Gerrit-Jan Knaap is an economist, professor of urban studies and planning, and executive director of the National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education at the University of Maryland, in College Park. His research interests include the economics and politics of land use planning, the efficacy of economic development instruments, and the impacts of environmental policy. His research in Oregon, Maryland and elsewhere has made him a recognized expert on land use policy and planning. He is the coauthor or editor of several books, including two published by the Lincoln Institute: The Regulated Landscape: Lessons on State Land Use Planning from Oregon (1992); and Land Market Monitoring for Smart Urban Growth (2001).

Land Lines: As director of the National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education, what land policy issues are you addressing now?

Gerrit-Jan Knaap: This Center has been in existence for only three years, but this year it is finally getting established and recognized. In the past year we have been able to pull together a core group of national and international researchers who are now working in three key areas: land use and environment; transportation and public health; and international urban development. The Center is also recruiting a faculty researcher to concentrate on housing and community development.

LL: What are the Center’s most difficult challenges?

GK: Ironically, the Center’s name is a problem. While the phrase “smart growth” is helpful shorthand for describing an approach to land use planning and management, some people identify the term with liberal causes or with former Maryland Governor Parris Glendening or the Clinton-Gore administration. As a result, the phrase has been politicized in a way that causes confusion and polarized reactions. The Center does not support or oppose smart growth; it is just an adjective modifying what we do: research and education.

We have found, however, that it is more difficult to obtain funding for objective research on growth management and planning issues than it is to obtain funding for activities that advocate either for or against smart growth. The Lincoln Institute’s willingness to fund independent, objective, high-quality research in this field fills an important niche.

LL: What are some of the Center’s most significant projects?

GK: We are doing a lot of work to develop quantitative measures of urban form. We are not alone in this enterprise, but we think we’re still a step ahead of other research centers in applying such measures to policy issues. Reid Ewing, a nationally recognized expert on growth management, community development and traffic management, recently joined the staff. He and others, for example, have developed a sprawl index that they use to explore the relationship between sprawl and obesity, which is part of our public health focus.

Yan Song, a former post-doctoral fellow in the Center and now an assistant professor at the University of North Carolina, developed quantitative measures of urban form and used them to explore whether Portland, Oregon, was winning the battle against urban sprawl. She also used them to determine whether characteristics like street network connectivity, residential density, land use mix and pedestrian accessibility to commercial uses were capitalized into property values. Most recently, she has used the measures to classify neighborhoods into clusters with similar design characteristics as a means of classifying the types of neighborhood that are currently being built.

Another major focus of our work is land policy and growth management in the People’s Republic of China. As a result of recent economic growth and reforms, China’s 1.3 billion people are urbanizing at an astonishing rate, creating an unprecedented growth management challenge. The Chinese are struggling to find a way to accommodate urban growth and, at the same time, preserve their ability to feed their people. Though we certainly do not have all the answers, Chinese scholars and public officials are interested in learning from our experiences in confronting and balancing these challenges. Chengri Ding, another member of the Center’s faculty, is leading this work with support from the Lincoln Institute. He and Yan Song are editing a book on the evolution of land and housing markets in China that will be published by the Institute later this year.

Our third major focus area is land market monitoring, which grew out of my work in Oregon. Land market monitoring is based on the idea that urban growth management is partly an inventory problem: too much land can lead to urban sprawl, but too little land may create land and housing price inflation. Maintaining balance requires accurate and timely information about land supplies, development capacity, land and housing prices, natural resource constraints and urban development demands. We have conducted several workshops around the country on land market monitoring, and now we are working with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Lincoln Institute to establish a national demonstration project.

LL: How did you develop this concept of land market monitoring?

GK: It started with my dissertation work on the price effects of the urban growth boundary (UGB) in Portland, Oregon. Later, at the University of Illinois, Lew Hopkins and I worked on a project we called, “Does Planning Matter?” We sought to develop planning support systems that not only helped to improve land use decision making, but also helped identify the effects of land use plans and regulations on urban development patterns (Ding, Hopkins and Knaap 1997). Building on this work, I organized a conference at the Lincoln Institute in Cambridge in 2000 and invited a group of leading scholars to present papers on this issue. These papers were published by the Institute in the book Land Market Monitoring for Smart Urban Growth, which was recently translated into Chinese. The idea of measuring development capacity and the need for housing is actually as old as planning itself, but recent advances in GIS technology and digital data bases makes it possible to monitor development capacity on a nearly continuous basis.

LL: How are these ideas being used by planners in the U.S.?

GK: Well, to a large extent, they are not. Typical planning practice in the U.S. still involves the formulation of a comprehensive plan—usually for a 10- to 20-year period—then implementing the plan, and then, after 5 to 10 years, formulating a new plan. With a land market monitoring system it is possible to shorten this cycle considerably. In the extreme, it is conceptually possible to monitor development capacity and urban development trends on a continuous basis and make adjustments as needed. Most planners, however, are not trained to think about growth management issues in this way.

LL: What are the obstacles to using land market monitoring in different locales?

GK: The major obstacles are: (1) the lack of quality data; (2) the lack of intergovernmental cooperation; and (3) the lack of political will to place this issue high on the agenda. The primary problem is not money. To do land market monitoring correctly requires a certain level of resource commitment, but since virtually every local government is developing GIS data and has the necessary technical capacity, it is not difficult to develop an operational monitoring system.

There are some positive examples, however. Monitoring of some kind has been required in Oregon for many years; for this reason, Metro, the regional government for the Portland metropolitan area, has developed an extensive monitoring system (Knaap, Bolen and Seltzer 2003). In its Growing Smart Guidebook, the American Planning Association recommends that any local government that adopts an urban growth boundary also should develop a land monitoring system. Most recently, Maryland Governor Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. signed an executive order that will initiate a pilot program of land market monitoring in five cities and five counties, and I will serve on the task force that oversees that demonstration project.

LL: What are your plans for the future?

GK: We have two demonstration projects under way. In the first, we are working with the Maryland Department of Planning to develop a series of indicators to assess the progress of the state’s Smart Growth program. These indicators will measure development capacity as well as housing starts and prices, acres of land protected from development, vehicle miles traveled, transit ridership and other trends that will help state officials and the public judge the effectiveness of smart growth policies.

Second, we have just completed phase one of a national demonstration project that was jointly funded by HUD, the Federal Highway Administration and the Lincoln Institute. We identified a generic protocol for conducting a development capacity analysis, applied this protocol to 15 counties in Maryland, and held workshops on monitoring in several metropolitan areas around the country. With Zorica Nedovic-Budic, we also conducted an assessment of the capacity of regional governments to use GIS for land use and transportation planning (see http://www.urban.uiuc.edu/faculty/budic/W-metroGIS.htm). We hope to begin the second phase of that project early in 2004 in five selected sites around the country. Phase two will focus first on residential development capacity, then on employment development capacity, then on how to tie together land use forecasting with transportation planning.

We’re also exploring the possibility of setting up a land market monitoring demonstration project in China, in conjunction with the Lincoln Institute’s new China program.

LL: So where does smart growth go next?

GK: What will happen to the expression “smart growth” is difficult to say. Governor Ehrlich has started calling his version of Maryland’s land use program “Priority Places,” but all of the newspapers still refer to his effort as smart growth. So, it remains to be seen whether the phrase becomes part of the national lexicon or fades like the Macarena. There is no doubt, however, that the issues associated with the term “smart growth” will not go away, in Maryland, around the country, or even overseas. We think this Center is now well-positioned to become an important and objective source of information and education on these issues well into the future.

References

Ding, Chengri, Lewis Hopkins and Gerrit Knaap. 1997. Does Planning Matter? Visual Examination of Urban Development Events. Land Lines 9(1): 4-5.

Knaap, Gerrit, Richard Bolen, and Ethan Seltzer. 2003. Metro’s Regional Land Information System: The Virtual Key to Portland’s Growth Management Success. Lincoln Institute Working Paper.

Land value is determined primarily by external factors, mainly changes that occur in the neighborhood or other parts of the city rather than by direct actions of the landowner. This observation is especially valid for small lots whose form or type of occupancy do not generate sufficiently strong externalities to increase their own value retroactively; that is, a small lot generally does not have a significant impact on those very external factors that could affect its own value. However, large urban projects (grandes proyectos urbanos or GPUs) do influence those factors, and also the value of the land that supports them. Herein lies the essence the Lincoln Institute’s interest in such projects.

We propose two perspectives for analyzing GPUs that complement and contrast with others that formerly predominated in this debate. First, these projects can be a stimulating force for immediate urban change that is capable of affecting land values, and therefore land use, for large areas if not an entire city region. This view is focused more on urban design or urbanism and stresses the study of the physical, esthetic and symbolic dimensions of large urban projects. A second approach, covering the field of regulation, attempts to understand the land value appreciation generated by the implementation and operation of these projects as a potential means for self-support and economic feasibility. It analyzes the role of GPUs in providing a new function for certain areas of the city. Both perspectives require a more holistic understanding that includes the diversity and levels of complexity of the projects, their relation to the city plan, the type of regulatory framework they require, the role of the public and private sectors in managing and financing them, land taxation and fiscal policies, and other factors.

These large projects are not new to Latin America. In the early twentieth century, many cities were impacted by programs that used public-private management arrangements, including outside players (national and international) and complex financial structures. Some projects had the potential to trigger urban processes capable of transforming their surroundings or even the city as a whole, as well as accentuating the preexisting socio-spatial polarization. Often the projects were layered over existing regulations, contributing to questions about the urban planning strategies in force at the time. Large urban developers and utility companies (English, Canadian, French and others) coordinated the provision of services with complex real estate development operations in almost all the major cities of Latin America.

Today large projects attempt to intervene in especially sensitive places to reorient urban processes and create new urban identities on a symbolic level. They also aim to create new economic areas (sometimes territorial enclaves) able to foster an environment protected from urban poverty and violence, and more favorable to domestic or international private investment. When describing the motives that justify these programs, the rhetoric focuses on their instrumental role in strategic planning, their alleged contribution to urban productivity, and their effectiveness in boosting their intercity competitive position.

In a context marked by transformations due to globalization, economic reforms, deregulation and the introduction of a new focus on urban management, it is not surprising that these programs have been the subject of much controversy. Their scale and complexity often spur new social movements; redefine economic opportunities; put into question urban development regulatory frameworks and land use rules; strain local finances; and expand political arenas, thus altering the roles of urban stakeholders. An additional complication is the long time frame for executing large urban projects, which usually exceeds the terms of municipal governments and the limits of their territorial authority. This reality presents additional management challenges and formidable dilemmas within the public and academic debate.

The Lincoln Institute’s contribution to this debate is to underscore the land component in the structure of these large projects, specifically the processes associated with urban land management and the mechanisms for land value capture or the mobilization of land value increments for the benefit of the community. This article is part of a broader, ongoing effort to systematize recent Latin American experience with GPUs and to discuss the relevant aspects.

A Wide Range of Projects

As in other parts of the world, large urban projects in Latin America comprise a wide range of activities: restoration of historic downtown areas (Old Havana or Lima); renovation of neglected downtown areas (São Paulo or Montevideo); redevelopment of ports and waterfronts (Puerto Madero in Buenos Aires or Ribera Norte in Concepción, Chile); reuse of old airports or industrial zones (the Tamanduatehy artery in Santo Andre, Brazil, or the Cerrillos airport in Santiago, Chile); expansion zones (Santa Fé, Mexico, or the former Panama Canal zone); residential or neighborhood improvement projects (Nuevo Usme in Bogotá or Favela Bairro in Rio de Janeiro); and so on.

Land management is a key component in all of these projects, and it presents diverse sets of conditions (Lungo 2004; forthcoming). One common trait is that the projects are managed by a government authority as part of a city project or plan, even though they enjoy private participation in several respects. Thus exclusively private programs, such as shopping centers and gated communities, are a different category of development project not included in this discussion.

Scale and Complexity

The minimum threshold of scale, in terms of surface area or amount of financial investment, for a project to meet the GPU criteria depends on the size of the city, its economy, social structure and other factors, all of which help define the complexity of the project. In Latin America projects often combine large scale and a complex set of players associated with key roles in land policy and management, including various levels of government (national, provincial and municipal), private entities and community leaders from the affected area. Even relatively small upgrading projects are often formidably complex with regard to the land readjustment component.

There is obviously a huge difference between a project proposed by one or a few owners over a large area (such as ParLatino, an abandoned industrial site in São Paulo) and a project involving the cooperation of many owners of small areas. The latter requires a complex series of actions capable of generating synergies or sufficient external economies to make each action economically viable. Most projects fall between the two extremes. They often involve the prior acquisition of rights over smaller parcels by a few agents in order to centralize control over the type and management of the development.

The key to analysis and design of GPUs in Latin America lies in the ability of the institutional organization in charge of project management to incorporate and coordinate scale and complexity appropriately. Governmental corporations have been created in some cases, but they operate autonomously (as in Puerto Madero) or as special public agencies attached to the central or municipal governments (as in the housing program being developed in the city of Rosario, Argentina, or the Nuevo Usme program in Bogotá). The case of the failed project to build the new Mexico City airport demonstrates the negative consequences of not correctly defining this fundamental aspect of GPUs.

Relationship of GPUs to the City Plan

What is the point of developing GPUs when the city has no comprehensive urban development plan or socially shared vision? It is possible to find situations where execution of GPUs may stimulate, enhance or strengthen the city plan, but in practice many such projects are established without any plan. One of the main criticisms aimed at GPUs is that they become instruments for excluding citizen participation in decision making about individual elements of what is expected or supposed to be part of an integrated urban project, as is normally provided for in a city’s master plan or land use plan.

This is an interesting debate within the framework of urban policies in Latin America, since urban planning itself has been criticized as being elitist and exclusionary. Some authors have concluded that urban planning has been one if not the main cause of the excesses of social segregation typical of cities in the region. In this context the recent popularity of GPUs can be seen as a reaction of the elite to redemocratization and participatory urban planning. Others may view GPUs as an advanced (and perverse) form of traditional urban planning; a yielding to the failures or ineffectiveness of urban planning; or even a lesser evil because at least they ensure that something is done in some part of the city.

There are many challenges for GPUs regarding their relationship to a city plan. They can help build a city plan where none exists, alter traditional plans, or do what we might call “navigating through the urban fog” if the former paths are not viable. In any case, land management proves to be a critical factor, both for the plan and for the projects, because it refers to the fundamental role of the regulatory framework covering urban land use and expansion.

Regulatory Framework

The preferred regulatory solution would be a two-part intervention: on one hand, maintaining general regulations for the whole city but changing the conventional criteria to be more flexible in absorbing the constant change taking place in urban environments; and on the other, allowing specific regulations for certain projects but avoiding regulatory frameworks that may contradict the stated goals of the city plan. Urban Operations, a specific and ingenious instrument devised under the Brazilian urban development legislation (Statute of the City Act of 2001), has been used widely to accommodate these dual needs. The city of São Paulo alone has 16 such operations in effect. Another version of this instrument is the so-called “partial planning” provision to readjust large tracts of land, which is included in Colombia’s equally innovative Law 388 of 1997.

Again in practice we see that exceptions are often granted in an apparently arbitrary manner, and regulatory restrictions are frequently ignored. The point is that neither type of regulation is submitted to any assessment of its socioeconomic and environmental value, thus losing a significant portion of its justification. Given the financial and fiscal fragility of cities in Latin America, what prevails is an extremely low capacity for public discussion of the requests made by the proponents of GPUs. The absence of institutional mechanisms that would make these negotiations transparent makes them more venal, insofar as they expose the capacity to discuss other, less prosaic legal challenges.

Public or Private Management and Financing

What is the desirable combination of public and private management of these projects? To guarantee that public management of a large urban project fulfills its function, land use must be monitored and regulated, although the degree to which the control should be exercised, and on which specific components of land ownership rights, is unresolved. Ambiguity in the courts and the uncertainties associated with the development of GPUs often result in public frustration over unanticipated outcomes favoring private interests. The proper balance between effective ex ante (GPU formulation, negotiation and design) and ex post (GPU implementation, management, operation and impacts) controls over land uses and rights is at the heart of the problem. Typically in the Latin American experience with GPUs there is a huge gap between original promises and actual outcomes.

In recent years the management of GPUs has been confused with the utility and feasibility of public-private partnerships, such as those set up in many countries to carry out specific projects or programs. Some stakeholders even propose the possibility of privatizing urban development management in general. If the private sector has complete control over the land, however, GPUs are severely limited in their ability to contribute to socially sustainable urban development, despite the fact that in many cases the projects contribute significant taxes to the city (Polese and Stren 2000).

The preferred public management system should call on the greatest social participation possible and include the private sector in the financing and implementation of these projects. The large urban programs that seem to contribute the most to the development of a city are those based on public management of the land.

Land Value Appreciation

There is consensus around the fact that GPUs generate an appreciation in land value. Differences emerge when we try to assess the real amount of this appreciation, if it is to be redistributed and, if so, how it should be shared and whom it should benefit, both in social and territorial terms. Again we have the public-private conundrum, wherein this redistribution formula often leads to the appropriation of public resources by the private sector.

The appreciation of land value as a resource that can be mobilized for self-financing the GPU or transferred to other areas of the city could be a way to measure whether or not public management of these projects is a success. However, we rarely have an acceptable estimate of this land value increment. Even in the Puerto Madero project in Buenos Aires, which is considered to be a success, to date there is no evaluation of the land value increment associated with either the properties within the project itself or those in neighboring areas. As a result, the discussion of possible redistribution has not gone beyond a few educated guesses.

GPUs conceived as instruments for achieving certain strategic urban goals are generally registered as successes when they are executed according to plan. The question regarding to what extent these goals were actually reached is not fully answered, and it is often conveniently forgotten. The hypothesis that best seems to fit Latin American experiences with GPUs is that the apparent lack of interest in goals has little to do with any technical inability to make the source of the increased value transparent. Rather, this inattention comes from the need to hide the role of public management in facilitating the private sector’s capture of the land value increment in general, if not its capture of public resources used to develop the construction project itself.

We are not feigning ignorance of or trying to minimize the difficulties in advancing knowledge about how land value appreciation is formed and in measuring its size and circulation. Indeed, there are many technical obstacles to overcome when faced with complicated land rights, the vicissitudes or permanent flaws in cadastres and property registers, and the lack of an historical series of geo-referenced real estate values. Even the smallest plan must distinguish between the appreciation generated by the project itself and that generated by urban externalities that almost always exist despite the scale of the project, the different sources and rates of appreciation, and so forth. Some encouraging work has been done on measuring and evaluating the land value increment associated with development, but technical obstacles seem to be less relevant than the lack of political interest in knowing how these projects are being managed.

When land value increments are created, they are usually distributed in the immediate project area or nearby. This principle is based on the need to finance a specific project within the area, to offset certain negative impacts, or to implement actions such as relocating precarious housing sited on the land or its surroundings that may detract from the image of the new project. Given the socioeconomic conditions found in the typical Latin American city, it is not hard to see that the preferred use of the captured value is to earmark it for projects of a social nature in other parts of the city, such as housing complexes. In fact a significant part of the generated land value increment results exactly from the removal of negative externalities produced by the presence of low-income families in the area. Needless to say, this strategy raises conflicting opinions.

There is certainly a need to devise better legislation and instruments to overcome the trade-off between socially mobilized land value increment and gentrification through displacement. Despite the lack of hard empirical studies, there are reasons to believe that a broader understanding of the impacts of these projects will show that some of the compensatory intracity transfers may actually prove to be counterproductive. For example, the resulting higher land price differences and social residential segregation may involve higher social costs that will need to be addressed by additional public resources in the future (Smolka and Furtado 2001).

Positive and Negative Impacts

On the other hand, the negative impacts caused by GPUs often obscure the varied positive impacts. The challenge is how to reduce the negative impacts produced by this type of urban intervention. It soon becomes clear, whether directly or indirectly, that the role of land management is critical to understanding the effects of large interventions in urban development, planning, regulation, socio-spatial segregation, and the urban environment and culture. Scale and complexity have a role as well, depending on the type of impact. For example, scale is more relevant to environmental and urban development impacts, while complexity is more critical in terms of social impact and urban policy.

As already mentioned, the gentrification that these projects generally produce encourages the displacement of the existing, usually poor, inhabitants from the new project area. However, gentrification is a complex phenomenon that requires further analysis of its own negative aspects, as well as how it could help to raise living standards. It could be more useful to move on from simple mitigation of unwanted negative impacts to better management of the processes that create these risks.

Any GPU can have positive or negative effects, depending on the way urban development is managed, the role of the public sector, and the existing level of citizen participation. We have emphasized that one of the central issues is management of the land and of the land value increment associated with these projects. Large urban projects can not be analyzed in isolation from the entire development of the city. Likewise, the land component must be evaluated with respect to the combination of scale and complexity that is appropriate for each project.

Mario Lungo is a professor and researcher at the Central American University (UCA José Simeón Cañas) in San Salvador, El Salvador. He formerly served as executive director of the Office of Planning for the Metropolitan Area of San Salvador.

Martim O. Smolka is senior fellow of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, cochairman of the Department of International Studies and director of the Program on Latin America and the Caribbean.

References

Lungo, Mario, ed. 2004. Grandes proyectos urbanos (Large urban projects). San Salvador: Universidad Centroamericana José Simeón Cañas.

Lungo, Mario (forthcoming). Grandes proyectos urbanos. Una revisión de casos latinoamericanos (Large urban projects: A review of Latin American cases). San Salvador: Universidad Centroamericana José Simeón Cañas.

Smolka, Martim and Fernanda Furtado. 2001. Recuperación de plusvalías en América Latina (Value capture in Latin America). Santiago, Chile: EURE Libros.

Polese, Mario and Richard Stren. 2000. The social sustainability of cities. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Large-scale urban redevelopment projects (termed grandes projectos urbanos or GPUs in Spanish) raise many questions about the impacts of subsequent urban development induced by the intervention. GPUs are characterized by an impact in a significant part of the city, often with the use of some new fiscal or regulatory instruments and the involvement of a large network of agents and institutions. These projects are expected to affect land prices, recycle existing or create new infrastructure and facilities, and attract other new buildings.

GPUs as an urban policy instrument have been the object of considerable controversy and debate throughout Latin America. It is often argued that they promote social exclusion and gentrification, have limited effects in stimulating real estate activities, and require large (sometimes hidden) public subsidies that often draw fiscal resources from other urban needs. In spite of their increasing popularity in Latin America, there is little empirical evidence to support these criticisms.

This article presents the case of a GPU introduced in São Paulo, Brazil, in 1996 as an “urban operation” to redevelop a middle-income area of mostly single-family homes that was to be traversed by the extension of the Faria Lima Avenue. The project is known as the Faria Lima Urban Operation Consortium (OUCFL). We examine economic principles that affect the fiscal performance of the project and its opportunity for value capture, evaluate changes in residential density, and analyze changes in income distribution and ownership structure. Finally, we offer some policy suggestions on how and when to use this kind of instrument based on these assessments.

What is an Urban Operation?

An urban operation is a legal instrument that seeks to provide local governments with the power to undertake interventions related to urbanistic and city planning improvements in association with the private sector. It identifies a particular area within the city that has the potential to attract private real estate investments to benefit the city as a whole. The proper city planning indexes (i.e., zoning and other regulations on construction coefficients, rates of occupation, and land uses) are redefined in accordance with a master plan, and investments are made in new or recycled infrastructure.

An urban operation allows the municipality to capture (through negotiated or mandatory means) the land value increments associated with the subsequent land use changes. In contrast to other value capture instruments, these funds are earmarked or internalized within the perimeter of the project to be shared between government and the private sector for both investments in urban infrastructure and subsidies to private real estate investments to support the project itself.

Each urban operation in Brazil is proposed by the executive and approved by the legislative branch of the jurisdiction. In the case of São Paulo, this authority was created in the Lei Organica Municipal (Constitution of the City) in 1990, which was later inserted in the new Brazilian urban development law (Statute of the City of 2001). The first proposed projects were the Operation Anhangabaú (subsequently expanded as a part of the Downtown Operation and renamed Center Operation) and Água Branca, followed by the Água Espraiada and Faria Lima operations. After the approval of the city’s new Master Plan in 2001, nine other urban operations were generated. These thirteen projects are expected to affect 30 to 40 percent of the buildable area of the City of São Paulo.

Financing Faria Lima

The Faria Lima urban operation (OUCFL) was proposed and approved in 1995 with the aim of obtaining private resources to fund the public investments necessary to purchase land and install infrastructure in order to extend Faria Lima Avenue. These costs were deemed at the time to be approximately US$150 million, two-thirds for land acquisitions and one-third for the avenue itself. The project was heavily contested by many stakeholders on grounds ranging from the source of the funds (i.e., advanced out of the local budget through new debt) to neighborhood concerns (one of which managed to keep the floor-area-ratios [FARs] unchanged and legally excluded from the OUCFL zoning) and technical design issues.

Technical studies carried out at the time indicated that it would be possible to take advantage of an additional potential 2,250,000 square meters beyond what was already permitted by the city’s zoning legislation, and the FARs were changed accordingly. These additional building rights were granted against a payment of a minimum of 50 percent of their market value using the existing “Solo-Criado” (Selling of Building Rights) instrument. OUCFL aroused great interest on the part of real estate entrepreneurs. This instrument nevertheless was also questioned for its lack of transparency, its project by project approach, and the arbitrariness in the way relevant prices were established and then used to calculate the value of the additional building rights.

By August 2003 a total of 939,592 square meters, or nearly 42 percent of the available total of these 2,250,000 square meters, had already been licensed. More than 115 real estate projects were approved, including nearly 40 percent commercial buildings and 60 percent high-quality residential buildings. Nevertheless, the resources (approximately US$280 million) obtained from these approved projects had not fully compensated for the expenditures (US$350 million, including principal plus interest) associated with the expansion of the avenue, considering the high interest rates prevailing in Brazil for the nearly eight years since the realization of expenditures. Thus, about 80 percent of the cost (albeit more than anticipated) has been recovered through the Selling of Building Rights process. Since July 2004 the compensation for these advance funds was obtained through an ingenious new value capture mechanism known as CEPAC, an acronym for a Certificate of Additional Potential of Construction. One CEPAC represents one square meter.

The Introduction of CEPACs

Although CEPACs were defined in Brazil’s Statute of the City of 2001, they were not approved by the CVM (Brazilian equivalent to the U.S. Security and Exchange Commission) as freely tradable in the Brazilian Stock Exchange until December 2003. The regulation establishes that the price of each certificate is defined by public auction and that the corresponding square meters of building rights (which also include use changes and occupation rates) expressed in each certificate may be executed at any time. The regulation also states that new batches of certificates can be issued (and sold through auction) only upon confirmation that the resources captured by the previous sale have been effectively earmarked to the project. To ensure this designated use, the revenues are deposited in a special account, not in the municipal treasury. From the perspective of the private investors this designation ensures the acceptability of this value capture instrument at its own valorization. By issuing a lower number of certificates than potential building rights—that is by managing their scarcity—the public sector may benefit from the valorization and thus be able to capture value “ex-ante” (Afonso 2004, 39).

The final approval of CEPACs for OUCFL and all the necessary steps for launching them in the financial market occurred in mid-2004, and the first auction at the end of December 2004 generated nearly R$10 million (about US$4 million), corresponding to the sale of approximately 9,000 CEPACs out of an authorized stock of 650,000 square meters. The OUCFL certificates were sold at a face value of R$1,100 (about US$450) per square meter with no observed premium pricing as a result of the bidding process.

This situation contrasts with that of the Água Espraiada urban operation, which was expected to be fully funded by CEPACs from its start. In its third auction, the certificates were already capturing R$370 per certificate against a face value of R$300 set for this operation. A more recent auction in Água Espraiada sold 56,000 CEPACs and captured R$21 million ($US9.5 million), reflecting a certificate price of R$371. This pricing contrast reflects the different original face values in the two projects. In the case of OUCFL developers bought (and stocked) building rights in advance, to benefit from the more flexible rules prior to the CVM approvals. The certificate price in Faria Lima started at more than R$1,100 because it is a more valued area. In Água Espraiada developers were willing to pay more than the original face value because the certificates were less expensive and thus in greater demand.

Land Price Implications

The prices of vacant land and developed areas experienced a considerable increase in some blocks within the perimeter of OUCFL during the 1990s, but decreased in other blocks. Yet, the average square meter price of new real estate development fell throughout the Metropolitan Region of São Paulo (RMSP) in all price bands, when comparing the average price from 1991 to 1996 with those of 1996 to 2000.

After controlling for a number of attributes associated with the changing character of the developments and their location, the price estimations showed an unequivocal relative increase after the operation was launched. The average price per square meter within the OUCFL perimeter increased from R$1.68 thousand in the 1991–1996 period to R$1.92 thousand in the 1996–2001 period, a 14 percent increase, while prices in RMSP decreased from R$1.21 thousand to R$1.06 thousand, a 12 percent decrease in the same period (R$1.95/US$1.00 in December 2000). Thus, the price per square meter in OUCFL was higher than that of RMSP by around 26 percent. The price per square meter in OUCFL was 38 percent higher than the average price in the RMSP in 1991–1996, and it increased to 81 percent higher in 1996–2001.

Was this increase captured by the municipality as anticipated? Considering that the cost of construction in average is around R$1,000 per square meter, the 2004 auction (the only one so far) captured almost all of the value added at current prices. The previous pre-CEPAC system captured about 50 percent or more, depending on the capacity and success of municipal negotiators, and the correctness of the reference price. CEPAC now changes this percentage and the face value of the instrument may capture all the value increment or even more, depending on the relation of this face value to market prices, and on the results of future auctions. Comparing a redevelopment project financed totally by construction bonds (like CEPACs) and one financed totally with general property taxes, there is no doubt that the former is less regressive than the latter. Even with a progressive property tax, with rates increasing according to values, part of the costs would be paid by poorer households.

This evidence that about 80 percent of the total cost of the project has already been recovered, combined with the auctioning of the remaining building rights through CEPACs and the impact of the property appreciation on the current property tax revenues, indicates that the project should not only pay its own way but actually generate a fiscal surplus for the city as a whole over the next five or seven years.

In effect, the changes caused by substituting older single-family houses with new residential and commercial buildings resulted in a substantial change in property tax collection in the OUCFL area. Many lots and even entire blocks had been occupied by single- and two-story houses constructed since the 1950s. Many of these structures were eligible for a discount coefficient for obsolescence of up to 30 percent of the property tax. They were replaced with new, taller and higher-quality buildings for which the discount was null. Our estimates indicate that the differences in property tax collection by square meters constructed may have increased by at least 2.7 times and up to 4.4 times. That is, the average property tax per square meter increased to a minimum of R$588.50 up to R$802.50 from R$220.95 if the house was 25 years old, or from R$179.70 if the house was 30 years old.

Social Implications

The OUCFL case offers a unique opportunity to quantify changes in resident characteristics before and after the intervention, since data at the census track level is available for 1991 and 2000, and the intervention began in 1996. Our analysis of gentrification and displacement of poorer residents mainly confirms the findings of Ramalho and Meyer (2004) that the average income has increased relatively in most of the blocks inside the OUCFL perimeter. By Brazilian standards, the upper-middle class was displaced from the region by the richest 5 percent of households in the metropolitan area. The census data also showed that residential density fell between 1991 and 2000, from 27 to 22 residences per hectare, although these figures may be distorted because they reflect the ratio of total residences in the entire area, not an average of the ratios per plot where land use was converted.

The data from 1991 indicated that the population was already leaving the OUCFL area before the approval of the urban operation, but this exodus intensified after 1996, generating vacant plots in the process of site-assembly to accommodate the new high-rise developments. At the same time, building density increased. The average number of floors per new building in the area increased from 12.6 in the 1985–1995 period to 16.7 in the 1996–2001 period. The number of housing units per building increased from 37.1 to 79.6 over the same periods.

This apparent contradiction between decreased residential density and increased numbers of housing units is explained in part by the construction of commercial buildings that replaced many single-family residencies on small and average-sized lots. OUCFL induced considerable real estate concentration as the new commercial and residential buildings replaced the houses and required greater land areas for high-class architectural projects. The 115 projects approved between 1995 and August 2003 that requested increases in the utilization coefficients required a total of 657 lots, or an average of 5.7 lots per project.

The combination of the increase in income level and the reduction in household density indicates that the gentrification process advanced in and around the OUCFL region during the 1990s. Nevertheless, this is not a classic case of gentrification, where poor families are driven out of an area due to various socioeconomic pressures. In this case mostly upper-middle classes were displaced. Except for the small nucleus of remaining favelados (Favela Coliseu), the region was already occupied by people belonging to the richest segments of society.

Some Policy Observations

This article contributes to the debate about the social management of land valuation by furnishing real data assessments and economic elements. These elements have been missing from most analysis, and we believe that this gap in the literature has contributed to an incomplete interpretation of the implications of an urban operation and to mistaken public policy recommendations.

Our conclusion is that the CEPAC funding mechanism itself does not increase the regressive characteristic of urban operations, since without those building rights bonds all the investment in redevelopment would be financed by general taxes. If the OUCFL project were inadequate in terms of income distribution, it would have been even worse without the value capture mechanism. Instead, CEPAC and the value capture mechanism used previously offered two desirable characteristics of any public investment: charging the new landowners is at least neutral in terms of income distribution; and the primary beneficiaries end up paying for the project.

Furthermore, the urban operation mechanism offers incentives for redevelopment. Given that most projects increase land prices and drive out the poor from the region, it would be better to invest the entire municipal budget in small-scale projects. This is the opposite of what happened with the redevelopment of the adjacent high-end Berrini area where developers decided how to concentrate their investment, resulting in even more income concentration than in the OUCFL area. Because of inaction by policy makers in that case, the municipality did not capture any value from Berrini, yet paid the entire cost of infrastructure.

The use of building rights bonds may diminish the regressive aspect of land development, but to make a project truly progressive requires attention on the expense side, by funding all the investment through instruments like CEPACs. The main limitation on distributing benefits to the poor is that the law establishes that all funds collected through value capture (CEPACs or other instruments) must be invested within the perimeter of the intervention. One way to make these interventions more progressive is to invest in activities that will furnish spillovers to the poor, such as public transit, education, and health. Moreover the relevant legislation allows the administration to select an area inside the perimeter of an urban operation and declare it a zone of special social interest (ZEIS) where lots can be used only for low-income social housing.

Another alternative is to establish social housing areas within the perimeter of the urban operation. By subsidizing low-income housing with money from developers and new landowners, there would be no distortion in prices outside of the housing industry. The subsidy results from segmenting the market and transferring the extra rent to poor households. This is real social management of land valuation.

Ciro Biderman is affiliated with the Center for Studies of Politics and Economics of the Public Sector (Cepesp) at the Economic and Business School at the Getúlio Vargas Foundation in São Paulo, Brazil. He is a visiting fellow in international development and regional planning in the Department of Urban Studies and Planning at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.

Paulo Sandroni is an economist and professor at the Economic and Business School at the Getúlio Vargas Foundation.

Martim O. Smolka is senior fellow and director of the Lincoln Institute’s Program on Latin America and the Caribbean.

Photograph Credit: wsfurlan via iStock / Getty Images Plus.

References

(These publications are available only in Portuguese.)

Afonso, Luis Carlos Fernandes. 2004. Financiamento eh desafio para governantes (Financing is a challenge to government). Teoria ane Debate No. 58, Maio-Junho: 36–39.

Ramalho, T., e R.M.P. Meyer. 2004. O impacto da Operação Urbana Faria Lima no uso residencial: Dinâmicas de transformação (The impact of the Faria Lima Urban Operation on residential use: Transformation dynamics). Mimeo. São Paulo: Lume/FAUUSP.

Biderman, Ciro, e Paulo Sandroni. 2005. Avaliação do impacto das grandes intervenções urbanas nos precos dos imoveis do entorno: O caso da Operação Urbana Consorciada Faria Lima (Evaluation of property price impacts near large-scale urban interventions: The case of Faria Lima Urban Operation Consortium). Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Research Report (April).

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)

Canfei He earned his Ph.D. degree in geography from Arizona State University in 2001, and then moved to the University of Memphis, Tennessee, where he taught as an assistant professor. In August 2003, he returned to China as an associate professor in Peking University’s College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, and was promoted to full professor in 2009. In addition to his academic duties at Peking University, Dr. He has served as associate director of the Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy since 2007. He is also the associate director of the Economic Geography Specialty Group of the China Geographical Society.

Dr. He’s research interests include multinational corporations, industrial location and spatial clustering of firms, and energy and the environment in China. The World Bank invited him to write a background paper on industrial agglomeration in China for the World Development Report 2009: Reshaping Global Economic Geography.

Dr. He has authored four academic books and his work is published widely in English journals including Regional Studies, Urban Studies, Annals of Regional Science, International Migration Review, Eurasian Geography and Economics, Post-Communist Economies, and China & the World Economy. Dr. He also serves on the editorial board of three journals: Eurasian Geography and Economics, International Urban Planning, and China Regional Economics.

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

Canfei He: I learned about the activities of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy’s recently established China Program from one of my colleagues at Peking University in 2003soon after I returned from the United States. At that time, the Lincoln Institute was working in China on a number of specific programs, and I became involved in several associated research projects.

My official relationship with the Institute began with the establishment of the Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy (PLC) in October 2007. The Institute had been exploring a more long-term partnership with Peking University for some time, and as those discussions progressed, my previous contacts offered opportunities for me to serve as a liaison between the two institutions. I was nominated by Peking University to serve as the associate director with its director, Joyce Yanyun Man, who is also a senior fellow of the Lincoln Institute and director of its Program on the People’s Republic of China. Over the past two years or more, I have been helping to develop the center and coordinate its work with other partners at Peking University, as well as serving as a research fellow of the center.

Land Lines: Why are urban development studies so important in China?

Canfei He: China’s urbanization during the past three decades has been remarkable. As an overwhelmingly rural population in 1978 when reforms began, China is now 45.7 percent urbanized, and the country is projected to be 60 percent urbanized by 2020. This means that China’s cities will need to accommodate more than 100 million new urban residents in this decade.

Market forces, local forces, and global forces are all conspiring to influence the pattern of China’s urbanization and development. Accompanying large-scale and rapid urbanization are revolutionary spatial, structural, industrial, institutional, and environmental changes in an incredibly brief span of time. The multiplicity of these driving forces makes the study of urban development in China both complex and challenging. The next wave of urbanization will have far-reaching implications for the country’s future development, and thus there is a critical need for more high-quality, objective research on the subject.

Land Lines: What are some of the most unusual aspects of urban development in China?

Canfei He: China’s current urban development is quite different institutionally from that of most Western countries. Urbanization in China has occurred at the same time that its economy has become market-oriented, globalized, and decentralized. Whereas most Western urbanization occurred in a period of greater economic isolation, China’s urban development has been directly influenced by international investment and global economic trends.

A second factor is China’s hukou system of personal registration that limits the mobility of its people in part by linking their access to social services to the location of their registration. This system thus presents an institutional barrier that inhibits rural-urban migration despite ongoing reforms.

Regional decentralization is another important aspect that, combined with the state and collective ownership of land, has allowed local governments to play a distinct role in China’s urban development. Land acquisition fees resulting from the sale of multi-decade leases for the use and development of state-owned lands have generated enormous revenues, and have been a critical source of municipal financial resources for urban infrastructure investment. This fee-based revenue, in turn, creates incentives that have promoted even more intense urbanization. On the other hand, the major planning role afforded to local governments in China means that urban planning practice lacks consistency across the country’s diverse regions, and is often hostage to local interest groups.

China is facing increasing global challenges and pressures from many sources including multinational corporations, nongovernmental organizations, global environmental standards, and rising energy prices. These challenges may increase the costs of urban development, but at the same time they may encourage a more sustainable process of urbanization.

Land Lines: How do you approach urban development studies in China through your own research?

Canfei He: China’s urbanization goes hand in hand with its industrialization, and foreign investment has played a significant role in the country’s growth. Urbanization demands labor, land, capital, and technology, as well as supporting institutions. Consequently, there are myriad approaches to studying urban development in China that focus on a particular factor or set of factors.

My own research interests fall within the capital and institutional approaches. Specifically, I investigate industrial agglomeration and foreign direct investment in Chinese cities by highlighting the institutional environment of economic transition. Investigating the elements driving industrial agglomeration in different cities and understanding the locational preferences of foreign and domestic firms are crucial for designing coherent and focused urban planning policies.

For instance, my research on foreign direct investment in real estate development and the locational preferences of international banks found that local market conditions and regional institutions largely determine the locational preferences of multinational services. This type of observation can be of use to planners and politicians in China seeking to foster the growth of the service industry.

With the increasing emphasis on global climate change and acknowledgement of the environmental impacts of China’s first 30 years of reform and development, I am also becoming more involved in research on the environmental impacts of urbanization, including energy consumption and carbon emissions. China has made a commitment to reduce its CO₂ emission by 40–45 percent per unit of GDP by 2020, relative to 2005. This means that building low-carbon and energy-efficient cities is another goal on the already lengthy list of challenges that includes servicing, housing, and employing the country’s millions of future urban dwellers.

Land Lines: Given this ongoing international dialogue, how can China best learn from Western urbanization experiences?

Canfei He: We recognize that there is much to learn from the West, including alternative approaches to land policy, housing policy, transportation policy, environmental policy, suburbanization, and the development and planning of megacity regions. China has the benefit of using the West’s experience as a roadmap to help it avoid many of the problems that have arisen in Western cities, such as urban sprawl and gridlock. That economic, political, and geographic diversity offers a wealth of reference points for China’s cities that should not be ignored and can help China avoid problems that have plagued many Western metropolises.

However, it is necessary to research the applicability of particular international experiences, considering the uniqueness of China’s history and culture. Too often analyses of Western urbanization are presented as a blueprint for China, when in fact institutional, economic, and political differences mean that, for one reason or another, those solutions are impractical or unfeasible.

Land Lines: Why is China’s urbanization and urban development so important to the West?

Canfei He: China’s urbanization will be one of the most important dynamics of the twenty-first century, not only for China but also for the West and the rest of the world. Millions of newly affluent consumers and empowered global citizens will exert significant new demands on the world’s finite natural resources in several ways.

First, with the United Nations Millennium Development Goals, China and the world committed themselves to halving the number of people living on less than $1 per day by 2015. Given China’s large number of rural poor, the country’s urbanization and economic development will be instrumental in meeting this important goal, as well as in achieving other goals such as those related to education and improving children’s health. Only cities have the institutional reach and financial capacity to meet these goals on a large scale.

Second, much has been made of the gulf in understanding between China and the West in recent years. Urbanization and urban development will help to integrate China further into the global community, but it may also create more opportunities for cultural friction. The West has a vested interest in seeing that China urbanizes in an atmosphere that encourages openness and intercultural exchange.

Third, history demonstrates that urbanization entails a much greater demand for energy and other resources as living standards rise and as consumption and dietary patterns change. It has become a cliché to say that “as China goes, so goes the world,” but China’s urbanization and its related environmental impacts will have direct implications for the West and the rest of the world.

The recent memory of $150 per barrel of oil shows that this future demand is likely to put great stress on international energy markets and the global economy. This latent demand also has broad implications for China’s CO₂ emissions and for global climate change. The United States and China are key to any real hope of keeping the increase in average global temperatures less than 2 degrees Celsius warmer than preindustrial levels, as proposed at the recent climate conference in Copenhagen. Whereas the high level of development in Western countries means that changes happen incrementally, China’s rapid urbanization offers hope to limit the world’s future emissions by making significant changes now as the country develops.

Climate change is presenting a variety of risks, uncertainties, and difficult choices that communities must learn to address: How should future risk and uncertainty be dealt with in today’s land use decision-making processes? How can stakeholders be involved in decision making in a way that helps to both clarify trade-offs and build consensus on the best ways forward?

Through the joint venture partnership between the Consensus Building Institute (CBI) and the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, we are helping to answer these questions by drawing on CBI’s own conflict resolution theory and practice, as well as the expertise of other partners on topics such as risk management and scenario planning. We have developed a series of workshops on collaborative approaches to managing risk and uncertainty in decision making. In this article, we reflect on these experiences and the lessons on climate change adaptation to be drawn from them.

As a neutral organization helping to resolve land use disputes of all kinds, CBI has distilled discrete lessons and best practices for planners and others in a position to manage land use disputes (Nolon, Ferguson, and Field 2013). Increasingly though, climate change and its related risks, uncertainties, and complexities are seen as an important part of the broader land use conflict “story.” For example, disputes around locating a facility near a shoreline raise questions about the impact of the facility on the surrounding area and environment, as well as concerns about the likelihood that sea level rise could make the site itself untenable years from now.

Stakeholders inevitably have different perceptions of how certain, imminent, and preventable climate change is, and what risks it will present. Moreover, problems involving climate change are incredibly complex. Understanding the impacts of climate change on the Colorado River, for example, involves thinking through a web of hydrological, legal, social, economic, historical, and other considerations.

In short, confronting climate change involves reconciling different perceptions of risk, moving forward despite a high degree of uncertainty, and finding ways to leave room for adapting and changing course within a complex environment. Our series of workshops has focused on bringing these threads together through the lens of joint fact finding, joint risk management, and collaborative decision making.

Risk Management Workshops

With support from the Lincoln Institute in 2009, CBI developed its first two-day workshop on climate change adaptation, which aimed to bring together expertise in risk management, scenario planning, and consensus building. Our goal was to share best practices in these areas to help land use decision makers consider different ways to approach climate as a key element of uncertainty in planning. CBI’s training partners were Paul Kirshen, a risk management expert, and Stephen Aldrich, president of Bio Economic Research Associates (bio-era), an independent research and consultancy firm, and a longtime scenario planning practitioner.

Together we developed a curriculum that included presentations on each area of expertise, along with an interactive exercise based on the real threats that sea level rise is expected to pose to East Boston, Massachusetts. The course was revised and offered again in 2010 and 2011. In parallel, we developed an online version of the course that is now available on the Lincoln Institute website (see inside back cover).

The main premise of this set of workshops is that climate change should be seen through a risk management lens, and should be dealt with through a process that is inclusive of the broadest possible range of stakeholder attitudes toward the probability of any particular climate change outcome or impact. If stakeholders feel their views and beliefs are treated as legitimate within the process, they are much more likely to participate and to buy into the outcomes.

In addition, scenario planning can help stakeholders approach potential climate change impacts by testing alternative actions against different possible futures to identify actions that best represent a “no regrets” decision. Implicit in this approach is the understanding that it is as foolish to ignore the possible impacts of climate change as it is to spend funds extravagantly to prepare for threats that may not emerge in the future. In this way, scenario planning truly recognizes uncertainty.

CBI began working with the Sonoran Institute in Phoenix, Arizona, in 2011 to bring the workshop to the western United States, with a particular focus on collaborative scenario planning. With Jim Holway, director of the Sonoran Institute’s Western Lands and Communities Program (another Lincoln Institute joint venture partner), and Stephen Aldrich we developed a one-and-a-half day workshop, held in Phoenix in March 2012. It focused on scenario planning methods as a way to move diverse, competing interests forward despite uncertainty, disagreement, and even political polarization, on topics such as climate change, water resource planning, and growth management.

The scenario planning method outlined by Aldrich involves convening a multi-stakeholder group to generate jointly a set of plausible scenarios for the future of a place or problem over a given time horizon. Policy options are measured against the scenarios using a set of criteria that are also generated jointly. Two key distinguishing features of this approach are the involvement of stakeholders throughout the process and the assumption that all of the scenarios should be regarded as equally probable.

This approach to scenario planning is not simply an analysis of alternatives, but an effort to imagine different futures based on what is known today, what is most uncertain, and what are considered the most important drivers of change in the system being considered. The next step is to consider how multiple policy options and other actions fare across those different futures when measured against key criteria such as cost, efficacy, and adaptability.

Throughout the Phoenix workshop we reinforced these concepts and the process steps using an interactive exercise based on the real threats that climate change is expected to pose for water in the southwestern United States. The exercise, called “Planning in Robert County,” presented a fictional Sun Corridor county facing pressure to increase development even as the water supply was projected to decrease due to climate change. The participants used this case study to identify the most important factors for the county, and then translate them into elements of future scenarios by categorizing them as “pre-determined elements,” “major uncertainties,” or “driving forces.”

In the final exercise, participants were given roles that represented common stakeholder groups and interests (e.g., Robert County Board of Commissioners, Robert County Agricultural Association, or Andres River Environmental Organization). They also received a scenarios framework based on two major uncertainties: Would Robert County return to rapid economic growth; and would decreases in water supply due to climate change predicted in the fictional “NRL Climate Change Report” prove correct (figure 1)? The participants had to evaluate a set of water policies using this scenarios framework, while also taking into account the interests and perceptions provided in the role descriptions assigned to them.

The participants, who came from state and local agencies, academia, and the private and NGO sectors, reported that the workshop was extremely helpful for understanding both how collaborative scenario planning works and how it could be useful in their professional contexts. Engaging in a step-by-step simulation of a scenario planning process helped them gain a clearer understanding of what such a process is like, and the benefits and challenges of working with multiple stakeholders.

Many participants were asked to play a role that had very different interests and perceptions of climate change from their own personal or professional situation. This experience provided an opportunity to learn about how other stakeholders might view this type of problem. Several participants asked for more information about the consensus building aspect of process, such as convening the process at the start and conducting an assessment to understand which stakeholders to involve and what issues to address. Many participants agreed that collaborative scenario planning was potentially useful as a dispute resolution tool.

Lessons Learned

The progression and ongoing development of these workshops has helped us distill several lessons on teaching and utilizing collaborative tools for addressing risk, uncertainty, and complexity in decision making.

Clarify Terminology at the Outset

Terms such as consensus building and scenario planning mean different things to different people. Some interpret consensus building as compromise. We often hear from stakeholders concerned that if they participate in a consensus building process they may be forced to give in on their most important interests. When CBI talks about consensus building approaches, however, we mean efforts that aim to meet stakeholders’ key interests in a way that results in an agreement that maximizes joint gains (Susskind, McKearnan, and Thomas-Larmer 1999).

For some people scenario planning suggests a way of working toward a preferred or “official” future, while for others it is a method for forecasting. By contrast, Aldrich’s methodology emphasizes the formulation of a portfolio of plausible futures that are taken to be equally probable, and then tests proposed policy actions and/or strategies within each scenario to uncover which one would perform well across most or all of the scenarios, and thus could be considered the most robust.

Aldrich emphasizes that this method is best utilized for “wicked” problems, which are characterized by high degrees of both uncertainty and complexity. Likewise, he distinguishes expert scenario planning processes from multi-stakeholder approaches. We argue that involving a diverse set of stakeholders throughout the scenario planning process helps ensure that local knowledge is tapped, that diverse points of view are represented, and ultimately that decisions taken will be seen as more legitimate and thus more easily implemented.

Allow Time to Build Comfort with Complexity

Most people don’t spend their days thinking about highly complex and uncertain problems in terms of multiple possible futures. Rather, we are more comfortable with linearity, and with rational decisions based on facts and our own perceptions and preferences. By their nature, though, methods to tackle the complex issue of climate change require a different way of thinking and a certain comfort with the unknown. Thinking about equally plausible futures is new for many people, whether they are participants in a workshop or in a real scenario planning process.

This dynamic was evident at our workshop in Phoenix, for example, when participants in the Robert County exercise were asked to think about how specific water policies–such as transferring existing water rights and increasing water prices–performed in a scenario that was essentially status quo versus a scenario in which water supplies were significantly decreased while economic growth continued apace.

Participants found it difficult to apply one policy across different futures, and to separate their own policy analysis from the interests and priorities of the role they were asked to play. The person whose role required vehement opposition to the idea of paying more for water, for instance, had a hard time recognizing that this policy might work very well in a scenario of scarce water and high growth. This difficulty of separating interests and perceptions from “objective” scenarios translates into real life as well.

To help manage this dynamic, it is important to name the mental shift that is required to handle complexity and uncertainty, recognize that it is not an easy one to make, and give people plenty of time to get used to it. For the purposes of the workshop we found it helpful to regard the exercise of helping the participants measure one policy against four plausible futures as a legitimate and important goal in itself. In the context of real scenario planning, practitioners might find it worthwhile to help stakeholders build their capacity for working with scenarios early in the process.

Leave Time for “Interactive Doing”

Making any workshop interactive is usually helpful, both pedagogically and to keep the audience engaged. Interactivity is especially important for teaching heavily conceptual approaches to handling risk, uncertainty, and complexity. Many people work better when concepts and theory can be tied directly to a relevant reality. Giving people a concrete example or exercise that is familiar, but does not directly reflect their real-life situation, can help bring concepts “down to earth” while leaving room for the participants to experiment with new ideas and points of view (Plumb, Fierman, and Schenk 2011).

Another reason for “interactive doing,” as we came to call it in Phoenix, is to help people see both the challenges and the value of going through a process such as collaborative scenario planning. For example, it may be clear in principle that using major uncertainties to structure future scenarios makes sense, but when it is time to select those uncertainties, this decision making becomes harder than it sounds.

When we asked participants to identify the major uncertainties for Robert County, a strong debate unfolded: Should climate change be treated as a major uncertainty, or is it a predetermined element? Is economic growth a driving force, or is it a major uncertainty? Participants commented afterward that they were surprised at the debate, but found it immensely valuable to see how a group of people could draw such different conclusions based on the same three-page fact pattern.

Building in time to practice the concepts, then, is critical to reinforce ideas, link them to real problems and issues, and illustrate the value of voicing different interests and perceptions. In the context of workshops, we recommend fictionalized but realistic interactive exercises such as Planning in Robert County, which can provide relevant information, reinforce concepts, and encourage participants to take on perspectives to which they may be unaccustomed.

Utilize Consensus Building in Cases of Risk, Uncertainty, and Complexity

The common thread throughout our experience in developing and revising these workshops is the notion that consensus building techniques have an important place in climate change adaptation, and in other decision-making processes that confront risk, uncertainty, and complexity. Engaging representatives of affected stakeholder groups in a meaningful way helps ensure that a range of perspectives and interests are expressed, that local knowledge is utilized, and that the process leads to a robust way forward that is widely viewed as legitimate and credible. Moreover, stakeholder groups can be involved in implementing policies if that is appropriate, especially if a collaborative adaptive management approach is pursued (Islam and Susskind 2012).

Particular consensus building tools and techniques used in collaborative scenario planning and other processes include assessment and process management. At the beginning of a process, an assessment can be done to identify stakeholders and issues to discuss, take account of stakeholders’ capacity to work with scenarios, and design a process for moving forward based on the findings.

Assessments are often done by a neutral party, who begins by conducting confidential interviews with a broad range of stakeholders. The interviews are summarized in an assessment report that synthesizes the main points of view and issues that were voiced, without attributing any particular statement to any particular stakeholder. Stakeholders should be given the opportunity to ensure that their perspective was captured accurately. On the basis of the assessment findings, the facilitator and the convener can decide whether to move forward with a multi-stakeholder process, and if so how the process should unfold.

A facilitator or team of facilitators can also be used to manage the collaborative process, if it is decided that one should move forward. Neutral process managers can help keep the conversation productive and collaborative, and can help the group reach agreement at key points, such as when selecting scenario elements and criteria to assess policy options.

For example, CBI, with support from the Lincoln Institute, recently facilitated a sea level rise summit designed to boost urban coastal resilience in New York City. The facilitators were able to bring together representatives of state and local agencies, advocacy groups, and other stakeholders whose discussions had stalled, and then to enable a conversation that produced concrete next steps for building coastal resilience and a commitment to continue working together. Facilitators can also help groups think through implementation of any policies or agreements that result from the process, including collaborative adaptive management efforts.

Conclusion

In order to make decisions today that relate to the impacts of climate change in the future, CBI’s recent work has reinforced the notion that it is necessary to build capacity for managing risk, uncertainty, and complexity in a way that remains closely connected to the real problems and issues that communities face. Moreover, it is important to engage in decision-making processes that accommodate these challenges, rather than try to make decisions in spite of them, by using methods such as scenario planning and adaptive management. In many situations, however, it is not enough for experts to use these tools without consulting other stakeholders. Often the most robust decisions are those informed by the stakeholders who will be affected by climate change and by the decisions made to try to manage it.

About the Authors

Elizabeth Fierman is an associate at the Consensus Building Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where she works on facilitations and mediations, develops and delivers trainings, and conducts research.

Patrick Field is managing director at the Consensus Building Institute, associate director of the MIT-Harvard Public Disputes Program, and senior fellow at the University of Montana Center Natural Resources and Policy.

Steve Aldrich is the founder of Bio Economic Research Associates LLC (bio-eraTM), an independent research and consulting firm based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, specializing in complex issue analysis at the intersection of our emerging knowledge of biology and the economy.

References

Islam, Shafiqul, and Lawrence Susskind. 2012 (forthcoming). Water diplomacy: A negotiated approach to managing complex water networks. New York: Resources for the Future.

Nolon, Sean, Ona Ferguson, and Patrick Field. 2013 (forthcoming). Land in conflict: Managing and resolving land use disputes. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Plumb, David, Elizabeth Fierman, and Todd Schenk. Role-play simulations and managing climate change risks. Cambridge, MA: Consensus Building Institute. http://cbuilding.org/tools/bpcs/roleplay-simulations-and-managing-climate-change-risks

Susskind, Lawrence, Sarah McKearnan, and Jennifer Thomas-Larmer, eds. 1999. The consensus building handbook: A comprehensive guide to reaching agreement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Amedida que las ciudades costeras continúan enfrentando las amenazas de un clima cada vez más volátil, las marejadas y el ascenso del nivel del mar, todas las cuales están relacionadas con el cambio climático y pueden llegar a ser muy costosas, desarrollar un mayor nivel de resiliencia se está convirtiendo en una prioridad principal de planificación. Sin embargo, la resiliencia posee varias dimensiones: no sólo significa construir cosas tales como compuertas contra inundaciones y estructuras más sólidas, sino también conservar libres de desarrollos sistemas naturales como los pantanos, y, en muchos casos, tomar la decisión de no construir nuevamente en los lugares más vulnerables. Y aquí yace un problema complejo y en continua evolución que afecta los derechos de propiedad privada.

Al menos desde los albores del siglo XX, la Corte Suprema ha estado lidiando con una pregunta básica: ¿cuándo la regulación del uso del suelo constituye una expropiación que requiere pagar una compensación a los propietarios, según la 5º enmienda de la Constitución de los EE.UU. (“…la propiedad privada no podrá ser objeto de expropiación para uso público sin la debida compensación”)? Desde los casos Pennsylvania Coal contra Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922) y Euclid contra Amber Realty, 272 U.S. 365 (1926), la esencia de los fallos ha sido que el gobierno posee una libertad de acción considerable a la hora de ejercer su facultad de regular el uso del suelo. En el caso Kelo contra City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), el tribunal supremo afirmó la facultad que posee el estado de utilizar la expropiación a los fines del desarrollo económico en el siglo XXI.

No obstante, en junio de 2013, una decisión en cuanto a un proyecto de desarrollo en Florida pareció indicar un cambio sutil en otro sentido. En el caso Koontz contra St. Johns River Water Management District, los jueces fallaron 5 a 4 que el gobierno presentaba un celo excesivo al imponer requisitos de mitigación a los desarrolladores como condición para obtener permisos de construcción. Coy Koontz, padre, cuya intención había sido construir un pequeño centro comercial en su propiedad, objetó las demandas de un distrito de administración del agua de Florida, según las cuales debía pagar por la restauración de los pantanos que se encontraban fuera del sitio con el fin de compensar por el daño ambiental causado por la construcción. Koontz citó dos casos, Nollan contra California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987) y Dolan contra City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994), con el fin de sustentar su aseveración de que los requisitos constituían una expropiación por exceder una “proporción aproximada” entre dichos requisitos y los alcances de los daños causados por el desarrollo. En el año 2011, la Corte Suprema de Florida rechazó el argumento de Koontz, pero en junio de este año el tribunal supremo falló que los requisitos de mitigación impuestos al constructor eran excesivos.

Este fallo alarmó a algunos ambientalistas y grupos, como la American Planning Association, quienes temieron que se establecieran nuevos límites a la facultad del gobierno de controlar el desarrollo e imponer requisitos para restaurar y conservar áreas naturales. Este motivo de preocupación se extendió hacia las regiones metropolitanas costeras que se estaban preparando para los impactos del cambio climático; un ejemplo de esto es la Ciudad de Nueva York que, en el mes de mayo, propuso un plan modelo de 20 mil millones de dólares consistente en una combinación de estrategias para vivir con el agua y mantenerla alejada. Los expertos en derechos de propiedad especularon que los desarrolladores podrían citar el caso Koontz como justificación para negarse a pagar un fondo para dichas iniciativas.

A un nivel más amplio, la pregunta permanece en pie: después de una situación como la del huracán Sandy, ¿tiene el gobierno derecho de prohibir la recon-strucción o de modificar las regulaciones con el fin de evitar nuevas construcciones? La respuesta legal es, básicamente, “sí”, según Jerold Kayden, abogado y profesor en la Facultad de Diseño de la Universidad de Harvard, quien participó en el Foro de periodistas sobre el suelo y el entorno construido llevado a cabo por el Instituto Lincoln el pasado abril.

Especialmente a raíz de la mayor disponibilidad de datos sobre el ascenso del nivel del mar y las marejadas que se tiene hoy en día, el gobierno tiene el derecho legal de evitar que los propietarios construyan en lotes vacantes expuestos a las inundaciones y al ascenso del nivel del mar o que reconstruyan una vivienda que fue destruida. Sin embargo, según Kayden, “desde el punto de vista político, esta es otra historia”.

Nueva York y Nueva Jersey representaron dos enfoques muy diferentes en cuanto a la reconstrucción que tuvo lugar con posterioridad al huracán Sandy. El gobernador de Nueva York, Andrew Cuomo, y el alcalde de la Ciudad de Nueva York, Michael Bloomberg, abogaron por una serie de normas destinadas tanto a la reconstrucción como a una “retirada estratégica”, mientras que el gobernador de Nueva Jersey, Chris Christie, se enfocó en la asignación de fondos destinados a los residentes para que éstos pudieran reconstruir en las parcelas afectadas por la tormenta, aun cuando dichas propiedades permanecieran dentro de la zona de riesgo.

Por otro lado, la ciudad de Boston ha comenzado a requerir a los desarrolladores de zonas costeras que se preparen ante la posibilidad de ascensos del nivel del mar y marejadas, mediante la reubicación de las maquinarias que guardan en los sótanos a pisos más elevados, entre otros requisitos. A medida que el caso Koontz despeja el camino hacia un escrutinio más rígido de las medidas impuestas por el gobierno municipal como condición para la construcción, los desarrolladores podrían demandar al gobierno por estos costosos requisitos relacionados con el clima, argumentando que dichos requisitos son demasiado onerosos y podrían constituir una expropiación reguladora.

Aunque las demandas por derechos de propiedad relacionadas con la reconstrucción y las restricciones sobre nuevas construcciones en áreas costeras indudablemente continuarán proliferando, Pratap Talwar, director de Thompson Design Group, presentó una alternativa para la planificación a largo plazo que podría evitar que surgieran dichos conflictos. Talwar detalló ante un grupo de periodistas el caso de estudio de Long Branch, Nueva Jersey, una ciudad que, hace varios años, se replanteó su proceso de planificación con el fin de incluir normas más rígidas y a la vez un proceso más rápido para el desarrollo que estuviera de acuerdo con las pautas. Según Talwar, Long Branch fue la única milla de la costa de Nueva Jersey que soportó las inclemencias del huracán Sandy de forma relativamente intacta.

Foro de periodistas sobre el suelo y el entorno construido: La ciudad resiliente

Treinta y cinco escritores y editores de primera línea que cubren noticias sobre problemas urbanos asistieron al 6º Foro de Periodistas sobre el Suelo y el Entorno Construido, llevado a cabo el 20 de abril de 2013 en el Lincoln House. El tema del foro fue “La ciudad resiliente” y abarcó desde los municipios costeros que se preparan para el ascenso del nivel del mar y las marejadas hasta las ciudades tradicionales que intentan evolucionar a pesar de la reducción de sus poblaciones y de su actividad comercial.

Kai-Uwe Bergmann, director de Bjarke Ingels Group, abrió el foro dando un panorama general sobre las innovaciones en diseño urbano que maximizan la eficiencia en el suelo, la vivienda y los proyectos de infraestructura de gran envergadura. Johanna Greenbaum, de Kushner Companies, quien ayudó a poner en funcionamiento la iniciativa de microviviendas del alcalde de la Ciudad de Nueva York, Michael Bloomberg, dio detalles sobre dicho proyecto y otros de similares características en diferentes lugares del país destinados a personas solteras y parejas que pueden vivir en espacios de 28 metros cuadrados.

Alan Mallach, coautor del informe sobre enfoque en políticas de suelo del Instituto Lincoln titulado Regeneración de las ciudades históricas de los Estados Unidos, observó señales de resurgimiento en lugares tales como el Central West End (St. Louis) o el barrio Over-the-Rhine (Cincinnati), a la vez que reconoció los desafíos que en-frentan Camden, Nueva Jersey, Flint y Detroit, Michigan y Youngstown, Ohio. Antoine Belaieff, director de innovaciones en MetroLinx, dio detalles sobre el uso de las redes sociales para obtener la opinión de los ciudadanos con respecto a una inversión de 16 mil millones de dólares en infraestructura de transporte resiliente dentro del área de Toronto.

John Macomber, de la Facultad de Negocios de la Universidad de Harvard, dirigió una sesión sobre la ciudad global, en la que reconoció que existen cientos de millones de personas que continúan migrando de áreas rurales a urbanas, lo que requiere una planificación a gran escala para la infraestructura. Martim Smolka, director del Programa para América Latina y el Caribe del Instituto Lincoln, lamentó los desplazamientos generalizados que están teniendo lugar a causa de los preparativos para la Copa Mundial de fútbol y los Juegos Olímpicos que se disputarán en Río de Janeiro. Bing Wang, de la Facultad de Diseño de Harvard, observó que 11 ciudades en China tienen una población de más de 10 millones de habitantes y, aún así, esta nación en rápido crecimiento sólo ha logrado la mitad de la urbanización esperada.

John Werner, director de movilización en Citizens Schools, explicó la manera en que los sistemas escolares urbanos pueden encender pasión entre los estudiantes trayendo desde fuera a distintos profesionales para que actúen como maestros y mentores. Gordon Feller, de Cisco Systems, imaginó un mundo completamente conectado y una Internet para todo. Se sumó Dan Keeting, periodista de investigación del Washington Post, quien compartió sus experiencias al extraer datos de diferentes niveles del gobierno.

El foro se vio obligado a abreviarse debido a la búsqueda de las personas que pusieron las bombas en el Maratón de Boston en el área de Cambridge-Watertown; sin embargo este evento dio pie a un diálogo acerca de la solicitud de procedimientos de “refugio en el lugar”, presentada por el gobernador de Massachusetts, Deval Patrick, la seguridad y el espacio público, y otros tipos de resiliencia en el área de Boston. Varios participantes escribieron sobre estos eventos, como Emily Badger (The Atlantic Cities), Donald Luzzatto (Virginian Pilot) e Inga Saffron (The Philadelphia Inquirer).

La reunión de periodistas cada abril es una asociación entre el Instituto Lincoln, la Facultad de Diseño de la Universidad de Harvard y la Fundación Nieman para el Periodismo de la misma universidad. La misión de esta actividad es reunir a periodistas a fin de compartir ideas y aprender acerca de las últimas tendencias relativas a la cobertura de noticias sobre ciudades, arquitectura y planificación urbana. — AF

Hace cinco años, Mandy Pumilia, residente de Nueva Orleáns, estaba preocupada por la gran cantidad de estructuras aparentemente deterioradas que existían en su barrio, conocido como Bywater, donde actualmente se desempeña como vicepresidente de la asociación de vecinos. A pesar de todos los esfuerzos realizados con posterioridad a la catástrofe de Katrina, resultaba muy difícil identificar y rastrear las propiedades que verdaderamente presentaban problemas y, además, Pumilia no tenía acceso a los datos municipales que podrían haberle sido de utilidad. En lugar de ello, elaboró su propia planilla de cálculo en Google y la llenó con los resultados de su propia investigación y trabajo de campo. Según recuerda, “fue un proceso arduo”. Y a pesar de sus conocimientos tecnológicos y su determinación, esta tarea sólo fue una solución limitada: no resultaba fácil compartir la información más allá de las personas que ella conocía directamente y, además, estar al día de las audiencias municipales relacionadas con temas de la propiedad era una tarea enorme.

A partir de entonces, la aplicación web BlightStatus (blightstatus.nola.gov) –que se traduciría como “status de deterioro”– se ha convertido en una nueva y valiosa herramienta a la hora de tomar medidas de recuperación en su barrio. Creada en el año 2012 por Code for America, una organización sin fines de lucro especializada en proyectos de código abierto dirigidos al gobierno municipal, BlightStatus facilita a ciudadanos como Pumilia el acceso a datos sobre propiedades, permitiéndoles participar de manera más estrecha en la gestión del deterioro y otros desafíos de planificación. Esta iniciativa llamó la atención de otras ciudades, lo que generó una iniciativa derivada, denominada Civic Insight, que actualmente despliega su tecnología en Dallas, Atlanta, Palo Alto, Sacramento y otros lugares.

En Nueva Orleáns, BlightStatus reúne información sobre inspecciones, quejas relativas a las normas, audiencias, juicios, ejecuciones hipotecarias, etc. Por lo general, estos datos se encuentran encriptados o resulta muy difícil acceder a los mismos; sin embargo, esta aplicación reúne y actualiza la mayoría de los datos a diario. Los usuarios pueden buscar por dirección o utilizar un mapa interactivo para buscar a nivel de barrio o de ciudad. Un aspecto particularmente útil es la función “lista de observación”, que permite a un usuario como Pumilia mantener pestañas abiertas relacionadas con ciertas propiedades específicas y oportunamente envía alertas sobre audiencias o cualquier otra novedad. Pumilia agrega: “Además, me facilita empoderar a otros residentes, por lo que no soy la única persona que posee esta información”.

Cuando otras ciudades conocieron el uso extensivo que Nueva Orleáns hacía de esta aplicación y, como consecuencia, expresaron su interés en disponer de una herramienta similar, Code for America adaptó la tecnología para que pudiera funcionar en cualquier lugar. Tal como lo expresa Eddie Tejeda, uno de los creadores de BlightStatus: “Parecía que habíamos tocado una fibra sensible”. Los aspectos específicos variaban de un lugar a otro, pero la lucha para obtener datos inmobiliarios oficiales era, claramente, una frustración común a todos. Mucha gente quiere información sobre edificios y propiedades, pero lo único que suele estar disponible, según Tejeda, “es realmente muy difícil de utilizar”, ya que profundizar en estos datos requiere conocimientos y experiencia.

Con una inversión de la Fundación Knight, el grupo creó Civic Insight en el año 2013, utilizando el trabajo que habían realizado en Nueva Orleáns como un modelo que pudiera adaptarse a otras ciudades, ya fueran más grandes o más pequeñas, con diferentes necesidades y conjuntos de datos (las cuotas de configuración y suscripción anual varían según la población: aproximadamente de US$1.000 a US$10.000 para la tarifa básica, más un monto de entre 20 y 70 centavos de dólar per cápita). Entre los nuevos clientes, Dallas está resultando ser un caso de estudio particularmente importante. Esta metrópoli en franco crecimiento, que presenta una gran variedad de barrios muy diferentes entre sí –desde los caros y prósperos hasta aquellos con graves problemas económicos–, demuestra que esta estrategia de tecnología de datos de código abierto no sólo sirve en casos selectivos como el de Nueva Orleáns después del huracán Katrina.

La conexión se dio a través de la organización Hábitat para la Humanidad. La delegación que esta entidad sin fines de lucro tiene en Nueva Orleáns ha sido un usuario entusiasta de la aplicación BlightStatus. Los miembros de esta organización hicieron correr la voz a sus colegas en Dallas, ciudad que ha estado luchando por lograr estrategias para utilizar datos con el fin de definir, rastrear y abordar el problema del deterioro y otras cuestiones, como la identificación de propietarios problemáticos. La versión de Blight-Status para Dallas, cuyo lanzamiento fue a finales del año 2014 con datos similares a la información recabada en Nueva Orleáns, incorporará estadísticas adicionales relativas a delincuencia y tributación, ya que los residentes desean acceder a estos datos más fácilmente, como afirma Theresa O’Donnell, directora de planificación municipal que habló sobre la aplicación en la conferencia de Directores de Planificación de Grandes Ciudades organizada por el Instituto Lincoln en Cambridge en octubre de 2014. Según O’Donnell, “a medida que estos programas se configuren y se comiencen a utilizar, podremos contar cada vez más con los ciudadanos para que nos hagan saber si [las medidas que tomamos contra el deterioro] están funcionando o no”.

Atlanta y Sacramento están poniendo en funcionamiento sus propios programas para poder utilizar la aplicación este año, y Civic Insight está tomando medidas para que pueda utilizarse muy pronto en Fort Worth, Texas, y otros lugares. Los objetivos de los clientes no se limitan a los problemas relacionados con el deterioro, según destaca Tejeda, que actualmente se desempeña como director ejecutivo de Civic Insight: en Palo Alto, donde la zonificación, el desarrollo y la construcción son temas candentes, tanto arquitectos como propietarios utilizan la aplicación para mantenerse al día en los procesos de obtención de permisos. Esta flexibilidad es deliberada. Tal como explica Tejeda, “podemos cartografiar con relativa rapidez [datos sin procesar] en nuestra aplicación. El papel que desempeñamos es el de un traductor que interpreta lo que tiene la ciudad y las necesidades de la comunidad” (la aplicación está diseñada también para recibir nuevos conjuntos de datos, y no es de sorprender que ciudadanos activos de Nueva Orleáns, como Pumilia, tengan muchísimas sugerencias que Civic Insight está tratando de incorporar).

Los conjuntos de datos integrales y otras herramientas digitales han servido de guía a los planificadores y otros funcionarios municipales durante años, pero Civic Insight está ahora pensando en dar el siguiente paso lógico. Según Peter Pollock, fellow del Instituto Lincoln y exdirector de planificación de Boulder, Colorado, “tenemos la gran oportunidad de aprovechar estos datos –que, para muchas ciudades, son datos ocultos– y sacarlos a la luz”, de manera que resulten útiles tanto para los ciudadanos como para los planificadores.

Este nivel de accesibilidad es muy importante, ya que los gestores de políticas deben “coproducir la buena ciudad” junto con los residentes, tal como lo expresa Pollock, quien continúa: “Los planificadores tienen la tarea de aprovechar la energía de la comunidad y encauzarla hacia una visión para el futuro”. Esto implica aspectos tales como la zonificación y la obtención de permisos, pero también los referentes al mantenimiento y el cumplimiento de normas. Pollock concluye: “No se trata sólo de construir la ciudad, sino de cuidar y alimentar a la ciudad a lo largo del tiempo”.

Aun así, la propuesta de Civic Insight puede parecer confusa al principio: ¿Cómo se beneficia una ciudad al esperar que los ciudadanos analicen cuidadosamente la información que ya posee? Sin embargo, esa es la cuestión. Poner los datos a disposición de las personas que realmente conocen los barrios donde viven y trabajan equivale a una especie de estrategia de crowdsourcing –o externalización distribuida– para el mantenimiento de la ciudad en lo relativo a la planificación.

Si no, preguntémosle a Pumilia. Esta es la esencia de lo que ella trataba de hacer en Nueva Orleáns hace unos pocos años con su planilla de cálculo casera y muchísimo coraje. Ahora puede monitorear su barrio más fácilmente, y puede además recomendar BlightStatus a otras personas para que puedan también obtener rápidamente la información que necesitan y presionar al municipio para que tome medidas respecto a las propiedades problemáticas.

Mientras hablamos, Pumilia busca unos datos y nos cuenta la historia de una dirección en particular: “Sobre esta propiedad pesan no una, dos, tres, ni cuatro causas, sino ¡cinco!”. En pocas palabras, Pumilia acaba de improvisar un expediente listo para usar sobre el abandono de la propiedad, que ayudó a persuadir a los funcionarios públicos a iniciar un proceso que debería desembocar en la subasta pública de la propiedad.

A veces, Pumilia dice, riendo: “Se necesita la acción de los ciudadanos para animar a la gente a realizar su trabajo”.

Rob Walker (robwalker.net) colabora con Yahoo Tech, Design Observer y The New York Times.

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

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

Property Rights and Environmental Planning

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

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

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

Historical Context

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

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

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

Changing Conditions

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

For more than a century, California’s Great Central Valley has been recognized as one of the world’s foremost agricultural regions. A giant basin 450 miles long and averaging 50 miles wide, the Valley encompasses some 19,000 square miles. With only one-half of one percent of the nation’s farmland, the Valley accounts for 8 percent of the nation’s farm output-including 15 percent of America’s vegetable production and 38 percent of fruit production.

Today, large parts of the Valley are making a transition to an urban economy. Led by such emerging metropolitan areas as Sacramento, Fresno and Bakersfield, the Central Valley already has more than 5 million residents. State demographers predict growth to reach almost 9 million people by 2020 and more than 11 million by 2040.

Given this scale of urban growth, what are the key issues facing the Valley? With the assistance of the Lincoln Institute, the Great Valley Center-a non-governmental organization supporting the economic, social and environmental well-being of California’s Central Valley-has undertaken an effort to try to frame this basic question. Which issues are purely local, and which ones require a more regional approach? What are the constraints the Valley faces in the decades ahead? And, finally, what are the choices? How might the Valley approach the question of accommodating urban growth while still retaining an agricultural base, a vibrant economy, a good quality of life and an enhanced natural environment?

Perhaps the biggest question is simply whether the Central Valley can accommodate such a vast quantity of urban growth and still maintain its distinctive identity. For decades, the Valley’s regional environment consisted mostly of three elements intertwined on the landscape-vestiges of nature, a panoply of crops and compact agricultural towns. The development of agriculture created a rural landscape, but one in which nature was often sacrificed for agricultural production. A distinctive urban form evolved that was far different from the rest of California. The Valley’s older towns, often sited on railroad lines, are typically compact but not dense, with wide, shady streets stretching out along the flat expanse from an old commercial downtown.

Regional and Sub-Regional Growth Dynamics

In determining urban development options for the Central Valley, it is important to understand the context of growth dynamics that affect the entire region as well as important sub-regions. Although the geographical size of the Central Valley is very large-far larger than many states, for example-in many ways it should be viewed as one region with a common set of characteristics and problems. These include:

Air quality: The Central Valley consists of one air basin, and so pollutants emitted in one part of the Valley can have an impact hundreds of miles away.

Water supply and distribution: Although many parts of the Central Valley depend heavily on groundwater, almost every community in the region is at least partly dependent on one water source: The drainage that flows into the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and then through the Sacramento Delta. This water source is also used in many different ways by both state and federal water projects. Transportation links: The Central Valley is connected internally and to other regions by a series of transportation links. Most obvious are the major freeway corridors, including Highway 99, Interstate 5, and Interstate 80, along with rail lines, which generally follow the Highway 99 corridor.

Land supply and cost: In virtually all parts of the Central Valley, land is cheaper and in more abundant supply than it is in coastal areas. This is one of the main reasons why population growth has shifted from the coast to the Central Valley.

At the same time, the Valley can be viewed as a group of five sub-regions, each with its own growth dynamic. These include:

North Valley: Seven counties in the northern portion of the Sacramento Valley remain rural and experience relatively little urban growth pressure compared to the rest of the Valley.

Sacramento Metro: Six counties around Sacramento have the highest rates of educational attainment and the highest wage scales anywhere in the Valley, largely because of the state capital, the University of California at Davis, and proximity to the Bay Area. This has become a popular location for high-tech employers.

Stockton-Modesto-Merced: Traditionally a major ranching and agricultural area, these centrally located counties are now experiencing tremendous urban growth pressure because of Bay Area commuting, though they are not adding jobs as rapidly as Sacramento Metro.

Greater Fresno: Four counties near Fresno remain the agricultural heartland of the Central Valley. Though population growth rates are high due to immigration and high birth rates, especially in the metropolitan Fresno area, the economy is only beginning to diversify and remains heavily focused on agriculture and related industries. As with other parts of the Valley, much of Greater Fresno’s population growth has come from immigration and high birth rates.

Bakersfield-Kern County: Somewhat separate geographically from the rest of the San Joaquin Valley, this area remains a center of both agriculture and extractive industries, especially oil. This region is experiencing rapid population growth and is the only part of the Valley that appears to be directly influenced by spillover growth from Greater Los Angeles.

Underlying Issues

With so much urban growth on the horizon, the Central Valley’s twenty-first-century landscape will be shaped by the interplay among several different issues:

Agriculture: Agriculture is likely to consume less land and less water in the future than it has used in the past, but it is still likely to be the sector that most determines the Valley’s urban growth patterns. The critical issues are: What kind of agricultural base will the Valley have in the next century, and how much land and water will that agricultural base require? Recent trends have moved the Valley toward ever-higher-value crops, and competition with foreign markets is expected to be fierce.

Socioeconomic issues: The Valley has traditionally lagged behind the rest of California in social and economic indicators. Unemployment and teenage pregnancy are high, while household income and educational attainment is low. Like the rest of California, the Valley is rapidly evolving a unique mix of racial diversity. Although the Valley will soon get a boost from the creation of a new University of California campus in Merced County, the region’s overall economic competitiveness may not be able to match its urban population growth.

Natural resources: In the rush to create one of the world’s great agricultural regions, the Central Valley’s leaders often overlooked the wonderland of natural resources that lay at their feet. For example, the Valley’s vast system of wetlands, once one of the largest and most important in the world, has almost completely disappeared, much to the detriment of the migratory bird population. In the future, there will be increasing pressure to restore and enhance these natural resources even as the Valley continues to urbanize. The entire San Francisco Bay-Sacramento Delta ecosystem has emerged as the focal point of a massive state and federal effort to improve water quality and restore biodiversity.

Infrastructure and infrastructure financing: When California’s coastal metropolitan areas were created, mostly in the postwar era,- the state and federal governments contributed greatly to their success by picking up the tab for most of the infrastructure they required. In the last two decades, however, all this has changed. In the Central Valley, the urban infrastructure is underdeveloped, and the financial ability of developers and new homebuyers to bear the full cost of community infrastructure is questionable.

Governmental structure and regional/sub-regional cooperation: In the Valley as elsewhere, a wide range of local, regional, state and federal agencies make decisions that create the emerging landscape. But there is little history of cooperation among these agencies, and especially among local governments. If all these entities can work together well, they can effectively increase the region’s “capacity” to create an urban environment that works for its users while protecting agricultural land, natural resources and other non-urban values. But if these entities do not establish a pattern of working together, the result could be a haphazard pattern of urban growth that does not serve any goal well.

Possible Strategies

Given these background conditions, the Central Valley could adopt any one of a number of strategies for shaping urban growth, or different parts of the Valley could “mix and match” from a variety of possibilities, which include the following:

Concentrate urban growth in existing urban centers. The Central Valley’s urban centers are well established and well served by existing infrastructure. They contain most of the current job centers and community support services and amenities required for urban or suburban living. This strategy would concentrate urban growth in and near these centers through a combination of infill development and compact growth in new areas.

Adopt a “metroplex” strategy. This strategy would recognize that population growth in the Valley will be concentrated in a few large metropolitan areas. Urban growth needs, including urban centers, bedroom communities, parks and greenbelts, should be dealt with at the metropolitan level in a small number of distinct “urban metropolitan regions.”

Create a “string of pearls” along Highway 99. For most of this century, Highway 99 has been the Central Valley’s “main drag.” Virtually all of the Valley’s older urban centers are located along this corridor. One possible strategy would be to concentrate future urban development up and down Highway 99, creating a string of urban and suburban pearls. In point of fact, the string of pearls is already emerging in some places. New development districts are being created along the corridor to the north and south of existing cities and towns because of access to this major transportation artery.

Encourage the creation of new towns in the foothills on the west side of the Valley. The so-called “Foothill Strategy” has been discussed for several years in some parts of the Valley. Foothill new towns would place commuters closer to Bay Area jobs and protect prime farmland on the Valley floor. However, water and infrastructure finance issues make this strategy very difficult to achieve.

Permit the emergence of an urban ladder. A final possibility is to permit the development of what might be called an urban ladder: a network of urban and suburban areas that run up and down the Valley along Highway 99 and Interstate 5, and then run across the Valley on a series of east-west rungs along smaller roads that connect the two freeway corridors. In many ways, the urban ladder is the most likely possibility, simply because it connects existing cities and towns with probable new areas for urban growth by using the available transportation corridors. At the same time, however, it holds the potential to create more “suburban sprawl” than any other option.

Many of these options are already emerging as an actual urban pattern in certain parts of the Valley, and it is unlikely that there is a “one-size fits all” answer for the entire Valley. But, unless the civic leaders of the Valley confront the issue of urban growth head-on, it is likely that the Valley will adopt the sprawling and inefficient land use patterns that characterize Los Angeles and California’s other coastal metropolitan areas.

There is still time to shape a different outcome in the Valley, if civic leaders work together in a conscious attempt to design a set of workable urban development patterns that will operate efficiently and effectively for urban dwellers, for employers, for agriculturalists, and for the natural environment.

William Fulton is editor of California Planning and Development Report, contributing editor of Planning magazine, and correspondent for Governing magazine. For more information about the Great Valley Center, see www.greatvalley.org.