applicability of conservation development in the blanco...

Prospectus:

Applicability of Conservation Development in the Blanco River Basin

Ron Ellis

POSI 5397

Spring 2006

2

I. Research Purpose

Originating from springs in Kendall County, the Blanco River flows 87 miles through

Blanco and Hays Counties before reaching the San Marcos River. Its basin covers more than

280,000 acres in the Edwards Plateau ecoregion of central Texas. The basin is currently lightly

developed, but faces present and future development pressure from rapid growth in the region

(Nature Conservancy 2004, ii). The Nature Conservancy has designated the Blanco River basin

as a conservation area and has developed a conservation plan for the area.

The conservation plan identifies home development as one of the major threats to the

conservation elements in the Blanco River basin. Home development, especially subdivision

development, results in habitat fragmentation and loss. The problem is exacerbated when homes

are sited in ecologically delicate areas such as along ridge tops or near water. The conservation

plan states that home development threats “may be mitigated through ecologically sensitive

design and construction of subdivisions and homes.” (Nature Conservancy 2004, 15)

Conservation development is a subdivision planning method that can be used to preserve

environmental and cultural features. Under traditional subdivision development, subdivisions are

designed to utilize all buildable parts of a tract of land for houses or roadways. Under

conservation development, half or more of the buildable land, including all of the most

ecologically delicate areas, is set aside as open space to protect its environmental or cultural

value (Arendt 1996). Conservation development has been successfully used in other locales to

preserve natural resources, natural beauty, and rural character without adverse economic impact

on homeowners, developers, or communities. (National Park Service n.d.)

The overarching purpose of this research is to evaluate the applicability of conservation

development in the Blanco River Basin. The first sub-purpose of this research is to explore

community members‟ attitudes toward environmental quality and conservation development.

The second sub-purpose is to assess the regulatory changes necessary for conservation

3

development to be implemented in the communities. The concepts in the working hypotheses

and practical ideal type represent the elements that, according to the literature, are required for

successful implementation of conservation development.

II. Conceptual Framework 1

The first sub-purpose of this research uses working hypotheses to explore community

members‟ attitudes toward environmental quality and conservation development. The working

hypotheses are based upon the major elements found in the literature review of conservation

development. The literature revealed that the primary purposes for conservation development are

to protect environmental quality including wildlife habitat and water quality (Arendt 1996).

Environmental Quality

Working Hypothesis 1:

Community members would like future development to preserve environmental quality

Like conventional subdivision development, conservation development preserves steep

slopes, floodplains and wetland areas. Conservation subdivision design, however, will also

protect other critical areas such as “upland buffers alongside wetlands, water bodies and

watercourses – areas that would ordinarily be cleared, graded and covered with houses, lawns

and driveways in conventional development.” Protecting these conservation areas preserves

wildlife habitat greenways. These open spaces provide cover and corridors for wildlife to travel

through as they move between feeding or hunting areas and their homes (Arendt 1996, 13).

Thus, this study expects to find the following:

Working Hypothesis 1a:

Community members value wildlife and wildlife habitat

4

Preserved areas also decrease the amount of storm water shed by the development. The

land filters runoff, trapping sediment and pollutants as before they can reach water bodies. The

slowed runoff decreases downstream flooding and allows more of the water to be absorbed into

the ground as recharge for aquifers. According to conservation biologists, riparian corridors and

their adjacent uplands provide the best setting for wildlife corridors because in these areas the

widest variety of organisms can be found (Arendt 1996, 13-14).


Working Hypothesis 1b:

Community members value ground and surface water quality

By decreasing the amount of storm water runoff, preserved upland areas can mitigate

downstream flooding. In areas without upland or riparian areas, conservation subdivisions can be

designed around meadows. As in upland areas, a meadow‟s vegetation filters pollutants from

storm water and slows its path toward watercourses decreasing downstream flooding.

Additionally, a wildflower meadow gives food and cover for insects, small mammals and birds,

while providing visual interest for homeowners. (Arendt 1996, 14).


Working Hypothesis 1c:

Community members value storm water control

Aesthetics

By locating home sites before drawing lot lines or streets, the designer can preserve

smaller features large trees, rock outcroppings, or stone walls. It‟s also a good practice to create

as many “view lots” as possible. Home sites should also be located close to open spaces for easy

access by residents (Arendt 1996, 42).

By using certain techniques, street design for conservation development can augment the

aesthetics of the land. Curving roads can provide different views of open space areas as they

5

drive, while long, straight roads can detract from aesthetics and encourage driving at unsafe

speeds.


Working Hypothesis 2a:

Community members value the aesthetics of open spaces in their community

A technique that is equally of value in conservation and marketing is using “single-

loaded” streets. Single-loaded streets have homes on only one side. They provide residents with

across-the-street views of open space areas instead of across-the-street views of other homes.

Single-loaded streets also help to prevent the ugly house-back views from roadways that are so

common in conventional subdivision developments (Arendt 1996, 44-45).


Working Hypothesis 2b:

Community members prefer views of open space from their home

Kaplan, Austin, and Kaplan (2004, 302) conducted a study to measure residents‟

satisfaction with the open space and natural features in their neighborhoods. The authors

surveyed equal numbers of residents of “open-space communities” and “conventional

communities”. Respondents from both types of subdivisions provided similar responses in their

descriptions of their communities. Both groups frequently mentioned the importance of natural

features, and both indicated that the “nature view from home is the highest priority when

choosing a place to live” (2004, 307).


Working Hypothesis 2c:

Community members prefer views of wildlife from their home

The strongest distinction between respondents from the two types of subdivisions was in

their “level of satisfaction with the nearby natural environment”. The open-space subdivision

6

residents expressed a much higher level of satisfaction in this category. The authors conclude,

“the open-space community concept is important to residents and was successfully achieved”

(Kaplan, Austin, and Kaplan 2004, 310).


Working Hypothesis 2:

Community members would prefer the aesthetics of conservation development to

conventional development

Table 1 lists the working hypotheses and their sub-hypotheses and links them to the literature.

7

Table 1 – Summary of Conceptual Framework Linked to the Literature

Research Purpose 1: To explore community members‟ attitudes toward environmental quality

and conservation development in the Blanco River Basin

Working Hypotheses Scholarly Support

WH1: Community members would like future

development to preserve environmental quality

WH1a: Community members value wildlife and

wildlife habitat

WH1b: Community members value ground and

surface water quality

WH1c: Community members value storm water

control

WH2: Community members would prefer the

aesthetics of conservation development to

conventional development

WH2a: Community members value the aesthetics

of open spaces in their community

WH2b: Community members prefer views of open

space from their home

WH2c: Community members prefer views of

wildlife from their home

Arendt (1996), Benfield, Terris, and

Vorslanger (2001), Daniels, Keller,

Lapping (1995), Lacy (1990), National

Park Service (n.d.), Nature Conservancy

(2005), Odell, Theobald, and Knight

(2003), Wisconsin Department of Natural

Resources (n.d.)

Arendt (1996), Kaplan, Austin, and

Kaplan (2004), Lady Bird Johnson

Wildflower Center (2005), National Park

Service (n.d.), Odell, Theobald, and

Knight (2003)

III. Conceptual Framework 2

The second sub-purpose uses a practical ideal type to assess the regulatory changes

necessary for conservation development to be implemented in a community. The elements of the

practical ideal type for effective conservation development ordinances are based on the major

elements found in the literature (Shields 1998), including model policies from around the United

States. Conservation development must be based on a strong comprehensive plan and related

zoning and subdivision ordinances (Arendt 1999).

Comprehensive Planning

To successfully implement conservation development, towns and counties must update

(or develop) their comprehensive plan to indicate a desire for open space preservation and

8

identify the spaces to be preserved. They also must rewrite their subdivision rules and zoning

ordinances to reflect the comprehensive plan (Arendt 1999).

The role of the comprehensive plan is the big picture illustration of the community‟s

development goals. To effectively protect and conserve natural resources and cultural character,

these are some of the elements a community should address in their comprehensive plan:

Resource Inventory – This section gives a detailed accounting of the community‟s

natural and cultural features. It documents their physical locations and describes land-

use activities that are appropriate for their vicinity. The features detailed in this section

are the primary and secondary conservation areas described previously (Arendt 1999, 20-

21).

Goals and Policies – “This section offers a chance to relate the community‟s resources to

its vision of what it would like to eventually become after much or all of its permitted

development occurs” (Arendt 1999, 20). The process is to set broad conservation goals,

define specific objectives to accomplish the goals, and then implement policies that

achieve the objectives. This section helps to prevent later problems by eliminating

uncertainty. Through clearly defined policies, it tells developers how they can operate in

order to meet community goals (Arendt 1999, 20-21).

Implementation – This section should detail how the necessary policies will be

implemented. It should specify changes to ordinances - including encouraging or

requiring conservation development - that are connected to the communities‟ goals and

objectives. Additional conservation methods that can be included here are purchasing

land, purchasing development rights, or securing conservation easements to protect the

most environmentally or culturally significant lands in the community (Arendt 1999, 20-

21).

9

The comprehensive plan is an important tool that can help protect natural and cultural

resources. In most states, however, it is not a regulatory document. This is why it is critical that

the zoning and subdivision rules reflect the goals and objectives outlined in the plan (Arendt

1999, 19).

Zoning Ordinances

Zoning ordinances generally regulate density through minimum lot sizes. A better way to

regulate density is “as the buildable acres required per dwelling including common, undivided

conservation land.” For example, an ordinance might specify one dwelling per two acres with an

open space requirement of 50% of the tract‟s buildable land. Under this model, the typical

house lot on the tract will be one acre, since that is the largest size achievable with the 50%

conservation requirement (Arendt 1999, 10).

Zoning ordinances should also account for environmental constraints such as legally

unbuildable areas and primary conservation areas when calculating density. These

environmentally constrained areas – wetlands, steep slopes, and floodplains – should be

subtracted from the parcel size before calculating density. The allowable density should be

based on the number of unconstrained acres in a tract (Arendt 1999, 10).

If a tract has a high percentage of its area as unbuildable land, the completely discounting

those lands from the density calculation may be economically unreasonable. Another approach

that addresses these cases is to require that unbuildable lands do not make up more than 50% of

the total preserved open space (Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center 2005, 29).

Although density should not be determined by minimum lot size, a zoning ordinance

should still dictate minimum lot sizes to prevent too much density. For example in a district

zoned for two acre density, the minimum lot size should be one acre (of unconstrained land) or

less. To ensure reaching the desired open space conservation, the zoning ordinance should

dictate the proportion between density and minimum lot size (Arendt 1999, 11).

10

Procedurally, zoning ordinances should permit conservation development by right

instead of as a conditional use. “Developers tend to avoid procedures that increase the length of

the review period, that subject their proposals to the additional scrutiny of widely advertised

public hearings, and that establish a process involving greater uncertainty with respect to the

outcome of their application.” Ordinances that allow by right permitting status and clearly

outline standards for design will achieve higher acceptance and use by developers (Arendt 1999,

13).

Subdivision Ordinances

In communities without zoning authority, subdivision ordinances should contain

substantive provisions on the quantity, quality and configuration of open space. Similar to the

zoning ordinance, the open space or greenway requirements should be based on a percentage

of the total tract less unbuildable lands (Arendt 1999, 186). The types of land to be included in

open space should consist of primary and secondary conservation areas, and they should be

described in detail. Natural and cultural elements of importance to the community should be

listed and prioritized. This list should be used to guide the design of conservation areas within

subdivisions. An effective subdivision ordinance will also require the consideration of adjoining

open spaces in the design process. The purpose of this is to interconnect open spaces and create

contiguous recreational and habitat corridors across regions (Arendt 1999, 12-13).

Procedurally, a good subdivision ordinance for conservation development will allow

local officials to review proposed development plans before the developer incurs significant

engineering costs. A good model will require a conceptual preliminary plan stage in which the

developer provides a rough sketch of the proposed development. The conceptual preliminary

plan can then be easily and inexpensively modified if it does not meet community conservation

goals (Arendt 1999, 13).

11

Another procedural element of a good subdivision ordinance is an Existing Resources

and Site Analysis Map. Requiring this document is critical since it ensures that design decisions

are being made based on the natural or cultural features of the land (Arendt 1999, 14).

Table 2 lists the ideal type categories and connects them to the literature.

12

Table 2 – Summary of Conceptual Framework Linked to the Literature

Research Purpose 2: To assess the regulatory changes necessary for conservation development in

the Blanco River Basin

Practical Ideal Type Category Scholarly Support

Comprehensive Plan Towns, cities and counties should have a

comprehensive plan

The comprehensive plan should include a natural

and cultural resource inventory

The comprehensive plan should include

conservation goals, objectives, and policies

The comprehensive plan should detail how the

conservation policies will be implemented

including ordinance changes if necessary

Arendt (1999), Daniels (1999), Daniels,

Keller & Lapping (1995), Lady Bird

Johnson Wildflower Center (2005), Urban

Land Institute (1991), Urban Land Institute

(2004), Wisconsin DNR (n.d.)

Zoning Ordinances

To implement conservation development zoning

ordinances should allow increased density


ordinances should require open space


ordinances should require density calculations to

account for unbuildable land

Conservation development should be allowed by

right in zoning ordinances






Subdivision Rules

To implement conservation development,

subdivision rules should contain an open space

element designating quantity and quality of open

space


subdivision rules should require a conceptual

preliminary plan


subdivision rules should require an Existing

Resources and Site Analysis Map






13

III. Methodology

This research is a case study examining the applicability of conservation development in

the Blanco River Basin. According to Yin (2003, 9), case studies are appropriate when “a „how‟

or „why‟ question is being asked about a contemporary set of events, over which the investigator

has little or no control”. The case examines both why and how conservation development might

be applied in the Blanco River Basin. Focus groups comprised of community residents will

address the first research sub-purpose by exploring attitudes toward environmental quality and

the principles of conservation development. Document analysis of city and county land use and

planning policies will address the second research sub-purpose by assessing what changes are

needed for it to be implemented. Table 3 shows the operationalization of the first sub-purpose

through focus groups and Table 4 shows the operationalization of the second sub-purpose

through document analysis.

For first research sub-purpose, the working hypotheses are operationalized as questions

for focus groups. A focus group is a group interview that relies on interaction within the group

and is based on topics provided by the moderator/researcher (Morgan 1997, 2). Focus groups are

used extensively to test market products or ideas with the public. The focus group method was

chosen for this research because it is essentially testing a land use policy with members of a

community. Table 3 shows the operationalization and links the working hypotheses to specific

focus group questions.

According to Morgan, “focus group projects most often (a) use homogeneous strangers as

participants, (b) rely on a relatively structured interview with high moderator involvement, (c)

have 6 to 10 participants per group, and (d) have a total of three to five groups per project (1997,

34).” This research will seek to emulate those characteristics.

14

The structure of the discussion will follow the outline shown in the “Focus Group

Agenda/Questionnaire” on page 16. The project will seek to hold three focus group discussions -

each held in a different town in the case study area.

Since implementation of conservation development would require the support of those

who are active in their communities, recruitment will be attempted through church and civic

groups in the area. While using existing groups of active citizens can provide homogeneity

within groups and convenience for the researcher, it can raise the issue of sample bias. Any

sample bias caused by the recruitment from community groups will be acknowledged and

discussed. Recruitment for focus groups will be very challenging and may not be successful. If it

appears that recruitment for focus groups will not be successful, then the researcher will use the

“Focus Group Agenda/Questionnaire” as an interview tool for structured interviews with area

stakeholders.

Table 3 – Operationalization Table for Research Sub-purpose 1

Research Sub-purpose 1:

Working Hypotheses Focus Group question

WH1: Community members would like

future development to preserve

environmental quality

WH1a: Community members value wildlife

and wildlife habitat

WH1b: Community members value ground

and surface water quality

WH1c: Community members value storm

water control

What direction do you think the environment is

going in this area?

What do you think are the greatest threats to

the environment here?

What impact do you think development is

having on the environment?

What is the state of wildlife habitat here? What

is the state of wildlife? Are they important to

you?

What is your impression of drinking water

quality here? How important is that to you?

What is the quality of the rivers and creeks

around here? Blanco River? Cypress Creek?

How important is that to you?

15

WH2: Community members would prefer

the aesthetics of conservation development

to conventional development

WH2a: Community members value the

aesthetics of open spaces in their community

WH2b: Community members prefer single-

loaded street design

WH2c: Community members prefer views of

open space from their home

WH2d: Community members prefer views of

wildlife from their home

What is the state of flood control on creeks and

rivers here? Is that a concern to you?

First pair of pictures (homes with open spaces /

homes with no open space):

Which picture of these two do you find more

aesthetically pleasing?

Which would you rather live in?

Which would you rather see in your

community?

Second pair of pictures (single-loaded street /

double-loaded street):





community?

Third pair of pictures (views of open space

from a home / views of other houses from a

home):





community?

Fourth pair of pictures (homes among habitat

view / homes among other homes):





community?

16

Focus Group Agenda/Questionnaire

Ice breaker discussion

Let‟s go around the room. Please give your name, tell how long you‟ve lived in Hays or Blanco

County, and what you like most about living here.

WH1

What direction do you think the environment is going in this area?

What do you think are the greatest threats to the environment here?

What impact do you think development is having on the environment?

What is the state of wildlife habitat here? What is the state of wildlife? Are they important to

you?

What is your impression of drinking water quality here? How important is that to you?

What is the quality of the rivers and creeks around here? Blanco River? Cypress Creek?

How important is that to you?

What is the state of flood control on creeks and rivers here? Is that a concern to you?

WH2

Distribute (or display) a series of pairs of pictures from conventional and conservation

developments.

First pair of pictures (homes with open spaces / homes with no open space):

Which picture of these two do you find more aesthetically pleasing?


Which would you rather see in your community?

Second pair of pictures (single-loaded street / double-loaded street):




Third pair of pictures (views of open space from a home / views of other houses from a home):




Fourth pair of pictures (homes among habitat view / homes among other homes):




Record individual responses for all questions.

17

The second research sub-purpose will be explored using document analysis of

comprehensive plans and municipal and county ordinances for the cities and counties in the

Blanco River Basin. The document analysis will seek to identify the similarities and differences

between existing policies and the practical ideal type model established in the literature (see

Section III). By assessing these differences and similarities, the research will changes necessary

for successful implementation of conservation development. Table 4 shows the

operationalization of the practical ideal type model through specific document analysis questions

related to the practical ideal type elements.

18

Table 4 – Operationalization Table for Research Sub-purpose 2

Research Purpose 2: To assess the regulatory changes necessary for conservation development in the

Blanco River Basin

Practical Ideal Type

Category

Document Examined Questions Used to Analyze

Document

Comprehensive Plan

Towns, cities and

counties should have a

comprehensive plan

The comprehensive plan

should include a natural

and cultural resource

inventory


should include

conservation goals,

objectives, and policies


should detail how the

conservation policies

will be implemented

including ordinance

changes if necessary

Blanco County, Hays County

Comprehensive Plans

San Marcos, Wimberly, Kyle,

Blanco Comprehensive Plans

Does comprehensive plan exist?

Does plan include a natural and

cultural resource inventory?

Is it complete?

What does it include?

Does the plan include conservation

goals, objectives, and policies?

Does the plan indicate how the

policies will be implemented?

Zoning Ordinances

To implement

conservation

development zoning

ordinances should allow

increased density

To implement

conservation

development zoning

ordinances should

require open space

To implement

conservation

development zoning

ordinances should

require density

calculations to account


Blanco Zoning Ordinances

Do zoning ordinances allow

increased density?

Under what circumstances?

Do zoning ordinances require open

space?

Does the ordinance account for

unbuildable land in density

calculations?

19

for unbuildable land

Conservation

development should be

allowed by right in

zoning ordinances

Is conservation development a by

right land use?

Is it allowed as a conditional use?

Subdivision Rules

To implement

conservation

development,

subdivision rules should

contain an open space

element designating

quantity and quality of

open space

To implement

conservation

development,


require a conceptual

preliminary plan

To implement

conservation

development,


require an Existing

Resources and Site

Analysis Map

Blanco County, Hays County

Subdivision Rules


Blanco Subdivision Rules

Do subdivision rules designate open

space requirement?

Do they designate quality of open

space required?

Do subdivision rules require a

conceptual preliminary plan?

What is the first plan stage required?

Do subdivision rules require an

Existing Resources and Site

Analysis Map?

Is there any type of community

resources map available to planners

or developers?

20

IV. Human Subjects Protection

Since this research will utilize focus groups, which require human subjects, potential

ethical concerns must be addressed. According to Babbie, some of the primary areas for ethical

concern in social research are voluntary participation, harm to the participants,

anonymity/confidentiality, and deception (2004, 64-68).

To ensure voluntary participation and prevent any occurrence of deception, any

communications used to recruit focus group participants will include full disclosure of the

research purpose and a full description of the research method. Additionally, at the time of the

focus group session, participants will be asked to sign a consent form that again discloses the

details of the research and the research method. A draft of the consent form is on the next page.

If all participants grant their consent, the audio from the focus group session will be tape-

recorded. If any participant does not consent to tape-recording, then the session will not be

recorded. Audio tape-recording will be discussed before the session and disclosed in writing on

the consent form.

To address the issue of confidentiality, the researcher will be the only person with access

to individual responses, and will not disclose those responses publicly. The identities of

participants will be known only to the researcher and will not be disclosed publicly. This

assurance of confidentiality will be included in writing on the consent form.

Harm to participants will be addressed through full disclosure and informed consent. This

research will ask participants for their impressions and opinions on environmental quality and

subdivision design in their communities. The participants will be informed of the aspects of the

research in recruitment and before participation. Any potential participant uncomfortable with

sharing their opinions on these matters will be excused from participation without prejudice.

The following is the draft Consent Form for participants:

21

Research Participation Consent Form

“Conservation Development in the Blanco River Basin”

You are invited to participate in a study of Conservation Development in the Blanco River basin.

I am a graduate student in Public Administration at Texas State University at San Marcos. This

study is part of my Applied Research Project, which is required for the Master of Public

Administration degree. The purpose of this phase of the research is to explore Blanco River

Basin community members‟ attitudes toward environmental quality and Conservation

Development. Conservation Development is a subdivision design method that preserves open

space on a development tract by clustering houses more densely on other parts of the tract. You

were selected as a possible participant in this study because you reside in the Blanco River basin.

You will be one of five to 12 participants in a focus group participating in this study.

If you decide to participate, the study is a focus group, or group interview. You will be asked to

discuss your impressions and opinions about environmental quality and Conservation

Development in your community. If you are uncomfortable discussing your opinions on these

matters in front of others, you may withdraw from participation without prejudice. The entire

process will take from 60 to 90 minutes.

Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and can be identified with you

will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission. If you consent, the

audio from this session will be tape-recorded. If you consent to audio tape-recording of your

participation in this session, please initial here _______. If you do not consent, please inform me,

and the session will not be tape-recorded.

Your decision whether or not to participate will not prejudice your future relations with Texas

State University. If you decide to participate, you are free to discontinue participation at any time

without prejudice.

If you have any questions, please ask me. If you have any additional questions later, you may

contact me at 512-779-8190. Additionally, you may contact my research advisor, Dr. Patricia

Shields, at 512-245-

You will be offered a copy of this form to keep.

You are making a decision whether or not to participate. Your signature indicates that you have

read the information provided above and have decided to participate. You may withdraw at any

time without prejudice after signing this form, should you choose to discontinue participation in

this study.

__________________________________ ________________

Signature of Participant Date

23

References

Arendt, Randall. 1996. Conservation design for subdivisions: A practical guide to

creating open space networks. Washington D.C.: Island Press.

------. 1999. Growing greener: Putting conservation into local plans and

ordinances. Washington D.C.: Island Press.

Babbie, Earl. 2004. The practice of social research. Belmont, CA.: Wadsworth.

Beatley, Timothy and Kristy Manning. 1997. The ecology of place: Planning for

environment, economy, and community. Washington D.C.: Island Press.

Benfield, F. Kaid, J. Terris, and N. Vorsanger. 2001. Solving sprawl: Models of smart

growth in communities across America. Washington D.C.: Island Press.

Daniels, Thomas L. 1999. When city and country collide: Managing growth in the metropolitan

fringe. Washington D.C.: Island Press.

Daniels, Thomas L., John W. Keller, and Mark B. Lapping. 1995. The small town

planning handbook. Chicago: American Planning Association Planners Press

Kaplan, Rachel, Maureen Austin, and Stephen Kaplan. 2004. Open space communities:

Resident perceptions, nature benefits, and problems with terminology. Journal of

the American Planning Association. 70: 300-312.

24

Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center. 2005. Conservation development in Texas: A

primer for government officials, developers and land planners (draft). Austin:

Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center

Morgan, David L. 1997. Focus groups as qualitative research, second edition. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications.

National Park Service. n.d. Protecting open space: Tools and techniques for Texans.

U.S.A.: National Parks Service

Odell, Eric A., David M. Theobald, and Richard L. Knight. 2003. Incorporating ecology

into land use planning: The Songbirds‟ case for clustered development. Journal of

the American Planning Association. 69: 72-82.

Shields, Patricia M. 1998. Pragmatism as a philosophy of science: A Tool for public

administration. Research in Public Administration. 4: 195-225.

Shields, Patricia M. and Hassan Tajalli. 2005. Intermediate theory the missing link in successful

student scholarship. Paper presented at the 2005 Annual Conference of the National

Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration, Washington D.C., October

13-15.

25

Urban Land Institute. 1991. The case for multi-family housing. Washington D.C.: Urban

Land Institute. Quoted in Daniels. 1999. When city and country collide:

Managing growth in the metropolitan fringe. Washington D.C.: Island Press.

Urban Land Institute. 2004. ULI land use policy forum report: Market mechanisms for

protecting open space. ULI Land Use Policy Forum Report Series.

http://www.policypapers.uli.org

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. n.d. Department of natural resources

position on “cluster development”. http://dnr.wi.gov/org/es/science/

landuse/tools/position_paper.pdf

Yin, Robert K. 2003. Case study research: Design and methods, third edition. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications

applicability of conservation development in the blanco...

Documents