VfvsLogo
  • Acknowledge1
  • Glossary1
  • Our Sense Of Place
  • Research Methodology
  • Key area
  • Data By Population
Environment

GRANT STORY - GREENING SACRED SPACES

The Multifaith Action Society believes healing the planet is one of the greatest spiritual challenges of our time. However, it is not easy to know how to go green. Their Greening Sacred Spaces Program received a $15,000 grant from Vancouver Foundation to create a toolkit on how to “green” religious buildings and the surrounding land, as well as individual homes. From lighting, to what people plant in the garden, to solar panels, they provide the knowhow that helps everyone go green. Working across all denominations, Greening Sacred Spaces forges the connection between spirituality and the earth, aiming to make the kind of changes that help reduce greenhouse gases and the environmental footprint of their congregations. Because ultimately everywhere on earth is a sacred space.

 

DATA

 

Contaminants in our air

Air contaminants, such as ground-level ozone and air particulates, negatively affect our immediate and long-term health. In 2006, ground-level ozone in metro Vancouver exceeded the daily maximum threshold on three days, while the average from 2001 to 2006 was one day per year. Air particulate concentrations exceeded maximum threshold levels on one day in 2006, consistent with the annual average from 2001 to 2006. Source

 

More recycling but more waste

The good news is our region now recycles more waste than we send to the landfill. However, we are still generating more total waste. We can’t blame it only on population growth. The fact is we are generating more waste per capita. In 2006, we generated 1.5 tonnes of waste per person, an amount that has been on the rise since 2000. Source

 

Vehicles and buildings major contributors to greenhouse gases

Greenhouse gas emissions contribute to climate change and affect our air quality. In 2005, metro Vancouver emitted 15.6 million tonnes of greenhouse gases. Motor vehicles emitted the largest proportion (36%), while buildings contributed 30%. Emissions from cement plants accounted for 13%, and aircraft, marine, rail, and non-road equipment made up 10%. Source

 

Individual steps for the environment

Each of us can take individual steps that collectively have a positive environmental impact. For example, 37% of households in metro Vancouver said they had a programmable thermostat and 72% of them used it to lower the temperature overnight, according to a Statistics Canada 2006 survey. In the same survey, 60% of metro Vancouver households said they used compact fluorescent light bulbs (the national rate was 56%).

The survey also found 23% of households in the region (not counting apartment dwellers) composted in 2006, while the rates in Toronto, Victoria and Saint John were 33%, 40%, and 62%, respectively. Source

 

Tap water preferred

There is currently a debate about the use of bottled versus tap water. While some people are concerned about the quality of water that comes from the tap, others worry about the quality of bottled water and contaminants from plastic containers. Bottled drinking

water also increases waste (from the bottles) and greenhouse gas emissions (from transporting it). In 2006, 67% of households surveyed in metro Vancouver used the tap as their primary source of drinking water and another 10% used both tap and bottled water. Bottled water was the main source of drinking water for 23% of households. Source

 

 

 

KEY INDICATORS

 

Indicators appearing in report

 

  1. Contaminants in our air(being reported nationally)
  2. More Recycling and more Waste
  3. Vehicles and building major contributors to greenhouse gases
  4. Individual steps for the environment (being reported nationally)
  5. Tap water preferred

 

Additional indicators

 

  1. Compact Growth
  2. Farmers' Markets
  3. Farming Characteristics
  4. Garbage and Litter in Neighbourhoods
  5. Number of Community Gardens
  6. Wet Days

 

 

 

1. Contaminants in our air

Data

In 2006, there were three days where ground level ozone hit the maximum thresholds.

Date

2001-2006

Geography

Metro Vancouver

Description

The quality of our air has impacts for our immediate and long-term health. The quality of our air can be measured by looking at the number of days where we reached our maximum ground-level ozone and air particulate thresholds. Ground-level ozone and air particulates are contributors to smog, which make the air unhealthy for us to breathe.

In 2006, metro Vancouver had the highest number of days in the past five years where the ground-level ozone exceeded the daily maximum. In 2006, there were 3 days during that year where ground-level ozone levels exceeded the daily maximum in the region. The 2001-2006 period average was one day per year.

In 2006, the region had one day where the air particulate concentrations exceeded threshold levels. The 2001-2006 period average was one day per year.

Air Quality in Metro Vancouver and Other Select CMAs, 2006

 

Days With Daily Maximum 8h Ozone > 65 ppb

TEOM Number of Days with PM25 Concentrations > 30 (ug/m3)

 
 

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Ave

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Ave

                             

Saint John

9

1

1

0

2

0

2

4

2

2

1

0

0

2

Fredericton

0

1

2

0

0

3

1

0

3

1

0

0

0

1

Montreal

25

14

14

3

17

4

13

10

12

15

7

17

4

11

Ottawa

20

8

9

0

12

6

9

3

4

4

3

10

1

4

Toronto

28

29

21

8

27

15

21

10

13

12

12

18

6

12

Kitchener

26

30

17

8

27

11

20

6

-

5

11

13

2

7

London

23

36

19

5

22

11

19

5

-

9

12

13

3

8

Oakville

17

28

22

9

27

17

20

-

-

6

10

10

3

7

Saskatoon

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

-

-

-

1

0

1

0

Calgary

0

5

3

1

0

0

2

0

1

12

0

1

0

2

Medicine Hat

0

5

1

1

0

0

1

-

-

-

0

0

0

0

Red Deer

0

5

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

2

0

0

1

1

Metro Vancouver

1

0

1

2

1

3

1

0

1

0

0

2

1

1

Victoria

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

CMA Comparison

Over the 2001-2006 period, metro Vancouver ranked second best of the 15 Vital Signs Communities for both air quality indicators. The average between 2001 and 2006 for days with daily maximum 8h Ozone >65 in Toronto was 21 days and 2 days in Calgary. The 2001 to 2006 average for days with PM25 concentrations > 30 (ug/m3) was 12 days in Toronto and 2 days in Calgary.

Data Considerations

Ground-level ozone is a reactive, unstable form of oxygen. In very high concentrations, it is a bluish gas. It has a characteristic sharp smell which may be recognized around electrical equipment such as motors or arc welders. In the concentrations found in outdoor air, ground-level ozone is both colourless and odourless. Ground-level ozone is formed in the air from other pollutants, most notably nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons. Slow-moving air and strong sunshine greatly speed up the formation of ozone. Vehicle exhaust is a large contributor of ground-level ozone as well as industrial emissions. Ground-level ozone irritates the lungs and can make breathing difficult. Exposure to high concentrations can results in chest tightness, coughing and wheezing. Ground-level ozone can also damage agricultural crops such as potatoes and tomatoes as well as affect trees and other vegetation. Ozone also weakens rubber and attacks metals and painted surfaces. Canada-Wide Environmental Standards (CWSs) have been developed for ground-level ozone. The standard to be achieved by 2010 is 65 ppb. This is based on the 4th highest measurement annually (8-hour means), averaged over 3 consecutive years.

Particulates are particles in the air either from a natural origin or as a result of human activity. PM-2.5 is particulate matter with an effective diameter of 2.5 microns or less which bypass filtration in the nose and may be deposited in the lungs. This is referred to as "respirable" particulate. Common natural sources of particulates include wind-blown soil dust, forest fires, sea salt, volcanoes, and plants, as well as, human activity such as fuel combustion and any other burning, travel on dirt roads, construction work, and mining and quarrying. In analyzing particulates, PM-2.5 is of special significance in terms of health impacts since it has a higher chance of entering and remaining in the lungs if inhaled. People with existing breathing complaints such as asthma, bronchitis, or emphysema are likely to be adversely affected by high concentrations of particulates. Particulates can also cause corrosion and soiling of metalwork or other materials, damage vegetation, and reduce visibility. Canada-Wide Environmental Standards (CWSs) have been developed for PM-2.5. The standard to be achieved by 2010 is 30 mg/m3. This is based on the 98th percentile measurement annually (24-hour means), averaged over 3 consecutive years.

Source

Environment Canada

Link

Special request

^ to top

2. More recycling and more waste

Data

In 2006, metro Vancouver residents generated 1.5 tonnes of waste per capita.

Date

2006

Geography

Metro Vancouver

Description

Although recycling is on the rise, we need to be increasing our efforts to reduce waste as the population and economic activity increase in the region.

The following figure shows that the region is generating waste at a faster rate than our population growth. Fortunately, the amount of waste recycled is now exceeding the amount of waste that is disposed of in the region. However, despite the fact that we are recycling more, we are still disposing of more waste. This is because the amount of waste generated is increasing.

Trends in Waste Management in Metro Vancouver, 1994-2006

In 2006, the region was generating 1.5 tonnes of waste per capita. As can be seen in the figure below, the waste per capita has been increasing since 2000.

Waste Generation Rate (tonnes per capita) in Metro Vancouver, 1994-2006

Of the waste generated in the region, 52% was recycled in 2006. Of the waste that was disposed, the largest proportion was wood (22%). Paper and paperboard and food represented the second and third largest proportions of waste that was disposed (14% and 13% respectively).

Composition of Waste Disposed in Metro Vancouver, 2006

CMA Comparison

n/a

Data Considerations

n/a

Source

Metro Vancouver

Link

http://www.metrovancouver.org/about/publications/Publications/StrategyUpdatingSWMP.pdf

^ to top

3. Vehicles and buildings major contributors to greenhouse gases

Data

Metro Vancouver emitted 15.6 million tones of greenhouse gases in 2005.

Date

2005

Geography

Metro Vancouver

Description

Greenhouse gas emissions contribute to climate change and affect the quality of our air. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions has become an important element in mitigating the effects of climate change.

In order to monitor how the region is doing in terms of achieving its greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets, Metro Vancouver updated its inventory of greenhouse gas emissions in December of 2007.

The inventory showed that 15.6 million tones of greenhouse gases were emitted in the region in 2005. Motor vehicles were responsible for the largest proportion (36%) of the greenhouse gas emissions. Buildings were responsible for another 30%. Emissions from cement plants accounted for 13% of the region's total emissions and aircraft, marine, rail, and non-road equipment accounted for 10%.

Forecasts of Greenhouse Gas Emission in Metro Vancouver

CMA Comparison

n/a

Data Considerations

n/a

Source

Metro Vancouver

Link

http://www.metrovancouver.org/boards/GVRD%20Board/GVRD_Board-February_29_2008-Agenda.pdf

^ to top

4. Individual steps for the environment

Data

In 2006, 72% of households in metro Vancouver with programmable thermostats programmed their thermostats to a lower temperature while their households were asleep. Almost two thirds of households in metro Vancouver said they have compact fluorescent light bulbs and 23% said they composted kitchen and/or yard waste.

Date

2006

Geography

Metro Vancouver

Description

There are simple ways that households can reduce our community's environmental impact. For example, households can lower the temperature in their homes while they sleep and use energy efficient light bulbs to reduce their energy consumption, thereby reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. Composting kitchen and yard waste is also an important action that residents can take to reduce the amount of waste produced and transported in the region.

In 2006, 37% of households that responded to Statistics Canada Households and Environment Survey in metro Vancouver said that they had a programmable thermostat. Of those households with programmable thermostats, 72% said they lowered the temperature at night while the household is sleeping. This proportion is slightly above the national proportion of 68%, and about the same as the provincial proportion of 73%.

Almost two thirds (60%) of households responding to Statistics Canada Households and Environment Survey in metro Vancouver said they had compact fluorescent light bulbs in their homes. This is above the national proportion of 56% and just below the provincial proportion of 63%.

Dwelling Temperature Changes in Households with Programmable and Programmed Thermostats and Households Using Energy-Saving Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs in Canada, BC, Metro Vancouver and Select CMAs, 2006

 

Programmable thermostat (%)1

Lowered temperature when household was asleep (%)2

Any compact fluorescent light bulbs (%)

Canada

40

68

56

Saint John

21

F

55

Montreal

34

64

41

Ottawa

56

73

67

Sudbury

31

65

65

Toronto

54

55

58

Kitchener

55

64

54

London

53

68

58

Saskatoon

46

77

49

Calgary

47

74

54

British Columbia

36

73

63

Metro Vancouver

37

72

60

Victoria

28

73

59

In 2006, almost a quarter of households responding to the survey in metro Vancouver said they engaged in some form of composting (excluding apartment building dwellers). Almost a third (31%) composted yard waste, while 17% composted kitchen waste.

According to the survey findings, the proportion of metro Vancouver households that composted kitchen and yard waste was lower than the proportion at the provincial level. In 2006, 30% of BC's households reported composting, with 23% composting kitchen waste and 37% composting yard waste.

Households that Composted Kitchen or Yard Waste for BC, Metro Vancouver, and Select CMAs, 2006

 

Households that composted (%)1*

Composted kitchen waste (%)1*

Composted yard waste (%)2*

Saint John

62

59

65

Montreal

11

9

15

Ottawa

26

19

32

Sudbury

25

22

27

Toronto

33

30

41

Kitchener

31

24

34

London

31

25

39

Calgary

18

15

21

British Columbia

30

23

37

Metro Vancouver

23

17

31

Victoria

40

31

52

CMA Comparison

A smaller proportion of households in Toronto reported that they program their thermostat to be lower during sleeping hours, with only 55% of respondents saying they do this. Almost three quarters (73%) of households in Calgary with programmable thermostats programmed their thermostats to be at a lower temperature during sleeping hours.

A larger proportion of households in metro Vancouver used compact fluorescent light bulbs than in Toronto and Calgary (60% in metro Vancouver compared to 58% in Toronto and 54% in Calgary).

Fewer households in metro Vancouver composted than in other Canadian CMAs. Only 18% of households in Calgary reported that they compost, but 33% of households in Toronto and 40% in Victoria reported that they compost.

Data Considerations

F: means data not reliable to be published.

  1. As a percentage of all households with a thermostat.
  2. As a percentage of all households with a programmable thermostat.
  3. As a percentage of households with a thermostat. The percentages include a portion of households with programmable thermostat.

The composting figures do not include households who were apartment building dwellers.

1* As a percentage of all households.

2* As a percentage of households that were not apartment building dwellers and had a lawn or garden in 2005.

Source

Statistics Canada, Households and the Environment, 2006

Link

http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/11-526-XIE/11-526-XIE2007001.pdf

^ to top

5. Tap water preferred

Data

In 2006, 67% of households with a municipal water supply that responded to the Households and Environment survey in metro Vancouver reported that they used tap water as their primary source of drinking water.

Date

2006

Geography

Metro Vancouver

Description

There is currently a debate about the use of bottled versus tap water. While some people are concerned about the quality of water that comes from the tap, others are concerned about the monitoring of bottled water and the contaminants from the plastic that holds it. Bottled drinking water also has environmental impacts in terms of increased waste from bottles and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation of bottled water. The Households and Environment Survey asked respondents with municipal water supplies what they use as their main source of water.

In 2006, 67% of households with a municipal water supply that responded to the survey in metro Vancouver used tap water as their primary source of drinking water and 10% used both tap and bottled water. Almost one quarter (23%) of households reported using primarily bottled water as their main source of drinking water.

Over half of respondents in the regions that said they mainly drink tap water (56%) said they treated the water before drinking it. Of those people that drank tap water, 17% used a filter or purifier on their tap or supply pipe to treat their water, 31% used a stand alone filter, and 12% boiled or used other water treatment methods. Just over half (53%) of those that treated their water said they did so to make the water taste better.

Main Type of Drinking Water Consumed by Households with a Municipal Water Supply, in Metro Vancouver and Other Select CMAs, 2006

 

Primarily Tap Water (%)

Primarily Bottled Water (%)

Both Tap and Bottled Water (%)

Montreal

59

30

10

Ottawa

60

26

13

Toronto

53

26

19

Calgary

60

26

13

Metro Vancouver

67

23

10

Victoria

74

18

8

CMA Comparison

A larger proportion of metro Vancouver's households reported using tap water as their main source of drinking water than in Toronto and Calgary. In Toronto, 53% of households said they used primarily tap water, while 60% did so in Calgary. Almost three quarters of residents in Victoria said they used tap water as their primary source of drinking water.

Data Considerations

Some respondents specified "Do not know." This proportion is not included here so the row totals may not add to 100%.

Some respondents specified their main source of water as "Other." This proportion is not included here so some row totals may add to less than 100%.

Source

Statistics Canada, Households and the Environment, 2006

Link

http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/11-526-XIE/11-526-XIE2007001.pdf

^ to top

6. Compact Growth

Data

Between 2001 and 2006, 56% of new developments were considered compact neighbourhoods.

Date

1991-2006

Geography

Metro Vancouver

Description

Compact growth is a strategy for limiting the environmental, social and economic impacts of development and slowing global warming and its associated risks. Compact growth involves compact, walkable development, so that residents are less car-dependent and make fewer and shorter trips, thereby consuming less gas and producing less greenhouse gas emissions and improving their health by getting more exercise.

Metro Vancouver Population Density, 2006

Between 1991 and 2006, the population of metro Vancouver increased by nearly one third. One way of measuring whether growth is compact or not is to look at the proportion of neighbourhoods with at least 20 residents per acre. Between 1991 and 2001, compact and pedestrian-oriented neighbourhoods (neighbourhoods with at least 20 residents per acre) accounted for about 67% of all urban and suburban growth. Between 2001 and 2006, compact neighbourhoods decreased to 56% of new urban and suburban development.

Compact Growth in Metro Vancouver, 1991-2001 and 2001-2006

CMA Comparison

n/a

Data Considerations

Note that some population growth in compact neighbourhoods was the result of existing lower-density neighbourhoods adding just enough new residents to be considered "compact." If a neighbourhood with 15 residents per acre added 5 additional residents per acre, the net "compact" growth would be 20 residents per acre.

The data used to determine 'compact neighbourhoods' that are pedestrian oriented is based on density of the development that is built to be 20 residents per acre.

Source

Sightline Institute

Link

http://www.sightline.org/publications/reports/slowing-down/slowing-down-may-20.pdf/view

^ to top

7. Farmers' Markets

Data

There were 17 farmers' markets during the spring/summer months in metro Vancouver.

Date

2008

Geography

Metro Vancouver

Description

Farmers' markets provide residents with access to locally produced fresh foods. The vendors include fruit, vegetable and plant growers, wild harvesters of fish and non-timber forest products, dairy and cheese producers and ranchers of meat and poultry.

In 2008, there are 17 farmers' markets in metro Vancouver. There are two additional markets available outside of the spring/summer months in the City of Vancouver - one monthly throughout the winters and another during one weekend in December.

Several of metro Vancouver's municipalities have regular farmers' markets during the spring/summer. Seven of those markets are in the City of Vancouver.

Municipality

# of Farmers' Markets

Burnaby

1

Delta/White Rock

2

New Westminster

1

North Shore

2

Richmond

1

Surrey

1

Tri-Cities

2

Vancouver

7

Total Metro Vancouver

17

CMA Comparison

n/a

Data Considerations

n/a

Source

BC Association of Farmers' Markets

Vancouver Farmers Markets

Link

http://www.bcfarmersmarket.org/directory/index.htm

http://www.eatlocal.org/farm.html

^ to top

8. Farming Characteristics

Data

In 2006, there were 2,618 farms in metro Vancouver.

Date

2006

Geography

Metro Vancouver

Description

In 2006, 50% of the farms in metro Vancouver were used for animals, while the other half was used for produce and floriculture crops. The largest animal industry was cattle ranching and farming, representing 14% of the farms in the region. The largest produce oriented industry was fruit and tree-nut farms, with 17% of the regions farms classified under this industry type.

Farms Classified by Industry Group for Canada, BC, and Metro Vancouver, 2006

 

Metro Vancouver

BC

Canada

Total farms

2,618

19,844

229,373

Cattle ranching and farming

372

4,842

75,598

Hog and pig farming

7

128

6,040

Poultry and egg production

200

1,111

4,578

Sheep and goat farming

91

531

3,815

Other animal production

644

4,500

26,779

Oilseed and grain farming

8

280

61,667

Vegetable and melon farming

156

742

5,239

Fruit and tree-nut farming

433

3,196

8,329

Greenhouse, nursery and floriculture production

547

2,027

8,754

Other crop farming

160

2,487

28,574

CMA Comparison

n/a

Data Considerations

Changes in farm types over time do reflect a shift in farming activity but could also be influenced by changing commodity prices.

The farm type is based on the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) farm-typing categories. NAICS is revised periodically. The 2001 farm-type data were derived using NAICS1997 and 2006 farm-type data were derived using NAICS2002. Both classifications are the same for the Canadian agriculture industry, making the data from the two reference years directly comparable.

Source

Statistics Canada, Agriculture Community Profiles, 2006

Link

www.statcan.ca

^ to top

9. Garbage and Litter in Neighbourhoods

Data

In 2004, 10% of people 15 years and over in metro Vancouver said that garbage and litter lying around is a problem in their neighbourhood.

Date

2004

Geography

Metro Vancouver

Description

Incivility in our neighbourhoods, such as illegal activities, garbage littering, and rowdiness affect people's perceptions of livability in their neighbourhoods. Statistics Canada refers to garbage and litter in neighbourhoods as a sign of physical incivility. Amounts of litter and garbage in a neighborhood can also be an indicator of levels of environmental stewardship on the part of those living and using the neighbourhood.

In 2004, Statistics Canada asked residents in Canada's 12 largest CMAs about whether they perceived garbage/littering to be a problem in their neighbourhoods. One in ten residents in metro Vancouver reported that garbage and litter lying around is a problem in their neighbourhood.

Percent of Residents Perceiving Garbage/litter a Problem in Their Neighbourhood by Select Canadian CMA and Metro Vancouver, 2004

CMA

%

Halifax

10

Québec city

4E

Montreal

11

Ottawa/Gatineau

7

Toronto

9

Hamilton

12E

Winnipeg

9

Regina

11E

Saskatoon

9E

Calgary

7

Edmonton

9

Metro Vancouver

10

CMA Comparison

Metro Vancouver had one of the higher proportions of residents claiming that garbage and litter lying around is a problem in their neighbourhods.

Data Considerations

Comparisons between CMAs should be made with caution using this table. For percentage point differences, please use the table at http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/11-008-XIE/2008002/tables/tablea1-en.htm.

Respondents who answered "A very big problem" or "A fairly big problem" to either question were defined as perceiving physical incivility to be a problem in their neighbourhood. (Those who replied "Not a very big problem" or "Not a problem at all" were defined as perceiving no physical incivility in their neighbourhood.)

E=use with caution.

Source

Statistics Canada, General Social Survey, 2004

Link

http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/11-008-XIE/2008002/tables/table1-en.htm

^ to top

10. Number of Community Gardens

Data

In 2008, there were 58 community gardens in metro Vancouver.

Date

2008

Geography

Metro Vancouver

Description

Community gardens provide opportunities for community development, neighbourhood revitalization, and access to affordable fruits and vegetables.

In 2008, there were 58 community gardens listed on City Farmer website. The gardens were operated by a range of organizations, such as municipal government departments, non-profit organizations, and informal community groups. Over half (54%) of the region's gardens were in the City of Vancouver.

Number of Community Gardens by Metro Vancouver Municipality, 2008

Municipality

Number of Gardens

City of Vancouver

31

Richmond

5

Burnaby

4

Surrey

4

Langley

3

West Vancouver

3

Coquitlam

2

North Vancouver

2

New Westminster

1

Pitt Meadows

1

Port Coquitlam

1

Port Moody

1

CMA Comparison

n/a

Data Considerations

This list is never up-to-date. Gardens still in the development phase aren't included, contact people at the gardens change frequently and some contacts don't want their names listed.

The list will grow over time, and will include more information on each garden, will include more gardens outside the City of Vancouver.

It is also important to note that gardens vary widely in size and the number of plots available.

Source

City Farmer

Link

http://www.cityfarmer.org/vanccomgard83.html

^ to top

11. Wet Days

Data

In 2006, there were 166.1 wet days in metro Vancouver.

Date

2006

Geography

Metro Vancouver

Description

The number of wet days (i.e. days with snowfall and/or precipitation) can be used as an indicator of climate change, as it is predicted that one of the consequences of global warming could be more extreme weather patterns, including more extreme rain or snowfall, or more dry spells.

During the year 2006, metro Vancouver had 48.2 centimetres (or 482 mm) of snow and 1,199.0 millimetres of rain. The total number of wet days in metro Vancouver was 166.1 in the year 2006.

Weather Conditions in Major Cities, 2006

 

Snowfall

Total precipitation

Wet days

 

cm

mm

number

  1. John's

322.3

1,513.7

215.6

Charlottetown

311.9

1,173.3

184.2

Halifax

230.5

1,452.2

171.2

Fredericton

276.5

1,143.3

156.6

Québec

315.9

1,230.3

181.9

Montréal

217.5

978.9

163.3

Ottawa

235.7

943.5

162.6

Toronto

115.4

792.7

145.5

Winnipeg

110.6

513.7

123.5

Regina

105.9

388.1

114.5

Edmonton

121.4

482.7

124.1

Calgary

126.7

412.6

113.6

Metro Vancouver

48.2

1,199.0

166.1

Victoria

43.8

883.3

154.2

Whitehorse

145.0

267.4

122.2

Yellowknife

151.8

280.7

118.9

Information from Environment Canada shows the averages of precipitation and snowfall over the period of 1971 to 2000. As can be seen from the table below, the amount of precipitation in 2006 was slightly below the 1971 to 2000 average of 1,239.3 millimetres. The amount of snow in 2006, however, was above the 1971 to 2000 average of 46.5 centimetres.

Vancouver Climate Normals 1971-2000

 

30 Year Averages

2006

Rainfall (mm)

1,239.3

1,199.0

Snowfall (cm)

46.5

48.2

Precipitation (rain plus snowfall) (mm)

1,285.7

1,247.2

Days with Rainfall:

   

>= 0.2 mm

127

 

>= 5 mm

70.7

 

>= 10 mm

41.2

 

>= 25 mm

11.2

 

Days With Snowfall:

   

>= 0.2 cm

9.2

 

>= 5 cm

3.7

 

>= 10 cm

1.6

 

>= 25 cm

0

 

Days with Precipitation (rain plus snowfall):

 

166.1

>= 0.2 mm

131.8

 

>= 5 mm

74.2

 

>= 10 mm

43.2

 

>= 25 mm

11.6

 

CMA Comparison

Metro Vancouver had the highest amounts of precipitation of other major cities in Canada, but one of the smallest amounts of snow (after Victoria).

Data Considerations

n/a

Source

Statistics Canada

Environment Canada

Link

www.statcan.ca

www.statcan.ca

^ to top

PRINT THIS PAGE © Metro Vancouver's Vital Signs 2010