environmental reviews and case studies: advancing green infrastructure at all scales: from landscape...

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS AND CASE STUDIES

Advancing Green Infrastructureat All Scales: From Landscapeto Site

William L. Allen III

Over the past decade, green infrastructure has evolved

from a novel buzzword into a recognized planning prac-

tice. Definitions of green infrastructure inevitably have

been tailored to appeal to diverse constituents with mes-

sage points that address a particular professional disci-

pline or resource issue. Commonly accepted definitions

emphasize the interconnected network concept and are

mostly differentiated by the scale at which green infra-

structure planning is implemented. This commentary lays

out an operational framework for green infrastructure that

can be advanced at all scales, from the largest landscape

to the smallest site, and illustrates examples of operation-

alizing the framework at each scale. What is ultimately

needed is a seamless quilt of planning and implementation

across scales and jurisdictional boundaries that make sense

in terms of their benefits but also in terms of their eco-

nomics, and every one can play a part in making that a

reality in their communities.

Environmental Practice 14:17–25 (2012)

O ver the past decade, green infrastructure has evolvedfrom a novel buzzword into a recognized planning

practice. In part due to the seminal publication GreenInfrastructure: Linking Landscapes and Communities ~Bene-dict and McMahon, 2006!, the movement has spawned anationwide Community of Practice in the United States~US! that serves as a collaborative network of organiza-tions and agencies that are actively involved in promotingand implementing green infrastructure planning ap-proaches ~Conservation Fund, 2011a! and has inspired ex-tensive research in the UK and Western Europe ~Mell,

2008!. It has inspired numerous advocates from multipleprofessional disciplines to adopt the term since infrastruc-ture elevates the environment to its rightful place as a“substructure or underlying foundation on which the con-tinuance and growth of a community depends” ~Webster’sNew World Dictionary, 2000!.

The term green infrastructure was first coined in the main-stream by President Bill Clinton’s Council on SustainableDevelopment and identified as one of five strategic areas ofsustainable community development ~President’s Councilon Sustainable Development, 1999!. Table 1 includes thecouncil’s definition along with other commonly accepteddefinitions. Since that time, definitions of green infrastruc-ture inevitably have been tailored to appeal to diverse con-stituents with message points that address a particularprofessional discipline or resource issue. Nonetheless, ithas resonated as a framework since it systematically inte-grates a wide range of actions that citizens, nongovern-mental organizations, businesses, and governments can betaken to stem the tide of land conversion that pollutes ourwater supplies, fouls our air, fragments our forest and farmlandscapes, and reduces opportunities for outdoor recre-ation. It links ecological and working landscapes to humancommunities, acknowledging that they are inextricably linkedand that healthy landscapes are essential to human health,vitality, and quality of life. The framework also acknowl-edges that the degradation and loss of natural functionsare not only caused by sprawling development patterns butalso result from haphazard conservation efforts ~Beatley,2000; Noss, 1987!.

While this proliferation of definitions has occasionally causedconfusion in recent years, most align with the overarchingconcepts of the council’s original definition. The defini-tions in Table 1 emphasize the interconnected networkconcept and are mostly differentiated by the scale at whichgreen infrastructure planning is implemented. Although

Affiliation of author: William L. Allen III, Director of Strategic Con-servation, The Conservation Fund, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Address correspondence to: William L. Allen III, Director of StrategicConservation, The Conservation Fund, 410 Market Street, Suite 360, ChapelHill, NC 27516; ~phone! 919-967-2248; ~fax! 919-967-9702; [email protected].

© National Association of Environmental Professionals 2012

doi:10.10170S1466046611000469 Advancing Green Infrastructure at All Scales 17

the definition by US Environmental Protection Agency~USEPA! is most narrowly focused on site-scale storm-water management, the agency acknowledges that greeninfrastructure strategies range from protecting large blocksof unfragmented forests in wilderness areas for wildlife

habitat preservation to applying techniques to increasestorm-water infiltration in urban areas for runoff reduc-tion and flood mitigation ~USEPA, 2011!. Although thesehave been well-meaning attempts to take full advantage ofthe concept, I submit to you that we must steadfastly avoid

Table 1. Commonly accepted definitions of green infrastructure

Source URL Definition

President’s Council on SustainableDevelopment, 1999

http://clinton2.nara.gov/PCSD/Publications/tsa.pdf

A network of open space, airsheds, water-sheds, woodlands, wildlife habitat, parks, andother natural areas that provides many vitalservices that sustain life and enrich the qual-ity of life.

Benedict & McMahon, 2006 http://www.greeninfrastructure.net/content/definition-green-infrastructure

A strategically planned and managed networkof natural lands, working landscapes, andother open spaces that conserves ecosystemvalues and functions and provides associatedbenefits to human populations. ~Note: Thisdefinition is also used by some federal agen-cies, including USDA Cooperative Forestry!

Center for Neighborhood Technology,2009

http://greenvalues.cnt.org/green-infrastructure

An interconnected network of open spacesand natural areas that naturally rechargesaquifers, improves water quality and quantity,and provides recreational opportunities andwildlife habitat.

Center for Neighborhood Technology& American Rivers, 2010

http://www.americanrivers.org/library/reports-publications/the-value-of-green-infrastructure.html

A network of decentralized storm-water man-agement practices, such as green roofs, trees,rain gardens, and permeable pavement, thatcan capture and infiltrate rain where it falls,thus reducing storm-water runoff and im-proving the health of surrounding waterways.

US Environmental Protection Agency,2011

http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id5298

An approach to wet weather managementthat is cost-effective, sustainable, and environ-mentally friendly. Green infrastructure man-agement approaches and technologiesinfiltrate, evapotranspire, capture, and reusestorm water to maintain or restore naturalhydrologies.

Environmental Practice, 2011 Call for papers An interconnected network of natural areasand open spaces, as well as technologies andpractices, that use natural systems—or engi-neered systems that mimic natural processes—to enhance overall environmental quality, con-serve ecosystem functions and natural capital,sustain clean air and water, and provide socialand economic benefits to people andcommunities.

Wikipedia, 2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_infrastructure

A concept with an emphasis on “life support”functions provided by a network of naturalecosystems, with an emphasis on interconnec-tivity to support long-term sustainability.

18 Environmental Practice 14 (1) March 2012

the concept becoming a victim of its own success by hav-ing it become so broad and so malleable that it ceases tohave meaning.

This commentary lays out an operational framework forgreen infrastructure that can be advanced at all scales,from the largest landscape to the smallest site. This scale-based, network-focused framework will hopefully mitigatefuture attempts to dilute or distort the original intent ofthe concept and current implementation of the practice. Iwill first illustrate what could happen, if not careful, interms of definition creep through a history of the termgreenway, followed by a summary of recent examples thatjeopardize the value of the current nomenclature. I willthen propose how we can maintain a well-defined greeninfrastructure planning practice through a focus on itsscales of implementation to achieve the multiple benefitsthat the movement seeks.

Keeping Green Infrastructure Well Defined

As one of the champions of the concept of green infra-structure, Edward T. McMahon ~2003!, has said, “Wordsmatter.” It was not long ago before the rise of green infra-structure that the term greenways was essentially a syn-onym for green infrastructure. While the greenwaysmovement grew out of efforts to create park and parkwaysystems in the early 20th century, the President’s Commis-sion for Americans Outdoors ~1987! envisioned a new na-tional system of greenways that included “corridors of privateand public recreation lands and waters, to provide peoplewith access to open spaces close to where they live, and tolink together the rural and urban spaces in the Americanlandscape” ~p. 142!. The greenways movement laid thegroundwork for green infrastructure planning. Greenwaysreinforced the concepts of linkage and multiple-use corri-dors in the fields of planning and design. Ecologists, suchas Smith and Hellmund ~1993!, began to see the utility ofgreenways as an element of an integrated landscape man-agement strategy to protect networks of functional naturalsystems. The planning and design of greenways were, there-fore, the precursor to green infrastructure planning. Infact, the Conservation Fund’s Albemarle-Pamlico Biore-gional Greenway Plan ~1995! argued that a strategicallyplanned and managed greenway network could help “forma ‘green infrastructure’ that will serve as the foundation fora sustainable regional economic development strategy.” Buteven within that report, the definition was relatively ex-pansive as it said a greenway could be “a small footpathlined with trees and gardens through an urban neighbor-

hood or it can be a mile-wide stretch of forest along a rivercorridor that has been set aside for preservation as a move-ment corridor for large mammals.” The book Greenwaysfor America ~Little, 1990! defined greenways as “paths andtrails,” “nature’s corridors,” and “networks of green.”

As time went on, the consensus definition rapidly began tonarrow, as illustrated by the 2000 Webster’s New WorldCollege Dictionary, fourth edition” “Greenway n. a pro-tected natural area that connects developed, esp. urban,areas, often providing trails for bicycling, hiking, etc.” TheConservation Fund’s American Greenways Program, whichhas been providing small grants to communities since 1987,invests most of the funding ~albeit pragmatically! intoprojects that facilitate active and passive recreation alonggreenways within urban and rural communities. While“greenways” and “green infrastructure” continue to be usedinterchangeably on occasion, as is within the Florida De-partment of Environmental Protection ~2011!, most withinthe professional and citizen ranks have created distinctdefinitions for greenways and green infrastructure. Butthen the ultimate affront to the definition came with thecreation of the Dulles Greenway ~2011! toll road in 1995.Although I use this somewhat as a tongue-in-cheek exam-ple, since it did not lead to a proliferation of toll roadscalled greenways, a definition creep is beginning regarding“green infrastructure.”

Amidst all of the talk about infrastructure investments withinthe Barack Obama Administration, it has become evenmore urgent that we define what green infrastructure is,and what it is not. The definition creep of green infra-structure has commenced within the realm of renewableenergy. The Brookings Institution ~Antholis and Ebinger,2008! used the term in a memo to President Obama ad-vocating the building of a secure energy future, and aCanadian private-sector alternative-energy initiative is call-ing itself Green Infrastructure, Inc. ~2011!. This is not to saythat the search for viable and renewable energy resources isnot without merit ~in fact, it is quite the opposite!, and Icertainly wish everyone well in their efforts to address thisextremely important aspect of sustainability. Green tech-nologies like wind turbines have the potential to reduce airpollution and carbon dioxide production that increase thecapacity to absorb pollutants out of the air and mitigatepotential impacts of climate change. I would simply arguethat wind turbines already fall under the umbrella of whatsome call gray infrastructure; that is, traditional, engineerednetworks for transportation, communication, and utilitysystems that support the built environment. But, of course,much of the problem lies with the dilution and distortion

Advancing Green Infrastructure at All Scales 19

of the terms green and sustainability. In fairness, there isnot much we can do about that at this point, but I thinkit is critically important for environmental professionals tocontinue to define green infrastructure within its originalintent to support strategic conservation and developmentplanning and decision making.

Landscape-Scale Green Infrastructure

Assuming we maintain the current definitions, that stillleaves a huge array of green infrastructure solutions atone’s disposal. Current best practices in green infrastruc-ture planning attempt to link and coordinate planning andimplement across three spatial scales ~McDonald et al.,2005!. Figure 1 attempts to diagram succinctly the relation-ship among these three scales, the urban/rural continuum,and the focus of implementation efforts at each scale.

As seen in Table 1, the pioneering work of Benedict andMcMahon ~2006! clearly emphasizes this landscape scale of

the green infrastructure network. A stunningly ambitiousexample of this scale is Warren Manning’s National PlanStudy ~1923!, where a proposed national network of reser-vations and parks would be based on an assessment oflandscape features. Building on this landscape-scale con-cept, Ian McHarg ~1967! asserted that the intrinsic land-scape attributes of a place should be the basis for land-useplanning, and his approach to landscape planning pio-neered the use of map overlays and suitability analysis toassess natural processes. These are some of the key foun-dations for landscape-scale green infrastructure planningactivities, ranging from Florida to Maryland to the entireSoutheastern US ~Florida Department of EnvironmentalProtection and the Florida Greenways Coordinating Coun-cil, 1998; Hoctor et al., 2008; State of Maryland, 2011; Uni-versity of Florida GeoPlan Center, 2001!.

The common threads of these landscape-scale initiativesare the green infrastructure network design and wildlifecorridors based on landscape ecology and conservationbiology principles ~Dramstad, Olson, and Forman, 1996;

Figure 1. How the green infrastructure approach works at different scales.


Forman and Godron, 1986; MacArthur and Wilson, 1967;Odum, 1983; Tewksbury et al., 2002!. Figure 2 illustratesthis network of core areas, corridors, and hubs that provideessential habitat to endangered and threatened species andthat link to broader natural functions and processes at theecosystem scale. Cores contain well-functioning natural eco-systems and provide high-quality habitat for native plantsand animals that meet a minimum size threshold based onlandscape conditions. These are the nucleus of the greeninfrastructure network ~Weber, 2007; Weber and Allen, 2010;Weber, Wolf, and Sloan, 2006!. Hubs are aggregations ofcore areas, other habitat, and other natural land, divided bymajor roads or gaps that meet a minimum size thresholdbased on landscape conditions. Hubs are intended to belarge enough to support populations of native species,serve as sources for emigration into the surrounding land-scape, and link to areas outside the extent of the analysisarea for a particular project. Corridors are linear featuresthat link core areas in order to allow animal and plantmovement between them with the goal of creating viableand persistent metapopulations. The landscape betweencore areas is assessed for its linkage potential, and conduitsand barriers to wildlife and seed movement are identified.Umbrella and keystone species native to an area are used todetermine size, connectivity, and other thresholds in thegreen infrastructure network design. Umbrella species are aspecies or group of species, such as forest interior–dwellingbirds, whose habitat needs overlap those of other animalsand plants. Keystone species are those with an importantrole in ecosystem function, such as pollinators and topcarnivores. Habitat preferences of umbrella and keystone

species help identify core areas and hubs ~ConservationFund, 2011b; Weber, Wolf, and Sloan, 2006!. Connectivityrequirements of less mobile species ~e.g., amphibians andsmall mammals! are used to model corridors. Whensufficient habitat is protected to sustain umbrella and key-stone species, other important components and microhab-itats will be encompassed and are more likely to be protectedas well ~Conservation Fund, 2011b!. Large-area green in-frastructure networks that cross political boundaries are atrademark of planning at the landscape scale.

Implementation at this scale usually involves conservationland acquisition and adaptive land management by publicand private landowners to support preservation of high-quality wildlife habitat, ecological process and functions,and protection of migration corridors. Maintaining com-patible working landscapes also plays a critical role inlandscape-scale green infrastructure planning. One of themost ambitious ongoing landscape-scale efforts is theAmerica’s Longleaf Initiative ~America’s Longleaf, 2011!.The initiative’s focus on the restoration of functional, vi-able longleaf ecosystems for ecological, economic, and so-cial benefits integrated green infrastructure network designconcepts and working forest conservation to protect eco-systems at a landscape scale.

Region-Scale Green Infrastructure

Although Benedict and McMahon ~2006! may have em-phasized the landscape scale, they are quick to point outthat green infrastructure can be implemented at any scale.This intermediate scale between landscape and site servesas a bridge between broad landscape-scale networks andsite-scale activities more targeted on an individual parcel.Although the landscape and region scales overlap some-what as defined earlier, region-scale network designs oftenare implemented within a recognized political boundary ofa municipality, a county, or a multicounty regional council,and the designs are used to help inform regional land-useand transportation plans. Implementation at this scale hasfocused also on land conservation and land-use and com-prehensive planning to support strategic open-space plan-ning, water supply and quality management, and greenwaysas recreation corridors ~Amundsen, Allen, and Hoellen,2009!. Implementation at this scale can also involve devel-opment ordinances and incentive programs to increase themagnitude and quality of green infrastructure in urbanand suburban environments. Other examples of region-scale implementation strategies include:

Figure 2. Landscape elements of a green infrastructurenetwork design.


1. Dedicated funding for strategic land acquisition andconservation easements

2. Open space preservation policies in comprehensive plansand storm-water management policies and standards

3. Incentives and regulations for open-space set-asides andconservation subdivisions

4. Taxation and valuation policies that encourage land toremain in forest, farm, and wetland uses

5. Incentives and regulations for protection of floodplains,trees and landscaping, steep slopes, surface waters andwetlands, and other natural resources

At this scale, there are excellent examples where greeninfrastructure solutions have been employed to solve tra-ditional gray infrastructure problems. The Milwaukee Met-ropolitan Sewerage District’s Greenseams Programimplements nonstructural flood management by conserv-ing lands with water-absorbing soils in private-ownershipproperties in riparian corridors and tracts of mature for-ests ~Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, 2011!. Todate, the program has purchased land interests in over2,100 acres that hold almost 1.3 billion gallons of water~Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District and The Con-servation Fund, 2010!. They found that its $12 millioninvestment in natural storage in four rapidly developingwatersheds would equal a $300 million investment instructural storage ~e.g., levees, retention ponds! ~Wise,2008!. The Greenseams Program has the added benefitsof creating an integrated regional vision for water qualityand of meeting local government goals for natural areasand open space.

Nashville/Davidson County has linked region-scale andsite-scale green infrastructure planning through the cre-ation of a countywide open-space plan in conjunctionwith an urban tree canopy study and a site-scale greeninfrastructure master plan for its downtown area. The Nash-ville Open Space Plan identifies anchors of protected openspace connected by the Cumberland River and recreationalcorridors along with a heart of green within the urban corethat contains suitable locations for potential green roofs,pocket parks, green streets, and street tree plantings. Theplan identifies acreage protection goals for the green in-frastructure network, sustainable agricultural uses, parksand greenways, and additional acreage of floodplain andother sensitive natural areas via low-impact development,land swaps, and regulatory innovations ~Metropolitan Gov-ernment of Nashville and Davidson County and Land Trustfor Tennessee, 2011!.

Site-Scale Green Infrastructure

In an effort to link scales, the Center for NeighborhoodTechnology defines green infrastructure at the landscapescale as an “interconnected network of open spaces andnatural areas—greenways, wetlands, parks, forest pre-serves, and native plant vegetation—that naturally man-ages stormwater, reduces the risk of floods, capturespollution, and improves water quality” ~Wise, 2008! andthen defines the site scale in their joint report with Amer-ican Rivers ~2010! as “a network of decentralized storm-water management practices, such as green roofs, trees,rain gardens and permeable pavement, that can captureand infiltrate rain where it falls, thus reducing stormwaterrunoff and improving the health of surrounding water-ways.” These site-scale practices are part of a suite of strat-egies under a larger umbrella of low-impact developmentand urban-scale watershed protection ~Center for Water-shed Protection, 2011!. Engineered solutions like greenroofs, which reduce impervious surface, mitigate the heatisland effect, and reduce storm-water runoff one house ata time, complement an array of green infrastructure goalsrelated to air quality, water quality, and land use. Thelandscape architecture profession acknowledged the link-age of scales by making green infrastructure the theme ofthe 2008 American Society of Landscape Architects annualnational conference.

A similar relationship exists between landscape-scale greeninfrastructure planning and the site-scale implementationof urban forestry efforts across the country, as seen withinthe USDA Forest Service’s Urban and Community Forestryprogram ~US Forest Service, 2011!. Urban forests are muchmore than street trees; they provide green infrastructurebenefits that improve air quality, enhance water quality,store carbon, and reduce energy consumption ~in additionto the storm-water runoff reduction provided by low-impact development!. Planning the Urban Forest ~Schwab,2009! presents technical advice for adopting a green infra-structure approach to urban forestry that can reduce grayinfrastructure costs, including the measurement of urbanforest canopy and the setting of canopy goals. The Nash-ville Open Space Plan ~Metropolitan Government of Nash-ville, 2011! identifies site-scale green infrastructure goalsover the next 10 years, including doubling the downtowntree canopy, creating new pocket parks and landscapedgateways, and transitioning suitable impervious surfaces topervious surfaces or natural plantings.

A study by Jaffe ~2010! suggests that although site-scalestorm-water management strategies can serve landscape-


scale functions ~such as providing habitat, recharging aqui-fers, and minimizing erosion!, these projects often canstand on their own merits in terms of site-scale greeninfrastructure benefits, with economic savings of greeninfrastructure over conventional storm-water infrastruc-ture. This may in turn be a more persuasive public policyapproach when evaluated in terms of their direct costs andsavings over their useful lives. Further research is neededon the costs and benefits of green infrastructure projects atall scales so that coordination and collaboration can befostered among constituents that often only work at onescale.

Conclusion

So, in sum, what we need is a seamless quilt of planningand implementation across scales and jurisdictional bound-aries that make sense in terms of their benefits but also interms of their economics. How do we best do this? An easystep is for the Green Infrastructure Community of Practiceto continue to highlight model planning and implemen-tation examples on their website ~Green Infrastruc-ture.Net, 2011b!, and convene future conferences as afollow-up to 2011’s inaugural National Green Infrastruc-ture Conference @GIC ’11 ~GreenInfrastructure.Net, 2011a!# .Although there was significant consensus on the principlesof green infrastructure implementation at the conference,an example of a more challenging potential action identi-fied there was the need to reconfigure and/or align thelegislative process to bundle green infrastructure invest-ments into a more consolidated set of authorization andappropriation bills at the Federal level ~Green Infrastruc-ture.Net, 2011c!. Identifying champions to move forwardthe action planning priorities at GIC ’11 will require acoordinated collaborative effort among federal, state, local,and private organizations.

Another key step is to acknowledge that everyone can playa part in maintaining, enhancing, and restoring green in-frastructure in urban, suburban, and rural areas—fromcity residents to developers to public agencies to largeprivate landowners. Voluntary private land stewardship willalways have the a significant impact on the quality of ourgreen infrastructure network, with regulations, incentives,and conservation programs serving as critical elements toefforts at all scales. We need to embrace that biodiversityconservation science, smart growth, urban forestry, green-ways, and low-impact development all have roles to play inthe creation of a seamless green infrastructure planningframework.

The Chicago Wilderness Green Infrastructure Vision is anexcellent example of linking all the scales. They originallydeveloped a landscape-scale green infrastructure networkdesign in 2004 that is in the process of being updated~Chicago Wilderness, 2004!. They are now involved in acoordinated effort to use the Vision to implement at allscales:

~1! regional, by working with regional planning agencies toredefine how we think about sustainability and communityhealth by incorporating conservation development principlesand natural resource preservation into land use and transpor-tation plans; ~2! community, by incorporating principles ofbiodiversity conservation, sustainability, and people-friendlydesign into land use plans and ordinances; ~3! neighborhood,by promoting the preservation of natural spaces, conservationdesign and access to nature into developing communities, and~4! site, by promoting native landscaping, the use of raingardens and rain barrels, and through the greening of school-yards and other community open spaces. ~Chicago Wilder-ness, 2011!

So I challenge the Community of Practice, GIC ’11 attend-ees, and other stakeholders interested in green infrastruc-ture to work in their communities to establish a vision andfoster collaborative efforts to maintain ecosystem servicesand functions, as well as human communities, for currentand future generations.

Acknowledgments

I thank the following for their assistance: Edward T. McMahon, the lateDr. Mark A. Benedict, Ted Weber, and Justin Storck, graphic designer.

References

American Society of Landscape Architects ~ASLA!. 2008. ASLA AnnualMeeting & Expo. ASLA, Washington, DC. http://www.asla.org/meetings/am2008/ ~accessed January 26, 2009!.

America’s Longleaf. 2011. Guiding Principles. USDA Forest Service, South-ern Region, Washington, DC. http://americaslongleaf.org/the-initiative/guiding-principles/ ~accessed June 27, 2011!.

Amundsen, O.M., W. Allen, and K. Hoellen. 2009, May/June. Green In-frastructure Planning: Recent Advances and Applications. American Plan-ning Association PAS Memo. American Planning Association, Washington,DC, 14 pp. Available at http://www.conservationfund.org/sites/default/files/Green_Infrastructure_Planning_The_Conservation_Fund.pdf ~ac-cessed February 2, 2011!.

Antholis, W.J., and C.K. Ebinger. 2008. Memo to the President: Build aSecure Energy Future. Memos to the President, no. 2. Brookings Institu-tion, Washington, DC. Available at http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2008/1111_energy_security_memo.aspx ~accessed June 22, 2011!.


Beatley, T. 2000. Preserving Biodiversity. Journal of the American PlanningAssociation 66~1!:5–21.

Benedict, M.A., and E.T. McMahon. 2006. Green Infrastructure: LinkingLandscapes and Communities. Island Press, Washington, DC, 299 pp.

Center for Neighborhood Technology ~CNT!. 2009. What Is Green Infra-structure? CNT, Chicago. http://greenvalues.cnt.org/green-infrastructure~accessed June 24, 2011!.

Center for Neighborhood Technology ~CNT! & American Rivers. 2010.The Value of Green Infrastructure: A Guide to Recognizing Its Economic,Environmental and Social Benefits. American Rivers, Washington, DC,73 pp. Available at http://www.americanrivers.org/ library/reports-publications/the-value-of-green-infrastructure.html ~accessed June 27, 2011!.

Center for Watershed Protection ~CWP!. 2011. Stormwater Management.Ellicott City, MD, CWP. http://www.cwp.org/your-watershed-101/stormwater-management.html ~accessed June 27, 2011!.

Chicago Wilderness. 2004, March. Chicago Wilderness Green InfrastructureVision: Final Report. Chicago Wilderness, Chicago, 74 pp. Available athttp://www.chicagowilderness.org/pdf/Green_Infrastructure_Vision_Final_Report.pdf ~accessed September 1, 2011!.

Chicago Wilderness. 2011. Our Four Initiatives—Green Infrastructure Vi-sion: Bringing Nature to People. Chicago Wilderness, Chicago. http://www.chicagowilderness.org/GIV.php ~accessed September 1, 2011!.

The Conservation Fund. 2005. Albemarle-Pamlico Bioregional GreenwayPlan. The Conservation Fund, Arlington, VA, 37 pp. ~Available by requestfrom the Conservation Fund.!

The Conservation Fund. 2011a. Community of Practice. The ConservationFund, Arlington, VA. http://www.greeninfrastructure.net/content/community-practice ~accessed June 23, 2011!.

The Conservation Fund. 2011b. Implementing the NiSource Multi-speciesHabitat Conservation Plan: A Framework for Strategic Mitigation UsingGreen Infrastructure Network Design and Decision Support Tools. TheConservation Fund, Arlington, VA, 13 pp. Available at http://www.conservationfund.org/sites/default/files/The_Conservation_Fund_NiSource_Summary_2011.pdf ~accessed June 27, 2011!.

Dramstad, W.E., J.D. Olson, and R.T.T. Forman. 1996. Landscape EcologyPrinciples in Landscape Architecture and Land-use Planning. Island Press,Washington, DC, 80 pp.

Dulles Greenway. 2011. Corporate Overview & SCC Governance. DullesGreenway, Richmond, VA. http://dullesgreenway.com/corporate-overview-scc-governance/ ~accessed June 24, 2011!.

Environmental Practice. 2011. Call for Papers. E-mail from Dan Carroll,June 15, 2011.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection ~DEP!. 2011. Greenwaysand Trails. Florida DEP, Tallahassee. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/gwt/ ~ac-cessed June 24, 2011!.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Florida GreenwaysCoordinating Council. 1998. Connecting Florida’s Communities with Green-ways and Trails: A Summary of the Five Year Implementation Plan for theFlorida Greenways and Trails System. Florida DEP, Tallahassee, 27 pp.Available at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/gwt/about/pdf/execsumm.pdf ~ac-cessed June 24, 2011!.

Forman, R.T.T., and M. Godron. 1986. Landscape Ecology. John Wiley,New York, 619 pp.

Green Infrastructure, Inc. 2011. Mission. http://www.greeninfrastructureinc.com/partnership002.html. London, Canada ~accessed June 24, 2011!.

GreenInfrastructure.Net. 2011a. Green Infrastructure Action Planning. InGIC ’11: 2011 National Green Infrastructure Conference, Shepherdstown,WV, February 23–25. The Conservation Fund, Arlington, VA, 7 pp. Avail-able at http://www.greeninfrastructure.net/sites/greeninfrastructure.net/files/GIC_2011_Action_Planning.pdf ~accessed June 24, 2011!.

GreenInfrastructure.Net. 2011b. Projects. The Conservation Fund, Arling-ton, VA. http://www.greeninfrastructure.net/content/projects ~accessed Sep-tember 1, 2011!.

GreenInfrastructure.Net. 2011c. 2011 National Green Infrastructure Post-Conference Resources. The Conservation Fund, Arlington, VA. http://www.greeninfrastructure.net/GIC2011 ~accessed September 1, 2011!.

Hoctor, T.S., W.L. Allen III, M. Carr, P.D. Zwick, E. Huntley, D.J. Smith,D.S. Maehr, R. Buch, and R. Hilsenbeck. 2008. Land Corridors in theSoutheast USA: Connectivity to Protect Biodiversity and Ecosystem Ser-vices. Journal of Conservation Planning 4~1!:90–122. Available at http://www.journalconsplanning.org/2008/JCP_V4_5_Hoctor.pdf ~accessed June24, 2011!.

Jaffe, M. 2010. Reflections on Green Infrastructure Economics. Environ-mental Practice 12~4!:357–365.

Little, C.E. 1990. Greenways for America. Johns Hopkins University Press,Baltimore, MD, 237 pp.

MacArthur, R.H., and E.O. Wilson. 1967. The Theory of Island Biogeogra-phy. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 203 pp.

Manning, W.H. 1923. National Plan Study Brief. Landscape Architecture13~4!.

McDonald, L.A., W.L. Allen, M.A. Benedict, and K. O’Connor. 2005.Green Infrastructure Plan Evaluation Frameworks. Journal of Conserva-tion Planning 1~1!:6–25.

McHarg, I. 1967. Design with Nature. Natural History Press, Garden City,NY, 197 pp.

McMahon, E.T. 2003. Words Matter. Common Ground 14~1!:2. Available athttp://www.greeninfrastructure.net/sites/greeninfrastructure.net/files/Common%20Ground-Words%20Matter.pdf ~accessed June 24, 2011!.

Mell, I.C. 2008. Green Infrastructure: Concepts and Planning. FORUMEjournal 8~1!:69–80.

Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, and LandTrust for Tennessee. 2011. Nashville Open Space Plan: Creating, Enhancingand Preserving the Places That Matter. The Conservation Fund, Nashville,26 pp. Available at http://www.conservationfund.org/sites/default/files/Conservation_Fund_Nashville_Naturally_2011.pdf ~accessed June 27, 2011!.

Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District ~MMSD!. 2011. Greenseams.MMSD, Milwaukee, WI. http://v3.mmsd.com/greenseams.aspx ~accessedJune 27, 2011!.

Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District ~MMSD! and The Conserva-tion Fund. 2010. The Greenseams Program Preserve Guide: 2001–2010 TenYears in Review. MMSD, Milwaukee, WI, 20 pp. Available at http://www.conservationfund.org/sites/default/files/Greenseams%20Preserve%20Guide.pdf ~accessed June 27, 2011!.

Noss, R.F. 1987. Protecting Natural Areas in Fragmented Landscapes.Natural Areas Journal 7~1!:2–13.

Odum, H.T. 1983. Systems Ecology: An Introduction. John Wiley, New York,644 pp.

President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors. 1987. Americans Out-doors: The Legacy, the Challenge. Island Press, Covelo, CA, 426 pp.


President’s Council on Sustainable Development ~PCSD!. 1999. Towards aSustainable America: Advancing Prosperity, Opportunity, and Healthy En-vironment for the 21st Century. PCSD, Washington, DC, 170 pp. Availableat http://clinton2.nara.gov/PCSD/Publications/tsa.pdf ~accessed June 27,2011!.

Schwab, J.C., ed. 2009. Planning the Urban Forest: Ecology, Economy, andCommunity Development. American Planning Association PAS Memo.American Planning Association, Washington, DC, 154 pp.

Smith, D.S., and P.C. Hellmund, eds. 1993. Ecology of Greenways: Designand Function of Linear Conservation Areas. University of Minnesota Press,Minneapolis, 308 pp.

State of Maryland. 2011. GreenPrint. Annapolis, MD. http://www.greenprint.maryland.gov/ ~accessed June 24, 2011!.

Tewksbury, J., D. Levey, N. Haddad, S. Sargent, J.L. Orrock, A. Weldon, B.Danielson, J. Brinkerhoff, E. Damschen, and P. Townsend. 2002. CorridorsAffect Plants, Animals, and Their Interactions in Fragmented Landscapes.PNAS 99~20!:12923–12926.

University of Florida GeoPlan Center. 2001. EPA Southeast EcologicalFramework Project. University of Florida, Gainesville. http://www.geoplan.ufl.edu/epa/index.html ~accessed June 24, 2011!.

US Environmental Protection Agency ~USEPA!. 2011. Managing Wet Weatherwith Green Infrastructure. USEPA, Washington, DC. http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id5298 ~accessed June 24, 2011!.

US Forest Service. 2011. Urban and Community Forestry. US Forest Ser-vice, Washington, DC. http://www.fs.fed.us/ucf/subject.html#urbansustainability ~accessed June 27, 2011!.

Weber, T.C. 2007. Development and Application of a Statewide Conser-vation Network in Delaware, U.S.A. Journal of Conservation Planning3:17–46. Available at http://www.journalconsplanning.org/2007/Volume3/JCP_V3_Weber.pdf ~accessed February 2, 2012!.

Weber, T.C., and W.L. Allen. 2010. Beyond On-site Mitigation: An Inte-grated, Multi-scale Approach to Environmental Mitigation and Steward-ship for Transportation Projects. Landscape and Urban Planning96~4!:240–256.

Weber, T.C., J. Wolf, and A. Sloan. 2006. Maryland’s Green InfrastructureAssessment: Development of a Comprehensive Approach to Land Con-servation. Landscape and Urban Planning 77~1–2!:94–110.

Webster’s New World College Dictionary. 2000. 4th edition.

Wikipedia. 2011. Green Infrastructure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_infrastructure ~accessed June 24, 2011!.

Wise, S. 2008. Green Infrastructure Rising: Best Practices in StormwaterManagement. Planning, August–September, 14–19.

Submitted June 28, 2011; revised August 31, 2011; accepted September 1,2011.


environmental reviews and case studies: advancing green infrastructure at all scales: from landscape...

Documents