Cross border regional planning: insights from Cascadia

Figures & data

Table 1. Key milestones achieved within the CIC.

Cross border Iniatiative	Focus and partner involved
Cascadia Steering Committee	Convened in January 2019, the US Canadian steering Committee will incubate and advance game-changing ideas within seven focus areas
Digital Health Initiative	BC Cancer Agency and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center teaming up to improve rural healthcare throughout the region
Cascadia Venture Acceleration Network (CVAN)	Collaboration of tech, research and investment partners from British Columbia, Washington and Oregon aims to match tech start-ups with funding and collaboration opportunities across borders
Financial Innovation Network	Venture capitalists from both cities teaming up to increase VC funding for start-ups and early-stage companies throughout the region
Global Innovation Exchange (GIX)	University of British Columbia (UBC) joins the University of Washington (UW) and China’s Tsinghau University in bringing together talented students and faculty to partner with industry in addressing real-world challenges
Cascadia Urban Analytics Cooperative (CUAC)	Created in 2017, CUAC is another UBC/UW collaboration, this one to utilize data science and analytics to help solve urban problems
University Collaboration –	Universities and polytechnics throughout Cascadia are teaming up to drive research, innovation, entrepreneurship, workforce development and economic growth

Table 2. Research strategy.

STAGE		ASPECTS TO BE INVESTIGATED	DATA SOURCE
I STAGE	ANALYSIS	Level of engagement of City Governments in the CIC Vertical Collaborations Horizontal Collaborations Networks (Social Network Analysis)	- CIC policy documents - Surveys
II STAGE	EVALUATION	Coherency between multi-scales of planning Soft planning Hard Planning	- Planning documents - Interviews with City officials
III STAGE	RECOMMENDATIONS	Possible catalyzers for strengthening the Cross-border economic integration in Cascadia	- Surveys - Interviews

Table 3. Definitions from Zimmerbauer (2018).

Soft spatial planning refers to a type of planning not grounded on legal or financial instruments; it refers to informal ways of acting and to joint visioning and strategy making.	Hard planning refers to formal planning mechanisms, which means that it is centred on territorial spaces, as, particularly in hard planning, planners often operate in established administrative structures that tend to have clear spatial borders for the powers they exercise.
Soft spaces can be defined as ‘particular strategy-making episodes, where strategic spatial planning moves beyond formal planning arenas in attempts to destabilize existing practices and structures’	Hard spaces, with clearer delineations of inclusion and exclusion, are generally more useful for identity construction, as us-and-them divisions are the building blocks of regional identity.

Table 4. Interviewee per belonging organization type.

	Washington State	British Columbia
Public Authorities	2	2
Government	3	3
Universities	2	5
Incubators/Accelerators	2	2
Multi-National Companies	1	–
NGOs	9	9
Others	1	2

Table 5. The most connected organizations in the Cascadia CBR based on links with partners from the US, Canadians or actors active in both sides.

	Organization	US	Canada	Sum
1	Microsoft	12	16	28
2	Canadian Consulate in Seattle	15	12	27
3	University of British Columbia	8	18	26
4	British Columbia Province Government	6	18	24
5	City of Vancouver	5	17	22
6	Washington State Government	15	7	22
7	Boeing Commercial Airplanes	13	8	21
8	Business Council of British Columbia	5	16	21
9	Simon Fraser University	4	17	21
10	University of Washington	12	8	20
11	Amazon	11	8	19
12	Cascadia Venture Acceleration Network	8	11	19
13	University of Victoria	3	16	19

Figure 1. Critical issues of cross-border integration by organization type.

Figure 2. Expectations of local government authorities by organization type.

Table 6. Research outcomes.

ASPECTS INVESTIGATED	OUTCOMES
LEVEL OF ENGAGEMENT OF CITY GOVERNMENTS IN THE CIC VERTICAL COLLABORATIONS HORIZONTAL COLLABORATIONS NETWORKS	Both City Governments are scarcely connected each other. Besides they have a line of communication, the cooperation is still limited; Planning strategies from both sides of the border overlook one another neglecting a vision for further development upon a cross-border regional approach; The City of Vancouver looks more central within the networks assessed. However, small number of connections with actors on the other side of the border; The two Cities do not play a central role within the CIC networks.
COHERENCY BETWEEN MULTI-SCALES OF PLANNING SOFT PLANNING HARD PLANNING	There is a limited interplay between the different scales of planning; Urban planning departments from the two Cities are mainly disconnected from the High-Speed train project;
POSSIBLE CATALYSERS FOR STRENGTHENING THE CROSS-BORDER ECONOMIC INTEGRATION IN CASCADIA	Federal Immigration Policies Transportation Project City-City relationships Bi-national forum Engagement of more private companies

Zimmerbauer, K. 2018. “Supranational Identities in Planning.” Regional Studies 52 (7): 911–921. doi:10.1080/00343404.2017.1360481.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar