Report from the President on Property Rights

Cities are both contributors to and victims of global climate change. Delta cities, in particular, have long been recognized as being extremely vulnerable because they are located where the stresses on natural systems coincide with intense human activity.

A number of climate change impacts may affect delta cities, including rising sea levels, infrastructure damage from extreme weather events, the public health implications of higher average temperatures, altered energy consumption patterns, stress on water resources, impacts on tourism and cultural heritage, decreased urban biodiversity, and ancillary effects on air pollution (IPCC 2007). Climate change also may affect physical assets used for economic production and services, as well as the costs of raw materials and inputs, which in turn will affect competitiveness, economic performance, and employment patterns.

China’s remarkable economic growth since the beginning of the country’s reform period in 1978 has concentrated a large share of population and wealth along the coast, especially in three megacity regions: Pearl River Delta, Yangtze River Delta, and Capital Region. While the potential implications of climate change pose a challenge for coastal communities around the world, this geographic concentration of population and economic activity seems disproportionate in China.

Among China’s coastal and delta regions, the Pearl River Delta (PRD) in Guangdong province is an important economic center that includes the cities of Guangzhou, Shenzhen, and seven prefecture-level municipalities. Together with Hong Kong and Macao, the greater PRD area is one of the key megacity regions in the world, but its geography makes it highly vulnerable to sea level rise. Unprecedented economic and urban development, along with the major changes in land use and land cover accompanying that development over the past three decades, has released large emissions of CO₂, leading to higher temperatures and more intensive and extreme weather events (Tracy, Trumbull, and Loh 2006). Given the importance of this region to both China and the broader global economy, we take a closer look at the PRD’s contribution to and risks from climate change.

Industrialization and Urbanization

With the establishment of the Shenzhen and Zhuhai Special Economic Zone in 1980, the PRD was among the earliest regions in China to begin to liberalize its economy. Its institutional advantages, combined with its proximity to Hong Kong and Macao, made the PRD the fastest growing region in the world during the past three decades. From 1979 to 2008, the PRD’s GDP grew at 15.6 percent annually in constant prices, outpacing both the national rate of 9.77 percent and the provincial rate of 13.8 percent.

As a result, the delta’s contribution to the share of GDP in China soared from 2.8 percent in 1979 to 9.5 percent in 2008. In terms of total fixed investment, foreign direct investment, exports, and energy consumption, the PRD was one of the most important and dynamic economic regions in China during this period (figure 1).

This rapid development resulted from the dual process of industrialization and urbanization. The region’s secondary and tertiary industries have grown rapidly as primary industry has gradually decreased in relative economic importance, with its contribution to GDP declining from 26.9 percent in 1979 to 2.4 percent in 2008, while the tertiary service sector grew from 27.9 percent to 47.3 percent.

Over the same time, the population increased from 17.97 to 47.71 million residents, reaching an urbanization rate of 82.2 percent in 2008. In terms of land use, areas designated for manufacturing, residential, and commercial uses grew by 8.47 percent annually, increasing from 1,068.7 square kilometers (k2) in 1979 to 4,617.16 k2 in 2008 (figure 2).

Climate Changes

Given these dramatic land use changes and the region’s increased emissions of greenhouse gases, it is not surprising that the PRD has experienced noticeable regional climate changes. The Guangdong Meteorological Administration (2007) reported that the average temperature increase in Guangdong province over the past five decades has been 0.21 °C every 10 years, which is similar to the rate of warming seen nationally in China. Guangdong’s coastal region, especially the highly urbanized PRD, witnessed even greater temperature increases, averaging 0.3 °C every 10 years. The cities of Shenzhen, Dongguan, Zhongshan, and Foshan warmed more than 0.4 °C every 10 years.

After compiling data from 21 meteorological stations in the PRD region, we calculated the average annual and seasonal temperatures during the 1971–2008 period and compared them with the annual temperatures in Guangdong. Our research showed the PRD has experienced significant warming and has been hotter than the entire Guangdong province during the observed period. Since the 1970s, the PRD has seen its average temperature rise by approximately 1.19 °C to 22.89 °C in the most recent decade, with annual average temperatures remaining above the region’s 30-year average temperature of 22.1 °C since 1994 (figure 3).

The winter and autumn seasons saw the most considerable temperature increases, with averages of 24.1 °C in the autumn and 15.2 °C in the winter between 1994 and 2007. These temperatures are significantly higher than their respective 40-year averages of 23.5 °C and 14.6 °C. While not as significant, average spring and summer temperatures in the PRD during the 1997–2007 period were also greater than their 40-year average temperatures of 22 °C and 28.2 °C. This regional warming phenomenon is also seen to a lesser degree in Guangzhou, a populous and characteristic metropolis in the PRD, where average temperatures have risen like those in the greater delta region.

As the PRD’s climate has warmed more quickly than that in the rest of the province, the rapid industrialization and urbanization has generated enormous energy demand from manufacturing industries, transportation, and residential consumers, resulting in greater emissions of CO₂ and other greenhouse gases that are contributing to global climate change. The increased concentration of greenhouse gases, both regionally and globally, represents a large latent source of future warming and additional changes.

Impacts of Climate Change

Given its coastal geography and population density, Guangdong is among the most vulnerable of China’s coastal provinces to the sort of meteorological disasters that are expected to increase with global warming. In 2008, Guangdong experienced direct economic losses of 15.43 billion yuan and 73 deaths, accounting for 75 percent and 48 percent of national totals, respectively, as well as the loss of 602 kilometers (km) of land to coastal erosion (table 1). With sea levels in the province having risen by 75 millimeters (mm) during the 1975–1993 period, the China Meteorological Administration’s (2009b) prediction that sea levels will rise a further 78–150 mm between 2008 and 2038 represents a serious threat to coastal infrastructure and communities in the PRD.

Guangdong has long been impacted by marine hazards such as rainstorms, cyclones, and storm surges that have killed hundreds of people, caused serious damage to housing and transportation infrastructure, and impacted farming in the province. In the 1950s, the annual average farming area affected by marine hazards was about 200,000 hectares (ha), which grew to 440,000 ha in the 1960s and 500,000 ha in the 1970s, before jumping to 1,411,000 ha in the 1990s.

In addition to more frequent extreme storm events, instances of drought also have been increasing in the PRD. In the 1950s, the average farming area affected by droughts in Guangdong was 104,000 ha, which grew steadily to reach 201,500 ha in the 1980s, 282,500 ha in the 1990s, and 426,400 ha in the 2000s. Given the expected increases in the frequency of extreme weather events, as well as rising temperatures and sea levels, agricultural and mariculture activities in the PRD will be increasingly vulnerable to future climate change.

Cities in the PRD are particularly susceptible to natural disasters and climate change as they concentrate infrastructure, nonagricultural activities, and population, severely impacting economic activities and daily life. Rainstorms and typhoons occur frequently in the region and typically entail serious damage and huge economic losses. During the 2000–2007 period, for instance, rainstorms and typhoons in Shenzhen caused cumulative direct economic losses of 525 and 277 million yuan respectively, accounting for approximately for 63 and 33 percent of total direct economic losses associated with all meteorological hazards in the city (figure 4).

Meteorological hazards also lead to disruptive impacts on facilities, infrastructure, and transportation. Rainstorms and typhoons impose challenges on urban sewage systems and flood control facilities, while prolonged periods of high or low temperatures exert pressure on urban power supply infrastructure.

In May 2009, Shenzhen experienced an unprecedented rainstorm, with some parts of the city receiving daily precipitation in excess of 208 mm. The storm flooded 40 areas of the city and left 11 areas under at least one meter of water. Two years before, in April 2007, rainstorms flooded the Qinghuhe River in Shenzhen, damaging embankments and toppling power lines. On the other end of the spectrum, in July 2004 Guangzhou suffered a prolonged heat wave that created tremendous demand for electricity. Usage eventually peaked at 8.45 million kilowatts and forced many enterprises to stop production to help conserve power.

Transportation is the lifeline of urban activity and economic production. As two of China’s major population and economic centers, Shenzhen and Guangzhou are particularly important national transportation hubs, and any disruptions from extreme weather events such as rainstorms, typhoons, and flooding have far-reaching effects across the country.

When tropical storm Fengshen landed in Shenzhen on June 24, 2008, the city’s Yantian seaport was forced to close and hundreds of vessels were stuck in port, resulting in huge economic losses. During 2008, four tropical storms and one rainstorm resulted in the cancellation of 249 flights and the delay of 386 other flights at the Shenzhen International Airport, stranding more than 20,000 passengers. In 2009, three major weather events caused the cancellation of 176 flights and the delay of 326 flights, while 4,151 ships were forced to take shelter in Yantian port. As Chinese travelers become more affluent and air travel grows more rapidly, the vulnerability of these cities to disruption by severe weather events is set to increase.

Disruptive Effects of Sea Level Rise

The China Meteorological Administration (2009b) has identified the PRD as one of the country’s areas most at risk from rising sea levels due to its low mean sea level. Previous studies concur that sea levels in the PRD are rising and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future. Figure 5 illustrates the changes in sea level recorded at three tidal gauges (Hong Kong, Zha Po, and Shan Tou) during the 1958–2001 period. Hong Kong recorded a sea level rise of 0.24 centimeters per year (cm/year) during the period, while Zha Po and Shan Tou saw sea levels rise by 0.21cm/year and 0.13cm/year, respectively. Tidal records from six different gauges in the Pearl River estuary show that sea levels have risen at an accelerating rate over the last 40 years.

With the melting of glaciers globally due to climate change, these recent rises in sea level are expected to continue and potentially even accelerate. Li and Zeng (1998) offered three forecasts for sea level rise in the PRD, with 100 cm (high), 65 cm (middle), and 35 cm (low) forecasts by 2100. These predictions have been echoed by similar projections from the Chinese Academy of Sciences (1994), which indicate that sea levels in the PRD would rise by 40 to 60 cm by 2050.

The physical geography and urban development of the delta render it extremely vulnerable to the effects of sea level rise, and many lowland areas are likely to be inundated (Yang 1996). According to calculations by China’s National Marine Data and Information Service, a sea level rise of 30 cm could inundate an area of 1,154 k2 of coast and islands at high tide, with Guangzhou, Doumen County, and Foshan at particular risk (Guangdong Meteorological Administration 2007).

Coastal and river flooding in the PRD is influenced by several factors: rainfall, high tides, high winds, and typhoons and storm surges. The combination of weather and tidal factors that causes water levels to rise by upwards of three meters during tidal cycles is already well known in parts of the Pearl River Estuary (Tracy, Trumbull, and Loh 2006). According to Huang, Zong, and Zhang (2004), the current maximum tidal range increases as one travels up the estuary, from a low of 2.34 meters near Hong Kong to 3.31 meters at Zhewan, before reaching 3.35 meters at Nansha.

Rising sea levels would magnify the effect of storm surges, which already can be dramatic when weather and tidal factors coincide. Analyzing records from 54 tidal gauges across the PRD, Huang, Zong, and Zhang (2004) created predictions for water level rises in different parts of the delta under a number of different flood scenarios. According to the lowest freshwater discharge scenario (2000 m2/s), their simulations show that a 30 cm sea level rise will affect the northwest part of the region most severely and the majority of the area significantly. These researchers also simulated the impacts of a 30 cm sea level rise on the distribution of flood damage based on four freshwater discharge scenarios, showing that as floods increase in severity the size of the areas affected also increases.

Summary and Discussion

Delta cities enjoy locational advantages that make them attractive to both residents and businesses, and thereby lead many delta regions to develop into vital economic cores in many countries. Delta cities, however, are particularly vulnerable to meteorological hazards and are more at risk than inland cities to the existing and anticipated effects of climate change. The Pearl River Delta has witnessed substantial increases in both sea levels and temperatures, greater variation in rainfall, more frequent extreme weather events, and increasing losses from marine hazards.

More frequent meteorological hazards such as flooding from tropical storms and rainfalls have indeed caused disruptive impacts in the PRD: disrupting agricultural and mariculture production, damaging coastal defenses and embankments, destroying houses and facilities, shutting down transportation, and causing the loss of life. Sea level rise resulting from global warming represents a further threat and challenge in many parts of the region. The cumulative impact of these interrelated weather and climate phenomena have increased the costs of development in the PRD substantially. Fortunately, provincial and municipal governments have realized the importance of climate mitigation and adaptation, and are looking to the experiences of other delta cities around the world for valuable lessons about how best to strengthen urban sustainability and resiliency.

References

China Meteorological Administration. 2009a. China marine hazards report 2008. Beijing.

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

Chinese Academy of Sciences. 1994. The impact of sea level rise on economic development of the Pearl River Delta. In The impacts of sea level rise on China’s delta regions. Beijing: Science Press.

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

Guangdong Meteorological Administration. 2007. Assessment report on climate change in Guangdong. www.gdemo.gov.cn

He, Canfei, Lei Yang, and Guicai Li. 2010. Urban development and climate change in the Pearl River Delta. Working Paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

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

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

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

Tracy, A., K. Trumbull, and C. Loh. 2006. The impacts of climate change in Hong Kong and the Pearl River Delta. Hong Kong: Civic Exchange.

Wu, Y. and Li, H. 2009. Meteorological disasters and hazard evaluations in Shenzhen since 2000. Guangdong Meteorology. 31(3): 43-45 (in Chinese).

Yang, H. 1996. Potential effects of sea-level rise in the Pearl River Delta area: Preliminary study results and a comprehensive adaptation strategy. In Adapting to climate change: An international perspective, J. N. Smith, et al., eds. New York: Springer-Verlag.

About the Authors

Canfei Heis professor in the College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Peking University, and associate director of the Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy. He is also the associate director of the Economic Geography Specialty Group of the China Geographical Society. His research interests include multinational corporations, industrial location and spatial clustering of firms, and energy and the environment in China, and his publications appear in many international journals.

Lei Yang is a Ph.D. student in Shenzhen Graduate School of Peking University.

Siqi Zheng is an associate professor at the Hang Lung Center for Real Estate and the deputy head of the Department of Construction Management, both at Tsinghua University in Beijing, China. She specializes in urban economics and China’s housing market, particularly urban spatial structure, green cities, housing supply and demand, housing price dynamics, and low-income housing policies.

Her innovative and diverse research projects have been supported by international research institutions including the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the International Growth Center at London School of Economics, and various departments of the Chinese government including the National Science Foundation of China, the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development, and the National Statistics Bureau of China.

Dr. Zheng received her Ph.D. in urban economics and real estate economics from Tsinghua University, and she pursued post-doctoral research in urban economics at the Graduate School of Design at Harvard University. She is a research fellow at both the Peking University-Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy and the Center for Industrial Development and Environmental Governance at Tsinghua University.

Dr. Zheng is also the vice secretary-general of the Global Chinese Real Estate Congress. She has won awards such as the Homer Hoyt Post-Doctoral Honoree (2010) and the Best Paper Award from the American Real Estate Society (2005). She is also on the editorial boards of Journal of Housing Economics and International Real Estate Review.

Land Lines: How did you become associated with the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and its programs in China?

Siqi Zheng: I first learned about the Lincoln Institute when I did my postdoctoral research at Harvard University in 2005-2006. I joined the Peking University-Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy (PLC) as a research fellow soon after it was established in 2007. From that time I became fully involved in PLC’s research activities, such as conducting research projects, reviewing research proposals, and participating in conferences. I was awarded an international research fellowship by the Lincoln Institute in 2008-2009, with my colleagues Yuming Fu and Hongyu Liu, to study urban housing opportunities in various Chinese cities. I now lead the housing team at PLC in conducting policy-relevant research in the areas of housing market analysis and low-income housing policies.

Land Lines: Why is the study of the urban economics and the housing market so important to China’s future?

Siqi Zheng: China is experiencing rapid urbanization at a rate of about 50 percent in 2011, but it is expected to reach 70 percent over the next 10 to 20 years. Up to 1.5 million new migrants already move to Chinese cities per year. Such rapid urban growth offers potentially large economic benefits, as cities offer much better opportunities to trade, to learn, and to specialize in an occupation that offers an individual the greatest opportunity to achieve life goals.

However, rapid urbanization also imposes potentially large social costs, such as pollution and congestion, and urban quality of life suffers from a fundamental tragedy of the commons problem. Urban economics research addresses these issues and tries to figure out a way to maximize agglomeration economies and at the same time minimize congestion diseconomies. This is crucial for China’s future, because urbanization is the engine for China’s growth.

The housing sector is a key determinant of both the quantitative and qualitative dimensions of urban growth. Along the quantitative dimension, everyone in the city needs some place to live. Housing supply has important influences on a city’s overall size and its living cost, and thus the labor cost. Along the qualitative dimension, intensive social interactions happen in vibrant urban communities and neighborhoods. The spillover effect arising from such activities reduces the cost of learning and contributes to human capital improvement.

Low-income housing is a major policy issue in China. Income inequality is rising and housing prices are very high in major Chinese cities, so low-income households face severe affordability problems. For years the Chinese government had overlooked the supply of affordable housing, but it has recently began to understand that well-designed policies for low-income housing are crucial for achieving more inclusive urban growth opportunities for all residents.

Land Lines: How do you approach the study of urban economics and China’s housing market?

Siqi Zheng: I am doing cross-city and within-city studies on the intersection of urban and environmental economics. With increasing labor mobility across cities, China is moving toward a system of open cities. Under the compensating differentials framework, I use city-level real estate prices to recover households’ willingness-to-pay for urban amenities, such as better air quality, more green space, and educational opportunities. My basic finding is that Chinese urban households do value quality of life. As China’s urbanites grow richer over time, their desire to live in clean, low-risk cities is rising.

Within a city, I examine the jobs-housing spatial interactions–where people live, where they work, and how they choose their commuting mode. I use household survey data and real estate transaction data to model these behaviors, since individual choices determine the basic pattern of urban form. Those individual behaviors (“snowballs”) also have important implications for the interrelationships among land use, transportation, and the urban environment, because car ownership is rising and the increase in vehicle miles traveled has become a major contributor to pollution in Chinese cities.

I also focus on housing market dynamics and low-income housing policies. Our Tsinghua team constructed the first quality-controlled hedonic price index based on transaction data in 40 Chinese cities. My coauthors and I estimate the income elasticity of housing demand and the price elasticity of housing supply, and examine the determinants of such elasticities. Using microdata, I investigate how land and housing supply and public investments affect price and quantity dynamics in the urban housing market. I pay close attention to the housing choices of low-income households and rural migrants. Based on my behavior-based empirical study using microdata, I explore the kinds of urban and housing policies that can improve the position of these disadvantaged groups in both housing and labor markets.

Land Lines: What challenges do you think China will face in this field in the coming decade?

Siqi Zheng: The major challenge is how to achieve a successful transition toward sustainability. China’s rapid economic growth in recent years was largely export-based and benefited from low labor, land, and regulatory costs. The environmental disasters and social unrest that have occurred in many places in China indicate that the current approach is not sustainable for the long term.

Policy makers should reshape urban policies in a variety of ways. Remaining institutional barriers on labor mobility should be removed. Negative externalities of urban production and consumption activities (such as pollution and congestion) should be priced correctly so that individuals’ behaviors are consistent with the socially optimal solution. Income inequality and spatial inequality issues should be addressed. More investment in human capital is needed. Housing plays a pivot role because it is the largest asset a household owns, and it also affects accessibility to urban opportunities and the quality of social interactions.

Land Lines: What are some potential policy implications of this research on the housing market?

Siqi Zheng: Most of my work is empirical analysis with microdata, so I can focus on the incentives and choices made by individuals, firms, and governments. I also look at how these choices determine urban form, local quality of life, the labor market, and housing market outcomes. In this way I can provide key parameters for policy makers to support their policy design. For instance, I identify the cities with different housing supply and demand conditions, and suggest that officials should offer different low-income housing policy choices. Cities with an abundant housing stock can use demand-side instruments such as housing vouchers, but those without enough housing should use supply-side instruments such as building more public housing.

Land Lines: Is China’s experience with housing market development useful to share with other developing countries?

Siqi Zheng: Yes, because many countries also face difficult situations in their housing sectors. Some of the common challenges are how to house the vast numbers of rural migrants in cities; how to provide more affordable housing for increasing numbers of low-income people; where and by what means to provide such housing; and, as cities expand spatially, what are the appropriate urban planning policies and infrastructure investment strategies that can achieve efficient and inclusive urban growth? Through the research conferences and publications produced by the Peking University-Lincoln Institute Center, China’s experiences are already providing lessons for other developing countries.

Land Lines: Can you describe some examples of housing supply in the informal housing sector?

Siqi Zheng: Nations such as Brazil, India, and China have many poor migrants living in squatter and informal areas. Local governments have little incentive to provide public services to such areas because the improvements, including clean water and sewerage facilities, will simply stimulate more urban migration.

Chengzhongcun (urban village) is a typical type of informal housing in large Chinese cities. It represents a match between migrants’ demand for low-cost housing and the supply of housing available in the villages being encroached upon by urban expansion. High crime rates, inadequate infrastructure and services, and poor living conditions are just some of the problems in urban villages that threaten public security and management. My research on Chengzhongcun shows that local governments at first liked this kind of low-cost informal housing because it can lower labor costs and thus contribute to higher GDP growth in their cities. However, the low quality of social interaction and the shortage of basic public services do not provide a sustainable way of life for the poor rural migrants.

As the industrial sector moves toward a more skill-intensive economy, local governments should consider how to improve the quality of human capital rather than focus on the quantity of cheap labor. This may provide the incentive to upgrade informal housing and transform it to formal housing, or provide public housing to those migrants so they can access more urban opportunities and improve their skills. This transitional process is now occurring in China, and will soon happen in other developing countries that can benefit from China’s experience.

Another example is the role of housing supply in urban growth. Many studies already show that housing supply can support or constrain urban growth because the size and price of housing stock influence labor supply and living costs. In developing countries land and housing supply are influenced by government regulations and behaviors to a greater extent than in developed countries. The design of housing supply policies needs to accommodate future urban growth for all sectors of society.

I have written many working papers on these topics and contributed to the 2011 Lincoln Institute book, China’s Housing Reform and Outcomes, edited by Joyce Yanyun Man, director of the Peking-Lincoln Center at Peking University.

Veintitrés estados ofrecen un incentivo para preservar el espacio abierto, que consiste en un avalúo preferencial del impuesto a la propiedad sobre las parcelas elegibles (tabla 1, pág. 17). Estas reducciones en el impuesto a la propiedad pueden considerarse como gastos, ya que reducen los ingresos disponibles para otros usos con el interés de proteger la gran cantidad de atracciones y beneficios ambientales que proporciona un terreno sin desarrollar.

Los programas varían mucho de un estado a otro, pero todos los programas de avalúo preferencial para el espacio abierto deben definir el tipo y tamaño de las parcelas elegibles, los usos permitidos, los requisitos de certificación, los métodos de avalúo, la duración del plazo de inscripción y las sanciones (de corresponder) en el caso de cancelar la condición preferencial de la parcela. Varios estados ofrecen más de un programa, cada uno de los cuales establece sus propios requisitos de elegibilidad. En el presente artículo consideramos estas diferencias, ofrecemos ejemplos del cálculo del gasto fiscal y describimos los posibles beneficios y costos sociales derivados de dichos programas.

Determinación de la elegibilidad para el avalúo preferencial

Cada estado define la elegibilidad de diferentes maneras, pero los requisitos son, por lo general, relativamente sencillos de cumplir. Una parcela puede ser elegible simplemente por no estar desarrollada. Varios estados permiten que los terrenos con valor paisajístico sean elegibles siempre que la densidad de construcción no exceda los límites establecidos. Por ejemplo, en Washington se permite que los terrenos sean elegibles si cumplen al menos con uno de once requisitos muy generales, tales como la protección de corrientes de agua o recursos hídricos, la conservación o mejora de recursos naturales o paisajísticos, la preservación de la calidad visual a lo largo de los caminos o la mejora de las oportunidades recreativas.

Aunque estos criterios son muy generales, los estados pueden elevar el nivel mediante la imposición de requisitos adicionales a los propietarios. Algunos estados requieren que los propietarios elaboren un plan de gestión de la propiedad, aprobado por el estado, con el fin de fomentar los beneficios de la vida silvestre del lugar. En Vermont se establece que una organización de conservación elegible debe poseer y gestionar el espacio abierto. Uno de los dos programas vigentes en Texas requiere que los propietarios realicen actividades de gestión de terrenos y vida silvestre con el fin de propagar una población de animales salvajes indígenas, que estén criando, migrando o hibernando, para uso humano, incluidas alimentación, medicina o recreación.

Varios estados ofrecen un avalúo preferencial a las propiedades que han obtenido la condición de espacio abierto a nivel federal. Por ejemplo, las parcelas que se encuentran limitadas por una servidumbre de conservación que cumple con los requisitos del IRS (Servicio de Rentas Internas) para ser considerada una donación de beneficencia son automáticamente elegibles para un avalúo preferencial en Illinois y Oregón. En Ohio, las parcelas son elegibles sólo si son objeto de un contrato con alguno de los cuatro programas de la USDA (Departamento de Agricultura de los Estados Unidos): el Programa de Reserva de Conservación, el Programa de Mejora de Reserva de Conservación, el Programa de Reserva de Pantanos y el Programa de Preservación de Pastizales.

Además, es posible que las parcelas deban cumplir requisitos de tamaño mínimo. El mínimo más común es de 4 hectáreas contiguas, aunque algunos programas permiten propiedades más pequeñas, de hasta 0,8 hectáreas y otros programas directamente no establecen requisitos en este sentido. Unos pocos estados limitan el total de hectáreas que un propietario en particular puede inscribir en el programa. Por ejemplo, en Tennessee se limita la elegibilidad a 607 hectáreas por propietario y condado, incluyendo tierras agrícolas, bosques y espacio abierto combinados. La declaración del tipo de uso de la propiedad puede tener influencia sobre la posibilidad de que dicha propiedad sea aceptada o no, ya que algunos estados prohíben específicamente las propiedades con fines comerciales, tales como los campos de golf. No obstante, al menos dos estados tienen programas diseñados específicamente para los campos de golf y otras propiedades con fines comerciales que brindan oportunidades de recreación al aire libre.

Criterios estatales versus criterios municipales

Los gobiernos estatales por lo general autorizan la creación de programas de avalúo preferencial y los criterios de inclusión. Seis estados permiten que los funcionarios municipales o de cada condado determinen los criterios: el estado autoriza un programa y solamente establece, por ejemplo, que las parcelas estén “incluidas en un plan de preservación aprobado por una agencia de planificación estatal o municipal” (Chervin, Gibson y Green 2009, 8) o que el organismo gubernamental respectivo acepte la propiedad mediante una resolución. Los estados que establecen este requisito son California, Connecticut, Florida, Nevada, Tennessee y Oregón. Los funcionarios municipales o de cada condado deben luego escoger los criterios de elegibilidad que, en algunos casos, incluyen la denominación de parcelas específicas. En otros casos, la oficina de avalúo determina la elegibilidad teniendo en cuenta las características de la propiedad y evaluando si ésta cumple con los criterios.

Este enfoque permite a los gobiernos municipales controlar la cantidad de gastos realizados en sus respectivas jurisdicciones y adaptar el programa con el fin de proteger las cualidades específicas que resultan más importantes para esa área en particular. Por ejemplo, es posible que los funcionarios en un entorno predominantemente agrícola prefieran utilizar los gastos fiscales en bosques o pantanos, mientras que los campos abiertos tal vez sean más valorados en un entorno más urbano.

Cálculo del valor del gasto fiscal

Los programas de avalúo preferencial de espacios abiertos por lo general utilizan uno de los tres métodos para determinar el valor fiscal de la propiedad. Nueve estados valúan el espacio abierto como si estuviera inscrito en el programa del estado para agricultura o bosques, aun cuando el terreno no se utilice para ninguna de estas actividades. Otros nueve estados ordenan a los tasadores valuar las propiedades teniendo en cuenta solamente su utilización actual, sin incluir el valor de los derechos de desarrollo (es decir, el valor de mercado como si su uso futuro estuviera permanentemente limitado a su uso actual). Cuatro estados establecen que los tasadores deben determinar el valor justo de mercado como si el terreno no estuviera inscrito en el programa y luego aplicar una fórmula establecida por ley con el fin de determinar el valor fiscal preferencial. Illinois tiene tres programas de avalúo preferencial para el espacio abierto, que varían según sus criterios de elegibilidad, aunque todos ofrecen reducciones establecidas por ley que se encuentran entre el 75 por ciento y el 85 por ciento. Nevada aplica un descuento establecido por ley más reducido del 26 por ciento.

En ocasiones, los estados deciden definir valores máximos o mínimos por hectárea para las parcelas en espacios abiertos. Por ejemplo, en Maryland se estableció un valor en todo el estado de US$187,50 por acre (US$75 por hectárea) para el año 2009. En Washington se permite que los gobiernos municipales determinen el valor de uso para su región, según un sistema de calificación de beneficios públicos; en el caso de que no exista tal sistema, los terrenos en espacios abiertos pueden recibir una valuación no menor que la valuación agrícola más baja del condado. En Massachusetts se calcula el valor preferencial como valor de uso, que no debe exceder el 25 por ciento del valor justo de mercado.

Duración del programa y sanciones por rescisión anticipada

Muchos programas establecen la renovación anual automática a menos que el propietario decida retirarse del programa. En algunos casos, la duración del contrato está predeterminada: con frecuencia es de 10 años, período que generalmente se traslada al nuevo propietario cuando se vende la propiedad, a menos que el nuevo propietario altere el uso de la propiedad e infrinja los términos del programa. Los propietarios deben pagar una multa por retirarse del programa para alterar el uso del terreno o por alterarlo sin notificar esta decisión. Las sanciones suelen ser equivalentes al valor del gasto fiscal recibido para una determinada cantidad de años antes del año en curso, más los intereses sobre dichos gastos. Varios estados aplican un monto del 10 por ciento del valor justo de mercado cuando la utilización de la parcela cambia, o cobran un impuesto a la transferencia o transmisión de la propiedad cuando una parcela inscrita en el programa se vende.

Sin embargo, si un propietario retira una parcela de un programa después de transcurrida una cantidad mínima de años, el estado puede reducir o incluso eliminar las sanciones. Por ejemplo, en Vermont se les cobra a los propietarios el 20 por ciento del valor justo de mercado por retirar la propiedad durante la primera década, y un 10 por ciento por retirarla después de los 10 años. Rhode Island deduce el 10 por ciento del nuevo valor justo de mercado por retirar una propiedad del programa después de transcurridos 6 años, pero dicha multa se va reduciendo hasta que el contrato se rescinde, es decir, a los 16 años de la inscripción en el programa.

Beneficios económicos de la preservación del espacio abierto

La abundante bibliografía en torno a los efectos que las atracciones ambientales tienen sobre los valores de las propiedades circundantes sugiere que si se evita el desarrollo en una parcela, esto traerá como consecuencia el aumento del valor de las parcelas adyacentes. Sin embargo, en estas investigaciones se observaron factores de complicación que dificultan la predicción de cambios en el valor para regiones específicas. Por ejemplo, los resultados de un estudio realizado en Maryland arrojaron que los programas para espacios abiertos tienen efectos muy diferentes en el valor de las propiedades en tres condados distintos, probablemente debido, al menos en parte, a las variaciones en la cantidad de espacios abiertos que existen (Geoghegan, Lynch y Bucholtz 2003). Muchos otros estudios indican que el valor del espacio abierto para propietarios en particular disminuye a medida que aumenta la distancia desde la parcela protegida (Chamblee y otros 2011). El tipo de hábitat o espacio verde probablemente también sea un factor de influencia: según un análisis, la presencia de árboles frondosos en un barrio se asocia con valores positivos, pero la presencia de abetos tiene un efecto negativo en los valores de la propiedad (Garrod y Willis 1992). Los resultados de un análisis de precios de viviendas en Tucson, Arizona, arrojaron que existe una preferencia por viviendas en áreas con espacios verdes, inclusive el hábitat ribereño nativo (Bark y otros 2009; 2011).

El acceso público a espacios abiertos de propiedad privada con fines recreativos o educativos probablemente también brindaría grandes bene-ficios al municipio en muchos casos. Los estados casi nunca requieren que el acceso público sea una condición para el gasto fiscal, aunque tanto Maine como Nueva Hampshire fomentan esta condición, ya que ofrecen una reducción adicional en el valor fiscal del 25 por ciento y el 20 por ciento, respectivamente.

El espacio abierto protegido también puede reducir el crecimiento en la demanda de servicios provistos por el municipio y, así, evitar los efectos negativos del desarrollo, tales como el tránsito intenso o las escuelas superpobladas, que muy probablemente se traducirían en una mayor carga fiscal para los residentes actuales. La creciente bibliografía en cuanto al costo de los servicios comunitarios indica que los impuestos a la propiedad que se pagan por los terrenos desarrollados son, por lo general, insuficientes a la hora de cubrir el costo de los servicios creados con el fin de apoyar dicho desarrollo, mientras que los espacios abiertos frecuentemente generan ingresos fiscales que exceden el costo de los servicios utilizados en la propiedad. El American Farmland Trust observó, según los resultados de 151 estudios realizados en condados y municipios de 25 estados, que los propietarios de terrenos de cultivo o espacios abiertos con frecuencia pagan impuestos superiores al costo de los servicios que reciben en dichas propiedades (e incluso llegan a ser el doble), mientras que los propietarios de inmuebles residenciales por lo general pagan menos que el costo de los servicios que reciben (Farmland Information Center 2010).

Resultados de este tipo sugieren que el avalúo preferencial puede justificarse con base en la equidad, ya que es posible que los propietarios de espacios abiertos estén subsidiando servicios prestados a los propietarios de inmuebles desarrollados. Sin embargo, el hecho de que la mayoría de los programas requieran un contrato a largo plazo e incluyan sanciones por la rescisión anticipada indica que el objetivo no es la equidad sino evitar el desarrollo durante un período determinado.

Lamentablemente, existe muy poca bibliografía sobre la estimación de si los programas de avalúo preferencial pueden evitar el desarrollo futuro en parcelas que no se encuentran protegidas en forma permanente, tales como las servidumbres. Gran parte de las evidencias que existen actualmente está basada en estudios sobre los programas de protección de terrenos agrícolas en lugar de evaluaciones del impacto que los gastos del impuesto a la propiedad tienen sobre el espacio abierto. En dos estudios llevados a cabo por el programa Greenbelt (cinturón verde) de Tennessee se evaluó una encuesta realizada a propietarios de zonas boscosas inscritos en el programa y sus resultados arrojaron muy pocas pruebas que sustentaran la hipótesis de que el avalúo preferencial reducía la probabilidad de que se llevaran a cabo desarrollos en dichas parcelas (Brockett, Gottfried y Evans 2003; Williams y otros 2004).

Es mucho más sencillo evaluar los terrenos sujetos a una protección a largo plazo o permanente, ya sea mediante una servidumbre de conservación perpetua como a través de un contrato de avalúo preferencial a largo plazo que incluya importantes sanciones en caso de rescisión anticipada. En dichos casos, es posible predecir con un gran nivel de confianza la presencia continua del espacio abierto. Lamentablemente, dichos contratos de protección pueden anteceder al avalúo preferencial o, en otros casos, no estar influenciados por dicho avalúo.

Costos del avalúo preferencial para el espacio abierto

Además del gasto fiscal en sí, estos programas pueden generar otros posibles costos. Por ejemplo, aquellos programas que requieren la aprobación de un plan de conservación podrían generar un gasto particularmente significativo. Aun cuando una agencia estatal pudiera desarrollar y aprobar dicho plan, resultaría muy costoso garantizar el cumplimiento de las condiciones del mismo.

La supervisión del cumplimiento del programa requiere evaluar no sólo los cambios en el valor de mercado de la propiedad sino también los cambios en la utilización de la propiedad. Por ejemplo, si el espacio abierto se usa para pastura del ganado, este nuevo uso podría proteger la situación de no desarrollo de la propiedad pero, aun así, los beneficios ambientales podrían verse disminuidos.

Además, los resultados de los estudios sugieren que, en algunos casos, la preservación del espacio abierto puede reducir el valor de la propiedad por transferencia de los patrones de desarrollo que, generalmente, dan como resultado el desarrollo de las propiedades adyacentes (Irwin y Bockstael 2004; McDonald y otros 2007). Si el avalúo preferencial evita el desarrollo en determinadas parcelas, dicho desarrollo podría trasladarse a otras parcelas de tal manera que aumentaría la expansión urbana descontrolada. Si se da un patrón de desarrollo discontinuo a causa de un programa que evitó el desarrollo parcela por parcela, los efectos negativos (tales como mayores costos de infraestructura) podrían superar en gran medida cualquier beneficio público que generara el programa.

Debido a la naturaleza voluntaria de estos programas y a los cambios que pueden darse en los patrones de desarrollo, en el peor de los casos, las parcelas de menor calidad podrían recibir un avalúo preferencial, lo que aumentaría la presión para llevar a cabo desarrollos en las parcelas que generan mayores beneficios públicos. Por un lado, la aprobación del gobierno municipal podría disminuir este problema, ya que permitiría que las personas que tienen un mejor conocimiento del área pudieran escoger las parcelas que merecen más protección. Por otro lado, esto podría inspirar a los funcionarios municipales a proteger el espacio abierto en sus respectivas jurisdicciones, lo que incitaría el desarrollo en las comunidades vecinas y generaría patrones de desarrollo no deseados a nivel regional. Es importante destacar además que el avalúo preferencial del espacio abierto genera, hasta cierto punto, un sistema de tarifas diferenciadas, según el cual la tarifa más alta se aplica sobre los terrenos desarrollados, especialmente sobre las mejoras realizadas a los terrenos; este problema ha sido un motivo de preocupación para muchos académicos en el campo del impuesto a la propiedad y puede afectar en gran medida los patrones de uso del suelo.

Finalmente, el valor de los beneficios públicos no es estático, ya que puede aumentar o disminuir dependiendo de la condición de la propiedad y el área circundante. Los cambios pueden ser independientes de los futuros cambios en el valor fiscal o, incluso, pueden estar negativamente correlacionados con los mismos. Por ejemplo, una presión más intensa para llevar a cabo desarrollos podría aumentar el beneficio de preservar una parcela de grandes dimensiones como espacio abierto, o podría disminuir el beneficio de preservar una pequeña parcela aislada. Un espacio abierto de 10 hectáreas en medio de una ciudad podría beneficiar en gran manera a la comunidad; sin embargo, si se llevan a cabo desarrollos en 9 de esas hectáreas, esto probablemente reduciría los beneficios ambientales de la hectárea restante. Sin embargo, en ambos casos, es probable que aumenten los ahorros fiscales derivados del avalúo preferencial, ya que la presión por el desarrollo genera un aumento en los valores de las propiedades en el lugar.

Estos factores indican que, a pesar de que el avalúo preferencial ofrece a los propietarios un incentivo para preservar los beneficios públicos, la cantidad del incentivo puede no compensar, o incluso compensar de más, el beneficio generado. Esto dará como resultado un programa ineficiente en sí mismo, aunque este tipo de programas siga dando importantes beneficios netos si se compara con el hecho de no tener ningún programa.

Consecuencias en la distribución

Los gastos en el impuesto a la propiedad con el fin de proteger el espacio abierto tendrán consecuencias en la distribución. De manera más inmediata, el programa redistribuiría la carga fiscal a otros propietarios de inmuebles en los mismos distritos tributarios, a medida que los gobiernos modifican el tipo fiscal a tanto por mil a fin de mantener la recaudación presupuestada. Los propietarios de inmuebles desarrollados constituirían así una gran parte de la base imponible y, como resultado, deberían pagar una fracción mayor de la factura de cobro total del impuesto.

Debido a que los programas de avalúo preferencial se encuentran diseñados principalmente para mantener el espacio abierto existente, las parcelas inscritas en dichos programas continúan generando beneficios, aunque dichos beneficios no aumenten necesariamente. De esta manera, sería de esperar que los beneficios públicos continuaran devengándose como hasta ahora. Sólo los residentes locales se beneficiarán con los paisajes y los costos externos previstos del desarrollo, mientras que tanto residentes como no residentes por igual podrán obtener los beneficios derivados de la protección de las cuencas de agua o los hábitats de especies en riesgo (Anderson y West 2006). No obstante, podría esperarse un aumento de los beneficios si el programa requiriera a los propietarios que mejoraran el valor del espacio abierto realizando actividades tales como la restauración de hábitats.

Varias investigaciones indican que los efectos del espacio abierto en los valores de las propiedades adyacentes dependen significativamente del tipo de protección y de su capacidad para evitar el desarrollo en el futuro. Por ejemplo, los terrenos adquiridos como parques o reservas forestales o los terrenos que se encuentran sujetos a una servidumbre de conservación tienen un efecto mucho más positivo en el valor de las propiedades adyacentes que el espacio abierto que no se encuentra protegido de forma permanente (Geoghegan 2002). La inscripción en un programa de avalúo preferencial podría tener pocos efectos, o incluso ninguno en absoluto, en los valores de las propiedades adyacentes si la protección se percibe como algo temporal, lo que puede dar como resultado reducciones permanentes en la recaudación o tasas de impuesto permanentemente altas sobre las parcelas que no se encuentran inscritas.

Cálculo del costo fiscal de los gastos del avalúo preferencial

La metodología para calcular el gasto fiscal derivado del avalúo preferencial del espacio abierto es clara. El propietario del inmueble percibiría una carga fiscal reducida, resultado de la diferencia entre el avalúo sin el programa y el avalúo preferencial. Esta disminución en el valor fiscal puede reducir la recaudación fiscal debido a la reducción de la base imponible. De forma alternativa, la pérdida de recaudación podría compensarse transfiriendo dicha carga fiscal a otros propietarios de inmuebles, a los que se les aumenta la tasa del impuesto. También es posible una combinación de ambos resultados. En el informe de gastos fiscales de Oregón (tabla 2) se observó tanto la pérdida como la transferencia del impuesto; en dicho informe se indican valores de exención de US$126 millones en el ejercicio 2009–2010 para los tres programas aplicables al espacio abierto. La pérdida de recaudación estimada en dos ejercicios es de US$3,2 millones, mientras que la recaudación estimada derivada de la transferencia del impuesto durante dicho período es de US$0,7 millones.

Los datos son desiguales de un estado a otro, lo que dificulta la estimación de los efectos del avalúo preferencial en la recaudación. Los datos totales que se presentaron respecto de Oregón son mucho más útiles que los datos presentados por otros estados. Aquellos estados que no calculan los gastos del impuesto a la propiedad con regularidad no facilitan el acceso a dichos datos; como mucho, por lo general presentan cifras totales que combinan los resultados de los programas para terrenos agrícolas, bosques y espacios abiertos. En la tabla 2 también se indican los alcances relativos del espacio abierto en dicho contexto. Los valores de exención para las zonas boscosas privadas fueron superiores a los US$5 mil millones, y los valores de exención para los terrenos de labranza y las viviendas en zonas agrícolas fueron de US$14,1 mil millones. Los tres programas de conservación combinados representan aproximadamente el 0,5 por ciento del valor total de exenciones y menos del 1 por ciento de la recaudación perdida o trasladada.

Estos cálculos también dependen de otros efectos que pueden ser muy difíciles de observar. Será imposible determinar los alcances de la transferencia de la recaudación sin tener información detallada acerca de la capacidad de respuesta del gobierno municipal a la hora de modificar el tipo fiscal a tanto por mil. En este caso, la estimación sólo corresponderá a la recaudación prevista. También será necesario ignorar los posibles efectos positivos del programa en cuanto al valor inmobiliario en las parcelas adyacentes.

Conclusión

La tarea de diseñar un programa de avalúo preferencial para el espacio abierto requiere una cuidadosa consideración. Aunque los terrenos con poco desarrollo brindan atracciones y beneficios ambientales bajo numerosas circunstancias, el valor de dichos beneficios puede variar significativamente según las condiciones de cada lugar. Si el objetivo principal del programa es proporcionar beneficios a nivel municipal en vez de regional, establecer un único conjunto de criterios para todo el estado probablemente no maximizaría los beneficios. La determinación de criterios de inscripción a nivel municipal puede otorgar la flexibilidad necesaria para reaccionar ante las mencionadas condiciones variables, mientras que los criterios a nivel estatal probablemente son necesarios para proteger los recursos regionales, tales como las cuencas de agua.

La escasez de investigaciones empíricas en esta área de estudio dificulta la tarea de evaluar la efectividad de los programas actualmente en vigencia. Si el objetivo es verdaderamente evitar el desarrollo en ciertas parcelas, al diseñar el programa debería tenerse en cuenta la duración del contrato y las sanciones por rescisión anticipada del mismo. Los retrasos a corto plazo en el desarrollo generarán beneficios principalmente para los propietarios del espacio abierto. Para que un programa tenga éxito, el espacio abierto debe generar beneficios significativos para la comunidad, ya sea mediante una protección ambiental a largo plazo como la aplicación de mayores valores inmobiliarios para otros residentes del área. Si el programa establece mayores requisitos de elegibilidad, esto debería reducir la cantidad de hectáreas inscritas; no obstante, el objetivo principal del programa no debería ser la cantidad de hectáreas inscritas, a menos que la intención de los legisladores sea únicamente la reducción del desarrollo a nivel municipal. La inscripción de una significativa cantidad de parcelas en el programa podría tener importantes implicaciones fiscales para las juris-dicciones municipales, especialmente cuando el establecimiento de criterios amplios y sanciones de poco monto por rescisión anticipada permite que los propietarios fácilmente se inscriban en el programa y luego lleven a cabo desarrollos en su propiedad. El diseño de los programas debe garantizar un máximo de beneficios públicos a cambio de los efectos fiscales.

El presente artículo es una adaptación del documento de trabajo del Instituto Lincoln titulado “Avalúo preferencial para el espacio abierto”: https://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/dl/2281_1620_Sundberg_WP13JS1.pdf

Sobre el autor

Jeffrey O. Sundberg es profesor de Artes liberales y negocios en la Fundación James S. Kemper y profesor de Economía en la Universidad Lake Forest. Obtuvo su doctorado (Ph.D) en Economía por la Universidad de Stanford. Sus intereses de investigación actuales son la eficiencia de los incentivos fiscales estatales y federales para las donaciones de servidumbre de conservación y los programas de avalúo preferencial para el espacio abierto. Sundberg también se desempeñó como presidente del directorio de un fideicomiso de suelo en el condado de Lake, Illinois, durante cuatro años. Contacto: jsundber@mx.lakeforest.edu.

Recursos

Anderson, Soren y Sarah West. 2006. Open space, residential property values, and spatial context. Regional Science and Urban Economics 36: 773–789.

Bark, R. H., D. E. Osgood, B. G Colby y E. Halper. 2011. How Do Homebuyers Value Different Types of Green Space? Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 36(3): 395–415.

Bark, R. H., D. E. Osgood, B. G. Colby, G. Katz y J. Stromberg. 2009. Habitat preservation and restoration: Do homebuyers have preferences for quality habitat? Ecological Economics 68(5): 1465–1475.

Brockett, C. D., R. R. Gottfried y J. P. Evans. 2003. The Use of State Tax Incentives to Promote Forest Preservation on Private Lands in Tennessee: An Evaluation of Their Equity and Effectiveness Impacts. Politics and Policy 31(2): 252–281.

Chamblee, John F., Peter F. Colwell, Carolyn A. Dehring y Craig A. Depken. 2011. The Effect of Conservation Activity on Surrounding Land Prices. Land Economics 87(3): 453–472.

Chervin, Stan, Teresa Gibson y Harry Green. 2009. Greenbelt Revisited. Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. http://www.tn.gov/tacir/PDF_FILES/Taxes/greenbeltrevisited.pdf.

Farmland Information Center, American Farmland Trust. 2010. Fact Sheet: Cost of Community Services Studies. http://www.farmland.org/documents/Cost-of-Community-Services-08-2010.pdf.

Garrod, Guy y Ken Willis. 1992. The environmental economic impact of woodland: a two-stage hedonic price model of the amenity value of forestry in Britain. Applied Economics 24: 715–728.

Geoghegan, Jacqueline, Lori Lynch y Shawn Bucholtz. 2003. Capitalization of Open Spaces into Housing Values and the Residential Property Tax Revenue Impacts of Agricultural Easement Programs. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 32(1): 33–45.

Geoghegan, Jacqueline. 2002. The Value of Open Spaces in Residential Land Use. Land Use Policy 19(1): 91–98.

Irwin, Elana G. y Nancy E. Bockstael. 2004. Land Use Externalities, Open Space Preservation, and Urban Sprawl. Regional Science and Urban Economics 34:705–725.

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.

Harmful impacts of sprawl in terms of air and water pollution, waste of energy and time, traffic congestion and highway accidents, lack of affordable housing, increased flooding, and loss of biodiversity have been widely documented (Platt 2004, ch. 6). Also, the fiscal impacts of sprawl on local communities have been evaluated by researchers at the Brookings Institution, the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, and elsewhere.

Slaying the “beast of sprawl” has been the Holy Grail of planners and land use lawyers for decades, stimulating the development of new tools like planned unit development (PUD), cluster zoning, subdivision exactions, preferential taxation of farm and forest land, transfer of development rights (TDR), state land use planning, and growth management. Reflecting the antisprawl fervor of the 1970s, a prominent policy report titled The Use of Land euphorically declared:

“There is a new mood in America. Increasingly, citizens are asking what urban growth will add to the quality of their lives. They are questioning the way relatively unconstrained, piecemeal urbanization is changing their communities and are rebelling against the traditional processes of government and the marketplace.” (Rockefeller Brothers Fund 1973, 33)

La cuestión central que deben resolver los conservacionistas de suelos hoy en día es cómo ampliar la escala de sus esfuerzos para proteger paisajes y sistemas naturales completos. El movimiento de fideicomisos de suelos se ha cimentado en los éxitos individuales de conservación de propiedades privadas, pero crecientemente tanto los conservacionistas como los propietarios que llegan a acuerdos de conservación quieren saber cómo se puede extender este esfuerzo a sus vecinos, a su barrio y, por sobre todo, a su paisaje (Williams 2011).

Los agricultores y ganaderos expresan la necesidad de sustentar una red continua de tierras de trabajo —una masa crítica de actividad agrícola ganadera— para no correr el riesgo de perder las actividades de respaldo comercial y la cooperación comunitaria necesarias para sobrevivir. Los bomberos abogan por mantener las tierras distantes sin desarrollar, con objeto de reducir el peligro y el costo de incendios en las comunidades locales. Los deportistas están perdiendo acceso a suelos públicos y a la vida silvestre cuando el hábitat es fragmentado por emprendimientos rurales. Los biólogos conservacionistas han argumentado desde hace tiempo que se podrían sustentar más especies, si se protegen espacios más extensos, mientras que, por el contrario, la disminución y desaparición de las especies se debe principalmente a la fragmentación del hábitat. Por último, un clima tan rápidamente cambiante redobla la necesidad de proteger ecosistemas grandes e interconectados para que puedan mantenerse a largo plazo.

Muchos financistas y socios del sector público están tratando de concentrar sus esfuerzos de colaboración para la de conservación del paisaje, de manera que la comunidad de fideicomisos de suelos tiene una excelente oportunidad de potenciar su buena labor embarcándose en “alianzas para el paisaje”. Los fideicomisos de suelos, con su desarrollo de base y estilo de trabajo cooperativo, están en una muy buena posición para respaldar iniciativas locales. El proceso de construcción de estos esfuerzos, sin embargo, requiere un compromiso que va más allá de la urgencia de transacciones y campañas de recaudación de fondos, y exige un esfuerzo sostenido que es mucho más amplio que las metas inmediatas que se proponen muchos fideicomisos de suelos.

¿Cómo se mide el éxito?

El río Blackfoot en M ontana se hizo famoso en 1976 gracias a la historia A River Runs Through It (Nada es para siempre) de Norman Maclean (Maclean 2001), pero lo que realmente es destacable en la región de Blackfoot es la manera en que una comunidad ha trabajado durante muchas décadas para sustentar este lugar tan especial. En la década de 1970 se iniciaron los esfuerzos de conservación por parte de los propietarios locales y en 1993 se estableció la organización Blackfoot Challenge con el objeto de aunar los diversos intereses de la zona en medidas consensuadas que posibilitaran el mantenimiento del carácter rural y los recursos naturales del valle. Jim Stone, presidente de este grupo de propietarios, dice: “nos cansamos de quejarnos de lo que no podíamos hacer, así que decidimos hablar sobre lo que sí podíamos”.

En este esfuerzo conjunto se han utilizado estrategias novedosas de conservación en Blackfoot que se han reproducido en muchos otros lugares. El trabajo del grupo comenzó concentrándose en una mejor gestión del creciente uso recreativo del río y en proteger el corredor fluvial. La primera exención para conservación de Montana se promulgó en Blackfoot en 1976, como parte de este esfuerzo pionero. A partir de este éxito inicial, se fueron creando iniciativas más ambiciosas con la participación de un creciente número de aliados.

Cuando los propietarios se quejaban de que no tenían suficiente ayuda para controlar la maleza, Challenge estableció el distrito de control de maleza más grande del Oeste. Cuando los propietarios plantearon que no había recursos suficientes para conservar las haciendas en funcionamiento, Challenge ayudó a crear un programa innovador del Servicio de Pesca y Vida Silvestre de los EE. UU. (US Fish and Wildlife Service, o USFWS) para adquirir servidumbres de conservación junto con el Fondo de Conservación de Suelos y Aguas (Land and Water Conservation Fund, o LWCF), que históricamente se ha usado para la adquisición de suelo público.

Cuando los propietarios estaban preocupados por la venta potencial de grandes áreas forestales en el valle, Challenge lanzó un plan comprensivo de adquisiciones que conectó haciendas privadas protegidas al pie del valle con suelos forestales públicos más altos. Cuando los propietarios reconocieron la necesidad de realizar una restauración sistémica del río, Challenge y la sucursal Big Blackfoot de Trout Unlimited ayudaron a restaurar más de 48 corrientes tributarias y 600 millas de pasos piscícolas para preservar la circulación de la trucha nativa y la salud de la cuenca (Trout Unlimited 2011).

Blackfoot Challenge se ha asociado con más de 160 propietarios, 30 empresas, 30 organizaciones sin fines de lucro y 20 dependencias públicas. Claramente, la visión de Challenge para la región no se limita simplemente a algunas haciendas, sino que se preocupa por la salud a largo plazo de todo el valle del río, de “ladera a ladera”, según las palabras de Jim Stone (ver figura 1).

El aspecto admirable de la historia de Blackfoot es que no se trata de una rara excepción, sino que constituye el emblema de un movimiento creciente que se dedica a esfuerzos de colaboración para la conservación en todo el país. Estas alianzas para la conservación del paisaje confirman un consenso emergente sobre la necesidad de proteger y sustentar paisajes completos que son vitales, tanto para la salud de los peces y la vida silvestre, como para la vitalidad de las comunidades locales, su economía y su calidad de vida.

Esfuerzos de conservación iniciados por los propietarios

La historia de Blackfoot subraya una de las lecciones más importantes que emergen de las iniciativas de conservación comunitarias: los propietarios locales deben liderarlas, y todos los demás deben respaldarlos. El ejemplo del río Yampa, en el oeste de Colorado, ilustra esta estrategia. A comienzos de la década de 1990, los grupos conservacionistas estaban tratando de proteger esta región, pero toparon con la falta de confianza de los ganaderos locales. En el valle había personas con visión de futuro entre la comunidad y grupos que trataban de impulsar la conservación en la región, pero ninguna de las ideas arraigó de forma efectiva, precisamente porque los propietarios locales no lideraban el proyecto.

Esa dinámica sufrió un vuelco de 180 grados con varias iniciativas de los propietarios, entre las cuales destacó la del Plan de Suelos Abiertos del Condado de Routt (Routt County Open Lands Plan). Las recomendaciones de plan surgieron de una serie de reuniones que los propietarios locales celebraron a lo largo y ancho del condado. El plan proponía ocho medidas significativas para gestionar mejor el crecimiento explosivo en el valle, desde una ordenanza que otorgaba el derecho a cultivar, hasta un programa de adquisición de derechos de desarrollo inmobiliario en haciendas activas. El condado de Routt se convirtió en uno de los primeros condados rurales del Oeste en obtener fondos públicos por medio de una medida electoral para proteger las haciendas activas.

Malpai Borderlands es otro ejemplo ilustrativo de cómo el liderazgo de los propietarios puede superar varias décadas de inacción. Después de muchos años de conflicto entre los ganaderos propietarios y las agencias federales sobre la gestión de los suelos públicos situados alrededor de las montañas Ánimas, en el talón de la bota del estado de Nuevo México y el sudeste de Arizona, Bill Macdonald y otros ganaderos propietarios de la zona organizaron una alianza llamada Grupo de Malpai Borderlands para volver a introducir el fuego como medio para preservar la salud de los pastizales y la economía ganadera local. Este esfuerzo generó una asociación innovadora entre ganaderos, grupos de conservación y dependencias públicas para conservar y sustentar este ambiente silvestre de 404.684 hectáreas en actividad por medio de servidumbres de conservación, bancos de pastizales y un enfoque más integrado de administración del sistema en general.

Fideicomisos de suelos y sociedades públicas-privadas

De la misma manera que el liderazgo de los propietarios es fundamental en los esfuerzos cooperativos de conservación a escala de paisaje, los fideicomisos y agencias de suelos también pueden desempeñar un papel importante como líder secundario y aliado fiable que posee fuertes vínculos locales, conocimientode los recursos externos y una capacidad para implementar proyectos de investigación y conservación. En Rocky Mountain Front, en Montana, por ejemplo, los ganaderos locales están colaborando con varios fideicomisos de suelos y el USFWS para proteger los suelos activos por medio de servidumbres ecológicas. El comité de propietarios locales ha sido presidido por varios ganaderos locales, pero ha sido su amistad de 20 años con Dave Carr de The Nature Conservancy el hecho decisivo para que el comité se mantuviera activo. Greg Neudecker, del Programa de Socios para la Vida Silvestre (Partners for Wildlife Program) de USFWS, ha jugado un papel similar en Blackfoot, dados sus 21 años de servicio en la cooperación comunitaria.

Muchos propietarios y fideicomisos de suelos son renuentes a crear alianzas con dependencias públicas para proteger el paisaje porque frecuentemente abogan por la conservación con medios privados. Sin embargo, cuando se las incorpora como parte de una sociedad para la conservación del paisaje, las agencias estatales y federales pueden ser aliados muy efectivos. En Blackfoot, los estudios científicos, investigaciones, monitorización, financiamiento y trabajo de restauración efectuados por el estado

de Montana y el USFWS han tenido un impacto enorme en la recuperación del sistema del río.

En el frente de protección de suelos, la adquisición pública de bosques madereros extensos en Blackfoot ha complementado el trabajo de los fideicomisos de suelos privados al consolidar suelos públicos y permitir el acceso de la comunidad a dichos suelos para pastar, explotar el bosque y realizar actividades recreativas. Reconociendo los problemas generados por un siglo de supresión de incendios, el Servicio Forestal de los EE. UU. inició proyectos experimentales de desgaste forestal de pequeño diámetro para restaurar la estructura y el funcionamiento de los bosques y reducir la amenaza de incendio en el valle. Esta actividad se está ampliando ahora por medio de un nuevo Programa de Cooperación para la Restauración del Paisaje Forestal (Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration ProgramiI>, o CFLRP) financiado por el gobierno federal en los valles de Blackfoot, Clearwater y Swan.

El principio más general es que todas las partes interesadas principales tienen que involucrarse activamente para consensuar una base de intereses comunes. David M annix, otro hacendado de Blackfoot Challenge, explica lo que ellos denominan la “regal 80-20”: “Trabajamos sobre el 80 por ciento en queestamos de acuerdo y dejamos el 20 por ciento restante a la puerta, junto con el sombrero”. Jim Stone afirma que cuando la gente va a una reunion de Blackfoot Challenge “le pedimos que deje sus intereses organizativos en la puerta y dé prioridad al paisaje”, y se centre en la salud de los suelos y de las comunidades que de ellos dependen.

Para que estas alianzas entre el sector privado y el público puedan funcionar, es realmente importante que participe la “gente que importa”, es decir, individuos creativos que estén motivados por una vision común y que, al mismo tiempo, sean lo suficientemente modestos como para reconocer que no tienen todas las respuestas. La colaboración toma tiempo. Una vez que se hayan alcanzado acuerdos en común, es fundamental tener un éxito inicial, aunque sea pequeño, que sirva de base para futuras soluciones de mayor envergadura.

La necesidad de financiamiento

La barrera más importante para que los grupos cooperativos locales puedan alcanzar sus metas a nivel de paisaje es la falta de financiamiento adecuado. Sin un respaldo financiero suficiente, los esfuerzos cooperativos pierden, con frecuencia, su impulso, lo que puede retrasar este tipo de trabajo por muchos años.

El financiamiento no es un elemento estático, pero es proporcional a la escala de resultados que se pueden obtener y al número de participantes que se incorporan al esfuerzo. Los financistas privados o públicos no quieren participar en un éxito parcial a menos que sea un paso hacia un objetivo sustentable de largo plazo. Y no quieren proporcionar financiamiento en lugares donde los grupos están compitiendo. Cada vez más, los fideicomisos y agencias de suelos se han dado cuenta del potencial que se puede alcanzar por medio de la colaboración. Los donantes han tomado siempre la iniciativa en este tema, porque viven en un mundo de recursos limitados y comprenden el valor de potenciar una variedad de recursos y financiamientos.

Aunque se realicen grandes esfuerzos de cooperación con objetivos comunes y una gran probabilidad de éxito, frecuentemente existe una brecha de financiamiento para alcanzar una verdadera conservación del paisaje. Mark Schaffer, exdirector del Programa del M edio Ambiente de la Fundación Caritativa Doris Duke, estimó que esta brecha asciende a alrededor de 5 mil millones de dólares por año en financiamiento nuevo e incentivos tributarios que harán falta en los próximos 30 años para conservar una red de paisajes importantes en los Estados Unidos.

En la actualidad la comunidad de fideicomisos de suelos está conservando suelos a un ritmo de alrededor de 1,05 millones de hectáreas por año, un total acumulado de alrededor de 14,9 millones de hectáreas de acuerdo al último censo de 2005 (Land Trust Alliance 2006). No obstante, para sustentar paisajes completos antes de que las necesidades más urgentes cierren las puertas de la oportunidad, este ritmo se tiene que duplicar o triplicar, y se deben realizar esfuerzos de forma aun más orientada.

Oportunidades emergentes para la conservación a nivel de paisaje

Hay varias tendencias importantes y oportunidades de corto plazo que se podrían aprovechar para promover la conservación a escala de paisaje, pero su éxito depende del nivel de participación y liderazgo de los fideicomisos de suelos. Primero, es fundamental que el Congreso haga permanents las deducciones ampliadas de las servidumbres de conservación. La organización Alianza de Fideicomisos de Suelos (Land Trust Alliance, 2011) apunta que estas deducciones pueden proteger más de 101.170 hectáreas adicionales por año. Dado el interés actual del Congreso por recortar gastos y rebajar impuestos, esta es una de las pocas herramientas de financiamiento de conservación que quizás sea alcanzable en el corto plazo. A más largo plazo, un programa nacional de créditos tributarios transferibles similar a los de Colorado y Virginia podría crear un enorme incentivo para generar servidumbres de conservación.

La segunda tendencia se relaciona con el aumento del interés federal en proteger paisajes completos promoviendo las comunidades que ya están trabajando en conjunto. En 2005, la administración Bush lanzó un Programa de Conservación Cooperativa que mejoró la coordinación entre las agencias y los subsidios de capacidad para trabajos cooperativos locales. En 2010, la administración Obama lanzó la iniciativa America’s Great Outdoors para ayudar a las comunidades a sustentar sus suelos y recursos hídricos por medio de asociaciones gobernadas localmente, y reconectar a la juventud norteamericana con el medio ambiente natural (Obama 2010).

Si bien los recursos federales están enormemente restringidos en el corto plazo, los programas y el financiamiento existentes podrían concentrarse más en proyectos de conservación a nivel de paisaje. El Secretario de Agricultura, Tom Vilsack, anunció un cambio importante en la política de su departamento hacia un enfoque “integral de suelos” para conservar y restaurar los grandes sistemas de los Estados Unidos. Por ejemplo, el Servicio de Conservación de Recursos Naturales (Natural Resources Conservation Service) anunció recientemente que iba a reinvertir 89 millones de dólares de fondos del Programa de Reserva de Humedales que no se habían gastado para adquirir la servidumbre de conservación de 10.522 hectáreas en haciendas activas en la zona de los Everglades en Florida. La oportunidad que se presenta para la comunidad de fideicomisos de suelos es asegurar que estos proyectos se implementen como manera de obtener un apoyo amplio para este tipo de trabajo en el largo plazo.

La tercera oportunidad es aprobar medidas locales y estatales para aumentar el financiamiento y los incentivos tributarios a la conservación. A pesar de la economía debilitada y de los continuos proyectos para efectuar recortes gubernamentales y reducir los impuestos, los votantes aprobaron en las elecciones de 2010 el 83 por ciento de las iniciativas electorales en todo el país para financiar la conservación de suelos y de agua. En total, se aprobaron 41 de las 49 medidas de financiamiento, generando más de 2 mil millones de dólares para proyectos de conservación de suelos, aguas, parques y tierras agrícolas durante los próximos 20 años (The Trust for Public Land 2010).

La tendencia y oportunidad finales para la comunidad de fideicomisos de suelos es asociarse con financistas de capital privado para llevar adelante proyectos de conservación de suelos. Entre 1983 y 2009, cambiaron de manos más de 17,4 millones

de hectáreas de suelos forestales (Rinehart 2010). Nuevos grupos de capital privado, llamados Organizaciones de Gestión de Inversiones Madereras (Timber Investment Management Organizations o TIMO) y Fidecomisos de I nversión I nmobiliaria (Real Estate Investment Trusts, o REIT) adquirieron en muy poco tiempo 10,9 millones de hectáreas, y muchos de estos grupos de inversión, como Lyme Timber, Conservation Forestry, Ecosystem Investment Partners y Beartooth Capital Partners, utilizan la conservación como parte de su modelo de negocios.

La cuestión de escala

Una tendencia en curso en el movimiento de conservación ha sido darle un enfoque cada vez más amplio, pasando de las propiedades individuales a barrios, paisajes, ecosistemas, hasta llegar ahora a las redes de ecosistemas. Por ejemplo, los propietarios de Blackfoot, Swan Valley y Rocky Mountain Front han comprendido que la salud de sus paisajes depende de la salud del ecosistema Crown of the Continent (ver figura 2).

Crown, un área de más de 4 millones de hectáreas que rodea Bob Marshall Wilderness y Glacier-Waterton International Peace Place, es uno de los ecosistemas mejor preservados de América del Norte. Gracias a un siglo de designaciones de suelos públicos y 35 años protección privada de suelos por parte de las comunidades locales, este ecosistema no ha perdido una sola especie desde el asentamiento de los europeos en América. Los propietarios y otros socios se han conectado a lo largo de Crownde varias maneras para ver cómo pueden trabajar de forma más estrecha para el bien de todos.

Aun en la inmensidad de Crown, la sustentabilidad de su población silvestre depende de sus conexiones con otras poblaciones de las Montañas Rocosas del Norte. Sin embargo, estas redes aún mayores de sistemas naturales sólo se pueden concretar si se logran sustentar los vínculos esenciales de la región. Por esta razón, los fideicomisos de suelos de Wyoming, Idaho, Montana y Canadá han estado colaborando dentro de un marco llamado Corazón de las Montañas Rocosas (Heart of the Rockies) para identificar prioridades comunes y necesidades de conservación. Este nivel de colaboración regional ha generado un nuevo nivel de conservación y una mayor atención de los financistas. También ha sido clave para la colaboración entre fideicomisos de suelos basada en prioridades políticas comunes.

Para poder sustentar sistemas naturales interconectados, es realmente imperativo que se establezcan organizaciones a esta escala, pero también es importante comprender lo que se puede obtener a cada escala. Las grandes iniciativas regionales tienen gran importancia para crear una visión amplia y atractiva, pero no para implementar la conservación propiamente dicha. Dichos enfoques de gran escala sirven para aplicar la ciencia a nivel de la naturaleza, crear colaboraciones regionales alrededor de prioridades comunes y establecer un foro para intercambiar ideas novedosas, creando una mayor atención sobre la región. También brindan un contexto importante para realzar el trabajo local.

Melanie Parker, una líder local de los esfuerzos para la colaboración en la conservación de Swan Valley, lo expresa de esta manera: “Tenemos que integrar nuestros esfuerzos en una región más amplia para tener influencia política y acceder a recursos, pero cualquiera que piense que el trabajo de conservación se puede o debe hacer a una escala de 4 millones de hectáreas está seriamente equivocado. Este tipo de trabajo se tiene que realizar a la escala del lugar donde la gente vive, trabaja y comprende su paisaje”.

La gente local quiere actuar para preservar su propio lugar y su propio modo de vida. El diseño de estrategias a gran escala es frecuentemente demasiado abstracto para los propietarios y, en algunos casos también puede hasta conducirlos a la alienación. Como en la política—los politicos responden mejor a proyectos locales, diseñados y apoyados por sus residentes— toda la conservación es local. Conocer cuán amplios pueden ser los esfuerzos regionales sin que se pierda la cohesion comunitaria es una cuestión importante, pero lo cierto es que Blackfoot, Rocky Mountain Front y Swan Valley están al límite de lo posible hoy en día. Cada una de estas regiones opera en una escala de 202.340 a 607.000 de hectáreas.

Los fideicomisos de suelos pueden agregar valor a los esfuerzos locales por medio de colaboraciones regionales. Si bien los propietarios y residentes locales frecuentemente no tienen el tiempo necesario para participar en estas iniciativas de mayor calado, quieren

que su lugar y sus intereses estén bien representados. Los fideicomisos de suelos y las organizaciones de conservación pueden desempeñar un papel muy importante para interconectar grupos locales y geográficos, pero tienen que coordinarse con estos grupos en vez de tratar de liderarlos. En última instancia, la comunidad de fideicomisos de suelos puede beneficiarse si refuerza su trabajo cooperativo, profundiza su participación en asociaciones de paisajes, y trabaja a gran escala para alcanzar éxitos en el ámbito de la conservación.

Conclusión

Después de muchas décadas de trabajo extraordinario, los más de 1.700 fideicomisos de suelos en todo el país pueden usar su impulso para conservar los grandes sistemas que resultan más importantes para la gente y para la naturaleza. En efecto, esto es lo que las comunidades están pidiendo y lo que la naturaleza necesita para sobrevivir. Trascender más allá de victorias aisladas, generando una visión de conservación más interconectada, es tan importante para el sustento de las economías locales y su acceso recreativo como lo es para los corredores de vida silvestre y las cuencas hídricas saludables. Para tener éxito a esta escala hace falta una colaboración real y una reorientación de todas las partes interesadas. Con las múltiples oportunidades que se presentan actualmente para la conservación de paisajes completos, el impulso está de nuestro lado.

Sobre el Autor

Jamie Williams es el director de conservación de paisajes de The Nature Conservancy en América del Norte, con sede en Boulder, Colorado. Se concentra en programas para proteger los grandes paisajes por medio de alianzas innovadoras públicas y privadas. Fue Kingsbury Browne Fellow en el Instituto Lincoln durante 2010–2011. Tiene una Maestría en Estudios Medioambientales de la Facultad de Estudios

Forestales y Ambientales de Yale y un título de licenciatura por la Universidad de Yale.

Referencias

Land Trust Alliance. 2006. 2005 national land trust census. Washington, DC. 30 November.

———. 2011. Accelerating the pace of conservation. www.landtrustalliance.org/policy

Maclean, Norman. 2001 [1976]. A river runs through it and other stories. 25th anniversary edition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Obama, Barack. 2010. Presidential Memorandum: America’s Great Outdoors, April 16. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-americas-great-outdoors

Rinehart, Jim. 2010. U.S. timberland post-recession: Is it the same asset? San Francisco, CA: R&A Investment Forestry. April. www.investmentforestry.com

The Trust for Public Land. 2010. www.landvote.org Trout Unlimited. 2011. Working together to restore the Blackfoot Watershed. February. www.tu.org

Williams, Jamie. 2011. Large landscape conservation: A view from the field. Working Paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy

Policies affecting the use, regulation, and taxation of land in the United States are promulgated and applied primarily by states and local governments, and real estate markets are largely local and not national in scope. However, national policies including those on taxation, property rights, and mortgage financing have a significant impact on local land and housing policies and their outcomes. Accordingly, it often makes sense for local policy makers and activists to combine forces so they can learn from each others’ experiences and ensure that their viewpoints are present in national land policy debates. The Lincoln Institute has played, and continues to play, an important role in sponsoring research and fostering training, communication, and organizational activities that promote land policies consistent with the its mission.

One example is the Lincoln Institute’s role in helping to establish the Land Trust Alliance (LTA), the national network of nonprofit conservation organizations that protect natural resources such as farmland, forests, and wilderness areas. The Lincoln Institute in 1981 provided a fellowship to Kingsbury Browne, a Boston-based conservationist and lawyer, to visit land trust leaders throughout the country. He discovered that they had no organized means to communicate and learn from each others’ experience. His work and counsel led the Lincoln Institute to carry out a national survey of the 400 known local and regional land conservation organizations at the time and to sponsor a national meeting for 40 representatives in October 1981. As a result of that meeting, the Land Trust Exchange was incorporated and initiated activity in July 1982. This year, as the Land Trust Alliance, the organization is celebrating its 30th anniversary.

LTA has become a major presence in the conservation community, and the Lincoln Institute continues to support its networking goals. For example, the Lincoln Institute sponsors the annual Kingsbury Browne Fellowship, which supports research, writing, and mentoring by outstanding individuals whose vision and creativity have contributed to land conservation and the land trust community. The Lincoln Institute also participates in LTA’s annual Rally and has supported selected projects, such as the 2010 National Land Trust Census Report that summarizes the land conservation and organizational activities of the 1,760 known land trusts at the time of the survey.

The Lincoln Institute has also played a key role over the past few years in developing a practitioners’ network on large landscape conservation, bringing together those working on projects at a regional scale, such as the Crown of the Continent, an 18-millionacre area spanning the US–Canadian border including portions of Montana, Alberta, and British Columbia. Still in its formative stages, this international network provides a semiannual forum to exchange information and best practices, examine emerging policy initiatives, and advance the theory and practice of large landscape conservation.

In a similar initiative, the Lincoln Institute supports the National Community Land Trust Network, formally organized in 2006. Community land trusts (CLTs) are local nonprofit organizations that own land and provide housing whose affordability is preserved permanently. While CLTs have existed for more than 30 years, coordination and communication among them was limited until the national network was established. With about 200 member CLTs in 2012, the network provides training, supports research, and disseminates guidelines and good practice to its members.

The Lincoln Institute maintains a role in the network’s training program, the Community Land Trust Academy, which offers courses, conferences, and other activities ranging from a general introduction for new residents and staff members to sessions on standard legal documents, financing, and city-CLT partnerships. The Lincoln Institute published The Community Land Trust Reader (2010), a compendium of articles on the historical background and current practices of the international CLT movement, edited by John Emmeus Davis, former dean of the Academy. In addition, the Lincoln Institute sponsors research disseminated in working papers and analytic work, including a 2007 survey of CLTs in the United States.

Information about these conservation and community land trust networks and their related programs and publications is available on the Lincoln Institute website at www.lincolninst.edu.