Claudia López, mayor of Bogotá, Colombia, is confident the sprawling capital is ready to take action to confront climate change, despite the wearying effects of the pandemic and rising unemployment and poverty. 
 
“There is no doubt that I have a clear mandate from Bogotá’s people” to act on the environment, López said in an interview for the Land Matters podcast, while she was en route to the COP26 global climate summit in Glasgow, Scotland. “I think we have a deep social debt, and a deep environmental debt that we have to pay now.” 

The 51-year-old López, who was elected in October 2019 as the city’s first female mayor and also the first openly gay mayor, ran under Colombia’s Green Alliance party. Prior to her political career, she worked as a journalist and researcher, and brings a background in urban planning and public administration to the job. 
 
To reduce emissions, López seeks to stop expansion of the urban periphery into forests and rural land, and to make it easier to get around the city with public transit, including gondolas, powered by renewable energy. She also wants to overhaul waste management, which relies heavily on unsustainable landfills. 
 
At the same time, she says she remains committed to building equity and promoting economic opportunities for the metropolitan region’s 10 million residents, nearly half of whom live in informal settlements. Funding for urban amenities and social infrastructure, she says, can come from land value capture—harnessing some of the increased values associated with city-enabled urban development. That approach is part of a long tradition in Colombia; this year marks the centenary of the Colombian value capture tool, contribución de valorización or betterment contribution. 

“Basically, we agree what’s going to be the value that’s going to be generated by the transformation of land use and we agree with the developer” to help build “the infrastructure and the urban and social equipment that new development will need,” she said. 

“This is not about having lovely maps with marvelous plans,” she said. “This is actually what I think is urban planning—making sure that either through public investments or through land value capturing or through private investments, we ensure an equitable and sustainable share of the cost and benefits of building the city. That’s the role of the government, and that’s what we’re trying to achieve here.” 
 
One element of social infrastructure that López says could be transformative is providing support for an estimated 1.2 million women caregivers, essentially unpaid workers keeping families together. 

“Half of the economy is informal, half of the jobs are informal. They don’t have pension funds. They don’t have health insurance. They don’t have care when you are sick or when you are (older). Who does that? It’s the unpaid care women who do that … who don’t have jobs, don’t have education, don’t have time for themselves because they are caregivers of others,” she said. 
 
“We are reserving land for social infrastructure to provide care, institutionalized care, for children, for women, for elders, for people with disabilities, so that we can relieve and free time for women, so that they can access time to rest, first of all. They don’t have a free weekend ever in their life. (And) time to get education for themselves, care for themselves, and income generation opportunities.” 
 
Other interventions are aimed at making life less onerous in informal settlement, including some relief from strict building codes and other regulations designed for the formal city, so that homeowners can build a second floor or run a business out of the first floor. “For poor people, housing in not only the place they live, it’s also the place where they produce and they generate income,” she said. 
 
“We’re trying to balance. I think the development in Bogotá has been incredibly unbalanced. I mean, (much) of the advantage is on the developer side,” she said. “Of course, the developers need profitability … we are trying to find the equilibrium point.” 
 
López saluted the Lincoln Institute’s long-running Latin America program for prompting informed discussion of land use issues in the region. “There’s a huge network of people thinking, researching, innovating, putting out these debates, which is incredibly important,” she said. “I cannot tell you how important, how useful has been all the things that you taught me before throughout the years on land value capturing, for example, on land use development, on being aware of how land and urban value is created.” 

In this 75th anniversary year, the interview with López (also available as a Land Lines article) is the latest Q&A with chief executives in cities that share some history with the Lincoln Institute. Previous interviews feature the mayors of Cleveland, where founder John C. Lincoln got his start; Phoenix, where he founded the Lincoln Foundation 75 years ago; and Cambridge, site of the Lincoln Institute’s headquarters since 1974.  

You can listen to the show and subscribe to Land Matters on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or wherever you listen to podcasts.
 

Further reading 

Profile of Claudia López Hernández, the Elected Mayoress of Bogotá 

The commitment of cities around the world UN News

Building Value: In Brazil, Land Value Capture Supports the Needs of the Community 

 
Anthony Flint is a senior fellow at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, host of the Land Matters  podcast, and a contributing editor of Land Lines. 

Image: Bogotá Mayor Claudia López. Credit: Mayor’s Office of Bogotá

R

ick Schultz no detesta el césped categóricamente. Entiende que es útil en algunos lugares (seguro, tiene que haber espacios para practicar deportes), pero no es necesario en bulevares ni en amplios jardines en zonas áridas. Schultz es especialista en conservación del agua para el servicio público municipal de Castle Rock, Colorado.

Esta comunidad se encuentra en el límite meridional de la zona metropolitana de Denver, y es una de las de mayor crecimiento en el país. La población se disparó: pasó de tener 20.224 habitantes en 2000 a casi 72.000 hoy. El 70 por ciento del suministro de agua proviene de napas subterráneas no renovables, por lo que, a medida que la ciudad fue creciendo, los funcionarios debieron descifrar cómo estirar dicho suministro. En 2006, el servicio público y el departamento de planificación empezaron a colaborar para abordar este asunto.

La comunidad creó un plan hídrico de ordenamiento territorial que estableció pautas (por ejemplo, en qué lugares ameritaba tener césped) para delinear cómo y dónde se podía conservar agua sin dejar de atender el crecimiento. Schultz dice que debieron salirse de lo tradicional en regulaciones del uso del suelo y patrones de suministro de agua para buscar sostenibilidad a largo plazo, y redirigirse a partes discrepantes del proceso de planificación hacia el crecimiento inteligente: “Si queríamos obtener un resultado mejor, debíamos exceder un poco los límites”.

Desde entonces, Castle Rock ha implementado incentivos económicos, cambios regulatorios e incluso estrategias de ciencias de la conducta para procurar que el suministro de agua se considere de forma activa como parte de todo proceso de planificación y desarrollo. Desde ofrecer incentivos a desarrolladores que instalan sistemas de monitoreo del agua a exigir a los paisajistas que obtengan certificados profesionales en eficiencia hídrica, la ciudad hoy es líder en el sector, y tiene el reconocimiento del estado de Colorado por sus labores y por compartir las buenas prácticas con otras organizaciones.

En comunidades de todo el país, los planificadores y gestores hídricos están saliendo del aislamiento en el que suelen manejarse y hallan nuevas formas de trabajar en conjunto. En parte, esto se debe a que el cambio climático está provocando turbulencias en el sector hídrico en todo el país: sequías prolongadas, inundaciones e incendios perjudiciales, tormentas intensas y aumento del nivel del mar.

La urgencia por desarrollar resiliencia frente a estas amenazas es cada vez más evidente. También aumenta la colaboración, porque, si bien las comunidades se enfrentan a desafíos muy distintos y manejan incontables variaciones en sus estructuras municipales, muchas están redescubriendo una verdad única sobre el suelo y el agua: cuando se planifica para uno de ellos, se debe planificar para ambos.

“Los ingenieros hídricos empiezan a reconocer que no pueden ofrecer servicios sostenibles sin involucrar a la comunidad de desarrolladores, como planificadores, arquitectos y activistas comunitarios”, explica la Guía de políticas hídricas de la Asociación Americana de Planificación (APA 2016). “Los planificadores de vanguardia están pidiendo a los gestores hídricos asesoramiento en sus planes integrales, no solo para cumplir los objetivos medioambientales, sino también para añadir valor y habitabilidad, arraigados en la visión de la comunidad”. 

Cómo llegamos aquí

Imagine la vista desde un avión al sobrevolar zonas rurales o los alrededores de una ciudad importante: los lindes en ángulos rectos de los campos agrícolas y haciendas contrastan con el serpenteo de los cauces de los ríos y las formas irregulares de los lagos y estanques. El suelo y el agua son recursos muy diferentes. Por lo tanto, se han gestionado de forma diferente y por separado.

La brecha entre la planificación del agua y el suelo tiene raíces profundas. Si bien el agua se vincula con todos los aspectos del crecimiento sostenible, desde la salud ecosistémica hasta la viabilidad económica, los planificadores y gestores hídricos trabajan por separado desde hace mucho tiempo. Desde juntas voluntarias de planificación en comunidades rurales hasta departamentos repletos de personal en las grandes ciudades, los planificadores se centran en el uso del suelo y el entorno construido. Los gestores hídricos, por su parte, ya sea que trabajen para un servicio público municipal, una empresa privada o un mayorista regional, se centran en suministrar agua limpia y apta.

“No se me ocurre ni una sola ciudad que contenga [la planificación y la gestión hídrica] en una sola división”, dice Ray Quay, investigador del Instituto Mundial de Sostenibilidad de la Universidad Estatal de Arizona, quien ha trabajado como vicedirector de planificación del suelo y de servicios hídricos en Phoenix, Arizona. Quay dice que las decisiones de desarrollo regionales y de las cuencas relacionadas con el crecimiento no suelen coincidir con el suministro de agua.

“Un ejemplo de una brecha clásica es que, al planificar el crecimiento, los planificadores suponen que el servicio público de agua podrá abastecerla, mientras que dichos servicios públicos no participan en las decisiones sobre el crecimiento comunitario, solo construyen infraestructura para atender el nuevo crecimiento que les llega”, añade Jim Holway, director del Centro Babbitt para Políticas de Suelo y Agua, creado en 2017 por el Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo para fomentar la integración de la gestión hídrica y del suelo.

Ivana Kajtezovic, gerenta del programa de planificación de Tampa Bay Water, un servicio público mayorista regional de agua potable de Florida, confirma esta falta de coordinación. “Tampa Bay Water no tiene poder de decisión en el crecimiento de los condados y ciudades que atiende. Nuestra misión se limita a ofrecer agua potable, no importa el crecimiento ni su ritmo. Los condados y las ciudades que atendemos toman las decisiones sobre el uso del suelo”.

Según una encuesta hídrica de 2016 realizada por Water Working Group, de la APA, el 75 por ciento de los planificadores de uso del suelo no se sintió muy involucrado en la planificación y las decisiones hídricas (Stoker et al. 2018). “Sabemos que el suelo y el agua están relacionados, y nunca nadie discute que estén separados”, dice Philip Stoker, profesor adjunto de planificación en la Universidad de Arizona, quien realizó la encuesta de la APA. “La gente los separó, nada más”. 
 
Esta separación, en parte, es el resultado de estructuras regulatorias históricas. “En una gran proporción, el agua se basa en leyes estatales, con alguna que otra intervención federal”, dice Anne Castle, ex subsecretaria de agua y ciencia del Departamento del Interior de los Estados Unidos. La gestión federal implica regulaciones como la Ley de Agua Limpia e involucra a organismos como la Oficina de Recuperación de los Estados Unidos, y los derechos hídricos se asignan a nivel estatal. Al mismo tiempo, si bien a nivel federal y estatal se supervisan algunas tierras públicas, casi todas las regulaciones y la planificación relacionadas con tierras privadas se implementan a nivel local o regional, y reflejan derechos y deseos individuales y comunitarios. Si bien hay iniciativas estatales que “enfatizan más la consideración del agua en el desarrollo del suelo”, según Castle (incluso en Colorado, donde ella trabaja), sigue habiendo brechas profundas en las prioridades y las responsabilidades.

Por supuesto, cada comunidad lidia con problemas únicos, pero la encuesta de Stoker sugiere que los obstáculos para resolverlos son similares: falta de tiempo y de recursos, miedo de perder poder jurisdiccional o delegar el control, y diferencias en educación, experiencia y lenguaje técnico. Superar estas dificultades puede ser difícil. “Por lógica, debería ser fácil, pero cuando las instituciones crecen con un solo punto de enfoque, es difícil cambiar la misión y expandirse a otros lugares”, dice Bill Cesanek, copresidente de la Red de Agua y Planificación de la APA. Cesanek dice que todo funciona mejor cuando los planificadores comparten la responsabilidad de determinar de dónde vendrá el agua para suplir las demandas futuras.

Quay coincide en que los planificadores del agua y el suelo deben trabajar juntos y deben ser realistas acerca de dónde y cómo pueden crecer las comunidades, y si deben hacerlo. “Uno de los factores fundamentales es la voluntad política”, dice. “Deberíamos pensar qué es lo más importante para la comunidad, y deberíamos asignar el agua a eso”.

Según Holway, del Centro Babbitt, esto es cada vez más común. “Con el aumento de la demanda de agua y ante los crecientes problemas para adquirir nuevos suministros, los servicios públicos y los planificadores del suelo deben descifrar cómo trabajar en conjunto para mantener el equilibrio entre el suministro y la demanda”.  

“Demasiada, muy poca, muy contaminada”

Según la Guía de políticas hídricas de la APA, los riesgos asociados al agua suelen ser siempre parecidos: no alcanza el agua debido al crecimiento demográfico y al estrés climático, además de que los suministros ya están asignados o se asigna más cantidad de la disponible; hay demasiada agua debido a las inundaciones y el aumento del nivel del mar; o peligra la calidad del agua debido a las escorrentías agrícola y urbana. Todos estos casos son cada vez más urgentes.

No alcanza el agua. En el sudoeste (y en particular en la cuenca sobreexplotada del río Colorado, que atiende a más de 40 millones de personas de siete estados de los Estados Unidos y dos de México), las sequías persistentes disminuyen la carga nival, merman la disponibilidad en los acuíferos naturales y reducen los embalses. Los investigadores predicen que el caudal del río Colorado disminuirá entre un 20 y un 35 por ciento hacia 2050, y entre un 30 y un 55 por ciento hacia fin de siglo (Udall 2017).

Además, la sequía tiene un efecto de cascada en otros sistemas hídricos. Por ejemplo, en los bosques occidentales secos los incendios son cada vez más frecuentes y descomunales, y contaminan las cuencas en zonas que antes no tenían este problema, como el tramo superior del Colorado. Según la Agencia de Protección Ambiental, durante un incendio y en los años posteriores el agua se puede contaminar con cenizas, sedimentos y otros agentes. Esto obliga a los gestores hídricos a esforzarse para hallar soluciones. “Creo que hay una tendencia mucho mayor y más rápida a la colaboración en la planificación del uso del suelo y la gestión hídrica en lugares con escasez”, dice Stoker.

Demasiada agua. En los últimos 30 años, las inundaciones causaron un promedio de US$ 8.000 millones en daños y 82 muertes al año en los Estados Unidos (Cesanek, Elmer y Graeff 2017). Quay dice que, dado que el cambio climático provoca eventos climáticos más extremos, las inundaciones exceden los parámetros definidos por la Agencia Federal para el Manejo de Emergencias, que tradicionalmente han sido la guía para las decisiones de planificación. Agrega que es difícil adaptarse porque las pautas y leyes fijas de planificación no están preparadas para estos extremos.

Los lugares bajos, como Hoboken, Nueva Jersey (que sufrió inundaciones en algunas partes por el aumento del nivel del mar y supertormentas como el huracán Sandy), están incorporando la resiliencia en la planificación de los sistemas hídricos. La ciudad está añadiendo herramientas, como dunas artificiales de arena, que funcionan como barreras físicas y pueden desviar marejadas a bombas antiinundaciones recién construidas.

“El sistema de agua pluvial está en el mismo nivel que el río; [el agua de lluvia] no tiene a dónde ir, así que debieron construir un programa de planificación para la resiliencia muy innovador”, dice Cesanek.

Agua contaminada. Durante precipitaciones fuertes, que son cada vez más frecuentes debido al cambio climático, el sistema cloacal combinado de Milwaukee, Wisconsin, se desborda y llega a ríos vecinos y al lago Míchigan. Esto contamina las vías fluviales, compromete el ecosistema y perjudica el suministro de agua. “El agua pluvial se mete en nuestros sistemas combinados y sanitarios. Nada es estanco”, dice Karen Sands, directora de planificación, investigación y sostenibilidad del Distrito Cloacal Metropolitano de Milwaukee (MMSD, por su sigla en inglés). Sands indica que el MMSD tuvo que alinear capas geográficas y jurisdiccionales divergentes para hallar soluciones que protejan la cuenca. Una de estas soluciones fue la construcción del parque Menomonee, de 24 hectáreas, en conjunto con planificadores urbanos. Se espera que este trate la totalidad de la escorrentía de agua pluvial de las zonas industriales y comerciales cercanas. Ahora garantiza el suministro de agua potable y gestiona la demanda futura de forma preventiva.

Chi Ho Sham, presidente de American Water Works Association (AWWA), una organización internacional sin fines de lucro para profesionales del suministro de agua, dice que una de las mayores inquietudes del grupo tiene que ver con la calidad del agua, en particular con protegerla desde su origen, limitar el uso contaminante y crear barreras para detener o evitar la contaminación. “Desde mi punto de vista, nuestro trabajo es lograr una colaboración estrecha con los propietarios”, dice. “Los gestores hídricos no lo pueden hacer por su cuenta”.

Problemas de infraestructura e igualdad

Se estima que en 2050 la población de los Estados Unidos llegará a los 517 millones, y las ciudades de mayor crecimiento serán las meridionales y occidentales (Oficina del Censo de los Estados Unidos 2019). No se puede impedir que las personas se muden a Tempe o Tampa Bay, pero el crecimiento se está dando en regiones donde ya hay mucha presión sobre la calidad y la cantidad del agua. En algunos lugares, el crecimiento acelerado ha restringido a planificadores y gestores hídricos, quienes implementaron medidas de conservación y reutilización de agua para procurar que esta alcance.

Para peor, la infraestructura hídrica de la nación no siguió el ritmo de los cambios demográficos. Las antiguas tuberías de plomo se están desintegrando, y las plantas de depuración están saturadas por la cantidad de agua que deben procesar. En 2017, la Sociedad Estadounidense de Ingenieros Civiles determinó que el agua potable de la nación era de clase D, y estimó un costo de US$ 100.000 millones para hacer las actualizaciones de infraestructura necesarias (ASCE 2017).

También hay una brecha entre los lugares que pueden costear la actualización de infraestructura y los que no. A fin de garantizar el suministro de agua para todos en el futuro, es esencial atender esta desigualdad, según indica Katy Lackey, gerenta de programa sénior de la organización sin fines de lucro US Water Alliance, una coalición nacional de servicios públicos, empresas, organizaciones medioambientales, sindicatos y otras partes, que está trabajando para procurar un futuro hídrico sostenible.

“Creemos que la igualdad hídrica se da cuando todas las comunidades tienen acceso a agua potable limpia, segura y asequible, y a servicios de aguas residuales, las inversiones en infraestructura se maximizan y benefician a todas las comunidades, y estas tienen capacidad de resistencia ante el cambio climático”, indica. Para alcanzar esa meta, se necesitan nuevas formas de trabajar.

Cómo trabajar bien en conjunto

Holway, del Centro Babbitt, dice que el primer paso de la planificación integrada debe ser reunir a la gente en un mismo lugar para comprender las necesidades de la comunidad, las brechas de los procesos actuales y cómo pueden trabajar mejor en conjunto. A partir de eso, es fundamental formalizar metas relacionadas con la planificación y el agua, ya sea que se reflejen en un plan cabal o de ordenamiento territorial para el desarrollo comunitario, en un plan más específico basado en la conservación y la resiliencia, o en cambios de zonificación y regulaciones.

“Nos centramos en identificar, evaluar y promover herramientas que integren mejor el suelo y el agua, con opiniones de un grupo diverso de profesionales e investigadores”, dice Holway, y destaca que Erin Rugland, gerenta de programa del Centro Babbitt, publicó varias obras para profesionales, entre ellas una matriz de herramientas disponibles para integrar el suelo y el agua (Rugland 2021) y dos manuales centrados en buenas prácticas (Rugland 2020, Castle y Rugland 2019).

Quienes se centran en la importancia de integrar el suelo y el agua recomiendan varios pasos que pueden seguir los planificadores y los gestores hídricos para garantizar que las colaboraciones obtengan resultados satisfactorios:

Cultivar relaciones. Stoker descubrió que un primer paso importante sería lograr que la gente deje de trabajar aislada. “En los lugares con mejores resultados al integrar la planificación del agua y el suelo, los servicios públicos y los planificadores estaban en buenos términos. Sabían que, si trabajaban en conjunto, saldrían beneficiados”, dice. Stoker menciona como ejemplo a Aiken, Carolina del Sur: los gestores hídricos ayudaron a armar el plan integral. Añade que este tipo de colaboración es importante en cualquier escala.

En Westminster, Colorado, los gestores hídricos participan en las reuniones previas a la solicitud de todas las iniciativas nuevas. Desde el principio, tienen la posibilidad de asesorar sobre cómo afectarán las decisiones de tuberías y paisajismo al uso y los costos hídricos del proyecto.

Westminster es una de las 33 comunidades occidentales que participaron en el programa Growing Water Smart, un taller de varios días organizado por el Centro Babbitt y el Instituto Sonoran con financiamiento adicional de la Junta de Conservación de Agua de Colorado y Gates Family Foundation. Growing Water Smart reúne grupos pequeños de dirigentes para comunicar, colaborar e identificar un plan de acción a un año.

“La razón de ser de Growing Water Smart es reunir a planificadores de uso del suelo y gestores hídricos de una misma comunidad para que hablen entre sí, a veces por primera vez”, dice Faith Sternlieb, gerenta sénior de proyecto del Centro Babbitt, quien ayuda a moderar el programa. “En cuanto empiezan a compartir recursos, datos e información, se dan cuenta de lo valiosas e importantes que son la colaboración y la cooperación. No es que no quieran trabajar en conjunto, sino que de verdad creían tener todo lo necesario para ejecutar su trabajo. Pero no suelen tener el tiempo y el espacio necesarios para pensar y planificar de forma holística”.  

“En mi experiencia, lo que ha funcionado es forjar relaciones con los planificadores que toman las decisiones”, confirma Kajtezovic, de Tampa Bay Water. “Yo me comunico todo lo que puedo con ellos y les explico la importancia de proteger el agua de origen”.

Promover la creatividad y la flexibilidad. Luego de forjar las relaciones, la creatividad y la flexibilidad son fundamentales. Dado que cada comunidad se enfrenta a distintas dificultades de planificación, “el contexto tiene una importancia tremenda”, dice Quay. Esto no solo es cierto para distintas regiones, sino también dentro de ellas, y a veces de una comunidad a otra. “Lo que sirve en Phoenix no necesariamente servirá en Tempe [que está justo al lado de Phoenix hacia el este], por lo que no es posible adaptar buenas prácticas de gestión así como así; debemos pensar en lo mejor para cada caso”. Él recomienda identificar un conjunto amplio y flexible de herramientas que se puedan usar y adaptar con el tiempo.
 
Tener voluntad de aprender. Debido a su especialización, los planificadores y los gestores hídricos “no hablan el mismo idioma”, dice Sham, quien indica que AWWA ha estado trabajando en capacitación colaborativa sobre protección del agua de origen para miembros y propietarios. A veces parece que es más trabajo por adelantado, y dice que la gente puede ser reacia a aceptar tareas que no le corresponden, pero es esencial desarrollar un idioma y un conocimiento en común para lograr sostenibilidad a largo plazo.

John Berggren ayuda a las comunidades a coordinar la planificación del agua y el suelo desde su puesto de analista de políticas para Western Resource Advocates. Dice que uno de los primeros pasos es capacitar a los dirigentes locales y entusiasmarlos acerca de incluir el agua en sus planes cabales. “Despertamos su interés e inquietud acerca de la conservación, y creamos un apoyo vertical para los departamentos de planificación y los servicios públicos”, dice. Cuando el agua se incluye en el plan integral, los planificadores y los servicios públicos pueden llegar a soluciones creativas y progresivas. 

Abarcar. La integración del uso del suelo y la planificación hídrica funciona mejor cuando se incluye en regulaciones de nivel estatal o en planes integradores a nivel comunitario. Según el Centro Babbitt, 14 estados incorporan formalmente el agua en la planificación de algún modo, y cada vez son más. Por ejemplo, el Plan Hídrico de Colorado de 2015 estableció un objetivo para que en 2025 el 75 por ciento de los habitantes viva en comunidades que hayan incorporado acciones de ahorro de agua en la planificación de uso del suelo. Algunas comunidades ya están trabajando en ese proceso, y hay 80 que deberían empezar a actuar para llegar a esa meta. Además, hace poco el estado aprobó una ley que esboza pautas de conservación hídrica para la planificación, y designa un nuevo puesto en el gobierno que respalda la coordinación de la planificación del agua y el suelo.

Desde el año 2000, cuando Arizona aprobó la Ley de Crecimiento Más Inteligente Plus, el estado exige a las comunidades incluir en su plan cabal un capítulo dedicado al vínculo entre el suministro y la demanda de agua, y las proyecciones de crecimiento. Esto también se está observando en lugares menos secos. El plan integral del condado Manatee, en Florida, vincula la calidad del agua con la necesidad de usar el agua no potable para todo lo que sea posible. Incluye códigos de reutilización de agua y fuentes alternativas para aumentar la disponibilidad y procurar que el agua llegue al destino más adecuado.

Quay dice que, para incorporar el agua a los planes integrales, las comunidades necesitan una idea concreta del tipo y la cantidad de recursos disponibles. Luego, los gestores hídricos y los planificadores pueden trabajar en conjunto para identificar fuentes nuevas y alternativas, como tratamiento de aguas residuales y grises (agua del hogar que se usó para lavar ropa, por ejemplo, y que se puede volver a usar en el retrete); identificar la demanda prevista y definir cómo se va a suplir.

Aprovechar el poder de la acción local. Aunque el estado no exija planificar pensando en el agua ni esto se incorpore al plan cabal de la comunidad, los gestores hídricos y los planificadores igual pueden hallar formas de colaborar. Los planes locales más específicos pueden incluir planes de suministro de agua e infraestructura de aguas residuales; atenuación de peligros y planes de resiliencia, como gestión de terrenos anegables y agua pluvial; gestión de demanda; procesos y salud de las cuencas; y planes de coordinación y colaboración entre organismos. Si estas variables resultan apabullantes, Berggren sugiere que los planificadores soliciten recomendaciones sobre buenas prácticas a otras comunidades. Dice que, si bien todas las comunidades son diferentes, “no hace falta que nadie reinvente la rueda”.

Además, los cambios en políticas locales pueden incluir códigos basados en la forma que definan aspectos del entorno construido relacionados con el agua. Sands dice que, en Milwaukee, algunas buenas prácticas para gestionar inundaciones y contaminación son “actualizar los códigos y normas municipales para promover la infraestructura verde y prácticas más sustentables”. Esa infraestructura verde, que emula los procesos naturales del lugar mediante métodos como jardines de biofiltración y almacenamiento de agua pluvial, puede lograr que las comunidades sean más resistentes al cambio climático y, a la vez, restaurar ecosistemas y proteger el suministro de agua.

También se pueden cambiar las políticas hídricas mediante normas de zonificación, como reducir el tamaño de las parcelas. Los planificadores pueden usar loteos y normas de desarrollo del suelo para promover la captura, la infiltración y la liberación paulatina del agua pluvial en el mismo lugar. Algunas comunidades adoptaron códigos de plomería que exigen aparatos de alta eficiencia, o códigos de edificación que admiten reciclaje de agua o subcontaje para aumentar la eficiencia de las residencias multifamiliares. Fountain, Colorado, tiene costos de conexión orientados a la conservación, lo cual incentiva a los desarrolladores a cumplir con los estándares de eficiencia hídrica más allá del código de edificación. Pueden pagar costos de conexión más bajos si aceptan condiciones como usar plantas nativas o incluir aparatos eficientes de interior en un desarrollo.

Los beneficios de integrar la planificación del suelo y el agua son muy variados, desde resultados mensurables como adaptar planes de desarrollo para garantizar un correcto suministro del agua, hasta efectos más indirectos y a largo plazo, como reducir el conflicto entre usuarios ante la disponibilidad reducida. En Castle Rock, Schultz y sus colegas notaron que las normas de uso del suelo orientadas al agua pueden tener un gran impacto y beneficiar la calidad de vida como un todo. No siempre fue fácil, dice, pero parece que la nueva forma de hacer las cosas está rindiendo sus frutos: “Demostramos que podemos hacerlo mejor si ofrecemos una buena base”. 

Heather Hansman periodista independiente, es columnista para la revista Outside y autora de Downriver: Into the Future of Water in the West (The University of Chicago Press 2019).

Fotografía principal: En Castle Rock, Colorado, los planificadores y los gestores hídricos se han asociado en planes para el crecimiento sostenible. Crédito: Robert Young via iStock Editorial/Getty Images Plus.

Referencias

APA (Asociación Americana de Planificación). 2016. APA Policy Guide on Water. Chicago, IL: Asociación Americana de Planificación. https://www.planning.org/policy/guides/adopted/water/.

ASCE (Sociedad Estadounidense de Ingenieros Civiles). 2017. “Infrastructure Report Card”. Washington, DC: Sociedad Estadounidense de Ingenieros Civiles. https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/.

Castle, Anne, y Erin Rugland. 2019. “Best Practices for Implementing Water Conservation and Demand Management Through Land Use Planning Efforts: Addendum to 2012 Guidance Document”. Denver, CO: Junta de Conservación de Agua de Colorado. Enero. https://dnrweblink.state.co.us/cwcbsearch/ElectronicFile.aspx?docid=208193&dbid=0.

Cesanek, William, Vicki Elmer, y Jennifer Graeff. 2017. “Planners and Water: PAS Report 588”. Chicago, IL: Asociación Americana de Planificación.

Rugland, Erin. 2020. Incorporating Water into Comprehensive Planning: A Manual for Land Use Planners in the Colorado River Basin. Cambridge, MA: Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo. https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/other/incorporating-water-comprehensive-planning.

———. 2021. “Integrating Land and Water: Tools, Practices, Processes, and Evaluation Criteria”. Documento de trabajo. Cambridge, MA: Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo. https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/working-papers/integrating-land-water (febrero).

Stoker, Philip Anthony, Gary Pivo, Alexandra Stoicof, Jacob Kavkewitz, Neil Grigg, y Carol Howe. 2018. Joining-Up Urban Water Management with Urban Planning and Design. Alexandria, VA: The Water Research Foundation. https://www.waterrf.org/research/projects/joining-urban-water-management-urban-planning-and-design.

Udall, Bradley, y Overpeck, Jonathan. 2017. “The Twenty-First Century Colorado River Hot Drought and Implications for the Future”. Investigación de recursos hídricos 53 (3): 2404-2418.

Oficina del Censo de los Estados Unidos. 2019. “Fastest-Growing Cities Primarily in the South and West”. Comunicado de prensa. 23 de mayo. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2019/subcounty-population-estimates.html.

Contenido relacionado

Growing Water Smart: Workshop Helps Western Communities Integrate Water and Land Use Planning

Water Planning: Land Use Decisions Could Make or Break the River that Sustains One in Nine Americans

Developed in partnership with and reprinted with permission from the American Planning Association. This article originally appeared in PAS QuickNotes and is available for download as a PDF. 

The accelerated pace of change and increased uncertainty about the future make it ever more difficult to imagine what is to come. Creating a community vision and planning for it require knowledge about potential drivers of change and a nimble process that allows planners to pivot while the future is approaching. 

Foresight (also called strategic foresight) is an approach that aims at making sense of the future, understanding drivers of change that are outside of one’s control, and preparing for what may lead to success or failure in the future. Applying foresight in cycles creates agility and enhances one’s preparedness for disruption before it happens. In today’s quickly changing world, it is important for planners to integrate foresight into their work to make their communities more resilient. 

Background 

In the business world, strategic foresight is used to “future-proof” a product, a business plan, or an entire company. Understanding how markets, consumer behaviors and preferences, or applications may change can help businesses to adapt as needed to remain successful and become more resilient. 

Using foresight in planning provides multiple benefits. Planners can use foresight to help their communities navigate change and uncertainty. It can make long-range planning more resilient and nimbler. And it can foster community engagement and allow for more inclusive and equitable outcomes. 

There are multiple approaches and methodologies to practicing foresight. The most important components (and most relevant to planning) include the following: 

Trend scanning: researching existing, emerging, and potential future trends (including societal, technological, environmental, economic, and political trends, or STEEP) and related drivers of change 

Signal sensing: identifying developments in the far future and in adjacent fields outside of the conventional planning space that might impact planning 

Forecasting: estimating future trends 

Sense-making: connecting trends and signals to planning to explore how they will impact cities, communities, and the way planners do their work 

Scenario planning: creating multiple plausible futures. 

In foresight, engaging diverse teams with diverse perspectives is critical to avoid missing signals or trends that might not be obvious or seem immediately related to planning. For planners, engaging the community in foresight makes the process more inclusive and will result in equitable and sustainable solutions. 

Integrate Foresight into Your Community Vision 

It is important to understand the difference between creating a vision and practicing foresight. In a visioning process, the community together with planners create a vision of the future and identify goals and objectives based on the community’s values. A visioning process usually starts in the present, analyzing current challenges that need to be overcome, current and potential future needs that must be addressed, and mutual goals and objectives that need to be achieved. In short, community visioning starts in the present and creates goals for the future. 

In contrast, foresight starts with the future and reverse-engineers what needs to happen today to achieve the most desirable outcome in the future. Foresight combines the processes of forecasting and backcasting (understanding how to prepare for what’s to come with a vision of the ideal community in mind). Trend scanning, signal sensing, and the understanding of external drivers of change will reveal potential roadblocks the community might encounter along the way toward its envisioned future. A good understanding of these potential disruptions is crucial to be able to create a plan—not just for what the future in 10 or 20 years will look like, but for how to achieve the community vision and goals while pivoting and adapting along the way. 

Prepare for Multiple Plausible Futures 

The practice of foresight is not a crystal ball and will not predict the future. Rather, it helps to develop ideas of what the future could potentially look like. Planners can use foresight to consider multiple plausible futures based on different potential drivers of change. 

Exploratory scenario planning is a useful tool to create alternative futures. It can help planners prioritize different drivers of change and create scenarios with the ones that seem to have the biggest impact, that communities are least prepared for, and that are most likely or certain to occur. Exploratory scenario planning can be done in a variety of ways, including SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis, formulating “what if” questions (what will happen if trend X occurs . . .), and using axes of uncertainty (a two-by-two matrix that interconnects different drivers of change to create alternative plausible futures and to assess future risks or opportunities). 

Ideally, scenarios range from visionary (best case, success, or transformative scenarios) to expectable (conventional expectations) to challenging (worst case, failure, or dystopian scenarios) to cover all grounds when creating alternative paths towards the future. 

Create a Nimble Plan for an Uncertain Future 

Long-range planning is important, but it needs to be agile and adjustable. The goal of integrating foresight into community visioning is to prepare for uncertainty on the path towards the future. 

As the world around us is changing, the community vision and the plan to achieve it need to be regularly updated and adjusted. What might be an ideal future from today’s perspective could be unachievable or problematic in five or 10 years. For instance, in 2005 no one would have thought that a telephone would change the ways people move around town, how planners connect with their communities, or how data is collected. Then the iPhone changed everything. 

To create the needed agility and a nimble plan that allows for pivoting and changing directions, foresight needs to be practiced in cycles. Continuous observations, discovery, and sharing of signals and trends, including regular scenario planning to create alternative paths towards the future, are crucial. 

It can be helpful to create a “trend radar,” categorizing trends and drivers of change as immediate (or critical), near-term, or long-term. This will provide guidance on what decisions are needed now, what planners need to start preparing for, and what they need to keep watching and learning about to understand potential implications. 

Continuous monitoring of developments around us and on the horizon and adjusting the plan every one or two years will enhance the community’s resilience and preparedness for the future. 

Conclusions 

Planners play crucial roles in shaping inclusive and equitable futures for their communities—and they must be able to imagine the future to shape it and prepare for it. Practicing foresight and future literacy provides an opportunity for planners to create more resilient communities by better preparing for potential disruptions, by developing equitable solutions before a challenge arises, and by finding inclusive mechanisms to change directions when needed without leaving anyone behind. 

This PAS QuickNotes was prepared by Petra Hurtado, Ph.D., research director at the American Planning Association.  

Image Credit: American Planning Association

Further Reading from the American Planning Association 

APA Foresight, American Planning Association 

COVID-19, Communities, and the Planning Profession, APA Blog 

Learn, Prepare, Act — APA’s Approach to Foresight, Planning 

Other Resources 

Beard, Alison, and Curt Nickisch, with Mark Johnson. 2020. “To Build Strategy, Start With the Future.” HBR IdeaCast, May 12, Episode 740. 

Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. 2021. Consortium for Scenario Planning. 

Ryan, Rebecca. 2021. What Is Foresight? 

Webb, Amy. 2016. The Signals Are Talking: Why Today’s Fringe is Tomorrow’s Mainstream. New York: Public Affairs/ Perseus Books. 

The following is an excerpt from Equitably Developing America’s Smaller Legacy Cities: Investing in Residents from South Bend to Worcester, a Policy Focus Report recently published by the Lincoln Institute. The Lincoln Institute’s Legacy Cities Initiative offers additional strategies and resources. 

In 2020, leaders of smaller U.S. legacy cities confronted more than their usual challenges. The COVID-19 pandemic and the Black Lives Matter movement laid bare persistent racial and income segregation common in these postindustrial centers. A long history of discriminatory and failed policies contributes to these conditions.  

This report does not serve as a treatise on eradicating injustice from small legacy cities. Instead, the report focuses on the significant opportunity that these cities now have to combat inequity and increase economic competitiveness by embracing policies that support equitable development. 

America’s smaller legacy cities—such as Akron, Ohio; Erie, Pennsylvania; Kalamazoo, Michigan; and Worcester, Massachusetts—are well positioned to promote development that includes and benefits all residents while improving economic competitiveness. This report shows local changemakers how to incorporate equity into the traditional suite of revitalization strategies by focusing on both physical development and investment in residents. The report makes a case for why local changemakers should care about equity and offers ways to shape development policies and actions to make them equitable. Most of these strategies are tailored to the unique conditions of smaller, weak-market legacy cities and can, for the most part, be implemented at the local level. Case studies further illustrate each of these strategies. 

An earlier Policy Focus Report from the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and Greater Ohio Policy Center, Revitalizing America’s Smaller Legacy Cities, discusses smaller legacy cities and the economic and historical dynamics that shape them, including a detailed analysis of their demographics (Hollingsworth and Goebel 2017). The 2017 report provides a more detailed foundation for the equitable development strategies discussed here. 

The Equitable Development Imperative: How Greater Equity Can Support Growth 

Chris Benner and Manuel Pastor (2012, 2015) assert the economic imperative for addressing long-standing inequality by demonstrating that racial and income inequality are not just outcomes of a postindustrial world, but also drivers of current and future regional economic stagnation. Specifically, they found that “high inequality, measured in a variety of different ways, has a negative impact on growth and that these impacts are in fact stronger in regions with what many in the literature call ‘weak market’ central cities” (Pastor and Benner 2008). While this “dragging effect” of inequality on financial strength is concerning, a growing and encouraging body of research offers a path forward, validating the economic advantages of improving equity (Pastor and Benner 2008). 

Research by the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland supports this, finding that “a skilled workforce, high levels of racial inclusion, and progress on income equality correlate strongly and positively with economic growth” (Benner and Pastor 2012; Eberts, Erickcek, and Kleinhenz 2006). 

Persistent disparities can depress a city’s economy. Revitalization without a deliberate equity component does little to address underlying injustices. Alan Mallach’s 2014 analysis of traditional legacy city revitalization shows us how development designed for high-income residents in the downtown or central business district alone does not improve inequities citywide. Mallach found that traditional revitalization in some legacy cities failed to improve economic and quality-of-life indicators for the least advantaged residents: “Revitalization, at least at the scale and of the character that is being experienced in these cities, does not confer citywide benefits; if anything, it may even redirect jobs, resources, and wealth away from large parts of the city, concentrating them in a smaller area and leaving the rest worse off than before” (Mallach 2014). 

Urban Institute researchers, in their analysis of how larger cities recovered from the Great Recession, concur with Mallach’s finding. They write, “Across all types of cities, local leaders are beginning to recognize that economic growth does not automatically lead to inclusion; rather, intentional strategies are needed” (Poethig et al. 2018). Federal Reserve researchers also weigh in on this, saying: “The pursuit of societal goals, such as racial inclusion and lower income dispersion, are very compatible with economic growth” (Eberts, Erickcek, and Kleinhenz 2006). 

Sidebar: What are equity and equitable development?

This report uses the term “equity” broadly to refer to an overarching goal: to make opportunity accessible to all, regardless of background and circumstance, and to make a special effort to improve outcomes for low-income populations and communities of color to bring them into parity with other populations. Greater equity is possible when poverty and disparities in wealth, employment, and health shrink as incomes and access to employment increase. In equitable cities, decision makers value the perspectives of all residents and ensure that anyone who wants to participate in civic life can have a seat at the table. 

“Equality” and “equity” are not synonymous. Many scholars of equity and inclusion have argued that equality means funding, access to support, and decision-making power are shared equally, and one solution applies to all (Blackwell 2016). But treating all issues equally does not correct underlying inequities; instead, it perpetuates them, because policies and practices impact individuals and communities differently. Committing to equity means tailoring solutions and supports to local needs and circumstances so that everyone thrives. 

The process of equitable development must include diverse stakeholders who provide critical input and take leadership roles. Equitable development must also protect residents from being physically or culturally forced out of their homes while improving market strength and encouraging new market-rate development. Practitioners need to be patient and strategic, understanding that it takes time to realize the desired outcomes. In the meantime, changemakers can track progress with data and make course corrections as needed. 

Unique Challenges and Opportunities for Equitable Development in Smaller Legacy Cities 

One major advantage that smaller legacy cities have when advancing equitable development is that their leaders often already have meaningful relationships with each other. When intentionally nurtured, these connections can lead to fruitful coalitions. The path to better economic times is through collaboration; this was true in the aftermath of the Great Recession, and it is likely to continue to be true in the pandemic era (Brachman 2020). Conversely, strained or poor relationships resulting from competition over scarce resources or other factors can impede progress for smaller legacy cities. Steps for dealing with these conflicts are addressed later in this report. 

Another advantage is that the relative lack of market pressures in smaller legacy cities means leaders can take their time to get plans right without rapid development threatening to get ahead of the planning process. Additionally, the smaller size of these places makes them an ideal environment for testing ideas and changing paradigms, eloquently described in the Ferguson Commission report (2015) as encouraging a “culture of trying.” Smaller legacy cities can make course corrections and quick pivots—critical pieces of “trying”—by expeditiously seeking residents’ input and regularly checking back in for feedback. 

An equity agenda cannot be built entirely on a city’s real estate market. This is especially true in smaller legacy cities, which often lack the market strength to support development impact fees or exactions—payments made by developers to local governments to deliver public goods associated with a project, such as infrastructure, open space, or affordable housing. 

Because those strategies may not be suitable for all smaller legacy cities, this report describes alternative routes to equity that do not require waiting for a strong real estate market. For example, leaders in Dayton, Ohio, co-located a number of similar community programs when they renovated the Dayton Arcade. This facilitated more coordinated, collaborative, and efficient delivery of small business development services. Because revitalization work must extend beyond the physical environment, many strategies presented in this report seek to increase human capital. Case studies focus on coalition building, planning, and workforce development. Research supports this need for a breadth of strategies. In an examination of how to improve upward mobility for low-income families and families of color in America’s metro areas, researchers from the U.S. Partnership on Mobility from Poverty found, “The evidence suggests that full-scale transformation will result not from any single policy endeavor, but through a long-term process that extends beyond investments in the distressed neighborhoods themselves to also address the economic, political, and social systems that helped create and sustain neighborhood disparities” (Turner et al. 2018). 

The case studies included here from larger cities or healthier markets can be adapted for smaller legacy cities. Many of the examples come from Ohio, which is home to 20 smaller legacy cities (a relatively high number for one state), and a state policy environment that is not particularly city-friendly. As such, Ohioans have been innovating at the local level for decades. Additionally, this report purposefully prioritizes equitable development strategies that can start at any time, regardless of market strength, and are primarily within the control of local leaders.  

Equitable Development in the COVID-19 Context 

Without a doubt, the COVID-19 pandemic has heightened challenges faced by leaders in small legacy cities. Already weak housing markets are further strained as tenants and owners face job losses and increased financial instability. When limited resources force city leaders to make difficult strategic investment decisions, residents may sometimes view these choices as picking favorites. This dynamic erodes trust and underscores how essential it is to develop a defensible plan and an inclusive process to guide decision making. COVID-19 has also increased food insecurity and presented public health challenges such as caring for sick residents and administering vaccines. These new fiscal demands, along with concurrent or projected declines in local tax revenue, make financing revitalization even more difficult in smaller legacy cities. Yet these challenges often provide the impetus for new partnerships.  

Constrained resources can motivate committed local leaders to forge a sense of common destiny and develop strategic partnerships. Today’s conditions may further broaden awareness about existing challenges and generate momentum for new collaborations, while also encouraging leaders to strategically stretch every dollar to yield the most significant impact. 

When the pandemic began, many local governments were already financially fragile. They had not yet recovered from the Great Recession, more than a decade after its official end. Nationally, cities anticipate losing 10 to 15 percent of their revenue in 2021, and the actual amount may be more significant, depending on the type of tax revenue cities depend on (Greater Ohio Policy Center 2020; McFarland and Pagano 2020). 

These revenue challenges are compounded by a dramatic need for initiatives to help support residents and retain small businesses, such as establishing non-congregate shelters, increasing food access, offering small business grants and loans, and expanding internet access. Many local governments have already cut spending by shelving or scaling back scheduled capital projects and laying off staff, actions that then challenge their ability to undertake strategic investments. 

COVID-19 has exacerbated racial disparities in both physical health and economic well-being. While low- and moderate-income people, many of whom are people of color, have benefited from various protections against eviction in the short term, renters worry that they may not be able to pay their accumulated debt. Local landlords who are financially dependent on rental income often dominate the rental market in smaller cities, and the pandemic puts their income at risk, too. 

The long-term consequences for the economies of smaller legacy cities are ultimately unknown—but worrisome. Nevertheless, leaders of smaller legacy cities consider these challenges a setback, not a death knell. Many of Ohio’s smaller legacy cities even report that their traditional economic development efforts were extraordinarily successful in 2020 despite the effects of the pandemic. Linking these economic development successes to equity goals remains a challenge for some, but more stakeholders are growing aware of the issue thanks to an increasing number of conference panels, training sessions, and informal conversations. 

The COVID-19 pandemic also creates a unique opportunity for legacy city leaders to prioritize equity through recovery. A growing national focus on racial justice is underscoring the pandemic’s disproportionate impacts on communities of color. Racial justice protests have occurred in many smaller legacy cities, and many communities have declared racism a public health crisis (Walliser-Wejebe 2020). 

Such protests hold the potential to build dialogue among residents and municipal governments, including police (Frolik 2020; Petersen 2020). Legacy city leaders can seize the moment and fully acknowledge long-standing racial and economic disparities within their cities, as well as the fact that recent economic growth has not benefited all residents equally (Economic Innovation Group 2020). This increased awareness in an environment of heightened urgency paves the way for a more equitable strategic plan for recovery from a pandemic-driven recession and a more inclusive future for smaller legacy cities. 

Addressing Concerns About Gentrification in Smaller Legacy Cities 

An enduring tension within revitalization efforts is between the need for new market-rate housing and residents’ fears of displacement. Declining populations and low incomes in small legacy cities prompt the need to attract new and higher-income residents to approach a healthy bell-curve distribution of incomes (Mallach 2018). Many smaller legacy cities in the Midwest have weak housing markets that require interventions to strengthen the market. 

However, city leaders and developers must authentically acknowledge community concerns as they begin to bring investments to these neighborhoods. Leaders can build trust by bringing a community together to address the need for a mix of incomes, while also acknowledging and mitigating cultural changes and fear of displacement in an open, honest, and transparent way—as in the case of the Bowman Creek Educational Ecosystem in South Bend, Indiana. Physical redevelopment can meet equitable development objectives and maintain a neighborhood’s sense of cultural identity by preserving important community assets such as churches, parks, retail corridors and the long-standing merchants within them, and community and recreation centers. More strategies for addressing these dynamics are considered in the full report. 

A Common Destiny 

Today, smaller legacy cities continue to lose major employers, jobs, and in some cases residents. These trends are exacerbating long-standing racial and income disparities, which have been deepened by COVID-19’s infection rates and economic impacts. The need to address the persistent racial and income segregation common in smaller legacy cities is more urgent than ever. Equitable development offers a new playbook to address inequality while increasing economic competitiveness. 

Strategic work to improve these indicators will provide more opportunities for many residents and will increase potential for broader economic recovery. New investment needs to include deliberate interventions to correct these damaging inequalities. Some smaller legacy cities are experiencing revitalization, but the investments typically do not benefit the city as a whole (Mallach 2014). To reach everyone, revitalization strategies need to be deliberately designed to improve equity outcomes. This report offers numerous examples of how smaller legacy cities can enhance equitable development and set the stage for healthy, sustainable economic recovery. Our strategies acknowledge the importance of relationships and trust in sustaining meaningful, equitable development work. This work can lead to a sense of common destiny among diverse groups and help address disparities and improve economic prospects for the whole city. 

Erica Spaid Patras is the senior manager of special projects at the Greater Ohio Policy Center. She studies the impact of potential public policy changes on the real estate market, manages a community of practice focused on expanding access to capital in underinvested neighborhoods and communities across Ohio, and evaluates the impact of transportation policy in Ohio. She holds a master of city planning degree from the University of California, Berkeley, and a B.A. from Macalester College in St. Paul, Minnesota. 

Alison Goebel is the executive director at the Greater Ohio Policy Center. She is responsible for charting the center’s strategic direction; directing the research, advocacy, and outreach teams; and securing resources for this work. She is the author of numerous research reports and policy briefs on the revitalization of weak-market cities, transportation funding, and local governance structures in Ohio. She holds a Ph.D. and an M.A. in anthropology from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, and a B.A. from Miami University in Oxford, Ohio. 

Lindsey Elam is the manager of research at the Greater Ohio Policy Center. She has a master’s degree in city and regional planning and a B.S. in social work, both from the Ohio State University. She is a certified planner (AICP) with the American Planning Association and a LEED Green Associate through the U.S. Green Building Council, and she has completed trainings through the Form-Based Codes Institute.

Lead image: The Erie Downtown Development Corporation, a nonprofit in Erie, Pennsylvania, has increased Erie revitalization capacity and redevelopment funding—and also sponsors the annual Celebrate Erie festival, which traditionally includes this community-driven Chalk Walk. Credit: Robert Frank.

References 

Benner, Chris, and Manuel Pastor. 2012. Just Growth: Inclusion and Prosperity in America. New York, NY: Routledge.  

———. 2015. Equity, Growth, and Community: What the Nation Can Learn from America’s Metro Areas. Oakland, CA: University of California Press. 

Blackwell, Angela Glover. 2016. “Equity Is . . .” Putnam Consulting Group. October 5. https://putnam-consulting.com/practical-tips-for-philanthropists/equity-is. 

Brachman, Lavea. 2020. The Perils and Promise of America’s Legacy Cities in the Pandemic Era. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. 

Eberts, Randall, George Erickcek, and Jack Kleinhenz. 2006. Dashboard Indicators for the Northeast Ohio Economy: Prepared for the Fund for Our Economic Future. Cleveland, OH: Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland. 

Economic Innovation Group. 2020. “Neighborhood Poverty Project, Interactive Map.” https://eig.org/neighborhood-poverty-project/interactive-map. 

Ferguson Commission. 2015. Forward Through Ferguson: A Path Toward Racial Equity. St. Louis, MO: St. Louis Positive Change. 

Frolik, Cornelius. 2020. “More Than 100 Volunteer to Help Dayton Develop Police Reforms.” Dayton Daily News. June 30. www.daytondailynews.com/news/local/100-people-agree-help-dayton-reform-police/lfxIZ7GOeZhZCVeXk663KK. 

Greater Ohio Policy Center. 2020. A Mortal Threat to Ohio’s Economic Competitiveness: SB352, HB754, and the Buckeye Institute Lawsuit. Columbus, OH: Greater Ohio Policy Center. 

Hollingsworth, Torey, and Alison Goebel. 2017. Revitalizing America’s Smaller Legacy Cities: Strategies for Postindustrial Success from Gary to Lowell. Policy Focus Report. Columbus, OH: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and Greater Ohio Policy Center. 

Mallach, Alan. 2014. The Uncoupling of the Economic City. Washington, DC: Urban Affairs Review. 

———. 2018. The Divided City: Poverty and Prosperity in Urban America. Washington, DC: Island Press. 

McFarland, Christiana K., and Michael A. Pagano. 2020. City Fiscal Conditions 2020. Washington, DC: National League of Cities. 

Pastor, Manuel, and Chris Benner. 2008. “Been Down So Long: Weak-Market Cities and Regional Equity.” In Retooling for Growth: Building a 21st Century Economy in America’s Older Industrial Areas, ed. Richard M. McGahey and Jennifer S. Vey, 89–118. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. 

Petersen, Anne Helen. 2020. “Why the Small Protests in Small Towns Across America Matter.” BuzzFeed News. June 3. www.buzzfeednews.com/article/annehelenpetersen/black-lives-matter-protests-near-me-small-towns. 

Poethig, Erika, Solomon Greene, Christina Stacy, Tanaya Srini, and Brady Meisell. 2018. Inclusive Recovery in U.S. Cities. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. 

Turner, Margery Austin, Solomon Greene, Anthony Iton, and Ruth Gourevitch. 2018. Opportunity Neighborhoods: Building the Foundation for Economic Mobility in America’s Metros. Washington, DC: U.S. Partnership on Mobility from Poverty. 

Walliser-Wejebe, Maria. 2020. “Communities Across the State Declare Racism as a Public Health Crisis, the State Considers It.” Greater Ohio Policy Center blog. July 21. https://www.greaterohio.org/blog/2020/7/16/communities-across-the-state-declare-racism-as-a-public-health-crisis-the-state-considers-it. 
 

Among its many consequences, the pandemic ushered in a period of experimental, rapid-fire adjustments to public space. Cities were suddenly tweaking zoning rules to allow more outdoor dining, blocking off streets to give pedestrians and bicyclists more space, and figuring out how to respond to dramatic upticks in food and retail pickup and delivery. It has been a pivotal stretch, in short, for managing the curb. 

Even before the lockdowns began, the increasing popularity of transportation network companies—from ridesharing services like Uber and Lyft to scooter firms like Bird and Lime—had made curb management a rising priority for many cities. “In today’s urban fabric, few spaces are more contested than the curb,” the American Planning Association declared back in the before-times of 2019. 

But the welter of recent experiments, some involving deployment of new technologies, seems even more significant. Consider the case of Aspen, Colorado. Aspen is an unusual municipality, with a downtown business district that is geographically modest, at just 16 square blocks. Nevertheless, it’s extremely busy: the retail and restaurant businesses there rack up a collective $1 billion a year. The inevitable upshot is that demand for curb space—for parking, for deliveries—can outpace supply. And that makes Aspen a useful curb-management lab. 

In February 2020, Aspen joined a group of municipalities exploring pilot programs with a start-up called Coord, one of a number of “smart city” tech companies with a curb-management bent. “I’m a data freak,” explains Mitch Osur, Aspen’s director of parking and downtown services. He figured that at the very least, Coord’s platform—which integrates “smart zones” with a payment app used by delivery drivers (and a separate app for enforcement officers)—could give him fresh insight into how the downtown streets are really being used. 

The city identified what it believed were its busiest loading zones. Starting in November 2020, using these zones required booking space through Coord’s app, at a cost of $2 an hour. While regular street parking in downtown Aspen can cost $6 an hour, the city (like many others) had never previously charged for loading, but figured it was necessary to get delivery fleets’ attention. In the end there wasn’t much pushback; most drivers appreciated being able to capture a time slot. When one shipping fleet manager questioned the scheme, Osur explained that the shipper could use other loading zones, but the data Aspen was collecting would affect policy decisions about curbs across the downtown area. “If you’re not part of the program, your data won’t count,” he added. Moreover, he was sharing data with participants and soliciting their input. The shipper signed on. 

Because the Coord platform tracks actual usage of the smart loading zones, Osur did indeed get plenty of fresh data. Some was expected, some surprising. He figured average “dwell times” were about 30 minutes, and found they were averaging 39 minutes and 13 seconds. The dwell times were longer in the morning and shrank to about 15 minutes after 2 p.m. He was surprised to learn that the busiest days weren’t Monday and Friday, as expected, but Tuesday and Thursday; Wednesday’s loading zone use was half that of peak days. Based on these insights, Aspen is planning to change the rules for some zones, converting them to regular parking at 11 a.m. on some days rather than 6 p.m. (Osur has seen other changes as a result of adopting Coord; drivers have stopped snagging space early and eating lunch in loading zones, a previously routine practice.) 

Coord has run similar pilots in Omaha, Nashville, and other cities. But it is just one entity involved in curb-management experiments. Cox Communications, through its Cox2M “internet of things” division, is testing curbside kiosks that can essentially monitor dwell times in loading zones and present a countdown clock warning drivers not to overstay their time on the curb; the technology can alert city enforcement when drivers linger. Las Vegas is running a pilot program with the technology, which can also be used to manage commercial deliveries, a Cox official told Government Technology. Columbus, Ohio, and Washington, DC, have run pilots with another app, curbFlow, designed to coordinate deliveries from multiple services along particularly busy curb stretches. 

Technology such as video kiosks and app-based location trackers adds both new options and new complexity to the business of managing curbs. Traditionally, defining curb use has involved signage and paint, which are hard to tweak quickly, notes Anne Goodchild, professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Washington, whose Urban Freight Lab has focused on public-private efforts to address evolving delivery logistics and planning. 

Perhaps because of the pandemic, cities have been more willing to try new options. Before the pandemic, a curb change would have entailed lengthy public processes. The crisis showed that a more nimble alternative was possible. “We did some things differently,” Goodchild says. “For example, we changed curb allocations literally overnight.” 

The pandemic pushed a fast-forward button on both new patterns of street usage and policy responses to those patterns, says Heather Hannon, associate director of planning practice and scenario planning at the Lincoln Institute. During the pandemic, the organization’s Big City Planning Directors Institute shifted from a twice-yearly gathering to a monthly one (held virtually, of course). The pandemic, she points out, “was a reason to try new things.” 

Hannon has observed a spike in interest in scenario planning for potential futures among U.S. communities since the pandemic began. She also points out that curb management isn’t merely an issue for downtowns or commercial districts, noting that it tilts into residential neighborhoods as well. The demand for home delivery has soared: food-delivery apps doubled their revenues in a six-month period during 2020 compared to the same period in 2019, and e-commerce in the United States grew 44 percent in 2020 compared to the previous year. These trends will only be complicated by the experiments with robots and drones that policy makers increasingly have to accommodate. 

Aspen, meanwhile, has expanded its pilot program, adding new loading zones to the experiment as the number of participating drivers keeps growing. While it is just one experiment in a small city, it overlaps with a singular moment in the way citizens and businesses use technology to interact with planned spaces, opening a window onto how planners and policy makers might think about the future of the curb. “This is totally scalable,” Osur says, referring not to any specific app or technology but to the general idea of cities using new tools to more actively manage the curb. “This is the future.” 

Rob Walker is a journalist covering design, technology, and other subjects. He is the author of The Art of Noticing. His newsletter is at robwalker.substack.com. 

Image: Curb management has become a rising priority in cities including Las Vegas, where Cox Communications is piloting curbside kiosks that monitor dwell times in loading zones. Credit: Courtesy of Cox Communications.

This essay is adapted from the foreword to the forthcoming Lincoln Institute book Infrastructure Economics and Policy: International Perspectives.  

The Lincoln Institute is preparing to launch a book about infrastructure, which you’ll find excerpted in the October print issue of Land Lines. It is one of the very few books about infrastructure published in the last decade. It could not come at a better time. 

Today, we are on the cusp of historic investments in global infrastructure. The World Bank estimates that we will need more than US$90 trillion in new infrastructure by 2030 to prepare cities for 2 billion new inhabitants, primarily in sprawling metropolises in low-income countries. This total investment exceeds the current annual gross domestic product of all the countries on the planet by around 20 percent. In order to formulate new sustainability strategies and policies for cities in regions where populations are growing rapidly—and in regions where city structures continue to evolve to adjust to innovations in technology and commerce—we need to understand the relationship between urbanization and infrastructure. 

The world also faces new challenges associated with the climate crisis, the sharing economy, and the fallout from COVID-19. If we want to protect ourselves from the impacts of the climate crisis, the World Bank suggests we add another US$1 trillion per year to the global investment noted above. If we are to live in a “new normal” shaped by global pandemics, infrastructure design and usage must be modified. 

For most people in developed countries, infrastructure is largely invisible, noticed only due to its absence or failure. We are chagrined when the power goes out or the Internet goes down. More distressingly, infrastructure failures can be catastrophic, such as when the Ponte Morandi collapsed into the Polcevera River in Genoa, Italy, in 2018; or when leaking, centuries-old gas pipes destroyed two apartment buildings in East Harlem, New York, in 2014; or when the levees failed and floodwater inundated New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. 

These awful events made headlines because infrastructure is supposed to be safe and reliable—and for a large portion of the world’s population, it usually is. But most people in developing countries live with inadequate roads, unreliable power supplies, and a lack of safe drinking water and basic sanitation. They have a diminished quality of life and reduced life expectancies as a result, and the growth of their local and national economies is constrained.  

When it works, infrastructure represents humanity at its best. Designing, developing, and financing infrastructure requires formidable technical expertise. But to get the job done, we also need to exercise our best social and political skills and work together to provide durable public goods that solve seemingly intractable social, economic, and environmental challenges. Colossal dams spanning treacherous canyons are a great example: they demand exceptional engineering acumen and provide decades of flood prevention, crop irrigation, drinking water, and electricity. Planning and financing infrastructure requires us to dispose of short-term thinking and make investments with benefits that will span generations. 

Infrastructure also represents humanity at its worst. We are at our worst when we allow opaque decisions about infrastructure to disadvantage or harm those without the economic or political power to influence those decisions—when new thoroughfares are forced through thriving communities of color to reduce drive times for suburban commuters, for example, or when public officials and beltway bandits strike sweetheart deals behind closed doors. Process is as important as, and sometimes more important than, outcomes. Infrastructure planning must include all stakeholders and account for their needs, aspirations, and rights.  

The stakes are high with infrastructure. We commit dizzying sums of money for decades to build and manage projects and systems of unimaginable scale and ambition. The very complexity of all aspects of infrastructure demands paramount integrity: conforming assiduously to engineering specifications, adhering to the rule of law, exercising fiscal discipline, and maintaining absolute transparency and accountability. Decisions to build infrastructure using public funds must be grounded in rigorous cost-benefit analysis. Although such methodologies are well developed in theory, in practice they can be abused with political pressure, intentional bias, or selective myopia. 

Moreover, public decision processes cannot always be trusted to produce optimal resource allocations. If we can understand the complexity of infrastructure within real-world constraints, we will make better spending decisions. Despite the obvious need for infrastructure, developing countries struggle to pay for long-term investments. While these constraints are real, there are many ways to finance infrastructure, even in the most impoverished places. These methods include land value capture mechanisms, which have been used for millennia and which involve recovering the increased value of land associated with infrastructure improvements. For example, betterment levies were used by the Roman Empire to build roads, bridges, tunnels, and viaducts connecting a vast area from Portugal to Constantinople. Land readjustment, in which parcels of land are pooled and improved with new infrastructure that is paid for through the sale of a small share of the land, has been used hundreds of times on multiple continents to build capital cities like Washington, DC, or rebuild towns and cities in countries ravaged by war. 

How effectively infrastructure meets economic and social goals depends critically on the way it is managed and regulated. Both the public and private sectors are active in infrastructure development and service provision. The infrastructure industry has gone through a cycle of domination by the private sector followed by public takeover and public provision, then to privatization, and to the increasingly popular public-private partnerships. Who gets served by infrastructure, and how they are served, is determined by regulatory structures that protect the public interest and require absolute transparency and accountability of vendors and public officials. 

We can learn a lot from international experiences related to the management and regulation of infrastructure. Some countries and regions develop and implement infrastructure plans and strategies to achieve specific social and economic objectives. The European Union used infrastructure grants and loans to help integrate new members both politically and economically through two rounds of expansion. Chinese policy makers advanced high-speed rail development strategies that supported the formation of several major city clusters (or megalopolises) to drive the growth of the national economy. In contrast, Japan’s rail policy relied mainly on the private sector to provide vital social services. The lessons from such experiences are important for countries that aspire to not only formulate effective infrastructure plans but also use infrastructure planning to achieve other important goals. 

It is hard to exaggerate the importance of infrastructure for sustaining human habitation on this planet. Without it, to quote Thomas Hobbes, “there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force . . . And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.” 

At the Lincoln Institute, we have spent more than seven decades addressing social, economic, and environmental challenges using innovative land policies. Among those we have studied and recommended to address global challenges, none is more important than infrastructure. Without the lifeline goods and services delivered by effective and efficient infrastructure, human life would be nastier, more brutish, and shorter. If we can learn from the authors of this book, life will be better and longer for a multitude of people around the world. 

George W. McCarthy is president and CEO of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. 

Image: Interstates 10 and 101 in Los Angeles. Credit: Art Wager via Getty Images.