As climate change creates ever more harm and havoc, one way governments are trying to keep people and property out of peril’s path is to steer new development away from the riskiest places. It’s a just goal whose execution is exceedingly complicated: Telling people where they can and can’t live or what they can do with their land is almost always a fraught endeavor. 

“How do you go about doing that very hard thing,” asks Margaret Walls, senior fellow at the nonprofit Resources for the Future, “when you have private property rights and so forth?” 

It turns out, a 41-year-old federal law may hold some answers to that question.  

In 1982, Congress did something that, by today’s standards, at least, seems almost unthinkable: It passed sweeping environmental legislation with overwhelming bipartisan support. The Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) had 58 cosponsors in the Senate, and sailed through the House in a 399–4 vote.  

The law initially placed some 450,000 acres of sensitive coastal areas and wildlife habitat along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico shorelines into the Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS). Congress has periodically approved the addition of more land over the years, and today the system, managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, includes about 3.5 million acres, spanning from the Great Lakes to Puerto Rico. 

The CBRA’s purpose was twofold: to preserve some of our most delicate and dynamic coastal ecosystems, but also to discourage development—and to limit federal spending on things like flood insurance and disaster relief—in risky, storm-prone areas.  

It used a fairly simple policy mechanism to achieve those goals. The law didn’t actually prohibit development inside CBRS units, it simply withdrew some of the underlying federal supports that encourage growth, like infrastructure funding and access to federal flood insurance.  

“One thing that people talk about a lot is that we might be implicitly subsidizing people to live in [risky] places,” Walls says. For example, until recently, the National Flood Insurance Program had long offered coverage at rates that didn’t necessarily reflect the true cost of flood risk, making it less financially ruinous to roll the dice and build in a floodplain.  

It’s hard to isolate and quantify the effects of such subtle subsidies, Walls says. But by carving out designated areas “where you cannot get federal flood insurance, the federal government will not pay for infrastructure, like roads and so forth, and you will not get disaster aid if you’re hit by a disaster,” she says, “the Coastal Barrier Resources Act provides this natural experiment.” 

Four decades into that experiment, research is showing just how effective the CBRA has been at keeping homes out of harm’s way. Simply shifting the cost and risk of coastal development onto private property owners or local governments seems to have been a particularly powerful nudge—enough to prevent untold families from living in disaster areas waiting to happen, and to preserve hundreds of miles of fragile coastal ecosystems.  

In a study commissioned by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, researchers at Resources for the Future are using historical maps and geospatial machine learning to compare hundreds of CBRS units along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts with a matching set of “control units”—that is, areas that weren’t placed in the CBRS, but which easily could have been, because they shared similar geomorphic features and development density in the early 1980s. Among other criteria, “We looked at roads, we looked at elevation, and we looked at land cover in the ‘80s,” says environmental economist Yanjun ‘Penny’ Liao, a fellow at Resources for the Future.  

What the team has found so far, as described in the working paper, is that a CBRS designation reduced development by an astonishing 85 percent, as compared to within a control unit. That effect was consistent even in CBRS units facing high development pressure from nearby metro areas, Liao says.   

Amy Cotter, director of climate strategies at the Lincoln Institute, is hopeful this research can complement the organization’s work with the Climigration Network, to help communities that are wrestling with “incredibly difficult decision making” around rebuilding or relocating in the face of repeated flood disasters.  

“We see the way in which sea level rise and other chronic effects of climate change show no sign of abating and, in fact, show every sign of being faster and more severe than anticipated,” Cotter says. “How do we take what we know about market responses to government policies and incentives, and help develop programs that still allow people to practice self-determination and make choices, but with market signals that are actually more accurate and reflect the risk of creating a home in a particular place?”  

The Spillover Effect

Interestingly, the CBRA hasn’t just protected coastal lands, or the homes and lives of the people who might have otherwise built on them. The researchers are also studying spillover effects in communities within a two-kilometer radius of either a CBRS unit or a control unit.  

While development just about stopped inside CBRS boundaries after 1982, immediately adjacent areas saw a 20 to 30 percent boost in development density compared to communities near control units. CBRS-adjacent neighborhoods also had higher average property values.  

The RFF researchers believe they’re the first to document these spillover effects, which could offer important lessons for policymakers. For one thing, the study shows that the conservation of buildable land doesn’t have to erode a city’s property tax revenues. Liao says the increased rate and value of the development within two kilometers of CBRS units more than offset the property tax revenue the smaller, preserved areas could have generated had they been built up.  

And while there could be many reasons for the higher property values found in CBRS-adjacent areas, such as the prized proximity to a pristine piece of nature, Liao wonders if one of them could be the flood protection offered by undeveloped land. The researchers found that the intensity of flood damage, as measured by claims per $1,000 of coverage, was 25 percent lower in areas just outside a CBRS unit, as compared to communities next to control areas. 

“By conserving natural land inside the units, they can serve as a kind of buffer when there’s a storm,” Liao says, “so it can protect the land that’s right behind them.”   

Cotter says the research offers a glimpse at a more sensible approach to policy in flood-prone areas. “What alternatives could we explore that would diminish not only the expense, but the real loss and trauma associated with the kind of damage that the flood insurance program intends to fix?” she asks. “What would it look like to designate more of these areas?” 

In fact, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in April sent to Congress a set of revised maps that would add about 277,000 acres to the Coastal Barrier Resources System in nine states most impacted by 2012’s Hurricane Sandy. (One of the proposed sites, it turns out, is an area RFF researchers chose as a control unit, lending extra credibility to their mapping process.)  

The revised maps will only take effect once passed by Congress, but a Senate bill introduced in December would adopt the revisions, and already has bipartisan support. 

Walls would like to investigate that same question—and whether a similar program could work in inland areas facing riverine flood risk—with additional research. “Should we be thinking about more additions to the system? There’s still a fair amount of undeveloped land in risky coastal areas,” she says. “I don’t think we feel like we could completely weigh in on that yet . . . but I think it’s an interesting next question to look at.”  

Adapting the program for use in already developed flood-prone areas would be challenging; when the sites were chosen in 1982, CBRA units were virtually empty, with no more than one structure per five acres. But since the CBRA doesn’t actually ban development outright, a CBRS designation would leave any existing property owners in control of what is typically an agonizing decision. If coupled with pro-growth policies in better-protected places nearby, Cotter wonders if the combination could encourage and support people grappling with climate migration—nudging them toward a safer alternative that’s still within proximity of their jobs, childcare, and familial support networks. 

“If you can be surgical about your identification of those CBRS units, so that they not only prevent development in an at-risk area, but they preserve important buffers to an adjacent area, that sounds like a win-win,” Cotter says. “It suggests quite an elegant approach to preserving what you need in order to reduce the risk” in nearby neighborhoods.    

Jon Gorey is a staff writer for the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Image: A stretch of coast in South Kingstown, Rhode Island, that contains land protected by the Coastal Barrier Resources Act. Credit: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

This is an edited excerpt from an article published by the International Land Conservation Network.

Leaders and conservationists from more than 190 countries came together in Montreal from December 7 to 19 to address urgent threats to biodiversity at the COP15 global conference. A team from the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy participated in the historic event, promoting the role that private and civic land conservation can play in the international effort to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by the end of the decade.

Formally known as the 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, COP15 resulted in a historic agreement, the Kunming̵–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which serves as a roadmap toward a nature-positive future in which species and ecosystems thrive. COP15 has been compared in significance to its better-known counterpart, COP21, the 2015 UN climate conference where nearly 200 parties pledged to take action to mitigate climate change by signing the Paris Agreement.

A pillar of the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework is the formalization of the 30×30 goal, an effort to protect at least 30 percent of the world’s lands, oceans, coastal areas, and inland waters by 2030. This goal prioritizes areas based on the value of their biodiversity and aims to create ecologically representative, well-connected, and equitably governed systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures. It also recognizes Indigenous and traditional territories and emphasizes respect for the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. The Kunming–Montreal framework also addresses issues including financial support for developing countries, harmful subsidies, food waste, and corporate transparency.

Four staff members from the Lincoln Institute joined more than 18,000 participants from 196 countries at COP15: Jim Levitt, director of the International Land Conservation Network (ILCN); Chandni Navalkha, ILCN associate director of sustainably managed land and water resources; Zhi Liu, director of the Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy (PLC); and Shenmin Liu, ILCN regional representative for Asia.

On the first day of the conference, ILCN and PLC co-hosted a daylong event with the Global Environmental Institute, Africa Wildlife Foundation, and other non-governmental organizations. The event, which centered on strengthening non-state actors’ efforts to support multi-goal and multi-benefit biodiversity conservation and sustainable development initiatives, attracted more than 100 participants from civil society, academia, the business sector, youth groups, and local communities. Elizabeth Maruma Mrema, executive secretary of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, spoke about the critical role of civil society organizations in implementing the new framework. Levitt gave a keynote presentation on leveraging international and cross-sectoral expertise to help create an effective, trusted, and connected global network for private and civic land conservation. He described successful examples of collaborative civic conservation including the FONAG water fund in Quito, Ecuador, and Tallurutiup Imanga National Marine Conservation Area in Nunavut, Canada.

At a separate event, Shenmin Liu spoke about the importance of engaging youth in the conservation movement and the power young people hold as the future stewards of the planet. The ILCN and the Nature Conservancy of Canada also hosted a gathering for ILCN network members attending COP15, with participants hailing from Canada, China, Australia, Spain, South Africa, Kenya, Liberia, and other countries.

In addition to yielding a landmark agreement among the world’s nations to protect and restore biodiversity, COP15 served as a springboard for ongoing work. For example, delegates sowed the seeds for the establishment of a multilateral fund to enable equitable benefit sharing between providers and users of emerging agricultural technology. Details of the fund are set to be finalized at COP16 in Turkey in 2024, where signatories of the Kunming-Montreal Declaration will assess progress on their efforts to address the current biodiversity crisis and ensure a sustainable future for the planet.

Shenmin Liu is a research analyst with the Lincoln Institute and ILCN representative for Asia.

Image: Lincoln Institute staff and global partners at COP15 in December 2022. Credit: Shenmin Liu.

En el norte de California, tres agencias regionales que representan a unos 11 millones de personas se unen para abordar los problemas de planificación del transporte a largo plazo. En el noreste, una docena de estados colaboran en un esfuerzo por reducir las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero. En otros lugares de los Estados Unidos, desde el suroeste hasta el medio oeste, los gobiernos y las organizaciones de las grandes áreas metropolitanas utilizan estrategias regionales para abordar los desafíos que atraviesan los límites jurisdiccionales.

Se trata de un enfoque que los planificadores fomentan desde hace tiempo, ya que las áreas metropolitanas estadounidenses en expansión parecían cada vez más destinadas a fusionarse. Jonathan Barnett recuerda haber asistido a una conferencia en Londres en 2004 y haber visto en una pantalla mapas del crecimiento urbano y el desarrollo regional previstos en los Estados Unidos. Por aquel entonces, Barnett era el director del Programa de Diseño Urbano de la Universidad de Pensilvania. Él y sus colegas habían estado reflexionando sobre las implicaciones de las proyecciones de la Oficina del Censo; según estas, la población de los Estados Unidos podría aumentar un 50 por ciento o más para el 2050, un incremento de más de 100 millones de personas.

“Lo que les llamó la atención a todos los presentes fue que en los mapas se observaba un patrón de a dónde se concentrarían esas personas”, dice Barnett. “[Estos patrones urbanos] se pueden ver desde el espacio y es como mirar las estrellas y ver Orión y Sagitario. Nos dimos cuenta de que estaba ocurriendo algo importante”.

Bob Yaro también estaba presente ese día. “Podías ver que, en todo el país, los suburbios de una región metropolitana se fusionaban con los suburbios de la siguiente”, recuerda Yaro, que por aquel entonces dirigía la Regional Plan Association mientras daba clases en la Universidad de Pensilvania. “Físicamente, estos lugares se integraban entre sí. Cuando observamos las tendencias económicas y demográficas, se podía ver que la vida de estas ciudades y áreas metropolitanas se estaba fusionando con la de sus vecinos”.

No era la primera vez que los geógrafos y los planificadores notaban que las áreas metropolitanas vinculadas pueden compartir economías, sistemas de recursos naturales, infraestructuras, historia y cultura. Pero a principios del s. XXI, el alcance y el ritmo del fenómeno alcanzaron nuevos niveles en los Estados Unidos.

Poco después de la conferencia de Londres, Armando Carbonell (que se jubiló del Instituto Lincoln este año tras dirigir su programa de planeamiento urbano por más de dos décadas) le dio al fenómeno un nombre que se mantendría: megarregiones.

Un grupo de planificadores, entre los que se encuentran Yaro y Barnett, retomó la causa de las megarregiones con el argumento de que estas zonas urbanas tienen una gran importancia a nivel nacional. “Más de 8 de cada 10 estadounidenses viven en estos lugares y representan el 90 por ciento de la economía del país”, dice Yaro. “Entonces está claro que, si estos lugares no prosperan ni operan a su capacidad máxima, la economía y la habitabilidad del país se verán afectadas”.

Esta primavera, el Instituto Lincoln publicó Megaregions and America’s Future, de Robert Yaro, presidente de la Alianza Ferroviaria del Atlántico Norte; Ming Zhang, director de Planificación Regional y Comunitaria en la Universidad de Texas en Austin; y Frederick Steiner, decano de la Facultad de Diseño Stuart Weitzman en la Universidad de Pensilvania. El libro sostiene que, si se administran de forma correcta y con creatividad, las megarregiones pueden mejorar la resiliencia ante el cambio climático, la gestión de recursos naturales, la competitividad económica y la equidad a nivel local, regional y nacional.

Qué constituye una megarregión 

Durante más de un siglo, la región densamente poblada que se extiende desde Boston hasta Washington, DC, atrajo la atención de los geógrafos. En su libro de 1915 Cities in Evolution, Patrick Geddes designó al desarrollo urbano que se extiende desde Boston hasta Nueva York con el no muy atractivo término “conurbación”. En 1961, el geógrafo francés Jean Gottman se refirió a la región como “megaló-polis”. En 1967, Herman Kahn eligió un término que también carecía de encanto, “BosWash”.

Pasaron otras tres décadas hasta que este fenómeno que supera fronteras comenzó a recibir una atención académica más generalizada, pero en los últimos 20 años el ritmo se aceleró cuando la Universidad de Pensilvania, el Instituto Lincoln y otros comenzaron a trabajar para ayudar a que las personas comprendan qué son las megarregiones y cómo funcionan.

Las definiciones de qué constituye exactamente una megarregión varían; en general, se considera que es una economía regional que claramente se extiende más allá de un área metropolitana individual. “Pienso a las megarregiones como una forma de pensar en el espacio, más que como algo real”, dice Carbonell. “Las pienso como una construcción y una herramienta, [pero] las megarregiones no son fijas y cambian”.

Los investigadores usaron diversos enfoques innovadores para identificar y delimitar las megarregiones. Un análisis se centra en los hábitos de movilización de más de 4,2 millones de estadounidenses para identificar megarregiones (Nelson y Rae 2016). En otro, se usan imágenes satelitales para identificar aglomeraciones urbanas iluminadas y contiguas en todo el mundo

Hasta ahora, los investigadores han identificado alrededor de 40 megarregiones en todo el mundo (ver nota de recuadro). En Megaregions and America’s Future, los autores se centran en 13 megarregiones en los Estados Unidos (ver mapa). Ellas son el venerable Noreste; el Piedemonte Atlántico, un cinturón en el sur que abarca partes de Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, Carolina del Norte y Carolina del Sur; Florida; los Grandes Lagos; la Costa del Golfo; la Llanura Central; el Triángulo de Texas; el corredor de la Cordillera Front en Colorado; Basin and Range (Utah y Idaho); Cascadia (el noroeste del Pacífico desde Portland hasta Vancouver, BC); el norte de California, el sur de California y el Corredor del Sol de Arizona (Yaro, Zhang y Steiner 2022).

Muchas de estas megarregiones tienen economías que les permiten ubicarse entre las mejores economías nacionales del mundo. Por ejemplo, en 2018, la megarregión Noreste registró un PIB de US$ 4,54 billones, que es más que el PIB de Alemania. El mismo año, el PIB de casi US$ 1,8 billones de la megarregión del sur de California fue mayor que el de Canadá.

En muchos sentidos, una megarregión es una unidad de organización cada vez más espontánea y orgánica, una que presenta más oportunidades que las divisiones políticas tradicionales a las que trasciende.

 

---

 

Megarregiones en todo el mundo 

Los académicos identificaron más de 40 megarregiones en todo el mundo, y hay otras en plena formación en China, India y el Sudeste Asiático. Entre las megarregiones ya establecidas, se encuentran las siguientes: 

El Pentágono, Europa. Esta región, que se encuentra entre París, Londres, Hamburgo, Múnich y Milán, se identificó como centro económico y de transporte en 1999. Cubre alrededor del 20 por ciento del continente y es responsable del 60 por ciento de los resultados económicos. También se han aplicado y estudiado muchos otros modelos de megarregiones en Europa. 

Tokaido, Japan. El corredor entre Tokio y Osaka alberga a más de la mitad de la población del país. Sus ciudades están unidas por la red ferroviaria de alta velocidad Shinkansen, que redujo el tiempo de viaje entre Tokio y Osaka de ocho horas a principios del s. XX a dos horas y media en la actualidad. El tren bala en desarrollo reducirá el tiempo de viaje a una hora. 

Delta del Río de las Perlas, China. El área urbana más densamente poblada del mundo, el Delta del Río de las Perlas, incluye las ciudades de Guangzhou, Shenzhen y Hong Kong. El gobierno chino invirtió varios cientos de miles de millones de dólares en un tren de alta velocidad diseñado para mejorar las conexiones dentro de la región y entre el Delta del Río de las Perlas, el Delta del Río Yangtsé, la región alrededor de Pekín y Tianjín, y las megarregiones pujantes en las áreas costeras y del interior. 

 

---

 

Colaborar para mitigar el cambio climático 

Uno de los ejemplos más destacados de iniciativas exitosas que abarcan una megarregión es la Iniciativa Regional sobre los Gases de Efecto Invernadero (RGGI, por su sigla en inglés), un esfuerzo de cooperación para limitar y reducir las emisiones de dióxido de carbono del sector eléctrico en Nueva Inglaterra y el Atlántico Medio. Conocida de forma abreviada como “Reggie”, es el primer programa obligatorio de límite e intercambio de emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero del país y ahora abarca 12 estados.

A principios del s. XXI, los esfuerzos por establecer un marco nacional de límite máximo e intercambio de emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero estaban perdiendo impulso. En 2003, el entonces gobernador de Nueva York, George Pataki, envió una carta a los gobernadores de otros estados del noreste a fin de proponerles un esfuerzo bipartidista para combatir el cambio climático. En 2005, los gobernadores de Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, New Hampshire, Nueva Jersey, Nueva York y Vermont firmaron el acuerdo inicial para poner en marcha la RGGI. En 2007, se adhirieron Massachusetts, Rhode Island y Maryland.

“Creo que los estados que reconocieron que el cambio climático era un problema real tenían el deseo y la voluntad de asumir algún tipo de liderazgo”, dice Bruce Ho, que dirige el trabajo del Consejo de Defensa de los Recursos Naturales en la RGGI. “El cambio climático es un problema global, y tenemos que actuar, en la medida de lo posible, de forma coordinada. Pero, al mismo tiempo, se sabe que hay que empezar por algún lado”.

Incluso cuando los esfuerzos para combatir el cambio climático a nivel federal fracasaron, la RGGI se fortaleció y extendió. En 2014, los estados participantes redujeron el límite de emisiones en un 40 por ciento y se comprometieron a nuevas reducciones anuales. Luego, en 2017, los estados acordaron aspirar a un descenso aún más pronunciado de las emisiones y también a ampliar esos esfuerzos de reducción de emisiones hasta, al menos, el año 2030.

Desde que se puso en marcha la RGGI, las emisiones de las plantas de energía eléctrica han disminuido en más de un 50 por ciento (el doble que el descenso nacional durante el mismo período) y el programa ha recaudado más de US$ 4.000 millones mediante la subasta de bonos de carbono. Ese dinero se invirtió en programas locales de eficiencia energética, energía renovable y otras iniciativas. Por ejemplo, Virginia dedica la mitad de sus fondos de la RGGI a programas de eficiencia energética para personas con bajos ingresos y destina el 45 por ciento a la preparación contra inundaciones y la mitigación del aumento del nivel del mar en las comunidades costeras.

Aunque no es inmune a las críticas, la RGGI es “uno de los primeros ejemplos de una iniciativa a escala megarregional que se mantuvo bastante bien”, dice Carbonell, y sigue ganando impulso. Aunque el entonces gobernador Chris Christie retiró a Nueva Jersey de la RGGI en 2012, el estado se reincorporó en 2020. Virginia se incorporó en 2021 y Pensilvania lo hizo este año. Los dirigentes de Carolina del Norte, alentados por una petición ciudadana de crear una reglamentación, están analizando la posibilidad de unirse también a la RGGI. 

La esperanza del tren de alta velocidad 

Uno de los desafíos principales de las megarregiones es cómo se desplaza la gente dentro de ellas. Dado que las megarregiones pueden tener entre 480 y 1.290 kilómetros de extensión, exigen una forma de abordar el transporte que se ignoró en gran medida en los Estados Unidos. 

“Son demasiado pequeñas para usar transporte aéreo de manera eficiente y demasiado grandes para moverse por las carreteras sin inconvenientes”, dice Yaro. “Además, los aeropuertos, el espacio aéreo y las conexiones de las autopistas interestatales de estos lugares están muy congestionados”.

Hacer énfasis nuevamente en el tren de alta velocidad, que puede alcanzar velocidades de más de 320 kilómetros por hora, ayudará a aliviar un sistema de transporte que está muy exigido en todo el país, dice Yaro, que ahora es presidente de la Alianza Ferroviaria del Atlántico Norte, un grupo que aboga por una “estrategia de desarrollo económico basada en el tren” de alta velocidad y alto rendimiento para Nueva York y Nueva Inglaterra. Además de reducir la congestión, el tren de alta velocidad puede reducir las emisiones y estimular el desarrollo económico, ya que conecta a las personas con puestos de trabajo y otras oportunidades en toda la región.

Hay muchos ejemplos en todo el mundo de sistemas ferroviarios de alta velocidad que tuvieron éxito. Por ejemplo, en Japón, la primera línea ferroviaria de alta velocidad del mundo (el famoso Shinkansen o tren bala) une Tokio, Nagoya y Osaka en una única megarregión. El sistema, que ahora transporta más de 420.000 pasajeros cada día de la semana, cumplirá 60 años de servicio en 2024. En Europa, nueve países operan ya con trenes de alta velocidad en más de 8.850 kilómetros de vías. Quizás ningún país adoptó el tren de alta velocidad con tanto entusiasmo como China. Desde 2008, el gobierno construyó un sistema que llega prácticamente a todos los rincones del extenso país con más de 37.820 kilómetros de vías que siguen extendiéndose.   

En los Estados Unidos, la comprensión inicial del potencial de este concepto tardó en cobrar fuerza. En 1966, el senador estadounidense, Claiborne Pell de Rhode Island, propuso una línea de alta velocidad entre Boston y Washington en su libro Megalopolis Unbound: The Supercity and the Transportation of Tomorrow. En 2000, Amtrak puso en marcha el servicio Acela entre Boston y Washington. Dado que alcanza los 240 kilómetros por hora, se considera un tren de alta velocidad, aunque solo alcanza ese máximo en unos 54 kilómetros de su recorrido total de 735. La velocidad media del Acela es de solo 112 kilómetros por hora.    

En otras regiones se analizaron o se pusieron en marcha planes para construir un tren de alta velocidad interurbano; la Texas Central Line conectaría Dallas y Houston, mientras que el proyecto Brightline West uniría el sur de California con Las Vegas. En otros lugares de California, se está construyendo una línea ambiciosa que conectará San Francisco y Los Ángeles, con una segunda fase que ampliará el recorrido hacia el norte hasta Sacramento y hacia el sur hasta San Diego. Pero los desafíos relacionados con el financiamiento, la política y la logística hicieron que los planes del tren de alta velocidad apenas estén en la primera etapa.

Las primeras versiones del proyecto de ley de infraestructura del año pasado incluían US$ 10.000 millones para el tren de alta velocidad, pero el presupuesto se recortó durante las negociaciones. Mientras los defensores de este proyecto siguen presionando para que se realicen inversiones federales significativas para una red de alta velocidad, las megarregiones también pueden beneficiarse de las inversiones en los sistemas existentes, o de un “ferrocarril suficientemente rápido”, como lo denomina Barnett en su libro Designing the Megaregion: “Se pueden realizar muchas mejoras en el transporte de forma incremental para darle una estructura mucho mejor a las megarregiones en evolución” (Barnett 2020).

Compartir soluciones en California 

La megarregión del norte de California se extiende por ciudades del Área de la Bahía de San Francisco, Sacramento y el Valle de San Joaquín. La región experimentó un aumento espectacular de los desplazamientos desde comunidades del interior, como Tracy y Stockton, hacia los puestos de trabajo en el Área de la Bahía, y tiene uno de los tiempos promedio de desplazamiento más largos del país.

James Corless dirige el Consejo de Gobiernos del Área de Sacramento, pero antes trabajó para la Comisión de Transporte Metropolitano, la agencia responsable de la planificación y el financiamiento del transporte regional en el Área de la Bahía. Dice que, a mediados de la década de 2000, las agencias regionales empezaron a considerar las ciudades ubicadas desde el Área de la Bahía hasta Sacramento como una megarregión emergente, y le dieron un nombre que la situaba directamente junto a lugares como So–Flo y Char–Lanta. “De hecho, acuñamos el nombre ‘San Framento’”, dice Corless. “Todo el mundo lo odiaba, pero captó la atención de la gente”.

En 2015, la Comisión de Transporte Metropolitano, el Consejo de Gobiernos del Área de Sacramento y el Consejo de Gobiernos de San Joaquín firmaron un memorándum de entendimiento a fin de crear un grupo de trabajo para la megarregión. Su objetivo era colaborar en cuestiones que trascendieran las fronteras de los 16 condados y las 136 ciudades a las que representaban colectivamente. 

El esfuerzo tardó en cobrar impulso, precisamente por la extensión de la megarregión. “Veía que aparecían reuniones de la megarregión en mi calendario y que luego se cancelaban”, dice Corless. “Para que se reunieran los funcionarios electos de estos 16 condados, se necesitaba un día entero de viaje”.

La llegada de la COVID-19 implicó que se realizaran actividades gubernamentales a través de Zoom, lo que ayudó a salvar esas distancias y dio impulso al esfuerzo. “Al principio nos costó enfocarnos”, dice Corless. Sin embargo, de a poco, las entidades que participaban comenzaron a hacerse una pregunta simple: “¿Cuáles son nuestras fortalezas cuando estamos unidos?”.

A finales de 2021, el grupo de trabajo de la megarregión anunció una lista de una docena de proyectos centrados en el transporte, desde mejoras en las autopistas, hasta la ampliación de tres líneas ferroviarias regionales. El sistema ferroviario de alta velocidad de California, que está en construcción (pero lejos de estar terminado) no contribuye demasiado a los planes del grupo de trabajo, dice Corless. “No tengo ninguna duda de que el tren de alta velocidad será un cambio radical”, afirma. Pero, “si pudiéramos conseguir un ferrocarril fiable de velocidad media, lo aceptaríamos”.

De hecho, gran parte del esfuerzo megarregional se trata más de lo cotidiano que de los grandes proyectos de infraestructura. Los socios se centran en integrar los planes regionales y sincronizar los ciclos de planificación a largo plazo. “Dado que gran parte del transporte e incluso los mercados de viviendas están entrelazados”, dice Corless, “si pensamos en los próximos 25 años, tenemos que estar en sincronía”.

El concepto de megarregiones está asentándose, afirma Corless, de la misma manera que el surgimiento de las organizaciones de planificación metropolitana ayudó a afrontar los desafíos nuevos en la década de 1960. “Una vez que las ciudades estadounidenses se suburbanizaron, no se podía esperar que la ciudad central lo hiciera todo”, dice. “La gente se movía más, las economías habían crecido y los problemas trascendían los límites locales de la ciudad y el condado”. 

Impulsar las megarregiones 

¿Qué hace falta para que el concepto de megarregión (que básicamente busca incluir a esas organizaciones de planificación metropolitana en un grupo más grande) empiece a formar parte de la conciencia pública y el ámbito político?

Bob Yaro cree que una de las respuestas es la crisis climática, que podría empujar a las regiones a trabajar juntas de maneras nuevas. “Creo que hace falta una crisis para que haya un cambio grande en este país”, dice Yaro. “Hay historias sobre condados enteros que se quedan sin agua y eso solo va a empeorar. [Para abordar] el problema del clima, se necesitan estrategias de adaptación y mitigación, que probablemente sean más eficaces a nivel de la megarregión”. 

Algunos ejemplos de cómo puede funcionar ese tipo de colaboración son la iniciativa de la RGGI en el noreste y la crisis actual del agua en el desierto del suroeste. Paradójicamente, allí las situaciones difíciles han propiciado una conexión más cercana. Las comunidades y los gobiernos observaron a sus vecinos y se dieron cuenta de que pueden hacer más cosas juntos. 

Históricamente, los siete estados de los EE.UU. que dependen del agua del río Colorado, junto con México, han tenido una relación extremadamente conflictiva. Sin embargo, mientras los titulares recientes alertan sobre una catástrofe hídrica inminente, las partes llevan más de 20 años colaborando silenciosamente en acuerdos destinados a minimizar la vulneración colectiva que podrían sufrir.  Un sentimiento de asociación, por más mínimo y propenso a tensiones continuas que sea, ha reemplazado la antigua perspectiva más cerrada hacia el río.

A medida que las regiones metropolitanas se unen y los desafíos globales aumentan, un creciente sentimiento de destino compartido con vecinos históricamente distantes podría ayudar a abordar todo tipo de problemas que antes parecían insuperables.

“Creo que una de las cosas que tenemos que hacer es redefinir el concepto de ‘hogar’, y el suroeste es el ejemplo más claro de por qué hay que hacerlo”, afirma Yaro. “Se trata de redefinir el hogar a esta escala mayor. Los límites finales dependerán del sentido de asociación de cada comunidad con sus vecinos, pero el lugar no prospera a menos que nosotros lo hagamos”. 

Matt Jenkins es un escritor independiente que colaboró con New York Times, Smithsonian, Men’s Journal y muchas otras publicaciones. 

Imagen principal: EE.UU. visto desde el espacio de noche. Crédito: DKosig via iStock.

Referencias

Barnett, Jonathan. 2020. Designing the Megaregion: Meeting Urban Challenges at a New Scale. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Florida, Richard, Tim Gulden y Charlotta Mellander. 2008. “The Rise of the Mega-Region”. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society 1(3): 459–476.

Nelson, Garrett Dash y Alasdair Rae. 2016. “An Economic Geography of the United States: From Commutes to Megaregions”. PLOS ONE. 30 de noviembre.

Yaro, Robert D., Ming Zhang y Frederick R. Steiner. 2022. Megaregions and America’s Future. Cambridge, MA: Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo.

Assessing all the climate threats that rain down on West Africa, the mayor of Freetown, Sierra Leone, Yvonne Aki-Sawyerr, was convinced that extreme heat needed to be a top priority.

“There are more deaths from extreme heat than there are from the more visible and tangible disasters,” she said on the latest episode of the Land Matters podcast. “In our case, the vulnerable are mainly those living in informal settlements. That’s 35 percent of our city’s population, and in those informal settlements, the housing structures are typically made from corrugated iron. With increased temperatures, you’re effectively living in an oven.”

The concern led Aki-Sawyerr to appoint Africa’s first chief heat officer, with the support of the Arsht-Rockefeller Foundation Resilience Center. One of the first practical interventions was to provide shade covers at the city’s open-air markets, where primarily women sit in the sun for long hours.

In a wide-ranging interview, also available at Land Lines magazine as the latest installment of the Mayor’s Desk feature, Aki-Sawyerr said the aim is to build resilience for impacts being felt now, but also plan for long-range sustainability. She detailed the promise to plant a million trees and the planning initiative she launched after being elected in 2018, Transform Freetown.

Aki-Sawyerr, who previously served as head of the Freetown City Council, built her career as a finance professional. She was part of the campaign against blood diamonds and was instrumental in the response to the Ebola crisis in 2014. She has delivered two TED talks, including one about turning dissatisfaction into action. Named to the Time100 Next list of emerging leaders, she has been active in the C40 Cities global network.

As part of an effort to maintain not only environmental but fiscal sustainability, she also explained how the city overhauled its property tax assessment and collection practices.

The Lincoln Institute has been active in Africa, working with governments, scholars, and practitioners on issues like climate change, the property tax, and the fiscal health of local governments, and on using value capture to fund affordable housing and many other priorities.

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

Further Reading

Africa’s first “chief heat officer” says Freetown could be a data-driven climate model (Quartz)

Meet the 7 chief heat officers who are making their cities more resilient (Fast Company)

Collaborating to reform Freetown’s property tax system (Institute of Development Studies)

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

Image: Mayor Yvonne Aki-Sawyerr, center, celebrates the installation of marketplace shades designed to combat extreme heat. Credit: City of Freetown.

When you think about innovations in development and construction, wood probably doesn’t leap to mind. It is, to put it mildly, an old-school material. But “mass-timber” construction—which involves wood panels, beams, and columns fabricated with modern manufacturing techniques and advanced digital design tools—is sprouting notable growth lately. Advocates point to its potential climate impact, among other attributes: using sustainably harvested mass timber can halve the carbon footprint of a comparable structure made of steel and concrete.  

According to wood trade group WoodWorks, more than 1,500 multifamily, commercial, or institutional mass-timber projects had either been built or were in design across all 50 states as of September 2022—an increase of well over 50 percent since 2020. The Wall Street Journal, citing U.S. Forest Service data, reports that since 2014 at least 18 mass-timber manufacturing plants have opened in Canada and the United States.

The building blocks of mass-timber construction are wood slabs, columns, and beams. These are much more substantial than, say, the familiar two-by-four, thanks to special processes used to chunk together smaller pieces of wood into precisely fabricated blocks. The end result includes glue-laminated (or “glulam”) columns and beams, and cross-laminated (or CLT) slab-like panels that can run a dozen feet wide and 60 feet long. The larger panels are mostly used for floors and ceilings, but also for walls. The upshot, as the online publication Vox put it, is “wood, but like Legos.” Major mass-timber projects tend to showcase the material, resulting in buildings whose structural elements offer a warmer, more organic aesthetic than do steel and concrete.

Both the process and interest in wood’s potential have been building momentum for a while. Pioneered in Austria and used elsewhere in Europe since the 1990s, the practice has gradually found its way to other parts of the world. In an often-cited 2013 TED Talk, Vancouver architect Michael Green made a case for this new-old material: “I feel there’s a role for wood to play in cities,” he argued, emphasizing mass timber’s carbon sequestration properties—a cubic meter of wood can store a ton of carbon dioxide; building a 20-story structure of concrete would emit more than 1,200 tons of carbon, while building it with wood would sequester over 3,000 tons. Plus, mass-timber structures can withstand earthquakes and fire.

When Green gave his TED talk in 2013, the tallest mass-timber structures were nine or 10 stories high. But Green argued this new fabrication process could be successfully used in structures two or three times that height. “This is the first new way to build a skyscraper in probably 100 years, or more,” he declared, adding that the engineering wouldn’t be as hard as changing the perception of wood’s potential. Lately that perception has been getting a fresh boost thanks to a spate of eye-catching projects—including a 25-story residential and retail complex in Milwaukee and a 20-story hotel in northeastern Sweden—and proposals for even taller mass-timber buildings.

Because mass timber is prefabricated in a factory and shipped to the site, unlike concrete structures made in place, the design details must be worked out precisely in advance, requiring intense digital planning and modeling. This can ultimately make construction processes more efficient, with fewer workers and less waste. Most mass-timber projects still incorporate other materials, notes Judith Sheine, an architecture professor at the University of Oregon (UO) and director of design for the TallWood Design Institute, a collaboration between UO’s College of Design and Oregon State University’s Colleges of Forestry and Engineering that focuses on advancing mass-timber innovation. “But mass timber can replace steel and concrete in many, many applications, and it’s becoming increasingly popular,” she says. “That’s due to new availability, but also to an interest in using materials that have low embodied carbon.” 

TallWood has run dozens of applied research projects and initiatives, addressing everything from code issues to supply chain challenges to building performance in an effort to help get more advanced and engineered timber into use. The institute is part of the Oregon Mass Timber Coalition, a partnership between research institutions and Oregon state agencies that was recently awarded $41.4 million from the U.S Economic Development Build Back Better Regional Challenge. That funding is meant to back “smart forestry” and other research initiatives tied to increasing the market for mass timber.

Of course, part of the newfangled material’s environmental promise depends on the back-end details, notably how and where the timber is harvested. Advocates of the sector argue that its expansion won’t cause undue pressure on forests, in part because mass-timber products can be made from “low-value” wood—smaller-diameter trees that are already being culled as part of wildfire mitigation, diseased trees, and potentially even scrap lumber.

Conservation groups and other forestry experts are proceeding a bit more cautiously. The Nature Conservancy undertook a multiyear global mass-timber impact assessment in 2018, researching the potential benefits and risks of increased demand for mass-timber products on forests, and is developing a set of global guiding principles for a “climate-smart forest economy”—best practices that will help protect biodiversity and ecosystems as the mass-timber market grows.

Often, builders and developers who specifically want to tout the use of mass-timber materials insist on sourcing that’s certified as sustainable, according to Stephen Shaler, professor of sustainable materials and technology in the University of Maine’s School of Forest Resources. “That demand is in the marketplace right now,” he says.

Beyond an interest in sustainability, there’s another reason for the proliferation of mass-timber projects: biophilia, or the human instinct to connect with nature. “Being in a wood building can just feel good,” Shaler says. That’s not just a subjective judgment; small studies have shown that wood interiors improve air quality, reduce blood pressure and heart rates, and can improve concentration and productivity.

The developers of the 25-story Milwaukee building, the Ascent, reportedly pursued the mass-timber approach largely for aesthetic reasons, and for the promotional value of its distinct look. Presumably the marketing payoff didn’t hurt: as the tallest wood skyscraper in the world, the Ascent has been a centerpiece of mass-timber press attention. But there’s another value to the public exposure: the 284-foot-high Ascent and other high-rise projects may not portend the future of all skyscrapers, but they demonstrate the possibility of safely building with mass timber at large scale. And that may help sway regulators and planners—particularly when it comes to approving the smaller-scale buildings that could be more important to proving mass timber’s real potential. “The majority of the use is likely going be in the mid-rise, six- to eight-story kind of project,” Shaler says.

The International Building Code permits wooden buildings up to 18 stories; the Ascent developers obtained a variance partly because their final design incorporated two concrete cores. As Sheine and Shaler both underscore, most mass-timber projects still incorporate at least some concrete, steel, or other materials. That’s just fine, Shaler says: mass timber should be viewed as a comparatively new option that can help improve carbon footprints, not as a full-on replacement for traditional materials. And new options are always useful—even when they’re as old-school as wood.

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

Image: Mass timber construction. Credit: Courtesy of ACSA.

This fall marked the 15th anniversary of the Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy (PLC). Established in 2007, the center has become a leading authority on land policy issues in China, including the property tax, municipal finance, land and housing policies, and land conservation. To celebrate this milestone, the PLC held an event on November 4 that included commemorative remarks, a formal recommitment to the partnership between the two institutions, and several academic presentations on urban development and climate change. 

“The Lincoln Institute works globally on topics largely relating to land policy, and the joint center is an exceptional platform for our China program,” said Katie Lincoln, chief investment officer and board chair of the Lincoln Institute, who delivered congratulatory remarks by video. “During the past 15 years, the center has held numerous conferences, undertaken research and demonstration projects, shared in scholarly exchanges, and happily gained recognition both in and out of China.” 

In addition to Lincoln, several current and former leaders from the two institutions joined the celebration virtually or in person, including Jin Zhang, vice president of Peking University; Jianhua Lin, former president of Peking University; Yansong Li, former vice president of Peking University; George W. McCarthy, president of the Lincoln Institute; Gregory Ingram, former president of the Lincoln Institute; and Joyce Man, former director of the PLC. 

“We are now at a difficult time of Sino-U.S. relations,” said former PKU President Lin. “But I believe that the mutual trust between our two institutions and the confidence about the value of what we do will continue to be a foundation for us to cooperate and move forward.” 

During the event, Zhang and McCarthy signed an agreement for continued collaboration between the two organizations. “In the next few years, the PLC will add a new focus on land use and climate change, in support of China’s ambitious goal of achieving net-zero carbon goals by 2060,” noted McCarthy. “The PLC also will help the Lincoln Institute in its global efforts to address the climate crisis. The unique cooperation between the Lincoln Institute and PKU over the last 15 years has been fruitful for China, the United States, and the world in [finding land-based solutions to] economic, social, and environmental challenges. We are excited to embark on another five-year journey together.” 

The center, which conducts research, training, policy analysis, academic exchanges, advisory services, and demonstration projects throughout China, also invited several scholars, fellowship recipients, and others who have been involved with its work over the years to share reflections.  

“I worked with PLC for more than ten years, from winning the Peking University–Lincoln Center scholarship, to guiding students to participate in the center’s fund application, to becoming a partner of the center’s work and research,” said De Tong, associate professor at Peking University Shenzhen Graduate School. “Scholars at the center have become my inspiring mentors and friends, and colleagues at the center have also become comrades-in-arms at work and friends in life.” 

The center has launched an essay contest open to those who have been involved with the PLC over the years, from scholarship recipients to business collaborators to conference participants. Five winning essays, selected in January, will receive a small monetary prize; a copy of the Lincoln Institute book Infrastructure Economics and Policy: International Perspectives, coedited by José A. Gómez-Ibáñez and Zhi Liu, who leads the PLC as director of the Lincoln Institute’s China program; a copy of Advanced Economic Geography by Canfei He, dean of the College of Urban and Environmental Sciences at PKU and associate director of the PLC; and publication on the PLC website. 

The second half of the day’s events was structured as an online forum on climate change and urbanization in the context of China’s dual-carbon goal, which seeks to reach peak carbon by 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2060. Leading policy makers and scholars from China, Hong Kong, and the United States shared their latest thoughts and studies on topics including green building, urban equity, and urban-rural integration, drawing an audience of more than 600 researchers, planners, and others.  

“The dual-carbon goal is a major challenge for China, but also presents new opportunities for China’s continuing urbanization,” said PLC Director Liu. “Urbanization and carbon net-zero has been a hot topic in China’s policy debates, which have been getting more substantive and concrete over the last two years. I found myself learning a lot from these presentations, which deepened my understanding about the challenges and opportunities that the goal of carbon net-zero will bring to our urbanization for the next few decades.” 

Forum topics and presenters included: 

• the evolution and future of green building, by Dr. Baoxing Qiu, former Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development; 
• carbon reduction models for commercial real estate, by Professor Siqi Zheng of the Department of Urban Studies and Planning of MIT; 
• equity and governance under China’s dual-carbon goal, by Professor Shenjing He from the Department of Urban Planning and Design of the University of Hong Kong; 
• carbon reduction through urban agglomeration, by Professor Ming Lu from Antai School of Economics and Management, Shanghai Jiao Tong University; and  
• urban-rural integration and rural revitalization, by Professor Shouying Liu from the School of Economics of Renmin University. 

Visit the “Our Work” section of our website to learn more about the PLC and to find information about how to connect with the center on WeChat. 

Lead image: Lincoln Institute President and CEO George W. McCarthy and Peking University Vice President Jin Zhang celebrate the renewal of the collaborative agreement that established the Peking University-Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy. Credit: Courtesy of PKU.