Prevalence of Conservation Design in an Agriculture-Dominated Landscape: The Case of Northern Indiana

Abstract

We examined the prevalence of residential development that occurs with consideration of the natural features of the site, known as conservation design, within county-level planning jurisdictions across Northern Indiana. Using data from telephone interviews with representatives of planning departments, jurisdictions were ranked based on reported use of conservation design. Three categories of use emerged from the data: no use, use of individual practices associated with conservation design, and integration of multiple conservation design practices. Qualitative data analysis revealed that conservation design practices were not being used widely and, when used, were often used to fulfill stormwater requirements. Statistical analysis, using data from interviews, spatial data sets, and the U.S. Census Bureau, identified several significant positive predictors of the levels of conservation design use including conversion of forest or agricultural land cover to urban uses and education levels in the jurisdiction. Many of the interviewees noted that agricultural land is perceived to meet open space needs within their counties. Given that agricultural land does not fully meet all ecosystem needs, education about the benefits of other types of open space is suggested.

Resident, developer, and city staff perceptions of LID and CSD subdivision design approaches

“…Nevertheless, knowledge of or familiarity with LID/CSD approaches among city staff members in and of itself does not necessarily lead to implementation (e.g. Crick & Prokopy, 2009). With respect to both planning and policy formulation more generally, Innes (1998) has argued that a shared knowledge base (where all stakeholders involved in the process have examined the available information themselves) is necessary to promote effective action.…”

“…LID and CSD are somewhat new approaches, and in some parts of the Midwest (United States) there are relatively few examples of their use (e.g. Crick & Prokopy, 2009;Miller et al, 2009). These approaches could lower the societal and infrastructural costs of development (Mohamed, 2006a), but since they have not yet been widely adopted the public may have little knowledge of them.…”

Why Might Developers Be Reluctant to Build Conservation Subdivisions? Insights from Spatial Regression Analysis

“…Lenth, Knight, and Gilgert (2006) found no advantages for wildlife in a study in Colorado, and Taylor, Brown, and Larsen (2007) found only limited success in reducing the fragmentation of forests. Other research finds that developers do not pay sufficient attention to harnessing the benefits of conservation subdivisions (Beuschel and Rudel 2010;Crick and Prokopy 2009;Ryan 2006).…”

Modeling low impact development in two Chicago communities

“…LID is relatively new and in parts of the U.S. Midwest, there are few studies on LID implementation. 16,17 Even fewer studies have explored the benefits of reduced runoff in urban green spaces such as Chicago. 4 This is mainly due to projected costs of implementation and the belief that the amount of land that could be devoted to LID practices is minimal; 18 on the other hand LID practices work best in high-density residential communities.…”