Description
There are many variations on the theme of planning for multiple types of infrastructure. Traditional land use planning processes have focused primarily on the gray, or built, infrastructure; today, most planners and communities recognize the importance at least of planning for the green, or environmental, infrastructure as well. Still other processes identify less tangible infrastructures to include—most notably economic and social.
Whatever the labels, planning for multiple infrastructures tends to follow the same general pattern, involving identification of major resources, design of alternative scenarios, scenario evaluation, and implementation.
Steps
Multiple infrastructure plans vary widely, as do any other comprehensive plans. The processes typically follow a general planning model; major variables include the types of tools and technology used, amount of community involvement and participation, level of detail and specificity, implementation plans, duration of planning process, and outcomes.
There are several common elements of multiple infrastructure plans that set them apart from other comprehensive plans:
- Hub Framework: Infrastructures are conceptualized as a network of hubs (i.e. environmental hubs are major blocks of open space or protected land; built hubs are transportation centers, downtowns, or high-density developments; social hubs are neighborhoods with schools and libraries, parks, or other spaces where people congregate).
- Corridor Connections: Hubs are connected on infrastructure maps by major corridors (i.e. environmental corridors are rivers, streams, or strips of undeveloped land; built corridors are major public transportation lines or roads; social corridors are the routes people travel most frequently between social spaces).
- Green infrastructure plans in particular are innovative in terms of technology and implementation, and are often coordinated at different scales. Regional or statewide organizations create large-scale green infrastructure network plans, for example, with more detailed versions created by counties or municipalities. Regional and state-wide plans are increasingly generated by complicated environmental algorithms, which identify the largest unfragmented blocks of habitat, the most important concentrations of biodiversity, or areas with the highest primary productivity. In these cases, public participation and comments are reserved more commonly for local versions of the plans.
- Multiple infrastructure plans are less frequently tied to ordinances and specific local policies; they are used more often as guiding documents for municipalities or for land trusts and other organizations that may work on land protection.
Pros and Cons
Using the multiple infrastructure concepts in planning won’t alone identify or protect heart and soul, but it does create the space and imperative in a planning process to address issues aside from zoning districts and traffic patterns. When social infrastructure is included in the planning process, the initial inventory phase necessarily includes an attempt to identify the places and elements of a community that are important to people, which may or may not be physical.
As might be expected, it is much easier to include tangible elements of a community in a multiple infrastructure plan than it is to include intangible elements, since plans usually take the form of traditional comprehensive plan maps and guiding documents. On the Taos Green Infrastructure map, for example, important environmental “hubs” are connected by “corridors,” the theory of which is based upon established principles of conservation biology and land management. Few examples have managed to create and diagram social or economic “hubs and corridors” in the same way, and many (mostly intangible) elements of community character couldn’t fit neatly within that model anyway.
Taos, New Mexico’s Greenprint Plan Shows regions dedicated to, and suitable for, green infrastructure and several types of built infrastructures. Image: Taos Green Infrastructure Plan
Examples
Dozens of examples of Green Infrastructure plans have been produced across the world, as well as (fewer) examples of plans that include social, economic, or other infrastructures. One of the best examples is the Maryland GreenPrint, which was then expanded in local projects like the Prince George’s County Green Infrastructure Plan. The 3i Solutions Project (see Case Studies) is one of the more comprehensive projects, addressing social issues as well as environmental and built.