Integrated Community Sustainability Planning:
A Comparative Case Study
A Master’s Report submission to the School of Urban and Regional Planning in conformity with
the requirements for the degree of Master of Urban and Regional Planning
Brandon Williams
July, 2013
Queen’s University
Kingston, Ontario, Canada
i
Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................................3
CHAPTER 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................4
1.1 THE NEED FOR SUSTAINABILITY .................................................................................................................. 4
1.2 INTEGRATED COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY PLANNING ................................................................................... 4
1.3 CURRENT GAPS IN KNOWLEDGE ................................................................................................................. 5
1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND CONTRIBUTION TO KNOWLEDGE.......................................................................... 5
CHAPTER 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW......................................................................................................6
2.1 INTEGRATING SUSTAINABILITY APPROACHES ................................................................................................ 6
2.2 ACHIEVING MULTIPLE BENEFITS ................................................................................................................. 7
2.3 ASPECTS OF SUCCESSFUL ICSPS ................................................................................................................. 7
2.3.1 Content of an ICSP ....................................................................................................................... 7
2.3.2 Long-term Goals, Support & Monitoring ..................................................................................... 8
2.3.3 Multi-Stakeholder Participation .................................................................................................. 8
2.4 THE BARRIERS TO ICSP IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................................................... 9
2.4.1 Established Knowledge? .............................................................................................................. 9
2.4.2 Conflicts of Interest ................................................................................................................... 10
2.4.3 Public Participation ................................................................................................................... 10
2.4.4 Lack of Funding.......................................................................................................................... 11
2.4.5 Other Challenges ....................................................................................................................... 11
2.5 THE METHODS OF ICSP RESEARCHERS ...................................................................................................... 11
2.6 CASE STUDIES ....................................................................................................................................... 12
2.7 ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK THEMES .......................................................................................................... 13
2.8 SUMMARY REMARKS ............................................................................................................................. 13
CHAPTER 3.0 METHODS ................................................................................................................... 15
3.1 GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE .............................................................................................................................. 15
3.2 DATA SOURCES ..................................................................................................................................... 15
3.2.1 Policy Document Review ........................................................................................................... 15
3.2.2 Minutes from Public Committee Meetings................................................................................ 16
3.2.3 Semi-structured Interviews........................................................................................................ 16
3.3 DATA ANALYSIS:.................................................................................................................................... 18
CHAPTER 4.0 RESULTS ...................................................................................................................... 19
4.1 POLICY DOCUMENT REVIEW .................................................................................................................... 19
4.1.1 Thematic Analysis Findings from Policy Documents ................................................................. 19
4.1.2 Absent and Emerging Themes from Policy Documents ............................................................. 23
4.2 ANALYSIS OF MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES........................................................................... 25
4.2.1 Thematic Analysis Findings from Meeting Minutes .................................................................. 25
4.2.2 Absent and Emerging Themes from Analysis of Committee Meetings ..................................... 28
1
4.3 INTERVIEW ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................. 29
4.3.1 Thematic Analysis of In-depth Interviews ................................................................................. 29
4.3.2 Absent and Emerging Themes from the Interview Analysis ...................................................... 32
CHAPTER 5.0 DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................ 33
5.1 STRATEGIES EMPLOYED BY KINGSTON AND MARKHAM TO IMPLEMENT THEIR ICSPS ........................................ 33
5.1.1 Governance ............................................................................................................................... 33
5.1.2 Monitoring & Reporting ............................................................................................................ 35
5.1.3 Succession of Plans .................................................................................................................... 35
5.2 HOW SUSTAINABILITY IDEAS ARE BEING TAKEN UP BY CITY STAFF ................................................................. 36
5.2.1 Markham ................................................................................................................................... 36
5.2.2 Kingston..................................................................................................................................... 37
5.3 THE FACILITATORS AND BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTING ICSPS ........................................................................ 38
5.3.1 Facilitators ................................................................................................................................. 38
5.3.2 Barriers ...................................................................................................................................... 39
5.4 LIMITATIONS......................................................................................................................................... 40
5.5 LESSONS LEARNED & NEXT STEPS ............................................................................................................ 40
CHAPTER 6.0 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 42
BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................................................................................................. 43
2
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Patricia Collins, for all of her support throughout this
study. I would also like to thank the interview participants from Kingston and Markham for taking time
from their busy schedules to contribute. This study was made possible by funding from the Social
Sciences & Humanities Research Council as well as the Senate Advisory Research Committee, Queen’s
University.
3
Chapter 1.0 Introduction
Modern sustainability discourse is about challenging the traditional habits that influence
decision-making (Gibson, 2006). Recently, sustainability assessment programs have become more and
more widespread amongst various agencies and levels of government around the world (Gibson, 2006).
Today, municipalities are moving towards incorporating sustainability into their daily practices in a more
coordinated and comprehensive fashion. One technique to doing this is through integrated community
sustainability (ICS) planning. This report examines the facilitators and barriers to implementing
Integrated Community Sustainability Plans (ICSPs) in mid-sized municipalities in Ontario.
1.1 The Need for Sustainability
The influence of humans on the planet is causing an alarmingly fast rate of change,
environmental degradation, and social inequities (WCED, 1987). Poverty and inequity lead governments
to exploit their natural resources for sustenance, which results in further depletion of the environment
(WCED, 1987). The modern concept of environmental sustainability springs from these issues. It was
most famously stated by the World Commission on Environment and Development that these alarming
trends must cease in order to preserve resources for future generations (WCED, 1987).
Unsustainable practices can even be found in mid-sized municipalities in Canada. A large
number of mid-sized cities display trends toward increasing suburbanization and limited growth in their
urban cores (Seasons, 2003; Bourne, 2000). This results in increased sprawl and reliance on fossil fuels,
which increases pollution and congestion, and results in large economic losses in productivity (CMHC,
2003). Municipalities of this size also face a number of other challenges including a lack of funding,
infrastructure deficits, and brownfields (Seasons, 2003).
1.2 Integrated Community Sustainability Planning
This report is concerned with one approach to increasing sustainability, called integrated
community sustainability (ICS) planning. ICS planning entails an interdepartmental, coordinated, and
inclusive approach. It uses various municipal plans, public participation processes, and financial
incentives in order to achieve sustainability goals (AMO, 2007). A key instrument of ICS planning involves
imbedding sustainability goals and principles in an overarching plan, called an Integrated Community
Sustainability Plan (ICSP). An ICSP is a long-term plan, developed with community consultation, which
4
outlines directions the community can take towards achieving goals across environmental, social,
cultural, and economic pillars (AMO, 2007). A recent growth in support for ICS planning in Canadian
municipalities can be partially attributed to the Federal Gas Tax Program. This program can be used to
award Federal Government funds to municipalities that develop ICSPs, or for municipalities that amend
their Official Plans to reflect the principles of an ICSP (AMO, 2007).
1.3 Current Gaps in Knowledge
Much of the literature regarding ICS planning practices focuses on cities outside Canada, or very
large or completely new Canadian cities. Little research has been conducted on mid-sized Canadian
municipalities (population 50,000 – 500,000), of which there are many. In addition, there is
disagreement in the literature as to how well municipal staff and councillors link short-term problems to
long-term sustainability goals (Adger et al., 2003; van Bueren & ten Heuvelhof, 2005; Parkinson &
Roseland, 2002; Connelly et al., 2009).
1.4 Research Questions and Contribution to Knowledge
This study examined the planning-implementation processes of ICSPs for two mid-sized
municipalities in Ontario – City of Kingston and City of Markham. The study was guided by the following
research questions:
1) What strategies are being employed within the cities of Kingston and Markham to implement
the ideas contained within their ICSPs?
2) How are these ideas being taken up by City staff?
3) What are the facilitators and barriers to successful implementation of these ideas?
These research questions were addressed through the use of semi-structured interviews with key
planners and stakeholders in each municipality as well as document review of ICSPs, strategic plans, and
minutes from public meetings. Answering the research questions will offer lessons into the successes
and challenges confronted by mid-sized municipalities engaged in this novel approach to planning for
sustainable communities.
5
Chapter 2.0 Literature Review
One of the fundamental concepts of the sustainability discourse is the integration of economic,
social and environmental pillars (WCED, 1987). In order for a society to become sustainable, it must
balance the needs of these pillars as equally as possible (AMO, 2007). Current literature suggests we
should avoid viewing problems as being isolated in individual pillars, and instead emphasize the
interconnectedness of sustainability issues (Gibson, 2006; Ling et al., 2009).
The unsustainable practices today are as much do to with social and economic reasons as
environmental (Gibson, 2006). For example, unsustainable land use practice (suburban sprawl) stems
from the socio-cultural need for personal space, and is encouraged by mass production of larger houses
and cars. The causes for these unsustainable trends are inter-related amongst economic, social, and
environmental pillars (WCED, 1987).
2.1 Integrating Sustainability Approaches
Traditionally, indicators that planners used to determine if a community was functional fell into
three broad categories: economic, social, and environmental. In the past, these categories were typically
evaluated independently (Seasons, 2003). Ling et al. (2009) state that one of the four main challenges to
ICS planning is integration: sustainability projects are usually stand-alone, and they must be better
integrated into a general sustainability policy. This requires more effective knowledge dissemination
within municipalities (Ling et al., 2009).
One big step towards looking at sustainability as an integrated problem occurred when two
fundamental sustainability issues - the growing class segregation between rich and poor and the
degradation of the natural environment - were linked by the 1980 World Conservation Strategy (Gibson,
2006). It was finally recognized that species cannot be preserved without their habitat, and habitats
cannot be preserved without local livelihood security (Gibson, 2006).
Once this link was made, it brought about the realization that development and the
environment are interconnected in the real world (WCED, 1987). The key to sustainability is to think of
humans and human systems (both social and economic) as integrated with, and part of, a larger
ecological system (Van der Ryn & Calthorpe, 1986; Hough, 1990a). This notion is best summed up by
Durley (2007), who stated that the social, economic, and environmental goals of ICS planning are all
components in a system.
6
2.2 Achieving Multiple Benefits
The goal of community sustainability should not be growth at any cost, but strategic
opportunities for economic, social, and environmental enhancement (Ling et al., 2009). Thus,
municipalities should embrace operations that encourage sustainability across all departments (FCM,
2008). Investment in environmentally friendly projects and activities also lead to an increase in
economic and social capital (FCM, 2008). For example, investment in wetland conservation areas with
trails can provide environmental services such as water purification and flood retention, cultural services
such as educational and exercise opportunities, and economic services like revenues from eco-tourism
(McInnes, 2011).
Another example of potential sustainable development can be taken from communities with
thriving downtown cores. A strong core area provides a positive sense of place and community and
attracts economic investment (Seasons, 2003). A strong downtown may also have environmental
benefits, such as the reduction of sprawl, and reduction of dependence on the automobile.
2.3 Aspects of Successful ICSPs
It has been argued that preservation of the critical environmental resources that sustain us, such
as fresh air, water, and food, should be a number one priority (Hough, 1990b; WCED, 1987). Sustainable
projects should also strive to achieve multiple gains, not just the mitigation of impacts (Gibson, 2006).
When considering the overall goals of ICSPs, humans should harmonize with, and use nature as an
inspiration for more sustainable designs (Todd, 1986). An example of this harmonization is the “green
burial”, allowing the body to decompose naturally and without chemicals, leaving less waste and using
less resources than traditional burials (Hearn, 2011). The following sections will review the literature on
the content, governance, and participatory aspects that should be included in the ICSP.
2.3.1 Content of an ICSP
Research suggests that ICSPs should be specifically concerned with treatment of wastewater,
reliable clean drinking water, watershed protection, climate change, air quality, integrated community
energy systems, waste, brownfields, pesticides, and biodiversity (FCM, 2008). Equally as important,
today’s infrastructure policy and implementation will influence patterns of energy and resource use in
7
the long-term (FCM, 2008). Ling et al. (2009) state that the ICSP should aim to increase the effectiveness
of infrastructure by reducing the energy use and maintenance costs, having equal access for all people,
and sustaining ecological systems.
2.3.2 Long-term Goals, Support & Monitoring
Important components of implementing an ICSP include long term goals and visions that
address concerns across all the pillars of sustainability and that could survive with broad support and
long-term political will (Adger et al., 2003; Connelly et al., 2009). Other keys to long-term support and
implementation include governments and communities willing to take steps beyond their traditional
mandates, project-based sustainability initiatives that engage multiple sectors, and demonstration
projects (Adger et al., 2003; Connelly et al., 2009).
In order to determine if ICSP implementation is successful, planners are in need of a concrete
way of judging their actions and overall impact on the community (Murtagh, 1998). One way of doing
this is through consistent, steady evaluation processes and monitoring, while using appropriate
indicators (Seasons, 2003). Studying similar initiatives from elsewhere, and simple, non-technical criteria
for evaluating proposals helps make this task easier (Adger et al., 2003; Connelly et al., 2009).
2.3.3 Multi-Stakeholder Participation
The most important aspect of any ICSP is public participation and interdepartmental
cooperation. These can be achieved through active community champions, identification of a key issue
that conjures up the broadest public support, and proactively seeking alliances and partnerships with
other organizations (Adger et al., 2003; Connelly et al., 2009). ICS planning must involve comprehensive
policy approaches in line with financial incentives, such as a break in development charges for green
buildings with LEED certification (Ling et al., 2009).
The Federal and Ontario Provincial Governments support that ICS planning should entail an
intensive public participation process, and a coordinated interdepartmental approach, using various
plans, processes, and financial incentives to achieve sustainability goals (AMO, 2007; FCM, 2008). Ling et
al. (2009) state that ICS planning must be participatory and context-specific. Collaboration and inclusion
of the public in the decision-making process helps promote buy-in by the public, and also helps instill a
sense of shared responsibility by having all stakeholders present and mutually agree upon future goals
8
(Bohunovsky et al., 2010). ICSPs should also include an ecosystem approach, accountability, consistency
amongst municipalities, and proper monitoring (FCM, 2008; Crawhall, 2011; OPPI, 2011).
By using collaborative multi-stakeholder participation, governments and the community as a
whole can identify beneficial goals and actions towards sustainability (Connelly et al., 2009). Processes
identifying the goals and trade-offs of the ICSP should be iterative, as options and opinions evolve over
time (Gibson, 2006). To be effective and encourage long-term support, justifications must be based on
context-specific goals and sustainability criteria, which are agreed upon by all affected parties in an open
process (Gibson, 2006). An open process and public engagement are key to determining long-term goals
that all stakeholders will support (AMO, 2007; Gibson, 2006). A thorough explanation of the
participatory process helps to encourage participation from stakeholders, as well as helping to avoid
fear of persecution for their ideas, or in the case of decision makers, to avoid the fear of a loss of power
(Bohunovsky et al., 2010).
2.4 The Barriers to ICSP Implementation
Governments now have to find a way of implementing the sustainability practices they preach
(Gibson, 2006). The implementation of a policy is as important to ICS planning as the quality of the ideas
behind the policy (Hanna, 2005). Most planners in Canadian mid-sized cities still use primarily economic
indicators to judge their planning impacts (Seasons, 2003; Adger et al., 2003; van Bueren & ten
Heuvelhof, 2005; Parkinson & Roseland, 2002; Connelly et al., 2009). Thus in practice, the environmental
and social goals that are integral to ICS planning are still not considered as equal priorities.
2.4.1 Established Knowledge?
Researchers’ opinions are split on whether the knowledge and awareness of sustainability
principles is widespread in municipal governments. Connelly et al. (2009) state that barriers to
implementing ICS plans are not due to a lack of established knowledge or principles, but instead due to a
lack of effective communication between various government departments, along with a lack of political
will. On the other hand, some argue that barriers to ICS implementation include a lack of awareness of
the degree of impact of unsustainable practices, and the lack of a connection made by municipal council
decision-makers between short-term problems and long-term sustainable goals (Adger et al., 2003; van
Bueren & ten Heuvelhof, 2005; Parkinson & Roseland, 2002; Connelly et al., 2009).
9
2.4.2 Conflicts of Interest
Municipalities often find themselves at odds with mandates from other levels or departments of
their own governments (Ling et al., 2009). Policies and by-laws sometimes work against sustainability
goals. For example, banning clotheslines encourages energy use from dryers, and overnight parking bans
encourage each person to own a driveway or garage (Ling et al., 2009). Conflicting political and interagency agendas, conflicts of interest and political pressures are listed as serious barriers to
implementation by many authors (Connelly et al., 2009; WCED, 1987; Hough 1990a; Durley, 2007;
Webler & Tuler, 2001).
The problem with contradiction and conflict is not just limited to internal policies or by-laws. In
practice, the very goals of sustainability inevitably contradict each other. For example, are
improvements to industry that bring efficiency of resources considered sustainable, even if it means a
loss in jobs? Ultimately, sustainability decisions require trade-offs (Gibson, 2006). The absence of
mutually agreed upon sustainability principles between governments and the communities they serve is
another barrier to implementing ICS plans (Connelly et al., 2009).
2.4.3 Public Participation
One of the most important aspects of integrated community sustainability planning - public
participation - is not without its own set of barriers. Working together and promoting regional
cooperation can be seen by some local governments and citizens as a “relocation of power” away from
the community (Ling et al., 2009, p. 232). Not only that, but it is extremely difficult to include all
stakeholders equally. From decision makers to members of the public who are affected by, or will affect
the environment, it is difficult to identify and include everyone, and there is an inherent risk of bias if
anyone is left out (Bohunovsky et al., 2010). Balancing multi-stakeholder goals and objectives is a
significant barrier to ICSP implementation (Adger et al., 2003; van Bueren & ten Heuvelhof, 2005;
Parkinson & Roseland, 2002; Connelly et al., 2009).
Other barriers to public participation include time constraints for stakeholders (i.e. work and
family commitments), the impatience of stakeholders to wait for research processes (i.e. they want
results in the short-term), and language barriers (Bohunovsky et al., 2010). The final problem with public
participation lies in the very nature of ICSPs; since they are long-term plans, ICSPs can suffer from a lack
of public participation simply due to apathy (Durley, 2007; Webler & Tuler, 2001).
10
2.4.4 Lack of Funding
As in any municipal government, another common problem is funding. Lack of funding,
resources, personnel, and staff time for governing bodies are very common barriers to implementing ICS
plans (WCED, 1987; Hough 1990a; Van der Ryn & Calthorpe, 1986; Seasons, 2003; Crawhall, 2011; OPPI,
2011). Watershed plans, and similarly ICS plans, are long-term and require consistent funding (Durley,
2007; Webler & Tuler, 2001). Similarly, lack of funding for ICS research is common due to the
uncertainty of participatory outcomes. The goals and outcomes of the project are unknown and must be
agreed upon during the project, after its initiation. This is an inherent risk for the funding agency, as the
goals may turn out to be in conflict with their own, or progress may be slow to establish any agreed
upon goals at all (Bohunovsky et al., 2010).
2.4.5 Other Challenges
Other challenges specific to ICS planning in mid-sized municipalities (population 50,000 –
500,000) may include rapid population growth, resource inefficiency, brownfields, aging infrastructure,
inner-city school closures, urban/rural fringe conflicts, and the decline of the downtown core (WCED,
1987; Hough 1990a; Van der Ryn & Calthorpe, 1986; Seasons 2003). Cities without core areas often lack
the critical mass necessary for sustainable projects (e.g., transit systems) to be viable (Seasons, 2003).
2.5 The Methods of ICSP Researchers
Though there are multiple methods for studying integrated community sustainability initiatives,
the majority of researchers favour in-depth case study analysis as their method of choice (Connelly et
al., 2009; Bohunovsky et al., 2010; Ling et al., 2009). Case-study analysis is very useful for contextspecific and complex social processes, such as ICS planning (Yin, 2009). Cases are usually selected based
on a variety of factors that are relevant to the research question, such as cases that are recognized by
sustainable awards programs, scope and comprehensiveness of the implementation of the project, the
impact on the community, and the relationship with certain aspects of planning (Connelly et al., 2009).
In the literature, authors drew from multiple sources of data. Some used document review,
surveys and stakeholder workshops, while others used public meetings and the comment and review
periods for watershed plans as sources of data (Durley, 2007; Bohunovsky et al., 2010). Literature
review, public document review, and interviews with key leaders involved in sustainability programs
11
were also used as data sources (Ling et al., 2009; Seasons, 2003). In one study, capacity building for ICS
planning was evaluated by applying criteria from the literature to analyze planning documents,
organizational structure and function, existing partnerships for data sharing, public workshop results,
and municipal council comments regarding watershed plans (Durley, 2007). All of these studies
demonstrate how multiple sources of evidence are used to study ICS planning.
Once data was collected, some studies then set out a theoretical framework to interpret the
results. One of the favoured frameworks was the systems perspective. One study, which used a systems
perspective to address the planning-implementation gap, used community stakeholders, goals and
visions, governance structure, policy mechanisms, and outcomes as the five interdependent elements
that make up a system for community decision making (Connelly et al., 2009). Each element from the
systems perspective was examined in each case, through multiple sources including planning
documents, community profiles, and semi-structured interviews with municipal council staff, politicians,
and community members (Connelly et al., 2009). Research questions were then applied to strategically
seek out the relevant information to the study.
2.6 Case Studies
The Natural Step Scan of Best Practices report examined the practices of three municipalities –
Halifax Regional Municipality, District of North Vancouver, Region of York - that were considered to have
some success with integrating sustainability into governance and decision-making processes (TNS,
2011). A brief overview of the three municipalities examined in the report are included below.
Halifax Regional Municipality, Nova Scotia
Halifax Regional Municipality (HRM) identified and explicitly stated sustainability as one of its
major goals, and then used an external set of sustainability principles (from the Natural Step) because of
its ability to establish a common knowledge of sustainability amongst municipal staff and the public.
Sustainability was set as a corporate priority, meaning all departmental business plans, corporate
decisions, and actions must explain how they are working toward the stated goals.
Administratively, HRM performed a corporate wide sustainability analysis to identify gaps in the
implementation process as well as key priorities for the future. A Sustainability Transition Team was
formed, involving 20 municipal staff members at senior, intermediate, and junior levels, who helped to
disseminate knowledge and facilitate faster decision-making.
12
District of North Vancouver, British Columbia
The District of North Vancouver (DNV) serves as another example of good ICS planning.
Internally, regular reminders from senior level management and the Mayor illustrate the support to
integrate sustainability into all departments. The DNV used open staff-council dialogues, a multistakeholder symposium, and established an advisory group to determine a future vision document. This
document informed the public, Council, and staff of agreed upon sustainability goals.
Region of York, Ontario
The Region of York was the last exemplary case study examined by The Natural Step Scan of Best
Practices report. Council adopted actions that all strategies and documents (such as official plans), as
well as decisions and corporate actions, must address how sustainability is being demonstrated.
Internally, a cross-departmental technical group coordinates sustainability activities across the
municipality. Finally, the Region uses report cards and invites external agencies (for example, York
University, The Natural Step, local stakeholders, etc.) to review their sustainability initiatives.
2.7 Analytical Framework Themes
Eleven common themes were identified in the literature regarding the successes and barriers of
the planning-implementation process. These themes were used as the key components of the analytical
framework of this study, and are presented in Table 1.
2.8 Summary Remarks
Integrated community sustainability planning is an attempt to encourage improvements in the
economic, social, and environmental pillars. ICS planning utilizes inter-departmental cooperation and
public participation as key aspects in achieving this goal. Researchers have used case-study analysis to
determine how well these ICSPs are being implemented. The literature is clear that from conflicts of
interest to a lack of funding, ICS planners everywhere face a multitude of barriers. However, the
literature also lacks research into ICS planning implementation in mid-sized Ontarian cities.
13
Table 1: Analytical Framework based on Emergent Themes from the Literature
Theme
1) Long-term, broad
coverage
2) Public Engagement
3) Case Studies
4) Partnerships
5) Embedded in other
documents
6) Internal communication
7) Monitoring
8) Demonstration projects
9) Champions
10) Financial Incentives
11) Barriers
Description
Long term goals across all pillars of
sustainability, and broad political
support
A transparent, iterative, and open
public participation process
Using case studies and best
management practices from elsewhere
Alliances and partnerships with other
organizations
Constant and persistent reference to
sustainability goals in all reports,
recommendations, actions, and plans
Regular communication between
municipal departments regarding
sustainability, or an inter-departmental
sustainability group
Consistent evaluation processes and
monitoring of projects and policies
using more than just traditional
economic indicators. This also includes
internal analysis to determine
opportunities for improvement in
municipal processes, i.e. a sustainability
audit
Project-based sustainability initiatives
and demonstration projects that engage
the public and multiple sectors
Active community or municipal
champions
Policy approaches in line with financial
incentives
Common barriers to implementation
i. Intra-governmental and external
conflicts of interest
ii. Difficulty representing all
stakeholders equally, and balancing
goals
iii. Lack of funding and resources
References
Adger et al., 2003; Connelly et
al., 2009; TNS, 2009
Gibson, 2006; Bohunovsky et
al., 2010; Connelly et al., 2009
Adger et al., 2003; Connelly et
al., 2009
Adger et al., 2003; Connelly et
al., 2009; TNS, 2009
TNS, 2009
TNS, 2009
Seasons, 2003; van Bueren &
ten Heuvelhof, 2005;
Parkinson & Roseland, 2002;
TNS, 2009
Adger et al., 2003; Connelly et
al., 2009
Adger et al., 2003; Connelly et
al., 2009
Ling et al., 2009; AMO, 2007;
FCM, 2008
WCED, 1987; Van der Ryn &
Calthorpe, 1986; Seasons,
2003; Crawhall, 2011; OPPI,
2011; Ling et al., 2009;
Connelly et al., 2009; Adger et
al., 2003; van Bueren & ten
Heuvelhof, 2005; Parkinson &
Roseland, 2002
14
Chapter 3.0 Methods
The research questions for this study are:
1. What strategies are being employed within the City of Kingston and the City of Markham to
implement the ideas contained within their ICSPs?
2. How are these ideas being taken up by City staff?
3. What are the facilitators and barriers to successful implementation of these ideas?
The research employed a case study methodology, which is ideal for studies incorporating
multiple sources of evidence, and for examining context-specific and complex social processes, such as
ICS planning (Yin, 2009). Data were collected primarily through semi-structured interviews with staff
from each municipality. Triangulation occurred through the review of policy documents and minutes
from public meetings with municipal committees from each municipality.
3.1 Geographic Scope
The geographic scope of this study was two mid-sized (population 50,000 – 500,000)
municipalities in Ontario: the City of Kingston in eastern Ontario and the City of Markham in southern
Ontario. Kingston and Markham were chosen because each municipality has an established ICSP, and
they are comparable in terms of population, patterns of development, and economic profiles. Examining
mid-sized Ontario municipalities like Kingston and Markham will illuminate how the unique issues that
they face, such as limited revenues, infrastructure deficits and brownfields (Seasons, 2003), influence
their capacities to implement ICSPs.
3.2 Data Sources
3.2.1 Policy Document Review
The first source of data for the study was policy documents from each site, which was most
useful in addressing the first research question. The policy document review helped identify what
explicit direction and guidelines are being given to municipal staff regarding the planningimplementation process. The planning documents also illustrated how goals in the plans are linked to
sustainability principles. Electronic versions of the ICSPs from each municipality (the Sustainable
15
Kingston Plan and Markham’s Greenprint Plan) were obtained for review. In addition, strategic plans
from each municipality (Kingston’s Strategic Plan 2011-2014 and Building Markham’s Future Together)
were reviewed. The strategic plans offered insights as to each municipality’s corporate strategy, and
how City Council’s sustainability priorities will be implemented by various departments.
3.2.2 Minutes from Public Committee Meetings
The second source of data for the study was meeting minutes from selected municipal
committees in Kingston and Markham, to address the second research question. The descriptions of
municipal committees from each municipality were consulted to determine which public meeting
minutes to examine. Meetings were selected based on whether there was significant content that
directly related to sustainability principles on the agenda. Meetings were screened starting from the
most recent. From Kingston, the Environment, Infrastructure & Transportation Policies (EITP)
Committee was chosen to review. This committee reviews policy associated with environmental issues,
transportation, infrastructure, utilities, and waste. The EITP Committee is one of four standing
committees in Kingston, comprised exclusively of city councillors. From Markham, the General
Committee was chosen. This committee is concerned with environmental and sustainability issues,
building and parks, as well as more broad subjects such as finance and community services. Although
this committee has a much broader mandate than the EITP Committee in Kingston, it is considered
comparable, as it is also a standing committee made up of city councillors, instead of an advisory
committee made of citizens. Review of public committee meeting minutes illustrated how transparent
and iterative the public participation process is, as well as revealing how sustainability ideas have been
adopted by the individual municipal departments who present at the meetings.
3.2.3 Semi-structured Interviews
Semi-structured interviews are the main source of data for this study. The data from the
interviews was used to address all three of the research questions. The interviews were semi-structured
and commenced with broad, open-ended questions, followed by more specific theme-based questions.
The interview guide was organized into three major sections: ICSP origins which addressed questions
concerning themes 1-3 (refer to table 1); implementation of the ICSP which addressed themes 4-10; and
successes, challenges and next steps which addressed themes 8,10, and 11. These interviews provided
an in-depth look at the planning-implementation process from a practitioner’s perspective. They shed
light into how sustainability principles have been embedded in the discourses of each municipality, the
16
strategies being used to spread the knowledge of sustainability throughout the organization, and the
resulting projects of the ICSP.
This research is part of a larger study funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council of Canada, which received ethics approval from the Queen's University General Research Ethics
Board. Interviewees from each municipality were recruited via email. Included in the email was the
letter of information about the study, as well as a consent form that each participant signed before the
interview commenced. Interviews were conducted either in-person (for some City of Kingston
participants), or over the phone. Interviews were recorded using a digital voice recorder, transcribed
verbatim, coded based on themes emergent from the literature. Individuals targeted for interviews are
described in Table 2.
Table 2: Summary of Individuals Targeted for In-Depth Interviews
Interviewee Position
Rationale
Greenprint Steering Committee Chair or
members (Markham)
To provide an inside look at the rationale
behind the Markham ICSP, as well as any
visions/strategies for the planningimplementation process.
These municipal offices are set up specifically
to champion sustainability efforts across the
municipality. They can help identify the
successes and barriers experienced so far in
each municipality.
A non-profit organization, with funding from
the City, which governs and supports
community stakeholders to implement
Kingston’s ICSP.
Ability to provide an insight into how
municipal departments are involved with the
planning-implementation process, the level of
integration, and the successes and barriers.
Will give a big picture look into how all the
departments in a municipality function
together towards sustainability goals.
Markham Sustainability Office managers or
coordinators;
Kingston Sustainable Initiatives Coordinator
(under Sustainability and Growth Office)
Sustainable Kingston Board of Governors
(may not be City of Kingston staff)
Departmental Directors (Kingston & Markham)
City Managers/ Chief Administrative Officers
17
3.3 Data Analysis:
A combination of inductive and deductive approaches were utilized in the analysis of the data
collected. Content analysis of the interview transcripts, public meeting minutes and the strategic plans
and ICSPs was conducted inductively, whereby key points from each data source were extracted and
summarized in the author’s own words. These key points were then organized deductively using the
analytical framework (Table 1) developed from the review of ICSP research Finally, inductive analysis
was also used to identify emergent themes or trends that did not arise from the literature review.
18
Chapter 4.0 Results
4.1 Policy Document Review
4.1.1 Thematic Analysis Findings from Policy Documents
Drawing from the analytic framework (Table 1), selected municipal policy documents were
reviewed to determine what explicit directions are being given to municipal staff regarding the planningimplementation process, as well as any additional emerging themes that have not been identified by the
literature. The policies and documents selected for the analysis were the Sustainable Kingston Plan
(Kingston’s ICSP – 2010, 68 pgs.), the Greenprint (Markham’s ICSP – 2011, 206 pgs.), Kingston’s Strategic
Plan 2011-2014, and Building Markham’s Future Together (Markham’s strategic plan). The data from all
four plans were organized using the analytical framework, and is summarized in Table 3 by city.
Additional and emergent themes are discussed following this table.
19
Table 3: Findings from Review of ICSPs and Strategic Plans for Kingston and Markham
Theme
Long Term,
Broad Coverage
Public
Engagment
Kingston
Markham
ICSP
ICSP

Four-pillar approach:
environmental, economic,
social, and cultural
 Describes 20 themes across the
4 pillars. States that the pillars
should be considered linked and
interactive
Strategic Plan
 Explicit reference to
sustainability as the main, longterm goal
 States that City Council has
come up with six main
priorities, which touch on all the
four pillars of sustainability
ICSP
 Adaptive Management
Framework will be applied to
implementation, namely that
the components of the plan will
give constant feedback to each
other to help modify and
enhance the ICSP over the years
Strategic Plan
 Plan is subject to annual review
for adaptive management
 The techniques or level of public
involvement is not explicitly
stated in how Council derived
these priorities.

Case Studies
Partnerships
None
ICSP


Three pillars: social, economic,
environmental
Breaks the implementation process
down into three time frames: short
term (2010-2015) mostly focused on
public engagement and education;
medium term (2015-2025) mostly
focused on implementation and projectbased examples; and long term (2025+)
reaching sustainability target
performance
ICSP

Emphasizes that community
engagement and clearly identified roles
and responsibilities are critical to
implementation
 Decisions will be made based on input
from committees that consist of
stakeholders and residents. These
committees will ensure sustainability
initiatives are integrated into Municipal
business, as well as monitor the results
 Professional and public workshops, a
youth engagement website, and a
“sustainability fair” were held to
educate the public and determine
sustainability priorities.
Strategic Plan
 Council and senior city staff decided on
six strategic priorities which were
publically reviewed and critiqued via
website
ICSP
 Best practices from other cities were
studied
ICSP

States the ICSP is not “owned”
by the municipality. The City will
implement some of the goals in
the plan, but not all. States
implementation will consist of
community ownership and



Emphasizes collaboration with
community partners
The initial recommendations lay out
broad responsibilities for the various
community partners
Markham’s Sustainability Office, under
20
involvement
Community Partners will act as
the main implementers and will
do so through Community
Partnerships
Strategic Plan
 States the City will work in
partnerships where possible
across sectors
ICSP
 States City of Kingston will start
amending its existing plans to
greater coordinate with the
goals in Sustainable Kingston.
Also encourages other
community organizations to do
so, although it is not specific as
to which ones
 States other organizations and
individuals can use the info in
the plan to set their own
priorities and strategic plans
that support sustainability
principles
Strategic Plan
 Under specific priority actions
there is mention of developing
new plans. The plans include
financial and infrastructure,
among others
ICSP
 Knowledge Sharing Report on
the Sustainable Kingston
Website, provides details as to
what steps were taken to create
the ICSP, as well as lessons
learned and resources for other
municipalities
 Sustainable Kingston
Organization will not have any
formal reporting relationship
with the City of Kingston. It will
report to the community via an
annual sustainability report, and
will hold an annual or bi-annual
community conference.
 Indicators relating to each
theme are laid out, which can
be monitored to determine
progress in each respective
theme

Embedded in
Other
Documents
Monitoring
the Chief Administrative Office,
coordinated the development the
Greenprint and is in charge of providing
resources, overseeing initiatives, and
building partnerships
Strategic Plan
 The future actions include working in
partnerships and public involvement
ICSP

Speaks of aligning other plans and
policies to the sustainability vision
 The Sustainability Office will also revise
the Council reporting system to
including a sustainability lens and
require Sustainability Office sign-off,
develop and monitor pilot projects, and
create a reward and recognition
program for sustainable initiatives
Strategic Plan
 The future actions also include creating
plans, policies, and strategies regarding
topics such as development,
infrastructure, and finances
ICSP

Emphasizes the need for adaptive
management of the plan, including a
comprehensive public review every five
years, and review of indicators every
two to five years
 Along with regular public and indicator
review, there is also a website that
reports on “sustainability performance”
 Recommendations and indicators are to
be monitored and updated by the
Sustainability Office throughout
implementation
Strategic Plan
 Makes some mention of using
performance indicators to measure
success, although there is no mention of
which indicators will be used
21
Demonstration
Projects
Champions
Financial
Incentives
Strategic Plan
 Under specific priority actions
there is mention of developing
indicators and benchmarks for
monitoring and analysis
 Also mentions annual reporting,
and monitoring of progress and
outcomes to evaluate
operations
ICSP
 There is a website which
Community Partners can post
what sustainability actions they
are taking and what the
progress is
Strategic Plan
 Some mention of project-based
initiatives in the infrastructure
section. Each project consists of
a brief description, rough cost
estimates, and time lines
ICSP
 Individuals who partake in
sustainable initiatives will do so
through Citizen Commitments
 The ICSP does not set specific
targets for goals. Actions and
targets are the responsibility of
community partners and
individuals
Strategic Plan
 Makes a specific statement that
the City will be a leader in
achieving the objectives
established in the Sustainable
Kingston Plan
Strategic Plan
 Mentions the alignment of tax
breaks and potential public
funding with priority objectives
 States the importance of
aligning priorities with budgets

None

Sustainability Office will support active
community champions (although how
community champions are identified
and supported is not described)

States the importance of the financial
element, suggests establishing a
revolving fund for implementation,
pursuing grants from other levels of
government, and creating financial
partnerships
ICSP
ICSP
22
4.1.2 Absent and Emerging Themes from Policy Documents
Sustainable Kingston Plan & Organization
There is no mention in the Sustainable Kingston Plan about using case studies and best
management practices from elsewhere to develop the plan, or having policy approaches in line with
financial incentives. However, the plan excels at integrating community partnerships and organizations
with the creation of a non-profit governing community body, which holds the main responsibility of
implementation. The ICSP has three components. First, the Sustainable Kingston Plan sets out broad
sustainability principles and goals. Second is the website, to which Community Partners can post their
sustainability actions and their progress. The third component is an independent governing body called
the Sustainable Kingston Organization. This governing body coordinates and supports the
implementation of Community Partnerships and Citizen Commitments, and this is where the Kingston
ICSP varies considerably from typical ICSPs. By using a completely separate organization, one that is
stand alone and not-for-profit, to be in charge of the ICSP, the City of Kingston has taken community
partnerships to a whole new level of integration. The ICSP states the Sustainable Kingston Organization
should be community-based and at arm’s length from municipal government, and its initial goals include
creating awareness and education of the ICSP, keeping a community action inventory via the website,
and establishing a permanent board of directors within 6 months. However, it should be noted that the
City of Kingston has also created an internal Corporate Sustainability Plan, which addresses such issues
as waste and energy management, corporate wellness, and lifecycle cost reduction. This plan helps to
put a sustainability lens on corporate daily activities within the municipal offices, and guides the actions
of the city employees themselves.
The Sustainable Kingston Organization has appointed a board of “First Directors”, who have
experience directing organizations, creating partnerships, and the development of the Sustainable
Kingston plan. Long-term goals of the Sustainable Kingston Organization are to become financially selfsustained (reduce funding from the City), set up its own office space, monitoring and reporting, setting
up a recognition and rewards program, and coordinating and supporting the implementation of
Community Partnerships and Citizen Commitments.
Kingston’s Strategic Plan 2011-2014
23
There is no mention of using case studies from elsewhere to inform the strategic plan. The
strategic plan ends with a “Corporate Work Plan” which further details actions outlined under each of
the six council priorities. This section does a better job of describing the step-by-step process involved
with implementing the actions, and also includes a year-to-year timeline. However, there is no mention
of which specific city departments are responsible for implementing and overseeing the actions for
council priorities.
The Greenprint
There is no mention of using project-based initiatives to educate and engage the public,
however the other themes are all represented. The recommendations in the plan are not specific as to
which departments within the municipality are responsible for which actions. These recommendations
also do not define a quantifiable target level for the indicators used (e.g., it does not specifically state a
percentage of public transit mode share that Markham wishes to achieve). The Greenprint ends with an
“Implementation Matrix” which further breaks down the step-by-step process required to achieve each
of the 12 priorities. The Matrix includes a rough timeline (short, medium, or long term), however it also
fails to identify which specific municipal departments are responsible for which actions.
Building Markham’s Future Together
There is no mention in Markham’s strategic plan about using case studies or best management
practices from elsewhere, using project-based initiatives, active community or municipal champions, or
using financial incentives.
Each priority is described by listing the known challenges associated with the topic, as well as
future actions the City will undertake to accomplish the priority. The priorities are broad in nature, and
there are no explicit quantifiable targets set regarding any of them (i.e. a percent vegetation cover to
shoot for, or a percent of mode share in public transit to achieve). On the website, there are now links in
some of the priority sections to plans and policies that have been created since the strategic plan came
into effect. Lastly, no timelines are mentioned and there is no assignment of which particular city
department will be in charge of implementing which action.
24
4.2 Analysis of Municipal Committee Meeting Minutes
4.2.1 Thematic Analysis Findings from Meeting Minutes
Minutes from the Environment, Infrastructure & Transportation Policies (EITP) Committee from
Kingston and the General Committee from Markham were analyzed. The minutes from the April 16,
2013 EITP Committee meeting (Kingston) and from the March 18, 2013 General Committee (Markham)
were chosen to be analyzed. These two specific meetings were chosen because their agendas contained
multiple projects and discussions that directly related to the ICSPs and their goals. The topics on the
Kingston EITP Meeting agenda included a presentation given by the Society for Conservation Biology
about the Wildlife Road Mortality Prevention Project, options to maximize the recycling of Kingston’s
waste streams, the possibility of expanding the recycle programs to the industrial, commercial, and
institutional (ICI) sectors, the Preventative Plumbing Program, and the proposed reversal of Enbridge’s
Line 9B pipeline. The topics in Markham’s General Committee included the sanitary system downspout
disconnect program, LED streetlights, the Emerald Ash Borer management plan, and Earth Day events.
Table 4 highlights the findings from each of the meetings, as they relate to analytical framework.
25
Table 4: Findings from Review of Committee Meeting Minutes for Kingston and Markham
Theme
Long Term,
Broad Support
Kingston
Markham

In discussions about the Preventative
Plumbing Program, emphasis was
placed that it should be a continuous,
long-term program

Public
Engagement


Case Studies

A report on maximizing recycling
recommends increased promotion
and public education around the 3 R’s
Program, Giveaway Days, and bulky
waste disposal, such as used clothing
donation boxes. It was suggested by
Utilities Kingston that there was need
to reinforce best practices. There
were then suggestions by Councillors
to partner with local cable TV, and to
include advertising in packages aimed
at new residents
Staff were directed to study best
management practices of other
municipalities for waste reduction
Partnerships

A presentation was given by the
Society for Conservation Biology
about the Wildlife Road Mortality
Prevention Project. It was directed
that staff should consult with the
CRCA and SCB and then report back
to the EITP Committee for the
consideration of mitigation measures.
In the discussion about possibility of
expanding City recycling programs to
the industrial, commercial, and
institutional (ICI) sectors, it was
stated that recycling in the ICI sectors
is currently being done by private
companies. It was stated that City
staff were in contact with the private
recycling companies, and should
ensure the private companies were
maximizing the amount of waste that
could be recycled
None


Embedded in
Other
Documents



In discussions relating to the installation of
LED streetlights, multiple cross-pillar
benefits were mentioned, including the
importance of cutting down light pollution,
the energy and money savings, LED vs.
solar power, and dimming light for certain
areas at night without compromising safety
Discussions after the presentation of the
citywide multi-phase sanitary system
downspout disconnect program focused on
the importance of public education about
the program
Discussions around the Emerald Ash Borer
Management Plan emphasized
determining best practices through
research and communications with other
municipalities who have this problem
Discussions around the Emerald Ash Borer
Management Plan emphasized partnering
with neighboring communities to combat
the invasive species
All reports submitted to Council had a
section stating how the action outlined in
the report was aligned with strategic
(sustainable) priorities
26
Theme
Kingston
 It was moved that the presentation
Internal
on the Wildlife Road Mortality
Communication
Markham

Prevention Project be shared with
City staff

Monitoring

Discussion involving the Wildlife Road
Mortality Prevention Project focused
on when the monitoring study took
place, and it was determined that
additional monitoring should be
conducted during summer 2013 for
comparative purposes.




Demonstration
Projects

Financial
Incentives

The increased promotion of the Three
R’s program will include some
demonstrations and techniques for
reducing waste
There was an annual report
presented by the director of utilities
engineering about the Preventative
Plumbing Program. The program is in
place to provide financial assistance
to homeowners who are undertaking
work to prevent sanitary sewer
backups and over flows into the
storm sewer system.


The Committee requested staff to prepare
an inter-departmental memo about the
citywide multi-phase sanitary system
downspout disconnect program to ensure
the entire City is covered
Internally, communication tools like Earth
Day quizzes with Greenprint paraphernalia
prizes and departmental newsletters help
to spread education about the Earth Day
event
Discussions after the presentation of the
citywide multi-phase sanitary system
downspout disconnect program centered
around the importance of annual
monitoring and reporting of flows to
Council
Discussions about the installation of LED
streetlights emphasized the importance of
monitoring and reporting energy savings
The Emerald Ash Borer Plan consists of
proactive monitoring and sampling, and an
ash tree health inventory
There was discussion regarding Earth Day
about staff keeping Council aware of all the
events, and the monitoring and reporting
of energy savings results
Earth Day is planned to showcase how to
become more energy efficient
A report was released to discuss the
funding for the citywide multi-phase
sanitary system downspout disconnect
program. It suggests an assistance plan be
set up that can cover as much as 80% of
the cost to the homeowner to disconnect
the downspout and 100% of the cost of a
rain barrel.
27
4.2.2 Absent and Emerging Themes from Analysis of Committee Meetings
During their municipal committee meetings, both the municipalities had discussions concerning
the majority of the analytical framework themes. The only theme that neither municipality addressed
was active community or municipal champions. In Kingston, there was also a lack of direct reference to
the ICSP or other plans when discussing proposed actions. Direct references to the strategic priorities
and ICSP were given with every report that was submitted to the Markham General Committee. This is a
key factor in establishing Markham’s ICSP as an integrated foundation that should be considered for all
municipal decisions. Kingston’s EITP Committee currently lacks this important step, and actions can be
considered without reference to the ICSP.
Both committees had long discussions about providing financial incentives or funding support to
residents who undertake sustainable initiatives. This shows that the committees see funding as crucial
to the success of the sustainable initiatives, and that residents would not be able to effectively
participate in these initiatives if they were not provided extra funding.
The Kingston EITP Committee spent a large amount of time discussing public engagement and
education opportunities. They also spoke more to partnerships with other organizations than did the
Markham General Committee. The Markham General Committee seemed to prioritize differently, as
their discussions revolved around monitoring and reporting of the status of sustainable initiatives.
The varying priorities between the two committees reflect the differences in the municipalities’
ICSPs. The Kingston EITP Committee focused on public engagement and partnering with other
organizations, which lends itself to the external implementation of Kingston’s ICSP. On the other hand,
the Markham General Committee focused on monitoring and reporting of initiatives, which lends itself
to the internal, City-owned implementation of Markham’s ICSP.
28
4.3 Interview Analysis
4.3.1 Thematic Analysis of In-depth Interviews
Interviews with city staff instrumental to implementing the ICSPs were conducted for the City of
Kingston and City of Markham. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with departmental
managers, directors, and sustainability coordinators (see Table 2 for summary of interviewees’ roles).
Originally, a total of 14 interviewees were contacted. Eight people agreed to be interviewed, a total of
four from each city. Every position in Table 2 was successfully interviewed except for CAOs, who were
unable to conduct interviews due to busy schedules. The specific efforts of each municipality are
highlighted in Table 5, each classified according to the analytical framework themes.
29
Table 5: Findings from Analysis of In-Depth Interviews for Kingston and Markham
Theme
Kingston
Markham
 ICSP contains long-term goals with
 ICSP contains long-term goals with public
Long Term, Broad
public
and
Council
support
and Council support
Coverage


Public
Engagement




Case Studies


Partnerships






Embedded in
Other Documents



Based on four pillars: Environment,
Economic, Social, and Cultural
Provided an economic justification for
investment in sustainability across all
pillars (prepared by KEDCO)
Workshops, open houses conducted
during ICSP development
Some targeted sessions for
stakeholders from specific pillars (i.e.
social, cultural) and some open to the
general public
During conferences like the
Sustainable Kingston Forum, people
respond better when issues are
broken down into pillars
Future speakers series

Based on three pillars: Environment,
Economic, and Social

Case studies from other cities were
studied in the development of the
ICSP
Best practices and information from
FCM, AMO are consistently
monitored

The ICSP is implemented by an
external organization, the Sustainable
Kingston Organization (SKO)
SKO encourages private partnerships
that may not have occurred if the
ICSP was purely a municipal initiative
SKO: 91 community partners
The City is in constant communication
with other municipalities about the
status of the SKO model
SKO is building an executive director
communications network
City grants for external organizations
to implement social programs (ex.
Arts and culture, youth programs,
etc.)
Strategic plan is based solely on the
goals in the ICSP
Municipal departments must align
their work plan and budgets to the
goals in the ICSP
City established a corporate
sustainability plan in addition to the

Click with Markham online input during
ICSP development
Quest for the Best Markham online
youth engagement during ICSP
development
“Sustainalicious” food and sustainability
workshop
Full draft of the ICSP was put out for
public review, final copy revised with
input
In the future: using social media to tell
the public what actions the city is taking
Case studies from other cities and
studies by the FCM were examined in
the development of the ICSP
Hired the firm that wrote the Whistler
ICSP
Bird friendly guidelines inspired by
Toronto/Portland
Reward and recognition program for
organizations with exemplary initiatives
Food suppliers to the municipality
support Meatless Mondays
TRCA, MNR and other municipalities with
subwatershed studies
Working with National Parks in Rouge
Park, as well as many NGOs
Provincial Plans such as the Green Belt
Plan help enforce priority areas in the
ICSP
Sustainability Office has well established
partnerships in energy and climate, food
security, and access and mobility sectors














New OP refers to sustainability
throughout and includes land use goals
from the ICSP
New developments must now pass a
sustainable development checklist under
provisions in the new OP
Municipal departments must align their
30
Theme
Kingston
Strategic plan and ICSP encompassing
waste and energy management,
corporate wellness and lifecycle cost
reduction
Internal
communication








Monitoring






Demonstration
Projects



Online mandatory sustainability
training modules
Sustainability orientation for new
staff
Online newsletters with interactive
feedback section
Presentations to various municipal
departments (6-10 times a year)
Council reviews departmental work
plans
Sustainability is discussed at quarterly
meetings with the CAO,
commissioners, and departmental
directors
Annual meeting with city managers
In the future: a public speakers series
by SKO, and a rewards and
recognition program
SKO meets with Council and with city
staff (1-2 per year) – once funding
ends, meetings likely only with
Council
City annual report to Council and
community re: Strategic plan
39 indicators in ICSP, but not included
in annual report
3 times a year there is a report to
senior managers on sustainability
No monitoring of waste reduction
Completed a GHG and energy use
inventory
Inventory of community partner
actions on SKO website
Solar panels and energy retrofits on
City buildings
SKO Community Forum, which
features presentations of some
current community partner actions
Markham

















Champions

The City Commissioner that was
responsible for preparing the ICSP is
now the liaison to SKO


work plan and budget to strategic
priorities
Under new OP, subwatershed studies are
being conducted to create site-specific
development policies regarding
endangered species and water balance
Sustainability Office educates staff, i.e. a
plain text format of the ICSP
Development teams were briefed so that
they understood the new sustainable
policies in the OP
Conducting a departmental action
inventory of all actions that relate to
sustainability in the ICSP helped open up
inter-departmental communication
about sustainability
Some departments come to the
Sustainability Office for
advice/assistance on projects
Corporate “Lunch and Learns” and
“Teamwork Day”
Departmental action inventory of
sustainability related projects
Indicators in the ICSP to be reported
every 5 years
Internal monitoring of progress on
initiatives stemming from the ICSP
Some staff feel that there should be
more frequent reporting out to the
community on the status of sustainability
Has recently entered a global reporting
initiative, in which the City reports
economic and sustainability status
New future urban areas will be
developed based on a sustainable model
Restored areas of Rouge Park
12 wetlands constructed
All buildings in Markham City Center are
LEED
Addition of community gardens
Community Conservation Award from
the Ontario Power authority for using
solar power retrofits
Councillor ensures ICSP is referred to for
decisions
Mayor committed to strategic plan in
31
Theme
Kingston


Financial
Incentives


City states that it will be a champion
community partner under the ICSP
City demonstrates this by posting its
actions on the SKO website
None directly out of ICSP
Most out of Community Improvement
Plan ex. Brownfields, LEED
certification, affordable housing,
heritage restoration
Markham







Barriers






No quantifiable targets set for any of
the indicators (e.g. a percentage of
public transit ridership to achieve).
Some staff feel this would give them
something to work towards
SKO needs to be more visible,
including highlighting their own
actions, not just actions of community
partners
Lack of general skills in the public
such as food preservation from
community gardens
Funding for SKO is not currently
sustainable
SKO does not comment on political
issues
Only part time staff at SKO due to lack
of funds






2006
Community champions on various
committees
Sustainability Office acts as champion of
ICSP, out of CAO office
None directly out of ICSP
Sustainability & Accessibility Fund
Potential future grants for ICSP goals, no
details yet
Infrastructure servicing priority given to
higher density areas
Funding program from new sanitary pipe
between York and Durham Region
provided funds for Rouge Park
restoration
Some staff see the ICSP as a side plan to
be considered after the fact, not the
basis of decisions as it should be seen
ICSP goals seen as unrealistic by some
staff
Urban boundary growth problems,
pressure to expand by residents and York
Region
Extreme population growth and high
density, infrastructure servicing having
problems keeping up with demand
All land classified as prime by LEAR
High turnover and only 5 permanent
members of the Sustainability Office
4.3.2 Absent and Emerging Themes from the Interview Analysis
While all themes from the analytical framework played some role in ICS-planning in the two
municipalities, the amount of emphasis placed on each theme varied by municipality. The City of
Kingston emphasized the role of alliances and partnerships, through making a separate organization
responsible for ICSP implementation. Internal education and inter-departmental communication were
also emphasized in Kingston through mandatory sustainability training, sustainability orientation for
new employees, online newsletters, and more. The City of Markham emphasized the role of enforcing
the principles of the ICSP into other statutory plans, such as the new Official Plan. Markham also
requires that every report submitted to council by staff must have a section explicitly stating how the
action in the report supports the strategic sustainable priorities of the City.
32
Chapter 5.0 Discussion
The discussion that follows is centered on the study’s three guiding research questions:
1. What kinds of strategies are being employed within mid-sized Ontarian municipalities to
implement the ideas contained within their ICSPs?
2. How are these ideas being taken up by City staff?
3. What are the facilitators and barriers to successful implementation of these ideas?
5.1 Strategies Employed By Kingston and Markham to Implement Their ICSPs
5.1.1 Governance
As described in the document and interview analysis sections, the Kingston ICSP uses a
significantly different model than a typical ICSP. The Kingston model is to create a stand-alone, not-forprofit organization, called the Sustainable Kingston Organization, which is solely responsible for
implementation of the ICSP. In this way, the City of Kingston is free to act as one of many community
partner organizations, and does not shoulder the entire load of implementing the ICSP. This reduces the
number of staff and amount of funding resources the City needs to dedicate to the ICSP. This is best
described by the following quote from an interview:
“This is a community plan. And most municipalities have adopted this document as
a community initiative or a community plan. And they've kept it in house, as sort of
their mantra. Ours is positioned a little differently. The Kingston plan, Sustainable
Kingston plan has a position as a community document... So we are no longer in
charge of this plan.” – Kingston staff member
By positioning the Sustainable Kingston Organization and not the City as the lead in
implementation, it further emphasizes to the public that sustainability planning is the responsibility of
every member of the community, not just the government. However, this external implementation
model has some additional risks involved. Currently, the Sustainable Kingston Organization is fully
funded by the City of Kingston. It currently does not generate sufficient income to be self-sustainable in
the long-term without City funding. Due to this, the Sustainable Kingston Organization can currently only
afford to hire part-time members, which limits resources and staff time. In the future, the Sustainable
Kingston Organization will offer community partners different levels of “membership”, being gold, silver,
and bronze. Each level has its own responsibilities, with the highest having to identify sustainability
actions it is implementing by pillar, and then have a Sustainable Kingston staff member visit the
33
organization and perform a sustainability audit to measure progress. Each membership level will also
have its own costs associated with it, and this is a way to try and get the Sustainable Kingston
Organization to be financially sustainable. It is yet to be seen whether this strategy will recuperate
enough funds to achieve this goal.
Additionally, there is some concern by City staff that the Sustainable Kingston Organization may
not be doing enough in the public eye, or may stray too far from the original goals in the Sustainable
Kingston ICSP. It is important for the Sustainable Kingston Organization to remain active and visible to
demonstrate to the community that there is progress being made. Consider the following quote:
“One of the other challenges is the visible progress of the plan. People are saying
‘What's happening? Why isn't something happening?’ … And that's a constant back
and forth between us [the City] and Sustainable Kingston Organization, saying
‘Come on guys … you've gotta remember to sort of keep turning the crank on the
sustainability engine here, so that people don't think this is dying on the vine.’ So
that's been a big challenge.” – Kingston staff member
On the other hand, the City of Markham takes a more traditional role to ICSP implementation.
Markham has an internal Sustainability Office, located under the office of the Chief Administrative
Officer, which acts as a champion, coordinator, and communicator of the ICSP. Being positioned under
the CAO’s office helps the Sustainability Office enforce its top-down approach to sustainability. The
Sustainability Office communicates with other municipal departments about the goals of the ICSP and
on projects that directly relate to the ICSP. Most departments will consult directly with the Sustainability
Office when partaking in one of these actions, such as the Asset Management Team when constructing a
LEED certified building. However, not all municipal departments will consult with the Sustainability
Office, as summed up by this quote:
“We have some departments that just don't play well with others.” – Markham
staff member
The internal implementation model that Markham uses helps to eliminate some of the funding
and visibility problems that the Kingston model has, but by having City staff be in charge of
implementation, it costs resources and staff time to the City of Markham. Lastly, some City of Kingston
staff feel as though having an external organization be in charge of implementation allows for more
partnerships with private companies that may not have stepped up if implementation was purely a
34
municipal initiative. Thus, the City of Markham could be missing out on some of these partnerships by
having implementation be in-house.
5.1.2 Monitoring & Reporting
The City of Markham has established indicators in their ICSP that can be used to determine the
progress of the various goals and initiatives held within. However, the ICSP and the indicators are to be
reported on and reviewed every five years. Some staff feel that this timeframe is not frequent enough:
“It [reporting] hasn't been quite as regular as I would like… I feel that it has been
somewhat pushed to the side a bit. And I want it to come back out to where it
belongs.” – Markham staff member
Additionally, Markham has recently entered the Global Reporting Initiative, which is an initiative
that municipalities voluntarily enter and report on both their financial and sustainability status to the
rest of the world. Markham has also conducted an internal audit of sustainability initiatives, which has
allowed the City to determine exactly what is being done about each priority in the ICSP.
The City of Kingston has a more regular reporting regime, having an annual report that goes out
to City Council as well as the public. The report touches on the priorities in the Strategic Plan, which
were directly derived from the ICSP. However it should be noted that the indicators laid out in the ICSP
are not reported on in the annual report. This is seen as a gap by some City staff, who feel that the
progress of each indicator should be closely tracked:
“So there's thirty seven indicators, in the back of this report [the Sustainable
Kingston Plan] ... So our work, our yearly work plan, should all be aligning with
some of these indicators. We haven't embedded that to this date. So that's coming
… reports are not just their financial statements, are going to highlight the
indicators which hopefully are aligned to this.” – Kingston staff member
The Sustainable Kingston Organization does its reporting through a website, in which all actions
of the community partners are inventoried and displayed. However, there is no annual report that
summarizes the actions or comments on any indicators.
5.1.3 Succession of Plans
The City of Kingston and the City of Markham each have both ICSPs and Strategic Plans.
However, the origin and succession of each plan is different for the two municipalities. In Kingston, the
ICSP was the first document created, which came out of a discussion between City staff and community
35
members. Kingston has a history of community planning groups, and the ICSP was the latest iteration of
the community plan. Once the ICSP and its goals were established, the Strategic Plan was created. The
Strategic Plan is derived directly from the ICSP, and it contains which actions Council wants the City to
partake. The City of Kingston is only a partner involved in implementing the ICSP, and the Strategic Plan
illustrates which goals of the ICSP the City of Kingston as a partner will undertake.
“And as a [strategic plan], it serves as an umbrella model. So this document tells
me and everybody else that works for the city, what to do, that the community
wants this. And so we respond to the community and say ‘Well, this is how we'll do
it.’” – Kingston staff member
Kingston goes one step further however, and has created a Corporate Sustainability Plan. This
plan takes the Strategic Plan and applies it internally, to the inner-workings of the City staff. The
Corporate Sustainability Plan focuses on energy and waste management, corporate wellness, and
lifecycle cost reduction.
In Markham, the creation of the Strategic Plan came first. When the new Mayor was elected in
2006, he committed to the creation of a Strategic Plan. Considerable online public engagement and
participation was undertaken and, from this, the priorities of the Strategic Plan were formed. The ICSP
then came out of the environment priority that was outlined in the Strategic Plan:
“I don't remember if it happened before or after the mayor was elected, but there
was a really broad community engagement called 'Click with Markham.' … One of
the things that came out of that was the need for something like the Greenprint …
Some of the feedback from that was then integrated in with the new council's
[strategic plan] … and six different areas of focus about, the Greenprint fell under
the environmental area of focus.” – Markham staff member
5.2 How Sustainability Ideas Are Being Taken Up by City Staff
5.2.1 Markham
The City of Markham uses its new official plan (OP) to enforce the principles in the ICSP. By
embedding the principles of the ICSP into other plans like this, Markham helps to elevate the ICSP from
a separate, theoretical document to embedded practices that must be followed.
36
“There are chapters that actually deal with sustainability, but the whole concept of
sustainability, is throughout the entire official plan ... So we looked at the
Greenprint, and where the Greenprint provided any kind of direction, that was
relevant to land use, we would consider that and try to implement it through our
official plan.” – Markham staff member
By using the new OP as the basis for enforcing the ICSP principles, the City of Markham is
helping to ensure that sustainability principles are not only practiced, but are legally enforceable. Within
the new OP, there will now be a checklist for sustainable development that all new developments will
have to pass through. This ensures sustainability principles are considered on the individual project
level, and will guarantee no developments will slip through the cracks and be allowed to build without
taking sustainability principles into account. This is designed to emphasize requirements such as LEED
building standards, among others.
Markham is also employing subwatershed studies under their new OP. In addition to the
coverage of individual developments afforded by the sustainable development checklist, the
subwatershed studies will allow Markham to produce context- and site-specific development policies.
This will be a huge benefit in determining the least impacts on issues such as water balance, ecological
functions, and endangered species.
Lastly, the City of Markham requires that reference to the strategic (sustainable) priorities
occurs in all reports submitted to Council. If a staff member produces a report on a proposed action,
they must explicitly state how the action benefits the goals of the ICSP and strategic priorities. By doing
this, Markham City Council ensures that no actions will be passed that do not directly benefit the goals
of the ICSP.
5.2.2 Kingston
The City of Kingston focuses on different areas in order to ensure staff takes up the ideas
contained in the ICSP. Kingston focuses on internal communication and education amongst its own staff,
employing various techniques to ensure its staff understand and apply the ideas behind sustainable
planning. Through the work of a Sustainability Coordinator, the City uses mandatory online training
modules, sustainability orientation for all new staff, online newsletters with a feedback component that
staff can comment on, 6-10 presentations to various municipal departments a year, and quarterly
meetings with the CAO’s office and other directors about sustainable topics. In the future, there will also
be a speaker series that discusses sustainable best practices, and a rewards and recognition program for
37
staff who demonstrate excellent sustainability practices in their work. Additionally, the newest best
practices and other tips are constantly monitored and communicated to staff:
“So every day, for example, I scan a municipal news site that comes in and it
highlights all of the initiatives in all sectors, you know, finance, governance, and I
look at the sustainability sections. And I read those articles every day, for best
practices. And I would just flip it to other departments and say ‘Here, have you seen
this article about new LEDs and their impact on their energy performance?’ Or,
‘Here's something.’” – Kingston staff member
In contrast to Makrham, Kingston places much less emphasis on embedding the principles of the
ICSP into other municipal plans. Kingston City Council also does not require a specific section in all
reports that refers to how the action within benefits the goals of the ICSP, however this may be coming
in the future.
5.3 The Facilitators and Barriers to Implementing ICSPs
5.3.1 Facilitators
It is clear from all the study findings that the themes that emerged from the literature are key to
implementation for both municipalities. Kingston and Markham regularly use techniques and methods
from all the themes to successfully implement their ICSPs. None of these themes could be excluded
without having a serious effect on the implementation strategies of the two cities.
Although both municipalities used techniques from all 11 of the themes, it is clear that Kingston
and Markham leaned more heavily on certain themes than others. In Kingston, Theme 4: Partnerships,
and Theme 6: Internal Communication, are the most utilized. In Markham, Theme 5: Embedded in Other
Documents is one that is most effectively used. Both cities also emphasize the importance of Theme 7:
Monitoring, however there is still room for improvement in both the municipalities in this regard.
It is in the opinion of the author that City of Kingston has the governance approach that is most
innovative and has the most potential to succeed in the long run. However, some issues must be
addressed first. The Sustainable Kingston Organization should come up with a more robust funding
model. As it stands, there is no guarantee that the SKO will ever be self-sustainable, which completely
nullifies the point of having a stand-alone organization. Additionally, there should be much more
communication and reporting between the City of Kingston and the SKO, even when the SKO becomes
financially sustainable. A more frequent reporting relationship will ensure the SKO is not moving too far
38
away from the original goals in the Sustainable Kingston ICSP. Similarly, the City of Markham should also
increase monitoring and reporting on ICSP initiatives in order to keep the public and community
organizations engaged, instead of leaving a wide gap of up to five years with no progress reported.
5.3.2 Barriers
In both Kingston and Markham, some staff feel that having no set hard targets for indicators is a
detriment to implementation. In staff members’ views, quantifiable targets would help staff work
towards these goals and help with the measurement of progress. This is illustrated by the following
quote:
“If you say ‘Well, I want to have a, I want to create a thousand jobs, green jobs, by
2020.’ The budget may or may not have an impact on that statement. But at least it
drives the organization to a sustainable goal. So, I'm hoping that [in the future] we
have a stronger, you know, sort of a stronger commitment to these goals.” –
Kingston staff member
In Markham, some staff still see the ICSP as a side plan that is not integrated into the regular
municipal decision-making process. Some staff will be reluctant to adopt the goals in the ICSP because
they see it as additional work, or unrealistic in some cases. For example:
“Well, and some [departments] get bogged down in the statements and, or be like
'This isn't our jurisdiction.' And it's like, 'Well, we've told you that not everything in
the Greenprint is our jurisdiction. Like so, if you're not actually working on those,
that's fine. We thought this might be something related to what you're working on.'
And they'll just like, take everything so literally. And 'You're telling me I have to do
this.' And it's like 'No, these are things that are related to your work.'” – Markham
staff member
In both cities, politics and current issues often will take precedent over ICS planning.
Additionally, conflicts of interest, and popularity of non-sustainable ideas (such as profit maximizing
development – i.e. large subdivisions and big box stores) can fog the decision-making process. This is
illustrated by a quote from a Markham councillor:
“But sometimes when, you know, you get out there, and the politics come into play,
I don't think we make the best decisions. They're more based on appeasing the
voters, you know, at the time. So, I think that's one of the challenges … You're not
necessarily doing the right thing. You're doing what is politically motivated.”
– Markham councilor
39
Unfortunately, political issues and the constant pressure to develop and expand for tax dollars
will likely be a constant factor, no matter how sustainable the municipality tries to be.
5.4 Limitations
The study would have a greater external validity if more case studies from multiple mid-sized
municipalities could be conducted, instead of just two. Similarly, time constraints limited the number of
committee meetings that were reviewed for each municipality. Social desirability bias could also have
played a role in the interview responses.
5.5 Lessons Learned & Next Steps
An important point arose from the interviews in this study that was not explicitly stated in the
literature. There are certain aspects of ICSP implementation that are difficult to write into policies but
are necessary as part of the decision-making culture. One main aspect is the amount of informal internal
communication around sustainable initiatives. Each city had sustainability coordinators that acted as inhouse champions, constantly reminding staff from other departments of sustainability goals and best
practices. Additionally, constant reference to the ICSP and sustainability goals is important at all stages
in the decision-making process. Each city had various staff or council members who acted as champions
and watchdogs to ensure other staff took the ICSP into account. These types of informal communication
are difficult to write into policies (i.e. staff must have x amount of conversations relating to sustainability
per week). However, these aspects are critical to imbedding sustainability culture within decisionmaking processes of municipalities.
Specifically regarding mid-sized municipalities, one of the main barriers of ICS planning is a lack
of funding and staff resources. The mid-sized municipalities studied in this report had either only parttime staff or very small numbers of staff dedicated solely to implementing the ICSPs. Pressure to expand
and develop also plays a role, as trade-offs and conflicts of interest must be taken into account with
some private developers who do not support the goals of the ICSPs.
For municipalities who are considering creating ICSPs in the future, it is recommended that they
carefully look at all 11 of the themes presented in the analytical framework. Each of these themes must
be addressed by the ICSP and the implementation process in order for the ICSP to be effective. The two
broad approaches to governance and implementation, whether by external organization or by internal
municipal department, should be determined by the context in which the city is situated. If the city has a
demonstrated commitment to sustainability from the community and citizens, and little staff time or
40
resources, then an external organization may be the optimum choice. On the other hand, if the city has
citizens who are less committed to sustainability, but has sufficient staff resources, an internal approach
may be most effective.
For Kingston and Markham specifically, it is clear that more regular monitoring and reporting of
indicators is needed to determine progress. Staff feel as though set targets for each indicator are
needed to have a concrete goal to strive towards. Markham is doing good work when it comes to
referencing the ICSP in other statutory documents and reports to council, however Kingston has room
for improvement in this area.
41
Chapter 6.0 Conclusion
It is clear that the two municipalities examined for this study, the City of Kingston and the City of
Markham, use two very different approaches to ICS-planning. By using an external organization for
implementation, the City of Kingston frees up its staff and resources for other projects, as well as
emphasizes that ICS-planning is community work. On the other hand, Markham’s internal
implementation strategy eliminates the funding and communication problems that arise from having an
external organization be in charge of implementation. Both of these techniques have their benefits and
drawbacks, and it is difficult to determine which is the superior approach.
Monitoring and reporting occurs regularly at an internal level for both municipalities. However,
Markham only reports out to the community every 5 years. Kingston also has some shortfalls in its
community reporting. Although this happens annually, indicators that have been established in the
Kingston ICSP are not included in the annual reports. There is room for improvement in the reporting
techniques of both cities.
In order to ensure staff take up and apply sustainability principles, Kingston and Markham use
different techniques. Kingston uses internal education, such as training modules and sustainability
orientation for new staff. Markham, on the other hand, emphasizes embedding sustainability principles
into other statutory plans, such as the OP, and requiring reference to the ICSP goals in all reports
submitted by City staff to council. Ideally, both cities should equally emphasize both techniques to be
more effective at having staff understand and apply sustainability principles in their day-to-day work.
Both municipalities face barriers to implementation. In Kingston, having no quantifiable targets
set out in the indicators is seen as a weak point, while in Markham, some staff still do not see the ICSP as
a priority, and instead see it as somewhat of a nuisance. In both cities, conflicts of political interest cause
challenges in implementing ICS planning.
It is clear that both municipalities, the City of Kingston and City of Markham, have their
successes and challenges with their individual approaches to ICS planning. However, both municipalities
have great potential in seeing through the implementation of their ICSPs. Since both ICSPs are only a
few years old, only time will tell which techniques will prove to be most effective.
42
Bibliography
Adger, W. N., Brown, K., Fairbrass, J., Jordan, A., Paavola, J., Rosendo, S., Seyfang, G. (2003). Governance
for sustainability: Towards a “thick” analysis of environmental decision-making. Environment and
Planning A. 35(6), 1095-1110.
AMO. (2007). Integrated Community Sustainability Plan Backgrounder. Toronto, ON: Association of
Municipalities of Ontario.
Birch, E. (2002). Having a longer view on downtown living. Journal of the American Planning Association.
68(1), 5–21.
Bohunovsky, L., Jager, J., Omann, I. (2010). Participatory scenario development for integrated
sustainability assessment. Regional Environmental Change. 11, 271-284.
Bourne, L. (2000). Urban Canada in transition to the twenty-first century: trends, issues and visions, in:
T. Bunting & P. Filion (Eds) Canadian Cities in Transition, 2nd edn (pp. 26–52). Toronto: Oxford University
Press.
CMHC (Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation). (2003). Residential Intensification Initiatives:
Municipal Initiatives. Ottawa, ON.
Connelly, S., Markey, S., Roseland, M. (2009). Strategic Sustainability: Addressing the Community
Infrastructure Deficit. Canadian Journal of Urban Research. 18(1), 1-23.
Crawhall, N. (2011). Stormwater Management: Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities are charting the way
forward. Municipal World. 121(11), 5-7.
Durley, J. (2007). Linking Integrated Community Sustainability Planning and Watershed Planning in
Ontario, Canada. Environments. 35(1), 57-77.
FCM. (2008). Policy Statement on Environmental Issues and Sustainable Development. Ottawa, ON:
Federation of Canadian Municipalities.
Gibson, R.B. (2006). Sustainability assessment: basic components of a practical approach. Impact
Assessment and Project Appraisal. 24(4), 1-25.
Hanna, K. (2005). Planning for sustainability, two contrasting communities. Journal of the American
Planning Association. 71(1), 27–40.
Hearn, C. (2011). Green Burial Gaining Ground in Canada. Municipal World. 121(11), 13-15.
Hough, M. (1990a). Formed by Natural Process - A Definition of the Green City. In T. Beatly, Green Cities:
Ecologically Sound Approaches to Urban Space (pp. 15-21). Montreal: Black Rose Books.
Hough, M. (1990b). In T. Beatly, Green Cities: Ecologically Sound Approaches to Urban Space (pp. 93-99).
Montreal: Black Rose Books.
Ling, C., Hanna, K., Dale, A. (2009). A Template for Integrated Community Sustainability Planning.
Environmental Management. 44, 228-242.
McInnes, R. (2011). Managing wetlands for Multifunctional Benefits. Wetlands. Part 3: 205-221.
43
Murtagh, B. (1998) Evaluating the community inputs of urban policy. Planning, Practice and Research.
93(2), 129–138.
Ontario Professional Planners Institute. (2011). Healthy communities and planning for sustainable city
regions in Ontario: A Call to Action.
<http://www.ontarioplanners.on.ca/content/Publications/innovativepolicypapers.aspx>.
Parkinson, S., & Roseland, M. (2002). Leaders of the Pack: An Analysis of the Canadian “Sustainable
Communities” 2000 Municipal Competition. Local Environment. 7(4), 411-429.
Robertson, K. (1999) Can small-city downtowns remain viable? Journal of the American Planning
Association. 65(3), 270–283.
Seasons, M. (2003): Indicators and core area planning: applications in Canada's mid-sized cities. Planning
Practice & Research. 18(1), 63-80.
TNS. (2009). Best Practices Scan of Sustainability Decision Making and Planning for the Municipal Sector.
Ottawa, ON: The Natural Step Canada.
Todd, J. (1986). Architecture and Biology. In S. Van der Ryn, & P. Calthorpe, Sustainable Communities
(pp. 139-148). San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
van Bueren, E., & ten Heuvelhof, E. (2005). Improving governance arrangements in support of
sustainable cities. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design. 32(1), 47-66.
Van der Ryn, S., & Calthorpe, P. (1986). Sustainable Communities. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
Webler, T., & Tuler, S. (2001). Public participation in watershed management planning: Views on process
from people in the field. Research in Human Ecology. 8(2), 29-39.
WCED. (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford University Press. New York, NY: The World Commission on
Environment and Development.
Williams, C.C., & Millington, A.C. (2004). The diverse and contested meanings of sustainable
development. The Geographic Journal. 170(2), 99-104.
Yin, R.K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (4th ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
44