Advertisement

Urban Ecosystems

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 45–63 | Cite as

Planning for broad-based environmental protection: A look back at the Chicago Wilderness Biodiversity Recovery Plan

  • Rebecca Coleen RetzlaffEmail author
Article

Abstract

In 1994 a collaboration of environmental interests formed in the Chicago region, U.S.A. Composed of representatives of environmental organizations, government agencies, citizen and neighborhood groups, private interests, and university representatives, the consortium provides a forum for communication, advocacy, policy, and sharing ideas and knowledge about biodiversity issues and the various activities of each organization. The specific mission of the Chicago Wilderness Consortium is to protect, restore, and manage natural lands, plants, and animals in the Chicago region. Shortly after forming the Chicago Wilderness Consortium, the idea of creating a region-wide biodiversity recovery plan emerged, in order to provide a blueprint for how the consortium would accomplish its mission. Within a few years, the group began work on the Chicago Wilderness Biodiversity Recovery Plan, and it is now among the first regional biodiversity plans in the United States. While using collaborative planning processes to solve environmental problems is not unique, the Biodiversity Recovery Plan and the process through which it was created were innovative in the U.S. for having a broad and ambitious scope, extensive use of some kinds of data and analysis (particularly on natural communities), the large number of participants in the planning process (over 200), and the dispersed organizational structure in which the consortium operates. Another innovation was adoption of the plan by three regional planning commissions in three different states. The Chicago Wilderness Biodiversity Recovery Plan was one of the first major departures from traditional (single-medium based) environmental planning by a region in the United States. These innovations warrant research and reflection, 8 years after completion of the plan, and are the focus of this article.

Keywords

Biodiversity Biodiversity planning Chicago wilderness Collaborative planning Environmental planning Ecosystem management 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author gratefully acknowledges the helpful comments from two anonymous reviewers of an earlier draft of this article, and participation from the members of the core Chicago Wilderness planning committee who provided information for this study.

References

  1. Abram SA (2000) Planning the public: some comments on empirical problems for planning theory. J Plann Educ Res 19:351–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams J, Stein BA, Kutner LS (2002) Biodiversity: Our Precious Heritage. In: Nagle JC, Ruhl JB (eds) The law of biodiversity and ecosystem management. Foundation Press, New York, pp 14–19]Google Scholar
  3. Alario M (2000) Urban and ecological planning in Chicago: science, policy, and dissent. J Environ Plan Manag 43:489–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alexander ER (2001) The planner-prince: interdependence, rationalities, and post-communicative practice. Planning Theory and Practice 2:311–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Applied Ecological Services (2004) Biodiversity: a plan for the village of Schaumberg. Village of Schaumberg, Schaumberg, ILGoogle Scholar
  6. Baumgartner FR, Jones BD (1993) Agendas and instability in American politics. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  7. Baydack RK, Campa HI, Haufler JB (1999) Practical approaches to the conservation of biological diversity. Island Press, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  8. Beatley T (1995) Preserving biodiversity through the use of habitat conservation plans. In: Porter DR, Salvesen DA (eds) Collaborative planning for wetlands and wildlife, Island Press, Washington, D.C. pp 35–74Google Scholar
  9. Beatley T (2000) Preserving biodiversity: challenges for planners. J Am Plan Assoc 66:5–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Beatley T (2004) Native to nowhere: sustaining home and community in a global age. Island Press, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  11. Bennett J (1998) State biodiversity planning. Environ Forum 15:18–27Google Scholar
  12. Bidwell R, Clare R (2006) Collaborative partnership design: the implications of organizational affiliation for watershed partnerships. Soc Nat Resour 19:827–843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Booher DE (2004) Collaborative governance practices and democracy. Natl Civic Rev 32–46Google Scholar
  14. Campbell S (1996) Green cities, growing cities, just cities? Urban planning and the contradictions of sustainable development. J Am Plan Assoc 62:296–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chicago Region Biodiversity Council (1999) Biodiversity recovery plan. Chicago Biodiversity Council, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  16. Chicago Wilderness Consortium (2006a) Chicago Wilderness Consortium members. Chicago Wilderness, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  17. Chicago Wilderness Consortium (2006b) The state of our Chicago Wilderness: A Report card on the ecological health of the region. Chicago Wilderness Consortium, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  18. Chicago Wilderness Consortium (2005a) Chicago Wilderness project pipeline. unkown, (Ed.)Google Scholar
  19. Chicago Wilderness Consortium (2005b) Strategic plan for the Chicago Wilderness Consortium, A. Chicago Wilderness, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  20. Chicago Wilderness Consortium (n.d.a) The biodiversity kit for educators. Chicago Wilderness Consortium, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  21. Chicago Wilderness Consortium (n.d.b) Sustainable development principles: protecting nature in the Chicago Wilderness Region. Chicago Wilderness Consortium, Chicago. http://www.chicagowilderness.org/pubprod/miscpdf/DESIGNPRINCIPLES1.pdf
  22. Clark FH (2000) SuAsCo biodiversity protection and stewardship plan. Massachusetts Riverways Program, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  23. Connick S, Innes J (2001) Outcomes of Collaborative Water Policy Making: Applying Complexity thinking to Evaluation. University of California at Berkeley, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  24. Dunster J, Dunster K (1996) Dictionary of natural resources management. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, BC, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  25. Environmental Law Institute (2003a) Planning for biodiversity: authorities in state land use laws. Environmental Law Institute, Washington D.C. 1-58576-063-3Google Scholar
  26. Environmental Law Institute (2003b) Planning with nature: biodiversity information in action. Environmental Law Institute, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  27. Faith DP, Walker PA (2002) The role of trade-offs in biodiversity conservation planning: linking local management, regional planning, and global conservation efforts. J Biosci 27:393–407PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Foley J, Lauria M (2000) Plans, planning, and tragic choices. Planning theory and practice 1:219–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Grumbine ER (1990) Protecting biodiversity through the greater ecosystem concept. Nat Areas J 10Google Scholar
  30. Gunningham N, Young MD (1997) Toward optimal environmental policy: the case of biodiversity conservation. Ecol Law Q 24:243–298Google Scholar
  31. Huxley M (2000) The limits to communicative planning. J Plann Educ Res 19:369–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Innes JE, Booher DE (1999) Consensus building and complex adaptive systems: a framework for evaluating collaborative planning. J Am Plan Assoc 65:412–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kingdon JW (1995) Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley Educational PublishersGoogle Scholar
  34. Koontz TM (2005) We finished the plan, so now what? Impacts of collaborative stakeholder participation on land use policy. Policy Stud J 33:459–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Korfmacher KS, Koontz TM (2003) Collaboration, information, and preservation: the role of expertise in farmland preservation task forces. Policy Sci 36:213–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Krueger K (2005) Chicago wilderness congress: the power of partnership. Chic Wilderness J 3:2–4Google Scholar
  37. Leach W, Pelkey N (2001) Making watershed partnerships work: a review of the empirical literature. J Water Resour Plan Manage 127:378–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Leach W, Pelkey NW, Sabatier PA (2002) Stakeholder partnerships as collaborative policymaking: evaluation criteria applied to watershed management in California and Washington. J Policy Anal Manage 21:645–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. MacRae D Jr. (1993) Guidelines for policy discourse: consensual versus adversarial. In: Fischer F, Forester J, (eds) The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Duke University Press, Durham, NC pp 291–318]Google Scholar
  40. March JG (1994) A primer on decision making: how decisions happen. The Free Press, New York. 0-02-920035-0Google Scholar
  41. Meadowcroft J (1999) Cooperative management regimes: collaborative problem solving to implement sustainable development. Int Negot 4:225–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Miller NA, Klemens MW (2004) Croton-to-highlands biodiversity plan. Metropolitan Conservation Alliance, Wildlife Conservation Socety, Bronx, NYGoogle Scholar
  43. Moore E, Koontz TM (2003) A typology of collaborative watershed groups: citizen-based, agency-based, and mixed partnerships. Soc Nat Resour 16:451–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Moskovits DK, Fialkowski C, Mueller GM, Sullivan TA, Rogner J, McCance E (2004) Chicago Wilderness: a new force in urban Conservation. Ann N.Y. Acad Sci 1023:215–236PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nagle JC, Ruhl JB (2002) The law of biodiversity and ecosystem management. Foundation Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  46. Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission (2000) Protecting nature in your community: a guidebook for preserving and enhancing biodiversity. Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  47. Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission and Chicago Wilderness (2003) Conservation design resource manual. Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission and Chicago Wilderness, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  48. Noss RF, Cooperrider AY (1994) Saving natures legacy: protecting and restoring biodiversity. Island Press, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  49. Oregon Chapter of the American Planning Association (1993) A guide to community visioning. Oregon Chapter of the American Planning Association, Portland, ORGoogle Scholar
  50. Peck S (1998) Planning for biodiversity: issues and examples. Island Press, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  51. Perlman DL, Adelson G (1997) Biodiversity: exploring values and priorities in conservation. Blackwell Science, Malden, MAGoogle Scholar
  52. Pima County, Arizona, Administrators Office. Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan. 2006. 2006Google Scholar
  53. Pollock J (2000) Enjoying Chicago Wilderness with your family: an activity guide. Chicago Wilderness Magazine, Inc., ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  54. Reaka-Kudla ML, Wilson DE, Wilson EO (1997) Biodiversity II: understanding and protecting our biological resources. Joseph Henry Press, Washington D.C. 0-309-05584-9Google Scholar
  55. Rogner JD (2003) Fertile ground. Chicago Wilderness Journal 1:2–5Google Scholar
  56. Rolfe A (2001) Understanding the political realities of regional conservation plans. Fremontia 29:13–18Google Scholar
  57. Schwartz MW (2006) How conservation scientists can help develop social capital for biodiversity. Conserv Biol 20:1550–1552PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Selin S, Chavez D (1995) Developing a collaborative model for environmental planning and management. Environ Manage 19:189–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (1996) Wildland Resources Center Report No. 39, Davis, California: Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, University of California, DavisGoogle Scholar
  60. Society for Conservation Biology (1999) Recovery Key, Final VersionGoogle Scholar
  61. Stein B, Kutner LS, Adams JS (2000) Precious heritage: the status of biodiversity in the United States. Oxford University Press, New York 0-19-512519-3Google Scholar
  62. Stewart P (2003) Natural partners: Chicago Wilderness and asset based community development. Chicago Wilderness Journal 1:6–11Google Scholar
  63. Stone D (1988) Policy paradox. W.W. Notron and Company, Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  64. Sullivan J (n.d.) Atlas of biodiversity. Chicago Wilderness Consortium, Chicago, IL. http://www.chicagowilderness.org/pubprod/atlas/index.cfm
  65. Takacs D (1996) The idea of biodiversity: philosophies of paradise. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MDGoogle Scholar
  66. Theobald DM, Hobbs NT, Bearly T, Zack JA, Shenk T, Riebsame WE (2000) Incorporating biological information in local land-use decision-making: designing a system for conservation planning. Landsc Ecol 15:35–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Trigg R (2007) Expanding horizons. Chicago Wilderness Magazine. WinterGoogle Scholar
  68. Wang Y, Moskovits DK (2001) tracking fragmentation of natural communities and changes in land cover: applications of landstat data for conservation in an urban landscape (Chicago Wilderness). Conserv Biol 15:835–843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wilson EO (1988) Biodiversity. National Academy Press, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  70. Yaffe SL, Wondolleck JM (2000) Making collaboration work: lessons from a comprehensive assessment of over 200 wide ranging cases of collaboration in environmental management. Conserv Pract 1:17–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Auburn UniversityAuburnUSA

Personalised recommendations