Table 5-2
summarises the questions which were asked to participants. Speaking to two candidates from the City of Toronto provided insights from City Council. Two academics were also interviewed to provide an alternative perspective. The key findings from the interviews are discussed below within each of the identified themes.5.3.1 Enabling Factors for Green Infrastructure
Interview participants provided a behind the scenes context for the history of the Green Roof Bylaw. This helped shed light on the enabling factors such as the pioneering role of prominent figures in Toronto as well as the other push factors, which assisted in the ultimate approval of the Bylaw. These are discussed in more detail below:
• Champion based: An interesting insight which was discovered in this round of interview disclosed a champion based pathway. Together president of GRFHC, Steve Peck, and former Deputy Mayor, Joe Pantalone, were responsible for pioneering Green Roofs in Toronto, setting the foundation for exploration.
• Externality pressure: All participants agreed externalities, stormwater management and urban heat island effect, presented a pressing need for mitigation. These confirm the identified economic push factors from the initial case study analysis. One interview participant also pointed to the significance in valuing the urban dead space which presented an economic loss due to lack of utilisation.
• Political support: Participants from government departments identified political support as an additional pathway. Coupling the Bylaw with the revised green standards for their planning process facilitated the uptake of green infrastructure.
5.3.2 Method of economic enquiry
Addressing urban related challenges was no doubt fundamental in gauging government interest. An interview participant commented that the method involved exploring the benefits and costs across the city to capture the potential extent of the impact. Though, prior to determining the citywide impact, the participant explained that identifying applicable roof top space was key. This was ground-breaking as it provided a method of assisting as estimation of the feasibility of green infrastructure. These methods set the foundation for their economic explorations, which are discussed further below:
• Exchange value theory: Quantifying the financial savings in terms of stormwater management and urban heat island effect demonstrate the significance of value in Toronto. A commissioned study by Ryerson University was essential to demonstrate the business case. In particular, an economic cost benefit analysis was conducted. However, it was never intended to be a full CBA due to inconsistencies in between the participant who bears the cost and the receiver of the benefit. Additionally, time and cost constraints prohibited the full exploration.
• Quantifying externalities: A breakthrough in their methodology was instigating conversation on the cost of urban dead space. The true cost of concrete and asphalt
often remains externalised; this falsely makes pavement and rooftop space less costly to build, repair and maintain. A compelling component of the method of economic enquiry included quantifying the impact of converting urban dead space into rooftop gardens.
5.3.3 Compelling ecosystem factors
The interview participants pointed to a few ecosystem factors which served as compelling for the business case in Toronto. The prominent two are discussed below, along with the recognising multiple benefits and highlighting risk levels:
• Regulating factors: Regulating factors such as air quality maintenance, climate regulating, water purification, waste treatment and stormwater management were identified as compelling by all participants. In particular, emphasis is placed on regulating factors which could be attributed to monetary value.
• Cultural factors: Contrary to initial findings, participants expressed the role of cultural factors such as aesthetic value, social relations, and recreation play in sustaining and garnering continuous support for the Bylaw. Although peripheral, they still play a role in community, industrial and political buy-in.
• ‘Two birds with one stone’: Recognition of the multiple benefits offered by one technology is recognised by the Council. One participant shared a quote by a consultant hired to provide recommendations on possible alternatives to green roofs. Their conclusion was “there is nothing else that delivers the same package of benefits that a green roof does.” Although not economically quantified, a qualitative appreciation of the wider benefits presents green roofs as more compelling to other alternatives. Additionally, the recent publication by the City on biodiversity guidelines presents green roofs as practical solutions to meet these guidelines. Coupling green roofs with complementary programs adds to the holistic solution approach.
• Demonstrating risk levels: Geographical Information Systems (GIS) maps along with data required to estimate heat loads were utilised to generate heat maps of the city to identify areas of most concern. ‘Employment areas’ were generally warmest; for this reason the program intentionally targeted only industrial, commercial and institutional buildings.
5.3.4 Disabling factors
Interview participants explained that two disabling factors are the limitations of the green roof design guidelines as well current market structure which can at times impede biophilic urbanism in Toronto.
• Limitations of green roof design guidelines: One participant explained that due to industry practices and construction guidelines, this has neglected to take into account context, including climate, natural ecology and urban/environmental management objectives or priorities.
Furthermore, architects and other green roof specialists are not equipped with the tools to evaluate contextual factors throughout their design process. They are also not familiar with alternatives to standard practices, nor how to correlate green roof configuration, composition or maintenance techniques with performance (water, energy, habitat, among others).
• Developer driven market: Two participants expressed a set-back in operating within a developer driven market. Operating within the conventional realm of planning occasionally makes it difficult to promote urban greening further. Contesting goals poses difficulty in setting the balance between urban greening and development. Communications and compromises across departments is key to ensure goals are equally met.