University of FloridaSolutions for Your Life

Download PDF
Publication #FOR94

Chapter 5: Developing a Restoration Plan That Works1

William G. Hubbard2

Abstract

A plan can be defined as a predetermined course of action. Regardless of the type of plan, they all have a number of similar components. First a vision—a future desired condition or state—must be defined. Goals and objectives are then used to achieve the vision. Measurable goals and objectives form a basis for project evaluation. Guiding principles are incorporated into the goals and objectives to ensure that achievement of the vision is attained in a high quality and defendable manner. It is important to identify and involve stakeholders in the planning process from the beginning and to have a framework and a process to identify and resolve issues. Gathering and analyzing information about the restoration site is critical. An action plan with a timeline outlines activities and responsibilities. A plan for monitoring should be developed before the project is started. Monitoring evaluates how well the project objectives have been met. Determining project costs, benefits and funding sources is essential to the restoration project's success. As the plan progresses, care should be taken to outline its relationship to other plans. A well-thought-out, well-developed plan will help the community achieve its vision.

Introduction

According to many planners, a plan can be defined as a predetermined course of action. Plans have three characteristics: they must involve the future, they must involve action, and they must involve an element of personal or organizational identification or causation. In other words, plans are designed to get someone or something (a business, for example) from point A to point B in a certain time frame. This will most likely be accomplished by someone or a group of people taking actions toward the stated goal(s) and objective(s) (Figure 1).

Figure 1. 

Plans provide a common vision and a path toward its accomplishments.


Credit:

Larry Korhnak


[Click thumbnail to enlarge.]

But why develop a plan? We have heard all the lines before, and if we are not careful we will fall into the same cynical trap of thinking about why we don't like to plan and why plans don't work. For example, plans:

  • sit on the shelves and collect dust;

  • rarely succinctly develop the goals, objectives and pathways to success;

  • are shaped by politics or personnel changes which often render them useless;

  • often become outdated as soon as they are done; and

  • don't fit today's style of managing by the seat of our pants! However, what can a plan provide?

  • a common vision for the community;

  • well-defined and measurable goals and objectives;

  • a logical plan of action;

  • organized and focused efforts toward accomplishing a goal;

  • a document to assess and justify budgetary requirements; and

  • a plan to obtain funding.

Principles of Planning

Larsen et al. 1990, reviewed many plans and provided a number of suggestions for principles of good planning. His tips are to:

  1. Integrate and balance resource allocations. Good planning integrates all urban resources. It does not pit one resource against another.

  2. Communicate a clear vision. Good planning generates a clear vision of the outcomes and contributions to meeting local, regional, and national needs.

  3. Recognize limits. Good planning recognizes limits on the outcome's ability to produce a mix of goods and services in perpetuity.

  4. Seek informed consent. Good planning welcomes citizen involvement. Decisions should be made and explained openly. Dialogue among disparate interests should be facilitated.

  5. Finish in a reasonable time. Good planning is completed in a reasonably short period of time. Short periods facilitate incremental planning and stability among key players. People can actually harvest the fruits of their labor.

  6. Be people-oriented. Good planning recognizes that individuals, both inside and outside the agency or effort, make the difference between good and bad plans (Figure 2).

  7. Promote active administrative leadership. Good planning requires active involvement and leadership on the part of responsible administrators.

  8. Match analysis to questions at hand. Good planning involves use of analytical tools for purposes of evaluating options. Such tools should not drive or dominate the process.

  9. Be both locally oriented and nationally balanced. Good planning should be locally oriented and should also give ample consideration to national constituencies.

Figure 2. 

Good planning recognizes that individuals, both inside and outside the agency or effort, make the difference between good and bad plans.


Credit:

Larry Korhnak


[Click thumbnail to enlarge.]

Types of Plans

Before we begin the nuts and bolts of urban forest ecosystem restoration planning let's review some of the more common types of plans:

Strategic Plan

Strategic planning can be defined as a disciplined effort to produce fundamental decisions and actions that guide an organization. This kind of planning typically involves broad-scale information gathering, an exploration of far-reaching alternatives, an emphasis on future implications of present decisions and an ability to accommodate divergent interests and values (Bryson, 1988).

Comprehensive Plan

Comprehensive planning involves taking into account as many planning needs as possible under one umbrella plan. The comprehensive plan often involves stakeholder input early on. Many counties and cities now undergo comprehensive planning, which includes plans for economic development, land-use plans and environmental plans.

Master Plan

Similar to the comprehensive plan, the master plan is not as comprehensive and involves more specific goals and objectives. Master Street Tree Plans of the past, for example, involved planting plans, maintenance plans, budgetary plans and educational plans.

Operational Plan

The operational plan can be defined as that which puts the strategic, comprehensive or master plan into action. It outlines who is responsible for what by when. Activities are often outlined on a timeline with expected outcomes.

Management Plan

Similar to the operational plan but more detailed, the management plan might even outline day-to-day management activities that need to be accomplished in order to achieve the stated goals and objectives.

Restoration Plan

As we willl see later, a restoration plan is merely a type of management, master, or action plan that focuses on restoring specific areas.

Budget or Fiscal Plan

The budgetary or fiscal process of any organization or entity is usually complex. Monetary management is complex because it equates very closely to people's value systems. Budgetary instructions, accounting procedures, etc., are all enclosed in this important type of plan.

Communication and Education Plan

A final plan worth mentioning is the communication and education plan. In a sense, this is a strategic plan where appropriate communication of goals, objectives, issues, and progress is vitally important to the success of any plan. Special care must be given to produce a good communication plan.

Etc. Etc. Etc. Plan

Plans are made for everything these days. Land-use plans, zoning plans, etc. The importance is not necessarily the specific name of the plan but what it purports to achieve. It is also interesting to point out that plans are often nested and involve a systems approach (Figure 3).

Figure 3. 

An example of a systematic approach to planning involving many different plans.


[Click thumbnail to enlarge.]

Components of the Restoration Plan

Regardless of the type of plan, they all have a number of similar components. In the following sections we will discuss several of these components. We will also discuss some of the issues involved in creating a successful plan. Specifically, the following outline will be followed for developing a restoration plan:

  • Scope, Vision, Goals, and Objectives

  • Guiding Principles

  • Stakeholder Involvement

  • Identifying Problems and Issues

  • Information Gathering and Analysis

  • Developing a Timeline and Detailing Actions—the Action Plan

  • Monitoring and Evaluating

  • Budget and Finance

  • Relationship to Other Plans

Scope, Vision, Goals, and Objectives

Scope

Before we look at vision, goals, and objectives it is important to understand the scope of the proposed restoration project. This will have an important influence on the development of the plan. Many times, this is the difference between a restoration project versus a restoration program or one project versus many projects. For example, community or ecosystem-wide plans are different from a plan specifically designed for a section or plot of land in an urban area. Regardless of the size or scope, planning techniques are very similar. The complexity and interrelationships distinguish the two. Scope is important to keep in mind when initiating the planning process.

Vision

Plans are based on vision. Vision involves creativity, imagination, and sometimes thinking outside of the box. Basically, the vision is the desired future condition or state (Figure 4). It is the result of closing your eyes and literally visioning what the outcome of your plan might look like. A shared vision is critical if you want everyone's buy-in (see below for stakeholder input).

Figure 4. 

A vision is the desired future condition or state. Greening the Great River Park in St. Paul, MN, has a plan for restoring industrial lands along the Mississippi River. Their vision is to have these restored industrial areas look like they were set in an established forest.


Credit:

Rob Buffler


[Click thumbnail to enlarge.]

An excellent example is from Metro, the regional government in Portland, Oregon. They are working on what is called the Metropolitan Greenspaces Vision:

  • It is our vision to protect, on a long-term basis, natural areas, open spaces, trails, and greenways that lend character and diversity to our region even as more and more people move here to share our special place.

  • It is our vision to balance our urban focus and drive for economic health and prosperity with an array of wildlife habitats in the midst of a flourishing cosmopolitan region.

  • It is our vision to conserve and enhance a diversity of habitats woven into a lush web of protected greenspaces. (Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992).

Goals and Objectives

Goals and objectives are used to achieve your vision. Measurable goals and objectives form a basis for project evaluation (Figure 5).

Figure 5. 

The Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan in Portland, Oregon has a goal to restore green and open spaces in neighborhoods where natural areas are all but eliminated. Whitaker Ponds is one of the selected neighborhood restoration sites.


Credit:

Metro Regional Parks and Greenspaces


[Click thumbnail to enlarge.]

Goals and objetives are actual steps, which if taken in an orderly, strategic fashion will result in attainment of the vision. For example, the goals for the Metropolitan Greenspaces System include:

  • Create a cooperative regional system of natural areas, open space, trails and greenways for wildlife and people in the four-county metropolitan area.

  • Protect and manage significant natural areas through a partnership with governments, nonprofit organizations, land trusts, interested businesses and citizens, and Metro.

  • Preserve the diversity of plant and animal life in the urban environment, using watersheds as the basis for ecological planning.

  • Establish a system of trails, greenways, and wildlife corridors that are interconnected.

  • Restore green and open spaces in neighborhoods where natural areas are all but eliminated.

  • Coordinate management and operations at natural area sites in the regional Greenspaces system.

  • Encourage environmental awareness so that citizens will become active and involved stewards of natural areas.

  • Educate citizens about the regional system of greenspaces through coordinated programs of information, technical advice, interpretation and assistance.

Another example of possible goals and objectives comes from the Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) and is based on a common definition of ecological restoration. According to SER, ecological restoration is the process of assisting the recovery and management of ecological integrity.

Ecological integrity includes a critical range of variability in biodiversity, ecological processes and structures, regional and historical context, and sustainable cultural practices.

The definition above was developed by the SER Policy Working Group after almost a year of consultation and deliberation; it was passed by a mail vote of the SER Board in October 1996. The SER Policy Working Group is now working on a detailed description of attributes, goals and objectives, which will accompany the definition:

  • To restore highly degraded but localized sites;

  • To improve productive capability of degraded production lands;

  • To enhance conservation values in protected landscapes;

  • To enhance conservation values in productive landscapes (Journal of Restoration Ecology 1995)

The Bill Baggs Cape Florida Restoration Project Example

The Bill Baggs Cape Florida Restoration Project (1992) can also be used to exemplify the development of a vision, goals and objectives in a restoration project. Bill Baggs is a heavily used urban park near Miami. Prior to Hurricane Andrew's strike in 1992, the park had extensive areas dominated by Australian pine (Casuarina equisitifolia), an invasive tree. The natural removal of Australian pines by the hurricane provided a great opportunity to restore the park to conditions closer to its previous natural conditions. The Bill Baggs Cape Florida Park vision, goals, and objectives were:

Vision:

  • To reforest the park with native vegetation (Figure 6); and

  • To improve the historical, recreational and educational opportunities and the facilities in the park (Figure 7).

Goals:

  • The primary goal was to restore the park's original natural processes while providing compatible public recreational opportunities;

  • Reforest the park to predominantly native vegetation for beneficial environment purposes and for public outdoor recreation benefits; and

  • Eradicate exotic plants at Cape Florida and re-establish the historic native natural communities.

Objectives:

  • Stabilize and protect the natural and cultural resources of the park;

  • Re-open public recreation areas as soon as possible;

  • Preserve and restore the original natural communities and natural processes of the park, to the extent possible; and

  • Restore pre-hurricane levels of public recreation.

Figure 6. 

The Bill Baggs Cape Florida Restoration Plan was to reforest the park with native vegetation.


Credit:

Mary Duryea


[Click thumbnail to enlarge.]

Figure 7. 

The second vision of the Bill Baggs Cape Florida Restoration Project was to "improve the historical, recreational and educational opportunities and the facilities in the park."


Credit:

Mary Duryea


[Click thumbnail to enlarge.]

Guiding Principles

Guiding principles are incorporated into goals and objectives to ensure that the plans vision is attained in a high quality and defendable manner (Figure 8).

Figure 8. 

Guiding principles such as sound scientific facts are incorporated into goals and objectives to ensure that the plan's vision is attained in a high quality and defendable manner.


Credit:

Larry Korhnak


[Click thumbnail to enlarge.]

Some guiding principles that have been used in the past for example are:

  • Science - Projects need to be planned and supported by sound scientific facts and reasoning.

  • Stewardship - Ultimately, the goal of many restoration projects is stewardship. Agreement on what this means will be important.

  • Integration and partnership - Today's world necessitates multi-discipline, agency/entity involvement.

  • Economics - Sound economics insures the plan matches the economic resources.

Stakeholder Involvement

It is important to identify and involve stakeholders in the restoration planning process from the beginning. Stakeholders are the people who will be impacted by the restoration project. Buy-in from community, government, independent organizations (NGOs, Universities), private sector, investors, and employees/employer, among others, is absolutely necessary at an early phase. Failure to do so will undermine the process and the plan and may be a waste of time and money (Figure 9).

Figure 9. 

It is important to identify and involve stakeholders in the restoration planning process from the beginning.


Credit:

Mary Duryea


[Click thumbnail to enlarge.]

What kind of input will be necessary? Some of the important questions you may ask at the outset are: Who are your stakeholders and what information do you want from them? Are they members of the community that may be affected by the decisions made? Make an extensive list of who may have an interest in your restoration project.

Retreat-style settings, Delphi surveys and other ways to gather input and understand issues have been used to include stakeholders. The Delphi process was originally developed in the 1950s by Olaf Helder and Norman Dalkey, both scientists at the Rand Corporation, as an iterative, consensus building process for forecasting futures. It has since been deployed as a generic strategy for developing consensus and making group decisions in a variety of fields. An interest group is typically assembled, either through correspondence or face-to-face discussion, to assess issues of mutual concern.

While the individuals in the group share a common interest (the subject of the Delphi), they usually represent different points of view. Each member of the group is asked to give his/her comments regarding a particular set of issues. A facilitator analyzes the individual comments and produces a report documenting the response of the group. The individuals then compare what each person said to the group's normative response as a basis for discussion. The discussion, again via remote or face-to-face conversation, is used to share, promote, and challenge the different points of view. Once this is done, the participants, having the benefit of the previous discussion, anonymously comment on the issues again. A new group report is generated and the process repeats itself. This process continues until the group reaches consensus or stable disagreement.

If you would like further information about stakeholder involvement and identification, and the Delphi process, check the Suggested Readings section at the end of this chapter.

Identifying Problems and Issues

When involving stakeholders it is important to have a framework and a process to identify and resolve issues (Figure 10).

Figure 10.1. 
[Click thumbnail to enlarge.]

Figure 10.2. 

When involving stakeholders it is important to have a framework and a process to identify and resolve issues, such as issues concerning compatible recreational uses.


Credit:

Larry Korhnak


[Click thumbnail to enlarge.]

Examples of identification include expert review of your project from a university faculty member or private consultant or public review through town hall meetings or forums, the media, etc. The issues confronting the project may be social, economic and environmental. Addressing these issues will help to revise and shape the restoration plan. Some example issues may include:

  • Compatible recreational uses;

  • Biological and physical limitations for the site;

  • Consensus on vision, goals and objectives;

  • Private property rights issues;

  • Land conflicts;

  • Conflicts with current infrastructure;

  • Conflicts with other plans; and

  • Compatibility with laws and regulations.

Information Gathering and Analysis

Once your vision, goals/objectives, guiding principles and stakeholder input have been determined, a next logical step will be to determine where to obtain the information you will need for the restoration project (Figure 11).

Figure 11. 

Information gathering and analysis such as this site assessment of a wetland will guide the development of goals and objectives.


Credit:

Larry Korhnak


[Click thumbnail to enlarge.]

The information gathering and analysis phase might incorporate the use of the following tools:

Natural Resources

  1. aerial photographs/remote sensing data

  2. geographical information systems (GIS)

  3. field data collection

  4. soil maps

  5. climatic data

Historical

  1. library

  2. historical societies

  3. municipal records

Infrastructure

  1. GIS

  2. city and utility agencies

Community/Social

  1. stakeholder input and others

  2. town meetings and focus groups

Where can you go for this information? More and more can be obtained from the Internet. GIS maps and data, soils information, climatic data, etc., are sometimes located on various websites. Other information can be found at the public works or other municipal departments. Social and stakeholder data usually needs to be collected first hand as discussed previously.

Following this very important step of data collection and analysis it may be necessary to refine or redirect the current vision, goals and objective. For example, stakeholder input may be needed again as you collectively review the results from GIS maps. A real problem in some parts of the country, for example, is the control and management of invasive exotic species. The vision may have been the complete eradication of all invasive species in a given geographical location. Review of maps and other data, however, may render achievement of this vision extremely costly or impossible. A renewed vision may be a healthy ecosystem with a manageable level of this invasive species and complete eradication of it on public lands. Stakeholders will need to understand why the vision has been revised. Maps are an excellent way to communicate.

Developing a Timeline and Detailing Actions - The Action Plan

Once agreement has been coalesced, the next step is to outline the beginning of an action plan. In general, there is more than one way to reach the plans objectives. Successful restoration projects often spend time early on identifying, evaluating and selecting alternative paths and solutions. Various criteria are used to reach consensus on the proper alternatives to use. Economic analysis (cost-benefit, capital budgeting, social accounting methods, etc.) is one way. Public input and voting is another. It is important to remember to use the guiding principles to choose the best alternative.

An example of restoring a longleaf ecosystem in an urban setting using three alternatives should illustrate this. The restoration team and stakeholders determined three potential courses of action after extensive discussion involving restoring a 15-acre tract of land in a metropolitan area.

  • Roller drum and chop site. Plant two-year-old containerized longleaf pine seedlings, burn regularly, keep nuisance wildlife out with fencing. Monitor health and regeneration success.

  • Leave existing vegetation on the site. Plant six-year-old longleaf pine saplings. Apply herbicides.

  • Seed the area after a light winter burn. Manually remove the weeds, brush and competition.

Following the decision to follow one alternative, the next step is detailing the actions. Basically, action planning states what will be done, by whom, and when. It includes a timeline and estimated costs and resource needs (Figure 12).

Figure 12. 

An example action plan timeline.


[Click thumbnail to enlarge.]

One thing that is often overlooked is developing a system for foreseeing and overcoming barriers in action planning. The best systems involve enhanced communication plans with the general public, stakeholders, consultants and others involved in developing and implementing the plan.

Monitoring and Evaluating

The next step is monitoring and evaluating the plan's effectiveness. How do you do this? Some examples relating to the regeneration restoration project cited before include:

Site visits

  1. regeneration surveys

  2. hydrologic and soils testing

  3. testing and evaluating the ecosystem structure and functioning

Physical mapping

  1. aerial photography

  2. GIS mapping

Social

  1. public reaction

  2. benefits and effects on neighbors

It is important to have a plan for monitoring before the project is begun (Figure 13). Monitoring may begin with base-line data collection and continues on during project implementation. Monitoring evaluates how well the project's objectives have been met. It demonstrates and elucidates both successes and failures.

Figure 13. 

A plan for monitoring should be developed before the project is started. Monitoring evaluates how well the project objectives have been met.


Credit:

Larry Korhnak


[Click thumbnail to enlarge.]

Budget and Finance

Determining project costs, benefits and funding sources is essential to the restoration project's success (Figure 14). Following are a few questions that the planning/implementation team, along with stakeholders, policy makers, and others need to address.

Figure 14. 

Determining project costs, benefits and funding sources is essential to the restoration projects success.


Credit:

Larry Korhnak


[Click thumbnail to enlarge.]

What will this project cost? What are the benefits?

Benefit-Cost Ratio: In this type of analysis, the project is undertaken when the benefit to cost ratio is greater than one. If more than one project is desired, then the project with the highest ratio is undertaken.

Net Present Benefits (NPB): Due to the nature of many public projects, it may take many years to reap the full benefits. To take into account the long-term nature of these projects, all costs and benefits are equated to a common time (usually the present). If there is anything left after subtracting net present costs from net present benefits, the project will be of value to the community and can be judged as economically sound, all else being accounted for.

Capital Budgeting: In many instances, a capital budgeting process will need to be invoked. Ranking of competitive projects by benefit-cost ratio or net present benefits may help in the final analysis. Great care should be taken to outline the assumptions used and to equate all projects as to scale and time.

Use of other economic tools: Be sure to review the literature for more information that may be useful, specifically opportunity cost and the traditional economic tools that have been modified for the new fields of ecological and environmental economics.

What are the Funding Mechanisms?

Some funding options to investigate include:

• special options tax

• bond issuance

• general tax revenues

• private foundations

• public and private grants

Robert Miller's Urban Forestry textbook (Miller 1997) lists a number of funding mechanisms that can be investigated. Finally, many successful plans have been implemented because they were already developed and the right funding came through. The importance of having a plan ready when budget opportunities become available cannot be stressed enough. Timing and preparedness go hand-in-hand. For references and additional information on budget and finance issues check the Suggested Readings session at the end of this chapter.

Relationship to Other Plans: Plans are Interrelated

As the planning process proceeds, it will become obvious that no longer can we plan in a vacuum. The interrelationship and interdependence of planning is more relevant today than ever before. In addition, many citizens are beginning to realize that a healthy economy is tied directly to a healthy ecosystem, making environmental planning very important. More communities are incorporating a systems approach to planning that is similar to comprehensive planning (Figure 15).

Figure 15. 

As the plan progresses, care should be taken to outline its relationship to other plans.


Credit:

Metro Regional Parks and Greenspaces


[Click thumbnail to enlarge.]

As your plan progresses, care should be taken to outline its relationship to other plans. These plans include:

  • Comprehensive

  • Transportation

  • Land

  • Capital improvement

  • Risk management and hazard assessment

  • Community facilities and utilities plan

  • Public outreach

    1. media

    2. schools

    3. professional groups

  • Volunteer action plan

Conclusion

Urban ecosystem restoration planning is a highly complex and dynamic process. As with any process, there are innumerable factors to consider and no cookbook solutions. A careful review of the literature and of other plans from around the country should be beneficial to anyone considering restoration plan development. A well-thought-out, well-developed restoration plan will help the community achieve its vision (Figure 16).

Figure 16. 

A well-thought-out, well-developed restoration plan will help the community achieve its vision.


Credit:

Larry Korhnak


[Click thumbnail to enlarge.]

Suggested Readings

Woodley S., J. Kay and G. Francis. 1993. Ecological Integrity and the Management of Ecosystems. St. Lucie Press. 220 p.

Miller, R. 1997. Urban Forestry: Planning and Managing Urban Greenspaces. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. 502p.

For more information about the Delphi process

Adler, M. and E. Ziglio (eds.) Gazing Into the Oracle: The Delphi Method and Its Application to Social Policy and Public Health. London: Kingsley Publishers (in press).

Delbecq, A.L., A.H. VandeVen and D.H. Gustafson. 1975. Group Techniques for Program Planning: A Guide to Nominal Group and Delphi Processes. Scott & Co.

Linstone, H. and M. Turoff. 1975. The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications. Addison

Turoff, M. 1970. The Policy Delphi. J of Technol. Forecast. and Soc. Change, 2(2):

Turoff, M. 1972. Delphi Conferencing: Computer Based Conferencing with Anonymity. J of Technol. Forecast. and Soc. Change, 3(2): 159

Turoff, M. 1974. Computerized Conferencing and Real Time Delphis: Unique Communication Forms. Proceed. 2nd International Conference on Computer Communications, 135

For more information about stakeholders

The World Bank Participation Sourcebook (Chapter III: Practice Pointers in Participatory Planning and Decisionmaking) (online at: http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/sourcebook/sb03.htm).

Fischman, R. L. and M. S. Squillace. 2000. Environmental Decisionmaking. Anderson Publishing Co. third edition.

Chopra, K., G.K. Kadekodi and M.N. Murti. 1989. Participatory Development: People and Common Property Resources. New Delhi: Sage.

For more information about budgeting and finance

Agarwal, A. and S. Narain. 1989. Towards Green Villages: A Strategy for Environmentally Sound and Participatory Rural Development. New Delhi: Centre for Science and Environment.

Brown, G. and C.B. McGuire. 1967. A Socially Optimal Pricing Policy for a Public Water Agency. Water Resources Research.

Clark, C.W. 1976. Mathematical Bioeconomics: The Optimal Management of Renewable Resources. New York: John Wiley.

Costanza, R. ed. 1991. Ecological Economics: The Science and Management of Sustainability New York: Columbia University Press.

Dasgupta, P., S. Marglin and A. Sen. 1972. Guidelines for Project Evaluation. New York: United Nations.

Dixon, J.A. and M.M. Hufschmidt eds. 1986. Economic Valuation Techniques for the Environment. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Tietenberg, T. 1988. Environmental and Natural Resource Economics, 2nd ed. Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Forsman.

Cited Literature

Bryson, J. M. 1988. Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Larsen, G., A. Holden and D. Kapaldo. 1990. Synthesis of Critiques of Land Management Planning. USDA-Forest Service, Washington: FS-452. Policy Analysis Staff.

Miller, R. 1997. Urban Forestry: Planning and Managing Urban Greenspaces. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. 502p.

Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan. 1992. A Cooperative Regional System of Natural Areas, Open Space, Trails and Greenways for Wildlife and People.

Footnotes

1.

This document is FOR94, one of a series of the School of Forest Resources and Conservation Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. Original publication date August 2001. Revised February 2008. Reviewed November 2012. Visit the EDIS website at http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu.

2.

William G. Hubbard, Southern Regional Extension Forester, Cooperative Extension Service, The University of Georgia, Forest Resources Bldg. 4-402, Athens, GA 30602-4356.


The Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) is an Equal Opportunity Institution authorized to provide research, educational information and other services only to individuals and institutions that function with non-discrimination with respect to race, creed, color, religion, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, political opinions or affiliations. For more information on obtaining other UF/IFAS Extension publications, contact your county's UF/IFAS Extension office.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, UF/IFAS Extension Service, University of Florida, IFAS, Florida A & M University Cooperative Extension Program, and Boards of County Commissioners Cooperating. Nick T. Place, dean for UF/IFAS Extension.