A large share of national energy consumption takes place in cities—in the United States about three-quarters of energy use is in or related to urban areas. Accordingly, cities offer significant opportunities for energy savings from increased efficiency, but important issues remain: Will market forces produce efficiency gains when appropriate, or will market failures such as imperfect information, unavailable financing, or misunderstood risks impede market solutions? How much do people value energy savings, and how sensitive are they to changes in energy prices? The Lincoln Institute hosted a conference on energy efficiency and cities in October 2012 to address these and related issues, and a few highlights follow.

Valuing Energy Efficiency

Consumers should be willing to pay more for built space that uses less energy. Evidence indicates that users of commercial space value energy efficiency and are willing to pay more for it, and many studies indicate that LEED-certified office and commercial space sells or rents at a premium over traditional space. There is much less evidence of such preferences for residences, in part because it is difficult for most homebuyers to determine the energy efficiency of a dwelling, especially a new one with no operating record.

Some residential developments are now being classified using procedures similar to LEED certification or to the Energy Star ratings such as those used for major appliances. Dwellings in California that have the highest energy efficiency ratings sell at a premium of about 9 percent above units with average energy efficiency. Similar price premiums have been observed in the Netherlands for houses certified at the highest efficiency level using a European certification procedure. Some of these premiums may reflect the improved comfort levels that these buildings provide in addition to energy savings. It also seems likely that the energy efficiency premium observed in California is up to three times greater than the incremental cost of the higher efficiency of these dwellings.

Determining Cost

The cost of integrating energy efficiency into new buildings is less than the cost of improving the efficiency of older buildings. A home built since 2000 uses about 25 percent less energy per square foot than one built in the 1960s or earlier. The technical potential for improved energy efficiency in older homes seems evident, but homeowners face two challenges: to determine which improvements have the highest payoff per dollar spent, and to obtain a contractor and financing for the work.

While many diagnostic tools are available to assess existing dwellings, their accuracy varies widely and depends critically on detailed inputs about both the dwelling’s attributes and the household’s living style. Obtaining a contractor and financing can involve high transaction costs for households in effort, time, and money. Many utility companies are offering both technical and financial support for energy retrofitting, but progress has been slow.

Changing Energy Consumption

It may be easier to change residential living styles than to retrofit old buildings, and many utilities are experimenting with schemes to modify household behavior. The most common program involves “nudging” households toward more efficient habits by providing periodic home energy reports that compare their recent energy use with that of their neighbors. Analysis indicates that these reports have both a short-term impact on household energy consumption and a longer-term cumulative impact that continues after the reports end. The energy savings from these programs are small, ranging from a half to one kilowatt hour per day for a household, but the program’s low cost makes the results as cost-effective as many other policies.

Recognizing John Quigley

This conference was designed with John Quigley, economics professor at the University of California at Berkeley, who passed away before the conference took place. In addition to the original papers on energy and cities, papers on urban economics were presented by some of his former students, colleagues, and coauthors. All of the papers will be submitted for a forthcoming special edition of Regional Science and Urban Economics, which will recognize his contributions over a long and distinguished career.

El desarrollo humano se ilustra, por lo general, como una guerra entre los objetivos contradictorios de la individualidad y la adecuación. Hacemos todo lo posible por distinguirnos del rebaño, pero nos aterramos ante la perspectiva del aislamiento social. Nuestras ciencias sociales, en especial la economía, presentan conflictos similares. El culto al individuo es un ícono social dominante, y esta dominancia se ve exacerbada por el auge del fundamentalismo económico: la fe incuestionable en los mercados no regulados y la desconfianza concomitante hacia el gobierno y los sistemas sociales. Tomando como punto de partida el concepto de “la mano invisible” de Adam Smith, muchos economistas construyeron sus carreras en la concepción de teorías cuyo fundamento era el individualismo metodológico, la idea de que “los fenómenos sociales deben explicarse como resultado de las acciones individuales, que, a su vez, deben explicarse en referencia a los estados intencionales que motivan a los actores individuales”, según lo expresa la Enciclopedia de Filosofía de Stanford. Estos teóricos preconizaban, de forma unánime, que el hecho de tener individuos y mercados sin restricciones era la mejor manera de lograr los objetivos compartidos de prosperidad y justicia, a la vez que promovían (o evitaban) las políticas públicas respaldadas por este punto de vista.

Simultáneamente, otros economistas de la corriente prevaleciente han advertido de la “paradoja del aislamiento”, una categoría de casos en los que los individuos, actuando en un relativo aislamiento y guiados únicamente por sus propios intereses a corto plazo, generan resultados que, a largo plazo, son destructivos para todos. Algunos ejemplos de esta teoría incluyen las pesadillas del maltusianismo sobre hambre y pestes que detienen el crecimiento de la población, el dilema del prisionero o la tragedia de los comunes (descrita por Garrett Hardin en su ensayo de 1968). Hardin advirtió de los peligros del crecimiento de la población utilizando una parábola sobre la explotación no administrada de tierras de pastoreo de uso común. La inevitable utilización desmedida de las tierras de pastoreo por parte de cada uno de los pastores que desean aumentar su ganado destruiría las tierras, convirtiéndolas en terrenos inútiles para todos. Según Hardin y otros pensadores, la solución radica en alguna forma de acotamiento de las tierras comunes, ya sea mediante la privatización o la propiedad pública, con el fin de establecer mecanismos de coerción que garantice que los individuos se comporten de tal manera que protejan el interés común.

Afortunadamente, la mayoría de los seres humanos no está de acuerdo con la teoría económica y, en lugar de ello, desarrollan sus propias maneras de conciliar estas contradicciones entre la individualidad y la adecuación. Ciertos intelectuales conocidos a nivel público, como Elinor Ostrom, la ganadora del Premio Nobel de Economía en 2009 (y la única mujer que obtuvo este galardón), han ampliado nuestros conocimientos respecto a las formas en que intentamos mediar entre estas dos tendencias tan humanas. Lo hacemos a través de las instituciones, descritas como grupos de seres humanos que se organizan voluntariamente para aprovechar los beneficios del esfuerzo individual, a la vez que evitan los inconvenientes provocados por individuos aislados que actúan sin control. Según Ostrom y otros pensadores, los diferentes tipos de acuerdos institucionales (organizaciones formales, normas de trabajo, políticas públicas, para nombrar sólo algunos) surgen orgánicamente para evitar que se produzcan situaciones indeseadas, tales como la tragedia de los comunes. En este número de Land Lines, presentamos las historias de algunas de estas decisiones institucionales que se tomaron para protegernos de nosotros mismos o crear beneficios mutuos. En nuestra entrevista a Summer Waters, del Sonoran Institute (pág. 34), aprendemos acerca de los esfuerzos realizados para promover la economía y proteger la ecología en la cuenca hidrográfica del río Colorado y para reintroducir el flujo de agua dulce en el delta del río.

Recién hemos comenzado a estudiar los sistemas que surgen orgánicamente para administrar los recursos comunes, pero aún sabemos mucho menos sobre la manera de crear dichos recursos. Y esto puede deberse a nuestra tendencia a tratar los recursos comunes como si fueran maná, es decir, como si vinieran del cielo, y no creados por la mano humana. No obstante, según informa Tony Hiss (pág. 26), miles de personas se han unido voluntariamente para crear nuevos recursos comunes: cientos de miles de hectáreas de tierra conservadas para proteger grandes ecosistemas, salvar el hábitat de especies en peligro de extinción, brindar espacios verdes a los habitantes de zonas urbanas muy densas y alcanzar muchos otros objetivos a largo plazo. Desde el punto de vista de los economistas ortodoxos, el mundo se ha vuelto loco. No sólo los individuos que antes actuaban aisladamente ahora lo hacen con el fin de evitar la tragedia de los comunes sino que también están tomando medidas para crear nuevos recursos comunes.

La educación pública es otro de los recursos comunes creados por el hombre, como lo son la mayoría de los bienes públicos. Nos organizamos y autoimponemos tributos para sustentar esta institución de capital importancia y, con el tiempo, debemos revisar las formas como la administramos y mantenemos, al igual que con cualquier otro recurso común. En este número de Land Lines, Daphne Kenyon y Andy Reschovsky ofrecen una mirada a los diferentes tipos de análisis de los desafíos que enfrentan las ciudades para financiar sus escuelas, así como también algunas ideas para abordar dichos problemas (pág. 39). Además, en el artículo sobre las estrategias de las instituciones “ancla” de Beth Dever y otros (pág. 4) también examinamos de qué manera las universidades y los hospitales pueden trabajar junto con los barrios y ciudades a fin de lograr objetivos de colaboración que los beneficie mutuamente.

Para algunos economistas, la creación de nuevos recursos comunes resulta una imposibilidad teórica. En su primer libro, The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups (La lógica de la acción colectiva: Los bienes públicos y la teoría de grupos), Mancur Olson propuso la hipótesis de que las personas soportarán las complicaciones derivadas de actuar conjuntamente sólo si existe un incentivo privado suficiente; además, ningún gran grupo de personas llevará a cabo medidas colectivas a menos que se vea motivado por una ganancia personal significativa (ya sea económica, social o de otro tipo). Evidentemente, se ha producido una colisión entre la teoría y la práctica, y el impacto de la misma es muy profundo y lo seguirá siendo. Tal como señala Hiss en su ensayo sobre conservación de grandes paisajes: “Lo primero que crece no es, necesariamente, el tamaño de la propiedad a proteger, sino la posibilidad de tomar medidas, algunas grandes y otras pequeñas, para marcar una diferencia perdurable en el futuro de la biósfera y sus habitantes, entre ellos la humanidad”.

Sin embargo, esto no termina aquí. En los Estados Unidos, bastión del mercado libre, unos 65 millones de ciudadanos pertenecen a comunidades con un interés común, tales como condominios y comunidades de propietarios, según señala Gerry Korngold (pág. 16). Un 25 por ciento de la nación ha limitado voluntariamente su propia autonomía con el fin de proteger y preservar los intereses comunes. Tal como subraya Korngold, este hecho no hubiera sorprendido a Alexis de Tocqueville, quien describió a los Estados Unidos como “una nación de personas que se agrupan”. En su obra Democracy in America (La democracia en América), de 1831, Tocqueville escribió: “Muchas veces he admirado la gran habilidad con la que los habitantes de los Estados Unidos logran proponerse un objetivo común al esfuerzo de muchos hombres y, como resultado, hacer que dichos hombres se alisten voluntariamente a su concreción”. Tal vez sea el momento de organizar un culto a la acción colectiva para celebrar las cosas increíbles que podemos hacer cuando trabajamos juntos. Es posible que descubramos que las políticas, prácticas, organizaciones e instituciones que creamos con el fin de mediar en nuestra guerra interna entre la individualidad y la adecuación han contribuido más al avance de la humanidad que los logros individuales que solemos celebrar.

An apparent paradox exists in developing countries between a more progressive definition of property rights and current trends toward privatization. On one hand, most proposals and programs of urban management have required the adoption of a socially oriented approach to property rights, which guarantees broader scope for state intervention in controlling the process of land use and development. This is particularly the case with land regularization programs. On the other hand, the widespread adoption of liberalization policies and privatization schemes has reinforced a traditional, individualistic approach to property rights, thus undermining progressive attempts to discipline the use and development of urban property. Are these trends mutually exclusive or can they be reconciled to some extent?

Two related workshops for policymakers, urban managers and academics were held in Johannesburg, South Africa, in late July to address this paradox. The Sixth “Law and Urban Space” Workshop was cosponsored by the International Research Group on Law and Urban Space (IRGLUS) and the University of the Witwatersrand’s Centre for Applied Legal Studies (CALS). The Lincoln Institute supported that workshop and also sponsored a seminar on “Security of Land Tenure in South Africa, Sub-Saharan Countries, Brazil and India.”

The Conceptual Framework for Law and Urban Space

IRGLUS, a Working Group of the Research Committee on Sociology of Law of the International Sociological Association (ISA), seeks to discuss critically the legal dimension of the urbanization process, thus promoting a long-needed dialogue between legal studies and urban environmental studies. Most urban studies have reduced law-including legal provisions, judicial decisions and the overall legal culture-to its instrumental dimension. Law is dismissed by some as if it were just a political instrument of social discrimination and political exclusion. It is taken for granted by others as if it were merely a technical, unproblematic instrument that can provide immediate solutions to escalating urban and environmental problems.

Among urban scholars and professionals alike, there is little understanding of the reasons for the growing illegal practices identified in urban areas, particularly those concerning the use and development of land. Existing data suggests that if both access to land and construction patterns are taken into account between 40 and 70 percent of the population in the major cities in developing countries are somehow disobeying the prevailing legal provisions. And this figure is not confined to low-income land users.

Few studies have asked why this phenomenon of urban illegality has happened, why it matters and what can be done about it. Most observers fail to see the apparent divide between the so-called legal and illegal cities as an intricate web in which there are intimate though contradictory relationships between the official and the unofficial rules, and between the formal and the informal urban land markets.

The combination of the lack of an efficient official housing policy in most developing countries and the actions of largely uncontrolled market forces does not provide adequate housing solutions for the vast majority of the urban population. Far from being restricted to the urban poor, urban illegality needs to be addressed with urgency, given its grave social, political, economic and environmental consequences to the overall urban structure and society.

However, if urban illegality is but a reflection of the powerful combination of land markets and political systems, it is also the result of the often elitist and exclusionary nature of the legal system prevailing in many developing countries. Both the adoption of legal instruments, which do not reflect the existing social realities affecting access to urban land and housing, and the lack of proper legal regulation have had a most perverse role in aggravating, if not determining, the process of socio-spatial segregation.

Definitions of Property Rights

One the most significant problems affecting urban management in this context is that, despite the existence of rhetorical provisions, urban environmental policies frequently lack legal support in the basic provisions of the legal system in force, especially those of a constitutional nature. The central issue to be addressed in this regard is property rights, specifically urban real property. Indeed, in many countries the progressive, socially oriented assumptions of urban policies, implying as they do a broad scope for state action, are frequently at odds with the constitutional definition of property rights.

Several presentations in the IRGLUS/CALS Workshop discussed how the traditional approach to individual property rights prevailing in many developing countries, typical of classical liberalism, has long favored economic exchange values to the total detriment of the principle of the social function of property. Many significant attempts at promoting land use planning and control, including the legal protection of the environment and historical-cultural heritage, have been undermined by a dominant judicial interpretation that significantly reduces the scope for state intervention in the domain of individual property rights. Attempts to promote land regularization have also been frequently opposed by both landowners and conservative courts, even in situations where the land occupation has been consolidated for a long time.

Whereas the excessive, speculative hoarding of privately owned urban land has been tacitly encouraged, the effective implementation of a long-claimed social housing policy has been rendered more difficult due to the need to compensate the owners of vacant land at full market prices. In many countries, the individual property rights system inherited as a result of colonial rule often fails to take into account traditional customary values in the definition of property rights. Since these countries have largely failed to reform the foundations of legal-political liberalism, the discussion of so-called neo-liberalism is a false question in this context.

The Workshop participants placed special emphasis on the legal-political conditions for the recognition of security of tenure. It was noted that agents as diverse as social movements, NGOs and international finance organizations have increasingly made use of different though complementary humanitarian, ethical, sociopolitical and, more recently, economic arguments to justify the need to adopt public policies on this matter. Legal arguments also need to be adopted, including long-standing provisions of international law and the fundamental principles of the rule of law concerning housing and human rights, so that a new, socially oriented and environmentally friendly approach to property rights is recognized.

Much of the discussion focused on whether security of tenure can only and/or necessarily be achieved through the recognition of individual property rights. In fact, the analysis of several experiences suggested that the mere attribution of property rights does not entail, per se, the achievement of the main goal of most regularization programs-that is, the full integration of illegal areas and communities into the broader urban structure and society. The general consensus was that a wide range of legal-political options should be considered, from the transfer of individual ownership to some forms of leasehold and/or rent control to more innovative forms, still unexplored, of collective ownership or occupation with varying degrees of state control.

It was argued that the recognition of urban land tenure rights has to take place within the broader, integrated and multi-sectoral scope of city (and land use) planning, and not as an isolated policy, to prevent distortions in the land market and thus minimize the risk of evicting the traditional occupants. Examples from case studies in Brazil, India and South Africa have shown that, whatever the solution adopted in a particular case, it will only work properly if it is the result of a democratic and transparent decision-making process that effectively incorporates the affected communities.

Above all, it was accepted that the redefinition of property rights, and therefore the recognition of security of tenure, needs to be promoted within a broader context in which urban reform and law reform are reconciled. Law reform is a direct function of urban governance. It requires new strategies of urban management based upon new relations between the state (especially at the local level) and society; renewed intergovernmental relations; and the adoption of new forms of partnership between the public and the private sectors within a clearly defined legal-political framework.

Law reform fundamentally requires the renovation of the overall decision-making process to combine traditional mechanisms of representative democracy and new forms of direct participation. Indeed, many municipalities in several countries have recently introduced new mechanisms to allow the participation of urban dwellers in several stages of the decision-making process affecting urban management. Examples are at the executive level through the creation of committees, commissions, etc., or the legislative level through popular referendums or by recognizing individual and/or collective initiatives in the law-making process, as well as the formulation of popular amendments to proposed bills. A most interesting and promising experience is that of the “participatory budgeting” adopted in several Brazilian cities, in which community-based organizations participate in the formulation of the local investment budgets.

Finally, the need to promote a comprehensive legal reform and judicial review can no longer be neglected, especially in order to promote the recognition of collective rights, to broaden collective access to courts and to guarantee law enforcement. India and Brazil, for instance, have already incorporated the notion of collective rights in their legal systems to some extent, thus enabling the judicial defense of so-called “diffuse interests” in environmental and urban matters by both individuals and NGOs.

In other words, urban reform and the recognition of security of tenure are not to be attained merely through law, but through a political process that supports the recognition of the long-claimed “right to the city” not only as a political notion, but as a legal one, too. There is a fundamental role to be played in this process by lawyers, judges and prosecutors for the government. However, the collective action of NGOs, social movements, national and international organizations, and individuals within and without the state apparatus is of utmost importance to guarantee both the enactment of socially oriented laws and, more importantly, their enforcement.

If these are truly democratic times, the age of rights has to be also the age of the enforcement of rights, and especially of collective rights. It is only through a participatory process that law can become an important political arena to promote spatial integration, social justice and sustainable development.

Edesio Fernandes is a lawyer and a research fellow at the Institute of Commonwealth Studies of the University of London. He is coordinator of IRGLUS-International Research Group on Law and Urban Space and coeditor (with Ann Varley) of Illegal Cities: Law and Urban Change in Developing Countries (Zed Books, London and New York, 1998).

Despite the long-term and continuing trend away from central business districts and toward suburban development, a number of factors are motivating recent attention to rail transit. These factors include:

concerns about the negative impact of auto-oriented sprawl desires to reduce air pollution and energy consumption interest in rebuilding urban communities need to provide access and mobility to those without autos desires to save the costs and avoid the impacts of new or widened roadways

Many metropolitan areas in the United States are considering the addition or expansion of light rail and commuter rail systems to link employees with business centers. The land use characteristics of the corridors where transit lines operate have been shown to influence transit ridership, but much of the previous work is more than 20 years old and based on data from a limited number of regions.

Our national research project, conducted for the Transit Cooperative Research Program with Jeffrey Zupan, expands and updates earlier research. We analyzed information on 261 stations on 19 light rail lines in 11 cities, including Baltimore, Cleveland and St. Louis, and 550 stations on 47 commuter rail lines in the six city regions of Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Philadelphia and Washington, DC.

The study shows that light rail and commuter rail serve distinctly different markets and land use patterns. Light rail with its closely spaced stations attracts more riders per station when it is located in denser residential areas. Feeder bus service helps to boost ridership. Light rail can function in regions with a wide range of CBD sizes and employment densities. Commuter rail depends more on park-and-ride lots at stations in low-density, high-income suburban areas farther from the CBDs, which tend to be larger and more dense than those in light rail areas.

Light rail, with its more frequent service, averages about twice as many daily boarders per station as commuter rail, even though light rail is more often found in smaller metropolitan areas. Figure 1 shows that light rail is most effective in attracting passengers close to the CBD. Figure 2 shows that commuter rail attracts the largest number of its riders about 35 miles out from the CBD. In both figures, other factors affecting ridership, except CBD employment density, are held constant.

Because most transit systems emanate from and focus on a region’s CBD, the amount of employment concentrated downtown clearly affects the demand for transit. Figures 1 and 2 also show that ridership increases with CBD density for both light rail and commuter rail. For light rail, the effects of CBD density on ridership are most pronounced for stations within 10 miles of the core, while for commuter rail the larger impacts occur at stations 20 to 50 miles outside the city.

Changes in Employment and Residential Density

CBD employment density (as measured by employment per gross CBD acre) is nearly twice as important for commuter rail ridership as for light rail. Our study shows that a 10 percent increase in CBD employment density produces 7.1 percent more commuter rail riders, but only 4.0 percent more light rail riders. Commuter rail boardings are more strongly influenced by CBD employment density because these systems usually have a single downtown terminal. Higher-density CBDs assure that more jobs are within walking distance of the commuter rail station. Employment density in city centers is less important in light rail regions since they have more stations distributed throughout the CBD.

On the other hand, a 10 percent increase in station area residential density (as measured by number of persons per gross acre within two miles of a station) boosts light rail boardings by 5.9 percent and commuter rail boardings by only 2.5 percent. Throughout the study these effects are measured holding constant transit system characteristics such as parking availability, station distance to the CBD and station area income levels.

Light rail, with its relatively short lines, is most effective in attracting passengers when stations are in higher-density residential areas close to the CBD. Commuter rail ridership rises more slowly with residential density because commuter rail is a high-fare mode, and its higher-income riders tend to live in more expensive, lower-density places. Moreover, the higher speeds and longer distances on commuter rail tend to increase ridership to the CBD from precisely those places outside the city where residential densities tend to be low.

Cost-efficiency and Effectiveness

In this study, cost-efficiency is measured by annual operating costs plus depreciation per vehicle mile. Effectiveness is measured by daily passenger miles per line mile. For light rail, these measures indicate a strong positive relationship with CBD employment size and residential density. A weaker but still significant relationship occurs for CBD employment density and for the line distance from the CBD. This suggests that medium to large cities with higher density corridors work best for light rail. For commuter rail, larger, denser CBDs attract more riders per line mile, but add to the cost per vehicle mile, creating a trade-off between effectiveness and cost-efficiency.

The length of the rail line is important for both light rail and commuter rail. Longer light rail lines are both slightly more cost-efficient and effective, but ridership diminishes beyond 10 miles. Commuter rail lines are much more cost efficient when they are longer, but their effectiveness declines beyond 50 miles.

This summary does not address many other significant factors in rail transit usage and land use patterns, including operating, capital and environmental costs saved as a result of not using other modes of transportation, notably automobiles and buses. Cities considering investment in new or expanded rail systems need to examine carefully all transportation alternatives in a corridor, including site-specific conditions and local preferences. Further, our study makes clear the need to integrate transit planning with land use planning at the earliest possible stage.

___________________________

Judy S. Davis is an urban planner and Samuel Seskin is a senior professional associate with Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas in Portland, Oregon. As a faculty associate of the Lincoln Institute, Seskin also develops and teaches courses linking land use and transportation. This article is derived from a report titled Commuter and Light Rail Transit Corridors: The Land Use Connection. It will be published by the Transit Cooperative Research Program in the summer of 1996 as part of Volume 1 of An Examination of the Relationship Between Transit and Urban Form, TCRP Project H-1.

Dan L. Perlman teaches at Brandeis University, in Waltham, Massachusetts, where he is chair of the Environmental Studies Program and associate professor of biology. He has coauthored three textbooks on conservation biology and ecology: Practical Ecology for Planners, Developers, and Citizens (with Jeffrey C. Milder, published by Island Press in cooperation with the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2005); Conserving Earth’s Biodiversity (an interactive CD-ROM with Edward O. Wilson, published by Island Press, 2000); and Biodiversity: Exploring Values and Priorities in Conservation (with Glenn Adelson, published by Blackwell Scientific, 1997).

An avid nature photographer, Perlman’s photographs have been exhibited at the American Museum of Natural History in New York and the Museum of Science in Boston, and he has been the photographer for two children’s books (one on a Costa Rican rainforest and the other on ants). He recently launched a Web site from which he freely distributes teaching materials he has developed for ecology and environmental studies, including his photographs (click here). He has received university-wide teaching awards at both Brandeis University and Harvard University, where he taught conservation biology part-time for nine years. He holds a Ph.D. from Harvard University’s Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology.

Land Lines: How can ecology help planners, landscape architects, and others in the planning and design community?

Dan Perlman: The study of ecology reminds us that humans are truly a part of nature, although in our highly technological society it is easy to forget how closely our lives are tied to the land and other elements. Most of us are only reminded of these close interactions when nature unleashes her fury through a hurricane, tornado, flood, or earthquake. Given that the planning and design professions aim to make humans lives as healthy and fulfilling as possible, it is critical to attend to nature when changing the landscapes where we live and work.

Once one understands some basic concepts of ecology, it is no longer possible to view humans as being divorced from the ecosystems in which they live. Like all other organisms, humans interact with the plants and animals around them, and with the nonliving aspects of ecosystems, such as rain, wind, and fire. Unfortunately, when we design human communities without considering the particulars of the ecosystems in which they are embedded, we place people in dangerous and unhealthy situations. With a little ecological knowledge, however, planning professionals can improve human lives.

Land Lines: What aspects of ecology are especially pertinent to planners and designers?

Dan Perlman: Over the past few decades, ecologists have begun paying close attention to disturbance regimes—the natural processes that randomly change ecosystems. It turns out that disturbances greatly affect humans as well as the plants and animals around us. In recent years it has become ever clearer that ecological disturbances such as hurricanes, forest fires, tsunamis, and earthquakes have the potential to devastate human communities.

By understanding the ecological histories and disturbance regimes of the specific landscapes in which they work, planning professionals can ensure that they do not place the human population in harm’s way. While homes placed along Gulf Coast beaches or deep in the pine forests of the West are desirable to many, recognition of the dangers of hurricanes and fire will lead planners to either steer development away from dangerous settings or to create protections for the people living in potentially dangerous situations.

It is critical to remember, however, that landscapes differ in their disturbance regimes and the frequency and impact of their typical disturbances. It makes sense to focus on earthquakes, landslides, and fires in the hills of southern California and on hurricanes in Florida, rather than vice versa, for example, since those types of disturbances are most likely to occur in those locations.

Land Lines: Ecologists and conservation biologists are often accused of sounding alarm bells. Do they also offer positive visions for the future?

Dan Perlman: Actually, there are many positive aspects to increased understanding of ecological processes. Intact and healthy natural landscapes perform critical ecosystem services that would be extremely expensive or impossible to replace through technological means. Water filtration, absorption of air pollutants and greenhouse gasses, and soil protection are just a few of the many services that nature provides.

Psychologists recognize the mental health benefits of being able to interact with nature, and planning professionals can help make these benefits widely available by incorporating easy access to natural areas into their designs. Many recent studies have demonstrated that proximity to natural areas is very attractive for wide cross-sections of the populace—along with being economically valuable. In addition, being able to interact with native habitats and organisms, or even just knowing that they exist, can contribute to the mental health and well-being of people of all ages. It is especially important that young people have opportunities to experience and learn about nature so they can integrate that awareness into their future decision making about where and how they live.

Land Lines: How can the conservation of biodiversity be balanced with the needs and desires of the house-buying public?

Dan Perlman: The goal of conservation biologists is to protect and restore healthy native species and ecosystems. New York City’s recent efforts to protect its water supply through a variety of land protection programs around the upstate watersheds and reservoirs in the Catskill Mountains is a great example of balancing human and ecosystem health. By sensibly guiding development to specific areas and limiting it from ecologically fragile areas or areas that are especially important for human health, planners and policy makers can obtain real benefits for both humans and ecosystems alike.

If we also consider the well-being of nonhuman organisms and creatures that share our planet, we find that attention to conservation biology during planning can pay major dividends. Biologists know that small nature reserves isolated in seas of human development are not an effective way to protect the native plants and animals of our landscapes. Instead, wherever possible, we should create large protected areas that can support populations of larger animals, many of which play especially important roles in the functioning of healthy ecosystems.

In addition, there is some evidence that intact habitat corridors, if well planned, can link smaller reserves into networks that may approximate the functions of large reserves. If planners begin their considerations with these concepts in mind, they may be able to create healthy, diverse landscapes. It is difficult to create or protect large reserves and corridors once development has begun in earnest.

Land Lines: How will global climate change affect human health and safety, and what can planning professionals do to help?

Dan Perlman: As the global climate warms, the effects will vary considerably from location to location. Some regions will receive more precipitation and others less; some areas will become much hotter, some will only become slightly warmer, and some may actually become colder. Nonetheless, the broad outlines of the changes that can be expected over the next 50 to 100 years are becoming clearer.

The global average temperature will likely rise a few degrees Fahrenheit—and may rise even more than that—as compared to the approximately one-degree change that has occurred over the past century. As the oceans warm, the water will expand, leading to a rise in sea level. With increased warmth, the Antarctic and Greenland glaciers will melt more quickly, adding to sea level rise. As a result, coastal communities will be under threat and will either have to retreat inland or build expensive retaining walls and levees. If the Antarctic ice shelves (which hang over the ocean) break off, sea level will rise still further—and catastrophically quickly. Changing precipitation and temperature regimes will alter the basics around which communities are planned and built, and designers will have to plan in different ways. It is possible that extreme weather events, such as the major hurricanes of 2005, will become more frequent.

To help reduce the speed and amplitude of climate change, the United States will probably eventually join the international community’s consensus that carbon dioxide emissions must be reduced—and our communities can help reduce emissions by developing more public transit options and more compact development patterns. As an additional benefit, this may leave extra flexibility for setting aside and protecting natural areas, if human communities take up less of the landscape.

Land Lines: How has your work with the Lincoln Institute affected your thinking about conservation biology and ecology?

Dan Perlman: Most of my teaching is with college undergraduates. While I try to keep those classes well-grounded by bringing in guest speakers and taking field trips, I have found that traditional classroom discussions can become overly rarified. My first major project with the Lincoln Institute was to write the book Practical Ecology for Planners, Developers, and Citizens, with Jeff Milder. I found it really stimulating to be put in a position of trying to adapt and explain my scientific background to make ecological concepts understandable to planners, landscape architects, and planning board members. It is one thing to distill these concepts and discuss them with undergraduates, but it is quite different to present these ideas to professionals and decision makers who want guidance that is clear and actually useful.

As an outgrowth of the book project I have been involved in teaching and sitting on panels for several Lincoln programs. I have found that the professionals and practitioners taking these programs further challenge me to create a coherent and effective message. As with any stimulating group in a classroom, I find that I come away from these sessions with a sense that I have learned as much as anyone in the room.

Land Lines: From your ecological and conservation perspectives, what advice would you give a designer or planner today?

Dan Perlman: First, I would say that you should know the ecology of the region where you work. The ecological constraints and opportunities of Springfield, Oregon, are quite different from those of Springfields in Illinois, Georgia, and Massachusetts. There are no ecological prescriptions that fit all planning and design situations. As I learned early in my career, the First Law of Ecology is: It Depends.

Second, I would recommend paying careful attention to giving local residents easy access to nature—even to small natural areas of just a few acres. Adults and children flourish when in contact with nature, and there is no substitute for having small bits of native biodiversity nearby. I once heard Dr. Madhav Gadgil, the preeminent ecologist in India, state his wish that every child in his nation should have a little bit of wilderness near at hand. While his definition of wilderness may differ from that of ecologists in Boulder or Seattle, his hope is one that I feel deeply.

Land Lines April 2009 Report from the President

Clearly defining the ownership of property is often thought to be necessary for the efficient operation of markets and the appropriate use of scarce resources. Specifying property rights within mature governance frameworks is relatively straightforward for traditional private goods, but it becomes more complex for common property goods such as groundwater, environmental resources, irrigation systems, forests, and fisheries.

Common property goods are often subject to overexploitation (the well known “tragedy of the commons”), and many observers argue that the sustainable use of common property can be solved simply by employing one of two alternatives: private ownership, or public ownership operating within a clear regulatory framework. The argument is that either approach can internalize externalities and reduce transaction costs.

This notion that there are only two discrete solutions—private ownership or public ownership—to promote the sustainable management of scarce common resources has proven problematic for at least two reasons. First, neither private nor public ownership has always conserved scarce resources well, as in the case of the timber industry. Second, many alternative property rights approaches have been successful in managing scarce common resources in a sustainable manner, in some cases over hundreds of years.

Examples of alternative property rights approaches include the management by farmers of irrigation systems in Nepal, by villagers of Alpine grazing lands in Switzerland and Italy, and by villagers of mountain grazing land and forests in Japan and Norway. In all of these cases, farmers owned their private agricultural parcels and also participated as communal owners of commonly held resources.

Analyses of many cases of successful common resources management reveal that specific practices vary widely and depend on underlying institutions, social norms, culture, and ecological conditions. Accordingly, specific practices are usually not transferable from one context to another. However, research also shows that participants in successful systems have seven elements in common: accurate information about the resource; a common understanding about the resource’s benefits and risks; shared norms of reciprocity and trust; stable group membership; a long-term perspective; decision rules that avoid either unanimity or control by a few; and relatively low-cost monitoring and sanctioning arrangements.

These systems work best when the common pool resource is in a fixed location, such as forests, grazing land, mineral deposits, and many environmental resources. When the location of the common resource is not fixed, however, virtually no single property rights approach has been very successful. This is famously the case for fisheries, where the stock of fish is mobile and its size is difficult to track. Most property rights systems applied to fisheries give property rights to the annual catch, not to the underlying stock. Many approaches have been attempted to control fish catches, and the most promising current practice uses transferable quotas, but this approach is still a work in progress.

An excellent summary of the evolving theory of property rights is available in the recent Lincoln Institute book edited by Daniel Cole and Elinor Ostrom, Property in Land and Other Resources. Elinor Ostrom in particular has contributed greatly to the property rights literature, and her work in this area was honored last year when she was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics.

The volume includes chapters that address the complexity of property rights and their applications to common pool resources such as air, land, water, and wildlife (including fisheries). In addition, two chapters review the self-organization of property rights practices by miners during the 1849 California gold rush and more recent gold rushes. Those authors found that very similar property rights practices emerged in other such mining situations.

Las impactos relacionados con el clima varían según la región, y afectan a las comunidades desde los puntos de vista económico, social y medioambiental. Si bien se espera que todas las regiones de los Estados Unidos experimenten un aumento de la temperatura, los ocho estados ubicados entre las Montañas Rocosas y las cordilleras de Cascade y Sierra Nevada se encuentran en una región que, según los pronósticos, se verá muy afectada por un gran variedad de impactos climáticos que puede poner de manifiesto vulnerabilidades diferentes a las que se darían en otras regiones de los EE.UU. A las comunidades del Oeste también se enfrentan a una difícil tarea al intentar planificar para estos futuros desafíos.

Dadas las importantes implicaciones de un cambio climático en la región intermontañosa del Oeste, este artículo examina con detalle algunas de las innovaciones y herramientas diseñadas para ayudar a dichas comunidades a planificar y prepararse para la incertidumbre y el riesgo que se atribuyen a un cambio climático, y para aumentar la capacidad de resistencia de las comunidades.

La región intermontañosa del Oeste

La región intermontañosa del Oeste, caracterizada por su espectacular belleza, inmensos espacios abiertos, abundante vida silvestre, clima templado e innumerables posibilidades de ocio, comprende comunidades urbanas, rurales y recreativas situadas dentro de grandes extensiones de campos abiertos e intactos. Los ocho estados de la región intermontañosa —Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Nuevo México, Utah y Wyoming— albergan a 22 millones de personas, aproximadamente el 8 por ciento de la población total de los Estados Unidos. Las ciudades del Oeste se encuentran en general en ambientes áridos o semiáridos, y si bien la superficie de algunos centros urbanos es grande, la edificación de las ciudades principales es decididamente densa y está concentrada en megaregiones como el Corredor del Sol de Arizona y la cadena montañosa de Front Range de Colorado.

La vastas extensiones de espacio abierto entre los centros metropolitanos tienen un valor intrínseco desde los puntos de vista económico, cultural y biológico. Más de la mitad del suelo de la región es propiedad pública, y es administrado por la Agencia de Gestión de Suelos, el Servicio Forestal de los Estados Unidos, el Servicio de Parques Nacionales o el Servicio de Pesca y Vida Silvestre de los Estados Unidos (figura 1). En las regiones montañosas, en algunos condados el 80 por ciento del suelo es de propiedad pública, y en estados como Arizona y Nevada es de propiedad pública más del 90 por ciento. Los suelos tribales abarcan una gran parte de la región, y los suelos de fideicomisos estatales cubren aproximadamente 19 millones de hectáreas tanto en zonas rurales como urbanas. Uno de los usos más extensos del suelo en la región es el agrícola-ganadero, con grandes establecimientos de ganadería y otros servicios agrícolas.

Crecimiento y cambio

En las últimas décadas, el Oeste ha experimentado un crecimiento enorme de población a medida que las comunidades se alejan de las industrias de recursos extractivos, como la agricultura, la actividad forestal y la minería, para atraer a jubilados que buscan actividades recreativas y a personas que trabajan en forma remota desde su casa, así como a nuevos negocios profesionales, de turismo, construcción e industrias de servicios de consumo (Winkler et al. 2007).

La alta tasa de crecimiento urbano ha modificado el perfil demográfico y económico del Oeste y, también, la asignación de recursos. El suelo que antes se usaba para pastareo y actividades agrícolas ha pasado a ser de uso residencial y comercial. La proliferación de viviendas e industria requiere el desarrollo de más recursos energéticos e hídricos para abastecer a una población cada vez mayor.

Muchas comunidades del Oeste dependen del Río Colorado, que suministra las necesidades de agua de 30 millones de personas en siete estados de los Estados Unidos y México. Más del 70 por ciento de esta agua se usa para regar 1,5 millones de hectáreas de tierras de cultivo. Además de los cambios en los recursos naturales, este aumento del crecimiento ha provocado una expansión de viviendas en y cerca de zonas forestales, una zona conocida como la interfaz urbana silvestre, para aprovechar las amenidades naturales del Oeste.

No obstante, los cambios en la región no se pueden atribuir exclusivamente al crecimiento; el clima también está cambiando. Desde la década de 1880, los científicos han estado midiendo la temperatura de la superficie terrestre en miles de lugares, teniendo en cuenta las desviaciones de los instrumentos y factores térmicos locales tales como las islas de calor urbano. El análisis de estos datos demuestra que la temperatura promedio de la Tierra ha aumentado más de 0,78°C en los últimos 100 años, y gran parte de este aumento se produjo en los últimos 35 años. Además, es evidente que la temperatura sigue aumentando.

Aunque estos cambios de temperatura parecen marginales, tienen un impacto significativo sobre el clima local. Por ejemplo, los inviernos ahora son más cortos y templados, la cubierta de nieve y hielo está disminuyendo, las olas de calor son más frecuentes, y hay muchas especies vegetales y animales que se están migrando a zonas más frías o de mayor altitud para escapar el calor.

Si bien el cambio climático es un problema altamente complejo que varía de región a región, se han identificado los siguientes impactos debidos a los cambios generales que ocurrirán por el aumento de temperaturas en el Oeste:

• mayor frecuencia de olas de calor y sequías prolongadas;
• mayor cantidad e intensidad de incendios forestales;
• cambios en la biodiversidad, incluyendo epidemias graves y otras perturbaciones;
• impactos prolongados y mayor alcance de enfermedades vectoriales; y
• daño a la infraestructura debido a eventos climáticos inesperados y extremos.

Los cambios ya se están produciendo. Se han observado reducciones extensas de la capa de nieve relacionadas con la temperatura en los últimos 50 años, que han producido cambios en las fechas estacionales del escurrimiento fluvial. Feng y Hu (2007) han demostrado que las fechas de acumulación pico de nieve y escurrimiento pico por deshielo ocurren de 10 a 40 días antes que en años anteriores. El Río Colorado es especialmente vulnerable, ya que frecuentemente recibe una gran proporción de su agua de un sistema hidrológico que depende de la precipitación por deshielo de las cuencas de tres estados: Colorado, Utah y Wyoming.

Los patrones de precipitación también están cambiando y se han hecho más variables. Las sequías son más prolongadas junto con la frecuencia e intensidad de lluvias torrenciales. Los grandes incendios naturales son más frecuentes y la temporada de incendios se ha prolongado (figura 2). Los incendios naturales queman el doble de superficie de lo que lo hacían hace 40 años, con una temporada que es dos meses y medio más larga que hace 40 años (Climate Central 2012).

A medida que el clima se hace cada vez más variable y se aleja cada vez más de la relativa estabilidad experimentada por la humanidad hasta la fecha, los cambios resultantes harán que las comunidades sean más vulnerables y pongan en riesgo su salud y modo de vida. Incluso una temporada de sequía puede tener repercusiones dramáticas como, por ejemplo, un aumento de precios de los alimentos básicos, que crearía una tensión considerable en poblaciones vulnerables incluyendo a los ancianos y a las personas de escasos recursos. El aumento de temperatura, las sequías prolongadas y las incidencias de incendios naturales y cambios en la biodiversidad debido a la migración de especies invasivas desempeñan un papel significativo en la aceleración de la transformación del paisaje. Con tantos efectos a nivel comunitario, los gobiernos locales tienen un papel importante en la planificación para afrontar la intensificación de los cambios climáticos.

Cómo planificar para el cambio climático

Las medidas para afrontar el cambio climático se producen a múltiples niveles de gobierno y en una variedad de funciones. El gobierno federal desempeña un papel significativo para responder a las catástrofes de grandes dimensiones que afectan a múltiples estados, como el reciente huracán Sandy. Las medidas de regulación a nivel federal que coinciden con el cambio climático, como las normas de eficiencia de combustible para vehículos o las propuestas de un impuesto nacional sobre el carbono, se aplican a toda la población. Al mismo tiempo, los gobiernos estatales y grupos regionales están implementando estrategias regionales, como los sistemas cap and trade y los proyectos de planificación de transporte multijurisdiccional.

En términos de medidas efectivas en la práctica, los gobiernos municipales son los más adecuados para afrontar los impactos locales y los esfuerzos de planificación relacionados con el cambio climático. Están en la mejor posición para crear estrategias integrales que alteren directamente las funciones urbanas para respaldar esfuerzos de mitigación y adaptación. La acción local juega un papel importante, ya que los gobiernos municipales tienen autoridad directa sobre funciones esenciales como la gestión de las basuras, el transporte público, las obras de infraestructura y la administración de servicios, así como también el uso y zonificación del suelo. Por ejemplo, el condado de Boulder adoptó recientemente su Plan de Preparación para el Cambio Climático con objeto de ayudar a los residentes y las comunidades locales a prepararse para el cambio de las condiciones medioambientales. Dicho plan identifica los impactos locales, explora cómo afectarán la gestión de recursos y delinea oportunidades para planificar la adaptación.

El contexto de la planificación climática en el Oeste

Western Lands and Communities, una iniciativa conjunta entre el Lincoln Institute of Land Policy y el Sonoran Institute, ha elaborado una completo corpus de recursos e informes para poder comprender mejor las necesidades y desafíos que se les presentan a las comunidades del Oeste (Carter 2008; Richards 2009; Bark 2009; Metz y Below 2009). El fundamental informe Planning for Climate Change in the West (Planificación para el cambio climático en el Oeste) identifica las barreras fundamentales que impiden la implementación de políticas de acción locales frente al cambio climático (Carter y Culp 2010). Un examen de estos informes, junto con entrevistas con directores de sostenibilidad de regiones del Oeste, revelaron tres desafíos clave asociados con la acción climática:

• contexto político;
• comunicación de múltiples valores y creencias; y
• falta de financiamiento y recursos.

El cambio climático puede ser un tema político polarizador en el Oeste. El choque de múltiples puntos de vista crea barreras a la construcción de un respaldo político y a la realización de esfuerzos de extensión educativa efectivos, reduciendo así el potencial de participación cívica y limitando la capacidad de acción colectiva en el logro de intereses comunes. Las creencias culturales tradicionales sobre la necesidad de limitar el rol del gobierno y proteger la propiedad privada y los derechos de los ciudadanos contribuyen a oponer resistencia a medidas de zonificación y otras políticas que podrían cambiar el patrón de uso del suelo o regular el crecimiento.

Sin el respaldo de dirigentes significativos, como el alcalde o el administrador municipal, o un fuerte respaldo del ayuntamiento, la adopción de medidas para afrontar el cambio climático puede ser ardua. También hay obstáculos de comunicación internos para reunir a los distintos departamentos municipales y comenzar a hablar del impacto del cambio climático local y de la mejor manera de colaborar para crear programas y políticas que sirvan para neutralizar en forma efectiva los impactos adversos.

Además, cuando los gobiernos locales están luchando por superar los déficits creados por la reciente recesión, las ciudades no cuentan con los recursos económicos necesarios para invertir en medidas para confrontar el cambio climático actual y evitar el alto costo del impacto climático en el futuro. Frecuentemente las comunidades ignoran el impacto futuro, con lo cual la carga y los gastos de la acción (o inacción) frente al cambio climático se transfieren a las generaciones futuras. El rápido crecimiento de la población y las presiones fiscales para generar obras de infraestructura dificultan cada vez más la obtención de fondos para financiar la planificación climática. Aun las comunidades que han adoptado planes para afrontar el cambio climático han encontrado obstáculos para implementar dichos planes. Algunas comunidades se sienten abrumadas por la tarea de descifrar la ciencia climática, y muchas de ellas no están familiarizadas con las políticas y medidas necesarias para mitigar y adaptarse al cambio climático.

Cómo desbloquear la acción climática en el Oeste

Si bien algunos gobiernos locales en la región intermontañosa del Oeste, como Salt Lake City, Flagstaff, Tucson, Denver, Las Vegas y el condado de Boulder están realizando esfuerzos coordinados y loables para afrontar el cambio climático, representan sólo una pequeña muestra de toda la región. En general, el Oeste lleva retraso en sus esfuerzos para adaptarse al cambio climático y crear comunidades más resistentes.

No obstante, el Oeste está sintiendo el aumento de temperatura, tanto en sentido literal como figurado. Después de un verano de temperaturas récord, incendios descontrolados y sequías muy perjudiciales, una creciente mayoría de estadounidenses cree que el calentamiento global está afectando a los patrones climáticos. Comprenden que las sequías y olas de calor se están haciendo más habituales y que el clima se está haciendo paulatinamente más inestable (Leiserowitz 2012). Uno de los principales desafíos para las comunidades es el de cómo integrar esta nueva información sobre los riesgos del cambio climático en los marcos actuales de planificación, con objeto de poder planificar de forma efectiva para un futuro incierto.

Herramientas para el cambio

Para ayudar a afrontar los desafíos asociados a la acción climática, hay muchas herramientas que las comunidades del Oeste pueden usar de manera que las comunidades sean más resistentes. Organizaciones como Gobiernos Locales para la Sostenibilidad (Local Governments for Sustainability, o ICLEI), el Instituto de Comunidades Sostenibles (Institute for Sustainable Communities, o ISC) y la Red de Directores de Sostenibilidad Urbana (Urban Sustainability Directors Network o USDN) brindan información y capacitación que ofrecen ejemplos de políticas y planes, oportunidades de formación de redes de pares, herramientas técnicas y recursos sobre vulnerabilidad y riesgos. No obstante, muchas de estas organizaciones tienen un enfoque geográfico amplio y su audiencia se encuentra en las grandes ciudades. Es importante resolver las necesidades de comunidades más pequeñas que tienen restricciones políticas, fiscales y de recursos. Además, hay una gran necesidad de integrar mejor las políticas de adaptación al cambio climático en los departamentos y planes municipales existentes.

El Instituto Lincoln y el Sonoran Institute están desarrollando herramientas y recursos para respaldar los esfuerzos de planificación y preparación para el cambio constante del paisaje en el Oeste, como intercambio de información y capacitación; herramientas de planificación para el establecimiento de valores; y métodos y herramientas de gobernanza anticipatoria. Estas herramientas prometen ser efectivas en una variedad de comunidades distintas, incluyendo las regiones rurales más necesitadas y las regiones recreativas, y brindan respaldo y capacitación para que los planificadores locales puedan integrar planes de resistencia al clima en sus procesos de planificación actual, alentando la colaboración entre múltiples departamentos.

Intercambio de información y capacitación

Las comunidades observan frecuentemente a sus pares en tamaño, capacidad y geografía similares para comprender mejor los esfuerzos de planificación que serán exitosos en su propia región. Se alienta a los gobiernos, instituciones y empresas de planificación locales a que compartan sus experiencias para que otras comunidades puedan aprender de sus éxitos y sus errores, modificando y adaptando sus propios planes en la medida en que sea necesario.

El intercambio de información del juego de herramientas en línea de comunidades exitosas, también conocido como SCOTie (por sus siglas en inglés) es un ejemplo de una herramienta diseñada para las comunidades del Oeste que alienta el intercambio de información vital en estudios de casos y recursos de buena práctica (figura 3). Los estudios de casos en SCOTie se clasifican por estado, tipo de comunidad y tema de planificación. Para construir y diseminar los estudios de casos y recursos del juego de herramientas, SCOTie se ha asociado con las sucursales estatales de la Asociación Norteamericana de Planificación (American Planning Association) y otras organizaciones sin fines de lucro para construir comunidades más fuertes y resistentes. Los seminarios educativos en la web, como la adaptación de la serie Planning in the West (Planificación en el Oeste) ofrecen a las comunidades una oportunidad para aprender a planificar para el cambio climático e interactuar directamente con representantes de las comunidades modelo.

Herramientas de planificación para el establecimiento de valores

Para superar los debates sobre la ciencia del clima, es necesario contar con herramientas que faciliten los esfuerzos de planificación conjunta con partes interesadas que tengan distintos valores y creencias. Un proceso que haga participar al público y pueda encontrar puntos en común para tomar medidas que mitiguen la variabilidad climática podría ayudar a neutralizar la polarización de los debates, que muchas veces se estancan en las causas del cambio climático y la incertidumbre científica.

El establecimiento de valores es un recurso particularmente útil para facilitar la toma de decisiones de gestión en comunidades que tienen que asignar recursos escasos debido a la demanda y variabilidad climática. Por ejemplo, en enero de 2012, el Sonoran Institute, el Morrison Institute y la Universidad de Arizona organizaron un taller previo a la conferencia Watering the Sun Corridor (El riego el Corredor del Sol) en el cual 100 participantes observaron presentaciones de expertos, intercambiaron opiniones en pequeños grupos e interactuaron en forma colectiva usando sondeos instantáneos. Los participantes exploraron los compromisos de valor entre distintos usos del agua para el desarrollo urbano, la producción agrícola y el medio ambiente en un sistema hídrico tensionado por sequías inducidas por el cambio climático. Este formato colaborativo e interactivo reunió a participantes con diversos puntos de vista para poder comprender mejor los valores colectivos con respecto a la distribución de agua en Arizona.

Métodos y herramientas de gobernanza anticipatoria

A medida que el futuro se hace más incierto y riesgoso, los métodos de planificación tradicional para realizar predicciones bien fundamentadas y elaborar planes y herramientas para conseguir los resultados deseados, estos probablemente serán inadecuados. Las ciudades necesitan herramientas para “anticipar y adaptarse” al cambio en vez de “predecir y planificar”, con objeto de poder incorporar mejor las incertidumbres y complejidades de las condiciones futuras (Quay 2010). La planificación de escenarios es una técnica que las ciudades pueden usar para pensar en los impactos del clima y desarrollar maneras de adaptarse a ellos. El uso de escenarios puede permitir a los planificadores buscar la resolución de problemas complejos, pensar en cómo las tendencias y los cambios se pueden expresar en múltiples escenarios, y adoptar opciones políticas robustas ante muchos escenarios posibles.

Western Lands and Communities está colaborando con socios como el Consensus Building Institute para desarrollar metodologías coherentes, identificar las fuerzas que impulsan el cambio y desarrollar herramientas educativas para respaldar la adaptación de las comunidades por medio de herramientas y técnicas de planificación de escenarios. Las herramientas de planificación por computadora son valiosas, porque ayudan a las comunidades a comprender mejor cómo ciertas ideas y estrategias de planificación en particular pueden conformar su futuro. La elaboración de mejores planes para adaptarse a desafíos como el cambio climático exigirá que las comunidades tomen decisiones en un marco de intereses económicos en conflicto, distintos valores culturales y visiones divergentes sobre los derechos de propiedad y el papel del gobierno.

A lo largo de los años, las herramientas de planificación han evolucionado, y ahora ayudan a los planificadores profesionales y municipales a analizar y desarrollar opciones y escenarios. Algunas de estas herramientas son comerciales y otras son gratuitas, con un grado variable de complejidad para el introducción de datos y la presentación de resultados. Si bien estas herramientas se están utilizando cada vez más, el uso actual de herramientas de planificación interactivas es limitado y enfrenta una serie de desafíos. Por ejemplo, la tarea compleja de seleccionar una herramienta, recopilar los datos, calibrar la herramienta, desarrollar escenarios y usar la herramienta para evaluar distintos escenarios son barreras importantes para muchos usuarios potenciales. Western Lands and Communities está colaborando con diseñadores de herramientas para resolver los desafíos de corto y largo plazo y extender el uso de herramientas para la planificación de escenarios (Holway et al. 2012).

Conclusión

La región intermontañosa del Oeste es una zona compleja y de demografía cambiante, de rápido crecimiento de población y una creciente diversidad económica y cultural. Western Lands and Communities está trabajando para desarrollar y diseminar herramientas y metodologías educativas diversas que ayudarán a las comunidades del Oeste a planificar en forma integral para el cambio climático, ayudar a comprender el riesgo y administrar la incertidumbre de manera inclusiva, haciendo participar a partes interesadas distintas. Para cumplir con estas metas ambiciosas, los planificadores necesitan herramientas efectivas para conformar el futuro de sus comunidades. Seguiremos explorando nuevas estrategias y métodos para ayudar a los planificadores en su esfuerzo por anticipar y adaptarse al cambio, incorporar a las comunidades en su esfuerzo por desarrollar y adoptar políticas de adaptación y, en última instancia, crear comunidades más resistentes que estén preparadas para absorber el impacto del cambio climático.

Sobre los autores

Erika Mahoney es asistente de programa en Western Lands and Communities, la iniciativa conjunta entre el Instituto Lincoln y el Sonoran Institute, donde desarrolla herramientas de planificación, proporciona capacitación y realiza investigaciones sobre los esfuerzos para tomar medidas sobre el clima local.

Hannah Oliver es investigadora asistente en Western Lands and Communities, la iniciativa conjunta entre el Instituto Lincoln y el Sonoran Institute, donde dirige investigaciones sobre los esfuerzos para tomar medidas sobre el clima local y ayuda a desarrollar el programa de intercambio de información sobre el juego de herramientas en línea de comunidades exitosas (SCOTie, por sus siglas en inglés).

Referencias

Bark, R. H. 2009. Assessment of climate change impacts on local economies. Documento de trabajo. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Carter, R. 2008. Land use planning and the changing climate of the West. Documento de trabajo. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Carter, R. y S. Culp. 2010. Planning for climate change in the West. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Climate Central. 2012. The age of western wildfires. Princeton, NJ.

Feng, S. y Q, Hu. 2007. Changes in winter snowfall/precipitation ratio in the contiguous United States. Journal of Geophysical Research 112.

Holway, J., C. J. Gabbe, F. Hebbert, J. Lally, R. Matthews y R. Quay. 2012. Opening access to scenario planning tools. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Leiserowitz, A. M.-R. 2012. Extreme weather and climate change in the American mind. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication.

Metz, D. y C. Below. 2009. Local land use planning and climate change policy: Summary report from focus groups and interviews with local officials in the Intermountain West. Documento de trabajo. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Quay, R. 2010. Anticipatory governance. Journal of the American Planning Association 76 (4): 496–511.

Richards, T. 2009. Driving climate change mitigation at multiple levels of governance in the West. Documento de trabajo. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Winkler, R., D. R. Field, A. E. Luloff, R. S. Krannich y T. Williams. 2007. Social landscapes of the Inter-mountain West: A comparison of ‘Old West’ and ‘New West’ communities. Rural Sociology, 478–501.

Enlaces web

Western Lands and Communities: http://www.sonoraninstitute.org/where-we-work/westwide-research-tools/lincoln-sonoran-joint-venture.html

Sitio web del intercambio de información de herramientas en línea de comunidades exitosas (Successful Communities Online Toolkit information exchange, o SCOTie): http://scotie.sonoraninstitute.org

Seminarios de planificación en el Oeste: http://www.sonoraninstitute.org/where-we-work/westwide-training-leadership/planning-in-thewest-webinars.html

Herramientas de planificación de escenarios: http://scenarioplanningtools.org

Human development is often characterized as a war between the contradictory goals of individuation and conformity. We struggle to distinguish ourselves from the herd, but we panic at the prospect of social isolation. Our social sciences, especially economics, are similarly conflicted. The cult of the individual is a dominant social meme, and this dominance is exacerbated by the rise of economic fundamentalism—the unquestioning faith in unregulated markets and the concomitant distrust of government and social systems. Starting with Adam Smith’s invisible hand, scores of economists built careers devising theories based on methodological individualism, the idea that “social phenomena must be explained by showing how they result from individual actions, which in turn must be explained through reference to the intentional states that motivate the individual actors,” according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. These theorists uniformly praised unfettered individuals and markets as the best way to achieve the joint goals of prosperity and fairness and promoted (or prevented) public policies buttressed by this view.

At the same time, other mainstream economists have warned about the “isolation paradox,” a category of scenarios in which individuals, acting in relative isolation and guided only by their short-term self-interest, generate long-term results that are destructive to all. Examples include the Malthusian nightmares of famine and pestilence curbing population growth, the prisoner’s dilemma, or the tragedy of the commons, which was described in a 1968 essay by Garrett Hardin. Hardin warned about the hazards of population growth through a parable about unmanaged use of common grazing land. The inevitable over-use of the land by individual herders maximizing their flocks would destroy the land and make it unsuitable for everyone. The solution, according to Hardin and others, is some form of enclosure of the commons, through privatization or public ownership that can establish coercive mechanisms to ensure that individuals behave in ways that protect the common interest.

Luckily, most humans do not subscribe to economic theory and instead develop their own ways to reconcile these contradictions between individuation and conformity. And public intellectuals such as Elinor Ostrom, the 2009 Economics Nobel laureate (and the only woman so honored), have advanced our knowledge about the ways we mediate these two very human tendencies. We do it through institutions—groups of humans voluntarily organizing themselves to harness the benefits of individual effort while avoiding the pitfalls of isolated individuals run amok. According to Ostrom and others, various institutional arrangements—formal organizations, rules of engagement, public policies, to name a few—organically emerge to prevent unfortunate events like the tragedy of the commons. In this issue of Land Lines, we feature stories about a number of such institutional arrangements that have emerged to protect us from ourselves or to manifest mutual benefits. In our interview with Summer Waters of the Sonoran Institute (p. 30), we learn about efforts to promote the economy and protect the ecology of the Colorado River watershed and reintroduce the flow of fresh water to the river’s delta.

We’ve only begun to study systems that organically emerge to manage commons, but we know even less about how we create commons. This might be a result of our tendency to treat commons like manna—conveyed from heaven, not created by humans. However, as reported by Tony Hiss (p. 24), thousands of people have come together voluntarily to create a new commons—millions of acres of land conserved to protect vast ecosystems, to save habitat for endangered species, to provide green space for densely packed urban dwellers, and to realize a variety of other long-term goals. From the point of view of orthodox economists, it’s a world gone crazy. Not only are formerly isolated individuals acting in ways that prevent the tragedy of the commons, they are taking action to create new ones.

Ironically, the story of America’s first public park, Boston Common, is often used as a cautionary tale to illustrate the tragedy of the commons. Truth be told, it is one of the first examples of individuals self-organizing and subordinating their short-term interests to create a shared resource for the long term. Boston Common was created in 1634 when members of the Massachusetts Bay Colony voted to tax themselves to purchase and protect the parcel of land to train troops and graze cattle. These citizens understood that, with some 2,500 people joining the colony annually, it would not be long before all habitable land was developed and all urban open space would disappear, according to Jim Levitt in his forthcoming book, Palladium of the People.

Public education is another man-made commons, as are most public goods. We organize and tax ourselves to support the provision of this critically important institution. And over time, we need to revise the way we manage and maintain it, like any commons. In this issue, Daphne Kenyon and Andy Reschovsky offer a window into the analyses of the challenges cities face in financing their schools—and some ideas about how we can address these problems (p. 34). We also explore how universities and hospitals can work with their neighborhoods and cities to pursue mutually beneficial collaborative goals, in the feature on anchor strategies from Beth Dever, et al. (p. 4).

For some economists, creation of new commons is a theoretical impossibility. In his first book, The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, Mancur Olson hypothesized that people will endure the complications of acting together only if there is a sufficient private incentive; and large groups will not pursue collective action unless motivated by significant personal gain (economic, social, etc.). Theory and practice clearly have collided, and the impact is and will continue to be profound. As Hiss notes, in his essay on large landscape conservation, “The first thing that grows is not necessarily the size of the property to be protected, but the possibility for actions, some large, some small, that will make a lasting difference for the future of the biosphere and its inhabitants, including humanity.”

It doesn’t stop there. In the United States, a bastion of the free market, some 65 million citizens belong to common interest communities, such as condominiums and homeowners’ associations, as reported by Gerry Korngold (p. 14). A quarter of the nation voluntarily has limited its own autonomy to protect and preserve common interests. As noted by Korngold, this wouldn’t have surprised de Tocqueville, who described the U. S. as “a nation of joiners.” In Democracy in America, in 1831, he wrote, “I have often admired the extreme skill with which the inhabitants of the United States succeed in proposing a common object to the exertions of a great many men, and in getting them voluntarily to pursue it.” Perhaps it is time to organize a cult of collective action to celebrate the incredible things we are able to do when we work together. We might find that the policies, practices, organizations, and institutions that we create to mediate our internal war between individuation and conformity have contributed more to human advancement than the individual achievements we more often celebrate.