59
these meetings, the subject-matter experts largely
contributed to our understanding of indicator
contextual meaningfulness, policy jurisdiction,
data availability, data sources, existing targets,
municipal capacity, etc.
In the DNV, we also engaged with the 2017–
2018 Official Community Plan Implementation
Monitoring Committee (OCP IMC) which is
composed of community members and whose
purpose is to provide comments on OCP implementation (consistency of vision, goals, and
actions), monitoring (ensuring meaningful and
appropriate indicators), and communication with
the public.
In total, we conducted 14 interviews in the
DNV and 16 in the City of Maple Ridge, we consulted more than 20 subject-matter expert staff in
each municipality, and we engaged more than 40
community members in workshops with the 2
community foundations and the OCP
IMC. Thanks to this inclusive participatory process, we had the opportunity to explore and identify perceptions of community stakeholders on
needs and gaps and document their preferences
and ideas regarding the linkages between global
and local sustainable development, assessment
tools, and visions for the future; we also received
their direct feedback for our work on sustainability frameworks. Figure 5.4 illustrates the methodological model of the participatory process used
in both case studies.
5.4
Research Findings
In our case studies in the Greater Vancouver area,
we applied sustainability assessment methods
and tools to support the DNV and the City of
Maple Ridge increase their sustainability potential and identify synergies with the SDGs. This
section presents, firstly, the research findings
from the mapping of local goals, targets, and
indicators with the SDG framework and the
Community Capital Framework and Tool and,
secondly, our findings from analyzing the interviews with focus on connections between global
and local agendas.
5.4.1 Goals, Targets, and Indicators
Mapping
Following the examples of New York, San Jose,
and Baltimore, we performed a complex mapping and alignment exercise in the DNV and in
the CMR (Nixon 2016; Prakash et al. 2017). We
compared the higher-level goals of both cities
with the SDGs, their targets (or “stocks” in the
case of the CCT) with the SDG targets, and
their – at the time current – indicators with the
SDG and the CCT indicators.
With regard to the DNV, through this work we
observed that the eight major goals or objectives
in the DNV’s Official Community Plan were
aligned with seven SDGs fully or quite extensively, as well as with all six capitals of the
CCT. Emphasis in the DNV is mostly placed on
issues of economic growth and well-being, protection of the natural environment, affordability,
food security, and education infrastructure investment. As shown in Table 5.1, SDGs 3, 8, 9, 10,
11, 14, and 15 were fully covered by the DNV’s
goals; SDGs 1, 2, 4, 6, and 13 were partly covered; and for some SDGs (5, 7, 12, and 16), there
was no explicit mention in the DNV OCP goals.
SDG 17 was considered not applicable. Given the
OCP’s objective to guide the DNV toward a “sustainable future” by 2030, the wide alignment
between local and global goals seems to indicate
that sustainability principles and aspirations are
important to the DNV and its citizens.
In CMR, our findings were somewhat similar
to those in DNV. The Maple Ridge OCP includes
a long-term vision statement and 45 principles
that were approved following extensive citizen
and stakeholder consultation. The OCP and other
major policy documents mostly emphasize SDGs
2, 8, 11, and 15, while being partly aligned with
SDGs 3, 4, 6, 13, and 16 (Table 5.1). The CMR
mapping analysis demonstrated a specific focus
on food security, education infrastructure investment, and making the city resilient in preparation
for climate change impacts. Unlike the DNV goal
alignment though, it is clear that the higher-level
goals in Maple Ridge are not aligned with SDGs
that promote innovation and industrial – or generally economic – infrastructure and action for
5 Making the SDGs Relevant for Cities: Using the Community Capital Tool in British Columbia
these meetings, the subject-matter experts largely
contributed to our understanding of indicator
contextual meaningfulness, policy jurisdiction,
data availability, data sources, existing targets,
municipal capacity, etc.
In the DNV, we also engaged with the 2017–
2018 Official Community Plan Implementation
Monitoring Committee (OCP IMC) which is
composed of community members and whose
purpose is to provide comments on OCP implementation (consistency of vision, goals, and
actions), monitoring (ensuring meaningful and
appropriate indicators), and communication with
the public.
In total, we conducted 14 interviews in the
DNV and 16 in the City of Maple Ridge, we consulted more than 20 subject-matter expert staff in
each municipality, and we engaged more than 40
community members in workshops with the 2
community foundations and the OCP
IMC. Thanks to this inclusive participatory process, we had the opportunity to explore and identify perceptions of community stakeholders on
needs and gaps and document their preferences
and ideas regarding the linkages between global
and local sustainable development, assessment
tools, and visions for the future; we also received
their direct feedback for our work on sustainability frameworks. Figure 5.4 illustrates the methodological model of the participatory process used
in both case studies.
5.4
Research Findings
In our case studies in the Greater Vancouver area,
we applied sustainability assessment methods
and tools to support the DNV and the City of
Maple Ridge increase their sustainability potential and identify synergies with the SDGs. This
section presents, firstly, the research findings
from the mapping of local goals, targets, and
indicators with the SDG framework and the
Community Capital Framework and Tool and,
secondly, our findings from analyzing the interviews with focus on connections between global
and local agendas.
5.4.1 Goals, Targets, and Indicators
Mapping
Following the examples of New York, San Jose,
and Baltimore, we performed a complex mapping and alignment exercise in the DNV and in
the CMR (Nixon 2016; Prakash et al. 2017). We
compared the higher-level goals of both cities
with the SDGs, their targets (or “stocks” in the
case of the CCT) with the SDG targets, and
their – at the time current – indicators with the
SDG and the CCT indicators.
With regard to the DNV, through this work we
observed that the eight major goals or objectives
in the DNV’s Official Community Plan were
aligned with seven SDGs fully or quite extensively, as well as with all six capitals of the
CCT. Emphasis in the DNV is mostly placed on
issues of economic growth and well-being, protection of the natural environment, affordability,
food security, and education infrastructure investment. As shown in Table 5.1, SDGs 3, 8, 9, 10,
11, 14, and 15 were fully covered by the DNV’s
goals; SDGs 1, 2, 4, 6, and 13 were partly covered; and for some SDGs (5, 7, 12, and 16), there
was no explicit mention in the DNV OCP goals.
SDG 17 was considered not applicable. Given the
OCP’s objective to guide the DNV toward a “sustainable future” by 2030, the wide alignment
between local and global goals seems to indicate
that sustainability principles and aspirations are
important to the DNV and its citizens.
In CMR, our findings were somewhat similar
to those in DNV. The Maple Ridge OCP includes
a long-term vision statement and 45 principles
that were approved following extensive citizen
and stakeholder consultation. The OCP and other
major policy documents mostly emphasize SDGs
2, 8, 11, and 15, while being partly aligned with
SDGs 3, 4, 6, 13, and 16 (Table 5.1). The CMR
mapping analysis demonstrated a specific focus
on food security, education infrastructure investment, and making the city resilient in preparation
for climate change impacts. Unlike the DNV goal
alignment though, it is clear that the higher-level
goals in Maple Ridge are not aligned with SDGs
that promote innovation and industrial – or generally economic – infrastructure and action for
5 Making the SDGs Relevant for Cities: Using the Community Capital Tool in British Columbia