SHARE
State trust lands in the Intermountain West could play an important role in the growing market for renewable energy. Congress granted these territories, covering 35 million acres, to states upon their entry to the Union, to support schools and other public institutions. As managers of these state trust lands search for innovative and sustainable ways to lease and sell parcels to generate income, renewables could prove to be a double boon—by supplying clean, sustainable power and providing a strong revenue stream for the public benefit.
All seven states in the Intermountain West—Arizona, Idaho, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming (figure 1)—are using state trust lands to develop renewables, including wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass projects. Yet the industry has not flourished to its full potential. In 2011, the installed renewable energy production capacity on state trust lands was only 360 megawatts—not enough to power 2 percent of the homes in the region. The $2 million in revenue generated by these sources on state trust lands amounts to less than 1 percent of the $1 billion-plus generated there annually by other means (Berry 2013; WSLCA). Wind energy is experiencing the most activity by far; all the Intermountain West states have leased state trust lands for wind projects, and all have operational wind farms. Although Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah have leased state trust lands for solar operations, only one generation facility is in production on state trust lands in the Intermountain West, in Arizona. Only Utah has a geothermal plant on state trust land, and no states in this region have active biomass facilities on trust lands.
This article will focus on three types of renewable energy production in three states—a wind farm in Montana, geothermal projects in Utah, and solar generation in Arizona—and the conditions, legislation, and other factors that led to successful operations. All three examples demonstrate that these territories offer a largely untapped bounty for this burgeoning, sustainable market; provide learning opportunities across state lines; and help meet growing demand for renewable energy.
Judith Gap Wind Farm, Montana
Judith Gap is Montana’s only operational wind farm on state trust land, straddling private land as well, in the central-eastern part of the state. It has 90 turbines total, each with a capacity of 1.5 megawatts; 13 are on state trust lands, on the leading edge of the wind farm, with a total capacity of 19.5 megawatts. The per-megawatt fee of approximately 2.6 percent of gross receipts brings in about $50,000 per year according to Mike Sullivan of the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC). At the time of construction, there was a one-time installation fee of $20,000 (Rodman 2008).
Bob Quinn, founder of a local wind development company called Windpark Solutions, initiated the project in 2000, when he proposed the idea to a small group including representatives from the local utility, the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, and the DNRC. Quinn says that close collaboration between the developer and personnel in these state agencies was key to successfully siting the project on state trust land. State staff also helped Quinn navigate other difficult challenges including unanticipated delays in the request for proposals (RFP) process required by the state.
After conducting preliminary studies—allowed for one year through a land use license from the DNRC—developers must apply to the DNRC in order to proceed with energy projects. The state then issues a request for proposals (RFP). Applicants with a land use license do not receive preferential treatment. After a successful applicant is identified, the developer must conduct environmental analyses, secure a power purchase agreement with a utility, and determine economic feasibility before signing a lease with the DNRC. Currently, fees for new land use licenses are generally $2 per acre per year. Lease agreement costs for new wind projects include a one-time installation charge of $1,500 to $2,500 per megawatt of installed capacity, and annual fees of 3 percent of gross annual revenues or $3,000 for each megawatt of installed capacity, whichever is greater (Rodman 2008, Billings Gazette 2010).
Lease and Fee Structures
Every state has different leasing systems for renewable energy projects on state trust lands, but they all follow a similar pattern. The process usually starts with a short-term planning lease that allows for exploration and meteorological studies. The construction phase is next, followed by a longer-term production lease. Payments to the trust land management agency usually include a per-acre rent during the planning phase, which may continue into the production phase. There are additional installation charges for equipment, including meteorological towers, wind turbines, solar collectors, structures, and other infrastructure. During the production phase, the fee is typically based either on the installed capacity or the gross revenues of the generation facility.
Since Judith Gap was completed in 2005, several wind farms have proposed development on state trust lands in Montana, but none have reached the production phase. These include the Springdale Wind Energy project—an 80-megawatt wind farm consisting of 44 turbines, 8 of which would be on state trust lands. The DNRC has also leased 3,000 acres near Martinsdale to Horizon Wind Energy for a wind farm with 27 turbines, 7 to 15 of which would be on state trust lands. The Martinsdale wind farm could expand to 100 turbines in the future (MT DNRC).
In order to make state trust lands more attractive to these and other renewable energy developers, the DNRC would benefit from a more streamlined process. Developers working on state trust lands in Montana have cited struggles with timing, financing, environmental mitigation, cooperation from power buyers, and transmission (Rodman 2008). According to Quinn, Judith Gap succeeded in part due to dedication and close collaboration between agency personnel and the energy developer. In the future, the DNRC may need to assign personnel to renewable energy projects in order to guide developers through the process. The DNRC could also attract projects by granting land use license holders preferential status in the RFP process and by opening up bidding faster. Quinn notes that evaluating bids according to performance rather than price alone would improve the system.
Geothermal Energy, Utah
Geothermal energy is a potentially constant power source, offsetting fluctuations from intermittent renewables such as wind and solar. However, it’s also technically complex and expensive—and thus rare on state trust lands in the Intermountain West. Utah is currently the only state in the region with active geothermal facilities on state trust land. Measured by land area, geothermal is Utah’s largest renewable energy supply, with approximately 100,000 acres leased on state trust lands. There are currently two geothermal energy plants in production, generating revenue of $200,000 to $300,000 per year. For geothermal projects, the State and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA), which manages state trust lands in Utah, charges 2.25 percent of electricity sales for the first 5 or 10 years, and 3.5 percent thereafter.
PacifiCorp’s 34-megawatt Blundell plant, on a mix of federal, state, and private territory, was the state’s first, built in 1984. Blundell taps into an underground reservoir that is 3,000 feet deep, more than 500° F, and pressurized at 500 pounds per square inch. A well brings the hot, high-pressure water to the surface, where it powers a steam turbine. The Blundell plant has two units, a 23-megawatt unit built in 1984 and an 11-megawatt unit completed in 2007.
The newer Raser plant in Beaver County has been less successful. Raser originally planned to build a 15-megawatt operation using a new, modular technology produced by United Technologies, says John Andrews, SITLA associate director. The company aimed to cut costs and development time by exploring the geothermal resource while constructing the generation facility—instead of fully developing geothermal wells first, then building the power plant later. Unfortunately, the geothermal resource fell short of expectations and could not support a 15-megawatt operation. With limited income, Raser could not cover debts and declared bankruptcy in 2011. The plant continues to run at limited capacity (Oberbeck 2009).
The experience at Raser shows that the costs of geothermal development continue to be daunting and that it’s worthwhile to fully characterize the available geothermal resource prior to constructing generation facilities, although that additional step is costly and time-consuming. Future technological advances may help to cut the costs and time required for geothermal development, but, given the current state of technology, geothermal projects still require significant upfront outlays.
For renewable energy development, SITLA responds to applications as they are received; they can also offer lands through a request for proposals or a competitive sealed bid process (Rodman 2008). The state has mapped renewable energy zones, but the task of finding locations and proposing renewable energy projects devolves to developers.
Utah faces other challenges to all forms of renewable energy development on trust lands. Because of the high proportion and pattern of federally owned territory, national agencies sometimes take the lead on energy development projects. According to Andrews, the absence of an RPS in Utah is another drawback, leaving local utilities without a state mandate to supply renewable energy.
Even without an RPS, however, Utah is geographically well-positioned to export energy to other states—particularly to population centers on the west coast. Although transmission can be a barrier in some parts of the state, transmission capacity is available between Utah and southern California. What’s more, developers can tap an array of renewable resources—wind, solar, and geothermal. SITLA would benefit from marketing trust lands within renewable energy zones to potential developers and by offering reduced rates for renewable energy projects within these areas.
Solar Developments in Arizona
Even in Arizona—the sunniest state in the U.S., according to the National Weather Service—the solar industry faces several obstacles on state trust lands. The only active solar facility on state trust lands, the Foothills Solar Plant opened on 400 acres in Yuma County in April 2013, when the first 17 megawatts came online. An additional 18 megawatts are scheduled to go online in December 2013. Once it’s fully operational, the facility will serve 9,000 customers. The 35-year lease will generate $10 million for state trust lands beneficiaries, and most of that money will fund public education.
The slow development of the solar industry on trust lands mirrors a larger trend seen nationwide. In 2010, only 0.03 percent of the nation’s energy came from solar projects, while 2.3 percent came from wind (www.eia.gov). Solar projects usually require exclusive use of a site—putting them at an even greater disadvantage on state trust lands, where many acres are already leased for agriculture, grazing, or oil and gas production. Wind projects, by contrast, can co-exist with other land uses. Solar projects also require large tracts—as many as 12 acres per megawatt (Culp and Gibbons 2010)—whereas wind facilities have a relatively small footprint. And, although prices are dropping, solar generation facilities can be very expensive.
Despite these drawbacks, there are ways in which solar development is well-suited to state trust lands. For starters, these territories are untaxed and owned free and clear; unburdened by the carrying costs that private owners might have, state trust land management agencies have an advantage for holding and maintaining renewable energy projects. Some solar developers have found state trust land attractive because they can work with one owner for very large tracts. Solar generation is also well-suited to previously disturbed sites, such as old landfills and abandoned agricultural areas, which may include trust lands. Near urban areas, state trust lands slated for future development could be used for solar generation in the interim; after the solar leases expire, the grounds could be developed for urban uses (Culp and Gibbons 2010).
State-level RPS and tax incentives could also encourage solar development. Some states provide up to 25 percent investment tax credits, property tax exemptions, and standard-offer contracts on solar, guaranteeing a long-term market for solar output.
As one of the largest landowners in the state, with several large, consolidated parcels, the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD) would do well to position itself as an attractive partner for the renewable energy industry (Wadsack 2009). The ASLD is taking steps in the right direction by developing a GIS-based renewable energy mapping system to analyze state trust lands for general suitability for solar production, based on avoiding critical wildlife habitat and wilderness areas, and minimizing distance to roads, transmission, and load. But it must follow up and market the most suitable areas for renewables (Culp and Gibbons 2010) and facilitate the process for developers, who can be deterred by complex leasing structures, requirements for public auctions, and required environmental and cultural analyses (Wadsack 2009). The more the agency can build capacity to help developers through this process, the more the renewable energy industry might flourish on state trust lands. For example, the department could offer long-term leases, expedite land sales, or develop a reduced-cost, revenue-sharing lease system specifically tailored for renewable energy development.
General Recommendations for Montana, Utah, and Arizona
Leasing renewable energy on state trust lands is complicated. Each state has a unique set of political, environmental, and economic circumstances that makes it difficult to determine any one best method for all. However, the accomplishments, problems, and solutions detailed in the examples above provide some general recommendations for success.
At the state land trust agency level:
At the state level:
Federal policies play a considerable role as well. Production tax credits in particular have spurred U.S. renewable energy deployment in recent decades. Likewise, federal investment tax credits for renewable energy—which provide developers with a tax credit during the planning and construction phases—have helped the renewable energy industry grow in recent years, even when the national economy was in recession. Finally, there have been several proposals for a federal-level renewable portfolio standard, although researchers disagree whether this type of policy would interfere with existing state-level RPS policies, which have proven extremely effective.
Renewable energy offers state trust land managers an opportunity to diversify their revenue stream to benefit the public good. For the most part, wind and transmission projects can be co-located with pre-existing leases for grazing, agriculture, oil, and gas. Solar projects could have great potential in previously disturbed sites or areas with little other value. Where geothermal resources are available, they offer consistent power that can offset intermittent sources like wind or solar. Technological advances could help bring down prices for renewables, particularly solar, geothermal, and biomass. As our energy demands grow, state trust lands are poised to play an important role in the growing renewable energy industry.
This article was adapted from the Lincoln Institute working paper, “Leasing Renewable Energy on State Trust Lands,” available online here: http://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/dl/2192_1518_Berry_WP12AB1.pdf.
About the Author
Alison Berry is the energy and economics specialist at the Sonoran Institute, where her work focuses on land use issues in a changing West. She holds a bachelor’s degree in biology from the University of Vermont and a master’s degree in forestry from the University of Montana. Her work has been published in the Wall Street Journal, the Journal of Forestry, and the Western Journal of Applied Forestry, among other publications. Contact: aberry@sonoraninstitute.org.
Resources
Berry, Jason, David Hurlbut, Richard Simon, Joseph Moore, and Robert Blackett. 2009. Utah Renewable Energy Zones Task Force Phase I Report. http://www.energy.utah.gov/renewable_energy/docs/mp-09-1low.pdf.
Billings Gazette. 2010. Wind farm developers eye school trust land. April 22. http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_14bfb038-4e0a-11df-bc99-001cc4c002e0.html.
Bureau of Land Management. 2011. Restoration Design Energy Project. http://www.blm.gov/az/st/en/prog/energy/arra_solar.html.
Culp, Peter, and Jocelyn Gibbons. 2010. Strategies for Renewable Energy Projects on Arizona’s State Trust Lands. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Working Paper WP11PC2. https://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/dl/1984_1306_CulpGibbon%20Final.pdf.
Montana Department of Natural Resources. 2011. Montana’s Trust Lands. Presented at the Western States Land Commissioners Association annual meeting. Online: http://www.glo.texas.gov/wslca/pdf/state-reports-2011/wslca-presentation-mt-2011.pdf accessed November 23, 2011.
Oberbeck, Steven. 2009. Utah geothermal plant runs into cold-water problems. Salt Lake Tribune. September 17. And Bathon, Michael. 2011. Utah’s Raser Technologies files Chapter 11. Salt Lake Tribune. May 2.
Rodman, Nancy Welch. 2008. Wind, wave/tidal, and in-river flow energy: A review of the decision framework of state land management agencies. Prepared for the Western States Land Commissioners Association. http://www.glo.texas.gov/wslca/pdf/wind_wave_tidal_river.pdf.
Wadsack, Karin. 2009 Arizona Wind Development Status Report. Arizona Corporation Commission.
SHARE
This article reviews the Western State Planning Leadership Retreat, in which state planners from 13 western states have participated. The retreats provide a forum for state-level planners to compare their experiences, learn from each other’s successes and failures, and build a common base of experience for land use planning in their states and across the region. Rather than promote a particular approach to land use planning and growth management, the retreats encourage planners to explore a range of land use planning strategies for responding to growth and land use issues in the West. This article summarizes what we learned during the first two retreats in 2000 and 2001.
Forces and trends of land use planning. The West is changing and there are many differences in the states’ approach to land use planning. New forces and trends are redefining the region’s quality of life, communities, and landscapes—directly influencing how we approach land use planning and growth management. Within these trends, western state planners recognize a variety of common challenges—pockets of explosive population growth, sprawl, drought, out-of-date legislation, a lack of funding, and a lack of public and political support for planning, and changing the way development occurs.
Major themes related to land use planning and growth in the West;
Why plan? How can we build public and political support for planning? Historically, land use planning was motivated by a concern to promote orderly development of the landscape, preserve some open spaces, and provide consistency among developments. These continue to be important objectives, but they are insufficient for building public and political support.
What is the role of state government? State programs should support local land use planning efforts, and should try to engage the “big players,” such as transportation departments, to work with local jurisdictions and maintain their state’s economic competitiveness by encouraging local communities to improve their quality of life through infill, redevelopment, and preserving the natural environment.
How can regional approaches to land use planning complement state actions? Regionalism allows multiple jurisdictions to share common resources and manage joint services, such as water treatment facilities and roads. Regional approaches are gaining momentum, but they also create new challenges.
Foster effective planning and growth management through collaboration. Collaboration can be defined many ways, but most planners agree with the premise that if you bring together the right people with good information they will create effective, sustainable solutions to their shared problems. Collaboration, when done correctly, allows the people most affected by land use planning decisions to drive the decisions.
How do we measure success? In 1998, the Arizona legislature passed the Growing Smarter Act, which was amended in 2000, and created a Growing Smarter Commission. The act reformed land use planning and zoning policies and required more public participation in local land use planning. This brings us full circle to our first theme—Why are we planning?
The Three Cs of Planning—three recommendations emerge from the western state planners’ retreats that can be implemented throughout the country. First, identify the most compelling reason to plan in your community; second, rely on collaborative approaches; third, foster regional connections.
“This [the West] is the native home of hope. When it fully learns that cooperation, not rugged individualism, is the quality that most characterizes and preserves it, then it will have achieved itself and outlived its origins. Then it has a chance to create a society to match its scenery.”
Wallace Stegner, The Sound of Mountain Water (Penguin Books 1980, 38)
During the past two years, state planners in 13 western states have met in the Western State Planning Leadership Retreat, an annual event sponsored by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and the Western Consensus Council. Cosponsors include the Western Governors’ Association, the Council of State Governments–WEST, and the Western Planners’ Association. The retreats provide a forum for state-level planners to compare their experiences, learn from each other’s successes and failures, and build a common base of experience for planning in their states and across the region. Rather than promote a particular approach to planning and growth management, the retreats encourage planners to explore a range of strategies for responding to growth and land use issues in the West. This article summarizes what we have learned during the first two retreats in 2000 and 2001.
Forces and Trends
The West is changing. New forces and trends are redefining the region’s quality of life, communities and landscapes, directly influencing how we approach land use planning and growth management. One force that sets the West apart from other regions of the country is the overwhelming presence of the landscape. The West has more land and fewer people than any other region, yet is also very urbanized. More people live in urban centers than in rural communities.
The dominance of land in the politics and public policy of the West is due in part to the large amount of land governed by federal and tribal entities (see Figure 1). More than 90 percent of all federal land in the U.S. lies in Alaska and the 11 westernmost contiguous states. The U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manage most of the West’s geography and significantly influence the politics of land use decisions. Indian tribes govern one-fifth of the interior West and are key players in managing water, fish and wildlife.
The West is also the fastest growing region of the country (see Figure 2). The five fastest-growing states of the 1990s were Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, Utah and Idaho. Between 1990 and 1998, the region’s cities grew by 25 percent and its rural areas by 18 percent, both significantly higher rates than elsewhere in the U.S. As western demographics diversify, the political geography has grown remarkably homogeneous. Following the 2000 elections, Republicans held three-quarters of the congressional districts in the interior West (see Figure 3) and all governorships except the coastal states of California, Oregon and Washington.
Within these trends, western state planners recognize a variety of common challenges—pockets of explosive population growth, sprawl, drought, out-of-date legislation, a lack of funding, and a lack of public and political support for planning and changing the way development occurs in the West. They also point out many differences in their states’ approaches to planning. Oregon and Hawaii have long-standing statewide land use planning efforts, but planning in Nevada is a recent phenomenon, limited mainly to the Las Vegas and Reno areas. Vast federal holdings in Nevada, Idaho and Utah dictate land use management more than in other states, and Arizona and New Mexico share planning responsibilities with many sovereign tribal governments. Alaska and Wyoming—with small populations and little or no growth—do very little planning.
Major Themes
Based on the first two retreats, we have identified six major themes related to planning and growth in the West.
Why plan? How can we build public and political support for planning? Historically, planning was motivated by a concern to promote orderly development of the landscape, preserve some open spaces, and provide consistency among developments. These continue to be important objectives, but they are insufficient for building public and political support. Particularly during economic recession, planning takes a back seat—the public can focus on only so many problems at once. Today, the most compelling argument for planning is that it can be a vehicle to promote economic development and sustain the quality of life. People move to the West and create jobs because they like the quality of life in the region, and planners need to tap into this motivation.
In Utah, for example, quality of life is an economic imperative, so state planners tie their work to enhancing quality of life rather than to limiting or directing growth. It is used to integrate economic vitality and environmental protection. Several years ago, business leaders and others created Envision Utah, a private-public partnership. Participants use visualization techniques and aerial photos, mapping growth as it might occur without planning, and then again under planned cluster developments with greenbelts and community centers. These “alternative futures” scenarios help citizens picture the changes that are coming and the alternatives for guiding those changes in their communities. As Utah’s state planner says, “Growth will happen, and our job is to preserve quality. That way, when growth slows, we will still have a high quality of life.”
Kent Briggs, executive director for the Council of State Governments–WEST (a regional association for state legislators), and Jim Souby, executive director of the Western Governors’ Association, acknowledge the difficulty of nurturing public and political support for growth management in the West. They agree that political power shifts quickly from one party to the other, and yet is a lagging indicator of cultural, demographic and economic change. Governors and legislators might be more convinced to support land use planning, they say, by using visualization techniques to help them understand the costs of existing patterns of development, and to picture the desired future of our communities and landscapes.
How much planning is enough, and who should be in the driver’s seat? Arizona and Colorado have smart growth programs designed to help communities plan for growth and preserve open space. In the November 2000 elections, citizen initiatives in both states introduced some of the nation’s most stringent planning requirements, but both initiatives failed by a 70 to 30 percent vote, suggesting that citizens want to maintain flexibility and freedom—and local control—when it comes to planning and growth management. The story is similar in Hawaii, where business profitability—not zoning maps—directs land use. In May 2001, Hawaii’s governor vetoed a smart growth initiative because it was perceived as being too environmental and would limit developers’ ability to convert agricultural lands.
This emphasis on home rule or local control is supported by a recent survey of citizens in Montana, conducted by the Montana Association of Realtors. In the survey, 67 percent of respondents said that city or county governments should have the power to make land use decisions, while 60 percent opposed increasing state involvement in managing growth-related problems.
In Oregon, citizens narrowly passed Measure 7, an initiative requiring state and local governments to pay private property owners for any regulations that restrict the use or reduce the value of real property. While the impacts and constitutionality of this initiative are still being debated, it sends a strong message to planners in a state that has had one of the most progressive land use and growth management programs for 25 years. The message, according to Oregon’s state planner, is to not rest on your successes, and to keep citizens and communities engaged in an ongoing discussion about the effectiveness of land use planning. He also stressed the need to balance preservation with appropriate development, emphasizing that “good planning doesn’t just place limits on growth and development.”
What is the role of state government? Douglas Porter, keynote speaker at the first retreat and a nationally known consultant on land use and growth policy, says that one of the most important state roles is to offset the lack of will to plan at the local level. He says that state programs should support local planning efforts, and should try to engage the “big players,” such as transportation departments, to work with local jurisdictions. Porter also suggests that state governments can maintain their state’s economic competitiveness by encouraging local communities to improve their quality of life through infill, redevelopment, and preserving the natural environment.
Oregon’s state government attracted $20 million in federal funding to help communities overhaul zoning ordinances and remove obstacles to mixed uses. Colorado created an Office of Smart Growth to provide technical assistance on comprehensive planning; document best practices for planning and development; maintain a list of qualified mediators for land use disputes; and provide grants for regional efforts in high growth areas. In Arizona, Montana and New Mexico, state planning offices provide a range of technical services to assist communities, such as clarifying state laws, promoting public participation, and fostering intergovernmental coordination.
Jim Souby suggests that one of the most effective roles of state government is to promote market-based strategies and tax incentives. “Tax what you don’t like, subsidize what you do like,” Souby says. Other incentives might include cost sharing and state investment strategies—similar to Maryland and Oregon—to drive development in a positive direction.
How can regional approaches to land use planning complement state actions? Regionalism allows multiple jurisdictions to share common resources and manage joint services, such as water treatment facilities and roads. In Washington, citizens recently rejected the top-down smart growth model popularized in Florida due to concerns over home rule and private property rights. In response, the state legislature approved a system of regional planning boards that instill some statewide consistency while allowing for regional and local differences.
Nevada, despite double-digit growth in the Las Vegas and Reno areas, does not have a state planning office. However, the legislature mandated Washoe County (home of Reno and Sparks) to create a regional planning commission to address growth issues jointly rather than in a piecemeal manner. Key municipal and county officials in Clark County (Las Vegas) formed their planning coalition voluntarily—compelled to cooperate by the highest growth rate in the nation. This coalition recently presented the state legislature with a regional plan that emphasizes resolving growth issues locally rather than at the state level.
In New Mexico, the city and county of Santa Fe each recently updated their comprehensive land use plans. The plans were fine, except that they were stand-alones prepared with no coordination. Citizens demanded better integration of planning efforts and pushed for a new regional planning authority. Within 18 months, citizens and officials developed a joint land use plan for the five-mile zone around the city, and the regional authority is now developing zoning districts and an annexation plan. In Idaho, city and county officials in Boise voluntarily created the Treasure Valley Partnership as a forum to discuss policies for controlling sprawl, and to coordinate the delivery of services. They are also reviewing the possibility of light rail development.
Regional approaches are gaining momentum, but they also create new challenges. For example, the city of Reno has been reluctant to join the neighboring city of Sparks and Washoe County in revising their regional plan. With no enforcement or penalty at the state level, the other jurisdictions can do little to encourage Reno’s involvement. Likewise, New Mexico has no policy framework for regional planning and thus no guidelines on how to share taxing authority, land use decision making and enforcement responsibilities.
Foster effective planning and growth management through collaboration. Collaboration can be defined many ways, but most planners agree with the premise that if you bring together the right people with good information they will create effective, sustainable solutions to their shared problems. Collaborative forums allow local officials to weigh and balance competing viewpoints, and to learn more about the issues at hand. According to Jim Souby, local efforts should incorporate federal land managers because they play such a dominant role in the region’s political geography. Kent Briggs agrees that collaboration, when done correctly, allows the people most affected by land use decisions to drive the decisions. Collaborative processes, when they include all affected interests, can generate enormous political power, even when such efforts do not have any formal authority. While it may be appropriate in some cases to have national or state goals, it is ultimately up to the people who live in the communities and watersheds of the West to determine their future, according to Briggs.
How do we measure success? In 1998, the Arizona legislature passed the Growing Smarter Act, which was amended in 2000, and created a Growing Smarter Commission. The act reformed land use planning and zoning policies and required more public participation in local planning. The commission recommended that the state should monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of land use planning on an ongoing basis. The governor recently appointed an oversight council to continue this work, but council members say that clear benchmarks are needed against which to evaluate the effectiveness of land use planning—a percentage of open space preserved, for example, or a threshold on new development that triggers tighter growth restrictions. Arizona law, however, simply identifies the issues that must be addressed in comprehensive land use plans. It does not set specific standards or expectations, making meaningful evaluation impossible. This brings us full circle to our first theme—Why are we planning?
The Three Cs of Planning
Three recommendations emerge from the western state planners’ retreats that can be implemented throughout the country.
First, identify the most compelling reason to plan in your community. What are you trying to promote, or prevent? Be explicit about the values driving the planning process. Emphasize the link between quality of life, economic development and land use planning as a way to sustain the economy and the environment. Remember that people must have meaningful reasons to participate constructively in the planning process.
Second, rely on collaborative approaches. Engage the full range of stakeholders, and do it in a meaningful way. A good collaborative process generates a broader understanding of the issues—since more people are sharing information and ideas—and also leads to more durable, widely supported decisions. Collaboration may also be the most effective way to accommodate the needs and interests of local citizens within a regional approach and when the state’s role is limited.
Third, foster regional connections. Recognize that planning is an ongoing process, not a product to be produced and placed on a shelf. Link the present to the future using visualization and alternative futures techniques. Build monitoring and evaluation strategies into plan implementation. Encourage regional approaches that build on a common sense of place and address transboundary issues. Emphasize that regionalism can lead to greater efficiencies and economies of scale by coordinating efforts and sharing resources.
Matthew McKinney is executive director of the Western Consensus Council in Helena, Montana, a nonprofit organization that helps citizens and officials shape effective natural resource and other public policy through inclusive, informed and deliberative public processes. Will Harmon is the communications coordinator for the Western Consensus Council and a freelance writer based in Helena.
References
Center for Resource Management. 1999. The Western Charter: Initiating a Regional Conversation. Boulder, CO: Center for Resource Management.
Kwartler, Michael. 1998. Regulating the good you can’t think of. Urban Design International 3(1):13-21.
Steinitz, Carl and Susan McDowell. 2001. Alternative futures for Monroe County, Pennsylvania: A case study in applying ecological principles, in Applying Ecological Principles to Land Management, edited by Virginia H. Dale and Richard A. Haeuber. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag, 165-189.
Swanson, Larry. 1999. The emerging ‘new economy’ of the Rocky Mountain West: Recent change and future expectation. The Rocky Mountain West’s Changing Landscape 1(1):16-27.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Environmental Planning for Communities: A Guide to the Environmental Visioning Process Utilizing a Geographic Information System (GIS). (September).
SHARE
Increasing socio-economic and spatial disparities in Latin American cities have prompted a revival of interest in equity-oriented government policies to reduce those disparities. However, solutions to the major urban problems being faced today must go far beyond the implementation of inconsistent and narrowly defined actions. The solutions must ensure equity for all sectors of society. In too many places, entire neighborhoods are forced to exist under deplorable living conditions while government agencies seek to evict residents in the name of environmental protection. It is evident that urban legislation can no longer ignore the rights of people to have a place in which to live in security and dignity.
The critical impact of land inequity on the urban environment requires that the urban poor gain access to the technical information necessary to better negotiate their concerns with public officials. My research explores the role of environmental education in low-income communities in developing countries. Taking a perspective based on self-help capacity building, my goal is to develop programs to train community leaders at the grassroots level to deal more effectively with local land use conflicts and environmental risks.
Impacts of Land Inequity
Like many Latin American cities, Rio de Janeiro is strongly affected by prevailing poverty and environmental degradation. Complex factors are involved: economic instability, inequitable land ownership, short-sighted development policies, and a lack of a democratic system that provides for human rights and freedoms. In my view, the problems experienced by Rio de Janeiro during the last few decades are mainly a result of existing “apartheid” urban planning assumptions and a lack of political will to incorporate the popular sectors in land use policy making.
In the region of Baixada de Jacarepaguá-at the heart of the core expansion area of Rio de Janeiro-the extraordinary process of urban growth since the 1970s has provoked dramatic changes in the landscape, as well as a variety of environmental problems. Amidst the spectacular natural beauty of lagoon ecosystems, mangrove forests and wetlands, the region remains home to a large population of urban poor who live in favelas-shanty communities resulting from largely uncontrolled urbanization of public land.
During the 1980s and early 1990s, the region enjoyed an unprecedented development boom that has fostered unsustainable patterns of land use. Discrimination against the poor inhabitants and inequalities in landownership allowed landowners and speculators to capitalize on the boom by formally obtaining titles and subdividing the land. In addition, a select group of private builders injected themselves into the local scene with multiple court permits to develop the region for high-income residential condominiums, commercial establishments and industrial enterprises.
Increasing pressures on the land snowballed into a wide range of protests between the popular sectors and the powerful land developers, posing the threat of forced eviction of the poor inhabitants. The accumulated discontent against the government for failing to control land speculation and ensure protective legislation created an extremely dangerous situation. Violence and persecution claimed the lives of 30 community leaders, presidents of local community associations, their family members and relatives. The murders were carried out by what are known in the region as “extermination squads,” and no criminal investigation has taken place.
The Vicious Cycle of Poverty and Environmental Degradation
Since poverty and environmental degradation are interdependent, it is appropriate to think of environmental concerns in terms of social justice. My research revolves around the problems of inequality and the environmental risks faced by the residents of the Via Park village-an informal settlement located in the region of Baixada de Jacarepaguá. A basic question arising from this research is to what extent can improved access to land equity actually contribute to mitigate the factors that encourage environmental degradation. By connecting land use issues to the learning process of environmental education, the research demonstrates that environmental degradation is a recurring phenomenon manifested in the inequitable ways land has been used and distributed in the region.
Via Park village has been caught in a serious land use struggle since the 1970s, when urban development began to impact many traditional fishing communities in the area. Builders were eager to lobby the government to break the fishermen’s land tenure system, which was enforced by law, and thereby turn the land over to market forces. In the 1980s, the area was designated a public reserve for environmental preservation, enshrined in Article 225 of the Brazilian Constitution (1988). Since the village was located on protected land, the city’s planning authorities then argued that the Via Park residents had no legitimate claims of ownership.
Living in an atmosphere of fear and at mercy of the land developers and speculators who continued to flourish, the Via Park residents started illegally subdividing and selling small parcels of land to new settlers. The growth of the poor population and the concentration of land ownership and speculation contributed to the expansion of informal land markets into nearby low-income communities.
Underlying these practices was a more complex system of commercial transactions and civil relations governing the invasion of vacant lands, as well as the division and sale of plots. Throughout Rio de Janeiro, land development through informal channels is the predominant “territorial pact” by which disadvantaged local groups have been able to gain access to land and housing. At the same time, agents from the “formal world” have developed political arrangements to support and take advantage of existing informal land markets.
It was in this context that a program for grassroots environmental improvement was conceived and eventually implemented in Via Park village. However, given the residents’ long history of exclusion-including threats of forced eviction-they remained suspicious. It became clear that successful program implementation would depend on managerial strategies based on an integrated vision of the geographic/ecological and social/cultural environment.
If the dilemma of poverty and environmental degradation is to be overcome, then the task of improving the environment must be shown to be compatible with the struggle for land equity. This innovative approach toward environmental education differs from traditional methodology, which is generally more concerned with simply introducing physical changes to the environment. The key here is to focus on the conditions that are favorable for the development and exercise of a sense of “community belonging”-a tangible expression of shared sentiments, values and identities where land is understood not only as a component of wealth, but as a common settled place invested with symbolic meanings.
Lessons of Via Park Village
While there is no single solution to the social and environmental vulnerability of the urban poor living in the Via Park village, their experience does offer some insights. One alternative suggests creating “urban natural reserves” integrated into the community where those threatened with forced eviction are encouraged to maintain their traditional lifestyles. In exchange, government authorities at all levels would accept the obligation to promote land equity, giving security of tenure and protection to those forced by circumstances to live in informal settlements.
Aspects of the environmental education program initiated in the Via Park village are applicable to other Latin American cities. The fundamental principle is based on insuring respect for the inherent identity of the community. The experience of the Via Park residents demonstrates that local action can contribute to consolidating a socio-political struggle for land equity with protection of the environment. This is in line with current thinking about land use and environmental management, which suggests an integrated approach that acknowledges the leadership role of the local residents.
The Via Park case reveals that a routine excuse being used to justify evictions is “protecting the environment.” In other words, the urban poor most often accused of being the primary protagonists of environmental degradation are in reality the greatest victims. For the 450 residents of the Via Park village, the trauma of being forcibly evicted from their homes will never be overcome. Five people, including two children and one woman, lost their lives in the confrontation. The Via Park village, now destroyed by bulldozers, still reminds us that hope for land equity lies in community solidarity, effective governance and democracy.
Sonia Pereira is a visiting fellow of the Lincoln Institute. She is also completing her Ph.D. thesis from the Institute of Earth Sciences of the Federal University in Rio de Janeiro, with support from a Fulbright scholarship. An environmental lawyer, biologist, social psychologist and activist on behalf of human rights, she has been widely recognized for her work on environmental protection for low-income communities in Brazil. She is a Citizen of the World Laureate (World Peace University, 1992) and a Global 500 Laureate (United Nations Environment Programme-UNEP, 1996).
SHARE
Matthew McKinney was named director of the Public Policy Research Institute at the University of Montana in 2003, after serving for 10 years as the founding director of the Montana Consensus Council. He is also a senior lecturer at the University of Montana’s School of Law, a partner with the Consensus Building Institute in Cambridge, and a faculty associate of the Lincoln Institute. Matt was a research fellow at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, in 2000 and 2002, and a visiting fellow of the Lincoln Institute in 2000. During the past 18 years, he has designed and facilitated more than 50 multiparty public processes, helping leaders and citizens address issues related to federal land management, land use planning, growth management, water policy, fish and wildlife, and public health and human services. He has published numerous journal articles and is coauthor of The Western Confluence: Governing Natural Resources (Island Press, June 2004).
Land Lines: You have a strong background in facilitation and consensus building. How do you apply that to land use planning?
Matt McKinney: I come to planning largely from a process perspective. Land use issues typically involve multiple parties, and the challenge of planning is to integrate diverse, often conflicting, interests. In my current work with the Public Policy Research Institute I operate on the assumption that one of the most effective ways to develop and implement strategies to sustain livable communities and healthy landscapes is to create opportunities for stakeholders to come together with the best available information to address issues of common concern. In short, the planning process is most effective when it is inclusive, informed and deliberative:
This principled approach has been shown through experience to produce decisions that are broadly supported by the public, and it eases implementation because the key stakeholders have already played their part in shaping the proposed action or plan. Compared to lobbying, litigation and other ways of shaping public policy, it can save time and money. Last—and important for planners—this approach offers an effective way to integrate social and political values within the scientific, technical and legal framework of land use planning. It’s a more cooperative and constructive way for planners and public interests to work together.
LL: Can you give some examples of how these principles work in the real world?
MM: In the northern Rocky Mountains, many communities with limited staff, money and other resources are struggling with double-digit growth, strains on local infrastructure and cultural clashes between newcomers and those with traditional western values. But westerners are infamous for resisting government intrusion—a predictable backlash in a region where the federal government holds sway over more than half of the land base. As a result planners often face a steep climb just to gain the public’s ear on land use issues.
These situations are ripe for inclusive, informed and deliberative approaches, and there are many examples across the West. In Helena, Montana, we helped a broad-based citizens group—including open space advocates, neighborhood leaders, realtors and developers—negotiate new procedures for subdivision reviews. Developers wanted to streamline the subdivision application process, and residents of established neighborhoods wanted to ensure that safeguards remained in place to preserve the small-town feel and curb sprawl. In another case, residents of Jefferson County, Montana, started talking about zoning after a cement plant near an elementary school proposed burning hazardous waste as fuel. The “z” word caused some resistance from local business and industry, notably the cement plant and a nearby mining operation, but we brought in a facilitator who helped a working group of local residents, industry representatives, private property rights advocates and county officials develop a zoning plan.
In both cases, negotiations took the form of deliberative dialogue that lasted about a year. Both groups used joint fact-finding to gather information that was credible to all parties at the table. Then they crafted proposals and submitted them to formal decision-making arenas—city council and county commission, respectively. After careful review, both the new subdivision protocols and the zoning plan were adopted essentially unopposed.
LL: What role do planners play in such processes?
MM: We frequently recommend using an impartial, third-party facilitator to help build trust and more effective working relationships among the stakeholders. A facilitator can also keep the group on task and focused on a common goal. In some cases planners can play this role themselves, but more often they act as conveners or sponsors of a multiparty process, or as vested stakeholders and hands-on participants. Either way, planners can participate more effectively if they have a working knowledge of the principles and strategies of collaborative problem solving.
LL: How can planners obtain this kind of training?
MM: Since 1999 the Lincoln Institute and the Consensus Building Institute have cosponsored a two-day introductory course, Mediating Land Use Disputes, for planning practitioners and others interested in land use decisions. It presents practical insights into negotiating and mediating conflicts over land use and community development. Using interactive exercises, games and simulations, participants receive hands-on experience with collaborative problem solving and public participation. They learn how to dovetail these concepts with existing processes for designing and adopting land use plans and evaluating development proposals. In addition, we are reaching out to 100 planners across 10 western states to enroll in the Planning Fundamentals course offered online through LEO, the Lincoln Education Online program.
LL: What other planning-related programs do you teach?
MM: Again with the Lincoln Institute, I have been involved in a relatively new and much-needed program for state planning directors in 13 western states, modeled on a similar program in the Northeast. These seminars provide a forum for leaders within state government to compare their experiences, learn from each others’ successes and failures, and build a common base of practical knowledge that will serve them in their individual efforts and in the region generally. The intent is not to promote any particular approach to planning and growth, but to explore a range of strategies to respond to growth and land use challenges in the West. The level of interest goes well beyond the planning officials themselves, as evidenced by the list of cosponsors: the Council of State Governments-WEST (an association of state legislators), the Western Governors Association, the Western Municipal Conference and Western Planners Resources.
LL: Is regionalism in the West a new emphasis in your work?
MM: Land use issues often transcend political and jurisdictional boundaries. Coping with sprawl, water and air quality, economic development and the effects of globalization demands practical, local solutions that also work within the bigger picture. Research indicates that many land use issues are most efficiently addressed at a regional scale. Instead of stopping at the county line or the border between federal and private land, planners are now thinking in terms of the “problemshed” or the “natural territory” of the problem.
More and more regional initiatives are being designed to address transboundary matters. Some augment existing government institutions, but most are more ad hoc and rely on the principles of collaboration to engage people with diverse interests and viewpoints. When we inventoried such initiatives throughout the West, we were as surprised as anyone by the sheer number and variety of ongoing regional efforts. They range from ad hoc, community-based groups like the Applegate Partnership in the Siskiyou Mountains of southwestern Oregon, which seeks to promote and sustain the ecological health of land within its watershed, to substantial government entities with regulatory authority like the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (McKinney, Fitch and Harmon 2002).
LL: How do you transfer this work to other regions?
MM: Recently I have worked with the Lincoln Institute to conduct clinics on regional collaboration for several interstate efforts in the New Jersey-New York area, including a watershed management plan for the Delaware River Basin Commission.
Another project is a collaborative effort among local, state and federal agencies in the New York-New Jersey Highlands, the 1.5-million-acre region between the Delaware and lower Connecticut rivers. State and federal land managers are assessing changes in land cover and use, identifying significant natural areas for protection, and developing strategies to protect the 12-county region’s open space and natural resources.
In addition, we have designed a two-day course titled Regional Collaboration: Learning to Think and Act Like a Region. It provides a conceptual framework and practical skills to train planners, local elected officials, small business owners, advocates and educators to initiate, design, coordinate and sustain regional initiatives. With the involvement of several national and regional organizations, the Institute cosponsored the first course in spring 2003 in Salt Lake City and offered it again in March 2004 at Lincoln House in Cambridge.
Reference
McKinney, Matthew, Craig Fitch, and Will Harmon. 2002. Regionalism in the West: An inventory and assessment. Public Land and Resources Law Review 23:101–191.
The inventory is also available online at www.crmw.org/Assets/misc/regionalinventory.asp and www.crmw.org/Assets/misc/regarticle.htm
Related Articles
Carbonell, Armando, and Lisa Cloutier. 2003. Planning for growth in western cities. Land Lines 15(3):8–11.
McKinney, Matthew. 2003. Linking growth and land use to water supply. Land Lines 15(2):4–6.
McKinney, Matthew, and Will Harmon. 2002. Land use planning and growth management in the American West. Land Lines 14(1):1–4.
SHARE
Report from the President on Property Rights
SHARE
Cities are both contributors to and victims of global climate change. Delta cities, in particular, have long been recognized as being extremely vulnerable because they are located where the stresses on natural systems coincide with intense human activity.
A number of climate change impacts may affect delta cities, including rising sea levels, infrastructure damage from extreme weather events, the public health implications of higher average temperatures, altered energy consumption patterns, stress on water resources, impacts on tourism and cultural heritage, decreased urban biodiversity, and ancillary effects on air pollution (IPCC 2007). Climate change also may affect physical assets used for economic production and services, as well as the costs of raw materials and inputs, which in turn will affect competitiveness, economic performance, and employment patterns.
China’s remarkable economic growth since the beginning of the country’s reform period in 1978 has concentrated a large share of population and wealth along the coast, especially in three megacity regions: Pearl River Delta, Yangtze River Delta, and Capital Region. While the potential implications of climate change pose a challenge for coastal communities around the world, this geographic concentration of population and economic activity seems disproportionate in China.
Among China’s coastal and delta regions, the Pearl River Delta (PRD) in Guangdong province is an important economic center that includes the cities of Guangzhou, Shenzhen, and seven prefecture-level municipalities. Together with Hong Kong and Macao, the greater PRD area is one of the key megacity regions in the world, but its geography makes it highly vulnerable to sea level rise. Unprecedented economic and urban development, along with the major changes in land use and land cover accompanying that development over the past three decades, has released large emissions of CO2, leading to higher temperatures and more intensive and extreme weather events (Tracy, Trumbull, and Loh 2006). Given the importance of this region to both China and the broader global economy, we take a closer look at the PRD’s contribution to and risks from climate change.
Industrialization and Urbanization
With the establishment of the Shenzhen and Zhuhai Special Economic Zone in 1980, the PRD was among the earliest regions in China to begin to liberalize its economy. Its institutional advantages, combined with its proximity to Hong Kong and Macao, made the PRD the fastest growing region in the world during the past three decades. From 1979 to 2008, the PRD’s GDP grew at 15.6 percent annually in constant prices, outpacing both the national rate of 9.77 percent and the provincial rate of 13.8 percent.
As a result, the delta’s contribution to the share of GDP in China soared from 2.8 percent in 1979 to 9.5 percent in 2008. In terms of total fixed investment, foreign direct investment, exports, and energy consumption, the PRD was one of the most important and dynamic economic regions in China during this period (figure 1).
This rapid development resulted from the dual process of industrialization and urbanization. The region’s secondary and tertiary industries have grown rapidly as primary industry has gradually decreased in relative economic importance, with its contribution to GDP declining from 26.9 percent in 1979 to 2.4 percent in 2008, while the tertiary service sector grew from 27.9 percent to 47.3 percent.
Over the same time, the population increased from 17.97 to 47.71 million residents, reaching an urbanization rate of 82.2 percent in 2008. In terms of land use, areas designated for manufacturing, residential, and commercial uses grew by 8.47 percent annually, increasing from 1,068.7 square kilometers (k2) in 1979 to 4,617.16 k2 in 2008 (figure 2).
Climate Changes
Given these dramatic land use changes and the region’s increased emissions of greenhouse gases, it is not surprising that the PRD has experienced noticeable regional climate changes. The Guangdong Meteorological Administration (2007) reported that the average temperature increase in Guangdong province over the past five decades has been 0.21 °C every 10 years, which is similar to the rate of warming seen nationally in China. Guangdong’s coastal region, especially the highly urbanized PRD, witnessed even greater temperature increases, averaging 0.3 °C every 10 years. The cities of Shenzhen, Dongguan, Zhongshan, and Foshan warmed more than 0.4 °C every 10 years.
After compiling data from 21 meteorological stations in the PRD region, we calculated the average annual and seasonal temperatures during the 1971–2008 period and compared them with the annual temperatures in Guangdong. Our research showed the PRD has experienced significant warming and has been hotter than the entire Guangdong province during the observed period. Since the 1970s, the PRD has seen its average temperature rise by approximately 1.19 °C to 22.89 °C in the most recent decade, with annual average temperatures remaining above the region’s 30-year average temperature of 22.1 °C since 1994 (figure 3).
The winter and autumn seasons saw the most considerable temperature increases, with averages of 24.1 °C in the autumn and 15.2 °C in the winter between 1994 and 2007. These temperatures are significantly higher than their respective 40-year averages of 23.5 °C and 14.6 °C. While not as significant, average spring and summer temperatures in the PRD during the 1997–2007 period were also greater than their 40-year average temperatures of 22 °C and 28.2 °C. This regional warming phenomenon is also seen to a lesser degree in Guangzhou, a populous and characteristic metropolis in the PRD, where average temperatures have risen like those in the greater delta region.
As the PRD’s climate has warmed more quickly than that in the rest of the province, the rapid industrialization and urbanization has generated enormous energy demand from manufacturing industries, transportation, and residential consumers, resulting in greater emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases that are contributing to global climate change. The increased concentration of greenhouse gases, both regionally and globally, represents a large latent source of future warming and additional changes.
Impacts of Climate Change
Given its coastal geography and population density, Guangdong is among the most vulnerable of China’s coastal provinces to the sort of meteorological disasters that are expected to increase with global warming. In 2008, Guangdong experienced direct economic losses of 15.43 billion yuan and 73 deaths, accounting for 75 percent and 48 percent of national totals, respectively, as well as the loss of 602 kilometers (km) of land to coastal erosion (table 1). With sea levels in the province having risen by 75 millimeters (mm) during the 1975–1993 period, the China Meteorological Administration’s (2009b) prediction that sea levels will rise a further 78–150 mm between 2008 and 2038 represents a serious threat to coastal infrastructure and communities in the PRD.
Guangdong has long been impacted by marine hazards such as rainstorms, cyclones, and storm surges that have killed hundreds of people, caused serious damage to housing and transportation infrastructure, and impacted farming in the province. In the 1950s, the annual average farming area affected by marine hazards was about 200,000 hectares (ha), which grew to 440,000 ha in the 1960s and 500,000 ha in the 1970s, before jumping to 1,411,000 ha in the 1990s.
In addition to more frequent extreme storm events, instances of drought also have been increasing in the PRD. In the 1950s, the average farming area affected by droughts in Guangdong was 104,000 ha, which grew steadily to reach 201,500 ha in the 1980s, 282,500 ha in the 1990s, and 426,400 ha in the 2000s. Given the expected increases in the frequency of extreme weather events, as well as rising temperatures and sea levels, agricultural and mariculture activities in the PRD will be increasingly vulnerable to future climate change.
Cities in the PRD are particularly susceptible to natural disasters and climate change as they concentrate infrastructure, nonagricultural activities, and population, severely impacting economic activities and daily life. Rainstorms and typhoons occur frequently in the region and typically entail serious damage and huge economic losses. During the 2000–2007 period, for instance, rainstorms and typhoons in Shenzhen caused cumulative direct economic losses of 525 and 277 million yuan respectively, accounting for approximately for 63 and 33 percent of total direct economic losses associated with all meteorological hazards in the city (figure 4).
Meteorological hazards also lead to disruptive impacts on facilities, infrastructure, and transportation. Rainstorms and typhoons impose challenges on urban sewage systems and flood control facilities, while prolonged periods of high or low temperatures exert pressure on urban power supply infrastructure.
In May 2009, Shenzhen experienced an unprecedented rainstorm, with some parts of the city receiving daily precipitation in excess of 208 mm. The storm flooded 40 areas of the city and left 11 areas under at least one meter of water. Two years before, in April 2007, rainstorms flooded the Qinghuhe River in Shenzhen, damaging embankments and toppling power lines. On the other end of the spectrum, in July 2004 Guangzhou suffered a prolonged heat wave that created tremendous demand for electricity. Usage eventually peaked at 8.45 million kilowatts and forced many enterprises to stop production to help conserve power.
Transportation is the lifeline of urban activity and economic production. As two of China’s major population and economic centers, Shenzhen and Guangzhou are particularly important national transportation hubs, and any disruptions from extreme weather events such as rainstorms, typhoons, and flooding have far-reaching effects across the country.
When tropical storm Fengshen landed in Shenzhen on June 24, 2008, the city’s Yantian seaport was forced to close and hundreds of vessels were stuck in port, resulting in huge economic losses. During 2008, four tropical storms and one rainstorm resulted in the cancellation of 249 flights and the delay of 386 other flights at the Shenzhen International Airport, stranding more than 20,000 passengers. In 2009, three major weather events caused the cancellation of 176 flights and the delay of 326 flights, while 4,151 ships were forced to take shelter in Yantian port. As Chinese travelers become more affluent and air travel grows more rapidly, the vulnerability of these cities to disruption by severe weather events is set to increase.
Disruptive Effects of Sea Level Rise
The China Meteorological Administration (2009b) has identified the PRD as one of the country’s areas most at risk from rising sea levels due to its low mean sea level. Previous studies concur that sea levels in the PRD are rising and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future. Figure 5 illustrates the changes in sea level recorded at three tidal gauges (Hong Kong, Zha Po, and Shan Tou) during the 1958–2001 period. Hong Kong recorded a sea level rise of 0.24 centimeters per year (cm/year) during the period, while Zha Po and Shan Tou saw sea levels rise by 0.21cm/year and 0.13cm/year, respectively. Tidal records from six different gauges in the Pearl River estuary show that sea levels have risen at an accelerating rate over the last 40 years.
With the melting of glaciers globally due to climate change, these recent rises in sea level are expected to continue and potentially even accelerate. Li and Zeng (1998) offered three forecasts for sea level rise in the PRD, with 100 cm (high), 65 cm (middle), and 35 cm (low) forecasts by 2100. These predictions have been echoed by similar projections from the Chinese Academy of Sciences (1994), which indicate that sea levels in the PRD would rise by 40 to 60 cm by 2050.
The physical geography and urban development of the delta render it extremely vulnerable to the effects of sea level rise, and many lowland areas are likely to be inundated (Yang 1996). According to calculations by China’s National Marine Data and Information Service, a sea level rise of 30 cm could inundate an area of 1,154 k2 of coast and islands at high tide, with Guangzhou, Doumen County, and Foshan at particular risk (Guangdong Meteorological Administration 2007).
Coastal and river flooding in the PRD is influenced by several factors: rainfall, high tides, high winds, and typhoons and storm surges. The combination of weather and tidal factors that causes water levels to rise by upwards of three meters during tidal cycles is already well known in parts of the Pearl River Estuary (Tracy, Trumbull, and Loh 2006). According to Huang, Zong, and Zhang (2004), the current maximum tidal range increases as one travels up the estuary, from a low of 2.34 meters near Hong Kong to 3.31 meters at Zhewan, before reaching 3.35 meters at Nansha.
Rising sea levels would magnify the effect of storm surges, which already can be dramatic when weather and tidal factors coincide. Analyzing records from 54 tidal gauges across the PRD, Huang, Zong, and Zhang (2004) created predictions for water level rises in different parts of the delta under a number of different flood scenarios. According to the lowest freshwater discharge scenario (2000 m2/s), their simulations show that a 30 cm sea level rise will affect the northwest part of the region most severely and the majority of the area significantly. These researchers also simulated the impacts of a 30 cm sea level rise on the distribution of flood damage based on four freshwater discharge scenarios, showing that as floods increase in severity the size of the areas affected also increases.
Summary and Discussion
Delta cities enjoy locational advantages that make them attractive to both residents and businesses, and thereby lead many delta regions to develop into vital economic cores in many countries. Delta cities, however, are particularly vulnerable to meteorological hazards and are more at risk than inland cities to the existing and anticipated effects of climate change. The Pearl River Delta has witnessed substantial increases in both sea levels and temperatures, greater variation in rainfall, more frequent extreme weather events, and increasing losses from marine hazards.
More frequent meteorological hazards such as flooding from tropical storms and rainfalls have indeed caused disruptive impacts in the PRD: disrupting agricultural and mariculture production, damaging coastal defenses and embankments, destroying houses and facilities, shutting down transportation, and causing the loss of life. Sea level rise resulting from global warming represents a further threat and challenge in many parts of the region. The cumulative impact of these interrelated weather and climate phenomena have increased the costs of development in the PRD substantially. Fortunately, provincial and municipal governments have realized the importance of climate mitigation and adaptation, and are looking to the experiences of other delta cities around the world for valuable lessons about how best to strengthen urban sustainability and resiliency.
References
China Meteorological Administration. 2009a. China marine hazards report 2008. Beijing.
———. 2009b. China sea level report 2008. Beijing.
Chinese Academy of Sciences. 1994. The impact of sea level rise on economic development of the Pearl River Delta. In The impacts of sea level rise on China’s delta regions. Beijing: Science Press.
Du, Yao-dong, Li-li Song, Hui-qing Mao, Hai-yan Tang, and An-gao Xu. 2004. Climate warming in Guangdong province and its influences on agriculture and counter measures. Journal of Tropical Meteorology 10(2): 150–159.
Guangdong Meteorological Administration. 2007. Assessment report on climate change in Guangdong. www.gdemo.gov.cn
He, Canfei, Lei Yang, and Guicai Li. 2010. Urban development and climate change in the Pearl River Delta. Working Paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Huang, Z., Y. Zong, and W. Zhang. 2004. Coastal inundation due to sea level rise in the Pearl River Delta, China. Natural Hazards 33: 247–264.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Li, P., and Z. Zeng. 1998. On the climatic and environmental changes in the Pearl River Delta during the last 500 years. Quaternary Sciences 1: 65–70.
Tracy, A., K. Trumbull, and C. Loh. 2006. The impacts of climate change in Hong Kong and the Pearl River Delta. Hong Kong: Civic Exchange.
Wu, Y. and Li, H. 2009. Meteorological disasters and hazard evaluations in Shenzhen since 2000. Guangdong Meteorology. 31(3): 43-45 (in Chinese).
Yang, H. 1996. Potential effects of sea-level rise in the Pearl River Delta area: Preliminary study results and a comprehensive adaptation strategy. In Adapting to climate change: An international perspective, J. N. Smith, et al., eds. New York: Springer-Verlag.
About the Authors
Canfei Heis professor in the College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Peking University, and associate director of the Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy. He is also the associate director of the Economic Geography Specialty Group of the China Geographical Society. His research interests include multinational corporations, industrial location and spatial clustering of firms, and energy and the environment in China, and his publications appear in many international journals.
Lei Yang is a Ph.D. student in Shenzhen Graduate School of Peking University.
SHARE
Siqi Zheng is an associate professor at the Hang Lung Center for Real Estate and the deputy head of the Department of Construction Management, both at Tsinghua University in Beijing, China. She specializes in urban economics and China’s housing market, particularly urban spatial structure, green cities, housing supply and demand, housing price dynamics, and low-income housing policies.
Her innovative and diverse research projects have been supported by international research institutions including the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the International Growth Center at London School of Economics, and various departments of the Chinese government including the National Science Foundation of China, the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development, and the National Statistics Bureau of China.
Dr. Zheng received her Ph.D. in urban economics and real estate economics from Tsinghua University, and she pursued post-doctoral research in urban economics at the Graduate School of Design at Harvard University. She is a research fellow at both the Peking University-Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy and the Center for Industrial Development and Environmental Governance at Tsinghua University.
Dr. Zheng is also the vice secretary-general of the Global Chinese Real Estate Congress. She has won awards such as the Homer Hoyt Post-Doctoral Honoree (2010) and the Best Paper Award from the American Real Estate Society (2005). She is also on the editorial boards of Journal of Housing Economics and International Real Estate Review.
Land Lines: How did you become associated with the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and its programs in China?
Siqi Zheng: I first learned about the Lincoln Institute when I did my postdoctoral research at Harvard University in 2005-2006. I joined the Peking University-Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy (PLC) as a research fellow soon after it was established in 2007. From that time I became fully involved in PLC’s research activities, such as conducting research projects, reviewing research proposals, and participating in conferences. I was awarded an international research fellowship by the Lincoln Institute in 2008-2009, with my colleagues Yuming Fu and Hongyu Liu, to study urban housing opportunities in various Chinese cities. I now lead the housing team at PLC in conducting policy-relevant research in the areas of housing market analysis and low-income housing policies.
Land Lines: Why is the study of the urban economics and the housing market so important to China’s future?
Siqi Zheng: China is experiencing rapid urbanization at a rate of about 50 percent in 2011, but it is expected to reach 70 percent over the next 10 to 20 years. Up to 1.5 million new migrants already move to Chinese cities per year. Such rapid urban growth offers potentially large economic benefits, as cities offer much better opportunities to trade, to learn, and to specialize in an occupation that offers an individual the greatest opportunity to achieve life goals.
However, rapid urbanization also imposes potentially large social costs, such as pollution and congestion, and urban quality of life suffers from a fundamental tragedy of the commons problem. Urban economics research addresses these issues and tries to figure out a way to maximize agglomeration economies and at the same time minimize congestion diseconomies. This is crucial for China’s future, because urbanization is the engine for China’s growth.
The housing sector is a key determinant of both the quantitative and qualitative dimensions of urban growth. Along the quantitative dimension, everyone in the city needs some place to live. Housing supply has important influences on a city’s overall size and its living cost, and thus the labor cost. Along the qualitative dimension, intensive social interactions happen in vibrant urban communities and neighborhoods. The spillover effect arising from such activities reduces the cost of learning and contributes to human capital improvement.
Low-income housing is a major policy issue in China. Income inequality is rising and housing prices are very high in major Chinese cities, so low-income households face severe affordability problems. For years the Chinese government had overlooked the supply of affordable housing, but it has recently began to understand that well-designed policies for low-income housing are crucial for achieving more inclusive urban growth opportunities for all residents.
Land Lines: How do you approach the study of urban economics and China’s housing market?
Siqi Zheng: I am doing cross-city and within-city studies on the intersection of urban and environmental economics. With increasing labor mobility across cities, China is moving toward a system of open cities. Under the compensating differentials framework, I use city-level real estate prices to recover households’ willingness-to-pay for urban amenities, such as better air quality, more green space, and educational opportunities. My basic finding is that Chinese urban households do value quality of life. As China’s urbanites grow richer over time, their desire to live in clean, low-risk cities is rising.
Within a city, I examine the jobs-housing spatial interactions–where people live, where they work, and how they choose their commuting mode. I use household survey data and real estate transaction data to model these behaviors, since individual choices determine the basic pattern of urban form. Those individual behaviors (“snowballs”) also have important implications for the interrelationships among land use, transportation, and the urban environment, because car ownership is rising and the increase in vehicle miles traveled has become a major contributor to pollution in Chinese cities.
I also focus on housing market dynamics and low-income housing policies. Our Tsinghua team constructed the first quality-controlled hedonic price index based on transaction data in 40 Chinese cities. My coauthors and I estimate the income elasticity of housing demand and the price elasticity of housing supply, and examine the determinants of such elasticities. Using microdata, I investigate how land and housing supply and public investments affect price and quantity dynamics in the urban housing market. I pay close attention to the housing choices of low-income households and rural migrants. Based on my behavior-based empirical study using microdata, I explore the kinds of urban and housing policies that can improve the position of these disadvantaged groups in both housing and labor markets.
Land Lines: What challenges do you think China will face in this field in the coming decade?
Siqi Zheng: The major challenge is how to achieve a successful transition toward sustainability. China’s rapid economic growth in recent years was largely export-based and benefited from low labor, land, and regulatory costs. The environmental disasters and social unrest that have occurred in many places in China indicate that the current approach is not sustainable for the long term.
Policy makers should reshape urban policies in a variety of ways. Remaining institutional barriers on labor mobility should be removed. Negative externalities of urban production and consumption activities (such as pollution and congestion) should be priced correctly so that individuals’ behaviors are consistent with the socially optimal solution. Income inequality and spatial inequality issues should be addressed. More investment in human capital is needed. Housing plays a pivot role because it is the largest asset a household owns, and it also affects accessibility to urban opportunities and the quality of social interactions.
Land Lines: What are some potential policy implications of this research on the housing market?
Siqi Zheng: Most of my work is empirical analysis with microdata, so I can focus on the incentives and choices made by individuals, firms, and governments. I also look at how these choices determine urban form, local quality of life, the labor market, and housing market outcomes. In this way I can provide key parameters for policy makers to support their policy design. For instance, I identify the cities with different housing supply and demand conditions, and suggest that officials should offer different low-income housing policy choices. Cities with an abundant housing stock can use demand-side instruments such as housing vouchers, but those without enough housing should use supply-side instruments such as building more public housing.
Land Lines: Is China’s experience with housing market development useful to share with other developing countries?
Siqi Zheng: Yes, because many countries also face difficult situations in their housing sectors. Some of the common challenges are how to house the vast numbers of rural migrants in cities; how to provide more affordable housing for increasing numbers of low-income people; where and by what means to provide such housing; and, as cities expand spatially, what are the appropriate urban planning policies and infrastructure investment strategies that can achieve efficient and inclusive urban growth? Through the research conferences and publications produced by the Peking University-Lincoln Institute Center, China’s experiences are already providing lessons for other developing countries.
Land Lines: Can you describe some examples of housing supply in the informal housing sector?
Siqi Zheng: Nations such as Brazil, India, and China have many poor migrants living in squatter and informal areas. Local governments have little incentive to provide public services to such areas because the improvements, including clean water and sewerage facilities, will simply stimulate more urban migration.
Chengzhongcun (urban village) is a typical type of informal housing in large Chinese cities. It represents a match between migrants’ demand for low-cost housing and the supply of housing available in the villages being encroached upon by urban expansion. High crime rates, inadequate infrastructure and services, and poor living conditions are just some of the problems in urban villages that threaten public security and management. My research on Chengzhongcun shows that local governments at first liked this kind of low-cost informal housing because it can lower labor costs and thus contribute to higher GDP growth in their cities. However, the low quality of social interaction and the shortage of basic public services do not provide a sustainable way of life for the poor rural migrants.
As the industrial sector moves toward a more skill-intensive economy, local governments should consider how to improve the quality of human capital rather than focus on the quantity of cheap labor. This may provide the incentive to upgrade informal housing and transform it to formal housing, or provide public housing to those migrants so they can access more urban opportunities and improve their skills. This transitional process is now occurring in China, and will soon happen in other developing countries that can benefit from China’s experience.
Another example is the role of housing supply in urban growth. Many studies already show that housing supply can support or constrain urban growth because the size and price of housing stock influence labor supply and living costs. In developing countries land and housing supply are influenced by government regulations and behaviors to a greater extent than in developed countries. The design of housing supply policies needs to accommodate future urban growth for all sectors of society.
I have written many working papers on these topics and contributed to the 2011 Lincoln Institute book, China’s Housing Reform and Outcomes, edited by Joyce Yanyun Man, director of the Peking-Lincoln Center at Peking University.
SHARE
Veintitrés estados ofrecen un incentivo para preservar el espacio abierto, que consiste en un avalúo preferencial del impuesto a la propiedad sobre las parcelas elegibles (tabla 1, pág. 17). Estas reducciones en el impuesto a la propiedad pueden considerarse como gastos, ya que reducen los ingresos disponibles para otros usos con el interés de proteger la gran cantidad de atracciones y beneficios ambientales que proporciona un terreno sin desarrollar.
Los programas varían mucho de un estado a otro, pero todos los programas de avalúo preferencial para el espacio abierto deben definir el tipo y tamaño de las parcelas elegibles, los usos permitidos, los requisitos de certificación, los métodos de avalúo, la duración del plazo de inscripción y las sanciones (de corresponder) en el caso de cancelar la condición preferencial de la parcela. Varios estados ofrecen más de un programa, cada uno de los cuales establece sus propios requisitos de elegibilidad. En el presente artículo consideramos estas diferencias, ofrecemos ejemplos del cálculo del gasto fiscal y describimos los posibles beneficios y costos sociales derivados de dichos programas.
Determinación de la elegibilidad para el avalúo preferencial
Cada estado define la elegibilidad de diferentes maneras, pero los requisitos son, por lo general, relativamente sencillos de cumplir. Una parcela puede ser elegible simplemente por no estar desarrollada. Varios estados permiten que los terrenos con valor paisajístico sean elegibles siempre que la densidad de construcción no exceda los límites establecidos. Por ejemplo, en Washington se permite que los terrenos sean elegibles si cumplen al menos con uno de once requisitos muy generales, tales como la protección de corrientes de agua o recursos hídricos, la conservación o mejora de recursos naturales o paisajísticos, la preservación de la calidad visual a lo largo de los caminos o la mejora de las oportunidades recreativas.
Aunque estos criterios son muy generales, los estados pueden elevar el nivel mediante la imposición de requisitos adicionales a los propietarios. Algunos estados requieren que los propietarios elaboren un plan de gestión de la propiedad, aprobado por el estado, con el fin de fomentar los beneficios de la vida silvestre del lugar. En Vermont se establece que una organización de conservación elegible debe poseer y gestionar el espacio abierto. Uno de los dos programas vigentes en Texas requiere que los propietarios realicen actividades de gestión de terrenos y vida silvestre con el fin de propagar una población de animales salvajes indígenas, que estén criando, migrando o hibernando, para uso humano, incluidas alimentación, medicina o recreación.
Varios estados ofrecen un avalúo preferencial a las propiedades que han obtenido la condición de espacio abierto a nivel federal. Por ejemplo, las parcelas que se encuentran limitadas por una servidumbre de conservación que cumple con los requisitos del IRS (Servicio de Rentas Internas) para ser considerada una donación de beneficencia son automáticamente elegibles para un avalúo preferencial en Illinois y Oregón. En Ohio, las parcelas son elegibles sólo si son objeto de un contrato con alguno de los cuatro programas de la USDA (Departamento de Agricultura de los Estados Unidos): el Programa de Reserva de Conservación, el Programa de Mejora de Reserva de Conservación, el Programa de Reserva de Pantanos y el Programa de Preservación de Pastizales.
Además, es posible que las parcelas deban cumplir requisitos de tamaño mínimo. El mínimo más común es de 4 hectáreas contiguas, aunque algunos programas permiten propiedades más pequeñas, de hasta 0,8 hectáreas y otros programas directamente no establecen requisitos en este sentido. Unos pocos estados limitan el total de hectáreas que un propietario en particular puede inscribir en el programa. Por ejemplo, en Tennessee se limita la elegibilidad a 607 hectáreas por propietario y condado, incluyendo tierras agrícolas, bosques y espacio abierto combinados. La declaración del tipo de uso de la propiedad puede tener influencia sobre la posibilidad de que dicha propiedad sea aceptada o no, ya que algunos estados prohíben específicamente las propiedades con fines comerciales, tales como los campos de golf. No obstante, al menos dos estados tienen programas diseñados específicamente para los campos de golf y otras propiedades con fines comerciales que brindan oportunidades de recreación al aire libre.
Criterios estatales versus criterios municipales
Los gobiernos estatales por lo general autorizan la creación de programas de avalúo preferencial y los criterios de inclusión. Seis estados permiten que los funcionarios municipales o de cada condado determinen los criterios: el estado autoriza un programa y solamente establece, por ejemplo, que las parcelas estén “incluidas en un plan de preservación aprobado por una agencia de planificación estatal o municipal” (Chervin, Gibson y Green 2009, 8) o que el organismo gubernamental respectivo acepte la propiedad mediante una resolución. Los estados que establecen este requisito son California, Connecticut, Florida, Nevada, Tennessee y Oregón. Los funcionarios municipales o de cada condado deben luego escoger los criterios de elegibilidad que, en algunos casos, incluyen la denominación de parcelas específicas. En otros casos, la oficina de avalúo determina la elegibilidad teniendo en cuenta las características de la propiedad y evaluando si ésta cumple con los criterios.
Este enfoque permite a los gobiernos municipales controlar la cantidad de gastos realizados en sus respectivas jurisdicciones y adaptar el programa con el fin de proteger las cualidades específicas que resultan más importantes para esa área en particular. Por ejemplo, es posible que los funcionarios en un entorno predominantemente agrícola prefieran utilizar los gastos fiscales en bosques o pantanos, mientras que los campos abiertos tal vez sean más valorados en un entorno más urbano.
Cálculo del valor del gasto fiscal
Los programas de avalúo preferencial de espacios abiertos por lo general utilizan uno de los tres métodos para determinar el valor fiscal de la propiedad. Nueve estados valúan el espacio abierto como si estuviera inscrito en el programa del estado para agricultura o bosques, aun cuando el terreno no se utilice para ninguna de estas actividades. Otros nueve estados ordenan a los tasadores valuar las propiedades teniendo en cuenta solamente su utilización actual, sin incluir el valor de los derechos de desarrollo (es decir, el valor de mercado como si su uso futuro estuviera permanentemente limitado a su uso actual). Cuatro estados establecen que los tasadores deben determinar el valor justo de mercado como si el terreno no estuviera inscrito en el programa y luego aplicar una fórmula establecida por ley con el fin de determinar el valor fiscal preferencial. Illinois tiene tres programas de avalúo preferencial para el espacio abierto, que varían según sus criterios de elegibilidad, aunque todos ofrecen reducciones establecidas por ley que se encuentran entre el 75 por ciento y el 85 por ciento. Nevada aplica un descuento establecido por ley más reducido del 26 por ciento.
En ocasiones, los estados deciden definir valores máximos o mínimos por hectárea para las parcelas en espacios abiertos. Por ejemplo, en Maryland se estableció un valor en todo el estado de US$187,50 por acre (US$75 por hectárea) para el año 2009. En Washington se permite que los gobiernos municipales determinen el valor de uso para su región, según un sistema de calificación de beneficios públicos; en el caso de que no exista tal sistema, los terrenos en espacios abiertos pueden recibir una valuación no menor que la valuación agrícola más baja del condado. En Massachusetts se calcula el valor preferencial como valor de uso, que no debe exceder el 25 por ciento del valor justo de mercado.
Duración del programa y sanciones por rescisión anticipada
Muchos programas establecen la renovación anual automática a menos que el propietario decida retirarse del programa. En algunos casos, la duración del contrato está predeterminada: con frecuencia es de 10 años, período que generalmente se traslada al nuevo propietario cuando se vende la propiedad, a menos que el nuevo propietario altere el uso de la propiedad e infrinja los términos del programa. Los propietarios deben pagar una multa por retirarse del programa para alterar el uso del terreno o por alterarlo sin notificar esta decisión. Las sanciones suelen ser equivalentes al valor del gasto fiscal recibido para una determinada cantidad de años antes del año en curso, más los intereses sobre dichos gastos. Varios estados aplican un monto del 10 por ciento del valor justo de mercado cuando la utilización de la parcela cambia, o cobran un impuesto a la transferencia o transmisión de la propiedad cuando una parcela inscrita en el programa se vende.
Sin embargo, si un propietario retira una parcela de un programa después de transcurrida una cantidad mínima de años, el estado puede reducir o incluso eliminar las sanciones. Por ejemplo, en Vermont se les cobra a los propietarios el 20 por ciento del valor justo de mercado por retirar la propiedad durante la primera década, y un 10 por ciento por retirarla después de los 10 años. Rhode Island deduce el 10 por ciento del nuevo valor justo de mercado por retirar una propiedad del programa después de transcurridos 6 años, pero dicha multa se va reduciendo hasta que el contrato se rescinde, es decir, a los 16 años de la inscripción en el programa.
Beneficios económicos de la preservación del espacio abierto
La abundante bibliografía en torno a los efectos que las atracciones ambientales tienen sobre los valores de las propiedades circundantes sugiere que si se evita el desarrollo en una parcela, esto traerá como consecuencia el aumento del valor de las parcelas adyacentes. Sin embargo, en estas investigaciones se observaron factores de complicación que dificultan la predicción de cambios en el valor para regiones específicas. Por ejemplo, los resultados de un estudio realizado en Maryland arrojaron que los programas para espacios abiertos tienen efectos muy diferentes en el valor de las propiedades en tres condados distintos, probablemente debido, al menos en parte, a las variaciones en la cantidad de espacios abiertos que existen (Geoghegan, Lynch y Bucholtz 2003). Muchos otros estudios indican que el valor del espacio abierto para propietarios en particular disminuye a medida que aumenta la distancia desde la parcela protegida (Chamblee y otros 2011). El tipo de hábitat o espacio verde probablemente también sea un factor de influencia: según un análisis, la presencia de árboles frondosos en un barrio se asocia con valores positivos, pero la presencia de abetos tiene un efecto negativo en los valores de la propiedad (Garrod y Willis 1992). Los resultados de un análisis de precios de viviendas en Tucson, Arizona, arrojaron que existe una preferencia por viviendas en áreas con espacios verdes, inclusive el hábitat ribereño nativo (Bark y otros 2009; 2011).
El acceso público a espacios abiertos de propiedad privada con fines recreativos o educativos probablemente también brindaría grandes bene-ficios al municipio en muchos casos. Los estados casi nunca requieren que el acceso público sea una condición para el gasto fiscal, aunque tanto Maine como Nueva Hampshire fomentan esta condición, ya que ofrecen una reducción adicional en el valor fiscal del 25 por ciento y el 20 por ciento, respectivamente.
El espacio abierto protegido también puede reducir el crecimiento en la demanda de servicios provistos por el municipio y, así, evitar los efectos negativos del desarrollo, tales como el tránsito intenso o las escuelas superpobladas, que muy probablemente se traducirían en una mayor carga fiscal para los residentes actuales. La creciente bibliografía en cuanto al costo de los servicios comunitarios indica que los impuestos a la propiedad que se pagan por los terrenos desarrollados son, por lo general, insuficientes a la hora de cubrir el costo de los servicios creados con el fin de apoyar dicho desarrollo, mientras que los espacios abiertos frecuentemente generan ingresos fiscales que exceden el costo de los servicios utilizados en la propiedad. El American Farmland Trust observó, según los resultados de 151 estudios realizados en condados y municipios de 25 estados, que los propietarios de terrenos de cultivo o espacios abiertos con frecuencia pagan impuestos superiores al costo de los servicios que reciben en dichas propiedades (e incluso llegan a ser el doble), mientras que los propietarios de inmuebles residenciales por lo general pagan menos que el costo de los servicios que reciben (Farmland Information Center 2010).
Resultados de este tipo sugieren que el avalúo preferencial puede justificarse con base en la equidad, ya que es posible que los propietarios de espacios abiertos estén subsidiando servicios prestados a los propietarios de inmuebles desarrollados. Sin embargo, el hecho de que la mayoría de los programas requieran un contrato a largo plazo e incluyan sanciones por la rescisión anticipada indica que el objetivo no es la equidad sino evitar el desarrollo durante un período determinado.
Lamentablemente, existe muy poca bibliografía sobre la estimación de si los programas de avalúo preferencial pueden evitar el desarrollo futuro en parcelas que no se encuentran protegidas en forma permanente, tales como las servidumbres. Gran parte de las evidencias que existen actualmente está basada en estudios sobre los programas de protección de terrenos agrícolas en lugar de evaluaciones del impacto que los gastos del impuesto a la propiedad tienen sobre el espacio abierto. En dos estudios llevados a cabo por el programa Greenbelt (cinturón verde) de Tennessee se evaluó una encuesta realizada a propietarios de zonas boscosas inscritos en el programa y sus resultados arrojaron muy pocas pruebas que sustentaran la hipótesis de que el avalúo preferencial reducía la probabilidad de que se llevaran a cabo desarrollos en dichas parcelas (Brockett, Gottfried y Evans 2003; Williams y otros 2004).
Es mucho más sencillo evaluar los terrenos sujetos a una protección a largo plazo o permanente, ya sea mediante una servidumbre de conservación perpetua como a través de un contrato de avalúo preferencial a largo plazo que incluya importantes sanciones en caso de rescisión anticipada. En dichos casos, es posible predecir con un gran nivel de confianza la presencia continua del espacio abierto. Lamentablemente, dichos contratos de protección pueden anteceder al avalúo preferencial o, en otros casos, no estar influenciados por dicho avalúo.
Costos del avalúo preferencial para el espacio abierto
Además del gasto fiscal en sí, estos programas pueden generar otros posibles costos. Por ejemplo, aquellos programas que requieren la aprobación de un plan de conservación podrían generar un gasto particularmente significativo. Aun cuando una agencia estatal pudiera desarrollar y aprobar dicho plan, resultaría muy costoso garantizar el cumplimiento de las condiciones del mismo.
La supervisión del cumplimiento del programa requiere evaluar no sólo los cambios en el valor de mercado de la propiedad sino también los cambios en la utilización de la propiedad. Por ejemplo, si el espacio abierto se usa para pastura del ganado, este nuevo uso podría proteger la situación de no desarrollo de la propiedad pero, aun así, los beneficios ambientales podrían verse disminuidos.
Además, los resultados de los estudios sugieren que, en algunos casos, la preservación del espacio abierto puede reducir el valor de la propiedad por transferencia de los patrones de desarrollo que, generalmente, dan como resultado el desarrollo de las propiedades adyacentes (Irwin y Bockstael 2004; McDonald y otros 2007). Si el avalúo preferencial evita el desarrollo en determinadas parcelas, dicho desarrollo podría trasladarse a otras parcelas de tal manera que aumentaría la expansión urbana descontrolada. Si se da un patrón de desarrollo discontinuo a causa de un programa que evitó el desarrollo parcela por parcela, los efectos negativos (tales como mayores costos de infraestructura) podrían superar en gran medida cualquier beneficio público que generara el programa.
Debido a la naturaleza voluntaria de estos programas y a los cambios que pueden darse en los patrones de desarrollo, en el peor de los casos, las parcelas de menor calidad podrían recibir un avalúo preferencial, lo que aumentaría la presión para llevar a cabo desarrollos en las parcelas que generan mayores beneficios públicos. Por un lado, la aprobación del gobierno municipal podría disminuir este problema, ya que permitiría que las personas que tienen un mejor conocimiento del área pudieran escoger las parcelas que merecen más protección. Por otro lado, esto podría inspirar a los funcionarios municipales a proteger el espacio abierto en sus respectivas jurisdicciones, lo que incitaría el desarrollo en las comunidades vecinas y generaría patrones de desarrollo no deseados a nivel regional. Es importante destacar además que el avalúo preferencial del espacio abierto genera, hasta cierto punto, un sistema de tarifas diferenciadas, según el cual la tarifa más alta se aplica sobre los terrenos desarrollados, especialmente sobre las mejoras realizadas a los terrenos; este problema ha sido un motivo de preocupación para muchos académicos en el campo del impuesto a la propiedad y puede afectar en gran medida los patrones de uso del suelo.
Finalmente, el valor de los beneficios públicos no es estático, ya que puede aumentar o disminuir dependiendo de la condición de la propiedad y el área circundante. Los cambios pueden ser independientes de los futuros cambios en el valor fiscal o, incluso, pueden estar negativamente correlacionados con los mismos. Por ejemplo, una presión más intensa para llevar a cabo desarrollos podría aumentar el beneficio de preservar una parcela de grandes dimensiones como espacio abierto, o podría disminuir el beneficio de preservar una pequeña parcela aislada. Un espacio abierto de 10 hectáreas en medio de una ciudad podría beneficiar en gran manera a la comunidad; sin embargo, si se llevan a cabo desarrollos en 9 de esas hectáreas, esto probablemente reduciría los beneficios ambientales de la hectárea restante. Sin embargo, en ambos casos, es probable que aumenten los ahorros fiscales derivados del avalúo preferencial, ya que la presión por el desarrollo genera un aumento en los valores de las propiedades en el lugar.
Estos factores indican que, a pesar de que el avalúo preferencial ofrece a los propietarios un incentivo para preservar los beneficios públicos, la cantidad del incentivo puede no compensar, o incluso compensar de más, el beneficio generado. Esto dará como resultado un programa ineficiente en sí mismo, aunque este tipo de programas siga dando importantes beneficios netos si se compara con el hecho de no tener ningún programa.
Consecuencias en la distribución
Los gastos en el impuesto a la propiedad con el fin de proteger el espacio abierto tendrán consecuencias en la distribución. De manera más inmediata, el programa redistribuiría la carga fiscal a otros propietarios de inmuebles en los mismos distritos tributarios, a medida que los gobiernos modifican el tipo fiscal a tanto por mil a fin de mantener la recaudación presupuestada. Los propietarios de inmuebles desarrollados constituirían así una gran parte de la base imponible y, como resultado, deberían pagar una fracción mayor de la factura de cobro total del impuesto.
Debido a que los programas de avalúo preferencial se encuentran diseñados principalmente para mantener el espacio abierto existente, las parcelas inscritas en dichos programas continúan generando beneficios, aunque dichos beneficios no aumenten necesariamente. De esta manera, sería de esperar que los beneficios públicos continuaran devengándose como hasta ahora. Sólo los residentes locales se beneficiarán con los paisajes y los costos externos previstos del desarrollo, mientras que tanto residentes como no residentes por igual podrán obtener los beneficios derivados de la protección de las cuencas de agua o los hábitats de especies en riesgo (Anderson y West 2006). No obstante, podría esperarse un aumento de los beneficios si el programa requiriera a los propietarios que mejoraran el valor del espacio abierto realizando actividades tales como la restauración de hábitats.
Varias investigaciones indican que los efectos del espacio abierto en los valores de las propiedades adyacentes dependen significativamente del tipo de protección y de su capacidad para evitar el desarrollo en el futuro. Por ejemplo, los terrenos adquiridos como parques o reservas forestales o los terrenos que se encuentran sujetos a una servidumbre de conservación tienen un efecto mucho más positivo en el valor de las propiedades adyacentes que el espacio abierto que no se encuentra protegido de forma permanente (Geoghegan 2002). La inscripción en un programa de avalúo preferencial podría tener pocos efectos, o incluso ninguno en absoluto, en los valores de las propiedades adyacentes si la protección se percibe como algo temporal, lo que puede dar como resultado reducciones permanentes en la recaudación o tasas de impuesto permanentemente altas sobre las parcelas que no se encuentran inscritas.
Cálculo del costo fiscal de los gastos del avalúo preferencial
La metodología para calcular el gasto fiscal derivado del avalúo preferencial del espacio abierto es clara. El propietario del inmueble percibiría una carga fiscal reducida, resultado de la diferencia entre el avalúo sin el programa y el avalúo preferencial. Esta disminución en el valor fiscal puede reducir la recaudación fiscal debido a la reducción de la base imponible. De forma alternativa, la pérdida de recaudación podría compensarse transfiriendo dicha carga fiscal a otros propietarios de inmuebles, a los que se les aumenta la tasa del impuesto. También es posible una combinación de ambos resultados. En el informe de gastos fiscales de Oregón (tabla 2) se observó tanto la pérdida como la transferencia del impuesto; en dicho informe se indican valores de exención de US$126 millones en el ejercicio 2009–2010 para los tres programas aplicables al espacio abierto. La pérdida de recaudación estimada en dos ejercicios es de US$3,2 millones, mientras que la recaudación estimada derivada de la transferencia del impuesto durante dicho período es de US$0,7 millones.
Los datos son desiguales de un estado a otro, lo que dificulta la estimación de los efectos del avalúo preferencial en la recaudación. Los datos totales que se presentaron respecto de Oregón son mucho más útiles que los datos presentados por otros estados. Aquellos estados que no calculan los gastos del impuesto a la propiedad con regularidad no facilitan el acceso a dichos datos; como mucho, por lo general presentan cifras totales que combinan los resultados de los programas para terrenos agrícolas, bosques y espacios abiertos. En la tabla 2 también se indican los alcances relativos del espacio abierto en dicho contexto. Los valores de exención para las zonas boscosas privadas fueron superiores a los US$5 mil millones, y los valores de exención para los terrenos de labranza y las viviendas en zonas agrícolas fueron de US$14,1 mil millones. Los tres programas de conservación combinados representan aproximadamente el 0,5 por ciento del valor total de exenciones y menos del 1 por ciento de la recaudación perdida o trasladada.
Estos cálculos también dependen de otros efectos que pueden ser muy difíciles de observar. Será imposible determinar los alcances de la transferencia de la recaudación sin tener información detallada acerca de la capacidad de respuesta del gobierno municipal a la hora de modificar el tipo fiscal a tanto por mil. En este caso, la estimación sólo corresponderá a la recaudación prevista. También será necesario ignorar los posibles efectos positivos del programa en cuanto al valor inmobiliario en las parcelas adyacentes.
Conclusión
La tarea de diseñar un programa de avalúo preferencial para el espacio abierto requiere una cuidadosa consideración. Aunque los terrenos con poco desarrollo brindan atracciones y beneficios ambientales bajo numerosas circunstancias, el valor de dichos beneficios puede variar significativamente según las condiciones de cada lugar. Si el objetivo principal del programa es proporcionar beneficios a nivel municipal en vez de regional, establecer un único conjunto de criterios para todo el estado probablemente no maximizaría los beneficios. La determinación de criterios de inscripción a nivel municipal puede otorgar la flexibilidad necesaria para reaccionar ante las mencionadas condiciones variables, mientras que los criterios a nivel estatal probablemente son necesarios para proteger los recursos regionales, tales como las cuencas de agua.
La escasez de investigaciones empíricas en esta área de estudio dificulta la tarea de evaluar la efectividad de los programas actualmente en vigencia. Si el objetivo es verdaderamente evitar el desarrollo en ciertas parcelas, al diseñar el programa debería tenerse en cuenta la duración del contrato y las sanciones por rescisión anticipada del mismo. Los retrasos a corto plazo en el desarrollo generarán beneficios principalmente para los propietarios del espacio abierto. Para que un programa tenga éxito, el espacio abierto debe generar beneficios significativos para la comunidad, ya sea mediante una protección ambiental a largo plazo como la aplicación de mayores valores inmobiliarios para otros residentes del área. Si el programa establece mayores requisitos de elegibilidad, esto debería reducir la cantidad de hectáreas inscritas; no obstante, el objetivo principal del programa no debería ser la cantidad de hectáreas inscritas, a menos que la intención de los legisladores sea únicamente la reducción del desarrollo a nivel municipal. La inscripción de una significativa cantidad de parcelas en el programa podría tener importantes implicaciones fiscales para las juris-dicciones municipales, especialmente cuando el establecimiento de criterios amplios y sanciones de poco monto por rescisión anticipada permite que los propietarios fácilmente se inscriban en el programa y luego lleven a cabo desarrollos en su propiedad. El diseño de los programas debe garantizar un máximo de beneficios públicos a cambio de los efectos fiscales.
El presente artículo es una adaptación del documento de trabajo del Instituto Lincoln titulado “Avalúo preferencial para el espacio abierto”: https://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/dl/2281_1620_Sundberg_WP13JS1.pdf
Sobre el autor
Jeffrey O. Sundberg es profesor de Artes liberales y negocios en la Fundación James S. Kemper y profesor de Economía en la Universidad Lake Forest. Obtuvo su doctorado (Ph.D) en Economía por la Universidad de Stanford. Sus intereses de investigación actuales son la eficiencia de los incentivos fiscales estatales y federales para las donaciones de servidumbre de conservación y los programas de avalúo preferencial para el espacio abierto. Sundberg también se desempeñó como presidente del directorio de un fideicomiso de suelo en el condado de Lake, Illinois, durante cuatro años. Contacto: jsundber@mx.lakeforest.edu.
Recursos
Anderson, Soren y Sarah West. 2006. Open space, residential property values, and spatial context. Regional Science and Urban Economics 36: 773–789.
Bark, R. H., D. E. Osgood, B. G Colby y E. Halper. 2011. How Do Homebuyers Value Different Types of Green Space? Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 36(3): 395–415.
Bark, R. H., D. E. Osgood, B. G. Colby, G. Katz y J. Stromberg. 2009. Habitat preservation and restoration: Do homebuyers have preferences for quality habitat? Ecological Economics 68(5): 1465–1475.
Brockett, C. D., R. R. Gottfried y J. P. Evans. 2003. The Use of State Tax Incentives to Promote Forest Preservation on Private Lands in Tennessee: An Evaluation of Their Equity and Effectiveness Impacts. Politics and Policy 31(2): 252–281.
Chamblee, John F., Peter F. Colwell, Carolyn A. Dehring y Craig A. Depken. 2011. The Effect of Conservation Activity on Surrounding Land Prices. Land Economics 87(3): 453–472.
Chervin, Stan, Teresa Gibson y Harry Green. 2009. Greenbelt Revisited. Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. http://www.tn.gov/tacir/PDF_FILES/Taxes/greenbeltrevisited.pdf.
Farmland Information Center, American Farmland Trust. 2010. Fact Sheet: Cost of Community Services Studies. http://www.farmland.org/documents/Cost-of-Community-Services-08-2010.pdf.
Garrod, Guy y Ken Willis. 1992. The environmental economic impact of woodland: a two-stage hedonic price model of the amenity value of forestry in Britain. Applied Economics 24: 715–728.
Geoghegan, Jacqueline, Lori Lynch y Shawn Bucholtz. 2003. Capitalization of Open Spaces into Housing Values and the Residential Property Tax Revenue Impacts of Agricultural Easement Programs. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 32(1): 33–45.
Geoghegan, Jacqueline. 2002. The Value of Open Spaces in Residential Land Use. Land Use Policy 19(1): 91–98.
Irwin, Elana G. y Nancy E. Bockstael. 2004. Land Use Externalities, Open Space Preservation, and Urban Sprawl. Regional Science and Urban Economics 34:705–725.
SHARE
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:
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.
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.
SHARE
Most urban areas are experiencing significant disinvestment in older industrial-warehouse areas, along with a net loss of employment, tax base and related activity. The few recent surveys done to measure vacant industrial land suggest that, in Northeastern and Midwestern cities, 15 to 20 percent of industrial sites are inactive. In major cities such as Chicago or Philadelphia, vacant land can amount to several hundred parcels comprising several thousand acres. Often there are significant financial liabilities associated with the ownership of these “brownfield” sites due to the high incidence of contamination and related safety and environmental problems.
Vacant or underused properties are often located in areas suffering generally from physical decline, concentrations of low-income households and high crime rates. Thus, older cities are faced with the dual challenge of improving the capacity of the resident population to participate productively in the labor force and restoring the competitive market standing of areas with declining fiscal capacity.
While recent economic changes have resulted in a net decline in business activity in older industrial areas, many of these sites have the potential for residential, commercial or office reuse, with varying degrees of investment required. However, reuse is often constrained by factors including fragmentation in ownership, risks associated with the ownership or use of contaminated property, and the high market risks associated with front-end investment in environmental assessments, market studies, land assembly and area planning.
Currently, federal laws and regulations dealing with contaminated sites add to the high risk for new owners, investors and users who might otherwise contribute to reinvestment in and reuse of these areas. Also, federal and state clean up programs tend to operate independently of concerted area-wide redevelopment strategies and programs.
Special Situations for Industrial Reuse
Unfortunately, examples of successful reuse approaches which effectively orchestrate federal, state and local government policies and actions with private landowner, investor and business development actions are limited and tend to be concentrated in a few special situations. One circumstance involves a strong private owner such as a financially healthy major corporation which cannot avoid the liabilities associated with the site yet cannot afford the adverse publicity of simply abandoning it.
Another situation is when a strong private reuse market for the site creates a high reuse value relative to the current “as is” value. This typically involves waterfront or other property adjacent to growing downtowns or sites which happen to fit the development needs for a major, publicly subsidized facility such as a new stadium or convention center. In these situations, the private or public reuse benefit calls forth the financial and political resources necessary to acquire, clean up and redevelop the land.
However, most vacant or underused former industrial-warehouse properties do not meet these conditions. Generally the demand for reuse is weak or declining, in part due to deteriorating neighborhood conditions. Because of low land values, even for clean, ready-to-develop sites, finding investors for either equity or debt investment in acquisition, renovation or new development is problematic. These areas typically require more concerted efforts involving business, government and civic group participation.
Site-Specific vs Integrated Redevelopment
While interest in brownfields reuse has increased over the last several years, policy discussions at the national level and programs in the states tend to approach brownfields as a site-specific contamination cleanup problem rather than an area-wide reuse problem within the context of the metropolitan economy.
The case for integrating site treatment into a broader redevelopment strategy can be argued from several angles. One is simply that giving priority to cleanup expenditures may do little to foster area reuse and may preclude the more effective use of public funds. If the contamination is contained within a small area and the public can be protected from any potential harm, then area reuse may be more effectively fostered by focusing on the removal of other constraints to investment. These constraints may include improving access, removing unsightly buildings, installing landscape improvements, clearing sites of obsolete structures, and subdividing the area to better meet current facility demands.
Another argument for integrating site cleanup into an overall redevelopment strategy is that the cleanup costs are difficult to finance in a situation where the value of clean sites is very low. If an area-wide redevelopment effort focuses initially on increasing the overall demand to reuse sites, putting vacant clean sites into use will improve the demand/supply balance. Then, the cleanup costs can in most cases be funded out of the increased site value, and private owners of such sites will be motivated to clean up the sites voluntarily. Area-wide financing schemes using tax increment financing (TIF) and special taxing and benefit districts can also facilitate the funding required for remediation and indemnification against any future liabilities.
New Models and Strategies
The Lincoln Institute, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, is undertaking a research project to explore the problem of recycling urban industrial areas which fall outside of the special situations described above. The study builds on recent work conducted by the Lincoln Institute, the Northeast-Midwest Institute, the author and others who have researched reuse potential and demand/supply constraints in industrial areas. Some examples are the American Street industrial area in Philadelphia, the Collinwood area in Cleveland, the Southwest industrial area in Detroit, the south side of Chicago and several areas in Pittsburgh.
Research directed at discovering common opportunities and constraints and the related strategies most effective at addressing different types of situations is very limited. Therefore, our approach is to conduct a broad survey of industrial reuse markets based on a review of existing reports and interviews with local experts, and then to develop a series of in-depth case studies to assess alternative reuse strategies appropriate to common types of situations.
Each case study will include a survey and assessment of the city-wide situation and the conditions in various industrial subareas. Model solutions will focus on a single subarea chosen to represent a combination of factors, including the relevance of that case to other cities and the relative importance of the subarea to its city’s overall reuse plan. In each case, a group of development professionals familiar with the local real estate market will be involved in assessing opportunities and constraints, alternative strategies and implementation measures. Ultimately, our objective is to identify changes in federal, state and local techniques, policies and programs that would support the implementation of the strategies being developed.
J. Thomas Black, visiting fellow of the Lincoln Institute, is an urban development economist and the principal investigator for this project. The study is in its early stages and the author invites your insights, ideas and suggestions on the subject, particularly for case examples demonstrating opportunities, general strategies, particular techniques, financing methods or organizational structures that work well.
FYI
The Collinwood Yard in northeast Cleveland is a 48-acre, mainly vacant industrial site which has lost 20,000 jobs since 1970. Its access to Interstate 90 and the rail lines is a key element in the revitalization of the area.
The Union Seventy Center in St. Louis is a multi-tenant industrial/warehouse facility occupying a remodeled 2.7 million square foot General Motors assembly plant. It is part of a 171-acre redevelopment project which demonstrates the reuse and investment potential of older urban industrial areas.
