January 18, 2015 at 1:34 pm #1009
Of the four different formats a CEEP can take (Just Do It, Practical Tactic, Targeted Dives, Deep and Wide), which approach do you think would work best in the community in which you live or work?
February 11, 2015 at 2:32 pm #1057
A ‘targeted dives’ approach would be most appropriate for the City of Victoria. While the City is only moderate in size (approx 83,000 people), it is growing and has committed itself to acting on climate change.
Importantly, a targeted dives approach would be most appropriate for Victoria because it would enable the City to think about its sectoral targets and how to achieve them. Given that the City has an engaged and concerned citizenry, it would be prudent to develop an action plan that is SMART (smart, measurable, attainable, relevant, time-bound), communicate the expected savings from actions quantified, and a clear list of the actions in each category (or sub-sector). Following these steps, through a targeted dives approach, could be the necessary recipe for success.
Last, in addition to setting sector or sub-sector GHG targets, Victoria would need to consider tracking and monitoring the results of its actions. We know from the research on CEEPs that there is a very strong relationship between the performance of a community’s CEEP and the degree to which it tracks and monitors the results of its actions. A targeted dives approach also has a budget for GIS analysis which would act as another method to present and engage the community on targets, scenarios, actions, and results.
March 12, 2015 at 4:18 pm #1121
This is a good discussion, thanks all. Yes I agree that visual approaches are very helpful in getting the message across. A great example is the work done by CALP in visualising the impacts of climate change in places like Delta (sea level rise) and the elsewhere for wildfire.
We used simple maps of Colwood showing where homeowners had installed solar hot water – a just do it tactic – and it helped council and residents to feel like something was actually happening.
I think it’s helpful to think about the four categories, but in reality a plan may contain a blend.
March 13, 2015 at 1:36 pm #1130
I think Judith makes a good point – it’s helpful to think about the four categories of plans as a starting point, but it’s important to be flexible in developing the plan.
February 13, 2015 at 2:43 pm #1058
It’s hard to say. A modified “Practical Tactics” approach would likely work best for Yukon communities given the size of our populations (~250 to 2000 year round residents). However, stakeholder participation is typically a requirement, and administrative interests will vary widely. Most of our communities will also want some GIS analysis.
February 25, 2015 at 12:22 pm #1070
This comment is directed to all students. I am curious to hear your thoughts and experiences.
Upon further reflection of the CEEP approaches (Just Do It, Practical Tactic, Targeted Dives, Deep and Wide) I am troubled by the somewhat divided nature of them. Why, for example, can’t a ‘Just Do It’ approach use GIS analysis? I understand that GIS analysis can be expensive and thus more intensive approaches are needed. However, I don’t think this needs to be the case.
We’re living in a time where visual communication has become omnipresent. Planners frequently use visual communication (e.g., maps, diagrams, models etc.) to communicate their ideas to the general public, City Council, and other stakeholders who might be trying to understand the merits of one policy option over another. In short, visuals have become central to everything that we do in planning, and I would argue, sustainability work. Therefore, I don’t think that the CEEP approaches of ‘Just Do It’ and ‘Practical Tactic’ need to rule out GIS analysis, for example. I believe there are creative and cost-effective ways to use GIS to communicate an idea. Thus, I would challenge us to think more creatively when either creating a CEEP or revisiting one, in how, with limited municipal dollars, we can use the power of visuals (like GIS) to produce a high quality CEEP.
- This reply was modified 8 years, 7 months ago by Jen Grebeldinger.
February 26, 2015 at 4:21 pm #1075
I agree with you – it is further augmented or confusing when looking at our own home town CEEP. Definitely took the “Targeted Dives” Approach but were light on the spatial or visual analysis. i think the city could have taken a stronger stance by using more of the “Practical Tactics” approach with more short term goals in ways that are quantifiable and easier to measure.
Victoria could have used all of the tools in the approach tool kit to create a better more usable CEEP – I certainly think this citizenry would have supported it.
March 2, 2015 at 12:14 pm #1083
Timothy – GIS is a powerful tool that can be utilized effectively within a CEP context. I suspect the issue underlying where it would fit into the spectrum of “Just Do It” to “Deep and Wide” is how fundamental it is to ensuring progress on action items. For example, given the low development pressures in our communities, the majority of municipal administrations that I recently spoke to about this suggested it was interesting but not necessarily useful. However, if a different lens is used (such as moving the question from energy efficiency to energy generation) GIS becomes far more integral to decision-making.
March 10, 2015 at 9:28 am #1108
I’m glad that you raised this as I wouldn’t have thought of it otherwise. I’m a big fan visual information. I’m sure it would make a bad plan any better, but it could generate interest.
February 26, 2015 at 4:15 pm #1074
In Victoria the CEEP is written with the approach of “Targeted Dives” but does not utilize as much spatial analysis (GIS) as I was expecting. Given the size of community and education and drive of citizenry, I would have expected more concise short term implementation plan given the initital target point only being 8 years out (at the time).
March 9, 2015 at 5:32 pm #1102
Our Climate Action Plan (another CEEP) took a deep dive and uncovered some useful information. It included the carbon footprint of food imports, (a whopping 40%), and the footprint of the ferry. I think this was an important approach since our community is an island and we can isolate these variables. If we don’t learn what comes on to the island, and what is consumed here, how can we live responsibly? We discovered that the footprint of the ferries is 15% our our emissions; however, more islanders are concerned about service cuts and affordability than carbon footprint. Also, the problem with a deep dive is that it can become harder to focus and target one area for action. I think we are ready for some more of the “just do it” approach.
March 12, 2015 at 4:13 pm #1120
FOr Colwood, a combination of just do it and practical tactics seems the most appropriate approach. As a small community we don’t have the dollars or staff resources to spend a lot of time studying the issue. Getting on with it and reporting out results to council gives them a better sense of achievement. The downside of course is lack of a more overall strategic approach and detailed measurement (we do a good job of corporate but are pretty reliant on CEEI for community data and that is not updated sufficiently frequently to serve as a good feedback mechanism.
March 12, 2015 at 4:29 pm #1122
For the sake of creating a CEEP, the “Practical Tactics” approach would likely work best for Ft. Simpson and many of the smaller NWT communities to refine the Community Energy Plans that were created at least 5 years ago as part of the Integrated Community Sustainability Planning process. This approach could also be suitable since Community Energy Profiles were also created for each of the 33 NWT communities by the Arctic Energy Alliance in 2007-08 (e.g. the profile for Ft. Simpson: http://aea.nt.ca/files/download/213).
Yet, given that the data for the Community Energy Profiles is almost a decade old, there is a need to update these profiles in tandem with refining/updating the CEPs. Depending on the AEA’s success in securing funding to facilitate this process to update CEPs with NWT communities, the more likely approach for the smaller NWT communities is more readily going to continue to be to “Just DO IT!”
Many of the NWT communities have been doing exactly that, with or without any direct or conscious connection to the existing CEP for each community … with the help of AEA in many instances and independently pursued in other cases. There have been numerous Solar PV, Solar Thermal, Biomass, Waste Heat Recovery, Woodstove Replacement, “Burn-it-Smart,” and LED lighting retrofit installations being undertaken throughout the NWT by communities, businesses, utility providers (e.g. NT Power Corp. 100 kW Solar PV installation), and territorial government departments. In addition, there is significant interest by a number of communities to explore and create district heating systems.
Given the strong, frontier mentality of many northern folks in various business or leadership positions, the “Just Do It” approach may continue to push on more readily in the NWT than the more painstakingly done process of refining/developing existing plans or creating completely new plans, that requires dedicated time, energy, and funds that are often in short supply for such activities amid the many other challenges/details that community leaders are trying to address.
March 12, 2015 at 4:45 pm #1123
WOW, Kjell, that the carbon footprint of the ferries that operate for Vancouver Island is 15% is a very important discovery, yet, of course troubling to see/hear that the concerns re. the ferries is focused more on the affordability and service side of the operation.
We have a similar but different challenge Up North, with all the transport truck emissions that are not usually accounted for when different goods (& services) are purchased. Something that is often overlooked, even if truck emissions are considered is the associated wear & tear on the NWT road system that requires a dedicated effort of heavy machinery to maintain the roads to keep them operational as well as to repair them because of the impacts of the larger truck traffic on the extensive gravel (which is actually much better than I would have thought coming from central Alberta!) and paved (but impacted in various locations by permafrost upheaval) road systems.
In addition to the transport trucks, we also have a system of freshwater ferries that enable residents to access a number of communities including Ft. Simpson where I live. So, to account for the total carbon footprint of living in a relatively accessible community such as Ft. Simpson still involved ~1,400 km’s travel from Edmonton + 10 minute ferry ride across the Liard River + the diesel generated electricity to power anything & everything that is not operating off of a renewable energy source!
Given the many intricate details that are important to account for, for even 1 NWT community’s carbon emissions, it would be fantastic to undertake a more involved CEEP approach combined with a top-notch planning/public engagement process (incl. communications plan) so that more residents and business owners could fully appreciate the impact of living with the comforts we have in the remote locations we are calling home.
March 13, 2015 at 1:32 pm #1129
I think a deep and wide approach would be appropriate for the City of Ottawa. The population of the city is just under 900,000, and so the Just do it and Practical tactics approaches would not be appropriate for a city-wide plan. Ottawa continues to grow and analysis that supports urban form decisions would be really useful.
The plan that has already been developed for the National Capital Region (which includes the cities of Ottawa and Gatineau, QC) looks more like a targeted dives plan.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.