A Comparative Policy Analysis of Public Toilet Provision Initiatives in North American Cities: Recommendations for the Creation of a Public Toilet Strategy in Toronto
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the provision of public toilets in seven North American cities (Toronto, ON; Calgary, AB; Portland, OR; Seattle, WA; Vancouver, BC; Edmonton, AB; and Denver, CO) in order to understand the factors that support or hinder public toilet provision and to develop recommendations for the creation of a public toilet strategy in Toronto. Public toilets are essential components in creating sustainable, accessible, and inclusive cities (Greed, 2006). Yet, research indicates that cities throughout North America suffer from not only a lack of public toilets, but also the closure of public toilets due to operating costs, vandalism, and misuse. The development of a public toilet strategy that incorporates feedback from collaborative planning exercises is critical to the establishment of an effective and sustainable public toilet program. Data for this study was gathered through a literature and policy review, site visits and field observation, as well as ten face-to-face or telephone interviews with: current and former city representatives in Toronto, Calgary, Seattle, Vancouver, Edmonton, and Denver; a community activist in Portland, Oregon; and the owner of a facilities management company in Atlanta. Research revealed that, in general, cities provide public toilets to appease business owners weary of requests by non-patrons for use of their restroom facilities and to curb public excretion, which is seen as a quality of life issue for residents and business owners. Because the financial cost of providing public toilets is high, and plans to install public toilets often elicit concern from the community and from local businesses that the public toilets will act as a magnet for undesirable activity in the neighbourhood, public toilet provision can be a politically risky maneuver. In view of the potential for public criticism of elected officials who invest in public toilets, the need for advocacy—both from citizens and city officials—is indispensable. Findings from this research indicate that establishing a suitable location for a public toilet is the primary challenge of public toilet provision. One of the greatest sources of tension regarding public toilet provision is the conflict between the aspiration to provide public toilets for a range of users and the reality that public toilets often are used by particular groups of people, for example, people with substance abuse issues and people who use the toilets for sexual activity, in such a way that renders the public toilets seemingly unusable by many. Yet, how do you best serve the restroom needs of all people—those for whom entry to the city means having access to adequate and well-designed public toilets, and those who can manage with a neighbourhood Starbucks? This study confirmed that a public toilet strategy that evolves out of the collaborative planning process is an important way to address the enduring conflicts that have haunted public toilets since their appearance in the city over a century ago. However, because there are a number of challenges to public toilet provision, it is crucial that city representatives are prepared to re-evaluate and modify the strategy over time. Consequently, evaluation criteria, which support the formation of short- and long-term public toilet objectives, must be a central component of a public toilet strategy. The recommendations of this study are that Toronto develops a public toilet strategy; collaborates with other cities that have drafted a public toilet strategy; assumes responsibility for the funding of public toilets; and examines alternative avenues of public toilet provision, such as Community Toilet Schemes and social enterprise.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".