Background

Statewide green infrastructure programs are relatively new in practice, but not in theory. At the beginning of the twentieth century, famed landscape architect (and designer of the U.S. Capitol grounds and New York City’s Central Park) Frederick Law Olmsted noted: “No single park, no matter how large and how well designed, would provide the citizens with the beneficial influences of nature… A connected system of parks and parkways is manifestly far more complete and useful.”(1)

Olmsted’s vision has been supported by wildlife biology and landscape ecology experts. Native plant and animal species in their natural habitats – healthy ecosystems – cannot exist in isolated reserves surrounded by highways, factories, residential neighborhoods, and other forms of development. Plants, animals, and ecosystem processes must be part of a network of protected natural areas in order to thrive.

Healthy ecosystems, in addition to their inherent value, benefit human communities in many ways. They provide free “services,” such as water filtration, groundwater recharging, stormwater control, air purification, nutrient recycling, crop pollination, and soil enrichment.(2) Communities adjacent to protected greenspace also enjoy increased opportunities for outdoor recreation, more scenic areas, and higher property values.(3)

Prior to the development of green infrastructure as a conservation approach, the greenways movement recognized the importance of connecting protected natural areas. However, while greenways have influenced green infrastructure planning and are a part of many networks, they are quite different from green infrastructure. Greenways are primarily for recreation, while green infrastructure emphasizes ecological value. Greenways are smaller corridors of natural areas, while green infrastructure also includes large preserves, which serve as primary habitat areas. And, unlike greenways, green infrastructure serves as a well-designed framework for future development and conservation efforts.(4)

Green infrastructure programs have been implemented on the city, regional, and state levels. Their ecological value, however, is generally greater when larger areas are involved. These programs often employ differing definitions of green infrastructure. One definition, which we are using, is “an interconnected network of green space that protects natural ecosystem values and functions, and provides associated benefits to human populations.”(4) These programs use ecological information to coordinate, direct, and streamline conservation efforts, maximizing the benefit realized from limited funds. What green infrastructure programs add to existing conservation efforts is the direction and coordination to ensure that the sum of state conservation activities builds and protects the state’s green infrastructure. In addition, green infrastructure programs strengthen natural resources within the context of human activity, designating which areas within the network can support full or limited private uses, which are for public use, and which require the highest degree of conservation stewardship.

Maryland and Florida were among the first states to identify and act to protect their green infrastructure, in the 1990s. By 2003, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Oregon had also completed large-scale conservation assessments, and seven other states were drafting broad-scale conservation plans.(2) Many of these early state initiatives were aided by regional conservation areas, whose prior outreach and educational efforts, track records, and mere existence helped build support for a statewide conservation program. For example, Florida’s Everglades Reserve and Preservation 2000 program, New Jersey’s Pinelands Reserve, and the Southeastern Massachusetts Bioreserve all helped set the stage for their state’s green infrastructure program.

Potential allies in the establishment of a statewide green infrastructure program reach beyond the obvious environmental and wildlife advocates to encompass land use planners; those concerned with sprawl and water quality issues; local, state, and federal agencies and programs; public and private land trusts; farmers and rural residents; outdoor recreation and sports groups; and, state-spending watchdog organizations. One critical component of green infrastructure, and other conservation programs, is involving a wide range of stakeholders, including those most likely to have concerns about the program, such as natural resource-based businesses (logging, mining), developers, and local and tribal governments. An emphasis on educational efforts stressing the health, economic, and ecological benefits of a green infrastructure program and explaining its flexible and multi-use approach to land management, as well as an ongoing mechanism whereby stakeholders can have input, will strengthen the program and increase support for it.

For more information on successful legislation establishing green infrastructure programs, read SERC’s Green Infrastructure State Activity Page. Our Green Infrastructure Bill Principles describe the key elements of such efforts, as analyzed by state officials, land use planners, and environmental organizations. SERC’s Green Infrastructure Model Legislation includes these key elements in a bill, which establishes a green infrastructure program and directs it to identify the state’s green infrastructure network, takes various measures to protect regions within the network, and incorporates input from a wide range of stakeholders on an ongoing basis.

Other helpful resources include:

• Defenders of Wildlife’s “Integrating Land Use Planning and Biodiversity” report
• Environmental Law Institute’s report “Planning for Biodiversity: Authorities in State Land Use Laws”
• Trust for Public Land’s Conservation Finance information, with tips on how to increase funding for land conservation efforts and how to pass a bond referendum.

For more links to organizations, reports, and other information on green infrastructure, see SERC’s Links page.

Sources:
(1) Smith, Conan. “‘Green’ Infrastructure Low Priority in Michigan.” Michigan Environmental Report 20.1 (February 2002). Michigan Environmental Council. 2 October 2003 <http://www.mecprotects.org/MER/FEB02/green.html>.
(2) Cohn, Jeffrey P. and Jeffrey A. Lerner. “Integrating Land Use Planning and Biodiversity.” Washington, DC: Defenders of Wildlife, 2003. 10 September 2003 <http://www.defenders.org/habitat/landuse.pdf>.
(3) “The Economics of Parks and Open Spaces: Harnessing the Proximity Effect for Smart Growth.” Community Open Space Partnership. 29 September 2003 <http://www.ouropenspaces.org/Issues/Econ--ProximityEffects.html>.
(4) Benedict, Mark A. and Edward T. McMahon. “Green Infrastructure: Smart Conservation for the 21st Century.” Renewable Resources Journal 20.3 (Autumn 2002). Sprawl Watch Clearinghouse. 22 September 2004 <http://www.sprawlwatch.org/greeninfrastructure.pdf>.