Amir Nikzad Thesis Presentation

EXPLORING THE UTILIZATION OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES FOR THE

NEW PARKS IN THE MUNICIPALITIES OF THE GREATER TORONTO AREA

BY

AMIR ARDESHIR NIKZAD

Advisor: Lise Burcher

2011

EXPLORING THE UTILIZATION OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES FOR THE

NEW PARKS IN THE MUNICIPALITIES OF THE GREATER TORONTO AREA

INTRODUCTION Problem Statement Research Goal and ObjectivesMETHODOLOGY Literature Review Study Questionnaire Study ContextRESULTSSustainable Development StrategiesBarriersCONCLUSIONResearch limitationsFuture research directions

(Source: http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca)

Introduction Methodology Results Conclusion

PROBLEM STATEMENT

“the ‘environment’ is where we all live; and ‘development’ is what we all do in attempting to improve our lot within that abode. The two are inseparable.” (United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987)

Southern Ontario

Population of Canada in 2006: 31.6 million

36% of the Population of Canada94% of the Population of Ontario

4 million to Greater Golden Horseshoe by 2031

RESEARCH GOAL AND OBJECTIVES

GOAL

To explore if, and why, the municipalities in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) have or have not adopted sustainable development strategies in planning, design, construction and management of their new parks.

OBJECTIVES

• To identify sustainable development strategies employed in planning, design, construction and management of new parks

• To identify the barriers in employing sustainable development strategies in planning, design, construction and management of new parks


LITERATURE REVIEWEvolution of Parks

Sustainable Development

PROCESS FLOW CHART

FORMING INTERVIEW QUESTIONS2009 version of the Sustainable Sites Initiative

STUDY CONTEXTFour Municipalities in the GTA

DATA COLLECTIONConducting Interviews at the Municipalities

ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTSAnalysis and Synthesis of the Collected Data

CONCLUSIONResearch Limitations and Future Research Directions


LITERATURE REVIEWEvolution of parks in North America

The Politics of Park Design (Cranz, 1982)

1. Pleasure Ground1850-1900

2. Reform Park1900-1930

3. Recreation Facility1930-1965

4. Open Space System1965-?


Not self-sufficientLarge amounts of

energy, water, labour, plants,

fertilizers

Produce noise, pesticide-laced

runoff, wastewater, lawn clippings,

garbage

Environmental health not

considered as one of the social goals


LITERATURE REVIEWEvolution of parks in North America

Defining the Sustainable Park: A Fifth Model for Urban Parks (Cranz & Boland, 2004)

Content analysis of 125 parks 1. Physical form5 Landscape periodicals from 1982-2002 2. Social program

3. Promoters4. Intended and actual beneficiaries5. Public reaction

5. The Sustainable Park1990-Present

1. Self-sufficientWith regards to material resources

2. Can play a role in solving larger urban problems when integrated with surrounding urban fabric

3. New aesthetic forms emerge for parks and other urban landscapes

Pleasure Ground1860-1900

Reform Park1900-1930

Rec. Facility1930-1965

Open Space Sys.1965-?

Sustainable Park1990-Present

Social GoalPublic health & Social reform

Social reform: children’s play; assimilation

Recreation service

Participation; revitalize city; stop riots

Human health; ecological health


LITERATURE REVIEW

Beneficiaries

All city dwellers (intended), upper middle class (reality)

Children, immigrants, working class

Suburban families

Residents, workers, poor urban youth, middle class

Residents, wildlife, cities, planet

(Source: http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca)


LITERATURE REVIEWBenefits of Urban Parks

Environmental• wildlife, biodiversity• urban temperatures and humidity• pollutants in air and ground water• recycling of organic materials• storm water runoff• natural world

Social• relaxation, informal recreation, peace, space and beauty• improve health and personal fitness• cultural links with the past, a sense of place and identity• community events, voluntary activity and charitable fundraising.• educational resource

Economical• value to the surrounding property• attracting tourists• employment and inward investment • create a favourable image of a place

LITERATURE REVIEWSustainable Development

SOCIALLY EQUITABLE

Standard of LivingEducation

CommunityEqual Opportunity

ECONOMICALLY FEASABLE

ProfitCost Saving

Economic GrowthResearch &

Development

ENVIRONMENTALLYSOUND

Environmental ManagementNatural Resource UsePollution Prevention

SUSTAINABILITY


Design, construction, operations and maintenance practices that is

“meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987)

(Source: 2002 University of Michigan Sustainability Assessment)

EVALUATION SYSTEM SELECTIONThe Sustainable Sites Initiative (SITES)

• Initiated in 2005

• Interdisciplinary effort by:American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA)Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Centre (LBJWC)United States Botanic Garden (USBG)

• Modelled after United States Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) and draws from LEED

• 55 Individuals developing clear criteria for sustainable landscape design, construction, operations and maintenance


(Source: http://www.sustainablesites.org)

EVALUATION SYSTEM SELECTIONThe Sustainable Sites Initiative (SITES)

“any landscape, whether the site of a large subdivision, a shopping mall, a park, an abandoned rail yard, or a single home, holds the potential both to improve andto regenerate the natural benefits and services provided by ecosystems in their undeveloped state.”

• 233 page report released in Nov. 2009

• New construction and major renovations

• Pilot stage (June 2010-June 2012), 150 projects

• 10 Guiding Principles


(Source: http://www.sustainablesites.org)

EVALUATION SYSTEM SELECTIONSITES’ PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS 2009

CATEGORIES POSSIBLE POINTS1. Site selection 212. Pre-design assessment and planning 43. Site design – water 444. Site design – soil and vegetation 515. Site design – material selection 366. Site design – human health and well being 327. Construction 218. Operations and maintenance 23 9. Monitoring and innovation 18

Total points 250One star 100 (40%)Two Stars 125 (50%)Three Stars 150 (60%)Four Stars 200 (80%)


EVALUATION SYSTEM SELECTION

SITES PrerequisitesSite Selection1. Limit development of soils designated as prime farmland, unique farmland, and farmland of state-wide importance2. Protect floodplain functions3. Preserve wetlands4. Preserve threatened or endangered species and their habitatsPre-design Assessment and Planning5. Conduct a pre-design site assessment and explore opportunities for site sustainability6. Use an integrated site development processSite Design – Water 7. Reduce potable water use for landscape irrigation by 50 percentSite Design – Soil and Vegetation8. Control and manage known invasive plants found on site9. Use appropriate, non-invasive plants10. Create a soil management planSite Design – Materials Selection11. Eliminate the use of wood from threatened tree speciesConstruction12. Control and retain construction pollutants13. Restore soils disturbed during constructionOperations and Maintenance14. Plan for sustainable site maintenance15. Provide for storage and collection of recyclables


STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE

Sections

1. Municipality Organizational Structure

2. Park Standards and Classification

3. Site Selection• Water• Soil and Vegetation• Materials Selection

4. Pre-design Assessment and Planning

5. Site Design

6. Construction

7. Operations and Maintenance

8. General Questions


STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE

Barriers

1. Limited budget

2. Lack of support from government (local/higher)

3. Lack of public support

4. The strategy/initiative not sustainable

5. Strategy not considered a priority at the moment

6. Lack of interest and/or knowledge from the consultants and the contractors

7. Other


STUDY CONTEXTThe Greater Toronto Area


Rest of Canada

53%GTA30%(63%)

Rest of Ontario

17%(37%)

Population Growth in Canada 2001-2006

Rest of Canada

59%

GTA24%(59%)

Rest of Ontario

17%(41%)

Total Number of Private Dwellings Change in Canada 2001-2006

Municipality Population ↕ 01-06

Brampton 108378Vaughan 56844

Mississauga 55624Markham 52958

Richmond Hill 30674

Municipality Dwellings ↕ 01-06

Toronto 75,043

Brampton 32,050

Mississauga 25,502

Markham 19,563

Vaughan 16,906

STUDY CONTEXTThe Greater Toronto Area


(Source: http://mapsof.net/toronto/static-maps/png/greater-toronto-area-map/full-size)

RESULTS

P – Policy

Y – Implemented

N – Not Implemented


Criteria Mississauga Brampton Markham Vaughan

3. Site Selection

3.1 Limit development on Class 1 agricultural land N N P P

3.2 Protect floodplain functions P P P P

3.3 Preserve wetlands P P P P

3.4 Preserve threatened or endangered species Y Y P Y

4. Pre-Design Assessment and Planning

4.1 Pre-design site assessment and site sustainability Y Y Y Y

4.2 Use an integrated site development process Y Y Y N

5. Site Design - Water

5.1 Reduce potable water use for landscape irrigation N N Y N

Site Design - Soil and Vegetation

5.2 Control and manage known invasive plants Y N N N

5.3 Use appropriate, non-invasive plants Y Y Y Y

5.4 Create a soil management plan Y N Y Y

Site Design - Materials Selection

5.5 Eliminate the use of wood from threatened tree species N N Y N

6. Construction

6.1 Control and retain construction pollutants Y P Y Y

6.2 Restore soils disturbed during construction Y Y Y Y


7.1 Plan for sustainable site maintenance N N Y N

7.2 Provide for storage and collection of recyclables Y Y Y P

RESULTS

5. Site Design











RESULTS







RESULTS

P – Policy

Y – Implemented

N – Not Implemented



3. Site Selection

3.1 Limit development on Class 1 agricultural land N N P P

3.2 Protect floodplain functions P P P P

3.3 Preserve wetlands P P P P

3.4 Preserve threatened or endangered species Y Y P Y

4. Pre-Design Assessment and Planning

4.1 Pre-design site assessment and site sustainability Y Y Y Y

4.2 Use an integrated site development process Y Y Y N









6. Construction

6.1 Control and retain construction pollutants Y P Y Y

6.2 Restore soils disturbed during construction Y Y Y Y




RESULTSBarriers

• Limited budget

• Lack of public support

• Strategy not being considered a priority


RESULTS

47 Staff in 4 municipalities

35 Landscape Architects


DirectorParks Development

Construction Coordinator

Landscape Architect

Landscape Architect

Technical Coordinator

Construction Coordinator

Landscape Architect

Landscape Architect

Lanscape Technologist

Administrative Coordinator

RESULTS

Limited Budget

Life-cycle Costing LCC = C + M +F + R – S

C: CapitalM: Maintenance F: Fuel R: ReplacementS: Salvage

Public Support

Equitable Site DevelopmentEquitable Site UsePromote Sustainability Awareness and Education


CONCLUSIONResearch limitations

• Study Context

• Interviewees

• Limited literature on history of urban parks in Ontario


CONCLUSIONFuture research directions

• Verification of responses at ground level

• Other municipalities’ park authorities

• Other types of landscapes


THANK YOU FOR LISTENNING!
