SHARE
Twenty-three states offer an incentive to preserve open space by providing preferential property tax assessment of qualifying parcels (table 1, p. 15). These property tax reductions can be considered expenditures in that they reduce revenue available for other uses in the interest of protecting the many amenities and environmental benefits of undeveloped land.
Programs vary widely from state to state, but all preferential assessment programs for open space must define the type and size of qualified parcels; permissible uses; certification requirements; assessment methods; enrollment term lengths; and penalties, if any, for removing a parcel from preferential status. Several states offer more than one program, each with its own qualification requirements. This article considers these differences, offers examples of how the tax expenditure is calculated, and describes potential societal benefits and costs of such programs.
Determining Eligibility for Preferential Assessment
States define eligibility in many different ways, but the requirements are usually relatively easy to meet. A parcel might qualify simply by being undeveloped. Several states allow landscaped land to qualify provided the building density doesn’t exceed established limits. Washington, for example, allows land to qualify if it meets at least one of eleven very general requirements, including the protection of streams or water supplies, conservation or enhancement of natural or scenic resources, preservation of visual quality along roads, or enhancement of recreational opportunities.
While these criteria are very general, states may raise the bar by placing additional requirements on landowners. Some states require landowners to create and seek state approval for a property management plan that improves benefits for local wildlife. Vermont stipulates that a qualified conservation organization must own and manage the open space. One of two Texas programs requires landowners to provide land and wildlife management to propagate a breeding, migrating, or wintering population of indigenous wild animals for human use, including food, medicine, or recreation.
Several states offer preferential assessment to properties that have attained federal status as open space. For example, parcels restricted by a conservation easement that meets the IRS requirements for a charitable donation automatically qualify for preferential assessment in Illinois and Oregon. Ohio will qualify only parcels under contract to one of four USDA programs (Conservation Reserve Program, Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, Wetlands Reserve Program, and Grassland Preserve Program).
Parcels may have to meet minimum size requirements as well. The most common minimum is ten contiguous acres, though some programs allow properties as small as two acres, and several have no stated requirements. A few states limit the total acreage that any individual landowner may enroll. Tennessee, for example, limits eligibility to 1,500 acres per owner per county, including agricultural land, forest, and open space combined. The stated use of the property may influence its acceptability; several states specifically prohibit commercial property, including golf courses. At least two states, however, have programs specifically designed for golf courses and other commercial properties that provide outdoor recreational opportunities.
State Versus Local Criteria
State governments typically authorize preferential assessment programs and the criteria for inclusion. Six states allow local or county government officials to determine criteria by authorizing a program and requiring only that parcels be “included within a plan for preservation approved by state or local planning agencies” (Chervin, Gibson, and Green 2009, 8), for example, or by requiring that the appropriate governing body accepts the property via resolution. States with this requirement include California, Connecticut, Florida, Nevada, Tennessee, and Oregon. It is then up to local or county officials to choose the criteria for qualification, in some cases naming specific parcels. In other cases, the assessor’s office determines the eligibility, based on the characteristics of the property and whether it meets the criteria.
This approach allows local governments to control the amount of the expenditure in their jurisdiction and tailor the program to protect the specific qualities most important to the area. For example, officials in a predominantly agricultural environment may prefer to use tax expenditures on forests or wetlands, while open fields might prove most valuable in a more urban setting.
Calculating the Value of the Tax Expenditure
Open space preferential assessment programs typically use one of three methods to determine the property’s assessed value. Nine states value open space as if it were enrolled in the state’s program for agriculture or forestry, even though the land isn’t used for either activity. Nine other states instruct assessors to value the property considering only its current use, excluding the value of development rights (i.e., the market value as if its future use were permanently restricted to its current use). Four states instruct the assessor to determine the fair market value as if it were not in the program and then apply a statutory formula to determine the preferential assessed value. Illinois has three programs for preferential assessment of open space, which vary by the criteria for eligibility; all offer statutory reductions that range between 75 percent and 85 percent. Nevada applies a lower statutory reduction of 26 percent.
States occasionally choose to define maximum or minimum values per acre for open space parcels. For example, Maryland set a statewide value of $187.50 per acre for 2009. Washington allows local governments to determine a use value for their region, depending on a public benefit rating system; if no such system exists, open space land may receive an assessment no lower than the lowest agricultural valuation in the county. Massachusetts calculates the preferential value as use value, not to exceed 25 percent of fair market value.
Program Duration and Penalties for Early Withdrawal
Many programs provide for automatic annual renewal unless the landowner chooses to withdraw from the program. In some cases, length of contract is predetermined, most frequently for ten years, which generally carries forward upon the sale of the property unless the new property owner alters the use and violates the terms of the program. Landowners pay a penalty for withdrawing from the program in order to alter land use, or for altering it without notification. Such penalties tend to equal the value of the tax expenditure received for a specified number of years prior to the current year, plus interest on that expenditure. Several states either charge 10 percent of the fair market value when use of the parcel changes, or charge a conveyance or transfer tax when a parcel in the program is sold.
If an owner withdraws a parcel from the program after a minimum number of years, however, the state may reduce or even eliminate penalties. For example, Vermont charges owners 20 percent of fair market value for withdrawing the property in the first decade and 10 percent for withdrawing after more than 10 years. Rhode Island exacts 10 percent of the new fair market value for removing a property after 6 years, but that penalty declines until it terminates, 16 years after enrollment.
Economic Benefits of Open Space Preservation
The large literature discussing the effect of environmental amenities on surrounding property values suggests that preventing development on a parcel will raise the value of neighboring parcels. The studies find complicating factors, however, that make it difficult to predict changes in value for specific regions. One study in Maryland, for example, finds that open space programs have very different effects on the value of property in three different counties, probably due at least in part to variations in the amount of open space present (Geoghegan, Lynch, and Bucholtz 2003). Numerous other studies indicate that the value of open space for individual homeowners declines with distance from the protected parcel (Chamblee, et al. 2011). The type of habitat or green space is also likely to be influential; one analysis finds that the presence of broad-leaved trees in a neighborhood is associated with positive values, but the presence of spruce trees has a negative effect on property values (Garrod and Willis 1992). An analysis of home prices in Tucson, Arizona, finds a preference for homes in areas with green space including native riparian habitat (Bark, et al. 2009; 2011).
Public access to privately owned open space for recreation or educational purposes would also be likely to provide substantial local benefits in many cases. States rarely require public access as a condition for the tax expenditure, but Maine and New Hampshire both encourage it by offering an additional reduction in assessed value of 25 percent and 20 percent, respectively.
Protected open space can also reduce growth in the demand for municipally provided services and forestall negative effects of development, such as heavy traffic or overcrowded schools, which would likely impose a heavier tax liability on current residents. A growing literature on cost of community services indicates that the property taxes paid on developed land are often insufficient to cover the cost of services created to support that development, while open space frequently generates tax revenues well in excess of the cost of services expended on the property. The American Farmland Trust, reporting results from 151 studies covering counties and municipalities in 25 states, finds that the owners of working and open land frequently pay taxes above or even twice the cost of services received on those properties, while residential property owners typically pay less than the cost of services received (Farmland Information Center 2010).
Findings like these suggest that preferential assessment can be justified on the grounds of fairness, because the owners of open space may be subsidizing services sent to owners of developed property. However, the fact that most programs require a long-term agreement and include penalties for early conversion indicates that the goal is not fairness, but preventing development for a specified period.
Unfortunately, there is very little literature evaluating whether preferential assessment programs prevent future development on parcels that aren’t under permanent protection such as an easement. Much of the existing evidence is based on studies of farmland protection programs rather than evaluations of the impact of property tax expenditures on open space. Two studies of Tennessee’s Greenbelt Program evaluated a survey of woodland owners enrolled in the program and found little support for the hypothesis that preferential assessment reduced the likelihood of development on these parcels (Brockett, Gottfried, and Evans 2003; Williams, et al. 2004).
It’s easier to evaluate land under long-term or permanent protection of either a perpetual conservation easement or a long-term preferential assessment contract with substantial penalties for withdrawal. In those cases, it’s possible to reliably predict the continued presence of open space; unfortunately, these protection agreements may predate the preferential assessment or be otherwise uninfluenced by it.
Costs of Preferential Assessment for Open Space
In addition to the tax expenditure itself, these programs may incur several other potential costs. Programs that require an approved conservation plan, for example, might generate a particularly challenging expense. While a state agency could develop and approve such a plan, it will be costly to ensure that conditions of the plan are met.
Program enforcement requires evaluating not only changes in a property’s market value but also changes in its use. If open space is used to graze livestock, for example, this new use might protect the undeveloped condition of the property but still reduce the environmental benefits.
Additionally, evidence suggests that in some instances open space preservation can lower property values by shifting development patterns, typically by resulting in the development of nearby properties (Irwin and Bockstael 2004; McDonald, et al. 2007). If preferential assessment prevents development on particular parcels, that development may shift to other parcels in ways that increase sprawl. If a leapfrog pattern of development occurs because a program prevented development on a parcel-by-parcel basis, the negative effects, such as higher infrastructure costs, could overwhelm any public benefits from the program.
Given the voluntary nature of these programs and resulting changes in development patterns, a worst-case scenario is that lower-quality parcels might receive the preferential assessment, increasing development pressure on parcels that generate greater public benefits. On the one hand, local government approval might reduce this problem by allowing individuals who know the area best to choose the parcels that most deserve protection. On the other hand, it might inspire local officials to protect open space in their jurisdiction, pushing development into other communities and creating undesirable development patterns at the regional level. It is also important to mention that preferential assessment of open space to some degree creates a split-rate system with a higher rate on developed land, particularly on improvements to the land—an issue that concerns many property tax scholars and may also significantly affect land use patterns.
Finally, the value of the public benefits is not static; it may increase or decrease depending on the condition of the property and surrounding area. The changes may be uncorrelated, or even negatively correlated, with future changes in assessed value. For example, more intense development pressure might increase the benefit of preserving a large parcel as open space; or it might decrease the benefit of preserving a small “island” parcel. Twenty-five acres of open space in the middle of a town can greatly benefit a community, but, if 24 of those acres are developed, it will likely diminish the environmental benefits of the remaining acre. Both scenarios, however, are likely to increase tax savings from preferential assessment, as development pressure drives up local property values.
These factors indicate that, while preferential assessment does offer landowners an incentive to preserve public benefits, the amount of the incentive may under-correct or even over-correct for the benefit being created. This will result in an inherently inefficient program, though such programs may still result in significant net benefits compared to having no program at all.
Distributional Consequences
Property tax expenditures to protect open space will have distributional consequences. Most immediately, the program would redistribute the tax burden onto other property owners in the same tax districts, as governments change the mill rate in order to maintain budgeted revenue. Owners of developed properties will now constitute a larger share of the tax base and will need to pay a greater fraction of the total tax bill as a result.
Since preferential assessment programs are primarily designed to maintain existing open space, enrolled parcels continue to generate benefits, but those benefits don’t necessarily increase. Thus the public benefits should be expected to continue to accrue as before. Local residents alone will benefit from scenic views and the foregone external costs of development, while residents and nonresidents alike may benefit from protecting watersheds or habitat for endangered species (Anderson and West 2006). Benefits may be expected to increase, however, if the program requires owners to improve the value of the open space by activity such as habitat restoration.
Several studies indicate that the effects of open space on surrounding property values depend critically on the type of protection and its ability to prevent development in the future. For example, land acquired as a park or forest preserve, or land placed under a conservation easement, has a much more positive effect on neighboring property values than open space that is not permanently protected (Geoghegan 2002). Enrollment in a preferential assessment program might have little or no effect on surrounding property values if the protection is perceived to be temporary, resulting in either permanent reductions in revenue or permanently higher tax rates on the non-enrolled parcels.
Calculating the Fiscal Cost of Preferential Assessment Expenditures
The methodology for calculating the tax expenditure resulting from the preferential assessment of open space is straightforward. The property owner will see a reduced tax burden based on the difference between the assessment without the program and the preferential assessment. This reduction in assessed value can lower tax revenue due to a reduced base. Alternatively, the lost revenue could be recouped by shifting the burden onto other property owners by increasing the tax rate. A combination of both outcomes is also possible. Oregon reports both the loss and the shift in their tax expenditure report (table 2), which listed exemption values of $126 million in fiscal year 2009–10 for the three open space programs. The estimated revenue loss over two fiscal years is $3.2 million, while the estimated revenue shift during that period is $0.7 million.
Data is inconsistent from state to state, which makes it difficult to estimate the revenue effects of preferential assessment. The aggregate data presented for Oregon is much more useful than what many other states present. States that do not calculate property tax expenditures frequently do not make such data available; at best, they usually offer aggregate figures that combine the programs for agriculture, forestry, and open space. Table 2 also indicates the relative scope of open space in that context. The exemption values for private forestry were over $5 billion, and the exemption values for farmland and farm home sites were $14.1 billion. The three conservation programs combined represent approximately one-half of one percent of the total exemption value, and less than one percent of the revenue lost or shifted.
Such calculations also depend on other effects that may be very difficult to observe. It will be impossible to determine the extent to which revenue shifted, without detailed information about local government’s ability to respond by changing the mill rate. In that case, the estimate will account for only foregone revenue. It will also be necessary to ignore the program’s possible positive property value effects on neighboring parcels.
Conclusion
Designing a preferential assessment program for open space requires careful consideration. While land with limited development does provide amenities and environmental benefits under many circumstances, the value of those benefits may vary dramatically according to local conditions. If the program’s goal is primarily to provide local, rather than regional, benefits, one set of criteria for the entire state is unlikely to maximize benefits. Local determination of the enrollment criteria may provide the flexibility necessary to react to those varying conditions, whereas state-level criteria are probably necessary to protect regional resources such as watersheds.
The shortage of empirical work in this area makes it difficult to assess the effectiveness of existing programs. If the goal is genuinely to forestall development on certain parcels, program design should consider the length of contract and penalty for early conversion. Short-term delays in development will primarily benefit the owners of open space. For a program to succeed, the open space must generate significant community benefits in the form of either long-term environmental protection or higher property values for other residents of the area. Higher eligibility requirements for inclusion in the program should reduce the amount of acreage enrolled; however, the number of acres should not be the program’s primary goal unless legislators intend it solely as a means to reduce local development. Significant enrollment in the program could have substantial fiscal implications for local jurisdictions, especially if broad criteria and low conversion penalties make it easy for landowners to enroll and then develop the property later. Program design must ensure a maximum of public benefit in exchange for the fiscal effects.
This article was adapted from the Lincoln Institute working paper, “Preferential Assessment for Open Space”: https://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/dl/2281_1620_Sundberg_WP13JS1.pdf.
About the Author
Jeffrey O. Sundberg is the James S. Kemper Foundation Professor of Liberal Arts and Business and Professor of Economics at Lake Forest College. He received a Ph.D. in economics from Stanford University. His recent research interests include the efficiency of state and federal tax incentives for conservation easement donations and preferential assessment programs for open space. He has also served on the board of a land trust in Lake County, Illinois, serving as board president for four years. Contact: jsundber@mx.lakeforest.edu.
Resources
Anderson, Soren and 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, and 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, and 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, and 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, and Craig A. Depken. 2011. The Effect of Conservation Activity on Surrounding Land Prices. Land Economics 87(3): 453–472.
Chervin, Stan, Teresa Gibson, and 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, and 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, and 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. and Nancy E. Bockstael. 2004. Land Use Externalities, Open Space Preservation, and Urban Sprawl. Regional Science and Urban Economics 34:705–725.
SHARE
The Sun Belt grew at spectacular rates in the late twentieth century, and among western U.S. cities Phoenix and its metropolitan region led the pack. The Census Bureau reports that between 1990 and 2000 Maricopa County was the fastest growing county in the nation at 44.8 percent, increasing from 2,122,101 to 3,072,149 people. The county is the fourth largest in the nation in terms of total population. During the 1990s, the city of Phoenix topped one million people and became the sixth largest U.S. city. Its spatial expanse has eclipsed that of the city of Los Angeles. According to the Phoenix Planning Department’s data, the region is growing by about 63,000 residents per year and requires about 23,000 new housing units to meet the demand. Statewide, the population is growing by more than 2,000 residents per week, and the number of people in the state is expected to double in the next 20 years.
The weather, relatively affordable housing and abundant jobs attract a diverse array of newcomers, but increased population has numerous social and environmental consequences. Debate rages about the impacts of growth locally and nationally: Is it good? Is it deleterious? Can it be sustained? At what cost? Who benefits? Who suffers?
A group of Arizona State University (ASU) faculty has recognized that these phenomena represent an opportunity for both research and public service in this fast-growing urban environmental laboratory. Furthermore, knowledge gleaned from such inquiries could lead to smarter growth and more livable places in the future. This notion provides the intellectual foundation for a project named Greater Phoenix 2100 (GP 2100), which seeks to provide data and analysis to the region’s decision makers to help them make wise choices about the future.
Greater Phoenix 2100 Workshops
The Lincoln Institute helped ASU launch GP 2100 through workshops in April 2001 that brought together ASU faculty and staff, community leaders, national participants from institutions such as the Los Alamos National Laboratory and the National Research Council, and four distinguished speakers who stimulated debate and discussion. The panelists were ecologist and author Dan Botkin, professor emeritus of the University of California-Santa Barbara; Michael Crow, an authority on science policy and executive vice provost at Columbia University; political scientist Helen Ingram, formerly director of the Arizona Water Resources Research Center and now professor of human ecology at the University of California-Irvine; and Bob Yaro, executive director of the Regional Plan Association.
They observed that for the Phoenix metropolitan region to continue to prosper, three overlapping spheres of influence must be considered: the creation of knowledge capital, the enhancement of social capital, and the preservation of natural capital.
The GP 2100 workshop panelists and other participants suggested that ASU should become the convener for discussions on growth, as well as the data bank for computer-stored geographical information about these intersecting, mutually dependent spheres. As a result, ASU should create various scenarios for the future in a “Sim Phoenix” format and a “Decision Theater” that would be a physical and a virtual place where academic and community leaders could probe the consequences of possible actions.
Databases and Audiences
Still in its early stages, ASU’s GP 2100 seeks to coordinate federal, state and academic information programs relating to the environment of the region. The project will be linked with similar studies in other metropolitan areas and global city regions (Simmonds and Hack 2000). GP 2100 will answer questions that people care about by providing objective, scientifically based information using state-of-the-art forecasting and decision tools and theories. Coupled with the Central Arizona/Phoenix Long-Term Ecological Research Project (CAP LTER) supported by the National Science Foundation, GP 2100 has the potential to launch a network of similar undertakings nationally and internationally.
GP 2100 will develop and present a wide variety of scientific and technical data on the past, present and possible futures of the Phoenix metropolitan region. The project builds on the premise that knowledge can be used to create better lives for future generations. GP 2100 will provide learning and research experiences to six major groups of people.
Goals and Benefits
The goal of GP 2100 is to make the best possible scientific and technical information available in ways that will enable wise, knowledge-based decision-making that can shape the region during the next 100 years. This time frame presents a purposefully longer-term view of the metropolitan region than has previously been developed. While short-term visioning is limited by immediate considerations, a century-long perspective requires the incorporation of mutigenerational concerns and changes in technology. A 100-year time frame also allows for evaluation of impacts of such geologically common events as droughts, major floods and gradual climate changes. In short, GP 2100 will be a strong scientific resource for consideration of the region’s long-term prospects and for creating the kind of future its residents want.
Two types of benefits will flow from the project. The first relates to the future quality of life in the region. An underlying assumption of GP 2100 is that better information will lead to wiser decision-making that will, in turn, result in healthier, more livable communities. Metropolitan Phoenix is expected to double from 3 to 6 million people in the next 20 or 30 years. Meanwhile, the global population will increase from 6 to 9 billion people and will become more urban. Such growth poses many challenges relating to land use, transportation, open space, biodiviersity, urban design, recreation, employment, equity, air quality, water quality and quantity, and the overall quality of life of city regions. The GP 2100 effort will be beneficial to those who are addressing these concerns in Phoenix by providing a prototype of how science-based tools and a regional perspective can better inform long-term decision-making. By viewing the Phoenix region as an urban environmental laboratory, the lessons learned will have implications for the broader scientific and policy communities.
GP 2100 will also be an asset for ASU researchers and students, who will have the opportunity to collaborate in multidisciplinary teams and will have access to state-of-the-art GIS and visualization technologies. New and emerging theories in urban and landscape ecology, decision science, land use and environmental modeling, and biocomplexity will be explored.
Special Features
Several linked products are envisioned to flow from GP 2100. Existing data can be coalesced into a dynamic warehouse of continuously updated regional information. Such a data repository can be presented to the public through an Urban eAtlas, which will be made available in electronic and more conventional forms to provide documentation of existing conditions and enable the construction of future scenarios. The digital version will be available on-line so it may be continuously accessed and updated.
The data archives and Urban eAtlas will contribute to a third major product: Sim Phoenix, an interactive computer game that can help researchers, citizens and decision makers visualize the consequences of “what if” scenarios. Sim Phoenix is a step toward the creation of an even more ambitious visualization project: a Decision Theater where local leaders, citizens, students and researchers can explore future options for the region. The Decision Theater will be a physical space in which scientific data, group dynamics and interactive computer technology are used to develop simulations of the region’s futures and considerations of their consequences. The simulations and their representations will evolve with new computational and representational technologies as well as with new scientific information.
GP 2100 will complement and augment existing long-term monitoring activities being conducted at ASU, such as the CAP LTER project, one of only two such urban LTER sites in the nation. Launching a satellite in cooperation with NASA is one monitoring possibility. This “Phoenix-Sat” would pass over the region twice daily, enabling diurnal measurements of such dynamic parameters as traffic, air quality, soil moisture and construction. It is possible that the Phoenix-Sat could be part of a larger international remote-sensing program for urban resource monitoring. Tools such as the data archives, Urban eAtlas, Sim Phoenix, the Decision Theater and Phoenix-Sat will enable scholars and decision makers alike to probe the major issues that metropolitan areas like Phoenix will face in the coming century. As a result, problems may be foreseen and avoided and opportunities pursued with vigor.
Faculty in the life, physical and social sciences at Arizona State University are currently compiling a comprehensive suite of information about the region. Planners, policy analysts and educators also could identify a series of key response variables and parameters for a Decision Theater. Computer scientists could program this complex information so that it can be displayed in both two- and three-dimensional formats, as well as animated views illustrating changes through time. The data could be automatically updated from dynamic government and university databases, from hundreds of sensors throughout the metropolitan region, and from orbiting satellites.
In this first-of-its-kind Decision Theater, high quality audio and visual presentation systems will include a 180-degree screen, which provides an immersive, synthetic environment along with comfortable ergonomics. This arrangement enables decision makers and researchers to come together to explore, debate and analyze options for the future. The Decision Theater is capable of high-resolution stereoscopic viewing using shuttered glasses. A visitor can have her or his viewing position tracked (”head-tracking”), giving the impression of truly walking within the data and data results, pondering the possible landscapes of the future from different angles. It could be associated with an innovative Planetary Imaging Faculty set up jointly by ASU and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, as well as dance and visual representation projects from ASU’s Institute for Studies in the Arts. While real-time interaction with data and models in the Decision Theater is engrossing, a comparably rich on-line experience is also possible through the use of web-based multimedia, text, data download and upload, and modeling tools. The virtual Decision Theater allows a participant to interact with a Sim Phoenix-like game.
How will the Decision Theater be implemented? Four interactive parameters appear especially crucial for modeling the future: water availability, air quality, open space and land use. ASU and its community and government partners already possess an enormous storehouse of data on these parameters, but the challenge is to combine the data in meaningful ways. To this end, the Greater Phoenix 2100 team, in conjunction with the Arizona Department of Water Resources and the U.S. Geological Survey, is now developing a water availability prototype that would use the hydrologic cycle to model regional water availability using factors of precipitation, supply, evaporation and demand to illustrate water futures both graphically and spatially.
A Model for Other Metropolitan Regions
Generations of citizens and scholars will benefit from Greater Phoenix 2100. The project will result in products that will help community and business leaders make wiser decisions. It will assist local, state, and federal officials in planning and designing programs and policies. The project will aid teachers and students in their understanding of natural and social processes. Greater Phoenix 2100 presents uniquely complex targets for technological, scientific and policy analysis advancements. It will produce and facilitate interaction with massive, typically disparate, datasets. Because its major components are easily transferable to other urban regions, the project can provide a model for other places interested in pursuing similar initiatives. In this century, some two-thirds of the world’s population will live in urban areas. Greater Phoenix 2100 has far-reaching implications concerning the application of knowledge capital to regional and urban decision-making in order to maximize social capital while maintaining the natural capital of the metropolitan region.
Frederick Steiner, an internationally recognized expert on environmental planning, is dean of the School of Architecture at the University of Texas at Austin. He was formerly professor and director of the School of Planning and Landscape Architecture at Arizona State University.
Reference
Simmonds, Roger and Gary Hack, editors. 2000. Global City Regions: Their Emerging Forms. London: Spon Press.
SHARE
Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 5 del libro Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.
El Instituto Lincoln está colaborando en Argentina con la ciudad de Córdoba en un proyecto de gran importancia para cambiar las formas de abordar la planificación física de la ciudad, así como los instrumentos que se usan para lograrla. Córdoba representa un caso particularmente interesante por su ubicación estratégica en el centro del área de desarrollo del Mercosur.
La primera fase del proyecto fue un seminario llevado a cabo el pasado abril titulado “Hacia una gestión urbana integrada: Implementación de un plan estratégico para la ciudad de Córdoba”, cuyo objetivo principal fue congregar a los “actores” principales en Córdoba para analizar y debatir las metas de planificación y los instrumentos en el contexto de desarrollos nuevos en la gestión urbana.
El seminario contó con las ponencias de expertos internacionales y discusiones entre funcionarios municipales, promotores inmobiliarios, intereses comerciales y de negocios, organizaciones no gubernamentales y profesionales del urbanismo. El papel del Instituto Lincoln fue de gran importancia ya que facilitó un foro para que los participantes locales se reunieran por primera vez para hablar de dificultades urbanísticas y problemas de desarrollo, y para dar inicio al proceso de establecer políticas de administración y procedimientos nuevos.
De las discusiones surgieron tres temas principales. El primero, tuvo que ver con decidir el orden de prioridad de la tierra a ser urbanizada, con un interés particular en el acceso equitativo a la tierra, infraestructura y vivienda para los sectores populares, así como mecanismos apropiados para llevar a cabo una planificación urbana integrada a nivel regional. El segundo tema, estuvo enfocado en el impacto ambiental y fiscal de los grandes establecimientos comerciales en estructuras urbanas existentes, distritos históricos y barrios residenciales. El tercer tema se concentró en varios actores y sectores involucrados en el desarrollo industrial de Córdoba, prestando atención a la distribución de la industria, las limitaciones de infraestructura y los costos sociales y ambientales.
Además de dar a los participantes cordobeses una perspectiva amplia sobre problemas de gestión urbana en otras ciudades, el seminario generó dos puntos de importancia: 1) que la planificación para el desarrollo no sólo se trata de regulación o de control del uso de la tierra, sino que las políticas tributarias y fiscales afectan con igual importancia los valores de la tierra; y 2) que los funcionarios locales deben aprender a evaluar los costos y beneficios de los proyectos urbanísticos para poder tener relaciones comerciales efectivas con promotores inmobiliarios del sector privado.
El seminario ya ha tenido impactos específicos en actividades comerciales de trabajo conjunto en el centro histórico y en programas de gestión mejorados para proporcionar una infraestructura y servicios nuevos al mismo tiempo que se reducen los déficits. Además, el programa animó a los participantes a reconocer la importancia de la planificación estratégica a largo plazo para trazar las indicaciones generales sobre cambios de política y para comprender los efectos de tipos particulares de desarrollo en el medio físico y social.
El Instituto Lincoln continúa trabajando con funcionarios municipales para ayudar a desarrollar nuevos paradigmas de gestión que puedan sostener alianzas público-privadas, así como mejores técnicas de análisis y planificación. Los programas de seguimiento ayudarán a gestores de políticas y promotores inmobiliarios privados (que operan tanto en mercados formales como informales) a comprender mejor el funcionamiento de los mercados de tierra urbanos y las consecuencias de cambios de políticas para el desarrollo urbano.
El próximo curso sobre “Comportamiento del mercado inmobiliario en Cordoba: Implicaciones para la estructura urbana” explorará investigaciones sobre los mercados formales en Córdoba, haciendo énfasis en los efectos de las políticas económicas y las intervenciones del gobierno. A este curso lo seguirá un seminario regional donde la experiencia se compartirá con los participantes de por lo menos otros tres países. Simultáneamente, el Instituto Lincoln está desarrollando junto con funcionarios de la ciudad de Córdoba un programa de entrenamiento dirigido a un amplio espectro de funcionarios locales, regionales y promotores inmobiliarios, que se concentra en la administración general, la planificación urbana y la preparación e implementación de proyectos.
Douglas Keare es docente visitante del Instituto Lincoln. Tiene una amplia experiencia en planificación estratégica para ciudades grandes en países en desarrollo a través de investigaciones previas y dirección de proyectos en el Banco Mundial y el Instituto para el Desarrollo Internacional de la Universidad de Harvard. Ricardo Vanella es director del Departamento Desarrollo Económico de la ciudad de Córdoba.
SHARE
The case for thinking and acting regionally has been made in this country for well over 100 years. After surveying the West in 1890, John Wesley Powell published an essay titled “Institutions for the Arid Lands,” in which he articulated his vision that the most appropriate institutions for governing western resources are commonwealths defined by watersheds. He reasoned that “there is a body of interdependent and unified interests and values, all collected in [a] hydrographic basin, and all segregated by well-defined boundary lines from the rest of the world. The people in such a district have common interests, common rights, and common duties, and must necessarily work together for common purposes” (Powell 1890, 114).
Powell’s prescription to organize around watersheds was largely ignored in the formative years of the settlement and development of the West (Stegner 1953). His vision of watershed democracies, however, is part of a larger story of how American citizens and communities have attempted to govern public affairs on the basis of regions. Some 30 years after Powell’s writing, Lewis Mumford, Benton MacKaye and others created the Regional Planning Association of America in 1923 to focus largely on cities and municipal regions, and to a lesser extent on rural and wilderness landscapes. Although the history of regionalism is characterized by a mix of successes and failures, there is renewed interest throughout North America in addressing land use, natural resource and environmental problems on a regional basis (see Derthick 1974; Seltzer 2000; Foster 2001).
Today, regional initiatives emerge in response to a growing number of land use and related issues that transcend political and jurisdictional boundaries and often involve business and nonprofit organizations. These issues are most often framed as a crisis or threat, and less so as an opportunity: sprawl across city, county and even state boundaries; water supply for growing communities; water quality protection; wildlife habitat; management of traffic corridors; economic development; and taxation. Effective solutions require people to work across boundaries (jurisdictions, sectors and even disciplines) on a regional scale that corresponds to the challenge or opportunity, as in the New York–New Jersey Highlands region.
Existing institutions, however, rarely have the legitimacy and credibility to convene the plurality of stakeholders interested in or affected by these regional issues. In response, policy makers will occasionally mandate some form of regional collaboration as the most logical way to address trans-boundary issues. Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), for example, are required to develop regional transportation plans in order to secure access to federal transportation dollars. Some landscape-based efforts, such as the Adirondack Park Commission and the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, also fall into this category. In these types of cases, policy makers mandate regional collaboration when it is apparent that responding within jurisdictional boundaries is ineffective or threatens the integrity of key resources central to community identity and prospects.
When policy makers are slow to act, or fail to act, stakeholders may become frustrated and ultimately realize that if anything is going to happen citizens need to step forward, with or without government participation. Thus, regional initiatives emerge as much from the bottom up as the top down. When people inhabiting a common place develop a shared recognition that acting together is the best way to address a regional crisis, threat or opportunity, or simply to achieve economies of scale, we see regional initiatives arise more organically, bubbling up from a shared sense of destiny or fate.
In light of the growing interest in acting regionally, this article offers a framework to help organize our thinking about regionalism, and to begin to identify and promote best practices for regional collaboration. No single model or approach will solve all regional problems. By looking at regional efforts around the country, however, it is possible to identify a common set of goals and principles for initiating, designing and sustaining regional efforts.
Shortly before his death, John W. Gardner, a long-time advocate for regional approaches to solving public problems, argued that there can be “no more regionalism for its own sake. We now need pragmatic regionalism with a purpose” (Parr et al. 2002, 3). While the specific objectives of regional initiatives vary, the overarching purpose of most regional initiatives is to integrate three goals (see Figure 1).
Regional Leadership
To achieve these goals, regional initiatives require a certain type of leadership. In contrast to exercising authority by taking unilateral action (a command-and-control model of leadership), people who initiate regional efforts cross jurisdictions, sectors, disciplines and cultures to forge alliances with diverse interests and viewpoints. These “regional stewards” invite people to take ownership of a shared vision and values, and they work hard to bridge differences and nourish networks of relationships.
Regional stewards share power and mobilize people, ideas and resources. They also provide integrity and credibility, and show a high tolerance for complexity, uncertainty and change. They emphasize dialogue and build relationships by respecting the diversity of ideas and viewpoints. Respect builds trust, which in turn fosters communication, understanding and eventually agreement.
Regional stewards tend to be committed to the long-term well-being of a particular place. They apply the same entrepreneurial spirit and persistence to solving regional challenges that business entrepreneurs apply in building a business; they are civic entrepreneurs. They see the need for more connected regional approaches to address social, economic and environmental issues; they are integrators. They build support from leaders, citizens, interest groups and policy makers toward a shared vision; they are coalition builders. Regional stewards hold themselves and each other accountable to achieve tangible results and sustained outcomes.
Regional stewards may be local elected or appointed officials, university or college professors, local business executives, program officers at philanthropic foundations, staff or board members of nonprofit organizations, and community activists. Regardless of their background or station in life, they share a common belief in the need to work across boundaries to accomplish the goals of regional stewardship (Parr et al. 2002).
Principles for Regional Collaboration
To foster livable communities, vibrant economies and healthy environments through regional collaboration, we have distilled seven principles from the literature and our own experiences. These principles are not necessarily new, but they embody practices that, when used in a regional context, create the conditions for successful collaboration.
Being strategic and deciding what to do require an understanding of how regional action supplements efforts at local, state and even national levels. The desired outcomes for a region are often contingent upon many seemingly disconnected decisions. Regional strategies need to recognize these contingencies up front, and create opportunities to build bridges, coordinate actions and do things that otherwise would not get done.
Regional stewards should also explore the value of integrating regional efforts into existing institutions or designing new ones. Partners need to identify and develop the capacities to sustain the regional initiatives: people, resources (e.g., money and information) and organizational structure. Given the source and diversity of regional initiatives, it is not surprising that different organizational models have emerged to meet particular challenges.
Figure 2.
Objectives of Regional Initiatives
Build knowledge and understanding
Build community
Share resources
Solve specific problems
Govern
Source: McKinney et al. 2002.
Tools for Regional Collaboration
To foster effective regional initiatives and support regional stewards, the Lincoln Institute offers the two-day skill-building course Regional Collaboration, usually in the spring. The Institute also convenes Regional Collaboration Clinics in selected regions, where we work with diverse groups of people to address the regional challenges and opportunities they face. Recently, we completed clinics in the New York–New Jersey Highlands and the Delaware River Basin, both regions experiencing tremendous growth and development.
The Alliance for Regional Stewardship is in the process of creating RegionLink, an online consultative network for regional practitioners.
Our approach to regional collaboration is experimental. We are interested in working with and learning from people involved at different regional scales and on different issues. Please contact us to share your story and suggest how we might improve the framework presented here to better reflect the practice of regional stewardship.
Matthew McKinney is director of the Public Policy Research Institute, The University of Montana, Helena
John Parr is executive director of the Alliance for Regional Stewardship, Denver, Colorado.
Ethan Seltzer is chair of the Department of Urban Studies and Planning, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon.
A longer version of this article, including case studies, is available from the authors.
References
Derthick, Martha. 1974. Between nation and state: Regional organizations of the United States. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Foster, Kathryn A. 2001. Regionalism on purpose. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
McKinney, Matthew, et al. 2002. Regionalism in the West: An inventory and assessment. Public land and resources law review, 101–191. Missoula: The University of Montana School of Law.
Parr, John, et al. 2002. The practice of stewardship: Developing leadership for regional action. Denver, CO: Alliance for Regional Stewardship, March.
Powell, John Wesley. 1890. Institutions for the arid lands. The Century Magazine (May-June): 111–116.
Seltzer, Ethan. 2000. Regional planning in America: Updating earlier visions. Land Lines (November): 4–6.
Stegner, Wallace. 1953. Beyond the hundredth meridian. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
SHARE
Emerging concerns about climate change impacts along with changing preferences for housing options are shaping the debate over growth patterns and sustainability. Climate modeling experts expect Arizona’s Sun Corridor to become hotter, drier, and more prone to extreme weather events. In a region where summer temperatures top 110°, annual precipitation is only 9 to 10 inches, and flood events already can be extreme, adaptation to and mitigation of climate change impacts will be of paramount importance. The response will require significantly changing prevalent land use planning and development patterns in the region.
SHARE
The central question facing land conservationists today is how to scale up efforts to protect entire landscapes and whole natural systems. The land trust movement has been built on the individual successes of conserved private properties, but increasingly both conservationists and landowners entering into conservation agreements want to know what is being done about their neighbor, their neighborhood, and most significantly their landscape (Williams 2011).
Farmers and ranchers talk of the need to sustain a continuous network of working lands—a critical mass of agricultural activity—or risk losing the supporting businesses and community cooperation they require to survive. Firefighters say that keeping remote lands undeveloped reduces the hazards and costs of firefighting for local communities. Sportsmen are losing access to public lands and wildlife when scattered rural development fragments habitat. Conservation biologists have long suggested that protecting bigger places will sustain more species, and conversely that fragmentation of habitat is the leading cause of species decline and loss. Finally, a rapidly changing climate reinforces the need to protect large, connected ecosystems to be resilient over the long term.
With many funders and public partners seeking to focus on collaborative, landscape-scale conservation efforts, the land trust community has an excellent opportunity to leverage its good work by engaging in landscape partnerships. Land trusts, with their grassroots base and collaborative working style, are in a good position to help support local initiatives. The process of building these efforts, however, requires a commitment beyond the urgency of transactions and fundraising, and necessitates a sustained focus that is much broader than the immediate objectives of many land trusts.
What Does Success Look Like?
Montana’s Blackfoot River was made famous in Norman Maclean’s 1976 story, A River Runs Through It (Maclean 2001), but what really stands out about the Blackfoot region is how the community has worked together over many decades to sustain this special place. Building on conservation work initiated by local landowners in the 1970s, the Blackfoot Challenge was established in 1993 to bring the area’s diverse interests together around consensus-based approaches to sustaining the rural character and natural resources of the valley. Rancher Jim Stone, chairman of this landowner group, says “we were tired of complaining about what we couldn’t do, so we decided to start talking about what we could do.”
This collaborative effort has used innovative conservation approaches for the Blackfoot that have been replicated in many other places. The group’s work began with a focus on better managing increased recreational use of the river and protecting the river corridor. The first conserva-tion easement secured in Montana was on the Blackfoot in 1976 as part of this pioneering effort. From that initial success grew more ambitious initiatives with engagement from an expanding set of partners.
When landowners said they were not getting enough help to control weeds, the Challenge established one of the largest weed control districts in the West. When landowners argued there were not enough resources for conserving working ranches, the Challenge helped create an innovative U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) program to purchase conservation easements with the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), which historically has been used for public land acquisition.
When landowners were concerned about the potential sale of vast forest lands in the valley, the Challenge launched a comprehensive acquisition plan that linked protected private ranches on the valley floor with forested public lands at higher elevations. When landowners recognized the need for systemic river restoration, the Challenge and the Big Blackfoot Chapter of Trout Unlimited helped restore more than 48 tributary streams and 600 miles of fish passage for native trout and watershed health (Trout Unlimited 2011).
The Blackfoot Challenge partners with more than 160 landowners, 30 businesses, 30 nonprofits, and 20 public agencies. Clearly, the Challenge’s vision for the area is not limited to just a few ranches, but rather is focused on the long-term health of the entire river valley, from “ridge to ridge” in Jim Stone’s words (figure 1).
The wonderful aspect of the Blackfoot story is that it is no longer a rare exception but an emblem of a much larger movement of collaborative conservation efforts around the country. These landscape partnerships confirm an emerging consensus about the need to protect and sustain entire landscapes that are vital to the health of fish and wildlife, as well as to the vitality of local communities, their economy, and their quality of life.
Landowner-Driven Conservation Efforts
The Blackfoot story underscores one of the most important lessons emerging from community-based conservation initiatives—local landowners should be in front and everyone else behind. An example from the Yampa River in western Colorado illustrates this approach. In the early 1990s, conservation groups were trying to protect the area, but were met with major mistrust by the local ranchers. The valley had no shortage of community visioning exercises and groups trying to conserve the region, but none of the ideas had really taken hold in a meaningful way, precisely because local landowners were not in the lead.
That dynamic was then turned on its head by several landowner initiatives, the most significant being the Routt County Open Lands Plan. The plan’s recommendations grew out of a series of local landowner meetings held throughout the county. The plan called for eight significant measures to better manage explosive growth in the valley, ranging from a right-to-farm ordinance to a purchase of development rights program on working ranches. Routt County became one of the first rural counties in the West to raise public funds through a local ballot measure to protect working ranches.
The Malpai Borderlands is another enduring example of how landowner leadership can break through decades of gridlock. After years of conflict between ranchers and federal agencies over the management of public lands around the Animas Mountains in the boot heel of New Mexico and southeastern Arizona, Bill Macdonald and other neighboring ranchers helped spearhead a landowner collaborative called the Malpai Borderlands Group to reintroduce fire for the health of grasslands and the local ranching economy. That effort grew into an innovative partnership among ranchers, conservation groups, and public agencies to conserve and sustain this one-million-acre working wilderness through conservation easements, grass banking, and a more integrated stewardship approach to the system as a whole.
Land Trusts and Public-Private Partnerships
As significant as landowner leadership is to collaborative, landscape-scale conservation efforts, land trusts and agencies also can play a vital role in leading from behind as a reliable partner with deep local ties, knowledge of outside resources, and an ability to implement research and conservation projects. On Montana’s Rocky Mountain Front, for example, local ranchers are working together with several land trusts and the USFWS to protect working lands through conservation easements. The local landowner committee has been led by several local ranchers, but their 20-year friendship with Dave Carr of The Nature Conservancy has been pivotal in their staying engaged. Greg Neudecker of the USFWS’s Partners for Wildlife Program has played a similar role in the Blackfoot, given his 21-years of service to community collaboration there.
Many landowners and land trusts hesitate to bring public agencies into landscape partnerships because they often pride themselves on achieving conservation through private action. When engaged as part of landscape partnerships, however, state and federal agencies can be very effective allies. In the Blackfoot, the science, research, monitoring, funding, and restoration work delivered by the State of Montana and the USFWS has made a huge impact on the recovery of the river system.
On the land protection front, public acquisition of extensive timberlands in the Blackfoot has complemented private land trust work by consolidating public lands and maintaining community access to those lands for grazing, forestry, and recreation. Recognizing the problems associated with a century of fire suppression, the U.S. Forest Service has initiated experimental thinning projects of small-diameter stands to restore the structure and function of forestlands and reduce the fire threat to the valley. That work is now being expanded through a new federally funded Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP) across the Blackfoot, Clearwater, and Swan valleys.
The larger principle is that all the major stakeholders have to be at the table, working together toward their common ground. David Mannix, another Blackfoot Challenge rancher, explains what they call the 80–20 rule: “We work on the 80 percent we can agree on and check the other 20 percent at the door with our hat.” Jim Stone claims that when people show up at a Blackfoot Challenge meeting, “We ask you to leave your organizational agenda at the door and put the landscape first,” focusing on the health of the land and the community so closely tied to it.
What’s really important is having the “right people” at the table for private-public partnerships to work—creative individuals motivated by a common vision and humble enough to recognize that they do not have all the answers. Collaboration takes time. Once common-ground approaches are developed, it is critical to have initial success, however small, that can build the kind of foundation needed for bigger solutions down the road.
The Need for Funding
The most serious barrier for local collaborative groups to achieve landscape-level goals is the lack of adequate funding. Without sufficient financial support, collaborative efforts often lose momentum, which can set back this kind of work for years.
Funding is not a static element, but it is responsive to the scale of the outcomes that can be achieved and the breadth of the constituency engaged. Neither private nor public funders want to participate in partial success unless it is a step toward a long-term, sustainable goal. And they do not want to fund places where groups are competing. Increasingly, land trusts and agencies have come to realize the potential of what can be achieved through collaboration. Donors consistently have led on this issue because they understand a resource-constrained world and the value of leveraging diverse strengths and funding.
Even when great collaborative efforts come together around common goals and achieve a heightened threshold of success, a serious funding gap often exists in achieving truly landscape-scale conservation. Mark Shaffer, former director of the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation’s Environment Program, estimated this gap to be about $5 billion per year in new funding and tax incentives needed over the next 30 years to conserve a network of important landscapes in the United States.
The land trust community is now conserving land at the rate of about 2.6 million acres per year—a cumulative total of about 37 million acres according to the last census in 2005 (Land Trust Alliance 2006). However, to sustain whole landscapes before urgent threats close the window of opportunity, that rate needs to double or triple, and efforts must be conducted in a more focused way.
Emerging Opportunities for Landscape-Scale Conservation
There are several major trends and near-term opportunities that could enhance landscape-scale conservation efforts, but their success hinges on land trust engagement and leadership. First, it is critical that Congress make permanent the enhanced deductions for conservation easements. The Land Trust Alliance (2011) points out that these deductions can protect more than 250,000 additional acres per year. Given the current congressional focus on spending cuts and tax cuts, this is one of the few conservation finance tools that may be achievable in the near term. Over the longer term, a national transferable tax credit program, similar to those in Colorado and Virginia, could create an enormous incentive for securing conservation easements.
The second trend relates to increasing the federal focus on protecting whole landscapes by empowering communities that are already working together. In 2005 the Bush administration launched a Cooperative Conservation Program that provided improved agency coordination and capacity grants for local collaborative work. In 2010, the Obama administration launched the America’s Great Outdoors Initiative to help communities better sustain their land and water resources through locally driven partnerships and to reconnect America’s youth to the natural environment (Obama 2010).
While federal resources are highly constrained in the near term, existing programs and funding could be more focused on whole landscape conservation projects. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack has announced a major policy shift for the department to an “all lands” approach to conserving and restoring the big systems of the United States. For example, the Natural Resources Conservation Service recently announced that it would reinvest $89 million of unspent Wetland Reserve Program funds to purchase conservation easements over 26,000 acres of working ranches in the Florida Everglades. The opportunity facing the land trust community is to ensure that these projects are implemented in a manner that builds broad support for this work over the long term.
The third opportunity is passing local and statewide measures to increase funding and tax incentives for conservation. Despite the weak economy and pervasive talk of less government and lower taxes, voters in the 2010 elections passed 83 percent of the ballot initiatives presented nationwide to fund land and water conservation. Overall, 41 of 49 funding measures passed, generating more than $2 billion for land, water, parks, and farmland conservation over the next 20 years (The Trust for Public Land 2010).
The final trend and opportunity for the land trust community is partnering with private capital funders on major land conservation projects. Between 1983 and 2009, more than 43 million acres of forest lands traded hands (Rinehart 2010). New private equity groups, called Timber Investment Management Organizations (TIMOs) and Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs), picked up 27 million acres of this land in a very short period, and many of these investment groups, including Lyme Timber, Conservation Forestry, Ecosystem Investment Partners, Beartooth Capital Partners, have conservation as part of their business model.
The Question of Scale
An ongoing trend in conservation has been an expanding focus from individual properties to neighborhoods, landscapes, ecosystems, and now networks of ecosystems. For example, landowners in the Blackfoot, Swan Valley, and Rocky Mountain Front have come to realize that the health of their landscapes depends on the health of the larger Crown of the Continent (figure 2).
Surrounding the Bob Marshall Wilderness and Glacier-Waterton International Peace Park, the 10-million-acre Crown is one of the most intact ecosystems in North America. Thanks to a century of public land designations and 35 years of private land protection by local communities, this ecosystem has not lost a single species since European settlement. Landowners and other partners have been reaching across the Crown in a variety of ways to see how they can work together more closely for the good of the whole.
Even in the Crown’s large expanse, the sustainability of its wildlife populations depends on their connections to other populations throughout the Northern Rockies. That even larger network of natural systems can only be realized, however, if critical linkage areas can be sustained. For this reason, land trusts in Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, and Canada have been collaborating through a framework called the Heart of the Rockies to identify common priorities and conservation needs. This level of regional collaboration has resulted in both a new level of conservation and more attention from funders. It has also been pivotal for land trust collaboration around common policy priorities.
Organizing at these larger scales is truly imperative if we are to sustain well-connected natural systems, but it is also important to understand what can be achieved at each scale. Large regional initiatives are important for creating a broad, compelling vision, but not for implementing conservation on the ground. Such large-scale approaches are good at applying science at nature’s scale, creating regional collaboration around common priorities and a forum for exchange on innovative ideas, and bringing greater attention to the area. They also provide an important context for why local work is so significant.
Melanie Parker, a local leader for collaborative conservation efforts in the Swan Valley, cautions: “We need to aggregate our efforts across the larger region to influence policy and to access resources, but anyone who thinks that conservation work can or should be done at the scale of 10 million acres is seriously misguided. This kind of work has to be done at the scale at which people live, work, and understand their landscapes.”
Local people are moved to act by the power of their own place and in their own way. Designing strategies at a large scale is often too abstract for landowners at best, or outright alienating at worse. As in politics, all conservation is local. Likewise, politicians are most responsive to homegrown projects devised and backed by local residents. How large place-based efforts really can be and still hold community cohesion is an important question, but certainly the Blackfoot, Rocky Mountain Front, and Swan Valley are pushing the outer limits. Each is addressing lands at the scale of 0.5 million to 1.5 million acres.
Land trusts can add value to local efforts through regional collaboration. While landowners and local residents often do not have the additional time to participate in these larger initiatives, they want their place and specific issues to be well-represented. Land trusts and conservation organizations can play the very important role of connecting local, place-based groups, but they need to coordinate with those groups and not get out in front of them. In the end, the land trust community could be well served by strengthening its collaborative work, by deepening its engagement in landscape partnerships, and by working at larger scales to achieve conservation success.
Conclusion
After many decades of outstanding work, the more than 1,700 land trusts across the country can use their momentum to conserve the large systems that matter for people and nature. Indeed, this is what communities are asking for and what nature needs to survive. Moving beyond isolated victories to a more interconnected conservation vision is just as important for local sustainable economies and recreational access as it is for wildlife corridors and healthy watersheds. To be successful at this scale requires real collaboration and a reorientation for everyone involved. With the many opportunities currently rising for whole-landscape conservation, the moment is ours to seize.
References
Land Trust Alliance. 2006. 2005 national land trust census. Washington, DC. 30 November.
———. 2011. Accelerating the pace of conservation. www.landtrustalliance.org/policy
Maclean, Norman. 2001 [1976]. A river runs through it and other stories. 25th anniversary edition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Obama, Barack. 2010. Presidential Memorandum: America’s Great Outdoors, April 16. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-americas-great-outdoors
Rinehart, Jim. 2010. U.S. timberland post-recession: Is it the same asset? San Francisco, CA: R&A Investment Forestry. April. www.investmentforestry.com
The Trust for Public Land. 2010. www.landvote.org
Trout Unlimited. 2011. Working together to restore the Blackfoot Watershed. February. www.tu.org
Williams, Jamie. 2011. Large landscape conservation: A view from the field. Working Paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
About the Author
Jamie Williamsis The Nature Conservancy’s director of landscape conservation for North America, based in Boulder, Colorado. He focuses on programs to protect large landscapes through innovative public and private partnerships. He was a Kingsbury Browne Fellow at the Lincoln Institute in 2010–2011. He holds a Master in Environmental Studies from the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies and a B.A. from Yale University.
SHARE
El Parque Nacional Yellowstone parece tan silvestre hoy en día porque en 1872 se convirtió en el primer parque nacional del mundo, y porque los incendios de 1988 y la exitosa reintroducción de lobos en la década de 1990 restauraron el carácter dinámico del paisaje original. En su última serie de televisión en PBS, el cineasta Ken Burns llamó a nuestros parques nacionales “la mejor idea de los Estados Unidos”; sin embargo, cada vez más personas dentro del movimiento conservacionista creen actualmente que, en el mejor de los casos, las áreas totalmente protegidas como Yellowstone son sólo una parte de la solución conservacionista. Este grupo sostiene que deberíamos salvar a la naturaleza para las personas en lugar de salvar a la naturaleza del impacto ocasionado por las personas y que nuestros esfuerzos deberían incluir otras muchas áreas diferentes con menor énfasis en la “preservación” de los terrenos.
Esta es una variación del debate mantenido hace cien años entre el conservacionista John Muir y el administrador forestal Gifford Pinchot: ¿Deberíamos proteger a la naturaleza por su valor intrínseco o nuestro enfoque debería sería mucho más utilitarista? Este último punto de vista tenía como objetivo maximizar la producción a largo plazo de agua, vida silvestre aprovechable y madera, y que en la actualidad incluiría los yacimientos de carbón, los biocombustibles, la eliminación de nutrientes y la protección contra peligros naturales… en suma, todas las cosas que brinda el mundo natural.
El debate contemporáneo plantea además otra cuestión acerca de la omnipresencia del impacto humano sobre las áreas naturales. Yellowstone, como cualquier otro lugar del planeta, se encuentra profundamente influenciado por las decisiones del ser humano. Aldo Leopold (1966, 254) percibió este dilema hace más de 60 años cuando escribió: “La invención de herramientas por parte del ser humano le ha permitido realizar cambios de una violencia, rapidez y alcance sin precedentes”. En la actualidad, estas herramientas son todavía mucho más poderosas. En su último libro, Rambunctious Garden, la escritora científica Emma Marris (2011) propone el argumento según el cual tendremos que aprender a aceptar una naturaleza alterada por las actividades del ser humano. No resulta suficiente pensar en la preservación de las áreas naturales para permitir un funcionamiento sin obstáculos de sus sistemas naturales. Cada lugar requiere algún tipo de gestión, aun cuando fuere sólo con el fin de proteger lo que resta de su condición “natural”.
Los alcances de la responsabilidad del ser humano en relación con la naturaleza me quedaron claros en una reciente conversación con Phil Kramer, director para el Caribe de la organización The Nature Conservancy, quien describió la disminución regresiva de los arrecifes de coral en esa región y los esfuerzos llevados a cabo por su equipo para restaurar dichos arrecifes, seleccionando los genotipos de coral que parecían más resistentes al agua más caliente, cultivándolos en viveros y utilizándolos posteriormente para reconstruir los arrecifes en diferentes lugares.
Durante miles de años, de manera consciente e inconsciente, el ser humano ha modelado su entorno según sus necesidades; sin embargo, este tipo de intervención intencional a fin de responder a las cada vez mayores amenazas contra la naturaleza representa un nuevo enfoque que resulta diferente del punto de vista de preservación de Muir y de la perspectiva de administración científica de Pinchot. Hoy en día estamos intentando crear nuestro futuro de conservación a escalas cada vez mayores. Este proceso de conservación creativa se basa en los enfoques analíticos acerca de la conservación que se tenían en el pasado, pero ello no depende únicamente del análisis de referencia de ecosistemas históricos para establecer metas para el futuro. Por el contrario, requiere que nuestras metas provengan de una síntesis de necesidades y beneficios tanto del ser humano como de la naturaleza, según lo que Aldo Leopold (1966, 239) denominó “ética del suelo”, es decir, una responsabilidad personal e informada con respecto a la salud y el futuro de nuestro suelo y del agua.
Desafíos a la hora de proteger a la naturaleza
Esta perspectiva sobre la conservación se ve envuelta en un encendido debate dentro de la comunidad conservacionista. Muchos sostienen la idea de restaurar las áreas afectadas para que vuelvan a su estado silvestre y, finalmente, al poder de la naturaleza, mientras que otros reconocen que estos enfoques sólo pueden ser una parte de nuestro futuro. Desde mi punto de vista, la energía de la comunidad conservacionista debería dirigirse no tanto hacia el debate interno sino a resolver los verdaderos desafíos que enfrentamos a la hora de sustentar el marco y las funciones principales de los sistemas naturales para beneficio de las personas y de la naturaleza misma. Y ¿cuáles son estos desafíos?
Estrategias para la conservación creativa
Al llegar a este punto fundamental en la historia conservacionista de los Estados Unidos, ¿qué debería hacer el movimiento conservacionista para resolver los conflictos entre los partidos políticos actuales, la presión que ejerce el ser humano a nivel mundial sobre nuestros sistemas naturales y la necesidad de crear un futuro ambiental, tanto en nuestro país como en todo el mundo, que sea ético, sustentable y alcanzable? Las respuestas, creo yo, no vendrán de Washington sino de un movimiento en todo el país formado por propietarios, agencias del gobierno, organizaciones sin fines de lucro y grupos comunitarios que trabajen juntos para proteger los lugares que valoran, como el valle Blackfoot en Montana, las colinas Flint en Kansas y los valles de los ríos Connecticut y Hudson en el este del país. Para encarar proyectos populares como los mencionados, surgen ciertas propuestas que podrían contribuir a un éxito duradero y a gran escala del conservacionismo.
Trabajar a escala del paisaje
En un mundo donde la naturaleza está sometida a muchos factores de estrés y amenazas, entendemos que es improbable que porciones desconectadas de sistemas naturales puedan sobrevivir. La mayoría de las agencias federales está comenzando a pensar en estos términos, aunque todavía deben superarse numerosos obstáculos institucionales para lograr que lo que The Nature Conservancy denomina “sistemas integrales” se convierta en la forma normal de encarar esta tarea.
Utilizar varias herramientas de conservación simultáneamente
Resulta de esencial importancia integrar la preservación, la gestión tradicional del suelo tanto pública como privada y la restauración en lugares que se definan tanto por sus atributos naturales como humanos. La combinación del trabajo a gran escala y la utilización de varios enfoques sugieren que el gobierno deberá lograr un nivel de coordinación sin precedentes en cuanto a la forma en que utilizan su influencia y sus recursos.
Reconocer, respetar y cuantificar los beneficios a corto y largo plazo que la conservación puede brindar a la humanidad
Las organizaciones conservacionistas deben volverse expertas en comprender y explicar el valor de la naturaleza para dar forma al mundo del futuro. A medida que los diferentes intereses intentan encajar dentro del diseño del futuro, también deben ser capaces de representar de forma exacta la importancia que tendrán los componentes naturales de ese futuro.
No rechazar la idea de las condiciones de referencia
No siempre resulta posible mantener la naturaleza tal y como se encontraba en el pasado, pero podemos dar la más alta prioridad a la protección de aquellos lugares donde pueden continuar los procesos ecológicos, donde puede gestionarse el cambio y donde podemos, según las palabras de Mark Anderson, científico de The Nature Conservancy, “salvar el escenario, si no podemos salvar a todos los actores”.
Aprender a equilibrar la gestión de adaptación con las metas a largo plazo
Esto requiere combinar la intención de admitir los errores y adaptarnos a ellos con una coherencia de propósito y acción que resultan necesarios para influir en el futuro de grandes sistemas. Lleva tiempo llegar al tipo de consenso a largo plazo sobre la deseada condición futura que las comunidades intentan lograr. Los proyectos de conservación exitosos y creativos se prolongan durante varias décadas, no años.
Mantener leyes ambientales justas y coherentes
Los procesos normativos del medio ambiente y el uso del suelo, así como los incentivos económicos (y la falta de ellos), pueden y deberían reestructurarse de tal manera que se establezca un marco más coherente y flexible para configurar el futuro y lograr que el funcionamiento de los mercados tenga una influencia ambiental positiva. No obstante, las normas regulatorias deben mantenerse con el fin de garantizar un campo de acción equilibrado y proteger el medio ambiente y la salud del ser humano, a la vez que permita el crecimiento económico a largo plazo. Una utilización amplia de la jerarquía de mitigación (evitar, minimizar, compensar) podría ser muy útil en este caso. Este enfoque sobre la ubicación de la infraestructura y el desarrollo puede permitir las inversiones y el crecimiento económico al tiempo que brinda beneficios netos a la naturaleza.
Tomar más medidas para garantizar la participación de los ciudadanos y las distintas partes interesadas en la planificación del futuro
Si nuestra sociedad no sólo protege a la naturaleza sino que está creando un mundo futuro, entonces todos tenemos un derecho, y yo diría, una responsabilidad, aún mayor para involucrarnos en el establecimiento de dichas metas. Ya no vivimos en una sociedad basada en un centro que toma las decisiones. La mayoría de las decisiones es el resultado de acciones individuales interconectadas, y los ciudadanos necesitan un renovado sentido de poder de decisión a la hora de determinar el carácter de los lugares donde viven, trabajan y se esparcen. El conservacionismo también se convertirá en un proceso más descentralizado, con una orientación de abajo hacia arriba. La participación de la juventud es de particular importancia y las cuestiones ambientales deben darse a conocer entre los residentes de las áreas metropolitanas del país donde vive la gran mayoría de los estadounidenses.
Identificar, capacitar y guiar a una nueva generación de líderes conservacionistas locales
Una nueva generación de conservacionistas con aptitudes para trabajar en diferentes áreas de interés permitirá crear un futuro en el que se combinen las necesidades del medio ambiente y de la economía a largo plazo.
Solución compartida de problemas
De más está decir que todo lo anteriormente mencionado podría poner a la conservación creativa en el fuego cruzado entre aquellos que no le dan importancia a la naturaleza y los que temen que cambiar algo en las normas ambientales o en la protección de los terrenos públicos daría lugar a un cambio cataclísmico. Sin embargo, estos pasos podrían llevarnos a soluciones prácticas respecto del impasse político cada vez mayor que experimenta el país respecto a la conservación y el medio ambiente. Y la razón central de este impasse es la creencia compartida de que hemos perdido el control del futuro de nuestras familias y comunidades y que nos hemos convertido en víctimas de acciones de fuerzas lejanas.
La conservación creativa llevada a cabo de manera correcta puede darnos a todos un rol significativo a la hora de dar forma al futuro de los lugares que nos son más caros, es decir, donde se encuentran nuestros hogares. Además, ofrece dos beneficios que pueden conllevar una tracción política poderosa: la oportunidad de tener mejores lugares para vivir, trabajar y visitar que proporcionen beneficios tangibles a nuestras vidas, y el sentido de respeto y dignidad implícito en nuestra tarea de ayudar a determinar el futuro de los lugares que amamos.
Un enfoque de este estilo podría poner en marcha la política ambiental tanto de conservadores como de liberales hacia una forma compartida de resolver los problemas. En cuanto a los conservadores: ¿Se oponen a la planificación del futuro o solamente a la planificación realizada por sus oponentes? ¿Estarían dispuestos a incluir las esperanzas de los ciudadanos en cuanto a sus propias comunidades como una parte legítima de un futuro menos gubernamental y más regido por el mercado que les gustaría ver? Con respecto a los liberales: ¿Estarían dispuestos a confiar en que las personas que trabajan la tierra tomen más decisiones acerca del destino de nuestro suelo y nuestra agua, o también están en realidad más interesados en un control centralizado para lograr su propia visión de lo que debería hacerse? La oportunidad de trabajar juntos para crear buenos futuros para los lugares reales que rodean nuestras vidas ¿puede convertirse en el terreno común, literal y simbólico, que pueda sanar algunas de las divisiones de nuestra sociedad?
El arco de piedra en la entrada norte de Yellowstone se erigió en conmemoración de la creación del parque y posee una inscripción que reza: “Para el beneficio y goce de las personas”. Theodore Roosevelt colocó la piedra angular del arco cuando visitó Yellowstone en 1904, en un momento en que los estadounidenses veían al gobierno como un protector del bien común. Yellowstone era un ejemplo de ese espíritu.
No obstante hoy, en pleno siglo XXI, me parece que el arco de la entrada también tiene un importante mensaje: el de mirar fuera del parque, pasando por el valle Paradise donde el río Yellowstone se dirige hacia el río Missouri, el Mississippi y el golfo de México. El desafío de conservación que tenemos por delante, contra todas las probabilidades y nos guste o no, es crear un futuro para el beneficio de las personas, basado en el respeto y la comprensión de los diferentes valores de la naturaleza, en muchos más lugares de los Estados Unidos.
Si el enfoque se hiciera de esta manera en cada lugar del país, los estadounidenses con diferentes puntos de vista podrían unir esfuerzos para la causa del conservacionismo, no sólo como algo en lo que pensar en las vacaciones ni como un lujo sino como un fundamento duradero para una vida más saludable, segura, próspera y espiritualmente gratificante para nuestros hijos y nietos.
Sobre el autor
Bob Bendick es director de Relaciones del Gobierno de los EE.UU. en The Nature Conservancy, Washington, DC.
Referencias
Leopold, Aldo. 1966 [1949]. A Sand County almanac: With essays on conservation from Round River. Nueva York: Oxford University Press.
Marris, Emma. 2011. Rambunctious garden: Saving nature in a post-wild world. Nueva York: Bloomsbury Press.
SHARE
A pesar de la creciente popularidad de la agricultura urbana, muchas granjas urbanas siguen enfrentando el desafío de la inseguridad respecto de la posesión del suelo y de políticas públicas demasiado restrictivas. Algunos investigadores y responsables de diseñar políticas han identificado la necesidad de un marco actualizado para este movimiento que apoye a los granjeros urbanos en temas relacionados con las reglamentaciones sobre el uso del suelo, zonificación e impuestos a la propiedad. Los fideicomisos de suelo comunitarios (CLT, por sus siglas en inglés) se dedican a apoyar este tipo de estructura, ya que su abordaje del uso del suelo tiene que ver con ejercer un control a nivel local que fomente el activismo y la participación comunitaria, a la vez que responden a las condiciones del mercado y las necesidades de los barrios en constante evolución.
El estado de la agricultura urbana
El término “agricultura urbana” se refiere tanto a las actividades comerciales como no comerciales que se llevan a cabo dentro de un centro urbano o cerca del mismo con el fin de elaborar productos alimenticios o no para su utilización en un área urbana (Mougeot 2000). Aunque las granjas urbanas y las huertas comunitarias son, por lo general, la cara visible de la agricultura urbana, los espacios de cultivo a pequeña escala y los huertos que se encuentran en los jardines traseros de las casas también representan una parte significativa de la producción.
La agricultura urbana ha permitido a las comunidades obtener diferentes tipos de beneficios ambientales, económicos y sociales, tales como una mejor alimentación, una mayor seguridad en el abastecimiento de alimentos, la restauración ecológica, la creación de espacios abiertos y oportunidades de educación y capacitación en habilidades para el trabajo (Bellows, Brown y Smit 2004; Kaufman y Bailkey 2000; Smit, Ratta y Nasr 1996). Las granjas urbanas tienen además la capacidad única de unir diferentes tipos de poblaciones, generar un capital social y promover la atribución de responsabilidades mediante la construcción de la comunidad (Staeheli y otros 2002). En las ciudades tradicionales (es decir, aquellos antiguos centros industriales que han sufrido el impacto de la pérdida continua de empleo y población y los consiguientes cambios económicos, sociales y políticos), la agricultura urbana se ha utilizado en gran manera como una herramienta de desarrollo tanto provisional como permanente a fin de fortalecer la cohesión social y catalizar el progreso en barrios que carecen de inversión. El proceso de convertir lotes vacantes y abandonados en espacios para cultivo puede resultar una estrategia relativamente rápida y económica que produzca un gran impacto visible y mejore la seguridad pública.
A raíz de los mencionados beneficios en diversas áreas, la agricultura urbana ha gozado de un renacimiento como movimiento social. En los últimos años, algunas ciudades y municipios han actualizado sus políticas públicas con el fin de apoyar en mayor medida las prácticas agrícolas urbanas. No obstante, este movimiento presenta sus propios desafíos, tales como la preocupación en cuanto a la seguridad ambiental y la seguridad en la posesión del suelo (Brown y otros 2002). En particular, la inseguridad en cuanto al suelo es el motivo de preocupación más citado como el mayor obstáculo para la implementación y sustentabilidad de las granjas urbanas (Lawson 2004; Yuen 2012). Según una encuesta nacional realizada en 1998 a más de 6.000 granjas urbanas, el 99,9 por ciento de los horticultores consideraban el tema de la posesión del suelo como un desafío y, a la vez, como un elemento vital para el éxito futuro del movimiento (ACGA 1998).
En estos casos, la inseguridad en cuanto al suelo surge cuando el costo de los terrenos a precio de mercado excede los ingresos derivados de las actividades agrícolas. Básicamente, la mano escondida del mercado hace presión sobre la asignación de terrenos según el mejor y óptimo uso que se le pueda dar. Debido a dicha conceptualización dominante, los planificadores y responsables de diseñar políticas históricamente han considerado la agricultura urbana como una medida provisional para mantener un lugar en actividad hasta que se puedan desarrollar usos mejores y óptimos. Sin embargo, los académicos señalan que las granjas urbanas pueden producir muchos efectos secundarios positivos relacionados con la salud pública y el bienestar de la comunidad, y que resulta difícil monetizar dichos beneficios (Schmelzkopf 1995). Las valuaciones de cambio tradicionales relacionadas con el suelo casi nunca reflejan los aportes que realizan las huertas comunitarias a la educación sobre alimentación saludable y al bienestar físico de los residentes. Esta desconexión entre el valor social y los valores de mercado ha sido el impulso para intervenciones tanto públicas como privadas.
En general, los gobiernos municipales responden comprando parcelas de terrenos agrícolas urbanos, aislándolas así de las fuerzas especulativas del mercado y evitando su inclusión en los registros tributarios. Aunque este abordaje del sector público ha sido sumamente importante, a veces no logra otorgar una seguridad a largo plazo, especialmente cuando los cambios administrativos en los gobiernos municipales dan como resultado modificaciones en las prioridades y estrategias, tal como ocurrió en 1999 cuando el alcalde de la Ciudad de Nueva York, Rudy Giuliani, propuso subastar 850 huertas comunitarias de toda la ciudad. Por lo tanto, los investigadores se han enfocado en la necesidad de buscar estrategias alternativas que puedan complementar las medidas llevadas a cabo por el sector público a fin de apoyar la seguridad del suelo para la agricultura urbana.
————————
Recuadro 1: Encuesta 2012 de CLT en los Estados Unidos de América
En el otoño de 2012, la Red Nacional de Fideicomisos de Suelo Comunitarios (NCLTN), junto con el Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, encargó realizar un estudio de proyectos comerciales y agrícolas urbanos llevados a cabo por CLT en los EE.UU. (Rosenberg y Yuen 2012). Mediante este estudio, se analizó el papel que representan los CLT al implementar proyectos no residenciales y se evaluaron los beneficios y desafíos derivados de dichos proyectos. Los investigadores distribuyeron una encuesta por Internet a las 224 organizaciones que aparecen en la base de datos de la NCLTN: 56 CLT (25 por ciento) respondieron el cuestionario y 37 CLT informaron que se dedicaban a actividades agrícolas. Se seleccionaron 12 CLT para recopilar información más detallada, lo cual mostró una variedad de proyectos con diferentes niveles de éxito en distintos lugares. Para levantar los datos se utilizó un enfoque de estudio de casos, mediante la recopilación de documentos organizacionales y fuentes secundarias, así como también entrevistas al personal de las CLT. El documento de trabajo definitivo tiene su sustento en otro recurso conformado por un listado de proyectos que resalta los proyectos y organizaciones involucradas en el estudio (Yuen y Rosenberg 2012).
En el presente artículo tomamos en cuenta dicha investigación a fin de analizar los beneficios, desafíos y consideraciones derivadas de las actividades agrícolas urbanas llevadas a cabo por las CLT. Además, se examina de qué manera dichas intervenciones son capaces de apoyar las actividades integrales de desarrollo comunitario, particularmente en las ciudades tradicionales.
————————
Los CLT como marco para la agricultura urbana
Un CLT es una sociedad anónima comunitaria sin fines de lucro cuyos miembros provienen del mismo lugar, posee un directorio elegido democráticamente y tiene un compromiso con fines benéficos basado en el uso y la administración del suelo a favor de la población local. Los CLT, por lo general, conservan la propiedad permanente del suelo y lo arriendan a personas u organizaciones que tienen la propiedad sobre las mejoras del suelo, tales como viviendas, edificios comerciales e instalaciones agrícolas o recreativas. El modelo del CLT ofrece una forma de conservar la propiedad del suelo administrada por y para la comunidad, por lo que el mejor u óptimo uso de la propiedad puede permanecer definido y controlado por la comunidad y puede adaptarse a las condiciones cambiantes.
Aunque en las últimas décadas los CLT se han enfocado en el desarrollo y la administración de viviendas accesibles económicamente, el movimiento se originó en respuesta a ciertos problemas relacionados con los terrenos con fines agrícolas en el área rural de Georgia durante la década de 1960. Otras influencias aun anteriores son los kibutz en Israel, los barrios Gramdan en la India y las ciudades jardín de Ebenezer Howard (Davis 2010). La solidez del modelo del CLT se fundamenta en su capacidad de equilibrar el control del suelo a nivel local y el desarrollo administrado a largo plazo que trata las necesidades de la comunidad siempre cambiantes. Así, los CLT se encuentran en la mejor posición para abordar diferentes usos del suelo mediante estrategias de desarrollo integrales. Las ciudades tradicionales son, tal vez, las más aptas para la participación de un CLT, ya que la disponibilidad generalizada de suelo vacante ha dado como resultado un floreciente movimiento agrícola urbano, aunque el énfasis sea menor respecto a la seguridad del suelo a largo plazo.
Nuestra investigación encontró que los CLT había dado apoyo a los proyectos de agricultura urbana de tres formas diferentes: garantizando el acceso al suelo para fines agrícolas, proporcionando apoyo programático y participando directamente en la producción de alimentos.
Cómo garantizar el acceso al suelo para fines agrícolas
Las competencias fundamentales de los CLT se prestan mejor a la tarea de acceder a espacios con fines agrícolas. Una de las misiones centrales de los CLT es garantizar el acceso al suelo para oportunidades de desarrollo comunitario. Con el fin de llevar a cabo esta tarea, los CLT han utilizado diversos tipos de posesión del suelo, tales como la propiedad en pleno dominio, el arrendamiento de terrenos, las servidumbres y las restricciones en los títulos de propiedad (tabla 1). Estos tipos de acuerdo no se excluyen mutuamente: las organizaciones pueden emplear diferentes técnicas con el fin de garantizar el acceso al suelo tanto dentro de un mismo proyecto agrícola como para diferentes proyectos.
Propiedad en pleno dominio
La propiedad en pleno dominio permite al CLT conservar la mayor cantidad de derechos de propiedad y brinda un alto nivel de seguridad en cuanto al suelo, siempre que cumpla con todos los pagos de hipotecas y obligaciones fiscales. Por ejemplo, Dudley Neighbors Incorporated (DNI), un CLT de Roxbury, Massachusetts, llevó a cabo el redesarrollo de un sitio contaminado donde anteriormente funcionaba un taller mecánico de automóviles para transformarlo en el vivero Dudley de 930 metros cuadrados, que funciona como una granja comercial y, a la vez, como un espacio de cultivo comunitario. DNI obtuvo la seguridad del terreno mediante la propiedad en pleno dominio, y arrienda la estructura del vivero a una tasa nominal a una entidad alimentaria sin fines de lucro que administra la totalidad de la programación y el mantenimiento agrícola. Harry Smith, director de sustentabilidad y desarrollo económico de DNI, señala: “El cultivo de alimentos es algo totalmente diferente, por lo que no intentamos encargarnos de esa tarea”.
Arrendamiento del terreno
Aunque la propiedad en pleno dominio es una herramienta simple y con un nivel de seguridad alto, por lo general resulta demasiado costosa para que los CLT puedan comprar suelo urbano directamente para la producción de alimentos. En vista de este desafío, algunos CLT han utilizado el arrendamiento de terrenos para tener acceso al suelo con fines agrícolas. Por ejemplo, el CLT de Southside (SCLT) posee un contrato de alquiler por 10 años con el estado de Rhode Island sobre una granja de 8 hectáreas en Cranston. A su vez, el CLT de Southside administra la granja en calidad de arrendatario principal y subarrienda lotes a siete granjeros noveles a tasas nominales. Debido a que el arriendo del terreno es accesible y seguro, se generan oportunidades para que los jóvenes granjeros puedan comenzar sus incipientes negocios y participar en el sistema de producción de alimentos local. Un contrato de arrendamiento de terrenos sólido que presente rigurosos estándares de rendimiento y condiciones de renovación puede proporcionar una seguridad igual o mayor que una propiedad en pleno dominio. No obstante, los arrendamientos de terrenos a largo plazo pueden resultar difíciles de elaborar e implementar, especialmente cuando la entidad que posee el título de propiedad tiene la intención de establecer una flexibilidad a largo plazo.
Servidumbres de conservación
Los CLT también garantizan el acceso al suelo mediante servidumbres de conservación o restricciones voluntarias que limitan de forma permanente el uso que se puede dar al suelo. Por lo general, el CLT posee una servidumbre donada por un propietario particular. Este propietario particular conserva el título de propiedad y hasta puede vender los terrenos a un tercero sin comprometer la seguridad del suelo, ya que la servidumbre de conservación garantiza el acceso a largo plazo al espacio con fines agrícolas. Las servidumbres también pueden reducir la carga administrativa del propietario, ya que el receptor de la servidumbre por lo general brinda servicios de administración del suelo como parte del intercambio. Esta estrategia puede beneficiar económicamente a los propietarios, quienes reciben beneficios fiscales tanto a nivel federal como municipal por donar servidumbres de conservación. Aunque las servidumbres pueden efectivamente garantizar el acceso al espacio con fines agrícolas, el costo legal puede llegar a ser muy alto, especialmente en lo que respecta a las parcelas más pequeñas.
Restricciones en el tÍtulo de propiedad
Las restricciones en el título de propiedad pueden limitar efectivamente los usos del suelo y, por lo general, están relacionadas con fuentes de financiamiento específicas. Aunque una restricción en el título de propiedad puede garantizar que el suelo se reserve para un uso específico, no necesariamente ofrece al granjero o agricultor particular una posesión segura. Además, las restricciones en el título de propiedad son efectivas sólo cuando todas las partes y agentes externos deciden poner en vigencia el contrato. Cada uno de los diferentes acuerdos de posesión del suelo posee ventajas y desventajas relativas, por lo que la mejor manera de utilizarlos es en el contexto de un proyecto específico. Por ejemplo, en Wisconsin, el CLT del área de Madison tuvo que otorgar una restricción en el título de propiedad a la ciudad de Madison como condición para recibir fondos destinados al desarrollo de uso mixto Troy Gardens. La restricción en el título de propiedad se estableció sobre una parte del terreno para limitar su uso a los proyectos agrícolas y de conservación. Sin embargo, si el CLT no cumpliera con los términos de la restricción en el título de propiedad, esto desencadenaría la inmediata devolución de la totalidad del subsidio otorgado por la ciudad.
Apoyo mediante programas
Debido a que la tarea de garantizar el acceso al suelo con fines agrícolas puede presentar muchos desafíos, tal vez no sea el emprendimiento adecuado para cualquier organización o comunidad. Algunos CLT han apoyado las tareas agrícolas urbanas de otras maneras, tales como la gestión de programas, la asistencia técnica y otros servicios de índole agrícola. Por ejemplo, en Georgia, el Athens Land Trust es un fideicomiso de suelo con una doble misión —viviendas y espacio abierto— que se ha involucrado en la agricultura urbana exclusivamente a través de un programa de apoyo. El Athens Land Trust decidió aceptar este rol debido a los altos costos de propiedad asociados a las políticas sobre el impuesto a la propiedad vigentes en Georgia, según las cuales el suelo de un CLT se valúa al valor de mercado sin restricciones. El Athens Land Trust se asocia con propietarios del sector público y privado a fin de proporcionar apoyo para proyectos agrícolas a nivel local. Por ejemplo, el personal del Athens Land Trust trabajó junto con la congregación de la iglesia bautista Hill Chapel a fin de diseñar una huerta comunitaria en terrenos de propiedad de la iglesia, y brindó servicios de apoyo tales como prueba y cultivo del suelo, organización del cronograma de trabajo y entrega de materiales sobre plantas y realización de talleres educativos sobre horticultura.
Producción agrícola
Finalmente, algunos CLT han participado en la producción agrícola mediante el cultivo directo y activo del suelo. Por ejemplo, el CLT de Southside administra una granja comercial de 3 kilómetros cuadrados en Providence, Rhode Island, donde se cultivan y venden verduras directamente a los restaurantes de la zona. Muchos CLT también apoyan la producción agrícola de forma indirecta, entregando propiedades residenciales a personas que cultivan productos alimenticios en las huertas de sus patios traseros. De esta manera, sin saberlo, muchos CLT han apoyado la agricultura urbana durante años, simplemente por haber proporcionado un acceso económico y seguro a terrenos cultivables en las ciudades. Algunos grupos, como DNI, diseñan específicamente lotes de propiedad residencial de mayores dimensiones a fin de ofrecer la oportunidad de plantar huertas urbanas en los patios traseros. Harry Smith, de DNI, explica: “A medida que realizábamos nuestra planificación comunitaria, la gente dejó muy claro que quería ver espacios abiertos y que se tuviera en cuenta la calidad de vida de los residentes. Estamos tratando de incorporar [la agricultura] a las propias viviendas”. De esta manera, la producción agrícola del CLT también puede abarcar características innovadoras de diseño, tales como huertas, agroforestería y otros conceptos derivados de la permacultura que se incorporan de manera intencional y sistemática en el plan de desarrollo.
Beneficios de la agricultura urbana sustentada por los CLT
En última instancia, según nuestro estudio, se han observado beneficios mutuos entre la agricultura urbana y los CLT. Las granjas urbanas aumentan el valor de los CLT, ya que ayudan a las organizaciones a expandir su visión de desarrollo hacia necesidades y prioridades más integrales de los barrios. Todas las comunidades tienen diferentes necesidades además de la necesidad de viviendas accesibles, por lo que los proyectos agrícolas pueden generar conexiones a otros problemas clave, como la seguridad en el abastecimiento de alimentos, la educación en temas de salud, la recuperación de terrenos vacantes y la seguridad de los barrios. Los proyectos agrícolas, además, pueden considerarse atracciones del barrio, lo que puede aumentar la demanda de propiedades o viviendas de CLT de los alrededores en el mercado convencional. Por ejemplo, Church Community Housing Corporation (CCHC) desarrolló el proyecto de granjas de Sandywoods en Tiverton, Rhode Island, que incluye diferentes tipos de programas de viviendas, agricultura y artísticos. Al principio, CCHC comercializó el desarrollo solamente como una comunidad artística, pero los posibles residentes expresaron un fuerte interés en las huertas comunitarias y en la preservación de terrenos agrícolas. En consecuencia, CCHC renombró el proyecto como un desarrollo “artístico y agrícola”. Brigid Ryan, gerente principal de proyectos de CCHC, explica: “La agricultura ha despegado mucho más de lo que hubiéramos pensado. La huerta realmente atrae a algunas personas [a las unidades de vivienda para arrendar]. Nunca pensaron que sus hijos serían capaces de cultivar sus propios alimentos”.
En el vivero Dudley de DNI también se observaron conexiones beneficiosas entre la agricultura y la vivienda. Harry Smith, de DNI, señala: “El proyecto realmente ayuda a la comercialización de nuestras viviendas. Las personas no sólo obtienen una vivienda sino también una comunidad que está basada en alimentos frescos cultivados en el lugar”.
Desafíos de la agricultura urbana sustentada por los CLT
A pesar de los beneficios, los CLT que implementan proyectos agrícolas todavía enfrentan muchos desafíos. En particular, la rentabilidad económica continúa siendo una de las principales luchas en todo el sector de la agricultura urbana, ya que los ingresos generados por las ventas de productos son relativamente modestos, aun en los establecimientos comerciales. El CLT de Southside cubre solamente el 8 por ciento de sus gastos operativos a través de la venta comercial de sus productos a restaurantes locales. Gracias a otras fuentes de ingresos, tales como las cuotas de membresía y las ventas de plantines, los ingresos del CLT sólo llegan a cubrir el 20 por ciento de sus gastos. Los CLT siguen dependiendo en gran manera de los subsidios para poder compensar la diferencia entre costos y beneficios.
Un segundo posible desafío tiene que ver con que algunos proyectos requieren un alto nivel de conocimientos agrícolas, por lo que pueden poner a prueba la capacidad y la experiencia del personal del CLT. Incluso Athens Land Trust, que posee un personal con experiencia en la preservación de suelos agrícolas y técnicas de cultivo, reconoció las dificultades que tuvo al principio para aprender los detalles específicos derivados de los códigos de zonificación municipal relacionados con la agricultura comercial. Como resultado, algunos proyectos principales del CLT tuvieron que demorarse hasta que se encontraran soluciones de zonificación que funcionaran. El riesgo es aun mayor para aquellos proyectos agrícolas comerciales que requieren un gran nivel de comprensión de los sistemas de procesamiento y distribución y de las condiciones del mercado local. Por ejemplo, en la granja Sandywoods, CCHC había planificado inicialmente utilizar el suelo de cultivo preservado para la alimentación del ganado. Sin embargo, finalmente se enteraron de que el único matadero de ganado de Rhode Island había cerrado. El matadero más cercano se encontraba cruzando la frontera, en Massachusetts, por lo que el procesamiento de carne resultaba demasiado costoso. Brigid Ryan, gerente principal de proyectos de CCHC, señala: “Cuando uno debe aprender acerca de estos sectores especializados, resulta muy importante conseguir socios que sepan de lo que están hablando”. Debido a los desafíos y posibles inconvenientes, los CLT deben considerar las siguientes cuestiones a fin de mejorar la factibilidad y sustentabilidad de los proyectos agrícolas.
Participación de la comunidad
En su calidad de organización basada en la comunidad, el impulso de un CLT debería estar determinado siempre por las necesidades y preocupaciones del barrio. No obstante, resulta particularmente vital que existan sólidos procesos de planificación comunitaria para que la agricultura urbana sea exitosa, y en estas planificaciones los CLT por lo general dependen de los residentes y socios locales para llevar a cabo la producción agrícola. Harry Smith, de DNI, hace hincapié en este punto: “Diría que el trabajo de un CLT no consiste sólo en administrar las propiedades y obtener más terrenos para el fideicomiso, sino también en involucrar realmente a la comunidad en lo que esta desea además de la vivienda, ya sean emprendimientos comerciales, un vivero o terrenos de cultivo”. Además, la participación de un CLT en proyectos agrícolas puede catalizar mayores medidas de organización de la comunidad y ayudar a los residentes a hacer presión para exigir más políticas públicas de apoyo.
Evaluación de la organización
Los CLT pueden apoyar los proyectos no residenciales de diferentes maneras, y las organizaciones deberían evaluar sistemáticamente sus capacidades internas, así como también a las partes interesadas que podrían llegar a ser posibles socios en los proyectos. De esta manera, los CLT pueden generar colaboraciones complementarias y desarrollar aún más los activos y capacidades existentes en la comunidad. Si el CLT carece de experiencia en temas de cultivo, bien puede apoyar la agricultura urbana en otras formas a fin de alinearse en mayor medida con los socios locales, por ejemplo, garantizando el acceso al suelo, ayudando a desarrollar los códigos de zonificación agrícola urbana o actuando en calidad de agente fiscal en lo relacionado con los subsidios.
Gestión de riesgos
Los CLT deberían minimizar su riesgo económico en los proyectos agrícolas, especialmente en vista de los modestos ingresos y la futura incertidumbre en cuanto a la obtención de subsidios para la producción de alimentos. En respuesta a esto, algunos CLT concentran desde un inicio los gastos previstos de capital relacionados con los proyectos agrícolas. De manera similar, los CLT pueden gestionar la exposición al riesgo evitando el financiamiento de la deuda de los proyectos agrícolas. Varios CLT consideran que cubrir el servicio de deuda representa un desafío demasiado grande debido a los modestos ingresos derivados de la venta de productos y a las tasas de arrendamiento nominales que los CLT en general cobran por los terrenos agrícolas. Por ejemplo, DNI logró adquirir terrenos y construir el vivero Dudley sin incurrir en una deuda a largo plazo, a la vez que su condición de entidad exenta del impuesto municipal a la propiedad le permitió tener costos de posesión mínimos. La estructura financiera de bajo riesgo que se generó a raíz de esto resultó muy importante cuando DNI no pudo conseguir a su primer arrendatario del vivero. Aunque con posterioridad el vivero estuvo vacante durante aproximadamente cinco años, DNI fue capaz de absorber la pérdida derivada de este inesperado período en que la propiedad estuvo vacante.
Conclusión
Aunque el movimiento de agricultura urbana ha experimentado un gran impulso en los últimos años, aún necesita estrategias coherentes a largo plazo para proteger los espacios de cultivo de las fuerzas especulativas del mercado. La relación fundamental entre el suelo y la comunidad está en juego. Dentro del movimiento de agricultura urbana, la inseguridad en cuanto al suelo resalta la urgente necesidad de reconceptualizar requerimientos de las comunidades tanto presentes como futuras. Además, la noción del “mayor y mejor uso” debe ampliarse con objeto de incluir los resultados no económicos y las diferentes formas de participación comunitaria efectiva. Los CLT son entidades ideales para tratar estos problemas críticos y, al hacerlo, pueden lograr que los procesos de desarrollo económico sean más inclusivos, justos y capaces de responder a las condiciones locales siempre cambiantes.
Sobre el autor
Jeffrey Yuen, M.S., es un investigador, profesional y entusiasta en temas relacionados con los CLT y es miembro del directorio del Fideicomiso de Suelo Comunitario de Essex. Se desempeña como gerente de evaluación de impactos en New Jersey Community Capital, en New Brunswick, Nueva Jersey.
Recursos
ACGA (American Community Gardening Association). 1998. National Community Gardening Survey: 1996. http://www.communitygarden.org/docs/learn/cgsurvey96part1.pdf
Bellows, A., K. Brown y J. Smit. 2004. “Health Benefits of Urban Agriculture.” Community Food Security Coalition’s North American Initiative on Urban Agriculture. http://community-wealth.org/content/health-benefits-urban-agriculture
Brown, K., M. Bailkey, A. Meares-Cohen, J. Nasr y P. Mann (editores). 2002. “Urban Agriculture and Community Food Security in the United States: Farming from the City Center to the Urban Fringe.” Urban Agriculture Committee of the Community Food Security Coalition.
Davis, J. E. 2010. “Origins and Evolution of the Community Land Trust in the United States.” En The Community Land Trust Reader, editado por J. E. Davis, 3–47. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Kaufman, J. y M. Bailkey. 2000. “Farming Inside Cities: Entrepreneurial Urban Agriculture in the United States.” Documento de trabajo. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Lawson, L. 2004. “The Planner in the Garden: A Historical View of the Relationship of Planning to Community Garden Programs.” Journal of Planning History 3(2): 151–176.
Mougeot, L. 2000. “Urban Agriculture: Definition, Presence, Potentials and Risks.” En Growing Cities, Growing Food, Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda, editado por N. Bakker, M. Dubbeling, S. Guendel, U. Sabel Koschella y H. de Zeeuw. DSE, Feldafing.
Rosenberg, G. y J. Yuen. 2012. “Beyond Housing: Urban Agriculture and Commercial Development by Community Land Trusts.” Documento de trabajo. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Schmelzkopf, K. 1995. “Urban Community Gardens as Contested Space.” Geographical Review 85(3): 364–381.
Smit, J., A. Ratta y J. Nasr. 1996. Urban Agriculture: Food, Jobs and Sustainable Cities. Nueva York: United Nations Development Programme. http://jacsmit.com/book.html
Staeheli, L., D. Mitchell y K. Gibson. 2002. “Conflicting Rights to the City in New York’s Community Gardens.” Geojournal 58(2–3): 197–205.
Yuen, J. 2012. “Hybrid Vigor: An Analysis of Land Tenure Arrangements in Addressing Land Security for Urban Community Gardens.” Masters’ Thesis, Columbia University. http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:147036
Yuen, J. y G. Rosenberg. 2012. National Community Land Trust Network. Non-Residential Project Directory. National Community Land Trust Network. http://www.cltnetwork.org/doc_library/FINAL%20Non-residential%20project%20directory%204-26-13.pdf
SHARE
When people think of growing food in the United States, the images that come to mind are vast stretches of vegetable and fruit tree farms in California’s Central Valley, golden fields of wheat in the Plains states, and cows grazing on verdant rural landscapes in the Midwest and New England. Rarely is the image one of farming inside American cities. Yet, in an increasing number of cities today—especially those substantially affected by structural economic change and population loss over the past several decades—community-based organizations are growing food for the market on vacant lots, in greenhouses, and even in abandoned warehouses. Some of these groups market their products at local farmers markets, roadside stands, restaurants and supermarkets. Others convert their harvests into value-added products like salad dressings, jams and salsas for sale in regional markets.
A Conceptual Three-Legged Stool
Our recently completed study, supported by the Lincoln Institute, explored the characteristics of entrepreneurial urban agriculture in the U.S., key obstacles to its practice, and ways of overcoming these obstacles. The study framework can be visualized as a wobbly three-legged stool that needs to be made sturdier. One leg of the stool represents inner-city vacant land and the government agencies and their policies that affect its disposition and management. The scale of the vacant land problem in many American cities, particularly in the Midwest and Northeast, is significant. Philadelphia, for example, has an estimated 31,000 vacant lots and as many as 54,000 vacant structures that, if demolished, would add considerably to its vacant land supply. Detroit’s inventory of 46,000 city-owned vacant parcels is accompanied by an estimated 24,000 empty buildings. Even smaller cities are faced with a stockpile of vacant land. In Trenton, New Jersey, a city of 85,000 people, eighteen percent of the land is vacant. Despite the spread of gentrifying neighborhoods and new in-town developments in many cities, considerable amounts of vacant land, especially in disadvantaged neighborhoods, will likely continue to lie fallow because of limited market demand.
The second leg represents for-market urban agriculture, a movement of individuals and organizations who wish to produce food in cities for direct market sale. The initiators of these projects are a diverse group-community gardeners, community development corporations, social service providers, faith-based organizations, neighborhood organizations, high schools, animal husbandry organizations, coalitions for the homeless, farmers with a special interest in urban food production, and profit-making entrepreneurs. Proponents of for-market urban agriculture put forth a wide range of benefits, such as instilling pride and greater self-sufficiency among inner-city residents; using vacant lots in disadvantaged neighborhoods to nurture growth rather than to collect trash; supplying lower-income residents with healthier and more nutritious foods; providing local youth with jobs in producing, processing and marketing organically grown food; and reducing the amount of unproductive city-owned vacant land.
The third leg of the conceptual stool represents the institutional environment for urban agriculture within cities. Is it accommodating, neutral, skeptical or restrictive? The more that entrepreneurial urban agriculture is seen positively by local government officials, local foundations and the public, the greater the likelihood of a smoother future. But, when the institutional climate is indifferent or cool, then urban farming advocates will clearly encounter more difficulties. We found the overall climate for entrepreneurial urban agriculture to be mixed, with some supporters, many who seemed indifferent, some skeptics, and even a few who were decidedly hostile to the idea.
A Medley of Projects
Our study uncovered more than 70 for-market urban agriculture projects throughout the country. Four representative examples are summarized here.
Greensgrow Farms, Philadelphia
This small for-profit producer of hydroponically grown vegetables epitomizes the potential that agriculture offers as an urban land use. Greensgrow began in 1997, when two former chefs envisioned a practical way to meet the demand from Philadelphia restaurateurs for fresh, organically grown produce. Greensgrow occupies a three-quarter-acre site in North Philadelphia that has been cleaned of the contamination left from its former use as a galvanized steel plant. After a site lease was arranged through the New Kensington Community Development Corporation, the partners built an extensive hydroponic system to produce gourmet lettuces.
Greensgrow has since taken advantage of an EPA sustainable development grant and a donated greenhouse to grow and market lettuce, heritage tomatoes, herbs and cut flowers to 25 area restaurants after the outdoor growing season ends. The for-profit side of Greensgrow expects to break even in 2000 with revenues of $50,000. Its community-based side has hired three welfare-to-work participants and intends to develop a job training and entrepreneurial program in collaboration with the nearby Norris Square CDC.
Growing Power, Milwaukee
In some cities, farm sites may be part of a larger enterprise. For example, inner-city youth in Milwaukee are providing horticulture and landscaping services on a number of central city sites under the auspices of Growing Power, Inc., which is co-directed by an African-American farmer and a woman active in youth gardening and training. The organization aims to help inner-city youngsters attain life skills by cultivating and marketing organic produce, and to operate a community food center that can serve the broader community through education and innovative programming.
Growing Power’s nerve center, on a 1.7-acre site on Milwaukee’s north side, is a collection of five renovated greenhouses that were in dilapidated condition when purchased from the city in 1992. The center also features a farmstand, a vegetable garden and fruit trees, and an area where food waste from a local supermarket is being converted into compost. The greenhouses contain thousands of starter vegetable and flower plants, ten three-tank aquaculture systems (where tilapia, a freshwater fish, grow in inexpensive 55-gallon plastic barrels) and a vermiculture project consisting of wooden bins in which worm castings are collected by youngsters and sold back to Growing Power for use in its city gardens. Marketing some of its products to the public is also part of Growing Power’s mission.
The Food Project/DSNI Collaboration, Boston
The Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative, a well-known example of community organization and empowerment, considers urban agriculture essential to the transformation of its section of Roxbury into an urban village. Since 1993, this effort has been aided by DSNI’s collaboration with The Food Project, based in the Boston suburb of Lincoln. Like Growing Power, The Food Project aims to link youth development with the enhancement of urban food security. Its core activity is a summer program involving up to 60 high school students, some from the suburbs and some from Roxbury, in cultivating organic produce on a 21-acre farm in Lincoln and on two parcels within DSNI’s target area.
Collards, tomatoes and herbs now grow within sight of the new housing units developed by DSNI’s associated organizations. Much of the harvest is sold at a weekly farmers’ market in the nearby Dudley Town Common. The young farmers have become proficient at presenting their activities to Bostonians visiting the market and at youth gatherings nationwide. For the future, DSNI and The Food Project have identified other sites in Roxbury on which to expand urban food production. In addition, DSNI will convert a former garage in the neighborhood into a 10,000 square foot community greenhouse.
Village Farms, Buffalo
A corporate presence in urban agriculture is rare, but a notable exception is Village Farms in Buffalo. The goal of Village Farms’ parent corporation, AgroPower Development (APD), is simply to maximize profits, although it does provide jobs for central city residents. In its 18-acre greenhouse, the company uses a Dutch growing method whereby tomato plants are grown in porous, rock-wool blocks to produce up to eight million pounds of tomatoes a year, which are marketed primarily to area supermarkets.
A number of incentives lured Village Farms to a vacant 35-acre industrial site close to the downtown that sits in both a federal Enterprise Zone and a city economic development district. Although APD does not release sales figures, it is satisfied with the operation and hopes to replicate it in other cities. For its part, the city of Buffalo points to Village Farms as a success story-an innovative, nonpolluting business that is using vacated industrial land.
Overcoming Obstacles
The obstacles to urban agriculture can be formidable, but persistence, organizational capacity, political savvy, outside support, and some good fortune have demonstrated that they are not insurmountable.
Site-related Obstacles
Several critical problems in producing food inside cities are tied to attributes of the sites themselves. First, vacant urban parcels give visible and sometimes less-visible evidence of past use. While they may be cleared of debris and rubble, almost all sites have some subsurface contaminants that may affect the safety of any produce harvested. This obstacle can be overcome through several approaches that together have come to characterize urban agriculture practice. Planting crops in raised beds of clean, imported soil is the most straightforward approach, and is less costly than the more involved practice of amending existing urban “soil” with truckloads of compost and humus. Soil-free hydroponic practices avoid the contamination issue, as in the elaborate Greensgrow system that sits four feet above cracked concrete, and give urban agriculture the cutting-edge feel displayed at Village Farms.
A second, more challenging site-related obstacle is lack of tenure, since the majority of urban agriculture activities are on sites owned by private landowners or public agencies who view urban food production as a temporary use. This is a common concern for community gardeners, and has carried over into entrepreneurial city farming endeavors. One solution is represented by the growing number of open space land trusts that acquire title to properties on which urban farming is already being practiced.
The logic of the urban land market results in a third site-related obstacle-the view that the value of a vacant parcel is primarily economic and that urban agriculture produces low revenues compared to other forms of land development. One way to overcome this perception is to emphasize that most urban agriculture activities are initiated by non-profit organizations for the community good. Thus, city farming should be seen by the public as a combination of earned revenue (in the case of market operations) and less quantifiable social benefits that are equally if not more important to the larger community interest.
Perceptual Obstacles
The greatest overall obstacle to urban agriculture is skepticism among those who, in different ways, can support and influence its initiation and practice-local government, private landowners, financial supporters and community residents. Their skepticism is based on either a simple lack of awareness or the conventional means of valuing urban land based on market factors. Another group of concerns reflects doubts about the wisdom of growing food in cities because of site contamination, security and vandalism, or the “highest and best land use” argument. A related perception is simply that agriculture is a rural activity that does not belong in the city.
A key to effectively overcoming these perceptions is to understand that the future of city farming depends on the level of acceptance and support it can garner from institutions such as local and state governments, the federal government, local philanthropic foundations, CDCs, the media and neighborhood organizations. Time after time, the city farming advocates we interviewed stressed the importance of “packaging” their activities to decision makers and the public so that the multiple benefits could be seen and valued clearly.
Conclusion
Both vision and reality informed this study. The vision foresees a scenario where vacant land in parts of American cities would be transformed into bountiful food-producing areas managed by energetic community organizations that market some or all of the food they grow for the benefit of community residents. Proponents of such a vision would clearly like to see urban farming’s small footprint enlarged in cities with increased supplies of vacant land. The reality, however, is more sobering. Many for-market urban agriculture projects are underfunded, understaffed, and confronted with difficult management and marketing issues. Nor is urban agriculture on the radar screens of many city government officials as a viable use of vacant inner-city land.
Yet, signs of a more hopeful reality are apparent. A diverse array of innovative for-market city farming ventures are making their presence known, and pockets of support for city farming are found among local and higher-level government officials, community organizations, city residents and local foundations in several cities. Some entrepreneurial urban agriculture projects are beginning to show small profits, while many more are providing an array of social, aesthetic, health and community-building benefits. The legs of the nascent movement of for-market city farming are gradually becoming sturdier.
Reference
Kaufman, Jerry and Martin Bailkey. 2000. “Farming Inside Cities: Entrepreneurial Urban Agriculture in the United States.” Lincoln Institute Working Paper.
Jerry Kaufman, AICP, is a professor in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He teaches and does research on older American cities and community food system planning. Martin Bailkey, a senior lecturer in the Department of Landscape Architecture at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, is conducting research on how community organizations gain access to vacant land in U.S. cities.
SHARE
The Lincoln Institute is collaborating with the city of Cordoba, Argentina, on a major project to change approaches to and instruments used for physical planning in the city. Cordoba presents an especially interesting case because of its strategic location at the center of the core development area of Mercosur.
The first phase of the project was a three-day seminar held last April titled “Towards an Urban Integrated Management: Implementing a Strategic Plan for the City of Cordoba.” Its main aim was to bring together the principal “actors” in Cordoba to discuss and debate planning goals and instruments in the context of new developments in urban management.
The seminar included presentations by international experts and discussions among municipal officials, developers, business and commercial interests, non-governmental organizations and planning practitioners. The Institute played an important role in providing an open forum for the local participants to come together for the first time to discuss difficult planning and development issues and to begin the process of establishing new management policies and procedures.
Three principal themes emerged from the discussions. The first dealt with prioritizing land to be urbanized, with particular concern for equitable access to land, infrastructure, and housing for the popular sectors, as well as appropriate mechanisms to carry out integrated planning on a regional basis. The second theme addressed environmental and fiscal impacts of large commercial establishments on existing urban structures, historic districts and residential neighborhoods. The third theme focused on various actors and sectors involved in industrial development in Cordoba, with attention given to dispersal of industry, infrastructure limitations, and social and environmental costs.
In addition to giving the Cordovan participants a broad perspective on urban management issues in other cities, the seminar raised two important points: 1) that planning for development is not just about regulation or land use control, but that fiscal and taxation policies are equally important in affecting land values; and 2) that local officials must learn to assess benefits and costs of urban planning projects in order to deal effectively with private sector developers.
The seminar has already had specific impacts on collaborative commercial activities in the historic center and on improved management programs for providing new infrastructure and services while also reducing deficits. In addition, the program stimulated participants to develop an appreciation for the importance of long-term strategic planning in charting general directions for policy changes and in understanding the effects of particular kinds of development on the social and physical environment.
The Institute is continuing to work with municipal officials to help develop new management paradigms that can support more effective private/public collaborations and better analytical and planning techniques. Follow-up programs will assist policymakers and private developers (operating in both formal and informal markets) in better understanding the functioning of urban land markets and the consequences of policy changes for urban development.
The next course on “Land Market Behavior in Cordoba: Implications for the Urban Structure” will explore research on formal land markets in Cordoba, stressing the effects of economic policies and local government interventions. It will be followed by a regional seminar where experience will be shared with participants from at least three other countries. At the same time, the Institute and Cordoba officials are developing a training program directed to a broad spectrum of local and regional officials and developers, concentrating on general management, urban planning, and project preparation and implementation.
Douglas Keare is a visiting fellow of the Lincoln Institute. He has extensive experience in strategic planning for large cities in developing countries through previous research and project management at the World Bank and the Harvard Institute for International Development. Ricardo Vanella is director of the Department of Economic Development for the city of Cordoba.
