Place-making and sustainability in Ontario’s small urban municipalities

ABSTRACT

The complex task of place-making to build sustainable communities has been challenging yet compelling when finding solutions to intertwined issues on the environment, the economy and society. This paper examines the idea of sustainable place-making for building sustainable communities in the context of small urban municipalities (SUMs) in Ontario, Canada. For this purpose, a ‘small urban municipality’ is defined as a city or town that has adopted a local environmental action plan and/or an economic development strategy and has no more than 60,000 populations. It provides a conceptual review of place-making and explores how it is linked with the goal for urban sustainability in the context of SUMs in the Canadian way. The study seeks to answer this question: based on a survey of relevant professions, what are the constraints and factors facing cities, towns and townships in Ontario for creating sustainable communities in terms of place-making?

KEYWORDS:

• Place-making
• urban sustainability
• sustainable community development
• small urban municipalities
• place

1. Introduction

Sustainability remains at the centre of discursive terrain in research and policy debates in the global environment and development arena with the idea that sustainability is viewed with three pillars (social, economic and environmental) (Goodland 1995; Hempel 1999). If worded differently, ‘sustainability’ is well positioned in terms of the ‘triple bottom line’ comprising the economy, the environment and society in discursive narratives about place-making in urban areas. Though there is a critical need to examine the relationship between place-making and urban sustainability, we have yet to understand how they are linked in shaping the planet’s future. Despite a burgeoning literature, the concepts of place-making and sustainability have been contested within research and practice in urban sustainability. In this paper, ‘urban sustainability’ is the idea of urbanised towns and cities organised without an excessive reliance on the surrounding hinterland and characterised with livable spaces, prosperous economies, secure environment and empowered communities. The term ‘place-making’ in relation to urban sustainability is unclear in conceptual sense whether they overlap, diverge or exhibit a shared interest within the field of sustainability. As such, this is the lacuna that the current urban sustainability study seeks to fill.

One thing is certain: the twenty-first century has been claimed the ‘urbanisation century’ as more than half of the world’s population live in towns and cities, with the urban continuously outgrowing the rural (Keivani 2010, p. 5). The question is this: How does place-making create or influence sustainability? Towns and cities are pivotal to development as they contribute 85% of gross national product in high-income countries (Friedmann 2010; Keivani 2010). In the South, concerns on urban problems such as rising population, environmental degradation and resource scarcity have been identified (Drakakis-Smith 1995; Keivani 2010). In the North, cities continue to build massive infrastructure and initiate projects that reflect a complex picture of contradiction and fragmentation rather than a promise of sustainability (Williams 2009). Since cities are p1aces of cultural and social interaction as well as centres of political and economic power, it is important to consider their myriad challenges to urban sustainability (Keivani 2010).

With parallel issues on environmental degradation and world poverty, the poor in the developing countries are primarily concerned with earning a living than caring for the environment (Drakakis-Smith 1995; Keivani 2010). On the environmental front, cities are the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions affecting the world climate (Keivani 2010). In economic terms, cities and towns in Canada and elsewhere have put emphasis on municipal investments, growth of local economies and community development alternatives in pushing for economic prosperity and sustainability (Turvey 2015). While there is dynamism in sustainability as an expanding field, the spatial dimension for policy decisions and actions in place-making has been neglected in sustainability thinking. Although it is essential to deal with questions of ‘what’ or ‘who’ is to be sustained, the question of ‘where’ and/or ‘which place’ is becoming sustainable (or unsustainable) is equally relevant to sustainability studies. This geographic dimension has not been a key issue in the field’s literature as current academic, and policy interests are limited in dealing with the question of ‘what places and surfaces on Earth can become sustainable?’

This paper examines the concept of place-making as an approach for building sustainable communities in the context of small urban municipalities (SUMs) in Ontario, Canada. As referred to in this paper, a ‘small urban municipality’ is defined as a city or town with a population of no more than 60,000 that have adopted a local environmental action plan and/or an economic development strategy. Across Canada, SUMs have sustainability policies and strategies to protect their local natural resources and the environment concerning issues on climate change, resource competition and balance due to rising demands for social, cultural and economic development. Many SUMs implement economic development strategies (EDS) and/or environmental action plans (EAPs) to deal with changes and challenges on the economy and the environment. Increasingly, local governments play an important role in setting development charges, standards on public utilities, building codes, investment priorities and local economic development (Hendrickson et al. 2011). They provide municipal services such as water, waste collection, public transit, land-use planning, public safety and other community services (Madsen 2004). Yet, studies on what SUMs do towards sustainable community development show they continue to struggle in implementing strategies for economic and environmental plans, improve their quality of life and create a ‘sustainable community’ (OSUM 2004; Marsden and Hines,  2008 ; AMO 2010; Hendrickson et al. 2011).

The article provides a conceptual review of place-making and explores how it is linked with the goal of urban sustainability of SUMs in the Canadian context. Through a survey of sustainability-related professions from Mayor to planner, the study aims to answer this question: based on a survey of relevant professions, what are the constraints and factors facing urban areas such as cities and towns in Ontario for creating sustainable communities? In reporting the province-wide survey results, three key issues are addressed. The first examines the constraints of pursuing sustainable community development (SCD), and the second discusses the factors contributing to the SUM’s capacity for building and managing sustainable communities. The third surveys the local capacity of professionals and practitioners concerning their acquired skill sets for SCD. This survey of local capacity will determine the gap between the skills that are already acquired by professionals and what are required in SCD practice. The next section gives an overview and literature review of place-making before a discussion of SCD.

2. Place and place-making

In Geography, place matters. Geographers have long articulated the importance of the term called ‘place’ as a unique conceptual foundation that makes the discipline distinct from the rest (Entrikin 1991; Seamon & Sowers 2008). As Seamon and Sowers (2008, p. 43) put it, ‘History has time, Geography has place.’ A place can include the natural world, the built environment or Earth environment in the context of human–nature relations. A place can be found in nature, and nature can be regarded as a place, a physical world or a natural world to interact, as described in the dictionary. Place can be any undisturbed landscape to be used and explored by humans or something to be overcome or nurtured, if not conquered (Hartshorne 1979; Entrikin 1991). When we utter the word ‘place’, we do not simply refer to its location elsewhere, anywhere and somewhere to visit, live, work or meet with other people and engage in human activities in temporal and spatial dimensions. In geography, places are generally held with spatial-temporal dimensions with basic notions of location, scale, direction and distance, physical and cultural aspects, distribution, changing attributes and nature of interactions with other places (Fellmann et al. 2009; Fouberg et al. 2015). Urban areas small or large are faced with a diversity of environmental issues from climate change to resource depletion, biodiversity loss and other global problems. To sustain life, we have to strive for Earth’s sustainability by addressing the ecological concerns for the planet to survive indefinitely.

The concept of place as context with an active role and presence in our local worlds, whether to initiate, act and transform the organization of, and interactions in space is vital to sustainable development, economic prosperity and societal well-being. The word ‘place’ in sustainability defines ‘where’, ‘how’ and ‘why’ sustainable development as a process occurs, since sustainability does not occur in a vacuum. Apart from its spatial character, a place has specific temporal, social and human dimensions that contribute to shaping places and particular human experience of them. Scholarly attention to the geography of sustainability is important to the study of place and place-making. One may ask: Is this assertion a conceptual necessity? This aspect of sustainability has been taken for granted in mainstream studies despite efforts to create urban areas into sustainable cities and towns over the past three decades. What place is confronting sustainability issues? The spatial dimension has been left out in conceptual analysis when looking at sustainability as a goal for place-making.

Broadly, place-making has been defined in several ways (Sorensen & Funck 2007; Friedmann 2010; Arefi 2014). In this inquiry, place-making is a process of planning, designing, managing and programming spaces to create patterns of activities in cultural, social, economic and ecological terms to achieve better quality of life, a prosperous economy and a healthy environment. It can be an approach to environmental thinking in sustainability terms as a strategy for transforming cities and public spaces based on the community’s assets, development goals and potentials, to promote well-being, happiness and overall health in a local place, urban area or neighbourhood. Place-making can be a collective undertaking by individuals and communities through the synergies of local inputs and bottom-up participation where people play an active role in environmental improvement and management processes (Sorensen & Funck 2007). It is about creating livable neighbourhoods with government getting local initiatives underway and encouraging neighbourhood institutions and associations where making places is everyone’s job (Friedmann 2010).

There is a substantial body of literature on ‘place’ in everyday use, but the same may not be said about place-making in environmental context. Place-making is everyone’s concern whether you are a local resident, a politician, professional planner, architect, conservationist, environmentalist, sociologist, technologist and so on. Current literature on place-making is embedded in a range of disciplines that conceptually engaged the topic not only from planning and design but also from geographical and building perspectives. Some academics and practitioners involved in a sustained inquiry argue that ‘it is about the critical capacity of the place-making process itself to confirm and interrogate the place-becoming’ (Schneekloth & Shibley 1995, p. xiii). Though it is a way all of us change or transform a place into places in which we live, work and visit, there are relatively few treatments written by sustainability scientists and environmental scholars that link place-making with sustainability. Contemporary place-making theory is different from place-making in the 1970s, 1980s and even the 1990s. Current place-making puts greater emphasis on positive and prescriptive rather than normative and proscriptive studies (Arefi 2014, p. 97). While theorists in the 2000s generated theirs from a review of best practices and use of case studies, today’s studies on place-making are based on context-specific research in place-making. In critical theory, place-making is an intrinsic part of the social practice of place where both people and place play a simultaneously dependent role (Abdelwahab 2006; Seamon 2012). In fact, there is the matter of ‘attachment’ to place which can be subjective but constitutive of a place (Friedmann 2010).

As Seamon (2013) puts it, phenomenologically, a place can be defined as any environmental locus in and through which individual or group actions, experiences, intentions and meanings are drawn together spatially (Relph 1976; Casey 2009). Like place-making, place attachment is rarely static and Seamon’s (2013) idea is to bring attention to the generative aspects of place. With six place processes, Seamon (2013) identified two groupings for place interaction, place identity, place release, place realisation, place creation and place intensification. On the one hand, place interaction, place identity, place release and place realisation are those that ‘describe what places are and how they work’. On the other hand, place creation and place intensification could indicate how positive human effort and well-crafted making can improve place, or through an inappropriate understanding and constructions, can activate place decline (Seamon 2013). As explained, place creation is about improving places and human beings are active in relation to place, and as such, people have a responsibility to, and draws on their commitment and empathetic knowledge of a place to make creative shifts in policy planning and design. However, it can also be a process that undermines when it comes to thinking and making those results in misunderstanding or ignoring the real needs of place. Further, when it comes to place intensification, Seamon (2013) argues that the ‘independent power of well-crafted policy, design and fabrication could review and strengthen a place.’ Place-making can be associated with ‘place creation’, and even ‘place intensification’ where positive human efforts and well-crafted making can improve places where human beings are active in relation to place (Seamon 2013). These ideas articulate the consistency of, and support to the idea of improving places and making places stronger, more adaptive to change, whatever the physical challenges are, towards a ‘robust environment synergy’. Another view of place-making concerns ‘daily acts of renovating, maintaining and representing the places that sustain us, and of special, celebratory one-time events such as designing a new church building or moving into a new facility’ (Schneekloth & Shibley 1995, p. 1).

The conceptualisation of place-making and sustainability indicate that: a) most definitions provide a variety of meanings with shared understanding of our planet Earth in confronting a range of developmental and environmental problems to find sustainable solutions; b) there are scholarly conceptualisations that mirror the response of the global research/policy community to the challenges of sustainability concept; and c) there is no universal definition of urban sustainability perhaps due to varied contexts and perspectives. The concept of sustainability is a process of ‘creation, maintenance and renewal that persists in balance with the process of decline’ (Hempel 1992). Others have stressed how it could be applied for decision-making and management, advocacy, consensus building and analysis from a favourable, more acceptable view of the usefulness of the term (Parris & Kates 2003). To Rogerson et al. (2011, p. 1), sustainability is likened to an established brand, not only that (it) expresses an ‘…aspiration to manage resources more effectively, but also one that imbues policy making and thinking with sensitivity towards rebalancing environmental, social and economic dimensions.’ Cultural-specific definitions are not covered here, but it should be stressed that they are equally important in understanding the connection between place-making and sustainability. Each culture may have a different interpretation of what is sustainable development and sustainability, depending upon their value systems, overall outlooks on matters pertaining to the environment and so on. The next section discusses sustainable community development (SCD).

3. Sustainable community development

Rapid progress and developments in sustainability science and the global research community stressed the need to integrate an approach reflecting solutions that are interdisciplinary, transdisciplinary in our outreach to society (Leemans & Solecki 2013; Turvey 2015). In this section, examples of creating sustainable cities or communities are discussed to illustrate the early efforts towards community (urban) sustainability or SCD. But first, what is a ‘community’? Terms like place and ‘community’ in sustainability are key organising and planning concepts to interpret the site, setting and function as well as relations, connections and interactions between and among places in SCD development. To Mason (2000, p. 21), the ordinary concept of ‘community’ is ‘constituted by a group of people who have a range of values, a way of life, identify with a group and its practices and recognise each other as members of that group’. To Shaffer (1989, p. 3), a ‘community’ is a ‘group of people in a physical setting with geographic, political and social boundaries and with discernible community linkages.’ Others refer to ‘community’ as a valued achievement and a moralised concept because it is based on shared interests, solidarity, equality and other forms of association not strictly tied to particular places (Mason 2000; Williamson et al. 2002). Increasingly, the concept of ‘community’ stresses the role of active local agencies, the nurturing of civil society and mutual recognition within a community’s economic life. Community sustainability is used interchangeably to mean SCD defined with interests on local quality of life, population pressures and inter-temporal equity. There is support for considering sustainability in three pillars, namely social, economic and environmental dimensions.

In creating sustainable communities, Hempel’s (1998) work reviewed its evolution from the 19^th Century starting with the Garden City movement by Ebenezer Howard (1898); bioregional planning and design by Patrick Geddes (1915); US New Towns movement in the 1920s; and grassroots communitarian movements in 1948. The Garden city movement is a planned settlement conceived by Howard (1850–1928) that offered benefits of urban living away from crowding and squalor of Victorian cities. Howard’s idea was to create cities that promoted greenbelt with a low housing density, parks and open spaces and plenty of allotted areas. The bioregional planning and design idea were argued to be effective if the design was interdisciplinary in approach and focused on building sustainable communities as is adopted by the University of Idaho. The American New Towns Movement involved newly created green field sites or sites around a pre-existing settlement. It was planned to relieve overcrowding and congestion in the major conurbations with the aim to create a town that is economically viable with light industry, shops and services. In the UK, a New Towns Act passed in 1946 aspired for low housing density and neighbourhoods of 5,000 people with their own shops, schools and health centres. The UK government designated areas as new towns and passed development control functions with housing development in greenbelt sites. In the 1960s, the models and ideas involved the great society urban programmes; the decline of faith in technological progress; and the Spaceship Earth idea (Fuller 1969). The concept of Spaceship Earth conceived by Fuller in 1969 was a view of the world and an expression of concern over the use of limited resources available on Earth and considered the behaviour of everyone. It asserted the need for harmony towards working for the greater good. To this day, this idea has become an iconic and symbolic structure that soon became a part of the Walt Disney World Resort. In the 1970s, more outstanding ideas came into surface and subject to debates and discourses such as Limits to Growth by Meadows et al. (1972); resilience of ecological communities (Holling 1973), local self-reliance and appropriate technology movements in the 1970s (e.g. Morris 1982); Urban ecology and eco-city movement (1987) and strategic coupling of the environment and development within the sustainable development dialogue in 1987 and 1990s (Hempel 1999). Holling’s (1973) Resilience Ecological Communities saw communities that bounce back or recover through an adaptation; or those with the capacity for returning quickly to their previous state to a constancy of persistence. These communities are capable to be back where they were, actively influencing and preparing for economic, social and environmental change. The so-called Urban ecology and eco-city movement (Engwicht 1993) placed emphasis on urban ecology, a sub-field of ecology dealing with the study of organisms in an urban or urbanised community and their interactions within that community.

Urban ecologists studied trees, rivers and open spaces and examined how these resources are affected by pollution, overdevelopment and pressures. The eco-city movement was first launched in the 1990s where the vision was for an ecologically efficient industry integrated with the people’s needs and aspirations. This movement described a harmonious culture and landscape where nature, agriculture and the built environment were functionally integrated in a healthy way. After all, an eco-city is seen as an ecologically healthy city. From the nineteenth century to the present, progress in creating ‘sustainable communities’ has been deemed difficult and patchy, even with the best intentions to transform a community into a place desirable to its residents with ‘better quality of life’. Bridger and Luloff (1999) have noted a spike in the sustainable community literature and its partner concept, sustainable community development since the 1990s (Van der Ryn & Cathorpe 1986; Rees & Roseland 1991; Chamberland 1994; Berry 1995).

Sustainable community development defines the relationships between the local quality of life and local/regional levels of population, consumption of resources, political participation and commitment and inter-temporal equity (Hempel 1999). Conceptually, SCD is a place-making process of planning, design, transformation and capital mobilisation, for example, the use of human capital in development activities (Turvey 2015). SCD is an interdependent planning and implementation framework on strategic directions, strategies, actors and instruments for municipal place-making and examines how the economy influences the unsustainable development of local jurisdictions and how a coherent typology of strategies, actors and policy levers can move communities towards complementary environmental, social and economic outcomes for developing the built environment (Hendrickson et al. 2011).

‘Sustainable communities’ remain to be a contested concept and lacking a widely accepted definition (Rogerson et al. 2011, p. 9). If one is to examine the ideas of relevance, coupling rather than decoupling of the economy, the environment and society are fundamental elements for building a sustainable community. For instance, Hempel (1999) examined the implications of sustainability concepts and their applications in real-world communities. An important point made here is that ‘…lasting gains in the quality of life cannot be achieved without effective integration of environmental, social and economic goals at the community and regional level.’ Roseland (2005) stressed the potential and economic dimensions of community sustainability relative to growth management, urban ecology and environmental planning. In this context, a sustainable community ‘resembles a living system in which human, natural and economic elements are interdependent and drawing from each other’ (CSCD 2016).

4. Ontario SUMs and community sustainability

Since Lester Brown pioneered the concept of sustainable development in the 1970s, concepts such as urban sustainability and community sustainability (or SCD) have emerged in research and policy development in sustainability science, natural resource management and environmental studies (WCED 1987). In theory, temporal and spatial characteristics shape individuals’ and groups’ experience in terms of the conceptual analysis of place-making and community sustainability.

In hindsight, the conceptualisation of community sustainability is evolving with the emergence of various definitions and an absence of a universal definition. Based on a discursive review of community sustainability and place-making, both exhibit similar objectives. There are no overlaps but certainly share interests as to what is to be sustained or maintaining life on this planet. Are there misconceptions and conceptual flaws? In more recent past, its meaning was unambiguous if not misused and abused, but currently, the synonym for sustainability is ‘good’ for everything that is positive (Karoly 2011, p. 1). There is strong evidence that both concepts show interrelated interest to create a normative framework for shaping a sustainable world. Broadly, sustainability does not simply exist in quotation marks as some argue where the power of the concept lies in the discourses surrounding it (Redclift 2005). While place-making can be a positive and dynamic function in planning, design and management terms, community sustainability as a goal means the state of maintaining and sustaining the life-support systems, maintaining natural capital, improving the quality of life and so on as we reach for an indefinite life on Earth. Place-making and sustainability are complementary but not mutually exclusive, parallel yet distinctive. First, place-making assumes the functions of constructing, maintaining and fixing whatever is essential to keep a place in acceptable, running condition to serve the purpose for which it is designed, built and managed for human use. Second, SCD is not in conflict with place-making because the former focuses on managing natural resources, ensuring ecological services are sustained, promoting for instance, intergenerational and intra-generational equity.

In the twenty-first century, everyone contributes to the discourse of sustainability as an integral aspect of the three-pillar view of (economic, social and environmental) sustainability. Inputs to SCD can be by group of stakeholders, by profession or by corporate responses-through which collective, mainstream and everyday efforts generate meaningful contributions towards shaping a sustainable world. There is no reason to create confusion about community sustainability as it differs or relates to distributive justice, environmental security and social equity. The links between place-making and SCD could be sharper in discourses concerning their functional relationships and meanings. The question is to find out ways to construct places for building a sustainable city or town, and hence, this focuses on place-making within the framework of ‘urban sustainability’. We can continue to carry out research and find solutions to transform small urban municipalities into sustainable communities such as those in Ontario, Canada. For this purpose, sustainable place-making in SUMs is examined through a survey research of those municipalities with development and environmental strategies in place to achieve community sustainability or SCD. The approach in asserting the idea of sustainable place-making is to understand the constraints to SCD, the factors considered by SUMs in community sustainability and the level of human capacity of SCD professionals and practitioners in terms of their acquired skills in generic, specialist and technical skills.

This survey focused on sustainable place-making in Canada’s small urban municipalities as spatial manifestation of sustainable development, a centrepiece of Canadian government policy on the economy, the environment and society. Its specific focus pertains to these key issues: 1) the need for operational definition of place-making in SCD practice, 2) the strategies adopted by SUMs for place-making to achieve community sustainability and 3) local capacity for SCD practice. The operational assumption is that if the Province of Ontario continues to invest in development work, it will sustain its economic competitiveness and achieve a healthy environment, economy and society and succeed in the twenty-first century and beyond. In this study, the concept of sustainable place-making involves strategies such as maintenance of critical natural capital; making changes and addressing challenges to sustain life support systems; protecting natural resources and community capital/assets; and promoting social equity, environmental security and human welfare and achieving improved quality of life and support sustainable life within the locality. Currently, we need conceptions of place-making that link the energies within the local economy, the imaginations of peoples (communities) and the ecologies (nature) that occupy them in framing sustainable places. Here, sustainable place-making is a transformative process of developing, designing and managing places with the people in mind. In operational terms, sustainable place-making is viewed in the research as a function of creating and transforming places subject to human capacities of applying appropriate skills, knowledge, techniques and methods to build sustainable communities.

Places gather ‘worlds spatially and environmentally’, marking out centres of human action, interaction and meaning which in turn contributes to the making of place (Relph 2009; Erickson 2010; Seamon 2012). With that perspective, it asserts ‘people-place relations’ where places are viewed not as static objects but rather as relationships, processes and situations of a dynamic and ever changing nature where major actors and players such as built-in professionals and SCD practitioners are actively engaged in shaping sustainable communities. As a process, there are specific actors such as developers and built-environment professionals engaged in planning, management and maintenance of places and creation of patterns of activities linking cultural, economic, social and ecological aspects of a place. As place-making promotes the well-being of geographically defined communities, it becomes closely tied with community efforts for economic development and sustainability (Rangwala 2008). Place-making can engage people to improve, restore and manage existing places so they are utilised as venues, sites, location, centres and lived spaces for human interaction. Place-making approaches such as efforts for economic regeneration, smart growth and green economies are often discussed in places with green development initiatives, for example, renewable energy programmes.

The overarching goal of the survey research on Ontario’s SUMs was to generate insights on the process of sustainable place-making in the context of building sustainable communities. Based on existing literature, scant attention has been given to place-making for sustainability at the local level. There is a gap in current knowledge of how the conceptualisation of ‘sustainable communities’ influence place-making in small-urban municipalities (ARUP 2007; Schultz 2010; Warhurst 2013). The wider process of building sustainable communities towards higher quality of and better economies remains under-studied (Gingras & Roy 2000; Rogerson et al. 2011; Komarnicki 2012). Theoretical and operational work on community sustainability is limited in Canada yet well-developed elsewhere (Bailey & McIntosh 2004; Bailey 2005; ARUP 2007; Marsden & Hines 2008; Thomas & Littlewood 2010). The survey aimed to advance community sustainability and gain insights on how particular municipalities and/or local government entities such as Ontario’s small urban municipalities build sustainable communities. In the immediate term, the survey is expected to provide an understanding of the place-making process to achieve sustainability at the local level.

5. Survey design and analysis

This section provides an analysis of the survey to identify the constraints and factors faced by the small urban municipalities in Ontario pursuing sustainable place making in the context of community sustainability or SCD. The study of SUMs bears significance to the most vulnerable group of local governance, and the small urban municipalities often faced with job losses due to plant closings, downsizing and flight of capital. Others are threatened with community breakdown if not loss of community along with environmental destruction in once vibrant towns and single resource towns when their only industry shuts down. Creating local wealth for the economy and the environment is possible, if communities are revitalised and built as sustainable communities. The results from this research could benefit the communities themselves, the provincial and federal governments as they frame policies for meeting the needs of SUMs. As communities confront the difficult task of place-making, lessons learned from each community could be replicated for the well-being of the residents/stakeholders whose common interest is to care for not only the economy, but also the society and the environment.

To investigate the relationship between place-making and urban community sustainability in empirical terms, a province-wide survey was conducted in 74 Ontario communities that fit the definition of SUMs with no more than 60,000 populations. By spatial framework, the 74 communities represented the Southern and Northern cities, towns, townships and counties in Ontario such as the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio, the Town of Amerhstburg to the city of North Bay and the County of Haliburton. An electronic survey was administered with a questionnaire sent to respondents who were randomly selected by position and profession. In addition, target respondents were provided with a glossary and informed consent form to ensure their compliance with research ethics. The electronic questionnaire was the main instrument for data collection done between 15 November and 31 December 2015. The survey results reported in this article are part of a larger provincial survey carried out as a pilot project that focused on the level of skills and knowledge required and acquired by the respondents involved in community sustainability activities. In this survey, respondents were asked to 1) identify the constraints to community sustainability from a pre-conceived list; 2) identify which factors influence community sustainability or help initiate SCD projects in their respective municipality or SUM; and 3) find out which acquired skills or skills the respondents already have in the practice of their profession or in the performance of their position with respect to generic, specialist and technical skills, and whether they are basic or high level skills. For this survey, generic skills include skills in project management, process/change management, stakeholder management, team building and conflict resolution. Examples of specialist skills are geographic information system (GIS), community design, building inspection and transport planning. For technical skills varied from green space management, impact assessment, knowledge of climate change, knowledge of conservation/conservation methods, land use planning and environmental education, here were 300 randomly selected participants whose positions in the public and private sectors ranged from Mayors to landscape architects. By profession and position, the participants for the online survey were organised into two groups. Group 1 respondents are from the local government and are primarily Mayors or Reeves to get a local policy perspective; Group 2 respondents are from core occupations and professions comprising a broad mix of economic planning, development and built-environment professions, public service, socially and economically focused professionals working across public, private and voluntary sectors. Group 2 built-in professionals include landscape architects, urban designers, urban planners, transportation planners and economic development officers/managers.

Random participants were chosen from membership directories of professional associations and organisations and the website of SUMs with a population threshold of no more than 60,000. Quantitative analysis/statistical methods were applied to include ratio and proportion, Kruskal–Wallis H-test statistics of which the SPSS 20.0 application as statistical software system was used for data analyses. The 74 Ontario communities covered are outlined in Table 1 below by urban area category and by threshold population.

Table 1. Ontario survey communities by population.

Local category of urban area	Population threshold	Number
Township	9,000–30,000	23
Towns	21,000–40,000	31
City	41,000–60,000	15
County	31,000–40,000	5
Total		74

Survey Results 2015

Of the 300 surveys sent electronically (via e-mail), 204 usable survey forms were not completed by targeted participants. With an overall rate of return of 32%, the 96 usable survey returns included 26 elected officials, 28 planners, 10 architects, 12 landscape architects and 20 economic development officers and managers.

In the study, the hypotheses are as follows:

Null Hypothesis

H₀:

The mean ranks of the groups (different professionals) are the same.

Alternative Hypothesis

H₁:

The mean ranks of the groups (different professionals) in the sample populations differ statistically.

Similar to the Mann–Whitney U-test, the Kruskal–Wallis H-test is used for data analysis to answer the question about independent samples of subjects in terms of differences between groups in the study (Kruskal & Wallis 1952; Cramer 1997). The Kruskal–Wallis H-test is nonparametric version of the test and one-way analysis of variance known as ANOVA. In the Kruskal–Wallis H-test, nominal, not ordinal data are used in the statistical analyses of survey data sets.

For the survey, the use of Kruskal–Wallis is aimed to examine if differences among professionals exist. In the test statistics, the grouping variable was by profession. The test statistic and test employed in the Kruskal–Wallis test with a level of significance (p = .05). The Kruskal–Wallis tests examined if the groups of professionals (Mayors, architects, planners and EDOs) differed in the responses to each question. It is the appropriate test to test the hypotheses (H₀ and H₁) and examines whether they are equal or show statistical differences among professionals.

In terms of the underlying assumption of independence, the scores of the subjects are independently and randomly sampled from the respective population groups with the study design and conduct of the survey maintaining independence. In Table 2, respondents by position and profession were asked to identify the constraints to community sustainability from the pre-conceived list that ranged from insufficient enabling legislation to lack of expertise (skills and knowledge on community sustainability) to inadequate finances at the local level. Except for Mayors or Reeves for certain towns, cities or townships, the survey did not ask respondents to identify the work location of professionals, meaning that an architect may have a job or design project in City A but lives in City B. Table 2 provides the results by proportion in percentages and by professions. The purpose was to compare the similarities (or differences) by responses as to which was an obstacle or not. Under the item of insufficient enabling legislation, Mayors and landscape architects both see it as a constraint from 80.7% to 83%, while inadequate finances for SCD projects are seen by 58% of Mayors compared to 90% each of economic developers, planners and architects. The fiscal issue has been a nagging problem of local governments for competing development projects, so it does not come as a surprise if 69.7% of all professions agreed to it as SCD constraint. The lack of an environmental plan or sustainability policy is cited among the major constraints or disadvantages by 48.9% of all professions. Not surprisingly, majority of the respondents agree that they have no problem with access to appropriate technology (in the practice of their profession).

Table 2. Constraints to sustainable community development (Proportion by%).

Constraints to SCD	Mayors/ Reeves	EDOs/ Mgr	Planners	Architects	Landscape Architects	Proportion of All professions
Insufficient enabling legislation	80.7	35.0	25.0	0	83.0	46.8
Lack of Public will/support	61.5	55.0	28.5	70.0	16.6	45.8
Inadequate methods to address environmental problems	19.2	0	0	0	0	5.2
Lack of expertise (skills/knowledge)	61.5	0	30.0	30.0	66.6	34.3
Inadequate finances: SCD projects	57.7	90.0	90.0	90.0	1.0	69.7
Fragmentation of responsibility	19.2	45.0	80.0	80.0	1.0	35.4
Lack of access to appropriate technology	0	15.0	0	0	0	3.1
Lack of environmental plan/sustainability policy	42.3	55.0	55.0	80.0	66.6	48.9
Others	7.6	10.0	10.0	10.0	8.3	6.2

EDO/Mgrs.: economic Development Officers, Managers and Directors L. Architects: Landscape Architects.

Of the planners and architects, 80% viewed the fragmentation of responsibility in the same way perhaps due to the similar nature and closeness in the practice of their profession. In short, they may prefer a one-stop service to reduce the red tape when engaging with local official business for project processing and approvals. Only Mayors and landscape architects believe the lack of expertise in skills and knowledge to be at 61.5% and 66.6%, respectively, as a constraint to community sustainability. Though scores varied, the respondents are unanimous in the lack of an environmental action plan and economic development strategy unanimously as a constraint to SCD.

Questionnaire responses among professionals were compared using the Kruskall–Wallis H test (p = .05) (McDonald 2014). Data on other professionals were removed from analyses due to low sample size. Thus, only responses between city Mayors, EDOs, planners and architects/landscape architects were compared. A Mann–Whitney U-test using a Bonferroni correction (.05/4) was the post hoc test utilised when significant differences in survey responses among professionals were observed (Zar 1996).

Given the small sample sizes, exact p values were calculated rather than asymptotic p values. The procedure guarantees protection from Type 1 errors at our threshold significance level (α = .05). When sample sizes are small (i.e. n ≤ 15 for Kruskall–Wallace tests, use of the exact p value calculation will always produce a reliable result irrespective of the size, sparseness, distribution or balance of the data . Approximately 32% of the original sample population provided survey responses (Table 3).

Table 3. Sample population and rate of return.

Profession	Sample Population	Survey Returns	Rate of Return
Elected official (Mayors/Reeves	74	26	35.1
Planners (Officers/Managers)	80	28	35
Architect	51	10	19.6
Landscape Architect	43	12	27.9
Economic Development Officers/Managers/Directors	52	20	38.5
TOTAL	300	96	32

Survey Results 2015.

In Table 4, for the constraint of insufficient enabling legislation, the Kruskall–Wallace H-test showed that there were significant differences in responses among professionals with respect to opinions on the constraint of insufficient enabling legislation (X² = 12.965, df = 3, p = .004).

Table 4. Test statistics ^a,b comparison on constraints to sustainable community development (at α = .05).

Constraints	Chi-square	Df	p
Insufficient enabling legislation	12.965	3	.004
Lack of public will or support	1.296	3	.741
Inadequate methods to address environmental problems	2.248	3	.499
Lack of expertise (skills and knowledge)	3.993	3	.269
Inadequate finances at the local level or municipality for SCD projects	16.984	3	.001
Fragmentation of responsibility within municipality	16.953	3	.001
Lack of access to appropriate technology	7.141	3	.061
Lack of environmental plan or economic development strategy	8.167	3	.041
Others	1.592	3	.647

Survey Results 2015a. Kruskal-Wallist Testb. Grouping variable by profession.

For the constraint of inadequate finances at the local level, the Kruskall–Wallace H-test (X²) value is 16.984 at df = 3 where p = .001. The same can be said of the fragmentation of responsibility within the municipality where the (X²) value is 16.953 at df = 3, p = .001 which is less than the p value. These constraints are considered to be major SCD constraints. From Table 4, it shows as well that the lack of an environmental action plan and/or economic development strategy poses a constraint to SCD, since the alpha value of .001 is less than p = .05. This means that in terms of test of association, if the results are less than p = .05, they are statistically significant.

Table 5 provides the statistical results for the question to identify which factors influence community sustainability or help initiate SCD projects. Examples of SCD factors include a) the existence of an environmental issue, b) the lack of expertise, the absence of federal and/or provincial financial incentives, and c) the lack of relevant provincial policy relative to SCD. This test could indicate the correlation and/or differences in the survey responses by position and professional group from Mayors to architects. In Table 5, there are statistically significant differences found in those factors with less than the p values (p = .05), namely the existence of concerned municipal issue (.000), enabling legislation (.002), provincial and federal financial incentives (.015) and existing provincial and/or local government policy. Specifically, the Kruskall–Wallace test (X²) on the lack of financial incentives is 10.202 at df = 3 where p = .015. The lack of federal and local financial incentives is considered by most professional groups, and this is unsurprising and expected. Other contributing factors such as the lack of enabling legislation and the presence of relevant local government policy are seen as a factor for SCD in terms of actions and decisions by the Mayors, planners and architects. For the lack of enabling legislation, the Kruskall–Wallace H-test (X²) value is 14.763 at df = 3 with p = .002 less than the p value (p = .05). The existence of an environmental issue, public support and available expertise has been identified as factors to SCD by the survey respondents.

Table 5. Test statistics ^{a, b} major factors for place-making and sustainable community development.

SCD Factors	Chi-square	df	p
Environmental issue in municipality	6.442	3	.094
Concerned municipal issues (e.g. low budgetary allocation on environment)	17.556	3	.000
Enabling legislation	14.763	3	.002
Available expertise (skills and knowledge)	7.027	3	.070
Provincial/federal financial incentives or assistance	10.202	3	.015
Public support	2.456	3	.483
Active environmental, civic groups or non-governmental groups	5.434	3	.143
Existing provincial/local government policy	10.937	3	.010
Others	4.479	3	.247

Survey Results 2015a. Kruskal–Wallis Testb. Grouping variable by profession.

The existence of municipal issues such as a low budgetary allocation on the environment pertinent to adopting SCD policy indicates a strong association with Kruskall–Wallis H-test = 17.556 at df = 3. The .000% have expected count less than 5 with 10 as the minimum expected count for this factor. Overall, there were no violations of assumptions with cell counts of more than 20 %, and most of the survey results are consistent with the expected counts from the survey. There were factors such as the lack of financial incentives and policy to be identified by all professional groups with the need for expertise deemed important across the professions. Planners, economic developers and Mayors mostly support the need for available expertise as a factor that would influence SCD in their municipality or local urban areas. Other factors not listed in the survey but identified during the survey include the nature of local culture; new strategic plan just adopted by the municipality; need for energy reliant/independent community using solar/wind power; importance of green space; and engaging service organisations, sports groups and environmental action committee. The Kruskal–Wallis H-test was conducted to determine if the identified factors varied as a function whether influential to influence community sustainability. The results of statistical analysis indicated significant statistical differences which leads the study to accept the alternative H1 hypothesis. The post hoc tests by profession indicated significant differences given the alpha values at df = 3, with p = .05.

In Table 6, the Kruskal–Wallis test was used as a nonparametric version of the one-way analysis of variance for the sample analysis calculated based on the sums of the combined groups. The nonparametric versions of the samples t-test are statistically appropriate for data analysis in this study. The Kruskal–Wallis test compares responses between groups of professionals, for example, did Mayors respond differently from Architects? The X² test provides very general survey results by pooling all professionals together in one analysis. In Table 6, the very first test shows that no significant differences in responses for generic skills were observed (p = 1.000). This indicates that all professionals generally responded in the same manner. Of the acquired generic skills for all professions, skills on inclusive visioning, process and change management, stakeholder management, good governance and conflict resolution, the differences are significant. Skills in project management, team building and communication for ‘others’ were considered not significant generic skills. Other generic skills point to creative problem solving, construction expertise, design and cost control (by architects) already acquired by respondents. Except for impact assessment, the acquired technical skills identified by respondents having significant differences include green space management, knowledge of climate change, knowledge of conservation and its methods, environmental education, spatial planning, land use planning and environmental health planning. Of the acquired specialist skills, community design does not report significant differences in the samples from all professions. Those with significant differences include GIS application, community planning, landscape planning, building inspection, transport planning, environmental planning, environmental management and economic development/planning.

Table 6. Test statistics ^a,b acquired skills.

Acquired Skill for all professions	Chi-square	df	Exact significance
Generic Skills
Project Management	2.214	3	1.000
Inclusive Visioning	26.446	3	.000
Process & Change Mgt.	24.642	3	.000
Stakeholder Mgt.	33.803	3	.000
Good Governance	32.803	3	.000
Team Building	4.165	3	.287
Conflict Resolution	14.887	3	.001
Other	7.547	3	.057
Technical Skills
Green Space Mgt.	22.339	3	.000
Impact Assessment	5.243	3	.156
Knowledge of Climate Change	20.548	3	.000
Knowledge of Conservation & Methods	24.487	3	.000
Environmental Education	44.934		.000
Spatial Planning	41.093	3	.000
Land Use Planning	8.760	3	.025
Environmental Health Planning	21.909	3	.000
Specialist Skills
GIS Application	15.044	3	.001
Community Design	.425	3	.947
Landscape Planning	23.464	3	.000
Building Inspection	33.487	3	.000
Transport Planning	33.605	3	.000
Environmental Planning	24.768	3	.002
Environmental Management	14.152	3	.003
Econ. Development & Planning	13.548	3	.000

a. Kruskal–Wallis Test b. Grouping Variable by profession.

By profession and position, the survey reported that most Mayors already have these generic skills and experience: project management (73%), stakeholder management (80%) and transport planning (73%), which are important in assuming their leadership position for public service. In the same skill sets, economic development professions also acquired these generic skills: project management (85%), process and change management (80%) and stakeholder management (75%) which are indispensable in the practice of their profession including SCD. Architects and landscape architects have already acquired these generic skills: project management, inclusive visioning, transport planning and stakeholder management. In terms of specialist skills, Architects and Landscape Architects have knowledge and experience in landscape planning, community design, transport planning, while Mayors report skills in community planning, another vital skill in performing their functions at the helm. In respect of technical skills, the survey found that Mayors and planners share one skill that they also have acquired: that of spatial planning while Architects and landscape architects reported green space management (80%), knowledge of climate change (70%), community design (83%) and environmental education (73%) among the prime set of technical skills they already acquired in the performance of their profession.

6. Final notes

This article reviewed the concepts of place and place-making within the framework of SCD and urban sustainability from the perspective of SUMs in Ontario, Canada. Since the term ‘sustainable development’ has been popularised by Lester Brown in the 1970s and the Brundtland Commission in 1987 with the global work monitored by UN agencies, it is important to clarify community sustainability in mainstream urban development policy, research and practice. The complex task of place-making to build sustainable communities has been challenging yet compelling in urban communities concerned with their environment, the economy and society.

As a process, sustainable place-making is about creating, building and maintaining ‘what is to be sustained.’ Through the perspectives of place and place-making from a single room to the components of planet Earth, sustainability thinking from an environmental lens enhances our real, but not imagined world for making places sustainable. Place-making and SCD are functionally related and structurally connected. Although there is a saying that ‘no place is forever’, the destruction of places, the very opposite of place-making is one example of a more serious event that could displace people and other beings in our lifeworld and consequently result in an unsustainable state of a place. By examining place-making in the SCD context, the study informs the environmental thinkers, researchers, policy makers and leaders about its links with places and sustainability in general. In lived spaces as found in SUMs, they do not exist only for a moment in time. We can agree about places making history as they have a past and a future ((Lefebre 1996; Friedmann 2010). The key to understanding SCD and place-making is contingent upon not only its symbolic meanings but also the results of empirically based research as discussed here. With the focus of this study on the constraints and the factors that influence SCD, the involvement of professional groups has been highlighted to give a perspective of place-making practice in the real world.

To investigate the factors and constraints to SCD in small urban municipalities in Ontario, a small survey was carried out to ascertain if differences exist by professional group. The nonparametric versions of the samples t-test are statistically appropriate for data analysis in this study. The Kruskal–Wallis test compares responses between groups of professionals, for example, did Mayors respond differently from Architects? The X² test provides very general survey results by pooling all professionals together in one analysis. Ensuring the availability of skilled professionals with relevant SCD skill sets for community sustainability could hold promise and energies as an effective transformative tool towards sustainable place-making. The caveat of the study is that it does not claim to represent the views of all Ontario or Canadian SUMs as this is a pilot study of 74 communities of over 400 SUMS in Ontario will a small sample size of 96 survey participants. In summary, the study provides a bird’s eye view of acquired skills and knowledge by incumbent professionals and practitioners in community sustainability to inform post-secondary institutions about what programmes could be developed for training and education in the practice of SCD and sustainable place-making. In the immediate future, the concepts about place-making and SCD would evolve and eventually produce well-grounded meanings of sustainable communities. With many urban challenges, it is important to ask this question: how will our home planet look like in the future as a place for the entire human community and the rest of the living species? Some answers could be contingent upon the views of planners, architects, economic developers, policy makers and builders as they construct, rebuild the Earth’s shape and character and create its legacy to the future.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Lakehead University [VP REDI Strategic Grant for Sustainability Studies].

Notes on contributors

Rosario Adapon Turvey

Dr. Rosario Adapon Turvey is a Human Geographer, Development Economist and Planner. She is associate professor in Sustainability Sciences and the Geography and the Environment at Lakehead University in Ontario, Canada. Known for her research on sustainable communities, vulnerability assessment and economic security, she serves as Associate Leader of Environmental Sustainability at Lakehead’s Research Centre for Sustainable Communities.