Performance Measurement Framework for the Growth Plan for the Golden Horseshoe

1

Final Report

Ontario Growth Secretariat:Ministry of Energy & Infrastructure

Performance Measurement Framework

Growth Planfor the Greater Golden Horseshoe

2

3

Performance Measurement Framework:Growth Plan

for the Greater Golden Horseshoe

Final Report

04/08/2010

Prepared by: Doreen Cortez, Mike Davis, Lara Dekkema, Kate Green, Amal Musa, Derek Nawrot, Melissa Nguyen, Rebecca Ramsey & Justin Robitaille

Submitted to: Ontario Growth Secretariat, Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure

4

Table of Contents Preface 6

1.0 Introduction: Background & Context 7

1.1 The Greater Golden Horseshoe 7 1.2 Growth Management 9 1.3 The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 10 1.4 Commitment to Monitor 11 1.5 Performance Measurement 11 1.6 Limitations of the Growth Plan 12

2.0 Performance Measurement Framework 13

2.1 Lessons Learned 13 2.2 Guiding Principles 15 2.3 Selection Criteria 17 2.3.1 General Selection Criteria 17 2.3.2 Region Specifi c Selection Criteria 19 2.4 Methodological Approach to Key Performance Indicator Development 22 2.5 Introduction to Key Performance Indicators 24 2.5.1 Data Collection and the Five-Year Interim Review Schedule 24 2.5.2 Data Sources 25 2.6 Key Performance Indicators 28

5

3.0 Conclusions 58

3.1 Framework Strengths 58 3.2 Framework Limitations 59

4.0 Recommendations and Next Steps 61

5.0 References 65

6.0 Appendices 73 A Interim Report B Inventory of Performace Measurement Programs C Inventory of Performance Indicators D Quality of Life Indicators

6

PrefaceThe following report presents a preliminary performance measurement framework for evaluating the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, a region of Ontario, Canada. This has been prepared for the Ontario Growth Secretariat, Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure, by students from the School of Urban and Regional Planning, Ryerson University, Toronto. The evaluative framework contained herein responds to Section 5.4.3 of the Growth Plan, ‘Monitoring and Performance Measures’, which sets out crite-ria for the development and implementation of a performance indicator framework for the ongoing monitoring of the implementation of policies contained within the Plan. This report presents a suggested methodological approach and an initial set of perfor-mance indicators for use by the Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure in evaluating the implementation of the Plan. It is intended that this framework will evolve when deemed appropriate by the Ministry and in response to changing needs related to the Growth Plan, its implementation, and its outcomes for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.

7

1.0 Introduction: Background & Context

1.1 The Greater Golden Horseshoe

The regional policy context for which this framework has been developed is the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH). The Greater Golden Horseshoe refers to the highly urbanized area of land stretching around the western edge of Lake Ontario. It encompasses approximately 32,000 km² of land centred around Toronto, and stretches from Peterborough in the east, to Barrie in the north, to Waterloo in the west, and to Niagara Falls in the south. The region covers more than 21 counties and comprises 110 different municipal jurisdictions.

Demography

The region is home to approximately 8.1 million people, two thirds of Ontarians, and one quarter of Canada’s population. This number is expected to grow by 3.7 million people and 1.8 million jobs by the year 2031. The municipality of Toronto is the most populous city, with 2.5 million people, followed by Mississauga (668,549), Hamilton (504,559) and Bramp-ton (433,806). The other municipalities with more than 100,000 residents are Markham, Vaughan, Kitchener, Oakville, Burlington, Richmond Hill, Oshawa, St. Catharines, Barrie, Cambridge, Guelph and Whitby. Eleven of the sixteen municipalities with a population of more than 100,000 are in a corridor that runs from Hamilton to Oshawa. That corridor is the largest continuous urban network in Canada, and is home to more than 5.3 million people, roughly one-sixth of Canadians. Between 2001 to 2006, the GGH accounted for 84% of Ontario’s population increase and 39% of the total national increase. International immigration is the main contributor to the region’s high population growth rate. Approxi-mately 75% of the GGH resides in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). There are also dozens of mid-sized cities and small towns. Toronto had the highest overall density of all Cana-dian CMAs in 1996 with 3,322 people/km²; the rate for Hamilton was 2,355 people/km²; Kitchener was 1,791 people/km²; and St. Catharines–Niagara had the lowest density of all the CMAs with 1,176 people/km² (Bunting et al., 2002). Densities in the largest cities of Toronto and Hamilton decreased from 1971 to 1996 by 4.6% and 5.1% respectively, while those in Kitchener and St. Catharines-Niagara increased by 6.1 percent and 4.8 per-cent respectively. All the Greater Golden Horseshoe municipalities had increases in subur-ban density from 1971 to 1996: Toronto’s suburban density grew by 9.4 percent, Hamilton by 4.6 percent, Kitchener by 15.7 percent, and St. Catharines-Niagara by 17.2 percent.

1

8

Economy

The Greater Golden Horseshoe can be considered Canada’s ‘economic engine’ and accounts for approximately 70% of Ontario Gross Domestic Product (Ontario Growth Secretariat, 2008). The region is supported by a diverse economy that includes a wide array of key industries and clusters including fi nancial services, information technology and telecom-munications, automotive, food and beverages, media, tourism, culture, biomedical, and biotechnology, textiles, and aerospace. The economy is currently in transition as it evolves from a historic manufacturing base to one of service and knowledge industries. The service sector – including fi nance, insurance, trade, education, and health care services - will deliver the majority of new jobs in the GGH (2008). The annual average output growth across all sectors is expected to continue growing through to 2031 at an average annual rate of 2.6% (2008). The health care and educational sectors are expected to experience the fastest rate of growth at more than 90% and grow by more than 500,000 jobs by 2031.

Natural Areas

The region contains some of Canada’s most fertile agriculture lands and signifi cant natural areas. The Greenbelt Plan identifi es where urbanization should not occur in order to provide permanent protection to the agricultural land base and the ecological features and functions occurring on this landscape. The Greenbelt is an area of permanently protected green space, farmland, forests, wetlands and watersheds. It protects approximately 1.8 million acres of environmentally sensi-tive and agricultural land around the Greater Golden Horseshoe, including the Oak Ridges Moraine and Niagara Escarpment (Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, 2005). There are a number of large bodies of water within the region including Lake Ontario, Lake Simcoe and major rivers such as the Don River, Credit River, and the Kawartha system. The region has a va-riety of agriculture, including the Niagara region’s fruit and wine areas, dairy and beef cattle, maize, grains and an assortment of other crops.

Transportation

The Greater Golden Horseshoe is served by an extensive regional transportation network that is constantly expanding and consolidating. Characteristics include:

• A number of highways and major arterial roads of which the backbone is Highway 401, run east-west through the region. Major north-south highways include the 400, 427, and 115/35.

• Regional transit is provided by GO Transit trains and buses; private bus operators Greyhound and Coach Canada; and VIA Rail.

• Local transit is provided by municipal agencies, the largest of which is the Toronto Transit Commission which operates 4 rapid transit lines and an extensive bus and streetcar network.

1

9

• The primary airport in the region is Toronto’s Lester B. Pearson International Airport, located in Mississauga, which is the busiest in Canada, handling approxi mately 32.3 million passengers in 2008. Other regional airports of signifi cance include John C. Munro International Airport south of Hamilton, which is a major regional freight and courier location; Buttonville Airport and Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport in the Greater Toronto Area, both of which mostly serve regional business travellers; and Region of Waterloo International Airport just east of Kitchener, serving the Region of Waterloo.

For decades, municipalities across the Greater Golden Horseshoe met high housing demand in the region with planning policies favourable to widespread suburban development, resulting in adverse environmental, economic, and social impacts associated with urban sprawl (Hostovsky, 2009). Segregated land use zoning by-laws combined with amenable development approvals processes further enabled and encouraged sprawling development. The detrimental effects of urban sprawl are now well substantiated, and with the move towards smart growth or growth management more sustainable approaches to urban development are well underway. Aligned with this move towards sustainable urban growth patterns the Province of Ontario developed, and in 2006 adopted, the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe under the Places to Grow Act.

Growth management has evolved out of the smart growth movement and can be described as a policy response to the to environmental, social, and economic detriments caused by urban sprawl. These threats can include loss of agricultural and environmentally sensitive lands, increased dependency on automo biles, excessive expenditures on in-frastructure, and failure to redevelop existing older neighbourhoods (Burchell, Listokin, & Galley, 2000; Downs, 2005; Meyer & Ye, 2005). Growth management policies seek to guide urban growth in economically, environmentally, and socially responsible ways, balancing the benefi ts and burdens of development. Examples of policy objectives relating to growth management include reducing development of greenfi eld, agricultural, and ecologically signifi cant lands, increasing density in urban centres, investing in infrastructure improvements, and promoting viable public and multi-modal transit systems (Randolph, 2004). The framework outlined in this report presents an approach to evaluating and monitoring the degree to which the growth management policy response of the Ontario Government is achieving its goals.

1

1.2 Growth Management

10

The adoption and implementation of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe was a response to the observed detriments of urban sprawl, such as loss of agricultural and ecologically signifi cant lands, infrastructure defi cits, traffi c congestion, inappropriate con-version of employment lands, and a lack of attractive an effi cient public transit (Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal, 2006). Under the Places to Grow Act, 2005 policy directives were set to guide and manage growth, provide infrastructure support, and protect valuable natural systems, agricultural areas, mineral and other natural resources (Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal, 2006). The Plan outlines policies under three overarching goal ar-eas: Growth Management (Where and How to Grow), Infrastructure to Support Growth, and Conservation and Protection (Protecting What Is Valuable).

Growth Management

The Plan emphasizes the importance of legislating where and how growth should occur. The responsible management of growth is encouraged by directing growth into areas where development already exists. The Plan also acknowledges the importance of rural communities to the vitality and well-being of the region and recognizes that the revitalization of urban growth centres is an essential component of achieving “complete communities.” Complete communities are characterized as those which are well-designed, offer more transportation choices, accommodate people in all stages of life, have a range of housing types, offer a range of jobs, and include easily accessible amenities. Specifi c growth targets are also clearly outlined for how much growth is expected within each community with an emphasis on general intensifi cation and urban growth centres.

Infrastructure Support

The Plan furthermore outlines policies for growth supportive infrastructure. The second overarching goal provides guidelines to address responsible and effi cient infrastructure investments and improvements. Specifi cally, the Plan highlights three categories where infrastructure support is encouraged and intended to take place including the improvement of transportation systems; water and wastewater systems; community in-frastructure such as hospitals, schools, and long-term care facilities; and affordable housing.

Conservation & Protection

The third overarching goal aims to conserve and protect agricultural, greenfi eld, and ecologically sensitive and signifi cant lands. The Plan encourages municipalities to take an active role in the protection of natural systems, prime agricultural areas, and mineral aggregate resources, and to foster an overall ‘culture of conservation’.

1

1.3 The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe

11

The Places to Grow Act, 2005 specifi es that a review of the Growth Plan will be carried out by the Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure (formerly the Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal) at least every 10 years after the Plan comes into effect. The purpose of develop-ing a performance monitoring program is to inform the 10-year review. Specifi cally, section 5.4.3 of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe states:

1. The Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal will develop a set of indicators to measure the implementation of the policies in this Plan.

2. The Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal will monitor the implementation of this Plan, including reviewing performance indicators concurrent with any review of this Plan (2006).

The Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure in conjunction with other ministries, municipali-ties, and stakeholders should:

a. Identify appropriate performance indicators to measure the effectiveness of the Plan;

b. Identify roles and responsibilities among partners in the collection and analysis of the indicators; and

c. Provide for the periodic collection, publication and discussion of the results.

Performance measurement may be conceptualized as a tool for the systematic assess-ment of a given program or initiative, aimed at evaluating and reporting on its effectiveness, effi ciency and overall quality (Ammons, 1996). Performance measurement has played a key role in the ongoing monitoring of policies and programs across a spectrum of government jurisdictions and focus areas. The overarching goal of performance measurement is to inform and guide the future direction of the policy or program it is evaluating. To effectively evaluate and monitor how a program or policy is being implemented, key performance indicator(s) are created with the intent of capturing the outcomes of the policy or program in question.

This report presents an initial performance measurement framework to evaluate and monitor the implementation of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The commitment to monitor, as outlined in the Plan, recognizes the benefi ts of per-formance measurement in terms of bolstering government accountability, improving the effi ciency and effi cacy of policy implementation, and informing modifi cations to Plan. A methodolgical framework for evaluation that uses performance measures can result in tangible data to support the successes of the Plan and guide its evolution.

11.5 Performance Measurement

1.4 Commitment to Monitor

12

1.6 Limitations of the Growth Plan The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe is a planning strategy that aims to address growth management goals within the region over the next twenty years. The Plan contains specifi c objectives in regards to managing growth, directing growth and protect-ing the natural environment. There are however, innate limitations to the degree in which the Plan can control these matters. The initial limitation stems from the issue of municipal conformity. Although the Places to Grow Act requires all municipalities to amend their Offi cial Plans to conform to the policies contained in the Growth Plan, the conformity requirement allows room for interpretation. The successful implementation of these policies relies heavily on the extent to which each municipality conforms their planning regime to refl ect the objectives of the Plan.

Secondly, the nature of growth in the Greater Golden Horseshoe is dynamic. Forces external to planning policy drive and shape patterns of development: wavering interest rates and the changing state of the provincial economy can create new opportunities and/or constraints for developers.

1

13

2.0 Performance Measurement Framework

This section presents the framework developed for the Ontario Growth Secretariat in re-gards to the evaluation of growth management within the Greater Golden Horseshoe. It comprises the overarching lessons learned through background research phase; the guiding principles to direct this iniative; the selection crite-ria for the development of key performance indicators; our method-ological approach; and a preliminary set of key performance indicators.

As a component of the background research for this intiative, an extensive inventory of performance measurement programs related to issues of planning and growth management has been compiled (See Appendix B). Through a review of the strengths and weaknesses of performance measure-ment programs employed internationally and in the arenas of growth management, environmental sustainability, and general municipal monitoring, key lessons have been identifi ed which can inform the practical application of this performance measurement framework by the Ontario Growth Secretariat. This section outlines the lessons learned and demonstrates how they can be applied to the development of performance indicators. Our research has uncovered both the strengths and weaknesses of numerous performance measurement programs and draws key conclusions for practical application.

Lesson 1: Strong Data Sources Underpin Effective Performance Measurement

Strong performance monitoring programs are dependent on a steady source of reliable and transparent data. Performance indicators developed using fre-quently updated and publicly available data tend to be more cost-effective and easy to administer. Data availability can also serve as a limitation to developing effective performance indicators. Much of the data necessary to address is-sues of growth management may not yet be monitored in a form that is ac-cessible and reliable. This can make monitoring progress diffi cult. The regional scale of the Growth Plan can pose additional challenges with re-gards to data availability. Statistics related specifi cally to issues of plan-ning and growth management are mainly collected and monitored at the mu-nicipal level. Data informing regional performance indicators will need to be

2.1 Lessons Learned

2

14

aggregated from the region’s municipalities to refl ect regional progress. Developing a complementary system of data collection across the Greater Golden Horseshoe to help monitor progress on regional initiatives may help mitigate this challenge.

Lesson 2: Engaging the Community/ Key Stakeholders may Generate Positive Response

Conducting public and key stakeholder consultations is a valuable tool to assist in the development of performance indicators. Communities may be more responsive to evaluation tools which they assisted in developing. Ensuring that the general pub-lic and stakeholders are well-consulted will also produce a performance measure-ment program that is easily understood by the constituents that they are developed to serve. Effective, credible performance measurement initiatives are often char-acterized by the inclusion of extensive public consultation, in particular those aimed at monitoring municipal programs. However, public consultation may be somewhat more diffi cult in a regional context given the scale and scope of the Greater Golden Horseshoe. A more valuable and effective tool for regional performance indicator development should however emphasize key stakeholder engagement. Actors from both the public and private sectors involved in developmental and environ-mental issues can offer valuable input in terms of what issues need to be addressed by performance measurement programs and how said programs can be improved.

Lesson 3: An Adaptive Monitoring System will Address Ineffi ciencies

As factors affecting urban growth are susceptible to change signifi cant-ly over time, it is important that performance indicators refl ect the dynamic nature of development trends. The performance measurement program itself should be continuously monitored for its effectiveness. As ineffi ciencies within the monitoring program are identifi ed, the program can be adjusted to address those ineffi ciencies. Changes should be made throughout the development and implementation processes: this adaptive nature will ensure that the program maintains value and becomes more effective as time progresses. Lesson 4: Incorporating Sub-Regional Indicators may Serve as Valuable Comparative Tool

While indicators should be collected for the whole of the region, there is merit in developing indicators at more fi ne grained sub-regional spa-tial scales. Although the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe is intended to address issues at a regional scale, complementing municipal indicators could serve a valuable purpose. By developing municipal-level indicators, dispari-ties between municipalities in the Golden Horseshoe may be identifi ed and poten-tial gaps between policy implementation leaders and laggards may be addressed.

2

15

Lesson 5: Performance Indicators Should Be Easily Understandable to the Public

Performance measurement programs work to inform policy direction as well as allow the public to view progress of government policies; it is therefore critical that performance indicators are easily understood by most. Many performance measurement programs use detailed mathematical indices supported by fi fty or more specifi c indicators. Though such techniques can be valuable in terms of measuring performance they are of little use if those who they are meant to inform cannot interpret them properly. A more valuable approach is to develop a small number of indicators to ad-dress each identifi ed policy theme, in order to maintain clear linkages between specifi c policy themes and the indicators. This simple format will allow for easier interpretation. Language and terminology should furthermore be well defi ned to bolster ease of understanding.

Lesson 6: A Frequent and Thorough Review Process Results in Effective Monitoring

Utilizing and applying results of performance measurement on a frequent basis works to enhance the effectiveness of any performance measurement program. Some jurisdictions have committed heavily to doing so. This has resulted in local and regional governments achieving more informed policy directions to actively correct plans and initiatives that are being measured. Many performance indicator programs employed across North America are reported on annually. These reports should be designed to provide suffi cient information to enable policy-makers to determine whether different actions to implement the policies contained in the plan are needed, or whether revisions to the policies are required. For maximum effectiveness the review and supporting report should be prepared in accordance with municipal and provincial budget cycles, so that proposed work items can be included in budget requests. The more frequent and thorough the review process the more valuable the performance monitoring program will be.

The fi ndings from an extensive environmental scan and academic literature review have informed the approach and methodology of this framework. A set of 4 guiding principles overarch this framework for developing performance indicators for the Growth Plan. The Performance Measurement Framework for the Growth Plan for the Golden Horseshoe shall adhere to the following four guiding principles: Region-level Monitoring; Progress-orient-ed Measurement; Recognize Ambiguity and Complexity; Adaptive Monitoring Framework.

Regional-Level Monitoring

The monitoring and evaluation framework will be carried out at the region-al level, and shall consider the Greater Golden Horseshoe as a whole. Indica-tors shall be selected to refl ect the aggregate municipalities included encom-passed by the region as opposed to looking at each municipality in isolation. The

2.2 Guiding Principles

2

16

monitoring framework shall recognize the diversity of the region and the challenges involved in measuring performance at the regional level, caused in part by verticalinter-dependencies between levels of government, horizontal relationships among stakeholders in multiple sec-tors, and a need for partnership between public and private actors.

Progress-Oriented Measurement

Regional development and growth management centred policies produce out-comes that may materialise over variable and extended periods of time. As such, the performance measurement framework for the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe shall look at trends within the region, analysing prog-ress rather than explicitly focussing on outcomes. Indicators shall be selected to capture short, medium, and long term goal achievements associated with the Plan, looking at inputs, processes, and outputs that are relevant to moni-toring implementation and informing policy improvements on an ongoing basis.

Recognize Ambiguity and Complexity

The performance measurement framework for the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe shall recognize the ambiguities and complexities associat-ed to regional and growth management policy intents and outcomes which can create potentially confl icting interpretations of program achievements. The indicator selection process shall attempt to mitigate confusion and simplify potentially complex goals into tangible, understandable images of the Plans successes and shortcomings. In recognition of the complexity of growth management goals and outcomes, this framework is furthermore intended to be a component of the overall evaluation of the Growth Plan’s success, rather than an exhaustive evaluative tool.

Adaptive Monitoring Framework

The performance measurement framework for the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe shall be adaptive in order to respond to the evolution of growth management goals and outcomes. The framework shall be sensitive to changes to local economic, social, and environmental landscapes, adapting over time as needed to accommodate these changes in such a way that the framework can continue to meaningfully inform policy decision-making processes as related to the Growth Plan.

2

17

Several indicator selection criteria form the basis of sound and meaningful performance measurement. The criteria outlined below is specifi c to the policy objectives of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.

2.3.1 General Selection Criteria

A range of criteria has been identifi ed for the selection of quality performance measures, irrespective of what type of policy or program is being evaluated. Per-formance indicators for this evaluative framework shall be selected on the basis of:

• Validity • Reliability• Relevance• Attribution• Ease of understanding• Ability to aggregate• Sensitivity to data collection demands and constraints (Ammons, 1996; Balsas, 2004; Hemphill, 2004; Schacter, 2002; Wong, 2006).

Validity

In order to meet the validity criteria, an indicator must accurately measure what it is intended to indicate. For example, using increased residential density as a policy goal, a valid indicator could be a measure of change in persons per kilo-meters squared, and / or dwellings per hectare in residential areas; this measure was applied by the BC Ministry of Community and Rural Development (2009).

Reliability

Indicators need to be dynamic enough to be applied accurately and consistently by a range of users, with little subjectivity or variation.Indicators which rely on Census data provide a good example of the reliability crite-ria, as data is collected at regular intervals, is objective, statistical, and tends to be relatively transferable in data collection standards. The Lincoln Institute’s U.S. Smart Growth Evaluation employed a number of indicators reliant on Census data. For ex-ample, relating to the policy goal of housing affordability, the study applied census derived indicators such as: median selected monthly owner costs as a percent of household income, and shares of cost-burdened households (Ingram et al, 2009).

2.3 Selection Criteria

2

18

Relevance

In order to demonstrate relevance, a selected indicator needs to capture meaningful dimensions of policy or program objectives being measured, thereby contributing relevant data to policy processes. For example, the Winnipeg Qual-ity of Life Indicator Set, seeking to monitor and mitigate urban sprawl as part of its evaluative mandate, employs an indicator which examines the ratio of the number of new homes built in rural municipalities compared the number of new homes built within Winnipeg’s urban growth boundary. This ratio demon-strates an ability to capture a meaningful dimension of urban sprawl, and illus-trates effectiveness of policies geared to mitigating sprawl (Hardy & Pinter, 2008).

Attribution

The attribution criteria may be met when an indicator focuses on controllable aspects of performance, and demonstrates a link between policy or program objective(s) and the observed outcome(s). For example, the Sustainable Community Indicators Report issued by the environmental NGO, Sustainable Seattle, seeks to evaluate “bicycle friendliness”. It is indicated by the presence of dedicated, striped bicycle lanes (1998). This may be considered a controllable aspect of perfor-mance, and demonstrates linkages between policy and outcome, as the implemen-tation of bicycle lanes clearly bears a direct impact on the bicycle friendliness of cities.

Ease of Understanding

Simplicity and clarity are important characteristics when choos-ing an indicator to ensure that the meaning and results may easily be interpreted in an highly comprehendible manner by both practitioners and the gen-eral public. An example of this can be derived from the Performance Measure-ment and Reporting component of the City of Hamilton’s Strategic Plan. In seeking to monitor the preservation (or lack thereof) of agricultural lands, the framework employs an indicator which considers the number of hectares of land originally designated for agricultural purposes that have been re-designated for other uses during the reporting year (City of Hamilton, 2008). This produces a concise indica-tion of the changes to local agricultural lands that is easily conveyed to the public.

Ability to Aggregate

In order to meet this criteria, an indicator must help capture a comprehensive im-age of the major elements of the policy or program being evaluated. It must be possible to combine indicators to demonstrate a broad policy outcome. Vancou-ver’s Livable Region Strategic Plan (1996-2021) sets out performance monitoring indicators which examine the city’s success in protecting the ‘green zone’: The framework

2

19

employs a range of indicators which speak to individual components of green zone protection, but aggregate easily to give a broader picture of the success of policies geared to green zone protection. These include: area of green zone; area of agricultur-al land reserve; total value of farm-gate sales; number of new non-farm dwellings in the green zone; number of endangered or threatened species; length of regional greenways complet-ed, and; size of protected conservation areas (Greater Vancouver Regional District, 1996).

Sensitivity to Data Collection Demands / Constraints

Indicators which do not demand costly or time prohibitive data collection, and which require reasonably obtainable data sets, may be considered to meet this criteria. For example, the North Jersey Transportation Authority, seek-ing to evaluate the prevalence of commuter delays due to roadway ‘inci-dents’, measured the number of accidents over a given timeframe (North Jer-sey Transportation Planning Authority, 2009). This indicator relies on data that is regularly collected by the organization, simplifying the monitoring process.

2.3.2 Region-Specifi c Selection Criteria

The primary objective of the region-specifi c indicator selection criteria is to select performance indicators that provide meaningful information from which decisions about policies can be made. It is the intent that decision makers use the information provided by evaluations of growth management in the Greater Golden Horseshoe to inform future policy directions in the region.

As the regional authority responsible for the preparation and implementation of the Growth Plan, the Growth Secretariat bears the political commitment of owning the strategy’s level of success and the shape of its continued implementation. Therefore, the following selection criteria are sensi-tive to the role of the Growth Secretariat as an evaluator and facilitator in the evaluation process. This framework is designed to ensure evaluation utilization and evaluation capacity building within the Growth Secretariat to create what is re-ferred to as an organizational readiness for evaluation (Fleischer & Christie, 2009).

2

20

Evaluation Utilization

Instrumental Use

In order to meet the instrumental use criteria, indicators must produce evaluation fi ndings that the Growth Secretariat can use to modify Growth Plan policies. Indicators must relate to policy areas identifi ed in the Growth Plan to produce relevant results. Identifying and prioritizing intended uses of performance measurement at the beginning of the evaluation process is extremely infl uential in increasing overall evaluation use (Fleischer & Christie, 2009).

Enlightened Use

When used, selected indicators must produce fi ndings that will add knowledge to the fi eld and that may be used by anyone, not just those involved with the policy program or evaluation of the program (Weiss, 1979). Therefore, indicators must be designed or selected so that they can be used and understood by Greenbelt policy analysts, Metrolinx planners, municipal staff and other stakeholder groups. Indicators that can be used to enlighten the fi eld of policy in the Greater Golden Horseshoe will maximize the effective use of evaluation fi ndings by encouraging the practice of regional policy coordination.

Opportunity for Stakeholder Engagement

The purpose of selected indicators must extend beyond their use as a tool for measuring policy performance to engage stakeholders and build rela-tionships that will assist the evaluation process. Indicators that encourage participatory and collaborative evaluation – whether it is through data col-lection practices or qualitative indicator components – shift the role of the evaluator away from the traditional notion of a detached evaluator with limited stakeholder interaction. It is generally accepted that stakeholder involvement increases evaluation usage (Christie, 2003; Greene, 1988; Turnbull, 1999). Quality involvement results from from the identifi cation of stakeholders by the evalua-tor early in the process, and continued engagement establishes criteria for dialogue.

Communicability

Indicators must be compatible with a timed reporting method developed by the Growth Secretariat. Evaluators must be able to communicate indicator results logically and effi ciently to stakeholders and the general public. This involves considerations such as the type of information that indicators will provide, how information can best be presented effectively, and whether the presentation of fi ndings allows both decision makers and the public to assess progress against stated goals Effec-tive communication of the information produced in the evaluation process

2

21

can aid government transparency and accountability. Lastly, it is necessary to consider the ease with which performance indicators can be collected and reported internally by staff (PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 2007).

Flexibility

Indicators chosen must be adaptable to continue to be relevant over time. This is based on the concept of adaptive monitoring that acknowledges the uncertainty about how systems function and how they respond to human actions. The implementation of Growth Plan policies and objectives will change, making it inappropriate to continue reporting on the same performance indicators as in previous periods. For instance, as implementation progresses and more information becomes available from municipalities and stakeholders, the adaptation of existing indicators and how they are calculated will provide a deeper understanding of the region’s growth and challenges. It must be possible to feed indicator results back into the decision-making process to reduce uncertainty and improve the effectiveness of the program over time (Provincial Planning Policy Branch, 2009).

Evaluation Capacity Building

Conceptual Use

The conceptual use criteria may be met when it is demonstrated that performance indi-cators will help the Secretariat staff understand the overall policy program of the Growth Plan in a new way. It is important to recognize the relationship between evaluation and organizational outcomes, so that the evaluation process can be a mechanism for trans-formative learning within the Secretariat and Ministry (Fleischer & Christie, 2009). Perfor-mance indicators have normative assumptions embedded in them making them conceptual technologies; that is, indicators shape what issues we think about and how we think about those issues through the selection and structure of the indicators used (Barnetson & Cutright, 2000).

Process Use

Indicators must be realistic and justifi ed as appropriate measures given the organizational capabilities of the Growth Secretariat. It is signifi cant to recognize that the selected indicators and engagement in the evaluation process will result in behavioural, program, procedural and organizational changes within the Secretariat and Ministry (Pat-ton, 2003). When selecting indicators, it is therefore essential to consider the how the-following factors will affect the data collection and analytical capabilities of Ministry staff:

• Management support and organized facilitation of the evaluation process by staff;• Characteristics of inter-ministry advisory groups;• Frequency, method and quantity of communications between public bodies/ministries; and• Resource limitations (Fleischer & Christie, 2009).

2

22

In order to ensure that the information derived from the implementation of this framework is both accurate and meaningful to the policy evaluation and formu-lation processes for the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the following outlines an approach that will succinctly and clearly result in indicators relevant to, and capable of, evaluating the effi cacy of the Plan. In her book Indicators For Urban and Regional Planning, Cecilia Wong outlines a four-step methodological framework for the development of key performance indicators. The framework begins with a broad analysis and works toward the creation of a specifi c set or index of indicators. The framework has been used by a range of performance measurement practitioners in the context of sustainability related programs and policies, and is highly transferable to the context of the performance monitoring for the Growth Plan. This approach may be considered optimal for the monitoring framework for the Growth Plan largely be-cause it is simplistic and capable of drawing direct relationships between the policies contained within the Plan and the key performance indicators developed to evaluate it.

Wong’s Four-Step Methodological Framework For Indicator Development

Source: (Wong, 2006)

2.4 Methodological Approach to Key Performance Indicator Development

2 Step 1: Conceptual ConsolidationClarifying the basic concept to be represented

by the analysis

Step 2: Analytical StructuringProviding an analytical framework within which

indicators will be collated and analysed

Step 3: Identification of IndicatorsTranslation of key factors identified in Step 2 into

specific measurable indicators

Step 4: Synthesis of Indicator ValuesSynthesising the identified indicators into

composite index/indices or into analytical summary

23

Below is a brief outline of the steps suggested by Wong as they were adhered to in the key performance indicator development process for this framework:

Step 1: Conceptual Consolidation At this stage the research group worked to foster an understanding of the Growth Plan, in terms of both history and policy foundation. Research was also conducted on the history of the Growth Plan as well as other Smart Growth and Growth Management initiatives. The objectives of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe were also identifi ed and clearly outlined at this time.

Step 2: Analytical StructuringThis process involved the creation of a framework for researching and recording performance indicators used in other jurisdictions. Specifi c indicators were drawn out of the frameworks, recorded in a separate inventory, and organized by sub-category, related policy, policy ob-jective, data sources and referring documents. At this stage a set of guiding principles, and indicator selection criteria were developed.

Step 3: Identifi cation of IndicatorsIndicators were drawn out of the inventory through an analysis based on the research group’s guiding principles and selection criteria, and added to a new inventory of fi nal indicators. Additional research was conducted to fi ll any gaps within the inventory and to ensure ade-quate representation in all sub-categories. At this stage, irrelevant and redundant indicators were exempted from the fi nal inventory. The fi nal set of preliminary key performance indica-tors presented herein refl ects those identifi ed through the jurisdictional scan as meeting the criteria set out above and as transferable to the context of evaluating the implementation of specifi c policy objectives contained within the Growth Plan. Additional indicators were cre-ated to capture policy characteristics unique to the context of the Growth Plan.

Step 4: Synthesis of Indicator ValuesThe synthesis of indicators into a composite or weighted index, the application of indicators, and results analysis functions are beyond the scope of this under-taking. These shall be activities to be overseen by the Ontario Growth Secretar-iat in the further development of the performance monitoring framework for the Growth Plan, as outlined in the Recommendations and Next Steps section of this report.

2

24

This section presents the data sources for, and a preliminary set of key performance indicators, derived in line with the Wong methodological approach and the selection criteria outlined above, which are intended to evaluate the degree to which the policy objectives of the Growth Plan are being achieved. The indicators respond to the three overarching goal areas identifi ed in the plan, as follows:

The Greater Golden Horseshoe is characterized as one of the fastest growing regions in North America, a trait that is expected to continue over the coming decades. Policies contained within Section Two of the Growth Plan acknowledge the need to direct the location and pace of population growth within the region in such a way that fosters healthy, balanced communities while maintaining and improving quality of life. Key Performance Indicators selected to evaluate this component of the Growth Plan’s effi cacy have been geared to measure the success of policies related to growth management, general intensifi cation and intensifi cation corridors, urban growth centres, urban boundaries, employment lands, greenfi eld lands, and rural areas

Sprawling land use patterns, underinvestment and increasing population demand in the Greater Golden Horseshoe have contributed to an infrastructure defi cit that threatens to undermine economic vitality, service delivery, and quality of life in the region. Section Three of the Growth Plan acknowledges the controllable aspects of this defi cit and outlines policies aimed at optimizing existing infrastructure and ongoing investment to support population and economic growth over the coming decades. Key Performance Indicators selected to evaluate this component of the Growth Plan shall therefore measure the suc-cess of policies related to transportation, generally and with particular emphasis on the movement of goods and people, water and wastewater systems, and community infrastructure.

The Greater Golden Horseshoe contains a diverse range of natural systems, cultural heritage features, and resources which underpin the local economy, environment, and quality of life in the region. Section Four of the Growth Plan acknowledges the importance of these features, both presently and for future generations, and seeks to complement other provincial policies aimed at supporting preservation and conservation as the region contin-ues to grow over the coming decades. Key Performance Indicators selected to evaluate this component of the Growth Plan have been developed to measure the success of policies related to natural systems, prime agricultural lands, mineral resources, and a culture of conservation.

2.5.1 Data Collection and the Five-Year Interim Review

An important consideration in the selection and development of key performance indicators is the feasibility and logistics of data collection within the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Due to the absence of a regional governance structure whose natural operations may have supported regional data collection, regional performance measurement must rely on a coordinated, multi-participant system of data aggregation.

2.5 Introduction to Key Performance Indicators

2

25

The Places to Grow Act, 2005 includes processes for making and amending the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. This includes the requirement that the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure review the Growth Plan at least every ten years after the Plan comes into force. To ensure that the aggregation and analysis of data may be coor-dinated in an effi cient manner that appropriately measures policy objectives, it is recom-mended that the Ontario Growth Secretariat assist municipalities in monitoring and report-ing on the implementation of the Plan’s policies on a Five-Year Interim Review Schedule.

A Five-Year Interim Review Schedule will allow the Growth Secretariat and municipalities to monitor and intersect growth trends between the ten year regional growth forecasts cal-culated for 2001, 2011, 2021, and 2031. It is recommended that the fi rst Five-Year In-terim Review be scheduled fi ve years following the date by which all Offi cial Plans - for areas in which the Growth Plan applies - have been amended to conform with Growth Plan policies, with the fi rst Interim Review tentatively scheduled for 2016. This fi ve year schedule intends to allow municipalities a reasonable opportunity for policy implemen-tation before formal performance measurement and regional evaluation begins. The schedule also attempts to provide an approrpriate timeframe for policy revision and im-plementation between successive Interim Review periods. The following are potential data sources from which data can be collected and aggregated for the purpose of per-formance measurement following each Reporting Year. Given that the timed release of different data sets does not perfectly align, the Reporting Year is defi ned as the year prior to the scheduled Interim Review period, during which time data is collected from multiple sources. For instance, 2015 would be the Reporting Year during which time all necessary data sets would be collected for the fi rst, tentatively scheduled Interim Review in 2016.

2.5.2 Data Sources

The following are potential data sources from which data can be collected and aggregated during each reporting year for the purpose of performance measurement during the Five-Year Interim Review. The key performance indicators presented in Section 3.0 have been developed to minimize the amount of data sources, and to reduce the cost of data collection by decreasing required resources and coordinating the timing of the data collection processes.

The Municipal Performance Measurement Program

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing requires all Ontario municipalities to report on their performance in twelve service areas and to provide these results to the Province through the Municipal Performance Measurement Program (MPMP). The Municipal Performance Measurement Program is a performance measurement and reporting system that promotes local government transparency by requiring that MPMP results be reported to the Province through the Financial Information Return (FIR) by May 31st following each reporting year. The FIR represents a retroactive method of data collection that reports on various components of municipal activities including revenues, expenditures and general information regarding physical and spatial aspects of the

2

26

municipality (Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, 2008). The collection of new data required for the key performance indicators prior to the scheduled Five year interim reviews may be streamlined with the existing MPMP so that data may be collected effi ciently and at a low cost. To ensure that new FIR data requirements are only expected from affected municipalities in the Greater Golden Horseshoe, it would be benefi cial to develop a regionally tailored FIR package specifi cally designed for municipalities for which the Growth Plan applies.

This is a potential data source for Key Performance Indicators #4, 7, 16.

Employment Survey

Many upper- and lower-tier municipalities in Ontario conduct Employment Surveys whereby municipal planning staff monitor employment by conducting an annual survey of businesses. Municipalities consider the data collected as vital to monitoring economic health, as well as aiding in decisions and policy surrounding infrastructure and services. Employment Surveys act as a unique resource that relates employment and land use data. However, there is no uniform method of conducting employment surveys and they may not be completed regularly in some municipalities. To ensure that reliable employment data is available for all municipalities prior to the scheduled Five-Year Interim Review periods, the Growth Secretariat may request that an additional performance measure be added to the FIR that requires all municipalities to collect data on the total number of employeesworking within the municipality, and the type of work that is taking place (land use component). Although employment data is only required every fi ve years for the purposes of regional performance measurement, reporting Employment Survey data in the annual FIR will provide essential information on the region’s economic vitality while assisting local planning authorities in planning for employment uses and achieving Growth Plan objectives.

This is a potential data source for Key Performance Indicators #1, 2, 6.

Specialized Data for Urban Growth Centres

Specialized data must be generated for each of the twenty-fi ve urban growth centres by affected municipalities. Local Economic Development Offi ces can collect data on the densities of different types of development and household size to estimate the density of each urban growth centre. The Ontario Growth Secretariat may request that affected municipalities report urban growth centre densities directly to the Ministry, independent of the FIR.

This is a potential data source for Key Performance Indicators #5, 6.

Census Tract Community Profi les - Statistics Canada

The Census Tract Community Profi les are prepared by Statistics Canada every fi ve years to provide a comprehensive collection of statistical material for each upper- and lower-tier municipality in Canada. These statistical measures include data on the number of occupied private dwellings across a range of housing structure categories expressed as a percent of total occupied private

2

27

dwellings. Census Tract Community Profi les will be prepared by Statistics Canada for 2011 and 2016. However, the release of these data sets may not align with the Reporting Year prior to a scheduled 5-Year Interim Review. It is recommend-ed that the data from the most recent Census Tract Community Profi le be used for performance measurement determined by the date of the Interim Review period. This is a potential data source for Key Indicator #3: the data can be easily aggregated for regional analysis by the Ontario Growth Secretariat to track the change in housing structure types as a percentage of the region’s overall housing stock.

This is a potential data source for Key Performance Indicators #3,14.

Transportation Tomorrow Survey

The Transportation Tomorrow Survey (TTS) is conducted on behalf of 21 local, regional, and provincial operating agencies in the Greater Golden Horseshoe, representing the most comprehensive travel survey conducted in Ontario. The Survey is prepared every fi ve years by the University of Toronto’s Data Management Group (Department of Civil Engineering) for the Transportation Information Steering Committee that represents the Ministry of Transportation and the various regionaltransportation agencies (Data Management Group, 2009). The Survey currently collects data on modal share and travel patterns in the Greater Golden Horseshoe. To ensure that reliable time series travel information is available for all municipalities prior to the scheduled Five-Year Interim Reviews, the Ontario Growth Secretariat may re-quest that an additional performance measure be added to the Transportation Tomorrow Survey to measure the average daily commute time per municipality (from home to work). However, the release of the Survey may not align with the Reporting Year prior to a scheduled Five-Year Interim Review (the next TTS will be prepared for 2016). It is recommended that the data from the most recent Transportation Tomorrow Survey be used for performance measurement determined by the date of the Interim Review period.

This is a potential data source for Key Performance Indicators #9, 10.

Ontario Trucking Association

The Ontario Trucking Association collects data on major trends in the volume, mix, trajectory and type of freight moving within, into and out of Ontario. This organization recognizes the importance of an effi cient goods movement network to the economic vitality of the region. The OTA currently collects regionally focussed data on the value of goods by examining the share of GDP shipped along existing major highways in the Province. This is a potential data source for Key Performance Indicators #12, 13.

2

28

Policy Theme(s)

Growth Forecasts

Defi nition of Key Terms

Baseline Distribution – Distribution of population and employment per municipality updated in fi ve year intervals and used as the basis for measuring the pace and volume of growth in the region. The baseline distribution will change depending on the timing of evaluation, with an initial baseline distribution year of 2001.

Interim Distribution – Distribution of population and employment per municipality updated everyn fi ve years to measure the up to date pace and volume of growth in the region. The interim distribution will be considered the distribution available for the most recent Reporting Year for which Financial Information Returns and Em-ployment Surveys have been completed.

Growth Plan Policy Objective(s)

• 2.2.1.1 Population and employment forecasts contained in Schedule 3 for all upper- and single-tier municipalities will be used for planning and managing growth in the GGH.

• 2.2.1.2 The Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal will review the fore-casts contained in Schedule 3 at least every fi ve years in consultation with munici-palities, and may revise the forecasts.

Rationale

The population of the Greater Golden Horseshoe is forecasted to grow by an ad-ditional 3.7 million (from 2001) to 11.5 million people by 2031. The magnitude and pace of this growth necessitates accurate data on the distribution of population and employment in municipalities in the region between 2001 and 2031. Continuous monitoring and regular consultations with municipalities are essential to ensuring the targets for population and employment remain accurate and assist with manag-ing the region’s growth demands. Schedule 3 of the Growth Plan contains the dis-tribution of population and employment forecasts for each municipality in intervals of 10 years with 2001 as the initial baseline distribution (e.g., forecasts prepared for 2001, 2011, 2021 and 2031). Following each successive Five-Year Review, the base-

2.6 Key Performance Indicators

2

Key Performance Indicator #1

Amount of growth and rate of growth between the baseline distribution and the interim distribution of population and employment fi gures per municipality.

29

line year can be updated and the interim distribution can be used to evaluate rela-tive changes in the pace of growth (growth rate) and volume of growth experienced since the baseline distribution year. During scheduled 5 year interim reviews, the interim distribution of population and employment will be assessed relative to the most recent baseline distribution in consultation with each municipality.

Limitation(s)

• This indicator cannot measure patterns of growth beyond the pace and volume of growth received by each municipality and county. For example, this indicator cannot mea-sure the volume of population and employment growth that has been received by intensifi -cation areas.

• The collection of interim population data will need to be timed following the comple-tion of Financial Information Returns at the end of the Reporting Year and the interim data on employment is not currently collected in each municipality on a regular basis. This will cause a lag in the availability of data for the interim distribution of approximately six to twelve months and necessitates the scheduling of the Five-Year Interim Review period fol-lowing the Reporting Year.

Data Source(s)

The data collection required for the scheduled Five-Year Interim Reviews may be stream-lined with the existing Municipal Performance Measurement Program. Population data is already collected in the Municipal Information section of the FIR for all upper- and lower-tier municipalities.

The Growth Secretariat may request that an additional performance measure be added to the FIR that requires all municipalities to report Employment Survey data (the total number of employees working within the municipality, and the type of work that is taking place).

2

30

Policy Theme(s)

Growth Forecasts


Interim Distribution – Distribution of population and employment per municipal-ity calculated in fi ve year intervals to measure the up-to-date pace and volume of growth in the region. The interim distribution will be considered the distribution available for the most recent Reporting Year for which Financial Information Re-turns and Employment Surveys have been completed.

Forecasted Distribution – Expected distribution of population and employment per municipality prepared in ten-year intervals for 2001, 2011, 2021 and 2031 as a ba-sis of measuring the pace and volume of real growth in the region. The forecasted distribution used will change depending on the timing of evaluation, with an initial forecasted distribution year of 2011.


• 2.2.1.1 Population and employment forecasts contained in Schedule 3 for all upper- and single-tier municipalities will be used for planning and managing growth in the GGH.

• 2.2.1.2 The Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal will review the fore-casts contained in Schedule 3 at least every fi ve years in consultation with munici-palities, and may revise the forecasts.

Rationale

The population of the Greater Golden Horseshoe is forecasted to grow by an additional 3.7 million (from 2001) to 11.5 million people by 2031. The magnitude and pace of this growth necessitates accurate data on the distribution of population and employment in municipali-ties in the region between 2001 and 2031. Continuous monitoring and regular consultations with municipalities are essential to ensuring the forecasted targets for population and em-ployment remain accurate and assist with managing the region’s growth demands.


The difference between the interim distribution and the forecasted distribution for each municipality, expressed as a percent of the forecasted distribution.

2

31

Schedule 3 of the Growth Plan contains the distribution of population and employment forecasts for each municipality in intervals of ten years with 2001 as the initial baseline dis-tribution. In each successive fi ve year review, the previous interim distribution (collected in the previous fi ve year review) shall become the baseline distribution. At selected fi ve year interim reviews, the interim distribution of population and employment will be assessed rela-tive to next forecasted distribution (e.g., forecasts prepared for 2001, 2011, 2021 and 2031) to calculate the accuracy of the forecasted volume of growth for each municipality. The dif-ference between the interim distribution and the forecasted distribution will be expressed as a percent of the forecasted distribution to indicate the relative level of growth received. The rate of growth derived using Indicator #1 may be applied to the numerical difference between the interim distributions to assess the accuracy and reasonableness of the popula-tion and employment forecasts.

Limitation(s)

• This indicator does not allow evaluators to evaluate the effectiveness of intensifi ca-tion policies or practicality of density targets because its scope is limited to assessing the accuracy of distribution forecasts by volume.

• The collection of interim population data will need to be timed following the comple-tion of Financial Information Returns at the end of the Reporting Year and interim data on employment may not be uniformly collected in each municipality on a regular basis. This may cause a lag in the availability of data for the interim distribution of approximately six to twelve months.

Data Source(s)

The data collection required for the scheduled Five-Year Interim Reviews may be stream-lined with the existing Municipal Performance Measurement Program. Population data is already collected in the Municipal Information section of the FIR for all upper- and lower-tier municipalities.

The Growth Secretariat may request that an additional performance measure be added to the FIR that requires all municipalities to report Employment Survey data (the total number of employees working within the municipality, and the type of work that is taking place).

2

32

Policy Theme(s)

Managing Growth


Housing Types – Refers to the mix of built form of residential dwellings. These include single-detached houses; semi-detached houses; row houses; apartment detached duplexes; fi ve or more storey apartment buildings; apartments with fewer than fi ve storeys; other single-attached houses; and movable dwellings.

Occupied Private Dwellings – Refers to an occupied separate set of living quar-ters with a private entrance either from outside the building or from a common hall, lobby, vestibule, or stairway inside the building (Statistics Canada, 2010).


• Section 2.2.2 of the Growth Plan states that population and employment growth will be accommodated by: a) reducing dependence on the automobile through the development of mixed-use, transit-supportive, pedestrian friendly urban environments; b) planning and investing for a balance of jobs and hous-ing in communities across the GGH to reduce the need for long distance com-muting and to increase the modal share for transit, walking, and cycling; and c) encouraging cities and towns to develop as complete communities with a diverse mix of land uses, a range and mix of employment and housing types, high quality public open space and easy access to local stores and services.

Rationale

The Growth Plan seeks to promote a range of housing densities and levels of af-fordability in an effort to achieve economically, environmentally, and socially sus-tainable communities. Monitoring changes in the range of housing types as a per-centage of the total housing stock will provide an indication of the degree to which change in residential built form across the Golden Greater Horseshoe is refl ect-ing the goals of community completeness, diversity, inclusiveness, and sustainability.


Change in housing mix (expressed as a percentage of total occupied private dwellings) across a range of housing types.

2

Limitation(s)

• This indicator does not refl ect permits and approvals granted prior to the implementation of the Growth Plan. It will require time to detect caus-al change between the Growth Plan and change in housing structure com-position. Attribution may be furthermore diffi cult to accurately determine.

Data Source(s)

The data collection required for the scheduled Five-Year Interim Reviews may be streamlined with the existing Census Tract Community Profi les prepared by Statis-tics Canada.

2

Policy Theme(s)

General Intensifi cation


Built Boundary – The limits of the developed urban area as defi ned by the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal (renamed Minister of Energy and Infrastructure) in accordance with Policy 2.2.3.5.

Intensifi cation – The development of a property within an urban area at higher den-sities than currently exist, through the redevelopment of vacant or brownfi eld lands; infi lling of spaces between existing development; or the expansion or conversion of existing buildings.


• Section 2.2.3.1 of the Growth Plan states that by the year 2015 and for each year thereafter, a minimum of 40 per cent of all residential development occurring annually within each upper - and single -tier municipality will be within the built-up area.

• Section 2.2.3.2 of the Growth Plan states that if at the time this Plan comes into effect, an upper - or single - tier municipality is achieving a percentage higher than the minimum intensifi cation target identifi ed in Section 2.2.3.1 of the Growth Plan, this higher percentage will be considered the minimum intensifi cation target for that municipality.

• 2.2.3.5 of the Growth Plan states the Minister of Public Infrastructure Re-newal (renamed Minister of Energy and Infrastructure), in consultation with affect-ed municipalities will verify and delineate the built boundary.

Rationale

The general principle for measuring progress towards the general residential in-tensifi cation target identifi ed in Section 2.2.3.1 is to distinguish between intensi-fi cation, greenfi eld development, and pre-existing residential development within the built-up area. Evaluators are interested in the number of new residential units created in the designated intensifi cation areas throughout the upper- and single-tier municipalities. To determine this, it is necessary to identify the number of units


General Intensifi cation Rate: All new residential development built inside the built boundary (intensifi cation) divided by all new development (greenfi eld + intensifi cation).

2

35

created within the built boundary (intensifi cation units) and divide that fi gure by the total number of new units built throughout the municipality to determine the intensifi cation rate. The built-up area was chosen as the spatial focus of evalua-tion (as opposed to settlement areas) because the boundaries of the built-up area have been clearly defi ned in the Growth Plan’s schedules and there is a clear pol-icy intention in section 2.2.3.5 to regularly update this spatial defi nition over time.

Limitation(s)

• This indicator assumes that the Province will implement measures to verify and de-lineate the built boundary in consultation with affected municipalities on a regular basis. A review of the built boundary may be appropriate following each fi ve year interim evaluation.

• The general intensifi cation rate for the different intensifi cation areas, including urban growth centres and transportation corridors, cannot be distinguished using this general in-tensifi cation corridor. This indicator only provides a broad picture of regional intensifi cation and does not allow evaluators to assess growth patterns in greater detail.

• The fi ndings produced by this indicator may show a one-time “bump” in intensifi ca-tion due to the initial delineation of the built boundary. These fi ndings may cause the appear-ance of a relatively short-term trend marked by rapidly increasing density, with intensifi cation rates smoothing out over time.

Data Source(s)

The data collection required for the scheduled Five-Year Interim Reviews may be streamlined with the existing Municipal Performance Measurement Program. As-suming that detailed data and drawings on the land considered within the built-up area are provided to affected municipalities to simplify data collection processes, it is rec-ommended that an additional performance measure be introduced in the FIR to col-lect data on the amount new residential development built inside the built boundary.

2

36

Policy Theme(s)

Urban Growth Centres


Urban Growth Centres – Identifi ed in Schedule 4 of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, these centres are intended to concentrate de-velopment in high-density, mixed-use districts which are conducive to walk-ing, cycling, and public transit use. These centres are intended to contribute to the overall goals of raising densities, reducing the amount of land consumed by urbanization, and reducing automobile dependency throughout the region.


• Section 2.2.3 of the Growth Plan states that all municipalities will develop and implement through their offi cial plans and other supporting documents, a strat-egy and policies to phase in and achieve intensifi cation and the intensifi cation target. This strategy and policies will recognize urban growth centres and include density targets where applicable.

• Section 2.2.4 of the Growth Plan states that urban growth centres will: a) serve as high density major employment centres that will attract provincially, na-tionally, or internationally signifi cant employment uses; and b) accommodate a signifi cant share of population and employment growth.

Rationale

With minimum gross density targets of 400 residents and jobs combined per hect-are for each urban growth centre in Toronto, and 200 residents and jobs combined per hectare for all other urban growth centres, the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe identifi es these urban growth centres as having the potential to accommodate a signifi cant share of population and employment growth through intensifi cation. As focal areas for investment, these centres play an integral role in attracting and concentrating development. A performance indicator monitoring residential and employment density will monitor compliance with the intensifi cation strategy.

2


Percent change in density of jobs and population in urban growth centers (in relation to the Growth Plan’s minimum gross density targets).

37

Limitation(s)

• This indicator cannot explain the differences in the capacity of municipali-ties to accomplish this policy objective, nor can it explain why other municipali-ties might remain in the status quo. Identifying the reasons why some areas are not meeting the growth targets can help in the review process of these policies.

Data Source(s)

Specialized data must be generated for each of the 25 urban growth centres by affected municipalities. Local Economic Development Offi ces can collect data on the densities of different types of development and household size to estimate the density of each urban growth centre. The Growth Secretariat may request that affected municipalities report ur-ban growth centre densities directly to the Ministry, independent of the standardized FIR.

2

38

Policy Theme(s)

Urban Growth Centres


Urban Growth Centres – Identifi ed in Schedule 4 of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, these centres are intended to concentrate de-velopment in high-density, mixed-use districts which are conducive to walk-ing, cycling, and public transit use. These centres are intended to contribute to the overall goals of raising densities, reducing the amount of land consumed by urbanization, and reducing automobile dependency throughout the region.


• Section 2.2.3 of the Growth Plan states that all municipalities will develop and im-plement through their offi cial plans and other supporting documents, a strategy and poli-cies to phase in and achieve intensifi cation and the intensifi cation target. This strategy and policies will recognize urban growth centres and include density targets where applicable.

• Section 2.2.4 of the Growth Plan states that urban growth centres will: a) serve as high density major employment centres that will attract pro-vincially, nationally, or internationally signifi cant employment uses; and b) accommodate a signifi cant share of population and employment growth.

• Section 2.2.6 of the Growth Plan states that major offi ce and appropriated major institutional development should be located in urban growth centres.

Rationale

The Plan identifi es 25 urban growth centres, representing a mix of well-established centres, underperforming centres, not-yet existing centres, and the declining downtowns of some smaller cities. The intensifi cation of these designated urban growth centres, for which minimum gross density targets have been established to be met by 2031 or earlier, is an integral component of the Growth Plan. By monitoring the change in offi ce and retail vacancy rates within these centres, it is possible to evaluate the economic vibrancy of these intensifi ed areas over time. Commercial vacancy rates are an important economic indicator for assessing the viability of further residential and employment intensifi cation.

2


Percent change in commercial vacancy rates in Urban Growth Centres.

39

Limitation(s)

• This indicator does not provide insight into why some municipalities may have more offi ce and retail vacancies than others.

• The fi ndings produced by this indicator do not refl ect market demand or the potential of wealth for economic activity.

Data Source(s)

Specialized data must be generated for each of the 25 urban growth centres by affect-ed municipalities. The Employment Surveys of affected municipalities in which an urban growth centre are identifi ed may be modifi ed to collect offi ce and retail vacancy rate data. The Growth Secretariat may request that affected municipalities report urban growth centre vacancy rate data directly to the Ministry, independently of the standardized FIR.

2

40

Policy Theme(s)

Employment Lands


Employment Lands – Lands designated as ‘employment areas’ in an Offi cial Plan for clusters of businesses and economic activities including, but not limited to, manufacturing, warehous-ing, offi ces, and associated retail and ancillary facilities (Provincial Policy Statement, 2005).

Built Boundary – The limits of the developed urban area as defi ned by the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal (renamed Minister of Energy and Infrastructure) in accordance with Policy 2.2.3.5.


• The Growth Plan states that an adequate supply of employment lands will be maintained to accommodate growth forecasts.

• Section 2.2.6 states that municipalities will promote economic development and competitiveness by planning for, protecting, and preserving employment areas for current and future uses.

Rationale

The Growth Plan requires municipalities to plan for and protect employment areas. From a land use perspective, there is a necessity for readily available serviced land to allow for future economic activities and prosperity. It is also critical to plan for employment in a way that revitalizes downtowns and supports sustainable communities. One way to monitor em-ployment lands is to track the change in area of designated employment lands. This will identify trends which are occurring and will indicate if further investigation is required. The second component of this indicator will measure the utilization of these lands for employ-ment purposes by monitoring the change in employees per employment land hectare within the built boundary. The two components of this indicator will be calculated separately.

2


Percent change in area of designated employment lands and percent change in employees per employment land hectare, within the built boundary.

41

Limitation(s)

• To ensure consideration is given to changing circumstances, it is necessary mu-nicipalities confi rm or amend their policies dealing with areas of employment, including land use designations and policies dealing with conversion of employment lands. This will depend on the Offi cial Plan revisions which are done differently in each municipality.

• The defi nition of employment lands can differ in various municipalities with varying land needs and other requirements.

• Using this indicator it is possible to monitor the volume of economic activity, but monitoring and predicting trends in the type and spatial characteristics of employment activ-ity in the region may be diffi cult.

Data Source(s)

Municipal planning authorities keep data on development proposals and zon-ing by-law amendments that can be aggregated to determine the change in area of designated employment lands within individual municipalities and the region as a whole. To streamline data collection processes, it is recommended that an additional perfor-mance measure be introduced into the Land-Use section of the FIR to collect data on the stock of employment lands for all upper- and lower-tier municipalities in the region.

For the second component of this indicator, the Growth Secretariat may re-quest that an additional performance measure be added to the FIR that re-quires all municipalities to report the number of employees per employment land hectare. This data may be collected through municipal Employment Surveys.

2

42

Policy Theme(s)

Designated Greenfi eld Area


Designated Greenfi eld Area – The area within a settlement area that is not built-up area. Where a settlement does not have a built boundary, the entire settlement area is considered designated greenfi eld area.


• Section 2.2.2 of the Growth Plan supports building compact, transit-supported com-munities in designated greenfi eld areas.

• Section 2.2.7.2 of the Growth Plan states that the designated greenfi eld area of each upper – or single – tier municipality will be planned to achieve a mini-mum density target that is not less than 50 residents and jobs combined per hectare.

• Section 2.2.7.6 of the Growth Plan states that municipalities will develop and imple-ment Offi cial Plan policies, including phasing policies, and other strategies, for designat-ed greenfi eld areas to achieve the intensifi cation target and density targets of this Plan.

Rationale

Building more compact greenfi eld communities that reduce the rate at which land is con-sumed can achieve better use of land and infrastructure. When they are protected, green-fi elds serve to promote growth in already developed areas and curb urban sprawl. As parks and greenways, they also provide green infrastructure essential to liveable communities. By monitoring the density of greenfi eld development in relation to the minimum density tar-get identifi ed in Section 2.2.7.2, it is possible to evaluate the progress made by municipali-ties towards the minimum density target and to monitor trends in greenfi eld development.

Limitation(s)

• The indicator will not provide for the type of development that is occurring in green-fi eld areas.

• It is dependent on the municipality to update this information which could occur at varying times according to the municipality.

2


Percent change in density of new development in Designated Greenfi eld Areas.

43

2

Data Source(s)

The data collection required for the scheduled 5-Year Interim Reviews may be streamlined with the existing Municipal Performance Measurement Program. The Growth Secretariat may request that an additional performance measure be added to the FIR that requires all municipalities to report the density of new development in Designated Greenfi eld Areas.

44

Policy Theme(s)

Transportation


Commute Time - Length of time it takes person to go from home to their place of employ-ment.


• Section 2.2.2.1 of the Growth Plan states that population and employment growth will be accommodated by: a) reducing dependence on the automobile through the de-velopment of mixed use, transit supportive, pedestrian-friendly urban environments; b) providing convenient access to intra- and inter-city transit; c) planning and investing for a balance of jobs and housing in communities across the GGH to reduce the need for land distance commuting and to increase the modal share for transit, walking and cycling.

• Section 2.2.3.7 of the Growth Plan states all Intensifi cation areas will be planned and designed to support transit, walking and cycling for everyday activities.

• Section 2.2.5.2 of the Growth Plan states that major transit station areas will be planned and designed to provide access from various transportation modes to the transit facility, in-cluding consideration of pedestrians, bicycle parking and commuter pick-up / drop-off areas.

Rationale

The Growth Plan aims to reduce dependence on the automobile through the de-velopment of mixed use, transit supportive, pedestrian-friendly urban environ-ments. By measuring the average commute times people take from home to work, this indicator provides some insight into availability of proximal employment lands.

Limitation(s)

• Analyzing home to work travel times alone does not give any indication of geogra-phy, or where the commute is taking place. This indicator should be used in conjunction with place of work and transportation to work.

• Regional data is not currently collected or scaled for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Data on the average daily commute times are collected by Statistics Canada, but data is only aggregated to the national level.


Average daily commute time (from home to work).

2

45

Data Source(s)

The Transportation Tomorrow Survey (TTS) currently collects data on the share of travel mode based on the trips made by residents in upper- and lower-tier mu-nicipalities in the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The data collection required for the scheduled 5-Year Interim Reviews may be streamlined with the existing Transporta-tion Tomorrow Survey. The Growth Secretariat may request that an additional per-formance measure be added to the Survey to collect time series travel information.

2

46

Policy Theme(s)

Transportation


Mode of Travel - The form of transportation used including automobiles, walking, cycling, buses, rapid transit, rail, trucks, air and marine.


• Section 2.2.2.1 of the Growth Plan states that population and employment growth will be accommodated by: a)reducing dependence on the automobile through the develop-ment of mixed use, transit supportive, pedestrian-friendly urban environments; b) provid-ing convenient access to intra- and inter-city transit; and c) planning and investing for a balance of jobs and housing in communities across the GGH to reduce the need for land distance commuting and to increase the modal share for transit, walking and cycling.

• Section 2.2.3.7 of the Growth Plan states that all Intensifi cation areas will be planned and designed to support transit, walking and cycling for everyday activities.

• Section 2.2.5.2 of the Growth Plan states that Major transit station areas will be planned and designed to provide access from various transportation modes to the transit facility, in-cluding consideration of pedestrians, bicycle parking and commuter pick-up / drop-off areas.

Rationale

The Growth Plan aims to reduce dependence on the automobile through the development of mixed use, transit supportive, pedestrian-friendly urban environments. By measuring the mode of transit for commuters, from home to work, this indicator provides some insight into availability of proximal employment lands, and quality and accessibility of public transit.

Limitation(s)

• This indicator will help to gauge public transit ridership, but does not provide a direct way of measuring ongoing quality of service.


Share of travel mode as a percent of total trips made by residents.

2

47

2

Data Source(s)

The data collection required for the scheduled 5-Year Interim Reviews may be stream-lined with the existing Transportation Tomorrow Survey. The Transportation Tomorrow Survey (TTS) currently collects data on the share of travel mode based on the trips made by residents in upper- and lower-tier municipalities in the Greater Golden Horseshoe.

48

Policy Theme(s) Moving People


Capital Investment - Financial investment in new systems or upgrades to existing services as opposed to costs associated with maintaining the status quo.

Private Transportation Infrastructure - Roadways, bridges, lighting, etc. that are developed primarily to serve private automobiles.


• Section 3.2.3.1 of the Growth Plan states that public transit will be the fi rst pri-ority for transportation infrastructure planning and major transportation investments.

• Section 3.2.3.2 of the Growth Plan states that all decisions on transit planning and investment will be made according to using transit to shape growth, and planning for high residential and employment densities that ensure the effi ciency and viability of existing and planned transit service levels.

Rationale

The Growth Plan identifi es the importance of infrastructure investment as a tool to support growth. It identifi es transit infrastructure investment as a priority in terms of both moving people and managing growth. This indicator will specifi cally measure the level of invest-ment in transit infrastructure and reveal fi nancial commitment to goals of the Growth Plan.

Limitation(s)

• Financial Information Return system will need to be adjusted to allow for proper and timely reporting.

• Does not recognize the spatial qualities of transit investment (i.e. within urban growth centres, built-up area, urban fringe, etc.).

• Does not consider the overlap of public and private transportation infrastructure.

• Could confl ict with moving goods indicators.


Percent change in capital investment in public transit systems compared to per-cent change in capital investment in private transportation infrastructure.

2

49

Data Source(s)

This indicator contemplates the collection of both municipal expenditure and pro-vincial expenditure data on public transit systems and transportation infrastructure in the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The collection of municipal data required for the scheduled 5-Year Interim Reviews may be streamlined with the existing Municipal Per-formance Measurement Program. The FIR already collects municipal transportation investment data for all upper- and lower-tier municipalities, including Canada Tran-sit Funding (Bill C-48) and capital fi nancing for transit operations and infrastructure. The collection of provincial data on capital investment required for the scheduled 5-Year Interim Reviews may be retrieved through a partnership with the Ministry of Transporta-tion. The Growth Secretariat may request that the Ministry of Transportation report pro-vincial investment in public transit systems and private transportation infrastructure.

2

50

Policy Theme(s)

Moving Goods


Priority Routes - To be established by municipalities to facilitate the movement of goods into and out of areas of signifi cant employment, industrial and commercial activity, as well as to provide alternate routes.

Value of Goods – Defi ned as the aggregate output or share of GDP that represents the to-tal market value of all fi nal goods and services produced in a given year in a given country.


• Section 3.2.4.1 of the Growth Plan states that the fi rst priority of highway in-vestment is to facilitate effi cient goods movement by linking inter-modal facilities, in-ternational gateways, and communities within the Golden Greater Horseshoe.

• Section 3.2.4.4 of the Growth Plan states that municipalities will provide for the establishment of priority routes for goods movement, where feasible, to facilitate the movement of goods into and out of areas of signifi cant employment, industrial and commercial activity and provide alternate routes connecting to the provincial network.

Rationale

Trade is the engine of Ontario’s economic prosperity with more than 40% of the province’s GDP dependent on trade. The Growth Plan identifi es the importance of infrastructure in-vestment as a tool to support growth. It requires municipalities to identify priority goods movement routes and encourages investment to increase goods movement effi ciency. This indicator will specifi cally measure changes in the volume and effi ciency of goods movement along priority routes and will reveal progress towards goods movement effi ciency objectives.

Limitation(s)

• Dependant on establishment of priority routes by municipalities.


Percent change in the value of goods shipped on priority routes.

2

51

• The scope of the policy objective and complexity of data would make data collection and aggregation diffi cult. A more simplifi ed approach to measuring the impact of the Growth Plan on the effi ciency of goods movement would be to measure the percent change in capi-tal investment in priority routes. However, this would only measure investment in highways.

Data Source(s)

The data for this indicator may be retrieved through a partnership with the Ontario Truck-ing Association (OTA). The OTA currently collects data on the share of GDP shipped along existing major highways in the Province. The retrieval of regionally focussed data may be requested by the Growth Secretariat through the Ministry of Transportation.

2

52

Policy Theme(s)

Moving Goods


Priority Routes - Established by municipalities to facilitate the movement of goods into and out of areas of signifi cant employment, industrial and commercial activity and provide alter-nate routes connecting to the provincial network of highways.


• Section 3.2.4.1 of the Growth Plan states the fi rst priority of highway investment is to facilitate effi cient goods movement by linking inter-modal facilities, international gateways, and communities within Greater Golden Horseshoe.

• Section 3.2.4.4 of the Growth Plan states that municipalities will provide for the establishment of priority routes for goods movement, where feasible, to facilitate the movement of goods into and out of areas of signifi cant employment, industrial and com-mercial activity and to provide alternate routes connecting to the provincial network.

Rationale

The Growth Plan identifi es the importance of infrastructure investment as a tool to support growth. It requires municipalities to identify priority goods movement routes and encourages investment to increase effi ciency. The improved effi ciency of the goods movement system will enhance economic competitiveness for municipalities within the Greater Golden Horse-shoe and the region as a whole.

Limitation(s)

• Priority routes are not identifi ed or defi ned in the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The designation of these routes are at the discretion of municipalities. Given that data cannot be collected before the routes are identifi ed, data for average travel time in the region can only be collected for major highways.


Average travel time on designated priority routes for goods movements.

2

53

2

Data Source(s)

The data for this indicator may be retrieved through a partnership with the Ministry of Transportation and the Ontario Trucking Association (OTA). The Growth Secretariat may request data sets from the Ministry of Transportation that aggregates GPS data which monitors average travel time and the variability of the journey of goods along major high-ways by examining the departure time and route choice. The OTA may be a useful source for time-travel data. The organization currently measures the shipment of time-sensitive freight in the Province for the purpose of calculating the cost of transportation as a propor-tion of the delivered price of major export products (Ontario Trucking Association, 2010).

54

Policy Theme(s)

Affordable Housing / Community Infrastructure


• Section 3.2.6.5 of the Growth Plan states that municipalities will establish and imple-ment minimum affordable housing targets in accordance with Policy 1.4.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005.

• Section 3.2.6.6 of the Growth Plan states that upper- and single - tier municipalities will develop a housing strategy in consultation with lower-tier municipalities, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and other appropriate stakeholders. The housing strat-egy will set out a plan, including policies for offi cial plans, to meet the needs of all resi-dents, including the need for affordable housing – both home ownership and rental housing.

Rationale

Municipal statistics demonstrate that affordable housing is not automatically a by-product of increased density. In fact, high housing costs may be a refl ection of the de-sirability of denser, more diverse settings and the willingness of people to pay to live in them. There is a need to ensure that more compact development is also equitable. Although the Growth Plan is not a strategic policy instrument for the provision of affordable housing, this indicator is helpful in assessing the health of the residential stock and the absorption of future population growth in the regional housing market.

Limitation(s)

• This indicator only measures the housed and does not assess how well the Growth Plan is dealing with homelessness.

• To access this information, there is a retrieval and delivery fee of $60.00 per occur-rence.

• Statistics Canada reports that this data source is updated every 5 years, however the only updated data accessible was prepared using 2001 Census data. This data source must be confi rmed.


Percent of households paying 30% or more of gross annual income on housing.

2

55

Data Source(s)

The data collection required for the scheduled 5-Year Interim Reviews may be streamlined with the existing Statistics Canada publications: Profi le of Income of Individuals, Families and Households, Social and Economic Characteristics of In-dividuals, Families and Households, Housing Costs, and Religion (Canada).

2

56

Policy Theme(s)

Natural Systems


Urban Open Space Systems - Includes rooftop gardens, communal courtyards, and public parks.


• The Growth Plan acknowledges that some natural heritage features are already under the protection of legislation such as the Ontario Heritage Act or provin-cial policy plans such as the Greenbelt Act. Nevertheless, the Growth Plan is intended to support and build upon these initiatives by encouraging a culture of conservation.

• Section 4.2.1 of the Growth Plan states that municipalities are encouraged to estab-lish urban open space systems within areas that are built up.

Rationale

An increase in urban open space systems is seen as a way to measure how people are in-vesting in urban revitalization. The increase in these systems can lead to cohesive commu-nities, benefi t air and water quality, and increase opportunities for urban recreational activity.

Limitation(s)

• This system can lead to a ‘fi lling in’ approach toward urban open space cre-ation. Rather than specifi cally planning for open space in urban areas, it is left in the hands of the public to create open space in an unstructured and unplanned for manner.

Data Source(s)

Municipal zoning and development applications can be used to measure the number of ap-plications for a type of urban open space development. Also, any instances of municipally led initiatives for urban open space development are usually carried out by local parks and recreation departments. The data collection required for the scheduled 5-Year Interim Reviews may be streamlined with the existing Municipal Performance Measure-ment Program. The Growth Secretariat may request that an additional performance measure be added to the FIR that requires all municipalities to report the frequen-cy of urban open space development applications and municipally led initiatives.


Percent of households paying 30% or more of gross annual income on housing.

2

57

2

Policy Theme(s)

Prime Agricultural Areas


Agricultural Uses - The means of growing crops, including nursery and horti-cultural crops; raising of livestock; raising of other animals for food, fur or fi -bre, including poultry and fi sh; aquaculture; apiaries; agro-forestry; maple syrup production; and associated on-farm buildings and structures, including accommodation for full-time farm labour when the size and nature of the op-eration requires additional employment (Provincial Policy Statement, 2005).


• Section 4.2.2 of the Growth Plan states that municipalities are encouraged to maintain, improve and provide opportunities for farm-related infrastructure such as drainage and irrigation.

Rationale

By measuring the amount of land being used for agricultural purposes it can than be indicated whether this type of land use is being protected or not. The intention of this indicator is to describe the changes in land use and how these changes affect agricultural land. This indicator also provides insight into the eco-nomic situation of the agricultural industry in the Golden Greater Horseshoe.

Limitation(s)

• Does not measure what factors led to agricultural land loss. Economic fac-tors such as unsuccessful agricultural practice and environmental factors such as intensifi cation of land leading to bad soil should be accounted and are not.

Data Source(s)

The data collection required for the scheduled 5-Year Interim Reviews may be streamlined with the existing Municipal Performance Measurement Pro-gram. The Planning and Development section of the FIR currently collects data on the preservation of agricultural land by accounting for lands that are gained for agricultural use or re-designated for purposes other than agriculture.


Number of hectares of land originally designated for agricultural uses which was re-designated for other uses during the reporting year.

58

3

This section outlines some of the over-arching strengths and limitations of this framework identifi ed over the course of this undertaking.

Section 5.4.3 of the Growth Plan establishes expectations for monitoring and evaluating the implementation of policies and targets set out within the Plan. Key performance indicators are expected to be developed as a primary component of this requirement. The performance indicators outlined in this report have been formulated on the basis of rigorous research and methodological processes, and may act as a valuable evaluative tool for the successful implementation of the Growth Plan. There has been an attempt to address any inherent limitations of this framework, while maintaining a number of positive details capable of specifi cally addressing the performance monitoring needs of the Ontario Growth Secretariat.

Throughout the initial research phase, numerous performance measurement pro-grams relating to smart growth, growth management, and planning policy were identifi ed and evaluated. A thorough environmental scan of growth management performance evaluation in other jurisdictions was also conducted, and a com-prehensive inventory of these programs was created. The inventory should con-tinue to serve as a valuable tool for comparative and idea-generating purposes.

A set of preliminary key performance indicators was developed using Ceci-lia Wong’s four-step methodological approach (see section 2.4). Wong’s meth-odology is simple and concise, and was developed to help construct indicators at a regional scale. Her method is highly accredited and follows a logical se-quence of steps, which are transferable to other performance monitoring ini-tiatives. In addition to the Wong methodology, indicator development was rooted in the policy objectives of the Growth Plan. Therefore, direct linkag-es were made between the Plan’s policy goals and the methods of evaluation.

As a complement to the guiding principles, this framework also presents a series of selection criteria potential indicators can be evaluated against (see section 2.3). The selection criteria outline essential characteristics of effective indicators that have been identifi ed through a jurisdictional scan, as well as an academic literature review.

3.0 Conclusions

3.1 Framework Strengths

59

3

This framework also outlines a realistic methodology for the collection of data. One of the most pressing challenges the Ontario Growth Secretariat will face with regard to performance measurement will be accessibility of appropriate data, which is the core of any performance measurement program. Accessible, transparent and current data can be diffi cult to obtain, especially at a regional or sub-regional scale. Within this framework, numerous data sources have been identifi ed, and specifi c recom-mendations for data collection have been made (see sections 2.5.2 and 4.0). The re-search conducted for this initiative may serve as a valuable administrative tool for the Ontario Growth Secretariat as they begin to measure Growth Plan implementation.

The research informing this undertaking and the development of this framework have revealed a number of limitations inherent to performance measurement of growth management generally, and with specifi c liability to the Performance Measure-ment Framework for the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Of these limitations, three over-riding concerns have surfaced as bearing greatest rele-vance to the Ontario Growth Secretariat in moving forward with this undertaking:

1. This framework has been developed to measure and monitor the degree to which policies contained within the Growth Plan are being successfully implemented. This may be perceived as a limitation of the evaluative capacity of this framework in the respect that it only measures policy implementation progress and does not examine the merits of the policies themselves. It is furthermore limited in its abilty to identify alternatives where shortcomings in policy implementation may be identifi ed.

2. The issue of causality presents as a signifi cant and double-edged limiting factor to the effi cacy of this framework as an evaluative tool for measuring the success of the Growth Plan. Firstly, the potential for false attribution derives from the fact that this evaluative framework may de-tect whether or not a given change has occured since the implementation

3.2 Framework Limitations

60

3

of the Plan, but it cannot state with certainty that an observed change occured discretely because of the Plan. Forces external to the infl uences of policies contained within the Growth Plan will be persistent and will make the relationships between causes and effects diffi cult to view in isolation. Conversely, this framework is limited in that it may fail to detect unanticipated outcomes and/or outcomes on areas outside those delineated by the Plan. For example, the Neptis Foundation has identifi ed that the Growth Plan inten-sifi cation policies do not anticipate the occurence of ineffective intensifi cation developing within 500 metres of the outer edge of the built boundary. This observation corroborates a notion that this proposed framework does not have the ability to measure unanticipated growth outcomes, which fall outside the scope of the Plan but may be impacted by them.

3. Though not a limiting factor of this framework per se, the relative infancy of both the delineation of the Greater Golden Horseshoe as a distinct geographic re-gion, and of the Growth Plan presents potentially signifi cant constraints to the performance measurement of the Plan. In many instances it may be diffi cult to detect tem-poral changes to the characteristics of the region to compare with current conditions, as data and data collection regimes for many of the characteristics in question are as of today non-existent. This constraint should alleviate over time as both the necessary data collec-tion regimes and data sets are generated, and as the region evolves under the Growth Plan.

61

4

This section outlines a number of recommendations intended to inform the next steps of the Ontario Growth Secretariat as they move forward in developing a perfor-mance measurement framework to address section 5.4.3 of the Growth Plan. These recommendations may be used generate ideas for future discussion and policy re-vision. This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but each of the seven points may be of value in the development of an effective performance measurement framework.

1. Layer data sharing through regional partnership mechanisms with the Ontario Growth Secretariat acting as the central body for coordinating and overseeing data collection.

It is recommended that the OGS appoint a Regional Planning Monitoring Council to guide efforts that encourage data collection which is transparent and easy to access. A critical task for the established council would be to develop a well-artic-ulated protocol on data specifi cation and the transmission of local data, with the roles and responsibilities of local planning authorities clearly understood. Data col-lection agencies outside the realm of government should also be incorporated into the efforts to share data across political and geographic boundaries. The Regional Planning Monitoring Council would have the ability to develop an action plan in order to accomplish these goals. Holding workshops with data providers to discuss monitoring requirements will help establish necessary links in the preparation of performance evaluation. Stakeholder conferences to present and discuss the fi nd-ings would furthermore establish good practice in facilitating working partnerships.

2. Modify existing data collection processes at the municipal and provincial level to satisfy the data requirements for monitoring growth management in the Greater Golden Horseshoe.

In order to adopt a comprehensive performance measurement system, a rigorous data collection procedure may be required to meet the supplementary needs of specifi c statistical information. This shall not be resource prohibitive in the context of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, as it is simply a matter of applying minor additions to a standard data collection tool. The annual Financial Information Return (FIR) reporting system has the capacity to introduce additional effi ciency and effectiveness performance measures in Schedules 91 &

4.0 Recommendations and Next Steps

62

4

92. While these sections monitor the quality of service delivery, it would be useful to incorporate additional performance measures relating to growth management in certain segments of the report (i.e. land-use planning section). Schedule 90, labelled municipal information performance measures already requires that all upper- and lower-tier municipalities in Ontario submit population data to include in the province’s database. Therefore, employing automatic formulas and calculations in the design of the FIR are the only efforts needed to determine the amount of growth and growth rates in comparison to the baseline fi gures.

3. Develop a composite index to capture the multivariate policy objectives of growth management into one discrete measure of progress.

Given the range of policy goals contained within the Growth Plan for The Greater GoldenHorseshoe, the development of a composite index geared to providing one coherent image of progress may serve as a useful tool for articulating the Plan’s overall effi cacy to the general public. The distillation of multivariate policy goals and outcomes into a composite index score may help to migtigate misinterpretation of the Plan’s effectiveness, limiting potential out-come anomalies from becoming inappropriately representative of the Plan’s implementation success. The development by the Ontario Growth Secretariat of a composite index to capture growth management outcomes may furthermore improve cross-jurisdictional comparison. As growth management strategies are increasingly adopted throughout North America and global-ly, the development of such an index as a component of the monitoring framework for the Growth Plan may also serve to further entrench Ontario as a leader in the arena of growth management.

4. Facilitate data sharing processes with municipalities on the basis of exchange theory: cooperation is a voluntary transaction whereby municipalities derive mutually reinforcing benefi ts from data collection and analysis.

Additional performance measures introduced in the FIR required from municipalities through the Province’s Municipal Performance Measurement Program may slightly increase operat-ing costs and organizational complexity at the municipal level. These data requirements represent relatively small modifi cations to the existing data collection processes currently completed by all upper- and lower-tier municipalities in Ontario. For instance, affected mu-nicipalities may be required to report on commercial vacancy rates within designated urban growth centers and provide standardized employment survey data within the framework of the FIR. Although data would be collected primarily for regional analysis, it is anticipated that local planning authorities of upper- and lower-tier municipalities will benefi t from the collec-tion, analysis and policy guidance of the proposed evaluative framework for growth man-agement in the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The Ontario Growth Secretariat may reinforce these mutual benefi ts and strengthen their relationship with municipalities by incorporating feedback sessions into the 5 year interim review process at which time the Province can report to municipalities on the progress made towards the Plan’s targets and objectives.

63

4

5. Consider adopting a quality of life measurement framework that quantifi es qualitative data and determines meaningful interactions between land use and the environment.

While the Growth Plan is primarily concerned with growth management, it should be understood that every public policy has an overarching goal to im-prove the quality of life for current and future residents. However, the compre-hensive collection and measurement of regional data relating to aspects of quality of life are in their infancy. Strong quality of life indicators could provide meaningful evidence about the interactions and relationships between the poli-cies in the Growth Plan and the local quality of life. Our recommendation is to consider a framework similar to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities Qual-ity of Life in Canadian Municipalities. Examples of several quality of life indica-tors used in other jurisdictions, as well as the indicators and domains used by the Federation of Canadian municipalities can be found in the Appendix D.

6. Develop a monitoring framework to include the surveying and interviewing of key informants from both public and private sectors

The inclusion of municipal councillor, local planner, and private developer perceptions of Smart Growth programs and policies has been employed in a number of relevant studies in Canada and the U.S. as both a measure of the effectiveness of a given strategy, as well as to illuminate key challenges faced in the implementation of a given plan (Grant, 2009; O’Connell, 2008; Ingram et. al., 2009). The literature suggests that the varied experiences of plan-ners, local politicians, and developers with the implementation of smart growth programs can inform evaluative processes through insight gained ‘on the ground’; they may provide invaluable knowledge regarding potential gaps between the stated intents of policies and the realities of achieving smart growth goals (Grant, 2009). The inclusion of key informant perceptions will also serve to broad-en the evaluation of Ontario’s smart growth success to include an important human dimension, indiscernible through statistical and policy conformance data analysis alone. This may be a crucial component in understanding how to better achieve the goals of the Growth Plan as it can provide a ‘why’ factor to both successes and failures, in the implementation of policies articulated in the Plan.

64

4

7. Include a monitoring framework that includes cross-jurisdictional comparative analysis

In addition to measuring the performance of the Growth Plan against its stated goals, it is recommended that the monitoring framework for the Growth Plan evolves to in-clude comparative analysis against other jurisdictions. The juxtaposition of jurisdictions against each other is a common approach to performance measurement, particularly for sustainability and growth management related programs (Ingram et al, 2009). The Lincoln Institute for example, analyzed performance indicators by comparing states with legislat-ed smart growth programs against those without. The Yale Centre for Environmental Law and Policy’s Environmental Sustainability Index juxtaposes country against country (Esty et al, 2005). The overall degree of success achieved by a given jurisdiction in terms of growth management may be more readily observable when comparing across jurisdictions rather than in isolation, suggesting that the evaluative framework for the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe may benefi t from including comparative analysis dimension.

Concluding Remarks

This report has presented a preliminary framework aimed at informing the Ontario Growth Secretariat in the development of an ongoing regime for monitoring the performance of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. It is anticipated that this framework will act as a starting point from which the OGS can fulfi ll the commitment to monitor set out in section 5.4.3 of the Plan. The intent is for this framework to evolve with the changing interactions be-tween the Plan and the Greater Golden Horseshoe, at the discretion of the Growth Secretariat.

65

5

5.0 References

Alexander, D. & Tomalty, R. (2002). Smart Growth and Sustainable Development: challenges, solutions and policy directions. Local Environment, 7(4), 397-409 Ammons, D. N. (1996). Municipal Benchmarks: Assessing Local Performance and Establishing Community Standards. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA. Ang-Olsen, J. (2003). Characteristics and Performance of Smart Growth Transportation Systems. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved electronically from: http://www.urbanstreet.info/2nd_sym_proceedings/Volume%202/Santore.pdf.

Atkisson, A. and Hatcher, R. (2001). The complex index of sustainability: prototype for a comprehensive sustainability information system. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 3(4), 509-532. Picard, A. (2005, May 12). Economic indicators only tell part of the story. enter the ciw: Canadian index of well-being. The Globe and Mail, A19. Auckland Region (1999) A Vision for Managing Growth in the Auckland Region. Retrieved electronically from: http://www.arc.govt.nz/albany/fms/main/Documents/Auckland/Aucklands%20growth/Auckland%20 regional%20growth%20strategy.pdf Balsas, C.J. L. (2004). Measuring the livability of an urban centre: An exploratory study of key performance indicators. Planning Practice and Research, 19(1), 101-110.

Barnetson, Bob & Cutright, Marc. (2000). Performance indicators as conceptual technologies. Higher Education, 40, 277-292. Behn, Robert D. (2003).Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures, Public Administration Review, 63(5). 586 – 606. Berry, D., Flynn, P., & Heintz, T. (2002). Sustainability and quality of life indicators: toward the integration of economic, social and environmental measures. The Journal of Social Health, 1(4), 2 - 23. Brinckerhoff, P. (2009) ORTP 2035 Performance Measures Oahu Regional Transportation Plan 2035 Project. Retrieved electronically from: http://www.oahumpo.org/ortp_docs/ORTP2035PerformanceMeasures20090617.pdf

British Columbia Ministry of Community and Rural Development, (2009). Indicator list. British Columbia: Retrieved electronically from: http://www.cd.gov.bc.ca/lgd/library/Indicator_List.pdf Bonar Blalock, Ann. (1990). Evaluation Research and the Performance Management Movement: From Estrangement to Useful Integration? Evaluation, 5, 117. Retrieved electronically from: http://evi.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/5/2/117.pdf

66

5

Bourne, M., Neely, A., Platts, K. & Mills, J. (2002). The success and failure of performance measurement initiatives: Perceptions of participating managers. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 22(11), 1288-1310. Bunting, T., P. Filion, and H. Priston. (2002). “Density Gradients in Canadian Metropolitan Regions, 1971–96: Differential Patterns of Central Area and Suburban Growth and Change.” Urban Studies, 39(13), 2531–2552. Burda, C. (2008). Getting Tough on Urban Sprawl: Solutions to Meet Ontario Climate Change Targets. The Pembina Institute. Burchell, R.W., Listokin, D., & Galley, C.C. (2000). Smart growth: more than a ghost of policy past, less than a bold new horizon. Housing Policy Debate, 11(4), 821-879. Bureau of Local Government Supervision (2009).The Local government performance management system (version 2) operations handbook. Retrieved electronically from: http://www.4shared.com/fi le/131885560/500ae4f7/LGPMS_Operations_Handbook_2009-2011_ as_of_091109 Christie, C. A. (2003). What guides evaluation? A study of how evaluation practice maps onto evaluation theory. New Directions for Evaluation, 97, 7-35. City of Hamilton. (2008). New Corporate Strategic Plan. Retrieved electronically from: http://www.hamilton.ca/CityDepartments/CityManager/PerformanceMeasurementandReporting/ City of Sydney. (2009). City of Sydney Corporate Plan. Retrieved electronically from: http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/Council/FormsPoliciesPublication/CorporatePlan.asp

Costa, F. (2005). Comment: an ambitious movement and its prospects for success. Journal of the American Planning Association, 71(4), 378-380.

Craglia, M., Leontidou, L., Nuvolati , G., & Schweikart, J. (2004). Towards the development of quality of life indicators in the digital city. Environmental and Planning B: Planning and Design, 31, 51 - 64. Department of Civil Engineering, Data Management Group. (2009). 2006 transportation tomorrow survey: 2006, 2001 & 1996 travel survey summaries. Toronto, ON. Downs, A. (2005). Smart growth: why we discuss it more than we do it. Journal of the Ameri¬can Planning Association, 71(4), 367-378. Eagan, P., & Erhard, J. (1997). Development of a facility-based environmental performance indicator related to sustainable development. J. Cleaner Prod., 5(4), 269-278.

Esty, Daniel C., Marc Levy, Tanja Srebotnjak, and Alexander de Sherbinin (2005). 2005 Environmental Sustainability Index: Benchmarking National Environmental Stewardship. New Haven: Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy. Edwards, M.M., & Haines, A. (2007). Evaluating smart growth: implications for small com¬munities. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 27(49), 49-64. Ewing, R., Pendall, R., & Chen, D. (2003). Measuring Sprawl and Its Impacts. Smart Growth America. Retrieved electronically from: http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/sprawlindex/MeasuringSprawl.PDF.

67

5

Federation of Canadian Municipalities. (1999). The quality of life reporting system. Retrieved electronically from: http://www.fcm.ca//CMFiles/qol19991VSO-3272008-6325.pdf

Faber-Langendoen, D., Rocchio, J. Schafale, M. Nordman, C. Pyne, M. Teague, J. Foti, T.and Comer P. (2006). Ecological Integrity Assessment and Performance Measures for Wetland Mitigation. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. .Retrieved electronically from: ttp://www.natureserve.org/publications/eia_wetland_032707.pdf

Filion, P. & McSpurren, K. (2007). Smart growth and development reality: the diffi cult coordination of land use and transport objectives. Urban studies, 44(3), 501-523. Fleischer, D. & Christie, C.A. (2009). Evaluation use: A survey of U.S. American Evaluation Association members. American Journal of Evaluation.

Frenkel, Amnon (2004). The potential effect of national growth-management policy on urban sprawl and the depletion of open spaces and farmland. Land Use Policy, 21 (2004) 357–369. Goss, S. & Blackaby, B.,(1998). Designing local housing strategies. Cardiff: Chartered Institute of Housing.

Government of Canada – Transport Canada. (2008). Town of Markham’s land-use policies and development charges support transportation demand management. Retrieved eletronically from: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/programs/environment-utsp-markhamlanduse-1169.htm Grant, J. L. (2009). Theory and practice in planning the suburbs: Challenges to implementing New Urbanism, Smart Growth, and Sustainability principles. Planning theory and practice, 10(1), 11- 33. Greater Vancouver Regional District. (2005). Livable region strategic plan annual report - 2005. Retrieved electronically from: http://www.metrovancouver.org/about/publications/Publications/LRSP-AnnualRe port-2005.pdf

Greene, J. G. (1988). Stakeholder participation and utilization in program evaluation. Evaluation Review, 12, 91-116.

Hardi, P. & Pintér, L. (2006). Community Quality-of-Life Indicators: Best Cases II M. J. Sirgy, D. Rahtz and D. Swain (Eds.). London, UK: Springer Haven: Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy.

Hemphill, L., Berry, J., & McGreal, S. (2004). An indicator-based approach to measuring sustainable urban regeneration performance: Part 1, Conceptual foundations and methodological framework. Urban Studies, 41(4), 725–755.

Ho, A. and Coates, P. (2004). Citizen-Initiated Performance Assessment: the Initial Iowa Experience. Public Performance & Management Review, 27(3), 29-50. Hostovsky, C. (2009). Battle of the “Green Premiers”: Combating sprawl – The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and the Greenbelt Plan. University of Toronto.

68

5

Ingram G. K. et al. (2009). Smart Growth Policies: An evaluation of programs and outcomes. Lincoln Instituted of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA.

Innes, J. & Booher, D. (2000). Indicators for Sustainable Communities: A Strategy Building on Complexity Theory and Distributed Intelligence, Planning Theory & Practice, 1 (2), 173 - 186.

Institute On Governance (1999), Policy Brief No. 3:Means… Ends… Indicators: Performance Measurement in the Public Sector. Ottawa. International Institute for Sustainable Development. Measurement and assessment. Retrieved electronically from http://www.iisd.org/cgsdi/history.asp

Iowa CIPA. (2004, April 2). Mission & Objectives. Retrieved electronically from: http://www.iowacipa.org/

Jaeger, Jochen A.G, Bertiller, René, Schwick, Christian, Müller, Kalin, Steinmeier, Charlotte, Ewald, Klaus C, Ghazoul, Jaboury (2008). Implementing landscape fragmentation as an indicator in the Swiss monitoring system of sustainable development (MONET), Journal of Environmental Management 88 (2008) 737–751. Keeble, J., Topiol, S., & Berkeley, S. (2003). Using Indicators to measure sustainability performance at a corporate and project level. Journal of Business Ethics, 44, 149-158. Kulig, Anna, Kolfoort, Hans, Hoekstra, Rutger (2010). The case for the hybrid capital approach for the measurement of the welfare and sustainability, Ecological Indicators 10 (2010) 118–128.

Kushner, J. (2003). Smart growth, new urbanism and diversity: progressive planning movements in America and their impact on poor and minority ethnic populations. UCLA Journal of Environmental Law & Policy. Retrieved electronically from: http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-102555299/smart-growth-new-urbanism.html Lion, Cristina., Martini, Paola., & Volpi, Stefano. (2006). Evaluating the Implementation Process: A Contribution within the Framework of the European Social Fund (ESF) Programme. Evaluation: The International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice. Vol.12(3), 313-329. Low, A., Pearlman, K., & Starkweather, S. (2004). Managing growth: recent legal literature. Journal of Planning Literature, 18(267), 267-308. McCool, S., & Stankey, G. (2004). Indicators of sustainability: challenges and opportunities at the interface of science and policy. Environmental Management, 33(3).

Mandpe, S., Meyer, P., & Ye, L. (2005). What is “smart growth”-really?. Journal of Planning Literature, 19, 301-315. Maryland Smart Growth Indicators Project. Retrieved electronically from: http://www.indicatorproject.com/ Metro Planning Department. (2004). 2040 Growth Concept Performance Measures Report. Retrieved electronically from: http://library.oregonmetro.gov/fi les/full_2004_perf_meas_report_.pdf. Measuring policy performance: The dashboard tool (n.d.) In esl.jrc.it/dc/db_leafl .doc. Retrieved electronically from: http://esl.jrc.it/dc/db_leafl .doc

69

5

Metrolinx. (2008). The Big Move: Transforming Transportation in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA). Retrieved from: http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regionalTransportationPlan.aspx Meyer, P.B., & Ye, L. (2005). What is “smart growth”-really?. Journal of planning literature, 19(301), 301-315. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. (2008). Schedule 90, Performance Measures: Municipal Information. Toronto C, Financial Information Return. Ontario. National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education and the Environmental Finance Center. 2003. Retrieved electronically from: http://www.smartgrowth.umd.edu/smartgrowthinmaryland.htm National Performance Review. (1994/1995). From Red Tape to Results: Creating a Government that Works Better and Costs Less; Putting Customers First: Standards for Serving the American People; and Common Sense Government. Washington, DC.

Niagara Escarpment Commission. (2008). Framework for Ontario’s Niagara Escarpment (ONE) Monitoring Program. Niagara Escarpment Commission. (1990). Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, 1990 – 2009 Revision. Retrieved from electronically from: http://www.escarpment.org/_fi les/fi le.php?fi leid=fi letzjcMfppfi &fi lename=fi le_NEPDA_Revised_with_ the_Good_Government_Act__2009.pdf Niagara Escarpment Commission. (2009). One Monitoring Program – Annual Report 2008-2009. Retrieved electronically from: http://escarpment.org/_fi les/fi le.php?fi leid=fi levvBBwuJwXK&fi lename=fi le_4_Monitoring_ Annual_Report_08_09.pdf North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority. (2009). North Jersey Strategy Evaluation. Retrieved electronically from: http://www.njtpa.org/Plan/Need/SE/default.aspx O’Connell, L. (2008). Exploring the social roots of smart growth policy adoption by cities. Social science quarterly, 89(5), 1356-1372. Offi ce of the Deputy Prime Minister. (2005). Regional Spatial Strategy Monitoring: A Good Practice Guide. Great Britain. Retrieved electronically from: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/143201.pdf

Ontario Trucking Association. (2010). Industry Snapshot. Retrieved electronically from: http://practicalcargosecurement.com/news/industry/ Owen, J. M. (1999). Program evaluation: forms and approaches. 2nd ed. St Leonards, N.S.W. : Allen & Unwin.

Patton, M. Q. (2003). Utilization-focused evaluation. In T. Kellaghan, & D. L. Stuffl ebeam (Eds.), International handbook of educational evaluation (pp. 223-244). Netherlands: Kluwer.

Picard, A. (2005, May 12). Economic indicators only tell part of the story. enter the ciw: canadian index of well-being. The Globe and Mail, A19. Pricewaterhouse Coopers LLP. (2007). Guide to key performance indicators: Communicating the measures that matter. Retrieved electronically from: http://www.corporatereporting.com/global_KPI_guide.pdf

70

5

Province of Ontario – Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure. (2006). Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006. Retrieved electronically from: https://www.placestogrow.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9&Itemid=14 Province of Ontario – Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure. (2005). Places to Grow Act, 2005. Retrieved electronically from: https://www.placestogrow.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4&Itemid=9

Province of Ontario – Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. (2008). 2008 Municipal Performance Measurement Program (MPMP) - Year 9. Retrieved electronically from: http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page6697.aspx Province of Ontario – Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. (2005). Green Belt Plan, 2005. Retrieved electronically from: http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page189.aspx#greenbelt Province of Ontario – Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. (2008). Municipal Performance Measurement Program (MPMP). Retrieved electronically from: http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page297.aspx Province of Ontario – Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. (2002). Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, 2002. Retrieved electronically from: http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page1707.aspx Province of Ontario – Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. (2005). Provincial Policy Statement, 2005. Retrieved electronically from: http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page1485.aspx Province of Ontario – Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. (2009). Provincial Policy Statement, 2005: Discussion Paper for a Proposed Performance Monitoring Framework and Draft Indicators. Retrieved electronically from: http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/AssetFactory.aspx?did=6569 Province of Ontario - Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal. (2008). Planning for Employment in the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Retrieved electronically from: https://www.placestogrow.ca/images/pdfs/Employment_paper-Eng.pdf Province of Ontario – Public Appointments Secretariat. (2010). Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation – Agency Details. Retrieved electronically from: http://www.pas.gov.on.ca/scripts/en/BoardDetails.asp?boardID=141380

Province of Ontario – Public Appointments Secretariat. (2010). Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation – Agency Details. Retrieved electronically from: https://www.pas.gov.on.ca/scripts/en/BoardDetails.asp?boardID=141020 Provincial Planning Policy Branch. (2009). Greenbelt Plan, Performance Monitoring Framework, Draft Discussion Paper. Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Toronto, ON. Randolph, J. (2004). Environmental land use planning and management. Washington: Island Press. Regeer, B. , Hoes, A.,van Amstel-van Saane, M. Caron-Flinterman, F. F. and Bunders, J. F. G. (2009). Six guiding principles for evaluating mode-2 strategies for sustainable development, American Journal of Evaluation, 30(4) 515-537.

Regional District of Nanaimo. (2008). Background to the regional growth strategy review. Retrieved electronically from Shaping our Future: http://www.shapingourfuture.ca/background.asp

71

5

Rossi, P. and H. Freeman. (1994). Evaluation: A Systematic Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Schacter, M. (2002). Practitioner’s Guide to Measuring the Performance of Public Programs. Institute on Governance, Ottawa, Canada. Schacter, M. (2002). What Will Be, Will Be: The Challenge of Applying Results-based Thinking to Policy. Institute on Governance, Ottawa, Canada. Scipioni, Antonio, Mazzi, Anna, Mason, Marco, Manzardo, Alessandro (2009). The Dashboard of Sustainability to measure the local urban sustainable development: The case study of Padua municipality, Ecological Indicators, 9 (2009) 364 – 380.

Seasons, M. (2003). Monitoring and Evaluation in Municipal Planning: Considering the Realities. Journal of the American Planning Association, 69(4), 430-440.

Song, Y. (2005). Smart growth and urban development pattern: a comparative study. International Regional Science Review, 28(239), 239-265. Spokane County. (2002). Appendix B - Performance Measurement. Retrieved electronically from:http://www.spokanecounty.org/BP/data/Documents/PerformMeas/PerformMeas.pdf Statistics Canada. (2010). Defi nitions, data, sources and methods: Private Dwelling. Retrieved electronically from: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/concepts/defi nitions/privdwel-logpriv-eng.htm Storch, H. & Schmidt, M. (2008). Environmental Protection in the European Union - Standards and Thresholds for Impact Assessment M. Schmidt, J Glasson, L. Emmelin and H. Helbron (Eds.). Berlin, Germany: Springer Swiss Federal Statistical Offi ce (SFSO) Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape (SAEFL), Federal Offi ce for Spatial Development (ARE) [2002]. Measuring sustainable development: insights into MONET – the Swiss monitoring system. Neuchâtel, Switzerland: Author Sustainable Seattle. (1998). Indicators of a Sustainable Community. Retrieved electronically from: http://sustainableseattle.org/Programs/RegionalIndicators/1998IndicatorsRpt.pdf

Talen, E. (1996). Do plans get implemented? a review of evaluation in planning. Journal of Planning Literature, 10(248), 248 - 259. Tanguay, Georges A., Rajaonson, Juste, Lefebvre, Jean-François, Lanoie, Paul (2010).Measuring the sustainability of cities: An analysis of the use of local indicators, Ecological Indicators, 10 (2010) 407–418.

Tara Ramani, J. Z. (2009, April). Developing sustainable transportation performance measures for txdot’s strategic plan: technical report. Retrieved electronically from: http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/0-5541-1.pdf The Indicators of Sustainable Development. In The encyclopedia of earth. Retrieved electronically from: http://www.eoearth.org/image/Pressure-state-response_framework.gif

72

The Neptis Foundation (2006). Commentary on the Ontario Government’s Proposed Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Neptis Papers on Growth in the Toronto Metropolitan Region. Retrieved electronically from: http://www.neptis.org/library/show.cfm?id=82&cat_id=30 The pressure-state-response framework. In Quality planning: the RMA planning resource. Retrieved electronically from: http://www.qualityplanning.org.nz/ monitoring/intro-pressure-state-response-framework.php Turnbull, B. (1999). The mediating effect of participation effi cacy on evaluation use. Evaluation and Program Planning, 22, 131-140.

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (2009).Measuring sustainable development. Retrieved electronically from: http://www.unece.org/stats/publications/Measuring_sustainable_development.pdf

Van Der Knaap, P. (2006). Responsive evaluation and performance management: Overcoming the downsides of policy objectives and performance indicators. Evaluation, 12(3), 287-293. Weiss, L. (1979). Information aggregation and policy. Stockholm.

Weitz, J. (1999). From Quiet revolution to smart growth: state management programs, 1960 to 1999. Journal of Planning Literature, 14, 266 - 337.

Wong, C. (2006) Indicators for urban and regional planning: The interplay of policy and methods. Routledge, London

5

73

6.0 Appendices

Appendix A Performance Measures Interim Report

Appendix B Inventory of Performace Measurement Programs

Appendix C Inventory of Performance Indicators

Appendix D Quality of Life Indicators

6

Appendix A: Performance Measures Interim ReportA

1

Interim Report - Appendix A

Ontario Growth Secretariat:Ministry of Energy & Infrastructure

Performance MeasuresGrowth Plan


2

3

Performance Measures:Growth Plan


Interim Report

2/20/2010

Prepared by: Doreen Cortez, Mike Davis, Lara Dekkema, Kate Green, Amal Musa, Derek Nawrot, Melissa Nguyen, Rebecca Ramsey & Justin Robitaille

Submitted to: Jamie Austin & Scott Coe, Ontario Growth Secretariat

4

Table of Contents1.0 Background & Context 6

1.1 Growth Strategies Literature Review 6 1.1.1 Brief History of Growth Management Policies 7 1.1.2 Smart Growth: An Analysis 8 1.2 Overarching Goals of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden 10 Horseshoe 1.3 Commitment to Monitor 13 1.4 Limitations of the Growth Plan 13 1.5 Related Performance Measures/Evaluation Frameworks 14

2.0 Introduction to Policy Performance Monitoring 17

2.1 Approaches and Broad Methodologies 17 2.2 Role of Performance Indicators 19 2.3 BenefitsandChallengesofPerformanceMeasurement 20 2.3.1 BenefitsandOpportunities 20 2.3.2 Challenges and Risks 23 2.3.3 Performance Indicator Measurement for Growth 25 Management Programs – SWOT Analysis 2.4 Indicator Frameworks used for Municipal & Regional 25 Evaluation 2.4.1 Layering Frameworks 25 2.4.2 Data Selection 26 2.4.3 Local Integration 26

5

3.0 Performance Measurement Programs: Jurisdictional Scan 28

3.1 Strengths/Success Stories 28 3.2 Failures/Weaknesses 30

4.0 Our Approach 33

4.1 Regional Context 33 4.2 Guiding Principles 35 4.3 Approaches to Performance Measurement 36 4.4 Methodological Approach 43 4.5 Selection Criteria 45 4.5.1 General 45 4.5.2RegionSpecific 47

5.0 Appendix 51 Inventory of Performance Measurement Programs 53 Inventory of Performance Indicators 60

6

1.0 Background & Context

1.1 Growth Strategies Literature Review

The term “Smart Growth” is widely incorporated in the practice of urban planning. It is defineddependingon themandateof theorganizationemploying it (Meyer&Ye,2005;Downs,2005;Low,Pearlman&Starkweather,2004).SmartGrowthcanbedescribedasa set of policies developed as a response to various political and environmental threats caused by urban sprawl. These threats can include loss of agricultural and environmen-tally sensitive lands, increased dependency on automobiles, excessive expenditures on infrastructure, and the failure to redevelop existing older neighbourhoods (Burchell,Listokin, & Galley, 2000; Downs, 2005; Meyer & Ye, 2005). Through smart growthpolicies, the burdens of development may be lessened by increasing density in urban centres. This places less demand on infrastructure which enables cost and impact savings. Public transportation is subsequently promoted which reduces the negative impacts of auto-dependency, and mitigates the consumptive use of land associated with urban sprawl (Randolph, 2004). Smart growth is different from older growth managementtechniques in that it tries to capture the positive economic impacts of growth while minimizing environmental and social consequences” (Low,Pearlman&Starkweather, 2004, p.268)

ThecommonelementsofSmartGrowthareexaminedandidentifiedbyLinYe,SumedhaMandpe and Peter B. Meyer (2005) in their paperWhat Is Smart Growth? – Really? The authors survey smart growth policy definitions from a series ofAmerican planningassociations and identified six consistent elements: planning, transportation,economic development, housing, community development, and natural resource preservation (2005, p. 308).Theseelementshavenot beenchosenarbitrarily but haveevolved through several social and environmental movements in Canada and the U.S.

Smart Growth is the result of various political and environmental initiatives that began prior to World War II and gained momentum throughout 1980’s, eventually leading to a setofpoliciesaimedataddressingcommonresourceissues(Burchell,Listokin,&Galley,2000;Costa,2005).Environmentalcrises,especiallytheeffectofsprawl,werecatalyststoearlygrowthmanagementpolicies(2000).Forexample,theearliestgrowthmanagementtooltobeusedbymunicipalitieswasEuclidianzoning.Inmanyplacesthissufficedasaprotection for land within municipal boundaries. However, the lack of land-use controls outsidecitylimitsalloweddevelopmentto“mushroom”intothesuburbsafterthewar(2000).

1

7

Municipalities throughout Ontario, acting as key facilitators of urban sprawl, met the burgeoning demand for suburban housing with planning policies highly favourable to widespread suburban development. For decades municipalities across Ontario, eager to increase their tax revenue base, were quick to approve suburban developments with seemingly little contemplation of the adverse environmental, economic, and social impacts of urban sprawl (Hostovsky, 2009). This was done by prescribing segregatedland uses and municipal zoning by-laws combined with amenable development approvals processes which further enabled and encouraged sprawling development.

1.1.1 Brief history of Growth Management Policies Growthmanagement policies can be divided into three stages.The first stage originat-ed in the U.S. and was largely focused on the protection of environmentally sensitive ar-eas thatwere threatenedbysprawlingdevelopment (Burchell,Listokin,&Galley,2000).During the 1960s and 1970s, American states began to address planning at a statewide level and required municipalities to conform to specific growth management goals toensure protection of threatened lands or by targeting certain types of development (Burchell,Listokin,&Galley,2000,Costa,2005,Edwards&Haines,2007).Forexamplein 1971, the State of Florida introduced the Environmental Land and Water Management Act to manage growth on a regional scale and help control new development (2000).Vermont, Hawaii and Oregon implemented similar legislation around this time and went a stepbeyondbycreatingtheirownsustainablegrowthgoalsfornewdevelopment(2000). The second stage addressed a broader spectrum of social needs, such as infrastructure renewal, affordable housing, economic development, community character, and qualityoflife.Marylandwasthefirststatetousetheterm“SmartGrowth”andthefirsttoimplementSmartGrowthpoliciesatthestatelevelin1997(Burchell,Listokin,&Galley,2000;Costa,2005).In2001,theOntariogovernmentrespondedtothemountingconcernovertheimpacts of urban sprawl by introducing a Smart Growth strategy for the province (EnvironmentalCommissionerofOntario,2002).

As the third stage of growth management currently gains momentum, Ontario has designed a growth management plan unique to the Greater Golden Horseshoe, sharing many of the characteristics of American Smart Growth policies. Among the range of policies introduced and implemented by the Ontario government over the past decade, the PlacestoGrowAct(2005),followedbytheGrowthPlanfortheGreaterGoldenHorseshoe,andtheGreenbeltPlan(2005),havegarneredthemostattention.Thesecomplementaryinstruments aim to limit the impacts of sprawl by guiding development into pre-existing urbancentersandawayfromGreenfield,agricultural,andecologicallysensitivelands(ThePembina Institute,2009).As thefirst regionalgrowthplan for theGTAsince the1970s,Places to Grow has received both acclaim and criticism from the urban planning community.

1

8

1.1.2 Smart Growth: An Analysis Discourse on growth management is confounded by the ambiguity of the term “Smart Growth.” There are many urban planning organizations, government bodies, environmental groups, businesses and developers that use the term to describe a broad rangeofgoalsorpolicies(Meyer&Ye,2005;Downs,2005;Burchell,Listokin,&Galley,2000;Talen,1996).PolicygoalsoftencontainmanyofthesameSmartGrowthgoalsandstrategies focusing on transportation, housing, community development etc., but will differ on themethodsofimplementationandspecificareasoffocusdependingonthemandateoftheorganization(Meyer&Ye,2005;Talen,1996;Burchell,Listokin,&Galley,2000).Forexampleanenvironmental organization such as the Sierra Club may use the term to describe policies that focus almost entirely on the protection of environmentally sensitive land. An inner-city developer, on the other-hand, may use the term Smart Growth but focus entirely on policies thatpromote infilldevelopment(Meyer&Ye,2005). InhisarticleSmart Growth: Why We Discuss It More Than We Do It, Downs (2005) states that “in reality, (SmartGrowth)hasalmostcometostandfor“whateverformofgrowthIlikebest”intheopinionofwhoever is speaking” (p. 368).The central issue is that, “theend result is theuseof acommon label for approaches that are not fully consistent and may even be contradictory” (2005).

Another area of contention is in housing policy. Smart Growth policies often encourage high-densityresidentialdevelopmentintheinnercity,asopposedtosprawlingGreenfielddevelopment(Meyer&Ye,2005,Burchell,Listokin,&Galley,2000;Downs,2005;Song,2005).AsGreenfielddevelopmentisgenerallyexecutedonarelativelylargescale,oneofthemainargumentsisthattheencouragementofinfilldevelopmentisactuallyreducingthesupplyofaffordablehousing(2005;Edwards&Haines,2007).ConsequentlyalthoughpolicieshavebeencreatedencouragingGreenfielddevelopment,itisnotlikelytheywillbeimplemented(2000;2005;Edwards&Haines,2007).IthasalsobeenarguedthatGreenfielddevelopmentismoreprofitablethaninfilldevelopment.Therefore,policieswhichencourageinfilldevelopmentmaytakelongerandbemoreproblematictoimplement(2000;2005;Edwards&Haines,2007).

Scholarly research also touches on the necessity of regional planning and increased federal funding in order to carry outSmartGrowth policies (Downs, 2005;Talen, 1996;Costa,2005;Burchell,Listokin,&Galley,2000,Edwards&Haines,2007).Itisarguedthaturban growth boundaries are not effective on a small municipal scale and that boundaries must be implemented regionally. This requires major shifts in the planning power structure forsomeareasandisnotlikelytooccurinmostcities(2007;Downs,2005;Costa,2005).

1

9

The implementation and evaluation of Smart Growth policies provide another area of concern and a new frontier in growth management. Critics of Smart Growth lay claim to a myriad of issues that hinge on the lack of a methodology for evaluation of Smart Growth policies and also a series of problems that arise from their attempted implementation (Talen, 1996, Downs, 2005; Song, 2005; Edwards & Haines, 2007). One argument issimply that shifting development to inner-city high-density development and compact form increases the amount of “red tape” new development must go through, thus increasing development costs (Downs, 2005). Downs (2005) also states that “thenumber of persons owning open land outside the built-up areas who might profit from further sprawl is normally much larger than the number owning in-fillsites within built-up areas likely to profit from Smart Growth” (p.372). The signifi-cance is that it becomes much harder to implement Smart Growth policies because they necessitate a change in the long-established system of financial winners andlosers.At this stage it isdifficult to refute logicalarguments thatdrawattention toflawsin Smart Growth plans as there is no obvious strategy to measure their effectiveness. The criticism of Smart Growth policies outlines the importance and necessity of an effective methodology for policy evaluation of success (or failure). Academics andprofessionals agree that evaluation is essential to learn about the influence of SmartGrowth (Edwards and Haines, 2007; Downs, 2005; Costa, 2005; Talen, 1996). Someresearch has been undertaken in this area, focusing on evaluating implementation in specific cities by reading throughmunicipal official plans and assessing the amount of“action orientated”SmartGrowth policy languagepresent (Edwards andHaines, 2007).Plans may also be measured by using quantitative approaches. There are several methods of research which venture to measure certain factors that are “highly correlatedwiththeachievementofprojectgoals”(Talen,1996,p.254).Howeverwhilesomeresearchhasbeencompletedinthisarea,itisstillrelativelynewandverylittleisspecifictomeasuring the goals of Smart Growth (Talen, 1996). The policy measurestaken by the Government of Ontario to achieve Smart Growth goals is a step in the right direction toward urban sustainability, but to date, successfully achieving broad implementation of these goals has been limited. An Ontario-wide ‘Community Sustainability’ Report released by the Pembina Institute (2007) has indicated thatregional municipalities in the GTA and across the Greater Golden Horseshoe are consistentlyranking‘verylow’onaSmartGrowthindexcreatedbytheorganization(p.19).

In conclusion, most criticisms of Smart Growth appear to be centered on policy implementation and evaluation, or lack thereof. Smart Growth is a term that carries with it a great deal of significance which seems to be its greatest strength and weakness.The literature shows that while it represents a new trajectory for urban planning, the next stepinthisprocessistofindawaytogivethepolicies“teeth”sotospeak,aswellastoestablish an accepted framework to evaluate their success.

1

10

1.2 Overarching Goals of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe

The Greater Golden Horseshoe is the fastest growing region in Canada. By 2031, this region is expected to account for 80% of Ontario’s population growth. This tremendous amount of growth will require the province to plan ahead in an effort to make growth happen in a sustainable manner. Existing infrastructure and built up areas will be used more effectivelyandanynewGreenfielddevelopmentswillneedtobecompacttoreducelandconsumption. The adoption and implementation of the Growth Plan for the Greater GoldenHorseshoe wasa response to such challengesas infrastructure deficits, trafficcongestion, inappropriate conversion of employment lands and lack of attractive an efficient public transit (Ministry ofPublic InfrastructureRenewal, 2006; p.8).Thus, policydirections were set to guide and manage growth, provide infrastructure support and protect valuable natural systems, agricultural areas, mineral and other natural resources (Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal, 2006). The Plan outlines threeoverarching goals: growth management, infrastructure support, and conservation and protection.

Growth Management The Plan begins by indicating the importance of legislating where and how growth should occur. The management of growth is encouraged by directing growth into areas where growth already exists. The Plan also acknowledges that rural communities are a key component to the vitality and well-being of the region and recognizes that the revitalization of urban growth centres is a vital component in achieving their goal of “complete communities.” These complete communities will be well-designed, offer more transportation choices, accommodate people in all stages of life and have more types of housing, a wide range of jobs, and easy access to daily amenities, whether urban or rural. Specific growth targets are also clearly outlined for how much growth isexpected within each community. The Plan also acknowledges that rural communities are a key component to the vitality and well-being of the region. Highlights:

• Populationforecastsaremadeforeachsingleanduppertier municipalities to guide growth management in these communities

• Forecastsareexpectedtobeachievedthroughavarietyofplanning methods including directing growth to built up areas and settlement areas, supporting transit to discourage long distance commuting, and encourage the development of complete communities

• Generalintensificationtargetsareexpectedtobemetbytheyear2015

1

11

• Officialplanswillplanformajortransitstationsandintensificationcorridors

• Economicdevelopmentandjobcreationwillbeplannedbythedesignationof employment lands

• Clearlyoutlineddirectivesregardingtheexpansionofexistingsettlementarea boundaries

• Ruralsettlementsshouldbeplannedforusingstandardsthatservetheneedsor residents and businesses

Infrastructure Support The plan goes beyond simply setting the standards for expected growth targets by also outlining steps for how this growth can be supported. For this purpose the second overarching goal is the intention to provide a framework to support future growth. This frame-work is primarily addressed in the terms of infrastructure investments and improvements. Specifically,thePlanhighlightsthreecategorieswhereinfrastructuresupportisencouragedand intended to take place.

Highlights: Thefirstcategoryofinfrastructuresupportisdiscussedwiththefocusofimprovedtransportation systems:

• Referencetoanoverarchingtransportationsystemthatisintendedtoimprove accessibility for the general public and public services

• Movementtowardsamulti-modalandthereforemoresustainabletransportation system

• Incorporationoftransportation demand managementpolicieswithintheOfficial Plans of municipalities

• Prioritizepublictransportationimprovementsandencouragetransitoriented development

• Co-ordinationofmoreefficientgoodsmovementthroughbetterplannedand integrated multi-modal goods movement

The second category is concerned with way to move towards the provision of improved water and wastewater systems:

• Encouragemunicipalplanningofwaterandwastewatersystemsthatreturntothe source of withdrawal

1

12

• Improvementstotakeplacewithinthegreatercontextofsurroundingwater demand systems, expected growth targets, and agreements regarding the Great Lakes Basin

• Co-ordinationofwatersystemimprovementsacrossmunicipalitiesand conservation authorities

Thefinalcategory isdirectedtowardstheestablishmentand improvementofcommunityinfrastructure.ExamplesofCommunityinfrastructurewithinthePlanareidentifiedas“hospitals, long-term care facilities, schools, and affordable housing”:

• Plannedcommunity infrastructure to support expected growth targets and result in complete communities

• Developmentofhousingstrategiesbymunicipalitieswithminimumaffordable housing targets

Conservation & Protection The third overarching goal is aimed at planning for the protection of naturally and culturally valuable land. The Plan encourages municipalities to take an active role in the protection of natural systems, prime agricultural areas, mineral aggregate resources, and an overall ‘culture of conservation’.

Highlights:

• Identificationanddevelopmentofaccessiblenaturalheritageareasthatenhance the natural systems in place

• Encouragemunicipalitiestodevelopanopenspacesystemwithinbuilt-upareas. These may consist of roof top gardens, courtyards, and public parks

• Identificationofprime agricultural lands and specialty crop areas and development of policies for their protection

• Municipalitiesareencouragedtoconsultationwithagriculturaladvisorycommittees and expand opportunities for farm related infrastructure

• Identifyanddevelopalong-termstrategyforthemanagementanduseof aggregate resources as well as opportunities for resource recovery

• OfficialPlanpoliciestosupportconservationofwater,energy,airquality,and waste management, and cultural heritage

1

13

1.3 Commitment to MonitorThe Places to Grow Act, 2005 provides the legislative framework for this Plan. The Places to Grow Act, 2005 includes the processes for making and amending growth plans. It specifies that a review of this Plan is carried out by the Minister of PublicInfrastructure Renewal (now transferred to the Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure)at least every 10 years after the Plan comes into force. The purpose of developing a performancemonitoringprogramistoinformthe10-yearreview.Specifically,section5.4.3of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe states: 1. The Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal will develop a set of indicators to measure the implementation of the policies in this Plan. 2. The Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal will monitor the implementation of this Plan, including reviewing performance indicators concurrent with any review of this Plan.

Under these directives, the Ontario government should work with other ministries, munici-palities, and stakeholders to:

a. Identify appropriate performance indicators to measure the effectiveness of the Plan;

b. Identify roles and responsibilities among partners in the collection and analysis oftheindicators;and

c. Provide for the periodic collection, publication and discussion of the results.

1.4 Limitations of the Growth Plan The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe is a planning strategy that aims to address growth management goals, within the region, for the next twenty years. The plan containsspecificobjectivesinregardstomanaginggrowth,directinggrowthandprotectingthe natural environment. There are however, innate limitations to the degree in which the plan can control these matters. The initial limitation stems from the issue of municipal conformity. Although the Places to Grow Act requires all municipalities to amend their Of-ficialPlans to conform to thepolicies contained in theGrowthPlan, there liesa certainamount of room for interpretation. The successful implementation of these policies relies heavilyontheextenttowhicheachmunicipalityconformstheirplanningregimetoreflectthe objectives of the plan.

Second, the nature of growth in the Golden Horseshoe is dynamic. Forces beyond planning policy drive and shape patterns of development. Wavering interest rates and the changing state of the provincial economy can create new opportunities and/or constraints for developers.

1

14

These opportunities and constraints can have a great impact on the feasibility of certain development patterns and in turn negate many objectives contained in the plan. Directing growth by way of strategic infrastructure investment, such as public transit and waste water/sewer systems, is one of the major objectives of the Growth Plan. Therefore, the objectives regarding directing growth will depend heavily on a sound and continualfinancingplantofundthesekeyinfrastructureprojects.

1.5 Related Performance Measures/Evaluation Frameworks

While the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe performance monitoring framework is intended to be a distinct initiative, it is linked to other monitoring initiatives both undertaken by the Province as well as other non-governmental organizations. It is important in, moving forward, that information from these initiatives is shared and coordinated in order to avoid duplication and confusion. There are a number of initiatives of which the Province is currently engaged in ongoing performancemonitoring.Although full performance indicatorshaveyet tobefinalized insome cases, the following initiatives should be lookedat and comparedwhen finalizingperformance indicators for this Plan: Provincial Policy Statement Measures TheProvincialPolicyStatement,2005(PPS)providesoverallpolicydirectionsinmattersofprovincial interest related to land use and development in Ontario. The Plan should be read inconjunctionwiththePPSandthisPlanprevailsshouldtherebeaconflictwiththePPSexcept between policies relating to the natural environment or human health. Policy 4.10 of the PPS, 2005 includes a commitment of the Province, in consultation with municipalities, other public bodies and stakeholders, to identify performance indicators for measuring the effectiveness of some or all of the policies. The Government of Ontario has just concluded a consultation with municipalities, stakeholders and the public to monitor the effect of the PPS specificallytoassessprogressinthekeyareasofbuildingstrongcommunities,maintaininga clean and healthy environment, and protecting public health and safety.

Municipal Performance Measurement Program (MPMP) MPMP is a performance measurement and reporting system that promotes local government transparency and accountability. It also provides municipalities with useful data to make informed municipal service level decisions while optimizing available resources. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing summarizes results and releases them in annual reports. 2010 will be the 11the year of the program. In the 2008 reporting year, the program included 54 measures in 12 service areas.

1

15

The most important service area in terms of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe is land use which looks at the percentage of new residential units located within settlement areas as well as the percentage of land dedicated for agricultural purposes.

1

Niagara Escarpment Plan

The Niagara Escarpment Plan implements the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act and is administered by the Niagara Escarpment Commission. The Niagara Escarpment Plan is organized into six theme areas: Natural Heritage, Water, Land Use, Tourism & Recreation, Niagara Escarpment Parks & Open Space System and Landscape Character. It provides development criteria and establishes objectives for the Niagara Escarpment Parks System as 131 parks and protected areas. The ONE Monitoring Program was developed to determine if the Niagara Escarpment Plan is achieving the goal and objectives of the Act. The Niagara Escarpment Plan uses a suite of indicators to monitor a wide range of ecosystem components. Greenbelt Plan The Greenbelt Act, 2005 enabled the creation of a Greenbelt Plan to protect 1.8 million acres of environmentally sensitive and agricultural lands in the Golden Horseshoe from urban development and sprawl. The Greenbelt Act, 2005 states that a review of the Greenbelt Plan is carried out every ten years. Currently the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing is in the process of developing a performance monitoring program to inform the ten-year review. Oaks Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan is an ecologically based plan implemented under the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001. It was established by the Ontario government to provide land use and resource management direction for the 190,000 hectares of land and water within the Moraine. The Ministry of Municipal and Affairs and Housing is committed to developing a performance monitoring program, however at of the time of this research, it is not yet completed. Other local monitoring initiatives occurring with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe include: Metrolinx Metrolinx, created by the Province of Ontario, works to coordinate and integrate of all modes of transportation across the Greater Golden Horseshoe region.

16

In November 2008, Metrolinx adopted a Regional Transportation Plan which they have named ‘The Big Move: Transforming Transportation in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area(GTHA)’.Section7.2.10ofthisdocumentprovidesforon-goingmonitoringprogressof the transportation system and the impacts of actions taken. This will be done through the tracking of key indicators. The results will be compiled and reported publicly as part of a Mobility Index for the region.

Conservation Authorities Conservation authorities within the Greenbelt Area are involved in a number of monitoring activities which include data collecting (e.g. water sampling, watershednetworks)andanalysis.Informationisoftenrelayedtothepublicintheformofreportcards.An attempt should be made to involve conservation authorities, such as the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority, in the formation of performance measures.

Non-government Organizations and Foundations There are a number of NGOs and foundations that are involved in growth and conservation studies in the Greater Golden Horseshoe. For example, the Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation is a registered corporation that operates independently from the government and coordinates and funds activities such as the promotion of agriculture and viniculture, research, public education, and land stewardship. The Oak Ridges Moraine Foundationfindsprojectsinfiveareas:securement,stewardship,educationandoutreach,research, and the Oak Ridges Trail. The Foundation monitors the successes of its funding in such areas as acres of land acquired and kms of trails added. An attempt should be made to involve these foundations.

1

17

2.0 Introduction to Policy Performance Monitoring

2.1 Approaches and Broad Methodologies

Two ‘movements’ dedicated to improving government policies and programs and increasing government accountability have come together in the 1990s: the performance manage-ment movement, and the evaluation research movement. Despite commonalities, there are important differences between performance management and evaluation research. The disparities have arisen out of different professional disciplines and bureaucratic environments, and have been shaped by different levels of public acceptance. Performance management is a blend of public/private planning and management ideas – particularly private sector ideas about quality assurance, customer satisfaction, and continuous improvement. Evaluation research is an applied offshoot of basic social scienceresearch.Bothyieldsignificantbenefitsandusefullyinformoneanother,butanintegration of these three elements has been tentative, and often absent, in the real world of policy making. Much of the tension between the two movements appears to stem from confusion about what role each should play in the policy process. To understand the lack of cohesion between these movements, one must appreciate that performance management is a planning and managerial tool, whereas evaluation research is a research tool.

Performance Management

The drive to develop performance measures consistent with program goals has supported more logical and strategic thinking at all levels of government. In the US, the federalNationalPerformanceReview (NPR)hasdefinedperformancemanagementas: The use of performance measurement information to help set agreed-upon performance goals, allocateandprioritizeresources,informmanagerstoeitherconfirmorchangecurrentpolicyor program directions to meet these goals, and report on the success in meeting those goals. (NationalPerformanceReview,1995) Inperformancesystems, themonitoring(or tracking)ofprogramoutcomesusingperfor-mance measures or indicators, is viewed frequently as a substitute for science-based eval-uations in judging policy or program value. Monitoring information is appropriate to obtain quick and continuous feedback on a limited number of outcome measures. If performance measureshavehighutilityandvalidity(thatis,iftheyadequatelyrepresentthevariablestheymeasure),andarebeingcollectedreliably,monitoringinformationcanbeextremely

2

18

useful to evaluators as part of their own data collection effort. However, most monitoring responsibilities in performance management systems involve the collection of a prescribed cluster of quantitative measures, and the purpose is to report simple statistics about a program rather than to conduct more complex data analyses to answer critical planning questions.

Evaluation Research & Formative Evaluation

Evaluation research is the systematic application of social research procedures for assessing the conceptualization, design, implementation, and utility of social intervention programs(RossiandFreeman,1994).Inthecontextofpublicpolicyassessment,evalu-ation is a form of research that systematically investigates how well a policy, program or project is meeting its objectives. Evaluation research seeks to answer questions about a program’s design including net impact evaluations that address the most critical policy question, ‘Did the program’s unique implementation mode and interventions make a real differenceintheoutcomes,independentofotherinfluences?’Netimpactstudiesthereforeseek to determine which program results, or outcomes, can be attributed exclusively to the programratherthantootherinfluencesortochance(BonarBlalock,1990). Recent analyses of public policy implementation has significantlywidened the scope ofevaluation. Ideally, evaluation processes should now recgonize that evaluation not only addresses questions about what has been implemented and how much, but also more complex questions about how and why certain outputs have been achieved. This approach is referred to as formative evaluation. The purpose is to inform policy makers about the outputs of a policy as well as provide them with indications about why it has succeeded or failed. Formative evaluation therefore involves analysing and evaluating the implementa-tion process and recognizing it as a crucial stage in the lifecycle of policies or programmes. Theobjectofevaluationisnotonlyidentifiedbytheinitialobjectivestobeachievedbyapolicy, but aslo by all the intermediate elements and steps that help produce outputs dur-ing thepolicy implementationphase (Lionetal.,2006). Formativeevaluationsseekananswertothefollowingquestions:‘Istheprogrambeingimplementedasintended?’‘Whatstructures, policies and practices are in place or are occurring, in the context of the desired modeofimplementation?’‘Howisthenatureofprogramimplementationaffectingprogramoutcomes?’(BonarBlalock,1990).

Inansweringsuchcriticalquestions,asetoflogicalscientificstepsareinvolvedinplanningand conducting evaluations. These steps assure that evaluations are competently conduct-ed, are appropriate to the issues of greatest concern to those sponsoring and using the re-sults of evaluations, and make sense in terms of the practical setting in which these evalua-tionsaretooccur.Threemajorstepsareidentifiable:conceptualization,measurement,andmethodology. In the conceptualization step, the major variables and relationships of inter-estareidentifiedanddefined.Inthemeasurementstep,measuresaredevelopedforthesevariables (for intended influencesanddesiredeffects)–eitherqualitativeorquantitativemeasures or both. In the methodological step, research designs and methods for sampling, collecting data, and data analysis are selected, consistent with the elements of the program

2

19

to be evaluated as well as the political and organizational constraints which frame whattheevaluatorcanaccomplish(BonarBlalock,1990). Similar to other research processes, well-practiced evaluation research requires thesameprinciplesofenquiry,conceptualclarity,methodologicalrigour,verifica-tion techniques and codes of conduct followed for all forms of research. One distinguishing feature of evaluation research is its timing. The research process is usually conducted after the policy or program has been implemented, although planningforevaluationshouldbeupfrontinanyprogramdesign.Havingadefinedsubjecttoresearch–aspecifiedprogramorpolicyintervention–meansevaluationcanoftenbemorespecificthanotherformsofpolicyrelatedresearch,becausetheprimary research question in evaluation concerns how the particular intervention or set of interventions relates to a set of observable and measurable outputs and outcomes(Milliganetal.,2005).Evaluationshouldbeclearlydistinguishedfromperformancemeasurement(GossandBlackaby,1998).Aparamountdistinctionisthatevaluationresearchisconductedindependently–undertakenbyaqualified,capableandcredibleevaluator;andopenly–basedontheprincipleoffulldisclo-sureofthefindingsandanylimitationsoftheevaluationitself(JointCommittee,1994). Government monitoring regimes are often criticized for their reliance on readily available hard line measures of program performance measurement, which are usuallyquantitative.However,inthefieldofsocialpolicypractice,evaluationre-search extends beyond such measures to introduce qualitative data, such as that obtained from interview methods, participant observation techniques, focus groups and discourse and documentation analysis. Evaluation research also validates quantitativefindingsthroughestablishingthecausalconnectionsbetweenthepro-gram and its outputs, and develops an appreciation of a program’s impacts in a real life context. In evaluation design, using both quantitative and qualitative data and combining different research methods forms a key element of the validation methodologyforprogramevaluations(CabinetOffice,2003).Asanintegralcom-ponent of evidence-based policy making, evaluation can also be used to inform new policy development and guide decisions about the potential extent, locations for, and means by which a program can be replicated successfully. Evaluations alsocontributetogovernmentaccountabilityprocesses(Owen,1999).

The following section shall overview performance measurement in the context of municipal policy and growth management programs that: •Provideanoperationaldefinitionandrationaleforperformance measurement; •Examinetheuseofperformanceindicatorsasatoolformeasuring policyoutcomes;

2

2.2 Role of Performance Indicators

20

•Overviewpotentialbenefitsandrisksofperformanceindicatoranalysis; •Outlinemethodologicalapproachesandindicatorsemployedtoevaluatesmart growth programs and other sustainability goals in other jurisdictions.

Insection9(1)ofthePlacestoGrowAct,itisclearlystatedthatareviewofGrowthPlansismandatory every ten years. It is further stipulated in section 5.4.3 of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe that the Ministry is charged with developing performance mea-sures to monitor and evaluate of the implementation of the Plan. A logical place to begin is to undertake in-depth research focused on how performance measures have been used and the successes and drawbacks of their use.

Why use performance measures? Performance measurement is a tool for the systematic assessment of a given program or initiative,aimedatevaluatingandreportingon itseffectiveness,efficiencyandoverallquality(Ammons,1996).Performancemeasurementhasplayedakeyroleintheongoingmonitoring of policies and programs across a spectrum of government jurisdictions and focus areas. The measurement is intended to guide the future direction of the plan it is evaluating. Performance is measured through a monitoring system that is based on the collectionofacontinuoussetofdata(Seasons,2003).Toeffectivelyevaluatehowaplanor policy is being implemented a set of indicators are used to measure the outcomes of the implemented plan. The indicators are best used as measurements on a quantitative and qualitative level- broadly these have included socioeconomic and environmental categories andmorerecentlyqualityoflifeindicatorshaveemerged(2003). The implementation of the Growth Plan is critical in managing the rapid growth for this re-gion;andensuringthistakesplaceinatimelyandefficientmannerwilldirectlyaffectanyother growth management programs to follow. An organized method of review is required to measure the level at which implementation is taking place, or not. In addition, the use of performance measurements allows for governments to be held accountable to the public (Bernstein,2000).Althoughagovernmentbodymayconstantlyevaluatetheirprojects,amethodical framework for evaluation through performance measures can result in tangible data to guide how growth management plans are being used effectively and where they may need to be adjusted.

2.3.1 Benefits and Opportunities

Performancemeasurementcanprovidearangeofbenefitstotheongoingevalu-ation, monitoring, and improvement of government policies or programs. The use of well chosen indicators and an appropriate evaluation framework can create a clearimageoftheeffectiveness,efficiencyandoverallqualityofagivenprogram,while exposing potential areas for improvement. Key opportunities deriving from

2

2.3 Benefits and Challenges of Performance Measurement

21

performance indicator measurement include benchmarking of best practices, standardization and transferability of program evaluations, enhanced government transparency and accountability, and the potential for improvements to policy objectives and program implementation(Ammons,1996;MinistryofMunicipalAffairsandHousing,2003;Wong,2006).

Benchmarking Best Practice

Performance indicators can help to establish benchmarks for best practice, producing a baseline expectation against which local practitioners can measure progress(Hemphilletal.,2004).Theidentificationofgapsbetweenpolicyintentandpolicyoutcomesprovidesdirectionforthemodificationofprogramstowardsan optimal standard of achievement. The value of benchmarking best practice is evident in a Pembina Institute Report which measured and ranked the Smart Growth performance of Ontario municipalities (Burda, 2008). The publicationidentifiedsmartgrowthpolicyand implementation leadersand laggardstherebyencouraging the continued efforts of the stand-out smart growth jurisdictions by acknowledging their accomplishments, as well as coercing increased efforts or policy adoption by those municipalities which were revealed to be behind the pack.

Given the relatively recent, and increasingly wide-spread adoption of growth management programs across North America, determining baseline expectations for performance may be considered an imperative as it can provide clarity to policy objectives, as well as to where local municipalities stand in terms of achieving the overarching goals articulated in growth management policy. The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe is considered an ambitious and front-running growth management plan thus will benefitfromthecapacityofaperformanceindicatormeasurementframeworktofacilitate local decision-makers in identifying and achieving best practice standards.

Standardized Evaluative Framework

An indicator based framework for performance measurement can enable quantitative, standardized and defensible corroboration of how well government programs are working. Creating a standardized evaluation framework facilitates cross-jurisdictional comparison, thereby producing an image of how well a given program is faring in the broader policy arena. For example, the standardized evaluative framework employed by the Lincoln Institute in their groundbreaking analysis of smart growth in the U.S., was able to generate meaningful, transferable, and defensible data that clearly articulated the relative smart growth activities and achievements(orlackthereof)ofmultipleAmericanstates(Ingrametal.,2009).Theuse of standardized evaluation methods and data furthermore bolsters objectivity whilereducingsusceptibilitytoerrorintheinterpretationofresults(Wong,2006).

2

22

The implementation of a standardized performance measurement framework to evaluate and monitor the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe will lend credibility to On-tario’s growth management initiatives. It will enable the successes of Ontario’s growth management program to be substantiated against other jurisdictions, as well as provide op-portunities for learning from the successes and shortcomings of other growth management programs.

Program Justification and Improvement

Performancemeasurementactsasa tool for the justificationofprogram implementationand continuation. It enables governments to both articulate to the public the objectives and successesofagivenpolicyorprogram,andtore-focusandfinetuneinitiativeswhereshort-comingsare identified (Ammons,1996). Programperformance improvementsare facili-tated through the use of well-chosen indicators by their capacity to generate a realistic im-age of the successes and failures of a given initiative, identifying what is and isn’t working, andsuggestingdirectionforchange.ThisbenefitissubstantiatedbyOntario’sMunicipalPerformance Measurement Program. For example, the monitoring and reporting of service efficienciesandoutcomeswasassociatedwithimprovementstothewaterservicesdivisionoftheRegionalMunicipalityofOttawa-Carltonwhich,overafiveyearperiodachievedre-ductionsfrom2,344to94winterstormfrozenserviceincidents,significantcostreductions,minimized revenue losses, and improved service maintenance as direct outcome of service monitoringandreportingundertheperformancemeasurementframework(MinistryofMunicipalAffairsandHousing,2003).

A performance indicator measurement framework for Ontario’s Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe can enable the provincial government to support claims that they are on the right track in terms of achieving the goals articulated in the Plan. It can furthermore en-abletheidentificationofpotentialareaswithintheGrowthPlantobeaddressedthroughfu-turemodificationstotheobjectivesorimplementationstrategiescontainedwithinthePlan.

Enhanced Transparency and Accountability

Performance measurement works to enhance transparency and government accountability tothepublicbyprovidingaclearimageoftheeffectivenessandefficiencyofagivenpolicyor program. Accountability is a fundamental component of good governance, the enhance-mentofwhichisshowntoencouragecreativity,increasedproductivity,improvedfiscalpro-cesses and overall improvements to policies and programs (Schacter, 2002;Ministry ofMunicipalAffairsandHousing,2003).

Giventherelativenewnessofgrowthmanagementprograms,suchinitiativescanbenefitfrom the capacity of performance measurement frameworks to clarify what project propo-nentsaredoingtoachievegrowthmanagementobjectivesandhowefficientlyandeffec-tively program implementation is being carried out. The adoption of a performance indicator framework for the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and public reporting of results will bolster the transparency of the Ontario Government with respect to the Plan and

2

23

willfulfillaccountabilitycommitmentssetoutinSection5.4.3ofthePlan.

2.3.2 Challenges and Risks A number of barriers to establishing meaningful indicators for performance mea-surementofpolicyorprogramoutcomeshavebeen identified. Ifaddressed inthe framework conception phase, these can be mitigated to some extent and the accuracy and effectiveness of measurement results bolstered. Challenges and risks to consider in the development of performance indicators include potential methodological and data limitations, complexity and immeasurability of policy goal (Schacter,2002;VanDerKnaap,2006;Wong,2006). Methodological and Data Limitations

Limitationsofthetechnicalcapacityofmethodsanddatafigureprominentlyinthechallengesinherenttoperformancemeasurement(Wong,2006).Theavailabilityand accessibility of data tend to act as central determinants of performance indica-tors which facilitates the ease with which performance measurement can be car-ried out, but threatens to undermine the meaningfulness of evaluation. Tradeoffs between results for which data can be collected in a cost-effective and timely man-ner, and results which produce the most accurate and meaningful picture of policy outcomesareinherenttoperformanceindicatorevaluationframeworks(Schacter,2002).

The susceptibility of performance indicator frameworks aimed at measuring growth management policy outcomes to the limitations of methods and data is high. As growth management programs in general, and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, have not been implemented on long-standing bases, many of the data required to adequately evaluate objective achievement may be unavail-able or expensive and time-consuming to collect. This concern is compounded for the performance measurement of Ontario’s Growth Plan by the diverse range of municipal jurisdictions covered under the regional plan.

Complexity and Immeasurability of Policy Goals

Theefficacyofperformancemeasurementmaybeunderminedbythecomplex-ity of policy or program objectives where multiple intents and outcomes may be eitherinconflictornotamenabletobeingcapturedbyadiscreteindicatorframe-work(VanDerKnaap,2006).Theimmeasurabilityofspecificpolicygoalswhichare conceptual in nature may further confound useful performance measurement. The challenges associated with complex or immeasurable goals may be of par-ticular concern in developing performance indicators aimed at evaluating growth management objectives as these often include diverse and somewhat intangible goals, such as improved quality of life, for which discrete quantitative perfor-manceindicatorsmaybeinsufficienttobemeasure(Wong,2006).Aperformance

2

24

indicator framework for the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe will have to con-tend with a range of environmental, economic, and social goals when attempting to capture an image of the Plan’s achievements.

Results Interpretation Issues

Performance indicator based evaluation of policy outcomes is susceptible to error in the results analysis phase. The interpretation of results is prone to attribution errors, whereby causality for a given outcome may be inappropriately allocated to a given policy or program (Schacter,2002).Accurateinterpretationmayalsobefurtherhinderedbyfactorssuchasvariant time scales required to achieve policy objectives or by the inappropriate weighting of aggregate indicators. This challenge was encountered in the Environmental Sustainability Index, a international collaborative framework which compares a range of sustainability goals and outcomes across national jurisdictions. This framework was critiqued for equally weighting goals which were diverse in scale and scope, thereby underemphasising critical componentsofenvironmentalsustainability,suchasclimatechangemitigation(Esty,Levy,Srebotnjak,&deSherbinin,2005). Evaluations of growth management programs through performance indicators may be par-ticularly susceptible to a dichotomy of inherent potential error in the results analysis phase. Thesignificant timeframerequiredtoachievemanyof thegoalsassociatedwithgrowthmanagement programs may cause them to appear to have inadequately achieved policy objectives(Ingrametal.,2009).ThiswasidentifiedasakeyconstraintintheLincolnIn-stitute’s U.S. Smart Growth analysis and may also pose a particular risk in measuring the performance of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, especially given the relatively recent adoption of, and municipal conformity to the Plan.

Ineffectual Results Application

The value of performance measurement can be undermined if the results are not appro-priately communicated to the public and incorporated in a meaningful manner into the de-cision-makingprocess(Wong,2006).Theuseofperformanceindicatorstoevaluateandmonitor program outcomes furthermore carries the risk of insensitivity to unexpected results or changing public preferences, causing their policy application to be potentially ineffectual (VanDerKnaap,2006).

The employment of a performance indicator framework to evaluate the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe will need to set out parameters for the useful integration of resultsintofutureamendmentstothePlanwhereshortcomingsareidentified.Failuretoacknowledge and incorporate targets and trends suggested from the performance mea-surementframeworkwillunderminetheintentandefficacyoftheindicatorevaluation.

2

25

2.4 Indicator Frameworks used for Municipal & Regional Evaluation 2.4.1 Layering Frameworks

Three Tier Indicator System:

Innes(2000)findsthatathreetierframeworkofindicatorscanbedevelopedwhereeachlevel will provide information relevant to action of different types. In the top tier, a small numberofsystemperformanceindicatorsareneeded-afewkeymeasureswhichreflectthe central values of concern to those in the city and which can serve as bellwethers for the health of the overall system. In the second tier is a set of policy and program indica-tors.Thesereflecttheactivitiesandoutcomesofvariouselementsofthesystemandallowpolicy-makersandpublicofficialstoassesswhethertheyshouldadjusttheirdecisionsand

2

2.3.3 Performance Indicator Measurement for Growth Management Programs –SWOT Analysis

STRENGTHS •Benchmarkingbestpractice •Frameworkforsystematiccomparable data analysis •Realistic,quantifiableimageofprogram performance •Refocus/finetuneprogramgoals

WEAKNESSES •Dataandtechnologicallimitations •Potentialinsensitivitytolocalcontex- tual variations •Immeasurablegoals–ie.qualityoflife •Diverserangeofgoalsaddscomplexity to analysis

OPPORTUNITIES •Precursortoimprovedprogramperfor- mance •Enhancedaccountability •Mitigateeconomicinefficiencies •Comparisontootherjurisdictions

THREATS •Misinterpretationofresults •Causalitymisallocation •Longtermnatureofgoalcompletionmay cause premature negative analysis •Ineffectualapplicationofresults

26

help with troubleshooting when results are not moving in a desirable direction. The third tier consists of rapid feedback indicators to help municipalities make the best choices for their own daily actions.

2

2.4.2 Data Selection Transportation System Performance When looking at Smart Growth transportation system performance, many measures should be examined locally rather than at a regional level. Data on automobile use is developed locally and should be more accurate than national sources based on sampling. For example, if we are measuring vehicle kilometers travelled, data on regional vehicle travel is not very helpful since travel on local streets is added to vehicle kilometers travelled as a fixedpercentage.Yetlocalstreettravelwouldbemostaffectedbystreetconnectivity.

2.4.3 Local Integration Maryland’s Office of Smart Growth

Maryland has put the state on the cutting edge of the Smart Growth movement, creating a cabinet-level position that focuses exclusively on transportation, land use, and growth issues, generating incentives to encourage Smart Growth, and signing legislation that prevents state funds from being used for infrastructure projects that induce sprawl. Maryland’s Office of Smart Growth serves as an information clearinghouse,developing outreach and education programs and assisting local officials, developers,thenewsmedia,andcitizengroups.Most importantly, theofficehelps local jurisdictions,developers,andthepublictoprepare,finance,anddevelopprojectsthatareconsistentwithSmart Growth policies.

Urban Development Areas in Virginia

Under a Virginia statute passed in 2007 all counties have the authority to include Urban Development Areas (UDA) in their comprehensive plans. UDAs aredesignated areas that a locality deems appropriate for high-density development, due to their proximity to transportation facilities, water and sewer infrastructure, or proximity to existingdevelopedareas.UDAsmaybeareastargetedforinfillandredevelopment.

Minimum residential and commercial densities have been established for UDAs at four dwellingunitspergrossacreand0.4floorarea ratiospergrossacre.AUDAshouldbeable to accommodate 10 to 20 years of the county’s projected residential and commer-cialgrowth.UDAboundariesarereexaminedandrevisedifnecessaryeveryfiveyearsin

27

2

conjunction with the update of the comprehensive plan.

The statute also encourages that the comprehensive plan describe any incentives used by the locality to promote development within UDAs. Such incentives may include rezoning property to permit higher density development in the UDA, road and infrastructure impact fees, cluster development, and transfer of development rights.

28

3. Performance Measurement Programs: Jurisdictional Scan

3.1 Strengths/Success Stories

Byidentifyingspecificstrengthsofperformancemeasurementprogramsemployedaroundtheworldwehave attempted to reach conclusions about what factors lead to successful performance measurement and evaluation. Identifying and applying these successes will greatly assist us in the development of our own methodology and selection criteria. Our research has included detailed analysis of performance measurement programs related to planning and growth management across numerous jurisdictions. We willhighlightmanyofthestrengthsoftheseprogramsandoutlinethespecificfactorswhichwillassistusin developing an evaluative framework for the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.

Transparent Annual Data Source: Strong performance monitoring programs are heavily reliant on a steady source of reliable and transparent data. Performance indicators which are developed around frequently updated and publicly available data tend to be more cost-effective and easy to administer. Obtaining data that is not easily accessible within the public domain can be very expensive. Consultants can charge a premium for the collection and distribution of certain statistics. Though census data can beanextremelyvaluablesourceof information, it is typicallyonlyconductedeveryfiveyearsmean-ing that it is not overly valuable in tracking short-term progress. Therefore it is vital that performance measures be developed on a basis of easily accessible and frequently updated data. Numerous perfor-mancemeasurementprogramshaveidentified,“sourceofdata,”asalimitationtodevelopingeffectivemonitoring frameworks. While it can be a severe limitation, many programs have capitalized on strong sources of local and regional data to inform indicators, ultimatelymaking themmuchmore efficient.

Community Engagement: Conducting public and key stakeholder consultations can be an ex-tremely valuable tool to assist with the development of performance indicators. Communi-ties will typically respond more positively to evaluation tools which they assisted in developing. Ensuring that the public and stakeholders are well-consulted will also produce performance measure-ment programs that are easily understandable to the very constituents that they are developed to serve.

3

29

3

Theroleofelectedofficialsandcitizensinthedevelopmentofperformancemeasureshasremained rather limited. In developing performance measures to gauge the success of municipal service programs, 9 municipalities in Iowa employed a model deemed a “citizen-initiated performance assessment” in which elected officials, citizens and cityofficials collaborated extensively to develop the measures. To make performancemeasurement more relevant in the decision-making process, policymakers need politi-cal incentives to encourage them to be more attentive to the measures. Involving voters andelectedofficialscanworkasapoliticalincentivetomoreeffectivelyutilizetheresultsofperformancemonitoringprograms (IowaCIPA,2004). These9municipalities formedwhat were known as, “citizen performance teams.” These teams consisted of members of thepublic, cityadministratorsandelectedofficialsandworkedcollaboratively to formmeasuresthatreflecttheconcernsandprioritiesofcitizens(2004).Theresulthasbeena more valuable performance monitoring system that is utilized to determine budgetary allocations and maintain the accountability of local governments.

Frequent Review Process: Utilizing and applying results of performance measurement on a frequent basis works to enhance the effectiveness of any performance measurement program. Some jurisdictions have committed heavily in doing so. This has resulted in local and regional governments taking more informed policy directions to actively correct plans and initiatives that are being measured. Legislation contained in the State of Washington’sGrowthManagementAct(GMA)requiresallcountiestoprepareandadoptacomprehensive plan and regularly report on the outcomes of the plan (MRSC, 2009).SpokaneCounty specifically has been strong in the area of performancemeasurementand complementing review process. Results of the monitoring and evaluation program are presented annually in a public report to the county’s planning commission. These reports include proposed revisions to the plan to promote its viability and the viability of the county planning process (SpokaneCounty, 2002). The report is designed to provide sufficientinformation to enable policy-makers to determine whether different actions to implement the policies contained in the plan are needed or whether revisions to the policies are required. For maximum effectiveness the review and supporting report are prepared in accordance with the county’s budget cycle, so that proposed work items can be included in budget requests(2002). Frequent review can also help foster a more dynamic and evolving monitoring process.Asfactorseffectinggrowthcanchangesignificantlyovertime,itisimportantthatperformance indicatorsreflect thedynamicnatureofdevelopment trends. TheNanaimoRegional Growth Strategy aims to achieve similar objectives as contained in the Growth PlanfortheGreaterGoldenHorseshoe(RegionalDistrictofNanaimo,2008).Theyhaveestablished a system of performance monitoring and yearly review. They have used results of the annual review not only to help inform policy direction but to adjust per-formance measures to better reflect changing objectives and planning goals (2008).

30

Applicable at Regional and Municipal Level: While indicators should be collected for thewholeof theregion, there ismerit indeveloping indicatorsatmorefinegrained sub-regional spatial scales. Regional indicators should be closely aligned with municipal ones to help ensure a consistent and cost-effective approach to monitoring the success of smart growth policies. A Regional Spatial Strategy Monitoring Guide completed in the U.K. suggests a “Best Value” initiative as a potential source of indicators (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2005). It places a duty on local authorities andencourages them to develop their own additional performance indicators. Although many of these indicators may not be relevant, the ones that are will be reported on by most local authorities and therefore, can be aggregated to a regional level. Geographical information systems are also an important tool in this respect as they have the capability to deal with single point data and organise, analyse and display data at varying spatial scales.

Quantifying Qualitative Data: In the past, there has been a tendency to ignore indicators that required a more subjective or qualitative assessment, given that these tended to be moredifficulttomeasure.However,smartgrowth,withitsfoundationsfirmlyentrenchedinquality of life issues, necessitates parameters to be set which often go beyond traditional quantitativemeasures(Hemphill,2003).Thedevelopmentofapointsscoringframeworkto accompany qualitative indicators provides a means of quantifying performance. This model has the potential to identify “best” practice of smart growth as it can be applied tospecificcasestudies inacomparativemanner. For instance,SmartGrowthAmericadeveloped a Sprawl Index through a scoring system to quantify sprawl across 83 Metropoli-tan Areas. The heart of the project is an extensive database that allows for both the careful measurement of urban sprawl as well as the assessment of its relationship to a wide variety ofqualityoflifeindicators(2002).

3.2 Failures/Weaknesses

By identifying the weaknesses and failures of various performance measurement pro-grams, we have found several common issues that suggest serious limitations when using traditional programs. The entire performance measurement process is a vast and complicated arena that is still considered new and emerging. This makes the need for cross boundary knowledge transfers even more necessary. Although many examples of performancemeasuresexist,somefailuresareknownandclearly identifiedwhileothersarerealizedthroughthecriticalanalysisofspecificprogramsandplans,especiallythosethatfocusongrowthmanagement.Definingadequateperformancemeasuresisnotaneas-ilyachievabletask.Itisadifficultprocessandhasbeencompletedinwaysthatfailtoyieldirrelevant or ineffective results. We draw attention to several weaknesses of these programs and outline the factors which we will have to be wary of when conducting research and choosing our performance indicators for framework for the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.

3

31

Number of Indicators Used:Ammons(2001)identifiesperformancemeasurementsthatusetoomanyortoofewindicators.Reportsproducedwereseenasdifficulttounderstandby the public and resulted in the dissatisfaction of the evaluation techniques as a whole.

The ideal approach is to use a moderate number of indicators that are tracked by officials,withonlyasubsetofthemeasurespublishedforhigherlevelofficialsorthegeneralpublic. The Regional District of Nanaimo apply this form of performance measurement system in a coherent manner by tracking a wide variety of indicators but publishing concise and readable annual reports. Some indicators will be deemed as unnecessary and inevitably be dropped during the performance measurement process. Sustainable Seattle Indicators are oftenrevisedandwhilesomearedroppedduetolackofdataothersthatproveddifficulttomeasurewerestillkeptbecausetheywereseenastooimportant(Atkisson,2006).

Inappropriate Context:Performancemeasuresareseenasflawedattemptsatevaluationbecause they lack a broad level contextual framework. The measurement does not take into account whether certain aspects of a policy or program affect another in a positive or negative manner.

Examples such as the State of Arizona’s Smart Growth Scorecard and the State of Washington’s Growth Management Act seek to apply changes at the state level. They also show how performance measurement is completed at a regional level, not taking into account what takes place inter-regionally.

Inconsistencies:At a contextual level it was also identified that resistance to change,lack of leadership, and the time and expenses required can all contribute to performance measurement failures. Some performance measures are subject to the decisions or judgements of individuals, making them by nature subjective. Attempts to complete performance measurement have resulted in criticism that these methods are both inconsistent and arbitrary.

This form of evaluation has been criticised for not working towards continuous improvements but rather promoting under-achievement (Bourne et al., 2002). Someperformance measurements may set goals that they know can be achieved rather than settinghighgoals.Thedifficultywithsettinghighergoals is thefearofnotmeetingthemand later being criticised for under-performing. Time constraints associated with this type of measurement are plenty. It is without question that some policies require longitudinal data collection to assess changes, which increases costs of doing performance measurement (Wong,2006).

Difficulties in Assessment Process:Ataprocessuallevelitwasidentifiedthatfailuresresultedduetothedifficultiesevaluatingtherelativeimportanceofsomemeasuresandproblems that arose when attempting to identify the true causes of outputs.

3

32

Bourneetal.(2002)identifiesperformancemeasuresthatfailbecausetheyresultinpartialproductivity. This is the case when the performance measurements overemphasizes one or few inputs and neglects others. Other evaluations were found to measure direct inputs rather than the outcome of results. It has also been argued that performance measures are flawedbecausetheydonotmeasuretheprogressofchangethatisrequiredtoreachanoutcome, this progress is seen as an integral part of achieving outcomes and should therefore be accounted for. Government related performance measurements used by government agencies are seen as inefficient because they may not result in directpolicy changes. In the case of Citizen Initiated Performance Measurement in Iowa, one of the greatest disappointments expressed by citizens is the lack of policy changes following evaluations(Ho&Coates,2004).

Anothernotableproblem identifiedwas thatmostqualitative indicatorscannotaccuratelybe measured. Often, the indicators for qualitative data are the ones that are most useful whencalculatingsuccessbutarealsothemostdifficulttogatherdatafor.Qualitativedataiscomplexas it ismultifacetedanddifficult toquantify, as it canbe intangibleor abstract.Also when gathering information for qualitative indicators, the data collected may not be appropriate formeasuring the specific indicator. Qualitative data can be very difficult toanalyze, as there needs to be systematically comparable data available for assessment already in place.

3

33

4.0 Our Approach

4.1 Regional Context

TheGreaterGoldenHorseshoe(GGH)referstothehighlyurbanizedareaoflandstretch-ing around the western edge of Lake Ontario. It encompasses approximately 32,000 km² of land centered around Toronto and stretches from Peterborough in the east, to Barrie in the north, to Waterloo in the west, and to Niagara Falls in the south. The region covers more than 21 counties and comprises 110 different municipal jurisdictions.

Demography

The region is home to approximately 8.1 million people, two thirds of Ontarians, and one quarter of Canada’s population. This number is expected to grow by 3.7 million people and 1.8 million jobs by the year 2031. The municipality of Toron-to is themostpopulouscity,with2.5millionpeople, followedbyMississauga(668,549),Hamilton(504,559)andBrampton(433,806).Theothermunicipalitieswithmorethan100,000residents are Markham, Vaughan, Kitchener, Oakville, Burlington, Richmond Hill, Oshawa, St. Catharines, Barrie, Cambridge, Guelph and Whitby. Eleven of the 16 municipalities with a population of more than 100,000 are in a corridor that runs from Hamilton to Oshawa. That corridor is the largest continuous urban network in Canada, and it is home to more than 5.3 million people, roughly one-sixth of Canadians.

Between 2001 to 2006, the GGH accounted for 84% of Ontario’s population increase and 39% of the total national increase. International immigration is the main contributer to the region’s high population growth rate. Approximately 75% of the GGH resides in the Greater TorontoArea(GTA).Therearealsodozensofmid-sizedcitiesandsmalltowns.TorontohadthehighestoveralldensityofallCanadianCMAsin1996with3,322people/km2;therateforHamilton was 2,355 people/km2, Kitchener 1,791 people/km2, and St. Catharines–Niagara hadthelowestdensityofallCMAs,with1,176people/km2(Buntingetal.,2002).Densi-ties in the largest cities of Toronto and Hamilton decreased from 1971 to 1996 by 4.6% and 5.1% respectively, while those in Kitchener and St. Catharines-Niagara increased by 6.1 percent and 4.8 percent respectively. All the Greater Golden Horseshoe municipalities had increases in suburban density from 1971 to 1996: Toronto’s suburban density grew by 9.4 percent, Hamilton by 4.6 percent, Kitchener by 15.7 percent, and St. Catharines-Niagara by 17.2 percent.

4

34

Economy

The region can be considered Canada’s ‘economic engine’ and accounts for approxi-mately 70% of Ontario Gross Domestic Product (Ontario Growth Secretariat, 2008).The GGH is supported by a diverse economy that includes a wide array of key indus-triesandclustersincludingfinancialservices,informationtechnologyandtelecommunica-tions, automotive, food and beverages, media, tourism, culture, biomedical, and biotech-nology, textiles, and aerospace. The economy is currently in transition as it evolves from a historic manufacturing base to one of service and knowledge industries. The service sector–includingfinance,insurance,trade,education,andhealthcareservices-willdeliv-erthemajorityofnewjobsintheGGH(2008).Theannualaverageoutputgrowthacrossallsectors is expected to continue growing through to 2031 at an average annual rate of 2.6% (2008).Thehealthcareandeducationalsectorsareexpectedtoexperiencethefastestrateof growth at more than 90% and grow by more than 500,000 jobs by 2031. Natural Areas

The region contains some of Canada’s most fertile agriculture lands and signifi-cant natural areas. The Greenbelt Plan identifies where urbanization should not oc-cur in order to provide permanent protection to the agricultural land base and the ecological features and functions occurring on this landscape. The Greenbelt is an area of permanently protected green space, farmland, forests, wetlands and watersheds. It protects approximately 1.8 million acres of environmentally sensitive and agricultural land around the Greater Golden Horseshoe, including the Oak Ridges Moraine and Niagara Escarpment (ProvinceofOntario-MinistryofMunicipalAffairsandHousing,2005).Thereareanumberof large bodies of water including Lake Ontario, Lake Simcoe and major rivers such as the Don River, Credit River, and the Kawartha system. The region has a variety of agriculture, including the Niagara region’s fruit and wine areas, dairy and beef cattle, maize, grains and an assortment of other crops.

Transportation

The GGH is served by an extensive transportation network that is constantly expanding and consolidating into a regional network. Characteristics include:

• AnumberofhighwaysandmajorarterialroadsofwhichthebackboneisHighway 401, which runs east-west through the region. Major north-south highways include the 400, 427, and 115/35.

• RegionaltransitisprovidedbyGOTransittrainsandbuses,privatebusoperators Greyhound and Coach Canada, and VIA Rail.

• Localtransitisprovidedbymunicipalagencies,thelargestofwhichistheToronto Transit Commission which operates 4 rapid transit lines and an extensive bus and streetcar network.

4

35

The Performance Measurement Framework for the Growth Plan for the Golden Horseshoeshalladhere to the following fourguidingprinciples:Region-levelMonitoring;Progress-oriented Measurement; Recognize Ambiguity and Complexity; AdaptiveMonitoring Framework.

Region-Level Monitoring The monitoring and evaluation framework will be carried out at the regional level and shall considertheGreaterGoldenHorseshoeasawhole.Indicatorsshallbeselectedtoreflectthe aggregate municipalities included encompassed by the region as opposed to looking at each municipality in isolation. The monitoring framework shall recognize the diversity of the region and the challenges involved in measuring performance at the regional level, caused in part by vertical inter-dependencies between levels of government, horizontal relationships among stakeholders in multiple sectors, and a need for partnership between public and private actors.

Progress-Oriented Measurement Regional development and growth management centred policies produce outcomes that may materialise over variable and extended periods of time. As such, the performance measurement framework for the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe shall look at trends within the region, with analysing progress rather than explicitly focussing on outcomes. Indicators shall be selected to capture short, medium, and long term goal achievements associated with the Plan, looking at inputs, processes, and outputs that are relevant for monitoring and policy improvements on an ongoing basis.

Recognize Ambiguity and Complexity The performance measurement framework for the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe shall recognize the ambiguities and complexities attached to regional and growth management policy intents and outcomes which can create potentially

• TheprimaryairportoftheregionisToronto’sLesterB.PearsonInternationalAir port, located in Mississauga, which is the busiest in Canada, handling approxi mately32.3millionpassengersin2008.Otherregionalairportsofsignificance include John C. Munro International Airport south of Hamilton, which is a major regionalfreightandcourierlocation;ButtonvilleAirportandBillyBishopToronto City Airport in the Greater Toronto Area, both of which mostly serve regional busi nesstravellers;andRegionofWaterlooInternationalAirportjusteastofKitchener, serving the Region of Waterloo.

4.2 Guiding Principles

4

36

conflicting interpretations of program achievements. The indicator selection processshall attempt to mitigate confusion and simplify potentially complex goals into tangible, understandable images of the Plans successes and shortcomings. In recognition of the complexity of growth management goals and outcomes, this framework is furthermore intended to be a component of the overall evaluation of the Growth Plan’s success, rather than an exhaustive evaluative tool.

Adaptive Monitoring Framework The performance measurement framework for the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe shall be adaptive in order to respond to the evolution of growth management goals and outcomes. The framework shall be sensitive to changes to local economic, social, and environmental landscapes, adapting over time as needed to accommodate these changes in such a way that the framework can continue to meaningfully inform policy decision-making processes as related to the Growth Plan.

4.3 Approaches to Performance MeasurementPolicy-makingtakesplaceatallgeo-politicallevels(e.g.international,national,provincial).Policies, being essential components of a plan, support the goals and objectives and in the process, set the directions a jurisdiction intends to take. Given this important role, it is imperative that the policies laid down will have to be the most effective guides to determine whether or not a region or a province is moving forward towards the achievement of the goals or has achieved the goals. Hence, one major means to ascertain this is by measuring policies, complex as they are.

It is, however, important first, to provide some clarification on the concept ofmeasure-mentespeciallyinthecontextofagrowthplanwithinajurisdiction(region,province,local).Measuring them takes various forms. Measurement may mean evaluation, an attempt to monitor how well a jurisdiction is performing and how much progress has been made in re-lationtothegoalsthathavebeenset(Behn,2003;Regeeretal.,2009).Measurementmayalso take place at the end of the implementation phase, determining whether or not the goal has been achieved. The purpose of this discussion is to present the common approaches notwithstanding the forms that measurement takes.

The Policy-Based Indicator System

The basic ingredient in measuring plan effectiveness is the indicator set. Indicators may measure progress that has been made and this is especially important when assessing comprehensive plans that have several levels and phases of implementation. One of the more common approaches employed is the utilization of the “three pillars” approach usu-allyutilizedinassessingcomplexplans(UNECE,2009).

4

37

These three pillars include society, economy and environment. An example of this “three pillars” approach is the Dashboard of Sustainability (DS) tool, developed by theConsultative Group on Sustainable Development Indicators (CGSDI) in 1996 (IISD,2010). This tool usually takes the form of a pie chart and at its core is the policyperformance index (PPI). The pie chart is color-coded to visually highlight the kind ofperformanceachieved.Thefollowingisamodelthatexemplifiesthismodel.ThecasestudyofPaduaillustratestheusefulnessaswellasdrawbacksofthistool(Scipionietal.,2009).

Economy

SocialCare

Environ-ment

PPIPolicy valuation:

very goodgoodokmediumbadvery badcritical

20% 45%

35%

(Source:JointResearchCenter)

The MONET System

In Switzerland, a monitoring system was developed to measure complex programs and policies. This is the MONET a German acronym for Monitoring Sustainable Development, an approach that consists of a system of key indicators derived from four basic questions:

1. Howwelldowelive?(Meetingneeds)2. Howwellareresourcesdistributed?(Fairness)3. Whatareweleavingbehindforourchildren?(Preservationofresources)4. Howefficientlyareweusingournaturalresources?(Decoupling)

Seventeen key indicators support these questions. They are as follows:

4

38

The Local Governance Performance Management System

Another comprehensive model that assesses effectiveness is the Local Governance Performance Management System or the LGPMS (Bureau of Local GovernmentSupervision, 2010). This framework looks at the state of governance in the Philippineswherein input and output indicators are used to gauge the performance of local government units. As well, this model also tries to capture outcome indicators to assess the state of development. This model thus groups indicators and categorizes them into two sets: organizational, where the government has a direct control and, the state of development which is the government does not necessarily have direct power over. This gives an avenue for collaboration of various agencies and the local government units. With the clustering of indicators, it can thus be determined when the reporting performance assessment can happen. For those within the control of the local government, reporting is conducted every year. For development, the review is done every 3 years. Five performance areas and twenty service areas constitute the input-output indicator system:

(Source:SwissFederalStatisticalOffice(SFSO)SwissAgencyfortheEnvironment,ForestsandLandscape(SAEFL),FederalOfficeforSpatialDevelopment(ARE),2002)4

39

(Source:BureauofLocalGovernmentSupervision)

To assess development outcomes, three sectors and eleven sub-sectors constitute the cluster:


4

40

This model also includes benchmarks, thresholds and policy standards against which performanceiscompared.Afive-pointscalingsystemthathasarangefromverylowtoexcellent, measure performance of local government units. A range from bad to very high, for the state of development has been incorporated as well. Two boxes illustrate this:


The Pressure-State-Response Model

Employed to measure environmental impacts, the Pressure-State-Response (PSR)framework was originally developed by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) as an attempt to establish causal links between human activitiesand the destruction and degradation of the environment. The framework also includes corresponding responses (e.g. land use plans, policy directions, concrete steps).Subsequently, national governments have adopted this model and adapted it according to their unique conditions and constraints. Following are variations of the PSR model:

(Source:EncyclopaediaofEarth)

ThisfigureisabasicillustrationofthePSRmodel:

4

41

(Source:GovernmentofNewZealand)

ThisfigureshowssomemodificationstothePSRmodel:

(Source:GovernmentofNewZealand)

This figure is an adaptation of the PSR framework by Australia and New Zealand.These ways of presenting the PSR framework reveal that pressures from human activities have varying scales and magnitude and to these, different modes and levels of responses are required. And given this, there will have to be corresponding sets of indicator systems to be set up.

4

42

The Growth Plan as Response

TheGrowthPlan for theGreaterGoldenHorseshoe (GrowthPlan) is a response to theburgeoning pressures due to among others, degradation of the natural environment caused by urban sprawl and inappropriate conversion of employment lands. For example, within the Growth Plan, such policy directions as,

“...Direct growth to built up areas where the capacity exists to best accommodate the expected population and employment growth, while providing strict criteria for settlementareaboundaryexpansions(MPIR;2009,8),weredrawn.”

Based on this illustration, subsequent steps will have to be done to come up with indicator systems that will translate this response into appropriate measures which will track the effectiveness of the Growth Plan.

Summary of Advantages and Disadvantages

The following summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of these approaches:

4

43

4.4 Methodological Approach

The formation of a sound methodological approach to indicator development is a crucial element to this undertaking. In order to ensure the information gathered is both accurate and meaningful to the process, it is necessary to outline an approach that will draw out the necessary information and avoid the creation of a “haphazard set of statistics without any realsenseofdirectionandpurpose”(Wong,2006). In her book, IndicatorsForUrbanandRegionalPlanning (2006),CeciliaWongoutlinesa four step methodological framework for indicator development. The framework begins withabroadanalysisandworkstowardthecreationofaspecificsetorindexofindicators.The framework has also been used byHemphill at al. (2004) “to develop indicators formeasuring sustainable urban regeneration.” This approach is often used because it is simplisticand“pinpointsthekeymilestones”inthedevelopmentofindicators(Wong,2006).

Wong’s Four Step Methodological Framework For Indicator Development Step 1: Conceptual consolidationClarifying the basic concept to be represented by the analysis↓Step 2: Analytical structuringProviding an analytical framework within which indicators will be collated and analysed↓Step3:IdentificationofindicatorsTranslationofkeyfactorsidentifiedinStep2intospecificmeasurableindicators↓Step 4: Synthesis of indicator valuesSynthesisingtheidentifiedindicatorsintocompositeindex/indicesorintoanalyticalsum-mary (Wong,2006)

Conceptual Consolidation •Elicitacommonunderstandingofexactlywhatisbeingmeasured •Ensurecommonlyusedterminologyisclarifiedattheoutsettoavoid confusion later on in the process. This is especially important to keep in mind with terminology used in policy discourses, such as “quality of life” and “smart growth”.

4

44

•Clarifythebasicconceptthatistoberepresentedbytheanalysis •Pinpointthepolicycontextandrationalagainstwhichtheindicatorswillbe used. This can be done through interviews with policy-makers and stakeholders. •Reviewofexistingliteraturetogainunderstandingoftheoreticalapproaches underpinning the development of indicators.

Analytical Structuring •Developananalyticalframeworktosetoutthestructureandrequirement upon which key elements will be developed and assessed •Twobroadapproachestodevelopaframeworkofanalysis“bottom-up”or “top-down”. •Bottom-upapproachbeginswithlookingatspecificissuesthatareconsidered important, and working from there •Top-downapproachstartsfromanapriorianalysisoftheissuesandworks to establish causal relationships between different factors and develop a frame work from there •ThePressureStateResponseModel(PSR)isanexampleofananalytical framework(outlinedbelow). •Identifyasetofanalyticalprinciplestoguidetheanalysisandinterpretation oftheindicatorset.Forexample,oneprinciplesuggestedbyWong(2006)is “Tracking progress and change: indicators should provide some narration of the nature and direction of change, and should not be subject to ambiguous interpretation”.

Identification of Indicators

•Searchforwiderangeofindicatorstomeasurestheissuesidentifiedinthe analytical framework •Extensivereviewofrelatedpolicypracticeandacademicliterature •Untildataavailabilityproblemsaretakenintoaccount,thereareusuallya variety of indicators suggested to measure each issue •Valueofindicatorsshouldbeassessedintermsofpracticalitykeepinginmind fivebasiccriteria:“dataavailability,geographicalspecification,(bothcoverageand spatialscales),time-seriesprospects,operationandimplementation,and interpretationandrelevance.”(Wong,2006,p.113)

Synthesis of Indicator Values

•Developacompositeindexbysynthesizingtheproposedindicators, according to relative importance, into a singe measure that will be used for policy targeting

4

45

•Whenlookingatthevalueofindicators,thisisthestepinwhichpractical problems such as data availability, will impose constraints on the indicators selected. Some of the other issues involving indicator selection are outlined in this report in section 2.3.2 •Thedevelopmentofasingleindexisthefinalgoalofthisstepinthe framework.

4.5 Selection CriteriaSeveral indicator selection criteria form the basis for sound and meaningful performance measurement both generally, and with particular applicability to the context of performance monitoring of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.

4.5.1 GeneralArangeofselectioncriteriahavebeenidentifiedforthegenerationofqualityperformancemeasures, irrespective of what type of policy or program is being evaluated. These preliminary criteria shall be applied to the indicator selection process for monitoring the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Performance indicators for this evaluative framework shall be at the outset, generally selected on the basis of:

•Validity•Reliability•Relevance•Attribution•Easeofunderstanding•AbilitytoAggregate•SensitivitytoDataCollectionDemands/Constraints(Ammons,1996;Balsas,2004;Hemphill,2004;Schacter,2002;Wong,2006). Validity: In order to meet the validity criteria, an indicator must actually measures what it purports to measure, whereby a high grade reflects goal attainment.For example, if increased residential density is the policy goal, a valid indicator could be change in persons per km2, and /or dwellings per Ha in residential areas, as was applied in theBCMinistryofCommunityandRuralDevelopmentIndicatorList(2009). Reliability: Indicator can be accurately and consistently applied by diverse users with littlesubjectivityorvariation;Datacanbecollectedreliablyovertime.Indicatorswhichrelyon Census data provide a good example of the reliability criteria, as data is collected at regular intervals, is objective, statistical, and tends to be relatively transferable in data collection standards.

The Lincoln Institute’s U.S. Smart Growth Evaluation employed a number of indicators reliant on Census data. For example, relating to the policy goal of housing affordability, the study applied census derived indicators such as, median housing values and

4

46

percent change, median gross rent as a percent of household income, median selected monthly owner costs as a percent of household income, and shares of cost-burdened households(Ingrametal.,2009). Relevance: In order to demonstrate relevance, a selected indicator captures meaningful dimension(s) of policy or program objective(s) being measured, therebycontributing relevant data to policy processes. Forexample,theWinnipegQualityofLifeIndicatorSet,seekingtomonitor/mitigateurbansprawl as part of its evaluative mandate, employs an indicator which examines the ratio of number of new homes built in rural municipalities adjacent to Winnipeg to the number of new homesbuiltwithinWinnipeg’surbanboundary;thisratiodemonstratesanabilitytocapturea meaningful dimension of urban sprawl and can illustrate to decision makers whether or notpoliciesgearedtomitigatingsprawlareontherighttrack(Hardy&Pinter,2008). Attribution: The attribution criteria may be met when an indicator focuses on controllable aspectsofperformance,anddemonstratesalinkbetweenpolicyorprogramobjective(s)andtheobservedoutcome(s). For example, the Sustainable Community Indicators Report issued by the Environmen-tal Non-Government Organization, Sustainable Seattle, seeks as part of its monitoring framework to evaluate the degree to which the city fosters characterization as ‘bicycle friendly’;bicycle-friendlinessisindicatedbythepresenceofdedicated,stripedbicyclelanes(Hardy&Pinter,1998).Thismaybeconsideredacontrollableaspectofperformanceanddemonstrates linkages between policy and outcome, as the implementation of bicycle lanes clearly bears a direct impact on the bicycle friendliness of cities.

Ease of Understanding: Simplicity and clarity characterize indicators which meet the ‘ease of understanding’ criteria, whereby the meaning and results of the indicator may be easily interpreted by practitioners, as well as conveyed to the general public in an highly comprehendible manner. An example of an indicator that is easy to understand and communicate to the public derives from the Performance Measurement and Reporting component of the City of Hamilton’s Strategic Plan: In seeking to monitor the preservation (or lack thereof) ofagricultural lands, the framework employs and indicator which considers the number of hectares of land originally designated for agricultural purposes which was re-designated for otherusesduringthereportingyear(CityofHamilton,2008).Thisproducesasimple,clear,and concise indication of changes to local agricultural lands which can be easily conveyed to the public.

4

47

Ability to Aggregate: In order to meet the ability to aggregate criteria, an indicator will contribute to capturing a comprehensive image of the major elements of the policy or program being evaluated; it can combine with other indicators to lend broader policyoutcome context. Vancouver’s Livable Region Strategic Plan (1996-2021), sets out performancemonitoring indicators which examine the city’s success in protecting the ‘green zone’: The framework employs a range of indicators which individually speak to a component of green zone protection, but aggregate easily to give a broader picture of the success of policies gearedtogreenzoneprotection.Theseinclude:Areaofgreenzone;areaofagriculturallandreserve; total value of farm-gate sales; number of newnon-farmdwellings in the greenzone; number of endangered or threatened species; length of regional greenwayscompleted,and;sizeofprotectedconservationareas(GreaterVancouverRegionalDistrict,1996). Sensitivity to Data Collection Demands / Constraints: Indicators which do not implicate overly cost or time prohibitive data collection demands and which requires reasonably obtainable data sets may be considered to meet the criteria of sensitivity to data collection demands / constraints. For example, the North Jersey Transportation Authority, seeking to evaluate the prevalence of commuter delays due to roadway ‘incidents’, employs the indicator of number of acci-dentsoveragiventimeframe(NorthJerseyTransportationPlanningAuthority,2009).Suchan indicator is based on data that is already collected by the organization undertaking the monitoring thus is simple to access.

4.5.2 Region SpecificThe primary objective of the region-specific indicator selection criteria is to selectperformance indicators that will provide meaningful information from which decisions about policies can be made. It is the intent that decision makers use the information provided by evaluations of growth management in the Greater Golden Horseshoe to inform future policy directions in the region. As the regional authority responsible for the preparation and implementation of the Growth Plan, the Growth Secretariat bears the political commitment of owning the strategy’s lev-el of success and the shape of its continued implementation. Therefore, the following selection criteria are sensitive to the role of the Growth Secretariat as an evaluator and facilitator in the evaluation process. This framework is designed to ensure evaluation utilization and evaluation capacity building within the Growth Secretariat to create what is referredtoasanorganizationalreadinessforevaluation(Fleischer&Christie,2009).

4

48

Evaluation Utilization

•InstrumentalUse•EnlightenedUse•Opportunityforstakeholderengagement•Communicability•Flexibility Evaluation Capacity Building

•Conceptualuse•Processuse Evaluation Utilization Instrumental Use: In order to meet the instrumental use criteria, indicators must produce evaluationfindingsthattheGrowthSecretariatcanusetomodifyGrowthPlanpolicies insomeway.IndicatorsmustrelatetopolicyareasidentifiedintheGrowthPlantoproducerelevant results. Identifying and prioritizing intended uses of performance measurement at the beginning of the evaluation process is extremely influential in increasing overallevaluationuse(Fleischer&Christie,2009). Enlightened Use: When used, selected indicators must produce findings that will addknowledgeto thefieldandthatmaybeusedbyanyone,not just those involvedwith thepolicy program or evaluation of the program (Weiss, 1979). Therefore, indicatorsmustbe designed or selected so that they can be used and understood by Greenbelt policy analysts, Metrolinx planners, municipal staff and other stakeholder groups. Indicators that canbeusedtoenlightenthefieldofpolicyintheGreaterGoldenHorseshoewillmaximizetheeffective use of evaluation findings by encouraging the practice of regional policycoordination. Opportunity for Stakeholder Engagement: The purpose of selected indicators must extendbeyondtheiruseasa tool formeasuringpolicyperformancerelative toadefinedpolicy goal to engage stakeholders and build relationships that will assist the evaluation process. Indicators that encourage participatory and collaborative evaluation – whether it is through data collection practices or qualitative indicator components – shift the role of the evaluator away from the traditional notion of a detached evaluator with limited stakeholder interaction. It is generally accepted that stakeholder involvement increases evaluation use (Christie,2003;Greene,1988;Turnbull,1999).Qualityinvolvementisconsideredaresultof the evaluator identifying the stakeholders early in the evaluation process through tailored evaluation priorities and then continuously engaging them, while establishing a structure for dialogue.

4

49

Communicability: Indicators must be compatible with a timed reporting method developed by the Growth Secretariat. Evaluators must be able to communicate indicatorresultslogicallyandefficientlytostakeholdersandthegeneralpublic.Thisinvolvesconsider-ations such as the type of information that indicators will provide, how information can best be presented effectively, and whether the presentation of findings allows both decisionmakers and the public to assess progress against stated goals. Effective communication of the information produced in the evaluation process can aid government transparency and accountability. Lastly, it is necessary to consider the ease with which performance indicatorscanbecollectedandreportedinternallybystaff(PricewaterhouseCoopersLLP,2007). Flexibility: Indicators chosen must be adaptable to continue to be relevant over time. This is based on the concept of adaptive monitoring that acknowledges the uncertainty about how systems function and how they respond to human actions. The implementation of Growth Plan policies and objectives will change, making it inappropriate to continue reporting on the same performance indicators as in previous periods. For instance, as implementation progresses and more information becomes available from municipalities and stakeholders, the adaptation of existing indicators and how they are calculated will provide a deeper understanding of the region’s growth and challenges. It must be possible to feed indicator results back into the decision-making process to reduce uncertainty and improve theeffectivenessoftheprogramovertime(ProvincialPlanningPolicyBranch,2009).

Evaluation Capacity Building Conceptual Use: The conceptual use criteria may be met when it is demonstrated that performance indicators will help the Secretariat staff understand the overall policy program of the Growth Plan in a new way. It is important to recognize the relationship between evaluation and organizational outcomes, so that the evaluation process can be a mechanism for transformative learning within the Secretariat and Ministry (Fleischer &Christie,2009).Performanceindicatorshavenormativeassumptionsembeddedinthemmakingthemconceptualtechnologies;thatis,indicatorsshapewhatissueswethinkaboutand how we think about those issues through the selection and structure of the indicators used(Barnetson&Cutright,2000). Process Use:IndicatorsmustberealisticandjustifiedasappropriatemeasuresgiventheorganizationalcapabilitiesoftheGrowthSecretariat.Itissignificanttorecognizethattheselected indicators and engagement in the evaluation process will result in behavioural, program, procedural and organizational changes within the Secretariat and Ministry (Patton,2003).Whenselectingindicators,itisthereforeessentialtoconsiderthehowthefollowing factors will affect the data collection and analytical capabilities of Ministry staff:

4

50

(a)managementsupportandorganizedfacilitationoftheevaluationprocessby staff; (b)characteristicsofinter-ministryadvisorygroups; (c)frequency,methodandquantityofcommunicationsbetweenpublic bodies/ministries;and (d)resourcelimitations(Fleishcer&Christie,2009).

4

51

5

5.0 Appendix - Inventory of Performance Measurement Programs Inventory of Performance Indicators

Chart#1 QualityofLife/SocialEquityPerformanceMeasurementProjects- Overviewofindicatorsfromourresearchthatwehaveidentifiedashaving todowithQualityofLifeandSocialEquity.Informationincludes:Project, Jurisdiction, Date, Study Proponents, Notes, Success Feature, Failure Feature, and Link to orginal document.

Chart #2 Growth Management/Smart Growth Performance Measurement Projects - Overviewofindicatorsfromourresearchthatwehaveidentifiedashaving to do with Growth Management and Social Equity. Information includes: Project, Jurisdiction, Date, Study Proponents, Notes, Success Feature, Failure Feature, and Link to orginal document.

Chart #3 Sustainability Performance Measurement Projects - Overview of indicators fromourresearchthatwehaveidentifiedashavingtodowith Sustainability: Information includes: Project, Jurisdiction, Date, Study Proponents, Notes, Success Feature, Failure Feature, and Link to orginal document.

Chart #4 Municipal/Regional Performance Measurement Projects - Overview of indicatorsfromourresearchthatwehaveidentifiedasMunicipalor Regional: Information includes: Project, Jurisdiction, Date, Study Proponents, Notes, Success Feature, Failure Feature, and Link to orginal document.

Chart #5 Transportation and Non-Governmental Performance Measurement Projects-Overviewofindicatorsfromourresearchthatwehaveidentified as relating to transportation or non-governmental initiatives: Information includes: Project, Jurisdiction, Date, Study Proponents, Notes, Success Feature, Failure Feature, and Link to orginal document.

52

Chart#6 QuickreferenceoverviewofInfrastructuretoSupportGrowthindicators. Information includes: Corresponding iventory item related to Charts #1-5, Sub-category of indicator, Related policy, Policy objective, Indicator, Data Source, and Link to referring document.

Chart#7 QuickreferenceoverviewofConservationandPreservationindicators. Information includes: Corresponding iventory item related to Charts #1-5, Sub-category of indicator, Related policy, Policy objective, Indicator, Data Source, and Link to referring document.

5

Appendix B: Inventory of Performance Measurement ProgramsB

Number Project Jurisdiction Date Study Proponents Notes Success Feature Failure Feature Practical Application/ Lesson Learned Link

1"Measuring the Livability of an Urban Centre: An Exploratory Study of Key Performance Indicators" - Research Paper

North America; Europe 2004 Balsas, C. J. L., in "Planning, Practice & Research", 19(1).

Analyses concept of 'urban livability' and measurement through key performance indicators.

- Working towards establishing accepted methodology for evaluating urban livability / regeneration. Strong performance indicator selection criteria - distinguishes between national, local levels. Incorporates qualitative, anecdotal perceptions with quantitative, capturing broad picture of performance.

- Potential over-subjectivity of qualitative measures. Quality of life outcomes may be intangible.

- Phased approach should be taken when measuring performance of polcies directed at potential long time-frame goals. start with core set of indicators, amenable to evolution over time as goals are achieved / change.

http://pdfserve.informaworld.com/493239_770885140_713630360.pdf

2Calvert-Henderson Quality of Life Indicators: A new tool for assessing national trends

United States 2000 - 2006. Six year study Calvert and Henderson

Initially published as a book in 2000, these are the the results of an extensive six-year study done by a multi-disciplinary group of practitioners and scholars from government agencies, for-profit firms, and nonprofit organizations who saw the need for more practical and sophisticated metrics of societal conditions. Indicators attempt to dig deeper to paint a more accurate picture of quality of life in USA. There are 12 indicators: Education, Employment, Energy, Environment, Health, Human Rights, Infrastructure, Income, National Security, Public Safety, Re-creation and Shelter.

- Education Indicator provides an overview of issues related to structural educational reform, school vouchers, "charter" schools, home schooling, and the globalised information-based economy. Knowledge is now widely recognized as a significant factor of economic production and a basic human right- Employment - integration of three previously distinct fields: economics, social welfare, and the environment, helps deepen the dialogue by employing a systems approach to make explicit the inherent interdependences between factors impacting quality of life- Environment – recognizing broad concerns, initial focus of indicator is on air and water quality since people cannot survive without acceptable quality air and water.- Health – Indicator focuses on three basic questions: "Who gets a chance at life?” "How long will that life last?" and "How healthy will that life be?" Infant Mortality Rate is a measure of the first question, Life Expectancy is a measure of the second question and Self-Reported Health is one way of measuring the third question.- Income – measures trends in the level and distribution of family income- Housing - indicator reveals that while the majority of Americans are well housed, housing-related problems such as affordability and spatially concentrated poverty persist. Inequality in the US is nowhere more evident than in the persistent disparities in shelter across racial and ethnic groups

All indicators are very complex to measure and use wide variety of data which may be considered controversial. Research method was based off of the work of Thomas S. Kuhn as articulated in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962). The Calvert-Henderson Indicators put forward a new pattern to organise reflective thinking about quality of life in the modern age.

http://www.flynnresearch.com/indicators_sochealth.pdf and http://www.calvert-henderson.com/

3 Canadian Well-Being Index Canada 2005 - ongoingInstitute of Well-being & Atkinson Charitable Foundation

The Institute aims to enable all Canadians to share in the highest wellbeing status by identifying, developing and publicizing statistical measures that offer clear, valid and regular reporting on progress toward wellbeing goals and outcomes Canadians seek as a nation.

Holistic, alternative to the traditional measurement of GDP, which cannot measure those that are not quantifable - focuses on qualitative indicators. Research demonstrates that markers of social and individual well-being are remarkably transcultural; People generally report greater life satisfaction if they have strong and frequent social ties, live in healthy ecosystems, experience good governance, etc

http://www.ciw.ca

4 Measuring Sprawl and Its Impacts, a Smart Growth America Study

United States (83 Metropolitan Areas) 2002 Smart Growth America

The heart of this project is an extensive database that allows for both the careful measurement of urban sprawl as well as the assessment of its relationship to a wide variety of quality-of-life indicators. It contains 22 variables grouped into the four factors that characterize sprawl and dozens of indicators of community quality of life, including everything from how much people drive every day to the consumption of farmland and forests.

By far the most comprehensive attempt to define and quantify urban sprawl in the U.S. with the use of a complex sprawl index scoring system. Two features that distinguish this study from earlier investigations are the efforts to operationalize sprawl more completely through a larger set of metropolitan areas and the attempts to relate sprawl a more extensive set of outcomes.

Baseline data was not established as part of the research. As a result, it is unclear which metropolitan areas have been most affected by the inception of Smart Growth.

http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/sprawlindex/MeasuringSprawlTechnical.pdf

5 City of Winnipeg Quality of Life (QOL) Indicators (Hardy & Pintér, 2006) Winnipeg, Manitoba 2006 Chapter in book 'Social

Indiactors Research Series'

This project had four main objectives: 1. To identify and actively involve key participants and stakeholders to develop community indicators 2. To establish an indicator development process by which an indicator framework and specific indicators can be developed, periodically reviewed, and refined for the City of Winnipeg 3. To implement the above stated process and develop a set of indicators to be included in the Plan Winnipeg review 4. To develop an implementation plan to establish appropriate administrative systems to support measurement and reporting of progress toward Plan Winnipeg’s vision. Following qualities were used for developing indicators: a) Policy relevance b) Simplicity c) Validity d) Date availability e) Representativeness f) Sensitivity

The data availability assessment identified a large number of data threlate to the QOL framework. At an aggregated level of broad QOL categories, data match to a large extent the issues identified through the focus group meeting. However, at the issue or subcategory level a number of data gaps were observed. Major data gaps exist for leadership and governance, image and identity, culture, arts, and entertainment, neighborhoods, citizenship, and equity.

Time and resources rarely permit researchers to gather sufficient quantity and quality data to perform analysis. The definition of geographic scale and time period for any particular issue or indicator should depend on the context and accessibility of data. It is important to be flexible so that issues will be analyzed based on availability or potential availability of data. Benefits of addressing corporate coordination of data management and reporting for the City of Winnipeg include: accessibility and awareness, reduction in data overlap, compatibility of data and databases, the fostering of decision-making, and more efficient reporting and decision-making mechanisms.

.pdf retrieved from Ryerson Library

6 Citizen-Initiated Performance Assessment: The Initial Iowa Experience Iowa, United States 2001-Ongoing Journal of Public Performance

and Management Review

The state of Iowa has implemented a citizen initiated performance assessment which is focused on engaging citizens and members of government in developing performance measures. This approach is expected to increase accountability of governments by integrating concerns and viewpoints of citizens into the performance measurement framework. This program was implemented in nine Iowa cities in 2001.

Goes beyond standard measurement tools by allowing for citizen input regarding program delivery and planningStrengthening the bond between executive branch and the legislative policy making process; shift the power back to citizens by engaging them in the information and design Greater accountability of governments when citizens are directly involved in the performance measurement processCommunity is more likely to view the performance measurement as a succebecause members of the community are leading the evaluation process

Difficult for citizens to grasp that the Citizen Initiated Performance Assessment is an informal tool and that their input will not result in direct policy changes, resulting in some confusion between policy making and performance measurementsChallenging to sustain the interest of citizens in the program when they don’t see immediate changes as a result of their assessmentsResistance of government staff to work directly for prolonged periods with the general public

-Public are more willing to give time and effort into projects that they believe result in direct policy changes -Performance measurements needs to contribute significantly to policy directives and do so in a time sensitive manner, so the public can see their efforts implemented

Ho, A. and Coates, P. 2004. Citizen-Initiated Performance Assessment: The Initial Iowa Experience. In Public Performance and Management Review, vol.27 No.3, p.29-50.

Quality of Life / Social Equity Performance Measurement Projects


7ORTP 2035 Performance Measures(Oahu Regional Transportation Plan 2035 Project)

Hawaii, United States 2009

Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff for Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization

“To help achieve the vision, the ORTP 2035 is defined by five overarching goals that address the following topics:Transportation facilitiesTransportation operations and servicesNatural environmentHuman environment and quality of lifeLand use and transportation integration”

in a way that will make the programslook good in light of the established performance indicators. It is commonly argued that what gets measured gets done. The result is that sometimes what gets done is not what should be done.

http://www.oahumpo.org/ortp_docs/ORTP2035PerformanceMeasures20090617.pdf

8 Quality of Life Indicators for Canadian Municipalities Canada 1999-Ongoing Federation of Canadian

Municipalities

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has published a series of reports regarding quality of life within Canadian municipalities. These reports have been utilized by Candian communities and other levels of government to: -Identify issues affecting quality of life in Canadian communities, better target policies and resources aimed at improving quality of life, support collaborative efforts to improve quality of life, and establish municiapl governments as a strong a legitimate partner in public policy debates in Canada. They have developed a series of indicators that address eight themes regarding quality of life. These themes include: Population resource measures, community affordability measures, quality of employment measures, quality of housing measures, community stress measures, health of community measures, community safety measures and community participation measures. A 1999 report identified the specific measures used to gauge each theme and identified baseline data for which future measurements would be compared. The QOL reporting system has been applied to 18 municiapl and regional jurisdictions across Canada, 6 of which fall within the GGH.

- 8 QOL themes and subsequent performance indicators cover a broad scope of livability issues - Indicators were developed on the basis that they would bmeaningful at the municipal level, data would be available annually and on a nationally consistent basis, and they would be easily understood by all stakeholders. Monitoring system is supported by a detailed methodology and selection framework. They have identified sources of data ranging from thoscollected at the national level to those collected at the municipal level. These performance measures were utilized in a meaningful way to analyze qol in Canadian communities and help communities and governments to develop policy accordingly.

-Indicators are structured so that they could be applied at not only the municipal level but at the regional level. - Indicators could easily be applied to the GGH and its municipalities, many are already involved. - Municipalities within the GGH were involved with the research and development of these indicators. - Measures relating specifically to affordability, employment, stress and population growth could be valuable

http://www.fcm.ca//CMFiles/qol20011VSI-3272008-7462.pdf

9 New Zealand Quality of Life Survey New Zealand 2008-Ongoing New Zealand Government

The Quality of Life Project was established in 1999 to provide social, economic and environmental indicators of quality of life in New Zealand’s six largest cities. A survey is conducted every two years to gage public well-being. Results from the survey are combined with data from secondary sources (government agencies, councils etc.)

Survey conducted biannually. Measures opinions of residents of New Zealand through questionaire.

Survey as a method of evaluation. Can be used on a large scale to determine quality of life factors and gage public opinion.

http://www.bigcities.govt.nz/pdfs/2007/Quality_of_Life_2007.pdf. http://www.bigcities.govt.nz/indicators.htm

10Maryland Smart Growth Indicators Project - National Center for Smart Growth Researcand Education

Maryland, United States 2008-Ongoing

National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education

This project serves as a community report card to better monitor performance and make better progress.

Categories of indicators and what they attempt to measure. ** there are also several quality of life indicators worth looking it **1. Population: includes measurements about the state's population trends, household sizes, and migration patterns.2. Economy: includes measurements about the health of the economy, numbers of commercial establishments, employment figures, earnings and income data, and poverty information.3. Environment: includes measurements about sensitive lands, forested area, land types, agricultural lands, air quality, and the health of the Chesapeake Bay.4. Land Preservation: includes measurements about acres of land in the RuLegacy Program, acres of land preserved, converted, or developed, agricultural land preserved, public lands, and land conservation program performance.5. Infrastructure: includes measurements about school funding, school capacity, construction dollars spent, bus miles, number of people walking, and sewer, water, and other infrastructure capacity.6. Transportation: includes measurements about vehicle miles traveled, vehicle registrations, lane miles, transportation choices, and congestion analysis.7. Housing: includes measurements about housing affordability, new housing units authorized for construction, housing ownership, housing vacancies, housing to jobs ratios, and residential sales inside and outside of the PFA.8. Land Utilization: includes measurements about developed parcel location, development densities, vacant lands, and land uses across the state

Failures to Maryland's Smart Growth Plan: - restrictions on urban sprawl or development will adversely affect housing supply and affordability- doctrine of Smart Growth, once established, serves as an unfunded mandate, as many communities lack the resources to achieve intelligent growth- infrastructure targeting and resource protection is insufficient to protect sensitive ecological resources, regulation is still too relaxed to achieve Smart Growth or sustainability- masks the problem of unsustainable consumption and overpopulation- for urban design to be sustainable, densities must greatly exceed single family homes on quarter-acre lots, density must allow mass transit alternatives to the automobile and the opportunity for walking and neighborhood destinations- smaller counties have been punished as more attention is paid to downtown and larger metropolitan areas

http://www.indicatorproject.com

Quality of Life / Social Equity Performance Measurement Projects (Continued)


11 BC Ministry of Community and Rural Development Indicator List British Columbia 2009 BC Ministry of Community and

Rural Development

The Ministry of Community and Rural Development staff delivered a series of workshops in partnership with BC Hydro, the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation and Smart Planning for Communities. From these workshops, a sector-specific indicator list was developed to provide potential indicators that can be used by local governments when setting targets, policies and actions reduce community-wide GHG emissions.

The frequency of data collection is consistent with data aggregated annually or every five years with regional benchmarks to facilitate a standard comparison of results.

The indicator list is not an exhaustive list of performance measurement tools: social and community health is not one of the “sectors” that are measured.

http://www.cd.gov.bc.ca/lgd/library/Indicator_List.pdf

12 Lincoln Institute - Evaluation of Programs and Outcomes United States 2009 Lincoln Institute Comparative analysis - 8 states with, 8 without s.g. programs

-first comprehensive N.A. smart growth performance evaluation framework - sythensizes qualitative and quantitative analysis enabling broad image of s.g. programs -well-devised, 52 set indicator list categorized to capture range of smart growth objectives - cross-jurisdictional with non-smart growth states serves a comparison of s.g. with business-as-usual scenerios - comparable Canadian context, highly transferable framework.

- limited discussion on how results will impact policy decisions, modify programs etc.; ie. findings that s.g. states did not fare much better than non in several categories may not actually impact program improvements - variable time-scale of goals hinders meaningful analysis.

- comparative analysis important -time-scale of s.g. objectives should be considered in ongoing p.m. framework.

http://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/1583_NewBook---Smart-Growth-Policies--An-Evaluation-of-Programs-and-Outcomes

13 Livable Region Strategic Plan Vancouver, British Columbia 1996 - 2021 Metro Vancouver

Regional growth strategy for greater Vancouver - Adopted by all 22 municipalities of Metro Vancouver. - Primary goals involve maintaining regional livability, protecting the natural environment, accommodating anticipated growth. More specific objectives of this regional growth plan include: Protecting ecologically significant land/resources, building complete communities, achieving a compact metropolitan region and increasing transportation choice.- Contains a monitoring strategy which aims to evaluate successes and failures through a system of performance measurement. -Plan in effect since 1996. - Series of reviews applying performance measures useto evaluate the progress. - Similar objectives to those outlined in the Growth Plan for the GGH.

- Strong monitoring and performance measurement framework - Progress monitored using a set of 29 indicators; 8 key indicators correspond with its four main objectives - Measurement framework evaluative outcomes applied meaningfully to policy formualation.

- Growth management strategy subject to many of the same criticisms as the Growth Plan for the GGH. - Concentrating development in built-up areas drastically reduced the supply of land, driving up land prices; resultant negative impacts on affordable housing - Unrealistic intensification targets. - Little observed progress toward program goals.

- Performance measurement crucial in regards to policy evaluation and transparency. - Conflict between intensification and affordable housing goals.

http://www.metrovancouver.org/planning/development/strategy/Pages/LivableRegionStrategicPlan.aspx

14 2040 Growth Concept Oregon, United States 2000-Ongoing Metro Council

Oregon leads nation in efforts to legislate and regulate an end to or at least a slowing of urban sprawl. - Adoption of strict urban growth boundary to stop the spread of urbanization into the farm and forest areas that surround the metropolitan area.

Strong urban containgment framework: Oregon State Law requires Metro compile and submit to the Department of Land Conservation and Development nine performance measures at least every two years. - Also requires Metro to evaluate the capacity of the Urban Growth Boundary at each periodic review to ensure that the Urban Growth Boundary has the capacity to accommodate 20 years of growth.

- Does not suggest benchmarks or targets for achieving regional planning objectives. - Avoids editorial commentary and suggestions which policies may need revamping.

https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/handle/1794/9254

15 Auckland Regional Strategy:2050 Auckland, New Zealand1999-Ongoing

- Regional in scope. - Smilar elements to Places to Grow. Policy guidelines for: safe, healthy communities • diversity of employment and business opportunities • housing choice • high amenity of urban environments • the protection and the maintenance of the character of the region’s natural environment• sustainable use and protection of the region’s natural and physical resources(including infrastructure) • efficient access to activities and appropriate social infrastructure.

- Comprehensive. - Forward looking; 50 yr plan. - Strong implementation mechanisms.

http://www.arc.govt.nz/albany/fms/main/Documents/Auckland/Aucklands%20growth/Auckland%20regional%20growth%20strategy.pdf

16 North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority - Smart Growth

New Jersey, United States Ongoing North Jersey Transporation

Planning Authority

- Generates recommendations for specific strategies and programs to benefit particular areas. Identifies about 30 project concepts for further development -Place-based approach, finding solutions that are appropriate for prevailing land uses and activities in particular places, ranging from the urban core to exurban and rural areas. - Considers preferred future growth patterns for areas and how transportation can serve them. - Data and performance measures used to gauge accessibility, aspects of mobility, congestion, and reliability on roads, public transit, and other modes of travel. -Considers land use, economic, environmental, and social impacts.

Effective narrowing down and prioritizing needs to a manageable list. - Policies point to the aspects of the system and its performance that should receive priority attention in defining needs. - Strategy evaluation draws heavily on RCIS principles and guidelines for determining place types, setting objectives, selecting performance measures, setting performance targets. For example, following the special emphasis of the RCIS on public transit and bicycle/pedestrian facility improvement.

http://www.njtpa.org/Plan/Need/SE/default.aspx

17Regional District of Nanaimo, B.C. Annual Report on Progress towards Growth Management Plan

Nanaimo, British Columbia 2000 Regional District of Nanaimo

- Framework for linking land use, environmental, economic, social, and transportation planning within the region. - Annual report highlights achievements and constraints towards the identified planning goals.

- Reviewed annually resulting in evolving monitoring practices -Requirements for interdepartmental/intergovernmental cooperation for successful monitoring -Strong focus on environmental protection and the creation of vibrant economies

-Little changes take place on a large policy level during one year intervals - Concern that annual reviews are not necessary for a 25 year plan - Limited number of goals identified -Lack of data to inform indicators

-Acknowledges that this Growth Management Plan will be implemented gradually and as a response to development applications -Purpose of annual report is to judge whether or not the regional decisions are in line with the overall goals of the Plan, or not.

http://www.rdn.bc.ca/cms.asp?wpID=478

Growth Management / Smart Growth Performance Measurement Projects


18 Growth Management Act (Washington) After Ten Years

Washington, United States 2002 1000 Friends of Washington

- Growth Management Act in Washington State is the basis for a regulatory reform law, passed in 1995, that attempts to make three planning laws work together: the Growth Management Act, State Environmental Policy Act, and Shoreline Management Act -Requires all local government to combine the process of environmental review and permit review - Limits hearings and appeals in these matters to local governments

-Creation of Growth Management Hearing Boards to alleviates burden on superior court system and provide a timely means of dispute resolution of land use management -Encourages efficient multi-modal transportation systems -Promotes housing affordability by encouraging city and country comprehensive plans to comply with this goal - Comprehensive Plans requirto be updated every five years -Urban Growth Areas are required to include a twenty-year land supply for housing and employment -Sanctions can be imposed if a growth management hearings board makes a finding that a county, city or agency fails to comply with.

-Criticism that the Plan has increased housing costs -Continuing public resistance to infill development presenting ongoing challenges -Lack of effort by some communities towards addressing housing for special needs populations.

-Link between growth management hearing boards and the OMB -Board is used to guide smart growth principles entrenched in the Growth Management Act and have established precedents that clarify the language of the GMA

www.futurewise.org/resources/publications/GMA_another_look.pdf

19 Spokane, Washington Comprehensive Plan: Performance Measurement Report

Washington, United States 2002 Spokane County, Washington

- 1990 Washington State Legislature passed the Growth Management Act (GMA); requires Spokane County to prepare and adopt Comprehensive Plan." County-Wide planning policies developed to reflect growth management objectives. - Performance Measurement Program evaluates progress of Spokane County in its implementation of the Growth Management Act and the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan. -Developed series of "Community Indicators" to monitor the progress.- Indicators address broad themes of land supply, natural resources, transportation, housing, infrastructure, economic development, parkland and health of the natural environment. - Presented in an annual report to the county planning commission.

-Strong indicator selection criteria based on a variety of favourable characteristics including: indicator must measure an outcome related to the GMA or the Comprehensive Plan goals or policies, reliable information about the indicator must already be collected on a regular basis, the relationship between the indicator and the Comprehensive Plan is easily understood - Progress towards the framework goals of the Comprehensive Plan has been observed as outcome of indicator framework - Valuable indicator set -Effective evaluation results application.

Highly transferable to Growth Plan for GGH context. - Performance reports should coincide with budget cycle so that issues raised can be allocated appropriate resources.

http://www.spokanecounty.org/BP/data/Documents/CompPlan/Appendix%20B.pdf http://www.spokanecounty.org/BP/data/Documents/PerformMeas/PerformMeas.pdf

20 Smart Growth Index - GIS Analysis United States 2003 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

- GIS application and report of study completed through the Environmental Protection Agency using application. - Evaluates sketches with a set of 56 indicators that measure such outcomes as land consumption, housing and employment density, proximity to transit, and po-llution emissions. - Indicator results expressed both numerically and spatially, so users obtain both tables and maps showing the performance of each sketch.

- Effective tool for municipalities to quantify results of smart growth policies. -Provides visual of impacts of smart growth policies – good for use in council meetings, public meetings etc. - Cost is low, especially if municipality already has GIS data.

- Application simplifies land use and transportation scenarios for analysis. It is meant to give indication of trends, but is not accurate enough to be used as a regulatory tool. -Basic GIS knowledge required. - Data availability issues.

- Applications and nature of analyses need to be updated as policies evolve. http://www.epa.gov/dced/topics/sg_index.htm

21The potential effect of national growth-management policy on urban sprawl and the depletion of open spaces and farmland

Israel 2004 Frenkel, Amnon- Discusses results comparative study – the effects on urban sprawl when growth management tools are applied contrasted with a scenario depicting current trends in managing land in Israel.

-Results support growth management strategies for reducing depletion of open space and farmland.

- Evalutates growth management tools as moderately effective and unable to solve problems of development pressures and decreasing profits that plague agricultural land.

Land Use Policy 21 (2004) 357–369doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2003.12.001

22 Arizona Smart Growth Scorecard Arizona, United States 2008-Ongoing Arizona Growing Smarter Council

-Aims to strengthen ability of local officials to plan for growth and development by encouraging more comprehensive strategies leading for smarter land use decisions. - Participating state discretionary grant and loan programs include the Scorecard in several different ways.- For some programs, a Scorecard completed by a community must be included or referenced in the program's application to be considered administratively complete, regardless of the score.

-Overall approach designed to encourage communities to discuss and incorporate smart growth policies and the eventual implementation of these policies. -By participating in the completion of the scorecard communities are than applicable for more state funding programs. -Separate criteria and indicators have been developed for different sized communities and counties within the population thresholds of the Growing Smarter statutes using current population estimates.

-Voluntary nature of program undermines 'teeth'. -Does not discuss the policy implications of the scorecard results. - Does not set out expected targets. -Does not take into account or promote inter-regional smart growth; over-emphasis on single community level.

-Scope of indicators very limited -Need to update indicators and methods of scorecard evaluation more regularly

http://www.azcommerce.com/SmartGrowth/Scorecards/

23 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) - 2005 Ontario 2005-2009 Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

This discussion paper is designed to initiate a dialogue with municipalities, stakeholders, and public in the development of performance monitoring framework and indicators for the PPS. Draft indicators have been developed by provincial ministries with an interest in land use planning and cordinated by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Only for discussion. However suggested characteristics of 'good' performance indicators are: a) Relevance b) Validity c) Controllability d) Clarity e) Accuracy f) Cost Effectiveness g) Sensitivity h) Timeliness i) Comparability. The key principles are a) Keep framwork focused on the key policy objectives of the PPS b) Keep it simple c) Start with a small number of indicators d) Make indicators relevent e) Make information useful for policy and decision-makers.

http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page6131.aspx

Growth Management / Smart Growth Performance Measurement Projects (Continued)


25Ecological Integrity Assessment And Performance MeasuresFor Wetland Mitigation

United States 2006

NatureServe: Faber-Langendoen, D., J. Rocchio, M. Schafale, C. Nordman, M. Pyne, J. Teague, T. Foti, and P. Comer.

“The Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies have developed a National Wetlands Mitigation Plan that includes the need for assessing the effectiveness of biological and functional indicators that will help establish performance standards for wetland mitigation. This report outlines our approach to establish performance standards for wetlands mitigation using an adapted version of NatureServe’s methodology for conducting ecological integrity assessments” -Identified indicators and metrics for assessing ecological integrity by:-using a standardized classification of wetland types, including diagnostic characteristics; -identifying key ecological attributes and indicators of each system, with protocols for measuring those indicators to ensure consistent field measurements and documentation -identifying practical metrics with ratings and thresholds based on “normal” or “natural” benchmarks; -providing a scorecard matrix by which the indicators/metrics are rated and integrated into an overall assessment of the ecological integrity of the wetland.

http://www.natureserve.org/publications/eia_wetland_032707.pdf

26 Sustainable Sydney 2030 Sydney, Australia 2008- 2030 City of Sydney

Sustainable Sydney 2030 is a long term environmental and economic development plan. The plan contains 10 overarching targets with corresponding strategic directions, objectives and major public projects. Plan developed for the City of Sydney and will be implemented by short-term capiplans passed by Council every 4 years (the "Corporate Plan"). The City of Sydney’s 2009 Corporate Plan is the first four year implementation plan for delivering Sustainable Sydney 2030, identifying the major projects, programs and services that will be undertaken to achieve those objectives (together with how they will be measured). It provides a budget and three year forward estimates for the period 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2012. Therefore implementation and performance measures are flexible, but still work towards meeting the overarching targets outlined in the 2030 plan.

Because this plan is quite recent, it is difficult to ascertain what kind of success it has achieved and how useful the short-term "key performance indicators" and 10 overarching targets are as evaluation tools. STRENGTH#1:The plan is highly accessible to the public -ie., downloads of the plan are available in large print and audio files for the visually impaired and there is an online feedback portal for public comments. The Ten StrategDirections, Objectives and 186 actions that City Council is implementing were informed by 18 months of consultation and engagement, in the most extensive consultation undertaken in the City's history. The City held 41 events and consultation forums during the development of the 2030 Vision; 12,000 people were directly consulted; the 2030 website received more than 15,000 website visitors and 200 comments; and more than 2,000 comments were received through the Future Phone. Therefore, support for the plan and its objectives and projects is broad and is not simply legislatively enforced. This suggests implementation will be effectively achieved through partnerships and that evaluation of the plan will continue to incorporate qualitative evaluation and community engagement. STRENGTH #2: Implementation of the 10 Strategic Directions is effectively paired with a major project that acts as a proponent the plan's objectives. For example, Direction #3 (Integrated Transport for a Connected City) is paired with a project called "Protecting the Heart" which is an integrated transport strategy that aims to reduce the impact of traffic on public spaces and to improve the experience of being in the City Centre.

Method of short-term evaluation is inconsistent. For example, some of the Ten Strategic Directions have objectives that have no corresponding "key performance indicator" in the Corporate Plan, such as Strategic Direction #10 (Implementation through effective governance and partnerships) and Strategic Direction #9 (Sustainable development, renewal and design). It is also unclear how the short-term, 4 year key performance indicators contained in the Corporate Plan fit within the overarching targets of the Sustainable Sydney 2030 plan. In this respect, the evaluation of the plan is fragmented between two separate planning documents allowing for poor performance evaluation of the Strategic Direction objectives and the corresponding major project initiatives.

http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/2030/thedirections/SustainableDevelopment.asp#

27 Evaluating Mode-2 Strategies for Sustainable Development United States 2009

American Journal of Evaluation: Regeer, B. , Hoes, A.,van Amstel-van Saane, M. Caron-Flinterman, F. F. and Bunders, J. F. G.

“A new generation of public programs emerges, which specifically addresses complex societal problems we witness today. Programs for these types of complex issues—in this article, we consider more closely the challenge of sustainable development—are characterized by emergent design, learning processes between diverse actors, and adaptive management. Managers of these kinds of programs have new demands for evaluation and evaluators. This article describes prevailing evaluation methods for sustainable development (progress assessment, goal-oriented program evaluation, and program theory evaluation) and the challenges they meet when confronted with the complexity of designing and conducting systemic intervention programs for sustainable development. The evaluation framework that we propose offers guiding principles to assist evaluators in evaluating complex programs.”

American Journal of Evaluation30(4) 515-5372009DOI: 10.1177/1098214009344618

28Smart Growth and Sustainable Development: challenges, solutions and policy directions (Alexander & Tomalty, 2002)

British Columbia 2002Alexander, D & Tomalty, R, 2002 in Local Environment 7(4)

13 indicators of community sustainability in 26 municipalities collected. Focus on issues related to development densities. Following performance variables were used: 1. Population density - 1997 estimate of population divided by areof taxable land (minus land in the Agricultural Reserve) 2. Efficiency of land use - Housing unit density 3. Variety of housing forms - Percentage of single detached homes as a proportion of total housing stock, Percentage of apartments as a proportion of total housing stock, Percentage of households in ground-oriented housing units 4. Efficiency of infrastructure provision - Sewer & water infrastructure lengths (in km) per 1000 people 5. Mixed land use - Ratio of jobs to resident employed labour force 6. Jobs/housing balancPercentage of resident employed labour force working within own municipality (Census subdivision) 7. Car use and commuting distance - Percentage of workers working within 5 km of home, Median length of commute for workers, Modal split for trip to work, Average number of passenger vehicles per capita 8. Housing affordability - Percentage of households spending more than 30% of their income on housing 9. Quality of life - Hectares of parkland and playgrounds per 1000 people

The density of communities is associated with efficiencies in infrastructure and with reduced automobile dependence, with the ecological and economic implications which flow from that. However, it does not necessarily correlate with greater affordability of housing or more access to green space. Another important point that emerged was that density is only one factor determining the intensity of infrastructure, the location of jobs and commuting behaviour/automobile dependence. There are also factors of regional history, geography and economics that prevent a straightforward linear relationship from obtaining between urban density and these other factors.

A negative relationship was discovered between housing affordability and green space per capita and higher land-use densities. This, in turn, suggests areas requiring further attention in future policy initiatives. If compact community policies cannot deliver greater affordability and a higher quality of life, then they are not likely to be successful in the long run. Most of the municipalities studied for the report could boast of progressive, Smart Growth policies in their official community plans and other planning documents. However, in many cases, policy goals were not being realised ‘on the ground’.

.pdf retrieved from Ryerson Library

29 Sustainable Seattle - Indicators of a Sustainable Community

Seattle, Washington, United States 1998 Sustainable Seattle

Sustainable Seattle brings together various community actors to define and research indicators. This is the 3rd report on indicators.

The 1998 report examines 40 indicators. Criteria for indicators is: a) relevant b) reflect community values c) attractive to local media d) statistically measurable e) logically or scientifically defensible f) reliable g) leading in that they allow time to act h) policy-relevant

Due to difficulties in measuring current wetland delineation and defining biodiversity, the Wetlands and Biodiversity indicators were combined into one Ecological Health indicator.

http://sustainableseattle.org/Programs/RegionalIndicators/1998IndicatorsRpt.pdf

Sustainability Performance Measurement Projects


31 City of Hamilton - Strategic Plan, Performance Measurement, and ReportingHamilton, Ontario 2008 City of Hamilton Performance measures used for the Corporate Strategic Plan of Hamilton.

– In 2004, OMBI developed guidelines on accounting for capital assets in anticipation of an amendment to the Public Sector Accounting Handbook that would make local governments responsible for including such information in their annual financial statements. In 2005, with financial support from the Province of Ontario, OMBI began developing a Capital Asset Guide to help all municipalities comply with the new reporting requirement. Methodologies are currently being piloted in several OMBI municipalities. The reporting requirement will come into effect in 2009. Best Practice / Shared Practice Reports – Expert panels have established for each of the areas that OMBI is measuring. Through the reporting and analysis of performance data and networking between municipalities, experts identify best practices or “better” practices. This process promotes continuous improvements and a culture of performance measurement for the delivery of programs and services and may result in new ideas or creative solutions for program and/or service issues. These reports are available on-line at www.ombi.ca

The benefits of benchmarking are: a) Able to target problem areas and develop solutions to achieve the best levels of performance b) Provides an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of key municipal performance c) Identifies best practices which can lead to improvements to services and potential cost savings d) Contributes to a continuous improvement strategy for the delivery of municipal services and programs e) Provides a valuable source of ideas on new processes, systems, technologies and creative solutions to business problems. City of Hamilton participates in three performance measurement programs: A) OntarioMunicipal Benchmarking Initiative (OMBI). The Ontario Municipal Benchmarking Initiative (OMBI) is a municipal partnership project that strives for service excellence in municipal government. In January 2007, OMBI released the first Public Report – 2005 Performance Benchmarking Report. The report is available at www.ombi.ca.. The service areas most applicable to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe are: a) Building b) Parks c) Planning d) Roads e) Social Housing f) Transit B) Municipal Performance Measurement Program (MPMP) C) – See entry 27. Section 300

http://www.hamilton.ca/CityDepartments/CityManager/PerformanceMeasurementandReporting/

32 Town of Markham - Transportation/Land-use Policy Case Study Markham, Ontario 2008 City of Markham/Transport

Canada

The Performance Measures Document (PMD) is a list of development criteria applied to the town's core, Markham Centre. One category of the PMD is devoted to sustainable transportation infrastructure. Markham's TDM program, funded in part through development charges, supports its municipal employeand the community as a whole with a variety of TDM services. The Markham Centre Advisory Committee worked with the community, hosting a series of public workshops and a conference to receive public input with respect to five broad areas: a) Transportation b) Greenlands c) Built form d) Green infrastructure e) Public spaces. For transportation, they focus on five component areas—roads, transit, biking, walking and TDM—that promote a balanced transportation system. These measures include such things as: a) Clearly visible and safe pedestrian crossings; b) Transit stops that are within a 5-minute walk of the development; c) Provision of inter-connected bicycle systems and bicycle support facilities (e.g., bike racks, shower and change facilities in commercial properties, etc.); and d) Sidewalks on both sides of throad and connectivity between sidewalks and off-street pathways. A “Smart Growth Checklist” accompanies the measures and includes a list of questions for each of the five component areas (roads, transit, biking, walking and TDM).

TDM Programs: a) More than 100 area businesses are now involved, representing about 25,000 employees. For example, IBM Canada, Markham's largest employer, was an inaugural member of Smart Commute 404-7. The company also supports an employee bicycle users' group, was one of the region's first corporations to install showers facilities for active commuters anwas one of Carpoolzone.ca's first corporate participants. b) In 2007, the Towof Markham and Richmond Hill were awarded the Transportation Association of Canada's Sustainable Urban Transportation Award for the Smart Commute 404-7 program. c) As of 2008, Carpool Zone had 1,200 registered users in the 404-7 area. d) About 160 of Markham's 1,000+ municipal employees are registered for the town's 50 per cent discount on bus passes and about 50 employees are registered with Carpoolzone.ca.

a) Political will and leadership are vital. Markham's council supported the PMD and the TDM strategies by putting in place the resources and procedures necessary (advisory committee, participation in Smart Commute, etc.) to ensure that these initiatives are sustained over the long-term. b) Provide measurable targets. Because the PMD sets forth specific criteria for developers, the development community knows exactly what to expect from the municipality. The PMD also helps keep the town on track with respect to the vision and goals it set forth in its Official Plan. c) Establish partnerships. The town has established a variety of partnership with community and business groups, including the Town of Richmond Hill, Markham Board of Trade, Pollution Probe, schools, developers and retailers. Its relationship with The Remington Group, Markham Centre's largest developer, is a case in point. Remington supported the town's vision by adopting its own sustainability policies, which helped gain buy-in from other developers. d) Create community buy-in. Markham created advisory committees for several of its communities. Policies and plans include the PMD and its cycling plan. The Cycling and Pedestrian Advisory Committee oversaw development of the cycling plan. These plans were well articulated to the public and were developed in partnership with all sectors of the community, giving residents a feeling of connection to the overall goals and objectives. e) Think multi-modal. Generally speaking, when municipal planners and engineers think of transportation they think only of roads and cars. Markham officials say that encouraging municipal staff to consider the many different modes of transportation—and the infrastructure related to each of those modes—is a key part of their strategy to achieve sustainable transportation goals.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/programs/environment/utsp/markhamlanduse.htm

33 Stockholm Vision 2030 Sweden 2007

This is very much a giant vision statement for the future of Stockholm so it does not give specific details on methods of implementation. However, it does aspire to many of the same goals as Ontario Growth Plan, especially the GTA. Focus is on quality of life and social services, accommodating multiculturalism, economic development, providing a variety of housing options, accommodating the elderly, removing traffic barriers that divide the city, creating a highly efficient transportation system etc.

http://international.stockholm.se/Future-Stockholm/

34

Stockholm City Plan

Sweden 2009 Many similar goals to Ontario Growth Plan. Focus on strategic growth nodes, strengthening inner-city. Connectedness, vibrant urban environment, etc.

While this plan looks relevant, I can't find any section relating to implementation..? I'm not even sure if it's that useful to us. I put the link up just in case.

http://international.stockholm.se/Future-Stockholm/Stockholm-City-Plan/

35Regional Spatial Strategy Monitoring: A Good Practice Guide Great Britain 2005

The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004) requires every regional planning body (RPB) to make an annual report to the Secretary of State containing information on the implementation of the RSS and the extent to which the policies set out in the strategy are being achieved. Key statutory requirements include the need of the RPB tohighlight an polic that in its

-Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) recognizes the wider policy context and links to other monitoring activities -RSS has a critical interface with national policy, other regional strategies and local development frameworks/ programmes -Regional planning bodies in the U.K. demonstrate leadership by exploring how to coordinate RSS monitoring with the national, regional, and local monitoring of these strategies, plans and programmes -May improve the exchange of information and achieve some degree of consistency between deifferent planning and monitoring activities, reducing overall resource requirements -Layered monitoring should also assist regional planning bodies in gaining a greater understanding of the changes taking place in their regions.

-Although the structure of the RSS annual reporting and monitoring is meant to allow regional planning bodies to adapt evaluation to the specific needs of the region on a yearly basis, this does not allow for much time for regions to realize the results of policy implementation -Clear that the purpose of spatial monitoring in the U.K. contemplates that circumstances will have changed rapidly and that new issues will continue to arise and need to be addressed.

-built-in, statutory checks and layered monitoring approach increase the ability of performance evaluation to effectively measure appropriate policy results.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/143201.pdf

36Spatial Planning: Indicators to Assess the Efficiency of Land Consumption and Land-Use - Europe, (Storch & Schmidt, 2008)

Germany 2008

Storch & Schmidt, 2008 in book ‘Standards and Thresholds for Impact Assessment’

The aim of this writing is to discuss the importance of socio-environmental efficiency indicators for Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) in spatial development planning.

For the implementation of measures to reduce land consumption and to optimize land-use in Germany, the level of regional planning is most important (Von Haaren and Nadin 2003). But as the ongoing degree of land consumption shows, the effectiveness of regional planning in this policy area is actually very low. Major deficits in the current regional planning framework to limit the environmental pressures associated with sprawl are a lack of spatially detailed data required to create indicators related to sprawl and land consumption and the resulting inappropriate zoning (Runkel 1999).

The efficiency of the resulting regional and urban spatial structure that this spatial development process creates can be measured and analysed (Apel et al. 2000, Ewing et al. 2002, Flacke 2003) by the use of the following spatial and structural indicators: 1. Residential density and density of use, 2. Variety of uses and mixed urban land use: Neighbourhood mix of homes, jobs, and services, 3. Strength of agglomeration centres: Concentration and of polycentric structure settlements, 4. Accessibility of public transportation infrastructures: Non car-based transport systems compatible with the city network. 5. Recycling of land: Focusing new development in already built-up areas: Reactivation of brownfield sites, utilisation of conversion and changed use potential in existing build-up areas, mobilisation of abandoned areas in urban contexts. Special attentmust be paid to the importance of understanding the spatial structure of regions, agglomeration centres and cities in order to develop standards and thresholds for indicators which are compatible with the observed spatial structures of the assessed planning region. A pragmatic approach to the assessment of settlement developments involving core indicators should be used (Apel et al. 2000; Wrbka et al. 2001; Flacke 2003), because they can largely be derived from the abovementioned available land-use und socio-demographic base data.

.pdf from Ryerson Library

Municipal / Regional Performance Measurement Projects


37Developing Sustainable Transportation Performance Measures for the Texas Department of Transportation's Strategic Plan.

Texas, United States 2009 Texas Transportation Institute/Texas A&M University

The Texas department of tranpsortation has developed a performance measurement based approach to evaluate the sustainability of its system. The TDOT strategic plan identifies five goals: reduce congestion, improve safety, increase economic opportunity, enhance the value of transportation assets, and improve air quality. These goals are deemed to specifically address issues of sustainability. This approach requires the development of appropriate performance measures, which are evaluated and aggregated into a composite indicator of sustainability. The scope of this project was limited to addressing sustainability at the transportation corridor level. The basic steps required in this methodology were the quantification, scaling, and weighting of individual performance measures to obtain an aggregate sustainability indicator value. In other words they used specific performance measures to inform a broader index of sustainability. The report outlines each performance measure and the quantification methodology used.

- By weighting/scaling many performance indicators in forming an overall index of sustainability we can view the transportation system and the goals of its strategic plan as a whole - They have developed an excel-based calculator to assist with calculation of index - This method is highly transferable - Case studies have been performed to demonstrate and validate all methods - The report was accompanied by an exhaustive list of possible performance measures which could be used to evaluate transportation systems

-Attempting to aggregate many performance indicators into an overall sustainability index is confusing and somewhat complicated. - Method is meant to be applied to individual transportation corridors aapposed to entire regional transportation networks. - Sustainability index valuable in gauging overarching success but difficult to see which specific areas are lagging or excelling.

-Aggregating many performance measures into an overall index is interesting approach http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/0-5541-1.pdf

38 Oregon Department of Transportation Annual Performance Report Oregon, United States 2006 - 2007 Oregon Department of

Transportation

Contains extensive list of performance measures for safety, efficiency and livable communities in Oregon. Used by the state department of transportation. Looks at all modes of transportation, roads, pedestrians, public, bicycles etc.

Ties statewide Smart Growth goals to transportation indicators. For example, tying traffic delays to air quality. Also contains a performance measure summary that shows progress of performance measures. Analysis has been going on long enough for them to have had some time to look at the effectiveness of their performance measures. They also used a statewide customer satisfaction survey to gage effectiveness of program. Performance report issued annually. Performance measures used not just in transportation planning, but also in budget planning, resource planning and communications with stakeholders. Performance measures gathered at different time intervals depending on nature of indicator. Training opportunities for staff. Public survey is conducted by telephone every two years. Appendix B contains questions from the survey.

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/CS/PERFORMANCE/docs/2007ODOTAnnualPerformanceReport.pdf

39 The Ontario Realty Corportation's Green Strategy Ontario 2009 The Ontario Realty

Corporation

Building Sustainability is comprised of six interrelated areas of environmental management: 1. Energy Management 2. Environmental Compliance 3. Waste Management 4. Green Buildings 5. Green Gas Mitigation 6. Natural Resource Management

One item looks at brownfield management. Also, their ecosystem approact to resource management is grouped into three categories: 1. Environmental Assessment - utilizing environmenal assessment as a tool to identfy and mitigate environmental, social, and economic impacts. 2. Green spaces - identifying and creating protected new green spaces and conservation areas in order to protect biodiversity, environmentally sensitive habitats, and essential carbon sinks 3. Corporate Sustainability Framework - Developing a corporate sustainability framework to measure social, environmental, and economic performance.

http://www.ontariorealty.ca/Assets/About+ORC/ORC+Building+Sustainability.pdf

40Greater Toronto Area Agricultural Action Committee - Demographic Profile of Greater Toronto Area 1986-2006

Toronto, Ontario 2009 Greater Toronto Area Agricultural Action Committee

The Action Plan provides a GTA-wide framework to keep the GTA agricultural industry competitive through the identification of 37 action items in the areas of economic development, education/marketing, land use policy, accountability and responsibility.

In establishing Action Plan, the statistics were taken from Statistics Canada. Website contains detailed maps of local agricultural area.

http://www.gtalocalfood.ca/pdfs/DemoProfilefinal.pdf and http://www.gtalocalfood.ca/pdfs/GTA_Ag_Action_Plan_Feb2005.pdf

41 Toronto Vital Signs Report - 2009 Toronto, Ontario 2009 Toronto Community Foundation

The Vital Signs reports monitors the quality of life in the city and identifies its strenghts and weaknesses in areas such as: education, arts & culture, work, transportation, environment, and housing. Although a full indicator list is not available, the majority of their data is taken from Statistics Canada and City of Toronto reports.

http://www.tcf.ca/vitalinitiatives/TVS09FullReport.pdf

42Getting Tough on Urban Sprawl: Solutions to meet Ontario's Climate Change Targets Provincial Progress Report 2007

Ontario 2007 The Pembina Institute

Makes key sustainability-focussed recommendations and ranks Ontario municipalities in terms of Smart Growth achievement. Target Areas: Infrastructure funding, land use planning, sustainable energy policy, fiscal antaxation policies, governance.

Clear index of smart growth indicators, comprehensive. Useful to Growth Plan context as it is Ontario-centered. Makes policy recommendations, but lacks implementation teeth. Look comprehensively at Smart Growth objectives. Speak to how findings will impact policy

changes. Available at: www.pembina.org.

43 Ontario Community Sustainability Report Ontario 2007 The Pembina Institute

A total of 33 indicators were selected to characterize conditions relating to community sustainability in 27 study municipalities in Ontario. Eleven indicators were included in each of the three identified domains of urban sustainability: the physical environment, the social environment and the economic environment. For data analysis purposes, the data for each indicator was “normalized” by converting results to a grade between 0 and 10basis points. For all indicators, a higher score was considered positive from a sustainability point of view. This required inverting scores for some indicators (ie., a low crime rate is better from a sustainability point of view than a high crime rate).

A comprehensive index of sustainability indicators. Data collected from the indicators is supported by case studies: 7 of the 27 municipalities were selected for in-depth case study to provide greater context for the quantitative findings and to explore urban sustainability issues affecting Ontario municipalities on the ground.

Only quantitative indicators were used in this study. The study was limited by the availability of data sources, or lack thereof. Data for what might be considered significant indicators of community sustainability, such as energy use and ecologically significant land losses to development, were simply not available, or not available oconsistent basis from a single source and aggregated to the municipal level. This indicator report was an exercise in compromise between the ideal set of indicators and the set for which suitable data could be found.

It is vital to consider the availability and suitability of data that will be relied upon, as well as the changes that may affect data collection. If evaluating within the framework of municipalities, recognize that some indicators are subject to powerful influences from outside municipal boundaries (ie., crime rates and employment rates).

Available at: www.pembina.org.

Transportation and Non-Governmental Organization Performance Measurement Projects

Appendix C: Inventory of Performance IndicatorsC

Corresponding Inventory Item Sub-Category Related Policy Policy Objective Indicators Suggested Data Sources Referring Document

5 Employment Areas and Economic Prosperity

Winnipeg Quality of Life Indicators GDP by industry Defined as GDP by industry. Provincial and Territorial Economic Accounts Review (Published by Statistics Canada)

City of Winnipeg Quality of Life (QOL) Indicators (Hardy & Pintér, 2006)

5 Fiscal Winnipeg Quality of Life Indicators Property tax rate Defined as the percentage of the market value of the dwelling unit, which is collected as annual property tax. Property Tax data (Canadian revenue Agency) City of Winnipeg Quality of Life (QOL)

Indicators (Hardy & Pintér, 2006)

5 Fiscal Winnipeg Quality of Life Indicators Change in income Defined as the average annual change in real per capita income. Census Data on Income (Statistics Canada) City of Winnipeg Quality of Life (QOL) Indicators (Hardy & Pintér, 2006)

8 Social Infrastructure Federation of Canadian Municipalities - Quality of Life Indicators Quality of Social Infrastructure Proportion of labour force employed in "community services". Census Data on Employment (Statistics Canada)

The FCM Quality of Life Reporting SystemSecond Report, Quality of Life in Canadian Communities, March 2001

8 Social Infrastructure Federation of Canadian Municipalities - Quality of Life Indicators Quality of Social Infrastructure Per capita annual expenditures on parks, recreation and cultural facilities. Data from Financial Statements of Municipalities


8 Social Infrastructure Federation of Canadian Municipalities - Quality of Life Indicators Quality of Social Infrastructure Pupil-teacher ratios. Aggregate data from regional school boards.


8 Social Infrastructure Federation of Canadian Municipalities - Quality of Life Indicators Quality of Social Infrastructure Child care spaces per resident. Aggregate data from regional school boards.


8 Employment Federation of Canadian Municipalities - Quality of Life Indicators Quality of Employment Employment/unemployment rates. Census Data ( Statistics Canada)

The FCM Quality of LifeReporting System:Second ReportQuality of Life in Canadian Communities, March 2001

8 Employment Federation of Canadian Municipalities - Quality of Life Indicators Quality of Employment Permanent, temporary and self-employment Census Data (Statistics Canada)


8 Employment Federation of Canadian Municipalities - Quality of Life Indicators Quality of Employment Families receiving unemployment insurance or social assistance as % of

all tax filers Census Data ( Statistics Canada)


8 Employment Federation of Canadian Municipalities - Quality of Life Indicators Quality of Employment Median hourly wages by gender and age Census Data ( Statistics Canada)


8 Employment Federation of Canadian Municipalities - Quality of Life Indicators Quality of Employment Employment income as % of all income Census Data ( Statistics Canada)


GROWTH MANAGEMENT INDICATORS


10 Growth Management Maryland Smart Growth Indicators Project Population Historic Population, projected population, foreign born, minority, elderly, youth population, level of education http://www.indicatorproject.com/

Maryland Smart Growth Indicators Project. Retrieved 13 February 2010 from http://www.indicatorproject.com

10 Growth Management Maryland Smart Growth Indicators Project HousingHousing affordability, homeownership rates, jobs to housing balance, median price of housing units, percentage of new housing authorized for construction, residential sales, vacancy rates

http://www.indicatorproject.comMaryland Smart Growth Indicators Project. Retrieved 13 February 2010 from http://www.indicatorproject.com

10 Growth Management Maryland Smart Growth Indicators Project EconomyJob density, median household income, families in poverty, wages by industry, average weekly wages per worker, average annual employment, average number of establishments

http://www.indicatorproject.comMaryland Smart Growth Indicators Project. Retrieved 13 February 2010 from http://www.indicatorproject.com

10 Growth Management Maryland Smart Growth Indicators Project Environment Tree coverage, LEED registered projects, phosphorus and nitrogen contributions to the Bay http://www.indicatorproject.com


11Settlement Areas and Rural Areas

BC Ministry of Community and Rural Development Residential Density -Persons per km2, Dwellings per Ha in residential areas

StatsCan Census Data, Population and Dwelling Counts for Urban Areas. Every 5 years. Dwellings/Ha residential would need to be collected from municipalities

BC Ministry of Community and Rural Development Indicator List

11 HousingBC Ministry of Community and Rural Development Housing Density % of dwellings that are SF

StatsCan or BC Stats. Community Profiles. Every 5 years. BC Ministry of Community and Rural

Development Indicator List

15 Affordable Housing and Amenity Design Auckland Strategy Desirable communities

Amenity and design: (includes heritage) Increased guidance to private developers (e.g. Design Advisory Service); Increased community involvement in design programmes; Increased public investment in civic design.

Data from Reports on Community Programs and Services prepared by Municipalities

17 Housing Regional District of Nanaimo Growth Management Plan Nodal Structure Diversity of housing types in designated nodes Census Tracts (Statistics Canada)

Regional District of Nanaimo, B.C. Annual Report on Progress towards Growth Management Plan

17 Housing Regional District of Nanaimo Growth Management Plan Nodal Structure Diversity of amenities in designated nodes Census Tracts (Statistics Canada)


17 Housing Regional District of Nanaimo Growth Management Plan Nodal Structure Housing tenure, affordability, and demographic groups served by nodes Census Data (Statistics Canada)


17 Housing Regional District of Nanaimo Growth Management Plan Nodal Structure Housing within 400 metres of amenities (retail facilities, services, schools,

greenspace, and bus stops) GIS Data.Regional District of Nanaimo, B.C. Annual Report on Progress towards Growth Management Plan

18 Housing Washington Growth Management Act Affordable Housing Amount of increase or decrease in budget for low-income housing Census Data Washington Growth Management Act: after ten years (Report)

18 Housing Washington Growth Management Act Affordable Housing Establishment of targets for affordable housing Census Data Washington Growth Management Act: after ten years (Report)

19 Growth Management Spokane County, Washington - Comprehensive Plan Reduce Urban Sprawl

1. Overall residential density change, urban area/rural area 2. Density of approved preliminary plats 3. Density of multifamily building permits 4. Utilization of previously platted and approved lots and subdivisions 5. Changes in infrastructure availability - where and how much

Spokane County Division of Building and Planning. Spokane County Comprehensive Plan - Appendix B - Performance Measurement

19 Housing Affordability Spokane County, Washington - Comprehensive Plan Housing Affordability

1. Home prices by county quadrant 2. Housing Affordability Index 3. Average rent by county quadrant 4. Rent/income Ratios 5. Amount of first-time home buyers 6. Availability of low-income housing units

Spokane Housing Authority, The Real Estate Report.Spokane County, Washington Comprehensive Plan, Appendix B - Performance Measurement

22 Air Quality Arizona Smart Growth Scorecard Reducing adverse air quality impacts Amount of funding available for implementing air quality improvements, in dollars Data from Financial Statements of municipalities Overview of Arizona Smart Growth

Scorecard (Report)


23 Settlement and Rural Areas Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) - 2005

Planning authorities shall identify and promote opportunities forintensification and redevelopment, and promote compact form.PPS, 2005 Policies: 1.1.3.3 and 1.8.1 a)

Change in persons per square kilometre inurban cores and rural fringe Census Data. Provincial Policy Document, Discussion

Paper

23 Housing Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) - 2005

Planning authorities shall provide for an appropriate range ofhousing types and densities by establishing and implementingminimum targets for the provision of housing which isaffordable to low and moderate income households.PPS, 2005 Policy: 1.4.3 a)

Number of official plans that have establishedand implemented minimum targets for theprovision of housing that is affordable to lowand moderate income households

Official Plans Prepared by the Municipalities Provincial Policy Document, Discussion Paper

23 Housing Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) - 2005

Planning authorities shall identify and promote opportunities forintensification and redevelopment, and promote compact form.Planning authorities shall provide for an appropriate range ofhousing types and densities to meet the projectedrequirements of current and future residents.PPS, 2005 Policies: 1.1.3.3, 1.8.1 a), 1.4.1, 1.4.3

Change in housing structure types (expressedas a percentage of total occupied privatedwellings) across a range of housing structurecategories(Single-detached house; Semi-detached house;Row house Apartment; Detached duplex;Apartment less than 5 storeys; Apartment 5 ormore storeys and Other single-attached house)

Census Data. Provincial Policy Document, Discussion Paper

23 Energy and Air Quality Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) - 2005

Planning authorities shall support energy efficiency andimproved air quality through land use and developmentpatterns which improve the mix of employment and housinguses to shorten commute journeys and decrease congestion.PPS, 2005 Policy: 1.8.1 d)

1. Change in commuter containment by region2. Change in median commuting distance towork by CMA/CA

Census Data, Transportation Tomorrow Survey Provincial Policy Document, Discussion Paper

23 Energy and Air Quality Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) - 2005

Planning authorities shall support energy efficiency andimproved air quality through land use and developmentpatterns which promote compact form.PPS, 2005 Policy: 1.8.1 a)

1. Change in the average lot size from year toyear2. Change in the average size of new lots fromyear to year

Parcel Data Provincial Policy Document, Discussion Paper


Smart Growth and Sustainable Development: challenges, solutions and policy directions (Alexander & Tomalty, 2002)

Mixed land use Ratio of jobs to resident employed labour force Census Data




Jobs/housing balance Percentage of resident employed labour force working within own municipality (Census subdivision) Census Data


27 Housing


Housing affordability Percentage of households spending more than 30% of their income on housing Census Data


27 Settlement Areas and Rural Areas


Population density 1997 estimate of population divided by area of taxable land (minus land in the Agricultural Reserve) Census Data



27 Housing


Efficiency of land use Housing unit density Census Data


27 Housing


Variety of housing formsPercentage of single detached homes as a proportion of total housing stock; percentage of apartments as a proportion of total housing stock; percentage of households in ground-oriented housing units.

Census Data



Sustainable Seattle Employment Concentration Employment at top employer companies. Census Data Sustainable Seattle report

28Employment Areas and Economic Prosperity Sustainable Seattle Unemployment Recorded vs. estimated unemployment. Census Data Sustainable Seattle report


Sustainable Seattle Income Distribution Share of income by income group. Census Data Sustainable Seattle report


Sustainable Seattle Work required for Basic Needs Monthly hours worked for basic needs. Census Data Sustainable Seattle report

28 Housing Sustainable Seattle Housing Affordability Housing Affordability. Census Data Sustainable Seattle report


Sustainable Seattle Children Living in Poverty Percentage of children living in poverty. Reports from Social Services Programs Sustainable Seattle report

29 HousingCity of Hamilton - Strategic Plan, Performance Measurement, and Reporting - MPMP Measures

Land-Use Planning Percentage of new residential units located within settlement areas. Census DataCity of Hamilton - Strategic Plan, Performance Measurement, and Reporting - MPMP Measures

33 Growth Management Regional Spatial Strategy Monitoring (Great Britain)

Effective implementation through a statutory annual monitoring review of the Regional Spatial Strategy. The main purposes are to achieve the following: (see next column).

(1) Whether policies and related targets in the RSS have been met or progress is being made towards meeting them. Where they are not being met or not on track to being achieved, the reasons why. (2) What significant effects implementation of the policies is having on the social, environmental and economic characteristics of the area and whether these effects are predicted by the Regional Spatial Strategy. (3) Whether the policies need adjusting or replacing because they are not working as intended. (4) Whether the way the Regional Spatial Strategy is being implemented needs to be changed to ensure delivery. (5) Whether the policies need changing to reflect changes in national policy or because circumstances have changed since the preparation of the existing Regional Spatial Strategy and new issues to be addressed.

Department for Communities and Local Government, Great Britain.

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. (2005). Regional Spatial Strategy Monitoring: A Good Practice Guide. Great Britain. http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/143201.pdf

33 Housing Regional Spatial Strategy Monitoring (Great Britain)

To deliver housing provisions required by the region based on a regional housing trajectory and sub-regional trajectories where appropriate, of completions and conversions.

Whether numbers of net additional dwellings built in the region during the period covered by the annual monitoring and review are on target since the policy/policies concerned were first published by the Secretary of State.

Department for Communities and Local Government, Great Britain.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/143201.pdf


Spatial Planning: Indicators to Assess the Efficiency of Land Consumption and Land Use - Europe (Storch & Schmidt, 2008)

Land-Use Planning Land area taken up for settlement development and transportation infrastructure. GIS Data.




Land-Use Planning Degree of soil sealing by construction and paving. Data from Reports on Community Infrastructure and Public Works




Land-Use Planning Land area taken up for settlement development and transportation infrastructure. GIS Data.





Land-Use Planning Degree of soil sealing by construction and paving. Data from Reports on Community Infrastructure and Public Works


35 Air Quality Texas DOT- Strategic Plan

1. Reduce adverse human health impacts2. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions

1.Daily NOx, CO, and VOCemissions per mile ofroadway2.Daily CO2 emissions per mileof roadway

Data from Environmental ReportsDeveloping Sustainable Transportation Measures for TXDOT's Strategic Plan: Technical Report

40 Growth ManagementPembina Institute: Getting Tough on Urban Sprawl - Provincial Progress Report 2007

Population Density Pop density of urban land base reflects efficiency of land use. Census Data (Statistics Canada)

Getting Tough on Urban Sprawl: Solutions to meet Ontario's Climate Change Targets, Provincial Progress Report (2007). Retrieved from www.pembina.org.


Land-use mix Reflects mix of residential, commercial, institutional, green spaces. GIS Data.



Urban Intensification Rate of pop. growth within pre-existing urban boundaries. Census Data


41 Growth Management Ontario Community Sustainability ReportPhysical Environment: urban form that minimizes the environmental impacts of growth and development.

Population density: total population divided by the municipality's urbanized land base, which excludes open areas, water bodies and parks. Primary source: DMTI Spatial Data, 2001

Ontario Community Sustainability Report. Retrieved 2 March 2010 from www.pembina.org

41 Growth Management Ontario Community Sustainability Report (2007)

Physical Environment: urban form that minimizes the environmental impacts of growth and development.

Land use mix: an index reflecting the degree to which residential, industrial, commercial, government/institutional and green (including parks) spaces are present in a municipality.

Primary source: DMTI Spatial Data, 2001Ontario Community Sustainability Report. Retrieved 2 March 2010 from www.pembina.org



Urban intensification: amount of population growth between 1996 and 2001 that took place in already urbanized areas, defined as enumeration areas with open area less than 40%.

Primary source: DMTI Spatial Data, 2001Ontario Community Sustainability Report. Retrieved 2 March 2010 from www.pembina.org



Place of work: per cent of employed labour force working within own census subdivision (municipality) or census division (regional municipality). Census www.statscan.ca


41 Growth Management Ontario Community Sustainability Report Social Environment: Livability and Equity

Dwelling diversity: percentage calculated by assuming that an equal distribution of housing types would be an optimum distribution (i.e.., 33% of housing is single detached; 33% is ground oriented and 33% is apartments). The closer to 100, the closer the housing is to the ideal ratio (33:33:33) of total housing.

Statistics Canada: 2001, 2006 Census www.statscan.caOntario Community Sustainability Report. Retrieved 2 March 2010 from www.pembina.org

41 Growth Management Ontario Community Sustainability Report Social Environment: Livability and Equity Affordable housing (owners): per cent of owners spending more than 30% of income on housing. Statistics Canada: 2001, 2006 Census www.statscan.ca


41 Growth Management Ontario Community Sustainability Report Social Environment: Livability and Equity Affordable housing (tenants): per cent of renters spending more than 30% of income housing. Statistics Canada: 2001, 2006 Census www.statscan.ca


41 Growth Management Ontario Community Sustainability Report Social Environment: Livability and Equity Heritage homes: per cent of private dwelling units built before 1946.Statistics Canada Census http://ezproxy.mala.bc.ca:2132/cgi-win/CNSMCGI.EXE



41 Growth Management Ontario Community Sustainability Report Social Environment: Livability and Equity Community centres: number of community centres in 2005 per 10,000 people.

Ontario Ministry of Economic Development and Trade. Community Profiles: www.2ontario.com/communities


41 Growth Management Ontario Community Sustainability Report Social Environment: Livability and Equity Business density: number of businesses per 1,000 people. Statistics Canada: Canadian Business Patterns, CD-ROM 2004/2006.


41 Growth Management Ontario Community Sustainability Report Social Environment: Livability and EquityBusiness diversity index: the diversity and distribution of businesses across all business sectors in the municipality compared to the province as a whole, measured as an index.

Statistics Canada: Canadian Business Patterns, CD-ROM 2004.


41 Growth Management Ontario Community Sustainability Report Social Environment: Livability and Equity Youth unemployment rate: per cent of youth (15-24 years old) in the labour force that are actively seeking work but are unable to find it.

Statistics Canada: Ontario Community Profiles www.2ontario.com/communities/


41 Growth Management Ontario Community Sustainability Report Social Environment: Livability and Equity Family income: median family income Statistics Canada: 2001 Census www.statscan.caOntario Community Sustainability Report. Retrieved 2 March 2010 from www.pembina.org


1 Place Livability

Measuring the Livability of an Urban Centre: An Exploratory Study of Key Performance Indicators - Research Paper

urban livability / social equity

CITY CENTRE PROGRESS - car parking - visits to town centre - public transport amenities - crime rate - public facility access - street maintenance and cleanliness - accessibility facilities - CITY CENTRE HEALTH - retail vacancy - retail performance - retail sales. GENERAL HEALTH PERCEPTION INDEX - mix of stores / businesses - active merchants associations - overall retail sales - storefront occupancy - population growth in core - downtown cultural centre - tourism

National Historic Trust Preservation; Census data - Business Associations - Chambers of Commerce

Balsas, C. J. L. (2004). Measuring the Liveability of an urban centre: An exploratory study of key performance indicators. Planning Practice, & Research, 19(1),101-110.

5Intensification, Redevelopment and Brownfield Redevelopment

Winnipeg Quality of Life Indicators Urban Sprawl Defined as the ratio of number of new homes built in rural municipalities adjacent to Winnipeg to the number of new homes built within Winnipeg. Census Data

Hardy & Pintér. (2006). City of Winnipeg Quality of Life (QOL) Indicators. pdf retrieved from Ryerson Library

5 Fiscal Winnipeg Quality of Life Indicators Capital expenditure Defined as the government capital expenditure in dollars per person. Financial Reports Prepared by the Municipalities


5 Fiscal Winnipeg Quality of Life Indicators Government income Defined as the total government income in dollars annually, both capital and current divided by population.

Financial Reports Prepared by the Municipalities


5

Intensification, Redevelopment and Brownfield Redevelopment

Winnipeg Quality of Life Indicators Infrastructure expenditure Defined as per capita expenditure in dollars on infrastructure. Financial Reports Prepared by the Municipalities


5 Transportation and Transit Winnipeg Quality of Life Indicators Expenditure on road infrastructure Defined as per-capita expenditure in dollars on roads. (Should include capital and maintenance expenditure on all roads within the city’s vicinity.)

Financial Reports Prepared by the Municipalities


6 Community Infrastructure Iowa Citizen-Initiated Performance Assessment (CIPA) Library and Community Centre Use Number of 'repeat' users who return to use the service again, or percentage of returners from total

number of users

Data from Reports on Community Programs and Services prepared by Municipalities

Citizen-Initiated Performance Assessment: The Initial Iowa Experience (Report)

6 Community Infrastructure Iowa Citizen-Initiated Performance Assessment (CIPA) Street Services The average amount of time needed to travel through certain major transportation centres at specific

points in timeData from Transportation Reports Prepared by Municipalities

Citizen-Initiated Performance Assessment: The Initial Iowa Experience (Report)

7 Transportation and Transit

ORTP 2035 Performance Measures(Oahu Regional Transportation Plan 2035 Project)

Provision of inclusive multi-modal transport system

1.Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities-Compares the level of investment in new or improved nonmotorized transportation elements as well as potential impacts to existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and assesses how the scenario affects continuity of and accessibility to thebicycle/pedestrian network.

2.Intermodal Freight Connections-Assesses the quality of connections between freight modes (highway, air and seaports) based on quality (suitable routes,design standards, conflicts, etc) and redundancy of connections.3.Modal Conflicts- Assesses the candidate improvements' (e)effect(s) on thepotential for modal conflicts by assessing the negative effect(s) on other travel modes.4.Mode Share= Measures the share (as a percentage) of person-trips carriedby travel modes (e.g., single-occupant vehicle, high-occupantvehicle, transit, bicycle, pedestrian) based on travel demand model output.5. Regional Transportation Linkages - Assesses whether the candidate improvements provide connections between regional transportation facilities or services.6.Improved Accessibility to the Transportation System for Persons with DisabilitiesAssesses the level of investment in the proposed project or program that support Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines.

Data from Transportation Reports Prepared by Municipalities


INFRASTRUCTURE TO SUPPORT GROWTH - INDICATORS


8 HousingFederation of Canadian Municipalities - Quality of Life Indicators

Quality of Housing-Income Relative to Housing Cost, -Rental Affordability: % renters paying 30% or more of income for rent, -Substandard Dwellings: % of houses needing major repair, -Real estate sales per capita, - Vacancy Rates

Census Data


10 Transportation & Transit Maryland Smart Growth Indicators Project Transportation

Vehicle registrations per capita, vehicle miles traveled, transportation enhancement spending, percentage of county land area in transit shed, percentage of county of population in transit shed, percentage of county jobs in transit shed, density of transit shed, ridership (within different transit systems), parking spaces (within different transit systems), number of trains (within different transit systems)



10 Infrastructure Maryland Smart Growth Indicators Project General Pupils transported by school bus, school bus expenditures, projected school enrollments Data from the Regional school board.


11 Transportationand Transit

BC Ministry of Community and Rural Development Average distance travelled by passenger

vehicles (annually), per capita km/capitaCould be generated from CEEI data. Currently based on statistical analysis of vehicle transfer forms. Annual.



BC Ministry of Community and Rural Development Number of passenger vehicles per capita registered passenger vehicles per capita CEEI transportation data, from ICBC.

Annual.



BC Ministry of Community and Rural Development Transit ridership transit trips per capita (service areas only)

BC Transit Municipal Systems Performance Summary. (Annual). Translink/Metro Vancouver - Annual CUTA statistics.



BC Ministry of Community and Rural Development Transportation mode for commuting % of commuting trips by walking, cycling, or transit StatsCan Community Profiles. Every 5

years


11 Waste ManagementBC Ministry of Community and Rural Development Solid waste emissions Tonnes CO2. CEEI reports. Annual.


11 Sewage and WaterBC Ministry of Community and Rural Development Energy required for water supply kWh per capita for residential water supply. Would need to be annually collected and

reported by municipalities/RDs.


11 Sewage and WaterBC Ministry of Community and Rural Development Energy and GHG emissions from water

and wastewater GJ per capita for wastewater treatment. Would need to be annually collected and reported by municipalities/RDs.



and wastewater Tonnes CO2 per capita for wastewater treatment. Would need to be annually collected and reported by municipalities/RDs.



and wastewater Potable water per capita. Would need to be collected and reported by municipalities/RDs. Annual.



11 Waste ManagementBC Ministry of Community and Rural Development Organics in landfill % of organics in waste or % of organics diverted Not currently collected.


11 Waste ManagementBC Ministry of Community and Rural Development Landfill gas capture % of landfill gas captured Annual reporting required under Landfill

Gas Management Regulation


12 Social Equity U.S. Smart Growth States - Lincoln Institute Policy Goal: supply affordable housing

2 Indicator sub-categories: Affordability - median housing values and percent change, median gross rent as a percent of household income, median selected monthly however costs as a percent of household income, shares of cost-burdened households (identified by paying in excess of 30% of income on housing); Housing Mix - percent of new rental housing in the total of added housing units, percent of multi-family dwelling units

U.S. Census Bureau


13 Complete Communities Liveable Region Strategic Plan Policy Goal: Build Complete Communities

1) Number and proportion of new dwellings by structure type, within and outside the Growth Concentration Area2) Number and proportion of new dwellings in municipal and regional centres3) Benchmark price for housing for the region4) Proportion of office floor space in municipal and regional centres5) Proportion of labour force working in home subregion6) Proportion of rental housing in region’s housing stock

Census Data 2005 Annual Report: Liveable Region Strategic Plan

13 Transportation and Transit Liveable Region Strategic Plan Policy Goal: Increase Transportation Choice

1) Total number of vehicle kilometres driven2) Vehicle ownership per household3) Participation in regional ride-share program4) Lane-kilometres of major road network5) Kilometres of streets with sidewalks and kilometres of bike lanes6) Commuter trip length7) Total and per capita transit ridership8) Growth in total and per capita transit capacity9) Mode Split10) Proportion of children walking to schoolversus using other transportation modes


2005 Annual Report: Liveable Region Strategic Plan

16 Transportation & Transit North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority - Smart Growth

Roadway delay due to extreme congestion or hotspots

Percent of total trip time spent in extreme congestion Data from Transportation Reports Prepared by Municipalities

North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority - Smart Growth document

16 Transportation & Transit North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority - Smart Growth Roadway delay due to incidents Crashes on roads Data from Transportation Reports Prepared

by Municipalities


16 Transportation & Transit North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority - Smart Growth Routine roadway delay Delay in minutes per trip Data from Transportation Reports Prepared

by Municipalities


16 Transportation & Transit North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority - Smart Growth Public transit use Percent of commuting trips by transit Data from Transportation Reports Prepared

by Municipalities


16 Transportation & Transit North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority - Smart Growth Access to major destinations (centers) Average trip length in miles Data from Transportation Reports Prepared

by Municipalities


16 Transportation & Transit North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority - Smart Growth Walk/bike trips Percent of all trips by walking/biking Data from Transportation Reports Prepared

by Municipalities



19 Transportation Spokane County, Washington - Comprehensive Plan Efficiency of transportation system 1. Average trip distance and time to commute.

Spokane Regional Transportation Council, Spokane Transportation Authority, Spokane County Division of Engineering and Roads, Spokane.

Spokane County, Washington - Comprehensive Plan, Appendix B - Performance Measurement

19 Transportation Spokane County, Washington - Comprehensive Plan Efficiency of transportation system Travel time on congestion management system corridors.



19 Transportation Spokane County, Washington - Comprehensive Plan Efficiency of transportation system Transit ridership per capita.



25 Affordable Housing Sustainable Sydney 2030

LONG TERM GOAL (2030 Vision): Provide a wider range of housing so people who provide vital City services can afford to live in the City. SHORT TERM OBJECTIVES (Corporate Plan 2009): Protect existing affordable housing and facilitate new affordable housing in the City to provide for social, cultural, environmental and economic sustainability. Prevent the incidence of homelessness through better service co-ordination, improved services, and advocacy. End chronic homelessness in the inner-city by 2017.

LONG TERM PROGRAM INDICATORS (2030 Targets): (1) There will be at least 138,000 dwellings (48,000 additional dwellings) in the city for an increased diversity of household types, including a greater share of families. (2) 7.5% of all housing in the city will be social housing, and 7.5% will be affordable housing delivered by not-for-profit or other providers. SHORT TERM OBJECTIVE INDICATORS (Corporate Plan): (1) Affordable housing units resulting from affordable housing (annual figures). (2) Number of people exited from homelessness into long term housing. Percentage of people who maintain long term housing after 1 year.

Department of City Planning; Department of Social Policy & Community Support. This information is not yet able to be collected - City of Sydney expects to be able to commence reporting this data in 2011. Therefore, there is an implied implementation and monitoring lag of 3 years.

Sustainable Sydney 2030; City of Sydney Corporate Plan

25Complete Communities (Vibrant local communities and economies)

Sustainable Sydney 2030

LONG TERM GOAL (2030 Plan): Building the sense of community and local economy by attracting and clustering innovative enterprises in the City's Villages. SHORT TERM OBJECTIVES (Corporate Plan 2009): (1) Develop and support local economies and employment. (2) Provide equal access to information and knowledge to support a life-long learning culture for residents, businesses and visitors to the City. (3) Provide affordable, safe, stimulating and educational activities and programs for children to enhance their positive growth and development, and assist families in balancing workforce and community life participation.

LONG TERM PROGRAM INDICATOR (2030 Plan): (1) Every resident will be within a 10 minute walk to fresh food markets, childcare, health services and leisure, social, learning and cultural infrastructure. SHORT TERM OBJECTIVE INDICATORS: (1) Percentage of City jobs located in village hubs. (2) Number of Indigenous people in training/employment/enterprise programs supported by the City. (3) Number of people engaged in pathways to employment programs. Number of library members. (4) Number of items borrowed from libraries. (5) Number of participants in computer training programs. (6) Number of families supported through child care services

City of Sydney Departments of Economic Development; Social Policy & Community Support; Culture & Library Services; Children's Services.

Sustainable Sydney 2030; City of Sydney Corporate Plan

27 Public Spaces, Parks, and Open Space


Quality of life Hectares of parkland and playgrounds per 1000 people GIS Data



27 Sewage & Water


Efficiency of infrastructure provision Sewer & water infrastructure lengths (in km) per 1000 peopleData from Reports on Community Infrastructure Improvements and Public Works


27 Transportation & Transit


Car use and commuting distance Percentage of workers working within 5 km of home, Median length of commute for workers, Modal split for trip to work, Average number of passenger vehicles per capita Census Tracts


28 Transportation and Transit Sustainable Seattle Pedestrian & Bicycle Friendly Streets Striped Bicycle LanesData from Reports on Community Infrastructure Improvements and Public Works

Sustainable Seattle Report

28 Public Spaces, Parks, and Open Space Sustainable Seattle Open Space near Urban Villages People living within 3 blocks of open space Census Tracts Sustainable Seattle Report

28 Sewage and Water Sustainable Seattle Impervious Surfaces Land Coverage (by watershed) Regional conservation authority. Sustainable Seattle Report

28 Sewage and Water Sustainable Seattle Water Consumption Water Consumption in region Data from Environmental Reports Sustainable Seattle Report

28 Waste Management Sustainable Seattle Solid Waste Generated & Recycled Solid Waste Flows Data from Environmental Reports Sustainable Seattle Report

28 Transportation and Transit Sustainable Seattle Vehicle Miles & Fuel Consumption Travel & fuel consumption Data from Environmental Reports Sustainable Seattle Report

28 Community Infrastructure Sustainable Seattle Library and Community Centre Use Annual Library Circulation and Community Center Visits per CapitaData from Reports on Community Programs and Services prepared by Municipalities


28

Intensification, Redevelopment and Brownfield Redevelopment

Sustainable Seattle Community reinvestment CRA Performance Ratings Data from Financial Statements of Municipalities


29 Transportation & TransitCity of Hamilton - Strategic Plan, Performance Measurement, and Reporting - MPMP Measures

Transit Number of conventional transit passenger trips per person in the service area in a year. Data from Financial Statements of Municipalities

City of Hamilton - Strategic Plan, Performance Measurement, and Reporting - MPMP Measures

30 Transportation & TransitTown of Markham - Transportation/Land-use Policy Case Study

Transit Clearly visible and safe pedestrian crossingsData from Reports on Community Infrastructure Improvements and Public Works

Town of Markham - Transportation/Land-use Policy Case Study


Transit Transit stops that are within a 5-minute walk of the development GIS DataTown of Markham - Transportation/Land-use Policy Case Study


Transit Provision of inter-connected bicycle systems and bicycle support facilities (e.g., bike racks, shower and change facilities in commercial properties, etc.)

Data from Reports on Community Infrastructure Improvements and Public Works



Transit Sidewalks on both sides of the road and connectivity between sidewalks and off-street pathwaysData from Reports on Community Infrastructure Improvements and Public Works



30 Public Spaces, Parks and Open Space


Parks and Recreation Operating costs for parks per person. Data from Financial Statements of Municipalities


41 Transportation and Transit Ontario Community Sustainability Report (2007)


Length of roads per 1,000 people: total road length in a municipality's road network divided by the total population, and then multiplied by 1,000. Primary source: DMTI Spatial Data, 2001




Street connectivity: the average number of streets at intersections in the jurisdiction. Primary source: DMTI Spatial Data, 2001




Commuting distance: the median length of commute (in kilometres) to work in municipality. Census www.statscan.ca




Commuting mode: Per cent of municipal labour force that commutes as a car/truck/van driver. Census www.statscan.ca




Transportation gap: the ratio of transit maintenance and capital expenditures per capita to road infrastructure maintenance and capital costs per capita.

Financial Information Returns (data year 2004/2006)http://csconramp.mah.gov.ca/fir/ViewFIR2004.htm


41 Sewage and Water Ontario Community Sustainability Report (2007)


Tertiary water treatment: per cent of population served with tertiary water treatment (reflects stress being placed on local water bodies from sewage loadings).

Municipal Water Use Data. www.ec.gc.ca/Water/en/manage/data/Use_DB_83-99_DB.xls


41 Community Infrastructure Ontario Community Sustainability Report (2007) Social Environment: Livability and Equity

Municipal government operating and capital expenditures per capita per hectare. Municipal government operating and capital maintenance costs per capita and per hectare of municipal land area.

Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs: Financial Information Returns 2004/2006 http://csconramp.mah.gov.on.ca/fir/ViewFIR2004.htm


Corresponding Inventory Item Sub-category Related Policy Policy Objective Indicators Suggested Data Sources Referring Document


Winnipeg Quality of Life Indicators Urban forests Size, variety and condition of forests GIS Data City of Winnipeg report & academic

article

5 Air Quality Winnipeg Quality of Life Indicators Air Quality Defined as the number of good air quality days per year OR the

number of days with air quality in the “good range” Data from Environmental reports City of Winnipeg report & academic article

7Impacts of Transportation projects on Natural Resource/Environment


Environmental Protection and Conservation

1.Resource/Environment Effects- Assesses potential disruption or other impacts to natural areassuch as animal habitats, open spaces, beaches, archaeologicalsites, and forested areas/vegetation based on the mappedlocation of sensitive areas and potential footprint changes

2.Reliance on Renewable and Sustainable Energy Sources - Assesses the degree to which (transportation projects) promote theuse of renewable and sustainable energy sources for transportation (over non-renewable sources).

Data from Environmental reportsORTP 2035 Performance Measures(Oahu Regional Transportation Plan 2035 Project)

7 Air Quality


Air Quality

Air Quality- Assesses the level of greenhouse gas emissions as the result ofproposed projects based on Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT), presumed fuel efficiency assumptions, and mix of fuel/power sources

Data from Environmental reports

ORTP 2035 Performance Measures. (2009). Oahu Regional Transportation Plan 2035 Project. Retrieved from http://www.oahumpo.org/ortp_docs/ORTP2035PerformanceMeasures20090617.pdf

8 EnvironmentFederation of Canadian Municipalities - Quality of Life Indicators

Quality of Environment

-Number of Smog Days, - Amount of Municipal waste generated per capita, -Weight collected of recyclable goods per resident, - Quality of raw water meant for use as drinking water, - % of population served by treated water, -% of environmentally significant land that is protected

Data from Environmental reports


11 Agriculture BC Ministry of Community and Rural Development Area of urban agricultural land including community gardens Hectares per capita Would need to be annually

collected by municipalities/RDs.BC Ministry of Community and Rural Development Indicator List

11 Natural Heritage BC Ministry of Community and Rural Development Deforestation emissions tonnes CO2 per capita CEEI reports. Annual. BC Ministry of Community and

Rural Development Indicator List

11 Natural Heritage BC Ministry of Community and Rural Development Area of deforestation per capita Hectares per capita CEEI reports. Every 5 years. BC Ministry of Community and

Rural Development Indicator List

CONSERVATION & PRESERVATION INDICATORS


11 Natural Heritage BC Ministry of Community and Rural Development Urban trees Parks and greenspace Urban trees planted per capita % of area that is park and protected

greenspace

Would need to be collected and reported by municipalities/RDs. Annual.


11 BuildingsBC Ministry of Community and Rural Development Building emissions and energy consumption CO2 and GJ/home CO2 and GJ commercial Annual CEEI reports. BC Ministry of Community and Rural


11 Buildings BC Ministry of Community and Rural Development

Renewable Energy Use -delivered through District Energy systems -solar water heating systems installed % of residential/commercial energy delivered through District Energy

systems.

Would need to be collected from individual District Energy systems, and compared with CEEI data.


11 Buildings BC Ministry of Community and Rural Development

Renewable Energy Use -delivered through District Energy systems -solar water heating systems installed % of dwellings with solar water heating systems.

Collected by municipalities through permit process, or through suppliers of solar systems (annual).


11 Energy ConservationBC Ministry of Community and Rural Development Building emissions and energy consumption % building stock that undertake PowerSmart/PowerSense retrofits. BC Hydro (Annual data collection) BC Ministry of Community and Rural


11 Energy ConservationBC Ministry of Community and Rural Development Building emissions and energy consumption % of buildings and homes undergoing energy retrofits. Fortis BC (Annual data collection). BC Ministry of Community and Rural


11 Energy ConservationBC Ministry of Community and Rural Development Building emissions and energy consumption % of homes that have completed Energuide audits. EnerGuide database (Annual data

collection).BC Ministry of Community and Rural Development Indicator List

12 Protect Natural Resources and Environmental Quality

U.S. Smart Growth States - Lincoln Institute Policy goal: preservation of agricultural and natural heritage lands.

Changes in: acres of resource land; resource land per additional person; farmland per additional person; farmland enrolled in conservation programs; acres held in private land trusts; state parkland

U.S. Department of Agriculture; Land Trust Alliance; National Association of State Park Directors.


13 Natural Heritage Liveable Region Strategic Plan Protect the "Greenzone"

1) Area of Green Zone2) Area of Agricultural Land Reserve3) Total value of farm-gate sales4) Number of new non-farm dwellings in the Green Zone5) Number of endangered or threatenedspecies (provincial red list)6) Length of Regional Greenways completed7) Size of protected conservation areas

Data from Environmental reports 2005 Annual Report: Liveable Region Strategic Plan


22 Water Quality Arizona Smart Growth Scorecard Water Resource Management The provision of a comprehensive water resource management plan

and water conservation plan that is enforceable by ordinance Data from Environmental reports Overview of Arizona Smart Growth Scorecard (Report)

23 Water Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) - 2005

Planning authorities shall protect, improve or restore the quality and quantity of water by:- identifying surface water features, ground water features, hydrologic functions and natural heritagefeatures and areas which are necessary for the ecological and hydrological integrity of the watershed;- maintaining linkages and related functions among surface water features, ground water features, hydrologic functions and natural heritage features and areas. PPS, 2005 Policy: 2.2.1 c), e)

Changes in the percentage of naturalvegetation in tertiary watersheds

Southern Ontario Land Resource Information System (SOLRIS)

Provincial Policy Document, Discussion Paper

23 Water Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) - 2005

Planning authorities shall protect, improve or restore the quality and quantity of water by:- identifying surface water features, ground water features, hydrologic functions and natural heritage features and areas which are necessary for the ecological and hydrological integrity of the watershed;- implementing necessary restrictions on development and site alteration to protect all municipal drinking water supplies and designated vulnerable areas;- implementing necessary restrictions on developmentand site alteration to protect, improve or restore vulnerable surface and ground water, sensitive surface water features and sensitive ground water features andtheir hydrologic functions;- promoting efficient and sustainable use of water resources, including practices for water conservation and sustaining water quality. PPS, 2005 Policy: 2.2.1c), d) 1., d) 2. and f)

1. Change in the number of municipal official plans identifying sensitive surface and ground water features and areas andincluding policies to protect these features and areas 2. Change in the number of vulnerable areas adopted by municipal council resolution for use in the Ontario Drinking Water Stewardship Program (ODWSP) under theClean Water Act 3. Change in the number of vulnerable areas identified in provincially approved assessment reports under the Clean Water Act 4. Change in the number of municipal official plans having incorporated key findings and recommendations from provincially approved Source Protection Plans under the Clean Water Act

Source Water Protection Program under Clean Water Act, Official Plans


23

Minerals,Petroleum andMineralAggregates

Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) - 2005

To ensure that in areas adjacent to or in known deposits of mineral aggregate resources, development and activities which would preclude or hinder the establishment of new operationsor access to the resources shall only be permitted if:- resource use would not be feasible; or- the proposed land use or development serves a greater long-term public interest; and- issues of public health, public safety and environmental impact are addressed. PPS, 2005 Policy: 2.5.2.5

Change in the number of municipalitiesidentifying aggregate resources andincorporating policy into their official plansthat meets a provincial policy standard

Official Plans. Data would be collected and aggregated at provincial level.


23

Minerals,Petroleum andMineralAggregates

Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) - 2005

To ensure that progressive and final rehabilitation is completed for extraction of mineral aggregate resource to accommodate subsequent land uses, to promote land use compatibility, and to recognize the interim nature of extraction. Final rehabilitationshall take surrounding land use and approved land use designations into consideration. PPS, 2005 Policy: 2.5.3.1

Change in total amount of land that has beenrehabilitated from mineral aggregate resourceextraction annually compared to total amountof land under extraction

The Ontario Aggregate Resources Corporation (TORAC).


23 Natural Hazards Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) - 2005

To ensure that development and site alteration is not permitted in a floodway regardless of whether the area of inundation contains high points of land not subject to flooding unless permitted in policy 3.1.3 or 3.1.6. PPS, 2005 Policy: 3.1.2

Change in the number of municipalities incorporating up-to-date (within 5 years)floodway (flood plain) mapping into theirofficial plans and meeting a provincial policystandard

Official Plans. Data would be collected and aggregated at provincial level.



24Natural Systems Conservation and Preservation

Ecological Integrity Assessment and Performance Measures for Wetland Mitigation

Wetland Mitigation

Landscape ContextLandscape Composition Adjacent Land Use Buffer Width Landscape Pattern Percentage of unfragmented landscape within 1 km. Distance to nearest road AbioticConditionEnergy/ Material Flow Land Use Within the Wetland Hydrology Water Table Depth Water Table Depth Hydrological Alterations

Data from Environmental ReportsEcological Integrity Assessment And Performance MeasuresFor Wetland Mitigation Report

28 Air Quality Sustainable Seattle Air Quality Measuring of air quality indexes. Data from Environmental Reports Sustainable Seattle report

28 Air Quality Sustainable Seattle Pollution Prevention Toxic releases and sewage heavy materials. Data from Environmental Reports Sustainable Seattle report

28 Agriculture Sustainable Seattle Soil erosion Turbidity levels. Data from Environmental Reports Sustainable Seattle report

28 Agriculture Sustainable Seattle Local Farm Production Acres with agricultural zoning. Data from Agricultural Reports Sustainable Seattle report

28 Energy and Air Quality Sustainable Seattle Renewable & Non-renewable Energy Use Renewable & non-renewable energy use. Data from Environmental Reports Sustainable Seattle report

28 Energy and Air Quality Sustainable Seattle Energy Inputs per Dollar of Personal Income Energy inputs per dollar of personal income. Data from Environmental Reports Sustainable Seattle report

28 Health Care Sustainable Seattle Health Care Expenditures Health care expenditures per person. Data from Financial Reports prepared by Municipalities

Sustainable Seattle report

29 Agriculture


Land-Use Planning Percentage of land designated for agricultural purposes which was not re-designated for other uses during the reporting year. GIS Data


29 Agriculture


Land-Use Planning Percentage of land designated for agricultural purposes which was not re-designated for other uses relative to the base year of 2000. GIS Data


29 Agriculture


Land-Use PlanningNumber of hectares of land originally designated for agricultural purposes which was re-designated for other uses during the reporting year.

GIS DataCity of Hamilton - Strategic Plan, Performance Measurement, and Reporting - MPMP Measures


29 Agriculture


Land-Use PlanningNumber of hectares of land originally designated for agricultural purposes which was re-designated for other uses since January 1, 2000.

GIS DataCity of Hamilton - Strategic Plan, Performance Measurement, and Reporting - MPMP Measures



Parks and Recreation Total kilometres of trails and total kilometres of trails per 1,000 persons. GIS Data




Parks and Recreation Hectares of open space and hectares of open space per 1,000 persons (municipally owned). GIS Data


Appendix D: Quality of Life IndicatorsD

Quality of Life Indicators Measuring the Impact of the Growth Plan on Quality of Life in the Greater Golden Horseshoe In this study, several frameworks for measuring quality of life were looked at to better understand how others are measuring quality of life, at what scale, and where they are gathering their data Quality of life measurement is comprehensive, making it very difficult to draw out just one indicator. The frameworks that have been developed are intended to combine a variety of indicators to paint a picture. Of the four quality of life frameworks studied, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities - Quality of Life in Canadian Municipalities framework, may be the most appropriate in relation to the objectives of the Growth Plan. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities states that:

By providing a method to monitor quality of life, the report is of value to Canadian communities and all orders of government as a tool to:

Identify and promote awareness of issues affecting quality of life in

Canadian communities;

Better target policies and resources aimed at improving quality of life;

Support collaborative efforts to improve quality of life; and

Establish municipal governments as a strong and legitimate partner in

public policy debates in Canada. (FCM, 2001)

This framework looks closely at eight quality of life measures that are outlined in greater detail. These measures are:

1. Population Resource Measures 2. Community Affordability Measures 3. Quality of Employment Measures 4. Quality of Housing Measures 5. Community Stress Measures 6. Health of Community Measures 7. Community Safety Measures 8. Community Participation Measures

Through observation of Wong’s guide to indicator development (2006), as well as the guiding principles set forth by our research group, and taking into consideration the objectives of the Growth Plan; the reasons for the selection of the FCM quality of life framework are:

It relies on data that is largely available through Statistics Canada The overall framework is narrower in scope and it thus easier to manage. For example, instead of using Healthy Populations as one domain, it is broken down in to several measurable criteria, each with their own set of indicators. For example:

Healthy Populations becomes Community Stress, Health of Community,

Community Safety, Social Infrastructure, etc. The FCM measurement framework is designed to measure change over outcome There are several indicators available to measure each domain The domains used compliment the objectives of the Growth Plan

It is specific to Canada and flexible in the scale of analysis used Calvert Henderson Quality of Life Indicators

Created by an asset management firm Volume released in 2000 with subsequent online updates

“Quality of life indicators look at relationships across variables, domains, and sectors of society and, hence, are an unbundled system of indicators, not a composite index of data.” (Flynn, 2002) Benefits

Created to avoid problems associated with subjective weighting Constructed by a multidisciplinary group of practitioners and scholars from government agencies, for-profit firms, and nonprofit organizations Indicators look at both traditional economic, social and environmental indicator sets but also “dig deeper into areas where conditions are rapidly restructuring our society and its institutions.” Transparency created in the “unbundling” of the indicators to allow users to make their own rational choices Easily replicated at the local and international levels

Domain Indicator Education Educational attainment

Educational expenditures Enrollment rates Literacy rates Income by education Access to education Distribution of education

Employment Civilian labour force Employment rate Unemployment rate Underemployment rate Labour force participation rate Employment to population ratio Duration of employment Reason for unemployment

Non-market work Volunteering Alternative work arrangements Multiple job holders Self-employment

Energy Energy intensity Energy consumption Carbon intensity

Environment Air quality Water quality Soil quality Biodiversity Household waste Agricultural runoff Ozone nonattainment Air quality standards Air pollutant emissions Sources of emissions Electric utility generation Wind and water erosion Toxic chemical releases Swimmability and fishability of waters

Health Infant mortality by mother’s education, race and ethnicity Life expectancy by gender, race and nationality Security of person Domestic violence Immigration Asylum Prison labour Deported aliens Rights of women, children, aboriginals Death penalty Voting Human rights treaties Political action committees

Income Median family income Male-female wage gap Wealth Low-wage jobs Employment (hours)

Labour force participation rate Unemployment rate Sources of income Insurance Pension Taxes Profits Non-labour income Poverty

Infrastructure Public and private infrastructure Transportation sector Telecommunications sector Utilities sector Social infrastructure (health, safety, education) Capital stock Human capital infrastructure Environmental infrastructure

National security Presidents national security strategy Congressional budget process International treaties Major armed conflicts World arms transfers Worldwide military expenditures Completed peacekeeping missions International terrorist incidents and causalities

Public Safety Death rates from injuries and infectious diseases Leading cause of deaths

Canadian Index of Well-Being

Created by the institute of well-being Tracks changes in eight quality of life domains. Reports have been released for four of the domains so far. Those domains are: democratic engagement, living standards, healthy populations and community vitality.

1. Arts, culture and recreation 2. Democratic engagement 3. Community vitality 4. Education 5. Environment 6. Healthy populations 7. Living standards 8. Time use

Domain Headline Indicator Democratic Engagement Voter turnout

Volunteer rate for political activities Policy impact perceptions Representation of women in parliament Net official development assistance as a percentage of Gross National Income (GNI) Ratio of registered to eligible voters Satisfaction with democracy Interest in politics

Arts, Culture and recreation

Research report is currently under development (March 13, 2010)

Community vitality Volunteering Number of close relatives Providing assistance to others Poverty crime Violent crime Walking alone after dark Trust Experience of discrimination Caring for others Belonging to community Participation in group activities

Education Research report under development Environment Research report currently under development Healthy Populations Self-rated health

Health adjusted life expectancy Diabetes

Depression Life expectancy at birth Infant mortality Smoking Patient satisfaction with health services Population with a regular family doctor Influenza immunization among age 65+

Living standards Income distribution Incidence of low income Wealth distribution CSLS economic security index Long-term unemployment Employment rate CIBC employment quality index Housing suitability and affordability After-tax median income

Time use Research report currently under development

Federation of Canadian Municipalities – Quality of Life in Canadian Communities Domain Indicator Population resources Population age groups

Population growth Multiculturalism, immigration and visible minority population Internal migration Labour force replacement ratio Level of education Literacy

Community affordability CAM1 CAM2 Patterns of change in family incomes Public transportation: cost as % of minimum wage Government transfer income by source

Quality of employment Employment and unemployment rates Permanent, temporary, and self employed Families receiving employment insurance or social assistance as % of all tax filers Median hourly wages by gender and age Long term unemployment Employment income as % of all income

Quality of housing Incomes relative to housing costs Rental affordability: % renters paying 30% or more of income for rent Substandard dwellings: % of houses needing major repair Real estate sales per capita Vacancy rates

Community stress % Lone parent families and incidence of low income Teen births per 1000 teen women Suicide rates per 100 000 residents Business and consumer bankruptcies Crisis calls

Health of community Infant mortality Low birth weight babies Premature mortality Hospital discharges Work hours lost due to injury or disability

Community safety Young offender charges per 100 000 residents Violent crimes per 100 000 residents Property crimes per 100 000 residents Injuries and poisonings per 100 000 residents

Community participation Voter turnout Charitable donations United Way contributions per resident Recycling per resident Daily newspaper circulation

Quality of environment Number of smog days Amount of municipal waste generated per capita Weight of collected recyclable goods per resident Quality of raw water meant for use as drinking water % Of population served by treated water % Of environmentally significant land that is protected

Social infrastructure Proportion of labour force employed in “community services” Per capita annual expenditures on parks, recreation, and cultural facilities Per capita annual expenditure and/or per capita holdings in public libraries Child care services per resident Pupil-teacher ratios

New Zealand – Quality of Life Survey

Comprehensive assessment of twelve cities in New Zealand Designed to look at social, economic and environmental conditions to describe and quantify quality of life of those living in New Zealand’s major urban centers Information is gathered from two main sources: quality of life surveys and secondary data sources (from both government and non-government sources

Domain Indicator People Population growth

Ethnicity Age Families and households Disabilities Aboriginal wellbeing

Knowledge and skills Participation in early childhood education School participation Qualification levels Skill and job match Career training

Health Life expectancy Low birth weight babies Infant mortality Teenage parents Communicable diseases Access to general practitioners Mental health and emotional wellbeing Self-reported health status Modifiable risk factors Recreation and leisure

Safety Perceptions of safety Child safety Injuries Road safety Workplace safety Crime levels

Housing Housing tenure Housing cost and affordability Household crowding Urban housing intensification Government housing provision Housing accessibility

Social Connectedness Overall quality of life

Diversity and identity Community strength and spirit Access to telecommunications Arts and culture

Civil and political rights Community involvement in council decision making Voter turnout Representation on local decision making bodies

Economic standard of living Income Work/life balance Cost of living Social deprivation Net worth

Economic development Economic growth Employment Research and development Local businesses Retail sales Non-residential building consents Tourism Skilled migrants

Natural environment Local environmental issues Waste management and recycling Biodiversity Energy use Air quality Beach and stream/lake water quality Drinking water quality Water consumption Ecological footprints

Built environment Look and feel of the city Land use Traffic and transport Public transport