Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
PLANNING FOR BIOPHILIC CITIES: GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT POLICIES IN ALACHUA COUNTY
By
STEPHANIE KURTZ
A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE
OF MASTER OF URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
2016
2
© 2016 Stephanie Kurtz
3
To my family
4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to first acknowledge my parents and brother for their support
throughout this process. Thank you for all of the encouragement and understanding you
have given me over the years. This would not have been possible without each of you. I
would also like to thank my committee for their assistance in completion of this thesis. I
would like to thank my Chair, Dr. Kathryn Frank, for providing her time, guidance, and
wisdom throughout this process. Additionally, I would like to thank my Co-Chair, Dr.
Ruth Steiner, for her help particularly in the reviewing and editing stage. I truly
appreciate the guidance both of you have given me as my professors and members of
my thesis committee.
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... 4 LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ 7 LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... 8 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................. 9 ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... 10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 11
Population Growth and the Role of Cities .............................................................. 11 Objectives .............................................................................................................. 12
2 LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................... 14
Planning for Sustainable Development ................................................................. 14 Green Urbanism .................................................................................................... 14 Biophilic Cities ....................................................................................................... 15
Health Benefits of Biophilic Cities ...................................................................... 16 Economic Benefits of Biophilic Cities ................................................................. 18 Indicators ........................................................................................................... 20 Planning for Biophilic Cities ............................................................................... 21
Summary ............................................................................................................... 23 3 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................. 26
Research Design................................................................................................... 26 Evaluative Framework ........................................................................................... 26 Logic Model ........................................................................................................... 27 Summary ............................................................................................................... 28
4 RESULTS .............................................................................................................. 31
History of the Program .......................................................................................... 31 Comprehensive Plan: 2001-2020 ...................................................................... 34 Conservation Strategies .................................................................................... 36
Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) ................................................................ 40 Future Land Use Element ..................................................................................... 42
Cluster Development ......................................................................................... 42
6
Transfer of Development Rights Program ......................................................... 43 Conservation and Open Space Element ............................................................... 45
Ecological Connectivity ...................................................................................... 48 Open Space Requirements................................................................................ 51
5 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 59 LIST OF REFERENCES ............................................................................................... 62 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............................................................................................ 64
7
LIST OF TABLES
Table page
2-1 Timothy Beatley’s Biophilic Indicators ................................................................. 24
3-1 Selection of Indicators ......................................................................................... 29
4-1 Logic Model Analysis .......................................................................................... 58
8
LIST OF FIGURES Figure page
3-1 Example of a Basic Logic Model ......................................................................... 30
3-2 Logic Model Developed for Study.…………………………………………………...30
4-1 Clustered Subdivision Concept ........................................................................... 55
4-2 Critical Ecological Corridors Map ........................................................................ 56
4-3 Alachua County Development Trends ................................................................. 57
9
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ACF Alachua County Forever
COSE Conservation and Open Space Element
DRC Development Review Committee
EAR Evaluation and Appraisal Report
FLUE Future Land Use Element
TDR Transfer of Development Rights
10
Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Urban and Regional
Planning
PLANNING FOR BIOPHILIC CITIES: GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT POLICIES IN ALACHUA COUNTY
By
Stephanie Kurtz
August 2016
Chair: Kathryn Frank Major: Urban and Regional Planning Biophilic urbanism attempts to address the issues associated with unsustainable
development by integrating nature into urban design at a broad scale. Biophilic cities
support sustainability by focusing on the relationship between humans and nature.
Planning policies can contribute to the development of biophilic cities. This study
analyzes land use policies, programs, and designs that lead to the creation of biophilic
cities. An evaluative framework is developed based on Timothy Beatley’s theory of
biophilic cities. Indicators of biophilic cities are used to evaluate Alachua County’s green
infrastructure investment program. The study attempts to understand the success of the
program and how it contributes to biophilic outcomes. The study makes suggestions for
improvements. Results of the study can help to inform approaches to urban planning
that facilitates the development of biophilic cities.
11
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
Population Growth and the Role of Cities
According to the 2014 Revision of the United Nations World Urbanization
Prospects, 66 percent of the world’s population will be living in cities by the year 2050.
As urban development increases to accommodate growing populations, planners must
understand how to manage growth in ways that are beneficial to humans, animals, and
the environment. Unsustainable development practices such as urban sprawl can lead
to the destruction of natural areas that are crucial for ecological health and biodiversity.
This sort of development can also deprive people of daily contact with nature because it
encourages them to travel by car rather than by walking or biking. Research has shown
that incorporating nature into people’s lives has a positive effect on their overall well-
being (Gray and Birrell, 2014).
The theory of green urbanism encompasses how to incorporate a variety of
“green” practices including resource conservation, energy-efficiency, and green design
(Beatley, 2000, p. 5). One of the primary goals of green urbanism is to reduce the
ecological footprints of cities. Additionally, these cities strive to work within the
ecological system rather than hindering it by incorporating designs that mimic natural
systems. Green cities are desirable places to live because they encourage healthier
lifestyles and provide a higher quality of life to their residents.
The concept of the biophilic city is a variant of green urbanism (Beatley, 2011, p.
45). Biophilic cities support sustainability by nurturing the relationship between humans
and nature. They incorporate nature into their design at multiple scales through the use
of green infrastructure and other techniques. Green infrastructure can be defined as “an
12
interconnected network of green space that conserves natural ecosystem values and
functions and provides associated benefits to human populations,” (Benedict, 2006, p.
5). The result is an urban environment that supports ecological connectivity and
provides benefits to both humans and wildlife. The policies employed by these cities can
provide a framework for sustainable development that maximizes human benefits while
addressing pertinent issues such as water conservation and energy efficiency.
Objectives
Alachua County encompasses the greater metropolitan area of the city of
Gainesville, Florida. According to the United States Census Bureau, the estimated
population of Alachua County as of July 1, 2015 was 259,964 people. Alachua County
has developed a comprehensive approach to promote sustainability through their green
infrastructure investment program. This program is a culmination of various initiatives
that were intended to protect green infrastructure within the county. These initiatives
include Comprehensive Plan regulations that incentivize the use of green infrastructure
in new developments. Additionally, Land Development Regulations (LDRs) dictate that
developers must follow the protective guidelines pertaining to any identified natural
resources on their property. Another integral aspect of the program is a land
conservation program known as Alachua County Forever (ACF). The County uses the
program to acquire and protect natural lands that are of high ecological significance.
The main purpose for this study is to evaluate Alachua County’s planning policies
within the framework of biophilic cities. The research questions to be addressed in this
study are as follows:
What are the objectives of the Alachua County green infrastructure investment program?
13
Are objectives of biophilic cities present in the green infrastructure investment program?
Are the objectives of the program being met in terms of tangible results?
The first step is to determine the goals of the program and compare them with the
goals of biophilic cities. This analysis will be used to understand if the program’s goals
are reflective of biophilic principles. A logic model will be developed that links the goals
of the program with its inputs, outputs, and outcomes. The model will be used to
understand if the goals are being met and if the program is yielding tangible results.
These results will be compared with the ideal results present in biophilic cities.
The research objectives are essentially two-fold. The first goal is to determine if
the objectives of biophilic cities are present in the Alachua County program. The second
goal is to determine if the objectives are being met. The broader analysis will
incorporate the framework of biophilic cities to understand in what ways the municipality
might be considered biophilic. The program will be analyzed for its effectiveness in
meeting the intended goals. This study will contribute to the broader knowledge about
biophilic urbanism because the concept is relatively new and not well-defined.
Additionally, the study will be used to make recommendations about opportunities to
improve the program in terms of setting and meeting biophilic goals and outcomes.
14
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
Planning for Sustainable Development
Cities are the focal points of future population growth, so it is important for local
governments to employ policies that promote sustainability within cities. Perhaps the
most widely-accepted definition of sustainable development can be derived from the
1987 report Our Common Future produced by the United Nations World Commission on
Environment and Development (WCED): “Sustainable development is development that
meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs,” (p. 8). Essentially, the goal of sustainable
development is to conserve energy and resources to provide for the needs of future
generations. With a steadily increasing world population, planning and design strategies
must continue to evolve in order to promote sustainable development.
Green Urbanism
The predecessor to the theory of biophilic cities was the theory of green
urbanism. Timothy Beatley defines green urbanism as a new approach that
“incorporate[s] more ecologically responsible forms of living and settlement,” (2000, p.
5). The goals and objectives of green urbanism are similar to those of sustainable
development but with a focus on energy efficiency and conservation. Beatley
summarizes them as follows:
Cities that strive to live within their ecological limits, fundamentally reduce their ecological footprints, and acknowledge their connection and impacts on other cities and communities and the larger planet.
Cities that are green and that are designed for and function in ways analogous to nature.
15
Cities that strive to achieve a circular rather than a linear metabolism, which nurtures and develops positive symbiotic relationships with and between its hinterland (whether that be regional, national, or international).
Cities that strive toward local and regional self-sufficiency and take full advantage of and nurture local/regional food production, economy, power production, and many other activities that sustain and support their populations.
Cities that facilitate (and encourage) more sustainable, healthful lifestyles.
Cities that emphasize a high quality of life and the creation of highly livable neighborhoods and communities. (Beatley, 2000, p. 6-8). Biophilic urbanism is a subset of the broader theory of green urbanism. Beatley
states that “biophilic urban design and biophilic urban planning represent one particular,
albeit critical, element of green urbanism – the connection with and designing-in of
nature in cities,” (2011, p. 45). Therefore, biophilic urbanism overlaps with green
urbanism in many ways and can achieve similar results; however, the focus of biophilic
urbanism is concentrated on designing cities to emulate nature and encourage human
connections to it.
Biophilic Cities
Sustainability and green urbanism are significant theories of urban planning that
promote conservation and energy efficiency. However, there is another dimension that
has recently gained interest by Architects, planners, and other design professionals
have begun to recognize the important role that nature plays in allowing humans “to live
happy, productive, meaningful lives,” (Beatley, 2013, p. 3328). Beatley presents the
theory of biophilic cities as a method of providing humans with “close and daily contact
with nature” while also supporting goals of sustainability such as “social and landscape
resilience in the face of climate change, natural disasters and economic uncertainty,”
(2013, p. 3328). To summarize, Beatley proposes a new theory of urban planning and
16
design that aims to foster the human connection to nature in order to create sustainable
and resilient cities.
E.O. Wilson coined the term “biophilia” as a way to describe how humans have
evolved with nature and thus need contact with nature to lead happy lives. Beatley
based his theory of biophilic cities on this concept. He defines a biophilic city as “a city
that puts nature first in its design, planning, and management; it recognizes the
essential need for daily human contact with nature as well as the many environmental
and economic values provided by nature and natural systems,” (2011, p. 45). This is a
broad and generalized definition due to the newness of the theory. Beatley admits that
“there is no single definition…for what biophilic design and planning currently
encompass or what a biophilic city looks like and is,” (p. 46). This lack of a concrete
definition provides the justification for this research study. The study will add to the body
of knowledge about what characteristics comprise a biophilic city and how to work
towards these as goals of the planning process. Planners should strive to understand
and imagine new ways to design biophilic cities in order to promote sustainability.
Health Benefits of Biophilic Cities
Beatley cites many reasons as to why we should be planning and designing for
biophilic cities. The world in which humans evolved was nature-filled in contrast to the
technology-focused world of the present day. Beatley explains that society plays a
major role in encouraging biophilic sensibilities. He believes that planners and
policymakers have often failed to prioritize biophilic principles and that “there is a need
to articulate a theory and practice of city planning that understands that cities and urban
areas must be wild and ‘nature-ful,’” (2011, p. 3). The urban wildness to which he refers
17
is described as the ecological processes that occur within human-dominated
environments.
Various empirical studies provide evidence of the benefits of exposure to nature.
In 1984, Roger Ulrich found that hospital patients who had access to natural views
during recovery healed more quickly than those without. His findings and others helped
to shift the design of hospitals to include more green features such as “healing gardens
[and] natural daylight,” (Beatley, 2011, p. 4). Additionally, exposure to nature can be an
effective antidote for mental health issues that many people struggle with on a daily
basis. Nature has the ability “to reduce stress, to enhance a positive mood, to improve
cognitive skills and academic performance, and even to help in moderating the effects
of ADHD, autism, and other childhood illnesses,” (2011, p. 4).
The power of nature to restore and replenish the mind is not limited to areas of
pure wilderness. A study by Terry Hartig and his associates found that even brief
periods of exposure can provide health benefits. These “micro-restorative experiences”
can be as simple as viewing nature from indoors or passing through a natural space
during a walk. The frequency of these experiences can add up over time to create
“cumulative benefits,” (2011, p. 5). This idea of frequent exposure to nature can be
helpful in planning for biophilic cities. Elements that may seem small or trivial such as “a
rooftop garden, an empty corner lot, a planted median,” can provide similar benefits to
natural areas if they are employed frequently enough throughout a city’s design (2011,
p. 5).
In addition to the mental health benefits, biophilic cities support physical health
by encouraging people to lead more active lifestyles. Beatley cites a research study in
18
the Netherlands that “found significant and sizable relationships between green
elements in living environments and higher levels of self-reported physical health,”
(2011, p. 6). Studies show a correlation between green features and physical activity,
suggesting that these biophilic elements pull people outside and encourage them to
choose a more active lifestyle (p. 6).
Another example of how biophilic cities can benefit human health is through
reduction of the urban heat island effect. Green features such as tree canopy and green
roofs reduce the amount of heat that becomes trapped in urban areas, thus reducing
“heat-related stress and illness in cities,” (Beatley, 2011, p. 7). Mitigation of the urban
heat island effect will become more critical as temperatures continue to rise due to
climate change. Biophilic design can also address the problem of air pollution in cities;
for example, green roofs have been found to significantly reduce air pollutants such as
sulfur dioxide,” (2011, p. 7). These techniques will be particularly relevant to cities
where industrialization has created a significant pollution problem such as those in
China.
Economic Benefits of Biophilic Cities
Planning for biophilic cities has the potential to bring economic benefits to
communities as well. Biophilic cities are typically designed to be more walkable and are
thus attractive to investors. Properties in these areas tend to have a price premium
between $4,000 and $34,000 (Beatley, 2011, p. 7). The attractiveness of biophilic
features can also encourage new development and redevelopment. For example, the
High Line in New York City “stimulated an estimated $4 billion in private investment,”
19
(2011, p. 8). Investing in green infrastructure makes neighborhoods more attractive
while providing necessary ecological services such as storm-water management.
The potential to revitalize blighted areas is another important benefit of biophilic
techniques. Unfortunately, well-maintained parks and green spaces are often unevenly
distributed by class and income. Planners in biophilic cities should strive to rectify this
situation by implementing programs that provide access to nature in low-income areas.
Such a strategy can “restore community and hope at the same time that urban
ecosystems are repaired,” (Beatley, 2011, p. 9). Cities such as Detroit and Philadelphia
have developed programs that connect urban revitalization with green features such as
community gardens.
Programs such as these can also help to reinforce biophilic attitudes by
encouraging people to care about the nature in their communities. Exposure to nature
correlates with “nature-protective behaviors” such as volunteering and recycling
(Beatley, 2011, p. 9). Spending time in nature provides a personal connection that
encourages people to care about the environment. Additionally, a connection exists
between exposure to nature and the amount of generosity a person exhibits; those who
are exposed to nature are “more likely to report so-called intrinsic aspirations…and
more likely to behave generously in a series of tasks involving the distribution of
money,” (2011, p. 10). If a majority of people in a community share these biophilic
attitudes, they are more likely to support biophilic policies in their municipality.
Although the economic benefits of biophilic cities are important, we should also
acknowledge that some benefits cannot be quantified. The pleasure that can be derived
20
from experiencing nature is no less meaningful than the monetary benefits. Beatley calls
for planning policies to recognize and support this idea.
We need the design and planning goals of cities to include wonder and awe and fascination and an appreciation for the wildness that every city harbors. The incredible and abundant nature around us even in dense cities represents an important antidote to the boredom and sameness that otherwise characterizes much of our built form and lives (2011, p. 15).
The theory of biophilic cities challenges the traditional view that nature does not exist
within cities. The notion that nature can be integrated into the very fabric of cities has
the potential to inspire urban design and planning policies that lead to a greener and
more sustainable future.
Indicators
Although the definition of biophilic urbanism is somewhat murky, Beatley
establishes a framework based upon cities that he believes meet some of the goals of
biophilic urbanism. For example, the city of New York “established a goal of providing a
park or greenspace within a ten-minute walk of every resident,” (Beatley, 2011, p. 45).
Beatley uses this information to establish a metric to measure biophilic infrastructure:
“percentage of population within 100 meters of a park or greenspace,” (p. 46). He
suggests that this can be used as a target for biophilic cities to achieve through their
design and planning policies.
Beatley provides a number of metrics that can be used to analyze three
distinctive categories of cities: Biophilic Conditions and Infrastructure; Biophilic
Activities; and Biophilic Institutions and Governance (2011, p. 46-49). These indicators
are summarized in Table 2-1. The indicators can be used to analyze the extent to which
21
a city might be considered biophilic. The basis for these indicators is Beatley’s assertion
that:
Biophilic cities can be described or recognized through a combination of their physical conditions and infrastructure, the undertakings and activities of their residents, their knowledge and awareness, and by the governance priorities, capacities and commitments of their agencies and officials. (2011, p. 50).
However, not all of these variables will be relevant to the case of Alachua County.
Additionally, limits in the research design and the available data will prevent some of the
indicators from being measured in this case. The research design and analysis will be
explained in further detail in the subsequent chapter entitled “Methodology.”
Planning for Biophilic Cities
Beatley advocates a “rooftop to region” approach to planning for biophilic cities
that incorporates four scales: “the region, the city, the neighborhood, and the building,”
(2011, p. 83). Biophilic design elements vary according to region. For instance, planning
at the regional level should focus on preserving ecological networks and riparian
systems (2011, p. 84). Compactness and interconnected green networks are critical
elements of biophilic cities. Compact development supports conservation and creates
more walkable urban environments that encourage people to lead more active lifestyles.
Additionally, compact development limits the potential for habitat fragmentation, which is
often associated with urban sprawl.
Some aspects of biophilic design that are important at the city and neighborhood
scale are urban parks and green infrastructure. Beatley advises that parks should be
designed with a “degree of wildness” rather than just “turfgrass and benches,” (Beatley,
2011, p. 89). Planting trees and creating a dense urban forest is critical to planning a
biophilic city because they “provide shade, retain stormwater, reduce ozone pollution,
22
and add economic value to property,” (2011, p. 89). Many U.S. cities have experienced
tree cover decline in recent years due to wanton suburban development and a failure to
adequately replace trees that have been removed.
Another opportunity to green the city arises in the interstices between buildings
and pavements. These spaces can incorporate green infrastructure by inserting a “living
buffer” of vegetation (2011, p. 93). If such green features are extensive, they can help to
create a city that feels more nature-full and less like a traditional city. Such techniques
will help to provide the cumulative benefits that help people feel less stressed and
encourage them to be more physically active.
Beatley discusses various tools that can be used in the planning process to
encourage these sorts of green infrastructure techniques to develop within a city.
Planning codes should integrate nature in urban design using a “greenway or open
space minimum” as well as “landscaping requirements” that require tree plantings
(2011, p. 131). Another tool that is discussed is “green density bonuses” which allow
developers to increase their allowable density if they install green features such as
green roofs (2011, p. 132). Chicago and Seattle are two cities that have adopted this
practice. Another possible strategy is implementing “minimum biophilic city standards”
for all new development, (2011, p. 132).
Economic incentives are another important strategy. Providing grants for projects
that incorporate green features can help to alleviate the upfront costs associated with
these types of projects (Beatley, 2011, p. 133). Tax breaks can be provided for projects
that incorporate green design features. Additionally, green improvements can be funded
using “taxing districts in which bonds can be floated to fund neighborhood
23
improvements,” (2011, p. 135). The bonds used in the program are “payable in
increments over twenty years by a modest property tax increase,” (2011, p. 135). This
strategy is currently being implemented in various cities in California.
Beatley discusses the regulatory difficulties that are often encountered by
property owners who wish to incorporate green features. He suggests that governments
should make regulations more flexible and “give neighborhood and community groups
greater direct power and tools to green their neighborhoods,” (2011, p. 135). San
Francisco has implemented similar techniques using a permit that minimizes barriers to
installing green features. The permit makes it “easier and less costly;” additionally, the
city provides small grants to support neighborhood projects (2011, p. 136). In New York
City, projects that are termed “pilot projects” are not subject to approval by the City
Council, making it easier for them to be implemented (2011, p. 137).
Summary
This research study focuses on biophilic strategies at the regional scale rather
than the small scale. The scale of the study creates limitations for the research. The
biophilic characteristics that are most relevant to Alachua County are those related to
land conservation. The study examines the planning policies employed by Alachua
County to encourage conservation and connectivity. The social characteristics of
biophilic cities are not addressed by this study; the intent of this limitation is to provide
clarity and to focus on those aspects of biophilic cities that are most relevant to the case
of Alachua County.
24
Table 2-1. Timothy Beatley’s Biophilic Indicators
Category Indicators
Biophilic Conditions and
Infrastructure
Percentage of population within 100 meters of a
park or greenspace
Existence of a connected, integrated ecological
network; green urbanism from rooftop to region
Percentage of city land area in wild or semi-wild
nature
Percentage forest cover in the city
Extent and number of green urban features
Miles per capita of walking trails
Number of community gardens and garden plot
(absolute and per capita); access to community
garden area
Biophilic Activities Percentage of population that is active in nature or
outdoor clubs or organizations; number of such
organizations active in the city
Percentage of population engaged in nature
restoration and volunteer efforts (e.g., such as
Urban Bushcare), as well as absolute number
Percentage of time residents spend outside (may
vary depending on climate)
Percentage of residents who actively garden
(including balcony, rooftop, and community
gardens)
Extent of recess and outdoor playtime in schools
Biophilic Attitudes and
Knowledge
Percentage of population that can recognize
common species of native flora and fauna
Extent to which residents are curious about the
natural world around them (as measured by a
proxy such as a survey question or community
experiment)
25
Table 2-1. Continued
Category Indicators
Biophilic Institutions and Governance
Adoption of a local biodiversity action plan or
strategy
Priority given to environmental education
Percent of local budget devoted to nature
conservation, recreation, education, and related
activities
Adoption of green building and planning codes,
grant programs, density bonuses, greenspace
initiatives, and dark-sky lighting standards
Number of city-supported biophilic pilot projects
and initiatives
26
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY
Research Design
The aim of the research is to analyze the Alachua County green infrastructure
program in the context of biophilic cities. The researcher will conduct a program
evaluation of green infrastructure planning policies in Alachua County, Florida. The
framework for analysis is provided by Timothy Beatley’s “Indicators of a Biophilic City,”
(2011, p. 47-49). These indicators are intended to provide an overall idea of what a
biophilic city might look like. The goals of the Alachua County green infrastructure
investment program will be compared to the objectives of biophilic cities. Additionally,
the results of the program will be analyzed to determine the relative success of the
program. The evaluation will allow the researcher to understand if the program is
reflective of biophilic planning policies and if indicators of a biophilic city are present.
Evaluative Framework
Timothy Beatley offers a number of biophilic indicators in his book Biophilic
Cities: Integrating Nature into Urban Design and Planning (2011). These indicators are
used to evaluate the results of the green infrastructure investment program in Alachua
County. While Beatley provides four distinctive categories of indicators, the study
focuses on only two categories due to the limitations of available data. Information
about biophilic activities, attitudes and knowledge will be excluded from the research
study due to the difficulty of obtaining data. Surveys would be required to obtain most of
this information, and this is not feasible within the timeframe of the study.
Therefore, the study focuses on two aspects of biophilic cities that are relatively
easier to study in terms of data collection. The study focuses on analyzing Biophilic
27
Conditions and Infrastructure and Biophilic Institutions and Governance present in
Alachua County. Code research and other government information is used to analyze
the policies in Alachua County and compare with the ideal biophilic policies proposed by
Beatley. See table 3-1 for a summary of the categories and indicators.
Logic Model
Program evaluation is used to determine if the goals of the Alachua County
green infrastructure investment program are being met. A logic model is developed to
explain the structure of the program and how inputs relate to outputs. Figure 3-1
provides an example of a typical logic model. The logic model provides a framework for
program evaluation and analysis. This research study identifies the components of the
Alachua County green infrastructure program including inputs and activities, outputs,
and outcomes. This information will then be evaluated within the context of biophilic
urbanism to determine if the program is designed and operated in ways that pursue and
ultimately meet certain biophilic goals in terms of visible results. Figure 3-2 provides the
general logic model that will be used in the analysis.
Goals are determined by researching the planning policies that were added to
the Alachua County Comprehensive Plan to incentivize the use of green infrastructure.
These policies include Land Development Regulations (LDR’s), which provide
protective standards for the development of private lands in the county. Additionally,
research is conducted to determine the goals of the county’s land conservation
program, Alachua County Forever (ACF). This step addresses the question of whether
the objectives of biophilic cities are reflected in Alachua County’s planning policies.
28
The next step is to determine the activities and resources that are the inputs of
the program. The results of these inputs are the outputs, which may be specific policies
or plans relating to biophilic cities. The outcomes of the program relate to how it is
implemented and its effectiveness in meeting the overall objectives. The final step is to
compare the result of the program with those associated with biophilic policies. To
summarize, the logic model is used to evaluate the program’s goals, activities, outputs,
and outcomes. The evaluation indicates the extent to which the Alachua County green
infrastructure program is meeting the goals of a biophilic city.
Summary
The research study adds to the existing body of literature on biophilic cities by
evaluating the Alachua County green infrastructure investment program. The framework
for evaluation is a logic model that comprises the program’s goals, activities, outputs,
and outcomes. Policy research informs the design of the logic model by determining the
program’s objectives and activities. GIS analysis will be used to measure the outcomes
of the program to determine its effectiveness in promoting green infrastructure
development. Beatley’s indicators serve as targets to evaluate if the objectives of
biophilic cities are present and if they are being met as tangible outcomes. Based on
this analysis, recommendations are made on how to improve the program in order to
encourage more biophilic planning policies.
29
Table 3-1. Selection of Indicators
Objectives/Research
Questions/Hypothesis
Major Concepts Indicators (Timothy Beatley)
Biophilic Conditions
and Infrastructure
Access to parks
and greenspace
Percentage of population within 100
meters of a park or greenspace
Ecological
Connectivity
Existence of a connected, integrated
ecologic network; green urbanism from
rooftop to region
Land Conservation Percentage of city land area in wild or
semi-wild nature
Urban Forest Cover Percentage forest cover in the city
Green Urban
Design
Extent and number of green urban
features
Access to trails Miles per capita of walking trails
Access to
community gardens
Number of community gardens and
garden plots (absolute and per capita);
access to community garden area
Biophilic Institutions
and Governance
Biodiversity Adoption of a local biodiversity plan or
strategy
Organizations Extent of local biophilic support
organizations, for example existence
of an active natural history museum or
botanic garden
Education Priority given to environmental
education
Conservation Percent of local budget devoted to
nature conservation, recreation,
education, and related activities
Green design Adoption of green building and
planning codes, grant programs,
density bonuses, greenspace
initiatives, and dark-sky lighting
standards
Projects Number of city-supported biophilic pilot
projects and initiatives
30
Figure 3-1. Example of a Basic Logic Model
Source: W.K. Kellogg Foundation
Figure 3-2. Logic Model Developed for Study
31
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS
The inputs of the green infrastructure investment program are the conservation
policies that have been implemented by Alachua County. The program is comprised of
multiple components that work together to support land conservation within the county.
These components include the updated Comprehensive Plan, Alachua County Forever
(ACF) land acquisitions, and a governance structure that fosters collaboration among
multiple government agencies and encourages public involvement. The County employs
strategies to protect green infrastructure in the development review process, while the
ACF program is used to acquire and manage the most environmentally-sensitive lands
for the public good.
This chapter examines the details of the program and identifies policies that are
consistent with the biophilic strategies outlined by Beatley. Additionally, it looks at the
impact that the program has had on land conservation within the County to determine if
the program has been successful in achieving biophilic results. This analysis provides
valuable insight into how biophilic policies can be implemented in a municipality such as
Alachua County which is characterized by urban sprawl. Such policies can help to offset
the problems caused by sprawl while also providing abundant access to nature for the
benefit of residents. The analysis also helps to identify any weak aspects of the program
and how they may be improved in the future to achieve better results.
History of the Program
The first indicator of biophilic cities to be investigated is the adoption of a local
biodiversity plan or strategy. The Alachua County Green Infrastructure Investment
Program satisfies this criteria. It was implemented in 2005 with the update to the
32
Alachua County Comprehensive Plan. The three major elements of the program are:
updated policies to the Comprehensive Plan intended to promote green infrastructure;
the establishment of a lands acquisition program known as Alachua County Forever
(ACF); and an improved governing structure focusing on collaboration and public
participation. The program won the National Association of Counties (NaCo) “Best in
Category” award for the “Green Infrastructure” category in 2008.
The program was developed as a response to growing public concerns about the
loss of natural areas as well as degradation of local water quality. The funding for ACF
was approved in 2000 during the General Election in the form of a property tax. Chris
Bird, the Director of the Alachua County Environmental Department, discusses the
basis for the program to protect wetlands and floodplains in order to make Alachua
County resilient in the face of impending climate change, extreme weather events, and
population growth in Florida (2008, p. 1). This goal to improve resiliency is aligned with
the ideals of biophilic urbanism.
Bird states that “a key objective” of the program “was to improve ways to manage
conflicts between development, agricultural, and environmental uses,” (2008, p. 2). This
objective is reflective of the purpose of any Comprehensive Plan, which is to create a
framework for future land use in the municipality. However, the key aspect of the
Alachua County Comprehensive Plan that reflects a more biophilic approach is that it
“requires developers to begin their design with deference to green infrastructure,
instead of as an afterthought,” (2008, p. 2). Developers must include a “greenprint”
outlining green infrastructure in addition to the blueprint for land and infrastructure
33
development. Additionally, the updated Plan establishes six categories of protected
conservation resources:
Wetlands
Surface waters
Floodplains
Listed-species habitat
Significant geologic features
Strategic ecosystems
Strategic ecosystems are ecologically-significant areas that are privately-owned but
receive special protections under the Plan. As part of a special review process,
developers must prove that construction will not have a significant detrimental impact on
the functioning of the strategic ecosystem that exists on their property.
In addition to the updated Plan, new Land Development Regulations (LDR’s)
were established in 2006. These regulations were intended to “provide specific
standards for preserving green infrastructure assets located on private property,” (Bird,
2008, p. 2). The development review process is intended to ensure that any identifiable
conservation resources receive adequate protection. This goal is achieved through a
“consensus-based, interdepartmental, interdisciplinary approval process,” (2008, p.2).
The minimum conservation standards for the development review process mentioned
by Bird are as follows:
Protection of all wetlands and surface waters
Protection of at least 50 percent of all upland within strategic ecosystems
Conservation easements
Management plans
Environmentally-friendly designs
The Plan also attempts to compensate developers by permitting that “any building units
precluded from the conservation areas are allowed either by increased densities on
buildable areas or by transfer of development rights to other properties,” (Bird, 2008, p.
34
2). The designated conservation are “maintained in perpetuity…under a conservation-
management plan,” (p. 2).
Comprehensive Plan: 2001-2020
The version of the plan which first introduced the green infrastructure investment
program went into effect in May of 2005 and was known as the Alachua County
Comprehensive Plan: 2001-2020. The Comprehensive Plan has been updated since
this program was first implemented. The current plan is known as The Alachua County
Comprehensive Plan: 2011-2030. The Alachua County Growth Management website
provides information about the data and analytic process that was used to develop
regulatory strategies for the Alachua County Comprehensive Plan: 2001-2020.
The 2005 update to the Plan implemented “development controls” contained in
the Future Land Use Element (FLUE). The FLUE incorporates sustainable development
principles such as “natural resource and agricultural protection, efficient use of
infrastructure and services, distinct urban and rural areas, more compact development
patterns, residential neighborhoods as a collective asset, reduced dependency on
single occupant vehicles, and more diverse and vital communities,” (Data And Analysis
For Future Land Use Element of Alachua County Comprehensive Plan: 2001-2020, p.
17). The regulatory strategies utilized to provide development control include:
• Urban growth boundary, i.e. Urban Cluster line • Urban services line • Traditional neighborhood developments • Mixed use village centers • Activity center design standards • Clustered subdivisions • Transfer of development rights program • Community and neighborhood planning program (p. 17-18).
35
Many of these strategies fit into the framework of biophilic cities because they
attempt to limit development and promote land conservation. For instance, the Urban
Cluster Line demarcates the developable land area “within which urban growth should
be contained for a period of time specified by the growth management program,” (p.
18). Similarly, the Urban Services Line promotes development in areas that are already
equipped with adequate wastewater facilities, thus limiting urban sprawl.
Rural Clustered Subdivisions and the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)
program are both strategies that were implemented to promote land conservation within
or in close proximity to rural lands. Such lands “contain valuable resources of
agriculture, open space, natural resources, and rural character,” and are particularly
susceptible to development pressures (p. 22). According to the document, the goals of
rural clustered subdivisions include:
• Protect natural and historic resources. • Support continued agricultural activities by preserving viable soils and
effective land masses. • Minimize land use conflicts. • Provide recreational and habitat corridors through linked open space
networks. • Achieve flexibility, efficiency, and cost reduction in the provision of services
and infrastructure. • Reduce natural hazard risks to life and property (p. 22).
The document further discusses the advantages of such clustered subdivisions when
they incorporate green design techniques such as natural stormwater management.
Additionally it states that “rural cluster subdivisions can be one component of area-wide
planning for conservation and development,” (p. 23). The County is employing a
regional approach to land conservation, which is an important aspect of biophilic
urbanism.
36
The Transfer of Development Rights program was established with this update to
the Plan as an additional method of promoting land conservation. As stated by the
document, the program “provides a means to allow owners of rural property the option
of protecting land in the rural area while still receiving an economic return,” (p. 23). The
property owner “relinquishes his or her right to develop the property at the maximum
density allowed, in exchange for monetary compensation,” while the purchaser of the
development rights is permitted to develop at a density higher than they were previously
permitted (p. 23). Ideally, sending areas are rural lands that are environmentally-
sensitive or significant, while receiving areas contain the necessary infrastructure to
support additional development density.
The document explains that TDR’s are part of a “multi-dimensional approach” to
land conservation that should also include “other incentives, such as tax breaks for
agriculture, public purchase of land, purchase of development rights, urban growth
boundaries, impact fees or concurrency requirements,” (p. 24). The accompanying data
and analysis for the Conservation and Open Space Element expands on the County’s
approach to land conservation, offering insight that should prove relevant to the
discussion of biophilic urbanism.
Conservation Strategies
The Conservation and Open Space Element, which was added as a subsection
to the Plan, is particularly relevant to the idea of biophilic urbanism. The Comprehensive
Plan: 2001-2020 Data and Analysis document discusses the importance of planning for
land conservation in the face of impending population growth. The County’s natural
resources are abundant, and “the identification of the types of resources, their location,
37
and their significance to the residents of the County and region are necessary to
understand policies intended to guide future growth and development,” (Conservation &
Open Space, p. 1). The County recognizes that natural lands hold significance for the
residents. The document states that “the role of the Conservation and Open Space
Element is to maintain or improve the quality of the County’s environment and natural
resources, and its citizens’ quality of life, in light of the anticipated population growth,”
(p. 1).
The Conservation and Open Space Element was created to address “long range
planning for the conservation and protection of the natural resources and human-related
resources, including open space areas, in Alachua County,” (p. 2). Its purpose is to
identify natural resources and to “establish policies to protect and conserve those
resources,” (p. 2). In particular, “the purposes of the Open Space portion of the Element
are to identify open space needs and to establish policies to protect natural areas and
open space for wildlife and people,” (p. 2). The document lists many of the
implementation strategies mentioned by Chris Bird including “education and outreach,
public participation, regulations, incentives, acquisition, intergovernmental coordination,
and other appropriate mechanisms,” (p. 2). The County’s approach to conservation is
addressed in a specific section on conservation strategies.
Many of these policies are relevant to the framework of biophilic cities.
Specifically, one of the objectives is to “establish environmental conservation as a
priority in all decision-making for Alachua County,” (p. 3). The objectives to preserve
biodiversity and significant ecosystems are also reflective of the biophilic approach. The
establishment of a land conservation program “to complement the regulatory
38
approaches” refers to the Alachua County Forever program as a key ingredient to the
County’s approach to land conservation.
The Conservation and Open Space Element is intended to complement other
elements of the Plan. Many of the elements supply policies that work together to
support land conservation in the County. The Future Land Use Element provides
development controls by identifying “the protection of natural and cultural resources in
conjunction with proper design as an important feature in managing growth,” (p. 5). The
Recreation Element complements the Conservation and Open Space Element because
“the utilization of certain sensitive areas for recreation and open space purposes can
enhance the public's appreciation of the landscape while conserving the natural and
cultural resources of the County,” (p. 6). Each of these elements provide policies that
are relevant to the biophilic approach to urban planning.
The conservation strategies were based on public input collected over five years
and focused on sustainability (Conservation & Open Space, Strategies, p. 2). Indicators
tracking is identified as a primary goal “to have feedback on our policies and
regulations, to identify areas that need improvement to ensure the meaningful protection
of natural resources,” and ultimately to “integrate these indicators into a performance-
based development review process, so that a development proposal does not go
forward unless it meets minimal standards of sustainability,” (p. 3). The County intends
to support research and monitoring efforts spearheaded by groups such as Sustainable
Alachua County, Women for Wise Growth, Sierra Club, and the Environmental
Protection Advisory Committee as well as the University of Florida (p. 4).
39
The County also intends to use technology to increase public awareness and to
make education and outreach a top priority. Environmental stewardship is incorporated
into the Plan under Objectives 2.2 and 2.3 of the Conservation and Open Space
Element. The County has a “responsibility” to inform citizens about conservation and to
“provide Alachua County’s landowners the tools to protect natural resources,” (p.5). The
document suggests multiple ways to include the public including “the County’s
webpage, interpretive facilities at county natural parks and preserves, distribution of
brochures and reports, staff presentations to groups, and participation in collaborative
working groups and task forces,” (p. 5). Cooperation with the private sector is also
crucial as many private organizations contribute to land stewardship efforts within the
County (p. 5-6).
Land conservation within the County historically has been supported through
lands acquisitions by state programs or water management districts (p. 8). However, in
the year 2000 “voters approved a property tax to fund up to $29 million for land
acquisition and management through Alachua County Forever (ACF),” (p. 9). The
program allows the County to acquire “environmentally significant lands that contribute
to the quality of life and enjoyment of our citizens,” (p. 9). There are also options for
conservation easements for owners who do not wish to sell. The ACF staff develops
management plans for each site. Sites may be opened for “compatible, resource-based
recreation” if there are no detrimental impacts to the environmental or historical integrity
of the site (p. 9).
40
Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR)
According to the Alachua County Growth Management website, the latest update
to the Comprehensive Plan “represents the culmination of a three-year public
participation process to address and link long range community goals, needs, and
opportunities identified through the Evaluation and Appraisal Report.” The report was
completed to satisfy the State of Florida’s Growth Management Act which requires that
local governments adopt an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (“EAR”) on its
Comprehensive Plan every seven years. According to the report, the intent is “to assess
progress in implementing the Comprehensive Plan, and to respond to changes in state,
regional and local policies on planning and growth management, changing conditions
and trends, ensure intergovernmental coordination and identify major issues regarding
achievement of the community‘s goals,” (Evaluation and Appraisal Report, p. 12). The
EAR evaluated a period of four years from 2005 to 2009.
According to the EAR, “the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and Conservation
and Open Space Element (COSE) were adopted to embrace multiple, diverse strategies
for the conservation of natural systems in Alachua County, and establish environmental
conservation as a priority in all decision-making for the County,” (p. 67). The element
details “long range planning” for earth resources, water resources, and natural
communities and wildlife (p. 67). The key objectives and policies for the element
included the following:
Identifies six conservation areas for protection: o Wetlands o Surface Waters o 100-year Floodplains o Listed Species Habitat o Significant Geologic Features
41
o Strategic Ecosystems
Establishment of information system for natural and human-related resources;
Protection of resources during land use planning and development review;
Steps to maintain and improve all natural resources;
Provisions for energy efficiency;
Mitigation of risks associated with natural disasters (e.g. wildfire) and human risks (e.g. hazardous materials);
Encouragement of reduction of hazardous waste generation; and
Establishment and maintenance of land conservation programs, including Alachua County Forever.
The Plan was updated in 2002 and “strategic ecosystems was added to the list of
conservation areas to be protected based on the KBN/Golder Report (1996) inventory,”
(p. 68). These sites require special protections due to their “ecological value,
uniqueness, and sensitivity to development activities,” (p. 68). Protecting these sites
ensures that they will continue to support ecological connectivity and functionality. The
County also established Alachua County Forever “acquire, improve and manage
environmentally significant lands in Alachua County, to protect water resources, wildlife
habitats and natural areas suitable for resource-based recreation,” (p. 68). The program
had 17,056 acres under protection as of 2009 (p. 68)
The policies outlined in the Conservation and Open Space Element are enforced
by the development review committee (DRC). The EAR states that the 2002 update to
the Comprehensive Plan and ULDC “resulted in minimal loss of wetland resources (<2.0
ac) compared to previous policies,” (p. 68). Provisions to retain ecological integrity
included “wetland buffers, floodplain fill compensation, and tree canopy protection,” (p.
68). The EAR also discusses the transfer of development rights program that
contributes to green infrastructure protection in the County. The details of this program
and its role in conservation will be discussed in a later section.
42
Future Land Use Element
The Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Comprehensive Plan is also used to
promote conservation. The FLUE contains various development control policies that are
intended to preserve open space within the County. The primary strategies used to
achieve this goal are rural cluster development and the Transfer of Development Rights
Program. These strategies target rural areas where green infrastructure protection is
critical to maintain the established ecological system.
Cluster Development
The Comprehensive Plan provides special guidelines for the development of
rural agricultural lands in order to support conservation. Policy 6.2.5 of the Future Land
Use Element states that “parcels containing natural resource areas as identified in the
Conservation and Open Space Element shall be conserved in accordance with those
policies, such that the natural functions of the resource area are not significantly
altered,” (p. 110). This goal can be accomplished either through cluster development or
“through a development plan that assures the permanent protection of natural resources
consistent with the requirements of the Conservation and Open Space Element,” (p.
110).
The plan provides incentive for new residential developments to employ cluster
development. New developments in Rural/Agricultural areas are required to retain 50
percent of the property as open space; however, there are also incentives to conserve
even more open space. According to Policy 6.2.10(d) of the FLUE, a new residential
subdivision in lands designated Rural/Agricultural may add 2 units to the total number of
units allowed (based on the allowable 1 units per 5 acres). Additionally they may add “1
43
additional unit per every 10 acres of conservation area set aside as open space; plus 1
additional unit per every 20 acres non-conservation area set aside as open space,” (p.
113). This policy is an example of how Alachua County is employing incentives in an
attempt to encourage developers to provide green infrastructure within rural areas.
Objective 6.2 of the FLUE provides the guidelines for Rural/Agricultural
development in the County. In addition to agricultural and related land uses, the Plan
allows for “heritage tourism and ecotourism, resource-based recreation and outdoor
activity-based recreation” in these areas (p. 109). The maximum density in areas
designed as Rural/Agricultural is limited to one dwelling unit per five acres; however, the
Plan provides a mechanism for increasing the maximum density through the Transfer of
Development Rights program. Policy 5.2.6 of the Conservation and Open Space
Element states that “nonresidential and mixed use developments, including TOD or
TND, may reduce the amount of open space maintained onsite by participating in the
County’s Transfer of Development Rights Program and purchasing development rights
in accordance with Section 9.0 of the Future Land Use Element,” (p. 287).
Transfer of Development Rights Program
The Transfer of Development Rights program is defined by Policy 6.2.5.1 of the
Future Land Use Element which states:
In order to implement COSE Policy 4.10.6, Planned Developments with Transfers of Development (PD-TDR) may be proposed for two or more separate parcels under the same ownership to facilitate transfers of development rights from regulated conservation areas, as defined in Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 3.1.1, to less sensitive areas designated as Rural/Agriculture on the Future Land Use Map. The PD-TDR will allow units of density to be transferred from one or more contiguous parcels (sending parcels) to one or more geographically separate parcels (receiving parcels). All parcels involved shall be rezoned as PD-TDR-S or PD-TDR-R. As a result of the transfer, receiving parcels may be developed at a gross density that exceeds that
44
provided on the receiving parcel by the Rural/Agriculture land use category (p. 110). Section 9.0 of the Future Land Use Element details the Transfer of Development
Rights (TDR) Program. Policy 9.1.1 states: “Transfers of development rights may be
proposed for two or more separate legally created parcels to facilitate transfers of
development rights from regulated conservation and viable agriculture areas to areas
within the Urban Cluster or potentially within other municipalities,” (p. 145). The sending
areas for the program include both Agricultural Sending Areas and Conservation
Sending Areas. These lands must meet specific requirements to qualify for the program.
For instance, Agricultural Sending Areas must be located outside the Urban Cluster,
while Conservation Sending Areas must either contain Strategic Ecosystems or be
listed on the Alachua County Forever active acquisitions list (p. 145-146). Sending Area
properties must be greater than or equal to 160 acres; however, exceptions to this rule
may be permitted by the County if the land is deemed to be of “exceptional value” (p.
145-146).
Receiving areas can be located within any of the County’s municipalities. The
TDR program allows for an increased maximum density on the receiving property. The
Plan stipulates that “development rights available for transfer shall be equal to the
lesser of the following, minus the residual units not to be included in the transfer: (a)
number of residential units otherwise allowed on the sending area property; or (b)
number of upland acres on the sending area property,” (p. 146). Additional incentives
are offered to encourage property owners to utilize the TDR program. Two additional
units are added to the total, plus an additional unit for every 10 acres of conservation
45
land on the site (p. 146). The sending property owner establishes an easement on the
property, and the parcel is given a sending area zoning designation.
Conservation and Open Space Element
Alachua County’s updated Comprehensive Plan contains an element aimed
specifically at conservation policies. The Conservation and Open Space Element can be
considered an example of a “biodiversity plan or strategy”, which is one of Beatley’s
biophilic indicators. The policies outlined in this section of the Plan show a variety of
ways in which the County is promoting biophilic planning policies. The goal of the
Conservation and Open Space Element is “to conserve, manage and restore or
enhance the natural and human-related resources of Alachua County to ensure long-
term environmental quality for the future,” (p. 248). The overview of the element
provides further evidence of biophilic policies. Policy 1.1.1 states:
The County shall promote the long-term maintenance of natural systems through a comprehensive approach that involves education, public participation, regulations, incentives, acquisition, intergovernmental coordination, and other appropriate mechanisms. (p. 248).
Additionally, Objective 1.2 is to “establish environmental conservation as a priority in all
decision-making for Alachua County,” (p. 248). The Plan states that any land use
decision can have an impact on conservation; therefore, it is imperative that “County
officials, staff, and citizens constantly monitor all decisions for the effects they may have
on appropriate conservation and use of resources,” (p. 248). These strategies show that
Alachua County is making conservation a top priority in the planning process, which is
the defining characteristic of a biophilic city.
The objectives of the Conservation and Open Space Element provide further
evidence of biophilic policies.
46
Conservation Strategies: Embrace multiple, diverse strategies for the conservation of natural systems in Alachua County, and establish environmental conservation as a priority in all decision-making for Alachua County.
Environmental Information Management: Increase public understanding of natural resource issues and provide access to the most current and reliable information so that the public may make informed decisions regarding their health, welfare, and safety. Manage natural resources at a scale appropriate to their protection, and facilitate consensus-building in the public participation process.
Environmental Land Use Categories: Establish and map conservation and preservation areas to recognize and protect natural resources within privately and publicly owned lands in Alachua County utilizing appropriate regulatory, acquisition, and incentive mechanisms.
Natural Resources o Air Quality: Take appropriate steps to maintain or improve ambient air
quality to ensure the protection of public health and the environment and to exceed compliance with state and national ambient air quality standards.
o Soils/Slopes: Reduce the rate of soil erosion and sedimentation from development activities and encourage the utilization of the soil consistent with the ability of the physical properties of the soil to support appropriate land uses.
o Minerals: Regulate extraction activities so that they do not adversely affect the quality of air, groundwater, surface water, land, and wildlife.
o Geology: Protect and maintain significant natural geologic features such as special karst features – springs, caves and sinkholes in their natural condition.
o Groundwater: Protect and conserve the quality and quantity of groundwater resources to ensure long-term public health and safety, potable water supplies from surficial, intermediate, and Floridan aquifers, and the ecological integrity of natural resources.
o Surface Water: Ensure the protection and improvement of the water quality, biological health, and natural functions of surface water systems in Alachua County.
o Wetlands: Ensure the protection and improvement of biological health and natural functions of wetland systems in Alachua County. Wetland acreage and function shall be protected.
o Floodplains: Protect and maintain the natural functions of floodplains, floodways, and all other natural areas having hydrological characteristics of the one hundred (100)-year flood elevation. Natural functions include water purification, flood hazard mitigation, water supply, and wildlife habitat and connectivity.
o Biodiversity: Maintain and enhance plant and animal species diversity and distribution within Alachua County by protecting significant plant and wildlife habitats, providing for habitat corridors, and preventing habitat fragmentation.
47
o Ecosystems: Protect, conserve, enhance, and manage the ecological integrity of strategic ecosystems in Alachua County.
Human-Related Resources o Energy: Provide for energy efficiency in human activities, land uses, and
development patterns in order to reduce overall energy requirements for the County and its residents.
o Open Space: Preserve or establish open space within developments to ensure public health, safety and welfare and to protect recreational and natural resources and functions.
o Scenic Quality: Protect the natural resources and scenic quality of the community to preserve and cultivate a unique sense of place while maintaining economic well-being.
o Vegetation: Require and encourage public and private land clearing and landscaping practices that conserve, appropriately use, and protect native vegetation, including forests.
o Agriculture/Silviculture: The County shall encourage the retention of agricultural and silvicultural operations that are conducted in accordance with best management practices.
o Wildfire Mitigation: Protect life, property, and the economy by eliminating or minimizing the present and future vulnerability to wildfire hazards.
o Hazardous Materials: Act to reduce the risks associated with hazardous materials and encourage the reduction of hazardous waste generation. Protect and enhance the quality and safety of the environment by requiring that disposal methods for hazardous waste and handling and storage methods for hazardous materials are properly designed, operated, and monitored.
Land Conservation Program: Establish and maintain a land conservation program that uses a variety of strategies for the purchase, preservation, and management of natural areas and open space to complement the regulatory approaches identified in other sections of this element. Improve the environmental stewardship of all preservation, conservation and recreation areas within County boundaries.
The objectives and policies of the Conservation and Open Space Element are
intended to promote conservation within the County. Many of the COSE policies
implemented in the latest version of the Plan are intended to address specific issues
that were identified by the Evaluation and Appraisal Report of the previous plan. Two of
the issues are ecological connectivity and open space requirements for urban areas.
The updated Plan implements policies that support greenspace at both the broad and
small scale.
48
Ecological Connectivity
The EAR provided recommendations to address issues relevant to the
Conservation and Open Space Element. These issues reflect the goals that the County
is hoping to achieve with new policies in the updated Plan. One of the issues focused
on the adequacy of green infrastructure protection in the County. Recommendation
#5.2.1 addressed the issue by recommending the adoption of “an overlay map to
identify a continuous ecological corridor connecting Preservation areas (these include
lands owned by Alachua County, State, WMD in-fee or otherwise) and Strategic
Ecosystems that should be protected as follows:
a) The critical ecological corridors overlay shall include at a minimum the following adopted Strategic Ecosystems: Lochloosa Slough, East Lochloosa Forest, Lochloosa Creek, Lochloosa Creek Flatwoods, Little Orange Creek, East Side Newnans Lake, Austin Cary, Northeast Flatwoods and the Santa Fe River.
b) Make it a priority to protect mapped ecological corridor core areas and preserving linkages between mapped ecological corridor core areas in the implementation of the development review process for Strategic Ecosystems, and also in land acquisition programs, and in Special Area Management Plan development
c) The County should coordinate with County-wide Visioning and Planning Committee, Nongovernmental organizations, State, federal municipal and adjacent counties to extend ecological linkages beyond County jurisdiction.
d) The County should develop and/or support tax incentives that promote the preservation of mapped areas by landowners.
e) Develop an outreach program to promote the value of conserving linked ecosystems/corridor.
f) Prioritize core areas of, and linkages between, the corridors in the implementation of any Transfer/Purchase of Development Rights Program.
g) Review Land Conservation Master Plan and adopt additional Greenspace-conserving tools as appropriate (p. 24).
The Supporting Data and Analysis for Alachua County Comprehensive Plan
Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) Based Amendments explains that
“greenspace/green infrastructure and their benefits to sustainability of human and
49
natural infrastructure were a focus of citizen and stakeholder dialogue during the EAR
process,” (p. 70). They identified a need for linkages between core areas that were
already being conserved such as the Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas (Cox et al.
1994), Florida Forever Conservation Needs Assessment (Knight et al. 2000), and
University of Florida‘s Ecological Network (Harris, 1984; Hoctor et al. 2000),” (p. 70).
Conservation and Open Space Element Objective 6.3 – “Linked Open Space
Network” – is to “Develop a linked open space network, or greenways system, that can
be managed to support the protection, enhancement and restoration of functional and
connected natural systems while providing unique opportunities for recreation, multi-
modal transportation, and economic development,” (Comprehensive Plan, COSE, p.
296). This objective addresses the need for connectivity between core reserve areas. A
number of policies are used to implement this objective. Policy 6.3.1 states that “the
County shall develop planning strategies for a greenways system that includes:
(a) Conservation and preservation areas
(b) Environmentally sensitive lands
(c) Open space areas
(d) Parks and recreational facilities
(e) Commercial recreation areas
(f) Surface water systems
(g) Bikeways and trails
(h) Utility corridors
(i) Stormwater management systems
(j) Habitat corridors
(k) Historic resources
(l) Scenic corridors
50
Policy 6.3.2 discusses how the County will accomplish the task of prioritizing
“maintenance of functional linkages between ecological core corridor areas,” (p. 297).
The strategies include development review, intergovernmental coordination, and
outreach programs.
a) Implementation of development review, special area planning for Strategic Ecosystems, land acquisition programs and associated management plans, and the Transfer of Development Rights program (see Future Land Use Element Section 9.0);
b) Various intergovernmental coordination efforts with municipalities, adjacent counties, regional entities, state and federal agencies to promote maintenance of linkages of ecological core areas; and
c) Outreach programs to promote the value of conserving linked ecosystems/corridors and support tax incentives that promote the preservation of mapped ecological core areas.
Other policies under Objective 6.3 include: “providing for publicly accessible open
spaces of native flora and fauna” (COSE Policy 6.3.4); protecting vulnerable
ecosystems by designing the greenways in an “environmentally sensitive
manner…limiting or prohibiting public access where necessary” (COSE Policy 6.3.5);
and developing management plans for the system that “address natural resources
protection, public access, recreation, education, and opportunities for economic
development that is complementary to maintaining the system,” (COSE Policy 6.3.6).
Additionally, the Plan states that “the County shall coordinate with local municipalities to
include appropriate incorporated properties as part of the greenways system,” (COSE
Policy 6.3.7). These policies are designed to protect and maintain a green infrastructure
network within the County, which is one of the primary indicators of biophilic cities.
51
Open Space Requirements
Another recommendation by the EAR addressed the issue of open space
requirements within the urban cluster. EAR Recommendation #1.1.4 states:
Review the policies relative to open space requirements within the Urban Cluster to assess impact on the ability to achieve higher density, mixed use development within the Cluster; based on that review, consider modifications to those requirements as determined to be desirable and necessary to facilitate higher density/intensity mixed use development within the Urban Cluster. To address this issue, the County adopted policy changes that would “expand
the options available for meeting the 20% open space requirement to include
community gardens, and portion of green roofs which meet open space design criteria,”
(Supporting Data and Analysis for Alachua County Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and
Appraisal Report (EAR) Based Amendments, p. 77). Additionally, new policies would
allow public plazas “which combine natural areas with permeable paved surfaces to be
counted toward the required amount of open space,” (p. 77-78). These policies show
that Alachua County is promoting biophilic urban design strategies such as gardens and
green roofs that allow nature to permeate the city even within high density development
areas.
Objective 5.2 of the Conservation and Open Space Element is to “preserve or
establish open space within developments to ensure public health, safety, and welfare
and to protect recreational and natural resources and functions.” This objective
recognizes the human health benefits provided by greenspace in urban areas. COSE
Policy 5.2.2 requires that 20 percent of a development site must be devoted to pervious
open space. The open space requirement may be satisfied through different features
including:
52
a) Open spaces dedicated primarily to public, recreation, or pedestrian use, such as community gardens, community fields, greens, plazas, and squares.
b) Natural areas of non-invasive trees and plants. c) Landscaped areas, including street trees, utilizing a variety and balanced
mix of canopy and understory trees, shrubs, and groundcovers, consistent with xeriscape principles and emphasizing native species.
d) Linkages to larger open space corridors. e) Portions of stormwater management areas that meet conservation,
recreation, or open space design criteria as specified in the Land Development Code.
f) Portions of green roofs that meet open space design criteria to be specified in the Land Development Code.
Policy 5.2.3 requires that conservation areas must be used to fulfill the
requirement before other types of allowable open space that ensures protection for
sensitive areas. These sensitive areas include “wetlands, surface waters within private
ownership, 100 year floodplains, listed species habitat, strategic ecosystems, and
significant geologic features,” (Supporting Data and Analysis for Alachua County
Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) Based Amendments, p.
78). These open space policies are implemented in Article 4, Chapter 407 of the
Alachua County Unified Land Development Code (ULDC). The ULDC identifies
“primary” and “secondary” open space areas:
Primary Open Space Areas include conservation areas and their related buffers, and other Natural Areas including significant habitat or other natural features such as steep slopes, ridges, sinkhole areas, or areas that potentially could be utilized to enhance or restore natural features on or adjacent to the development site; Secondary Open Space Areas include pervious community green spaces, pedestrian trails, landscaped areas, and portions of stormwater management areas which exceed certain minimum requirements provided in Section 407.45 of the ULDC (p. 78).
As previously stated, the open space requirement must first be fulfilled by conservation
areas, followed by Natural Areas, and the related buffers. Once these areas have been
53
set aside, any remaining requirement can be fulfilled using Secondary Open Space
Areas.
The policies in the Comprehensive Plan and the ULDC provide for flexibility in
fulfilling the open space requirement particularly within high density mixed use
development. Developers can also reduce the required open space through the
Transfer of Development Rights Program. The updated Plan promotes compact
development and higher density within the Urban Cluster in order to “accomplish
multiple Comprehensive Plan objectives relating to energy conservation, community
health, preservation of rural and agricultural areas, and promotion of walking, bicycling,
and transit modes,” (Supporting Data and Analysis for Alachua County Comprehensive
Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) Based Amendments, p. 79). The Plan
designated certain nodes within the Urban Cluster as Urban Activity Center that
promote compact, mixed use development. Additional options for higher density include
Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and Traditional Neighborhood Development
(TND).
Figure 4-3 summarizes the development trends in the County since 2006. The
total impervious developed area is 391 acres (11%) compared to 1,414 acres of total
open space (40%). Conservation areas represent 55 percent of the total open space
area. Tree canopy retention is 66 percent. The development controls have resulted in
no net loss of wetlands and significant geologic features. However, 9 percent of
strategic ecosystem lands were converted to development; 27 percent of listed species
habitat was lost; and 17 percent of significant habitat was lost. While conservation is
54
clearly a priority in the Comprehensive Plan, there appears to be disconnect between
the policies and their implementation in the development review process.
Table 4-1 summarizes the findings of the study using the logic model framework.
The table shows the inputs, outputs, and outcomes of the program based on the
research and analysis. The model shows that the outputs of the program are the
policies and regulations that were established. The outcomes are the results of the
program. These results indicate the effectiveness of the policies in terms of land
conservation and habitat protection.
55
Figure 4-1. Clustered Subdivision Concept (From Conservation Design for Subdivisions, R. Arendt) Source: Alachua County Comprehensive Plan
56
Figure 4-2. Critical Ecological Corridors Map Source: Alachua County Department of Growth Management
57
Figure 4-3. Alachua County Development Trends Source: Alachua County Environmental Protection Department
58
Table 4-1. Logic Model Analysis
Inputs Outputs Outcomes
Budget ($131,598 annually) Interdepartmental collaboration
Development controls & incentives Cluster development TDR Program Open space requirement of 20% Public lands acquisition through Alachua County Forever
Linked open space network Limited impervious development (11%) compared to open space retention (40%) Tree canopy protection (66%) Protection of wetlands & geologic features (Loss of 0%) Notable loss of strategic ecosystems (9%), listed species habitat (27%), and significant habitat (17%)
59
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION
Alachua County has employed a number of policies to encourage green
infrastructure investment in the County. The green infrastructure investment program
added these policies to the Comprehensive Plan in 2005. The program implemented
updates to the Comprehensive Plan and established the land conservation program
Alachua County Forever. Policies included protection for wetlands, surface waters,
floodplains, listed species habitat, significant geological features, and strategic
ecosystems. The Conservation and Open Space Element was developed to provide
specific protections for natural lands and resources in the County. Additionally,
developmental controls were implemented in the Future Land Use Element including
cluster development and the Transfer of Development Rights Program.
An Evaluation and Appraisal Report was completed in 2009 to analyze the
Comprehensive Plan. Two major recommendations related to the Conservation and
Open Space Element were to address green infrastructure adequacy and open space
requirements for urban areas. Policies were implemented to address both of these
issues in the latest update to the Comprehensive Plan in 2011. The County aimed to
create a green infrastructure network based on the Critical Ecological Corridors map.
Policies were developed to encourage the preservation of corridors between core
reserve areas.
Additionally, the County added policies to encourage biophilic urban design at
the smaller scale. The requirements for open space in urban areas were expanded to
include green roofs and community gardens. However, these features can only count
towards open space requirements after natural areas have been preserved in order to
60
retain ecological integrity. Allowing these green design features to count towards open
space requirements ensures that residents will continue to experience nature even as
development increases in Gainesville and the surrounding area.
Alachua County’s green infrastructure investment program attempts to make
planning with nature a priority in the development process. The county views these
collective policies as an investment in the future resiliency and sustainability of the
municipality. The Transfer of Development Rights Program encourages development
within the urban core and preservation of critical natural areas. The Conservation and
Open Space Element guides the planning and protection of natural lands and
resources. The policies have led to the creation of an ecological network of core reserve
areas within the County. While policies have been successful in the protection of
wetlands and geologic features, there has been a net loss of critical habitat in the
County since 2006. The designation afforded to lands identified as most critical (the
Strategic Ecosystems) has not entirely protected them from development.
Such a result is likely due to the flexibility within the development approval
process. The nature of the planning profession is to attempt to balance a variety of
interests and stakeholders, and some flexibility in the process is necessary to allow for
continued growth. Biophilic cities attempt to make nature the priority in this process, and
Alachua County’s policies generally reflect this sentiment. Protections for nature are
incorporated throughout the Comprehensive Plan in the form of development controls
(such as the 20% open space requirement) and incentive policies (such as the TDR
Program). While these policies have not prevented some destruction of natural areas,
61
they have limited the overall impact of development on the ecological system within the
County.
Discussion
The study contributes to the broader question of how to use planning policy as a
tool to promote biophilic cities. Much of the discussion on biophilic cities thus far
focuses on how to integrate green infrastructure in more compact urban areas. The
analysis of Alachua County shows how some of the features of biophilic cities can be
implemented in municipalities that are less dense and more prone to urban sprawl. The
use of a regional green infrastructure network can be applied to other municipalities in
Florida that are similar to Alachua County in terms of urban form. A limitation of the
study is that the social dimensions of biophilic cities were not directly addressed. Land
conservation is an important aspect of planning for biophilic cities. However,
conservation does not guarantee that people will be more motivated to explore and
connect with nature. Future research could provide more information about how
planning policy can be used to facilitate an appreciation for nature. Perhaps the
technology that so often distracts can instead be used to engage and educate people
about the natural world.
62
LIST OF REFERENCES
Alachua County. (2011). Alachua County Comprehensive Plan: 2011-2030. Retrieved from https://growth-management.alachuacounty.us/comprehensive_planning/documents/2011_2030_comprehensive_plan.pdf
Alachua County. Conservation & Open Space, Strategies. Comprehensive Plan: 2001-
2020 Data and Analysis. Retrieved from http://growth-management.alachuacounty.us/comprehensive_planning/documents/data_and_analysis_cp_2001_2020.pdf
Alachua County. Data and Analysis for Future Land Use Element of Alachua County
Comprehensive Plan: 2001-2020. Retrieved from http://growth-management.alachuacounty.us/comprehensive_planning/documents/data_and_analysis_cp_2001_2020.pdf
Alachua County. (2009). Evaluation and Appraisal Report on Alachua County
Comprehensive Plan: 2001-2020. Retrieved from https://growth-management.alachuacounty.us/comprehensive_planning/comprehensive_plan_update/documents/ear_draft_document_for_8-11-09_bocc(2).pdf
Alachua County. (2011). Supporting Data and Analysis for Alachua County
Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) Based Amendments. Retrieved from https://growth-management.alachuacounty.us/comprehensive_planning/documents/data_and_analysis_cp_2011_2030.pdf
Beatley, T. (2000). Green urbanism: Learning from European cities. Washington, D.C:
Island Press. Beatley, T. (2011). Biophilic cities: Integrating nature into urban design and planning.
Washington, DC: Island Press. doi:10.5822/978-1-59726-986-5
Beatley, T. (2012). Green cities of Europe: Global lessons on green urbanism (1st ed.).
Washington, DC: Island Press. doi:10.5822/978-1-61091-175-7 Beatley, T., & Newman, P. (2013). Biophilic cities are sustainable, resilient cities.
Sustainability, 5(8), 3328-3345. doi:10.3390/su5083328
Benedict, M. A., & McMahon, E. T. (2006). Green infrastructure. Island, Washington,
DC. Bird, C. (2008). Alachua County Green Infrastructure Investment Program. Retrieved
from https://icma.org/Documents/Document/Document/2767.
63
Gray, T., & Birrell, C. (2014). Are biophilic-designed site office buildings linked to health benefits and high performing occupants? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 11(12), 12204-12204. doi:10.3390/ijerph111212204
World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
64
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Stephanie Corinne Kurtz is the daughter of Kenneth Kurtz and Elise O’Connor
Abbate and the sister of Kevin Kurtz. She grew up in Florida and graduated from
Satellite High School in 2008. Stephanie earned her Bachelor of Arts degree from the
University of Florida in environmental science with honors in 2012. She spent a year as
an intern for the Palm Beach County Parks and Recreation Department before returning
to the University of Florida to pursue her master’s degree. She studied landscape
architecture for a year before deciding to pursue a Master of Urban and Regional
Planning. Her career plans include working to promote sustainability in planning as well
as earning her AICP certification.
![Technobiophilia: soothing our connected minds and easing our wired lives, Biophilic Cities [May 2015]](https://img.pdfslide.us/doc/110x75/55b6d46ebb61eb93418b497c/technobiophilia-soothing-our-connected-minds-and-easing-our-wired-lives-biophilic-cities-may-2015.jpg)
![Smart cities and infrastructure [Including Corrigendum]](https://img.pdfslide.us/doc/110x75/58a2c2e51a28ab4c028b526f/smart-cities-and-infrastructure-including-corrigendum.jpg)
