The Development Potential scores are generated by aggregating and weighting the Development Potential Factors. Certain factors will influence the final score more by virtue of their scale. The more classes in a given factor, the more it will influence the final score. eg. Average slope (0-4) will have more impact than flood risk (0-1). The basic Development Potential score has no added adjustment to any factors, and each of Development Potential (Weighted), Development Potential (Services Weighted), and Development Potential (Slope Weighted) have double weight given to Current Use, Services, and Slope respectively.
The resulting cumulative score ranges from 7 (red) to 21 (green) depending on weighting, with higher scores signifying a higher potential for development or redevelopment.
Local knowledge of existing industry and businesses in the region in combination with visual inspection of satellite images were used to assign each parcel a score from 0 to 4 with 4 having the “least” current use and therefore the “most” potential for development.
Each zone was assigned a zone priority from 1 to 3 with 3 having the highest priority for development. Priority was given to industrial > commercial > agricultural zoning. Zone Descriptions
50m Buffers were created for water, sewer, natural gas, electrical, and connectivity (internet) services to both obscure the precise locations of the services and to include parcels which may not be currently serviced, but which have services close enough to have minimal costs involved with connection. Parcels that intersect with a given service are given a “Y”.
Service Score is an aggregation of all services which results in a score of 0 to 5 with 5 having all services within 50m (with the below exception for connectivity) and 0 having no services within 50m.
The Connectivity data also employs a 50m buffer as with other services, however, extra caution should be used when basing decisions on this factor as the data uses statistical demographic data which is distributed within dissemination blocks along roadways and is only accurate to within 250m. In addition, all speeds were aggregated as the data uses an average per block and dose not specify speeds available at any specific address. Greater confidence can be applied to more densely populated areas.
Average slope is calculated using a digital terrain model with an accuracy of 1m and a zonal statistics tool. The result is an average slope over the whole parcel and should be treated as such. (eg. a mostly flat parcel with one small but very steep section may result in the same average slope as a parcel that is moderately sloped over its entirety.)
Using the average slope, an average slope score of 0 to 3 is assigned to each parcel with 3 being the lowest average slope, and therefore most ideal for development.
A score of 1 has been added to parcels that are greater than 0.3 acres as parcels larger than this threshold are better suited to most industrial applications.
A score of 1 has been added to sites that do not fall within the 200 year flood plain as determined by the Provincial floodplain maps generated between 1987 and 1998. This score should be used as a general indicator as to whether a site may be at risk of flooding and should be used to indicate if further investigation is required.
A score of 1 has been added for sites that have information relating to the screening, investigation, and cleanup of a given parcel. This score of 1 does not necessarily indicate that remediation has occurred at a given site, but only that information regarding its contamination and current status has been gathered and is available for further investigation.
A score of 1 has been added to parcels that do not intersect with Microsoft's computer generated building footprints which are derived from Bing satellite images of varying vintages. A score of 1 indicates no building, and a score of 0 indicates some building footprint present.
Data was assembled between January 01 and April 30 2022 using the most current data available at this time. Some data sets such as flood risk are from between 1987-1998 and he Microsoft building footprint are from a variety of different years.Details about each dataset can be found in the Development Potential Factors section, or in the Data Sources below.
The integrated Cadastral Parcel Fabric was filtered to the LCIC Area of Interest.
Because of inconsistencies between the different municipal and regional parcel fabrics, the local parcel fabrics were reconciled with the provincial parcel fabric using centroids and then using a spatial join to locate local zoning. This resulted in one unified parcel fabric for the area of interest with each parcel having it's corresponding local zoning. Duplicates created in the process were removed at this point along with parcels designated as Rail/Trail corridors, rivers, road zones, drinking water resource, lakes and waterways. It should be noted that this method of reconciling the 2 parcel fabrics and zoning may have resulted in some errors although none were found in the parcels that were checked manually.
Next the parcels were filtered according to zone priority for potential industrial development which included all industrial, commercial, agricultural, and forest resource zones. These zones were chosen to provide the broadest scope of properties to meet a wide variety of potential business development.
Scores were calculated and added as attributes to the parcel fabric for each of the above Development Potential Factors and the different Development Potential Scores were created based on those attributes and visualized using a red through green colour ramp to indicate which parcels have the most potential for development (green).
Microsoft Canadian Building Footprints
Data Sources have been removed due to restricted access. If you would like access to the full map please reach out to the Lower Columbia Initiatives Corporation.
Data collected April 2022.