Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 32(2): March 2006 57 pant said, “I guess open space means areas that are protected from development, kept natural, and placed strategically throughout a community.” Benefits of Open Space Communities have, and will continue, to look toward the green infrastructure of open space for an increasing number of benefits, all important in the development of community (Dwyer et al. 1991, 1992; Nowak et al. 2001), including mental and physical health (Ulrich 1988; Wolf 1998); eco- logical benefits, including energy conservation (Dwyer et al. 2000) and habitat, biodiversity, and water quality (Center for the Study of Law and Politics 1991; McPherson et al. 1994); education, family, and youth benefits, including passive rec- reation and nonsegregated places in terms of age or skill level (Wolf 1998; Nowak et al. 2001); community development benefits, including a healthy physical environment and the comfort of shared and structured symbols (Appleyard 1979; Wilkinson 1991); and economic benefits, including increased property values and governmental tax roles and, with conser- vation compared to intensive development, decreased costs of municipal services such as public safety and new schools and teachers (Fausold and Lilieholm 1996; Kelsey 1997, 1998). In the interviews, topics the key informants said nothing or very little about were often as important as what they talked a great deal about. Aesthetics, recreation, and ecological ben- efits were the open space benefits most discussed in the in- terviews. There were no direct comments on the human heath benefits of open space, such as stress reduction, and only 3% of the community leaders interviewed commented about the economic benefits of open space conservation, such as in- creased property values and property taxes. This finding is consistent with other research on the understanding of ben- efits from parks and open space. In a nationwide study of the benefits of local parks, Godbey et al. (1992) discovered that economic benefits were mentioned less than any other type, with less than 2% of respondents citing them. Lack of un- derstanding about health and economic benefits could have a direct relation to a smaller degree of concern for open space planning and acquisition, especially in growing places with multiple issues and priorities and limited planning and fund- ing resources. Planning Tools The results of these key informant interviews told an inter- esting but complicated story. As with open space benefits, there was a general lack of knowledge about tools that can be used for conserving open space. Although these municipal leaders expressed concern about the effectiveness of land use planning in conserving open space (74% were not satisfied with open space conservation and only 6% described land use planning as good), there were few comments about the use of nonregulatory tools (e.g., comprehensive plans, public edu- cation and participation, bond issues) and regulatory tools (e.g., zoning and subdivision ordinances, official maps, growth boundaries, transfer of development rights). To con- serve open space in fast-growing rural areas, leaders should be aware of and consider these types of planning tools (City of Davis 1996; City of Thousand Oaks 1996). Associated with questions about planning and regulation, informants dis- cussed concern for the protection of private property rights. In contrast, there was a small level of support among leaders for more stringent zoning, subdivision, and land development ordinances to conserve open space. Thirty-two percent of interviewees thought that private property right issues created barriers to open space conservation, whereas 17% thought that zoning and other ordinances were inadequate. Barriers to Conservation The fragmented nature of planning efforts, municipal au- tonomy in planning and regulation, and lack of cooperation between municipalities were repeatedly identified as prob- lems with both land use planning and open space conserva- tion. Eighty-five percent of the interviewees responded that lack of cooperation of the 14 watershed municipalities was the largest barrier to open space conservation. The inter- viewees identified serious concerns about whether multimu- nicipal cooperation would ever happen. Reasons discussed for poor municipal cooperation included historical conflicts and grudges (55%), fear of losing power or authority (38%), the historic power and autonomy provided to Pennsylvania municipalities by the state’s enabling legislation for land use planning and regulation (26%), elected officials’ obligation to represent their electorate (21%), and lack of an entity to bring municipalities together (14%). It became clear that infor- mants thought that municipalities experiencing many of the same growth pressures were not planning and working to- gether. As one leader said, “Municipalities don’t know how to work together. Instead of just thinking about your own township or borough you need to start thinking of yourselves as part of the whole Centre area.” Another participant said, “We can’t be members of such a flat society here. Once I walk past a municipal boundary I don’t fall off the edge of the world.” The inability of Spring Creek Watershed municipalities to plan and work together to conserve open space resulted in lost conservation opportunities through land conversion and in- creasing land prices in an accelerated and competitive land development market. These types of problems are discussed today (Benedict 2000; McMahon 2000) and were discussed decades ago by Clawson (1962) and Levine (1980). Like many problems facing open space conservation, they are not new. It seems very likely that these municipalities working alone did not have the planning, funding (e.g., tax revenue), or administrative capacity to allow for meaningful open space conservation in a high-priced and competitive real-estate ©2006 International Society of Arboriculture
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
