Graduate Studies, College of (Okanagan)
DSpace
UBCO
Littley, Kenneth James
Master of Arts - MA
University of British Columbia
The purpose of this research is to understand the application of sustainability principles at the level of local governments of different sizes in the Province of British Columbia. Sustainability principles in the study area are integrated into all other community planning processes through the development of an Integrated Community Sustainability Plan (ICSP). However, the process for developing an ICSP, including the definition of what sustainability means and how it is applied, is left up to the individual community, leading to conceptual confusion. Through a literature review, the study identifies pillars, principles, and ecological and anthropocentric ideologies of sustainability, which are then used to assess local government sustainability frameworks. When local governments develop their ICSPs, a fundamental challenge is the misunderstanding of concepts and principles of sustainability. A tension also exists because the application of sustainability theory is done in local government through the use of urban planning principles, known as “Smart Growth.” Principles of Smart Growth theory, identified in the literature as the way to apply sustainability in the local context, are also explored in communities in four size categories. These urban–centric Smart Growth principles are often grafted onto smaller local governments where they are not scalable for a number of reasons. To identify size–related variables and other variables which affect a community’s understanding of the concept of sustainability, a grounded theory approach, complimented by cross–case study analysis, and a defined coding procedure was used. 16 local government sustainability plans from across the province were reviewed to identify where the plans diverge from the theory as outlined in the literature. To support, validate and extend the findings, semi–structured interviews were conducted with local government planning managers and other senior staff. These expert interviews were then used to identify how size plays a role in a local government’s understanding of sustainability and to identify what other factors also play a role. These complimentary methods lead to the findings for the research question: 1. How does the size of local government affect how sustainability is understood and applied to policy as reflected in ICSPs in British Columbia?
SIZE MATTERS LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUSTAINABILITY PLANNING IN BRITISH COLUMBIA by Kenneth James Littley B.A., The University of British Columbia, 2012 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFULLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE COLLEGE OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Interdisciplinary Studies) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Okanagan) March 2018 © Kenneth James Littley, 2018 ii The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the College of Graduate Studies for acceptance, a thesis entitled: SIZE MATTERS: LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUSTAINABILITY PLANNING IN BRITISH COLUMBIA submitted by Kenneth James Littley in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Arts. Dr. Jon Corbett, Irving K. Barber School of Arts and Sciences Supervisor Dr. Adam Jones, Irving K. Barber School of Arts and Sciences Supervisory Committee Member Dr. Mary Stockdale, Irving K. Barber School of Arts and Sciences Supervisory Committee Member Dr. Thomas Heilke, Irving K. Barber School of Arts and Sciences University Examiner iii Abstract The purpose of this research is to understand the application of sustainability principles at the level of local governments of different sizes in the Province of British Columbia. Sustainability principles in the study area are integrated into all other community planning processes through the development of an Integrated Community Sustainability Plan (ICSP). However, the process for developing an ICSP, including the definition of what sustainability means and how it is applied, is left up to the individual community, leading to conceptual confusion. Through a literature review, the study identifies pillars, principles, and ecological and anthropocentric ideologies of sustainability, which are then used to assess local government sustainability frameworks. When local governments develop their ICSPs, a fundamental challenge is the misunderstanding of concepts and principles of sustainability. A tension also exists because the application of sustainability theory is done in local government through the use of urban planning principles, known as “Smart Growth.” Principles of Smart Growth theory, identified in the literature as the way to apply sustainability in the local context, are also explored in communities in four size categories. These urban–centric Smart Growth principles are often grafted onto smaller local governments where they are not scalable for a number of reasons. To identify size–related variables and other variables which affect a community’s understanding of the concept of sustainability, a grounded theory approach, complimented by cross–case study analysis, and a defined coding procedure was used. 16 local government sustainability plans from across the province were reviewed to identify where the plans diverge from the theory as outlined in the literature. To support, validate and extend the findings, semi–structured interviews were conducted with local government planning managers and other senior staff. These expert interviews were then used to identify how size plays a role in a local government’s understanding of sustainability and to identify what other factors also play a role. These complimentary methods lead to the findings for the research question: 1. How does the size of local government affect how sustainability is understood and applied to policy as reflected in ICSPs in British Columbia? iv Lay Summary Places from big cities to small towns use the concept of ‘sustainability’ to plan where things can be built, and what services the community needs. But different communities have different understandings of what it means to be sustainable. Some past research has looked at what sustainability means for whole countries and for very large cities, and how to plan for sustainability at those levels. This research looks at what sustainability might mean for local communities of different sizes, from small rural areas, to very large cities, and whether the size of the community changes the way it understands sustainability. I answered this question by reading community sustainability plans and conducting interviews with planning experts in ten communities in British Columbia. Through doing this research, I hope to help communities of different sizes make better planning decisions to become more sustainable. v Preface This thesis is original, unpublished, independent work by the author, K. J. Littley. The research interviews reported in Chapters 3 – 4 were covered by UBC Ethics Certificate number H15–03026. vi Table of Contents Abstract...................................................................................................................................... iii Lay Summary ............................................................................................................................. iv Preface ....................................................................................................................................... v Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... vi List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. ix List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. x List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................... xi Glossary.................................................................................................................................... xii Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................. xiv Dedication ................................................................................................................................. xv 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Outlining the Progression of Sustainability Planning for Local Governments .................... 2 1.1.1 The Purpose of Local Governments in British Columbia............................................. 3 1.1.2 Integrated Community Sustainability Plans ................................................................ 4 1.1.3 Local Governments Self–Define Sustainability Based on Three Pillars ...................... 5 1.1.4 Using Smart Growth to Operationalize the Pillars Approach ....................................... 5 1.2 Research Questions and Structure ................................................................................... 5 2. Literature Review ................................................................................................................... 7 2.1 A Framework for Sustainability in Local Governments .....................................................12 2.1.1 Scaling Sustainability ................................................................................................16 2.1.2 Local Governments as Service Providers ..................................................................18 2.1.3 A Framework for Local Government Sustainability ....................................................21 2.1.4 Section Summary ......................................................................................................28 2.2 The Contextual Framework for the ICSP Process ............................................................28 2.2.1 Contextualising Sustainability for ICSPs ....................................................................31 2.2.2 A Critique of the ICSP Context ..................................................................................37 2.2.3 Section Summary ......................................................................................................38 2.3 Rural Versus Urban and Everything in Between ..............................................................39 2.3.1 Ecosystem Services and Community Size ................................................................42 2.3.2 Section Summary ......................................................................................................48 2.4 Urban Planning in British Columbia and the Smart Growth Agenda .................................49 2.4.1 Addressing the Gap: Sustainable Planning for Non–urban Areas ..............................52 vii 2.4.2 Section Summary ......................................................................................................54 3. Methods ................................................................................................................................55 3.1 Theoretical Approach and Rationale ................................................................................55 3.1.1 Researcher’s Background and Disclosure .................................................................57 3.2 Design and Methods ........................................................................................................57 3.2.1 ICSP analysis and coding framework ........................................................................59 3.2.2 Semi–structured interviews and data analysis ...........................................................61 3.4 Data Analysis ..................................................................................................................64 4. Results ..................................................................................................................................65 4.1 Stage 1 – Integrated Community Sustainability Plan Analysis .........................................65 4.1.1 Emergent Findings ....................................................................................................65 4.1.2 ICSP Review Results ................................................................................................68 4.1.3 Discussion of ICSP Coding Results...........................................................................69 4.1.4 Smart Growth Principles Comparison in Sample Local Governments .......................70 4.2 Stage 2 – Interviews ........................................................................................................72 5. Discussion ............................................................................................................................81 5.1 Conceptual Confusion .....................................................................................................81 5.1.1 ICSP Approach: ........................................................................................................81 5.1.2 Compartmentalization of Pillars: ................................................................................82 5.1.3 Post–Sustainability Thinking:.....................................................................................84 5.2 Urban Planning and Urban Bias ......................................................................................85 5.2.1 Grafting: ....................................................................................................................85 5.2.2 The Impetus for Growth: ............................................................................................85 5.2.3 The False Narrative of Urban vs. Rural: ....................................................................86 5.3 Size–Related Capacity ....................................................................................................87 5.3.1 Available Staff ...........................................................................................................87 5.3.2 Available Revenue ....................................................................................................88 5.3.3 Consultants ...............................................................................................................88 5.3.4 Politics ......................................................................................................................90 5.4 Further Considerations ....................................................................................................90 6. Conclusions ..........................................................................................................................92 6.1 Summary of research ......................................................................................................92 6.3 Recommendations ...........................................................................................................93 6.4 Limitations .......................................................................................................................93 6.2 Future Research ..............................................................................................................94 viii References ...............................................................................................................................95 Appendix A: ICSP Analysis Results ........................................................................................ 102 Village of New Denver ......................................................................................................... 102 Village of Clinton ................................................................................................................. 103 Village of Valemount ............................................................................................................ 103 Village of Kaslo .................................................................................................................... 104 City of Revelstoke ............................................................................................................... 105 Regional District of Sunshine Coast .................................................................................... 106 City of Port Alberni............................................................................................................... 106 City of Cranbrook ................................................................................................................ 107 City of Port Moody ............................................................................................................... 108 Regional District of Comox Valley ........................................................................................ 109 City of North Vancouver ...................................................................................................... 110 City of Prince George .......................................................................................................... 110 Township of Langley ............................................................................................................ 111 City of Abbotsford ................................................................................................................ 111 City of Surrey ....................................................................................................................... 112 City of Vancouver ................................................................................................................ 112 Appendix B: Semi–structured Interview Questions .................................................................. 114 ix List of Tables Table 1 – Statistics Canada Size Categories for Populated Centres .........................................58 Table 2 – Initial Research Design Coding Framework for ICSP Analysis ..................................60 Table 3 – Revised Coding Design Framework for ICSP Analysis ..............................................61 Table 4 – Size Variable in Consultant use for ICSP Development .............................................66 Table 5 – Consultant Use for ICSP Development ......................................................................67 Table 6 – ICSP Generalized Structure ......................................................................................67 Table 7 – ICSP Coding .............................................................................................................69 Table 8 – Smart Growth Principles in ICSPs .............................................................................71 x List of Figures Figure 1 – Progression of Sustainability Planning for Local Governments in British Columbia ... 3 Figure 2 – Global Urban Population Growth (Thorpe, David, retrieved 2016) ............................17 Figure 3 – Venn Diagram Sphere of Sustainability (Emmanuel et al. 2011). .............................34 Figure 4 – Pillars of Sustainability (Sustainability – Ed n.d.). .....................................................34 Figure 5 – Three–Legged Stool of Sustainability (Vanek, Steven. n.d.). ....................................35 Figure 6 – 3 E's of Sustainability (Rodrigue, 2017). ...................................................................35 Figure 7 – Circles of Sustainability (futureoxford.ca n.d.) ..........................................................36 Figure 8 – Triple Bottom Line Sustainability (Multiple Sources). ................................................36 Figure 9 – Okanagan Water Cycle (Okanagan Basin Water Board). .........................................43 Figure 10 – Greater Vancouver Water Supply Sources and Systems (GVRD). .........................44 Figure 11 – Wise Water Use Outdoors (Natural Resources Canada). .......................................46 Figure 12 – Size related differences in sustainability planning ...................................................77 Figure 13 – Limitations for local governments and community sustainability .............................80 xi List of Abbreviations ICSPs Integrated Community Sustainability Plans OCP Official Community Plan RGS Regional Growth Strategy (Similar to OCP, but done for Regional Districts) UCC Urban Carrying Capacity xii Glossary Anthropocentric – “interpreting or regarding the world in terms of human values and experiences” (Merriam–Webster, n.d.). Carrying Capacity – “Odum (1989) and Rees (1992) suggested that carrying capacity is the number of individuals of a given species that a given habitat can support without being permanently damaged. If the population of a given species exceeds the carrying capacity of a given habitat, then either the resources required to meet the needs of that species will be depleted, or the wastes produced by that species will build to the point of poisoning members of the species, or both, and the population will crash (Zhao et al., 2005). See Urban Carrying Capacity. Development – “To expand or realize the potentialities of; bring gradually to a fuller, greater, or better state… qualitative improvement or unfolding of potentialities” (Daly as quoted in Sumner, 2005, 117). See also Growth. Ecocentric – “A philosophy or perspective that places intrinsic value on all living organisms and their natural environment, regardless of their perceived usefulness or importance to human beings” (Dictionary.com, 31, May, 2017). Growth – “To increase naturally in size by the addition of material through assimilation and accretion… a quantitative increase in physical size” (Daly as quoted in Sumner, 2005, 117). See also Development. Hinterlands – a term in Geography (also related to Umland – “the land around”) for land that is outside of a port or metropolitan area but which is economically tied to activity in the central city. The area surrounding a city which receives goods and services from the city and which provides goods and services to the city (adapted from several sources). Integrated Community Sustainability Plan – A plan required by the Gas Tax Agreement as a way for local governments in British Columbia to integrate sustainability into their existing formal plans. Other jurisdictions also use the term Integrated Community Sustainability Plan, but this definition is specific to the type of ICSP required in the study area. Intragenerational Equity – The distribution of goods, services, resources and capital throughout each generation in such a way that basic needs are met for all members of that generation. Intergenerational Equity – The efficient use of goods, services, resources and capital by each generation to meet basic needs in such a way that all future generations can also meet their needs. Local Governments – Municipalities and Regional Districts incorporated under the Local Government Act or Community Charter in British Columbia. This does not include First Nations, which are not local governments. Population Centres – “An area with a population of at least 1,000 and a density of 400 or more people per square kilometer” (Statistics Canada, From urban areas to population centres, 2011). Prior to 2011, all population centres were categorized as “Urban areas.” Currently Statistic Canada recognizes small (1,000–29,999), medium (30,000 – 99,999) and large urban (>100,000) population centres. xiii Rural Area – “All areas outside population centres” (Statistics Canada, From urban areas to population centres, 2011). Sustainability – “A process of change in which the exploitation of resources, the direction of investments, the orientation of technological development, and institutional change are made consistent with future as well as present needs” (Brundtland, 1987, 9). Sustainability is based on three principles of meeting human needs within environmental limits, intragenerational equity and intergenerational equity. Sustainable Development – “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland, 1987). This definition did not refer simply to economic development, but also to human social development, including economic systems to support it. Urban – “A concentration of population at a high density.” In 2011, Statistics Canada recognized that the historical methodology for categorizing urban as “an area with a population of at least 1,000 and a density of 400 or more people per square kilometer,” “established a simple urban–rural dichotomy for Canada” (Statistics Canada, from urban areas to population centres, 2011). Urban Carrying Capacity – “The level of human activities, population growth, land use, and physical development, which can be sustained by the urban environment without causing serious degradation and irreversible damage” (Oh et al. 2005, 3). NOTE: In this research I used four size categories of Rural Areas, Small Population Centres, Medium Population Centres and Large Urban Population Centres as defined in this glossary. However, for the purpose of writing and conveying ideas in this thesis, I have used terms like small local governments, smaller vs. larger, etc. to discuss a continuum of community size, without being locked into the definitions as provided by Statistics Canada. Where I use a word to convey scale, I am always referring to the population and degree of urbanization in an area, unless otherwise specified in the text. xiv Acknowledgements I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Jon Corbett for his patience, guidance, motivation and support throughout my thesis work. I would also like to acknowledge the support of my committee members, Adam Jones and Mary Stockdale, who have both had a bigger impact on me than I can express. xv Dedication To the three generations of my family who stood beside me in this endeavour. My parents, my wife and siblings, and my children. I could not have completed this work without your love and encouragement. To Anna Warwick Sears, whom I consider my mentor, and my friend. Thank you for the many conversations on planes, trains and taxis that helped me keep moving forward through the cosmic drag. 1 1. Introduction Size is a critical component of the way that humans govern themselves. Both the size of a population under a specific form of government, and the scale of the area which is governed, have become the foundations upon which modern governments are built. Peter J. Taylor argued that “it is geographical scale that defines the boundaries and bounds the identities around which control is exerted and contested” (as quoted in Marston et al., 2005, 418). While discourses around the philosophy of good governance have evolved over thousands of years, today “good governance promotes equity, participation, pluralism, transparency, accountability and the rule of law, in a manner that is effective, efficient and enduring” (UN, Governance, N.D.). According to the United Nations, “democratic governance advances development, by bringing its energies to bear on such tasks as eradicating poverty, protecting the environment, ensuring gender equality, and providing for sustainable livelihoods” (UN Governance, N.D.). At the heart of this assertion is a principle that human needs must be met within the environmental capacity to provide for those needs. Given this principle, the role of government in a modern democracy is to balance the relationship between meeting human needs in an equitable way for current generations, while ensuring that future generations retain a capacity to also meet their needs. These form the fundamental principles of sustainability: 1. Meeting human needs within environmental capacity; 2. Intragenerational equity – equity between members of the same generation; and 3. Intergenerational equity – equity between members of different generations (Holden and Linnerud, 2007). On the surface, these principles are similar to the way many people live their everyday lives. We ask ourselves, what are our needs and the needs of our family? We ask how we will meet those needs, and how we can prepare for our future, and the future of our children. On an individual scale, given sufficient resources, people can live in a manner that meets their needs and those of their family. However, sustainability is about realizing the limits of resources at the larger scale, up to the global scale of 7.4 billion people, all with needs to be met. Given this scale of human need and global environmental limits, the proposition that we can achieve the three principles of sustainability becomes far more complex. Sustainability literature has addressed three major questions since the publication of Our Common Future in 1987: 1. How do we put sustainability into practice? 2. How do we measure progress on sustainability? 2 3. What scale is appropriate for implementing sustainable practices and who is responsible? This thesis focuses on the third question, the issue of scale. Different scales dictate varying actions toward sustainability. On the global and national scale, efforts focus on greenhouse gas reduction, and economic and social development. Complex interactions of trade, transportation and production are considered alongside issues like the lifecycle costs of goods, and technological efficiencies to reduce those costs, including externalities like environmental degradation. On the local scale, efforts focus on environmental protection and restoration, social equity, economic development and cultural preservation. Similar to the difference between macroeconomics and microeconomics, sustainability is conceptualized at the global and local scales in the literature. When addressing the question of what scale is appropriate for implementing sustainable practices and who is responsible, the global and local scales can both be informative. Through a literature review, I examine both scales of implementation for sustainability principles, while focussing on the local scale as the subject of the research question. Specifically, I look at the way sustainability is understood as a concept, and operationalized by local governments in the study area through the use of the Integrated Community Sustainability Planning (ICSP) process. This process is accomplished by professional community planners, often with the help of external consultants and with input from community members. Even at the local scale of government, there are further issues of scale, from large urban centres to rural areas. This study asks how the size of local government affects how sustainability is understood and applied to policy as reflected in ICSPs in British Columbia. In the next section, I outline the progression of sustainability planning for local governments, and introduce concepts that I expand on in Chapter 2, the literature review. 1.1 Outlining the Progression of Sustainability Planning for Local Governments This section introduces the progression of sustainability planning for local governments through four subsections as shown in Figure 1. Each of these subsections introduces major themes that are explored further through the literature review in Chapter 2, and lend to the results in Chapter 4 and discussion in Chapter 5. The progression of sustainability planning for local governments is summarized as: 1. Local governments are bodies that provide services to the community, and are charged with providing for community sustainability. 3 2. The creation of an ICSP by a local government is intended to weave sustainability into plans for community growth and development, such as Official Community Plans (OCP) and Regional Growth Strategies (RGS). 3. The process for developing an ICSP is described in the Gas Tax Agreement using three pillars of sustainability, but allows each community to self–define what sustainability means to that community, creating ambiguity in the concept. 4. This ambiguity in the concept of sustainability has led to a situation in which many local governments rely on a series of planning principles, known as ‘Smart Growth,’ to put sustainability theory into planning practice. Smart Growth was developed primarily to address issues of sprawl in large urban areas, but has been grafted onto smaller non–urban areas, partly as a response to the ambiguity in the concept of sustainability in planning. Smart Growth is discussed in detail in Section 2.4. Figure 1 – Progression of Sustainability Planning for Local Governments in British Columbia 1. The purpose of local government is to provide for community sustainability 2. ICSPs are intended to integrate sustainability into long–term plans 3. ICSPs allow local governments to self–define sustainability based on three pillars 4. Three–pillars are operationalized in community planning through Smart Growth 1.1.1 The Purpose of Local Governments in British Columbia In British Columbia (B.C.) there are two general types of local government: municipalities and regional districts. While some of the powers given to each type of local government are different, the codified purposes of local governments are the same. These include: 1. Provide good government for the community; 2. Provide services which the local government considers necessary or desirable for community benefit; 3. Provide stewardship of the public assets of the community; and 4. Foster current and future economic, social and environmental well–being of the community (Local Government Act; Community Charter). 4 In other words, the local government must provide services that are desired by the community, while managing the community’s assets in a sustainable way. This purpose is not only expressed through the legislation empowering local governments in B.C., but has become a prerequisite for funding from senior government through the Gas Tax program as agreed to by the federal government, the Province of B.C. and the Union of BC Municipalities. The Gas Tax program uses federal funding in the form of grants to coerce local governments into action on priority areas as set out in the agreement. One of these areas is the integration of sustainability into community plans through the development of Integrated Community Sustainability Plans (ICSPs). 1.1.2 Integrated Community Sustainability Plans ICSPs were introduced in 2005 as a requirement of the Federal–Provincial–Union of BC Municipalities Gas Tax Agreement as a way for local governments to significantly enhance their planning activities by integrating sustainability into their formal plans. This involved communities identifying and defining their own sustainability goals through public participation processes, which could then be integrated into existing Official Community Plans, Regional Growth Strategies, or stand–alone documents. ICSPs were made a requirement for local governments to be eligible to apply for certain grant funds under the Gas Tax Agreement. The framework provided for local governments was based on seven principles of ICSPs: 1. Long–term thinking; 2. Broad in scope, considering economic, environmental, social and/or cultural sustainability; 3. Integration of sustainability into different types of plans or planning activities; 4. Collaboration, engaging community members and other partners; 5. Public engagement and education to enhance public input; 6. Implementation through putting plans into action; and 7. Monitoring and evaluation through targets and tracking (BC Climate Action Toolkit). Despite the seven principles of the ICSP process itself, the 2005 Gas Tax Agreement and its subsequent toolkits and guides do not define sustainability as a concept, or provide guidance to local governments on how to apply the concept in their own policies. Without a formal process established in the Gas Tax agreement, several methods for considering sustainability in local government planning emerged. Various local governments engaged in the ICSP process in 5 different ways. Some local governments used internal or community led approaches, while others chose to engage outside consultants or academics. 1.1.3 Local Governments Self–Define Sustainability Based on Three Pillars Through the ICSP process, individual communities are left to self–define the concept of sustainability, based on the framework in the Gas Tax Agreement of social/cultural, economic, and environmental ‘pillars.’ This framework pre–supposes that these pillars of sustainability can be operationalized in plans and bylaws of the local government. Much of the literature on urban sustainability supports this assertion, and focuses on ways of building and planning which adhere to so–called Smart Growth principles (introduced in the next section) which are considered to lend to sustainability. However, as a way of thinking about what sustainability means, and how to achieve it, the pillar approach has proven over time to be counterproductive. There are many conceptual models and definitions to explain what sustainability is, and many indicator frameworks for how to measure progress toward sustainability. This left local governments with a confusing process for trying to integrate sustainability into their plans, a point which I address further in Section 2.2.2. 1.1.4 Using Smart Growth to Operationalize the Pillars Approach Despite the ambiguity of the concept of sustainability, much work has been done in the field of community planning. One leading practice in local government planning is to incorporate Smart Growth principles which advocate for patterns of development that create compact, walkable, urban centres. Smart Growth is seen as a way to operationalize sustainability in urban centres by limiting urban sprawl. Smart Growth limits expansion of development into natural areas, increases the social health of the community, and promotes fiscal efficiency at the local government level by reducing the need for expansive infrastructure. The theory also suggests that following a Smart Growth plan will lead to economic, environmental, and social sustainability, known as the three pillars. However, urban Smart Growth theory has been grafted onto smaller, rural areas, where the principles may not be applicable, and the style of development may not be feasible, or desirable. 1.2 Research Questions and Structure Understanding the progression of sustainability planning for local governments is important in an analysis of ICSPs and their level of effectiveness. This understanding also raises the central question in this research: 6 How does the size of local government affect how sustainability is understood and applied to policy as reflected in ICSPs in British Columbia? This question focused on the understanding and application of the concept of sustainability as written in ICSPs, and whether the size of the local government plays a role in the formation of these plans. Using a framework for understanding principles underlying the concept of sustainability,1 rather than a strict definition, this study looked at planning that addresses three crucial elements. The first element is meeting basic human needs within environmental limits, the second is addressing intragenerational equity, or equity between members of the same generation, and the third is addressing intergenerational equity, or equity between members of different generations. Addressing these three crucial elements allows for flexibility in the definitions of pillars, and can allow for frameworks including cultural, political and institutional pillars. In this way, the focus is on operationalizing the concept of balance and how it is applied in ICSPs, rather than on defining the individual elements. This thesis is divided into six chapters. Chapter 1 introduces the progression of sustainability planning in local governments, outlines the theory behind this research, and addresses the problem statement the research seeks to address. Chapter 2 provides the literature review for each of the following interrelated themes: sustainability theory, the ICSP process, local government size variables, and urban planning principles. Chapters 3–5 provide the methods, results, and discussion related to the research. Chapter 6 concludes with a summary, some recommendations and a discussion of the limitations of the research, as well as an outline of some future research directions. 1 This framework was strongly influenced by Dresner, 2008, through his analysis of several other works, most notably Bruntland, 1987. 7 2. Literature Review Concepts of sustainability are embedded in all aspects of Geography which examine human–environment relationships (Lidstone and Williams 2006). Within the field of Geography, the study and practice of planning has become increasingly involved in issues of sustainability (Maclaren 1996; Jepson 2001). According to Marsden (2013), the study and application of sustainability is inherently interdisciplinary. This thesis touches on several disciplines from Political Science, Geography, Sociology, Urban Planning and Economics, to better illustrate the complexity of sustainability as a concept, and how it has evolved over time. Through this review of interdisciplinary literature, two primary, yet disparate, ideologies of what the concept means emerge. Drawing from an ecological perspective the literature suggests that sustainability already exists in nature as a process of resiliency, which allows ecosystems to be self–sustaining, adaptable and re–generating. Therefore, sustainability is compromised at the point when “ecological erosion” interferes with the capacity of the ecosystem to self–produce (Rees 1995). This ecological approach tends to focus on a non–economic valuation of the environment and seeks to limit exploitation of resources. In some cases, this approach even suggests that certain societies should curb some of their current consumption habits (O’Connor 2006). Non–ecological definitions of sustainability focus more on human involvement with the environment and on how far humans can exploit the environment without destroying their ability to exploit it in the future (Rees 1995). A similar non–ecological model is the “three–legged stool” which balances sustainability on the equal legs of economy, society/culture and environment (Barbier 1991). Criticism of this analogy focuses on the fact that the environment would survive without society or human economy, but that neither of the others would survive without the environment (Dawe and Ryan 2003). Loorbach and Shiroyama argue that trends in urban sustainability transitions need to be geared toward making cultures, structures and practices more “inherently sustainable, rather than less unsustainable” (2016, 4). The subtle difference between ecocentric2 and anthropocentric3 views of sustainability is an important distinction for local government planning through the ICSP process. Ecocentrists start with the view that there is a limit to what nature can provide both now and in the future. 2 “A philosophy or perspective that places intrinsic value on all living organisms and their natural environment, regardless of their perceived usefulness or importance to human beings” (Dictionary.com, 31, May, 2017). 3 Anthropocentric – “interpreting or regarding the world in terms of human values and experiences” (Merriam–Webster, n.d.). 8 Their focus is on preserving nature and adjusting their consumption and development habits to ensure that the services provided by the natural environment are not diminished by human activity. Anthropocentrists focus first on accommodating growth and development, and tend to see nature as just another system to be managed and used to meet current consumption habits. While it is important to avoid a caricature of the development and exploitation–oriented anthropocentrist, developing an ICSP without an ecocentric point of view may lead to plans that do not account for the limits of ecosystem capacity. The ICSPs which were coded as anthropocentric in this research, viewed continued human expansion, and the concomitant changes in the natural environment as inevitable. Those ICSPs that were coded as Ecocentric recognized an environment with limited capacity and planned to change local human behaviors and development patterns to live within that capacity. This coding is explained in detail in Chapter 3, and results are given in Chapter 4. Notwithstanding the fact that environmental destruction leads to economic and social destruction, a large portion of the world’s population needs significant development in order to be raised out of poverty (Brundtland 1987; Rees 1995; Bode and Wu 2011). This raises a question about the distribution of resources and rights, which is reflected through the sustainability principle of intragenerational equity – equity between members of the same generation. The portion of the world’s population whose needs have already been met could benefit from more efficient methods of resource use, including the re–development of aging infrastructure and the implementation of sustainable practices (Rees 1995). Along with international institutions and national governments, this should be an area of concern for local governments as “worldwide, cities are responsible for almost 75% of total resource consumption” and “at least 70% of energy–related greenhouse gas emissions” (Loorbach and Shiroyama, 2016, 5). Developing these sustainable practices will also account for an equitable distribution of resources inter–generationally; another principle of sustainability. Sustainable development was most famously defined in the 1987 United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development report: Our Common Future as development that “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland 1987, 8). While the original report laid out the framework for three pillars of sustainable development – economic, environmental, and social – the succeeding decades have seen the concept co–opted by many different academic disciplines, governments, business interests and others (Dresner, 2008; Michelsen et al. in Heinrichs, 2016). Sustainability is often framed according to only one pillar, like ‘economic sustainability,’ 9 and thus used to accommodate the special interests of the user, while ignoring the balance of the pillars that is needed to achieve sustainability. The body of sustainability literature also contains significant work advocating the inclusion of other pillars, most commonly cultural, institutional and political (Michelsen et al. in Heinrichs, 2016). However, the underlying basis for this literature is focussed on operationalizing the concept, by describing systems (social, environmental, economic) in which humans exist and interact. These specialized uses of the concept make it confusing, difficult to implement in any meaningful way, and also difficult to measure or even to develop indicators for measurement. As Sumner puts it, “the vagueness of the concept of sustainability and the confusion surrounding its usage not only spring from lack of a clear definition but also, in turn, pose problems when it comes to actually trying to define it” (2005, 84). Aside from the commonly cited definition above, the Commission described sustainable development as “not a fixed state of harmony, but rather a process of change in which the exploitation of resources, the direction of investments, the orientation of technological development, and institutional change are made consistent with future as well as present needs” (Brundtland, 1987, 9). The concept of sustainable development relies on global organizations and national governments to implement policies in which the drive for economic growth does not jeopardize the ability of the environment to sustain human life and activity (Dowdeswell, 1994). Early iterations of the concept of sustainable development stressed that the economy and environment could no longer afford to be looked at as opposing entities, but that damaging the environment would have a detrimental effect on the economy (Brundtland, 1987). While the intent was to describe a bold new future which focuses on the balance of the three pillars of sustainable development, in reality the Commission had to pander to those actors who were more focused on economic growth than social well–being as well as to those actors who willfully failed to see that development could be to the benefit of humanity (Brundtland, 1987).4 Thus, many people questioned the seemingly contradictory concepts of 4 Bruntland addresses this issue: “when the terms of reference of our commission were originally being discussed in 1982, there were those who wanted its considerations to be limited to ‘environmental issues’ only. This would have been a grave mistake. The environment does not exist as a sphere separate from human actions, ambitions, and needs, and attempts to defend it in isolation from human concerns have given the very word ‘environment’ a connotation of naivety in some political circles. The word ‘development’ has also been narrowed by some into a very limited focus, along the lines of ‘what poor nations should do to become 10 sustaining something while developing it (Rees, 1995).5 This is why the commission said that sustainable development is not a fixed state of harmony. To say that a fixed state of sustainable harmony could be reached would be to acknowledge that traditional development is not always the desirable course of action. Essentially, the commission tried to bridge a gap between those driven by contemporary economic theory, and those seeking a new form of environmental and social justice. It is important to note the evolution of the concept from sustainable development to sustainability. The term development was used by the commission to not only describe economic development, but also to frame movement toward a more equitable distribution of rights and resources both between and among generations. Without a nuanced understanding of development as encompassing more than simple economic growth, the concept of sustainable development took on a form used by special interests on both sides (Dresner, 2008). Daly contributes to a new understanding of sustainable development when he uses dictionary definitions to differentiate between growth and development: ‘to grow means “to increase naturally in size by the addition of material through assimilation and accretion.” To develop means “to expand or realize the potentialities of; bring gradually to a fuller, greater, or better state.” In short, growth is quantitative increase in physical scale, while development is qualitative improvement or unfolding of potentialities (Sumner, 2005, 117). This is where sustainable development and sustainability diverge as concepts (Dresner, 2008). Due to the confusion between growth and development, and because of the widely accepted three–pillar approach to sustainable development, the implementation of sustainable practices, and the development of sustainability measurement tools (indicators) continues to be done in silos that focus on individual pillars, rather than the balance that is recognized in the term sustainability (Campbell, 1996; Gustavson et al., 1998; Murphy, 2012, Arendt, 2015). The process for developing ICSPs in B.C. includes allowing local governments to self–define sustainability, disregarding that sustainability is already a defined process of change. Thus, although the policies to set out the process are open to interpretation, the focus on balance richer’, and thus again is automatically dismissed by many in the international arena has being a concern of specialists, of those involved in questions of ‘development assistance’.” Xi. 5 Rees, 1995, 345, creates an extensive table outlining the differences between the “competing paradigms” of the “expansionist worldview” versus the “steady–state (ecological) worldview.” 345. 11 should not be. Added to this is the issue of the capacity of local governments, based on the size of the community they serve, and the taxation and other resources available to develop ICSPs. Many large cities have evolved through time as the amalgamation of several smaller populated areas, creating a need to reduce urban sprawl and connect nodes of transportation and services. Early planning literature looked at what form and function a city should take during its development, rather than asking whether a community should continue to be developed (Jacobs, 1961). As framed by the 2005 Federal–Provincial–UBCM Gas Tax Agreement, ICSPs attempt to weave certain sustainability goals into all of the land–use decisions, services and objectives of a community. The development and implementation of ICSPs is based on an ambiguous pillar framework, rather than on a clearly articulated set of objectives or common template. This puts smaller communities at a disadvantage, both in terms of capacity to develop the ICSP, and the ability to integrate the plan and monitor its progress. Smaller communities are also at a disadvantage due to a lack of research into what sustainable planning looks like in a small community (Luther, 2012). The development of ICSPs is a way for senior governments to direct local governments into making decisions that are based on the pillars of sustainability. Local governments, with their limited resources, requirements, and authority which are delegated to them from higher levels of government, have little choice but to bend to the coercion of the provincial and federal governments in order to receive adequate financial support to provide services. As one planner put it in an interview regarding the ICSP process in their community: “This was not a very successful venture from my point of view. It was prepared by (a consultant). The reason for doing it, quite frankly was to ensure that we still get federal funding for certain programs, and they said it was a requirement.”6 While the requirement for ICSPs is based on the beneficial goal of integrating sustainability, the conceptual confusion around sustainability, and the acceptance of urban planning principles as the desirable method of planning, means that ICSPs may be counterproductive to achieving community sustainability. This is particularly true in local governments with small populations. Further, as I will discuss in Section 2.3.1, small local governments may already enjoy a sustainability advantage in equity and environmental quality over urban centres (Arendt, 2015; Berke, 2002; Rees, 1992; Pearce, 1988). As noted in the seminal city planning book The Death and Life of Great American Cities, “Towns, suburbs and even little cities are totally different organisms from great cities. We are in enough trouble 6 Interviews were conducted with the condition that the respondent would remain anonymous. Therefore, there is no specific citation for this quote. 12 already from trying to understand big cities in terms of the behavior, and the imagined behavior, of towns. Trying to understand towns in terms of big cities will only compound confusion” (Jacobs, 1961, 16). Given the current practice of grafting urban planning principles onto small towns and rural areas, Jacobs’ warning has clearly gone unnoticed. I will address this further in the Discussion section in Chapter 5. This literature review first examines the key theoretical framework for the concept of sustainability and introduces three “crucial elements” of sustainability: meeting basic human needs within environmental limits; intragenerational equity; and intergenerational equity. Second, the literature on sustainability, contemporary to when the ICSP process was developed, is examined through two themes: one, sustainability indicators as measures of progress; and two, a theory around local sustainability planning which suggests that urban planners “by the very nature of their profession, are uniquely positioned to play a leadership role…” in the transition to a sustainable future (Rees, 1995, 355). The third focus of the literature review specifically addresses the need for more research into planning and resources for small local governments in B.C. Finally, the review identifies Smart Growth urban planning principles, and the concept of Complete Communities. 2.1 A Framework for Sustainability in Local Governments The first well–known and politically accepted work on sustainable development was Our Common Future (Brundtland, 1987).7 In this report, the World Commission on Environment and Development was given the task of proposing long–term environmental strategies that take into account “the inter–relationships between people, resources, environment, and development” (Brundtland, 1987, ix). Part of this task was “to help define shared perceptions of long–term environmental issues” and to identify actions needed at the international level to make this perception a reality. Our Common Future laid the groundwork for the concepts underlying sustainable development. “Humanity has the ability to make development sustainable – to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland, 1987, 8). Within four paragraphs Our Common Future addressed the ecological limits to development, the capacity of technological change to increase development within ecological limits, and the concepts of intragenerational equity and intergenerational equity (Brundtland, 1987). 7 The Bruntland report was preceded by other reports on sustainable development, but Bruntland is seen as the seminal work in the literature. For a description of sustainability work before Brundtland, see Dresner (2008). 13 As part of its mandate to view sustainable development on a global scale, Our Common Future specifically addressed ‘the urban challenge.’ The report predicted that by the year 2000 46.6% of the human population would live in urban centers (Brundtland, 1987, 236).8 In describing the differences in the developing vs. industrialized world, the Commission allowed for a parallel to be drawn, in the research described here, between contemporary urban and rural communities in B.C. “Few city governments in the developing world have the power, resources, and trained personnel to provide their rapidly growing populations with the land, services, and facilities needed for an adequate human life: clean water, sanitation, schools, and transport” (Brundtland, 1987, 238). Much like city governments in developing countries, small local governments in the study area face greater challenges than their larger counterparts when balancing the resources available with the need to provide services to their own populations. Our Common Future also described conditions in the industrialized world. “Many cities in industrial countries also face problems – deteriorating infrastructure, environmental degradation, inner city decay, and neighborhood (sic) collapse. But with the means and resources to tackle this decline, the issue for most industrial countries is ultimately one of political and social choice” (Brundtland, 1987, 16–17). This example of industrial vs. developing can also be used to draw a parallel between large and small local governments. Large local governments have greater resources, but face a political and social choice about which services to provide, whereas small local governments may not have the resources to provide basic services.9 The report also addresses the need for a city to identify its place within larger systems: regional, national, and even global. It argues that a city’s “prospects” depend on its place in larger systems, i.e. what services a city provides to the regional, national and global economy. However, it also recognizes that the drive toward urbanization must take into account the need to preserve the hinterlands on which urban areas depend (Brundtland, 1987, 235). This is contrary to the views of many small local governments, who see their raison d’etre as being to grow the community and increase their tax base. In fact, rather than try to mimic the growth of urban centres, their continued contribution of food and other production to the larger urban system might be more important to sustainability. Larger regional, national and global systems should recognize the 8 This prediction was on target as by 2014, 54% of the human population lived in urban centres. 9 This assertion is borne out in the way the 2014 Gas Tax Agreement separates funding for Greater Vancouver and all other local governments. Greater Vancouver and its member municipalities choose to allocate 95% of funding to regional transit projects, while other governments still struggle to meet drinking water standards, install sewer and provide other basic services. 14 value of the services provided by these smaller, rural areas. Once the value of smaller areas is understood and recognised, a more holistic approach to sustainability can be taken. The Brundtland report also makes a strong argument for community planning, noting the shortfalls and waste of resources when urban development happens in a haphazard manner (Brundtland, 1987, 241). Despite this call for community planning using common principles, the report rejects the use of standardized models of development, acknowledging that the local context of needs, customs, urban forms, social priorities, and environmental conditions, must inform the type and character of development in a given community (Brundtland, 1987, 247). In this way, Our Common Future supports the idea that the process for developing an ICSP must take into account the specific needs of the local community. However, contextualizing a plan for sustainability within a given community is different than redefining sustainability itself as a concept based on community values, which is how ICSP development is framed in the Gas Tax Agreement. While Our Common Future was politically accepted by both the industrialized and developing world, it built on a foundation of previous work, and a growing ideology of environmental conservation and social justice (Dresner, 2008). Dresner traces the emergence of sustainability theory by examining economic, social and environmental thought from the days of the enlightenment in the 17th century, through the industrial revolution, to the present day. By citing earlier works on sustainable development, Dresner supports the idea that the Brundtland Commission was successful because it accommodated both actors who were focussed on economic development, and actors who were focussed on social or economic justice. However, this approach led to prolonged confusion over the concept of sustainability as balance, rather than a choice among the three pillars. O’Riorden (1988) asserts that the term sustainable development allows environmentalists to focus on the sustainable part, while developers can focus on the development part (In Dresner, 2008, 70). This ambiguity in the theory lends to the conceptual confusion that underlies the ICSP process, which became apparent when examining the plans of local governments in the study area. This conceptual confusion is addressed in Chapter 5, Discussion. In his overview of the literature on sustainable development and sustainability, Dresner argues that “the problem in agreeing on the meaning of sustainable development is not fundamentally about agreeing upon a precise definition, but about agreeing upon the values that would underlie any such definition” (Dresner, 2008, 70). In its 1994 Annual Report, the German Advisory Council identified the three crucial elements through the lens of ethics as: the 15 responsibility of humanity for its natural environment; the responsibility of humanity for its social world; and the responsibility of humanity for itself (Michelsen, in Heinrichs et al., 2016, 14). Dresner goes back to the Brundtland Report and cites the two sentences immediately following the given definition of sustainable development, breaking the concept into crucial elements, similar to the ethical elements, of meeting basic human needs within environmental limits, and accounting for intragenerational and intergenerational equity (Dresner, 2008, 73). This is the framework for sustainability which should be applied during the ICSP process, and it is this framework that has informed my analysis of the ICSPs in this research. As I stated in the introduction to this thesis, the role of government in a modern democracy is to balance meeting human needs in an equitable way for current generations, with ensuring that future generations retain a capacity to also meet their needs. However, the way that ICSPs are currently constructed does not always enable them to consciously achieve this balance. “Integrated Community Sustainability Planning means long–term planning, in consultation with community members, that provides direction for the community to realize sustainability objectives it has for the environmental, cultural, social and economic dimensions of its identity” (Gas Tax, 2005, 6). The problem in this definition is the reliance on a self–defined set of objectives that might not meet the test of providing for a balance between the three crucial elements laid out above. Chess (2012) found that the broad definition of sustainability in the 2005 Gas Tax Agreement, “applies to rural areas the same as for urban areas; however the details would be different to reflect the rural context” (ii). Through a survey, she found a number of factors that indicate a difference in the way a rural area must develop an ICSP compared to those developed in urban areas. She identified decision–making and jurisdiction as key limiting factors in a rural area’s ability to develop an ICSP, as natural resource development, health care and education – identified as crucial to rural well–being – were outside of a local government’s jurisdiction. Chess also found that success in developing rural ICSPs “is built upon adapting broad sustainability concepts and principles, planning processes, and strategies to reflect their communities’ and regions’ unique rural circumstances” (2012, iii). As with the definition of ICSPs from the Gas Tax Agreement, the focus is on adapting sustainability principles to fit the planning circumstances, rather than using the principles of sustainability to do the planning. The problem with this approach is that during the process of making an ICSP, the community may choose to focus on any one of the pillars and to ignore the balance needed to achieve sustainability. 16 2.1.1 Scaling Sustainability With an understanding of the principles underpinning sustainability, and the role of the three–pillar framework in attempting to operationalize the concept, the next question is at what scale sustainability can be operationalized. Brundtland’s (1987) report focussed on questions of sustainable development at a global scale, and largely on issues between developed and developing countries. This theme was carried through in U.N. Agenda 21 (1993, 45), in which consumption patterns in urban areas in industrialized countries were seen as creating a severe stress on the global ecosystem, and settlements in developing countries were seen as needing more raw materials and resources to improve human and economic development. Agenda 21 set out a number of local–scale objectives, including specific activities around improving urban management, and also around increasing “intermediate city development”, accounting for improved services to smaller areas. What later became known as “Smart Growth” principles in the study area can be seen in the objectives and activities of Agenda 21. This scaling of sustainability to the local makes sense as local governments have an advantage over global scale efforts to achieve sustainability. “Local authorities usually have the political power and credibility to take initiatives and to assess and deploy resources in innovative ways reflecting unique local conditions” (Brundtland, 1987, 242). They are bounded geographically, as well as by laws and responsibilities, while being closest in proximity to their constituents and taxpayers. Local governments are essentially service providers and are not expected to deliver sustainability outside of their jurisdictional responsibilities. On a smaller scale, with a known population with predictable growth rates, a stable political system and limited powers, it may be possible to reach a “fixed state” of sustainability, with a plan that accounts for processes of change.10 This concept of a fixed state is addressed further in Section 2.3.1. Following Agenda 21, many people looked at ways to implement sustainable practices at a sub–national scale, where concrete action can yield measurable results (Beatley, 1995; Berke and Conroy, 2000; Berke, 2002; Campbell, 2007). ‘Think globally, act locally’ became a rallying cry for applying sustainability within urban planning with the result that many of the world’s large cities integrated sustainability principles into their decision–making for public spaces, and into their regulatory framework for private development (Levy, 2013). Levy describes how “most writers define sustainable development planning as planning that addresses three overall goals in a coordinated manner. These goals are environmental quality, social equity and, economic 10 The “fixed state” would be akin to the concept in many disciplines of “dynamic equilibrium”. 17 development, easily remembered as the three ‘Es’” (Levy, 2013, 301). Indeed, this approach may address significant global sustainability objectives, as 54% of the world’s population live in urban areas, as of 2014, compared with only 34% in the 1960’s, as seen in Figure 2 (WHO 2016). Figure 2 – Global Urban Population Growth (Thorpe, David, retrieved 2016) The “three E” principles of urban planning aim to achieve sustainability by integrating social and environmental responsibility into development. Still, the focus of the three E’s supports a development pattern in which the rural is transformed into the urban. These sustainable development biases toward the urban presuppose that a certain form of development is desirable, and can be sustainable.11 Levy (2013) argues that growth management and Smart Growth were initially attempts to limit urban sprawl, but have become a large part of the way urban planners manage for sustainability in land–use decisions. Further, the same integrated sustainability principles that are applied at the urban metropolitan level are grafted onto planning practices at the rural and semi–urban level while missing some of the fundamental differences between objectives and capacities in urban and rural development.12 11 Agenda 21 actually calls for countries to “…concentrate on activities aimed at facilitating the transition from rural to urban lifestyles and settlement patterns…” (1993, 49). 12 Urban and rural are defined by the country or region’s own statistical bodies, and there is no universal definition, even at the United Nations level. 18 Adding to that, there is a lack of understanding that a fixed state of harmony for a limited period of time may be desirable in some cases, and in others, a local government may have to change or even reverse prior development to work toward sustainability.13 Nonetheless, getting local governments to plan for sustainability at the local level, will have a measurable effect on the trend toward global sustainability. Because so many of the problems and solutions being addressed by Agenda 21 have their roots in local activities, the participation and cooperation of local authorities will be a determining factor in fulfilling its objectives. Local authorities construct, operate and maintain economic, social and environmental infrastructure, oversee planning processes, establish local environmental policies and regulations, and assist in implementing national and subnational environmental policies. As the level of governance closest to the people, they play a vital role in educating, mobilizing and responding to the public to promote sustainable development (Agenda 21, Chapter 28, Local Authorities’ Initiatives in Support of Agenda 21). Satterthwaite et al. (2009) argue that action over climate change in urban metropolitan centres will affect the lives of hundreds of millions of people, not only because these centres are major producers of greenhouse gases, but also because their populations are vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Marsden (2013) argues that sustainability science should be increasingly place–based, and uses the example of rural “multifunctionality… defined as the degree to which farms and other economic enterprises contribute, beyond their primary function of producing food and fibre, to environmental benefits such as land conservation, the sustainable management of renewable natural resources; the preservation of biodiversity; and the enhancement of the socio–economic aspects of rural life” (220). These two examples show how local governments and local–scale initiatives play a key role in operationalizing sustainability. Further, they raise the question as to how the size of a local government affects how sustainability is understood and applied to policy – the central focus of this research. 2.1.2 Local Governments as Service Providers In British Columbia, the purpose of local government is to express the will of the community by providing services while managing the community’s assets in a sustainable way (Local Government Act, Tindal et al. 2013). In small local governments, services can be limited, while in large local governments, these services are too numerous to list. One of the key roles of 13 This is addressed further in Section 2.3.1. 19 local governments is to provide land–use planning within their boundaries, including zoning bylaws describing which areas of land can be used for which purposes. The service of land–use planning creates a number of complex interactions between the land, transportation connections to that land, infrastructure to service the land, and other services to provide for the residents or tenants of that land (Levy, 2013). Aside from land zoning, local governments can provide a range of other services that lend to sustainability goals. Tindal et al. (2013) argue that the role of expressing the will of the community is complicated because residents expect the local government to act, even if the action falls outside their jurisdiction, or runs counter to senior government policies. So when it comes to delivering sustainability at the local level, the role of local governments is both codified and ambiguous. However, the will of the community is partly expressed through the election of local representatives with specific political platforms. In Canadian municipal history, local property owners first formed municipalities in order to protect their interests (Tindal et al. 2013). This is a common narrative in democratic history, when only certain members of a population were allowed to vote – usually those who were also privileged through other institutional norms by being property owners, being male, and being white. This trend can still be seen today, when issues of enfranchisement inform local government decisions, advantaging the wealthy, land–owners and business elites (Tindal et al. 2013, Ojendal and Dellnas, 2013). Addressing these issues of enfranchisement and disenfranchisement is one area in which, institutional change in local governments could be made consistent with future, as well as present, needs. Services provided by local governments often reflect the inequity between enfranchised and disenfranchised, in which property and business owners benefit from multiple services, while those who are renters, low–wage workers, or homeless often suffer from policies that are directly or inadvertently punitive. Sumner argues that “in many circumstances, local growth constitutes a transfer of quality–of–life and wealth from the local general public to a certain segment of the local elite (2005, 122). Gentrification is a well–known example, but it is not alone14. Several local governments in this study area have bylaws banning homeless people from sleeping in a park or on a sidewalk, but do not provide shelters, leaving it up to charitable organizations, or pointing the finger at senior government policies instead. In contrast, some Canadian cities have experimented with providing a minimum income to all members of a community, homeless shelters, safe–injection sites, subsidized or low–income housing and a range of other services which lend to intragenerational equity. Size is an important variable in 14 For an excellent example of the effects of gentrification, see Maschaykh 2015, Chapter 5. 20 the provision of these services as small and rural communities have limited resources, although still dealing with the same social and healthcare issues as larger urban centres (Waegemakers Schiff and Turner, 2014). The level of authority given to local governments by the province also plays a major role in the services that can be provided. Taxation authority is limited, as are other means of generating local government revenues which could be used for the benefit of the community. Works such as The Smart Growth Toolkit (Walters, 2001) provide options for local government financing that rely on economic growth to generate more revenue, reinforcing the presumption that growth is necessary to sustainability. This puts small and rural communities at a disadvantage as they are less likely to experience sustained economic growth, and thus must limit services to those funded by local property taxes. At the same time, larger communities have more human and financial resources to advocate for increased support from senior governments.15 Thus, larger local governments are able to provide more services as well as benefit more from externally provided services, and this perpetuates the trend toward urban migration and urbanization. Despite the limitations due to size, a number of other variables also dictate the type and number of sustainability–related services that can be provided by local government. Sound fiscal planning and land–use planning are two services that can lend to intergenerational equity by preserving community resources and public places for the use of all generations. Municipalities…need to reverse the backward budget process that is still too common, the one that starts with the objective of zero tax increases, achieved through a long process of cutting and pruning, often with insufficient appreciation of the impact and long term consequences of such actions. A sensible budget process should start by identifying those services that the community needs and wants and is willing to fund (Tindal et al., 2014, 448). Tindal et al. make the point that often what is seen as sound fiscal planning does not take into account the value of services that may be cut. Many of the service cuts designed to lower taxes can create a less equitable community. One example is the provision of public transit systems that enhance community equity (Litman, 2016). Those who do not use public transit may be inclined to disagree with increased public expenditure on transit systems, without realizing the benefits to the community, and even the indirect benefits to them as non–users in terms of reduced traffic congestion, improved air quality and a more equitable community. While 15 This is addressed further in Chapter 4. 21 local government service provision is limited by authority and finances, taking a holistic view of service benefits may help to sell the imposition of additional taxes when necessary. This is why a clear framework for sustainability is critical when considering the role of local governments as service providers. Finally, small local governments may enjoy a significant advantage in sustainability if the conceptual framework were to be based on principles, rather than pillars. This argument is discussed in detail in Section 2.3. 2.1.3 A Framework for Local Government Sustainability Local governments, led by the ICSP and other planning processes, have generally used a pillars approach to defining and operationalizing sustainability. The three most common pillars are the 3–Es: economic development, environmental quality and social equity. While it makes sense to consider sustainability at the level of local governments, it must be remembered that these governments are limited by a range of factors including limited authority and limited resources, and these factors are further influenced by size and a number of other variables that are discussed in Chapter 5. The use of pillars allows for individual interests to be pursued in silos, disregarding the need for a focus on balance. It may be preferable for local governments to use a more principles–based approach to sustainability, which they can put into practice through their service–provision role. In order to operationalize sustainability, local government can incorporate logical questions into their decision–making processes based on each principle. In this section I introduce a new framework for using sustainability principles at the local government level and contextualize the new framework through reference to an interdisciplinary literature. Principle 1 – Meeting Human Needs Within Environmental Limits Regarding local government jurisdiction within B.C., there are several services that local governments provide for which they need to consider the carrying capacity of the local environment, or what some theorists call the Urban Carrying Capacity (UCC). Wei et al. (2015, 3245) argue that in order to progress “towards achievement of sustainable urban development, UCC merits systematic and scholarly studies.” They argue that urban managers need better quantitative indicators of the progress being made towards sustainability. “If urban development can be objectively evaluated with reference to an array of widely recognized indicators and benchmarks, the policy–making process for sustainable urban planning and management will be more objective and become less affected by the whims and personal ideas of local elites” (Wei et al., 2015, 3246). While this may be true, the policy–making process should first be based on a good understanding of what UCC is, and how policies should be developed to 22 account for it. Wei et al. review the literature related to UCC and assert that no single definition yet exists, and that different frameworks make the concept difficult to operationalize. Nonetheless, UCC offers a framework for local government policy decisions that considers the first principle of sustainability. While UCC is a complex concept when considered cumulatively, individual service provision decisions by local government can be simplified by considering the relevant carrying capacity of the environment related to that specific service. Primary among these may be the provision of water to residents of the community. Although not every local government directly provides a water utility, where they do, there is a legal responsibility to provide potable water (Drinking Water Protection Act, SBC 2001). Water provision is a useful proxy when considering other environmentally–dependant services such as clean air, arable land, and biodiversity, all of which may be influenced by local government decisions. When considering water and other resources, it is often useful to think about issues of quantity and quality. A local government can consider how development and land–use decisions will affect the availability of water, and what effects that decision will have on the quality of the water available. If a local government allows the land base to be denuded of natural surfaces, and covered in impermeable surfaces, then the capacity of the local environment to absorb, store, filter and release water will be dramatically changed (Frumkin, 2002). If the local government allows sprawling single–family development with large irrigated lawns and gardens, then the water available for other uses will become scarcer. In order to make sustainable decisions about land use, local governments should consider the effects on the environment of providing for human needs, such as water. This type of thinking has led to planning theory around green development, densification for efficiency of infrastructure, and a host of other measures (Brugmann, 1996). Unfortunately, the application of these measures is dependent on community size, and on an understanding of sustainability. The City of Vancouver – cited as one of the world’s most livable and greenest cities – has water sources in the north shore mountains that are not only protected from development and natural resource extraction, but are also prohibited zones for human recreation and other activities.16 A similar prohibition against development famously exists over water sources for the City of New York (NYC.gov, retrieved 04 June, 2017). These examples show that protecting ecosystem services can provide for human needs within the environment’s carrying capacity by prioritizing what types of activities occur in an area. In other words, regulating human behaviour can 16 See Figure 9 in Section 2.3.1 23 preserve UCC. Unlike Metro Vancouver, the water sources of many other local governments in B.C. originate outside of their jurisdiction. Even when a local government has built infrastructure such as reservoirs and spillways, the province manages the crown land surrounding those reservoirs, and licences the use of the water within them. From a quantity perspective, this means local governments have little control over how much water may be available. From a quality perspective, other activities such as forestry, mining, and human recreation – mainly outside local government control – may all have detrimental effects on the source water. Aside from the control of source water areas, local governments can make meaningful changes to land use plans, infrastructure development and pricing considerations for the provision of water to residents. By increasing density, requiring greener building and landscaping designs, improving and repairing water delivery systems, and managing for pollution through storm water infrastructure, the local government can affect both water quality and quantity issues.17 Using the example of water as a proxy for environmentally–dependant services has limitations. However, it is useful for understanding how complex the concept can become, and how environmental limits in an area are related to a number of factors. Oh et al. (2005) define UCC as “the level of human activities, population growth, land use, and physical development, which can be sustained by the urban environment without causing serious degradation and irreversible damage” [6] (p. 3). Contrary to the more ecology–based definitions of carrying capacity when looking at animal populations, urban carrying capacity must also account for the behaviour of humans, technological advances, effects of regulation on consumption habits, and the role of infrastructure to supplement the carrying capacity of the natural environment. The literature on UCC also discusses a number of other factors that can aid in a better understating of the first principle of sustainability. For the first principle of sustainability, a decision–making process by local governments should consider: - Which natural and infrastructure resources will be affected by the decision, including externalities; - The reduction in natural ecosystem services due to the project or service; - How providing the service or allowing the development meets human needs; and - How the proposal can be improved to reduce or eliminate negative effects on the environment. 17 See Figure 10 in Section 2.3.1 24 Returning to the example of the North Shore Mountains in Vancouver, protecting the watershed comes at far less cost than the construction and maintenance of infrastructure to clean polluted water. Ecosystem services are addressed further in Section 2.3.1. Principle 2 – Intragenerational Equity The second principle of sustainability calls for local governments to consider the equity of service provision that accounts not only for enfranchised property owners and business elites, but also for renters, low–wage workers and other socially–disadvantaged groups (Brugmann, 1996). As with the first principle, there are a number of programs and services offered by local governments that already meet this criterion. Earlier, I gave the example of public transit systems, which I will expand on here. Local governments in B.C. provide transportation infrastructure funded by property taxes in the form of roads, bicycle trails, sidewalks, buses, trains, and ferries. Some of these costs are borne by the province, but most local transportation infrastructure is built and maintained by local governments. Well maintained vehicle–oriented roads are seen to benefit the public and, with very few exceptions, these roads are provided toll–free. All residents of the community pay, because everyone is seen to benefit from the service.18 However, many services in a community are user–pay, or mixed property–tax and user–pay systems. Public transit is an example of a mixed property–tax and user–pay system in many communities (BC Transit 2015/16 Annual Service Plan Report). Much of the infrastructure and start–up costs of a transit system may be borne solely through property taxes and subsequent costs are off–set by direct user fees, which create economies of scale. The more people who ride, the lower the cost to the taxpayer (Litman, 2016). Although public transit may be available to all residents in a community, traditional arguments have focussed on the economic costs of providing such a system. Some vehicle owners may choose not to use the transit system, and therefore do not see the benefit of the system, or may think that contributing to the service through their taxes is unfair. However, transit creates more equity within the community as it provides increasing mobility for those who cannot afford vehicle ownership, or who cannot drive for other reasons. This increased mobility has other beneficial effects by providing opportunities for increased economic activity in a community, transporting people to schools, jobs and businesses, and increased access to services like parks and healthcare. As mentioned earlier, 18 An argument could be made that in fact only property owners pay property taxes to the local government. This argument would be false as all residents who pay for housing in a community would have a portion of that payment cover the cost of the landlord’s taxes associated with that housing unit. 25 public transit also has other beneficial effects, such as reducing traffic congestion, improving air quality, and complementing other smart planning policies. For the second principle of sustainability, a decision–making process by local governments should consider: - How a decision may impact marginalized members of the community – in particular, the current users of an area or service that could be affected, including those unfamiliar with local government decision processes, and unable to attend or express themselves at public hearings; - Who will bear the short–term costs of the service or development; - Whether it is equitable to make a service user–pay, tax funded, or mixed; and - Whether the service will provide for broad community needs, or the select needs of a specific demographic. Principle 3 – Intergenerational Equity When considering aspects of intergenerational equity, local governments must account for aspects of both the first and second principles of sustainability. Development decisions over local land can have a long–term impact that can reduce the natural services provided by that land. Current real estate and property appraisal theory suggests that decision makers consider the ‘highest and best use’ of a lot, prior to allowing development to go forward (Appraisal Institute of Canada, 2010). Highest and best use is defined as “the reasonably probable and legal use of vacant land or an improved property that is physically possible, appropriately supported and financially feasible and that results in the highest value” (Appraisal Institute of Canada, 2010, 12.1). However, with rapid population growth, the highest and best use of land in an area may change before any improvements made on the land have reached their useful lifespan. Take, for example, a rapidly growing city that allowed single–family homes on large lots at the outskirts of town. A developer subdivides natural green space, and places large single–family homes in the area. The city provides infrastructure to meet the needs of the new residents. Within ten years, the city grows so that the neighbourhood is now surrounded by ring–roads, has its own commercial service centres, and can no longer be considered the outskirts of the city. The 10–year–old infrastructure is now insufficient to provide for the increased traffic, power, sewer and water needs, leaving the city with an infrastructure deficit. The highest and best use of the land is now multiple–family residential, and mixed–use zoning, but the existing houses in the area still have a useful lifespan of at least 40 years, and the homeowners still have mortgages for 15. There is no capacity to rebuild on these lots, so the city approves more subdivisions on the outskirts of town to accommodate growth. This is the 26 development pattern of urban sprawl that is still evident in many large cities in Canada (Sustainable Prosperity, 2012, 1). The issue of urban sprawl has been well described in the planning theory and literature. Policies for encouraging infill19 and brownfield20 development address the issue of urban sprawl, while preserving natural areas and agricultural lots. In B.C., several communities now have plans for limiting development by creating “urban reserves” that draw borders on allowable developable areas. However, much of the growth boundary policy is driven by financial considerations, such as the cost of extending infrastructure to new areas. This means that where a developer is willing to pay for the additional costs of infrastructure, the local government is more likely to allow that development to go forward, without much consideration of other factors.21 Both the policies around land use and service provision and the reasons behind these policies have implications for intergenerational equity. Field argues that sustainability must be considered in two lights. First, “use of a non–renewable natural resource is sustainable if the value of the resource used up is matched by capital investments of equal value in other natural resources or in productive non–resource capital” (such as human capital and produced capital). Second, “for renewable resources (sustainability) implies the continued availability of the resource to future generations, and this is not likely to be in great conflict with standard economic efficiency criteria” (2008, 81). For local governments, Field’s assertion means understanding what can be considered a non–renewable resource and what a renewable resource. In the case of land, the use of the land may dictate whether it can be recovered in the future for more beneficial use, or whether the current function of the land or the ecosystem supported by that land would be lost, given a particular use. For example, allowing greenhouses to be built on arable land may not diminish its long–term use for agriculture, but allowing a waste disposal site, or gravel extraction on that land may use up the natural capital of the land in the short–term. From Field’s perspective, even if a local government allows these non–renewable uses of the land, if the capital is matched by investments for the future, this approach 19 Infill development allows increased density on existing lots, such as the addition of secondary dwellings in existing houses, or the building of carriage houses on large lots. 20 Brownfield development refers to the re–use of existing built lots where infrastructure already exists. This may mean replacing an old house with a new one, or it could be the removal of a single house for replacement by multi–dwelling developments. This is in contrast to greenfield development which occurs on land that was never previously developed, or over existing agricultural, or other productive land. 21 This assertion was made during the interviews with one Planning Manager when talking about that community’s growth boundary. 27 is still sustainable. However, this siloed economic approach could lead to all land and natural resources in an area being used and converted into capital investments, diminishing the natural carrying capacity of that area, contrary to the first principle of meeting human needs within ecological limits. Dresner outlines a difference in theory between “hard” sustainability and “soft” sustainability. A hard–sustainability approach allows capital from non–renewable resources to be used only to develop renewable resources. Soft sustainability allows capital from non–renewable resources to be turned into other types of capital, which can grow the economy, but might continue to diminish ecological carrying capacity. He argues that economists are typically soft theorists and environmentalists are typically hard theorists: Economists tend to average out such (indeterminate) risks in their calculations, burying worst–case possibilities in the average, or often even ignoring the possibility that things might turn out worse than they expect, so tending to advocate risky approaches to environmental futures. Environmentalists instead highlight worst–case outcomes and suggest that extra efforts should be taken to avoid them (2008, 4). Dresner shows that uncertainty plays a role in decisions on how to use natural resources, and that focussing only on the economic pillar, or only on the environmental pillar, ignores the risks in other areas. Brugmann argues that “ultimately, moving towards sustainability will require further local feedback mechanisms to indicate when consumption and development changes will be required to bring economic development activity into alignment with ecological limits and social needs” (1997). This is where a pillars approach falters. If a local government considers only one pillar, or even only one principle of sustainability, then the decisions made cannot be sustainable. Therefore, for the third principle of sustainability, a decision–making process by local governments should consider: - whether the decision is reversible in the future without significant extra costs to future generations (i.e. if the resource or land use may be considered renewable); - If any non–renewable use will benefit members of all generations, either through continued use, or through offsetting investments in renewables (hard sustainability); and - The cumulative effect of all non–renewable uses on the carrying capacity of the local environment. 28 Incorporating the considerations from each of the three principles into local government decision–making processes will allow for a more balanced approach to sustainability. While this is a preliminary framework, further theory and research into principles–based considerations could aid local governments in their drive toward becoming sustainable. 2.1.4 Section Summary This thesis is informed by a principles–based approach to sustainability, recognizing the three crucial elements of: meeting human needs within ecological limits; providing for intragenerational equity; and providing for intergenerational equity. The approach recognizes that using pillars is an attempt to operationalize sustainability objectives, but that without a clear understanding of the principles of sustainability, the pillars lead to compartmentalization and confusion about what those objectives should be. The literature consistently acknowledges the importance of sustainability practices at the local level, and the importance of the local context in these practices. Although much work has been done in urban sustainability theory, much remains unexplored with regard to the role scale plays within that local level of government. The following section outlines the contextual sustainability framework, contemporary to when the Gas Tax agreement was signed in 2005, and provides a critique of that framework grounded in the literature. 2.2 The Contextual Framework for the ICSP Process The main goal of the 2005 Gas Tax Agreement was “to ensure that British Columbia Communities are culturally vibrant, socially cohesive, economically strong and environmentally sustainable” (3). Rather than focus on a definition of sustainability, the agreement laid out a vision to integrate four major themes; economic, environmental, social and cultural. From the initial framing of the goal, it is evident that the Agreement fell victim to the same conceptual confusion around sustainability addressed in Section 1.3. In place of equity, the agreement talks about social cohesion and cultural vibrancy. In place of meeting human needs within environmental limits, the agreement talks about economic strength and environmental sustainability. Again, the focus is on any one of the three E’s of urban planning, plus culture, with no focus on the balance between these components. It is also telling that the word sustainable is tied only to the environment, again reflecting a focus on individual pillars, rather than balance. In further addressing the specifics of ICSPs, the Agreement lays out a schedule that vaguely frames the process as “an opportunity to enable local governments to elevate their planning activities to a significantly higher level” (Gas Tax, 2005, 48). 29 Through the coercion of funding, contingent on communities following this framework, the Gas Tax Agreement sets a foundation of conceptual confusion, supported by a drive toward urban planning principles, that do not consider the nuances of the needs of local governments of different sizes. The Agreement does formally divide local governments in the province into three tiers, recognizing “differing community characteristics, including population density, degree of urbanization, adjacency of communities to urbanized areas and the need for intra–regional infrastructure” (Gas Tax, 2005, 41). The intent of these tiers is to provide increased direct funding to smaller and more rural areas. This separation into tiers recognizes that even with otherwise equal authority and per capita resources, smaller local governments are at a major disadvantage in delivering on sustainability planning and operationalization over their larger counterparts. This difference supports the need for research to identify how size–related variables affect the process. Small local governments may already enjoy a significant sustainability advantage over urbanized areas, but the drive for a specific type of economic development creates an impetus to follow the urbanization process, rather than recognizing the existing advantage. Literature on the use and value of ecological services leads to a conclusion that local governments surrounded by a more natural environment may be able to supplement traditional, engineered infrastructure, giving them a significant advantage in meeting basic needs within ecological limits (Zhao et al., 2009; Berke, 2002; Rees, 1992). As an example, a natural environment may provide a much higher quality of drinking water at the source than an environment that has been affected by substantial human encroachment or human–generated activity. Therefore, the level of treatment infrastructure needed in a rural area may be significantly less than in an urban environment. This recognition offsets the costs of the establishment and maintenance of traditional infrastructure, increasing the financial ability to address both inter– and intra–generational equity. While the concept of an ecological footprint was introduced more than two decades ago, and the concept of an environmental deficit has been around for more than a decade, these concepts have not been examined vis–à–vis the size of a community, either in the study area, or in the broader literature on the subject (WWF, 2004; Rees, 1992). Wheeler (2004) asserts that the limits and characteristics of place and context are vitally important to sustainability planning. Given this assertion in the planning literature, there should be more focus on planning in a small community context, and not simply in urban areas. At the 1992 Rio Conference, delegates created Agenda 21, a framework for achieving sustainable development. Much of this framework was envisioned as a bottom–up approach, 30 including an entire chapter dedicated to the role of local authorities in achieving sustainable development (Dresner, 2008, 44). However, the theory behind this framework was based on prior understandings of sustainable development, largely on a national and international scale as outlined in the Brundtland (1987) report. This theory left a gap in the understanding of how to apply sustainability principles at the local level. For several years, one stream of literature focussed on developing indicators of sustainability that could measure progress toward a certain desirable outcome. The 2007 UN report, Indicators of sustainable development: Guidelines and methodologies, acknowledged the significant increase in the “knowledge of and experience with sustainable development indicators of countries and organizations” (U.N.D.O., 2007, 3). However, this framework focussed exclusively on indicators that were applicable at the national level. Within British Columbia, Gustavson et al. (1999), developed a methodology and indicators for the Fraser River Basin, but advocated that rather than extensive indicator specification and information monitoring efforts, a modelling approach to sustainability indicators could bridge the link between policy and effect. The study criticized prior indicator frameworks for “degenerating into a collection of long ‘laundry lists’ of variables, or into compendiums of historical statistical data” (118). The work goes on to say the three main criticisms of indicator work are that they often lack an ecosystem–based perspective, they are often snapshots in time, or retrospective, and they ignore linkages between policy goals and sustainable development. “Indicators dealing with social conditions, economic conditions and environmental quality are usually addressed in isolation of each other” (118). A similar critique of indicator frameworks was outlined in Corbiere–Nicollier et al. (2003). “In the abundant published work we find all kinds of indicator sets but little is done to integrate environmental, economic and social indicators in a coherent framework that systematically helps to understand the sustainability processes and analyse practical situations” (226). Bossel (2003) agreed with this assessment: “Indicator sets are usually characterised by specific disciplinary biases, with gaping oversights in some critical areas and overly dense indicator specifications in others” (2). Concurrently, another body of literature was being developed on the practice of planning for sustainable development. Rees (1995) argued that “professional planners must reassess the paradigm that lies behind most professional planning education and practice today” and that, “planners, by the very nature of their profession, are uniquely positioned to play a leadership role in this transition” (355). Berke (2002) added that, “sustainability can be used as an overarching framework to dramatically shift the practice of local participation from dominance by 31 narrow special interests toward a more holistic and inclusive view” (34). Campbell (2007) placed the responsibility for creating sustainability directly in the planner’s sphere of work: “the planner must reconcile not two, but at least three conflicting interests: to ‘grow’ the economy, distribute this growth fairly, and in the process not degrade the ecosystem” (297). These two related bodies of literature on implementing sustainability principles were the contemporary theoretical framework when the Gas Tax Agreement was developed and ICSPs were introduced. Criticisms of the top–down approaches likely influenced the ICSP framework for communities to self–define sustainability, while the legislative framework around municipal and regional governments made public consultation a requirement. Other literature (Bell and Morse, 2001; Brugmann, 1996; Freebairn and King, 2003; Pretty, 1995; Reed et al., 2006) also stressed the importance of community involvement in the sustainability planning process. Thus, the nuanced understanding of the difference between sustainable development and sustainability – the latter requiring a focus on balance, as noted in the introduction to Chapter 2 – was left up to the success of the new paradigm of community planning while planning approvals or rejections were made by non–expert elected officials with input from what could be assumed to be a non–expert public. 2.2.1 Contextualising Sustainability for ICSPs When ICSPs were introduced in 2005 through the Gas Tax Agreement, they were supposed to provide a framework for local governments to significantly enhance their planning activities by integrating sustainability into their formal plans. However, this framework provided a means for communities to self–define sustainability, and to contextualize it based on normative community interests, rather than principles–based sustainability objectives. The framework provided for local governments was based on seven principles of ICSPs: 1. Long–term thinking; 2. Broad in scope, considering economic, environmental, social and/or cultural sustainability; 3. Integration of sustainability and different types of plans or planning activities; 4. Collaboration, engaging community members and other partners; 5. Public engagement and education to enhance public input; 6. Implementation through putting plans into action; and 7. Monitoring and Evaluation through targets and tracking (BC Climate Action Toolkit). These principles can be grouped into 4 categories: 32 Table 1 – Categories of Principles for the ICSP Process Principles 1 and 2 attempt to create a framework for sustainability: Long–term thinking, which is broad in scope, considering economic, environmental, social and/or cultural sustainability. Principles 3 and 6 describe how ICSPs should feed into the planning process: Integrate sustainability into plans and planning activities, and put those plans into action. Principles 4 and 5 simply outline what is already a mandated practice of community engagement for local government planning and development decisions: Collaborate with, engage and educate community members and other partners. Principle 7 relates to the inclusion of sustainability indicators in ICSPs, which I critiqued in Section 2.2: Include sustainability targets and ways to track progress through the ICSP process. Although there is no explicit definition or overt framework for sustainability in the Gas Tax Agreement, it is evident that a pillared framework could be used, accounting for “economic, environmental, social and/or cultural” pillars, and that this would serve the need to operationalize sustainability planning for local governments. This use of the three (plus one) pillars in the ICSP framework had unintended negative effects on the development of these plans in the study area, which I address further in Chapter 5. Although the original three–pillars approach to sustainable development predates Our Common Future, Brundtland immediately addresses the pillars and critiques them. “Until recently, the planet was a large world in which human activities and their effects were neatly compartmentalized within nations, within sectors (energy, agriculture, trade) and within broad areas of concern (environmental, economic, social) … These are not separate crises: an environmental crisis, a development crisis, an energy crisis. They are all one” (Brundtland, 4). Despite this warning from Brundtland to avoid compartmentalizing the effects of human activities, the pillared framework for sustainability endured. The 1993 International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives redefined sustainable development as “development that delivers basic environmental, social, and economic services to all without threatening the viability of the natural, built, and social systems upon which these services depend” (Brugmann, 1993, 364). The definition – created by a group whose mandate was to look at the local – recognizes the role of local governments in providing sustainability services within their areas. Unfortunately, the definition of local sustainable development through service provision did not account for a principles–based approach, but reinforced a pillared framework to operationalize 33 sustainability. Various widely–used models demonstrate how sustainability was thought of in spheres, pillars, legs of a stool, 3–E’s, and a triple bottom line, as shown in the following six figures. Each of these figures represents a commonly used concept of how to operationalize sustainability through the consideration of the broad areas of concern which Brundtland cited. In all but Figure 7, the environment is given an equal status to the economic and social pillars, representing anthropocentric perspectives of the concept. Figure 7 relays a more ecocentric viewpoint, in which the economy is a construct existing within the community (social), and both exist within the environment. These constructs represent the contextual sustainability framework which informed the development of the Gas Tax Agreement in 2005. 34 Figure 3 – Venn Diagram Sphere of Sustainability (Emmanuel et al. 2011). Figure 4 – Pillars of Sustainability (Sustainability – Ed n.d.). 35 Figure 5 – Three–Legged Stool of Sustainability (Vanek, Steven. n.d.). Figure 6 – 3 E's of Sustainability (Rodrigue, 2017). 36 Figure 7 – Circles of Sustainability (futureoxford.ca n.d.) Figure 8 – Triple Bottom Line Sustainability (Multiple Sources). 37 2.2.2 A Critique of the ICSP Context The three–legged stool and similar conceptual models for operationalizing sustainability were the dominant sustainability discourse when the Gas Tax Agreement was introduced in 2005. At that time, three substantial critiques of this model were also beginning to take shape in the literature. First, Dawe and Ryan (2003) charged that the model is based on faulty science and faulty logic that place human activity in a separate sphere from the environment in which all human activity occurs. This point is easily demonstrated in five of the six models above. In all but Figure 7, the environment is given equal standing to the economy and social considerations. Dawe and Ryan argue that the environment is the floor upon which any stool of sustainability must stand, similar to the ecocentric approach outlined in the introduction of this chapter. Recognizing the limited carrying capacity of the environment is critical to operationalizing sustainability, and is the basis for the first principle of sustainability. Unfortunately, the Gas Tax Agreement framework for sustainability uses a pillars approach, and does not provide a sound theoretical framework to ensure that local governments are in fact planning for sustainability. The basis for ICSPs is what Dawe and Ryan call “the faulty three–legged stool” (2003). Compounding the issue of the faulty three–legged stool model in the ICSP process is the reference to the “social and/or cultural” pillar, in a way that provides no context or guidance for local governments. Using a faulty model, the Gas Tax Agreement does not even determine which legs on the stool are important or should be used. Further, the Gas Tax Agreement encourages local governments to self–define sustainability, based on the three – and/or four – legged stool, using the normative values of the community. So, on one hand, the framework is based on a faulty pillared structure, and on the other, it asks communities to conceptualize and define sustainability for their own context, with no grounding in the principles of the concept itself. While this is a drawback of the Gas Tax Agreement, it is understandable, given the significant discussion around alternate and supplementing pillars in the literature. The second critique of the pillared framework relates to the selection of appropriate pillars, and whether a three–legged stool is sufficient to operationalize the concept. O’Conner (2006, 291) argues that a fourth – Political – pillar, is “fundamentally necessary” for sustainability as a multiple–bottom–line approach relies on both scientific and ethical questions. He acknowledges that taking a pillars approach often leads to conflicts between the interests as defined in each pillar, and that “prospects of and policy norms for sustainability cannot be defined for the three spheres separately” (286). He sees the role of the political sphere as regulatory toward the interactions between the three spheres. O’Connor’s example of a political 38 sphere echoes Brundtland’s concept that sustainability is not a fixed state of harmony, but a process, including institutional change being made consistent with future as well as present needs. Soini and Birkeland (2014) assess yet another conceptualized sustainability pillar – Cultural. Through a literature review, they identify seven separate “story lines” dealing with cultural aspects of sustainability and the various discourses from the global to the local. They find that the concept of cultural sustainability has been in use in the literature since at least 1997, but that its use is diverse, and that there is a lack of discussion around its meaning, even up until 2014 (219). This inclusion of other pillars lends to conceptual confusion, and the apparent lack of in–depth analysis for the ICSP framework compounds this issue. The third major critique, outlined in the previous section, is that the pillars framework allows users to focus on individual pillars, and makes any process of integration of the concepts very difficult to achieve. Gibson, (2006) argues that limited attempts at integrating the three pillars into decision–making processes “may facilitate continued or even renewed neglect of some traditionally undervalued considerations, especially the protection of ecological systems and functions.” Extensive work has also been completed on sustainability assessments and indicators, which also tend to be categorized into a pillared framework, even when attempts are made to integrate the pillars. Therefore, using a pillared framework allows compartmentalization both in decision–making processes and in any attempts at measuring progress toward sustainability. 2.2.3 Section Summary Recognizing the role of local governments and planners in achieving sustainability, and providing an incentive through the Gas Tax agreement moved not only the discourse on sustainability forward in B.C., but also led to actions by local governments that have yielded many concrete results. However, while the intent of the Gas Tax Agreement was to enhance local planning activities by integrating sustainability objectives, the lack of a clear theoretical framework for sustainability and a lack of scrutiny into the pillars approach led local governments to significant conceptual, and therefore operational confusion. Pillars allow the concept to be compartmentalized in decision–making processes, and support the original dichotomous view of economy versus environment that the concept of sustainable development originally sought to address. The pillars framework also supports the conclusion that growth must occur in smaller communities in order to meet the needs of the population. This impetus for growth is supported by the use of indicator frameworks that often rely on lists of economic, social and environmental progress, but that fail to take an integrated approach or build an 39 understanding of how progress in one area affects another. The next section addresses the differences in sustainability planning between small and large local governments, and introduces some of the size–related limitations in sustainability planning for local governments. 2.3 Rural Versus Urban and Everything in Between While the bodies of literature were being developed around sustainability indicators and the need for urban planners to lead the way within local government, the smallest local governments were largely left out of the discussion. The Gas Tax Agreement was a pact between three levels of government in Canada; the national, provincial, and local – the latter being represented by the Union of BC Municipalities. Although local governments are referred to as a level of government in B.C., in reality they are creations of the province, empowered only through provincial legislation, reliant on provincial taxation authority, and limited to the roles and programs allowed them by the province (LGA, 2015). This limitation of authority, and limited access to resources, creates a multi–tier system in which, depending on population base, local governments are either able or not able to meet their resident’s needs. According to Chess, many rural sustainability projects and much of the available literature on rural sustainability are for areas that are too highly populated or too small in geographical area or are located too near a large or metropolitan city to be considered truly rural (2012, 2). A 2015 Community Context paper for the small unincorporated Town of Hedley recognized that a number of variables experienced in that community are repeated throughout rural areas of B.C. “Rural BC Reality – a policy of urbanization has gutted small town BC: residents must travel for most services… ‘economies of scale’ for services amounts to a transfer of wealth from rural BC to urban BC” (Wood et al. 2015). Chess (2012) defends the need for more research into community size–related variables, citing similar reasons: “Many sustainable community tools address growth management and livability in growing urban regions, for example urban densification and public transit, and by definition have limited relevance in most rural or resource dependent communities.” She goes on to say, “broadly speaking, the research is needed for BC because the economy, services, land uses and physical forms in rural and urban areas are vastly different” and that rural areas “need a made–in–BC approach to sustainability planning for rural communities, and especially those experiencing little or no growth, or declining populations” (1). Chess’s work represents a growing dichotomous vision of communities in B.C., in which one group is small, resource–based and reliant on other more urban areas, and the other is urban–metropolitan, well–organized and a formal part of the global economy. 40 This dichotomous vision manifests itself in the renewed Administrative Agreement on the Federal Gas Tax Fund in British Columbia, effective on the 1st of April, 2014. While the original Gas Tax agreement (2005) separated local governments into three tiers and allocated funding accordingly, the renewed agreement separates only the Greater Vancouver Regional District and its member municipalities from all other municipalities in the province (2014, 13). The original middle tier was identified based on population density, degree of urbanization, adjacency of communities to urbanized areas, and the need for intra–regional infrastructure. Operationally, the funding available to tier 1 (rural areas) in the original agreement was proportionately larger than that allocated to the second and third tiers, recognizing the need of rural areas to have extra support for community services. In the new agreement, this disparity is erased, although 95% of available funding in Greater Vancouver is allocated to regional transit projects, while every other area of the province has far greater leeway for funding its projects. Whereas the original agreement gave extra support to rural areas, this new approach leaves smaller municipalities and rural areas competing with large urban areas up to and including Victoria with its 344,000 residents (Stats Can Victoria, 2011). In stark contrast to Victoria is B.C.’s smallest incorporated village of Zeballos, where the population dropped by 33.9% between 2006 and 2011, down to only 125 people (Stats Can Zeballos, 2011). Given the disparity in size between these two competing local governments, a useful framework for organizing local governments by size is given by Statistics Canada. Sites in B.C. are represented by four categories of populated areas: large urban population centres (100,000 or greater), medium population centres (30,000 to 99,999), small population centres (1,000 to 29,999) and rural areas (fewer than 1,000). This framework is different than the formal incorporation granted to a Municipality or Regional District through the Local Government Act or Community Charter, which gives a local government in B.C. its authority and makes Zeballos equal to Victoria in terms of ability to tax, create bylaws and provide services. Another important note is that the use of community size (or scale in the case of rural vs. urban planning) is informed by conceptions of space and scale in the human geography literature. Marston et al. describe a “dominant conception of scale,” which they define as “a nested hierarchy of differentially sized and bounded spaces” (2005, 416–417). This is the primary concept of scale used in this research, as the communities studied are separated into the four specific size categories, and their place in the jurisdictional hierarchy is recognized, with local governments being below provincial and federal governments. 41 While the use of the dominant conception of scale in this way was intended as an organizational tool for the study design, it was not intended to be a limiting ontology; in other words, the intention was not to accept scale and hierarchy as a rigid factual construct. Indeed, the use of size in the study is intended to understand scale as a variable, not as an immutable construct under which planning occurs. In the discussion, I talk about size as a variable, and how it relates to other variables. I both understand that there is a dominant conception of scale which underlies the current phenomena under study, and I also attempt to avoid a rigid adherence to size categories by questioning the current institutional setup of vertical hierarchies of scale. In short, I understand what the variables are based on, but I question those bases when looking at and discussing the findings. For the purpose of this research, the four categories of populated areas allow a better framework for understanding the applicability of urban planning principles for sustainability, and for identifying other variables. It also addresses the dichotomous vision that local governments are either rural or urban. Finally, it recognizes and avoids the “disgruntlement” that truly rural areas feel when they have to compete with larger regional centres for new funding, due to the fact that all are lumped into a rural category (SIBAC, 2013, 1). Some work has also been done in B.C. to identify planning practices for rural areas, with an almost exclusive focus on growing the rural economy. A 2014 report by the provincial government on action to support rural development completely excluded the words ‘sustainability,’ ‘sustainable’ and ‘environment’, but mentioned ‘economy’ or ‘economic’ 21 times (Rural Report 2014). Another report entitled “Strengthening Rural Canada” and funded by the federal government, separated B.C. into Census Metropolitan Areas, Census Agglomerations, which are considered as urban areas, and Others, “classified as rural and small towns with different degrees of rurality” (Strengthening Rural Canada, 2015, 2). Markey et al. (2004) have also spoken of “convenient interpretations of a homogenous ‘rural’ portrayed in the media and in political and policy representations” (1). While Markey et al. recognized the need to look more closely at the characterization of rural areas, the work was, as mentioned for the studies described above, focussed exclusively on economic development in rural B.C. Still, the authors recognized that each area was subject to its own context, which again supports the need to identify specific size–related variables. It is clear from the available literature that size plays an important role in community planning, and that smaller local governments face vastly different challenges than their urban counterparts. It is also evident that much of the focus on rural planning in B.C. deals exclusively 42 with economic development, while ignoring what the area might lose through that economic development in terms of its relative sustainability and its maintenance of ecosystem services. This focus on economic development is an impetus for continuing urbanization, and increased calls for funding of traditional infrastructure and services for rural areas, bolstered by the faulty three–legged stool model of sustainability. Senior government infrastructure grants through the Gas Tax Fund require communities to develop ICSPs which, in small communities, are usually led by outside consultants with a background in urban planning.22 The review of existing ICSPs during this research project assessed the extent of grafting urban planning principles onto communities where they may be of little or no relevance. The literature also suggests that ICSP development has moved forward in B.C. in many instances without academic scrutiny into the process, goals, or outcomes. This research aimed to fill a portion of that gap. 2.3.1 Ecosystem Services and Community Size Local governments rely on a number of natural and human services, which originate outside of their areas of jurisdiction. One area of study in economics looks at ecosystem services provided through the preservation of natural capital (Costanza et al. 2014). This concept is also useful when looking at local government sustainability through service provision. Some examples of ecosystem services include food production, water storage, filtration and flood mitigation, air purification, carbon sequestration, and recreation opportunities. Many of these services are provided by local governments. However, local governments with larger populations which have sprawled across their natural environment may have a diminished capacity for providing local ecosystem services, particularly if these development trends are irreversible or economically unfeasible to reverse (Eigenbrod et al., 2011). In contrast, rural areas with lower populations are less likely to have significantly and irreversibly damaged their surrounding environment, and efforts at mitigating any damage would likely not detract from the sense of community that exists. In other words, large urban areas are more likely to have surpassed their local ecosystem’s carrying capacity to provide for the needs of their population, whereas rural communities are likely using their local ecosystem capacity to provide for the needs of populations outside of the local area through food and other resource production. Another way to think of ecosystem capacity in a local context is as a tipping point for the first principle of sustainability. Each local government has a defined geographic area under its 22 The Whistler Centre for sustainability has developed at least 40 community sustainability plans, many of which are specifically ICSPs in small towns and rural areas of BC, but they arguably bring the same urban–bias background and pillar approach as other consultants. http://www.whistlercentre.ca/projects/ 43 jurisdiction, and also receives ecosystem services from outside of its area. Once a population grows too large for the capacity of the local environment, goods and services must be brought in from outside to meet human needs. Figure 9 shows a water cycle set in the Central Okanagan valley and demonstrates how the valley–bottom cities of Vernon and Kelowna benefit from ecosystem services that take place in the adjacent areas, outside of their direct jurisdiction. Figure 9 – Okanagan Water Cycle (Okanagan Basin Water Board). Human development has the potential to disrupt the natural water cycle, or to create demand beyond the capacity of the local environment. The larger the population, the greater the need to source ecosystem services from outside the local area. Figure 10 shows the water supply sources for the Greater Vancouver area in 2002. Due to the metropolitan population, the water source area is not only massive, but must be completely protected from other activity. Only through targeted urban planning and water use restrictions has Greater Vancouver been able to meet the human need for water in recent drought years such as 2015. 44 Figure 10 – Greater Vancouver Water Supply Sources and Systems (GVRD). 45 While smaller local governments generally place a smaller footprint on the local environment, they are also often driven by local natural resource production that relies on that environment. In all rural regions of the province, the production of primary resource goods (from forestry, mining and agriculture) as a percentage of total economic activity is above average, while in the regions with metropolitan centres, this production of primary resource goods percentage is well below average (BC Stats Socio–Economic Profiles, 2012). This statistic means that primary resource goods are produced outside of urban centres, but for consumption in urban centres. Thus, ecosystem services that exist in rural areas subsidize the meeting of human needs in urban areas; again, this arrangement is what Wood described as a “transfer of wealth from rural BC to urban BC” (Wood et al. 2015). While local governments with large populations are typically the subject of academic publications on sustainability dealing with urban planning, small local governments offer a possible alternative discourse. If a small community has a large set of ecosystem services within its jurisdiction, then it likely has an excess for its own needs. This means that its local environment has not been destroyed, so there is an availability of natural capital to meet community needs now and in the future, provided its population stays within the ecological limit. Marsden argues that “farms and other economic enterprises contribute, beyond their primary function of producing food and fibre, to environmental benefits such as land conservation, the sustainable management of renewable natural resources; the preservation of biodiversity; and the enhancement of the socio–economic aspects of rural life” (2013, 220). In the simplest terms, the local rural environment can meet basic human needs, including water supply and filtration, air purification, food production, etc. If there is a large excess of ecosystem services, then there are natural resource opportunities that can be used to provide economic benefit, while still being managed in a hard–sustainability manner to achieve no net loss of natural capital. Given these two conditions, (what would be called economic and environmental sustainability under the faulty three–legged stool model), the local government could provide the necessary social services to those in need, while not requiring extra property taxes to pay for it. The quality of the economy and quality of the environment would also lend to ‘social sustainability’ through overall community health. However, this dynamic is not the case in B.C. where smaller areas export their surrounding natural capital, while receiving little in terms of social or economic benefit. In contrast to small communities, large metropolitan areas may have already surpassed their local ecosystem capacity, due to urban sprawl, the distance to productive hinterlands, the need for engineered services such as water treatment plants and reservoirs and so on. Big 46 cities are now concentrating on mitigating their own historical impacts on the environment – or what Loorbach and Shiroyama called “being less unsustainable” (2014, 4). Yet the attraction of big cities and the search for affordable housing perpetuates the problem, pushing people farther away from the core and further destroying the natural capital of previously unused land (Royer, 2007). Figure 11 shows two examples of human development and their potential impacts on ecosystem services related to water. On the right, urban sprawl and traditional development have detrimental effects on the local environment, while on the left, carefully planned development and activity allow the natural environment to continue functioning in a normal way. Figure 11 – Wise Water Use Outdoors (Natural Resources Canada). For the first principle of sustainability, meeting human needs within ecological capacity, smaller local governments are generally farther from the tipping point than large local governments, which may already be importing ecological services from outside the geographic area. This is not to say that small local governments can simply meet all the needs of their populations without services from larger centres. In fact, the way local governments are structured in the study area generally removes the ability of rural areas to fully gain from the services they export. Natural resource profits are usually private, and natural resource rents are paid directly to the province. While the local government provides services for the workers and companies who produce the goods, they see limited overall benefit from those activities they support. 47 However, some cases do exist in which small local governments have achieved greater local gain through the careful use of resources. In the first example, in 2006, the District of Lake Country built a balancing reservoir to stabilize flows for its municipal water supply. A staff member brought forward the idea of also building a micro–hydro turbine that could offset some of the municipality’s electricity demand, and could eventually become a revenue generator for the community. In 2009, through a mix of federal government grants and municipal borrowing, the project was complete – producing enough electricity to power around 400 homes. In 2013 the plant generated net revenue of $272,000, with $66,000 being transferred as the final debt repayment for the building costs of the project. This revenue allowed the municipality to establish a Climate Action Reserve Fund for future green community projects (District of Lake Country 2010, 8). In 2013, the total operating budget for the District was just over $18 million, which means the micro–hydro generator contributes the equivalent of approximately 1.4% of the total operating budget, and 40 times the amount of revenue as was generated through property tax on the 40% of district land designated for farming (District of Lake Country, 2013). Here, the application of the hard–sustainability principle can be seen, as a renewable resource is made to fund future green community projects. In another example, the Municipality of North Cowichan had a 2011 population of fewer than 29,000, with a significant portion of the labour force employed in logging and forest products (Municipality of North Cowichan, 2016). In 1946, the Municipality – mainly through seizure of private property for non–payment of taxes – established a municipal forest reserve of over 5,000 hectares, accounting for 25% of its total land area. Another 25% of the land is designated in the Agricultural Land Reserve, leaving only 50% of the land base available for other development (Municipality of North Cowichan, Forestry 2016). Up to 1981, the reserve was leased to private groups who were simply allowed to harvest trees greater than a certain diameter. After 1981, the Municipality started its own forestry department providing full management and employment through all cycles of harvesting, replanting and maintenance (Municipality of North Cowichan, 2013). Some of the operations are through partnerships with local First Nations, the Regional District and commercial contractors. Although the program is run by a local government, the operations and sales are subject to the overall market for timber. Between 2008 and 2011, and in a few earlier years of the program, a net deficit was run. However, in 21 out of the 27 years of record, a net profit was 48 achieved.23 Adding to this is the social benefit of having a sustainably managed forest and the other recreation, employment and ecosystem benefits that come from the program. In 2013, there were 37.64 total direct and indirect jobs created by the program (Municipality of North Cowichan, 2013). Aside from industrial timber sales, program revenue is generated through sales of permits for other forest products (firewood and salal), and through numerous organized recreation activities and events. In 2013 the program generated $435,606 in profit, compared to a total municipal operating budget of $39,568,641 or equivalent to about 1.1% of that budget. These examples show that smaller local governments that benefit directly from local resource development have an advantage where the first principle of sustainability is concerned, and also can aquire the extra resources to work toward intragenerational and intergenerational equity. In this way, a dynamic equilibrium may be reached in which local use of natural resources becomes a resource to contribute to community sustainability. If best practices can be defined and planning follows those practices, then local governments can work to achieve the three principles of sustainability. 2.3.2 Section Summary Small local governments face a number of resource–related challenges influenced by community size. Limited taxation authority and jurisdiction over surrounding natural resources make it hard for rural areas to compete with the larger and more diverse economies of large cities. However, smaller areas often enjoy the benefits from the surrounding ecosystem services that are less likely to have surpassed a tipping point than in metropolitan areas. Excess natural resources and ecosystem services benefit the larger region and have the potential to allow small communities to reach a dynamic equilibrium that is sustainable. In larger cities, sound urban planning and technology have the potential to reverse some of the damage that has been done to the local environment, but the political trade–offs may be more severe. Compounding the issues of local government sustainability is the lack of attention to size as a variable in policy, planning and operations. Current funding allocations that allow competition between rural areas and metropolitan cities ignore the multifunctionality of services that are provided by rural areas, small towns and hinterlands, amounting to a transfer of wealth from the rural to the urban.24 23 Similar results can be seen through other municipal forestry operations in Revelstoke and Mission B.C. 24 Senior government services such as health care and education also favour urban areas, making it more difficult and expensive for small communities to continue to provide primary goods as part of the regional economy. 49 Despite the relative limitations for smaller areas, examples such as Lake Country and North Cowichan show how small local governments can enact policy and practices that address resource gaps. Institutional change to better support smaller local governments, and increased flexibility in their ability to raise resources, will allow them to develop into sustainable communities, whether that entails growth or not. Large local governments, through careful planning and new best practices and technologies have the ability to restore ecosystem services and to reduce the human impact on the local environment. Rather than continuing to grow in a ‘less unsustainable’ manner than traditional development, metropolitan areas must reverse trends of development whose cumulative effects have surpassed the tipping point of the local environment. Fortunately for large urban centres, a significant body of literature exists to support this type of sustainable re–development. For smaller areas, the theory and literature is severely lacking. I discuss this theory of planning for local government sustainability in the following, final section of the literature review. 2.4 Urban Planning in British Columbia and the Smart Growth Agenda Operationalizing the concept of sustainability in the built environment has become a significant subject of discussion in community planning. The two relevant discourses are: 1. what are the planning principles that create a sustainable built environment; and 2. how can progress be measured based on the implementation of those principles. While significant work has been done on both of these fronts for urban areas, the research has not sufficiently considered the operationalization of sustainability principles at the community level in small population centres and rural areas. Naldi et al. (2015) argue that “in terms of the conceptual aspects and in terms of potential indicators and measures of Smart Growth and its determinants, there is a clear need for studies that analyse each of the factors that can influence the growth potential in a diverse set of rural regions” (91). This finding supports the assertion that there are numerous community size–related variables that could affect how sustainability is understood and applied, that need to be explored. Smart Growth for urban areas began as a planning theory in North America in the 1990s and spread to areas in Canada, including B.C., by the mid–2000s (Levy, 2013; Grant, 2009). The theory developed primarily as a response to the frequency of urban sprawl in cities, articulated by citizens’ concerns over traffic congestion (Levy, 2013). Smart Growth intermingled with prior theories of New Urbanism and Sustainability, feeding the trend of urban planners becoming the champions of local sustainability efforts (Grant, 2009). The Smart Growth Guide to Local Government Law and Advocacy describes Smart Growth for B.C. 50 Smart growth refers to urban development approaches that are fiscally, socially and environmentally responsible. Smart growth is development that enhances the quality of life in communities, complements ecosystem functioning, and uses tax revenue wisely. Smart growth applies sustainability principles to urbanizing areas where government policies have traditionally favoured low density, discontinuous, auto–dependent, single use development. Rather than subsidizing urban growth, local governments and citizens who understand the benefits of smart growth are requiring more efficient development ideas. As a comprehensive approach to development, smart growth encompasses strategies such as greenways protection, nodal development, demand management, industrial ecology, and community partnerships (Nowlan et al. 2001, 12). While variations of Smart Growth principles are apparent in the literature, the US Environmental Protection Agency listed ten, which have been widely adopted as the Smart Growth framework (US EPA, 2015): 1. Mix land uses. 2. Take advantage of compact building design. 3. Create a range of housing opportunities and choices. 4. Create walkable neighborhoods. 5. Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place. 6. Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas. 7. Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities. 8. Provide a variety of transportation choices. 9. Make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost effective. 10. Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions. These ten principles are applied as the means to achieve sustainability through local government planning and action. In several jurisdictions in North America, senior governments provide grants and other financial incentives specifically targeted at Smart Growth projects, whether undertaken by local governments or private interests. In some cases, these policies exclude funding that was previously available for non–Smart Growth areas, including less urbanized areas. The outcome 51 of this policy in B.C., through the ICSP distribution of funding, is that smaller and rural communities are less likely than urban areas to receive funding that they need to provide infrastructure and services. However, according to Curran and Leung (2001), urban sprawl development in B.C. is heavily subsidized by local governments through the provision of infrastructure. They argue that when local governments refuse to provide infrastructure to greenfield developments, the market is more likely to respond by substituting brownfield redevelopment, because of the infrastructure already in place. This reflects principle 7 listed above, directing development toward existing communities. However, Curran and Leung (2001) also acknowledge that infrastructure development can be used to encourage the growth of an area, which in the case of small local governments, can attract development and increase the tax base, as well as providing more economic opportunity and diversity for the community. Directing development toward existing communities is an example of a Smart Growth principle that can be applied within an urban centre, but could have a negative effect in a smaller community, focused on growth. The ten Smart Growth principles address the first relevant discourse in the community planning literature, namely: what are the planning principles that create a sustainable built environment? They also betray the urban bias of the theory, being developed specifically to counteract one type of undesirable development – urban sprawl – while being universally adopted as the conventional wisdom for community planning. The lack of research into the needs and functions of smaller areas is a gap in theory that significantly affects the operationalization of sustainability principles. If 54% of the world’s population lived in urban areas in 2014, 46% lived in non–urban areas. Still, in B.C., the Smart Growth agenda is critically important, as 86% of the population is urban, well above the global trend (Stats Can, 2011 Census). However, this does not negate the need for further study of size as a factor that determines what is an appropriate form of sustainability, and the applicability of Smart Growth to small communities. The 14% of B.C.’s population that lives in non–urban areas greatly affects food production, resource extraction, and land preservation. Its role in the urban industrial system may be seen as providing the means of subsistence for urban dwellers. Small and rural areas are the foundations on which our cities are built, and if we can’t find ways to make them sustainable, urban Smart Growth will be irrelevant. The second community planning discourse – how can progress be measured based on the implementation of Smart Growth principles? – has been well studied, as evidenced by the significant volume of indicator work cited earlier. While the discussion continues, looking for the 52 best indicator frameworks and methodologies for measurement, the literature again is clearly lacking in ways to measure progress toward sustainability in smaller areas. This is not surprising, as where there is no theory behind sustainable rural development there can be no implementation, and therefore, no measurement of effect. 2.4.1 Addressing the Gap: Sustainable Planning for Non–urban Areas While a significant volume of work has been completed in planning for urban areas, such as Smart Growth, little has been accomplished in planning for rural sustainability. One reason for this absence is a lack of understanding of how different institutions, levels of government and special interests function in rural regional areas. Morrison argues that “there has been little empirical and analytical research on the potential of regional institutional integration for rural sustainability beyond ad hoc evaluation of specific regional initiatives” (2006, 144). Hallstrom (2016) argues further that “There is little known about how the context and complexity of rural environments impacts the operationalization, implementation, and assessment of these plans (ICSPs), even while rural communities now face the reality of attempting to convert often wide–ranging strategic goals into measurable, justifiable and meaningful action” (xiv). As these authors argue, action has been taken toward rural sustainability planning, without sufficient research into the unique needs of rural communities. While some research has been done, and there is increasingly a recognition that more must be done, rural sustainability planning is still in its infancy as an area of research. Interestingly, current urban planning theory has introduced the concept of “Complete Communities” for sustainability as a sub–set of urban Smart Growth Principles: A complete community is like what we used to think as being your local village — only updated to a modern context. A village is a place where you can find most everything you need, and you can walk to get there. An urban village is a vibrant neighbourhood within a city or town, and a great city is made up of many urban villages. From downtown to small town, the process of designing walkable and vibrant neighbourhoods is improving our quality of life at the same time as it is tackling major issues from climate change to transit and economic development (Smart Growth Ontario, 2015). This quote shows an urban appeal to small–town living, comparing a complete community to a traditional village in which all of the local services are within walking distance to each residence. As large cities are trying to create urban village centres, current villages face a resource–related 53 impetus to grow in order to survive and provide services to their residents. While the same source argues “from the biggest city, to the smallest hamlet, we need complete communities,” that theory does not address the very real planning challenges that rural areas face, when compared to big cities creating urban villages. While Complete Communities address human needs and access to services, they do little to address the first principle of sustainability by meeting those needs within ecological capacity. As I argued in the previous section, small villages can actually address both. As I have argued, smaller local governments face greater resource–related challenges than urban areas, mainly due to financial constraints through a limited tax base, and jurisdictional constraints both geographically and in terms of authorities. However, two factors underlie these challenges, which will both need to be addressed to make meaningful progress in rural sustainability. First, as Brundtland argued, a city’s “prospects” depend on its place in the larger urban system, or how it interacts with the larger region, the nation, and internationally (1987). There is not only an assumption that small areas need growth to survive and become sustainable, but that their growth is contingent on the services they provide within the larger urban system. Sumner disputes that rural areas must accept their place in the larger urban system: “To a large extent, sustainability and globalization not only form the context within which daily life in rural communities takes place, but also pose the problems and drive the decisions made in these communities” (2005, 4). She argues that the primacy of money in the decision–making process fails to acknowledge that rural areas are “a vital link between society and the environment” (Sumner, 2005, 4 and also see Hallstrom et al. 2016). Sumner’s argument reinforces the claim of Wood et al. that there is a transfer of wealth from rural to urban communities (2015). This transfer comes not only from the distribution of natural capital from resource–based areas to urban centres, but also from the lack of services provided in small communities. Where rural residents have to travel for health care, education and shopping to urban centres, they are taking money that was earned in a rural area and spending it in an urban one. When primary resources are exported from a rural area to markets, royalties go to senior governments, while profits go to urban–based corporations, paying into urban property tax and business fees, often with urban and even international shareholders. This transfer stands is in stark contrast to the idealized Complete Community village of the past, where the butcher, the baker and candlestick maker all sourced local goods, and local wealth largely stayed in the community. 54 The second factor that disadvantages smaller local governments is the process of community engagement through the development of ICSPs and other sustainability–related plans and policies. As demonstrated earlier, a significant conceptual confusion exists that often leads to anthropocentric and compartmentalized plans and policies. Decades of academic research have gone into best planning practices for urban areas, so that now, even without a solid conceptual foundation for sustainability, urban centres have rules to follow that move their communities to a more sustainable path. In contrast, small areas are left to self–define sustainability – a task that has so far eluded academics of every discipline (Sumner, 2005) – and to operationalize the concept based on urban planning theory. This need for self-definition of sustainability leads to a confusing process for community engagement, which becomes more a visioning exercise than an actual planning process for sustainability. 2.4.2 Section Summary Through this literature review, I examined key theoretical frameworks for sustainability and outlined the three principles of sustainability: meeting basic human needs within environmental limits; intragenerational equity; and intergenerational equity. I introduced an alternative framework of questions for each principle that could be refined to add to local government decision–making processes. Next, I reviewed the sustainability literature and critiques that were contemporary to the original Gas Tax Agreement, which set a pillared framework for local government to develop ICSPs. Smart Growth and Complete Communities were used to outline how urban planning principles are grafted onto small local governments and rural areas, and I introduced some of the size–related limitations that local governments face in planning for sustainability. This literature review provided a foundation to design research that would answer the question: how does the size of local government affect how sustainability is understood and applied to policy as reflected in ICSPs in British Columbia? This research design is described in the following chapter. 55 3. Methods 3.1 Theoretical Approach and Rationale In order to answer the research question: “How does the size of local government affect how sustainability is understood and applied to policy as reflected in ICSPs in British Columbia?”, I used mixed methods based on a grounded theory approach, and oriented by a constructivist epistemology, which is addressed below. Simply put, grounded theory is a way of generating theories from data, rather than using data to test a preconceived hypothesis. The focus is on using emergent methods, with theory generation and data collection and analysis occurring iteratively, “as the nature of the phenomenon and its context become clearer” (Dubois and Araujo, 2007, 207 in Wagner, 2010). Coding is used to develop categories, specify their attributes, and integrate the findings into new theories. Constant comparison of theory and explanation are key to identifying causal relationships and expanding or rejecting theories as they emerge (Kaghan et al., 1999, in Wagner, 2010). This overarching method was used to address the research question, while allowing the flexibility to identify variables other than size that affect the framing of sustainability. It also allowed for theory emergence to explain why size may be a key variable, without predicting the results in a traditional hypothesis–testing way. The approach used is not intended to replicate a positivist method, but to allow inductive theory building and hypothesis generation, which is useful when trying to understand complex phenomena (Tsang, 2013). Easton (2010) charges that “few authors of case based papers offer a defense of their choice of the case method on formal epistemological grounds” and that positivism’s “defining feature is its nomothetic epistemological stance which implies that there exist regularities or law–like generalisations in material or social settings that provide the basis for both explanation and prediction” (118). However, a constructivist, rather than a positivist, perspective underpins the methodology of grounded theory, using case study analysis as method. This constructivist approach differs from positivism because rather than law–like regularities, it recognizes that truth is relative and is constructed by those who perceive it. Constructivists accept that reality may be understood differently by different people, based on their experiences, without dismissing the possibility that an objective reality exists. In studying and understanding social phenomena, a constructivist allows that behaviour can be influenced by a subject’s perception of reality, and that the researcher’s own perception of reality can be influenced through the research, which allows for the exploration of complex social interactions (Baxter and Jack, 2008). 56 For this research, I used cross–case study analysis to compare data from different sources, and to identify new variables and how those variables interacted. This approach also considers the context in which a certain phenomenon occurs, and seeks to understand how that context affects the outcome. In this research, the institutional bounds of local governments, their role, planning theory and the Gas Tax Agreement – as well as other aspects examined in this work – all form the broader context under which sustainability was self–defined by communities in ICSP development. Based on this grounded theory methodology, rather than using the traditional positivist notions of internal validity, external validity, reliability and objectivity, this qualitative research was informed by Wagner’s (2010) framework of credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability, and applicability, which Wagner attributes to a constructivist approach, expanding on Lincoln and Guba’s original work in this area (1985). The following lays out these methodological tests, as described by Wagner (2010, 6–7) and each is addressed throughout this methods section. - “Credibility is achieved if the results are believable from the perspective of the subjects under investigation.” - Transferability is achieved “if the findings from a research sample can be transferred to a broader population.” - Dependability relates to two aspects. o “Whether it is possible to replicate the study; and o Whether this will lead to the same results.” - Confirmability is “the degree to which the interpretations and findings of the study can be confirmed by others.” - Applicability “refers to the context in which a method should be used.” As stated earlier in Section 2.3, scale was also considered as a construct for organizing the data, rather than as a basis in a presupposed objective reality. Indeed, the population and geographic size of a community are fluid, and different communities of similar sizes self–identify with different characteristics. This is also why allowing communities to self–define sustainability creates such vast differences of outcomes. As a researcher, I tried to not take any of the community contexts as matters of fact, but as variables that could be changed, and that therefore should be studied on that basis. This perception fits well with the definition of sustainability as “a process of change in which the exploitation of resources, the direction of investments, the orientation of technological development, and institutional change are made 57 consistent with future as well as present needs” (Brundtland, 1987, 9). In order to achieve sustainability, we must allow for changes, even in the perceived realities of capitalism, nationalism, Canadian federalism, and what human needs are. 3.1.1 Researcher’s Background and Disclosure An important note is that my professional and academic experience, both before and concurrent to the research, helped inform the development of the methods used, and my own understanding of sustainability as a concept, which was detailed through the literature review. My undergraduate degree in Political Science and Human Geography led to an academic understanding of governance, scale and sustainability. During my Master’s course work I wrote several unpublished research papers that related to scale and sustainability, and in several courses, I participated in community–engaged research, including participating directly in the development of an ICSP for the District of Lake Country. Professionally, I have worked for a local government agency since April 2012. As part of my work, I have completed a certificate in Local Government Administration, including university–level courses in Local Government Finance, Law, Administration, Services and Project Management. While this background is not intended to be a formal part of the research design, my previous experiences did assist me in designing the final methods I used for this study. The primary research question also stems directly from this observational experience. 3.2 Design and Methods In this research, I used multiple data collection and analysis methods to examine a total of 16 B.C. local government ICSPs, with four chosen in each of the Statistics Canada size categories for communities: large, medium, small and rural. The first part of the research was an analysis of the framing and understanding of sustainability as shown in existing ICSPs. The first step in ICSP case selection was to create lists of local governments in each size category in B.C., using the list of members of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. The second step identified four in each size category that had completed the ICSP process, and had open access to their plans online. Preference was given to cases in which the members created their ICSPs as stand–alone documents, rather than those in which they directly integrated the process into their Official Community Plans (OCP) or Regional Growth Strategies (RGS). This preference was intended to enable simpler content analysis, and to make cross–case comparisons easier, requiring review of an ICSP–specific document, rather than the more comprehensive and less sustainability–focused OCPs and RGSs. At least four stand–alone ICSPs in each size category were available, allowing for a consistent research approach. A 58 preference was also used to select at least two cases in each category that were not both developed by the same consulting firm, and, where possible, at least one in each category that was developed largely without an external consultant. Choosing cases informed by the same consultant would likely influence the research findings. Census Community Profiles in each case were used to help identify other non–size–dependent variables. Table 1 – Statistics Canada Size Categories for Populated Centres Size Category Total in B.C. Sample used Sample as % of total. Large Urban Ctr. > 100,000 9 4 44.5% Medium Pop. Ctr. 30,000 – 99,999 22 4 18.2% Small Pop. Ctr. 1,000 – 29,999 122 4 3.2% Rural Areas < 1,000 28 4 14.2% In this initial stage I used thematic analysis for a case study approach by comparing and contrasting each of the 16 case studies. Yin (2003) defends the case study approach when the focus of the study is to answer “how” and “why” questions; when the behaviour of the subjects cannot be manipulated by the researcher; and when the contextual conditions are important but boundaries between context and phenomenon are unclear (Yin, 2003 in Baxter and Jack, 2008). My research asks how size affects the understanding and application of the concept of sustainability, which pre–supposes that size is a variable in this interaction, but does not hypothesize specific linkages or effects regarding size as a variable. Thus, the method allows theories to develop through an examination of the data. Eisenhardt (1989) specified that theory building research should be prefaced with an initially defined research question, but that the question may shift after data collection has begun. As this research does not predetermine specific linkages between variables and theories, the cross–case study approach allowed for the discovery of variables and linkages that were not evident through the literature review alone. The Encyclopedia of Case Study Research asserts that “while the single case study emphasizes close inspection and description of one case, the cross–case is used to reinforce validity, support generalizability, and promote theoretical elaboration” (Burns, 2010). This approach was complemented with deductive content analysis, described by Elo and Kyngas as “based on an earlier theory or model and therefore (moving) from the general to the specific” (2007, 109). This method is applicable25 as defined by Wagner, because it was designed based on the nature of the research question. A strength of a cross–case study in this research was that it allowed me to identify variables in relation to local government size. Common themes 25Applicability – “refers to the context in which a method should be used” (Wagner, 2010, 6–7). 59 within a size category that were not found between size categories supported community size as a key variable. Common findings between size categories and different findings within a size category did not support size as the primary variable in those instances. Still, this analysis is not meant to show causality between a variable and an effect, but to identify themes and allow for theory building as to how and why variables interact. 3.2.1 ICSP analysis and coding framework During the cross–case analysis, I used a coding framework (Table 3) to compare my own understanding of the concept of sustainability, informed by the literature review in Chapter 2, with the various framings of sustainability in individual ICSPs. The coding allowed me to examine ideological biases of ecocentrism or anthropocentrism, to analyse sustainability frameworks, and to identify the use of pillars among the ICSPs. It also allowed for cross–case comparisons using size as a variable. For example, if small local government ICSPs consistently showed an anthropocentric bias, while large local government ICSPs had an ecocentric bias, that finding would lead to questions of other variables that cause the trend. Individual coding choices are backed up by examples from the ICSPs themselves (see Appendix A), aiding the confirmability26 of the results by allowing external scrutiny of my findings. The coding framework is replicable when looking at this research question, allowing for tests for dependability27, and if applied to other similar cases, allows for a test of transferability28 to a larger population. It is not predictive of dependability or transferability, but allows for testing of those criteria in the method. Transferability of findings could be tested if the framework given was applied in research of the whole population of 189 members of the UBCM. The methods could also be applied to similar sustainability planning documents outside the study area in future research. Limitation and Adjustment to the Coding for Ideological Bias The initial intent during the research design was to use NVivo software or a similar program for content analysis to identify ecocentric or anthropocentric biases in the ICSPs. However, once the cross–case study analysis began, it became clear that the wide divergence 26 Confirmability – “the degree to which the interpretations and findings of the study can be confirmed by others” (Wagner, 2010, 6–7). 27 Dependability relates to two aspects. o “Whether it is possible to replicate the study; and o Whether this will lead to the same results.” 28 Transferability is achieved “if the findings from a research sample can be transferred to a broader population.” 60 in conceptual meaning and word use between the documents would provide findings that were inconsistent and not confirmable using software. For example, the word “sustainability” occurs only 17 times in the City of Vancouver’s ICSP, but the proxy word “green” appears 285 times. Where the ICSP does use the term sustainability, it is often in individuals’ job titles, such as “Sustainability Coordinator.” This disparity in language is addressed further in the Discussion section on post–sustainability thinking in Chapter 5. A second reason for the coding adjustment is that simple word counts do not reflect the ideological bias as ecocentrism and anthropocentrism involve conceptualizing interactions between humans and the environment. As a correction to this limitation, each ICSP was reviewed in detail to determine which communities placed emphasis on human activity and growth, and which placed emphasis on environmental protection. This somewhat subjective method was determined to be more applicable to the qualitative question of ideological bias, and summaries of the reasoning for each coding decision are included in the findings in Appendix A, and are therefore open to scrutiny. Table 2 shows the initial coding framework for ideological bias, while Table 3 shows the corrected coding framework for ideological bias, as well as the coding that I used to analyse sustainability frameworks and pillars in the ICSPs. I also include this coding framework in Chapter 4 for the reader’s reference when presenting the results. Table 2 – Initial Research Design Coding Framework for ICSP Analysis 1. Coding for Ideological Bias Code Meaning Determining Factors Substantiation A Anthropocentric Majority of references (>60%) to other than environmental pillar of sustainability This first step in the coding will use a word–count method, to determine if there is an identifiable ideological bias in a given ICSP. The coding data will include example statements from each ICSP to justify the rating. E Ecocentric Majority of references (>60%) to environmental pillar of sustainability N Neutral/Negligible Neutrality of references (none greater that 60%) to environmental vs. other pillars. 61 Table 3 – Revised Coding Design Framework for ICSP Analysis 1. Coding for Ideological Bias Code Meaning Determining Factors Substantiation A Anthropocentric Content of plans assumes growth of human activity with little regard to degradation of the natural environment After revision of the research plan, the first step in coding was to read ICSP definition or concepts of sustainability for comparison with the ICSP specific “guiding principles.” (see Table 6.) In some cases, the definition and guiding principles are at odds. Specific examples are given in the findings section. E Ecocentric Content of plans discusses limiting growth of human activity in order to preserve the natural environment. N Neutral/Negligible Plans attend to both growth in human activity, and protection of key natural areas. Attention is paid to ecological limitations. 2. Coding for Theory of Sustainability Framework Code Meaning Determining Factors Substantiation D0 Self–Definition The community defined sustainability during the ICSP process The definition and explanation will be included as part of the coding data. D1 Pre–Defined The community cited a previous/existing definition of sustainability The definition, citation and explanation will be included as part of the coding data. P Principles–Based The community rejected a specific definition of sustainability and used outlined principles instead The explanation and principles framework will be included as part of the coding data. 3. Identifying Pillars Framework from the ICSP This section will include codes for each case based on the pillars used (e.g. Econ–Economic, Env–Environmental, Soc–Social, Poli–Political). Others will be included as identified in the analysis. Example of completed code: A–D1–Econ, Env, Soc. 3.2.2 Semi–structured interviews and data analysis In the second stage of research, I conducted semi–structured interviews with at least one local government planning manager in each of the size categories. This stage tested the credibility of the findings from stage one, and allowed a simultaneous process of data collection and analysis, reflecting the grounded theory approach (Charmaz and Belgrave, 2002). Wagner (2010) asserts that “credibility is achieved if the results are believable from the perspective of the subjects under investigation” (6). Therefore, results from the first stage of research and the literature review were integrated into the interviews in the form of questions and discussion. The first questions were intended to identify the understanding that the respondent and their organization had of sustainability and ICSP–related processes. During interviews, I intentionally 62 avoided providing theoretical background from either the literature review or the analysis of ICSPs, which informed the questions at the outset of the interviews. However, during later discussion, I introduced the theoretical background, and specifically the principles of sustainability in order to expand and contribute to the discussion. Participants were selected based on their role in community planning, the size of their employing local government, and whether they were willing to participate. No specific participant credentials were used as exclusion criteria, only that they were employed at a managerial level as planning staff within the local government. In the case of rural areas, one of the emergent issues was the lack of staff planners. It became necessary to recruit non–planning staff in these cases, including re–designing a list of questions that could be used for non–planners. Another emergent issue was that Regional District planners often had a role of conducting planning on behalf of rural areas and very small local governments. Respondents were encouraged to talk about all of their experiences, both with their current local government, any other local governments they had worked with before, and if they had assisted with planning duties in local governments of different sizes, as long as that experience had been in B.C. In one case, this led to a respondent giving examples from four small and rural local governments in B.C. with which they had worked in the past 10 years. Recruitment and Disclosure Respondents were recruited through an email invitation to participate, with contact information gathered through open source contact lists on local government sites. Invitations were sent to multiple regions of the province, accounting for several local governments in each size category. Because of my professional work in local government, there was a significant apparent self–selection bias among respondents, with 8/10 having previously met me either through work or local government training courses. It is likely that those respondents self–selected as a courtesy, and might not have responded to the interview with another researcher. Despite the (self–selection) bias, it is unlikely that the results of the interviews were skewed, since professionally, there is no authoritative or informal power relationship between the researcher and those respondents. Also, respondents were guaranteed anonymity through the process, and provided full information through the consent forms, with appropriate access to the UBC Ethics Office. Further, respondents were provided with a written anonymized copy of their interview transcript for any further revision they wished to provide (no revisions were made). Finally, the interview findings were not significantly different between those who had previously met the researcher, and those who had not. 63 Employing semi–structured interviews allowed the gathering of additional focussed data to inform, extend and refine the emerging analysis (Charmaz and Belgrave, 2002). The use of multiple data collection methods better substantiates findings in theory building research (Eisenhardt, 1989). Using multiple methods also helped to triangulate findings, while carrying out the two stages in sequence, rather than concurrently, allowed an opportunity to delve more deeply into the theories built in stage one. Using a grounded theory approach, aided by cross–case study analysis and semi–structured interviews, allowed the research question to be addressed and findings tested according to the qualitative evaluation criteria laid out in this section. The initial sample size of ICSP reviews was intended to be eight, with two in each size category, and at least one interview in each category. Glaser and Strauss assert that the number of cases is not so crucial for generating theory and that “a single case can indicate a general conceptual category or property (and) a few more cases can confirm the indication” (1967, 30). After review of my research design, my advisory committee suggested that a larger sample size could generate more conceptual categories, and support the emergent categories that had been indicated by the initial data collection and analysis. Thus, the sample size for ICSP review was doubled to 16, with four in each size category, and the total number of interviews was increased from four to 10. Site Selection This research takes place in the province of B.C. for several reasons. Being within a defined political boundary, the local governments in B.C. are all subject to the same senior levels of government, laws and regulations.29 These commonalities reduce the likelihood of independent variables that could convolute the research findings across multiple provincial (or national) jurisdictions (Eisenhardt, 1989). There is also sufficient, high–quality source data, such as census community profiles and publicly available local government policies to enable in–depth analysis. At the same time, the large and varied geographical area of the province allows for many variables to be considered, which may not be the case among local governments in a smaller or less geographically, economically or socially diverse region or sub–region of the province. The ICSP process in B.C. is also similar to several programs for local government sustainability planning throughout North America, so findings in B.C. could help inform research in other areas. Planning for non–urban areas is also identified as a gap in the literature, making 29 The exception is the City of Vancouver, where certain authorities are delegated through the Vancouver Charter (1955). All other municipalities are governed by the Community Charter, (2003) and all Regional Districts are governed by the Local Government Act (2015). 64 this research more broadly relevant outside B.C, while having the advantages of bounding the research geographically and politically. 3.4 Data Analysis As mentioned in Section 3.2.1, the initial research design included the use of content analysis software using NVivo or a similar data analysis product. However, the extreme variability of the form and content of ICSPs and the deductive nature of the content analysis made it simpler for me to read each of the 16 ICSPs in detail, while coding to identify categories and emergent themes. The findings were transcribed into detailed tables which are provided in Appendix A, and a summary of the findings is given in Chapter 4, Results. The deductive content analysis of the semi–structured interviews began with the framing of the questions using the concepts identified during the literature review and emergent themes from the ICSP analysis, allowing for specific tests of the local government’s understanding and use of the concept of sustainability. For example, Question 1 – What planning school did you go to and what was your highest degree in the field of planning? – was intended to identify whether the education level of planning staff was influenced by, or dependent on community size. Through the ICSP analysis, I had identified that smaller local governments were more likely to use consultants to develop their ICSPs. This finding led to an assumption that smaller local governments would not be able to afford to employ more highly–educated planning staff compared to their larger counterparts. Answers to this interview question contradicted this assumption, and helped to identify other variables that were not size–dependent. Other questions were left more open–ended to allow variables to emerge, and to compare the answers of the multiple respondents. Sets of responses to each question were grouped, allowing for complimentary and contradicting answers to provide categories for further analysis. These results are also presented in detail in Chapter 4. 65 4. Results This chapter is broken into results for the two stages of research; Integrated Community Sustainability Plan reviews and semi–structured interviews. In Section 4.1, I outline the results from the ICSP review, including aggregated data from the cross–case analysis, and emergent issues that helped inform the interview questions in the second stage. The analysis of the data, emergent issues, and their relation to the research question are presented in the discussion section in Chapter 5. Appendix A supplements Section 4.1 by presenting the data and supporting rationale from the ICSP review where the findings were subjective. Appendix A also provides the coding for each ICSP reviewed, and includes the name of the local government, population, title and date of the ICSP, and the total ICSP length, excluding appendices. A link to each of the 16 ICSPs is given in the References section, and each definition and framework for the concept of sustainability is quoted, with research notes providing reasons for specific coding. In Section 4.2, I present the results of the interview stage of the research. The questions in stage two were developed using issues that emerged from stage one or from the literature review. Each question is shown, with the set of responses collated, and presented in either a table, or a word cloud format where appropriate. Appendix B shows the complete list of questions that I used during the interviews. My intention in this chapter is to show the results of both stages of the research and to give an explanation of how themes emerged, and why specific questions were asked. In Chapter 5, I discuss the meaning of the results and how they relate to the research question. In Chapter 6, I summarize the research, make recommendations based on the findings, and present limitations of this study as well as questions for extending the study in future research. 4.1 Stage 1 – Integrated Community Sustainability Plan Analysis 4.1.1 Emergent Findings The main emergent finding from the ICSP analysis was that the size of local government affected whether a consultant was hired to develop, or to help develop, the ICSP. As outlined in Table 4, 100% of rural areas, and 90% of Small Population Centres used a consultant in their ICSP development, while only 50% of Medium and Large centres used consultants. In addition, specific consulting firms were hired repeatedly within size categories. Table 5 outlines the name of each consultant used in the 16 ICSPs reviewed. In defining sustainability for their ICSP, some local governments were clearly influenced by their hired consultant’s preferred definition. The 66 influence of consultants likely mitigated some effects that size would have had as a variable in a community’s understanding and application of sustainability if consultants were not used. However, it was clear during the ICSP analysis that even with consultant influence, some small communities created their own framework based on community values. New Denver created an ecocentric framework based on the principles of permaculture, reflecting the values of the community. In contrast, Clinton used the three pillars to define sustainability, but excluded any further mention of environmental values. The final ICSP for Clinton read like an economic development plan, rather than an integrated sustainability plan. Table 4 illustrates the difference in the ability of local governments of different sizes to create their own ICSP without the help of external consultants. Rural areas and small population centres do not have the staff or financial resources to create ICSPs without the use of a consultant. This emergent issue of consultants informed the interview stage, and is explored further in the discussion in Chapter 5. Table 4 – Size Variable in Consultant use for ICSP Development Local Government Size (total number in B.C.) Number with stand–alone* ICSPs (% of Total) Percentage of stand–alone ICSPs created using external consultant Rural Areas 0–999 (29) 6/29 (17.24%) 100% Small Pop. Centres 1,000 – 29,999 (122) 42/122 (34.43%) 90% Medium Pop. Centres 30,000 – 99,999 (22) 10/22 (45.45%) 50% Large Urban Centres >100,000 (10) 4/10 (40%) 50% * The middles column shows the number of local government in each size category that developed their ICSP as a stand–alone document, rather than integrating it into an existing OCP or RGS. 67 Table 5 – Consultant Use for ICSP Development Local Government Type Population Consultant Used New Denver Village 523 Fraser Basin Council Clinton Village 630 Fraser Basin Council Valemount Village 955 Whistler Centre Kaslo Village 998 Fraser Basin Council Revelstoke City 7192 Multiple Consultants Sunshine Coast Regional District 14131 None Port Alberni City 16149 International Centre for Sustainable Cities Cranbrook City 19911 None Port Moody City 34554 None Comox Valley Regional District 36834 HB Lanarc North Vancouver City 54258 Design Centre for Sustainability Prince George City 71363 None Langley Township 104177 None Abbotsford City 141498 Stantec Consulting Surrey City 526004 Whistler Centre Vancouver City 648608 None A second emergent finding was that there was no consistent format for the ICSP. In general, each contained some form of the three sections outlined in Table 6. This lack of consistency in structure made it more difficult to compare ICSPs to each other, but in Table 6 I was able to identify some key components that all ICSPs had in common. However, the emergent finding was that the Gas Tax Agreement did not provide any format, content or process direction for the development of an ICSP. Therefore, local governments were not only responsible for defining sustainability, but also for determining the level of community involvement in the ICSP process, as well as for format and content decisions. This lack of a direction from the Gas Tax Agreement was also evident in the length of ICSP, which varied from 7 to 143 pages in the primary documents, not including appendices. In contrast to this lack of direction in the Gas Tax Agreement, the Local Government Act defines process and content requirements when communities develop OCPs, providing clear direction on how to create an OCP, and what may, and must be included. This emergent finding led to questions in the interviews around community involvement in framing and defining sustainability during ICSP development. Table 6 – ICSP Generalized Structure Section Purpose of Section Notes Introduction Includes definition of sustainability Includes a community vision Guiding Principles Big–picture goals to achieve vision E.g. “economic growth” Specific Plans Sub–categories under specific goals, sometimes as detailed planning maps. 68 4.1.2 ICSP Review Results Table 7 presents the overall findings for the ICSP review analysis. Local governments are listed by population size, within their Statistics Canada size categories. The coding results are shown in the right column. Following Table 7, there is a brief discussion in Section 4.1.3 of the analysis results for ideological bias, theory of sustainability framework, and pillars used. The coding framework in each of these areas (as detailed in Chapter 3, Table 2) is as follows: Ideological Bias: A – Anthropocentric Content of plan assumes growth of human activity with little regard for degradation of the natural environment. E – Ecocentric Content of plan discusses limiting growth of human activity in order to preserve the natural environment. N – Neutral/Negligible Plans attend to both growth in human activity, and protection of key natural areas. Attention is paid to ecological limitations. Theory of Sustainability Framework: D0 – Self–Definition The community defined sustainability during the ICSP process. D1 – Pre–Defined The community cited a previous/existing definition of sustainability P – Principles The community rejected a specific definition of sustainability and used outlined principles instead. Pillars Used: 30 Env – Environmental Econ – Economic Soc – Social Cult – Cultural Ecol – Ecological Clim – Climate Fisc – Fiscal Integrated – Comox Valley used a principles–based sustainability framework, and therefore did not rely on pillars. See Section 4.1.3. None – Vancouver did not take a pillars approach due to their post–sustainability framework, which is discussed in detail in Section 5.1.3. 30 This section shows the pillars that were used in the ICSPs themselves, which is why there is an apparent overlap in categories like Environmental and Ecological. This shows the disparity in the concept of sustainability as defined by local governments themselves. 69 Table 7 – ICSP Coding Local Government Pop. E/A/N D0/D1/P Pillars Used Rural New Denver 523 E D0 Env, Econ, Soc, Cult Clinton 630 A D0 Econ, Soc, Cult Valemount 955 E D0 Env, Soc, Econ Kaslo 998 N D1 Econ, Soc, Cult, Ecol Small Revelstoke 7192 A D0 Env/Clim, Soc/Cult, Econ Sunshine Coast 14131 N D0 /D1 Econ, Soc, Cult, Env Port Alberni 16149 E D0 /D1 Soc, Env, Econ, Cult Cranbrook 19911 A D0 Soc, Econ, Cult, Env Medium Port Moody 34554 N D0 Env, Econ, Soc, Cult Comox Valley 36834 A P Integrated North Vancouver 54258 N D0 Soc, Econ, Env Prince George 71363 E D0 Env, Soc, Econ Large Langley 104177 A D1 Soc, Cult, Econ, Env Abbotsford 141498 N D0 Fisc, Econ, Soc, Env Surrey 526004 A D1 Soc/Cult, Econ, Env Vancouver 648608 N D0 None 4.1.3 Discussion of ICSP Coding Results Ideological Bias There was no apparent correlation between the size of local government and an ecocentric or anthropocentric ideological bias. Only the large population centre category did not contain at least one ecocentric ICSP, which supports the discussion from Section 2.3.1 on Ecosystem Services and Community Size. In that section, I assert that large local population centres have surpassed the capacity of the local environment to provide ecosystem services for their population so that the majority of the services come from areas outside of local jurisdiction. As I state in that section, big cities are now concentrating on mitigating their own historical impacts on the environment – or what Loorbach and Shiroyama called “being less unsustainable” (2014, 4). Further, the emergent finding of consultant influence, which I outlined in Section 4.1.1, may have influenced the ideological bias used during the process. This result is related to the overall conceptual confusion in the ICSP process, which I discuss in detail in Chapter 5. Theory of Sustainability Framework Coding of the sustainability frameworks identifies that 12 out of 16, or 75% of the ICSPs, used self–defined conceptions of sustainability. There was no correlation between the size of a local government and whether it used a pre–existing definition, self–defined, or rejected the use of a definition of sustainability. There was very little commonality between definitions, aside from 70 the use of pillars, which I address further below. Only the ICSP from Comox Valley used a principles approach to sustainability, rather than a definition. It’s a unifying concept that in the most simple terms, compels us to improve the quality of life for all citizens and species while protecting the environmental systems and resources on which life depends. It’s a global journey that depends on local actions. It requires us to re–examine our values, take a deeper look at how the earth and its systems function, and find new models for cooperative action. Beyond protecting our planet’s health, sustainability is also about promoting resilience, allowing us to effectively respond to changes or severe events that may impact our communities (Comox Valley Sustainability Strategy” February 18, 2010). Resilience was also a theme in several of the ICSPs, reflecting a more nuanced approach than a simple pillars framework. This result supports the finding of conceptual confusion, which is discussed in Chapter 5. Pillars Used While the Gas Tax Agreement prescribes a framework outlining Economic, Environmental and Social/Cultural pillars, the ICSPs incorporated other pillars, including Ecological, Climate and Fiscal. 14 out of 16 ICSPs incorporated pillars, with Comox Valley taking an integrated approach, and Vancouver avoiding any sustainability framework or language. Of the 14 ICSPs that used pillars, all used Economic and Social, while only Clinton left out Environmental or Ecological. 10 out of 14 also used a Cultural Pillar. Abbotsford used both an Economic and a Fiscal Pillar, but did not go into detail differentiating between the two. It is easy to assume that fiscal relates to spending decisions made by the local government, and economic pertains to the overall economy within the community. However, without a clear distinction, the separate pillars do nothing to lend to a clear understanding of what Abbotsford hopes to achieve through this framework. 4.1.4 Smart Growth Principles Comparison in Sample Local Governments Each ICSP was also reviewed to identify the addition of Smart Growth principles, as detailed in Chapter 2. Although most ICSPs did not use the exact wording listed in the Smart Growth framework below, if there was reference in the plan to the specific principle, whether in similar words or similar meaning, then the principle was considered to be present in that ICSP. For example, in Vancouver’s ICSP, under the heading of “Climate Leadership” it says, “we are planning our neighbourhoods to be quieter, greener, and more walkable—where the grocery 71 store is a few blocks from your house and you meet your neighbour more often than you sit in a traffic jam” (17). While the wording is not identical to what is contained in the Smart Growth list for “principle 4: Create Walkable Neighbourhoods,” the intent of the principle is the same. In order for a Smart Growth principle to be marked absent, there had to be a complete lack of the principle or wording of the intent of the principle in the document. Table 8 shows the results of the Smart Growth analysis from the ICSP review, with the 10 Smart Growth principles listed below the table for reference. Table 8 – Smart Growth Principles in ICSPs Local Government 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Rural New Denver           Clinton           Valemount           Kaslo           Small Revelstoke           Sunshine Coast           Port Alberni           Cranbrook           Medium Port Moody           Comox Valley           North Vancouver           Prince George           Large Langley           Abbotsford           Surrey           Vancouver           1. Mix land uses. 72 2. Take advantage of compact building design. 3. Create a range of housing opportunities and choices. 4. Create walkable neighborhoods. 5. Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place. 6. Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas. 7. Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities. 8. Provide a variety of transportation choices. 9. Make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost effective. 10. Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions. 4.2 Stage 2 – Interviews This section presents the findings from the semi–structured interviews, broken down by question, with collated responses. Responses are presented in point form, although the answers were generally more detailed in the interview transcripts. Each finding is explored further in the discussion in Chapter 5. Question 1: Highest degree in the field of planning? Responses: Size/Type of Local Gov. 1 No Planners in Local Government Rural Area 2 Masters, Urban and Rural Planning Regional District 3 Masters, Rural Planning and Development Regional District 4 Masters, Planning Regional District 5 Masters, Planning Small Population Centre 6 PhD. Community and Regional Planning Small Population Centre 7 BSc, Environmental Planning Medium Population Centre 8 Masters, City Planning Medium Population Centre 9 No Planning Degree (Masters in other field) Medium Population Centre 10 No Planning Degree (Masters in other field) Large Urban Centre This question was intended to identify whether the size of a local government influenced the ability to hire planning staff with a certain level of education or expertise in the field of planning. Although the sample size was not large enough to determine trends in the broader population, it did identify that rural areas and some small local governments generally are unlikely to even have a planner on staff. Rural areas and small local governments rely on Regional District planners or consultants for planning. Larger local governments have specialized planning staff, 73 such as long–range planners, and planners for specific departments, such as parks planners. This emergent result is explored further in the discussion section. Question 2: What framework or definition does this local government use for sustainability? Responses: Size/Type of Local Gov. 1 None – too much confusion Rural Area 2 Three pillars Regional District 3 Three pillars – bringing environment into the focus Regional District 4 Growth management – keep rural, rural Regional District 5 Three pillars Small Population Centre 6 Ecological focus Small Population Centre 7 Three pillars and Brundtland Medium Population Centre 8 Three pillars and Brundtland Medium Population Centre 9 None – just do what’s mandated Medium Population Centre 10 Multi–bottom–line approach Large Urban Centre Respondents indicated that 50% of the local governments use a 3–pillars approach, but there is no consistency based on size. Some communities have integrated sustainability issues into their policies, while others ignore them and express confusion or a lack of will or capacity to work on sustainability issues. One large local government integrated the ideas, but did not use the term sustainability, because it causes too much confusion. The concept of post–sustainability thinking emerged from this question, and will be introduced in the discussion section. Question 3: How did the currently–used sustainability framework or definition develop? Responses: Size/Type of Local Gov. 1 There is no formal framework Rural Area 2 Political participation and community engagement Regional District 3 Mostly incorporated through consultant’s work Regional District 4 No formal framework Regional District 5 Political participation and community engagement Small Population Centre 6 Prepared by a consultant Small Population Centre 7 Structured community engagement process Medium Population Centre 8 Structured community engagement process Medium Population Centre 9 No formal framework – integrated into plans by consultant Medium Population Centre 10 No formal framework – integrated into plans informally Large Urban Centre 74 Those communities that have a formal framework for sustainability either used community engagement, or left it up to a consultant. Size did not play a role in the development of sustainability frameworks. Question 4: How does the concept of sustainability feed into the planning process? Responses: Size/Type of Local Gov. 1 Not asked Rural Area 2 Feeds into all processes, considered in everything we do Regional District 3 Staff reports just try to pull environmental considerations into decisions Regional District 4 Incorporated into OCPs and RGS Regional District 5 Incorporated into OCPs and other specific plans Small Population Centre 6 Incorporated into OCPs and RGS Small Population Centre 7 Incorporated into the OCP and all applications are reviewed With the OCP Medium Population Centre 8 Feeds into all processes, considered in everything we do Medium Population Centre 9 Only what is mandated, so it doesn’t really feed in Medium Population Centre 10 Not really looked at as such, but we go case by case Large Urban Centre All respondents gave similar answers that sustainability was already considered during the development of OCPs, RGSs and other planning documents. It was up to staff to review those plans, and some local governments were more consistent at this task than others. In rural areas, there is a lack of planning in general, so it was not really a consideration. There was a strong correlation between an existing definition and framework for sustainability, and having sustainability feed into the planning process. Further, the specific concept of sustainability in a local government informed the aspects that fed into the planning process. For example, respondent 3 indicated that the local government’s sustainability framework was based on three pillars, but that it really sought to bring environmental considerations into focus. In integrating sustainability into the planning process, respondent 3 said that staff reports try to pull environmental considerations into decisions. Respondent 9 indicated that the local government framed sustainability by “only what is mandated” and so sustainability “doesn’t really feed in (to the planning process).” Question 5: Is there a focus on specific aspects of sustainability in certain circumstances (e.g. commercial development versus park planning)? 75 Responses: Size/Type of Local Gov. 1 In small towns, the focus is on the economy Rural Area 2 Yes Regional District 3 Mostly environmental Regional District 4 Yes, but within the existing growth boundaries Regional District 5 Yes, but we try to focus on balance Small Population Centre 6 No, there is a process in place and we’re very rigorous about that Small Population Centre 7 Yes, because of the way people understand sustainability – but we’re getting better. Medium Population Centre 8 No, there is a process in place and we’re very rigorous about that Medium Population Centre 9 No, because we only consider what’s mandated. There is no checklist for sustainability Medium Population Centre 10 We don’t look at sustainability as such, but we try to think about what’s good on a case–by–case basis. Large Urban Centre The intent of question 5 was to determine whether the concept of sustainability was compartmentalized during the planning and decision–making process. Two respondents indicated that there was a formal integrated process in place, and that it was followed in every development application. Seven respondents indicated that specific pillars were used, either depending on the focus of the local government (e.g. always economy, or always environment) or depending on the specific application (e.g. economic for commercial development, environmental for parks planning). The remaining local government respondent indicated that they didn’t have a formal framework, and used a case–by–case basis. Question 6: Does the council or board have a process for incorporating sustainability into consideration of development proposals? Responses: Size/Type of Local Gov. 1 Not asked Rural Area 2 No, just incorporated into staff reports Regional District 3 It is referenced in their strategic plan, but not really used. Just what goes into staff reports Regional District 4 No, it is already considered in staff reports Regional District 5 Yes, considered in the staff reports Small Population Centre 76 6 Yes, every staff report contains a section on sustainability Small Population Centre 7 Yes, staff reports contain a section on strategic alignment Medium Population Centre 8 Yes, it’s done at the application stage by staff Medium Population Centre 9 No, and not really that big of a consideration in staff reports Medium Population Centre 10 No. We had a sustainability checklist, and it was broken, but the idea is ingrained in everything we do. Large Urban Centre Respondents saw this question differently depending on whether they thought their councils were sustainability focussed, or not. Although they all said that reports to council already considered sustainability, some saw this as a council consideration process, while others saw it as a planning process for staff to carry out. Question 7: Does the local government share information with the public on community sustainability policies and initiatives? Responses: Size/Type of Local Gov. 1 Not asked Rural Area 2 As mandated Regional District 3 Not a lot, just what is mandated Regional District 4 Not asked Regional District 5 Yes, although there is a lot of focus on the economics of any initiative Small Population Centre 6 We went through the process, but there was not a lot of public interest Small Population Centre 7 Not well enough, no. Medium Population Centre 8 Yes. Medium Population Centre 9 No. Medium Population Centre 10 Not asked. Large Urban Centre Where the respondent had previously indicated that they did not use the term sustainability, or have a good framework, this question was skipped. Communities engage the public during plan development such as with OCPs and RGSs. However, most respondents acknowledged that there is not sufficient public interest or participation in sustainability policies or initiatives in general. Question 8: Do you think that there is a difference in the way a small or rural local government would deal with sustainability planning compared to a large or urban one? 77 Responses: Size/Type of Local Gov. 1 Yes, small governments just can’t do it. Rural Area 2 Yes Regional District 3 Yes Regional District 4 Yes Regional District 5 Yes Small Population Centre 6 Yes Small Population Centre 7 Yes Medium Population Centre 8 Yes Medium Population Centre 9 Yes Medium Population Centre 10 Yes Large Urban Centre All respondents agreed that there was a difference in the way small local governments would deal with sustainability planning compared to large local governments. Respondents were asked to give some reasons, which are displayed in the word cloud in Figure 12. Staff, budget and capacity were the most frequently given reasons for differences in small and large local government sustainability planning. Figure 12 – Size related differences in sustainability planning Word–cloud shows the responses to question 8, outlining the differences in the way small or rural local governments deal with sustainability planning when compared to large or urban ones. The larger the word, the more often it was given by respondents in the interviews. 78 Question 9: Do you think that there is a difference in the way a smaller local government would deal with planning in general compared to a large local government? This question was not used consistently, with only 4/10 respondents asked. Insufficient data to present findings. Question 10: Is there a process or indicator framework for measuring sustainability in this community? Is it effective? Responses: Size/Type of Local Gov. 1 Not asked Rural Area 2 We’re trying to, but the challenge is (obtaining the) data. Regional District 3 Yes, but it is preliminary Regional District 4 Yes there’s a framework, but it’s not effective due to data challenges. Regional District 5 No, there are some specific indicators, but not a framework. Small Population Centre 6 No, the size of our community is too small, so there is no staff capacity for follow through. Small Population Centre 7 No. Medium Population Centre 8 Yes, but it’s hard to measure, and some interim targets might be better. Medium Population Centre 9 No. We measure greenhouse gases because it’s mandated, but that’s it. Medium Population Centre 10 Yes, and it is continually evolving to meet the needs. Large Urban Centre Only 50% of the communities had an indicator framework of some sort, and of those, 4/5 felt it was not effective, and all felt that it needed improvement. This question relates to whether local governments have a clear definition or framework for sustainability. Those communities that had a concept of sustainability were more likely to have targets that were measurable, even if the data and capacity for measurement were lacking. Question 11: Do you think that Smart Growth principles are equally applicable to small/rural local governments as they are to larger/urban ones? Responses: Size/Type of Local Gov. 1 No, rural context does not support Smart Growth Rural Area 2 Implementation is completely different. Some apply but Regional District 79 others do not. 3 No, they’re both applicable, but not equally. It is a matter of priorities. Regional District 4 No, jurisdiction doesn’t allow it and some places are not even big enough to have planning. Regional District 5 Yes. (Respondent gave examples of the U.K. where towns developed pre–automobile) Small Population Centre 6 Yes, but it depends on having expertise and political will. Some are not equally applicable. Small Population Centre 7 No, it is contextually relevant. Medium Population Centre 8 Yes, but it has to be contextually relevant. Medium Population Centre 9 Yes, it can be scaled to the size of the place. Medium Population Centre 10 Yes, but it needs to be scaled to the size of the community. Large Urban Centre This question was intended to gauge the acceptance of Smart Growth principles in different size contexts among respondents. All rural area and Regional District respondents indicated that Smart Growth does not work in rural areas. All small, medium and large municipalities indicated that the principles could be scaled to the size and context of the place. This is explored in greater detail in the discussion section. Question 12: What do you think are some of the limitations for local government when it comes to community sustainability? This open–ended question was intended to allow respondents to list limitations that local governments faced in working toward community sustainability. 60% indicated that money – expressed as budget, funding, etc. was a limitation. 50% indicated that politics, or political will was a limitation, and 40% indicated that staff capacity was a limitation. Two of the respondents also specifically indicated that confusion about sustainability was a limitation. 80 Figure 13 – Limitations for local governments and community sustainability Word–cloud shows the responses to question 12, outlining the limitations local governments face when dealing with community sustainability. The larger the word, the more often it was given by respondents in the interviews. 81 5. Discussion Owing to a number of size–related variables, the research shows that overall, smaller communities have less ability to define appropriate sustainability planning when compared to large local governments. Small local governments must rely on globally and nationally – focussed sustainability literature, and on urban–designed planning principles to try to operationalize sustainability. As shown in Chapter 1, Figure 1, this is the progression of sustainability planning for local governments in B.C.: 1. The purpose of local government is to provide for community sustainability 2. ICSPs are intended to integrate sustainability into long–term plans 3. ICSPs allow local governments to self–define sustainability based on three pillars 4. Three–pillars are operationalized in community planning through Smart Growth The drawbacks from this approach are evident in the findings based both on the built–in conceptual confusion in the ICSP sustainability framework, and also because smaller local governments are at a disadvantage through all stages of sustainability planning compared to their large counterparts. In this section, I discuss the size–related variables that affect a local government’s understanding of sustainability, and how the concept is applied to policy through the ICSP process. 5.1 Conceptual Confusion 5.1.1 ICSP Approach: As I argued in Section 1.3, the literature shows how using a pillars approach to define sustainability allows compartmentalization of each issue. The results of the ICSP analysis in Section 4.1 show how the use of consultants, and the framework for pillars provided by the Gas Tax Agreement, add to this confusion. This is further compounded by the self–definition approach granted to local governments by the provincial government, as was evident through the ICSP review in which four local governments used an ecocentric approach, six used an anthropocentric approach, and six maintained a balanced or neutral approach. There was no correlation between the theoretical approach used, and whether the local government self–82 defined sustainability or used a pre–existing definition. There was also no correlation between the theoretical approach, the definition process, or the pillars which were selected for use in the plans. In total, 12 of the 16 ICSPs reviewed used a self–defined concept of sustainability, mostly within a pillars framework without attention to sustainability principles. These finding show that allowing a self–definition approach, based on an undefined concept, and tied to a pillars framework, does not allow for a consistent planning process that can be operationalized by local governments. This finding of conceptual confusion was supported through the interview stage as well. As one small–town planner described the ISCP process, Was there any assessment of whether this was realistic for a community, especially of our size? No. So it was just sheer visioning without any sort of substance and foundation in reality in terms of what we have to work with, and quite frankly, a lot of the things that were identified were already in our Official Community Plan. So this (ICSP) is a document I don’t use. I tried to, tried very hard when I was preparing reports for council, and always make references to how things may fit within the OCP, tried very hard with this document. After two or three tries I gave up. I never reference it at the meetings. It sits in my book case. In several interviews, respondents asked the researcher how to define sustainability and indicated that there was confusion within their local government at all levels about the concept. Most frequently, respondents indicated that their local government’s framework or definition of sustainability was based on the three pillars. One large local government respondent indicated that they no longer use the term sustainability, since it causes too much confusion and means something different to every person. In that case, the local government had previously had an ICSP, including a sustainability report card to measure progress, and had abandoned both the ICSP and the report card as useful tools. The local government had moved to a post–sustainability thinking framework, in which urban planning principles and a triple–bottom–line approach were integrated into all plans and decisions, but the term sustainability was effectively boycotted. Post–sustainability thinking is addressed further in Section 5.1.3. 5.1.2 Compartmentalization of Pillars: Further to the confusion over the concept of sustainability, the findings showed that the three–Pillar approach did allow for formal compartmentalization of the concept in the planning process. 70% of respondents indicated that individual pillars are looked at in specific circumstances, rather than focussing on a balance in every circumstance. For example, when 83 looking at an application for commercial development, the local government would focus on the economic outcomes from the development, while a park plan would focus more on the environmental or social benefits. In some cases, the respondents indicated that their councils only focussed on one pillar in all development decisions, and in some cases, there was no process in place to consider sustainability, or “only to the extent that it was mandated.” As an alternative to a compartmentalized three pillars approach, in Section 2.1.3, I proposed a new framework for local government sustainability planning, based on the three principles of sustainability. A local government would account for each of the three principles of sustainability by considering specific aspects of each principle during the review of new development proposals and service provision. During the review of a development proposal or service provision, a local government should therefore consider: 1. Meeting Human Needs within Environmental Capacity: o What natural and infrastructure resources will be affected by the decision; o The reduction in natural ecosystem services due to the project or service; o How providing the service or allowing the development meets human needs; and o How the proposal can be improved to reduce or eliminate negative effects on the environment. 2. Intragenerational Equity: o How a decision may impact marginalized members of the community – in particular, the current users of an affected area, including those unfamiliar with local government decision processes, and unable to attend or express themselves at public hearings; o Who will bear the short–term costs of the service or development; o Whether it is equitable to make a service user–pay, tax funded, or mixed; and o Whether the service will provide for broad community needs, or the select needs of a specific demographic. 3. Intergenerational Equity: o whether the decision is reversible in the future without significant extra costs to future generations (i.e. if the resource or land use may be considered renewable); o If any non–renewable use will benefit members of all generations, either through continued use, or through offsetting investments in renewables (hard sustainability); and o The cumulative effect of all non–renewable uses on the carrying capacity of the local environment. 84 Some of these considerations are already used by local governments, such as the impact of a development on infrastructure, although they are not used in a sustainability–focused way. Using this initial framework, more research can be done to ensure that sustainability is integrated into decision–making processes, rather than the current lip service that it receives through the creation of shelf–ready plans. As one respondent said, “you know I think that those plans have some merit, but they’re really shelf–type of plans.” 5.1.3 Post–Sustainability Thinking: Despite the confusion around sustainability as a concept, the example of post–sustainability thinking in large local governments shows that best practices can be used to provide for community sustainability, without needing to educate planners or councils on abstract theories or principles. In urban metropolitan areas, ICSPs self–defined sustainability through community visioning processes, which focussed directly on urban planning principles, Smart Growth, and Complete Communities. Targets focussed on greenhouse gas reduction, urban densification, transportation corridors and greenways. Both ICSP reviews and expert interviews revealed that large local governments regarded sustainability as a near useless concept for action. As one large urban centre planner put it: Well the sustainability word starting getting used around here probably about six, seven years ago, and the main problem being that there wasn't a definition given, and the word sustainability meant a lot of different things to a lot of different people. So it got overused, number one, it just got tossed around like crazy; and number two, everybody had a different concept of what that word meant. So around here it doesn't get used anymore. It's one of those words that was tried and tested and failed. Once sound urban planning principles were understood, a large local government could work toward a more sustainable future, without actually using the word sustainability. As noted in the findings, nowhere is this more evident than in the 72–page ICSP for the City of Vancouver, which uses the term “sustainability” 17 times, with many of those referencing a job title, such as “sustainability coordinator.” In contrast, Vancouver’s ICSP uses the proxy term “green” a total of 285 times including in the document title, “Greenest City Action Plan 2020.” Planners and politicians do not need the full theoretical background to make decisions that lend to a sustainable community. It is enough to know what a practice will do, and what non–sustainable condition it will improve. This is why Smart Growth and Complete Communities have been successful in uptake and in practice. It is a simple–to–follow set of rules, easily 85 defensible, and based on a solid theoretical background. However, these rules are not universally applicable, which I address in the next section. 5.2 Urban Planning and Urban Bias 5.2.1 Grafting: The Smart Growth agenda was initially intended to address the issue of urban sprawl in metropolitan communities (Levy, 2013). As a practice for community sustainability planning, the 10 principles of Smart Growth go a long way to creating more sustainable cities, but the principles are not universally transferable to small towns and rural areas. The findings showed that smaller local governments, including in rural areas, developed ICSPs accounting in every case for at least 7/10 Smart Growth principles that were developed for an urban environment. However, during interviews it became apparent that Smart Growth principles were not being used in planning operations among rural and many small local governments. Nine out of ten respondents indicated that Smart Growth principles were either not applicable to, or had to be scaled for small or rural local governments. The remaining respondent gave an example of Complete Communities in the U.K. where small and rural areas did historically demonstrate Smart Growth principles. However, the development of parish communities in the UK over hundreds or thousands of years is not akin to the development of small and rural communities in the study area in the current conditions. Without major political, social, institutional and economic changes in the study area, Smart Growth will not be applicable to small and rural areas in B.C. This indicates that along with the current study, more must be done to understand the limitations of sustainability planning at the local government level for all sizes of local governments in B.C. 5.2.2 The Impetus for Growth: While grafting Smart Growth principles onto small and rural local government creates unrealistic plans through the ICSP process, it is not the only issue stemming from urban bias. Underlying many development decisions in B.C. is the impetus to grow the community, particularly in small and rural areas. Community development is seen as a function of economic development, rather than a more holistic, human development, which Brundtland referred to in Our Common Future (1987). This growth vs. development concept, as outlined by Sumner (2005) in Section 2, also lends to compartmentalization and conceptual confusion with planners and decision makers. Small and rural areas have a ‘chicken and egg’ dilemma in which they must provide infrastructure and other services in order to create economic growth, but they 86 need enhanced economic growth to provide infrastructure and other services. This leads to cases in which, as one respondent put it, “in small towns, the focus is on the economy.” Further impetus for growth is created by the failure to recognize the relative ecosystem carrying capacity advantage that small and rural areas have over urbanized areas, as outlined in Section 2.3.1. Many local government staff and politicians understand that if their jurisdiction over surrounding land were expanded, the opportunity to protect ecosystem services and to generate community development would be enhanced. Jurisdiction was one of the limitations to community sustainability given during the interview stage – an acknowledgement that senior government policy and decisions in the surrounding landscape (natural resource development), disproportionately affect small and rural areas. Small and rural areas generally also have less diverse economies, leaving them at the whim of natural resource development as a keystone source of economic activity. This limitation was acknowledged by one respondent whose small local government had a tourism–based economy. This economy allowed a high percentage of revenue to be generated from within the town boundaries through taxes and fees, and allowed profits to be generated for local business owners. In contrast, in many small towns, revenues from resource development just outside of their boundaries see royalties go to senior governments, while profits go to outside corporations. The examples of the District of Lake Country and the Municipality of North Cowichan given in Section 2.3.1 show how other mechanisms for funding could be created to address this gap. 5.2.3 The False Narrative of Urban vs. Rural: Finally, urban bias is evident in the dichotomous view of the rural vs. the urban. As I outlined previously, there is no accepted universal definition of where rural ends and urban begins. While a hard–line definition between urban and rural may not be important, protecting areas that serve as the raw–resource providers for society is a critical task to sustainability. In B.C., the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) perhaps, most famously and effectively affords this protection.31 Without the ALR, many areas, which currently provide critical ecosystem and food production services, would have been lost over the last four decades, and with them, the ability to produce and buy locally sourced foods. Yet, there is little support for policies that favour rural residents and few services provided for them. Rather than supporting a narrative about rural versus urban, policies should be written to support the place of hinterlands in the larger social system, and resources should be provided for those areas to become successful, resilient and 31 I am not arguing the merits of the specific form of the ALR, but of the function that the ALR seeks to achieve: protecting agricultural land for agricultural uses. 87 sustainable for the people who live there. That means that the transfer of wealth from rural to urban – through natural resources, food production, profit migration,32 and the need for rural residents to spend money in urban areas for services – should be considered, and appropriate mechanisms should be created to reciprocate support for those rural areas. Urban vs. rural is a false narrative, because urbanized areas rely on, and are integrated with, those areas that provide the raw materials for everyday life. 5.3 Size–Related Capacity In this section, I discuss the specific size–related variables that affect how sustainability is understood and applied to policy as reflected in ICSPs in British Columbia. While each sub–section addresses an individual variable, the variables are interrelated, and have correlative and causative effects on each other. 5.3.1 Available Staff One variable that affects both the understanding of sustainability, and how the concept is applied to policy, is the staff available to each local government. Small and rural local governments in many cases do not have staff planners, whereas large local governments have planning departments and planning specialists in specific areas, such as long–term planning, short–term planning, parks planning, transportation planning, etc. Small local governments may rely on Regional District staff for plans such as Official Community Plan development, or they may hire consultants, but in some cases, they simply have extremely limited land–use policies, no zoning bylaws, and no ability to provide these services. This variable is not solely a function of the size of the local government, but is also highly interrelated with the available revenue variable and the political variable, which are discussed below. Respondents indicated that due to a lack of staff capacity in small and rural areas, local government politicians are more likely to serve an operational function, and to be more closely involved in detailed processes than in a large local government. This close working relationship with politicians may influence the neutrality of staff during the recommendation process, making them more sensitive to political whims than the relative cover provided by layers of bureaucracy in a large city.33 Available revenue, which is not based solely on the size of the tax base, but on the total revenue available, also plays a role in the ability to hire staff. In the earlier–cited case of the town which 32 I use this term to refer to when resource extraction in one area profits companies or senior governments in another area, province or country. 33 This point was raised in several of the interviews with rural area and regional district respondents. 88 generated tourism revenue, the planning department was relatively robust, and this was reflected in the sustainability policies – including an urban growth boundary – that would usually be found in much larger cities. 5.3.2 Available Revenue Available revenue is also an important size–related variable in sustainability planning for local governments in B.C., as the main source of revenue comes from property taxes. Local governments with smaller populations have less of a tax base to draw revenue from, but are responsible for maintaining a minimum level of mandated services such as providing drinking water and maintaining public roads. Revenue availability through property taxes is also not influenced solely by size, but by the land–use of that tax base which pays for local government. Residential land use generally provides the greatest portion of tax revenue to a local government, while other uses such as agriculture are taxed at a lower rate.34 This means that having a higher proportion of agricultural land in a community diminishes the local government’s ability to generate revenue through property tax. A resort municipality with 1,500 residents and multiple commercial properties may generate significantly higher revenues than a municipality with 2,000 residents, a high proportion of farmland, and a limited commercial tax base. Smaller local governments are also more affected by shifts in national and global economic forces, such as the market prices of natural resources and changing government policies. This is because they have less diverse local economies than large and metropolitan areas, and are more subject to sudden shifts in the local economy, such as a mine or mill closure. 5.3.3 Consultants An emerging theme from both stages of research was the role of consultants in the ICSP process. There was a positive correlation between the size of a local government creating an ICSP and the use of consultants. The smaller the local government, the more likely it was to use consultants. The variable of consultant use was also interrelated with other size–related variables. Those local governments with less revenue availability also had less staff availability, and therefore had no capacity to create in–house ICSPs. As one respondent said, “A small local government just can’t do it. We just don’t have the manpower and because all of us here wear so many hats. I mean we have one employee who is part time. She’s the bylaw officer, she’s the emergency planner, and she’s the administrative assistant.” In this case, the respondent indicated that the local government was too small to even hire a consultant to create an ICSP. 34 This is consistent in many municipalities, while in rural areas farmers’ houses on agricultural land are tax exempt. 89 “Yeah, small communities just don’t have the capacity. I think when I contacted (a consultant) once I was going to contract them out. I believe it was something like $40,000 (for an ICSP). So $40,000 in this community is a year’s wages for somebody. So we just don’t have the capacity.” In this case, the local government was so small they had neither the capacity to develop an ICSP in house, nor the revenue to hire a consultant. Therefore, they would not be eligible for senior government grants through the Gas Tax Agreement. In those small local governments that can hire a consultant, there is often a cookie–cutter approach to ICSP development. Despite attempts to make ICSPs context–specific, consultants often bring an urban–planning bias, and related theory around Smart Growth and Complete Communities, to small and rural places. As noted by one respondent, Often the smaller communities will hire a consultant to come and write the plan, so the consultant might be coming from a more urban context and so we’ve had some policies recommended for some of our rural communities where it is not going to fly… So I think there is a bit of a disconnect from some of the work that is done for some of these communities and what’s written, and what is actually achievable or possible. We’ve actually just internally had a shift from getting consultants to do a lot of our work to doing it in house because we know the local context, whereas if you get someone in from (somewhere bigger), they still have these ideas that work in an urban scenario, but don’t fit (a smaller community). Aside from local government capacity limitations, and issues around grafting urban planning principles on non–urban areas, consultants also affect ICSP development by adding to the conceptual confusion around sustainability, and by facilitating community development of self–defined sustainability concepts. In several of the ICSPs reviewed, consultants pre–defined sustainability for the local government, or prior to any public participation process to self–define sustainability. Essentially, they laid out the three–pillar foundation, which leads automatically to conceptual confusion, before they guided the community to develop their own sustainability goals. This was most evident in the consultant–developed ICSP for the Village of Clinton, “The Village Council created a Sustainability Committee early on in the process. As one of its first tasks, the Committee discussed the idea of sustainability pillars and selected those that best suited Clinton. The pillars form the foundation for this plan, as well as being the foundation for the forthcoming updated OCP.” Throughout Clinton’s ICSP, it becomes evident that it has no intention of balancing environmental or social considerations, and instead is almost solely focussed on economic growth. While this was likely not the objective of the consultant involved, 90 the process created a framework in which the Town was able to create an Economic Growth plan, described as an ICSP, and was therefore eligible for Gas Tax funds. 5.3.4 Politics The interview stage of the research also identified that politics plays a major role in the way sustainability is considered in local governments. As one respondent indicated, I think (a) limitation from a staff perspective is (that) you can promote or recommend or encourage certain projects, and if there isn’t the political will to move some of those forward, then you are not going to see any change. So sometimes the political side of things can shift or alter the success or progress you make. Eight out of ten respondents indicated that political will was a limiting factor in how a local government planned for sustainability, and two indicated that it was the number one limitation. Each of the eight respondents who identified politics as a limiting factor gave examples of how politics can shift the course of sustainability planning. Political will at the local level was highly influenced by other size–related variables such as available revenue, community context and culture, and conceptual confusion. In many cases, the bottom line was that the economy was seen as more important politically than community sustainability. 5.4 Further Considerations While size plays an important role in the understanding of sustainability and the application of sustainability policies in local governments in the study area, opportunities exist to address this challenge. Bias toward urban growth, the lack of rural and small–town research, and the diminishment of the role and value of small towns and rural areas in the larger urban system, all work to disadvantage smaller areas in terms of sustainability. While urban and metropolitan areas also suffer from conceptual confusion around sustainability, the long history of urban planning theory has created best practices such as Smart Growth and Complete Communities that work to address many sustainability issues. New research on the value of ecosystem services, and an understanding of local carrying capacity, can demonstrate that small local governments may already enjoy a sustainability advantage, but need increased resources to ensure holistic human development, and not simply economic growth. Urban residents benefit disproportionately from goods and services produced in rural areas, which amounts to a transfer of wealth from the rural to the urban. However, when it comes to compensating for or subsidizing services in rural areas, there is simply not enough political will to justify such policies. This is why Victoria, with 344,000 residents, can compete with Zeballos and all 125 of its residents for senior government grants. More programs should exist to assist 91 small communities to achieve a sustainable dynamic equilibrium, and to protect the ecosystem services that currently exist; planning for sustainability, rather than planning to become less unsustainable. 92 6. Conclusions 6.1 Summary of research This research asked how the size of local government affects the understanding and application of sustainability in policy as reflected in ICSPs in British Columbia. Using size as a dependant variable, a grounded theory method, complimented by a cross–case study approach, and informed by semi–structured interviews, allowed for emergent theory development and testing. The basis for sustainability principles found in the literature, combined with a specific coding framework, allowed for iterative theory building in which interviews were informed by policy analysis and interview findings informed theory development. The research was informed by sustainability theory as presented in the literature review. The literature shows that sustainability theory was primarily developed with questions of international and national relevance in mind, and was adopted as an important and intuitive function of city planners at the local level. The theory recognizes three principles of sustainability: meeting human needs within environmental limits, intragenerational equity, and intergenerational equity; and also differentiates between ecocentrism and anthropocentrism as foundations underlying sustainability frameworks. The review also covered the role of local governments in the study area, the intent and framework for the Integrated Community Planning process, and urban planning theory including Smart Growth and Complete Communities. Local sustainability principles are seen to be legitimately operationalized through the Smart Growth agenda. However, while research and theory have been completed on sustainability planning at the urban level, very little has been applied to small and rural local governments. Using the grounded theory methodology, cross–case analysis was conducted using a coding framework to review 16 existing ICSPs from local governments in four different size categories, allowing common themes to emerge. The findings from the first stage of research were used to develop interview questions for the second stage of research. The interview stage of the research tested the theories that were developed by the literature review and the cross–case study analysis of the ICSPs. Local government planners were asked about sustainability definitions and frameworks, as well as policies, within their local government, and also for their professional opinions about size–related variables and sustainability. In B.C., there is recognition of the institutionalized limitations to small local governments when it comes to implementing effective and relevant sustainability policies. Despite these limitations, local governments are required through the ICSP process to engage with the community in the self–definition of sustainability, relevant to the local context, with limited theoretical grounding. The 93 findings from the two stages of research were used to identify variables and limitations that affect local government sustainability planning. 6.3 Recommendations Local governments play a critical role in working toward sustainability, by enacting policies at the local level which will have global effects. Based on the findings of this research, there are several recommendations which can help local governments with this task; however, this local government work must be supported by academic research, as outlined in the final section of this work. 1. Re–frame sustainability – Senior governments and academic institutions in Canada should promote a re–framing of sustainability (in all fields) away from a pillars–based approach, and toward a principles–based approach. Processes can be developed for decision makers that are tailored to the situation, but that always account for the principles of sustainability. This re–framing would mitigate anthropocentric and siloed versions of sustainability, which are an outcome of the current three pillars approach in decision–making processes. 2. Promote local capacity – Revise provincial legislation such as the Local Government Act and Community Charter to allow new revenue streams for local governments, and to allow local governments to benefit more from the use of local ecosystem services and natural resources. The provincial government should also provide community planning services for local governments when they are too small to have staff planners. 3. Recognize the value of small and rural places – There is an inherent urban bias in both government and academic institutions, as reflected in planning practices, which presupposes that urban development and economic growth are desirable and necessary for sustainability. This bias does not account for the value of small and rural places, ecosystem services, the inherent sustainability of a small place when accounting for ecological tipping points, and the intragenerational and intergenerational benefits that these areas can provide. A dialogue must be started, supported by research, to recognize and credit small places for the value they provide to the larger urban and global systems. 6.4 Limitations In this study, 70% of interview respondents were from the Okanagan Region, and 80% had previously met the researcher. This might cause some level of self–selection bias, and the limited geographical area may limit the applicability of the findings to other areas of the province. However, this limitation is mitigated to an extent by the similarity of the findings from the 30% of respondents from outside the Okanagan to those from within the region. Another 94 limitation is that a single researcher conducted the cross–case study analysis, adding a high degree of subjectivity to the findings. This limitation is mitigated through the open reporting of the findings, coding framework, and the open–source nature of the ICSPs themselves. As well, the interview stage of the research tested findings from the ICSP analysis, using the expert opinions of the respondents. Finally, the sustainability theory was based in literature, which reflects the same global and urban bias which disadvantages small local government efforts toward sustainability in practice. In other words, there is insufficient theoretical grounding in the sustainability of small places, which presents both a limitation to the research, and a recommendation for future research. 6.2 Future Research Any progress toward making local governments more sustainable must be grounded in sound theory, which in turn should be based on research. Currently, academic theory around small local governments, such as those found in the study area, is severely lacking, reflecting the same urban bias that exists in current planning literature. As one interviewee responded to a question about limitations for local government sustainability planning, “one thing I think, very apropos to your institution is that there is no outreach and support from UBCO, which you might find in other locales. Quite a critical deficiency, I think.” Although UBCO does conduct community engaged research in several disciplines, the larger question is whether the academic community engages enough in theory building and research, to directly solve the questions of the day for local governments in ways that will be practical and implementable. With regard to this point, future research should be conducted in several areas. 1. School of Planning – Which planning processes or procedures can be developed for smaller local governments that will provide them with best practices similar to Smart Growth for urban areas? 2. Economics – What is the value of goods and services transferred from rural areas to urban areas, and how can economic mechanisms be used to preserve and enhance the sustainability of rural services, including ecosystem services? 3. Geography – How can rural and small communities recognize their place in the larger urban system, and what does an equitable distribution of services look like for rural areas? 4. Political Science – How do federal and provincial policies and institutions affect the sustainability of local areas, and does the current system meet the definition of good governance – “promoting equity, participation, pluralism, transparency, accountability and the rule of law, in a manner that is effective, efficient and enduring?” (UN, Governance, N.D.). 95 References Appraisal Institute of Canada. The Appraisal of Real Estate. UBC Real Estate Division, Sauder School of Business, 2010. Arendt, Randall. Rural by Design: Planning for Town and Country. American Planning Association, 2015. Barbier, Edward. “The Concept of Sustainable Economic Development.” Environmental Conservation 14.02 (June, 1987): 101–110. Cambridge Journals. Baxter, Pamela, and Susan Jack. "Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study Design and Implementation for Novice Researchers." The qualitative report 13.4 (2008): 544–559. BC Stats, Socio–Economic Profiles, Retrieved from http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/StatisticsBySubject/SocialStatistics/SocioEconomicProfilesIndices/Profiles.aspx, (June 1, 2017). BC Transit 2015/16 Annual Service Plan Report, Retrieved from https://bctransit.com/servlet/documents/1403646162553, (June 4, 2017). Beatly, T. “Planning and Sustainability: The Elements of a New (Improved?) Paradigm.” Journal of Planning Literature 9.4 (May 1, 1995): 383–395. Berke, Philip R, and M Conroy. “Are We Planning for Sustainable Development?” Journal of the American Planning Association 66.1 (2000): 21–33. Berke, Philip R. "Does Sustainable Development Offer a New Direction for Planning? Challenges for the Twenty–First Century." Journal of Planning Literature 17.1 (August, 2002): 21–36. Bode, B, and D Wu. “The Legacy of Underdevelopment, Poverty and Inequality in Tanzania: A Case Study from Morogoro.” (2011). Bossel, H. "Assessing Viability and Sustainability: A Systems–based Approach for Deriving Comprehensive Indicator Sets." Integrated Natural Resource Management: Linking Productivity, the Environment and Development (2003): 247–266. Brugmann, Jeb. “Planning for sustainability at the local government level.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review Volume 16, Issues 4–6, (July–November 1996): 363–379 Brundtland, G H. Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, 1987. Campbell, Scott. "Green Cities, Growing Cities, Just Cities?: Urban Planning and the Contradictions of Sustainable Development." Journal of the American Planning Association 62.3 (November, 2007): 296–312. 96 Charmaz, Kathy, and Liska Belgrave. “Qualitative Interviewing and Grounded Theory Analysis.” The SAGE handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft 2 (2002). Chess, Joan. Integrated Community Sustainability Planning: Implications for Rural British Columbia. Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions, University of Victoria, (2012). City of Abbotsford. “Community Sustainability Strategy: Shaping Our Future” 2013. Retrieved from https://www.abbotsford.ca/Assets/2014+Abbotsford/Communications/Master+Plans+and+Strategies/2013+Community+Sustainability+Strategy.pdf City of Cranbrook. “Connecting to Our Future” June, 2011. Retrieved from http://docs.cranbrook.ca/downloads/eForms/ICSP–Cranbrook–Connected–Four–Pillars.pdf City of North Vancouver. “100 Year Sustainability Vision” May 2009. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/littd_000/Downloads/100%20Year%20Sustainability%20Vision%20(2).pdf City of Port Alberni. “Port Alberni Environmental Sustainability Progress Report and Plan 2007 – 2015” 2015. Retrieved from http://www.portalberni.ca/sites/default/files/users/jmartens/Sustainability%20Report%202015%20%28FINAL%29.pdf City of Port Moody. “Community Sustainability Plan” September, 2011. Retrieved from http://www.portmoody.ca/index.aspx?page=478 City of Prince George. “MyPG” March, 2013. Retrieved from Retrieved from http://princegeorge.ca/cityhall/mayorcouncil/councilagendasminutes/agendas/2010/2010_06_14_cw/documents/MyPG_part1.pdf City of Revelstoke “Sustainability Framework” 2013. Retrieved from http://www.cityofrevelstoke.com/DocumentCenter/View/1105 City of Surrey. “Sustainability Charter 2.0” March, 2013. Retrieved from http://www.surrey.ca/files/SUSTAINABILITY%20CHARTER%20%5bHIGH%20RES%5d.pdf City of Vancouver. “Greenest City: 2020 Action Plan” 2012. Retrieved from http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/Greenest–city–action–plan.pdf Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Sutton, P., van der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S. J., Kubiszewski, I., Turner, R. K. “Changes in the global value of ecosystem services.” Global Environmental Change, 26, (2014): 152–158. Corbiére–Nicollier, Tourane, Yves Ferrari, Christophe Jemelin, and Olivier Jolliet. "Assessing Sustainability: An Assessment Framework to Evaluate Agenda 21 Actions at the Local Level." International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 10.3 (September, 2003): 225–237. Dawe, N K, and K L Ryan. "The Faulty Three–legged–stool Model of Sustainable Development." Conservation Biology 17.5 (2003): 1458–1460. 97 District of Lake Country. “Annual Report.” (2013). District of Lake Country. “Hydroelectric Generating Station: GMF Project Completion Report.” (June, 2010). “Ecocentric.” Def.1. Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Web. 31 May, 2017. Dowdeswell, Elizabeth. "A Global View." Partnerships in Practice 1994. Dresner, Simon. The Principles of Sustainability. Earthscan, 2008. Easton, Geoff. "Critical Realism in Case Study Research." Industrial Marketing Management 39.1 (January, 2010): 118–128. Elo, Sato and Helvi Kyngas. “The qualitative content analysis process” Journal of Advanced Nursing 62.1 (22 Nov 2007): 105–119. Eigenbrod, F., V. A. Bell, H. N. Davies, A. Heinemeyer, P. R. Armsworth, K. J. Gaston. “The impact of projected increases in urbanization on ecosystem services.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B 278.1722 (2011). Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. "Building Theories From Case Study Research." Academy of management review 14.4 (1989): 532–550. Emanuel, William, Corey Dickens, James Hunter, Maurice Eugene Dawson Jr. “Clarifying Societies’ Need for Understanding Sustainable Systems.” Journal of Applied Global Research 2.4 (2011): 29–39. Freebairn, D M, and C A King. "Reflections on Collectively Working Toward Sustainability: Indicators for Indicators!." Animal Production Science 43.3 (2003): 223–238. Frumkin, Howard. “Urban Sprawl and Public Health.” Public Health Reports, Vol 117 (May–June 2002): 201–217. Futureoxford.ca, n.d. Retrieved from http://www.futureoxford.ca/General/SustainabilityPlan/index.htm 15 May 2016. Gibson, Robert B. “Beyond The Pillars: Sustainability Assessment as a Framework for Effective Integration of Social, Economic and Ecological Considerations in Significant Decision–Making.” Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 08.03 (September 2006): 259. Glaser, Barney G. Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. Sociology Press, 1992. Glaser, Barney G. and Anselm L. Strauss. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine Transaction, 1967. 98 Grant, Jill L. "Theory and Practice in Planning the Suburbs: Challenges to Implementing New Urbanism, Smart Growth, and Sustainability Principles 1." Planning Theory & Practice 10.1 (2009): 11–33. Grant, Kathy, Linda Nowlan, Christopher Rolfe, West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation, Institute for New Economics, and Smart Growth British Columbia. The Smart Growth Guide to Local Government Law and Advocacy. N.p.: West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation, 2001. Gustavson, Kent R, Stephen C Lonergan, and H Jack Ruitenbeek. "Selection and Modeling of Sustainable Development Indicators: A Case Study of the Fraser River Basin, British Columbia." Ecological Economics 28.1 (1999): 117 – 132. Heinrichs, Harald, Pim Martens, Gerd Michelsen, Arnim Wiek, Eds. Sustainability Science. Springer. 2016. Holden, Erling and Kristin Linnerud. “The Sustainable Development Area: Satisfying Basic Needs and Safeguarding Ecological Sustainability.” Sustainable Development 15 (2007): 174–187. Hui, Cang. “Carrying Capacity, Population Equilibrium, and Environment’s Maximal Load” Ecological Modeling 192.1–2 (2006): 317–320. Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Vintage, 1961. Jepson, E J. "Sustainability and Planning: Diverse Concepts and Close Associations." Journal of Planning Literature 15.4 (2001): 499. Levy, John M. Contemporary Urban Planning. Routledge, 2015. Lidstone, J, and M Williams. Geographical Education in a Changing World: Past Experience, Current Trends and Future Challenges. Springer, 2006. Litman, Todd. Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs Best Practices Guidebook. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 25 November 2016. Lincoln, Y. S., & E.G. Guba. Naturalistic enquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1985. Luther, E.A. Sustainability Action Planning Of Small Communities in British Columbia. MA Thesis. UBC, 2012. Maclaren, V. W. "Urban Sustainability Reporting." Journal of the American planning association 62.2 (1996): 184–202. Marsden, T. “Sustainable Place–making for Sustainability Science: The Contested Case of Agri–food and Urban–Rural Relations.” Sustainability Science 8.2 (April 2013): 213–226. 99 Marston, Sallie A., John Paul Jones III, and Keith Woodward. “Human geography without scale.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 30.4 (December 2005): 416–432. Maschaykh, Ulduz. The Changing Image of Affordable Housing: Design, Gentrification and Community in Canada and Europe. New York, NY: Routledge, 2015. Michelsen, Gerd, Maik Adombent, Pim Martens, and Michael von Hauff. Sustainability Science. Springer Netherlands, 2016. Mills, Jane, Ann Bonner, and Karen Francis. “The Development of Constructivist Grounded Theory.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 5.1 (March 2006): 25–35. “Anthropocentric.” Merriam–Webster.com. Merriam–Webster, n.d. Web. 17 Dec. 2016. Morrison, T.H. “Pursuing Rural Sustainability at the Regional Level: Key Lessons from the Literature on Institutions, Integration, and the Environment” Journal of Planning Literature 21.2 (November 2006): 143–152. Municipality of North Cowichan. Annual Report, 2013. Municipality of North Cowichan. “Community Census Information.” (2016) Retrieved from http://www.northcowichan.ca/EN/main/community/about–us/census–information.html 15 May, 2017. Municipality of North Cowichan. “North Cowichan Municipal Forestry Program: Fact Sheet/Background. (February, 2016). Murphy, K. “The Social Pillar of Sustainable Development: A Literature Review and Framework for Policy Analysis.” Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy 8 (2012). Naldi, Lucia, Pia Nilsson, Hans Westlund, and Sofia Wixe. "What Is Smart Rural Development?" Journal of Rural Studies 40 (August, 2015): 90–101. NYC.gov. Environmental Protection. New York City Government, n.d. retrieved, June 4, 2017. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/watershed_protection/about.shtml O'Connor, Martin. "The “Four Spheres” Framework for Sustainability." Ecological Complexity 3.4 (2006): 285 – 292. Oh, Kyushik., Yeunwoo Jeong, Dongkun Lee, Wangkey Lee, and Jaeyong Choi. “Determining Development Density Using the Urban Carrying Capacity Assessment System.” Landscape and Urban Planning 73.1 (2005): 1–15. Pearce, David. "Economics, Equity and Sustainable Development." Futures 20.6 (1988): 598 – 605. 100 Pope, Jenny, David Annandale, and Angus Morrison–Saunders. “Conceptualising Sustainability Assessment.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 24.6 (August 2004): 595–616. Pretty, Jules N. "Participatory Learning for Sustainable Agriculture." World development 23.8 (1995): 1247–1263. Reed, Mark S, Evan D.G Fraser, and Andrew J Dougill. "An Adaptive Learning Process for Developing and Applying Sustainability Indicators with Local Communities." Ecological Economics 59.4 (2006): 406 – 418 Rees, William E. "Ecological Footprints and Appropriated Carrying Capacity: What Urban Economics Leaves Out." Environment and urbanization 4.2 (1992): 121–130 Rees, William E. "Achieving Sustainability: Reform or Transformation?" Journal of Planning Literature 9.4 (May, 1995): 343–361 Regional District of Comox Valley. “Comox Valley Sustainability Strategy” February 18, 2010. Retrieved from http://www.comoxvalleyrd.ca/assets/Community/Documents/RS_CVSustainabilityStrategy_18Feb2010.pdf Regional District of Sunshine Coast. “We Envision” Date January 16, 2012. Retrieved from http://www.onecoast.ca/files/File/Jan%202012%20Sustainability%20Plan–%20low%20res%20PDF%20(3).pdf Rodrigue, Jean–Paul. “Sustainable Development” The Geography of Transport Systems Copyright 1998–2017. Retrieved from https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch8en/conc8en/3es.html 15 May, 2016. Royer, Gaetan. Time for Cities. City Forum Press, 2007. Smart Growth Ontario. “Complete Communities.” Retrieved from http://smartgrowthontario.ca/our–focus/complete–communities/ 15 May, 2016. Sumner, Jennifer. Sustainability and the Civil Commons; Rural Communities in the Age of Globalization. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 2005. Sustainability–Ed, Principles of sustainability: People, planet and profits n.d., retrieved from http://www.sustainability–ed.org.uk/pages/what3–1.htm 15 May, 2017. Sustainable Prosperity, Managing Urban Sprawl: Reconsidering Development Cost Charges in Canada. January 2012. Retrieved from: http://institute.smartprosperity.ca/sites/default/files/managing–urban–sprawl.pdf 15 May, 2016. Township of Langley. “Sustainability Charter” June 23, 2008. Retrieved from http://www.tol.ca/Portals/0/township%20of%20langley/mayor%20and%20council/sustainability%20charter/TOL%20Sustainability%20Charter.pdf Tsang, Eric W.K. "Case Study Methodology: Causal Explanation, Contextualization, and Theorizing." Journal of International Management 19.2 (June, 2013): 195–202. 101 United Nations Governance n.d., Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/globalissues/governance/ (September 22, 2016). Vanek, Steven. “Three–legged Stool of Sustainability” The Future of Food website. Retrieved from https://www.e–education.psu.edu/earth131/node/1193 n.d. (15 May, 2016). Village of Clinton “Our Community Clinton The Next 25 Years” December, 2014. Retrieved from http://www.fraserbasin.bc.ca/_Library/SPC_Documents/Sustainability_Plan_for_Clinton_FINAL_3_.pdf Village of Kaslo. “A Sustainability Strategy for the Village of Kaslo” June, 2014. Retrieved from https://kaslo.civicweb.net/filepro/document/4713/Sustainability%20Strategy%20for%20Kaslo%20FINAL%20June%202014.pdf Village of New Denver. “Resilience Action Plan” 21 April, 2010. Retrieved from http://newdenver.ca/wp–content/uploads/2015/03/Sustainability–Report–Final.pdf Village of Valemount. “Valemount’s Future” March, 2013. Retrieved from http://www.valemount.ca/sites/default/files/docs/EDO/Valemount_ICSP.pdf Wagner, Stephan M., Peter Lukassen, and Matthias Mahlendorf. “Misused and Missed Use – Grounded Theory and Objective Hermeneutics as Methods for Research in Industrial Marketing.” Industrial Marketing Management 39.1 (January, 2010): 5–15. ScienceDirect. Waegemakers Schiff, J., and Alina Turner. Housing First in Rural Canada: Rural Homelessness and Housing First Feasibility across 22 Canadian Communities. Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, 2014. Wei, Yigang, Cui Huang, Patrick T. I. Lam, Yong Sha, and Yong Feng. “Using Urban–Carrying Capacity as a Benchmark for Sustainable Urban Development: An Empirical Study of Beijing” Sustainability 7 (2015): 3244–3268. Wheeler, Stephen M. Planning for Sustainability: Creating Livable, Equitable and Ecological Communities. Routledge, 2013. WWF, UNEP. Living Planet Report. World Wide Fund for Nature Cambridge, UK, 2004. Yin, Robert K. Case Study Research : Design and Methods (2013). Zhao, Sheng, Changwen Wu, Huasheng Hong, and Luoping Zhang. "Linking the Concept of Ecological Footprint and Valuation of Ecosystem Services––a Case Study of Economic Growth and Natural Carrying Capacity." International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 16.2 (2009): 137–142. 102 Appendix A: ICSP Analysis Results Village of New Denver – Population: 523 “Resilience Action Plan” April 21, 2010. (32 Pages) Coding: E, D0, Env, Econ, Soc, Cult. Defining Sustainability: Principles–Based “In order to identify meaningful actions our research led us to refine our action plan in terms of building community resilience. Resilience at a community level is about being able to adapt to change, our research showed that energy scarcity and climate change are two future drivers that offer New Denver many opportunities in building resilience. We’ve used the resilient principles of permaculture as applied at a community level to assess the resilience of New Denver.” Framework for New Denver’s self–definition approach: “Environmental Resilience: Environmental resilience will preserve the natural amenities of the Slocan Valley, including: Clean drinkable water; Unpolluted lake; Fisheries; Scenic resources to maintain New Denver as a nice place to live that will attract small businesses. Also necessary is a transition to sustainable energy resources. Social Resilience: To build social resiliency through enhancing life, skills, activities, improving accessibility & creating learning opportunities for all residents, and in particular, youth and seniors. Economic Resilience: New Denver will be economically resilient with a strong permanent resident base which will support and promote local living. Through food security & sovereignty initiatives the diverse population is healthy & well fed. Value added and local cottage industries are strong & diverse to support the local economy. We are responsive and adaptable and continue to recruit new contributing community members. (And we all use the public outhouses regularly). Cultural Resilience: Cultural resilience will include diversified investment, including local funding, to establish an arts/education centre that would provide space for artists, art–oriented guilds and festival development. The strengthening of arts and culture in New Denver will foster community inclusiveness and cultural enrichment.” Note: New Denver’s Resilience Action Plan is coded as Ecocentric (E) because of its focus on permaculture principles and resilience as useable concepts to create community sustainability. More than any other ICSP reviewed through this research, New Denver’s plan considers the effects of people on the local environment, and their interactions. 103 Village of Clinton – Population: 630 “Our Community Clinton The Next 25 Years” December, 2014. (20 pages) Coding: A, D0, Econ, Soc, Cult. Defining Sustainability: Self–definition “The Village Council created a Sustainability Committee early on in the process. As one of its first tasks, the Committee discussed the idea of sustainability pillars and selected those that best suited Clinton. The pillars form the foundation for this plan, as well as being the foundation for the forthcoming updated OCP.” Framework for Clinton’s Self–definition approach: “This future vision led to four themes on which the plan is based:  economic diversification  health and well–being  growth and development  local heritage. These four themes were then developed into strategic priorities. They are the key items that need to be pursued in the coming years to help make Clinton more sustainable. The priorities and their respective goal statements are:  Diversify the local economy through small businesses and tourism.  Reach a population of 1000 to 1500 people.  Promote a healthy lifestyle from pre–cradle to grave.  Embrace historical roots while enhancing community spirit.” Note: Clinton’s plan is coded as Anthropocentric due to the community defining its own “pillars of sustainability” which do not include any environmental considerations. While the introduction to this plan includes a brief but thorough summary of the concepts of sustainability, the final plan is more around economic development than a reflection of the principles of sustainability. Village of Valemount – Population: 955 “Valemount’s Future” March, 2013. (35 pages) Coding: E, D0, Env, Soc, Econ. Defining Sustainability: self–defined “A sustainable community is one with a robust resilient economy within and serving a strong, equitable society, supported by and living within a highly functioning natural environment.” Framework for Valemount’s self–defined approach: 104 “There is a multitude of manners in which to define sustainability or sustainable development. The Brundtland Commission, in the 1987 report Our Common Future, introduced the term sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” This definition helped achieve global consensus that meeting the needs of current and future generations is absolutely dependent upon the health and viability of three completely embedded systems: 1. the natural environment, which provides the services and finite resources that enable society and the economy to function; 2. society, which is sustained by the life–providing services of the natural environment (air, water soil etc.) as well as the social connections/ structures that contribute to our health and prosperity; and 3. the economy, which aims to efficiently allocate many resources for jobs and a prosperous life, yet is governed by and dependent on society and the natural environment to thrive. Sustainability as described above is compelling as it focuses (sic) creating/maintaining conditions to meet human needs today and in the future, but it does not have the clarity nor the precision required for effective strategic planning and action toward the desired outcome. Understanding first, that meeting needs is very dependent on economic systems, human society, and a healthy functioning environment, and that these three systems are interrelated, is a first step to help to narrow our focus for action.” Note: Valemount’s Future is coded as Ecocentric (E) as its environmental section is focussed on protection and enhancement of the surrounding environment, while recognizing that society and the economy function within the environment. The plan also takes into account a global environmental lens, incorporating ideas like sustainably sourced goods. This plan recognizes the role that the community can play in the larger context of global climate change and other environmental issues. Village of Kaslo – Population: 998 “A Sustainability Strategy for the Village of Kaslo” June, 2014. (20 Pages) Coding: N, D1, Econ, Soc, Cult, Ecol Defining Sustainability: Pre–Defined “…have the capacity to evolve in economic, social, cultural and ecological senses without detracting from the possibilities of such evolution for other communities and future generations” (Bryden. 1994; Towards Sustainable Rural Communities). Framework for Kaslo’s pre–defined approach: 105 “The five strategic priorities are:  Pursue innovative and diverse economic development.  Develop and enhance infrastructure, and options for energy resources.  Continue the community’s legacy of being stewards of the natural environment, including food and water.  Encourage attainable and affordable housing options for the entire community.  Build community capacity, health and well–being through the development of cultural, social and educational opportunities.” Note: Kaslo’s ICSP is coded as neutral as it gives both ecological and economic considerations equal status. In contrast to Revelstoke’s Plan, Kaslo’s recognizes the value of protecting the environment for more than human recreational activities. The primary environmental focus is on protecting and enhancing water supply by limiting watershed development, and through riparian protection. City of Revelstoke – Population: 7,192 “Sustainability Framework” 2013. (23 Pages) Coding: A, D0, Env/Clim, Soc/Cult, Econ. Defining Sustainability: Self–defined “Sustainability is a mindset – a philosophy and approach for decision–making that permeates everything we do and choose not to do – as individuals and collectively. The core of sustainability is to:  achieve a good life today, and  create the potential for a quality future for the next generations.” Framework for Revelstoke’s self–defined approach: “A sustainable society depends upon the achievement of four conditions – not as isolated priorities, but as interconnected essentials:  a vibrant, healthy and inclusive community,  a healthy environment,  a responsible and innovative economy, and  a strong leadership collaboration in government and the community (at all levels). A sustainable community depends on everyone working together – it cannot be achieved by any one party acting alone.” Note: Revelstoke’s Sustainability Framework is coded as anthropocentric (A) as much of the environmental focus throughout the document is in relation to human access and recreation 106 within the surrounding area. Revelstoke’s plan sees changes within the natural environment as inevitable, rather than something to be managed and controlled. This is in contrast to Port Alberni’s document which focuses on the environment as something to be protected and preserved. Regional District of Sunshine Coast – Population: 14,131 “We Envision” Date January 16, 2012. (61 pages) Coding: N, D0/D1, Econ, Soc, Cult, Env Defining Sustainability: Self–defined/pre–defined “In a sustainable community, people flourish and have fulfilling lives for the long term, while living in harmony with a healthy, natural environment. A sustainable community recognizes the interconnectedness of all things, while, at the same time, supporting a desirable human existence that coexists with the natural systems that support it. Sustainability recognizes that our economy needs to support a high quality of life, social and cultural development, and personal fulfillment, while, at the same time, recognizing that nature is not infinite in its resources.” Framework for Sunshine Coast’s self–definition: “Our compass has four directions, each quadrant holding a group of core values on which sustainable communities are built, and which we suggest can help keep us on course: • Economic Vitality • Health and Social Well–Being • Cultural Vitality, and • Environmental Responsibility.” Notes: While Sunshine Coast self–defined sustainability, they also cited Brundtland in a footnote to their definition, as well as another local government’s definition. Sunshine Coast’s plan is coded as neutral, as it focuses on a balance, and on the principles of sustainability, even while using a pillared framework. For example, each major section that speaks about economic development, also recognizes the need to preserve the natural environment. City of Port Alberni – Population: 16,149 “Port Alberni Environmental Sustainability Progress Report and Plan 2007 – 2015” 2015. (33 Pages) Coding: E, D0/D1, Soc, Env, Econ, Cult. Defining Sustainability: Self–Definition and Pre–Defined 107 The Report uses the following definition before the table of contents, giving it a place of importance and legitimacy in the document: “Sustainability is the long–term responsibility of balancing environmental, social and economic demands, encompassing the concept of stewardship along with the responsible management of resource use.” However, Port Alberni’s Strategic Plan 2015, which is cited in this document, adopts the Brundtland Definition of Sustainability. “A definition for Sustainability is adopted: ‘Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the current generation without impairing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.’” Framework for Port Alberni’s self–definition approach: “The Strategic Plan incorporates a ‘Four pillars’ approach to municipal government that recognizes the need to balance social, environmental, economic and cultural perspectives. There is an emphasis on ‘sustainability’, ensuring that the needs are being met today but also that future requirements are being strategically addressed.” Note: Port Alberni’s Plan is coded as Ecocentric (E), because it assesses community “environmental sustainability.” Throughout the entire document, there is only one instance of the word “growth,” and that is used to refer to protecting “old growth forests.” Unlike other local government examples, which had a single ICSP document, or sequential documents forming a single plan, Port Alberni had several documents with various processes, plans and even different definitions of sustainability. Research focussed on the most recent available plan and its internal disparities. City of Cranbrook – Population: 19,911 “Connecting to Our Future” June, 2011. (48 Pages) Coding: A, D0, Soc, Econ, Cult, Env Defining Sustainability: Self–Definition “A sustainable Cranbrook is… adaptable to change with social well–being and quality of life supported by a diverse and stable economy, maintained by a healthy environment, balanced to the needs and opportunities of present and future.” Framework for Cranbrook’s self–defined approach: Cranbrook used the four pillars of “social wellbeing, cultural vibrancy, economic health, and natural and built environment” to create their definition of sustainability. This framework was broken down into “8 big ideas” which outlined their goals and specific actions toward sustainability. Notes: Cranbrook’s ICSP is coded as Anthropocentric, because, similar to Revelstoke, much of the environmental focus throughout the document is in relation to human access and recreation 108 within the surrounding area. Only one of the “8 big ideas” – “Water Forever” – is directly related to the environment, and it focuses on maintaining drinking water supplies. Other big ideas also contain elements of environmental thought, but they largely focus on serving human activity. City of Port Moody – Population: 34,554 “Community Sustainability Plan” September, 2011. (28 pages) Coding: N, D0, Env, Econ, Soc, Cult Defining Sustainability: Port Moody uses point–form to outline each of its pillars, without having a single definition of sustainability. Framework for Port Moody’s self–defined approach: “Environmental Sustainability involves:  planning for the enjoyment of our natural environment, while minimizing our impact.  preserving environmentally sensitive areas and supporting the efforts of our stewardship groups. Economic Sustainability involves:  planning for long–term economic stability for the City through efficient human resource and facility management.  sound purchasing policies and full life cycle cost accounting.  maintaining tax levels at affordable rates for all members of the community.  creating positive business opportunities for local employment and supporting local business activities. Social Sustainability Involves:  people living and growing in their neighbourhoods, and fulfilling spiritual, creative and physical needs throughout their lives.  adapting to the desires of different age groups, ethnicity and beliefs in a single community.  planning neighbourhoods to encourage and foster social interaction. Cultural Sustainability involves:  recognizing history, traditions, social values and community culture in planning for the future here in the City of the Arts.  supporting cultural groups and their activities.  developing a range of spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features characterizing a society or social group.” 109 Notes: Port Moody’s ICSP is coded as neutral because it puts importance on both ecosystem values and economic values, and recognizes how they interact. 20 different “Sustainability Plan Areas” (topics) allow a user to quickly navigate to the areas of interest. Regional District of Comox Valley – Population: 36,834 “Comox Valley Sustainability Strategy” February 18, 2010. (147 pages) Coding: A, P, Integrated Defining Sustainability: Principles–based “It’s a unifying concept that in the most simple terms, compels us to improve the quality of life for all citizens and species while protecting the environmental systems and resources on which life depends. It’s a global journey that depends on local actions. It requires us to re–examine our values, take a deeper look at how the earth and its systems function, and find new models for cooperative action. Beyond protecting our planet’s health, sustainability is also about promoting resilience, allowing us to effectively respond to changes or severe events that may impact our communities.” Framework for Comox Valley’s principles–based approach: “There is a growing understanding that a keystone of sustainability is integration. It is necessary to always focus our planning and decision–making around the awareness that all aspects of our communities are closely interrelated. Sustainability is “cross–cutting” and as we look at issues more closely, we see that no issue exists in isolation. For example, consider issues such as global warming or deforestation and reflect on the wide range of disciplines and stakeholders that are connected to these challenges. The movement to create Integrated Community Sustainability Plans was designed to accelerate a shift in municipal planning and decision–making, away from the traditional division of departments and sectors, toward a more long–term, coherent and participatory approach to achieving sustainable communities.” Notes: The “Comox Valley Sustainability Strategy” is coded as anthropocentric (A) for its focus on continued physical growth. One goal which is telling about this attitude is the strategy to focus growth into new and existing town centres for the purpose of relieving “growth pressure on green space and rural areas in order to preserve their unique character and valuable rural economic function (e.g. agriculture, forestry).” This statement shows that the perceived protection of green spaces is meant to serve a further economic function, rather than preserving the environment for ecosystem services or for non–economic values. 110 City of North Vancouver – Population: 54,258 “100 Year Sustainability Vision” May 2009. (108 pages) Coding: N, D0, Soc, Econ, Env (Carbon Neutral) Defining Sustainability: Self–Definition “To be a vibrant, diverse, and highly livable community that provides for the social and economic needs of our community within a carbon neutral environment by the City’s 200th Birthday in 2107.” Framework for North Vancouver’s self–defined approach: “A successful public planning process is invariably grounded in a strong and reasonable set of principles. In this work the City accepted the logic of the six fundamental principles for sustainable development that had been established by the Design Centre for Sustainability’s ongoing regional project: Sustainability by Design. These principles represented simple but highly informative rules for the design of cities in our region: access to linked public places, parks and natural areas; green, durable, timeless infrastructure; mixed–use corridors accessible to all; five minute walking distance to commercial services and transit; appropriate housing for all; and, good and plentiful jobs close to home. An additional principle was added because of the compelling environmental circumstances recognized by the City: adapt to climate change. These principles are each distilled from the large body of publicly approved municipal, regional and provincial policies, further substantiating and contextualizing this project.” Notes: North Vancouver’s ICSP is coded as neutral, because it recognizes an increasing need to improve social and economic well–being, but plans for environmental improvements and green design in achieving the vision. North Vancouver’s plan appeared to be more of a long–term urban growth plan, than was true of communities that focussed on broad goals and actions. It was clearly influenced to a great degree by the urban planning academic consultations from the Design Centre for Sustainability. City of Prince George – Population: 71,363 “MyPG” March, 2013. (68 pages) Coding: E, D0, Env, Soc, Econ Defining Sustainability: Self–Definition “Sustainability recognizes that we rely on the environment, so we need to protect and restore it in order to thrive and survive. It recognizes that to thrive means to provide for our human needs and maintain a high quality of life for everyone. It also recognizes that economic development is important in order to achieve these goals.” Framework for Prince George’s self–definition approach: 111 “Performance goals are the enduring core of the plan, and describe what the community hopes to achieve in the long term. As the plan is renewed and progress is made, priorities may be adjusted. This part of the plan lists all of the goals. They are organized in three general categories – Social, Environmental, and Economic, and are listed alphabetically.” Notes: Prince George’s “MyPG” is coded as ecocentric (E), because it talks specifically about growth in similar terms to those used by Brundtland. MyPG does not advocate further physical urban growth, and reconciles recent “modest population growth” while the economy grew, environment recovered and social welfare improved. This can be seen in the framing of sustainability in this document, which begins with the recognition of human reliance on the environment. Township of Langley – Population: 104,177 “Sustainability Charter” June 23, 2008. (8 pages) Coding: A, D1, Soc, Cult, Econ, Env Defining Sustainability: Pre–defined (modified from Brundtland) (The Sustainability Charter) “presents a vision of the community that meets the social, cultural, economic, and environmental needs of current residents while ensuring that those needs can continue to be met for future residents.” Framework for Langley’s pre–defined approach: “Sustainability occurs when social, cultural, economic and environmental aspects are in balance. The Framework provides a structure to consider a wide range of community initiatives in a comprehensive manner.” Notes: Langley’s Sustainability Charter is coded as anthropocentric (A) because it lists one of its goals as “managing growth to meet (community) needs.” This perception implies that a certain amount of physical urban growth will be perpetuated by the growth of needs in Langley. Langley’s ICSP is the shortest length document of those reviewed, because it explicitly seeks to form a sustainability framework to inform other plans by the Township, such as the OCP, rather than creating a separate comprehensive sustainability plan. City of Abbotsford – Population: 141,498 “Community Sustainability Strategy: Shaping Our Future” 2013. (17 Pages) Coding: N, D0, Fisc, Econ, Soc, Env Defining Sustainability: Self–Definition 112 “Sustainability is about supporting our community’s, fiscal, economic, environmental and social needs today and in the future.” Framework for Abbotsford’s self–definition: “‘Sustainable communities’ are broadly described as those that maintain a reliable economic base; practice sound financial management; provide a stable environment for its citizens and businesses; and act as stewards of the land base and other environmental resources. The conversation and ongoing desire to live more sustainably is a critical part of our community’s future. Sustainability is not an option – it is an imperative to support our society. Sustainability is not all about the future and we can all benefit from action now. It is not just about doing good things for the environment – it is about all the social, fiscal and economic aspects of our community and how they interact. Sustainability can be good for our environment, our people, our businesses, and our wallets.” Notes: Abbotsford’s ICSP is coded as neutral, as it recognizes the need to preserve the natural environment and the reliance of human needs on a healthy environment. City of Surrey – Population: 526,004 “Sustainability Charter 2.0” March, 2013. (53 pages) Coding: A, D1, Soc–Cult, Econ, Env Defining Sustainability: Pre–defined (modified from Brundtland) “Meeting the needs of the present generation in terms of socio–cultural systems, the economy and the environment while promoting a high quality of life but without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Framework for Surrey’s pre–defined approach: “Sustainability provides a balanced framework to address our urgent challenges while continuously striving for our vision of a thriving, green and inclusive city. Sustainability is about making decisions that support and benefit the sociocultural, environmental and economic aspects of our community and that consider the people who will make Surrey home for generations to come.” Notes: Surrey’s Sustainability Charter is coded as anthropocentric (A) as it states one of its objectives as “supporting Urban Growth.” This means that the Sustainability Charter sees growth as a foregone conclusion, rather than asking a question about whether growth is necessary or desirable. City of Vancouver – Population: 648,608 “Greenest City: 2020 Action Plan” 2012. (72 pages) Coding: N, D0 113 Defining Sustainability: Self–definition “This plan sets the course toward realizing a healthy, prosperous, and resilient future for our city. It calls on us all to rise to the challenge of transforming our community to create a better life for future generations.” Framework for Vancouver’s self–defined approach:  Green Economy  Climate Leadership  Green Buildings  Green Transportation  Zero Waste  Access to Nature  Lighter Footprint  Clean Water  Clean Air  Local Food Notes: Vancouver’s ICSP is coded as neutral, because it seeks to address human need while improving the environment and recognizing local and global carrying capacity. Vancouver’s plan uses the term “green” as a proxy for “sustainable,” showing a commitment to considering the environment. 114 Appendix B: Semi–structured Interview Questions 1. What planning school did you attend, and what was your highest degree in the field of planning? 2. What framework or definition does this local government use for sustainability? 3. How did the currently–used sustainability framework or definition develop? 4. How does the concept of sustainability feed into the planning process? 5. Is there a focus on specific aspects of sustainability in certain circumstances (i.e. commercial development versus park planning)? 6. Does the council or board have a process for incorporating sustainability into consideration of development proposals? 7. Does the local government share information with the public on community sustainability policies and initiatives? 8. Do you think that there is a difference in the way a small or rural local government would deal with sustainability planning compared to a large or urban one? 9. Do you think that there is a difference in the way a smaller local government would deal with planning in general compared to a large local government? 10. Is there a process or indicator framework for measuring sustainability in this community? Is it effective? 11. Do you think that Smart Growth principles are equally applicable to small/rural local governments as they are to larger/urban ones? 12. What do you think are some of the limitations for local government when it comes to community sustainability?
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Interdisciplinary Studies
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Graduate
Size matters : local government sustainability planning in British Columbia
Text