Embracing sustainability: the incorporation of sustainability principles in municipal planning and policy in four mid-sized municipalities in Ontario, Canada

Abstract

The issue of planning for sustainability is becoming more established within Canadian municipal planning. As municipalities begin to align their planning policy to reflect a more sustainable approach, there is an increased interest in how sustainability is being operationalised within municipal documents. This research aims to better understand how principles of sustainability are imbedded within Ontario municipal documents, with a specific focus on the Integrated Sustainability Community Planning approach that has emerged in Canada. Drawing on a nested comparative case study of four mid-sized municipalities, we uncover the language and strategies employed by the municipalities as they relate to the principles of sustainability developed by Gibson [2006a. Sustainability assessment: basic components of a practical approach. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 24 (3), 170–182]. The findings suggest that current policy-based approaches to sustainability are considering more socially oriented strategies focused on promoting community involvement, inclusive decision-making, equity, socio-ecological civility, long-term integrative planning, and responsibility through stewardship. However, there are potential limitations that will require future research to examine policy outcomes associated with sustainability uptake. The ICSP approach must still overcome the issues relating to lack of regulatory authority and the incorporation of policies based on popular trends rather than empirical evidence.

Keywords:

• integrated community sustainability planning
• policy analysis
• mid-sized municipalities
• Ontario
• Canada

Introduction

Around the world, municipal governments are grappling with various approaches to sustainable planning and development within their jurisdictions (Finco and Nijkamp 2001). In Canada, a growing number of municipalities have been attempting a more comprehensive approach to sustainability through the adoption of a high-level municipal planning document, referred to as an Integrated Community Sustainability Plan (ICSP; Herbert and Fletcher 2011, Hvenegaard 2012). ICSPs provide a context-specific framework for local sustainability planning that focuses on integration within the municipality and engagement of key stakeholders and the general public (Ling et al. 2009). While guidelines for ICSPs exist (Ling et al. 2007, Park et al. 2009), there is no formally mandated procedure for how they are developed or implemented, giving municipalities ultimate autonomy over their sustainability vision and implementation strategy.

ICSPs aim to establish a framework for action on a broad range of sustainability objectives (AMO 2007). Yet, it is unclear how key sustainability principles are reflected in these, and other, influential municipal planning documents. This information is essential in understanding the approach that municipalities take towards planning activities within their jurisdictions. Most of the studies of sustainability planning at the municipal level have been conducted on communities outside of Canada (Jensen et al. 2000, Todes 2004, Alshuwaikhat and Aina 2005, Lubell et al. 2009), while research on ICSPs in Canada has focused primarily on large urban centres (Mendes 2007, Leung 2009). Given the challenges faced by mid-sized Canadian municipalities (i.e. population 50–500k) with limited revenues, infrastructure deficits and brownfields (Seasons 2003), and that roughly one-third of Canadians live in cities of this size (Statistics Canada 2011), an in-depth analysis of the documents guiding sustainability planning activities in mid-sized municipalities in Canada is warranted.

This paper seeks to better understand how sustainability principles are embedded within the planning frameworks of mid-sized municipalities in the province of Ontario, Canada, through a comparative case study of high-level planning documents of four mid-sized municipalities (two municipalities with ICSPs and two without). Comparing municipalities with ICSPs to those without is essential for understanding how the addition of an ICSP to the municipal policy framework can influence the sustainability-related discourse and potential actions within the municipality. Using a mixed-methods approach, our study was guided by two objectives: (1) to quantify the differences in uptake of sustainability principles between ICSPs and other high-level planning documents (quantitative phase) and (2) to investigate the contextual differences in the uptake of these principles between ICSPs (qualitative phase). Our quantitative analysis examined all four municipalities, while the two ICSP sites were the focus of the qualitative analysis. The findings from this study have purchase not only for mid-sized Canadian cities that have, or are in the early stages of developing, an ICSP, but also for many cities worldwide that are engaging in more collaborative approaches to planning (Healey 1998, Tewdwr-Jones and Allmendinger 1998).

Background

Incorporating sustainability concepts into planning

Concepts related to sustainable development have influenced planning and management for over a century. As early as 1909, the Canadian Commission for Conservation was established to examine resource conservation and urban environmental issues (McCarthy et al. 2006). Key conceptual developments in the 1970s and 1980s include the emergence of the notion of “appropriate technology” (i.e. technology that is small-scale, decentralised, energy efficient, ecologically sensitive, and locally controlled; Schumacher 1973), environmental management and assessment (UNEP 1972), limiting growth (Meadows et al. 1972), and conservation of resources (IUCN 1980). However, it was not until publication of our common future that sustainable development became a primary concern for policy-makers (WCED 1987, p. 8). Despite recent debate over the meaning of the term “sustainability”, consensus has emerged on the view that sustainability “must aim to foster and preserve socio-ecological systems …  that are dynamic and adaptable, satisfying, resilient, and therefore durable” (Gibson 2006a, p. 173).

As a pioneer of sustainability discourse in Canada, Gibson (2006a) has developed a set of sustainability principles for application in decision-making, particularly for sustainability assessment, strategic assessment, and land use planning. This study draws from Gibson's work because it

is based on a synthesis of arguments drawn from sustainability literature and practical experience … [and it] integrates considerations from ecological systems theory, corporate greening initiatives, growth management planning, civil society advocacy, ecological economics, community development and a host of other fields. (Gibson 2005, p. 95)

Indeed, the book Sustainability Assessment (Gibson 2005) and related journal articles (Gibson 2006a, 2006b) are among the most cited sustainability work published.

Three of Gibson's principles (livelihood sufficiency and opportunity, equity, and socio-ecological civility) capture socially oriented characteristics such as social inclusion and collaborative decision-making, while the remaining four principles (precaution and adaptation, resource maintenance and efficiency, socio-ecological integrity, and immediate and long-term integration) represent more traditional ideas relating to environmental considerations. Of these principles, socio-ecological civility and long-term integration have seen international exposure within frameworks focused on planning for sustainability (Morrison-Saunders and Therivel 2006, Pope 2006, Bagheri and Hjorth 2007, Partidário et al. 2009). In Europe specifically, it is argued that sustainable development requires a transformative governance structure to address the evolutionary features of sustainability (Bagheri and Hjorth 2007). This has led to strategies focusing on restructuring governance systems to a new transition style of management that adapts based on anticipation and reflection, while promoting an integrated process and spatial awareness of issues (van der Brugge et al. 2005, Bagheri and Hjorth 2007). Within these strategies, integration of sustainability across all levels of government is seen as a priority especially within decision-making processes and management frameworks (Pope 2006, Partidário et al. 2009), particularly through trans-disciplinary approaches that avoid compartmentalising sustainability planning and practices into discrete “pillars” (Robinson 2004).

Sustainability planning in international context

Much of the sustainability planning undertaken in an international context is influenced by protocols developed by Agenda 21 of the Rio Declaration on Sustainable Development. Of particular interest is Chapter 8, which deals with integrating environment and development within decision-making through the establishment of policies that reflect a long-term perspective and facilitate a cross-sectoral approach (UNEP 1992, p. 65). In achieving these objectives, the declaration supports adaptive and integrated strategies that consider multiple goals while maintaining flexibility for adjusting to emerging issues that threaten sustainability. The declaration further contends that responsibility of these planning and management alterations should fall to the lowest level of public authority so as to promote effective action (UNEP 1992, p. 66).

The promotion of local action has benefitted from the “communicative turn” in municipal planning (Tewdwr-Jones and Allmendinger 1998), and the emergence of collaborative processes designed to harness multiple perspectives across sectors (Innes 1996, Healey 1998, Healey 2004). Indeed, many countries have adopted a more inclusive approach to sustainability planning that is conducive to achieving local objectives (Bagheri and Hjorth 2007, Partidário et al. 2009). As such, we believe collaborative planning theory, with its focus on integration, multiple perspectives, and inclusivity, closely aligns with sustainability, and as such explains the recent openness of land use planning processes and other municipal management to sustainability concepts. Thus, by incorporating many of the concepts proposed within Agenda 21, and by promoting a collaborative planning approach, ICSPs, as seen in Ontario and elsewhere in Canada, may offer a useful framework for communities outside Canada's borders.

Sustainability planning in Canada

Recently, municipalities across Canada have been embracing Integrated Community Sustainability Planning (ICS Planning; AMO 2007, FCM 2011); an approach that involves incorporation of sustainability principles within high-level municipal planning documents and promotion of vertically and horizontally integrated approaches to municipal planning (AMO 2008). While municipalities across Canada have engaged with sustainability principles to varying degrees for some time, it was in 2005 that ICS planning became a defined practice for Canadian municipalities. At this time, Canada's federal government created the Gas Tax Fund, and signed agreements with the provinces to transfer funds for the purpose of environmentally sustainable infrastructure projects on the condition that municipalities create ICSPs. Defined as a “long-term plan, developed in consultation with community members that provides direction for the community to realize sustainability objectives, including environmental, culture, social and economic objectives” (AMO 2007), ICSPs are designed to be dynamic and adaptive to local conditions and objectives while promoting the integration of sustainability goals across all levels of planning.

Although no specific template is required to qualify a document as an ICSP, several guides have been created to share base information about developing these plans (AUMA 2006, AMO 2007, Ling et al. 2007, Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations 2007, Park et al. 2009). While each guide offers a unique perspective, the following stages for ICSP development and implementation commonly emerge: (1) define the goals and establish the structure of the process; (2) gather input to create a long-term sustainability vision for the community; (3) describe the current realities and analyse them within the lens of the established sustainability vision; (4) develop a strategy, and identify and assign responsibilities; (5) have city council formally to approve the ICS plan; and (6) implement, monitor, and review progress.

Within the international community (UNEP 2012), concerns have been raised regarding insufficient progress on the integration of sustainability into municipal planning practice. Thus, this study examined the uptake of Gibson's sustainability principles into the policy discourses of four mid-sized cities in a Canadian province that has been actively engaged in this novel approach to sustainability planning at the local level. We believe the findings are transferable to mid-sized municipalities in Canada and elsewhere due to the nature of sustainability being “both universal and context dependent” (Gibson 2005, p. 62).

Methods

This study employed a nested comparative case study methodology (Yin 2009), examining two mid-sized municipalities with ICSPs, and two without such plans. Drawing from established approaches to document analysis (Berg 2009, Bowen 2009, Yin 2009), we chose high-level municipal plans as the subunit of analysis because they guide current decision-making and reflect municipalities' current actions and directions (Yin 2009). We employed mixed-methods in our document analysis, using quantitative techniques to capture differences in uptake of sustainability principles between ICSPs and other high-level planning documents, and qualitative techniques to investigate contextual differences in the uptake of these principles between ICSPs.

Case site selection

Our study examined four case study sites. We chose the Cities of Kingston and Markham as our ICSP sites because, at the start of our study, they were the only two mid-sized cities (i.e. populations between 50 and 500k) in Ontario that had finalised and adopted ICSPs (Kingston 2010, Markham 2011). Burlington and London were then identified as suitable non-ICSP comparison sites, given their populations and geographic locations. Specifically, Kingston's population (123,363) is comparable to Burlington's (175,779), and Markham's (301,709) to London's (366,151; Statistics Canada 2011). It is important to note that Burlington's and London's lack of ICSPs should not be interpreted as disengagement from sustainability planning within their jurisdictions. Burlington, for instance, has developed a “green buildings policy” for all new and retrofitted municipal buildings (Burlington 2010), while London has been engaged in “smart growth” planning initiatives for nearly a decade (London 2004).

Document selection

As formal reflections of the way a municipality officially articulates its vision and priorities, we chose to analyse four types of high-level municipal plans (Table 1): Official Plans (OPs), Strategic Plans, Infrastructure Master Plans, and ICSPs. Required by the Ontario Planning Act, OPs are adopted by City Councils and are subject to five-year reviews. Strategic Plans are corporate municipal documents that outline a municipality's vision and action over a period of time. Infrastructure Master Plans make recommendations for water and wastewater servicing priorities; for Markham and Burlington, these were regional-level plans. Finally, we analysed two ICSPs: the Sustainable Kingston Plan adopted in 2010, and the Markham Greenprint adopted in 2011. All four types of documents were analysed in both the quantitative and qualitative phase; however, for the sake of brevity, the qualitative results presented in this paper focus on our in-depth analysis of the two ICSPs.

Table 1. Municipal policy documents analysed.

Municipality	Document Type	Pages	Last Year Modified
Kingston	Official Plan	262	2011
	ICSP	68	2010
	Strategic Plan	23	2011
	Infrastructure Master Plan	123	2010
	Water Supply Master Plan	161	2007
Markham	Official Plan	225	2005
	ICSP	190	2011
	Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Master Plan	142	2009
London	Official Plan	442	1989
	Strategic Plan	24	2011
	Infrastructure Master Plan	68	1996
Burlington	Official Plan	257	2011
	Strategic Plan	18	2011
	Infrastructure Master Plan	37	2011

Coding and analysis

The selected documents were coded using NVivo software, version 10.0. Document coding was a multi-step procedure, employing a hierarchical coding approach referred to as tree coding (Table 2). At the top of our coding trees were our nodes, which corresponded to each of Gibson's seven principles. Next, the research team drew from Gibson's extensive descriptions of these principles to develop 2–3 relevant parent codes for each node. These parent codes consisted of broad but conceptually exclusive terms, intended to represent the fundamental ideas captured by Gibson's principles. Once these parent codes were established, three research assistants (RAs) reviewed the documents in NVivo, and developed child codes through an iterative process. For example, for Gibson's principle of socio-ecological civility, we used decision-making, civil society and management as parent codes; and we used community capacity, involvement, community ownership, and engagement as child codes for civil society.

Table 2. Document analysis codebook based on Gibson's (2006a) sustainability principles.

Node	Parent code	Child codes
Socio-ecological system integrity	Places	Natural heritage; ecosystem; and environmentally sensitive areas
	Principles	Conservation biology; ecosystem approach
	Assessment	Environmental assessment; environmental impact statement
Livelihood sufficiency and opportunity	Access	Culture; employment; food; housing; space; transportation; and design
	Social Services	Child care services; educational services; health services; and social programs
	Vulnerability	Vulnerable populations
Equity	Intra-generational equity	Equality; inclusion; and justice
	Inter-generational equity	Sustainability; future generations; and long-term
Resource maintenance and efficiency	Efficiency	Optimisation; efficiency; and outputs
	Conservation	Conservation; consumption
Socio-ecological civility	Decision-making	Decision-making; expert; advisory committee; Collaborate; stakeholder; public participation; and public input
	Civil Society	Community capacity; involvement; community ownership; and engagement
	Management	Accountability; transparency; and governance framework
Precaution and adaptation	Flexibility	Flexibility; reversibility
	Precaution	Precaution; risk
	Uncertainty	Uncertainty; monitoring policy; monitoring for humans and environment
Immediate and long-term integration	Integration	Collaboration; coordination
	Gain	Triple bottom line

To eliminate duplication of work and conflicts in interpretation, each RA was assigned to work on specific nodes. This approach ensured that each RA became intimately familiar with the nodes to which they were assigned, without concerns about inter-rater reliability. As child codes were developed, so too were relevant keywords that could be used to facilitate document searches, and to facilitate an automated coding process. RAs were instructed to only code passages where the keyword was used within the context provided by Gibson, and in this regard, some personal interpretation was used in the coding process. To minimise error, the descriptions of Gibson's principles were kept close at hand for regular reference and reminder.

The use of NVivo facilitated both quantitative and qualitative analyses of the coverage of each node. To capture general trends in the uptake of each principle in the documents, the coded documents were quantitatively analysed by municipality and document type. We analysed ICSPs separately from the other municipal documents (i.e. Strategic Plans, OPs, and Infrastructure Plans) to ensure comparability between our four study sites, as well as to better understand the unique contributions of ICSPs in conceptualising sustainability principles. For the qualitative phase, a thematic approach was adopted (Fereday and Muir-Cochrane 2006, Bowen 2009), whereby emerging themes relating to the incorporation of sustainability were identified and explored. This combined analysis approach was beneficial in terms of managing a large amount of data and establishing a strong analytic strategy for the research (Yin 2009).

Results

Quantitative analysis findings (Research Objective 1)

The objective of the quantitative phase was to investigate differences in uptake of sustainability principles between ICSPs and other high-level planning documents in our four study sites (Table 3). For the sample as a whole, the principles of Equity and Livelihood Sufficiency and Opportunity generated the highest coverage (23% each), while Immediate and Long-term Integration generated the lowest (4%). We found a far greater volume of coverage from our ICSP sites compared to non-ICSP sites (2023 versus 1085 passages, respectively). When compared to the Non-ICSP sites, our ICSP sites paid proportionately more attention to the principles of Equity (27%), Socio-Ecological Civility (20%), and Integration (4%). Meanwhile, the Non-ICSP sites stressed the principles of Livelihood Sufficiency and Opportunity (28%) and Socio-Ecological Integrity (21%). Finally, within our ICSP sites, we compared the coverage of the principles between ICSPs and other documents. In Kingston's ICSP, there was a greater focus on the principles of Equity (40%) and Socio-Ecological Civility (30%), while the Markham ICSP focused heavily on Livelihood Sufficiency and Opportunity (31%). In both Kingston and Markham, the principles of Precaution and Adaptation and Socio-Ecological Integrity were more prominent in the non-ICSP documents.

Table 3. Percentage distribution of coded passages in ICSPs and other municipal documents, by municipality.

	ICSP Sites					Non-ICSP Sites			ICSP + Non-ICSP Sites
	Kingston ICSP (N = 228)	Kingston Others (N = 682)	Markham ICSP (N = 559)	Markham Others (N = 554)	Total (N = 2023)	Burlington Others (N = 442)	London Others (N = 643)	Total (N = 1085)	Total (N = 3108)
Livelihood sufficiency and opportunity	21	20	31	8	20	22	33	28	23
Equity	40	21	25	30	27	17	17	17	23
Socio-ecological civility	30	14	22	21	20	22	12	16	18
Precaution and adaptation	3	7	4	15	8	9	8	8	8
Resource maintenance and efficiency	2	9	6	6	6	4	8	6	6
Socio-ecological integrity	1	27	7	14	15	19	22	21	17
Immediate and long-term integration	3	2	6	6	4	7	1	3	4
Total	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100

Qualitative analysis findings (Research Objective 2)

The qualitative phase, which was the focus of the study, investigated the contextual differences in the uptake of these principles between the ICSPs from Markham and Kingston. An in-depth analysis of OPs, Strategic Plans, and Infrastructure Management Plans was conducted (results not shown), and a comparative baseline was provided for identifying components that were unique to ICSPs. Following detailed analytical descriptions for each principle, we conclude this section with a summative table outlining the key similarities and differences between the two municipalities (Table 4).

Livelihood sufficiency and opportunity

Within this principle, ICSPs framed issues in ways that were unique from non-ICSP documents. The most significant areas of concern identified by the ICSPs were issues pertaining to poverty reduction. While other municipal documents discussed poverty in the context of traditional policy levers (e.g. affordable housing), the language used in the ICSPs drew more from concepts of community development and resiliency.

Community development is complimentary to conventional approaches to development; it is a participatory, holistic, and inclusive process that leads to positive, concrete changes in communities by creating employment, reducing poverty, restoring the health of the natural environment, stabilizing local economies and increasing community control. (Markham ICSP, p. 84)

Both ICSPs promoted strategies for creating and maintaining partnerships with businesses in an attempt to stimulate job growth and reduce public reliance on social services. To achieve this, Markham's Greenprint was advocated for microfinancing options and in the implementation of small business incubators,¹ both of which have been shown to respond positively when a partnership network is in place (Mattare et al. 2012). Meanwhile, the Sustainable Kingston Plan proposed to combat homelessness and poverty by increasing community resiliency through various avenues (e.g. increased public awareness, neighbourhood engagement, linking individuals with support resources²). Finally, both ICSPs revealed a growing concern about food security, and cited as a priority the need to ensure access to food that is healthy, affordable, and safe.

Equity

This principle was analysed in terms of both inter-generational and intra-generational equity. These two concepts form a complex, integrated relationship as strategies focused on providing sufficiency and opportunity to the current generation can no longer be at the expense of resources required by future generations to achieve the same level of self-sufficiency (Gibson 2006a). Much of the language used in the ICSPs relates to encouraging community participation and commitment to a long-term coordinated approach towards sustainability.

Both ICSPs approach inter-generational equity through the creation of long-term planning goals with the ultimate objective being community sustainability. Unique to the Sustainable Kingston Plan is a provision that the overall mission of achieving sustainability be open to entertaining new ideas and policy in order to respond to changing conditions, which is suggestive of an adaptive approach to long-term sustainability planning. Meanwhile, Markham's Greenprint attempts to implement a hierarchical framework for long-term planning by clearly defining objectives to be achieved in the short (e.g. educating the public), medium (e.g. supporting projects underway, upholding monitoring practices), and long-term (e.g. continual support of sustainable programmes).³

Intra-generational equity emphasizes sufficient and effective public choice in matters pertaining to community development and sustainability, as well as reducing gaps in sufficiency and opportunity between high-income and low-income communities (Gibson 2006a). Both the Sustainable Kingston Plan and Markham's Greenprint integrate the principle of intra-generational equity into the overall framework in an attempt to endorse inclusionary planning practices and promote social equality. This is a fairly unique approach as many policy documents treat intra-generational equity as a supplementary strategy rather than a foundational one (Manderscheid 2011). Kingston's ICSP specifically uses language supporting inclusionary decision-making processes and promoting broad involvement strategies determined to foster community ownership of the plan.

A sustainable community is active, inclusive, safe, well planned and built, well run, well connected and thriving. A sustainable community offers equal opportunity(ies) and good services for all. (Sustainable Kingston Plan, p. 2)

As with Sustainable Kingston Plan, Greenprint utilises an inclusionary approach to the development of the ICS planning process and combines this approach with ideas related to social equity. These ideas represent an attempt by the municipality to ensure residents have equal opportunities and rights.⁴ Markham's ICSP further describes the idea of social equity within a global context, suggesting that monitoring global trends can provide insight into future issues faced by Canadian municipalities.

Demographic changes, like the examples of income, aging and immigration, have an impact on the opportunities and rights available to residents. These global and national changes will require all levels of government, businesses, and organizations to continue to adjust their services, products and practices to ensure that all residents reach their full potential. (Markham ICSP, p. 22)

Socio-ecological civility

This principle stood out as an important concept fully explored and integrated into both ICSPs. The Sustainable Kingston Plan specifically incorporates a unique community-owned approach that considers all input equally, while explicitly linking sustainability goals and initiatives to community partners that are best suited to engage in them. This approach fosters a collaborative “shared-territory” where active stakeholder organisations from municipal government, business sectors, and civil society can discuss and implement strategies focused on achieving sustainability (Evans et al. 2006, Smith and Wiek 2012).

Become a conduit for community input and a catalyst for discussion that will result in the development of a community-owned and community-involved process that is tailored to the unique needs and desires of Kingston. (Sustainable Kingston Plan, p. 3)

Sustainable Kingston implements this governance model in congruence with the plan's overall strategy of developing a truly holistic approach to community sustainability planning. This approach better equips the community as a whole to deal with the complexities of sustainability planning, by enhancing accountability, promoting social equity, and properly assigning and balancing rights with responsibilities (van Zeijl-Rozema et al. 2008, Smith and Wiek 2012). This dedication to a community-owned structure is further emphasised by incorporating a Board of Directors that act as stewards tasked with ensuring the development and maintenance of the organisational purpose, mandate, and identity, as well as financial trustees ensuring proper allocation of funding.⁵

Markham's ICSP incorporates a governance model that is markedly different from the Sustainable Kingston Plan; the key difference being that the role of Markham's Greenprint is one of an overarching, guiding document with the purpose of aligning policy documents and municipal decision-making with a greater sustainability vision.⁶ Through this model, Markham's ICSP process takes on an advisory role by submitting reports regarding sustainability to city council. The process by which these reports are generated however incorporates many of the concepts relating to community engagement, collaboration, and stakeholder involvement⁷ that were evident in the Sustainable Kingston Plan.

As implementation proceeds … [t]he committees and working groups will be guided by principles of collaboration, open communication, integrity, innovation, inclusive engagement, responsibility, transparency and integration. (Markham ICSP, p. 128)

Through Markham's approach, the true decision-making power still resides with the town's council who have the power to accept or reject recommendations submitted through the collaborative process. Due to this, implementing the goals and objectives of Greenprint requires maintaining a close relationship between community stakeholders and decision-makers within municipal government. Although Markham's method still represents a traditional hierarchical decision-making framework, the structure resembles a bottom-up, integrated approach that promotes joint decision-making between state and non-state entities under the shared objective of achieving sustainability. While this joint decision-making process may not be as innovative as that employed by Kingston, Markham's approach can still enhance social and political capital if responsibility is shared by all stakeholders, and all input is considered equally (Healey 1996, Masuda et al. 2008, Smith and Wiek 2012).

Further analysis of the two distinct governance models revealed both ICSPs put significant emphasis on maintaining a flexible framework that incorporates new ideas and methods as conditions change. Since the science of sustainability is constantly changing, policies enacted to address sustainability need to be dynamic. Furthermore, current governance models have encountered criticism directed towards the “status quo” strategy they employ. Much of the criticism centres on the idea that simply implementing more government and more regulation is counter-intuitive and stymies the development of more creative approaches (Healey 2004). On this basis, both ICSPs allow for an on-going process that is welcoming of ideas from stakeholders in a greater attempt to deal with the dynamism of sustainability and combat complexities inherent in a collaborative approach.⁸

Its governance structure must be flexible and welcoming of innovation, and facilitate relationships among partners, provide a framework for strategic decision making and define accountability for the work and actions related to Sustainable Kingston. (Sustainable Kingston Plan, p. 9)

Precaution and adaptation

ICSPs have been designed to be adaptive to changing conditions while supporting diversity and flexibility where possible to mitigate risk. The Markham Greenprint specifically mentions adaptive management as the overall strategy to attract partnerships and champions from businesses and community groups. In this light, the concept of adaptive management is utilised as a way of linking community learning and involvement with policy creation and implementation (Bormann et al. 2007). In contrast, the Sustainable Kingston Plan was directly developed using an adaptive management framework.⁹ This process acknowledges that there is uncertainty within any system and attempts to minimise this uncertainty through close monitoring and adjustment of the system under management (Satterstrom et al. 2007, p. 92).

Both ICSPs mention monitoring strategies as a way to combat uncertainties related to climatic change and environmental impacts related to urban development. Kingston's ICSP specifically fills the gaps left by the municipality's OP in terms of monitoring policy, by focusing on monitoring socio-economic and community goals in a broader attempt to ensure up-to-date information for members as well as develop strategies to further improve the plan. Both ICSPs utilise a set of indicators and recommendations developed through community and stakeholder input that attempt to monitor a wide variety of issues pertaining to sustainability.^{10, 11} This approach requires that adequate baseline data be collected for all indicators for comparison purposes as well as ongoing review of monitoring practices and responsibilities.

Indicators are a measure of where we are now, which are useful for measuring how things change over time. These indicators are a baseline or starting point since this is the first time that such information has been collected. The Sustainability Office will monitor these indicators over time to track progress toward community sustainability goals and will report the results. (Markham ICSP, p. 20)

Resource maintenance and efficiency

This principle shares a close relationship with the concept of inter/intra-generational equity, as maintaining a base of resources requires compromises between present and future needs. Strategies are generally tailored towards reducing the ecological damage of resource extraction processes, avoiding excess waste, and curbing overall energy and material consumption (Gibson 2006a). Language incorporated into both ICSPs describes these strategies through the concepts of conservation and increased efficiency. Greenprint specifically mentions conservation within the context of promoting decreased use of natural resources as well as the reduction of GHG emissions. The ICSP also contains recommendations for where consumption reduction initiatives should be directed as well as establishing specific reduction targets.¹²

When a positive action is taken in one area of the system, such as protecting biodiversity through habitat conservation, the action ripples through the rest of the system to help conserve cultural landscapes, protect water resources, sequester carbon, clean the air and provide recreational amenities. (Markham ICSP, p. 16)

Beyond recommendations and specific targets to achieve, Greenprint uses language that is closely related to concepts found in ecosystem planning and other environment-related fields (e.g. conservation of biodiversity through habitat preservation). Markham's ICSP further supports a strategy directed towards responsible materials management that promotes movement towards a closed-loop system of resource use and resource consumption within Markham.¹³ These strategies aim to alleviate the stress that resource consumption and waste production exacts on sources of natural capital such as water sources, air quality, and ecosystem integrity (Kenworthy 2006). The maintenance of these systems is considered paramount as they provide valuable services to the community, reduce costs associated with service delivery, as well as contribute to increased public health.

Conservation practices need not be restricted to the preservation of natural resources. As uncovered in both ICSPs, there was interest in proper management and protection of heritage resources. The Sustainable Kingston Plan especially focuses on this area of resource protection through the incorporation of a fourth pillar of sustainability that is concerned with the protection and promotion of culture within the Kingston area. As the ICSP process is one that encourages the adaptation of planning practices to fit the unique needs of individual municipalities, Kingston's focus on culture as a separate pillar can be linked to the extensive catalogue of historical assets contained within the city.

Markham's ICSP also makes reference to the conservation of cultural heritage but directs the majority of strategies to capitalising on the economic opportunities these resources represent.¹⁴ However, within the definition of culture, the Greenprint document makes reference to the value of intangible cultural resources to the identity and well-being of the Markham Community.

Socio-ecological systems integrity

Approaches related to the protection of systems integrity focus on specific places and natural functions that contribute to overall systems' health and thus require increased planning attention. Markham's ICSP refers to places within the context of protecting and restoring the natural environment by documenting trends in biodiversity and planning with ecosystem services in mind. Greenprint uses ecosystem theory to describe the potential advantages of a healthy urban ecosystem in dealing with problems such as water purification, wastewater management, and nutrient cycling for agriculture alongside carbon sequestration strategies for reducing GHGs. The plan further identifies the importance of promoting networked natural ecosystems to encourage biodiversity through reduced fragmentation.

Implement an interconnected Natural Heritage Network, working towards connectivity between existing green spaces and ensure they are of sufficient quality and size to support wildlife. (Markham ICSP, p. 158)

The importance of protecting ecosystem function and the services it provides falls into three distinct domains: ecological, socio-cultural, and economic (MEAB 2003, De Groot et al. 2010). The ecological domain must be concerned with the health state of the specific system and monitor indicators that relate to systems diversity and integrity (De Groot et al. 2010). Markham's Greenprint incorporates ecosystem integrity as one of 12 priorities and uses indicators related to network interconnectedness, naturalness, effective impervious area, and urban canopy coverage.¹⁵ The socio-cultural domain of ecosystem function relates to the importance that the community derives from these systems either through a sense of cultural identity or through provision of adequate services (De Groot et al. 2010). Greenprint operationalises this concept by applying the ecosystem integrity priority within the context of individual health and community well-being stating that “access to nature promotes a sense of well-being and provides the foundation for healthy food production”.¹⁶ Finally, the economic domain requires that both use and non-use values of ecosystem function be considered equally. The use values should encompass direct use resource benefits such as food and timber as well as direct, non-consumptive values such as those related to recreation and aesthetics; while the non-use values should relate to the services provided by ecosystems such as air and water purification, food production, and erosion control (De Groot et al. 2010). Within this economic domain, Markham's ICSP refers the priority of ecological integrity to a reduction of costs associated with infrastructure provision, as well as mentioning the support of local ecotourism as a direct economic advantage. Through this, Greenprint makes significant strides to incorporate all three domains of ecosystem function and attempts to preserve these systems as a key approach to achieving sustainability.

Immediate and Long-term Integration

Much of the language used within the ICSPs concerning this principle refers to the coordination of policy creation and decision-making efforts across all levels of government. Markham's Greenprint states that ideas related to sustainability must follow an integrated approach that considers three pillars of sustainability equally as well as how recommendations within a specific pillar may affect change in another.¹⁷ This follows the idea that the pursuit of sustainability hinges on the effective integration of social, economic, and ecological concerns at multiple scales (Kemp et al. 2005); and that all requirements for sustainability be pursued concurrently, seeking the most efficient methods that promote mutually supportive benefits (Gibson 2001).

Markham's approach to integration of sustainability policy closely resembles a systems approach in that the ICSP treats the three pillars of sustainability as interconnected and subject to fluctuations in stability related to cause and effect. In contrast, the Sustainable Kingston Plan refers to the integration of sustainability pillars into the plan itself, but does not specifically mention the evaluation of sustainability initiatives from a systems theory perspective. Moreover, with the addition of a fourth sustainability pillar into their plan, there may be a greater tendency in Kingston to promote strategies and programmes targeting one pillar, without considering the effects on the other three.

The three pillars of environmental health, economic vitality and social and cultural well-being are tied closely together and must be understood as components of this larger system. This means that in order to effectively address any of the priorities identified in the Greenprint, recommendations for action must be integrated across all three pillars of sustainability and across all priorities. (Markham ICSP, p. 16)

Integration and Collaboration – Our decision making processes will encourage integration by considering aspects from all four pillars of sustainability. Our actions and targets will be supported and implemented through collaboration with local and regional Community Partners and citizens. (Sustainable Kingston, p. 15)

The Sustainable Kingston Plan focuses specifically on integration across all organisations, groups and individuals involved. As a community-owned approach, each action point is explicitly linked to a civil society organisation or government body that is working in this area. Community partners, both organisations and individuals, are expected to share knowledge and break down barriers between them in the pursuit of systemic solutions. While community champions and partnerships with community organisations is a goal of Markham's Greenprint, the plan does not place as much emphasis on coordination and collaboration as Kingston's ICSP.

Table 4. Summary of similarities and differences between Kingston and Markham's ICSPs in terms of uptake of Gibson's sustainability principles.

		Differences between ICSPs
Principles	Similarities between ICSPS	Markham	Kingston
Livelihood, sufficiency, and opportunity	• Community development	• Economic stabilisation	• Community resiliency
	• Reduction of reliance on social services	• Business incubators	• Neighbourhood engagement
	• Food security	• Microfinancing options
Equity	• Coordinated, long-term planning	• Hierarchical list of sustainability goals (short, medium, and long)	• Adaptive approach
	• Social equality	• Link between local and global inequalities	• Community ownership
	• Inclusionary planning practices	• Attraction of businesses and economic investment
Socio-ecological civility	• Flexible framework	• Policy document alignment	• Community-owned framework
	• On-going policy process	• Joint decision-making	• Shared-territory
	• Collaborative process
	• Access, social inclusion in all facets of urban living
Precaution and adaptation	• Monitoring responsibilities	• Baseline data for indicators	• Self-sufficiency and resilience
	• Indicator monitoring
Resource maintenance and efficiency	• Conservation (natural and cultural)	• Ecosystem resiliency	• Cultural heritage conservation
	• Holistic planning practices	• Biodiversity protection	• Protection of non-tangible heritage assets
	• Value of intangible cultural assets
Socio-ecological systems integrity	• None	• Ecosystem management	• Ecosystem resiliency
		• Networked ecosystems
		• Ecosystem integrity
Immediate and long-term integration	• Holistic approach	• Systems approach	• Community and citizen partners
	• Integration of sustainability pillars	• Mutually supportive actions
	• Community partnerships

Discussion and Conclusions

Incorporation of Gibson's principles

Taken together, our quantitative and qualitative analyses reveal some interesting trends in terms of the incorporation of Gibson's principles into the municipal policy discourse of mid-sized municipalities in Ontario. In sites without ICSPs, there were considerably fewer coded passages within the planning documents, suggesting lower overall incorporation of sustainability principles into the policy discourses of these cities. Our findings also suggest that non-ICSP sites tend to focus more on traditional approaches to sustainability on the whole, given the greater attention paid within those sites to the principle of Socio-Ecological Integrity. When ICSPs are added to the policy framework within a municipality, they appear to offer a venue for greater consideration of more socially oriented principles (i.e. Livelihood Sufficiency and Opportunity, Equity, and Socio-Ecological Civility), while incorporating objectives that are supportive of pre-existing municipal plans that are required to focus on the more traditional sustainability principles (i.e. Precaution and Adaptation, Socio-Ecological Integrity).

The in-depth qualitative analysis of ICSPs in Kingston and Markham reinforced our findings from the quantitative phase. Indeed, we found the socially oriented principles of Socio-Ecological Civility, Equity, and Livelihood Sufficiency and Opportunity emerge as driving forces within both plans. These select principles act both as a catalyst during preliminary stages of plan creation, as well as throughout operation and review phases. This can be attributed to the core nature of ICS planning as a mechanism for community-based decision-making regarding sustainability. In practice, ICSPs appear to offer an avenue through which socially oriented principles are operationalised, as these plans can incorporate emergent elements where traditional municipal policy documents remain restricted by legislative requirements. Furthermore, while the analysis of the ICSP documents of Markham and Kingston indicated proportionally less focus on the more traditional sustainability principles, the attention that is paid to these principles is largely incorporated to support the objectives found in other municipal documents (OPs, Infrastructure Plans, etc.).

Governance models and ICSPs

The ICSPs from Markham and Kingston promote an inclusionary process by encouraging the involvement of various actors. Specifically, both plans emphasise involvement of municipal government departments, city council, local businesses, as well as community and citizen groups, while their approaches vary significantly. Markham attempts to modify a traditional decision-making method to embrace an inclusionary approach to sustainability planning. In contrast, Kingston's community-owned approach represents a departure from centralised decision-making processes that have become the mainstay of municipal planning and policy creation. At first glance, a community-owned framework may seem ill-suited to deal with the inherent complexities of sustainability as success will be largely predicated upon adequate levels of participation and expertise. However, the Sustainable Kingston Plan attempts to overcome these challenging by fostering high rates of participation through several methods, the most important of which deals with ensuring certain goals of the plan become the responsibility of community groups. Through this application of responsibility, participation is solicited by nurturing stewardship and empowerment among community-based groups. While this process attempts to solve the issue of adequate participation, concerns over expertise remain. This facet is confronted by forging partnerships between multiple entities to ensure the goals and objectives related to sustainability benefit from a truly collaborative and integrated process of development and implementation. As a testament to this, many of the goals in the Sustainable Kingston Plan receive oversight from municipal agencies and community groups.

Regardless of structure, both ICSPs promote strategies of collaboration and partnership building between all stakeholders. The dominance of socially oriented principles suggests that the ICSP approach represents a platform from which municipalities can address emerging concepts related to social equality and inclusion in decision-making processes. Conversely, environmentally-based principles see proportionally less exposure in ICSP documents. This is likely because planning practices in Canada have engaged in environmental regulation for some time and as such environmental issues enjoy better coverage within the pre-existing planning documents (Table 3). Furthermore, the abstract nature of certain social issues makes their integration into planning policy a difficult task and past attempts have generally garnered timid results. By putting the focus on social initiatives, ICSPs treat social aspects of sustainability with the same importance as economic and environmental issues.

Innovative and long term

Another similarity between the two ICSPs is the incorporation of innovative concepts and long-term planning practices as key factors within both approaches. Both plans position themselves to be welcoming of non-traditional approaches to achieving sustainability as well as employing flexible partnership frameworks. Their frameworks are designed to be accepting of diverse groups and institutions that may not have played large roles in sustainability planning previously. Moreover, both cite a long-term planning approach as a fundamental requirement to achieving sustainability, recognising that the process must be ongoing and adaptive to change. Where a point of contention may arise, is that these two strategies, innovation and long-term objective planning, may not be mutually supportive. Although innovation is an idea that should be fostered by ICSPs, an overly accepting strategy could fall victim to “trendiness”. As the finance of these ICSPs relies heavily on public funding, projects and initiatives considered for incorporation into these plans must prove their contribution to achieve sustainability and long-term viability.

Enhancing policy relevance through community-based monitoring

A particularly significant finding is that both Kingston and Markham's ICSPs promote community-based monitoring to support implementation. This approach is policy relevant in terms of extending adaptive management expressed through both rational planning processes associated with land use and infrastructure planning, and collaborative planning as mid-sized cities move from top-down to shared decision-making processes. The benefit of monitoring, and in particular multi-party community-based monitoring, is that it engages ordinary citizens to work together on shared objectives, fostering the ability of citizens and organisations to become more involved in sustainability initiatives (Bliss et al. 2001). Thus, the ICSP process should develop monitoring guidance to ensure that adequate and relevant monitoring information is obtained and reviewed, while also providing a centralised database accessible by all involved (Cuthill 2000, Malmborg 2003, Whitelaw et al. 2003). In this way, ICSPs can continue to support innovation and a transparent process, while also building capital for future activities and implementation.

Transferability of ICSPs

Utilising Gibson's sustainability principles to evaluate Markham and Kingston's ICSPs provided considerable insight into the direction that municipal planning in Ontario is taking with regards to sustainability. Overall, many aspects of these plans are designed to integrate the three pillars of sustainability into a dynamic framework while acting as a platform in which concepts of collaborative planning and inclusion are operationalised. While these issues were identified over two decades ago within Agenda 21, a 20-year review of the plan entitled “The Future we Want” reveals there has been insufficient progress made regarding the integration of the three pillars within the international community (UNEP 2012, p. 4). This review reiterates the importance of broad public participation as well as access to proceedings that promote sustainable development within regional, national, and subnational judiciaries (UNEP 2012, p. 8).

The information gathered in this study suggests that Markham and Kingston ICSPs are making meaningful progress towards addressing these issues of integration and inclusion within the decision-making process and their respective management frameworks. Moreover, Kingston's community-owned approach to ICS planning may represent an effective model that is uniquely suited to promote collaborative planning by imbuing community groups and individuals with substantial responsibility and authority. As many international communities face challenges relating to social inequalities within decision-making processes, a dynamic and socially-driven approach to sustainability planning, as demonstrated in this Canadian case study, could be beneficial to the international community going forward. Due to the adaptive nature of the ICSP process, should the Kingston model prove successful in achieving meaningful progress towards sustainability, there exists the possibility for adaptation for use outside of Canada to address the issues imparted by Agenda 21 and subsequent reviews. Markham's adherence to a more traditional model of governance where all municipal decisions are to be contrasted against the goals and objectives of the Greenprint will offer insights into how ICSPs can be integrated into the existing policy make-up of mid-sized municipalities. Whether or not positive influence can be exercised through this type of process will allow for the collection of important information regarding the extent to which municipal policy documents can be integrated.

Limitations and directions for future research

As our study examined only four study sites, and only two with ICSPs, future research could examine uptake of Gibson's principles within policy discourses of other municipalities, especially outside Canada. As well, due to the relatively recent adoption of ICSPs in Ontario, there is little information available on how well municipalities are implementing the strategies contained within ICSPs. While this analysis was beyond the scope of this study, future research ought to evaluate how municipalities are adhering to the policies put forth in their ICSPs and whether expected outcomes are being achieved. As ICSPs are increasingly adopted, comparative assessments of their work would serve to create a larger pool of strategies that have been attempted along with commentary on how successful they have been. Ultimately, this could provide much needed perspective on which components of ICSPs can be standardised, and which must be incorporated organically through community involvement and discussion.

Conclusions

This study provided a glimpse into the ways in which mid-sized municipalities in Ontario incorporated sustainability principles into their policy discourse. Based on our study findings, ICSPs appear to promote an approach to sustainability that has a significant focus towards the more socially oriented principles. This finding represents a shift in the planning and decision-making process of mid-sized municipalities in Ontario from an approach that is top-down to one that is more integrative and inclusive. However, with a model that can be adapted and tailored to the individual needs of a municipality, the ICSP approach requires close monitoring lest it fall victim to “trendiness”. This monitoring should be focused on ensuring that specific strategies are subjected to performance indicators in an effort to ensure funding and expertise are being channelled into policies that are making continued contributions to the overall goals and objective of the ICSP.

While the original purpose of this study was to assess the incorporation of established principles of sustainability into municipal policy, the research conducted revealed a kind of duality regarding the notion of integration. The finding that the current ICSPs of Markham and Kingston seem to proportionally favour socially oriented sustainability goals while leaving other municipal documents to cover more traditional environmentally oriented goals seems to be at odds with the notion of integration. Although this circumstance will not be considered ideal in the realm of achieving sustainability through policy, one must be sympathetic to the complex policy atmosphere that these case study sites find themselves operating in. Legislative requirements originating from provincial and sometimes federal institutions are often quite specific with regard to how certain aspects of municipal planning must be executed. Many of these requirements must be met through prescribed planning tools or plans, and therefore, would not be conducive to inclusion within an ICSP document which carries no legislative authority. Under these restrictions, it is difficult for municipalities in Ontario to approach integration of policy documents as the process is often out of their control. Instead, ICSPs should incorporate goals and objectives that are mutually supportive of pre-existing requirements relating to the environmentally oriented sustainability principles, especially in instances where an ICSP would be subservient to legislative authority. Due to the adaptive nature of the ICSP process as well as the inclusive nature of the plans themselves, in time, the ICSP could become the overarching mechanism in which all other planning requirements are incorporated into. For the moment, ICSPs should continue to be mutually supportive of requirements found in other municipal documents even if that means falling short of a purist definition of integration.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council under grant number 430-2012-0052. The authors would also like to thank William Robinson-Mushkat and Erin Murphy Mills for their generous research assistance for this study.

Notes

1. Greenprint, Markham ICSP (p. 28).

2. Sustainable Kingston, Kingston ICSP (p. 39).

3. Greenprint, Markham ICSP (p. 126).

4. Greenprint, Markham ICSP (p. 22).

5. Sustainable Kingston, Kingston ICSP (p. 11).

6. Greenprint, Markham ICSP (p. 129).

7. Greenprint, Markham ICSP (p. xiv).

8. Greenprint, Markham ICSP (p. 4).

9. Sustainable Kingston, Kingston ICSP (p. 7).

10. Greenprint, Markham ICSP (p. 137).

11. Sustainable Kingston, Kingston ICSP (p. 49).

12. Greenprint, Markham ICSP (p. 121).

13. Greenprint, Markham ICSP (p. 91).

14. Greenprint, Markham ICSP (p. 37).

15. Greenprint, Markham ICSP (pp. 105–108).

16. Greenprint, Markham ICSP (p. 46).

17. Greenprint, Markham ICSP (p. 174).