La Bahía de Chesapeake es un icono cultural, un tesoro nacional y un recurso natural protegido por cientos de agencias, organizaciones sin fines de lucro e instituciones. Ahora, una nueva tecnología de construcción de mapas digitales con exactitud sin precedentes, desarrollada por The Chesapeake Conservancy y respaldada por el Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo, está identificando con precisión contaminación y otras amenazas a la salud del ecosistema de la bahía y su cuenca, que abarca 165.000 km2, 16.000 km de costa y 150 ríos y arroyos importantes. Con una resolución de un metro por un metro, la tecnología de mapas de “conservación de precisión” está llamado la atención de una amplia gama de agencias e instituciones, que ven aplicaciones potenciales para una variedad de procesos de planificación en los Estados Unidos y el resto del mundo. Este nuevo juego de datos de cubierta de suelo, creado por el Centro de Innovación de Conservación (CIC) de The Conservancy, tiene 900 veces más información que los juegos de datos anteriores y brinda mucho más detalle sobre los sistemas naturales y las amenazas medioambientales a la cuenca, de las que la más persistente y urgente es la contaminación de las aguas de la bahía, que afecta desde la salud de la gente, las plantas y la vida silvestre hasta la industria pesquera, el turismo y la recreación.

“El gobierno de los EE.UU. está invirtiendo más de US$70 millones al año para limpiar la Bahía de Chesapeake, pero no sabe qué intervenciones tienen el mayor impacto”, dice George W. McCarthy, presidente y director ejecutivo del Instituto Lincoln. “Con esta tecnología podremos determinar si las intervenciones pueden interrumpir el flujo superficial de nutrientes que está provocando el florecimiento de algas en la bahía. Podremos ver dónde fluye el agua a la Bahía de Chesapeake. Podremos ver el rédito del dinero invertido, y podremos comenzar a reorientar a la Agencia de Protección Ambiental (EPA, por su sigla en inglés), el Departamento de Agricultura y múltiples agencias que quizás planifiquen en forma estratégica pero sin comunicarse entre sí”.

The Chesapeake Conservancy, una organización sin fines de lucro, está dando los toques finales a un mapa de alta resolución de toda la cuenca para el Programa de la Bahía de Chesapeake. Ambas organizaciones están ubicadas en Annapolis, Maryland, el epicentro de los esfuerzos de conservación de la bahía. El programa presta servicio a la Asociación de la Bahía de Chesapeake (Chesapeake Bay Commission), la EPA, la Comisión de la Bahía de Chesapeake y los seis estados que alimentan la cuenca: Delaware, Maryland, Nueva York, Pensilvania, Virginia, West Virginia y el Distrito de Columbia, junto con 90 contrapartes más, entre las que se cuentan organizaciones sin fines de lucro, instituciones académicas y agencias gubernamentales como la Administración Nacional Oceánica y Atmosférica, el Servicio de Peces y Vida Silvestre de los EE.UU., el Servicio Geológico de los EE.UU. (USGS) y el Departamento de Defensa de los EE.UU. 

En nombre de esta alianza, la EPA invirtió US$1,3 millones en 2016 en financiamiento estatal y federal para el proyecto de cubierta de suelo de alta resolución de The Conservancy, que se está desarrollando en conjunto con la Universidad de Vermont. La información obtenida de los diversos programas piloto de mapas de precisión ya está ayudando a los gobiernos locales y contrapartes fluviales a tomar decisiones de gestión de suelo más eficientes y económicas. 

“Hay muchos actores en la cuenca de la Bahía de Chesapeake”, dice Joel Dunn, presidente y director ejecutivo de The Chesapeake Conservancy. “La comunidad ha estado trabajando en un problema de conservación muy complicado por los últimos 40 años, y como resultado hemos creado capas y capas y muchas instituciones para resolver este problema”. 

“Ahora no es un problema de voluntad colectiva sino un problema de acción, y toda la comunidad tiene que asociarse de maneras más innovadoras para llevar la restauración de los recursos naturales de la cuenca al próximo nivel superior”, agrega.

“La tecnología de conservación está evolucionando rápidamente y puede estar llegando ahora a su cima”, dice Dunn, “y queremos montarnos sobre esa ola”. El proyecto es un ejemplo de los esfuerzos de The Conservancy para llevar su trabajo a nuevas alturas. Al introducir “big data” (datos en gran volumen) en el mundo de la planificación medioambiental, dice, The Conservancy se preparar para innovar como un “emprendedor de conservación”.

¿Qué es la tecnología de mapas de precisión?

Los datos del uso del suelo y la cubierta del suelo (LULC, por su sigla en inglés) extraídos de imágenes por satélite o desde aviones son críticos para la gestión medioambiental. Se usa para todo, desde mapas de hábitat ecológico hasta el seguimiento de tendencias de desarrollo inmobiliario. El estándar de la industria es la Base de Datos Nacional de Cubierta de Suelo (NLCD, por su sigla en inglés) de 30 m por 30 m de resolución del USGS, que proporciona imágenes que abarcan 900 m2, o casi un décimo de hectárea. Esta escala funciona bien para grandes áreas de terreno. No es suficientemente exacta, sin embargo, para proyectos de pequeña escala, porque todo lo que tenga un décimo de hectárea o menos se agrupa en un solo tipo de clasificación de suelo. Una parcela podría ser clasificada como un bosque, por ejemplo, pero ese décimo de hectárea podría tener también un arroyo y humedales. Para maximizar las mejoras en la calidad del agua y los hábitats críticos, hacen falta imágenes de mayor resolución para poder tomar decisiones a nivel de campo sobre dónde vale la pena concentrar los esfuerzos.

Con imágenes aéreas públicamente disponibles del Programa Nacional de Imágenes de Agricultura (NAIP, por su sigla en inglés), en combinación con datos de elevación del suelo de LIDAR (sigla en inglés de Detección y Medición de Distancia por Luz), The Conservancy ha creado juegos de datos tridimensionales de clasificación del suelo con 900 veces más información y un nivel de exactitud de casi el 90 por ciento, comparado con el 78 por ciento para la NLCD. Esta nueva herramienta brinda una imagen mucho más detallada de lo que está ocurriendo en el suelo, identificando puntos donde la contaminación está ingresando en los arroyos y ríos, la altura de las pendientes, y la efectividad de las mejores prácticas de gestión (Best Management Practices, o BMP), como sistemas de biofiltración, jardines de lluvia y amortiguadores forestales. 

“Podemos convertir las imágenes vírgenes en un paisaje clasificado, y estamos entrenando a la computadora para que vea lo mismo que los seres humanos al nivel del terreno”, incluso identificando plantas individuales, dice Jeff Allenby, Director de Tecnología de Conservación, quien fue contratado en 2012 para aprovechar la tecnología para estudiar, conservar y restaurar la cuenca. En 2013, una subvención de US$25.000 del Consejo de Industrias de Tecnología Informática (ITIC) permitió a Allenby comprar dos computadoras poderosas para comenzar el trabajo de trazar mapas digitales. Con el respaldo del Programa de la Bahía de Chesapeake, su equipo de ocho expertos en sistemas de información geográfica (SIG) ha creado un sistema de clasificación para la cuenca de la Bahía de Chesapeake con 12 categorías de cubierta de suelo, como superficies impermeables, humedales, vegetación de baja altura y agua. También está incorporando información de zonificación de los usos del suelo provista por el Programa de la Bahía de Chesapeake. 

El potencial de la tecnología

El trazado de mapas de precisión “tiene el potencial de transformar la manera de ver y analizar sistemas de suelo y agua en los Estados Unidos”, dice James N. Levitt, Gerente de Programas de Conservación de Suelo del Departamento de Planificación y Forma Urbana del Instituto Lincoln, que está respaldando el desarrollo tecnológico de The Conservancy con una subvención de US$50.000. “Nos ayudará a mantener la calidad del agua y los hábitats críticos, y ubicar las áreas donde las actividades de restauración pueden tener el mayor impacto sobre el mejoramiento de la calidad del agua”. Levitt dice que la tecnología permite convertir fuentes de contaminación “no puntuales”, o sea difusas e indeterminadas, en fuentes “puntuales” identificables específicas sobre el terreno. Y ofrece un gran potencial de uso en otras cuencas, como la de los sistemas de los ríos Ohio y Mississippi, los que, como la cuenca de Chesapeake, también tienen grandes cargas de escurrimiento contaminado de aguas de tormenta debido a actividades agrícolas. 

Es un momento propicio para hacer crecer la tecnología de conservación en la región de Chesapeake. En febrero de 2016, la Corte Suprema de los EE.UU. decidió no innovar en un caso que disputaba el plan de la Asociación de la Bahía de Chesapeake para restaurar plenamente la bahía y sus ríos de marea, para poder volver a nadar y pescar en ellos para 2025. Esta decisión de la Corte Suprema dejó en su lugar un dictamen de la Corte de Apelación del 3.er Circuito de los EE.UU. que confirmó el plan de aguas limpias y mayores restricciones sobre la carga máxima total diaria, o el límite de contaminación permisible de sustancias como nitrógeno y fósforo. Estos nutrientes, que se encuentran en los fertilizantes agrícolas, son los dos contaminantes principales de la bahía, y son tenidos en cuenta bajo las normas federales de calidad del agua establecidas en la Ley de Agua Limpia. El dictamen también permite a la EPA y a agencias estatales imponer multas a aquellos que contaminan y violan las reglamentaciones. 

La calidad del agua de la Bahía de Chesapeake ha mejorado desde su fase de mayor contaminación en la década de 1980. Las modernizaciones y la explotación más eficiente de las plantas de tratamiento de aguas servidas han reducido la cantidad de nitrógeno que ingresa en la bahía en un 57 por ciento, y el fósforo en un 75 por ciento. Pero los estados de la cuenca siguen violando las regulaciones de agua limpia y el aumento del desarrollo urbano exige una evaluación constante y una reducción de la contaminación en el agua y hábitats críticos.

Proyecto piloto núm. 1: El río Chester

The Conservancy completó una clasificación de suelo de alta resolución y análisis de escurrimiento de aguas de tormenta para toda la cuenca del río Chester, en la costa oriental de Maryland, con financiamiento de las Campañas de Energía Digital y Soluciones de Sostenibilidad de ITIC. Isabel Hardesty es la cuidadora del río Chester, de 100 km de largo, y trabaja con la Asociación del río Chester, con asiento en Chestertown, Maryland. (“Cuidadora de río” es el título oficial de 250 individuos en todo el mundo que son los “ojos, oídos y voz” de un cuerpo de agua.) El análisis de The Conservancy ayudó a Hardesty y su personal a comprender dónde fluye el agua a través del terreno, dónde serían más efectivos las BMP y qué corrientes fluviales degradadas sería mejor restaurar. 

Dos tercios de la cubierta del suelo en la cuenca del río Chester son cultivos en hilera. Los agricultores de estos cultivos frecuentemente usan fertilizante en forma uniforme en todo el campo, y el fertilizante se escurre con las aguas de tormenta de todo el predio. Esto se considera contaminación no puntual, lo cual hace más difícil identificar el origen exacto de los contaminantes que fluyen a un río, comparado, por ejemplo, con una pila de estiércol. El equipo de The Conservancy trazó un mapa de toda la cuenca del río Chester, identificando dónde llovió en el terreno y dónde fluyó el agua.  

“A simple vista se puede mirar un campo y ver dónde fluye el agua, pero este análisis es mucho más científico”, dice Hardesty. El mapa mostró la trayectoria del flujo de agua en toda la cuenca, en rojo, amarillo y verde. El color rojo identifica un mayor potencial de transporte de contaminantes, como las trayectorias de flujo sobre superficies impermeables. El color verde significa que el agua está filtrada, como cuando fluye a través de humedales o un amortiguador forestal, reduciendo la probabilidad de que transporte contaminantes. El amarillo es un nivel intermedio, que indica que podría ser uno u otro. El análisis se tiene que “comprobar en la realidad”, dice Hardesty, o sea que el equipo usa análisis SIG a nivel de cada granja para confirmar lo que está ocurriendo en un campo específico.  

“Somos una organización pequeña y tenemos relaciones con la mayoría de los agricultores de la zona”, dice Hardesty. “Podemos mirar una parcela de terreno y saber qué prácticas está usando el agricultor. Nos hemos comunicado con nuestros terratenientes y colaborado con ellos en sus predios; así sabemos dónde pueden entrar contaminantes a los arroyos. Cuando nos enteramos de que un agricultor en particular quiere poner un humedal en su granja, su uso del suelo y el análisis de flujo de agua nos ayuda a determinar qué tipo de BMP tenemos que usar y dónde tiene que estar ubicado”. El valor de elaborar mapas de precisión para la Asociación del Río Chester, dice Hardesty, ha sido “poder darse cuenta que el mejor lugar para colocar una solución de intercepción de agua es donde sea mejor para el agricultor. En general, esta es una parte bastante poco productiva de la granja”. Dice que en general los agricultores están contentos de poder trabajar con ellos para resolver el problema.

La Asociación del Río Chester también está desplegando tecnología para usar los recursos de modo más estratégico. La organización tiene un programa de monitorización de agua y ha recolectado datos sobre la cuenca por muchos años, que el equipo de The Conservancy ha analizado para clasificar los arroyos de acuerdo a su calidad de agua. La asociación ha hecho ahora análisis SIG que muestra los trayectos de flujo para todas las subcuencas de arroyos, y está creando un plan estratégico para guiar los esfuerzos futuros de limpieza de los arroyos con la peor calidad del agua. 

Proyecto piloto núm. 2: Herramienta de informe de BMP del Consorcio de Aguas de Tormenta del Condado de York

En 2013, The Conservancy y otras contrapartes principales lanzaron el programa Envision the Susquehanna (Vislumbrar el Susquehanna) para mejorar la integridad ecológica y cultural del paisaje y la calidad de vida a lo largo del río Susquehanna, desde su cabecera en Cooperstown, Nueva York, hasta su descarga en la Bahía de Chesapeake en Havre de Grace, Maryland. En 2015, The Conservancy seleccionó el programa para su proyecto piloto de datos en el condado de York, Pensilvania.

Pensilvania ha tenido problemas para demostrar progreso en la reducción del escurrimiento de nitrógeno y sedimento, sobre todo en los lugares donde las aguas de tormenta urbanas ingresan en los ríos y arroyos. En 2015 la EPA anunció que iba a retener US$2.9 millones de fondos federales hasta que el estado pudiera articular un plan para alcanzar sus metas. En respuesta, el Departamento de Protección Ambiental de Pensilvania publicó su Estrategia de restauración de la Bahía de Chesapeake para aumentar el financiamiento de proyectos de aguas de tormenta locales, verificar el impacto y los beneficios de BMP locales, y mejorar la contabilidad y recolección de datos para supervisar su efectividad. 

El condado de York creó el Programa de Reducción de Contaminación de la Bahía de Chesapeake – Condado de York para coordinar los informes sobre proyectos de limpieza. La tecnología de mapas de precisión de The Conservancy ofreció una oportunidad perfecta para un proyecto piloto: En la primavera de 2015, la Comisión de Planificación del Condado de York y The Conservancy comenzaron a colaborar para mejorar el proceso de selección de los proyectos de BMP para escurrimiento de aguas de tormenta urbana, que cuando se combinan con un aumento de los emprendimientos inmobiliarios, constituyen la amenaza de mayor crecimiento en la Bahía de Chesapeake. 

La comisión de planificación seleccionó el proceso de propuesta anual de BMP de 49 de las 72 municipalidades reguladas como “sistemas de alcantarillado de aguas de tormenta municipales separados”, o MS4, por su sigla en inglés. Estos son sistemas de aguas de tormenta requeridos por la Ley de Agua Limpia federal para recolectar el escurrimiento contaminado que de lo contrario fluiría a las vías fluviales locales. La meta de la comisión era normalizar el proceso de presentación y revisión de proyectos. El condado descubrió que las reducciones de carga calculadas no eran correctas en varias municipalidades, porque no contaban con el personal necesario para recolectar y analizar los datos, o usaron una variedad de fuentes de datos distintas. Por consiguiente, a la comisión le resultó difícil identificar, comparar y elaborar prioridades para identificar los proyectos más efectivos y económicos para alcanzar las metas de calidad de agua.

Cómo usar la herramienta de informe de BMP del Consorcio de Aguas de Tormenta del Condado de York

Para usar la herramienta en línea, los usuarios seleccionan un área de proyecto propuesta, y la herramienta genera automáticamente un análisis de la cubierta del suelo de alta resolución para toda el área de drenaje del proyecto. La herramienta integra estos datos de alta resolución, por lo que los usuarios pueden evaluar cómo sus proyectos podrían interactuar con el paisaje. Los usuarios también pueden comparar proyectos potenciales de manera rápida y fácil, y después revisar y presentar propuestas de proyectos con el mayor potencial para mejorar la calidad del agua. Los usuarios después pueden ingresar la información del proyecto en un modelo de reducción de carga de nutrientes/sedimentos llamado Herramienta de escenario de evaluación de instalaciones de la Bahía, o BayFAST. Los usuarios ingresan información adicional sobre el proyecto, y la herramienta inserta los datos geográficos. El resultado es un informe simple de una página en formato PDF que reseña los costos estimados del proyecto por libra de nitrógeno, fósforo y reducción de sedimento. Puede usar la herramienta en: http://chesapeakeconservancy.org/apps/yorkdrainage.

The Conservancy y la comisión de planificación colaboraron para elaborar una Herramienta de informe de BMP del Consorcio de Aguas de Tormenta del Condado de York de fácil utilización (recuadro, pág. 14), que permite comparar distintos métodos de restauración y cambio en el uso del suelo, y analizarlos antes de ponerlos en práctica. The Conservancy, la comisión y los miembros del personal municipal colaboraron sobre una plantilla uniforme de propuestas y recolección de datos, y optimizaron el proceso con los mismos juegos de datos. Después, The Conservancy capacitó a algunos profesionales SIG locales para que ellos a su vez pudieran proporcionar asistencia técnica a otras municipalidades. 

“Se puede usar en forma fácil y rápida”, explica Gary Milbrand, CFM, el ingeniero SIG y Director de Informática de la Municipalidad de York, quien proporciona asistencia técnica de proyecto a otras municipalidades. Anteriormente, dice, las municipalidades típicamente gastaban entre US$500 y US$1.000 en consultores para analizar sus datos y crear propuestas e informes. La herramienta de informe, dice, “nos ahorra tiempo y dinero”.

La comisión requirió a todas las municipalidades reguladas que presentaran sus propuestas de BMP usando la nueva tecnología para el 1 de julio de 2016, y las propuestas de financiamiento se seleccionarán a fines de este otoño. Las contrapartes dicen que las municipalidades están más involucradas en el proceso de describir cómo sus proyectos están funcionando en el entorno, y esperan ver proyectos más competitivos en el futuro. 

“Por primera vez podemos hacer una comparación cuantitativa”, dice Carly Dean, gerente de proyecto de Envision the Susquehanna. “El solo hecho de poder visualizar los datos permite que el personal municipal analice cómo interactúan sus proyectos con el terreno, y por qué el trabajo que están realizando es tan importante”. Dean agrega: “Sólo estamos empezando a escarbar la superficie. Pasará un tiempo hasta poder darnos cuenta de todas las aplicaciones potenciales”.

Integración de datos de la cubierta del suelo y el uso del suelo a nivel de parcela 

El equipo de Conservación también está trabajando para superponer datos de cubierta de suelo con los datos de condado a nivel de parcela, para proporcionar más información sobre cómo se está usando el suelo. La combinación de imágenes satelitales de alta resolución y datos del uso del suelo del condado a nivel de parcela no tiene precedentes. Los condados construyen y mantienen bases de datos a nivel de parcela en todos los Estados Unidos utilizando información como registros tributarios y de propiedad. Alrededor de 3.000 de los 3.200 condados han digitalizado estos registros públicos. Pero aun así, en muchos de estos condados los registros no se han organizado y normalizado para el uso del público, dice McCarthy.

La EPA y un equipo de USGS en Annapolis han estado combinando datos de la cubierta de suelo de un metro de resolución con datos del uso del suelo para los seis estados de Chesapeake, para brindar una vista amplia a nivel de cuenca que al mismo tiempo proporcione información detallada sobre el suelo desarrollado y rural. Este otoño, el equipo incorporará los datos del uso del suelo y la cubierta del suelo de cada ciudad y condado, y realizará ajustes para confirmar que los datos de los mapas de alta resolución coincidan con los datos a escala local. 

Los datos actualizados del uso del suelo y la cubierta del suelo se cargarán luego en el Modelo de la Cuenca de la Bahía de Chesapeake, un modelo de computadora que se encuentra actualmente en el nivel 3 de sus 4 versiones de pruebas beta de producción y revisión. Las contrapartes estatales y municipales, distritos de conservación y otras contrapartes de la cuenca han revisado cada versión y sugerido cambios en función de su experiencia de mitigación de aguas de tormenta, modernizaciones de tratamiento de aguas y otras BMP. Los datos detallarán, por ejemplo, el desarrollo de uso mixto, distintos usos del suelo agrícola para cultivos, alfalfa y pastura; y mediciones tales como la producción de fruta o verduras del suelo. Aquí es donde la conversión de la cubierta del suelo al uso del suelo es útil para ayudar a especificar las tasas de carga de contaminación.

“Queremos un proceso muy transparente”, dice Rich Batiuk de la EPA, director asociado de ciencia, análisis e implementación del Programa de la Bahía de Chesapeake, señalando que los datos combinados de la cubierta del suelo y el uso del suelo se podrán acceder en línea sin cargo. “Queremos miles de ojos sobre los datos de uso y cubierta del suelo. Queremos ayudar a las contrapartes estatales y locales con datos sobre cómo lidiar con bosques, llanuras de inundación, arroyos y ríos. Y queremos mejorar el producto para poder obtener un modelo de simulación de políticas de control de la contaminación en toda la cuenca”. 

Ampliación del trabajo y otras aplicaciones

A medida que la tecnología se refina y es utilizada más ampliamente por las contrapartes de la cuenca, The Conservancy espera poder crear otros juegos de datos, ampliar el trabajo a otras aplicaciones, y realizar actualizaciones anuales o bianuales para que los mapas sean siempre un reflejo de las condiciones reales. “Estos datos son importantes como una línea de base, y veremos cuál es la mejor manera de evaluar los cambios que se producen con el tiempo”, dice Allenby.

Las contrapartes de la cuenca están discutiendo aplicaciones adicionales para los juegos de datos de un metro de resolución, desde actualizar los mapas de emergencia/911, a proteger especies en extinción, a desarrollar servidumbres y comprar suelo para organizaciones de conservación. Más allá de la Bahía de Chesapeake, el trazado de mapas de precisión podría ayudar a realizar proyectos a escala de continente. Es el símil para la conservación de la agricultura de precisión, que permite determinar, por ejemplo, dónde se podría aplicar un poco de fertilizante para maximizar el beneficio para las plantas. Cuando se combinan estos dos elementos, la producción de alimentos puede crecer y reducir al mismo tiempo el impacto medioambiental de la agricultura. La tecnología también podría ayudar con prácticas de desarrollo más sostenible, el aumento del nivel del mar, y la resiliencia.

Mucha gente creyó que una pequeña organización sin fines de lucro no podía encarar este tipo de análisis, dice Allenby, pero su equipo pudo hacerlo por un décimo del costo estimado. El próximo paso sería poner estos datos del uso del suelo y la cubierta del suelo a disposición del público sin cargo. Pero en este momento eso sería muy oneroso. Los datos necesitan copias de respaldo, seguridad y una enorme cantidad de espacio de almacenamiento. El equipo de The Conservancy está transfiriendo los datos en colaboración con Esri, una compañía de Redlands, California, que vende herramientas de trazado de mapas por SIG, y también Microsoft Research y Hexagon Geospatial. El proceso se ejecuta en forma lineal, un metro cuadrado por vez. En un sistema que se ejecuta en la nube, se puede procesar un kilómetro cuadrado por vez y distribuir a 1.000 servidores por vez. Según Allenby, ello permitiría hacer un mapa a nivel de parcela de los 8,8 millones de kilómetros cuadrados de los EE.UU. en un mes. Sin esta tecnología, 100 personas tendrían que trabajar durante más de un año, a un costo mucho mayor, para producir el mismo juego de datos. 

Los mapas de precisión podrían aportar mucho más detalle a State of the Nation’s Land, un periódico anual en línea de bases de datos sobre el uso y la propiedad del suelo que el Instituto Lincoln está produciendo con PolicyMap. McCarthy sugiere que la tecnología podría responder a preguntas tales como: ¿Quién es el dueño de los Estados Unidos? ¿Cómo estamos usando el suelo? ¿Cómo afecta la propiedad el uso del suelo? ¿Cómo está cambiando con el tiempo? ¿Cuál es el impacto de los caminos desde el punto de vista ambiental, económico y social? ¿Qué cosas cambian después de construir un camino? ¿Cuánto suelo rico para la agricultura ha estado enterrado debajo de los emprendimientos suburbanos? ¿Cuándo comienza a tener importancia? ¿Cuánto suelo estamos despojando? ¿Qué pasa con nuestro suministro de agua?

“¿Puede resolver problemas sociales grandes?”, pregunta McCarthy. Una de las consecuencias más importantes de la tecnología de mapas de precisión sería encontrar mejores maneras de tomar decisiones sobre las prácticas del uso del suelo, dice, sobre todo en la interfaz entre la gente y el suelo, y entre el agua y el suelo. Se necesitan los registros de suelo para usar esta tecnología más eficazmente, lo cual podría presentar un desafío en algunos lugares porque no hay registros, o los que hay no son sistemáticos. Pero es una metodología y tecnología que se puede usar en otros países, dice. “Es un cambio en las reglas del juego, permitiéndonos superponer datos del uso del suelo con datos de la cobertura del suelo, lo cual puede ser increíblemente valioso para lugares de urbanización rápida, como China y África, donde los patrones y cambios se podrán observar sobre el suelo y con el correr del tiempo. Es difícil exagerar su impacto”.

“Nuestro objetivo es usar esta tecnología para aumentar la transparencia y la rendición de cuentas en todo el mundo”, dice McCarthy. “Cuanto más información puedan acceder los planificadores, mejor podrán defender nuestro planeta”. La herramienta se debería compartir con la “gente que quiere usarla con el fin apropiado, de manera que estamos haciendo la propuesta de valor de que este es un bien público que todos debemos mantener”, dice, en forma similar a cómo USGS desarrolló el sistema SIG. 

“Necesitamos la alianza pública-privada apropiada, algo así como un servicio público regulado, con supervisión y respaldo público, que se mantenga como un bien público”. 

Kathleen McCormick, fundadora de Fountainhead Communications, LLC, vive y trabaja en Boulder, Colorado, y escribe frecuentemente sobre comunidades sostenibles, saludables y resilientes.

Crédito: The Chesapeake Conservancy

Se estima que la implementación del acuerdo climático de París en todo el mundo costará más de US$12 billones en el curso de 25 años.

Así que no es de sorprender que gran parte de la conversación desde que se finalizó el acuerdo en diciembre haya sido sobre el financiamiento climático. Y uno de los grandes temas en el financiamiento climático, sobre todo entre los dirigentes municipales, es el de “bonos verdes”.

Pero, ¿qué son exactamente los bonos verdes, y por qué las autoridades locales deberían tenerlos en cuenta? He aquí una breve explicación de los factores más importantes.

¿Qué es un bono verde?

Un bono verde es un tipo de instrumento de deuda como cualquier otro bono, salvo que lo recaudado debe ser destinado a proyectos que producen un impacto ambiental positivo.

Los primeros bonos comercializados de esta manera fueron emitidos por el Banco de Inversión Europeo en 2007 y el Banco Mundial en 2008. Desde entonces, otros bancos de desarrollo, corporaciones y gobiernos se han adherido a esta tendencia. Según la Iniciativa de Bonos Climáticos, un grupo de investigación que hace un seguimiento del mercado, las emisiones totales de bonos verdes pasaron de US$3.000 millones en 2012 a alrededor de US$42.000 millones en 2015. 

Las municipalidades representan un porcentaje creciente de este mercado. Ven los bonos verdes como una herramienta para ayudar a pagar energía renovable, sistemas de transporte e infraestructura de agua, entre otras cosas.

El estado de Massachusetts, EE.UU., vendió el primer bono municipal verde en junio de 2013, seguido unos meses más tarde por la ciudad de Gotemburgo, Suecia. Otros emisores recientes de bonos fueron la ciudad de Johannesburgo; las direcciones de transporte de la Ciudad de Nueva York, Seattle y Londres; y la autoridad de aguas de Washington, DC.

¿Los bonos verdes son distintos de otros bonos municipales?

De hecho, no. El mecanismo funciona de la misma manera que otros bonos municipales. La principal diferencia es el propósito medioambiental de los bonos que la ciudad está emitiendo.

Además, los emisores de bonos verdes tienen que producir más documentación, esencialmente para demostrarles a los inversores que su dinero se está usando realmente para beneficiar el medio ambiente.

Hasta cierto punto, los bonos verdes son una herramienta de mercadotecnia. El hecho de denominar “verde” a un bono para pagar por reparaciones en el metro lo hace más atractivo para los inversores. “La verdad es que muchas ciudades están emitiendo bonos verdes; lo que pasa es que no los llaman así”, dice Jeremy Gorelick, quien enseña finanzas municipales en la Universidad Johns Hopkins de Baltimore, EE.UU.

Esto puede ser así en economías avanzadas como las de los Estados Unidos, donde un mercado de bonos municipales maduro ha estado funcionando desde hace más de un siglo. En los países en vías de desarrollo, la mayoría de las ciudades no puede emitir bonos para nada, por una variedad de razones. En muchos países, las ciudades necesitan obtener autorización legal de sus gobiernos nacionales para emitir un bono. También tienen que trabajar para hacerse merecedores al crédito.

Gorelick, quien está asesorando a la ciudad de Dakar, Senegal, para emitir su primer bono municipal, recomienda que las ciudades que se encuentran en esta situación no apunten al mercado de bonos inmediatamente. Primero les conviene pedir prestado de los gobiernos centrales o de sus fondos de desarrollo municipal antes de acercarse a las instituciones de financiamiento de desarrollo para obtener préstamos en condiciones favorables o a los bancos comerciales para tomar deuda a precios de mercado. La idea es ir construyendo un historial de crédito y los mecanismos de transparencia contable que los inversores en bonos de los mercados de capitales de deuda demandarán.

¿Por qué están tan interesadas en los bonos verdes las ciudades?

Hay muchas razones. La más importante es que los inversores realmente quieren tener bonos verdes en su cartera ahora mismo. En consecuencia, los emisores de bonos municipales han observado una “sobresuscripción” de bonos verdes, lo cual favorece a las ciudades.

Cuando Gotemburgo emitió sus primeros bonos verdes en 2013, “no sabíamos si los inversores iban a estar interesados”, dice Magnus Borelius, Jefe del Tesoro de Gotemburgo. En un plazo de 25 minutos, los inversores habían colocado órdenes por €1.250 millones –muchas veces más de lo esperado– y Gotemburgo tuvo que comenzar a declinarlas. “Nos sentimos abrumados”, dice Borelius.

Las ciudades se benefician de varias maneras cuando hay una fuerte demanda por parte de los inversores. La más importante es que pueden atraer a nuevos tipos de inversores, diversificando el grupo de personas e instituciones que tienen interés en la ciudad. “Es bueno que muchos inversores sepan que uno tiene acceso a capital”, dice Borelius. Desde la emisión de bonos verdes, agrega, “hemos aumentado el contacto con inversores; están más interesados en la ciudad y nos vienen a visitar”.

La fuerte demanda por parte de los inversores “otorga ventajas al emisor”, dice Lourdes Germán, una experta en finanzas municipales del Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo. Las autoridades locales pueden usar esta gran demanda como palanca para aumentar el tamaño de su oferta, demandar un periodo de pago mayor u obtener mejores tasas. Si bien algunas ciudades han obtenido precios favorables con los bonos verdes, Germán dice que los emisores no deberían contar con ello. “No está claro si llamar a un bono ‘verde’ resulta en mejores tasas”, dice.

¿Cómo se benefician los inversores?

Una creciente cantidad de inversores quieren que su dinero se utilice para proyectos de sostenibilidad medioambiental. Algunos están motivados por la lucha contra el cambio climático; otros simplemente están compensando por los riesgos climáticos en su cartera de inversiones.

Como consecuencia, hoy en día hay más fondos de pensión y administradores de activos privados que tienen algún tipo de mandato para “pensar verde”. Por ejemplo, el mes pasado el fondo de pensión pública sueco AP2 dijo que e staba destinando el 1 por ciento de su cartera de €32.000 millones a bonos verdes. Cuando se trata de inversores institucionales de esta envergadura, los compromisos de este tipo son significativos.

Además, los bonos municipales, por lo menos en mercados bien establecidos como en los EE.UU., se consideran una inversión segura. De manera que los bonos verdes emitidos por las ciudades son particularmente deseables. “Los inversores institucionales tienen un deber fiduciario y no invertirán en un producto que no rinda retornos”, dice Justine Leigh-Bell, administradora senior de la Iniciativa de Bonos Climáticos. “Este es un producto de grado de inversión ofrecido por emisores de alto volumen, donde el riesgo es bajo”.

¿Cómo se sabe si un bono es “verde”?

No hay reglas definitivas sobre este tema, lo cual inquieta tanto a los inversores como a los ecologistas. No obstante, el mercado de bonos verdes está evolucionando rápidamente, y están surgiendo algunas normas voluntarias para los emisores.

Una, desarrollada en gran parte por bancos grandes por medio de la Asociación Internacional de Mercados de Capitales, se llama Principios de Bonos Verdes. Otra fue desarrollada por la Iniciativa de Bonos Climáticos y se conoce como Estándar de Bonos Climáticos. El Banco Popular de China también ha publicado recientemente sus propias pautas sobre bonos verdes.

Nadie está obligado a usar estas normas, pero hay un fuerte impulso para hacerlo. “Si digo que mi camión de bomberos es ‘verde’, los inversores podrían levantar una ceja”, dice Germán. “Pero es un mercado de oferta y demanda, así que hay cierto control. Un emisor de bonos sólo recaudará ese dinero si un inversor cree que tiene realmente un propósito verde”.

Una cantidad creciente de emisores municipales está buscando opiniones independientes para certificar cuan “verdes” son sus bonos. Eso es lo que hace Gotemburgo. La ciudad sueca también ha creado un “marco de referencia de bonos verdes” para explicar a los inversores qué es lo que considera “verde” y cómo selecciona sus proyectos.

“Estamos en los primeros días de este mercado”, dice Skye d’Almeida, quien administra la red de financiamiento de infraestructura sostenible para el Grupo de Liderazgo Climático de Ciudades C40. “Es muy importante evitar cualquier escándalo de ‘lavado verde’, donde las ciudades dicen que emitieron bonos verdes y los inversores descubren más adelante que no eran verdes. Eso erosionaría la confianza en el mercado. Así que las ciudades deberían estar preparadas para que un organismo independiente verifique sus reclamos y ser muy transparentes en el uso del dinero recaudado”.

La emisión de un bono verde, ¿crea mucho trabajo o costo adicional para la ciudad?

Un poco. Leigh-Bell calcula que el costo de una revisión independiente es entre US$10.000 y US$50.000, dependiendo de quién hace la revisión y otros factores. Esto es un monto insignificante en transacciones frecuentemente valuadas en cientos de millones de dólares.

La emisión de bonos verdes puede generar trabajo adicional para el personal administrativo de la ciudad. Antes de emitir los bonos, hay que analizar los planes de inversión de capital de la ciudad para identificar proyectos que pueden calificarse como verdes. Después, hay que efectuar un seguimiento del uso de lo recaudado y reportar dicha información a los inversores. Según d’Almeida, este trabajo tiene el efecto secundario positivo de obligar a la gente a trabajar fuera de su propio silo: el personal de finanzas tiene que colaborar con el de transporte o medio ambiente, por ejemplo.

Borelius dice que este ha sido el caso en Gotemburgo. “La primera pregunta que me hace la gente sobre los bonos verdes es: ‘¿Cuánto trabajo adicional hay que hacer?’”, dice. “Si no se pone al personal de tesorería en la misma mesa con el personal de sostenibilidad, habrá mucho trabajo adicional. Pero si uno quiere emitir un bono verde, esto es lo que hay que hacer”.

El alcalde de Johannesburgo, Mpho Parks Tau, coincide que los bonos verdes han dado dividendos en el aspecto organizativo. Cuando se le preguntó recientemente si los bonos “verdes” son mayormente una estrategia de mercadotecnia, el alcalde respondió que el ejercicio ha sido útil para alinear el temario medioambiental del gobierno local como institución. “En realidad, podemos garantizar a la institución que el grueso de nuestro programa de capital se concentrará en la sostenibilidad”.

Christopher Swope es editor ejecutivo de Citiscope.

Crédito: Dennis Tarnay, Jr. / Alamy

Este artículo apareció originalmente en Citiscope.org. Citiscope es una organización periodística sin fines de lucro que cubre innovaciones en ciudades alrededor del mundo. Puede obtener más información en Citiscope.org.

This feature is adapted from Nature and Cities: The Ecological Imperative in Urban Design and Planning, edited by Frederick R. Steiner, George F. Thompson, and Armando Carbonell (Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, November 2016).

During the past 400 years, the land known as the United States of America has been transformed by massive public and private works projects and technological innovations intended to facilitate commerce, improve public health, and foster economic development. While these projects generated tremendous wealth for the nation, the gains were often to the detriment of the environment. The global realities of climate change—in combination with growing urbanization and associated poverty—have raised awareness of the ecological impact of such infrastructure. Americans are now at a unique moment in history when politics, economics, ecology, and culture (design) can all be part of a new movement. We need a WPA 2.0.

The WPA is the Works Progress Administration (1935–1943)—the largest and most ambitious program of U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal during the Great Depression. Much of the present-day infrastructure in the United States was built by either the WPA or the similarly named PWA (Public Works Administration). Almost every city, town, and community in America benefited from a new WPA- or PWA-built airport, bridge, dam, park, road, school, or other public building.¹

Let me now reflect, albeit briefly, on the history of public works projects in the United States to discern where the world’s richest nation is, today, in terms of its urban infrastructure. This will allow a glimpse into how landscape architects, architects, and planners are addressing the needs and opportunities that face not only American cities, but communities and cities throughout the world as they confront the pressing realities of global climate change.

Canals and Harbors

Early settlement in the United States showed patterns of towns and cities directly related to water resources. Navigable waterways, safe harbors, and access to fresh water for fire prevention, sanitation, power production, farming, and drinking were central to the development of major commercial centers. Construction of the Erie Canal (1817–1825), for example, made New York the financial capital of the world during the nineteenth century by opening up critical supply lines for timber, furs, minerals, and agricultural products that helped the North win the American Civil War (1861–1865). Since then, we have seen the gradual decoupling of urban transportation systems from the physical environment in the United States.

The Grid

Looking back to nineteenth-century America, ideals of Manifest Destiny and the agrarian myth fueled a need to organize and cultivate the nation’s western frontiers. The Land Ordinance Act of 1785 was a resolution written by Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826), then a delegate from Virginia, to create a federal system for the survey and sale of federally owned land west of the Appalachian Mountains, intended to fund the federal government at a time when the government could not raise fiscal resources through taxation.² It was then that an uncoupling of environmental and development systems started to take place on a large scale: The public land survey system parceled land into gridded territories, townships, and sections without regard to the geomorphology or carrying capacity of the property. Territories (24 x 24 miles; 38.624 x 38.624 kilometers), townships (6 x 6 miles; 9.656 x 9.656 kilometers), and sections (1 x 1 mile; 1.609 x 1.069 kilometers) were numbered and organized boustrophedonically, an alternating pattern from the top right to the bottom left quadrant of a square, similar to the path a farmer might follow when plowing a field.³

Agriculture, Railroads, and the Grid

When Horace Greeley (1811–1872), the famous editor of The New York Herald Tribune, purportedly declared in an editorial (13 July, 1865), “Go West, young man, go West and grow up with the country,” he rallied the nation.⁴ Greeley was responding, in part, to the Homestead Act of 1862, which enabled veterans, freed slaves, and even women to file a claim to a half-section of land (640 acres; 260 hectares) if they agreed to live on it and improve it for five years, further promoting agrarian values that were part of an American nationalism, which developed during a time of rapid industrialization. Manifest Destiny and agrarian culture, as characterized decades earlier by de Crèvecoeur (1735–1813) in numerous books, mythologized farming, espousing rural life as the foundation of character.⁵ However, the gridding of America and subsequent development of national rail lines—enabled by government grants of more than 300 million acres (121,405,693 hectares) to rail companies—were not reliant on natural systems for their development; instead, both worked in opposition to the waterways and topography they encountered, some of them extreme.

Supremacy over the landscape had its limits. While rail lines could be drawn to previously inaccessible corners of the country, facilitating commerce, they required long, gradual grade change and abundant clean water to function, limiting universal access. Farms and towns located themselves on and near new rail lines, but land in more arid climates west of the 100th meridian did not have the carrying capacity characteristic of Thomas Jefferson’s Virginia.⁶ Parcels of half-sections needed to be combined and annexed to enable productive use for timber or cattle grazing, uses that have their own heavy impacts on indigenous landscapes. The scale of operations moved toward a more standardized practice, away from the ideals of the rural farm. Western settlers and transcendentalists alike thought nothing of the consequences of introducing nonnative plant communities to the detriment of the indigenous environment.

A hallmark of the Industrial Revolution in the United States was the first transcontinental linking of rail lines—the Union and Central Pacific Railroads at Promontory Summit in Utah Territory near present-day Brigham City—on 10 May, 1869. Infrastructure tied to natural systems for the first two and a half centuries of the nation’s development could now follow a much more flexible path. By 1910, there was a network of more than 250,000 miles (402,336 kilometers) of rail covering the United States. Coeval with this infrastructural growth, the nation’s waterways transitioned from being critical economic lifelines to convenient disposal sites. As Carolyn Merchant has observed, “In the United States, industrial chemicals and wastes, including sulfuric acid, soda ash, muriatic acid, limes, dyes, wood pulp, and animal byproducts from industrial mills contaminated waters in the Northeast.”⁷ Ongoing pollution of rivers, canals, and ports still leaves neighboring communities managing the consequences of years of environmental abuses, despite the benefits of the 1972 Clean Water Act.

As natural systems became less important for access, they remained critical for raw materials. The relationship between water rights and rail lines, for instance, was critical not only because clean water was necessary to power steam engines, but also because the relationship between agriculture and rail transport systems opened up new areas of the country for the development and trade of commodities such as corn and wheat, legacy crops to this day.

Combined Sewers

When English plumber Thomas Crapper (1836–1910) popularized the use of the flush toilet during the 1860s, he surely had no idea of the potential future impact upon municipal watermanagement systems. His work triggered a cascade of events leading to the degradation of global waterways 150 years later. Rapid urbanization in the United States during the nineteenth century created the need for collective management of sanitary waste. In search of innovation, the United States looked to Europe, where a new form of infrastructure—the combined sewer—was developed to manage increased sanitary waste coming from more flush toilets. Combined sewer overflows (CSOs) release a witch’s brew of surface-water runoff and sanitary sewage into neighboring waterways when there is too much effluent for treatment plants to manage. Today, New York City, like 772 U.S. cities, has a combined sewer system where—in even a light rain—sanitary and storm wastes combine, releasing excrement, prophylactics, oil, pesticides, and heavy metals into New York’s harbor and rivers.

Around the world the combined sewers that unite sewage and stormwater in a common pipe—once a transformative infrastructure solution—have reached their limit. Growing urban populations and increased impermeable surfaces perpetually overload the sewage-treatment systems in cities globally. With sewage ever more frequently overflowing into waterways and a rise in sea level further compromising the outfall systems, policy makers and even private funders need to empower designers to rethink the design and management of urban stormwater and sanitary water systems. More severe and frequent storms resulting from global climate change will increasingly affect the hardened, postindustrial waterfront. Innovative urban design that can dissipate the forces of storm surge, manage flooding, reduce surface-water runoff, and reduce a heat-island effect need to be worked into an adaptation plan for waterfront cities. Without major changes to technology, the natural and human resource management of global health and productivity will be compromised.

The New Deal

Beginning in 1933, during the depths of the Great Depression, political leaders in the United States put forward programs under the New Deal that offered targeted relief for the massive number of unemployed and poor Americans, gradual recovery in the economic sector, and reform of the financial system. Significantly, New Deal programs also transformed the nation’s critical infrastructure. Roads, water-management structures, and pathways for electrification provided access, sanitation, and power to formerly undeveloped areas of the country. Parks, public buildings, bridges, airports, and other civic projects followed. Under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the WPA employed millions of unemployed people, including women and minorities, constructing a renewed cultural identity for the nation.

A hallmark of the New Deal programs—valued at $20 billion (more than $347 billion at current value)—was the work of artists, writers, landscape architects, architects, and other creative professionals who helped shape the look and cultural literacy of the country during the twentieth century. Legions of laborers guided by designers and bureaucrats worked locally with a regional palette of materials to create extraordinarily beautiful yet practical work that reflected national pride and civic awareness. The work was modern and aspirational and showcased indigenous character and material. President Roosevelt understood the need for large-scale government action to help get the country back on its feet and headed in a new direction.

The Federal Highway System

Two decades later, in the aftermath of World War II and the Korean War, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 into law. Also known as the National Interstate Defense Highways Act, the transcontinental highway system was presented to the public as essential to national defense systems and was funded at a cost of $25 billion through a tax on gasoline and diesel fuel. The term “infrastructure,” which developed during World War II to describe military logistical operations, became one of the president’s most visible and longlasting initiatives in the form of the U.S. interstate highway system. Eisenhower, the five-star general and supreme commander of Allied forces in Europe during the war, admired the efficiency of the German autobahns and sought to create a similar system in the United States. The unified design standards for the nation, consistent with the tenets of modernism, suggested the potential of technology to overcome geophysical obstacles in the landscape with hard engineering. The project catalyzed the development of sprawling new mega-regions of the late twentieth century.

Uncoupling

The sociologist and philosopher Jürgen Habermas (b. 1929), in his 1999 essay “The Uncoupling of System and Lifeworld,” suggested that the processes of differentiation and specialization inherent to modernism are undemocratic and that a democratic system of leadership in advanced capitalistic societies such as the United States enables decision making that is unreflective of society’s broader voice:

But political domination has socially integrating power insofar as disposition over means of sanction does not rest on naked repression, but on the authority of an office anchored in turn to legal order. For this reason, laws need to be inter-subjectively recognized by citizens; they have to be legitimated as right and proper. This leaves culture with the task of supplying the reasons why an existing political order deserves to be recognized.⁸

Through a democratic system, leaders are empowered to make massive decisions about the shape of their country with what I might characterize as “blind faith” in paternalistic power, which, when coupled with postwar fear and fatigue, is further enhanced. Technology reigned in the post–World War II period, and American culture was such that an uncoupling of the systems (such as interstate highways) from the life-world (the social and physical environment)—when presented by a war hero turned president—carried the necessary balance of paternalism and idealism to enable political support for the largest public works project in U.S. history.

As repressed groups, stifled by modernism’s systems-based approaches, found voice in the later twentieth century, the need for “different voices” (to borrow Carol Gilligan’s term) infused culture.⁹ The women’s movement, civil rights movement, and modern environmental movement each lent local and personal voices against the unsupportable rationality of current power structures. For the environmental movement, this contributed to important legislation such as the Clean Air Act of 1963 and the Clean Water Act of 1972.

The Problem

Many of the projects completed during the New Deal era are at the end of their lifespan. As James L. Oberstar has concluded:

Nearly sixty years after much of the interstate highway system was constructed in the 1950s and 1960s, we are now seeing many facilities become stretched to the limit of their design life and beyond. The world-class surface transportation system passed on by previous generations of Americans has reached the age of obsolescence and now needs to be rebuilt.¹⁰

Many canals and harbors are no longer used for commerce with the same intensity they once were, and they are, in many cases, decayed, underutilized, polluted, and subject to rising sea level and storm surge. Less than half of the original 300,000 miles (482,803 kilometers) of rail corridors across the United States are still in use for rail.¹¹ America’s 772 cities have combined sewers that still dump significant amounts of sewage effluent into waterways. Highways and bridges are in similarly poor condition. The repair and replacement of these monumental infrastructure systems in their current configurations do not reflect social, environmental, and technological advances that have occurred during the last half century.

Every four years, the American Society of Civil Engineers issues a report card on America’s infrastructure. Here are the grades given in 2013 and 2009:

D = Poor; C = Mediocre; B = Good.¹²

An unprecedented combination of deeply troubling environmental problems, political evolution, and new design and technology now present an unparalleled opportunity to improve America’s infrastructure. Given the realities of global climate change and increased urbanization and population growth, interdisciplinary teams of thinkers must develop models of urban design that work with the hydrologic, transportation, ecologic, economic, and cultural systems that will make cities better-performing and more compelling places to work, live, and raise families. It is unclear whether this work will be driven primarily by the federal government, as it is in France or the Netherlands, or through the public-private partnership models common in the United States. The crucial role of design in the public realm is undervalued and attitudes need to change.

Understanding how physical geography, ecology, and climate function is critical to the development of new types of infrastructure that are more responsive to the forces of nature. The idea of using natural systems to provide public amenities and health benefits is not new. Frederick Law Olmsted (1822–1903), for example, used tidal flows to reduce pestilence and pollution in his design and plan for the Back Bay Fens of Boston during the late 1880s. With advances in technology in the aftermath of the Industrial Revolution, engineered solutions were seen as superior to historical precedent. Viewing infrastructure as a machine was the answer. As we observed in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina (2005), Irene (2011), and Sandy (2012), engineered systems are inflexible and can fail with catastrophic consequences as the severity, frequency, and intensity of storm events increase.

It is time to rethink the nineteenth- and twentieth-century engineering model and consider options that can again work in concert with the natural environment. Roads were traditionally aligned with rivers in many rural areas because they were cheaper to build, but roads and bridges in Vermont were destroyed in minutes by the flood-swollen rivers during Hurricane Irene. In metropolitan New York, highways, train yards, tunnels, and public housing located in floodplains along the postindustrial waterfront, where the land was cheap, were severely flooded during Hurricane Sandy in 2012. Replacement of New Jersey’s PATH trains and rebuilding of flooded tunnels and other public and private property in areas subject to more frequent inundation is costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars a year when states of emergency are declared so frequently. Miami sits on a permeable bed of limestone at the interface of saltwater and freshwater and faces frequent hurricanes and flooding from upland and coastal sources that threaten not only its major industry—tourism—but also the ecological health of the Everglades.¹³

In many cities across the United States, combined sewer systems were an economical solution to sanitary engineering until climate change and population growth changed the balance sheet. Today, designers and public officials often look to Europe for water-management technology. American municipalities first looked at examples of combined sewers in France and Germany, and they now look to the Dutch for flood control. The Netherlands translates literally to “low lands,” and its strategy of planning includes 200 years into the future (long term), while constantly reconstructing dikes, dams, and polders (short term) is seen as necessary to protect not only the built environment, but also the agricultural economy dependent on sweet water (the Dutch term for fresh nonsaline water). In the United States, municipalities need to look further to the future and realize there are real opportunities to develop new innovations based on the nation’s geographic diversity. The prominent American geographer Gilbert F. White (1911–2006), in addressing the 1934 national flood-control policy, suggested that the multi-billion-dollar program to build reservoirs, canals, levees, and deeper river channels did not reduce flood losses decades later. In his words:

By assuming that only engineering works were needed to curb the cost of unruly streams, other possibly effective means were neglected. Little or no attention was paid to such alternatives as land use regulation or flood-proofing of buildings. By assuming the engineering works would do what the benefit-cost calculations had solemnly estimated they would do, without attempting to verify the practical results in land use, the public reaped quite different effects.¹⁴

America’s reliance on water-management structures thus provides a false sense of security in relation to availability, cost, and protection from catastrophic flooding. White suggested further that the “single purpose levee may set a confident scene for later catastrophe; a single-purpose reservoir may appropriate a unique dam site without assuring complete reduction in flood losses.”¹⁵ In many of White’s essays—written over a period of 60 years as a professor of geography and esteemed government advisor on natural hazards and flooding—he advocated a more holistic approach to design and planning and a testing of applied technology to gauge effectiveness.

Solutions

We know that gradual, buffered waterfront edges and barrier islands can dissipate wave energy, contain saltwater inundation, and make habitat that also helps to sequester carbon. The function of barrier reefs, salt marshes, and cypress swamps can thus inspire new models for an ecosystem’s management. Planning and designing for the periodic swells of rivers and streams may well necessitate an incentivized plan such as Zone (A)ir to relocate homes, towns, roads, communities, and businesses. It is critical that we adapt the architecture (buildings) and landscape architecture (infrastructure and outdoor space) by rethinking the porosity of the landscape, the materials of construction, the relocation of mechanical systems, and access. To the point: Our roads can soak up water, our highway trenches can be covered with parks that clean the air and provide recreational space, our waters’ edges can have an alternating combination of hard edges to facilitate commerce and softer edges to protect valuable upland real estate. Key to all of this thinking is the interface between human occupation and the environment.

The beginnings of this work in ecological design and planning are already apparent in Chicago, Philadelphia, and Portland, Oregon, where sidewalk swales and porous paving are becoming part of the standard streetscape. New York City is also taking on pilot projects to test the effectiveness of new materials and ideas, but testing takes time when action is needed. In floodplains along the Mississippi River, communities with low populations are being relocated and spillways opened to flood farmlands so that population centers downstream are safer. We cannot contain the force of water, as we once believed. Long-term, large-scale planning and actions that reduce our impact on the land, work in concert with natural systems, and enable new systems of exchange are necessary if we are to lessen the impacts of nature’s force.

Gilbert White long ago suggested a holistic and integrated regional approach to sound water management, but his voice fell on deaf ears, as single-purpose engineering solutions to local problems were constructed without consideration of watersheds and “sewersheds.” As towns and cities now work to manage aging infrastructure that is unable to handle impacts of more frequent storms and a rising sea, they have a huge opportunity to embrace new thinking and technology that, more than four decades after the federal Clean Water Act became law, will ameliorate day-to-day and storm-related wastewater loads with new and holistic gray/green engineered approaches.¹⁶ The costs of new infrastructure are real: Presently, approximately $95 billion will be needed to mitigate combined sewer overflows to bring cities in compliance with the 1972 law. Simultaneously, hundreds of billions will be needed to protect communities and cities against future flooding. Resources to address these issues should be combined for cost-effectiveness and efficiency.

Expansion of new green infrastructure networks—where hard surfaces are removed, utilities are protected, and stormwater is channeled for the irrigation of public parks, gardens, and wetlands—can also help mitigate and absorb floodwaters. Green (nature-based) infrastructure systems allow us to rethink not only the overarching functions of infrastructure, but also our experience of nature in the city. Municipalities have an opportunity to design and plan in the most comprehensive and cost-effective manner. The survival of towns and cities that currently exist at or just above sea level depends on aggressive, widespread rethinking of infrastructure for resilience to climate change and destructive storms. As we know, even if all 196 nations honor the commitments each made in Paris, in December 2015, to mitigate the effects of climate change, the global sea levels will rise at least 3 to 4 feet (0.914 to 1.219 meters) within a century, and all areas along the world’s coasts with elevations under 15 feet (4.572 meters) are extremely vulnerable to high tides and storm surge.¹⁷

WPA 2.0: A New Natural Infrastructure System

In response to the 285 deaths and widespread devastation (more than $50 billion in damage) caused by Hurricane Sandy (2012), three levels of U.S. government—federal, state, and local— established commissions, task forces, special initiatives, white papers, 12-point plans, plenary panels, and waterfront revitalization programs, all with vaguely military overtones that would convey action and strength. But will anything come of their recommendations? How can their ambitious designs and plans for modifications and improvements to make our city, state, and national infrastructure resilient to regular and extreme weather impacts be financed? To mitigate and counter the effects of an aging and ill-equipped infrastructure, to prepare now for global climate change, and to finance a new resilient defense network, I propose WPA 2.0 as a timely and much-needed solution.

The new infrastructure needed to adapt the nation’s cities, communities, and rural countryside to the realities of flooding and global climate change will require reconstruction on a massive scale of both gray and green infrastructure systems. Traditional, inflexible “gray” engineering approaches—which require waterproofing of transit systems, tunnels, and utilities or redirecting water with levees, dikes, and barriers—will work better in tandem with more resilient, ecological “green” approaches, including using currents and wind to distribute sediment for new barrier islands, reusing dredge materials to create shallows for wetlands, redesigning streets to absorb and filter stormwater, propagating a range of aquatic plants to make an ecologically rich buffer to storm surge, expanding natural flood zones (and buying out the people and businesses in them) that also function as parks most of the time, taking stormwater from highways and capturing sheet runoff in sponge parks, among other stormwater-capture systems.

As noted earlier, during the Great Depression, President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal programs brought sturdy, high-quality, and beautiful designs to public infrastructure with a national expenditure of $20 billion at a time when the gross domestic product was only $73 billion. The programs created millions of jobs, helped to restore economic stability, and offered financial reform to a flawed banking system. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) was the largest New Deal enterprise. It was formed to harness and manage waterways of the Tennessee River watershed in seven states, create a public utility, and direct numerous resources to an impoverished region of the nation. Along with water management to prevent annual flooding and to manage navigation, President Roosevelt’s signing of the TVA Act created dams for the production and delivery of lower-cost electricity in an era when private utility companies were seen to be exploiting already financially stressed customers. And while the TVA was an electric utility that harnessed the power of water to deliver power, by the 1950s it added coal-burning power plants and, by the 1970s, nuclear power plants to deliver more power to meet growing demands. Energy production is at the root of global warming.

The need for greater urban climate resilience is a consequence of global warming, and emissions from combustion are a primary source. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), created in 1970 by executive order of President Richard M. Nixon, power plants, refineries, and chemical manufacturing accounted for almost 84 percent of total reported emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases in 2013.¹⁸ A modest tax on the companies that are responsible for the majority of climate-affecting pollution, including electric utilities, auto companies, oil companies, and other industrial polluters, could yield revenues necessary to create a Natural Defense Fund and finance a plan for climate change–resilient infrastructure for the next century. The idea of taxing carbon is not new. A tax on the largest carbon emitters and water polluters could bankroll a fund dedicated to urban and rural climate resilience. And the corporations can afford it: Even with energy prices at historic lows, the 10 largest power utility companies, for example, reported sales of more than $17 billion in 2014, and in the Fortune 500 list the top 10 oil refining companies alone had profits of nearly $67 billion in 2015.

In 2014, the U.S. government authorized nearly $50 billion to repair the damages from Hurricane Sandy. Although no monies were created for new defense systems, President Barack Obama included $1 billion in his 2015 budget for a climate-resilience fund. This was a good start. In fiscal year 2015, the Federal Highway Budget included $48.6 billion for repairs of an infrastructure system nearing the end of its designed lifespan. In the next two decades, cities across the country will need to spend at least $100 billion to clean up stormwater runoff and to reduce combined sewer overflows (CSOs) to comply with the Clean Water Act of 1972. It is unlikely that either local communities or the federal government will come up with the funds needed from taxpayers. Thus, by applying a minor tax on the industries whose practices have led to global climate change, a Natural Defense Fund can be created. If a related Natural Infrastructure System had the funding equivalent to the WPA of the New Deal, there would be a level of funding for resilient public works for the next century and beyond that would actually make a difference. As with the efforts to fight wars or help the nation recover from the Great Depression, a major program of renewal and development of the nation’s infrastructure will ensure the survival of cities, towns, and rural areas and lead to tens of thousands of permanent jobs in the public and private sectors, in the design, building, and maintenance of a new infrastructure for stormwater alone.

In 2005, I founded DLANDstudio, an interdisciplinary design firm based in Brooklyn, New York, where we have been developing systematic interventions and adaptations of urban infrastructure that address many of the issues described above. The work, funded with a combination of grants and public funding, involves pilot projects that are relatively small in relation to the enormity of the problem. The idea behind them is to find small pilots that, when applied on a broad scale, can have a large impact. Our projects are mostly in New York, but our planning stretches around the world. One of our most important projects is the Gowanus Canal Sponge Park, which operates to absorb, hold, clean, and filter surface water in one of the most polluted bodies of water in the United States.

Gowanus Canal Sponge Park

The Gowanus neighborhood of Brooklyn, New York, has a rich history. Originally a large marshy wetland, the area was the site of early Dutch settlement, important Revolutionary War battles, and industry, including the energy and construction sectors. In recent decades, the canal has been better known for the lingering effects of industrial pollution and municipal waste.¹⁹

Planners today envision the area as a new site for large residential development, a controversial proposal in the face of projections of a rising sea level from climate change. In this context, working closely with local community organizations, government agencies, and elected officials, DLANDstudio initiated and designed a new kind of public open space called Sponge Park™.²⁰

In New York City, 0.10 inch (2.54 millimeters) of precipitation (especially rain) triggers a combined sewer overflow. The Hudson and East rivers, New Town Creek, Long Island Sound, Jamaica Bay, and Gowanus Canal are some of the key bodies of water impacted by these spills. Sponge Park™ redirects, holds, and treats stormwater runoff to minimize the volume of overflows that occur within the Gowanus Canal, and it serves as a model for similar street-ends that sheet-drain into canals, rivers, and other bodies of water in cities everywhere.

The Sponge Park™ design equally values the aesthetic, programmatic, and productive importance of treating contaminated water flowing into the Gowanus Canal, an EPA Superfund site. The park is designed as a working landscape that improves the environment of the canal over time. This innovative plan proposes modular strategies to divert stormwater runoff for use in the public park along the canal, thereby reducing the input of stormwater into the sewer system. The plants and engineered soils included in our design draw heavy metals and toxins out of contaminated water.

While most urban infrastructure projects have their challenges, the Sponge Park project had to confront not only geomorphic layers, but also layers of bureaucracy. We had to work with no fewer than nine different federal, state, and city agencies, each with overlapping ownership and regulatory oversight. As part of our creative response to those challenges,DLANDstudio raised all of the design and construction funding for the project from the New York State Council on the Arts, U.S. Congress, New York City Council, New England Water Pollution Control Commission, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation. Through the use of grant funding, we were able to innovate in a way that would be impossible through normal procurement procedures. Because the project was seen as a pilot and was led by an outside entity but with the cooperation of government, we were able to create an innovative and replicable system. The first street-end absorbs 2 million gallons of stormwater per year. If Sponge Parks were built on every street-end in New York’s five boroughs, upward of 270 million gallons of water would be absorbed and cleaned before entering New York Harbor.

Hold System

Highway Overpass Landscape Detention Systems, or HOLD Systems, collect and filter stormwater from highway downspouts. HOLD Systems are planted, modular, green infrastructure systems that absorb and filter pollutants such as oil, heavy metals, and grease out of contaminated outfalls, rendering runoff much cleaner as it is released into drains and waterways. The system’s ability to retain water during heavy rain also improves the water quality of adjacent bodies of water. Plant palettes selected for each site help to break down or absorb copper, lead, cadmium, hydrocarbons, zinc, and iron commonly found in runoff. Specially calibrated soils maximize plant productivity and create the ideal level of drainage for citywide stormwater management needs.

HOLD Systems are designed for easy transport and deployment, and they can be quickly and easily installed in hard-to-reach, hard-to-drain areas along interstate highways. HOLD Systems can remediate the impact that a highway infrastructure makes on the hydrologic cycle of neighboring areas. Three modular systems—two in the ground and one above ground—have already been developed by DLANDstudio to adapt to water-table height, permeability, site toxicity, and the availability of sun. These systems are currently being deployed in three locations in New York City—two in Flushing Meadows–Corona Park under the Van Wyck Expressway and one in the Bronx under the Major Deegan Expressway—with funding and other support from the New York City Department of Environmental Protection, Long Island Sound Futures Fund, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

MoMA: “A New Urban Ground”

“A New Urban Ground” was developed by DLANDstudio with ARO (Architecture Research Office) of New York City, as part of the Museum of Modern Art’s (MoMA) “Rising Currents” exhibition in 2010. In the proposal, we offered an integrated and reciprocal organization of natural and hard-infrastructure systems. A combination of strategies—including wetlands on the perimeter, a raised edge, and sponge slips (water-management landscapes in old boat slips)—were paired with new street infrastructure systems away from the water’s edge in order to protect Lower Manhattan from flooding in the event of another large storm such as Hurricane Sandy, which was but a Category One hurricane when it hit the New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut shores.

The proposal consists of two components that form an interconnected system: porous green streets and a graduated edge. Porous streets will absorb typical rain events and help keep surface water out of the city’s combined sewer system. In larger storms, the streets filter and carry water to new perimeter wetlands to enrich coastal ecologies.

Three interrelated, high-performance systems are constructed on the Atlantic Coast to mitigate the expected rise in sea level and the force of a storm surge: a park network, freshwater wetlands, and brackish marshes. “A New Urban Ground” offers a new way for urban design and planning that brings together natural ecologies with engineered infrastructure systems to transform the city in both performance and experience. This plan, which was proposed almost two years before Hurricane Sandy flooded Lower Manhattan, Staten Island, Red Hook, and the Rockaways, has been cited internationally as a viable model for new civic approaches in resilience to storm surge and sea level rise.²¹

BQGreen

Highway infrastructure systems across the United States are designed for one primary purpose: to move people and goods quickly from one place to another. But, as a society, it is time to rethink this singular, limited view and consider how infrastructure systems can also become productive corridors of beauty, culture, ecology, and recreation. The BQGreen project considers one such corridor—the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (BQE)—and examines in depth two sites along its 11.7-mile (18.829-kilometer) length.

The BQE was originally proposed by the Regional Plan Association during the mid-1930s to relieve traffic congestion, facilitate industrial development, and strengthen the connection between the boroughs of New York City. The BQE differed from the city’s other parkways by accommodating both commercial and noncommercial traffic. City planner Robert Moses (1888–1981), as the chairman of the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, charted its path from the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel near Red Hook to Grand Central Parkway in Queens. Construction of the BQE left a trail of divided neighborhoods in its wake.

We know from examples such as Riverside Park (1875 and 1937) in Manhattan, a hybrid Olmsted- and Moses-era park constructed on a concrete box over a major rail corridor, that it is possible to layer transportation with extraordinary public parks. Density is an urban concept that is tied to economics. As the land that infrastructure systems occupy becomes more valuable, it makes sense to layer. As environmental impacts and benefits begin to be assessed in economic terms, the value of making significant alterations to our roadways becomes more attractive at a time when America’s highway infrastructure is near the end of its lifespan and in need of significant repair. As these old systems are replaced, why not reexamine them and consider how they might serve economic, ecological, recreational, public health, and pedestrian-friendly circulation needs in addition to transportation?

Since 2005, DLANDstudio has examined two sunken sections of the BQE. The project began on a theoretical level with a grant from the New York State Council on the Arts to look at tiny Cobble Hill and Carroll Gardens before expanding to study a very different neighborhood in SouthSide Williamsburg, with funding from then City Councilwoman Diana Reyna. The latter study went into great detail about the economic, social, and public health consequences of adding a park to the impoverished neighborhood. Extensive community outreach included visits to neighboring playgrounds, church events, and performances to make sure we recognized the voice of the community. Data were developed regarding the financial feasibility of capping costs—including ventilation and structural costs—as well as analysis of job creation, real estate value, and even the bump in retail sales at neighboring bodegas. We studied public health issues and discovered very high asthma and obesity rates as well as a relative dearth of open recreational space for kids in the vulnerable preadolescent stage. We discovered gang territories defined by the trench and imagined blurring the boundaries with new soccer and baseball fields. We helped the community to dream and then engaged the agencies to help fulfill that vision, with formal support for the proposal from New York City’s Departments of Transportation, Environmental Protection, and Parks and Recreation. Outreach to Congressional Representative Nydia Velázquez and U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand also yielded positive support. To realize this vision will take the collaboration of city, state, and federal agencies; through the master plan we are making a strong argument for why this is the right project for all to support, as we work to make our communities and cities more efficient, livable, and environmentally productive.

The insertion of quality open space has the capacity not only to improve the aesthetics of neighborhoods, but also to serve as a catalyst for ecological and economic improvements to the urban environment. This project establishes a vision of the BQE as a place of opportunity where new open space can be created by introducing an environmental and recreational corridor and turning a former eyesore into a public amenity.

QueensWay

Already, 20,000 miles (32,187 kilometers) of abandoned rail corridors have been turned into bicycle and pedestrian greenways across the United States.²² The QueensWay Vision Plan, commissioned by the Trust for Public Land (TPL), a nonprofit organization founded in 1972, is one of TPL’s several current national initiatives to transform former rights-of-way in cities into active and engaging community greenways. The project involves the conversion of a former Long Island Rail Road line into a new open-space corridor for the public.

The history of land development in Queens is largely defined by the numerous rail lines that subdivided open tracts of land during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The QueensWay appropriates one of these infrastructural lineaments to opposite effect, as a unifying device. Each of the three main segments of the QueensWay—northern, central, and southern—possesses a distinct physical character that creates unique staging opportunities for the interaction of urban and natural space. Along its 3.5-mile (5.633-kilometer) length, the former right-of-way transforms from an elevated embankment to a ravine to an elevated steel viaduct. The adjacencies along the QueensWay also vary, with Little League baseball fields along the northernmost end; big-box-store parking lots, residential neighborhoods, and a public park in the middle; and crossing train lines, commercial corridors, and parking lots to the south. Issues such as safety, security, and the privacy of adjacent properties are directly tied to how the former railway line moves through the urban landscape. A quiet presence in the city, camouflaged by school-bus parking, overgrown vines, light industry, and limited access, the QueensWay has the potential to be a beautiful recreational and ecological amenity for the community.

The Future

John Wesley Powell (1834–1902)—among America’s greatest geologists, scientific surveyors, and explorers—in his famous 1878 “Report on the Lands of the Arid Region of the United States,” called for a clearer understanding of the climate and carrying capacity of the American Southwest, recognizing that not all landscapes and their capacities for human development are the same:

To a great extent, the redemption of all these lands will require extensive and comprehensive plans, for the execution of which aggregated capital or cooperative labor will be necessary. . . . It was my purpose not only to consider the character of the lands themselves, but also the engineering problems involved in their redemption, and further to make suggestions for the legislative action necessary to inaugurate the enterprises by which these lands may eventually be rescued from their present worthless state.²⁴

Powell wrote at a time when massive changes and their resultant impacts upon the American landscape were only beginning to be understood. We are at a similar stage in history when global climate change and an overall recognition of the impacts of people on the natural environment are yielding potentially catastrophic consequences. Powell, Gilbert White, and Jürgen Habermas, writing in different eras, all called for the integration of disciplinary and social thinking about our interaction with the physical world, beginning with the inherent, natural capacities of an environment to perform. Though they approached issues from different perspectives, they also understood a need for a multivalent, interdisciplinary approach to our occupation of the planet that involves ecological, economic, sociological, and artistic metrics.

The unprecedented and unrepeated investment in the American landscape during the New Deal and post–World War II periods provides replicable models from which to develop new systems of infrastructure that will help ameliorate the impacts of urbanization and climate change. New technologies and approaches to infrastructure that value working with natural systems can help create systems that grow stronger and more resilient over time. Collective will, new financing models—public or private—and strong leadership are needed to make WPA 2.0 a natural infrastructure system that can reduce human impact on the global biota.

Susannah Drake is the founding principal of DLANDstudio Architecture and Landscape Architecture, whose “Rising Currents New Urban Ground” proposal is in the permanent collection of the Museum of Modern Art and Cooper-Hewitt Design Museum. Since 2005, she has taught at Harvard, IIT, FIU, CCNY, Syracuse, Washington University in St. Louis, and The Cooper Union. Her work and writings have appeared in National Geographic and The New York Times, and she has contributed to Infrastructural Urbanism (DOM Publishers, 2011), Under the Elevated (Design Trust for Public Space, 2015), DEMO:POLIS (Akademie der Künste, 2016), and Nature and Cities: The Ecological Imperative in Urban Design and Planning (Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2016).

Drawing courtesy of DLANDstudio Architecture + Landscape Architecture, PLLC.

1. The WPA and the PWA were both New Deal programs during the Great Depression. Despite their similar-sounding names, they have critical distinctions: First, WPA laborers were hired directly by the government, while the PWA contracted much of their work to private entities. Second, the WPA engaged primarily in smaller projects with local governments such as schools, roads, sidewalks, and sewers, while PWA programs included large-scale bridges, tunnels, and dams. See: Leighninger, Robert D. “Cultural Infrastructure: The Legacy of New Deal Public Space.” Journal of Architectural Education, Volume 49, No. 4 (May, 1996): 226–236.

2. Carstensen, Vernon, “Patterns on the American Land,” Publius: The Journal of Federalism, Vol. 18, No. 4 (Fall 1988): 31–39.

3. Stilgoe, John R., Common Landscape of America, 1580 to 1845 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1983), 104.

4. The origins of this famous phrase about Manifest Destiny in America are disputed. Fred R. Shapiro, the editor of the Yale Book of Quotations, comments on the origins in the Yale Alumni Magazine (September/October 2008); see http://www.archives.yaleulumnimagazine.com.

5. See, for example, de Crèvecoeur, J. Hector St. John, Letters from an American Farmer (London, UK: T. Davies, 1782).

6. See Hudson, John C., Plains Country Towns (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1985), which won the first John Brinckerhoff Jackson Book Prize of the Association of American Geographers.

7. Merchant, Carolyn, The Columbia Guide to American Environmental History (New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 2002), 112.

8. Habermas, Jürgen, “The Uncoupling of System and Lifeworld,” in Elliott, Anthony, ed., The Blackwell Reader in Contemporary Social Theory (Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 1999), 175.

9. Gilligan, Carol, In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982).

10. Oberstar, James L., special comments in LePatner, Barry B., Too Big to Fall: America’s Failing Infrastructure and the Way Forward (Lebanon, NH: Foster Publishing, in association with the University Press of New England, 2010), xi.

11. Tracy, Tammy, and Hugh Morris, Rail-Trails and Safe Communities: The Experience on 372 Trails (Washington, D.C.: Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, 1998); available online at http://www.railstotrails.org/resources/documents/resource_docs/Safe%20Communities_F_lr.pdf.

12. See http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org.

13. See, for example, Kolbert, Elizabeth, “The Siege of Miami,” The New Yorker (December 21 and 28, 2015): 42–46 and 49–50.

14. White, Gilbert F., “The Changing Role of Water in Arid Lands,” in Kates, Robert W., and Ian Burton, eds., Geography, Resources, and Environment: Vol. 1, Selected Writings of Gilbert F. White (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1986), 137.

15. Ibid.

16. As defined by the EPA, “gray” infrastructure is “conventional piped drainage and water treatment systems” and “green” infrastructure is “designed to move urban stormwater away from the built environment [and] reduces and treats stormwater at its source while delivering environmental, social, and economic benefits.” See EPA, “What is Green Infrastructure”; available at https://www.epa.gov/green-infrastructure/what-green-infrastructure.

17. See, for example, Ganis, John, with essays by Liz Wells and James E. Hansen, America’s Endangered Coasts: Photographs from Texas to Maine (Staunton, VA: George F. Thompson Publishing, 2016).

18. See http://www3.epa.gov for an update.

19. See Alexiou, Joseph, Gowanus: Brooklyn’s Curious Canal (New York, NY: NYU Press, 2015).

20. For an overview of Sponge Park, see Foderaro, Lisa W., “Building a Park in Brooklyn to Sop Up Polluted Waters: Site Will Treat Thousands of Gallons near Canal,” The New York Times (December 16, 2015): A27 and A29.

21. See, for example, Palazzo, Danilo, and Frederick R. Steiner, Urban Ecological Design: A Process for Regenerative Place (Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2011), 6; and “Rising Currents: Projects for New York’s Waterfront to Respond to Climate Change,” Landscape Architecture China, Vol. 11, No. 3 (June 2010): 70–75.

22. The origins of the rails-to-trails movement was brilliantly presented by Charles E. Little in his now-classic book, Greenways for America (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, in association with the Center for American Places, 1990).

23. Carbonell, Armando, Mark Pisano, and Robert Yaro. 2005. Global gateway regions. September. New York, NY: Regional Plan Association. http://www.america2050.org/pdf/globalgatewayregions.pdf.

24. Powell, J. W., “Report on the Lands of the Arid Regions of the United States, with a More Detailed Account of the Lands of Utah” (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, April 2, 1878), viii.
 

The Chesapeake Bay is a cultural icon, a national treasure, and a natural resource protected by hundreds of agencies, nonprofit organizations, and institutions. Now with unprecedented accuracy, a new ultra-high-resolution digital mapping technology, developed by the Chesapeake Conservancy and supported by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, is pinpointing pollution and other threats to the ecosystem health of the bay and its watershed, which spans 64,000 square miles, 10,000 miles of shoreline, and 150 major rivers and streams. At one-meter-by-one-meter resolution, the “precision conservation” mapping technology is gaining the attention of a wide range of agencies and institutions that see potential applications for a variety of planning purposes, for use throughout the United States and the world. This new land cover dataset, created by the Conservancy’s Conservation Innovation Center (CIC), has 900 times more information than previous datasets, and provides vastly greater detail about the watershed’s natural systems and environmental threats—the most persistent and pressing of which is pollution of the bay’s waters, which impacts everything from the health of people, plants, and wildlife to the fishing industry to tourism and recreation.

“The U.S. government is putting more than $70 million a year into cleaning up the Chesapeake but doesn’t know which interventions are making a difference,” says George W. McCarthy, president and CEO of the Lincoln Institute. “With this technology, we can determine whether interventions can interrupt a surface flow of nutrients that is causing algae blooms in the bay. We can see where the flows enter the Chesapeake. We’ll see what we’re getting for our money, and we can start to redirect the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Agriculture, and multiple agencies that might plan strategically but not talk to each other.”

The nonprofit Chesapeake Conservancy is putting finishing touches on a high-resolution map of the entire watershed for the Chesapeake Bay Program. Both organizations are located in Annapolis, Maryland, the epicenter of bay conservation efforts. The program serves the Chesapeake Bay Partnership, the EPA, the Chesapeake Bay Commission, and the six watershed states of Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia—along with 90 other partners including nonprofit organizations, academic institutions, and government agencies such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS), and the U.S. Department of Defense.

On behalf of this partnership, EPA in 2016 invested $1.3 million in state and federal funding in the Conservancy’s high-resolution land cover project, which is being developed with the University of Vermont. Information gleaned from several precision mapping pilot programs is already helping local governments and river partners make more efficient and cost-effective land-management decisions.

“There are a lot of actors in the Chesapeake Bay watershed,” says Joel Dunn, president and CEO of the Chesapeake Conservancy. “We’ve been working on a very complicated conservation problem as a community over the last 40 years, and the result has been layers and layers and many institutions built to solve this problem.”

“Now it’s not a collective will problem but an action problem, and the whole community needs to be partnering in more innovative ways to take restoration of the watershed’s natural resources to the next level,” he adds.

“Conservation technology is evolving quickly and may be cresting now,” Dunn says, “and we want to ride that wave.” The project is an example of the Conservancy’s efforts to take its work to new heights. By bringing “big data” into the world of environmental planning, he says, the Conservancy is poised to further innovate as “conservation entrepreneurs.”

What Is Precision Mapping Technology?

Land use and land cover (LULC) data from images taken by satellites or airplanes is critical to environmental management. It is used for everything from ecological habitat mapping to tracking development trends. The industry standard is the USGS’s 30-by-30-meter-resolution National Land Cover Database (NLCD), which provides images encompassing 900 square meters, or almost one-quarter acre. This scale works well for large swaths of land. It is not accurate, however, at a small-project scale, because everything at one-quarter acre or less is lumped together into one type of land classification. A parcel might be classified as a forest, for example, when that quarter-acre might contain a stream and wetlands as well. To maximize improvements to water quality and critical habitats, higher resolution imaging is needed to inform field-scale decisions about where to concentrate efforts.

Using publicly available aerial imagery from the National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP), combined with LIDAR (or Light Detection and Ranging) land elevation data, the Conservancy has created three-dimensional land classification datasets with 900 times more information and close to a 90 percent accuracy level, compared to a 78 percent accuracy level for the NLCD. This new tool provides a much more detailed picture of what’s happening on the ground by showing points where pollution is entering streams and rivers, the height of slopes, and the effectiveness of best management practices (BMPs) such as bioswales, rain gardens, and forested buffers.

“We’re able to translate raw imagery to a classified landscape, and we’re training the computer to look at what humans see at eye level,” and even to identify individual plants, says Jeff Allenby, director of conservation technology, who was hired in 2012 to leverage technology to study, conserve, and restore the watershed. In 2013, a $25,000 grant from the Information Technology Industry Council (ITIC) allowed Allenby to buy two powerful computers and begin working on the digital map. With support from the Chesapeake Bay Program, his geographic information system (GIS)-savvy team of eight has created a classification system for the Chesapeake watershed with 12 categories of land cover, including impervious surfaces, wetlands, low vegetation, and water. It is also incorporating zoning information about land uses from the Chesapeake Bay Program.

The Technology’s Potential

Precision mapping “has the potential to transform the way we look at and analyze land and water systems in the United States,” says James N. Levitt, manager of land conservation programs for the department of planning and urban form at the Lincoln Institute, which is supporting the Conservancy’s development of the technology with $50,000. “It will help us maintain water quality and critical habitats, and locate the areas where restoration activities will have the greatest impact on improving water quality.” Levitt says the technology enables transferring “nonpoint,” or diffuse and undetermined, sources of pollution into specific identifiable “point” sources on the landscape. And it offers great potential for use in other watersheds, such as the Ohio and Mississippi river systems, which, like the Chesapeake watershed, also have large loads of polluted stormwater runoff from agriculture.

It’s a propitious time to be ramping up conservation technology in the Chesapeake region. In February 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to consider a challenge to the Chesapeake Bay Partnership’s plan to fully restore the bay and its tidal rivers as swimmable and fishable waterways by 2025. The high court’s action let stand a ruling by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld the clean water plan and reinforced restrictions on the total maximum daily load, or the permissible limit of pollution from substances like nitrogen and phosphorus. These nutrients, found in agricultural fertilizers, are the two major pollutants of the bay, and are addressed under federal water quality standards established by the Clean Water Act. The ruling also allows EPA and state agencies to fine polluters for violating regulations.

The Chesapeake Bay’s water quality has improved from its most polluted phase in the 1980s. Upgrades and more efficient operations at wastewater treatment plants have reduced nitrogen going into the bay by 57 percent and phosphorus by 75 percent. But the watershed states are still in violation of clean water regulations, and increasing urban development calls for constant assessment and pollution reduction in water and critical habitats.

Pilot Project No. 1: Chester River

Backed by funding from ITIC’s Digital Energy and Sustainability Solutions Campaigns, the Conservancy completed a high-resolution land classification and stormwater runoff flow analysis for the entire Chester River watershed on Maryland’s eastern shore. Isabel Hardesty is the river keeper for the 60-mile-long Chester River and works with the Chester River Association, based in Chestertown, Maryland. (“River keeper” is an official title for 250 individuals worldwide who serve as the “eyes, ears, and voice” for a body of water.) The Conservancy’s analysis helped Hardesty and her staff understand where water flows across the land, where BMPs would be most effective, and which degraded streams would be best to restore.

Two-thirds of the Chester River watershed’s land cover is row crops. Row-crop farmers often apply fertilizer uniformly to a field, and the fertilizer runs off with stormwater from all over the site. This is considered nonpoint pollution, which makes it harder to pinpoint the exact source of contaminants flowing into a river—compared to, say, a pile of manure. The Conservancy’s team mapped the entire Chester watershed, noting where rain fell on the landscape and then where it flowed.

“With the naked eye, you can look at a field and see where the water is flowing, but their analysis is much more scientific,” says Hardesty. The map showed flow paths across the whole watershed, in red, yellow, and green. Red indicates higher potential for carrying pollutants, such as flow paths over impervious surfaces. Green means water is filtered, such as when it flows through a wetlands or a forested buffer, making it less likely to carry pollution. Yellow is intermediary, meaning it could go either way. The analysis has to be “ground-truthed,” says Hardesty, meaning the team uses the GIS analysis and drills down to an individual farm level to confirm what’s happening on a specific field.

“We are a small organization and have relationships with most of the farmers in the area,” says Hardesty. “We can look at a parcel of land, and we know the practices that farmers use. We’ve reached out to our landowners and worked with them on their sites and know where pollution may be entering streams. When we know a particular farmer wants to put a wetland on his farm, this land use and water flow analysis helps us determine what kind of BMP we should use and where it should be located.” The value of precision mapping for the Chester River Association, says Hardesty, has been “realizing that the best place to put a water intercept solution is where it’s best for the farmer. This is usually a fairly unproductive part of the farm.” She says farmers generally are happy to work with them to solve the problem.

The Chester River Association is also deploying the technology to use resources more strategically. The organization has a water monitoring program with years of watershed data, which the Conservancy team analyzed to rank streams according to water quality. The association now has GIS analysis that shows the flow paths for all stream subwatersheds, and is creating a strategic plan to guide future efforts for streams with the worst water quality.

Pilot Project No. 2: York County Stormwater Consortium BMP Reporting Tool

In 2013, the Conservancy and other core partners launched Envision the Susquehanna to improve the ecological and cultural integrity of the landscape and the quality of life along the Susquehanna River, from its headwaters in Cooperstown, New York, to where it merges with the Chesapeake Bay in Havre de Grace, Maryland. In 2015, the Conservancy selected the program to pilot its data project in York County, Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania has struggled to demonstrate progress in reducing nitrogen and sediment runoff, especially in places where urban stormwater enters rivers and streams. In 2015, EPA announced that it would withhold $2.9 million in federal funding until the state could articulate a plan to meet its targets. In response, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection released the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Strategy to increase funding for local stormwater projects, verify the impacts and benefits of local BMPs, and improve accounting and data collection to monitor their effectiveness.

York County created the York County–Chesapeake Bay Pollution Reduction Program to coordinate reporting on clean-up projects. The Conservancy’s precision mapping technology offered a perfect pilot opportunity: In spring 2015, the York County Planning Commission and the Conservancy began working together to improve the process for selecting BMP projects for urban stormwater runoff, which, combined with increased development, is the fastest growing threat to the Chesapeake Bay.

The planning commission targeted the annual BMP proposal process for the 49 of 72 municipalities that are regulated as “municipal separate storm sewer systems,” or MS4s. These are stormwater systems required by the federal Clean Water Act that collect polluted runoff that would otherwise make its way into local waterways. The commission’s goal was to standardize the project submittal and review processes. The county had found that calculated load reductions often were inconsistent among municipalities because many lacked the staff to collect and analyze the data or used a variety of different data sources. This made it difficult for the commission to identify, compare, and develop priorities for the most effective and cost-efficient projects to achieve water-quality goals.

How to Use the York County Stormwater Consortium BMP Reporting Tool

To use the online tool, users select a proposed project area, and the tool automatically generates a high-resolution land cover analysis for all of the land area draining through the project footprint. High-resolution data is integrated into the tool, allowing users to assess how their project would interact with the landscape. Users also can compare potential projects quickly and easily, and then review and submit proposals for projects with the best potential to improve water quality. Users then input their project information into a nutrient/sediment load reduction model called the Bay Facility Assessment Scenario Tool, or BayFAST. Users enter additional project information, and the tool fills in the geographic data. The result is a simple, one-page pdf report that outlines the estimated project costs per pound of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment reduction. See the tool at: http://chesapeakeconservancy.org/apps/yorkdrainage/.

The Conservancy and planning commission collaborated to develop the user-friendly, web-based York County Stormwater Consortium BMP Reporting Tool (above), which allows different land use changes and restoration approaches to be compared and analyzed before being put into place. The Conservancy, commission, and municipal staff members collaborated on a uniform template for the proposals and data collection, and they streamlined the process with the same data sets. The Conservancy then trained a few of the local GIS professionals to provide technical assistance to other municipalities.

“It’s easy and quick to use,” explains Gary Milbrand, CFM, York Township’s GIS engineer and chief information officer, who is a project technical assistant for other municipalities. In the past, he says, municipalities typically spent between $500 and $1,000 on consultants to analyze their data and create proposals and reports. The reporting tool, he says, “saves us time and money.”

The commission required all regulated municipalities to submit BMP proposals using the new technology by July 1, 2016, and proposals will be selected for funding by late fall. Partners say the municipalities are more involved in the process of describing how their projects are working in the environment, and they hope to see more competitive projects in the future.

“For the first time, we can compare projects ‘apples to apples,’” says Carly Dean, Envision the Susquehanna project manager. “Just being able to visualize the data helps municipal staffs analyze how their projects interact with the landscape, and why their work is so important.” Dean adds, “We’re only just beginning to scratch the surface. It will take a while before we grasp all of the potential applications.”

Integrating Land Cover and Land Use Parcel Data

The Conservancy team is also working to overlay land cover data with parcel-level county data to provide more information on how land is being used. Combining high-resolution satellite imagery and county land use parcel data is unprecedented. Counties throughout the United States collect and maintain parcel-level databases with information such as tax records and property ownership. About 3,000 out of 3,200 counties have digitized these public records. But even in many of these counties, records haven’t been organized and standardized for public use, says McCarthy.

EPA and a USGS team in Annapolis have been combining the one-meter-resolution land cover data with land use data for the six Chesapeake states to provide a broad watershed-wide view that at the same time shows highly detailed information about developed and rural land. This fall, the team will incorporate every city and county’s land use and land cover data and determine adjustments to make sure the high-resolution map data matches local-scale data.

The updated land use and cover data then will be loaded into the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model, a computer model now in its third of four beta versions of production and review. State and municipal partners, conservation districts, and other watershed partners have reviewed each version and suggested changes based on their experience in stormwater mitigation, water treatment upgrades, and other BMPs. Data will detail, for example, mixed-use development; different agricultural land uses for crops, hay, and pasture; and measures such as how much land produces fruit or vegetable crops. That’s where the conversion from land cover to land use comes in to help specify the pollution load rates.

“We want a very transparent process,” says EPA’s Rich Batiuk, associate director for science, analysis, and implementation for the Chesapeake Bay Program, noting that the combined land cover and land use data will be available online, at no cost. “We want thousands of eyes on land use and cover data. We want to help state and local partners with data on how we’re dealing with forests, flood plains, streams, and rivers. And we want an improved product that becomes the model for simulations of pollution control policies across the watershed.”

Scaling Up and Other Applications

As the technology is refined and used more widely by watershed partners, the Conservancy hopes to provide other data sets, scale up the work to other applications, and conduct annual or biannual updates so the maps reflect current conditions. “This data is important as a baseline, and we’ll be looking at the best way to be able to assess change over time,” says Allenby.

Watershed partners are discussing additional applications for one-meter-resolution data, from updating Emergency-911 maps, to protecting endangered species, to developing easements and purchasing land for conservation organizations. Beyond the Chesapeake, precision mapping could help conduct continental-scale projects. It offers the conservation parallel to precision agriculture, which helps determine, for example, where a bit of fertilizer in a specific place would do the most good for plants; the two combined could increase food production and reduce agriculture’s environmental impact. The technology could also help with more sustainable development practices, sea level rise, and resiliency.

Many people said it wasn’t feasible for a small nonprofit to do this kind of analysis, says Allenby, but his team was able to do it for a tenth of the cost of estimates. The bigger picture includes making land use and cover data available to the public for free. But that’s an expensive proposition at this point: The data needs backup, security, and a huge amount of storage space. Working with Esri, a Redlands, California-based company that sells GIS mapping tools, as well as Microsoft Research and Hexagon Geospatial, the Conservancy team is transferring the data. The process now runs linearly one square meter at a time. On a cloud-based system, it will run one square kilometer at a time and distribute to 1,000 different servers at once. Allenby says this could allow parcel-level mapping of the entire 8.8 million square kilometers of land in the United States in one month. Without this technology, 100 people would have to work for more than a year, at much greater cost, to produce the same dataset.

Precision mapping could bring greater depth to State of the Nation’s Land, an annual online journal of databases on land use and ownership that the Lincoln Institute is producing with PolicyMap. McCarthy suggests the technology might answer questions such as: Who owns America? How are we using land? How does ownership affect how land is used? How is it changing over time? What are the impacts of roads environmentally, economically, and socially? What changes after you build a road? How much prime agricultural land has been buried under suburban development? When does that begin to matter? How much land are we despoiling? What is happening to our water supply?

“Can it solve big social problems?” queries McCarthy. One of biggest outcomes of precision mapping technology would be to develop better ways to inform land use practices, he says, especially at the interface between people and land, and water and land. Land records are needed to use this technology most effectively, which might be challenging in some places because these records don’t exist or are inconsistent. But it’s a methology and technology that can be used in other countries, he says. “It‘s a game changer, allowing us to overlay land use data with land cover data, which could be hugely valuable to rapidly urbanizing places like China and Africa, where patterns and changes will be seen over the land and over time. It’s hard to exaggerate the impact.”

“Our goal is the world, to use this technology for transparency and accountability,” says McCarthy. “The more information planners have access to, the better stewards we can be for the planet.” The tool should be shared with “people who want to use it for the right purposes, so we’re making the value proposition that this is a public good that we all need to maintain,” he says, similar to the way USGS developed GIS.

“We need the right public-private arrangement, something like a regulated public utility with public oversight and support that will maintain it as a public good.”

Kathleen McCormick, principal of Fountainhead Communications, LLC, lives and works in Boulder, Colorado, and writes frequently about sustainable, healthy, and resilient communities.

Image by The Chesapeake Conservancy

The government of China has been concerned about its ability to continue feeding its growing population since the mid-1990s. It has targeted conversion of farmland to industrial and residential uses, especially in the most productive agricultural regions, as the chief threat to the nation’s continued capacity to produce adequate levels of staple cereal crops. China is land poor. Only about one-third of its total land area, which is roughly equal to that of the United States, can be utilized productively for agriculture. Several measures have been introduced with the aim of protecting farmland, especially farmland with the greatest production potential. For example, current regulations require each province to keep 80 percent of its land currently designated as primary farmland under cultivation. Other policies require each province to take measures to ensure self-sufficiency in grain production and to draw up farmland protection plans.

Cultivated Land versus Farmland

Most attention has been focused on “cultivated” land, that is, land used to grow major food grains, feed grains, soybeans, and tubers. Not included is land used for horticultural crops and aquaculture, which would be categorized as farmland in most countries. Roughly 20 to 25 percent of the observed reduction in cultivated land in China in recent years was due to its conversion to orchards and fish ponds (Smil 1999; Ministry of Land and Resources 2003).

Reallocation of cultivated land from cereals and tubers to fruits, vegetables, and fish is a natural accommodation to changing consumer demand and increased income rather than a sign of an inability to maintain staple food production. Urban Chinese households consume much less grain than rural households (Gale 2002). Thus, changes in diets caused by rural-to-urban migration have resulted in less consumption of grains in China between 1995 and 2002, even though total population increased by about one-eighth during that period.

Farmland and Food Security

Even after correcting for reallocations of cultivated land to other food products, China has lost a significant amount of cropland, although the exact amount is difficult to determine because of the poor quality of historical statistics. Estimates of gross cropland losses between 1987 and 1995 have ranged from 3 to 5 million hectares out of a total estimate of 125 to 145 million hectares. Some of that loss consisted of land that was marginal in terms of agricultural productivity, but was highly vulnerable to erosion, desertification, and other forms of land degradation; much of this land was subsequently allowed to revert to more sustainable uses, such as pasture, grassland, and forest. Because the productivity of this land was quite low, its removal from cultivation represents little reduction in agricultural production capacity.

Most observers believe that China can remain largely self-sufficient in food production because of its ability to increase the agricultural productivity of land. For example, China’s agricultural research system has been quite successful in developing and promulgating new crop varieties and cultivation methods that have increased potential grain yields an average of 1.5 to 2.5 percent annually (Jin et al. 2002). A study conducted under the auspices of the International Food Policy Research Institute indicates that China’s ability to remain self-sufficient in food production depends more on investment in irrigation, flood control, and agricultural research infrastructure than on farmland preservation (Huang, Rozelle, and Rosegrant 1999).

Water is likely to be more of a bottleneck than land. Many farming regions face shortages of water for irrigation, so farmers who rely on groundwater have been pumping at unsustainably high rates, causing water tables to fall rapidly. Even regions with abundant water resources have shortages because of poor maintenance and operation of irrigation systems. Improved flood control is also sorely needed to prevent natural disasters that affect cropland losses.

Impacts of Urbanization

Even if the loss of cultivated land does not threaten China’s food security, there are substantial inefficiencies in land allocation generally, and in the conversion of farmland to urbanizing areas in particular. The most worrisome aspect is that farmland conversion has been concentrated in the most productive farming areas of the country, notably the coastal and central provinces that have both fertile soils and climates that allow multiple crops and harvests. Net losses of cropland in these provinces alone between 1985 and 1995 were on the order of 2 to 4 million hectares. Urbanization, industrialization, infrastructure, and other nonagricultural uses have been the primary cause of farmland loss in these rapidly industrializing provinces.

The two sites selected for a recent Lincoln Institute/Ministry of Land and Resources farmland protection study illustrate the scope of this problem. Most of the land around Pinghu City, located halfway between Hangzhou and Shanghai in Zhejiang Province, is prime agricultural land that can be harvested two or three times a year. Cultivated land and orchards account for about two-thirds of the total land area, and little land is left unused. Land taken for construction increased eightfold between 1998 and 2001. The local government has used consolidation of plots to meet its “no net loss” requirements, but the scope for further gains from consolidation is quite limited. Recorded conversion of farmland to urban uses during this period of rapid growth amounted to almost 2 percent of Pinghu City’s 1998 farmland.

Jingzhou City, located in the Yangtze River basin west of Wuhan in Hubei Province, shows the limited impact of urbanization outside of the rapidly growing coastal provinces. Cultivated land and orchards together account for about half of the total land area. Between 1997 and 2003, cultivated land in Jingzhou also decreased by almost 2 percent, but only a tenth of that loss was due to transportation infrastructure and other urban uses. Over half of the loss was due to an increase in areas covered by water caused by flooding and new aquaculture facilities. The remainder was largely due to abandonment of marginal land brought under cultivation prior to 1978, which was either allowed to revert to forest or was simply left unused.

Institutional Impediments

The greatest impediments to China’s ability to maintain adequate levels of food production are not physical but institutional. Inefficient uses of existing farmland arise from policies that affect income generation from farming, including the lack of tenure security, water shortages and poor irrigation management institutions, and the lack of adequate marketing infrastructure.

Tenure Security: Economists have long argued that secure tenure is essential for efficient land use, including appropriate levels of investment in maintaining and enhancing land productivity as well as allocating land to the most efficient uses and/or users. Rural and suburban land in China belongs to village collectives and is administered by the village committee or economic organization, subject to oversight by township, provincial, and in some cases state entities. Rural collectives have the authority to allocate land to alternative uses.

Farmland is leased to households under contractual arrangements in which the household pays a fee to the collective in return for a residual claim on the products of the land. The contract may contain other stipulations as well (for example, requirements that the land be farmed and maintained in good condition). The size of each household’s allocation is based on the size and composition of the household, and may be altered as those factors change. Tenure insecurity has been documented as a deterrent to investing in agricultural improvements (Jacoby, Li, and Rozelle 2002; Deininger and Jin 2003).

Concerns over adverse effects of insecure tenure on long-term investment in land productivity have led the Chinese government to experiment with lengthening the duration of farmland contracts. In 1984 collectives were urged by the state to contract with member households for a period of 15 years, and in 1993 the state urged an extension of standard contracts to 30 years. Revisions to the Land Management Law in 1998 explicitly required that all farmland contracts be written and be effective for a term of 30 years with few or no adjustments allowed.

Farmers also have acquired some ability to alter land allocations by exchanges or subcontracting Exchanges of land among villagers to consolidate holdings were declared legal in 1986, and subcontracting of land to outsiders, subject to approval of two-thirds of the village membership, was declared legal in 1998. Fully implementing these enhanced tenure security and transferability measures remains difficult, however, because they run contrary to longstanding practices and principles of administration in China. For example, they limit the power of the village leadership, and may also result in less equitable land allocations by ruling out reallocations to accommodate demographic or other changes in circumstances.

Ensuring that farmland reforms take hold and preventing abandonment of productive farmland are likely to be increasingly important for maintaining agricultural productivity, especially in areas experiencing rapid urban growth. Urban employment opportunities for working-age men are widely available in fast-growing coastal areas, leaving the farm labor force to be composed primarily of women and the elderly. As many as 80 percent of the young men in the environs of Pinghu City (and 20 percent in Jingzhou) worked in industrial jobs in nearby cities. Lack of urban residency rights keeps farm-based families tied to the land, but since their main source of income is now nonagricultural, they have little incentive to invest in maintaining and enhancing land productivity. Moreover, limitations on labor time and capacity may induce them to leave some land uncultivated.

Such flows of labor out of farming can be accommodated by consolidating plots into larger operational units to exploit economies of scale, thereby lowering land productivity investment costs and increasing farming income sufficiently to make such investments worthwhile. But secure, transferable use rights are essential to accomplish these goals. In areas like Pinghu, for example, wages in urban employment are so much higher than income from farming that farmers have little incentive to invest in the maintenance and enhancement of land productivity by applying organic fertilizer or keeping irrigation and drainage systems in good repair.

Secure tenure rights can also serve as a check on the arbitrary exercise of authority by village leaders who have been known to expropriate land from farmers in order to lease it to rural enterprises or sell it to local governments, often without paying compensation and in many cases pocketing the returns themselves. Illegal land development of this kind has become a national scandal in China, and millions of farmers are known to have lost land as a result. According to the Ministry of Land and Resources (2003), farmers were owed at least $1.2 billion in compensation and relocation fees.

Water Management: The second type of institutional impediment to agriculture relates to water shortages, notably (1) lack of clearly delineated and enforced use-rights for water; (2) inadequate financing of water delivery infrastructure; and (3) failure to price water at its opportunity cost. The lack of clear use-right assignments results in upstream users taking too large a share of the water available, leaving inadequate supplies for downstream users—a phenomenon that applies at both the provincial level, where upstream provinces divert excessive quantities of stream flow, and the farm level, where farmers with land at the heads of delivery canals take excessive amounts, leaving little or nothing for those at the tails of those canals.

Funding for construction, maintenance, and operation of irrigation systems has been inadequate because these activities have no dedicated funding source, and maintenance varies with the overall status of government finances. According to local officials in Pinghu and Jingzhou, for instance, maintenance of irrigation and drainage systems virtually ceased around 1980. Recent attempts to remedy the neglect by investing in repair and upgrades of irrigation systems are hampered by lack of funds. In Jingzhou, for instance, officials estimate that at current funding levels it will take 50 years to repair all irrigation systems currently in need. Many systems that have been repaired recently are likely to require further maintenance before systems currently in need of repair have been upgraded.

Additional inefficiencies in water use arise in China because water prices are set below opportunity costs, leading to overuse. Many farmers are charged for water according to the amount of land farmed rather than the amount of water used. Charges may be set to raise revenue for the township or provincial treasury rather than to induce economically efficient water use. Experiments with water pricing indicate that farmers’ use of water conservation methods is quite price-responsive, so that water price reform has a significant potential to alleviate water shortages.

Marketing Institutions: Inadequate marketing infrastructure and institutions are the third major impediment to realizing potential gains from regional specialization as well as a deterrent to investment in agriculture in many localities. China has a long tradition of promoting self-sufficiency at the local and provincial levels, yet this self-reliance can become an impediment to economic growth by limiting the scope for gains from specialization. China has been moving away from this traditional stance. Grain trading, for example, has been partially liberalized and grain traders are creating more integrated national markets.

Greater market liberalization could contribute to farmland preservation and the maintenance of food production capacity generally. More closely integrated national markets should increase average prices and decrease price volatility, making farming more attractive relative to other forms of employment. Greater market integration should be especially beneficial in poorer inland areas where incentives to migrate toward fast-growing coastal cities have been especially strong.

This market liberalization will require significant investment in infrastructure, however. China’s transportation network has not expanded fast enough to keep pace with the growth of trade volume, and the country lacks sufficient warehouse and cold storage facilities. China has sufficient cold storage capacity to accommodate only 20 to 30 percent of demand, resulting in spoilage losses of perishable freight on the order of one-third (Gale 2002). Increases in such capacity could increase food availability substantially by reducing both spoilage losses and price volatility, giving farmers an incentive to increase their production of vegetables and other perishable products. Expanded provision of electricity could further increase the effective food supply by allowing consumers to reduce spoilage losses by refrigerating produce.

Urban Policies on Farmland Conversion

The current urban policy structure encourages municipal and regional governments to convert farmland, even in areas where the central government has made farmland preservation a top priority. Policies influencing government finance, residential construction, and urban land transactions combine to create a high demand for land. Policies governing payment for land also make farmland conversion the most attractive means of meeting that demand.

Urban land is allocated by a combination of administrative and market mechanisms that create substantial arbitrage opportunities for private enterprises and government entities. Private enterprises can lease land from municipal governments in return for payment of a conveyance fee. Local governments can acquire land by paying a compensation package set according to administrative formulas based on agricultural income, which is typically far lower than the conveyance fee. Revenue from land transactions is a major source of funding for local governments; according to some estimates, it can account for between a quarter and a half of all municipal revenue. As a result, local governments have strong incentives to expand into rural areas in order to finance their ongoing obligations in the areas of infrastructure and housing.

Current regulations also make it more attractive for local governments to provide housing for growing populations by expanding into rural areas rather than increasing density within existing urban boundaries. Redevelopment of existing municipal land requires governments to pay compensation to current tenants and to cover resettlement expenses. Compensation paid to current residents is much higher than that paid to rural inhabitants. In Beijing, for example, land costs (primarily compensation) make up as much as 60 percent of the redevelopment cost of existing urban areas compared to 30 to 40 percent of the cost of developing converted rural land. Tenants may also resist displacement tenaciously, which at the very least creates significant delays. In addition, it is more expensive to provide infrastructure to areas already densely developed.

Industrial development is widely seen as the key to economic growth and a rising standard of living for municipalities. Low land costs have encouraged local governments to acquire and set aside land for industrial development speculatively, in the hope of attracting industrial investment. Much of that land has remained idle as hoped-for investment failed to materialize. By 1996, there were roughly 116,000 hectares of idle, undeveloped land in economic development zones, over half of which was converted farmland that could no longer be converted back.

Low administratively set compensation levels for rural land also create incentives for illegal land transactions that allow rural collectives, rather than urban governments, to profit from conversion, thereby undermining the state’s control over land use. These low compensation levels also create incentives for other types of illegal land transactions, notably forcible takeovers by local officials of land whose owners are unwilling to sell.

Conclusion

The central government’s attempts to limit farmland conversion by administrative measures are likely to continue to be ineffectual as long as local governments and rural collectives continue to have such strong incentives to convert farmland. Institutional reform is thus critical for improving farmland preservation efforts and increasing land use efficiency in general. Reform efforts are also hampered by fragmentation of authority. The Ministry of Land and Resources has jurisdiction over land but not residential construction, industrial development, or local government finance; the latter are overseen by various ministries, each of which has its own distinct set of interests and concerns. Reform requires a cooperative effort that takes these diverse interests into account.

Erik Lichtenberg is a professor in the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics at the University of Maryland, College Park.

Chengri Ding is an associate professor of Urban Studies and Planning at the University of Maryland, College Park, and is director of the Chinese Land Policy and Urban Management Program cosponsored by the University of Maryland and Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

This article summarizes their 2004 Lincoln Institute working paper, Farmland Preservation in China: Status and Issues for Further Research, which is available here.

References

Deininger, K., and S. Jin. 2003. The impact of property rights on households’ investment, risk coping, and policy preferences: Evidence from China. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 851–882.

Gale, F., ed. 2002. China’s food and agriculture: Issues for the 21st century. Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 775, Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC (April).

Ho, S.P.S., and G.C.S. Lin. 2004. Converting land to nonagricultural use in China’s coastal province. Modern China 30: 81–112.

Huang, J., S. Rozelle, and M.W. Rosegrant. 1999. China’s food economy to the twenty-first century: Supply, demand, and trade. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 737–766.

Jacoby, H. G., G. Li, and S. Rozelle. 2002. Hazards of expropriation: Tenure insecurity and investment in rural China. American Economic Review 92: 1420–1447.

Jin, S., J. Huang, R. Hu, and S. Rozelle. 2002. The creation and spread of technology and total factor productivity in China’s agriculture. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 84: 916–930.

Ministry of Land and Resources. 2003. Communique on Land and Resources of China, 2002. Beijing.

Smil, V. 1999. China’s agricultural land. The China Quarterly, 414–429.