SHARE
Dan L. Perlman teaches at Brandeis University, in Waltham, Massachusetts, where he is chair of the Environmental Studies Program and associate professor of biology. He has coauthored three textbooks on conservation biology and ecology: Practical Ecology for Planners, Developers, and Citizens (with Jeffrey C. Milder, published by Island Press in cooperation with the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2005); Conserving Earth’s Biodiversity (an interactive CD-ROM with Edward O. Wilson, published by Island Press, 2000); and Biodiversity: Exploring Values and Priorities in Conservation (with Glenn Adelson, published by Blackwell Scientific, 1997).
An avid nature photographer, Perlman’s photographs have been exhibited at the American Museum of Natural History in New York and the Museum of Science in Boston, and he has been the photographer for two children’s books (one on a Costa Rican rainforest and the other on ants). He recently launched a Web site from which he freely distributes teaching materials he has developed for ecology and environmental studies, including his photographs (click here). He has received university-wide teaching awards at both Brandeis University and Harvard University, where he taught conservation biology part-time for nine years. He holds a Ph.D. from Harvard University’s Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology.
Land Lines: How can ecology help planners, landscape architects, and others in the planning and design community?
Dan Perlman: The study of ecology reminds us that humans are truly a part of nature, although in our highly technological society it is easy to forget how closely our lives are tied to the land and other elements. Most of us are only reminded of these close interactions when nature unleashes her fury through a hurricane, tornado, flood, or earthquake. Given that the planning and design professions aim to make humans lives as healthy and fulfilling as possible, it is critical to attend to nature when changing the landscapes where we live and work.
Once one understands some basic concepts of ecology, it is no longer possible to view humans as being divorced from the ecosystems in which they live. Like all other organisms, humans interact with the plants and animals around them, and with the nonliving aspects of ecosystems, such as rain, wind, and fire. Unfortunately, when we design human communities without considering the particulars of the ecosystems in which they are embedded, we place people in dangerous and unhealthy situations. With a little ecological knowledge, however, planning professionals can improve human lives.
Land Lines: What aspects of ecology are especially pertinent to planners and designers?
Dan Perlman: Over the past few decades, ecologists have begun paying close attention to disturbance regimes—the natural processes that randomly change ecosystems. It turns out that disturbances greatly affect humans as well as the plants and animals around us. In recent years it has become ever clearer that ecological disturbances such as hurricanes, forest fires, tsunamis, and earthquakes have the potential to devastate human communities.
By understanding the ecological histories and disturbance regimes of the specific landscapes in which they work, planning professionals can ensure that they do not place the human population in harm’s way. While homes placed along Gulf Coast beaches or deep in the pine forests of the West are desirable to many, recognition of the dangers of hurricanes and fire will lead planners to either steer development away from dangerous settings or to create protections for the people living in potentially dangerous situations.
It is critical to remember, however, that landscapes differ in their disturbance regimes and the frequency and impact of their typical disturbances. It makes sense to focus on earthquakes, landslides, and fires in the hills of southern California and on hurricanes in Florida, rather than vice versa, for example, since those types of disturbances are most likely to occur in those locations.
Land Lines: Ecologists and conservation biologists are often accused of sounding alarm bells. Do they also offer positive visions for the future?
Dan Perlman: Actually, there are many positive aspects to increased understanding of ecological processes. Intact and healthy natural landscapes perform critical ecosystem services that would be extremely expensive or impossible to replace through technological means. Water filtration, absorption of air pollutants and greenhouse gasses, and soil protection are just a few of the many services that nature provides.
Psychologists recognize the mental health benefits of being able to interact with nature, and planning professionals can help make these benefits widely available by incorporating easy access to natural areas into their designs. Many recent studies have demonstrated that proximity to natural areas is very attractive for wide cross-sections of the populace—along with being economically valuable. In addition, being able to interact with native habitats and organisms, or even just knowing that they exist, can contribute to the mental health and well-being of people of all ages. It is especially important that young people have opportunities to experience and learn about nature so they can integrate that awareness into their future decision making about where and how they live.
Land Lines: How can the conservation of biodiversity be balanced with the needs and desires of the house-buying public?
Dan Perlman: The goal of conservation biologists is to protect and restore healthy native species and ecosystems. New York City’s recent efforts to protect its water supply through a variety of land protection programs around the upstate watersheds and reservoirs in the Catskill Mountains is a great example of balancing human and ecosystem health. By sensibly guiding development to specific areas and limiting it from ecologically fragile areas or areas that are especially important for human health, planners and policy makers can obtain real benefits for both humans and ecosystems alike.
If we also consider the well-being of nonhuman organisms and creatures that share our planet, we find that attention to conservation biology during planning can pay major dividends. Biologists know that small nature reserves isolated in seas of human development are not an effective way to protect the native plants and animals of our landscapes. Instead, wherever possible, we should create large protected areas that can support populations of larger animals, many of which play especially important roles in the functioning of healthy ecosystems.
In addition, there is some evidence that intact habitat corridors, if well planned, can link smaller reserves into networks that may approximate the functions of large reserves. If planners begin their considerations with these concepts in mind, they may be able to create healthy, diverse landscapes. It is difficult to create or protect large reserves and corridors once development has begun in earnest.
Land Lines: How will global climate change affect human health and safety, and what can planning professionals do to help?
Dan Perlman: As the global climate warms, the effects will vary considerably from location to location. Some regions will receive more precipitation and others less; some areas will become much hotter, some will only become slightly warmer, and some may actually become colder. Nonetheless, the broad outlines of the changes that can be expected over the next 50 to 100 years are becoming clearer.
The global average temperature will likely rise a few degrees Fahrenheit—and may rise even more than that—as compared to the approximately one-degree change that has occurred over the past century. As the oceans warm, the water will expand, leading to a rise in sea level. With increased warmth, the Antarctic and Greenland glaciers will melt more quickly, adding to sea level rise. As a result, coastal communities will be under threat and will either have to retreat inland or build expensive retaining walls and levees. If the Antarctic ice shelves (which hang over the ocean) break off, sea level will rise still further—and catastrophically quickly. Changing precipitation and temperature regimes will alter the basics around which communities are planned and built, and designers will have to plan in different ways. It is possible that extreme weather events, such as the major hurricanes of 2005, will become more frequent.
To help reduce the speed and amplitude of climate change, the United States will probably eventually join the international community’s consensus that carbon dioxide emissions must be reduced—and our communities can help reduce emissions by developing more public transit options and more compact development patterns. As an additional benefit, this may leave extra flexibility for setting aside and protecting natural areas, if human communities take up less of the landscape.
Land Lines: How has your work with the Lincoln Institute affected your thinking about conservation biology and ecology?
Dan Perlman: Most of my teaching is with college undergraduates. While I try to keep those classes well-grounded by bringing in guest speakers and taking field trips, I have found that traditional classroom discussions can become overly rarified. My first major project with the Lincoln Institute was to write the book Practical Ecology for Planners, Developers, and Citizens, with Jeff Milder. I found it really stimulating to be put in a position of trying to adapt and explain my scientific background to make ecological concepts understandable to planners, landscape architects, and planning board members. It is one thing to distill these concepts and discuss them with undergraduates, but it is quite different to present these ideas to professionals and decision makers who want guidance that is clear and actually useful.
As an outgrowth of the book project I have been involved in teaching and sitting on panels for several Lincoln programs. I have found that the professionals and practitioners taking these programs further challenge me to create a coherent and effective message. As with any stimulating group in a classroom, I find that I come away from these sessions with a sense that I have learned as much as anyone in the room.
Land Lines: From your ecological and conservation perspectives, what advice would you give a designer or planner today?
Dan Perlman: First, I would say that you should know the ecology of the region where you work. The ecological constraints and opportunities of Springfield, Oregon, are quite different from those of Springfields in Illinois, Georgia, and Massachusetts. There are no ecological prescriptions that fit all planning and design situations. As I learned early in my career, the First Law of Ecology is: It Depends.
Second, I would recommend paying careful attention to giving local residents easy access to nature—even to small natural areas of just a few acres. Adults and children flourish when in contact with nature, and there is no substitute for having small bits of native biodiversity nearby. I once heard Dr. Madhav Gadgil, the preeminent ecologist in India, state his wish that every child in his nation should have a little bit of wilderness near at hand. While his definition of wilderness may differ from that of ecologists in Boulder or Seattle, his hope is one that I feel deeply.
SHARE
Land Lines April 2009 Report from the President
SHARE
Clearly defining the ownership of property is often thought to be necessary for the efficient operation of markets and the appropriate use of scarce resources. Specifying property rights within mature governance frameworks is relatively straightforward for traditional private goods, but it becomes more complex for common property goods such as groundwater, environmental resources, irrigation systems, forests, and fisheries.
Common property goods are often subject to overexploitation (the well known “tragedy of the commons”), and many observers argue that the sustainable use of common property can be solved simply by employing one of two alternatives: private ownership, or public ownership operating within a clear regulatory framework. The argument is that either approach can internalize externalities and reduce transaction costs.
This notion that there are only two discrete solutions—private ownership or public ownership—to promote the sustainable management of scarce common resources has proven problematic for at least two reasons. First, neither private nor public ownership has always conserved scarce resources well, as in the case of the timber industry. Second, many alternative property rights approaches have been successful in managing scarce common resources in a sustainable manner, in some cases over hundreds of years.
Examples of alternative property rights approaches include the management by farmers of irrigation systems in Nepal, by villagers of Alpine grazing lands in Switzerland and Italy, and by villagers of mountain grazing land and forests in Japan and Norway. In all of these cases, farmers owned their private agricultural parcels and also participated as communal owners of commonly held resources.
Analyses of many cases of successful common resources management reveal that specific practices vary widely and depend on underlying institutions, social norms, culture, and ecological conditions. Accordingly, specific practices are usually not transferable from one context to another. However, research also shows that participants in successful systems have seven elements in common: accurate information about the resource; a common understanding about the resource’s benefits and risks; shared norms of reciprocity and trust; stable group membership; a long-term perspective; decision rules that avoid either unanimity or control by a few; and relatively low-cost monitoring and sanctioning arrangements.
These systems work best when the common pool resource is in a fixed location, such as forests, grazing land, mineral deposits, and many environmental resources. When the location of the common resource is not fixed, however, virtually no single property rights approach has been very successful. This is famously the case for fisheries, where the stock of fish is mobile and its size is difficult to track. Most property rights systems applied to fisheries give property rights to the annual catch, not to the underlying stock. Many approaches have been attempted to control fish catches, and the most promising current practice uses transferable quotas, but this approach is still a work in progress.
An excellent summary of the evolving theory of property rights is available in the recent Lincoln Institute book edited by Daniel Cole and Elinor Ostrom, Property in Land and Other Resources. Elinor Ostrom in particular has contributed greatly to the property rights literature, and her work in this area was honored last year when she was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics.
The volume includes chapters that address the complexity of property rights and their applications to common pool resources such as air, land, water, and wildlife (including fisheries). In addition, two chapters review the self-organization of property rights practices by miners during the 1849 California gold rush and more recent gold rushes. Those authors found that very similar property rights practices emerged in other such mining situations.
SHARE
Las impactos relacionados con el clima varían según la región, y afectan a las comunidades desde los puntos de vista económico, social y medioambiental. Si bien se espera que todas las regiones de los Estados Unidos experimenten un aumento de la temperatura, los ocho estados ubicados entre las Montañas Rocosas y las cordilleras de Cascade y Sierra Nevada se encuentran en una región que, según los pronósticos, se verá muy afectada por un gran variedad de impactos climáticos que puede poner de manifiesto vulnerabilidades diferentes a las que se darían en otras regiones de los EE.UU. A las comunidades del Oeste también se enfrentan a una difícil tarea al intentar planificar para estos futuros desafíos.
Dadas las importantes implicaciones de un cambio climático en la región intermontañosa del Oeste, este artículo examina con detalle algunas de las innovaciones y herramientas diseñadas para ayudar a dichas comunidades a planificar y prepararse para la incertidumbre y el riesgo que se atribuyen a un cambio climático, y para aumentar la capacidad de resistencia de las comunidades.
La región intermontañosa del Oeste
La región intermontañosa del Oeste, caracterizada por su espectacular belleza, inmensos espacios abiertos, abundante vida silvestre, clima templado e innumerables posibilidades de ocio, comprende comunidades urbanas, rurales y recreativas situadas dentro de grandes extensiones de campos abiertos e intactos. Los ocho estados de la región intermontañosa —Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Nuevo México, Utah y Wyoming— albergan a 22 millones de personas, aproximadamente el 8 por ciento de la población total de los Estados Unidos. Las ciudades del Oeste se encuentran en general en ambientes áridos o semiáridos, y si bien la superficie de algunos centros urbanos es grande, la edificación de las ciudades principales es decididamente densa y está concentrada en megaregiones como el Corredor del Sol de Arizona y la cadena montañosa de Front Range de Colorado.
La vastas extensiones de espacio abierto entre los centros metropolitanos tienen un valor intrínseco desde los puntos de vista económico, cultural y biológico. Más de la mitad del suelo de la región es propiedad pública, y es administrado por la Agencia de Gestión de Suelos, el Servicio Forestal de los Estados Unidos, el Servicio de Parques Nacionales o el Servicio de Pesca y Vida Silvestre de los Estados Unidos (figura 1). En las regiones montañosas, en algunos condados el 80 por ciento del suelo es de propiedad pública, y en estados como Arizona y Nevada es de propiedad pública más del 90 por ciento. Los suelos tribales abarcan una gran parte de la región, y los suelos de fideicomisos estatales cubren aproximadamente 19 millones de hectáreas tanto en zonas rurales como urbanas. Uno de los usos más extensos del suelo en la región es el agrícola-ganadero, con grandes establecimientos de ganadería y otros servicios agrícolas.
Crecimiento y cambio
En las últimas décadas, el Oeste ha experimentado un crecimiento enorme de población a medida que las comunidades se alejan de las industrias de recursos extractivos, como la agricultura, la actividad forestal y la minería, para atraer a jubilados que buscan actividades recreativas y a personas que trabajan en forma remota desde su casa, así como a nuevos negocios profesionales, de turismo, construcción e industrias de servicios de consumo (Winkler et al. 2007).
La alta tasa de crecimiento urbano ha modificado el perfil demográfico y económico del Oeste y, también, la asignación de recursos. El suelo que antes se usaba para pastareo y actividades agrícolas ha pasado a ser de uso residencial y comercial. La proliferación de viviendas e industria requiere el desarrollo de más recursos energéticos e hídricos para abastecer a una población cada vez mayor.
Muchas comunidades del Oeste dependen del Río Colorado, que suministra las necesidades de agua de 30 millones de personas en siete estados de los Estados Unidos y México. Más del 70 por ciento de esta agua se usa para regar 1,5 millones de hectáreas de tierras de cultivo. Además de los cambios en los recursos naturales, este aumento del crecimiento ha provocado una expansión de viviendas en y cerca de zonas forestales, una zona conocida como la interfaz urbana silvestre, para aprovechar las amenidades naturales del Oeste.
No obstante, los cambios en la región no se pueden atribuir exclusivamente al crecimiento; el clima también está cambiando. Desde la década de 1880, los científicos han estado midiendo la temperatura de la superficie terrestre en miles de lugares, teniendo en cuenta las desviaciones de los instrumentos y factores térmicos locales tales como las islas de calor urbano. El análisis de estos datos demuestra que la temperatura promedio de la Tierra ha aumentado más de 0,78°C en los últimos 100 años, y gran parte de este aumento se produjo en los últimos 35 años. Además, es evidente que la temperatura sigue aumentando.
Aunque estos cambios de temperatura parecen marginales, tienen un impacto significativo sobre el clima local. Por ejemplo, los inviernos ahora son más cortos y templados, la cubierta de nieve y hielo está disminuyendo, las olas de calor son más frecuentes, y hay muchas especies vegetales y animales que se están migrando a zonas más frías o de mayor altitud para escapar el calor.
Si bien el cambio climático es un problema altamente complejo que varía de región a región, se han identificado los siguientes impactos debidos a los cambios generales que ocurrirán por el aumento de temperaturas en el Oeste:
Los cambios ya se están produciendo. Se han observado reducciones extensas de la capa de nieve relacionadas con la temperatura en los últimos 50 años, que han producido cambios en las fechas estacionales del escurrimiento fluvial. Feng y Hu (2007) han demostrado que las fechas de acumulación pico de nieve y escurrimiento pico por deshielo ocurren de 10 a 40 días antes que en años anteriores. El Río Colorado es especialmente vulnerable, ya que frecuentemente recibe una gran proporción de su agua de un sistema hidrológico que depende de la precipitación por deshielo de las cuencas de tres estados: Colorado, Utah y Wyoming.
Los patrones de precipitación también están cambiando y se han hecho más variables. Las sequías son más prolongadas junto con la frecuencia e intensidad de lluvias torrenciales. Los grandes incendios naturales son más frecuentes y la temporada de incendios se ha prolongado (figura 2). Los incendios naturales queman el doble de superficie de lo que lo hacían hace 40 años, con una temporada que es dos meses y medio más larga que hace 40 años (Climate Central 2012).
A medida que el clima se hace cada vez más variable y se aleja cada vez más de la relativa estabilidad experimentada por la humanidad hasta la fecha, los cambios resultantes harán que las comunidades sean más vulnerables y pongan en riesgo su salud y modo de vida. Incluso una temporada de sequía puede tener repercusiones dramáticas como, por ejemplo, un aumento de precios de los alimentos básicos, que crearía una tensión considerable en poblaciones vulnerables incluyendo a los ancianos y a las personas de escasos recursos. El aumento de temperatura, las sequías prolongadas y las incidencias de incendios naturales y cambios en la biodiversidad debido a la migración de especies invasivas desempeñan un papel significativo en la aceleración de la transformación del paisaje. Con tantos efectos a nivel comunitario, los gobiernos locales tienen un papel importante en la planificación para afrontar la intensificación de los cambios climáticos.
Cómo planificar para el cambio climático
Las medidas para afrontar el cambio climático se producen a múltiples niveles de gobierno y en una variedad de funciones. El gobierno federal desempeña un papel significativo para responder a las catástrofes de grandes dimensiones que afectan a múltiples estados, como el reciente huracán Sandy. Las medidas de regulación a nivel federal que coinciden con el cambio climático, como las normas de eficiencia de combustible para vehículos o las propuestas de un impuesto nacional sobre el carbono, se aplican a toda la población. Al mismo tiempo, los gobiernos estatales y grupos regionales están implementando estrategias regionales, como los sistemas cap and trade y los proyectos de planificación de transporte multijurisdiccional.
En términos de medidas efectivas en la práctica, los gobiernos municipales son los más adecuados para afrontar los impactos locales y los esfuerzos de planificación relacionados con el cambio climático. Están en la mejor posición para crear estrategias integrales que alteren directamente las funciones urbanas para respaldar esfuerzos de mitigación y adaptación. La acción local juega un papel importante, ya que los gobiernos municipales tienen autoridad directa sobre funciones esenciales como la gestión de las basuras, el transporte público, las obras de infraestructura y la administración de servicios, así como también el uso y zonificación del suelo. Por ejemplo, el condado de Boulder adoptó recientemente su Plan de Preparación para el Cambio Climático con objeto de ayudar a los residentes y las comunidades locales a prepararse para el cambio de las condiciones medioambientales. Dicho plan identifica los impactos locales, explora cómo afectarán la gestión de recursos y delinea oportunidades para planificar la adaptación.
El contexto de la planificación climática en el Oeste
Western Lands and Communities, una iniciativa conjunta entre el Lincoln Institute of Land Policy y el Sonoran Institute, ha elaborado una completo corpus de recursos e informes para poder comprender mejor las necesidades y desafíos que se les presentan a las comunidades del Oeste (Carter 2008; Richards 2009; Bark 2009; Metz y Below 2009). El fundamental informe Planning for Climate Change in the West (Planificación para el cambio climático en el Oeste) identifica las barreras fundamentales que impiden la implementación de políticas de acción locales frente al cambio climático (Carter y Culp 2010). Un examen de estos informes, junto con entrevistas con directores de sostenibilidad de regiones del Oeste, revelaron tres desafíos clave asociados con la acción climática:
El cambio climático puede ser un tema político polarizador en el Oeste. El choque de múltiples puntos de vista crea barreras a la construcción de un respaldo político y a la realización de esfuerzos de extensión educativa efectivos, reduciendo así el potencial de participación cívica y limitando la capacidad de acción colectiva en el logro de intereses comunes. Las creencias culturales tradicionales sobre la necesidad de limitar el rol del gobierno y proteger la propiedad privada y los derechos de los ciudadanos contribuyen a oponer resistencia a medidas de zonificación y otras políticas que podrían cambiar el patrón de uso del suelo o regular el crecimiento.
Sin el respaldo de dirigentes significativos, como el alcalde o el administrador municipal, o un fuerte respaldo del ayuntamiento, la adopción de medidas para afrontar el cambio climático puede ser ardua. También hay obstáculos de comunicación internos para reunir a los distintos departamentos municipales y comenzar a hablar del impacto del cambio climático local y de la mejor manera de colaborar para crear programas y políticas que sirvan para neutralizar en forma efectiva los impactos adversos.
Además, cuando los gobiernos locales están luchando por superar los déficits creados por la reciente recesión, las ciudades no cuentan con los recursos económicos necesarios para invertir en medidas para confrontar el cambio climático actual y evitar el alto costo del impacto climático en el futuro. Frecuentemente las comunidades ignoran el impacto futuro, con lo cual la carga y los gastos de la acción (o inacción) frente al cambio climático se transfieren a las generaciones futuras. El rápido crecimiento de la población y las presiones fiscales para generar obras de infraestructura dificultan cada vez más la obtención de fondos para financiar la planificación climática. Aun las comunidades que han adoptado planes para afrontar el cambio climático han encontrado obstáculos para implementar dichos planes. Algunas comunidades se sienten abrumadas por la tarea de descifrar la ciencia climática, y muchas de ellas no están familiarizadas con las políticas y medidas necesarias para mitigar y adaptarse al cambio climático.
Cómo desbloquear la acción climática en el Oeste
Si bien algunos gobiernos locales en la región intermontañosa del Oeste, como Salt Lake City, Flagstaff, Tucson, Denver, Las Vegas y el condado de Boulder están realizando esfuerzos coordinados y loables para afrontar el cambio climático, representan sólo una pequeña muestra de toda la región. En general, el Oeste lleva retraso en sus esfuerzos para adaptarse al cambio climático y crear comunidades más resistentes.
No obstante, el Oeste está sintiendo el aumento de temperatura, tanto en sentido literal como figurado. Después de un verano de temperaturas récord, incendios descontrolados y sequías muy perjudiciales, una creciente mayoría de estadounidenses cree que el calentamiento global está afectando a los patrones climáticos. Comprenden que las sequías y olas de calor se están haciendo más habituales y que el clima se está haciendo paulatinamente más inestable (Leiserowitz 2012). Uno de los principales desafíos para las comunidades es el de cómo integrar esta nueva información sobre los riesgos del cambio climático en los marcos actuales de planificación, con objeto de poder planificar de forma efectiva para un futuro incierto.
Herramientas para el cambio
Para ayudar a afrontar los desafíos asociados a la acción climática, hay muchas herramientas que las comunidades del Oeste pueden usar de manera que las comunidades sean más resistentes. Organizaciones como Gobiernos Locales para la Sostenibilidad (Local Governments for Sustainability, o ICLEI), el Instituto de Comunidades Sostenibles (Institute for Sustainable Communities, o ISC) y la Red de Directores de Sostenibilidad Urbana (Urban Sustainability Directors Network o USDN) brindan información y capacitación que ofrecen ejemplos de políticas y planes, oportunidades de formación de redes de pares, herramientas técnicas y recursos sobre vulnerabilidad y riesgos. No obstante, muchas de estas organizaciones tienen un enfoque geográfico amplio y su audiencia se encuentra en las grandes ciudades. Es importante resolver las necesidades de comunidades más pequeñas que tienen restricciones políticas, fiscales y de recursos. Además, hay una gran necesidad de integrar mejor las políticas de adaptación al cambio climático en los departamentos y planes municipales existentes.
El Instituto Lincoln y el Sonoran Institute están desarrollando herramientas y recursos para respaldar los esfuerzos de planificación y preparación para el cambio constante del paisaje en el Oeste, como intercambio de información y capacitación; herramientas de planificación para el establecimiento de valores; y métodos y herramientas de gobernanza anticipatoria. Estas herramientas prometen ser efectivas en una variedad de comunidades distintas, incluyendo las regiones rurales más necesitadas y las regiones recreativas, y brindan respaldo y capacitación para que los planificadores locales puedan integrar planes de resistencia al clima en sus procesos de planificación actual, alentando la colaboración entre múltiples departamentos.
Intercambio de información y capacitación
Las comunidades observan frecuentemente a sus pares en tamaño, capacidad y geografía similares para comprender mejor los esfuerzos de planificación que serán exitosos en su propia región. Se alienta a los gobiernos, instituciones y empresas de planificación locales a que compartan sus experiencias para que otras comunidades puedan aprender de sus éxitos y sus errores, modificando y adaptando sus propios planes en la medida en que sea necesario.
El intercambio de información del juego de herramientas en línea de comunidades exitosas, también conocido como SCOTie (por sus siglas en inglés) es un ejemplo de una herramienta diseñada para las comunidades del Oeste que alienta el intercambio de información vital en estudios de casos y recursos de buena práctica (figura 3). Los estudios de casos en SCOTie se clasifican por estado, tipo de comunidad y tema de planificación. Para construir y diseminar los estudios de casos y recursos del juego de herramientas, SCOTie se ha asociado con las sucursales estatales de la Asociación Norteamericana de Planificación (American Planning Association) y otras organizaciones sin fines de lucro para construir comunidades más fuertes y resistentes. Los seminarios educativos en la web, como la adaptación de la serie Planning in the West (Planificación en el Oeste) ofrecen a las comunidades una oportunidad para aprender a planificar para el cambio climático e interactuar directamente con representantes de las comunidades modelo.
Herramientas de planificación para el establecimiento de valores
Para superar los debates sobre la ciencia del clima, es necesario contar con herramientas que faciliten los esfuerzos de planificación conjunta con partes interesadas que tengan distintos valores y creencias. Un proceso que haga participar al público y pueda encontrar puntos en común para tomar medidas que mitiguen la variabilidad climática podría ayudar a neutralizar la polarización de los debates, que muchas veces se estancan en las causas del cambio climático y la incertidumbre científica.
El establecimiento de valores es un recurso particularmente útil para facilitar la toma de decisiones de gestión en comunidades que tienen que asignar recursos escasos debido a la demanda y variabilidad climática. Por ejemplo, en enero de 2012, el Sonoran Institute, el Morrison Institute y la Universidad de Arizona organizaron un taller previo a la conferencia Watering the Sun Corridor (El riego el Corredor del Sol) en el cual 100 participantes observaron presentaciones de expertos, intercambiaron opiniones en pequeños grupos e interactuaron en forma colectiva usando sondeos instantáneos. Los participantes exploraron los compromisos de valor entre distintos usos del agua para el desarrollo urbano, la producción agrícola y el medio ambiente en un sistema hídrico tensionado por sequías inducidas por el cambio climático. Este formato colaborativo e interactivo reunió a participantes con diversos puntos de vista para poder comprender mejor los valores colectivos con respecto a la distribución de agua en Arizona.
Métodos y herramientas de gobernanza anticipatoria
A medida que el futuro se hace más incierto y riesgoso, los métodos de planificación tradicional para realizar predicciones bien fundamentadas y elaborar planes y herramientas para conseguir los resultados deseados, estos probablemente serán inadecuados. Las ciudades necesitan herramientas para “anticipar y adaptarse” al cambio en vez de “predecir y planificar”, con objeto de poder incorporar mejor las incertidumbres y complejidades de las condiciones futuras (Quay 2010). La planificación de escenarios es una técnica que las ciudades pueden usar para pensar en los impactos del clima y desarrollar maneras de adaptarse a ellos. El uso de escenarios puede permitir a los planificadores buscar la resolución de problemas complejos, pensar en cómo las tendencias y los cambios se pueden expresar en múltiples escenarios, y adoptar opciones políticas robustas ante muchos escenarios posibles.
Western Lands and Communities está colaborando con socios como el Consensus Building Institute para desarrollar metodologías coherentes, identificar las fuerzas que impulsan el cambio y desarrollar herramientas educativas para respaldar la adaptación de las comunidades por medio de herramientas y técnicas de planificación de escenarios. Las herramientas de planificación por computadora son valiosas, porque ayudan a las comunidades a comprender mejor cómo ciertas ideas y estrategias de planificación en particular pueden conformar su futuro. La elaboración de mejores planes para adaptarse a desafíos como el cambio climático exigirá que las comunidades tomen decisiones en un marco de intereses económicos en conflicto, distintos valores culturales y visiones divergentes sobre los derechos de propiedad y el papel del gobierno.
A lo largo de los años, las herramientas de planificación han evolucionado, y ahora ayudan a los planificadores profesionales y municipales a analizar y desarrollar opciones y escenarios. Algunas de estas herramientas son comerciales y otras son gratuitas, con un grado variable de complejidad para el introducción de datos y la presentación de resultados. Si bien estas herramientas se están utilizando cada vez más, el uso actual de herramientas de planificación interactivas es limitado y enfrenta una serie de desafíos. Por ejemplo, la tarea compleja de seleccionar una herramienta, recopilar los datos, calibrar la herramienta, desarrollar escenarios y usar la herramienta para evaluar distintos escenarios son barreras importantes para muchos usuarios potenciales. Western Lands and Communities está colaborando con diseñadores de herramientas para resolver los desafíos de corto y largo plazo y extender el uso de herramientas para la planificación de escenarios (Holway et al. 2012).
Conclusión
La región intermontañosa del Oeste es una zona compleja y de demografía cambiante, de rápido crecimiento de población y una creciente diversidad económica y cultural. Western Lands and Communities está trabajando para desarrollar y diseminar herramientas y metodologías educativas diversas que ayudarán a las comunidades del Oeste a planificar en forma integral para el cambio climático, ayudar a comprender el riesgo y administrar la incertidumbre de manera inclusiva, haciendo participar a partes interesadas distintas. Para cumplir con estas metas ambiciosas, los planificadores necesitan herramientas efectivas para conformar el futuro de sus comunidades. Seguiremos explorando nuevas estrategias y métodos para ayudar a los planificadores en su esfuerzo por anticipar y adaptarse al cambio, incorporar a las comunidades en su esfuerzo por desarrollar y adoptar políticas de adaptación y, en última instancia, crear comunidades más resistentes que estén preparadas para absorber el impacto del cambio climático.
Sobre los autores
Erika Mahoney es asistente de programa en Western Lands and Communities, la iniciativa conjunta entre el Instituto Lincoln y el Sonoran Institute, donde desarrolla herramientas de planificación, proporciona capacitación y realiza investigaciones sobre los esfuerzos para tomar medidas sobre el clima local.
Hannah Oliver es investigadora asistente en Western Lands and Communities, la iniciativa conjunta entre el Instituto Lincoln y el Sonoran Institute, donde dirige investigaciones sobre los esfuerzos para tomar medidas sobre el clima local y ayuda a desarrollar el programa de intercambio de información sobre el juego de herramientas en línea de comunidades exitosas (SCOTie, por sus siglas en inglés).
Referencias
Bark, R. H. 2009. Assessment of climate change impacts on local economies. Documento de trabajo. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Carter, R. 2008. Land use planning and the changing climate of the West. Documento de trabajo. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Carter, R. y S. Culp. 2010. Planning for climate change in the West. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Climate Central. 2012. The age of western wildfires. Princeton, NJ.
Feng, S. y Q, Hu. 2007. Changes in winter snowfall/precipitation ratio in the contiguous United States. Journal of Geophysical Research 112.
Holway, J., C. J. Gabbe, F. Hebbert, J. Lally, R. Matthews y R. Quay. 2012. Opening access to scenario planning tools. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Leiserowitz, A. M.-R. 2012. Extreme weather and climate change in the American mind. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication.
Metz, D. y C. Below. 2009. Local land use planning and climate change policy: Summary report from focus groups and interviews with local officials in the Intermountain West. Documento de trabajo. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Quay, R. 2010. Anticipatory governance. Journal of the American Planning Association 76 (4): 496–511.
Richards, T. 2009. Driving climate change mitigation at multiple levels of governance in the West. Documento de trabajo. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Winkler, R., D. R. Field, A. E. Luloff, R. S. Krannich y T. Williams. 2007. Social landscapes of the Inter-mountain West: A comparison of ‘Old West’ and ‘New West’ communities. Rural Sociology, 478–501.
Enlaces web
Western Lands and Communities: http://www.sonoraninstitute.org/where-we-work/westwide-research-tools/lincoln-sonoran-joint-venture.html
Sitio web del intercambio de información de herramientas en línea de comunidades exitosas (Successful Communities Online Toolkit information exchange, o SCOTie): http://scotie.sonoraninstitute.org
Seminarios de planificación en el Oeste: http://www.sonoraninstitute.org/where-we-work/westwide-training-leadership/planning-in-thewest-webinars.html
Herramientas de planificación de escenarios: http://scenarioplanningtools.org
SHARE
Human development is often characterized as a war between the contradictory goals of individuation and conformity. We struggle to distinguish ourselves from the herd, but we panic at the prospect of social isolation. Our social sciences, especially economics, are similarly conflicted. The cult of the individual is a dominant social meme, and this dominance is exacerbated by the rise of economic fundamentalism—the unquestioning faith in unregulated markets and the concomitant distrust of government and social systems. Starting with Adam Smith’s invisible hand, scores of economists built careers devising theories based on methodological individualism, the idea that “social phenomena must be explained by showing how they result from individual actions, which in turn must be explained through reference to the intentional states that motivate the individual actors,” according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. These theorists uniformly praised unfettered individuals and markets as the best way to achieve the joint goals of prosperity and fairness and promoted (or prevented) public policies buttressed by this view.
At the same time, other mainstream economists have warned about the “isolation paradox,” a category of scenarios in which individuals, acting in relative isolation and guided only by their short-term self-interest, generate long-term results that are destructive to all. Examples include the Malthusian nightmares of famine and pestilence curbing population growth, the prisoner’s dilemma, or the tragedy of the commons, which was described in a 1968 essay by Garrett Hardin. Hardin warned about the hazards of population growth through a parable about unmanaged use of common grazing land. The inevitable over-use of the land by individual herders maximizing their flocks would destroy the land and make it unsuitable for everyone. The solution, according to Hardin and others, is some form of enclosure of the commons, through privatization or public ownership that can establish coercive mechanisms to ensure that individuals behave in ways that protect the common interest.
Luckily, most humans do not subscribe to economic theory and instead develop their own ways to reconcile these contradictions between individuation and conformity. And public intellectuals such as Elinor Ostrom, the 2009 Economics Nobel laureate (and the only woman so honored), have advanced our knowledge about the ways we mediate these two very human tendencies. We do it through institutions—groups of humans voluntarily organizing themselves to harness the benefits of individual effort while avoiding the pitfalls of isolated individuals run amok. According to Ostrom and others, various institutional arrangements—formal organizations, rules of engagement, public policies, to name a few—organically emerge to prevent unfortunate events like the tragedy of the commons. In this issue of Land Lines, we feature stories about a number of such institutional arrangements that have emerged to protect us from ourselves or to manifest mutual benefits. In our interview with Summer Waters of the Sonoran Institute (p. 30), we learn about efforts to promote the economy and protect the ecology of the Colorado River watershed and reintroduce the flow of fresh water to the river’s delta.
We’ve only begun to study systems that organically emerge to manage commons, but we know even less about how we create commons. This might be a result of our tendency to treat commons like manna—conveyed from heaven, not created by humans. However, as reported by Tony Hiss (p. 24), thousands of people have come together voluntarily to create a new commons—millions of acres of land conserved to protect vast ecosystems, to save habitat for endangered species, to provide green space for densely packed urban dwellers, and to realize a variety of other long-term goals. From the point of view of orthodox economists, it’s a world gone crazy. Not only are formerly isolated individuals acting in ways that prevent the tragedy of the commons, they are taking action to create new ones.
Ironically, the story of America’s first public park, Boston Common, is often used as a cautionary tale to illustrate the tragedy of the commons. Truth be told, it is one of the first examples of individuals self-organizing and subordinating their short-term interests to create a shared resource for the long term. Boston Common was created in 1634 when members of the Massachusetts Bay Colony voted to tax themselves to purchase and protect the parcel of land to train troops and graze cattle. These citizens understood that, with some 2,500 people joining the colony annually, it would not be long before all habitable land was developed and all urban open space would disappear, according to Jim Levitt in his forthcoming book, Palladium of the People.
Public education is another man-made commons, as are most public goods. We organize and tax ourselves to support the provision of this critically important institution. And over time, we need to revise the way we manage and maintain it, like any commons. In this issue, Daphne Kenyon and Andy Reschovsky offer a window into the analyses of the challenges cities face in financing their schools—and some ideas about how we can address these problems (p. 34). We also explore how universities and hospitals can work with their neighborhoods and cities to pursue mutually beneficial collaborative goals, in the feature on anchor strategies from Beth Dever, et al. (p. 4).
For some economists, creation of new commons is a theoretical impossibility. In his first book, The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, Mancur Olson hypothesized that people will endure the complications of acting together only if there is a sufficient private incentive; and large groups will not pursue collective action unless motivated by significant personal gain (economic, social, etc.). Theory and practice clearly have collided, and the impact is and will continue to be profound. As Hiss notes, in his essay on large landscape conservation, “The first thing that grows is not necessarily the size of the property to be protected, but the possibility for actions, some large, some small, that will make a lasting difference for the future of the biosphere and its inhabitants, including humanity.”
It doesn’t stop there. In the United States, a bastion of the free market, some 65 million citizens belong to common interest communities, such as condominiums and homeowners’ associations, as reported by Gerry Korngold (p. 14). A quarter of the nation voluntarily has limited its own autonomy to protect and preserve common interests. As noted by Korngold, this wouldn’t have surprised de Tocqueville, who described the U. S. as “a nation of joiners.” In Democracy in America, in 1831, he wrote, “I have often admired the extreme skill with which the inhabitants of the United States succeed in proposing a common object to the exertions of a great many men, and in getting them voluntarily to pursue it.” Perhaps it is time to organize a cult of collective action to celebrate the incredible things we are able to do when we work together. We might find that the policies, practices, organizations, and institutions that we create to mediate our internal war between individuation and conformity have contributed more to human advancement than the individual achievements we more often celebrate.
SHARE
For more than a century, California’s Great Central Valley has been recognized as one of the world’s foremost agricultural regions. A giant basin 450 miles long and averaging 50 miles wide, the Valley encompasses some 19,000 square miles. With only one-half of one percent of the nation’s farmland, the Valley accounts for 8 percent of the nation’s farm output-including 15 percent of America’s vegetable production and 38 percent of fruit production.
Today, large parts of the Valley are making a transition to an urban economy. Led by such emerging metropolitan areas as Sacramento, Fresno and Bakersfield, the Central Valley already has more than 5 million residents. State demographers predict growth to reach almost 9 million people by 2020 and more than 11 million by 2040.
Given this scale of urban growth, what are the key issues facing the Valley? With the assistance of the Lincoln Institute, the Great Valley Center-a non-governmental organization supporting the economic, social and environmental well-being of California’s Central Valley-has undertaken an effort to try to frame this basic question. Which issues are purely local, and which ones require a more regional approach? What are the constraints the Valley faces in the decades ahead? And, finally, what are the choices? How might the Valley approach the question of accommodating urban growth while still retaining an agricultural base, a vibrant economy, a good quality of life and an enhanced natural environment?
Perhaps the biggest question is simply whether the Central Valley can accommodate such a vast quantity of urban growth and still maintain its distinctive identity. For decades, the Valley’s regional environment consisted mostly of three elements intertwined on the landscape-vestiges of nature, a panoply of crops and compact agricultural towns. The development of agriculture created a rural landscape, but one in which nature was often sacrificed for agricultural production. A distinctive urban form evolved that was far different from the rest of California. The Valley’s older towns, often sited on railroad lines, are typically compact but not dense, with wide, shady streets stretching out along the flat expanse from an old commercial downtown.
Regional and Sub-Regional Growth Dynamics
In determining urban development options for the Central Valley, it is important to understand the context of growth dynamics that affect the entire region as well as important sub-regions. Although the geographical size of the Central Valley is very large-far larger than many states, for example-in many ways it should be viewed as one region with a common set of characteristics and problems. These include:
Air quality: The Central Valley consists of one air basin, and so pollutants emitted in one part of the Valley can have an impact hundreds of miles away.
Water supply and distribution: Although many parts of the Central Valley depend heavily on groundwater, almost every community in the region is at least partly dependent on one water source: The drainage that flows into the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and then through the Sacramento Delta. This water source is also used in many different ways by both state and federal water projects. Transportation links: The Central Valley is connected internally and to other regions by a series of transportation links. Most obvious are the major freeway corridors, including Highway 99, Interstate 5, and Interstate 80, along with rail lines, which generally follow the Highway 99 corridor.
Land supply and cost: In virtually all parts of the Central Valley, land is cheaper and in more abundant supply than it is in coastal areas. This is one of the main reasons why population growth has shifted from the coast to the Central Valley.
At the same time, the Valley can be viewed as a group of five sub-regions, each with its own growth dynamic. These include:
North Valley: Seven counties in the northern portion of the Sacramento Valley remain rural and experience relatively little urban growth pressure compared to the rest of the Valley.
Sacramento Metro: Six counties around Sacramento have the highest rates of educational attainment and the highest wage scales anywhere in the Valley, largely because of the state capital, the University of California at Davis, and proximity to the Bay Area. This has become a popular location for high-tech employers.
Stockton-Modesto-Merced: Traditionally a major ranching and agricultural area, these centrally located counties are now experiencing tremendous urban growth pressure because of Bay Area commuting, though they are not adding jobs as rapidly as Sacramento Metro.
Greater Fresno: Four counties near Fresno remain the agricultural heartland of the Central Valley. Though population growth rates are high due to immigration and high birth rates, especially in the metropolitan Fresno area, the economy is only beginning to diversify and remains heavily focused on agriculture and related industries. As with other parts of the Valley, much of Greater Fresno’s population growth has come from immigration and high birth rates.
Bakersfield-Kern County: Somewhat separate geographically from the rest of the San Joaquin Valley, this area remains a center of both agriculture and extractive industries, especially oil. This region is experiencing rapid population growth and is the only part of the Valley that appears to be directly influenced by spillover growth from Greater Los Angeles.
Underlying Issues
With so much urban growth on the horizon, the Central Valley’s twenty-first-century landscape will be shaped by the interplay among several different issues:
Agriculture: Agriculture is likely to consume less land and less water in the future than it has used in the past, but it is still likely to be the sector that most determines the Valley’s urban growth patterns. The critical issues are: What kind of agricultural base will the Valley have in the next century, and how much land and water will that agricultural base require? Recent trends have moved the Valley toward ever-higher-value crops, and competition with foreign markets is expected to be fierce.
Socioeconomic issues: The Valley has traditionally lagged behind the rest of California in social and economic indicators. Unemployment and teenage pregnancy are high, while household income and educational attainment is low. Like the rest of California, the Valley is rapidly evolving a unique mix of racial diversity. Although the Valley will soon get a boost from the creation of a new University of California campus in Merced County, the region’s overall economic competitiveness may not be able to match its urban population growth.
Natural resources: In the rush to create one of the world’s great agricultural regions, the Central Valley’s leaders often overlooked the wonderland of natural resources that lay at their feet. For example, the Valley’s vast system of wetlands, once one of the largest and most important in the world, has almost completely disappeared, much to the detriment of the migratory bird population. In the future, there will be increasing pressure to restore and enhance these natural resources even as the Valley continues to urbanize. The entire San Francisco Bay-Sacramento Delta ecosystem has emerged as the focal point of a massive state and federal effort to improve water quality and restore biodiversity.
Infrastructure and infrastructure financing: When California’s coastal metropolitan areas were created, mostly in the postwar era,- the state and federal governments contributed greatly to their success by picking up the tab for most of the infrastructure they required. In the last two decades, however, all this has changed. In the Central Valley, the urban infrastructure is underdeveloped, and the financial ability of developers and new homebuyers to bear the full cost of community infrastructure is questionable.
Governmental structure and regional/sub-regional cooperation: In the Valley as elsewhere, a wide range of local, regional, state and federal agencies make decisions that create the emerging landscape. But there is little history of cooperation among these agencies, and especially among local governments. If all these entities can work together well, they can effectively increase the region’s “capacity” to create an urban environment that works for its users while protecting agricultural land, natural resources and other non-urban values. But if these entities do not establish a pattern of working together, the result could be a haphazard pattern of urban growth that does not serve any goal well.
Possible Strategies
Given these background conditions, the Central Valley could adopt any one of a number of strategies for shaping urban growth, or different parts of the Valley could “mix and match” from a variety of possibilities, which include the following:
Concentrate urban growth in existing urban centers. The Central Valley’s urban centers are well established and well served by existing infrastructure. They contain most of the current job centers and community support services and amenities required for urban or suburban living. This strategy would concentrate urban growth in and near these centers through a combination of infill development and compact growth in new areas.
Adopt a “metroplex” strategy. This strategy would recognize that population growth in the Valley will be concentrated in a few large metropolitan areas. Urban growth needs, including urban centers, bedroom communities, parks and greenbelts, should be dealt with at the metropolitan level in a small number of distinct “urban metropolitan regions.”
Create a “string of pearls” along Highway 99. For most of this century, Highway 99 has been the Central Valley’s “main drag.” Virtually all of the Valley’s older urban centers are located along this corridor. One possible strategy would be to concentrate future urban development up and down Highway 99, creating a string of urban and suburban pearls. In point of fact, the string of pearls is already emerging in some places. New development districts are being created along the corridor to the north and south of existing cities and towns because of access to this major transportation artery.
Encourage the creation of new towns in the foothills on the west side of the Valley. The so-called “Foothill Strategy” has been discussed for several years in some parts of the Valley. Foothill new towns would place commuters closer to Bay Area jobs and protect prime farmland on the Valley floor. However, water and infrastructure finance issues make this strategy very difficult to achieve.
Permit the emergence of an urban ladder. A final possibility is to permit the development of what might be called an urban ladder: a network of urban and suburban areas that run up and down the Valley along Highway 99 and Interstate 5, and then run across the Valley on a series of east-west rungs along smaller roads that connect the two freeway corridors. In many ways, the urban ladder is the most likely possibility, simply because it connects existing cities and towns with probable new areas for urban growth by using the available transportation corridors. At the same time, however, it holds the potential to create more “suburban sprawl” than any other option.
Many of these options are already emerging as an actual urban pattern in certain parts of the Valley, and it is unlikely that there is a “one-size fits all” answer for the entire Valley. But, unless the civic leaders of the Valley confront the issue of urban growth head-on, it is likely that the Valley will adopt the sprawling and inefficient land use patterns that characterize Los Angeles and California’s other coastal metropolitan areas.
There is still time to shape a different outcome in the Valley, if civic leaders work together in a conscious attempt to design a set of workable urban development patterns that will operate efficiently and effectively for urban dwellers, for employers, for agriculturalists, and for the natural environment.
William Fulton is editor of California Planning and Development Report, contributing editor of Planning magazine, and correspondent for Governing magazine. For more information about the Great Valley Center, see www.greatvalley.org.
SHARE
The mighty Mekong, tenth largest river in the world, faces conflicting pressures for developing its floodplains and harnessing its powerful flow, which spans 4200 kilometers from the Himalayas through China, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam to the South China Sea. Turbulence characterizes the river’s upper portions, but the lower Mekong is more placid, and annual flooding supports a biologically diverse ecosystem. Agriculture is the primary economic activity along the river, complemented by fish production, transportation and electricity generation.
Hydropower development has long been a critical issue for the people, planners and government officials of the Mekong’s riparian countries, but the approach has changed over time. In a 1957 plan, the US Army Corps of Engineers proposed a cascade of seven large-scale dam projects that would create 23,300 megawatts of power and curb perceived flooding problems. The Indochina War halted implementation of this plan. Today, development planning has shifted from structural flood control to a regional approach based on participation and resource-sharing among countries.
Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam signed an Agreement on Cooperation for the Sustainable Development of the Mekong River Basin in April 1995. It provides that signatories shall “cooperate in all fields of sustainable development, utilization, management and conservation of the waters and related resources of the Mekong River Basin, including but not limited to irrigation, hydropower, navigation, flood control . . . and to minimize the harmful effects that might result.” These include inundation of large areas of agricultural lands and displacement of established populations, causing additional economic and cultural losses to this already endangered region.
In 1994, the four countries commissioned a study to determine the viability of Mekong hydropower development if it was deliberately constrained to minimize such impacts. Recognizing the negative effects of large reservoir-dependent dams, the study focused on a “run-of-river” dam structure that uses daily natural water flows rather than a reservoir to regulate the river. The study categorized nine sites (See map) according to social and environmental impacts, as well as by economic performance.
Conflicting Pressures on Land and Water Resources
The rationale for hydropower stems from Asia’s rapidly growing energy demand, which is doubling every 12 years. Yet, each country has its own unique concerns. Laos, for example, has enormous export capacity since it contains 80 percent of the Mekong’s potential hydropower energy, and its small population consumes only a fraction of this potential. Thailand, in contrast, has 8.5 million hectares of arable land but a limited water supply. It needs electricity for its rapid industrialization and could import energy to boost development of its poor northeastern region. Cambodia has witnessed an 80 percent reduction in irrigated land in the last 20 years due to war. It seeks to develop domestic energy capacities and to export hydropower in the long run. Vietnam is most concerned about the impacts of its upstream neighbors’ actions on the river’s flow through its land on the way to the sea.
Proponents of hydropower assert its comparative advantages over other energy sources, but opponents are concerned about the implications of the Mekong River Commission’s alleged pro-dam policies. When the Mekong Agreement was signed, for example, Thai nongovernmental organizations agreed with the concept of cooperation, but strongly opposed the influence of the dam-building industry. Along with other environmentalists, the Thai NGOs feared that the Agreement equated “development” of the Mekong with dam building and elimination of natural floodplains.
The International Rivers Network voiced concerns about the recommendations of the 1994 Run-of-River Study, in particular the impact on local populations. The nine proposed run-of-river projects would displace an estimated 61,200 people and increase land pressures in resettlement areas. Agriculture would be affected if the dams reduced or eliminated the nutrient-rich silts deposited by floodwaters, and the remaining floodplain soils would be threatened by salinization if reservoirs caused underground salt deposits to dissolve and leach to the surface. The fishing industry that supports many local economies would also be affected by blocked fish migration routes, loss of nutrient movements downstream, inundation of spawning areas and turbine mortality.
Recognizing Risks and Developing Alternative Plans
The river basin countries recognize the risks posed by hydropower development, but seem to be caught between two difficult positions. Cambodia, for example, acknowledges downstream impacts of dam construction, yet it still senses the urgent need to develop its hydropower potential. The fact that 85 percent of its own population depends on subsistence farming and the river as a source of protein and transportation does not make its choice any easier.
The US, with its long history of large-scale dam building, offers a number of lessons. Daniel Beard, former commissioner of the US Bureau of Reclamation, highlighted these in his address at the Mekong River Conference held in Washington, DC, in November 1995. First, large-scale developmental and operating costs cannot be repaid through user charges alone. Other effects have manifested themselves in soil salinization, elimination of fisheries, reduction of wetlands, and agricultural degradation. Now the government must determine how to solve and pay for these problems that were caused in part by top-down planning and lack of accountability to local officials and the public.
The need for open decision making is critical to finding convergence between proponents and opponents of power projects, wherever they arise. Jon Kusler, of the Institute for Wetland Science and Public Policy, emphasizes the need for stakeholder involvement. Suraphol Sudara, of the Siam Environmental Club, believes that the Mekong River Commission could “play a more useful role if it looked to managing the river rather than building big projects.” He would include consideration of non-structural alternatives and a broader definition of “river system development” that recognizes the economic and cultural value of the floodplains.
Yasunobu Matoba, newly appointed CEO of the Mekong River Commission’s Secretariat, acknowledges, “In developing and using water resources, priority has to be given to the satisfaction of basic needs and the safeguarding of ecosystems.” It remains to be seen whether stated policy is ultimately implemented in the region’s development plans.
Trang D. Tu is an editorial/research assistant at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, and is completing her master’s degree in urban planning at Harvard University Graduate School of Design. In November 1995 she attended the Mekong River Technical Workshop on Sustainable Development in Washington, DC.
For Reference
Mekong Mainstream Run-of-River Hydropower: Executive Summary. December 1994. Prepared by Compagnie Nationale du Rhone, Lyon, France, in cooperation with Acres International Limited, Calgary, Canada, and the Mekong Secretariat Study Team, Bangkok, Thailand.
SHARE
In the nearly 35 years since Bosselman and Callies (1972) published The Quiet Revolution in Land Use Control, land use policies in states across the nation have continued to change and evolve. The state of Maryland offers a good example. The history of land use policy in Maryland records a variety of conservation, development, and growth management acts, but in 1997 the state burst into the national spotlight with its innovative Smart Growth and Neighborhood Conservation package of land use reforms.
Today, some 10 years later, a new initiative is aiming to take the reform process in Maryland even further. Named Reality Check Plus: Imagine Maryland, this effort is supported in part by the Lincoln Institute, along with other nonprofit organizations, foundations, corporations, and individuals. It remains to be seen how far this effort will go and in what ways it may produce significant policy change, but regardless of the outcome it represents an interesting test of whether a privately led reform initiative can foster land use change at state and local levels.
A Rich Planning History
Maryland has a longstanding reputation as a national leader in land use policy and planning. The historical roots of Maryland’s smart growth program date to 1933, when Maryland established the nation’s first state planning commission. Recent planning history begins with the formation of the Chesapeake Bay Commission in 1980. Although the commission has no explicit land use authority in the signatory states (Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia), its recommendations have been instrumental in shaping land use policy in Maryland. The state’s Critical Area Act of 1984, for example, required local governments to adopt special development regulations within a 1,000-foot buffer of the Bay shoreline, and the Economic Growth, Resource Protection, and Planning Act of 1992 required local governments to address six visions originally outlined in a report prepared for the Chesapeake Executive Council (DeGrove 2005, 254–256).
Although the 1992 Planning Act provided a framework for local comprehensive plans, it failed to stem the tide of urban sprawl, according to the Growth Commission, established by the act as a new state advisory body. Following an extensive listening campaign, many meetings, and frequent forums, Governor Parris Glendening (1995–2003) proposed and the 1997 legislature passed the initiatives that have led to Maryland’s recognition as a leader in the promotion of smart growth. The original 1997 package of smart growth legislation included five separate measures; the first two captured the primary focus of the program (see Figure 1), and three others supported the overall concept.
Incentive-based Programs
Maryland’s smart growth programs are interesting in a number of ways, but the most distinctive feature is their reliance on spatially specific incentives instead of land use regulations (Cohen 2002). For example:
This reliance on incentives is what enabled these programs to pass the Maryland legislature, and what makes them so attractive to other states. After nearly 10 years, Maryland remains a national model for state efforts to promote smart growth, although many within the state believe the program has not gone far enough. According to John W. Frece, a former aide to Glendening, the smart growth program was “unquestionably a move in the right direction,” but it also represented only as much change as was politically possible at the time (Frece 2005). He concludes that the Maryland program might have been more effective if it had set specific goals and benchmarks when it was created, and that it failed to conduct any statewide visioning or other exercises to determine what the public thought their region or state should look like in the future. He also notes that the basic planning blocks of smart growth, the priority funding areas, proved to be too weak and porous to slow sprawl, much less stop it.
Because Maryland’s smart growth policies relied extensively on state incentives, their efficacy waned when those incentives were not maintained after Glendening left office. In some cases the policies were simply insufficient to counteract the economic factors that drive sprawl development. Moreover, if a development project was approved by the local government but did not need or rely on financial incentives from the state, the smart growth initiative had no effect on it. Finally, the smart growth program skirted the politically sensitive issue of whether the state should have more authority over local land use decisions. If local decisions were contrary to the state’s smart growth policies, the state had little recourse (Frece 2005).
Several recent studies support these assertions.
These reports suggest that although Maryland has adopted some of the most innovative land use policies in the country, there is limited evidence that these policies have significantly altered urban development trends. The reasons are complex, but the available research suggests that state incentives are either too small or are poorly suited to the situation to have major impacts on land development trends, especially without supportive regulatory policies at the local level.
Reality Check Plus: Imagine Maryland
To rekindle interest in urban development trends and land use policy in Maryland, and to advance progress in land use reform, a new initiative was launched in 2005. Reality Check Plus: Imagine Maryland is a broad-based, long-term effort led by the Baltimore District Council of the Urban Land Institute (ULI), the National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education at the University of Maryland, and 1000 Friends of Maryland. It is also supported by more than 130 organizations throughout the state.
The first component of the effort involved four public participatory visioning exercises based on similar exercises in Washington, DC, and Fredericksburg, Virginia, led by ULI and the National Center for Smart Growth. In these exercises citizens representing civic, government, and business interests, including elected officials, were literally brought to the table to confront the issues of urban growth and express a desired vision for their region’s future. The Maryland exercises were held in May and June in four regions: the Eastern Shore, Southern Maryland, Western Maryland, and the Baltimore-Washington Corridor. Participants expressed their vision for where future growth should go by placing plastic Lego® blocks representing projected job and housing growth through 2030 on large, table-top regional maps.
The final results of the four Maryland exercises will not be fully integrated and analyzed until September, but preliminary results presented at each event reveal similar but distinct results (see Figure 2). The consensus visioning principles expressed public desires to (1) protect open spaces and natural resources; (2) utilize existing infrastructure; (3) concentrate growth near transit stations in existing urban areas; and (4) balance the location of jobs and households. And at all four events, the placement of Legos was consistent with these principles. Specifically, when compared with current development patterns, participants placed larger proportions of growth inside PFAs and near transit stations and highway corridors, and placed more jobs in job-poor areas.
Notable support was given in all regions for new and expanded transit service and for more regional cooperation or even regional authorities to plan for future growth. There were also some important regional differences: participants from the Eastern Shore focused on protecting the region’s small town and agrarian way of life; in Western Maryland there was concern about uneven economic growth; the primary concern in Central Maryland was traffic congestion; and in Southern Maryland there was apprehension about the impacts of growth in military jobs.
Although these exercises represent one of the largest forums on growth ever conducted in a single state, it is important not to overstate what these events can produce. A pile of Legos placed on a table for a few hours cannot be confused with a thorough analysis of alternative development patterns, a careful consideration of consequences, and a true statewide consensus about the results. These events, however, do represent an important beginning to what must be a continuing dialogue on growth in the state.
In September, during the state’s quadrennial election cycle, a synthesis of the four regional events will be presented at a statewide forum. Candidates for state and local office, including candidates for governor, will be invited to attend and pledge their support for implementing the results. In the meantime, each of the three lead organizations is developing work plans for the implementation phase. The Baltimore District Council of ULI will offer a series of education and outreach programs designed to disseminate the results of the four events throughout each region, especially to elected officials. 1000 Friends of Maryland will sponsor a series of candidate forums and regional caucuses to encourage the implementation of the results, especially through state and local policy reform. The National Center, with support from the Lincoln Institute, will conduct more extensive analyses of alternative statewide development scenarios and existing land use policies in Maryland and other states.
For Maryland, these four regional exercises, and whatever changes in land use policies may follow, represent just the latest chapter in the state’s closely watched history of land use planning and policy. For other states, these exercises represent a rare natural experiment. Can a privately led visioning exercise precipitate significant change in the substance of state and/or local land use policy, local development decisions, and development trends? Stay tuned.
The Visioning Experience
At each Reality Check Plus event, up to 10 participants at each table were asked to think about how their region should accommodate the growth projected over the next 25 years. A six-foot by eight-foot map of the region was shaded in various colors to represent the existing population and employment density. The maps also depicted major highways; subway and commuter rail lines and stations; parkland or other protected conservation areas; airports, military bases, and other government installations; and rivers, floodplains, and other bodies of water.
To encourage participants to think regionally rather than locally, all jurisdictional boundaries were intentionally omitted, although place names of cities and towns helped with orientation. Each table was staffed by a scribe/computer operator and a trained facilitator to lead the three-hour exercise. Before considering where to accommodate growth, participants were asked to reach consensus on a set of principles to guide their decisions about where to place the new development, such as protecting open space, making use of existing infrastructure, and maintaining jobs-housing balance.
The exercise used Lego® blocks of four different colors: white blocks represented the top 80 percent of new housing units in the region based on price, or essentially market-rate housing; yellow blocks represented the bottom 20 percent of housing based on price, essentially a stand-in for nonsubsidized affordable housing; black blocks represented lower density housing development that could be exchanged for higher density white blocks at a ratio of 4:1; and blue blocks represented jobs.
The maps were overlaid with a checkered grid and scaled so a single block fit on each grid. Participants who wanted to add more than one housing or employment block to a single grid simply stacked the blocks. Those who proposed a mixed-use development pattern could stack various types of blocks together. Once all the Legos were placed on the map, the result yields a three-dimensional representation of where future growth in the region is or is not desired.
After all the Legos were placed, the participants were asked to assess their work. Have they allocated jobs and households across the region in a manner consistent with their vision for what the future should hold? Does the quantity of growth seem appropriate for a 25–30 year timeframe, or would they prefer more or less growth? Finally, if they are comfortable with the consensus vision, what policies or land development tools do they favor for assuring that the preferred vision is the one that is actually realized? What new infrastructure will be necessary to accommodate the projected level of growth? What might be the environmental impacts and tax implications? The participants’ considered responses to these questions are perhaps the most important products of the exercise.
During the lunch break a team of students from the University of Maryland counted the numbers of Legos at each table, entered the information into a computer, and then converted the results into two– and three-dimensional maps for each table. The data were also analyzed and inserted into a formatted PowerPoint presentation. The slides identified results for each table in a quantitative analysis of urban development indicators, such as percentages of jobs and households within one-quarter mile of a transit station; inside metropolitan beltways; inside existing urban areas; and in existing greenfields and farmland. Other indicators measured location of affordable housing and the degree to which it is integrated with market-rate housing; and the extent of jobs-housing balance.
After lunch the participants gathered in a large auditorium to hear a presentation of the results, which included a summary of the consensus principles, selected results from various tables, and a synthesis of the results from all the tables. Subsequent events included a town hall-type panel discussion focused on how to implement the pattern of development envisioned by the participants at each regional event.
Gerrit-Jan Knaap, an economist and professor of urban studies and planning, is executive director of the National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education at the University of Maryland. He is one of three co-chairs of the Reality Check Plus visioning exercise.
Dru Schmidt-Perkins is executive director of 1000 Friends of Maryland, a statewide citizens’ coalition that supports protection of natural resources, revitalization of existing communities, preservation of historic resources, efficient and effective transportation choices, and development that takes into account the public’s interest. She is also one of three co-chairs of the Reality Check Plus project.
References
Bosselman, Fred, and David Callies. 1972. The quiet revolution in land use control. Washington, DC: Council on Environmental Quality.
Cohen, J. R. 2002. Maryland’s “smart growth”: Using incentives to combat sprawl. In Urban sprawl: Causes, consequences and policy response, G. Squires, ed. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
DeGrove, John M. 2005. Planning policy and politics: Smart growth and the states. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Frece, John W. 2005. Twenty lessons from Maryland’s smart growth initiative. Vermont Journal of Environmental Law 6: 106–132.
Howland, Marie. 2000. The impact of contamination on the Canton/Southeast Baltimore land market. Journal of the American Planning Association 66 (4): 411–420.
———. 2003. Private initiatives and public responsibility for the redevelopment of industrial brownfields: Three Baltimore case studies. Economic Development Quarterly 17 (4): 367–381.
Howland, Marie, and Jungyul Sohn. Forthcoming. Has Maryland’s priority funding areas initiative constrained the expansion of water and sewer investments? Land Use Policy.
National Center for Smart Growth. 2003. Smart growth, housing markets, and development trends in the Baltimore-Washington Corridor. http://www.smartgrowth.umd.edu/research/pdf/KnaapSohnFreceEtAl_SGHousingMarketsBalWash_DateNA.pdf.
———. 2006. Adequate public facilities ordinances in Maryland: Inappropriate use, inconsistent standards, unintended consequences. http://www.smartgrowth.umd.edu/research/pdf/NCSG_APFOMaryland_041906.pdf.
1000 Friends of Maryland. 1999. Smart growth: How is your county doing—Baltimore Region. http://www.friendsofmd.org.
———. 2001. Smart growth: How is your county doing—Eastern Shore. http://www.friendsofmd.org.
Shen, Qing and Feng Zhang. Forthcoming, Land-use changes in a pro–smart growth state: Maryland, USA. Environment and Planning A.
Sohn, Jungyul, and Gerrit-Jan Knaap. 2005. Does the job creation tax credit program in Maryland help concentrate employment growth? Economic Development Quarterly 19: 313–326.
Tassone, Joseph, Erik Balsley, Lynda Eisenberg, Stephanie Martins, and Rich Hall. 2004. Maximizing return on public investment in Maryland’s rural land preservation programs. Annapolis, MD: Maryland Department of Planning.
SHARE
We hear a lot about communities these days, and as individuals we likely belong to or live in several communities that may have shared values. In communities where peoples’ values and interests are not necessarily shared, however, interactions and decision making may be more complicated.
Working within the land trust network, many of us have been acculturated to consider natural communities to the exclusion of our human surroundings. To be most effective, however, we must deal with the complete range of communities and all their human and ecological complexities.
SHARE
