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

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state planners recognize a variety of common challenges—pockets of explosive population growth, sprawl, drought, out-of-date legislation, a lack of funding, and a lack of public and political support for planning, and changing the way development occurs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Forces and Trends

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

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

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

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

Major Themes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Three Cs of Planning

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Impacts of Land Inequity

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

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

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

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

The Vicious Cycle of Poverty and Environmental Degradation

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lessons of Via Park Village

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LL: What role do planners play in such processes?

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

LL: How can planners obtain this kind of training?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reference

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

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

Related Articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

¿Cómo se mide el éxito?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Esfuerzos de conservación iniciados por los propietarios

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

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

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

Fideicomisos de suelos y sociedades públicas-privadas

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

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

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

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

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

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

La necesidad de financiamiento

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

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

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

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

Oportunidades emergentes para la conservación a nivel de paisaje

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

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

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

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

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

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

La cuestión de escala

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusión

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

Sobre el Autor

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

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

Referencias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Twenty-three states offer an incentive to preserve open space by providing preferential property tax assessment of qualifying parcels (table 1, p. 15). These property tax reductions can be considered expenditures in that they reduce revenue available for other uses in the interest of protecting the many amenities and environmental benefits of undeveloped land.

Programs vary widely from state to state, but all preferential assessment programs for open space must define the type and size of qualified parcels; permissible uses; certification requirements; assessment methods; enrollment term lengths; and penalties, if any, for removing a parcel from preferential status. Several states offer more than one program, each with its own qualification requirements. This article considers these differences, offers examples of how the tax expenditure is calculated, and describes potential societal benefits and costs of such programs.

Determining Eligibility for Preferential Assessment

States define eligibility in many different ways, but the requirements are usually relatively easy to meet. A parcel might qualify simply by being undeveloped. Several states allow landscaped land to qualify provided the building density doesn’t exceed established limits. Washington, for example, allows land to qualify if it meets at least one of eleven very general requirements, including the protection of streams or water supplies, conservation or enhancement of natural or scenic resources, preservation of visual quality along roads, or enhancement of recreational opportunities.

While these criteria are very general, states may raise the bar by placing additional requirements on landowners. Some states require landowners to create and seek state approval for a property management plan that improves benefits for local wildlife. Vermont stipulates that a qualified conservation organization must own and manage the open space. One of two Texas programs requires landowners to provide land and wildlife management to propagate a breeding, migrating, or wintering population of indigenous wild animals for human use, including food, medicine, or recreation.

Several states offer preferential assessment to properties that have attained federal status as open space. For example, parcels restricted by a conservation easement that meets the IRS requirements for a charitable donation automatically qualify for preferential assessment in Illinois and Oregon. Ohio will qualify only parcels under contract to one of four USDA programs (Conservation Reserve Program, Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, Wetlands Reserve Program, and Grassland Preserve Program).

Parcels may have to meet minimum size requirements as well. The most common minimum is ten contiguous acres, though some programs allow properties as small as two acres, and several have no stated requirements. A few states limit the total acreage that any individual landowner may enroll. Tennessee, for example, limits eligibility to 1,500 acres per owner per county, including agricultural land, forest, and open space combined. The stated use of the property may influence its acceptability; several states specifically prohibit commercial property, including golf courses. At least two states, however, have programs specifically designed for golf courses and other commercial properties that provide outdoor recreational opportunities.

State Versus Local Criteria

State governments typically authorize preferential assessment programs and the criteria for inclusion. Six states allow local or county government officials to determine criteria by authorizing a program and requiring only that parcels be “included within a plan for preservation approved by state or local planning agencies” (Chervin, Gibson, and Green 2009, 8), for example, or by requiring that the appropriate governing body accepts the property via resolution. States with this requirement include California, Connecticut, Florida, Nevada, Tennessee, and Oregon. It is then up to local or county officials to choose the criteria for qualification, in some cases naming specific parcels. In other cases, the assessor’s office determines the eligibility, based on the characteristics of the property and whether it meets the criteria.

This approach allows local governments to control the amount of the expenditure in their jurisdiction and tailor the program to protect the specific qualities most important to the area. For example, officials in a predominantly agricultural environment may prefer to use tax expenditures on forests or wetlands, while open fields might prove most valuable in a more urban setting.

Calculating the Value of the Tax Expenditure

Open space preferential assessment programs typically use one of three methods to determine the property’s assessed value. Nine states value open space as if it were enrolled in the state’s program for agriculture or forestry, even though the land isn’t used for either activity. Nine other states instruct assessors to value the property considering only its current use, excluding the value of development rights (i.e., the market value as if its future use were permanently restricted to its current use). Four states instruct the assessor to determine the fair market value as if it were not in the program and then apply a statutory formula to determine the preferential assessed value. Illinois has three programs for preferential assessment of open space, which vary by the criteria for eligibility; all offer statutory reductions that range between 75 percent and 85 percent. Nevada applies a lower statutory reduction of 26 percent.

States occasionally choose to define maximum or minimum values per acre for open space parcels. For example, Maryland set a statewide value of $187.50 per acre for 2009. Washington allows local governments to determine a use value for their region, depending on a public benefit rating system; if no such system exists, open space land may receive an assessment no lower than the lowest agricultural valuation in the county. Massachusetts calculates the preferential value as use value, not to exceed 25 percent of fair market value.

Program Duration and Penalties for Early Withdrawal

Many programs provide for automatic annual renewal unless the landowner chooses to withdraw from the program. In some cases, length of contract is predetermined, most frequently for ten years, which generally carries forward upon the sale of the property unless the new property owner alters the use and violates the terms of the program. Landowners pay a penalty for withdrawing from the program in order to alter land use, or for altering it without notification. Such penalties tend to equal the value of the tax expenditure received for a specified number of years prior to the current year, plus interest on that expenditure. Several states either charge 10 percent of the fair market value when use of the parcel changes, or charge a conveyance or transfer tax when a parcel in the program is sold.

If an owner withdraws a parcel from the program after a minimum number of years, however, the state may reduce or even eliminate penalties. For example, Vermont charges owners 20 percent of fair market value for withdrawing the property in the first decade and 10 percent for withdrawing after more than 10 years. Rhode Island exacts 10 percent of the new fair market value for removing a property after 6 years, but that penalty declines until it terminates, 16 years after enrollment.

Economic Benefits of Open Space Preservation

The large literature discussing the effect of environmental amenities on surrounding property values suggests that preventing development on a parcel will raise the value of neighboring parcels. The studies find complicating factors, however, that make it difficult to predict changes in value for specific regions. One study in Maryland, for example, finds that open space programs have very different effects on the value of property in three different counties, probably due at least in part to variations in the amount of open space present (Geoghegan, Lynch, and Bucholtz 2003). Numerous other studies indicate that the value of open space for individual homeowners declines with distance from the protected parcel (Chamblee, et al. 2011). The type of habitat or green space is also likely to be influential; one analysis finds that the presence of broad-leaved trees in a neighborhood is associated with positive values, but the presence of spruce trees has a negative effect on property values (Garrod and Willis 1992). An analysis of home prices in Tucson, Arizona, finds a preference for homes in areas with green space including native riparian habitat (Bark, et al. 2009; 2011).

Public access to privately owned open space for recreation or educational purposes would also be likely to provide substantial local benefits in many cases. States rarely require public access as a condition for the tax expenditure, but Maine and New Hampshire both encourage it by offering an additional reduction in assessed value of 25 percent and 20 percent, respectively.

Protected open space can also reduce growth in the demand for municipally provided services and forestall negative effects of development, such as heavy traffic or overcrowded schools, which would likely impose a heavier tax liability on current residents. A growing literature on cost of community services indicates that the property taxes paid on developed land are often insufficient to cover the cost of services created to support that development, while open space frequently generates tax revenues well in excess of the cost of services expended on the property. The American Farmland Trust, reporting results from 151 studies covering counties and municipalities in 25 states, finds that the owners of working and open land frequently pay taxes above or even twice the cost of services received on those properties, while residential property owners typically pay less than the cost of services received (Farmland Information Center 2010).

Findings like these suggest that preferential assessment can be justified on the grounds of fairness, because the owners of open space may be subsidizing services sent to owners of developed property. However, the fact that most programs require a long-term agreement and include penalties for early conversion indicates that the goal is not fairness, but preventing development for a specified period.

Unfortunately, there is very little literature evaluating whether preferential assessment programs prevent future development on parcels that aren’t under permanent protection such as an easement. Much of the existing evidence is based on studies of farmland protection programs rather than evaluations of the impact of property tax expenditures on open space. Two studies of Tennessee’s Greenbelt Program evaluated a survey of woodland owners enrolled in the program and found little support for the hypothesis that preferential assessment reduced the likelihood of development on these parcels (Brockett, Gottfried, and Evans 2003; Williams, et al. 2004).

It’s easier to evaluate land under long-term or permanent protection of either a perpetual conservation easement or a long-term preferential assessment contract with substantial penalties for withdrawal. In those cases, it’s possible to reliably predict the continued presence of open space; unfortunately, these protection agreements may predate the preferential assessment or be otherwise uninfluenced by it.

Costs of Preferential Assessment for Open Space

In addition to the tax expenditure itself, these programs may incur several other potential costs. Programs that require an approved conservation plan, for example, might generate a particularly challenging expense. While a state agency could develop and approve such a plan, it will be costly to ensure that conditions of the plan are met.

Program enforcement requires evaluating not only changes in a property’s market value but also changes in its use. If open space is used to graze livestock, for example, this new use might protect the undeveloped condition of the property but still reduce the environmental benefits.

Additionally, evidence suggests that in some instances open space preservation can lower property values by shifting development patterns, typically by resulting in the development of nearby properties (Irwin and Bockstael 2004; McDonald, et al. 2007). If preferential assessment prevents development on particular parcels, that development may shift to other parcels in ways that increase sprawl. If a leapfrog pattern of development occurs because a program prevented development on a parcel-by-parcel basis, the negative effects, such as higher infrastructure costs, could overwhelm any public benefits from the program.

Given the voluntary nature of these programs and resulting changes in development patterns, a worst-case scenario is that lower-quality parcels might receive the preferential assessment, increasing development pressure on parcels that generate greater public benefits. On the one hand, local government approval might reduce this problem by allowing individuals who know the area best to choose the parcels that most deserve protection. On the other hand, it might inspire local officials to protect open space in their jurisdiction, pushing development into other communities and creating undesirable development patterns at the regional level. It is also important to mention that preferential assessment of open space to some degree creates a split-rate system with a higher rate on developed land, particularly on improvements to the land—an issue that concerns many property tax scholars and may also significantly affect land use patterns.

Finally, the value of the public benefits is not static; it may increase or decrease depending on the condition of the property and surrounding area. The changes may be uncorrelated, or even negatively correlated, with future changes in assessed value. For example, more intense development pressure might increase the benefit of preserving a large parcel as open space; or it might decrease the benefit of preserving a small “island” parcel. Twenty-five acres of open space in the middle of a town can greatly benefit a community, but, if 24 of those acres are developed, it will likely diminish the environmental benefits of the remaining acre. Both scenarios, however, are likely to increase tax savings from preferential assessment, as development pressure drives up local property values.

These factors indicate that, while preferential assessment does offer landowners an incentive to preserve public benefits, the amount of the incentive may under-correct or even over-correct for the benefit being created. This will result in an inherently inefficient program, though such programs may still result in significant net benefits compared to having no program at all.

Distributional Consequences

Property tax expenditures to protect open space will have distributional consequences. Most immediately, the program would redistribute the tax burden onto other property owners in the same tax districts, as governments change the mill rate in order to maintain budgeted revenue. Owners of developed properties will now constitute a larger share of the tax base and will need to pay a greater fraction of the total tax bill as a result.

Since preferential assessment programs are primarily designed to maintain existing open space, enrolled parcels continue to generate benefits, but those benefits don’t necessarily increase. Thus the public benefits should be expected to continue to accrue as before. Local residents alone will benefit from scenic views and the foregone external costs of development, while residents and nonresidents alike may benefit from protecting watersheds or habitat for endangered species (Anderson and West 2006). Benefits may be expected to increase, however, if the program requires owners to improve the value of the open space by activity such as habitat restoration.

Several studies indicate that the effects of open space on surrounding property values depend critically on the type of protection and its ability to prevent development in the future. For example, land acquired as a park or forest preserve, or land placed under a conservation easement, has a much more positive effect on neighboring property values than open space that is not permanently protected (Geoghegan 2002). Enrollment in a preferential assessment program might have little or no effect on surrounding property values if the protection is perceived to be temporary, resulting in either permanent reductions in revenue or permanently higher tax rates on the non-enrolled parcels.

Calculating the Fiscal Cost of Preferential Assessment Expenditures

The methodology for calculating the tax expenditure resulting from the preferential assessment of open space is straightforward. The property owner will see a reduced tax burden based on the difference between the assessment without the program and the preferential assessment. This reduction in assessed value can lower tax revenue due to a reduced base. Alternatively, the lost revenue could be recouped by shifting the burden onto other property owners by increasing the tax rate. A combination of both outcomes is also possible. Oregon reports both the loss and the shift in their tax expenditure report (table 2), which listed exemption values of $126 million in fiscal year 2009–10 for the three open space programs. The estimated revenue loss over two fiscal years is $3.2 million, while the estimated revenue shift during that period is $0.7 million.

Data is inconsistent from state to state, which makes it difficult to estimate the revenue effects of preferential assessment. The aggregate data presented for Oregon is much more useful than what many other states present. States that do not calculate property tax expenditures frequently do not make such data available; at best, they usually offer aggregate figures that combine the programs for agriculture, forestry, and open space. Table 2 also indicates the relative scope of open space in that context. The exemption values for private forestry were over $5 billion, and the exemption values for farmland and farm home sites were $14.1 billion. The three conservation programs combined represent approximately one-half of one percent of the total exemption value, and less than one percent of the revenue lost or shifted.

Such calculations also depend on other effects that may be very difficult to observe. It will be impossible to determine the extent to which revenue shifted, without detailed information about local government’s ability to respond by changing the mill rate. In that case, the estimate will account for only foregone revenue. It will also be necessary to ignore the program’s possible positive property value effects on neighboring parcels.

Conclusion

Designing a preferential assessment program for open space requires careful consideration. While land with limited development does provide amenities and environmental benefits under many circumstances, the value of those benefits may vary dramatically according to local conditions. If the program’s goal is primarily to provide local, rather than regional, benefits, one set of criteria for the entire state is unlikely to maximize benefits. Local determination of the enrollment criteria may provide the flexibility necessary to react to those varying conditions, whereas state-level criteria are probably necessary to protect regional resources such as watersheds.

The shortage of empirical work in this area makes it difficult to assess the effectiveness of existing programs. If the goal is genuinely to forestall development on certain parcels, program design should consider the length of contract and penalty for early conversion. Short-term delays in development will primarily benefit the owners of open space. For a program to succeed, the open space must generate significant community benefits in the form of either long-term environmental protection or higher property values for other residents of the area. Higher eligibility requirements for inclusion in the program should reduce the amount of acreage enrolled; however, the number of acres should not be the program’s primary goal unless legislators intend it solely as a means to reduce local development. Significant enrollment in the program could have substantial fiscal implications for local jurisdictions, especially if broad criteria and low conversion penalties make it easy for landowners to enroll and then develop the property later. Program design must ensure a maximum of public benefit in exchange for the fiscal effects.

This article was adapted from the Lincoln Institute working paper, “Preferential Assessment for Open Space”: https://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/dl/2281_1620_Sundberg_WP13JS1.pdf.

About the Author

Jeffrey O. Sundberg is the James S. Kemper Foundation Professor of Liberal Arts and Business and Professor of Economics at Lake Forest College. He received a Ph.D. in economics from Stanford University. His recent research interests include the efficiency of state and federal tax incentives for conservation easement donations and preferential assessment programs for open space. He has also served on the board of a land trust in Lake County, Illinois, serving as board president for four years. Contact: jsundber@mx.lakeforest.edu.

Resources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Forest Setting

Forests presently cover approximately 25 percent of the world’s land surface, excluding Greenland and Antarctica. Two-thirds of this important renewable natural resource lies in North America, South America, Europe and Russia. In the early 1990s, industrial wood products from North America and Europe alone contributed a robust 2 percent of Global Domestic Product (GDP), and wood-based fuels remain the primary sources of energy for many countries.

The United States is particularly blessed with forests. About one-third of its total land area (730 million acres) is woodland. The proportion rises to nearly two-thirds east of the Mississippi River. Contrary to prevailing public opinion, two out of every three acres of U.S. forest is in private, not governmental, hands. Some 9 million nonindustrial private woodland owners control the future of these forests, a number that is rising steadily as land changes hands and is fragmented into smaller and smaller parcels.

In New England, these trends are even more pronounced. Of the region’s 32 million acres of land base, approximately 80 percent (24 million acres) is now in forest, and 96 percent of this forest is controlled privately. In 1993, by Forest Service estimates, 737,000 owners held forested land in the six-state region, and two-thirds of these tracts were less than 10 acres in size. Newer landowners are frequently urban emigrants, more tied to technology and human-designed infrastructure than to the land. However, they tend to have a nascent interest in the natural world and the potential to become both skillful resource stewards and passionate advocates for the environment.

The Evolution of ENFOR

In the spring of 1999, the idea of distance learning courses, accessible on home computers and targeted to the nonindustrial private sector in New England, seemed a promising way to tap the potential of these landowners. The New England Governors Conference, the U.S. Forest Service and the Lincoln Institute agreed to jointly sponsor a study that might point the way to developing such a course for the Institute’s distance learning program, Lincoln Education Online (LEO). A distinguished group of New England forestry and education leaders was recruited to serve as advisors. The organizational meeting of what came to be called ENFOR (ENvironmental FORestry) occurred in December 1999. Seven additional meetings were held subsequently over an eighteen-month period, including a regionwide Colloquium on Distance Learning and the Forest Environment held at the New England Center in Durham, New Hampshire, and attended by some forty selected New England forestry officials, educators and landowners. Specific ENFOR work products have included the following reports:

• Gail Michaels of the U.S. Forest Service prepared a summary paper, Characteristics of New England Forest Landowners and Implications for Computer-based Learning, which found that at least 40 percent of New England households are already computer-equipped, and the proportion is rising rapidly.
• An inventory of 66 existing distance learning resources relating to forestry, Distance Learning for the Forestry Environment, prepared by the Quebec-Labrador Foundation, found that none of the sites, of which 31 offered either online courses for credit or courses with online components, appeared to fulfill ENFOR’s objectives in their entirety.
• A one-page questionnaire was developed and sent to 5,000 known forest landowners to evaluate the market for distance learning. An astonishing 10 percent of the owners responded, requesting further information on how to improve their forest, how to protect it for the future, and how to find programs and services. Since about 90 percent of respondents indicated they had already done some work on their land, it seemed likely that any information provided through home-computer-based means would be put to work promptly on individual woodlots throughout New England.

A Woodland Walk

Encouraged by these explorations and consultations, ENFOR commissioned Brian Donahue, an environmental historian at Brandeis University, to prepare a 30-minute pilot course built around a computerized walk through a typical New England forest. In this course, a New England landowner is first introduced to the place of his woodland in the world, the region, the state, the county and the community, using supportive maps of cultural features, land use and protected areas in a sample town. An attractive “woodswalker” icon helps the user navigate. “Poison ivy” and “chestnut” symbols highlight points of particular concern and promise. The walk emphasizes the role of forests as ecological systems, as sources of products and values, and as places where interconnectedness and thoughtful stewardship are needed. Once the virtual walk is completed, the owner is encouraged to take a walk through his or her own woods, perhaps seeing for the first time its attributes and potential.

Following a successful test of the pilot course in Middlesex County, Massachusetts, it is now being adapted for use in other parts of the region, and by the end of 2001 should be available throughout Rhode Island. The Lincoln Institute has asked Donahue to expand his introductory material to include five additional topics for future versions of the course. The Institute has also encouraged Charles Thompson of the New England Forestry Foundation to produce an interconnected, electronic version of his popular book, Working with Your Woodland, to serve as a second-level course for those wishing to apply more active forest management practices to their properties.

Regional Course Development Center

Stimulated by the ENFOR inquiry, Vermont extension forester Thom J. McEvoy has proposed the development of a $4.9 million curriculum and course development center at the University of Vermont, capable of serving the needs of the entire New England region. The proposal is now pending before national funding sources. McEvoy envisions courses and services that are easy to use, amenable to either broadband or conventional Internet access, coupled with streaming audio and video, and capable of archiving information specific to a particular woodland site in an individualized “portfolio.” The center’s courses would range broadly from conventional biological, ecological and economic topics to practical information on how to plan, manage and secure small forests. In keeping with the broad view of the forest as both a physical and cultural environment, the curriculum will include course offerings in such areas as history, literature, folklore, art and even music.

ENFOR Findings and Recommendations

At their final meeting in July 2001, the ENFOR advisors urged the formation of a successor forest education council to encourage the use of distance learning materials in practice and to coordinate their delivery to landowners through cooperating organizations and agencies. Charles Thompson agreed to organize and chair such a council. The advisors also reached several conclusions based upon the results of the ENFOR inquiry.

• New England is an established and recognized region, well-suited both environmentally and technologically for the use of distance learning techniques.
• Its forest resource, extensive both in acreage and the proportion held in private ownership, represents a unique facet of the environment on which to focus such approaches.
• Since New Englanders have a curious mix of concern for the well-being of the forest coupled with a pragmatic willingness to have its products and uses remain available for humankind, any distance learning program must deal with the forest as a total environment, recognizing the full range of its social, ecological, economic, aesthetic, and recreational uses and values.
• To be effective, forestry distance learning programs must be tailored to the individual, be sensitive to local conditions and concerns, be arrayed as a set of voluntary options, and be delivered to the extent possible through existing organizations and agencies.
• The advisors expressed their appreciation of the seeming willingness of diverse public and private institutions to work together collaboratively, as evidenced by the ENFOR project.

Distance learning seems to offer the distinct promise of helping landowners in urbanizing regions serve as more active forest managers and conservers and, collectively, become a new army of forest-wise citizens committed to ensuring the future of New England’s important forest heritage. In pursuing this goal, New England may once again be on the threshold of serving as a leader for the nation as a whole.

Charles H. W. Foster is an adjunct research fellow and lecturer at the Center for Science and International Affairs of Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. He was formerly dean of the Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies and secretary of environmental affairs for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

References

Foster, Charles, editor. 1984. Experiments in Bioregionalism. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.

1998. Stepping Back to Look Forward: A History of the Massachusetts Forest. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Michaels, Gail. 2000. Characteristics of New England Forest Landowners and Implications for Computer-based Learning. (March). Durham, NH: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Area, State and Private Forestry Division.

Quebec-Labrador Foundation. 2000. Distance Learning for the Forestry Environment. (March) Ipswich, MA: Quebec-Labrador Foundation.

Thompson, Charles. 1996. Working with Your Woodland. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.

Most urban areas are experiencing significant disinvestment in older industrial-warehouse areas, along with a net loss of employment, tax base and related activity. The few recent surveys done to measure vacant industrial land suggest that, in Northeastern and Midwestern cities, 15 to 20 percent of industrial sites are inactive. In major cities such as Chicago or Philadelphia, vacant land can amount to several hundred parcels comprising several thousand acres. Often there are significant financial liabilities associated with the ownership of these “brownfield” sites due to the high incidence of contamination and related safety and environmental problems.

Vacant or underused properties are often located in areas suffering generally from physical decline, concentrations of low-income households and high crime rates. Thus, older cities are faced with the dual challenge of improving the capacity of the resident population to participate productively in the labor force and restoring the competitive market standing of areas with declining fiscal capacity.

While recent economic changes have resulted in a net decline in business activity in older industrial areas, many of these sites have the potential for residential, commercial or office reuse, with varying degrees of investment required. However, reuse is often constrained by factors including fragmentation in ownership, risks associated with the ownership or use of contaminated property, and the high market risks associated with front-end investment in environmental assessments, market studies, land assembly and area planning.

Currently, federal laws and regulations dealing with contaminated sites add to the high risk for new owners, investors and users who might otherwise contribute to reinvestment in and reuse of these areas. Also, federal and state clean up programs tend to operate independently of concerted area-wide redevelopment strategies and programs.

Special Situations for Industrial Reuse

Unfortunately, examples of successful reuse approaches which effectively orchestrate federal, state and local government policies and actions with private landowner, investor and business development actions are limited and tend to be concentrated in a few special situations. One circumstance involves a strong private owner such as a financially healthy major corporation which cannot avoid the liabilities associated with the site yet cannot afford the adverse publicity of simply abandoning it.

Another situation is when a strong private reuse market for the site creates a high reuse value relative to the current “as is” value. This typically involves waterfront or other property adjacent to growing downtowns or sites which happen to fit the development needs for a major, publicly subsidized facility such as a new stadium or convention center. In these situations, the private or public reuse benefit calls forth the financial and political resources necessary to acquire, clean up and redevelop the land.

However, most vacant or underused former industrial-warehouse properties do not meet these conditions. Generally the demand for reuse is weak or declining, in part due to deteriorating neighborhood conditions. Because of low land values, even for clean, ready-to-develop sites, finding investors for either equity or debt investment in acquisition, renovation or new development is problematic. These areas typically require more concerted efforts involving business, government and civic group participation.

Site-Specific vs Integrated Redevelopment

While interest in brownfields reuse has increased over the last several years, policy discussions at the national level and programs in the states tend to approach brownfields as a site-specific contamination cleanup problem rather than an area-wide reuse problem within the context of the metropolitan economy.

The case for integrating site treatment into a broader redevelopment strategy can be argued from several angles. One is simply that giving priority to cleanup expenditures may do little to foster area reuse and may preclude the more effective use of public funds. If the contamination is contained within a small area and the public can be protected from any potential harm, then area reuse may be more effectively fostered by focusing on the removal of other constraints to investment. These constraints may include improving access, removing unsightly buildings, installing landscape improvements, clearing sites of obsolete structures, and subdividing the area to better meet current facility demands.

Another argument for integrating site cleanup into an overall redevelopment strategy is that the cleanup costs are difficult to finance in a situation where the value of clean sites is very low. If an area-wide redevelopment effort focuses initially on increasing the overall demand to reuse sites, putting vacant clean sites into use will improve the demand/supply balance. Then, the cleanup costs can in most cases be funded out of the increased site value, and private owners of such sites will be motivated to clean up the sites voluntarily. Area-wide financing schemes using tax increment financing (TIF) and special taxing and benefit districts can also facilitate the funding required for remediation and indemnification against any future liabilities.

New Models and Strategies

The Lincoln Institute, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, is undertaking a research project to explore the problem of recycling urban industrial areas which fall outside of the special situations described above. The study builds on recent work conducted by the Lincoln Institute, the Northeast-Midwest Institute, the author and others who have researched reuse potential and demand/supply constraints in industrial areas. Some examples are the American Street industrial area in Philadelphia, the Collinwood area in Cleveland, the Southwest industrial area in Detroit, the south side of Chicago and several areas in Pittsburgh.

Research directed at discovering common opportunities and constraints and the related strategies most effective at addressing different types of situations is very limited. Therefore, our approach is to conduct a broad survey of industrial reuse markets based on a review of existing reports and interviews with local experts, and then to develop a series of in-depth case studies to assess alternative reuse strategies appropriate to common types of situations.

Each case study will include a survey and assessment of the city-wide situation and the conditions in various industrial subareas. Model solutions will focus on a single subarea chosen to represent a combination of factors, including the relevance of that case to other cities and the relative importance of the subarea to its city’s overall reuse plan. In each case, a group of development professionals familiar with the local real estate market will be involved in assessing opportunities and constraints, alternative strategies and implementation measures. Ultimately, our objective is to identify changes in federal, state and local techniques, policies and programs that would support the implementation of the strategies being developed.

J. Thomas Black, visiting fellow of the Lincoln Institute, is an urban development economist and the principal investigator for this project. The study is in its early stages and the author invites your insights, ideas and suggestions on the subject, particularly for case examples demonstrating opportunities, general strategies, particular techniques, financing methods or organizational structures that work well.

FYI

The Collinwood Yard in northeast Cleveland is a 48-acre, mainly vacant industrial site which has lost 20,000 jobs since 1970. Its access to Interstate 90 and the rail lines is a key element in the revitalization of the area.

The Union Seventy Center in St. Louis is a multi-tenant industrial/warehouse facility occupying a remodeled 2.7 million square foot General Motors assembly plant. It is part of a 171-acre redevelopment project which demonstrates the reuse and investment potential of older urban industrial areas.

In June 2003 the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and the Sonoran Institute established a Joint Venture project to assist diverse audiences in improving state trust land administration in the American West. The goal of this partnership project is to ensure that conservation, collaborative land use planning, and efficient and effective asset management on behalf of state trust land beneficiaries are integral elements of how these lands are managed. The two institutes seek to utilize their core competencies to broaden the range of information and policy options available to improve state trust land management. This article introduces the Joint Venture and describes some of the work now under way in Arizona and Montana.

State trust lands are a phenomenon that dates back to the Northwest Ordinance of 1785. With this ordinance, the U.S. Congress established a policy of granting land to states when they entered the Union as an asset to generate funding to support the public education system, a fundamental state responsibility. Starting with Ohio in 1785 and ending with Arizona and New Mexico in 1910, each new state received a set of federal lands that, under federal enabling legislation and the corresponding state constitution, were to be held in trust for the benefit of the public schools. The trust mandates established by the U.S. Congress and the states are clear: to generate revenue to support the public schools and other institutions. In some cases there are other minor institutional beneficiaries as well, but the public schools (K–12) are by far the largest beneficiary throughout the state trust land system. That singularity of purpose continues today and distinguishes state trust lands and the state programs that administer them from other types of public lands.

While Congress intended state trust lands to be perpetual, the lawmakers expected that over time some lands would be sold to produce revenue. Initially Congress provided little guidance to states on how they should manage their state trust lands. Many states that entered the Union soon after 1785 quickly sold all or most of those lands for profit, and today little remains of that heritage. Because of these actions, Congress placed increasingly stringent requirements on new states in order to limit the use of state trust lands. Since most western states entered the Union in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, they retain most of the original state trust lands designated at the time of statehood.

Today these lands continue to be managed to generate income for the authorized beneficiaries. This revenue is either made available in the year in which it was generated (typically from leasing activities) or, in the case of outright sale of land or nonrenewable resources, deposited into a permanent fund that generates annual income for the beneficiaries. In Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and Wyoming these permanent funds or endowments are in excess of one billion dollars each.

What Is a Trust?

A trust is a legal relationship in which one party holds property for the benefit of another.

There are three participants in this relationship: a grantor or “settlor,” who establishes the trust and provides the property to be held in trust; a trustee, who is charged by the settlor with the responsibility of managing the trust in keeping with the settlor’s instructions; and a beneficiary, who receives the benefits of the trust.

The trustee has a fiduciary responsibility to manage the property held in trust (the trust corpus) in keeping with the instructions of the settlor and for the benefit of the beneficiary. This fiduciary responsibility can be enforced by the beneficiary if the trustee fails to meet the obligations outlined in the trust documents.

Fifteen western states continue to own and manage appreciable amounts of state trust land (see Table 1). The nine states with the largest and most significant holdings are the initial focus of the Lincoln Institute and Sonoran Institute Joint Venture: Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming (see Figure 1). Collectively these states manage more than 40 million acres of state trust lands. The landholdings are as diverse as the states that manage them and include coastal forests in Washington, mountaintops in Montana and low deserts in Arizona.

Traditionally these lands have been managed almost exclusively for natural resource production, with the leasing and sale of natural products being the principal sources of revenue. The reliance of state trust land management on natural resource extraction is understandable in the context of the natural resource–based economies of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. But today, as the West continues to urbanize and the region’s economies shift to the information age, trust land managers are recognizing a need to broaden the land use activities of their trust land portfolios. Invariably that means rearranging the portfolio from one that is overly reliant on natural resource extraction to one that recognizes the real estate value associated with commercial, industrial and residential development, as well as recreation and conservation.

Like many land use decisions, particularly in areas experiencing explosive growth, state trust land administration is increasingly controversial. As on federal public lands, traditional uses (i.e., cropland, grazing and timber production, and oil, gas, coal and mineral extraction) are at odds with public interests in recreation and natural open space. Efforts to sell and lease lands for commercial and residential development can create tensions between a state agency acting as a trustee and a local community vested with managing growth. Balancing the protection of the public values inherent in many of these lands with traditional and new uses, all within the context of the state trust’s fiduciary responsibilities, is a challenge for trust land managers.

At the same time, population pressures in the West have increased demands on public education funding. State trust lands are one obvious source of revenue to meet these funding demands, which in turn may generate even more pressure on trust land managers who as trustees of a permanent trust need to achieve both short- and long-term financial returns from the trust’s assets. An additional complexity is that the application of trust principles varies among the states, based in part on differing state trust land enabling legislation created in each state at the time of statehood.

Recognizing the value of bringing diverse interests together and providing solid information to stakeholders and key decision makers in land use planning and development environments, the Lincoln Institute and Sonoran Institute Joint Venture project seeks to

• facilitate efforts to modernize state trust land laws and regulations in key western states
• foster education and research efforts that focus on key issues related to state trust land administration
• increase public awareness of the resource and economic values of state trust lands along with the impacts of state trust land management decisions on local communities, including implications for public finance
• develop and implement on-the-ground model projects designed to explore innovative approaches to collaborative land use planning and conservation management of state trust lands
• provide relevant technical information and tools to decision makers and agency staff involved in state trust land management.

Trust Land Reform in Arizona

Arizona is in the midst of a three-year discussion among diverse stakeholders to reform its laws governing state trust lands. Arizona is noteworthy because the burgeoning growth of Phoenix and Tucson is reaching significant tracts of state trust lands. These lands are some of the most valuable real estate holdings in the Intermountain West and comprise 12 percent of the land in the state. Unlike many other western states, Arizona has long recognized the real estate value of its holdings and has an active real estate disposition program that has sold thousands of acres into the urban marketplace. The revenue from these sales has been deposited into the permanent fund of the state trust entity, and the income from the fund is directed to the trust’s beneficiaries. The permanent fund is now valued at more than one billion dollars and is predicted to double in value over the next 10 years.

In the mid-1990s state trust land sales in metropolitan Phoenix came to a screeching halt when the development interests of the Arizona State Land Department encountered conflict with the goals of local communities interested in preserving some of this land as natural open space. Attempts to accommodate local concerns through state legislation have met with mixed results due to the strictures of the Arizona enabling act and state constitution. Several key court decisions interpreting these laws have constrained the Arizona State Land Department from conserving open space or enabling the department to achieve the highest and best use on these lands when sold or leased for residential and commercial purposes. An attempt in 2000 to secure voter approval to revise aspects of Arizona’s constititution and modernize state trust land management failed at the ballot box in the face of unanimous opposition from the conservation community.

This situation has set the stage for a diverse group of interests to convene in the hopes of developing a comprehensive reform proposal that the Arizona legislature and governor’s office will consider. Even with their support, the final package will need voter approval to amend the state constitution, followed by changes in the federal enabling act that will require the approval of the U.S. Congress.

The Joint Venture directed its initial efforts toward working with the conservation organizations participating in the stakeholder group. We provided analyses of the current laws and proposed changes, with assistance from the law firm of Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, to help the conservation community promote a constructive agenda that has been incorporated into the package. In addition, our information related to land use planning was useful to other stakeholders in developing elements of the package that will ensure more collaborative planning between the Arizona State Land Department and local governments charged with land planning responsibility, while also increasing the range of tools available to local communities to protect natural open space on state trust lands.

We are also working with officials from the City of Tucson (the second largest city in Arizona) and the Arizona State Land Department to assist their efforts to develop 10,000 acres in the city’s growth corridor. This Houghton Area Master Plan includes more than 7,500 acres of state trust lands. Our work is directed toward the planning effort by providing examples of smart growth development at the urban edge. A key element is to document evidence that greenfield projects are not necessarily synonymous with sprawl and that a number of examples of recent master-planned communities at the urban edge are incorporating smart growth elements, such as interconnected open space for active and passive recreational use, pedestrian orientation, mixed-use development accessible to public transit, and a diverse mix of housing types, sizes and prices. As important, these progressive master-planned communities are achieving success in the marketplace, which is a preeminent concern of the Arizona State Land Department.

While the City of Tucson, in partnership with the Sonoran Institute, is working to promote infill and brownfield development, even under the most optimistic of scenarios more than 50 percent of the city’s explosive growth will be greenfield development. If successful, this master-planning effort will guide development on 50 square miles of state trust lands within the city and can serve as a local land use planning model for other state trust lands.

Trust Lands in Montana

The Joint Venture has also initiated an assessment of policy issues affecting state trust lands in Montana. Working with a local advisory group chartered by the Department of Natural Resources (the manager of Montana’s state trust lands), we have provided information that will help guide land use planning on 12,000 acres of state trust lands in Flathead County at the gateway to Glacier National Park. This effort will serve as a template for future department plans for land uses other than grazing and forest management. For example, the department has shown an interest in generating revenue from leasing land for conservation, recreational, residential, commercial and industrial uses. Increasing interest in these “special uses” is creating a paradigm shift in how the Department of Natural Resources interacts with local governments and how local governments interact with state trust lands.

As growth expands throughout much of western and central Montana, the department seeks to capture additional revenue opportunities through the development of special uses. While local communities are recognizing that state trust lands can be a source of economic growth and can contribute positively to meeting growth demands, they are also requiring those land uses to be responsive to local community values and concerns. Sound, objective land planning and valuation information are essential to the development of policies that will guide Montana state trust land management in the future.

Final Comments

In the brief time since the Joint Venture was established there has been no shortage of issues that could benefit from better information and collaboration among diverse parties. This fall the Lincoln Institute and the Sonoran Institute will convene a small group of experts from academia and the public and private sectors to identify the issues of greatest concern that will guide further research efforts. Our work in Arizona and Montana will continue as we seek to develop a broad-based approach to increasing awareness about state trust lands. The successful resolution of the issues affecting state trust land management will benefit not only local school children, but also many conservationists, developers, ranchers and businesses throughout the West.

Reference

Souder, Jon, and Sally K. Fairfax. 1996. State trust lands: History, management and sustainable use. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

Andy Laurenzi is the program director for state trust lands at the Sonoran Institute, a nonprofit organization established in 1990 to bring diverse people together to accomplish shared conservation goals. The Sonoran Institute is based in Tucson, Arizona, with offices in Phoenix and Bozeman, Montana (www.sonoran.org).