Applied Science, Faculty of
Community and Regional Planning (SCARP), School of
DSpace
UBCV
Street, Savonnae
Master of Arts in Planning - MAP
University of British Columbia
This thesis aims to develop an evaluation tool for comprehensive and baseline measurements of equity in planning by conducting a content analysis of the ways equity is currently expressed in municipal official plans of the 30 most populous mid-sized cities across the Province of Ontario, Canada. The findings of the research suggest that explicit indications of equity are rare despite its identification as a key element of sustainable city planning. Rather, equity is mostly expressed through measures that implicitly advance efforts to address specific drivers of social inequity, but through an indirect approach necessitating broad evaluative tools. When accounting for the implicit and explicit ways that equity is addressed, a wide variety of cities are including dimensions of equity in their municipal official plans and they are doing so across a spectrum of equity dimensions. However, explicit equity actions are much more circumscribed. This is likely due to the circumstance that planners in mid-sized cities in Ontario face, wherein plans are embedded in complex multi-level governance directives. This circumstance creates some unique challenges in the municipal official planning process that may limit capacity to directly address equity concerns. To strengthen equity evaluation as a tool for urban planners in mid-sized cities in Ontario, this study recommends that evaluation guidelines should be directed by provincial government regulations and guidance materials and that these evaluations should include explicit equity measures.
WHERE DOES EQUITY FIT? AN EVALUATION OF MUNICIPAL OFFICIAL PLANS IN MID-SIZED CITIES IN ONTARIO, CANADA by B.E.S., The University of Waterloo, 2021 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (Planning) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) April 2023 © Savonnae Street, 2023Savonnae Streetii The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies for acceptance, the thesis entitled: WHERE DOES EQUITY FIT? AN EVALUATION OF MUNICIPAL OFFICIAL PLANS IN MID-SIZED CITIES IN ONTARIO, CANDA submitted by in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Planning Examining Committee: James J.T. Connolly, Assistant Professor Supervisor Mark Stevens, Associate Professor Supervisory Committee Member Su-Jan Yeo, Adjunct Professor Supervisory Committee Member SavonnaeStreetiii Abstract This thesis aims to develop an evaluation tool for comprehensive and baseline measurements of equity in planning by conducting a content analysis of the ways equity is currently expressed in municipal official plans of the 30 most populous mid-sized cities across the Province of Ontario, Canada. The findings of the research suggest that explicit indications of equity are rare despite its identification as a key element of sustainable city planning. Rather, equity is mostly expressed through measures that implicitly advance efforts to address specific drivers of social inequity, but through an indirect approach necessitating broad evaluative tools. When accounting for the implicit and explicit ways that equity is addressed, a wide variety of cities are including dimensions of equity in their municipal official plans and they are doing so across a spectrum of equity dimensions. However, explicit equity actions are much more circumscribed. This is likely due to the circumstance that planners in mid-sized cities in Ontario face, wherein plans are embedded in complex multi-level governance directives. This circumstance creates some unique challenges in the municipal official planning process that may limit capacity to directly address equity concerns. To strengthen equity evaluation as a tool for urban planners in mid-sized cities in Ontario, this study recommends that evaluation guidelines should be directed by provincial government regulations and guidance materials and that these evaluations should include explicit equity measures. iv Lay Summary The municipal official plan sets the tone for the ways that communities handle issues like land use and zoning, housing, and transportation. It is a roadmap for community members, elected officials and municipal planners to understand the goals and policies that guide future planning and development. Equity as a planning focus is not new, but there is a limited understanding of how it actually manifests and can be evaluated in municipal official plans, especially in mid-sized cities. To assist mid-sized cities in developing this understanding, this thesis examines the case of Ontario, Canada as a test for developing a comprehensive and widely applicable evaluation tool to assess equity. Through this tool, which is applied here in 30 cities, I better understand the direct and indirect ways that equity is commonly expressed within municipal official plans, supported by academic literature. In all, this study provides specific findings regarding the presence and role of equity in these cities’ plans and a guide to what an equity evaluation tool could look like in planning practice. Through a content analysis of the municipal official plans of the 30 most populous mid-sized cities in Ontario, the results show a lack of explicit indications of equity but a strong presence indication of implicit equity efforts. While this is promising, it also indicates that municipal official plans face challenges to any placing equity as an explicit and central principle of planning, which is called for in most frameworks for more sustainable municipal official plans. v Preface I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. This is a true copy of the thesis, including any required final revisions, as accepted by my examiners. vi Table of Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................................ iii Lay Summary ....................................................................................................................................... iv Preface ................................................................................................................................................... v Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................. vi List of Tables ....................................................................................................................................... viii Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................................. ix Dedication ............................................................................................................................................. xi Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 The importance of equity evaluation for sustainable city planning ........................................... 1 1.2 A focus on the official community plan ....................................................................................... 4 1.3 Overview of the study area: Mid-sized cities in Ontario ............................................................ 7 1.4 Thesis Structure ........................................................................................................................... 9 Chapter 2: Literature Review ............................................................................................................. 11 2.1 Overview of equity within plan evaluation................................................................................ 11 2.2 Defining Equity through Planning ............................................................................................ 15 2.3 Evaluating Equity in Planning .................................................................................................. 17 2.4 A key equity issue within Ontario’s mid-sized cities: Immigration .......................................... 21 Chapter 3: Methodology...................................................................................................................... 25 3.1 Data Sources .............................................................................................................................. 25 3.2 Content Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 27 3.3 Coding Scheme........................................................................................................................... 29 3.4 Limitations ...................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Chapter 4: Results ............................................................................................................................... 38 4.1 How and to what extent is equity expressed in municipal official plans? ................................ 38 vii 4.1.1 Implicit Equity Measures ..................................................................................................... 42 4.1.2 Explicit Equity Measures ..................................................................................................... 46 4.2 To what extent do equity objectives, both stated and implied, reflect all dimensions of equity discussed in the literature? .............................................................................................................. 48 4.2.1 Horizontal Equity ................................................................................................................. 51 4.2.2 Vertical Equity ..................................................................................................................... 53 Chapter 5: Discussion .......................................................................................................................... 55 5.1 The double-edge of multilevel governance for social equity: Provincial government influence on Official Plan equity inclusions .................................................................................................... 56 5.2 A broad focus on horizontal and vertical equity ....................................................................... 59 5.3 Future directions for an equity evaluation tool ......................................................................... 60 Chapter 6: Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 62 6.1 Strategies to enhance plan equity evaluation of Official Plans ................................................. 63 6.1.1 Strengthen the importance of the provincial government’s role in equity planning ............. 63 6.1.2 Extend plan equity evaluations to planning practice ............................................................ 64 6.2 Future Research ......................................................................................................................... 64 References ............................................................................................................................................ 66 viii List of Tables Table 2. 1: Horizontal and Vertical Equity Objectives ..................................................................... 19 Table 3. 1: 30 Largest Mid-sized Cities in Ontario, Canada ............................................................ 26 Table 3.1. 2: Scoring Protocol Exemplar .......................................................................................... 29 Table 3. 2: Adapted Coding Scheme ................................................................................................. 30 Table 4. 1: Master Summary Table for All Jurisdictions (n=30) ..................................................... 39 Table 4. 2: Plan Evaluation Standardized Scores for All Jurisdictions (n=30) ............................... 40 Table 4. 3: Plan Evaluation Scores for All Jurisdictions - Summary Statistics (n=30) .................. 41 Table 4. 4: Horizontal and Vertical Equity Master Summary Table for All Jurisdictions (n=30) . 49 Table 4. 5: Horizontal and Vertical Equity Scores for All Jurisdictions (n=30) ............................. 50 Table 4. 6: Horizontal and Vertical Equity Scores for All Jurisdictions - Summary Statistics (n=30) .................................................................................................................................................. 51 Table 4. 7: Horizontal Equity Indicators ........................................................................................... 52 Table 4. 8: Vertical Equity Indicators ................................................................................................ 54 Table 6. 1: Summary of Results ......................................................................................................... 62 ix Acknowledgments My gratitude for my community runs very deeply. There are so many people who have been instrumental in helping me to fulfill this degree. I hope I have made them and myself proud. I went to graduate school with a desire to explore and understand how academic silos of research can be translated to tools that directly impact planning practice. Over the past few years, equity has become a hot button topic in both the academic spaces and planning practice. Equity is challenging. There are so many approaches and points of inquiry to understanding the intersections of equity and planning as well as the correct tools to mobilize equitable planning. Engaging in these inquiries that provide a clearer picture of equitable planning is what inspires and fuels me. Thank you to each person who has made this a reality: To God for being my solace, comfort, and guide. To my Supervisor, Dr. James Connolly who was always patient with me and challenged me to think deeper. To all the friends I have made (you know who you are) through the academic community at the University of British Columbia who supported me and listened to my thoughts and ideas. You are so greatly appreciated. I could not have gotten here without your inquisitive questions and interest in my work. To my family who have always supported me throughout my years of education. My mother, Sheryl Joanne Street and father, Samuel Phillip Ward Street who have not always understood the details but motivated me to finish strong, cherish the privilege of this process and encouraged my curiosity. To my sister, Sarion Street who always knew the right words to say when I needed it x and to my brother, Sean-Anthony Street who never failed to make me laugh when I was down. To Mama, for giving me the most perfect writing retreat in Jamaica and being my biggest fan. To all my Kingston family – Grandma, Aunty Kerry, Uncle Keith, Aunty Ellie, Kimani, Kaela, Matthew, all my cousins – thank you for your love, food, and the healing being in community with you brought me. Love you all! To my best friends who sat up listening to my fears and excitement around this work and always asked when I would be done. To Katie Rinshed for always taking the time to talk to me without judgement and full of love. To Shohrat Haque for getting me out of the house and always making life brighter. To Ammy Liu for always checking in with me and reminding me that I was more capable than I could ever know. To Deonna Gayle for always laughing with me and being a listening ear. You are all so precious to me. To Hesse, who provided me space to write and grow, always asked me difficult questions and encouraged me to reach for the highest of heights. Thank you for always showing up for me and believing in me. You are a true and faithful friend. I have so much gratitude to anyone who has inspired me to continue my education and achieve my goals. For you all, I am so very thankful. To the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council from the Government of Canada, thank you for believing in my research and sponsoring this work. xi Dedication To all those who have come before me. 1 Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 The importance of equity evaluation for sustainable city planning Equity as a tenet of sustainability is the forgotten “E” in the economy, environment, equity triad that is all too often pushed aside as too complex to be operationalized in a measurable manner (Schrock et al. 2015; Oden 2010) or seen as creating potential conflicts with other planning goals if prioritized (Connolly 2019). In the current context of metrics-oriented sustainability planning, measuring equity considerations is challenging and decidedly problematic as equity considerations are difficult to quantify (Dale and Newman 2009). As a result, equity indicators in the sustainability realm have been challenged for their inclusion in the plan evaluation sphere (Black, 2010). Consequently, more easily quantified goals are prioritized (Handy, 2008). However, the lack of abundance in quantifiable measures of evaluation does not reflect equity’s importance as a crucial plan evaluation measure for achieving the larger goal of sustainability. Solow (1991) in fact argues that equity at the local level showcases a clearer picture of the challenges and opportunities that exist for planners to embark on a planning process that encompasses true sustainable city planning. Social equity is increasingly recognized as the most neglected aspect of local plans in the era of sustainable urbanism (Loh and Kim, 2021). More so than is the case for economic and ecological goals, it is politically and fiscally difficult to create an efficient equity plan and strategy, given the wide and sometimes abstract meanings people bring to social equity (Grossman et al., 2022; Zeemering, 2014, pp. 15-16). Thus, to a greater extent than with other city planning objectives, equity poses a challenge in terms of definition and evaluation (Fainstein, 2010, pp. 35-42). 2 This challenge is not new. The intersection between urban planning and social equity was a central component of opposition that arose within the framework of advocacy planning in the 1960s (Davidoff, 1965). Advocacy planners especially targeted traditional practices of planning, which favoured efficiency and served as a key reference point for later efforts to develop a formal equity planning model that began in Cleveland, Ohio (Krumholz, 1982). The equity planning model was reflective of the goals held by a generation of planning leaders that reacted against urban renewal projects, which displaced the most disadvantaged residents of the city (Krumholz, 1982). Norman Krumholz, a leader in this push toward a formal equity planning model, co-developed tools meant to dismantle and erase practices of redlining and racist development policies as a central tenet of planning practice (Krumholz, 1982). For a while during this era, the concept of equity was brought front and center by targeting certain drivers of inequity, but not necessarily by proactively identifying what equity outcomes looked like and how they could be measured. Even as so-called “growth machines” in cities of the 1980s and 1990s increasingly conjured gentrification-led redevelopment that often-overwhelmed advocacy and equity planning initiatives of the time (Molotch and Logan, 1984), the concept of social equity was brought back to the fore with the emerging link between planning and sustainability, which held equity as one of its three pillars (Wheeler 2013). With this new framework for including equity as a central goal in planning, old conflicts re-emerged. Campbell (1996) discusses these conflicts in the planner’s sustainability triangle, which includes environmental protection, economic development, and equity as the three priorities – each with a set of internal and external contradictions. The trade-offs required are evident in many city plans where equity appears to be the most neglected sustainability objective (Schrock et al., 2015; Loh and Kim, 2021). As a part 3 of sustainability planning, equity generally lives behind the scenes in official planning processes, lingering within the concept of sustainability but lacking the metrics for concrete evaluation. It is an influencing factor, but often struggles to be realized in terms of concrete outcomes and indicators (Moore 2016). As a result, many scholars, criticize sustainability planning and the closely aligned concept of resilience planning for the lack of focus associated with social equity (Zapata and Bates, 2015), but there is also often a conceptual path forward that remains hopeful (Oden, 2010). While approaches like Just City Planning (Fainstein, 2010) have forwarded a renewed push to make social equity an operational guiding principle for planning practice, one steady challenge that has characterized this effort for decades remains: how do we evaluate and measure equity within plans in order to know if the desired outcomes have been achieved? Indeed, this challenge has received increasing attention in recent years. Inspired by increased societal and intellectual pressures to move in this direction, more and more cities are embarking on efforts to include metrics of equity in their local comprehensive and municipal official plans (e.g. Vancouver, BC; Portland, OR; Cincinnati, OH; Seattle, WA), but still these efforts are nascent and often expressed in a conceptual rather than fully actionable manner. This research picks up on the trend toward building equity metrics by responding to the need for a better understanding of how to evaluate social equity from plans. It develops this evaluative lens through a focus on the case of mid-sized (population 50,000 – 500,000) Canadian cities in the province of Ontario in order to compare across similar contexts (Evergreen, 2017). The approach used here synthesizes how equity is currently operationalized within plans to understand what is present and what is missing so that the scope and dimensions of an effective tool for equity evaluation of plans can be derived. It also develops a common framework that 4 addresses shortcomings seen in the existing plans as a reference point for cities outside of the study area. Three questions guide the research: 1. How and to what extent is equity expressed in municipal official plans? 2. To what extent do equity objectives, both stated and implied, reflect all dimensions of equity discussed in the literature? 3. What would a comprehensive equity evaluation tool look like given the current context of official plans and considering possible future directions? Specifically, this research involves a systematic content analysis of the goals and metrics utilized in existing plans across approximately 30 cities (Government of Canada – S.C, 2018). The content analysis focuses on how equity is measured, and which desired outcomes are common across the plans. This assessment, along with a review of the urban equity literature, guides the development of a corresponding framework that expresses the content analysis results and fills existing gaps in equity measurement that can then serve as a baseline reference for all mid-size cities in Ontario (and potentially beyond) to use in assessing outcomes and implementation. 1.2 A focus on the official community plan For cities throughout Canada, the Official Community Plan (OCP) provides a roadmap for community members, elected officials, and municipal planners regarding issues related to land use, zoning, housing, and transportation. It is a standardized policy document that guides both the short-term and long-term development for all cities classified by size and relation to one 5 another as upper-, lower-, and single-tier municipalities (a system that positions cities along a hierarchy within metropolitan regions). The OCP document is prepared with the input of interested community members and ensures the future of planning and development. When undertaking the official planning process, the municipal planning authority or local planning board holds at least one public meeting, announced through local newspapers and mail; the approval authority is consulted to review information; and a statutory five-year plan review is conducted. In this manner, official plans are meant to provide the public with awareness of a particular municipality’s land use planning policies, provide a framework for establishing municipal zoning bylaws, and offer a clear way to evaluate and settle conflicting land uses, Alongside these goals, OCPs coordinate growth in a manner meant to meet community needs. The OCP deals with issues such as: • New housing • New industry, offices, and shops • Roads, watermains, sewers, parks, and schools • Future community development • Community improvement initiatives When an official plan comes into effect, it guides municipal planning decisions and requires that all infrastructure and policies conform to the requirements of the new plan. The official plan can be changed or amended as needs shift within a community (Ontario, 2010). Thus, the official plan is meant to be the document that serves as a running log of the municipal direction and aligns municipal growth goals with community and regional needs, among other objectives (Ontario, 2021). 6 The OCP also links a variety of interconnected multi-level governance relations that depend on the guidelines set by the official plan to communicate how land within a particular community or jurisdiction should be utilized and according to what priorities (Ontario, 2021). Most importantly, local OCPs are required to align with Provincial goals, which is one driver of regional variation in plan priorities. The official plan must not conflict with any applicable provincial plans and must conform to all requirements of the province’s Planning Act. For plans seeking to be exempt from formal provincial approval, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has full discretion and may exempt the official plan on all or some of its requirements. As well, the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) contains a clear pathway and policy direction for matters of provincial interest that relate to land use planning and development. In Ontario, an OCP must be checked for conflict with the PPS in relation to land use planning and development, and the final assessment must be verified by the provincial government (Ontario, 2020). The vision set out by the PPS for Ontario’s land use system is defined by prosperity, social well-being, and accommodating the diverse priorities of urban, rural, and northern communities (Ontario, 2020). Thus, as Ontario’s cities set out to embed sustainability (and other) goals into their OCP, such embedding must happen within the bounds set out by these provincial priorities, making the question of where social equity fits more complex. Specifically, this system can make it difficult to foreground any one principle, like social equity, due to the need to balance multi-level governance agendas designed to ensure a municipality is not stepping too far out of the bounds set by the Province. This need to embed OCPs within provincial policy makes it essential to embed equity as one of several measurable components so as to enable the ability to balance across priorities. 7 Despite these limitations, the Official Community Plan as a tool in the urban planner’s toolkit can serve to transform how equity is included in critical planning policy and further operationalized within and throughout the city. To the extent that practitioners and city residents value equity as a key planning issue and desire that planning policy and decision-making reflects equity, the OCP can be an important mechanism for expressing this value and desire. Certainly, planners working in a municipal government environment are expected to ensure that all planning products are reflective of the best interests of all members of the communities they oversee and equity is one clear path toward ensuring that the interests of all are in fact the focus. However, without clear indications of equity as an explicit element and theme of the official plan, assumptions cannot be made that it is operationalized in the delivery of the goals and policies of the plan. And, indeed, it appears that equity remains a muted feature in many municipal official plans (Loh & Kim, 2021). Understanding how equity is currently included in the OCP showcases challenges and future opportunities for planners as they endeavor to approach plan creation and evaluation more equitably. 1.3 Overview of the study area: Mid-sized cities in Ontario There are various definitions for mid-sized cities presented by a variety of scholars. Specific to the Canadian context mid-sized cities are described as cities within the 50,000 – 500,000 population range (Evergreen, 2017). This classification reflects the history of Canadian urban settlement patterns, which differ from other contexts including United States cities of similar sizes (Mercer & England, 2000, Seasons, 2003; Lederer and Seasons, 2005). Given that this definition would likely be resonant with the staff that developed the plans studied here, it serves as a sensible frame for this research study. Thus, cities falling into this population range 8 according to the most recent 2021 census within the Province of Ontario are recognized as potentially part of this study. Planners in mid-sized cities in Canada face unique and complex challenges in the municipal official planning process as they address equity concerns given that these cities are integrally linked within metropolitan areas that have seen a rapidly increased concentration of wealth in larger urban centres (Quinton at el. 2022). Despite this uniqueness, many mid-sized cities rely on scaled versions of strategies implemented in larger cities that are not directly transferrable to the context of the mid-sized city. Perhaps as a consequence, mid-sized cities receive limited attention in the planning literature relative to the large role they play in determining metropolitan regional equity outcomes (Seasons 2003; MacLachlan and Sawada 1997). Mid-sized cities in Canada are often characterized by poor transit services and facilities, low-density, automobile centric and sprawling development, declining downtown areas and general stagnation (Bunting et. al, 2007; Filion et. al, 2004). Yet, they can also be important receiving points for growth and contain essential supporting infrastructure for large urban centres with which they are linked through metropolitan geographies. These cities represent a substantial portion of metropolitan populations but lack dedicated planning models to address the unique equity challenges they face. Given that mid-sized cities are outside of, but integrally linked with, the main spatial concentrations of wealth, the issues in these cities must be addressed through targeted and carefully defined planning measures. As such, this study aims to identify common considerations for equity within and across social groups in municipal official plans in mid-sized cities of Ontario in order to develop these measures. It focuses on the unique expressions of equity within these cities and particularly on the extent to which equity objectives, both stated and implied, 9 reflect all dimensions of equity discussed in the literature. From this information, the necessary dimensions of a comprehensive equity evaluation tool for these cities is derived with a focus on the Province of Ontario. Overall, examining mid-sized cities in Ontario provides valuable insight that can serve as a reference point for developing a more generalized equity evaluation tool. Planning issues in mid-sized cities are as complex as large urban centres but also occur within a more constrained framework for growth and in the context of fewer resources. Therefore, this study aims to enhance the landscape of mid-sized cities from an equity evaluation perspective and provide insights into how the equity plan evaluation framework could work in these places. 1.4 Thesis Structure This thesis is comprised of five chapters including introduction, literature review, methodology, results, and conclusion. This chapter (Chapter 1, Introduction) contains an overview of the significance of the study, the research questions, an introduction to the official community plan and the context of mid-sized cities in Ontario. Following this introduction of the problem addressed and the general approach used in this study, Chapter 2 (Literature Review), describes the relevant bodies of literature with a focus on plan evaluation and its evolution in planning practice; equity as a planning goal in the Canadian context; and the history of plan evaluation in official plans. In Chapter 3 (Methodology), the research approach is presented. The content analysis method used here is outlined alongside details on which cities were selected as within the study area of mid-sized cities in Ontario. In Chapter 4 (Results), the findings of the content analysis are presented with a focus on the results that speak directly to the research questions. In Chapter 5 (Discussion), the significance of the findings is discussed with a focus on 10 the extent to which they indicate common considerations for equity in municipal official plans, how equity objectives both stated and implied reflect the literature, and how this translates to an equity evaluation framework. Finally, in Chapter 6 (Conclusion), the research questions and findings are summarized. These findings are the basis for proposed strategies to strengthen equity plan evaluation in mid-sized municipalities and provide future research opportunities. 11 Chapter 2: Literature Review 2.1 Overview of equity within plan evaluation Patton (2008, p. 38) defines evaluation as “the collection of information about the activities, characteristics, and results of programs to make judgements about the program, and improve or further develop program effectiveness.” In other words, evaluation is a process by which decision-makers understand how effectively policies and plans achieve their goals and objectives. So, through evaluation, the public and government staff can understand the success of government decisions and initiatives (Cousins et al., 2014). Within contemporary planning, plan evaluation generally starts with a focus on understanding the quality of a plan and the corresponding outcomes. Evaluating outcomes from planning processes normally provides the key measure that determines the degree of a plan’s success or failure (Alexander et al., 2011) and in contemporary practice these outcomes are often measured through the creation of indicators (Laurian et al., 2010). This indicator-based approach is somewhat constrained when it comes to measuring non-quantified goals and thus has not lent itself to easy measurement of social equity as an outcome (Manaugh et al. 2015). In response, this research especially contributes to an understanding of the largely understudied area of plan evaluation focused on assessing equity inclusions, considerations, and manifestations as indicators within official plans. Adding to the challenge of evaluating equity, while there is a robust line of thinking around plan evaluation, it is – generally speaking – an underutilised tool in the planning process (Guyadeen & Seasons, 2018). Contemporary planning practice does involve monitoring and evaluation, though not consistently, and this inconsistency and low priority often does not achieve optimal results. Partially in response to this omission within practice, plan evaluation scholarship has recently integrated lessons from adjacent fields in an effort to create an 12 accessible foundation for practitioners (Oliveira & Pinho, 2011). For example, Alexander (2006) and Khakee (2003) outline the evolution of policy program evaluation and planning theory perspectives; and Laurian et al., (2010) and Oliveria and Pinho (2011) developed evaluation outcome methods from elements of program evaluation. Earlier key reference points include Baer’s (1997) discussion of how the relationships that occur between planning concepts and evaluation methodologies can distinguish the plan as a vision, blueprint, remedy and process. As well, Hoch (2002) proposed possibilities of evaluation through four points: plausibility compared to precision, similarity compared to correspondence, consensus versus principle, and stewardship compared to expertise. Furthering this effort, Berke et al (2006) identified four criteria for evaluation that gave more relevance to performance rather than conformity of a plan, where conformity is linked to how outcomes align with plan guidelines. Performance, meanwhile, relates to the decisions the plan affects and how these decisions resolve other plan issues. While this does amount to a substantial conceptual basis from which to operate, plan evaluation remains sporadically used in planning practice. One essential reason for this state of affairs is that arriving at a consensus surrounding the requirements of plan evaluation indicators can prove to be challenging in practice as there is no mandated process in which planning bodies within Canada, or elsewhere, can monitor and evaluate plans to determine if objectives have been met (Seasons, 2021; Stevens, 2013). When you add to this circumstance the general lack of agreement on what comprises social equity within planning, this leaves practitioners more or less operating within a space that is wholly open to interpretation. While practical plan evaluation criteria related to social justice is based on the values of transparency, consistency, human dignity, equality, property and public interest have been advanced (e.g. Alexander 2002), the 13 notion of developing tools for actually measuring equity inclusion in planning through plan evaluation is an especially notable gap. Given the contemporary gap in knowledge in this area, the question of how to integrate social equity into plan evaluation needs to be addressed relative to the history of thinking around the proper mode for evaluation in the field of planning in general. The concept of plan evaluation initially emerged in response to shortcomings in the rational comprehensive model of planning. This model was highly prescriptive and technically intensive, which resulted in ineffective monitoring and evaluation of plans due to a lack of resources and labour (Wegener, 1994). The rise of early calls for integrating evaluation into the plan’s creation was directly related to the popularity and features of the rational comprehensive model. One classical process attributed to Patrick Geddes defined a novel method of physically planning the city wherein the focus was primarily placed on tools used to control the future city through the works of surveys, data analysis and plan preparation (Hysler-Rubin, 2013). In this rational paradigm, the process and methods of data and survey collection resulted in a reduction of the city to a measurable target and planning to an object, which heightened the need for evaluation in order to understand the outcomes that resulted. Today, the vestiges of the rational approach remain to the extent that linkages between plans and physical development are created to showcase direct and observable connections between planning goals and their outcomes (Laurian et al., 2004; Laurian et al., 2010). In this context, success is determined by the physical outcomes of planning goals through implementation efforts (Oliveira & Pinho, 2010). Though the rational approach continues to guide planning practice, it has long been criticized for its inability to define planning problems 14 and its tendency to reduce complex processes by quantifying goals in a measurable way (Oliveria & Pinho, 2010). This critique has extended to rational plan evaluation methods as well. As this classical model premised on rationality became integrated with other modes of planning, plan evaluation was informed by a wider set of perspectives and references (Oliveria & Pinho, 2010). General approaches to contemporary plan evaluation draw influence not only from the rational approach, but also the communicative approach, and a pragmatic integrative approach to planning (Oliveria & Pinho, 2010). The evolution of planning theory, then, is closely linked with the evolution of plan evaluation approaches focused on how plans are implemented and their subsequent outcomes (Laurian et al., 2010). Today all three of these influences intermingle within the practice of plan evaluation. Through the communicative approach that arose as one response to overly-rational planning frameworks, plans are considered as a framework for decision-making and consensus building on which to base performance (Faludi, 2000). Through this approach, plans prescribe decision making processes that integrate the consultation of stakeholders (Faludi, 2000). Thus, communicative evaluation examines the extent to which decision-making frameworks are carried out. Criticism of this approach include its costly and time-consuming nature as well as the potential to lose site of the physical outcomes of planning. Meanwhile, the pragmatic and integrative approach to plan evaluation proceeds from the assumption that one type of plan evaluation may not be sufficient for the evaluation required based on the context and plan (Soria & Valenzuela, 2013). Consideration of the plan being evaluated and its implementation requirements is crucial from this perspective to provide relevant solutions-oriented evaluations according to the pragmatists (Alexander, 2006). While 15 this approach somewhat characterizes contemporary plan evaluation, it is tempered by the foundational expectations of rational and communicative planning. Despite progress around developing the concept across these three traditions of planning thought, the resource-intensive nature of plan evaluation methods forced many planners to shy away from evaluation processes of any sort due to lack of expertise and budget constraints (Alkin, 2013). As a result, there was a shift in the early 2000s toward evaluation loosely informed by the traditions of planning but based on a narrow understanding of how actions can be evaluated given available resources. Tracked indicators arose in this context as a way of consistently collecting data and measuring results. These indicators reflect at once an expansion of evaluation in planning and a narrowing of evaluation relative to wider dimensions of the practice surfaced within planning history. It is an open question whether or not these indicators sufficiently allow planners to prioritize both the process of planning and the subsequent outcomes of decisions. Regardless, plan evaluation is still not commonly utilized by planners in the planning process with the same level of vigor that characterizes plan creation (Hoch, 2002), and the full intent of plan evaluation needs to be considered as we turn toward how to understand the extent to which plans mobilize social equity goals. 2.2 Defining Equity through Planning Within municipal procedures, policy and planning decisions have significant impacts on equity as they affect the allocation of public resources and determine important aspects of quality of life and economic opportunities for residents. Despite the important role for planning, scholars note that in North America, equity goals and objectives in planning documents lack clearly specified objectives, appropriate measures, and indicators (Manaugh et. al., 2015). These issues 16 can be especially acute in mid-sized cities due to unique challenges in the municipal official planning process for factors that affect all plans including political, financial, social, and staffing constraints (Bunnell & Jepson, 2011; Loh & Kim, 2021; Stevens, 2013). As a result, those equity evaluation tools that have been developed are not focused on the challenges of mid-sized cities and tend to be centered in specific U.S. contexts (Loh & Kim, 2021). Most importantly, though, equity tends to be a non-specific goal in plans that is difficult to evaluate because it’s is often undefined. Equity refers to the fairness with which impacts are dispersed; in particular, whether the benefits and costs are distributed fairly and appropriately (Litman, 2022). The conceptual development of different dimensions of equity has received a wide array of attention across a wide variety of literature including that with a focus on planning, but also on relevant topics like climate change, energy justice and hazard risks (Foster et. al, 2019; Jenkins et. al, 2021). In a general sense, three dimensions of equity provide a baseline for understanding across these literatures: distributional, procedural, and contextual (Berke et. al, 2019). Distributional equity is described as the burdens that individuals across different population groups take on. This kind of equity focuses on prioritizing policies that address groups that suffer the most. Procedural equity within plan and policy creation refers to the recognition, inclusion, and participation of socially vulnerable groups in the decision-making process. Contextual equity focuses on histories of inequality in politics, wealth, and governance (Fainstein, 2010; Berke et. al, 2019). Each of these baseline dimensions of equity pose different challenges for evaluation. Distributional equity evaluation targets how the plan’s goals and objectives redirect economic and physical resources and create a more just and fairer environment for disadvantaged groups (Berke et. al, 2019). The distributional impacts that are measured can assist in our understanding 17 of how to create a more just future (Agyeman, 2013; Fainstein, 2010). Meanwhile, procedural equity targets decision-making for the task of formal recognition within institutional processes, particularly of the state (Schlosberg, 2007, pg.25). Within decision-making, procedural equity is directed towards increased public involvement and participation from underrepresented groups (Wang & Palazzo, 2012). Evidence suggests that the inclusion of diverse social groups in decision-making directly translates to a better distribution of resources and more just and whole human-environmental relationships (Matin et al, 2018). Contextual equity emphasizes historic legacies of socially vulnerable populations across communities that are shaped by politics and power (Berke et. al, 2019). Contextual equity considers the uneven playing field that exists between residents and how interventions into the value of services are created by initial distributions of access (McDermott et. al, 2013; Larson and Ribot, 2007). Evaluation in this context seeks to understand how well resource and service considerations account for those who do not have access to systems of power (McDermott et. al, 2013). 2.3 Evaluating Equity in Planning When evaluating equity strategies there are generally two approaches to achieving equity that need to be considered. Equity strategies may be either structural or categorical (Litman, 2022; Tamtik et. al, 2019). Structural strategies focus on reforming planning practices while supporting equity goals and categorical strategies are focused on special policies or programs that target specific groups (Litman, 2022; Tamtik et. al, 2019). A key element here is that equity strategies necessarily occur in both areas and are multifaceted because official plans can have many types and degrees of impact. Thus, a plan evaluation must address the many aspects of equity in order to be effective. Generally, this means that the equity goal has to be evaluated as something 18 expressed in implicit ways that align with structural strategies and explicit ways that align with categorical strategies. The necessity to account for implicit expressions of equity goals makes assessing outcomes and implementation in this area challenging. One area of scholarship that has tried to connect the three broad ways of understanding equity, the two broad ways of achieving equity and the notion of evaluation is that of transportation planning equity evaluation. Scholars in this field have proposed two classifications for equity goals that get expressed in plans, which are meant to help simplify the complexity: horizontal and vertical. Horizontal equity is concerned with the distribution among individuals or groups who have similar needs while vertical equity is concerned with individuals or groups who have different levels of needs (Camporeale et. al, 2017). Table 1 is adapted from Litman (2022), who provides a framework that allows practical incorporation of both types of equity analysis into planning. The intent of this classification system is to be inclusive of the three types of equity expressed in the broader literature while accounting for the implicit band explicit ways that equity is expressed. Meanwhile, it seeks to address the ongoing challenge of equity analysis: based on one’s definition of equity, there can be a major shift in meaning and analysis results, requiring a common framework to be in place. Broader transportation equity literature has broken down the drivers of horizontal and vertical equity into five main categories, which are synthesized in Table 2.1: a fair share of resources, external costs, inclusivity regarding need and ability, affordability regarding income, and broad social justice considerations (Pereira et. al, 2017; Romero-Lankao and Nobler, 2021). The category of fair share of resources falls under horizontal equity where consumers who have similar abilities and needs receive the same share of all costs and benefits. In terms of external costs, which also fits under horizontal equity, issues that may arise such as delays because of 19 congestion or crash and pollution risks require fairness to compensate or minimize these externalities (Litman, 2022). Inclusivity, as a category of vertical equity, refers to issues like differential mobility need and ability requiring systems to serve individuals with impairments and those who cannot access certain services within the city (Litman, 2022). Affordability, as another category of vertical equity, assumes that policies that serve the public should economically favor disadvantaged groups and prioritize lower-income and disadvantaged people (Litman, 2022). Finally, social justice favours objectives that address structural issues such as racism, sexism, and other disparities. To address these disparities, goals, and objectives target programs and policies that equip residents with the ability to address justice issues (Litman, 2022). Table 2. 1: Horizontal and Vertical Equity Objectives Horizontal Equity Vertical Equity Fair Share External Costs Inclusivity Affordability Social Justice • Everybody contributes to and receives comparable shares of public resources. • Minimize external costs. • Favour resource-efficient modes that impose less congestion, risk, and pollution on other people. • Accommodate people with disabilities and other special needs. • Favour affordable modes. • Provide discounts and exemptions for low-income users. • Provide affordable housing in high accessibility neighbourhoods. • Protect and support disadvantaged groups (women, youths, minorities, low-income, etc.). • Affirmative action policies and programs. 20 • Planning serves non-drivers as well as drivers. • Affected people are involved in planning. • Compensate for external costs. • Basic access (ensure that everybody can reach essential services and activities). • Correct for past injustices. Adapted from Litman, 2022 Building from these categories of drivers of horizontal and vertical equity, several studies have taken steps to actualize some of these analytic tools but none address all relevant equity factors and struggle with placing the required weight on outcomes necessary to influence decision making. Di Ciommo et. al (2017) developed an inaccessibility index, which indicated activities such as healthcare, jobs, and retail opportunities that populations did not have access to in Barcelona, Spain. Through the results, the inaccessibility index analysis provides a practical way to understand the effects of planning decisions and how they consider impacts of equity. Similarly, Adli & Donovan (2018) developed a justice test for making decisions about transportation planning and assessing how these changes shift across differing socioeconomic groups. The justice test proposed the application of methodological and empirical specifications through a case study on City Rail Link (CRL) in Auckland, New Zealand. The critical evaluation of transportation equity by Manaugh, Badami and El-Geneidy (2015) evaluates how social equity is conceptualised, operationalized, and prioritized through 18 transportation plans in 21 North America’s urban regions. Critical analysis in this study focuses on the quality of objectives and how meaningfully they achieve performance measures and indicators in relation to other described objectives. They find that social equity objectives exist within the plans, but the goals are not tied to targets. When conducting critical equity analysis, Krapp (2020) and DRISI (2021) concur that the inclusion of equity goals and their prioritization in planning decision making falls short in major areas. In this thesis, the framework for understanding the complex manifestations of equity that identifies horizontal and vertical equity is adopted from the transportation equity literature as it provides a good working spectrum of the equity issues that are most central to planning and offers a starting point for accounting for the implicit and explicit expressions of equity within plans. Each aspect of Table 1 describes ways to evaluate various types of equity. The analysis method employed in this thesis is influenced by these equity definitions. Within the horizontal equity category, the equity objectives of a fair share of resources and external costs tend toward more of an explicit expression in plans (Litmann, 2022). Meanwhile, vertical equity holds the assumption that those who are disadvantaged should be given more specialized or favourable treatment and tends toward more implicit goals built around inclusivity, affordability, and social justice (Litman, 2022). These assumptions are carried forward in the methodology used here, which seeks to analyze implicit and explicit expressions of equity within plans. 2.4 A key equity issue within Ontario’s mid-sized cities: Immigration Given the context of Ontario and the cities examined here, it is worth a brief exploration into the particular topic of immigration and planning for and with immigrant communities. Traditionally, urban policy research in Ontario has focused on the large metropolitan areas rather 22 than mid-sized cities even though these cities account for 45% of the Province’s urban population (Evergreen, 2017). Thus, there is a scarcity of models that target the needs, constraints and opportunities that exist in mid-sized cities in Ontario (Evergreen, 2017). In Ontario, most mid-sized cities are within one hour drive from the city of Toronto. In the metropolitan city-regions of the city of Toronto significant levels of commuter growth have been noted (Evergreen, 2017), driven in part by considerable growth in immigrant populations. These mid-sized cities have become central factors within the process that governs decision-making for immigrants and newcomers about where to live in Canada according to a measure that includes proximity to family and friends, lifestyle, community, and employment opportunities (Statistics Canada, 2003). Through this measure, Hyndman et. al (2006) present as geography of desirability for immigrant populations which generates a hierarchy of locations that indicate favourable settlement patterns for immigrant residents. In many cases, the three largest Canadian cities of Vancouver, BC, Toronto, ON and Montreal, QC, usually attract newcomers because of the social, economic and community networks that are concretely established (Statistics Canada, 2003). As a result, small and mid-sized cities across Canada have experienced straining demographic changes due to low birth rates, a large ageing population and difficulty attracting and retaining immigrants and newcomers (Blower, 2020). Declines in population through an ageing population coupled with low birth rates results in labour shortages and a shrinking tax base (Blower, 2020). Due to these challenges, retaining and attracting immigrants to spur population growth and economic development is necessary (Valade, 2017). However, personal decision-making for immigrants and newcomers and the influence of provincial and federal policy tools, have started in recent decades to shift settlement patterns from larger cities to mid-sized and small rural cities (Statistics Canada, 2003). This potential shift in 23 patterns of settlement directly impacts the goals and objectives for mid-sized municipalities. Political leaders of small and mid-sized cities see the value that immigration brings in terms of mitigating population decline, creating new community opportunities and bringing new perspectives and energy (Blower, 2020). As a result, many mid-sized cities have fueled the process of making themselves more attractive through the concept of regionalization, which has been utilized to boost attraction for immigrants and newcomers. The regionalization of immigrants refers to intentional programming that shifts the movement of immigrants and newcomers away from large municipalities to small and mid-sized cities. In the early 2000’s, the regionalization of immigration was a policy direction formally charted by Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada titled Towards a More Balanced Geographic Distribution of Immigrants (CIC, 2001). Little is known about the effects of the regionalization of immigration policy and there is debate about what issues may arise from the formalization of this policy. Garcea (2003) argues many smaller cities are not prepared for immigrants and more significant steps should be taken prior to undertaking immigration initiatives and linkages between policies and programs that are related to the regionalization of immigration coupled with community economic and social development (Valade, 2017). Of note for many mid-sized cities in Ontario, the movement of peoples through the medium of immigration in Canada has sparked a larger cultural debate around the best ways to integrate immigrants and other newcomers into the social fabric of communities in Ontario and throughout Canada, with deep implications for social equity (CCUNESCO, 2019). Predictions at the turn of the 20th century foresaw the decline of births and overall population in Canada by the 2020’s which subsequently influenced Canada to increase its immigration targets. In 2017, three-fourths of Canada’s population growth stemmed from international migration and the country now ranks 8 th 24 among the top 25 countries for international migrants (MPI, 2017). Municipalities are core actors in terms of how this immigrant population is received on the ground. They possess the ability to create change at a more rapid rate than other levels of government and achieve objectives through a variety of community and municipal assets (CCUNESCO, 2019). Overall, efforts to draw and support immigrant populations to mid-sized cities generate what is probably the most central equity issue for these cities as it generates a new potentially vulnerable class of residents. If building communities through the official plan requires equity as a precursor goal, then immigration certainly must take its place alongside housing, employment, and infrastructure as a key issue for mid-sized cities. At the least, the high influx of immigrant populations makes social equity a key criterion for evaluating plans in these cities. 25 Chapter 3: Methodology To understand how equity appears in mid-sized city OCPs through implicit and explicit expression, this study uses an approach to analysis adapted from established plan evaluation study methodologies (Berke et al. 2006; Stevens, 2013; Guyadeen & Seasons, 2018). Originally developed to understand plan quality, these evaluation methodologies have been adapted by various researchers to evaluate plan indicators. This research is based on a sample of 30 official plans found from the most populated mid-sized cities in Ontario, Canada. 3.1 Data Sources This study is based on a sample of current municipal official plans downloaded from the official websites of the 30 most populous mid-sized cities across the province of Ontario. The sample includes 12 single-tier municipalities, no upper-tier municipalities and 18 lower-tier municipalities. Single-tier municipalities are defined as a municipality that does not form any part of an upper-tier municipality (Ontario, 2012). Under the Municipal Act and other Provincial legislation, a single-tier municipality assumes all responsibility for municipal purposes. A lower-tier municipality forms part of an upper-tier municipality. The responsibilities set out under the Municipal Act and all other Provincial legislation are divided between the upper-tier municipality and the lower-tier municipality (Ontario, 2012). Upper-tier municipalities hold two or more lower-tier municipalities and split municipal responsibilities established by the Municipal Act and other Provincial legislation among them (Ontario, 2012a). By using a sample of the 30 most populous mid-sized cities, the study examines a variety of tier types as part of the analysis. Table 3.1 provides a breakdown of sampled municipalities including the type of tier the city sits under and the year of Official Plan Consolidation. 26 Table 3.1.1: 30 Largest Mid-sized Cities in Ontario, Canada Municipality Tier Population (2021) London Single Tier 543,551 Markham Lower Tier 338,503 Vaughan Lower Tier 323,103 Kitchener Lower Tier 256,885 Windsor Single Tier 229,660 Oakville Lower Tier 213,759 Richmond Hill Lower Tier 202,022 Burlington Lower Tier 186,948 Greater Sudbury Single Tier 166,004 Barrie Single Tier 147,829 Guelph Single Tier 143,740 Whitby Lower Tier 138,501 Cambridge Lower Tier 138,479 St. Catherine’s Lower Tier 136,803 Milton Lower Tier 132,979 Kingston Single Tier 132,485 Ajax Lower Tier 126,666 Waterloo Lower Tier 121,436 Thunder Bay Single Tier 108,843 Brantford Single Tier 104,688 Chatham-Kent Single Tier 103,988 Clarington Lower Tier 101,427 Pickering Lower Tier 99,186 Niagara Falls Lower Tier 99,415 Newmarket Lower Tier 87,942 Peterborough Single Tier 83,651 Kawartha Lakes Single Tier 79,247 Caledon Lower Tier 76,581 Sault Ste. Marie Single Tier 72,051 Sarnia Lower Tier 72,047 27 3.2 Content Analysis The content of official plans was analyzed to assess the extent to which the plan included or excluded equity elements. This content analysis process is built on prior studies where the procedures were replicated in order to increase credibility and facilitate pathways of application to future studies. To conduct this content analysis, an evaluation protocol and coding scheme was created. The equity evaluation code scheme was derived from three existing plan evaluation tools (Berke et al. 2006, Stevens 2013, Guyadeen 2019). These existing protocols sought to develop a general guide to land use planning (Berke et al, 2006, Stevens 2013) and plan quality (Guyadeen, 2019). Guyadeen’s (2019) original tools include direction-setting characteristics and action-oriented characteristics. The direction-setting characteristics include, fact base, goals and policies while the action-oriented characteristics include implementation, monitoring and evaluation, interorganizational coordination, public participation and plan organization and presentation. Elements of these direction-setting and action-oriented goals inform the code scheme developed for this study (Table 3). The final evaluation scheme also incorporates protocols found in the Supplemental Appendix of Berke et al. (2006) and Supplemental Appendix A of Stevens (2013). The indicators included in the Berke et al. (2006) study focus on plan quality studies found in the United States and are applicable to the Canadian context. Stevens (2013) utilizes and expands from Berke et al.’s (2006) protocols within his work to evaluate official plans in British Columbia, Canada. More specifically, in order to develop the coding tool for this study, Guyadeen’s (2019) approach to plan evaluation was combined with techniques used in Berke et al. (2006) and Stevens (2013) into one master tool and then sub-components of that larger tool were selected in 28 order to target the implicit and explicit equity dimensions of plans. All protocols were modified in order to match the geography so that they reflected the direction of specific plan goals and policies as required by the Ontario provincial government. When adapting codes from Guyadeen’s protocol based on Ontario’s Provincial Policy Statement (2005; 2014), I identified the most relevant categories that were applicable to the equity evaluation and included them in the coding scheme. In the evaluation protocol, the coding procedure developed is in line with previous studies. A three-level ordinal scale (“0”, “1” and “2”) was used where “0” denoted that the principle was not identified, “1” denoted that the principle was vaguely identified and “2” denoted that the principle was clear and detailed. In line with previous studies that focused specifically on plan quality evaluation, the scoring protocol was standardized using the following steps (Horney et al., 2016; Guyadeen, 2019). The scores for each category were first summed within each principle. Second, the score was divided by the total possible score for each principle. Each score was multiplied by 10, placing each score on an index scaled between 0 – 10. Scores were not combined in individual categories as to identify an equity score for each plan as a higher overall score may not indicate a more equitable plan (Stevens, 2013). A plan may have more detailed sections but poorer scores in other sections. Stevens (2013) asserted that the differences in plans will have differing impacts on equity inclusions in different communities. Below is an example of scoring protocols and corresponding exemplar indicators for the indicator, “Does the plan include goals for coordination efforts from other departments for housing” from the City of London and City of Markham plans. 29 Table 3.1.2: Scoring Protocol Exemplar Coding Scheme Example 0 Not identified 1 Identified but vague “Together these two centers (Langstaff Gateway and Markham) are planned to contain the highest concentration and greatest mix and intensity of uses and activities in Markham, providing a range of housing…” City of Markham, A Framework for Sustainable Growth, 2-14, 2.5.1 2 Detailed principle “Deliver a coordinated and integrated individual and family-centered housing stability approach that is outcome-focused and designed to address, reduce, and prevent homelessness in London.” City of London, City Building Policies, pg.128, 497-2 3.3 Coding Scheme The coding scheme incorporates equity elements that are inclusive of horizontal and vertical equity (Litman, 2020). Horizontal equity is described as the distributive impacts that occur among individuals who have the same needs and abilities. This encompasses a fair share of resources and external costs associated with living in the city. Vertical equity is described as the distribution of impacts among individuals who differ in needs and abilities. This encompasses levels of inclusivity, affordability, and social justice. As per the description of previous studies and in order to capture the implicit and explicit aspects of equity in planning, this adapted coding scheme includes both direction-setting characteristics and action-oriented characteristics. The direction-setting characteristics of fact base were not included and the action-oriented characteristics of monitoring and evaluation and interorganizational coordination were not included. Because this study focuses on evaluating plan equity rather than plan quality, including these fundamental plan quality characteristics was not necessary. 30 Using the adapted coding scheme detailed in Table 3, the result of the evaluation is to assess how both implied and explicit equity indicators across horizontal and vertical domains were included in the plans. Some actions that have an implicit equity link, but also impact a number of other areas were coded as General Action, not necessarily connecting them with a specific horizontal or vertical equity impact. This was done to get a full picture of the possible equity impacts even while allowing for a narrower analysis of specific horizontal and vertical equity initiatives. There were five categories of action that were coded including goals/objectives, policies, implementation, public participation, and explicit equity initiatives. The goals/objectives and policies categories were further coded according to six indicator types: land use and growth management, housing, transportation, natural heritage, cultural heritage, and economic development in both the goals/objective and policies sections. Finally, the indicators listed under the descriptions were then classified as reflecting either vertical or horizontal equity. Table 3. 1: Adapted Coding Scheme Indicator Category of Action Indicator Type Equity or General Does the plan include any goals towards inclusionary zoning regulations Goals/Objectives Land Use and Growth Management Horizontal Equity (HE) Does the plan include goals for intensification and cost-effective development patterns for future development General Action (GA) 31 Does the plan include objectives to increase allowable land for growth and development Horizontal Equity Does the plan define the goal of housing affordability Housing Vertical Equity (VE) Does the plan address goals for housing vulnerable populations (seniors etc.) Vertical Equity Does the plan promote objectives of mixed-use developments and neighborhoods Horizontal Equity Does the plan include goals for coordination efforts from other departments for housing Horizontal Equity Does the plan have goals that address supportive or transitional housing Vertical Equity Does the plan include public transportation objectives Transportation General Action Does the plan include active transportation goals General Action Does the plan include goals towards community connectivity Vertical Equity 32 At least one waste management goal (or objective) included – e.g., recycling, solid waste disposal and transfer stations Waste Management General Action At least one sewer and wastewater goal (or objective) included – e.g., municipal sewage services and municipal water services Sewer and Wastewater General Action At least one energy supply goal (or objective) included – e.g., energy facilities and distribution Energy Supply General Action At least one natural heritage and/or parks and open space goal (or objective) included – e.g., protection of natural areas and features Natural Heritage, Parks, and Open Space General Action At least one water goal (or objective) included to protect and restore water quality and quantity Water (Drinking, Groundwater, Source Water) General Action Does the plan contain a goal related to food security and food access Agriculture and Food Vertical Equity Identifies cultural heritage goals that incorporate the diversity of expression within the community Cultural Heritage Vertical Equity 33 Does the plan identify mineral aggregate goals that protect the environment for long term use Mineral Aggregates General Action Does the plan identify natural and human-made hazards Natural and Human-Made Hazards General Action Does the plan talk about ensuring equitable protection from natural and human-made hazards Horizontal Equity Does the plan discuss the impacts of climate change Vertical Equity Does the plan have goals towards community improvements Economic Development (includes Employment Lands) Vertical Equity Does the plan have goals towards equitable economic development? Horizontal Equity Does the plan include any policies for inclusionary zoning regulations Policies Land Use and Growth Management Horizontal Equity Does the plan include policies for intensification and cost-effective development patterns for future development General Action Does the plan include policy objectives to increase allowable land for growth and development Horizontal Equity 34 Does the plan define through policy the goal of housing affordability Housing Vertical Equity Does the plan address policies for housing vulnerable populations (seniors etc.) Vertical Equity Does the plan promote policies for mixed-use developments and neighborhoods Horizontal Equity Does the plan include policies for coordination efforts from other departments for housing Horizontal Equity Does the plan have policies that address supportive or transitional housing Vertical Equity Does the plan include public transportation policy objectives Transportation General Action Does the plan include active transportation policies General Action Does the plan include policies towards community connectivity Vertical Equity At least one waste management policy (or policy objective) included – e.g., recycling, solid waste disposal and transfer stations Waste Management General Action 35 At least one sewer and wastewater policy (or policy objective) included – e.g., municipal sewage services and municipal water services Sewer and Wastewater General Action At least one energy supply policy (or policy objective) included – e.g., energy facilities and distribution Energy Supply General Action At least one natural heritage and/or parks and open space policy (or policy objective) included – e.g., protection of natural areas and features Natural Heritage, Parks, and Open Space General Action At least one water policy (or policy objective) included to protect and restore water quality and quantity Water (Drinking, Groundwater, Source Water) General Action Does the plan contain a policy related to food security and food access Agriculture and Food Vertical Equity Identifies cultural heritage policies that incorporate the diversity of expression within the community Cultural Heritage Vertical Equity 36 Does the plan identify mineral aggregate policies that protect the environment for long term use Mineral Aggregates General Action Does the plan identify a policy for managing natural and human-made hazards Natural and Human-Made Hazards General Action Does the plan talk about ensuring equitable protection from natural and human-made hazards through policy Horizontal Equity Does the plan discuss policy on the impacts of climate change Vertical Equity Does the plan have policies towards community improvements Economic Development (includes Employment Lands) Vertical Equity Does the plan have policies towards equitable economic development? Horizontal Equity The plan includes a separate section that addresses what needs to be done to implement the plan across the city Implementation Implementation Section General Action The plan prioritizes actions for implementation in collaboration with a variety of actors Plan Priority General Action The plan identifies specific organizations with responsibility for implementation Organization Responsibility General Action 37 The plan identifies times for implementation across populations and geographies in the city Timelines General Action The plan identifies sources of funding to implement the plan Funding Sources General Action The plan identifies the organizations and stakeholders involved in the plan making process – e.g., staff from different agencies or departments, citizen groups, politicians. Public Participation Stakeholders General Action The plan includes an explanation of why a diverse mix of organizations and stakeholders are participating Purpose of Participation General Action Does the plan mention any words related to equity, equality, fairness, justice Explicit Equity Program Equity Vertical Equity Does the plan identify equity obstacles or obstacles to implementation Horizontal Equity Does the plan have a section that focuses on marginalized or underserved populations Vertical Equity 38 Chapter 4: Results The coding scheme described above served as the basis for a detailed content analysis that utilizes traditional plan quality measurement techniques to extract the extent to which equity is targeted within the OCPs of the 30 selected municipalities. This chapter provides the results of the content analysis organized around the first two research questions. First, the extent and ways in which equity is most commonly expressed within plans is presented through a summary of the results for each of the five categories of action. These include equity targeted through a goal expressed within the plan, through a policy stated within the plan; through an implementation strategy within the plan; through a public participation strategy within the plan; or through an explicit mention of equity within the plan. Second, the extent to which all dimensions of equity are addressed among the coded expressions of equity is presented through a summary of the findings relative to horizontal versus vertical equity actions expressed in the plans. 4.1 How and to what extent is equity expressed in municipal official plans? In the table below, the plan evaluation content analysis is presented for each of the categories of action for each city with the scores indexed on a scale of 0 – 10 in order to standardize the results and make them comparable. In the standardized scores table below, the cities are listed from least populous to most populous, based on Statistics Canada data from 2021. Across all jurisdictions, there does not appear to be a clear differentiation between the more and less populous midsize cities about the degree or type of equity focus, implying that this is a roughly comparable category relative to the questions at hand (Table 4.1). 39 Table 4. 1: Master Summary Table for All Jurisdictions (n=30) City Goals Policies Implementation Public Participation Equity Sarnia 8 9 9 10 5 Sault Ste. Marie 6 8 4 3 0 Caledon 5 8 8 3 7 Kawartha Lakes 7 8 6 10 0 Peterborough 5 8 7 3 10 Newmarket 6 8 8 3 7 Niagara Falls 5 8 10 10 0 Pickering 4 10 8 10 8 Clarington 6 9 7 3 7 Chatham-Kent 8 9 8 10 10 Brantford 4 8 9 10 7 Thunder Bay 9 9 4 8 7 Waterloo 8 9 7 10 7 Ajax 9 9 7 3 3 Kingston 9 10 10 8 5 Milton 8 9 10 8 0 St. Catherine’s 9 9 10 10 3 Cambridge 6 9 4 5 3 Whitby 9 9 10 8 3 Guelph 10 10 7 5 3 Barrie 8 10 8 0 7 Greater Sudbury 10 10 8 5 8 Burlington 7 9 10 10 7 Richmond Hill 5 9 8 8 0 Oakville 6 8 8 5 2 Windsor 3 7 9 8 3 Kitchener 7 8 9 8 2 Vaughan 9 9 8 8 10 Markham 6 8 8 8 3 London 7 8 9 10 5 Table 4.2 breaks these results down by categorizing the standardized scores according strong (8-10), moderate (4-7), and low (0-3). Overall, the extent to which equity is expressed through the goals plan variable indicated 13 cities with scores between 8 – 10, 16 cities with scores between 4 -7, and 1 city with a score between the values of 0 – 3. Many more cities were 40 stronger in the policy category, with the policies variable indicating 28 cities with scores between the values of 8 – 10, 2 cities with scores between the values of 4 – 7, and 0 cities with scores between the values of 0 – 3. Similarly, the implementation plan variable indicated 21 cities between the values of 8 – 10, 9 cities with scores between the values of 4 – 7, and 0 cities with scores between the values of 0 – 3. Somewhat surprisingly, the public participation plan variable indicated that fewer cities sought equity in this manner within their OCP as 19 cities had scores between the values of 8 – 10, 4 cities had scores between the values of 4 – 7, and 7 cities had scores between the values of 0 – 3. The explicit equity variable within plans indicated that this is a least common variable with 5 cities with scores between the values of 8 – 10, 11 cities with scores between the values of 4 – 7, and 14 cities with scores between the values of 0 – 3. Table 4. 2: Plan Evaluation Standardized Scores for All Jurisdictions (n=30) Table 4.3 of the plan evaluation content analysis results utilizes the summary statistics of mean, standard deviation, maximum and minimum scores across all cities to further understand the trends within the OCPs analyzed. Across all jurisdictions, the strongest plan evaluation scores were amongst the variables of policies and implementation. Otherwise stated, this breakdown affirms that cities tended to express equity through implicit indicators such as policy and broad Plan Evaluation Standardized Scores for All Jurisdictions Number of Cities Plan Variables Strong (8 – 10) Moderate (4 -7) Low (0 – 3) Goals 13 16 1 Policies 28 2 0 Implementation 21 9 0 Public Participation 19 4 7 Equity 5 11 14 41 implementation strategy. The mean score for plan evaluation variable policy was 8.63 (standard deviation=0.81) while the mean score for implementation is 7.93 (standard deviation=1.72). A higher standard deviation suggests that there is greater variation across jurisdictions, while a lower standard deviation (a score closer to 0), indicates that the mean is more accurate measure of results. Across all jurisdictions, goals and public participation were reasonably strong plan variables, while the equity plan variable was the weakest. The goals plan variable received a mean of 6.97 (standard deviation=1.88), public participation had a mean score of 7.00 (standard deviation=2.99), and equity had a mean score of 4.73 (standard deviation=3.18). In sum, this indicates that equity considerations have been considered most through policies and implementation. These tend to be areas that are dictated in more specific terms by the provincial policy framework. Meanwhile, the areas that are more traditionally controlled by local of goal-setting and public participation are somewhat less common arenas for equity to be addressed. Overall, equity is most commonly expressed as an implicit guide for an integrated and embedded set of actions rather than an explicit and central goal of the official plans analyzed. Table 4. 3: Plan Evaluation Scores for All Jurisdictions - Summary Statistics (n=30) Plan Evaluation Scores for All Jurisdictions Plan Variables Mean Standard Deviation Minimum Maximum Goals 6.97 1.88 3.00 10.00 Policies 8.73 0.78 7.00 10.00 Implementation 7.93 1.72 4.00 10.00 Public Participation 7.00 2.99 0.00 10.00 Equity 4.73 3.18 0.00 10.00 42 4.1.1 Implicit Equity Measures Equity is an implicit driver behind many of the indicators analysed here. Policies, goals, implementation strategies and public participation all had equity implications without explicitly targeting equity. To provide one example of how this was expressed, the area of public participation often had an underlying equity purpose. Notable municipalities that included a public participation section or component include the City of Kawartha Lakes (2012) and the City of London (2022). These municipalities provided a clear and detailed discussion of the public participation processes used to create the plans and dictated the roles of stakeholders in the development of the official plans. Municipalities with notable public participation scores include the City of London (2022) and City of Waterloo (2020). The City of London (2022) “Our Tools” section discusses public participation under the Public Engagement and Notice section. Details of engagement techniques, how neighbouring municipalities and first nations communities are engaged, advisory committees and when public notification can be foregone. The general policies guiding public engagement and notice include: “1615_ It is essential that Londoners be made aware of various planning proposals and be given the opportunity to express their views on these matters. This part of the Plan focuses on the process for public participation for applications made under the Planning Act, as well as the City Council adopted policies on community engagement to ensure a meaningful two-way dialogue and participation in forming decisions that affect the various stakeholders and the community. 43 1616_ Consistent with the values in this Plan, the community engagement process will be transparent, accessible, responsive, inclusive and empowering. It is intended that the process will be based on realistic expectations, mutual respect, and trust.” The City of Waterloo (2020) public participation section is titled Public Involvement. In contrast with the engagement process values in the City of London (2022), the City of Waterloo (2020), uses a public involvement continuum with varying levels including inform and education, gather information, discuss, engage and partner. The public involvement policy are as follows: “12.4.1 General Public Involvement Policies (1) Council recognizes that citizen and stakeholder engagement is an essential component of decision making, and will seek methods to improve citizen and stakeholder participation, while balancing the need to process applications within the timelines prescribed by the Province. To those ends, Council will: (a) Encourage all people to provide input, and support public participation in the decision-making process, where individuals are treated fairly and without bias in an open, orderly and impartial manner; (b) Promote citizen and stakeholder awareness of applications, studies and initiatives by involving and informing citizens and stakeholders early and as often as practical; (c) Make available to the public, the Official Plan, District Plans, Zoning ByLaws, and other planning policies and guidelines of Council, to foster greater awareness and knowledge of planning matters; and 44 (d) Appoint Committees of Council as a means to provide strategic advice and recommendations to Council on a range of issues. All meetings held by Committees of Council shall be open to the public. (e) Utilize community networks, such as neighbourhood associations, as a means of engaging citizens at the neighbourhood level. (2) The City will develop and update, as appropriate, Public Involvement Guidelines that will provide a framework, and in general a more consistent City-wide approach, for how the City will involve the public, while recognizing that the City has legal obligations to process specific applications within prescribed timelines that are set out in legislation. (3) It is recognized that decisions of Council with respect to the adoption of Official Plans or amendments thereto or Zoning By-Laws or amendments thereto, are subject to the provisions of the Planning Act as outlined below under “Public Meetings and Notification” and more specifically, Sections 12.4.2 through 12.4.4 of this Plan. (4) The Public Involvement Guidelines are intended to build on the City’s existing capacity for public involvement by: (a) Enhancing the City’s and the public’s awareness and understanding of public involvement; and, 402 (b) Providing practical guidance for public involvement, which clarifies the type of involvement, roles and expectations associated with each approach. (5) The Guidelines will outline a continuum of public involvement that has three basic public involvement strategies, they are: Inform, Consult and Engage. The strategies are 45 complementary approaches that can be used independently or in combination within the context of a single public involvement process. (6) The Public Involvement Continuum expands the involvement strategies to one or a combination of five decision-making approaches or levels. These are related to the broader strategies of Informing, Consulting and Engagement, and vary correspondingly in the extent of stakeholder involvement and potential policy influence. These public engagement levels are: (a) Inform and Educate; (b) Gather Information; (c) Discuss; (d) Engage; and, (e) Partner.” The City of London (2022) and City of Waterloo (2020) both have extensive public participation sections that detail their approaches to public participation. What differs between the cities is the way that public participation is conceptualized. The City of London (2022), posits public participation as a tool of implementation with details on how different actors will use the policies to contribute to official plan implementation. In the City of Waterloo (2020), differing types of public engagement strategies are described and do not include engagement strategies for Indigenous communities or neighbouring municipalities. 46 4.1.2 Explicit Equity Measures Explicit mentions of equity as a foundational principle, goal, and policy of the official plan were not common, but did exist with only 4 of the official plans scoring 0 in the equity focus section. That said, the most direct indicators, “Does the plan mention any words related to equity, equality, fairness or justice” and “Does the plan identify equity obstacles or obstacles to implementation” were the least utilized explicit equity indicators amongst the official plans. The equity indicator, “outlined a section that focused on marginalized or underserved populations” was the most utilized indicator. Still, explicit mentions of equity were challenging to locate in the majority of plans analysed. Plans with the highest explicit equity scores such as the City of Vaughan (2020), the City of Chatham-Kent (2018) and the City of Peterborough (2020) embedded equity as a key goal or objective found within the official plan. The City of Vaughan’s (2020), transportation section calls for a transformation of the way the residents move around the city of Vaughan. To support transportation network improvements, Vaughan seeks to increase mobility alternatives for resident across Vaughan, “…Movement will be diversified and equitable, and will contribute to healthy communities (pg. 129).” Vaughan’s policies seek to use tools like intensification and mixed-use development to make transportation more viable and support complete active transportation networks. The City of Chatham-Kent (2018) creates objectives surrounding community health and well-being that work in conjunction with the Sustaining and Enhancing the Natural Surroundings and Developing a Thriving Economy section of the official plan. Chatham holds the following objective, “Promote equity and provide access to affordable indoor and outdoor recreation facilities, programs, and opportunities (pg. 2-2).” In the Economy section, the plan further 47 punctuates the plan equity objective through the economic development initiatives and programs. With the Economy Development section the plan outlines how the City of Chatham-Kent plans to provide live and work opportunities in the urban centre by: “Providing a variety of locations across Chatham-Kent for industrial and commercial development promotes more equitable distribution of housing and job opportunities across the community. This enables employees to work in the Primary Urban Centres where they reside, enhancing their quality of life through reduced work travel time. The overall levels of travel are also reduced, which has clear environmental benefits (pg.3-4).” Further to this, the public consultation and participation section discusses the importance of collaborative planning decisions that come from the Chatham-Kent community through the process of public debate. As the responsible party for public consultation and participation, the City of Chatham-Kent dedicates to making, “The substantial effort that is required for public consultation…by building trust between local government and citizens, helping to create a shared sense of community, and providing for fairness in planning decisions (pg. 6-24.” In the City of Peterborough (2020) official plan, equity is weaved throughout the initial goals and objectives of the plan and transportation. The Corporation of the City of Peterborough (2020) adopts core goals and objectives that support the basis of the official plan. In order to provide adequate areas of land development opportunity, the City of Peterborough endeavours to equip the citizens of the City of Peterborough through providing an “…equitable allocation of employment opportunity, recreational opportunity and retail and service opportunity within close proximity to residential 48 areas (policy 2.1.2).” In addition, the City of Peterborough provides transportation policies that concentrate on the regard for the overall quality of life for all residents served in the City. The provision of appropriate transportation systems that establish clear linkages with regional and provincial transportation systems to move people efficiently through the city is a key concern. Public transportation policies dictate that the improvement and operation of the, “public transit system to provide adequate and equitable transportation to all residents, in direct response to the public’s need for and use of the public transit system (policy 5.5.1).” These plans stand out because they prioritize the inclusion of explicit equity goals and policies in comparison to other municipal official plans. Implicit elements of equity found in goals and policies do not directly target the maintenance of community quality of life, transportation and fairness in planning decision across a variety of socioeconomic groups. 4.2 To what extent do equity objectives, both stated and implied, reflect all dimensions of equity discussed in the literature? The plan evaluation content analysis further focused on a comparison of indicators based on their alignment with horizontal and vertical dimensions of equity. These indicators are considered as covering the two most important aspects of equity considerations. The results for these categories are scored on a standardized scale of 0 – 10. The standardized scores table below provides an overview of the horizontal and vertical equity scores across all jurisdictions (n=30). The cities are listed from the most populous to least populous city-based on Statistics Canada data from 2021. 49 Table 4. 4: Horizontal and Vertical Equity Master Summary Table for All Jurisdictions (n=30) Cities Horizontal Equity Vertical Equity Sarnia 7 7 Sault Ste. Marie 7 5 Caledon 5 6 Kawartha Lakes 6 6 Peterborough 7 7 Newmarket 7 6 Niagara Falls 4 5 Pickering 8 6 Clarington 7 6 Chatham-Kent 8 8 Brantford 5 5 Thunder Bay 8 8 Waterloo 8 6 Ajax 8 8 Kingston 8 8 Milton 8 6 St. Catherine’s 9 8 Cambridge 7 6 Whitby 9 7 Guelph 8 9 Barrie 7 8 Greater Sudbury 10 9 Burlington 7 8 Richmond Hill 7 5 Oakville 6 5 Windsor 5 3 Kitchener 7 6 Vaughan 7 9 Markham 6 4 London 6 8 As was done with the overall results, Table 4.4 breaks the horizontal and vertical equity results down by categorizing the standardized scores according to the number of cities found in the categories strong (8-10), moderate (4-7), and low (0-3). Across all jurisdictions, the horizontal equity variable indicated 11 cities with scores between the values of 8 – 10, 19 cities 50 with scores between the values of 4 – 7, and 2 cities with scores between the values of 0 – 3. The vertical equity variable indicated 11 cities with scores between the values of 8 – 10, 18 cities with scores between the values of 4 – 7, and 1 city with a score between the values of 0 – 3. Horizontal and vertical equity are addressed in a roughly equivalent manner, with horizontal equity having slightly more robustness. Table 4. 5: Horizontal and Vertical Equity Scores for All Jurisdictions (n=30) Mirroring the general results reported above, the horizontal and vertical equity analysis variables were further analyzed according to the summary statistics of mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum scores. The summary statistics table (Table 9) below provides an overview of the horizontal and vertical equity scores across all jurisdictions (n=30). Horizontal equity is confirmed to have a slightly stronger focus than vertical equity. The mean score for horizontal equity is 7.07 (standard deviation=1.31), while the mean score for vertical equity was 6.50 (standard deviation=1.54). A high standard deviation suggests that there is greater variation across jurisdictions regarding how horizontal or vertical equity was included in official plans, while a lower standard deviation (a score closer to 0), indicates that horizontal or vertical equity tended to be included in a less varied fashion across municipalities in their official plans. Horizontal and Vertical Equity Standardized Scores for All Jurisdictions Number of Cities Equity Variables Strong (8 – 10) Moderate (4 -7) Low (0 – 3) Horizontal Equity 11 19 2 Vertical Equity 11 18 1 51 Table 4. 6: Horizontal and Vertical Equity Scores for All Jurisdictions - Summary Statistics (n=30) Horizontal and Vertical Equity Scores for All Jurisdictions Equity Variables Mean Standard Deviation Minimum Maximum Horizontal Equity 7.07 1.31 4.00 10.00 Vertical Equity 6.60 1.54 3.00 9.00 Overall, if a city has a higher equity focus within planning, it tends to have that focus across horizontal and vertical dimensions. That is, the results indicate that OCPs have differing levels of focus on equity overall, but do not necessarily have differing preferences for a focus on equity within groups versus across groups. Taken together, these results point toward a diffuse set of equity considerations that lean toward reinforcing larger frameworks outside of planning rather than using OCPs as tools for building the groundwork for interventions that extend beyond that framework. 4.2.1 Horizontal Equity Among the Strong, Moderate, and Low categories, the most common scores can be found in land use and growth management, housing, and economic development within goals and policies. Most municipalities have a designated land use, housing, and economic development section. This can be attributed to expectations under the Ontario planning framework. All official plans must adhere to goals and policies that manage physical, social, and economic changes within a municipality (Ontario Planning Act, 2016). What sets the Strong category apart from the Moderate and Low category is that the indicators are clear and detailed rather than vaguely identified. Cities in the strong category also have clear and identified indicators in the natural and human-made hazard. For example, Greater Sudbury has a section that focuses on protecting 52 public health and safety. A variety of natural and human made hazards within the Greater Sudbury context are highlighted and solutions for the protection of all residents are identified through policy interventions. Thus, while the equity implications are implicit, they are strongly present. Table 4. 7: Horizontal Equity Indicators Horizontal Equity Indicators Does the plan include any goals towards inclusionary zoning regulations? Land Use and Growth Management Does the plan include objectives to increase allowable land for growth and development? Does the plan promote objectives of mixed-use developments and neighborhoods? Housing Does the plan include goals for coordination efforts from other departments for housing Does the plan ensure equitable protection from natural and human-made hazards Natural and Human-Made Hazards Does the plan have goals towards equitable economic development? Economic Development (includes Employment Lands) Does the plan include any policies towards inclusionary zoning regulations? Land Use and Growth Management Does the plan include policies to increase allowable land for growth and development? Does the plan promote policies of mixed-use developments and neighborhoods? Housing Does the plan include policies for coordination efforts from other departments for housing Does the plan ensure equitable policies for protection from natural and human-made hazards Natural and Human-Made Hazards Does the plan have policies towards equitable economic development? Economic Development (includes Employment Lands) Does the plan identify equity obstacles or obstacles to implementation Equity Focus 53 4.2.2 Vertical Equity Amongst the Strong, Moderate and Low categories the most common scores can be found within housing and transportation. For example, most municipalities had dedicated sections that discussed housing and transportation goals and policies. Plans that had stronger housing scores included a section that specifically addressed supportive and transitional housing. For example, the city of Vaughan, which had one of the highest vertical equity scores, included a specific policy that indicated several types of transitional and supportive housing that would meet housing needs for Vaughan’s population. In reference to Transportation, most municipalities captured a vertical equity indicator in both goals and policies. For example, the city of Brantford outlines an intent or goal and a corresponding policy supporting a connected community through transportation is outlined. Official plans rated as Moderate include the categories agriculture and food, cultural heritage, natural and human-made hazards and economic development section in both goals and policies. For example, in the cultural heritage category, the city of Kitchener official plan sets out a cultural heritage resources section that identifies the diversity of cultural heritage within the city. In the Strong category, city scores reveal clear and detailed indicators amongst all categories. Many of the cities also have a strong equity focus where equity related words are listed and plans outline a section that focuses on underserved or marginalized populations. For example, the city of Barrie outlines a Vulnerable Populations section that “seeks to plan, protect and understand the unique needs of equity-seeking groups” in the city of Barrie (2022). 54 Table 4. 8: Vertical Equity Indicators Vertical Equity Indicators Does the plan define the goal of housing affordability? Housing Does the plan address goals for housing vulnerable populations? Does the plan have goals that address supportive or transitional housing? Does the plan include goals towards community connectivity? Transportation Does the plan contain a goal related to food security and food access? Agriculture and Food Identifies cultural heritage goals that incorporate the diversity of expression within the community Cultural Heritage Does the plan discuss the impacts of climate change? Natural and Human-Made Hazards Does the plan have goals towards community benefits? Economic Development (includes Employment Lands) Does the plan define policies of housing affordability? Housing Does the plan address policies for housing vulnerable populations? Does the plan have policies that address supportive or transitional housing? Does the plan include policies towards community connectivity? Transportation Does the plan contain policy related to food security and food access? Agriculture and Food Identifies cultural heritage policies that incorporate the diversity of expression within the community Cultural Heritage Does the plan discuss policy impacts of climate change? Natural and Human-Made Hazards Does the plan have policy towards community benefits? Economic Development (includes Employment Lands) Does the plan mention any words related to equity, equality, fairness, and justice? Equity Focus Does the plan have a section that focuses on marginalized or underserved populations? 55 Chapter 5: Discussion The purpose of this study was to understand how different types of equity are expressed in the municipal official plan across mid-sized cities in Ontario, Canada. This research asked several questions: 1. How and to what extent is equity expressed in municipal official plans? 2. To what extent do equity objectives, both stated and implied, reflect all dimensions of equity discussed in the literature? 3. What would a comprehensive equity evaluation tool look like given the current context of official plans and considering possible future directions? This chapter has three main sections, aligning with the three research questions. The first section augments our understanding of the first research question by focusing on the importance of highlighting the role of multilevel governance arrangements in shaping both implicit and explicit inclusions of equity. The second section augments our understanding of the second research question by elaborating on the horizontal and vertical equity variables including how they reflect the generalized and diffused approach to equity planning seen here. The third section addresses the third research question by discussing future directions for research and what tools should be considered for the improvement of equity evaluation in the context of mid-sized cities in Ontario. 56 5.1 The double-edge of multilevel governance for social equity: Provincial government influence on Official Plan equity inclusions In this research, official plans in mid-sized cities across Ontario mostly contained implicit elements of equity that were mostly expressed through policy statements and implementation strategies and fell into both horizontal and vertical equity domains. Across all jurisdictions (n=30), there was a strong presence of policy statements that reflected provincial goals with little variation between the plans. The use of policy prescriptions for addressing equity had the lowest standard deviation across all of the plan variables, indicating that there was minimal variation amongst the plans analysed. The emphasis on official plan policies is an expected result of the Ontario planning framework. Through the Ontario planning system, the Planning Act specifies that all official plans must include policies that directly manage considerations pertaining to effects of the social, economic, natural environment, and changes to land use (Ontario Planning Act, 2016). If these requirements are not adhered to and included as contents of the official plan, then the official plan will struggle to be approved. In addition, municipalities must adhere to the Provincial Policy Statement (2005, 2014, 2020) which sets a foundation for official plan policies and highlights core policy considerations that should be discussed through the official plan. These include considerations like transportation and housing. The official plan serves as an implementation tool. Implementation is a plan element that translates plan policies and goals into actionable strategies for operation. Indicators in the implementation section of the plan evaluation described the departments that were responsible for implementation, the priorities of the plan, timelines for implementation and sources of funding. Almost all municipalities identified an implementation section and some identified priorities for implementation. Poorly described indicators were 57 sources of funding and timelines for implementation. Capital funding was identified as the primary source of funding for official plan implementation in many plans. In terms of implementation, the standard deviation indicated that it was widely varied among the official plans analysed. Like policies and implementation strategies, strong goals and public participation strategies within the official plan can be attributed to the established Ontario planning framework. Under the Planning Act, official plans are required to include goals on a variety of indicators. If this explicit direction is not followed, the plan can struggle to gain provincial approval. Public participation was included by most of the municipalities. This inclusion recognizes the actors involved in plan creation and the purpose of a diverse mixture of stakeholders. Identifying stakeholders involved in the public participation process involved identifying staff from other city departments, resident groups, businesses, and other interested parties. Many municipalities, though, struggled to directly identify the actors involved in plan creation as well as the purpose of including a diverse selection of stakeholders. The findings also revealed that the explicit indicators of equity were the least common especially with regard for two indicators: (1) mentioning equity focused words or concepts, and (2) integrating equity into the goals and objectives of the official plans. In other words, equity is generally not explicitly delineated into clear objectives, but it does appear in many implicit forms across the categories analyzed here. Of all the plan variables analyzed, the equity focus section had the highest variation between plans. The mean for equity was also the lowest mean amongst all plan variables. These deficiencies in explicit plan equity are concerning as mid-sized cities continue to grow and develop rapidly with increasing immigrant populations and other equity-seeking groups in need of a direct focus. As Stevens (2013) and Loh & Kim (2021) argue, poor 58 or fuzzy equity evaluation measures will make it challenging for municipalities to capture whether official plans are being created with all residents at the center. The importance of the provincial government in shaping the equity content found in the official plans across Ontario is essential to consider here. As previously discussed, the goals and policies presented in the official plan are directly reflective of the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), which requires municipalities in Ontario to conform to policies and goals applicable in their context. The province does not have any mandate for explicit equity goals and, likely as a result, very few municipalities indicate equity as a direct target. This points toward the benefits and drawbacks of a multilevel planning governance system. On one hand, Provincial direction can strongly elevate goals across a wide variety of municipalities. On the other hand, it can be constraining by either failing to give direction or actively discouraging cities from including explicit equity goals for fear of running afoul of provincial mandates. For mid-sized cities in Ontario to have plans that include equity, it is crucial for better provincial guidance on the inclusion of equity policies and goals. In the absence of this, development of equity evaluation metrics may be challenging as equity goals will likely remain implicit and fuzzy. That said, plan evaluation methodologies can be mobilized to capture these implicit equity dimensions of plans and this type of evaluation will be essential as long as higher level frameworks neglect to prioritize equity. While evaluation methods are varied in their definitions of success and judgement of outcomes (Guyadeen & Seasons, 2016; Laurian et. al, 2019; Oliveira & Pinho, 2011), they can point toward the extent and type of equity approaches in cities. In the same way, equity suffers from a lack of a formally accepted definition of its dimensions and this will also hinder the approach to evaluation (Foster et. al, 2019; Jenkins et. al, 2021). 59 5.2 A broad focus on horizontal and vertical equity In the equity evaluation tool, there are 58 indicators across 5 categories (goals/objectives, policies, implementation, public participation, and equity). Of these 58 indicators, 17 are considered vertical equity indicators and 13 horizontal equity indicators. For the most part, these horizontal and vertical actions are implicit indicators of equity. Thus, although the indicators do not explicitly discuss horizontal or vertical equity within the official plan, the dimensions of vertical and horizontal equity are embedded in these indicators. The remaining indicators are general plan activities without a clear horizontal or vertical equity implication, but with a potential impact on equity. Horizontal equity, which is often described in terms of fairness, is defined as the equal treatment of people who are within the same circumstances and concerned with the distribution of impacts for those with needs and abilities that are similar (Litman, 2022). In the horizontal equity section, there is a low variation between plans. These goals appear in land use, housing, economic development and environmental management aspects of the plans. Most plans sat in the moderate category in terms of the evaluation outcome for horizontal equity. Vertical equity assumes that those from disadvantaged communities must receive a greater share of resources and benefits in the city (Litman, 2022). It is concerned with the distribution of impacts that occur between individuals who have different needs and abilities (Litman, 2022). These goals appear in many aspects of the plans. Comparing vertical and horizontal equity, vertical equity has a lower variation between plans than horizontal equity. No official plan was able to have a maximum score for vertical equity indicators. Similar to the horizontal equity indicators, the large majority of plans sat in the Moderate category and the same amount of official plans are in the Low category. 60 Overall, the results show that cites that express equity intentions through plans do so fairly evenly across horizontal and vertical dimensions. Yet, the overall tendency is for this to occur at a moderate rate. The takeaway from this result is that equity is generally pursued in a diffuse (spread across many areas of the plan) and implicit (not expressed directly) manner. This allows municipalities to sprinkle in some elements of horizontal and vertical equity considerations without naming them or defining equity. There is, then, a detectable and evaluable presence of equity considerations, but not a specifically defined set of equity goals. 5.3 Future directions for an equity evaluation tool The equity evaluation tool developed for this research study provides a basis for equity to be evaluated in the ways that it currently exists based on the Ontario planning framework. In the same breath, it includes indicators that target the ways equity could be understood and included in future official plan processes. While the tool can include many other comprehensive parts of equity for evaluation, it is crucial to build incremental steps towards implementation of plan evaluation tools. As a part of the planners triangle, equity is a key component of planning practice. Existing literature on equity evaluation for official plans is extremely limited and not a traditional focus of plan evaluation. The plan quality checklist created by Berke et al., (2006) in Urban Land Use Planning does not mention equity as a plan indicator but gathers many stakeholders for commentary (Stevens, 2013). Baer (1997) includes equity alongside many other considerations but does not consider equity in the same way that Campbell (1996) identifies equity as part of the planners triangle. Berke and Conroy (2000) include equity as a tenet of sustainability and find that equity is included in the advancement of equity exclusively through 61 housing policies and little elsewhere. Berke and Godschalk (2009) push future directions of equity evaluation topics to include equity as a comprehensive focus. Loh and Kim (2021) have created an equity evaluation tool in the Michigan context which evaluates how planners include equity-focused goals and practices to be on a par with environmental and economic concerns to complete the planner’s triangle. The primary goal of this research was to evaluate equity in mid-sized cities in Ontario. This research will contribute to the limited Canadian research on equity plan evaluation and builds on plan evaluation literature. Commonly utilized methodology for plan quality studies was utilized to assess the official plans of the 30 largest mid-sized cities in Ontario. The findings from this research suggest that when it comes to equity, official plans in mid-sized cities are not of a strong quality. Most importantly, the provincial government has a strong influence on the equity inclusions of official plans. Researchers have argued that integrating equity into plan evaluation is a key next step to increase the quality of official plans (Berke & Conroy, 2000). In the research, it was noted that official plans across mid-sized municipalities implicit indicators are stronger in comparison to explicit indicators of equity. The absence of explicit indicators of equity are not surprising considering the lack of direction from the Ontario planning framework. The Provincial Policy Statement (2020) provides clear direction on the development of policies and goals for municipal official plans across the province but does not have evaluation guidelines that explicitly indicate the importance of equity as a planning objective. Therefore, it can be concluded that conducting plan evaluation for mid-sized cities in Ontario is poor, but also provides an opportunity for improvement. 62 Chapter 6: Conclusion The aim of this thesis was to contribute to the literature that exists on plan evaluation, specifically pertaining to equity. This research was informed by the research questions that are identified in Chapter 1. The literature situated the concept of plan evaluation and discussed definitions of equity, exploring the context of the study and the opportunities and challenges to conducting evaluation in planning. The plan content analysis evaluated the equity considerations within the official plans of mid-sized cities in Ontario, Canada. The results to the questions are summed in Table 10. Table 6. 1: Summary of Results Research Questions Research Findings 1. How and to what extent is equity expressed in municipal official plans? Equity is expressed through a combination of implicit and explicit intent. The common considerations for equity within municipal official plans include: Goals: Broad statements based on community values that reflect future conditions Policies: Principles that guide public and private decisions that achieve objectives Implementation: Commitments to carry out the plan once adopted Public participation: Formal and informal process and actors involved in plan creation Explicit Equity: Fairness and justice in process and results 2. To what extent do equity objectives, both stated and implied, reflect all dimensions of equity discussed in the literature? Official plans in mid-sized cities in Ontario lack key equity plan equity principles. Specifically, findings from this research indicated that: • Policies and implementation are the strongest principle; • Goals and public participation are reasonable strong principles; and 63 • Equity was the weakest principle. Dimensions of the equity literature that were used to guide this research report reflect that implied aspects of equity are reasonably strong while explicit equity objectives are weak. 3. What would a comprehensive equity evaluation tool look like given the current context of official plans and considering possible future directions? A comprehensive equity evaluation tool will provide both implicit and explicit elements of equity that push forward traditional plan requirements while including equity evaluations and considerations as a key part of planning practice. Based on the findings of this research, the following is proposed: • Strengthen the importance of the provincial government’s role in equity elements of official plans. • Extend plan equity evaluations to planning practice. 6.1 Strategies to enhance plan equity evaluation of Official Plans 6.1.1 Strengthen the importance of the provincial government’s role in equity planning For mid-sized municipalities in Ontario to have equity-based plans, there must be explicit guidance through provincial government legislation, especially when creating a system for official plan evaluation. Through the content analysis, plans reflected the highest scores in areas that the provincial government had provided explicit guidance. The greater provincial involvement in planning for equity provisions, the stronger this plan quality will be. Provincial policies and plans such as the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), should include sufficient details for equity evaluation within the municipal official plan. 64 Similar conclusions have been drawn from Berke and French (1994) and Baynham and Stevens (2014) through plan quality studies who both argued that provincial and state mandates are crucial to the development of high quality plans. Most relevantly, Baynham and Stevens (2014) argue that provincial mandates should be specific and quantifiable in order to reduce variations in plan quality and subsequent implementation. 6.1.2 Extend plan equity evaluations to planning practice To enhance equity evaluation in planning practice for mid-sized cities, flexible tools like Table 3 should be developed in order help practicing planners identify gaps and ensure that their plans are up to par with required specifications for equity inclusion. Many official plans in mid-sized cities lack appropriate equity considerations. Plan equity evaluation tools can assist with understanding these deficiencies and improving equity inclusions. As an academic tool, plan evaluation has been utilized narrowly and has limited connections to planning practice (Lyles & Stevens, 2014). 6.2 Limitations and Future Research The main methodological limitation with the content analysis presented here is the absence of intercoder reliability, which increases the reliability of the content analysis (Krippendorff, 2013; Lyles et. al, 2014). Employing two or more researchers to independently code and evaluate plans. If there is more agreement between two or more coders on the scores of items, this indicates more reliable results (Lyles at. al, 2014). Though intercoder reliability was not used in this study, this research conformed to the content analysis methodology employed in past plan quality evaluation studies to increase reliability and replicability. 65 As well, it must also be acknowledged that the municipal official plan is a critical but small part of the ecosystems of plans that guide city planning. There are many more plans that follow from the OCP and that may impact equity in a city. Projecting this research forward, the findings described in this research study focused on OCPs cannot fully consider the complexities of the full urban planning ecosystem, including short range plans and their subsequent project outcomes. Inclusion of these plans is a promising avenue for further research. Several additional areas for future research have been identified through this research. This research was focused on municipal official planning of mid-sized cities in Ontario, Canada. Background studies, secondary plans, zoning bylaws and any additional supplemental material that may have informed the development of the official plans were not assessed as part of this study. Disregarding these pieces of supplementary materials makes it difficult to assess the full extent of the connections between supplementary materials and the work done by other agencies to support the implementation of the official plan. Future analysis in this area should seek to include explicit equity considerations into plan development and implementation and future studies should seek to include supplementary documents as part of the evaluation process. In addition, this research did not examine how equity within mid-sized cities leads to better outcomes as Liao et al. (2020) investigates. 66 References Adli, S. N., & Donovan, S. (2018). Right to the city: Applying justice tests to public transport investments. Transport policy, 66, 56-65. Agyeman, Julian. 2013. Introducing Just Sustainabilities: Policy, Planning, and Practice. London: Zed Books. Alexander, E. R. (2002). The public interest in planning: From legitimation to substantive plan evaluation. Planning theory, 1(3), 226-249. Alexander, E. R. (Ed.). (2006). Evaluation in planning: evolution and prospects. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.. Alexander, E. R., Khakee, A., & Woltjer, J. (2011). Evaluation for participation and sustainability in planning. A. Hull (Ed.). London; New York: Routledge. Alkin, M.C. (2013). Evaluation roots: A wider perspective of theorists’ views and influences, 2nd Ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication. Baer, W. C. (1997). General plan evaluation criteria: An approach to making better plans. Journal of the American Planning Association, 63(3), 329-344. Baynham, M., & Stevens, M. (2014). Are we planning effectively for climate change? An evaluation of official community plans in British Columbia. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 57(4), 557-587. Berke, P. R., & French, S. P. (1994). The influence of state planning mandates on local plan quality. Journal of planning education and research, 13(4), 237-250. 67 Berke P R & Conroy M. (2000). ``Planning for sustainable development: measuring and explaining progress in plans'' Journal of the American Planning Association 66 21 - 33 Berke, P., Godschalk, D. R., Rodríguez, D. A., & Kaiser, E. J. (2006). Urban land use planning. University of Illinois Press. Berke, P., Backhurst, M., Day, M., Ericksen, N., Laurian, L., Crawford, J., & Dixon, J. (2006a). What makes plan implementation successful? An evaluation of local plans and implementation practices in New Zealand. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 33(4), 581-600. Berke, P. R., Malecha, M. L., Yu, S., Lee, J., & Masterson, J. H. (2019). Plan integration for resilience scorecard: evaluating networks of plans in six US coastal cities. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 62(5), 901-920. Berke, P., Yu, S., Malecha, M., & Cooper, J. (2019). Plans that disrupt development: Equity policies and social vulnerability in six coastal cities. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 0739456X19861144. Black, W. R. (2010). Sustainable transportation: problems and solutions. Guilford Press. Blower, J. (2020). Exploring Innovative Migrant Integration Practices in Small and Mid-Sized Cities across Canada. Ryerson University: Toronto, ON, Canada. Bunnell, G., & Jepson Jr, E. J. (2011). The effect of mandated planning on plan quality: a fresh look at what makes “a good plan”. Journal of the American Planning Association, 77(4), 338-353. 68 Bunting, T., Filion, P., Hoernig, H., & Sands, G. (2004). The successful few: Healthy downtowns of small metropolitan regions. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(3), 328- 343. Bunting, T., Filion, P., Hoernig, H., Seasons, M., & Lederer, J. (2007). Density, size, dispersion: Towards understanding the structural dynamics of mid-size cities. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 16(2), 27-52. Campbell, S. (1996). Green cities, growing cities, just cities?: Urban planning and the contradictions of sustainable development. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(3), 296-312. Camporeale, R., Caggiani, L., Fonzone, A., & Ottomanelli, M. (2017). Quantifying the impacts of horizontal and vertical equity in transit route planning. Transportation Planning and Technology, 40(1), 28-44. CCUNESCO: Canadian Commission for UNESCO. (2019). Welcoming Immigrants and Refugees to Canada: The Role of Municipalities. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/savon/Downloads/CIMToolkitNewComers%20(1).pdf CIC: Citizenship and Immigration Canada (2001). Towards a More Balanced Geographic Distribution of Immigrants. Strategic Research and Review. Special Study. Ottawa: CIC. City of Barrie. (2010). City of Barrie Official Plan 2051: One City, One Vision, One Plan. Retrieved from Official Plan & Amendments | City of Barhttps://www.barrie.ca/government-news/adopted-strategies-plans/official-plan-69 amendmhttps://www.barrie.ca/government-news/adopted-strategies-plans/official-plan- amendments ents rie City of Brantford. (2021). City of Brantford Official Plan: Envisioning Our City – 2051. Retrieved from https://www.brantford.ca/en/business-and-development/official- plan.aspx?gclid=Cj0KCQjw2v-gBhC1ARIsAOQdKY36aDlrjyvqZXUnRX2j- zSPMgOKw1m47yH_JD5MLLRkUXSdIlaxZeYaAmRKEALw_wcB City of Burlington. (2020). Burlington’s Official Plan. Retrieved from https://www.burlington.ca/en/planning-and-development/official-plan.aspx#Burlington- Official-Plan-2020-documents City of Cambridge. (2018). Cambridge Official Plan. Retrieved from https://www.cambridge.ca/en/learn-about/Official-Plan.aspx City of Chatham-Kent. (2018). Chatham-Kent Official Plan: Action Toward Sustainability. Retrieved from https://www.chatham-kent.ca/business/planning/Pages/Chatham-Kent- Official-Plan.aspx City of Greater Sudbury. (2007). City of Greater Sudbury Official Plan: Flexible, Balanced, Sustainable. Retrieved from https://www.greatersudbury.ca/city-hall/reports-studies- policies-and-plans/official-plan/ City of Guelph. (2017). The City of Guelph Official Plan: Envision Guelph. Retrieved from https://guelph.ca/plans-and-strategies/official-plan/ City of Kawartha Lakes. (2012). City of Kawartha Lakes: Catch the Kawartha Spirit. Retrieved from https://www.kawarthalakes.ca/en/business-growth/resources/Planning-and-70 Development-Docs/Development-Applications/CKL-2012-Official-Plan-Text---With- Appeals-Noted---AODA.pdf City of Kingston. (2010). City of Kingston Official Plan. Retrieved from https://www.cityofkingston.ca/business/planning-and-development/official-plan City of Kitchener. (2019). City of Kitchener Official Plan: A Complete & Healthy Kitchener. Retrieved from https://www.kitchener.ca/en/development-and-construction/official- plan.aspx City of London. (2022). The London Plan (Official Plan). Retrieved from https://london.ca/government/council-civic-administration/master-plans- strategies/london-plan-official-plan City of Markham. (2014). Markham Official Plan. Retrieved from https://www.markham.ca/wps/wcm/connect/markham/195b55a1-1cd0-4f69-a9e8- 8260f32b371a/Official-Plan-Main-TOC- 20180409.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CONVERT_TO=url&CACHEID=ROOTW ORKSPACE.Z18_2QD4H901OGV160QC8BLCRJ1001-195b55a1-1cd0-4f69-a9e8- 8260f32b371a-msjaBIm City of Niagara Falls. (2019). Official Plan for the City of Niagara Falls. Retrieved from https://niagarafalls.ca/pdf/planning/official-plan/official-plan-november-2019.pdf City of Peterborough. (2021). City of Peterborough Official Plan. Retrieved from https://www.peterborough.ca/en/doing-business/official-plan.aspx 71 City of Pickering. (1997). City of Pickering Official Plan. Retrieved from https://www.pickering.ca/en/city-hall/officialplan.aspx City of Richmond Hill. (2022). Richmond Hill Official Plan. Retrieved from https://www.richmondhill.ca/en/find-or-learn-about/Official-Plan.aspx City of Sarnia. (2016). City of Sarnia Official Plan. Retrieved from https://www.sarnia.ca/official-plan-document/ City of Sault Ste. Marie. (1996). Sault Ste. Marie Official Plan. Retrieved from https://saultstemarie.ca/Government/City-Departments/Community-Development- Enterprise-Services/Planning-Enterprise-Services/Municipal-Land-use/Official-Plan.aspx City of St. Catherine’s. (2018). City of St. Catherines Official Plan: The Garden City Plan. Retrieved from https://www.stcatharines.ca/en/planning-and-development/official- plan.aspx City of Thunder Bay. (2019). City of Thunder Bay Superior by Nature Official Plan. Retrieved from https://www.thunderbay.ca/en/city-hall/official-plan.aspx#Official-Plan City of Vaughan. (2010). Vaughan Official Plan. Retrieved from https://www.vaughan.ca/about- city-vaughan/projects-and-initiatives/policy-planning-projects/vaughan-official-plan- volume-1-and-2 City of Waterloo. (2012). City of Waterloo Official Plan. Retrieved from https://www.waterloo.ca/en/government/official-plan.aspx 72 City of Windsor. (2013). City of Windsor Official Plan. Retrieved from https://www.citywindsor.ca/residents/planning/plans-and-community- information/windsor---official-plan/Pages/Windsor-Official-Plan.aspx Connolly, James JT. (2019). "From Jacobs to the Just City: A foundation for challenging the green planning orthodoxy." Cities 91: 64-70. Cousins, J. B., Goh, S. C., Elliott, C., Aubry, T., & Gilbert, N. (2014). Government and voluntary sector differences in organizational capacity to do and use evaluation. Evaluation and program planning, 44, 1-13. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Research design Qualitative quantitative and mixed methods approaches. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2 Dale, A., & Newman, L. L. (2009). Sustainable development for some: green urban development and affordability. Local environment, 14(7), 669-681. Davidoff, P. (1965). Advocacy and pluralism in planning. Journal of the American Institute of planners, 31(4), 331-338. Di Ciommo, F., & Shiftan, Y. (2017). Transport equity analysis. Transport Reviews, 37(2), 139- 151. DRISI (2021), Transportation-Related Equity Indicators to Improve Mobility and Transportation System Access for Low-Income and Disadvantaged Communities, CalTrans Division of Research, Innovation and System Information. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/3iEw1Mw 73 Evergreen. (2017). At a Turning Point: A New Era for Mid-sized Cities. Retrieved from https://www.evergreen.ca/downloads/pdfs/2017/01_MSC_RC_Flatt_Sotomayor.pdf Evergreen. (2017a). Leveraging Ontario’s Urban Potential: Mid-Sized Cities Research Cities. Retrieved from https://www.evergreen.ca/downloads/pdfs/2017/00_MSC_RC_Compendium.pdf Fainstein, S. (2010). The Just City. Cornell University Press. Fainstein, S. S. (2014). The just city. International journal of urban Sciences, 18(1), 1-18. Faludi, A. (2000). The performance of spatial planning. Planning practice and Research, 15(4), 299-318. Filion, P., Hoernig, H., Bunting, T., & Sands, G. (2004). The successful few: Healthy downtowns of small metropolitan regions. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(3), 328- 343. Foster, A., Shah, M., Barany, A., & Talafian, H. (2019). High school students’ role-playing for identity exploration: findings from virtual city planning. Information and Learning Sciences. Foster, Sheila, Robin Leichenko, Khai Hoan Nguyen, Reginald Blake, Howard Kunreuther, Malgosia Madajewicz, Elisaveta P. Petkova. (2019). “New York City Panel on Climate Change 2019 Report Chapter 6: Community-Based Assessments of Adaptation and Equity.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1439: 126–73. doi:10.1111/nyas.14009. 74 Garcea, J. (2003). "Regionalization of immigration in Canada: impetus, discourse and strategic initiatives", INSCAN magazine, International Settlement Canada Research Resource Division for Refugees, Ottawa: Carleton University Government of Canada - S. C. (2018). Population and dwelling count highlight tables, 2016 census. Census subdivisions. Retrieved from https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census- recensement/2016/dppd/hlt-fst/pd- l/Table.cfm?Lang=Eng&T=311&SR=1&S=87&O=A&RPP=9999&PR=35 Grossmann, Katrin, James JT Connolly, Małgorzata Dereniowska, Giulio Mattioli, Luca Nitschke, Nicola Thomas, and Anaïs Varo. (2022). "From sustainable development to social-ecological justice: Addressing taboos and naturalizations in order to shift perspective." Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space 5, no. 3. 1405-1427. Guyadeen, D., & Seasons, M. (2016). Plan evaluation: Challenges and directions for future research. Planning Practice & Research, 31(2), 215-228. Guyadeen, D., & Seasons, M. (2018). Evaluation theory and practice: Comparing program evaluation and evaluation in planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 38(1), 98-110. Guyadeen, D., Thistlethwaite, J., & Henstra, D. (2019). Evaluating the quality of municipal climate change plans in Canada. Climatic Change, 152, 121-143. Handy, S. (2008). Regional transportation planning in the US: An examination of changes in technical aspects of the planning process in response to changing goals. Transport Policy, 15(2), 113-126. 75 Hoch, C. J. (2002). Evaluating plans pragmatically. Planning theory, 1(1), 53-75. Horney, J., Nguyen, M., Salvesen, D., Tomasco, O., & Berke, P. (2016). Engaging the public in planning for disaster recovery. International journal of disaster risk reduction, 17, 33-37. Hyndman, J., Schuurman, N., & Fiedler, R. (2006). Size matters: Attracting new immigrants to Canadian cities. Journal of International Migration and Integration/Revue de l'integration et de la migration internationale, 7, 1-25. Hysler-Rubin, N. (2013). Patrick Geddes and town planning: a critical view. Routledge. Jenkins, K. E., Sovacool, B. K., Mouter, N., Hacking, N., Burns, M. K., & McCauley, D. (2021). The methodologies, geographies, and technologies of energy justice: a systematic and comprehensive review. Environmental Research Letters, 16(4), 043009. Khakee, A. (2003). The emerging gap between evaluation research and practice. Evaluation, 9(3), 340-352. Krapp, A. (2020). Transportation Equity Project Prioritization Criteria. MUP Capstone. Krippendorff, K. (2013). Commentary: A dissenting view on so-called paradoxes of reliability coefficients. Annals of the International Communication Association, 36(1), 481-499. Krumholz, N. (1982). A retrospective view of equity planning Cleveland 1969–1979. Journal of the American Planning Association, 48(2), 163-174. Krumholz, N., & Clavel, P. (1994). Reinventing cities: Equity planners tell their stories. Temple University Press. Larson, A. M., & Ribot, J. C. (2007). The poverty of forestry policy: double standards on an uneven playing field. Sustainability science, 2, 189-204. 76 Laurian, L., Day, M., Berke, P., Ericksen, N., Backhurst, M., Crawford, J., & Dixon, J. (2004). Evaluating plan implementation: A conformance-based methodology. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(4), 471-480. Laurian, L., Crawford, J., Day, M., Kouwenhoven, P., Mason, G., Ericksen, N., & Beattie, L. (2010). Evaluating the outcomes of plans: Theory, practice, and methodology. Environment and planning B: Planning and Design, 37(4), 740-757. Lederer, J., & Seasons, M. (2005). Understanding the university-community alliance: The Waterloo experience. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 237-260. Lehtonen, M. (2004). The environmental–social interface of sustainable development: capabilities, social capital, institutions. Ecological economics, 49(2), 199-214. Liao, B., van den Berg, E. W., van Wesemael, P. J. V., & Arentze, T. A. (2020). Empirical analysis of walking using data from the Netherlands. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 85, Article 102390. Litman, T. (2002). Evaluating transportation equity. World Transport Policy & Practice, 8(2), 50- 65. Litman, T. (2020). Autonomous vehicle implementation predictions: Implications for transport planning. Litman, T. (2022). Evaluating transportation equity. Retrieved from https://www.vtpi.org/equity.pdf 77 Loh, C. G., & Kim, R. (2021). Are we planning for equity? Equity goals and recommendations in local comprehensive plans. Journal of the American Planning Association, 87(2), 181- 196. Lyles, W., & Stevens, M. (2014). Plan quality evaluation 1994–2012: Growth and contributions, limitations, and new directions. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 34(4), 433- 450. MacLachlan, I., & Sawada, R. (1997). Measures of income inequality and social polarization in Canadian metropolitan areas. Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe canadien, 41(4), 377- 397. Matin, N., Forrester, J., & Ensor, J. (2018). What is equitable resilience?. World development, 109, 197-205. Manaugh, K., Badami, M. G., & El-Geneidy, A. M. (2015). Integrating social equity into urban transportation planning: A critical evaluation of equity objectives and measures in transportation plans in North America. Transport policy, 37, 167-176. McDermott, M., Mahanty, S., & Schreckenberg, K. (2013). Examining equity: a multidimensional framework for assessing equity in payments for ecosystem services. Environmental science & policy, 33, 416-427. Melo, V., & Jenkins, P. (2021). Between normative product-oriented and alternative process- oriented urban planning praxis: how can these jointly impact on the rapid development of metropolitan Maputo, Mozambique?. International Planning Studies, 26(1), 81-99. 78 Mercer, J., & England, K. (2000). Canadian cities in continental context: global and continental perspectives on Canadian urban development. Canadian cities in transition: The twenty- first century, 55-75. Metzger, J. T. (1996). The theory and practice of equity planning: An annotated bibliography. Journal of Planning Literature, 11(1), 112-126. Molotch, H., & Logan, J. (1984). Tensions in the growth machine: Overcoming resistance to value-free development. Social problems, 31(5), 483-499. Moore, S. A. (2016). Testing a Mature Hypothesis: Reflection on “Green Cities, Growing Cities, Just Cities: Urban Planning and the Contradiction of Sustainable Development”. Journal of the American Planning Association, 82(4), 385-388. MPI: Migration Policy Institute Data Hub. (2017). Top 25 Destinations of International Migrants. Retrieved from https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/top-25- destinations-international-migrants Municipality of Clarington. (1996). Municipality of Clarington Official Plan. Retrieved from https://www.clarington.net/en/business-and-development/Current-Official-Plan.aspx Oden, M. D. (2010). Equity: the forgotten E in sustainable development. Pragmatic sustainability: Theoretical and practical tools, 41, 30-49. Oliveira, V., & Pinho, P. (2010). Evaluation in urban planning: Advances and prospects. Journal of planning literature, 24(4), 343-361. Oliveira, V., & Pinho, P. (2011). Bridging the gap between planning evaluation and programme evaluation: The contribution of the PPR methodology. Evaluation, 17(3), 293-307. 79 Ontario. (2010). Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing: Citizens Guide to Official Plans. Retrieved from https://www.gananoque.ca/sites/gananoque.ca/files/Citizens%27%20Guide%202%20- %20Official%20Plans%20-%20Accessible%20PDF.pdf Ontario. (2012). Land Information Ontario Data Description: Municipal Boundary – Lower and Single Tier. Retrieved from https://www.sdc.gov.on.ca/sites/MNRF- PublicDocs/EN/CMID/Municipal%20Boundary%20- %20Lower%20and%20Single%20Tier%20-%20Data%20Description.pdf Ontario. (2012a). Land Information Ontario Data Description: Municipal Boundary – Upper Tier and District. Retrieved from https://www.sdc.gov.on.ca/sites/MNRF- PublicDocs/EN/CMID/Municipal%20Boundary%20- %20Upper%20Tier%20and%20District%20-%20Data%20Description.pdf Ontario. (2020). Ontario Provincial Policy Statement. Retrieved from https://files.ontario.ca/mmah- provincial-policy-statement-2020-accessible-final-en-2020- 02-14.pdf Ontario. (2021). Official plans. Retrieved from https://www.ontario.ca/document/citizens-guide- land- use-planning/official-plans Patton, M. Q. (2008). Utilization-focused evaluation. Sage publications. Pereira, R. H., Schwanen, T., & Banister, D. (2017). Distributive justice and equity in transportation. Transport reviews, 37(2), 170-191. 80 Quinton, J., Nesbitt, L., & Czekajlo, A. (2022). Wealthy, educated, and… non-millennial? Variable patterns of distributional inequity in 31 Canadian cities. Landscape and Urban Planning, 227, 104535. Romero-Lankao, P., & Nobler, E. (2021). Energy Justice: Key Concepts and Metrics Relevant to EERE Transportation Projects (No. NREL/MP-5400-80206). National Renewable Energy Lab.(NREL), Golden, CO (United States). Schrock, G., Bassett, E. M., & Green, J. (2015). Pursuing equity and justice in a changing climate: Assessing equity in local climate and sustainability plans in US cities. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 35(3), 282-295. Schlosberg, D. (2007). Defining environmental justice: Theories, movements, and nature. OUP Oxford. Seasons, M. (2003). Monitoring and evaluation in municipal planning: Considering the realities. Journal of the American planning association, 69(4), 430-440. Seasons, M. (2021). Evaluating urban and regional plans: from theory to practice. UBC Press. Solow, R. M. (1991). Sustainability: an economist's perspective. Soria, J. A., & Valenzuela, L. M. (2013). A method for the evaluation of metropolitan planning: application to the context in Spain. European Planning Studies, 21(6), 944-966. Statistics Canada. (2003). Longitudinal survey of immigrants to Canada: Process, progress, and prospects. Catalogue No. 87-611-XIE, ISSN 1708-7740. Ottawa: Ministry of Industry. Stevens, M. R. (2013). Evaluating the quality of official community plans in Southern British Columbia. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 33(4), 471-490. 81 Tamtik, M., & Guenter, M. (2019). Policy analysis of equity, diversity and inclusion strategies in Canadian universities–how far have we come?. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 49(3), 41-56. Town of Ajax. (2000). Town of Ajax by the Lake Official Plan. Retrieved from https://www.ajax.ca/en/business-and-growth/official-plan.aspx Town of Caledon. (2018). Town of Caledon Official Plan. Retrieved from https://www.caledon.ca/en/town-services/official-plan.aspx Town of Milton. (2008). Town of Milton Official Plan. Retrieved from https://www.milton.ca/en/business-and-development/official-plan.aspx#Official-Plan- August-2008-Consolidation Town of Newmarket. (2010). Town of Newmarket Official Plan. Retrieved from https://www.newmarket.ca/officialplan#:~:text=What%20is%20the%20Official%20Plan, social%2C%20economic%20and%20environmental%20matters. Town of Oakville. (2009). Livable Oakville Plan. Retrieved from https://www.oakville.ca/townhall/livable-oakville-official-plan.html Town of Whitby. (2021). Town of Whitby Official Plan. Retrieved from https://www.whitby.ca/en/work/official-plan.aspx Valade, M. Y. (2017). Trapped in the big city? Re-thinking regionalization of immigration. Ryerson Journal of Policy Studies, 1, 34-56. Walker, J. (2008). Purpose-driven public transport: creating a clear conversation about public transport goals. Journal of transport geography, 16(6), 436-442. 82 Wang, S., & Palazzo, E. (2021). Sponge City and social equity: Impact assessment of urban stormwater management in Baicheng City, China. Urban Climate, 37, 100829. Wegener, M. (1994). Urban/regional models and planning cultures: Lessons from cross-national modelling projects. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 21(5), 629-641. Wheeler, S. M. (2013). Planning for sustainability: creating livable, equitable and ecological communities. Routledge. Zapata, M. A., & Bates, L. K. (2015). Equity planning revisited. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 35(3), 245-248. Zeemering , Eric S. (2014). Collaborative strategies for sustainable cities: Economy, environment and community in Baltimore. Routledge.
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Planning
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Graduate
Connolly, James J. T.
Where does equity fit? : an evaluation of municipal official plans in mid-sized cities in Ontario, Canada
Text