![[Skip Navigation]](/images/pixel.gif){kind=tracking}
|
Alternatives for Coastal Development: One Site, Three Scenarios
Open Space Indicator Information
In the ScenariosOpen space is any piece of land that has been set aside to remain undeveloped. Open space exists in a variety of forms including preserved forests and marshfront areas as well as managed natural areas such as playgrounds, ball fields, and parks. In the scenarios, the open space indicator measures three things: total open space, natural open space, and managed open space. "Natural" refers to the open space in each scenario that is preserved in its undisturbed or natural state. Conversely, "managed" refers to open space whose existing vegetation has been altered or cleared.
In the scenarios, all managed open space is found in parks. The extent to which this open space is managed or cleared varies across the scenarios. For instance, most conservation managed parks have lush tree canopy and sparsely cleared understory that are necessary for wildlife habitat. Conversely, new urbanist parks are cleared with some mature trees left for shade and charm. Likewise, most conventional parks are cleared with a handful of specimen trees remaining. Conventional parks also typically have turf grass and other amenities such as playgrounds and ball fields. See the table below to learn more about the types of amenities provided.
Why Protect and Preserve Open Space?
Perhaps the most obvious benefit of open space is that it improves people's quality of life by providing recreational opportunities. Open space frequently preserves natural, scenic landscapes while enhancing community charm and character. Surveys have shown that quality of life attracts businesses to communities. In fact, quality of life was rated the third most important factor by chief executive officers in deciding where to locate their businesses (NPS 1995). Studies have also shown that open space can increase property values. The Trust for Public Lands (TPL) and National Park Service provide many examples of communities whose property values increased due to their proximity to open space. For example, a cluster development in New York that preserved 97 acres of natural wooded environment is benefiting from its open space. One developer commented, "'It may not be the woods that bring (buyers) to us initially, but it seems to make all the difference when they see what it's like" (NPS 1995). Open space provides other valuable benefits to communities, which are not always apparent. Some of these benefits include reducing stormwater runoff and reducing the amount of impervious surfaces. Open space can also save taxpayer dollars by eliminating the need for engineered stormwater filtration systems. New York City bought and preserved upstate watershed lands to protect drinking water supplies at a cost of $1.5 billion, while the estimated cost to build a filtration plant to treat the drinking water after upstate land was developed totaled between $6 and $8 billion (The Conservation Fund and USDA Forest Service 2002; TPL 1999). This green infrastructure reduced the cost of providing public services, saving many taxpayer dollars. In addition, open space benefits wildlife habitat by maintaining significant tree canopy and connecting wildlife corridors.
What Can I Do?
Local governments should revisit their comprehensive plans and zoning to discover what incentives and deterants currently exist. Policies and procedures can be adopted that encourage open space and make using innovative techniques easier for developers. Incentives, disincentives, or a combination thereof can help make open space a reality. Perhaps developers could avoid impact fees if they used better site designs and low impact development that reduces the amount of stormwater management needed. Jurisdictions and towns should also consider the advantages of double use. For instance, Bellevue, Washington, wanted to save money and better control the quantity of stormwater runoff. So, the city "reclaimed its natural systems through the coordinated design of a citywide park system and a stormwater management program" (Benedict and McMahon 2003). By incorporating watershed planning into development decisions, local governments can go a long way in determining what areas are vital for preservation while saving taxpayer dollars. And local governments need not attempt this venture alone; grants are available from various sources to help in funding open space, park, and trail initiatives. Professional organizations and nonprofits also provide resources and innovative techniques for use in preparing open space. Citizens and developers can also become advocates for open space. Citizens can lobby their local elected officials, city managers, and planning boards or start a local preservation group. Developers can take advantage of the incentives offered by local governments to protect open space while making profit by marketing the green amenities on their properties. (NPS 1995). The National Association of Home Builders found that 65 percent of home buyers "felt that parks would seriously influence them to move to a community." In like manner, the National Association of Realtors (NAR) found that "57% of voters would chose a home close to parks and open space over one that was not." The same survey also found that "50% of voters would be willing to pay 10% more for a house located near a park or open space" (Lewis 2002). References and ResourcesThe American Planning Association City Parks Forum Web site provides several resources on the benefits of parks and general resources on parks such as a bibliography of related literature on the design, funding, and public benefits of parks. Benedict, Mark and Edward T. McMahon. 2003. "How Cities Use Parks for Green Infrastructure." The City Parks Forum. American Planning Association. (PDF). The Environmental Protection Agency provides tools and technical assistance for strategic conservation of green space. (PDF). Epsey, Molly and Kwame Owusu-Edusei. 2001. Open Space Preservation and Property Values in Greenville, South Carolina. Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Clemson University. Freedgood, Julia. 2002. Cost of Community Services Studies: Making the Case for Conservation. American Farmland Trust. Hager, Mary Catherine. 2003. "Low-Impact Development." Stormwater: The Journal of Water Quality Professionals. January/February 2003. Lewis, Megan. 2002. "How Cities Use Parks for Economic Development." The City Parks Forum. American Planning Association. Levy, John M. 1997. Contemporary Urban Planning. 4th ed. UpperSaddle River, Ill: Prentice Hall. The Low Impact Development Center Web site provides a new set of tools and techniques that can be used to meet regulatory program goals and receiving water protection program goals for urban retrofits, re-development projects, and new development sites. National Parks Service Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program. 1995. Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors: A Resource Book. 4th ed. The NOAA Coastal Services Center Funding Opportunities Web site provides information on grant and funding opportunities, including brownfields and other community grants. This site also provides links to many free resources, including articles, tutorials, and tips that will help managers and staff through the grant-writing process. The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Web site provides an example of how to encourage conservation through its tax credit incentive program. The program assists land-owners, both private and corporate, in protecting the environment and quality of life when land provides specific public benefits. The Project for Public Spaces (PPS) provides technical assistance, education, and research on promoting, building, and maintaining public spaces. PPS is a nonprofit organization dedicated to creating and sustaining public places that build communities. The Stormwater Manager's Resource Center (SMRC) provides various resources on stormwater management including model open space development ordinances. SMRC is maintained by the Center for Watershed Protection. Towson University Department of Geography and Environmental Planning provides resources on habitat fragmentation, including a glossary of relevant terms. The Trust for Public Lands (TPL) provides various resources including information on the economic benefits of parks and open space, community case studies, strategies for funding conservation, and guides on creating parks. TPL is a national nonprofit working to protect and conserve land for human enjoyment and well being. The Trust for Public Lands. 1999. The Economic Benefits of Parks and Open Space: How Land Conservation Helps Communities Grow Smart and Protect the Bottom Line. Urban Parks On-line provides many resources to help communities value, develop, manage, and fund parks and open space. Resources include guides, success stories, tips, an innovative park programs database, and case studies on various types of funding. Voorhees Environmental and Recreational Alliance (VERA) provides several articles on the economies of open space. VERA is a New Jersey town-based nonprofit that advocates environmental protection and citizen education about the importance of environmental protection in the local area. |
Open space protection is a growing concern in American society. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development reports that, "Land is being developed at twice the rate of population growth." As land is developed, open space near existing jurisdictions and towns is consumed.
Local governments are best positioned to increase open space preservation, beginning with an analysis of their costs of service. How much do the differing types of development cost their taxpayers? Studies have shown that the cost to provide services for open space is significantly less than the cost to provide services to residential development. The American Farmland Trust reports that out of 83 studies done across the nation, the median cost of community services per tax dollar raised was $0.27 for commercial/industrial development and $0.36 for farm/forest land, as compared to $1.15 for residential development (Freedgood 2002). This means that for every tax dollar raised by residential development, this type of development costs the taxpayers $1.15 while open space costs only $0.36 (Freedgood 2002).