Navigating sustainability, affordability, and livability in Vancouver's Broadway Plan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within urban environments, land use emerges as a vital component in climate mitigation strategies. As cities seek solutions to reduce GHG emissions, transit-oriented development (TOD) is increasingly recognized as a promising approach, given that transportation is a major emitter in urban areas. However, densification and TOD are subjects of intense debate and controversy. This research sheds light on urban residents’ perceptions of transit-oriented development, focusing on the Broadway Plan, a transit-oriented initiative recently approved by the City of Vancouver, as a case study. Through non-participant observation of public hearings and semi-structured interviews, common patterns in the perceptions of residents, community groups, and experts towards transit-oriented development were identified. The NIMBY (Not In My Backyard), YIMBY (Yes In My Backyard), and PHIMBY (Public Housing In My Backyard) archetypes were employed to better grasp such complexity, allowing for the identification of trends and tendencies in resident’s arguments. The study reveals that people’s lived experiences significantly shape their attitudes toward development, influencing their vision of an ideal city and the policy direction they believe local governments should take. Moreover, the research highlights the exclusive nature of public hearings as an engagement process, suggesting the need for reshaping such methods to foster more inclusive participation. The findings underscore the disparity in access to local institutions faced by marginalized populations, limiting their influence on shaping their cities. Recognizing the importance of equity, this research advocates adopting an equity lens in engagement and transit-oriented development to achieve both climate and housing goals, while ensuring that no current or future resident is left behind.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".