real estate foundation - public views on …...mcallister ublic opinion research real estate...

Public Views on Sustainability and the Built EnvironmentHIGHLIGHTS OF FINDINGS • BRITISH COLUMBIA, 2015

Public Views on Sustainability and the Built Environment2

Released February 18, 2016.

The survey described in this report was conducted by McAllister Opinion Research, on behalf of the Real Estate Foundation of BC. The full version of this report, complete with data tables, can be found at: refbc.com/projects/2015/built-environment-bc.

THE REAL ESTATE FOUNDATION OF BRITISH COLUMBIAThe Real Estate Foundation of BC (REFBC) is a philanthropic organization that helps advance sustainable land use in British Columbia. It provides grants to non-profit organizations working to improve BC communities and natural environments through responsible and informed land use, conservation and real estate practices. Its funding programs support research, education, and law and policy reform. Since 1988, the Foundation has approved more than $70 million in grants. The Foundation also conducts research and special projects to support collaboration and knowledge-sharing around land use.

MCALLISTER OPINION RESEARCHMcAllister Opinion Research uses leading edge qualitative and quantitative research techniques to help clients understand constituencies that matter. Since 2011, McAllister has worked with a wide range of clients in Canada and the US, including universities and colleges, government agencies, environmental organizations, and private companies. McAllister is a qualified member of ESOMAR, the international professional body for opinion research.

Sustainable built environments support and fulfill people’s long-term needs in harmony with the carrying capacity of natural systems, so that the social, economic and physical needs of future generations will not be compromised.

3McAllister Public Opinion Research / Real Estate Foundation of BC

Key Findings

4 in 5 B.C. residents say the quality of life in their communities is good or excellent.

81%would support at least some high-density development, as long as it is low rise.

1 in 2believe that ordinary citizens don’t have enough say in planning and development.

44%say that all or most future development should be single detached homes.

Language matters A/B tests show that the level of concern can increase between baseline and tested terms that describe key topics related to sustainability.

56% say they are extremely or quite concerned about AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

75% say they are extremely or quite concerned about COST OF HOUSING.

31% say they are extremely or quite concerned about LOCAL FOOD SECURITY.

50% say they are extremely or quite concerned about LOSS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND.

32% say they are extremely or quite concerned about EXTREME WEATHER.

50% say they are extremely or quite concerned about CLIMATE CHANGE.


Introduction

The built environment includes all of the buildings and spaces created or modified by people, including public spaces, housing, workspaces, roads and other infrastructure that supports communities.

In all countries and provinces, communities struggle with the challenge of how to plan, build, integrate and sustain the built environment in a way that meets current and future needs. Some of the most pressing challenges include: • reducing sprawl, car dependency,

greenhouse gas emissions and the use of limited natural resources

• ensuring that communities are affordable, livable and inclusive

• balancing a high quality of life with the need to protect our natural environment and reduce waste

While communities in British Columbia have made some progress in these areas, we need to continue to collaborate and work together on smart strategies to help build sustainable communities. In 2015, REFBC began working with Modus, a community planning, design and engagement firm, to learn more about the progress that’s been made in B.C. and the work that still needs to be done.

We found that, while excellent progress is being made in some areas, it isn’t always being measured or supported and that more work is needed to create public policies and financial regulations that encourage sustainable practices.

To complement our work with Modus, REFBC commissioned this public opinion poll to help us understand the public’s perceptions on the built environment and sustainability. These findings will help to inform our thinking and grantmaking, as well as support other funders, non-profits and sustainability leaders across sectors to bridge the gap between planning professionals and the public.

At the Real Estate Foundation of BC, we know that communities of all sizes have a role to play in shaping a sustainable future for our province. That’s why we’ve identified the built environment as a priority area for research and grant-making.

In the last five years, REFBC has given $4,107,493 in grants funding for

105 projects that support sustainable built environments.

Synthesis of Findings and Discussion Paper both available at: refbc.com/projects/2015/built-environment-bc


Region Unweighted Sample n

Weighted Sample n

Margin of Error @95% Confidence

Margin of Error @90% Confidence

Lower Mainland 859 1,039 ±3.3% ±2.8%

Vancouver Island / Coast 477 294 ±4.5% ±3.8%

Southern Interior 256 253 ±6.1% ±5.1%

Northern Interior 109 114 ±9.2% ±7.9%

Total Sample 1,701 1,701 ±2.4% ±2.0%

Urban (33%) Suburban (29%) Small City (22%) Rural Town (10%) Rural (7%)

Burnaby, New Westminster,North Vancouver,Vancouver,Victoria, West Vancouver

Abbotsford,Coquitlam,Delta, Langley,Maple Ridge,Pitt Meadows,Port Coquitlam,Port Moody,Richmond, Surrey

Chilliwack, Courtenay, Cranbrook, Kamloops, Kelowna, Mission, Nanaimo, Port Alberni, Prince George, Quesnel, Sidney, Vernon, West Kelowna, Westbank, Williams Lake

100 Mile House, Agassiz, Aldergrove, Brentwood Bay, Campbell River, Castlegar, Coldstream, Comox, Dawson Creek, Duncan, Fort St. John, Garibaldi Highlands, Kimberley, Ladysmith, Merritt, Nelson, North Saanich, Parksville, Penticton, Port Hardy, Powell River, Prince Rupert, Qualicum Beach, Salmon Arm, Sechelt, Sooke, Summerland, Terrace, Trail, Whistler / Squamish

V0 postal codes, unincorporated areas, tiny villages

Research MethodologyThis study was commissioned by the Real Estate Foundation of British Columbia to understand the views of the British Columbia public with regard to sustainability and the built environment.

To accomplish this, REFBC hired McAllister Public Opinion Research to conduct a professional online survey. The findings in this report are taken from a sample of 1,701 adult B.C. residents who were polled between July 28 and 30, 2015. The margin of error is +/- 2.4 per cent, 19 times out of 20.

The survey sample was designed and weighted according to BC Statistics 2014 figures on region, age and gender. Postal codes were used to identify each participant’s community and to categorize responses by community type: urban, suburban, small city, rural town and rural. In this report, responses from people living in small cities and rural towns have been grouped together due to the similarity of their responses. Survey results were analysed by community type and by participants’ rating of quality of life.

Summary of Samples and Margin of Error

Designation of Community Type


Survey Findings

QUALITY OF LIFE

Quality of life ratings are a useful indicator of a person’s experience within a built environment. They help to gauge current satisfaction and, later in this report (pg. 16), we link community features with the likelihood that a person says that quality of life in their community is high.

Today, the majority of British Columbians view the quality of life in their neighbourhoods and communities as good or excellent. Vancouver Islanders, residents of the Southern Interior and people over the age of 65 are the most positive about the quality of life in their communities, while suburban residents in the Lower Mainland and younger women are the most likely to rate quality of life as poor, mediocre or OK.

Urban - 77%Suburban - 67%Small City - 74%Rural - 75%

Homeowners - 75%Renters - 71%

High School - 73%Vocational/Trades - 72%University - 78%Professional/Grad - 77%

Who rates quality of life in their community as good or excellent?

Four out of five British Columbians believe that quality of life in their neighbourhood is good or excellentQ: How would you rate quality of life in the following places?

20

17

21

14

45

46

49

47

29

32

24

34

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Canada overall

Your region of B.C.

Your community

Your neighbourhood 81%

73%

78%

74%

Poor | Mediocre | OK | Good Excellent

30

23

19

28

37

46

54

50

33

31

27

22

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

North

South Interior

VancouverIsland

LowerMainland 72%

80%

77%

69%

Poor, Mediocre, OK Good Excellent

Vancouver Islanders are the most likely to say their communities are good or excellentQ: How would you rate quality of life in the following places?

Vancouver Island


We asked whether people thought their communities were a better place to live today than they were ten years ago. Forty-two per cent of respondents agreed that their community had improved, while 22 per cent disagreed and 36 per cent were unsure.

We also asked poll respondents if they thought their community would be a better place to live ten years from now. Only 39 per cent agreed with that statement, while 19 per cent disagreed and 43 per cent were unsure. That means that a majority (62%) of B.C. residents couldn’t say that their communities would be a better place to live in ten years. This is striking, given that a general expectation of continuous improvement has long been a social norm.

Those who say that their community is a worse place to live than ten years ago are most likely to list crime/drugs (21%), sprawl/development (14%) and overcrowding (11%) as the top reasons. Notably, one in ten respondents cited foreigners/immigrants (9%); these respondents were almost entirely from suburban areas in the Lower Mainland and were more likely to be renters than homeowners.

1%

1%

1%

2%

2%

2%

2%

4%

4%

4%

5%

5%

6%

7%

9%

11%

14%

21%

Other

Public Transit

Stagnation/Outmigration

Overall Decline

Taxes

Social Service Cuts

Empty Homes/Investors

Jobs/Economy

Traffic

Inequality

Pollution/Environment

Lack of Social…

Politicians/Gov't

Cost of Living

Foreigners/Immigrants

Overpopulation/Crowding

Sprawl/Development

Crime/Drugs

Crime/drugs, sprawl/development and overpopulation/crowding are the top reasons people believe their community is a worse place to liveQ: In the previous question, you said that your community is a worse place to live than it was 10 years ago. What is your main reason for saying that? (unaided)

82% of men over the age of 65 rate quality of life in theircommunity as good or excellent, making them the most satisfied af all demographic groups.

39%

42%

43%

36%

19%

22%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

The community I live in is a WORSE place today than it was

The community I live will be a WORSE place to live in ten years

The community I live in is a BETTER place today than it was

ten years ago

The community I live will be a BETTER place to live in ten years

Most participants have an optimistic rather than pessimistic view of their communities, though many are undecidedQ: Which of the following statements is closer to your point of view?

Better Not sure Worse

Crime/Drugs

Sprawl/Development

Overpopulation/Crowding

Foreigners/Immigrants


CURRENT BUILT ENVIRONMENT

When asked what community features they were most satisfied with, residents cite distance to shopping (74% satisfied), natural and green space (68%) and the ability to walk or cycle (67%). British Columbians view greenspace and nature as some of the most precious assets of their communities; when we asked what residents didn’t want changed in their communities, green space and nature were the most frequently cited (54%) features.

Poll respondents were least satisfied with crime and safety (40%), traffic (29%) and public consultation on new development (28%). When looking at features residents were most dissatisfied with, traffic came out as the chief complaint for 43 per cent of respondents.

Along this vein, transportation infrastructure is commonly seen to be the biggest unmet need across all communities. When we asked people to name improvements (unaided) that would make their community a good place to live

2%

2%

1%

8%

2%

8%

1%

9%

1%

2%

14%

1%

7%

9%

2%

3%

6%

27%

3%

7%

8%

11%

16%

2%

9%

10%

10%

17%

22%

33%

Better Govt/Leadership

Lower Taxes

More Listening/Consultation

Better Planning/Sustainability

More Development/People

Jobs/Economic Development

Heritage Buildings/Character

Cleaner/Quieter/Brighter

Control Foreign Investment

Cost of Living

Affordable Housing

Single Family Homes

Less Density/No High Rises

Less Development/Sprawl

Farms/Agr Land/Com Gardens

Protect Water/Lakes/Rivers

Less Pollution/Industry

Greenspace/Nature/Parks

Less Poverty/Homelessness

Public Services/Infrastructure

Schools/Education Facilities

Access To Health Care

Better Policing/Public Safety

More Family/Youth/Kid Friendly

Biking/Walking Infrastructure

Community Space/Libraries

Recreational Facilities

Better Retail Services/Stores

Public Transit/Transportation

Roads/Upgrades/Parking

Transport 55%

Retail/Leisure Amenities 48%

Public Services 45%

Ecological Services/Benefits 38%

Density/Zoning 17%

Cost of Living/Affordability 17%

Look/Feel 10%

Economic Development 10%

Planning/Design 9%

Local Gov't 4%

Transportation infrastructure is the biggest unmet need in BC communitiesQ: Thinking of the built environment in your community, what 3 improvements are most needed to ensure that it is a good place to live in the future, compared to other places? (unaided)

6

9

10

5

9

7

9

10

15

10

16

9

14

9

16

11

11

20

21

26

25

23

31

31

38

34

37

37

37

34

42

37

46

45

51

44

49

52

47

47

48

42

28

32

32

41

31

40

33

38

26

34

32

30

29

32

31

28

27

25

21

18

20

28

20

19

12

18

12

14

12

16

11

11

12

9

6

6

10

8

6

9

6

10

15

8

8

4

7

4

6

9

5

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Consult'n on new development

Traffic

Crime and safety

Noise levels

Location of industrial facilities

Health care facilities

Environmental sustainability

Density of population

Heritage and local character

Access to public transit

Educational facilities

Commute times to work or class

Spaces to gather and socialize

Closeness to family and friends

Mix of age groups

Look and feel

Culture and art spaces, libraries

Recreation facilities

Walking and/or cycling

Natural and green space

Distance to shopping and commerce

Very satisfied | Satisfied | Mixed | Dissatisfied | Very Dissatisfied

Distance to shopping, green space and walking/cycling are the most valued community assetsQ: How satisfied are you with the following aspects of the built environment in your community?

Distance to shopping and commerce

Natural and green space

Walking and/or cycling


in the future, 55 per cent cited transportation improvements. Specifically, 33 per cent mentioned upgrades that benefit drivers (roads/parking/upgrades) and 22 per cent mentioned public transit improvements.

Nearly half (48%) mentioned retail or leisure amenities including retail space/stores (17%), recreational facilities (10%), community space/libraries (10%), pedestrian/cycling infrastructure (9%) and facilities that are welcoming for families, youth and kids (2%).

When responses were segmented by community type, we found that urban and suburban residents were more likely to want greenspace and transportation infrastructure, while residents of small cities and rural areas would like to see more amenities and services. This may be a case of people in smaller communities desiring what bigger cities have, and vice versa.

When asked what they didn’t want changed in their

communities, 54% of residents cited green space and nature.

7%

7%

8%

12%

27%

30%

9%

5%

10%

14%

25%

30%

13%

13%

10%

18%

18%

22%

16%

21%

17%

29%

13%

22%


Economic Development (all)

Access To Health Care


Public Transit/ Transportation

Greenspace/Nature/Parks

Urban and suburban residents are more likely to want green space while rural residents desire better services Q: Thinking of the built environment in your community, what 3 improvements are most needed to ensure that it is a good place to live in the future, compared to other places? (unaided)

Rural

Small City

Suburban

Urban

R

SC

S

U

R

SC

S

U

R

SC

S

U

R

SC

S

U

R

SC

S

U

Green space/Nature/Parks

Public transit/Transportation


Access to Health Care

Economic Development (all)



Early in the survey, we asked respondents to estimate their average travel time, in minutes, from home to three destinations: family and friends, work or class, and shopping and commerce. Later, in a set of questions about community satisfaction, we asked participants to rate their satisfaction with their proximity to these three destinations. Linking the average travel time to a reported level of satisfaction helps to illustrate B.C. residents’ tolerance for travel time for each type of trip.

The findings show that poll participants value proximity to shopping first, work or school second and friends and family third.

On average, people are who are satisfied with their travel time to shopping and commerce say they travel for 13 minutes, while their satisfaction is mixed at 18 minutes and they are dissatisfied when travel times reach 27 minutes.

People who are satisfied with their travel time to work or class estimate their travel time at an average of 17 minutes. Their satisfaction becomes mixed at about 22 minutes and they become dissatisfied at 32 minutes.

13

17

23

18

22

36

27

32

55

0 10 20 30 40 50 60minutes

Satisfied Mixed Dissatisfied

shopping

work/school

family/friends

Proximity to shopping is most important: residents are satisfied when trips take 13 minutes, mixed at 18 minutes and dissatisfied at 27 minutesQ: How satisfied are you with the time it takes to travel to...?

The tolerance for travel time to family and friends appears to be the greatest. People are satisfied at 23 minutes and dissatisfied at an average of 55 minutes. Mixed satisfaction falls in between.


PREFERENCES FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT

To learn about residents’ preference for future development and to gauge the effect of language used to describe development choices, we showed poll participants one of two A/B sets of eight terms related to sustainable design. Respondents were asked if they would like to see more, less or no change in the amount of a particular feature in the province of British Columbia. They were also given the option to say they had ‘no idea.’

We found that most British Columbians have strong support for energy efficiency, green buildings and smart growth in their communities, but appear to be unsure of or

put off by specialized terms used to describe practices that are very similar (e.g., regenerative design, green buildings).

For example, a clear majority of respondents say they support more ‘energy efficiency’ (73%) and ‘green buildings’ (68%). Enthusiasm drops dramatically for the analogous concept of ‘energy retrofits’ (59%), despite the common use of the term. Moreover, just 52 per cent say they want more ‘carbon neutral buildings’ and only 35 per cent want to see more ‘regenerative design.’

Another clear difference is strong support for more ‘smart growth’ (61%), yet considerably weaker support for more compact communities (20%) and ‘high density communities’ (13%).

12%

44%

47%

53%

42%

47%

13%

20%

61%

66%

66%

35%

52%

59%

68%

73%

18%

4%

10%

5%

5%

5%

6%

12%

11%

4%

5%

23%

14%

17%

9%

6%

37%

46%

35%

37%

42%

36%

39%

46%

24%

29%

27%

36%

30%

22%

20%

19%

33%

6%

9%

5%

11%

11%

43%

22%

4%

6%

4%

3%

3%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Urban sprawl

Roads, bridges and parking

Mixed income housing

Family housing

Cycling routes

Bike routes

High density communities

Compact communities

Smart growth

Public transit

Sustainable transportation

Regenerative design

Carbon neutral buildings

Energy retrofits

Green buildings

Energy efficiency

More No idea | No change | Less

12%

44%

47%

53%

42%

47%

13%

20%

61%

66%

66%

35%

52%

59%

68%

73%

18%

4%

10%

5%

5%

5%

6%

12%

11%

4%

5%

23%

14%

17%

9%

6%

37%

46%

35%

37%

42%

36%

39%

46%

24%

29%

27%

36%

30%

22%

20%

19%

33%

6%

9%

5%

11%

11%

43%

22%

4%

6%

4%

3%

3%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Urban sprawl



Family housing

Cycling routes

Bike routes


Compact communities

Smart growth

Public transit


Regenerative design


Energy retrofits

Green buildings

Energy efficiency


Strategies like energy efficiency, green buildings and smart growth receive strong support, yet poll participants are wary of high-density communities and put off by specialized termsQ: For each of the following features of the built environment, please say if you would like to see more, no change, or less in your region of British Columbia. If you have no idea, please say so.

Energy efficiency

Green buildings

12%

44%

47%

53%

42%

47%

13%

20%

61%

66%

66%

35%

52%

59%

68%

73%

18%

4%

10%

5%

5%

5%

6%

12%

11%

4%

5%

23%

14%

17%

9%

6%

37%

46%

35%

37%

42%

36%

39%

46%

24%

29%

27%

36%

30%

22%

20%

19%

33%

6%

9%

5%

11%

11%

43%

22%

4%

6%

4%

3%

3%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Urban sprawl



Family housing

Cycling routes

Bike routes


Compact communities

Smart growth

Public transit


Regenerative design


Energy retrofits

Green buildings

Energy efficiency


Smart growth

12%

44%

47%

53%

42%

47%

13%

20%

61%

66%

66%

35%

52%

59%

68%

73%

18%

4%

10%

5%

5%

5%

6%

12%

11%

4%

5%

23%

14%

17%

9%

6%

37%

46%

35%

37%

42%

36%

39%

46%

24%

29%

27%

36%

30%

22%

20%

19%

33%

6%

9%

5%

11%

11%

43%

22%

4%

6%

4%

3%

3%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Urban sprawl



Family housing

Cycling routes

Bike routes


Compact communities

Smart growth

Public transit


Regenerative design


Energy retrofits

Green buildings

Energy efficiency


12%

44%

47%

53%

42%

47%

13%

20%

61%

66%

66%

35%

52%

59%

68%

73%

18%

4%

10%

5%

5%

5%

6%

12%

11%

4%

5%

23%

14%

17%

9%

6%

37%

46%

35%

37%

42%

36%

39%

46%

24%

29%

27%

36%

30%

22%

20%

19%

33%

6%

9%

5%

11%

11%

43%

22%

4%

6%

4%

3%

3%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Urban sprawl



Family housing

Cycling routes

Bike routes


Compact communities

Smart growth

Public transit


Regenerative design


Energy retrofits

Green buildings

Energy efficiency


12%

44%

47%

53%

42%

47%

13%

20%

61%

66%

66%

35%

52%

59%

68%

73%

18%

4%

10%

5%

5%

5%

6%

12%

11%

4%

5%

23%

14%

17%

9%

6%

37%

46%

35%

37%

42%

36%

39%

46%

24%

29%

27%

36%

30%

22%

20%

19%

33%

6%

9%

5%

11%

11%

43%

22%

4%

6%

4%

3%

3%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Urban sprawl



Family housing

Cycling routes

Bike routes


Compact communities

Smart growth

Public transit


Regenerative design


Energy retrofits

Green buildings

Energy efficiency




To learn about what forms of development people show support for, we gave participants a list of development examples and asked if each option should comprise all, most, some, little or none of the future development in their communities and in B.C.

Options included:• Compact, high-density high-rise

commercial-residential buildings with good access to walking, cycling and transit

• Compact, high-density low-rise commercial and residential buildings with good access to walking, cycling and public transit

• Single detached homes with backyards, parking and good access to roads and highways for private automobiles

• Large luxury estate homes, with landscaped grounds

• Mixed-income rental housing units• Low-income rental housing units• Shopping malls and big box retailers like

Wal-Mart, Costco and Home Depot

Ninety-two per cent of participants said that at least some future development should include single detached homes with infrastructure for

private cars. Four in ten (44%) respondents said that all or most development should take this form.

One in four (26%) said that all or most future development should take the form of compact high-density low-rise communities with walking, cycling and transit infrastructure. The majority (81%) would accept some, most or all compact development, as long as it is low-rise. However, if the same development is high-rise, a very small portion (16%) want all or most and only half (52%) would accept at least some development of this type. Further, 17 per cent of participants want no high-rise development.

There was also significant support for rental housing, with 25 per cent of participants saying all or most development should include mixed-income rental and 26 per cent favouring low-income rental housing.

Interestingly, large luxury estate homes are the one type of development that the majority (69%) of British Columbians would like to see little or none of.

4%

4%

7%

4%

5%

10%

4%

12%

11%

19%

22%

20%

34%

26%

36%

44%

48%

55%

57%

48%

43%

31%

27%

18%

15%

14%

7%

26%

17%

13%

7%

4%

4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Large luxury estate homes

High-density HIGH rise

Shopping malls and big-box stores

Low-income rental housing

High-density LOW rise

Mixed-income rental housing

Single detached homes

All | Most Some Little | None

44% of B.C. residents polled believe that single detached homes should comprise all or most future development in the province; there is also strong support for mixed-income rental housing and high-density low rise developmentsQ: When it comes to accommodating population growth, how much of the development in your region of B.C. should be...?


ASSESSMENTS OF SUSTAINABILITY

How sustainable is British Columbia? Sixty per cent of poll participants rate the sustainability of the B.C. built environment as good or excellent and 40 per cent see room for improvement in their home province. A small minority (10%) rate B.C.’s sustainability as poor or mediocre.

Most participants rated B.C.’s built environment sustainability higher than they rated Europe’s and the U.S.’s.

When it comes to sustainability in the built environment, British Columbians tend to express the most concern for economic affordability. In a province that’s home to one of the most expensive real estate markets in North America, it’s not surprising that more than half of poll respondents were extremely or quite concerned about taxes, fees and charges (62%) and affordable housing (56%). Additional economic concerns included local jobs and economic opportunities (48% extremely or quite concerned) and foreign ownership issues (47%).

It’s worth noting that, during the time period this survey was conducted (July 28 to 30, 2015, inclusive), there was significant coverage in local and national media on calls for data on foreign investment in the Vancouver housing market. In the months previous, there had been extensive

14%

4%

3%

3%

25%

15%

11%

8%

8%

6%

42%

42%

33%

32%

31%

29%

16%

29%

38%

48%

45%

46%

3%

10%

14%

10%

15%

16%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

United States

European countries

Canada overall

Your community

British Columbia

Your neighbourhood 62%

60%

52%

19%

58%

39%

Poor | Mediocre | OK Good | Excellent

B.C. residents are more likely to rate their neighbourhood sustainability as good or excellent than the sustainability of their province, community or country.Q: How would you rate the overall sustainability of the built environment in...?

coverage of #DontHave1Million rallies and social media campaigns.

Environmental concerns like water use (55%), land use (51%), climate change (50%), loss of agrucultural land (50%) and damage to nature and wildlife habitat (48%) also ranked highly.

62%56%55%

51%50%50%

48%48%47%

45%42%

39%36%35%34%

28%26%25%25%

20%

Gov't taxes, fees and charges

Affordable housing

Water use

Land use

Climate change

Loss of agrucultural land

Damage to nature and wildlife habitat

Local jobs and economy

Foreign ownership

Energy use

Public services

Transportation

Corporate and developer influence

Population growth

Earthquake safety

Public engagement

Overall community layout and design

Lak of public investment

NIMBY syndrome

Social isolation and alienation

Economic sustainability and environmental issues are top concerns for the majority of B.C. residentsQ: How concerned are you about the following issues related to the sustainability of the built environment in your community?

Gov’t taxes, fees and charges

Affordable housing

Water use

Land use

Climate change

Loss of agricultural land

Damage to nature and wildlife habitat

Local jobs and economy

Foreign ownership

Energy use


To learn about the effect of language and framing on the residents’ level of concern for sustainability issues, we used a split sample A/B test. In these tests, half of the participants were randomly assigned an alternative description for certain issues.

The largest spread between two terms was related to the issue of housing affordability. A majority of participants (56%) reported being extremely or quite concerned about ‘affordable housing.’ When the alternate term ‘cost of housing’ was used, concern jumps by 19 percentage points (to 75%).

Other significant shifts include:• ‘Local food security’ (31%) to ‘loss of

agricultural land’ (50%) – 19 points• ‘Extreme weather’ (32%) to ‘climate change’

(50%) – 18 points• ‘Energy use’ (45%) to ‘waste and pollution’

(57%) – 12 points

56% 75%

32% 50%

31% 50%

45% 57%

42% 51%

35% 41%

28% 36%

17% 25%

20% 30%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Affordable housing

Energy use

Public services

Population growth

Public engagement

Social isolation and alienation

Climate change

Loss of agricultural land

Lack of public investment

Extreme weather

Local food security

Waste and pollution

Cost of housing

Government services

Long-term planning

Public information and reporting

Social connectivity and community

Lack of private investment

Language matters. A/B tests show that the level of concerns can increase between baseline and tested terms describing sustainability issues and topicsQ: How concerned are you about the following issues related to the sustainability of the built environment in your community?

Local food security Loss of agricultural land

Lack of private investment

Lack of public investment

Climate changeExtreme weather


One in two (51%) residents say that local citizens

have too little influence on planning decisions.

GOVERNANCE ISSUES

In this part of the survey, we asked participants questions about the amount of influence different groups have in decisions that affect the built environment in their communities. Residents were asked to rate their perceived influence of 14 groups, including people like themselves, on a scale.

One in two (51%) participants felt that local citizens have too little influence on planning decisions, although many (42%) believe that local citizens have an ‘about right’ amount of influence.

While the influence of local government (52%) and planning experts (50%) are more likely to be seen as ‘about right,’ the balance of opinion

skews towards ‘too much’ influence (29%) for both groups.

Outside interests like foreign (64%) and out-of-town (56%) property owners, large corporations and industry (57%) and developers (55%) are generally seen to have too much influence.

6%

10%

11%

11%

9%

6%

8%

8%

8%

14%

15%

17%

20%

23%

24%

33%

32%

26%

43%

35%

36%

35%

26%

45%

43%

52%

50%

50%

37%

51%

46%

51%

42%

38%

40%

41%

40%

28%

28%

20%

22%

15%

16%

11%

9%

5%

19%

15%

15%

24%

10%

11%

9%

6%

6%

13%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Large corporations and industry

Developers

Out-of-town property owners

Foreign property owners

Provincial government

Federal government

Local government

Planning experts

People who bike

Local First Nations

Local business owners

Local residents who rent

People like yourself

Local citizens 6%

2%

11%

13%

28%

21%

29%

29%39%

38%

64%

56%55%

57%

Much too little | Too little About right Too Much | Much too much

Local citizens are most likely to be seen as having too little influence, while foreign and out-of-town property owners and large corporations are seen as having too much influenceQ: From what you know, please say whether the following currently have too much, too little or the right amount of influence in planning and designing the built environment in your community?


13%

12%

8%

7%

7%

12%

21%

20%

22%

26%

34%

51%

55%

44%

19%

18%

21%

18%

19%

16%

14%

48%

48%

45%

40%

22%

16%

21%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Large industry

Large developers

Federalgovernment

Provincialgovernment

Localgovernment

Small andmediumbusiness

People who usethe systems

Too much | Fair share No idea | Not enough

Users are the most likely to be seen as paying too much or their fair share - large industry is seen as not paying enoughQ: In your opinion, do each of the following parties pay too much, not enough, or their fair share for transportation, energy, water and waste management systems in your region of B.C.? If you have no idea, please say so.

To learn about how British Columbians perceive the fairness of decision-making processes around the built environment, we also asked poll participants about whether various groups were paying their fair share of costs for transportation, energy, water and waste management systems in B.C.

The majority of people surveyed felt the following groups pay their fair share or two much for these services: people who use these systems (65%), small and medium businesses (67%) and local government (58%).

Opinions are divided on the province’s contribution, with 41 per cent saying that the B.C. government pays their fair share or too much, and 40 per cent saying they do not pay enough. Many B.C. residents feel that the federal government (45%), large developers (48%) and large industry (48%) do not pay enough to cover their fair share of service costs.

What features and factors are associated with a high quality of life in British Columbia? To answer this question, we performed a multiple regression analysis of survey responses to find features of the built environment which have a statistically significant positive effect on respondents’ ratings for community quality of life.

The six features that have the most impact, along with their regression co-efficients, are:1. Look and feel (0.49)2. Crime and safety (0.35)3. Health care facilities (0.27)4. Consultation on new developments

(0.18)5. Closeness of family and friends (0.17)6. Environmental sustainability (0.12)

The higher the co-efficient, the larger the effect the feature has on quality of life ratings for an overall community. A tightness of the predictive power for these six items is considered robust at 0.29.

Interestingly, satisfaction with issues like noise, distance to shopping, green space, recreational facilities, schools, density of population and social spaces were not found to account for differences in quality of life ratings across all respondents.

Key Contributors to Quality of Life


access to retail services. In contrast with others, they are not concerned about nature and green space, or urban sprawl.

Anti-Density Browns (17%) tend to express little enthusiasm or knowledge of policies conventionally associated with environmental sustainability like energy conservation or protection of nature. They oppose density in their communities and strongly prefer single detached homes. Members of this segment also tend to express a strong preference for living among people like themselves, as well as a strong aversion to crowds.

Overall, audience knowledge of and support for sustainability is positively associated with youth and negatively associated with age. Education tends to mitigate antagonistic attitudes toward sustainability among adults over the age of 65. Young, urban people who rent their homes are the most likely to have a favourable outlook on density.

Pro DensityAnti Density

Pro Green

Anti Green

32%17%

14% 21%

17%

Sustainability Choir

Pro-Density Greens

Anti-Density Greens

Anti-Density Browns Density-

Agnostic Browns

More than a third of British Columbians support sustainable, green practices

AUDIENCE SEGMENTS

To gain insight into the types of audiences who participated in the poll, we divided respondents into five categories based on their answers to questions about their preferred forms of development and their level of support for sustainability improvements.

The five audience segments are:Sustainability Choir (17% of respondents) members are highly knowledgeable and supportive of policies that support environmental sustainability in the built environment. They prefer to live in diverse communities and are the most likely of all residents to support high density commercial residential development within their communities, and are the least enthusiastic about development in the form of single detached homes.

Pro-Density Greens (21%) are similar to the Choir in that they are comfortable living in diverse communities, and are also supportive of both sustainability and density. They are, however, less knowledgeable about sustainability and somewhat less enthusiastic about density.

Anti-Density Greens (14%) like Pro-Density Greens are supportive of environmental sustainability in the built environment and enjoy diversity. However, unlike the Choir and Pro-Density Greens, they are strongly opposed to ‘compact’ and ‘high density’ development in their communities. They express the strongest affinity of all segments for privacy and quiet settings with fewer people.

Density-Agnostic Browns (32%) are not anti-sustainability, but better described as disinterested in the topic, prioritizing material acquisition and economic survival. Most are accepting of density in their communities and enjoy people, ‘hustle and bustle’ and plenty of


Insights and Conclusions

It’s clear that we need to have a better conversation about density that includes infill, mid- and low-rise options.

Most British Columbians indicate that they value the benefits of density over urban sprawl; for example: shorter commute times, better access to shopping and retail amenities and lower costs to municipal tax base. Moreover, they express support for low-rise commercial residential developments, as well as low and mixed-income rental housing. However, the majority appear extremely ambivalent to any mention of compact communities or density in planning conversations and many are opposed to high-rise high density development.

There is also evidence that some British Columbians have gotten mixed messages about the affordability of sustainability in the built environment and may view economic and environmental sustainability as incompatible priorities. For instance, the data suggest that many continue to see urban sprawl as offering better value-for-money than compact, smart development – even when the cost of supporting sprawl is pointed out.

British Columbians view greenspace, nature and the environment as the most precious assets of their community environment. Urban and suburban communities want more access to these assets, while small cities and rural areas want these protected from development and overuse.

British Columbians of all ages appear to share a common desire to:• Preserve greenspace as common and

valuable community assets, • Address energy and land use issues in the

face of increasing population pressures and climate change, and

• Reconcile the need for transportation infrastructure with the need to manage increasing costs.

Most participants also indicate a strong shared recognition of the importance of local citizens having a say in their built environment. And yet, local citizens are the group most likely to be viewed as not having enough of a say.

Taken together, these suggest a common point of departure to engage residents in future conversations about sustainability and the built environment.


PHOTOSCover: Family cycling on the Sea Walk, Campbell River, BC. PictureBC / FlickrPage 2: Aerial photo, New Westminster, BC.Page 4: Wind turbine in Bortheast BC. REFBC photoPage 5: Burnaby, BC. PictureBC / FlickrPage 6: Houses in Abbotsford, BC. PictureBC / FlickrPage 9: Houses in Warfield, BC. PictureBC / FlickrPage 10: Vancouver Tower. Pawel Loj / FlickrPage 16: Central Coast Regional District. PictureBC / FlickrPage 18: Aerial photo, Salmon Arm, BC. PictureBC / Flickr

660-355 Burrard St. Vancouver, BC V6C 2G8604-688-6800 // [email protected] // www.refbc.com

real estate foundation - public views on …...mcallister ublic opinion research real estate...

Documents