Cohost: Alice Miro, Heart and Stroke Foundation

Transcription

1 Welcome to Fireside Chat # 292 September 13, :00 2:00 PM Eastern Time (Teleconference open for participants at 12:50 PM ET) Montreal Public Health s Community Mobilization Research and Tools Advisors on Tap: Dr. Louis Drouin Lead, Urban Environment and Health, Montreal Public Health Dr. Lise Gauvin Professor & Researcher, Social & Preventive Medicine, Université de Montréal Centre de recherche du Centre Hospitalier de l Université de Montréal Dr. Sophie Paquin Urban Planning and Health Advisor, Montreal Public Health Cohost: Alice Miro, Heart and Stroke Foundation This webinar is made possible thanks to funding or in-kind support from: Health Canada via the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer CLASP initiative; the Canadian Insttute of Planners, the Heart and Stroke Foundation, and CHNET-Works! A project of Population Health Improvement Research Network University of Ottawa 1

2 Fireside Chat Instructions step #1 Download the Back Up PowerPoint: Take notes Share with colleagues Follow the presentation if joining by telephone only For assistance: 2

3 Fireside Chat Instructions step #2 All Audio is by Teleconference If your line is bad hang up and call back in Participant lines are muted Recording notice For assistance: 3

4 Fireside Chat Instructions step #3 Visual Presentation: (Reminder No audio via internet) Via Bridgit software A few seconds delay in transmission is normal From our computer to yours... Difficulties? Firewalls or Slow Speed slow reception disconnection Use the back up PowerPoint Presentation (Fireside Chat Instructions step #1) Need Assistance? animateur@chnet-works.ca 4

5 How to post comments/questions during the Fireside Chat By the Fireside Chat Internet Conference ( Bridgit software) click: participant s icon person/blue shirt Please introduce yourself! Name Organization Location... Group in Attendance? Joining by Telephone only? By Respond to the access instructions animateur@chnet-works.ca 5

6 Where are you located? For those on Bridgit: on your province/territory 6 6

7 Thanks to our funders This webinar has been made possible through financial contributions from Health Canada, through the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer s CLASP initiative. The views expressed in this presentation represent the views of the speakers and do not necessarily represent the views of the project funders and webinar hosts. 7

8 Check out these websites! 8

9 Advisor on Tap Dr. Louis Drouin Head, Urban Environment and Health, Montreal Public Health 9

10 Advisor on Tap Dr. Lise Gauvin Professor & Researcher Social and Preventive Medicine, Université de Montréal & Centre de recherche du Centre Hospitalier de l Université de Montréal 10

11 Advisor on Tap Dr. Sophie Paquin Urban Planning and Health Advisor, Montreal Public Health 11

12 FIRESIDE CHAT: Montreal Public Health s Community Mobilization Research and Tools Sophie Paquin PhD Lise Gauvin PhD Louis Drouin MD MPH Céline Gosselin MSc Anne Pelletier MSc Anne-Sophie Dubé MA 12

13 Community Mobilization & Community Groups Sedentary transportation modes have negative health (e.g., obesity) and environmental consequences (e.g., air & noise pollution). Built environments are constructed and transformed by urban planners, engineers, and other municipal workers. Less work has focused on the role played by community groups and civil society who exert social pressures on policy-makers and elected officials. 13

14 Fireside Chat Learning Objectives (new and improved following CPHA in Edmonton) Understand the role, breadth, and diversity of grassroots projects lead by community groups in shaping built environments. Understand how research and tools can be used to maximize the impact of grassroots projects. Identify actionable recommendations to support grassroots projects aimed at supporting sustainable, active transportation. Recognize challenges and limitations faced by community groups. 14

15 Fireside Chat Approach YOUR INPUT: Pre-Presentation Questions We describe the methods, selected outcomes and recommendations emerging from a project aimed at ascertaining the contribution of grassroots projects to promoting sustainable mobility in Montreal Canada. YOUR VIEWS: Post-Presentation Questions and Reflections on the Montreal project 15

16 YOUR INPUT: Pre-Presentation Brainstorming Do you currently work in partnership with Community Groups and Grassroots Projects in your jurisdictions? Put a on your answer Yes No I don t know / I do not wish to answer 16

17 YOUR INPUT: Pre-Presentation Brainstorming Do you have the resources to financially support Community Groups and Grassroots Projects in your jurisdictions? Put a on your answer Yes No I don t know / I do not wish to answer 17

18 Origins of the Research Project 18

19 Origins of the Project Translate research into action by accelerating the implementation of best practices and by sharing experiences of different urban centers in Canada in relation to sustainable mobility. 19

20 THE MONTRÉAL CONTRIBUTION 20

21 The Team : Louis Drouin Lise Gauvin Céline Gosselin Ginette Beaulne Sophie Paquin Geneviève Lamy Anne-Sophie Dubé Maude Beausoleil Marie-Hélène Poirier Sophie Goudreau Anne Pelletier Patrick Morency François Thérien 21

22 How does the issue of built environment and active transportation play out in Montréal? 22

23 The Issue in Montréal automobile transport public transit Air Pollution Walking & Cycling Road Accidents Mortality, cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, lung cancer Obesity Road traumas 23

24 The Issue in Montréal Increased number of injured pedestrians as a function of traffic volume Source : P Morency, MS Cloutier, Urgences-santé ; C. Morency. Enquête O-D

25 : ambulance interventions for injured pedestrians Localisation de l'ensemble des piétons blessés* ( ) Sites où un ou plusieurs piétons ont été blessés Réseau routier Mètres * Victimes d'une collision routière ayant entraînée une intervention d'urgences-santé. Projection: NAD83, MTM zone 8 Sources: Ville de Montréal; Urgences-santé Prod. cartographique: MS Cloutier, 2004 Direction de santé publique de Montréal 25

26 What do we mean by sustainable mobility in grassroots projects? 26

27 27

28 28

29 Sustainable Mobility : Different Scales, Different Strategies Metropolitan and Regional Scales Neighbourhood Scale Scale of Grassroots Projects TOD Public Transit Etc. road network Density public transit network Mixed Land- Use pedestrians walkways cycling network Promotion Natural Environments Greening and Beautification Accessibility to Services and Amenities Built Environment and Sustainable Mobility Acitve and Public Transport Road Safety Connectivity POTENTIEL Urban PIÉTONNIER Safety 29

30 Why focus on sustainable mobility in grassroots projects? 30

31 31

32 32

33 33

34 34

35 35

36 36

37 37

38 Gaps in our Knowledge Montreal Public Health financially supports NGOs and Community Groups Limited knowledge on: Number and extent of projects Extent to which grassroots projects can influence sustainable mobility 38

39 Community Mobilisation and Grassroots Projects aimed at Sustainable Mobility Focus of the Montréal arm of 39

40 The Montreal-Based Arm PHASE 1 : PHASE 3 : Process of Implementation of Grassroots Projects Inventory of Grassroots Projects supporting Sustainable Mobility in Montréal Case Studies (2 selected neighbourhoods) PHASE 2 : Evaluation of sustainable mobility at the street and intersection levels Meetings with Experts Knowledge Transfer and Exchange 40 40

41 PHASE 1 : Inventory of Grassroots Projects supporting Sustainable Mobility on the Island of Montréal 41

42 Methods for Inventorying Project time span January 1 st 2006 and November 1 st 2010 Inclusion criteria : NGOs meeting criteria set out in the Government Policy: not-for-profit organization; rooted in the community; Grassroots Projects maintain the life of an association; free to establish its mission, approaches, practices, and orientations. NB Includes community organizations dealing with the environment (écoquartiers) and other local dialogue mechanisms (i.e., neighbourhood round tables or local revitalization committees). Exclusion criteria : Religiously based organizations, foundations whose mission consists essentially in collecting and redistributing funds, and organizations consisting only of volunteers. 42

43 Methods for Inventorying Grassroots Projects Information related to projects Title, location, activities but especially target of activities: Data on Projects Exploration of existing «databases» (project repertoires or information available on WEB sites of funding organizations); Data collected within planning or research activities, etc.. Archival and Web information supplemented when required by telephone or contacts with project promoters. Information validated by them as well. Coding & Data Verification Geocoding & Mapping 43

44 Results: Inventory of Grassroots Projects aimed at Sustainable Mobility From COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS 134 GRASSROOTS PROJECTS

45 45

46 PHASE 2 : Evaluation of Sustainable Mobility at the Street- and Intersection-Levels (walkability audit PPAS) 46

47 Research Objectives Produce a walkability assessment tool : That is useful for evaluating and improving neighbourhoods that are already built; That combines completeness and feasibility for use by professionals and community organizations; That enables municipalities to implement short and medium term street- and intersection-level interventions; That enables Community Groups to develop credible requests for change. 47

48 Challenges in Achieving Urban Walkability 48

49 Issue 1: Neighborhood already built Peri-central neighborhood already built Medium residential density With some shops and parks <1 km Network of interconnected streets Access to Public Transit Suburban neighborhood already built Low density Mainly residential land use with a park and a school Weak connectivity of street network According to residents: active transportation problems are real! Deficient and unsafe pedestrian infrastructures Fear of crime Road traffic Issue 2: Classical walkability indicators are limited and need for more indicators Deficient and unsafe pedestrian infrastructures Low density Monofunctional land use Weak connectivity How to measure built environment for short term improvement? Issue 3: Assessment tool for short-mid term actions Safe and Active Transportation Audit : multiple indicators at street level Community based-organizations and cities can carry out interventions aimed to create pedestrian friendly environment 49

50 50

51 Background Comparison of three audit tools already published (PEDS; St. Louis; Walkability and Pedestrian Information Center) by testing them in in 290 street segments of three Montreal districts (Galt, St.- Pierre, Mercier). Results of initial research phase: An improved walkability audit tool was developed The tool is better adapted to providing evidence that can be translated into policies and built interventions Validated in

52 Safe and Active Transportation Audit (PPAS): ENVIRONMENTAL SCAN FROM STREET TO NEIGHBORHOOD 52

53 Montréal Island and two random samples of streets Data were collected in Montreal on 239 street segments in two districts Randomized stratified sample of street segments (15% of street segments in each of the two neighbourhoods). Test-retest validity: observations of 25% of street segments were repeated for Mercier-Est and 100% of street segments observed in Centre-Sud were repeated. 53

54 Data entry performed live in an Access databases by 3 trained observers Observations were done on both sides of a street segment Each crosswalk at intersection was evaluated. 54

55 78 Indicators Measured through the Safe and Active Transportation Audit (PPAS) Conditions of walking surfaces and connectivity for pedestrians (18 items) Quality of amenities and infrastructure for active transportation (6 items) Characteristics of intersections and traffic calming devices (18 items) Urban safety and aesthetics of public space and buildings (14 items) Urban land uses and type of buildings (12 items) Types of transit and cycling infrastructure available (10 items) 55

56 Safe and Active Transportation Audit Data concerning walkability indicators that are available for each street segment and intersection but That can also be combined to provide a more complete profile of the neighbourhood 56

57 Walkability data available for each STREET SEGMENT AND INTERSECTION 57

58 Example: Lebrun Street 58

59 Data for the Lebrun Street Segment nom du tronçon Lebrun ID individuelle -- intersection évaluée Tellier plus d'un usage non résidentiel oui liste des autres usages non résidence unifamiliale oui bi-tri-quadru oui multiplex oui entretien des immeubles bon retrait des immeubles moins de 6 m présence de trottoir oui nombre de trottoir 2 cotés espace pour marcher moins de 1,7 état des trottoirs bon espace tampon non entrée charetière oui entrée charetière faible débit obstacle voie piétonne non mobilier urbain non type de mobilier non continuité du trottoir oui connectivité du trottoir oui nombre de voies formelles 4 nombre de voies effective 2 limite de vitesse indiquée non rue à double sens oui apaisement de circulation non nom du tronçon éléments agréables architecture éléments agréables naturel arrêt de bus abribus et autres autopartage support à vélo Bixi voie cyclable éclairage échelle route éclairage échelle piéton éclairage insuffisant arbres créant de l'ombre ombre: moyen absence de végétation achalandage piétons ( +de 10) résidant sur balcon incivilité sociale graffiti recoin sombre déchet à la traine manque d'entretien des lieux publics Lebrun non non non non non non non non oui non non oui oui non non oui non non non non non 59

60 Data combined to provide a NEIGHBOURHOOD PROFILE 60

61 Neighbourhood Sidewalk Widths Trottoir Less than de moins 1.6 m de Trottoir 1.7 to de 2.5 1,7 à m 2,5m Trottoir More than de plus 2.5 de m Pas None de trottoir 1,6 m 2,5m St-Jacques St-Jacques Ste-Marie 61

62 Obstacles on Walkway Permanent Obstacle Panel, lamp post, parking meter Vegetation

63 Availability of Pedestrian Crossings according to Street Type 63

64 Car Stop Lines Often, there are no stop lines when there is a stop sign Stop line (n=48) Local street absence 85,2 % présence 14,8 % There is not consistently a stop line when there is a traffic light arteries collectors Local streets Car Stop line and traffic light absence 32% 10% 15% presence 68% 90% 85% 64

65 Street Lighting 26% 74% Pedestrian scale Car scale St-Jacques Ste-Marie 65

66 Crime Facilitators through Environmental Design Marques de graffitis Recoin sombre ou cachette Manque d entretien dans lieux publics Déchet dans lieu public Nom de la rue non visible pour le piéton 66

67 Reliability Estimated with Kappa Coefficients For 20 items, Kappa coefficients were high (above 0.82) 16 items were substantial (0.62 to 0.81) 17 items were moderate (0.41 to 0.61) 7 items were weak (<0.40) 18 items could not be verified by test retest (conditions that were inherently unstable or showed no variability) 67

68 Relevance of the PPAS Diagnosis Mobilization and claims Evidence-Based Decisions and Resource Allocation Monitoring 68

69 Limitations Data have not been correlated with data from local transportation behavior surveys. Interpretation of diagnostic information should be validated with the population to produce an assessment that accurately reflects local realities. 69

70 Walkability Toolkit To enable professionals to use the safe and active transportation audit (PPAS), a toolkit has been developed This toolkit was tested this summer in a pilot project to ensure user-friendliness and compliance with municipalities and the need of Community Groups. 70

71 Walkability Toolkit Toolkit contents: Walkability tool User Manual Database to enter and process data Template report with tips Two days of training Walkabout tool with short user guide The use of the PPAS is subject to prior «agreement» with the Montreal Public Health Department 71

72 72

73 Thoughts and Lessons Learned It takes several years to make changes to residential density and mixed land use (classical walkability indicators) Cities must develop planning strategies to improve walkability over short time spans at the street level Information obtained through the audit (PPAS) identifies : deficient aspects of the built environment that can be subject to short and medium-term interventions by municipal authorities 73

74 Take-Home Message The Safe and Active Transportation Audit (PPAS) is a tool to support public health objectives and municipal goals aimed at citizen quality of life. 74

75 PHASE 3 : Implementation Process of Grassroots Projects 75

76 GRASSROOTS PROJECTS CENTRE-SUD NEIGHBOURHOOD (2010) CDC Table CIGAL Corpo Marché Frontenac Accessibility to Proximity Services Éco-quartier Ste-Marie Green Streets Citizen Action Committee for Parks Actions to Support Active and Public Transit Éco-quartier St-Jacques Parks Alive Greening and Citizen Mobilization Project Road Safety Active and Safe Transport Sentier Urbain Greening Plan Pathway of Community Gardens Urban Safety Tandem Ville- Marie Vélo Québec Let s Secure Our Environments Our Parks, Our Alleyways Active and Safe Routes to Schools Greening and Beautification 76

77 Accessibility to Proximity Services Grassroots Projects Issue : absence of affordable and high quality food stores Project Objective Target Population Marché Frontenac (2004 ) Improve the offer of food (fruits and vergetables) -Geographic accessibility -Economic Accessibility -Sociocultural Accessibility Population of Centre-Sud Activities Public Market Other Activities : - Fruit carts (Fruixi) - Fruits of solidarity - Animation/education Sites Pôle Frontenac (Iberville-Ontario) Carts : for boxed-in areas 77

78 Actions to Support Active & Public Transit Grassroots Projects Issue : Problem of safety around schools Road Safety Project Objective Target Population Active and Safe Routes to School! ( ) Promote the use of walking and cycling to get to school School clientele Activities - Mobilization - Sensitization - Urban planning Sites Primary schools in Centre-Sud (n=5) 78

79 Urban Safety Grassroots Projects Issues : Run down parks; abandoned lots; poor urban safety; heat islands Greening and Beautification Parks Alive (2002 ) Project Objective Target Population Citizen Action Committee (2008 ) Revitalization of parks; pacifist co-habitation Waterfront areas and residents of the n hood Activities Animation Urban planning Local parks Sites Citizen Action Committee for Parks (2007 ) Green Alleys (2009 ) Reduction of heat islands; occupying public spaces Waterfront areas and residents of the n hood Urban planning Plantations Alleys Coop residences Unused lots Our Parks our alleys (2002 ) Reappropriation of public spaces; pacifist cohabitation Waterfront areas and residents of the n hood Animation Parks Alleys Subsidized housing Let s secure our environments (urban security) (2006 ) Promotion of a sense of security; pacifist cohabitation Residents of the n hood Animation Murals Various areas in the n hood Pathway of Community Gardens (2002 ) Renaturalization of vacant lots Lot owners Plantations Education Undeveloped public and private land Greening Plan (2002 ) Increasing the quantity and diversity of vegetation Residents of the n hood Plantations Education Private lots Streets Alleys 79

80 Results: Implementation of Grassroots Projects Centre-Sud Neighbourhood 17 Semi-structured interviews (45-90 minutes) about 10 community-based projects on sustainable mobility Respondents Community Group Representatives (n=7)* Municipal Officials (n=4) Health Department (n=1) School Board (n=1) ~500 text segments Mercier-Est Neighbourhood 12 Semi-structured interviews (45-90 minutes) about 4 community-based projects on sustainable mobility Respondents Community Group Representatives (n=5)* Municipal Officials (n=4) School Board (n=1) Health Department (n=1) ~500 text segments Main aspects investigated in the interviews: Articulation of activities with public policies, programs and other action plans (e. g., plan of the neighbourhood roundtable; Integrated urban revitalization plan, etc.) Composition of the collaborative network (including citizens) Barriers and facilitators * Selected respondents provided input on several grassroots project. 80

81 Results: Implementation Process Collaboration between actors at the heart of the process Community actors are key contributors Links with municipal actors (who enact changes to the built environment) are always present but variable across projects (sometimes weak vs. sometimes strong; sometimes a one-shot deal vs. sometimes sustained; sometimes involved at the very start of the project, sometimes late in the process; representatives from different sectors depending of the projects: social development, transportation and public works; urban planning ) Networks of collaboration: a place for exchanges (information, financing, expertise, logistic support) and negotiations between actors 81

82 Results: Implementation Process Articulation of grassroots projects with public policies Coherence of plans Contribution of projects to the formulation of public policies (e.g.: Specific urban planning plans [PPU]; Plan directeur des parcs; etc.) Perceived Outcomes/Effects: On capacity for collaboration on issues related to sustainable mobility On the issue of sustainable mobility (sensitization; advancing the agenda in the milieu of community groups) On active transportation through local actions such as park animation/security; public market) 82

83 FACITITATORS Organisational (ONG) Centre-Sud Capacity of organization (dynamism, expertise, leadership) Commitment Financial resources (funding program 3 years) Organisational (Partnership) Collaboration with partners (e.g.: shared vision between partners involved in greening and urban safety projects) Social & Cultural Social relevance of projects (e.g. Urban insecurity) Support from the community Political Political support of elected officials (Municipal Counselor) Legal Financial Technical Other 83

84 BARRIERS Organisational (ONG) Financial Resources Turnover of Personnel Time demands Centre-Sud Organisational (partnership) Lack of Collaboration of Partners Management of Conflicting Interests Sustaining Citizen Participation across Time Social & Cultural Different Organizational culture (between organisations and between sectors of municipal organization) Political Legal Financial Technical Framework of Regulations Conflicts across Jurisdictions Broken-Down Built Environment Other Deficient maintenance (by Private Firms) 84

85 MEETINGS with EXPERTS : Strategic Analysis 85

86 MEETING WITH EXPERTS 2 DAY LONG Activities for Experts Experts included neighbourhood, community group, city, PH, and university representatives Detailed presentation of results Lengthy exchange periods Answer two key questions Potential contribution of grassroots project to promoting sustainable mobility Actions for maximizing the potential of grassroots projects Identification Actionable Recommendations 86

87 Actionable Recommendations Emerging from Expert Meetings Democratise availability of data and evidence regarding health as well as economic development in the neighbourhood Increase capacity to detect local changes resulting from decisions at a more macro level and provide tools, data, and evidence to community groups which allow for action at a supra-local level 87

88 Actionable Recommendations Emerging from Expert Meetings Maximise the use of PPAS Inform the population and partners of the operationalization and different actions aimed at road safety for pedestrians and cyclists Promote and continue dialogue with the population Propose a change of paradigm to position sustainable mobility more centrally 88

89 Actionable Recommendations Emerging from Expert Meetings Secure financing for Community Groups and Grassroots Projects ( 3 years) Depend on communication and sharing of knowledge and information (in real-time and prior to grassroots project commencement) Examine current consultation practices between the city, community groups, and citizens to maximise productive exchange to improve coordination across stakeholders Insure more coordination across grassroots projects (to avoid fragmentation) and between grassroots projects and municipal interventions ( seize opportunities, e.g. Public works programs around streets) 89

90 KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER AND EXCHANGE (KTE): Transforming Evidence into Action 90

91 KTE MEETINGS 2 HALF DAY LONG Activities for KTE Abridged presentation of results Brief exchange periods Vetting of Actionable Recommendations Planning of next steps Sustained Action and Research e.g., Sharing Data e.g., Continued Dialogue 91

92 LESSONS LEARNED Community Groups Offer a Voice to the Population Sustained Collaborative Actions are Required to Harness this Contribution 92

93 YOUR VIEWS: Post-Presentation Brainstorming Would it be possible to inventory Community Groups and Grassroots Projects in your jurisdiction? Put a on your answer Yes No I don t know / I do not wish to answer 93

94 YOUR VIEWS: Post-Presentation Brainstorming Would the collection of street and intersection data with the PPAS be useful to Community Groups in your jurisdiction? Put a on your answer Yes No I don t know / I do not wish to answer 94

95 YOUR VIEWS: Post-Presentation Brainstorming Would conducting interviews about the role grassroots projects in influencing sustainable mobility be relevant in your jurisdiction? Put a on your answer Yes No I don t know / I do not wish to answer 95

96 YOUR VIEWS: Possible Post-Presentation Reflections and Talking Points How do Community Groups and Grassroots Projects in Montreal differ from those in your jurisdictions? Which aspects of Montreal project are exportable to your jurisdictions? Which aspects of the Montreal project are unique to Montreal and thus not applicable in your jurisdictions? 96