NTEGRATED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN (ISWM-MP …€¦ · Research objectives were based on the overall goal of determining constraints and opportunities to drive uptake of

Prepared for:

City of Kitchener

INTEGRATED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MASTER

PLAN (ISWM-MP) MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

MARKET-BASED STRATEGY: SECURING UPTAKE OF AT-SOURCE

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ON PRIVATE

PROPERTY

Prepared by:

Aquafor Beech Ltd. Freeman Associates

55 Regal Rd, Unit 3 Guelph, ON,

N1K 1B6

October 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

1.1 Background and Context 1 1.1.1 Integrated Stormwater Management Master Plan 1 1.1.2 At-Source Stormwater Mitigation and Pollution Prevention 1

1.2 Project Description 2 1.2.1 Considerations 2 1.2.2 Research Methodology 2 1.2.3 Research Goal and Objectives 3

1.3 Business Sector Research 3 1.3.1 Business Sector Research Methodology 3 1.3.2 Business Research Sample 4 1.3.3 Business Research Findings 4 1.3.4 Integrated Analysis – Business Sector 4

1.4 Residential Homeowner Research 5 1.4.1 Homeowner Research Methodology 5 1.4.2 Home owner Research Findings 5

1.4.2.1 Meaning of Home and Landscape 6 1.4.2.2 Importance of Gardens, Lawns and Trees 6 1.4.2.3 Ideal Landscape and Ideal Naturescape 7 1.4.2.4 Understanding Terminology 8

1.4.3 Constraints and Opportunities: Single-Family Homeowners 8 1.4.4 Integrated Analysis – Residential Homeowners 9

1.5 Leading Jurisdictions 10 1.5.1 Leading Jurisdictions: Applicable Non-SWM Best Practices 11 1.5.2 Integrated Analysis – Leading Jurisdictions 11

1.6 Recommendations 11

1.7 Summary 15

2.0 BACKGROUND & CONTEXT 16

2.1 Integrated Stormwater Management Master Planning 16 2.2 At-Source Stormwater Mitigation and Pollution Prevention 17

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 17

3.1 Considerations 18 3.2 Research Methodology 19 3.3 Research Objectives 19

3.3.1 Business Sector Research Objectives 20 3.3.2 Residential Research Objectives 20 3.3.3 Leading Jurisdictions and Best Practice Research Objectives 21 3.3.4 City Policy, Program and Practice Research Objectives 21

Section Page

4.0 BUSINESS SECTOR RESEARCH 21

4.1 Business Sector Research Methodology 22

4.2 Business Sector Research Sample 23

4.3 Business Research Findings 23 4.3.1 Themes – Constraints – Industrial and Commercial 24 4.3.2 Themes – Constraints – Builders/Developers 24 4.3.3 Themes – Constraints – Service Providers 24 4.3.4 Themes – Opportunities – Industrial and Commercial 25 4.3.5 Themes – Opportunities – Builders/Developers 25 4.3.6 Themes – Opportunities – Service Providers 25

4.4 Integrated Analysis – Business Sector 25

5.0 RESIDENTIAL HOMEOWNER RESEARCH 26

5.1 Homeowner Research Methodology 26

5.2 Homeowner Research Sample Description 27

5.3 Homeowner Research Findings 28 5.3.1 City of Kitchener 28 5.3.2 Home and Landscape 29 5.3.3 Landscape Design 30 5.3.4 Landscape Maintenance 32 5.3.5 Gardens 33 5.3.6 Lawns 33 5.3.7 Trees 33 5.3.8 Home or Landscape Improvements 34 5.3.9 Ideal Landscape and Ideal Naturescape 34 5.3.10 Comparing Ideal Landscape with Ideal Naturescape 37 5.3.11 Ratings of Front Yard Landscapes 39 5.3.12 Ratings of Gardens 40 5.3.13 Ratings of Downspouts and Drainage 41 5.3.14 Understanding of Terminology 42

5.4 Constraints and Opportunities: Single-Family Homeowners 44 5.4.1 Themes – Constraints 44 5.4.2 Themes – Opportunities 45

5.5 Integrated Analysis – Single-Family Homeowners 45

6.0 LEADING JURISDICTIONS RESEARCH FINDINGS 45

6.1 Applicable Stormwater Management Best Practices 45

6.2 Applicable Generic Practices 47

6.3 Integrated Analysis – Leading Jurisdictions 48

Section Page

7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 49

7.1 Recommendations – Governance and Administration 49 7.1.1 Integrated Water Management 49 7.1.2 Market-based Approach 51 7.1.3 Integrated Water Management Steering Committee 52 7.1.4 Water Innovation Hub 52

7.2 Recommendations – Municipal Functions and Operations 53 7.2.1 Stormwater Utility Fee Structure 53 7.2.2 Aggregating Properties Incentive 54 7.2.3 Expedited Permitting 54 7.2.4 Density and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Bonus 55 7.2.5 Stormwater Management Reporting Framework 56

7.3 Market-Based Programming 57

7.3.1 Strategic Joint Ventures 57 7.3.2 Service Providers Incentives 57 7.3.3 Market Positioning 59

7.3.3.1 Single-Family Homeowners 59

8.0 SUMMARY 61

APPENDICES Appendix 1 Guiding Questions: Business Sector Key Informant Interviews

Appendix 2 Summary of Findings – Key Informant Business Sector Interviews

Appendix 3 Facilitator’s Guide – Homeowner Research Questionnaire

Appendix 4 Verbatim Report – Homeowner Research

LIST OF ACRONYMS

BMP Best Management Practice DDOE District Department of the Environment (Washington, DC) DSM Demand Side Management FAR Floor Area Ratio GARP Greened Acre Retrofit Program GRCA Grand River Conservation Authority GHG Greenhouse Gas Emissions ICI Industrial, Commercial & Institutional ISWM-MP Integrated Stormwater Management – Master Plan IT Information Technology IWM Integrated Water Management IWRM Integrated Water Resource Management LO Landscape Ontario MSMP Master Stormwater Management Plan PEDC Philadelphia Economic Development Department REEP Residential Energy Efficiency Project ROI Return on Investment SCE Stormwater Credit Exchange Program SWM Stormwater Management WET Water Efficient Technology (Region of Waterloo’s WET program) WRS Water Resource Sustainability

MARKET-BASED STRATEGY: SECURING UPTAKE OF LOT-LEVEL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ON PRIVATE PROPERTY

October 2015

1

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT The City of Kitchener developed a Stormwater Management (SWM) policy in 2001, which was considered highly progressive for its time and included provisions for leading-edge SWM practices. Currently the City is developing an Integrated Stormwater Management Master Plan (ISWM-MP) of which this market-based strategy is a component. The field of SWM has evolved since the writing of the City’s SWM policy in 2001 to include:

broader objectives and targets for water quality and quantity and erosion control;

a focus on water budgeting;

protection of aquatic and terrestrial habitats, and ground water resources; and,

climate change resiliency, adaptation and mitigation

1.1.1. Integrated Stormwater Management Master Plan

An Integrated Stormwater Management Master Plan involves a new, holistic approach to completing municipal stormwater master plans under the Municipal Engineers Association Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Act. An ISWM-MP addresses watershed-based issues and strategies relating to stormwater and water supply and wastewater treatment to achieve Water Resource Sustainability (WRS) – integrated water management addressing stormwater, water supply and waste water treatment and source water protection on a watershed level.

1.1.2. At-Source Stormwater Mitigation & Pollution Prevention

Securing at-source control of stormwater and pollution prevention requires the participation of private property owners in the residential and business sectors. Toward this end in February 2011, the City established a stormwater utility fee based on actual contributions or load to the stormwater system and a credit program of up to 45% of the fee to encourage land-owners to implement on-site stormwater mitigation and pollution prevention measures. To support landowners implementing stormwater mitigation measures such as rain gardens, bioswales, redirecting downspouts, etc., the City of Kitchener in partnership with Residential Energy Efficiency Project (REEP Green Solutions) provides information, resources and direct expert guidance to residential and industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) property owners. Efforts to assist landowners with implement of on-site SWM resulted in reasonable uptake over the early years of the program, but recently uptake has been leveling off. Of a total of 56,929 residential customers and 2,438 non-residential customers, 3,907 (6.9%) and 125 (5.1%), respectively, have implemented some on-site measures to reduce stormwater runoff and pollutant loadings. Securing greater uptake in both customer sectors is a significant goal for stormwater programming moving forward. With this goal in mind, the City has undertaken market and best in class research to develop strategies for securing greater uptake of at-source SWM and pollution prevention measures by residential and non-residential customers. Primary research with property owners, business developers and service providers, and secondary research into leading jurisdictions in SWM, relevant City policies and programs and REEP Green Solutions has been undertaken to determine mechanisms and approaches to drive uptake of on-site stormwater management measures. The research and findings are discussed herein and form the basis for the recommendations set out in this strategy.


October 2015

2

1.2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION To increase uptake of SWM and pollution prevention practices by property owners and builders/developers, market-based research was undertaken to determine viable alternatives to current SWM programming. Market-based research involves market segmentation and analysis to determine constraints and opportunities in each market segment and across market segments or sectors. Single-family homeowners, industrial and commercial property owners/managers, builders/developers and key service providers in the landscaping, roofing and porous paving were the target sectors for the primary market research. Leading jurisdictions best practices research and a review of City policies and programs and REEP Green Solutions programs informed the primary, and enabled a thorough examination of constraints and opportunities vis-à-vis current SWM programming in Kitchener.

1.2.1. Considerations

In meeting the City’s ISWM-MP objectives, two primary considerations will inform the strategic direction of municipal actions to drive uptake of at-source SWM and pollution prevention by private property owners, specifically:

1. The creation of drivers for at-source actions by private landowners and new construction

through the development or modification of City policies and practices via enhanced integrated decision-making and programming across City departments and portfolios.

2. The strategic engagement of the marketplace to drive uptake of at-source actions by property owners and builders/developers and create the impetus for market transformation.

These considerations informed the research methodology and the recommendations set out in this strategy.

1.2.2. Research Methodology

Primary research was undertaken to identify and explore constraints and opportunities for uptake of on-site SWM measures amongst property owners in the target sectors – homeowners, industrial/commercial property owners, and builders/developers and to determine the potential influence of service providers (landscaping, roofing/building sciences, and porous/permeable surfacing) on the target sectors. A fulsome discussion of the methodologies for research with property owners/managers in the industrial/commercial and builder/developer sectors and with single-family homeowners are addressed separately under sections 4.1 and 5.1, respectively. Secondary research involving an extensive web-based search and on-line literature review was carried out to identify best practices employed by leading jurisdictions in SWM and sustainability (water and energy conservation, green building, pollution prevention, alternative energy, etc.). Also undertaken was secondary and supplemental primary research into City policies, programs, and practices, and REEP Green solutions, which serves as a delivery agent for City SWM programs targeting property owners. In conjunction, a scan of current water related initiatives at the Region of Waterloo was completed to identify potential linkages with City SWM programs.


October 2015

3

1.2.3. Research Goal and Objectives

Research objectives were based on the overall goal of determining constraints and opportunities to drive uptake of SWM and pollution prevention practices by single-family homeowners, business property owners/managers, and builders/developers. Research objectives drawn from the overarching ISWM-MP project objectives were developed and guided the research process. Objectives specific to each area of research – single-family homeowners, industrial/commercial property owners, builders/developers and service providers – were developed to ensure the research was targeted and necessary insights and data would be captured. (See Section 3.3 for the sector-specific research objectives).

1.3. BUSINESS SECTOR RESEARCH Industrial/commercial property owners/managers are targeted via City and third-party outreach and marketing (REEP Green Solutions), including the provision of a stormwater utility credit for implementation of on-site SWM measures, and access to audits and expert advice via REEP Green Solutions’ RAIN Business Visits. These programs and initiatives encourage business property owners/managers to implement SWM and pollution prevention practices on their properties. In addition to these practices, City personnel engage builders/developers to achieve SWM objectives in new construction. Uptake of on-site SWM measures amongst property owners/managers in the business sector has slowed recently, while adoption of enhanced SWM and pollution prevention practices by builders/developers remains challenging and is negotiated on a case-by-case basis. Primary research via key informant interviews with business property owners/managers and builders/developers was undertaken to determine the reasons behind the limited uptake of SWM measures in these target business sectors. Key informant interviews were also conducted with service providers in the fields of landscape design and installation, roofing and building sciences, and porous/permeable surfacing. These service providers were included in the business sector research as they act as “influencers” in the marketplace.

1.3.1. Business Sector Research Methodology

Through discussions with City of Kitchener project personnel and the project consultant, target sectors were identified and research objectives were developed. The objective of sixteen interviews with key informants was established with the proviso that should there be significant inconsistencies in the information collected through the interviews, supplemental interviews with additional businesses would be undertaken. A combination of twenty-five industrial and commercial businesses, and builders/developers were randomly selected from a business listing compiled using a combination of Statistics Canada Business Listings for Kitchener, the City’s Economic Development business database, the City’s business listing of those companies that had applied for or inquired about the stormwater utility credit, and REEP’s Business Visits listing. Through a process of cross-referencing of the business listings and on-line research of the businesses, the list was culled to 20 industrial and commercial companies and builders/developers.1 Service providers were selected via professional or business associations to ensure those selected had industry recognized credentials.

1 Some of the companies on the business listings were no longer in business, could not be identified via on-line searches or

numbered companies and as such contact and other pertinent information was not available.


October 2015

4

Guiding questions were developed for the key informant interviews with industrial/commercial property owners/managers, builders/developers and service providers. A copy of the guiding questions used for the business sector key informant interviews is included in Appendix 1. Interview summaries capturing key informants’ responses were generated upon completion the interviews (A copy of the interview summaries is included in Appendix 2). Themes or consistencies in responses were identified and noted as these are indicative of significant constraints or opportunities requiring more detailed analysis. Information collected through the leading jurisdictions best practices research and the City policy and program research were cross-referenced with the findings from the interviews with key informants in the business sector.

1.3.2. Business Research Sample

Interviews were conducted with business owners/managers in the industrial/commercial and builder/developer sectors and with providers in the landscaping, roofing/building sciences and porous paving service businesses. A list of the key informants is included in Table 7, Section 4.2.

1.3.3. Business Research Findings

Consistencies or themes in responses from key informants were identified and categorized as a constraint or opportunity. The most common constraint or hurdle to the uptake of at-source SWM practices identified by key informants across all groups was the long payback period associated with such investments. The most significant opportunity identified through interviews with key informants is the willingness to address and/or promote at-source SWM and pollution prevention provided their efforts not involve significant investments with poor returns, undermined competiveness, create delays (builders/developers), or long term maintenance costs/efforts. Research roofing contractors are not in a position to influence decisions about roof drainage, rain water capture or “green roofs”, as these are design considerations and the purview of building owners with guidance from architects/building sciences specialists. A more fulsome discussion of the thematic constraints and opportunities is included in Section 4.3. A summary table of findings from the key informant interviews with the businesses is included in Appendix 2.

1.3.4. Integrated Analysis – Business Sector

The research themes from the business sector interviews have been analysed separately and in combination with the findings from the residential and leading jurisdictions research discussed below. Recommendations set out in Section 7.0 of this strategy are based on this integrated analysis and are informed by the City’s ISWM-MP goals and objectives.

1.4. RESIDENTIAL HOMEOWNER RESEARCH As discussed, uptake of stormwater mitigation measures by property owners in the residential sector is slowing. To identify opportunities and constraints for on-site SWM and pollution prevention on residential properties, a research session was held on March 11, 2015 with a demographically representative sample of single-family homeowners in the City.


October 2015

5

1.4.1. Homeowner Research Methodology

A demographic profile of single-family home-owners in the City of Kitchener was developed using a combination of Statistics Canada census data (2011) and City economic and planning demographic data. A recruitment screener was developed from the demographic profile. A recruitment screener is a series of questions asked of potential participants for the homeowner research such as age, gender, income level, education, number of children living at home, country of origin, etc., which ensures the research sample closely mirrors the demographic of single-family homeowners for the entire City. A research sample of thirty-two homeowners (n=32) were recruited for the research session. The demographic make-up of the research sample in comparison with Statistics Canada 2011 Census data for Kitchener residents and recruitment quotas for the research session are included in Table 8, Section 5.2. Participants were provided with a blank questionnaire and a facilitator guided them through a series of more than 70 closed- and open-ended questions (Refer to Appendix 3 for a copy of the homeowner research quesitonnaire). Participants provided written answers to verbally asked questions within a limited timeframe. This appraoch ensured top-of-mind, non-rationalized responses which is critical to securing insights into the intrinsic values and beliefs of homeowner respondents. Intrinsic values are at the root of all decisions and perceptions individuals hold and therefore are the key to determining constraints and opportunities amongst similar demographic groups. Respondents are also asked to draw pictures, a right brain, creative exercise which provided quality data about homeowners’ perceptions and visions for their home and home landscape. Resident respondents also identified trusted sources of information and supplies associated with stormwater mitigation on their properties, and described the meaning of terminology and program identifiers used by the City and REEP Green Solutions in communication about SWM, landscapes, salt management and pollution prevention.

Homeowners responses were entered verbatim into a database and were subsequently grouped and categorized based on similarities and consistencies (e.g., “beautiful, “pretty”, “attractive”, etc. would be grouped together). A copy of the Verbatim Report is included in Appendix 4.

1.4.2. Homeowner Research Findings

Early in the questionnaire, participants were asked: “What does the City of Kitchener mean to you?” Eighty-two percent of the responses indicated the City of Kitchener means “home, work and family”. Respondents were asked to describe the two things they most like about living in Kitchener. “Friendly neighbourhoods”, modern infrastructure and good housing make Kitchener a “great place to raise a family” reflect the responses of the majority of homeowners. Friends, neighbours, family, community and home are repeating themes throughout the research. “Safe” neighbourhoods are also a significant motivation for these homeowners in making the decision about where to live.


October 2015

6

1.4.2.1. Meaning of Home and Landscape

When homeowners were asked, “what does your home mean to you”, the majority respondents describe their homes as the centre of their family and social lives. The majority of respondents also identified their homes as their largest financial investment. For respondents, their home is a “safe haven” for their family and provides a feeling of security (physically and financially) and comfort. Respondents are “proud” of their homes and “love” being there. Respondents were asked a series of questions about their home’s landscape. The single most important motivation for homeowners regarding their home’s surrounding landscape is its “appearance, curb appeal, and beauty.” This motivation is repeated throughout the responses, including the reasons why landscape design, landscape maintenance, lawns and trees are important. Aesthetics was identified as the primary reason why lawns are important to respondents as they, “add beauty to the residence.” Ninety percent of respondents rated lawns as important to their home landscape. Only three responses stated “lawns are not important.” Trees were identified as providing a triple benefit: “Beauty, shade and environment.” Homeowners also have “pride” in their homes and landscapes and “enjoy” them. When homeowners were asked to rate on a scale of 1 to 10 – with 1 being low and 10 being high – the importance of landscape maintenance to their home landscape, they gave a high average rating of 8.3 out of 10. Again, aesthetics or “keeping it [the landscape] looking its best all the time, curb appeal.” was the main reason why 59% of respondents gave high rating of importance. The most important practices for maintaining the home landscape were identified by respondents as: cutting the grass (59%), taking care of the lawn (34%), and weeding (38%).

1.4.2.2. Importance of Gardens, Lawns & Trees

Gardens also rated highly (8.3 out of 10) as an important aspect of these homeowners’ landscapes. Eighty percent of homeowners have gardens. These homeowners identified the following three primary motivations for having gardens:

50% Love gardening and flowers

44% Beauty, looks, appearance and colour

25% Providing food, flowers and supporting bees

The importance of lawns to the home’s landscape rated highly at 8.3 out of 10. The overwhelming reasons why respondents provided the high rating were: “Looks”, “appearance” and “curb appeal”. In addition, for seventy-five percent of these homeowners, lawn comprises more than half of their home’s landscape. Respondents rated the importance of trees to the home landscape highly with a mean rating of 8.3 out of 10. While trees are also seen as an important ingredient for beautiful landscapes (47%), they provide shade (47%) and environmental benefits (38%). In addition, many people said they (and their children) “enjoy them!”


October 2015

7

1.4.2.3. Ideal Landscape & Ideal Naturescape

Homeowner respondents were asked to draw an “ideal” landscape and an “ideal Naturescape” landscape for their home. As previously identified, “Naturescape” is the name of the Region of Waterloo’s water efficient landscaping program. The drawing exercise is a right brain, creative endeavour which secures data about the visual perceptions homeowners’ hold. After each drawing by respondents, they were asked a number of questions regarding their “ideal landscape” and “ideal Naturescape” drawings, such as provide up to three words to describe your drawing and what feeling or emotions are evoked by your drawing?” The most important elements or aspects of respondents’ ideal front yard landscape or their ideal Naturescape landscape may be summarized as follow:

The design and use of trees are seen as equally important for both landscapes.

The lawn is seen as the most important element for ideal landscapes.

Water is seen as the most important element for ideal naturescapes.

Built structures and walkways are a significant part of homeowners’ ideal landscapes, while rock is a common feature for ideal naturescapes.

Flowers and ornamental plants are more important for ideal landscapes, while wild flowers and long grasses are used in ideal naturescapes.

Feelings of happiness and pride are equal for ideal landscapes and ideal naturescapes, but “beauty” is a more frequent answer used by respondents to describe their ideal landscapes (28% versus 16% for naturescapes). The most frequent feeling identified by respondents for their ideal Naturescape is “peaceful” (72%). Ideal landscapes also evoke a much higher frequency of negative feelings (28%): stress, frustration, regret, painful, and lots of work. Homeowners were asked “what constraints or reasons might prevent you from having an ideal front yard landscape or naturescape. Lack of money was the primary constraint identified by respondents for both types of landscapes, while lack of time and energy are significant constraints for an ideal landscape.

Respondents were provided with three sets of photos: four front yard landscapes, four flower/rain gardens, and four drainage options (research photos are included in Section 5.6, 5.7, and 5.8). They were asked to consider the images in the photos and then to rank them on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being low and 10 being high. They were subsequently asked to provide reasons for the lowest and highest ratings they gave for each set of photos. Table 1 below provides a summary of reasons provided by respondents.


October 2015

8

Table 1 – Summary of Reasons Given for Ratings of Images of Landscape and Drainage Options Why

rating given?

Front Yard: Highest Rating

Front Yard: Lowest Rating

Gardens: Highest Rating

Gardens: Lowest Rating

Drainage: Highest Rating

. Drainage: Lowest Rating

1 Clean (50%)

Messy (53%)

Clean (25%)

Busy/messy (59%)

Clean (44%)

Ugly (16%)

2 Design (50%)

Plain (28%)

Design (34%)

Dull (28%)

Design (13%)

Cheap (16%)

3 Nature (16%)

Ugly (13%)

Nature (6%)

Empty (13%)

Nature (9%)

Boring (13%)

4 Colour (22%)

Hides house (9%)

Colour (22%)

Maintenance (9%)

Reuse water (47%)

Water waste (13%)

5 Appeal (13%)

Maintenance (6%)

Appeal (16%)

Obtrusive

(13%)

6 Grass (13%)

Variety (28%)

Too close

(13%)

The pattern in the responses indicates that images that look “clean with appealing designs.” rated the highest. The lower rated images are those identified by respondents as “messy, ugly, dull and boring.”

Keeping in mind the importance of friends and neighbours to homeowner respondents, and the strong connection they have to their neighbourhoods as a “safe place for their family and children”, one should consider the links between aesthetic motivations and family, friends and neighbours. Considering these personnel connections of homeowners coupled with both their strong preference for traditional landscape design and tendency to seek landscape and garden design advice from their friends, neighbours and family, one can appreciate how homeowners would self-reinforce their current home landscape aesthetic. Nevertheless, this relationship in residents’ motivations for aesthetically beautiful landscapes and their trust of friends, neighbours and family when seeking landscape and garden design advice represents an opportunity for using peer assimilation or belonging as a motivator for change. The tendency to conform to neighbour and friends can serve as a barrier to transitional and sustainable landscapes, but positioned correctly, this same tendency to conform can be a driver for uptake of sustainable residential landscapes.

1.4.2.4. Understanding Terminology

A number stormwater related terms (watershed, City of Kitchener Stormwater Utility, REEP Green Solutions, RAIN Home Visit, and rain garden) were presented to the homeowners and they were asked what the terms meant to them. Most of the terms were not known by the homeowners, and the most frequent response was “no answer.”

1.4.3. Constraints and Opportunities: Single-Family Homeowners

An analysis of the results from the market research with single-family homeowners identified constraints and opportunities associated with residents’ willingness or inclination to adopt lot-level stormwater control Best Management Practices (BMPs). Themes, as evidenced by the high consistency in responses amongst homeowners, emerged from the research and are summarized based on their influence as a constraint or an opportunity in Table 2 below.


October 2015

9

Table 2 –Constraint & Opportunity Themes: Single-Family Homeowners

THEMES

CONSTRAINTS

Residential information- and education-based outreach has not resonated with homeowners.

Homeowners have a deeply held aesthetic of a beautiful home landscape that is entrenched and does not include rain gardens, permeable driveways, cisterns or rain barrels.

Investment in landscaping improvement projects is limited to projects under $5,000 with only 2/32 homeowners investing more than that amount in the past five years.

Region of Waterloo’s “Naturescape” water efficient landscaping program is not well recognized by homeowners in Kitchener.

Although homeowners hold a positive view of a Naturescape landscape, their view runs contrary to the intent of the program.

Homeowner respondents have little or no understanding of the term “watershed”.

The majority of homeowner respondents have no knowledge or understanding of “REEP Green Solutions” or the “RAIN Home Visit”.

Eighty-seven percent (87%) of respondents could not accurately answer the question; “What is a rain garden?”

Images (rain gardens) and wording used on City and REEP Green Solutions web sites to communicate information about SWM to residents do not resonate with the intended audience.

THEMES

OPPORTUNITIES

The City of Kitchener and the community it represents, and homeowners’ neighbourhoods are very important to respondents.

Homeowners are highly motivated to have beautiful landscapes and are willing to invest in them.

Homeowners seek and trust advice about their landscape design from “friends” and “family” (56%), professionals and nurseries (41%), and the Internet (25%).

Majority of homeowners purchase plants from garden centres and nurseries (65%)

Most (65%) of the homeowner respondents’ drawings of their “ideal” front yard landscape, although traditional in design, indicate opportunities for incorporating rain gardens (within the context of those traditional designs).

The front yard image and garden image rated the highest by homeowners, although traditional in their design, include the potential for rain gardens and measures to enhance the infiltration of stormwater.

The top two rated downspout/drainage images by homeowner respondents depict dry river bed garden and a rain barrel mostly concealed by garden

1.4.4. Integrated Analysis – Residential Homeowners

Constraint and opportunity themes or consistencies found through the research with single-family homeowners are indicative of priority areas of focus for this strategy. As discussed, integrated analysis of the findings from research with homeowners and key informants in the business sector, on-line research of leading jurisdictions informed the development of the recommendations in this strategy.


October 2015

10

1.5. LEADING JURISDICTIONS Research into leading jurisdictions with successful initiatives to drive uptake of on-site SWM measures by private property owners identified several best practices for consideration for future SWM programming by the City. A complete summary of leading jurisdictions research can be found in the IWSM-MP report: Leading Jurisdictions Report (May 12, 2015). The best practices outlined in Table 3 below have been selected for inclusion in this strategy as they address specific constraints or capitalize on specific opportunities identified through the primary market research. It is important to note that stormwater credits or ‘feebates’ alone are not sufficient to drive uptake of at-source SWM on private property. Even where the credits have been in excess of 90%, such as Philadelphia, uptake is low (single digit or lower participation). In the case of Philadelphia, the low uptake was a key reason for the implementation of a grant program available to ICI property owners for the implementation of stormwater measures. Table 3 - Applicable SWM Best Practices

LEADING JURISDICTION

BEST PRACTICE DESCRIPTION

Philadelphia, PA

Green Acre Retrofit Program (GARP):

Provision of grants to contractors, companies or project “aggregators” who can build large-scale stormwater retrofit projects across multiple properties.

The intent of GARP is “to reduce the price for qualified non-residential PWD [Philadelphia Water Department] customers and contractors to design and install stormwater best management practices”.

2

Portland, OR

Green Street Policy & Program:

A program requiring infrastructure projects in the right-of-way to incorporate green street facilities into all City funded development, re-development or enhancements.

Any City of Portland funded development, redevelopment or enhancement project, that “does not trigger the Stormwater Manual but requires a street opening permit or occurs in the right of way”, pays into a “% for Green” street fund. The amount is 1% of the construction costs for the project.

Portland, OR

ECO Roof Floor Area Ratio Bonus Option:

The ECO Roof Bonus program was established to help meet the City of Portland’s SWM needs. The amount of Floor Area Ratio (FAR) bonus allowed to a developer depends on the percentage of eco roof coverage in relation to the building footprint.

Minneapolis, MN

Amendment for Use of Porous Paving for Driveways/Parking Lots:

The amendment brings “the City’s surfacing regulations into alignment with approved and adopted policies” [and] “...best management practices” to allow the use of permeable or pervious pavement and pavement systems without a variance.

York & Peel Regions, ON

Market-based Incentive program for alternative “Fusion” Landscapes:

Implemented a landscape designer/contactor incentive and training & certification program in co-operation with Landscape Ontario (LO) – the professional association representing the landscaping industry – for the designing and installing fusion landscapes.

The goal of the Fusion Landscaping program is to drive uptake of SWM measures, including rain gardens, bioswales, and increased permeable area, and the use of water efficient designs via the landscaping industry.

2 IBID


October 2015

11

1.5.1. Leading Jurisdictions: Applicable Generic Best Practices Given the constraints and opportunities identified through the primary market research, best practices not directly tied to SWM, but with potential to advance SWM in the City of Kitchener, were identified and are summarized in Table 4 below. Table 4 – Applicable Non-SWM Best Practices

JURISDICTION(S) BEST PRACTICE DESCRIPTION

Chicago, IL

City Works Global Hub for Urban Infrastructure:

The prime focus of this hub is the use of information technology (IT) to advance the state of urban infrastructure with emphasis on energy conservation and GHG emissions reduction via transportation and building innovations

Melbourne, AU Minneapolis, MO

Halifax, NS

Integrated Water Management Planning:

Several leading jurisdictions and agencies are employing and/or recommending whole system water management or Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) planning processes that consider impacts of given measures across water management portfolios.

This approach addresses a major challenge in water management; ‘siloization’ and provides the basis to deliver integrated water management programming..

San Francisco, CA Berkeley, CA Seattle, WA Chicago, IL Boston, MA

Green Permitting:

Green building/permitting programs in leading jurisdictions are part of municipal-level sustainable growth plans and address individual new green building/development projects, eco-neighbourhoods or districts, brown field and re-development projects and cover both the residential and commercial construction sectors.

Sydney, AU

Performance Indicators & Scorecard:

Sydney Water has produced an integrated Annual Report using a sustainability reporting framework. The utility’s Sustainability Scorecard reports on corporate performance measured against sustainability indicators.

1.5.2. Integrated Analysis – Leading Jurisdiction

The leading jurisdictions research has been analysed in conjunction with the findings from both the homeowner and business sector key informant research with consideration of the City’s and related third party SWM policies and programs. Based on this analysis, recommendations for policies, programs and initiatives to drive uptake of at-source/on-site SWM practices and measures have been developed.

1.6. RECOMMENDATIONS Creating a “made in Kitchener” market-strategy to generate uptake of at-source SWM and pollution prevention practices and measures by residential and industrial/commercial property owners, and enhanced SWM best practices in new development and re-development projects was a goal of the market research. Governance, programming, policy, economic, joint venture, and metrics and reporting recommendations have been developed based on the findings from the research and an analysis of potential options applicable to the City stormwater utility model and the achievement of the City’s ambitious ISWM-MP objectives.


October 2015

12

An ISWM-MP is a new undertaking for the City and it has several implications for implementation planning. In Section 1.2.1, two primary considerations were identified as informing the development of the recommendations set out in this strategy, specifically:

Integration of City policies and programming across water management and related portfolios via an integrated water management planning process often termed a “One Water” approach.

Strategic engagement of the marketplace to drive uptake of at-source SWM actions by property owners in the residential and business sectors, and builders/developers.

The above considerations, the goals and objectives of the ISWM-MP, and the findings from the market research are the basis for the recommendations set out in this strategy. For ease of reference, recommendations are divided into the following three categories: Governance & Administration, Municipal Functions & Operations, and Market-based Programming. Table 5 provides a summary of the recommendations. A detailed discussion of the recommendations summarized below is included in Section 7.0. Table 5 – Recommendations Summary

INITIATIVE RECOMMENDATION

Governance & Administration

INTEGRATED WATER MANAGEMENT

(IWM) PLANNING

As SWM program staff move forward with the ISWM-MP, it is recommended that the City undertake an IWM planning process to develop implementation plans.

The Ontario Ministry of Environment and Climate Change has endorsed IWM planning.

Employing an IWM model ensures that SWM measures and their implications are considered across water management portfolios and divisions. The rationale for this holistic approach is to provide for the sustainability of all water systems in the aggregate and to capitalize on synergies for greater efficiency and impact.

IWM is considered a best management practice and a best infrastructure planning practice currently being undertaken by leading jurisdictions in Australia, EU, UK and is starting in the US and Canada.

Moving forward with the ISWM-MP, utilizing an IWM planning process will ultimately create more holistic and cross-beneficial water management programs and practices.

MARKET-BASED APPROACH

It is recommended that the City apply a market-based approach to planning and decision-making processes pertaining to, or impacting, SWM practices by private property owners.

A market-based approach employs or stimulates the marketplace to deliver/support SWM initiatives with the ultimate goal of generating transformative, sustained changed.

Two key elements of a market-based approach to municipal SWM are the use of external market drivers and development of strategic joint venture opportunities.

Examples of such external drivers would include, grants, financing and subsidy programs, promotional initiatives, recognition/award programs, etc.

Identifying potential synergies with external organizations and business and developing joint venture agreements for delivery of complementary programs is an effective means of securing higher uptake and leveraging of resources.


October 2015

13


Governance & Administration

IWM STEERING COMMITTEE

It is recommended the City, in conjunction with the Region of Waterloo and the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA), establish an IWM Steering Committee.

The City, Region of Waterloo and the GRCA all have responsibilities and authority for various aspects of water management.

The opportunities are the potential synergies of the various water management programs and projects and the guiding principles of source water protection, maintenance of drinking water quality, and the long term sustainability of the ground and surface waters in Kitchener-Waterloo.

Securing support and approval of the City and Regional Councils and the GRCA Board of Directors is necessary to ensure the Committee has the mandate and authority to implement process and program changes for effective delivery of IWM.

WATER INNOVATION HUB

It is recommended that a Water Innovation Hub be established.

Innovation hubs bring together business leaders, academics, non-government organization specialists, and government experts to identify, vet, and foster innovation.

Kitchener-Waterloo hosts numerous large corporations, small- and mid-sized enterprises, two universities and a college representing a vast resource of experience, know-how and abilities.

This collective and untapped resource could be brought to bear via a water innovation hub to tackle SWM and other water management challenges and generate new and innovative opportunities to advance all levels of water management in the City and the Region.

The establishment of a Water Innovation Hub is consistent with the City’s Downtown Kitchener Action Plan (2012 – 2016), which indicates the formation of “an Innovation District” as one of four core areas of focus for the economic development and vitality of the City centre.

Municipal Functions & Operations

STORMWATER UTILITY FEE STRUCTURE

It is recommended that the City review the current stormwater utility fee structure and evaluate the potential to modify the structure for non-residential property owners.

Modifying the fee structure to have a fixed portion to cover required SWM capital and asset management costs and a refundable portion based on the current tiered fixed rate model with a potential credit of 100% could, if apportioned correctly, serve as an incentive to non-residential property owners to implement SWM measures.

Changing the utility fee structure will not address the fundamental challenge of extended payback periods for SWM investments by property owners, but it could potentially reduce the payback period such that other monetary and non-monetary incentives would provide sufficient additional motivation to increase uptake.

The impact of the perceptual difference of a 100% refund vs. a 45% refund is a reality and one that is proving effective in jurisdictions with such SWM utility “feebates”.

AGGREGATING PROPERTIES INCENTIVE

It is recommended the City establish an incentive and administrative mechanisms to enable the aggregation of non-residential privately-owned properties for a SWM utility credit.

A grant or low/no-interest financing initiative in conjunction with credit banking or exchange would encourage non-residential property owners/managers to develop and implement SWM practices to address multiple properties in a drainage area.

Allowing for the aggregation of properties/Grid Low Impact Development (Grid LID) has the potential to bring payback periods down to justifiable investment levels for business property owners.

In addition to grants, bankable and tradable SWM credits based on the value of the loading reduction to the City’s SWM system would serve as an added financial incentive for property owners.


October 2015

14


Municipal Functions & Operations

EXPEDITED REVIEW &

APPROVAL PROCESS

It is recommended that the City consider adopting an expedited review and approval process for development projects that employ SWM measures beyond required site plan approval levels.

This recommendation is intended to address the most significant barriers to the use of enhanced and innovative SWM measures by builders/developers are the costs associated with these measures and the difficulty in securing timely review and approvals.

Expedited permitting involves fast tracking review and approval of development applications through a designated green building approvals process. Two primary models exist: a team of experts involved throughout the approval process or a single expert shepherding the project through the approval process.

DENSITY & FLOOR AREA RATIO BONUS

It is recommended that the City evaluate modifying Section 5 of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law (85-1) to allow for density and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) bonuses.

The cost of enhanced SWM measures such as rain gardens, bioswales, exfiltration systems, eco-/green roofs, rain water harvesting, porous paving, etc., results in their limited application in new development.

In leading SWM jurisdictions, increases in allotment of single-family homes, increases in building height or the floor area ratio are the types of density bonuses made available to builders/developers.

In leading jurisdictions the green building requirements for density bonus qualification are stringent and in law.

Formalizing density and FAR bonuses for SWM enhancements within the zoning by-law will encourage builders/developers to incorporate such enhancements in their projects.

RIGHT-OF-WAY SWM

INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY & PROGRAM

It is recommended the City establish a SWM infrastructure right-of-way policy and program.

Requires incorporation of Low Impact Development (LID) facilities into all City-funded projects

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

& SCORECARD

It is recommended the City implement a SWM reporting framework involving a performance indicators and scorecard management mechanism.

The SWM reporting framework would provide City staff with a process by which to evaluate performance, troubleshoot and adjust programming and projects as needed to mitigate problems or capitalize on opportunities.

Market-Based Programming

STRATEGIC JOINT VENTURES

It is recommended that City staff responsible for SWM investigate the opportunity for strategic joint ventures with the Region and energy utilities to deliver a comprehensive energy-water-stormwater DSM program.

Strategic joint ventures are recommended to address both the long payback period for investments in on-site SWM measures and the challenge of securing SWM consultation or RAIN business visits.

Forming strategic joint ventures with both the Region of Waterloo Water Efficient Technology (WET) program for businesses, and with local energy utilities – Kitchener Utilities (DSM programs) and Kitchener-Wlimot Hydro (Commercial Energy Conservation programs) leverages expertise, provides enhanced access to businesses and potentially identifies synergistic opportunities.

Opportunities such as rain water harvesting for process or make-up water or for use with in-ground automatic irrigation systems or district water incorporating rain water capture are examples of potential synergistic opportunities offering energy and water savings and mitigating stormwater.


October 2015

15


Market-Based Programming

SERVICE PROVIDER INCENTIVE

It is recommended the City establish a service provider incentive program for landscape design and/or installation contractors.

Incentivizing the landscaping service industry to design and install transitional landscapes that incorporate rain gardens and enhanced permeable areas, and require little or no supplemental irrigation would be the most effective mechanism for driving uptake of on-site SWM landscaping practices and lowering peak water demand amongst single-family and industrial/commercial property owners.

To qualify for the incentive, landscaping service companies would have to complete training and certification through Landscape Ontario (LO), the professional and industry recognized association of the landscaping industry.

Unique to the Kitchener-Waterloo and surrounding areas is significant expertise in at-source SWM application amongst landscaping and environmental service companies. It is recommended that City SWM staff utilize this expertise, injunction with LO, to help with implementation planning and delivery of the training/certification and incentive program.

MARKET POSITIONING

It is recommended that the City undertake a targeted promotional initiative to re-position SWM and SWM-related programming in the marketplace.

Target marketing and promotion is a key component of market-based programming and a cost-effective means of re-positioning SWM in the marketplace.

This approach allows customization of messages and materials, targeted use of demonstration projects and outreach initiatives, focuses resources where they are most needed, and enables program tracking and measurement.

Target marketing involves the identification of specific demographics, sectors/sub-sectors and/or geographic areas (e.g., wellhead protection zones) to which tailored marketing and promotion is targeted.

TARGETED HOMEOWNER

CAMPAIGN

It is recommended that City SWM staff undertake a marketing and promotional initiative targeting single-family homeowners and focused on transitional landscapes for lot-level SWM.

Targeted marketing must focus on the beauty of transitional SWM landscapes – it’s about creating a new landscape paradigm based on a composite of lot-level best practices that homeowners will desire and seek to obtain.

Recommend employing a three-pronged SWM marketing approach involving a new transitional landscape paradigm, visually-based outreach campaign, and demonstration sites.

The focus of the campaign should be a transitional landscape aesthetic for single-family residential properties, municipal properties and eventually, by extension, multi-unit residential, commercial and industrial properties throughout Kitchener

1.7. SUMMARY Primary market research with single-family homeowners, industrial and commercial property owners/managers, builders/developers and service providers was undertaken to determine the constraints and opportunities for the uptake of lot-level SWM practices. This research was informed and augmented by research into leading jurisdiction best SWM practices. As the ISWM-MP progresses and the evaluation of alternatives generate preferred options, this strategy and the recommendations set out herein will undergo an alignment review. This alignment review will inform the City’s evaluation and implementation prioritization of the recommendations. The City of Kitchener has taken a progressive approach to SWM programming. This strategy continues this progressive approach and positions the City as a leader and innovator in stormwater management.


October 2015

16

2.0 BACKGROUND & CONTEXT In 2001, the City of Kitchener completed the Stormwater Management Policy Development Study to provide a Master Stormwater Management Plan that was intended to guide the future location, design and implementation of stormwater management measures throughout the City. The SWM Policy Development Study was completed following the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process. The primary focus of the study was to address SWM needs for existing development areas and to develop polices for infill and re-development areas. The resulting City of Kitchener Stormwater Management Policy (#I-1135) was developed through the evaluation of existing stormwater management approaches within the City and the investigation of alternative approaches and measures to ensure effective City-wide stormwater management. The Stormwater Management Policy articulated several environmental objectives as follows:

1. Meeting water quality targets 2. Reducing contaminants loading to surface water 3. Maintaining base-flow and temperature regime 4. Improving stream and riparian habitat 5. Maximizing the use of source control with pollution prevention and infiltration

The City of Kitchener SWM Policy when written in 2001 can generally be considered ‘leading-edge’ for its time. The policy included provisions for novel SWM techniques including:

Pollution prevention

Source controls to function as part of the SWM control system to meet overall targets

Conveyance facilities (infiltration and ‘exfiltration’) within the road right-of-way

Encouragement for stormwater infiltration (outside wellhead protection area)

SWM Retrofits (primarily the conversion of dry-ponds to wet ponds for water quality)

Stream rehabilitation as a tool for improving water quality and fish habitats in existing areas

Elements of the Adaptive Management Approach (AMA) through the requirement that the SWM Policy Plan be monitored annually by an independent consultant (City of Kitchener SWM Audit).

However, since the creation of the policy the field of SWM has evolved to include broader objectives and targets for not only water quality, quantity, and erosion control, but also a greater focus on water budget (infiltration) considerations, and the protection of aquatic and terrestrial habitats and groundwater resources. In addition, climate change resiliency, and adaptation and mitigation must now be considered as part of stormwater design and implementation. This evolution in SWM shifts the focus from traditional SWM planning to integrated stormwater management planning and from end-of-pipe measures to a whole system approach involving, as a priority, at-source measures for stormwater mitigation and pollution prevention. The treatment train approach, beginning with at-source SWM, followed by conveyance control and lastly, end-of-pipe control, is endorsed by the MOECC and is based on mimicking the natural water cycle and on reducing contaminant levels, which increase as stormwater travels overland. 2.1. Integrated Stormwater Management Master Planning An Integrated Stormwater Management Master Plan (ISWM-MP), is a new approach to completing municipal stormwater master plans under Section 4, Approach #2 of the Municipal Engineers Association Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Act (October 2000, as amended in 2007 & 2011). An ISWM-MP addresses watershed-based issues and strategies pertaining to not only stormwater but also, water supply and wastewater. It is a holistic approach that identifies cost effective and sustainable solutions.


October 2015

17

An ISWM-MP strives for Water Resource Sustainability (WRS). WRS is defined as the planning, study and management of water resources that fundamentally recognizes the interdependencies of stormwater, wastewater and water supply relating to the geographical context of the study area within the watershed in combination with asset management approaches for stormwater infrastructure.

2.2. At-Source Stormwater Mitigation & Pollution Prevention

Shifting the focus of SWM upstream to at-source controls requires significant participation by homeowners, business landowners/mangers and builders/developers to be effective. Securing uptake of on-site SWM and pollution prevention measures and practices by property owners in all sectors is an on-going priority for the City of Kitchener. To this end, the City has taken a progressive approach by implementing a stormwater utility fee based on actual contributions or load to the stormwater system and a credit program of up to 45% of the fee to encourage land-owners to reduce the load. A stormwater credit is available to property owners who use at-source best management practices (BMPs) to reduce the quantity and improve the quality of stormwater runoff entering the municipal stormwater system. In order to support business and residential landowners implementing stormwater mitigation measures such as, rain gardens, bio-swales, stormwater ponds or engineered wetlands, rooftop or underground storage, oil-grit separators, rain water harvesting, salt management plans, etc., the City in partnership with the Residential Energy Efficiency Project (REEP Green Solutions)3, provides supporting informational resources and direct expert guidance to residential, and industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) property owners/managers. Although progress is still occurring, uptake of on-site SW management and pollution prevention measures by the property owners in all sectors has slowed recently. As discussed, uptake of at-source SWM and pollution prevention measures by residential and non-residential customers is at 6.9% and 5.1%, respectively. Increasing uptake amongst property owners in both sectors is the primary goal of the market-based strategy. A review of leading jurisdictions in stormwater policy and programming and primary research with residential, industrial/commercial property owners has been undertaken to determine constraints and opportunities for increasing uptake of on-site stormwater management measures in these sectors. This strategy provides a summary of findings from research conducted with business property owners/managers and single-family homeowners, results of a leading jurisdictions review, and recommendations for increasing the uptake of SW management and pollution prevention practices and measures by property owners in the residential and business sectors.

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION As the use of SWM and pollution prevention practices and measures by property owners in the residential and industrial/commercial sectors has slowed recently, it is necessary to determine alternatives to current SWM programming and initiatives which will drive greater uptake across all sectors. A market-based approach to research and determination of constrains and opportunities for at-source SWM and pollution prevention have been used to develop this strategy. Figure 1 provides a process flow of a market-based approach. 3 REEP offers the RAIN home visit and RAIN business solutions programs which involve an audit and guidance on

at-source stormwater management and pollution prevention. The RAIN program is subsidized in part by the City of Kitchener and the Region of Waterloo.


October 2015

18

Figure 1 – Market-Based Approach Process Flow Market segmentation and analysis is a critical component of a market-based approach. Market segmentation involves identification, research and analysis of target market(s), to determine constraints and opportunities within and across market segments. A market-based approach is about knowledge – understanding the target market intimately and understanding the sphere of influence that surrounds it. Such insights enable customization and targeting of City initiatives for a greater return on resources and efforts.

3.1. Considerations In meeting the City’s ISWM-MP objectives, two primary considerations will inform the strategic direction of municipal actions to drive uptake of at-source SWM and pollution prevention by private property owners, specifically: 1. The creation of drivers for at-source actions by private landowners and new construction through

the development or modification of City policies and practices, and via enhanced integrated decision-making and programming across City departments and portfolios.

Integration of City policies and programming across water management and related portfolios provides an opportunity for co-operation; economies of scale; risk management; enhancing program effectiveness (business decisions are not made in isolation with benefits to one portfolio coming at the expense of another); and ultimately, integration enables greater organizational responsiveness and adaptability.

Given the Region of Waterloo’s mandate for water management and the linkages with the City’s SWM objectives, integration with Regional programming and identification of opportunities for co-ordinated delivery and joint ventures would magnify the reach, efficiency and cost effectiveness of City SWM undertakings.

2. The strategic engagement of the marketplace to drive uptake of at-source actions by property

owners and builders/developers and create the impetus for market transformation.

Strategically targeting both property owners/managers, builders/developers and “providers” (retailers, service contactors, etc.), can move the marketplace toward products, services and practices that result in effective stormwater management.


October 2015

19

Engaging the marketplace can magnify the impact of municipal programs, leverage limited resources and, most significantly, move the marketplace toward desired water management practices. Over the longer term, market transformation occurs. In other words, at-source SWM and pollution prevention, and water capture and reuse become imbedded practices in the marketplace or the way business is done.

These considerations informed the research methodology and the recommendations set out herein.

3.2. Research Methodology A research methodology involving primary and secondary research to acquire data about the marketplace and influencing forces in the marketplace was used for the development of this strategy. Marketplace-based research involves dividing the marketplace into its functional sectors and sub-sectors and conducting research to identify constraints and opportunities specific to those sectors/sub-sectors. The goal of this research is to determine opportunities and constraints within the marketplace and amongst influencing entities for at-source SWM and pollution prevention by homeowners, industrial/commercial property owners/managers, and builders/developers. The methodologies for research with property owners/managers in the ICI sector and with single-family homeowners are addressed separately under sections 4.1 and 5.1, respectively. Secondary research involving an extensive web-based search and on-line literature review was carried out to identify best practices employed by leading jurisdictions in SWM and sustainability (water and energy conservation, green building, pollution prevention, alternative energy, etc.). Where necessary to verify and/or clarify information secured through the web-based search and on-line literature review, direct contact with leading jurisdiction representatives was undertaken. Also undertaken was secondary and supplemental primary research into City policies, programs, and practices, including third-party delivery agents (REEP Green Solutions) and joint ventures with Waterloo Region, that directly and indirectly influence at-source stormwater. The focus of the secondary research was the identification and exploration of policies and practices that increase uptake of SWM and pollution prevention measures by private property owners.

3.3. Research Objectives As discussed previously, research objectives were based on the overall goal of determining constraints and opportunities to drive uptake of SWM and pollution prevention practices by business owners/managers, builders/developers and single-family property owners. Research objectives drawn from the overarching SWMP project objectives were developed and informed the:

primary research with single-family homeowners;

primary research with key informants in the industrial/commercial sectors;

secondary research (with supplemental primary research) examining leading jurisdictions in stormwater management; and,

secondary research (with supplemental primary research) examining City of Kitchener policies, programs and practices influencing stormwater management and pollution prevention by private property owners and builders/developers.


October 2015

20

3.3.1. Business Sector Research Objectives The objectives of the key informant interviews with industrial/commercial property owners/managers and service providers are as follows

1. Determine opportunities and constraints for industrial/commercial property owners/mangers

to undertake at-source stormwater management and pollution prevention measures and practices.

2. Determine opportunities and constraints for builders/developers to implement enhanced SWM and pollution prevention measures in new developments.

3. Determine operational priorities of industrial/commercial property owners/managers that could influence their decisions concerning at-source stormwater management and pollution prevention measures and practices.

4. Identify sustainability/environmental policies and programs in place at industrial/commercial businesses, including the rationale for such policies and programs and to what degree, if any, they have served as impetus for at-source SWM or pollution prevention practices.

5. Determine influence of the stormwater utility credit as a driver for SWM or pollution prevention measures and practices by industrial/commercial property owners/managers.

6. Determine external initiatives – financial and non-monetary incentives, stormwater utility financing options and/or municipal policy, regulatory and operational changes – which could encourage higher uptake of at-source SWM and pollution prevention practices and measures by residential, and industrial/commercial property owners/managers and builders/developers.

7. Determine the potential influence or role, if any, of service providers in landscaping, roofing/building sciences and porous paving in motivating uptake of at-source SWM and pollution prevention practices by industrial/commercial property owners/managers and single-family homeowners.

8. Identify and explore consistencies/inconsistencies of responses with other research findings from the leading jurisdictions and best practices review.

3.3.2. Residential Research Objectives

The objectives of the focused research conducted with single-family homeowners may be summarized as follows:

1. Determine the underlying motivations of homeowners of detached and semi-detached

residences regarding their home’s landscape. 2. Test landscape aesthetics and designs for on-site SW management to identify barriers to

residents’ uptake of SWM credit program enhancements such as LID landscaping, rainwater harvesting and other residential at-source SWM best practices.

3. Determine homeowners’ perspectives of an “ideal” landscape and an “ideal naturescape”4 landscape for their home.

4. Measure homeowners’ understanding of key concepts typically used promote at-source stormwater enhancements to residents, including “naturescape”, “watershed”, “REEP Green Solutions”, and “rain gardens”.

5. Determine key messages and images that resonate with homeowners; 6. Identify trusted sources of relevant products, information and services utilized by

homeowners. 7. Identify and explore consistencies/inconsistencies of responses with other research findings

from the leading jurisdictions and best practices review.

44

“Naturescape” is the name of the water efficient landscaping program offered to residents by the Region of Waterloo


October 2015

21

3.3.3. Leading Jurisdictions and Best Practice Research Objectives

A web-based search and literature review investigating leading jurisdictions in SWM with follow-up primary research where and when required, was guided by the following objectives:

1. Identify best municipal practices for driving at-source SWM and pollution prevention by private property owners in the residential and industrial/commercial sectors.

2. Identify best municipal practices for driving enhanced/innovative SWM and pollution prevention practices by builders/developers.

3. Identify best and innovative practices which motivate uptake of sustainable practices by private property owners in the residential and/or business sectors, and/or by builders/developers that have potential application for SWM.

4. Identify financing models that incent sustainable practices by private property owners in the residential and/or business sectors, and/or by builders/developers that have potential application for SWM.

5. Identify business and organizational models that have potential to drive uptake of at-source SWM and pollution prevention by private property owners in the residential, and industrial/commercial sectors and by builders/developers.

3.3.4. City Policy, Program and Practice Research Objectives

Research into City policies, programs and practices, including related third-party programs was undertaken guided by the following objectives:

1. Identification of opportunities and constraints associated with City policies, programs and practices for enhanced uptake of on-site SWM and pollution prevention practices by residential and industrial/commercial property owners and builders/developers.

2. Identification of current policies, programs and practices not presently aligned with leading jurisdictions best practices in SWM, pollution prevention and/or sustainable practices and determine options for alignment.

4.0 BUSINESS SECTOR RESEARCH Currently industrial/commercial property owners/managers are targeted via City and third-party outreach and marketing (REEP Green Solutions) and via a stormwater utility credit up to 45% of their stormwater fee for implementation of on-site SWM best practices. All property owners may request a stormwater audit and secure expert SWM advice via REEP Green Solutions’ RAIN Business Visits. In addition to these initaitives, City personnel engage builders/developers, through formal and informal channels, to achieve SWM objectives in new construction. Uptake of on-site SWM measures amongst property owners/managers in the business sector has leveled-off in recent years. Adoption of enhanced SWM and pollution prevention practices by builders/developers occurs on an ad hoc, case-by-case basis and is rarely at the initiative of the builder/developer. In order to determine the factors behind this leveling off of uptake, opportunities and barriers to increasing uptake in business sector, and mechanisms to encourage enhanced or innovative SWM measures in new development; primary research via key informant interviews with business property owners/managers and builders/developers was undertaken. Key informant interviews were also conducted with service providers in the target fields of landscape design and installation, roofing and building sciences, and porous paving. These service providers were included in the business sector research as they act as “influencers” in the marketplace. Service businesses are intermediaries that directly influence target property owners in the industrial/commercial and residential sectors.


October 2015

22

4.1. Business Sector Research Methodology Meeting were held with ISWM-MP project team to determine the primary challenges for uptake of at-source stormwater management and pollution prevention by property owners/managers in the business sector. These discussion with the project team led to the identification of types of businesses for which key informant interviews should would be sought. Interviews with key informants were conducted over the months of May and June of 2015. Sixteen interviews with key informants was the original target with the proviso that should there be significant inconsistencies in the information collected through the interviews, supplemental interviews with additional businesses would be undertaken. The interviews targeted the industrial, commercial, and service sectors. Twenty-five industrial and commercial businesses were randomly selected from a business listing compiled using a combination of Statistics Canada Business Listings for Kitchener, the City’s Economic Development business database, the City’s business listing of those companies that had applied for or inquired about the stormwater utility credit, and REEP’s Business Visits listing. Following a cross-referencing of the business listings and an on-line search to verify these businesses and their contact information, and to secure specifics about the businesses themselves, the list was culled to 20 industrial and commercial companies and builders/developers.5 Service providers were selected via professional or business associations such as Landscape Ontario (LO) to ensure only those with industry recognized credentials are included in the research. In the case of the roofing and porous paving industries, key informants at the respective professional associations were interviewed. In the case of the roofing industry, building science consultants responsible for industrial and commercial roof designs were also included in the key informant interviews. Guiding questions were developed for the key informant interviews with industrial/commercial property owners/managers, builders/developers and service providers. A copy of the guiding questions used for the interviews is included in Appendix 1. The questions were reviewed and vetted by project personnel prior to finalization. Although the guiding questions provided direction for the key informant interviews to ensure the information sought from respondents was obtained, an open discussion approach to interviews was taken. This approach allows the interviewer to follow a line of conversation and explore important areas of discussion in greater detail. All interviews were confidential and this was confirmed in both writing and verbally with key informants before the interviews were held. Confidentiality is an important aspect of research as it encourages a more open dialogue between the interviewer and the key informant. Key informant interviews provide valuable insight into those facets of business functions – business models, priorities, operations, profit centres, prospecting, client support, environmental policies, etc. – that produce constraints and opportunities for at-source SWM and pollution prevention by business owners/managers, and builders/developers, and for promotion and application by service providers. Interview summaries capturing key informants’ responses were generated upon completion the interviews. Themes or consistencies in responses were identified and noted as these are indicative of significant constraints or opportunities requiring more detailed analysis. Information collected through the leading jurisdictions best practices research and the City policy and program research were cross-referenced with the findings from the interviews with key informants in the business sector.

5 Some of the companies on the business listings were no longer in business, could not be identified via on-line

searches or numbered companies and as such contact and other pertinent information was not available.


October 2015

23

4.2. Business Research Sample Interviews were conducted with 16 business owners/managers in the industrial/commercial and builder/developer sectors to identify constraints and opportunities for uptake of on-site pollution prevention and SWM practices. In conjunction to interviews with business owners and managers, key informants with service providers (sphere of influence) were also contacted and interviewed in order to develop an understanding of their influence in the marketplace and to determine the potential value, if any, of their participation in the City’s SWM program. Table 7 provides a listing of the businesses and professional associations contacted and the key informants for those organizations who were interviewed. Table 7 – Business Research List and Key Informants

ORGANIZATION KEY INFORMANT Kitchener-Waterloo Chamber of Commerce Art Sinclair

RealPac* (Industrial and Commercial property owners) Brooks Barnett

Victoria Star Motors Mike Alkier

Quiet Nature Landscaping Derek Lippert

Ontario Roofing (industrial & commercial roofing association Don Marks

Brydges Landscape Architecture Paul Brydges

Vesterra Property Management (building owner & property manager) Robert Eilers

Ontario Die International Paul Van Bakel

Thompson Environmental (landscaping & LID) Jeff Thompson

Fusion Homes (home builder) Larry Kotseff

Activa Holdings (builder/developer) Peter Armbruster

Fern Ridge Landscaping & Eco Consulting Sean James

Clayton Landscape Architecture Christopher Clayton

Halsall Associates (engineering consulting – building sciences) Jean-guy Levaque

ICR Building Sciences Group Albert Duwyn

Cadillac Fairview Corporation (builder/developer/property management) Cam McCullen

4.3. Business Research Findings Numerous consistencies or themes arose from the interviews with key informants. The most common or limiting factor for the uptake of at-source SWM and pollution prevention practices identified by key informants across all groups is the long payback period associated with such investments. With the exception of roofing service providers, key informants in all other businesses indicated a willingness to address and/or promote at-source SWM and pollution prevention provided their efforts did not require significant investments with poor returns, undermine competiveness, create delays (builders/developers), or result in long term maintenance costs/efforts. In terms of the roofing service industry; green roofs, rain water capture and other roof-related SWM practices are dictated by the client and come with a significantly higher price tag. Thematic constraints and opportunities identified through this research are consistent with findings from other similar municipal and national research studies involving key informants in the business sector. A summary of findings from the key informant interviews with the businesses is included in Appendix 2.


October 2015

24

4.3.1. Themes – Constraints – Industrial & Commercial Sector 1. The payback period on SWM investment is well beyond the typical 2.5 to 3 year horizon

required by most businesses. 2. The stormwater utility fee credit is not sufficient to reduce the cost of most SWM and

pollution prevention investments to an acceptable payback period. 3. Keeping operational costs in check is a priority, thus at-source SWM is “not on the radar”. 4. For manufacturing, it’s about managing unit costs of production so savings in energy, for

example, reduce processing costs and resulting unit costs – SWM investments do not reduce cost of production.

4.3.2. Themes – Constraints – Builders / Developers 1. Costs of land, building (labour, materials, energy), and approvals are all going up. Must

recover those costs through sales/occupancy rents and fees but there is a limit to what the market will accept. Important to be cost competitive – therefore, do what is required for SWM but going beyond requirements for SWM is costly and does not offer a competitive advantage.

2. New practices or technologies can often delay further an already long approval process. 3. Require multiple department/agency approvals, therefore new or “out-of-the-box”

applications or technologies for SWM can create problems securing approval from one or more reviewers who isn’t familiar or lacks expertise to evaluate.

4. Buyers want “granite countertops” - beyond compliance, the market dictates design.

4.3.3. Themes – Constraints – Service Providers 1. For many clients, price is the deciding factor so any SWM modifications to design or installation

that increase costs would be excluded.

2. Roofing:

Decisions regarding industrial/commercial roof design, rain water capture, roof drainage system, etc., are made at the design stage for new buildings and major renovations – roofing contractors just follow approved blue prints.

Very cost conscious business and most industrial/commercial clients want the best roof at the lowest possible costs.

Residential roofing is a highly competitive business and almost exclusively cost driven.

Residential installers don’t necessarily have the know-how to address drainage issues

3. Landscaping:

Municipal programs that provide landscape assessments and recommendations are not well regarded by the landscaping industry due to the limited expertise of the “student” advisors. In some cases the municipal landscape assessments are viewed as in direct competition with landscaping companies offering consultation-design services (key informants were referring to “a trend” toward municipally provided or funded landscape visits/assessments and did not identify specific programs).

Can suggest ideas but it’s the client that decides; “If the client wants a pool and flagstone in concrete, then that’s what we design”.

Most industrial/commercial clients want properties that are readily maintained and at a minimum cost.

A few in the landscaping business are very familiar with SWM designs and installations, but it’s still relatively new and most in industry aren’t trained. Somewhat of a supply-demand issue as clients are not requesting SWM designs unless they have flooding or drainage problems.

Large number of “back-of-truck” operators who often lack credentials and operate on a cash and/or lowest price basis with little if any consideration as to quality, drainage, and on-site retention and infiltration of stormwater.


October 2015

25

4. Porous paving:

Product cost versus other traditional surfacing materials such as asphalt.

Lack of expertise in the industry – some very good installers of porous pavers but most lack understanding/expertise.

Still new and not widely accepted.

4.3.4. Themes – Opportunities – Industrial & Commercial

1. Reducing operational costs is a key driver for the majority of industrial and commercial facilities and this is particularly true for manufacturing facilities and property management.

2. Open to making the necessary investments in at-source SWM and pollution prevention with a reasonable payback of 2 to 3 years.

3. Have energy conservation initiatives in place and investing in energy saving retrofits and upgrades due to reasonable payback periods (2 to 3 years)

4.3.5. Themes – Opportunities – Builders/Developers

1. Open to design and installation of enhanced/innovative SWM and pollution prevention

measures provided these have a net benefit in terms of Return on Investment (ROI)

2. Reduction in approvals time universally identified as a potentially strong incentive for enhanced/innovative SWM enhancements.

3. Recognize the potential of LID to eliminate or significantly reduce size of SWM ponds allowing for additional detached/semi-detached units – a net financial benefit that potentially outweighs cost of LID systems.

4.3.6. Themes – Opportunities – Service Provider

1. Landscaping:

Recognize the trend toward sustainable landscaping and continually moving their businesses and services in this direction.

Most open to working co-operatively with municipalities provided the landscaping industry is the service provider, not the municipality.

Customer incentives for measures such as rain gardens or porous paving would make these SWM measures more marketable to clients.

2. Porous paving:

Good experience working with municipalities and conservation authorities.

Industry making significant efforts to train installers and educate end-users on value of porous paving.

Industry experiencing growing success in US market which should translate to increases in supplies/suppliers thereby bringing costs of product down over time.

4.4. Integrated Analysis – Business Sector The constraint and opportunity research themes from the business sector research have been analysed separately and in combination with the findings from the residential research discussed below. In conjunction, findings from the leading jurisdictions research, discussed in Section 6.0, and the City and third party SWM policy and program review have also been taken into consideration in the analysis. Recommendations set out in Section 7.0 of this strategy are based on this integrated analysis and are informed by the City’s SWM goals and objectives.


October 2015

26

5.0 RESIDENTIAL HOMEOWNER RESEARCH The City of Kitchener established a stormwater utility. The utility fee is based on actual contributions or loads a property represents to the stormwater system. Property owners are eligible for a stormwater credit up to 45% of the fee if they undertake on-site measures which reduce the stormwater load. In order to support landowners implementing stormwater mitigation measures such as rain gardens, bioswales, redirecting downspouts, etc., the City of Kitchener in partnership with Residential Energy Efficiency Project (REEP Green Solutions) provide information, resources and direct expert guidance to residential, and industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) property owners. Recently, uptake of stormwater mitigation measures by property owners has plateaued. A review of leading jurisdiction in stormwater policy and programming and primary research with property owners in the residential and ICI sectors has been undertaken to determine mechanisms and approaches to drive uptake of on-site SWM measures. To identify opportunities and constraints for on-site SWM and pollution prevention on residential properties, a research session was held with a demographically representative sample of single-family homeowners in the City.

5.1. Homeowner Research Methodology A demographic profile of single-family home-owners in the City of Kitchener was developed using a combination of Statistics Canada census data (2011) and City economic and planning demographic data. A recruitment screener was developed from the demographic profile. A recruitment screener is a series of questions asked of potential participants for the homeowner research such as age, gender, income level, education, number of children living at home, country of origin, etc. This process is used to ensure that the research sample of single-family homeowners recruited for the research session closely mirrors the demographic of single-family homeowners for the entire City. Single-family homeowners were recruited via telephone to participate in the research session. A one-hundred dollar incentive was paid to each resident recruit. A research sample of thirty-two homeowners (n=32) were recruited for the research session held on March 11, 2015 Resident respondents were asked over 70 closed- and open-ended questions to uncover their values, perceptions and intrinsic beliefs as they pertain to the up-keep of their homes and properties (A copy of the questionnaire in included in Appendix 3). The resident participants provided written responses to verbally asked questions, drew pictures of their home landscape, rated photographic images of residential landscapes depicting traditional versus LID designs, identified trusted sources of information and supplies associated with stormwater mitigation on their properties, and described the meaning of terminology and program identifiers used by the City and its associates in communication about SWM, water efficient landscapes, salt management and pollution prevention. The questionnaire was designed using a Socratic learning method and was sequenced to ensure that respondents complete most of the questionnaire without knowing the direction of the inquiry. The intent was to draw out the knowledge that respondents hold within themselves and to avoid the problem of respondents seeking to provide ‘correct’ answers. Early questions involved broader concepts such as: “What does your home mean to you?” or “What does your community mean to you?”. As the research session progressed the questions became more specific, with successive questions building on the previous questions ensuring homeowners’ growing reflection.


October 2015

27

5.2. Homeowner Research Sample Description Table 8 below provides a comparison of the demographic variables from Statistics Canada (2011 Census), the recruiting quotas that were set for this focus research session, and the actual homeowners who participated in the focus research session. Table 8: Research Sample Description

Demographic Variable Statistics Canada

2011 Homeowner Research March 11,

2015 City of Kitchener Quota n=32 Sample n=32

Single-detached homeowners 100% 32 100% 32

Female (of total population) 111,420 51% 50% 16 44% 14

Male (of total population) 107,735 49% 50% 16 56% 18

Age 25 to 34 (of population aged 25 to 74) 34,015 25% 10% 3 19% 6

35 to 54 (of population aged 25 to 74) 64,660 47% 45% 14 44% 14

55+ (of population aged 25 to 74) 39,360 29% 45% 14 38% 12

Education Completed high school or less 48,225 39% 40% 13 19% 6

College or trade certificate 40,520 33% 30% 10 31% 10

University degree or certificate 34,080 28% 30% 10 50% 16

Income (Household) 100% 100% Under $30,000 16,910 20% 10% 3 3% 1

$30,000 to $79,999 36,840 43% 40% 13 41% 13

$80,000 to $149,999 25,285 29% 40% 13 47% 15

$150,000 or more 7,345 9% 10% 3 9% 3

Households with children at home 38,470 63% 60%+ 20 50% 16

Marital Status

Married/common law 103,165 57% 60% 19 81% 26

Single 50,960 28% 30% 10 9% 3

Divorced/Separated/Widowed 26,375 15% 10% 3 9% 3

Birth Country

Canada 157,710 73% 75% 24 72% 23

Outside Canada 56,430 26% 25% 8 28% 9

Language spoken at home

English 175,985 81.3% 84% 27 The total sample of thirty-two homeowners (n=32) coupled with asking over seventy open-ended questions provided a good basis upon which to draw conclusions regarding single-family homeowners’ motivations regarding their homes and landscapes. The sample recruiting target was a 50/50 split between women and men. The actual sample is 44% (14/32) women and 56% (18/34) men. Recruitment targets for “education”, “household income” and “marital status” were skewed to reflect single-family homeowner demographics typical of the Greater Toronto Area. Although demographic data specific to single-family households was provided by the City, concerns over the validity of some of the data led to a decision to utilize Statistics Canada census data and to adjust or skew specific demographic quotas to reflect single-family homeowners. Green highlighted cells indicate those demographic targets that were modified reflect single-family homeowners.


October 2015

28

The age groups for homeowners were chosen to represent both the stage of life in which people generally own homes (ages 25 to 75), and the demographic influence of the baby boom generation (born between 1946 and 1961 or 52 to 66 years old) on Ontario’s population. The education and income levels in the sample are consistent with what is expected for owners of single family homes (generally households with higher levels of income and education). This sample has a higher level of married/common law individuals (about 80%) than the overall population (about 60%) of Kitchener. This skew to married/common law recruits again is reflective of single-family homeowners. To accurately reflect the City of Kitchener’s cultural diversity, care was taken to recruit a sample that was representative. Seventy-two percent (n=23) of the sample population was born in Canada and twenty-eight percent (n=9) of respondents were born in various countries, including China, Romania, Ukraine, Trinidad and Tobago, Sri Lanka, India and England.

5.3. Residential Homeowner Research Findings The data that resulted from the focus research session is rich in detail, emotion and meaning. The Verbatim Report (See Appendix 4) includes all of the word-for-word responses that the homeowners provided. With an overall sample size of thirty-two and a demographically representative sample of homeowner respondents, the percentage frequency distributions can be interpretted as representative of single family homeowners in Kitchener.

5.3.1. City of Kitchener The first open-ended meaning question that participants were asked was: “What does the City of Kitchener mean to you?” Eighty-two percent (82%) of the responses said the City of Kitchener means “home, work and family” as indicated in Table 9. “Friendly neighbourhoods”, modern infrastructure and good housing make Kitchener a “great place to raise a family.” The green highlighted cells are all social variables that have significant emotional motivations for people. Friends, neighbours, family, community and home are repeating themes throughout the research. “Safe” neighbourhoods are also a significant motivation for these homeowners in making the decision about where to live.

Homeowners were asked to list two things they like and two things they dislike about living in Kitchener. The social aspects (family, friends, community, fun) were the most important ‘likes’ (one-third or 60% of responses), and the proximity to other communities (25% of respondents) including Toronto), smaller size of the City (22% of respondents), public services (16% of respondents), and natural environment (15% of respondents) were also identified as things homeowners appreciate. Table 10 provides a summary of the things respondents like about living in Kitchener.

Table 9: Meaning of the City of Kitchener

Meaning Description %

Frequency Home 41%

Work 22%

Family 19%

Friendly 13%

Neighbourhood 6%

Modern 6%

Housing 6%

German heritage 6%


October 2015

29

Table 11: “Dislike’ about living in Kitchener

Meaning Description First Second Total

Traffic 25% 13% 38%

Taxes 13% 6% 19%

Crowded 9% 9%

Downtown 9% 9% 18%

Grungy, dirty 6% 6% 12%

No transit to Toronto 6% 6%

School access 6% 6%

Local government 13% 13%

Transit 6% 6%

Table 11 provides a summary of respondents answers to the question, “list two things you dislike about living in Kitchener”. The negatives about living in Kitchener include the traffic (38% of respondents), taxes (19% of respondents), a rough downtown (18% of respondents), local government (13% of respondents), poor transit (12% of respondents), and it’s “somewhat grungy”(12% of respondents). 5.3.2. Home and Landscape People’s homes are the centre of their family and social lives, and, in most cases, their largest financial investment. When asked “what does your home mean to you”, respondents indicated that their home is their “safe haven” for their family and provides a feeling of security (physically and financially) and comfort. People are proud of their homes and “love” being there. “Family”, “security” and a “safe” place are the primary components that make respondents’ homes comfortable and cozy havens as indicated in Table 12.

Homeowner respondents were asked a series of questions about the importance of various aspects of their home and landscape. Figure 2 below shows the average ratings given by respondents. With a mean rating of 9.8 out of 10, the importance of respondents’ homes could not be rated much higher (84% homeowners gave a rating of 10). Their neighbourhood is also very important, with a mean rating of 9 out of 10. Maintaining the home’s landscape also rates very high amongst respondents, with the landscape itself, the lawn and the trees all having a mean rating of 8.3 out of 10. The design of the landscape has the lowest mean rating in comparison at 7.8 out of 10.

Table 10: ‘Like’ about living in Kitchener

Meaning Description First Second Total

Friendly, family, community 35% 9% 44%

Smaller size 16% 6% 22%

Fun 13% 3% 16%

Public services 13% 3% 16%

Work opportunity 9% 9%

Easy to get around 9% 9%

Proximity 6% 19% 25%

Environment 6% 9% 15%

Safe 9% 9%

Table 12: Meaning of Home

Meaning Description %

Frequency

Haven, cozy, comfort 53%

Family 31%

Security 22%

Safe 22%

Investment 19%

Everything 13%

Pride 9%

Positives 9%


October 2015

30

Figure 2: Importance Ratings (1 to 10)

Respondents were asked to provide reasons for the ratings they provided for their neighborhood, home and landscape (and related aspects). The reasons given by homeowners for the rating illustrated in Chart 1 are summarized and compared in Table 13 below. People love their homes and friendly and safe neighbourhoods. The single most important motivation for homeowners regarding their home’s surrounding landscape is its “appearance, curb appeal, beauty.” This motivation is repeated throughout the responses, including as the reasons why landscape design, landscape maintenance, lawns and trees are important. Ninety percent (90%) of responses for the reasons why lawns are important to their home’s landscape pertain to aesthetics and curb appeal as reflected by such comments as, “it [the lawn] adds beauty to the residence.” Only three (3) or ten percent (10%) of respondents stated “lawns are not important.” Trees have a triple benefit: “Beauty, shade and environment.” Homeowners also have pride in their homes and landscapes and enjoy them.

Table 13: Homeowners’ Reasons for Ratings

5.3.3. Landscape Design While landscape design had the lowest mean rating in comparison to the others, it is clearly important in creating the ‘curb appeal’ that is desired by homeowners. Figure 3 shows the most important aspects of a home’s landscape, and reinforces the “look” created by grass (lawns), trees, flowers and gardens as a collective whole.

9.0

9.8

8.3 7.8

8.8 8.3 8.3

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

18. Neighbourhood

21. Home 24. Home's landscape

28. Design of landscape

31. Maintaining landscape

41. Lawn 43. Trees

Ratings Neighbourhood Home Landscape Design Maintenance Lawn Trees

Why? Top 3

Love it (38%)

Neighbours 28%)

Safe (28%)

Love home (31%)

Family (25%)

Investment 25%)

Beauty (50%)

Pride (31%)

Enjoy (16%)

Curb appeal (31%)

Important (25%) Improve (22%)

Curb appeal (59%)

Pride (19%)

Value (19%)

Looks (88%)

Enjoy (13%)

Not important (9%)

Beauty (47%)

Shade (47%)

Environment (37%)


October 2015

31

Figure 3: Most Important Aspect of the Home Landscape

Respondents were asked why the aspects they identified above “…are the most important aspects or features of their home’s landscape.” Table 14 provides a summary of their responses. Table 14: Reasons Why Aspects Important

Table 15: Advice about Landscape or Garden Design

44%

35%

19% 19%

15%

6%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Grass Trees Flowers Gardens Size Walkway

Reason % Frequency

Beauty 84%

Enjoy 56%

Shade 16%

Space 13%

Shade 9%

Functional 9%

Total 188%

Source of Advice % Frequency

Friends 31%

Family 25%

Internet 25%

Professional 22%

Nursery 19%

Books & Mags 9%

Total 131%

Beauty is the primary reason why various aspects of the landscape are important to homeowners as indicated in Table 14. The “eye catching beauty of a well manicured lawn” and attractive landscape was the most common response at eighty-four percent (84%) of respondents; enjoyment of the outdoor space was also a significant reason provided by respondents as, “[they] enjoy [their] yard and spend most of [their] time outdoors in the summer”. The second most important aspect of a home’s landscape identified by respondents was trees as they “shade my home and look beautiful, we like nature, are fun for kids and make me happy!” Flowers and gardens add “beauty” and “colour” to the landscape and provide enjoyment. Respondents were asked, “from where or whom would you seek advice about landscape or garden design?” Table 15 summarizes the responses provided by homeowners. Fifty-six percent (56%) collectively said “friends” and “family”, forty-one (41%) percent said professionals and nurseries, and twenty-five percent said the Internet. The majority of homeowners (two out of three) designed their home’s landscape themselves, with the remainder having inherited the design from the previous owner (25% of respondents) or builder (13% of respondents).


October 2015

32

5.3.4 Landscape Maintenance Respondents were asked to identify the most important aspects of maintaining their home landscape. Figure 4 summarizes their responses.

Figure 4: Important Aspects of Maintenance

The importance of landscape maintenance rated highly amongst respondents at 8.3 out of 10. The primary tasks to maintain their home landscape identified by respondents were, cutting the grass at fifty-nine percent (59%) of responses, taking care of the lawn at thirty-four percent (34%) of responses, and weeding at thirty-eight percent (38%) of responses. Flowers, trees and general “upkeep” are secondary, all with a sixteen percent (16%) frequency of responses. The overwhelming reason why the tasks identified in Figure 5.3 are the most important for landscape maintenance is aesthetics: “curb appeal, beauty, appearance, looks”. Some particularly strong verbatim comments from respondents were:

“My husband likes to have a perfect lawn.”

“It says a lot to have grass taken care of, beauty, looks, weeds.”

“Keep the lawn looking lush, again, aesthetics.”

“Like the lawn short and green.”

“Shows we take care and take pride.”

Table 16: Reason Why Maintenance Important

Table 16 provides the summary of homeowners’ responses for why landscape maintenance tasks are important. Keeping the grass healthy, enjoying the landscape and making sure it’s “safe” are fully eclipsed by the importance of appearance. Aesthetic is the primary motivator for all activities related to home landscape maintenance

59%

34% 38%

16% 16% 16%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Cut grass Lawn care Weeding Flowers Trees Upkeep

Reason % Frequency

Curb appeal 141%

Grass health 16%

Safety 13%

Enjoy 12%


October 2015

33

5.3.5 Garden

Gardens also rated highly (8.3 out of 10) as an important aspect of these homeowners’ landscapes. Eighty percent of homeowners have gardens, and they have three basic motivations for doing so:

Fifty percent (50%) – Love gardening and flowers

Forty-four percent (44%) – Beauty, looks, appearance and colour

Twenty-five percent (25%) – Providing food, flowers and supporting bees

Some homeowners, about twenty percent (20%), choose not to have gardens because they “don’t have the time and it’s too much work.” When respondents were asked, “Where do you purchase flowers, trees and shrubs?” two thirds or sixty-five percent (65%) indicated they buy them at local nurseries or garden centres. The next most frequent response of homeowners at forty-four percent (44%), includes a selection of big box stores, with Canadian Tire being the most frequently cited by name. Grocery stores and farmers’ markets were also identified by respondents. Table 17 provides a summary of the responses.

Table 17: Where Plants, Trees and Shrubs Purchased (Question 45)

Where Purchased % Frequency

Nursery 37% Garden Centre 28% Canadian Tire 16% Grocery Store 19% Farmers' Market 9% Big Box (Costco, Home Depot, Rona, Walmart) 28%

5.3.6 Lawns

Respondents all indicated they have lawn area within their landscape with seventy-five percent (75%) having a lawn area covering one-half or more of the home landscape (See Table 18). The importance of lawns to the home’s landscape rated very high at 8.3 out of 10. When respondents were asked about the rating they gave, the overwhelming reason was “looks”, “appearance” and “curb appeal”, as indicated in Table 19 below.

Table 18: Lawn Area of Home Landscape (Question 40)

5.3.7 Trees

The importance of trees to the home landscape rated very highly, with a mean of 8.3 out of 10. While trees are also seen as an important ingredient for beautiful landscapes (47% of respondents), they also provide shade (47% of respondents) and environmental benefits (38% of respondents). In addition, many people said they (and their children) “enjoy them!” Only three respondents or nine percent (9%) were not interested in trees.

Reason for Rating % Frequency

Looks 88%

Enjoy 13%

Not Important 8%

Lawn Area % Frequency

up to ¼ of Landscape 25%

½ of landscape 47%

¾ of landscape 28%

Table 19: Reason for Rating Importance of Lawn (Question 42)


October 2015

34

5.3.8 Home or Landscape Improvements

The homeowners were asked if they had undertaken any home or landscape improvement projects and if so, what projects had they undertaken valued under $5,000 and valued over $5,000, in the past five years. All respondents except one had undertaken a home or landscape improvement project. For the projects under $5,000, only one quarter were landscape projects, including planting and trimming trees, building flower beds and gardens, and buying plants. Four people had built decks, and five others built yard structures included: fencing, retaining wall, garden shed, concrete walkway and driveway. About half or forty-four percent (44%) of the projects listed first were inside the home, including bathroom, basement, kitchen and living room renovations. Eight out of ten of these projects were either “do-it-yourself” (DIY) or a combination of DIY and a contractor.

Table 20: Home Improvement Projects (<$5,000 / >$5,000)

As shown in Table 20, respondents were generally spending more money on their homes than their landscape. For projects over $5,000 listed first, only half of the homeowners had done a project in the past five years and only two or six percent (6%) of these were landscape related: 1) $20,000 for sod and trees, and 2) a deck. Four people

replaced their roofs, and others renovated their kitchens, bathrooms and basements. For these more expensive projects, three quarters hired contractors.

5.3.9 Ideal Landscape and Ideal Naturescape

Homeowner were asked to draw two pictures; one of “their ideal front yard landscape for their home” and a second of “their ideal Naturescape front yard landscape for their home”. Naturescape is the program name of the Region of Waterloo’s water efficient landscaping program which is marketed to residents in the City of Kitchener.

Shown below is a selection of drawings by respondents which are representative of the research sample. As noted previously, one respondent did not provide a drawing for the ideal Naturescape. The drawing of the ideal front yard landscape on the left and the corresponding ideal Naturscape front yard landscape on the left were drawn by the same homeowners and reflect the intrinsically held perspective they have of both landscapes.

Home improvements House Landscape No answer

First under $5,000 44% 53% 3%

Second under $5,000 53% 31% 16%

Third under $5,000 50% 25% 25%

First over $5,000 47% 6% 47%

Second over $5,000 28% 3% 69%

Third over $5,000 9% 3% 88%

Total 231% 121% 248%


October 2015

35

Group 2B – Natural Elements & Features (12/31) house, more trees, long grasses, water feature, tall flowers, arbour, more stuff, less lawn

Group 3B – Natural with Less Structure Fruit trees, butterfly bushes, landscape rocks

flowers

Group 1B – Design and Structure (12/32) nice driveway, stone walkway to front door

Group 1B - Water Feature (14/31): tranquil, nature, work to maintain, messy

Group 2A: Design & Structure – Hardscape (12/32) nice driveway, stone walkway to front door shrubs & grass, flower beds at front of house”

Group 1A: Design & Structure – ‘Softscape’ (20/32) classy – modern – nice mix of trees, shrubs, flowers for colour

IDEAL LANDSCAPE IDEAL NATURESCAPE


October 2015

36

The ideal front yard landscape drawings of respondents fell into two categories: Group 1A: Design and Structure – ‘Softscape’ (20 out of 32 respondents’ drawings)

Primary emphasis on vegetation or ‘softscape’ (plants, trees, and shrubs)

Group 1B: Design and Structure – ‘Hardscape’ (12 out of 32 respondents’ drawings)

Primary emphasis on built landscape features or ‘hardscape’ (walkways, driveways, fences,

patios, etc.)

The ideal “naturescape” front yard landscape drawings of respondents fell into three categories:

Group 2A – Water Feature

A pond or more natural water feature is a significant element in these drawings

Group 2B – Natural Elements and Features

Primary emphasis is on more natural vegetation (tall grasses, flowers and trees and less lawn) with some man-made water feature

Group 3B – Natural with Less Structure

Primary focus on landscape rocks, fruit trees and limited use of structured gardens, lawn and

hardscaped areas.

As previously discussed, questions were sequenced using the Socratic Method. As such, respondents were first asked to draw a picture of an ideal front yard landscape for their home, followed by several questions about their drawing, its meaning and the emotions it evoked for them. Respondents were then asked, “What does a Naturescape residential landscape mean to you?” and subsequently, they drew their ideal Naturescape picture. Table 21 below summarizes homeowners’ answers to the meaning of a Naturescape residential landscape.

Forty-seven percent (47%) of respondents considered a Naturescape residential landscape to be a more “natural” area that is healthier for the environment. Other perceptions of a Naturescape residential landscape included: “beauty/beautiful”, “peaceful”, “good for the neighbourhood”, “important”, and “low maintenance”. Only 2 respondents or six percent (6%) associated negative meanings with Naturescape landscapes, specifically that they are “messy” and “get out of control”. Overall respondents associated positive emotions or meanings with naturescapes. Despite a positive association with naturescapes, no respondents would consider a Naturescape as an “ideal” or preferred landscape for their home.

Meaning Description % Frequency

Natural 47%

Beauty 16%

Peaceful 16%

Important 13%

Positives 13%

Low Maintenance 9%

Negatives 6%

Total 108%

Table 21: Meaning of a Naturescape Residential Landscape


October 2015

37

5.3.10 Comparing Ideal Landscape with Ideal Naturescape

The homeowners were asked a number of questions regarding their ideal landscape and ideal naturescape drawings. Figure 5 below shows the most important elements or aspects of their ideal front yard landscape and their ideal front yard Naturescape landscape.

Figure 5: Comparison of Ideal Landscape with Ideal Naturescape

Some aspects are shared amongst respondents’ ideal home landscape and their ideal Naturescape home landscape such as design and use of trees. These are the only similarities in the aspects or elements of the two landscapes. The lawn was seen as the most important element for the ideal home landscape, while water was seen as the most important element for a Naturescape landscape. Built structures and features were indicated by respondents for the ideal home landscape but were identified by only six percent (6%) of respondents as aspects of their Naturescape landscapes. Rocks were another common aspect of naturescapes, with twenty-five percent (25%) of respondents identifying them in their drawings. Flowers were more important for ideal landscapes while more wild flowers were used in naturescapes. Design elements such as walkways, arbours, fences, patios, etc., were also seen as more important for the ideal home landscape, while plants and long grasses were used in the Naturescape landscapes.

Figure 6 shows the reasons why the elements or aspects identified by homeowners as discussed above were important for the ideal home landscape and Naturescape landscape drawings by homeowners. Curb appeal, beauty or appearance was the most important reason given by homeowners for both; however, it was significantly more important for respondents’ ideal landscape. Maintenance was a less noted aspect of both landscapes. Design, trees for privacy and shade, and flowers for colour were aspects of respondents’ ideal home landscape but of little if any importance for the Naturescape landscape. Homeowners perceive the Naturescape landscape to enable more relaxation and enjoyment, primarily due to the perceived connection with nature (including the “sound of water”).

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Lawn

Trees

Looks

Flowers

Design

Built

Walkway

Colour

Easy maintainance

Water

Rocks, stone

Environment

Plants

Grasses

Naturescape Total

Landscape Total


October 2015

38

Figure 6: Reason Why Landscape Aspects are Important

Respondents were asked to, “Use up to three words to describe the feelings and emotions evoked by their drawing?” Although the emotions evoked by the ideal home landscape and the ideal Naturescape home landscape drawings have some overlap, significant differences are noted in Table 22. Respondents identified feelings of happiness and pride equally for the drawing of their ideal landscapes and their ideal Naturescape. Beauty is a more frequent answer for respondents’ ideal landscapes (28% versus 16% of respondents), while “peaceful” (72% of respondents) is by far the most frequently mentioned emotion for naturescapes. The ideal home landscape drawings also evoke a much higher frequency of negative feelings (28% of respondents) including, stress, frustration, regret, pain, and lots of work.

Homeowners were subsequently asked “what constraints or reasons might percent you from having an ideal front yard landscape (or ideal front yard naturescape)”. Money was identified as the primary constraint for types of landscapes while “time” and “energy” were more significant constraints for the ideal front yard landscape as shown in Table 23.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Landscape

Naturescape

Emotions Landscape Naturescape

Beauty 28% 16%

Happy 22% 22%

Inspiring 19%

Pride 13% 13%

Pleasing 9% 6%

Comforting 9%

Peaceful 6% 72%

Colourful 6%

Simple 6%

Tidy 6%

Nature 9%

Negatives 28% 6%

Constraints/Reasons Landscape Naturescape

Money 66% 59%

Time & energy 59% 19%

Lack of space 16% 16%

Neighbour 9%

Various 25% 25%

Table 22: Emotions Evoked by Landscape Drawings

Questions 53 and 59

Table 23: Constraints/Reasons for Not Having Ideal Landscape/Naturescape


October 2015

39

5.3.11 Ratings of Front Yard Landscapes

Homeowners were directed to look at the front yard landscapes depicted in the four pictures below and to “rate the appeal of each of the front yard landscapes” (where 1 is low and 10 is high). It was emphasized to the homeowners that they were to look at the landscapes only and not the homes themselves and to rate the appeal of the landscape exclusively.

Table 24 below summarizes the ratings given by respondents. Picture 2 rated the highest with a mean average of 8.4 out of 10. The reasons given by homeowners for this high rating was the “design of trees and stones with a small garden on the lawn” (50% of respondents) and the “clean, neat and tidy look” (50% of respondents).

Concept Appeal Rating: Front Yard Landscapes

Mean Mode Range

Picture 1 7.3 6, 8, 9 1 to 10

Picture 2 8.4 10 5 to 10

Picture 3 5.9 6 1 to 10

Picture 4 6.4 5 2 to 10

Table 24: Rating of Front Yard Landscapes

PICTURE 1

PICTURE 4

PICTURE 2

PICTURE 3

The lowest rated pictures (3 and 4) were described by respondents as “too busy, messy, cluttered, unbalanced, and unkempt” (53% of respondents) and they were lacking in curb appeal (13% of respondents). Picture 3 was described as “not [having] enough variety of colour and size of plants, with too much grass.” Picture 4 as described was cluttered and “hides the house.”


October 2015

40

5.3.12 Ratings of Garden

Homeowners were also directed to look at four images of gardens, as shown below, and to “rate the appeal of each of the garden”.

As indicated in Table 25 below, the garden depicted in picture 4 rated significantly higher than the other garden. The reasons respondents assigned the high rating was the “clean, neat and tidy appearance” (41% of respondents), “the simple, Zen-like design” (37% of respondents), “the variety of flowers and plants” (28% of respondents), “the colours and balance” (31% of respondents), and “low maintenance” (19% of respondents). One of the main differences in the pictures is the highest rated picture (Picture #4) has much more grass (lawn).

Concept Appeal Rating: Gardens

Mean Mode Range

Picture 1 6.0 6 1 to 10

Picture 2 6.5 8 1 to 10

Picture 3 6.3 7 1 to 10

Picture 4 8.2 10 4 to 10

Table 25: Rating of Gardens

PICTURE 1

PICTURE 4

PICTURE 2

PICTURE 3

Picture 1 received the lowest rating with a mean average of 6 out of 10. The garden depicted in Picture 1 was taken from the web sites of the City of Kitchener and REEP Green Solutions where it is used to promote rain gardens. The reasons provided by respondents for the low ratings for pictures 1, 2 and 3 were that the gardens “too crowded (34% of respondents), dull (28% of respondents), and messy (25% of respondents)”.


October 2015

41

5.3.13 Ratings of Downspouts and Drainage

Four pictures of downspouts and drainage as shown below were shared with the homeowners and they were asked to rate them.

Table 26 provides a summary of the ratings respondents gave to the four images depicting downspout and drainage options. Pictures 1, 2 and 3 all rated closely for the following reasons:

Picture 4 was rated much lower by respondents and was described as looking “cheap, ugly, and boring” (44% of respondents), and “too close to the house, wastes water and is an obtrusive tripping hazard” (44% of respondents).

Eighty percent (80%) of homeowners have downspouts that go onto their property, with three respondents having downspouts going into the ground and two others having downspouts directed to rain barrels.

Concept Appeal Rating: Downspouts & Drainage

Mean Mode Range

Picture 1 7.9 8 1 to 10

Picture 2 7.5 8 4 to 10

Picture 3 7.6 9 3 to 10

Picture 4 5.1 5 1 to 10

Table 26: Rating of Downspouts and Drainage

PICTURE 1 PICTURE 2

PICTURE 3 PICTURE 4

47% Reuse rainwater, environmental

44% Neat, clean look, curb appeal

13% Nice design, simple, effective


October 2015

42

Table 27 below summarizes the reasons provided by homeowner respondents for the highest and lowest ratings they gave for the front yard, garden, and downspout pictures.

Table 27: Reasons Given for Ratings of Pictures

Front Yard Highest Rating

Front Yard: Lowest Rating

Gardens: Highest Rating

Gardens: Lowest Rating

Drainage: Highest Rating

Drainage: Lowest Rating

Clean (50%) Messy (53%) Clean (25%) Busy/messy (59%) Clean (44%) Ugly (16%)

Design (50%) Plain (28%) Design (34%) Dull (28%) Design (13%) Cheap (16%)

Nature (16%) Ugly (13%) Nature (6%) Empty (13%) Nature (9%) Boring (13%)

Colour (22%) Hides house (9%) Colour (22%) Maintenance (9%) Reuse water (47%) Water waste (13%)

Appeal (13%) Maintenance (6%) Appeal (16%) Obtrusive (13%)

Grass (13%) Variety (28%) Too close (13%)

The pattern in the homeowner responses to the images indicates that the highest rated pictures were considered “clean and with appealing designs.” The lower rated pictures were considered “messy, ugly, dull and boring.” Homeowner respondents’ view of appealing landscape or landscape feature is founded on an entrenched perception of what defines a beautiful, clean, well designed landscape that offers curb appeal. Defined and bordered design with a balance of largely lawn and appropriate garden and feature tree placement is the foundation of an appealing landscape to homeowner respondents.

5.3.14 Understanding of Terminology

Respondents were asked several questions to gage understanding of some basic terms and concepts. These term and concepts are used in stormwater educational and informational resources provided by the City of Kitchener and REEP. Homeowners were asked the meaning of the term “watershed”. At twenty-four percent (24%) of respondents, the most common answer was no answer. The Canadian Oxford Dictionary defines a watershed as “the area drained by a single lake or river and its tributaries; a drainage basin.” Six homeowners or nineteen percent (19%) had an answer that was close to this definition. The remaining homeowner respondents demonstrated a lack of understanding of the term “watershed” as indicated in Table 28 below.


No answer 25%

Control water 19%

Collect rainwater 19%

Where water runs off 19%

Table 28: What is a Watershed?


October 2015

43


No answer 19%

Stormwater drainage 34%

Collection of water 22%

Kitchener Utilities 13%


No answer 53%

Environmental 22%

Energy 9%

Landscape company 6%


No answer 63%

Reuse rainwater 16%

Rain barrels 9%

Various 13%


No answer 25%

Garden watered by rain 38%

Downspout to garden 13%

Water system 9%

Table 30: What is REEP Green Solutions?

Table 29: What is Kitchener Stormwater Utility? The term “Kitchener Stormwater Utility” elicited only four (4) responses that had something to do with the utility charge and/or with the City. Eleven (11) respondents indicated that the term meant stormwater drainage into the sewers, while seven (7) respondents thought the term meant the collection of rainwater. Based on the results, as indicated in Table 29, there is little recognition or understanding of the City’s stormwater utility and its program.

Table 31: What is a RAIN Home Visit?

Table 32: What is a rain garden? A rain garden is a planted depression in the ground usually underlain with layers of screening media that absorbs stormwater from impervious surfaces such as roofs, driveways and walkways. As indicated in Table 32, none of the respondents provided a meaning close to the true definition. Only thirteen percent (13%) of respondents who stated that it was a garden to which downspouts were directed demonstrated any understanding of the relationship between drainage and a rain garden.

REEP Green Solutions is an Ontario Green Community and a Kitchener-based not-for-profit environmental organization. REEP offers educational and conservation services for water, rainwater and energy and has been in operation for over 15 years. Based on respondents’ answers, as shown in Table 30, the majority or fifty-three percent (53%) were not familiar with REEP Green Solutions and another twenty-two percent (22%) indicated it had something to do with the environment as evidenced by the name.

A “RAIN Home Visit” is offered by REEP Green Solutions for residential households. A stormwater management specialist from REEP guides residents as to how to better manage stormwater on site and mitigate the risk of flooding by collecting and/or infiltrating rainwater. Two-thirds or sixty-three percent (63%) of homeowner respondents did not know the meaning of a “RAIN Home Visit”, as indicated in Table 31 which is consistent with the low recognition of REEP as indicated previously in table 30.


October 2015

44

5.4 Constraints and Opportunities: Single Family Homeowners

An analysis of the results from the market research with single-family homeowners identified constraints and opportunities associated with residents’ willingness or inclination to adopt lot-level stormwater control BMPs. As with the business sector research, themes, as evidenced by the high consistency in responses amongst homeowners, emerged and are discussed below in terms of their influence as a constraint or an opportunity.

5.4.1 Themes – Constraints

1. Residential information- and education-based outreach has not resonated well with homeowners and has not and will not have significant influence on uptake of the at-source SWM practices.

2. Homeowners have a deeply held aesthetic of a beautiful home landscape and the most important aspect of this landscape aesthetic is a large, manicured lawn (Seventy-five percent of respondents have lawn comprising 50% or more of their landscape).

3. Of thirty-two homeowner respondents, only two or 6% invested more than $5000 in landscape improvement projects in the past five years vs. fifteen homeowners or 47% who invested more than $5000 in improvement projects for their house.

4. Only two (6%) homeowner respondents indicated they have/use rain barrels. Previous research studies in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) municipalities have found that homeowners hold very negative emotions toward rain barrels and above ground cisterns for the following reasons:

Considered very unattractive; “an eye-sore”

Represent a potential health concern - a breeding ground for mosquitoes and potential for West Nile

Require on-going maintenance

5. Region of Waterloo’s “Naturescape” water efficient landscaping program is not recognized by homeowners in Kitchener.

6. Although homeowners perceive a Naturescape landscape in a positive environmental light, they put little value on the aesthetics or attractiveness of naturescapes and almost half (45%) of the homeowner respondents think water features – decorative ponds and streams – not water conservation, are an important element of a Naturescape landscape.

7. Homeowner respondents have a little or no understanding of the term “watershed”.

8. Fifty-three percent and sixty-three percent of homeowners respectively provided no response when asked the meaning of “REEP Green Solutions” or the “RAIN Home Visit”, and for both program names, less than 15% of respondents indicated some understanding of their meaning.

9. Eight-seven percent (87%) of respondents could not accurately answer the question; “What is a rain garden?”

10. Images (rain gardens) and wording used on City and REEP Green Solutions web sites to communicate information about SWM to residents do not resonate with the intended audience. The images received low ratings for appeal and were describe as “ugly” and “messy”; while residents’ understanding of terminology was very low.


October 2015

45

5.4.2 Themes – Opportunities

1. The City of Kitchener, the community it represents and homeowners’ neighbourhoods are very important to respondents and provide a sense of belonging.

2. Homeowners are highly motivated to create and maintain beautiful landscapes and are willing to invest (under $5000) in landscape improvement projects.

3. Fifty-six percent (56%) of homeowner respondents collectively said they seek advice about landscape design from “friends” and “family”, forty-one percent (41%) from professionals and nurseries, and twenty-five percent (25%) from the Internet.

4. Sixty-five percent (65%) of homeowner respondents purchase plants, trees and shrubs for their landscapes from garden centres and nurseries.

5. Over sixty-five percent (65%) of homeowner respondents’ drawings of their “ideal” front yard landscape, although traditional in design, indicate opportunities for incorporating rain gardens (within the context of those traditional designs).

6. The highest rated front yard image and garden image by homeowners depict somewhat traditional designs, but in fact include the potential for (front yard image) or actual (garden image) rain gardens and designs to enhance the infiltration of stormwater.

7. The top two rated downspout/drainage images by homeowner respondents depict on-site SWM measures, specifically, a dry river bed garden and a rain barrel mostly concealed by garden.

5.5 Integrated Analysis – Residential Homeowners Constraint and opportunity themes or consistencies found through the research with single-family homeowners are indicative of priority areas of focus for this strategy. As discussed, the findings from the research with homeowners have been analysed in conjunction with the results from interviews with key informants in the business sector, leading jurisdictions research, and a review of City and third party SWM policies and programs.

6.0 LEADING JURISDICTIONS RESEARCH FINDINGS Research into leading jurisdictions with successful initiatives to drive uptake of on-site SWM measures by private property owners identified several best practices for consideration for future SWM programming by the City. A complete summary of leading jurisdictions research can be found in the IWSM-MP report: Leading Jurisdictions Report (May 12, 2015). The best practices outlined below have been selected for inclusion in this strategy as they address some of the constraints identified through the primary market research. 6.1. Applicable SWM Best Practices 1. Greened Acre Retrofit Program (GARP) – Philadelphia, Pennsylvania6 GARP provides grants through the Philadelphia Economic Development Corporation (PEDC) to contractors, companies or project aggregators who can build large-scale stormwater retrofit projects across multiple properties. The intent of GARP is “to reduce the price for qualified non-residential PWD [Philadelphia Water Department] customers and contractors to design and install stormwater best management practices”.7 Grant funds are limited to companies and “project aggregators” that can assemble large areas, often over multiple properties, for stormwater management projects. The recommended minimum project size is 10 acres.

6 Philadelphia Water Department (PWD) and Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation (PIDC) Stormwater Management

Grant Program for multiple property SWM projects http://www.phila.gov/water/wu/stormwater/Pages/Grants.aspx 7 IBID

http://www.phila.gov/water/wu/stormwater/Pages/Grants.aspx


October 2015

46

GARP applications are evaluated based on a variety of criteria including total area managed, cost to PWD, quality of the long-term maintenance plan, and availability of matching funds. Applications can be submitted electronically to PEDC at any time. A selection committee comprised of PWD staff evaluate applications and issue decisions at the close of each fiscal quarter. Selected grantees enter into a grant agreement with PEDC to move forward with project design and implementation. 2. Green Street Policy & Program – Portland, Oregon8 Infrastructure Projects in the right-of-way are required to incorporate green street facilities into all City of Portland funded development, redevelopment or enhancement projects as required by the City’s Stormwater Management Manual. If a green street facility is not incorporated into the Infrastructure Project, or only partial management is achieved, then an off-site project or off site management fee is required. Any City of Portland funded development, redevelopment or enhancement project, that “does not trigger the Stormwater Manual but requires a street opening permit or occurs in the right of way”, pays into a “% for Green” street fund. The amount is 1% of the construction costs for the project. 3. ECO Roof Floor Area Ratio Bonus Option – Portland, Oregon9 The ECO Roof Bonus program was established to help meet the City of Portland’s SWM needs. The amount of Floor Area Ratio (FAR) bonus allowed to a developer depends on the percentage of eco roof coverage in relation to the building footprint, as follows:

10% – 30% coverage earns 1 square foot of additional floor area per square foot of eco roof

30% - 60% coverage earns 2 square feet of additional floor area per square foot of eco roof

60% or greater earns 3 square feet of additional floor area per square foot of eco roof. The “Ecoroof FAR Bonus typically applies to larger scale development projects such as industrial, commercial, and multi-family residential housing (e.g. condominiums, apartments).10 At this point in time, the FAR bonus is applicable only to a specific “district” of the City where SWM is a major issue. 4. Amendment for Use of Porous Paving for Driveways/Parking Lots – Minneapolis, Minnesota11 The reason for the amendment was “...to bring the City’s surfacing regulations into alignment with approved and adopted policies” [and] “...best management practices” to allow the use of permeable or pervious pavement and pavement systems without a variance. The amendment opens the door for the use of porous paving and related systems by placing them on par with more traditional surfacing products and systems

8 Portland, Oregon policy and program to drive LID installations in the municipal right-of-way

http://www.portlandoregon.gov/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=154231 9 Portland, Oregon policy and program to address SWM challenges in the downtown Central City Plan

District http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bes/article/474490 10

IBID 11

Minneapolis Community Planning and Economic Development Planning Division; Permeable Pavement Zoning Code Amendment http://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups/public/@council/documents/webcontent/convert_275393.pdf and http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/www/groups/public/@cped/documents/webcontent/convert_282577.pdf

http://www.portlandoregon.gov/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=154231

http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bes/article/474490

http://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups/public/@council/documents/webcontent/convert_275393.pdf


October 2015

47

5. Fusion Landscaping Incentive Program – York Region and Peel Region, Ontario The Regions are in the process of establishing an incentive and training/certification program for “Fusion Landscaping”. The program involves landscaping service companies and Landscape Ontario (LO) – the professional association representing the landscaping industry – in the delivery of fusion landscaping designs and installations. The program currently targets the single-family homeowner market. York Region and Peel Region are working co-operatively on evolving the Fusion Landscaping program to a market-based, industry-driven initiative. The Fusion Landscaping programs involves contractor-based delivery of sustainable landscapes, or more specifically landscapes that incorporate SWM measures such as rain gardens, bioswales, French drains, permeable driveways and walkwyas, and water efficient designs. The term “Fusion Landscaping” was the result of stormwater related market research conducted for the City of Mississauga in 2009. The term was created to address residents’ widely held negative perception of “natural” and “sustainable” landscapes, “rain gardens”, “native plants” and “water-wise gardens”. The term “Fusion” was developed as it is an all encompassing term, which is “on-trend” as “fusion food”, “fusion fashion” and “fusion design” have broad market appeal.

6.2. Applicable Generic Best Practices Given the constraints and opportunities identified through the primary market research, best practices not directly tied to SWM, but with potential to advance SWM in the City of Kitchener, were identified and are summarized below: 1. City Works Global Hub for Urban Infrastructure – Chicago, Illinois The City of Chicago recently announced its City Works initiative in partnership with private companies and academic institutions to “...be the global hub for urban infrastructure innovation, setting the standard for the future of cities everywhere”.12 The prime focus of this hub is the use of information technology (IT) to advance the state of urban infrastructure with significant emphasis on energy conservation and GHG emissions reduction via transportation and building innovations. 2. Integrated Water Management Planning – Melbourne / Minneapolis / Halifax Several leading jurisdictions and agencies are employing and/or recommending whole system water management or Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) planning processes. At the core of these programs or policies is a whole system approach that considers the impact of each measure across and within water management and related13 portfolios and determines the value14 of a given measure or practice.

12

The City of Chicago in partnership with UI labs is establishing an IT-based innovation hub for infrastructure; http://cities.uilabs.org/ 13

Related portfolios including Planning & Development, Economic Development and Finance 14

Informed by polices and priorities; “value” includes criteria based on return on investment, system resiliency, risk management, environmental performance, asset management and operations, customer service, etc.

http://cities.uilabs.org/


October 2015

48

3. Green Permitting – San Francisco / Berkeley / Seattle / Chicago / Boston15 Green building programs are part of jurisdiction-level sustainable growth plans and address individual new green building/development projects, eco-neighbourhoods or districts, brown field and re-development projects and cover both the residential and commercial construction sectors. Leading jurisdictions have expanded the scope of their programs over time with increased effectiveness and uptake on the part of builders, developers and building owners. Some leading jurisdictions have utilized third party rating systems while others have developed their own rating systems to reflect local priorities. Vancouver, Toronto and Ottawa have green permitting initiatives in place but these programs, with the possible exception of Vancouver, are in an earlier stage of development than those in the US. The most significant elements of these green permitting programs are:

Mandatory green building policies in place.

Expedited approvals for qualifying new green buildings/developments.

Financial incentives/tax breaks for qualifying buildings/developments.

Municipal staff are well trained in green building practices, measures and technologies and provided with on-going training and professional development to stay current.

4. Sustainability Reporting – Sydney, Australia Since 2003 the utility has produced an integrated Annual Report using a sustainability reporting framework. Subsequently, Sydney Water revised and updated the framework in-line with international best practices. Reporting against the new sustainability framework and scorecard began in 2006. In its most recent sustainability Annual Report (2014), Sydney Water provides sustainability scoring for a specific set of indicators.16

The utility’s Sustainability Scorecard reports on corporate performance measured against sustainability indicators. The scorecard adopts Sydney Water’s corporate goals and employs triple-bottom-line analysis measuring the utility’s progress against economic, social and environmental indicators.

6.3. Integrated Analysis – Leading Jurisdictions

The research into leading jurisdictions in SWM was augmented by research focused specifically on overcoming constraints identified through the primary market research with homeowners and business sector key informants. The leading jurisdictions research has been analysed in conjunction with the findings from both the homeowner and business sector key informant research and with consideration of the City’s and related third party SWM policies and programs. Based on this analysis, recommendations for policies, programs and initiatives to drive uptake of at-source/on-site SWM practices and measures have been developed and are discussed in detail in Section 7.0 below.

15

San Francisco: http://www.sfenvironment.org/buildings-environments/green-building Berkeley: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/ContentDisplay.aspx?id=70982

Seattle: http://www.seattle.gov/environment/buildings-and-energy/green-building

Chicago: http://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/zlup/Sustainable_Development/Publications/GreenMatrix2010.pdf

Boston: http://www.cityofboston.gov/eeos/buildings/ 16

Sydney Water Annual Report (2014): Tables 5, 6 and 7 http://www.sydneywater.com.au/web/groups/publicwebcontent/documents/document/zgrf/mdcx/~edisp/dd_071221.pdf

http://www.sfenvironment.org/buildings-environments/green-building

http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/ContentDisplay.aspx?id=70982

http://www.seattle.gov/environment/buildings-and-energy/green-building

http://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/zlup/Sustainable_Development/Publications/GreenMatrix2010.pdf

http://www.cityofboston.gov/eeos/buildings/


October 2015

49

7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The goal of the market research was to develop a “Made in Kitchener” market-based strategy to drive uptake of lot-level/at-source SWM and pollution prevention practices and measures by property owners in the residential and industrial/commercial sectors, and to secure enhanced/innovative SWM. Programming, policy, economic, joint venture, and metrics and reporting recommendations have been developed based on the findings from the research and an analysis of potential options applicable to the City’s stormwater utility model and the achievement of the City’s ambitious ISWM-MP objectives. An ISWM-MP is a new undertaking for the City and it has several implications for implementation planning. Developing and delivering a successful integrated stormwater program requires the use of a new municipal operations model which facilitates integration across water management and related program portfolios. Successfully implementing an ISWM-MP also involves engaging the marketplace in new and innovative ways to achieve objectives and secure private sector participation in managing stormwater. In Section 3.1, two primary considerations were identified as informing the development of the recommendations set out in this strategy, specifically:

Integration of City policies and programming across water management and related portfolios via and integrated water management planning process.

Strategic engagement of the marketplace to drive uptake of at-source SWM actions by property owners in the residential and business sectors, and builders/developers.

The above considerations, the goals and objectives of the ISWM-MP and the findings from the market research are the basis for the recommendations set out below. For ease of reference, recommendations are divided into the following three categories: Governance & Administration, Municipal Functions & Operations and Market-based Programming 7.1. Recommendations – Governance & Administration Management of the stormwater utility and direction for the City’s SWM programming are the focus of two overarching recommendations covered herein; specifically, the employment of an integrated water management model consistent with the new ISWM-MP, and internalization of a market-based approach to SWM and related programming to drive uptake of SWM practices by private property owners. The establishment of a steering committee and a water innovation hub to provide input, leadership and support, and generate new opportunities, problem solve, ensure on-going adaptation, and guide implementation, are additional recommendations for the governance and administration of SWM programming at the City.

7.1.1. Integrated Water Management

As SWM program staff move forward with the ISWM-MP it is recommended that the City undertakes an IWM planning process to develop implementation plans. The City is pursuing the development of an ISWM-MP. This integrated MP is a new approach to completing municipal stormwater master plans. An ISWM-MP addresses watershed-based issues and strategies pertaining to not only stormwater but also, water supply and wastewater. It is a holistic approach that identifies cost effective and sustainable solutions. In order to effectively deliver on an ISWM-MP, it is critical to have mechanisms and processes in place to ensure integration across water management and related portfolios in the City.


October 2015

50

Enabling some co-ordination and integration amongst key public entities in water management, specifically the City of Kitchener, City of Waterloo, Region of Waterloo and the GRCA would offer significant value in terms of impact, economy of scale and avoidance of duplication or conversely, contradictory programming. The GRCA’s Stormwater Management Working Group provides a strong foundation on which to expand the scope and authority for integrated water management programming amongst the four public entities. An Integrated Water Management (IWM) model is a modified version of the Integrated Water Resource Management model discussed in the findings from the leading jurisdictions research (Section 6.0). An illustration of the modified IWRM model17 to an IWM model is provided in Figure 7 below.

Figure 7 – Modified IWM Model

Employing an IWM model ensures that SWM measures and their implications are considered across water management portfolios and divisions. The rationale for this holistic approach is to provide for the sustainability of all water systems in the aggregate and to capitalize on synergies for greater efficiency and impact. IWM planning as it pertains to this ISWM-MP involves research into, and consideration of, the following:

Internal market drivers - opportunities and constraints within municipal operations impacting

SWM practices in the marketplace such as the Planning Division, Finance, and Economic Development and Engineering.

City-Regional-GRCA joint programming and delivery opportunities and constraints.

Stormwater utility fee and financing structures as drivers for at-source SWM, financial stability and targeting problem SWM issues (e.g., wellhead protection/high water table zones, high density areas with extensive impervious cover, etc.).

17 Adapted from Hoban, A.T and Wong, T.H.F (2006); WSUD and Resilience to Climate Change

IWM is considered: • Best management

practice • Best infrastructure

planning practice

Australia, EU, UK & starting in US & Canada


October 2015

51

The challenge of IWM is in its application. To date, IWM programming has focused on the adaptation of the original IWRM model with limited consideration of how to actually plan and implement using IWM. To a large degree, IWM has been a case of “good in theory but not in application”. Using specific business planning methodologies that address the particular limitation of IWM offers a very significant opportunity to truly deliver integrated water management planning and programming in the City. Gaps analysis, constraints and opportunities mapping, integrated data analysis, and rolling forecasts are elements of business planning methodologies that are adaptable for IWM and make it viable, applicable and advantageous. Identification and evaluation of IWM opportunities integrating stormwater management, water conservation and efficiency, source water protection, and where applicable, water supply and wastewater treatment and inflow and infiltration(I & I) management is a whole-system approach that provides for:

economies of scale and leveraging of resources;

adaptation and resiliency;

fostering innovation and co-operation;

integrating solutions that derive benefits on more than one front;

a fulsome and comprehensive approach to stormwater infrastructure planning and water management; and,

avoidance of solutions in one water management portfolio negatively impacting another area or portfolio.

As the City moves ahead with implementation planning for the ISWM-MP, utilizing an IWM planning process will ultimately create more holistic and cross-beneficial water management programs and practices. The adoption of an IWM planning model will foster a “one water” ethos within the City and could identify opportunities for integrated programming between and amongst the Cities of Kitchener and Waterloo, Region of Waterloo and the GRCA.

7.1.2. Market-based Approach

It is recommended that the City apply a market-based approach to planning and decision making processes pertaining to, or impacting, SWM practices by private property owners. A market-based approach employs the marketplace as delivery agent for SWM initiatives with the ultimate goal of generating transformative, sustained changed. Transformative change or market transformation is a strategic process of market intervention that focuses on removing constraints and leveraging opportunities to internalize cost effective SWM practices to the degree they become standard practice in the marketplace. Segmenting and targeting of the marketplace is a key component of a market-based approach. By targeting, the City can focus resource on those segments of the market that offer the greatest value (financial, environmental and social). For example, those industrial and commercial property owners with corporate sustainability policies and programs represent the greatest opportunity for early adoption of City initiatives for at-source SWM and pollution prevention. A market-based approach requires more effort and larger investments upfront versus broad-based programs but, over the longer-term, market forces take over and costs decline. The advantages of a market-based approach over broad-based initiatives are significant and may be summarized as follows:

Enable the City to focus resources on targeted or high ROI initiatives.

Declining costs over time as the marketplace takes over vs. broad-based programs where a continued (and growing) influx of City resources is required to sustain initiatives.

Shares the responsibility for SWM and pollution prevention with the marketplace.


October 2015

52

Utilizes market intelligence and expertise to cost-effectively deliver SWM and pollution prevention initiatives with transformative impact.

Builds valuable relationships between the City and key players in the marketplace.

Imbeds SWM and pollution prevention practices in the marketplace with long-term change throughout the supply chain resulting in market transformation.

Generates economic development opportunities for the City by creating new market opportunities.

Self fulfilling – builds momentum and commitment over time.

The two key elements of a market-based approach to municipal SWM are the use of external market drivers and development of strategic joint venture opportunities. External drivers involve the use of monetary and non-monetary incentives to drive uptake of at-source SWM practices in the marketplace. Examples of such drivers would include, grants, financing and subsidy programs, promotional initiatives, recognition/award programs, etc. Identifying potential synergies with external organizations and business and developing joint venture agreements for delivery of complementary programs is an effective means of securing higher uptake and leveraging resources. Recommendations for potential strategic joint ventures are discussed in greater detail below.

7.1.3. Integrated Water Management Steering Committee

Integrated water management programming within the City, involving senior managers in relevant departments – engineering, transportation, finance, parks, and economic development – is recommended to ensure co-ordinated and optimized SWM and related programming. Expanding beyond the City, the role of external public agencies – the City of Waterloo, Region of Waterloo and the GRCA – in water management represents a significant opportunity for co-operation and for integrated planning and programming. The City of Kitchener, City of Waterloo, Region of Waterloo and the GRCA all have responsibilities and authority for various aspects of water management. Multiple departments and staff are involved in managing and delivering a range of water related programs and projects. These portfolios of water management represent both a challenge and an opportunity for effective SWM programming. The GRCA’s Stormwater Management Working Group provides a foundational model on which to develop a steering committee (with directional functions and authority) and a platform for integrated programming. Aquifer recharge (water banking), I & I reduction, effective salt management (through market-driven programming or incentivising relevant service providers), large scale rain water capture and reuse (lowering burden on water supply system while mitigating stormwater flows) and integrated source water protection programming are some examples of where co-operative decision-making could be highly effective. With these considerations in mind, it is recommended the City in conjunction with the Region of Waterloo, City of Waterloo and the GRCA, establish an IWM Steering Committee. Effective implementation of IWM planning and programming within the City, and potentially between the City of Kitchener, City of Waterloo, Region of Waterloo and GRCA, will require the active participation of senior water managers and senior managers in associated portfolios. The IWM steering committee will be responsible for setting the direction, providing guidance and monitoring the transition to IWM planning and programming. Sufficient financial and human resources must be available to the Committee to enable effective development and execution of implementation plans. Securing support and approval of appropriate councils and the GRCA Board of Directors would be necessary to ensure the steering committee has the mandate and authority to implement process and program changes for effective delivery of integrated water management in the City and surrounding region.


October 2015

53

7.1.4. Water Innovation Hub

For the City to sustain a leading role in SWM and source water protection, new opportunities must be continuously identified, assessed, tested and evaluated, and ultimately implemented. To address this significant challenge, as well as the challenge presented by the two-tier municipal system, it is recommended that a Water Innovation Hub be established. Kitchener-Waterloo hosts numerous large corporations, small- and mid-sized enterprises, two universities and a college, and several leading non-government water research organizations which in the aggregate represent a vast resource of experience, resources, know-how and abilities. This collective and untapped resource could be brought to bear via a water innovation hub to tackle SWM and other water management challenges and generate new and innovative opportunities to advance all levels of water management in the City and the Region. Co-operation is a powerful means to maintain a capacity for innovation and a water innovation hub provides the ideal vehicle for such co-operation. A water infrastructure hub could work in concert with the Southern Ontario Water Consortium (SOWC), the Canadian Water Network (CWN) and the Water Institute at the University of Waterloo and focus resources and collective private, public and academic efforts and resources on significant water infrastructure challenges with the City of Kitchener and the surrounding Region. In addition, a water infrastructure hub is consistent with the province’s establishment of WaterTAP which “exists to champion and support Ontario’s status as a world water technology hub” and to position Ontario “as the North American centre of water excellence, and maintain Ontario’s leadership in conserving and sustaining water resources”. Research into potential models and existing innovation hubs did not identify any examples of municipal innovation hubs specific to water, water management or water infrastructure. As discussed in Section 6.0, Leading Jurisdictions Research, The City of Chicago recently announced a partnership with private companies and academic institutions to use information technology (IT) to advance the state of urban infrastructure with significant emphasis on energy conservation and GHG emissions reduction via transportation and building innovations. Innovation hubs focused on IT and business innovation are a growing entity in leading jurisdictions around the globe. These hubs bring together business leaders, academics, non-government organization (NGO) specialists, and government experts to identify, vet, and foster innovation. Boston and Silcon Valley are perhaps the most internationally recognized technology innovation hubs that have generated enormous new business growth and public-, academic- and private sector-led research and development. California under the direction of the Governor’s Office established an Economic Development Innovation Hub which is spearheading initiatives to support new business and technology innovation across the state. The City could draw on these models in developing and establishing a water innovation hub. The establishment of a Water Innovation Hub is consistent with the City’s Downtown Kitchener Action Plan (2012 – 2016), which indicates the formation of “an Innovation District” is one of four core areas of focus for the economic development and vitality of the City centre.

7.2. Recommendations – Municipal Functions and Operation Recommendation pertaining to municipal functions and operations are focused upon potential new internal processes or modifications to existing processes that can generate desired SWM practices in the marketplace. Performance management for SWM programming in the City is also addressed via the establishment of a reporting framework as discussed under Section 7.2.6 below.


October 2015

54

7.2.1. Stormwater Utility Fee Structure

It is recommended that the City review the current stormwater utility fee structure and evaluate the potential to modify the structure for non-residential property owners. The current structure of the stormwater utility fee was identified, indirectly, as a constraint limiting the willingness of property owners in the residential and business sectors to implement SWM best practices. As discussed under the findings from the research with key informants in the business sector, payback periods under 3 years are critical to justifying any capital or operational investment. Modifying the fee structure to have a fixed portion to cover required SWM capital, asset management, operational and reserve costs and a refundable portion based on the current tiered fixed rate model with a potential credit of up to 100% could, if apportioned correctly, serve as an incentive to non-residential property owners to implement SWM measures. Employing the Philadelphia model would involve an evaluation of the City’s current apportioning of a fixed portion at 55% and a stormwater loadings portion at 45%. As done in Philadelphia this evaluation would require a more robust calculation of fixed costs (current and projected) and the offset of those cost resulting from at-source SWM by industrial and commercial property owners on a sliding scale. Ultimately, the higher the dollar value of the refundable portion of the fee, the greater the incentive for uptake of SWM measures by business property owners. Although, in and of itself, changing the utility fee structure will not address the fundamental challenge of extended paybacks for SWM investments by property owners, it could potentially reduce the payback period such that other monetary and non-monetary incentives would provide sufficient additional motivation to increase uptake. Furthermore, the impact of the perceptual difference of a 100% refund versus a 45% refund is a reality and one that is proving effective in jurisdictions with such SWM utility “feebates”. 7.2.2. Aggregating Properties Incentive

It is recommended the City establish an incentive and administrative mechanisms to enable the aggregation of non-residential privately-owned properties for SWM utility credit. As discussed in Section 6.0, Leading Jurisdictions Research, the City of Philadelphia has established a grant program to encourage non-residential property owners to implement SWM measures covering multiple properties. By offering a grant or low/no-interest financing program in conjunction with credit banking or exchange would encourage non-residential property owners/managers to develop and implement SWM practices to address multiple properties in a drainage area. The long payback period for SWM investments for individual non-residential property owners cannot be overstated as the major barrier to uptake across all sectors and property sizes. Allowing for the aggregation of properties/Grid Low Impact Development (Grid LID) has the potential to bring payback periods down to justifiable investment levels for business property owners. In addition to grants, bankable and tradable SWM credits based on the value of the loading reduction to the City’s SWM system would serve as an added financial incentive for property owners. Aggregating of properties for SWM provides numerous advantages to both the City and the non-residential property owner as summarized in Table 33 below.


October 2015

55

Table 33 – Advantages of Aggregating Non-Residential Properties for SWM

City of Kitchener Non-residential Property Owners

Reduce loadings to SWM system Lower Payback Period

Economies of Scale Economies of Scale

City only responsible for approving credit trades – aggregating and negotiating credits left to businesses

Companies themselves are responsible for aggregating and negotiating credits

Onus of design and implementation on property owners

Properties investing/invested in SWM measures and receiving off-site flows benefit – market dictates.

Economic stimulus for local engineering and SWM equipment and technology companies

Equitably and levels playing field with greatest benefit going to those non-residential customers

Available models18

Small properties with significant impermeable surfaces able to utilize off-site SWM options at acceptable cost

7.2.3. Expedited Permitting

It is recommended that the City consider adopting an expedited review and approval process for development projects that employ SWM measures beyond required site plan approval levels. The most significant barriers to the use of enhanced and innovative SWM measures by builders/developers are the costs associates with these measures and the difficulty in securing timely review and approvals. As indicated by the builder/developer key informants, new or “out of the box” design or technology additions to applications, slows the approval time and increases the costs and risks for a project. Expedited permitting involves fast tracking review and approval of development applications through a designated green building approvals process. Two primary models exist: a team of experts involved throughout the approval process or a single expert shepherding the project through the approval process. In either case, internal decision-making processes are modified, staff receive regular training on green building and technology, informational and guidance resources are made available to assist municipal staff and builders/developers, and support for these programs is top-down and bottom-up.

It is not surprising to note that most leading US jurisdictions in SWM have expedited permitting processes for “green” building and development. Enhanced and innovative SWM measures and criteria are part and parcel of green building standards for those jurisdictions with expedited permitting processes. The rationale for these expedited permitting programs can be summarized as follows:

Provides a single point of contact in the planning for permit applicants

Provides a code and process assistance by a dedicated and interdisciplinary review team or individual

Sets high performance building expectations and goals

Adopts an integrated design approach

Maximizes financial incentives available from the municipalities and other agencies (State, Federal and Energy Utility incentive programs)

18

Stormwater Credit Exchange (SCE) program – District Department of the Environment (DDOE), District of Washington, DC and Carbon Cap & Trade Systems – there are multiple examples and models (Ontario has recently launched an emissions Cap & Trade program), a general description of California’s system and cap and trade systems in general can be found at http://www.c2es.org/us-states-regions/key-legislation/california-cap-trade

http://www.c2es.org/us-states-regions/key-legislation/california-cap-trade


October 2015

56

Given the City’s commitment to sustainable growth and environmental leadership on multiple fronts including SWM, air quality, waste management, water conservation and protection, source water protection, biodiversity and protection of natural heritage, an expedited permitting process for green construction could serve as a major driver for innovative and truly sustainable buildings and development.

7.2.4. Density and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Bonus

It is recommended that the City evaluate modifying Section 5 of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law (85-1) to allow for density and Floor Area Ratio bonuses. The cost of enhanced SWM measures such as rain gardens, bioswales, exfiltration systems, eco-/green roofs, rain water harvesting, porous paving, etc., results in their limited application in new development. Such SWM enhancements have occurred, but on an ad hoc, case-by-case basis involving negotiations between the City and the builders/developer. In leading SWM jurisdictions, increases in allotment of single-family homes, increases in building height or the floor area ratio are the types of density bonuses made available to builders/developers. The most critical element of these incentives is how they are applied. In leading jurisdictions the green building requirements for density bonus qualification are stringent and in law. Negotiations to lower qualifying requirements do not happen in leading jurisdictions. Formalizing density and FAR bonuses for SWM enhancements within the zoning by-law will encourage builders/developers to incorporate such enhancements in their projects. 7.2.5. Right-of Way Stormwater Management Infrastructure Policy and Program It is recommended that the City evaluate establishing a policy and supporting program for the installation of LID facilities into all City right-of way projects. This recommendation comes directly from Portland’s “Green Streets” initiative discussed in Section 6.0. Consideration should also be given to including within the policy a requirement for all public and utility projects involving street/right-of-way opening but not triggering the City right-of-way policy, to contribute to the City’s SWM fund. A fee set at a percentage of the total project cost (Portland sets the fee at 1% - see Section 6.1) would need to be established and embedded in the right-of-way policy. 7.2.6. Stormwater Management Reporting Framework

It is recommended the City implement a SWM reporting framework involving a performance indicators and scorecard management mechanism. This mechanism would complement the existing SWM audit process and would enable the City to measure progress against key economic, environmental, social and SWM indicators. A SWM reporting framework could be updated on a regular basis to keep pace with SWM best practices and would function in concert with the SWM audit process. The SWM Audit (2014) is an extensive and detailed report beyond the scope and understanding of non-specialist. In order to evaluate performance against indicators, including water quantity and quality (extracted from the SWM Audit), uptake of at-source SWM practices, and other pertinent financial, environmental and social indicators, a report card should be developed. This approach would provide City staff with an accessible annual performance measurement system. Initially, the scorecard could be developed for internal use and once established, provide a mechanism for public reporting and performance monitoring. An example of a performance indicators report card is shown in Figure 8 below and is taken from Sydney Water’s 2014 Annual Report.


October 2015

57

Figure 8 – Sample Report Card by Performance Indicator (Sydney Water) 7.3. Market-based Programming Market-based programming is an outcome of a market-based approach to planning. Joint ventures, incentivizing service providers, and market positioning are the themes covered by the recommendations for market-based programming.

7.3.1. Strategic Joint Ventures

It is recommended that City staff responsible for SWM investigate the opportunity for strategic joint ventures with the Region and energy utilities to deliver a comprehensive energy-water-stormwater DSM program. The recommendation for strategic joint ventures for SWM programming is to address two constraining factors, specifically:

1. The long payback period long payback period for investments in on-site SWM measures was

identified by key informants in the industrial/commercial sector as the primary barrier to investments in on-site SWM measures.

2. Securing SWM consultations or RAIN business visits is challenging, particularly involving businesses not seeking credit for existing SWM measures.

Sustainability indicator key

Expectations met or exceeded Indicators show a positive long-term trend towards the goal. Areas to improve Mixed results, positive trends for some indicators and negative trends for others towards the goal. Action required Indicators show a negative long-term trend towards the goal


October 2015

58

Forming strategic joint ventures with both the Region of Waterloo’s Water Efficient Technology (WET) program for businesses, and with local energy utilities – Kitchener Utilities (DSM programs) and Kitchener-Wlimot Hydro (Commercial Energy Conservation programs) leverages expertise, provides enhanced access to businesses and potentially identifies synergistic opportunities. Opportunities such as rain water harvesting for process or make-up water or for use with irrigation systems or district water involving rainwater harvesting are examples of potential synergistic opportunities offering energy/water savings and mitigating stormwater.

7.3.2. Service Provider Incentive

Service providers, in particular those in the landscaping service sector, represent a significant and untapped opportunity to secure at-source SWM installations on non-residential and residential properties alike. To this end, it is recommended the City establish an incentive program for landscape design, installation and maintenance service providers. As evidenced by the market research with single-family homeowners, industrial/commercial property owners and service providers in the landscaping industry, the most significant constraints to on-site SWM practices on private property may be summarized as follows:

Perceptual barriers – residents have little appreciation of rain gardens and transitional landscape designs (with enhanced permeable areas), and more significantly, hold a negative aesthetic perception of transitional landscapes.

Not on radar – SWM and landscaping related matters are not recognized by most non-residential property owners. Provided the property is maintained (often by a third party) and looks presentable, then issues of SWM and water use are not considered by owners/managers.

Cost driven business – with the exception of higher-end clientele and/or those with specific issues requiring redress (e.g., basement flooding), the landscaping business is bottom line driven and therefore, SWM enhancements that may increase costs are not included in design/install quotes nor are they marketed by the majority of landscape design/install providers.

Although not a barrier directly related to uptake of SWM landscape-related practices by homeowners, the Region of Waterloo’s “Naturescape” program must be included in the discussion of incentivizing landscaping service providers for the following reasons:

The majority of homeowners are unaware of the Region’s Naturescape program.

The majority of homeowners’ hold an incorrect perception a Naturescape landscape.

There are stark differences between homeowners’ concept of an “ideal front yard” and an “ideal front yard Naturescape” that significantly undermine any potential interest amongst the majority of homeowners in creating or having a Naturescape landscape.

Naturescape landscapes appeal to a small minority of homeowners who are already environmentally-orientated and do not represent homeowners with high irrigation demands, and therefore, the program is failing to target the homeowner demographic that is the source of high water use for landscape maintenance.

The issues associated with the Region’s Naturescape program and with securing, via RAIN, homeowner visits and uptake of on-site SWM management practices, are challenging, but illustrate the value of using the marketplace, where know-how and expertise exists, to drive change amongst the target homeowner demographic. Landscaping design and installation is the core business of landscaping service companies and they know their business and their clients well, and are trusted (and paid) sources of expertise. A City-Region joint landscaping incentive program would provide economies of scale, an opportunity to leverage resources, deliver a cohesive initiative, and consistent and impactful marketing and promotion.


October 2015

59

Incentivizing the landscaping service industry to design and install transitional landscapes that incorporate rain gardens and enhanced permeable areas, and require little or no supplemental irrigation would be the most effective mechanism for driving uptake of on-site SWM landscaping practices and lowering peak water demand amongst single-family and industrial/commercial property owners. To qualify for the incentive, landscaping service companies would have to complete training and certification through Landscape Ontario (LO), the professional and industry recognized association of the landscaping industry.

Unique to the Kitchener-Waterloo and surrounding areas is significant expertise in at-source SWM applications amongst landscaping and environmental service companies. It is recommended that City SWM staff utilize this expertise, injunction with LO, to help with implementation planning and delivery of the training/certification and the incentive program. The expertise and resources of York Region in developing a Fusion Landscaping Program, discussed in the leading jurisdictions findings Section 6.0, should also be sought by City SWM staff when developing an implementation plan for a landscaping incentive and training/certification program. It is also recommended that the City consider options for incentivizing the use of porous paving and like permeable surfacing products and systems (proven technologies). The subsidy would need to be tied to the efficacy and suitability of the product. Given the substantial cost difference between traditional and porous or permeable surfacing products and systems, an incentive would help bridge the gap and improve the likelihood of property owners choosing the latter.

7.3.3. Market Positioning

As evidenced by the findings from the market research with homeowners and industrial/commercial property owners, recognition, understanding and appreciation of the importance of SWM and pollution prevention is limited at best. A combination of factors has led to the lack of interest or concern about stormwater and source water protection, but primarily it’s a case of “out of sight, out of mind’. In order to address this general lack of awareness and to improve uptake of SWM initiatives, as described in this strategy, it is recommended that the City undertake targeted promotion to re-position SWM and SWM-related programming in the marketplace. Target marketing and promotion is a key component of market-based programming and and a cost-effective means of re-positioning SWM in the marketplace. Target marketing involves the identification of specific demographics, sectors/sub-sectors and/or geographic areas (e.g., wellhead protection zones) to which tailored programming is targeted. This approach allows customization of messages and materials, targeted use of demonstration projects and outreach initiatives, focuses resources where they are most needed, and enables program tracking and measurement.

7.3.3.1 Single-family Homeowner

It is recommended that City SWM staff undertake a marketing and promotional initiative targeting single-family homeowners and focused on transitional landscapes for lot-level SWM. For homeowners, targeted marketing must focus on the beauty of transitional SWM landscape – it’s about creating a new landscape paradigm based on a composite of lot-level best practices that homeowners will desire and seek to obtain. Given homeowner respondents’ motivations for the design and maintenance of their home landscape are based on a deeply held, traditional aesthetic perception of what makes a beautiful landscape, the marketing program must first address this perceptual constraint before lot-level SWM modifications will be undertaken by homeowners.


October 2015

60

A SWM landscaping marketing and promotional initiative targeting single-family homeowners would involve a three-pronged approach involving:

1. A New Landscape Paradigm focused on the aesthetic beauty and trending value of the new landscape

2. A Visually-Based Outreach Campaign utilizing image-based communications to address the perceptual barrier to homeowners’ uptake of enhanced SWM landscapes and specifically targeting key areas and/or demographics

3. Demonstration Projects focused on the creation of beautiful landscapes that employ SWM measures and water efficient landscaping techniques in key locations in target neighbourhoods.

The homeowner-focused SWM marketing and promotional initiative would link to other initiatives and programs recommended in this strategy. Utilizing cross-marketing expands the reach of the program without excessive commitment of resources, in other words, cross-marketing allows more to be done with less. Although messages and outreach will be tailored to target demographics, sectors or sub-sectors, it will be important to maintain a consistency in the look and feel of outreach to foster recognition amongst target audiences. Figure 9 below provides a schematic representation of the marketing program for SWM.

NEW

TRANSITIONAL LANDSCAPE PARADIGM

DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS

Transitional front yard landscapes (compilation of BMPs) at key locations in target neighbourhoods

VISUALLY-BASED OUTREACH CAMPAIGN

Full colour images of beautiful transitional

landscapes with simple messages that make an

emotional connection with the audience

TARGETED PROMOTION AND

ADVERTISING

JOINT OUTREACH & PROMOTION VIA

WATERLOO AND REEP

POINT-OF-PURCHASE

PROMOTION & MARKETING

INTEGRATION WITH LANDSCAPING SERVICE PROVIDER

INCENTIVE PROGRAM

KEY MESSAGES & IMAGES

ON-LINE MARKETING AND

WEB-BASED PROMOTION

Figure 9 – SWM Marketing Approach


October 2015

61

This three-pronged SWM marketing approach should focus on a transitional landscape aesthetic for single-family residential properties, municipal properties and eventually, by extension, multi-unit residential, commercial and industrial properties throughout Kitchener.

1. Transitional Landscape Paradigm

The focus of the marketing and promotion must be on the beauty of the new landscape paradigm. The new landscape will include a composition of SWM attributes and water efficiency elements to create a truly sustainable landscape. This new transitional landscape represents a new aesthetic; a complete vision; not a set of SWM and water efficient best practices for the landscape. Respondents do not view their landscape as individual components, but rather as a total package.

2. Visually-Based Outreach Campaign

When homeowner respondents viewed full colour pictures of well designed landscapes utilizing SWM measures, they identified them as “beautiful” and having “curb appeal”. When homeowners viewed images of rain gardens currently used on REEP and City web sites promoting lot-level SWM, homeowner they rated them extremely low and described them as “messy”, “ugly” and “boring. The only means to overcome homeowner’s negative or incorrect perceptions of rain gardens, Naturescape landscapes, landscape drainage features, and other SWM and water efficient landscaping concepts and terms is to provide them with visual images that counter this perception. Before educating or informing homeowners “how to”, it is imperative to give them a vision of what their landscape could look like. Residents have to want a transitional landscape before they will seek information on how to achieve one. A visual-based campaign creates desire: the “want” that must come before the “how” and the “why”.

3. Demonstration Projects

A very effective means of dispelling the negative perspective homeowners have toward landscape concepts based on effective stormwater management is to create living examples of beautiful, vibrant landscapes right in the community in which residents live. It is recommended that the City identify key locations in target communities for the creation of beautiful landscapes that employ SWM measures and water efficient landscaping techniques. Tapping motivators for change, principally; creating a desired landscape aesthetic, peer association, and being part of a trend (a new landscape aesthetic), is the function of demonstration projects. Demonstration sites within the neighbourhood act like model homes, where potential buyers are given a vision of what their new home could look like. Top interior designers are now used by builders/developers to create interiors that will leave prospective buyers wanting what they have seen. When individuals have a positive emotional response to an interior or landscape design, it creates in them a desire for the same. This is the primary motivation that the demonstration landscapes would tap. A critical point that must be reiterated is that these demonstration landscapes must be aesthetically stunning and well maintained.


October 2015

62

8.0 SUMMARY Primary market research with single-family homeowners, industrial and commercial property owners/managers, builders/developers and service providers was undertaken to determine the constraints and opportunities for the uptake of lot-level SWM practices. This research was informed and augmented by research into leading jurisdiction best SWM practices, as well as other leading, non-SWM related practices with potential applicability to the City’s SWM programming. As the ISWM-MP progresses and the evaluation of alternatives generates preferred options, this strategy and the recommendations set out herein will undergo an alignment review. This alignment review process will not change the recommendations in this strategy, as they are based on the City’s goals and objectives for SWM and for the new ISWM-MP, and extensive primary and secondary market research; but rather will inform the City’s evaluation and implementation prioritization of the recommendations set out in this strategy. The City of Kitchener has taken a prorgressive approach to SWM programming. By establishing a stormwater utility fee based on loadings and a credit program to motivate uptake of lot-level/at-source best SWM practices by property owners, persuing an intergrated SWM Master Plan and implementing LID and pollution prevention measures on public land, the City has demonstrated leadership in SWM and source water protection. Keeping pace with evolving and ever-varying conditions – weather and climate, growth and development, population demographics, water quality, biodiversity, water quantity, economic and market – requires an adaptive approach to SWM planning and programming going forward. This strategy provides for an adaptive approach while ensuring targeted, fiscally responsible programming that continues to place the City at the forefront of progressive stormwater management that is truly transformative.

APPENDIX 1

NON-RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER PRIMARY RESEARCH:

Copy of the Guiding Questions for Interviews with Key Informants in the Non-residential Customer Sector

APPENDIX 1

KITCHENER STORMWATER UTILITY GUIDING QUESTIONS FOR KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW

Key informant(s): _______________________________________________________________ Company Name: ________________________________________________________________ Type of Business: _______________________________________________________________ QUESTIONS: 1. In your opinion, what are the most pressing issues facing your industry? 2. What if anything have you done to reduce operational expenses in your business? 3. What are your top 3 priorities for reducing operational expenses? 4. Does your company have any environmental or sustainability policies or initiatives in place?

Yes No 5. If “yes”, briefly describe these policies or initiatives. 6. What are the primary reasons for these policies/initiatives?

7. If “no”, why not 8. Would you consider your industry to be an “energy intensive” industry? Optional question – applies to larger manufacturing and commercial 9. Would you consider your industry to be a “water intensive” industry? Optional question – applies to larger manufacturing and commercial

10. Is energy saving/conservation a consideration for your company Yes No 11. If “yes”, why? 12. If “no”, why not? 13. Is water saving/conservation a consideration for your company?

Yes No

APPENDIX 1

14. If “yes”, why? 15. If “no”, why not? 16. Is stormwater management a consideration for your company?

Yes No 17. If yes, why? (Refer to Questions 15, 16 and 17) 18. If no, why not? (Refer to Question 16 and 17))

19. If “yes” to question 12, briefly describe what you have undertaken to manage stormwater.

20. What, if any, future plans do you have for implementing stormwater management on your

property? 21. If not identified previously, to what degree if any did the City of Kitchener’s Stormwater

Utility fee influence the decision (or future plan) to implement/install stormwater management practices/measures?

On a scale of 1 to 10, rate the significance of the following to your business decisions (where 1 is low and 10 is high): 22. Operational expenses _______ 23. Why did you give this rating? 24. Liabilities _______ 25. Why did you give this rating? 26. Environmental performance _______ 27. Why did you give this rating? 28. Flooding/damage due to flooding _______ 29. Why did you give this rating? 30. What do you pay for your stormwater utility fee?

31. What would encourage you to undertake (additional) stormwater management measures

at your company?

APPENDIX 2

NON-RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER PRIMARY RESEARCH:

Interview Summary: Industrial & Commercial and Builder/Developer Key Informants

City of Kitchener ISWM-MP – Market Research APPENDIX 2 Interview Summary: Industrial & Commercial and Builder/Developer Key Informants

QUESTIONS

RESPONSES

1. What are the most pressing issues facing your industry?

Themes

Keeping cost down – operational and staffing costs.

Competition and maintain competitiveness – “Need to keep the cost of products at a level the marketplace will accept.”

Compliance related expenses, increasing costs associated with imposed fees and taxes.

Approvals and timelines – “getting projects through approvals is becoming an excessively protracted and costly process”.

Other

Cost to purchase land, resources/materials, labour, charges and fees are all going up and there is a limit to what the customer will pay – it’s an on-going challenge to maintain the balance.

Getting projects approved and built – [securing approval] “...is like hitting a moving target”

Shifting technologies and keeping pace with the international market while remaining competitive.

Tight timelines – short delivery, turn-around times, just-in-time delivery and expectations of our clients

Timelines – “if we have a new development and are delayed by approvals, that delay costs us money”; “No one in approvals is sensitive to time or seasonality”

Multiple approvals points – “Too many chefs”, “lots of contradiction and confusion between reviewers”

Unfair business practices – some “[international] players do not play fairly, put products on the market at a loss to undermine competition”

2. What, if anything, have you done to reduce your operational expenses

Themes

Efficiency: “Making internal processes more efficient”; “Always looking for opportunities to improve efficiency within the organization...it about doing more while keeping costs downs.”

Evaluation – on-going evaluation of costs and identification of opportunities for savings

Energy conservation

“Energy upgrades or retrofits offer substantial operational savings and there are excellent incentives without a lot of paper work.”

Other

Automation

Timing of purchasing to take advantage of lower cost of supply.

Keeping labour/staffing costs down.


QUESTIONS

RESPONSES

3. What are top three (3) things undertaken to reduce operational expenses

Themes

On-going assessments and identifying opportunities for cost reductions.

Efficiency – make more with same inputs

Energy conservation

Supplier & material costs – identify best value

Other Focus on higher value products – higher value achieved through automation which reduces labour

costs and therefore unit value is increased (“saving ourselves rich’)

Throughput increases – improving process capabilities through automation.

4. & 5. Sustainability policy/policies or initiative/initiatives in place? If ‘yes”, what is it/are they?

Themes Most have policies in place but vary from business to business

Other

ISO 14000 and/or sustainability targets/goals

Triple bottom-line accounting and reporting

Energy savings and GHG emissions reduction goals

Continuous improvement policy

6. Primary reason(s) for these policies/initiatives

Corporate responsibility – “Right thing to do”.

Good business

Consistent with the corporate mandate

Continuous improvement

Owner/president is “...committed to running a sustainable company, reducing our footprint”.

7. If no, why not?

Themes Sustainability programs in place, just not a formal policy

“Not necessary, considered anyway.”

Other Decisions based on ROI

10. & 11. Energy savings/conservation a consideration for your company? If “yes”, why?

Themes Majority of companies interviewed focus resources on energy conservation

ROI - energy savings generate cost savings quickly

Good business practice – “[energy retrofits/investments] just make good business sense”.

Other

Costs are in line with other products/required investment – “...clients expect some energy upgrades in their homes, some make sense as they are cost competitive to install, others are too costly at this point”; ”...appliances, some lighting, building envelop [R-value] that are required or the cost is justifiable”.


QUESTIONS

RESPONSES

10. & 11. Energy savings/conservation a consideration for your company? If “yes”, why?

Themes Majority of companies interviewed focus resources on energy conservation

ROI - energy savings generate cost savings quickly

Good business practice – “[energy retrofits/investments] just make good business sense”.

Other

Costs are in line with other products/required investment – “...clients expect some energy upgrades in their homes, some make sense as they are cost competitive to install, others are too costly at this point”; ”...appliances, some lighting, building envelop [R-value] that are required or the cost is justifiable”.

12. If “no” to energy conservation a consideration, why not?

Themes Not applicable – all indicated energy conservation a consideration

13. Water savings a consideration?

Themes

Not in comparison with energy

Limited degree – “if [the investment] makes sense”; “...some things [toilets, fixtures, etc.] are no brainers”

ROI – has to have an acceptable payback [2 to 3 years]

14. & 15. Stormwater management a consideration? If “yes” why?

Other Compliance – “...only if a required”; “...have no choice, expanding and the City is forcing me to make an investment that in SWM...had I known what would be involved [cost-wise] I never would have [undertaken the expansion]”.

Management commitment – “President is committed and undertook the SWM system development before the stormwater utility.”

16. If “no” to stormwater being a consideration, why not?

Other Not a consideration – “...not on the radar”, “...doesn’t really come up”, “energy and reducing our

energy demands is our main focus”

Not an issue – no problem with flooding

17. If “yes” to question 14, what has been undertaken?

Other An integrated SWM pond receives partial run-off from roof and parking lot. Landscape planted with

natives - got help from a professor at U of W with plantings. Students help with plantings and maintaining as part of their course.


QUESTIONS

RESPONSES

18. What, if any, future plans do you have for implementing SWM on property?

Themes None

Other Compliance: “I have to build a SWM system at a cost of $75K...would not have gone ahead with the

expansion if I had known about the cost of the [SWM system] and the fees I have to pay”

19. To what degree, if any, did the City of Kitchener’s stormwater utility fee/rebate influence the decision (or future plant) to implement SWM on-site?

Themes No influence

20. to 27. (inclusive) Summary of Ratings and Reasons for Ratings Given (Rate importance on a scale of 1 to 10)

Operational expenses

Mean – 9, Mode – 10

Keeping costs down

Staying competitive

Efficiency – maximizing efficiency of operations

Liabilities

Mean – 5, Mode – 5 Product Risk:

Manage risk – “we consider risk and manage for it”

Risk oriented Can’t develop new products, stay competitive unless risk-oriented

Smaller operations often just trying to stay ahead and don’t put the staff resources and business emphasis on generating ‘new’ service business.

Health and Safety:

Policies and processes – extensive systems in place to ensure health and safety Operations/Facility:

Manage risk – wherever potential for a “slip and fall” or injury to our customers, we address it upfront.

Risk assessment – “BOMA has a program to assess risk that we participate in”

Environmental Performance Mean 8, Mode 8

Business practice – “[environmental performance] expected and it’s part of being in business today”

Right thing to do.

Flooding Mean 3, Mode 4

Not an issue


QUESTIONS

RESPONSES

28. What does your company pay for your stormwater utility fee?

Theme Don’t know precisely

Other

Variable amounts identified by respondents who knew – hundreds of dollars to thousands of dollars annually.

Commercial facilities pay with large and necessary parking and roof areas are paying “tens of thousands”

29. What would encourage undertaking (additional) SWM measures?

Themes ROI – “...only if it [SWM] makes financial sense”.

Financial incentive – ...[an incentive/financing] that brings the payback down below 3 years

Other Not cost effective - ...rain water harvesting might be something we’d have considered for a new

building if there were financial incentives in place, but for an existing building it’s cost prohibitive”

City of Kitchener SWMP – Market Research APPENDIX 2 Interview Summary: Service Provider Key Informants

QUESTIONS

RESPONSES

1. Do you service residential, commercial-industrial or both?

Themes Most service providers interviewed service both residential and commercial-industrial clients

Other A few exclusively service residential or commercial clients.

2. Typically, how do projects come to you?

Themes

Referrals – “...word of mouth”.

Other

Request for quote – “[for new commercial clients] it’s usually a bid process...lowest bid wins”.

Sub-contracted – hired by the Architect/builder, Landscape Architect or property management company

3. What is the deciding factor on the project: design, cost, green building/site plan considerations

Themes

Landscape design, install and maintenance:

Residential – design and cost

Commercial – cost; “...unless owner has specific ideas about design”. Roofing:

Industrial/Commercial (new or major renovation – Cost and site plan approval Industrial/Commercial (maintenance) – Cost and maintenance is done only as necessary.

Porous Paving:

Preference – Clients that request porous paving do so because they know the advantages and specifically request the product.

Other


Design and function – “...for some clients it’s about aesthetics and features like a pool or spa...price is not an issue.”

Roofing:

Residential is cost and volume driven.


QUESTIONS

RESPONSES

4. Is stormwater management ever a consideration? Never, rarely, often? Why?

Themes


Design – Always consider; Slope, drainage, soils, structures and impact of slope/drainage always considered; “don’t want to create a drainage or flooding issue”

Roofing:

Industrial/Commercial (new or major renovation) – Regulatory compliance/approval; do what is required to secure site plan approval

Porous paving:

Always considered – reason for use

Landscape install and maintenance:

Customer needs – depends on need of customer, SWM usually not something clients know about unless there is a problem.

5. What do you consider the primary barriers to more progressive on-site stormwater management/rain water harvesting?

Themes Cost

Regulations – no requirement

Other

Lack of knowledge

Increased maintenance requirements or perception of increased maintenance

Training/certification requirements for contractors/installers

Abundant, cheap water

Lack of provincial guidance

Perceived risks – “Health departments have no understanding and perceive risks that don’t exist”; “[perceived risks] create road blocks that are unnecessary”


QUESTIONS

RESPONSES

6. What could be done to address or overcome these barriers

Themes

Incentives / subsidies – requirements to be eligible for incentive/subsidy

Regulations

Better institutional knowledge

Other

Provincial guidance – “province has to get its act together and provide clear guidance”; “until province gives [rain water harvesting] the green light with stipulations on design requirements, nothing will happen on a large scale”

Municipal/provincial support of professional associations for contractor/installer training

Promotion of certified contractors/installers / must use certified contractors/installers to qualify for incentive/subsidy

Education of municipal and provincial staff involved in creating road blocks

Progressive policy – province/municipalities need to “...catch up with the times” / “way behind others [jurisdictions]

7. What could a municipality do to drive uptake of on-site stormwater management?

Theme

Financial incentives – “if [installers] could offer $2000 off the price, then [porous paving] would be competitive with asphalt [for typical residential driveway]”; “[an incentive] could make the difference between doing something [SWM measure] and not”; “without an incentive, something to make stormwater [management] more affordable, [customers] on the whole won’t [install SWM measures]”

Regulatory requirement

Expedited approvals – clients [builders/developers] would be very motivated by fast tracking [approval]

Other Education

8. Other comments?

Other Market demand – “it [SWM] is a simple supply and demand equation”; “some [US states and

municipalities] have done a lot to incent and encourage use and the market is growing...we [Province and Canadian municipalities] are far behind.”

APPENDIX 3

RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER PRIMARY RESEARCH:

Single-Family Homeowner Research Questionnaire (Facilitator’s

Copy)

City of Kitchener APPENDIX 3 Facilitator’s Copy – Single-Family Homeowner Research Questionnaire

Facilitator: (read each statement aloud) Thank you for coming to our research session tonight.

All answers made during this workshop are confidential; please do not put your name on the form.

Every answer is correct. Your honest feelings, perceptions, needs and opinions are important to us.

Keep your answers as short as possible, just a few words or a short phrase on the line provided.

Please write or print legibly. We have to be able to read your answers.

If no answer comes to mind, place a line in the space provided. This is also a correct answer.

Please keep your answers to yourself. Do not speak them out loud.

Please shut off your phone if you have one.

At the end of the session, we will provide your $100 cash payment.

DEMOGRAPHICS 1. In which city do you live? Kitchener [ ] Other ________________________ 2. In which community or neighbourhood do you live? _____________________________ 3. Are you. . . Female [ ] Male [ ] 4. Do you live in a single-family detached home that you own?

Yes [ ] No [ ] 5. What is the age of your home?

Under 5 years [ ] 16 to 30 years [ ] 5 to 15 years [ ] 31 or more years [ ]

6. What is your age? 25 to 34 [ ] 35 to 54 [ ] 55+ [ ]

7. What was the last year of education you completed? High School Graduate (or less) [ ] College or Trade Certificate [ ] University Degree or Certificate [ ]

8. What is your marital status? Married/cohabitation [ ] Single [ ] Divorced/Separated/Widowed [ ]

9. How many children live in your home? ________ 10. Which of the following best represents your total household income per annum?

Under $30,000 [ ] $30,000 to $79,999 [ ] $80,000 to $149,999 [ ] $150,000 or more [ ]

11. In which country were you born? ________________________________


12. What language is most often spoken in your home? ________________________________ 13. What does the City of Kitchener mean to you? 14. List two things you like about living in Kitchener. (1)

(2) 15. List two things you dislike about living in Kitchener. (1)

(2) 16. What does your community mean to you? 17. What does your neighbourhood mean to you?

18. On a scale from 1 to 10, rate how important your neighbourhood is to you.

_____ (where 1 is low and 10 is high)

19. Why did you give this rating? 20. What does your home mean to you?

21. On a scale from 1 to 10, rate the importance of your home. _____ (where 1 is low and 10 is high)

22. Why did you give this rating? 23. What does your home’s landscape mean to you?

24. On a scale from 1 to 10, rate the importance of your home’s landscape. _____ (where 1 is low and 10 is high) 25. Why did you give this rating?

In the table below, please write the two most important aspects or features of your home’s landscape in the first column, and the corresponding reasons why in the second column.

26. Most important aspects of

your home’s landscape 27. Why?

1. 1.

2. 2.


28. On a scale from 1 to 10, rate the importance of the design of your home’s landscape.

_____ (where 1 is low and 10 is high)

29. Why did you give this rating? 30. Who designed your home’s landscape? 31. On a scale from 1 to 10, rate the importance of maintaining your home’s landscape.

_____ (where 1 is low and 10 is high) 32. Why did you give this rating?

In the table below, please write the two most important tasks to maintain your home’s landscape in the first column, and the corresponding reasons why in the second column.

33. Most important tasks to

maintain your home’s landscape

34. Why?

1. 1.

2. 2.

35. Who maintains your home’s landscape? 36. From where or whom would you seek advice about landscape or garden design? 37. Do you have gardens?

Yes [ ] No [ ]

38. If “Yes”, briefly explain why you have gardens? 39. If “No”, briefly explain why you do not have gardens?

40. About how much of your property is comprised of lawn? (Please check one).

¼ or less of the property [ ]

About ½ of the property [ ]

About ¾ of the property [ ]

41. On a scale of 1 to 10, rate the importance of your lawn for your home’s landscape. ______(where 1 is low and 10 is high)

42. Why did you give this rating?


43. On a scale from 1 to 10, rate the importance of trees for your home’s landscape. ______(where 1 is low and 10 is high)


45. Where do you purchase flowers, trees and shrubs?

46. Please identify up to three home or landscape improvement projects costing under $5,000 you have completed in the past 5 years. (This could be a home or landscape project from hundreds of dollars up to $5,000.) (1)

(2)

(3)

47. For the home or landscape improvement project or projects under $5,000 you identified above, please

check the most appropriate box from the following statements:

Hired a contractor to complete the project I or a family member did the project (do-it-yourself or DIY)) A combination of contractor and do-it-yourself or DIY)

48. Please identify up to three home or landscape improvement projects costing over $5,000 you have

completed in the past five years.

(1)

(2)

(3)

49. For the home or landscape improvement project or projects over $5,000 you identified above, please

check the most appropriate box from the following statements:

Hired a contractor to complete the project I or a family member did the project (do-it-yourself or DIY) A combination of contractor and do-it-yourself or DIY)


IDEAL LANDSCAPE Please use all the crayon colours you consider to be appropriate. 50. Describe the picture you drew. In the table below, please write the two most important elements or aspects of your home’s ideal front yard landscape in the first column, and the corresponding reasons why in the second column.

51. Most important

aspects of your home’s ideal front yard landscape?

52. Why?

1. 1.

Take a few moments to think about the various landscapes (lawns, gardens, walkways and driveways) you have seen, including your own. Please draw a picture of your ideal front yard landscape for your home.


2. 2.

53. Use up to three words to describe the feelings and emotions evoked by your drawing.

54. What constraints or reasons might prevent you from achieving your ideal landscape? 55. What does a “Naturescape” residential landscape mean to you?


Please use all the crayon colours you consider to be appropriate. 56. Describe the picture you drew. In the table below, please write the two most important elements or aspects of your home’s ideal front yard naturescape in the first column, and the corresponding reasons why in the second column.

57. Most important aspects

of your home’s ideal front yard naturescape?

58. Why?

1. 1.

2. 2.

Please draw a picture of an ideal “Naturescape” front yard for your home.


59. Use up to three words to describe the feelings and emotions evoked by your drawing.

60. What constraints or reasons might prevent you from having an ideal front yard naturescape? OPPORTUNITIES/CONSTRAINTS Facilitator: Please turn over the top sheet of the handouts. Turn over only the top sheet. It should read “HANDOUT 1” in the upper left corner. Please raise your hand if you don’t have handout 1. Please take a moment to look at the numbered pictures 1, 2, 3 and 4. On a scale of 1 to 10, rate the appeal of each of the front yard landscapes in the four pictures. 61. Picture 1__________ 62. Picture 2 __________

63. Picture 3 __________

64. Picture 4 __________

65. For the picture of the front yard landscape you gave the highest rating, briefly explain why? 66. For the picture of the front yard landscape you gave the lowest rating, briefly explain why? Facilitator: Please turn over the next sheet – the top sheet only – of the handout. It should read “HANDOUT 2” in the upper left corner. Please raise your hand if you do not have handout 2. Please take a look at the gardens in the four pictures – focus solely on the gardens. On a scale of 1 to 10, rate the appeal of the gardens in the four pictures (where 1 is low and 10 is high). 67. Picture 1 ______

68. Picture 2 ______

69. Picture 3 ______

70. Picture 4 ______

71. For the picture of the garden you gave the highest rating, briefly explain why?

72. For the picture of the garden you gave the lowest rating, briefly explain why? 73. Where do the downspouts from your home’s eves troughs go to? Into the ground [ ] Onto my property [ ] Other (please specify)_________________


Facilitator: Please turn over the next sheet – the top sheet only – of the handout. It should read “HANDOUT 3” in the upper left corner. Please raise your hand if you do not have handout 3. Facilitator: Please take a moment to look at the four photos. These pictures are of different options for downspouts for your home. On a scale of 1 to 10, please rate the appeal of the options shown for downspouts and drainage (where 1 is low and 10 is high). 74. Picture 1 _____

75. Picture 2 _____

76. Picture 3 _____

77. Picture 4 _____

78. For the drainage option or options you gave the highest rating, briefly explain why? 79. For the drainage option or options you gave the lowest rating, briefly explain why? UNDERSTANDING 80. What is a watershed? 81. What is the City of Kitchener “Stormwater Utility”? 82. What is REEP Green Solutions? 83. What is a RAIN home visit? 84. What is a rain garden?

EVALUATION

85. On a scale from 1 to 10, rate your level of satisfaction with this session? _____ (where 1 is low and 10 is high)


APPENDIX 4

RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER PRIMARY RESEARCH:

Single-Family Homeowner Verbatim Responses

City of Kitchener APPENDIX 4 Verbatim Report

Table of Contents Demographics ......................................................................................................... 87 City of Kitchener...................................................................................................... 89 Home and Landscape ............................................................................................. 95

Landscape Design................................................................................................................. 100 Landscape Maintenance ...................................................................................................... 101 Gardens ................................................................................................................................ 105 Lawns ................................................................................................................................... 107 Trees..................................................................................................................................... 108 Home or Landscape Improvements ...................................................................... 109 Ideal Front Yard Landscape .................................................................................. 113 Naturescape ......................................................................................................... 117 Ratings of Front Yard Landscapes ........................................................................ 122 Ratings of Gardens ............................................................................................... 124 Ratings of Downspouts and Drainage ................................................................... 127 Understanding....................................................................................................... 128 Session Evaluation ............................................................................................... 131

Demographics 1. In which city do you live? Kitchener 100.0% (32/32) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 100.0% (32/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ 2. In which community or neighbourhood do you live? Kitchener - Various 71.9% (23/32) Kitchener. Laurentian Forest. Country Hills. Forest Hill. Victoria Hills. N2G. East Ward. East End at Rockway. Denlow St.. Centreville. Heritage Park. Downtown. Mill/Courtland. Forest Heights. River Ridge, Kiwanis. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Alpine Village 6.3% (2/32) Alpine Village. Alpine Village. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Highland 6.3% (2/32) Highland and Stirling. Highland West. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Huron 6.3% (2/32) Huron. Huron Heights. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Stanley Park 9.4% (3/32) Stanley Park, Rosemount. Stanley Park. Stanley Park. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 100.0% (32/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ 3. Are you... Female 43.8% (14/32) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Male 56.3% (18/32) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 100.0% (32/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ 4. Do you live in a single-family detached home that you own? Yes 100.0% (32/32) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 100.0% (32/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ 5. What is the age of your home? 16 to 30 yrs 15.6% (5/32) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 31 or more years 50.0% (16/32) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 5 to 15 yrs 25.0% (8/32) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── under 5 years 9.4% (3/32) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 100.0% (32/32)

6. What is your age? 25-34 yrs 18.8% (6/32) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 35-54 years 43.8% (14/32) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 55+ years 37.5% (12/32) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 100.0% (32/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ 7. What was the last year of education you completed? College or trade certificate 31.3% (10/32) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── High school graduate or less 18.8% (6/32) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── University degree or certificate 50.0% (16/32) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 100.0% (32/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ 8. What is your marital status? divorced/widowed/separated 9.4% (3/32) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── married/cohabitation 81.3% (26/32) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── single 9.4% (3/32) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 100.0% (32/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ 9. How many children live in your home? 0 50.0% (16/32) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 1 12.5% (4/32) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 2 31.3% (10/32) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 3 6.3% (2/32) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 100.0% (32/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ 10. Which of the following best represents your total household income per annum? $150,000 or more 9.4% (3/32) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── $30,000 to $79,999 40.6% (13/32) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── $80,000 to $149,999 46.9% (15/32) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── under $30,000 3.1% (1/32) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 100.0% (32/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

11. In which country were you born? Canada 71.9% (23/32) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Other 28.1% (9/32) Romania. England. Trinidad and Tobago. Republic of Macedonia. Sri Lanka. China. Ukraine. India. China. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 100.0% (32/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ 12. What language is most often spoken in your home? English 84.4% (27/32) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Other 15.6% (5/32) Macedonian. Chinese. Russian. Hindi. Chinese. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 100.0% (32/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

City of Kitchener 13. What does the City of Kitchener mean to you? German heritage 6.3% (2/32) German heritage. Oktoberfest,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Home 40.6% (13/32) Home. home. home,. it is home. home,. home. home,. home,. home,. its a home. home,. lived here longest. my hometown. home. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── ambivalent 15.6% (5/32) where I went to school,. sprawling with localized gems ie Victoria Park. nothing, it's a place. law enforcement,. body to govern the city. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── born & raised 6.3% (2/32) born and raised,. where I was born. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── family 12.5% (4/32) good neighbourhood environment for family. raise a family,. family. great place to raise a family,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── friendly 12.5% (4/32) friendly,. friendly. friendly,. friendly. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── housing 6.3% (2/32) building houses. housing. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── modern city 6.3% (2/32) a modern upbeat world class city. a big nice city. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── neighbourhood 6.3% (2/32) good neighbourhood environment for family. neighbourhood. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── positives 25.0% (8/32) clean. good,. community based. great place to live. Rangers, Braves. resources,. unique. freedom to express ourselves via arts etc. progressive. work 21.9% (7/32) work. livelihood. work. my wife works here. work. good jobs,. hub of software companies.

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 159.4% (51/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ 14. List two things you like about living in Kitchener. 1) First Responses: 3.1% (1/32) low cost of living compared with Waterloo. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── community 9.4% (3/32) smaller community. sense of community. community spirit. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── easy to get around 9.4% (3/32) accessible to things. ease of moving around city. easy to get around. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── environment 6.3% (2/32) clean. Grand River. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── family 9.4% (3/32) family. family. great place to live with family. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── friendly 9.4% (3/32) people,. friendly. friendly. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── fun, lots to do 12.5% (4/32) lots to do. great cultural events. fun. market. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── neighbourhood 6.3% (2/32) neighbours. nice neighbourhood. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── proximity to Toronto 6.3% (2/32) location to other major cities. proximity to Toronto. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── public services 12.5% (4/32) education access. lots of parks. services (buses etc). public resources (rinks, community centres). ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── smaller size 15.6% (5/32) the size. not too crowded. country atmosphere. quiet. laid back. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── work opportunity 9.4% (3/32) work opportunity. business. lots of places to work. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 109.4% (35/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ 14. List two things you like about living in Kitchener. 2) Second Responses 3.1% (1/32) getting too big. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Octoberfest 6.3% (2/32) Octoberfest. Octoberfest. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── community 9.4% (3/32) sense of community. able to have campfires in back yard. my kids all live here. multi-cultural 6.3% (2/32) multicultural society. multi cultured. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── no answer 12.5% (4/32) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── parks 9.4% (3/32)

parks. parks. landscape. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── positives 18.8% (6/32) like living in core. Good infrastructure. every convenience. variety of things to do. 2 big universities. high level of living. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── proximity 18.8% (6/32) proximity to smaller communities. close to large centres. proximity to other cities. good location. everything is so close. easy to get around. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── safe 9.4% (3/32) safe. safety. safe. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── size 6.3% (2/32) not too big. size of community. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 100.0% (32/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ 15. List two things you dislike about living in Kitchener. 1) First Responses: 25.0% (8/32) some bi-laws. snow. a lot, participate. the new LRT. property prices. I like it all. . crime rate. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── downtown 9.4% (3/32) downtown. downtown. downtown core full of drug dealers. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── getting crowded 9.4% (3/32) getting crowded. population. too crowded. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── no transit to Toronto 6.3% (2/32) no quick way of getting to Toronto. lack of transport to Toronto. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── school access 6.3% (2/32) school bus, not having it. school zoning, far from our house. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── somewhat grungy 6.3% (2/32) somewhat grungy. there are quite a few dumpy areas. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── taxes 12.5% (4/32) taxes. taxes. taxes. high taxes. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── traffic 25.0% (8/32) traffic planning is poor. traffic. congestion. traffic. driving, I don't enjoy driving. traffic. traffic. parking. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 100.0% (32/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

15. List two things you dislike about living in Kitchener. 2) Second Responses: 12.5% (4/32) cleaning snow. children with no respect. a lot, good neighbours. proximity to water/mountains. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── construction 6.3% (2/32) construction. expansion. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── dirty 6.3% (2/32) smell of the dump. dirty. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── downtown 9.4% (3/32) downtown (abandoned buildings). bums downtown. downtown could better,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── local government 18.8% (6/32) taxes. too many levels of government. Council. by-law. irresponsible spending by city. expensive taxes. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── low income areas 6.3% (2/32) low income areas. social welfare people. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── need better transit 6.3% (2/32) LRT. need better transit. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── no answer 21.9% (7/32) . . . . . . . ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── rough roads 6.3% (2/32) roads rough. poor roads. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── traffic 12.5% (4/32) road congestion, road abouts. commute. parking. traffic. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 106.3% (34/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ 16. What does your community mean to you? 3.1% (1/32) I don't kinow many neighbourr -strangers. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── comfort 6.3% (2/32) comfortable place to be. they are my comfort zone, familiarity. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── everything 6.3% (2/32) 10. everything,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── family 15.6% (5/32) closeness, family,. it means closeness. important, family atmosphere. kids. place to raise kids and make them understand about culture. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── friends, neighbours 28.1% (9/32) friends. sense of belonging. friends, neigbours. friends and support. neighbours,. friendly active neighbourhood. togetherness, social. good neighbours. good neighbours,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── home 9.4% (3/32) home. home. homely. involved, care 21.9% (7/32) friends and support. everyone is willing to help each other. pride to be a part of and care for. friendly active neighbourhood. a lot about my neighbours, social involvement. people helping people.

involvement is important. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── safe 25.0% (8/32) safe living. safety. safety. safety. safe. safety. safe environment. safe community is important. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── where I live 12.5% (4/32) a good place to live. where I live. good place to live. nice environment. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 128.1% (41/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ 17. What does your neighbourhood mean to you? 6.3% (2/32) high expansion. my investment, so care and concern for. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── community 25.0% (8/32) helping each other. a place of good neighbours. looking out for each other. sense of community. community. sense of belonging,. sense of belonging. social, my world. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── family 18.8% (6/32) family. important, feels like a family. home,. important, family atmosphere. friends and family. good place to raise a family,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── friendly 31.3% (10/32) friendly. friends. friendliness. friendly acquaintances. friendly neighbours. nice place where you can talk to the neighbours, share thoughts etc. friends and family. friendly people. friendly. friendly,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── good 9.4% (3/32) very good. good place. good schools. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── no answer 6.3% (2/32) . . ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── positives 15.6% (5/32) old pretty homes. pride,. respect,. stability. clean. school. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── quiet 6.3% (2/32) tranquility,. quiet living. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── safe 28.1% (9/32) sense of security. safety. safe. safe haven, away from danger. safety. it's secure. safe, secure, peaceful environment. safe,. safe,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 146.9% (47/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

18. On a scale from 1 to 10, rate how important your neighbourhood is to you. (where 1 is low and 10 is high).

Mean Mode Range

9.0 9 6 to 10

19. Why did you give this rating? 3.1% (1/32) because. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── cost of housing 9.4% (3/32) cost of housing,. high real estate value. dictates price of your home,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── good neighbours 28.1% (9/32) good people around us. I know a few neighbours on either side. I enjoy having neighbours. comfort among neighbours. I really like my neighbours. friendly. friends of my kids. important for people to help out others. friendly kind. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── love it, enjoy, content 37.5% (12/32) love the area, trees, lot sizes, amenities. love where I live, area, homes, location, etc. very satisfied with neighbourhood and it is my life. everyone loves it there,. I really like area where I live. nice area, quiet, not a lot of trouble. I feel content there. enjoy my life here. I am proud of our neighbourhood. I love my neighbourhood,. good quality of life. because we spend most of our time in the neighbourhood,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── negatives 6.3% (2/32) because I don't feel that connected to the neighbourhood. still room for improvement. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── raising a family 9.4% (3/32) because it is our home and raise our family, that is important. raising a family, want to be happy. good place to raise a family. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── safe 28.1% (9/32) because it is very important to have a safe neighbourhood. safe. safety reasons. want a clean safe place for kids to grow up. some neighbourhoods are undesirable and therefore I want a clean safe neighbourhood. safety for children, myself. importance of safety of everyone at home. safe,. safe feeling around. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── schools 12.5% (4/32) schools. school,. good schools,. good schools. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── small 6.3% (2/32) small. close to everything,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 140.6% (45/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Home and Landscape 20. What does your home mean to you? 6.3% (2/32) have to live there. is a status of who I am. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── comfort 12.5% (4/32) comfort. comfort. comfort. comfortable. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── everything 12.5% (4/32) a lot,. everything,. my world,. everything. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── family 31.3% (10/32) loving,. caring. family. immediate family. its where I raise my kids. tradition,. family. place for my children to grow. area of peace for my family. safe place to grow up my kids,. have a good family time. place to relax with family,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── haven 15.6% (5/32) a place for peacefulness. haven,. welcoming. quiet,. the place where I can relax. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── investment 18.8% (6/32) an income when I retire. investment,. investment. my investment and therefore what I work for to keep effective and operational. an asset. retirement. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── love it, nice 12.5% (4/32) pleasure. we love here very much. nice place to live. nice,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── positives 9.4% (3/32) privacy,. gardening. meeting place. clean. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── pride 9.4% (3/32) own space,. pride of ownership initially,. pride of belonging. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── safe 21.9% (7/32) safety,. safe. safety,. safe place to grow up my kids,. roof to safe and secure living place. safe place,. safe. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── security 18.8% (6/32) security. security. stability,. security,. security,. roof to safe and secure living place. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── shelter 3.1% (1/32) shelter. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── warm 12.5% (4/32) cozy place. warmth,. cosy,. warm place. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 184.4% (59/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

21. On a scale from 1 to 10, rate the importance of your home. (where 1 is low and 10 is high).

Mean Mode Range

9.8 10 8 to 10

22. Why did you give this rating? 6.3% (2/32) . school is close and good. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── everything 6.3% (2/32) my home is everything to me,. home is the place where we spend our time, money and everything. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── family 25.0% (8/32) where I raised family. it is a meeting spot for our family and friends, everyone is welcome. raised my kids here,. my children require adequate housing as does my spouse. important for children. everything starts from home and family. its important as a family. feeling safe for the kids,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── friends, neighbours 6.3% (2/32) neighbours,. it is a meeting spot for our family and friends, everyone is welcome. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── investment 25.0% (8/32) ownership. long term investment. independence. investment,. part of my home is rented, allows me to retire. I take good care of my home. help to have money in house as investment. I care about my property and want to take care of it. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── love my home 31.3% (10/32) I love my home. love my house,. its a good home,. good location. home is where the heart lives and loves. I enjoy being in it,. lived here most of my life. important to feel comfortable, safe, proud, happy there. very desirable, close to amenities, schools etc. after living in my house for 19 yrs, I still love it. because I love being in my home. it is where I live and therefore I want it to be an enjoyable surrounding for me. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── peaceful, relax 9.4% (3/32) my space,. its my home, my place to relax. peaceful. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── security 18.8% (6/32) love to have security. need a roof over our heads. security. have to live there, must be safe, clean etc. security. to protect the living within. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 128.1% (41/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

23. What does your home's landscape mean to you? 15.6% (5/32) love to look at others for ideas. tranquility. not much as I don't have too much to care for,. effort. it should be nice to have. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── beauty 50.0% (16/32) cleanless. beauty. beauty,. beauty. curb appeal, to look nice. important to have curb appeal. beauty. a lot of beauty. I want it to look good. keep the outside just as nice as inside. appearance to all. pleasing. lot, nice look. something nice to look at. beautiful. my landscape is very nice and there good view. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── enjoyment 15.6% (5/32) a lot. enjoyment. livable. good sized area for enjoying friends and family. joy of life, better environment. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── everything 6.3% (2/32) everything,. it means a lot. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── garden 9.4% (3/32) functional (gardening). flowers,. love to garden. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── grass 9.4% (3/32) means being useful (room to play),. backyard. front yard. grass,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── pride 18.8% (6/32) pride. pride. pride. pride,. pride. pride. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── reflection of person 12.5% (4/32) not as much as my neighbours. reflects my appreciation for what I have. reflection of someones personality. sets apart from others. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── trees 6.3% (2/32) has the outside country feel due to trees. trees. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 143.8% (46/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ 24. On a scale from 1 to 10, rate the importance of your home’s landscape. (where 1 is low and 10 is high).

Mean Mode Range

8.3 8 6 to 10

25. Why did you give this rating? 9.4% (3/32) lot sizes,. trees,. exercise. its important, but I prefer to spend more time for my house. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── appearance 34.4% (11/32) looks. it important to have it nice and clean. should look nice, value up. want to look nice but very busy, not huge priority. because I'm fussy about appearance. I dislike seeing homes that people don't care for and I want to lead by example to show a neat and tidy landscape. looks nice. appealing. I work hard to have a nice landscape. I want to keep it nice for my family and friends and have good curb appeal. live better, clean, green. enjoy 18.8% (6/32) extended living space and we spend lots of time outside eating, gardening, campfires etc. not much of a gardener, but love my backyard. expression. makes you feel good when looking at the landscape.

nice to have landscaping to enjoy summer and with family. live better, clean, green. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── environment 6.3% (2/32) environment, changing seasons. peaceful, environment needed. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── needs improvement 21.9% (7/32) needs some new lawn. seasons hide much of it, (lots of snow), dry summers, poor grass. I cannot always upkeep but do not want to dwell on this. I could still do more landscaping and haven't. my area is hard to keep a good lawn. sometimes not worried what people think. still room for improvement. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── pride 25.0% (8/32) pride. I've done a lot of work and wish to maintain this. sense of accomplishment. I like to show pride and care for my home, and landscape. take pride in making my home a home, comfort,. I take pride in landscape. I love Kitchener and Waterloo. I do most of it, I take pride in keeping it up. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── value (investment) 9.4% (3/32) lots of cost/lots of money spent. important for value. should look nice, value up. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 125.0% (40/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ 26. What is the most important aspect of your home's landscape? 1) First Response: 15.6% (5/32) wide driveway. corner lot/privacy. suns location and my lounger. fish pond. shape,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── clean & tidy 6.3% (2/32) clean, free of debris. clean and tidy. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── flowers 12.5% (4/32) flowers. flowers. flower garden. flowers, colour,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── garden 6.3% (2/32) the gardens. garden. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── grass 28.1% (9/32) green grass. lawn. front lawn. grass. grass. grass. grass. lawn. open space, backyard. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── porch, deck 6.3% (2/32) front porch. deck. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── size 9.4% (3/32) lot size. view. size. ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

trees 15.6% (5/32) trees. trees. old black walnut trees. trees and shrubs. face forest and south. walkway 6.3% (2/32) front walkway. front path. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 106.3% (34/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ 27. Why? 1) First Response: 21.9% (7/32) it nice to have. sense of tranquility and peace, a chance to forget everyday troubles. gardens,. biggest part of landscape. . deck. better, green,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── curb appeal 46.9% (15/32) curb appeal. eye catching. well manicured, looks nice. beauty,. colourful. pride in looking nice, neat, cared for. makes an impression and inviting appeal, can dress it up. looks beautiful. beauty. putting effort in quality grass. beauty. aesthetically pleasing. cut grass. appealing. visual effects. curb appeal,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── enjoy 25.0% (8/32) like the extra size comparable to new build. we have lots of room to enjoy our yard with flowers, plants, play room. love sitting reading and sunbathing. I love flowers on the home exterior. where we entertain and relax. enjoying space. spend most of time outdoors in summer. enjoy. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── shade 9.4% (3/32) coolness. shade,. lots of shade in summer. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── space 12.5% (4/32) extra parking. do not always want to stare at neighbours, privacy. space is needed. I don't have neighbours on my backyard. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 115.6% (37/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ 26. What is the most important aspect of your home's landscape? 2) Second Responses: 21.9% (7/32) shrubs,. space. garbage anywhere is not good for environment. surroundings. distance from neighbour. I have a park at the back. relax. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── beautiful 9.4% (3/32) beautiful. curb appeal. everyone sees it. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── flowers 6.3% (2/32) flowers. flowerbeds. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── garden 12.5% (4/32) room for a garden. garden. gardens at front. veggie garden. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── grass 15.6% (5/32) grass. large yard. raised lawn. grass. good grass, land. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── human built 12.5% (4/32) decor. driveway. shed. lights. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── no answer 6.3% (2/32)

size 6.3% (2/32) large lot. size. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── trees 18.8% (6/32) maturity of trees. evergreen tree. trees,. trees. trees. the trees. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 109.4% (35/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ 27. Why? 2) Second Responses: 3.1% (1/32) changing seasons,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── appearance 37.5% (12/32) appearance. manicured. looks pretty, jazz it up, stand out. looks nice. looks welcoming. first thing others see. they shade my home and look beautiful. aesthetically pleasing and functional. looks clean, pretty,. its got character. brings colour to landscape. very nice landscape. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── enjoy, happy 31.3% (10/32) fun for kids. planted when granddaughter was born. room to feel like I own a piece of something and can roam on it. we like nature. for entertainment. makes me happy!. makes you feel good. sit out there a lot. not too close to neighbour. relax, view. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── functional 15.6% (5/32) teaching kids to grow food. oxygen, shade. they shade my home and look beautiful. aesthetically pleasing and functional. accessible. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── no answer 25.0% (8/32) . . . . . . . . ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 112.5% (36/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Landscape Design 28. On a scale from 1 to 10, rate the importance of the design of your home’s landscape. (where 1 is low and 10 is high).

Mean Mode Range

7.8 9 3 to 10

29. Why did you give this rating? 18.8% (6/32) amount of trees,. bungalow, easy access. it's the design we created. it was built like that when we bought the house. . not too much grass to cut,. not too close to neighbours. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── basic, small 3.1% (1/32) yard very basic, not elaborate,. small size. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── curb appeal 31.3% (10/32) curb side appeal. good for neighbours to look at. the grass in this neighbourhood is very sandy. want to look nice, embarassing if not,. blend in and stand out a bit too. it gives the first impression of the house. as long as neat and tidy, I'm not concerned.

gives the yard a flow and feel. adds to the aesthetics. design isn't as important to me as it looking clean and put together. accents house. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── enjoy 9.4% (3/32) ability to be creative. liveable space. peaceful. I like my home, the place we live and enjoy. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── important 18.8% (6/32) it important the aspect of my home. important to have pleasing design. it says a lot about your home by the landscaping,. design is most important before it is constructed. it was one of the reasons why we bought this house. design is really important to utilize maximum area. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── money 12.5% (4/32) lots spent. spent money to improve the driveway, siding. put up value,. went with what we could afford. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── not finished, changing 15.6% (5/32) still doing more things. because the design can be altered for the most part. not finished with ultimate goals. it never works out like planned, and things change and grow. there are things that are changing. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 109.4% (35/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ 30. Who designed your home's landscape? 6.3% (2/32) my neighbour, female. no idea. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I did, me 37.5% (12/32) I did. I do. me. I did. myself. me. me. I did, a lot is natural. myself. myself. it is by myself. I did. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── builder 12.5% (4/32) builder. builder. builders. none, professional, ourself. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── me and spouse 25.0% (8/32) I did in conjunction with my wife. it was just there (part of it) when bought, back we did. our family,. my wife and I. my wife and I. myself and wife. my wife and I. none, professional, ourself. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── previous owner 25.0% (8/32) have no idea, hasn't changed. previous owner. it was just there (part of it) when bought, back we did. previous owner. prior residents. previous homeowner. the previous owner. previous owners,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── spouse 9.4% (3/32) husband. my husband. spouse. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 115.6% (37/32)

Landscape Maintenance 31. On a scale from 1 to 10, rate the importance of maintaining your home’s landscape. (where 1 is low and 10 is high).

Mean Mode Range

8.8 10 6 to 10


6.3% (2/32) keep animals and bugs away. to let neighbour know I appreciate and value her efforts. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── curb appeal 59.4% (19/32) I like my place to look good. it important to keep it clean. I like having a well maintained yard. homeowners have a responsibility to keep it. affects the entire street appearance and look of the entire lot. beauty,. looks,. so looks nice and we are proud, neighbours will talk. it makes house and neighbourhood appealing. want my area of city to look good,. we enjoy nature and beauty. an indicator of how much you care for your home/impression. keeping it looking its best all the time. curb appeal. if not properly maintained it will look ugly and faded. to keep it looking nice. cleanliness, decorative aspect. grass was good maintained, garden, plant, tree well. want curb appeal for resale,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── enjoy 6.3% (2/32) we enjoy nature and beauty. recreational activity. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── lots of work 12.5% (4/32) a big undertaking to remove all the grass. it gets out of control quickly. to keep on top of future problems. we do all the jobs by ourself. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── not that important 12.5% (4/32) neutral on the importance, haven't changed it. not a lot of energy to put into landscape. cannot always commit more time to this task. its important, but not critical. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── pride 18.8% (6/32) pride. so looks nice and we are proud, neighbours will talk. pride. take care of our things. I like to take care of my property. good for neighbourhood. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── value (money) 18.8% (6/32) adds value. value,. property values. adds value to the property. keep the value up,. want curb appeal for resale,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 134.4% (43/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

33. What is the most important tasks to maintain your home's landscape? 1) First Responses: 9.4% (3/32) snow shovelling. watering. cleaning. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── cut the grass 53.1% (17/32) cut the grass. mow lawn. mowing lawn. lawn mowing. lawn cutting. cut grass. cut grass. mow lawn. cutting grass. cutting grass. grass cutting. lawn care (cutting, fertilizing). cut grass. grass cutting. cut grass. cut the grass regularly. cut grass. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── lawn care 34.4% (11/32) lawn. watering grass. growth of grass/condition. grass. grass and weed control. lawn care (cutting, fertilizing). lawn. lawn maintenance. lawn. grass. lawn care. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── weeding 12.5% (4/32) garden weeding. weeding. weeding. grass and weed control. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 109.4% (35/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ 34. Why? 1) First Responses: 12.5% (4/32) coolness. maintenance. safety. good for environment. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── appearance 71.9% (23/32) to keep it up in good shape. to have it nice and clean. just looks neat. says a lot to have grass taken care of. beauty. looks,. weeds,. looks nice and adds appeal. grows and looks untidy. I have lots of it. keep it looking nice. yard looks unkept without cutting grass. appearance. keep the lawn looking lush. again, aesthetics. gardens clean, tidy from weeds. appearance. like lawn short and green. covered the most of the space. sod, 3000 sq foot. weeding flower bed. maintenance, curb appeal. to keep everything clean. my husband like to have perfect lawn. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── enjoy 6.3% (2/32) to enjoy short grass, bare feet. I enjoy it. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── health of grass 15.6% (5/32) drys out quickly. keeps dying off of late. like I mentioned, all the grass has to be removed and then refilled. health of grass. summer time is necessary because of drought. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── pride 3.1% (1/32) sense of pride and accomplishment,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 109.4% (35/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

33. What is the second most important task to maintain your home's landscape? 2) Second Responses: 3.1% (1/32) . ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── cut the grass 6.3% (2/32) cutting grass. grass cutting. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── flowers 15.6% (5/32) flowers. colourful flowers. plant flowers or add wreaths. flowers beds. flowerbeds. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── gardening 6.3% (2/32) gardening. gardening. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── mulch 6.3% (2/32) mulch. adding mulch. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── plants 12.5% (4/32) plants. planting annuals. plants. plants. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── shovel snow 9.4% (3/32) clean the snow. snow. shovel the snow. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── trees 15.6% (5/32) tree maintenance. trim trees. tree/hedge trimming. plant tree. take care of trees. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── upkeep 15.6% (5/32) upkeep. cleaning fish pond. keep neat trimmed,. time required. looks its best. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── weeding 25.0% (8/32) cutting back weeds. weeds. weeded. weed gardens. weeds,. weeds will take over. pull weeds. get rid of weeds. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 115.6% (37/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ 34. Why? 2) Second Responses: 9.4% (3/32) . I don't neccesarily have time. decoration purpose and vegetable. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── curb appeal 68.8% (22/32) large yard. beauty. overgrowth. shows that you care. gets very untidy. shows we care and take pride. makes it pretty and colourful and festive with seasons. these stand out in the yard. beautifies yard. appearance. keeps the yard colourful. precision, aesthetics. shows nicely. curb appeal. weeds kill flowers. new mulch and remove dead flowers. decoration purpose and vegetable. bad area for weeds. maintenance, curb appeal. I care more about plants and grass. good neighbour. clean,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── enjoy 6.3% (2/32) able to enjoy fish. I enjoy it. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── environment 6.3% (2/32) adds life. I planted 44 cedar trees. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── exercise 6.3% (2/32) keep busy. exercise. ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

safety 12.5% (4/32) to avoid injury. keep bugs away, damage, see burglars. safety. safe,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── value $ 3.1% (1/32) resale. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 112.5% (36/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ 35. Who maintains your home's landscape? I do, me 46.9% (15/32) I do. me. me. I do. self maintained. myself. me. I do. I do. myself. me. I do. by myself. I do. no one, I do it myself. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── family 6.3% (2/32) entire family, husband does grass. grasscutter, kids. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── me and spouse 46.9% (15/32) I do everything except lawn maintenance. shared, husband and self. my husband and I. my wife and myself. jointly. my husband and I jointly. husband-grass, myself-gardens. wife and I. I do and my wife. myself and my wife. me an my wife. myself and wife. me and my spouse. I do and my husband. ourself. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 100.0% (32/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ 36. From where or whom would you seek advice about landscape or garden design? 9.4% (3/32) TV. no one. . ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Internet 25.0% (8/32) internet. internet. internet,. internet,. Pinterest. the internet. web. internet,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Professional 21.9% (7/32) a professional,. landscaper. a landscaping business. professionals. landscaping contractor (reference only). Ace landscape. landscape architect. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── books, magazines 9.4% (3/32) books. magazines,. library books. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── family 25.0% (8/32) my brother in law. my Dad, he's a landscaper. family,. nephew. local garden centre -Kolb. stepmother (has business). my brother in law. parents. likely my dad. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── friends 31.3% (10/32) friends. neighbour,. friends. my neighbour who put my gardens in. neighbours,. knowledgeable friends. friend. friend or neighbour. friends. by my neighbour. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── nursery, garden centre 18.8% (6/32) local nurseries,. Ottawa St. garden centres. nursery. garden centre. nursery. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 140.6% (45/32)

Gardens 37. Do you have gardens? Yes 81.3% (26/32) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── No 18.8% (6/32)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 100.0% (32/32) 38. If yes, briefly explain why you have gardens? 3.1% (1/32) initially to cut down on the amount of grass in the yard. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── appearance 34.4% (11/32) looks and appearances. to have flowers for nice aspects. beauty,. beauty,. looks nice,. makes it look attractive,. curb appeal. pleasing to eye. flowers to beautify. appearance. landscape design,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── bees 6.3% (2/32) bees. bees. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── colour 9.4% (3/32) enjoy the colours. add colour,. colour,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── enjoy 50.0% (16/32) love gardening, perrenials and flowers all year. relaxation, work outside,. love growing our own tomatoes and enjoy having blooming flowers. love flowers. pride and sense of accomplishment. interest,. enjoy it, rewarding,. fun for kids. keep occupied. I love flowers and shrubs. I enjoy working in garden,. comforting to be in planting/culling. like flowers and shrubs. like environment, like trees. I like to have a small garden with flowers. nice place to be with kids during summer. small flower garden, veggie garden, enjoy plan them. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── flowers, veggies, fruits 18.8% (6/32) flowers,. get cut flowers and vegetables. vegetables, herbs, for use,. vegetables, fruits,. eating herbs. flowers. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── no answer 18.8% (6/32) . . . . . . ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 140.6% (45/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ 39. If no, briefly explain why you do not have gardens? 87.5% (28/32) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . no interest. . . . ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── no time 6.3% (2/32) not enough time and design. new in the house, didn't have time to do so. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── too much work 6.3% (2/32) too much maintenance, when not upkept it looks bad. too much work. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 100.0% (32/32) 40. About how much of your property is comprised of lawn? 1/4 or less of the property 25.0% (8/32) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── about 1/2 of the property 46.9% (15/32) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── about 3/4 of the property 28.1% (9/32) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 100.0% (32/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Lawns 41. On a scale from 1 to 10, rate the importance of your lawn for your home’s landscape. (where 1 is low and 10 is high).

Mean Mode Range

8.3 10 1 to 10

42. Why did you give this rating? appearance 87.5% (28/32) I like it to look good at all times. 3/4 of yard is lawn. like green grass, flowers, shrubs. good appearance and growth is important to us, and surrounding people. looks good. looks better when its tidy. like I had previously stated the grass in this neighbourhood is very sandy. very important to my husband, me too but more him (looks like golf course). often shady or dry, and it dries in heat of summer. lots of grass on a corner lot. this is the first thing people see. want it to look good, but not heavily invested. keeping it neat. makes the home look cared for. aesthetics. I like a manicured lawn. picks up the entire sight of the home, makes it look clean. it covers 3/4 of appearance. we like some lawn. the whole impression comes with lawn. nice lawn make house look better. adds beauty to the residence. get good landscape. makes appearance of well kept. because the lawn makes up the majority of the landscape. it is clean and nice looking. lawn is very important. its important to have good looking. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── enjoy 12.5% (4/32) comfortable to play in, have picnics etc. enjoyment. personal enjoyment. my husband enjoy doing it. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── not important 9.4% (3/32) it not that important. lawns are expensive and not much value on beauty. my lawn is full of weeds, obviously I don't care. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── value $ 3.1% (1/32) value,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 112.5% (36/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Trees 43. On a scale from 1 to 10, rate the importance of trees for your home’s landscape. (where 1 is low and 10 is high).

Mean Mode Range

8.3 10 1 to 10

44. Why did you give this rating? 6.3% (2/32) adds value to the land. I think its important but I don't have a lot of space. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── appearance 46.9% (15/32) looks. colour, texture. its Forest Hill, adds to the beauty of the area. love trees, ones on my property are very old. elegance, beauty. looks. beauty,. you only need a few to make it look good. aesthetics. beauty,. appearance. balance to the property. beauty. I like the appearance. beauty,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── enjoy 18.8% (6/32) privacy. enjoy. kids climb them!. history. its my personal preference. I love trees but don't want too many, don't want shade. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── environment 28.1% (9/32) birds,. sense of seasons and new growth etc. nature,. green space. birds,. trees are unique and represents the whole family. I planted 44 cedar trees, 4 cherry trees, and pear trees. back onto wooded area. green environment. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── not interested 9.4% (3/32) not interested in trees. not the most important,. don't like to rake, can be messy. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── oxygen 9.4% (3/32) oxygen,. we like trees, produce oxygen. trees are our saviour from pollution. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── shade 46.9% (15/32) south sun hits the backyard all day, need some shade. shade,. we love trees to provide shade. shade,. cool, shade,. shade. love shade provided. shade,. shade. shade,. shade,. they give shade. nice to provide shade. shade. shade,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 165.6% (53/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ 45. Where do you purchase flowers, trees and shrubs? 15.6% (5/32) anywhere,. all different. I have perennials, from neighbours. . Lowes. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Canadian Tire 15.6% (5/32) Canadian Tire,. Canadian Tire,. Canadian Tire,. Canadian Tire. Canadian Tire,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Costco 9.4% (3/32) Costco,. Costco. Costco,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Farmers' market 9.4% (3/32) market. farmers market,. market. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Garden centre 21.9% (7/32)

garden centre. Garden centre. Colour Paradise. garden centres. garden centres around KW -Grand Valley, Kolb. garden centres,. garden centres. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Greenhouse 6.3% (2/32) greenhouse,. greenhouse. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Grocery store 12.5% (4/32) grocery store,. grocery store,. grocery store. Superstore. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Home Depot 6.3% (2/32) Home Depot. Home Depot. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Nursery 34.4% (11/32) sales at nurseries. nursery. nursery,. plant nursery. Benjamin nursery. nurseries. local nurseries. nursery. nurseries. Johnson's nursery. nursery. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Rona 6.3% (2/32) Rona. Rona. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Sheridan 3.1% (1/32) Sheridan. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Walmart 6.3% (2/32) Walmart. Walmart,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Zehr's 6.3% (2/32) Zehrs. Zehrs,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 153.1% (49/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Home or Landscape Improvements 46. Please identify up to three home or landscape improvement projects costing under $5,000 you have completed in the past 5 years. 1) First Responses: 3.1% (1/32) . ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Landscape 25.0% (8/32) landscape. overgrown trees trimmed. build a new flowerbed along side of property. put in front and back gardens. landscaping project for front yard where planted flowers and trees. buying plants. planted 2 trees, 5 shrubs. lawn. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Landscape - built 15.6% (5/32) fence. retaining wall. replace garden shed. concrete walkway. driveway. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Other home improvements 21.9% (7/32) living room. stone fireplace. new windows in bedroooms on top floor. roof. new exterior door. kitchen. hardwood floors.

basement 12.5% (4/32) wood laminate floor with heat in basement. finished our basement. basement ceiling. basement fixed. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── bathroom 9.4% (3/32) bathroom. retiled bathrooms. paint bathroom. deck 12.5% (4/32) deck. front deck. patio. deck. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 100.0% (32/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ 46. Please identify up to three home or landscape improvement projects costing under $5,000 you have completed in the past 5 years. 2) Second Responses: Landscape 18.8% (6/32) front garden. sod laid. had lawn replanted after died in drought. flower bed borders. flowerbed border. trees. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Landscape-built 12.5% (4/32) fence. built a shed. walkway. cement pad on driveway. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Other home improvements 21.9% (7/32) basement. front door, addition. plumbing. attic insulation. replaced carpets. refloored rooms. kitchen area fixed. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── bathroom 12.5% (4/32) bathroom. second bath renovation. redoing and painting a bathroom. bathroom. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── no answer 15.6% (5/32) . . . . . ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── painting 18.8% (6/32) repainted main level. fresh pain on top floor, main floor and wallpaper removal. repainted deck. paint front and back porch and railings and doors. siding, paint. paint bedroom. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 100.0% (32/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ 46. Please identify up to three home or landscape improvement projects costing under $5,000 you have completed in the past 5 years. 3) Third Responses: Landscape 9.4% (3/32) plant shrub. old tree removed. lawn maintenance. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Landscape-built 15.6% (5/32) shed. covered porch in stamped concrete. shed. planters. stone path to the backyard. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Other home improvements 18.8% (6/32) window shades, california. tiling floors. put in a hardwood floor. kitchen. garage door. California blinds. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── bathroom 9.4% (3/32) new shower head and taps in main bathroom. replaced sinks in bathroom. new fixtures, faucets. no answer 25.0% (8/32) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── painting 12.5% (4/32) paint. interior painting. painting. painted 3 rooms.

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── roof 9.4% (3/32) roof. repairing leaks. replaced roof. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 100.0% (32/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ 47. For the home or landscape improvement project or projects under $5,000, please check the most appropriate box from the following statements. 3.1% (1/32) . ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I or family member (DIY) 31.3% (10/32) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── combination of DIY and contractor 46.9% (15/32) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── hired contractor to complete project 18.8% (6/32) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 100.0% (32/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ 48. Please identify up to three home or landscape improvement projects costing over $5,000 you have completed in the past 5 years. 1) First Responses: Landscape 3.1% (1/32) over $20,000 for sod, trees, stepway. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Landscape-built 3.1% (1/32) deck. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Other home improvements 25.0% (8/32) new fur.. renovated downstairs. new kitchen. AC and furnace. sunroom addition. 2nd bathroom. window shutters. laying hardwood. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── basement 9.4% (3/32) basement renovation. basement. finished basement. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── no answer 46.9% (15/32) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── roof 12.5% (4/32) roof replacement. new roof. roof. new roof. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 100.0% (32/32) 48. Please identify up to three home or landscape improvement projects costing over $5,000 you have completed in the past 5 years. 2) Second Responses: Landscape 3.1% (1/32) fish pond, sunhouse, vegetable garden, fenced yard. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── electrical 6.3% (2/32) removal of knob and tube wiring. rewired basement.

flooring 6.3% (2/32) new flooring. flooring. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── furnace, AC 9.4% (3/32) furnace, air conditioner. new furnace and a/c. furnace. kitchen 6.3% (2/32) full kitchen renovation. kitchen replacement. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── no answer 68.8% (22/32) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 100.0% (32/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ 48. Please identify up to three home or landscape improvement projects costing over $5,000 you have completed in the past 5 years. 3) Third Responses: 3.1% (1/32) cement driveway. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Home improvement 9.4% (3/32) recreation room re do. new bathroom. bathroom upgrade. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── no answer 87.5% (28/32) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 100.0% (32/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ 49. For the home or landscape improvement project or projects over $5,000, please check the most appropriate box from the following statements: I/family member did project (DIY) 3.1% (1/32) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── combination of DIY and contractor 9.4% (3/32) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── hired contractor for project 40.6% (13/32) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── no answer 46.9% (15/32) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 100.0% (32/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Ideal Front Yard Landscape 50. Describe the picture you drew 100.0% (32/32) home pool interlock walkway driveway. lots of flowers and green grass. mix of ornamental grasses and evergreen shrubs, flowers mixed in. some of is done, just waiting and waiting for my big rock. small hill area, front garden, stamped concrete drive, lots of trees. umbrella tree, daliahs, hostas, some fossil rocks, curved brick surround to border front garden, flowers and plants good for whole season.. deck in front of house, large evergreen in corner, shrubs around the outside and interior filled in with flowers. groups of trees and shrubs, flower beds in between. circular driveway, stone walkway to front door, shrubs and grass, flowerbeds at front of house. classy, modern, nice mix of trees, shrubs, flowers for colour. curved perennial garden under living room window, with ground cover, flowers that change throughout summer, few trees. my house, corner lot, double deck off second level, black mulch, flower and perennials, driveway on side of house. similar to current design only enhanced. quiet, idyllic, lush and green, colourful. overhead view of current home with modifications. simple, clean. my home, front walk, interlock driveway, arbour leading to rear of house. large deciduous tree, stamped concrete driveway and porch, short evergreens. front yard, front deck, left sidewalk, right driveway, garden at front of deck and grass. walkway lined with flowers, front garden, lush grass. ideal front yard in my opinion, deck, pond, pine tree, cedar trees, shrubs. trees, water feature, flowerbeds, grass. front yard with one tree, shrubs, mulch, lawn around. simple landscape flower border with a water fountain. front portion of the house. . grass on the left, mulch and shrubs, exposed concrete, asphalt driveway. front garden in front of house, two trees on front lawn, lots of green healthy grass. a lot of trees, nice grass, flowers and small water fountain. garden with landscape of flowers, trees and rocks. a nice paved driveway perfect lawn on right side and small garden. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 100.0% (32/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ 51. What is the most important element or aspect of your home's ideal front yard landscape? 1) First Responses: 3.1% (1/32) rock. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── colour 6.3% (2/32) colour. colour. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── concrete 9.4% (3/32) stamped concrete. concrete planters on front lawn and bushes. concrete (driveway, walkway). ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── design 9.4% (3/32) good all season. balance. low maintenance. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── flowers 9.4% (3/32) flowers. front flower garden. lots of flowers. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── landscape-built 6.3% (2/32) deck. circular driveway. lawn 21.9% (7/32) grass. lush grass. front yard. grass. lawn. healthy lawn. perfect lawn. trees 18.8% (6/32) trees. trees. trees. trees. trees. a lot of trees.

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── visual appeal 9.4% (3/32) visual appeal,. appeal. good view. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── walkway 9.4% (3/32) walkway. flagstone walkway. front path. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 103.1% (33/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ 52. Why? 1) First Responses: 25.0% (8/32) love to bring back childhood. lots of parking. very busy, no time. kids climbing. resale. open, grass good maintained. shrubs. green, no weeds. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── colour 6.3% (2/32) lots of colour, not so much grass. love lots of vibrant colour. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── curb appeal 37.5% (12/32) curb appeal. beautiful. visual appeal. like the look,. attractive. appealing to eye. makes it pretty and feels welcoming. beauty,. aesthetically pleasing. curb appeal. adds beauty. good curb appeal. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── design 15.6% (5/32) balance. durable. walkway and gardens. green colour combined with mulch, shrubs. I love flowers, they give freshness. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── low maintenance 9.4% (3/32) low maintenance. choose plants that flourish in spring summmer and fall. lots of colour, not so much grass. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── main part of landscape 6.3% (2/32) lots of it. main part of landscape. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── nature 9.4% (3/32) nature. nature. looks natural. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── privacy 6.3% (2/32) privacy. privacy. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── shade 9.4% (3/32) shade,. shade. nice shade. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 125.0% (40/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

51. What is the most important element or aspect of your home's ideal front yard landscape? 2) Second Responses: 15.6% (5/32) . colour. variety. gardens. simple. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── appearance 9.4% (3/32) visually appealing. clean and tidy. looks and stands out. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── built 15.6% (5/32) structures. walkways. front porch/deck. pond. nice driveway. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── easy to maintain 9.4% (3/32) easy to mow. easy to maintain. low maintenance. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── flowers 12.5% (4/32) flowers. flowerbeds. flower gardens. flowers. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── lawn 18.8% (6/32) lawn. green grass. appearance of grass, no weeds. grass. lawn, front yard. nice healthy grass. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── stones 6.3% (2/32) stones. armor stones. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── trees 18.8% (6/32) trees. shrubs. trees. good trees. healthy trees. bunch of trees. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 106.3% (34/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ 52. Why? 2) Second Responses: 12.5% (4/32) aspect. anchors garden. fence and deck are noticeable and serve a function. projects one's personality. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── colour 9.4% (3/32) vibrant. adds colour. to bring colour to the landscape. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── curb appeal 37.5% (12/32) curb appeal. good look. appealing to eye,. beauty. want to stand out from crowd and be classy. lush, nice looking. balance and contrast. aesthetically pleasing. inviting. looks rich and wealthy neighbourhood. nice looking and tidy place. good for neighbourhood. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── enjoy 9.4% (3/32) love variety of shapes, plants,. outside space to relax on deck. I like the sound of running water. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── flowers 9.4% (3/32) attracts bees and butterflies. flowers. fiance likes flowers. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── no answer 18.8% (6/32) . . no work. . . . ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── no work 3.1% (1/32) don't have a lot of extra time. trees 6.3% (2/32) 11 cedar trees,1 big maple tree, red tree and bush tree, privacy. good for environment, trees tell the maturity of a neighbourhood.

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 106.3% (34/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ 53. Use up to three words to describe the feeling and emotions evoked by your drawing? 31.3% (10/32) modern (with use of ornamental grasses),. familiar,. spacious,. love. easy and modern. cool. not planned,. surprised,. healthy,. realistic. I wish I had money to do it. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── beauty, appealing 28.1% (9/32) old world (flagstone). attractive,. appealing. out of ordinary, stands out. inviting. gracious. beauty,. good looking yard,. nice,. perfect looking lawn. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── colourful 6.3% (2/32) colourful,. colourful. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── comforting 9.4% (3/32) comfort,. comforting. warm,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── happy 21.9% (7/32) happy. satisfaction,. happiness. happy,. enjoyment. joy,. happy,. satisfaction. happy,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── inspiring 18.8% (6/32) vision,. enthusiasm. idyllic,. inspiration,. hope,. inspiration. excited. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── lots of work 6.3% (2/32) lots of work and time involved. lots of work!. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── negatives 21.9% (7/32) does not as good. stress. possibly unattainable. painful,. sad,. regret. frustration,. lack of ideas. needs improvement. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── no answer 6.3% (2/32) . . ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── peaceful 6.3% (2/32) peaceful. quiet,. peaceful. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── pleasing 9.4% (3/32) pleasing,. pleasure,. pleasing,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── pride, accomplishment 12.5% (4/32) pride,. accomplishment,. proud,. take care of one's property,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── simple 6.3% (2/32) simplicity,. simple. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── tidy 6.3% (2/32) organized,. tidy,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 190.6% (61/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

54. What constraints or reasons might prevent you from achieving your ideal landscape? 25.0% (8/32) possibly moving in near future. plants don't live or perform. winter. bylaws. experience,. never would put in a water fountain. because my neighbours have good landscape. flowers. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── energy 21.9% (7/32) health,. pain,. energy. energy. desire. lack of ideas,. maintenance. lots to do. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── lack of space 15.6% (5/32) lack of space. not enough property to be able to achieve this. space (walkway). size of front yard. not enough space. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── money 65.6% (21/32) money. money,. money. financial. costly,. money. money. money,. lack of money,. financial,. finances,. money,. funds. money. costs involved for sidewalk and driveway. money. money,. cost. money. money,. monthly expenses,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── time 37.5% (12/32) time. lack of time,. too many garden areas. time. time,. time for upkeep. time,. time constraints. time. time. time. time,. time. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 165.6% (53/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Naturescape 55. What does a "Naturescape" residential landscape mean to you? 3.1% (1/32) not sure. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── beauty 15.6% (5/32) beauty. lush garden look. bringing nature looks to my house. better than looking at buildings. make home beautify. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── important, a lot 12.5% (4/32) important. a lot. a lot,. important. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── low maintenance 9.4% (3/32) self sustaining, little maintenance. low or no maintenance,. minimal maintenance. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── natural area 46.9% (15/32) parkland. means a yard that is more natural using wood chips, grass etc rather than concrete. more wild flowers not so regimented. looking after environment and animals. animal, nature driven. tall grasses,. goldenrod,. native plants,. stones. nature escape on your property. lack of cultivated grass, more pleasing and healthier for environment. a country setting in a city. care about environment. all things natural. used by some guy whos a treehugger. natural area,. elements of nature, ie trees, rocks. green earth. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── negatives 6.3% (2/32) probably costly. a lot of work,. looks terrible and gets out of control easily,. starts out nice, goes wild. peaceful 15.6% (5/32) a place where you can spend time.

a place on your residential property that is landscaped in a way that resembles a botanical garden that can be an escape. peaceful,. relaxing. peace in the city, tranquil. escape concrete jungle. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── positives 12.5% (4/32) fulfill. good living environment. boosts happiness,. good for neighbourhood. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 121.9% (39/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ 56. Describe the picture you drew 100.0% (32/32) water falls and pool with trees. nice rocks and mulch. armor stone with river rock. large rocks. rocks mixed in with stone base, long grasses, small bushes, walk area (stone) to bench. rocks rather than bricks, more low lying shrubs and hostas that would grow freely. wishing well with bucket and waterfall into fish pond. deck with waterfall in front going into a fish pond and returning, surrounded by shrubs, flowers, and lights with walkway, table and chairs in front. pond, fountain, grasses, reeds, ducks, fish. big trees, lots of animals, pond. tranquil, naturey, work to maintain, messy. waterfall leading to a pond, grasses protecting fish and wildlife living there, sunflowers in open area, rock pathway. waterfalls, pond, gazebo, porch swing, lots of grass. eco friendly, important to me. peaceful, natural, wildlife. path through nature before entering home. simple, private. house, more trees, long grasses, water feature, tall flowers, arbour, more stuff, less lawn. gazebo, armor stone, waterfall, small shrubs, pond with wild tall grass, flagstone. front deck, open design, natural garden with centre water feature, green shrubs. fruit trees, butterfly bushes, landscape rocks, flowers. ideal nature look in my front yard. combination of flowers, trees, water, stone. front yard landscape with water fountain, and evergreen trees. I have no idea what a naturescape is (no picture). river, front spacious garden with trees. very good backyard which I did by DIY, 4 cherry trees, big maple trees, 33 cedar trees. 2 purple maple trees, big boulders, noma light, mulch bed. I don't know what a naturescape is but imagine it to be bringing nature to places like apartment buildings that are only building, no nature. I would prefer to have a nice lake in front of my house and a lot of trees around. lots of trees and flowers. tree, ivy arch, water fountain, birdhouse. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 100.0% (32/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ 57. What is the most important element or aspect of your home's ideal front yard naturescape? 1) First Responses: 25.0% (8/32) clean. walkway. whimsical. tranquility. appeal. flowers. . garden. grass. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── environmentally friendly 9.4% (3/32) places for animals. environmentally friendly. insect friendly plants. rocks 9.4% (3/32) large rock,. rocks,. rocks. stone 6.3% (2/32) armor stone. stone base. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── tress 18.8% (6/32) trees. trees. trees. maple trees. trees. trees. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── water 40.6% (13/32)

waterfall. fish pond. water. water feature. water. water. water. pond. water, natural feature. pond. noise of water flowing. nice lake. water fountain. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 109.4% (35/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ 58. Why? 1) First Responses: 15.6% (5/32) anchors. shelter,. taking pride. gives balance. space needed,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── appearance 25.0% (8/32) looks. love the appearance of rocks and that they are so different. attractive,. eye catching. looks nice,. beauty. aesthetics. very good maintained grass in summer. I like to see water from my windows. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── colour 9.4% (3/32) colour. greenery. flowers. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── food source 9.4% (3/32) food. fish,. fruit trees. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── important to me 6.3% (2/32) it important for me. important to me. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── low maintenance 6.3% (2/32) low maintenance. no maintenance, no worries as to grass appearance. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── nature 15.6% (5/32) attract animals, fish. nature. natural to yard. trees for shade, oxygen. good for nature. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── no answer 6.3% (2/32) . . ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── relax 15.6% (5/32) tranquil,. feels like an escape. tranquility,. like to introduce a peaceful natural water feature. relaxation, flow. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── shade 6.3% (2/32) shade,. trees for shade, oxygen. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── sound of water 12.5% (4/32) love sound of running water. sounds of moving water. I like running water. sound impact. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 128.1% (41/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

57. What is the most important element or aspect of your home's ideal front yard naturescape? 2) Second Responses: 3.1% (1/32) low maintenance. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── appearance 6.3% (2/32) pleasant to look at. colours match. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── flowers 12.5% (4/32) flowers. flowers. flowers. flowers. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── grass 6.3% (2/32) grass. grass. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── grasses 6.3% (2/32) grasses, reeds. grasses. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── no answer 15.6% (5/32) . . . . . ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── plants 12.5% (4/32) lots of greenery. pollinating, reproducing etc. something alive. plants,. gardens. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── rocks 9.4% (3/32) river rock. rocks. stone. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── structures 6.3% (2/32) bench. gazebo. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── trees 25.0% (8/32) trees. shrubs. trees. trees. cedar bushes. old big trees. a lot of trees. tree. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── water 6.3% (2/32) water. water feature. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 109.4% (35/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ 58. Why? 2) Second Responses: 21.9% (7/32) sitting area. vibrance. I like lots of brush. old living community, good tree and view. enjoy scenery. I like a nice green area. good for community and neighbourhood. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── beauty 18.8% (6/32) looks, curb appeal. beauty. look good all year round. pretty. nice lawns look great. beautiful. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── food 6.3% (2/32) healthy eating, homegrown. plants for gardens to grow food,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── low maintenance 9.4% (3/32) low maintenance. low maintenance,. have time for other activities. ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

nature 21.9% (7/32) green=life, and my favourite colour. attract butterflies, oxygen. nature. gives a natural feel. natural to yard. not connected to the city. attract birds. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── no answer 25.0% (8/32) . . . . . . . . ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── peaceful 9.4% (3/32) peacefulness,. a place to relax. visual impression for relaxation. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 112.5% (36/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ 59. Use up to three words to describe the feeling and emotions evoked by your drawing. 21.9% (7/32) farm,. memories. security. simple,. honest,. nothing,. under rated. hope,. good. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── appearance 15.6% (5/32) looks. pleasing to eye,. clean. inviting,. pleasing to the eye. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── calm 12.5% (4/32) calm,. calming. calm. flow,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── content 6.3% (2/32) contentment,. satisfaction,. content. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── free 6.3% (2/32) free. escape,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── happy 15.6% (5/32) happy. happy,. joy,. happiness,. happy,. joy,. cheer. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── natural 9.4% (3/32) natural. natural. natural. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── negatives 6.3% (2/32) way too much work. clueless. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── no answer 6.3% (2/32) . . ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── peace 34.4% (11/32) peacefulness,. peaceful,. peaceful,. peaceful,. peaceful,. peace. peace. peaceful,. peace. peaceful,. peace. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── possibilities 6.3% (2/32) nice idea,. possibilities,. new ideas. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── pride 12.5% (4/32) pride. pride. accomplishment,. pride. fulfilling. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── relax 12.5% (4/32) relaxing. relaxing. relaxation,. relaxation,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── space 6.3% (2/32) space,. spacious. ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

tranquil 12.5% (4/32) tranquil. contemplative,. tranquility,. tranquility,. whimsical 6.3% (2/32) childish,. whimsical,. cute. dreamy,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 190.6% (61/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ 60. What constraints or reasons might prevent you from having an ideal front yard naturescape? 25.0% (8/32) prefer daliahs. possibly moving in near future. kids would play in the water. practicality. lack of know how. I'd want it in the backyard that I could enjoy in solitude and privacy. soil issues. city bylaws. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── money 59.4% (19/32) money. money,. financial,. but would be costly. money. money,. money,. financial. money. money,. costs. cost. money,. cost. money. money,. money. money. financial. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── negatives 3.1% (1/32) gets out of hand easily,. seen a lot of disasters. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── neighbour 9.4% (3/32) neighbourhood. neighbourhood. neighbour. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── no answer 6.3% (2/32) still no idea what a naturescape is. . ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── work 18.8% (6/32) work,. physical. initial work involved. time to maintain. time. time,. maintenance,. time. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── yard size 15.6% (5/32) limited front yard size. yard not that big,. small yard. lack of land. yard size. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 137.5% (44/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Ratings of Front Yard Landscapes On a scale from 1 to 10, rate the appeal of each of the front yard landscapes in the four pictures. 61. Picture 1

Mean Mode Range

7.3 6,8,9 1 to 10

62. Picture 2

Mean Mode Range

8.4 10 5 to 10

63. Picture 3

Mean Mode Range

5.9 6 1 to 10

64. Picture 4

Mean Mode Range

6.4 5 2 to 10

65. For the picture of the front yard landscape you gave the highest rating, briefly explain why? appearance 12.5% (4/32) mulch is a focal point,. very pleasing to my eye. most lush,.

a lot of variety. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── balance 9.4% (3/32) appeals to me, balance, neat. nice balance, flowers/bushes/trees, lawn,. not too many trees,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── clean 50.0% (16/32) very well looked after. simplicity, clean cut lines,. no overgrowth. like the appearance of dirt, edged borders,. looks well maintained and organised. appeals to me, balance, neat. neat,. very neat and tidy, well maintained. edging on garden,. looks the most well kept. clean,. looked neat,. manicured. clean,. clean looking,. well taken care of, lush grass. tidy, clean,. looks excellent maintained. clean. clean,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── colour 21.9% (7/32) lots of colour,. colour. colourful. colourful,. colourful,. colour,. colourfulness. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── design 50.0% (16/32) I can see myself having that done on my own home. perrenial,. use of rocks. pics 1 and 2 have different scapes but both work well. lots of shrubs,. classy. up to date,. the choice of evergreens. shape,. elements. arrangement. picture is perfect because good view,. softens the area, flows. sophisticated. its not too crowded, but very well organized. like the concept of trees and stones. open, small garden with tree. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── easy to maintain 6.3% (2/32) practical. good and easy maintained,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── grass 12.5% (4/32) great grass. I like the wide open lawn. good lawn. grass,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── nature 15.6% (5/32) looks the most like a scene in nature. most eco friendly,. most natural appearance. natural. tree,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── simple 9.4% (3/32) simple,. simple to maintain. not too busy,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── walkway 6.3% (2/32) curved walkway. sidewalk,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 193.8% (62/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

66. For the picture of the front yard landscape you gave the lowest rating, briefly explain why? 3.1% (1/32) . ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── curb appeal 12.5% (4/32) did not like curb appeal. curb appeal. I don't like how close to the curb the garden is, not appealing to me. too much greenery. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── hides the house 9.4% (3/32) dislike the large shrubs esp. since it covers windows and natural light. hides the house. trees are too close to the house and will damage the foundation. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── messy 53.1% (17/32) not well maintain. too busy. cluttered. too busy. look messy, out of proportiong, ugly, not balanced. looks messy,. low mulch ratio, looks overgrown, does not look planned. looks like they quit halfway through. too busy. looks messy and unkept. too crowded, can't see house. looks messy, not executed well. looks abandoned. to many plants. busy,. overgrown. too crowded and a lot of different plants, messy. too much noisy and untidy. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── plain 28.1% (9/32) not enough variety of colour and size of plants. not enough colour. blah. not a lot of colour,. very plain. too sterile, trees too close to house. too much grass not enough variety. no variety. kind of boring, not used to the fullest potential. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── too much maintenance 6.3% (2/32) does not have easy mowing. too much maintenance. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 112.5% (36/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Ratings of Gardens On a scale from 1 to 10, rate the appeal of the gardens in the four pictures. 67. Picture 1

Mean Mode Range

6.0 6 1 to 10

68. Picture 2

Mean Mode Range

6.5 8 1 to 10

69. Picture 3

Mean Mode Range

6.3 7 1 to 10

70. Picture 4

Mean Mode Range

8.2 10 4 to 10

71. For the picture of the garden you gave the highest rating, briefly explain why? 3.1% (1/32) bunched together. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── appearance 15.6% (5/32) looks very nice. will look good for many seasons. stone look. looks nice,. very calming and zen like for 2. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── balance 9.4% (3/32) balance,. well balanced. well balanced,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── clean, neat and tidy 25.0% (8/32) nice and clean. neat and tidy. not cluttered,. uncluttered. I like the clean look to it not too overwhelming with vegetation. clean, well maintained. clean look,. very well organized, nice design. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── colours 21.9% (7/32) variety of colours,. awesome colour. bright colour,. riot of colour for 1 and 3,. lots of colour,. looks beautiful with different colours. very colourful. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── design 34.4% (11/32) simplicity of height,. shapes,. like that it edges the back yard. fence. classy,. minimal. interest. coordinated flowers,. visible mulch,. height appropriate plants. better proportioned. simple and nice. arrangement. I like clear and good scaped different level not mash. relaxing looking, has little bit everything I like. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── grass 9.4% (3/32) grasses,. more grass,. lawn. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── low maintenance 18.8% (6/32) easy to look after. least amount of maintenance,. low maintenance,. water consumption. minimal maintenance,. low maintenance,. little maintenance. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── mixture, variety 28.1% (9/32) variety. nice variety of flowers and colour. mixture of plants,. wide variety of plants. like the mixture of garden, grass and stone. a nice variety of colour. variety of flowers and shrubs. great mix of flowers and plants,. like the concept of stones, tulips, trees and a lot of flowers. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── nature 6.3% (2/32) looks natural. looks natural,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── shrubs 6.3% (2/32) numbers of shrub,. shrubs. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 178.1% (57/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

72. For the picture of the garden you gave the lowest rating, briefly explain why? 28.1% (9/32) only looks good for part of year. weak mulch covering. nothing wrong at all with it, just prefer others more. not peaceful. too close up picture, can't see background. stones don't match. . looks like condo landscaping. too much of the same plants,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── colour, dull 28.1% (9/32) too much of one colour. no colour. didn't like colours. no colour, very dull. not enough colour, dull. flowers similar in colour. no colour. colours out of season. lack of colour. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── messy 25.0% (8/32) to messy. too wild looking. messy,. bushy, looks messy. cluttered looking,. overgrown,. complete mess. very untidy. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── not enough plants 12.5% (4/32) not enough plants. a little boring but organised. Don't like the choice of plant, when the season is over (fall), it would look poor (too much maintenance). something is missing, empty space. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── too crowded 34.4% (11/32) too much going on. too much growth, busy. very full. looks too clumped together,. too busy,. too much going on. too busy. crowded, not arranged properly. too crammed. too crowded, hard to see even space between plants,. too many tall plants and crowded looking. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── too many flowers 6.3% (2/32) too flower heavy. too much flowers,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── too many rocks 6.3% (2/32) too many rocks. too many stones. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── too much maintenance 9.4% (3/32) too much watering,. too much maintenance. Don't like the choice of plant, when the season is over (fall), it would look poor (too much maintenance). ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 150.0% (48/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ 73. Where do the downspouts from your home's eaves troughs go to? Onto my property 84.4% (27/32) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Into the ground 9.4% (3/32) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Other 6.3% (2/32) rain barrel. into pail. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 100.0% (32/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Ratings of Downspouts and Drainage On a scale from 1 to 10, please rate the appeal of the options shown for downspouts and drainage. 74. Picture 1

Mean Mode Range

7.9 8 1 to 10

75. Picture 2

Mean Mode Range

7.5 8 4 to 10

76. Picture 3

Mean Mode Range

7.6 9 3 to 10

77. Picture 4

Mean Mode Range

5.1 5 1 to 10

78. For the drainage option or options you gave the highest rating, briefly explain why? 6.3% (2/32) water away from home,. picture 3, save water and drain to near house is not good for basement. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── design 12.5% (4/32) ideal, it what most people have. interesting and pleasing use of downspout. simple, effective, little problems. I like the first 3 ideas, nice design and usage of water. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── looks tidy 43.8% (14/32) included in landscaping. looks like part of garden. not obvious and either goes to storm or garden. like how it looks. looks neat, great curb appeal, clean look. looks tidy. most "clean" look, hides unsightly drainage. looks neat and out of sight. hidden, it disappears into a good looking garden. clean looking,. concealed better. well combined with surrounding. looks nice,. looks neat,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── natural looking 9.4% (3/32) natural looking. very nature like,. waterfall, natural appearance. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── reuse water 46.9% (15/32) water goes into ground. environment reuse. with rain barrel can use the water for all gardens. conserve. probably waters the garden. creative use of runoff water. re usage. best for environment, reuse rainwater. looks like a nice way to keep the pond filled. reuse water for pond. goes to the ground. recycle water, important for future. I like that water is being collected for a pond, reused for watering plants etc. best way to utilize natural water (reused). reuse. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 118.8% (38/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

79. For the drainage option or options you gave the lowest rating, briefly explain why. 25.0% (8/32) it hidden and can create problems. no desire for small pond since I have kids, waste of yard space. can create a rut in the lawn. strange hanging out there, looks funny. better options to use. . will wet grass everywhere. increase the flow. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── boring 12.5% (4/32) boring. boring. plain and ordinary. boring. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── cheap 15.6% (5/32) poor choice of material, "cheap" effect. looks cheap and easy. poor looking. too basic, seen it all through the years. looks cheap. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── obtrusive 12.5% (4/32) have to move every time you mow. possible problems, if work maintenance to be done. obtrusive. visibility. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── too close to house 12.5% (4/32) to close to house. too close to house, could collect or run back towards home. too close to foundation. water freezing underground can cause problems. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── tripping hazard 6.3% (2/32) tripping hazard. trip hazard. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── ugly 15.6% (5/32) ugly and no effort to beautify it. didn't like looks. looks ugly. sticks out like a sore thumb,. looks ugly. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── wasted water 12.5% (4/32) water not really being used to its full. waste,. water not used the best way it could be. water is getting wasted, not properly utilized. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 112.5% (36/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Understanding 80. What is a watershed? 9.4% (3/32) heard of it. using rainwater for other purpose, recycling water. pond, creek. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── control water 18.8% (6/32) controls water input and output and quality. an area where water runoff goes to keep water away from foundation. where water can pool not causing damage. control of water. ability to disperse water. your communities way of removing water from your neighbourhood. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── no answer 25.0% (8/32) . . unknown. . no clue. . . no idea. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── rain barrel 3.1% (1/32) rain barrel.

store water 18.8% (6/32) a place where we keep water. a collection system for water. a place to store and direct water. to collect rain water. water area for water when a lot of rain comes. store water. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── underground 6.3% (2/32) area of underground water. underground table. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── where water runs off 18.8% (6/32) natural drainage? (high points of land draining out of one area). excess water drainage. where the water runs off to?. all of the water systems that drain to a single final basin. where water drains to. an area that drains an area. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 100.0% (32/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ 81. What is the City of Kitchener "Stormwater Utility"? 15.6% (5/32) on every street. added on our water bill for cleaning. runoff from excess water. gas and water. a number that shows up on my bill. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Kitchener Utilities 12.5% (4/32) Kitchener utilities and Region of Waterloo. Kitchener Utilities, gas and water. City of Kitchener Water and gas. Kitchener utilities. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── collection of water 21.9% (7/32) holding ponds for runoff. collection of rainwater. collection of water runoff on roads etc.. it is in the Victory Park. collections of water used for utilities later. its a big reservoir of water, like a small lake. reuse the storm water. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── no answer 18.8% (6/32) not sure. . I don't know. . . not sure. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── stormwater drainage 34.4% (11/32) looks after stormwater drainage. sewer system. using water from sewers, we pay a fee. where water drains into sewers. the grates on the street. provides storm sewers. drainage. a charge to landowners for sewer grates that fill with water runoff. manages storm water. roadside holes. controls to manage water going back to river. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 103.1% (33/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

82. What is REEP Green Solutions? 3.1% (1/32) using plants etc to control quality. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── energy 9.4% (3/32) energy conservation and solutions for your home. Residential Energy..... Energy Audit of home ...?... ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── environmental 21.9% (7/32) green solution. reduce, environment. a grading system for eco-friendliness. recycling, environment. regional environment. reusing the natural water for garden. reuse, recycle, E..., plan. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── landscape company 6.3% (2/32) lawn care company. ? a landscaping company. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── no answer 53.1% (17/32) not sure. . no idea!. ?. no idea. no idea, musn't be well advertised. unknown. no idea. . . . no clue. . . . I don't know. I don't know, but I remember this name. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── regional 6.3% (2/32) regional. Regional Energy Efficient Program, helps conserve water and be smart. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 100.0% (32/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ 83. What is a RAIN home visit? 12.5% (4/32) look at property drainage. leaks checked for during storm. ?a water sprinkler company home consultation. regional. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── no answer 62.5% (20/32) not sure. . not idea!. ?. no idea. . don't know, something to do with water. no idea, musn't be well advertised. . ?. unknown. . no idea. ?. . no clue. . I don't know. I don't know. not sure. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── rain barrels 9.4% (3/32) home visit, ? number of rain barrels. collecting rainwater in barrel. someone to advise where to put rain barrel. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── reuse rainwater 15.6% (5/32) come and look at garden and give you ideas to save rain water. examine home for rain runoff or absorption. rainwater collection storage. rain solution for save water. reusing rainwater. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 100.0% (32/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

84. What is a rain garden? 15.6% (5/32) a sprinkler. low maintenance. plants to control groundwater,. rain barrel. lowered garden, where rain pools and waters plants. reuse of rainwater. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── downspouts to garden 12.5% (4/32) downspouts feed to garden. a good source for water drainage. a garden that harvests and holds rainwater. downspout into ground watering plants from the ground. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── garden watered by rain 37.5% (12/32) garden that needs rain. naturally watered garden. doesn't need to be watered, gets all it needs from rain naturally. a garden that utilizes rain for its function. one that relies solely on rainfall. a garden that is watered solely by rain moisture. ? a garden that is irrigated by rain. garden dependent on water. water from rain used for watering garden. use rain to shower grass and flower. reusing rainwater for gardening. a garden watered only by rain. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── no answer 25.0% (8/32) . ?. . unknown. no clue. . . I don't know. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── water system 9.4% (3/32) water system from rain. water system management. rain that is collected from your house and stored in a pond. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 100.0% (32/32) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Session Evaluation 85. On a scale from 1 to 10, rate your level of satisfaction with this session. (where 1 is low and 10 is high).

Mean Mode Range

9.0 10 7 to 10

86. Why did you give this rating? confusing 6.3% (2/32) best I could do, some questions confusing, didn't quite understand,. very confusing. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── easy 15.6% (5/32) easy to follow along, not hard. easy instructions. questions were easy. easy to do, and understand. easy to follow along. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── fun 12.5% (4/32) enjoyed it but wasn't sure of the question. it was fun!. fun. I love it, and I like to plan indoor and outdoor,. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── interesting 31.3% (10/32) it interesting. I'm very interested in landscaping. educational and makes you think,. a good exercise in determining interest/likes, wish list for my home. interesting. educational. makes one think about yard improvements. find out about Kitchener city. different aspect. good to know about landscaping. negatives 6.3% (2/32) did not know everything. wasn't overly stimulating, could not discuss,. many things were not explained. ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

no answer 6.3% (2/32) . . ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── organized 9.4% (3/32) very directed,. well organized. very organized. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── positives 18.8% (6/32) some homeowners need to be more responsible. I like that people are considering the importance of city landscapes, it changes the appearance of the neighbourhood and street. thorough. it was a non invasive session. allows me to share my thoughts. save our only earth, passion about my landscape. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── quick 15.6% (5/32) not a lot of time to answer. quick paced. a bit fast. quick,. it was nice and fast. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total: 121.9% (39/32)

══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Documents

NTEGRATED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN (ISWM-MP …€¦ · Research objectives were based on the overall goal of determining constraints and opportunities to drive uptake of