Québec Landscape Management Guide

QUÉBECLANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT GUIDEREADING, UNDERSTANDING, AND ENHANCING THE LANDSCAPE

QUÉBECLANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT GUIDEREADING, UNDERSTANDING, AND ENHANCING THE LANDSCAPE

AcknowledgementsWhile remaining the sole responsibility of the authors, this document benefited from the input of Denis Lemieux, an architect and architectural advisor in landscape and sustaina-ble development at Direction de la recherche, des politiques et du lectorat of Ministère de la Culture, des Communications et de la Condition féminine.

It is also the result of close collaboration with the partners of the Chair in Landscape and Environmental Design at Université de Montréal: Ministère des Transports du Québec; Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et des Parcs; Ministère des Affaires municipales et des Régions; Ministère de la Culture, des Communications et de la Condition féminine; Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune; and Hydro-Québec. Our thanks go out to them.

Finally, the authors would like to acknowledge the contribution to the project of chair col-laborators Caroline Gagnon, Évelyne Vouligny, Yannick Roberge, and Julie Ruiz.

Dépôt légal : 2009Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du QuébecBibliothèque et Archives CanadaISBN 978-2-550-52777-0 (version originale imprimée)ISBN 978-2-550-52778-7 (PDF original en français)ISBN 978-2-550-57087-5 (PDF en anglais)© Gouvernement du Québec, 2009

READING, UNDERSTANDING, AND ENHANCING THE LANDSCAPE

QUÉBECLANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT GUIDE

SYLVAIN PAQUETTE, ResearcherChair in Landscape and Environmental Design

Université de Montréal

PHILIPPE POULLAOUEC-GONIDEC, ChairholderChair in Landscape and Environmental Design


GÉRALD DOMON, Associate Scientific DirectorChair in Landscape and Environmental Design


“Landscape is an appreciation of the land by an individual or community that develops out of a set of shared values (historical, aesthetic, ecological, economic, etc.), and forms of land use [residential, tourism, agricultural, industrial, etc.]. As values and land use change in a particular society or cultural environment, so does the notion of landscape. Apprecia-tion requires that the perceptual experience and specific features of a site (e.g., visual, aesthetic, environmental, heritage-rela-ted, economic, recreational, scientific, etc.), be it an emblematic site or everyday living environment, generate a sense of attach-ment or be linked to social and cultural values. Thus, landscape is both a phenomenon of attributing social and cultural value to an area and the tangible and intangible expression of the culture of the individuals who inhabit it or use it. Because of the land-scape’s economic value for tourism, recreation, and habi-tation, steps must simultaneously be taken to preserve, enhance, and develop local and regional areas in kee-ping with community values and concerns” [ CPEUM, 2008 ].

[ ]

CONTENTS[ ]

FOREWORD

BACKGROUNDThe landscape, a Recognized Issue in QuébecLandscape Actors Defining Landscape

PRINCIPLES AND STRUCTURE FOR IMPLEMENTING THE MANAGEMENT GUIDEPrinciples of ImplementationImplementation Phases[ STEP A ] PUBLIC RECOGNITION OF LANDSCAPE ISSUES

[ STEP B ] LANDSCAPE DIAGNOSIS

PHYSICOSPATIAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE LANDSCAPE

[ B1 ] Ecological Reference Framework [ B2 ] Visual Landscape Evaluation [ B3 ] Characterization of Physicospatial and Visual Landscape Dynamics

SOCIOCULTURAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE LANDSCAPE

[ B4 ] Characterization of Heritage Landscapes [ B5 ] Characterization of Individual and Collective Landscape-Related Values [ B6 ] Characterization of the Economic Value of Landscapes [ B7 ] Characterization of the Sociocultural Evolution of Landscape Values [ B8 ] Diagnosis Overview

[ STEP C ] PUBLIC LANDSCAPE PROJECT STATEMENT

[ STEP D ] FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION AND IMPLEMENTATION

[ D1 ] Legislative and Regulatory Tools [ D2 ] Promotion Tools [ D3 ] Landscape Projects

[ STEP E ] MONITORING AND AUDITING

9

14

1520

24

2427

29

30

32

36

40

44

46

48

53

54

56

57

60

62

64

13

23

EXAMPLES OF CHARACTERIZATION AND LANDSCAPE PROJECTS IN QUÉBEC

[ CASE 1 ] Applying the ecological reference framework to landscape enhancement: the case of Lotbinière RCM

[ CASE 2 ] Mobilizing regional actors to diagnose the landscape and implement a landscape charter: the case of the Laurentides region

[ CASE 3 ] Taking the landscape into account in planning tools: the case of Memphrémagog RCM

[ CASE 4 ] Exploration and ideation projects: the example of the Longueuil on-site WAT workshop

BIBLIOGRAPHY

GLOSSARY

68

72

75

78

83

67

89

FOREWORD[ ]

This document has emerged from an inescapable conclusion: at a time when the ques-tion of landscape is making its influence felt in all of Québec’s major land use planning issues (e.g., wind industry development, the implementation of a government strategy for sustainable development, requalification of public infrastructures and amenities, etc.), and public, broader public, and private sector stakeholders affected by the question are having to meet growing public demands, there is a pressing need for strategies and tools to take this new dimension into account. The Québec government has itself explicitly ac-knowledged the importance of landscape in recent legislation, including the Natural Heri-tage Conservation Act of 2002 and the Sustainable Development Act enacted in 2006. Other legislation, such as the Cultural Property Act, is being updated to take this major issue into account (Ministère de la Culture, des Communications et de la Condition fémi-nine, 2007), which in turn will bring about new requirements with regard to approaches and methods for integrating landscape values into land use planning.

Given this, the Québec Landscape Management Guide seeks to establish a number of strategic guidelines and outline a set of tried and tested tools. The guide is comprised of a series of sections, each examining key landscape issues and actors, recognized landscape diagnosis methods, and various approaches. Together, they constitute a toolkit that can be used to ensure that a full range of local, regional, and province-wide circums-tances and issues are taken into account.

This management guide draws on more than ten years of research by the Chair in Landscape and Environmental Design at Université de Montréal (CPEUM) in collabora-tion with its main partners from the public, broader public, and private sectors in Québec. It also incorporates knowledge from research and international cooperation programs led by the UNESCO Chair in Landscape and Environmental Design at the same institution. And finally, it has benefited from the close working relationship between CPEUM and key stakeholders in the landscape field, be it at the local level (municipalities, regional county municipalities, regional councils of elected officials, community groups), the provincial level (particularly government managers and professionals), or internationally (e.g., the European Landscape Convention).

We hope that this management guide will provide support for various landscape enhan-cement approaches that are emerging all across Québec, as well as for all those working in the field.

11

12

BACKGROUND[ ]

13

THE LANDSCAPE, A RECOGNIZED ISSUE IN QUÉBECToday more than ever, the landscape is a major issue as questions about the quality of land or infrastructure and the value attributed to certain environmental resources and places of heritage value affect us all.

Interest in the landscape first garnered media attention when people began reacting to the loss or degradation of living environments and quality of life. Mitigation measures centered on the visual aspect of landscapes were an initial response in the debate. Howe-ver, there is growing recognition that the landscape is also essential to the social, cultural, and economic development of communities. Changing sensibilities and relationships to the land have led to heightened expectations for the protection, management, and deve-lopment of all land, be it rural or urban, degraded or well preserved, an outstanding land scape or an everyday living environment. It is therefore crucial that public, broader public, and private sector organizations involved in land use planning have the tools and methods at their disposal to meet targets for landscape preservation, enhancement, management, planning, and support.

Currently, landscape concerns are addressed more through local ad hoc initiatives than any comprehensive, integrated government-managed framework. Nonetheless, the recent introduction of a “man-made landscape” designation is—by virtue of its bottom-up approach—an example of a well-informed initiative through which the government can support the desires of local communities. Above and beyond the still widespread instru-mental and prescriptive approaches, it is therefore essential to reconsider the notion of landscape and its operationalization in light of exciting new knowledge and know-how. This management guide grew out of a desire to address this challenge. It seeks to provide a framework for government efforts to support and facilitate regional and local landscape initiatives.

lopment of all land, be it rural or urban, degraded or well preserved, an outstanding land-

14

LANDSCAPE ACTORSLandscape protection, enhancement, and management are inseparable from steps taken by a whole host of public, broader public, and private sector actors, as well as associa-tions and individuals. While certain initiatives strive to have various aspects of landscape taken into account voluntarily, others arise from actions that have an unintended impact on these aspects. Many public organizations are therefore directly or indirectly affected by landscape issues. Furthermore landscape concerns clearly cut across various fields, as eloquently illustrated by the development of wind energy planning guidelines in 2007, a process that involved a number of ministries and public agencies (Ministère des Affaires municipales et des Régions, 2007a, 2007b). Hence the need to map out and coordinate government action with regard to landscapes.

Ministère de la Culture, des Communications et de la Condition féminineMinistère de la Culture, des Communications et de la Condition féminine (MCCCF) has the power to protect the landscape under the Cultural Property Act, which provides for the designation of historic sites and natural and historic districts. The Act also allows municipalities to establish heritage sites that may also protect architectural heritage. In the 1970s, MCCCF carried out a series of major landscape studies as part of the PAI-SAGE project (Bureau et al., 1976), while the 1990s saw interest in the landscape pick up again with moves to update heritage practices and develop an integrated approach to living environments. This interest coincided with the emergence in Québec of strong social demand for landscapes and ensured that this area of responsibility again became an important area for ministerial action.

In 1997 MCCCF began collaborating with the Chair in Landscape and Environmental Design at Université de Montréal (CPEUM) and was one of a number of parties invol-ved in developing methodological guidelines for the characterization and management of heritage landscapes in the Laurentides region. In 1999 MCCCF also provided support for a landscape concept and operationalization study (Concept et opérationalisation du pay-sage), which laid the foundations for renewed landscape action by introducing the notion of “landscape projects,” among other things.

In tandem with Conseil du paysage québécois, MCCCF has also provided input on territorial charters and helped draw up a landscape guide. It has taken part in reflections on natural and cultural heritage with other ministries, including efforts to develop a river classification system and a heritage rivers program. In 2005 as part of efforts coordina-ted by Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et des Parcs, MCCCF began considering how to implement the man-made landscape designation entrenched in the Natural Heritage Conservation Act. And more recently, in collaboration with CPEUM and local, regional, and government representatives, MCCCF helped host a periurban land design workshop that sought to demonstrate the impact of new know-how in the pre-servation, enhancement, and sustainable development of landscapes (see “Case 4”).

MCCCF is currently revising the Cultural Property Act. This revision is being carried out in a spirit of sustainable development and aims to have a cultural heritage protection act passed that would include the “landscape” dimension (MCCCF, 2007).

15

Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et des ParcsMinistère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et des Parcs (MDDEP) does not only act with regard to the environmental aspect of the landscape. It intervenes through three of its acts (the Environment Quality Act, the Act respecting threatened or vulnerable species, and the Natural Heritage Conservation Act) to protect and conserve species and ecosystems. It grants protected status to areas of high ecological signifi-cance (e.g., ecological reserves, plant habitats) and is currently implementing a strategic action plan for protected areas. These policy principles help consolidate a network of pro-tected areas dedicated to preserving the biodiversity of Québec’s ecosystems. MDDEP has also been working on an approach with CPEUM and other ministries and local sta-keholders to implement a man-made landscape status in Québec, an approach that is intended to be flexible and adapted to regional realities in order to manage landscapes of interest, particularly in terms of biodiversity. In February 2007, MDDEP also collaborated on establishing a planning approach for the sustainable development of wind energy (a sector in which landscape has come to play a central role) as well as the production of a landscape integration guide. In addition, with the advent of the Sustainable Development Act—which was passed in 2006 at the instigation of MDDEP—a number of sustainable development principles incorporate the landscape dimension, notably with regard to qua-lity of life, social equity, environmental and heritage protection, public consultation, and internalization of costs.

Ministère des TransportsMinistère des Transports du Québec (MTQ) instigated Québec’s first formal means of visually analyzing landscapes (Gaudreau et al., 1986) and is a pioneer in dealing with landscape matters. A founding partner of CPEUM—which was set up in 1996—MTQ develops, as part of its right-of-way management strategies, innovative approaches to managing landscapes, such as its pilot project for visually monitoring highway corridor landscapes (Domon and Poullaouec-Gonidec, 2003). Through its practices, MTQ is directly affected by landscape matters. On the one hand, the road network is one of the main means of experiencing landscapes. On the other, transportation infrastructure projects structure the landscape in a way that has a tangible impact on people’s living environments.

Hydro-QuébecHydro-Québec initiatives have major repercussions on land and landscape organization. The corporation’s electricity production, transmission, and distribution activities influence appearance (e.g., power lines), heritage (e.g., distribution networks within village clus-ters), the environment (e.g., changes to ecosystems after reservoirs are filled and rivers diverted), and recreation (e.g., the availability of water sports), as well as the quality of living environments (e.g., residential areas bordering transmission and distribution equip-ment and networks). Various efforts have been made to address landscape concerns, particularly by implementing a landscape assessment procedure (Groupe Viau and Grou-pe-Conseil Entraco Inc., 1992). As a CPEUM founding partner, Hydro-Québec contribu-tes to research transportation equipment design parameters, distribution equipment siting methodology, and landscape matters related to certain types of hydroelectricity produc-tion. Hydro-Québec also supports various regional landscape enhancement initiatives through its environment enhancement program.

16

Despite these efforts, the government corporation’s operations are at the heart of major landscape issues. This is evident in the controversies and concerns caused by the construction of new transmission lines, efforts to reconcile development goals with river tourism and recreation activities, and the development of the wind industry.

Ministère de l’Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l’AlimentationMany factors converge today to ensure that agriculture is acknowledged as a vector of landscape evolution and appreciation in rural and periurban communities. Landscape maintenance and the protection of certain environmental and heritage resources are secondary functions of agriculture that undeniably contribute to landscape formation. They may involve maintaining or abandoning open spaces and views along roads or initiatives to ensure a diversity of land divisions, agricultural districts, and elements of heritage value. Furthermore, numerous models from abroad demonstrate the necessity of managing the nonagricultural benefits provided by farming.

Given the high social demand for landscapes associated with tourism development in a number of regions (Charlevoix, Estrie, Laurentides, etc.), and the vast government consultation launched in 2007 on the future of agriculture, the agricultural sector in Québec and consequently Ministère de l’Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l’Alimentation du Québec (MAPAQ), is a key player in current and future landscape issues. That said, MAPAQ has still to explicitly acknowledge the importance of its role and has not yet addressed these new concerns in its policies, programs, and actions.

Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la FauneIn the area of forest planning and management, the forestry sector has had to respond to new social demands (environmental protection, respect for the quality of living environ-ments, etc.) by putting in place a series of minimum standards and measures to mitigate visual and environmental impacts. In spite of such efforts, certain programs and prac-tices, such as the planting of coniferous trees, have indirectly had adverse effects on living environments and the tourism experience in rural and natural environments. The development of fast-growth sectors like ecotourism is largely dependent on the quality of available woodland experiences, and since such activities can generate spinoffs that are often greater than those from wood production alone, better landscape management is vital. In this regard, initiatives such as “inhabited forests” and “tree farms” are encouraging examples of local cooperation.

Ministère des Affaires municipales et des RégionsMinistère des Affaires municipales et des Régions (MAMR) is responsible for municipal organization, regional issues, rurality, and the city of Montréal.

MAMR is involved in municipal management through various legislative and policy frameworks that establish the terms of reference for regional stakeholders—i.e., regional county municipalities (RCMs) and regional conferences of elected officials (CREs)—as well as municipal ones. In order to maintain a living environment or enhance urban, periurban, and rural landscapes, MAMR sets strategic policy directions and provides a legislative and regulatory framework for land use through the Act respecting land use planning and development (ALUPD), designs planning and land use tools (land use plans, development plans, etc.), and develops policies and programs (e.g., the Urban and Village Renewal Program). MAMR is not directly involved in landscape management, but is responsible for implementing rules and tools that allow local and regional stakeholders to translate concerns about landscape into action on the ground. In the context of wind industry deployment, MAMR has worked more recently with a number of other ministries to outline land use guidelines and principles for the development of wind potential in the regions. A Guide for Incorporating Land Based Wind Power was also issued to meet the

17

needs of RCMs and municipalities. In particular, the document makes provisions for an inventory of landscape components as well as a public consultation process (MAMR, 2007a, 2007b).

Montréal’s social, cultural, economic, heritage, and tourism development is contin-gent upon a host of landscape issues. Facility and infrastructure planning touches on a number of aspects relating to the quality of urban living environments. The land use framework drawn up by the Montréal Metropolitan Community—whose actions are sub-ject to government policy—is intended to boost the region’s sustainable development. It seeks to determine the conditions required to put in place and maintain quality, attractive living environments for current and future generations.

Québec’s National Policy on Rurality—adopted in 2001 and extended for 2007–2014—seeks to ensure that Québec’s rural territory develops and thrives. Rurality is broadly defined in the policy to include the land’s natural and human resources. The policy proposes a bottom–up approach to facilitate development by local communities based on participatory initiatives that give citizens and elected officials a decisive role. Along with its main partners—Solidarité rurale du Québec, Fédération québécoise des municipalités, Union des municipalités du Québec, and Association des centres locaux de développement du Québec—MAMR encourages contributions from all stakeholders. At the same time, MTQ has adopted new roadwork approaches to counter degradation of the built environment caused by traffic through villages. Québec’s cable burial pro-gram (Programme gouvernemental d’enfouissement des réseaux câblés de distribution) enhances village clusters of heritage and tourism value, while MCCCF supports RCMs wishing to establish their own cultural policies. These initiatives, to name but a few, seek to guarantee quality living environments and promote the development of rural communi-ties. Under the policy, regional and local actors are better supported and equipped with a view to meeting landscape protection, planning, and management goals.

Tourisme QuébecAs supply and demand in the tourism industry shifts away from its past emphasis on standardized products and services to embrace the concept of experience, landscapes are attracting growing interest as a focus for tourism development. As the preferred vehi-cle for promoting Québec’s tourism regions, Tourisme Québec depends on an asset and development lever—i.e., the landscape—for which it is in no way accountable. Although its role is restricted to developing and promoting tourism, this government body is strongly affected by issues pertaining to the quality, preservation, and enhancement of landscapes and the environment.

18

Regional County Municipalities and Local MunicipalitiesThese local and regional bodies do more than anyone else for landscape protection, plan-ning, and management. The Act respecting land use planning and development devolves a number of landscape management responsibilities to them. Land use plans, planning programs, architectural implementation and integration plans, and comprehensive deve-lopment programs are all tools that enable RCMs and municipalities to work landscape-related heritage, environmental, and living environment concerns into their involvement (by designating regional and municipal parks, controlling display advertising and tree cutting alongside roads, for example). However, their power to act is often limited by other challen-ges they face (e.g., division of responsibilities and benefits among municipalities, passing on work to ministries).

Civil SocietyIn Québec a wide range of private and community groups and associations are devo-ted to landscape issues in one way or another. Protecting heritage architecture (e.g., Heritage Montréal) and landscapes (e.g., Conseil du paysage québécois), conserving natural habitats (e.g., regional parks, land trusts), promoting integrated resource mana-gement models (e.g., watershed enhancement committees or associations), developing the tourist potential of heritage villages (e.g., Association des plus beaux villages du Qué-bec) and local products (e.g., discovery trails), and improving urban living environments (e.g., Les Arts et la Ville) are just some of the ways that such groups and organizations become involved with landscape issues. They often work on the margins of institutional frameworks in an effort to compensate for their weaknesses. Their initiatives are vital in a number of fields and would be better served by introducing flexible policy instruments to ensure that someone is there to carry the baton and that minimal conditions of support are in place.

Voluntary actions for taking landscape dimensions into consideration

Actions that have an indirect impact on landscape (positive or negative)

ACTORS

MCCCF

MDDEP

MTQ

HQ

MAPAQ

MRNF

MAMR

Tourisme Québec

RMC

Civil Society

VISUAL DIMENSION

HERITAGE DIMENSION

ENVIRONMENTAL DIMENSION

TOURISM DIMENSION

LIVING ENVIRONMENT DIMENSION

19

DEFINING LANDSCAPE

Conceptual Foundations and PositioningHistorically the notion of landscape has been defined by two schools of thought. The first bundles landscape together with land and the environment. Based on geography, a certain vision of landscape ecology, and visual evaluation methods, the landscape is considered as both a material and objective form and refers to the land’s biophysical and anthropogenic components. The second school of thought considers landscape more as a perceptible manifestation of culture. This perspective is mainly drawn from social scien-ces and the arts. Sometimes it spotlights the aesthetics and culture involved in qualifying landscape areas, sometimes the social values attached to the land. The true nature of the landscape lies somewhere between these two visions.

For our purposes, landscape is defined as a concept of social and cultural quali-fication of the land. From this perception, land is qualified or dequalified. Qualification means that an area’s characteristics are recognized by an individual or community that has experienced them. This recognition “arises from a diversity of viewpoints (e.g., aes-thetic, ludic, scientific, environmental, heritage, economic, etc.), appeals to all the senses (sight, sound, smell, touch, movement), and essentially remains the expression of (indivi-dual or shared) values present in a given place at a given time.” (Poullaouec-Gonidec et al., 2005: 36 [translation])

20

Operational Scope of the Landscape ConceptIt is vital that the notion of landscape tie in with the aims of the public, broader public, and private organizations tasked with ensuring that landscape issues receive greater consideration in land use planning. The operational aspect of the landscape concept is understood to mean the conditions put in place to provide the methodological and instru-mental foundation required to meet preservation, enhancement, management, planning, and support objectives. In doing so, it must be part of an intersectoral and multidiscipli-nary approach. Since the physicospatial and social and cultural components of landscape are constantly evolving, there is no getting around the time-sensitive nature of action to be taken. Plainly speaking, a balance must be struck between protecting, managing, and developing landscapes in the course of changes to come. Since every site has its own particular significance, we must stress what sets it apart, showcase its qualities, and, if required, take corrective action so that they harmonize with accepted and desired social values in the future.

21

22

PRINCIPLES AND STRUCTURE FOR IMPLEMENTING THE MANAGEMENT GUIDE

[ ]

23

PRINCIPLES OF IMPLEMENTATIONi. Acknowledges the public value of landscapes. This principle defines landscape

as a public good to be promoted by acknowledging the various ways in which we value the land. The preservation, management, and development of landscapes therefore require a new sharing of individual and collective rights and obligations at the local, regional, and provincial levels.

ii. Applies to all land. This Landscape Management Guide applies to all areas of landscape interest, be they rural, periurban, or urban; degraded or well preserved; well-known landscapes of outstanding value, or everyday living environments.

iii. Requires voluntary public participation. This principle draws on the bottom–up nature of landscape initiatives and the hands-on involvement of local residents in project implementation. It also sets out the role of government, which facilitates, guides, and publicizes regional and local initiatives. In this way, the principle also presupposes the idea of subsidiarity when it comes to sharing responsibilities.

iv. Fosters social and intergenerational equity. Social and intergenerational is a leading principle in sustainable land development and arises from a desire on the one hand to involve the public in the decision-making process and, on the other, to take into account the needs of future generations when it comes to preserving the environment and creating quality spaces and living environments.

v. Engages a coherent vision through concerted action with partners. Given the range of public actors that influence or take an interest in one or more aspects of the landscape, this guide is part of efforts to promote a coherent, integrated land management vision through the development of intersectoral public partnerships.

vi. Acknowledges the open-ended nature of landscape initiatives. Rather than promote standardized, universal principles for intervention, this management guide instead proposes an open-ended, iterative, and coherent approach, complete with a toolbox adapted to various application contexts. It also takes into account the changing nature of the land, as well as shifting public values and concerns with regard to landscape.

IMPLEMENTATION PHASES

A. Public Recognition of Landscape IssuesLandscape issues can be defined as concerns held by one or more groups of individuals about the qualities of a given area or threats likely to change its character. By their very nature, such issues cannot exist unless these qualities—which are based on a pluralist (aesthetic, scientific, environmental, heritage, economic, etc.) reading of the land—crysta-lize in the form of values that are important to a given social group at a given moment.

This first phase aims to clarify the concerns, values, and issues collectively expressed for areas of landscape interest (Fig. 1). It is implemented by mobilizing and bringing together local stakeholders as part of an effort to draw up a statement of common values with regard to landscape preservation, enhancement, and development. The statement is then used to help identify the aspects and sectors to prioritize in the landscape diagnosis phase.

24

B. Landscape DiagnosisThe diagnosis phase seeks to define the features and potential of an area with a view to outlining a landscape vision shared by all social actors, and validating its relevance based on objective criteria. It also provides an opportunity to undertake an informed foresight analysis of the area’s future prospects.

Using quantitative and qualitative analysis, the diagnosis seeks to identify both the area’s objective features (e.g., panoramic viewpoints, ecological potential, etc.) and the features revealed by how people see it (e.g., land people identify with, quality of living environments, etc.). It also helps take into account various ways in which an area can evolve as well as shifting collective attitudes to a given site over time. These methods are the main tools in a toolkit to be adapted to local issues. In order to do this, specific expertise (in environment, heritage, landscape architecture, sociology, etc.) is required. Bringing these aspects together ultimately provides a snapshot of the opportunities and constraints for an area’s development from a landscape perspective.

C. Public Landscape Project StatementBased on the common vision and the opportunities and constraints identified during the diagnosis phase, the formulation of a public landscape project brings people together to determine the landscape quality objectives for preserving, enhancing, planning, and deve-loping a given area. To do so, one or more project leaders must be assigned locally. Various other stakeholders can relay information or help mobilize support at the local, regional, and provincial levels.

D. Framework for Action and ImplementationThis phase defines the means of implementation with a view to meeting the landscape quality objectives proposed. Coming up with a framework for action requires the broader participation of municipal actors, ministry staff, and other professionals. These actors may on occasion work with financial partners to implement projects. The framework for action sets out three implementation modes using :

regulatory tools that bring together Québec’s main land use planning and • development and planning legislation;

landscape promotion tools, including dissemination, awareness, and • recognition activities; and

landscape projects in the form of landscape charters, design projects and • competitions, or measures to support local initiatives.

25

E. Monitoring and Auditing The monitoring phase that completes implementation of this Landscape Management Guide has two primary objectives: to provide periodic snapshots of how areas of land-scape value are evolving and to measure the effectiveness of public policies, programs, and tools that directly or indirectly affect aspects of the landscape or issues.

Given the constant transformation of land and the fluctuating nature of the social values attached to it, monitoring is crucial. Periodic examination of land use and pho-tography of certain viewpoints (visual landscape monitoring) can be used to measure the nature, extent, and intensity of landscape changes, and regular reviewing of indivi-dual and collective landscape-related values confirms whether social expectations and concerns fit initial landscape objectives. Also, given the fact that no landscape initiative can be seen to be definitive, an audit of public policies, programs, and tools is vital.

CPublic LandscapeProject Statement

DFramework for Actionand Implementation

E

Identification ofcollectiveconcerns,

values, and issues

Identification ofconstraints andopportunities

(protection,enhancement, development)

Formulation of landscape

qualityobjectives

APublic Recognotion of

Landscape Issues

BLandscape Diagnosis

Mobilization andconsultation of

local actors

Evaluation ofeffectiveness of

adopledmeasures

Definition ofmeans of

implementation

Mobilization ofspecific

expertise

Identification ofproject leaders

Consultation andsupport (local actors,

ministries, experts, financial partners)

STEPS IN THE PROCESSSTRATEGICGOALS

ACTORS INVOLVED

Monitoring andAuditing

Figure 1Structure and phases of Landscape Management Guide implementation. (Source : CPEUM, 2007)

26

PUBLIC RECOGNITION OF LANDSCAPE ISSUES

Landscape issues are eminently public, and so any initiatives affecting them require the involvement of all parties concerned, be they from the public, broader public, or private sectors, or, more broadly, civil society. Using a bottom–up perspective based on part-nership, the implementation of this management guide presumes the broadest possible voluntary participation by stakeholders. In doing so, the management guide seeks to help the government support and facilitate regional and local landscape initiatives.

Public recognition of landscape issues is crucial to identifying collective concerns, demands, and values with regard to specific landscapes of interest. Local actors are invi-ted to use dialog to list the various values likely to play a role in the future of landscapes. These values can be :

Functional: land use and types of land ownership •

Aesthetic: public space and viewscape enhancement •

Environmental: ecology and sustainable development•

Symbolic: emblematic or religious sites, historical ensembles, etc.•

Heritage-related: memories particular to a site, a significant legacy from the past, etc.•

S T E P

[ A ][ B ][ C ][ D ][ E ]

27

Affective: a sense of belonging to an area, living environment, unique expe • _______rience, etc.

This plural reading takes into account the dynamic nature of land as well as the chan-ging nature of collective values and concerns respecting landscape. The goal of the exercise is to identify common priorities for landscape preservation, enhancement, and development. Mobilizing and consulting the public therefore plays a key role in choosing which aspects and sectors to target prior to landscape diagnosis.

In order to ensure that the public participation and partnership stage is a success, communication and facilitation tools will have to be developed. These may take a num-ber of forms, including public information sessions, online discussion forums, surveys, appeals issued by local or regional media, and photo contests and similar activities to highlight neighborhood attractions or the unique character of municipalities. In short, there are any number of such tools, and they must be implemented creatively. This is especially true since the challenges of getting the public to recognize landscape issues are virtually inseparable from initiatives to educate and raise awareness among local populations and actors.

28

LANDSCAPE DIAGNOSIS

The diagnosis phase seeks to define the features and potential of an area with a view to outlining a landscape vision shared by all social actors, and validating its relevance based on objective criteria.

This section sets out the main approaches and methods used to characterize landscapes. These can be divided into two main groups: methods used to analyze physicospatial components on the one hand and, on the other, methods used to eva-luate sociocultural dimensions. Special attention is also paid to the evolving nature of landscapes, both in terms of the dynamics of physicospatial and visual components and the changing social and cultural values attributed to land with valued landscapes.

These approaches and methods make up a toolkit to be adapted to local contexts. Taken together, they can be used to provide an overview of the opportunities and constraints for an area’s development from a landscape perspective.

S T E P

[ B ][ A ]

[ C ][ D ][ E ]

29

B

[ B1 ]ECOLOGICAL REFERENCE FRAMEWORK

30

PHYSICOSPATIAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE LANDSCAPE

Figure 2 ERF perception levels. (Source : Beauchesne et al., 1998)

[ A ] APPROACH

The ecological reference framework (ERF) is an eco-logical classification and mapping tool (Ducruc, 1991) that provides an overview of an area’s permanent land and water components (e.g., surface deposits, landforms, drai-nage, slope, etc.) according to eight perception levels, ran-ging from general to particular (Fig. 2). Dynamic elements such as vegetation and land use are identified and analy-

zed within mapped units for each level. Data on climate, water table features, forest stands, and water quality, among other things, can complement ERF information.

Various interpretive maps (on agricultural/forest poten-tial, etc.) can also be generated using ERF.

31

[ B ] GOAL ERF will provide an overview of an area and its potential based on the spatial composition of terrestrial ecosys-tems and hydrosystems at varying perception levels.

[ C ] METHODSQuébec’s main map base, ERF is a versatile land mana-gement tool (Beauchesne et al., 1998). It is a tried and tested means of characterizing and evaluating landscapes (Domon et al., 2000). ERF creates an overview of a given area’s physicospatial features using themed and interpre-tive maps generated at varying perception scales (Fig. 3 and 4). For this overview, district (Level 4), topographic complex (Level 5), and topographic entity (Level 6) sca-les are particularly useful. In tandem with aerial photogra-phy, ERF can be used to more accurately characterize the nature and structure of land use, which can be a useful way to locate areas most likely to support initiatives to promote biodiversity, for example. Section B3 on the characteriza-tion of landscape spatiotemporal dynamics looks at this issue more closely. Figure 3

Dominant soil deposits in Saint-Ambroise-de-Kildare and Sainte-Marcelline-de-Kildare, an example of a themed map created using ERF topographic complexes. (Source : Beauchesne et al., 1998; created by : L’Écuyer et al., 2006)

Figure 4 Groundwater vulnerability to pollution in two ecological districts in Lotbinière RCM, an example of an interpretive map created using ERF. (Source : Blais et al., 2005)

[ B2 ]VISUAL LANDSCAPE EVALUATION

[ A ] APPROACHIn the various visual landscape evaluation methods, visible biophysical and anthropogenic components of the land are considered as a scenery to be enjoyed by observers. The methods proposed have been strongly influenced by formal approaches to analysis in the visual arts and are based on the principle of the universality of aesthetic judgment. Mostly spawned by initiatives from public and broader public sector agencies, these methods are characterized by their heavy reliance on evaluation experts. They require experienced, expert observers in order to rigorously assess the visual characteristics of a given landscape.

[ B ] GOAL The visual evaluation of landscapes seeks to characterize physical conditions that influence the visual perception of a given area and to qualify the resulting visual effects. The evaluation identifies both the properties of visible elements (shape, color, contrast, etc.) and the manner in which they are presented to view (distance, angle, fre-quency, etc.). Ultimately, it determines the viewscapes, visual corridors, and unique elements (e.g., buildings, sites, artifacts) of particular interest in a given sector.

[ C ] METHODSIn Canada, and particularly in Québec, the most widely acknowledged visual evaluation methods are the British Columbia Forest Service’s Visual Impact Analysis (BCMOF, 1981 and 1994), Hydro-Québec’s landscape assessment procedure for line and post projects (Méthode d’étude du paysage pour les projets de lignes et de postes; Groupe Viau and Groupe-Conseil Entraco Inc., 1992), and Minis-tère des Transports du Québec’s visual analysis method for integrating transportation infrastructures (Méthode d’analyse visuelle pour l’intégration des infrastructures de transport; Gaudreau et al., 1986).

32

BPHYSICOSPATIAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE LANDSCAPE

Figure 5 Cross-sectional and plan view of a viewshed. (Source : BCMOF, 1981)

Figure 6An example of a viewshed marked out using Vertical Mapper. Twenty-two viewpoints were placed along the P’tit train du nord trail in the Laurentides region and the sectors potentially visible from each of them marked off, then superimposed. Colored zones can all be seen from at least one viewpoint, red-colored sectors being visible most often along the trail. (Source: Domon et al., 2000)

Figure 7An example of visual fields marked out using Vertical Mapper. Com-pared to the map in Figure 6, visually accessible areas are more restricted since the software has taken into account forest zones as well as topography. (Source: Domon et al., 2000)

Three components to come out of these methods are of particular use in the current process.

Marking out viewsheds and visual fields.Marking out landscapes’ visual characteristics generally requires prior marking out of viewsheds (Fig. 5)—i.e., the entire area that can theoretically be seen from a given observation point or from a series of points along a route—and visual fields—the area that is actually visi-ble from a given point. Some software programs such as Vertical Mapper use digital topographic maps to mark out viewsheds and quite accurately estimate potentially visible areas worthy of special attention (Fig. 6 and 7).

Characterizing the visual experience.Using a certain number of indicators, it is possible to qualify the visual experience in situ based on available viewscape characteristics (e.g., bird’s-eye views, panoramic views, partial views) and visual effects (e.g., discovery effect, abrupt changes in scale, lisibility) (Fig. 8 and 9). These indicators can be applied to identify views with the poten-tial to act as local attractions (Fig. 10).

33

Measuring visual absorption capability. An area’s visual absorption capability is an indicator of an area’s ability to integrate (or absorb) infrastructure or development without losing its original character. It is lar-gely dependent on factors such as landform, the diversity of vegetation patterns, and the density and type of land

Figure 8Inventory card used to characte-rize the viewscapes and visual effects of an urban landscape.(Source: Poullaouec-Gonidec et al., 1993, inspired by Direction de l’architecture et de l’urbanisme, France, 1991)

use, as well as soil productivity, which affects vegetation’s regeneration capacity. Visual absorption capability can be used to determine optimal visual conditions for siting infrastructure or development..

34

Figure 10Map of view types identified in Sainte-Ambroise-de-Kildare and Sainte-Marcelline-de-Kildare. (Source: de Bonhome et al., 2006)

Figure 9Glossary used to characterize the visual effects of a power line passing through an urban environment. For example, power lines can be discreet, give a sense of soaring lightness, seem heavy and invasive, appear elu-sive, or give an impression of excessive height. (Source: CPEUM, 2005)

35

[ B3 ]CHARACTERIZATION OF PHYSICOSPATIAL AND

VISUAL LANDSCAPE DYNAMICS

BPHYSICOSPATIAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE LANDSCAPE

[ A ] APPROACHLandscapes evolve with the seasons and the years, in step with changes in an area’s physicospatial features brought about by things like new farming and forestry practices, transportation infrastructure construction, and the develop-ment of the urban and periurban fabric. The features of the landscape related to land use and the visual experience are never permanent, so there is no such thing as a defi-nitive landscape diagnosis. The temporal dimensions of the landscape must therefore be considered, and attention paid to any slow, stagnant, or rapid phases of evolution. This is made possible by cartographic monitoring of land use and visual landscape monitoring, both of which are carried out by means of quantitative (e.g., the proportion of an area affected by changes to land use) and qualitative (e.g., evaluation of the character and atmosphere of a site following changes to the built environment) analysis.

[ B ] GOAL Characterizing changes to the physicospatial and visual aspects of landscapes reveals the nature, intensity, and extent of both recent and older changes, and dates the appearance, disappearance, or transformation of the ele-ments that make up the landscapes.

With a view to monitoring evolving landscapes, these approaches can be used to anticipate—or even avoid—changes that would be incompatible with collectively shared landscape values. They remain invaluable for developing change scenarios, decision-making tools that are increasin-gly widely accepted and used in the field of landscape management.

[ C ] METHODSTwo main methods are used to take into account the tem-poral aspects of landscape from a physicospatial and visual point of view:

MAPPING CHANGES TO LAND USE When it comes to characterizing land dynamics (Domon et al., 1993, 2000; Ruiz and Domon, 2005), aerial photography is not only used to map the nature and structure of land use, but also to show the speed and extent of changes that mark its evolution. Decade-by-decade coverage is available for Québec, from the late 1940s onward, with scales of between 1/15,000 and 1/40,000.

Land use maps help foster understanding of dynamics on both a regional (Fig. 11) and a local (Fig. 12) level. At the regional level, maps reveal strong trends for a given region (e.g., the pressures of residential development), while local-scale maps provide a more detailed look at the evolution of more significant scattered elements (e.g., the disappea-rance of isolated trees and buildings, etc.).

Due to the limited resolution of the photographs, it is occasionally necessary to confirm information using ground surveys or complement it using secondary docu-ments such as gouvernmental censuses.

36

Figure 11Diachronic analysis of land use on a regional scale: the Saint-Jérôme/Sainte-Adèle axis. (Source: Domon et al., 2000)

Figure 12Diachronic analysis of land use on a local scale: 8e Rang, Saint-Valérien-de- Milton. (Source: Ruiz and Domon, 2005)

37

boisé

cours d’eau

chemin de rang

limite de parcelle

haie

bâtiment résidentiel

bâtiment agricole

Figure 13An example of visual monitoring. Comparisons between these two photographs of the Rivière Métis estuary, which were taken at two different periods, show numerous changes: farmland has become fallow, the river is much less visually accessible than before, the bridge has been rebuilt, etc. (Source: Domon and Poullaouec-Go-nidec, 2003)

VISUAL LANDSCAPE MONITORINGNowadays photographs are acknowledged to be “a tool to measure and assess landscape evolution phenomena likely to contribute to their qualitative management” (Domon and Poullaouec-Gonidec, 2003: 148 [translation]). In Québec, as elsewhere, (Westmacott and Worthington, 1984; Mol-lie-Stefulesco, 1997), visual monitoring experiences have been systematically carried out in exactly the same condi-tions (positioning, framing, viewing angle, etc.) on particu-lar objects (buildings, trees, etc.), groups of objects (e.g., entrances to villages), and sections of land that can be viewed (e.g., views from lookout points). As a decision-ma-king tool, visual monitoring can be used to identify changes in a way that spurs discussion about the need to intervene.

Two projects have been implemented in Québec so far. The first (Fig. 13) sought to demonstrate the usefulness of this approach in a land management context (Domon and Poullaouec-Gonidec, 2003). The second (Fig. 14) sought to visually monitor highway landscapes after a system was put in place to ensure the ecological management of rights of way (Domon et al., 2003).

38

Figure 14An example of visual monitoring carried out in collaboration with Ministère des Transports du Québec. Successive views of the central median taken in mid-summer show landscape stratification due to the plants growing alongside the road. This new manage-ment approach has clearly improved the appearance of roadways. (Source: Domon et al., 2003)

39

[ B4]BSOCIOCULTURAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE LANDSCAPE

CHARACTERIZATION OF HERITAGE LANDSCAPES

[ A ] APPROACHHistoric traces of human activity and former landscape values help constitute knowledge of heritage landscapes. A melding of physical and cultural geography with architec-tural and cultural heritage, approaches to land characteri-zation seek to recognize both types of heritage: material and immaterial.

Material heritage leaves its mark on the land in the form of traces of former land use, be it through architecture (buildings, infrastructure, or ensembles), spatial organiza-tion, vegetation, or archaeological sites. Immaterial heri-tage, on the other hand, denotes identity sites and areas that have been historically valued by communities or that relate to local traditions and customs.

[ B ] GOAL Landscape characterization from a historical perspective is used to identify and evaluate heritage landscapes. On the one hand, these methods seek to locate relatively unchanged sectors or components of potential interest. On the other hand, they use iconographic, pictorial, and lite-rary sources, as well as knowledge of local customs and traditions to identify sites and areas that have long been appreciated by the community.

[ C ] METHODSA number of methods have been developed to better understand and comprehend the heritage value of the landscape. Two of them merit closer inspection.

IDENTIFYING HERITAGE LANDSCAPESThis method was developed for the Conseil de la culture et des communications des Laurentides as part of a two-phase project. The first phase consists of finding and/or generating land use maps for various periods, then super-imposing them to reveal sectors that have remained mostly unchanged. The second phase involves mapping these sectors on the scale of their architectural and vegetation components and the area’s spatial structuration (Fig. 15). Mapping can be enhanced by using the macroinventory developed by Direction générale du patrimoine of Minis-tère des Affaires culturelles du Québec in the early 1980s. This complementary tool makes it possible to compare the current condition of buildings and habitat structures to their condition in the 1980s.

Local paintings, literature, and historiography are also favored tools for discovering the social value ascribed to landscapes in collective culture and memory. Analyzing them reveals areas with landscapes of interest that have played a key historical role and recognizes their current value or the extent they have faded from the public eye. This method draws on Bibliothèque nationale du Québec’s postcard collection in order to explore how landscapes have been historically valued (Fig. 16 and 17).

40

Figure 15Fine scale identification of relatively unchanged areas: the example of Côteau-du-Hêtre, Saint-André-d’Argenteuil. (Source: Domon et al., 2000)

Figure 16An example of postcard analysis used to identify valued landsca-pes. The size of the circles is proportional to the number of cards depicting a given site, while color represents the type of landscape shown. (Source: Domon et al., 2000)

41

Figure 17Postcards sometimes depict landscapes that are now hid-den, left, or that have a long history of being valued, right. (Source: Domon et al., 2000)

THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE ANALYSIS METHODThe method developed by the National Park Service (NPS) in the United States helps to interpret, evaluate, and plan use of historic sites. Although “rural historic landscapes” are the primary focus of this method, heritage landscapes are considered as “geographical entities historically fashio-ned by human activity and featuring a high concentration of buildings, roads, plants, or natural elements that point to such activity” (Domon et al., 2007: 105 [translation]). The method is based on criteria that help determine landscape components of potential interest, measure the importance and the integrity of the landscape, and summarize collec-ted data.

The first phase of the inventory deals with “tangible expressions of the activities and customs of the people who occupied and developed a given area, according to their needs, traditions, and values” (Domon et al., 2007: 105 [translation]). Two types of characteristics are analyzed to determine the landscape components of potential interest: characteristics related to how the landscapes were formed (land use, spatial organization, environmental response, traditions) and features related to landscape components (circulation systems, cadastral or typomorphological structure, historic vegetation, architectural elements and ensembles, archaeological sites, etc.) (Fig. 18).

The evaluation phase for rural landscapes involves certain restrictions due to the observation scale and the defined boundaries. Evaluation criteria used to measure the importance and integrity of landscape focus on “the parts of the overall landscape that are more significant or more important, particularly because they have better preserved their initial character” (Domon et al., 2007: 107 [translation]).

The importance of landscapes is assessed using pro-perties or portions of land that are related to events or peo-ple of regional or national historic significance, reflect the distinctive features of a type, period, or means of building or developing natural resources, or have provided or could provide important information about the area’s history or prehistory (Domon et al., 2007).

Using a variety of tools—i.e., photographs of land, historic documents, zoning plans, municipal and regio-nal by-laws, biophysical data, title deeds, etc.—integrity analysis seeks to verify whether a landscape’s spatial organization, physical components, and current makeup exemplify the period they are supposed to represent. Such analysis measures the degree to which they have changed over time and determines the elements (activi-ties, materials, traffic, etc.) that hinder a site’s designation as a heritage landscape. The main criteria are location, the composition of natural and cultural elements, background, materials, the presence of signs of work, and atmosphere. This process, which seeks to reveal any heritage elements of interest, leaves some leeway when weighing such criteria since there is no set acceptability rating. Evaluation procedures and methodology are outli-ned in detail in a report.

42

Figure 18An example of a landscape features inventory. (Source : McClelland et al., 1990)

43

[ B5]

BSOCIOCULTURAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE LANDSCAPE

CHARACTERIZATION OF INDIVIDUAL AND COLLECTIVE

LANDSCAPE-RELATED VALUES

[ A ] APPROACH More and more, landscapes are valued in a multitude of ways that transcend strictly visual or formal considera-tions. Thus, the study of landscape cannot be limited solely to expert viewpoints, but rather must seek to bring to light the values that individuals place upon it, thereby providing a more varied and complete picture of their appreciation. Once collected, individual viewpoints also make it possible to discern collective trends. Several approaches have been developed to better understand landscape appreciation in accordance with this perspective.

[ B ] GOAL The aim in characterizing the individual and collective values placed on landscape is to better identify and understand landscape appreciation by populations. It provides an opportunity to determine preferences, disco-ver emerging values, and highlight the representations that underlie the way in which we value landscapes. Additionally, these approaches enable stakeholders to reach a certain consensus, which helps provide a better sense of direction for landscape protection and requali-fication initiatives.

[ C ] METHODSThree main methodological approaches can be used to understand how we individually and collectively value landscapes. These include quantitative preference evalua-tion approaches; qualitative approaches to understanding landscape appreciation and individual motives in depth; and mixed approaches that combine qualitative data with quantifiable processing.

EVALUATION OF LANDSCAPE PREFERENCESLandscape evaluation using preference scales, one of the most well-known methods, enables participants to pro-vide a quantified assessment of a picture, slide, or visual simulation. Using a numeric scale, participants evaluate whether the picture matches their expectations with regard to landscape. The effect of certain real or potential inter-ventions can also be assessed by retouching the original picture. However, this type of evaluation has certain limi-tations in that it freezes the landscape experience through an artificial procedure of pictorial or photographic evalua-tion. This type of evaluation differs appreciably from real conditions for experiencing landscapes in that it omits mul-tisensory (smell, sound, sight, touch) and dynamic (move-ment, light, seasons) spatial relationships. It also prevents unexpected landscape-related values from being identified insofar as the evaluation is limited to pictures that are pre-selected by researchers.

CHARACTERIZATION OF LANDSCAPE-RELATED VALUES One benefit of qualitative approaches is that they produce numerous and varied data that provide in-depth information about landscape-related values. In addition, they help iden-tify the motives that influence these values in the context in which they arise.

Widespread in the human and social sciences (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000; Paillé and Mucchielli, 2003; Miles and Huberman, 2003), qualitative approaches most often involve using semi-directed interviews as a survey tool. The interview is carried out with one person or a limited group and can be used in various phases of a survey process.

44

Pre-interview guides are designed by researchers to ensure the questions relate to the topics they wish to discuss while preventing them from over-directing the answers. The interviews can vary in nature, length, num-ber of participants, and subject matter. They generally fol-low two principles: 1) avoid overly directed questions that risk distorting or misrepresenting interviewees’ responses; 2) use follow-up questions to allow interviewees to express their views on a subject several times and in various ways. The data processing and validation methods can also vary depending on the subject matter. As a general rule, inter-views are transcribed in their entirety and then analyzed using a coding sheet. Qualitative approaches are used in many disciplines, notably education, criminology, public health, and administration, where researchers seek a detailed understanding of individuals’ viewpoints

PHOTOGRAPHIC SURVEYIn the photographic survey, participants are instructed to use disposable cameras to take photographs of elements, places, or views that they appreciate in a landscape experience situation. This type of approach is useful in revealing what participants value the most about the landscape. In combination with these photographs taken by participants in landscape experience situations, there is generally a log book that is filled out during the pho-tography session(s) or at subsequent meetings. These complementary data provide information on participants’ initial motives and the context of the shots. In so doing, we will be in a position to better understand participants’ intentions (Michelin, 1998; Chenoweth, 1984; Froment and Domon, 2006).

OTHER AVENUES Several other methods of assessing individual and col-lective landscape-related values are worth considering. Given this variety in methods, it is useful to mention seve-ral (without doing an exhaustive review). It should also be underlined that a combination of methods can lead to an original approach, which is sometimes more suited to a given problem or context. The following are some exam-ples of these methods:

Mental map approach • (Bailly, 1986; Gamache et al., 2004);

Interview in a landscape experience situation while • in a vehicle (Feimer, 1984);

Landscape preference polls through the Web • (Findeli et al., 2005);

Construction of a collective view based on • iconographic or photographic data (Luginbühl et al., 1994);

Methodology of mediation through landscape • (Lelli et Paradis, 2005; see section B7).

45

[ B6]


CHARACTERIZATION OF THE ECONOMIC VALUE

OF LANDSCAPES

[ A ] APPROACHOn many levels (tourist, residential, film production, and even industrial), landscape carries economic value. Tools for estimating this value are used to translate the quali-ties of the landscape and living environments into market value. In this way, some researchers have tried to measure the economic value of landscape.

[ B ] GOAL Tools for economically evaluating landscapes are designed to provide better guidance for land use planning decisions in light of the potential effects of a project, policy, or service on the landscape. Through use of these tools, a reaso-nable financial evaluation of the enjoyment engendered by the landscape is made, although this enjoyment is not estimated a priori in economic terms since it is not a mar-ketable good. This estimate can be used to help interested parties better understand the value the community places on the landscape and the benefits it receives from it. Put-ting a numeric value on the use and nonuse of landsca-pes allows for a fairer assessment of certain development projects. In this way, economic measurements facilitate better evaluation of short-term project benefits in compa-rison to its medium- and long-term repercussions on the landscape.

[ C ] METHODSTwo main approaches are recommended for evaluating the economic value of landscape. They differ in that one seeks to assess landscape market value directly, while the other does so indirectly (Facchini, 1994; O’Neil and Walsh, 2000).

DIRECT EVALUATION METHODS These methods are conceived on the basis of observing individuals’ real behaviors in light of the approximate cost of “accessing the landscape” (Facchini, 1994: 385 [trans-lation]). In sum they show, based on these behaviors, how much individuals are willing to spend to enjoy a landsca-pe’s quality. The landscape is considered as a service that is provided in exchange for payment. These approaches are criticized, however, due to the fact that they associate a landscape’s value with a particular use or consumer act (home purchase, trip, etc.).

46

Travel cost method The travel cost method (TCM) aims to estimate “indivi-duals’ willingness to pay for landscape services based on the time and money spent getting to a site” (Facchini, 1994: 386 [translation]). This method assumes that a change in visitation rates for a given landscape reflects its quality. Consequently, if a landscape’s quality deteriora-tes, this should correspond to a decline in visitation rates. Conversely, an improvement would lead to increased fre-quentation and bring significant economic benefits (Fac-chini, 1994).

Hedonistic pricing methodThe hedonistic pricing method (HPM) seems more pro-mising insofar as it is based on a set of attributes. Assu-ming that the market value of a piece of property results from a set of criteria (related to structure and location), the quality of the surrounding environment (of which the landscape is part) should consequently influence the value of the property (Facchini, 1994). In accordance with this method, “spatial changes in landscape characteristics, all other things being equal, are reflected in housing prices” (Paquette et al., 2003 [translation]). The “added value” represented by landscape is indeed widely recognized by real estate agents.

INDIRECT EVALUATION METHODSWithin this methodological family, the contingent valuation method (CVM) is one of the most widely used. It relies on recognizing preferences as vectors of a landscape’s econo-mic value when the value is difficult to determine based on individuals’ behavior. In this type of evaluation, researchers try to measure how much individuals are willing to spend even if they do not necessarily consume the goods or services (housing, leisure, tourism, etc.) associated with the landscape qualities of a site, place, or land. For example, nonuse values can be related to the beauty of a panorama or the ecology of a natural area. The difficulty in estimating the economic value of a landscape is one of the main limitations of this approach. On the other hand, it does enable researchers to measure landscape beyond its direct benefits and thereby contributes to more enlightened decision making in regards to the appeal and impact of potential changes to a given piece of land.

47

[ B7]


CHARACTERIZATION OF THE SOCIOCULTURAL

EVOLUTION OF LANDSCAPE VALUES

[ A ] APPROACHThis approach is used to situate knowledge about landscape values within a past-present-future continuum incor-porating retrospective and prospective analysis. It consists of observations likely to reveal prior conditions relating to sociocultural values and of establishing a monitoring pro-cess to periodically update knowledge. Beyond this pers-pective, it is also desirable, based on past and current trends, to do a reading of values that people hold in light of the landscapes’ future.

[ B ] GOAL Characterizing the sociocultural evolution of landscape values allows us to understand their temporal nature. It provides an opportunity to discover and observe changing trends based on knowledge of past and current conditions. In addition, on a prospective level, examining landscape values can guide decision making by charting plausible paths for change and desirable scenarios that are in line with public concerns. Here it is not a question of predicting change, but of better envisaging development prospects in light of past and current trends and determining the values that result from these potential transformations.

[ C ] METHODSFrom a standpoint of retrospective and periodic updating, individual and collective landscape-related values must be examined in an ongoing and recurrent fashion using quan-titative and qualitative methods (see section B5). These updates are carried out regularly in parallel with reviews of an area’s physicospatial evolution (see section B3).

From a prospective standpoint, some approaches focus on developing plausible and realistic scenarios for landscape change. These include visual simulations incor-porating change scenarios into the study of individual and social landscape-related values (see section B5). Certain methods aim to inspire scenarios based on collective reflec-tions on the future of the land and, consequently, of the landscape. In these participative approaches, individuals from a given community are invited to focus on evolutio-nary trends and propose desirable directions for change based on updated land data and its social representation. Two methodologies originating from French work illustrate this perspective well.

48

Figure 19Basic elements of participatory zoning [ZADA] methodology (Source : Caron and Cheylan, 2005 : 112 [translation])

PARTICIPATORY ZONING TECHNIQUEParticipatory zoning [zonage à dire d’acteurs (ZADA)] combines two complementary methodological strategies, which include a recognition of the knowledge that cer-tain «actors» have about the land, and a map of the land that will serve as a basis for dialog. These actors are not necessarily local decision makers or members of decision-making bodies; rather they are individuals with sufficient knowledge of the area because they work or live there.

Participatory zoning [ZADA] is an iterative approach (Figs. 19 and 20) combining knowledge of the physicospa-tial structure of an area with a qualitative survey that aims to refine and complete this knowledge from a standpoint that is anchored in the area’s social and experiential reality. Participants are invited to comment on a map of the area to which have been added direct observations of human activities as well as socioeconomic and other documentary data. The approach is used as a diagnostic tool, but is also

useful in facilitating dialog surrounding a specific project. In this way, it provides an opportunity to understand the social aspirations for the future of the area, of which the land-scape is an active component, and to contribute to cocons-tructing its future. “During a project or local development process, these elements provide a good basis for debate and negotiation and pave the way for foresight analysis, to the extent that the social structure and exogenous actors are ready to pursue this exercise « (Caron and Cheylan, 2005: 119 [translation]).

-Selection of pertinent issues, external data, and bibliographic and cartographic documents -Observation of the landscape and preliminary discussion of site-related factors and issues -Selection of maps for interviews-Selection of resource persons from different backgrounds-Development and testing of an open interview guide and a summarizing variable used to start off semi-directed interviews (e.g. “productive activities”, “the territory’s key components”)

-Superposition of maps and treatment of-Superposition of maps and treatment of -Undescribed zones (new surveys) -Differences between stakeholder perspectives (debate, negotiation, new surveys) -Fuzzy boundaries (discussion of distinctive features and their spatialization)-Result: a comprehensive map of the spatial units, some of which can be merged

-Integration: harmonization of maps with zoning, production of “customized” maps

-Project-related mediation: territorial structures and dynamics represented by choremes (Brunet, 1980; -Project-related mediation: territorial structures and dynamics represented by choremes (Brunet, 1980; 1986) -Spatial dynamics and territorial and social logic (local, individual or collective, and external), specifically including complementarities, synergies, competition, and conflict, and incorporating flows, exchanges, and changes between and to spatial units

-Development of scenarios based on the interpretation of still apparent historical phenomena and of on-going dynamics

Preliminary Analysis

Comparative Analysis of Stakeholders’ Comments

Collating Secondary Information

Graphical Modeling, Dynamics, and Zoning

Permanent and Changing Features

49

Figure 20Participatory zoning [ZADA] methodology : 1) Literature and cartographic review, development of an interview guide, selection of resource persons; 2) Interviews and identification of development units; 3) Collation of results from the various interviews and exerci-ses to identify development units; 4) Comparison of interview data with bibliographic and cartographic data; 5) Analysis and characteri-zation of spatial and social functions and trends; 6) Validation of results and planning activities by consensus-building bodies. (Source : Caron, 2001, in Caron and Cheylan, 2005 ; 114)

50

MEDIATION THROUGH LANDSCAPEMediation through landscape consists of a two-pronged par-ticipative process that combines an “expert” reading of the major landscape characteristics of an area on a map scale with an interpretation of the landscape by actors from local communities (Fig. 21). This approach, which is similar to participatory zoning [ZADA], uses various tools to facilitate understanding of the current landscape-related values as well as their underlying social intentions. A photographic sur-vey reveals the “recognition and understanding of landscape representations by a set of local actors ” (Lelli and Paradis, 2005: 125 [translation]) (Fig. 22).

This survey takes place in four phases:

1. Distribution of disposable cameras. Participants have one month to turn in photographs, which are to be based on a questionnaire with situational scenarios (e.g., “If you left your home region, which pictures would you bring along?”)

2. Analysis of the photos using individual sheets

3. Individual interviews with photographic survey participants to explain and deepen their perception of the landscape, and analysis of survey results

4. Collective construction of the landscape through multi-actor mediation meetings

The fourth phase is divided into two parts. First, par-ticipants are given the opportunity to freely express them-selves “on landscape issues and trends, territorial identity, and how to communicate about the subject locally” (Lelli and Paradis, 2005: 127 [translation]). Second, they are invi-ted to compare photographic and iconographic documents to maps of landscape units and then select the documents that best represent these units. The interpretation made by researchers can then be validated, and reflection on desirable avenues for landscape change can be integrated into the dialog with participants (the “actors”) with the goal of ultimately formulating a collective vision of the desired future of the landscape.

Figure 21Methodological path for mediation through landscape. (Source : Lelli and Paradis, 2005 : 125 [translation])

51

Figure 22The four methodological steps involved in photographic surveys: 1) Organization of the survey; 2) Processing and preliminary analysis of photographs; 3) Individual interviews and analysis; 4) Follow up meetings to develop a collective vision. (Source: Lelli and Paradis, 2005: 125)

52

[ B8]

BKNOWLEDGE OF THE LANDSCAPE

DIAGNOSTIC OVERVIEW

It is important to remember that the definition of landscape stresses the many ways in which individuals and communi-ties perceive the land, perceptions expressed in identity-re-lated, historical, economic, visual, social, political, functional, and other terms. Landscape diagnosis remains, however, a dynamic process that has collective goals. It cannot be per-formed by a single expert alone because it requires a range of knowledge to cover its many manifestations.

The tools and methods described in this document represent various ways of dealing with landscape and landscape issues. Since standardized approaches are not appropriate, this management framework should be seen as a “toolkit” that allows us to develop methods adapted to local situations and landscape issues.

With this in mind, pooling the results of a landscape diagnosis is not a static process based on one approach and a systematic sequence of successive steps. It is rather an iterative, flexible, and, therefore, non linear process. The diagnostic process uses tools that take into account the various dimensions of the landscape values obser-ved. Synthesizing the objective observations obtained allows us to paint a factual portrait of the opportunities and constraints for conserving, enhancing, and developing an area’s landscape qualities.

53

PUBLIC LANDSCAPE PROJECT STATEMENT

S T E P

[ C ][ A ][ B ]

[ D ][ E ]

Based on the opportunities and constraints identified during the diagnostic phase, formu-lating a public landscape project makes it possible to cooperatively determine landscape quality objectives for the preservation, enhancement, use, and development of the areas under consideration.

At this stage, it is less about defining the terms of a particular operation that will be implemented once and for all than about making good use of the diagnosis established for social values and landscape characteristics in order to determine objectives that are clearly related to those landscape qualities being targeted by the envisaged operations, whether these operations involve recognition, enhancement, management, or requalifi-cation. Since, at this stage, multiple planning solutions and projects may seem to fulfill a given objective, the purpose of the work is to clearly show the consistency between the findings of the diagnostic phase, the formulated objectives, and the operations that seem essential to achieve them. Moreover, it is essential that the terms of the landscape quality objectives translate a common vision shared by all interested actors on a voluntary parti-cipation basis. This clarification is important, because the formulation of landscape quality objectives and the conditions for implementing landscape initiatives involve “participation of the general public, local and regional authorities, and other parties with an interest in the definition and implementation of the landscape policies” (European Landscape Convention, art. 5.c.).

54

In this regard, it should be noted that in Québec, public participation is now gua-ranteed, on the one hand by community groups from several regions, like Paysages Estriens in Estrie, Regional Council on the Environment in the Laurentides, Ruralys in Bas-Saint-Laurent, or the Estran project in Gaspésie; and on the other by regional county municipalities like those of Memphrémagog, Brome-Missisquoi, Kamouraska, and Lotbinière. In fact, initiatives spearheaded by these groups and regional county municipalities represent convergence points for the various actors concerned by the future of landscapes and regional living environments.

The role of project leaders and coordinators is also crucial. They channel commu-nications and mobilize support for landscape initiatives on the local, regional, or provin-cial level. They have multiple roles: monitoring communication and cooperative initiatives (e.g., developing training sessions and conferences, and drafting documents to raise awareness); carrying out activities related to project and activity financing and esta-blishing partnerships; and raising awareness among local populations, elected officials, and sponsors. Beyond these tasks, project managers play a true leadership role in trans-lating community and policy wishes from local and regional communities into objectives in the area of landscape quality (Folinais, 2006). It is therefore necessary to ensure these actors are provided with adequate support in terms of not only specialized expertise but also financial and human resources.

55

FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION AND IMPLEMENTATION

S T E P

[ D][ A ][ B ][ C ]

[ E ]

The pluralist and cross-disciplinary nature of landscape issues inspires a variety of strategies and means of action that aim to protect and enhance landscapes. No tool, measure, or statute can, in and of itself, guarantee adequate management. For this reason, any landscape-related undertaking is first and foremost a cooperative exer-cise that requires the participation of all interested actors from municipal, ministerial, professional, and other circles.

Based on a project’s formulation, the landscape quality objectives that emerge can be translated into action through the following means:

Regulatory tools incorporating Québec’s main legislative frameworks concerning • land use planning and development;

Landscape promotion tools including dissemination, awareness-raising, and • recognition activities;

Landscape projects in the form of workshops, for example, or design contests • (“exploratory exercises”) or else landscape charters and local initiative support measures.

It is understood that these three avenues for landscape-related initiatives are not exclu-sive, since areas of landscape interest or sector-based issues could require tools origina-ting from a variety of strategies and methods.

56

[ D1]

DFRAMEWORK FOR ACTION AND IMPLEMENTATION

LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY TOOLS

The tools described in this document comprise the main Québec legislative frameworks regarding land use planning and development. Some are strategic guide-lines or management principles, while others are nor-mative and regulatory frameworks. The nature, scope, and field of application of these measures are briefly discussed below.

ACT RESPECTING LAND USE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENTPassed in 1979, the Act respecting land use planning and development (ALUPD) is the main legislative framework for land use planning and development at the regional and local levels. The ALUPD compels regional county munici-palities (RCMs) to establish a land use planning and deve-lopment plan (LUPDP). This regional planning document sets out “guidelines for the physical organization of the ter-ritory” (Caron, 2005). At the local level, municipalities must adopt a planning program in accordance with the LUPDP, and for more precise planning of particular areas, they can adopt a special planning program (SPP). Some guidelines proposed in the planning program may be translated into law by means of regulatory tools that may be prescriptive (zoning, development, or construction by-laws) or discre-tionary (by-laws on comprehensive development programs or site planning and architectural integration programs). Unlike prescriptive tools, discretionary tools provide a more flexible framework that makes for more consistent, better quality development projects (Domon, 2007). By using criteria rather than standards, more attention can be paid to the desired type of development and the particular characteristics of a given site.

Ultimately the ALUPD imposes a land use mana-gement process, but for the most part lets regional and local authorities define the nature and operational scope of process content. The term “landscape” did not appear in the text of the ALUPD until recently, but a number of RCMs have incorporated aspects that take into account the value of the landscape by requiring that areas of his-torical, cultural, aesthetic, or ecological value be identified when establishing a LUPDP (Domon, 2007). Based on proposed land use planning guidelines, the government can also encourage RCMs to consider certain landscape issues in LUPDPs (Mercier, 2002). An example of this are the recent sustainable development guidelines on wind energy mentioned earlier (Ministère des Affaires municipa-les et des Régions, 2007a). However, most efforts to incor-porate landscape issues into territorial land use planning and development are regional initiatives, which take an innovative approach to the planning and regulatory tools contained in the ALUPD.

57

CULTURAL PROPERTY ACTThree designations defined in the Cultural Property Act (CPA) have landscape-related dimensions—historic dis-trict, natural district, and heritage site. The first two were established in 1972 to respond to the burgeoning heritage concerns of the time. Under section 45 of the CPA, an area is deemed to be an historic district “because of the concen-tration of historic monuments or sites found there,” and a natural district “because of the aesthetic, legendary or sce-nic value of its natural setting.” However, studies such as that by Bureau and his team in 1976 noted the imprecise, vague nature of the terms used (aesthetic value, legen-dary or scenic value, natural setting), which reduces the effectiveness of this initiative to recognize areas of value from a landscape and land use point of view. Moreover, in certain cases it is difficult, even undesirable, to distinguish natural from historical districts. The designation of the his-torical and natural district of Mont-Royal in 2005 was a first in Québec in this respect. Giving concrete expression to this new designation from a landscape perspective poses a number of challenges, however, particularly in defining criteria for evaluating enhancement and land development projects in the district.

As for “heritage site,” it should be noted that the word landscape was first mentioned in Québec law in connec-tion with this designation. Under section 84 of the CPA, this designation can be given to any area “where immo-vable cultural property is situated and where the archi-tectural landscape has aesthetic or historic value.” Some would argue, however, that landscape remains marginal to this designation, whose main objective is to preserve and enhance architectural heritage (Mercier, 2002).

In fact, in terms of landscape enhancement, the various designations under the CPA are of limited effec-tiveness. These initiatives to protect heritage territories or buildings are seldom proactive, designations usually being granted only when the integrity of the sites face a serious threat or major transformation (Trépanier et al., 2003). Also, the designations are only designed for the protection or enhancement of outstanding historical or natural dis-tricts, leaving whole swaths of territory with landscapes of value other than in terms of heritage left unaccounted for.

ENVIRONMENT QUALITY ACTThe Environment Quality Act (EQA) establishes the legis-lative framework for issues related to the protection and quality of the environment. Yet, under this law, landscape has no legal standing in itself because the term landscape is never used. The EQA does, however, define the condi-tions under which the environmental public hearings office Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement (BAPE) operates. It was through this consultative mechanism that social demands with regard to landscape issues emerged

for the first time in Québec (Montpetit et al., 2002). The Guide de réalisation d’une étude d’impact sur l’environ-nement (Guide to environmental impact studies)(MDDEP, 2003) contains explicit requirements for taking landscape into consideration, including the provision that impact assessments should consider “the effect of construction work “. . . on built heritage and the landscape.” The EQA also spurred the Ministère des Transports (Gauvreau et al., 1986) and Hydro-Québec (Groupe Viau and the consulting group Entraco Inc., 1992) to develop the first methods of evaluating visual impact on the landscape during the eigh-ties and nineties. The main goal of these techniques is to develop measures for mitigating and compensating for the visual impact of planned infrastructures (e.g. highways, power lines, etc.), often in response to citizen reaction. More recently adopted environmental monitoring measu-res (MDDEP, 2005) consider landscape as one of the social components of the environment that can be modified by a project, and therefore, should be carefully monitored.

NATURAL HERITAGE CONSERVATION ACTIn the wake of the Plan d’action stratégique sur les aires protégées (strategic action plan for protected areas), a new “man-made landscape” designation was included in the Natural Heritage Conservation Act (NHCA), adopted in 2002. This designation flows from the objectives under-lying the fifth category of protected areas defined by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (ICUN), namely “Protected landscape/Seascape.” The NHCA defi-nes a man-made landscape as follows:

[…] an area established to protect the biodiversity of an inhabited, aquatic, or terrestrial area whose land-scape and natural features have been shaped over time by human activities in harmony with nature and present outstanding intrinsic qualities, the conserva-tion of which depends to a large extent on the conti-nuation of the practices that originally shaped them (R.S.Q., Chapter C-61.01, s. 2).

58

This designation mainly aims to protect inhabited areas that have particular value in terms of biodiversity. On an operational level, it implies the maintenance of human activities, in contrast to stricter measures that aim to pro-tect only certain outstanding natural elements (e.g. ICUN’s nature reserve status). It also gives local governments a special role in recognizing, setting up, managing, and monitoring areas likely to acquire this status.

Two important aspects of the act limit its scope (Domon, 2007). First, the priority given to biodiversity pro-tection means that very few areas can acquire this desi-gnation—in practice, it is essentially limited to zones near inhabited areas where traditional agricultural and forestry activities are in decline. Second, the community coordi-nation strategy imposed by the designation poses a big challenge, at least in the short term. To rally all local and regional actors around a common vision of land use on their territory means they must develop a culture of col-lective initiative, a culture still in its infancy in Québec (Domon, 2007).

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT ACTThe Sustainable Development Act (SDA) introduced a new government management framework with a view to impro-ving the coherence of government actions in all its spheres of activity. The proposed strategy incorporates the environ-mental, social, and economic dimensions of development activities in the form of 16 principles: health and quality of life, social equity and solidarity, environmental protec-tion, economic efficiency, participation and commitment, access to knowledge, subsidiarity, intergovernmental part-nership and cooperation, prevention, precaution, protec-tion of cultural heritage, biodiversity protection, respect for ecosystem support capacity, responsible production and consumption, polluter pays, and internalization of costs (SDA, s. 6). The Act only uses the term landscape with regard to protection of cultural heritage, which comprises “property, sites, landscapes, traditions and knowledge must be identified, protected and enhanced, taking their intrinsic rarity and fragility into account” (SDA, s. 6). Clearly, the landscape issue implicitly transects a number of other principles set out in the SDA, particularly those concerning quality of life and the environment. Indeed, many of the principles in the SDA are in keeping with the implementa-tion conditions set out in this document, for example with regard to public participation, subsidiarity, and intersecto-ral partnership. An important aspect of the SDA is that it imposes an annual reporting process for measuring how well initial objectives have been achieved on the basis of sustainable development indicators and thus encourages the public bodies concerned, especially ministries, to be more accountable. All in all, the SDA plays an important role in ensuring more consistent consideration of land-scape concerns in all governmental actions having a direct or indirect impact on the landscape.

59

[ D2]


PROMOTION TOOLS

Landscape issues cannot be handled solely through regulatory or coercive measures. Public mobilization, consultation, and participation are vital to implementing any project affecting landscapes, which means that we need to develop, or even invent new local competen-cies and support the promotion and dissemination of knowledge, know-how, and best practices regarding landscape protection and enhancement. Dissemina-tion, awareness, and recognition activities must involve a demonstrative dimension, a component that is crucial to supporting local actions.

These tools generally require few resources, are easy to implement quickly, and encourage the adoption of innovative practices.

DISSEMINATION AND AWARENESS-RAISINGCommunication tools are essential to expanding local land-scape management and enhancement skills. Whether they are in the form of guides to landscape characterization and evaluation or to best practices in landscape planning and design, these tools aim above all to support local bodies (municipalities and associations). Trépanier, Courcier, and Dion-Gaudreau’s work (2004) on regulatory frameworks with respect to burying power lines led Hydro-Québec to produce the Guide en matière de distribution souterraine to help municipalities with the issues and actions they should consider concerning underground power distribution.

Knowledge-transfer tools for more specific clienteles are also important, particularly for major land use plan-ning stakeholders. Ongoing training sessions on land-scape issues are an effective transfer method. They can be incorporated into existing training programs (e.g., the

Villes et villages d’art et de patrimoine program), or special sessions for stakeholders and decision-makers. Decision-making support tools enlighten public consultation and debate, foster the emergence of projects, and facilitate planning choices. For example, circulating the results of a visual monitoring project carried out as part of Minis-tère des Transports du Québec’s program on ecological management of highway right-of-ways helped decision-makers make intelligent choices about vegetation design along road and highway routes that take into account the resulting landscape experience (project results are posted online at www.mtq.gouv.qc.ca).

In addition to more specialized communication tools, promotion and dissemination tools for the general public, such as publications on tourist attractions and sites, exhi-bitions, school textbooks, and discovery tours, raise public awareness of landscape features and landscape-related issues. One example among many are the “Architectours” organized by Héritage Montréal, an eloquent example of the fundamental role that awareness activities play in pro-tecting and enhancing urban heritage landscapes.

60

RECOGNITIONThe various tools used to recognize landscapes of value are mainly designed to reveal the unique features of the landscape in question, but they also seek to promote effective action in preserving, enhancing, and developing the landscape, and to help draw attention to outstan-ding, innovative local initiatives, which too often remain in the shadows. Various tools may used, according to local contexts, issues, and means. Generally, recognition takes the form of a label, award, or mention.

The label of quality is an explicit recognition of the value a community attributes to a specific area. It can apply to zones of various sizes (a road, river, village center, city street, etc.) and can be granted for a predetermined period subject to renewal conditions (Domon, 2007). Labels are designated and renewed according to precise selection and management criteria. Take for example the label awarded by the Canadian Heritage Rivers System (CHRS). Candi-date rivers for the CHRS are nominated by partner networks from local and regional communities and must meet a set of cultural and natural criteria. Official designation is awarded when the management plan ensuring the protection of the river’s cultural, natural, and recreational values is accepted by the committee that manages the program (www.chrs.ca).

Awards and mentions are sometimes granted for the outstanding quality of a design or planning project, or for an original, innovative landscape knowledge, conservation, or enhancement initiative. The Landscape Award of the Council of Europe, which honors initiatives in three cate-gories “Awareness-raising, education, public participation,” “Scientific and technical activities,” and “Protection, mana-gement, and planning,” eloquently illustrates the structural impact of such tools. Closer to home, the “Nos paysages … des gens et des actions” award established by Conseil régional de l’environnement des Laurentides in 2002 aims, in a similar way, to acknowledge the invaluable contribu-tion of sustainable protection and enhancement projects to the Laurentian landscapes (Paquette et al., 2003).

These tools play an essential role in landscape enhan-cement strategies because of their role in rallying the public, the examples they set for landscape management, their abi-lity to foster local and regional cooperation, and their relative flexibility. Like any local and regional initiative, their impact depends on communities’ ability to find the funding and state-of-the-art expertise required to adequately carry out the initial idea. However, in situations where development pressure is particularly strong, these tools cannot replace more coercive measures, such as regulations and legisla-tion (Domon, 2007).

61

[ D3]


LANDSCAPE PROJECTS

The main objective of a landscape project is to enhance communities’ ability to accompany changes to the land-scape while taking into consideration the particular features of the area. In contrast to a strictly normative and coercive approach, each landscape project is a unique undertaking (Poullaouec-Gonidec, 1999). Because each location has its own, specific value and meaning, the goal is to evoke that uniqueness in a new, socially acceptable and desired form. The landscape project does not hold a monopoly on points of view or means of action. Collective perceptions (e.g., awareness of heritage landscapes or the quality of living environments), regulatory processes and methods, (particularly policies and programs that affect landscape), and landscape practices (landscape design, production, and maintenance) may all have an impact, but are not part of the landscape projects.

The ability to bring about effective action through a partnership approach is also one of the particularities of a landscape project, as it emphasizes empowerment, dia-log, and participation on the part of civil society and the principal stakeholders in land use planning (professionals, managers, elected representatives, private stakeholders).

The landscape project draws on prior knowledge (diagnosis) of the area in question and requires the adoption of a landscape plan (landscape project sta-tement and objectives). Once these steps in the pro-cess have been presented, it is important to clarify how they translate into action. Two distinct but complemen-tary main approaches are generally used—exploratory exercises and contractual agreements and accompa-nying measures.

62

EXPLORATORY EXERCISESExploratory exercises, often in the form of landscape design competitions or workshops, are essential because of the complexity of landscape issues, which are rarely resolved by cookie-cutter planning solutions. They are exercises in ideation and exploration that contribute to the acquisition of specific know-how. An excellent example of this is the on-site sustainable urban design workshop, Worshop_ate-lier/terrain (WAT) Le développement durable en action/5 projets de paysage pour Longueuil et la Rive-Sud run by CPEUM, Chair in Landscape and Environmental Design at Université de Montréal (this initiative is described below in Case Study 4). The project involved a dialog on the future of Metropolitan Montreal’s suburban landscapes and the necessary conditions for sustainable development in these municipalities. These types of projects are unique oppor-tunities for dialog between academic communities, public decision makers, and civil society, and ultimately ensure consistency in the planning for a given area, often com-pensating for inadequate existing tools and programs.

CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENTS AND SUPPORTOnce the landscape plan is established, based on agreed-upon guidelines and landscape development criteria and objectives, the various stakeholders are called on to esta-blish the terms of these plans in the form of landscape charters, conventions, collective declarations, landscape contracts, mutual agreements, etc. A landscape charter is a document signed by all the public and private sta-keholders involved and “constitutes a moral commitment by the signatories to respect and enforce the objectives” (Donadieu and Périgord, 2005: 342 [translation]). Thus, in addition to including principles and guidelines for pro-tecting and enhancing heritage landscapes, such charters often include an action plan specifying how they should be implemented—the Charte des paysages naturels et bâtis des Laurentides (Laurentian natural and built landscape charter), adopted in 2004, is an example (see Case Study 2 below). Charter recommendations are implemented by a variety of measures, from regulatory and appreciation tools to landscape development projects. To achieve the established objectives, signatories to such agreements undertake to assemble the necessary financial resources and landscape expertise through solid partnerships.

63

Landscape is the product of changing dynamics in both tangible and intangible realities. On the one hand, it is the result of transformations in an area’s biophysical or man-made features, and, on the other hand, of the changing social values placed on these compo-nents. Any landscape monitoring initiative must take changes in the territory’s physico-spatial features into consideration (changes in agricultural or forestry use, construction of transportation infrastructures, urban development, etc.) as well as the social and cultural representations and practices that define sites from different perspectives (aesthetics, identity, experience, heritage, etc.).

Periodic overviews of changes in territories’ physicospatial aspects can be generated by examining land use patterns and photographing particular views at different intervals (these methods are described in more detail in section B3).

With respect to sociocultural dimensions, regular surveys of individual and collective values with respect to the land ensure that public expectations and the initial objectives of the landscape protection and enhancement initiatives are still appropriate (for the main methods to use, see sections B5 and B7 above).

Since, as we have already stressed, no action is considered to be definitive, a third followup method is needed, namely an evaluation of the coherence and scope of public policies, programs, and tools.

MONITORING AND AUDITING

S T E P

[ E][ A ][ B ][ C ][ D ]

64

Certain planning initiatives have a direct impact on areas of landscape interest. “Natu-ral district,” “historical district” (MCCF), and “man-made landscape” (MDDEP) designations, the introduction of integrated resource management standards for public forests (Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune), measures to mitigate visual impacts of trans-portation infrastructures (Ministère des Transports) or power transmission lines (Hydro-Québec), and regional partnership protection and enhancement projects (e.g., landscape charters) are all ways of taking landscape into consideration that should be evaluated in the light of landscape quality objectives attainted, and more generally, with respect to the overall goals of the approach. However, such landscape-sensitive projects apart, most changes to the landscape are the indirect result of the programs and practices of public, broader public, and private land use planning bodies. Support programs for agriculture or reforestation, which substantially influence how certain areas develop, are only two exam-ples of measures that deserve special attention with respect to landscape.

Therefore, we need to monitor in order to evaluate the true impact of development policies and programs, which are often established from a sectoral viewpoint. This is true for agricultural and forestry policies as well as for urban development projects and policies, and it important to ensure coherence between these various government actions. It is also important to evaluate the suitability and effectiveness of the main landscape protection and enhancement tools available at the local (site development and architectural integration plans, planning programs, etc.), regional (land use plans, landscape charters), and provin-cial (Natural Heritage Conservation Act) levels. Although certain planning instruments and regulatory tools have clearly been useful in addressing issues pertaining to landscape and the quality of living environments, very few studies have measured their performance (Tré-panier, 2000). We need to retroactively evaluate the appropriateness of initial objectives, measures actually carried out, and results achieved in order to validate, and even revise, initial landscape quality objectives (Fig. 23). Based on this monitoring and audit model, evaluating results involves regular examination of the physicospatial and visual aspects of areas affected by a given project as well as an ongoing survey of public social values and concerns.

Although monitoring and auditing methods still need developing, there are prece-dents. For example, the audits carried out in Great Britain by the Commission for Architec-ture and the Built Environment (CABE) on the quality of new private urban development projects. Drawing on surveys of residents and an evaluation of the distinctive features of the built areas (performance and multi-use nature of the transportation network, design of buildings and public spaces, nature of environmental and public services provided), almost three hundred residential projects were audited in nine different regions. They helped paint a nation-wide portrait of the situation and made it possible to propose recom-mendations to local authorities, real-estate developers, and government agencies, parti-cularly with regard to implementing corrective measures (CABE, 2007).

The French Ministère de l’Écologie et du Développement durable’s review of the effectiveness of landscape plans introduced in the early nineties in France (Folinais, 2006) is another interesting monitoring initiative. Landscape plans are one of the main tools for ensuring consistency between planning policies and territorial projects. On the one hand, the review provided a preliminary evaluation of the impact of “landscape plans” by examining plans implemented by regional actors. On the other hand, it revealed a need to think about which “landscape indicators” to develop to reflect specific regional land use issues.

65

Figure 23Monitoring and auditing model for landscape projects.(Source : CPEUM, 2007)

The British and French experiences provide a number of operational pointers that can aid reflection on how to monitor and audit landscape initiatives. In Québec, this reflection is particularly important because of the reporting process imposed by the Sustainable Development Act, which enables the government to evaluate the impact of projects that apply sustainable development principles promoted by the Québec government.

Results

Coherence Effectiveness

ActionFramework

Goals

Monitoring ofphysicospatialcomponents

Monitoring ofsoscioculturalcomponents

Tools

Programs

Policies

66

EXAMPLES OF CHARACTERIZATION AND LANDSCAPE PROJECTS IN QUÉBEC

[ ]

PH

OTO

: M

INIS

TÈR

E D

E L

’EN

VIR

ON

NE

ME

NT

DU

Q

UÉ

BE

C, O

CTO

BE

R 2

003

PH

OTO

: LO

TBIN

IÈR

E R

MC

, OC

TOB

ER

200

3

CASE[1]APPLYING THE ECOLOGICAL

REFERENCE FRAMEWORK TO LANDSCAPE ENHANCEMENT:

THE CASE OF LOTBINIèRE RCM

In reviewing its land use plan, Lotbinière RCM in the Chaudière-Appalaches region initiated a reflection on its landscape framework . On the one hand, the RCM intends to bank on its landscape to preserve a pleasant and har-monious living environment and at the same time address the challenge of demographic decline in the region. On the other, it considers the landscape to be an important asset for developing tourism. In partnership with MDDEP, Lotbinière RCM initiated a study to inventory and analyze the region’s landscapes using the ecological reference fra-mework (ERF) described in section B1.

The RCM’s landscapes were characterized on the basis of the particular characteristics of the physiographic districts (level 3) and ecological districts (level 4) of the ERF. Physiographic districts are determined based on the geology of both the region and the ecological districts as well as on the specific spatial organization of landforms and soil. Lotbinière RCM comprises four physiographic

districts and 16 ecological districts. It was the ecological districts that were mainly used to qualify the territory from a landscape point of view (Fig. 24 and 25). A data sheet on the physical features, land use, forest cover, farms, and built environment was developed for each district (Fig. 26).

Thus, the RCM learned about the unique characteristics of its territory. For example, whereas the Terrasse du Platon features a plain that gently slopes toward the river, is mainly used for agriculture, and boasts numerous views of the river, the Plaine Tourbeuse de Saint-Gilles features large peat bogs, sand and gravel hillocks, and is mostly used for forestry.

Figure 25Landscape scene: La Plaine Tourbeuse de Saint-Gilles ecological district. (Source: Lotbinière RCM, 2005)

Figure 24Landscape scene: La Terrasse du Platon ecological district. (Source: Lotbinière RCM, 2005)

68

Figure 26A data sheet showing physical features, land use, forest cover, agricultural use, and built environment was developed for each district. (Source : Blais et al., 2005)

69

Figure 27Example of a heritage thematic map illustrating the percentage of buildings dating back to a given period in each district compared with the entire RCM.(Source : Blais et al., 2005)

70

Besides highlighting the RCM’s landscape features, the ecological districts also provided a framework for land analyzing that can be applied to a number of fields. For example, thematic or interpretive maps were generated for agriculture (agricultural potential of soils), the environment (vulnerability of groundwater to pollution), forestry (forest cover structure) and heritage (size of heritage habitat) (Fig. 27). For Lotbinière RCM, the districts are essential founda-tions on which to evaluate the potential of and limitations to land use and activities on its territory. They generate “extre-mely important information for territorial land use planning and development” (Blais et al., 2005:18 [translation]).

After completing its landscape diagnosis, the RCM took steps to present the landscapes of Lotbinière to the public. First, it produced a guide to land use and land use planning on its territory for the general public. In fact, the RCM believed its residents to be too familiar with the region’s landscape to really appreciate its qualities. Then, the RCM designed discovery bike tours based on the highlighted landscape features (Fig. 28). These bike tours are now suggested to tourists who want to explore the region.

Figure 28“Discovery Tours” are bike tour routes that capitalize on the quality of Lotbinière’s landscape. (Source: Lotbinière RCM, 2006)

71

CASE[2]MOBILIZING REGIONAL ACTORS TO

DIAGNOSE THE LANDSCAPE AND IMPLEMENT A LANDSCAPE

CHARTER: THE CASE OF THE LAURENTIDES REGION

With its natural riches and diversity of landscapes, the Laurentides region is a popular destination for tou-rists and vacationers. However, intense pressure on the region’s landscape has also caused its degrada-tion over time. Regional bodies such as Association Touristique des Laurentides and the not-for-profit organization Environnement Visuel Plus were already sounding the alarm in the early nineties. Later, Conseil régional de l’environnement des Laurentides launched the “Opération paysages” landscape campaign to fol-low up on heritage landscape identification projects carried out by CPEUM (Domon et al., 2000) in partnership with Conseil de la culture des Laurentides as well as the landscape enhancement initiatives along Highways 15 and 117 implemented in collaboration with Ministère des Transports du Québec. The project aimed to raise stakeholder awareness of the impor-tance of landscape issues and spur them to develop a charter fostering a regional commitment to protecting the integrity of the Laurentian landscape.

Sites important to the regional identity were charac-terized. Drawing on an exercise carried out with the mem-bers of the advisory committee and a telephone survey of 34 organizations and institutions, 39 sites valued by local communities were identified. The sites were then stu-died to determine which ones displayed signs of severe degradation and which should be protected, restored, or enhanced. Another aspect of the project focused on the economic value of the landscape. The Laurentides region’s landscape generates substantial economic spinoffs and is a key factor in developing the tourism, film, and cultural industries. As a first step, a written survey was used to poll residents and visitors on the quality of Laurentian landsca-pes and measure public awareness of landscape issues.

Once the analysis was completed, a landscape charter was drafted to identify significant issues, formulate guiding principles, and propose objectives for “government, muni-cipal, community, and private stakeholders interested in contributing to the sustainable development of the Lauren-tides region while protecting its landscapes” (CRE Lauren-tides, 2005: 15 [translation]). Thus in 2004, the Charte des paysages naturels et bâtis des Laurentides was adopted—a first for Québec. The charter is founded on two broad prin-ciples: the recognition of the importance of landscape for the region’s development and its signatories’ commitment to adopt practices that protect and enhance the region’s landscapes (Fig. 29 and 30). More than 150 municipalities, organizations, and companies have signed the charter. It is implemented by Table de concertation sur les paysages, a landscape roundtable that brings together representatives of the RCMs and Conseil régional de l’environnement des Laurentides (Anonymous, 2005). This initiative led to the adoption, in September 2006, of a landscape enhancement action plan organized around three broad themes—the landscape and the collective regional identity, the landscape as living environment, and the sustainable economic value of the landscape.

Signatories to the charter have already taken steps to protect and enhance the landscape. For example, Argen-teuil RCM, in its land use and development plan now requi-res local municipalities to include regulatory measures in their planning tools to protect valuable components of spe-cific landscapes (Fig. 31). These measures apply, among others things, to new building site standards, forest cover, and tree tunnels (Argenteuil RCM, 2005).

72

Figure 29Signatories recognize the importance of landscape as one of two main principles underpinning the Charte des paysages naturels et bâtis des Laurentides. (Source : CRE Laurentides, 2004)

Municipalities, organizations, and businesses in the Laurentians joined forces to manage the landscape. Today, the landscape is considered as a common good in its own right and a key factor for the region’s development.

73

Figure 30The signatories’ commitment is the other principle underpinning the Charter. (Source : CRE Laurentides, 2004)

Figure 31Harrington Valley, an example of a heritage landscape identified in the land use plan. To preserve and enhance the landscape in this valley, the RCM asked the municipalities of Grenville-sur-la-Rouge and Harrington to include in their land use plan development tools regulatory measures to, for example, harmonize new building construction standards with those of existing buildings. (Source : RCM d’Argenteuil, 2003)

74

CASE[3]TAKING THE LANDSCAPE INTO

ACCOUNT IN PLANNING TOOLS: THE CASE OF MEMPHRÉMAGOG RCM

Memphrémagog RCM is a pioneer in the field of landscape protection. The RCM made landscape a key issue right from the preliminary development stages of its first land use plan. It established a direct link between boosting tourist and vacation activity and the quality of the region’s landscape. Clearly, landscape protection was cru-cial to the region’s economy. The RCM therefore sought to use the powers conferred on it by the Act respecting land use planning and development to the fullest to protect and enhance regional and local landscapes.

Over the years, Memphrémagog RCM’s innovative ini-tiative more than proved its worth. The content of the first land use plan was essentially carried over to the second plan, which has been in effect since 1999.

Landscape is taken into consideration in two ways. First, the RCM included landscape protection and enhan-cement in its overall vision for the region, for example in defining tourism development or environmental protec-tion objectives (Fig. 32). Then, it incorporated the concept of landscape into the identification of areas of aesthetic value, which it identified in its land use plan and classified into four categories: 1) highly valuable natural landsca-pes, including summits and hillsides; 2) panoramic views; 3) scenic and panoramic routes; and 4) rural landscapes (relatively extensive visual fields of typical rural landscape) (Fig. 33, 34, and 35)

Based on this knowledge of its landscapes of inte-rest, the RCM took action to protect and enhance them. Regulatory and other measures regarding the four land-scape types were included in a supplement to the land use plan. They mainly concerned subdivisions, transportation routes, distribution of building types according to topogra-phy, and areas subject to deforestation for construction and development. Finally, additional regulatory measures were passed with regard to tree tunnel conservation (Fig. 36), tree cutting, and the erection of commercial and road signs.

Memphrémagog RCM’s initiative is a fine example of how to incorporate landscape considerations into a land use plan. Although certain obstacles persist in getting local muni-cipalities to take responsibility for certain actions, the initia-tive remains, without doubt, an extremely valuable model.

75

LAND USE PLANNING OBJECTIVES

Rural Areas

Culture/Heritage

Conserve scenic routes and views of landscapes of significant value

Forests

Tourism/ Vacation Areas

Recognize agriculture’s contribution to shaping and enhancing the heritage of a region and develop new approaches to conserving rural landscape of regional interest

Acknowledge the important impact of the quality of landscapes and built architecture and develop conservation bylaws

Promote a silvicultural framework ensuring that forestry operations reflect forest characteristics, recognize the supporting role of forests in other types of land use, and conserve vulnerable habitats

Develop an action plan for reforesting open areas and enhancing uncultivated land, taking into consideration the impacts on landscape and agriculture

Support tourist development by conserving natural habitats and enhancing built and landscape heritage

Figure 32Memphrémagog RCM planning targets incorporate landscape issues. (Source: Memphrémagog RCM, 1998)

Figure 33The northwestern side of Rivière Massawippi: an example of a highly valuable natural landscape. (Source : Trépanier et al., 2001)

76

Figure 36Protection of tree tunnels is included in the supplement to Memphrémagog RCM’s land use plan as well as in local develop-ment by-laws. (Source : Poullaouec-Gonidec)

Figure 34View of Magog from Chemin des Pères road: an example of a panoramic view. (Source : Trépanier et al., 2001)

Figure 35Route 108 towards Magog: an example of a scenic and panoramic route and a rural landscape. (Source : Trépanier et al., 2001).

77

CASE[4]

The on-site sustainable urban development workshop Workshop_atelier/terrain (WAT) Le développement dura-ble en action/5 projets de paysage pour Longueuil et la Rive-Sud, held in spring 2007, was a unique exercise in dialog, ideation, and territorial exploration that gave land use specialists (architects, landscape architects, urban planners and designers, engineers, biologists, and so on) an opportunity to develop new avenues for periurban plan-ning in metropolitan Montréal (Fig. 37). This exercise hel-ped establish a genuine dialog between local development and planning experts, public decision makers, academics, and civil society in general.

At the CPEUM’s initiative, this urban design workshop was organized with the support of Ministère des Affaires municipales et des Régions, Ministère de la Culture, des Communications et de la Condition féminine, the Longueuil Regional Council of Elected Officials, and the UNESCO Chair in Landscape and Environmental Design at Univer-sité de Montréal, and in collaboration with Direction de la planification supralocale de Longueuil and its five muni-cipalities (Boucherville, Brossard, Longueuil, Saint-Bruno-de-Montarville, and Saint-Lambert).

The workshop’s objective was to foster strategic visions and forward thinking on the main sustainable plan-ning issues on Montreal’s South Shore, as well as five innovative proposals (one for each municipality) from a landscape project perspective. The goal was to highlight the particularities of these areas, reveal their qualities, and influence their evolution in accordance with the collective values people share about the land. Landscape projects, whether they involve emblematic sites, everyday living environments, or highly altered areas, have multiple goals. Moreover, because they incorporate environmental, social, and economic aspects of development, they are directly in line with the Québec government’s sustainable develop-ment principles.

More specifically, the objectives of the WAT workshop were the following:

Reflect on five broad landscape issues affecting • Montreal’s South Shore municipalities and covering a variety of dimensions such as their cultural identity, habitat development, the quality of the living environment, and protection of natural districts

Generate five strategic planning visions for • Longueuil, the region, and Québec as a whole, in response to challenges facing sites in the five participating municipalities

Demonstrate local, provincial, and international- • planning know-how

Foster an exchange of knowledge from municipal, • ministerial, professional, and academic sources

Foster implementation of the proposed land use • visions by incorporating landscape and sustainable development concepts

The workshop intervention sites generated a diverse array of projects. For example, in Longueuil, the theme “Reinventing Everyday Landscapes” inspired a plan to transform a suburban boulevard that transects a residential and commercial district. In Boucherville, the theme “Manu-facturing a New Centrality” was applied to the development of a new urban district and public space to improve quality of life. In Saint-Bruno-de-Montarville, the theme “Construc-ting an Emblematic Landscape” provided direction for the periurban development of a mountain highly prized by the community for its natural and heritage value. In Brossard, plans were sketched out for a section of river surrounded by a redeveloping urban neighborhood in keeping with the city’s “Reconnecting Nature in the City” theme. Finally, in Saint-Lambert, redevelopment plans for the industrial zone

EXPLORATION AND IDEATION PROJECTS: THE EXAMPLE OF

THE LONGUEUIL ON-SITE WAT WORKSHOP

78

around the old railway station were developed under the rubric “Recycling Existing Resources” (Fig. 38).

Initiative’s Main StepsFormation of a followup committee including the •

initiators of the project, government partners, and local experts (municipal urban planners)

Identification of development issues and priority • sites in collaboration with the municipalities

Call for candidates issued to designers • (land use planning specialists)

Selection of design teams by an expert committee • (academics, local experts, specialists)

Preparatory seminars and site visits by designers • to gather important information regarding planning issues, the particularities of the landscape project, and technical aspects of the process

A design workshop (one week) during which the • designers developed land use strategies and were invited to dialog with local actors and guest experts

A public forum to present strategic land use visions • and design proposals to elected representatives, local experts, land use specialists, academics, and the general public

Workshop-type group initiatives are useful for desi-gning model demonstration projects and promoting origi-nal land use planning know-how (protection, management,

and creation) as it applies to urban, periurban, and rural areas. They also provide municipalities with a space for public input and dialog on their territory’s future and the enhancement of its distinctive qualities (Fig. 39). In the long run, they generate new ideas and visions that enrich urban and regional planning.

(For more information on this initiative, visit the CPEUM website: [HYPERLINK «http://www.paysage.umontreal.ca»] , under the “Info CPEUM” tab, sub-section “Activités.”)

Figure 37Design work done during a week-long intensive design workshop at the Longueuil WAT workshop. (Source : CPEUM)

79

Figure 38Illustration of the diversity of land use visions and design proposals generated during the Longueuil on-site workshop. (Source: CPEUM; editing: Yannick Roberge)

80

Figure 39Discussions during the public forum at the Longueuil WAT workshop held on May 23, 2007 in Boucherville. (Source : CPEUM)

81

82

BIBLIOGRAPHY[ ]

ANONYMOUS (2005). “La charte des paysages naturels et bâtis des Laurentides : une première au Québec”, Environ-nement Québec et Régions, Official publication of Regrou-pement national des conseils régionaux de l’environnement, Montréal, Presse Édition Canada Inc., No. 2, p. 14–17.

BAILLY, A.S. (1986). “Espaces et représentations mentales”, in A.S. Bailly (under the direction), Représentations spatiales et dynamiques urbaines et régionales, Montréal, Université du Québec à Montréal, p. 5–36.

BEAUCHESNE, P., M.J. CÔTÉ, S. ALLARD, J.P. DUCRUC et Y. LACHANCE (1998). Atlas écologique du bassin versant de la rivière l’Assomption : La partie des Basses-Terres du Saint-Laurent, Québec City and Ottawa, Ministère de l’Envi-ronnement et de la Faune and Environment Canada.

BLAIS, J.S., J.P. DUCRUC, Y. LACHANCE and M.F. SAINT-LAURENT (2005). Les paysages de la MRC de Lotbinière, Québec City, Ministère du Développement durable, de l’En-vironnement et des Parcs.

BRITISH COLUMBIA MINISTERY OF FORESTS (1981). Forest Landscape Handbook, Victoria, British Columbia Ministery of Forests, Recreation Management Branch.

----------- (1994). Visual Landscape Design Training Manual, Victoria, British Columbia Ministery of Forests, Recreation Branch Publication.

BUREAU, L., J. RAVENEAU, J. DU BERGER and L. NOP-PEN (1976). Inventaire et analyse des sites et arrondis-sements culturels de Charlevoix. Rapport-synthèse et recommandations, research report submitted to Direction générale du patrimoine of Ministère des Affaires culturelles du Québec, Québec City, Université Laval, Département de géographie.

CARON, A. (under the direction of) (2005). La prise de déci-sion en urbanisme, [Online]. [www.mamr.gouv.qc.ca/amena-gement/outils/amen_outi_avan.asp].

CARON, P. and J.P. CHEYLAN (2005). “Donner sens à l’in-formation géographique pour accompagner les projets de territoire : cartes et représentations spatiales comme sup-ports d’itinéraires croisés,” Carrefour, revue de géographie de Lyon, Vol. 80, No. 2, p. 111–122.

CHENOWETH, R. (1984). “Visitor employed photography: A potential tool for landscape architecture,” Landscape Jour-nal, Vol. 3, No. 2, p. 136–143.

COMMISSION FOR ARCHITECTURE AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT (2007). Housing Audit, Assessing the Design Quality of New Housing in the East Midlands, West Midlands and the South West, [Online]. [www.cabe.org.uk/AssetLibrary/9368.pdf].

CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE (2000). Convention européenne du paysage, [Online]. [www.nature.coe.int/french/main/paysage/conv.htm].

CONSEIL RÉGIONAL DE L’ENVIRONNEMENT DES LAU-RENTIDES (2004). Charte des paysages naturels et bâtis des Laurentides, [Online]. [http://www.crelaurentides.org].

----------- (2006). Table de concertation sur les paysages des Laurentides, [Online]. www.crelaurentides.org/actions/tcpl.shtml] (10 avril 2007).

CULLEN, G. (1971). The Concise Townscape, London, Archi-tectural Press.

DE BONHOME, N., J. DALCOURT and J. GARON LABREC-QUE (2006). “Urbanisation du Piedmont en vue!,” in G. Domon, J. Froment, J. Ruiz, and E. Vouligny (under the direc-tion of), Les paysages de l’ordinaire : révéler, créer, infléchir. Dix projets de mise en valeur des paysages du canton de Kildare, Montréal, École d’architecture de paysage and the Chair in Landscape and Environmental Design at Université de Montréal, p. 60–69.

DENZIN, N.K. et Y.S. LINCOLN (under the direction of) (2000). Handbook of Qualitative Research, Thousand Oaks (Californie), Sage Publications.

DEWARRAT, J.P., R. QUINCEROT, M. WEIL and B. WOEF-FRAY (2003). Paysages ordinaires. De la protection au pro-jet, Sprimont (Belgium), Margada.

DIRECTION DE L’ARCHITECTURE ET DE L’URBA-NISME (1991). Lire et composer l’espace public, Paris, Ser-vice technique de l’urbanisme, ministère de l’Équipement, du Logement, des Transports et de la Mer.

DOMON, G. (2007). Position et stratégie d’action en matière de paysage : Enseignements découlant du statut de paysage humanisé et hypothèses de travail, research report submit-ted to Ministère de la Culture, des Communications et de la Condition féminine, Montréal, Chair in Landscape and Envi-ronmental Design at Université de Montréal.

DOMON, G. and P. POULLAOUEC-GONIDEC (2003). “L’in-tégration du temps à la gestion et à la mise en valeur des paysages,” in P. Poullaouec-Gonidec, S. Paquette, and G. Domon (under the direction of), Les temps du paysage, Mon-tréal, Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal, p. 143–169.

DOMON, G., A. BOUCHARD and M. GARIÉPY (1993). « The dynamics of the forest landscape of Haut-Saint-Laurent (Québec, Canada): Interactions between biophysical factors, perceptions and policy », Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 25, p. 53-74.

84

DOMON, G., G. BEAUDET and O. LACASSE (1997). Les méthodes de caractérisation des paysages : revue des approches visuelles, éco-géographiques et spatio-temporel-les, research report, Montréal, Chair in Landscape and Envi-ronmental Design at Université de Montréal.

DOMON, G., G. BEAUDET and M. JOLY (2000). Évolution du territoire laurentidien : caractérisation et gestion des pay-sages, Saint-Hyacinthe and Paris, Isabelle Quentin, editor.

DOMON, G., P. POULLAOUEC-GONIDEC, J. FROMENT and C. MONTPETIT (2003). Monitoring visuel du paysage de corridors autoroutiers soumis à une gestion écologique. Instrumentation, suivi visuel 2000/2001/2002 et analyse des perceptions des usagers, research report submitted to Minis-tère des Transports du Québec, Montréal, Chair in Land-scape and Environmental Design at Université de Montréal.

DOMON, G., S. COURCIER, M.O. TRÉPANIER, C. BRYANT and H. RHEAULT (2007). Analyse des moyens existants afin de mettre en œuvre le statut de Paysage humanisé tel que défini dans la Loi sur la Conservation du Patrimoine naturel – Document complémentaire, report submitted to Hydro-Québec, Ministère des Affaires municipales et des Régions, Ministère de la Culture, des Communications et de la Condi-tion féminine, Ministère du Développement durable, de l’En-vironnement et des Parcs, and Ministère des Transports du Québec, Montréal, Chair in Landscape and Environmental Design at Université de Montréal.

DONADIEU, P. and M. PÉRIGORD (2005). Clés pour le pay-sage, Paris, Ophrys.

DUCRUC, J.P. (1991). “Le cadre écologique de référence : Les concepts et les variables de la classification et de la car-tographie écologique au ministère de l’Environnement,” in Planification écologique : contribution de la cartographie éco-logique, No 42, Québec City, Ministère de l’Environnement, Direction de la conservation et du patrimoine écologique.

FACCHINI, F. (1994). “Environmental perception: The effects of media, evaluative context, and observer sample,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 4, p. 61–80.

FEIMER, N.R. (1984). “Environmental perception: The effects of media, evaluative context, and observer sample,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 4, p. 61–80.

FINDELI, A., C. GAGNON, J.F. ALLIE, M.P. BOSSÉ, P. LEMAY and P. GAUTHIER (2005). Inscription spatiale des équipements de transport : révision des critères de design. Tome II : Études détaillées, report submitted to Division Trans-Énergie d’Hydro-Québec, Montreal, Chair in Landscape and Environmental Design at Université de Montréal.

FOLINAIS, C. (2006). Plans de paysage. Éléments de bilan,

Paris, Ministère de l’Écologie et du Développement durable.

FROMENT, J. and G. DOMON (2006). “Viewer apprecia-tion of highway landscapes: The contribution of ecologically managed embankments in Quebec, Canada,” Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 78, p. 14–32.

GAMACHE, N., G. DOMON and Y. JEAN (2004). “Pour une compréhension des espaces ruraux : approche des territoires par le paysage en France et au Québec,” Cahiers d’économie et sociologie rurales, Vol. 73, p. 72–102.

GAUDREAU, R., P. JACOBS and G. LALONDE (1986). Méthode d’analyse visuelle pour l’intégration des infrastruc-tures de transport, Québec City, Ministère des Transports, Service de l’environnement.

GULINCK, H., M. MUGICA, J.V.D. LUCIO and J.A. ATAURI (2001). “A framework for comparative landscape analysis and evaluation based on land cover data, with an application in the Madrid region (Spain),” Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 55, p. 257–270.

L’ÉCUYER, I., V. LEMAY and G.E. PARENT (2006). “Premiers pas,” in G. Domon, G., J. Froment, J. Ruiz and E. Vouligny (under the direction of), Les paysages de l’ordi-naire : révéler, créer, infléchir. Dix projets de mise en valeur des paysages du canton de Kildare, Montréal, École d’archi-tecture de paysage and the Chair in Landscape and Environ-mental Design at Université de Montréal, p. 10–19.

LE GROUPE VIAU INC. in collaboration with LE GROUPE-CONSEIL ENTRACO INC. (1992). Méthode d’étude du pay-sage pour les projets de lignes et de postes de transport et de répartition, for le service Ressources et Aménagement du ter-ritoire, direction Recherche et Encadrement, Vice-presidence environnement, Hydro-Québec.

LELLI L. and S. PARADIS (2005). “Analyse critique d’un dis-positif méthodologique de diagnostic paysager : le cas du bassin versant du Cérou (Tarn, Midi-Pyrénées),” Carrefour, revue de géographie de Lyon, Vol. 80, No. 2, p. 123–130.

LUGINBüHL Y., J.C. BONTRON and Z. CROS (1994). Méthode pour des atlas de paysages. Identification et qua-lification, Paris, ministère de l’Aménagement du territoire, de l’Équipement et des Transports.

LYNCH, K. (1982). Voir et planifier. L’aménagement qualitatif de l’espace, Paris, Dunod.

85

MCCLELLAND, L.F., T. KELLER, G. KELLER and R. MEL-NICK (1990). “Guidelines for evaluating and documenting rural historic landscape,” National Register Bulletin, Vol. 30, Washington, DC, National Park Service.

MERCIER, G. (2002). “La norme paysagère. Réflexion théo-rique et analyse du cas québécois,” Cahiers de géographie du Québec, Vol. 46, No. 129, p. 357–392.

MERMET, L. and X. POUX (2002). “Pour une recherche prospective en environnement. Repères théoriques et méthodologiques,” Natures Sciences Sociétés, Vol. 10, No. 3, p. 7–15.

MICHELIN, Y. (1998). “Des appareils photos jetables au service d’un projet de développement : représentations pay-sagères et stratégies des acteurs locaux de la montagne thiernoise,” Cybergeo, Vol. 65, [Online]. [http://www.cyber-geo.presse.fr/geocult/texte/michelin.htm].

MILES, M.B. and A.M. HUBERMAN (2003). Analyse des données qualitatives, Paris, De Boeck.

MINISTÈRE DE LA CULTURE, DES COMMUNICATIONS ET DE LA CONDITION FÉMININE (2007). Un regard neuf sur le patrimoine culturel. Révision de la Loi sur les biens culturels. Document de réflexion, Québec City, Ministère de la Culture, des Communications et de la Condition féminine.

MINISTÈRE DES AFFAIRES MUNICIPALES ET DES RÉGIONS (2007a). Les orientations du gouvernement en matière d’aménagement. Pour un développement durable de l’énergie éolienne, Québec City, Ministère des Affaires municipales et des Régions, Direction de l’aménagement du territoire et de l’urbanisme.

-------- (2007b). Guide d’intégration des éoliennes au terri-toire. Vers de nouveaux paysages, ministère des Affaires municipales et des Régions, Direction des politiques munici-pales et de la recherche.

MINISTÈRE DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE, DE L’EN-VIRONNEMENT ET DES PARCS (2003). Guide de réali-sation d’une étude d’impact sur l’environnement, [Online]. [www.mddep.gouv.qc.ca/evaluations/guide_realisation/index.htm] (April 25, 2007).

----------- (2005). Le suivi environnemental : Le suivi envi-ronnemental : Guide à l’intention de l’initiateur de projet, [Online]. [www.mddep.gouv.qc.ca/evaluations/documents/guide-suivi-enviro.pdf].

MOLLIE-STEFULESCO, C. (1997). Séquences paysages. Revue de l’Observatoire des paysages, ministère de l’Envi-ronnement (France), Paris, Éditions Hazan.

MONTPETIT, C., P. POULLAOUEC-GONIDEC and G. SAUMIER (2002). “Paysage et cadre de vie au Québec : réflexion sur une demande sociale émergente et plurielle,” Cahiers de géographie du Québec, Vol. 46, p. 165–189.

O’NEILL, J. and M. WALSH (2000). “Landscape conflicts: Preferences, identities and rights,” Landscape Ecology, Vol. 15, p. 281–289.

PAILLÉ, P. and A. MUCCHIELLI (2003). L’analyse quali-tative en sciences humaines et sociales, Paris, Armand Colin.

PAQUETTE, S., G. DOMON and P. POULLAOUEC-GONIDEC (2003). “Les enjeux et les acteurs du paysage au Québec,” in Concept et opérationalisation du paysage. Tome 2 : Fondements d’un cadre opératoire pour le Québec, research report presented to Ministère de la Culture et des Communications du Québec and Hydro-Québec, Montréal, Chair in Landscape and Environmental Design at Université de Montréal, p. 5–64.

POULLAOUEC-GONIDEC, P. (1999). “Laboratoire en pra-tique de projet,” in P. Poullaouec-Gonidec, M. Gariépy, and B. Lassus, (under the direction of), Le paysage, territoire d’intentions, Montréal and Paris, L’Harmattan, p. 169–185.

POULLAOUEC-GONIDEC, P., P.L. MARTIN and J. EPS-TEIN (1993). Trois regards sur le village de Verchères. Essai de caractérisation du paysage, report presented to Ministère des Affaires culturelles, Montréal, Université de Montréal, École d’architecture de paysage.

POULLAOUEC-GONIDEC, P., G. DOMON and S. PAQUETTE (2005). “Le paysage, un concept en débat,” in P. Poullaouec-Gonidec, G. Domon, and S. Paquette (under the direction of), Paysages en perspective, Montréal, Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal, p. 19–43.

QUÉBEC. Natural Heritage Conservation Act, R.S.Q., Chap-ter C-61.01, Québec City, Québec Official Publisher, 2002.

QUÉBEC. Environment Quality Act, R.S.Q., Chapter Q-2, Qué-bec City, Québec Official Publisher.

QUÉBEC. Sustainable Development Act, R.S.Q., Chapter D-8.1.1, Québec City, Québec Official Publisher, 2006.

QUÉBEC. Cultural Property Act, R.S.Q., Chapter B-4, Québec City, Québec Official Publisher, 1972.

QUÉBEC. Act respecting land use planning and develop-ment, R.S.Q., Chapter A-19.1, Québec City, Québec Official Publisher, 1979.

RMC D’ARGENTEUIL (2003). Découvrir Argenteuil, [Online]. [www.argenteuil.qc.ca/dec-photo.asp?menu_id=57] (10 avril 2007).

86

----------- (2005). La deuxième proposition de schéma d’amé-nagement et de développement révisé (PSADR 2e projet), [En ligne]. [www.argenteuil.qc.ca/pdf/mrc_schema_d_ame-nagement_et_de_developpement_revise_/Chapitre11.pdf] (10 avril 2007).

RMC LOTBINIÈRE (2005). Le schéma d’aménagement et de développement révisé (SADR2), Lotbinière RCM.

----------- (2006). Lotbinière: Circuits découvertes 2006–2008—paysages, patrimoine, vélo. Carte des itinéraires cyclables de la MRC de Lotbinière..

RMC MEMPHRÉMAGOG (1998). Résumé du schéma d’aménagement révisé, [Online]. [www.mrcmemphrema-gog.com/img/resumSAR.pdf] (20 avril 2007).

RUIZ, J. and G. DOMON (2005). “Les paysages de l’agri-culture en mutation,” in P. Poullaouec-Gonidec, G. Domon, and S. Paquette (under the direction of), Paysages en pers-pective, Montréal, Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal, p. 47–97.

TRÉPANIER, M.O. (2000). “Le nouvel urbanisme doit mieux intégrer les gens, les activités et les équipements,” Municipalité, December/January, p. 12–15.

TRÉPANIER, M.O., G. DOMON, P. POULLAOUEC-GONIDEC, G. BEAUDET, I. BENDWELL, F. DEL RIO and P. GAUDET (2001). Concept et opérationalisation du paysage. Études de cas d’opérationalisation du paysage, interim report, Chair in Landscape and Environmental Design at Université de Montréal.

TRÉPANIER, M.O., G. DOMON, G. BEAUDET, P. POUL-LAOUEC-GONIDEC, S. PAQUETTE and B. GERVAIS (2003). Concept et opérationalisation du paysage. Tome 2 : Fondements d’un cadre opératoire pour le Québec, final report submitted to Ministère de la Culture et des Communi-cations du Québec and Hydro-Québec, Chair in Landscape and Environmental Design at Université de Montréal.

TRÉPANIER, M.O., S. COURCIER and E. DION-GOU-DREAU (2004). Distribution souterraine, planification et démarche réglementaire. Guide à l’intention des munici-palités, report submitted to Direction Projets de distribution d’Hydro-Québec, Montréal, Chair in Landscape and Envi-ronmental Design at Université de Montréal.

WESTMACOTT, R. and T. WORTHINGTON (1984). Agricul-tural Landscape. A Second Look, Cheltenham, Countryside Commission.

87

88

GLOSSARY[ ]

89

Absorption capabilityEvaluation of the transparency and complexity of a viewshed. It is an indicator of the capacity of a landscape to absorb a transportation infrastructure without losing its original character. Absorption capability depends on the types of views, vegetation, land use, and land forms (Gaudreau et al., 1986: 84). The main determinants are 1) land forms and slope classes; 2) diversity of vegetation patterns; 3) density and type of land use; and 4) soil pro-ductivity (Domon et al., 1997: 21).

AtmosphereA landscape’s atmosphere refers to the physical atmos-phere of the place, the impression it makes on the obser-ver. Every landscape has its own unique atmosphere, and our perception of it depends on its intensity. Atmosphere is the overall result of our perception (Poullaouec-Gonidec et al., 1993).

Cultural landscape (as defined by UNESCO)UNESCO’s Intergovernmental Committee for the Protec-tion of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage defines cultural landscapes as “the combined works of nature and of man.» They fall into three broad categories:

a) “. . . the clearly defined landscape designed and created intentionally by man. This embraces garden and parkland landscapes constructed for aesthetic reasons . . .” ;

b) “. . . the organically evolved landscape. This results from an initial social, economic, administrative, and/or religious imperative and has developed its present form by associa-tion with and in response to its natural environment.” This type of landscape falls into the following two subcategories:

A relict landscape, namely one in which an evolutionary process came to an end at some time in the past, but whose significant distinguishing features are still visible in material form,

A living landscape, namely one which retains an active social role and in which the evolutionary process is still in progress;

c) “the associative cultural landscape”, which is defined by the strong religious, artistic, or cultural associations with the natural component rather than by tangible cultural evidence.

Ecological reference frameworkA hierarchical system for mapping a territory that high-lights spatial entities at various levels of perception of the territory based on the spatial organization of natural habi-tats. The ecological reference framework therefore takes a segregational approach that is part of a hierarchical sys-tem of mapping natural structures (Ducruc, 1991).

Emblematic landscapeThese are areas, which may or may not bear the marks of ancient human occupation, that are explicitly valued and often have been for a long time. Considered as a collective heritage, these landscapes serve as “emblems.” They are composed of striking geographical forms and are steeped in value, often since a very long time, although the heri-tage components (or objects) may no longer be present (Domon et al., 2000: 18).

EnhancementThe act of increasing or improving in value, quality, desi-rability, or attractiveness (Merriam-Websters Collegiate Dictionary, 2008).

Everyday landscape Refers to a landscape on which no social consensus about its quality, value, or need for protection has been established (Dewarrat et al., 2003).

Harmony An overall effect resulting from the relationship between various landscape components. When the components work together, they create a concordant relationship. A harmonious landscape is by definition concordant, while conflict creates lack of harmony. Harmony is one measure of a landscape’s value (Gaudreau et al., 1986: 89).

Heritage landscapeLandscapes shaped by human activity. Landscapes that, in heritage terms, are of particular value at a given time. They fall into one of the three following categories: emblematic landscapes, identity landscapes, and everyday landscapes (Domon et al., 2000).

Identity landscape“Identity landscape express a community’s image of itself. These landscapes are constructed in rural areas, natural spaces, or urban contexts which are collectively deemed, at a given time in history, to embody a unique geographical or cultural feature. They usually comprise simpler forms—less spectacular at least—than emblematic landscapes and are usually more closely associated with human acti-vity. They are explicitly valued by communities, at least by some of them” (Domon et al., 2000: 19).

LandmarkObject or site that is easy to recognize and can be used by observers to orient themselves—orientation parameter (Gaudreau et al., 1986: 96).

90

Landscape (as defined by the European Landscape Convention)“. . . is defined as a zone or area as perceived by local people or visitors, whose visual features and character result from the action of natural or cultural (that is, human) factors [and their interaction].” This definition reflects the idea that landscapes evolve through time, as a result of being acted upon by natural forces and human beings. It also underlines that a landscape forms a whole, whose natural and cultural components must be taken together, not separately” (Council of Europe, 2000).

Landscape capitalThis concept refers to the process by which the visual significance of a landscape is recognized as sufficiently important to engender private and public investments. These investments take the form of behavior (e.g., regular use of the site), the desire to redesign the site “so that it corresponds more closely to the ideal associated with it,» or “actions that create new conditions.” Making an inven-tory of visual fields with tangible heritage value helps iden-tify what constitutes “capital,” or more precisely, “heritage landscape capital,” in other words, territorial entities that, as sensibilities evolve, may become valuable —i.e. recog-nized as true heritage landscapes—in the future (Domon et al., 2000).

Landscape dynamicsAll sites that have been used for a long time are transfor-med over time, although the pace and intensity of these changes vary considerably from place to place and period to period. Dominant trends create dynamics that shape and remodel territories. The decline of traditional downtown areas and industrial sectors, the abandonment of farming in marginal areas, and the specialization and industriali-zation of agricultural practices are good examples of this. These dynamics sometimes lead to changes over very small areas, several hectares in an urban community, for example. However, they can also radically transform the face of whole regions within a few years (Domon et al., 2000: 48).

Landscape entityAn identifiable whole forming a landscape composition. A landscape entity is associated with components that are recognized for their essential character, uniqueness, or specific nature. This identifiable entity is not only defined by visible characteristics but also by its sensory qualities (Poullaouec-Gonidec et al., 1993).

Landscape integrityIntegrity refers to coherence, harmony, visual balance, undisturbed functional entities, temporal continuity, land

use capacity under natural conditions, topography and cli-mate. Diversity (of species, historical features, building sty-les, etc.), aesthetic features (topographic structure, colors, etc.), ecological quality (water, soil, etc.) are also important criteria (Gulinck et al., 2001).

Landscape structureArrangement and size of observable forms found in the compo-nents of a landscape (Gaudreau et al., 1986: 98).

Landscape type A relatively homogenous area whose image corresponds to a recognized type of spatial organization that can serve as a model (e.g., agro-forestry, urban, agricultural) (Gau-dreau et al., 1986: 99).

Landscape unitA distinct portion of a viewshed with its own particular atmos-phere (Domon et al., 1997: 10).

Land use A generic term referring to landscape inventories cove-ring hydrography, vegetation, and land use. Land use is defined as the set of components occupying specific land-scape forms (Gaudreau et al., 1986: 94).

Local landscapeThis category of heritage landscape is associated with everyday life. The term expresses a certain familiarity with a living environment, ties to work, a childhood neighbor-hood, a vacation spot, etc. It contributes to the definition and development of small, territorial communities. These “consecrations of landscape” can be recognized by signs such as the upkeep of sites otherwise abandoned by local authorities, maintenance of viewpoints, etc. (Domon et al., 2000: 22).

PanoramaA vast landscape that can be viewed from many directions (Gaudreau et al., 1986: 95).

ScenarioThe scenario method is “a global approach that on the one hand simulates, step by step and in a plausible, coherent manner, a series of events that transform a system and on the other hand presents an overall picture of it. It uses synchronic and diachronic analyses. The first simulates a system’s status at a given moment and is motivated by the need for a coherent description, while the second focuses on the sequence of events and emphasizes their causality and interaction” (Mermet and Poux, 2002 [translation]).

91

SequenceA suite or series of views in an ensemble—a pause of sorts in a continuum. The eye of the observer divides up the land-scape and at the same time establishes its sequential cohe-rence by visually relating these components. A sequence is also a fragment of a physical or mental route (Loiseau, in Poullaouec-Gonidec et al., 1993).

ViewA place from which to enjoy an interesting view. It designa-tes both what is observed and the corridor along which are eye is drawn (Conan, “Dictionnaire historique de l’Art des Jardins” in Poullaouec-Gonidec et al., 1993).

ViewpointAn opening that provides a view. A viewpoint highlights an interesting landscape that otherwise would not be availa-ble to passers by and that punctuates an otherwise mono-tonous visual sequence (Gaudreau et al., 1986: 95).

ViewshedlCorresponds to all landscape theoretically visible within a drainage basin (Domon et al., 1997: 7).

Visual accessibilityA criteria for evaluating a landscape’s resistance to change, which represents the true visibility of the landscape measu-red in terms of: 1) visual absorption capability and the number and type of observers; 2) visual interest (scenic/aesthetic quality); and 3) its value in the eyes of the public. Generally speaking, the higher the visual accessibility, the more the landscape is visible (Gaudreau et al., 1986: 82).

Visual analysisA qualitative study of what is visible from a highway, street, or road. It consists of recording the visual experience along a route. This systematic inventory of visible side and front elements (views, screens, corridors) may be influenced by cultural values (e.g., local recognition of views) or the singularity of the observed elements (e.g., a unique pano-rama) (Poullaouec-Gonidec, 1993: 86).

Visual componentA component of the landscape recorded in inventories of landforms, hydrographical features, vegetation, or land use (Gaudreau et al., 1986: 89).

Visual effectA perceptual effect of a space, a sensation produced by the particular composition of a site. The effect can also be a deliberate, calculated aesthetic expression (e.g., garden

composition). Visual effects are analyzed on the basis of the formal, sensitive, and sensorial aspects of a space or site, notably by producing an inventory of the basic fea-tures of the urban landscape. Examples of visual effects include bird’s eye and worm’s eye views, corridor and dis-covery effects, etc. This expression originated from scenic analysis. The most significant examples of effects in visual analysis are Lynch’s elements (1982), namely nodes, land-marks, edges, etc. (Poullaouec-Gonidec et al., 1993).

Visual fieldRefers to an area that is visible from a precise spot in a viewshed as well as to the scope of the views available there (Domon et al., 1997).

Visual impactTransformation of a visual environment by the construction of an infrastructure. A visual impact is positive if it provi-des access to an interesting, enhanced landscape, and is negative when it creates a monotonous, discontinuous, confused, or damaged landscape. Anticipated impact can be weak, moderate, or strong, depending on its duration, intensity, and scope. Residual impact is defined as the visual impact after mitigation measures have been applied (Gaudreau, et al., 1986: 90).

Visual landscape monitoringThe act of collecting data in order to monitor changes in a landscape, to observe the “aging” of sites, for example (Domon and Poullaouec-Gonidec, 2003).

Visual sequenceA series of views or images that reveal the particular value of a whole. A route presents a linear sequence (Cullen, 1971).

92

93

Philippe Poullaouec-Gonidec, 2008 (Vieux-Montréal, Montréal, Québec)

Philippe Poullaouec-Gonidec, 2008 (Outremont, Montréal, Québec)

Philippe Poullaouec-Gonidec, 2008 (Potton, Québec)

Philippe Poullaouec-Gonidec, 2004 (Owl’s Head, Québec).

Philippe Poullaouec-Gonidec, 2008 (Vieux-Montréal, Montréal, Québec)

Gérald Domon and Julie Ruiz, 2005 (Sainte-Mélanie, Québec)

Gérald Domon, 2006 (Grande-Vallée, Québec)

Philippe Poullaouec-Gonidec, 2006 (Métis-sur-Mer, Québec)

Philippe Poullaouec-Gonidec, 2004 (Glenn Sutton, Québec)

Philippe Poullaouec-Gonidec, 2007 (Brossard, Québec)


Philippe Poullaouec-Gonidec, 2004 (Chemin Owl’s Head, Potton, Québec)

Philippe Poullaouec-Gonidec, 2005 (Chemin du Lac, Potton, Québec)

Philippe Poullaouec-Gonidec, 2005 (Parc du Mont-Royal, Montréal, Québec)

Philippe Poullaouec-Gonidec, 2005 (Parc du Mont-Royal, Montréal, Québec)

Philippe Poullaouec-Gonidec, 2006 (Métis-sur-Mer, Québec)

Philippe Poullaouec-Gonidec, 2004 (Plateau Mont-Royal, Montréal, Québec)

Philippe Poullaouec-Gonidec, 2004 (Centre-ville de Montréal, Québec)

Philippe Poullaouec-Gonidec, 2005 (Quartier International de Montréal, Québec)

Gérald Domon, 2006 (Fjord-de-Saguenay, Québec)

Philippe Poullaouec-Gonidec, 2006 (Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Québec)

Philippe Poullaouec-Gonidec, 2006 (Lac Memphrémagog, Québec )

Philippe Poullaouec-Gonidec, 2006 (Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Québec)

Philippe Poullaouec-Gonidec, 2007 (Workshop_atelier/terrain de Longueuil, Boucherville, Québec)

Évelyne Vouligny, 2004 (Rive-Sud de Montréal, Québec)

Philippe Poullaouec-Gonidec, 2004 (Belvédère du mont Royal, Montréal, Québec)

CPEUM, 2004 (Saint-Pie, Québec)

Philippe Poullaouec-Gonidec, 2006 (Baie-des-Sables, Québec)



[ Cover page ]

[ p. 4 ]

[ p. 6-7 ]

[ p. 8, 9 et 10 ]

[ p. 12-13 ]

[ p. 20 ]

[ p. 21 ]

[ p. 22-23 ]

[ p. 27 ]

[ p. 29 ]

[ p. 30 ]

[ p. 32 ]

[ p. 36 ]

[ p. 40 ]

[ p. 44 ]

[ p. 46 ]

[ p. 48 ]

[ p. 53 ]

[ p. 54 ]

[ p. 55 ]

[ p. 56 ]

[ p. 57 ]

[ p. 60 ]

[ p. 62 ]

[ p. 64 ]

[ p. 67 ]

[ p. 82-83 ]

[ p. 88-89 ]

[ p. 94-95 ]

[ Back Cover ]

Photo Credits

96

ADDED VALUE

SHARED DIAGNOSIS

PUBLIC ISSUES

QUALITY OF LIFE

LANDSCAPE’S ENHANCEMENT

PAYSAGE.UMONTREAL.CAUNESCO-PAYSAGE.UMONTREAL.CA

Documents

Québec Landscape Management Guide