Green Infrastructure Plan
Evaluation Frameworks
McDonald, L., Allen, W.,
Benedict, M., & K. O'Connor
Keywords: green, infrastructure, planning,
conservation, landscape, sprawl, framework, evaluation, taxonomy, ecology,
smart growth
Abstract
The
rising rate of land consumption and fragmentation in the United States has
prompted land use planners to consider a strategic approach to conservation and
development that channels urban growth and preserved lands into more suitable
locations. Green infrastructure
planning represents a strategic approach to conservation that combines the
efforts of previous conservation planning methodologies and practices in the
United States into a systematic framework that can encompass larger landscapes
and broader planning goals. Green
infrastructure is defined as the interconnected network of waterways, wetlands,
woodlands, wildlife habitats, and other natural areas; greenways, parks, and
other conservation lands; working farms, ranches and forests; and wilderness
and other open spaces that support native species, maintain natural ecological
processes, sustain air and water resources and contribute to health and quality
of life. This paper serves to provide
1) a more structured definition for green infrastructure plans, 2) “best
practice” guidelines for green infrastructure planning, as well as 3) a
framework for evaluating green infrastructure plans for different scales of
planning. The paper proposes plan
evaluation frameworks at regional and local scales that can be used by planners
in the future as a guideline or checklist of best practices for developing
green infrastructure plans, as well as a standard means for evaluating
plans.
The rising rate of land consumption
and fragmentation in the United States has prompted land use and conservation
planners to consider a strategic approach to conservation and development that
channels urban growth and preserved lands into more suitable locations. Conservation organizations and agencies have
historically responded to development pressures by preserving land on a
parcel-by-parcel, opportunity-driven basis.
Study after study has linked the degradation and loss of natural
functions not only to haphazard development practices, but also to haphazard
conservation efforts (Beatley, 2000, Noss, 1987). Like sprawling development, these domestically focused conservation
efforts traditionally have been fragmented, site-specific, and narrow in focus
(Benedict and McMahon, 2002). While
successful at conserving open space, conservation efforts of this sort have not
been led by larger landscape-scale goals and thus have typically fallen short
of protecting even the minimum amount of contiguous lands to ensure viable
ecological systems (Noss, 1987). Due to
the growing body of work on the effects of land fragmentation, as well as
advancements in environmental planning and geographic information systems, the
need for landscape scale planning has become increasingly more apparent (Ewing,
1996). This is evidenced by the
literature authored in recent years that provides guidance and instruction to
conservation planners implementing regional biodiversity networks (Conservation
Measures Partnership, 2004, Groves, 2003, Margules and Pressey, 2000 and Soule,
1991).
Taking a landscape-scale focus for
conservation planning is the foundation for green infrastructure planning, a
strategic conservation planning approach that builds on conservation planning
approaches of recent years. The
planning and scientific analysis that has served as a foundation for regional
biodiversity networks, often called “reserves,” are the roots of the green
infrastructure approach. Green
infrastructure advances these current methods of conservation planning by
providing a solution for continued land fragmentation and the resulting
degradation of natural systems that incorporates goals for biodiversity, as
well as the conservation of lands for human uses, such as working landscapes
and recreational open spaces. Green
infrastructure planning provides an interconnected blueprint for conservation
and development opportunities that can be utilized by both ecologists and land
use planners alike. Planning for an
area’s “green infrastructure” provides a landscape-scale framework for
evaluating conservation priorities.
Moreover, it provides communities with a broad, unifying vision of the
future and helps provide conservation certainty for regions and communities
facing dramatic, growth-related changes (Benedict and Bjornlund, 2002). Green infrastructure is defined as the
interconnected network of:
“waterways, wetlands, woodlands,
wildlife habitats, and other natural areas; greenways, parks, and other
conservation lands; working farms, ranches and forests; and wilderness and
other open spaces that support native species, maintain natural ecological processes,
sustain air and water resources and contribute to the health and quality of
life for America’s communities and people (The Conservation Fund, 2004).”
Since the term “green
infrastructure” was first used in planning efforts, green infrastructure plans
have been developed in a variety of ways and have served a variety of purposes.
This term has become more widely used in land-use and conservation plans within
the last few years. As it has been used freely in describing conservation
planning efforts, this paper serves to provide 1) a more structured definition
for green infrastructure plans, 2) “best practice” guidelines for green
infrastructure planning, as well as 3) a framework for evaluating green
infrastructure plans for different scales of planning. The paper will propose plan evaluation
frameworks that can be used by planners in the future as a guideline or
checklist of best practices for developing green infrastructure plans, as well
as a standard means for evaluating plans.
The term green infrastructure has multiple meanings as it relates
to conservation efforts. Just as gray
infrastructure describes the functional support system of urbanized areas,
green infrastructure the “noun” refers to nature’s life support system
(Benedict and Bjornlund, 2002). This
term describes all of the natural features of a place – its wetlands and
wildlands, parks and open spaces, wildlife habitat and ecological systems. More
and more conservation planners are beginning to understand the importance of
planning for green infrastructure.
Green infrastructure the “adjective” refers to an approach to
conservation planning that is landscape-scale, driven by a broad-reaching
public process, and results in an implementation strategy to protect an
ecological network of conservation lands.
One of the factors that
distinguishes green infrastructure plans from other conservation plans is that
the primary objective is to identify suitable lands for conservation in the
context of current and future developed lands.
Green infrastructure planning can assist the traditional land use
planning process, delineating lands for protection before the allocation of
lands for new development. This not
only ensures that important natural systems are not fragmented by urbanization,
but it also provides a framework for locating new development. Green infrastructure’s comprehensive network
design gives conservationists and developers the certainty of knowing which
lands are available for development, and which are conservation priorities. Moreover, conservation efforts are much more
effective when they are coordinated with growth management and smart growth
efforts.
Numerous types of
conservation-based plans have arisen over the course of the last few
decades. In the early days, plans
originated out of a specific threat to natural lands, such as the need for
recreational trails and parklands, concern over fragmented habitats or the need
to protect precious water resources.
Even though conservation plans focus on providing guidance for
conservation efforts, these plans can serve numerous functions. In his exploration of land conservation
efforts over the last three decades, John Randolph outlined four types of local
conservation planning efforts.
Beginning with parks and recreation planning and arriving at present day
green infrastructure planning, Randolph depicts an increasing complexity in
planning efforts, as well as a tendency over the years to incorporate a
broader, landscape scale focus (see Table 1).
Randolph’s use of the word “planning” instead of “plans” may be due to
the fact that conservation plans have not always been named according to their
primary objectives. In other words, a
plan that is probably considered an “open space” plan by its content may
sometimes be labeled a “greenways” plan, and vice versa.
|
Table 1. Evolving Nature of Local
Government Land Conservation in the United States (Randolph, 2004) |
|||
|
Period |
Type |
Conservation Tools |
Primary Objectives |
|
<1980 |
Parks and Recreation Planning |
Land acquisition; park planning and management |
Active recreation, scenic amenity |
|
1980s |
Open Space Planning |
Land acquisition and easement; park planning and
management |
Active recreation, scenic amenity, farmland
protection, urban forestry |
|
1990s |
Greenways and Open Space Planning |
Land acquisition, easement, floodplain zoning, park
and greenway planning and management |
Active and passive recreation, scenic amenity,
farmland protection, urban forestry, urban wildlife |
|
2000 |
Green Infrastructure |
Land acquisition, easement, floodplain management,
Smart Growth Management tools, conservation land development, partnerships
with landowners, land trusts |
Hubs and links for active and passive recreation,
scenic amenity, farmland protection, urban forestry, urban wildlife, regional
and state ecological systems, integration of conservation and growth
management |
Most types of conservation plans are
highly similar and not easily distinguishable.
As most conservation plans are not standardized, save those developed
for regulatory requirements, distinctive frameworks for plan types do not
exist. This creates both a range of
plan formats and methodologies within a specific plan “taxonomy,” as well as
similarities between plan taxonomies.
As conservation planning is moving
towards the incorporation of multiple goals within a single planning effort
(Noss et al, 2002), the lines between plan types are becoming even more
blurred. It is quite common today to
find hybrid plans that incorporate elements of different plan types, for
example watershed plans now often incorporate conservation goals for habitat
protection. While a highly conventional
structure for plan taxonomies is probably not useful considering the wide
variability in planning efforts, differentiating the core plan taxonomies is
useful in gaining an understanding of what plan elements and approaches
exist. This clarification can provide
conservation planners with a more universally defined language pertaining to
conservation planning options.
Exploring examples of conservation
plans can begin to get at the core differences between the taxonomies. Defining and differentiating between plans
can clarify the purpose of different conservation plans, highlight the
differences between plans and provide a more solid basis for establishing
evaluation efforts. This not only provides a general foundation for
differentiating plan types, but it also sheds light on the opportunities for
improving plans.
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN ELEMENTS
It is important to
note that there is no “one-size-fits-all” blueprint for green infrastructure
plans, but the green infrastructure approach does suggest a basic framework for
plan development. Inclusion of some
elements distinguishes green infrastructure plans from the other plan types
outlined in Table 1. These elements,
common to most plan types, are organized into four main steps: goal setting,
analysis, synthesis and implementation.
Time and funding constraints will likely prevent most planning efforts
from including this "ideal" set of plan elements outlined below. However, the elements and the evaluation
criteria outlined later in the paper can assist planners with adapting the
framework for their particular needs and constraints.
At their core, green
infrastructure plans must include goals for the protection of ecological
functions and processes, as well as protection of working lands, and open space
for human benefit. These are
factors that have been covered in other plan types, but typically not included
all within one plan. Just as the term
“green infrastructure” connotes an area’s natural life support system, so
should green infrastructure plans incorporate all of the natural elements of an
area. These goals will be determined by
the landscapes and land uses within a given planning area and the corresponding
threats to these human and natural environments. It should be noted that not all areas will include all possible
conservation objectives, but a plan should still be considered a green
infrastructure plan if it incorporates and balances all salient conservation
goals for the area.
As green infrastructure plans
incorporate ecosystem and land-use components and processes over space and
time, green infrastructure plans must focus on landscape-scale approaches to
conservation planning. So what
exactly is a landscape-scale approach?
A landscape-scale approach considers how an area’s resources “contribute
to, interact with, and are influenced by the ecosystems of surrounding areas”
(Benedict and Bjornlund, 2002). This
goes beyond an accounting of flora and fauna content and looks at the larger context
within which endangered habitats and other critical natural areas are
situated. Ecosystems are dynamic
entities and planning efforts that are focused on protecting natural systems
need to take into account the changing spatial and temporal factors involved in
ecosystem conservation. Drawing upon
landscape ecology and conservation biology theories and practices within an
environmental planning framework can ensure that green infrastructure plans
integrate and account for all of these factors.
Different
landscapes, human needs and threats to conservation will require different
goals and planning efforts. What is
critical is that the leadership forum focuses on balancing these three green
infrastructure goals (i.e. landscape processes, working lands and open space
for human benefit) by utilizing a landscape-scale approach. These three plan elements provide the basic
plan foundations for green infrastructure plans.
The goal of a network design is to
delineate an interconnected green infrastructure system that incorporates both
benefits to nature and to people. Network
design criteria should be developed and based on ecological and land-use
planning theories and utilize an integrated landscape-scale approach. The basic application of these theories
include:
1.
Linking
components and processes of the ecosystem,
2.
Identifying
ecologically valuable areas as well as areas in need of restoration, and
3.
Considering
the distribution and relationship of landscape features and processes over
time, and the interaction of these features with the human built environment
(Benedict and Bjornlund, 2002).
Analysts
use these theories to devise a set of criteria for assessing the most valuable
lands within a given planning area.
Systems of criteria often include weighting some conservation values
more than others and should be based on the goals set forth by the leadership
forum. All plan efforts should utilize
agreed upon criteria to formulate a spatial network of conservation lands for
their study area. Creating a unifying
network vision would allow for conservation efforts within a region to be more
coordinated and strategic as local governments can work from the same defined
spatial goals, while also maintaining the flexibility for setting local
conservation priorities within the larger network design.
The
network design should be created by conducting a suitability analysis or using
a similar method (based on determined network criteria) to calculate a range of
resource values for the study area. This analysis will typically focus on a
range of goals for the planning area.
This is often conducted individually for each independent green
infrastructure goal or “attribute” and then later compiled to define the entire
network. A “coarse-scale” evaluation identifies the larger landscape values for
the plan area and the relative ranking of these lands. A “fine-scale” evaluation will look within
the ranked resource areas and take a more acute and smaller-scale evaluation
within the larger context. This
approach is similar to The Nature Conservancy’s conservation planning framework
that incorporates ecoregional and site-level planning (The Nature Conservancy,
2000). The key difference between these
planning methodologies is that The Nature Conservancy’s approach is primarily
based upon biodiversity conservation principles. The green infrastructure “top-down” approach ensures that
landscape scale functions and processes are the foundation of the network
design as well as the more local and smaller scale lands that will constitute
the larger network.
The network design should utilize a
hub/corridor framework and incorporate a diversity of land uses. These network components ensure
that important resource areas are protected and linked to provide the optimal
environment for an area’s ecological systems.
Efforts to design ecological networks should look beyond linkage goals
and include empirical scientific evidence that supports the size and shape of
the network components for the given planning area. As most network analysis will be conducted by technical and
scientific experts and not by the leadership forum, it is important to elicit
feedback on the preliminary green infrastructure network design from the
leadership group. Herein lies an
interesting tension between scientific analysis and human environmental
values. While scientists may argue
that the most effective network systems are based on the best available
science, conservation of the network will never be implemented if it lacks
public support. Education can help
bridge the gap between the best available science and public support, and the
involvement of the leadership forum can help balance scientific and political
goals to ensure a network design that is both ecologically viable and
politically executable.
The protection status of green
infrastructure network lands should be identified and incorporated into the
analysis model. This is a key characteristic of all
conservation plans. For example, lands
that are unprotected will rank higher than those that are protected
temporarily, dependent upon the resource value of the lands. This information is crucial for delivering
a structured system that determines conservation priorities.
The
network analysis should be able to identify gaps in the network,
allowing planners to ascertain significant areas that are prime for restoration
efforts. Restoring hub and linkage gaps
is a crucial component to any green infrastructure plan, as most network
designs will contain “holes” in the form of developed or degraded lands. As green infrastructure network design is
based upon ecological frameworks and not simply open space, many lands
identified within a given framework may not currently be in a natural and/or
fully functioning state. For example, a
network design may include natural areas, a greenway system, agricultural lands
and possibly brownfield sites – comprising a diversity of land uses. The network should include all of these
lands and identify any areas in which restoration efforts should be undertaken
to strengthen the network and their relative importance. Brownfield sites are an example of how
developed areas may be part of a green infrastructure network, emphasizing the
importance of assessing linkages of the entirety of lands within a planning
area, not only those lands that are currently undeveloped.
The
final plan should included a geographic representation (i.e. map) of the final
network design.
This map will communicate the larger goals to plan users and provide a
common basis for implementation efforts.
Additional maps, which designate specific implementation efforts for
specific areas within the network design, may also be included. This information advances conservation
implementation efforts to specify opportunities for protection efforts.
Implementation
A system for prioritizing protection
opportunities – a decision-support tool - is another green infrastructure plan
requirement. The network design should
be evaluated against the protection status of lands and other factors
identified through the goal setting process to produce a prioritization system
that ranks conservation opportunities.
Without this system, the plan serves only as a blueprint of conservation
lands – not a framework for assessing priorities.
A
key function of the decision-support tool is that it should result in a land
protection strategy that can guide plan implementation efforts. If local planners cannot utilize the
decision-support tool, it serves only to prepare a spatial design that does not
provide meaningful information for assessing future conservation opportunities
and strategies for action. The decision-support
tool must provide users with essential attribute information about the network
design that can assist with future efforts.
As choices have to be made between conservation opportunities, local
governments can use a decision-support tool to ensure that they are making the
most of their conservation dollars when weighing competing choices.
Green infrastructure plans should
not only identify a green infrastructure network design, but they also should
provide a list of the mechanisms and tools for land protection as well as
viable funding programs for reaching plan goals.
This implementation strategy provided within a green infrastructure plan
should highlight opportunities for utilizing existing regulatory and
non-regulatory land use tools for protecting important network lands. This may also include suggesting new tools
that have yet to be utilized in a given planning area. Likewise, all available funding resources, including
federal, state, local and private funding sources should be documented in the
plan and include a description of the funding opportunities that each
supply.
A good green
infrastructure plan will outline a patchwork “quilt” of protection strategies
that match implementation tools to the different spatial areas outlined in the
green infrastructure network design.
This implementation strategy will include a diversity of land uses, as
designated by the network design. As most green infrastructure plans will be
conducted from a regional context, it may be difficult to outline a highly
specific implementation plan, however, local governments will reap the benefits
of a coordinated strategy that aligns opportunities and funding efforts so that
the most important priorities are protected, hopefully resulting in a lessening
of competition between localities.
FRAMEWORKS
FOR EVALUATING GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLANS
For the purpose of
developing specific criteria for evaluating green infrastructure plans, plan
evaluation frameworks for regional and local scales were developed. A site scale plan framework, more specific
to landowners and developers, also has been developed but is not addressed in
this paper. These frameworks focus on
different spatial scales that represent the geo-political boundaries under
which most planning efforts are conducted.
The frameworks outline the specific criteria for green infrastructure
plans at each respective scale. As the regional and local scale frameworks are
highly similar, they are displayed as one framework in Tables 2-5, and are
differentiated by “R”-regional or “L”-located in the last column. It is assumed that the regional and local
planning can be undertaken by a host of different entities, including public
agencies and conservation organizations.
It is important to
note that the key to effective green infrastructure planning is to link and
coordinate planning and implementation across these three spatial scales. However, it is also important to
differentiate planning for the purpose of highlighting the distinct plan functions
and implementation efforts at each level.
Moreover, not all local and site-scale planning efforts will be
conducted in the context of a regional-scale green infrastructure plan. Each of the three frameworks was designed
to work within the hierarchy and independently.
Regional scale plans include
multi-state, statewide, ecoregional, or larger watershed-scale planning
efforts. This is typically the largest
scale of planning that will define the landscape context of the green
infrastructure network design for smaller planning scales, and lays the
framework for more localized planning efforts.
Regional scale plans cover large swaths of land and thus typically
incorporate a multitude of landowners.
As such, regional plans do not tend to have highly specific
implementation plans focused at the parcel level, but provide a regional goal
and a means for coordination between conservation efforts.
Local scale plans include
multi-county, county, city or even small watershed planning efforts. This scale is typically
multi-jurisdictional, but represents a smaller sub-area within the larger
landscape context. Local scale
planning is most effective when coordinated with regional green infrastructure
planning efforts. However, local
planning efforts conducted outside of a regional green infrastructure planning
context are still viable and recommended.
Plans undertaken at this scale tend to have more land-use governing
jurisdiction to make specific parcel-level recommendations and develop specific
plans of action. Local planning efforts
may include numerous landowners, but typically fewer than the regional
scale.
Site scale plans include small-scale
conservation or conservation development plans. These are often called “site plans” or “small area plans” and may
often focus on balancing development and conservation efforts at the parcel
level. This level of planning is where
most on-the-ground implementation efforts take place and thus they provide
highly specific conservation action plans.
For these plans to be highly effective and to ensure the integrity of
the larger network design, they should be linked to regional and local scale
plans.
The frameworks were
derived from the principles of the green infrastructure planning approach and
review of several green infrastructure plans.
The frameworks are broken down into four main plan elements:
1.
Goal
setting – “Goal
setting” or direction setting provides a clear, relevant basis for developing
plans and later for decision-making and evaluation (Kaiser et al, 1995). This plan element represents the first
stages of plan development, where issues are identified, a process for plan
development is outlined and plan goals are derived. This plan element consists of three main types of criteria: plan
foundations, stakeholder involvement and conservation goals.
Plan Foundations evaluate the basic elements and
purposes for plan development. These include
the incorporation and documentation of comprehensive green infrastructure
elements and a discussion of the threats to those elements; the nature of the
planning effort, including the focus on landscape systems; any regulatory
and/or policy requirements that play a role in the planning effort; any larger
scale green infrastructure planning efforts that may provide a larger scale
framework for plan development; and finally the goals, objectives and
strategies that will lead the plan development process.
Stakeholder Involvement assesses the means for identifying
stakeholders that should be involved in plan development, any leadership entity
that provides advisory guidance to the process and approves planning
activities, and the inclusion of a broad array of organizations and
professional disciplines.
Conservation Vision identifies and evaluates the
specific conservation goals that led green infrastructure planning
efforts.
2.
Analysis - The “Analysis” element provides
the factual, scientific basis for the green infrastructure network design
model. Based in theories and practices
from ecological and environmental sciences and land use planning, this part of
the plan serves to translate the plan’s goals and objectives into the green
infrastructure network design model by utilizing a suitability analysis or
similar methodology. Analysis consists
of two main criteria: network design criteria and network suitability analysis.
Network Design Criteria evaluate the process by which the
green infrastructure network design is delineated. This includes assessing the experts involved in the design
process, the data incorporated in spatial modeling and the scientific
thresholds utilized.
Network Suitability Analysis considers the results of the
spatial modeling analysis. Specifically
it evaluates the nature of the network, the incorporation of a range of scales
and land uses into the model, and the ability to replicate the analysis.
3.
Synthesis
- The “Synthesis” plan element includes the assessment of the green
infrastructure network design model in terms of vulnerability factors, the
status of land protection and other feasibility factors. This assessment leads to the identification
of priorities for implementation. This
element consists of three main criteria: network design model enhancements,
identifying priorities, and relationship to plan goals.
Network Design Model Enhancements evaluate the additional factors fed
into the network design model that strengthen the design. These include land protection status, threat
or stressor factors related to green infrastructure components, on-the-ground
“fact checking” to determine that network design model is appropriate for real
world needs, and stakeholder assessments that may include additional factors
into network design.
Identifying Priorities evaluates the process by which
identified green infrastructure lands are classified and ranked. Classification efforts are evaluated for
their ability to delineate a specific system for prioritizing parcels by
conservation value.
Relationship to Plan Goals evaluates the final design’s
ability to meet plan goals and to potentially link into larger green
infrastructure planning networks.
4.
Implementation - The “Implementation” element
provides a strategic framework for achieving established green infrastructure
plan goals by integrating conservation priorities with implementation tools and
funding sources. The main themes within
the implementation element are the decision-support tool, implementation tools,
conservation funding, conservation strategies and defining development
opportunities.
Decision-Support Tool criteria assess the plan’s ability
to provide a quantitative mechanism for ranking the conservation value of
protection opportunities.
Implementation Tools evaluates the documentation and
assessment of potential conservation tools that can be used to protect lands
within the green infrastructure network.
This includes existing and new policies, programs, and market-based
approaches for enacting conservation.
Conservation Funding assesses the inventory of various
funding mechanisms documented within the plan, as well as providing support for
permanent funding programs devoted to protecting network lands.
Conservation Strategies criteria evaluate the plan’s
ability to develop a strategic effort that links implementation tools and
funding sources to actual lands within the green infrastructure network, and to
mandate or recommend additional efforts aimed at restoration and conservation
management, as well as garnering further support for plan goals.
Defining Development Opportunities evaluates the plan’s ability to
identify development opportunities that complement and fit within the context
of the green infrastructure network.
Each of these
elements includes numerous criteria specific to the geo-political scale of the
plan. These criteria not only serve as
a means for evaluating green infrastructure plans, but they also serve as a
guiding framework for plan development.
Each of the four plan elements can be scored using the simple point
system included. Some of the criteria
are weighted more heavily than other criteria, as determined by relative
importance for strengthening plans. The
primary goal of the scoring system is to provide a comprehensive checklist for
plan development efforts. Time and
funding constraints will dictate how many of the elements can be realistically
included, but the framework provides a "ideal" scenario toward which
the planning effort can strive to achieve.
Best Practices for Plan Development: As these three frameworks are
specific to green infrastructure plan evaluation, they do not necessarily
include “best practice” plan criteria that are attributable to the universe of
plans. In revising their latest edition of Urban Land Use Planning, authors
David Godschalk and Philip Berke have developed a comprehensive Plan Quality
Evaluation Protocol that evaluates internal and external plan elements for
all plan types. It is highly
recommended that this plan protocol be followed when developing conservation
plans or any other type of plan. As some best practice criteria are rather
important for green infrastructure plans, they have been included within these
frameworks. However, several important
criteria that are not mentioned are:
1.
Including
an assessment of emerging conditions and future forecasts;
2.
Consistency
with other related plans and acknowledgement of other related planning efforts;
3.
Identification
of parties responsible for implementation efforts;
4.
Inclusion
of a provision for regular plan updating;
5.
Inclusion
of monitoring, and evaluation provisions; and
6.
Inclusion
of a provision for financing implementation, monitoring, evaluation and plan
revising efforts.
Likewise, there are many sources available
that address the project management and monitoring side of conservation
planning. A noteworthy example is the
recent publication, Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation by
the Conservation Measures Partnership (2004).
These planning guidance documents should be reviewed when developing any
comprehensive conservation planning initiative.
TABLE
2. Regional/Local Plan Element 1 – Goal
Setting
R =
Regional Plan
L = Local
Plan
|
1.1 |
Plan
Foundations |
Possible Points |
Applicable Plan |
|
1.1.1 |
Were plan
parameters identified geographically, temporally and/or other? |
1 |
R,L |
|
1.1.2 |
Were the
planning area’s comprehensive “green infrastructure” components and threats
to those components documented? |
3 |
R,L |
|
1.1.3 |
Did the
plan call for coordination with adjacent areas regarding efforts that
extended beyond jurisdictional boundaries? |
3 |
R,L |
|
1.1.4 |
Was the
plan based on an integrated landscape analysis that focused on the protection
of functional landscape components? |
5* |
R,L |
|
1.1.5 |
Were
federal, state, county or local planning mandates or policy recommendations
addressed and incorporated into the plan? |
1
|
R,L |
|
1.1.6 |
Was the
plan supported by a legislative body or executive office by means of a formal
resolution? |
1
|
R,L |
|
1.1.7 |
Did the
plan incorporate results from a statewide or regional green infrastructure
plan? |
3 |
L |
|
1.1.8 |
Was the
plan led by a vision, formal plan goals, and strategies for guiding plan
development? |
5* |
R,L |
|
1.2 |
Stakeholder
Involvement |
|
|
|
1.2.1 |
Did a
leadership forum or advisory committee provide leadership and generate
momentum for the planning effort? |
5* |
R,L |
|
1.2.2 |
Did the
leadership forum/advisory committee include a diversity of professional
disciplines and represent multiple sectors? |
3 |
R,L |
|
1.2.3 |
Did the
plan include documentation of a stakeholder analysis to identify stakeholders
included within the plan parameters? |
1 |
R,L |
|
1.2.4 |
Did the
planning process include an “adequate” public engagement process that
provided stakeholders with ample opportunities to weigh in on plan
development? |
3 |
R,L |
|
1.2.5 |
Were
county and local governments engaged in plan development? |
1 |
R,L |
|
1.2.6 |
Were
federal or state agencies engaged in plan development? |
1 |
R,L |
|
1.2.7 |
Were area
non-governmental organizations, land trusts or other conservation
organizations engaged in plan development? |
1 |
R,L |
|
1.3 |
Conservation
Vision |
|
|
|
1.3.1 |
Was plan
development led by goal(s) to protect ecological processes and functions? |
5* |
R,L |
|
1.3.2 |
Did the
plan include goal(s) for working lands protection (i.e. farming, forestry,
ranching)? |
3 |
R,L |
|
1.3.3 |
Did the
plan include goal(s) for hazard mitigation? |
3 |
R,L |
|
1.3.4 |
Did the
plan include goal(s) for watershed protection? |
3 |
R,L |
|
1.3.5 |
Did the
plan include goal(s) for open space and its associated human benefits (i.e.
passive recreation, aesthetic quality)? |
3 |
R,L |
|
1.3.6 |
Did the
plan include goal(s) for the preservation of cultural and historic resources? |
1 |
R,L |
|
1.3.7 |
Did the
plan include goal(s) for eco-tourism and other economic development
activities that utilize conservation lands? |
1 |
R,L |
|
1.3.8 |
Did the
plan include goal(s) for growth management? |
1 |
R,L |
|
1.3.9 |
Did the
plan include other conservation-related goals? |
1 |
R,L |
*Denotes a required criteria that plans must include.
TABLE 3. Regional/Local Plan Element 2 – Analysis
|
2.1 |
Network
Design Criteria |
Possible Points |
Applicable Plan |
|
2.1.1 |
Did the
plan include a comprehensive assessment of landscapes and landscape features
within plan parameters? (e.g.
biological, hydrological, geological, human-dominated) |
3 |
R,L |
|
2.1.2 |
Were
spatially explicit data sets that contain attribute information for landscape
features, gathered and compiled? |
3 |
R,L |
|
2.1.3 |
Did data
sets include information for human-dominated landscape features (agriculture,
development, etc.), as well as natural landscape features? |
1 |
R,L |
|
2.1.4 |
Were
baseline maps prepared to identify individual green infrastructure components
(i.e. forestlands, working lands, wildlife habitat, parklands, etc.) |
1 |
R,L |
|
2.1.5 |
Did
network design criteria for hubs and corridors incorporate ecological
thresholds and other conservation parameters? (ex. minimum dynamic areas,
size of migration corridors, natural disturbance regimes, edge effects,
important riparian zones, etc.) |
5* |
R,L |
|
2.1.6 |
Were
corridors identified using least-cost path analysis or a similar methodology? |
3 |
R,L |
|
2.1.7 |
Were
network design criteria documented? |
1 |
R,L |
|
2.1.8 |
Were
ecologists and other natural areas specialists involved in producing the
network design criteria and weighting systems? |
3 |
R,L |
|
2.1.9 |
Were
network design criteria based on current biological and ecological theories
and best practices? (i.e. hubs/corridors, contiguous lands, connectivity,
etc.) |
5* |
R,L |
|
2.1.10 |
Do the
network design criteria incorporate all of the plan’s goals? |
3 |
R,L |
2.2
|
Network Suitability Analysis
|
|
|
2.2.1
|
Was a suitability analysis or
similar land suitability method (that incorporated the network design
criteria) utilized to calculate and classify the range of conservation values
for the study area?
|
5*
|
R,L
|
2.2.2
|
Were conservation values assessed
for a range of spatial scales, including smaller parcel-level analysis?
|
1
|
R,L
|
2.2.3
|
Did the final network design (i.e.
results from suitability analysis) result in an ecologically connected
framework?
|
5*
|
R,L
|
2.2.4
|
Did the network design incorporate
a diversity of land uses (i.e. working lands, open space, parklands,
habitat)?
|
5*
|
R,L
|
2.2.5
|
Are specific hubs and corridors
delineated in the plan?
|
3
|
R,L
|
2.2.6
|
If a regional plan was developed,
were new target hubs and corridors revealed at the local-scale analysis?
|
1
|
L
|
2.2.7
|
Were gaps in the network (both in
hubs and corridors) identified?
|
5*
|
R,L
|
2.2.8
|
Did the plan include a clear and
coherent graphic representation of the final network design?
|
5*
|
R,L
|
2.2.9
|
Was the suitability analysis model
(or similar model) replicable?
|
1
|
R,L
|
*Denotes a required
criteria that plans must include.
TABLE 4. Regional/Local Plan Element 3 – Synthesis
|
3.1 |
Network
Design Model Enhancements |
Possible Points |
Applicable Plan |
|
3.1.1 |
Was
feedback from a stakeholder assessment of the network design incorporated
into the model? |
1 |
R,L |
|
3.1.2 |
Was an
ecological “ground-truthing” assessment of the network design incorporated
into the model? |
3 |
R,L |
|
3.1.3 |
Were risk
and vulnerability factors (i.e. risk for development or fragmentation) for
network segments assessed and incorporated into the model? |
3 |
R,L |
|
3.1.4 |
Was the
protection status of green infrastructure network lands identified and
incorporated into the model? |
5* |
R,L |
|
3.1.5 |
If it is not feasible to connect hubs using the corridors
identified in the original network design, are alternative corridors identified? |
3 |
L |
|
3.2 |
Identifying Priorities |
|
|
|
3.2.1 |
Were the systems for prioritizing and ranking hubs and
corridors based on the results of the suitability analysis, vulnerability
factors and status of land protection? |
5* |
R,L |
|
3.2.2 |
Were hubs and corridors ranked within each different type
of landscape? |
1 |
R,L |
|
3.2.3 |
Were hubs and corridors ranked at a coarse, regional
scale? |
1 |
R |
|
3.2.4 |
Were hubs and corridors ranked at a finer, local scale? |
1 |
R,L |
|
3.2.5 |
Was a system for prioritizing restoration and enhancement
opportunities developed? |
3 |
R,L |
|
3.2.6 |
Were specific priorities identified in this plan? |
5* |
R,L |
|
3.2.7 |
Were ranking systems combined to create a comprehensive
system for ranking lands within the green infrastructure network? |
3 |
R,L |
|
3.3 |
Relationship to Plan Goals |
|
|
|
3.3.1 |
Were the final conservation priorities evaluated against
the original design criteria? |
1 |
R,L |
|
3.3.2 |
Did the final conservation priorities meet plan goals? |
1 |
R,L |
|
3.3.3 |
Does the local plan integrate the network design into a
larger, regional network design? |
3 |
L |
*Denotes a required criteria that
plans must include.
TABLE 5. Regional/Local Plan Element 4 – Implementation
|
4.1 |
Decision-Support Tool |
Potential Points |
Applicable Plan |
|
|
4.1.1 |
Did the plan include a decision-support tool (i.e.
mechanism for quantitatively ranking conservation opportunities based on the
network design and other important factors)? |
5* |
R,L |
|
|
4.1.2 |
Does the decision-support tool allow for the incorporation
of new data as it becomes available? |
3 |
R,L |
|
|
4.1.3 |
Can the decision-support tool help guide local and
site-level implementation efforts? |
5* |
R,L |
|
|
4.1.4 |
Was the methodology for developing the decision-support
tool documented? |
1
|
R,L |
|
|
4.2 |
Implementation Tools |
|
|
|
|
4.2.1 |
Does the plan identify available mechanisms and tools for
land protection (i.e. acquisition, easement, TDR, other)? |
5* |
R,L |
|
|
4.2.2 |
Does the plan assess the feasibility and effectiveness of
utilizing available tools for land protection? |
1 |
R,L |
|
|
4.2.3 |
Does the plan recommend new conservation tools? |
1 |
R,L |
|
|
4.2.4 |
Were implementation tools matched with sites based on
their ability to handle the threats that were identified in those areas? |
3 |
R,L |
|
|
4.2.5 |
Did the plan provide
useful and effective ways to integrate the green infrastructure
network implementation efforts into county/city regulation, planning, capital
improvement programs, and/or development review procedures? |
1 |
L |
|
|
4.2.6 |
Did the plan call for specific “small area plans” or
similar small-scale plans to guide the conservation of target areas? |
1 |
L |
|
|
4.3 |
Conservation Funding |
|
|
|
|
4.3.1 |
Does the plan identify federal, state, local and/or
private conservation funding opportunities? |
5* |
R,L |
|
|
4.3.2 |
Did the plan document strategies for leveraging existing
funding sources to generate new sources? |
1 |
R,L |
|
|
4.3.3 |
Does the plan document the need for a recurring or
revolving funding source? |
1
|
R,L |
|
|
4.4 |
Conservation Strategies |
|
|
|
|
4.4.1 |
Was information pertaining to related environmental
protection, natural resource conservation, green space planning and other
similar efforts assessed in terms of implementation opportunities? |
3 |
R,L |
|
|
4.4.2 |
Does the plan outline specific implementation strategies
for state and regional agencies? |
5* |
R |
|
|
4.4.3 |
Does the plan outline specific implementation strategies
for county, local governments and private landowners? |
3 |
R,L |
|
|
4.4.4 |
Does the plan identify relative priorities for
implementation strategies? |
3 |
R,L |
|
|
4.4.5 |
Does the combination of all identified implementation
strategies encompass a diversity of land uses? |
5* |
R,L |
|
|
4.4.6 |
Are implementation strategies spatially matched to create
an “implementation quilt” across the network? |
3 |
R,L |
|
|
4.4.7 |
Was a coordinating body or task force established to
oversee and coordinate implementation efforts? |
1 |
R,L |
|
|
4.4.8 |
Does the plan identify necessary stewardship and
management activities to restore, monitor and maintain green infrastructure
network resources over time? |
3 |
R,L |
|
|
4.4.9 |
Does the plan outline a marketing and public outreach
strategy to garner further support for plan goals? |
1 |
R,L |
|
|
4.5 |
Defining Development Opportunities |
|
|
|
|
4.5.1 |
Did the plan discuss opportunities for development within
the context of the green infrastructure network? |
1 |
R,L |
|
|
4.5.2 |
Did the plan identify a range of land uses to buffer
priority protection areas from current or future development? |
1 |
R,L |
|
|
4.5.3 |
Did the plan recommend the use of conservation development
or limited development for developing lands within the context of the green
infrastructure network? |
1 |
R,L |
|
|
4.5.4 |
Were implementation strategies coordinated with state or
local growth management efforts? |
3
|
R,L |
|
*Denotes a required criteria that plans must include.
Regional and Local Plan Evaluations:
The four plans evaluated were chosen based on a preliminary review that
identified them as meeting all plan criteria – two for regional evaluation and
two for local evaluation. These plans represent diverse methods for developing
green infrastructure plans. The
following synopses describe the plans reviewed and highlight results from the
evaluation. The scoring system was not
applied to these plans, as they were completed before this evaluation system
was developed. However, the framework
was utilized as the foundation for evaluating the plans.
Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan
(Huckleberry, 2000; Huckleberry, 2001) – Regional Plan Review: As a response to the increasing degradation of habitat for
vulnerable species and a rising need for growth management policies to curb
haphazard sprawl, Pima County, Arizona initiated a highly advanced model for
conservation planning in 1998. Working under the three plan objectives of
creating a science-based conservation plan, producing an update to the
comprehensive land use plan, and obtaining federal regulation compliance for
the protection of endangered species through a multiple species conservation
plan, the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan combined traditional growth
management and conservation planning into a single comprehensive planning
initiative. This initiative was led by
goals to protect biological diversity and vulnerable species habitat, ensure
the protection of critical riparian areas in the desert region, identify and
preserve cultural and historic resources, ensure the future viability of
ranchlands and ranching, and connect the numerous public parks and preserves into
a linked landscape system.
Including more than
400 public workshops and education meetings, this planning effort sought to
balance a highly scientific land classification process with a robust public
engagement component. The steering
committee and supportive technical advisory teams included citizens, scientific
experts, and representatives from nonprofits, federal agencies, and planning
advisors. The planning process included
a short-term component focused on the immediate protection and enhancement of
natural resources and the environment, and a long-range planning component to
ensure that natural and urban environments not only coexist, but also reinforce
each other’s success for the long term.
Throughout the process, short-term goals such as identifying and
designating new public parklands and obtaining conservation funding in the form
of general obligation bonds were achieved.
The Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan
does not consist of one single plan, but a combination of plans including
numerous supplementary plans to reinforce and advance specific elements. These include a federal Environmental Impact
Statement, a regional Multi-Species Conservation Plan, an adaptive management
plan, an implementing agreement and an update to the County Comprehensive Land
Use Plan. At the time of this review,
planners had completed the Preliminary Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan and
a draft of the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan. The review is based on these documents
and other supporting materials. As the
county planning area included over 5.9 million acres, it was deemed appropriate
to evaluate this plan using the regional green infrastructure framework
criteria. This is also supported by the
regional nature of the habitat conservation plan and the numerous cooperative
agreements with adjacent governing jurisdictions. What follows are several key points that came though during the
plan evaluation.
1.
The
process is exceptional in terms of the numerous stakeholders that have been
engaged. From engaging citizens and
technical experts to lead the planning process, to securing cooperative
agreements with neighboring jurisdictions and with federal agency partners, to
enlisting private conservation organizations to assist with the analysis and
development of prioritization systems, this effort serves as a model for
collaborative conservation planning.
2.
The
process extended beyond regulatory requirements of the Federal Endangered
Species Act to enact a broader comprehensive planning process that linked
growth management, land use and conservation planning. The plan was highly effective in defining
development regulations that corresponded to the ecological network design. The county comprehensive plan reflected the
goals of the planning process and established formal county policies to
regulate land use related to priority conservation lands.
3.
Although
it was created through a highly scientific and iterative process, the network
design did not incorporate all of the goals of the plan. The network was specific to ecological hubs
and corridors, as this component was necessary for applying for a Section 10
incidental take permit. This will
probably change in the long run, but the plan at this point in time does not
identify the process for incorporating other plan goals, such as cultural and
historic resources, into the design.
4.
The
final plan will incorporate a decision support tool and currently includes
in-depth recommendations for establishing institutional changes to further plan
goals. Some parcel-specific
implementation measures have already been established through the county’s
Acquisition Master Plan.
Florida Greenways and Trails Plan
(Florida DEP, 1998; GeoPlan Center, 1998) – Regional Plan Evaluation: Due to the increasing loss of natural habitat and ecological
lands, two private conservation organizations initiated efforts in 1991 to
create the Florida Greenways Program, which was focused on building a statewide
constituency for greenways. As a key
outcome of this effort, the Governor of Florida established a 40-member
Greenways Commission to develop a coordinated approach for protecting,
enhancing and managing a statewide greenways and trails system. The work of the commission resulted in the
establishment of a Greenways Coordinating Council that worked with the State’s
Department of Environmental Protection to develop a 5-year implementation plan
for the proposed network. The GeoPlan
Center at the University of Florida was contracted to delineate the physical
network design that would augment the implementation report, and to assist with
general greenways planning.
The network design
model was based on the development of a joint system that included ecologically
significant lands and a cultural-historic trail network. Combined, these two networks created a
comprehensive statewide system that linked and integrated ecologically
significant sites, and corridors for trail and recreational uses.
The implementation plan introduced
the statewide greenway and trail network model and provided seven
recommendations for implementing the system, including the development of a
system for prioritizing network features, developing a process for
“designating” greenway and trail network lands, stimulating awareness of the
network and educating landowners on the benefits for developing greenways and
trails, and providing assistance and financial support for state, regional,
local and private sector greenway implementation, maintenance and management
efforts.
Like the Sonoran Desert Conservation
Plan, the Florida Greenways and Trails Plan was the culmination of a lengthy
planning process that resulted in an ecologically based network design. This plan was one of the first statewide
efforts to create a spatial framework for guiding land conservation
efforts. What follows are a few of
the highlights that arose through the plan evaluation.
1.
The
plan had strong political support and approval from the Governor and from the
state legislature. This aided the
funding and implementation of the plan; however this level of support may not
be entirely sustainable through administration changes. The plan included policies that respond to
statutory requirements, creating a more binding framework for future efforts.
2.
The
statewide plan focused solely on lands of national or statewide significance;
however, the implementation plan did call for the development of a
prioritization process to aid county and local governments in developing
conservation strategies. The idea was
to create a statewide network and then delineate local level strategies that
would provide the building blocks for the network.
3.
Following
preliminary analysis and development of the greenways and trails network
design, the model was taken to a series of meetings for comment and review by
the general public and by landowners. This process resulted in a modification
of the design to reflect their input, specifically allowing landowners to
withdraw their lands from the network design.
From a political standpoint, excluding lands of landowners who were
unwilling to designate their properties as part of the greenways network was
probably a smart move. However, it
should be noted that the network design was slightly altered based on this feedback.
4.
The
plan included a comprehensive implementation element comprised of 1) a list of
land conservation tools approved by the state, as well as a list of state-level
funding sources, 2) suggestions to adopt a new statewide public conservation
program to replace an older program that had timed out, and 3) the creation of
a new coordinating body that would promote the program and advise the State’s
Department of Environmental Protection on administration and management of the
greenways and trails program.
Talbot County Green Infrastructure
Plan (The Conservation Fund, 2004) – Local Plan Evaluation: Located on the Eastern Shore of the Chesapeake Bay, Talbot
County Maryland is receiving increasing development pressure from the greater
Washington D.C.-Baltimore region. This
county is home to many rural communities and acres of farmlands. Combining the unique Chesapeake Bay setting
and a significant acreage of unprotected agricultural lands makes Talbot County
vulnerable to a real estate development boom.
Following an update
to their county comprehensive plan in 2004, Talbot County Maryland undertook a
countywide planning effort to identify green infrastructure resources and form
strategies to protect these resources. This effort was bolstered by the State
of Maryland’s GreenPrint and Smart Growth programs and other state and federal
programs related to the protection of lands within the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed. The County Planning
Department contracted The Conservation Fund, a national land and water
conservation organization, to conduct the green infrastructure assessment,
propose implementation strategies and develop a decision-support tool that
would enable the county to effectively respond to and prioritize different
conservation opportunities, and customize assessments to conservation funding
opportunities that may arise. The green
infrastructure plan goals aligned with the goals of the updated County
Comprehensive Plan, as well as a resolution that the County signed, in
conjunction with five other Eastern Shore counties, in which they committed to
preserve 50% of the County’s land by 2010.
Taking from the
goals of the comprehensive plan, the Talbot County Green Infrastructure Plan
focused on the identification of lands that had outstanding ecological value,
lands that had a potential for high agricultural productivity, lands that
provided critical protection of aquatic resources in riverine systems and lands
that served to protect the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. The Conservation Fund assessed these conservation objectives
using a suitability analysis and developed a comprehensive county wide green
infrastructure network design from these assessments.
The local level
analysis was built upon the Maryland Green Infrastructure Assessment, a
statewide green infrastructure study conducted by the Maryland Department of
Natural Resources. The county level
analysis proved effective at identifying parcel level conservation priorities
that supported the statewide network design, as well as identifying additional
lands that were not identified in the statewide analysis. Ten “hubs” or conservation priorities were
identified through these assessments.
As the plan was
developed by a private organization, implementation strategies were not
mandated by the plan; however, specific action items were proposed. The plan included a review of current
federal and state funding sources, recommendations for local funding
opportunities and a plan for garnering public support for future conservation
efforts. What follows are a few
highlights from the plan review.
1.
The
plan incorporated a comprehensive mix of conservation objectives within the
planning effort and the final network design - more so than the other plans
reviewed. It also incorporated
statewide growth management and conservation program objectives into the plan
goals and was developed within a larger statewide green infrastructure
framework.
2.
The
plan did not include a full-fledged public involvement component. As the plan was developed based upon
recommendations taken from the County’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan, it
incorporated the goals derived from that plan’s public process.
3.
The
plan identified current programs and options for additional funding sources
utilized in other locations (i.e. general obligation debt, tax levy, land
conservation bank) and discussed the potential effectiveness of implementing
these tools within the county.
4.
Even
though the plan was developed under the supervision of the county planning office,
the plan was not formally adopted and did not carry the political support of a
publicly vetted plan.
Anne Arundel County, Maryland
Greenways Master Plan (Anne Arundel County, 2002) – Local Plan Evaluation: Like Talbot County, Anne Arundel County, Maryland has
attracted development from the greater Baltimore-Washington region. As a response to decreasing open space in
the county, several county planning efforts, including the General Development
Plan, recommendations from 12 small area plans, and recommendations from the
County Land Preservation and Recreation Plan, proposed the protection of a
network of linked conservation lands within the county. These efforts were further supported by the
State’s Green Print program and the Maryland Green Infrastructure Assessment
effort, which resulted in a statewide green infrastructure network design.
Led by the Greenways
Master Plan Technical Advisory Team of federal, state and county agency
representatives, a planning effort to identify a network of green
infrastructure lands began in 2000. The
plan took a 50-year outlook and included a modest public involvement
component. The plan was led by one
goal to
“Create an
interconnected network of greenways in Anne Arundel County that protects
ecologically valuable lands for present and future generations and provides
open space, recreational and transportation benefits and opportunities for
people.”
Using habitat data
on three indicator species located in the county, and analysis results from the
statewide green infrastructure assessment, five network criteria were analyzed
to develop a network of hubs and corridors.
This network incorporated 27% of lands in the county, 51% of which were
already in some form of permanent or temporary protection status. The plan called for the development of
individual implementation/management plans for each of the 41 greenway
segments, and as a result the plan was not very specific in developing
conservation priorities or a detailed implementation plan. However, the plan did call for the creation
of a new Greenways program to be headed by a program manager, establishment of
a revolving fund for public land acquisition projects, development of a public
education and outreach program to garner support for the plan and a creation of
a program to educate landowners on private land conservation
opportunities. While the plan did not
document the method for ranking and prioritizing greenway segments based upon
critical needs for protection and management, the plan does identify six
priority greenway segments that are in need of immediate action.
This plan serves as
a good example for how the green infrastructure planning approach is permeating
other plan taxonomies. While primarily
focused on developing a linked network of trails and greenways, the analysis
for the network design was based upon ecological criteria and assessments. Moreover, the greenways network was designed
to enhance and improve upon the existing statewide green infrastructure network
at the local level. What follows are a
few highlights from the plan review.
1.
The
plan did not include critical ecological lands that are incorporated in other
planning efforts, thus the greenway and trail county network is not
ecologically comprehensive for the county. The plan could have included
additional conservation objectives in analysis, including critical watersheds,
farming and forestlands, Maryland Critical Areas, or other important
conservation lands.
2.
The
Technical Advisory Team included members from the county planning office,
Maryland State natural resource agencies, and one member from the National Park
Service, constituting a good blend of conservation and planning expertise.
3.
The
final design resulted in a greenways network that was complementary to the state
network model and identified additional “critical connections” which require
restoration to ensure wildlife movement at a county scale.
4.
The
plan included a short summary of the analysis conducted to delineate the
greenway network. Specific metrics and
the methodology for analysis were not included in this plan and made it
difficult to understand the process undertaken to design the network.
5.
The
plan recommended amendments to county planning documents and processes to
factor the network design into other land use planning activities.
CONCLUSION
Decades
of conservation planning have resulted in several plan taxonomies that are no
longer easily differentiated. It has
become increasingly difficult to articulate the differences between greenway,
open space, green infrastructure and other types of conservation plans as
planning efforts have evolved and now produce plans that look more like
hybrids. Distilling the core
components and purposes of conservation plan taxonomies, as this paper has demonstrated,
can help create a common language for conservation planners and shed light on
the advancements that have been made in the field of conservation
planning. Green infrastructure planning
represents a strategic conservation approach that combines the efforts of
previous conservation planning methodologies and practices into a systematic
framework that can encompass larger landscapes and broader planning goals.
Green
infrastructure planning – an approach to conservation planning that focuses on
landscape scale conservation efforts – has been influenced by advancements in
ecological sciences and land use planning practices and methodologies that have
developed over the last 150 years.
This comprehensive approach can be attributed to the progression of
numerous fields, such as landscape ecology and environmental planning and the
work of many experts such as Frederick Law Olmsted, Warren Manning, and Eugene
Odum. Green infrastructure planning
differs from other types of conservation planning as it focuses on the
identification and protection of critical ecological functions and processes
and other open spaces, links public planning processes and scientific analysis
to delineate a linked network design comprised of ecological hubs and
corridors, and provides a blueprint for future land conservation and
development efforts.
Although
the green infrastructure planning approach has been permeating conservation
efforts across the nation in recent years, a specific framework for creating
green infrastructure plans has not been developed until now. Designed to better define green
infrastructure plans and provide guidance for green infrastructure planning
efforts as well as criteria for evaluating plans, the plan frameworks
introduced in this paper can be implemented at any planning scale and by any
planning entity. Applying these green
infrastructure plan frameworks can guide future conservation planning efforts.
Anne
Arundel County Department of Recreation and Parks and Office of Planning and
Zoning. 2002. Anne Arundel County Greenways Master Plan.
Baer, William. 1997. General Plan Evaluation Criteria: An Approach to
Making Better Plans, Journal of the American Planning Association. 63:329-344.
Beatley,
Tim. 2000. Preserving Biodiversity. Journal of the American Planning
Association. 66: 5-21.
Benedict,
Mark A. and Bjornland, Lydia. 2002.
Green Infrastructure: A Strategic Approach to Natural Resource Planning and
Conservation.
Benedict, Mark A. and McMahon, Edward T. 2002. Green Infrastructure: Smart Conservation for the 21st
Century. Renewable Resources Journal. 2002:12-19.
The
Conservation Fund, Green Infrastructure website. http://www.greeninfrastructure.net.
Accessed July 7, 2004.
Conservation
Measures Partnership. 2004. Open
Standards for the Practice of Conservation.
http://conservationmeasures.org/CMP/
Accessed November 15, 2004.
Ewing,
Reed. 1996. Best Development Practices. American Planning Association.
Chicago.
Flink,
Charles A. and Robert M. Searns. In: Schwarz, Loring B. (ed.). 1993. Greenways:
A Guide to Planning, Design, and Development. Island Press. Washington, DC.
Florida
Department of Environmental Protection and the Florida Greenways Coordinating
Council. 1998. Connecting Florida’s Communities with Greenways and Trails.
Florida
Department of Environmental Protection and the Florida Greenways Coordinating
Council. 1998. Connecting Florida’s Communities with Greenways and Trails: A
Summary Report of the Five Year Implementation Plan for the Florida Greenways
and Trails System.
GeoPlan
Center, University of Florida. 1998. Statewide Greenways Planning Project Final
Report and Model Results.
Godschalk,
David, Kaiser, Edward and Berke, Philip. 1998. Integrating Hazard Mitigation
and Local Land Use Planning. In: Modernizing State Planning Statues, The
Growing Smart Working Papers.
American Planning Association, Planning Advisory Service Report Number
480/481.
Groves,
Craig. 2003. Drafting a Conservation
Blueprint: A Practitioner’s Guide to Planning for Biodiversity. Island Press. Washington, DC.
Huckleberry,
C.H. Pima County (AZ) Administrator. 2000. Draft Preliminary Sonoran Desert
Conservation Plan.
Huckleberry,
C.H. Pima County (AZ) Administrator. 2001. Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan
Progress Report and Update.
Kaiser,
Edward J., Godschalk, David R., and Chapin, Jr., F. Stuart. 1995. Urban Land
Use Planning. 4th ed.
University of Illinois Press. Chicago.
Margules
and Pressey. 2000. Systematic conservation planning. Nature. 405:243-253.
The Nature
Conservancy. 2000. Designing a
Geography of Hope: A Practitioner’s Handbook for Ecoregional Conservation
Planning. 2nd ed. Volumes
1-2.
Noss, Reed
F. 1987. Protecting Natural Areas in Fragmented Landscapes. Natural Areas Journal. Vol. 7.
Randolph,
John. 2004. Environmental Land Use Planning and Management. Island Press.
Washington, DC.
Soule,
Michael E. Land Use Planning and Wildlife Maintenance: Guidelines for
Conserving Wildlife in an Urban Landscape. Journal of the American Planning
Association. Summer 1991. Vol. 57, no. 3.
The
Conservation Fund. 2004. Talbot County Green Infrastructure Plan.
University
of Florida, Florida Statewide Greenways Planning Project. http://www.geoplan.ufl.edu/projects/greenways/greenwayindex.html.
Accessed July 15, 2004.