Sustainability 2010, 2, 1536-1552; doi:10.3390/su2061536 OPEN ACCESS sustainability ISSN 2071-1050 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Article Conservation Value of Residential Open Space: Designation and Management Language of Florida’s Land Development Regulations Dara M. Wald * and Mark E. Hostetler Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, P.O. Box 110430, Gainesville, FL 32611-0430, USA; E-Mail: [email protected] * Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-781-964-5807; Fax: +1-352-392-6984. Received: 15 April 2010; in revised form: 27 April 2010 / Accepted: 26 May 2010 / Published: 1 June 2010 Abstract: The conservation value of open space depends upon the quantity and quality of the area protected, as well as how it is designed and managed. This study reports the results of a content analysis of Florida county Land Development Regulations. Codes were reviewed to determine the amount of open space required, how open space is protected during construction, the delegation of responsibilities, and the designation of funds for management. Definitions of open space varied dramatically across the state. Most county codes provided inadequate descriptions of management recommendations, which could lead to a decline in the conservation value of the protected space. Keywords: conservation development; environmental policy; regulations; open space 1. Introduction Throughout the United States, sprawling development patterns consume excessive amounts of land and result in a pattern of haphazardly arranged, unplanned, car-dependent communities [1,2]. Direct results of sprawl include increased pollution and congestion, the loss of farmland and open space, and the destruction of rare habitats [1,3,4]. To combat sprawl, cities and counties are adopting new practices, policies, and solutions that minimize sprawl by emphasizing resource conservation and low impact development techniques as an alternative to conventional suburban development [5]. Sustainability 2010, 2 1537 Florida is by no means immune to sprawl or its impacts. Over the next quarter century, an additional 12 million people will become Florida residents [6]. This rapidly increasing human population will spark increased growth, demand for energy, water, and new homes [7]. Florida communities have adopted a number of different methods to manage growth. Typically, these methods include regulations (e.g., required wetland protection) or incentives (e.g., increased development density for natural area protection). The Growth Management Act, adopted in 1985, is one example of a statewide regulatory mechanism designed to manage growth [8,9]. The Act requires that each county and city in Florida implement a Comprehensive Plan that includes transportation and housing elements, as well as guidelines for the preservation and protection of open space [8,9]. Florida state statutes require that cities and counties explain “specifically” in a “detailed” manner how they designate and regulate open space [10]. To do this, cities and counties employ Land Development Regulations (LDRs), which explain how the land development elements, included in the comprehensive plan will be implemented locally [8-10]. Open space is one of the many elements addressed in county LDRs. Open space can include natural habitats such as forests, fields, and wetlands as well as areas for passive recreational activities such as biking and walking trails [11,12]. The conservation value of open space is contingent on its design (i.e., the quantity or quality of habitat protected), impacts from nearby areas (e.g., subdivisions), and long-term management [12,13]. Here, we define conservation value as protecting natural resources, such as wildlife habitat, water bodies (e.g., streams, lakes, and wetlands), and native plant communities. Policies regulating open space often focus solely on design while neglecting management [14-19]. Without comprehensive policies requiring effective open space management, the conservation value of protected areas may be lost or degraded. Following a review of the challenges of conserving valuable open space, we provide examples of critical elements that maximize the conservation value of protected areas. Finally, we will use a content analysis to explore how Florida county LDRs address open space conservation. This content analysis will identify (1) how much open space is required by each county, (2) how open space is defined, and (3) how much open space management language is included in the LDRs. Because Florida statutes require that LDRs address open space, we expect each county to have a definition of open space. However, because the Florida statue is open to interpretation, we expect open space designation and management requirements to vary greatly between counties. The results of the content analysis will be used to develop an open space index and management index that will enable us to compare the extent to which open space designation and management elements are included in county policies. 2. Sustainable Development and the Conservation of Open Space Recent sustainable development strategies include setting aside open space as part of the subdivision design. If designed and managed properly, this type of development can minimize land degradation, reduce edge effect, and enhance landscape connectivity [3,12,20-23]. Conserving natural areas can combat pollution and protect water quality by minimizing erosion and reducing runoff to local streams and water bodies [3,23]. Open space that connects to existing natural areas can enhance regional connectivity and wildlife habitat by protecting critical areas including wetlands, woodlands, and meadows [3,13,24-27]. Large conservation areas near private subdivisions in Colorado and North Sustainability 2010, 2 1538 Carolina provided shelter for large mammals such as ungulates and black bears [28]. In a study of six clustered subdivisions in Boulder, protected areas provided refuge for several native flora and fauna species [13]. Even small areas (1 to 50 ha), if designed and managed properly, can provide refuge for birds, mammals, reptiles, and insects [29]. However, the design and maintenance depends on the target animals or plants that the open space is intended to conserve [12]. Communally managed open space can provide social benefits as well, encouraging interaction between residents [3]. The presence of open space can increase community-wide quality of life [23], lead to increased property values [24,30], and foster a sense of responsibility for and connection to local natural resources [3]. In Florida, there is widespread support for the protection of natural areas and farmland [4,24,30]. For example, voters approved more than $42 million to enhance existing parks and purchase new lands in 2001 [31]. Across the U.S., many homebuyers prefer living in open space communities and are willing to pay premium prices for attractive lots [3,14,24,26,30,32]. The private protection of open space provides municipalities and citizens with the benefit of open space, while minimizing the public cost of purchasing land [32]. Minimizing the development footprint can also diminish development costs in subdivision preparation and infrastructure [25,26,32-34]. As a result, developers can reduce building costs and sell homes more quickly, at a higher price than comparable homes in a traditional development [33,34]. Whether small or large, the degree to which open space protects natural resources and biodiversity depends on the design and management of both the built and conserved areas [12]. Failure to address critical design and management elements can result in the creation of open space areas with little or no conservation value. Without the management of conserved areas, biodiversity can deteriorate due to invasions by exotic species or pest outbreaks [7,35,36]. In several urban developments in Colorado, lack of management contributed to high densities of non-native species in the open space areas [13]. Without management, natural habitat can degrade and lose wildlife value over time [12,13]. For example, Florida longleaf pine ecosystems must be burned (depending on local site conditions) every two to four years to prevent oaks and other hardwoods from taking over [37]. Typically, policies and examples of open space protection throughout the U.S. focus primarily on the design of these areas; the long-term management of both built areas and conserved open space is rarely addressed [12,38]. Best Practices for Enhancing the Conservation Value of Open Space If a developer or county wishes to protect the conservation value of open space, a number of important design and management elements should be addressed. First, relatively undisturbed natural areas should be identified as part of the upfront subdivision planning and design [11,12]. To prevent the creation of open space with low quality habitat, policies should address the type of natural habitat to be conserved (e.g., high quality wetlands or uplands). Open space should include large and contiguous areas of habitat, and these should connect to protected areas outside of the development footprint [23,39]. In addition, built areas should be clustered in one section of a development, separate from conserved areas [12,13,20,21]. Proximity of human elements can affect the use of open space by sensitive species [13,21,22]; for example, the prevalence of sensitive bird species generally declines as proximity to development increases