Julie Campoli, a landscape architect, land planner and principal of Terra Firma Urban Design in Burlington, Vermont, and Alex MacLean, a photographer, trained architect and principal of Landslides Aerial Photography in Cambridge, Massachusetts, have worked collaboratively for more than two years to research and document the phenomenon of residential density. They have developed a catalog of more than 300 aerial photographs that illustrate a wide range of density in both established and newer neighborhoods around the country. The Lincoln Institute has supported their work, which has been presented through lectures and courses and is available as a digital working paper titled “Visualizing Density” on the Institute’s website.

How did you join forces to begin this work on photographing and measuring density as a visualization tool for community planning?

We both have a longstanding interest in using visual images to illuminate land use issues. For years Alex has recorded human imprints on the land quite eloquently through his aerial photography. I am constantly experimenting with graphic techniques to communicate design ideas and to express how we shape the built environment. In our first collaboration, Above and Beyond (written with planner Elizabeth Humstone, APA Planners Press, 2001), we employed aerial photographs, many of which were digitally enhanced, to show how and why landscapes change over time. Our intent was to help readers understand the land development process by representing it in a very graphic way.

As we completed that book, we could see that fear of density was emerging as a major obstacle to the type of compact, infill development we were advocating. It became apparent to us that, although people liked the idea of channeling growth into existing areas, they seemed to balk at the reality. We saw many instances where developers trying to build higher-density housing met stiff resistance from a public who equated density with overcrowding. In many communities density is allowed and often encouraged at the policy level, but it is rejected at the implementation stage, mainly because the public has trouble accepting the high numbers associated with dense development.

We became interested in this ambivalent attitude and wanted to look more closely at those density numbers. It seemed to us that a preoccupation with numbers and a lack of visual information was at the heart of the density problem. We thought that some of the graphic approaches we used in Above and Beyond might help people understand the visual aspects of the density issue. We wanted to translate the numbers that were associated with various density levels into mental images, specifically to show what the density numbers mean in terms of real living places.

Why is density such a difficult concept to understand and visualize?

Anything is difficult to visualize if you have only a few pieces of information from which to conjure your mental image. Density is most often represented as a mathematical ratio. It is the number of units divided by the number of acres, or the gross floor area of a building divided by the size of its site. These measurements describe a place as a numerical relationship, which only takes you so far in being able to imagine it. Such information fails to convey the “look and feel” of density and often creates confusion in the community planning process.

An individual’s response to the issue of density often depends on past experience and the images that happen to be part of one’s visual memory. Someone might associate higher-density numbers with an image of Boston’s historic Beacon Hill neighborhood or central Savannah, but high-density development is more frequently imagined as something negative. This is the gap between density as it is measured and density as it is perceived. One is a rational process. The other is not.

What does your density catalog illustrate?

The catalog contains aerial photographs of neighborhoods in several regions of the country. They are arranged according to density level, ranging from exurban houses on 2-acre lots to urban high-rise apartments at 96 units per acre. Each site is photographed from a series of viewpoints to show its layout, details and context. The catalog can be used to compare different neighborhoods at the same density or to see how the design and arrangement of buildings changes as density levels rise. We included a wide array of street patterns, building types and open spaces, demonstrating how the manipulation of these components can create endless variations on neighborhood form.

What becomes apparent to anyone looking at the catalog is that there are many ways to shape density, and some are more appealing than others. We don’t try to suggest which images are “good” or which are “bad”; we let the viewer draw his or her own conclusions. Our hope is that after viewing the catalog people will not only have a clearer idea of what 5 units or 20 units per acre looks like, but, more important, they will be able to imagine attractive, higher-density neighborhoods for their own communities.

How do you measure density?

In the first phase of our project we focused on residential density as measured in units per acre. Using the 2000 U.S. Census, it is possible to find the number of housing units for any census block in the nation. We photographed neighborhoods across the country and calculated the number of units per acre for each site by determining the number of units from the census data and then dividing by the acreage.

Units-per-acre is a measurement commonly used in local zoning and in the review of development projects. It is familiar and understandable to the average person dealing with local density issues and provides a relatively accurate measure for primarily residential neighborhoods. In calculating the density of mixed-use or commercial sites, floor area ratio is a more precise measurement. We plan to extend our analysis to mixed and other uses with this measurement in the next phase of our work, to see how various design approaches can accommodate higher densities.

What is the connection between density and design

Design plays a profound role in the success of compact development. Although it seems that the smart growth movement is confronting a density problem, it’s really more of a design challenge. It is not density but design that determines the physical character and quality of a place. This was made clear to us when we found examples of existing neighborhoods with widely varying character yet the same density. One area might have a sense of spaciousness and privacy, while another appears cramped. Different design approaches can dramatically affect one’s perception of density. This defies the commonly held belief that fitting more people into a smaller area inevitably results in a less appealing living environment. Higher densities, especially on infill sites, pose a greater challenge to designers, but they do not dictate a certain type of form or character.

As we measured the density of existing neighborhoods and assembled the catalog, we began to see specifically how design accommodates density. The most appealing neighborhoods had a coherent structure, well-defined spaces and carefully articulated buildings. They were the kinds of places that offered a lot of variety in a small area. If planners and developers want to promote density, it is essential to identify the amenities that make a neighborhood desirable and to replicate them wherever possible. Interconnected neighborhoods with high-quality public, private and green spaces, and a diversity of building types and styles, will win more supporters in the permit process and buyers in the real estate market than those neighborhoods without such amenities.

How can planners, developers and community residents use the catalog to achieve the principles of smart growth in their local decision making to design new neighborhoods?

The catalog can be used as a tool to refocus the density discussion away from numerical measurements and onto design issues. In our workshops we ask participants to examine several photographs from the catalog showing nine neighborhoods that have a similar density but very different layouts. In articulating their impressions of the places they see, what they like and why, they are forced to think about how the design—the pattern of streets, the architecture or the presence of greenery—affects the quality of the place.

In a town planning process, if residents participate in a similar exercise, they will take the first steps toward a community vision for compact neighborhoods. They can see that the same design principles behind those preferred places can be used to create appealing dense neighborhoods in their own communities. Once they develop a vision for what they want, they can use the planning and regulatory process to guide development in that direction.

Developers of urban infill housing often find themselves on the defensive in the permit process, arguing that density does not necessarily equal crowding. The catalog provides images that can help bolster their case. More importantly, it offers developers, architects and landscape architects visual information on historic and contemporary models of compact development. They can use the photographs to inform their design process, instilling features of the best neighborhoods into their own projects.

What are some of your conclusions about why understanding density is so important to the planning process?

Density is absolutely essential to building strong communities and preventing sprawl. It’s also a growing reality in the real estate market. Instead of denying it or barely tolerating it, we can embrace density. The trick is to shape it in a way that supports community goals of urban vitality and provides people with high-quality living places. At this point though, we seem to be a long way from embracing density. It may be a deep cultural bias or simply that many Americans are unfamiliar the benefits of density, such as more choices and convenience to urban amenities. And in many cases, they have not been shown that neighborhoods of multifamily homes, apartments and houses on small lots can be beautiful and highly valued. We hope that our residential density project and the digital catalog can provide some material to fill the void.

Julie Campoli is principal of Terra Firma Urban Design in Burlington, Vermont, and Alex MacLean is principal of Landslides Aerial Photography in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Urban land management policies and land market operations have taken on greater status in the debate on urban public policy in Latin America, and they are given increased attention in academic research and the development agendas of many countries in the region. Over the past 10 years the Lincoln Institute’s Program on Latin America and the Caribbean has supported a network of Latin American scholars and practitioners who have developed seminars, promoted research, organized public debates, consulted with decision makers and published their findings on these timely issues. Members of this network met at a conference in Buenos Aires in April 2004 to assess their activities and prepare this summary declaration of core land policy issues crucial to the search for more sustainable urban development programs in the future.

Urban land policy in Latin America and the ways that land markets operate tend to produce cities that are economically unequal, politically and socially exclusionary, spatially segregated and environmentally unsustainable. The consequences of these policies can be seen in the high and often irrational prices for land, due in part to the absence of effective urban land management practices.

The Current Situation

Land markets are structurally imperfect. However, the functioning of urban land markets depends on social relations, just as the outcomes of land market operations affect those relations, making it both possible and necessary to influence the markets. Instead of removing the imperfections, many instruments and policies have in fact helped to distort urban land market operations even further. Moreover, many established policies have kept the “rules of the game” in urban real estate unchanged, and apparently untouchable.

A more comprehensive reading of the problem reveals that, rather than being the result of inconsistent rationalization, the current dysfunctional land market is the result of missed opportunities for socially sustainable development in Latin American cities. Yet there are promising and innovative alternatives that can overcome the existing bottlenecks evident in inadequate and destructive national government policies, the enduring difficulties in financing urban development, and poor management practices.

One of the most glaring negative outcomes of the current situation is the relative persistence, weight and importance of informal urban land markets dominated by many exclusionary practices, illegal titling, lack of urban services, and other problems. Deregulation in places that should be regulated (poor outlying areas on the urban fringe), overregulation of wealthy regulated areas, and privatization policies that disregard social criteria are factors that help to drive these negative processes, particularly the spatial concentration of the urban poor. Although the majority of regularization programs are well-intended, they instead cause perverse effects, including increased land costs for the poorest sectors.

Traditional urban planning processes and urban standards have lost importance and effectiveness as instruments for guiding urban development, especially the existing mechanisms for land management. Yet this situation offers opportunities to think about innovative ways to deal with land management and urban planning strategies. This opportunity has already been seized in some places, where new experiments and proposals are causing intense debates by questioning the predominant traditional approaches.

Creating new practices within this framework requires making one unavoidable step: rethinking urban land taxation by incorporating new methods and keeping an open mind regarding alternative fiscal instruments that must be intended as tools to redirect current urban development and discipline the operation of the urban land market. These new tools should not only collect funds in order to build infrastructure and provide urban services, but also contribute to a more equitable distribution of benefits and costs, especially those associated with the urbanization process and the return of recovered land value increments to the community.

Proposals for Action

Recognize the indispensable role of the government. It is critical that the government (from local to national levels) maintains an active role in promoting urban development. The local level should be more committed to structural changes in land management, while the national level should actively foster such local initiatives. Government must not ignore its responsibility to adopt urban land market policies that recognize the strategic value of land and the specific characteristics of how land markets operate, in order to promote the sustainable use of the land by incorporating both social and environmental objectives and benefiting the most vulnerable segments of the urban population.

Break the compartmentalization of fiscal, regulatory and legal authorities. Lack of cooperation among local authorities is responsible for major inefficiencies, ineffective policies, waste of scarce resources and inadequate public accountability. Furthermore, incongruent actions by different public authorities send misleading signals to private agents and create uncertainties if not opportunities for special interests to subvert government plans. The complexity and scale of the challenges posed by the urban social reality of Latin American cities require multilateral actions by numerous stakeholders to influence the operation of urban land markets (both formal and informal), thus insuring the achievement of joint objectives: promoting sustainable and fair use of land resources; reducing land prices; producing serviced land; recognizing the rights to land by the urban poor; and sharing the costs and benefits of urban investment more evenly.

These authorities must also coordinate urban development policies with land taxation policies. They should promote a new urban vision with legislation that recognizes the separation of building rights from land ownership rights, with the understanding that land value increments generated from building rights do not belong exclusively to landowners. Urban managers must also devise creative mechanisms whereby these land value increments may be mobilized or used to produce serviced land for low-income social sectors, thereby offsetting urban inequalities.

Recognize the limits of what is possible. Transforming the current regulatory framework that governs the use of urban land requires new legal and urbanistic thinking that recognizes that inequalities and socio-spatial exclusion are intrinsic to the predominant urban development model. Even within the current model there is substantial room for more socially responsible policies and government accountability. Urban regulations should consider the complexity of land appreciation processes and enforce effective traditional principles such as those that restrain the capacity of government agencies to dispose of public resources or proscribe the “unjustified enrichment” of private landowners.

Break vicious cycles. Alternatives to existing regularization programs are needed to break the vicious cycle of poverty that current programs help to perpetuate. It is important to recognize that these programs are only a stopgap measure and that urbanization, housing and land taxation policies must also be integrated into the process. Reliance on housing subsidy policies, although inevitable, can be nullified if there are no mechanisms to prevent these subsidies from being translated into an increase in land prices. City officials should give priority to the creation of more serviced land rather than new regularization programs, since the right to a home is a social right to occupy a viable “habitat” with dignity. It is also important to understand that the low production of serviced land per se contributes to withholding the supply and, therefore, to higher prices affecting all aspects of urban development.

Furthermore, individual solutions (such as plot-by-plot titling processes or case-by-case direct subsidies to individual families) ultimately result in more costs for society as a whole than broader, collective solutions that incorporate other aggregate values such as public spaces, infrastructure investment and other mechanisms to strengthen social integration. Many Latin American countries have witnessed subsidized housing programs, often supported by multilateral agencies, where the land component is overlooked or dismissed. Such programs seek readily available public land or simply occupy land in intersticial areas of the city. This disregard of a broader land policy compromises the replicability, expansion and sustainability of these housing programs on a larger scale.

Rethink the roles of public and private institutions. Land management within a wide range of urban actions, from large-scale production of serviced land for the poor to urban redevelopment through large projects, including facelift-type actions or environmental recovery projects, requires new thinking about how public institutions responsible for urban development can intervene through different types of public-private associations. Redeveloping vacant land and introducing more flexibility in the uses and levels of occupancy can play a crucial role here, provided such projects fall under the strategic guidelines of public institutions, are subject to monitoring by citizens, and incorporate a broadly shared and participatory vision of urban development.

Showcase projects such as El Urbanizador Social (The Social Urbanizer) in Porto Alegre, Brazil, the Nuevo Usme housing project in Bogotá, Colombia, and that country’s value capture legislation are examples of sensible and creative efforts that recognize the importance of adequate urban land management and new thinking on the role of land, particularly the potential of land value as an instrument for promoting more sustainable and equitable development for the poor in our cities. Creative and balanced new thinking is also exemplified by the joint ventures of public land and private capital in Havana, Cuba, with value increments captured for upgrading densely populated historic areas.

Empower the role of land taxation in public finance to promote urban development. National, state or provincial and local governments must share responsibility for promoting property taxation as an adequate and socially meaningful method of financing and fostering urban development. The property tax should be sensitive and responsive to Latin American cities that have a strong legacy of marked economic and socio-spatial differences. There may be good reasons to tax land at a higher rate than buildings, in a rational and differentiated manner, especially in outlying areas subject to urban speculation and lands offered ex ante to low-income sectors of society (making certain that paying the tax also helps to build citizenship in these sectors). As already noted, it is also critical to create innovative fiscal instruments appropriate to special situations and other methods for capturing the value generated.

Educate stakeholders in the promotion of new policies. All actors involved in these processes, from judges to journalists, from academics to public officials and their international mentors, need in-depth training and education in the operation of land markets and urban land management in order to achieve the above objectives. We must identify the “fields of mental resistance,” particularly in urban and economic thinking and in the legal doctrines that represent the obstacles to be overcome. We must recognize, for example, that an “informal right” exists and operates in many areas to legitimize land transactions socially, if not legally, and to create networks and spaces of solidarity and integration. It is urgent that we take steps to introduce these themes and proposals into political agendas at the various government levels, in political parties, social organizations, academia and the mass media.

Latin American Network

Pedro Abramo, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil

Oscar Borrero, Bogotá, Colombia

Gonzalo Cáceres, Santiago, Chile

Julio Calderón, Lima, Perú

Nora Clichevsky, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Claudia De Cesare, Porto Alegre, Brasil

Matilde de los Santos, Montevideo, Uruguay

Diego Erba, São Leopoldo, Brasil

Edésio Fernandes, London, England

Ana Raquel Flores, Asunción, Paraguay

Fernanda Furtado, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil

Alfredo Garay, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Silvia García Vettorazzi, Guatemala City, Guatemala

Ana Maria González del Valle, Lima, Perú

Samuel Jaramillo, Bogotá, ColombiaCarmen Ledo, Cochabamba, Bolivia

Mario Lungo, San Salvador, El Salvador

María Mercedes Maldonado, Bogotá, Colombia

Carlos Morales Schechinger, Mexico City, Mexico

Laura Mullahy, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USARicardo Núñez, Havana, Cuba

Sonia Rabello de Castro, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil

Eduardo Reese, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Francisco Sabatini, Santiago, Chile

Martim Smolka, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA

Alvaro Uribe, Panama City, Panama

Ricardo Vanella, Córdoba, Argentina

Maria Clara Vejarano, Bogotá, Colombia

Isabel Viana, Montevideo, Uruguay

Post-apartheid South Africa is an experiment the like of which the world has never seen before,says Myesha Jenkins, performance poet from Los Angeles who emigrated in 1993, the year before Nelson Mandella became president. “We want this experiment to work.” Taxi-driver Vincent from the northern province of Limpopo, speaking of the elections that will take place later in 2007, says, “We must do it right. The eyes of the world are on us.”

In Latin American cities, especially in the larger ones, location is critical for vulnerable groups. In Buenos Aires, the population of shantytowns in the central area doubled in the last inter-census period (1991–2001), even though total population declined by approximately 8 percent. In Rio de Janeiro during the same decade, the fastest growing informal settlements were those considered to be in the best locations, generally near the beach in middle- and upper-income neighborhoods, although they were already the most crowded and congested slums.

Limited access to land is a substantial hindrance to economic development in many transition economies. Additionally, when the ability to gain appropriate permits to use the land is subject to delays, bribes, or corruption, the efficiency of the land allocation mechanism is compromised and overall economic growth is constrained.

In this article I summarize findings from empirical models of land access, permit activity, time costs, and corruption, using both country and firm characteristics as explanatory variables. Data come from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD)–World Bank Business Environment and Enterprise Performance Survey (BEEPS 2009) for business enterprises in transition economies of Europe and Central Asia, supplemented with country-specific economic measures and EBRD indices of reform. Results indicate that limited access to land and difficulty in obtaining permits are substantial impediments to economic development, and these conditions clearly create an environment in which bribery flourishes.

Land Markets in Transition Economies

The context of this study is analysis of firm-level performance in transition economies where access to land has been subject to varying types of land privatization regimes in the past 20 years since independence. Stanfield (1999, 1–2) provides a helpful strategy for thinking about how land markets have been created in such economies, recognizing that “Markets in land linked to markets in capital and labor are central to market economies.”

Indeed, land market liberalization must be linked to liberalization of capital and labor markets simultaneously if transition countries are to advance their economies. Stanfield also suggests that many existing institutions of land administration must make radical changes to support the privatization of land rights. Defining and enforcing property rights and providing transparent and efficient land registration mechanisms free of bribery and corruption are essential to supporting economic development (Estrin et al. 2009).

Boycko, Schleifer, and Vishny (1995) suggest two ways that access to land and real estate is critical to restructuring a transition economy and promoting economic development in general. First, land and buildings are complementary to plants and equipment, which typically have already been privatized in these countries. Until land and buildings are also privatized, control of these productive assets continues to be held jointly by local politicians and managers, leading to an inefficient ownership structure. Second, privatization of land and real estate provides firms with a source of capital for restructuring their business investments. For example, a former state-owned enterprise that has surplus land and buildings can sell those assets to raise funds for other investments. However, Boycko, Schleifer, and Vishny (1995, 136) conclude, “Because it serves local governments so well, politicization of urban land and real estate persists, and slows down the restructuring of old firms and the creation of new ones.”

Deininger (2003) makes the case that well-functioning land markets foster general economic development, citing four key tenets. First, in many developing economies the distribution of land ownership prevents operational efficiency. If land ownership cannot be transferred easily, or if land use is not separable from land ownership, then there may be a mismatch between the owners and the most efficient land users. If land markets are allowed to transfer land use from less productive to more productive uses, then overall economic efficiency is enhanced. Second, transferable land use rights can allow rural residents to move into the nonagricultural sector of the economy, which can help boost the output of that sector and the overall economy. Third, by making land use rights transferable the ownership and use of land can be separated, facilitating more efficient land use. Fourth, a well-developed land market allows land transfers to occur with low transaction costs, which frees up credit in the economy.

Economic Consequences of Limited Access to Land

Firms use a combination of land, labor, and capital inputs to produce a given quantity of output. Consider a situation where the first input is land, for which the firm faces a constraint on the quantity available, but the other two inputs are freely available in any quantity needed. In a competitive market, a profit-maximizing firm uses additional units of any freely available input until the value of the additional product derived from the last unit of the input used equals its market price. In this case, however, if the available land is constrained, the firm would purchase a less than optimal amount. Consequently, the firm would not achieve an optimal input combination, leading to an inefficient allocation of resources.

Even if the quantity of land is not constrained, obstacles to obtaining building, construction, or use permits may impede the conduct of business. In such circumstances, the amount of land may be accessible, but the permitting process increases its effective price. Once again, the firm is forced to operate inefficiently.

In either situation one could ask, “What would the firm be willing to pay in order to be able to operate most efficiently?” Clearly, the land constraint or permit restriction imposes a cost on the firm and reduces its efficiency, and the firm presumably would be willing to pay a bribe to a government official to gain access to additional land or obtain a permit to use the available land. Hence, limited access to land and permits can encourage informal payments or bribes. Carlin, Schaffer, and Seabright (2007) have suggested that managers’ responses to survey questions regarding the business environment in which they operate and the constraints they face can measure the hidden implicit cost of those constraints.

Country and Firm Data and Survey Results

The primary data for this study are 15 country-specific characteristics from various sources and 13 firm characteristics from the 2009 round of the EBRD-World Bank BEEPS, which is conducted every three years. The survey covers a broad range of topics related to the business environment and performance of firms as well as questions on business-government relations. A total of 11,999 business enterprises in 30 transition economies of Europe and Central Asia are represented. These data have been used extensively in the transition and development literatures, most recently in Commander and Svenjar (2011). Table 1 lists the country and firm characteristics and indicates their effects on five aspects of economic development.

Access to Land as an Obstacle to Economic Development

The BEEPS questionnaire asks firms about a number of potential obstacles to efficient operation, including access to land. A key question asks, “Is access to land No Obstacle, a Minor Obstacle, a Moderate Obstacle, a Major Obstacle, or a Very Severe Obstacle to the current operations of this establishment?” Survey respondents may also respond “Do not know” or “Does not apply.” Overall, 43 percent of the firms surveyed reported land access as an obstacle to some extent. There is wide variation in firm responses across the countries in the sample, however, with the share of firms reporting land access as an obstacle ranging from a low of 6 percent in Hungary to a high of 62 percent in Kosovo (figure 1).

Nine of the 15 possible country-specific explanatory variables have a statistically discernable effect on the likelihood that a firm will report land access as an obstacle (table 1, column 1). Firms were more likely to report land access obstacles in CIS countries (Commonwealth of Independent States, or former Soviet republics) and in faster growing countries. The CIS effect is particularly important, with firms in those countries approximately 28 percent more likely to report land access obstacles than comparable firms in non-CIS transition countries. In countries with a high VAT rate, firms were less likely to report access to land as an obstacle.

Among the EBRD indices of reform listed in table 1, the mixed likelihood of increases and decreases on these measures may indicate that uneven reforms across sectors of the economy can have opposing effects on firms’ experiences. If land privatization and policies providing land access are not moving in tandem with financial market reforms and broader privatization reforms, such a pattern of mixed signs may emerge.

Firm characteristics associated with a greater likelihood of land access obstacles include competition against unregistered or informal firms, subsidization of the firm by the government, the number of employees, and limited partnership legal status. Of particular note are the firms that report they compete against informal market firms and those that are subsidized by the government. These two characteristics increase the reported probability of land access obstacles by 8 and 6 percent, respectively.

Presumably, state-subsidized firms also report that they compete against unregistered or informal market firms, so the combined increase in probability may be approximately 14 percent. On the other hand, characteristics associated with lower probabilities of reporting land access as an obstacle include operating in the manufacturing sector or having a more experienced manager.

Beyond merely stating that land access is an obstacle, firms were asked to report on the severity of the obstacle (figure 2). On a scale from zero to 4 (with zero indicating no obstacle and 4 indicating a very severe obstacle), the overall mean for the 5,206 firms responding to this question is 2.47. When we correct for sample selection bias, we take into account that firms reporting land access as an obstacle may be systematically different from those not reporting an obstacle. Country and firm characteristics with statistically significant positive and negative effects of severity are shown in table 1, column 2.

The BEEPS also includes a way for the interviewer to respond to concerns about truthfulness in the survey responses: “It is my perception that the responses to the questions regarding opinions and perceptions (were): Truthful, Somewhat truthful, Not truthful.” Interviewer suspicions are associated with a greater likelihood of reporting land access as an obstacle (about a 3 percent greater probability). For example, among firms reporting land access as an obstacle, interviewer suspicions were associated with a significantly less intense reported obstacle. Apparently, suspicions are raised in the mind of the survey recorder when the firm representative is being overly optimistic relative to the recorder’s expectations.

Permit Seeking

In order to use the land to which it has access, a firm must be able to obtain relevant permits that can be crucial to the production process. By impeding land use, construction, or business occupancy permits, government officials may limit effective access to land. The BEEPS includes questions regarding the number of permits the firm obtained during the previous two years, the number of working days the staff spent on procedures related to obtaining those permits, formal and informal payments for permits, and waiting periods from application to receipt of permits. One question asks, “How many permits did this establishment obtain in the last two years?” Another asks, “How many working days were spent by all staff members on the procedures related to obtaining the permits applied for over the last two years?”

Responses to these questions are used in modeling both the number of permit applications and the related time costs (figures 3 and 4). About 34 percent of the businesses in the survey applied for permits, with a mean number of 3.9 applications, a mean number of 38.0 working days of effort, and a mean waiting time of 45.9 days. There is a very high variance among countries in the number of permits applied for, the days of effort expended, and the waiting time for permits.

The model of the number of permit applications reflects the interaction of supply and demand factors. A firm demands permits as it plans to develop its property while the government supplies permits according to its rules. Nine country characteristics have a significant effect on the number of permit applications requested, with four factors increasing the number and five factors decreasing it (table 1, column 3).

To understand time costs involved for firms seeking permits, the modeling approach involves a first-stage model to control for the selection bias that may exist with systematic differences between firms applying for permits and those that do not apply. The second-stage model results for permit time cost show that ten country-specific variables have statistically discernable effects—four factors increase staff time expended and six factors reduce staff time (table 1, column 4). Two firm-specific factors significantly increase days of effort, while six reduce the number of days of effort.

Bribes to Government Officials

The BEEPS also asks a question about informal payments to government officials: “Thinking about officials, would you say the following statement is always, usually, frequently, sometimes, seldom or never true?… It is common for firms in my line of business to have to pay some irregular ‘additional payments or gifts’ to get things done…” Responses are coded on a scale of 1 to 6, with 1 being never and 6 being always (figure 5). In a simple regression model of the frequency of bribes, ten country-specific explanatory variables and five firm-specific variables have statistically discernable effects (table 1, column 5).

Summary and Conclusions

Limited access to land and permits to use that land can contributes to economic inefficiency and corruption in transition countries. In this research I have estimated empirical models of firms reporting limited access to land and permits and instances of bribery as obstacles to economic development. Those models indicate that both country and firm characteristics affect land access, permit access and effort, and bribery.

At the country level, higher per capita GDP systematically reduces the likelihood of firms seeking permits, the number of permits, and the time cost to obtain them. That implies that more developed economies require fewer permits and present lower permit obstacles, thereby reducing costs. Furthermore, the higher the GDP growth rate the greater the likelihood that firms experience limited access to land and the need to apply for permits, as well as the likelihood that firms are asked to pay bribes. This may indicate bottlenecks in the development process as firms in CIS countries are much more likely to report that access to land is an obstacle. They also are required to apply for more permits, and they incur much larger time costs related to permit applications.

Higher corporate tax rates do not affect access to land or permits, but do increase the likelihood of being asked to pay bribes. Firms in more highly privatized economies report fewer problems with access to land and fewer permits needed, but more problems related to bribery. Indices of privatization and reform are often significant, but have both positive and negative impacts. This may reflect uneven reform processes in which liberalization in one sector of the economy does not have full impact due to constraints in other sectors.

Firms competing against others that are unregistered or operate in the informal market are more likely to report limited access to land, more likely to seek permits and incur time costs related to permits, and more likely to be asked to pay bribes. Firms subsidized by the government or those with larger numbers of employees also are more likely to report limited access to land, seek more permits, and incur larger permit time costs.

The primary lesson to be learned from this research is that limited access to land is a serious obstacle to economic development in transition countries. Furthermore, the ability to obtain permits to effectively use that land is crucial. Limited access to land and permits not only hinders economic development, but also contributes to a culture of bribery and corruption. Countries wishing to speed their development process should therefore remove impediments to land access by fostering markets for land and land use rights, and should also remove unnecessary obstacles in the permit process. The result will be a more efficient use of land and a more dynamic economy.

About the Author

John E. Anderson is the Baird Family Professor of Economics in the College of Business Administration at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln. He has served as an advisor to public policy makers in the fields of public finance, fiscal reform, and tax policy in the United States and in transition economies.

References

Boycko, Maxim, Andrei Schleifer, and Robert Vishny. 1995. Privatizing Russia. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Business Environment and Enterprise Performance Survey. 2009. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/BEEPS

Carlin, Wendy, Mark E. Schaffer, and Paul Seabright. 2007. Where are the real bottlenecks? Evidence from 20,000 firms in 60 countries about the shadow costs of constraints to firm performance. Discussion Paper Number 3059. Bonn, Germany: Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).

Commander, Simon, and Jan Svenjar. 2011. Business environment, exports, ownership, and firm performance. The Review of Economics and Statistics 93: 309–337.

Deininger, Klaus. 2003. Land markets in developing and transition economies: Impact of liberalization and implications for future reform. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85: 1217–1222.

Estrin, Saul, Jan Hanousek, Evzen Kocenda, and Jan Svenjar. 2009. Effects of privatization and ownership in transition economies. Journal of Economic Literature 47: 699–728.

Stanfield, J. David. 1999. Creation of land markets in transition countries: Implications for the institutions sof land administration. Working Paper Number 29. Madison: University of Wisconsin Land Tenure Center.

Alan Mallach is a nonresident senior fellow at the Metropolitan Policy Program of the Brookings Institution and a senior fellow at the Center for Community Progress, both in Washington, DC; and a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia. He has been engaged as a practitioner, advocate, and scholar in the fields of housing, planning, and community development for nearly 40 years, during which time he has made contributions in many areas including affordable and mixed-income housing development, neighborhood revitalization, and urban regeneration. In 2003 he was named a member of the College of Fellows of the American Institute of Certified Planners in recognition of his lifetime achievements as a leader in the city planning profession.

Mallach is also a visiting professor in the graduate city planning program at Pratt Institute, in New York, and has taught at Rutgers University and the New Jersey School of Architecture. He has published numerous books and articles on housing, community development, and land use; his book Bringing Buildings Back: From Abandoned Properties to Community Assets is recognized as the standard work on the subject. His most recent book, Rebuilding America’s Legacy Cities: New Directions for the Industrial Heartland, was published in 2012 by the American Assembly at Columbia University. He is a resident of Roosevelt, New Jersey, and holds a B.A. degree from Yale College.

Land Lines: How did you become involved with the Lincoln Institute?

Alan Mallach: I have known about the Lincoln Institute for many years, and initially became involved in the 1990s through my work on brownfields redevelopment. Since then, I have served as faculty in a number of training sessions sponsored by the Institute and participated in meetings and conferences at Lincoln House. About seven years ago, Nico Calavita, professor emeritus in the Graduate Program in City Planning at San Diego State University, and I undertook research on inclusionary housing. This project led to the Institute’s 2010 publication of our co-edited book, Inclusionary Housing in International Perspective: Affordable Housing, Social Inclusion, and Land Value Recapture. Most recently, I have been working with Lavea Brachman, executive director of the Greater Ohio Policy Center, on a policy focus report that looks at the issues associated with regenerating America’s legacy cities.

Land Lines: What do you mean by legacy cities?

Alan Mallach: “Legacy cities” is a term that has come into use increasingly to replace “shrinking cities” as a way to describe the nation’s older industrial cities that have lost a significant share of their population and jobs over the past 50 or more years. Iconic American cities such as Pittsburgh, Detroit, and Cleveland are typically mentioned in this context, but the category also includes many smaller cities like Flint, Michigan; Utica, New York; and Scranton, Pennsylvania.

Land Lines: How do the issues of legacy cities engage the Lincoln Institute’s central policy concerns?

Alan Mallach: They do so in many different respects, but I think the strongest connection is around the question of how land is to be used in these cities. All of these cities have had a significant oversupply of both residential and nonresidential buildings relative to demand, at least since the 1960s. As a result of extensive demolition over decades, they have accumulated large inventories of vacant or underutilized land. Detroit alone contains over 100,000 separate vacant land parcels and another 40,000 to 50,000 vacant buildings. While this inventory is a burden, it could also become an enormous asset for the city’s future. How to develop effective strategies to use this land in ways that both benefit the public and stimulate economic growth and market demand is one of the central issues facing these legacy cities.

Land Lines: How would you compare this challenge to your work on inclusionary housing?

Alan Mallach: From an economic standpoint, it’s the other side of the coin. Inclusionary housing is a way of using the planning approval process to channel strong market demand in ways that create public benefit in the form of affordable housing—either directly, by incorporating some number of affordable housing units into the development gaining the approval, or indirectly, through off-site development or cash contributions by the developer. As such, it involves explicitly or implicitly recapturing the incremental land value being created by the planning approval process. Inclusionary housing presupposes the presence of strong market demand and cannot happen without it.

Land reuse strategies in legacy cities seek to create demand where it doesn’t currently exist or alternatively find ways to use the land that benefit the public and can be implemented even under conditions where market demand cannot be induced, at least for the foreseeable future. These approaches are often called “green” land uses, such as urban agriculture, open space, wetlands restoration, or stormwater management. It can be difficult to get local officials and citizens to recognize that the traditional forms of redevelopment, including building new houses, shopping centers, and so forth, require the existence of a market for those products. However, the demand simply does not exist in many of these devastated areas. Moreover, the demand cannot be induced artificially by massive public subsidies, even though public funds can, under certain conditions, act as a stimulus to build demand.

Land Lines: Is lack of demand evident everywhere in legacy cities?

Alan Mallach: No, and that’s one of the most interesting things about these cities. Some cities are seeing demand grow far more than others, but in most cases the revitalization is limited to certain parts of the city. One noticeable trend is that downtown and near-downtown areas, particularly those with strong walkable urban character, such as the Washington Avenue corridor in St. Louis or Cleveland’s Warehouse District, are showing great dynamism, even while many other parts of those two cities are continuing to see population loss and housing abandonment.

Part of this dynamism is driven by walkability and strong urban form (see the new Lincoln Institute book by Julie Campoli, Made for Walking: Density and Neighborhood Form (2012), which examines 12 such walkable neighborhoods and the forces behind their recent popularity). A second important factor is that these areas appeal to a particular demographic—young single individuals and couples. This group is not only increasingly urbanoriented, but is growing in terms of its share of the overall American population.

Land Lines: What other issues are you exploring in your work on legacy cities?

Alan Mallach:I am focusing on two research areas, one more quantitative and one more qualitative. In the first area, I am looking at how many of these cities are going through a pronounced spatial and demographic reconfiguration—a process that is exacerbating the economic disparities between different geographic areas and populations within these cities. While many older city downtowns, such as those of St. Louis, Cleveland, Baltimore, and even Detroit, are becoming increasingly attractive, particularly to young adults, and are gaining population and economic activity, many other neighborhoods in these cities are losing ground at an increasing rate. In many places these trends are accentuating already problematic racial divides.

My second area of research revolves around the question of what it takes to foster successful, sustained regeneration. Lavea Brachman and I touch on this challenge in our policy focus report, but I am hoping to delve into it much more deeply, including looking at some European cities that have found themselves in situations similar to those of American legacy cities. I think the experiences of cities in northern England, for example, or Germany’s Ruhr Valley, parallel changes in our own former industrial cities quite closely.

Land Lines: What do you mean by successful regeneration?

Alan Mallach: That’s a very important question. I think there’s often a tendency to see a particular event—the Olympics in Barcelona or a major building like the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, Spain, for example—as evidence of regeneration, rather than, at best, a discrete spur to more substantial change. I believe that regeneration has to be a function of change in three fundamental areas: first, the well-being of the population, reflected in such measures as higher educational attainment and income or lower unemployment; second, a stronger housing market and greater neighborhood strength; and third, the creation of new export-oriented economic sectors to replace the lost industrial sector. Population growth alone (that is, reversal of historic population decline) may or may not be evidence of regeneration. It is more likely to follow these three changes rather than lead them.

Land Lines: What do you see as the future of America’s legacy cities?

Alan Mallach: I see a very mixed picture. As shown in the policy focus report, certain cities are doing far better than others. Pittsburgh and Philadelphia are showing strong signs of revival, while Cleveland, Detroit, and Buffalo are still losing ground. I think legacy cities are facing two daunting challenges as they look to the future.

The first issue is what the new economic engines of these cities will be. The cities that have been more successful up to now tend to have the most significant clusters of major national research universities and medical centers. These institutions tend to dominate their cities’ economies. While they have helped cities like Pittsburgh and Baltimore rebuild in the post-industrial era, I think a lot of questions remain about their sustainability as long-term economic engines.

The second question is demographic. Downtowns may be drawing young, single people and couples, but many of these cities’ residential neighborhoods were built around 100 years ago as communities mainly for married couples to raise children. Now they are falling apart, including many neighborhoods that have remained stable until relatively recently. This demographic of married couples with children is shrinking across the country and even more so in our older cities. Today, only 8 percent of the households in Baltimore, for example, fit this description. I believe that the future of these neighborhoods is very important to the future of their cities, and I am very concerned about their prospects.

Land Lines: In spite of these challenges, how do you think your work is making a difference?

Alan Mallach: The fact is, many cities are making progress. Pittsburgh has done an excellent job building on its assets to develop new economic engines, while Baltimore and Philadelphia are making impressive strides in reorganizing many of their governmental functions to better deal with their vacant and problem property challenges. Baltimore, for example, has initiated a program called Vacants to Value, which integrates code enforcement and problem property work with larger market-building strategies. I have been fortunate to be directly involved in this work in some cities, including Philadelphia and Detroit; elsewhere, I’m always gratified when local officials or community leaders tell me that they use my work, or that they have been influenced by my thinking. It makes all the effort very much worthwhile.

A pesar de la creciente popularidad de la agricultura urbana, muchas granjas urbanas siguen enfrentando el desafío de la inseguridad respecto de la posesión del suelo y de políticas públicas demasiado restrictivas. Algunos investigadores y responsables de diseñar políticas han identificado la necesidad de un marco actualizado para este movimiento que apoye a los granjeros urbanos en temas relacionados con las reglamentaciones sobre el uso del suelo, zonificación e impuestos a la propiedad. Los fideicomisos de suelo comunitarios (CLT, por sus siglas en inglés) se dedican a apoyar este tipo de estructura, ya que su abordaje del uso del suelo tiene que ver con ejercer un control a nivel local que fomente el activismo y la participación comunitaria, a la vez que responden a las condiciones del mercado y las necesidades de los barrios en constante evolución.

El estado de la agricultura urbana

El término “agricultura urbana” se refiere tanto a las actividades comerciales como no comerciales que se llevan a cabo dentro de un centro urbano o cerca del mismo con el fin de elaborar productos alimenticios o no para su utilización en un área urbana (Mougeot 2000). Aunque las granjas urbanas y las huertas comunitarias son, por lo general, la cara visible de la agricultura urbana, los espacios de cultivo a pequeña escala y los huertos que se encuentran en los jardines traseros de las casas también representan una parte significativa de la producción.

La agricultura urbana ha permitido a las comunidades obtener diferentes tipos de beneficios ambientales, económicos y sociales, tales como una mejor alimentación, una mayor seguridad en el abastecimiento de alimentos, la restauración ecológica, la creación de espacios abiertos y oportunidades de educación y capacitación en habilidades para el trabajo (Bellows, Brown y Smit 2004; Kaufman y Bailkey 2000; Smit, Ratta y Nasr 1996). Las granjas urbanas tienen además la capacidad única de unir diferentes tipos de poblaciones, generar un capital social y promover la atribución de responsabilidades mediante la construcción de la comunidad (Staeheli y otros 2002). En las ciudades tradicionales (es decir, aquellos antiguos centros industriales que han sufrido el impacto de la pérdida continua de empleo y población y los consiguientes cambios económicos, sociales y políticos), la agricultura urbana se ha utilizado en gran manera como una herramienta de desarrollo tanto provisional como permanente a fin de fortalecer la cohesión social y catalizar el progreso en barrios que carecen de inversión. El proceso de convertir lotes vacantes y abandonados en espacios para cultivo puede resultar una estrategia relativamente rápida y económica que produzca un gran impacto visible y mejore la seguridad pública.

A raíz de los mencionados beneficios en diversas áreas, la agricultura urbana ha gozado de un renacimiento como movimiento social. En los últimos años, algunas ciudades y municipios han actualizado sus políticas públicas con el fin de apoyar en mayor medida las prácticas agrícolas urbanas. No obstante, este movimiento presenta sus propios desafíos, tales como la preocupación en cuanto a la seguridad ambiental y la seguridad en la posesión del suelo (Brown y otros 2002). En particular, la inseguridad en cuanto al suelo es el motivo de preocupación más citado como el mayor obstáculo para la implementación y sustentabilidad de las granjas urbanas (Lawson 2004; Yuen 2012). Según una encuesta nacional realizada en 1998 a más de 6.000 granjas urbanas, el 99,9 por ciento de los horticultores consideraban el tema de la posesión del suelo como un desafío y, a la vez, como un elemento vital para el éxito futuro del movimiento (ACGA 1998).

En estos casos, la inseguridad en cuanto al suelo surge cuando el costo de los terrenos a precio de mercado excede los ingresos derivados de las actividades agrícolas. Básicamente, la mano escondida del mercado hace presión sobre la asignación de terrenos según el mejor y óptimo uso que se le pueda dar. Debido a dicha conceptualización dominante, los planificadores y responsables de diseñar políticas históricamente han considerado la agricultura urbana como una medida provisional para mantener un lugar en actividad hasta que se puedan desarrollar usos mejores y óptimos. Sin embargo, los académicos señalan que las granjas urbanas pueden producir muchos efectos secundarios positivos relacionados con la salud pública y el bienestar de la comunidad, y que resulta difícil monetizar dichos beneficios (Schmelzkopf 1995). Las valuaciones de cambio tradicionales relacionadas con el suelo casi nunca reflejan los aportes que realizan las huertas comunitarias a la educación sobre alimentación saludable y al bienestar físico de los residentes. Esta desconexión entre el valor social y los valores de mercado ha sido el impulso para intervenciones tanto públicas como privadas.

En general, los gobiernos municipales responden comprando parcelas de terrenos agrícolas urbanos, aislándolas así de las fuerzas especulativas del mercado y evitando su inclusión en los registros tributarios. Aunque este abordaje del sector público ha sido sumamente importante, a veces no logra otorgar una seguridad a largo plazo, especialmente cuando los cambios administrativos en los gobiernos municipales dan como resultado modificaciones en las prioridades y estrategias, tal como ocurrió en 1999 cuando el alcalde de la Ciudad de Nueva York, Rudy Giuliani, propuso subastar 850 huertas comunitarias de toda la ciudad. Por lo tanto, los investigadores se han enfocado en la necesidad de buscar estrategias alternativas que puedan complementar las medidas llevadas a cabo por el sector público a fin de apoyar la seguridad del suelo para la agricultura urbana.

————————

Recuadro 1: Encuesta 2012 de CLT en los Estados Unidos de América

En el otoño de 2012, la Red Nacional de Fideicomisos de Suelo Comunitarios (NCLTN), junto con el Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, encargó realizar un estudio de proyectos comerciales y agrícolas urbanos llevados a cabo por CLT en los EE.UU. (Rosenberg y Yuen 2012). Mediante este estudio, se analizó el papel que representan los CLT al implementar proyectos no residenciales y se evaluaron los beneficios y desafíos derivados de dichos proyectos. Los investigadores distribuyeron una encuesta por Internet a las 224 organizaciones que aparecen en la base de datos de la NCLTN: 56 CLT (25 por ciento) respondieron el cuestionario y 37 CLT informaron que se dedicaban a actividades agrícolas. Se seleccionaron 12 CLT para recopilar información más detallada, lo cual mostró una variedad de proyectos con diferentes niveles de éxito en distintos lugares. Para levantar los datos se utilizó un enfoque de estudio de casos, mediante la recopilación de documentos organizacionales y fuentes secundarias, así como también entrevistas al personal de las CLT. El documento de trabajo definitivo tiene su sustento en otro recurso conformado por un listado de proyectos que resalta los proyectos y organizaciones involucradas en el estudio (Yuen y Rosenberg 2012).

En el presente artículo tomamos en cuenta dicha investigación a fin de analizar los beneficios, desafíos y consideraciones derivadas de las actividades agrícolas urbanas llevadas a cabo por las CLT. Además, se examina de qué manera dichas intervenciones son capaces de apoyar las actividades integrales de desarrollo comunitario, particularmente en las ciudades tradicionales.

————————

Los CLT como marco para la agricultura urbana

Un CLT es una sociedad anónima comunitaria sin fines de lucro cuyos miembros provienen del mismo lugar, posee un directorio elegido democráticamente y tiene un compromiso con fines benéficos basado en el uso y la administración del suelo a favor de la población local. Los CLT, por lo general, conservan la propiedad permanente del suelo y lo arriendan a personas u organizaciones que tienen la propiedad sobre las mejoras del suelo, tales como viviendas, edificios comerciales e instalaciones agrícolas o recreativas. El modelo del CLT ofrece una forma de conservar la propiedad del suelo administrada por y para la comunidad, por lo que el mejor u óptimo uso de la propiedad puede permanecer definido y controlado por la comunidad y puede adaptarse a las condiciones cambiantes.

Aunque en las últimas décadas los CLT se han enfocado en el desarrollo y la administración de viviendas accesibles económicamente, el movimiento se originó en respuesta a ciertos problemas relacionados con los terrenos con fines agrícolas en el área rural de Georgia durante la década de 1960. Otras influencias aun anteriores son los kibutz en Israel, los barrios Gramdan en la India y las ciudades jardín de Ebenezer Howard (Davis 2010). La solidez del modelo del CLT se fundamenta en su capacidad de equilibrar el control del suelo a nivel local y el desarrollo administrado a largo plazo que trata las necesidades de la comunidad siempre cambiantes. Así, los CLT se encuentran en la mejor posición para abordar diferentes usos del suelo mediante estrategias de desarrollo integrales. Las ciudades tradicionales son, tal vez, las más aptas para la participación de un CLT, ya que la disponibilidad generalizada de suelo vacante ha dado como resultado un floreciente movimiento agrícola urbano, aunque el énfasis sea menor respecto a la seguridad del suelo a largo plazo.

Nuestra investigación encontró que los CLT había dado apoyo a los proyectos de agricultura urbana de tres formas diferentes: garantizando el acceso al suelo para fines agrícolas, proporcionando apoyo programático y participando directamente en la producción de alimentos.

Cómo garantizar el acceso al suelo para fines agrícolas

Las competencias fundamentales de los CLT se prestan mejor a la tarea de acceder a espacios con fines agrícolas. Una de las misiones centrales de los CLT es garantizar el acceso al suelo para oportunidades de desarrollo comunitario. Con el fin de llevar a cabo esta tarea, los CLT han utilizado diversos tipos de posesión del suelo, tales como la propiedad en pleno dominio, el arrendamiento de terrenos, las servidumbres y las restricciones en los títulos de propiedad (tabla 1). Estos tipos de acuerdo no se excluyen mutuamente: las organizaciones pueden emplear diferentes técnicas con el fin de garantizar el acceso al suelo tanto dentro de un mismo proyecto agrícola como para diferentes proyectos.

Propiedad en pleno dominio

La propiedad en pleno dominio permite al CLT conservar la mayor cantidad de derechos de propiedad y brinda un alto nivel de seguridad en cuanto al suelo, siempre que cumpla con todos los pagos de hipotecas y obligaciones fiscales. Por ejemplo, Dudley Neighbors Incorporated (DNI), un CLT de Roxbury, Massachusetts, llevó a cabo el redesarrollo de un sitio contaminado donde anteriormente funcionaba un taller mecánico de automóviles para transformarlo en el vivero Dudley de 930 metros cuadrados, que funciona como una granja comercial y, a la vez, como un espacio de cultivo comunitario. DNI obtuvo la seguridad del terreno mediante la propiedad en pleno dominio, y arrienda la estructura del vivero a una tasa nominal a una entidad alimentaria sin fines de lucro que administra la totalidad de la programación y el mantenimiento agrícola. Harry Smith, director de sustentabilidad y desarrollo económico de DNI, señala: “El cultivo de alimentos es algo totalmente diferente, por lo que no intentamos encargarnos de esa tarea”.

Arrendamiento del terreno

Aunque la propiedad en pleno dominio es una herramienta simple y con un nivel de seguridad alto, por lo general resulta demasiado costosa para que los CLT puedan comprar suelo urbano directamente para la producción de alimentos. En vista de este desafío, algunos CLT han utilizado el arrendamiento de terrenos para tener acceso al suelo con fines agrícolas. Por ejemplo, el CLT de Southside (SCLT) posee un contrato de alquiler por 10 años con el estado de Rhode Island sobre una granja de 8 hectáreas en Cranston. A su vez, el CLT de Southside administra la granja en calidad de arrendatario principal y subarrienda lotes a siete granjeros noveles a tasas nominales. Debido a que el arriendo del terreno es accesible y seguro, se generan oportunidades para que los jóvenes granjeros puedan comenzar sus incipientes negocios y participar en el sistema de producción de alimentos local. Un contrato de arrendamiento de terrenos sólido que presente rigurosos estándares de rendimiento y condiciones de renovación puede proporcionar una seguridad igual o mayor que una propiedad en pleno dominio. No obstante, los arrendamientos de terrenos a largo plazo pueden resultar difíciles de elaborar e implementar, especialmente cuando la entidad que posee el título de propiedad tiene la intención de establecer una flexibilidad a largo plazo.

Servidumbres de conservación

Los CLT también garantizan el acceso al suelo mediante servidumbres de conservación o restricciones voluntarias que limitan de forma permanente el uso que se puede dar al suelo. Por lo general, el CLT posee una servidumbre donada por un propietario particular. Este propietario particular conserva el título de propiedad y hasta puede vender los terrenos a un tercero sin comprometer la seguridad del suelo, ya que la servidumbre de conservación garantiza el acceso a largo plazo al espacio con fines agrícolas. Las servidumbres también pueden reducir la carga administrativa del propietario, ya que el receptor de la servidumbre por lo general brinda servicios de administración del suelo como parte del intercambio. Esta estrategia puede beneficiar económicamente a los propietarios, quienes reciben beneficios fiscales tanto a nivel federal como municipal por donar servidumbres de conservación. Aunque las servidumbres pueden efectivamente garantizar el acceso al espacio con fines agrícolas, el costo legal puede llegar a ser muy alto, especialmente en lo que respecta a las parcelas más pequeñas.

Restricciones en el tÍtulo de propiedad

Las restricciones en el título de propiedad pueden limitar efectivamente los usos del suelo y, por lo general, están relacionadas con fuentes de financiamiento específicas. Aunque una restricción en el título de propiedad puede garantizar que el suelo se reserve para un uso específico, no necesariamente ofrece al granjero o agricultor particular una posesión segura. Además, las restricciones en el título de propiedad son efectivas sólo cuando todas las partes y agentes externos deciden poner en vigencia el contrato. Cada uno de los diferentes acuerdos de posesión del suelo posee ventajas y desventajas relativas, por lo que la mejor manera de utilizarlos es en el contexto de un proyecto específico. Por ejemplo, en Wisconsin, el CLT del área de Madison tuvo que otorgar una restricción en el título de propiedad a la ciudad de Madison como condición para recibir fondos destinados al desarrollo de uso mixto Troy Gardens. La restricción en el título de propiedad se estableció sobre una parte del terreno para limitar su uso a los proyectos agrícolas y de conservación. Sin embargo, si el CLT no cumpliera con los términos de la restricción en el título de propiedad, esto desencadenaría la inmediata devolución de la totalidad del subsidio otorgado por la ciudad.

Apoyo mediante programas

Debido a que la tarea de garantizar el acceso al suelo con fines agrícolas puede presentar muchos desafíos, tal vez no sea el emprendimiento adecuado para cualquier organización o comunidad. Algunos CLT han apoyado las tareas agrícolas urbanas de otras maneras, tales como la gestión de programas, la asistencia técnica y otros servicios de índole agrícola. Por ejemplo, en Georgia, el Athens Land Trust es un fideicomiso de suelo con una doble misión —viviendas y espacio abierto— que se ha involucrado en la agricultura urbana exclusivamente a través de un programa de apoyo. El Athens Land Trust decidió aceptar este rol debido a los altos costos de propiedad asociados a las políticas sobre el impuesto a la propiedad vigentes en Georgia, según las cuales el suelo de un CLT se valúa al valor de mercado sin restricciones. El Athens Land Trust se asocia con propietarios del sector público y privado a fin de proporcionar apoyo para proyectos agrícolas a nivel local. Por ejemplo, el personal del Athens Land Trust trabajó junto con la congregación de la iglesia bautista Hill Chapel a fin de diseñar una huerta comunitaria en terrenos de propiedad de la iglesia, y brindó servicios de apoyo tales como prueba y cultivo del suelo, organización del cronograma de trabajo y entrega de materiales sobre plantas y realización de talleres educativos sobre horticultura.

Producción agrícola

Finalmente, algunos CLT han participado en la producción agrícola mediante el cultivo directo y activo del suelo. Por ejemplo, el CLT de Southside administra una granja comercial de 3 kilómetros cuadrados en Providence, Rhode Island, donde se cultivan y venden verduras directamente a los restaurantes de la zona. Muchos CLT también apoyan la producción agrícola de forma indirecta, entregando propiedades residenciales a personas que cultivan productos alimenticios en las huertas de sus patios traseros. De esta manera, sin saberlo, muchos CLT han apoyado la agricultura urbana durante años, simplemente por haber proporcionado un acceso económico y seguro a terrenos cultivables en las ciudades. Algunos grupos, como DNI, diseñan específicamente lotes de propiedad residencial de mayores dimensiones a fin de ofrecer la oportunidad de plantar huertas urbanas en los patios traseros. Harry Smith, de DNI, explica: “A medida que realizábamos nuestra planificación comunitaria, la gente dejó muy claro que quería ver espacios abiertos y que se tuviera en cuenta la calidad de vida de los residentes. Estamos tratando de incorporar [la agricultura] a las propias viviendas”. De esta manera, la producción agrícola del CLT también puede abarcar características innovadoras de diseño, tales como huertas, agroforestería y otros conceptos derivados de la permacultura que se incorporan de manera intencional y sistemática en el plan de desarrollo.

Beneficios de la agricultura urbana sustentada por los CLT

En última instancia, según nuestro estudio, se han observado beneficios mutuos entre la agricultura urbana y los CLT. Las granjas urbanas aumentan el valor de los CLT, ya que ayudan a las organizaciones a expandir su visión de desarrollo hacia necesidades y prioridades más integrales de los barrios. Todas las comunidades tienen diferentes necesidades además de la necesidad de viviendas accesibles, por lo que los proyectos agrícolas pueden generar conexiones a otros problemas clave, como la seguridad en el abastecimiento de alimentos, la educación en temas de salud, la recuperación de terrenos vacantes y la seguridad de los barrios. Los proyectos agrícolas, además, pueden considerarse atracciones del barrio, lo que puede aumentar la demanda de propiedades o viviendas de CLT de los alrededores en el mercado convencional. Por ejemplo, Church Community Housing Corporation (CCHC) desarrolló el proyecto de granjas de Sandywoods en Tiverton, Rhode Island, que incluye diferentes tipos de programas de viviendas, agricultura y artísticos. Al principio, CCHC comercializó el desarrollo solamente como una comunidad artística, pero los posibles residentes expresaron un fuerte interés en las huertas comunitarias y en la preservación de terrenos agrícolas. En consecuencia, CCHC renombró el proyecto como un desarrollo “artístico y agrícola”. Brigid Ryan, gerente principal de proyectos de CCHC, explica: “La agricultura ha despegado mucho más de lo que hubiéramos pensado. La huerta realmente atrae a algunas personas [a las unidades de vivienda para arrendar]. Nunca pensaron que sus hijos serían capaces de cultivar sus propios alimentos”.

En el vivero Dudley de DNI también se observaron conexiones beneficiosas entre la agricultura y la vivienda. Harry Smith, de DNI, señala: “El proyecto realmente ayuda a la comercialización de nuestras viviendas. Las personas no sólo obtienen una vivienda sino también una comunidad que está basada en alimentos frescos cultivados en el lugar”.

Desafíos de la agricultura urbana sustentada por los CLT

A pesar de los beneficios, los CLT que implementan proyectos agrícolas todavía enfrentan muchos desafíos. En particular, la rentabilidad económica continúa siendo una de las principales luchas en todo el sector de la agricultura urbana, ya que los ingresos generados por las ventas de productos son relativamente modestos, aun en los establecimientos comerciales. El CLT de Southside cubre solamente el 8 por ciento de sus gastos operativos a través de la venta comercial de sus productos a restaurantes locales. Gracias a otras fuentes de ingresos, tales como las cuotas de membresía y las ventas de plantines, los ingresos del CLT sólo llegan a cubrir el 20 por ciento de sus gastos. Los CLT siguen dependiendo en gran manera de los subsidios para poder compensar la diferencia entre costos y beneficios.

Un segundo posible desafío tiene que ver con que algunos proyectos requieren un alto nivel de conocimientos agrícolas, por lo que pueden poner a prueba la capacidad y la experiencia del personal del CLT. Incluso Athens Land Trust, que posee un personal con experiencia en la preservación de suelos agrícolas y técnicas de cultivo, reconoció las dificultades que tuvo al principio para aprender los detalles específicos derivados de los códigos de zonificación municipal relacionados con la agricultura comercial. Como resultado, algunos proyectos principales del CLT tuvieron que demorarse hasta que se encontraran soluciones de zonificación que funcionaran. El riesgo es aun mayor para aquellos proyectos agrícolas comerciales que requieren un gran nivel de comprensión de los sistemas de procesamiento y distribución y de las condiciones del mercado local. Por ejemplo, en la granja Sandywoods, CCHC había planificado inicialmente utilizar el suelo de cultivo preservado para la alimentación del ganado. Sin embargo, finalmente se enteraron de que el único matadero de ganado de Rhode Island había cerrado. El matadero más cercano se encontraba cruzando la frontera, en Massachusetts, por lo que el procesamiento de carne resultaba demasiado costoso. Brigid Ryan, gerente principal de proyectos de CCHC, señala: “Cuando uno debe aprender acerca de estos sectores especializados, resulta muy importante conseguir socios que sepan de lo que están hablando”. Debido a los desafíos y posibles inconvenientes, los CLT deben considerar las siguientes cuestiones a fin de mejorar la factibilidad y sustentabilidad de los proyectos agrícolas.

Participación de la comunidad

En su calidad de organización basada en la comunidad, el impulso de un CLT debería estar determinado siempre por las necesidades y preocupaciones del barrio. No obstante, resulta particularmente vital que existan sólidos procesos de planificación comunitaria para que la agricultura urbana sea exitosa, y en estas planificaciones los CLT por lo general dependen de los residentes y socios locales para llevar a cabo la producción agrícola. Harry Smith, de DNI, hace hincapié en este punto: “Diría que el trabajo de un CLT no consiste sólo en administrar las propiedades y obtener más terrenos para el fideicomiso, sino también en involucrar realmente a la comunidad en lo que esta desea además de la vivienda, ya sean emprendimientos comerciales, un vivero o terrenos de cultivo”. Además, la participación de un CLT en proyectos agrícolas puede catalizar mayores medidas de organización de la comunidad y ayudar a los residentes a hacer presión para exigir más políticas públicas de apoyo.

Evaluación de la organización

Los CLT pueden apoyar los proyectos no residenciales de diferentes maneras, y las organizaciones deberían evaluar sistemáticamente sus capacidades internas, así como también a las partes interesadas que podrían llegar a ser posibles socios en los proyectos. De esta manera, los CLT pueden generar colaboraciones complementarias y desarrollar aún más los activos y capacidades existentes en la comunidad. Si el CLT carece de experiencia en temas de cultivo, bien puede apoyar la agricultura urbana en otras formas a fin de alinearse en mayor medida con los socios locales, por ejemplo, garantizando el acceso al suelo, ayudando a desarrollar los códigos de zonificación agrícola urbana o actuando en calidad de agente fiscal en lo relacionado con los subsidios.

Gestión de riesgos

Los CLT deberían minimizar su riesgo económico en los proyectos agrícolas, especialmente en vista de los modestos ingresos y la futura incertidumbre en cuanto a la obtención de subsidios para la producción de alimentos. En respuesta a esto, algunos CLT concentran desde un inicio los gastos previstos de capital relacionados con los proyectos agrícolas. De manera similar, los CLT pueden gestionar la exposición al riesgo evitando el financiamiento de la deuda de los proyectos agrícolas. Varios CLT consideran que cubrir el servicio de deuda representa un desafío demasiado grande debido a los modestos ingresos derivados de la venta de productos y a las tasas de arrendamiento nominales que los CLT en general cobran por los terrenos agrícolas. Por ejemplo, DNI logró adquirir terrenos y construir el vivero Dudley sin incurrir en una deuda a largo plazo, a la vez que su condición de entidad exenta del impuesto municipal a la propiedad le permitió tener costos de posesión mínimos. La estructura financiera de bajo riesgo que se generó a raíz de esto resultó muy importante cuando DNI no pudo conseguir a su primer arrendatario del vivero. Aunque con posterioridad el vivero estuvo vacante durante aproximadamente cinco años, DNI fue capaz de absorber la pérdida derivada de este inesperado período en que la propiedad estuvo vacante.

Conclusión

Aunque el movimiento de agricultura urbana ha experimentado un gran impulso en los últimos años, aún necesita estrategias coherentes a largo plazo para proteger los espacios de cultivo de las fuerzas especulativas del mercado. La relación fundamental entre el suelo y la comunidad está en juego. Dentro del movimiento de agricultura urbana, la inseguridad en cuanto al suelo resalta la urgente necesidad de reconceptualizar requerimientos de las comunidades tanto presentes como futuras. Además, la noción del “mayor y mejor uso” debe ampliarse con objeto de incluir los resultados no económicos y las diferentes formas de participación comunitaria efectiva. Los CLT son entidades ideales para tratar estos problemas críticos y, al hacerlo, pueden lograr que los procesos de desarrollo económico sean más inclusivos, justos y capaces de responder a las condiciones locales siempre cambiantes.

Sobre el autor

Jeffrey Yuen, M.S., es un investigador, profesional y entusiasta en temas relacionados con los CLT y es miembro del directorio del Fideicomiso de Suelo Comunitario de Essex. Se desempeña como gerente de evaluación de impactos en New Jersey Community Capital, en New Brunswick, Nueva Jersey.

Recursos

ACGA (American Community Gardening Association). 1998. National Community Gardening Survey: 1996. http://www.communitygarden.org/docs/learn/cgsurvey96part1.pdf

Bellows, A., K. Brown y J. Smit. 2004. “Health Benefits of Urban Agriculture.” Community Food Security Coalition’s North American Initiative on Urban Agriculture. http://community-wealth.org/content/health-benefits-urban-agriculture

Brown, K., M. Bailkey, A. Meares-Cohen, J. Nasr y P. Mann (editores). 2002. “Urban Agriculture and Community Food Security in the United States: Farming from the City Center to the Urban Fringe.” Urban Agriculture Committee of the Community Food Security Coalition.

Davis, J. E. 2010. “Origins and Evolution of the Community Land Trust in the United States.” En The Community Land Trust Reader, editado por J. E. Davis, 3–47. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Kaufman, J. y M. Bailkey. 2000. “Farming Inside Cities: Entrepreneurial Urban Agriculture in the United States.” Documento de trabajo. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Lawson, L. 2004. “The Planner in the Garden: A Historical View of the Relationship of Planning to Community Garden Programs.” Journal of Planning History 3(2): 151–176.

Mougeot, L. 2000. “Urban Agriculture: Definition, Presence, Potentials and Risks.” En Growing Cities, Growing Food, Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda, editado por N. Bakker, M. Dubbeling, S. Guendel, U. Sabel Koschella y H. de Zeeuw. DSE, Feldafing.

Rosenberg, G. y J. Yuen. 2012. “Beyond Housing: Urban Agriculture and Commercial Development by Community Land Trusts.” Documento de trabajo. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Schmelzkopf, K. 1995. “Urban Community Gardens as Contested Space.” Geographical Review 85(3): 364–381.

Smit, J., A. Ratta y J. Nasr. 1996. Urban Agriculture: Food, Jobs and Sustainable Cities. Nueva York: United Nations Development Programme. http://jacsmit.com/book.html

Staeheli, L., D. Mitchell y K. Gibson. 2002. “Conflicting Rights to the City in New York’s Community Gardens.” Geojournal 58(2–3): 197–205.

Yuen, J. 2012. “Hybrid Vigor: An Analysis of Land Tenure Arrangements in Addressing Land Security for Urban Community Gardens.” Masters’ Thesis, Columbia University. http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:147036

Yuen, J. y G. Rosenberg. 2012. National Community Land Trust Network. Non-Residential Project Directory. National Community Land Trust Network. http://www.cltnetwork.org/doc_library/FINAL%20Non-residential%20project%20directory%204-26-13.pdf

Allá por la edad de bronce, cuando yo era un estudiante de posgrado, la Asociación de Economía de los Estados Unidos me invitó a presentar un trabajo en su reunión anual. En ese momento, como era un inconformista, me debatía entre asistir o no a la reunión de saco y corbata. Mi tutor del doctorado me dio un excelente consejo: “No te voy a decir si tienes que usar saco o no, pero ten en consideración si deseas que la audiencia te recuerde por lo que dijiste o por lo que vestiste”. Fue un recordatorio muy útil de que, si tenemos un mensaje que dar, lo mejor es envolverlo de tal manera que aumente las probabilidades de que se reciba y se comprenda. Al final fui de saco y corbata, y aprendí una lección útil acerca de la interacción entre forma y contenido que, a veces, es sutil y, otras, no tanto.

De vez en cuando, los centros de estudio e investigación como el Instituto Lincoln deben considerar si están envolviendo su contenido de manera que atraiga al público para leerlo y utilizarlo. Durante el año pasado, hemos analizado detenidamente de qué manera presentamos y difundimos nuestras investigaciones y análisis de políticas. Comenzamos en enero de 2015 con una nueva imagen de Land Lines, diseñada con el fin de que la revista fuera más atractiva para una audiencia más amplia. Nuestro primer número con el nuevo diseño tuvo como portada una impresionante fotografía aérea del delta del río Colorado, donde, en 2014, un “flujo de impulsos” liberados de diques ubicados río arriba permitió que el agua circulara a lo largo del lecho seco del río hacia el mar de Cortés por primera vez en varias décadas, lo que estimuló un renovado esfuerzo por restaurar el ecosistema nativo que había existido bajo diferentes patrones de uso del suelo en la cuenca del río. Además, comenzamos a contratar los servicios de periodistas para redactar artículos atractivos que conectaran nuestras investigaciones y análisis de políticas con las personas cuyas vidas mejorarían por la utilización de mejores prácticas en el uso del suelo.

El nuevo diseño de Land Lines y nuestros informes sobre enfoques en políticas de suelo son sólo una pequeña parte del gran esfuerzo que el Instituto Lincoln está realizando para difundir más ampliamente nuestro formidable arsenal de investigaciones e ideas. Una acción continua, clara e incisiva para alcanzar al público facilitará el impacto que deseamos que tenga nuestro trabajo en las políticas y en las personas. En agosto de 2015, lanzamos una campaña de varios años para promover la salud fiscal municipal como base sobre la cual los municipios pueden proporcionar bienes y servicios que definan una alta calidad de vida para sus residentes. Nuestros investigadores, personal y contrpartes trabajan en forma interdisciplinaria a fin de otorgarle mayor importancia a este tema, a la vez que generan nuevas acciones de carácter transversal para tratar las cuestiones de cambio climático y resiliencia, desarrollan herramientas de última generación para la planificación de casos posibles, e investigan la relación existente entre las políticas de suelo y el agua o entre el uso del suelo y el transporte.

Este mes damos un paso más para la difusión de nuestras ideas de manera más efectiva mediante la presentación de un nuevo logo, un nuevo eslogan y una nueva declaración de misión del Instituto Lincoln:

Descubriendo respuestas en el suelo: Colaborar en la solución de los desafíos económicos, sociales y medioambientales en todo el mundo, con el fin de mejorar la calidad de vida mediante enfoques creativos en cuanto al uso, la tributación y la administración del suelo.

El logo conserva la “L” de Lincoln dentro del delineado simbólico de una parcela de suelo, con un diseño más moderno y abierto que invita a las nuevas audiencias a descubrir nuestro trabajo. El eslogan y la declaración de misión explicitan lo que siempre ha sido verdad: que una buena política de suelo puede ayudar a solucionar algunos de los desafíos mundiales más acuciantes, como el cambio climático o la pobreza y las tensiones financieras en las ciudades de todo el mundo.

No estamos reinventando al Instituto Lincoln, sino que apuntamos a difundir nuestro trabajo entre una audiencia más amplia y descubrir las líneas que conectan temas aparentemente disímiles, como la relación entre la conservación del suelo y la mitigación del cambio climático. Esta “renovación” culminará este año, cuando presentemos el nuevo diseño de nuestro sitio web con un formato que nos permitirá transmitir nuevos mensajes sobre la manera en que las políticas de suelo pueden dar forma a un mejor futuro para miles de millones de personas.

En este número de Land Lines se anticipan dos nuevos e importantes libros que actualizan nuestra presentación de los temas que hemos estado investigando durante varias décadas. En A Good Tax (Un buen impuesto), Joan Youngman presenta claros y sólidos argumentos a favor del impuesto a la propiedad, la fuente de ingresos municipales más importante e incomprendida. Este magistral análisis de un tema tan difícil es presentado en una lúcida prosa por la directora de Valuación y Tributación del Instituto Lincoln. En el capítulo sobre financiamiento escolar, que presentamos en este número de la revista, se hace una defensa del impuesto —que a la gente le encanta odiar— al servicio de un bien público que define la suerte de las futuras generaciones.

En el libro Nature and Cities (La naturaleza y las ciudades), editado por George F. Thompson, Frederick R. Steiner y Armando Carbonell (este último, director del Departamento de Planificación y Forma Urbana del Instituto Lincoln), se analizan los beneficios económicos, medioambientales y de salud pública derivados del diseño y la planificación urbana ecológica. Nature and Cities contiene ensayos de James Corner, diseñador del espacio verde denominado High Line, en la ciudad de Nueva York, y de otros referentes en el ámbito del paisajismo, la planificación y la arquitectura en todo el mundo, por lo que ofrece un tratamiento erudito y visualmente cautivador de un tema que se presenta como urgente en vista del cambio climático y el crecimiento de la población urbana.

Como verán, continuaremos ofreciendo a nuestros colegas y amigos artículos rigurosamente documentados y óptimamente redactados. También expandiremos nuestra red de investigadores, gestores de políticas y profesionales quienes aplicarán las conclusiones de nuestras investigaciones de un modo que sólo podemos imaginar. Al fin y al cabo, nuestro esfuerzo colectivo tiene como fin mejorar las vidas de todos aquellos que consideran a este planeta como su hogar. Y sabemos que todo comienza con el suelo.