Development of an In-Depth Green Infrastructure Planning Evaluation Framework

CHAPTER 3: HYPOTHESES, APPROACH and METHODS

II. Development of an In-Depth Green Infrastructure Planning Evaluation Framework

case counties

IV. Follow-up Interviews with county planners and decision-makers V. Quantitative assessment of green infrastructure networks

This section details methods and methodology for all five sections, briefly identifies and describes the nine selected cases, and introduces a green infrastructure planning

evaluation framework and interview protocol used in later chapters.

I. Case Selection, Based upon a Preliminary Scan of Counties in Colorado, Florida, and Maryland

Due to the quasi-experimental design of this research, results hinge upon the comparability of nine case studies. Case selection is particularly imperative since comparing cases with similar contexts, but differing levels of green infrastructure planning (High, Moderate, Non), best identifies the effects of the GI strategy. Cases were selected through a three-step process:

1) Identification of counties in Colorado, Florida, and Maryland that gained population between 2000 and 2010 and had a 2000 population of between 100,000 and 1,000,000. 2) Review of county policies and documents to identify the level of green infrastructure planning employed by candidate counties and categorize counties as ‘high-level’ ‘moderate-level’ or ‘non-’ green infrastructure planning.

3) Use of information from steps one and two, as well as additional data on the maturity of green space planning efforts and state/federal land ownership, to select one county at each level of green infrastructure planning in Colorado, Florida, and Maryland.

Population and Growth Characteristics

Populous and growing counties are more able, and inclined, to conduct large-scale, comprehensive planning efforts. This first step toward case selection narrows the field from all counties in Colorado, Florida, and Maryland to a subset with ten-year population increases and 2000 populations between 100,000 and 1 million. Limits are set in

recognition of the resource-intensive nature of green infrastructure planning and need for comparability. They restrict cases to counties with similar planning capabilities and, more practically, those that are likely to have information and documentation readily available. The cutoff date for population estimates is 2000 and growth estimates is 2000 – 2010 as the research emphasizes planning efforts from that time and interval.

In 2000, Maryland and Colorado each had 10 counties with populations between 100,000 and 1 million while Florida had 33. Since 2000, all of the 53 counties except for Pinellas County, Florida gained population (U.S. Census).

Review of Policies to Identify Level of Green Infrastructure Planning

A major strategy of this study is to compare counties with different levels of green infrastructure planning. The second step in case-selection therefore was to identify those levels through a scan of green infrastructure-supporting practices in the 52 remaining candidate counties. Counties that employ few GIP strategies, or operate within a

completely different conservation framework, were identified as non-green infrastructure planning while those moderately and highly involved in green infrastructure planning

were identified as such. At that point, the characterization was based upon the extent of county-level green infrastructure planning in each state, individually. For example, a ‘High’ in Florida could be a ‘Moderate’ in Maryland.

This study employs a broad interpretation of green infrastructure planning (GIP). Plans, policies, and programs oriented toward any type of green infrastructure – parks, trails, natural areas, farms, forestlands, wetlands, stream buffers, etc - are part of a GIP strategy. The flexibility is necessary for two reasons. First, green infrastructure planning is only the latest in a line of characterizations of green space, open space, and conservation planning. County governments have long instituted programs and policies supporting green spaces and ecosystem services, without using the term ‘green infrastructure planning.’ Some may choose not to use the term, preferring to stick with traditional green space and conservation planning terminology. Second, this research emphasizes plans and programs that began around the turn of the century, when the term ‘green infrastructure planning’ was not widely used. While this study is oriented toward discovering the role of GIP, it does not hinge upon the use of that term specifically. Key data sources in this initial scan were comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations, capital improvement programs, greenspace/open space plans and programs, county websites and meeting documents, and secondary literature by NGOs and state government. As the objective is to judge the impact of green infrastructure planning over time, the study focused on plans and policies instituted around 2000. Additionally, while the emphasis is county planning agencies, overlap with work by open space departments, parks & recreation departments, environment departments, and even public works, warrants a broad view of ‘planning’. In the scan, policies or programs under any county department were considered toward the green infrastructure planning level of that county.

Following background research on the 52 counties identified in step one, a single evaluator rated each on its consideration of each of 12 categories that relate to the major principles that define green infrastructure planning (Figure 3-2). Counties were rated on a 1 to 4 scale, where:

1: None or no mention.

2: Some role or consideration, but few requirements, mandates, or mechanisms for support

3: Significant role or consideration, but few requirements, mandates, or mechanisms for support.

4: Significant role or consideration, with clear requirements, mandates, and mechanisms for support.

Figure 3-2. Green infrastructure (GI) principles and categories used to assess county-level green infrastructure planning.

GI Principle 1: Ecosystem Services. Focus on preserving, supporting, and enhancing ecosystem services.

Categories

a) Public Participation in Planning (of green infrastructure) b) Sustainability of Funding

c) Role of green infrastructure in CIP

d) Role of green infrastructure in Zoning Ordinance e) Role of green infrastructure in Subdivision Regulations f) Role of green infrastructure in Comprehensive/Master Plan

The 12 ratings were added to yield a GIP score for each county. The GIP scores were compared to other counties within their state and assessed to be High, Moderate, or Non. Generally, counties with scores in the 20s were designated Non-GIP, those in the low- or mid-30s as Moderate GIP, and those in the upper-30s or 40s as High GIP.

Case Selection

In the final step of case selection, data from the previous assessment was used to identify one county with each level of GIP in each state. In Maryland and Colorado selection was straightforward; there were only ten counties from which to choose, and most were in the Baltimore or Denver metro area. In both states, the highest and lowest scoring counties were clear, and good candidates for the study. Both states had several promising

candidate counties at the moderate-level, but they were easily pared down by consulting expert-practitioners in the two states.

Case selection of Floridian counties presented more of a challenge, as the state has more counties from which to choose and a coastal/inland dichotomy. Since counties along the coast have a strong incentive to preserve and retain green infrastructure, and regulations that require that they plan to do so, a mixed coastal/inland selection could interfere with the results. Additionally, green infrastructure planning is relatively homogenous in

Florida, with the vast majority of counties in the state receiving scores in the low- to mid- 30s.

Case-Selection Results Colorado

The three selected counties, Boulder, Arapahoe, and Adams are adjacent Front Range counties, and although their growth rates and populations differ slightly, their population densities are similar. The greatest challenge in selecting among Colorado counties is their size disparity with some boasting upwards of 4,000mi2

or more. Boulder, Arapahoe and Adams are comparable, and similar to other counties in this study, with 724 mi2

, 803 mi2

, and 1,191 mi2

respectively (See Table 3-1).

Table 3-1. Attributes of selected counties in Colorado.

Boulder Arapahoe Adams

2010 Population 294,000 585,000 441,000

Growth since 2000 8.4 17.2 21.4

Ecosystem Services: Provisions for…

Connectivity of GI 3 3 2 Management of GI 4 3 1 Ecological Quality/Value 2 3 2 Variety of Services 3 3 3 Restoration/Mitigation 2 2 1 Cross-jurisdictional Cooperation in Planning 4 3 3 Infrastructure:

Public Participation in Planning of GI 3 3 2

Sustainability of Funding 4 4 4

Role of GI in CIP 3 2 2

Role of GI in Zoning Ordinance 2 2 2

Role of GI in Subdivision Regulations 2 2 2

Role of GI in Comprehensive/Master

Plan 3 3 3

Total Score 35 33 27

Level of GI Planning HIGH MOD NON

Florida

All three of the selected counties, Leon, Alachua, and Marion, are inland. Major cities are highly influential; Leon County plans along with the capital city of Tallahassee (pop. 180,000), which is the main urban area within the county. Alachua County contains Gainesville (pop. 124,000) and Marion surrounds Ocala (pop. 54,000). Marion, with

1,579 mi2

within its jurisdiction, is larger than Leon (667 mi2

) and Alachua (874 mi2

), but 672mi2_{of that area is Ocala National Forest. The county planning area is closer to 900}

mi2

(See Table 3-2).

Table 3-2. Attributes of selected counties in Florida.

Leon Alachua Marion

2010 Population 275,000 247,000 331,000

Growth since 2000 15 13.5 28

Ecosystem Services: Provisions for…

Connectivity of GI 4 3 3 Management of GI 3 3 3 Ecological Quality/Value 4 4 2 Variety of Services 4 3 3 Restoration/Mitigation 3 3 2 Cross-jurisdictional Cooperation in Planning 3 3 3 Infrastructure:

Public Participation in Planning of GI 3 3 2

Sustainability of Funding 3 4 2

Role of GI in CIP 3 3 2

Role of GI in Zoning Ordinance 4 3 3

Role of GI in Subdivision Regulations 3 3 3

Role of GI in Comprehensive/Master Plan 4 2 2

Total Score 41 37 30

Level of GI Planning HIGH MOD NON

Maryland

Because of the small number of counties in Maryland, and wide variation in population and growth rates, selecting comparable counties was a challenge. Baltimore, Anne Arundel, and Charles represent the clearest three-county set. The three form an urban- rural transect, with Baltimore County the most urban, Anne Arundel more suburban, and Charles on the rural-suburban fringe (See Table 3-4).

Table 3-3. Attributes of selected counties in Maryland. Baltimore Anne Arundel Charles 2010 Population 805,000 538,000 147,000 Growth since 2000 6.7 9.8 18.0

Ecosystem Services: Provisions for…

Connectivity of GI 3 3 1 Management of GI 2 2 2 Ecological Quality/Value 3 4 2 Variety of Services 3 2 2 Restoration/Mitigation 1 2 2 Cross-jurisdictional Cooperation in Planning 2 2 2 Infrastructure:

Public Participation in Planning of GI 2 2 2

Sustainability of Funding 3 2 2

Role of GI in CIP 3 2 2

Role of GI in Zoning Ordinance 4 3 2

Role of GI in Subdivision Regulations 4 3 2

Role of GI in Comprehensive/Master

Plan 4 4 2

Total Score 34 31 23

Level of GI Planning HIGH MOD NON

II. Development of an In-Depth Green Infrastructure Planning Evaluation Framework

A general scan is useful for case selection, but a more rigorous evaluation is needed to fully address the research questions. This study develops an assessment template, called the Green Infrastructure Planning Evaluation Framework (the Framework), through a two-step process: 1) review of evaluation literature to inform Framework structure, and 2) review of modern green infrastructure plans to provide the Framework structure with information and policy content.

Creating the Framework Structure

The backbone of long-range planning in most counties is the comprehensive plan, which is supported and implemented by zoning ordinances, subdivision and land development regulations, the capital improvement program, and other plans, programs and policies. For green infrastructure planning, common supplemental and complementary plans and programs include greenway plans, open space plans, land preservation programs, and forest and sensitive area regulations. An evaluation framework must show how well

plans and policies described in these documents support the main principles of green infrastructure planning.

Most frameworks for understanding and assessing local planning efforts are rooted in plan evaluation literature. Plan evaluation schemes developed since the mid-1990s use content analysis and normative understandings of the planning process to assess the quality of comprehensive plans (Berke and French 1994; Baer 1998; Berke and Manta Conroy 2000; Brody 2003; Norton 2007; Berke and Godschalk 2009). The majority of studies use some form of the comprehensive plan evaluation framework detailed in Berke and Godschalk’s meta-analysis (2008), which divides plan attributes into internal

characteristics (goals, fact base, policies/actions, and implementation & monitoring) and external characteristics (inter-organizational coordination and public participation). But a second key distinction is between a plan’s content (i.e. policy emphasis) and its quality, (i.e. the manner in which those policies are conveyed) (Norton 2007). The separation is particularly important for this study where the objective is not to assess the quality of individual plans, but to document the degree to which policies emphasize green infrastructure planning principles.

Several studies examine the degree to which the defining characteristics of certain programs or initiatives are integrated into planning documents and programs. The work derives from plan evaluation literature and tends to focus on local plans, with some coverage of zoning ordinances. Berke and Manta Conroy (2000) examine the degree to which sustainable development principles are integrated into comprehensive plans. They identify six major sustainable development principles, ranging from ‘harmony with nature’ to ‘responsible regionalism’ and a list of development management techniques which – if implemented – would promote each principle. Development management technique categories include Land Use Regulation (e.g. density, subdivision), Property Acquisition (e.g. TDR, PDR), Capital Facilities (e.g. concurrency, growth/service boundaries), and Financial Incentives (e.g. impact fees, bonus zoning), among others. Edwards and Haines (2007) use a similar method to assess the extent to which

comprehensive plans promote Smart Growth. They identify six Smart Growth goals and a set of accompanying policies for each. For example, included under the goal ‘Preserve Open Space, Farmland, and Critical Environmental Areas’ are policies such as ‘require open space dedication,’ ‘conservation subdivision design/cluster development,’ and ‘direct development to already disturbed areas.’ Both studies examine local plans for the degree to which they include the techniques/policies identified as implementing the principles in question, a strategy referred to here as the ’principle-policy framework.’ Most assessment structures emphasize plans, but test for a variety of policies and techniques which are outlined more clearly in other documents (i.e. zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations, and capital improvements programs). Additionally, while labeled ‘comprehensive,’ the plans cannot include everything. Limiting review to plans restricts analysis to the policy statements and explanations contained in one document, which may be aspirational, oriented toward appeasing state planning bodies, or simply have little impact on local action. Reviewing zoning ordinances, subdivision and land

development regulations, capital improvement programs, land preservation and management programs, and other local strategies gives a fuller picture of the various policies that counties support green infrastructure principles. It also contributes to a more robustly populated principle-policy assessment framework.

One of the main research questions in this study is ‘how do county planning agencies carry out green infrastructure planning?’ To answer the question, it is important to know the policies that, if implemented, would support green infrastructure planning principles. Additionally, evaluation literature supports a principle-policy framework that assesses the degree to which a plan supports a specific planning principle by the number of related policies it includes. So evaluation of green infrastructure planning in case counties should include a list of specific policies, tools, and strategies that support each green infrastructure planning principle.

Expanding the ecosystem services principle of green infrastructure planning (used in the preliminary scan, See Table 3-1) into planning objectives provides the following

framework structure:

1. Create linkages and foster connectivity

2. Value areas of ecological quality and local importance 3. Support a variety of landscapes and ecosystem services 4. Restore and mitigate damage to green infrastructure 5. Manage green infrastructure to support ecosystem services

6. Enact land use planning strategies to protect and retain all scales of green infrastructure 7. Protect and support green infrastructure through a collaborative and cooperative

process

Making the Framework Robust: Implementation of GI Planning Principles

The concluding step in completing a principle-policy Framework for green infrastructure planning is to populate the Framework structure with policies that show implementation of the green infrastructure planning principles. Many local and regional governments have created green infrastructure plans in recent years. A review of a selection of those plans underscores the information, strategies, and policies generally associated with green infrastructure planning. Green infrastructure plans reviewed as part of this process

include:

Metro Kansas City (2002)

Prince George’s County, Maryland (2005) Saratoga County, Florida (2006)

Cecil County, Maryland (2006) Presque Isle County, Michigan (2007) Angelina County, Texas (2008) Nashville, Tennessee (2011)

Town of Cheverly, Maryland (2011) Northwest Florida (2011)

Douglas County, Colorado (2012 – April Draft)

Notably, the list includes plans from all three case states, which ensures that the green infrastructure policies against which counties are evaluated are applicable to their region and governance structure. Green infrastructure plans for case counties were not included, even when they were created outside of the study period. The information, strategies, and policies were identified for each plan, with more taken from highly specific plans (ex. Prince George’s County, MD and Saratoga County, Fl) and fewer from general or limited plans (ex. Northwest Florida and Angelina County, TX). Most strategies and policies were mentioned in more than one plan. Those that were overly complex or area-specific were removed from consideration. The final Framework includes between 9 and 17 strategies/policies for each of the seven green infrastructure planning principles, for a total of 88 policies and strategies (see Appendix 3-A).

III. Application of green infrastructure planning evaluation framework to selected

In document Is it Good to be Green?: An Assessment of County Green Infrastructure Planning in Colorado, Florida, and Maryland (Page 43-52)