Green Infrastructure

Green Infrastructure:Smart Conservation for the 21st Century

Mark A. Benedict, Ph.D.Edward T. McMahon, J.D.

The Conservation Fund

“Infrastructure — the substructure or underlying foundation…on whichthe continuance and growth of a community or state depends”

— WEBSTER’S NEW WORLD DICTIONARY

S P R A W L W A T C H C L E A R I N G H O U S E M O N O G R A P H S E R I E S

S P R A W L W A T C H C L E A R I N G H O U S E M O N O G R A P H S E R I E S

Acknowledgements

This monograph is derived from Modules 2 and 4 of the Participants Manual for the May 2001 pilot offering of theConservation Leadership Network course, Green Infrastructure: A Strategic Approach to Land Conservation. MarkBenedict and Lydia Bjornlund drafted these pilot course modules in spring, 2001. The authors would like toacknowledge Ms Bjornlund as well as the members of the “Green Infrastructure 101”design team who contributed tothe development of these modules. The authors would also like to acknowledge the following previously publishedarticles that preceded and contributed to Modules 2 and 4 and therefore to the content of this monograph:

✺ Edward T. McMahon, “Green Infrastructure,” Planning Commissioners Journal, Number 37, Winter 2000

✺ Mark A. Benedict, “Green Infrastructure: A Strategic Approach to Land Conservation,” American PlanningAssociation PAS Memo, October 2000

Finally, the authors would like to thank the Surdna Foundation and the USDA Forest Service who have supported TheConservation Fund’s Green Infrastructure Program. The Sprawl Watch Clearinghouse would like to thank TheEducational Foundation of America and the Surdna Foundation whose support made this report possible.

About the AuthorsMark A. Benedict — Mark Benedict is director of the Conservation Leadership Network for The Conservation Fundand Liaison to Non-Governmental Organizations at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National ConservationTraining Center in Shepherdstown, West Virginia. Dr. Benedict is a scientist with over 20 years experience in naturalresources management and planning. His previous positions include: research scientist at the University of Florida,executive director of the Florida Greenways Commission, director of the Florida Greenways Program of One ThousandFriends of Florida and The Conservation Fund, environmental protection director for The Conservancy, Inc. in Naples,Florida, and visiting assistant professor at the University of Florida. Dr. Benedict has a B.S. from Duke University, andan M.S. and Ph.D. in botany/plant ecology from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

Edward T. McMahon — Ed McMahon is vice president and director of Land Use Programs at The ConservationFund. He is also the co-founder and former president of Scenic America, a national non-profit organization devoted toprotecting America’s scenic landscapes. In 1990, he served as visiting scholar at the Environmental Law Institute andwas named a fellow in residence by the Kellogg Foundation in 1996. Mr. McMahon has appeared on numerousnational news programs and is a recipient of the Chevron Conservation Award and other honors. A resident ofTakoma Park, Maryland, he currently serves on numerous advisory boards and commissions including the NationalTrust for Historic Preservation and the Maryland Greenways Commission. Mr. McMahon has an M.A. in urban studiesfrom the University of Alabama and a J.D. from Georgetown University Law School.

About Sprawl Watch ClearinghouseThe Sprawl Watch Clearinghouse is a nonprofit organization based in Washington, DC. The Sprawl WatchClearinghouse mission is to make the tools, techniques, and strategies developed to manage growth, accessible tocitizens, grassroots organizations, environmentalists, public officials, planners, architects, the media and businessleaders. At the Clearinghouse, we identify, collect, compile, and disseminate information on the best land usepractices, for those listed above.

This report and many other sources of information on sprawl and smart growth are available on the World Wide Webat www.sprawlwatch.org.

About The Conservation FundThe Conservation Fund is a national, non-profit land conservation organization headquartered in Arlington, Virginia,that forges partnerships to protect America’s legacy of land and water resources. Through land acquisition, communityplanning, and leadership training, the Fund and its partners demonstrate sustainable conservation solutionsemphasizing the integration of economic and environmental goals. Since 1985 The Fund has protected more than 3million acres of open space, wildlife habitat and historic sites across America. To learn more about The ConservationFund, please visit their website at www.conservationfund.org.

Sprawl Watch Clearinghouse • 1400 16th St. NW Suite 225 • Washington, D.C. 20036 • 202-332-7000 • www.sprawlwatch.org

Front cover photo: Cooper/USFWS

Table of ContentsPreface ............................................................................................................................................. 3

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 5What Is Green Infrastructure? ...................................................................................................................... 6What Does Green Infrastructure Look Like? ................................................................................................... 7What’s in a Name? ................................................................................................................................... 7What Are the Origins of Green Infrastructure? .............................................................................................. 8Benton MacKaye’s Prescription for Urban Sprawl .......................................................................................... 9

Why Do We Need to Plan and Protect Green Infrastructure ........................................................... 10Consequences of Haphazard Development .................................................................................................. 11

Cost of Service Analysis .................................................................................................................... 12Smart Growth .......................................................................................................................................... 13Smart Conservation .................................................................................................................................. 13

Case Study: Smart Growth & Smart Conservation in the State of Maryland ........................................... 14Green Infrastructure Functions and Benefits ................................................................................................ 14

Green Infrastructure PlanningTrends Influencing the Shift to Green Infrastructure ...................................................................................... 15Green Infrastructure Planning Approaches .................................................................................................... 15Benefits of Integrating Green Infrastructure Into the Land Planning Process .................................................... 16

Green Infrastructure Principles ......................................................................................................... 17Principle 1: Green infrastructure should be the framework for conservation and development ........................... 17Principle 2: Design and plan green infrastructure before development ............................................................ 18

Case Study: Protecting Green Infrastructure Before Development — Montgomery County, Maryland ......... 18Principle 3: Linkage is key .......................................................................................................................... 19

Case Study: Metro Greenways Program — Twin Cities Region, Minnesota ............................................. 20Principle 4: Green infrastructue functions across multiple jurisdictions and at different scales ........................... 20

Case Study: A Conservation Development — Prairie Crossing, Illinois .................................................... 21Principle 5: Green infrastructure is grounded in sound science and land-use planning theories and practices. ..... 22

Case Study: EPA’s Southeastern Ecological Framework ......................................................................... 22Principle 6: Green infrastructure is a critical public investment ...................................................................... 23

Case Study: Green Topeka — Topeka, Kansas ....................................................................................... 23Case Study: A Greenprint that Makes Fiscal Sense — Pittsford, New York ............................................... 24

Principle 7: Green infrastructure involves diverse stakeholders ........................................................................ 24Case Study: Chicago Wilderness ........................................................................................................25Case Study: The Florida Greenways Commission ................................................................................. 26

Green Infrastructure Examples ......................................................................................................... 27Continental Scale and Multi-State Initiatives ............................................................................................... 27Statewide Initiatives ................................................................................................................................. 27Regional Initiatives ................................................................................................................................... 28Local and Community Initiatives ............................................................................................................... 28

Case Study: Metropolitan Greenspaces Program — Portland, Oregon ...................................................... 28Conservation Developments ...................................................................................................................... 29Other Examples ........................................................................................................................................ 29

Case Study: Green Infrastructure Plan — Kinston/Lenoir County, North Carolina ......................................29

Green Infrastructure Versus Traditional Conservation ...................................................................... 30

Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 31

References ...................................................................................................................................... 32

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE MONOGRAPH ✺3

Preface

Oliver Wendall Holmes said that “to live fully is to be engaged in the passions of one’s time.”Clearly land conservation is one of the passions of our time. Over the past few years, poll after polland ballot measure after ballot measure have demonstrated Americans’ support for land conservation.However, we need new approaches to land conservation to address the accelerating rate at whichland is being developed.

In the 1970s, when we began working in the conservation movement, conservation organizationsworked to protect individual parcels of land. Today we realize that we must protect networks ofopen space. Still, too many land conservation efforts are haphazard and reactive in nature. They dealwith whatever comes over the transom. The result is haphazard conservation and haphazarddevelopment.

From our perspective, successful land conservation in the future will have to be:✺ More proactive and less reactive✺ More systematic and less haphazard✺ Multifunctional, not single purpose✺ Large scale, not small scale, and✺ Better integrated with other efforts to manage growth and development.

The key to accomplishing this, we believe, is “green infrastructure”, a new framework that provides astrategic approach to land conservation.

Just as growing communities need to upgrade and expand their built infrastructure (roads, sewers,utilities, etc.), so too they need to upgrade and expand their green infrastructure—the network ofopen space, woodlands, wildlife habitat, parks and other natural areas that sustains clean air, waterand natural resources and enriches our quality of life. The concept of green infrastructure repositionsopen space protection from a community amenity to a community necessity.

Green infrastructure can even help reduce opposition to development. When citizens think all land isup for grabs, they oppose development everywhere. On the other hand, when people have someassurance that special places will be saved, they become more amenable to accommodating newdevelopment.

One of the biggest challenges, of course, is MONEY. We need a lot more of it. Every state and localgovernment in America needs not only a green infrastructure plan, but also the financial resources toimplement the plan. Over the past three years, over $17.5 billion in state and local governmentfunding has been directed towards open space preservation.

This is an important step in the right direction, but we must do more. The total funding devoted toland conservation is just a small fraction of what we spend on transportation and other infrastructureneeds. We need new sources of conservation capital, both public and private.

The final challenge is PEOPLE. We need to broaden our movement to include more people of colorand young people. We also need to remember that our work is fundamentally about people — ourchildren and grandchildren. It’s about the future and planning for it.

When we started in conservation many of us were winging it. We hadn’t been educated or trainedfor what we were doing. There wasn’t much science and even less thinking about economicdevelopment, and there were few opportunities for professional development. By almost everymeasure, the work of conservation is becoming more complex. Conservationists need to understandmarketing, business planning, real estate and tax law, as well as ecology and geographic informationsystems. We need to build the capacity of our movement embracing the concepts of training,education and lifelong learning. We also need to educate the public about the benefits derived fromgreen infrastructure.

We believe that now is the time for a more strategic and comprehensive approach to landconservation. This monograph sets out that approach.

Mark A. Benedict & Edward T. McMahonThe Conservation Fund


Introduction

“Green infrastructure” is a term that is appearing more and more frequently

in land conservation and development discussions across the country and

around the world. Green infrastructure means different things to different

people depending on the context in which it is used. For example, some people refer to

trees in urban areas as green infrastructure because of the “green” benefits they provide,

while others use green infrastructure to refer to engineered structures (such water treatment

facilities or green roofs) that are designed to be environmentally friendly.

For the purposes of this Sprawl

Watch Clearinghouse

Monograph, green infrastructure

is defined as an interconnected

network of green space that

conserves natural ecosystem

values and functions and

provides associated benefits to

human populations. In our

view, green infrastructure is the

ecological framework needed for environmental, social and economic sustainability—in short

it is our nation’s natural life sustaining system. Green infrastructure differs from conventional

approaches to open space planning because it looks at conservation values and actions in

concert with land development, growth management and built infrastructure planning.

Other conservation approaches typically are undertaken in isolation from — or even in

opposition to — development.

This monograph introduces green infrastructure as a strategic approach to land conservation

that is critical to the success of smart growth initiatives. Green infrastructure is “smart”

conservation that addresses the ecological and social impacts of sprawl and the accelerated

consumption and fragmentation of open land. This monograph describes the concept and

values of green infrastructure and presents seven principles and associated strategies for

successful green infrastructure initiatives.

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

6 ✺ GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE MONOGRAPH

What Is GreenInfrastructure?

Webster’s New World Dictionarydefines infrastructure as “thesubstructure or underlying

foundation, especially the basic installationsand facilities on which the continuance andgrowth of a community depends.” When theyhear the term infrastructure, most people thinkof roads, sewers, utility lines, and other grayinfrastructure; or hospitals, schools, prisons,and other social infrastructure. Taken together,these types of facilities are often referred to asbuilt infrastructure. Today, many people andorganizations are talking about another type ofinfrastructure that is critical to the “continuanceand growth of a community”: greeninfrastructure.

In August 1999 under the leadership of TheConservation Fund and the USDA ForestService, a working group of local, state andfederal agencies and non-governmentalorganizations came together to develop a

training program that would help communitiesand their partners make green infrastructure anintegral part of local, regional and state plansand policies. This Green Infrastructure WorkGroup developed the following definition forgreen infrastructure:

“Green infrastructure is our nation’snatural life support system — aninterconnected network of waterways,wetlands, woodlands, wildlife habitats,and other natural areas; greenways,parks and other conservation lands;working farms, ranches and forests; andwilderness and other open spaces thatsupport native species, maintain naturalecological processes, sustain air andwater resources and contribute to thehealth and quality of life for America’scommunities and people.”

The elements of a green infrastructure networkneed to be protected over the long term. Thisrequires long-range planning and management,as well as an ongoing commitment.

“Just as we must carefully plan forand invest in our capitalinfrastructure — our roads, bridgesand waterlines, we must invest in ourenvironmental or green infrastructure— our forests, wetlands, stream andrivers . . . Just as we must carefullyplan for and invest in our humaninfrastructure — education, healthservice, care for the elderly anddisabled — we must also invest inour green infrastructure.”

— Maryland Governor Paris GlendeningJanuary 1999

Cre

dit: H

ager

ty/U

SFW

S

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○


What’s in a Name?

The term green infrastructure was selectedto emphasize its difference from traditionalconservation practices and the need tochange several popular perceptions aboutgreen space planning and protection.✸ Where-as green space is often viewed

as something that is nice to have, theterm green infrastructure impliessomething that we must have.Protecting and restoring our nation’snatural life support system is anecessity, not an amenity.

✸ Where-as green space is often thoughtof as isolated parks, recreation sites ornatural areas, the term greeninfrastructure emphasizes inter-connected systems of natural areas andother open spaces that are protectedand managed for the ecologicalbenefits they provide to people and theenvironment.

✸ Where-as green space is often viewedas self-sustaining, the term greeninfrastructure implies something thatmust be actively maintained and attimes restored.

A Community Green Infrastructure Plan?

Does your community have a long-rangetransportation plan? How about a plan toupgrade and expand the airport, sewagetreatment plant, storm water facilities, fiber opticcables, or other community utilities?

Most growing communities have such plans,but many of these same communities have noplan to preserve their essential, life sustaining,natural infrastructure.1

What Does Green InfrastructureLook Like?

Green infrastructure encompasses a widevariety of natural and restored nativeecosystems and landscape features that makeup a system of “hubs” and “links.”

HUBS anchor green infrastructure networks andprovide an origin or destination for wildlife andecological processes moving to or through it.Hubs come in all shapes and sizes, including:✺ RESERVES — Large protected areas, such

as national and state parks and wildliferefuges;

✺ MANAGED NATIVE LANDSCAPES —Large publicly owned lands, such asnational and state forests, managed forresource extraction as well as natural andrecreational values;

✺ WORKING LANDS — Private farms,forests, and ranches that are managed forcommodity production yet remain in apredominantly open and undevelopedstate;

✺ REGIONAL PARKS ANDPRESERVES — Less extensivehubs of regional ecologicalsignificance; and

✺ COMMUNITY PARKS AND NATURALAREAS — Smaller parks and other sites atthe community level where naturalfeatures and ecological processes areprotected and/or restored.

Florida GreenwaysCommission

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○


LINKS are the connections that tie the systemtogether and enable green infrastructurenetworks to work. They range in size,function and ownership, including:

✺ LANDSCAPE LINKAGES — Large protectednatural areas that connect existing parks,preserves, or natural areas and providesufficient space for native plants andanimals to flourish while serving ascorridors connecting ecosystems andlandscapes. Landscape linkages may alsoprovide space for the protection of historicsites and opportunities for recreational use;

✺ CONSERVATION CORRIDORS — Lessextensive linear protected areas, such asriver and stream corridors that serve asbiological conduits for wildlife and mayprovide recreational opportunities;

✺ GREENWAYS — Protected corridors ofland managed for resource conservationand/or recreational use;

✺ GREENBELTS — Protected natural lands orworking lands that serve as a frameworkfor development while also preservingnative ecosystems and/or farms orranchland; and

✺ ECOBELTS — Linear woody buffers thatcan ease the zone of tension betweenurban and rural land uses while providingecological and social benefits for urbanand rural residents.

What Are the Origins of GreenInfrastructure?

Green infrastructure is a new term, but it’s not anew idea. It has roots in planning and conser-vation efforts that started a hundred and fiftyyears ago. Green infrastructure has its origin intwo important concepts: (1) linking parks andother green spaces for the benefit of people, and(2) preserving and linking natural areas to benefitbiodiversity and counter habitat fragmentation.

In his work in public parks in the lateeighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, land-

scape architect Frederick Law Olmsted believedthat “no single park, no matter how large andhow well designed, would provide the citizenswith the beneficial influences of nature.” Insteadparks need “to be linked to one another andto surrounding residential neighborhoods.”2

This idea of linking parks for the benefit ofpeople (e.g. with a focus on recreation, pedes-trian and bicycle trails and public health) hasevolved into the modern greenways movement.

“A connected system of parks and parkwaysis manifestly far more complete and usefulthan a series of isolated parks”

— John Olmstedand Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. 19033

Second, wildlife biologists and ecologists havelong recognized that the best way to preservenative plants, animals and ecological processesis to create an interconnected conservationsystem to counter habitat fragmentation.Protecting and restoring connections betweenparks, preserves and other important ecologicalareas is a key concept for the science ofconservation biology and the practice ofecosystem management.

In the 1990’s, Florida, Maryland and severalother states and communities initiatedprograms to strategically identify, protect andrestore interconnected systems of conservationland and other sites of ecological value. Thesestates and communities recognized that theseinterconnected green space systems representtheir green infrastructure. They furtherrecognized that the protection and maintenanceof green infrastructure is vital to their sustainablefuture because it provides a way to link landuse planning to the preservation of biodiversity.

In its May 1999 report, “Towards aSustainable America,” the President’s Councilon Sustainable Development identified GreenInfrastructure as one of five strategic areas

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○


that provide a comprehensive approach forsustainable community development. Thereport stated that “green infrastructure strategiesactively seek to understand, leverage, and valuethe different ecological, social, and economicfunctions provided by natural systems in order toguide more efficient and sustainable land useand development patterns as well as protectecosystems.”4 Statewide projects in Florida andMaryland; recognition by the President’s Councilon Sustainable Development; and other inno-vative initiatives at the state, regional and locallevels have led to a rapid increase nationwide inthe use of the term green infrastructure and theapplication of its concepts and values to meetingtoday’s conservation and land use challenges.

The modern-day greenways movement alsohas influenced green infrastructure planningand implementation. It has brought togethermany important players who had not previouslyconsidered the impact of development on thelandscape. Although green infrastructure andgreenways share a common origin, greeninfrastructure differs from greenways in atleast three major ways:✺ ECOLOGY VS. RECREATION — Green

infrastructure emphasizes ecology notrecreation, although trails and otherrecreational amenities can provide substantialhuman benefits and should be part of anyintegrated system of open space;

✺ BIGGER VS. SMALLER — Green infra-structure includes large ecologically importanthubs, as well as key landscape linkages.Greenways, on the other hand, typicallyfocus on trails, narrow conservationcorridors and other linear features;

✺ FRAMEWORK FOR GROWTH — Greeninfrastructure can be designed to shapeurban form and provide a framework forgrowth. It works best when the frameworkpre-identifies both ecologically significantlands and suitable development areas.

Green infrastructure as we know it today hasbeen influenced by these four factors: linkingparks for people; linking natural areas to counterfragmentation and preserve biodiversity;identifying and protecting interconnected openspaces systems to benefit wildlife and ensurea sustainable future; and building upon theexcitement and appeal of the modern-daygreenways movement.

Benton MacKaye, the founder of theAppalachian Trail, was also concerned abouturban sprawl. In 1928, he explained in “TheNew Exploration — A Philosophy of RegionalPlanning” how green space could be used tocurb development in a hypothetical community:“The outstanding topographic feature consistsof the range of hills and mountains encirclingthe locality, together with the four ridgesreaching toward the central city. This could bereserved as a common public ground, servingthe double purpose of a public forest and apublic playground . . . It would form a lineararea, or belt around and through the locality,

well adapted for camping and primitive travel(by foot or horseback). . . This series of open areas and ways wouldform a distinct realm: it would be a primevalrealm (or near-primeval) — the opposite realmfrom the metropolitan. These open ways (alongthe crestlines) mark the lines for developing theprimitive environment, while the motor waysmark the lines for extending the metropolitanenvironment. The motor ways form the channelsof the metropolitan flood, while the open ways(crossing and flanking the motor ways) form‘dams’ and ‘levees’ for controlling the flood.”5

Benton MacKaye’s Prescription for Urban Sprawl

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○


Why Do We Need to Planand Protect GreenInfrastructure?

Land is being developed faster today thanever before. This accelerated consump-tion and the resulting fragmentation of

open land are the primary conservationchallenges facing our nation today. Thefollowing statistics illustrate the problem:✺ According to the December 2000 update

of the Natural Resource ConservationService’s National Resources Inventory,over the 15-year period from 1982 to 1997,the total acreage of developed land in theUnited States increased by 34 percent (25million acres). From 1982 to 1992, landwas converted at 1.4 million acres peryear; from 1992 to 1997, land was convertedat 2.2 million acres a year. This rate is morethan 1.5 times the previous 10-year rate.6

✺ The 1997 American Housing Surveyconducted by the Census Bureau andHUD found that, between 1993 and 1997,2.3 million acres of open space wereconverted to new single-family homeseach year. Almost 90 percent of this landconversion occurred with lots of one acreor larger. These lots were purchased byonly 33 percent of new homebuyers.7

✺ According to a July 2001 report by theCenter on Urban & Metropolitan Policy at

Population Growth Versus Land Development: 1982–199712

The Brookings Institution, “between 1982and 1997, the amount of urbanized land inthe United States increased by 47 percent…During this same period, the nation’spopulation grew by only 17 percent.”8

✺ The amount of working lands in theUnited States has declined by nearly 20percent — more than 200 million acres overthe last half-century. Further, the rate ofconversion has doubled over the last fiveyears. We are now developing almost 2million acres of farmland and half a millionacres of private forest land each year.

In many major metropolitan areas, green spaceis rapidly disappearing. For example, theAtlanta metropolitan area has lost 25 percentof its tree cover since 1973; the 350,000 acresthat have been developed translates to nearly50 acres of trees lost every day.9 From 1970to 1990, Cook County and the five othercounties closest to Chicago experienced a 35percent increase in developed land, but anincrease in population of only 4 percent. Over450 square miles of agricultural land wassuburbanized during this time.10 Some of ourmost threatened lands are in rapidly urbanizingcounties where we produce nearly 80 percentof our fruit and vegetables and more than halfof our dairy products. Rural communities arealso affected by development: 60 percent ofnew homes built from 1994–1997 were built incommunities of less than 40,000 people.11

snoigeR.S.U noitalupoPniegnahC dnaLdezinabrUniegnahC

tsewdiM %60.7 %32.23

tsaehtroN %19.6 %01.93

htuoS %32.22 %16.95

tseW %12.23 %49.84

setatSdetinU %20.71 %41.74

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○


Consequences of HaphazardDevelopment

Over the past several decades, growth hasleapfrogged beyond cities and older suburbsinto many areas that were once rural. Todaydevelopment is converting farms and foreststo other uses at an increasingly rapid rate. Toooften, this is done without firm land-use plansin place to guide development. The result isurban sprawl.

Human modifications of the land have createdfragmented development patterns that threatennative plant and wildlife communities andassociated ecological functions and processes.This has led to:✺ LOSS OF NATURAL AREAS —

Developing land for houses, roads andother human needs reduces the amount ofnatural areas. For example, about 25,000acres of wetlands continue to be lost eachyear to sprawl. As natural areas diminish,so does habitat diversity. The result is botha decline in the number of species andfewer individuals of those species thatsurvive.

✺ FRAGMENTATION OF NATURAL SPACES— As we convert land, we fragment itinto smaller and more isolated patches ofopen space, which greatly alters the wayin which natural systems function.Fragmentation increases edge habitat andthe isolation between patches while reducingthe number and diversity of natural plantand animal species.

✺ DEGRADATION OF WATER RESOURCES— Developing wetlands and riparian zonesreduces their capacity to control floods,trap sediments, filter out toxins andexcess nutrients, and support wildlife andplant species, and it threatens the healthof the environment.

✺ DECREASED ABILITY FOR NATURE TORESPOND TO CHANGE — Developmenthas hindered nature’s ability to respond toclimatic changes and has reduced populationviability for wildlife by reducing geneticdiversity and limiting wildlife movement.

In addition to these ecological effects, thereare also social and economic consequences ofthe consumption of open lands and theresulting loss of green space. These include:

Photo: USDA NRCS

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○


✺ LOSS OF “FREE” NATURAL SERVICES —Natural systems provide important services,such as flood control, stormwater manage-ment and the filtration of pollutants. Theloss of natural systems increases the risk offlooding and natural disasters. This, in turn,costs communities billions in mitigationefforts and in disaster relief and recovery.

✺ INCREASED COSTS OF PUBLIC SERVICES— Haphazard development often increasesthe cost of public services by requiringhuge investments in new roads, sewers,schools and other public infrastructure.

In addition, the loss of farm and forestlandsaffects a community’s bottom line. Many studiesshow that farming and forestry generateconsiderably higher revenue than the amount ofpublic services they require. Residentialdevelopment has the opposite effect. Urbansprawl and the inefficient use of land andresources require communities to provideservices across a larger geographic area. Becausedevelopments and buildings are spread furtherapart, sprawl stretches municipal services,resulting in scarcer water and higher taxes.

Cost of Service Analysis

Numerous studies across the nation showthat farmland, forests and open spacegenerate taxes but require few services.For example, a 1992 American FarmlandTrust study of three Massachusetts townsfound that residential development costsmore in services than it earns in taxrevenue, while open space generates morein taxes than it costs to service. Sometimes itmakes more economic sense to purchaseand preserve open space than it does toallow it to be developed. In the early1990’s, for example, the city of Huntsville,Alabama purchased a 547-acre tract onMount Sano for $3.3 million. The annualmaintenance costs for the land were about$75 an acre. Residential developmentwould have cost about $5 million for roads,sewers and other infrastructure — or about$2,500 an acre per year.

Phot

o: G

entr

y/U

SFW

S

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○


Smart Growth

The United States grows by 2.7 million peopleevery year requiring at least 1 million new unitsof housing each year. As a result, the realquestion is not whether we will grow, buthow and where.

In recent years, an increasing number ofcommunities have attempted to better plandevelopment through smart growth initiatives.Smart growth has been defined as developmentthat is economically sound, environmentallyfriendly and supportive of community livability— growth that enhances our quality of life.Certainly the sprawl that has resulted fromour growing dependence on the automobileand the haphazard spread of strip malls andnondescript subdivisions is not smart growth.Smart growth advocates point out that we canhave development that is more attractive, moreefficient, more affordable and more environ-mentally sensitive than much of what has beenbuilt since World War II. In fact, a recentstudy of New Jersey by the Center for UrbanStudies at Rutgers University found that theannual operating and maintenance costs forroads, sidewalks, and water and sewer facilitiescould be reduced by $400 million a year bydeveloping in a more compact, less land-consuming manner.

What’s more, studies by the BrookingsInstitution and others show that the pace ofland development far exceeds the rate ofpopulation growth in America. This suggeststhat the problem is not growth itself, but thepattern of growth; in other words, where weput it, how we arrange it, and how growthimpacts natural and cultural resources.

Simply put, some places are better fordevelopment than other places. The firstprinciple of better development is figuring outwhere we should not develop. Greeninfrastructure planning can help communitiesfigure this out. Taken together, smart growthinitiatives and green infrastructure planning are

two sides of the same coin. Communities needto make better use of existing infra-structureand to encourage more compact, walkable,mixed use communities; they also need aframework for shaping where growth will go.This can be provided by green infrastructure.

Smart Conservation

Smart growth programs are designed to addressthe problems of haphazard development andsprawl. Likewise, we also need smartconservation programs to strategically directconservation practices. Smart conservationpromotes resource planning, protection, andmanagement in a way that is:✺ proactive not reactive;✺ systematic not haphazard;✺ holistic not piecemeal;✺ multi-jurisdictional not single jurisdictional;✺ multifunctional not single purpose; and✺ multiple scales not single scale.

Green infrastructure offers a smart solution toour land conservation challenges because itseeks to plan land development and landconservation together in a way that isconsistent with natural environmental patterns.In doing this, green infrastructure promotesboth smart growth and smart conservation.

Green Infrastructure Functions andBenefits

Green infrastructure systems help protect andrestore naturally functioning ecosystems andprovide a framework for future development.In doing so, they provide a diversity ofecological, social, and economic functions andbenefits: enriched habitat and biodiversity;maintenance of natural landscape processes;cleaner air and water; increased recreationalopportunities; improved health; and betterconnection to nature and sense of place. Well-planned green space has also been shown toincrease property values and decrease the costs

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○


of public infrastructure and public services,including the costs for stormwater managementand water treatment systems.

Investing in green infrastructure can often bemore cost effective than conventional publicworks projects. For example, in the 1990s NewYork City avoided the need to spend $6–$8billion on new water filtration and treatmentplants by instead purchasing and protectingwatershed land in the Catskill Mountains forabout $1.5 billion. Likewise Arnold, Missouri,has dramatically reduced the cost to taxpayersof disaster relief and flood damage repair bypurchasing threatened properties and creatinga greenway in the flood plain.

Two nonprofit organizations, the Center forNeighborhood Technology and Urban Logic,believe a shift in governmental accountingrules may help standardize these examples. In1999, the Government Accounting StandardsBoard (GASB) issued comprehensive changesin state and local government financialreporting. The standards, known as “GASB-34,” require governments to develop, maintainand present capital accounts in their balancesheets. The two organizations are workingwith economists, accountants, bond financiersand others to explore using GASB-34 to helpcapture our natural environment’s inherentcapital.

CASE STUDY

Smart Growth & Smart Conservation in the State of Maryland

GreenPrint Program aims to identify and protectthe state’s most ecologically sensitive lands.

Although the State of Maryland has workeddiligently to conserve its finest natural areas fordecades, until the creation of GreenPrint, theefforts were not part of an overall long-termstrategy. GreenPrint identifies the state’s greeninfrastructure — a statewide network of largeecologically significant hubs bound together bygreenway corridors or links. The state hasallotted $145 million over five years to protectthese hubs and links.

In 1997, Maryland launched its Smart Growthand Neighborhood Conservation initiative,which is designed to rejuvenate existingcommunities while preserving farms, forests andother open spaces. Central to the success of thisinitiative are two related ideas. First, the statewould no longer provide financial support forhaphazard development, but would insteadredirect all of its financial resources to existingcommunities and areas approved for growth.Second, Maryland would take a much moreaggressive and strategic approach to preservingopen space.

The new strategic approach toland conservation manifested itselfin two separate programs.Maryland’s Rural Legacy Programseeks to protect large, contiguousblocks of farmland and other ruralopen spaces by working with localgovernments and non-profitorganizations to define preservationboundaries and then concentratingpreservation efforts and funding inthese areas. The state’s new Maryland’s Green Infrastructure. Source: Maryland DNR

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○


Green InfrastructurePlanning

Trends Influencing the Shift toGreen Infrastructure

In the past, many communities consideredopen space to be land that has not yetbeen developed. The legal and philosophical

framework of our land use system assumedthat land was a commodity to be consumed.Communities that did plan for open spacefocused almost exclusively on preserving landfor parks, which were viewed as a communityamenity. Most open space preservation effortswere site-specific and were not undertaken inconjunction with local land use planning.However, in recent years, there has been adramatic shift in the way government officialsthink about green space and a growingawareness among local and state governmentsof the need to plan for green infrastructure.

Trends influencing a shift to a systematic,green infrastructure approach to open spaceplanning include:✺ Increasing recognition of the problems

associated with urban sprawl andlandscape fragmentation, particularly onthe fringe of major metropolitan areas;

✺ Federal water quality mandates;✺ Endangered species protection, particularly

the emphasis on habitat conservationplans that protect multiple species andlink isolated preserves;

✺ Public health concerns, including obesity,that have resulted from inactive lifestyles;

✺ An increase in the marketability and resalevalue of homes near protected greenspace, such as parks and greenways;

✺ Urban revitalization, emphasizing thevalue of natural areas within the city;

✺ Smart growth policies and programs atthe state, regional and community levels;

✺ Development practices designed to promoteenvironmental, social and economicsustainability.

Green Infrastructure PlanningApproaches

Just like our built infrastructure, our greeninfrastructure should be carefully planned,designed, and invested in far in advance ofdevelopment. Green infrastructure planningshould be the first step in the land-useplanning and design process. Green infra-structure planning should also be coordinatedwith planning for gray infrastructure — roads,bike trails, water, electric, telecommunicationand other essential community supportsystems. Integrated planning and designshould connect the two in a more effective,economic and sustainable network.

Green infrastructure initiatives should useapproaches similar to those used for theplanning, design and financing of builtinfrastructure. Green infrastructure should be:

Phot

o: N

ebel

/USF

WS

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○


✺ DESIGNED HOLISTICALLY — Like ourtransportation system, green infrastructureshould be designed to link diverse greenspace elements into a system thatfunctions as a whole, rather than asseparate, unrelated parts.

✺ PLANNED COMPREHENSIVELY — Likeour electric power and telecommunicationsystems, our green space systems need tobe planned comprehensively to provideecological, social and economic benefits,functions, and values.

✺ LAID OUT STRATEGICALLY — Like ourroads and water systems, our green spacesystems need to be laid out strategicallyto cross multiple jurisdictions andincorporate green space elements at eachlevel of government.

✺ PLANNED AND IMPLEMENTEDPUBLICLY — Like our built infrastructuresystems, our green infrastructure systemsshould be planned and implemented withinput from and involvement of the public,including community organizations andprivate landowners.

✺ GROUNDED IN THE PRINCIPLES ANDPRACTICES OF DIVERSE PROFESSIONS— Like the design and planning of ourtransportation, water, electrical and phonesystems, green space systems should bebased on sound science and should buildon the knowledge of professionaldisciplines such as landscape ecology,urban and regional planning, andlandscape architecture.

✺ FUNDED UP-FRONT — Like otherinfrastructure systems, our green spacesystems need to be funded as a primarypublic investment. In other words, greeninfrastructure should be funded up frontwith other essential services, rather thanwith money that is left over after all otherservices have been provided.

Green infrastructure planning should take placeat all scales: from the individual parcel, to the

local, regional and statewide scales. At theparcel level this could mean designing homesand businesses around green space. At thecommunity level this could mean creatinggreenways to link existing parks. And at thestatewide level this could mean protectingbroad wildlife movement corridors to connectstate and national forests.

Benefits of Integrating GreenInfrastructure Into the Land PlanningProcess

Just as there are many benefits to greeninfrastructure, there are many benefits toutilizing a green infrastructure approach toconservation and development planning. Greeninfrastructure planning:✺ Recognizes and addresses the needs of

both people and nature;✺ Provides a mechanism to balance

environmental and economic factors;✺ Provides a framework for integrating

diverse natural resource and growthmanagement activities in a holistic,ecosystem-based approach;

✺ Ensures that both green space anddevelopment are placed where mostneeded and most appropriate;

✺ Identifies vital ecological areas andlinkages prior to development in suburbanand rural landscapes;

✺ Identifies opportunities for the restorationand enhancement of naturally functioningsystems in already developed areas;

✺ Provides a broad, unifying vision for thefuture that diverse people and organiza-tions can buy into;

✺ Enables communities to create a systemthat is greater than the sum of its parts;

✺ Helps provide both communities anddevelopers with predictability andcertainty; and

✺ Enables conservation and development tobe planned in harmony, not in oppositionto one another.

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○


Green InfrastructurePrinciples

All across America states, regions,communities, private landowners,public agencies, and conservation

organizations are working to conserve andrestore our country’s natural life sustainingsystem. Although these projects go by manydifferent names (greenway planning anddesign, ecosystem management, watershedprotection, conservation development, habitatrestoration, stream improvement, greenprints),successful initiatives are based on commonprinciples and share similar strategies.

What follows are six guiding principles andstrategies that have been identified as criticalto the success of green infrastructureinitiatives. Taken together, these principlesprovide a strategic approach and frameworkfor conservation that can advance thesustainable use of land while providing aninterconnected system of green spaces that

benefit people, wildlife and the economy.They are intended to help provide design,planning, acquisition and other decision-making guidance for community-basedsustainable development. It is our hope thatplanners, developers, landowners, state andlocal officials, and others will use theseprinciples as benchmarks for incorporating agreen infrastructure approach into existing andfuture plans and policies as well as future landconservation and land development projects.

PRINCIPLE 1: Green infrastructureshould be the framework forconservation and development.

Most of our nation’s land conservationprograms over the last century have focusedon the protection of individual parks,preserves, or other isolated areas that haveimportant natural or cultural resources. Today,conservation biology teaches us that these“wilderness” islands are unlikely to meet theirconservation objectives. This is because wildlife

Phot

o: H

ollin

gwor

th/U

SFW

S

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○


populations cannot flourish if they are isolatedand ecological processes cannot function ifnatural connections are severed. By contrast,roads and other forms of gray infrastructureupon which America’s communities depend —and that provide the framework for futuregrowth and development — are planned, builtand maintained as a system of inter-connectedparts.

By making green infrastructure the frameworkfor conservation, communities can plan forand protect interconnected, green space systems.And where isolated “islands” of nature alreadyexist, green infrastructure planning can helpthem identify opportunities to restore the vitalecological connections that are necessary forthe survival of those protected areas.

Having a green infrastructure strategy alsohelps planners and developers minimize theadverse impacts that rapid growth can haveon ecosystem functions and services, such asthe loss of wildlife habitat and migrationcorridors and the loss of riparian and othernatural areas that absorb nutrients, rechargeground and surface water supplies, slow andabsorb stormwater runoff, and replenish soils.Protecting green infrastructure up front ensuresthat existing open space and working landsare seen as part of the community’s essentialassets and not left vulnerable to developmentpressures that would leave green infrastructurefurther reduced and fragmented.

PRINCIPLE 2: Design and plan greeninfrastructure before development.

Restoration of natural systems is far moreexpensive than protection and preservation ofexisting landscapes. Because green infrastruc-ture provides the ecological framework for thesustainable use of land, it is essential to identifyand protect critical ecological sites and linkagesin advance of the planning and construction ofroads, houses, stores and other development.

CASE STUDY

Protecting Green InfrastructureBefore Development

MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND

Montgomery County (population 800,000)initiated green infrastructure planning for itsstream valley park system in advance of thecounty’s rapid growth. The county beganbuying land along all of its major streamcorridors in the 1940s and 1950s — wellbefore land development and populationgrowth had made it impossible to preservethese ecologically important areas. Todaythe county has a system of stream valleyparks encompassing over 25,000 acres.The county has begun adding to thissystem with a 10-year, $100 millioninitiative to complete a county-wide networkof open space comprised of protectedfarmland, stream valley parks, ecologicalreserves, trail corridors, and green spacepreserves.

Because restoration is expensive and becauseman-made wetlands and other restorationprojects can cease to function over the longterm, planning for and protecting green spacesystems should come before developmentwhenever possible. But in situations in whichdevelopment has already occurred, it is stillimportant to assess where restoring greeninfrastructure would benefit people and naturalsystems. A green infrastructure plan will focusacquisition and restoration priorities and helpcommunities take advantage of opportunitiesto reconnect isolated habitat islands as existingdeveloped areas and built infrastructure age orother redevelopment opportunities occur.

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○


Sour

ce: M

aryl

and

DN

R

PRINCIPLE 3: Linkage is key.

The desired outcome for all green infrastruc-ture initiatives is the creation of a green spacenetwork that functions as an ecological whole,not as a random assemblage of separate,unrelated parts. The strategic connection ofdifferent system components — parks,preserves, riparian areas, wetlands, and othergreen spaces — is critical to maintaining vitalecological processes and services (e.g.,carrying and filtering stormwater runoff,storing and cleaning fresh water, cleaningurban air) and to maintaining the health andbiodiversity of wildlife populations. In addition,green infrastructure requires linkages to bemade among different agencies, nongovern-mental organizations, and the private sector.The Ecological Network of Florida’s StatewideGreenways System and the State ofMaryland’s Green Infrastructure Assessmentare examples of green infrastructure networkdesign that is based on this principle.13

Designing and building the nation’s interstate,state, and local highway networks holisticallycreates a single, functional transportationsystem that is funded and supported by severaldifferent levels of government. Why not designgreen infrastructure in the same way, takingadvantage of natural stream networks andterrain features to create physically connectedgreen space systems that protect and restorevital ecological functions and linkages?

STRATEGY: Make connections betweengreen infrastructure initiatives and otheractivities within and beyond the community.

Linking green infrastructure efforts to statewide,regional and local smart growth programsprovides a useful and satisfying framework fordevelopment. Integrating green infrastructure withprograms that focus on growth and developmentwill aid state and community efforts to protectvital agricultural and other working lands.Partnerships also should be forged amongfoundations, regional councils, governmentagencies, universities, non-profits, and otherorganizations that are already funding projectsand initiatives with similar goals to protect,restore, connect, or improve management ofnatural areas, parks, trails, and greenways.

Phot

o: G

entr

y/U

SFW

S

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○


PRINCIPLE 4: Green infrastructurefunctions across multiple jurisdictionsand at different scales.

Our nation’s transportation, power,telecommunication and other gray infrastruc-ture systems are designed to connect acrossmultiple jurisdictions and incorporate facilitiesthat function at different scales. Likewise, weneed to design green infrastructure systemsstrategically to connect across urban,suburban, rural and wilderness landscapes andincorporate green space elements andfunctions at the state, regional, communityand parcel scales.

Green infrastructure strategies can be used forinitiatives of any size or scale, including:✺ The project scale, involving individual

parcels and within single real estatedevelopments (e.g., the Fields of St. Croixin St. Elmo, Minnesota or Prairie Crossingin Grays Lake, Illinois);

✺ The community scale, supporting localresource conservation and restorationefforts and including park, recreation andother open-space projects (e.g., theNorthern Illinois Regional Greenway Plan,which involves six counties in and aroundthe Chicago metropolitan region);

✺ The landscape scale, encompassingstatewide and national conservation andopen space resources (e.g., the FloridaStatewide Greenway System for wildlifehabitat, water quality, and recreation).

Green infrastructure may be most successfulwhen it functions at multiple scales intandem. For example, Toronto’s “Greening thePortlands” project in Ontario, Canada focuseson major parks, minor parks, wide corridors,narrow corridors, and development parcellandscapes.

CASE STUDY

Metro Greenways ProgramLinking Partners and Programs for

Resource Conservation and Restoration

TWIN CITIES REGION, MINNESOTA

In the past 150 years, urban developmentin the Twin Cities region has consumednearly 96 percent of the pre-settlementhabitat. Emphasizing the important role ofnatural resources, in 1998 the MinnesotaLegislature established the MetroGreenways program and provided $4.3million to plan, protect, and improvesignificant natural areas in the seven-countymetropolitan region.

Administered and coordinated by theMinnesota Department of NaturalResources, Metro Greenways relies onunprecedented partnerships with a widerange of nonprofit conservationorganizations, government agencies,institutions, and private businesses andlandowners. By assisting local governmentwith planning grants and project funding,the program empowers communities toprotect and improve the natural resourcesthat are important to them in a way thatearns local support. At the same time, theseven-county scope assures that theindividual projects contribute to the existinglocal and regional park systems aselements of a regional network of greenspaces and naturally functioningecosystems.

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○


STRATEGY: Work with all levels ofgovernment and private landowners atvarious scales to plan and implement greeninfrastructure.

Our state and local governments would neverfund and construct highway systems withouta multi-year transportation plan and anassociated public communication plan thatlays out all the implementation steps in alogical and orderly fashion. State and localtransportation agencies even provide forvolunteers to “adopt” highways. The funding,protection and management of our greeninfrastructure systems deserve the same levelof foresight and commitment on behalf of thecommunity. It is important to note that greeninfrastructure systems do not require or evenimply public ownership of all the land in thesystem. Clearly privately owned land,particularly working farms and forests, canplay an important role in any green spacesystem.

CASE STUDY

A Conservation DevelopmentIncorporating Green Infrastructure

Concepts and Values

PRAIRIE CROSSING, GRAYSLAKE, ILLINOIS

Located 40 miles northwest of Chicago inGrayslake, Illinois, Prairie Crossing is aunique conservation development thatshows how green infrastructure can addvalue to residential development. PrairieCrossing’s 362 homes are located on asmall portion of the site’s 667 acres. Themajority of the land is left in open space toprotect environmental resources and thesite’s rural character. The 350 acres ofopen space include 160 acres of restoredprairie, 158 acres of active farmland, 13acres of wetlands, a 22 acre lake, threeponds, a village green and recreationalparks. Prairie Crossing’s open spacenetwork is the western anchor of a 2500-acre preserved area — the Liberty PrairieReserve — making it part of a largerprotected and functioning ecosystem. Theproject’s design features have generatedan estimated 15 percent premium over thelocal market and competition.

Phot

o: H

ollin

gsw

orth

/USF

WS

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○


PRINCIPLE 5: Green infrastructure isgrounded in sound science and land-use planning theories and practices.

No single science or planning discipline canlay claim to the evolution of greeninfrastructure. Instead, theories and practicesof many scientific and land planningprofessions — including conservation biology,landscape ecology, urban and regional planning,landscape architecture, geography, and civilengineering — all contribute to the successfuldesign and planning of green infrastructuresystems.

The twentieth century included experimenta-tion with different approaches to protectingour natural resources and environment.Scientists, engineers, and land use plannershave come to recognize that natural systemsalready function efficiently when it comes toprotecting our water supply and air resources.With strategic use of environmental design,professionals and laypersons alike are findingthat networks of linked natural areas andhabitats managed for biodiversity purposesalso can protect developed urban and ruralareas from natural disasters, can improve thegeneral health of the human community, andcan provide recreation opportunities and otherpublic amenities.

STRATEGY: Draw from the theories andpractices of a variety of disciplines indesigning green infrastructure systems.

A green infrastructure approach employstheories and practices from a diversity ofdisciplines including conservation biology andlandscape ecology, urban and regional planning,and geographic analysis and informationsystems. Green infrastructure initiatives shouldtherefore engage and incorporate the expertiseof professionals from all relevant disciplines.

CASE STUDY

EPA’s SoutheasternEcological Framework

Using Conservation GIS to Identify GreenInfrastructure in a Multi-State Region

The Southeastern Ecological FrameworkProject is a geographic information systems(GIS) analysis to identify ecologicalsignificant areas and connectivity in thesoutheast region of the United States. Thestates included in the project are Florida,Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, SouthCarolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, andKentucky. The project was conducted in1999-2000 by the University of FloridaGeoPlan Center and sponsored by the USEnvironmental Protection Agency Region 4.Project goals and objectives include:

1. Identifying primary ecological areas thatare protected by some type ofconservation or ecosystem managementprogram;

2. Identifying a green infrastructurenetwork that connects these primaryecological areas;

3. Identifying the important ecologicalcharacteristics of the ecological areasand connecting green infrastructure;

4. Developing an understanding of thespatial scale issues involved inanalyzing the ecological connectivity atlocal, state and regional scales; and

5. Developing protocol for dissemination ofthe information.

This analysis was conducted using landscapeecology principles and GIS tools. Theproduct of the study can be used by local,state and federal agencies to develop aregional atlas of environmental issues andthreats to the natural ecosystems caused byhuman environmental impacts. State, localand private entities can utilize theinformation to address various environmen-tal resource allocation areas.14

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○


mechanisms to finance green infrastructureprojects — including bond referenda, realestate transfer taxes, dedicated developmentfees and direct budgetary line items. The newaccounting standard, GASB-34, may be onemethod to incorporate green infrastructure intoa city or state’s budget, by highlighting theeconomic trade-offs between built and naturalinfrastructure. It is also important to tapresources in state and federal agencies forplanning and management activities, includingprotected public lands that can serve asbuilding blocks for a viable green infrastructure.

STRATEGY: Document and promote thebenefits of green infrastructure.

PRINCIPLE 6: Green infrastructure isa critical public investment.

The functions, values and benefits of greeninfrastructure are available for everyone. Creatinginterconnected green space systems benefitscommunities by providing land for resourceprotection and restoration, recreation and otherpublic values. More important, strategicplacement of green infrastructure reduces theneed for some gray infrastructure, freeing uppublic funds for other community needs. Forexample, one third of weekday trail users arecommuting in major urban areas with trailsystems such as Washington, D.C., Seattle,Wash., and Tampa, Fl., greatly reducing theneed for road construction and other expensivetransportation infrastructure. Green infrastructurealso reduces a community’s susceptibility torisk of floods, fires, and other natural disasters.Recognizing the public benefits of greeninfrastructure is an important first step inproviding adequate funding. For all of thesereasons, green infrastructure is an appropriateand necessary use of public funds.

STRATEGY: Make green infrastructure aprimary budgetary item.

Our nation’s gray infrastructure — transporta-tion, water, electric, telecommunication andother essential community support systems —are publicly financed as primary budgetaryitems, in part to spread the costs of develop-ment and upkeep across a large pool of usersand to ensure that all parts connect to oneanother to achieve the design function. Stateand local governments use dedicated taxes andother public funding mechanisms to pay forthe planning, acquisition, construction, mainten-ance and improvement of our highway systems.

Green infrastructure should be included in theannual budget, as are roads, sewers, andother public works. While not yet on thesame funding level as public works, states andcommunities have begun using conventional

CASE STUDY

Green TopekaUsing Green Infrastructure to Reduce

Stormwater Management Costs

TOPEKA, KANSAS

Topeka, Kansas is one of an increasingnumber of municipalities that are usinggreen infrastructure to enhance the livabilityof their community with open spaces thatwork for people and water quality throughoutthe watershed. One inch of rain over thecity of Topeka translates to 940 milliongallons of stormwater. As the city becameconcerned about runoff, it looked tosurrounding communities to find solutions.Green Topeka is a partnership betweenstate agencies, local government, nonprofitorganizations and other stakeholders thatwas created in November 2000 to addresswater quality and quantity concerns. Ratherthan using expensive concrete channelsand underground pipes, the Soldier CreekWatershed, a Green Topeka pilot planningproject in North Topeka, is exploring theuse of vegetated swales, constructedwetlands and other practices to containand treat stormwater. 15

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○


Green infrastructure provides a diversity ofpublic and private functions and values thataddress both natural and human needs andbenefit the environment and communities.These benefits need to be documented, bothin terms of their ecological values for peopleand the environment and their economicvalues to society. Just as all forms of builtinfrastructure are promoted for the wide rangeof public and private benefits they provide, weneed to promote green infrastructure systemsactively for the wide range of essential ecological,economic and social functions, values andbenefits that accrue to people and nature.

Green infrastructure initiatives describe anddefine the values and functions of intercon-nected networks of open space in a contextthat enables citizens to understand theecological, human, and economic benefits.

PRINCIPLE 7: Green infrastructureinvolves diverse stakeholders.

The stakeholders of green infrastructureinitiatives have diverse backgrounds and needs.Successful green infrastructure efforts forgealliances and interrelationships among variousorganizations — both public and private. A fewexamples of how diverse organizations havebeen brought together for a single purpose:✺ The Chicago Wilderness is a grassroots

collaboration of over 100 organizationsrepresenting all sectors with an interest inthe region.

✺ Keep America Growing is designed tocreate partnerships to balance thedemands for growth and developmentwith the protection of vital working lands

✺ The Cooper River Wildlife CorridorInitiative in South Carolina uses anagreement for common land managementpractices with DuPont, Amoco, MedwayPlantations, Cypress Gardens, and theFrancis Marion National Forest.

Community buy-in is better than mandates orregulations, because community support islasting and sensitive to the economic value ofthe land, private property rights andresponsibilities, and local home rule.

STRATEGY: Engage key partners and thegeneral public.

By necessity, green infrastructure projectsincorporate the experiences and programs ofdiverse public, private and nonprofit partners.For this reason, it is critical to provide openforums that bring together key individuals,organizations and agencies to coordinate andhelp guide the activities that will make greeninfrastructure a reality. To be successful, greeninfrastructure initiatives must excite people,engage them at the start, and keep theminvolved.

It is important to involve participants in the

CASE STUDY

A Greenprint that Makes Fiscal Sense

PITTSFORD, NEW YORK

In 1993, Pittsford, N.Y. commissioned afiscal analysis of the revenues and expensesassociated with existing and potential landuses. The analysis showed that it would beless expensive to implement a new land useplan rather than continue the current zoningpolicy. The proposed plan targeted 2,000acres of land for permanent protection whilealso creating several enhanced economicdevelopment sites for commercial and lightindustrial expansion. The communitysupported the plan, recognizing thatprotection of open space, includingpurchase of development rights, would costtaxpayers less per year than full build out ofthe town. Landowners supported the planbecause they were compensated for theloss of their develop-ment rights. Today,Pittsford has a network of preserved openspace that is a regional model.16

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○


CASE STUDY

Chicago Wilderness

In 1996, a coalition of organizationslaunched Chicago Wilderness. Theirvision: a thriving mosaic of natural areas(200,000 acres of private, local, state, andfederal protected lands connected bygreenways and wildlife corridors)embedded within the Nation’s third largestmetropolitan area. On its sixth anniversary,Chicago Wilderness — once seen as acontradiction in terms — is becoming areality, mobilizing human diversity on behalfof biological diversity. The partnership nowincludes over 100 agencies at all levels ofgovernment, centers of research andeducation, community groups, landowners,and conservation organizations that havejoined forces and pooled resources toprotect, restore and manage ChicagoWilderness.

creation of a shared vision that can help drivethe process and forge consensus. Thecommunity should be engaged in seekingways to build on its history and existingassets and to extend the benefits intounderserved and growing areas.

Successful citizen involvement programs gobeyond traditional methods of engaging citizensto find informal and creative ways to get theirattention. Among the strategies that might beeffective are placing greenspace maps in postoffices, libraries, schools, city hall, etc., to inviteinput, and working with the media to get outthe message, as was done in Anne ArundelCounty, MD. In creating its wetlands plan, thecity of West Eugene, OR, used a variety oftechniques from the beginning to the end of theproject to involve citizens; the city’s techniquesincluded direct mailings to landowners,marketing posters, news releases and news-paper stories, public surveys, public hearings.

Phot

o: M

cCab

e/U

SDA

NRC

S

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○


The 40-member, Governor-appointed FloridaGreenways Commission engaged representa-tives of public agencies, conservation nonprofitsand the private sector in planning aninterconnected, statewide system of greenwaysand greenspaces that would benefit Florida’speople and wildlife. The following statementsand graphic portray their concept of Florida’sgreen infrastructure.

“The Commission’s vision for Florida representsa new way of looking at conservation, anapproach that emphasizes theinterconnected-ness of both ournatural systems and our commongoals and recognizes that thestate’s “green infrastructure” isjust as important to conserve andmanage as our builtinfrastructure…We believe therecommendations in our reportoffer Florida an incredibleopportunity to create a statewidegreenways system that connects

CASE STUDY

The Florida Greenways CommissionA New Vision of the Future

Source: Florida Greenways Commission

fragmented or isolated elements of the state’sgreen infrastructure, and that connects peoplewith their natural, historic and culturalheritage…A healthy and diverse greeninfrastructure is the underlying basis of ourstate’s sustainable future.…”17

The Commission’s vision statement and graphicguided the subsequent design of the statewidesystem and the development of its plan forimplementation.

Source: University of FloridaGeoPlan Center

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○


Green InfrastructureExamples

Numerous conservation initiatives areoccurring across the United Statesthat embody green infrastructure

concepts and approaches. These projects(some of which have been described in thismonograph’s case studies) encompass adiversity of scales and landscape types. Thefollowing are a few examples.

Continental Scale and Multi-StateInitiatives✺ Sky Islands Network: a continental scale

conservation initiative linking wildernessareas, parks and reserves and crossing theU.S. Mexico border(www.skyislandalliance.org/siwn.htm)

✺ Yellowstone to Yukon: a continental scaleconservation initiative linking wildernessareas, parks and reserves and crossing the

U.S. Canada border (www.rockies.ca/y2y/)✺ Southeastern Ecological Framework: a

regional conservation assessmentidentifying diverse ecological green spaceelements throughout the Southeast18

(www.geoplan.ufl.edu/epa/index.html)

Statewide Initiatives✺ State of Maryland GreenPrint Program: a

statewide scale conservation initiativeprotecting forests, wetlands, river corridorsand other critical ecological areas as a partof the state’s Smart Growth initiative(www.dnr.state.md.us/greenways/greenprint/)

✺ State of Florida Statewide GreenwaysSystem: a statewide scale conservationand recreation system that incorporates alinked ecological network designed tobenefit Florida’s wildlife and people(www.geoplan.ufl.edu/projects/greenways/greenwayindex.html)

Cre

dit:

Men

ke/U

SFW

S

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○


Regional Initiatives✺ Chicago Wilderness Biodiversity

Conservation Plan — a regional biodiversityconservation initiative developed by apublic, private and nonprofit alliance andincorporating green infrastructure conceptsand principles (www.chiwild.org/biodiversity.html)

✺ Twin Cities Minnesota Metro Greenways –a regional green infrastructure networkdesign that identifies, protects andrestores important ecological resourcefeatures in a multi-county metropolitanarea (www.dnr.state.mn.us/greenprint/metro-green.html)

✺ Portland, Oregon Metro GreenspaceProgram — a regional conservationinitiative that protects and restores naturalareas and recreational open spacesthrough a partnership of state, regionaland local government agencies andnongovernmental community organiza-tions (www.metro-region.org/parks/parkfuture.html)

Local and Community Initiatives✺ Montgomery County, Maryland, Legacy

Open Space — a comprehensive openspace initiative that will target and protectexceptional resource lands over a 10 yearperiod (www.mc-mncppc.org/legacy/index.html).

✺ Palm Beach County, Florida, Linked OpenSpace Network — ConservationGreenways/Wildlife Corridors — acommunity open space and landconservation effort that incorporates asystem of conservation greenways,wildlife corridors, trails and otherconservation and recreational spaces thatbenefit both the environment and thecommunity (www.pbcgov.com/pzb/).

✺ Kinston/Lenoir County, North Carolina,Green Infrastructure Plan — a communitygreen infrastructure plan encompassingconservation and recreation objectives as

CASE STUDY

Metropolitan Greenspaces ProgramNatural Resource Conservation

in Urban Environments

PORTLAND, OREGON

In the late 1980’s, a group of representa-tives from the metropolitan regionalgovernment (Metro), non-profit organiza-tions, local governments and citizensformed to collaborate on greenspaceprotection in the region around Portland,Oregon and Vancouver, Washington. As aresult of their efforts, Federal funding wasallocated to establish a formal partnershipbetween the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serviceand Metro to initiate the MetropolitanGreenspaces Program. The program focuseson environmental education, habitatrestoration, public outreach and regionalplanning throughout the bi-state, four-county metropolitan area. This partnershipserves as one of only two nationaldemonstration programs involving the Fishand Wildlife Service as a partner in localnatural resource conservation efforts inurban environments.

Initially, the Metropolitan GreenspacesProgram supported natural area inventoriesand mapping to develop a strategicconservation plan for the Metropolitanregion. In 1995, voters approved a $135.6million bond measure to implement theplan by publicly acquiring an extensivenetwork of trails and greenspaces.Continued program funding of $300,000annually has supported three grantprograms and enabled the Fish andWildlife Service to participate in regionalplanning and policy development efforts.Under the auspices of the program, avariety of integrated regulatory and non-regulatory tools are being used to protectgreenspaces, water quality, floodplains, andfish and wildlife habitat.19

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○


CASE STUDY

Green Infrastructure PlanLinking Hazard Mitigation to CommunityConservation and Recreation Objectives

KINSTON/LENOIR COUNTY,NORTH CAROLINA

Developed by graduate students at theUniversity of North Carolina, the Kinston/Lenoir County Green Infrastructure Plan forthe Neuse River Floodplain seeks toidentify opportunities to maintain, restore,and provide new green infrastructure alongthe Neuse River floodplain and adjacentareas in Lenoir County and the city ofKinston. The area suffered considerabledamage from flooding caused byHurricanes Fran and Floyd. The localgovernments have used FederalEmergency Management Agency (FEMA)disaster relief funds to purchase manydamaged properties lying in the floodplain.

The plan uses green infrastructure planningprinciples and complements existingcommunity projects and goals such as theKinston-Lenoir County Parks and RecreationMaster Plan and the Greater Kinston UrbanArea Growth Plan. The components of theGreen Infrastructure Plan present ideas forhow the Neuse River and its floodplain canprovide Lenoir County and Kinston withadditional recreational and environmentalamenities. The governments can use theplan as a way to continue their floodmitigation work by turning vacant buyoutareas into a network of parks, trails andhabitats along the Neuse River and theAdkin Branch stream that connectsdowntown Kinston and others areas in thecommunity.20

well as hazard mitigation (http://www.greeninfrastructure.net/kinston-lenoir.htm).

Conservation Developments✺ Prairie Crossing, Liberty Prairie Preserve,

Gray’s Lake, Illinois – A conservationdevelopment that incorporates greeninfrastructure design principles and islinked to a local open space preserve thatconserves diverse ecological resources andprovides recreational trail opportunities(http://www.prairiecrossing.com/).

Other Examples✺ Other project examples as well as

additional information about greeninfrastructure concepts and approachescan be viewed at http://www.greeninfrastructure.net

Phot

o: C

oope

r/U

SFW

S

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○


Green Infrastructure VersusTraditional Conservation

Many people believe that greeninfrastructure represents the nextgeneration of conservation action

because it forges an important connectionbetween land conservation and land useplanning. Traditional land conservation andgreen infrastructure planning both focus onenvironmental restoration and preservation, butgreen infrastructure also concentrates on thepace, shape, and location of development andits relationship to important natural resourcesand amenities. Unlike more conventionalconservation approaches, green infrastructurestrategies actively seek to promote moreefficient and sustainable land use anddevelopment patterns, as well as protect naturalecosystems.

As described in the principles and strategiessection, green infrastructure differs fromtraditional conservation efforts in the followingways:✺ It focuses on the protection of connected

natural ecosystems as the framework forboth conservation and development.

✺ It recognizes that physical linkagebetween green space elements is key tosustaining natural ecosystems andlandscape processes.

✺ It emphasizes the importance of planningand protecting green infrastructure beforedevelopment.

✺ It recognizes the need to connect greenspace elements across multiplejurisdictions, scales and landscape types.

✺ It focuses on the creation of a greenspace vision that excites and engagespeople and guides implementation actions.

✺ It considers the needs of both nature andhumans — addressing both theenvironmental effects of proposeddevelopment and the economic well-beingof a community.

In doing all of these things, greeninfrastructure also helps provide a frameworkfor development, ensuring that developers,citizens and communities capture the costadvantages of location and create and protectcommunity amenities.

Phot

o: A

lexa

nder

/USD

A N

RCS


Conclusion

Every state and local government has a long-rangetransportation plan. Growing communities alsohave detailed plans for improving their airports,

sewage treatment plants, telecommunications facilitiesand other public infrastructure. Just as these communitiesneed to upgrade and expand their gray infrastructure, sotoo they need plans to upgrade and expand their greeninfrastructure.

Green infrastructure plans provide a blueprint forconservation in the same way that long-rangetransportation plans provide a blueprint for future roadsor transit lines. Green infrastructure plans can create aframework for future growth while also ensuring thatsignificant natural resources will be preserved for futuregenerations. Green infrastructure plans can even reduceopposition to new development by assuring civic groupsand environmental organizations that growth will occuronly within a framework of expanded conservation andopen space lands.

Savvy states and communities are starting to think about green space in a more thoughtful andsystematic way. They realize that green infrastructure is not a frill — it is smart conservation for thetwenty-first century.

Phot

o: H

ollin

gwor

th/U

SFW

S


References1. Edward T. McMahon, “Green Infrastructure,” Planning Commissioners Journal, Number 37, Winter 2000.

2. Charles E. Little, Greenways for America, The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London, 1989.

3. Charles E. Little, Greenways for America, The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London, 1989.

4. The President’s Council on Sustainable Development, Towards a Sustainable America — Advancing Prosperity,Opportunity, and a Healthy Environment for the 21st Century, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1999.

5. Benton MacKaye, The New Exploration — A Philosophy of Regional Planning, The Appalachian Trail Conference,Harpers Ferry, West Virginia and The University of Illinois Press, Urbana-Champaign, 1990.

6. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, National Resources Inventory,revised December 2000 (available at www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/NRI).

7. United States Census Bureau and Department of Health and Urban Development, American Housing Survey, 1997.

8. William Fulton, Rolf Pendall, Mai Nguyen and Alicia Harrison, Who Sprawls Most? How Growth Patterns DifferAcross the U.S., The Brookings Institution, Survey Series, July 2001 (available at www.brook.edu/es/urban/publications/fulton.pdf).

9. Fen Montaigne, “There Goes the Neighborhood,” Audubon, March-April 2000.

10. Chicago Wilderness, Summary of the Biodiversity Recovery Plan, 1999 (available at www.chiwild.org/summary.html).

11. American Farmland Trust, see www.keepamericagrowing.org/

12. William Fulton, Rolf Pendall, Mai Nguyen and Alicia Harrison, Who Sprawls Most? How Growth Patterns DifferAcross the U.S., The Brookings Institution, Survey Series, July 2001 (available at www.brook.edu/es/urban/publications/fulton.pdf).

13. For more information on the Florida and Maryland projects:T.S. Hoctor, M.H. Carr, and P.D. Zwick, 2000. “Identifying a Linked Reserve System Using a Regional LandscapeApproach: The Florida Ecological Network.” Conservation Biology 14:4:984-1000.T. Weber, and J. Wolf, 2000. “Maryland’s Green Infrastructure — Using Landscape Assessment Tools to Identify aRegional Conservation Strategy.” Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 63:265-277.

14. www.geoplan.ufl.edu/epa/index.html

15. Mark Greene, “Topeka, Kansas: Getting Greener Gets the Job Done,” Inside Agroforestry, the USDA NationalAgroforestry Center Newsletter, Summer 2001.

16. John L. Behan, Planning and Financing Open Space Resource Protection — Pittsford’s Greenprint Initiative, AmericanInstitute of Certified Planners, Planners’ Casebook, Spring/Summer 1999.

17. The Florida Greenways Commission, Creating a Statewide Greenways System: For People...for Wildlife...forFlorida, Report to the Governor, January 1995.

18. For more information on the Southeastern Framework:B. Richard Durbrow, Neil B. Burns, John R. Richardson, and Cory W. Berish, 2001. “Southeastern EcologicalFramework: A Planning Tool for Managing Ecosystem Integrity,” Proceedings of the 2001 Georgia Water ResourcesConference, J. Hatcher, editor, Institute of Ecology, The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.

19. http://oregonfwo.fws.gov/greenspaces/gs-program.htm

20. www.greeninfrastructure.net/kinston-lenoir.htm


Sprawl Watch Clearinghouse1400 16th St. NW Suite 225

Washington, D.C. 20036202-332-7000

www.sprawlwatch.org

Green Infrastructure

Documents