Case Studies in Parks and Greenspace Planning in Travis County, Texas

Case Studies in Parks and Greenspace Planning in Travis

Sharp, James

County Texas

CIRP 5303 Planning Theory James Sharp May 7, 2009

CASE STUDIES IN PARKS AND GREENSPACE PLANNING IN TRAVIS COUNTY TEXAS: Communicative Action and Transactive Planning Few elements impact neighborhoods and communities more than parks and greenspace. The social, ecological and economic benefits parks and natural areas provide are widely valued and supported by citizens. Strong community support is demonstrated in the continued high rates of passage for parks funding through local bond elections (Sherer, 10). It is no surprise that citizens demand a participatory role in their community’s outdoor recreational planning. As a result, government agencies and advocates often employ planning approaches that encourage a collaborative effort between planning professionals and citizens.

This paper examines two common paradigms in parks and greenspace planning—transactive planning and communicative action—through two planning efforts completed in Travis County, Texas in 2006. The Travis County Parks and Natural Areas Master Plan represents the transactive planning approach through its large public input component and strategies that support leveraging public resources through collaborations with other governmental entities and private organizations. The plan is focused on improving current conditions with practical strategic objectives, which coincides with the transactive approach.

CIRP 5303 Planning Theory

Page 1 of 26

Sharp, James

Case Studies in Parks and Greenspace Planning in Travis

County Texas

The Travis County Greenprint for Growth represents communicative action planning through its basic function of facilitating equitable community involvement to create an accurate community vision for land conservation and parks. The “greenprinting” process, a service provided by the national nonprofit land conservation organization the Trust for Public Land, provides a GIS-based analysis of community priorities for the purpose of prioritizing land acquisition that reflects the diverse interests of stakeholders. The stakeholder input process was conducted in a neutral forum giving all community representatives equal power in identifying and prioritizing the county’s common values.

This paper includes a brief discussion of the history and values of the transactive and communicative action approaches. Each case study will then be discussed and reviewed in the context of its paradigm. The planning processes will be discussed as well. Finally, the case studies will be compared, specifically focusing on their processes, including the roles of the planners and stakeholders.

TRANSACTIVE PLANNING As the popularity of the rational-comprehensive model declined in the 1960’s and 70’s, new planning theories emerged in response to the perceived failures of both scientific method-based planning paradigms and the advocacy planning movement (Taylor, 111). John Friedmann’s critique of the rational-comprehensive approach manifested through his conceptualization of the transactive style of planning. Like other planning theorists of the time, Friedmann was concerned with the inevitable political role of the planner-in-practice. Friedmann was also disturbed by his observance that America was verging on a breakdown as the

CIRP 5303 Planning Theory

Page 2 of 26

Sharp, James

Case Studies in Parks and Greenspace Planning in Travis

County Texas

population became less involved with and more ignorant of its own society (Friedmann, 1973, 192). In his seminal publication, “Retracking America: A Theory of Transactive Planning”, Friedmann contends that America’s centralized system of power is ineffective in meeting society’s demands. Actions initiated outside the core of affected communities are generally inflexible to the varying needs of people across the country. Bureaucracy can not keep pace with change. As the list of problems goes unresolved, people become dissatisfied.

Problems that are addressed are often addressed incompletely or incorrectly (191).

Friedmann feared that citizens’ reaction to the inadequacies of our centralized power structure would be to cease participating as members of society. A non-participant society remains subject to its own issues that impact quality of life and justice but does not engage with the “guidance system” to correct these issues. Society eventually concedes to the inadequacies and injustices engrained in the system. The centralized power structure will then only be reactive to unforeseen events and unable to acknowledge the sources of society’s issues (192).

According to Friedmann, society must reengage with its guidance system at the local level. Solutions must be tailored to meet local situations and therefore must be approached through decentered planning. Friedmann argues that citizens and civil leaders must be primary participants in the process in order for plans to be implemented. Affected communities must participate from the

CIRP 5303 Planning Theory

Page 3 of 26

Sharp, James

Case Studies in Parks and Greenspace Planning in Travis

County Texas

beginning of the planning process to accurately define its unique set of problems and to determine the best solutions (Friedmann, 2003, 79).

The transactive style centers on mutual learning, the exchange of processed knowledge of the planner and the experiential knowledge of citizens and civic leaders (Friedmann, 1973, 185). Transactive planning is characterized by a collaborative effort with citizens and community stakeholders. Planners facilitate a process of information exchange for the sake of mutual learning, where the planner and community stakeholders learn from each other. Mutual learning occurs within a dialogue where participants establish a rapport of communication supported by an understanding of shared interest, acceptance of difference, and mutual respect (179). Through mutual learning, the planner gains a critical first-hand perspective from the community. Citizens and civic leaders acquire technical knowledge from the planner (185). The intended result is the discovery of a common vision and a shared understanding of the issues.

Additionally, the dialogue will establish a sustainable relationship between the planner and stakeholders (LaChapelle and McCool, 371).

Another important element in transactive planning is that the process occurs in real time. Although planning by its nature is a future-oriented activity, mutual learning must remain relevant to the constraints and opportunities that are present in the community (Friedmann, 1973, 181). Friedmann perceives the present as fleeting and ever-changing. Planners should process the benefits of collaboration and mutual learning in the here-and-now rather than futilely applying it to an unknown future (Friedmann, 2003, 76).

CIRP 5303 Planning Theory

Page 4 of 26

Sharp, James

Case Studies in Parks and Greenspace Planning in Travis

County Texas

Friedmann has further developed the conceptual argument of the transactive approach in the context of planning in a non-Euclidean mode.

Friedmann notes: We live in an unprecedented time, confronted by unprecedented problems‌. It is nothing less than the collapse of the Euclidian world order of stable entities and common sense assumptions that have governed our understanding of the world for the past two hundred years.

The engineering model of planning that served us during this period, with its penchant for advance decision making and blueprinting and its claims of superiority to other forms of decision making because of its scientific character, are thus no longer valid and must be abandoned. We are moving into a non-Euclidian world of many space-time geographies, and it is the recognition of this change that obliges us to think of new and more appropriate models. (75).

In a non-Euclidean world, planning is redefined as linking knowledge to action in the public domain (75). Transactive planning would be the ideal approach to promoting participation among affected populations, enabling a merger of expertise and experience through interactive transactions with the planner (80).

COMMUNICATIVE ACTION In the 1980’s, the communicative action concept evolved from process-driven planning approaches that failed to acknowledge the lack of participation and

CIRP 5303 Planning Theory

Page 5 of 26

Sharp, James

Case Studies in Parks and Greenspace Planning in Travis

County Texas

influence across society’s diverse communities (Healey, 239). Communicative action is concerned with publicly sharing the planning process with affected communities in order to reach a consensus. Through communicative action, participants not only gain a voice and power of influence, they learn from the experiences and perspectives of their fellow participants (239). Communicative action may have congealed in society out of necessity, but its basis is inspired in large part by the work of German philosopher Jurgen Habermas (239). Motivated by the authoritarian regimes that nearly destroyed his country, Habermas focused on “critical or emancipatory ways of knowing” that permeate beyond society’s power establishment (Innes, 186). He believes that an individual’s selfperception and interests are formed through interactivity and communication. If our own values and motivations are established through social communication, we are inherently collaborative. This capacity to interact, understand, and collaborate should be used to establish a public discourse on issues that affect everyone (Healey, 239). Discourse and shared knowledge can establish consensus, countering the flawed bureaucratic system of elected decisionmakers and simple majorities.

Forester and Innes have notably incorporated inclusionary discourse with strategic planning to add greater value to the process of gained understanding and respectful interaction (243).

Central to Habermas’ communication theories of society is the critical element of communicative rationality.

CIRP 5303 Planning Theory

Page 6 of 26

Sharp, James

Case Studies in Parks and Greenspace Planning in Travis

County Texas

Habermas states: Thus the rational acceptability of a statement ultimately rests on reasons in conjunction with specific features of the process of argumentation itself.

The four most important features are: (i) that nobody who could make a relevant contribution may be excluded; (ii) that all participants are granted an equal opportunity to make contributions; (iii) that the participants must mean what they say; and (iv) that communication must be freed from external and internal coercion so that the “yes” or “no” stances that participants adopt on criticizable validity claims are motivated solely by the rational force of the better reasons. If everyone who engages in argumentation must make at least these pragmatic presuppositions, then in virtue of (i) the public character of practical discourses and the inclusion of all concerned and (ii) the equal communicative rights of all participants, only reasons that give equal weight to the interests and evaluative orientations of everybody can influence the outcome of practical discourses; and because of the absence of (iii) deception and (iv) coercion, nothing but reasons can tip the balance in favor of the acceptance of a controversial norm. Finally, on the assumption that participants reciprocally impute an orientation to communicative agreement to one another, this “uncoerced” acceptance can only occur “jointly” or collectively. (Habermas, 44).

CIRP 5303 Planning Theory

Page 7 of 26

Sharp, James

Case Studies in Parks and Greenspace Planning in Travis

County Texas

Communicative rationality relies on two corresponding elements of Habermas’ critical communications theory: disabling the bureaucratic communicative machine and empowering citizens through “democratic political criticism, mutual understanding, and self-determined consensus” (Forester, 276).

In practice, communicative action planners are one of the “actors in the world” like everyone else (Innes, 184). John Forester contends there is a practicality in communicative action in solving enduring dilemmas planners face such as community mistrust and flaws in democratic and technical planning processes (Forester, 275).

Communicative action’s premise is to establish a legitimate forum of inclusiveness that builds rapport and understanding. It also presumes that comprehensive understanding and widely supported strategies can not be developed from one expert. A collective effort from experts, resources, and other stakeholders is necessary (Forester, 280).

Like all planning models, communicative action requires addressing significant challenges. First, there is the daunting ideal of universal inclusiveness and representation. Healey references two universes to define: spatially-based stakeholders, people who live or work in the community; and those who have an interest in what goes on within this community (Healey, 244). Planners are tasked to enable all stakeholders to participate throughout the process and to sort through and make use of the participants’ arguments. The skilled facilitator finds linkages among the arguments and guiding participants in a productive mode of thinking. Obviously, there is the potential to cross the line ethically

CIRP 5303 Planning Theory

Page 8 of 26

Sharp, James

Case Studies in Parks and Greenspace Planning in Travis

County Texas

regarding a planner’s ability to steer the process. The questions they ask and the issues upon which they focus can influence interactions and outcomes.

An effective planner must also balance the process of inclusiveness and moving the process to the next level of sorting the arguments. In this regard, planners must avoid consolidating feedback too early in order to move the effort in to the strategic process (249). Truth and consensus are not necessarily one in the same (Innes, 185). Ultimately, communicative action should result in strategies to which the discourse community regards with a sense of combined ownership (Forester, 250).

The Travis County Parks and Natural Areas Master Plan (2006) The Travis County Parks and Natural Areas Master Plan is a 10-year strategic planning document developed by the county’s Transportation and Natural Resources Department and codified through approval granted by the county commissioners court. The plan is a response to the county’s progress made in establishing a number of city in-fill parks and a conservation plan for the countymanaged Balcones Canyonlands, a large natural area protected for its values in water quality protection and as prime habitat land for the endangered goldencheeked warbler and the black-capped vireo (Travis County, 1).

The parks and natural areas plan centers on developing “a comprehensive greenway and riparian corridor system” for the county. The county invested in planning for this greenway and riparian corridor system because of strong expressions of public support from interviews with a variety of county

CIRP 5303 Planning Theory

Page 9 of 26

Sharp, James

Case Studies in Parks and Greenspace Planning in Travis

County Texas

stakeholders that included parks users, the business community, and environmental advocates (1).

The plan was developed through the transactive model, although the county did not deliberately follow Friedmann’s approach. The transactive approach has long been a productive model used in outdoor recreational planning. The subjective values of outdoor recreation vary widely. These values, which comprise of spiritual, ethical, public health, and aesthetic matters and have changed over time, are not easily measured or analyzed (Jenkins, 370). The rational-comprehensive model’s inflexibility and demand for certainty was especially incompatible to outdoor recreational planning (371). Transactive planning’s focus on collaboration, diversity, and flexibility make it a more effective way to acknowledge the complexities of outdoor recreational planning (372).

The Travis County Parks and Natural Area Master Plan’s transactive approach is indicated in the plan’s basis of significant and broad public input.

Public input was primarily used to establish the plan’s goals. County planners recognized that the plan’s development and implementation was only possible through a collaborative effort involving public-private partnerships, intergovernmental agreements, and civic volunteerism (Travis County, 2). County planner Wendy Scaperotta coordinated the development of this plan. Public involvement occurred in three ways: interviews with 42 local experts representing the business community, park service providers, advocates, and community activists; a telephone survey from a random sample of 1,228 Austin-area

CIRP 5303 Planning Theory

Page 10 of 26

Sharp, James

Case Studies in Parks and Greenspace Planning in Travis

County Texas

residents, and five public meetings in 2005 to present the draft and collect citizen feedback (17).

The dialogue is considered a critical part of the county’s master planning process. Scaperotta underscored how important the mutual learning process was to implementing the master plan. In an April 24, 2009 correspondence, she stated: We get public input early and often in the planning process so we were in sync with public preferences throughout the master planning and bond planning processes but we take responsibility for setting plan goals and objectives. When we present our draft to the public, we were presenting our interpretation of what we thought the community wanted. Of course, if we had been wrong in our interpretation, we would have had to go back to the drawing board. Travis County Commissioners will not adopt a plan if stakeholders don't support it for reasonable cause and voters won't approve park bonds for implementation if they don't like it.

According to Scaperotta, Travis County follows a five-step parks master planning process consistent with the requirements set by Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. The department has approved Travis County Parks and Natural Areas Master Plan as a locally prepared master plan so Travis County would be awarded points in the competitive recreational grant review process for this designation (Scaperotta).

CIRP 5303 Planning Theory

Page 11 of 26

Sharp, James

Case Studies in Parks and Greenspace Planning in Travis

County Texas

Scaperotta facilitated the planning process with the public and was also a contributor to policy decisions (Scaperotta).

Travis County maintains a comprehensive GIS database of its park and conservation lands. The county started the planning process by completing a thorough inventory of recreational resources before beginning the public input process (Scaperotta).

The county offered opportunities for stakeholders, both the general public and special interests, to participate in decision-making in one or more of the input formats detailed earlier. Although there were varied interests, land conservation emerged as a major concern. Once a draft plan was completed, stakeholders were again asked via print, broadcast, and electronic media notifications to view the draft and comment either at public meetings, standard mail, or email (Scaperotta).

Next, county staff defined the metrics to measure needs for parks and natural areas to foster a productive dialogue with stakeholders and elected officials. These standards drove the plan concept and provided the rationale for which projects were included in the plan. In accordance with a Texas Parks and Wildlife Department recommendation, Travis County used three methods to assess need: the standard state assessment of 3.5 acres of metropolitan park space per 1000 people; demand-based assessment that addresses the park and recreational preferences of the community, which were gathered as part of the public input process; and resource-based assessment (Scaperotta).

CIRP 5303 Planning Theory

Page 12 of 26

Sharp, James

Case Studies in Parks and Greenspace Planning in Travis

County Texas

Scaperotta and county staff synthesized information gathered in the inventory and from the public input process. Much of the plan is expressed in GIS maps and graphic illustrations (Scaperotta).

The final step in the process was plan adoption by the commissioners court. It was placed on the consent agenda and approved unanimously by Travis County Commissioners in 2006 (Scaperotta).

The county parks and natural areas master plan has a decided focus on objectives for improving present conditions and solving problems in the short term rather than fixating on an ambitious vision statement. Although considered a 10-year plan, the county will update goals and objectives every two years, enabling staff to document current challenges and opportunities (Travis County, 1). Goals are primarily short-term, which are achieved through the completion of a handful of tactical objectives such as completing construction phases, acquiring parcels, and increasing the number of county partnerships. In this sense, the plan also demonstrates the transactive model’s focus on planning in real time and designing for flexibility.

It’s worth emphasizing again the plan’s emphasis on collaborative relationships. The county explicitly recognizes that collaborative efforts in the form of public-private partnerships, inter-local agreements, and volunteer participation will enable the plan’s goals to be achieved. Interestingly, the county has incorporated the Travis County Greenprint for Growth analysis as a decisionmaking resource into the plan’s 2008 update.

The Travis County Greenprint for Growth (2006)

CIRP 5303 Planning Theory

Page 13 of 26

Sharp, James

Case Studies in Parks and Greenspace Planning in Travis

County Texas

The Travis County Greenprint for Growth was initiated by the Trust for Public Land (TPL) in October 2005 in an effort to implement a regional vision addressing growth in Central Texas. The project employs TPL’s GIS mapping technique known as greenprinting. The greenprinting program mixes GIS technology, local demographic and geographic data, and a community input process to create a visual analysis of the community’s land and its conservation priorities, which are defined by community representatives. The result is a series of dynamic maps that highlights the lands whose protection could meet the multiple conservation priorities identified by the community (TPL, 5).

Greenprinting helps communities make informed decisions about land conservation. It can maximize public support and encourage citizens to work toward common goals. The greenprinting process is fulfilled through a strong communicative action process designed to be transparent, neutral, and inclusive.

The analysis is both scientific and value-oriented. The primary element of a greenprint is a community involvement and discursive process that endeavors to establish consensus and understanding, which are fundamental to communicative action. The result of this communicative action process is knowledge intended for the public good.

Although the community involvement process will be the topic of focus, it is relevant to briefly explain the greenprinting process as a whole. There are four major steps to the process: 1. Community leaders determine critical land protection issues in Travis County.

CIRP 5303 Planning Theory

Page 14 of 26

Sharp, James

Case Studies in Parks and Greenspace Planning in Travis

County Texas

2. Stakeholders rank the community’s land protection priorities.

3. TPL builds the GIS analysis combining local data and land protection priorities to create a series of maps that illustrate the areas that support the county’s land protection priorities.

4. Working with TPL, the community uses the model to finalize local program goals (TPL, 5).

Anjali Kaul, former programs director for the Trust for Public Land initiated the Travis County community vision analysis in response to a 2004 vision statement by Envision Central Texas, a nonprofit entity established to develop and implement a vision for Central Texas that will preserve and enhance the region’s quality of living. The vision statement reflected citizen feedback collected through a significant public input process. The statement underscored a focus on establishing more parks and open spaces (TPL, 6). The Envision Central Texas vision statement communicated the community’s general desire for more parks and open space but it did not seek input on a strategic process. The greenprinting analysis was intended to provide this vision statement a consensus-driven decision-making tool for local governments. The greenprinting process offered the visioning process the benefit of establishing a consortium of representatives to agree on the land conservation priorities of the Travis County community through a communicative action process. The following account of the Travis County Greenprint for Growth process is based on my own firsthand account of the process during my involvement as a supporting staff member with the Trust for Public Land. Additional resources are cited appropriately.

CIRP 5303 Planning Theory

Page 15 of 26

Sharp, James

Case Studies in Parks and Greenspace Planning in Travis

County Texas

As the project planner, Kaul facilitated the entire process that started with securing public and private grants to fund the project. Several private foundations and corporations awarded grant funding to the project including the Westhill Foundation for Nature, Land/Water/Sky, the Shield Ayres Foundation, the Reese Foundation, Applied Materials, Inc., and the GF Family Foundation (TPL, 2).

These private entities did not participate in the stakeholder process. Travis County also supported the greenprint through grant funding (2). County staff and a county commissioner participated as equal stakeholders and technical experts.

Kaul was challenged to assemble a stakeholder taskforce comprised of individuals representing private, public, and advocate interests. She made additional efforts to ensure legitimate representation by meeting with underrepresented communities through personal visits and presentations, primarily minority and county rural communities, to secure their participation in the stakeholder process. In addition to individual participants, the Travis County Greenprint for Growth Stakeholder Group included representatives from the Austin Metro Trails and Greenways, Austin Neighborhood Council, Austin Parks Foundation, Austin to Bastrop Colorado River Corridor Council, Barton Springs Edwards Aquifer Conservation District, Bull Creek Association, Capital Area Council of Governments, City of Austin, Creating Common Ground, Envision Central Texas, Hill Country Alliance, Hill Country Conservancy, Lower Colorado River Authority, National Parks Service, Nature Conservancy of Texas, People Organized in Defense of Earth and her Resources, Save Barton Creek Association, Save our Springs Alliance, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department,

CIRP 5303 Planning Theory

Page 16 of 26

Sharp, James

Case Studies in Parks and Greenspace Planning in Travis

County Texas

Travis County, The Trust for Public Land, and the University of Texas at Austin School of Architecture (TPL, 2).

Kaul facilitated four stakeholder meetings focusing on an inclusive discourse among the stakeholder group. The process began by creating small groups to capture individual comments and feedback. The groups collaborated internally to identify linkages among the priorities listed and present three-to-five conservation priorities that represented the group. After considering the collective priorities of each subgroup, the full stakeholder group agreed on four major conservation priorities. The four priorities identified for Travis County through this process are protecting water quality and quantity, including the Colorado River and the Edwards Aquifer, providing equitable access to recreational opportunities, protecting sensitive and rare environmental features such as high quality woodlands and endangered species habit, and the need to protect local cultural resources such as historic, scenic, and agricultural sites (TPL, 11).

A technical advisory committee comprised of GIS experts, researchers, and planners compiled a criteria matrix of geographic, environmental, economic, and land use data for the GIS model. The stakeholder group then determined relative values for each of the four conservation priorities. The group unanimously agreed that the priorities must be weighted equally. The datasets and initial greenprinting models were presented to the stakeholder group for review. In the final stakeholder meeting, the group discussed concerns, changes, and, finally, approval of the analysis in principal.

CIRP 5303 Planning Theory

Page 17 of 26

Sharp, James

Case Studies in Parks and Greenspace Planning in Travis

County Texas

Throughout the stakeholder input process, Kaul and TPL staff actively solicited input opportunities for non-present community stakeholders with personal meetings and collection of oral and written feedback.

Directed by the stakeholder group’s conservation priorities, the GIS analysis highlighted four major areas most in need of land conservation: the Colorado River corridor, greenways along creeks in East Austin, land to establish pocket parks for underserved East Austin neighborhoods, and available lands that connect existing nature preserves in western Travis County. The greenprint highlights the areas that should be conserved based on the priorities identified by the community (TPL, 12).

The analysis was published in a 2006 report. Kaul presented the results of the greenprint process to all local government entities in Travis County, encouraging elected officials to use the greenprint as a decision-making tool.

Elected officials and area planners widely accepted the consensus-driven analysis. The results were generally deemed as credible and a useful resource in determining strategic land use.

Through a communicative action approach, stakeholders were equal owners of the analysis and adopted the greenprint as an accurate reflection of community priorities. What made the Travis County greenprint a successful demonstration of communicative action was that it empowered stakeholders equitably. All stakeholders shared this power within a neutral public forum. All stakeholders were free to use the results of the analysis to support their own missions.

CIRP 5303 Planning Theory

Page 18 of 26

Sharp, James

Case Studies in Parks and Greenspace Planning in Travis

County Texas

It is notable that a small number of stakeholders expressed dissatisfaction with the results of the analysis, mostly because the results did not support specific areas of concern as much as they had hoped. Kaul and TPL staff worked closely with these stakeholders to correct minor flaws in datasets and to manage expectations concerning the analysis. These stakeholders never publicly criticized the analysis.

TPL is currently working in partnership with Envision Central Texas to expand the planning effort to include the other Central Texas-area counties: Williamson, Hays, Bastrop, and Caldwell.

CASE STUDY COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS The county plan and the greenprint are similar in many ways. Obviously, both efforts focused on improving and expanding parks and natural areas in Travis County. The county plan and the greenprint were led by professional planners who acted as facilitators between public input and the technical process.

Scaperotta and Kaul presented the completed efforts to the public, although the process of plan adoption was different. Both plans placed a strong emphasis on input from community stakeholders. Both plans attempted to synthesize the subjective values of citizens and other stakeholders in order to create goals and priorities for the county plan and the greenprint, respectively.

Each plan included components of expert knowledge in tandem with stakeholder input. For the greenprint, the technical advisory team was a critical part of identifying and establishing the model that represented stakeholder priorities (TPL, 9). For the county master plan, 42 experts in parks, planning, and

CIRP 5303 Planning Theory

Page 19 of 26

Sharp, James

Case Studies in Parks and Greenspace Planning in Travis

County Texas

environmental fields provided insight and direction to balance citizen input. For both plans, the vast majority of technical experts were Travis County residents.

Collaboration is a fundamental value in both transactive planning and communicative action. Both the county master plan and the greenprint placed considerable weight on the importance of collaboration. The county and TPL further stressed how collaborative partnerships were essential to support the plans’ objectives and priorities.

Both plans used mapping and categorization of land parcels to illustrate its analyses. Through mapping analysis, both efforts identified specific geographic areas of concern. In both efforts, the acknowledgement of specific lands for its value as greenspace or parks was an important way to demonstrate each plan’s recommended strategies.

The plans are fundamentally similar in that they were carried out to support the growth and maintenance of public parks systems throughout the county. These plans were conducted independently of one another but now, in the plan implementation phases, these plans are somewhat symbiotic. The county is using the greenprint to prioritize its land acquisitions. In turn, the greenprint’s credibility is enhanced by the county government’s endorsement and it provides opportunities for further mission-driven partnerships between the county and the Trust for Public Land. As a non-profit service provider to communities, such endorsement and visibility is crucial.

The county master plan and the greenprint are also comparatively notable by their dissimilarities. The most basic contrasts are inherent in their origins. The

CIRP 5303 Planning Theory

Page 20 of 26

Sharp, James

Case Studies in Parks and Greenspace Planning in Travis

County Texas

county master plan was designed and implemented by the county government with the sole purpose of providing information and strategic objectives to be carried out by county staff. It is a strategic plan intended to maximize efficiency of performance through goals and objectives. The Travis County Parks and Natural Areas Master Plan was codified by the county commissioners court. Thus the master plan becomes an official policy document to direct county staff actions.

The greenprint was produced by an outside nonprofit agency in a consultant role. The GIS-based analysis is the intellectual property of the Trust for Public Land. TPL has no regulatory authority to implement the plan in Travis County. The greenprint is a resource for the planning and land acquisition activities of governments and other agencies. It provides the benefits of stakeholder consensus and knowledge rather than regulatory authority. It is not codified by a government entity or used to measure the performance of the county government.

Although structured as a 10-year strategic plan, the county master plan focused on present issues and challenges. Indicative of a transactive approach, the plan’s objectives are focused on achieving measurable, short-term activities as solutions to current problems. The objectives are generally able to be achieved within a period of time and are linkable to current budgets and policies.

This real time factor is somewhat similar to incrementalism. As discussed earlier, the plan’s format was based on the standards of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department’s local parks grant program requirements, which further indicate the county master plan’s focus on practically fitting into current conditions.

CIRP 5303 Planning Theory

Page 21 of 26

Sharp, James

Case Studies in Parks and Greenspace Planning in Travis

County Texas

The Travis County Greenprint for Growth also places great emphasis on current problems. The analysis is essentially a snapshot of current data and community values. The analysis revealed approximately 22,000 acres of open space of high conservation value. However, its higher purpose is to establish a common vision. The greenprint acknowledges the cost of acquiring priority conservation lands, approximately more than $500 million, is beyond any agency’s capacity. The report recommends that agencies work together under this common vision to conserve priority lands to meet the county’s growth needs (TPL, 36).

Public input was essential to both plans but they differ in the degree and scope of input. The county master plan cast a broader net to obtain feedback from more citizens through its telephone survey and public meetings. This approach encouraged input from more individuals, and feedback across all sectors of the community at large. Input for the county master plan was aimed at collecting feedback from an individual one time. The approach is transactive in that the county sought to involve all affected citizen groups, and through the county’s public meetings, including commissioners court meetings, citizens were able to gain some technical knowledge from planners and experts.

The greenprint’s discursive process involved a smaller group of stakeholder representatives. The input process was a deeper and more investigative effort that developed over the course of a few months. Stakeholders invested significant time interacting as equal partners in a neutral forum intended to be free of political and societal hierarchies. The process was an ideal example

CIRP 5303 Planning Theory

Page 22 of 26

Sharp, James

Case Studies in Parks and Greenspace Planning in Travis

County Texas

of communicative action as it fostered mutual understanding, relationshipbuilding, and collective agreement.

Although a high level of public support was important, the county master plan did not require consensus from participating citizens, much less the general public. Comparatively, the greenprint process was reliant on consensus. The analysis required the identification of a set of common conservation priorities unique to the community. Without universal agreement of these priorities, the analysis would lack credibility. If community values were not accurately represented, the results of the map analysis would be inaccurate. Furthermore, the map analysis is not the only product of a greenprint. A processed set of common local conservation priorities established through this communicative process can also produce higher levels of understanding and rapport across community interests.

CONCLUSION Travis County residents enjoy high quality outdoor recreational opportunities. The area is well regarded for its natural beauty and the quality of life it offers. As the county’s population continues to grow steadily, stakeholders are justifiably concerned that the current system of parks and natural areas will not be enough to protect its natural assets and to sustain the county’s quality of living.

Furthermore, longstanding issues of equity and social justice in Travis County include recreational access and protection of natural areas in underserved areas of the county. The planning approaches of the Travis County Parks and Natural

CIRP 5303 Planning Theory

Page 23 of 26

Sharp, James

Case Studies in Parks and Greenspace Planning in Travis

County Texas

Areas Master Plan and the Travis County Greenprint for Growth acknowledged the high level of public interest in the community’s green infrastructure.

As a demonstration of the transactive planning approach, the county master plan sought to engage affected communities in a process of dialogue for the exchange of knowledge between planners and stakeholders. This interaction was meant to establish a general understanding of the problem and its possible solutions. The master plan was a concerted effort to build on the rapport between citizens and government.

TPL’s greenprinting model overcame the institutional infrastructure to cull a representative group of individuals to work together in a communicative action process to identify a land conservation vision for the county. Stakeholders communicated their priorities as equals and were challenged to work together, compromise, and understand the issues of their fellow stakeholders.

It’s difficult to confirm the degrees of citizen representation and involvement regarding these two planning efforts. It’s likely that, in both cases, one or more communities and their interests were underrepresented. However, it’s important to recognize that both of these cases demonstrated sincere commitment to public involvement. Both the county master plan and the greenprint contributed significantly to Travis County’s growing culture of citizen vigilance and participation.

CIRP 5303 Planning Theory

Page 24 of 26

Sharp, James

Case Studies in Parks and Greenspace Planning in Travis

County Texas

References Cited

Friedmann, John. Retracking America: A Theory of Transactive Planning.

Chapter 7, “The Transactive Style of Planning,” pp. xiii-xx and 171-193.

Garden City, NY: Anchor Press. 1973.

Friedmann, John. “Toward a Non-Euclidian Mode of Planning,” in Readings in Planning Theory, Second, Edition. Ed. Scott Campbell and Susan S. Fainstein. Chapter 3, 75-80. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. 2003.

Originally published in the Journal of the American Planning Association, 59 (4). Chicago, IL: American Planning Association. 1993.

Habermas, Jurgen. The Inclusion of the Other. Studies in Political Theory. Parts VIII and IX of Chapter 1. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1998.

Healey, Patsy. “The Communicative Turn in Planning Theory and its Implications for Spatial Strategy Formation,” in Readings in Planning Theory, Second, Edition. Ed. Scott Campbell and Susan S. Fainstein. Chapter 13, 237-255.

Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. 2003. Originally published in the Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 23, 217-34. 1996.

Innes, Judith. “Planning Theory’s Emerging Paradigm: Communicative Action and Interactive Practice.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 14, 3. 183-189. 1995.

CIRP 5303 Planning Theory

Page 25 of 26

Sharp, James

Case Studies in Parks and Greenspace Planning in Travis

County Texas

LaChapelle, Paul R., and Stephen F. McCool. “Planning (Outdoor Recreation)” in Encyclopedia of Leisure and Outdoor Recreation. 370-373. Ed. John M. Jenkins and John J. Pigram. London: Routledge. 2003.

Scaperotta, Wendy, Senior Parks Planner, Travis County, Texas. E-mail correspondence to author, April 24, 2009.

Senbel, Maged. “Empathetic Leadership: Effective Communicative Action for Planners.” Paper presented at the annual National Planning Conference Session: Student Paper and Poster Presentation. Chicago, IL. April 17, 2002.

Sherer, Paul M. 2006. The Benefits of Parks: Why America Needs More City Parks and Open Space. San Francisco, CA: The Trust for Public Land.

Taylor, Nigel. Urban Planning Theory Since 1945. Chapter 7, 111-129. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. 1998 Travis County Department of Transportation and Natural Resources. Travis County Parks and Natural Area Master Plan. Austin, Texas. 2006.

The Trust for Public Land: Texas State Office. The Travis County Greenprint For Growth. Austin, Texas. 2007.

CIRP 5303 Planning Theory

Page 26 of 26