1. No category

Première partie
Analyse spatiale
Towards the establishment of a green
network in the region of Montreal, Quebec.
Jérôme Dupras
Context: Urban Sprawling
Low density space occupation
Close dependence on car use
Strong spatial demand and
important land use changes
Loss of natural areas,
farmland and fragmentation
Land use changes analysis
1994
2010
1: 50 000
1: 50 000
1981
1: 20 000
1966
Scale
1: 20 000
Year
Land Use Cover Classes
Forests
Wetlands
Croplands
Grasslands
Water
Urban
Unproductive
Productive woodland
Non-Productive
woodland
Outdooring
Swamp, marsh
or bog
Cropland
Orchards and
vineyards Horticulture
Improved pasture and
forage crops
Unimproved
pasture and range
land
Water areas
Urban built-up area
Mines, quarries, sand
and gravel pits
Unproductive land –
rock and sand
Trees
Wetlands
Row crops
Close grown crops
Improved grass and
legumes
Shrubs, bushes and
vines
Unimproved
grassland, reeds,
sedges, and mosses
Fallow land
Water
Constructed cover
Denuded surfaces
Transportation
Undifferentiated
urban
Denuded surfaces
Outside study area
Forests
Outdooring
Wetlands
Cropland
Orchards
Fallow land
Pastures
Water
Urban
Homes
Electric lines Roads
Industries
Hydroelectric plant
Unknown
Flooding
Other
Forests and
woodlands
Perturbed
woodlands
Natural area
Wetlands
Croplands
Orchards
Fallow land
Pastures
Water
Urban
Human
infrastructure
Extraction
Mapping land-use changes
Land use
cover
Forests
Wetlands
Croplands
Grasslands
Urban
Water
Unproductive
Total
1966
kha
72.4
1.7
165.8
25.6
64.5
52.6
2.6
385.1
Δ 66-81
%
18.8
0.4
43.1
6.6
16.8
13.7
0.7
100
%
- 18.0
- 5.9
- 14.9
71.1
25.9
0.4
100
Land Use cover changes
1981
Δ 81-94
1994
kha
59.4
1.6
141.1
43.8
81.2
52.8
5.1
385.0
%
15.4
0.4
36.7
11.4
21.1
13.7
1.3
100
%
- 9.1
6.3
7.0
- 95.7
42.9
1
43.1
kha
54.0
1.7
151.0
1.8
116.1
53.2
7.3
385.0
Δ 94-10
%
14.0
0.4
39.2
0.5
30.2
13.8
1.9
100
%
- 3.5
- 5.9
- 12.2
883.3
7.1
1
- 54.8
2010
kha
52.0
1.6
132.6
17.8
124.2
53.5
3.4
385.0
Δ 66-10
%
13.5
0.4
34.4
4.6
32.3
13.9
1
100
kha
- 20.3
- 0.2
- 33.2
- 7.8
59.7
0.9
0.8
%
- 28.0
- 11.8
- 20.0
- 30.5
92.6
1.7
30.8
Dupras et Alam, 2015
The evolution of ecological connectivity
Figure 3. Land Cover Richness and Shannon Index (without urban area). Territorial distr
expressed by 3x3km 2 cells.
Dupras et al., submitted
Evolution of ecological connectivity
Figure
5. Absolute
Ecological
Connectivity
change.
Figure 5.
Absolute
Ecological
Connectivity
IndexIndex
change.
Dupras et al., submitted
A threatened biodiversity
SUPPORTING
Ecosystem services losses
PROVISIONNING
Courtesy of A. Gonzalez & M. Mitchell
REGULATION
CULTURAL
Landscape
aesthetics
Climate
regulation
`
MAPLE
SYRUP
Air
filtration
TIMBER
Recration
Flood
control
FOOD
Water
quality
regulation
Nutrient
cycles
Erosion
control
Soil
formation
The economic value of ecosystem services
Dupras et Alam, 2015
Ecosystem services economic losses
Land use
cover
Forests
Wetlands
Croplands
Grasslands
Total
6
1966
288.1
7.9
661.3
69.6
1026.9
Δ1966-1981
- 51.8
- 0.5
- 98.6
49.5
- 101.4
Total Economic Value (x 10 $/y)
1981 Δ1981-1994
1994 Δ1994-2010
236.4
- 21.4
215.0
- 7.8
7.4
0.2
7.6
- 0.5
562.7
39.5
602.1
- 73.5
119.0
- 114.0
5.0
43.3
925.5
- 95.7
829.7
- 38.5
2010
207.2
7.2
528.7
48.3
791.4
Δ1966-2010
-80.9
- 0.7
- 132.6
- 21.3
- 235.6
Dupras et Alam, 2015
How to implement a Green network in order to
mitigate these problems?
A look on the Greenbelts
2 Greenbelt’s projects
Ecological or Political Montreal?
MMC development and planning approach
• The «Plan métropolitain d’aménagement et de
développement»: a 10 years project, 2 years of public
consultation, a roadmap based on 3 main objectives
• 3 objectives
– Planning: Densification
– Transport: Transport oriented development
– Environment: protection of natural habitats through a Green network
• The first financing of the Green network (150M$) was
confirmed in 2012 for 5 projects
CMM, 2011
FIGURE4.2 SYNTHÈSE DE L’ARRIMAGE ENTRE LESOUTILSDE
PLANIFICATION TERRITORIALE QUI FORMENTLE CADRE ADMINISTRATIF ET
LÉGAL DE LAPLANIFICATION DE L’AMÉNAGEMENTDUTERRITOIRE
Governance challenges
Communauté
de Montréal,
métropolitain
gement et de
ent : Un grand
al compétitif,
urable. 184 p.
CMM, 2011
Appliying network science to urban planning
Courtesy of A. Gonzalez
What network for the Montreal’s Greenbelt?
Courtesy of A. Gonzalez
Solution: a green infrastructure based on
ecological network science
Protection
Natural Corridors
Sensibilization
and Public
Awareness
Sustainable
Forestry
Urban
Greening
Agroenvironnemental
Practices
Natural
areas
accessibility
Adapted from FDS, NAQ, 2012
Fondation David Suzuki, 2013
Gonzalez et al., 2013
Designing connectivity
Monteregians mountains: biodiversity
habitats hubs
Natural corridors between the hubs
NAQ, 2012
The Greenbelt challenges
Experts survey
1.
What key characteristics should define a green infrastructure at the ecological,
geographical, legal and administrative levels?
2.
What should be the priority actions to initiate its implementation?
3.
What are the main social, economic and environmental benefits it could bring?
4.
What are the main social, economic and environmental disadvantages it could
generate?
5.
At present, what are the most important opportunities that could help its
implementation?
6.
What are the biggest obstacles that could hinder or prevent its implementation?
7.
What are the administrative, political and legal tools, current or planned, which
are most useful for its management?
Dupras et al., In Press
Some results…
Question theme
Green Infrastructure’s
Characteristics
Priority Actions
Main Advantages
Main Disadvantages
Implementation
opportunities
Implementation
obstacles
Tools
Elements of consensus
- Landscape connectivity
- Conservation of natural habitats
- Respect of private property
- Better decision making tools & Policies
- Flexible and dynamic regional administrative structure
- Communication and public awareness
- Legal recognition
- Consideration of the economic contribution of non-market ES
- Maintaining quality of life
- Production of ecosystem services, access to natural environments and
better management of natural resources
- Brake on the development of their community
- Reduction in tax return for municipalities
- Increase pressure on the private sector
- Actual political context
- Programs of acquisition of natural area
- Public interest in environmental issues
- Lack of political will
- Poor overall vision
- Disinformation
- Development plan of MMC
Dupras et al., In Press
Conclusions
From a cross-sectional analysis of the results, we can drawn four
main points in relation to green infrastructure and the situation
in the region of Montreal :
• New Planning Vision and Required Tools
• A Consensus towards Ecological Urbanism, Connectivity and
Multifunctionality
• The Protection of Nature is (still) an Economic Constraint
• Lack of Vision and Political Will
Dupras et al., In Press
The Greenbelt in action
Montreal’s City initiatives
Grassroot initiative: «Vers le 22 avril 2017»
- 375 000 trees for the 375th anniversary of Montreal
Première partie
Analyse spatiale
Thank you/merci… questions!