Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation takes an ecologically-based view of sustainability to investigate the planning process and analyse the outcomes of planning for Vancouver’s model sustainable community, Southeast False Creek (SeFC). SeFC has achieved LEED-ND Platinum rating for environmental design and received a UN Livability Award (2010). Following Rees (1995) and Lombardi, Porter, Barber and Rogers (2011), I examine how central actors in the Southeast False Creek planning process conceived of and approached urban ‘sustainability’. I identify their influence on policy making, plan implementation and sustainability outcomes. I also assess the community using scientifically determined metrics of sustainability: per capita greenhouse gas emissions levels and ecological footprints. Through in-depth interviews and detailed document analysis I found that central actors in the planning process approached urban sustainability from a perspective that resembled a ‘three pillars/status quo approach’, i.e., sustainability can be achieved through improvements to environmental performance and without significant changes to existing socio-economic systems, cultural beliefs or values. Southeast False Creek, rather than being a breakthrough response to global ecological change, was planned as an incremental improvement over existing local models of development. Southeast False Creek makes limited progress toward sustainability when sustainability is defined through scientific metrics such as ecological footprint and greenhouse gas emissions. I find that achievement of the published goals and standards for the project could yield per capita ecological footprint reductions of approximately 5% and per capita greenhouse gas emissions reductions of 8% from the Vancouver average. Scientifically determined requirements are in the range of 75 – 80% respectively (WWF, 2007; Weaver et al., 2007). Although Southeast False Creek does not model ecologically sustainable living, the City’s experience in planning this community may have yielded some bureaucratic, political, industry and public support for efforts toward that goal in future city developments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".