Andrea Christenson
xx April 2010
MIT-DUSP Urban Sustainability Evaluation
Green Infrastructure: Land Conservation
[Notes in blue, new sections highlighted in green]
Introduction
[To be added: discussion of ecosystem services and urban sustainability.]
What is Green Infrastructure?
The term green infrastructure means different things in different contexts. Cities often
associate it with stormwater management, where green infrastructure refers to trees and
landscape interventions that provide an environmentally friendly alternative to traditional
underground pipe systems. But this project takes the broader view promoted by Mark
Benedict of The Conservation Fund and Edward McMahon of the Urban Land Institute.
Benedict and McMahon define green infrastructure as “an interconnected network of natural
areas and other open spaces that conserves natural ecosystem values and functions, sustains
clean air and water, and provides a wide array of benefits to people and wildlife” (2006). This
definition differentiates green infrastructure from isolated parks, recreation sites, or natural
areas by emphasizing the importance of interconnectedness and the protection and
management of the land’s ecological benefits. Benedict and McMahon thus frame green
infrastructure as the “smart conservation” counterpart to smart growth: a strategic, systematic
approach to land and water conservation that is integrated into land-use planning or growthmanagement efforts.
The natural areas and open spaces that comprise a green-infrastructure network include
waterways, wetlands, woodlands, and wildlife habitat; greenways, parks, and other
conservation land; and working farms, ranches, and forests. These lands connect in a system of
hubs, links, and sites. Hubs “provide space for native plants and animal communities, as well as
an origin or destination for wildlife, people, and ecological processes moving through the
system.” Hubs can include reserves and protected areas, publicly owned lands managed for
resource extraction, private working lands, and community parks and green spaces. Links are
the connections between hubs, which “[maintain] vital ecological processes and the health and
biodiversity of wildlife populations.” Sites are areas smaller than hubs that may lack
connecting links but still provide ecological and social benefits like wildlife habitat and
recreation opportunities (Benedict and McMahon 2006).
The green-infrastructure network will be familiar to planners versed in the field of landscape
ecology. Jack Ahern, a landscape architect and professor at the University of MassachusettsAmherst, identifies three key ideas from landscape ecology that are relevant to green
infrastructure: a multi-scale approach to ecological processes, recognition of pattern-process
relationships, and an emphasis on physical and functional connectivity (2007). Instead of hubs,
links, and sites, Ahern applies Richard Forman’s classic mosaic model to the spatial
configuration of green infrastructure. The mosaic model uses three fundamental landscape
elements to define landscape structure: patches, corridors, and the matrix (Ahern 2007;
Dramstad, Olson, and Forman 1996). A patch is “a relatively homogenous nonlinear area that
differs from its surroundings.” Patches can provide multiple ecosystem functions, including
wildlife habitat, aquifer recharge area, or sources and sinks for species or nutrients. A corridor
is “a linear area of particular land cover type that is different in content and physical structure
1
from its context.” Corridors can also provide wildlife habitat, serve as pathways for the
movement of plants, animals, nutrients, and wind, or act as barriers to such movement. Finally,
the matrix is “the dominant land cover type in terms of area, degree of connectivity and
continuity, and control that is exerted over the dynamics of the landscape” (Ahern 2007, 271).
Benefits of Green Infrastructure
[To be added]
Ahern applies the Abiotic, Biotic, and Cultural (ABC) resource model for landscape
planning to articulate the key ecological functions of a green urban infrastructure (Table 1).
Table 1: Key abiotic, biotic, and cultural functions of green infrastructure
Abiotic
Surface-groundwater interactions
Biotic
Habitat for generalist species
Soil development processes
Maintenance of hydrological
regime(s)
Accommodation of disturbance
regime(s)
Buffering of nutrient cycling
Habitat for specialist species
Species movement routes and
corridors
Maintenance of disturbance and
successional regimes
Biomass production
Sequestration of carbon and
greenhouse gases
Modification and buffering of
climatic extremes
Provision of genetic reserves
Support of flora-fauna interactions
Source: Ahern 2007, 269
2
Cultural
Direct experience of natural
ecosystems
Physical recreation
Experience and interpretation of
cultural history
Provide a sense of solitude and
inspiration
Opportunities for healthy social
interactions
Stimulus of artistic/abstract
expression(s)
Environmental education
Implementation Tools
Cities wield a variety of tools to protect and restore lands with natural-resource value. We
have divided these tools into five categories: planning, land acquisition, zoning ordinances,
development ordinances, restoration and management, and education and incentives. The
policies and programs within each category are listed in Table 2.
Table 2: Green infrastructure implementation tools
Category
Planning
Policy or program
Environmental inventories and suitability studies
Natural resource element in comprehensive plan
Habitat conservation plan
Fee-simple acquisition
Conservation easements
Large-lot zoning
Conservation/cluster subdivisions
Conservation overlay zoning
Open space zoning
Agricultural or timber management zoning
Promotion of compact urban form
Urban growth boundary
Environmental impact review
Park and open space impact fees
Land dedication requirements
Mitigation requirements
Transfer of development rights
Purchase of development rights
Stream, wetland, and lake buffers
Tree and vegetation protection
Shoreline protection
Viewshed protection
Hazard area protection
Regulation of site features
Habitat restoration
Invasive species eradication
Sustainable public land management
Tax incentives
Landowner education campaigns
Technical assistance
Land acquisition
Zoning ordinances
Development ordinances
Restoration and management
Education and incentives
This paper provides an overview of the policies and programs that cities implement in each of
these categories. Twenty-three cities were selected for review:








Austin, TX
Boston, MA
Boulder, CO
Cambridge, MA
Chattanooga, TN
Chicago, IL
Denver, CO
Detroit, MI








Houston, TX
Jacksonville, FL
Los Angeles, CA
Milwaukee, WI
Minneapolis, MN
New York, NY
Philadelphia, PA
Pittsburgh, PA
3







Portland, OR
Salt Lake City, UT
San Diego, CA
San Francisco, CA
Santa Monica, CA
Seattle, WA
Washington DC
Planning
Although land-acquisition programs will always be somewhat opportunistic, sound planning
provides an essential foundation for a city’s natural-resource protection programs and policies.
Planning should inform and guide acquisition programs, regulatory ordinances, and restoration
and management efforts. Environmental planning practices commonly employed by cities
include environmental inventories and suitability studies, the incorporation of natural resourcerelated elements in a city’s comprehensive plan, and the preparation of habitat conservation
plans under the Endangered Species Act.
Environmental Inventories and Suitability Studies
Natural-resource mapping has come a long way since the publication of Ian McHarg’s Design
with Nature in 1969. With the advent and increasing availability of geographic information
systems (GIS), local governments can now obtain and produce data and create accurate and
sophisticated maps of the location and extent of environmental features. Cities can augment or
validate their base maps with field studies by scientists on staff or retained as contractors. The
preparation of an environmental inventory has thus become a routine task in land-use planning.
An environmental inventory involves gathering information on and mapping a number of natural
and socioeconomic features that have a bearing on land use. The components of an inventory
will vary based on the characteristics of the area being studied and the city’s planning
objectives. Natural features often include soil types and geologic conditions, slope and
elevation, watersheds and flood plains, streams, water bodies, and wetlands, groundwater
resources and their recharge areas, vegetation and wildlife habitats, productive farmland, and
scenic viewsheds. The inventory should identify the location, quantity, and quality of these
resources, and their vulnerability to development or overuse. Socioeconomic features can
include land use and zoning, property boundaries and ownership, transportation infrastructure,
sewers, historic and archaeological sites, and population trends (Randolph 2004; Arendt 1999;
Daniels and Daniels 2003).
The environmental inventory assembles spatial data but generally leaves the analysis and
evaluation of the information up to the map user. Some cities take the inventory a step further
by combining individual factors into land suitability studies. The objective of a suitability study
is to determine the appropriate locations for certain land uses based on an area’s natural and
socioeconomic features. Land-use suitability is determined by delineating the natural features
that are vulnerable to development (e.g., habitats, wetlands, prime agricultural soils, viewsheds)
from those features that are attractive for development (e.g., lack of natural hazards, stable
slopes, road access, proximity to sewer and water infrastructure). For example, maps of flood
plains, steep slopes, and expansive soils can be combined to show a composite of natural
hazards. Land can then be rated as poor, fair, or good for development based on the
combination of hazards present (Randolph 2004; Daniels and Daniels 2003).
Table 3: Environmental inventories
City
Austin
Environmental inventory
Draft Community Inventory
Components
Natural Environment chapter
Parks and Recreation chapter
Physical Environmental Constraints
Water Resources
Environmental Inventory and Analysis
section
Comprehensive plan maps
Boston
Open Space Plan 2008-2012
4
Boulder
GIS layers
Cambridge
Open Space and Recreation Plan 2008
Chattanooga
Comprehensive plan
Chicago
Chicago Natural and Wildlife Plan and
Chicago Nature Areas Directory
Comprehensive plan maps
GIS layers
GIS layers
Comprehensive plan maps
Denver
Houston
Jacksonville
Los Angeles
GIS layers
Comprehensive plan text (no maps)
GIS layers
Milwaukee
Comprehensive plan maps
Minneapolis
Minneapolis Plan for Sustainable Growth
maps
Comprehensive plan maps
Pittsburgh
Open Space, Parks, and Recreation Plan
GIS layers
Portland
Natural Area Acquisition Strategy maps
Natural Resources Inventory Update
project
Comprehensive plan
San Diego
Comprehensive plan maps
GIS layers
San Francisco
Comprehensive plan maps
Seattle
GIS layers
Washington DC
CapitalSpace Draft Plan map
District of Columbia Wildlife Action Plan
Comprehensive plan maps
5
Floodplains, creeks, lakes and ponds,
prairie dog colonies, vegetation
Environmental Inventory and Analysis
section
County Profile/Existing Conditions
chapter, Environment section
Open space, habitat types
Water aquifers and reservoirs
Parks, lakes and ponds
Waterways, parks, floodplains
Soils, floodplains, wetlands, beaches and
estuarine systems, coastal high hazard
areas
Parks, rivers and streams, flood zones
Conservation element
Lakes and streams, flood maps,
geotechnical information, significant
ecologic areas, topography, fire and wind
hazard areas, hillside areas, recreation
and parks facilities, watersheds
Waterways, primary environmental
corridor, parks, floodplains
Watershed management organizations,
regional environmental features, critical
areas (river and wetlands), existing parks
and open space, proposed regional parks
and trails, planned parks and open space
Parks, remnant native plant
communities, future parkland and facility
study areas and adopted plans
In progress
Floodplains, landslide prone areas,
greenways, woodland areas
Existing natural areas and vacant land,
future scenarios for natural area
protection
In progress
Natural Resource Inventory Background
Report
Steep slopes, multi-habitat planning area,
watersheds, flood hazard areas, mineral
resource zones, community plan
designated open space and parks
Flood zones, multi-habitat planning area,
water features, faults, geologic hazards
Existing open space, proposed open
space, areas of liquefaction potential,
areas of potential landslide hazard, areas
of potential tsunami inundation
Park boundaries, tree canopy,
Environmental Critical Areas
Ecologically sensitive resources
Habitat inventory
Tree cover, watersheds and waterways,
steep slopes, existing parks
Elevation, community gardens,
floodplains, hydrology, soil types, water,
watersheds, wetland types, wooded areas
Cities with no environmental inventory components available online: Detroit, New York, Philadelphia, Salt Lake
City, and Santa Monica.
GIS layers
The Comprehensive Plan
A comprehensive plan (or a “master” or “general” plan) is a city’s blueprint for future growth
and development. It provides a legal basis for the city’s zoning, subdivision, site plan, and
other land-use regulations. It can also be used to achieve conservation objectives through the
inclusion of natural resource-related goals, objectives, and strategies. Some states require local
governments to adopt comprehensive plans and to include specific elements within them. For
example, California state law requires cities to prepare a general plan that includes seven
elements: land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, and safety. The
conservation element is intended to address the conservation, development, and use of natural
resources, including water, forests, soils, rivers, and mineral deposits. The open-space element
should detail plans and measures for preserving open-space for natural resources, outdoor
recreation, public health and safety, and for agriculture (Fulton and Shigley 2005; Walsh,
Roberts, and Pellman 2005). Other states do not mandate comprehensive plans but encourage
their adoption and advocate the inclusion of specific elements. New York state statutes, for
example, recommend 15 elements, including “consideration of agricultural uses, historic and
cultural resources, coastal and natural resources, and sensitive environmental areas” and
“existing and proposed recreational facilities and parkland” (Nolon 2003).
Comprehensive planning requirements can also come from a city itself. For example, Austin’s
charter mandates the preparation of a comprehensive plan that includes ten elements, including
“a conservation and environmental resources element” and “a recreation and open space
element” (The Code of the City of Austin, Texas). Cities may also choose to add additional
optional elements if they wish. Popular natural resource-related optional elements in California
cities’ general plans include agriculture, biological, coastal, environment, fire, flood control,
forestry, parks and recreation, resource conservation, and water resources (Governor's Office of
Planning and Research 2009).
Table 4: Natural resource-related comprehensive plan elements
City
Austin
Boulder
Chattanooga
Denver
Detroit
Jacksonville
Los Angeles
Milwaukee
Comprehensive plan
Imagine Austin Comprehensive Plan (in
progress)
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (update
in progress)
Comprehensive Plan 2030 (2006)
Denver Comprehensive Plan 2000
(undated)
City of Detroit Master Plan of Policies
(2009)
City of Jacksonville 2030 Comprehensive
Plan (2009)
General Plan Framework (1995)
General Plan
Milwaukee Citywide Policy Plan (2010)
6
Natural resource-related element
Conservation and Environmental
Resources; Recreation and Open Space
Environment
Natural Environment; Public Spaces and
Recreation
Environmental Sustainability
Environment and Energy; Parks,
Recreation, and Open Space
Recreation and Open Space;
Conservation Coastal Management
Open Space and Conservation
Conservation (2001); Open Space (1973)
Natural Resources
Minneapolis
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Minneapolis Plan for Sustainable Growth
(2009)
Philadelphia2035 (in progress)
PLANPGH (in progress)
Environment; Open Space and Parks
Open Space; Environmental Resources
Open Space, Parks, and Recreation Plan
was prepared as first step of PLANPGH
Portland
Portland Plan (in progress)
The Draft Portland Plan Handbook
includes a Sustainability and the Natural
Environment action area
San Diego
Recreation; Conservation
City of San Diego General Plan (2008)
San Francisco
Environmental Protection (2004);
San Francisco General Plan
Recreation and Open Space (update in
progress)
Santa Monica
Conservation; Open Space
Santa Monica General Plan
Seattle
Toward a Sustainable Seattle (in progress) Current plan includes an Environment
element
Washington DC
Environmental Protection; Parks,
The Comprehensive Plan for the National
Recreation, and Open Space
Capital (2006)
Cities with no natural citywide comprehensive plan: Boston, Cambridge, Chicago, Houston, and New York.
Cambridge’s Toward a Sustainable Future: Cambridge Growth Policy Update (2007) has Open Space and Environment
and Sustainability elements. Salt Lake City’s Creating Tomorrow Together report (1998) has a section on the
natural environment.
Habitat Conservation Planning
In addition to the more general planning practices described above, a few cities have worked
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to prepare a habitat conservation plan (HCP) under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). The ESA prohibits any activities that harm (or “take”)
threatened or endangered species on public or private land.1 If a city wishes to develop land in
the vicinity of a listed species’ habitat, it is required to obtain an incidental take permit from the
Fish and Wildlife Service. To obtain a permit, the city must prepare a HCP. A HCP is a
contract for large-scale ecosystem management. It identifies critical habitat areas where
development is off-limits as well as lands where development is allowed. A HCP may apply to
a single species or to several species, and may cover a small amount of land or up to thousands
of acres. HCPs are time consuming and expensive to prepare, but “they represent some of the
most sophisticated planning for natural resource protection now being undertaken in this
country” (Duerksen and Snyder 2005; Daniels and Daniels 2003; Randolph 2004).
California has established its own program for endangered species protection. The Natural
Community Conservation Planning Act of 1991 aims to be broader, more flexible, and more
predictable than the rules for federal HCPs. At the time, both conservation advocates and
development interests were critical of the HCP process because it focused on one species and
one project at a time. From the developer’s perspective, the project-by-project approach
created costly delays, red tape, and uncertainty. To conservationists, it failed to address overall
needs of species and populations at risk, did not prevent fragmentation of habitats and
ecosystems, and did not provide habitat enhancement often needed for ecosystem conservation.
In response, NCCP plans focus on regional ecosystems and multiple species (Randolph 2004).
Table 5: Habitat conservation plans
City
Habitat conservation plan
1
Protected area (acres)
Taking is defined very broadly, and includes destroying the species’ habitat in addition to causing direct physical
harm.
7
Austin
San Diego
Seattle
Balcones Canyonlands Conservation Plan (1996)
City of San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program
Subarea Plan (1997)
Cedar River Watershed Habitat Conservation Plan (2000)
8
30,428
56,831
90,546
Land Acquisition
Land acquisition is a familiar and important tool for natural resource protection. Cities can
acquire land or property rights through outright purchase, donation, or exchange. Purchases
can be made at fair market value, at assessed value, or at a reduced rate. (Landowners may
accrue tax benefits for bargain sales or land donations.) City programs often include two
methods of land acquisition: fee-simple acquisition and conservation easements.
Fee-simple Acquisition
Fee-simple acquisition means that a city obtains full ownership of the land. There are several
benefits to fee-simple acquisition as a conservation strategy. First, it can guarantee permanent
protection. Second, it gives the city full control over the land. Ownership allows a city to
prohibit all development in an area, whereas regulation can only restrict what is done on a
particular parcel. Third, it enables a city to open the area to the public and to manage and
oversee its use, both of which would be difficult under private ownership. And fourth, it may
often be more politically palatable than strict regulations. (Duerksen and Snyder 2005;
Randolph 2004).
However, fee-simple acquisition also faces significant limitations. Purchasing land can be a
complicated and time-consuming task that requires legal and financial expertise. Governments
are not usually well positioned to conduct land transactions or compete in the real estate
market. Funds appropriated for land conservation may not be available when a parcel comes on
the market. Procedural requirements can result in a lengthy decision-making process, which
puts government at a competitive disadvantage in the open market. Distrust of government
among landowners and a strong sense of private property rights can also hamper negotiations.
In addition, acquisition is usually the most expensive way to protect land. Even if the money
were available to purchase every site with natural resource value, it would not necessarily be
the best approach. First, government ownership removes land from the city’s tax base.
Second, the lands being acquired will need to be managed, which can require high levels of both
funding and staff time. Where the current land use is compatible with natural resource goals, a
non-acquisition solution could enable the land to continue to function as before and engage the
landowners in helping to protect the resources (Benedict and McMahon 2006).
Conservation Easements
A conservation easement is a legal agreement that restricts the use of private property in order
to protect its conservation value. Landowners agree to give up specific rights regarding how
the land will be used but can otherwise continue to enjoy the property as before. This concept
is best illustrated by thinking about land ownership as a bundle of sticks. Each stick represents
a landowner’s right to do something with his or her property: to develop a subdivision, build a
house, farm, ranch, cut timber, and so on. With a conservation easement, a landowner sells or
gives away some or all of these rights while still maintaining ownership of the land (Benedict
and McMahon 2006).
There are several advantages to conservation easements. First, they tend to be less expensive
than fee-simple acquisition, and the fact that the land remains in private ownership allows it to
remain on the tax rolls. Second, the extent of the restrictions is very flexible. A conservation
easement can be written to prohibit industrial or commercial use of the property, restrict the
number of residential units, or prohibit the construction of new roads. It might allow for
9
limited development by specifying parts of the land that cannot be developed or setting a
maximum number of acres that can. Third, most conservation easements are permanent and
“run with the land” if it is sold. This ensures long-term protection of the land’s natural
resource value while allowing for private ownership and traditional uses (Benedict and
McMahon 2006; Randolph 2004).
10
Table 6: Recreation and natural resource-focused land acquisition programs
City
Department
Austin
Parks and Recreation
Water Utility
Boston
Parks and Recreation
Boulder
Parks and Recreation
Open Space and
Mountain Parks
Public Works
Chattanooga
Community
Development
Parks and Recreation
Chicago
Chicago Park District
Denver
Parks and Recreation
Detroit
Houston
Recreation
Parks and Recreation
Jacksonville
Recreation and
Community Services
Los Angeles
Minneapolis
Recreation and Parks
Park and Recreation
Board
New York
Parks and Recreation
Cambridge
Types (and number) of
properties
Parks (206)
Greenbelts (26)
Preserves (12)
Total area
(acres)
>17,576
(probably
includes part of
the BCP)
13,251
Balcones Canyonlands
Preserve
Parks
Urban wilds
Parks (>60)
Open space and mountain
parks
Greenways
Natural resource-specific divisions or
programs
--Nature Preserves System (960 acres)
--Jointly manages part of the Balcones
Canyonlands Preserve
Conservation
easements?
--Urban Wilds Initiative
1,000
>45,000
Y
20 miles of
stream corridors
Parks
Parks
Greenways
Parks (570)
4,000
Parks and parkways (>350)
Denver Mountain Parks (46)
4,000
14,141
7,600
?
--Nature Oasis organizes programs and
events in parks with unique and
compelling natural areas
--Denver Mountain Parks System
--Natural Areas Program
Parks (350)
Greenspaces and esplanades
(>200)
Parks
Nature parks (16)
Preservation parks (14)
Parks (>400)
Parks
Nature sanctuaries
Scenic byway
Parks
Nature preserves (51)
--Waterfront Management and
Programming Division
--Preservation Project Jacksonville
15,600
29,000
8,700 (probably
included in
29,000)
11
?
--Natural Resources Group
--NY/NJ Harbor Estuary Program
--Forever Wild Program
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Portland
Fairmount Park
Citiparks
Parks and Recreation
Salt Lake City
Public Services
San Diego
Park and Recreation
San Francisco
Recreation and Park
Santa Monica
Community and
Cultural Services
Parks and Recreation
Parks and Recreation
Parks (63)
Parks
Parks
Nature parks
Parks (126)
Open space areas (8)
Parks (340)
Open space parks (9)
Canyon parklands (9)
Parks
Natural areas (35)
9,200
Parks (26)
>10,000
--City Nature Division
?
1,912
--Open Space Lands Program
Y
39,737
--Open Space Division
?
3,500
500 (probably
included in
3,500)
122
--Natural Areas Program
Parks and open areas (430)
6,200
Parks (50)
?
Natural areas (4)
Milwaukee is the only city that does not have a land acquisition program. The Department of Public Works provides 48 play areas and 11 “green areas that
include benches for a natural setting in which to relax,” neither of which are included in our definition of parks. Parks within the city are owned and managed
by Milwaukee County.
Seattle
Washington DC
12
Table 7: Watershed protection land acquisition programs
City
Department
Total area (acres)
Location
Austin
Water Utility
23,577
Travis and Hays Counties
Cambridge
Water Department
Los Angeles
New York
Water and Power
Environmental
Protection
Water Bureau
Public Utilities
Public Utilities
Commission
Public Utilities
>1,200 (includes
reservoirs)
>314,000
104,000 (city and
WAC)
5,000
23,773
63,000
Waltham, Lexington,
Lincoln, and Weston
Eastern Sierra Nevadas
Catskill/Delaware
watershed
Mt. Hood National Forest
Wasatch Mountains
San Mateo, Alameda, and
Santa Clara Counties
King County
Portland
Salt Lake City
San Francisco
Seattle
99,000
13
Conservation
easements?
Y (14,527
acres)
Y
Table X: Summary of city programs and policies
Habitat
conservation plan
Recreation focus
Natural resource
focus
Watershed
protection focus
X
X
X
X
X
Land acquisition
Natural resource
element in
comprehensive plan
City
Austin
Boston
Boulder
Cambridge
Chattanooga
Chicago
Denver
Detroit
Houston
Jacksonville
Los Angeles
Milwaukee
Minneapolis
New York
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Portland
Salt Lake City
San Diego
San Francisco
Santa Monica
Seattle
Washington DC
Environmental
inventory
Planning
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
[I need to formalize which of the natural resource inventory elements “count.”]
14
X
X
Reference List
Ahern, Jack. 2007. Green infrastructure for cities: The spatial dimension. In Cities of the future:
Towards integrated sustainable water and landscape management, edited by V. Novotny and
P. Brown. London: IWA Publishing.
Arendt, Randall. 1999. Growing greener: Putting conservation into local plans and ordinances.
Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Benedict, Mark A., and Edward T. McMahon. 2006. Green infrastructure: Linking landscapes and
communities. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Daniels, Tom, and Katherine Daniels. 2003. The environmental planning handbook for sustainable
communities and regions. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association.
Dramstad, Wenche E., James D. Olson, and Richard T. T. Forman. 1996. Landscape ecology
principles in landscape architecture and land-use planning. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Duerksen, Christopher, and Cara Snyder. 2005. Nature-friendly communities: Habitat protection
and land use. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Fulton, William, and Paul Shigley. 2005. Guide to California planning. 3rd ed. Point Arena, CA:
Solano Press Books.
Governor's Office of Planning and Research. 2009. The California planners' book of lists: 2010.
Sacramento, CA: Governor's Office of Planning and Research.
Nolon, John R. 2003. Open ground: Effective local strategies for protecting natural resources.
Washington, D.C.: The Environmental Law Institute
Randolph, John. 2004. Environmental land use planning and management. Washington D.C.:
Island Press.
The Code of the City of Austin, Texas. [cited March 23, 2010. Available from
http://www.amlegal.com/austin_nxt/gateway.dll/Texas/austin/charter/articlexplann
ing?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:austin_tx$anc=LPTOC5.
Walsh, Sean, Terry Roberts, and Shauna Pellman. 2005. California planning guide: An
introduction to planning in California. Sacramento, CA: Governor’s Office of Planning
and Research.
15
Andrea,
You are now on track and making reasonable progress. As my comments suggest, we do need
to make sure that your memo (and others) steer away from being literature reviews and
actually focus on helping cities figure out what to do. This means that not all of what you
know will be included in the text; the focus of what is included should be on what kinds of
programs cities are using and what seems to be effective (and, eventually, on obstacles to
implementation and ways of overcoming those obstacles). This is tricky with your topic
because we need to specify what the desirable outcome is. (For example, with green
stormwater infrastructure, it’s reduced flooding; with energy-efficiency programs, it’s reduced
GHG emissions. So what’s the environmental objective that we can say your programs do
more or less of? Conserving biodiversity and/or ecological function seem like obvious
candidates. So how do we know how effective a particular program is at this??)
You should continue to ponder these questions between now and our next meeting, but also see
if you can get some of your colleagues on the team to hash it out with you. It’s a tough one.
Judy
16