e number and i n c i d e n c e of RRAP u s e r s , not i n the average v a l u e of the grant r e c e i v e d . Second, RRAP fund i n g i s t i e d t o the n a t i o n a l budgetary p r o c e s s , and the funds made a v a i l a b l e f o r RRAP i n Nova S c o t i a each year r e f l e c t changes i n the budgetary procedure. In Chapter 2 i t was noted t h a t many m i l l i o n s of d o l l a r s were committed t o the program n a t i o n a l l y each year. C l o s e r examination o f Tab l e 2.2 shows t h a t t h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t drop o f $100 m i l l i o n i n n a t i o n a l commitments from $383 m i l l i o n i n 1984 t o $284 m i l l i o n i n 1985. Evidence from the Nova S c o t i a data suggest t h a t most of t h i s drop was i n the homeowner RRAP s e c t i o n . However, upon c o n t a c t Susan Fortune a t the o f f i c e i n H a l i f a x . She informed t h a t a lthough t h e r e was a computer program c o n t a i n i n g the i n f o r m a t i o n I requested, I would not be a b l e t o r e t r i e v e i t . Needless t o say, t h i s proved t o be a ve r y f r u s t r a t i n g e x e r c i s e . 151 examining changes i n l e g i s l a t i o n a f f e c t i n g RRAP, t h e r e was no evidence t h a t t h i s was a c o n s c i o u s p o l i c y d e c i s i o n . 1 1 3 For us t o assess the impact of RRAP i n t h e r e n o v a t i o n p r o c e s s i t i s u s e f u l t o f i r s t examine the program on a province-wide s c a l e , and then t o look a t each of the r e g i o n s . F i g u r e s 6.1A and 6. IB show the a b s o l u t e number of g r a n t s and t o t a l d o l l a r v a l u e s f o r each of the 39 m u n i c i p a l d i s t r i c t s f o r which i n f o r m a t i o n i s a v a i l a b l e . As w i t h the permit data, t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n must be viewed w i t h c a u t i o n and i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h T a b l e 6.1. T h i s t a b l e shows the year f o r which the program s t a r t e d (or i n cases of l a c k of h i s t o r i c a l data, the year f o r which the data begin) i n each a r e a . 1 1 4 There are some s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s w i t h the b u i l d i n g permit i n f o r m a t i o n . A c t i v i t y i s f o c u s e d p r i m a r i l y i n the same l a r g e r r u r a l m u n i c i p a l i t i e s and i n H a l i f a x . There i s l e s s a c t i v i t y i n the southern p a r t of the p r o v i n c e ; again, the data here are incomplete. A major d i f f e r e n c e , and the most n o t a b l e f e a t u r e of t h i s program i n Nova S c o t i a , i s t h a t both urban and r u r a l areas w i t h i n the Cape Breton Region r e c e i v e the l a r g e s t shares of the RRAP budget. 1 1 3 R e s i d e n t i a l R e h a b i l i t a t i o n A s s i s t a n c e Program E v a l u a t i o n , p. 14, g i v e s a summary of the changes i n RRAP l e g i s l a t i o n ; however, t h e r e i s no i n d i c a t i o n of a change i n l e g i s l a t i o n which would e x p l a i n t h i s o b s e r v a t i o n . 1 1 4 The program a t f i r s t was a v a i l a b l e o n l y t o e l i g i b l e households which were w i t h i n a d e s i g n a t e d urban NIP area. Only those e l i g i b l e households i n d e s i g n a t e d c o u n t i e s were a b l e t o access r u r a l RRAP. When the program became u n i v e r s a l i n 1981, everyone who met the income requirements was e l i g i b l e r e g a r d l e s s of l o c a t i o n . The t a b l e shows the year i n which the program became a v a i l a b l e f o r each area of the p r o v i n c e . Those marked w i t h a '*' have no h i s t o r i c a l r e c o r d s , and o n l y the year f o r which the data begin i s g i v e n . 152 TOTAL NUMBER AND VALUE TOTAL NUMBER AND VALUE OF RRAP GRANTS approx TABLE 6.1 TOTAL NUMBER AND VALUE OF RRAP GRANTS Place Number RURAL Inverness 1716 Cape Breton 2551 Richmond 982 V i c t o r i a 881 P i c t o u 759 Queens 446 C o l c h e s t e r 847 Shelburne 286 Lunenburg 855 Digby 373 East Hants 687 Cumberland * 213 H a l i f a x * 544 Annapolis * 396 Yarmouth * 171 A r g y l e * 134 B a r r i n g t o n * 129 C l a r e * 125 Kings * 258 Guysborough * 75 A n t i g o n i s h * 63 CITIES H a l i f a x 2110 Dartmouth 785 Sydney 1556 SMALL Sydney Mines 1191 TOWNS Glace Bay 1656 New Waterford 901 S t e l l a r t o n 479 New Glasgow 408 Bridgewater 188 P i c t o u 390 Dominion 391 Trenton 337 W e s t v i l l e 332 North Sydney 415 Amherst n.a. Truro 92 (1) Includes Chester (2) Includes West Hants Value Data 8 818 000 1976 13 997 000 1977 5 056 000 1977 4 157 000 1977 3 662 478 1977 n.a. 1977 4 263 252 1978 1 404 280 1978 4 484 226 1979 n.a. 1980 3 458 114 1981 1 538 102 1983 3 586 672 1984 2 398 882 1984 994 721 1984 766 553 1984 768 3 30 1984 788 740 1984 1 376 729 1986 502 900 1986 439 494 1986 6 196 031 1975 3 148 288 1975 7 845 000 1976 5 808 000 1976 8 743 000 1977 5 067 000 1977 2 133 810 1977 2 112 635 1977 708 745 1977 1 752 300 1978 1 819 000 1978 1 602 556 1978 1 639 102 1978 2 679 000 1981 1 481 002 1982 577 037 1983 Begin 155 From 1975 t o 1988 CMHC i s s u e d 36 045 RRAP g r a n t s v a l u e d a t $180 m i l l i o n ; 29 092 of these were r e c e i v e d by homeowners. 1 1 5 What has been the r e l a t i v e share of RRAP g r a n t s over time among r u r a l areas, s m a l l towns, and c i t i e s ? R u r a l areas r e c e i v e the l a r g e s t p o r t i o n of the g r a n t s ( F i g u r e 6.2), and t h i s share i n c r e a s e s a f t e r 1984, s u g g e s t i n g t h a t urban homeowner RRAP had been reduced. The share i n s m a l l towns and c i t i e s drops s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f t e r 1984. In 1978 the share was 17.3% i n c i t i e s , 40.6% i n s m a l l towns, and 42.2% i n r u r a l areas. In 1988 the f i g u r e s were 10.7% i n c i t i e s , 20.2% i n s m a l l towns, and 69.1% i n r u r a l a r e a s . However, t h i s does not t e l l us the whole s t o r y about the use of RRAP funding. Expressed as the percentage of s i n g l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s r e c e i v i n g a grant, we compare the i n c i d e n c e of RRAP use i n the t h r e e s e t t l e m e n t s i z e s ( F i g u r e 6.3). C l e a r p a t t e r n s emerge. C i t i e s c o n s i s t e n t l y have the lowest i n c i d e n c e of RRAP use. The h i g h e s t i n c i d e n c e of RRAP use was 1.65% of a l l s i n g l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s i n 1980; i n 1988 i t was o n e - t h i r d of t h i s a t 0.54%. Small towns are c o n s i s t e n t l y h i g h adopters, w i t h the g r e a t e s t i n c i d e n c e being 5.41% i n 1978. In 1988 the i n c i d e n c e f e l l t o 1.51%. The i n c i d e n c e of RRAP use from 1977 t o 1984 i n s m a l l towns i s much h i g h e r than i n the other s e t t l e m e n t s i z e s ; t h i s c o i n c i d e s w i t h the h i g h i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n i n s m a l l towns, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n 1977 and 1978. The l a r g e s t i n c i d e n c e f o r r u r a l areas o c c u r r e d i n 1978 as w e l l , a t 2.90%; i n 1988 the i n c i d e n c e was 0.84%. The peak year With notes from S. Fortune, and a l s o R e s i d e n t i a l  R e h a b i l i t a t i o n A s s i s t a n c e Program E v a l u a t i o n , p. 27. 156 FIGURE 6.2 Total Number of RRAP Grants E|y Settlement Size. 1975-1988 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 Year (771 Rural |V\I Small Towns W7X Ctties 157 FIGURE 6.3 Incidence of RRAP Grants By SctUeawnt Stat, 1978-1988 158 f o r the p r o v i n c e was a l s o i n 1978 a t 2.88%. The i n c i d e n c e i n 1988 was 0.87%. There i s a g r a d u a l d e c l i n e i n i n c i d e n c e i n a l l s e t t l e m e n t s i z e s from 1980 onward, w i t h a v e r y steep d e c l i n e from 1984 t o 1985 as urban homeowner RRAP was reduced. P a r t of the o v e r a l l d e c l i n e i n i n c i d e n c e from the l a t e 1970s and e a r l y 1980s can be e x p l a i n e d f i r s t by the g e n e r a l drop i n the o v e r a l l RRAP budget, and second, by the f a c t t h a t RRAP i s a o n c e - i n - a - l i f e t i m e program. A f t e r the homeowner r e c e i v e s a g r a n t he/she i s no longer e l i g i b l e t o r e c e i v e another, which i n e f f e c t reduces the number of e l i g i b l e households, thereby r e d u c i n g the o v e r a l l demand or 116 need f o r the program. C. RELATIVE DISTRIBUTION OP RRAP ACTIVITY 1. P r o v i n c e What i s the r e l a t i v e i n c i d e n c e of RRAP use from area t o area w i t h i n the p r o v i n c e ? F i g u r e s 6.4 - 6.6 show the average annual i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n f o r 1976-1980, 1981-1985, and 1986-1988, r e s p e c t i v e l y . As the aggregate data suggested, the h i g h e s t i n c i d e n c e of RRAP i s i n the Cape Breton r e g i o n ( p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the urban areas) i n a l l t h r e e time p e r i o d s , and i s a l s o h i g h i n the urban areas of P i c t o u County. From 1986 t o 1988, the p e r i o d f o r which t h e r e i s the most i n f o r m a t i o n , we note t h a t remote r u r a l areas such as Guysborough, A n n a p o l i s , Yarmouth, A r g y l e , and B a r r i n g t o n have a r e l a t i v e l y h i g h e r i n c i d e n c e of RRAP use than the I am i m p l y i n g here t h a t the number of e l i g i b l e homeowners d e c l i n e s once a homeowner r e c e i v e s a g r a n t ; however, as new households are formed, some w i l l become e l i g i b l e f o r RRAP. 159 approx O no data no data no data p r o v i n c i a l average. Hants and C o l c h e s t e r , two of t h e r u r a l areas i n c l u d e d i n the metro category, a l s o have a r e l a t i v e l y h i g h e r i n c i d e n c e of RRAP use. In g e n e r a l , we can s t a t e t h a t these diagrams c l o s e l y resemble the need f o r r e p a i r diagram ( F i g u r e 4.18), s u g g e s t i n g t h a t perhaps RRAP i s w e l l t a r g e t e d t o areas i n most need of r e p a i r . Having examined the p i c t u r e on a p r o v i n c i a l s c a l e , the study moves t o look a t the use of RRAP fund i n g i n the f i v e subregions w i t h i n the p r o v i n c e . 2. Cape Breton Region T h i s r e g i o n has the h i g h e s t i n c i d e n c e of RRAP use i n the p r o v i n c e . T h i s should not be s u r p r i s i n g g i v e n the r e l a t i v e l y h i g h need f o r r e p a i r i n the r e g i o n coupled w i t h v e r y low incomes. The peak year f o r RRAP use i s 1978 when 4.69% of a l l s i n g l e f a m i l y detached u n i t s r e c e i v e d a grant. T h i s was f o l l o w e d by a gr a d u a l d e c l i n e t o 1984, a steep d e c l i n e t o 1985, and s i n c e then l e v e l l i n g o f f a t an i n c i d e n c e of about 1.5%. ( F i g u r e 6.7) Both urban and r u r a l RRAP f o l l o w t h i s p a t t e r n , as the examples of Glace Bay and Inverness County show. However, i n Sydney the i n c i d e n c e has i n c r e a s e d somewhat i n the l a s t t h r e e y e a r s , but i s s t i l l f a r below the i n c i d e n c e of the l a t e 1970s. 3. Northern Nova S c o t i a The use of RRAP i n t h i s r e g i o n i s an important s t i m u l a t o r of r e n o v a t i o n a c t i v i t y , e s p e c i a l l y i n the P i c t o u County area. The p a t t e r n i s s i m i l a r t o t h a t of the Cape Breton r e g i o n , except t h a t the year t o year i n c i d e n c e v a l u e s are lower, and the d e c l i n e from 1984 t o 1985 i s not as s t e e p . ( F i g u r e 6.8) Again the peak year i s 163 FIGURE 6.7 Incidence of RRAP Grants Cape Breton Region. 1975-1988 164 FIGURE 6.8 Incidence of RRAP Grants Northern Nova Scotia, 1976-1968 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 D Region + Trenton • Cumberland 165 1978 w i t h the i n c i d e n c e of RRAP being 3.07% of a l l s i n g l e f a m i l y detached u n i t s r e c e i v i n g a g r a n t . A c t i v i t y has now l e v e l l e d o f f t o a v a l u e of about 1%. However, the urban RRAP v a l u e s have f a l l e n somewhat, as the example of Trenton r e v e a l s . S u r p r i s i n g l y , the i n c i d e n c e of RRAP i s low f o r the r u r a l area of Cumberland; t h i s i s an anomaly i n the r e g i o n as both Guysborough and P i c t o u Counties are a t or near the r e g i o n a l average. Given the low i n c i d e n c e of RRAP use over the p a s t t h r e e y e a r s (the o n l y years f o r which i n f o r m a t i o n was a v a i l a b l e ) i n A n t i g o n i s h and Guysborough Counties, I suspect t h a t the i n c i d e n c e was much h i g h e r i n the l a t e 1970s and e a r l y 198 0s when budgets were b i g g e r . 4. A n n a p o l i s V a l l e y The data f o r West Hants was amalgamated a t the source w i t h t h a t of East Hants, so i t i s i n c l u d e d i n the Metro r e g i o n data. T h i s l e a v e s us wit h o n l y A n n a p o l i s , Kings, and K e n t v i l i e - B e r w i c k w i t h which t o examine RRAP use. The l a t t e r two have data f o r 1986-1988 o n l y . Evidence of the major drop i n RRAP use from 1984 t o 1985 i s not pr e s e n t i n A n n a p o l i s County, a g a i n s u g g e s t i n g t h a t t h i s drop was more urban i n nature ( F i g u r e 6.9). The use of RRAP i s m a r g i n a l l y above the p r o v i n c i a l i n c i d e n c e f o r these y e a r s . 5. South Shore The i n c i d e n c e of RRAP along the South Shore i s s l i g h t l y below the p r o v i n c i a l average and does not show the l a r g e drop i n i n c i d e n c e from 1984 t o 1985 ( F i g u r e 6.10). T h i s i s due t o the l a c k of many urban areas i n the r e g i o n . The i n c i d e n c e of RRAP use i n r u r a l areas i s h i g h e r than t h a t i n urban areas, as the examples of Shelburne ( r u r a l ) and Bridgewater (urban) show. Data f o r the 166 FIGURE 6 .9 Incidence of RRAP Grants Annapolis Valley. 1975-1088 6 H 0 _| 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 — i 1 1 1— 1075 1077 1979 1981 1985 1985 1987 Year • Region 167 7 FIGURE 6.10 Incidence of RRAP Grants South Shore Region. 1975-1988 6 H 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 Year • Region + Shelbume O Bridgwater 168 town of L i v e r p o o l show a s i g n i f i c a n t drop i n RRAP use from 1984 t o 1985. 6. Metro The i n c i d e n c e of RRAP use i n the metro r e g i o n i s lower than t h a t of the p r o v i n c e ; t h i s makes sense f o r although t h e r e i s proba b l y a g r e a t e r a b s o l u t e number of homeowners i n need of r e p a i r and w i t h low incomes, they make up a s m a l l e r percentage of the t o t a l number of s i n g l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s . The c i t y o f H a l i f a x had a peak i n c i d e n c e of 2.2% i n 1981, and shows a s i g n i f i c a n t drop i n RRAP i n c i d e n c e a f t e r 1984 (Fi g u r e 6.11). In the r u r a l area of C o l c h e s t e r , t h i s drop i s not e v i d e n t ; i n f a c t , t h e r e i s an i n c r e a s e i n the i n c i d e n c e of RRAP use. The i n c i d e n c e of RRAP use i n both Dartmouth and Tr u r o i s q u i t e low. One important p i e c e of i n f o r m a t i o n t o keep i n mind i s the f a c t t h a t t h e r e are many r e n t a l u n i t s i n the metro r e g i o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n H a l i f a x . As such, we would expect t h a t the r e n t a l p o r t i o n of RRAP would p l a y an important r o l e i n the r e h a b i l i t a t i o n of b u i l d i n g s i n H a l i f a x . An examination of the f i g u r e s (Table 6.2) suggests t h a t r e n t a l RRAP was extremely important i n the e a r l y 1980s. 1 1 7 A f t e r 1984 t h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t d e c l i n e i n the use of r e n t a l RRAP i n H a l i f a x . 1 1 7 F r a s e r and Richa r d s both found t h a t although RRAP r e s u l t e d i n h i g h e r r e n t s a t the lower end of the r e n t a l s c a l e i n H a l i f a x , and t h a t some of the tenants had been d i s p l a c e d , RRAP d i d not p l a c e 'undue h a r d s h i p ' on the tenan t s i n the area. 169 FIGURE 6 .11 Incidence of RRAP Grants Metro Region, 1975-1988 H ' 1 > 1 ' 1 1 1 1 1 ' r— 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 Year • Region + Halifax « Colchester 170 TABLE 6.2 RENTAL RRAP IN HALIFAX, 1975-1988 Year Loans B u i l d i n g s D o l l a r s 1975-77 107 52 520 915 1976 30 14 86 115 1977 73 23 156 621 1980 144 48 232 295 1981 159 64 398 328 1982 151 47 456 768 1983 193 45 573 912 1984 193 50 2 217 020 1985 117 33 355 722 1986 n.a. 1987 7 13 698 1988 7 119 905 1975-88 1167 376 4 997 696 Source: Notes from the C i t y of H a l i f a x RRAP c o o r d i n a t o r . 7. Summary The i n c i d e n c e of RRAP use i s above the p r o v i n c i a l average i n the Cape Breton Region, Northern Nova S c o t i a , and the An n a p o l i s V a l l e y , s l i g h t l y below i n the South Shore area, and below the p r o v i n c i a l average i n Metro. F i g u r e 6.3, i n t r o d u c e d i n t h i s chapter, c l o s e l y resembles the need f o r r e p a i r map f i r s t i n t r o d u c e d i n Chapter 4 (F i g u r e 4.18), which suggests t h a t the RRAP program i s w e l l - t a r g e t e d t o areas i n h i g h e s t need of r e p a i r . Although t h i s i s not a p e r f e c t f i t , the r e l a t i o n s h i p i s s t r o n g i n the urban areas of Cape Breton and P i c t o u County, areas of need of r e p a i r , and i n Metro, where the need f o r r e p a i r i s lower. Having s a i d t h i s , i s t h e r e any s t a t i s t i c a l evidence t o suggest t h a t the program i s w e l l - t a r g e t e d t o homeowners i n core need? 171 T h i s w i l l be e x p l o r e d i n f u r t h e r d e t a i l i n the next p a r t of t h i s c h a p t er. D. ASSESSMENT OF THE TARGETING OF RRAP In t h i s s e c t i o n a s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s i s performed u s i n g simple c o r r e l a t i o n and m u l t i p l e stepwise r e g r e s s i o n t o ev a l u a t e the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the use of RRAP and t h e socioeconomic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the study areas. The a n a l y s i s f o l l o w s the same p a t t e r n as t h a t performed i n Chapter 5 w i t h the b u i l d i n g permit i n f o r m a t i o n . F i r s t , i n f o r m a t i o n from a l l 39 areas i s used t o d e s c r i b e the r e l a t i o n s h i p s on a p r o v i n c i a l s c a l e . Second, the areas are grouped i n t o urban and r u r a l d i s t r i c t s f o r comparative purposes. T h i r d , the areas are f u r t h e r d i v i d e d i n t o metro, urban, and r u r a l ( c i t i e s , s m a l l town, and r u r a l ) so as t o b e t t e r compare the t h r e e s e t t l e m e n t s i z e s . The same el e v e n independent v a r i a b l e s are employed. There i s onl y one dependent v a r i a b l e f o r the RRAP study, the i n c i d e n c e of RRAP use, expressed as a pe r c e n t of s i n g l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s i s s u e d a RRAP gr a n t . However, u n l i k e the b u i l d i n g permit data, the va l u e entered f o r the i n c i d e n c e of RRAP v a r i a b l e i s the h i g h e s t i n c i d e n c e v a l u e f o r one year over the e n t i r e study p e r i o d . T h i s was done t o e l i m i n a t e any b i a s c r e a t e d by the r e d u c t i o n of RRAP funding a f t e r 1984. 1 1 8 By s e l e c t i n g the U n f o r t u n a t e l y , f o r those areas f o r which t h e r e was no h i s t o r i c a l r e c o r d , the v a l u e entered f o r RRAP may be somewhat lower than i t might otherwise have been i f r e c o r d s were a v a i l a b l e f o r those years when the RRAP budget was l a r g e r . T h i s w i l l undoubtedly reduce the s t r e n g t h of some of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s . 172 largest value, we better grasp the demand for, and importance of, RRAP funding i n the renovation process. 1.Province An examination of the re l a t i o n s h i p among RRAP use and a number of socioeconomic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f or each of the study areas i n the province suggests that the assistance program i s reaching those most i n need of repair assistance. There are strong p o s i t i v e relationships between the incidence of RRAP use and unemployment l e v e l s , the incidence of low income, and the rel i a n c e upon government transfers for income (Table 6.3). Smaller but s t i l l s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s are found with the percentage of homes b u i l t p r i o r to 1946 and p r i o r to 1960, and with those spending more than 30% of t h e i r incomes on shelter. There are negative re l a t i o n s h i p s with average family incomes and with average dwelling values. A smaller but important p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p was found to ex i s t between RRAP use and the need for repair. Using multiple stepwise regression (Table 6.4) we f i n d the R squared value, or s t a t i s t i c a l explanation, to be 0.622. This i s reasonably high. The three variables which are s i g n i f i c a n t i n a multiple regression equation for RRAP use are the l e v e l of unemployment, percent of homeowners spending more than 30% of t h e i r incomes on shelter, and the percentage of dwellings b u i l t p r i o r to 1960. A l l three are p o s i t i v e and suggest that areas with high figures for these variables are more l i k e l y to have a higher incidence of RRAP. 173 TABLE 6.3 SIMPLE CORRELATION ANALYSIS FOR RRAP, PROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTIA n=3 9 RRAP mobile -0.348 educ -0.272 unemp 0.720 famavg -0.381 lowin 0.643 gr30pc 0.414 govern 0.531 dweavg -0.387 pre4 6 0.472 pre60 0.449 r e p a i r 0.360 TABLE 6.4 MULTIPLE STEPWISE REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR RRAP, PROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTIA Pr o v i n c e R squared 0.622 (n=39) Leading V a r i a b l e s : C o e f f i c i e n t ( A ) and S i g n i f i c a n c e (B) Pr o v i n c e A B unemp 0.577 0.000 gr30pc 0.334 0.002 pre60 0.219 0.055 O u t l i e r s Based on R e s i d u a l Mapping Dominion + New Waterford + Glace Bay -Sydney -S t e l l a r t o n + Bridgewater -K e n t v i l l e - B e r w i c k -174 There are seven o u t l i e r s based on t h i s e q u a t i o n . Bridgewater and K e n t v i l l e have RRAP i n c i d e n c e which i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower than one would expect. In the case of K e n t v i l l e the i n c i d e n c e i s low because the v a l u e entered has o n l y been from the p a s t t h r e e years, a time when i n c i d e n c e has been much lower. Given the economic h a r d s h i p s and h i g h need f o r r e p a i r i n Sydney and Glace Bay, one would expect t h a t the i n c i d e n c e of RRAP use would be g r e a t e r i n these communities. In New Waterford, Dominion, and S t e l l a r t o n , one year has stood out i n which t h e r e has been a ve r y h i g h i n c i d e n c e of RRAP use; 1980 i n the case of the f i r s t two, and 1978 i n S t e l l a r t o n . These f i g u r e s are much h i g h e r than they were f o r othe r y e a r s . 2.Urban and R u r a l Comparisons When the data are d i s a g g r e g a t e d i n t o urban and r u r a l areas, we f i n d t h a t f o r the most p a r t t h e r e are much s t r o n g e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n the urban areas. In both urban and r u r a l areas the use of RRAP has s t r o n g p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h unemployment and government t r a n s f e r payments.(Table 6.5) The p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h i n c i d e n c e of low income and the need f o r r e p a i r i s much h i g h e r i n urban areas. The n e g a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p with average f a m i l y incomes and average d w e l l i n g v a l u e s i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r i n urban areas; i n f a c t , t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p i s almost n o n - e x i s t e n t i n r u r a l areas. Two oth e r important f e a t u r e s a r i s e . In urban areas t h e r e i s a ve r y s t r o n g n e g a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between the use of RRAP and the m o b i l i t y and ed u c a t i o n s t a t u s of the r e s i d e n t s . There are a l s o r e l a t i v e l y s t r o n g p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h the percentage of homes b u i l t 175 p r i o r t o 19 4 6 and the major payments of g r e a t e r than 30%. In g e n e r a l , we can say t h a t the r e l a t i o n s h i p s a re much s t r o n g e r i n urban areas than they are i n r u r a l areas, and t h a t they suggest RRAP i s w e l l - t a r g e t e d t o those i n need. T h i s might i n p a r t be e x p l a i n e d by the f a c t t h a t the data f o r many r u r a l areas are from the l a s t few years o n l y and t h e r e f o r e may be lower than they might have been i n p r e v i o u s y e a r s , p o s s i b l y weakening r e l a t i o n s h i p s . C o n s i d e r i n g the R squared v a l u e s f o r urban and r u r a l d i s t r i c t s , we f i n d t h a t t h e r e i s a g r e a t e r degree o f s t a t i s t i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n of RRAP d r i v e n r e n o v a t i o n i n r u r a l than i n urban areas (Table 6.6). The m o b i l i t y f a c t o r i s the o n l y s i g n i f i c a n t i n d i c a t o r of RRAP use i n the urban m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n equation, i n d i c a t i n g the h i g h l y i n t e r r e l a t e d nature of the independent v a r i a b l e s ; areas of h i g h m o b i l i t y have a lower i n c i d e n c e of RRAP use. Two v a r i a b l e s , unemployment and m o b i l i t y , a re s i g n i f i c a n t i n the r u r a l m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n e q u a t i o n . Areas o f h i g h e r unemployment have a h i g h e r r a t e of RRAP use, and m o b i l i t y i s p o s i t i v e but s m a l l e r i n t h i s case. Two of the o u t l i e r s , New Waterford and S t e l l a r t o n , have h i g h e r than expected v a l u e s , w h i l e the t h i r d o u t l i e r , North Sydney, i s lower than expected. I t became e l i g i b l e f o r the program i n 1981, s e v e r a l y e a r s a f t e r the othe r urban areas i n Cape Breton. 3. Comparing Settlement S i z e s To c r e a t e a s i t u a t i o n where a l l t h r e e s e t t l e m e n t s i z e s can be compared, the same groupings which were used t o examine b u i l d i n g permit a c t i v i t y are used t o study RRAP use. When the 176 TABLE 6 . 5 SIMPLE CORRELATION ANALYSIS FOR RRAP, URBAN AND RURAL DISTRICTS Urban R u r a l n=17 n=22 RRAP RRAP mobile -0.732 -0.293 educ -0.658 -0.042 unemp 0.716 0.812 famavg -0.667 -0.259 lowinc 0.585 0.301 gr30pc 0.434 -0.170 govern 0.725 0.637 dweavg -0.578 -0.357 pre46 0.484 0.101 pre60 0.359 0.139 r e p a i r 0.599 0.113 TABLE 6 . 6 MULTIPLE STEPWISE REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR RRAP, URBAN AND RURAL DISTRICTS Urban R squared 0.504 n=17 R u r a l R squared 0.675 n=22 Leading V a r i a b l e s : C o e f f i c i e n t s ( A ) and S i g n i f i c a n c e (B) Urban A B mobile -0.732 0.001 R u r a l unemp 0.963 0.000 mobile 0.261 0.102 O u t l i e r s Based on R e s i d u a l Mapping Urban R u r a l New Waterford + S t e l l a r t o n + North Sydney -177 data are d i s a g g r e g a t e d i n t o metro, urban, and r u r a l , some of the p a t t e r n s p r e v i o u s l y e s t a b l i s h e d c o n t i n u e t o p e r s i s t . In p a r t i c u l a r , the r e l a t i o n s h i p s a t the urban ( s m a l l town) l e v e l are s t r o n g e s t and w e l l - d e f i n e d . High p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s are found w i t h unemployment, government t r a n s f e r s , low income, and need f o r r e p a i r (Table 6.7). Strong n e g a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s are found with m o b i l i t y , e d u c a t i o n , average f a m i l y incomes and average d w e l l i n g v a l u e s . In r u r a l areas the o n l y s t r o n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s are the p o s i t i v e ones wi t h unemployment and government t r a n s f e r s . In metro the r e l a t i o n s h i p s are somewhat d i s j o i n t e d because t h e r e are v e r y few cases ( s i x ) . As a r e s u l t we f i n d t h a t t h e r e are s t r o n g p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h average d w e l l i n g v a l u e and e d u c a t i o n . The average v a l u e s f o r the socioeconomic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of H a l i f a x and Dartmouth p l a y havoc w i t h the r e l a t i o n s h i p s . In g e n e r a l , we can say t h a t the program appears t o be w e l l - t a r g e t e d i n the s m a l l towns and r u r a l areas. With so few o b s e r v a t i o n s , stepwise r e g r e s s i o n f o r metro d i s t r i c t s produced no s i g n i f i c a n t c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r the r e l a t i o n -s h i p (Table 6.8). However, t h e r e are s t r o n g e r r e g r e s s i o n equations f o r urban and r u r a l areas. In the urban case, (R squared v a l u e of 0.437), government t r a n s f e r s are the o n l y s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e t o e n t e r the equation; areas of h i g h e r depen-dency on government t r a n s f e r s use more RRAP g r a n t s . For r u r a l areas (R squared v a l u e i s 0.646), unemployment i s the o n l y s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e i n an equation showing RRAP use. O u t l i e r s which r e s u l t from these r e g r e s s i o n equations are New Waterford, S t e l l a r t o n , and Bridgewater. 178 TABLE 6.7 SIMPLE CORRELATION ANALYSIS FOR RRAP METRO , URBAN, AND RURAL DISTRICTS Metro Urban R u r a l n=6 n=14 n=19 RRAP RRAP RRAP mobile 0.273 -0.687 -0.197 educ 0.553 -0.678 0.047 unemp -0.158 0. 641 0.816 f amavg 0.307 -0.639 -0.152 lowin 0.417 0.519 0.233 gr30pc -0.286 0.457 -0.063 govern -0.081 0.693 0.639 dweavg 0.570 -0.628 -0.295 pre4 6 0.159 0.363 -0.074 pre60 0.243 0.197 -0.035 r e p a i r -0.032 0.496 -0.006 TABLE 6.8 MULTIPLE STEPWISE REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR RRAP, METRO, URBAN AND RURAL DISTRICTS Metro R squared * (n=6) Urban R squared 0.437 (n=14) R u r a l R squared 0.64 6 (n=19) C o e f f i c i e n t s of Determination (A) and S i g n i f i c a n c e (B) Metro A B Urban govern 0.693 0.006 R u r a l unemp 0.816 0.000 O u t l i e r s Based on R e s i d u a l Mapping Metro Urban R u r a l * New Waterford + S t e l l a r t o n + Bridgewater -* No s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e s entered i n t o the equation, t h e r e f o r e t h e r e i s no R squared v a l u e , nor o u t l i e r s . 179 4. Summary S t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s of the data r e v e a l t h a t RRAP i s indeed w e l l - t a r g e t e d t o those i n need. There are s t r o n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h key v a r i a b l e s such as unemployment, government t r a n s f e r payments, i n c i d e n c e of low income, and average d w e l l i n g v a l u e s and f a m i l y incomes, e s p e c i a l l y i n s m a l l towns and r u r a l areas. In p a r t i c u l a r , the r e l a t i o n s h i p s are s t r o n g e s t a t the s m a l l town l e v e l . E. PROVINCIAL HOUSING PROGRAMS The Nova S c o t i a Department of Housing a d m i n i s t e r s many d i f f e r e n t housing programs on b e h a l f of the p r o v i n c i a l government. There are t h r e e programs r e l a t e d t o r e n o v a t i o n a c t i v i t y : Senior C i t i z e n s A s s i s t a n c e Program (SCAP), Small Loans A s s i s t a n c e Program (SLAP), and the P r o v i n c i a l Housing Emergency Re p a i r Program (PHERP) . These programs have s i n c e 1979-1980 1 1 9 p l a y e d an important r o l e i n a s s i s t i n g low income people m a i n t a i n t h e i r homes. The purpose of SCAP i s : the a m e l i o r a t i o n of c o n d i t i o n s of s e n i o r c i t i z e n s who r e s i d e i n t h e i r own homes and who, because of t h e i r age, are disadvantaged as a group i n o b t a i n i n g funding from c o n v e n t i o n a l l e n d e r s t o enable them t o r e p a i r , a l t e r or m a i n t a i n t h e i r housing u n i t s . . . s h a l l be used f o r home r e p a i r s , a l t e r a t i o n s , and maintenance of a housing u n i t . 1 1 1 9 PHERP began i n 1977, w h i l e SLAP and SCAP were o p e r a t i o n a l i n 1979. 120 • NSDH, P o l i c y and Procedures Manual. 180 The program i s t a r g e t e d t o those aged 65 and over w i t h incomes l e s s than $16 000. The terms of the maximum $3 000 l o a n i n c l u d e i n t e r e s t f r e e payments over a t h r e e year p e r i o d . A t y p i c a l user of t h i s program i n 1988-89 had an average age of 72, w i t h about 43% b e i n g widowed. The average g r o s s income of the c l i e n t s was $11 584, w i t h the m a j o r i t y (64%) r e c e i v i n g a government pension as t h e i r o n l y source of income. The l a r g e s t number of r e p a i r s were done t o h e a t i n g systems and r o o f s . I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o note t h a t 20% had r e c e i v e d p r e v i o u s a s s i s t a n c e from CMHC, w h i l e an a d d i t i o n a l 28% r e c e i v e d p r e v i o u s a s s i s t a n c e from NSDH. The purpose of SLAP i s : t o p r o v i d e a low i n t e r e s t l o a n t o q u a l i f i e d a p p l i c a n t s f o r the purpose of r e p a i r s , a l t e r a t i o n s , a d d i t i o n s , or completion or p a r t i a l completion o f e x i s t i n g housing u n i t s , mobile home u n i t s or oth e r work as may be r e q u i r e d t o p r o v i d e the a p p l i c a n t s w i t h b e t t e r housing accommodations. 1 2 1 Loans range from $1 000 t o $10 000, and are t a r g e t e d t o those with f a m i l y incomes below $21 500 and who l i v e i n s i n g l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s o n l y . The i n t e r e s t r a t e on payments i s s c a l e d a c c o r d i n g t o income ranges: below $15 000, $15 001 t o $18 000, and $18 001 t o $21 500. The t y p i c a l b e n e f i c i a r i e s of SLAP i n 1988-89 had an average f a m i l y income of $11 297. Most households c o n s i s t e d of one a d u l t (54%) . Only 11% of the a p p l i c a n t s were employed. Re p a i r p r i o r i t i e s i n c l u d e d windows and r o o f a t 14% each, plumbing and doors a t 11% each, and h e a t i n g systems (9%) . T h r e e - q u a r t e r s had no mortgage. The purpose of PHERP i s : 1 2 1 NSDH, P o l i c y and Procedures Manual. 181 to provide assistance to q u a l i f i e d person(s) having r e s t r i c t e d incomes who cannot a f f o r d to carry out the emergency repairs required to maintain t h e i r home as habitable u n i t s . 1 2 2 The program i s targeted to those with a gross family income of less than $ 6 000 and who are not e l i g i b l e under any federal, p r o v i n c i a l , or municipal r e h a b i l i t a t i o n program. P r i o r i t y i s given to those repairs considered to be emergency i n nature and r e l a t i n g to health and safety. The maximum grant i s $2 500. In 1988-89, 47% of the c l i e n t s were i n the 55 to 64 age range. Only 21% were younger than 40. Most of the p a r t i c i p a n t s came from established households, with an average annual income of $8 673. Only 22% were employed, with some 78% receiving some form of government assistance as a source of income. Heating, roofs, windows, and doors were the most common projects at 16%, 13%, 13%, and 11% respectively. The p r o v i n c i a l government assisted 3 061 homeowners i n 1988-1989, providing grants and loans worth $8.5 m i l l i o n (Table 6.9). In the l a s t ten years the government has assisted 22 929 homeowners, contributing more than $59 m i l l i o n to the economy. SCAP has the most c l i e n t s and i s also the program with the greatest f i n a n c i a l commitment. I t i s alarming to note the steady increase i n the number of PHERP c l i e n t s , e s p e c i a l l y since 1983-1984. This suggests that RRAP contains loopholes and f a i l s to a s s i s t those i n great need of assistance. As the average loan values show, the loans are modest and are designed to give the NSDH, Poli c y and Procedures Manual. 182 TABLE 6.9 SUMMARY OF PROVINCIAL RENOVATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS, NOVA SCOTIA, 1979-1989 PHERP SLAP SCAP NUM TOTAL$ NUM TOTAL$ NUM TOTAL$ 79-80 97 163 847 168 416 061 870 1 258 587 80-81 138 239 438 163 538 170 790 1 989 105 81-82 142 248 486 225 928 408 1715 4 452 570 82-83 160 341 051 32 127 228 1363 3 445 189 83-84 184 400 000 89 337 240 2100 5 450 649 84-85 314 700 000 143 500 000 2696 7 000 000 85-86 356 807 000 191 700 000 2197 5 706 000 86-87 661 1 526 000 215 798 000 1978 5 289 000 87-88 736 1 716 000 264 978 000 1881 5 064 000 88-89 632 1 477 616 212 943 612 2217 6 028 023 3420 7 619 420 1702 6 266 719 17807 45 683 123 TOTAL, ALL PROGRAMS NUM TOTAL$ AVERAGE$ CURRENT CONSTANT 79-80 1135 1 838 495 1620 2005 80-81 1091 2 766 650 2536 2840 81-82 2082 5 629 446 2848 2848 82-83 1555 3 913 468 2517 2301 83-84 2373 6 187 889 2608 2241 84-85 3153 8 200 000 2601 2139 85-86 2744 7 213 000 2629 2072 86-87 2854 7 613 000 2667 2027 87-88 2881 7 758 000 2693 1987 88-89 3061 8 449 251 2760 1969 TOTAL 22 929 59 569 199 Constant 1981 = $100 Source: F i l e s and Annual Reports of the Nova S c o t i a Department of Housing. 183 homeowner t h a t l i t t l e b i t of e x t r a money needed t o complete the necessary j o b s . However, the average g r a n t / l o a n has i n c r e a s e d by o n l y $200 s i n c e 1980-1981 and has not kept pace w i t h i n f l a t i o n . Note t h a t the v a l u e of the grant i n 1981 d o l l a r s has decreased s t e a d i l y t o a p o i n t where today a t y p i c a l g r a n t i s worth o n l y about $2 000. What has been the d i s t r i b u t i o n of p r o v i n c i a l program use throughout the p r o v i n c e ? In most cases i t i s i n remote r u r a l areas such as Guysborough and A r g y l e where t h e r e i s heavy r e l i a n c e on the program (Table 6.10). In o t h e r cases i t i s s m a l l towns wi t h a h i g h need f o r r e p a i r , such as Digby and S p r i n g h i l l , which use the program most. However, i n the towns of P i c t o u County, where the need f o r r e p a i r i s h i g h , the use of p r o v i n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e i s low. Note t h a t i t i s i n the c i t i e s where the use of these funds i s lowest, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n H a l i f a x and Dartmouth. F. CONCLUSIONS There i s now evidence t o support two s u g g e s t i o n s which have been made about RRAP. F i r s t , RRAP not o n l y a s s i s t s homeowners i n r e n o v a t i n g , but by doing so i t encourages o t h e r s t o do the same, e s p e c i a l l y i n areas of lower incomes and poorer housing q u a l i t y . I f some of the homeowners are r e n o v a t i n g ( a l b e i t through government a s s i s t a n c e ) , then the area w i l l be seen as one t h a t i s improving, h o p e f u l l y p r o v i d i n g an atmosphere conducive t o p r i v a t e s e c t o r r e n o v a t i o n . Second, we have s t a t e d t h a t some RRAP grants have made t h e i r way i n t o the data of b u i l d i n g permit a c t i v i t y , 184 TABLE 6.10 INCIDENCE OF PROVINCIAL PROGRAM USE, BY MUNICIPALITY, 1988-1989 SCAP PHERP R u r a l Small Towns C i t i e s P r o v i n c e SLAP TOTAL INCIDENC Guysborough 83 18 3 104 4.92 A r g y l e 86 4 3 93 3.36 C l a r e 68 13 6 87 2.88 Hants West 75 34 3 112 2.83 A n t i g o n i s h 64 16 2 82 2.67 Queens 40 18 5 63 1.95 Cumberland 59 27 6 92 1.71 Inverness 59 13 4 76 1.64 Digby 40 6 3 49 1.61 Hants East 55 13 5 73 .1.54 H a l i f a x 259 124 59 442 1.49 Richmond 32 7 4 43 1.31 Cape Breton 98 34 12 144 1.30 V i c t o r i a 24 4 4 32 1.27 Shelburne 21 7 0 28 1.17 An n a p o l i s 53 10 3 66 1.13 Chester 26 4 1 31 0.93 B a r r i n g t o n 15 6 0 21 0.86 Kings 68 10 7 85 0.75 Yarmouth 19 4 0 23 0.71 Lunenburg 36 10 2 48 0.61 C o l c h e s t e r 36 9 2 47 0.53 P i c t o u 13 8 4 25 0.41 Digby 15 7 2 24 4.44 S p r i n g h i l l 41 9 1 51 3.86 Amherst 61 22 3 86 3.77 Dominion 15 4 4 23 3.57 L i v e r p o o l 16 10 2 28 3.29 New Waterford 45 9 0 54 3.20 North Sydney 32 7 3 42 2.52 K e n t v i l l e 29 7 5 41 2.41 Bridgewater 24 11 0 35 2.36 Lunenburg 12 3 0 15 2.11 Glace Bay 56 11 9 76 1.64 Sydney Mines 12 7 8 27 1.30 W e s t v i l l e 10 3 0 13 1.20 Truro 19 11 1 31 1.20 P i c t o u 6 5 1 12 1.10 Bedford 12 4 2 18 1.04 New Glasgow 14 7 2 23 0.96 S t e l l a r t o n 5 4 1 10 0.93 Trenton 5 1 0 6 0.73 Sydney 80 22 12 114 1.93 H a l i f a x 139 16 3 158 1.06 Dartmouth 40 12 4 56 0.53 2217 632 212 3061 1.48 Source: Memoranda sent t o r e g i o n a l d i r e c t o r s from the Nova S c o t i a Department of Housing o u t l i n i n g the p r o f i l e s of each of the t h r e e programs. 185 thereby g i v i n g a l e s s - t h a n - t r u e p i c t u r e of p r i v a t e r e n o v a t i o n a c t i v i t y . When we compare the i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n through b u i l d i n g p e rmits and through RRAP a s s i s t a n c e ( F i g u r e 6.12), we f i n d the p a t t e r n s are remarkably s i m i l a r ; t he two graphs run p a r a l l e l t o each o t h e r from 1977 t o the p r e s e n t . We can i n t e r p r e t t h i s p a t t e r n i n two ways. Some RRAP r e n o v a t i o n s are i n c l u d e d i n the b u i l d i n g permit t o t a l s , and t h e i r r i s e and f a l l causes a simultaneous r i s e and f a l l i n the i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n through b u i l d i n g p e r m i t s . I t might a l s o suggest t h a t i n ye a r s when RRAP adoptions are hi g h e r , other homeowners are a l s o encouraged t o renovate, and i n years when RRAP take-up i s lower t h e r e i s l e s s of a model t o encourage r e n o v a t i o n . However, i f we compare RRAP use w i t h the i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n i n each o f the r e g i o n s , we note some anomalies t o the p r o v i n c i a l t r e n d . In Cape Breton the use of RRAP i s hig h , y e t p r i v a t e s e c t o r r e n o v a t i o n i s low; the r e i s no p a r a l l e l course c h a r t e d by the two. T h i s i m p l i e s t h a t the i n d i r e c t impact of RRAP noted above i s ve r y s m a l l i n t h i s r e g i o n . On the other hand, the Metro r e g i o n has a r e l a t i v e l y low use of RRAP and much h i g h e r a c t i v i t y through the p r i v a t e s e c t o r ; the two do not f o l l o w p a r a l l e l paths. When RRAP use f a l l s s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f t e r 1984, p r i v a t e r e n o v a t i o n does not. T h i s suggests t h a t t h e r e are more p r i v a t e funds a v a i l a b l e f o r use. In the oth e r t h r e e r e g i o n s , however, the paths are roughly p a r a l l e l , e s p e c i a l l y i n Northern Nova S c o t i a , s u g g e s t i n g t h a t the a v a i l a b i l i t y o f RRAP i n f l u e n c e s the o v e r a l l r e n o v a t i o n p i c t u r e . The a n a l y s i s of government a s s i s t e d programs has shown t h a t they are f o r the most p a r t w e l l - t a r g e t e d . What can be s a i d about 186 FIGURE 6.12 187 the impact of RRAP on the r e n o v a t i o n process? The Mount A l l i s o n survey found t h a t few homeowners, o n l y 4.6% r e l i e d on government g r a n t s f o r r e n o v a t i o n s . 1 2 3 T h i s study has found t h a t i n 1988 the i n c i d e n c e of RRAP use was 0.87% of a l l s i n g l e f a m i l y detached d w e l l i n g s w h i l e the i n c i d e n c e of use of p r o v i n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e was 1.48%, f o r a t o t a l of 2.35%. 1 2 4 Although t h i s f i g u r e appears t o be q u i t e low, i t i s not i n s i g n i f i c a n t . Over the course of a decade, indeed, up t o 25% of s i n g l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g u n i t s would b e n e f i t from r e n o v a t i o n a s s i s t a n c e assuming a comparable l e v e l of a d o p t i o n . See Table 5.11. The use of f e d e r a l a s s i s t a n c e o c c u r r e d i n 2.9% of the cases, w h i l e the use of p r o v i n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e o c c u r r e d i n 1.7% of the cases. I t i s o n l y i n cases of 'extreme emergency' or 'health hazard' t h a t households w i l l be g i v e n a g r a n t i f they have a l r e a d y r e c e i v e d p r e v i o u s f e d e r a l or p r o v i n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e (see the Nova S c o t i a Department of Housing P o l i c y and Procedures Manual). T h i s should i n e f f e c t reduce t o near zero those households which have r e c e i v e more than one form of a s s i s t a n c e . However, the c l i e n t p r o f i l e of SCAP i n d i c a t e d t h a t some 48% had r e c e i v e d p r e v i o u s a s s i s t a n c e . We can o n l y assume t h a t the a c t u a l p e r c e n t of households which r e c e i v e p r o v i n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e i s something below 1.48%. 188 CHAPTER V I I : CONCLUSIONS T h i s c o n c l u s i o n i s comprised of t h r e e components. F i r s t , a summary of the e m p i r i c a l r e s e a r c h conducted i n Nova S c o t i a i s p r e s e n t e d w i t h i n a d i s c u s s i o n of some of the broader i s s u e s of r e n o v a t i o n . Second, these c o n c l u s i o n s are compared t o the r e s u l t s of o t h e r s t u d i e s i n the area of r e n o v a t i o n . T h i r d , p r i o r i t i e s and i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r f u r t h e r study are o u t l i n e d . A. SUMMARY OF EMPIRICAL RESEARCH R i g h t l y or wrongly, the p e r v a s i v e i d e o l o g y i n housing i s f o r households t o d e s i r e ownership of a s i n g l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g . Given t h i s f a c t , i t becomes important f o r i n d i v i d u a l households t o r e p a i r and m a i n t a i n t h e i r homes, and f o r the s t a t e t o promote the maintenance and upkeep of both p r i v a t e and p u b l i c d w e l l i n g s . Is t h i s i n f a c t happening? Are Nova S c o t i a n s m a i n t a i n i n g t h e i r homes, and i f so, t o what extent? Are they b e i n g adequately a s s i s t e d by the government? The e m p i r i c a l component of the study of r e n o v a t i o n i n Nova S c o t i a has showed t h a t t h e r e are s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f i c u l t i e s i n d e t e r m i n i n g an a p p r o p r i a t e d e f i n i t i o n of r e n o v a t i o n , and i n f i n d i n g adequate sources of i n f o r m a t i o n on r e n o v a t i o n a c t i v i t y . The term r e n o v a t i o n i s v e r y broad; r e n o v a t i o n c o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d t o cover e v e r y t h i n g from r o u t i n e maintenance t o an expensive improvement. T h i s study has examined the more s i g n i f i c a n t forms of r e n o v a t i o n , those which r e q u i r e a r e n o v a t i o n permit (because they are e i t h e r expensive or change the s t r u c t u r e of the b u i l d i n g ) . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , t h e r e were i r r e g u l a r i t i e s i n the 189 r e c o r d i n g of r e n o v a t i o n s through b u i l d i n g p e r m i t s w i t h i n m u n i c i p a l i t i e s and from area t o area which made the assessment more d i f f i c u l t . S t i l l , s h o r t of a l a r g e - s c a l e survey of a l l households i n the p r o v i n c e , t h i s i s perhaps the most complete account of r e n o v a t i o n a c t i v i t y i n Nova S c o t i a . S e v e r a l important f i n d i n g s emerged as the study progressed. In examining the changes i n the amount of r e n o v a t i o n over time i t was found t h a t a f t e r r e a c h i n g a peak i n the l a t e 1970s, the i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n d e c l i n e d m a r g i n a l l y each year i n each of r u r a l , s m a l l town, and c i t y l o c a l e s , r e p r e s e n t i n g a s i g n i f i c a n t drop over a decade. The average permit v a l u e s , or the average exp e n d i t u r e on r e n o v a t i o n , i n c o n s t a n t d o l l a r s , a l s o d e c l i n e d s i n c e the 197 0s, but have l e v e l l e d o f f i n r e c e n t y e a r s . In 1988 3.17% of a l l s i n g l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s were i s s u e d a r e n o v a t i o n permit, a t an average v a l u e of $6072. These f i g u r e s appear t o be low; y e t , over a t e n year p e r i o d , something i n the o r d e r of one-t h i r d of a l l s i n g l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s made a ' s i g n i f i c a n t * r e n o v a t i o n . 1 2 5 What can be s a i d of the s p a t i a l p a t t e r n of r e n o v a t i o n i n Nova S c o t i a ? The i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n was found t o be h i g h e s t i n the c i t i e s and lowest i n the r u r a l areas; however, average permit v a l u e s were h i g h e s t i n the r u r a l areas and lowest i n the c i t i e s . One i n t e r p r e t a t i o n would be t h a t r e c o r d -keeping i n urban areas i s more thorough, and t h a t the i n c l u s i o n of s m a l l e r r e n o v a t i o n s b r i n g s down the o v e r a l l r e n o v a t i o n f i g u r e . T h i s f i g u r e compares w i t h the Edmonton study by Smith and Woodman which found t h a t 11.4% of a l l s i n g l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s had been ' s i g n i f i c a n t l y ' renovated over the p e r i o d 1971-1986. 190 The Metro r e g i o n and the P i c t o u County r e g i o n had the h i g h e s t i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n , w h i l e the lowest i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n was i n the Cape Breton r e g i o n . S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f r e n o v a t i o n were found among the t h r e e s e t t l e m e n t s i z e s . When we c o n s i d e r t h e i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n , s t r o n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n the Metro ( c i t i e s ) c a t e g o r y were found w i t h areas w i t h h i g h e r percentages of r e c e n t movers, wi t h areas of h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n l e v e l s , w i t h h i g h e r average f a m i l y incomes and d w e l l i n g v a l u e s , w i t h areas w i t h a low need f o r r e p a i r , lower unemployment l e v e l s , and w i t h a low r e l i a n c e on government t r a n s f e r payments. When these c h a r a c t e r i s -t i c s are examined i n urban (small town) and r u r a l areas, the r e l a t i o n s h i p s , although present, become p r o g r e s s i v e l y weaker or n o n - e x i s t e n t . In s m a l l towns the o n l y s t r o n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s are wi t h a low r e l i a n c e on government t r a n s f e r s , w i t h a h i g h e r i n c i d e n c e of r e c e n t movers, and wit h lower l e v e l s o f unemployment. In r u r a l areas the onl y s t r o n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s are w i t h lower f a m i l y incomes and lower e d u c a t i o n l e v e l s . I f we examine the r e l a t i o n -s h i p s w i t h average permit v a l u e s , t h i s p a t t e r n f a i l s t o emerge; most l i k e l y t h i s i s due t o the nature o f r e c o r d i n g and r e p o r t i n g data. However, the f o l l o w i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s a re worth n o t i n g . In Metro, permit v a l u e s i n c r e a s e w i t h unexpected c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s such as i n c r e a s e d unemployment l e v e l s ; t h i s r e f l e c t s t he nature of r e p o r t i n g r e n o v a t i o n s which i n Metro tend t o cover more of the s m a l l e r v a l u e r e n o v a t i o n s . In urban (small town) areas the same s i t u a t i o n emerges, but a t lower i n t e n s i t i e s . In r u r a l areas the 191 average permit v a l u e s are h i g h e s t and they do not have the same r e l a t i o n s h i p s as i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n . The s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s of r e n o v a t i o n data suggests t h a t both g e n t r i f i c a t i o n and incumbent upgrading, as w e l l as c l a s -s i f i c a t i o n s somewhere between these two, are o c c u r r i n g i n Nova S c o t i a . Some of the key c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of g e n t r i f i c a t i o n are p r e s e n t i n the metro area, w h i l e the f a c t t h a t t h e r e are few s t r o n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n urban and r u r a l areas suggests t h a t r e n o v a t i o n i s widespread and touches a l l household, income, and d w e l l i n g t y p e s . The impact of f e d e r a l and p r o v i n c i a l r e n o v a t i o n a s s i s t a n c e programs must not be overlooked. RRAP appears t o be w e l l - t a r g e t e d t o those areas i n need, and i s complemented w e l l by a t r i o of p r o v i n c i a l programs. In 1988, the l a r g e s t of the f e d e r a l programs, RRAP, a s s i s t e d 1864 homeowners w i t h $11 336 000 i n g r a n t s . In the most a c t i v e year, 1984, RRAP b e n e f i t t e d 2533 households at a c o s t of $13.5 m i l l i o n , and c u m u l a t i v e l y s i n c e the program began i n the 1975 i t has d i s p e r s e d $180 m i l l i o n t o 36 045 Nova S c o t i a n h o u s e h o l d s . 1 2 6 In a d d i t i o n t o t h i s major f e d e r a l pro-gramme, the t h r e e p r o v i n c i a l programs a s s i s t e d 3061 homeowners w i t h $8 449 251 i n g r a n t s and l o a n s . These f i g u r e s t r a n s l a t e i n t o 2.35% of a l l s i n g l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s r e c e i v i n g some form of r e n o v a t i o n a s s i s t a n c e from government i n 1988; t h i s t r a n s l a t e s i n t o n e a r l y one-quarter of the p r o v i n c e ' s s i n g l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s r e c e i v i n g some form of r e n o v a t i o n a s s i s t a n c e . The Cape Breton 126 A l s o i n c l u d e d i n t h i s t o t a l are r e n t a l and d i s a b l e d RRAP t o t a l s . 192 r e g i o n , w h i l e s c o r i n g p o o r l y on o v e r a l l r e n o v a t i o n s a c c o r d i n g t o permit data, has the h i g h e s t i n c i d e n c e of RRAP use. Conversely, and not s u r p r i s i n g l y , RRAP take-up has been p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y lowest i n the Metro r e g i o n . The a n a l y s i s of r e n o v a t i o n i n Nova S c o t i a a l l o w s us t o r e a s s e s s the model of the l i n k a g e s among v a r i o u s a c t o r s i n the r e n o v a t i o n process which was pre s e n t e d i n Chapter 2. In Nova S c o t i a i t was found t h a t the b u r e a u c r a t i c n ature o f the process was an important f a c t o r , e s p e c i a l l y i n the manner i n which renova-t i o n a c t i v i t y i s r e p o r t e d and recor d e d by b u i l d i n g i n s p e c t o r s . The b u i l d i n g i n s p e c t o r s i n some of the r u r a l m u n i c i p a l i t i e s have a d i f f i c u l t time m o n i t o r i n g r e n o v a t i o n due t o l a c k o f manpower and time. A l s o , we know t h a t homeowners tend t o a v o i d r e p o r t i n g r e n o v a t i o n s f o r f e a r of i n c r e a s e d assessment v a l u e s . When c o n s i d e r i n g the i s s u e of the r o l e o f the government i n the r e n o v a t i o n p r o c e s s , i t has been shown t o be q u i t e d i f f e r e n t throughout the p r o v i n c e . Only s i n c e 1987 has every m u n i c i p a l i t y been o b l i g e d t o en f o r c e the N a t i o n a l B u i l d i n g Code, which means t h a t the government, t o a degree, c o n t r o l s what type of renova-t i o n s are pe r m i t t e d , how much they w i l l c o s t the homeowner i n terms of permit f e e s , and so on. As w e l l , the government c o n t r o l s a l a r g e p o o l of f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s which means t h a t i t determines who r e c e i v e s a s s i s t a n c e and what the homeowner may do w i t h t h a t a s s i s t a n c e . 193 B. COMPARISON WITH OTHER STUDIES The m a j o r i t y of r e n o v a t i o n r e l a t e d s t u d i e s have focused on the p r o c e s s a t an urban or i n n e r c i t y l e v e l , and s h o r t o f survey work completed by independent r e s e a r c h bodies, l i t t l e i s known about r e n o v a t i o n as i t p e r t a i n s t o s m a l l town and r u r a l areas. D e s p i t e t h i s problem, t h i s study of r e n o v a t i o n p a t t e r n s i n Nova S c o t i a f o r the most p a r t matches the f i n d i n g s o f s e v e r a l other s t u d i e s . Throughout the 1980s the percentage share o f r e n o v a t i o n i n t he o v e r a l l c o n s t r u c t i o n expenditure has f l u c t u a t e d ; t h i s study has found t h a t throughout the 1980s the average permit v a l u e i n c u r r e n t d o l l a r s has climbed m a r g i n a l l y each year s i n c e 1980, and i n c o n s t a n t d o l l a r s has d e c l i n e d i n the e a r l y p a r t of the 1980s but has s i n c e r e c o v e r e d and maintained a marg i n a l r a t e o f i n c r e a s e over the l a s t f i v e y e a r s . Other s t u d i e s have found t h a t r e n o v a t i o n i n c r e a s e s w i t h h i g h e r d w e l l i n g v a l u e s , h i g h e r average incomes, h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n l e v e l s , and among r e c e n t movers. In metro areas, and t o a l e s s e r degree i n s m a l l towns, these r e l a t i o n s h i p s h o l d t r u e i n Nova S c o t i a . The study o f Edmonton found t h a t r e n o v a t i o n i s p r i n c i p a l l y e x p l a i n e d by p r o x i m i t y t o ame n i t i e s and by h i g h s o c i a l s t a t u s . T h i s was found t o be t r u e i n the metro area of Nova S c o t i a . I t i s know t h a t r e n o v a t i o n i s low i n neighbourhoods which are i n p e r c e i v e d t o be i n d e c l i n e ; i n Nova S c o t i a , the Cape Breton r e g i o n i s i n economic d e c l i n e and shows the lowest i n c i d e n c e of r e n o v a t i o n i n the p r o v i n c e . The use of the survey i n f o r m a t i o n conducted by Mount A l l i s o n a l s o found t h a t s e l f - h e l p i s high, and t h a t the primary motive f o r r e n o v a t i n g 194 i s t o make the home look b e t t e r . The h i g h c o s t of r e n o v a t i n g was found t o i n h i b i t a number of homeowners who wished t o renovate. C. IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY I t i s lamentable t h a t t h e r e are so few sources of raw, d i s a g g r e g a t e d i n f o r m a t i o n d e t a i l i n g the volume and nature of r e n o v a t i o n a t a l o c a l s c a l e . The use of b u i l d i n g p e rmits a t a somewhat d i s a g g r e g a t e d l e v e l has o n l y begun t o s c r a t c h t h e s u r f a c e of r e n o v a t i o n i n Nova S c o t i a . I t i s d i f f i c u l t t o access i n d i v i d u a l permits from the i n d i v i d u a l m u n i c i p a l i t i e s f o r reasons of c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y . I f these c o u l d be accessed, they c o u l d p r o v i d e much more i n f o r m a t i o n which would allow, f o r example, a mapping of r e n o v a t i o n l o c a t i o n s w i t h i n a m u n i c i p a l i t y u s i n g s t r e e t address i n f o r m a t i o n . A b u i l d i n g permit would a l s o l i s t the name of the c o n t r a c t o r ( i f used), which would a s s i s t i n a d i s c u s s i o n of the i n d u s t r y i t s e l f . Perhaps a more u s e f u l approach would be t o reduce the s i z e of the study area by f o c u s i n g on one r e g i o n ; the Metro r e g i o n would appear t o be the most l i k e l y c andidate because t h e r e i s a much more complete data base w i t h which t o work. There are s t i l l some q u e s t i o n s which remain unanswered or answered i n a l e s s than s a t i s f a c t o r y manner based on the use of b u i l d i n g permits t o d e s c r i b e r e n o v a t i o n . Why i s i t t h a t d e s p i t e the f a c t c l o s e t o o n e - t h i r d of Nova S c o t i a n homes have been ' s i g n i f i c a n t l y ' renovated over the p a s t t e n y e a r s , the p r o v i n c e 195 c o n t i n u e s t o have one of the h i g h e s t percentage of homes i n need of r e p a i r ? Are t h e r e c e r t a i n neighbourhoods or communities w i t h i n our study areas which renovate more o f t e n than o t h e r s , and i f so, why? In which of these neighbourhoods are the homeowners a c c e s s i n g government a s s i s t a n c e ? Why are the r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n r u r a l areas so much l e s s c l e a r l y d e f i n e d than they are i n metro and urban areas? The use of more 'personal* i n f o r m a t i o n from the b u i l d i n g p e rmits might be of some use here. The c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n model of the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n r e n o v a t i o n o f f e r e d i n Chapter 2 needs t o be more c l o s e l y s c r u t i n i z e d and improved upon. For example, what i s the r e l a t i v e s t r e n g t h of each of these r e l a t i o n s h i p s ? Are t h e r e o t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n s and r e l a t i o n s h i p s which need t o be addressed? I t would be u s e f u l t o examine i n more d e t a i l the r e l a t i o n s h i p between government a s s i s t e d r e n o v a t i o n a t the f e d e r a l l e v e l v i s a v i s the p r o v i n c i a l l e v e l . T h i s would h e l p t o more f u l l y e x p l a i n the process by which f u n d i n g i s both t a r g e t e d and a l l o t t e d t o households i n need, and t o b e t t e r assess the t a r g e t e d g o a l s of the r e s p e c t i v e programs. Short of a c o s t l y and time-consuming p e r s o n a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e t h e r e would seem t o be few other c h o i c e s f o r a source of informa-t i o n on r e n o v a t i o n a t the m u n i c i p a l l e v e l . One p o s s i b i l i t y would be t o use assessment r e c o r d s t o monitor changes i n assessment v a l u e f o r every d w e l l i n g i n a g i v e n area. T h i s procedure was used by Smith and Woodman i n t h e i r Edmonton study. We know t h a t the i s s u e of a r e n o v a t i o n permit b r i n g s about a reassessment of the d w e l l i n g . However, each d w e l l i n g i s r e a s s e s s e d every t h r e e t o f i v e y ears, so i t may be d i f f i c u l t t o determine whether or not an 196 i n c r e a s e i n assessment v a l u e was brought about by changes i n the i n d i v i d u a l d w e l l i n g (through r e n o v a t i o n perhaps), or i n changes t o the neighbourhood and community as a whole. In any case the se a r c h f o r i n f o r m a t i o n on r e n o v a t i o n w i l l always i n v o l v e a degree of u n c e r t a i n t y and i n d e c i s i o n . 197 BIBLIOGRAPHY Ashdown, Jean. " R e s i d e n t i a l R e h a b i l i t a t i o n : The Homeowner's D e c i s i o n . " Canadian Home Economics J o u r n a l . 38(1), 1988. p. 16-19. "Baby-Boom Houses Showing W r i n k l e s . " M a i l S t a r . J u l y 15, 1989. p. 1C. Baker, Joseph. "The Canadian Conference on Housing and R e h a b i l i t a t i o n : I n t r o d u c t i o n t o the Conference." Housing  and People. 5(1), 1974. p. 1-4. Barnard, P e t e r . "Housing R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Programs: R a t i o n a l e s and Problems." H a b i t a t . 17(4/5), 1974. p. 6-9. Bourne, L. S. Geography of Housing. London: W. H. Winston and Sons, 1981. Brown, P. The Demographic Future: Impacts on the Demand f o r Housing i n Canada 1981-2001. Ottawa, CMHC 1981. B u i l d i n g Towards 2001. Proceedings, O n t a r i o M i n i s t r y of M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s and Housing. Toronto, November 1-4, 1981. Bunting, T r u d i E. Reinvestment i n Older . I n n e r - C i t y Housing. CMHC, 1986. Bunting, T r u d i E. " I n v i s i b l e Upgrading i n Inner C i t i e s : Homeowners' Reinvestment Behaviour i n C e n t r a l K i t c h e n e r . " Canadian Geographer. 31(3), 1987. p. 209-222. Bunting, T r u d i E. and Al a n Phipps. "Inner C i t y Home Renovation i n Two Medium-Sized Canadian C i t i e s : A Case of Modest Upgrading." i n The Changing Canadian Inner C i t y . E d i t e d by T r u d i Bunting and P i e r r e F i l i o n . Waterloo: U n i v e r s i t y of Waterloo, 1988. p. 137-157. Bunting, T r u d i E. and P i e r r e F i l i o n , e d i t o r s . The Changing Canadian Inner C i t y . Waterloo: U n i v e r s i t y of Waterloo, 1988. Canadian A s s o c i a t i o n of Housing and Renewal O f f i c i a l s (CAHRO). B r i e f t o Mr. G. Anderson, P r e s i d e n t , Canada Mortgage and Housing C o r p o r a t i o n , on the Renovation C o n s u l t a t i o n , Round Two Options. J u l y 29, 1988. CAHRO. Housing Renovation and the R e s i d e n t i a l R e h a b i l i t a t i o n  A s s i s t a n c e Program i n Canada. P o s i t i o n Statement i n Response t o A C o n s u l t a t i o n Paper on Renovation. November, 1987. CAHRO. R e s i d e n t i a l R e h a b i l i t a t i o n A s s i s t a n c e Program: P o s i t i o n  Paper. May, 1985. 198 CMHC. The Renovation C o n s u l t a t i o n P rocess: Round One Consensus and Round Two Options. May 1988. CMHC. The Urban R e s i d e n t i a l R e h a b i l i t a t i o n A s s i s t a n c e Program  and the Neighbourhood Improvement Program. 1981 Trends Report. Capozza, D., S.W. Hamilton, and R. H e l s l e y . Government I n t e r v e n t i o n i n R e s i d e n t i a l Renovation: A R a t i o n a l e Review  and Study of I n t e r v e n t i o n Impacts. Prepared o f CMHC. F a c u l t y of Commerce and Business A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, March 1986. Ca r l s o n , David. R e v i t a l i z i n g North American Neighbourhoods: A  Comparison of Canadian and U.S. Programs f o r Neighbourhood P r e s e r v a t i o n and Housing R e h a b i l i t a t i o n . Washington D.C. : The Urban I n s t i t u t e , 1979. Carveth, W. Bruce. Housing Needs i n Maritime Canada. H a l i f a x , CMHC, 1983. Caskie, Donald M. Renovation i n the 1990s: The I n d u s t r y ' s  Viewpoint. Canadian Home B u i l d e r s ' A s s o c i a t i o n , 1987. Clay, P h i l l i p L. Neighbourhood Renewal. L e x i n g t o n Mass.: D.C. Heath and Co., 1979. Cl a y t o n Research A s s o c i a t e s L t d . An Examination o f the 1982  FAMEX Survey, R e s i d e n t i a l A c t i v i t y Data, Canada and On t a r i o . Volume 1, February 1985. Cl a y t o n Research A s s o c i a t e s L t d . The Nature of the R e s i d e n t i a l  Renovation Market i n O n t a r i o . February 1987. Cl a y t o n Research A s s o c i a t e s L t d . R e s i d e n t i a l R e p a i r and Renova- t i o n i n A l b e r t a . Prepared f o r the A l b e r t a Homebuilders A s s o c i a t i o n , 1986. Corbe t t , Ron. "Rural R e s i d e n t i a l Renovation: A Case Study of R u r a l Homeowners i n A t l a n t i c Canada". P l a n Canada. 29(3), 1989. p. 9-16. Cowan, R u s s e l l . "Home Improvement: Do I t Y o u r s e l f T h i s Year." A t l a n t i c Advocate. 77(9), 1987. p. 27-29. DPA Group Inc. F i n a l Report: The Nova S c o t i a R e s i d e n t i a l Renovation Ind u s t r y Study. Prepared f o r CMHC, H a l i f a x , December 1987. Dantas, A l i s o n . " O v e r s p i l l as an A l t e r n a t i v e S t y l e of G e n t r i f i c a t i o n : The Case of R i v e r d a l e , Toronto." i n The Changing  Canadian Inner C i t y . E d i t e d by T r u d i Bunting and P i e r r e F i l i o n . Waterloo: U n i v e r s i t y of Waterloo, 1988. p. 73-86. 199 DeGiovanni, Frank. " P a t t e r n s of Change i n Housing Market A c t i v i t y i n R e v i t a l i z i n g Neighbourhoods." J o u r n a l of American Planners A s s o c i a t i o n . 49(1), 1983. p. 22-40. Denhez, Mark. Government Involvement i n R e s i d e n t i a l Renovation: The L e g a l B a s i s . D i s c u s s i o n Paper, March 1986. Dodds, C a r o l . The R e s i d e n t i a l C o n s t r u c t i o n I n d u s t r y : Problems  i n S h i f t i n g From New C o n s t r u c t i o n t o Renovation A c t i v i t i e s . Unpublished M.A., School of Community and Re g i o n a l P l a n n i n g , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, May 1985. Dykeman, F l o y d and Ron Co r b e t t . A Matter o f Record: A Review of  P o p u l a t i o n Changes and the I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r R u r a l and Small  Town Canada and the A t l a n t i c Region. Department of R u r a l and Small Town Research and S t u d i e s Programme, Mount A l l i s o n U n i v e r s i t y , S a c k v i l l e , New Brunswick, 1986. "Expansion Planned f o r Renovation Seminars." Canadian Housing. 6(3), 1989. p. 43. F a l l i s , George. Housing R e h a b i l i t a t i o n . Toronto: Butterworths, 1985. F l e t c h e r , Maria. "Home Renovation." Canadian Consumer. 16(2), 1986. p. 10-14. F r a s e r , R i t a . The R e s i d e n t i a l R e h a b i l i t a t i o n A s s i s t a n c e Program: I t s Impact on the Re n t a l Market of the NIP I  Area of H a l i f a x . Unpublished Research P r o j e c t f o r M.B.A. Program, S a i n t Mary's U n i v e r s i t y , 1982. G e n t r i f i c a t i o n of the C i t y . E d i t e d by N e i l Smith and Pe t e r W i l l i a m s . Boston: A l l e n and Unwin, 1986. Gray, Malcolm. "The Renovation Rage i n Canadian Homes." McLean 1s. 100(44), 1987, p. 42-43. Hale, Robert. The P r o v i n c e s and Pr o p e r t y Maintenance Bylaws. Ottawa: CMHC, 1986. Hedman, David. "Home Improvement i n the Yukon." Canadian  Housing. 6(3), 1989. p. 30-33. H e l l y e r , P a u l . Report of the Task Force on Housing and Urban  Development. Ottawa: 1969. Housing Programs: In Search of Balance. A Study Team Report t o the Task Force on Program Review. Ottawa: M i n i s t r y of Supply and S e r v i c e s , 1986. "How t o H i r e A C o n t r a c t o r . " M a i l S t a r . J u l y 1, 1989. p. 1C. 200 H u l c h a n s k i , David. Making B e t t e r Use of the E x i s t i n g Housing Stock. O n t a r i o , M i n i s t r y of M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s and Housing, 1982. Ind, C. P. Sweat E g u i t y i n R e h a b i l i t a t i o n . Prepared f o r the Community Renewal Branch, CMHC, 1975. Kalman, H a r o l d . The S e n s i b l e R e h a b i l i t a t i o n of Older Homes. Ottawa: CMHC, 1979. "Ki t c h e n and Bathrooms Give Best Returns." M a i l S t a r . August 5, 1989. p. 1C. L i s t o k i n , David. Housing R e h a b i l i t a t i o n . New Brunswick, New Je r s e y : Rutgers, 1983. L i s t o k i n , David. The Dynamics of Housing R e h a b i l i t a t i o n . New Brunswick, New J e r s e y : Rutgers, 1973. Mark, Johnathan and Mi c h a e l Goldberg. An A n a l y s i s of the E f f e c t of RRAP on Housing Values. Working Paper #988. F a c u l t y of Commerce and Business A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , U n i v e r -s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, January 1984. Mercer, John and Deborah P h i l l i p s . " A t t i t u d e s o f Homeowners and the D e c i s i o n t o R e h a b i l i t a t e P r o p e r t y . " Urban  Geography. 12(3), 1981. p. 216-236. M i l l w a r d , Hugh. " C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of R e s i d e n t i a l Upgrading Processes: A H a l i f a x Case Study." i n The Changing Canadian  Inner C i t y . E d i t e d by T r u d i Bunting and P i e r r e F i l i o n . Waterloo: U n i v e r s i t y of Waterloo, 1988. p. 107-120. M i l l w a r d , Hugh and Donna Davis. "Housing Renovation i n H a l i f a x : ' G e n t r i f i c a t i o n 1 or 'Incumbent Upgrading'." P l a n  Canada. 26(6), 1986. p. 148-155. "New L i f e f o r an Old Home." M a i l S t a r . August 5, 1989. p. 1C. Old-House J o u r n a l . Brooklyn, New York: Old-House J o u r n a l Company. V a r i o u s Years. P e t e r Barnard A s s o c i a t e s . Improving R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Technology. CMHC, 1973. Pe t e r Barnard A s s o c i a t e s . I n t r o d u c t i o n t o the R e h a b i l i t a t i o n  Process. CMHC, 1973. Pe t e r Barnard A s s o c i a t e s . "Housing R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Programs: R a t i o n a l e s and Problems," H a b i t a t . 14(4/5), 1974. p. 6-9. P h i l l i p s , Deborah. Urban Housing Q u a l i t y ; The Importance of  A t t i t u d e s i n the D e c i s i o n t o R e h a b i l i t a t e . Unpublished M. A. T h e s i s , Department of Geography, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1976. P h i l l i p s , Deborah. "Information D i f f u s i o n W i t h i n An Inner C i t y Neighbourhood. 1 1 G e o g r a f i s k a Annaler. 61B, 1979. p.30-42. Phipps, A l a n . "Housing Renovations by Recent Movers i n t o the Core of Neighbourhoods of Saskatoon." Canadian  Geographer. 27(3), 1983. p. 240-262. Pinsky, Barry and Pe t e r S i j p k e s . "Housing Renovation and User C o n t r o l . " H a b i t a t . 17(4/5), 1974. p. 22-26. P o e l , Dale with S y l v i a Haines. The NIP Experience i n H a l i f a x : A Review of P a r t i c i p a t i o n , Process, and Program. H a l i f a x , Nova S c o t i a , 1986. Program E v a l u a t i o n D i v i s i o n . R e s i d e n t i a l R e h a b i l i t a t i o n A s s i s  tance Program E v a l u a t i o n . CMHC, 1986. Program E v a l u a t i o n D i v i s i o n . The Canadian Renovation Market. CMHC Background Paper, 1986. Program E v a l u a t i o n D i v i s i o n . R e s i d e n t i a l Renovation Overview:  Summary Report. CMHC, 1988. Program E v a l u a t i o n D i v i s i o n . R e s i d e n t i a l Renovation Overview:  Program E v a l u a t i o n Report. CMHC, 1988. Puxley, P e t e r . "The Canadian Conference on Housing R e h a b i l i t a t i o n : R u r a l Housing Inadequacies." Housing and People. 5(1), 1974. p. 10-12. Rakhra, A. S. and A. H. Wilson. "The Market f o r R e h a b i l i t a t i o n i n Canada." Canadian A r c h i t e c t . 25(4), 1980. p. 14-15. "Record $77 M i l l i o n f o r R e s i d e n t i a l R e h a b i l i t a t i o n i n Quebec." Canadian Housing. 6(3), 1989. p. 45. "Renovation - A Recipe f o r Success." M a i l S t a r . June 17, 1989. p. 1C. "Renovation: One Option f o r Real E s t a t e I n v e s t o r s . " M a i l  S t a r . J u l y 8, 1989. p. 1C. "Renovation Rundown." M a i l S t a r . June 24, 1989. p. 1C. 202 R i c h a r d s , P a t r i c i a . Neighbourhood R e v i t a l i z a t i o n and the Old  Northern Suburb. Unpublished Master of Urban and R u r a l P l a n n i n g T h e s i s , T e c h n i c a l U n i v e r s i t y of Nova S c o t i a . H a l i f a x , August 1986. Rowe, Andy. " S e l f - h e l p Housing: P r o v i s i o n , Consumption, Accommodation, and P u b l i c P o l i c y i n A t l a n t i c Canada." Housing S t u d i e s . 4(2), 1989. p. 75-91. R u r a l and Small Town Research and St u d i e s Program. The  R e s i d e n t i a l Renovation I n d u s t r y i n A t l a n t i c Canada:  Homeowners. P r e l i m i n a r y H i g h l i g h t s . S a c k v i l l e , New Brunswick, March 1986. R u r a l and Small Town Research and S t u d i e s Program. The  R e s i d e n t i a l Renovation Ind u s t r y i n A t l a n t i c Canada:  Co n t r a c t o r s / T r a d e s p e o p l e . P r e l i m i n a r y H i g h l i g h t s . S a c k v i l l e , New Brunswick, March 1986. R u r a l and Small Town Research and St u d i e s Program. The  R e s i d e n t i a l Renovation Ind u s t r y i n A t l a n t i c Canada:  B u i l d i n g Supply D e a l e r s . P r e l i m i n a r y H i g h l i g h t s . S a c k v i l l e , New Brunswick, March 1986. R u r a l and Small Town Research and S t u d i e s Program. The R e s i d e n t i a l Renovation Ind u s t r y i n A t l a n t i c Canada: L o c a l  B u i l d i n g I n s p e c t o r s . P r e l i m i n a r y H i g h l i g h t s . S a c k v i l l e , New Brunswick, March 1986. "Saskatchewan's New Renovation Program." Canadian Housing. 6(3), 1989. p. 43. Scanada C o n s u l t a n t s L t d . The P o t e n t i a l Market f o r R e s i d e n t i a l Renovation i n Canada: A P i l o t Study o f H a l i f a x . CMHC, November, 1979. "Scheduling Your Renovations." M a i l S t a r . June 17, 1989. p. 1C. Shear, W i l l i a m . "Urban Housing R e h a b i l i t a t i o n and Move D e c i s i o n s . " Southern Economic J o u r n a l . 49(4), 1983. p. 1030-1052. Smith, Peter and E. Woodman. Geographic Overview o f Housing Renovations i n Edmonton. Mimeo, Department of Geography, U n i v e r s i t y of A l b e r t a , January 1989. Snapshot of the C o n d i t i o n of Housing i n Canada. CMHC 1987. S o c i a l P o l i c y Research A s s o c i a t e s . An E v a l u a t i o n of RRAP. Report f o r CMHC, 1979. 203 S t a t i s t i c a l S e r v i c e s D i v i s i o n . Sources of R e s i d e n t i a l R e h a b i l  i t a t i o n Data. Prepared f o r the B u i l d i n g Renovation Forum. CMHC 198 6. S t a t i s t i c s Canada. Homeowner Repair and Renovation Expenditure  i n Canada. Cat. No. 62-201. Sweeney, James. "Housing U n i t Maintenance and Mode of Tenure." J o u r n a l of Economic Theory. 8 ( 2 ), 1974. p. 111-138, T a u s i g , C h r i s t i n e . "Three Cheers f o r CHRP." H a b i t a t . 26(4), 1983. p. 24-28. TEEGA Research C o n s u l t a n t s Inc. A Review of Research on  R e s i d e n t i a l Renovation. Ottawa, January 1989. T o f t , Marion. " R e s i d e n t i a l Renovators F i n d R e s p e c t a b i l i t y . " Canadian B u i l d i n g . 31(4), 1981. p. 24-26. T o f t , Marion. "No Need t o B u i l d New." Canadian B u i l d i n g . 32(11/12), 1982. p. 41. T o f t , Marion. "By-Laws T r i p Up Renovators." Canadian  B u i l d i n g . 32(6), 1982. p. 25-26. T o f t , Marion. "Renovating. 1 1 Canadian B u i l d i n g . 32(1/2), 1982. p. 19-24. Tucker, E a r l . The E x t e r n a l B e n e f i t s of Government S u b s i d i z e d  R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Programs. Unpublished M.Sc. T h e s i s , F a c u l t y of Commerce and Business A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , Univer s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, May 1983. Wekerle, Gerda. Changing Face: Study of an Inner C i t y  Neighbourhood. CMHC, 1980. Weston, J u l i a . " G e n t r i f i c a t i o n and Displacement: An Inner C i t y Dilemma." H a b i t a t . 25(1), 1982. p. 10-19. W i l l s o n , K a t h e r i n e . Housing R e h a b i l i t a t i o n i n Canada: A Review of P o l i c y Goals and Program Design. Report #16, Centre f o r Urban and Community S t u d i e s , U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto, 1980. Wright, M i c h e a l . " R e h a b i l i t a t i o n of Dwellings i n R u r a l Areas." Housing and People. 8(1), 1977. p. 24-27. 204 APPENDIX B RENOVATION AND RRAP STATISTICS BY REGION, SETTLEMENT SIZE, AND PROVINCE A - Average Value of Permits, Current D o l l a r s B - Average Value of Permits, Constant D o l l a r s , (1981 = 100) C - Inc i d e n c e of Renovation D - Average Value of RRAP Grant, Current D o l l a r s E - In c i d e n c e of RRAP CAPE BRETON REGION RICHMOND COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS Year # T o t a l $ A B 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 367 1809345 4930 4054 1985 306 1261896 4124 3249 1986 314 1331945 4242 3238 1987 326 1361430 4176 3082 1988 286 1209353 4229 3016 VICTORIA 1977 1978 1979 133 823033 6187 7657 1980 93 587821 6321 7078 1981 104 923850 8883 8883 1982 105 720576 6863 6273 1983 103 672879 6533 5613 1984 102 795430 7798 6413 1985 70 638100 9116 7183 1986 37 482300 13035 9950 1987 59 631010 10695 7893 1988 45 1854096 RRAP c # T o t a l $ D E 34 165000 4853 1 .21 128 520000 4063 4 .57 137 602000 4394 4 .90 136 529000 3890 4 .85 115 508000 4417 3 .82 117 577000 4932 3 . 88 96 552000 5750 3 . 18 12.20 85 531000 6247 2 .82 10.10 3 8 252000 6632 1 .26 9.62 31 188000 6065 0 .95 9.90 35 243000 6943 1 . 08 8.70 30 231000 7700 0 .91 84 360000 4286 4 .37 125 536000 4288 6 .49 6.94 110 453000 4118 5 .71 4.85 76 461000 6066 3 . 95 4.85 86 466000 5419 4 . 02 4.90 89 476000 5348 4 . 15 4.81 88 563000 6398 4 . 10 4.76 80 531000 6638 3 .73 3.27 32 214000 6688 1 .49 1.48 38 275000 7237 1 .52 2.35 36 242000 6722 1 .43 1. 80 37 245000 6622 1 .48 206 INVERNESS 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 36 336000 9333 9333 1982 1983 29 349000 12034 10338 1984 18 204000 11333 9320 1985 20 790000 39500 1986 29 579500 19983 15254 1987 51 786000 15412 11374 1988 39 410000 10513 7499 CAPE BRETON COUNTY 1977 1978 1979 324 1144960 3534 4374 1980 212 849885 4009 4489 1981 121 552046 4562 4562 1982 162 656966 4055 3707 1983 187 1074713 5747 4937 1984 218 1438969 7906 6502 1985 182 1517416 8337 6570 1986 188 1888169 10043 7666 1987 190 1969253 10364 7649 1988 168 1923855 11452 8168 SYDNEY 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 164 477717 2913 3262 1981 165 590933 3582 3582 1982 168 709673 4225 3862 1983 146 832605 5703 4899 1984 153 991355 6479 5328 1985 107 1322586 12361 9741 1986 106 740922 6990 5336 1987 126 2024343 16066 11857 1988 84 837121 9966 7108 63 284000 4508 1 .70 92 364000 3957 2 .48 184 747000 4060 4 .98 221 904000 4090 5 .95 197 960000 4873 5 . 32 0 .87 174 918000 5276 4 .18 166 958000 5771 4 . 00 0 .70 159 1037000 6711 3 .83 0 .43 168 1003000 5970 4 .05 0 .48 54 323000 5981 1 .30 0 .63 61 335000 5492 1 .32 1 .10 53 326000 6151 1 . 14 0 .94 55 323000 5873 1 . 19 84 366000 4358 0 .93 282 1107000 3926 3 . 13 3. 60 285 1183000 4150 3 .16 2. 35 296 1311000 4429 3 .28 1. 15 260 1219000 4688 2 .48 1. 55 236 1211000 5131 2 .25 1. 79 225 1429000 6351 2 . 15 2. 08 206 1335000 6481 1 .97 1. 74 146 1104000 7561 1 .39 1. 70 146 1041000 7103 1 .32 1. 72 139 961000 6914 1 .26 1. 52 146 953000 6527 1 . 32 129 509000 3945 2 .38 142 699000 4922 2 . 62 203 1022000 5034 3 .75 170 846000 4976 3 . 13 3. 03 97 533000 5494 1 .79 2. 75 80 475000 5936 1 .34 2 . 80 89 430000 4831 1 .49 2. 44 91 513000 5637 1 .52 2. 55 68 407000 5985 1 .14 1. 79 77 479000 6221 1 .29 1. 80 110 677000 6155 1 .87 2. 14 108 656000 6074 1 . 83 1. 42 92 601000 6533 1 .56 207 NORTH SYDNEY 1979 53 187015 3529 4368 1980 66 300090 4547 5092 1981 45 123650 2748 2748 1982 68 423830 6233 5697 1983 52 322608 6204 5330 1984 28 258614 9236 7595 1985 28 288429 10301 8117 1986 11 106700 9700 7405 1987 23 371380 16147 11917 1988 41 571305 13934 9939 SYDNEY MINES 1976 1977 1978 1979 96 423104 4407 5454 1980 91 401110 4408 4936 1981 161 885378 5499 5499 1982 125 756179 6049 5529 1983 89 567096 6372 5474 1984 81 538817 6652 5470 1985 33 284978 8636 6805 1986 22 224575 10208 7792 1987 19 195380 10283 7589 1988 25 241606 9664 6893 NEW WATERFORD 1977 1978 1979 135 507258 3757 4650 1980 119 449844 3780 4233 1981 111 472245 4254 4254 1982 65 285039 4385 4008 1983 69 331530 4805 4128 1984 42 227997 5429 4465 1985 15 82700 5513 4344 1986 13 117320 9025 6889 1987 11 69847 6350 4686 1988 22 210887 9586 6837 3.65 4.55 2. 75 58 278000 4793 3. 55 4. 18 74 436000 5892 4. 55 3. 18 86 542000 6302 5. 26 1. 71 52 382000 7346 3. 18 1. 71 21 149000 7095 1. 28 0. 66 45 310000 6889 2. 70 1. 38 45 349000 7755 2. 70 2. 50 34 233000 6853 2 . 04 219 461000 2105 12. 66 110 605000 5500 6. 33 158 752000 4759 9 . 09 5. 52 102 483000 4735 5. 85 5. 24 94 512000 5447 5. 41 8. 55 123 659000 5358 6. 54 6. 62 118 637000 5398 6. 05 4. 72 95 599000 6305 5. 05 4. 29 75 452000 6027 3. 98 1. 75 20 123000 6150 1. 06 1. 06 23 177000 7696 1. 11 0. 92 21 148000 7048 1. 01 1. 20 33 200000 6061 1. 59 75 455000 6067 4. 95 119 678000 5697 7. 85 8. 93 85 489000 5753 5. 62 7. 87 128 628000 4906 8. 47 6. 67 137 653000 4766 8. 20 3. 91 116 600000 5172 6. 94 4. 15 103 627000 6087 6. 17 2. 53 79 503000 6367 4. 74 0. 94 14 91000 6500 0. 84 0. 77 15 103000 6867 0. 89 0. 65 13 110000 8462 0. 77 1. 30 17 130000 5882 1. 01 208 DOMINION 1978 44 218000 4955 8 .47 1979 39 124610 3195 3954 7 .52 67 310000 4627 12 .82 1980 28 69830 2493 2792 5 . 38 82 373000 4549 15 .87 1981 26 99308 3820 3820 4 .48 56 277000 4946 9 .62 1982 21 98190 4676 4274 3 . 62 36 218000 6056 6 .21 1983 31 154529 4985 4283 5 .35 50 127000 2540 8 . 62 1984 34 154103 4532 3727 5 .85 36 188000 5522 6 .21 1985 22 120735 5488 4325 3 .79 6 33000 5500 1 . 03 1986 11 85420 7764 5927 1 .71 6 33000 5500 0 .93 1987 14 96807 6915 5103 2 .17 3 20000 6667 0 .47 1988 5 14640 2928 2088 0 .78 5 22000 4400 0 .78 GLACE BAY 1977 101 454000 4495 2. 49 1978 178 798000 4483 4. 39 1979 146 462820 3170 3923 3. 61 158 725000 4589 3. 91 1980 98 368975 3765 4216 2. 42 184 912000 4957 4 . 55 1981 105 488589 4653 4653 2 . 29 187 910000 4866 4. 08 1982 92 489468 5370 4909 2. 01 171 900000 5263 3 . 73 1983 94 533525 5767 4954 2. 05 167 1023000 6126 3 . 65 1984 60 399925 6665 5482 1. 31 232 1321000 5690 5. 08 1985 63 575313 9132 7196 1. 38 53 351000 6623 1. 16 1986 41 390794 9532 7276 0. 89 71 454000 6394 1. 54 1987 55 586239 10659 7866 1. 19 73 442000 6054 1. 58 1988 69 815874 11824 8434 1. 49 81 453000 5593 1. 75 NORTHERN NOVA SCOTIA GUYSBOROUGH 1979 37 173800 4697 5813 2 . 06 1980 37 174800 4724 5290 2 . 06 1981 34 176132 5180 5180 1 .78 1982 25 138925 5557 5080 1 .31 1983 47 396498 8436 7247 2 .46 1984 83 406461 4897 4027 4 .33 1985 76 345870 4551 3586 3 .97 1986 89 545117 6125 4676 4 .20 20 125248 6262 0 .95 1987 76 323750 4260 3144 3 .60 34 239425 7042 1 .61 1988 85 742547 8736 6231 4 . 02 21 138227 6582 0 .99 ANTIGONISH < COUNTY 1983 12 81796 6816 5856 0. 44 1984 17 84847 4991 4104 0. 63 1985 12 41700 3475 2738 0. 44 1986 8 33712 4214 3217 0. 26 18 115359 6409 0 .59 1987 24 282580 11774 8684 0. 78 22 140125 6369 0 .72 1988 12 200980 16748 : 11946 0. 39 23 184010 8000 0 .75 209 PICTOU COUNTY 1972 132 398582 2952 6709 1973 107 448607 4193 8846 1974 122 557672 4571 8717 1975 89 269650 3030 5127 1976 163 1977 248 809608 3265 4827 1978 336 1009512 3005 4061 1979 290 1074658 3706 4587 1980 156 1981 123 697415 5670 5670 1982 160 696793 4355 3981 1983 153 802405 5244 4505 1984 152 969340 6377 5244 1985 176 1151524 6543 5156 1986 161 1062610 6600 5038 1987 131 800986 6114 4512 1988 63 450314 7148 5098 NEW i GLASGOW 1972 123 271590 2208 5018 1973 112 476736 4257 8981 1974 112 348431 3111 5926 1975 88 295533 3358 5682 1976 131 1977 271 1120704 4069 6010 1978 343 888871 2591 3501 1979 233 645174 2769 3427 1980 203 680000 3350 3751 1981 213 603443 2833 2833 1982 190 588496 3097 2831 1983 176 746015 4239 3642 1984 156 640905 4108 3378 1985 133 589890 4435 3495 1986 153 748970 4895 3737 1987 138 1169330 8473 6253 1988 117 626437 5354 3819 3.06 2.49 2.84 2.07 3.37 5. 13 8 32000 4000 0. 17 6. 94 40 180000 4500 0. 83 5. 99 42 188322 4484 0. 87 3. 22 71 282248 3975 1. 47 2. 24 72 324010 4500 1. 31 2 . 79 75 349835 4544 1. 37 2. 77 58 375683 6477 1. 06 3. 22 50 378073 7561 0. 91 2. 62 62 410000 6613 1. 13 2. 13 70 467000 6671 1. 14 2. 13 65 474559 7301 1. 06 1. 03 86 550583 6402 1. 40 5.88 5.35 5.35 4.20 6.13 12 . 65 60 245614 4094 2 . 81 16. 13 68 295126 4340 3 . 18 10. 87 18 84245 4680 0. 84 9. 52 13 53357 4104 0. 61 8. 93 24 88204 3675 1. 00 7. 94 41 199925 4876 1. 92 7. 35 38 224218 5900 1. 78 6. 54 29 174576 6020 1. 36 5. 56 24 116341 4848 1. 12 6. 41 26 146619 5639 1. 09 5. 78 27 241501 8944 1. 13 4. 91 40 242931 6073 1. 68 210 PICTOU 1972 43 269845 6275 14261 1973 32 73905 2310 4873 1974 37 118548 3204 6103 1975 29 189241 6526 11042 1976 31 1977 69 260060 8968 13247 1978 157 368697 3518 1754 1979 135 368679 2731 3380 1980 119 460000 3866 4329 1981 127 363370 2861 2861 1982 112 761725 6801 6217 1983 86 302854 3521 3025 1984 88 303398 3 4 48 2836 1985 66 322600 4888 3852 1986 81 512118 6322 4826 1987 66 253420 3840 2834 1988 72 306695 4260 3039 STELLARTON 1972 38 135105 3555 8080 1973 31 111750 3604 7603 1974 35 571350 16324 1975 40 110900 2733 5206 1976 69 1977 136 390442 2871 4241 1978 178 662544 3722 5030 1979 113 362559 3208 3970 1980 113 370000 3274 3666 1981 97 313766 3235 3235 1982 95 217431 2289 2092 1983 74 199475 2696 2316 1984 58 245425 4387 3608 1985 84 341350 4064 3203 1986 71 310400 4372 3337 1987 67 235918 3521 2599 1988 4 2 193530 4608 3206 4.53 3.37 3.79 3.05 3.03 6.71 15. 38 40 144000 3600 3. 91 13. 16 34 97705 2874 3. 32 11. 63 58 214551 3699 5. 65 11. 63 47 186903 3977 4. 61 10. 20 40 189259 4731 3 . 65 7. 87 60 255642 4261 5. 46 8. 06 33 183935 5574 3 . 01 6. 02 18 101418 5634 1. 64 7. 41 18 133000 7389 1. 65 6. 06 22 130322 5924 2. 02 6. 61 20 115565 5778 1. 83 3 .42 2.79 3.15 3 . 60 7.41 14 . 71 67 255230 3809 7. 19 19. 23 107 443642 4146 11. 49 12. 19 56 212663 3798 6. 02 12. 19 45 186082 4135 4. 83 9. 35 27 108139 4005 2. 60 9. 17 39 164000 4205 3 . 75 7. 09 35 214664 6133 3. 37 5. 59 33 179963 5453 3. 17 8. 06 19 91951 4840 1. 83 6. 71 13 65664 5051 1. 21 6. 26 21 107904 5138 1. 95 3 . 91 18 103908 5772 1. 68 211 TRENTON 1972 25 33090 1324 3009 1973 16 79770 4986 10519 1974 12 43770 3648 6949 1975 20 64311 3216 5442 1976 42 1977 75 176797 2357 3482 1978 78 194749 2497 3374 1979 83 216982 2614 3235 1980 90 260000 2889 3235 1981 65 218562 3362 3362 1982 71 231020 3254 2974 1983 55 271095 4929 4235 1984 48 185535 3865 3178 1985 46 198550 4316 3401 1986 36 133723 3715 2836 1987 24 96600 4025 2970 1988 34 167275 4920 3509 WESTVILLE 1972 22 32028 1456 3309 1973 18 34685 1930 4072 1974 42 79885 1905 3629 1975 29 68918 2376 4020 1976 78 1977 93 190096 2044 3019 1978 93 232887 2504 3384 1979 97 277354 2859 3538 1980 115 300000 2609 2922 1981 126 346119 2747 2747 1982 76 203663 2680 3364 1983 65 326390 5021 4314 1984 65 236710 3641 2994 1985 73 246880 3382 2665 1986 64 202920 3171 2421 1987 53 317800 5996 4426 1988 45 211285 4695 3349 CUMBERLAND COUNTY 1979 31 1980 90 1981 1982 127 1983 124 708338 5712 4907 1984 128 532846 4163 3424 1985 142 748661 5272 4154 1986 127 608847 4794 3660 1987 211 1012399 4798 3541 1988 203 1321975 6512 4645 3.47 2.22 1.67 2.78 5.41 9.71 10. 10 24 100869 4203 3. 11 10. 75 51 203700 3994 6. 58 11. 63 53 207018 3906 6. 85 7. 94 44 166789 3791 5. 38 8. 70 35 191000 5457 4. 27 6. 71 44 254446 5783 5. 38 5. 85 35 183815 5252 4. 27 5. 62 10 66079 6608 1. 22 4. 37 10 65321 6532 1. 21 2. 91 17 92528 5442 2. 06 4. 12 14 70991 5071 1. 70 2.56 2.09 4.88 3.37 8.20 9.71 9 . 71 21 100251 4774 2 . 20 10. 20 45 187160 4159 4. 72 12 . 05 50 198144 3963 5. 24 12. 05 36 150698 4186 3 . 46 7. 30 39 188302 4828 3 . 75 6. 25 43 255005 5930 4. 13 6. 25 30 180000 6000 2. 88 7. 04 19 100097 5268 1. 83 5. 88 16 91736 5734 1. 47 4 . 88 16 91167 5697 1. 47 4. 15 17 96536 5679 1. 57 0.70 2.04 2 . 66 23 0. 47 2 .55 55 344593 6265 1. 13 2 .63 69 461468 6702 1. 42 2 .92 46 330702 7189 0. 95 2 .36 11 90195 8200 0. 20 3 .92 28 284022 10144 0. 52 3 .77 4 27122 6781 0. 07 212 AMHERST 1981 83 348787 4202 4202 4. 03 1982 146 578499 3692 3374 7. 09 229248 1983 146 1164436 7975 6851 7. 09 210202 1984 98 404796 4947 4068 4. 76 272223 1985 67 513798 7669 6043 3. 26 150000 1986 69 247740 5040 3847 3. 03 117651 1987 217196 1988 77 682482 8863 6322 3. 38 284482 SPRINGHILL Year 1987 1988 # 31 23 BUILDING PERMITS T o t a l $ A B 187054 6034 4453 C 2 .35 1.74 RRAP T o t a l $ ANNAPOLIS VALLEY WEST HANTS 1972 38 1.41 1973 29 1.08 1974 69 2.56 1975 63 2.34 1976 94 3.13 1977 63 2 .10 1978 79 2.62 1979 85 2 . 82 1980 92 3.06 1981 102 3.06 1982 191 5.71 1983 158 4.74 1984 161 4.83 1985 165 4.95 1986 162 4.10 1987 179 4.52 1988 169 4.27 213 KINGS 1971 296 4.07 1972 220 3.02 1973 199 2.73 1974 160 2.20 1975 165 2.27 1976 270 3.29 1977 269 3.28 1978 214 2.60 1979 187 2.28 1980 348 4.24 1981 455 2303729 5063 5063 4.74 1982 231 2.40 1983 4 62 1572340 3403 2924 4.81 1984 519 1705286 3286 2702 5.38 1985 477 1694164 3552 2799 4.95 1986 421 1325471 3148 2403 3.75 85 448832 5280 0. 75 1987 380 1700169 4474 3302 3.38 87 475890 5470 0. 77 1988 436 1792843 4112 2933 3.88 86 452007 5256 0. 76 KENTVILLE- BERWICK 1971 11 50600 4650 10976 0.73 1972 18 76750 4264 9691 1.19 1973 12 98100 8175 17247 0.79 1974 15 85900 5727 10908 0.99 1975 9 28950 3217 5443 0.60 1976 17 104200 6129 9791 1.10 1977 20 137800 6890 10177 1.29 1978 27 102800 3807 5145 1.74 1979 15 97175 6478 8017 0.97 1980 17 75050 4415 4944 1.10 1981 17 72503 4265 4265 1.09 1982 21 111829 5325 4867 1.34 1983 28 203250 7259 6236 1.79 1984 19 76930 4049 3330 1.21 1985 19 115076 6056 4775 1.21 1986 4 4 225875 5134 3919 2.59 6 21588 3598 0. 35 1987 23 73459 3194 2357 1.35 6 27686 4814 0. 35 1988 18 173033 9613 6857 1. 06 6 22938 3823 0. 35 ANNAPOLIS COUNTY 1981 82 1.55 1982 9 9 1.87 1983 91 1.72 1984 90 1.70 78 439734 5638 1. 47 1985 102 1.93 64 353005 5516 1. 21 1986 83 1.43 58 344738 5944 1. 00 1987 85 1.46 89 466024 5236 1. 53 1988 115 1.98 107 795381 7433 1. 84 214 SOUTH SHORE DIGBY 1987 155 759851 4902 3618 5.08 1988 160 954475 5965 4255 5.23 373 SINCE 1980 DIGBY TOWN 1988 24 147082 6128 4368 4.44 CLARE 1984 26 172483 6634 0. 95 1985 33 197222 5976 1. 21 1986 16 96140 6009 0. 53 1987 187 6 .21 22 138331 6288 0. 73 1988 168 5 .56 28 184564 6592 0. 93 YARMOUTH 1978 24 98860 4119 5566 1 .05 1979 33 171955 5211 6449 1 .45 1980 32 147900 4622 5176 1 .40 1981 26 105655 4063 4063 0 .92 1982 35 152347 4353 3979 1 .24 1983 26 157823 6070 5215 0 .92 1984 23 179737 7815 6427 0 . 82 41 242456 5914 1. 45 1985 19 123952 6525 5142 0 . 67 38 230830 6074 1. 35 1986 80 344511 4306 3287 2 .48 40 231511 5788 1. 42 1987 97 311632 3213 2371 3 . 01 23 136337 5927 0. 82 1988 90 675330 7504 5352 2 .79 29 153587 5296 1. 03 ARGYLE 1976 9 22000 2444 3904 0 .42 1977 3 19000 6333 9355 0 .14 1978 8 50600 6325 8547 0 .37 1979 7 55500 7929 9813 0 .33 1980 11 59200 5382 6027 0 .51 1981 12 56837 4736 4736 0 .48 1982 4 28400 7100 6490 0 .16 1983 9 73500 8167 7016 0 .36 1984 9 62300 6922 5692 0 .36 27 163564 6059 1. 08 1985 15 63750 4252 3351 0 .60 22 123479 5613 0. 88 1986 10 99246 9925 7576 0 .36 2 6 148319 5705 0. 94 1987 26 216830 8340 6155 0 .94 34 210712 6197 1. 23 1988 22 170391 7745 5524 0 .80 25 121479 4859 0. 90 215 BARRINGTON 1975 16 86000 5375 9095 0. 91 1976 17 57323 3372 5387 0. 90 1977 16 46900 2931 4329 0. 85 1978 31 109975 3548 4793 1. 64 1979 7 8 319720 4099 5073 4. 13 1980 30 144330 4811 5387 1. 59 1981 34 236970 6970 6970 1. 62 1982 24 147530 6147 5619 1. 14 1983 32 249121 7785 6688 1. 52 1984 35 298141 8518 7005 1. 67 25 140762 5630 1 . 19 1985 25 218193 8728 6878 1. 19 23 147534 6415 1 . 10 1986 30 288560 9619 7343 1. 22 22 149767 6808 0 .90 1987 70 300060 4287 3164 2. 86 34 179866 5290 1 .39 1988 58 436000 7517 5362 2. 37 25 150401 6016 1 .02 SHELBURNE 1978 34 142848 4201 1.87 1979 37 134196 3627 2.03 1980 21 81630 3887 1.15 1981 41 166054 4050 2.10 1982 31 146169 4715 1.59 1983 28 161165 5756 1.44 1984 29 172667 5954 1.49 1985 23 143156 6224 1.18 1986 18 115150 6397 0.75 1987 7 3 349250 4784 3531 3. 04 13 87167 6705 0.54 1988 91 610660 6711 4787 3 . 79 11 54078 4916 0.46 QUEENS 1977 1 0.04 1978 28 1.03 1979 52 1.91 1980 54 1.98 1981 49 1.71 1982 50 201847 4037 3690 1. 75 70 2.45 1983 51 245875 4821 4142 1. 78 25 0.87 1984 44 272200 6186 5087 1. 54 30 1.05 1985 44 217070 4933 3887 1. 54 24 0.84 1986 55 236980 4309 3289 1. 70 20 0. 62 1987 74 535900 7242 5345 2. 29 5 0.15 1988 98 710750 7253 5173 3 . 03 34 1. 05 216 LIVERPOOL 1982 32 1983 48 1984 25 1985 31 1986 ' 26 1987 38 97865 2575 1900 1988 35 98286 2808 2003 BRIDGEWATER 1977 1978 1979 1980 17 88000 5224 5850 1981 18 83625 4646 4646 1982 37 135390 3659 3345 1983 40 181770 4544 3904 1984 45 335625 7458 6133 1985 53 392700 7409 5838 1986 28 246400 8800 6718 1987 73 526805 7217 5509 1988 81 406051 5013 3576 LUNENBURG MUNICIPAL DISTRICT 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 161 1306800 6842 5878 1984 137 1095964 8000 6579 1985 355 2424335 6829 5381 1986 224 1560628 6967 5318 1987 162 1953030 12056 8897 1988 216 1936576 8966 6395 LUNENBURG TOWN 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 9 47840 5316 3.79 3.83 5.75 2.94 3 .71 3.06 4.47 4.12 26 80644 3102 0. 21 25 85422 3417 0. 20 19 59469 3130 0. 15 1. 38 4 10026 2507 0. 15 1. 26 11 46708 4246 0. 03 2. 59 28 88978 3178 0. 08 2. 79 19 79076 4162 0. 20 3. 14 19 77479 4092 0. 13 3. 70 10 40389 4039 0. 13 1. 89 11 50634 4603 0. 07 4. 95 7 33101 4729 0. 05 5. 46 9 56742 6305 0. 06 45 166165 3693 0. 45 94 331011 3521 0. 94 97 345400 3557 0. 98 113 470717 4166 1. 14 2. 29 97 564211 5817 0. 98 1. 95 103 561459 5451 1. 04 5. 05 69 410451 5948 0. 69 2. 84 69 447687 6488 0. 62 2. 05 67 455956 6805 0. 60 2. 73 101 731160 7239 0. 91 25 78164 3127 3. 73 23 63350 2754 3. 43 12 40366 3364 1. 79 23 66917 2909 3 . 43 15 34032 2269 2. 03 28 87506 3125 3 . 78 31 94172 3038 4. 19 20 72370 3 619 2 . 70 8 23800 2975 1. 08 2 4900 2450 0. 28 0 0 1. 27 4 19910 4978 0. 56 217 C H E S T E R 1 9 8 8 1 5 3 7 0 1 8 0 8 4 5 8 6 3 2 7 1 4 . 5 6 METRO REGION T R U R O 1 9 7 1 36 7 4 9 5 0 2 0 8 2 4 9 0 1 1 . 5 8 1 9 7 2 3 0 6 2 1 5 0 2 0 7 2 4 7 0 9 1 . 3 1 1 9 7 3 26 5 4 2 5 0 2 0 8 7 4 4 0 3 1 . 1 4 1 9 7 4 65 1 3 9 7 2 5 2 1 5 0 4 0 9 5 2 . 8 4 1 9 7 5 5 0 1 0 8 2 0 0 2 1 6 4 3 6 6 2 2 . 1 9 1 9 7 6 47 1 2 4 2 0 0 2 6 4 3 4 2 2 2 2 . 0 6 1 9 7 7 52 9 3 6 0 0 1 8 0 0 2 6 5 9 2 . 2 8 1 9 7 8 59 1 1 0 2 1 5 1 8 6 8 2 5 2 4 2 . 5 8 1 9 7 9 6 1 1 2 6 9 6 9 2 0 8 1 2 5 7 5 2 . 6 7 1 9 8 0 34 8 7 9 4 0 2 5 8 6 2 8 9 6 1 . 4 9 1 9 8 1 55 2 4 7 9 1 5 4 5 0 8 4 5 0 8 2 . 1 1 1 9 8 2 36 4 3 0 3 0 1 1 9 5 1 0 9 2 1 . 3 8 1 9 8 3 47 2 6 6 8 2 0 5 6 7 7 4 8 7 7 1 . 8 0 13 5 6 4 9 2 4 5 6 7 0 . 5 0 1 9 8 4 68 3 4 4 9 6 7 5 0 7 3 4 1 7 2 2 . 6 0 19 1 2 8 5 5 1 6 7 6 6 0 . 7 3 1 9 8 5 7 1 3 3 6 8 1 7 4 7 4 4 3 7 3 9 2 . 7 2 6 3 5 6 7 9 5 9 4 7 0 . 2 3 1 9 8 6 1 2 2 5 8 8 2 7 8 4 8 2 2 3 6 8 1 4 . 7 4 14 9 8 0 2 1 7 0 0 2 0 . 5 4 1 9 8 7 83 4 5 8 0 9 4 5 5 3 1 4 0 8 2 3 . 2 3 17 1 1 4 4 0 1 6 7 2 9 0 . 66 1 9 8 8 97 4 5 1 7 6 1 4 6 5 7 3 3 2 2 3 . 7 7 23 1 2 3 8 9 3 5 3 8 7 0 . 8 9 C O L C H E S T E R C O U N T Y 1 9 7 1 1 5 5 2 2 1 3 7 7 1 4 2 8 3 3 6 8 2 . 8 2 1 9 7 2 1 1 0 2 1 4 7 0 8 1 9 5 2 4 4 3 6 2 . 0 0 1 9 7 3 1 1 7 3 0 1 5 1 5 2 5 7 7 5 4 3 7 2 . 12 1 9 7 4 83 3 3 6 2 8 8 4 0 5 2 7 7 1 8 1 . 5 1 1 9 7 5 1 2 8 3 7 9 6 0 0 2 9 6 6 5 0 1 9 2 . 3 3 1 9 7 6 1 0 6 7 0 8 2 5 0 6 6 8 2 1 0 6 7 4 1 . 68 1 9 7 7 1 0 5 5 7 4 8 0 0 5 4 7 4 8 0 8 6 1 . 66 1 9 7 8 1 1 5 5 5 8 9 8 5 4 8 6 1 6 5 6 9 1 . 8 2 43 1 3 9 5 9 5 3 2 4 6 0 . 68 1 9 7 9 1 3 6 1 0 4 8 4 4 3 7 7 0 9 9 5 4 1 2 . 16 38 1 4 7 0 1 8 3 8 6 9 0 . 60 1 9 8 0 1 6 2 2 1 3 6 5 6 0 1 3 1 8 7 1 4 7 6 7 2 . 5 7 6 5 2 4 9 4 8 1 3 8 3 8 1 . 03 1 9 8 1 1 6 1 1 4 5 9 1 8 5 9 0 6 3 9 0 3 6 2 . 15 7 1 3 0 4 8 8 1 4 2 9 4 0 . 9 5 1 9 8 2 1 8 9 1 1 1 6 6 1 1 5 9 0 8 5 4 0 0 2 . 5 2 1 0 5 4 7 3 7 1 8 4 5 1 2 1 . 4 0 1 9 8 3 222 1 5 0 8 1 8 5 6 7 9 4 5 8 3 7 2 . 9 6 9 9 5 7 8 8 8 6 5 8 4 7 1 . 32 1 9 8 4 1.91 1 5 2 2 7 7 4 7 9 7 3 6 5 5 7 2 . 5 4 68 3 7 9 8 4 7 5 5 8 6 0 . 9 1 1 9 8 5 2 2 0 1 9 2 8 6 4 2 8 7 6 7 6 9 0 9 2 . 9 3 7 7 4 5 5 3 5 0 5 9 1 4 1 . 03 1 9 8 6 1 7 0 1 1 8 3 1 7 2 6 9 6 0 5 3 1 3 1 . 9 2 88 4 4 5 1 3 6 5 0 5 8 0 . 9 9 1 9 8 7 2 4 4 2 7 8 0 8 1 9 1 1 3 9 7 8 4 1 1 2 . 7 5 1 1 0 6 0 6 5 5 0 5 5 1 4 1 . 2 4 1 9 8 8 2 0 7 1 8 9 7 2 1 4 9 1 6 5 6 5 3 7 2 . 3 3 93 4 8 2 7 9 0 5 1 9 1 1 . 05 2 1 8 EAST HANTS 1971 45 113950 2532 5972 1 .67 1972 84 160125 1906 4332 3 .12 1973 61 111210 1823 3846 2 .26 1974 85 228775 2691 5126 3 .14 1975 98 362950 3704 6267 3 .62 1976 87 321425 3695 5903 2 .70 1977 112 372447 3325 4911 3 .47 1978 85 517274 6086 8224 2 .63 1979 113 369125 3267 4043 3 .50 1980 121 653308 5399 6046 3 .75 1981 125 776997 6216 6216 3 .23 78 314887 4037 1. 08 1982 145 864010 5959 5447 3 .75 99 419192 4234 1. 37 1983 180 1170532 6503 5587 4 . 65 92 507284 5514 1. 28 1984 112 854811 7632 6276 2 .89 101 513504 5084 1. 40 1985 124 1048560 8456 6664 3 .21 80 361345 4517 1. 11 1986 106 1049618 9902 7559 2 .23 99 546058 5516 1. 14 1987 108 1115652 10330 7624 2 .27 74 435645 5887 0. 85 1988 93 981972 10559 7531 1 .96 64 360199 5628 0. 73 HALIFAX : COUNTY 1971 460 935582 2034 4797 3. 11 1972 495 1655160 3343 7598 3 . 34 1973 462 2244397 4858 10249 3 . 12 1974 456 2162947 4743 9034 3 . 08 1975 505 3641189 7210 12200 3 . 41 1976 672 3165022 4710 7524 3 . 41 1977 800 5464298 6803 10049 4. 07 1978 855 5469268 6397 8645 4. 35 1979 903 6803744 7564 9361 4. 59 1980 853 7097317 8320 9317 4. 33 1981 845 6500899 7693 7693 3. 55 1982 972 7770891 7995 7308 4. 08 1983 977 4392562 4496 3863 4. 11 1984 997 4286426 4299 3535 4. 18 179 1023784 5719 0. 75 1985 805 4404614 5472 4314 3. 39 101 825032 8169 0. 42 1986 757 4344564 5739 4381 2. 55 65 445573 7073 0. 22 1987 894 5003406 5597 4131 3. 01 108 639827 5924 0. 36 1988 906 4392481 4848 3458 3. 06 91 652456 7170 0. 31 219 DARTMOUTH 1971 351 574813 1638 3863 1972 378 810220 2143 4870 1973 411 795390 1935 4082 1974 384 784509 2043 3891 1975 476 2593510 5455 9230 1976 518 1170454 2459 3928 1977 525 1255528 2391 3532 1978 725 1649761 2276 3076 1979 670 1800693 2688 3327 1980 773 2144272 2774 3106 1981 770 2175916 2826 2826 1982 784 2380643 3037 2776 1983 606 2332252 3849 3307 1984 633 2504859 3957 3254 1985 663 2873735 4334 3415 1986 620 3128203 5045 3851 1987 662 3230932 4881 3602 1988 653 3130172 4794 3419 HALIFAX CITY 1971 537 662549 1234 2910 1972 746 806345 1081 2457 1973 625 838108 1341 2829 1974 616 940346 1526 2907 1975 779 1563769 2007 3396 1976 909 1679126 1847 2950 1977 905 1748073 1932 2854 1978 715 2420385 3385 4574 1979 755 2992934 3964 4906 1980 837 2605983 3113 3486 1981 852 2836010 3329 3329 1982 932 3613872 3876 3543 1983 895 4168981 4658 4002 1984 736 3057110 4154 3416 1985 785 3473622 4425 3487 1986 561 3062622 5459 4167 1987 682 2968523 4353 3213 1988 642 3125148 4868 3472 BEDFORD 1981 167408 1982 64 321003 5016 4585 1983 75 410189 5468 4698 1984 43 461515 10733 8826 1985 63 649375 10309 8124 1986 76 576000 7579 5785 1987 68 539150 7927 5850 1988 88 610584 6932 4944 4.44 4.78 5.21 4.85 6. 02 17 39408 2318 0. 22 6.06 94 413205 4396 1. 10 6.13 56 218528 3902 0. 66 8.47 91 331275 3640 1. 06 7.81 64 250800 3919 0. 75 9.01 84 297263 3539 0. 98 8.20 61 247985 4065 0. 65 8.33 42 174888 4164 0. 45 6.45 46 202483 4402 0. 49 6.71 41 194084 4733 0. 44 7.04 38 157229 4138 0. 40 5.92 41 176515 4305 0. 39 6.33 66 271005 4106 0. 63 6.21 44 173620 3946 0. 42 3.73 5.19 4.35 4.29 5.42 32 156413 4888 0. 22 6. 62 73 389649 5338 0. 53 6.58 52 216506 4164 0. 38 5.18 49 146663 2393 0. 36 5.46 148 421832 2850 1. 07 6. 06 277 552880 1996 2. 01 5.52 339 738639 2179 2. 20 6. 06 279 757270 2714 1. 81 5.81 271 832743 3073 1. 76 4.78 307 921284 3001 1. 99 5.10 172 570176 3315 1. 12 3.75 33 154837 4692 0. 22 4.55 44 189797 4314 0. 29 4.29 34 147342 4334 0. 23 4.46 5.23 3.00 4.39 4.38 3.92 5.07 220 RURAL 1971 660 1270909 1926 4542 1972 821 2458575 2995 6807 1973 747 3105729 4158 8772 1974 746 3285682 4404 8389 1975 836 4739389 5669 9592 1976 891 4274020 4797 7663 1977 1284 7287053 5675 8383 1978 1482 7814474 5273 7126 1979 2054 11984938 5834 7220 1980 1677 12031121 7174 8033 1981 2076 14125715 6804 6804 1982 1871 12494896 6678 6104 1983 2769 13591835 4909 4217 1984 3152 16518877 5241 4310 1985 3068 18618447 6069 4783 1986 2797 16666233 5954 4549 1987 3189 22194007 6960 5137 1988 3215 21437071 6668 4756 SMALL TOWN 1971 47 125550 2671 6270 1972 257 880558 3426 7786 1973 245 929196 3793 8002 1974 318 1387609 4364 8312 1975 267 866053 3243 5487 1976 415 228400 3569 5701 1977 717 2369499 3305 4881 1978 937 2560799 2733 3693 1979 1208 3799699 3145 3892 1980 1110 3910839 3523 3945 1981 1249 4667160 3737 3737 1982 1258 5244522 4299 3930 1983 1170 5981482 5331 4580 1984 958 4815262 5161 4244 1985 867 4059119 6051 4768 1986 868 4717234 5602 4276 1987 786 5295688 6738 4972 1988 924 4976662 6468 4613 2.87 3.01 2.73 2.73 2.87 2 . 68 63 384000 4508 1. 70 3 .37 302 1287000 4262 1. 42 3 .67 836 3372443 4174 2. 90 3 .87 915 3777701 4377 2. 35 3 .47 956 4205370 4662 2. 46 2 .72 994 4638232 4908 1. 92 2 .66 1031 5081631 5288 2. 00 2 .95 997 6112786 6289 1. 76 3 .25 1335 8049801 6168 1. 39 3 . 17 915 5881106 6601 0. 96 2 .68 973 6055713 6354 0. 77 2 .90 1078 6777456 6316 0. 83 2 .84 1096 6790044 6394 0. 82 1 .24 2 .70 2 .57 3 . 34 2 .80 4 .30 219 461000 2105 1. 26 7 .43 439 2095488 4773 3. 78 9 .70 804 3615310 4497 5. 41 6 .23 635 2851942 4491 4. 27 5 . 52 711 2794178 3630 4. 78 5 . 12 750 3524441 4699 4. 13 4 . 69 737 3812464 5173 4. 06 4 .39 753 4257543 5654 3. 63 3 .59 782 3954589 5057 3. 77 3 .25 230 1298954 5648 1. 11 3 .12 268 1727995 6448 1. 26 2 .93 282 1879924 6666 1. 33 3 .04 321 1891414 5892 1. 51 221 CITIES 1971 888 1237362 1393 3285 3 .98 1972 1124 1616565 1438 3268 5 . 04 1973 103 6 1633498 1577 3327 4 . 65 1974 1000 1724855 1725 3286 4 .48 1975 1255 4157279 3313 5606 5 . 63 49 195822 3996 0 .22 1976 1427 2849580 1997 3190 6 .39 296 1311864 4432 1 .05 1977 1430 3003601 2100 3102 6 .40 250 1134034 4536 0 .88 1978 1440 4070146 2826 3819 6 .45 343 1499938 4372 1 .21 1979 1445 4793627 3317 4105 6 .47 382 1518632 3975 1 .35 1980 1774 5227972 2947 3300 6 .39 458 1383143 3020 1 .65 1981 1787 5602859 3135 3135 5 .80 480 1461624 3045 1 .56 1982 1884 6704188 3558 3252 6 . 12 410 1362158 3322 1 .33 1983 1647 7333838 4453 3826 5 .35 408 1548226 3795 1 . 32 1984 1522 6553324 4306 3541 4 .94 416 1522368 3660 1 .35 1985 1555 7669943 4932 3887 5 .05 287 1206405 4204 1 .93 1986 1287 6931747 5386 4111 4 . 11 184 1008352 5480 0 .59 1987 1470 8223798 5594 4128 4 .69 218 1116802 5123 0 .70 1988 1379 7092441 5143 3668 4 .40 170 921962 5423 0 .54 PROVINCE 1971 1595 2633821 1651 3893 3 .25 1972 2252 4946498 2196 4991 3 .70 1973 2030 5668423 2792 5890 3 .33 1974 2064 6398146 3100 5905 3 .39 1975 2 3 56 9762621 4144 7012 3 .87 49 195822 3996 0 . 22 1976 2733 7352000 2690 4297 4 .19 578 2156864 3732 1 .71 1977 3431 12625153 3680 5436 4 .89 991 4516522 4558 1 .62 1978 3859 14439794 3742 5057 5 .33 1983 8487691 4280 2 .88 1979 4707 20578264 4372 5411 4 .99 1932 8148275 4218 2 .81 1980 4561 21166932 4641 5197 4 .76 2125 8382691 3945 2 .61 1981 5112 24395534 4772 4772 3 .89 2224 9624297 4327 2 .21 1982 5007 24443876 4913 4491 3 .92 2178 10256253 4709 2 .16 1983 5586 26907155 4859 4174 3 .69 2158 11918555 5522 2 . 00 1984 5629 27887463 4976 4092 3 .65 2533 13526758 5340 1 .72 1985 5490 31347509 5783 4557 3 .56 1432 8386465 5856 0 .97 1986 4952 28315213 5748 4388 3 .36 1425 8792060 6170 0 .79 1987 5445 35693493 6555 4616 3 .25 1578 9774182 6194 0 .86 1988 5518 33506174 6072 4331 3 .17 1587 9603410 6051 0 .87 222 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0098276/manifest

Comment

Related Items