|UFDC Home||myUFDC Home | Help|
This item has the following downloads:
1 POLICY MECHANISMS TO ENHANCE LO NG-TERM MANAGEMENT OF OPEN SPACE WITHIN CONSERVATION SUBDIVISIONS By DARA M. WALD A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008
2 2008 Dara M. Wald
3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank the ch air and mem bers of my supervisory committee, Dr. Mark Hostetler, Dr. Susan Jacobson, and Dr. Pierce J ones for their mentoring, time and patience, the participants in my surveys for their time and i nvaluable insight, and the Program for Resource Efficient Communities for its support. I thank my parents for their encouragement, and advice. Finally, I thank Nadav for everything.
4 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................... 3 LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................6 ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... ...............7 CHAP TER 1 CRITICAL STAKEHOLDER VI EWS OF THE MANAGEMENT OF OPEN SPACE ........9 Introduction .................................................................................................................. .............9 Conservation and Growth .......................................................................................................10 Sprawl and Alternatives to Sprawl ......................................................................................... 11 Benefits of Conservation Subdivision Design ........................................................................11 Management is Key to CSD Success ......................................................................................13 Stakeholders .................................................................................................................. ..........15 Study Objectives .....................................................................................................................17 Methods ..................................................................................................................................18 Procedure ..................................................................................................................... ....18 Data Analysis ...................................................................................................................20 Results .....................................................................................................................................23 Timing for Management .................................................................................................. 23 Management Issues and Practices ................................................................................... 24 Policy about Management ...............................................................................................26 Barriers and Tools for Management ................................................................................ 29 Discussion .................................................................................................................... ...........31 Timing for Management .................................................................................................. 32 Management Issues and Practices ................................................................................... 32 Policy about Management ...............................................................................................34 Barriers and Tools for Management ................................................................................ 36 Study Limitations ............................................................................................................ 39 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................40 2 A LOOK AT FLORIDAS LAND US E RE GULATIONS AND THE PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT OF OPEN SPACE ........................................................................... 45 Introduction .................................................................................................................. ...........45 Growth Management in Florida .............................................................................................. 46 Role of Local Governments ....................................................................................................47 Policies that Address Open Space and Management .............................................................. 48 Content Analysis and Previous Research ...............................................................................50 Study Objective ......................................................................................................................52 Method ........................................................................................................................ ............52
5 County Selection .............................................................................................................52 Content Analysis and Ranking Procedure .......................................................................53 Analyses of Individual Questions .................................................................................... 57 Coding Reliability ...........................................................................................................59 Results .....................................................................................................................................60 Internal Reliability ...........................................................................................................60 County Open Space Index and Management Scores ....................................................... 60 Individual Questions ........................................................................................................ 60 Open space protection .............................................................................................. 60 Long-term management of open space .................................................................... 61 Open-ended Questions ..................................................................................................... 62 Discussion .................................................................................................................... ...........63 Open Space Designation ..................................................................................................64 Management of Open Space ............................................................................................66 Open Ended Questions ....................................................................................................67 Study Limitations ............................................................................................................ 68 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................69 Future Research ......................................................................................................................69 APPENDIX A QUESTIONS FOR SURVEY PARTICIPANTS ...................................................................81 B CODING SHEET ...................................................................................................................83 C CONTENT ANALYSIS PROT OCOL ................................................................................... 87 D CONTENT ANALYSIS QUESTIONS .................................................................................. 94 LIST OF REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................98 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................105
6 LIST OF TABLES Table page 1-1 Management issues and practices: percen t of the Florida developer and policy m aker group who mentioned a theme determined through survey text analyses ......................... 41 1-2 Policy about management: percent of the Florida developer and policy m aker group who mentioned a particular theme determ ined through survey text analyses ................... 42 1-3 First mention of a given theme by Florida developer and policy maker groups ............... 43 1-4 Barriers and tools for management: per cent of the developer and policy m aker group who mentioned a theme determined through survey text analyses .................................... 43 1-5 First mention of a given theme by Florida developer and policy maker groups ............... 44 2-1 The number of Florida counties that answ ered yes to a given question. Y es and no responses were based on content anal yses of their LDRs and zoning codes (percentage in brackets) ..................................................................................................... 71 2-2 Scores for each category (open space a nd m anagement) as well as the total policy score for each county from highest to lowest ....................................................................72 2-3 Responses to open-ended questions for al l of the Florida coun ties studied. Counties received an x if the regulations m et the specific theme listed. ........................................ 74 2-4 The definition of open space as seen in land development regulations and zoning by county ........................................................................................................................ .........77
7 Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science POLICY MECHANISMS TO ENHANCE TH E LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT OF OPEN SPACE WITHIN CONSERVA TION SUBDIVISIONS By Dara M. Wald December 2008 Chair: Mark Hostetler Cochair: Susan Jacobson Major: Wildlife Ecology and Conservation Floridas rapid population growth has prom pted communities and governments to adopt policies encouraging sustainable development practices, including the protection of open space and natural areas both near a nd within developments. County land codes focus primarily on how much open space to conserve within a commun ity, often failing to address the long-term management of open space. Neglecting management can result in degraded habitat over time, effectively reducing the conservation value of the natural area. The objectives of this study were 1) to investigate the perceptions of developers and policy makers about management and identify policy mechanisms that encourage effective open space management, and 2) to analyze the strength of current Florida policies regarding open sp ace and the degree with which they address management. In-depth stake holder interviews were conducted with 46 respondents selected based on snowball sampling techniques. Participants answered 23 open-ended questions on the timing for management activities, current manage ment issues, practices and policies across the state as well as the barriers to implementing management. Within the framework of the openended questions participants from the develope r and policy maker groups cited similar themes. In addition a number of trends appeared which were consistent with the findings of previous
8 studies and in line with my exp ectations that there are differen ces in how members of these two groups view the barriers to management and th e tools and policies which should be used to address management issues. A content analysis of land development c odes and regulations in 57 counties examined variables such as requirements for open space, percent open space, and management plans, and the strength of the management commitment base d on a number of criteria, including financial plan, protection during constructi on, and designated responsible part y. My results suggest that the majority of the existing Florida county land codes provide incentives for creating and protecting open space but fail to address the imp act of human areas on the natural area, or the management of open space after construction.
9 CHAPTER 1 CRITICAL STAKEHOLDER VI EWS OF THE MANAGEMENT OF OPEN SPACE Introduction This chapter presents the results of a series of interviews with deve lopers, lawyers, urban planners, policy makers and academics throughout the state of Florida. This study focuses on development in the state of Florida, where a rapidly increasing human population -over the next 25 years, 12 million new residents will move in to the state (USCB 2005) -brings with it increased demand for energy, water and ne w homes (Audubon 2005). Understanding the attitudes of key stakeholders can inform future growth management efforts. The interviews explore critical stakeholder attitudes and perspectives on planning, designing and building developments which protect large areas of natura l habitat and the steps, tools and barriers to managing the preserved open areas. The purpose of this project is not to analyze the problems that are associated with any particular appr oach to open space development. Instead, the objective of this research is to describe stak eholders attitudes and be liefs about appropriate management techniques for open space, barr iers to management, and the importance of management. In particular, this research comp ares the views of policy makers (specifically, urban planners, public officials and academic experts) and developers because of their roles as key stakeholders in the development and implem entation of land use policy throughout the state of Florida. Before reviewing the results of a systematic opinion survey of these stakeholders groups, I will first review the history of sprawl and the a lternatives to sprawl, benefits associated with conservation subdivision design and examples of the application of this technique within the state of Florida. Next, I highlight examples of critical maintenance activities and the importance of long-term management efforts in maintaining th e conservation value of the protected habitat.
10 Finally, I introduce the role of homeowners, county regulators and devel opers in protecting and maintaining open space areas. Conservation and Growth Land in the US is being developed three tim es faster than households are being created (Burchell 1998). Many of the ar eas under development or slated for future development include agricultural land, forests and environmentally sensitive areas (Walter 1993). As undeveloped land becomes scarcer, the pressure to conserve and pr otect environmentally sensitive areas and natural resources in creases (Burchell 1998) Several communities have adopted practices that conserve large areas of wilderness and limit or prevent sprawling develo pment patterns (Kraft 2001). One such practice is the development of conservation subdivi sions. Conservation subdivision design (CSD) is a form of clustere d development that groups homes on small areas of the parcel and sets aside the remaining land as undivided open space, including natural habitat such as wetlands, forest, and scrub that rema in free from development (Austin 2003; Wenger and Fowler 2002; Arendt 1996; Lenth et al. 2006; Milder et al. 2007; Lacy 19 90; Gilroy 2002). CSD differs from traditional development in that the latter generally includes the division of all useable land into roads and lots with limite d natural areas, protecting only required areas such as stormwater retention basins (Reichart and Liang 2007). Open space within traditional development typically includes required areas such as wetlands or slopes, planted patches of lawn or recreational areas such as golf courses, pools, and ball fields (A rendt 1999). In contrast to conventional design with clustered development, a large percentage of the total land area remains as open space (typically from 20 60%) (A ustin 2003; Reichart and Liang 2007). Open space in these developments can include natural hab itats such as forests, fields, and wetlands as well as areas used for passive recreational activit ies such as biking and walking trails (Arendt 1999).
11 Sprawl and Alternatives to Sprawl Suburban sprawl or conventional suburban de velopm ent began to dominate the American landscape after WWII replacing more compact, pe destrian-friendly traditional neighborhoods (Steuteville 2004; Handy 2002; Lacy 1990). Spra wling development patterns consume more land than is needed to accommodate the populat ion and result in a pattern of haphazardly arranged, unplanned, car-dependent communities (W alter et al. 1993; Burchell and Shad 1998). Florida is by no means immune to sprawl or it s impacts. In the ten-year period between 1974 and 1984, there was a 38% increase in the population of the state while developed land increased by 80% (Arendt 1999). Throughout the United Stat es, conventional development patterns are replacing existing agricultural la nd, forests and environmentally sensitive areas at a rate three times faster than households are created (Burchell and Shad 1998) Direct results of sprawl include increased pollution and congestion, the loss of farmland and open space and the destruction of rare habitats (Walter et al. 1993; Austin 2003; Zeman 2003). Across the United States, cities and countie s are adopting new practices, policies and solutions that minimize sprawl by emphasi zing resource conservation and low impact development techniques as an al ternative to conventi onal suburban development (Kollin 2005). Benefits of Conservatio n Subdivision Design There are a num ber of benefits associated with clustered development, including social, financial, and environmental benefits. CSD can lead to diminished de velopment costs in land preparation and infrastructure (streets and gutters) (Gilr oy 2002; Wenger and Fowler 2002; Arendt 1996; Lacy 1990; Reichart and Li ang 2007; Mohammed 2006). Many homebuyers express interest in living in communities with open space (Noiseux and Hostetler 2008). Empirical studies show that homebuyers are wi lling to pay a higher price for a lot with an attractive setting (faci ng open space, water body or forest) th an a similar size house without the
12 view (Lacy 1990; Arendt 1996; Luttik, 2000; Aus tin 2003; Lichtenberg et al 2007; Wenger and Fowler 2002). As a result, developers are able to reduce building costs, and sell homes in conservation subdivisions more quickly and at a higher price than a comparable home in a traditional development (Gilroy 2006; Mohamed 2006). If designed properly, conserva tion subdivisions can reduce the negative affects of traditional residential development on local natura l resources (Austin 2003; Milder et al. 2007). Open space that connects to existing private or pu blic natural areas has the potential to enhance regional connectivity and wildlif e habitat (Wenger and Fowler 2002; Austin 2003; Lichtenberg et al. 2007; Lenth et al. 2006; Re ichert and Liang 2007). Conservation developments can have significant conservation value by pr otecting critical na tural areas including wetlands, woodlands, riparian areas, and meadows (Arendt 1999). Cons erving natural areas can preserve terrestrial habitat, combat air pollution, and protect wa ter quality, by minimizing erosion and reducing runoff to local streams and water bodies, and protecting terrestrial habi tat (Austin 2003; Smart Growth Network 2002). Communally-managed open space can provide so cial benefits as well, encouraging communication and interactions between residents (Arendt 1996; Austin 2003). The presence of open space can contribute to community wide incr eased quality of life (Smart Growth Network 2002), higher property values (Lichtenberg et al. 2005; Luttik 2000) a nd foster a sense of responsibility for and connection to local natural resources (Aus tin 2003). Finally, the private protection of open space for public use provides m unicipalities and citizens with the benefit of open space, while minimizing the public co st of purchasing land (Lacy 1990). Within Florida, a number of municipalities currently offer developers incentives for maintaining open space, such as reduced appl ication fees, density bonuses, mixed-use zoning,
13 and reduction in minimum lot widths (Viera et al. 2003; Smart Growth Network 2002). For instance, Sarasota County has an incentive-based comprehensive land use plan that offers density bonuses to land owners and developers, who build mixed use, high-density developments and preserve open space and natural ar eas (Sustainable Sarasota). Similarly, Brevard County, FL created the Open Space Subdivision ordinance, which offers devel opers a 25 percent increase in the density of residential lots if they preser ve a certain percentage of open space (Romero and Hostetler 2007). In Gainesville, FL, builders who design developments using the Florida Green Building Program standards receive fast track permitting and reduced permitting fees (Casey 2005). Management is Key to CSD Success A functional CSD community is the result of design, m anagement, and community-wide participation (Youngentob and Hostetler 2005). The management and maintenance of open space within developed areas is critical to achieving the conservation goals of a development and should be addressed early in the planning and design phases of the project (Wilson et al. 1998; Thompson 2004). Specific elements of the development design can reduce maintenance needs. Clustering hardscape elements such as roads and houses together in an area of the development away from natural features can enable management tasks such as controll ed burns to occur with little inconvenience to home owners (Lenth et al. 2006). The establishment of buffer areas between homes and ecologically sensitive areas can minimize human impacts on natural habitat (Theobald et al. 1997). The management of natural areas can infl uence biodiversity (Thompson 2004), prevent deterioration due to invasions by exotic species, or pest outbreaks (Peck 1998; Audubon 2005). Without management, natural habita t can degrade and lose wildlife value over time (Lenth et al. 2006, Hostetler and Drake 2008). Management activ ities can include prescribed burning, pest
14 control, erosion prevention, rest oration of native flora through plantings, managing for specific wildlife populations, the removal of invasive plants, trees and vines through controlled burning, mechanical or chemical methods, and even the management of built areas located near conserved habitat (Wilson et al. 1998; Arendt 1999; Lent h et al. 2006). Typically, responsibility for ownership and management falls to a hom eowners association, government or nongovernmental agency or the original landowner (Lacy 1990; Milder 2007). Management practices are typically necessary over the long term and require money for successful implementation. For example, a longleaf pine conservation area must be burned (depending on local site conditions) every 2-4 years to retain signi ficant habitat features (Myers and Ewel 2000); a management fund would be require d to hire trained spec ialists to administer these prescribed fires. Complex management requirements can increase the long-term cost of the project. Without funding for maintenance, these efforts will not occur. Therefore, allocating a long-term funding source for mana gement is crucial to the suc cessful implementation of longterm management, and should be addre ssed in the management plan. How people manage their own yards is of ma jor concern. Homeowners decisions about what types of vegetation to plant or how much water /fertilizer to use as the decisions homeowners make can greatly influence n earby conservation areas (Austin 2004; Thompson 2004; Youngentob and Hostetler 2005; Hostetle r and Drake 2008). Landscaping yards with native plants can eliminate the possibility of exot ic species spreading to the natural area (Wilson et al. 1998) and the need for pe sticides and fertili zer (Culliney 2005). Without support from homeowners, conservation subdivisions can fail to maintain the goal of open space protection (Audubon 2005, Hostetler and Drake 2008).
15 Education and outreach to residents, can in crease homeowner awareness about the natural area and the impacts of their own actions (Wilson et al. 1998; Youngentob and Hostetler 2005) and build a land ethic that includes active mana gement activities, which enhance ecosystem health (Thompson 2004). Educatio nal elements can include signage about trail locations and permitted uses, educational kiosks listing the goals of the open space, and regular informational meetings and flyers can raise community awaren ess about the natural area. Unfortunately, few county land use regulations and policies specifica lly address the long-term management of open space areas including the establishment of educat ion programs within residential communities, and the provision of funding for maintenance activ ities (Hostetler et al. 2008). Current policies encouraging conservation subdivisions generally focus on the design of the community while paying minimal attention to opera tion, or long-term maintenance c onsiderations and the potential impacts of people living nearby (Westover 1994; Wilson et al. 1998; Arendt 1999; Romero and Hostetler 2007; Hostetler et al. 2008). Stakeholders There is a direct relationship between stak eholder involvem ent and the development of strong and effective comprehensive plans (Burby 2003). Local participat ion and the input of local knowledge in land use decisions can enhance sustainable develo pment initiatives (YliPelkonen and Kohl 2005). Stakeholder input affects policy implementation (Burby 2003) and outcomes (Donovan and Neiman 1992); therefore, it is imperative that the views and attitudes of critical stakeholders are incl uded in the discussion about c onservation development and open space management. In this study, I focus primar ily on two critical stakeholder groups, the developer group including lawyer s, environmental managers, and developers and the policy maker group including policy makers, and academics throughout the state of Florida.
16 Previous research has been conducted on homeowner opinions, views and attitudes about open space protection, clustered design and gr owth management (Donovan and Neiman 1992; Austin 2003; Burby 2003; Youngentob and Hostetler 2005; Noiseux and Hostetler 2007; Hostetler et al. 2008). However, few studies have explored deve loper concerns or ideas about CSD (Mohamed 2006). Developers play a key role in shaping the pattern of growth and development in Florida and as such are critical stakeholders in the development of land use policy (Thomas, 2001). One common practice throughout Florida is for the developer to transfer the responsibility for maintenance of the development, including the open space, to the homeowners association (Lacy 1990; Arendt 1999; Audubon 2005). Deve lopers can create guidelines for community management by design ing codes covenants and restrictions (CCRs) (Hostetler 2006), implementing deed restrictions or creating conservation easements (Wenger and Fowler 2002), and such policies are then ca rried forward by the homeowners association, government entity or land trust. Policy makers also can have a significant effect on CSD because they control the regulatory environment, and through regulati on, may or may not encourage low impact techniques such as cluster design or conserva tion development. Regulators use two primary tools to encourage development, these include carrots or incen tives (e.g., density bonuses, fasttrack permitting) and disincentives, which include rules that if violated can lead to fines, penalties, court orders etc (Wright 1996). U.S. policy trends encourage centralized authority and bureaucracy (Burby 2003) and as a result, policy makers tend to support regulation (Wright 1996). Regulation can require th at applications for undesirabl e development be subject to conditional use, special permit or special exception review proce sses (Arendt 1996; Wilson et al. 1998). Municipalities can require clustered development for full density, so that developers who
17 wish to pursue conventional development design have to develop only at a reduced density (Arendt 1996). Ordinances also can require ope n space set-asides and management plans that include information about who will manage the open space, how maintenance is funded, what type of management is required and more (A rendt 1997). Numerous townships and counties from Maine to Washington State have adopted conditional use zoning provisions allowing full density only if a developer conserves open sp ace within the development footprint (Arendt 1996). Market tools such as incentives (e.g., density bonuses, fast-track permitting) can also be very effective in encouraging conservation deve lopment (Hostetler et al. 2008). Governments can offer comprehensive market-based incentives that reward alternative development practices (Getting to Smart Growth 2002). Incentives such as fast track permitting allow developers who implement cluster design to save time and money in the permitting process. As a result, incentives generally result in a more positive reaction from developers than increased regulation (Wright 1996). Study Objectives 1. The objective of this study was fi rst to describe the attitudes and beliefs of developers and policy m akers concerning appropriate management techniques for open space, barriers to management and the importance of management. 2. The second objective of this study was to characterize differences between these two key groups of stakeholders in four topics of interest: timing for management, management issues and practices, policy about manageme nt and barriers and tools for management. Given that policy makers favor regulatory t echniques and developers prefer a flexible, incentive based environment (Wright 1996; Burby 2003), I expect to see distinct differences in the approach that these two groups take to the cr eation of conservation subdivisions and the perceived barriers of protecting and managing open space. These results will provide critical feedback for future development projects by identifying the specific management challenges associated with conservation communities. These findings
18 will help developers, policy makers, and municipalities design future projects with reduced management needs. Methods Data collection involved standard ized interviews using a form al and structured list of questions asked of each particip an t (Berg 2002). Participants were identified based on their expertise and knowledge in the field. The respondents included experts familiar with conservation subdivision developmen t and policy within the state of Florida (Flick, 1998; Berg 2001). Initially several key, known individual s were interviewed (Silverman, 2000). These individuals then recommended ot her possible participants a method referred to as snowball sampling technique (Berg, 2001). This process was not random, but it was used to gather information from a defined sample of groups th at provide meaningful information about open space protection and management efforts in Florida (Silverman, 2000; Berg, 2001). Participants included 47 indivi duals, 25 in the development category (Group 1) and 22 in the policy maker category (Group 2). Group 1 incl uded developers and individuals who worked closely with or represented developers (e.g., lawyers, environmental consultants). Group 2 included county officials, environmental ma nagers, and academics who study sustainable development initiatives or low impact development techniques. The developer group included 15 developers, 5 development consultants a nd 4 lawyers who worked with developers specializing in master pla nned communities and CSD projects. The policy maker group consisted of 8 academics/university professionals, 8 county and city employees, 2 representatives from NGOs such as a land trust, and four wa ter management district (WMD) officials. Procedure Phone and e-m ail were the primary methods of enlisting individual pa rticipation. At the time of the initial contact, partic ipants received information about the goals and objectives of the
19 research. Once individuals agreed to participate, appointments were scheduled. All participants received written and verbal information about th e study, and signed a consent form. Participants answered open-ended questions about the challenges of managing open space within the developed area, the barriers to management effort s, the type of management efforts that should be included within the various phases of the development pro cess, and how policy within the state of Florida regulates or c ould regulate management efforts. The open-ended approach was used because questions with defined responses w ould (a) not work well with elites and (b) be premature in an exploratory study. The Univers ity of Florida Internal Review Board approved the study and interview questions (Appendix A). In person and phone interviews took place be tween March 2008 and March 2009 with one researcher present. Before as king any questions at the intervie w session, the researcher provided definitions for a number of key terms used in the questions, including sustainable development, open space and the three phases of development. For the purposes of this study open space was defined as natural habitat areas that could include passive recreational area s but not active areas such as golf courses or playgrounds Interview questions focused on three stages of development the planning, building and move-in stages. These phases were identified as the three critical areas of the development process. The planning phase includes the beginning purchase of the land, preliminary meetings with county sta ff up until the clearing or manipulation of the landscape began. The building phase includes both ve rtical (the removal of trees, the staking of home sites etc) and horizontal building (the creation of homes or other structures). The final phase, called the move-in phase began when the developer had sold enough lots to turn the responsibility for management over to the homeo wners association, or equivalent entity.
20 Each interview lasted approximately 30-60 minutes and was tape-recorded with the respondents permission. Interview results were th en transcribed word for word and entered into an Excel spreadsheet. I confirmed transcript accuracy by comparing the transcript to the original recorded interview tapes. Data Analysis SPSS Text Analysis for Surveys 2.0 was utili zed to extract co mmon concepts or themes from the qualitative survey respons es. Typically, qualitative cont ent analysis involves training multiple coders to identify specific data charact eristics and code them in a similar way (1=yes, 2=no) (Silverman, 2001). This method can introdu ce coding differences, i.e., one coder keys an answer one-way and for subjective reasons, another coder keys the answer in a different category (Riffe et al. 1998). The SPSS text analysis software eliminates the need for a second coder, because each time the text is reviewed, the statis tical program extracts the exact same concepts. West and Hastings (2008) compar ed SPSS text analysis results w ith that of three hand-coders who had previously achieved a reliability of .95 for coding text responses For a set of 67 protocols that were scored us ing both methods, the SPSS program results were highly correlated with that of reliable hand-coders (r = .91). The SPSS program first identified key words and themes for each question, by evaluating the semantic content of the open-ended responses and identifying simple concepts explained by one word or a string of words (Berg 2001). The researcher then reviewed the identified themes and added additional synonyms or phrases to the selected themes. For example, the computer created the theme beginning and included words such as begin, or beginning but ignored terms like start, very early or first; the researcher then added the latter terms into the parameters for the theme beginning. The program then allocated one point for each response that included the selected set of terms (i.e., begin, start, early etc). Two researchers then reviewed the broad
21 themes identified by the software and condensed them for the most relevant phrases or parts, following the recommendations of other scholars (Kvale 1996; Berg 2001). To provide a sense of this process, consider a question proposed in this study: What are the management issues that can be addressed in th e planning phase of development? As respondents answered this question they made a number of statements relevant to particular concepts or issues related to CSD. The text analysis program then identified these concepts, such as wetlands, open space design, human impact in the natural area, and landscape connectivity within respondent answers. Two researchers revi ewed the list of themes generated by the text analysis and subsequently reduced these to two master themes, human and environmental elements. Human factors : Conflict of wildlife and reside nts, people and motor vehicles in natural areas, people modify natural areas, human impacts on the area. Environmental factors : Exotic pest control, domestic anim als, wildlife, invasive species, water, hydrology, wetland, size/shape/location of open space, make up of the vegetation, buffers for open space, how land is defined as natural, where to locate, site selection, interconnectivity, land plan. In some cases, more than two master themes we re identified. There were also cases where themes were identified that were relevant but were mentioned by a small number of the participants (< 25% of the total participants N = 46 ). In the latter case, th ese themes are referred to as sub-themes. For each survey question below, I report how many participants mentioned human factors and how many mentioned environmental factors acr oss both groups. Next I examine differences between the two previously defined groups, pol icy makers and developers, and the frequency with which each group cited each theme (e.g., huma n or environmental). This will help me determine if there are significan t differences in the mention of key themes by the two stakeholder groups.
22 Finally, to get a better sense of the salience of the themes, I compared which theme was mentioned first between the developers and then by the policy makers (i.e., priority). I assumed that themes that are mentioned first have more salience for that person; this measure should help us to understand how individuals emphasized particul ar themes in their res ponses. I did this final analysis across three questi ons (C-5, D-1, and D-2). In comparing quantitative differences be tween frequency of themes mentioned by developers (Group 1) and policy makers (Group 2), and assessing priori ty, I performed a chisquare test for each of the questions analyzed ( = 0.05). Running a large number of chi square tests can increase the chance of T ype II error. To avoid this, I limited the analysis to 4 major issues concerning management of open space; each of the following questions were analyzed as described above. A. Timing for Management 1. When should management be addressed? B. Management Issues and Practices 1. What are the management issues that can be addressed in the planning phase? 2. What steps can be taken in the building pha se of the development that minimize long term management needs? 3. What are the management issues that can be addressed in the post-construction phase? 4. What steps can a developer or neighbor hood association take to prevent negative impacts to natural areas, wildlife or c onservation areas after construction? C. Policy about Management 1. Are there existing poli cies that you are aware of that address long term management issues in private developmen ts at the planning phase? 2. Are there any existing policies that address th ese issues in private developments at the post construction phase? 3. Are there specific examples of counties or st ates that have provided incentives for the management of sustainable development?
23 4. Are there specific examples of developments that have adopted management policies without incentives or regulation? 5. How would you suggest that long-term management of open space be addressed through policy? D. Barriers and Tools for Management 1. What are the barriers to implementing policies and regulations about management? 2. What are the different tools th at can be used to encourage developers, city officials, developers and planners to implement long-term management of sustainable development? If the expected contingency table yielded valu es less than 5, I used a Fishers exact test (FET) ( = 0.05). For various reasons respondents left a question blank: occasionally the interview was cut short before finishing all of the questions a participant did not feel comfortable answering a particular question, etc. These blank entr ies for specific questions were forced out of the data prior to r unning the chi-square analysis. Results The results below address the 4 m ajor issues mentioned above: Timing for Management, Management Issues and Practices, Policy about Management, Barriers and Tools for Management. Timing for Management A-1 When should management be addressed? : Two prim ary themes were reported for this question In the beginning and at the perm it stage/after planning. The theme of beginning included words such as begin, beginning, start, very early or first. The permit/after planning theme included responses which suggested that management should be addressed later in the process, or submitted as part of the permitting process. More than 90% of the 46 people interviewed indicated that mana gement issues should be consid ered at the beginning of the
24 development process. No statistical difference occurred between develo pers (4 of 24) that mentioned that management should be addressed during the permit process and policy makers (0 of 22) (FET, P = 0.110). Management Issues and Practices B-1 What are the management issu es that ca n be addressed in the planning phase? : When asked about management issues in the pl anning phase for a subdivision, two clear themes emerged -human and environmental factors. The human factors theme included any response discussing conflicts of wildlife and residents, as well as short and long-term human impact on the natural areas, such as people and motor vehicles in natural areas, and people modifying natural areas. The theme of environmental factors includ ed any response that considered these issues: invasive species, landscape connectivity, the movement of water and wildlife across the landscape, and where to locate the open space. Both themes apparently resonated with respondents as 52% mentioned human factors and 70% indicated environmental factors. More than half (62.5%) of the participants who cited human factors also mentioned environmental f actors. The number of policy makers and developers that mentioned human compared to e nvironmental factors did not differ significantly (Table 1-1). B-2 Which steps can be taken in the bu ilding phase of the development that minimizes long term management needs? : The dominant theme citied by participants who answered this question was avoid impacts to op en space. This theme included any comments mentioning efforts to minimize disruption to the pr otected area such as avoiding damage to trees, laying out roads to avoid impact, and not incl uding open space on lots. Also included were specific examples of techniques or elements that could be used to protect the open space such as orange fencing, markers along the boundary, signage, silt fencing etc. An additional sub theme
25 that emerged was the regulation and oversight of builders either by the developer him or herself or by a county regulator. Almost two-thirds (63%) of those intervie wed mentioned the theme avoid negative impacts to open space. The sub theme regulation and ove rsight of builders was mentioned by less than a quarter of the participants (19%). Policy makers and developers we re alike in the frequency with which they mentioned the dominant theme (avoid impacts to open space). For the sub theme of regulation and oversight of builders, 77% of developers mentione d this theme compared to 22% of policy makers but no statistical difference occurred (Table 1-1). B-3 What are the management issues that ca n be addressed in the post construction phase? : When participants were asked about management issues in the post construction phase two dominant themes appeared -residents a nd the natural area, and specific management activities. The former theme included issues such as living with wildlife, how residents use or misuse the conservation area. The later theme included concepts such as homeowner education, and responsibilities for management, i.e., who will manage, what type of management activities are necessary, how the open space is being manage d, and what is included in the management plans. A large number of the participants (76%) mentioned the theme of residents and the natural area and approximately half of the interviewees (52%) cited specific manage ment activities (such as controlled burns, removal of invasive species, and maintenance of trails). A number of the respondents mentioned both themes (46%) and no significant differences occurred between developers and policy makers (Table 1-1). B-4 What steps can a developer or neighborh ood association take to prevent negative impacts to natural areas, wildlife or conservation areas after construction? : Respondents
26 highlighted two dominant themes -regulation/ policy and education. Th e regulation and policy theme included the mention of either of the word s regulation or policy, as well as related terms, including covenants, codes, restri ctions, deeds. A number of vari ations on the word education were used in response to this question. Edu cate, education, information, and data were all included under the education theme. Interviewees were divided almost in half between the two themes with a slightly larger percent of the total respondent s mentioning education (65%) over regulation/policy (52%). Of all the people who mentioned education and polic y; regulation only 12 people mentioned both themes. A large number of developers (63%) an d policy makers (68%) mentioned education. A similar distribution of develope rs (58%) and policy ma kers (45%) reported the regulation and policy theme. No significant differences occurre d between these two groups (Table 1-1). Policy about Management C-1 Are there exis ting policies that you are aware of that address long term management issues in private deve lopments at the planning phase? : Responses for this question were separated into two themes: yes, and no/not aware. There were no blank answers (N=46). Half of the interview ees (50%), developers (54%), a nd policy makers (45%) answered yes. There was no significant difference in the awareness of existing policy between developers and policy makers (Table 1-2). C-2 Are there any existing policies that add ress these issues in private developments at the post construction phase? : Two themes were created for this question yes and no/dont know. Respondents were only allowed to fit into one of the two themes, blank answers were not included in the analysis. Out of the total interviewees (N=46) seven respondents provided blank answers and were subsequently removed from the analysis leaving an N value of 39. A small number of respondents (31%) indicated that th ey were aware of exis ting policies addressing
27 long-term management elements such as educat ion for homeowners, or funding for management efforts after construction had been completed. No difference in the frequency of yes or no answers occurred between policy maker and developer groups (Table 1-2). C-3 Are there specific examples of counties or states that have provided incentives for the management of sustainable development? : Respondents were only given one point for this question and placed into one of the two themes : yes and no/not aware. Five responses were blank and therefore removed from the analysis re sulting in an N value of 41. When asked if there are examples of counties or states that have provided incentives for the management of sustainable development less than half of the interv iewees (49%) answered ye s. Less than a third of the participants (26%) were ab le to give specific examples of counties within the state of Florida that provide incentives which encourage ma nagement efforts. A slightly larger percent of policy makers (57%) provided a negative response to this questi on than policy makers (45%). However, when compared with the developer group, the frequency with which policy makers indicated no/not aware was not si gnificantly higher (Table 1-2). C-4 Are there specific examples of developments that have adopted management policies without incentives or regulation? : Survey participants were placed into one of the two themes: yes and no/not aware. Five responses were blank and theref ore removed from the analysis (N = 41). Interviewees overwhelming reported the positive theme (yes) (78%) when asked this question. All but two developers responded yes (90%), in contrast with less than twothirds of the policy makers ( 67%), but no significant difference occurred (Table 1-2). C-5 How would you suggest that long-term management of open space be addressed through policy? : Three themes were highlighted, in cluding regulation and incentives, homeowner association (HOA) res ponsibilities, and methods othe r than government regulation
28 and HOA. Concepts such as ca rrots, sticks, incentiv es, policy, and regulation were included in the regulations and incentives theme. The theme of HOA responsibilities included terms such as codes and covenants, deed restrictions, and conc epts that addressed ideas such as homeowner responsibilities for implementing management. The final theme included the mention of any approach that was not an in centive, regulation or method us ed by HOA (e.g., offer education, provide data, create an endowment etc). Regulations and/or incentives we re mentioned by more than half of the respondents (67%). Fewer than half of the respondents mentioned the remaining themes: HOA responsibilities (26%), and method other than government or HOA (39%). None of the three themes showed differences in responses between the devel oper and policy maker group (Table 1-2). For the purpose of determining if there were more developers than policy makers that mentioned carrots versus sticks, I split this prev iously merged theme into two individual themes and then compared how many participants ment ioned sticks in each group. Carrots included specific mention of incentives and carrots as well as examples of incentives fast track permitting, density bonuses, tax breaks, etc. Sticks encompassed the words regulation, policy, sticks, restrictions, requirement, mandatory and other similar word s. Individuals were given a zero if the theme was not mentione d and a 1 if it was mentioned. Out of the total interviewees (N=46) blank answers were subsequently removed from the analysis resulting in an N value of 35, including 18 developers and 17 policy makers. More developers 15 (83%) mentioned sticks while only 9 (53%) policy makers mentioned this theme ( 2= 3.747, P = 0.053). To get a better idea of which theme was most important, I recorded which of the now four themes were mentioned first (1.) carrots, ( 2.) sticks, (3.) homeown er association [HOA] responsibilities, and (4.) methods other than government regulation and HOA. Sticks was the
29 most commonly cited first term by all interv iewees (51%), followed by HOA responsibilities (22.9%), incentives or carrots (20%), and othe r methods (5.7%). The developer group did not differ from the policy maker group in priority given across all four themes (Table 1-3). To further analyze the difference between the developers and policy makers who mentioned regulation first I ran an additional test to determine if this difference was significant. Developers (61%) cited regulati on first 20% more than policy ma kers (41.2%) but the difference was not significant (X2 = 1.391, P = 0.238). Barriers and Tools for Management D-1 What are the barriers to implemen ting policies and regulations about manageme nt? : Two dominant themes appeared money and problems with existing regulation. Concepts incorporated in the mone y theme included: lack of money for regulation, developers and homeowners dont want to pay for management, management is expensive, etc. The theme of problems with exis ting regulation included a number of different ideas expressed by participants: conflicting regula tion, policy too stringent, weak regulation, lack of coordination between regulatory staff, problems with regulatio ns, government stuck in its ways, inability to enforce regulations, and lack of policy. Two add itional themes also emerged including lack of political support or political resi stance and lack of education. I look first at which two themes and sub themes were mentioned by respondents. Participants were split almost evenly between the two main themes; money was cited by half (52%) of the interviewees and problems with ex isting regulation was mentioned by a little more than half (56%). Fewer respondents mentioned th e later themes, lack of political support (28%) and lack of education (36.9%). There were no significant differences between the mention of these four themes by developers a nd policy makers (Table 1-4).
30 Next, I assessed the prioriti es that respondents gave thes e themes by looking at which theme they mentioned first. Looking at the ov erall result for the first mention or priority, respondents were evenly divided among the four themes, money (25%), and problems with regulation (25%), lack of po litical support (29.5%) and lack of education (20.5%). By group, developers (30%) mentioned probl ems with existing policies and re gulations more than any other factor as their first response (Table 1-5). In contrast, the most popular first response for policy makers was lack of political support, more th an a third of those po licy makers polled (38%) mentioned this theme before any others (Table 1-5). The next commonly first mentioned theme was the theme of money cited first by approxima tely a quarter of policy makers (23%) and developers (26 %). The overall comparative analysis of the first mentions reported by developers and policy makers for all four themes was not significant (Table 1-5). Ten percent more developers mentioned problems with existi ng regulations first than policy makers, although this was not significantly different (X2 = 0.761, p = 0.383) (Table 1-5). D-2 What are the different tools that can be used to encourage developers, city officials, developers and planners to impl ement long term management of sustainable development? : Among the tools that can encourage the implementation of long-term management, incentives, regulation and education appeared as the dominant themes. The terms which were placed into the incentive theme in cluded incentives, carrots and examples of incentives, density bonuses, fast-track perm itting, support from outside groups (NGOs, county, WMD), and monetary incentives such as tax brea ks, money for management etc. The regulation theme incorporated terms such as regulation, proh ibit, require, restriction, and sticks. The final theme of education included terms that are a vari ation on the word educati on such as educate and educating as well as terms such as information a nd data. Four primary types of incentives were
31 mentioned including density bonuses, fast-track permitting, support from outside groups (Nongovernmental organizations [NGOs], county, water management di stricts [WMD]), and monetary incentives. Among all those polled, more than half (74%) mentioned incentives of some kind. Policy maker and developer groups did not differ in the mention of incentives (Table 1-4). I examined the extent to which respondent s emphasized particular themes by looking at their first responses. The three identified them es included incentives, regulation and education. Results suggested wide-spread first mention of incentives (68%) from all participants. The next theme most commonly mentioned was educati on which was cited by (18.2%) of the overall participants, followed by regulations (13.6%). Bo th developers (74%) and policy makers (62%) mentioned incentives first before any other them e. After incentives, policy makers mentioned education and regulation first at the same rate (19%) while more developers mentioned education (17.4%) first than regulation (8.7%). Overall comparative analysis be tween both policy maker and developer groups for all three themes was no t significant (Table 1-5). For each theme, comparative analyses between groups were not significant (all tests: P > 0.05). Discussion Policy m aker and developers highlighted similar themes and issues about the long-term management of open space during interviews. Many of the reported differences were consistent with our expectations, and suggest there are nuanced differences between the perceptions and attitudes of developers and policy makers. Impor tant variations exist between how developers and policy makers suggest implementing manage ment policies, how they view the barriers preventing management, and the tools for encourag ing management efforts. These results can inform the conversation about CSD, particular ly around the critical i ssue of the long-term maintenance of open space. Below are the studies key results concerning stakeholder attitudes
32 and perspectives on planning, designing and ma intaining conservation developments and open space. Timing for Management Individuals in the developer groups (e.g., lawyers, environm ental consultants) and the policy m aker group (e.g., county officials, enviro nmental managers, and academics) agreed that management should be addressed at the very begi nning of the development process. A majority of participants (90%) mentioned the importance of addressing manage ment at the early stages of development. This finding agrees with resear ch suggesting that management and maintenance issues should be incorporated into the ear ly planning and design phases of conservation development projects (Willson et al. 1998). The pe rmit process was mentioned as an appropriate stage to address management by some developers and not at all by policy makers. It is possible that with a larger sample size and a similar distribution, this finding would have been significant. This trend exhibited by developers may be due to the fact that management has not been widely studied and developers are ther efore unaware of the importance of management practices. Management Issues and Practices A recurring them e in the survey responses was the relationship between people and the natural area. This theme appeared when particip ants were asked what st eps could be taken to minimize impacts to the natura l area during the planning, build ing and the post-construction phases. Construction activities can have a sign ificant affect on natural areas (Hostetler and Drake 2008). Arendt (1999) mentions the importance of preventing damage to open space elements such as trees during development. During the building phase, participants suggested that elements such as silt fencing, barrie rs, and signage could prevent damage during construction. I observed a trend in the mention of regulation and oversight of builders as a method of preventing damage to the open space by more members of the developer group
33 compared with policy makers. It is possible th at the trend toward significance in this case was influenced by the sample of developers I interv iewed. Many of the developers interviewed have built master planned communities, where the develope r sells the lots out to builders but requires them to build out the site contingent with specific development standards. Given the close relationship between these particular develope rs and builders and the awareness of these developers of the importance of preserving open sp ace, it is possible that they were highly aware of the negative impacts, accidental or intentio nal, that builders could have on the open space and have had a number of conflicts with builders about this issue. It is possible that members of the policy maker group were unaware of this issu e because they have not been present on construction sites during the build ing phase of development. Our results suggest that both developers and policy makers believe th at residents daily activities can have considerable impact on pr otected areas. This fi nding corresponds with extensive research suggesting that homeowners play an important role in the implementation of sustainable practices and the preservation of conservation ar eas (Hostetler and Drake 2008). Residents make decisions about which plant species to install in th eir yard, whether to allow their pets to roam free, whether to f eed wildlife, and how much fertilizer to use which can negatively affect natural areas (Theobald et al. 1997; Miller and Hobbs 2000; Pimentel et al. 2000; Thompson 2004; Baker et al. 2005; Hostetler and Drake 2008). Our fi ndings suggest that individuals in both groups are awar e of the critical role homeowner s play and how the decisions residents make can influence nearby conservation areas. Participants cited education as one way to protect open space and encourage long-term management. Homeowners associations genera lly have the authority to enforce codes, covenants and restrictions (CCRs) and regulate how homes, yards, and neighborhoods are
34 maintained (Hostetler 2006). HOAs can raise f unds or dues to cover the costs of upkeep for open space areas (Arendt 1996). Unfortunately, fe w residents possess the necessary knowledge about the function of a healthy ecosystem (Tho mpson 2004) or expertise necessary to manage protected areas (Milder 2007). Th is finding echoes research sugge sting that building community support for conservation goals and awareness ab out natural areas can help mitigate human activities that would negatively affect sensitive areas (Hostetler et al. 200 5; Lenth et al. 2006; Hostetler and Drake 2008). Policy about Management Both policy m akers and developers reported that regulation is an importa nt tool that can be used to prevent negative impacts to natural areas as homeowners move into the development. Knowledge of existing policies was minimal, only half of the overall participants were aware of regulation at the planning phase. The majority of the study participants indicated that they were unaware of any existing policie s that address the long-term management of open space postconstruction. Fewer than half of the participants were able to cite any specific examples of policy incentives for management within the stat e of Florida. More participants cited the existence of policies which addressed the protection of open space during the planning phase than post-construction. This finding correspond s with our expectati on that policies about conservation subdivisions focus primarily on th e design and creation of the open space with minimal attention on the management efforts that are necessary to protect open space over the long term. A number of scholarly articles have cited regulatory efforts that can be implemented postconstruction including the establishment of conservation easements, a legal agreement between property owner and the easement holder (generally a government body, or land trust) (Wenger and Fowler 2002) or the creation of codes covenants and restric tions (CCRs). CCRs are a tool
35 used by developers to regulate and maintain th e environmental integrity of homes, yards and natural areas (Audubon 2005). CCRs can encourage practices such as land stewardship and the conservation of wildlife habitat within both open areas as well as the surrounding built areas. Furthermore, CCRs and conservation easements can stipulate maintenance responsibilities for natural areas, including exotic pl ant removal, controlled burns, a nd the upkeep of walking trails, and signage within the open space (Hostetler 2006). A relatively small number of respondents c ited both themes: (1.) education and (2.) regulations and policy. There are a number of possible reasons for this finding. It is feasible that people believe that education is im portant but that it should not be regulated through policy. It is also possible that people who tend to support a policy approach are le ss likely to support education or those who support education are less likely to mention policy. This was a result I did not expect and it would need further inve stigation to determine why people were divided between education and policy/regulation. When participants were asked how the l ong-term management of open space should be addressed through policy, more developers mention regulations or sticks first before other variables (including incentives HOA responsibilities and methods other than government or HOA) than did policy makers, though the result was not significant. Moreover, developers mentioned regulations twice as often as policy ma kers and this difference was significant. This is surprising given that the policy makers make the regulations. It is possible that developers know, given all the existing regulation, that any pro-conservation aspects of development that are unregulated will not garner their attention. Additional surveys would be necessary to determine whether the mention of regulations by developers was negative or positive in tone. It is clear nonetheless; that for developers, the method th at immediately came to mind was the use of
36 policy sticks. Policy makers on the other hand do not refer to regulation to the same degree. Given the open-ended nature of these questions and the time frame for the study it was not possible to characterize the responses as pro or con for regulation, but developers focus on its importance more than policy makers. Barriers and Tools for Management The m ajor barriers to management cited by survey participants included money, and problems with existing regulation. Previous research suggests that economics can be a barrier to wide-spread adoption of CSD (W ilson et al. 1998; Gyourko and Rybczynski 2000; Reichart and Liang 2007). Both groups recognized that one of the major barriers to implementing management is the financial cost of management activities. Despite ample evidence that CSD can reduce upfront building costs (Lacy 1990; Arendt 1996; Gilroy 2002; Wenger and Fowler 2002; Mohammed 2006; Reichart and Liang 2007) and the presence of open space can increase the sale price of a home (L acy 1990; Arendt 1996; Luttik, 2000; Wenger and Fowler 2002; Austin 2003; Lichtenberg et al. 2007) financiers developers and investors often perceive alternatives to conventional de velopment as more difficult to complete, and therefore involving more risk and cost (Gyourko and Rybczynski 2000). The findings that both groups reported monetary challenges as a barrier to impleme nting management suggests agrees with the aforementioned research. To overcome this barri er, education and outreach could provide proof that the profit margin for CSD is equal to or gr eater than that of traditional development (Wilson et al. 1998; Gyourko and Rybeczynski 2000). While I expected developers to mention money as a barrier, I did not expect policy makers to also recognize this challenge. It is possibl e that policy makers who recognized this barrier mentioned it as a barrier to encouraging develope r participation in these activities. Further study
37 would be required to draw any additional conclusions about policy maker perceptions of finances as a barrier. Both developers and policy makers believe that regulation is a barrier to the implementation of long-term management initiati ves within private open space. Restrictive regulations, complex review and ap proval processes, as well outdate d ordinances have been cited previously by researchers as barriers to cr eative subdivision design and the adoption of low impact development techniques (Lacy 1990; Arendt 1996; Reichart and Liang 2007). Participants cited the aforementioned issues as well as lack of coordination between regulatory staff, weak political leadership, and inability to enforce regulations. While I expected developers to report this as a barrier, I was surprised to find the high percentage of policy makers who mentioned this theme as well. It is possible that policy makers mentioned this theme as a reference to developers and the fact that deve lopers typically favor incentives over regulation (Wright 1996). The fact that this was commonly mentioned as a barrier by both groups suggests that this is an area where policy makers and de velopers potentially agree and an area where improvements are necessary. Participants also cited lack of education as a barrier, anothe r finding that is echoed in the literature. Lack of available scientific data or access to information illustrating the benefits of low impact development, can make it difficult for city and county o fficials to support new development techniques (Theobald et al. 2000; H ood et al. 2006). In addition, officials and residents may not understand the benefits of CSD or have misconceptions about the environmental impact and economic benefit of low impact development (Wilson et al. 1998; Reichart and Liang 2007).
38 When asked about the barriers to implementi ng policy and regulations about management there was a trend in the order in which develope rs and policy makers answered this question. Developers mentioned problems with regulations first and then mone y while policy makers mentioned political resistance first and then money. Though these differences were not statistically significant the result was consistent with our hypothesis. Th e findings suggest that policy makers and developers perceive the ba rriers to long-term management of open space somewhat differently. Based on our results, problems with existing policy was a slightly more salient issue in the minds of developers than policy makers, though not significantly so. One explanation is that the developers sampled have been frustrated by existing local policy. The us e of outdated codes can prevent developers from implementing innova tive CSD techniques such as conservation subdivisions (Gilroy 2007). It is possible that this frustration c ontributed to the frequent first mention of this barrier by developers. In contra st, lack of political support, was a key issue in the minds of policy makers. This finding may be due to a number of fact ors. Stakeholder input can directly affect policy outcomes and im plementation (Donovan and Neiman 1992; Burby 2003), positive perceptions of CSD can help encourage sustainable planning efforts (YliPelkonen and Kohl 2005). It is possible that policy makers have experienced negative stakeholder feedback about CSD efforts and manage ment and that this cont ributed to the salience of this issue in their responses. When asked how to encourage the long-term management of open space within CSD we expected that policy makers would favor regu latory tools and deve lopers would prefer incentives, and that this difference would be reflected in the mention of specific themes (i.e., developers would be more li kely to mention incentives, while more policy makers would
39 mention regulation). My results indicated no significant difference between the mention of incentives and regulation by policy makers compared to developers. Both groups recognized the importance of incentives. However, further analys is into the priority re spondents placed on these themes yielded the expected results. Develope rs tended to mention incentives first more times than policy makers. The finding suggests that incentives may be more salient for developers than policy makers though not significantly so. Another trend was that developers were more likely to mention educational efforts before regulation. It is possible that this result is linked to the fact that increased regulat ion, can cause delays into the development process (Mayer and Sommerville 2000) and a longer development pr ocess means more money out of pocket for developers. While these findings were not significant, they agree with previous research where individuals cited a preference for incentives and education over regulation (Wright 1996; Aipanjiguly et al., forthcoming). Study Limitations The sm all sample size used in this stu dy may potentially intro duce bias (Berg 2001). However, the sample size was appropriate given the in-depth nature of the interviews and the time restrictions of the study. While such a sm all sample size preclud es generalization, this study is a starting point from wh ich to begin addressing the issues of open space management and protection within the state of Florida. Anot her possible limitation is that participants were aware of future publication and this knowledge may have resulted in socially desirable answers to researcher questions (Yli-Pelkonen and Kohl 2005). It is also possible that the definitions of open space and conservation term s provided early in the interview, although necessary, may have given a cue to participants about the kinds of responses that were most desired by the interviewer.
40 Conclusions This study is a prelim inary effort to explor e developer and policy maker perceptions and attitudes about the long-term management of open space in conservation subdivisions. Longterm management of open space is critical for the protection of valuab le wildlife and natural areas. Our results suggest that there are differences in how polic y makers and developers view the barriers to management and how they believe these issues can best be addressed. Moreover, the data suggests that fewer than half of th e policy makers and developers interviewed were aware of existing policies that address the management of op en space in the state. Given the observed lack of knowledge, future studies should examine the scope and strength of Florida ordinances and land development regulations by e xploring whether existing laws and regulations address the barriers and incentives mentioned by th ese groups. Future studies could include a larger random sample of developers and policy makers throughout the state of Florida. While the use of open-ended questions was appropriate in this research future studies could use objective questions (i.e., true or false), where individuals rate th e importance of specific aspects of regulation and management. This might lead to larger differences between developers and policy makers than was found using an open-ended framework. Future studies could also select a wider sample of participants and use random techniques to interview policy makers and developers throughout the state. The wider sample would eliminate some of the introduced bias, but potentially have less knowledge about CS D techniques and management issues. Additional research is necessary to de termine how to overcome the economic and educational barriers to management, and how to in corporate incentives and education into future growth management regulation. This goal of th is study was to contribute to the promotion of functioning conservation communities and this thesis will hopefully represent a step towards the advancement of CSD initiatives th roughout the state of Florida.
41 Table 1-1. Management issues and practices: percent of the Fl orida developer and policy maker group who mentioned a theme determined through survey text analyses Question Themes DevelopersaPolicy MakersaCombined Total b 2 P B.1 Human Factors 54% (13) 50% (11) 52% (24) 0.08 0.777 Environmental Factors 71% (17) 69% (15) 70% (32) 0.0380.845 B.2 Avoid Impacts 62% (15) 64% (14) 63% (29) 0.0060.936 Regulate Builders 29% (7) 9% (2) 19% (9) 0.139c B.3 Residents 75% (18) 77% (17) 76% (35) 0.0330.857 Management 50% (12) 54% (12) 52% (24) 0.0950.758 B.4 Regulation/Policy 58% (14) 45% (10) 52% (24) 0.7630.382 Education 63% (15) 68% (15) 65% (30) 0.1630.686 N = 24 22 46 a Participants could mention more than one theme. For each group, theme totals could exceed 100%. b Combined total refers to a percentage of respondents from both developer and policy maker groups. c FET = Fisher exact test. Degrees of freedom = 1.
42 Table 1-2. Policy about management: percent of the Florida developer and policy maker group who mentioned a particular theme determ ined through survey text analyses Question Themes DevelopersPolicy MakersCombined Totalc 2 P C.1a Yes 54% (13) 45% (10) 50% (23) 0.3480.555 No/Not aware 46% (11) 55% (12) 50% (23) Total 100% 100% 100% N = 24 22 46 C.2a Yes 33% (7) 27% (5) 31% (12) 0.1400.708 No/Not aware 67% (14) 72% (13) 69% (27) Total 100% 100% 100% N= 21 18 39 C.3a Yes 55% (11) 43% (9) 49% (20) 0.6050.437 No/Not aware 45% (9) 57% (12) 51% (21) Total 100% 100% 100% N = 20 21 41 C.4a Yes 90% (18) 67% (14) 78% (32) 0.130d No/Not aware 10% (2) 33% (7) 22% (9) Total 100% 100% 100% N = 20 21 41 C.5 b Carrots and Sticks 71% (17) 64% (14) 67% (31) 0.2710.603 HOA doc 29% (7) 23% (5) 26% (12) 0.2470.619 Other 42% (10) 36% (8) 39% (18) 0.1360.713 N = 24 22 46 a Questions C.1 C.4 participants were forced into one th eme or the other. Therefore theme totals equal 100% b Question C.5 participants could mention more than one th eme. For each group, theme totals could exceed 100%. c Combined total refers to a percentage of respondents from both developer and policy maker groups. d Fishers Exact Test (FET). Degrees of freedom = 1.
43 Table 1-3. First mention of a given theme by Florida developer and policy maker groups Category Question Themes Developer Policy Maker Combined Totala X2 P C.5 Incentives 16.70% 23.50% 20% 5.007 0.171 Regulation 61% 41.20% 51% HOA 11.10% 35.30% 22.90% Other 11.10% 0% 5.70% N = 18 17 35 a Combined total refers to a percentage of respondents from both developer and policy maker groups. Degrees of freedom = 1. Table 1-4. Barriers and tools for management: percent of the developer and policy maker group who mentioned a theme determined through survey text analyses Question Themes DevelopersPolicy MakersCombined Totala 2 P D.1 Money 54% (13) 50% (11) 52% (24) 0.08 0.777 Regulation 54% (13) 59% (13) 56% (26) 0.1130.736 Political Resistance 21% (5) 36% (8) 28% (13) 1.3660.243 Education 29% (7) 45% (10) 37% (17) 1.3070.253 D.2 Incentives 75% (18) 73% (16) 74% (34) 0.0310.861 Regulation 46% (11) 32% (7) 39% (18) 0.9470.331 Education 25% (6) 32% (7) 28% (13) 0.2630.608 N = 24 22 46 a Combined total refers to a percentage of respondents from both developer and policy maker groups. Degrees of freedom = 1.
44 Table 1-5. First mention of a given theme by Florida developer and policy maker groups Category Question Themes Developer Policy Maker Combined Totala X2 P D.1 Money 26.10% (6) 23.8% (5) 25 % (11) 1.625 0.654 Regulation 30.4% (7) 19% (4) 25% (11) Political Resistance 21.7% (5) 38.1% (8) 29.5% (13) Education 21.7% (5) 19% (4) 20.5% (9) N = 23 21 44 D.2 Incentives 73.9% (17) 61.9% (13) 68.2% (30) 1.111 0.574 Regulation 8.7% (2) 19% (4) 13.6% (6) Education 17.4% (4) 19% (4) 18.2% (8) N = 23 21 44 a Combined total refers to a percentage of respondents from both developer and policy maker groups. Degrees of freedom = 1.
45 CHAPTER 2 A LOOK AT FLORIDAS LAND USE RE GULATIONS AND THE PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT OF OPEN SPACE Introduction This chapter presents the results of a conten t analysis of Florida county L and Development Regulations and zoning codes. I evaluate Fl orida county open space protection and management regulations. In particular, this research explores whether land development regulations (LDRs) in Florida protect open space and encourage long -term management, and if so, what type of incentives and/or regulations are offered, how strong are the regulati ons and which counties address or fail to address this issue. The la nguage of these regulations is important because content can affect the implementa tion of policies at the local level, and the resulting patterns of land development (Brody and Highfield 2005). Th is research will provide county planners and policy makers with critical information about patterns within existing land development regulations, as well as problems a nd strengths of existing codes and to what extent they protect open space areas. By identifying how different c ounties approach open space management, this study will provide critical information that can help counties improve or enhance the open space element of their land de velopment regulations. This chapter will (1) outline below the history of growth management in Florida and the role of local government in the development of land regulation and policy; (2) explore how ordinances and codes can contri bute to strong protection and las ting management for open space; (3) provide information on previous research on open space protection and management, which highlights critical elements such as quality, quantity and layout that affect the conservation value of protected habitat, and (4) e xplain how content analysis can be used to evaluate growth management regulations.
46 Growth Management in Florida In 2005, the U.S. Census Bureau projected that Floridas popu lation will increase by 20% every 10 years until 2030. This is the equivalent of 12 million new residents moving to the state over the next 25 years (USCB). Accompanying this rapid population growth is increased demand for energy, water and new homes (A udubon 2005). To accommodate new residents, extensive building and development is occurr ing throughout the state (Audubon 2005). Florida communities and government officials are sear ching for ways to manage growth while conserving natural resources such as energy, water, and wildlife habi tat for future generations. Compared to other states, Florida has one of the most extensive programs for managing growth (Weitz 1999; Grey 2006) including numer ous regulations about land use, zoning, and future growth. Enacted in 1985, the Land De velopment Regulation Act requires that each community in Florida adopt a comprehensive plan (Brody and Highfield 2005; Grey 2006). The comprehensive plan is a legally binding docum ent that includes elements addressing the preservation and protection of pub lic health and safety, as well as human environmental, social and economic resources, including recreation and open space (Carriker 2006). In addition to the development of comprehensive plans, Chapter 16 3 of the Florida State Statutes (2007) requires that each county create land development regulat ions enforcing and implementing the local land and water use elements contained within the comprehensive plan. There are 67 counties in Florida and each of them is requi red to complete land development regulations/codes within one year after the creation of a new comprehensive pl an. The regulations/codes must contain details regulating the subdivision of land, specifically subdivision de sign, zoning, lot size and open space requirements. In Florida, land use de velopment and planning powers such as zoning authority, and the creation of Land Development Re gulations take place at the local level with
47 public input, and subsequent oversight by the go vernor, and the Florida state cabinet (Thomas 1975). There is widespread support for the protecti on of open space and farmland (Luttik 2000; Zeman et al. 2003; Lichtenberg et al. 2005). In 2001, Florida voters approved more than $42 million in government funding to enhance existing parks and purchase new lands for open space (Land Trust Alliance). Despite increasing policy support for the protection of green space (Land Trust Alliance; Romero and Hostetler 2007), a nd the environmental, economic and social benefits of cluster development over traditiona l development patterns (Lacy 1990; Arendt 1996; Gilroy 2002; Wenger and Fowler 2002; Mohammed 2006; Reichart and Liang 2007) there is little evidence to suggest that local land use re gulations promote the protection of open space within private developments (Lacy 1990). Mo reover, once the open sp ace exists, few local policies, address the long-term management of these areas (Younge ntob and Hostetler 2005; Hostetler 2006; Noiseux and Hostetler 2007). Role of Local Governments The content of local land regul ations can have a significant affect on the implem entation of growth management polices and the resulting regional patterns of development (Talen and Knaap 2003; Brody and Highfield 2005). In the U.S., local governments regulate development and growth (Barnett 1993); as a result, county and municipal polic ies can significantly influence growth management initiatives (Theobald et al 2000). Policies can encour age or discourage low impact development techniques, conservati on subdivision design (CSD ), as well as the protection of open space and the management of natural areas (Westover 1994; Arendt 1996; Wenger and Fowler 2002; Milder 2007). In ma ny parts of the US, jurisdictions enforce antiquated zoning regulations th at prevent compact developmen t initiatives (Gilroy 2007) and encourage sprawling development patterns (L acy 1990; Talen and Knaap 2003). The Federal
48 Housing Administration regulations of 1941, which require extrem ely large street widths, and encourage car-dominated landscapes and suburba n sprawl are still th e dominate model for subdivision street layout (Southworth and Ben-Joseph 1997; Heaney 1999). Adherence to outdated codes can make it impossible for developers to implement innovative low impact techniques such as conser vation subdivision design (Gilroy 2007). Local zoning requirements typically emphasize the deve lopment of all land without requirements for open space preservation (Lacy 1990). Moreover, many towns and counties have restrictive regulations and ordinances th at limit creative subdivision de sign (Arendt 1996) by establishing complex review and approval processes that discourage low impact development techniques (Reichart and Liang 2007) or dictate and encourage sprawlin g development patterns (Lacy 1990). Local regulatory agencies in Florida can make it difficu lt for developers to use low impact development techniques such as swal es, underground filtration tanks, and natural retention areas (Hostetler et al. 2008). In Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, judges and government officials have prevented local gover nments from adopting zoning that would have allowed rural land conservation (A rendt 1997). Thus, local policy decisions can truly shape the type of development that occurs within an area, and these polici es can promote or discourage the conservation of open space as communities grow. Policies that Address Open Space and Management Num erous studies suggest open space conservation can provide important wildlife habitat by protecting critical areas and enhancing land scape connectivity (Smart Growth Network 2002; Austin 2003; Odell et al. 2003; Mild er et al. 2007; Lichtenberg et al. 2007; Hostetler and Drake 2008). The conservation value of the pres erved habitat depends on quantity, quality, configuration and shape of the open space se t aside, the conveyance of ownership and management responsibilities, the types activit ies prohibited and allowed within the area
49 (Westover 1994; Arendt 1996; We nger and Fowler 2002; Milder 2007; Hostetler and Drake 2008) as well as the proximity of the open space to human elements (Theobald et al. 1997; Odell et al. 2003; Lenth et al. 2006). Theobald et al. (1997) and ot hers (e.g., Arendt 1999, Hostetler and Drake 2008) have suggested that clustered development de signs that minimize habitat fragmentation and maximize connectivity could redu ce disturbance to wildlife habitat. However, the degree of disturbance to wild life habitat depends on various fact ors within a site, such as how much open space is conserved, the quality of the open space, and how the built and conserved areas are managed over the long te rm (Hostetler and Drake 2008). For example, results from a study on a clustered subdivision in Boulder, Colo rado found that with less than 20% open space (out of the total land area) and minimal manage ment and maintenance activities (e.g., dogs and cats off leash), conserved areas had higher densities of non-native species and lower densities of native species sensitive to anth ropogenic activities th an nearby undeveloped areas (Lenth et al. 2006). Arendt (1996) reported that policies which limit the number of housing units within rural areas may conserve open space but could have the unintended consequence of further fragmenting the landscape. For example, in Mo ntana and Michigan, policies which limited the number of houses in rural areas resulted in large lots (40 acres and above) made up of turf grass and weeds, with little to no wildlife value (Arendt 1996). Therefore, policies protecting open space with the goal of preserving conservation value, should include language addressi ng the type of habitat conserved, (e.g., wetlands or uplands), percentage of open space, lot sizes and location of built areas within a parcel, and perpetual ownership and management responsibilities (Arendt 1996; Arendt 1997; Odell et al. 2003; Milder et al. 2007; Hostetler and Drake 2008). Ju st setting aside a percentage of open space is not adequate; municipal standard s should include regulations a bout appropriate activities and
50 elements within the open space (no roadway, no pe ts off leash), as well as management plan requirements that address perpetual funding fo r long term maintenan ce activities (Westover 1994; Arendt 1996; Wenger and Fowler 2002; Lenth et al. 2006; Hostetler and Drake 2008). Policies and guidelines that address the ma nagement of open space could promote the conservation of natural resources within expanding communities. However, these regulations must include the appropriate standards for open space and remove the barri ers which prevent the protection and management of these areas by us ing regulatory and market-based strategies, which ultimately encourages innovative techni ques such as cluster development and CSD (Barnett 1993; Wilson et al. 1998; Arendt 1999; Feiock and Tavares 2002). Previous studies have examined the origins of Florida comprehensive plans (comp plans) (Thomas 1975; Grey 2006; Carriker 2006), the effectiveness of comp plan implementation within the state of Florida (Brody and Highfield 2005), the role of citizen and stakeholder input in creating Florida growth management policy (Burby 2003), and the strength of hazard mitigation policies in Florida and Washington (Godshalk, Brody a nd Burby 2003). While comprehensive planning is important, the actual application of land deve lopment policies takes place at the local level through the use of LDRs and zoning codes. Therefore an evaluation of the latter documents should provide an in-depth picture of how county regulations address open space protection and management. To accomplish this, I will conduct a content analysis of county LDRs and zoning codes thro ughout the state of Florida. Content Analysis and Previous Research The goal of a content analysis is to m ake inferences a bout the content of media by objectively and systematically identifying specified characteris tics of the message (Holsti 1969 p.14). Content analysis is a rese arch technique that is applied to a wide-range of textual media including newspaper articles, books, and privat e and public documents (Riffe 1998). Burby
51 (2003) conducted a content analysis on 60 comprehe nsive plans in Florida and Washington states and measured the strength of the comprehensive plan by the number of hazard-mitigation measures proposed. Brody and Highfield (2005) c onducted a content analysis of comprehensive plans in the state of Florida by evaluating the presence of 7 polices that are considered effective in controlling growth by encouraging developmen t away from wetland and critical habitat. Few studies have explored the content of la nd development regulations at the city/county level (Talen and Knaap 2003). Using county comp rehensive plans and surveys of local policy makers, Feiock and Tavares (2002) examined the relationship between county institutional features and growth management policy thr oughout the state of Florida and found that governmental structure had a dir ect affect on the development of local growth management policies. Lichtenberg et al. (2007) examined th e effect of local land us e policies that mandated open space within residential subdi visions in the Washington-Baltimore area and found that developers compensated for the regulations by pr otecting larger forested open space, increasing home parcel sizes, and decreasing area dedicated to public facilities such as playgrounds and ball fields. Talen and Knaap (2003) conducted a co ntent analysis of city and county zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations throughout the state of Illinois, to determine how local policies encourage or prevent smart-growth initiatives such as compact, mixed-use development that promotes public transport and traditional subdivision design. They found that in Illinois, without a focus on smart growth, onl y 30% of cities and 10% of counties mentioned open space zoning. This study is the first to take a close look at the implementation of growth management regulations within Florida at the local level through a content analysis of land development regulations. I chose to focus on land developmen t regulations (LDRs) and zoning ordinances for
52 study because these documents are required by Florida state law and therefore should be available for a large sample across the state. Moreover, open space is a required element within the comprehensive plan, and county LDRs and z oning codes are the tool s with which counties implement their comprehensive plans, therefor e open space regulation in some form will be contained within the aforementioned documents. Study Objective The objectiv e of this study was to determin e for each Florida County, the relative strength of land development regulations (LDRs) that ad dress open space, based on the combination of open space designation and long-term management requirements. I expect many Florida counties will require open space protection bu t may not address or require long-term management practices. Though the state mandate s the protection of open space there is very little information about how exac tly open space is to be configur ed, protected or managed, as a result, I expect that the open space regulations will vary greatly in both content and strength between counties. Method This study focuses on evaluating all sections of the county land use regulations including zoning and subdivisio n ordinances in order to ev aluate open space and management regulations. County Selection I obtained electronic copies of Land Developm ent Regulations and codes from 58 of 67 Florida counties. Nine counties were excluded fro m analyses because electronic copies of the code were unavailable. Miami-Dade C ounty was excluded from the analysis because conservation subdivision design is no t addressed in their LDRs. This omission is due to the fact that outside of the urban bounda ry, zoning regulations require 1 home per 4 acres and do not allow cluster development techniques such as co nservation subdivision design. Areas within the
53 urban boundary do not have adequate open space to conserve open space areas. Jackson County LDR was in review and unavailable in the comple te form, therefore a draf t of the proposed LDR was analyzed. The full electronic copy of th e LDRs for Lafayette, Nassau and Suwannee counties were not available so select chap ters were requested from the county including subdivision design, zoning, PUD regulations etc., These sections were then analyzed for content. For analysis each county was assigned an ID number. Content Analysis and Ranking Procedure Using m odel conservation subdivision ordinances written for the state of Georgia by the Atlanta Regional Council (Wenger and Fowler 2002), guidelines created by Randall Arendt (1996) in Growing Greener: Putting Conserva tion into Local Plans and Ordinances and a Land Use and Management Plan created by the Comm onwealth of Massachuset ts and the Executive Office of Environmental Affair s Division of Conservation Services (Westover 1994), a content analysis was designed for the land development regulations. The model ordinances include elements such as an open space management plan, instrument of permanent protection (for the open space), minimum requirements for open space protection, list of appropriate activities within the open space, etc. Based on the elements required in the above model ordinances, and additional research suggesting that the conser vation value of the open space is dependent upon the configuration, location, and si ze of the open space as well as other elements fundamental for the long-term success of open space protection (e.g., education for residents, proximity to human structures, the use of incentives) (Theobald et al. 1997; Arendt 1999; Odel l et al. 2003; Lenth et al. 2006; Milder 2007; Hostetler and Drake 2008) I created a seri es of 34 questions about open space protection and management based on recommendations from multiple model ordinances and throughout the literature.
54 The 34 questions were provided to 3 independe nt coders in the form of a coding sheet (Appendix B). In addition to a coding sheet, each coder was also pres ented with a content protocol (Appendix C). The coding sheet included a list of a ll 34 questions with space for recording a response for each question. The cont ent protocol included the 34 questions with a definition of key terms and information about th e possible responses (i.e ., yes or no) for each question. The protocol included the definition of open space used for this study: open space can only include habitat areas contai ned within or protected as pa rt of a private residential development. Therefore, parks, recreational areas and wildlife or conservation areas that are owned and managed for public use by a public entity such as the county, state of federal government agency were excluded from the project. In addition, regions protected by a private entity but not contained within the boundaries of a developed lands cape were also not addressed. Finally, coders were instructed to evaluate se ctions of the LDR whic h addressed residential zones or developments and to ignore codes addr essing open space in commercial, agricultural or mixed-use zoning areas. Using the protocol terms and definitions as a guide, coders visually reviewed each countys LDR (Riffe 1998). All 34 questions were answered for each county and responses were recorded on the coding sheet. Both the content protocol and th e coding sheets were tested on participating coders to make sure all the de finitions and terms were listed and clear. Modifications to the content protocol were made, including the addition of supplemental definitions and details for coding requirements. Twenty-eight questions were coded as yes and no responses and 6 questions were left as open-ended responses. Of the 28 yes/no coded ques tions, 16 questions were about what type of open space protection was required by the LDRs and zoning codes. The other 12 questions
55 included questions about how the regulations addressed the l ong-term management of open space. The 6 open-ended questions asked about the language used to protect and manage open space (Appendix D). The 16 questions for open space protection addr essed whether or not the LDRs and zoning codes had a definition of open space, whether it provided incentives for open space protection, required a list of allowed or prohibited activities within the open space, etc. The number of yes answers were summed (each yes was counted as one point) and a total open space index was calculated. The maximum score possibl e for the open space index was 16. The 12 questions about the long-term management of open space asked whether management responsibilities are re quired, and if so what are the required management activities, how long management was required for, etc (A ppendix D). Four of the 12 questions were primary questions and the other 8 were sub-questions which relate d to the primary questions but asked for more in-depth information. If the an swer to the primary question was yes then the subsequent sub-questions had two possible answers (yes, and no). If the answer to the primary question was no, then the subsequent sub-questi ons had only one possible answer (n/a). To provide an example of this process consider the question: Does the ordinance require a management plan? If the answer to this que stion was yes, subsequent questions about the elements included in the management plan would include yes or no. However, if the answer to the primary question was no, then any sub-questions would be coded as not applicable. The number of yes answers were then summed for all twelve questions, both primary and subquestions (each yes was counted as one point) and this number became the management index. The maximum score possible for the management index was 12.
56 The management index was then added to the op en-space index to generate a total overall policy score (maximum value of 28). The open sp ace and management index as well as the total policy score were used to create a scale that c ould then be used to compare the strength of regulations across counties. I assumed that counties with a la rger number of yes answers had stronger open space protection and management polic ies. Counties were then ranked from the strongest to the weakest based on their earned total policy score with the highest score given a rank of 1 and the lowest a rank of 58. The open-ended question section touched on elements from both categories (open space protection and the management of open space). Open-ended responses were copied word for word from the land development regulations ont o the coding sheet. I identified qualitative themes that appeared from the open-ended questi ons and chose to highlight a number of themes that were mentioned within the literature as important to conserving open space for wildlife (Westover 1994; Arendt 1999; We nger and Fowler 2002; Lenth et al. 2006; Milder 2007; Hostetler and Drake 2008). The themes included whether or not the open space requirement was > 20%. Lenth et al. (2006) reported that a requirement of less than 20% open space (out of the total land area) provided little conservation value. Therefore, counties with less than 20% open space required are providing minimal protection while requirements at or above 20% are better. Additional themes included whether roads and pa rking areas were prohibited within the open space, whether golf courses and recreational stru ctures were allowed within the open space, whether easements were mentioned as a legal me thod to protect open space, and if open space management was required in perpetuity (Appendix D). As part of this secondary an alysis, counties receiv ed one point if their LDRs and zoning codes mentioned the selected themes. County de finitions of open space were extremely varied
57 and without any clear unifying them e, therefore county definitions are listed word for word so that readers can make their own decisions about the strength of the various definitions. Analyses of Individual Questions For the purposes of the discussion, the yes no responses are separated into, high, moderate and low categories. W here more than two-thirds of the counties (38) addressed a question within their LDRs, this response was considered high. Moderate values were less than two-thirds and more than one-third of the countie s and low when less than one third (19) of the counties. A number of key terms are important to expl ain; many of these explanations are included and explained in further detail in the conten t protocol (Appendix C). For the 16 open space protection questions, incentives for open space protection generally focused on bonus densities for clustering, and as well as fast-track permitting or reduced fees. Hardscape elements include man-made elements that are generally impervious to water such as sidewalks, streets, buildings, etc. Recreational elements included any man-made feature that could be used for recreational purposes i.e., boat ramp, walkway, bicycle rac k, playground, etc. Educational efforts could include signage, brochures, workshops etc. Own ership responsibilities could be conveyed to a homeowners association, a private entity or a county department. A number of important terms were considered for the management questions as well. For the first management question (question 19) code rs were asked to identify whether or not the regulations require access to the open space fo r management purposes (i.e., we were not interested in whether or not access was granted to homeowners and residents). Access could be provided through the creation of a walkway, road or buffer area, so that those responsible for management could access the protected area wi thout trespassing through homeowner lots or other areas within the development.
58 The next question asked (question 20) was whether the LDR required an open space management plan. A management plan is a document which includes a description of the human activities necessary to maintain the ope n space for common use, the objectives of the management activities, maps of the open space, de tails about different areas of the open space and the type of management necessary for the different regions (i.e., wetlands, uplands, scrub, etc.) (Westover 1994). This is distinct from question 22 that asked whether the regulations required management efforts (see below). Requi ring management efforts does not require the same level of detail or protection for the open spa ce that is required by using a management plan. Any county with a management plan requirement in addition to requiring management activities is providing one more level of detail and streng th to their open space regulations. The purpose of a management plan is to guide the management activities conducted within the open space so that they meet certain conservation, land manage ment, or other goals set by the land owner or county. Any LDR that required the creation of a document that de scribed the above information was given credit for this question even if the document was not called an open space management plan. Coders were also instructed no t to give counties credit for this answer if a management plan was required only for land protected for threatened or endangered species. For question 21, management responsibilities coul d be assigned to a wide range of entities including a non-profit organization, private individual or company as well as the county. The final primary question (question 22) asked whether maintenance efforts were required within the open space. If a management plan was required, coders assumed that maintenance efforts were required as part of the plan. However, counties could require maintenance efforts without including a detailed management plan. Maintenance efforts within the open space could include but are not limited to the mowing of fiel ds, the maintenance of signage and trails, the
59 revegetation of certain areas, the removal of invasive plants, etc. The four sub-questions under this question were important for determining ot her details such as funding requirements. For sub-question 22e, the length of time specified fo r management efforts did not have to be a numerical value it could also include a specific te rm such as forever, always, perpetual, etc. Coding Reliability Coders participated in two training sessions prior to coding any counties. Training included in-person m eetings with all coders to define the questions addressed in this study, and the key terms of interest within the LDRs (Riffe 1998). After te rms were defined coders were trained on how to use the content pr otocol to apply the definitions to the content of the LDRs. A number of key terms were reviewed before the data was analyzed further detail and additional explanations are included in the content protocol (Appendix B). The use of multiple coders can introduce code r bias which makes it difficult for future researchers to duplicate the results. The purpose of the coding protocol and the training sessions was to minimize bias by ensuring that coders were scoring each question reli ably. Reliability is a measure of how consistently coders agree when categorizing content (R iffe 1998). A standard level of acceptable agreement between coders is 80% (Riffe 1998). The content protocol and coding sheets were then trialed on seven counties (13% of the total sample). Previous studies indicate that between 5% and 20% of the body of content should be tested (Kaid and Wadsworth 1989; Wimmer and Dominick 1997). Each of the seven county LDRs were scored by one of the three code rs, and independently coded by the other two coders. A check for reliab ility was carried out acro ss all (16) of the open space management questions, and the 4 primary que stions (sub-questions were not analyzed for reliability) of the management index. There was high agreement on 16 questions (coder 1 = 91%, coder 2 = 90%). Out of the twenty questions analyzed for reliability, four questions were
60 reviewed because of significant deviations between coder results. Coders were retrained on those four questions and after re training the reliability of the f our questions was (coder 1 = 96%, coder 2 = 93%) for a score of overall reliability (all 20 questions) (coder 1 = 91%, coder 2 = 92%). Individual coders scored all remaining counties. Results Internal Reliability I ran a Cronbachs alpha test to m easure the internal reliability of the LDR content (i.e. whether counties which had a high open space index would also have a high management index). The internal reliability of the indices was high (0.75). County Open Space Index and Management Scores Open space index scores ranged from 0 to 14 (Table 2-1). Approximately half the counties met half of the open space criteri a (out of 16 questions) and the other half met more than 8/16 questions. One county (Jackson County) had an open space index of 0. The management index scores ranged from 0 to 10 (Table 2-1). Twenty counties (34%) had a management index score of 0, while only 8 c ounties mentioned 6 or more of the criteria. The mean open space index (7.24) was higher th an the management index (2.56). The total scores for overall policy strength ranged from 0 to 24 (out of 28). The average county LDR met 10 of the 28 possible criteria for an average of 36%. Using the total score for each county, Alachua county was ranked the highest and only 11 counties scored 14 or higher; most counties scored below 14 (Table 2-2). Individual Questions Open space protection High response rate: For open space protection q uestions, the most widely addressed policy was the preservation of open space as part of th e development with 56 (96%) counties including
61 this element. A high number of counties (45 of 58 counties) included a definition of open space within the LDRs. Other high response questions included: incentives for open space protection (44 counties), required clear ownership of the op en space (38 counties), and identified prohibited hardscape elements (39 counties) and allowable recreational features w ithin the open space (41 counties). Medium response rate: Only three questions had medium responses and those included: the identification of th e type of land (wetland, upland) that must be include d within the open space area (28 counties), a list of activities that are permissi ble within the open space (37 counties) and a requirement for the legal pr otection of the open sp ace (31 counties). Low response rate: Low responses included primarily quest ions that dealt with the design of open space such as the protection of open space in a contiguous tract, connection to community-wide open space, account for future land use, and location of residential houses abutting the open space. Additional low responses included a list of prohibited activities and uses, protection during development, and require d education for residents. Only one county required education for reside nts about open space. Long-term management of open space Medium to low response rate: Responses for m anagement questions were all in the medium to low range. The most widely addressed policy was the requirement of maintenance efforts in the open space, which was within the medium response range with 36 of 58 counties addressing this element. Two other questions were in the medium range including the requirement of open space ownership and the speci fication of a length of time for management activities. The final two primar y questions, does the regulation re quire access to the open space for management, and is an open space management plan required received low response rates (6 and 12 counties respectively).
62 Open-ended Questions Question 1. What % open space is required for traditional residential development? : Eleven counties (19%) listed eith er a range of percentages for ope n space that must be set aside (10% 30%) or a ratio of land required which was based on the number of lots a developer built or the overall acreage of the development (Table 2-3). Half of the counties (30) required 20% or more of open space protection. The remaining coun ties (17) included those that required less than 20% open space (6 counties) and those coun ties who did not require the protection of open space as part of the development (11 counties). The first 10 counties with the highest total policy scores required the protection of open space as part of the development. The first 10 required the protection of open space as a range, ratio or % that was equal to or higher than 20% of the total developed land area. Question 2. Which elements are prohibited or allowed within the open space? : Responses for allowable and prohibited elements within the open space were diverse. Less than two-thirds of the counties (26) prohibited non -recreational structures within the open space (Table 2-3). More than half of the countie s (36) allowed structures and accessories for recreational purposes. Golf courses were addr essed in a number of ways. Some counties counted them as open space (15) where two countie s (Citrus and Lake Count y) allowed them but specified that accessory structures for activ e recreation, such as clubhouses, could not be contained within the open space. One, Hillsborough County, did not count golf course as open space. Roads were prohibited with the open space by a majority of the counties (31). Of the counties with the top ten total policy scores, all but one (Lee County) included a list of prohibited structures within the open space in their LDRs a nd zoning codes. Eight out of the ten counties prohibited roads specifically. The first 10 counties total policy scores include d a list of allowable
63 elements, out of these 5 counties allowed golf courses while 8 counties allowed recreational structures within the open space (Table 2-3). Question 3. How is open spa ce protected in perpetuity? : Almost one-third of the counties (18) mentioned easements within their regulations as a method of long-term protection for the open space (Table 2-3). Other methods mentioned included deed restrictions or regulations through the homeowners codes covenants and restrictions (CCRs), other methods were mentioned by 24 county regulations. Out of the counties with th e top 10 highest total policy scores, 6 of them mentioned conservation easements. Question 4. How long is management required for? : Answers to this question fell into two categories either long-term/perpetual or nothing. The perpetual/long-term category was mentioned by 23 of the counties (4 9%) (Table 2-3). The rest of the county regulations did not specify how long management was to take place. Question 5. What is the definition of open space? : Open space definitions varied drastically. Some definitions in cluded examples of appropriate land to include within the open space, others mentioned prohibited elements (s uch as roads and buildings) and still others described them as simply areas of undeveloped land. In some counties the open space definition was ambiguous and could be interpreted to includ e yards, and landscaped buffers (Table 2-4). Discussion The content of land developm ent regulations and zoning codes is important because the language used in these documents can affect pa tterns of land development (Brody and Highfield 2005). The results of this research suggest that there is widespread protection for open space within county regulatory documents throughout the state. Despite this finding, low responses were given for other important criteria incl uding the design of open space and efforts to minimize human impact on the open space, such as the regulation of activ ities within the open
64 space and the separation of natural and human area s. Moreover, management criteria was rarely addressed in specific detail and when it was required it rarely included specifics about which activities will be pursued, how ma nagement will be funded, or what would happen if the party responsible for management did not perform its dutie s. The results suggest that there is also a great deal of diversity in how counties define open space, the activities they allow or prohibit within the open space and what percent of open space is protected. The key findings of this study are reported below along with some suggestions for future research. Open Space Designation As expected the mention of open space designation throughout county LDRs was extensive. Only two counties (Putnam and Jack son) did not require th e preservation of open space as part of the development and one (Jackso n) of the counties lacking this element only provided select chapters of a preliminary LDR, so it is very possible the final LDR will contain this item. This finding is striking when you compar e them to results of a similar study in Illinois where only 10% of counties mentioned open sp ace zoning (Talen and Knaap 2003). Based on the results it is clear that most county LDRs require the preservation of open space; provide incentives for open space protection; have a de finition of open space (though these definitions vary drastically in their content); identify bot h hardscape and recreational elements allowed within the open space; and require clear ownership of the natural area. Critics claim that conservation subdivision de sign only protects we tlands, floodplains and other such areas that are require d to be protected anyway (Wenge r and Fowler 2002). To get at this question I attempted to measure how ma ny counties stated the type of land that must be included in open space. For example, if countie s required an open space set aside of 10% did this include scrub, forests, or ha bitat other than wetlands, and sl opes which are typically required for protection. Results showed that fewer than half of the counties ( 28) required particular
65 habitats. This could have been caused by the use of the word must, If counties included information about the type of land that could be included without actually using a term such as must, shall, have to etc. or requiring that certain types be in cluded then they were not given credit for this question. This c ould have contributed to the low nu mber of counties that met this criteria. However, this is an important distinction because without a clear requirement for which types of habitats are allowed to be counted as open space, then open space may not contain any natural habitat but still be allowed to be designated as open space. Prohibiting activities that di srupt wildlife (e.g., dogs and cats off leash) within the protected area could improve the conservation value of open space areas (Lenth et al. 2006; Hostetler and Drake 2008). Moreover, because of their potential harmful a ffects on wildlife, golf courses, roads, and other recreation areas should be limited to a small area of the open space (no more than 10%) (Wenger and Fowler 2002). While many counties provided a list of permissible activities and uses within the open space, the menti on of prohibited activities and uses was low. No county regulations mentioned the prohibiti on of roaming cats and dogs within the open space. Few counties required the design of open space to be contiguous, connect to existing community-wide open space, account for future la nd change around the development, or prohibit residential structures next to the open space. This is important because the fragmentation of habitat can alter important wildlife habitat, a nd the proximity of protected habitat to human buildings and other hardscape elements can affect the movement of wildlife across the landscape (Theobald et al. 1997). Connecting open space w ithin developments to existing or planned regional natural areas can enhance the overall im pact of the open space protection by increasing
66 the size of the habitat protected, and minimize ha bitat fragmentation (Mil der 2007; Hostetler and Drake 2008). Management of Open Space In contrast to the open s pace i ndex, the management index scores were fairly low. If an LDR addressed management, it was most often to require management efforts in the open space itself, and specifics about who will manage open space. A low number of counties required a management plan, (i.e., a document which described the specific management activities and actions which are necessary with in the open space to enable continued common use (Westover 1994). Arendt (1999) considered one of the lead ers in the field of c onservation subdivision design suggests that maintenance responsibilities should be outlined within zoning ordinances and that county regulations should require that management plans be submitted by developers prior to granting development final approval. In Florida, 36 counties required management efforts within the open space but only twelve counties required management plans. While requiring maintenance activities is one step towa rds the protection of open space, the additional strength of a management plan lies in the creation of objectiv es and goals for management, a clear site description, and statement of intended uses (W estover 1994). The purpose of the management plan is to define the goals of the management activities so that an open space is being managed with a purpose (i.e., to enhance wild life habitat, to prevent the spread of invasive species etc), the correct areas are being managed with the appr opriate techniques and in a way that allows continued use of the space as intended. The low results for this criterion suggest that management activities are happening for the most part in a piecemeal fashion conducted by homeowners associations (HOAs) a nd/or entities contracted by HOAs without clear objectives or goals for enhancing the health of the protected habitat.
67 The low scores observed within the management index suggest that counties within Florida are not addressing critical mana gement activities at the same degree they are addressing the protection of open space. Without manageme nt protected open space can degrade over time losing wildlife value (Lenth et al. 2006, Hostet ler and Drake 2008). Therefore the management and maintenance of open space is critical to the long-term su ccess of conservation communities (Wilson et al. 1998; Thompson 2004; Youngentob and Hostetler 2005). My results suggest that few counties address the issue of access to the open space for management; yet, without access to the open space by way of roads or paths throug h the development, the entity responsible for maintenance will not be able to perform thei r duties. A number of counties required the selection of a responsible party to carry out the management ac tivities but did not address the consequences of failure to manage by the res ponsible party. The funding for management was also not addressed by many counties. Without funding for maintenance these efforts will not take place. Open Ended Questions Wenger and Fowler (2002) advocated the creatio n of a high m inimum standard (% of total land area protected) for open space. My results suggest that half of the counties (50%) required open space percentages above 20%, following th e recommendation of Wenger and Fowler (2002). There is significant variati on across the state in how open space is defined within local land development regulations and wh ich elements are prohibited within the protected area. This finding agrees with previous research citi ng significant variati on across Florida state comprehensive plans (Feiock 2002). This study builds on previous research by examining land development regulations which are the local t ool for implementing comprehensive plans.
68 Moreover, this study looked more closely at th e content of the regulations by examining both what was said and the language used to convey the regulation. There was some consistency across counties in the mention of easements as legal protection for open space in perpetuity. Arendt (1999) suggests that easements are a better method of protecting open space over the long-te rm than covenants and wording on the final development plan. The limitation of many of the county LDRs is that instead of requiring strong legal protection through the use of easements as Arendt (1999) suggests, many of the counties merely mentioned the easements in addition to ot her methods of protecting open space. In fact, more counties mentioned other methods than those that mentioned easements. Management efforts were required by less th an half the counties. This finding was expected because unlike open space protection, open space management is not a required element of comprehensive planning. In those cases where management efforts were mandatory or required, counties always specified that management efforts are put into pr actice in perpetuity. Study Limitations This study lim ited analysis to one state and re gulations at the county level and not the city level as well. The removal of 9 counties from analysis, most of which are smaller in size may bias the study given that smaller counties may have more rural areas and therefore less need for conservation initiatives or a smaller government wh ich could result in less developed codes. The removal of these counties may have caused our numb ers to be larger than the true results would have been if these counties had been included. The other limitation of the study is that it is simply an analysis of existing county regulations. While the language of these regula tions can influence land development patterns, I did not attempt to measure what is actual ly happening on the ground, in terms of the implementation of policy. For example, while th e code may require the set aside of funds for
69 management there is no way of knowing, using only this study whether developers and county officials are actually implementing th ese policies. Moreover, the use of the term in perpetuity to describe any activity is extremely vague given that perpetuity could mean 5 years, 10 years or 100 years depending on the individual project. Thes e aforementioned issues were not addressed within the framework of my research. Conclusions This study is the first to c onduct a detailed analysis of th e content of LDRs and zoning ordinances in the state of Florida. It is a first step toward und erstanding statewide regulations to protect and manage open space. Policies a nd regulations can help create and maintain functioning open space that provides valuable habita t for wildlife and enhances the quality of life for citizens within the community. To accomplis h this, policies should include standards that address the design, maintenance, ownership, an d funding mechanism which apply to the open space. Our results suggest that the majority of c ounties in Florida provide incentives for the creation and initial protection of open space but do little to address cr itical design elements or the impact of humans on the natural area. Moreove r the management of open space is not widely addressed. County policy makers should take a close look at th eir local land regulations and zoning codes to see how they are protecting a nd managing open space. The findings of this study was to analyze county LDRs and zoning or dinances and measure the strength of their regulations. This research will contribute to the enhancement of existing policy and the protection of additional valuable open space throughout the state. Future Research Future research could address these issues by comparing the re sults of my study (the index and total policy values) with growth patterns, the am ount of open space protected, and the
70 management activities that are taking place across the state as well as the resultant health of the open space that is protected (i.e. native species vs invasive, species population health etc). Additionally, a number of the questions asked in the c ontent analysis could be strengthened to determine whether or not a specific element is suggested, encouraged or required. For example, further analysis coul d be conducted on the open space definitions, to determine which counties allow open space to include elements such as yards, landscape buffers etc. Further research could explore the use of conservation easements throughout the state, which counties require them, whic h counties allow them, which count ies prefer other methods of legal protection for open space. More research could explore within the counties that require specific types of land in the open space, what ty pes of land are included, are some habitat types required more than others (i.e. wetlands) and if so what are the implications of this for statewide conservation efforts. By giving counties one point for each of the open space and management criteria I made the assumption that each element was equally important and that the strength of the policy depends on how many of the items a county meets. However, further study could attempt to quantify different elements (i.e., 1 po int for defining open space, 2 points for having a management plan, and 5 points for requiring a fundi ng mechanism etc.) and allocate points based on the items that are proven through research to pr ovide the most benefit for wildlife or be linked to the success of long-term management efforts. Further study could address the relations hip between policy strength and various demographic factors such as county mean income, education level, votin g patterns, and existing protection areas. Additional anal ysis could be conducted to dete rmine if the strength of the regulation or existing incentives has an affect on the existe nce of functional conservation subdivisions throughout the state.
71 Table 2-1. The number of Florida counties that answered yes to a given question. Yes and no responses were based on content anal yses of their LDRs and zoning codes (percentage in brackets) All Counties (N = 58) Open Space Protection (16 items) 7.24 (3.00)a 1 Have a definition of open space? 45 (77) 2 Does it require the preservation of open space as part of development? 56 (96) 3 Does it require that open space be set aside in a contiguous tract of land? 11 (19) 4 Does it provide incentives for the preservation of open space? 44 (76) 5 Does it identify the type of land that must be included in open space? 28 (48) 6 Does it identify hardscape elements that are not allowed within the open space? 39 (67) 7 Does it identify recreational elements th at are allowed within the open space? 41 (70) 8 Does it include a list of permissible activities? 37 (63) 9 Does it include a list of prohibited activities and uses? 12 (21) 10 Does it mention activities that prot ect open space and natural areas during development? 14 (24) 11 Is legal protection of the open space required? 31 (53) 12 Does it require that the open space design connect to existing communitywide open space 12 (21) 13 Does it require design of open space to account for future land use of surrounding areas? 8 (14) 14 Does it prohibit residential structures that abut the natural area? 5 (9) 15 Does it require education for residents about open space? 1 (2) 16 Does it require clear ownership of the open space? 38 (65) Long-term Management of Open Space (12 items) 2.57 (2.69) a 1 Does it require access to the open space for management? 6 (10) 2 Is an open space management plan required? 12 (21) 2a Does it require the management plan to identify maintenance objectives? 4 (7) 2b Does it require that changes to the plan be approved by a regulatory entity? 3 (5) 3 Does it require specifics about who will manage the open space? 26 (45) 3a Does it address the consequences of failure to manage by the responsible party? 3(5) 4 Does it require maintenance efforts in the open space? 36 (62) 4a Does it require an estimate for the costs for maintenance activities? 2 (3) 4b Does it require funding fo r maintenance in perpetuity? 11 (19) 4c Does it require management efforts that enhance local flora? 15 (26) 4d Does it require management efforts that enhance local fauna? 9 (15) 4e Does it specify a length of time that management activities will continue? 23 (40) Overall Policy Score (28 items) 9.81 (5.10) a a Mean scores (s.d. in brackets) for each group of questions: open space, management and total (in bold).
72 Table 2-2. Scores for each category (open spa ce and management) as well as the total policy score for each county from highest to lowest County Name Open Space Index Management Index Total Policy Score Alachua 14 10 24 Seminole 12 9 21 Martin 11 8 19 Brevard 11 7 18 Pasco 13 4 17 Charlotte 12 5 17 Leon 11 5 16 Lee 9 7 16 Sumter 10 4 14 Hardee 9 5 14 Palm Beach 8 6 14 Bradford 10 3 13 Gadsden 10 3 13 Highlands 10 3 13 Polk 10 3 13 Broward 9 4 13 Marion 8 5 13 Manatee 7 6 13 Sarasota 4 9 13 Indian River 10 2 12 Collier 9 3 12 Monroe 9 3 12 Jefferson 9 2 11 Putnam 8 3 11 Orange 7 4 11 Citrus 9 1 10 St. Lucie 9 1 10 Hillsborough 8 2 10 Duval 7 3 10 Madison 7 3 10 Franklin 6 4 10 Flagler 8 1 9 Volusia 8 1 9 Nassaua 7 2 9 Suwanneea 8 0 8 Levy 7 1 8 DeSoto 7 0 7 Lake 7 0 7 Walton 7 0 7 Hamilton 4 3 7 Okaloosa 6 0 6 Taylor 6 0 6 Wakulla 6 0 6 Escambia 4 2 6 Santa Rosa 4 2 6
73 Table 2-2. Continued County Name Open Space Index Management Index Total Policy Score Clay 5 0 5 Glades 5 0 5 Holmes 5 0 5 Lafayettea 5 0 5 Pinellas 5 0 5 Washington 5 0 5 Osceola 4 0 4 Hernando 3 0 3 St. Johns 3 0 3 Bay 2 0 2 Okeechobee 2 0 2 Hendry 1 0 1 Jackson b 0 0 0 a Full code was unavailable b Interim code analyzed
74Table 2-3. Responses to open-ended questi ons for all of the Florida counties studied. Counties re ceived an x if the regulations met the specific theme listed. % open space required ? Which elements are prohibited within the open space? Which elements are allowed within the open space? How is open space protected in perpetuity? How long is managemen t required for? County Ranka > than 20%b Roads/parkin g areas Non-Rec Structuresc Otherd Golf Courses Recreationa l structures Othere Easemen t Otherf Perpetually Alachua 1 x x x x --x x x x Seminole 2 Ratio x x -x x x x -x Martin 3 x x ---x x -x x Brevard 4 x x -x x x x x -x Pasco 5 Range x x x x -x x --Charlotte 6 x -x --x x x x x Leon 7 x x x x -x x x x x Lee 8 Range ---x x x --x Sumter 9 x x x --x --x x Hardee 10 x x x x x x x -x x Palm Beach 11 x ----x -x x x Bradford 12 --x ---x x -x Gadsden 13 Range x x ---x --x Highlands 14 x -x --x x ---Polk 15 x x -x -x x x x -Broward 16 ----x x x -x x Marion 17 x x x ----x x x Manatee 18 x x x --x x x x x Sarasota 19 ----x -x -x x Indian River 20 x x x -x x x x x x Collier 21 x x x x x x x ---Monroe 22 --x --x x x x -Jefferson 23 -x x --x x x x -Putnam 24 --x --x -x x -Orange 25 Range -------x x Citrus 26 x -x x x x x x x -St. Lucie 27 x x -x -x x x x -
75Table 2-3. Continued % open space required ? Which elements are prohibited within the open space? Which elements are allowed within the open space? How is open space protected in perpetuity? How long is managemen t required for? County Ranka > than 20%b Roads/parkin g areas Non-Rec Structuresc Otherd Golf Courses Recreationa l structures Othere Easemen t Otherf Perpetually Hillsboroug h 28 Range --x -x x ---Duval 29 Ratio ----x ---x Madison 30 x x x ----x --Franklin 31 x -x --x --x x Flagler 32 x x x --x --x -Volusia 33 x x x -x x x -x -Nassau 34 x x x -x x x -x -Suwannee 35 -----x x ---Levy 36 -x -x --x ---DeSoto 37 -x x ---x ---Lake 38 x x -x x x x ---Walton 39 x x ----x ---Hamilton 40 -----x x --x Okaloosa 41 x ---x x --x -Taylor 42 -x ---x x ---Wakulla 43 x ----x x ---Escambia 44 x --------x Santa Rosa 45 x --------x Clay 46 -x x --x ----Glades 47 ----x x x ---Holmes 48 Range x ---x x ---Lafayette 49 ----------Pinellas 50 Range x --------Washington 51 Range x --------Osceola 52 x x --------
76 Table 2-3. Continued % open space required? Which elements are prohibited within the open space? Which elements are allowed within the open space? How is open space protected in perpetuity? How long is management required for? County Ranka > than 20%b Roads/parking areas Non-Rec Structuresc OtherdGolf Courses Recreational structures OthereEasement Otherf Perpetually Bay 55 Ratio ---------Okeechobee 56 ----------Hendry 57 x ---------Jackson 58 ----------Totalg 30 31 26 13 16 36 36 18 24 23 a Rank was determined by the total policy score computed from the combined scores of the open space and management indices. The county with the highest score received the hi ghest ranking all the way down to the county with the lowest score that received the lowest ranking. b Range refers to a percentages for open space that must be set aside (10% 30%) or a ratio (10/100) of land required which was based on the number of lots a develope r built or the overall acr eage of the development c This means structures other than recreational structures were pr ohibited. Non-recreational structures include homes, mobile homes, storage sheds etc. d Examples include: Billboards, stormwater reten tion basins, utility easements etc. e Examples include: Nature trails, stormwater retention basins, fountains etc f Examples include: Deed restric tions, covenants, plat etc. g Total number of counties whose regulations addressed each theme
77Table 2-4. The definition of open space as seen in land development regulations and zoning by county County Rank What is the definition of open space?a Alachua 1 Any natural, recreational, or common open areas, either public ly or privately owned, set aside, dedicated, designated, or reserved for the private use or enjoyment of owners or occupants of land adjoining such open space, or for the public at large. Seminole 2 Any portion of a parcel, or areas of land or water, which is open and unobstructed from the ground to the sky, including areas maintained in a natural and undisturbed character and areas which are permeable in nature; provided, however, that portions of the Seminole county trail system shall be considered open space. Martin 3 The portion of a development that is permeable and re mains open and unobstructed from the ground to the sky, specifically excluding parking areas, whether permeable or impermeable. Brevard 4 Usable open space means a total amount of improved usable area including outdoor space permanently set aside and designated on a site development plan as recreational or open space for use by the landowners or residents of a development. Pasco 5 Land or water body which provides for physical movement. It is free of structures or equipment. Open space can be of any size, trend, or open grassland. Functions include the providing of flood protection, creating a sense of spatal separation for incompatible land uses, the provision of pas sive recreation or conservation uses, and historical site preservation. Charlotte 6 That land area unencumbered by an impervious surface which may include waterways and vegetative areas. Leon 7 Any area of a lot, site, tract or plat, exclusive of struct ures, streets (public and privat e), driveway, parking or open storage area, which is open to the sky a nd that will remain as open space through recordation of restrictive covenants, easements, public dedication or other legal device. Lee 8 Areas of preserved indigenous native veget ation and areas replanted with vegetation after construction, such as natural systems, lawns, landscaped areas, and greenways, which comply with the minimum dimensional requirements. Sumter 9 An area of land, or combination of land and water, within the area of a PUD which is designated and intended for the common use and enjoyment of resi dents of the PUD and others. Hardee 10 Undeveloped lands suitable for passive recreation or conservation uses. Palm Beach 11 Unbuilt land reserved for, or shown on the approved site plan or PDP. Bradford 12 Common Open Space is an area of land, or an area of water, or a combination of land and water within the area of a Planned Unit Development in common. Gadsden 13 Any parcel or designated land area in its natural state or essentially unencumber ed by either principal or accessory buildings, structures or impervious surfaces. Buffer areas shall not be included in open space area calculations. Highlands 14 Undeveloped lands suitable for passive recreation or conservation uses. Polk 15 Area for outdoor use, features, or natural systems. These area s may be described as lots, parc els, tracts, or portions of a development. Broward 16 N/A
78Table 2-4. Continued County Rank What is the definition of open space? Marion 17 Any parcel of land or area of undeveloped land or water publicly or privately owned and set aside, dedicated, designated or reserved for passive recreation, agriculture resource protection, conservation uses, or buffers. Manatee 18 shall mean that area within the boundaries of a lot or a dev elopment that is intended to provide light and air, and is designed for scenic, recreational, or ecological purposes. Sarasota 19 N/A Indian River 20 The gross area of the site less building coverage, parking surface, internal tra ffic circulation system and any exclusion herein specifically set forth. Open space is green area, natural or landscaped. Up to 30 percent of the open space requirement for a development may be satisfied by a body or bodies of water contained within the development area. Specific, alternative means of calculating open space may be se t forth for specific conditions in other chapters of the land development code. Collier 21 Areas that are not occupied by buildin gs, impervious parking areas, streets, dr iveways or loading areas which may be equipped or developed with amenities designed to encourage t he use and enjoyment of the space either privately or by the general public. Monroe 22 Means that portion of any parcel or area of land or water whic h is required to be maintained such that the area within its boundaries is open and unobstructed from the ground to the sky. Jefferson 23 That portion of the total development site which sha ll be open, unoccupied and unobstructed by any structure. Putnam 24 Means vegetated, pervious surfaced areas of land set asi de for parks, outdoor recreation, green space or viable agriculture, as these terms are defined here. Orange 25 Lands set aside for the protection of natural resources and areas unsuitable for development due to natural hazards, recreational areas, the enhancement of the developed urban environment. Citrus 26 N/A St. Lucie 27 N/A Hillsborough 28 An area reserved for landscaping and permeable open area which shall be improved and maintained accordingly. Duval 29 All areas of native plant communities or areas replanted with vegetation after construction, such as revegetated natural areas, trees, shrub, hedge or ground cover planting areas, and lawns and all other areas required to be provided as natural ground and landscaping pursuant to the Zoning Code. Madison 30 A portion of the gross land area unencumbered with any stru cture, roadway, driveway, o ff-street parking, or other impervious surface, to include unfenced storm water retent ion pond areas designed as site amenities, greenbelt and buffer areas, sodded or landscaped yards and recreation areas. Franklin 31 N/A Flagler 32 An area open to the sky which may be on the same lot with a building. The area may include the natural environmental features. Streets, structures an d the like shall not be included.
79Table 2-4. Continued County Rank What is the definition of open space? Volusia 33 That portion of a project not used for buildings, street right s-of-way, or off-street parking and loading areas or other impervious surfaces. Nassau 34 An area open to the sky, which may be on the same lot with a building. The area may include, along with the natural environmental features, swimming pools, tennis courts, or any other recreation fa cilities. Streets, structures for habitation and the like shall not be included. Suwannee 35 Open spaces mean undeveloped lands suitable for passive recreation or conservation uses. Levy 36 A yard area which is not used for or occupied by a driveway off street parking, loading space, drying yard, or refuse storage space. DeSoto 37 Portion of a lot or parcel which can be used by the inhabitants of the property for outdoor living, active or passive activity and or recreation. Lake 38 Any parcel of land set aside, dedicated, designated, or rese rved for public or private use or enjoyment of owners and occupants of land adjoining or neighboring such open space. Walton 39 The amount of the site that is devoted to recreation, re source protection, amenity, and or landscaped buffers. Open space may include, but is not limited to, lawns, decorativ e planting, walkways, active and passive recreation areas, playgrounds, fountains, swimming pools, wooded areas and water courses. Hamilton 40 Common Open Space is an area of land, or an area of water, or a combination of land and water within the area of a Planned Unit Development in common. Okaloosa 41 Undeveloped land suitable for passive recreation and conservation uses. Taylor 42 N/A Wakulla 43 The sum of all perimeter landscaping, vehicle use landscape areas, buffers and/or other preserved natural areas or landscaping. Escambia 44 Land or portions of land to be preserved or protected, w hether public or privately owned and perpetually maintained for active or passive recreation or to meet lot coverage require ments. The term includes but is not limited to the following terms. Required yards, developed recreation, natural and landscaped areas and common open space, etc. Santa Rosa 45 Land or portions of land to be preserved and protected, whether municipally or privately owned and perpetually maintained for active or passive recreati on or to meet lot coverage requirements. Clay 46 A required exterior open area clear from the ground upward devoid of residential and commercial buildings, accessory structures, and impervious area, except however, those buildings and structures used exclusively for recreational purposes. Glades 47 Undeveloped lands suitable for passive recreation or conservation uses. Holmes 48 A site that is devoted to recreation, resource protection, amenity, and/or landscaped buffers.
80Table 2-4. Continued County Rank What is the definition of open space? Lafayette 49 An area of land, or water or combination of both land and water within the area of a PRD in common. Common open space may contain such residential structures and impr ovements as are desirable and appropriate for the common benefit and enjoyment of residents of the PRD. Pinellas 50 The land or water areas between and around structures, incl uding recreation areas, storm water detention areas, or preservation areas. Washington 51 That portion of the total development which shall be open, unoccupied and unobstr ucted by any structure. Osceola 52 N/A Hernando 53 N/A St. Johns 54 N/A Bay 55 N/A Okeechobee 56 N/A Hendry 57 N/A Jackson 58 N/A a N/A refers to cases where no answer was provided in the county LDRs and zoning code.
81 APPENDIX A QUESTIONS FOR SURVEY PARTICIPANTS Planning 1. At what point in planning a sustainabl e comm unity would you begin to consider management issues? 2. Which design elements can be addressed in the planning stage of the development that would minimize long term management needs? 3. What do you think can be done to address these elements? 4. What are the management issues that can be addressed in th e planning stage? 5. When planning a sustainable development how would you incorporate the best management practices for ope n space/natural areas? 6. Are there any additional issues that need to be addressed at the planning stage? 7. Are there existing poli cies that you area aware of that address long term management issues in private developments? 8. How would you suggest that these issu es be addressed through policy? Building 9. Which design elements can to be addressed in the building stage of the development that would minimize long term management needs? 10. What do you think can be done to address these elements? 11. Are there any management issues that shoul d be addressed during the building stage of the development? 12. When building a sustainable development what are the best management practices for open space/natural areas? 13. Are there any additional issues that need to be addressed at the building stage? 14. Are there existing policies that address the management of open space/natural areas in private developments? 15. How would you suggest that these issu es be addressed through policy? Move -in 16. What are the management issues that can be addressed in the move -in stage that would minimize long-term management needs?
82 17. What steps can a developer or neighborhood a ssociation take to pr event negative impacts to natural areas, wildlife or conservation ar eas (or greenwashing) after construction? 18. Are there any existing policies that addre ss these issues in private developments? 19. How would you suggest these issues be addressed through policy? 20. What are the barriers to implementing policies and regulations about management? 21. What are the different tools th at can be used to encourage developers, city officials, developers and planners to implement long term management of sustainable development? 22. Are there specific examples of counties or st ates that have provided incentives for the management of sustainable development? 23. Are there specific examples of developmen ts that have adopted management policies without incentives or regulation?
83 APPENDIX B CODING SHEET Content of F lorida county Land Development Regulations v. 1 County ID ___________ Open Space Characteristics No Yes v. 2 Have a definition of open space? 1 2 (see v. 25) v. 3 Does it require the preservatio n of open 1 2 space as part of development? (see v. 24) v. 4 Does it require that open space be set aside in 1 2 a contiguous tract of land? v. 5 Does it provide incentives for th e preservation 1 2 of open space? v. 6 Does it identify the type of land that must be 1 2 included in open space? v. 7 Does it identify hardscape elements that are not 1 2 allowed within the open space? (see v. 26) v. 8 Does it identify rec reational elements that are allowed 1 2 within the open space? (see v. 27) v. 9 Does it include a list of permissi ble activities and uses? 1 2 v. 10 Does it include a list of prohibited activities 1 2 and uses? v. 11 Does it mention activities that protect open 1 2 space and natural areas during development?
84 v. 12 Is legal protection of the open space 1 2 required? (see v.28) v. 13 Does it require that the open space design 1 2 connect to existing community-wide open space? v. 14 Does it require design of open space to 1 2 account for future land use of surrounding areas? v. 15 Does it prohibit residential structures to 1 2 abut the natural area? v. 16 Does it require education for res idents 1 2 about open space? v. 17 Does it require clear ownership of the 1 2 open space? v. 18 Open Space Index ___________ (Count up the number of times yes was circled v2-v17) Open Space Management No Yes NA v. 19 Does it require access to the open space 1 2 0 for management? v. 20 Is an open space management plan required? 1 2 0 v. 20a Does it require the management plan to 1 2 0 identify maintenance objectives? v. 20b Does it require that changes to the plan 1 2 0 be approved by a regulatory entity? v. 21 Does it require specifics about who will 1 2 0 manage the open space? v. 21a Does it address the consequences of failure 1 2 0 to manage by the responsible party? v. 22 Does it require maintenance efforts 1 2 0 in the open space?
85 v. 22a Does it require an estimate for the costs 1 2 0 for maintenance activities? v. 22b Does it require funding for maintenance? 1 2 0 v. 22c Does it require management e fforts that 1 2 0 enhance local flora? v. 22d Does it require management e fforts that 1 2 0 enhance local fauna? v. 22e Does it specify a length of time that 1 2 0 management activities will continue? (see v. 29) v. 23 Management Index ____________ (Count up the number of times yes was circled v19-v22e) The following questions are open ended variables. Please answer them exactly as they are seen in the LDRs. v. 24 What % open space is required for traditional residential development?____________ If the value is 5 percent please r ecord the numerical value of 5. v. 25 What is the definition of open space? Record word for word. If there is no definition the answer would be not applicable= 0
86 v. 26 Which hardscape elements are prohibited within the open space? This question is directly related to v. 7. If the answer to v. 7 is no then the answer to this variable will be not applicable. Otherwise, list the elements that are pr ohibited (roads, parking lots, existing structures etc). Not applicable = 0 v. 27 Which recreational elements are allowed within the open space? This question is directly related to v. 8. If the answer to v.8 is no then the answer to this variable will be not applicable. Otherwise list the elements that are allowed (pedestrian paths, parks, swimming beaches etc). Not applicable = 0 v. 28 How is open space protected in perpetuity? If the answer to v.12 is no then the answer to this variable will be not applicable. Otherwise, please list the legal tool that is used to protect the open space. Not applicable = 0 v. 29 How long is management required for? If the answer to v. 22e is no then the answer to this variable will be not applicable. Otherwise, please list the length in time in years that manage ment activities will continue. Months would be listed as a proportion of years for ex ample 3 months would be Not applicable = 0
87 APPENDIX C CONTENT ANALYSIS PROTOCOL Part I The purpose is to determine the extent and ch aracter of open space regulations throughout the state of Florida. Key Terms: Access A way of ingress or egress to property. Cluster A development design technique that concentr ates building on a part of the site to allow the remaining land to be used for recreation, common open space, and preservation of environmentally sensitive features. Codes, covenants and restrictions (CCRs) Rules created by the developer, generally in consultation with local policy makers and developer consultants, whic h guide the rules of accepted and prohibited action for th e subdivision residents. Conservation Subdivisions conservation subdivision developments also called open space developments (OSD), cluster homes on small areas of the parcel and set aside the remaining areas free from development. HOA Homeowners Association. A group of re sidents living in the community that are generally responsible for enforcing the commun ity codes, covenants a nd restrictions (CCRs) Land Development Regulations / Code (LDR or LDC) Chapter 163 of the Florida State Statutes (2007) requires that each county create land developm ent regulations enforcing and implementing the local land and water use elements contained with the county the comprehensive plan. Land development regulati ons are ordinances (defined below enacted by governing bodies for the regulation of any asp ect of development including local government zoning, rezoning, and subdivision bu ilding construction. All 67 Flor ida counties are required to complete land development regulations/codes w ithin one year after the creation of a new comprehensive plan. The regulations/codes must contain details regulating the subdivision of land, specifically the subdivision design, zoning, lot size and open space requirements. Management Very diverse category which can include any activity desi gned to enhance, restore and maintain the natural characteristics of habitat elements. Management Plan Plan created which outlines the various management activities that will be created, who will be responsible for management, the goals of management and how it will be funded. Open Space A natural area free from development. For the purposes of this study, we are looking at privately owned open space that is conn ected to or contained within developed land. Open Space, Useable Portion of a lot or parcel whic h can be used by the inhabitants of the property for outdoor living, active or passive activity and/or recreation. Pervious Area Area maintained in its natu ral condition, or covered by a material that permits infiltration or percolation of water directly into the ground. Plat The drawing which depicts the manner and method of subdivision of a particular parcel of land which is prepared for the expr ess purpose of being recorded in the Public Records as a permanent and official record of the subdivision. When used as a verb, the meaning is taken as the act of preparing the plat.
88 Part II Content to be examined: Land Development Regulations of Florida Counties. Specifically those areas, chapters and articles that address the preservation of open space within developed landscapes. Both coders will select sections from the sa me county LDRs and check the selections as part of the reliability check. Part III The following steps should be taken in the content analysis coding described below (v stands for variable). For each county (a) LDR/LDC is revi ewed (b) All related sections of the LDR/LDCs are selected (c) Each LDR/LDC is then analyzed for the specific ch aracteristics described below: v.1 County ID: Listed in the coding informati on file in alphabetical order 1 67 Open Space Characteristics v. 2 Have a definition of open space? No = 1 Yes = 2 v. 3 Does it require the preservation of op en space as part of development? Only interested in open space that is required as part of residential subdivision development, specifically single family residential, not interested in other categories of development (commercial; mixed use; agricultural). No = 1 Yes = 2 v. 4 Does it require that open space be se t aside in a contiguous tract of land? Open space is required as part of one swath of land with no roads, parking lots, or houses etc. through it or in the middle of it. There must be a connection through the entire open space area. You would be able to walk it and never leave the confines of the open space. No = 1 Yes = 2 v. 5 Does it provide incentives for the preservation of open space? Incentives may include but are not limited to density bonuses, fast track permitting, shortened development review process. Allowing clustered development techniques is a type of incentive because it generally allows for increased dens ity on the developed portion of the lot. No = 1 Yes = 2 v. 6 Does it identify the type of land that must be included within the open space? For example, primary conservation lands, areas that are particularly valuable for conservation. This may include riparian areas, 100 year fl oodplain, slopes, wetlands, habitat for endangered species, archeological sites. S econdary lands including historic si tes, healthy native forests more
89 than one acre long, existing healthy trees larger than 8 inches, prime agricultural lands. Check to see if the ordinance specifically addresses the protection of primary and secondary areas, or does not use that term, but identifie s types of habitat that must be included such as wetlands etc. No = 1 Yes = 2 v. 7 Does it identify hardscape elements th at are not allowed wi thin the common open space? These features should not be allo wed, meaning the language should specifically state that they shall not be included, or are proh ibited. Examples of elements include roads, parking lots, existing structures, septic systems, and playgr ounds. The prohibited elements do not have to match the above list but they should incl ude man-made physical structures. No = 1 Yes = 2 v. 8 Does it identify recreational elements that are allowed within the common open space? Elements can include, parks, playgrounds, golf c ourse, walking trials, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, marinas etc. These elements can also be man-made but the purpose of them should be for active or passive recreation. The allowed elements do not have to match the above list. No = 1 Yes = 2 v. 9 Does it include a list of permissible activities? This may include a list of passive and active recreational activities including walking in the open space, bird watching, bike riding. No = 1 Yes = 2 v. 10 Does it include a list of prohibited activities and uses? Prohibited activities may include anything the county perc eives as detrimental to the health and environmental quality of the open space includi ng hunting, fishing, driving with unauthorized vehicles, removing plant materi al, dumping garbage etc. No = 1 Yes = 2 v. 11 Does it mention activities that protect open space and natural areas during development? A number of actions taken during the building phase of development, from the initial removal of trees through the building of homes, can affect the long term health of the open space. Policies can address these elements by prohibiting access to the open sp ace during construction. Methods can include clear signage, physical barriers, presence of regulato ry officials. No = 1 Yes = 2 v. 12 Is legal protection of the open space required?
90 There are two primary tools for permanently protecting for open space in conservation subdivisions: conservation easements and restrictiv e covenants. A conservation easement is a legal document which establishes an agr eement between a property owner and a 2nd party that restricts the use of the property. Restrictive covenants sometimes called deed restrictions can prohibit homeowners from certain actions on thei r property, can specify pa in colors, types of appliances to be purchased, type of grass to be used etc. No = 1 Yes = 2 v. 13 Does it require that the open space desi gn connect to existing community-wide open space? Provide for connectivity with protected or natural areas ou tside the development. No = 1 Yes = 2 v. 14 Does it require design of open space to account for future la nd use of surrounding areas? The development of roads, sc hools, or other subdivisions outside of the development footprint can have an impact on protected open space. However, steps can be taken to buffer the open space from the area outside the development and any changes that take place over time. No = 1 Yes = 2 v. 15 Does it prohibit residential st ructures to abut the natural area? Development structures include residential and co mmunal structures and hardscape features such as playgrounds, swimming pools, te nnis courts. Are these structur es allowed to exist directly next to the natural area? For example: some counties require buffers between the natural and built area, or allow only recreational structures (bike racks, bathrooms) next to the natural area. No = 1 Yes = 2 v. 16 Does it require education for residents about open space? Education can be provided by local government representatives, local NGOs and developer representatives. Education can also include requirements for si gnage or information about the natural area. No = 1 Yes = 2 v. 17 Does it require clear ownership of the open space? One or more entities or groups that will have ownership over the open space. Generally the HOA, occasionally a local land trust or government agency and sometime s responsibilities are split between both. No = 1 Yes = 2 v. 18 Open Space Index
91 Count the total number of times that Yes was code d for variables 4-19. Record that number. v. 19 Does it require access to the open space for management? Access in this case is for the express purpose of management, not interested in whether or not access is granted to homeowners and residents. Access can be provided by a walkway, a road into the natural area, but some way for those w ho are responsible for the open space to get into the protected area without trespassing through homeowner lots or breaking down a fence around the protected area. No = 1 Yes = 2 v. 20 Is an open space management plan required? The management plan should address the maintenance, management and ongoing upkeep activities that should be conducted within the protected ar ea and open space. Some counties require a management plan specific to habitat that is protected for threatened (T) and endangered (E) species, this is not the type of management plan we are inte rested in. While special habitat for T and E species can be part of open space hab itat a management plan for this area would only address management in that specific area and not the overall maintenan ce of the entire open space. No = 1 Yes = 2 ** The following questions only apply if the answer to v.22 is YE S. If the answer for v.22 is No then please code variables 22a and 22b as not applicable and continue on to variable 23. v. 20a Does it require the management plan to identify maintenance objectives? Maintenance objectives can include long term and short term goals for protecting the open space. No = 1 Yes = 2 Not applicable = 0 v. 20b Does it require that changes to the pl an be approved by a regulatory entity? Before plan can be changed oversight is required by county, % of HOA members, or third party with some responsibility for open space. No = 1 Yes = 2 Not applicable = 0 v. 21 Does it require specifics about who will manage the open space? Generally this is responsibility is pass ed from the developer to the HOA. No = 1 Yes = 2 **The following questions only apply if the answer to v.23 is YE S. If the answer for v.23 is No then please code variables 23a as not a pplicable and continue on to variable 24.
92 v. 21a Does it address the consequences of fa ilure to manage by the responsible party? If the answer to v. 25 is no then the answer is not applicable. If the answer to v. 25 is Yes please answer Yes or No. No = 1 Yes = 2 Not applicable = 0 v. 22 Does it require maintenance efforts in the open space? Maintenance activities can invol ve a number of activities in cluding mowing, burning, invasive plant removal, watering etc. No = 1 Yes = 2 **The following questions only apply if the answer to v.24 is YE S. If the answer for v.24 is No then please code variables 24a 24e as not applicable and continue on to variable 25. v. 22a Does it require an estimate for the costs for maintenance activities? These costs should include both the actual activit y costs (fuel and repairs for the lawn mower) but also salaries of people conducting the manage ment. This question is only relevant if the answer to v.28 was Yes. No = 1 Yes = 2 Not applicable = 0 v. 22b Does it require funding for maintenance? Again a long term vision is required here, th e requirement must specify perpetual funding. If maintenance is not required in the open space (v. 28 = no), then the answer for this question is not applicable. No = 1 Yes = 2 Not applicable = 0 v. 22c Does it require management e fforts that enhance local flora? These management activities may include regul ar controlled burning, removal of invasive species, and restoration efforts. If maintenance is not required in the open space (v.28 = no) then this variable is not applicable. No = 1 Yes = 2 Not applicable = 0 v. 22d Does it require management efforts that enhance local fauna? This includes species of concern (threatened, endangered). If main tenance is not required in the open space (v.28 = no) then this va riable is not applicable. No = 1 Yes = 2 Not applicable = 0
93 v. 22e Does it specify a length of time th at management activiti es will continue? No specific time length required this could be anything from 1 year to eternity. If maintenance is not required in the open space (v.28 = no) then this variable is not applicable. No = 1 Yes = 2 Not applicable = 0 v. 23 Management Index Count the total number of times that Yes was code d for variables 22-33. Record that number. The following questions are open-ended variables. Please answer them exactly as they are seen in the LDRs. v. 24 What % open space is required for traditional residential development? If the value is 5 percent please r ecord the numerical value of 5. v. 25 What is the definition of open space? Record word for word. If there is no definition the answer would be not applicable = 0 v. 26 Which elements are prohibit ed within the open space? This question is directly related to v. 9. If the answer to v.9 is no then the answer to this variable will be not applicable. Otherwise list the elements that are pr ohibited (roads, parking lots, existing structures etc). Not applicable = 0 v. 27 Which elements are allowed within the open space? This question is directly related to v. 10. If th e answer to v.10 is no th en the answer to this variable will be not applicable. Otherwise list th e elements that are allowed (pedestrian paths, parks, swimming beaches etc). Not applicable = 0 v. 28 How is open space protected in perpetuity? This question is direct ly related to v. 10. If the answer to v.10 is no then the an swer to this variable will be not applicable. Otherwise list the elements that are allowed (pedestrian paths, parks, swimming beaches etc). Not applicable = 0 v. 29 How long is management required for? If the answer to v. 28 is no then the answer to this variable will be not applicable. Otherwise, please list the length in time in years that manage ment activities will continue. Months would be listed as a proportion of years for ex ample 3 months would be Not applicable = 0
94 APPENDIX D CONTENT ANALYSIS QUESTIONS 1. W hat was the County ID A. Open Space Protection (16 question + the Open Space Index) 2. Have a definition of open space? 3. Does it require the preservation of open space as part of development? 4. Does it require that open space be set aside in a contiguous tract of land? 5. Does it provide incentives for the preservation of open space? 6. Does it identify the type of land th at must be included in open space? 7. Does it identify hardscape elements that are not allowed within the open space? 8. Does it identify recreational elements that are allowed within the open space? 9. Does it include a list of permissible activities? 10. Does it include a list of pr ohibited activit ies and uses? 11. Does it mention activities that protect open space and natural areas during development? 12. Is legal protection of the open space required? 13. Does it require that the open space design co nnect to existing comm unity-wide open space 14. Does it require design of open space to acco unt for future land use of surrounding areas? 15. Does it prohibit residential struct ures that abut the natural area? 16. Does it require education fo r residents about open space? 17. Does it require clear ownership of the open space? 18. What was the Open Space Index? B. Long-term Management of Open Space (12 questions + the Management Index) 19. Does it require access to the open space for management? 20. Is an open space management plan required? 20a. Does it require the management plan to identify maintenance objectives? 20b. Does it require that changes to the plan be approved by a regulatory entity? 21. Does it require specifics about who will manage the open space? 21a. Does it address the consequences of failure to manage by the responsible party? 22. Does it require maintenance efforts in the open space? 22a. Does it require an estimate for the costs for maintenance activities? 22b. Does it require funding for maintenance in perpetuity? 22c. Does it require management efforts that enhance local flora? 22d. Does it require management efforts that enhance local fauna? 22e. Does it specify a length of time that management activities will continue? 23 What was the Management Index? C. Open Ended Questions (6 items) 24 What % open space is required for trad itional residential development? 25 What is the definition of open space? 26. Which elements are prohibi ted within the open space? 27. Which elements are allowed within the open space? 28. How is open space protected in perpetuity? 29. How long is management required for?
95APPENDIX E COUNTY DATA FOR THE 28 OPEN SPACE INDEX AND OPEN SPACE MANAGEMENT QUESTIONS The data below includes the responses for each county LDR and z oning code for the 16 open space questions. The question number s relate to the numbers listed in Appendix D. One point was given if the cr iterion asked about was included within the county regulations. County Name Q.2 Q.3 Q.4 Q.5 Q.6 Q.7 Q.8 Q. 9 Q.10 Q.11 Q.12 Q.13 Q.14 Q.15 Q.16 Q.17 OSI* Alachua 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 14 Bay 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Bradford 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 10 Brevard 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 11 Broward 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 9 Charlotte 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 12 Citrus 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 9 Clay 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Collier 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 9 DeSoto 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 7 Duval 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 7 Escambia 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Flagler 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 8 Franklin 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 6 Gadsden 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 Glades 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Hamilton 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 Hardee 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 9 Hendry 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Hernando 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Highlands 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 10 Hillsborough 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 Holmes 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Indian River 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 10 Jackson 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jefferson 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 9
96 County Name Q.2 Q.3 Q.4 Q.5 Q.6 Q.7 Q.8 Q.9 Q.10 Q.11 Q.12 Q.13 Q.14 Q.15 Q.16 Q.17 OSI Lafayette 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 5 Lake 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 Lee 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 9 Leon 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 11 Levy 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 Madison 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 7 Manatee 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 7 Marion 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 8 Martin 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 11 Monroe 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 9 Nassau 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 7 Okaloosa 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 6 Okeechobee 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Orange 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 7 Osceola 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Palm Beach 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 8 Pasco 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 13 Pinellas 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 Polk 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 10 Putnam 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 8 Santa Rosa 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 Sarasota 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 4 Seminole 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 12 St. Johns 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 St. Lucie 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 9 Sumter 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 10 Suwannee 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 8 Taylor 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 Volusia 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 8 Wakulla 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 Walton 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 7
97 County Name Q.2 Q.3 Q.4 Q.5 Q.6 Q.7 Q.8 Q.9 Q.10 Q.11 Q.12 Q.13 Q.14 Q.15 Q.16 Q.17 OSI Washington 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 OSI Open Space Index (Total number of yes answers)
98 LIST OF REFERENCES Aipanjiguly, S., S. K. Jacobson, and R. Fl a mm. Forthcoming. Knowledge, attitudes and behavioral intentions of Florida boaters about manatee conservation. Conservation Biology. Arendt, Randall. 1996. Conservation design for subdivisions: A practical guide to creating open space networks. Washington: Island Press. Arendt, Randall. 1997. Basing cluster techniques on development densities appropriate to the area. Journal of the American Planning Association 63: 137-146. Arendt, Randall. 1999. Growing greener: Putting conservation into local plans and ordinances Washington Island Press. Audubon International and the Un iversity of Florida Prog ram for Resource Efficient Communities. 2005. Resource Efficiency in the Built Environment. Paper presented at the Florida Sustainable Communities Summit, Fe bruary 8, in Lake Buena Vista, Florida. Austin, Maureen E. 2003. Resident perspectives of the open space conservation subdivision in Hamburg Township, Michigan. Landscape and Urban Planning 69: 245-253. Baker, Phil J., Amy J. Bentley, Rachel J. An sell, Harris Stephen. 2005. Impact of predation by domestic cats (Felis catus) in an urban area. Mammal Review 35: 302-312. Barnett, Jonathan. 1993. Sustainabl e development: How to make it work. Architectural Record June. Berg, Bruce. 2001. Qualitative research methods for the social sciences 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Brody, Samuel D., and Wesley E. Highfield. 2005. Does planning work? Testing the implementation of local environmental planning in Florida. Journal of the American Planning Association 71(2):159-175. Burby, Raymond J. 2003. Making plans that matter: Citizen involvement in government action. American Planning Association 69(1):33-49. Burchell, Robert W., and Naveed A. Shad. 1998. A natural perspective on land use policy alternatives and consequences. Paper presente d at the National Public Policy Education Conference, September 22, Portland, Oregon. Burnard, Philip. 1991. A method of analysing interview transcripts in qualitative research. New Education Today 11:461-466. Burnard, Philip. 1994. Searching for meaning: A me thod of analysing interview transcripts with a personal computer. New Education Today 14:111-117.
99 Carriker, R. 2006. Florida's growth management act: An introduction an d overview. Faculty Working Paper, Food and Resource Econom ics Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Ag ricultural Sciences, Univ. of Florida. Casey, Patricia. 2005. Green building program offers solutions for development. The SNRE Source 1, no.1 (Fall) http://snre.ufl.edu/pubsevents/source/fall05/prec.htm (accessed Ju ly 2008). Culliney, Thomas W. 2005. Benefits of classical bi ological control for managing invasive plants. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 24:131-150. Donovan, Todd, and Max Neiman. 1992. Citizen mob ilization and the adoption of local growth control. The Western Political Quarterly 45:651-675. Feiock, Richard C. 2002. Politics, institu tions and local land-use regulation. Urban Studies 41:363-375. Feiock, Richard C., and Antonio Tavares. 2002. County government institutions and local land regulation. In Analysis of local land markets and the impact of market regulations, ed. Paul Cheshire, and Stephen Sheppar d. Cambridge: Lincoln Land Institute. Flick, Uwe. 1998. An introduction to qualitative research. London: SAGE Publications. Gerber, E.R., and J. Phillips. 2002. Land use policy, institutional design, and the responsiveness of representative government. Faculty Worki ng Paper, Center for Local State, and Urban Policy, University of Michigan. Gilroy, Leonard. 2006. Conservation design: A market-friendly approach to local environmental protection. Reason Foundation. www.reason.org (accessed July 2008). Godshalk, David R., Samuel Brody, and Raym ond Burby. 2003. Public participation in natural hazard mitigation policy formation: Challenges for comprehensive planning. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 46 (5):733-754. Grey, Wendy 2006. Infrastructure planning and grow th management: Learning from the Florida experience. Nations Cities Weekly January 23. http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-12665059_ITM (accessed July 2008). Gyourko, Joseph, and Witold Rybczynski. 2000. Fi nancing new urbanism projects: Obstacles and solutions. Housing Policy Debate 11(3):733. Handy, Susan. 2002. Smart growth and the transpor tation-land use connec tion: What does the research tell us? International Regional Science Review 28(2):146-167. Hassink, Harold, Meinderd de Vries and Laury Bollen. 2007. A content analysis of whistle blowing policies of leading European companies. Journal of Business Ethics 75:25-44.
100 Heaney, J., R. Pitt, and R. Field. 1999. Innovative urban wet-weather flow management systems. Working Paper, National Risk Management Research Laboratory Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/publications.html (last accessed Ju ly 2008). Hood, Mark J., John C. Clausen, and Glenn S. Wa rner. 2006. Low impact development works! This low impact development demonstration shows that best management practices do reduce stormwater runoff. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 58(4). Holsti, Ole R. 1969. Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Hostetler, M. E., and Drake, D. Forthcoming. Conservation subdivisions: A wildlife perspective. Landscape and Urban Planning Hostetler, Mark E., Pierce Jones, Michael D ukes, Hal Knowles, Glenn Acomb, and Mark Clark. 2008. With one stroke of the pen: How can ex tension professionals involve developers & policymakers in creating sustainable communities? Journal of Extension 46, no.1 (February 2008) http://www.joe.org/joe/2008february/tt1.shtml (accessed July 16, 2 008). Hostetler, M. E. 2006. Evaluating green communities: Top eleven questions to ask. Faculty Working Paper, Department of Wildlife Ec ology and Conservation, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS), University of Florida. Hostetler, Mark E., Scot Duncan, and John Paul. 2005. Post-construction effects of an urban development on migrating, resident, and wintering. Southeastern Naturalist 4(3):421 434. Hostetler, M. E., E. Swiman, A. M. Prizzia, and K. Noiseux. Forthcoming. Reaching residents of green communities: Evaluation of a uni que environmental education program. Applied Environmental Education and Communication Lynda Lee Kaid and Anne Johnston Wa dsworth. 1989. Content analysis. In Measurement of Communication Behavior, eds. Phillip Emmert and Larry L. Barker. New York: Longman. Kollin, Cheryl. 2005. Building greener, building sm arter: The winds of change are blowing through the building commun ity, fueled by consumer demand and discerning practitioners. American Forests 111(1):7-11. Kraft, Michael. 2001. Leverage and sustainable communities: Overcoming policy obstacles at the local level. Conservation Biology 15:1483-1484. Kvale, Steinar. 1996. Interviews: An introduction to qual itative research interviewing London: Sage Publications.
101 Lacy, J. 1990. An examination of market appreciation for clustered housing with permanent open space. Working paper, Center for Rural Massa chusetts, Univ. of Massachusetts-Amherst. Land Trust Alliance. Land vote 2001: Americans i nvest in parks and open space. The Trust for Public Land. http://www.tpl.org/tier3_cd.cfm?c ontent_item _id=20854&folder_id=2386 (accessed July 2008). Lenth, Buffy, Richard Knight, and Wendall Gilgert. 2006. Conser vation value of clustered housing developments. Conservation Biology 20:1445-1456. Lichtenberg, Erik, Tra Constant and Ian Hardie. 2007. Land use regulation and the provision of open space in suburban residential subdivisions. Journal of Envir onmental Economics and Management 54:199-213. Luttik, Joke. 2000. The value of trees, water and open space as reflected by house prices in the Netherlands. Landscape and Urban Planning 48:161-167. Mayer, C. J. and C. T. Somerville 2000. La nd use regulation and new construction. Working Paper, Wharton School Samuel Zell and Robert Lurie Real Estate Center, Univ. of Pennsylvania. Milder, Jeffrey C., James P. Lassoie, and Barb ara L. Bedford. 2007. Conser ving biodiversity and ecosystem function through limited devel opment and empirical evaluation. Conservation Biology 22(1):70-79. Milder, Jeffrey C. 2007. A framework for unde rstanding conservation development and its ecological implications. BioScience 57(9):757-768. Miller, James R., N. Thomson Hobbs, 2000. Recr eational trails, human activity, and nest predation in lowland riparian areas. Landscape and Urban Planning 50(4):227-236. Mohamed, Raymond. 2006. The economics of c onservation subdivisions price premiums, improvement costs, and absorption rates. Urban Affairs Review 41:376-399. Noiseux, K., and M. E. Hostetler. Forthcoming. Do homebuyers want gr een features in their communities? Environment and Behavior Myers, Ronald L., John J. Ewel, Eds. 1990. Ecosystems of Florida Orlando, Florida: University of Central Florida Press. Odell, Eric A., David M. The obald, and Richard L. Knight. 2003. Incorporating ecology into land use planning: The songbirds ca se for clustered development. Journal of the American Planning Association 69(1):72-81. Peck, Sheila. 1998. Planning for biodiversity: Issues and examples Washington, DC: Island Press.
102 Pimental, David, Christa Wilson, Christine McCullum, Rachel Huang, Paulette Dwen, Jessica Flack, Quynh Tran, Tamara Saltman, and Barbara Cliff. 1997. Economic and environmental benefits of biodiversity. Bioscience 47(11):747-757. Pimentel, D., S. McNair, J. Janecka, J. Wightma n, C. Simmonds, C. OConnell, E. Wong, et al. 2001. Economic and environmental threats of alie n plant, animal and microbe invasions. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 84(1):1-20. Pitz, Andrew, David Steckel, Holl y Harper and Ann Hausman. 1994. Design and Management Handbook for Preservation Areas. Media, PA:Natural Lands Trust, Inc. Reichert, Alan and Hsin-Yu Liang. 2007. An econo mic analysis of real estate conservation subdivision developments. The Appraisal Journal 75:236-45. Riffe, Daniel, Stephen Lac y, and Frederick Fico. 1998. Analyzing media messages: Using quantitative content analysis in research. New Jersey: Laurence Erlbaum Associates. Romero M. and M. E. Hostetler. Forthcoming. Are new homeowners in green developments ready to live green? Landscape and Urban Planning Silverman, David. 2000. Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. London: Sage. Smart Growth Network. Getting to smart growth: 100 policies for implementation. http://www.smartgrowth.org/sgn/pubdes.asp?pubid=126 (accessed July 2008). Sm ith, Peter K, Cherise Smith, Rob Osborn, and Muthanna Samara. 2008. A content analysis of school anti-bullying policies : Progress and limitations. Educational Psychology in Practice 24:1-12. Southworth, Michael and Eran Ben-Joseph. 1997. Streets and the shaping of towns and cities New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Steuteville, Robert. 1999. The New Urbanism: An alternative to modern, automobile-oriented planning and development. New Urban News May 1999. http://www.newurbannews.com/ (accessed July 2008). Sustainable Sarasota. Sustaina bility Resolution of the Boar d of County Comm issioners of Sarasota County, Florida. http://www.sustainablesarasota.com/ (accessed July 2008). Talen, Em ily, and Gerrit Knaap. 2003. Legalizing sm art growth: An empirical study of land use regulations in Illinois. Journal of Planning Education and Research 22:345-359. Theobald, David, James Miller, and N. Thompson Hobbs. 1997. Estimating the cumulative effects of development on wildlife habitat. Landscape and Urban Planning 39:25-36. Theobald, David, N. Thompson Hobbs, Tammy Bearly, Jim Zack, Tanya Shenk, and William Riebsame. 2000. Incorporating biological information in lo cal land-use decision making: Designing a system for conservation planning. Landscape Ecology 15:35-45.
103 Theobald David M., and N. Thomson Hobbs 2002. A framework for evaluating land use planning alternatives: Protecting biodiversity on private land. Conservation Ecology. 6(1):5-24. Thomas, Robert. 1975. Directing development: Flor ida's experiment in land use management. Growth & Change 6(2):29-35. Thompson, Robert H. 2004. Overcoming barriers to ecologically sensitive land management conservation subdivisions, green developments and the development of a land ethic. Journal of Planning Education and Research 24:141-153. United States Census Bureau. US census bureau population projections 2005. http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldpop.html (accessed Ju ly 2008). Vieria, Robin K., Jennifer L. Languell, Karen Chil dress, Cynthia Caterham, and Eric Martin. Complying with floridas green land devel opment standard: Case studies and lessons learned. 2003. Paper presented at the GreenBuild International Conference and Expo, Pitssburgh, PA. www.fsec.ucf.edu/Bl dg/pubs/fgbc/index.htm (accessed Ju ly 2008). Walter, Bob, ed, 1993. Sustainable cities: Concepts and stra tegies for eco-city development Los Angeles, CA:Eco-Home Media. Weitz, Jerry. 1999. From Quiet Revolution to Smart Growth: State Growth Management Programs, 1960 to 1999. Journal of Planning Literature 14(2):266-337. Wenger, Seth, and Laurie Fowler. 2002. Community choices toolkit: Conservation subdivisions Atlanta Regional Commission and Georgia Department of Community Affairs. Retrieved from http://www.atlantaregional.com/html/392.aspx (accessed July 2008). West, Robin L., and Hastings, Erin L. 2008. The relative efficacy of a self-help and group-based memory training intervention: Effects on story recall. Paper presented at the Developmental Psychology Seminar, University of Florida. Westover, Peter. 1994. Managing conservation land: The stew ardship of conservation areas, wildlife sanctuaries, and open space in Massachusetts Belmont MA: Mass. Soc. of Municipal Conservation Professionals. Wilson, Alex, Jenifer L. Uncapher, Lisa McMani gal, L. Hunter Lovins, Maureen Cureton, and William D. Browning. 1998. Green development: Integrating ecology and real estate New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Wimmer, R.D., and J.R. Dominick, J.R. 1991. Mass media research: An introduction 3rd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Wright David W. 1996. Infrastructure pl anning and sustainable development. Journal of Urban Planning and Development 122(4):111-117.
104 Yli-Pelkonen, Vesa and Johanna Kohl. 2005. Th e role of local ecological knowledge in sustainable urban planning: Pers pectives from Finland. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy. 1, no.1 (Spring 2005), http://ejournal.nbii.org/archives/vol1iss1/0410-007.ylipelkonen.html Youngentob, Kara and Mark Hostetler. 2005. Is a new urban development model building greener communities? Environment and Behavior 37:731-759. Zeman, A., M. Hilliker, M. Koles, and D. Marcouiller. 2003. Ensuring open space: An assessment of factors that explain state-s ponsored land protection programs. Working Paper 3-1, Department of Urban and Re gional Planning, Univ. of Wisconsin Madison/Extension.
105 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Dara was born in Mem phis, Tennessee, in 1979. Four years later, her family moved to Gainesville, Florida. It was here that Dara spent most of her childhood. Dara spent two years in Israel, at the age of 10, and again at 13, the first ti me in Jerusalem with her family and the second time as part of a Hebrew High School program on a kibbutz in the Amec valley. She finished her high school degree at Gainesville High School. Upon graduation, Dara moved to Israel and earn ed dual citizenship. At the age of 18, she was drafted into the Israeli military, where sh e spent 2 years as a tank mechanic. After completing her service Dara returned to the U.S. to pursue an undergraduate degree at Brandeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts. While there, she spent a semester in Kenya studying environmental politics and wild life ecology and management. Dara graduated from Brandeis University having received a Bachelor of Arts de gree with a major in biology, a minor in theater, and a certificate in Enviro nmental Studies. After graduating, Dara stayed in Boston to cont inue her work in the field of environmental studies. She worked at the New England Aquari um as a senior Program Educator and grant coordinator supervising two NSFfunded programs. She also worked as an event coordinator with Alternatives for Community and Environment an environm ental justice organization in Roxbury, Massachusetts. In 2006 she returned to Gaines ville, Fl, to begin her maste rs degree in wildlife ecology and conservation at the University of Florida. After completing her masters degree, Dara will begin her doctorate at the University of Florida under the gu idance of Dr. Susan Jacobson. While completing her doctorate she will have the opportunity to participate in the SPICE program supported through the National Science Foundation.