Linking Protected Open Space into a Regional Network | Public Recreational Facilities, Parks,
and Preserves | Restoration Sites and Development Initiated Open Spaces | Open Space
Protected by Non Profit Land Trusts | Open Space Funding, Staffing, and Resources |
Open
Space Restoration, Management, and Access
Linking Protected Open Space
into a Regional Network
Clustering, Out-filling, Greenways, Open Space Corridors, Regional Planning
Scattered development patterns are hindering open space preservation because isolated open space parcels are less likely to receive grant funding because they have a lower potential to become part of a linked corridor. Random development has hindered efforts to create regional networks of protected open space. Scattered development patterns fragment open spaces and make it difficult to protect large clusters of open space. Scattered development is promoted in part by poorly planned infrastructure expansion and building schools far from existing developed areas.
Taking a regional, school district-wide, or countywide approach to identifying open space protection opportunities presents a substantial coordination challenge. Like other forms of public infrastructure, protected open space networks cross municipal boundaries. There have been suggestions that open space planning should be conducted on a school district level. Others have called for a County official map to preserve open space. A regional approach would also help to create protected farmland clusters that extend into Lancaster and Cecil Counties, where farming remains a viable industry.
While many of the easily eased larger open space parcels have been protected, there will be a greater effort required to link them, and to protect the smaller remaining parcels. In the past, land trusts focused their efforts on protecting large (40 to 100-acre) parcels. However, as these parcels are protected, the trusts must focus on smaller isolated parcels which in many places are the only remaining open spaces. In most parts of Chester County, parcels with the very highest natural or cultural resource values have already been protected. It is anticipated that more effort will be required to protect what is left. Open space protection efforts are more likely to involve multiple owners and complex negotiations. Also, competitive grants favor larger parcels with unique resources, of which there are fewer remaining in the County.
In urban and suburban settings, open space protection programs continue to have difficulty linking and out-filling to make clusters. Linking protected open spaces has been less successful in developed areas compared with rural areas. The trend toward low density development occurring in suburban communities is posing a long term threat to the continued protection of open space. Furthermore, there is still a misperception that open land such as golf courses, school properties and private gardens will remain undeveloped in the long term. As a result some municipalities do not realize that their open spaces are not permanently protected.
Linking Protected Open Space into a Regional Network | Public Recreational Facilities, Parks,
and Preserves | Restoration Sites and Development Initiated Open Spaces | Open Space
Protected by Non Profit Land Trusts | Open Space Funding, Staffing, and Resources |
Open
Space Restoration, Management, and Access
Printable version of ALL issues (PDF, 33 KB)