Cities, Climate, Inequalities

Sustainable housing and electric mobility programs in Quebec: Toward a trajectory of urban sprawl and growing socioeconomic inequalities

November 2022

By Guillaume Lessard, researcher, University of Waterloo

Introduction

North American states and provinces face significant challenges and complex issues when it comes to channeling urban development toward a more sustainable trajectory. More specifically, the decades-long accumulation of numerous structural and cultural lock-in effects have made it difficult to stop the momentum of urban sprawl (Birch, 2016; Bueno-Suárez and Coq-Huelva, 2020; Filion, 2010, 2018; Grant et al., 2019). We need only think of the many public policies and programs that are adopted in the name of sustainability yet that, having been designed according to the modalities of the system that created urban sprawl, nevertheless perpetuate that very system. This article synthesizes a thesis, published articles (Lessard, 2020, 2021) and a paper (Lessard and Filion, 2022) to examine the case of sustainable housing and electric mobility programs in Quebec. It is important to interrogate public interventions in these sectors, as the way we inhabit the territory and the options available to us for transportation have a decisive impact on our society’s environmental footprint. I argue that, under the guise of sustainability, current interventions in these two sectors frequently lead to the reinforcement of structural and cultural lock-ins specific to urban sprawl as well as the exacerbation of pre-existing inequalities related to housing and mobility. To illustrate this position, I have developed a critical analysis framework and conducted a case study of the public programs and policies for housing and sustainable mobility available to citizen households and the private sector in Quebec.

Figure 1. Four systems that favour the perpetuation of urban sprawl and social inequalities

Guillaume Lessard, 2022

For the purposes of this research, I situate sustainable housing and electric mobility interventions on this spectrum, with a focus on their role in reproducing or transforming the environmentally damaging developmental trajectory of urban sprawl (Dupras and Alam, 2015; Jones and Kammen, 2014) as well as in relation to social equity (Henderson, 2020; Lima, 2021; Rice et al., 2020).

I established the main types of these interventions through a critical review of the scientific literature. In housing, the social construction of sustainability is a well-studied topic in a number of European countries (Conte and Monno, 2012; Jensen, 2012; Lemprière, 2016; Lovell, 2004; Reid and Houston, 2013). However, since energy consumption generally leads to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the lack of sustainable housing is often seen as an issue of technology and energy efficiency. This has engendered a building-centric, technical approach that advocates higher construction and energy efficiency standards alongside the integration of green technologies into buildings (Gou and Xie, 2017; Horne and Hayles, 2008). However, this approach does not achieve greater sustainability from a social or urban perspective (Baba et al., 2012; Moore and Engstrom, 2004; Reid and Houston, 2013; Winston and Pareja-Eastaway, 2008). As an alternative, researchers are proposing a more holistic definition that emphasizes equitable access to housing, social mix and the structuring role of urban form, as well as households’ mobility practices (Berardi, 2013; Conte and Monno, 2012, 2016; Rice et al., 2020; Winston, 2010).

As far as electric mobility is concerned, several countries offer subsidies for the acquisition of electric vehicles (EV) (Azarafshar and Vermeulen, 2020; Breetz and Salon, 2018; Irvine, 2017). Although these help reduce direct GHG emissions from automobility, this incentive-based approach raises two main criticisms. First, these subsidies leave out a large part of the population who cannot afford, or do not need or want to acquire an automobile (Abotalebi et al., 2019; Dimatulac and Maoh, 2017; Henderson, 2020). Second, in terms of development, EVs take up as much space in the city (road and parking) as an internal combustion engine vehicle (ICEV), they contribute to the lock-in effect toward highway infrastructure and tend to be adopted by suburban households who already have one or more ICEV automobiles (Kester et al., 2020; Newman et al., 2014; Orsi, 2021). As an alternative, research suggests that electric mobility programs that support equitable access and multimodal mobility services (services combining several modes of transport) would have more positive impacts from a social and urban perspective (Naess and Vogel, 2012; Smith and Hensher, 2020).

Table 1.
Sustainable housing and electric mobility programs studied

Guillaume Lessard, 2022

Programs that perpetuate dispersed urbanization and automobility

My analysis of sustainable housing measures showed that federal and provincial programs largely focus on energy efficiency and the integration of green technologies into buildings, which constitutes an approach referred to as ecological modernization. The only program adopting a more holistic vision is that launched by the municipality of Victoriaville. However, the programs studied do not link sustainable housing with urban planning and land use. Similarly, social justice considerations are absent or insufficient to have a structuring impact. For example, the measures offered to tenants by the Éconologis program, such as weather stripping on doors and installation of electronic thermostats, are negligible compared to what is offered to landlords, and the additional subsidies offered to social housing in the Novoclimat program are insufficient considering the systemic lack of investment in social housing in Canada since the late 1970s (Walks and Clifford, 2015).

In terms of electric mobility, with the exception of the City of Laval program, which for a limited period of time offered a $750 subsidy for the acquisition of an electric bicycle, the programs analyzed aim for ecological modernization through the electrification of automobility. Moreover, they do not include any element of social justice, apart from the exclusion from subsidies for vehicles whose manufacturer’s suggested retail price exceeds a certain threshold (between $55,000 and $70,000, depending on the program and vehicle type).
While the programs intervening in these two sectors—sustainable housing and electric mobility—do reduce energy consumption in a portion of the residential sector and cut direct GHG emissions from automobility, they lack a sustainable land-use planning strategy (Conte and Monno, 2012; Orsi, 2021). Indeed, from an urban social-ecological transition and social justice perspective, this ecological modernization approach raises two major criticisms. First, these programs have a consumerist approach focused on supporting the purchase of certain products and technologies deemed sustainable. As a result, a large proportion of the population is excluded, since eligibility for subsidies depends on households’ ability to access capital. In housing, since tenants rather than property owners bear the costs of heating and cooling, only owner-occupied households have an economic incentive to invest in energy efficiency measures (Lang et al., 2021). Considering the lack of access to home ownership for a large proportion of households and the scale of the rental housing crisis in Canada, this is a major shortcoming (Walks and Soederberg, 2021).

Moreover, these programs are shaped by decades of neoliberal transformation. Since the late 1970s, the various levels of government have gradually abandoned mechanisms for regulating the housing sector, as well as their historical role in social housing, in favour of an approach based on supporting access to individual ownership and mortgage loan guarantees (Bélanger and Roudil, 2021; Forrest, 2011; Hoekstra et al., 2020; Walks and Clifford, 2015). By offering additional subsidies to owner-occupied households and neglecting renter households and social housing, these programs contribute directly to the neoliberal agenda. Similarly, by offering amounts of up to $12,000 for a new EV and $4,000 for a used EV, electric mobility programs primarily subsidize the mobility of an already privileged segment of the population, and thus contribute to the exacerbation of inequalities in access to mobility (Henderson, 2020; Orsi, 2021). Moreover, according to studies on EV adoption, households that have more than two ICEV cars and live in single-family suburban homes with private parking are the most likely to acquire an EV (Kumar and Alok, 2020; Orsi, 2021). Together, these programs implicitly support a very specific socio-demographic segment: relatively well-off households with private property, private parking and several cars. By excluding disadvantaged households and giving more support to those who are already well off, these programs exacerbate pre-existing inequalities in housing and mobility.

Second, these programs essentially support a technology (EV) and a technocentric approach (energy efficiency and the integration of green technologies into the built environment). From a structural point of view, while this approach may reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions, it in no way weakens the multi-system, socio-spatial arrangement of urban sprawl. In fact, these programs are structured to be perfectly compatible with a dispersed urban typology and a lifestyle built around access to isolated single-family private property and motorization. In this, they are in line with decades of direct and indirect public support for the suburban lifestyle (Forrest, 2011; Forrest and Hirayama, 2015; Henderson, 2020; Laviolette et al., 2020; Manville et al., 2019). Despite the short-term energy and environmental benefits of this ecological modernization approach, in the long term these programs reinforce the structural, cultural and institutional locks that are specific to urban sprawl (Filion, 2010, 2015, 2018). In so doing, they reproduce a pattern of urbanization that is inefficient, polluting, energy-consuming and damaging to ecosystems (Dupras and Alam, 2015; Jones and Kammen, 2014). By propagating a discourse that suburban living can be sustainable if the right technologies are adopted by individuals residing there, these programs divert the debate from structural issues. From both a structural and discursive point of view, these programs therefore present a risk to the urban socio-ecological transition. These results are represented visually in Figure 2.

With regard to housing, we consider that sustainability cannot be achieved without placing the right to housing at the heart of the approach, namely by controlling real estate speculation and abusive rent increases (Lima, 2021; Rice et al., 2020). In line with this principle, our main recommendation would be to mandate and support the upgrading of public and private rental stock through various mechanisms (Heffernan et al., 2020; Lang et al., 2021). It would also be desirable to broaden the mandate of sustainable housing programs and to align them more pointedly with sustainable urban planning principles; for example, by adopting comprehensive regulations to constrain the densification of urbanized areas and infill development (i.e., inserting buildings into underutilized spaces such as parking lots and backyards) (McConnell and Wiley, 2011). When it comes to electric motoring programs, subsidies should obviously not be a substitute for the provision of public and active transport (Henderson, 2020; Lanzini and Stocchetti, 2021; Naess and Vogel, 2012). For example, without abandoning EV support entirely (Kanger et al., 2019), subsidies could be abolished above a certain household income threshold. The provincial program should set a limit on the frequency of subsidy use per individual, and the federal program should set a stricter limit (which is currently at one subsidy per year per person). Public intervention should also support other forms of electric mobility that have the potential to take motorists off the roads for their daily commutes. For example, the federal and provincial governments could follow Laval’s lead by supporting the purchase of electric bicycles and cargo bikes. Electrification programs could also support the development of supply and uptake of multi-modal mobility services (cycling, electric bikes, public transit, electric cabs and EV rentals), an approach that is potentially more equitable, more economical and more beneficial from an urban perspective (Smith and Hensher, 2020).

To cite this article

Lessard, G. (2022).
Sustainable housing and electric mobility programs in Quebec: Toward a trajectory of urban sprawl and growing socioeconomic inequalities. In Cities, Climate and Inequalities Collection. VRM – Villes Régions Monde. https://www.vrm.ca/sustainable-housing-and-electric-mobility-programs-in-quebec-toward-a-trajectory-of-urban-sprawl-and-growing-socioeconomic-inequalities/