A SUMMARY REPORT ON URBAN GREENSPACE IN THE GEORGIA BASIN

CitiesofTheNature

INTRODUCTIONUrban green spaces act as life support for our cities. They can vary from nature reserves to restored parks andsoccer fields, from greenways to golf courses, stormwaterponds and forgotten ravines. Of all the different types of green space, natural areas1 offer the highest combinedecological, health and economic value. Natural orrestored areas help keep our air and water clean, increasecommunity well-being and social capital, act as aninvestment in local economies through increased realestate values, and provide natural habitat and localbiodiversity. Yet urban growth continues to threatengreen spaces in our cities. This makes the planning andmanagement of these areas particularly challenging forland use stakeholders. Protecting and restoring urbangreen space is a contemporary issue facing all thosestriving to make cities sustainable, healthy places to live, work and play.

This summary report on urban green space has beenprepared by Evergreen as part of The Nature of Citiesproject. It is intended to provide a snapshot of how urban green space is managed and planned for by localgovernments in the Georgia Basin. From financing andacquisition, to protection and stewardship strategies, the approaches to urban green space management wereexplored to determine what current tools, techniques, andpolicies are being employed and what challenges persistto enhanced green space care. The purpose of thissummary report is to provide guidance for next steps toimprove urban green space protection and restoration.

Evergreen is a national not-for-profit environmentalorganization committed to bringing nature back to ourcities through naturalization and protection initiatives.We believe that nature’s presence and functioningecosystem services sustain the health of urbancommunities. Evergreen encourages the adoption ofecosystem-based planning in approaches to better urban green space protection.

The Nature of Cities is an educational campaign directed at municipalities throughout the Georgia Basin.The project assists professional land managers makeprogressive policy and program changes that betterprotect and restore natural urban green space, andnatural areas in particular. Presentations and trainingseminars conducted throughout the Georgia Basin willprofile tools, techniques, and North American (bothCanada and US-based) case studies that offer directionfor better green space care.

City of Abbotsford

Village of Lion’s Bay

City of Richmond

City of Burnaby

District of Maple Ridge*

District of Saanich

District of Campbell River

District of Metchosin

Town of Sidney

District of Central Saanich

City of Nanaimo

District of Squamish

City of Colwood

City of New Westminster

City of Surrey

Town of Comox

City of North Vancouver

City of Vancouver

City of Coquitlam

District of Oak Bay

City of Victoria

City of Courtenay

City of Port Coquitlam

Resort Municipality ofWhistler

District of Hope

District of Pitt Meadows

City of White Rock

Township of Langley

City of Port Moody

METHODOLOGYData for this report was gathered from 46% of GeorgiaBasin municipalities and electoral districts throughsurveys and one-on-one interviews with land managers in planning and parks departments. For 27 municipalities,surveys and one-on-one interviews were conducted in2003. Supplemental data was gathered for eightmunicipalities from Evergreen surveys distributed in2001. City web sites were also reviewed, and provided an additional source of information.

The surveys used to gather data for this report werebroken down into four sections:

1. Your Urban Landscape – green space amounts, types and ownership profiles.

2. Policies and Procedures – current policies and procedures used to protect and restore lands.

3. Finance and Acquisition – strategies and practices usedto finance acquisition and maintenance.

4. Protection and Stewardship – how citizen involvementin protection and stewardship is being managed.

To review the survey distributed, please visit our web siteat www.evergreen.ca.

This report focuses on urban green space owned andmanaged by local governments only. Participatingmunicipalities included:

1 Areas where more than 50% of the land is natural vegetation. * Please note that Maple Ridge helps plan and manage Pitt Meadows' greenspace and has provided data for both municipalities.

KEY FINDINGSThe way in which we categorize urban green space tellsus something about how we value it, what we expectfrom it, and whom we hope it will serve. Evergreenpresented land managers with a green space typology2

that separated out protected areas, natural areas, activerecreation areas, and other kinds of spaces that includedtrails, ravines, and lands not zoned parkland. How muchof our urban green space is considered natural? Howmuch is protected? Is the majority of our urban greenspace dedicated to active recreation? We also askedmunicipalities to identify lands they owned, lands ownedby other public agencies, as well as institutional lands. Is urban green space, lands that sustain healthy urbanliving, accounted for throughout the municipalityregardless of the owner? Are different landowners talkingto each other and sharing information about what theyown with an eye to better serving both the ecologicaland social needs of our communities?

The municipalities that responded to the survey accountfor over 80% of the region’s population, and over half ofthe total land area located in Georgia Basin municipalboundaries.

From this representative sample, there is a total of158.87 km2 of urban green space owned and managed bylocal governments. Of this total, approximately 52.81km2

were identified and considered publicly accessible naturalareas. This means that on average, we are allocating 7.08ha of green space per 1000 people. Not bad, especiallywhen we consider that most of the municipalitiessurveyed are struggling to maintain anywhere from .6 to 7 ha/1000 people as an average in their cities.3 Whatis less clear is whether this amount of urban green spaceis truly adequate given our ecosystem and human health needs for sustainable urban living. It gets morecomplicated when we assess how much of this urbangreen space is actually natural or naturalized, and how much of it is given ‘protection’ status due to itsecological sensitivity. The quality, versus quantity, of our urban green space is equally, or even more so,important when it comes to providing places that helpkeep our air and water clean, our communities more

2 We indicated that urban green space was to include urban parks, naturalareas (these include parklands and other natural landscapes), and specialtyareas such as community gardens. It did not include private golf courses.The typology used to break down different kinds of green space included:

• publicly accessible unimproved or natural areas, where more than 50% ofthe land is natural vegetation.

• publicly accessible active recreation areas, where more than 50% of theland has been landscaped and developed.

• protected areas, which included ESA’s and ecological reserves.

• other, which included greenways, ravines, lands not zoned parkland, etc.

Total population(census 2001) for the GeorgiaBasin: 2,746,689

2,500,000

2,000,000

1,500,000

1,000,000

500,000

0

Total population(census 2001) of municipalities surveyed: 2,242,534

Total km2 of land withinmunicipal boundaries, in municipalities locatedin the Georgia Basin:4907.61

Total km2 of land in municipalities surveyed: 2855.23

Total km2 of urban greenspace in municipalities surveyed: 158.87

5000

4500

4000

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0SQUA

RE K

ILOM

ETRE

S

TOTAL POPULATION FOR GEORGIA BASIN MUNICIPALITIES (CENSUS 2001)

LAND BASE OF MUNICIPALITIES WITHIN THE GEORGIA BASIN

relaxed, and our cities cooler. This isn’t to mention theimportance of slowing down habitat loss and biodiversitydecline in urban areas.

While not all municipalities were able to provide abreakdown for natural areas, about 75% were able todifferentiate between natural and active areas. Together,identified protected areas and natural spaces account forjust under half of the total amount of green space listedby survey respondents. One of the biggest challenges tolooking at green space on a watershed/water basin levelis the many different ways local governments categorizetheir lands. For enhanced natural space planning andmanagement to occur, developing consistency between

3 Survey respondents indicated standards ranging from .6 to 12 ha/1000 people, though most fell within the .6 to 7ha/1000 people range.

POPULATIONLAND MASS (IN SQUARE KILOMETRES)

POPULATION AND LAND BASE OF GEORGIA BASIN MUNICIPALITIES

Abbotsford 115,711 358.6

Burnaby 193,954 106.7

Campbell River 28,952 149.02

Central Saanich 15,348 50.07

Colwood 13,745 20.67

Comox 11,172 15.41

Coquitlam 112,905 152.57

Courtenay 18,304 15.99

Fort Langley 23,643 10.18

Hope 6,184 45.7

Langley 87,403 317.65

Lions Bay 1,379 3.84

Maple Ridge 63,174 267.10

Metchosin 4,857 79.80

Nanaimo 73,000 125.56

New Westminster 54,656 18.66

North Vancouver 44,642 12.67

Oak Bay 17,798 16.37

Pitt Meadows 14,894 88.25

Port Coquitlam 51,262 34.81

Port Moody 23,816 34.35

Richmond 164,345 257.25

Saanich 103,654 111.83

Sidney 10,929 7.14

Squamish 14,247 108.52

Surrey 347,956 371.40

Vancouver 546,976 116.15

Victoria 74,125 23.35

Whistler 8,896 169.18

White Rock 18,250 14.02

municipalities in categorizing and inventorying land willbe important. The environmentally sensitive areas (ESA)inventories completed (or close to completion) by justover half of the municipalities interviewed are one placewhere similarity in the classification is employed.

Municipalities were also asked to identify green spaceowned and managed by other agencies. In part, this wasto help us better understand how local governmentsworked with, or at least accounted for, other lands in the city that might provide ecological benefits andcommunity services. A third of the municipalitiessurveyed did not indicate amounts of green space ownedand managed by institutions. From school grounds tohospitals and universities, these areas can positivelyfunction as urban green spaces enjoyed and stewarded by all community members. Municipalities might benefitfrom partnership agreements with other institutionallandowners that allow lands to more broadly serve peoplebeyond the residential community, and that recognize therole such lands play in providing nature services to thecity as a whole.

Exploring the state of urban green space in the GeorgiaBasin meant more than only looking at what we currentlyhave and who looks after it. It also meant identifying thetools used to help manage and protect green space, andnatural areas in particular. Tools cited included:

• regional land designations and protection plansincluding the Vancouver Island Environmentally SensitiveEcosystem Inventory (ESE), the Capital RegionalDistrict’s (CRD) Green Blue Spaces Plan, and the GreaterVancouver Regional District’s (GVRD) Green Zone

• official community plans (OCPs) and local area plans

• naturescaping principles and policies

• park dedication policies

• density bonusing

• subdivision review processes

• design guideline manuals

• zoning (by-laws)

• environmentally sensitive areas (ESA) (withdevelopment restrictions)

• development permit areas (DPA) (for a whole range ofareas including steep slopes, etc.)

• environmental protection policies such as leave stripsand watercourse by-laws

• tree by-laws and policies that restrict cutting, set outretention standards, etc.

• flood control by-laws

However, respondents overwhelmingly cited the use of the OCP as a key instrument to help planningdepartments and developers consider natural spaces in the face of development proposals. On another level,the use of DPAs seems to be on the upswing, with somemunicipalities allowing fee transfers for developersproposing to work in these areas. Squamish has taken aslightly different approach with their Management ReviewCommittee. This committee includes representatives fromthe Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO). Thecommittee meets quarterly and goes through the list ofdevelopment applications as well as development ideas.This proactively ensures that watercourses are notimpacted negatively by development.

Moving from protection to restoration, few of themunicipalities surveyed had criteria or standards to helpidentify candidate sites for naturalization or restoration.While a couple pointed to their official community plans,others relied on DFO regulations. However, whenrespondents were asked whether their OCP supportedurban naturalization, 63% of those surveyed respondedaffirmatively. The overarching guiding principles andpolicies found in OCPs do not appear to translate into on-the-ground standards or policies and procedures. Surreywas an exception with their Natural Areas ManagementPlan. Other notable exceptions include Port Moody, wherethe city has officially adopted naturescaping principles aspart of their development and landscaping approvals andpractices. These principles address the need to protectand restore natural habitat, taking a more ecosystem-based approach to protection than other tree andvegetation retention policies. Saanich has been activelypromoting naturescaping informally on both commercialand private lands, with the Mayor issuing a challenge toother municipalities to have their residents also adoptchanges in home landscape care that better service localbiodiversity and natural habitat. Currently, Saanichmaintains over 70% of its parkland in a natural state andis moving slowly to increase natural areas within certain,previously highly maintained parks.

Altering landscape profiles on both public and privateland is part of creating ‘fingers of green’ throughout acity or town. Another approach is through the adoptionand implementation of green infrastructure4. So we askedmunicipalities about their green infrastructure plans.

Less than half of the respondents indicated that they hadany green infrastructure plan. For those with a plan,

4 Green infrastructure was defined as a strategically planned and managednetwork of parks, greenways, conservation covenants, and working landswith conservation value that supports native species, maintains natural eco-logical processes, sustains air and water resources, and contributes to thehealth and quality of life for community residents.

trails, protected areas and greenways were thepredominant green infrastructure services. Only a fewmunicipalities noted that their greenway plans focusedon creating wildlife habitat corridors, and/or creatinglinkages between ecologically sensitive or valuable lands.As municipalities begin dusting off their old, shelvedgreenway plans (currently true for at least fourmunicipalities), it will be important for land managers to aim for both the movement of goods and people, andfor improved ecological functioning.

There are several interesting green infrastructure casesthat have implications for improved water quality andurban green space. Saanich spoke to a watershed actionplan that includes all the watercourses (wetlands, lakes,etc.) and integrates by-laws, etc. to help protect waterquality and the integrity of watercourses. In Courtenay,some big box retail developments are being asked to dealwith water on-site, through stormwater ponds, in effectcreating additional green space where in the past theremay have only been resulting asphalt. Colwood spokeabout a regional stormwater by-law that is beingdeveloped where stormwater is recognized as a stream.This will certainly raise the bar on how stormwater istreated, including riparian edges. No respondentsindicated forest canopy (air quality) as a greeninfrastructure, or ecosystem, service planned for.

Through the interviews and surveys, we found that greeninfrastructure appears to still be in its infancy, both interms of a concept and implementation. Key criteria forgreen infrastructure designation is interconnectivity withhopefully an added connection between environmentaland social considerations. While parks, greenways, and watercourses are necessary parts of any greeninfrastructure plan, it is in the linkages and the resultingecological/human health quality that the ecosystemservice finds value. The term ‘ecosystem services’ was not widely used by respondents. Increasing land usestakeholders’ awareness of the term and assigningeconomic values to the services provided, may be usefulin supporting more, and better, development of greeninfrastructure plans.

One of the key challenges facing many urban landmanagers is how to finance green space acquisition andmaintenance. With ever-increasing urban growth, manymunicipalities are using development pressure as afinancing strategy. In many cases, there isn’t a proactiveor larger scale view to planning and managing aninterconnected 'quilt' of green. Instead, green spaces'spring up' where development activity was taking place.However, current development activity (from parklanddedications to development cost charges and re-zoning

negotiations) is not providing enough revenue. Courtenayemphasized that the cash-in-lieu connected to the 5%dedication policy does not nearly cover the cost ofacquiring new land, and that even developers agree this amount is too low. While many of the respondentsindicated that they worked with various partners(community groups, land trusts, different governmentbodies) to acquire land, partnership development has not yet made its way into an overall financing strategy.Instead, partners seem to evolve on a site-by-site basis.Of note was Campbell River’s OCP, however, which dididentify both local and federal partners they will target to assist with acquisition and local stewardship alongone of their greenways.

There are other ways to create green space beyondfinancing acquisitions. Financial incentives through suchtools as property tax relief can be used. Surrey, forinstance has provided property tax relief to private landowners who bequest or transfer their land titles to thecity. In another municipality, an agreement was madebetween the city and a private enterprise to create apublic park on the privately owned land, in exchange for re-zoning and reduced taxes on the land. Colwoodindicated that they have encouraged ecogifting, whichallows owners to reduce their capital gains tax.Municipalities have played with development permitareas, extending these areas to a whole range of landsand landscapes. Very few municipalities use the transferof development rights to acquire more land. Vancouver,Township of Langley, Whistler are several exceptions.Land swaps are occasionally used.

However, urban green space acquisition or restoration isstill predominantly being financed through developmentactivity. At the same time, respondents identified urban growth as the biggest challenge to green spaceprotection. Respondents included the pressure to developand development practices themselves, as well as thegeneral lack of available land to develop or protect. Tied for second place was funding (including the cost of land), political will and community support.Development-oriented councils view urban growth as a revenue stream. The economic value of urban green space, in terms of energy savings, stormwatermanagement savings, and increased real estate values, is not commonly understood. Public perception on what should be protected and why creates obstacles.Respondents felt that a lack of knowledge and conflictingvalues (green space for sport, dog-walking etc. versusenvironmental protection) too often resulted in a desirefor turf and trees to be protected at the expense of moreecologically significant areas. Several municipalities

replied that the lack of a definitive plan and hard policies made green space protection exceedinglydifficult, resulting in a scattergun approach toprotection.

When asked what support municipalities most needed in light of the challenges to green space protection and maintenance, just under half asked for funding while a close second was increased public education and community stewardship, and greater political support.

On the community side of things, the use of privatecitizens in public stewardship is still underutilized inmost Georgia Basin cities and towns. Less than half the municipalities interviewed have formal systems in place to encourage community participation in the enhancement and stewardship of green spaces.Community-based stewardship, while needing its ownlevel of funding, staff resources, and managementknowledge, offers a sound economic response toenhanced green space management. The added benefit of local stewardship is an increased public awareness of the role natural green space can play in the urbanenvironment. Social capital and the health of individualsare increased through both the increase in amount ofavailable natural green space, as well as the level ofinvolvement in care-taking activities.

WHAT NEXT?By 2003, the population in the Georgia Basin is expectedto increase by 29%, exceeding more than 4 millionpeople. The pressure on urban green space as a result of such growth will continue to rise, demanding creativeapproaches to protection and restoration. Long termnaturalization and restoration plans will becomenecessities for green space planners. The protection of remaining natural areas will require greater financialresources, making strategic partnership development animportant part of stretching limited budgets. Decision-makers as well as the general public will need to betterunderstand the economic, ecological and health value of natural areas in our cities for local stewardship andcitizen education to be fully supported by localgovernment staff and budgets, and for programs to beeffective. Georgia Basin municipalities are beginning toimplement some of these next steps. Sharing and evencoordinating successful strategies, tools, techniques willbe an important part of increasing the capacity of landmanagers to face the urban green space challenge in front of us.

Evergreen would like to thank all those who participated in the survey, giving generously of their time andinformation.

www.evergreen.ca#404-134 Abbott St.,

Vancouver, BC V6B 2K4Tel: 604-689-0766 Fax: 604-669-6222

E-mail: infobc@evergreen.ca

355 Adelaide St. West, 5th Floor,Toronto, ON M5V 1S2

Tel: 416-596-1495 Fax: 416-596-1443E-mail: info@evergreen.ca

1-888-426-3138 toll free in Canadaoutside Toronto and Vancouver

Support for The Nature of Cities and for the productionof this report has been generously provided by:

Environment Canada – Georgia Basin Ecosystem Initiative

Environment Canada and Health Canada– Community Action Program

The Real Estate Foundation of British Columbia

Bullitt Foundation

Chawkers Foundation

Vancouver Foundation

Coast Capital Savings

This report is printed on paper containing 80% Post-Consumer Fiber and 20% FSC-Certified Virgin Fiber (Forest Stewardship Council)