The Forest Setting

Forests presently cover approximately 25 percent of the world’s land surface, excluding Greenland and Antarctica. Two-thirds of this important renewable natural resource lies in North America, South America, Europe and Russia. In the early 1990s, industrial wood products from North America and Europe alone contributed a robust 2 percent of Global Domestic Product (GDP), and wood-based fuels remain the primary sources of energy for many countries.

The United States is particularly blessed with forests. About one-third of its total land area (730 million acres) is woodland. The proportion rises to nearly two-thirds east of the Mississippi River. Contrary to prevailing public opinion, two out of every three acres of U.S. forest is in private, not governmental, hands. Some 9 million nonindustrial private woodland owners control the future of these forests, a number that is rising steadily as land changes hands and is fragmented into smaller and smaller parcels.

In New England, these trends are even more pronounced. Of the region’s 32 million acres of land base, approximately 80 percent (24 million acres) is now in forest, and 96 percent of this forest is controlled privately. In 1993, by Forest Service estimates, 737,000 owners held forested land in the six-state region, and two-thirds of these tracts were less than 10 acres in size. Newer landowners are frequently urban emigrants, more tied to technology and human-designed infrastructure than to the land. However, they tend to have a nascent interest in the natural world and the potential to become both skillful resource stewards and passionate advocates for the environment.

The Evolution of ENFOR

In the spring of 1999, the idea of distance learning courses, accessible on home computers and targeted to the nonindustrial private sector in New England, seemed a promising way to tap the potential of these landowners. The New England Governors Conference, the U.S. Forest Service and the Lincoln Institute agreed to jointly sponsor a study that might point the way to developing such a course for the Institute’s distance learning program, Lincoln Education Online (LEO). A distinguished group of New England forestry and education leaders was recruited to serve as advisors. The organizational meeting of what came to be called ENFOR (ENvironmental FORestry) occurred in December 1999. Seven additional meetings were held subsequently over an eighteen-month period, including a regionwide Colloquium on Distance Learning and the Forest Environment held at the New England Center in Durham, New Hampshire, and attended by some forty selected New England forestry officials, educators and landowners. Specific ENFOR work products have included the following reports:

• Gail Michaels of the U.S. Forest Service prepared a summary paper, Characteristics of New England Forest Landowners and Implications for Computer-based Learning, which found that at least 40 percent of New England households are already computer-equipped, and the proportion is rising rapidly.
• An inventory of 66 existing distance learning resources relating to forestry, Distance Learning for the Forestry Environment, prepared by the Quebec-Labrador Foundation, found that none of the sites, of which 31 offered either online courses for credit or courses with online components, appeared to fulfill ENFOR’s objectives in their entirety.
• A one-page questionnaire was developed and sent to 5,000 known forest landowners to evaluate the market for distance learning. An astonishing 10 percent of the owners responded, requesting further information on how to improve their forest, how to protect it for the future, and how to find programs and services. Since about 90 percent of respondents indicated they had already done some work on their land, it seemed likely that any information provided through home-computer-based means would be put to work promptly on individual woodlots throughout New England.

A Woodland Walk

Encouraged by these explorations and consultations, ENFOR commissioned Brian Donahue, an environmental historian at Brandeis University, to prepare a 30-minute pilot course built around a computerized walk through a typical New England forest. In this course, a New England landowner is first introduced to the place of his woodland in the world, the region, the state, the county and the community, using supportive maps of cultural features, land use and protected areas in a sample town. An attractive “woodswalker” icon helps the user navigate. “Poison ivy” and “chestnut” symbols highlight points of particular concern and promise. The walk emphasizes the role of forests as ecological systems, as sources of products and values, and as places where interconnectedness and thoughtful stewardship are needed. Once the virtual walk is completed, the owner is encouraged to take a walk through his or her own woods, perhaps seeing for the first time its attributes and potential.

Following a successful test of the pilot course in Middlesex County, Massachusetts, it is now being adapted for use in other parts of the region, and by the end of 2001 should be available throughout Rhode Island. The Lincoln Institute has asked Donahue to expand his introductory material to include five additional topics for future versions of the course. The Institute has also encouraged Charles Thompson of the New England Forestry Foundation to produce an interconnected, electronic version of his popular book, Working with Your Woodland, to serve as a second-level course for those wishing to apply more active forest management practices to their properties.

Regional Course Development Center

Stimulated by the ENFOR inquiry, Vermont extension forester Thom J. McEvoy has proposed the development of a $4.9 million curriculum and course development center at the University of Vermont, capable of serving the needs of the entire New England region. The proposal is now pending before national funding sources. McEvoy envisions courses and services that are easy to use, amenable to either broadband or conventional Internet access, coupled with streaming audio and video, and capable of archiving information specific to a particular woodland site in an individualized “portfolio.” The center’s courses would range broadly from conventional biological, ecological and economic topics to practical information on how to plan, manage and secure small forests. In keeping with the broad view of the forest as both a physical and cultural environment, the curriculum will include course offerings in such areas as history, literature, folklore, art and even music.

ENFOR Findings and Recommendations

At their final meeting in July 2001, the ENFOR advisors urged the formation of a successor forest education council to encourage the use of distance learning materials in practice and to coordinate their delivery to landowners through cooperating organizations and agencies. Charles Thompson agreed to organize and chair such a council. The advisors also reached several conclusions based upon the results of the ENFOR inquiry.

• New England is an established and recognized region, well-suited both environmentally and technologically for the use of distance learning techniques.
• Its forest resource, extensive both in acreage and the proportion held in private ownership, represents a unique facet of the environment on which to focus such approaches.
• Since New Englanders have a curious mix of concern for the well-being of the forest coupled with a pragmatic willingness to have its products and uses remain available for humankind, any distance learning program must deal with the forest as a total environment, recognizing the full range of its social, ecological, economic, aesthetic, and recreational uses and values.
• To be effective, forestry distance learning programs must be tailored to the individual, be sensitive to local conditions and concerns, be arrayed as a set of voluntary options, and be delivered to the extent possible through existing organizations and agencies.
• The advisors expressed their appreciation of the seeming willingness of diverse public and private institutions to work together collaboratively, as evidenced by the ENFOR project.

Distance learning seems to offer the distinct promise of helping landowners in urbanizing regions serve as more active forest managers and conservers and, collectively, become a new army of forest-wise citizens committed to ensuring the future of New England’s important forest heritage. In pursuing this goal, New England may once again be on the threshold of serving as a leader for the nation as a whole.

Charles H. W. Foster is an adjunct research fellow and lecturer at the Center for Science and International Affairs of Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. He was formerly dean of the Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies and secretary of environmental affairs for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

References

Foster, Charles, editor. 1984. Experiments in Bioregionalism. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.

1998. Stepping Back to Look Forward: A History of the Massachusetts Forest. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Michaels, Gail. 2000. Characteristics of New England Forest Landowners and Implications for Computer-based Learning. (March). Durham, NH: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Area, State and Private Forestry Division.

Quebec-Labrador Foundation. 2000. Distance Learning for the Forestry Environment. (March) Ipswich, MA: Quebec-Labrador Foundation.

Thompson, Charles. 1996. Working with Your Woodland. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.

Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 5 del libro Perspectivas urbanas; Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.

Las complejas presiones económicas, geográficas y demográficas sobre los patrones del uso de la tierra hacen que el manejo del crecimiento urbano constituya un verdadero desafío en el mundo entero. Esto resulta especialmente evidente en las ciudades en rápido desarrollo de Latinoamérica, las cuales están creciendo más allá de sus límites y necesitan trabajar en colaboración con los poblados que las rodean dentro de un clima político que generalmente no es propicio al gobierno metropolitano.

Los investigadores urbanos del Centro de Estudios de Desarrollo Económico (CEDE) de la Universidad de los Andes han estado estudiando los cambiantes usos de la tierra en el área metropolitana de Bogotá a fin de documentar las tendencias actuales y desarrollar un plan regional. En octubre, en una conferencia patrocinada por el Instituto Lincoln, participantes de diversas ciudades — São Paulo, Madrid, Buenos Aires, Ciudad de México, Medellín, Cali y otras — compararon sus experiencias más recientes en programas de desarrollo y planificación regional. Esta información servirá para ayudar a los empleados oficiales en Bogotá a comprender mejor los problemas existentes en el uso de la tierra y las oportunidades para empezar a definir políticas y estrategias de gobierno a fin de controlar el desarrollo irregular.

Factores que Definen el Uso de la Tierra

Bogotá está situada en una meseta (sabana) rodeada de montañas. La sabana se encuentra generalmente dividida por el Río Bogotá, con la ciudad de Bogotá en la orilla oriental y dieciocho municipalidades pequeñas al oeste. Esta región geográfica bien definida alberga a más de seis millones de personas, más del 90% de las cuales se encuentran altamente concentradas en Bogotá y sólo el 5% residen en las poblaciones de los alrededores. Los empleos comerciales, industriales y de servicios están altamente concentrados en la ciudad, mientras que granjas floricultoras constituyen la actividad económica más importante de la meseta.

Bogotá está densamente desarrollada, con sólo unas pocas áreas extensas sin desarrollar dentro de sus límites y una tendencia hacia el aumento de la densidad durante los últimos 50 años. El patrón del uso de la tierra es monocéntrico: el centro urbano comercial y de oficinas, actualmente en expansión hacia el norte, contiene más del 42% del empleo de la ciudad. Hay algunos centros comerciales menores en secciones más alejadas del norte y el oeste de la ciudad, y una cantidad cada vez mayor de tierra se está utilizando para desarrollos de baja densidad en las municipalidades externas.

Durante la conferencia, un tema común fue el impacto de la globalización en la estructura espacial local. Un síntoma es la aparición de compañías y organizaciones que buscan una localización independiente más que una integración dentro de la trama económica establecida del área metropolitana. La nueva tecnología de las comunicaciones ha hecho que la proximidad física sea menos necesaria que en el pasado, reforzando otras tendencias socioeconómicas hacia la descentralización.

El valor agrícola de la sabana de Bogotá ha jugado un papel importante en el control de la descentralización, y notablemente todavía hay poco tráfico entre la sabana y la ciudad. Sin embargo, los participantes en la conferencia se mostraron ambivalentes acerca de si esto es bueno o malo. Por una parte, esta condición aísla las poblaciones externas del valle de las ventajas de la urbanización; pero por otra, limita el crecimiento urbano incontrolado y protege a las tierras agrícolas.

El temor de una urbanización incontrolada de la sabana, a lo largo de las vías arbitrarias de numerosas autopistas que irradian de la ciudad, plantea como pregunta si sería mejor la orientación de una descentralización planificada y sistemática hacia los poblados existentes que una expansión limitada pero no planificada. No hay respuesta simple para la ambivalencia inherente al proceso de guiar el crecimiento urbano hacia los campos agrícolas.

Patrones de Desarrollo

El desarrollo residencial en Bogotá se encuentra altamente segregado en base al ingreso, y los destrabados mecanismos del mercado refuerzan esta dinámica social. Los grupos de menores ingresos están concentrados en las secciones del sur y el oeste de la ciudad, en tanto que los grupos de mayores ingresos tienden a vivir en un enclave al norte del centro de la ciudad, dejando el sector central para la población de medianos y bajos ingresos.

Este patrón segregado de crecimiento se refleja también en las tendencias de crecimiento regional. Mientras que el desarrollo suburbano ha sido relativamente limitado durante la última década, los grupos de mayores ingresos se están desplazando hacia el norte, a la sabana. Muchos de estos proyectos habitacionales de baja densidad de estilo norteamericano son comunidades de acceso controlado en antiguos poblados como Cota, Chia, Cajica y Sopo.

Soacha, al sur de Bogotá, ha experimentado un alto crecimiento de viviendas de bajos ingresos construidas informalmente, y otros proyectos de viviendas de bajos y medianos ingresos también se están produciendo dentro de los límites de las municipalidades occidentales. Estas fuerzas del mercado residencial, a su vez, están desplazando los asentamientos más pobres hacia los bordes del área metropolitana e incluso más allá, hacia las áreas más pobres de las colinas, que no reciben servicios de infraestructura urbana y tampoco pueden ser provistas en forma particular.

El cambio más dramático en la estructura espacial de Bogotá ha sido el traslado gradual, pero definido, del centro comercial urbano hacia los asentamientos de altos ingresos del norte de la ciudad. Otras actividades que requieren áreas extensas de terreno, tales como escuelas, instalaciones recreativas y cementerios, están orientadas hacia los grupos de altos ingresos de dicho sector. Esta tendencia puede verse en las grandes ciudades a través de toda Latinoamérica. Por lo general, comenzando como centros comerciales regionales u otros tipos de funciones de alto ingreso típicas del área central, los proyectos comerciales tienden a agruparse con los proyectos residenciales para el sector de altos ingresos y las inversiones en infraestructura.

Los nuevos desarrollos industriales reflejan una lógica distinta. Están apareciendo cerca del centro de Bogotá y a lo largo del corredor occidental a través de Madrid que conecta con las autopistas más importantes hacia la costa y otras regiones del país. También hay una zona industrial en expansión alrededor de una importante intersección vial cerca de la ciudad norteña de Zipaquirá.

Retos al Desarrollo Planificado

A medida que los participantes en la conferencia discutieron instrumentos potenciales para la implementación de políticas del uso de la tierra en Bogotá, la utilización de límites al crecimiento urbano fue planteada con frecuencia como una posible solución. Sin embargo, muchos de los conferencistas expresaron sus dudas acerca de la efectividad de este mecanismo o de cualquier otro instrumento tradicional de planificación del uso de la tierra, ya que los límites geográficos tendrían que ser mantenidos y controlados por cada municipio individual a través de la región.

Colombia tiene una fuerte política de descentralización gubernamental que promueve la autonomía municipal, incluso en las pequeñas poblaciones con poca capacidad técnica o política para enfrentar grandes proyectos de desarrollo. Cada poblado toma sus propias decisiones en materias de uso de la tierra y desarrollo económico, en base a las necesidades inmediatas y las fuerzas prevalecientes del mercado. Como resultado, no existe una tradición de coordinación de políticas entre Bogotá y otras municipalidades con respecto a la localización más apropiada de nuevas áreas residenciales o industriales dentro de la región.

Los conferencistas de Cali, Medellín y Buenos Aires discutieron los planes de sus respectivas ciudades para guiar el crecimiento a través de la creación de subcentros agrupados y descentralizados. Este enfoque ha sido ampliamente debatido y utilizado en ejercicios académicos de planificación, pero todavía existen dudas acerca de su operación dentro del contexto físico y regulatorio actual. Algunos expositores afirmaron que el desarrollo de subcentros podría realizarse a través de iniciativas del sector público con los promotores privados reembolsando el costo de la infraestructura, lo cual haría que el proceso se autofinanciase.

La cooperación pública y privada en sectores tales como el transporte por carreteras también ha recibido considerable atención en muchas ciudades. Sin embargo, convencer a los promotores privados a que respondan a los objetivos públicos de ubicación y desarrollo de infraestructura constituye otro obstáculo para la planificación en general.

Así, Bogotá, como muchas otras ciudades, se ve afectada por tendencias conflictivas tales como la autosegregación de los grupos de altos ingresos en comunidades de acceso controlado, la necesidad de los grupos de bajos ingresos de tierra dotada de servicios, las presiones del mercado sobre el uso de las tierras urbanas y agrícolas, y la autonomía municipal, todas las cuales crean corrientes perniciosas y contradictorias, tanto como opciones de política ambivalentes. El gobierno estatal, la agencia ambiental (CAR), el municipio de Bogotá y los otros municipios deben trabajar conjuntamente hacia el logro de un consenso regional en un amplio rango de servicios, incluyendo el transporte, el agua, las cloacas, y las instalaciones recreativas y educativas. Se necesita una mezcla de enfoques creativos y flexibles para lograr un desarrollo sustentable y equitativo.

Carolina Barco de Botero ha sido nombrada recientemente directora de planificación de Bogotá. También es gerente consultora de Ciudades, Ltda. en Bogotá, y miembro de la Directiva del Instituto Lincoln. Ha sido la directora del proyecto para el Estudio Regional de la Sabana de Bogotá de la Universidad de los Andes. Ralph Gackenheimer, profesor de planificación y estudios urbanos en el Instituto de Tecnología de Massachusetts (MIT), participó en el estudio y la conferencia.

Access to urban land by the popular sectors in metropolitan Lima has a troubled history resulting from the combination of spontaneous, unregulated land occupation and short-sighted policies to regularize land tenancy. Policies that were designed to resolve or mitigate irregular occupations have instead exacerbated the problem.

A workshop on “Local Governments and the Management of Urban Land: Peru and Latin America” in Lima in February brought together municipal officials, Latin American experts and community leaders to address the question, “Does the current regulatory framework guarantee the orderly and fair growth of Lima and other Peruvian cities?” The program was organized by the Lincoln Institute; the Institute of Urban Development CENCA, a community-based nongovernmental organization; the Local Governments Association of Peru; and Red Suelo, the land policy network of the Habitat International Coalition.

Regularization Policies

Land regularization is generally understood as the process of public intervention in illegally occupied zones to provide urban infrastructure improvements and to recognize ownership titles or other occupancy rights. Regularization policies are needed in many developing countries to reverse irregular and sometimes illegal development patterns, such as when land is occupied and housing is built before infrastructure improvements and legal documentation are put in place.

Since 1961, the central government of Peru has supported tolerant policies that have permitted the poor to occupy vacant public land, which was seen as a natural “land bank” resource. Most of this land consisted of sandy, almost desert terrain surrounding Lima which had little commercial value and was considered unsuitable for other market uses. Some 34 percent of Lima’s population lived in irregular “barriadas” or new towns in 1993.

In the absence of policies to effectively provide for organized and legal access to land, the permissiveness that allowed irregular development of these outlying areas has led to a crisis that now dominates the urban land policy agenda (see Figure 1). Many officials and other observers acknowledge that the system itself encourages and permits informal and unregulated growth, and that some of the policies designed to regularize land have actually created more irregularities.

Urban Land Management Problems

Management of urban land policies in Peru is presently being reevaluated because of tensions between central and local government control. Between 1981 and 1995, the municipalities managed land regularization procedures, authorizations and related policies. In 1996 the Peruvian government centralized the administration of economic resources relating to habitation and urban development, thereby denying local governments the ability to manage regularization problems. This political, administrative and fiscal centralization has created serious inefficiencies, however, since local government agencies must nevertheless respond to daily demands from the population regarding land and housing concerns.

Tensions also exist because of contradictions between the legal framework of formal regulations as promulgated by public officials and the informal market transactions that occur in the “real world” on a day-to-day basis. The mismatch between these formal and informal norms is reflected in the lack of understanding and distrust between the political authorities who determine land market policies and the urban practitioners and private agents who operate outside the formal policy framework.

In spite of attempts by commercial and nongovernmental organizations to improve the coordination and implementation of land policies that affect formal and informal market mechanisms, the political leaders still make the final decision. This situation exacerbates the politicization of public management (i.e., politics for politicians and not for the community). At the same time, it encourages a short-term perspective, since a governing authority is generally more interested in the immediate work to be accomplished than in a reliable follow-up of development plans requiring longer-term execution. As a result, Lima’s serious growth problems are not being adequately addressed by the current political, legal and regulatory framework.

Common Concerns

An important result of this workshop in Peru was the sharing of experiences from other Latin American and Asian cities where local governments can use public resources to promote more orderly cities. Even though the problems regarding land management are wide-ranging and complex, some common concerns emerged for discussion in future programs:

development of public policies and community-level initiatives to capture the value of “intermediate” land that is in the process of being developed and is often the most vulnerable to speculation;

municipal housing programs that use existing legal frameworks to encourage an orderly occupation of space. Specifically, there is a need to promote coordination among various public and private agents, as well as mechanisms to support financial credit for low-income people, housing construction, basic utility services and neighborhood participation strategies.

land regularization policies and a comprehensive articulation of land access policies to break the vicious cycle of irregularities that is causing the current urban growth and management problems.

better understanding of the dynamics of both formal and informal land markets, especially on the part of those who are charged with developing and implementing appropriate policies to address complex land market activities.

Some Definitions

Illegal – land occupation that expressly contradicts existing norms, civil codes and public authorization

Informal – economic activity that does not adhere to and is not protected by institutional rules, as opposed to formal activity that operates within established procedures

Irregular – subdivisions that are officially approved but are not executed in accordance with the law

Clandestine – subdivisions that are established without any official recognition

Figure 1: Regularization Policies on Land Tenancy in Lima

February 1961-1980: Law 13517 was established to make various central government agencies responsible for regularizing land tenancy procedures, but only 20,000 titles were issued.

1981-1995: The titling function was transferred to the Municipality of Lima and the delivery of land titles increased to some 200,000. In the 1990s the delivery capacity gradually decreased until it generated a land market crisis.

April 1996: The State Commission to Formalize Informal Property (COFROPI) was given responsibilities that were formerly assigned to the municipality.

Following a presidential promise to incorporate the poor into the land market process, some 170,000 property titles were delivered between July 1996 and July 1997. An additional 300,000 titles are expected to be delivered by the year 2000. However, COFROPI states that 90 percent or 180,000 of the titles delivered prior to 1995 have recordkeeping problems, so that many of the 170,000 titles delivered since July 1996 may be redundant. Hence, it is difficult to reconstruct how many titles were properly delivered under each administration.

Julio Calderon, an urban researcher and consultant on social development programs, is affiliated with Red Suelo, the land policy network of the Habitat International Coalition.

Most countries in Latin America today have become more urban than rural, and they are trying to develop their economies as integral parts of the global marketplace. This process introduces profound cultural and spatial changes, such as increased segregation and conflicts over the use of urban land.

There is a recognized need to strengthen citizen consciousness regarding the liberalization of markets and the withdrawal of state involvement in economic and planning schemes. This changing role of the state from “provider” to “enabler” creates a gap in addressing urban social needs. Participants suggested three approaches to simultaneously improve urban land management and provide for social equity.

First, basic tools to establish and support urban information systems. These include a monitoring mechanism capable of identifying agent and transaction data, including land prices; knowledge of the ‘life cycles’ of urban zones; and utilization of forecasting models capable of establishing the relationships of the local and national economies to the real estate market.

Second, urban policies to balance existing, often inconsistent, market mechanisms. For example, it is difficult to liberalize markets and at the same time impose limits on urban expansion, while trying to provide adequate land supplies to meet the needs of the working poor.

Third, recognition and support of positive actions by community groups and nongovernmental organizations to break patterns of class segregation, as well as efforts by municipalities to utilize instruments such as territorial reserves, progressive financing mechanisms, and improvements in administrative and fiscal procedures.

A major territorial planning problem in Latin America is locating the “edge” of the city, especially when land tenure and occupation respond on the basis of social need rather than legal procedure. Among the forms of urban property outside the rules of commercial law, the most important is corporately held land (ejido), which in Mexico occupies more than 50 percent of the national territory and forms part of all major metropolitan areas. The ejido impedes the natural growth of the real estate market and allows for the expansion of uncontrolled secondary (informal) markets.

To address these and related issues, leading academics and practitioners from the region met in Mexico in April to share their insights into the processes that influence urban territorial order and the instruments available and needed for effective public intervention to achieve social equity and territorial planning objectives. While the seminar participants remain uneasy about the long-term impacts of globalization on Latin America, they agreed that the arena for action, in the next few years at least, will be at the local rather than the national level.

Luis Fernando Alvarez is senior researcher at the Center for Metropolitan Studies, College of Architecture, Art and Design, University of Guadalajara, Mexico.

William J. Siembieda is professor of planning, School of Architecture and Planning, University of New Mexico. The seminar on urban land and territorial reserve issues was cosponsored by the Lincoln Institute and the Center for Metropolitan Studies at the University of Guadalajara.

In their new book, Land Use in America, copublished by the Lincoln Institute and Island Press, Henry L. Diamond and Patrick F. Noonan propose a 10-point agenda to help America’s communities accommodate future growth in more environmentally sound and fiscally responsible ways.

Diamond is a partner in the law firm of Beveridge & Diamond in Washington, D.C., and Noonan is founder and chairman of The Conservation Fund in Arlington, Virginia. Together they founded the Sustainable Use of Land Project, from which the book is derived. Their research examined land use practices and trends over the past two decades. They report that while substantial gains have been made in many environmental areas, such as air and water quality, land use remains a highly emotional and complex topic.

The first part of the book presents Diamond and Noonan’s synthesis of the issues, numerous case studies and their agenda for community action. The second part includes the following papers contributed by leading figures in government, business, academia and the nongovernmental arena:

“Growth Management Plans”

Howard Dean, Governor of Vermont

“Ecosystem Management: An Organizing Principle for Land Use” Douglas P. Wheeler, Secretary, California Resources Agency

“Transportation: A Key Element in Sustainable Communities” James Lighthizer, Former Secretary, Maryland Department of Transportation

“Across the Barricades” William K. Reilly, Former Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

“Metropolitan Development Trends of the Late 1990s: Social and Environmental Implications” Christopher B. Leinberger, Managing Partner, Robert Charles Lesser & Company

“Our Critical Forest Resources” John A. Georges, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, International Paper Company

“Land Use Planning: A Farmer’s Perspective” Kenneth Buelt, Past President, Washington County Farm Bureau

“Patience, Problem Solving and Private Initiative: Local Groups Chart a New Course for Land Conservation” Jean W. Hocker, President/Executive Director, Land Trust Alliance

“Sustainability and Social Justice: The Changing Face of Land Use and Environmentalism” Charles Jordan, Director, Bureau of Parks and Recreation, Portland, Oregon

“Science and the Sustainable Use of Land” Norman L. Christensen, Jr., Dean, School of the Environment, Duke University

“Private Property Rights, Government Regulation and the Constitution: Searching for Balance” Jerold S. Kayden, Professor, Graduate School of Design, Harvard University

“An Economic Perspective on the Sustainable Use of Land” John A. Baden, Chairman, Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment

Conference to Explore the Sustainable Use of Land

In conjunction with publication of this book, the Lincoln Institute is presenting a conference on June 12 in Washington, D.C. Participants will discuss varied perspectives on the important political and jurisdictional issues raised by the authors and contributors. Some of these questions may be addressed:

How might the 10 agenda recommendations be implemented in the current climate of popular reaction against federal and state government regulation of local policymaking?

What is the political feasibility of developing broad-based and long-term land use plans, especially in pro-property rights states in the South and West?

Given the likelihood of decreased federal financial support, how can states and localities be encouraged to take the initiative in future land use planning?

How can private landowners and corporate entities with large holdings be motivated to engage in regional conservation plans and provide environmentally sensitive stewardship in the face of economic pressures for development of their land?

A Land Use Agenda for 21st Century America

Item 1.

Local governments must take the lead role in securing good land use. Initiatives in land use planning and growth management need to be anchored in a community-based process that develops a vision for the future.

Item 2.

State governments must help local governments by establishing reasonable ground rules and planning requirements, assisting small and rural areas, and providing leadership on matters that affect more than one local jurisdiction.

Item 3.

The rules governing land development need to be overhauled. They need to be more efficient and more flexible, encouraging–not hindering–new approaches to land development and conservation.

Item 4.

Landowners must be treated fairly and oppressive regulations fixed. But making government pay in order to apply environmental safeguards for the common good is a bad idea.

Item 5.

Many government policies and actions–agricultural, highway, and environmental programs–impact land use. If they are not better coordinated, they will continue to result in land use policy by accident.

Item 6.

In selective situations, public land acquisition is needed, and a reliable source of funds must be available to pay for it.

Item 7.

Older areas in cities and suburbs must become a focus for renewal. Government policies should help fill in vacant land in already built-up areas and renew older properties rather than promote unplanned expansion at the urban fringe.

Item 8. As most land is privately held, private landowners must be galvanized to assure a healthy land base. Corporate and individual stewardship must be encouraged by providing education, tax incentives and other benefits.

Item 9. A constituency for better land use is needed based on new partnerships that reach beyond traditional alliances to bring together conservationists, social justice advocates and economic development interests. These partnerships can be mobilized around natural and cultural resources that people value.

Item 10. New tools are required to meet the new challenges of land use. Land use disputes should be solved through negotiation or mediation rather than through confrontation and litigation. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and other advances in technology also offer new opportunities for improving land use decision making.

Gerrit-Jan Knaap is an economist, professor of urban studies and planning, and executive director of the National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education at the University of Maryland, in College Park. His research interests include the economics and politics of land use planning, the efficacy of economic development instruments, and the impacts of environmental policy. His research in Oregon, Maryland and elsewhere has made him a recognized expert on land use policy and planning. He is the coauthor or editor of several books, including two published by the Lincoln Institute: The Regulated Landscape: Lessons on State Land Use Planning from Oregon (1992); and Land Market Monitoring for Smart Urban Growth (2001).

Land Lines: As director of the National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education, what land policy issues are you addressing now?

Gerrit-Jan Knaap: This Center has been in existence for only three years, but this year it is finally getting established and recognized. In the past year we have been able to pull together a core group of national and international researchers who are now working in three key areas: land use and environment; transportation and public health; and international urban development. The Center is also recruiting a faculty researcher to concentrate on housing and community development.

LL: What are the Center’s most difficult challenges?

GK: Ironically, the Center’s name is a problem. While the phrase “smart growth” is helpful shorthand for describing an approach to land use planning and management, some people identify the term with liberal causes or with former Maryland Governor Parris Glendening or the Clinton-Gore administration. As a result, the phrase has been politicized in a way that causes confusion and polarized reactions. The Center does not support or oppose smart growth; it is just an adjective modifying what we do: research and education.

We have found, however, that it is more difficult to obtain funding for objective research on growth management and planning issues than it is to obtain funding for activities that advocate either for or against smart growth. The Lincoln Institute’s willingness to fund independent, objective, high-quality research in this field fills an important niche.

LL: What are some of the Center’s most significant projects?

GK: We are doing a lot of work to develop quantitative measures of urban form. We are not alone in this enterprise, but we think we’re still a step ahead of other research centers in applying such measures to policy issues. Reid Ewing, a nationally recognized expert on growth management, community development and traffic management, recently joined the staff. He and others, for example, have developed a sprawl index that they use to explore the relationship between sprawl and obesity, which is part of our public health focus.

Yan Song, a former post-doctoral fellow in the Center and now an assistant professor at the University of North Carolina, developed quantitative measures of urban form and used them to explore whether Portland, Oregon, was winning the battle against urban sprawl. She also used them to determine whether characteristics like street network connectivity, residential density, land use mix and pedestrian accessibility to commercial uses were capitalized into property values. Most recently, she has used the measures to classify neighborhoods into clusters with similar design characteristics as a means of classifying the types of neighborhood that are currently being built.

Another major focus of our work is land policy and growth management in the People’s Republic of China. As a result of recent economic growth and reforms, China’s 1.3 billion people are urbanizing at an astonishing rate, creating an unprecedented growth management challenge. The Chinese are struggling to find a way to accommodate urban growth and, at the same time, preserve their ability to feed their people. Though we certainly do not have all the answers, Chinese scholars and public officials are interested in learning from our experiences in confronting and balancing these challenges. Chengri Ding, another member of the Center’s faculty, is leading this work with support from the Lincoln Institute. He and Yan Song are editing a book on the evolution of land and housing markets in China that will be published by the Institute later this year.

Our third major focus area is land market monitoring, which grew out of my work in Oregon. Land market monitoring is based on the idea that urban growth management is partly an inventory problem: too much land can lead to urban sprawl, but too little land may create land and housing price inflation. Maintaining balance requires accurate and timely information about land supplies, development capacity, land and housing prices, natural resource constraints and urban development demands. We have conducted several workshops around the country on land market monitoring, and now we are working with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Lincoln Institute to establish a national demonstration project.

LL: How did you develop this concept of land market monitoring?

GK: It started with my dissertation work on the price effects of the urban growth boundary (UGB) in Portland, Oregon. Later, at the University of Illinois, Lew Hopkins and I worked on a project we called, “Does Planning Matter?” We sought to develop planning support systems that not only helped to improve land use decision making, but also helped identify the effects of land use plans and regulations on urban development patterns (Ding, Hopkins and Knaap 1997). Building on this work, I organized a conference at the Lincoln Institute in Cambridge in 2000 and invited a group of leading scholars to present papers on this issue. These papers were published by the Institute in the book Land Market Monitoring for Smart Urban Growth, which was recently translated into Chinese. The idea of measuring development capacity and the need for housing is actually as old as planning itself, but recent advances in GIS technology and digital data bases makes it possible to monitor development capacity on a nearly continuous basis.

LL: How are these ideas being used by planners in the U.S.?

GK: Well, to a large extent, they are not. Typical planning practice in the U.S. still involves the formulation of a comprehensive plan—usually for a 10- to 20-year period—then implementing the plan, and then, after 5 to 10 years, formulating a new plan. With a land market monitoring system it is possible to shorten this cycle considerably. In the extreme, it is conceptually possible to monitor development capacity and urban development trends on a continuous basis and make adjustments as needed. Most planners, however, are not trained to think about growth management issues in this way.

LL: What are the obstacles to using land market monitoring in different locales?

GK: The major obstacles are: (1) the lack of quality data; (2) the lack of intergovernmental cooperation; and (3) the lack of political will to place this issue high on the agenda. The primary problem is not money. To do land market monitoring correctly requires a certain level of resource commitment, but since virtually every local government is developing GIS data and has the necessary technical capacity, it is not difficult to develop an operational monitoring system.

There are some positive examples, however. Monitoring of some kind has been required in Oregon for many years; for this reason, Metro, the regional government for the Portland metropolitan area, has developed an extensive monitoring system (Knaap, Bolen and Seltzer 2003). In its Growing Smart Guidebook, the American Planning Association recommends that any local government that adopts an urban growth boundary also should develop a land monitoring system. Most recently, Maryland Governor Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. signed an executive order that will initiate a pilot program of land market monitoring in five cities and five counties, and I will serve on the task force that oversees that demonstration project.

LL: What are your plans for the future?

GK: We have two demonstration projects under way. In the first, we are working with the Maryland Department of Planning to develop a series of indicators to assess the progress of the state’s Smart Growth program. These indicators will measure development capacity as well as housing starts and prices, acres of land protected from development, vehicle miles traveled, transit ridership and other trends that will help state officials and the public judge the effectiveness of smart growth policies.

Second, we have just completed phase one of a national demonstration project that was jointly funded by HUD, the Federal Highway Administration and the Lincoln Institute. We identified a generic protocol for conducting a development capacity analysis, applied this protocol to 15 counties in Maryland, and held workshops on monitoring in several metropolitan areas around the country. With Zorica Nedovic-Budic, we also conducted an assessment of the capacity of regional governments to use GIS for land use and transportation planning (see http://www.urban.uiuc.edu/faculty/budic/W-metroGIS.htm). We hope to begin the second phase of that project early in 2004 in five selected sites around the country. Phase two will focus first on residential development capacity, then on employment development capacity, then on how to tie together land use forecasting with transportation planning.

We’re also exploring the possibility of setting up a land market monitoring demonstration project in China, in conjunction with the Lincoln Institute’s new China program.

LL: So where does smart growth go next?

GK: What will happen to the expression “smart growth” is difficult to say. Governor Ehrlich has started calling his version of Maryland’s land use program “Priority Places,” but all of the newspapers still refer to his effort as smart growth. So, it remains to be seen whether the phrase becomes part of the national lexicon or fades like the Macarena. There is no doubt, however, that the issues associated with the term “smart growth” will not go away, in Maryland, around the country, or even overseas. We think this Center is now well-positioned to become an important and objective source of information and education on these issues well into the future.

References

Ding, Chengri, Lewis Hopkins and Gerrit Knaap. 1997. Does Planning Matter? Visual Examination of Urban Development Events. Land Lines 9(1): 4-5.

Knaap, Gerrit, Richard Bolen, and Ethan Seltzer. 2003. Metro’s Regional Land Information System: The Virtual Key to Portland’s Growth Management Success. Lincoln Institute Working Paper.

The Lincoln Institute has long been involved in international activities that deal with land policy and land taxation issues. In the 1970s those activities focused mainly on training and education. For example, Institute faculty have taught joint courses in land and tax policy issues with the International Center for Land Policy Studies and Training (formerly the Land Reform Training Institute) in Taiwan for nearly 30 years. Sponsorship of international congresses on land policy in the 1980s involved the Lincoln Institute in the dissemination of research and analysis by colleagues from both industrial and developing countries. This work heralded further international expansion in the 1990s involving both the Institute’s training programs and its support for research and analysis, particularly in developing countries.

Over the past ten years, the Institute has expanded its program of training and research in Latin America that deals with planning, property taxation, urban development, and land markets. Its program in China, begun in 2001, involves government officials, academics, and researchers with a focus on urban land markets, land taxation, and city expansion issues. The Institute has been active in many Eastern European countries, where it has been involved mainly in training on tax policy and administration. It also has contacts and modest levels of involvement in other countries, including Cuba and South Africa, which face particularly demanding or unique land and tax policy challenges.

The initial motivation for the Institute’s international work was to share its knowledge and expertise in land policy issues with others, as in transition economies seeking to establish land markets and property tax regimes. The Institute provided training in land market fundamentals and policy issues, and in the technical requirements of databases containing cadastral, ownership, and development information.

As the Institute expanded its activities abroad, academic and policy research on urban development and local public finance documented many commonalities across countries in the development patterns of large cities, in the behavior of households and firms, and in the tradeoffs households and firms face when making decisions about location, transport, space consumption, tenure choice, and local services. Predictions based on urban economic theory proved to be robust across both rich and poor countries.

The consequence of this commonality of problems and behavior is that the flow of knowledge is no longer in one direction. Solutions to problems in one city can help inform policy makers in other cities about new approaches that have worked elsewhere. For example, experience with new ways to use benefit charges to finance infrastructure, design exclusive bus lanes, structure new development, or reform housing in one country is of great interest to others. International experience also reinforces old lessons, such as the advantages of property taxation as a local revenue source or the impact of infrastructure on development.

In sum, the Institute’s international work has enriched its own knowledge and expertise as much as it has benefited those who have participated in our training and research programs.

Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 7 del CD-ROM Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.

Nuevas evidencias de Brasil indican que la regulación del uso del suelo y las normas de construcción pueden reforzar otros factores que contribuyen a la ocupación informal e irregular del suelo urbano. No es posible explicar del todo la magnitud y la persistencia de la informalidad en las ciudades de América Latina con los índices de pobreza (en descenso), la insuficiente inversión pública en vivienda social o en infraestructura urbana (en aumento), ni siquiera por la tolerancia del gobierno ante determinadas prácticas oportunistas de urbanizadores y pobladores (The Economist 2007). Si bien estos factores son sin duda importantes, el uso inadecuado del suelo y la regulación de la construcción también parecen jugar un papel en la persistencia del problema. Se puede aducir como corolario que un marco regulador alternativo puede ayudar a paliar la informalidad en los mercados del suelo urbano.

La relación entre informalidad y normas de vivienda excesivas no es nueva en la bibliografía (Turner 1972); y la relación económica entre la regulación del uso del suelo y la elasticidad de la oferta de vivienda fue propuesta por Ellickson (1977). La novedad es la aplicación del mismo marco utilizado para entender la dinámica del precio de la vivienda en los Estados Unidos a los países en desarrollo. Los pocos trabajos empíricos en economía que tratan de relacionar la regulación y el uso del suelo no han trazado de manera formal un modelo de la sustitución entre los mercados formales e informales. En consecuencia, no utilizaron las diferencias entre los dos mercados como sus variables principales.

El alcance del problema

La informalidad y la precariedad de la vivienda son grandes preocupaciones en los países en desarrollo. Según estimaciones de las Naciones Unidas, más de mil millones de personas viven en asentamientos informales, que representan un 32 por ciento de la población urbana de todo el mundo (UN Habitat 2006). En América Latina, el porcentaje de vivienda irregular medido por indicadores observables como el régimen de propiedad o la conexión con el sistema de alcantarillado está disminuyendo en algunos países, si bien en proporción desigual. Sin tener en cuenta la disputa continua sobre la forma correcta de medir la informalidad, en la mayoría de las ciudades de América Latina el problema sigue siendo de proporciones considerables, y es necesario comprender mejor su dinámica a fin de recomendar una política de vivienda razonable.

En la práctica, los indicadores conmensurables de informalidad que se basan en la ausencia de títulos de propiedad o el acceso a infraestructura y servicios son más fáciles de obtener que los basados en la falta de cumplimiento de la regulación del uso del suelo o las normas de construcción. La pobreza (en todas sus dimensiones) y la inversión pública insuficiente (en vivienda social, infraestructura y servicios) son las explicaciones más comunes de la persistencia de la informalidad. Pero también aumenta la percepción de que los mercados del suelo urbano en general y las normas y la regulación urbanística en particular son factores relevantes que contribuyen a ella.

El elevado costo de las transacciones en los mercados del suelo urbano se incrementa debido a la burocracia, la falta de información o su poca claridad, y las prácticas discriminatorias, así como por otras discordancias funcionales del mercado derivadas de la estructura de propiedad del suelo, las prácticas especulativas y de monopolio, y la regulación del uso del suelo y de la construcción, que dificultan el cumplimiento de las normas por parte de las familias con bajos ingresos. Estos factores aumentan la ineficacia del mercado y sostienen la informalidad.

En este artículo argumentamos que la regulación del uso del suelo y de la construcción administrada por los planificadores urbanos y por los funcionarios a nivel local puede contribuir efectivamente a la incidencia de la informalidad. Entre el 20 por ciento de municipios brasileños que redujeron la pobreza en mayor medida a lo largo de los últimos nueve años, un 23 por ciento también redujo drásticamente el número de viviendas sin título de propiedad, pero el 24 por ciento aumentó la informalidad en más de un 3,2 por ciento, el ritmo más rápido observado en todo el país (IBGE 1991; 2000). Tales diferencias de rendimiento del mercado de la vivienda en el segmento de bajos ingresos no puede explicarse únicamente por la incidencia de la pobreza, el ritmo de la urbanización y el crecimiento de la población u otros medidores a nivel macro.

Las ventajas e inconvenientes de la regulación urbana

La regulación urbana beneficia a las políticas de vivienda porque soluciona un problema de derechos de propiedad. Regular la distancia entre viviendas, por ejemplo, ayuda a proteger los derechos de privacidad de los demás. La regulación ayuda además a solucionar problemas de externalidad o efectos indirectos. Por ejemplo, no regular las anomalías de vivienda podría dar lugar a problemas de salud pública debido al aumento de humedad, la falta de luz o a problemas graves de seguridad. En este caso, la regulación elimina las efectos indirectos negativos y aumenta el bienestar general de los residentes.

La regulación puede tener también un efecto beneficioso al reducir el vacío de información en el mercado. Si no existen normas de construcción previamente definidas, los urbanizadores pueden aprovecharse de los compradores inexpertos y cobrarles en exceso por una vivienda que es insegura, o podrían venderles un terreno en una nueva urbanización que no proporciona servicios adecuados, como ocurre con frecuencia.

No obstante, la regulación también tiene aspectos potencialmente negativos. Una consecuencia es el inconveniente de procedimientos complicados que pueden conducir a la corrupción. Por ejemplo, no es poco frecuente que se tarde más de cuatro años en emitir una licencia de subdivisión. En su estudio clásico, Mayo y Angel (1993) asocian el complicado marco regulador de Malasia con funcionarios corruptos que intentan capturar rentas de la población a cambio de relajar las normas, agilizar la concesión de licencias o permitir excepciones al reglamento.

En segundo lugar, algunas regulaciones − como por ejemplo las ordenanzas de zonificación − pueden dar lugar a una segregación por ingresos en determinados vecindarios al establecer niveles mínimos que elevan los precios y disuaden efectivamente a las familias con ingresos más bajos de competir en el mercado formal. Los precios elevados de la vivienda pueden deberse a la gran demanda, pero también a la poca elasticidad de la oferta provocada por tales regulaciones y restricciones exclusivas. Malpezzi (1996) ha resaltado el aspecto de exclusión que tiene la regulación del uso del suelo en los Estados Unidos, que limita la integración de residentes con altos y bajos ingresos con la intención específica de evitar las subvenciones para las escuelas y otros servicios públicos locales.

Biderman (2008) ofrece evidencia sobre Brasil para apoyar el argumento propuesto de que las familias pobres a menudo eligen viviendas informales (sin título) por encima de las formales (con título) como respuesta a las regulaciones que exigen costos adicionales o “credenciales” para poder acceder al mercado formal y/o que reducen la flexibilidad del diseño en la construcción de viviendas. Este aspecto exclusivo de la regulación urbana es real en Brasil en cuanto a la infraestructura y los servicios públicos porque en cualquier caso rara vez se facilitan éstos en los asentamientos informales. De hecho, hasta 1988 la ley impedía oficialmente a los municipios facilitar servicios a los terrenos ocupados de forma irregular, aunque en la práctica algunos sí los facilitaron.

La economía política en la que se basan los aspectos de exclusión de la regulación tiene un precedente duradero en la historia de Brasil. El sistema Sesmarias de derechos de propiedad del suelo, instaurado por el rey Fernando I de Portugal en 1375, proporcionaba un régimen de propiedad mediante otorgamiento real (para la élite) o mediante una prueba de uso productivo del suelo (para quienes tenían medios de explotación del mismo). Los municipios de Brasil siguen aplicando las regulaciones urbanísticas en algunas partes de la ciudad, pero no en otras (Rolnik 1997). La retirada en lugar de la mejora de los asentamientos informales en los vecindarios del centro de la ciudad, con alto nivel de ingresos, es un caso oportuno. Este doble estándar permite alojar a los pobres en determinadas zonas sin invertir en infraestructura y provisión de servicios.

Otras razones de la presencia de regulaciones poco razonables en las ciudades de Brasil son la búsqueda de rentas por parte de los funcionarios que provoca la resistencia a la reforma reguladora, y la respuesta del regulador a la presión de los urbanizadores para mantener a las familias con bajos ingresos alejadas de ciertas zonas. Existen muchos ejemplos ilustrativos de esa corrupción y connivencia en Brasil en la bibliografía sobre planificación urbana.

Asimismo, los reguladores tienden a ignorar los efectos no intencionados de las ordenanzas sobre el uso del suelo y la construcción. No es poco frecuente que un municipio adopte simplemente las normas y las regulaciones urbanísticas de otro municipio con el fin de cumplir las órdenes federales sobre planes maestros, por poner un ejemplo. Esta práctica sólo aumenta la probabilidad de que se produzcan efectos negativos en el mercado de la vivienda porque permite que se perpetúen las políticas reguladores inadecuadas.

Un ejemplo del impacto de las regulaciones urbanísticas en el costo de la vivienda y potencialmente en la informalidad en Brasil es el Urbanizador Social, una iniciativa pública ideada para tentar a los urbanizadores informales para que cumplan con las regulaciones sobre el uso del suelo. El primer caso llevado a cabo con éxito en São Leopoldo en 2008, el urbanizador solicitó al municipio la reducción del tamaño mínimo de parcela de 300m2 a 160m2 con el fin de ofrecer opciones de vivienda más asequibles. A cambio, el urbanizador aceptó algunas imposiciones del municipio en forma de inversión directa en infraestructura y servicios urbanos (Damasio et al., próxima publicación).

Efecto de la regulación sobre la informalidad

En la década de 1990 los municipios de Brasil promulgaron diversas regulaciones sobre el uso del suelo y la construcción que pueden agruparse en cuatro tipos principales: normas de parcelación, zonificación, límites del crecimiento urbano y códigos de construcción. Algunos municipios adoptaron algunas de estas regulaciones en la década de los ochenta o incluso antes, otros lo hicieron durante la primera mitad de la década de 2000, y muchos otros aún no han adoptado todas o ni siquiera una de ellas. Estas diferencias temporales en cuanto a su adopción ofrecen una oportunidad analítica única para intentar aislar el papel desempeñado por la regulación de otros eventos que afectan al mercado de la vivienda.

Idealmente, el impacto de la regulación en el mercado de la vivienda debería evaluarse comparando municipios que son idénticos a excepción de que uno de ellos adopta una regulación particular mientras que el otro no. Sin embargo, encontrar municipios idénticos no siempre es factible. Un procedimiento estándar para solventar parcialmente este problema es utilizar los resultados de los municipios que no han adoptado la regulación a fin de estimar lo que habrían experimentado los municipios que sí la adoptaron si no hubieran introducido una regulación. La diferencia entre el resultado de adoptar o no adoptar una regulación sugeriría una estimación superficial del impacto de la regulación en la variación en la proporción de la informalidad.

Nuestro estudio aprovechó las oportunidades que ofrecía el caso de Brasil. En primer lugar, la diferencia cronológica en la adopción de regulaciones entre los municipios permite establecer comparaciones entre ellos. En segundo lugar, la información disponible en el censo y otros estudios a nivel nacional es extensa, e incluye la fecha de promulgación de la regulación, el estado de régimen de propiedad declarado por los propietarios de viviendas, y una cifra generosa de variables de control que incluyen la población, los ingresos y el nivel de pobreza. En tercer lugar, hay datos disponibles sobre más de 2.000 municipios, lo que permite realizar un análisis estadístico significativo. Tener una oportunidad como ésta de investigar los asentamientos informales es poco común, y es una de las principales razones por las que es tan difícil encontrar en la bibliografía pruebas contundentes sobre los factores determinantes de la informalidad.

Dada la naturaleza duradera de una vivienda, tanto las viviendas formales como informales se miden como proporción de todo el conjunto de viviendas, en lugar de como un número designado de viviendas. La medida de la informalidad utilizada en este estudio es la proporción de viviendas sin título de propiedad, que se define como la ocupación del terreno sin ostentar un título de propiedad declarada por propietarios de vivienda que respondieron a una pregunta en un estudio del censo sobre si eran o no propietarios del terreno en el que está ubicada su vivienda.

Según esta definición, la proporción de viviendas sin título de propiedad en las ciudades brasileñas descendió en la década de los noventa, debido en parte a los cambios institucionales asociados a la Constitución de 1988, que redujo de 25 a 5 años el tiempo necesario para legitimizar el derecho de posesión adversa de la ocupación de un terreno urbano no reclamado. Los terratenientes se volvieron menos condescendientes con respecto a tolerar la ocupación del terreno, tal y como se observa en la disminución de las invasiones de terreno y el aumento de las adquisiciones de mercado (aunque por medios informales) como la forma predominante de adquirir terrenos utilizada por los pobres. El descenso en la tendencia a la informalidad también se asocia a la estabilización económica, el fortalecimiento de las finanzas municipales locales, la revitalización del mercado hipotecario y el lento descenso de los índices de pobreza observados durante la década. El impacto de los programas de regularización, aunque su alcance es limitado, es otro factor que influye en la reducción de los asentamientos informales.

La Figura 7.2.5.1 (en anexo) presenta proyecciones utilizando parámetros estimados que comparan la disminución en el porcentaje de viviendas sin título de propiedad, que comienza en un 17,5 por ciento en 1985, con unos límites superior e inferior basados en una desviación estándar. La línea negra (naranja) de la cifra representa la tendencia exponencial en los municipios que no han promulgado regulaciones sobre el uso del suelo o sobre la construcción. Las líneas de color gris (morado o azul verdoso) representan los límites superior (más regulación) e inferior (menos regulación) de los municipios que promulgaron regulaciones en 1991, cuando la proporción de viviendas sin título de propiedad alcanzó el 14 por ciento.

Una forma de interpretar estos resultados es fijar un objetivo deseado en términos de proporción de viviendas sin título de propiedad, y después evaluar cuánto tiempo se necesita para alcanzar este objetivo dados los cambios regulatorios en los municipios. Si el objetivo es reducir la proporción de viviendas sin título de propiedad del 14 al 12 por ciento, entonces una ciudad que no promulgara regulaciones que afectaran al mercado formal de la vivienda habría alcanzado este objetivo en el año 1996, mientras que una ciudad de iguales características que promulgara regulaciones en 1991 habría tardado, en promedio, de dos a diez años más en alcanzar el mismo objetivo. En otras palabras, el plazo de tiempo será mayor en los municipios más regulados.

Los resultados muestran claramente un impacto significativo de la regulación sobre la informalidad y refutan la noción de que los mercados de vivienda formales e informales son independientes. Parece que la informalidad puede ser provocada por las mismas regulaciones que se aplican a los mercados formales, lo que significa que es incorrecto diseñar políticas circunscritas a las zonas informales. Aunque los resultados no siempre se estiman con gran precisión, las medidas de la regulación siempre tienen señales esperadas y sus niveles de confianza están siempre por encima del 81 por ciento. Asimismo, cuando comparamos los municipios que promulgaron regulaciones urbanas más cerca del año 2000, el impacto estimado sobre la informalidad disminuye como se esperaba, lo que demuestra coherencia con los resultados (Biderman 2008).

Perspectivas de futuro

El argumento y la evidencia presentados en este artículo sugieren que la regulación inadecuada en los países en desarrollo puede reducir las alternativas residenciales de las familias, incitándolas o presionándolas para buscar opciones informales. Las subvenciones podrían proporcionar una compensación adecuada a fin de mitigar los efectos de exclusión o las consecuencias imprevistas de determinadas regulaciones necesarias, al hacerlas aplicables a cada ciudadano. Pero en ausencia de tales subvenciones, los niveles de urbanización indebidamente elevados y las restricciones al uso del suelo podrían excluir a un grupo bastante numeroso. Por ejemplo, una norma de parcelación muy elevada (por ejemplo, un tamaño mínimo de parcela de 300m2 cuando los terrenos de 50m2 no son poco comunes) puede dar lugar a que existan grupos que viven en parcelas más grandes y otros en parcelas mucho más pequeñas. En lugar de garantizar niveles mínimos para todos, una norma como esta podría exacerbar las desigualdades.

Evidentemente, no se puede deducir que deberían eliminarse las regulaciones sobre la construcción y el uso del suelo. Las regulaciones desempeñan un papel importante en la creación de un entorno urbano mejor. No obstante, es necesario afrontar las consecuencias no deseadas de la inducción a la informalidad producto de los elevados precios de la vivienda. Una política de vivienda sensata debería tener en cuenta estos efectos indirectos. El desafío actual es cómo conservar los efectos indirectos positivos de las normas urbanísticas estimulando a la vez la construcción de viviendas asequibles. También se debería tener en cuenta el tema de cuántos efectos indirectos positivos pueden extraerse realmente de una regulación determinada.

Por ejemplo, el valor social del efecto indirecto externo generado por una restricción de la densidad podría no ser necesariamente mayor que el valor de la pérdida de bienestar asociada a una restricción en la oferta de suelo urbanizado. En efecto, podríamos argumentar sobre la medida en la que determinadas regulaciones aplicadas actualmente en los municipios de Brasil, proporcionan de hecho más privilegios de exclusión a determinados grupos o una burocracia flagrante y obstáculos de procedimiento que elevan los precios de la vivienda sin crear efectos indirectos positivos para el conjunto del municipio (Henderson 2007).

Ya a finales de la década de los ochenta, los planificadores urbanos de Brasil reconocieron que las normas y las regulaciones urbanísticas estaban aumentando los costos de urbanización y afectando a las viviendas sociales. A pesar de la falta de pruebas estadísticas, los profesionales se dieron cuenta de que los tamaños mínimos de parcela, los terrenos de estacionamiento obligatorios, los impedimentos a los usos mixtos (comerciales y residenciales), y otras regulaciones sobre el uso del suelo urbano no favorecían el aumento de la oferta de vivienda asequible.

Se adoptó un enfoque pragmático a fin de minimizar esas limitaciones a través de la noción ZEIS (Zona Especial de Interés Social), donde se flexibilizaban las regulaciones que incrementaban los costos con el objetivo de promover la oferta de viviendas asequibles. Las ZEIS se definen mayoritariamente de forma que coincidan con los límites de asentamientos ocupados existentes y los municipios las utilizan como herramienta para regularizar ocupaciones de suelo irregulares previas simplemente enunciando que el asentamiento no necesita cumplir las normas aplicables de forma general a las zonas urbanas del municipio. El inconveniente de esta medida paliativa es que el municipio ya no se ve obligado a intervenir en la zona puesto que, por definición, la zona ZEIS ya es conforme a la norma. En otras palabras, el doble estándar abre la vía para que el municipio ignore el problema más allá de la emisión de una ordenanza sobre zonificación.

En resumen, la reforma de la política de vivienda en Brasil exige actualmente un enfoque más amplio que estructure de forma conjunta los elementos de financiación, tecnología y gestión urbanística, y se aleje de la visión paternalista de ofrecer un cobijo o del enfoque limitado sobre los asentamientos informales. Hemos argumentado que el papel de la regulación del suelo urbano y de la construcción es un factor indispensable a tener en cuenta en cualquier intento de afrontar con seriedad el desafío que plantea la informalidad en Brasil y en otras ciudades del tercer mundo.

Referencias

Biderman, C. 2008. Informality in Brazil: Does urban land use and building regulation matter? Documento de trabajo. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Damasio, Claudia, Claudio Gutierrez, Gevaci Perfroni y Jacqueline Menegassi. Próxima publicación. Estudo de caso de urbanizaçao social no municipio de São Leopoldo. Documento de trabajo. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Ellickson, R. 1977. Suburban growth controls: An economic and legal analysis. Yale Law Journal 86 (3).

Henderson, J.V. 2007. The effect of residential land market regulations on urban welfare. Urban Research Symposium 2007. Banco Mundial, 14–16 de mayo.

IBGE (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatistica/Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics). 1991 y 2000. http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/

Malpezzi, S. 1996. Housing prices, externalities, and regulation in U.S. metropolitan areas. Journal of Housing Research 7(2): 209–241.

Mayo, S. y S. Angel. 1993. Housing: Enabling markets to work. A World Bank Policy Paper.

Rolnik, R. 1997. A cidade e a lei: Legislação, política urbana e territórios na cidade de São Paulo. São Paulo: Studio Nobel: Fapesp.

The Economist. 2007. Adios to poverty, hola to consumption. 16 de agosto. http://www.economist.com/world/la/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9645142&CFID=8338952&CFTOKEN=92529416

Turner, J.F.C. y R. Fichter. 1972. Freedom to build: Dweller control of the housing process. New York: The Macmillan Company.

UN Habitat. 2006. State of the world’s cities 2006. London: Earthscan y UN Habitat.

Sobre los autores

Ciro Biderman es Visiting Fellow del Lincoln Institute of Land Policy e investigador adjunto al Departamento de Planificación y Estudios Urbanísticos del Instituto de Tecnología de Massachusetts. Asimismo es profesor asociado en la Fudación Getulio Vargas e investigador asociado al Centro de Estudio de las Políticas y Economía del Sector Público (CEPESP/FGV) de São Paulo, Brasil (en licencia).

Martim Smolka es Senior Fellow y Director del Programa sobre América Latina y el Caribe del Lincoln Institute.

Anna Sant’Anna es investigadora asociada principal del Programa sobre América Latina y el Caribe del Lincoln Institute.

To enhance the Lincoln Institute’s commitment to building research capacity on international land policy issues, the Program on Latin America and the Caribbean initiated an expanded effort in 2006 to support research in that region. Since then the Lincoln Institute has issued annual public requests for research proposals that set out the criteria used to evaluate the proposals and a set of priority thematic topics, normally related to land markets, local public finance, and urban development. This year’s priorities include implementation and impacts of land use regulations; land-based instruments to finance urban development; land markets; and urban form.

Most of those who submit research proposals are affiliated with academic institutions throughout Latin America. Other applicants are typically practitioners from government entities, nongovernmental organizations, and private consultancies, as well as scholars working on Latin American themes at universities outside the region. About two-thirds of the proposals submitted and funded are from researchers having no prior affiliation with our Latin America Program, which is consistent with one objective of the research program—to widen the network of those studying land policy issues in the region.

The average size of research project funding has increased over time from around $10,000 in 2006 to about $26,000 at present. Some projects that involve extensive field work to support empirically based research have received larger amounts. Over time the program has also become more competitive, with the number of applications growing from 90 in the first year to 150 currently.

The priority topics and selection criteria are designed to encourage empirical studies, and the 18-month funding cycle allows time for data collection, analysis, and preparation of a final report. Lincoln Institute staff provide technical assistance to many researchers as they finalize their research designs and carry out their work. The participants are also invited to a methods workshop at the beginning of each research project cycle to review survey instrument and sample design, multivariate statistical analysis, experimental methods, and the use of geographic information systems.

At the end of each research project cycle all participants discuss each others’ draft papers at a research seminar. Both the methods workshop and research seminar are highly valued by the researchers, and the events have been offered in Colombia, Argentina, and Costa Rica to facilitate access from different parts of the region. Other training courses offered by the Latin America Program, such as those on urban economics and land market analysis, are also often relevant for those carrying out these research projects.

Selected final research reports are posted as working papers on the Lincoln Institute Web site. Currently 33 final papers are available and another 15 are in process. Many of these papers are downloadable in both English and either Spanish or Portuguese. In addition, seven of the completed research papers have been summarized as Land Lines articles, making their results accessible to a wide audience. This April issue presents one such report on home values in Mexico, and announces the completion of a CD-ROM that compiles more than 80 Land Lines articles that have been translated into Spanish under the title Perspectivas Urbanas.

This research program complements another long-standing Latin America Program initiative that provides support for students working on dissertation and masters theses. The graduate student program is also competitive and based on open requests for proposals. In the past two years, the Lincoln Institute has taken steps to increase the coordination between these two research support initiatives, particularly by coordinating the priority topics and harmonizing the selection criteria. By supporting both emerging graduates and more experienced researchers, these initiatives are developing an extensive network of capable analysts who can advance knowledge about land policy and its consequences in Latin America.

The request for research proposals in 2010 will be posted on the Lincoln Institute’s Web site and distributed electronically by email to those in the region who have registered on our Web site. See page 28 of this Land Lines issue for additional information.

Jay Espy joined the Elmina B. Sewall Foundation as its first executive director in January 2008. Based in Brunswick, Maine, the foundation focuses on the environment, animal welfare, and human well-being, primarily in Maine.

For the prior two decades, Espy served as president of Maine Coast Heritage Trust, a statewide land conservation organization. During his tenure, the Trust accelerated its land protection efforts along Maine’s entire coast by conserving more than 125,000 acres and establishing the Maine Land Trust Network, which helps build capacity of local land trusts throughout Maine. He also led the Trust’s successful Campaign for the Coast, raising more than $100 million for conservation and doubling the amount of protected land on Maine’s coast and islands.

Espy received his A.B. from Bowdoin College and master’s degrees in business and environmental studies from Yale’s School of Management and its School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. He serves on the board of the Maine Philanthropy Center and the Canadian Land Trust Alliance. He is a former chair of the Land Trust Alliance, a national organization serving land trusts throughout the United States. In October 2010 he was named the Kingsbury Browne Fellow for 2010–2011 through a joint program of the Land Trust Alliance and the Lincoln Institute.

Land Lines: How did you first become involved in the field of land conservation?

Jay Espy: Early in my senior year at Bowdoin College a wonderful placement counselor pointed out that some real-world experience might be useful in helping me secure gainful employment. I landed an internship documenting seabirds in Maine’s Casco Bay as part of an oil spill contingency planning project. This experience kindled an intense passion for the Maine coast and set the stage for my professional career. Following a stint working for an environmental consulting firm, graduate study in business, forestry, and environmental science at Yale, and several more internships, I was thrilled to accept an entry-level job at Maine Coast Heritage Trust (MCHT) in Topsham. At the time MCHT was a small statewide land trust and a great “school of hard knocks” for an aspiring 20-something conservationist with virtually no credentials.

Land Lines: What are some of the most significant land conservation projects in which you have been involved?

Jay Espy: In the late 1980s a 12,000-acre parcel of coastal land in far Down East Maine near the Canadian border was put up for sale by a major corporation divesting all of its timberland holdings in the northeastern United States and Maritime Canada. This was the largest remaining undeveloped block of coastal land in Maine, and one of the largest anywhere on the eastern seaboard. MCHT had never before faced such an exciting or daunting challenge.

In partnership with the State of Maine, The Conservation Fund, and the Richard King Mellon Foundation, MCHT led an effort to acquire the property and to work with local and state officials on a plan to conserve the land while incorporating appropriate working forest management, recreational trail development, and affordable housing in the Town of Cutler. Although we didn’t know it at the time, we were doing “community conservation” by engaging a wide range of constituents with varying interests. This project also put MCHT in the business of landscape-scale conservation. Dozens of projects have since been completed in that region, known as Maine’s Bold Coast. More than 20 miles of breathtaking shoreline are now accessible to the public and provide economic opportunities for the community.

I feel privileged to have helped protect many other lands, both large and small. Marshall Island, a 1,000-acre gem 15 miles offshore from the Blue Hill peninsula, was once slated for major development, but now has an extensive coastal trail system developed by MCHT. Aldermere Farm in Camden and Rockport is an iconic saltwater farm. Albert Chatfield began raising Belted Galloway cattle here in the 1950s, and the farm has been home to an award-winning breeding herd ever since. Following donation of the property in 1999, MCHT has greatly expanded farm programs for local youth and the community in general and protected additional nearby lands that are being used to support the growing local food movement.

Land Lines: When did you become aware of the Lincoln Institute’s work in land conservation, and how have you been involved in our programs?

Jay Espy: The timing of my entry into the conservation field was most fortuitous. Within months of joining MCHT, I was invited to a gathering of conservation professionals at the Lincoln Institute, co-hosted by the Land Trust Alliance (then known as the Land Trust Exchange). I had previously met Kingsbury Browne very briefly at a conference in Washington, DC, but at that gathering I had the chance to spend a full day with him and some of the other revered leaders of the modern land conservation movement.

Over the course of many years, the Lincoln Institute became a “watering hole” for conservationists, many of them originally assembled by Kingsbury, and they became valued mentors to me as I learned the trade. The Institute has continued to be a place where creative minds gather to innovate and where cutting-edge research and communication for the broader conservation community are encouraged. I am honored to be part of that legacy as a Kingsbury Browne Fellow.

Land Lines: What do you see as future trends in land conservation?

Jay Espy: The conservation field is growing, changing, and maturing in what I believe is a very healthy way. Not long ago many of us in the field thought land conservation was all about the land. I well remember early land trust brochures full of pictures of beautiful landscapes, but entirely devoid of people. Fortunately, that’s no longer true.

Today, most of us in the movement understand that land conservation is about land and people. It’s about how our communities benefit from healthy ecosystems; how outdoor recreational opportunities close to home combat youth inactivity and obesity; how protected farmland contributes to food security and the availability of nutritious local food; how outdoor spaces incorporating local arts and entertainment contribute to vibrant downtowns; how clean water, forestland, and a host of other sustainably managed natural resources support economic development and jobs; and how well-managed land allows each of us individually and collectively to live richer, fuller lives.

All across the country, the silos that have separated the work of conservation, public health, arts, education, hunger, housing, food production, and economic development are coming down. I’m encouraged by this trend. Our work today will only stand the test of time if it has direct and tangible benefit to people over many decades. Collaborative engagement of those with wide and varied interests seems an essential ingredient in any successful recipe for enduring conservation.

Land Lines: How can the challenges of funding conservation become opportunities?

Jay Espy: We do face many challenges on the funding front. Public funding from traditional federal and state government sources has been declining, private foundations have seen the corpus of their endowments erode, and individual donors have been understandably more conservative with their philanthropic investments as the markets have seesawed. As a result, fewer of the mega-scale land deals requiring tens of millions of dollars that we saw in the late 1990s and early 2000s are being launched today.

That said, there is still a great deal of very important conservation work being funded around the country. Public support for local conservation remains high, with most local bond initiatives continuing to pass by wide margins. Foundation and individual giving for conservation has not tanked as many feared. Funders remain supportive, but have become more discerning. Also, conservation projects that address multiple human interests and engage multiple partners appear to be attracting new, nontraditional sources of support. I recently spoke with a health funder who views securing more land for public recreation as a critical preventative healthcare measure. Funding for farmland conservation has also grown substantially in recent years, fueled in part by the explosive popularity of the local food movement.

Land Lines: Can you share some examples of innovative land conservation successes?

Jay Espy: In a remote area of eastern Maine, the Downeast Lakes Land Trust has been working for more than a decade to protect large swaths of forestland with extensive shore frontage near the community of Grand Lake Stream. These lands and waters have supported the timber and recreation-based economy for more than a century. With the decline in the paper and pulp industry, several large commercial timber holdings have been sold.

Rather than simply wait for the inevitable development of seasonal vacation homes and resulting loss in local culture, the community has worked in remarkable ways to acquire tens of thousands of acres and miles of shore land for use as a revenue-generating forest, wildlife preserve, and remote recreational areas. Local business owners, fishing and hunting guides, representatives from state and federal agencies, members of the Passamaquoddy Indian Tribe, and elected officials from the local to the national levels have all joined forces with the land trust to acquire these properties and manage them for sustainable timber revenue, as well as for other traditional uses, including hunting, fishing, camping, and paddling.

In the central Maine town of Skowhegan, an enterprising young woman has acquired an old county jail, which she is converting into a grain mill. Once operational, the mill will process approximately 600 tons of grain annually, an amount requiring roughly 600 acres of farmland cultivated in grain crops. This area of Maine was once a thriving wheat-growing region, and is purported to have supplied the Union troops with a substantial portion of their bread during the Civil War. Located in the heart of town, the parking lot of the old jail already serves as the site of a successful local farmers market. A commercial kitchen and several food and crafts business are co-locating in the jail, helping to create a “food hub.”

Skowhegan is the county seat of one of the most impoverished counties in Maine. Could the food hub start to change the fortunes of this region? Could a growing demand for grain stem the tide of farmland loss and result in more farmland acres being conserved and cultivated? Signs suggest the answer is to both questions is “yes.” I think what’s happening in Skowhegan is a wonderful example of the new face of conservation. It’s not yet readily recognizable, but I suspect we’ll get to know this community-based approach better in the years ahead.

Land Lines: What are your expectations about the role of conservation in the current volatile economy?

Jay Espy: I’m quite optimistic because adversity has a way of bringing people together. With less, we’re learning how to work collectively to do more. As more people participate in conservation, develop relationships with and around land, and experience the positive impact those relationships bring to their lives, I’m convinced we will see even more widespread, meaningful, and durable conservation achievements. Land, people, and community are all deeply intertwined. Ironically, these trying times may be accelerating the inevitable transformation of conservation into an endeavor that benefits even more people and more aspects of community life.