A GENERIC POLICY FRAMEWORK FOR URBAN SUSTAINABILITY

Tom W. Fookes Department of Planning

The University of Auckland, New Zealand

ABSTRACT: Planning practice is adopting an ad hoc perspective on urban sustainability, as evident in a range of definitions, philosophies and design approaches. The aim of this paper is to develop, and demonstrate through a case study, a conceptual framework that will guide policy to promote urban sustainability.

The paper will briefly review the state of definitions of “urban sustainability”, providing one explanation why planning practice in this field is ad hoc. It will then set out a generic policy framework, including associated urban sustainability indicators, and discuss its application to the policy-making process. The framework will then be applied to a case study established through recent research and planning study in Vancouver. The case study will elaborate on the theoretical ideas contained in the framework, as well as suggesting how the Vancouver example could have been more finely tuned to help promote a sustainable urban community.

The case study is a pilot project for the City of Vancouver. The neighbourhood of “Dunbar” was selected as one of two communities to proceed through a community visioning process that would help translate the City’s Plan (known as CityPlan) to a neighbourhood statement of vision and directions. The vision and directions have since been adopted by the City Council as the basis for its decision-making. The paper will conclude that there is a case for a generic policy framework where planners are working on the issue of urban sustainabilit while raising some issues for further attentiony. KEYWORDS: urban sustainability, indicators, policy, framework, sustainable communities INTRODUCTION The initial motivation for the enquiry reported in this paper comes from a concern for the ad hoc way Planners are addressing “urban sustainability” in theory and practice.1 Reasons for this concern include, first, the debate over terminology and the myriad of definitions in use. Secondly, it is possible to distinguish between urban sustainability in the context of greenfields development, and its application to existing development. Just as working with a blank piece of paper, implementing the theoretical ambitions on rural land is relatively straightforward. However, how we retro-fit existing towns and cities to achieve urban sustainability objectives raises a host of questions. This paper is the beginning of a process of identifying and addressing these questions.

The research problem has been seen as both one of theory and practice. Consequently it is appropriate to include an examination of practice. This is done through a case study of a Community Visioning Project from Vancouver, Canada. Purpose

This paper takes as its overarching research question an issue which arises out of current interest in achieving "sustainable communities" (Roseland 1998). The question is whether it is possible to move an existing "neighbourhood" towards becoming a "sustainable community" through a process of determining long-term planning objectives and policies? The neighbourhood is Dunbar, selected by the City Council as a pilot project in its Community Visions Programme (City of Vancouver 1996). This study should enable us to assess how far Dunbar has gone toward planning for a "sustainable community". In order to achieve this purpose it is necessary to develop an analytical framework which can be used to evaluate the progress made through the case study. This framework is intended to be sufficiently generic to enable its use in other evaluations. Approach The first step is to examine the literature on “sustainable communities” to establish a generic set of sustainability components. That is, those aspects identifiable at a community scale which are expected to occur in the design of a sustainable community. In other words, develop a set of criteria as suggested by the academic literature that identify the bounds of a “sustainable community”. Having established such a framework, the second step is to compare the criteria with the components of a community’s Vision, using the Dunbar case study. Conclusions on the applicability of the framework, and how far Dunbar has progressed towards policies for a sustainable community, can then be drawn from the degree of match of the two sets of information.

WHERE “SUSTAINABILITY”? For the past two decades academics have taken on board a whole range of issues concerning the notion of "sustainability" (Mitlin 1992; Satterthwaite 1997; Marcuse 1998; Roseland 1998). By 1997 Satterthwaite could observe that there is:

"...no clear, agreed definition as to what the terms 'sustainable cities' and 'sustainable human settlements' mean. Such a diverse range of environmental, economic, social, political, demographic, institutional and cultural goals have been said to be part of 'sustainable development' that most governments or international agencies can characterise some of what they do as contributing to sustainable development." (p.1668)

Marcuse (1998) has subsequently argued for "sustainability" to be considered as a constraint rather than a goal. In his argument he presents "sustainability" as a limitation; that is, it is not:

"...an independent goal, the contribution to which is to be weighed along with justice, etc. in evaluating a policy: a bad policy that is sustainable is not better than a bad policy that is un-sustainable. Sustainability is a limitation to be viewed in the context of an evaluation of the desirability, on substantive criteria, of other measures. Balancing is required" (p.107).

Marcuse (1998) is an example of the way the academic debate on "sustainability" has broadened from the goal-oriented definitions exemplified by the often repeated statement of the (1987) Brundtland Report: "meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs". It also provides a useful reference point for this study of a neighbourhood-centred project (City of Vancouver 1996), where sustainability issues appeared to be implicit rather than explicit, because it introduces the idea of evaluating measures to achieve public policy. According to Marcuse, "sustainability" considered as a constraint means that it can be used as a criterion "to evaluate measures that achieve otherwise defined desirable goals; a desirable measure that is not sustainable is not as good as an equally desirable measure that is" (p. 107). In a footnote Marcuse examines the question "Is a measure that is not sustainable ipso facto undesirable?" His response seems to be introduce the need to balance the negatives of the measure against the positives that flow from it. He says, therefore, "It is, then, not the fact of unsustainability that matters but the consequences that flow from it" (Fnote 19: p.108). This he feels is "quite a different matter." For a study of public policy it is pertinent to be reminded of the need to consider the consequences which flow from new policy initiatives, whether intended or unintended. Throughout his examination of "sustainability" Marcuse emphasises the importance of social justice. He concludes in that vein:

"We should rescue sustainability as an honourable, indeed critically important, goal for environmental policy by confining its use to where it is appropriate, recognizing its limitations and avoiding the temptations to take it over as an easy way out of facing the conflicts that beset us in other areas of policy. If we do feel called upon to use it in the area of social policy, it should be to emphasize the criterion of long-term political and social viability in the assessment of otherwise desirable programmes and not as a goal replacing social justice, which must remain the focal point of our efforts" (1998, p.111).

This reference to long-term political and social viability provides a useful starting point for a study of a community's efforts to translate a city-wide plan into statements of what "...local residents want their community to be like in the future..." (City of Vancouver n.d.). GENERIC CRITERIA FOR A SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY A Sustainable Community There is as much debate about what is a "sustainable community" as there is about "sustainability" generally and "sustainable development" (Satterthwaite 1997). The goal and constraint debate has already been summarised (Marcuse 1998). This study proceeds on the basis that there is a case for city administrations to be adopting a long-term objective of making their city less demanding within the cycle of production and consumption. This objective takes its cue from the arguments presented in Sharing the World: Sustainable Living & Global Equity in the 21st Century (Carley and Spapens 1998). It also recognises the principles captured by the ecological footprint concept (Wackernagel and Rees 1996) and a number of national urban sustainability studies (eg., Dutch study – see CLTM 1995).

Central to the general sustainability debate and its various components like urban sustainability, is distinguishing between the industrialised and developed countries (the North) and the less industrialised and still developing economies (the South). This case study is located in Canada, one of the countries categorised as the North. As such the study does not include material pertinent to the characteristics of communities in those countries considered in the South. This is not to say, however, that the generic criteria discussed in this chapter may not be relevant to countries in the South. Developing criteria In a complex area of debate such as we have with the notion of a "sustainable community" the task of developing evaluative criteria is equally complex. As already shown in Chapter 1 and the introductory section above, the literature tends to show a tendency for authors to focus on a particular aspect. For example, Nijkamp and Pepping (1998) takes the theme of "sustainable energy". Satterthwaite (1997) on the other hand focuses on settlement patterns and transport systems, and buildings. There is also the literature that debates the range of definitions found in work on "sustainability" (e.g., Marcuse 1998). The trend in the literature seems to be towards a familiar need for science to adopt a reductionist perspective by taking "sustainability" and breaking it down into "ecological sustainability", "social sustainability" and "economic sustainability". This is ironical because, as I understand it, the whole interest in "sustainability" in its various guises has been to achieve an integration on our thinking about the way humankind is settling and utilising the planet's resources. I can see the usefulness of taking away parts of a problem and working intensively on them as long as there is an underlying framework and intention to re-integrate. By all means work on "ecological sustainability" or "social sustainability" but once this is done let us return to "sustainability". On the other hand there does seem to be some sense at looking at suatainability in terms of geographic scales or levels, such as global, national, regional and local. Equally it is possible to take the concept of sustainability and examine it at the scale of an urban region (e.g., Greater Vancouver) or a city. In this case we can talk about "urban sustainability" because it is still adopting a holistic view of the term.

Revisiting Ekistics When it comes to "urban sustainability" or "sustainable communities" it appears that we are in a cycle of thought which is retracing many of the steps taken by C.A. Doxiadis and his colleagues2 in their endeavour to establish an integrated science of human settlements known as "Ekistics" (Doxiadis 1967; Doxiadis 1976). The "urban crimes" Doxiadis wrote about don't seems too different from the catalogue of ailments which need to be addressed by adopting principles of sustainability (compare Doxiadis 1974a and Roseland 1998). But it is not the feeling of déjà vu that has brought Ekistics into this work; it is the need for a beginning to the task of developing criteria for a sustainable neighbourhood - the need for a structure with which to begin. Ekistics provides such a structure through the five elements of a human settlement and the synthesis of these which is a human settlement. The five elements are: NATURE, ANTHROPOS, SOCIETY, SHELLS, and NETWORKS, with their cross-connections (Fig.1)

Source: Doxiadis 1974b, p.17.

Fig.1: The Five Ekistic Elements Comprising a Human Settlement

While the five elements provided the initial framework for Doxiadis’ thinking, he later developed a more complex model to express ideas about systems, integration and synthesis (Fig.2). This model extended the idea of five ekistic elements interacting by adding ekistic units (e.g. neighbourhood), time, and aspects such as income, desirability and feasibility. In 1974 he demonstrated the use of this model as shown in Fig. 2. The Anthropocosmos model remains a possible starting point for diagrammatic representations of sustainable communities. The Anthropocosmos Model The more sophisticated development of the Ekistic model is intended to provide a basic template within which a number of variables may be used, and date inserted. This makes the model a useful framework where one wishes to summarise and inter-relate information. A standard variable is the Ekistic units with each row representating the interactions between each of the Ekistic Elements. In Figure 2 the other variables are Time, Income, Desirability and Feasibility, with sub-categories for each column. To understand the flexible way the model can be used refer to Doxiadis (1974b, p. 86) where he uses the model to summarise the effects of a new industrial plant on a city and its people. In this case he adopts Units of Space, Units of Time, and Economic, Social, Political, Technological and Cultural Aspects to complete the model. Further work is planned to relate this model to the field of Sustainable Development.

One version as developed for Doxiadis in the Ekistics Journal – source not recorded Fig.2 The Anthropocosmos Model

Leaving aside the more complex model, the five elements, as a simple conceptualization, enable us to begin knowing that we have a framework which covers all the possible aspects within the notion of sustainability, in that it covers the natural, individual, social and physical dimensions, and their interactions. From this beginning a simple matrix can be formed intersecting the Ekistic Elements with Sustainability Components (Fig.3). The latter have been derived from experience and a review of the literature (see References).

EKISTIC ELEMENTS

SUSTAINABILITY COMPONENTS

NATURE Geography and earth sciences Ecological systems/conditions (incl. sinks) Water quality Ambient noise levels Energy conservation Solid waste management Air quality Pasture and forests Horticultural land Open space/parks/landscape enhancement ANTHROPOS Self-esteem Human interaction Spirituality Emotion/Love Personal safety SOCIETY Population /demographic characteristics (incl.

employment) Community interaction (social networks) Community services & facilities Education Governance & public participation (democracy &

decision making) Affordable housing & Special Residential Needs

Facilities (SRNF) Economic well-being Community nuisance Community safety Culture & heritage SHELLS Residential types & SRNFs Commercial & industrial Recreational/Leisure Mixed use NETWORK Vehicular- Road/Rail Pedestrian/cycle Energy technologies Water SYNTHESIS Sustainable community Fig.3: Framework for Criteria

Sustainability Indicators The initial table of Ekistic Elements and Sustainability Components (above Fig.3) has been compared against European Union (EU) sustainability indicators from the 1998 report Urban Sustainability Indicators (European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, 1998) (Fig.4).

EKISTIC ELEMENTS

SUSTAINABILITY COMPONENTS EUROPEAN FOUNDATION INDICATORS*

NATURE Geography and earth sciences Ecological systems/conditions

(incl. sinks) Global Climate (greenhouse gases); Acidification (deposition of acidic substances); Ecosystem Toxification (emissions of toxic substances)

Water quality Ambient noise levels Nuisance (created by noise, odour or visual pollution) Energy conservation Urban Mobility or Clean Transportation (use of

environment-friendly transport) Solid waste management Waste Management (volume of solid waste disposed

from all waste streams) Air quality Air Quality Pasture and forests Horticultural land Open space/parks/landscape

enhancement Green, Public Space & Heritage (improvements needed)

ANTHROPOS Self-esteem Inter-personal interaction Spirituality Emotion/Love Personal safety [see Urban Safety, below] SOCIETY Population /demographic/social characteristics (incl.

employment) Social Justice (excluded & marginalised population: ie % affected by poverty, unemployment, lack of access to education, information, training and leisure)

Community interaction (social networks)

Community services & facilities [see Social Justice, above] Education Governance & public participation (democracy &

decision making) Citizen Participation

Affordable housing & Special Residential Needs Facilities (SRNF)

Housing Quality (poor housing conditions: ie % affected by lack of housing or poor housing conditions)

Economic well-being [see Social Justice, above]; Economic Urban Sustainability (viability of the urban economy)

Community nuisance Nuisance (created by noise, odour or visual pollution) [also see ambient noise, above]

Community Safety Urban Safety (lack of urban safety: ie % affected by crime or traffic accidents)

Culture & Heritage [see Green, Public Space & Heritage, above] SHELLS Residential types & SRNFs Commercial & industrial Recreational Mixed use NETWORKS Vehicular- Road/Rail [see Urban Mobility or Clean Transportation (use of

environment-friendly transport), above] Pedestrian/cycle [ditto] Energy technologies Energy Consumption (total amount of energy consumed

by domestic use, industrial use, tertiary sector, & public spaces)

Water Water Consumption (total amount of water withdrawal through network by domestic use, industrial use, building sector, retail services, maintenance of public spaces & leakage)

SYNTHESIS Sustainable community

* Source of Indicators: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, 1998: Urban Sustainability Indicators, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. (Indicators A-O used) Fig.4: The extended table with the Sustainability Indicators

There was a need to add some components to the initial set (e.g. solid waste management) but it was also apparent that the list of indicators did not cover all of the components. The latter are shown as shaded cells in Fig. 4. The effect of this work has been to expand the basic five Ekistic Elements to a number of Sustainabilirty Components, and to the match these to a set of Urban Sustainabi;lity Indicators. We now have the beginnings of a generic framework that can be added to as additional components and indicators are identified through further research and discussion. The paper now turns to the case study and its application to the generic framework. THE DUNBAR NEIGHBOURHOOD - EXISTING SITUATION

Location and Boundary

Dunbar is a residential neighbourhood on the western edge of Vancouver City adjoining the unincorporated Provincial Government and University of British Columbia Endowment lands (Figs. 5 & 6). This provides a natural bush-covered western boundary to the suburb along Camosun Street and W.29th Avenue. The other streets bordering the neighbourhood are W.16th Avenue on the north side, S.W. Marine Drive to the south, and Puget Drive-Mackenzie Street - Blenheim Street to the east. Dunbar Street bisects the area (approximately) on the north-south axis, connecting W.16th Avenue and S.W. Marine Drive. Dunbar Street is approximately 3km in length between those two streets. It is nearly 2km between the western and eastern boundaries at Mackenzie Street (see fig. 6). The northern entry to the area at the intersection of W.16th Avenue and Dunbar is approximately 6km (straight line distance) from the Downtown (intersection of Granville and Robson). The southern boundary of the area is approximately 4km (straight line distance) from the Vancouver International Airport.

Source: CityPlan: Directions for Vancouver, 1995, p.50 (no scale provided)

Fig. 5: Dunbar within Vancouver City

Demographic Description The Dunbar population at the 1991 Census was 20,100 (Vancouver: 473,200). The population increase 1971-1991 was 2% (Vancouver: 8%). The proportion of residents with English as their mother tongue in 1991 was 78% (1971: 89%) compared with Vancouver with 60% and 74% respectively. Chinese as the mother tongue percentages were 10% in 1991 compared with 1% in 1971 (Vancouver: 19% and 6%) The 1991 median income for Dunbar was $69,200 compared with Vancouver at $34,200. Low income households were 10% of the Dunbar population compared with 25% for Vancouver. Single-family parents made up 10% of the Dunbar population compared with Vancouver at 16% (City of Vancouver, 1998b, p.35). Dunbar has 4% of the population 75 years of age and older. Neighbourhood Description This description of the Dunbar Neighbourhood (Fig.3.2) follows the same headings used in the Vision documentation (below: ch.4). This section is intended to provide background for the Vision Directions in chapter 4. This will enable the Vision Directions to be put in the appropriate context.

Source: Dunbar: Community Vision, 1998, p.45 (no scale provided)

Fig. 6: Dunbar with Community Amenities and the Vision Area Boundary

The single-family house on its own lot is a fiercely treasured feature of Dunbar (Photo 1). The development of the area dates from 1910 but most of the houses date from the mid to late 1920s. Some redevelopment has occurred but the area has a distinctive early to mid 1900 look. There are different house styles but there is sufficient repetition for the area to have a sameness which contributes to its character.

Photo 1: A Typical Dunbar street

The land use zoning for the area reflects its residential history. Most of the area is zoned RS-5 or RS-5S (One-Family Dwelling Districts). The City Zoning Map describes the RS-5 and RS-5S zones as follows:

"The intent is to maintain the existing single-family residential character by encouraging new development that is compatible with the form and design of existing development, and by encouraging retention and renovation of existing development. Emphasis is placed on design compatibility with the established streetscape. Neighbourhood amenity is intended to be enhanced through the maintenance and addition of healthy trees and plants. In the RS-5S District, two-family dwellings are conditionally permitted."

The 'S' code indicates rental suites are permitted.

DUNBAR COMMUNITY VISION - PROCESS CityPlan Context and Ground Rules In 1995 the City Council adopted CityPlan: Directions for Vancouver (otherwise referred to as CityPlan) as an overall vision for the city. In adopting CityPlan the City Council agreed that it and its departments were to use it "to guide policy decisions, corporate work priorities, budgets, and capital plans" (City of Vancouver 1995, p.1). As such the document stands as a type of strategic statement, separate from the Zoning and Development By-law No. 3575, and its accompanying Zoning Map which in its current form was adopted by By-law No. 7841 (January 20, 1998).

The Community Visions Programme was adopted as policy by the City Council, and as such, it is required to guide the outcome of that programme. Furthermore, the City Council saw the Visions projects like Dunbar "as a way of bringing CityPlan's city-wide directions to the community level and reaching all communities within several years" (City of Vancouver 1998, p.6). The CityPlan directions are set out under a general vision statement:

"Vancouver residents have created a CityPlan that will lead to a city of neighbourhoods; a city where there is a sense of community for all ages and cultures; a city with a healthy economy and environment; and a city where people have a say in the decisions that affect their neighbourhoods and their lives" (City of Vancouver 1995, p.5)

The keywords and main headings used in a summary of CityPlan are set out in Table 1 (City of Vancouver 1995, pp.5-7).

Table 4.1 Framework from the CityPlan

A City of Neighbourhoods • Neighbourhood centres • Neighbourhood housing variety • Distinctive neighbourhood character Sense of Community • Accessible, community-based services • Working together to promote safety • Addressing housing costs • Art and culture in a creative city • New and more diverse public places Healthy Economy - Healthy Environment • Diverse economy and jobs close to home • Transit, walking and biking as a priority • Clean air and water A Vibrant Central Area • Downtown Vancouver Making CityPlan Happen • People involved in decision-making • Financial accountability The City in the Region • Vancouver and the Region

Working from CityPlan a checklist was provided to the Dunbar Community as a basis for their discussions (City of Vancouver 1998b, p.7):

Check List

Strengthen Neighourhood Centres Provide shops, jobs, and services close to home, and safe, inviting public places to meet and socialize Improve Safety and Better Target Community Services Identify ways to increase safety; to better provide community services; and to use arts and cultural activities to support community identity and participation. Reduce Reliance on Cars Make it easier to get around on foot, by bike, and by transit. Improve the Environment Suggest ways to improve air quality; conserve water and energy, and reduce waste. Increase the Variety ans Affordability of Housing Find ways to help meet the housing needs of community residents of all ages and incomes. Define Neighbourhood Character Define what aspects of neighbourhood character, heritage, and appearance to retain, and decide the character of new development. Diversify Parks and Public Places Meet park needs, and identify a variety of designs, activities, and locations for all kinds of public places, from play areas to greenways, and gathering places. Involve People and Redirect Resources Find new ways to involve people and to redirect resources to bring CityPlan directions and the Community Visions to life.

Terms of Reference

To ensure that CityPlan was the central reference for the communities working on their respective Visions, the City Council adopted a formal Terms of Reference (City of Vancouver 1996). This included ground rules (that is the Council's expectations or principles) which were to underlie all aspects of the programme. These ground rules covered Content and Process, and read as follows (p. 3):

"The content ground rules are: • Visions must include all CityPlan topics. • Each community must consider information on CityPlan directions that define

local, city-wide, and regional needs. • Vision options must be derived from community ideas, opportunities, and

desires. • The consequences of vision options must be described to the community

while considering the "rights" of the neighbourhood and its "responsibility" as part of the city and region.

• Vision options and the preferred vision must move the community in CityPlan directions...."

"The process ground rules are: • The process must provide a variety of ways to be involved that are meaningful

to participants of various ages, cultures, interests, and parts of the community. • Participants and staff must respect all points of view and all community

members, from residents, to owners, to business people. • The process must seek common ground. • The choice of a preferred vision must reflect the feelings of the broad

community, not a small portion. • The vision must be delivered within the approved time and resource limits."

Public Participation The CityPlan states:

"People will be involved in decisions that shape their city and neighbourhoods, and help determine the sevices they receive. CityPlan will create opportunities for residents to participate in Council decisions. Citizens will be encouraged to work with City staff to identify and resolve local issues. The broad community will be involved in city-wide and neighbourhood decisions, and new ways will be found to reach agreement between city-wide and neighbourhood directions" (p.42).

The principles stated above have provided the guideline for designing the public participation approach and establishing roles. City Council and Community leadership The elected members of the City Council had no formal role to play in the Dunbar Vision process until the end when staff reported to it on the recommended Vision for approval. CityPlan staff were involved as facilitators: "organizing events, doing outreach, illustrating and documenting material from the process, and providing information about community needs and about the CityPlan directions" (City of Vancouver 1996, p.11). Staff also were to provide comments and advice on CityPlan directions but they were not to try to influence the visions - they were not to be advocates for a particular outcome (ibid). Staff from affected departments, such as Parks, Housing, and Engineering also participated. A Community Liaison Group (CLG) of 30 volunteers was established by the City Council with specified roles: "to provide continuity throughout the vision process, to "watchdog" the process on behalf of the community, to advise the City staff on how to involve the community in the Vision program, and ensure that the public input at each step has been included and fairly represented" (City of Vancouver 1998a, p.2 The group was a self-nominated group of volunteers. The City Council also appointed a City Perspectives Panel of 6 members. They were asked to consider the ideas coming from the community in terms of the question "How does this Vision fit with the bigger picture?" That is the plans for the city and region. The council elaborated its brief with two other related questions about the Visions: "Will they help create the kind of city described

in CityPlan, Vancouver's official plan for the future?"; "Will they cause any problems for other communities?" The City Perspectives Panel provided a commentary for each of the topics in the Dunbar Choices Survey (City of Vancouver 1998a). Outreach activities In order to bring as many people as possible into the project community outreach activities were organized and a weekend Ideas Fair held. A key part of the outreach was a series of intensive public workshops. The Ideas Fair was modelled on a similar and highly successful event in the CityPlan process where people were asked to come along with their ideas (in whatever shape or form) (Riera pers. com.). Some took the opportunity to display their ideas and discuss them with other people, while others simply contributed them for consideration. Community survey The workshops developed ideas and options which were brought together in a community survey (City of Vancouver 1998a). Not only was the survey designed to broaden the basis of community understanding of what had been developed through the Visions process, but it was to produce data on options which would tell the City Council which option to adopt or not. The survey was illustrated with schematic maps and artists impressions. Implementation and monitoring discussion Following the adoption by the City Council of the preferred visions CityPlan staff convened follow-up meetings to discuss the next steps of implementation and monitoring. This process is continuing. DUNBAR COMMUNITY VISION - DIRECTIONS The Vision Directions are organized under seven topics: Shopping areas; Existing single family areas; New housing types; Traffic and transportation; Greening, parks, streets and lanes; Community service and facilities; Other community priorities. The information used in the analysis is taken from the Vision Highlights section of the Dunbar Community Vision (City of Vancouver 1998b, pp. 4-5). Time does not permit a full presentation of all the Vision Directions but I want to provide firstly a summary of those Sustainability Components covered in some way by the community Table 1 and Fig. 4:

Table 1: Summary of Sustainability Components covered by the Vision Directions by Ekistic Elements

EKISTIC

ELEMENTS NUMBER OF

COMPONENTS NUMBER

COVERED NATURE 9 5

ANTHROPOS 5 0 SOCIETY 10 4

SHELLS 4 3 NETWORKS 4 2 SYNTHESIS 1 0

The physical planning context for the Dunbar Vision project is readily evident from the number of components covered in the elements of NATURE, SHELLS and NETWORKS, where at least 50 percent of the Sustainability Components in each Element are addressed. Having said that it is necessary to note that the compatibility of these to the intentions of "sustainability" have not been assessed. This is the evaluation suggested by Marcuse (1998), including the "follow-on effects". Figure 4 shows clearly how the broader social aspects within "sustainability" have been excluded for one reason or another. The place of the individual within a community or neighbourhood (ANTHROPOS) is a notable exclusion if one is thinking in sustainability terms rather than solely in traditional physical planning. We also know of the increasing dependence by city dwellers (at least in North America) on psycho-therapy, and the psychological dysfunction of many individuals across the world. Ironically, near the end of my stay in Vancouver it experienced a recurring problem of random and vicious attacks in the homes of elderly people living alone. Sadly, the official reaction was to instruct people to be suspicious of callers and to look for a law enforcement response. A further stage of my research is to refer these results to the Vancouver City Planners who ran the project to obtain their explanation of the patterns. I will also ask the same question of some of the participants with whom I have maintained email contact through the Monitoring phase of the project.

Fig. 4 Sustainability Components covered by the Vision Directions EKISTIC ELEMENTS

SUSTAINABILITY COMPONENTS

NATURE Geography and earth sciences Ecological systems/conditions (incl. sinks) Water quality Ambient noise levels Energy conservation Solid waste management Air quality Pasture and forests Horticultural land Open space/parks/landscape enhancement ANTHROPOS Self-esteem Human interaction Spirituality Emotion/Love Personal safety SOCIETY Population /demographic characteristics

(incl. employment) Community interaction (social networks) Community services & facilities Education Governance & public participation

(democracy & decision making) Affordable housing & Special Residential

Needs Facilities (SRNF) Economic well-being Community nuisance Community safety Culture & heritage SHELLS Residential types & SRNFs Commercial & industrial Recreational/Leisure Mixed use NETWORKS Vehicular- Road/Rail Pedestrian/cycle Energy technologies Water SYNTHESIS Sustainable community

EXAMPLE OF A DUNBAR COMMUNITY VISION DIRECTION When selecting an example of a Vision Direction to show the type of content my study is handling I decided to follow on with the Personal Safety issue mentioned above by taking the two Community-focused themes found under the Ekistic Element SOCIETY: Community service and facilities and Other community priorities.

___________________________________________________________ Community Service and Facilities Helping those with special needs "More efforts should be made to allow seniors and others with special needs to continue to live in Dunbar if they choose, through additional volunteer support services and alternative housing options. The talents and energies of Dunbar's youth should be actively encouraged to contribute to the community, and the special needs of youth better recognized and addressed. A community policing centre should be established." The Approved Vision Directions concern: Services and Facilities • Home support for people with needs • Special needs residential facilities • Library (improvements; siting) • Youth services and improvements • Community health services (local clinic) Safety • Community crime prevention Vision Directions considered but not approved concern: Services and Facilities (none) Safety (none) ___________________________________________________________ Other Community Priorities Community involvement and identity "Dunbar residents have a high level of community spirit and voluntarism and are keenly interested in participating in decisions that will affect them. There is great potential for building community spirit and identity which should be pursued through collaborative projects in implementing this Vision. Implementation should also involve residents in important decisions on neighbourhood change."

The Approved Vision Directions concern: Home-based Work • Supports for home-based work Recycling, Conservation, Water Quality, and Noise Control • Local recycling (encouragement) • Collection of household hazardous wastes (service required) • Energy and water conservation and water quality (action required) • Noise control (reduction required) • Airport noise (hold Airport authority to commitments) Community Identity and Community Building • Community identity and community building (improvements) Community Involvement in Decision Making • Community involvement in decision making (more timely input) Vision Directions considered but not approved concern: Home-based Work • More flexibility for home-based work (loosen regulations) Recycling, Conservation, Water Quality, and Noise Control (none) Community Identity and Community Building (none) Community Involvement in Decision Making (none) ___________________________________________________________

CONCLUSIONS Since this paper began by assuming a benefit from adopting the five Ekistic Elements as the initial base for the development of a generic framework, it is appropriate to examine that assumption. The assumed benefit was that further development of the framework would be comprehensive. That is, it would ensure a full range of categories for a typology of a sustainable community. Using the European community’s sustainability indicators as a comparison, the scope of the Ekistic Elements was confirmed. It was especially useful in highlighting the absence of thought on indicators relating to the place of the individual (Anthropos) when looking at urban sustainability.

In addition, further work should proceed to apply the full Anthropocosmos model (Fig. 2) to an evaluation of the sustainability components. This will clarify the relevant spatial units, units of time, desirability and feasibility. Such an exrcise may also suggest extensions to the Anthropocosmos model. The second aspect of this conclusion is that have limited this paper to methodological aspects: the development of criteria, and the public participation process, within a larger project to consider the question whether it is possible to move an existing "neighbourhood" towards becoming a "sustainable community" through a process of determining long-term planning objectives and policies? Four key aspects within the case study need to be acknowledged from the discussion so far. CityPlan Context The first is the influence of the CityPlan of the Community Vision Directions. I need to remind us all that this City Council Vision Programme was not initiated with Sustainable Communities as an explicit outcome. Indeed it was intended to be a way of improving people's understanding of the CityPlan. I have no quibble with that. What it does remind us, however, is the way the starting point (the CityPlan framework) and the related checklist served to constrain the community debate. I can only speculate at this stage, but I suspect that if the CityPlan framework had been replaced with a Sustainable Neighbourhood concept (with appropriate guidelines along the lines of my Sustainable Components (see Fig.2)), then the coverage of the Vision Directions would have been broader. Furthermore, it would not have had such a strong physical planning direction and, therefore, the mix of participants would have been greater. We probably would have more ecologically-minded folk involved, and even some who would have taken up the ANTHROPOS element. Public Participation The second part of the Conclusion concerns the way Public Participation was handled both in the process of determining Vision Directions, and within the Vision Direction under Community Involvement in Decision Making. Not only was there an explicit commitment to public participation in the project, following directions from CityPlan, but it was a comprehensive programme with a variety of components. While many municipalities would have been content to end the process at the stage where the "Group of 30" made its recommendations based on its public consultations, the City Council went further. Firstly it subjected the recommendations to a community survey. Secondly, as shown in the examples of Vision Directions on community aspects, the City Council only approved those recommendations where there was a majority "vote" in favour according to the Survey. So, for example, it did not approve the recommendation that there be more flexibility for home-based work by loosening the regulations, because it did not have a majority of local support. Thirdly, the council has set up a process for deciding how the community wants to monitor the way the Council is implementing its decisions on the Vision Directions. This latter action maintains community participation well beyond the project itself, enabling a continuing dialogue on local issues. This opportunity has stimulated people who participated in the Vision project to agree to a more formal basis for their interaction, and the establishment of a World Wide Web page on the Internet (www.archives.talklist.com/forms/dunbar/). This work in on-going. The interest in establishing a community organisation and a means of communication through the Internet connects well with what was asked for under Community Involvement in Decision Making. The Vision Direction approved by the Council was "to have more timely input." Timeliness is a common criticism in

the area of participation, and this clearly indicates it is a current shortcoming in the Council's procedures. What I think is worth speculating on, is whether the level of organization intended for continued implementation of the project will result in a more focused body which will want to see that it not only gets information in a more timely way, but that the Council acts on the advice that comes in response. If this comes about we will have a good connection with the aspirations of the Public Participation chapter in Agenda 21 . Coverage of Vision Directions The third point concerns the result of the analysis of coverage when the Vision Directions are compared with an "ideal" set of Sustainability Components. Even recognizing that the components may have limitations, there is a clear picture provided in Figure 4 showing where there are gaps in the Dunbar work. I have already raised two reasons why this may have come about: the fact that the project was not initiated under a Sustainability banner, and the way it was grounded in CityPlan, thereby providing a traditional physical planning context. Role for Sustainability Appraisal Fourth, there is a further question which I will raise but do not intend to answer here. That is, does the project I have outlined suggest a role for a Sustainability Appraisal? By this I mean an extension of the UK developed process of an Environmental Appraisal which is used in relation to policies, plans and programmes. Such an approach would address one of the concerns about the Vancouver project; that is, a lack of systematic and transparent assessment of the ecological, social, economic and political effects of the Vision Directions recommended to the City Council. If there had been an evaluation which went further than an external review panel providing a commentary for the Survey, especially one which looked both at each Direction but also the possible relationship (especially contradictions) between them , we may feel more comfortable about tying the decisions of City Councillors to them. We may also have a set of Directions which could be considered as contributing to sustainable development in Vancouver City.

REFERENCES

Bly, Robert, 1998: A Little Book on the Human Shadow, (William Booth, editor), HarperSan Francisco. Carley, Michael and Philippe Spapens, 1998: Sharing the World: SustainableLiving & Global Equity

in the 21st Century, London: Earthscan. City of Vancouver, n.d.: CityPlan Community Visions: Set a Course for Your Community's Future...

(pamphlet on the Community Visions Programme), Vancouver: Vancouver City Council. City of Vancouver, 1995: CityPlan: Directions for Vancouver, Vancouver, B.C.: Vancouver City Council. City of Vancouver, 1996: CityPlan Community Visions: Terms of Reference, Vancouver: Vancouver

City Council. City of Vancouver, 1998a: Dunbar Choices Survey, Vancouver, B.C.: Vancouver City Council (February). City of Vancouver, 1998b: Dunbar Community Vision, Vancouver, B.C.: Vancouver City Council

(Early Release Copy). City of Vancouver, 1998c: Cycling in Vancouver 1998/99, Vancouver, B.C.:Vancouver City Council

(Pamphlet with map). CLTM (Dutch Committee for Long-Term Environmental Policy), 1995: The

Environment: Towards a Sustainable Future, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Department of the Environment, 1993: Environmental Appraisal of Development Plans: A Good Practice Guide, London: OHMS.

Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions, 1998: Planning for Sustainable Development: Towards Better Practice, London: OHMS.

Doxiadis, C.A., 1968: Ekistics: The Science of Human Settlements, New York: Hutchinson. Doxiadis, C.A., 1974a: The great urban crimes we permit by law, Ekistics 219 (Feb.), pp.85-88. Doxiadis, C.A., 1974b: Anthropolis, City for Human Development, Athens: Athens Publishing Centre. Doxiadis, C.A. with John Papaioannou, 1974c: Ecumenopolis, the Inevitable City of the Future,

Athens: Athens Publishing Centre. Doxiadis, C.A., 1975: Building Entopia, Athens: Athens Publishing Centre. Doxiadis, C.A., 1976: Action for Human Settlements, Athens: Athens Publishing Centre. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, 1998: Redefining

Concepts, Challenges and Practices of Urban Sustainability, The Foundation, Dublin. Marcuse, Peter, 1998: Sustainability is not enough, Environment and Urbanization,10 (2), October,

pp. 103-111. Mega, Voula, 1996: Our City, Our Future: Towards Sustainable Development in European Cities,

Environment and Urbanization, 18(1), April, pp.133-154. Mitlin, D., 1992: Sustainable development: a guide to the literature,Environment and Urbanization,

4(1), April, pp. 111-124. Nijkamp, Peter and Gerard Pepping, 1998: A Meta-analytical Evaluation of Sustainable City

Initiatives, Urban Studies, 35 (9), 1481-1500. OECD, 1994: Cities for the 21st Century, Paris: OECD. Roseland, Mark, 1998: Toward Sustainable Communities: Resources for Citizens and their

Governments, Cabriola Island, B.C: New Society Publishers (revised edition). Satterthwaite, David, 1997: Sustainable Cities or Cities that Contribute to Sustainable Development,

Urban Studies, 34 (10), pp. 1667-1691. Sustainable Cities Revisited (whole issue), Environment and Urbanization, 10 (2),

October 1998. Therivel, Riki (ed.), 1995: Environmental Appraisal of development Plans 2: 1992-1995,

WorkingPaper, School of Planning, Oxford Brookes, No. 160, (June). Wackernagel, Mathis and William Rees, 1996: Our Ecological Footprint: ReducingHuman Impact

on the Earth, New Catalyst Bioregional Series: 9, Gabriola Island, B.C, Canada: New Society Publishers.

NOTES 1. This paper for the conference “Shaping the Sustainable Millennium: Collaborative

Approaches” is drawn from a series of seminars and draft manuscripts written over the past 18 months. The latter is being considered for publication as an Occasional Paper by the Centre for Human Settlements, University of British Columbia. The example used in this paper is only one of several covering the scope of the Ekistics model and developed in the manuscript.

2. Doxiadis worked with a large number of eminent thinkers from all disciplines and fields of

knowledge affecting life in human settlements during the period 1956 to 1975, including Arnold Toynbee, Buckminster Fuller, Margaret Mead, Barbara Ward, Sir Robert Matthew, and Jean Gottmann, which culminated in a major presentation by the World Society for Ekistics at the 1976 UN Conference on Human Settlements (HABITAT) in Vancouver.