In search of the right scale of governance: Cross-jurisdictional planning and policy issues in the Lower Mainland of Vancouver

One of the biggest pitfalls I encountered while I was undertaking my PhD and studying traditional policy analysis was a lack of cross-disciplinary perspectives that would inform my research. I was introduced to the field of integrated assessment as an analytical framework by my former PhD advisor. Integrated assessment uses insights from the natural and social sciences to inform policy decisions. Human geography as a discipline has tended to be cross-disciplinary in nature too.

Traditional policy sciences had remained primarily focused on their own discipline. My training has been interdisciplinary almost from the start (from chemical engineering to business strategy to public policy to economic geography to environmental studies). My doctoral dissertation was an interdisciplinary study (though much of the subject matter was rooted in the emerging environmental economic geography field) with a policy analytical focus.

More recent policy analysis textbooks have begun to explore other disciplines (for example Michael Orsini and Miriam Smith’s Critical Policy Studies, 2007, UBC Press). You can read the front matter and Chapter 1 here. Last time I taught Public Policy at the undergraduate level I used Orsini and Smith’s book to spark my students’ interest in cross-disciplinary research. I wish the planning and policy analysis professions spoke to each other more often. Certainly, both fields would benefit from each other’s insights.

The Metro Vancouver area (formerly known as the Greater Vancouver Regional District – see map) pose interesting challenges for students of governance, urban planning and policy analysis. Metro Vancouver, as an organization, (from their “About/Frequently Asked Questions” page) is defined as follows:

Metro Vancouver is both a nonpartisan political body and corporate entity operating under provincial legislation as a ‘regional district’ and ‘greater boards’ on behalf of twenty-two member municipalities and one electoral area. The three primary roles are service delivery, planning, and political leadership.

Metro Vancouver’s core services, which are provided principally to municipalities, are the provision of drinking water, sewerage and drainage, and solid waste management. Regional parks and affordable housing are significant services provided directly to the public.

Metro Vancouver’s three main areas of planning and regulatory responsibility relate to: regional growth (land use through municipalities and transportation through TransLink); waste management (solid and liquid waste) and air quality management (a delegated Provincial function).

Finally, Metro Vancouver serves as the main political forum for discussion of significant community issues at the regional level. It acts as a facilitator, convenor, partner, advocate and a significant instrument for providing information and education to the community.

From a planning perspective, a regional governing body would appear as the best option to ensure essential public services delivery at the intermunicipal scale. A similar argument is made for watershed/river basin councils (given that watersheds transcend jurisdictional and political borders) However, as I have indicated before, effective cross-jurisdictional governance requires strong cooperative intergovernmental relations beyond purely high-level discussions. If municipalities are to provide services, their financial budgetary base should be strengthened. These insights would come from the policy sciences literature.

An analysis of the governing relationships between British Columbia and the Metro Vancouver area would be an interesting case for the literature on federalism and intergovernmental relations. It’s particularly relevant to remember that in the Canadian constitution, only provinces and the Federation have a standing (whereas municipalities don’t). Therefore, it is particularly challenging for municipalities to provide services that require increased funding, yet they don’t have the jurisdictional standing to claim it. Countries like Mexico have begun to increase funding devolution from the Federation to the municipality (not without their own problems, given that the states – equivalent to Canada’s provinces – have begun to see budgetary shortages).

Hat tips to Neil LaMontagne for sparking the conversation that led me to this reflection.

Posted in research.

Tagged with cross-jurisdictional governance, urban restructuring.

1 comment

By Raul Pacheco-Vega – August 26, 2009

Laneway housing, affordability and EcoDensity: Preliminary thoughts

Vancouver’s evolutionary urban and industrial development trajectories have been documented by several scholars (Barnes et al, 1992, Hutton 1997, 2004, Barnes and Hutton 2009) in the past couple of decades. The city of Vancouver’s planning processes and departments have also been lauded in the popular press as well as in the academic literature as being ‘cutting-edge’ and innovative.

With burgeoning electronic arts, gaming and information technology industries, Vancouver industrial base appears to be poised to become fundamentally a creative/information society. Clusters of Information Technology (IT) firms have emerged in Gastown and Yaletown (an area that used to be primarily derelict industrial) and this area continues to flourish with new tech-based startups (Hutton 2008). Vancouver isn’t the first city where this has occurred. Several European (including Barcelona and Milan) and Latin American cities have experienced the growth of information-based industries (a process that I have called tertiarization – Pacheco-Vega 2008, Evans 2009).

When I conducted my doctoral dissertation research, I focused on the evolutionary transformation of two cities and the industrial clusters that were embedded in them. I have been puzzled by the re-emergence of a trend to change land use from industrial to residential, sparked in part by the decline of industrial activity in certain urban centres. This coupled industrial/urban restructuring presents a number interesting challenges: how can we provide enough land for residential purposes and what to do about the shifting industrial base in the city.

In a city that is contained and encased (surrounded by oceans on one side and by other municipalities at the south and east), Vancouver has no additional land base to grow horizontally and therefore, planners in this city have needed to consider vertical growth and increased urban density. At the same time, an increasing amount of industrial land has been shifted to residential use (for example, the case of the South East False Creek area).

Both themes (the evolutionary dynamics of urban/industrial land use and the need for increased density) are worthy of examination, and I plan to write about them on this blog in the near future, but for now, I want to just focus on the second one (increased density), since it’s the topic of the recently approved laneway housing proposal that is embedded within the EcoDensity initiative. For those not familiar with EcoDensity, you can read the full Executive Summary of the initiative.

A cursory and preliminary literature review (using Google Scholar and library databases) yielded very little to no academic analysis of the initiative itself (a surprising finding, I might add). I did find some articles and a Masters thesis that dealt in some tangential way with the initiative, but nothing really in-depth on the initiative itself (which gives me great hope for this being a good research project). I am puzzled about EcoDensity (and frankly, skeptical) for several reasons:

First, affordability is dependent not on the capacity of home buyers or renters to purchase or rent, but on the price that developers and renters charge. This price is not controlled by the government and therefore one of the two “auxiliary” wheels in the EcoDensity charter ends being a moot point. Last year you could easily read the advertisements for “spacious 480 sq ft” apartments priced in the $ 300,000 mark (in Vancouver).

Second, livability has embedded substantial psychological considerations. The psychology of buyers and/or renters can’t be influenced by policy decisions. I currently live in a small apartment that is near 500 sq ft. For me, compared to my parents’ house, this apartment is ridiculously small. For me, it’s livable. I don’t know if my parents would have chosen to live in such a small space. For many of my friends, the idea of a house (single family dwelling) with a backyard is what they would call a livable home.

Third, increased density doesn’t guarantee increased sustainability. There are strong arguments in favor of the idea that increased density leads to a lower ecological footprint, including the fact that having more dense regions would mean that residents would have access to more services (and they would be able to reach there by more sustainable, less-impacting means – including walking and/or cycling). But there is no guarantee that this will be the case. The element that policy makers seem to forget here is that behavioral change is not easy. I can assure you that there are people who live in really dense areas who still drive just a few blocks (I’ve witnessed this myself).

I am really curious to see the actual effect of laneway housing and secondary suites on housing affordability. While I am glad that the city recognizes that affordability is a complex issue, I would like to see a more fleshed-out scheme within the EcoDensity charter to influence affordability.

As I mentioned at the beginning of this post, these are just preliminary thoughts. I’ve always been intrigued by the urban planning processes of the city that I’ve called home for almost a decade, and the EcoDensity initiative (and the collateral discussions) could be a good case study. Now, if I only had a research grant to undertake such analysis!

I am, as always, interested in your thoughts on EcoDensity, the laneway housing proposal, the secondary suites proposal.

Posted in environmental economic geography, environmental policy, industrial restructuring.

Tagged with EcoDensity.

6 comments

By Raul Pacheco-Vega – August 4, 2009

Critical Mass, disruptive mobilizations and environmental awareness

One of the most powerful manifestations of a democratic society is the ability of citizens to raise their voices wanting to be heard on policy issues. Social movements and environmental non-governmental organization (ENGOs) focused on protecting the environment are part and parcel of a healthy policy regime, where said ENGOs put pressure on governments to be better at their job of protecting natural resources and ecosystems.

I’ve been studying transnational social movements for about a decade, and in my research I have found one of the most used strategies ENGOs tend to use is public protest. I’ve been fascinated by some organizations’ choice of disruptive techniques not because I think they are particularly effective but because I always wonder its effectiveness. In my research, I have found that many ENGOs that use lobbying, letter-writing, sitting on intergovernmental panels and providing advice as influencing strategies are much more effective than disruption.

There has been a substantial amount of discussion in the online realm on the effectiveness of Critical Mass (a bicycling flash-mob-type of gathering once a month where bikers take the streets in an effort to raise awareness about the need for sustainable modes of transportation – aimed to reduce car usage). While I can fully see the value of a movement like this to raise awareness, and I am a big cycling as a mode of sustainable transportation, lately the perception of its impact on Vancouver has been that it has become less effective in elevating the discourse to issues of sustainable transportation and has become more disruptive.

I fully support the core principle behind Critical Mass but I disagree fundamentally with its disruptive nature. Let me make three points.

First, the flash-mob nature of the movement diminishes the degree to which participants are accountable. Without clear leadership, nobody is accountable for the impact Critical Mass can have on people’s lives (for however short period of time). What will happen if somebody is in an ambulance heading towards St. Paul’s Hospital and Critical Mass disrupts traffic and the patient dies? Who should be held accountable and who would be responsible? Nobody, since Critical Mass has “no leader”

Second, the degree to which disruption occurs has diminished its effectiveness as an awareness-raising event. It has become unruly social disorder. Disruptive mobilizations have a place in social movements, but when Critical Mass’ mandate has been overshadowed by the general perception that it alienates people, making drivers furious and leading to confrontations, then it’s time to change the strategy.

Third, the non-cooperative approach of the movement creates confrontations. These face-offs between drivers and bikers preclude finding any solid, sustainable approaches to increase awareness. A sustainable transportation policy by nature requires stakeholders to negotiate points of agreement and common ground. But given that there is no apparent leadership and no accountability, there is no way to create common ground amongst actors.

I asked online – “when is the tipping point? when does disruption become unruly social order?”. I think Critical Mass creators and their proponents should re-think this and their strategies. A democratic society is a collaborative society, not a confrontational one.

I would appreciate your thoughts about Critical Mass in the comments section. Let’s begin the dialogue.

Posted in environmental policy.

Tagged with Critical Mass, transportation.

44 comments

By Raul Pacheco-Vega – July 30, 2009

Bridging academia and media (Circle of Blue | Water News)

One of the reasons why I started a blog that was primarily focused on my research was to bridge the traditional chasm between “ivory-tower academia” and “on-the-street journalism”. It’s been a challenge for me to remain a traditional academic, whose opinion is sought after as an authoritative scholar in a field, for several reasons. First, one of my research areas has focused on the study of transnational networks of activists. I have studied environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs) and their influence strategies for a decade and I have experienced, first hand, their passion and enthusiasm. It’s hard not to want to take an activist role.

I used to experience the same conundrum with regards to being immersed in the world of new media. I debated whether my writing and energies should be focused purely on disseminating my research findings to the academic world. However, I have realized that, by virtue of bridging my worlds, I have received positive, constructive and well-informed feedback about my scholarly endeavors. I am not the only one who is working on sharing his research findings via social media and new media outlets.

I recently came across Circle of Blue, a strong network of scientists, journalists, scholars focused on water news. Circle of Blue is associated with the Pacific Institute (and co-founded by Dr. Peter Gleick, whom I consider an authority in water research). Gleick is also writing a blog for Circle of Blue where he shares commentary not only about his research but also water projects, etc. I find this quite encouraging for someone like me, who (despite my relatively long career) would be considered in traditional academia an emerging and promising scholar.

I still believe I will keep this blog primarily focused on broadcasting and sharing my own research findings, creating a framework to think about new research ideas and exposing the world to my thoughts on the issues I am thinking about. I believe the model presented in Circle of Blue is an interesting one and I’m looking forward to making use of this online resource on water news.

Posted in bridging media and academia, water policy.

Tagged with green journalism, media, news, water.

1 comment

By Raul Pacheco-Vega – July 22, 2009

Carbon offsets, scorecards and the David Suzuki Foundation Guide to Purchasing Carbon Offsets

Credit: TBSteve

While climate change policy is not one of my strongest and core areas of research, I am familiar with the literature, particularly as it applies to my other pursuits. Integrated assessment (IA, the methodological framework I used when I wrote my PhD dissertation) is a series of heuristics used to integrate knowledge from natural and social sciences in order to inform policy design. IA can be used in a variety of knowledge domains. IA has been extensively used in climate change policy, but in my doctoral research, I applied it to a problem normally situated within the realm of environmental economic geography. While conducting research for my doctorate, I made extensive use of climate change literature.

I preface this post with the disclaimer that climate change and in particular carbon offsetting is not precisely my area of expertise because I am not commenting on the actual content, but I want to comment primarily on the way in which the recent publication by Deborah Carlson and Paul Lingl from the David Suzuki Foundation and Rich Wong from the Pembina Institute “Purchasing Carbon Offsets: A Guide for Canadian Consumers, Businesses, and Organizations” should be used. As the authors of the analysis very aptly indicate:

This guide offers general information for individuals, businesses, and organizations interested in voluntarily using carbon offsets to mitigate their climate impact, and compares specific offset vendors on the basis of criteria established by staff from the David Suzuki Foundation and Pembina Institute. The results presented in this guide are meant only to illustrate the performance of the vendors with respect to these criteria at the time of the survey, and are not intended to replace due diligence on the part of individuals or organizations that wish to purchase offsets.

It’s easy for consumers to go check a scorecard written and endorsed by a prestigious organization (and ENGO). However, it is very important as well for the potential buyer of carbon offsets to do his/her due diligence. I emphasize this aspect because, no matter who conducts the analysis and who writes the guide, scorecard ranking methods may be fraught with elements of subjectivity. The way I see it, the guide is intended to start a process to inform the public on the elements that they might want to consider when buying carbon offsets. It’s NOT intended to replace due diligence.

Scorecards have definite value. Eco-labelling schemes like Ocean Wise and scorecard systems like Sea Choice help consumers make informed choices. But they don’t substitute the need for individuals to research and educate themselves. I think this guide is a good and worthy first step towards comparing how different carbon offsetting systems work.

Posted in climate change, climate policy.

Tagged with carbon offsets.

2 comments

By Raul Pacheco-Vega – July 21, 2009

Perceptions of drinking water quality in Vancouver (project in early stages)

Discussions on whether Vancouver and other municipalities in Canada should ban bottled water have been predominant in the social discourse particularly in the past couple of years (2007-2009). Earlier this year, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities called for a ban in bottled water (mostly focusing on civic buildings and parks). Recently, legislation that effectively would eliminate sales of bottled water in Vancouver has apparently been under discussion, and the Vancouver Education Board seemingly has considered eliminating bottled water sales within schools. I have been puzzled about societal perceptions of drinking water in Canada for a while now. As a scholar of environmental politics, I am fascinated by the political aspects of new policy implementation. Banning bottled water at the municipal or regional level could potentially have negative implications as citizens would shift consumption from bottled water (a healthier alternative) to soft drinks. What kind of policy instruments and new legislation would our province/regional district require in order to encourage the proper shift in behavior (i.e. reduce plastic bottles in landfills, encourage consumption of tap water)? This is an interesting research problem.

The banning bottled water debate in Vancouver offers a number of analytical angles for water research. The first angle is the issue of commodification and privatization of water. Selling bottled water may be perceived as akin to commodifying a natural resource. Another analytical angle can be examining the potential health-associated risk to consumption of tap water. The second aspect offers a lot of interesting research material and it may serve as the backdrop to our project. It could be argued that consumers often (but not always) drink bottled water because they feel safer. Sometimes a consumer may feel compelled to drink bottled water simply because he/she does not have access to tap water at the moment. An implicit assumption is that we don’t need to worry about our safety and health if we consume bottled water. Is our tap water really all that bad?

Dr. Rachel Black and I are in the early stages of putting together a research proposal for a study on cultural perceptions of drinking water in the Greater Vancouver area. We are still deciding on the geographical scale and the scope of the project, but we are primarily interested in understanding how do citizens of the Lower Mainland perceive the quality of tap water. We are still in early stages but I hope we can have a rough draft research proposal by the end of summer (fingers crossed). In the mean time, I’d be interested in hearing from readers as to how they perceived the quality of our tap water in the Vancouver area (or if you are outside, in your own region).

Posted in cultural aspects of water management, water policy.

13 comments

By Raul Pacheco-Vega – July 11, 2009

Being an activist and a scholar

I am fully aware that my research work has implications for environmental public policy at all levels, from the local community to the global arena. I’ve studied a number of phenomena that are of relevance and require paying attention to, like the governance of wastewater, the mobilization strategies of environmental activist groups, and the impacts of restructuring on the local environment at local and regional scales.

Both Kate Milberry and I maintain websites that are associated with our research. In my case, I have used this space to disseminate some of my ideas and findings. Both Kate and I have personal online spaces as well, where we may discuss non-scholarly endeavours. Recently, Kate wrote on her research site about how she found an internal inconsistency with speaking about free software while using proprietary software. This paragraph touched a nerve in me, particularly:

I have always liked and embraced Marx’s idea of praxis: the notion that theory without action is useless and action without theory even more ridiculous, and ultimately unsustainable. From the beginning of my academic career, I have criticized the academy for being out of touch with reality, for navel gazing and other forms of theoretical narcissism. I intended to be an activist, starting from the inside and working out, connecting ideas to action for social change “on the ground.” Not an academic content to warehouse my ideas securely within the ivory tower, speaking jargon to a select chosen few. [Kate Milberry on Geeks and Global Justice

I find myself in a similar conundrum rather frequently, particularly when it comes to studying environmental non-governmental organizations’ strategies to mobilize and put pressure on national and supra-national governments.

As an academic, I find myself wanting to be seen as having credibility. This credence may be due to my rigorous training (armed with a PhD) or it may be due to my research being solid and my work deemed worthy of being referred to. As someone who writes a personal blog, I find that I sometimes want to retreat to that ivory tower that Kate talks about for fear that my readers may not see me as an authority in my specific research fields. And as an activist, I struggle with studying activists. I try really hard to maintain a balanced position, non-biased and scholarly. I find that sometimes, I don’t think I can (or want to) do that because I do believe in the work that a certain ENGO is doing.

But I also share Kate’s goal – I also want to bring my research findings closer to the public, to the un-trained eye, speak to the issues that are affecting society and to influence policy design and implementation. I also strive for and want to effect change in the world I’m living in.

How can I balance my academic work with my activist role and with my community building role? How can I maintain credibility while still ensuring that I am not perceived as being a resident of the “ivory tower”? I’d really appreciate some insight on this.

Posted in research.

7 comments

By Raul Pacheco-Vega – June 9, 2009

Examining the Use of Citizen Submissions on Enforcement Matters (CSEM) to the North American Commission on Environmental Cooperation (NACEC) by Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations

This is the third talk I’m prepared to give – I would think that this would be appealing to political science/public policy academics and/or environmental NGO groups.

Global warming protest outside Washington Park (Photo: Pembleton/Flickr)

Examining the Use of Citizen Submissions on Enforcement Matters (CSEM) to the North American Commission on Environmental Cooperation (NACEC) by Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations

Citizen participation in North American environmental policy-making has had some ebbs and flows, with an increase in participation in some of the CEC’s strategies and programs. Two mechanisms were specifically designed to allow for citizen participation within the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation (NACEC or CEC for short). The first mechanism is the Joint Public Advisory Committee (JPAC), a tri-national advisory board comprised by citizens from all three countries, and from varied backgrounds (industry, academia, non-governmental organizations).

The second one is the Citizen Submission on Enforcement Matters programme (CSEM), based on Articles 14 and 15 of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC). This mechanism provides civil society organizations with the opportunity to play a “whistleblower” role. Any concerned citizen from any of the three countries can prepare and present a submission to the CEC Secretariat denouncing a country for failing to comply with its own environmental laws (NACEC 2001). The CEC Secretariat’s Office of Submissions on Enforcement Matters reviews the submission and assesses whether the submission actually warrants a response from the concerned country.

In this talk, I will provide an overview of a tri-national, collaborative project that examines CSEM. Our objective in this research project is to develop an empirical basis on which to explore the theoretical and applied aspects of civil society involvement on environmental policy-making. We focus on (amongst other aspects), how ENGOs use a trinational policy reform (CSEM). The CSEM is a mechanism built into the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, designed to avoid “races to the bottom” and “pollution havens”. In theory, this type of institutional reform should empower civil society organizations to hold nation-states accountable.

We were particularly interested in undertaking an independent assessment on three key aspects. First, are citizen claims an effective mechanism to influence domestic environmental policy enforcement? Second, does this mechanism provide an opportunity for ENGOs to come together and form transnational advocacy networks? And third, what (if any) are the tangible impacts of the CSEM mechanism? As we have conducted our research, these objectives have had to be adapted and modified. I will offer preliminary results of our collaborative effort and suggest the direction that our project will take in the foreseeable future.

Posted in comparative public policy, environmental NGOs, environmental policy, North America.

Tagged with comparative politics.

2 comments

By Raul Pacheco-Vega – May 5, 2009

Exploring the Effect of Multiple Stressors on the Restructuring of the Mexican Leather and Footwear Industries

This is the abstract I submitted to the University of Victoria Department of Geography.

Exploring the Effect of Multiple Stressors on the Restructuring of the Mexican Leather and Footwear Industries

Credit: Gripso Banana Prune

Traditional theories of industrial restructuring assign the most explanatory weight of the structural change phenomenon to increasing pressures via globalization and falling trade barriers. In this talk, I will describe a new model of thinking about industrial restructuring that includes multiple stressors. The research focuses on three main drivers of structural change: market pressures, environmental regulation and changes in land use and land pricing, using two case studies of leather and footwear industrial clusters in Mexico, located in the cities of León and Guadalajara. Evidence of multiple drivers of structural change is found. Furthermore, responses to restructuring drivers in León and Guadalajara are found to be substantially different. Firms in the leather and footwear cluster in León have implemented countervailing strategies such as price competition, government lobbying, and more recently, investment in socio-economic research (competitiveness) projects. However, firms in the leather and footwear cluster in Guadalajara focused on a specific, high-end target market.

At the larger, urban scale, footwear and its allied industries in the city of León resisted change and have tried to remain in operation while the city of Guadalajara has focused on a diversification strategy, attracting new (arguably more technically advanced) industries.

Empirically, this project applies a firm demographics approach to the study of industrial clusters under multiple stressors. This approach has not been previously used on Mexican data. Theoretically, it demonstrates that future analyses of industrial complexes’ structural change can be strengthened through the use of an integrated assessment framework investigating the effect of multiple stressors (market forces, land pricing, technical change, environmental regulations, and consumer preferences) on industrial restructuring.

Posted in cluster theory, environmental economic geography, environmental policy, industrial restructuring, integrated assessment.

No comments

By Raul Pacheco-Vega – May 5, 2009

« Previous Next »