Harvey M. Jacobs is on the faculty of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where he holds a joint appointment as professor in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning and the Institute for Environmental Studies and serves as director of the Land Tenure Center. His research and teaching investigate public policy, theory and philosophy for land use and environmental management. During the last decade he has focused his domestic work on the impact of the private property rights movement. He wrote the book Who Owns America? Social Conflict over Property Rights and the Lincoln Institute policy focus report State Property Rights Laws: The Impacts of Those Laws on My Land, and his work has been published in academic and professional journals in the U.S. and Western Europe. Jacobs also has investigated international issues of land use policy formation by national ministries and new local governments in Eastern Europe and southern Africa, with a specific focus on peri-urban (urban fringe) land management and the definition of private property rights. He is particularly interested in how societies define property and the policy structures they develop to manage the public-private property relationship.

Jacobs is a faculty associate of the Lincoln Institute, where he teaches courses for policy makers and practitioners in land use planning and management. He developed a Lincoln course titled “Land Use in America,” originally designed for staff of the Environmental Protection Agency and now available through open enrollment, which he has taught several times in Cambridge. As part of his current education and research project with the Institute, he will lead a seminar in Cambridge in May on the future of private property rights in America, and he is working on another book to be titled Private Property in the 21st Century. This essay outlines his views on the uncertain future of the American ideal of private property rights.

Property Rights and Environmental Planning

Social conflict over property rights is at the center of all U.S. land and environmental planning and policy. One key source of this conflict is the differing interpretations of the so-called Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights: “. . . nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Those who support the integrity of private property rights and stand against land use and environmental regulation by state and local governments can be understood as participants in one of the most significant U.S. land use and environmental movements of recent times. This movement is referred to by a variety of labels, including the private property rights movement, the land rights movement, the wise use movement and, by the environmental community, the anti-environmental movement. This movement’s leaders have succeeded in keeping their agenda before the U.S. Congress since the early 1990s, though as yet no action has resulted from their efforts. More significantly, they have succeeded in having bills reflecting their agenda introduced in all 50 states, and they have secured the passage of significant legislation in over half of the states. In addition, they have promoted significant parallel activity in over 300 counties. Perhaps most important, they have reshaped public debate on how the media communicates to the American public about issues of land and environmental management, and the balancing of the public good with individual property rights.

The potential power of the property rights movement became even more important after the 2000 elections. While governor of Texas, George W. Bush exhibited strong sympathies to the arguments of the property rights movement and supported state-based legislation in accordance with the movement’s goals. Among his most prominent initial appointments as president were the selection of a secretary of the interior and a solicitor general with explicit ties to the property rights movement and commitments to the property rights issue. These developments, together with renewed activity at the state level, indicate that the property rights movement seems to be alive and well in America. The passage of Measure 7 in the state of Oregon in the fall of 2000 is of particular interest, since this measure is one of the most stringent state property rights laws in what is considered one of the most progressive states in its land use and environmental management policies. The measure, passed by initiative, requires landowners to be compensated if the value of their property is reduced by a state or local law or regulation. It is under state constitutional challenge by land use and environmental groups, and its implementation is being held back until this challenge is settled by the Oregon courts.

Historical Context

Underlying the policy agenda of the property rights movement and the conflict with the land use and environmental movements is a fundamental debate about U.S. history, the cultural myths that inform our understanding of ourselves as a nation, and the intended meanings of selected provisions of the Bill of Rights. From the perspective of the property rights movement, strong individual private property rights are an integral component of our democratic society. Drawing from the writings of the nation’s founders such as John Adams, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, these proponents argue that liberty, equality and citizenship in a democracy, in fact democracy itself, can not be secured and sustained without a robust set of property rights essentially unassailable by the power of the state. From this perspective, land use and environmental laws become a threat to the very nature of democratic way of life. Richard Epstein, one of the leading legal scholars articulating this view, has suggested that “the [entire] system of land use planning is a form of socialism in microcosm” (Epstein 1992, 202).

In opposition, the land use and environmental movements also draw from the writings of the founders, including Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, to argue that property rights are created by the public sector to serve social ends, and that citizens’ rights in property have to bend and flex with society’s changing needs over time. Land use and environmental proponents tend to make arguments about rights and responsibilities in property, rather than to see individual rights as preexisting or standing before the rights of society, as expressed through the actions of government.

The historical challenge for this debate is the that private property has been subject to substantial local regulation even since colonial times, and it has been fundamentally reshaped at several times in American history, to reflect changing social values and changing technology. For example, in the 1860s the property ownership rights of slave-owning plantation farmers in the South and in the 1960s the commercial trespass rights of lunch-counter owners were significantly reshuffled to reflect changing social values about race relations. In the early part of the twentieth century it was necessary to reconceptualize the property rights bundle as a function of the invention of the airplane and the seeming nonsense of allowing individual owners to claim trespass for air travel above their property.

Changing Conditions

Social reformulation of private property to reflect changing conditions continues. During the 1990s resistance by male-only membership clubs and male-only colleges to the admission of women was prominent in the media and the courts. Like the prior slavery and civil rights situations, here, too, individuals lost their rights in property, absent compensation, to reflect changing social values.

Thus, we know that private property is not a static concept or entity. In America it has changed since its creation during colonial times, and there is every reason to believe it will continue changing in the future. In fact, for over fifty years some ecologists and land ethicists—most prominently and enduringly Aldo Leopold (1949)—have called for a fundamental reinvention of property, based on new scientific knowledge that is less individual-rights oriented and more oriented toward social and ecological responsibilities.

It is reasonable to say that both sides to this debate have legitimate concerns and perspectives on the issue. Some property rights reforms through land use and environmental planning and policy, when taken too far, do seem to violate fundamental American understandings about the social contract that underlies national life. On the other hand, unassailable bundles of private property rights seem to leave society in a place that does not allow for change through the integration of new technologies, new social values, or new concepts of ourselves and the land on which we live.

Social conflict over property rights is at the center of all U.S. land and environmental planning and policy. However, much of the current scholarly inquiry and legislative and judicial debate that occurs now is formalized posturing, with little real communication around an issue that is one of the most central to our democratic society. Too often, the well-known players trot out their already settled analyses and opinions and wave them at one another. Little real progress occurs, either in intellectual understanding of these matters or in policy innovation.

The goal of my current work is to get key actors to put aside their rancor and agree to talk with one another instead of at one another. Is it possible to move beyond the broad rhetoric in this debate to a determination of clear, specific areas of agreement and disagreement about the place and role of the property rights bundle and the concept of property rights in our American democratic-legal schema? The challenge is twofold: accepting that private property is fundamental to the American character and the design of American democracy, and acknowledging that private property has changed significantly through the centuries and thus will continue to change. The issue is not if private property will evolve, but how it will evolve.

As we seek to address this issue, many questions present themselves. How much will new ecological knowledge and social values transform our sense of what is mine to use (and misuse and abuse) as I please? Is the evolutionary transformation of private property a slippery slope that eventually undermines the viability of contemporary democratic forms of governance? Are the ideals and principles of the founding fathers about the relationship of land ownership to liberty and democracy irrelevant in a world of urban wage earners, in contrast to the world of farmers, foresters and ranchers for which they were formulated? These are among the challenges we face in trying to untangle a puzzle that is the key to the future of American (and increasingly global) land use and environmental planning.

References

Epstein, Richard. 1992. Property as a Fundamental Civil Right, California Western Law Review 29(1):187-207.

Jacobs, Harvey M. 1998. Who Owns America? Social Conflict over Property Rights. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

——. 1999. Fighting Over Land: America’s Legacy . . . America’s Future? Journal of the American Planning Association 65(2):141-149.

——. 1999. State Property Rights Laws: The Impacts of Those Laws on My Land. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Leopold, Aldo. 1968 [1949]. A Sand County Almanac. London and New York: Oxford University Press.

Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 2 del libro Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.

Al acentuarse las disparidades socioeconómicas y espaciales en las ciudades de América Latina ha resurgido el interés en políticas gubernamentales orientadas hacia la equidad que buscan reducir dichas disparidades. Sin embargo, las soluciones para los problemas urbanos más graves que aquejan a las ciudades actualmente deben cubrir más que la mera implementación de medidas incongruentes y de escasa definición. Las soluciones deben garantizar la equidad para todos los sectores de la sociedad. Son demasiados los casos en que vecindarios enteros se ven forzados a habitar en condiciones deplorables mientras las dependencias del gobierno buscan desalojar a los residentes en nombre de la protección del medio ambiente. Es evidente que la legislación urbana no puede seguir ignorando los derechos de las personas a tener un lugar donde vivir con seguridad y dignidad.

El impacto crítico de la desigualdad en la tenencia de la tierra en el entorno urbano exige que la población urbana pobre tenga acceso a la información técnica necesaria para negociar mejor sus inquietudes con los funcionarios públicos. En mi investigación exploro el papel de la educación ambiental en las comunidades de pocos ingresos de los países en desarrollo. Adoptando una perspectiva basada en la creación propia de capacidad, mi objetivo es desarrollar programas de capacitación para los dirigentes comunitarios en los niveles más básicos para manejar con más eficacia los conflictos locales sobre el uso del suelo y los riesgos ambientales.

Repercusiones del acceso desigual a la tierra

Al igual que muchas otras ciudades latinoamericanas, Río de Janeiro está seriamente afectada por la pobreza reinante y la degradación del medio ambiente. Intervienen factores complejos, tales como: Inestabilidad económica, tenencia desigual de la tierra, políticas de desarrollo deficientes y carencia de un sistema democrático que propicie los derechos humanos y las libertades. En mi opinión, los problemas que ha enfrentado Río de Janeiro durante las últimas décadas son el fruto de suposiciones existentes sobre la planificación urbana tipo “apartheid” y la falta de voluntad política para integrar a los sectores populares en el diseño de políticas para el uso del suelo.

En la región de Baixada de Jacarepaguá –en pleno corazón del área de expansión de Río de Janeiro– el extraordinario proceso de crecimiento urbano ocurrido desde 1970 ha provocado cambios drásticos en el paisaje, así como numerosos problemas ambientales. En medio de la espectacular belleza natural de los ecosistemas de lagunas, selvas de manglares y ciénagas, la región sigue albergando una enorme población de habitantes urbanos pobres que viven en favelas –comunidades de chabolas que son el resultado de un descontrolado proceso de urbanización del suelo público–.

Durante los años 1980 y a principios de la década de 1990, el desarrollo en la región tuvo un auge sin precedentes que ha dado pie a patrones insostenibles en el uso del suelo. La discriminación contra los habitantes pobres y las desigualdades en la tenencia de la tierra permitieron que los propietarios y especuladores se aprovecharan del auge mediante la obtención formal de títulos de propiedad y la subdivisión del suelo. Por otra parte, un grupo selecto de constructores privados se introdujo por sí solo en la escena local gracias a múltiples permisos judiciales para desarrollar en la región condominios residenciales para la clase alta, locales comerciales y empresas industriales.

El aumento de las presiones sobre el suelo se transformó rápidamente en una enorme variedad de protestas entre los sectores populares y los poderosos promotores inmobiliarios, lo que planteaba la amenaza de desalojo forzoso de los habitantes pobres. El descontento acumulado contra el gobierno por su incapacidad para controlar la especulación urbana y garantizar leyes de protección generó una situación sumamente peligrosa. La violencia y la persecución cobraron la vida de 30 dirigentes comunitarios, presidentes de asociaciones locales de vecinos, sus familiares cercanos y otros parientes. Los asesinatos fueron cometidos por escuadrones conocidos en la región como “grupos de exterminio” y no se ha llevado a cabo investigación criminal alguna.

El ciclo vicioso de la pobreza y la degradación ambiental

Dada la interdependencia que hay entre la pobreza y la degradación del medio ambiente, cabe pensar en los problemas ambientales en términos de la justicia social. Mi investigación gira en torno a la problemática de la desigualdad y los riesgos ambientales que enfrentan los residentes de Via Park, un asentamiento informal ubicado en la región de Baixada de Jacarepaguá. Una pregunta básica que surge de esta investigación es en qué medida la mejora del acceso equitativo al suelo contribuye verdaderamente para atenuar los factores que estimulan la degradación ambiental. Al relacionar los problemas del uso del suelo con el proceso de aprendizaje de la educación ambiental, la investigación demuestra que la degradación del medio ambiente es un fenómeno recurrente que se manifiesta en las maneras desiguales en que se ha usado y distribuido el suelo en la región.

El poblado de Via Park se ha visto atrapado en una lucha acérrima por el uso del suelo desde los años 1970, cuando el desarrollo urbano comenzó a afectar muchas comunidades pesqueras tradicionales en el área. Los constructores estaban deseosos de influir en el gobierno para quebrar el sistema de tenencia de la tierra de los pescadores, que estaba impuesto por la ley, para así entregar el suelo a las fuerzas del mercado. En la década de 1980, el área fue designada como patrimonio nacional para la conservación del medio ambiente, consagrada en el artículo 225 de la Constitución de Brasil (1988). Puesto que el poblado estaba ubicado en suelo protegido, las autoridades de la ciudad a cargo de la planificación arguyeron entonces que los residentes de Via Park no tenían derechos legítimos de propiedad.

En una atmósfera de temor y viéndose a merced de los promotores inmobiliarios y especuladores que seguían proliferando, los residentes de Via Park comenzaron a realizar subdivisiones ilegales y a vender pequeñas parcelas de tierra a los nuevos habitantes. El crecimiento de la población pobre y la concentración de la propiedad del suelo y la especulación contribuyeron a la expansión de los mercados inmobiliarios informales hacia comunidades cercanas de ingresos bajos.

Estas prácticas llevaban implícito un esquema complejo de transacciones comerciales y relaciones civiles que controlaban la invasión de terrenos baldíos, así como la división y venta de parcelas. En todo Río de Janeiro, el desarrollo urbano a través de canales informales es el “pacto territorial” predominante mediante el cual los grupos locales desfavorecidos han podido obtener acceso al suelo y la vivienda. Al mismo tiempo, los agentes del “mundo formal” han concretado acuerdos políticos para respaldar los mercados inmobiliarios informales y sacarles ventaja.

Fue en este contexto que se concibió un programa de mejoramiento ambiental a nivel comunitario, el cual vendría a implementarse en el poblado de Via Park. No obstante, debido a la larga historia de exclusión –que llegaba hasta las amenazas de desalojo forzoso– que habían sufrido, los residentes seguían mostrándose desconfiados. Se hizo claro que el éxito de la implementación del programa dependería de las estrategias de una gestión basada en una visión integrada del ambiente geográfico-ecológico y sociocultural.

Para que de verdad pueda resolverse el dilema de la pobreza y la degradación ambiental, la tarea de mejorar el medio ambiente debe ser compatible con la lucha por la equidad del suelo. Este novedoso enfoque de la educación ambiental se diferencia de la metodología tradicional, la cual suele centrarse más en la mera introducción de cambios físicos en el medio ambiente. La clave está en centrarse en las condiciones favorables para el desarrollo y el ejercicio de un sentido de “pertenencia a la comunidad” –una expresión tangible de sentimientos, valores e identidades en común en la que el suelo se percibe no sólo como fuente de riqueza, sino como un lugar de convivencia compartida con significados simbólicos–.

Lecciones aportadas por el poblado de Via Park

Si bien no existe una solución única para la vulnerabilidad social y ambiental de la población urbana pobre que reside en Via Park, su experiencia sí ofrece cierta perspicacia. Una alternativa propone crear “reservas naturales urbanas” incorporadas en la comunidad donde aquellos amenazados con el desalojo forzoso reciben estímulo para mantener su estilo de vida tradicional. A cambio, todas las instancias de autoridad gubernamental asumirían la obligación de promover la equidad del suelo, garantizando la tenencia y la protección de aquellos que forzados por las circunstancias viven en asentamientos informales.

Los aspectos del programa de educación ambiental iniciado en el poblado de Via Park son aplicables a otras ciudades de América Latina. El principio fundamental se basa en asegurar el respeto por la identidad propia de la comunidad. La experiencia de los residentes de Via Park demuestra que la actuación local puede contribuir con la consolidación de una lucha sociopolítica por la equidad del suelo en conjunción con la protección del ambiente. Esto está en sintonía con la corriente de pensamiento actual acerca del uso del suelo y la gestión ambiental, la cual sugiere un enfoque integrado que reconoce la función de liderazgo de los residentes locales.

El caso de Via Park revela que una excusa usada con frecuencia para justificar los desalojos es la “protección del ambiente”. En otras palabras, los habitantes urbanos pobres a menudo acusados de ser los principales protagonistas de la degradación del medio ambiente son en realidad las mayores víctimas. Para los 450 residentes del poblado de Via Park, el trauma de ser desalojados por la fuerza de sus hogares nunca será superado. Cinco personas, entre ellas dos niños y una mujer, perdieron la vida en la confrontación. La aldea de Via Park, que fuera destruida por excavadoras, sigue siendo un recordatorio de que la esperanza por la equidad del suelo radica en la solidaridad comunitaria, la administración pública eficaz y la democracia.

Sonia Pereira es docente invitada del Lincoln Institute. También está preparando su tesis doctoral del Instituto de Ciencias de la Tierra de la Universidad Federal de Río de Janeiro, con el apoyo de una beca Fulbright. Como abogada ambientalista, bióloga, psicóloga social y activista por los derechos humanos, ha recibido amplio reconocimiento por su labor en el campo de la protección ambiental para comunidades de escasos recursos en Brasil. Ha sido galardonada con el premio “Citizen of the World” (otorgado por Universidad para la Paz Mundial, 1992) y el premio “Global 500” (otorgado por el Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Medio Ambiente-PNUMA, 1996).

Over the last 50 years cities have been the scene of major transformations that have allowed them to evolve from being centers primarily for economic activities to a combination of more specialized productive, commercial and service functions. The results are mixed, but in those cities considered most successful, beauty and humanism have managed to coexist with economic efficiency and effectiveness, significantly increasing the creation of wealth and the well-being of the community at large. In this context, developments known as “large urban projects” seek to rescue dilapidated areas such as historic centers, former industrial and military zones, vacant railroads and airports, and decaying housing settlements and transform them into vibrant residential areas able to generate tax revenues, employment, and public and social benefits to enhance quality of life.

The redevelopment of waterfronts creates tremendous opportunities to reintegrate historic city centers with their adjacent waterways and to facilitate growth that would otherwise move to the outskirts of the city. Many concerns have to be addressed, however. What type and scale of development are desirable and possible? How can meaningful relationships be established between the old and the new? What are the impacts on the environment and the existing infrastructure? What public policies and investments are needed? What are the roles of the public and private sectors? How do we organize the planning process, including building political and community support?

Amsterdam and Havana are cases where waterfronts provide challenges and opportunities to address this complex balancing act. Both are UNESCO World Heritage Cities dealing with the pressures of profit-driven real estate development and the desire to protect both their historic centers and the interests of their contemporary populations.

In December 2003 the Lincoln Institute, with Havana’s Group for the Development of the Capital (GDIC), the Office of the Historian and the Port Authority of the Ministry of Transportation, cosponsored a seminar in Havana at which waterfront experts from Amsterdam, Rotterdam, New York and Panama shared their experiences with Cuban planners and public officials. This article elaborates on the Amsterdam presentation, in particular how management, experiments, planning and land policies enabled an impressive transformation of that city’s former industrial waterfronts, and offers lessons that may be applicable for Havana.

Planning and Development Policies in the Netherlands

The Netherlands has a well-known tradition of strong national planning and development, precipitated by the housing shortage since World War II. The notion of limited space drives the country’s development policies and its commitment to preserving green and agricultural areas between cities. Housing, infrastructure, retail and office development, environmental protection, agriculture, water management and open space are major concerns at both the national and local levels. With two-thirds of their country below sea level, the Dutch have always pursued new ways of relating to water. National planning policies thus concentrate on facilitating growth in designated areas, controlling urban sprawl and reorganizing inner cities without neglecting major infrastructure and the management and control of green spaces and water bodies.

The Dutch rediscovered the importance of their cities in the 1980s after the rapid growth of suburbs and new towns caused increasing congestion and a lack of livable spaces. The idea of a “compact city” was adopted in the nation’s Fourth Memorandum of Urban Planning (1988), advocating concentration on the urban nexus in order to “redevelop currently abandoned areas.” Typical sites include Rotterdam’s Kop van Zuid and Amsterdam’s Eastern Docklands. The compact city concept was broadened in the 1990s with the notion of the “complete city,” marrying concepts of multiple and intensive land use with the concentration of functions and activities in a melting pot of lifestyles.

The reorganization of transit areas and transport routes is another planning priority that aims to combine different transport functions and discourage the use of cars. Examples include the Airport City plan for the Amsterdam Schiphol Airport and the area around the future high-speed train station Zuidas-WTC. The Zuidas master plan creates enough space over the railway and highway for the construction of 7 million square feet of offices, 1,500 dwellings, retail space, hotels, museums and a new park.

Despite the national government’s plans and ambitions, financial resources determine its role in development projects. The significant decrease in national housing and development subsidies since 1990 has highlighted the strategic importance of the local government in the (re)development process. However, the Amsterdam case also shows that management capacity, reliable development partners and creative financial and development tools are instrumental for redevelopment.

Amsterdam’s Land and Housing Policies

Amsterdam is the cultural and financial capital of the Netherlands and the largest city in the Randstad-Holland or Deltametropolis region of 6 million people. The city has close to 750,000 inhabitants, 375,000 housing units and 417,000 jobs, and has one of the world’s largest conserved historic city centers.

Amsterdam’s land policies are strategic tools in the city’s redevelopment strategies. In 1896 the city democratically decided on a land-lease system to acquire land and lease it to future users. Important arguments for leasing were that increases in land value should benefit the entire community and the city should determine the use of scarce land to prevent speculation and undesirable development.

The land-lease system works as follows. The city’s land corporation acquires land and leases it to private developers for periods of 49 or 99 years. Leaseholders pay an annually adjusted amount for use of the land, determined by location, square feet of development, type of use (office, retail, affordable or market rate housing, open space, etc.), new or existing buildings, and parking (on the street or inside). The city determines the price of land through a residual land value method that links the market value of the property, the land and the construction costs. The value of land equals the sales value of the property minus the construction costs determined by the location (costs are considerably higher in the historic neighborhoods). In 2002 leases totaled 59 million euros.

Acquisition of privately owned land—as in the Eastern Docklands area—is financed through loans to the city’s land corporation, whose interest payments account for 80 percent of its expenses. Excess revenues are used to support the city’s development and rehabilitation efforts, particularly for commercially unprofitable projects such as parks and open space. This system also serves political objectives such as the provision and geographic distribution of affordable housing. In a high-density city like Amsterdam, land is scarce and its use is subject to much real estate pressure. As the landowner the city maintains a strategic role in determining the use, quality and amount of land available for development.

Amsterdam relies on its relationships with the city’s civic and nonprofit development groups for support and implementation of its plans, and the role of housing associations is critical. These associations were created as a result of the housing law of 1901, which allowed for union-related associations and religious organizations to establish nonprofit housing associations. With national subsidies and strong support from local governments, they have built thousands of units, especially in the neighborhoods damaged during the war. In some of these areas over 75 percent of the units is owned by housing associations.

The deregulation of the Dutch housing market in the early 1990s strongly affected the housing associations’ position as both owners and developers. They lost most of the national housing subsidies, but in exchange the government granted them more financial and institutional freedom to manage their assets. As a result, the nonprofit sector had to become more professionalized, and many of the housing associations merged to create economies of scale. Today, Amsterdam counts 13 housing associations that manage over 200,000 units, ranging from 1,400 to 37,500 units each. Many associations successfully positioned themselves as trustworthy and financially stable developers. Moreover, they became strategic partners for commercial developers looking for experts on affordable housing and partners for creating goodwill for their projects with the city and community groups. More and more, they develop mixed-income projects in collaboration with private developers using creative financial packages. In 2000, for example, half of the units built by housing associations were market rate. The resulting profits financed the other half as affordable and moderate-income units.

In an unexpected side effect of the housing reform, these associations have become leaders in setting high standards for urban design and planning. With their commitment to the city and to community development they have been willing to take risks with low-cost but provocative designs, and many of their projects have become international examples for innovative affordable housing concepts.

Waterfront Redevelopment in Amsterdam

Amsterdam is a city founded on water and around a dam that separated the Amstel River from the IJ River. In the seventeenth century, Amsterdam was the world’s most prominent commercial and maritime center. The canals and waterways built in that era still marvel the millions of tourists who visit the city every year. The relationship between the city and its waterfront has not always been organic; mistakes have been made, such as the 1898 decision to build Amsterdam’s central railway station in the middle of the port area. The station effectively ruined the visual relationship and physical connections between the IJ, the port and the dam, destroying the ancient heart of the capital.

In the past 40 years, most port functions have moved closer to the sea to handle container ships, while the large financial institutions moved to the south axis of the city due to a lack of space and poor accessibility. The inner city of Amsterdam, which is adjacent to the old port areas, remains the region’s largest center for retail, culture and entertainment and is well suited for pedestrians, bicyclists and public transportation. Although the port continues to play an important economic role for Amsterdam, the city essentially turned its back to the harbor for many years.

Major areas of Amsterdam are now being converted and rehabilitated, while entirely new areas are being built on artificial islands. The city’s southern and northern waterfront system of old piers and wet docks is becoming an attractive residential and mixed-use district with retail and cultural centers, new transit, parks and waterfront promenades, most of which mix contemporary design with the historic maritime character. The construction of IJburg, an overspill area in the IJsselmeer Lake, is designed to accommodate 45,000 new inhabitants.

Discussion about the redevelopment of the Eastern Docklands and the rest of the southern IJ waterfront began in the early 1980s. Following years of negotiations between the municipality, developers and well-organized community groups, the plan, currently in the final phases of construction, proposed a series of high-density, moderate-rise communities on the water, thus remaking a historic and cultural bond with the water. Housing is the major component of all development on the IJ bank, and 40 percent of it is affordable. In many cases the city’s professional nonprofit housing associations have led the development and encouraged private investment.

The formal planning process for the IJ-waterfront started with a design competition in 1984. Initially the city government endorsed the IJ Boulevard master plan by Rem Koolhaas for the entire 10 km southern waterfront. The redevelopment program incorporated a range of uses, but focused on office development and supporting amenities to stop the exodus of corporations and to finance the proposed infrastructure program. The plan was to be implemented by the Amsterdam Waterfront Finance Company (AWF), a public-private partnership of the city and one master developer/investor with unprecedented authority. Subsequent controversy over the size and cost of the plan, the collapse of the office market in the late 1980s, and growing discontent with the plan among the city’s prominent civic and community groups led to the dismantling of the partnership in 1994.

The city then changed its approach and passed a strategic memorandum titled “Anchors of the IJ” in 1995. This plan proposed to build on the existing island structure with a phased development starting at the outer edges and working toward the Central Station area. This pragmatic and organic approach concentrated the city’s efforts and resources on master plans for smaller and more manageable areas. The development program shifted toward housing with public buildings and squares (the anchors) at strategic locations within a framework of larger infrastructure investments. The national government committed to building a new tunnel in the early phases of the planning process and a light-rail system at a later phase. Urban design and development programs were determined by site potential and strong community input and were modified over time based on experience, new ideas and changing market conditions. Since the city owns the land and thus controls how much land is available for development, it encouraged private developers to team up with nonprofit housing groups to bid for portions of the waterfront. The Amsterdam case underscores the fact that strategy, planning tools, leadership and partners are interdependent and instrumental for redevelopment that benefits the community at large.

Implications for Havana

The uniqueness of Havana’s waterfront makes it a formidable site for innovative and comprehensive redevelopment and for avoiding the mistakes that have spoiled the charm of many other cities around the world. Havana is Cuba’s capital city, home to more than 2 million of the country’s 11 million citizens. Prior to the 1959 revolution Cuba was the leading business and tourist destination in the Caribbean, but its subsequent political isolation and lack of economic development have resulted in a mostly unspoiled historic city now in desperate need of repair. Since the collapse of the former Soviet Union and the subsequent loss of a market for 65 percent of Cuban exports, Havana has focused on attracting investment through real estate ventures. Most joint ventures (350 were active in 2001, worth $2.6 billion) are with Canadian and European companies in the booming hospitality industry. Tourism and related activities again generate much-needed foreign currency, especially in Havana where historic downtown hotels have been upgraded and new office buildings are being built in nearby elegant neighborhoods to the west.

The government recognizes the historic and economic value of Old Havana’s architectural heritage and strongly supports renovation and rehabilitation of its historic buildings and squares. The progress and benefits are impressive, considering the limited public resources and the state of the city’s infrastructure and buildings. The Office of the Historian, the development authority for Old Havana, has stimulated revenues that generated $50 million for social and historic preservation programs in 1999 alone (Nunez, Brown and Smolka 2000).

Havana’s waterfront is considered a key asset for future growth and therefore a key area of concern. The waterfront includes the famous Malecon Boulevard as well as the lesser-known inner-harbor districts on the east side of Old Havana. Along the shores of this bay, historic warehouses and small communities are mixed with decaying infrastructure, port facilities, heavy industry and shipyards. Many different city and state agencies are involved in planning for this vast area, yet no clear development directive has been defined and most players lack the authority to take that role. In response, some agencies have developed plans for individual properties, but implementation is unlikely because there is no funding in place and the oil refineries across the bay produce heavy fumes, which discourage some tourist-oriented activities.

Since land in Havana is publicly owned, capturing the increase of land values could create a strategic and sustainable source for financing much-needed public investments in affordable housing, public space and infrastructure. The local government can lead the redevelopment process; however, support and collaboration with regional and national public partners will be important for larger investments. Flexibility in program and a focus on process instead of blueprint planning is essential to accommodate changing market conditions and emerging opportunities. The latter is especially evident as development depends significantly on private investments.

With its historic beauty, proximity to the United States and lack of development for more than 40 years, Havana draws the attention of developers from throughout the world. It has the potential to become a model livable city that has preserved most of its heritage and is not spoiled by the automobile. It is in the interest of all of us, but especially the Cuban people, to ensure that attention to both high-quality redevelopment and the public interest determines the transformation of Havana’s waterfront.

Frank Uffen is managing director of New Amsterdam Development Consultants in New York. Other Dutch participants in the seminar who contributed to this article are Riek Bakker (partner, BVR Consultancy for Urban Development, Landscape and Infrastructure, Rotterdam), Ad Hereijgers (partner, DE LIJN Office for Urban Development, Amsterdam), Willem van Leuven (project manager, Amsterdam Project Management Bureau) and Rutger Sypkens (project developer, Ballast Nedam Construction, Amsterdam).

Reference

Nunez, Ricardo, H. James Brown, and Martim Smolka. 2000. Using land value to promote development in Cuba. Land Lines 12(2):1–4.

Jim Levitt focuses his work on conservation innovation—present-day and historic innovations that protect land and biodiversity. He has a particular interest in the role that innovations in conservation finance play in advancing the work of professional and volunteer conservation practitioners.

In addition to his responsibilities as coordinator of the Lincoln Institute’s annual Conservation Leadership Dialogue meetings, Levitt directs the Program on Conservation Innovation at The Harvard Forest, Harvard University, and is a research fellow at the Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. He is the editor of From Walden to Wall Street: Frontiers of Conservation Finance (Island Press/Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2005) and Conservation in the Internet Age: Threats and Opportunities (Island Press, 2002).

Las ciudades contribuyen al cambio climático mundial pero, a la vez, son víctimas de dicho cambio. Es bien sabido que, en particular, las ciudades asentadas sobre deltas son extremadamente vulnerables, debido a que están localizadas donde las agresiones a los sistemas naturales coinciden con una intensa actividad humana.

Ciertos efectos del cambio climático pueden afectar a las ciudades asentadas sobre deltas, tales como el aumento de los niveles del mar; los daños en la infraestructura debidos a condiciones climáticas extremas; las implicaciones en la salud pública causadas por la elevación de las temperaturas promedio; alteración en los patrones de consumo de energía; agresiones a los recursos de agua; impacto en el turismo y el patrimonio cultural; reducción de la biodiversidad urbana; y efectos secundarios en la contaminación del aire (IPCC 2007). El cambio climático puede, además, afectar a los bienes físicos que se utilizan en la producción económica y los servicios, así como también a los costos de la materia prima y los insumos, los cuales, a su vez, afectan a la competitividad, el rendimiento económico y los patrones de empleo.

El significativo crecimiento económico de China a partir del período de reforma del país que comenzó en 1978 ha provocado la concentración de una gran parte de la población y de la riqueza a lo largo de la costa, en particular en tres regiones de megaciudades: el delta del río Perla, el delta del río Yangtze y la región de la capital. Aunque las posibles implicaciones del cambio climático representan un desafío para las comunidades costeras en todo el mundo, la mencionada concentración geográfica de población y actividad económica parece desproporcionada en China.

Entre las regiones costeras y de deltas de China, el delta del río Perla (DRP), en la provincia de G uangdong, es un importante centro económico que abarca las ciudades de Guangzhou y Shenzhen y siete municipios a nivel de prefectura. Junto con Hong Kong y M acao, los alrededores del DRP conforman una de las principales regiones de megaciudades del mundo, aunque su geografía los torna altamente vulnerables al aumento del nivel del mar. El desarrollo económico y urbano sin precedentes, así como los grandes cambios producidos en la utilización del suelo y la cubierta del suelo que han acompañado dicho desarrollo en las últimas tres décadas, han provocado grandes emisiones de CO₂, lo cual ha redundado en la elevación de las temperaturas y de condiciones climáticas más intensas y extremas (Tracy, Trumbull y Loh 2006). Debido a la importancia de esta región tanto para China como para la economía mundial, estudiaremos con más detenimiento la forma en que el DRP contribuye al cambio climático y los riesgos que este cambio conlleva.

Industrialización y urbanización

A partir del establecimiento de la Zona Económica Especial de Shenzhen y Zhuhai en 1980, el DRP fue una de las primeras regiones chinas en comenzar a liberalizar su economía. Sus ventajas institucionales, junto con su proximidad con respecto a Hong Kong y Macao, convirtieron al DRP en la región de más rápido crecimiento del mundo durante las últimas tres décadas. Desde 1979 hasta 2008 el PIB del DRP creció un 15,6 por ciento anual en precios constantes, superando así tanto la tasa nacional del 9,77 por ciento como la tasa provincial de 13,8 por ciento.

Como resultado, el aporte del delta a la participación en el PIB de China se elevó del 2,8 por ciento en 1979 al 9,5 por ciento en 2008. En términos de inversiones fijas totales, inversiones directas del exterior, exportaciones y consumo de energía, el DRP se convirtió en una de las regiones económicas más importantes y dinámicas de China durante este período (ver figura 1).

Este rápido desarrollo fue el resultado del doble proceso de industrialización y urbanización. Las industrias secundaria y terciaria de la región han crecido con rapidez, a la vez que la industria primaria ha disminuido gradualmente en su importancia económica relativa, ya que su aporte al PIB se redujo del 26,9 por ciento en 1979 al 2,4 por ciento en 2008, mientras que el sector terciario de servicios creció del 27,9 por ciento al 47,3 por ciento.

Durante ese mismo período, la población aumentó de 17,97 a 47,71 millones de residentes, alcanzando una tasa de urbanización del 82,2 por ciento en 2008. En términos de utilización del suelo, las áreas destinadas a uso industrial, residencial y comercial crecieron un 8,47 por ciento anual, es decir, de 1.068,70 km2 en 1979 a 4.617,16 km2 en 2008 (ver figura 2).

Cambio climático

Dados estos cambios radicales en la utilización del suelo y el aumento de las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero de la región, no es de sorprender que el DRP haya experimentado cambios climáticos regionales evidentes. La Administración Meteorológica de G uangdong (2007) informó que el promedio del aumento de temperatura en la provincia de Guangdong en las últimas cinco décadas ha sido de 0,21°C cada 10 años, en forma similar a la tasa de calentamiento de China a nivel nacional. La región costera de Guangdong, en particular el DRP, que se encuentra altamente urbanizado, experimentó aumentos aún mayores en la temperatura, a promedio de 0,3ºC cada 10 años. Las ciudades de Shenzhen, Dongguan, Zhongshan y Foshan han sufrido un calentamiento de más de 0,4°C cada 10 años.

Después de compilar los datos de 21 estaciones meteorológicas en la región del DRP, calculamoslas temperaturas promedio anuales y estacionales durante el período 1971–2008 y posteriormente las comparamos con las temperaturas anuales en Guangdong. Nuestra investigación reveló que el DRP había experimentado un calentamiento significativo y que había tenido temperaturas más elevadas que el total de la provincia de G uangdong durante el período observado. Desde la década de 1970, el DRP ha sufrido un aumento de la temperatura promedio de aproximadamente 1,19ºC, con lo que ha alcanzado los 22,89ºC en la última década. Desde 1994, las temperaturas promedio anuales se mantuvieron por encima de la temperatura promedio de la región en 30 años de 22,1ºC (ver figura 3).

Los aumentos de temperatura más significativos se dieron en invierno y otoño, arrojando un promedio de 24,1ºC en otoño y de 15,2ºC en invierno entre 1994 y 2007. Dichas temperaturas son significativamente más altas que los promedios de 40 años de 23,5°C y 14,6°C, respectivamente. Aunque no resulten tan significativas, las temperaturas promedio en primavera y verano en el DRP durante el período 1997-2007 también fueron más altas que sus temperaturas promedio de 40 años de 22ºC y 28,2ºC, respectivamente. Este fenómeno de calentamiento regional también puede observarse, a menor escala, en G uangzhou, una populosa y típica metrópolis del DRP, en donde las temperaturas promedio aumentaron a la par que las de los alrededores de la región del delta.

A medida que el clima del DRP se fue calentando con más rapidez que en el resto de la provincia, el elevado ritmo de industrialización y urbanización ha generado una enorme demanda de energía por parte de las industrias manufactureras, el sistema de transporte y los consumidores residenciales, lo que ha dado como resultado mayores emisiones de CO₂ y otros gases de efecto invernadero que están contribuyendo al cambio climático mundial. La concentración cada vez mayor de gases de efecto invernadero, tanto a nivel regional como mundial, representa una gran fuente latente de calentamiento y otros cambios en el futuro.

Efectos del cambio climático

Debido a su geografía costera y a su densidad de población, Guangdong se cuenta entre las provincias litorales más vulnerables de China en cuanto al tipo de catástrofes meteorológicas, cuyo aumento se espera a causa del calentamiento global. En el año 2008, Guangdong sufrió pérdidas económicas directas de 15,43 mil millones de yuanes y 73 muertes, lo que representa el 75 por ciento y el 48 por ciento de los totales nacionales, respectivamente, así como también la pérdida de 602 km de tierras a raíz de la erosión costera (ver tabla 1). Debido a que el nivel del mar en la provinciaaumentó 75 mm durante el período 1975-1993, la predicción de la Administración Meteorológica de China (2009b) de que los niveles del mar crecerán unos 78-150 mm más entre 2008 y 2038 representauna grave amenaza a la infraestructura y a lascomunidades costeras del DRP.

Guangdong ha sufrido desde hace tiempo los efectos de peligros marinos tales como lluvias torrenciales, ciclones y marejadas de tempestad que han provocado la muerte de cientos de personas, han causado graves daños en la infraestructura de viviendas y transporte y han afectado a las actividades agrícolas de la provincia. En la década de 1950, la superficie agrícola promedio anual que se vio afectada por los peligros marinos fue de alrededor de 200.000 ha; posteriormente, en la década de 1960 se incrementó a 440.000 ha y, en la década de 1970, 500.000 ha, antes de alcanzar la cifra de 1.411.000 ha en la década de 1990.

Además de una mayor frecuencia de tormentas extremas, las sequías también han ido aumentando en el DRP. En la década de 1950, la superficie agrícola promedio afectada por la sequía en Guangdong fue de 104.000 ha, superficie que ha crecido sostenidamente hasta alcanzar 201.500 ha en la década de 1980; 282.500 ha en la década de 1990; y 426.400 ha en la década de 2000. Debido al aumento esperado en la frecuencia de condiciones climáticas extremas, así como también a los aumentos de temperatura y del nivel del mar, se prevé que las actividades agrícolas y de maricultura en el DRP serán cada vez más vulnerables al cambio climático.

Las ciudades ubicadas en el DRP son particularmente susceptibles a las catástrofes naturales y al cambio climático, ya que concentran infraestructura, actividades no agrícolas y población, lo que afecta gravemente a las actividades económicas y la vida diaria. En la región se producen con frecuencia temporales de lluvia y tifones que, por lo general, causan daños muy graves y enormes pérdidas económicas. A modo de ejemplo, durante el período 2000-2007, los temporales de lluvia y los tifones en Shenzhen causaron pérdidas económicas directas acumuladas de 525 millones y 227 millones de yuanes, respectivamente, lo que representa aproximadamente el 63 por ciento y el 33 por ciento de las pérdidas económicas directas totales asociadas con todos los peligros meteorológicos en la ciudad (ver figura 4).

Los peligros meteorológicos también provocan efectos negativos en las instalaciones, infraestructuras y sistemas de transporte. Los temporales de lluvia y los tifones suponen desafíos en relación con los sistemas de alcantarillado urbano y los centros de control de inundaciones, a la vez que los períodos prolongados de temperaturas altas o bajas ejercen una presión en la infraestructura urbana de abastecimiento de energía.

En mayo de 2009, se registró en Shenzhen un temporal de lluvia sin precedentes, durante el cual algunas partes de la ciudad recibieron una precipitación diaria de más de 208 mm. La tormenta inundó 40 áreas de la ciudad y dejó 11 áreas debajo de al menos 1 metro de agua. Dos años antes, en abril de 2007, los temporales de lluvia provocaron el desbordamiento del río Qinghuhe en Shenzhen, y la inundación dañó diques y derribó cables de alta tensión. En el otro extremo del espectro, en julio de 2004, Guangzhou sufrió una prolongada ola de calor que generó una enorme demanda de electricidad. El uso de energía eléctrica llegó a los 8,45 millones de kilovatios, lo que obligó a muchas empresas a detener la producción con el fin de ahorrar energía.

El transporte es un elemento esencial para la actividad urbana y la producción económica. Debido a que Shenzhen y Guangzhou son dos de los principales centros poblacionales y económicos de China, tienen una importancia especial como nudos de transporte nacional, por lo que cualquier interrupción originada por condiciones meteorológicas extremas, tales como temporales de lluvia, tifones e inundaciones, puede llegar a causar efectos de largo alcance en todo el país.

Cuando la tormenta tropical Fengshen azotó a Shenzhen el 24 de junio de 2008, el puerto marítimo de la ciudad, Yantian, debió cerrarse y cientos de barcos quedaron varados en el puerto, hecho que provocó grandes pérdidas económicas. Durante el año 2008, cuatro tormentas tropicales y un temporal de lluvia causaron la cancelación de 249 vuelos y el retraso de otros 386 vuelos en el aeropuerto internacional de Shenzhen, lo que dejó varados a más de 20 mil pasajeros. En 2009, tres fenómenos meteorológicos de grandes proporciones causaron la cancelación de 176 vuelos y el retraso de 326 vuelos, mientras que 4.151 buques se vieron obligados a refugiarse en el puerto de Yantian. A medida que los viajeros chinos se vayan enriqueciendo y los viajes aéreos aumenten su frecuencia, la vulnerabilidad de estas ciudades ante los efectos negativos de condiciones meteorológicas graves también aumentará.

Efectos negativos del aumento del nivel del mar

La Administración M eteorológica de China (2009b) identificó al DRP como una de las áreas del país que corre el mayor riesgo de sufrir aumentos del nivel del mar, debido a que posee una media de nivel del mar baja. Según estudios anteriores, los niveles del mar en el DRP están creciendo y seguirán haciéndolo en un futuro previsible. Se registraron cambios del nivel del mar en tres medidores de mareas (Hong Kong, Zha Po y Shan Tou) durante el período 1958-2001. Hong Kong registró un aumento del nivel del mar de 0,24 cm por año durante dicho período, mientras que Zha Po y Shan Tou registraron aumentos del nivel del mar de 0,21 cm y 0,13 cm por año, respectivamente. Según los registros de mareas obtenidos por seis medidores diferentes en el estuario del río Perla, los niveles del mar han crecido a una tasa acelerada en los últimos 40 años.

En vista del derretimiento de los glaciares a nivel mundial debido al cambio climático, se prevé que los recientes aumentos en el nivel del mar continúen produciéndose e, incluso, acelerándose. Li y Zeng (1998) ofrecieron tres pronósticos sobre al aumento del nivel del mar en el DRP: 100 cm (alto), 65 cm (medio) y 35 cm (bajo) para el año 2010. Estos pronósticos se han reflejado en similares proyecciones realizadas por la Academia de Ciencias de China (1994), que indican que los niveles del mar en el DRP podrían crecer entre 40 cm y 60 cm para el año 2050.

La geografía física y el desarrollo urbano del delta lo vuelven extremadamente vulnerable a los efectos del aumento del nivel del mar y es probable que muchas áreas bajas se inunden (Yang 1996). Según los cálculos del Servicio Nacional de Datos e Información Marina de China, un aumento de 30 cm en el nivel del mar podría inundar una superficie de 1.154 km2 de costa e islas en marea alta, por lo que G uangzhou, el condado de Doumen y Foshan son los que corren riesgos particularmente altos (Administración Meteorológica de Guangdong 2007).

Las inundaciones costeras y del río en el DRP se encuentran influenciadas por varios factores: lluvias torrenciales, mareas altas, vientos fuertes, tifones y marejadas de tempestad. En ciertas partes del estuario del río Perla es bien conocida la combinación de factores meteorológicos y de mareas que genera un aumento en los niveles de agua de más de tres metros durante los ciclos de marea alta (Tracy, Trumbull y Loh 2006). De acuerdo con Huang, Zong y Zhang (2004), actualmente el rango máximo de mareas aumenta a medida que recorremos el estuario hacia el norte: desde un nivel bajo de 2,34 metros cerca de Hong Kong hasta 3,31metros en Zhewan, antes de alcanzar los 3,35 metros en Nansha.

El crecimiento de los niveles del mar podría magnificar el efecto de las marejadas de tempestad, que de por sí pueden ser muy graves cuando coinciden los factores meteorológicos y de mareas. Mediante el análisis de registros de 54 medidores de mareas en todo el DRP, Huang, Zong y Zhang (2004) generaron predicciones para el aumento del nivel del agua en diferentes partes del delta según distintos casos posibles de inundación. En el caso de la descarga más baja de agua dulce (2.000 m2/s), las simulaciones realizadas por este equipo mostraron que un aumento de 30 cm en el nivel del mar podría afectar a la parte noroeste de la región de manera más grave y a la mayor parte del área de manera significativa. El equipo de investigadores simuló además el impacto que podría tener un aumento de 30 cm en el nivel del mar sobre la distribución de los daños de una inundación según cuatro casos posibles de descarga de agua dulce: a medida que las inundaciones aumentan en gravedad, aumenta también el tamaño de las superficies afectadas.

Resumen y debate

Las ciudades del delta gozan de ventajas de ubicación que las vuelven atractivas tanto para los residents como para las empresas y, en consecuencia, muchas regiones asentadas sobre el delta se desarrollan y llegan a ser centros económicos vitales en muchos países. No obstante, las ciudades del delta son particularmente vulnerables a los peligros meteorológicos y corren mayores riesgos que las ciudades del interior de sufrir los efectos, tanto actuales como previstos, del cambio climático. El delta del río Perla ha experimentado aumentos significativos tanto en sus niveles del mar como en sus temperaturas; una mayor variación en las lluvias torrenciales; una mayor frecuencia de condiciones meteorológicas extremas; y un aumento de pérdidas debido a los peligros marinos.

De hecho, los peligros meteorológicos más frecuentes, tales como las inundaciones provenientes de tormentas tropicales y lluvias torrenciales, han causado efectos negativos en el DRP: interrupción de la producción agrícola y de maricultura; daños en las defensas costeras y diques; destrucción de viviendas e instalaciones; cierre del transporte; y pérdida de vidas. El aumento del nivel del mar a raíz del calentamiento global representa otra amenaza y otro desafío en muchas partes de la región. El impacto acumulado de estos fenómenos meteorológicos y climáticos interrelacionados ha aumentado los costos de desarrollo en el DRP de manera significativa. Afortunadamente, los gobiernos provinciales y municipales se han dado cuenta de la importancia que tiene la mitigación y adaptación climática y están observando las experiencias de otras ciudades del mundo asentadas también sobre deltas, con el fin de obtener enseñanzas valiosas en cuanto a la mejor manera de fortalecer la sustentabilidad y resistencia urbanas.

Sobre los autores

Canfei He es profesor de la Facultad de Ciencias Urbanas y Ambientales en la Universidad de Pekín y director asociado del Centro para el Desarrollo Urbano y la Política de Suelos de la Universidad de Pekín y el Instituto Lincoln. Asimismo, es director asociado del Grupo Especializado en Geografía Económica de la Sociedad Geográfica China. Sus campos de interés de investigación son las empresas multinacionales, la ubicación industrial y el agrupamiento espacial de empresas, y la energía y el medioambiente en China. Sus artículos se publican en varias revistas internacionales.

Lei Yang es estudiante de doctorado en la Facultad de Graduados de Shenzhen de la Universidad de Pekín.

Referencias:

Administración Meteorológica de China. 2009a. China marine hazards report 2008. Beijing.

———. 2009b. China sea level report 2008. Beijing.

Academia de Ciencias de China. 1994. “The impact of sea level rise on economic development of the Pearl River Delta”. En The impacts of sea level rise on China’s delta regions. Beijing: Science Press.

Du, Yao-dong, Li-li Song, Hui-qing Mao, Hai-yan Tang y An-gao Xu. 2004. “Climate warming in Guangdong province and its influences on agriculture and counter measures”. En Journal of Tropical Meteorology 10(2): 150–159.

Administración Meteorológica de Guangdong. 2007. Informe de evaluación sobre el cambio climático en Guangdong. www.gdemo.gov.cn.

He, Canfei, Lei Yang y Guicai Li. 2010. “Urban development and climate change in the Pearl River Delta”. Documento de trabajo. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Huang, Z., Y. Zong y W. Zhang. 2004. “Coastal inundation due to sea level rise in the Pearl River Delta, China”. Natural Hazards 33: 247–264.

IPCC (Panel Intergubernamental sobre Cambio Climático). 2007. “Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability”. Aporte del grupo de trabajo II al Cuarto Informe de Evaluación del IPCC. Cambridge, Reino Unido: Cambridge University Press.

Li, P. y Z. Zeng. 1998. “On the climatic and environmental changes in the Pearl River Delta during the last 500 years”. En Quaternary Sciences 1: 65–70.

Tracy, A., K. Trumbull y C. Loh. 2006. “The impacts of climate change in Hong Kong and the Pearl River Delta”. Hong Kong: Intercambio cívico.

Wu, Y. y Li, H. 2009. “Meteorological disasters and hazard evaluations in Shenzhen since 2000”. En Guangdong Meteorology. 31(3): 43-45 (en chino).

Yang, H. 1996. “Potential effects of sea-level rise in the Pearl River Delta area: Preliminary study results and a comprehensive adaptation strategy”. En Adapting to climate change: An international perspective, J. N. Smith y otros, editores. Nueva York: Springer-Verlag.

Siqi Zheng es profesora asociada del Centro Hang Lung para Bienes Raíces y subdirectora del Departamento de Gestión de Construcciones de la Universidad Tsinghua en Beijing, China. Se especializa en economía urbana y mercado inmobiliario de China, en particular en estructuras espaciales urbanas, ciudades verdes, oferta y demanda de vivienda, dinámica de los precios de vivienda y políticas de vivienda de interés social.

Sus proyectos de investigación innovadores y diversos han sido respaldados por instituciones de investigación internacionales como el Banco Mundial, el Banco de Desarrollo Asiático, el Centro de Crecimiento Internacional de la Escuela de Economía de Londres y varios departamentos del gobierno Chino, incluyendo la Fundación Nacional de Ciencias de China, el Ministerio de Vivienda y Desarrollo Urbano-Rural y la Agencia de Estadísticas Nacionales de China.

La Dra. Zheng recibió su doctorado en economía urbana y economía de bienes raíces de la Universidad Tsinghua y ha realizado investigaciones posdoctorales en economía urbana en la Escuela de Graduados de Diseño de la Universidad Harvard. Es fellow de investigación tanto en el Centro de Desarrollo Urbano y Política de Suelo de la Universidad de Pekín-Instituto Lincoln como en el Centro de Desarrollo Industrial y Gobernanza Medioambiental de la Universidad Tsinghua.

La Dra. Zheng es también vicesecretaria general del Congreso Inmobiliario Chino Global. Ha ganado premios como el Homenaje Posdoctoral Homer Hoyt (2010) y el Premio a la Mejor Publicación de la Sociedad Norteamericana de Bienes Raíces (2005). También es miembro de las juntas editoriales de Journal of Housing Economics e International Real Estate Review.

Land Lines: ¿Cómo llegó a asociarse con el Lincoln Institute of Land Policy y sus programas en China?

Siqi Zheng: Tomé conocimiento del Instituto Lincoln cuando realicé mi investigación posdoctoral en la Universidad Harvard en 2005-2006. Me incorporé al Centro de Desarrollo Urbano y Política de Suelo de la Universidad de Pekín-Instituto Lincoln (PLC) como fellow de investigación poco después de que se fundó en 2007. Desde entonces me he involucrado de lleno a las actividades de investigación del PLC, como la realización de proyectos, dirección de proyectos de investigación, revisión de propuestas de investigación y participación en conferencias. Recibí una beca de investigación internacional del Instituto Lincoln en 2008-2009, junto con mis colegas Yuming Fu y Hongyu Liu, para estudiar las oportunidades de vivienda urbana en varias ciudades de China. Ahora lidero el equipo del PLC que realiza investigaciones de relevancia política en temas como el análisis del mercado de vivienda y políticas de vivienda de interés social.

Land Lines: ¿Por qué es tan importante para el futuro de China el estudio de la economía urbana y el mercado de la vivienda?

Siqi Zheng: China está experimentando una rápida urbanización, a una tasa de alrededor del 50 por ciento en 2011, pero se espera que ascienda al 70 por ciento entre los próximos 10 a 20 años. Hasta 1,5 millones de inmigrantes internos se mudan a las ciudades en China todos los años. Este rápido crecimiento urbano ofrece beneficios económicos potencialmente muy grandes, ya que las ciudades ofrecen muchas mejores oportunidades para comerciar, aprender y especializarse en una ocupación que le ofrece al individuo una mayor oportunidad de alcanzar sus metas de vida.

No obstante, la rápida urbanización también impone potencialmente grandes costos sociales, tales como la contaminación y congestión, y la calidad de la vida urbana sufre de la tragedia fundamental de recursos colectivos. La investigación en economía urbana estudia estos temas y trata de encontrar una manera de maximizar las economías de aglomeración y al mismo tiempo minimizar las deseconomías de congestión. Esto es crucial para el futuro de China, porque la urbanización es el motor del crecimiento chino.

El sector de la vivienda es una clave determinante tanto para las dimensiones cuantitativas como cualitativas del crecimiento urbano. Junto con la dimensión cuantitativa, cada habitante de la ciudad necesita un lugar para vivir. La oferta de vivienda tiene influencia importante en el tamaño general de la ciudad y su costo de vida, y por lo tanto el costo de mano de obra. Junto con la dimensión cualitativa, las comunidades urbanas y barrios dinámicos crean interacciones sociales intensas. El efecto secundario de estas actividades reduce el costo de aprendizaje y contribuye a mejorar el capital humano.

Las viviendas para personas de bajos ingresos son un importante problema político en China. La desigualdad económica está creciendo y los precios de las viviendas son muy altos en las principales ciudades de China, de manera que los hogares de bajos ingresos se enfrentan a graves barreras económicas respecto a la adquisición de viviendas. Durante años, el gobierno de China ha ignorado la oferta de viviendas de interés social, pero recientemente ha comenzando a comprender que es crucial contar con políticas bien diseñadas de viviendas para personas de bajos ingresos para generar oportunidades de crecimiento urbano más inclusivas para todos los residentes.

Land Lines: ¿Cómo enfoca usted el estudio de la economía urbana y el mercado de la vivienda en China?

Siqi Zheng: Estoy realizando estudios entre ciudades y dentro de las ciudades sobre la intersección de la economía urbana y la economía medioambiental. A medida que la movilidad de mano de obra entre ciudades aumenta, China se está moviendo hacia un sistema de ciudades abiertas. En el marco de referencia de diferenciales compensadas, uso los precios inmobiliarios a nivel de ciudad para deducir la disposición de los propietarios a pagar por servicios urbanos, como una mejor calidad del aire, más espacios verdes y oportunidades educativas. Mi conclusión básica es que los hogares urbanos en China valoran la calidad de vida. A medida que los residentes urbanos se van enriqueciendo con el tiempo, su deseo de vivir en ciudades limpias y con bajo riesgo aumenta.

Dentro de la ciudad, examino las interacciones espaciales entre trabajo y vivienda: dónde vive la gente, dónde trabaja y cómo elige su modelo para viajar de su casa al trabajo. Uso datos de encuestas de hogares y de transacciones inmobiliarias para modelar estos comportamientos, ya que el patrón básico de la forma urbana está determinado por las elecciones individuales. Estos comportamientos individuales (“bolas de nieve”) también tienen implicaciones importantes en las interrelaciones entre el uso del suelo, el transporte y el medio ambiente urbano, porque la cantidad de vehículos está aumentando, y el aumento de kilómetros recorridos en los vehículos se ha convertido en un factor de contaminación importante en las ciudades chinas.

También estudio la dinámica del mercado inmobiliario y las políticas de viviendas para personas de bajos ingresos. Nuestro equipo de Tsinghua construyó el primer índice de precios hedónicos con control de calidad, utilizando datos de 40 ciudades chinas. Mis coautores y yo estimamos la elasticidad de ingresos a partir de la demanda de vivienda y la elasticidad de precios a partir de la oferta de vivienda, y examinamos los determinantes de dichas elasticidades. Usando microdatos, investigamos cómo la oferta de suelo y de vivienda y las inversiones públicas afectan las dinámicas de precios y cantidades en el mercado de viviendas urbanas. Presto gran atención a las elecciones de viviendas de los hogares de bajos ingresos y los inmigrantes rurales. Basándome en mi estudio empírico de comportamientos usando microdatos, exploro los tipos de políticas urbanas y de vivienda que pueden mejorar la posición de los grupos necesitados tanto en los mercados de vivienda como de trabajo.

Land Lines: ¿Qué desafíos cree que afrontará China en este campo en la próxima década?

Siqi Zheng: El mayor desafío es cómo conseguir una transición exitosa hacia la sostenibilidad. El rápido crecimiento económico de China en los años recientes se basó fundamentalmente en la exportación y se benefició de los bajos costos de mano de obra, suelo y regulación. Los desastres ecológicos y fricciones sociales que han ocurrido en muchos lugares de China son una señal de que la estrategia actual no es sostenible en el largo plazo.

Los dirigentes políticos deberían reformular las políticas urbanas en una variedad de maneras. Deben levantarse las barreras institucionales que todavía permanecen a la movilidad de la mano de obra. Se deben establecer correctamente los precios de las externalidades negativas debidas a las actividades de consumo y producción urbana (como la contaminación y la congestión), para que el comportamiento de los individuos sea coherente con la solución social óptima. También se tendrán que resolver los problemas de desigualdad de ingresos y desigualdad espacial. Es necesario realizar una mayor inversión en capital humano. La vivienda desempeña un papel primordial, porque es el mayor activo de la unidad familiar y también afecta al acceso a oportunidades urbanas y a la calidad de las interacciones sociales.

Land Lines: ¿Cuáles son algunas de las implicaciones políticas potenciales de esta investigación sobre el mercado de vivienda?

Siqi Zheng: La mayor parte de mi trabajo es un análisis empírico con microdatos, así que me concentro en los incentivos y las elecciones de los individuos, empresas y gobiernos. También analizo cómo estas opciones determinan la forma urbana, la calidad de vida local, el mercado laboral y el mercado de la vivienda. De esta manera podemos crear parámetros clave que den soporte al diseño de políticas por parte de los dirigentes. Por ejemplo, identifico las ciudades con distintas condiciones de oferta y demanda de viviendas, y sugiero que las autoridades deberían ofrecer opciones distintas de política de vivienda para personas de bajos ingresos. Las ciudades con un inventario de viviendas abundante podrían usar instrumentos por el lado de la demanda, como vales para vivienda, pero aquellas que no tienen viviendas suficientes deberían usar instrumentos por el lado de la oferta, como la construcción de más viviendas de interés social.

Land Lines: ¿La experiencia de China en el desarrollo del mercado de la vivienda se puede compartir con otros países en vías de desarrollo?

Siqi Zheng: Sí, porque muchos países también enfrentan situaciones difíciles en sus sectores de vivienda. Algunos de los desafíos comunes son cómo albergar a innumerables inmigrantes rurales en las ciudades, cómo brindar viviendas económicas a una creciente cantidad de personas de bajos ingresos; dónde y cómo proporcionar estas viviendas y, a medida que las ciudades crecen geográficamente, cuáles son las políticas adecuadas de urbanización y las estrategias de inversión en infraestructura que pueden generar un crecimiento urbano eficiente e inclusivo. Por medio de las conferencias y publicaciones de investigación producidas por el Centro de la Universidad de Pekín-Instituto Lincoln, las experiencias de China ya están proporcionando lecciones para otros países en vías de desarrollo.

Land Lines: ¿Puede describir algunos ejemplos de ofertas de vivienda en el sector de la vivienda informal?

Siqi Zheng: Algunos países como Brasil, India y China tienen muchos inmigrantes internos de escasos recursos que viven en asentamientos informales. Los gobiernos locales tienen muy poco incentivo para proporcionar servicios públicos en esos lugares, porque las mejoras, como agua limpia e infraestructura de alcantarillado, simplemente estimularían una mayor inmigración.

Chengzhongcun (pueblo urbano) es un tipo de vivienda informal típica de las grandes ciudades chinas. Representa un equilibrio entre la demanda de los inmigrantes por viviendas de interés social y la oferta de vivienda disponible en las villas que están siendo invadidas por la expansión urbana. Las altas tasas de delitos, la infraestructura y servicios inadecuados y las pobres condiciones de vida son sólo algunos de los problemas de los pueblos urbanos que amenazan la seguridad y la administración públicas. Mi investigación en Chengzhongcun muestra que los gobiernos locales al principio miraron con simpatía esta vivienda informal de bajo costo porque podía reducir los costos de mano de obra y por lo tanto contribuir al alto crecimiento del PIB en sus ciudades. No obstante, la baja calidad de la interacción social y la falta de servicios públicos básicos no proporcionan una manera de vida sostenible para los inmigrantes rurales de escasos recursos.

A medida que el sector industrial va evolucionando a actividades económicas de gran destreza, los gobiernos locales deberían considerar de qué manera mejorar la calidad del capital humano, en vez de concentrarse en la cantidad de mano de obra barata. Esto puede proporcionar un incentivo para mejorar las viviendas informales y transformarlas en viviendas formales, o para ofrecer viviendas de interés social a estos inmigrantes para que puedan acceder a más oportunidades urbanas y mejorar sus destrezas. Este proceso de transición está ocurriendo en China actualmente, y se extenderá pronto a otros países en vías de desarrollo que pueden beneficiarse de la experiencia de China.

Otro ejemplo es el papel de la oferta de viviendas en el crecimiento urbano. Muchos estudios ya demuestran que la oferta de viviendas puede respaldar o restringir el crecimiento urbano, porque el tamaño y el precio del inventario de viviendas afectan a la oferta de mano de obra y al costo de vida. En los países en vías de desarrollo, la oferta de suelo y vivienda se ve afectada por las regulaciones y el comportamiento de los gobiernos en mayor medida que en los países desarrollados. El diseño de políticas de oferta de vivienda se tiene que adaptar al crecimiento urbano futuro para todos los sectores de la sociedad.

He escrito muchos documentos de trabajo sobre estos temas y contribuido al libro, China’s Housing Reform and Outcomes del Instituto Lincoln (2011), editado por Joyce Yanyun Man, directora del Centro de la Universidad de Pekín-Instituto Lincoln.

State trust lands in the Intermountain West could play an important role in the growing market for renewable energy. Congress granted these territories, covering 35 million acres, to states upon their entry to the Union, to support schools and other public institutions. As managers of these state trust lands search for innovative and sustainable ways to lease and sell parcels to generate income, renewables could prove to be a double boon—by supplying clean, sustainable power and providing a strong revenue stream for the public benefit.

All seven states in the Intermountain West—Arizona, Idaho, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming (figure 1)—are using state trust lands to develop renewables, including wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass projects. Yet the industry has not flourished to its full potential. In 2011, the installed renewable energy production capacity on state trust lands was only 360 megawatts—not enough to power 2 percent of the homes in the region. The $2 million in revenue generated by these sources on state trust lands amounts to less than 1 percent of the $1 billion-plus generated there annually by other means (Berry 2013; WSLCA). Wind energy is experiencing the most activity by far; all the Intermountain West states have leased state trust lands for wind projects, and all have operational wind farms. Although Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah have leased state trust lands for solar operations, only one generation facility is in production on state trust lands in the Intermountain West, in Arizona. Only Utah has a geothermal plant on state trust land, and no states in this region have active biomass facilities on trust lands.

This article will focus on three types of renewable energy production in three states—a wind farm in Montana, geothermal projects in Utah, and solar generation in Arizona—and the conditions, legislation, and other factors that led to successful operations. All three examples demonstrate that these territories offer a largely untapped bounty for this burgeoning, sustainable market; provide learning opportunities across state lines; and help meet growing demand for renewable energy.

Judith Gap Wind Farm, Montana

Judith Gap is Montana’s only operational wind farm on state trust land, straddling private land as well, in the central-eastern part of the state. It has 90 turbines total, each with a capacity of 1.5 megawatts; 13 are on state trust lands, on the leading edge of the wind farm, with a total capacity of 19.5 megawatts. The per-megawatt fee of approximately 2.6 percent of gross receipts brings in about $50,000 per year according to Mike Sullivan of the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC). At the time of construction, there was a one-time installation fee of $20,000 (Rodman 2008).

Bob Quinn, founder of a local wind development company called Windpark Solutions, initiated the project in 2000, when he proposed the idea to a small group including representatives from the local utility, the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, and the DNRC. Quinn says that close collaboration between the developer and personnel in these state agencies was key to successfully siting the project on state trust land. State staff also helped Quinn navigate other difficult challenges including unanticipated delays in the request for proposals (RFP) process required by the state.

After conducting preliminary studies—allowed for one year through a land use license from the DNRC—developers must apply to the DNRC in order to proceed with energy projects. The state then issues a request for proposals (RFP). Applicants with a land use license do not receive preferential treatment. After a successful applicant is identified, the developer must conduct environmental analyses, secure a power purchase agreement with a utility, and determine economic feasibility before signing a lease with the DNRC. Currently, fees for new land use licenses are generally $2 per acre per year. Lease agreement costs for new wind projects include a one-time installation charge of $1,500 to $2,500 per megawatt of installed capacity, and annual fees of 3 percent of gross annual revenues or $3,000 for each megawatt of installed capacity, whichever is greater (Rodman 2008, Billings Gazette 2010).

Lease and Fee Structures

Every state has different leasing systems for renewable energy projects on state trust lands, but they all follow a similar pattern. The process usually starts with a short-term planning lease that allows for exploration and meteorological studies. The construction phase is next, followed by a longer-term production lease. Payments to the trust land management agency usually include a per-acre rent during the planning phase, which may continue into the production phase. There are additional installation charges for equipment, including meteorological towers, wind turbines, solar collectors, structures, and other infrastructure. During the production phase, the fee is typically based either on the installed capacity or the gross revenues of the generation facility.

Since Judith Gap was completed in 2005, several wind farms have proposed development on state trust lands in Montana, but none have reached the production phase. These include the Springdale Wind Energy project—an 80-megawatt wind farm consisting of 44 turbines, 8 of which would be on state trust lands. The DNRC has also leased 3,000 acres near Martinsdale to Horizon Wind Energy for a wind farm with 27 turbines, 7 to 15 of which would be on state trust lands. The Martinsdale wind farm could expand to 100 turbines in the future (MT DNRC).

In order to make state trust lands more attractive to these and other renewable energy developers, the DNRC would benefit from a more streamlined process. Developers working on state trust lands in Montana have cited struggles with timing, financing, environmental mitigation, cooperation from power buyers, and transmission (Rodman 2008). According to Quinn, Judith Gap succeeded in part due to dedication and close collaboration between agency personnel and the energy developer. In the future, the DNRC may need to assign personnel to renewable energy projects in order to guide developers through the process. The DNRC could also attract projects by granting land use license holders preferential status in the RFP process and by opening up bidding faster. Quinn notes that evaluating bids according to performance rather than price alone would improve the system.

Geothermal Energy, Utah

Geothermal energy is a potentially constant power source, offsetting fluctuations from intermittent renewables such as wind and solar. However, it’s also technically complex and expensive—and thus rare on state trust lands in the Intermountain West. Utah is currently the only state in the region with active geothermal facilities on state trust land. Measured by land area, geothermal is Utah’s largest renewable energy supply, with approximately 100,000 acres leased on state trust lands. There are currently two geothermal energy plants in production, generating revenue of $200,000 to $300,000 per year. For geothermal projects, the State and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA), which manages state trust lands in Utah, charges 2.25 percent of electricity sales for the first 5 or 10 years, and 3.5 percent thereafter.

PacifiCorp’s 34-megawatt Blundell plant, on a mix of federal, state, and private territory, was the state’s first, built in 1984. Blundell taps into an underground reservoir that is 3,000 feet deep, more than 500° F, and pressurized at 500 pounds per square inch. A well brings the hot, high-pressure water to the surface, where it powers a steam turbine. The Blundell plant has two units, a 23-megawatt unit built in 1984 and an 11-megawatt unit completed in 2007.

The newer Raser plant in Beaver County has been less successful. Raser originally planned to build a 15-megawatt operation using a new, modular technology produced by United Technologies, says John Andrews, SITLA associate director. The company aimed to cut costs and development time by exploring the geothermal resource while constructing the generation facility—instead of fully developing geothermal wells first, then building the power plant later. Unfortunately, the geothermal resource fell short of expectations and could not support a 15-megawatt operation. With limited income, Raser could not cover debts and declared bankruptcy in 2011. The plant continues to run at limited capacity (Oberbeck 2009).

The experience at Raser shows that the costs of geothermal development continue to be daunting and that it’s worthwhile to fully characterize the available geothermal resource prior to constructing generation facilities, although that additional step is costly and time-consuming. Future technological advances may help to cut the costs and time required for geothermal development, but, given the current state of technology, geothermal projects still require significant upfront outlays.

For renewable energy development, SITLA responds to applications as they are received; they can also offer lands through a request for proposals or a competitive sealed bid process (Rodman 2008). The state has mapped renewable energy zones, but the task of finding locations and proposing renewable energy projects devolves to developers.

Utah faces other challenges to all forms of renewable energy development on trust lands. Because of the high proportion and pattern of federally owned territory, national agencies sometimes take the lead on energy development projects. According to Andrews, the absence of an RPS in Utah is another drawback, leaving local utilities without a state mandate to supply renewable energy.

Even without an RPS, however, Utah is geographically well-positioned to export energy to other states—particularly to population centers on the west coast. Although transmission can be a barrier in some parts of the state, transmission capacity is available between Utah and southern California. What’s more, developers can tap an array of renewable resources—wind, solar, and geothermal. SITLA would benefit from marketing trust lands within renewable energy zones to potential developers and by offering reduced rates for renewable energy projects within these areas.

Solar Developments in Arizona

Even in Arizona—the sunniest state in the U.S., according to the National Weather Service—the solar industry faces several obstacles on state trust lands. The only active solar facility on state trust lands, the Foothills Solar Plant opened on 400 acres in Yuma County in April 2013, when the first 17 megawatts came online. An additional 18 megawatts are scheduled to go online in December 2013. Once it’s fully operational, the facility will serve 9,000 customers. The 35-year lease will generate $10 million for state trust lands beneficiaries, and most of that money will fund public education.

The slow development of the solar industry on trust lands mirrors a larger trend seen nationwide. In 2010, only 0.03 percent of the nation’s energy came from solar projects, while 2.3 percent came from wind (www.eia.gov). Solar projects usually require exclusive use of a site—putting them at an even greater disadvantage on state trust lands, where many acres are already leased for agriculture, grazing, or oil and gas production. Wind projects, by contrast, can co-exist with other land uses. Solar projects also require large tracts—as many as 12 acres per megawatt (Culp and Gibbons 2010)—whereas wind facilities have a relatively small footprint. And, although prices are dropping, solar generation facilities can be very expensive.

Despite these drawbacks, there are ways in which solar development is well-suited to state trust lands. For starters, these territories are untaxed and owned free and clear; unburdened by the carrying costs that private owners might have, state trust land management agencies have an advantage for holding and maintaining renewable energy projects. Some solar developers have found state trust land attractive because they can work with one owner for very large tracts. Solar generation is also well-suited to previously disturbed sites, such as old landfills and abandoned agricultural areas, which may include trust lands. Near urban areas, state trust lands slated for future development could be used for solar generation in the interim; after the solar leases expire, the grounds could be developed for urban uses (Culp and Gibbons 2010).

State-level RPS and tax incentives could also encourage solar development. Some states provide up to 25 percent investment tax credits, property tax exemptions, and standard-offer contracts on solar, guaranteeing a long-term market for solar output.

As one of the largest landowners in the state, with several large, consolidated parcels, the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD) would do well to position itself as an attractive partner for the renewable energy industry (Wadsack 2009). The ASLD is taking steps in the right direction by developing a GIS-based renewable energy mapping system to analyze state trust lands for general suitability for solar production, based on avoiding critical wildlife habitat and wilderness areas, and minimizing distance to roads, transmission, and load. But it must follow up and market the most suitable areas for renewables (Culp and Gibbons 2010) and facilitate the process for developers, who can be deterred by complex leasing structures, requirements for public auctions, and required environmental and cultural analyses (Wadsack 2009). The more the agency can build capacity to help developers through this process, the more the renewable energy industry might flourish on state trust lands. For example, the department could offer long-term leases, expedite land sales, or develop a reduced-cost, revenue-sharing lease system specifically tailored for renewable energy development.

General Recommendations for Montana, Utah, and Arizona

Leasing renewable energy on state trust lands is complicated. Each state has a unique set of political, environmental, and economic circumstances that makes it difficult to determine any one best method for all. However, the accomplishments, problems, and solutions detailed in the examples above provide some general recommendations for success.

At the state land trust agency level:

• Proactively market suitable sites to developers. State trust land management agencies in some states, including Arizona and Utah, are creating inventories of the most suitable areas for renewable energy development on state lands. Other states could follow this model (BLM 2011, Berry et al 2009), market these parcels, and offer incentives for development, either as a part of the leasing process or through tax incentives (Culp and Gibbons 2010).
• Reduce risks to developers by granting them exclusive rights early in the discovery phase or prioritizing those who have conducted initial site assessments in the bidding or auctioning process.
• Foster close collaboration between the developer and trust land managers by educating staff on renewable energy issues in order to guide developers through the process of permitting, financing, and working with federal agencies.
• Break down silos and collaborate with other landowners and land management agencies to streamline permitting and coordination between various agencies at the local, state, and federal level.

At the state level:

• Streamline environmental requirements. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires a thorough analysis of environmental impacts for projects on federal lands. Montana and other states require additional, separate analyses for developments on states lands, while others streamline their requirements by allowing federal NEPA analyses to meet state obligations for projects on both federal and state jurisdictions. This streamlined approach can be more attractive to energy developers, while still effectively protecting environmental resources.
• Adopt or increase renewable portfolio standards. In the Intermountain West, Arizona, Colorado, Montana, and New Mexico have enacted RPS policies, whereas Utah has only a renewable energy goal. Trust land managers in Utah and Idaho sited the lack of a renewable portfolio standard as an impediment to the renewable energy industry in their states. Within the region, states’ RPS targets range from 15 percent renewable energy up to 30 percent. Those states with lower targets could reasonably consider strengthening their RPS policies to encourage more renewable energy development.
• Offer tax policies that encourage renewable development, including property tax incentives, sales tax incentives, or tax credits. Each state could either adopt additional tax incentive policies, or increase existing incentives to better encourage renewable energy development.

Federal policies play a considerable role as well. Production tax credits in particular have spurred U.S. renewable energy deployment in recent decades. Likewise, federal investment tax credits for renewable energy—which provide developers with a tax credit during the planning and construction phases—have helped the renewable energy industry grow in recent years, even when the national economy was in recession. Finally, there have been several proposals for a federal-level renewable portfolio standard, although researchers disagree whether this type of policy would interfere with existing state-level RPS policies, which have proven extremely effective.

Renewable energy offers state trust land managers an opportunity to diversify their revenue stream to benefit the public good. For the most part, wind and transmission projects can be co-located with pre-existing leases for grazing, agriculture, oil, and gas. Solar projects could have great potential in previously disturbed sites or areas with little other value. Where geothermal resources are available, they offer consistent power that can offset intermittent sources like wind or solar. Technological advances could help bring down prices for renewables, particularly solar, geothermal, and biomass. As our energy demands grow, state trust lands are poised to play an important role in the growing renewable energy industry.

This article was adapted from the Lincoln Institute working paper, “Leasing Renewable Energy on State Trust Lands,” available online here: http://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/dl/2192_1518_Berry_WP12AB1.pdf.

About the Author

Alison Berry is the energy and economics specialist at the Sonoran Institute, where her work focuses on land use issues in a changing West. She holds a bachelor’s degree in biology from the University of Vermont and a master’s degree in forestry from the University of Montana. Her work has been published in the Wall Street Journal, the Journal of Forestry, and the Western Journal of Applied Forestry, among other publications. Contact: aberry@sonoraninstitute.org.

Resources

Berry, Jason, David Hurlbut, Richard Simon, Joseph Moore, and Robert Blackett. 2009. Utah Renewable Energy Zones Task Force Phase I Report. http://www.energy.utah.gov/renewable_energy/docs/mp-09-1low.pdf.

Billings Gazette. 2010. Wind farm developers eye school trust land. April 22. http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_14bfb038-4e0a-11df-bc99-001cc4c002e0.html.

Bureau of Land Management. 2011. Restoration Design Energy Project. http://www.blm.gov/az/st/en/prog/energy/arra_solar.html.

Culp, Peter, and Jocelyn Gibbons. 2010. Strategies for Renewable Energy Projects on Arizona’s State Trust Lands. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Working Paper WP11PC2. https://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/dl/1984_1306_CulpGibbon%20Final.pdf.

Montana Department of Natural Resources. 2011. Montana’s Trust Lands. Presented at the Western States Land Commissioners Association annual meeting. Online: http://www.glo.texas.gov/wslca/pdf/state-reports-2011/wslca-presentation-mt-2011.pdf accessed November 23, 2011.

Oberbeck, Steven. 2009. Utah geothermal plant runs into cold-water problems. Salt Lake Tribune. September 17. And Bathon, Michael. 2011. Utah’s Raser Technologies files Chapter 11. Salt Lake Tribune. May 2.

Rodman, Nancy Welch. 2008. Wind, wave/tidal, and in-river flow energy: A review of the decision framework of state land management agencies. Prepared for the Western States Land Commissioners Association. http://www.glo.texas.gov/wslca/pdf/wind_wave_tidal_river.pdf.

Wadsack, Karin. 2009 Arizona Wind Development Status Report. Arizona Corporation Commission.

This article reviews the Western State Planning Leadership Retreat, in which state planners from 13 western states have participated. The retreats provide a forum for state-level planners to compare their experiences, learn from each other’s successes and failures, and build a common base of experience for land use planning in their states and across the region. Rather than promote a particular approach to land use planning and growth management, the retreats encourage planners to explore a range of land use planning strategies for responding to growth and land use issues in the West. This article summarizes what we learned during the first two retreats in 2000 and 2001.

Forces and trends of land use planning. The West is changing and there are many differences in the states’ approach to land use planning. New forces and trends are redefining the region’s quality of life, communities, and landscapes—directly influencing how we approach land use planning and growth management. Within these trends, western state planners recognize a variety of common challenges—pockets of explosive population growth, sprawl, drought, out-of-date legislation, a lack of funding, and a lack of public and political support for planning, and changing the way development occurs.

Major themes related to land use planning and growth in the West;

Why plan? How can we build public and political support for planning? Historically, land use planning was motivated by a concern to promote orderly development of the landscape, preserve some open spaces, and provide consistency among developments. These continue to be important objectives, but they are insufficient for building public and political support.

What is the role of state government? State programs should support local land use planning efforts, and should try to engage the “big players,” such as transportation departments, to work with local jurisdictions and maintain their state’s economic competitiveness by encouraging local communities to improve their quality of life through infill, redevelopment, and preserving the natural environment.

How can regional approaches to land use planning complement state actions? Regionalism allows multiple jurisdictions to share common resources and manage joint services, such as water treatment facilities and roads. Regional approaches are gaining momentum, but they also create new challenges.

Foster effective planning and growth management through collaboration. Collaboration can be defined many ways, but most planners agree with the premise that if you bring together the right people with good information they will create effective, sustainable solutions to their shared problems. Collaboration, when done correctly, allows the people most affected by land use planning decisions to drive the decisions.

How do we measure success? In 1998, the Arizona legislature passed the Growing Smarter Act, which was amended in 2000, and created a Growing Smarter Commission. The act reformed land use planning and zoning policies and required more public participation in local land use planning. This brings us full circle to our first theme—Why are we planning?

The Three Cs of Planning—three recommendations emerge from the western state planners’ retreats that can be implemented throughout the country. First, identify the most compelling reason to plan in your community; second, rely on collaborative approaches; third, foster regional connections.

“This [the West] is the native home of hope. When it fully learns that cooperation, not rugged individualism, is the quality that most characterizes and preserves it, then it will have achieved itself and outlived its origins. Then it has a chance to create a society to match its scenery.”

Wallace Stegner, The Sound of Mountain Water (Penguin Books 1980, 38)

During the past two years, state planners in 13 western states have met in the Western State Planning Leadership Retreat, an annual event sponsored by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and the Western Consensus Council. Cosponsors include the Western Governors’ Association, the Council of State Governments–WEST, and the Western Planners’ Association. The retreats provide a forum for state-level planners to compare their experiences, learn from each other’s successes and failures, and build a common base of experience for planning in their states and across the region. Rather than promote a particular approach to planning and growth management, the retreats encourage planners to explore a range of strategies for responding to growth and land use issues in the West. This article summarizes what we have learned during the first two retreats in 2000 and 2001.

Forces and Trends

The West is changing. New forces and trends are redefining the region’s quality of life, communities and landscapes, directly influencing how we approach land use planning and growth management. One force that sets the West apart from other regions of the country is the overwhelming presence of the landscape. The West has more land and fewer people than any other region, yet is also very urbanized. More people live in urban centers than in rural communities.

The dominance of land in the politics and public policy of the West is due in part to the large amount of land governed by federal and tribal entities (see Figure 1). More than 90 percent of all federal land in the U.S. lies in Alaska and the 11 westernmost contiguous states. The U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manage most of the West’s geography and significantly influence the politics of land use decisions. Indian tribes govern one-fifth of the interior West and are key players in managing water, fish and wildlife.

The West is also the fastest growing region of the country (see Figure 2). The five fastest-growing states of the 1990s were Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, Utah and Idaho. Between 1990 and 1998, the region’s cities grew by 25 percent and its rural areas by 18 percent, both significantly higher rates than elsewhere in the U.S. As western demographics diversify, the political geography has grown remarkably homogeneous. Following the 2000 elections, Republicans held three-quarters of the congressional districts in the interior West (see Figure 3) and all governorships except the coastal states of California, Oregon and Washington.

Within these trends, western state planners recognize a variety of common challenges—pockets of explosive population growth, sprawl, drought, out-of-date legislation, a lack of funding, and a lack of public and political support for planning and changing the way development occurs in the West. They also point out many differences in their states’ approaches to planning. Oregon and Hawaii have long-standing statewide land use planning efforts, but planning in Nevada is a recent phenomenon, limited mainly to the Las Vegas and Reno areas. Vast federal holdings in Nevada, Idaho and Utah dictate land use management more than in other states, and Arizona and New Mexico share planning responsibilities with many sovereign tribal governments. Alaska and Wyoming—with small populations and little or no growth—do very little planning.

Major Themes

Based on the first two retreats, we have identified six major themes related to planning and growth in the West.

Why plan? How can we build public and political support for planning? Historically, planning was motivated by a concern to promote orderly development of the landscape, preserve some open spaces, and provide consistency among developments. These continue to be important objectives, but they are insufficient for building public and political support. Particularly during economic recession, planning takes a back seat—the public can focus on only so many problems at once. Today, the most compelling argument for planning is that it can be a vehicle to promote economic development and sustain the quality of life. People move to the West and create jobs because they like the quality of life in the region, and planners need to tap into this motivation.

In Utah, for example, quality of life is an economic imperative, so state planners tie their work to enhancing quality of life rather than to limiting or directing growth. It is used to integrate economic vitality and environmental protection. Several years ago, business leaders and others created Envision Utah, a private-public partnership. Participants use visualization techniques and aerial photos, mapping growth as it might occur without planning, and then again under planned cluster developments with greenbelts and community centers. These “alternative futures” scenarios help citizens picture the changes that are coming and the alternatives for guiding those changes in their communities. As Utah’s state planner says, “Growth will happen, and our job is to preserve quality. That way, when growth slows, we will still have a high quality of life.”

Kent Briggs, executive director for the Council of State Governments–WEST (a regional association for state legislators), and Jim Souby, executive director of the Western Governors’ Association, acknowledge the difficulty of nurturing public and political support for growth management in the West. They agree that political power shifts quickly from one party to the other, and yet is a lagging indicator of cultural, demographic and economic change. Governors and legislators might be more convinced to support land use planning, they say, by using visualization techniques to help them understand the costs of existing patterns of development, and to picture the desired future of our communities and landscapes.

How much planning is enough, and who should be in the driver’s seat? Arizona and Colorado have smart growth programs designed to help communities plan for growth and preserve open space. In the November 2000 elections, citizen initiatives in both states introduced some of the nation’s most stringent planning requirements, but both initiatives failed by a 70 to 30 percent vote, suggesting that citizens want to maintain flexibility and freedom—and local control—when it comes to planning and growth management. The story is similar in Hawaii, where business profitability—not zoning maps—directs land use. In May 2001, Hawaii’s governor vetoed a smart growth initiative because it was perceived as being too environmental and would limit developers’ ability to convert agricultural lands.

This emphasis on home rule or local control is supported by a recent survey of citizens in Montana, conducted by the Montana Association of Realtors. In the survey, 67 percent of respondents said that city or county governments should have the power to make land use decisions, while 60 percent opposed increasing state involvement in managing growth-related problems.

In Oregon, citizens narrowly passed Measure 7, an initiative requiring state and local governments to pay private property owners for any regulations that restrict the use or reduce the value of real property. While the impacts and constitutionality of this initiative are still being debated, it sends a strong message to planners in a state that has had one of the most progressive land use and growth management programs for 25 years. The message, according to Oregon’s state planner, is to not rest on your successes, and to keep citizens and communities engaged in an ongoing discussion about the effectiveness of land use planning. He also stressed the need to balance preservation with appropriate development, emphasizing that “good planning doesn’t just place limits on growth and development.”

What is the role of state government? Douglas Porter, keynote speaker at the first retreat and a nationally known consultant on land use and growth policy, says that one of the most important state roles is to offset the lack of will to plan at the local level. He says that state programs should support local planning efforts, and should try to engage the “big players,” such as transportation departments, to work with local jurisdictions. Porter also suggests that state governments can maintain their state’s economic competitiveness by encouraging local communities to improve their quality of life through infill, redevelopment, and preserving the natural environment.

Oregon’s state government attracted $20 million in federal funding to help communities overhaul zoning ordinances and remove obstacles to mixed uses. Colorado created an Office of Smart Growth to provide technical assistance on comprehensive planning; document best practices for planning and development; maintain a list of qualified mediators for land use disputes; and provide grants for regional efforts in high growth areas. In Arizona, Montana and New Mexico, state planning offices provide a range of technical services to assist communities, such as clarifying state laws, promoting public participation, and fostering intergovernmental coordination.

Jim Souby suggests that one of the most effective roles of state government is to promote market-based strategies and tax incentives. “Tax what you don’t like, subsidize what you do like,” Souby says. Other incentives might include cost sharing and state investment strategies—similar to Maryland and Oregon—to drive development in a positive direction.

How can regional approaches to land use planning complement state actions? Regionalism allows multiple jurisdictions to share common resources and manage joint services, such as water treatment facilities and roads. In Washington, citizens recently rejected the top-down smart growth model popularized in Florida due to concerns over home rule and private property rights. In response, the state legislature approved a system of regional planning boards that instill some statewide consistency while allowing for regional and local differences.

Nevada, despite double-digit growth in the Las Vegas and Reno areas, does not have a state planning office. However, the legislature mandated Washoe County (home of Reno and Sparks) to create a regional planning commission to address growth issues jointly rather than in a piecemeal manner. Key municipal and county officials in Clark County (Las Vegas) formed their planning coalition voluntarily—compelled to cooperate by the highest growth rate in the nation. This coalition recently presented the state legislature with a regional plan that emphasizes resolving growth issues locally rather than at the state level.

In New Mexico, the city and county of Santa Fe each recently updated their comprehensive land use plans. The plans were fine, except that they were stand-alones prepared with no coordination. Citizens demanded better integration of planning efforts and pushed for a new regional planning authority. Within 18 months, citizens and officials developed a joint land use plan for the five-mile zone around the city, and the regional authority is now developing zoning districts and an annexation plan. In Idaho, city and county officials in Boise voluntarily created the Treasure Valley Partnership as a forum to discuss policies for controlling sprawl, and to coordinate the delivery of services. They are also reviewing the possibility of light rail development.

Regional approaches are gaining momentum, but they also create new challenges. For example, the city of Reno has been reluctant to join the neighboring city of Sparks and Washoe County in revising their regional plan. With no enforcement or penalty at the state level, the other jurisdictions can do little to encourage Reno’s involvement. Likewise, New Mexico has no policy framework for regional planning and thus no guidelines on how to share taxing authority, land use decision making and enforcement responsibilities.

Foster effective planning and growth management through collaboration. Collaboration can be defined many ways, but most planners agree with the premise that if you bring together the right people with good information they will create effective, sustainable solutions to their shared problems. Collaborative forums allow local officials to weigh and balance competing viewpoints, and to learn more about the issues at hand. According to Jim Souby, local efforts should incorporate federal land managers because they play such a dominant role in the region’s political geography. Kent Briggs agrees that collaboration, when done correctly, allows the people most affected by land use decisions to drive the decisions. Collaborative processes, when they include all affected interests, can generate enormous political power, even when such efforts do not have any formal authority. While it may be appropriate in some cases to have national or state goals, it is ultimately up to the people who live in the communities and watersheds of the West to determine their future, according to Briggs.

How do we measure success? In 1998, the Arizona legislature passed the Growing Smarter Act, which was amended in 2000, and created a Growing Smarter Commission. The act reformed land use planning and zoning policies and required more public participation in local planning. The commission recommended that the state should monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of land use planning on an ongoing basis. The governor recently appointed an oversight council to continue this work, but council members say that clear benchmarks are needed against which to evaluate the effectiveness of land use planning—a percentage of open space preserved, for example, or a threshold on new development that triggers tighter growth restrictions. Arizona law, however, simply identifies the issues that must be addressed in comprehensive land use plans. It does not set specific standards or expectations, making meaningful evaluation impossible. This brings us full circle to our first theme—Why are we planning?

The Three Cs of Planning

Three recommendations emerge from the western state planners’ retreats that can be implemented throughout the country.

First, identify the most compelling reason to plan in your community. What are you trying to promote, or prevent? Be explicit about the values driving the planning process. Emphasize the link between quality of life, economic development and land use planning as a way to sustain the economy and the environment. Remember that people must have meaningful reasons to participate constructively in the planning process.

Second, rely on collaborative approaches. Engage the full range of stakeholders, and do it in a meaningful way. A good collaborative process generates a broader understanding of the issues—since more people are sharing information and ideas—and also leads to more durable, widely supported decisions. Collaboration may also be the most effective way to accommodate the needs and interests of local citizens within a regional approach and when the state’s role is limited.

Third, foster regional connections. Recognize that planning is an ongoing process, not a product to be produced and placed on a shelf. Link the present to the future using visualization and alternative futures techniques. Build monitoring and evaluation strategies into plan implementation. Encourage regional approaches that build on a common sense of place and address transboundary issues. Emphasize that regionalism can lead to greater efficiencies and economies of scale by coordinating efforts and sharing resources.

Matthew McKinney is executive director of the Western Consensus Council in Helena, Montana, a nonprofit organization that helps citizens and officials shape effective natural resource and other public policy through inclusive, informed and deliberative public processes. Will Harmon is the communications coordinator for the Western Consensus Council and a freelance writer based in Helena.

References

Center for Resource Management. 1999. The Western Charter: Initiating a Regional Conversation. Boulder, CO: Center for Resource Management.

Kwartler, Michael. 1998. Regulating the good you can’t think of. Urban Design International 3(1):13-21.

Steinitz, Carl and Susan McDowell. 2001. Alternative futures for Monroe County, Pennsylvania: A case study in applying ecological principles, in Applying Ecological Principles to Land Management, edited by Virginia H. Dale and Richard A. Haeuber. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag, 165-189.

Swanson, Larry. 1999. The emerging ‘new economy’ of the Rocky Mountain West: Recent change and future expectation. The Rocky Mountain West’s Changing Landscape 1(1):16-27.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Environmental Planning for Communities: A Guide to the Environmental Visioning Process Utilizing a Geographic Information System (GIS). (September).

Increasing socio-economic and spatial disparities in Latin American cities have prompted a revival of interest in equity-oriented government policies to reduce those disparities. However, solutions to the major urban problems being faced today must go far beyond the implementation of inconsistent and narrowly defined actions. The solutions must ensure equity for all sectors of society. In too many places, entire neighborhoods are forced to exist under deplorable living conditions while government agencies seek to evict residents in the name of environmental protection. It is evident that urban legislation can no longer ignore the rights of people to have a place in which to live in security and dignity.

The critical impact of land inequity on the urban environment requires that the urban poor gain access to the technical information necessary to better negotiate their concerns with public officials. My research explores the role of environmental education in low-income communities in developing countries. Taking a perspective based on self-help capacity building, my goal is to develop programs to train community leaders at the grassroots level to deal more effectively with local land use conflicts and environmental risks.

Impacts of Land Inequity

Like many Latin American cities, Rio de Janeiro is strongly affected by prevailing poverty and environmental degradation. Complex factors are involved: economic instability, inequitable land ownership, short-sighted development policies, and a lack of a democratic system that provides for human rights and freedoms. In my view, the problems experienced by Rio de Janeiro during the last few decades are mainly a result of existing “apartheid” urban planning assumptions and a lack of political will to incorporate the popular sectors in land use policy making.

In the region of Baixada de Jacarepaguá-at the heart of the core expansion area of Rio de Janeiro-the extraordinary process of urban growth since the 1970s has provoked dramatic changes in the landscape, as well as a variety of environmental problems. Amidst the spectacular natural beauty of lagoon ecosystems, mangrove forests and wetlands, the region remains home to a large population of urban poor who live in favelas-shanty communities resulting from largely uncontrolled urbanization of public land.

During the 1980s and early 1990s, the region enjoyed an unprecedented development boom that has fostered unsustainable patterns of land use. Discrimination against the poor inhabitants and inequalities in landownership allowed landowners and speculators to capitalize on the boom by formally obtaining titles and subdividing the land. In addition, a select group of private builders injected themselves into the local scene with multiple court permits to develop the region for high-income residential condominiums, commercial establishments and industrial enterprises.

Increasing pressures on the land snowballed into a wide range of protests between the popular sectors and the powerful land developers, posing the threat of forced eviction of the poor inhabitants. The accumulated discontent against the government for failing to control land speculation and ensure protective legislation created an extremely dangerous situation. Violence and persecution claimed the lives of 30 community leaders, presidents of local community associations, their family members and relatives. The murders were carried out by what are known in the region as “extermination squads,” and no criminal investigation has taken place.

The Vicious Cycle of Poverty and Environmental Degradation

Since poverty and environmental degradation are interdependent, it is appropriate to think of environmental concerns in terms of social justice. My research revolves around the problems of inequality and the environmental risks faced by the residents of the Via Park village-an informal settlement located in the region of Baixada de Jacarepaguá. A basic question arising from this research is to what extent can improved access to land equity actually contribute to mitigate the factors that encourage environmental degradation. By connecting land use issues to the learning process of environmental education, the research demonstrates that environmental degradation is a recurring phenomenon manifested in the inequitable ways land has been used and distributed in the region.

Via Park village has been caught in a serious land use struggle since the 1970s, when urban development began to impact many traditional fishing communities in the area. Builders were eager to lobby the government to break the fishermen’s land tenure system, which was enforced by law, and thereby turn the land over to market forces. In the 1980s, the area was designated a public reserve for environmental preservation, enshrined in Article 225 of the Brazilian Constitution (1988). Since the village was located on protected land, the city’s planning authorities then argued that the Via Park residents had no legitimate claims of ownership.

Living in an atmosphere of fear and at mercy of the land developers and speculators who continued to flourish, the Via Park residents started illegally subdividing and selling small parcels of land to new settlers. The growth of the poor population and the concentration of land ownership and speculation contributed to the expansion of informal land markets into nearby low-income communities.

Underlying these practices was a more complex system of commercial transactions and civil relations governing the invasion of vacant lands, as well as the division and sale of plots. Throughout Rio de Janeiro, land development through informal channels is the predominant “territorial pact” by which disadvantaged local groups have been able to gain access to land and housing. At the same time, agents from the “formal world” have developed political arrangements to support and take advantage of existing informal land markets.

It was in this context that a program for grassroots environmental improvement was conceived and eventually implemented in Via Park village. However, given the residents’ long history of exclusion-including threats of forced eviction-they remained suspicious. It became clear that successful program implementation would depend on managerial strategies based on an integrated vision of the geographic/ecological and social/cultural environment.

If the dilemma of poverty and environmental degradation is to be overcome, then the task of improving the environment must be shown to be compatible with the struggle for land equity. This innovative approach toward environmental education differs from traditional methodology, which is generally more concerned with simply introducing physical changes to the environment. The key here is to focus on the conditions that are favorable for the development and exercise of a sense of “community belonging”-a tangible expression of shared sentiments, values and identities where land is understood not only as a component of wealth, but as a common settled place invested with symbolic meanings.

Lessons of Via Park Village

While there is no single solution to the social and environmental vulnerability of the urban poor living in the Via Park village, their experience does offer some insights. One alternative suggests creating “urban natural reserves” integrated into the community where those threatened with forced eviction are encouraged to maintain their traditional lifestyles. In exchange, government authorities at all levels would accept the obligation to promote land equity, giving security of tenure and protection to those forced by circumstances to live in informal settlements.

Aspects of the environmental education program initiated in the Via Park village are applicable to other Latin American cities. The fundamental principle is based on insuring respect for the inherent identity of the community. The experience of the Via Park residents demonstrates that local action can contribute to consolidating a socio-political struggle for land equity with protection of the environment. This is in line with current thinking about land use and environmental management, which suggests an integrated approach that acknowledges the leadership role of the local residents.

The Via Park case reveals that a routine excuse being used to justify evictions is “protecting the environment.” In other words, the urban poor most often accused of being the primary protagonists of environmental degradation are in reality the greatest victims. For the 450 residents of the Via Park village, the trauma of being forcibly evicted from their homes will never be overcome. Five people, including two children and one woman, lost their lives in the confrontation. The Via Park village, now destroyed by bulldozers, still reminds us that hope for land equity lies in community solidarity, effective governance and democracy.

Sonia Pereira is a visiting fellow of the Lincoln Institute. She is also completing her Ph.D. thesis from the Institute of Earth Sciences of the Federal University in Rio de Janeiro, with support from a Fulbright scholarship. An environmental lawyer, biologist, social psychologist and activist on behalf of human rights, she has been widely recognized for her work on environmental protection for low-income communities in Brazil. She is a Citizen of the World Laureate (World Peace University, 1992) and a Global 500 Laureate (United Nations Environment Programme-UNEP, 1996).

Matthew McKinney was named director of the Public Policy Research Institute at the University of Montana in 2003, after serving for 10 years as the founding director of the Montana Consensus Council. He is also a senior lecturer at the University of Montana’s School of Law, a partner with the Consensus Building Institute in Cambridge, and a faculty associate of the Lincoln Institute. Matt was a research fellow at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, in 2000 and 2002, and a visiting fellow of the Lincoln Institute in 2000. During the past 18 years, he has designed and facilitated more than 50 multiparty public processes, helping leaders and citizens address issues related to federal land management, land use planning, growth management, water policy, fish and wildlife, and public health and human services. He has published numerous journal articles and is coauthor of The Western Confluence: Governing Natural Resources (Island Press, June 2004).

Land Lines: You have a strong background in facilitation and consensus building. How do you apply that to land use planning?

Matt McKinney: I come to planning largely from a process perspective. Land use issues typically involve multiple parties, and the challenge of planning is to integrate diverse, often conflicting, interests. In my current work with the Public Policy Research Institute I operate on the assumption that one of the most effective ways to develop and implement strategies to sustain livable communities and healthy landscapes is to create opportunities for stakeholders to come together with the best available information to address issues of common concern. In short, the planning process is most effective when it is inclusive, informed and deliberative:

• Inclusive participation means that a concerted effort is made to engage all viewpoints and interests, and participants’ input and advice will be considered by the decision makers and will influence the outcome.
• An informed process offers an equal opportunity to share views and information, fostering mutual learning, common understanding and consideration of a variety of options.
• A deliberative dialogue occurs when people listen to each other, consider the rationale or reason for competing viewpoints (the interests that underlie the positions), and seek solutions that integrate as many interests as possible.

This principled approach has been shown through experience to produce decisions that are broadly supported by the public, and it eases implementation because the key stakeholders have already played their part in shaping the proposed action or plan. Compared to lobbying, litigation and other ways of shaping public policy, it can save time and money. Last—and important for planners—this approach offers an effective way to integrate social and political values within the scientific, technical and legal framework of land use planning. It’s a more cooperative and constructive way for planners and public interests to work together.

LL: Can you give some examples of how these principles work in the real world?

MM: In the northern Rocky Mountains, many communities with limited staff, money and other resources are struggling with double-digit growth, strains on local infrastructure and cultural clashes between newcomers and those with traditional western values. But westerners are infamous for resisting government intrusion—a predictable backlash in a region where the federal government holds sway over more than half of the land base. As a result planners often face a steep climb just to gain the public’s ear on land use issues.

These situations are ripe for inclusive, informed and deliberative approaches, and there are many examples across the West. In Helena, Montana, we helped a broad-based citizens group—including open space advocates, neighborhood leaders, realtors and developers—negotiate new procedures for subdivision reviews. Developers wanted to streamline the subdivision application process, and residents of established neighborhoods wanted to ensure that safeguards remained in place to preserve the small-town feel and curb sprawl. In another case, residents of Jefferson County, Montana, started talking about zoning after a cement plant near an elementary school proposed burning hazardous waste as fuel. The “z” word caused some resistance from local business and industry, notably the cement plant and a nearby mining operation, but we brought in a facilitator who helped a working group of local residents, industry representatives, private property rights advocates and county officials develop a zoning plan.

In both cases, negotiations took the form of deliberative dialogue that lasted about a year. Both groups used joint fact-finding to gather information that was credible to all parties at the table. Then they crafted proposals and submitted them to formal decision-making arenas—city council and county commission, respectively. After careful review, both the new subdivision protocols and the zoning plan were adopted essentially unopposed.

LL: What role do planners play in such processes?

MM: We frequently recommend using an impartial, third-party facilitator to help build trust and more effective working relationships among the stakeholders. A facilitator can also keep the group on task and focused on a common goal. In some cases planners can play this role themselves, but more often they act as conveners or sponsors of a multiparty process, or as vested stakeholders and hands-on participants. Either way, planners can participate more effectively if they have a working knowledge of the principles and strategies of collaborative problem solving.

LL: How can planners obtain this kind of training?

MM: Since 1999 the Lincoln Institute and the Consensus Building Institute have cosponsored a two-day introductory course, Mediating Land Use Disputes, for planning practitioners and others interested in land use decisions. It presents practical insights into negotiating and mediating conflicts over land use and community development. Using interactive exercises, games and simulations, participants receive hands-on experience with collaborative problem solving and public participation. They learn how to dovetail these concepts with existing processes for designing and adopting land use plans and evaluating development proposals. In addition, we are reaching out to 100 planners across 10 western states to enroll in the Planning Fundamentals course offered online through LEO, the Lincoln Education Online program.

LL: What other planning-related programs do you teach?

MM: Again with the Lincoln Institute, I have been involved in a relatively new and much-needed program for state planning directors in 13 western states, modeled on a similar program in the Northeast. These seminars provide a forum for leaders within state government to compare their experiences, learn from each others’ successes and failures, and build a common base of practical knowledge that will serve them in their individual efforts and in the region generally. The intent is not to promote any particular approach to planning and growth, but to explore a range of strategies to respond to growth and land use challenges in the West. The level of interest goes well beyond the planning officials themselves, as evidenced by the list of cosponsors: the Council of State Governments-WEST (an association of state legislators), the Western Governors Association, the Western Municipal Conference and Western Planners Resources.

LL: Is regionalism in the West a new emphasis in your work?

MM: Land use issues often transcend political and jurisdictional boundaries. Coping with sprawl, water and air quality, economic development and the effects of globalization demands practical, local solutions that also work within the bigger picture. Research indicates that many land use issues are most efficiently addressed at a regional scale. Instead of stopping at the county line or the border between federal and private land, planners are now thinking in terms of the “problemshed” or the “natural territory” of the problem.

More and more regional initiatives are being designed to address transboundary matters. Some augment existing government institutions, but most are more ad hoc and rely on the principles of collaboration to engage people with diverse interests and viewpoints. When we inventoried such initiatives throughout the West, we were as surprised as anyone by the sheer number and variety of ongoing regional efforts. They range from ad hoc, community-based groups like the Applegate Partnership in the Siskiyou Mountains of southwestern Oregon, which seeks to promote and sustain the ecological health of land within its watershed, to substantial government entities with regulatory authority like the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (McKinney, Fitch and Harmon 2002).

LL: How do you transfer this work to other regions?

MM: Recently I have worked with the Lincoln Institute to conduct clinics on regional collaboration for several interstate efforts in the New Jersey-New York area, including a watershed management plan for the Delaware River Basin Commission.

Another project is a collaborative effort among local, state and federal agencies in the New York-New Jersey Highlands, the 1.5-million-acre region between the Delaware and lower Connecticut rivers. State and federal land managers are assessing changes in land cover and use, identifying significant natural areas for protection, and developing strategies to protect the 12-county region’s open space and natural resources.

In addition, we have designed a two-day course titled Regional Collaboration: Learning to Think and Act Like a Region. It provides a conceptual framework and practical skills to train planners, local elected officials, small business owners, advocates and educators to initiate, design, coordinate and sustain regional initiatives. With the involvement of several national and regional organizations, the Institute cosponsored the first course in spring 2003 in Salt Lake City and offered it again in March 2004 at Lincoln House in Cambridge.

Reference

McKinney, Matthew, Craig Fitch, and Will Harmon. 2002. Regionalism in the West: An inventory and assessment. Public Land and Resources Law Review 23:101–191.

The inventory is also available online at www.crmw.org/Assets/misc/regionalinventory.asp and www.crmw.org/Assets/misc/regarticle.htm

Related Articles

Carbonell, Armando, and Lisa Cloutier. 2003. Planning for growth in western cities. Land Lines 15(3):8–11.

McKinney, Matthew. 2003. Linking growth and land use to water supply. Land Lines 15(2):4–6.

McKinney, Matthew, and Will Harmon. 2002. Land use planning and growth management in the American West. Land Lines 14(1):1–4.