54 Elmendorf and Luloff: Attitudes of Key Informants About Open Space Conservation Using Key Informant Interviews to Better Understand Open Space Conservation in a Developing Watershed William F. Elmendorf and A.E. Luloff Abstract. Open space provides people and the places where they live with numerous, well-documented benefits, very similar to those of trees and other landscaping. Often lost in the complicated development and growth arena, planning for the conservation of the green infrastructure of open space is important for healthy communities. The process of open space conservation provides arborists and urban foresters with opportunities to involve the community in planning and activism. Conserved open space provides arborists and urban foresters with maintenance and management opportunities and respon- sibilities. Although expensive and time-consuming, key informant interviews helped provide a logical process for a deeper understanding of open space conservation in a developing Pennsylvania watershed. This qualitative process can be used by urban foresters and others in more inclusive and successful planning and decision making. As an investigative tool, the interviews provided information about attitudes, issues, and obstacles expressed by local leaders. The interviews also provided evidence that concerns expressed by experienced planners since the 1960s about land use planning and open space conservation in growing areas continue to be relevant today. Key Words. Growth and development; key informant; land use planning; open space benefits; open space conservation. Key informant interviews are designed to provide in-depth information from people, usually those identified as knowl- edgeable about a particular subject. Because these interviews are conducted in a face-to-face setting, they tend not to ter- minate early and tend to allow participant contemplation, which provides for more complete thought and answers to open-ended questions (McCracken 1988; Bailey 1994; Rubins and Rubins 1995; Luloff 1999). Although random interviews can be conducted for some studies, informants are traditionally identified on the basis of their organization and community positions, knowledge of the issues under study, and reputation (Bailey 1994). Some authors have criticized key informant interviews and other qualitative techniques such as focus groups as being statisti- cally insufficient, biased, and not generalizable to larger groups of people and places (Luloff 1999). This criticism misses an important point in using qualitative methods such as key informant interviews. Interviews are completed to gather in-depth information about a particular topic from people who have similarities and knowledge about a place and the issues involved in that place. Information drawn from interviews provides a source of rich, varied, and textured data presented in local persons’ words and expressions (Creswell 1998). When aggregated, the data provide a logical basis for the development of more practical, locally oriented, and de- tailed plans and actions for issues of central interest. Al- though place-based, informants can also identify attitudes and issues in the locale under study that have been recognized in other places. Thus, better and more efficient problem solving ©2006 International Society of Arboriculture may be facilitated from both a horizontal scale of the locale and a vertical scale of outside places with similar circum- stances (Wilkinson 1991). As a participatory tool, key infor- mant interviews not only can help researchers gather local- ized, culturally appropriate information but can also help build local collaborative support for further research and planning efforts and for change processes when local infor- mation is considered and implemented (Brody et al. 2003). In 1977, the Centre County, Pennsylvania, U.S., compre- hensive plan first expressed concerns about the effectiveness of local efforts in land use planning to conserve open space in the Spring Creek Watershed (Centre County Planning Com- mission 1977). These concerns were amplified in the findings of a 1998 International Countryside Stewardship Exchange (Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay 1997). Further, they iden- tified parallel issues and problems discussed in the Report of the Pennsylvania 21st Century Environmental Commission (State of Pennsylvania 1998) and by Marion (1960), Clawson (1962), McHarg (1969), Levine (1980), and McMahon (2000). These concerns, expressed continuously by land use planners since the 1960s, include issues such as poor envi- ronmental information about the nature and location of im- portant open space; open space not being considered as an element in municipal comprehensive plans; inadequate zon- ing and subdivision ordinances (e.g., not allowing for clus- tered density or mandating natural resource inventories in subdivision applications); lack of multimunicipal and multi- organizational cooperation in open space planning and acqui- sition; lack of an organized public interest group; lack of
March 2006
| Title Name |
Pages |
Delete |
Url |
| Empty |
Search Text Block
Page #page_num
#doc_title
Hi $receivername|$receiveremail,
$sendername|$senderemail wrote these comments for you:
$message
$sendername|$senderemail would like for you to view the following digital edition.
Please click on the page below to be directed to the digital edition:
$thumbnail$pagenum
$link$pagenum
Your form submission was a success. You will be contacted by Washington Gas with follow-up information regarding your request.
This process might take longer please wait
