DOCSLIB.ORG

Parks Master Plan 2011

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Parks Master Plan 2011 City of Norcross PARKS MASTER PLAN January 2011 Prepared by: Acknowledgements Acknowledgements We would like to thank all of those who contributed to the development of the Parks Master Plan. This document is a product of the vision and dedication of Norcross staff, officials, and the project steering committee. We also extend our thanks to the many residents and organizations in Norcross who provided the valuable insights and opinions and whose feedback have made the Plan a document that embodies the core values and beliefs of the Norcross community. City Council Bucky Johnson, Mayor Ross Kaul, Mayor Pro Tem Charlie Riehm, Council Member David McLeroy, Council Member Craig Newton, Council Member Andrew Hixson, Council Member Steering Committee Arlene Beckles Andrew Hixson Ken Hixson Chris McCrary Brian Mock Jim Scarbrough Connie Weathers, Chair Project Consultants Southeastern Engineering, Inc. - Sean J. Murphy, RLA, ISA, LEED AP Monteith Brown Planning Consultants - Jean Monteith, BES, FCIP, RPP - Steve Langlois, BES, MCIP, RPP City of Norcross – Parks Master Plan (DRAFT) Page | i January 2011 Table of Contents Table of Contents Section Page Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................... iv Section 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................................1 1.1 Master Plan Purpose and Scope ................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Planning Process ........................................................................................................................ 2 1.3 Definitions ................................................................................................................................. 3 1.4 Report Organization .................................................................................................................. 4 Section 2: Community Profile & Context ..........................................................................................5 2.1 History of Norcross .................................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Related Planning Initiatives and Studies ................................................................................... 7 2.3 Responsibility for Parks, Green Space, and Trails ..................................................................... 7 2.4 Demographic Analysis ............................................................................................................... 8 2.5 Trends Affecting Parks and Open Space.................................................................................. 16 Section 3: Public Input ................................................................................................................... 24 3.1 Public Participation Process .................................................................................................... 24 3.2 Community Survey .................................................................................................................. 24 3.3 Youth Survey ........................................................................................................................... 34 3.4 Focus Groups & Key Informant Interviews.............................................................................. 40 3.5 Public Meetings ....................................................................................................................... 41 Section 4: A ‘Vision’ for Parks, Green Space, and Trails ................................................................... 42 4.1 Key Issues and Opportunities .................................................................................................. 42 4.2 Proposed Vision ....................................................................................................................... 44 Section 5: Inventory ...................................................................................................................... 47 5.1 Parks, Green Space, and Greenway Inventory ........................................................................ 47 5.2 Program Inventory .................................................................................................................. 60 Section 6: Park and Outdoor Facility Analysis ................................................................................. 61 6.1 Outdoor Facility Standards & Needs ....................................................................................... 61 6.2 Assessment of Existing Parks ................................................................................................... 72 6.3 Park Design & Programming Considerations .......................................................................... 86 6.4 Park System Concept ............................................................................................................... 88 6.5 Future Parkland Requirements ............................................................................................... 92 City of Norcross – Parks Master Plan (DRAFT) Page | ii January 2011 Table of Contents Section Page Section 7: Open Space & Natural Area Analysis .............................................................................. 98 7.1 The ‘Greening’ of Norcross ...................................................................................................... 98 7.2 Open Space & Natural Area Land Conservation.................................................................... 100 7.3 Growth Management Policies ............................................................................................... 102 7.4 Assessment of Existing City Owned Green Space for Park Usage ......................................... 102 7.5 Natural Features Review ....................................................................................................... 106 Section 8: Trail/Greenway Analysis .............................................................................................. 111 8.1 The Need for a Trails and Greenway System ........................................................................ 111 8.2 Trails and Greenway Context ................................................................................................ 112 8.3 Planning for Trails and Greenways ........................................................................................ 113 8.4 Connectivity Strategy ............................................................................................................ 116 Section 9: Implementation........................................................................................................... 123 9.1 Priority Recommendations .................................................................................................... 123 9.2 Funding Opportunities .......................................................................................................... 125 9.3 Monitoring and Updating the Plan ........................................................................................ 126 APPENDICES Appendix A: Community Survey Results Appendix B: Youth Survey Results Appendix C: Key Informant Interviews – Listing Appendix D: Public Meeting Notes Appendix E: Parcel Evaluation Sheets (under separate cover) City of Norcross – Parks Master Plan (DRAFT) Page | iii January 2011 Executive Summary Executive Summary In keeping with the City’s progressive approach to creating a livable community, Norcross embarked on the preparation of a Parks Master Plan to provide guidance for strategic phasing and spending that will address deficiencies and identify the key recreational needs as expressed by the residents. The prioritization of projects within the Master Plan allows for selective phasing and spending and helps to focus attention on key issues, rather than attempting to do all things for all people. The overwhelming opinion of the community is that the City has done an exceptional job with the recent redevelopments of Thrasher Park, Lillian Webb Park, and the downtown. Equally overwhelming was the identification of a significant shortfall in recreational opportunities southeast of Buford Highway. With significant population increases forecasted for the next twenty years, it is important that key issues and priorities be established and, where possible, addressed before opportunity for land acquisition or greenway development is no long possible and/or economical. The following is a summary of the five highest priorities identified in this Parks Master Plan, in order of priority for resource allocation and implementation. #1 – PARKLAND IN THE SOUTHEAST The focus group sessions, surveys, and inventory assessment all concluded that the number one priority was the need to address the absence of recreational facilities and/or space southeast of Buford Highway. While the existence of City-owned land on Mitchell Road is ideally located for meeting the geographic requirements of open space needs of residents in the area, there is a possibility that costly remedial measures may not justify the development of this site as an active park. If this is the case, the number one priority needs to be the securing of suitable land for active recreation opportunities, including soccer fields, play equipment, spray pad, picnic facilities, and trails for safe access
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2021 National Meeting Welcome
    2021 National Meeting Welcome 2021 National Meeting Lucy Ito, President/CEO, NASCUS Opening Remarks Rose Conner, Administrator, North Carolina Credit Union Opening Remarks Division Lucy Ito, Brian Knight, Esq., Alicia Valencia Erb, President/CEO Executive Vice President & Vice President, Member General Counsel Relations Your NASCUS Team Nichole Seabron, Liz Evans, Vice President, Legislative Vice President of State and Regulatory Counsel Programs & Supervisory Policy Isaida Woo, Ed.D, Doug McGuckin, Amanda Tuckey, Vice President, Education Vice President, Sr. Director of Corporate Affairs Communications & Marketing Your NASCUS Team Pamela Jordan, Shellee Mitchell, Executive Assistant Program Specialist Around the States 2021 National Meeting NATIONAL DATA POINTS Credit Union Total # SCUs 2,022 (39%) Charter-based Total # FCUs 3,185 (61%) National Data States without State-Chartered Credit Unions: Total SCU Assets $934,191,661,322 (50.1%) Delaware, South Dakota, Wyoming, Arkansas, Hawaii, and the District of Columbia Total FCU Assets $931,208,988,975 (49.9%) Total U.S. Assets $1,865,400,650,297 Total # U.S. CUs 5,207 STATE DATA POINTS TOTAL # SCUs 58 TOTAL # FCUs 45 SCU % OF TOTAL (SCUS #/STATE TOTAL #) 56% of 103 AL CUs TOTAL $ SCU ASSETS $16,244,020,159 TOTAL $ FCU ASSETS $12,577,206,511 Alabama TOTAL ASSETS $28,821,226,670 AGENCY: Alabama Credit SCU % OF TOTAL ASSETS 56% Union Administration (SCUS $/STATE TOTAL $) FUN FACT: The Alabama Department of Archives is the oldest state-funded archival agency in the nation. STATE DATA POINTS TOTAL # SCUs 1 TOTAL # FCUs 9 SCU % OF TOTAL (SCUS #/STATE TOTAL #) 10% of 10 AK CUs TOTAL $ SCU ASSETS $1,293,913,722 TOTAL $ FCU ASSETS $11,330,142,835 Alaska TOTAL ASSETS $12,624,056,557 AGENCY: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and SCU % OF TOTAL ASSETS Economic Development; Division (SCUS $/STATE TOTAL $) 10% of Banking and Securities FUN FACT: 17 of the 20 highest peaks in the United States are located in Alaska.
    [Show full text]
  • The George Wright Forum
    The George Wright Forum The GWS Journal of Parks, Protected Areas & Cultural Sites volume 27 number 1 • 2010 Origins Founded in 1980, the George Wright Society is organized for the pur­ poses of promoting the application of knowledge, fostering communica­ tion, improving resource management, and providing information to improve public understanding and appreciation of the basic purposes of natural and cultural parks and equivalent reserves. The Society is dedicat­ ed to the protection, preservation, and management of cultural and natural parks and reserves through research and education. Mission The George Wright Society advances the scientific and heritage values of parks and protected areas. The Society promotes professional research and resource stewardship across natural and cultural disciplines, provides avenues of communication, and encourages public policies that embrace these values. Our Goal The Society strives to he the premier organization connecting people, places, knowledge, and ideas to foster excellence in natural and cultural resource management, research, protection, and interpretation in parks and equivalent reserves. Board of Directors ROLF DIA.MANT, President • Woodstock, Vermont STEPHANIE T(K)"1'1IMAN, Vice President • Seattle, Washington DAVID GKXW.R, Secretary * Three Rivers, California JOHN WAITHAKA, Treasurer * Ottawa, Ontario BRAD BARR • Woods Hole, Massachusetts MELIA LANE-KAMAHELE • Honolulu, Hawaii SUZANNE LEWIS • Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming BRENT A. MITCHELL • Ipswich, Massachusetts FRANK J. PRIZNAR • Gaithershnrg, Maryland JAN W. VAN WAGTENDONK • El Portal, California ROBERT A. WINFREE • Anchorage, Alaska Graduate Student Representative to the Board REBECCA E. STANFIELD MCCOWN • Burlington, Vermont Executive Office DAVID HARMON,Executive Director EMILY DEKKER-FIALA, Conference Coordinator P. O. Box 65 • Hancock, Michigan 49930-0065 USA 1-906-487-9722 • infoldgeorgewright.org • www.georgewright.org Tfie George Wright Forum REBECCA CONARD & DAVID HARMON, Editors © 2010 The George Wright Society, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Work House a Science and Indian Education Program with Glacier National Park National Park Service U.S
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Glacier National Park Work House a Science and Indian Education Program with Glacier National Park National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Glacier National Park “Work House: Apotoki Oyis - Education for Life” A Glacier National Park Science and Indian Education Program Glacier National Park P.O. Box 128 West Glacier, MT 59936 www.nps.gov/glac/ Produced by the Division of Interpretation and Education Glacier National Park National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Washington, DC Revised 2015 Cover Artwork by Chris Daley, St. Ignatius School Student, 1992 This project was made possible thanks to support from the Glacier National Park Conservancy P.O. Box 1696 Columbia Falls, MT 59912 www.glacier.org 2 Education National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Glacier National Park Acknowledgments This project would not have been possible without the assistance of many people over the past few years. The Appendices contain the original list of contributors from the 1992 edition. Noted here are the teachers and tribal members who participated in multi-day teacher workshops to review the lessons, answer questions about background information and provide additional resources. Tony Incashola (CSKT) pointed me in the right direc- tion for using the St. Mary Visitor Center Exhibit information. Vernon Finley presented training sessions to park staff and assisted with the lan- guage translations. Darnell and Smoky Rides-At-The-Door also conducted trainings for our education staff. Thank you to the seasonal education staff for their patience with my work on this and for their review of the mate- rial.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Wildfire in Shaping the Structure and Function of California ‘Mediterranean’ Stream-Riparian Ecosystems in Yosemite National Park
    The role of wildfire in shaping the structure and function of California ‘Mediterranean’ stream-riparian ecosystems in Yosemite National Park DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Breeanne Kathleen Jackson Graduate Program in Environment and Natural Resources The Ohio State University 2015 Dissertation Committee: S. Mažeika P. Sullivan, Advisor Amanda D. Rodewald Desheng Liu Copyrighted by Breeanne Kathleen Jackson 2015 Abstract Although fire severity has been shown to be a key disturbance to stream-riparian ecosystems in temperate zones, the effects of fire severity on stream-riparian structure and function in Mediterranean-type systems remains less well resolved. Mediterranean ecosystems of California are characterized by high interannual variability in precipitation and susceptibility to frequent high-intensity wildfires. From 2011 to 2014, I investigated the influence of wildfire occurring in the last 3-15 years across 70 study reaches on stream-riparian ecosystems in Yosemite National Park (YNP), located in the central Sierra Nevada, California, USA. At 12 stream reaches paired by fire-severity (one high- severity burned, one low-severity burned), I found no significant differences in riparian plant community structure and composition, stream geomorphology, or benthic macroinvertebrate density or community composition. Tree cover was significantly lower at reaches burned with high-severity fire, however this is expected because removal of the conifer canopy partly determined study-reach selection. Further, I found no difference in density, trophic position, mercury (Hg) body loading, or reliance on aquatically- derived energy (i.e., nutritional subsidies derived from benthic algal pathways) of/by riparian spiders of the family Tetragnathidae, a streamside consumer that can rely heavily on emerging aquatic insect prey.
    [Show full text]
  • The Great Divide Free
    FREE THE GREAT DIVIDE PDF Dodds | 32 pages | 03 Feb 2005 | Candlewick Press,U.S. | 9780763615925 | English | Massachusetts, United States The Great Divide The Continental Divide extends from the Bering The Great Divide to the Strait of Magellanand separates the watersheds that drain into the Pacific Ocean The Great Divide those river systems that drain into the Atlantic Ocean including those that drain into the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea and, along the northernmost reaches of the Divide, those river systems that drain into the Arctic The Great Divide and Hudson Bay. Although there are many other hydrological divides in the Americas, the Continental Divide is by far the most prominent of these because it tends to follow a line of high peaks along the main ranges of the Rocky Mountains and Andesat a generally much higher elevation than the other hydrological divisions. From there the Divide traverses the McGregor Plateau to the spine of the Rockies, following the crest of the Canadian Rockies southeast to the th meridian westfrom The Great Divide forming the boundary between southern British Columbia and southern Alberta. Further south, the Divide forms the backbone of the Rocky Mountain Front Front Range in the Bob Marshall Wildernessheads south towards Helena and Buttethen west past the namesake community of Divide, Montanathrough the Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness to the Bitterroot Rangewhere it forms the eastern third of the state The Great Divide between Idaho and Montana. The Divide then proceeds south into western New Mexicopassing along the western boundary of the endorheic Plains of San Agustin.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Glacier's Triple Divide Peak
    ISSUE NINE : WINTER 2018 The cover image is of tending water and listening at Water Bar in Greensboro, North Carolina, courte- sy Shanai Matteson, Works Progress, and Water Bar & Public Studio. Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCom- mercial 4.0 International License. This means each author holds the copyright to her or his work, and grants all users the rights to: share (copy and/or redistribute the material in any medium or format) or adapt (remix, transform, and/or build upon the material) the article, as long as the original author and source is cited, and the use is for noncommercial purposes. Open Rivers: Rethinking Water, Place & Community is produced by the University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing and the University of Minnesota Institute for Advanced Study. Editors Editorial Board Editor: Jay Bell, Soil, Water, and Climate, University of Patrick Nunnally, Institute for Advanced Study, Minnesota University of Minnesota Tom Fisher, Metropolitan Design Center, Administrative Editor: University of Minnesota Phyllis Mauch Messenger, Institute for Advanced Study, University of Minnesota Lewis E. Gilbert, Institute on the Environment, University of Minnesota Assistant Editor: Laurie Moberg, Doctoral Candidate, Mark Gorman, Policy Analyst, Washington, D.C. Anthropology, University of Minnesota Jennifer Gunn, History of Medicine, University of Media and Production Manager: Minnesota Joanne Richardson, Institute for Advanced Study, University of Minnesota Katherine Hayes, Anthropology,
    [Show full text]
  • Fishes of the Dakotas
    South Dakota State University Open PRAIRIE: Open Public Research Access Institutional Repository and Information Exchange Electronic Theses and Dissertations 2020 Fishes of the Dakotas Kathryn Schlafke South Dakota State University Follow this and additional works at: https://openprairie.sdstate.edu/etd Part of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons, and the Biology Commons Recommended Citation Schlafke, Kathryn, "Fishes of the Dakotas" (2020). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 3942. https://openprairie.sdstate.edu/etd/3942 This Thesis - Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by Open PRAIRIE: Open Public Research Access Institutional Repository and Information Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Open PRAIRIE: Open Public Research Access Institutional Repository and Information Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FISHES OF THE DAKOTAS BY KATHRYN SCHLAFKE A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Science Major in Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences Specialization in Fisheries Science South Dakota State University 2020 ii THESIS ACCEPTANCE PAGE Kathryn Schlafke This thesis is approved as a creditable and independent investigation by a candidate for the master’s degree and is acceptable for meeting the thesis requirements for this degree. Acceptance of this does not imply that the conclusions reached by the candidate are necessarily the conclusions of the major department. Brian Graeb, Ph.D. Advisor Date Michele R. Dudash Department Head Date Dean, Graduate School Date iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would first like to thank my advisors throughout this project, Dr. Katie Bertrand and Dr. Brian Graeb for giving me the opportunity to work towards a graduate degree at South Dakota State University.
    [Show full text]
  • Catchment Boundaries of Ocean Drainage Basins
    Catchment Boundaries of Ocean Drainage Basins Philip Craig February 27, 2019 Contents 1 Introduction1 2 Terminology2 3 Method 2 4 Datasets 3 4.1 HydroSHEDS.....................................3 4.2 ETOPO05.......................................3 4.3 Geofabric.......................................4 4.4 Natural Resources Canada..............................5 4.5 Ice Sheet Mass Balance Inter-Comparison Exercise (IMBIE)............6 5 Catchment boundaries7 5.1 Americas.......................................8 5.2 Africa and the Middle-East..............................9 5.3 South-East Asia.................................... 10 5.4 The Arctic....................................... 11 5.5 Southern Ocean.................................... 13 6 The Ocean Drainage Basins 14 References 16 1 Introduction This document describes the data and method used to construct the boundaries between the drainage basins of each ocean basin. These will be used primarily as the release points for trajectories in chapter 5 and also to evaluate moisture fluxes in chapter 4 of Craig(2018) - this documentation is also adapted from chapter 2 of Craig(2018). Figure1 shows the drainage basins for the major oceans and seas. The aim is to use topographic datasets (section4) to approximate the catchment boundaries and the ocean drainage basins they surround. These will not precisely match Figure1 as they are approximated and also because different extents of the ocean drainage basins will be used to suit this study. 1 Figure 1: Depiction of the major ocean drainage basins from www.radicalcartography.net. Light green regions drain into the Atlantic Ocean, dark green into the Arctic Ocean, purple into the Pacific Ocean, red into the Indian Ocean, brown into the Southern Ocean, blue into the Caribbean Sea and turquoise into the Mediterranean Sea.
    [Show full text]
  • Physical Processes Elsevier US 0Mse01 29-3-2006 2:08P.M
    Elsevier US 0mse01 29-3-2006 2:08p.m. Page No: 1 Section A Physical Processes Elsevier US 0mse01 29-3-2006 2:08p.m. Page No: 2 Elsevier US 0mse01 29-3-2006 2:08p.m. Page No: 3 CHAPTER 1 Landscapes and Riverscapes Jack A. Stanford Flathead Lake Biological Station University of Montana I. INTRODUCTION Streams, rivers, and groundwater flow pathways are the plumbing of the continents. Water coalesces and flows downhill in surface channels and subsurface pathways in response to precipitation patterns and the dynamic form of river basins (catchments). Uplift of mountain ranges, caused by continental drift and volcanism, is continually countered by erosion and deposition (sedimentation) mediated by the forces of wind and water. Catchment landscapes are formed by the long geologic and biological history of the region as well as recent events such as floods, fires, and human-caused environmental disturbances (e.g., deforestation, dams, pollution, exotic species). The term landscape is used extensively, referring generally to the collective attributes of local geography. An expansive view of a stream or river and its catchment, includ- ing natural and cultural attributes and interactions, is the “riverscape.” For a stream ecologist, a riverscape view of a catchment (river) basin encompasses the entire stream network, including interconnection with groundwater flow pathways, embedded in its terrestrial setting and flowing from the highest elevation in the catchment to the ocean, with considerable animal and human modifications of flow paths likely along the way (Fausch et al. 2002). For example, the earth’s largest catchment, the Amazon River basin, occupies over half of the South American continent.
    [Show full text]
  • 3Rd Grade Geo Bee Packet 2020 FINAL
    Learn About the U.S.A. 3rd Grade Did you know? • The U.S.A. is the 3rd largest country in the world in terms of area and it is the third largest in terms of population (number of people). • The smallest state in the country is Rhode Island. • The state with the biggest area is Alaska • The state with the fewest people is Wyoming. • The state with the most people is California. • The highest mountain in the U.S. is Mt. McKinley (also called Mt. Denali) in Alaska. • The lowest point in the U.S. is Death Valley in California. Your Challenge: Inside, you will find a map of the U.S. and lots of questions about mountains, rivers, lakes, and our 50 states. You can find all the answers on the maps. See how much YOU can learn! Contributors: Shannon Billings, Wendy Brown, Margaret Doty, Julie Lees. Last updated February 2013. This program was developed at Woodlin Elementary School in Silver Spring, MD, and is based on maps and content from the enchantedlearning.com website, and Scholastic, Inc. Thank you to parents at Piney Branch Elementary, Silver Spring, who contributed additional content. i Table of Contents Page 1 U.S.A. Reference Map 2 Major Mountains of the U.S.A. Major Rivers of the U.S.A. 3 Mississippi River States 4 The Great Lakes 6 State Names and Capitals 8 Alaska to Wyoming 59 Postal Codes 60 Glossary ii U.S.A. Reference Map 1 Refer to the reference map on page 1 of this packet to answer the following questions.
    [Show full text]
  • Mapping AIS Mayhem
    Be AIS Aware Unit Mapping AIS Mayhem Do you ever wonder why some invasive species can spread faster than others? Photo credit: M. Quigley (CC BY-SA 2.0) Grade Level Overview Middle School Students will examine invasive mussel distribution maps to learn how fast invasive mussels can disperse over time, discuss how the mussels Subject Areas move from place to place, and explain how they could impact their Life Science, Environmental local economy and environment. Science, Ecology, and Human Impacts Objectives Students will be able to: Key Topics • predict where invasive mussels spread from their point of origin in Aquatic invasive species, the United States. pathways of introduction, • explain how invasive mussel spread naturally. methods of dispersal • identify pathways of introduction and methods of dispersal for Duration invasive mussels. Preparation Time: 20 min • track the pathway of invasion from a local point of origin. Activity Time: 60 min • infer how invasive mussels could potentially impact the local economy and environment. Setting Classroom (Groups of 4-5) Materials Skills Warm Up/Activity (Part I)/Wrap Up Collecting observations; • Computer and projector Identifying patterns; Applying • Student worksheets #1-2 information; Making • One water bottle and two bowls of water (or two sinks) predictions; Drawing Activity (Part II) conclusions • One set of materials for each group: o One Columbia River Basin map Standards o One Flathead Lake Region map NGSS: o One major U.S. watershed map CROSSCUTTING CONCEPT(S): o One Montana Reference map Patterns; Cause and Effect o Three “100th Meridian Initiative: Intruders Among Us” pamphlets SCIENTIFIC & ENGINEERING PRACTICE(S): Advanced Preparation Constructing Explanations • Print the student worksheets #1-2 (double-sided).
    [Show full text]
  • Fao Publications Catalogue 2019 / October Fao Office for Corporate Communication
    OCTOBER PUBLICATIONS FAO CATALOGUE 2019 FAO PUBLICATIONS CATALOGUE 2019 / OCTOBER FAO OFFICE FOR CORPORATE COMMUNICATION PUBLICATIONS BRANCH Chief: Gwendolyn Stansbury. Editorial & marketing: Suzanne Lapstun Sales: Stephen Hadley. Rights & licensing: Jessica Mathewson and Radhika Gopali Digital publishing & FAO Document Repository: Anne Aubert Library: Véronique Montes Baffier FAO PUBLICATIONS CATALOGUE 2019 Art director: Monica Umena Editorial coordination: Daniela S. De Pascalis Layout: Simone Morini Illustrations: Del Hambre The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. © FAO, 2019 Some rights reserved. This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO licence (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo/legalcode). Under the terms of this licence, this work may be copied, redistributed and adapted for non-commercial purposes, provided that the work is appropriately cited. In any use of this work, there should be no suggestion that FAO endorses any specific organization, products or services. The use of the FAO logo is not permitted. If the work is adapted, then it must be licensed under the same or equivalent Creative Commons licence.
    [Show full text]